HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Braden 973 Queen St.A6-91 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 1/21/91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: / 23 /S( 02737- n73- (k) -h A6 -91
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: Braden Stream Margin Review Application
Project Address: 973 Oueen Street. Aspen. CO 81611
Legal Address: Parcel 7
APPLICANT: Ralph (Vic) & Melody Braden - Braden Tennis College
Applicant Address: Coto De Caza Dr.,Coto De Caza.CA 92679
(714- 581 -2990)
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann (Vann Associates) •
Representative Address /Phone: 230 East Hopkins
Aspen, CO 925 -6958
PAID: YES xxNO AMOUNT: S780 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 5
+ 5 Prints
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: de 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date 4/5 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date 3 /i$ 2.7 PUBLIC HEARING: !Y S NO
/ /„ ),,_-�(,;.1 VESTED RIGHTS: C NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or 71ption: Date:
t_ -3L
REFERRALS: 7 ' t , tt fo Lk e -1
City Attorney Mtn Bell 7 bid' School District
City Engineer -- SU - -S Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW)
QCCe55 Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ)
Lot City Electric Building Inspector
Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork x
a Other (�)K
Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center Cp&C;
DATE REFERRED: •751 Y om- C Cz "Gvx “1-`�
INITIALS: 2a,U7,4‘
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 9-ry %2 INITIALO /4 1 4'
City Atty City Engineer _Zoning _Env. Health
_ Housing Other: }'MKS
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: - ' i
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
February 5, 1991
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Braden Stream Margin Review
Dear Sunny,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on March 5, 1991 at a meeting to
begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday before the meeting date, we will
call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the
application is available at the Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Braden Stream Margin Review
Parcel ID# 2737- 073 -00 -47
Case #A6 -91
DATE: February 5, 1991
Attached for your review and comments is an application from Vic
Braden requesting Stream Margin Review approval and vested rights
for 973 Queen Street.
Please especially look at how to "legalize" the encroachment of
the neighbors garage.
Please return your comments to me no later than February 18,
1991. Thanks.
f _.
Atta "C"
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: George Robinson
Postmark: Feb 20,91 8:19 AM
Status: Certified
Subject: BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Message:
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE
BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW:
1. THE CITY HAS TRAIL EASEMENTS RUNNING ALONG THE NORTH EDGE OF THE
PROPERTY AND MEETS WITH THE ASPEN DITCH. THIS EASEMENT MUST BE KEPT
IN PLACE.
2. THERE ARE PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HERRON PARK.
APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS. BUILDING SHOULD BE SET BACK
APPROXIMATELY 18' FROM PARK PROPERTY LINE TO LIMIT IMPACT ON BOTH
PARTIES.
X
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Braden Stream Margin Review
DATE: February 26, 1991
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Braden
Stream Margin Review with conditions.
APPLICANT: Ralph (Vic) and Melody Braden, represented by Sunny
Vann
LOCATION: 973 Queen Street (Parcel 7 of the Boundary Agreement
Plat)
ZONING: R -15 A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests stream margin
approval for a building envelope. See drawing and Boundary
Agreement Plat, Attachment "A ".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Jim Gibbard from Engineering submitted the
following comments:
1. The Engineering Department recommends that a five foot wide
fisherman's easement be granted along the riverbank measured
from the high water line.
2. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
needs to submit a letter to the Engineering Department
pursuant to Section 24, Article 7 -507 C.2.d. which outlines
the construction procedure for the proposed structure.
(Attachment "B ")
George Robinson from the Parks Department states:
1. The City has trail easements running along the north edge of
the property and meets with the Aspen Ditch. This easement
must be kept in place.
2. There are proposals for future development of Herron Park.
The applicant should be aware of this. Building should be
set back approximately 18 feet from Park property line to
limit impact on both parties. (Attachment "C ")
1
^"1
Bill Drueding from Zoning comments that the neighbor's garage
which encroaches onto the subject parcel causes concern regarding
the Floor Area of potential structures for this lot.
Any easement to allow the garage would normally be
subtracted from the lot area for FAR calculations.
Typically, 500 square feet of garage is exempt from FAR on a
lot. If a garage is proposed with any future development,
then the existing encroaching garage should be counted into
proposed FAR as an accessory structure. The purpose of FAR
is to blend size /bulk of structures with the size of the
lot. Literal interpretation of the above regulations cause
a "double dipping" situation to the detriment of the parcel.
This is an unusual situation. It is my opinion that the FAR
deductions for the existing garage bulk would be the most
equitable approach. (Attachment "D ")
PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks to establish a building envelope
of approximately 4,700 square feet for future development of a
single family residence. The proposed envelope is defined along
the river's edge by the 97 foot contour line, averaging 30 feet
from the high water level. The lot area is 13,380 square feet.
In addition to establishing a building envelope, this application
proposes to plat an easement for the neighbor's garage which
encroaches into the eastern part of this site by nearly 30 feet.
STAFF COMMENTS: Minimum lot area in the R -15 A zone is 15,000
square feet, making this a non - conforming lot of record. One
single family residence is allowed by right. Under Ordinance 1,
any new residential development must comply with housing
mitigation requirements.
Planning staff is concerned that an envelope this close to the
riverbank will have a great visual impact on the river and Herron
Park. As Parks Department comments point out, the envelope
should be moved to the 10 foot minimum setback along the eastern
property line and 18 feet away from the Herron Park side of the
lot. This will lessen visual impact of the house on the park
area and keep activities at the park from imposing on the
residents next door. Also, staff recommends moving the envelope
back from the river to the 99 foot elevation noted on the plan.
