Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Emde 285 N SpringSt.A63-91 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 1145/91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: n/(4441 x13 673- /o -o0a A63 -91 STAFF MEMBER: KJ ll PROJECT NAME: Emde Stream Ma •in Rev'ew C0hd. �.. & ". Ex m. Project Address: 285 North Snrina Stree , Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Address: 1/2 Lots 3 &7, all of Lots 4,5 &6, Block 1,Ok1 Flts APPLICANT: Sally & William Emde (713) 963 -0274 Applicant Address: 11 Pine Briar Circle, Houston TX 77056 REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann. Vann Associates, Inc Representative Address /Phone:, 230 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen. CO 81611 952 -6958 PAID:(YES) NO AMOUNT: $870 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 4/3 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P&Z.Meeting Date Ili/ 7 PUBLIC HEARING: NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REF RRALS: Nopr* City Attorney ney Mtn Bell School District X City Engineer )C Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas leoprperCr Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center DATE REFERRED: 0/019/ INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:3r.4 2 -- INITIALt�/` City Atty City Engineer \ A Zoning _Env. Health 7 Housing _ Other: �J a FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ( C/ `" � A � • . Pa cry rt),„,,,41 o ( RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL R THE FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLINGCONDITIONAL USE UNIT Resolution No. 91 -32 WHEREAS, the Planning Office received an application for Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for a single family residence with attached accessory dwelling unit at 285 N. Spring Street (Lots 4,5,6 and half of Lots 3 and 7, Oklahoma Flats Addition) from William and Sally Emde, represented by Sunny Vann; and WHEREAS, the 384 net livable square foot above -grade accessory dwelling unit is being provided in accordance with the housing mitigation requirements set forth in Ordinance 1, Series 1990; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office, Parks Department and the Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on December 17, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 7 -0 vote the Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for an attached accessory dwelling unit, amending the conditions recommended by the Planning Office. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Emde Stream Margin review and Conditional Use for an attached accessory dwelling unit is approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk the approved site plan and foundation design requirements for the l gZ subject parcel. The documents shall be in the form of graphic �I representation as well as deed restriction. Prior to filing, these documents shall be reviewed by the City Engineering Office. lo✓ l y ,2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, staff shall verify on- ,/rli P•site the building envelope location. 3. Excavation for the foundation on the river side of the house shall be done from the inside out. Excavated soil shall not be placed on the river side of the building footprint in order to protect existing vegetation and grade. 4. There shall be no removal of vegetation outside of the building envelope without Parks Department approval and required permits. 5. The owner shall submit an appropriate deed restriction with the I,�qy Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The unit shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing Authority the Owner shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the accessory v' dwelling unit, a copy of the recorded deed restriction must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 7. The development must comply with curb cut requirements as stipulated by the City Engineer. 8. One parking space shall be provided on -site for use by the A.D.U. occupant. 9. A trash storage area must be indicated on the site plan in the building permit plans. 10. Any utility pedestals required by the project must be installed on the subject property. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed construction complies with stream pollution criteria within the stream margin review. 12. Permits are required from the City Streets Department for any work within the public rights of way. 13. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the existing residential structure must be demolished. 14. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 17, 1991. Attest: Planning and Zoning C ission: Cral Deputy c ` J asmine e ChaiY Jan Carney, Deputy Clerk J Tygre, J MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Chuck Roth Postmark: Dec 18,91 7:53 AM Subject: Reply to: Emde letter Reply text: From Chuck Roth: SGM letter responded satisfactorily to flood elevation question. Without requiring engineering study, building permit drawings should demonstrate that drainage from property due to development will not leave the site and enter the river via Spring Street. Preceding message: From Kim Johnson: Please look over the Schmueser letter that Sunny just brought in and see if it satisfies your concern about the flood information. Please get with me before 3:30 as I'll be preparing for a 4:00 site visit. Also, were you willing to drop or re -write your requirement for drainage? Are you plannning to be at the P &Z meeting? This item will probably be on around 5:00, but I can't guarantee... It would be great if you could sit in in case of any technical discussions. X LL DN MEYER INC. rat its 'l Grand Avenue, Suite 2 -E SCHMUESER �✓ �'������ wood Springs, s , \ `� �i Colorado 81601 Or pest (303) 945-1004 (303) 9256727 December 16, 1991 a 17 Fax (303) 945-5948 \\ \ 111 1 , CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3 SURVEYORS/ Mr. Chuck Roth, City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena ;Fr 17 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Emde Stream Margin Review Dear Chuck: This letter will respond to items 1 and 3 of your memorandum to Kim Johnson with the Planning Office. Item 1 discusses the floodway line location in the Oklahoma Flats area. In September of 1989, SGM performed a floodplain/floodway study of the Oklahoma Flats area. The intent of this floodplain study was to identify a maximum width blockage occurring as a result of