This will widen the river corridor view from the park by
approximately 15 feet. Additionally, it will limit any
construction on the slope of the river bank, retaining the
natural vegetation and limiting possible erosion.
On the northeast portion of the site, staff proposes the building
envelope move towards the encroaching garage structure. This
will allow construction to take advantage of the slope for a
basement or garden level of the house. The minimum building
separation required by code is 10 feet. Staff's proposal would
2
maintain a 14 foot building separation. The resulting envelope
would be approximately 4,517 square feet. The envelope proposed
by the applicant is approximately 4,700 square feet. Allowable
FAR for the site is approximately 3,680 (excludes Queen Street
easement from lot area and roughly 600 square feet FAR for the
encroaching garage as per Zoning's comments noted above.) If the
encroaching garage ever "goes away" the easement will cease to
exist and that FAR can be used by the subject parcel.
Stream Margin Review criteria are contained in Section 7 -504:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which
is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the
base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development.
Response: The proposed development is not within a flood
hazard area.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
Response: There is an easement on the north side of this
parcel as referenced on the Boundary Adjustment Plat and in
Parks Department comments. It is not clear at this point if
it is actually a trail easement. As this would be an
important trail link for access to Garrish Park from Herron
Park, it should be retitled to be a "Road /Public Trail
Easement ". Across the river is a proposed bike trail
corridor in a City alley connecting the No Problem Bridge
area with points east.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
Response: The Greenway Plan establishes goals for
protecting the natural river corridor which is one of the
community's prized assets. The natural character of the
riverway should be maintained for the benefit of those who
see the area from the Herron Park or No Problem Bridge. The
building envelope should be moved back as far as possible
from the river to lessen intrusion to the riverway.
In an effort to maintain the natural vegetation character
found on the site, staff recommends landscaping requirements
including protecting existing trees outside of the envelope,
wildflower and native grasses on disturbed areas of the
site, and limitations on urban turf treatments downslope of
the proposed envelope.
3
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response: The applicant offers that no erosion will take
place because of construction or slope changes. Moving the
envelope back off of the slope will reinforce this goal.
Staff recommends erosion control measures on the slopeside
of the envelope. Placement of hay and /or hay bales and rock
water breaks would be helpful during construction. The
project should be monitored by staff and the architect to
insure these measures are effective in preventing erosion.
Staff recommends that no trees, even young ones, be removed
outside of the envelope to maintain native vegetation
characteristics.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes
of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response: The river channel will not be directly affected
by this proposal.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water
course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Response: Not applicable.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his
heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood
carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Response: Not applicable.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
Response: Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Braden
Stream Margin Review with the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of any excavation or building permit:
1. A fisherman's easement must be filed with the Pitkin County
Clerk and recorder. This easement shall include the land
4
area under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5 foot
distance measured horizontally from the high water line.
ri l! The Queen Street Road Easement shown on the Boundary
/ Agreement Plat shall be retitled Road /Public Trail Easement.
2The applicant shall file an encroachment easement for the
nei garage structure with the Pitkin County Clerk's
Om , Offic Th square footag of the th st shall b
subtracted from allowable Floor Area of any proposed
structure on the subject parcel. If the encroaching
structure is removed, the easement shall cease to exist.
The floor area of the subject parcel effectively increases
by the removal of the encroaching structu ,
4. The site plan showing e fisherman's B ement r and the
building envelope as • - -- -• • - . -
river) — shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office and copies forwarded to the Planning and
Engineering Offices.
5. The applicant needs to submit a letter to the Engineering
Department pursuant to Section 24, Article 7 -507 C.2.d.
which outlines construction procedure for the proposed
structure.
6. A mesh barrier fence must be erected immediately below the
building envelope during all phases of construction. This
shall prevent any construction debris, soil, rock, or
vegetation from falling down the slope.
7. No heavy equipment shall work outside of the building
envelope on the river side. L
8. No existing vegetati n ,^ shall be removed the
0 ay\ building envelopes 7 i6,, , 1 '7l• Ito pp o�
CF t 1f --' Awe
9. The disturbed areas of the site shall be reestablished with
a mix of native grasses and wildflowers. Urban -type turfs
(bluegrass sod, etc.) and flower plantings shall not be
located downslope of the building envelope.
10. Erosion control (spread hay, hay bales and rock waterbreaks)
along the rear and sides of any new structure along
disturbed ground must be in place as soon as the new
groundform has been graded. These efforts will be monitored
by Planning staff during and after construction.
V
\ 5
Attachments: "A" - Boundary Agreement Plat and Site /Envelope
Plan showing applicant's and Staff's
Proposed Building Envelopes
"B" - Engineering Referral Comments
"C" - Parks Department Referral Comments
"D" - Zoning Referral Comments
jtkvj /Braden.memo
6
Attachment "A
Y
R
a. w
CC
C3 xM ']C<.Ax'N "el"
• 1 Q
y yrGw. r>" y
u:
o
c4
kn
1 m'z.�a cc a r . \
a 1 • z •v6 w _T 91 . . 1
monasv3 lli ONY 'AO 4w / c� 5(.6
ii
it o
rc / ° n,
4 0
•
] .q[c sc.ec • Le o / / a.'
•
a 1
:part / th
- \ \ pl
U) O
O
\ \ \ \ (4. " r o1
V 6.
V /
\ \ (3 n: 01
.. a % \ ' \ - a 0
il T :l °I • " :'°i 4 ' °ARGCL B I x 01 1
110
a��]rws. z oxRi cz, ',P. ° 3.4..40 " sue drv Ll O. 4 n!
vsnm F u i cc xc xcc n'l1 Z. I
• •a C ?�] • Tn N L ---
L •. I 2•J C FGE YII.o� 11 ,
` a / r _____ ulo ncw 1 , l• 1
w i J/
V '3 (
•
5 k` LLI
• 1 24. 65 / \
�y / V
� ° ° 2 c '. 3pz`cGca / 7 r.
•
• m -6
m \
rc
I; ill
I; I m W
W \�S
•
's, 3g
N.
E - \ /e /S„, \ FN .�
0 \ � I a s
—> �. � _
a W I, 6y/ �' 1 , l 7
wg� • / // y '
UJ \ t / / E \ co
a w i O ' 1 I .. `
W Q
>:\ tit Cl a 1. .-----/ A 7/7
7 !: — (
ta
N ... / u e \ I ` /N
_ l' , . •W n
I q / �
is., ,SZI a' / w " tt
•
' ----1 illek 4 4 e3 / 4 •*[ \;1.... 1 o'
W
e / / " » / W \
^ L1 f O ' ac
•
< r �- u ' 50,8 / N \ �1 --1--- 1 P i CC
N W
6 W a
Z \ I /
Ick o a O _
0 LS O
U.
61
W O
- E uuEt� o m .
Alt' ICAnr
t
- ENVELCIL E,a 61 StM
1
1
•
Attachment "B"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department9Z-
DATE: February 19, 1991
RE: Braden Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant grant
a fisherman's easement along the bank of the Roaring Fork River 5
feet in width from the high water line.
2. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant needs
to submit a letter to the Engineering Department pursuant to
section 24, Article 7 -507 C. 2. d. which outlines construction
procedure for the proposed structure.
jg /braden
cc:Chuck Roth
Attachment "C"
•
a
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: George Robinson
Postmark: Feb 20,91 8:19 AM
Status: Certified
Subject: BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW •
Message:
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE
BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW:
1. THE CITY HAS TRAIL EASEMENTS RUNNING ALONG THE NORTH EDGE OF THE
PROPERTY AND MEETS WITH THE ASPEN DITCH. THIS EASEMENT MUST BE KEPT
IN PLACE.
2. THERE ARE PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HERRON PARK.
APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS. BUILDING SHOULD BE SET BACK
' APPROXIMATELY 18' FROM PARK PROPERTY LINE TO LIMIT IMPACT - ON BOTH
PARTIES.
X
•
Attachment "D"
MEMORANDUM
TO: KIM JOHNSON
FROM: BILL DRUEDING
RE: BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1991
•
The applicant correctly deducted the Queen Street Easement from
"Lot Area" for Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) calculations. However,
an easement for the garage should also be deducted even though it
• does not exist. As you may recall, we discussed this in staff
meetings and determined that as policy, those easements given to
facilitate a lot split or other reviews would also be deducted
from "Lot Area." This was a reaction to easements in a recent
lot split at Oklahoma Flats that slipped by. It is especially
important that we clear this matter with the applicant as soon as
possible.
Also, with this garage encroachment; the garage should be
deducted from total allowable FAR if a 500 square foot garage
exemption is to be expected for the future residential structure.
I would treat this encroaching structure as an accessory
structure and count it in FAR. The purpose of FAR is to blend the
size or bulk of structures with the size of the lot. The tables
assume a vacant lot and maximum structure sizes.
It may seem that we are double dipping with "lot area" and FAR
deductions for the encroachment. However, this is my opinion of
this unusual request. This interpretation had been discussed
with Ralph Braden previously. If we decide not to "double dip ",
I feel the FAR deductions for the existing garage bulk would be
the most equitable approach.
Perhaps we should get staff together again to discuss this
project.
BD:pb
cc: Amy L. Margerum
Francis Krizmanich
PLANF'' i & ZONING COMMISSION
EXAISS.� � , APPROVED �
19 _ BY RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL FOR THE BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Resolution No. 91- ((j
WHEREAS, the Planning Office received an application for
Stream Margin Review for a single family residence building
envelope at 973 Queen Street (Lot 7 of the 1982 Property
Agreement Plat: Book 13, Pages 35,36) in the name of Ralph L.
Braden, represented by Sunny Vann; and
WHEREAS, The applicant also requested vesting of
development rights for a period of three years from the date of
approval as allowed by Section 6 -207 of the Aspen Land Use Code,
revision date August 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, Zoning Officer, Parks
Department and the Engineering Department reviewed the proposal
and recommended to the Commission approval of the Braden Stream
Margin Review with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on March 5, 1991 the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved by a 6 -0 vote a building envelope
utilizing the standards for Stream Margin Review and amending the
\ conditions recommended by the Planning Office.
1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
1. A fisherman's easement must be filed with the Pitkin County
Clerk and recorder. This easement shall include the land
area under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5 foot
distance measured horizontally from the high water line.
2. The site plan showing the fisherman's easement and the
building envelope as shown in the application shall be filed
with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office and
copies forwarded to the Planning and Engineering Offices.
3. The applicant needs to submit a letter to the Engineering
Department pursuant to Section 24, Article 7 -507 C.2.d.
which outlines construction procedure for the proposed
structure.
4. A mesh barrier fence must be erected immediately below the
building envelope during all phases of construction. This
shall prevent any construction debris, soil, rock, or
vegetation from falling down the slope.
5. No heavy equipment shall work outside of the building
envelope on the river side.
6. No existing vegetation shall be removed from between the
building envelope and the river. No mature trees outside
vc� r 0 r '411
the building envelope as shown on the survey shall be
removed.
7. The disturbed areas of the site shall be reestablished with
a mix of native grasses and wildflowers. Urban -type turfs
(bluegrass sod, etc.) and flower plantings shall not be
located downslope of the building envelope.
8. Erosion control (spread hay, hay bales and rock waterbreaks)
along the rear and sides of any new structure along
disturbed ground must be in place as soon as the new
groundform has been graded. These efforts will be monitored
by Planning staff during and after construction.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 5,
1991.
Att-- - / Planning and Zoning C ission:
i� //. v J[4 -c 72» E
.: arney, 'eputy Cit/ 'lerk Welton Anderson, Chai man
JffSM I foe 1 -E g4M&L.)
jtkvj /braden.reso
m W
ir .
m \ V ,.......„....
W
, / /
, ___,
Lii
o
cr, ,_
•
.,,\
W / N \ Y
1 CC F— a �g 1 N3 g ❑
s7 wg\
W v2 ` / � / I � O N s \
0
\\'' � / / 4 r \ u . / / �- > "o, ,1� . .- - _
w / \ '/ . O// •' / , 1 / /
'I I— o \\ 8i I ./ // 1
• / i �1p \/ / / Y!
Z W N /
1 W m ./// ( / /
/ ( \
k. ).
w
\ ..: / - /, i,
Q % J j Lf•t,.1 ` \ (' /
O • \ — w • OO ��\
/ U M �� I V71, 1
— ( \cc% I W W
ug Z - C 1
O /
is •z I ,S'21 I i V/ `
O / R. Y
�.
•
e 1 V. _, 1 ; ( \ / / y p
N ;\- ,' I W 1 I ! ; /( p r 7 '\
c .
2 2 ` W
•
Y I 6
•
n 1 d .
' N N . N _
O io
J
W
r
a a
- Y Z E al MIPFIE Itareitip 11 o�
A
o�
..... oww• gime ENNEL ptbrin, 61 5tAVE
1
. :
. 1
i
t4
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Muckenhirn and Stuart Lusk
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planne�
DATE: July 14, 1993
RE: 979 Queen Street Stream Margin Review - a.k.a. Braden
Stream Margin Review
The City of Aspen Zoning Department has determined that the newly
constructed rear yard deck and placement of fill in the rear yard
is in violation of the Stream Margin approval granted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 1991.
It is staff's understanding that the owner of the property, Mr.
Daryl Snadon, desires to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy as soon
as possible. The Building Department shall not issue a C.O. until
the stream margin violation have been resolved.
The following violations have occurred:
* the rear yard deck was constructed beyond the approved
building envelope;
* a portion of said deck also encroached into the 100 year
flood plain boundary as depicted on the certified survey;
* a great deal of fill has been placed beyond the 100 year
flood plain boundary; and
* the newly constructed deck, as currently built, exceeds the
allowable floor area of the structure on the property.
In order for Mr. Snadon to receive a C.O. as quickly as possible,
staff suggests the following procedures to resolve the stream
margin and dimensional requirement violations.
1. Stream Margin -
a. A stream margin exemption is not an option because the
deck is outside of a previously approved building envelope and
therefore is inconsistent with standard #4 of stream margin
exemption.
b. A full stream margin review is possible to review both the
deck and fill violations. However, stream margin review is
a one -step review process by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the earliest a review could be scheduled is
the August 3, 1993 agenda and a completed application must be
in this office by July 16, 1993. Because stream margin is a
•
review by the Commission this office cannot predict whether
the improvements that are being sought will ultimately be
approved.
c. The most expeditious way to comply with the previously
approved stream margin review thus obtaining a Certificate of
Occupancy is to cut back the rear yard deck back to the
originally approved building envelope boundary. This line
coincides with the 97' contour line. No steps or above grade
structures may encroach beyond the building envelope boundary.
This procedure will not require a staff or Commission review.
In addition, any footers that have been placed beyond the 100
year floor plain boundary, anticipating further deck
construction, must also be removed.
d. Regardless of whether the deck is removed to the original
building envelope or a stream margin review is sought, Mr.
Snadon must work with the Engineering Department to remedy any
concerns regarding the significant amount of soil that has
been placed in the rear yard.
According to the City Engineer, Chuck Roth, the applicant
shall retain the services of a consulting engineer to examine
the berm and run a HEC II analysis (or similar analysis) to
determine if the flood plain has been altered.
It is possible that the Engineering Department may require
removal of fill in the 100 year flood plain or require the
Federal Flood Insurance map to be revised to reflect changes
in the boundary which may occur due to the placement of fill
in the 100 year flood plain.
Revision of the flood insurance map may change the 100 year
flood boundary because of added fill in the flood plain. It
is at that point in time that staff would recommend the
property owner, if further improvements are desired, to pursue
a full stream margin review.
2. Dimensional Requirements -
a. Construction of the rear yard deck without a building
permit and beyond the previously approved building envelope
may have pushed the allowable floor area of the residence
beyond what is allowed for that parcel. The owner shall work
with the Zoning Officer, Bill Drueding, to resolve that
problem.
Please review these options as I have presented them. If you have
any questions please contact me as soon as possible - 920 -5101.
2
Please indicate to staff what route Mr. Snadon has selected to
resolve his violations so we can be prepared to work with him to
release his Certificate of Occupancy as soon as possible.
Attachments:
1. Stream Margin Exemption Criteria
2. Plans of Previously Approved Building Envelope
3. Resolution #91 -6 Braden Stream Margin Approval
cc: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
Chuck Roth, City Engineer
3
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC Leslie Lamont
From: Chuck Roth
Postmark: Jul 21,93 5:26 PM
Subject: Reply to a reply: Braden Stream Margin
Reply text:
From Chuck Roth:
Please accept this CEO as Engineering Dept. sign -off for certificate
of occupancy - I have received signed and stamped statement by
surveyor that grades in place as of today are within a foot of those
shown on the 1990 topo map.
Preceding message:
From Kim Johnson:
Please update me... Leslie says that they removed the berm bu that
there is still substantial fill dirt in the 100 yr. floodplain. Are
they going to remove that also?
From Chuck Roth:
Kate and I made site visit this morning. Applicant will have to
retain services of consulting engineer to examine berm and run HEC II
to see if floodplain has been increased. It may be that consultant
will be willing to sign off that there will be no increase in
floodplain based on his field observation w/o running HEC II. Or,
the applicant may remove the berm. One of these must be done prior
to CO. Is there anything else?
X
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Chuck Roth CC Leslie Lamont
CC Diane Moore
From: Kim Johnson
Postmark: Jul 12,93 4:28 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: Braden Stream Margin
Reply text:
From Kim Johnson:
my question is, even if an engineer is willing to sign off on the
fill, the "relandscaping" was not part of the original P &Z review. I
think that we must be very cautious about indicating to applicants
(violators) that these type of changes can be done administratively
months or years after P &Z looks at an application. Speaking of
revised plans, Diane, could I get a copy of Winnerman's survey to
look at? Are we bringing them back to P &Z as a formal update and
stream margin amendment?
Preceding message:
From Chuck Roth:
Kate and I made site visit this morning. Applicant will have to
retain services of consulting engineer to examine berm and run HEC II
to see if floodplain has been increased. It may be that consultant
will be willing to sign off that there will be no increase in
floodplain based on his field observation w/o running HEC II. Or,
the applicant may remove the berm. One of these must be done prior
to CO. Is there anything else?
X
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO LESLIE LAMONT CC KIM JOHNSON
CC DIANE MOORE CC BILL DRUEDING
CC GARY LYMAN
From: Bill Drueding
Postmark: Jul 12,93 8:37 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: BRADEN STREAM MARGIN
Message:
LES, DAVID MUCKENHERN WILL BE CALLING YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HE HAS TO
DO TO LIFT THE RED TAG I GAVE THIS PROJECT LAST WEEK FOR
CONSTRUCTION CLOSER TO THE RIVER AND IN VIOLATION OF THEIR REVIEW.
HE SAID THEY WILL DO WHAT THEY NEED TO IN ORDER TO GET A C.O. I
TOLD HIM NO C.O. UNTIL PROBLEM IS RESOLVED,.
THERE WILL BE A ZONING ENFORCEMENT FEEE ON THIS ONE.
X
Attachment "B"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: February 19, 1991
RE: Braden Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant grant
a fisherman's easement along the bank of the Roaring Fork River 5
feet in width from the high water line.
2. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant needs
to submit a letter to the Engineering Department pursuant to
section 24, Article 7 -507 C. 2. d. which outlines construction
procedure for the proposed structure.
jg /braden
cc:Chuck Roth
LAND USE REGULATIONS § 7 -504
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the city.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible
with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit
cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic
resource.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
• 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can
be properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Sec. 7-504. Stream margin review.
A. Applicability. The provisions of stream margin review shall apply to all development
within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring
Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one - hundred -year floodplain where it
extends beyond one hundred (100) feet of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or
within a flood hazard area, unless exempted pursuant to Section 7- 504(B).
B. Exemption. he expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development
sha a exe om stream margin review if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty -five (25) percent; and
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would
be required pursuant to section 13 -76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to
said subsection; and
3. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing develop-
ment; and
Supp. No. 1
1703
•
§ 7 -504 ASPEN CODE
4. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope, if one has
been designated through a prior review; and
5. The development is located completely outside of the special flood hazard area and
more than one hundred (100) feet measured horizontally, from the high water line of
the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures
within the special flood hazard area.
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the flood -
way, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water
diversion, which may be permitted by the city engineer, provided plans and specifications are
provided demonstrating the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels
during peak flows and the commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the
extent practical, with all the standards set forth below.
No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from
the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the special
flood hazard area where it extends beyond one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of
the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the commission makes a determi-
nation that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below.
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the special flood
hazard area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that
the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing
mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation
increase caused by the development.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation /Open Space/ rails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and
sedimentation of the stream bank.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any
alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that
applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Supp. No. 1
1704
IP
LAND USE REGULATIONS § 7 -505
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within
the one - hundred -year floodplain.
(Ord. No. 6 -1989, § 9)
Sec. 7-505. Mountain view plane review.
A. Applicability. The ` o visions of mountain view plane review shall apply to all devel-
opment located within the f lowing established mountain view planes, unless exempted
pursuant to Section 7 -505B.
1. Glory Hole Park View Plana There is hereby established a view plane originating
from Glory Hole Park above which plane no land use or building shall project. The
reference point bears N. 19° 06' 00" W. a distance of 919.85 feet from Corner 1 of the
Aspen Townsite, a 1954 BLM brass cap; the reference base line bears N. 55° 04' 05"
E. a distance of 73.00 feet fro the reference point. Elevation is 7,947.55* feet above
sea level. The view plane con ists of two (2) spatial components more particularly
described as follows: \
a. All that space which is within the projection of a sector of 9° 54' 00" described by
two (2) radial lines which beams S. 44° 49' 55" E. and S. 34° 55' 55" E. respec-
tively from the reference point\and which is also above the view plane which
passes through the reference base line at the inclination of 3° 30' above horizontal.
b. All that area within the projectio of the following described perimeter and
which is also above the view plane hick passes through the reference base line
at an inclination of 3° 30' above horizontal. The perimeter is more fully de-
scribed as follows: Beginning at the reference point, thence N. 55° 04' 05" E. a
distance of 73.00 feet along the reference base line; thence S. 34° 55' 55" E. a
distance of 418.27 feet to a point on the ii rtherly radial line of the view sector;
thence N. 44° 49' 55" W. along said radial line a distance of 424.59 feet to the
reference point.
2. Wagner Park View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating in the
north central part of Wagner Park above which plai e no land use or building shall
project. The reference point bears N. 58° 03' 11" E. 198.65 feet from the northwest -
erly corner of Block 83, Original Aspen Townsite; elevation of the reference point is
7,919.73 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists of a sector component
y more particularly described as follows: All that space which is within the projection
of a sector of 9° 46' 18" described by two (2) radial lines whh bear S. 36° 05' 49" E.
and S. 45° 52' 07" E. respectively from the reference point and above a plane which
y passes through the reference point at an inclination of 3° 39' 10' above the horizontal.
3. Cooper Avenue View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating on
the northerly side of Cooper Avenue easterly of Galena Street above which plane no
land use or building shall project. The reference point bears N. 75° 41' 52" E. 147.78
*All elevations used in this section are based on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC
& GS) benchmark located in the southwesterly corner of the Pitkin County Court House
y foundation at an elevation of 7,906.80 feet above mean sea level.
Supp. No. 1
1705
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager //////������
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: April 22, 991
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 15, Braden Stream Margin
Vested Rights
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends First Reading of
• Ordinance #5, Series 1991.
BACKGROUND: On March 5, 1991 the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission approved with conditions the Braden Stream Margin
Review. As part of this Stream Margin application,
representative Sunny Vann requested the establishment of vested
property rights fcr the Stream Margin action. Pursuant to
Section 6 -207, vesting of property rights requires a Vested
Rights Ordinance and two readings before Council.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On March 25, 1991, Council approved
First Reading of Ordinance #5.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City
Council approve the Braden Stream Margin Vested Rights and have
• Second Reading of Ordinance 15.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Vested Development Rights for
the Braden Stream Margin Review and have the Second Reading of
Ordinance #5, Series 1991.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment - Ordinance #5 for Second Reading
jtkvj /Braden.vest.memo
i
ORDINANCE NO.5
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
FOR THE BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
WHEREAS, on March 5, 1991, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously approved a building envelope for the
Braden single family residence at 973 Queen Street (Lot 7 of the
1982 Property Agreement Plat); and
WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #91 -6
documents the conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the Braden Stream
Margin Review was included in the application submitted to the
Planning Office by project representative Sunny Vann; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 -207 of the Aspen Land Use
Code revision date May 25, 1988, the City Council may grant
Vesting of Development Rights for a period of three years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the Braden
Stream Margin Review. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to
abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
1
•
1
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 2:
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights
of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time
permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication provided for in Sec. 6 -207
(D).
Section 3:
Zoning that is not part of the site specific development
plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested
property right.
Section 4:
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific
development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required
by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are
not inconsistent with this approval.
Section 5:
The establishment of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are
general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to
land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not
limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development
approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an
2
exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 6:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this
ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
'a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
jtkvj /braden.vest.ord
4
Attachment "A"
•
cc
cc
COQ Mm �` .•'. � / a
3 g
.'g Z
1 i LLI
ae
a
1. 7 ° Ill
• C9 EN ']K.A]N 9p lal 1 `' -IQ K bc,
�N 5 5L
• \
c ,
7 J \\
CC
d V \
. \ 6
LQ?KI 'a cc ,ca N ONV ' \ 1
• 56
e —r - J 6 W. 119
LuM3pvl ai1F111 MOtl 0] ., 'W y145 / 1
_ � / , tli
/ • 10 , I
•
/ W \
r, -/ m 1 - N
z
/ - Ni \ 7
/ /
w» ]z..ax / I 0
\ \ Fri n i i
V V 0 Ill ul (1
cc nc. in
• ._- .. pI
s \ e \ LL1 1- 1,1 (1
• 14 U n'
. \ n \ W o n. 1
\ \ l] • (1.7 •
\ a s \ 1. " I:1 at
8 I I )u
;i <o PAR m, u1
uu.
N 1O eV'°'c. snl° 0 2 `m41 a R�lch :111.11.1:11-::::: ti):::: G. q !11
LS Mu i cx 2 rn 12
• s sz • _I I 1
"c 2 / r___ a+o r .cwl'oe n I1 1
• ` i 1 l \ 1
/ •I
o F
V 1NIW]n %a0 / P % J
3 n • �� 7003 ae 3pxe,.cc / 41)/
v/ Q
1 .1E i lL
ii
1
g tQ�
ea D@.0 STItaca -nri rn0- e
-my (digs -Tea/ r s ti.t f E r
4/a e1% r—r of ems fro pe
P
77 c*f 1c /lip= Plate_
21) / �p 5 -?1/o q.T7/ - co a- g 7ee cieVG(o
I �
r O /Jf rrt�� p, � GA - r Sloli
4wait c s 1 i Pre ton t 17 sL/J lot
Set 30 = 1 - fppresx'_ 115' fi am fP -4 rope LF
To L, tr , i non P 4-7 o,v -4 I
I
{
1 ;:
1
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
December 21, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Braden Stream Margin Review
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter an application for stream margin
review for a parcel of land located at 973 Queen Street in
the City of Aspen (see Pre - Application Conference Summary
attached hereto as Exhibit A). Vested rights status for the
proposed site development plan is also requested. The
application is submitted pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations by Ralph L. Braden, the owner of
the property (see Exhibit B, Title Policy). Permission for
Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is attached as
Exhibit C.
Existing Conditions
The property in question consists of Parcel 7 of the Boundary
Agreement Plat recorded at Book 13, Pages 35 and 36, in the
office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in April of
1982. The parcel is zoned R -15A, Moderate - Density Residen-
tial, and contains approximately thirteen thousand three
hundred and eighty (13,380) square feet of land area.
Pursuant to Section 9- 106.A., the property is considered to
be a non - conforming lot of record, as it is in separate
ownership and was legally replatted in connection with the
Boundary Agreement Plat referred to above.
As the accompanying survey illustrates, the parcel is
essentially flat with the exception of a small bench located
in the northeast corner of the property and an embankment
which parallels the Roaring Fork River. The portion of the
property located adjacent to the embankment is within the
River's mapped 100 year flood plain. A low stone wall is
located between the obvious high water line and the flood
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303;925 -6958
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 21, 1991
Page 2
plain boundary. Existing vegetation consists primarily of
numerous large spruce and cottonwood trees, and several
smaller aspen. These trees are generally located along
periphery of the property.
A single - family residence, which previously occupied the
property, was demolished in November of 1989. A copy of the
demolition permit is attached to the appraisal records
contained in the County Assessor's Office. The records
indicate that the property and structure have been continu-
ously assessed since January of 1977, and that the structure
was apparently rehabilitated in 1967. While the Applicant
did not verify the demolition with the Planning Office as
provided for in Section 8- 104.A.1.a.(2) of the Regulations,
the Assessor's records and the attached demolition permit
should be sufficient to establish the legality of the parcel
and it's development history.
It should also be noted that a small garage, which is
attached to the single - family residence located on Parcel 6,
encroaches upon the property. The Applicant is prepared to
grant an easement to the adjacent property owner to accommo-
date the encroachment as may be required. The property is
also encumbered by a twelve and one -half (12 -1/2) foot access
easement and a five (5) foot utility easement, both of which
are depicted on the accompanying survey.
Proposed Development
As the parcel is non - conforming with respect to the minimum
lot area requirement of the R -15A zone district, the proper-
ty's development potential is limited to one (1) single -
family dwelling unit. While there are no immediate plans for
development, the Applicant wishes to obtain stream margin
approval and vested rights status for a site specific
building envelope. This approval would permit the Applicant,
or a subsequent purchaser, to proceed with construction
subject only to the receipt of a building permit.
The proposed building envelope is depicted on the accompany-
ing survey. The envelope has been designed in compliance
with the City's stream margin review criteria and the
dimensional requirements of the R -15A zone district. The
resulting building envelope is located outside of the mapped
flood plain and all setbacks meet or exceed applicable
requirements. Site disruption will be limited to the
excavation of the structure's foundation, and little or no
mature vegetation will be lost as a result of construction.
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 21, 1991
Page 3
The building envelope's proposed setbacks, and other relevant
development parameters, are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Existing Zoning R -15A, Residential
2. Existing Site Area (Sq. Ft.) 13,380
3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 15,000
4. Minimum Required Building Setbacks (Ft.)
Front Yard 25
Side Yards 10
Rear Yard 10
5. Proposed Building Setbacks (Ft.)
Front Yard 25
East Side Yard 18
West Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 25/40
6. Minimum Required Open Space None
7. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)' 4,280
1 Excludes lot area within Queen Street easement.
The proposed single - family residence is exempt from growth
management pursuant to Section 8- 104.A.1.c. of the Regula-
tions subject to the mitigation of affordable housing
impacts. The Applicant will condition his stream margin
approval upon the provision of an on -site accessory dwelling
unit, the payment of an affordable housing impact fee, or the
deed restriction of the residence to resident occupancy
guidelines. The mitigation approach to be utilized will be
at the discretion of the Applicant, as provided for in
Section 8- 104.A.1.c.(1).
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations,
all development within one hundred (100) feet of the high
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 21, 1991
Page 4
water line of the Roaring Fork River, or within the one
hundred (100) year flood plain, is subject to stream margin
review. As the Applicant's proposed building envelope is lo-
cated within 100 feet of the River, review and approval
pursuant to the City's stream margin regulations is required.
The specific review criteria, and the proposed envelope's
compliance therewith, are summarized as follows.
1. °It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the special Flood Hazard Area will not in-
crease the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development.°
This review criteria is not applicable as the proposed
addition is located outside of the 100 year flood plain.
2. °Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
plan map is dedicated for public use.°
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, no trail has
been designated across the parcel.
3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan
are implemented in the proposed plan for development to
the greatest extent practicable."
The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site specific
recommendations with respect to the parcel. The
proposed building envelope, however, will have no
significant effect on the site's existing river front
vegetation nor will the natural appearance of the River
be impacted in any foreseeable manner.
While some vegetation may have to be removed to accommo-
date the new residence, loss of vegetation will be
mitigated by additional landscaping to be installed in
connection with the residence's construction. It should
also be noted that a permit is required for the removal
of any tree with a trunk diameter in excess of six (6)
inches. As discussed previously, the majority of the
parcel's existing mature vegetation is located on the
periphery of the property outside the proposed building
envelope.
4. °No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream
bank.°
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 21, 1991
Page 5
No vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded
such that the River would be adversely affected.
5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed devel-
opment reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tribu-
tary."
The proposed building envelope will have no adverse
effect upon the natural changes normally experienced by
the Roaring Fork River. All disturbed areas will be
revegetated to preclude erosion and appropriate safe-
guards will be utilized to prevent pollution of the
River during construction.
6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conserva-
tion Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
No alteration or relocation of the existing water course
will be required.
7. "A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and
his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not dimin-
ished."
This review criteria is not applicable as no alterations
to the River are proposed by the Applicant.
8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100)
year floodplain."
No federal or state permits are required as no construc-
tion is proposed within the 100 year flood plain.
Summary
Based on the above, we believe that the proposed building
envelope complies with the intent and requirements of Section
7 -504 of the Land Use Regulations and, consequently, will
have no adverse effect upon either the Roaring Fork River or
the general public. The Applicant, therefore, respectfully
requests stream margin approval for the proposed building
envelope as depicted on the accompanying survey.
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 21, 1991
Page 6
Should you have any questions, or require additional informa-
tion, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN OCIATES, INC.
Sunny Vann, ICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
CITY OF ASPEN /c71.7/
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: I = - ILA , E/4 EXHIBIT "A"
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: J,A.xw.wm 1 aAAM/
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME: g4+4_ Gdr^
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: E E. 4 i './ ∎s ' - -- 'fl`
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
97 t. f
q
3. Areas is which Applicant has been re este to r pond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/ /
Referral Aaent C�IIfs
IMF
C • ((:ern Cenet;fty ent.04
4. Review is. (P &Z Only (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:
7. What fee was applicant requested ��t--o submit: / . b r&
8. Anticipated date'of submission: /�1i.A •
/ .a
9. COMMENTS /UN .0 C! , RNS: - �' .� . � ' = -' �'
frm.pre_app
DA I for wht-L,
FORM NO. C- 5000.1 ♦,,,
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM B- 1970 (AMENDED 10.17.70)
•
EXHIBIT "$"
SCHEDULE A
Amount of Insurance $ 250, 000.00 Policy No. COB 501084
Order No. 7303616
Date of Policy May 30, 1985 Sheet 1 of 3
4:34 P.M.
1. Name of Insured:
RALPH L. BRADEN
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
IN FEE SIMPLE
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
RALPH L. BRADEN
FORM NO. C- 6000.2
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY 1970 (AMENDED 10- 17.70)
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM B -1970 (AMENDED 10- 17 -70)
SCHEDULE A— Continued
The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of Colorado, County of
Pitkin , and is described as follows:
Parcel 7 of the BONDARY AGREEMENT PLAT recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder,
State of Colorado, in Book 13 at Pages 35 and 36.
FORM NO. C- 6000.3 4-
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY 1970 (AMENDED 10- 17 -70)
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM B -1970 (AMENDED 10- 17 -70)
SCHEDULE B
PART I
This Policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a cor-
rect survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the public records.
5. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer
service, or for any other special taxing district. Taxes for the year 1985 not yet due or
payable.
6. Reservation of : Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority
of the United States, in U.S. Patent,.recoraed in Book 185 at Page 69.
7. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations of that certain Agreement
recorded April 29, 1982 in Book 425 at Page 759 and Modification Agreement recorded
April 29, 1982 in Book 425 at Page 767.
8. Easements as set forth in Deeds recorded in Book 204 at Page 291, Book 425 at Page
774, and as shown on Plat recorded in Book 13 at Page 35,36.
9. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations as contained in Encroachment
License, recorded April 29, 1982 in Book 425 at Page 799.
10. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations as contained in Covenants
recorded April 29, 1982 in Book 425 at Page 801.
11. Those terms, conditions, covenants and other matters as shown on the Boundary
Agreement Plat recorded in Book 13 at Page 35,36.
12. Any question, dispute or adverse claim as to any loss or gain of land as a result
of any change in the river bed location by other than natural causes, or alteration
through accretion, reliction, erosion or avulsion of the center thread, bank, channel
or flow of waters in the Roaring Fork River lying within the subject land; and any
question as to the location of such center thread, bed, bank or channel as a legal
description monument or marker for purposes of describing or locating subject lands.
NOTE: There are no documents in the land records of the office of the Clerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County, accurately locating past or present location(s)
of the center thread, bank, bed or channel of the above River or indicating
any alterations of the same as from time to time may have occured.
13. Any rights, interest or easements in favor of the riparian owners, the State of Colo-
rado, the United States of America, or the general public, which exist, have existed
or are claimed to exist in and over the waters and present and past bed and banks of
the Roaring Fork River.
FORM NO. C- 6000 -3C°°
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY 1970 (AMENDED 10- 17 -70)
FOR USE WITH COLORADO REGION AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY -FORM 9 -1970 (AMENDED 10- 17 -70)
SCHEDULE B— Continued
14. Deed of Trust from : Ralph L. Braden
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of . David J. Hasty
to secure $250,000.00
dated April 1, 1985
recorded May 30, 1985 in Book 486 at Page 906
EXHIBIT "C"
January 15, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of
Vann Associates, Inc. to represent me in the processing of
my application for Stream Margin review for my property
located at 973 Queen Street. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized
to act on my behalf with respect to all matters reasonably
pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ralph L. Braden
(303) 920 -1234
SV:cwv