development within the floodplain that would result in no increase in no base flood elevations. In essence, the floodplain study duplicated the FEMA location of the floodway in the Oklahoma Flats area. Therefore, the three lots fronting the Roaring Fork River in this area are utilizing the currently- adopted floodway location as prepared by FEMA. No development is proposed on the streamward side of this floodway line location. Item 3 in your memo to Kim Johnson identified that no increase in the base flood elevation be allowed with development. By holding the currently- adopted floodway line location, our floodplain study then (as previously mentioned) modeled the amount of blockage that can occur on these three lots without increasing the base flood elevations of the Roaring Fork River. Essentially, the amount of blockage perpendicular to the direction of the floodwater flow can be no more than 50 feet. This blockage can be in the form of a solid, 50 -foot wide foundation or a pier foundation for a building in greater width as long as the cumulative width of the piers is no more than 50 feet. If the total obstruction normal to flow is equal to or less than 50 feet on these three lots, there will be no increase in base flood elevations. In summary, the floodway line location is representative of the FEMA floodway line location and, as long as the total obstruction due to development is less than 50 feet, there will be no increase in the base flood elevation. I hope this information serves its intended purpose. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. t tij4c S. Simonson, P.E. JSS:lec /8103 NOV - 5 VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. do3 Planning Consultants October 30, 1991 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Emde Stream Margin Review Dear Kim: Please consider this letter an application for stream margin review for a parcel of land located at 285 North Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats area of the City of Aspen. Conditional use review and a GMQS exemption for an attached accessory dwelling unit are also requested (see Pre- Applica- tion Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 7 -504 and 7 -301 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by William and Sally Emde, the owners of the property (see Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3. Project Site As the accompanying survey illustrates, the project site consists of the north 1/2 of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5 and 6, and the south 1/2 of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen. As the individual lots are held in single ownership, they are considered to have merged pursuant to Section 7- 1004.A.5. of the Regulations. The property contains approximately twenty -one thousand (21,000) square feet of land area. As the survey illustrates, the western boundary of the property is located within the Roaring Fork River, and the entire property is located within the one hundred (100) year flood plain. Man -made improvements to the property consist of a small single - family residence and storage shed. The residence is located within the required side yard setback and encroaches slightly onto the adjacent property. Existing vegetation consists primarily of scattered small aspen trees and various 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303/925 -6958 e . Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 2 larger cottonwoods, the majority of which are located adjacent to the river. The parcel is zoned R -30, Low- Density Residential, Mandatory Planned Unit Development. The property is non - conforming with respect to the minimum lot size requirement of the R -30 zone district. As a result, the property's development potential is limited to one (1) single - family residence and an accessory dwelling unit. Although the property is zoned mandatory planned unit development, single - family residences are exempt from PUD review pursuant to Section 7 -902 of the Regulations. Proposed Development The Applicant wishes to demolish the existing dwelling unit and to construct a new single - family residence on the property. Pursuant to Section 8- 104.A.1.c. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the replacement of a demolished single - family residence is exempt from the City's growth management quota system subject only to the payment of an affordable housing impact fee, the provision of an on -site accessory dwelling unit, or the deed restriction of the structure to resident occupancy. To meet the City's requirements, the Applicant proposes to incorporate an accessory dwelling unit within the new single - family structure. The proposed building envelope for the new residence is depicted on the attached site plan (see Exhibit 4). The envelope has been designed in compliance with the City's stream margin review criteria and the dimensional require- ments of the R -30 zone district. The resulting building envelope is located outside of the floodway and all setbacks meet or exceed applicable requirements. The existing single- family structure will be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residence. The proposed setbacks, and other relevant development parameters, are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1 DEVELOPMENT DATA 1. Existing Zoning R -30, Residential, PUD 2. Existing Site Area (Sq. Ft.) 21,000 3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 30,000 Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 3 4. Minimum Required Building Setbacks (Ft.) Front Yard 25 Side Yard 10 Rear Yard 15 5. Proposed Building Setbacks (Ft.) Front Yard 35 North Side Yard 10 South Side Yard 10 Rear Yard 28 6. Minimum Required Open Space None 7. Proposed Open Space (Sq. Ft.) Building Envelope 8,400 Land Under Water 3,870 open Space 8,730 8. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 4,628 9. Accessory Dwelling Unit Floor Area Requirements (Sq. Ft.) Minimum Floor Area 300 Maximum Floor Area 700 10. Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit 384 Net Livable Area (Sq. Ft.) It should be noted that a twenty (20) foot easement was obtained along a portion of the east and west sides of Spring Street in connection with the approval of the Volk lot split and stream margin review applications. The purpose of this easement was to permit the widening of Spring Street should future improvements be required. To ensure continuity, a similar easement has been depicted on the accompanying survey. Inasmuch as Spring Street may never be widened in the vicinity of the project site, the Applicant proposes to reserve the easement as opposed to dedicating it at this time. This approach was also utilized in the Volk lot split and stream margin review applications. As the project site is located within the one hundred (100) year floodplain, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. was retained to address potential flood impacts upon the development of the Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 4 property. Field surveyed cross sections were plotted in order to supplement existing floodplain data. The original HEC -II analysis was then updated to reflect the new informa- tion. As a result of this work, a more accurate floodway boundary has been determined, the location of which is depicted on the accompanying site development plans. Schmueser Gordon Meyer's analysis also determined that a residential foundation system could be constructed within the City's adopted floodplain without increasing the base flood elevation on the property in question (see Exhibit 5, Letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer). In general, the analysis concluded that fifty (50) feet of blockage (i.e., the total width of the structure's foundation measured perpendicular to the flood water flow) could occur without increasing the River's base flood elevation. This blockage could occur continuously (i.e., a solid foundation) or discontinuously (i.e., a system of structural piers). As the attached floor plan illustrates (see Exhibit 6), the proposed accessory dwelling unit will be located above the new residence on a partial second level. The unit will be configured as a studio, and will contain approximately three hundred and eighty -four (384) square feet of net livable area. Access to the unit will be provided via an interior stairway located adjacent to the garage. A small deck will be provided to enhance the unit's livability. While no parking is specifically required for the proposed unit, adequate area exists on -site to accommodate the tenant's ve- hicle in the event required. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is subject to the receipt of conditional use approval and an exemption from the growth management quota system. The unit must also comply with the accessory dwelling unit provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Review Requirements As noted above, the proposed residence and accessory dwelling Unit are subject to stream margin, conditional use and GMQS exemption review. Each of these review requirements is discussed below. 1. Stream Margin Review Pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Land Use Regulations, all development within one hundred (100) feet of the high -1M✓ Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 5 water line of the Roaring Fork River, or within the one hundred (100) year flood plain, is subject to stream margin review. As all of the Applicant's proposed improvements are located within one hundred feet of the River, as well as within the flood plain, review and approval pursuant to the City's stream margin regulations is required. The specific review criteria, and the proposed building envelope's compli- ance therewith, are summarized as follows. a) 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." As discussed previously, Schmueser Gordon Meyer's flood plain analysis has determined that the property can be developed without increasing the River's base flood elevation provided that the total blockage that occurs from each building foundation does not exceed fifty (50) feet in width. Building foundations may be solid or consist of a system of structural piers. To insure compliance with this requirement, the survey, a graphical example of the required foundation design, and appropriate deed restrictions will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk. As a result, subsequent title commitments will note the deed restriction and alert prospec- tive purchasers to the recorded building envelope and its foundation design parameters. b) "Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails plan map is dedicated for public use." According to the recently adopted Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan, no trail has been designated across the property. c) "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for devel- opment to the greatest extent practicable." The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site specific recommendations with respect to the property. 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. Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 6 While some vegetation will obviously have to be removed from within the proposed building envelope, loss of vegetation will be mitigated by additional landscaping to be installed in connection with the construction of the future residence. 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 vegetation within the proposed building envelope consists primarily of small aspen trees. d) °No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.° No vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such that the River would be adversely affected. e) °To the greatest extent practicable, the pro- posed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.° 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 safeguards will be utilized to prevent pollution of the River during construc- tion. As discussed previously, Schmueser Gordon Meyer's recommendations with regard to foundation design will be adhered to in the construction of the residence. f) °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.° No alteration or relocation of the existing water course will be required. g) °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.° This review criteria is not applicable. h) °Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain.° Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 7 No federal or state permits are required to construct within the proposed building envelope. 2. Conditional Use Review An accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use in the R -30 zone district. As a result, such units are subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. The specific review criteria for conditional uses are contained in Section 7 -304. The proposed unit's compliance with these criteria is summarized as follows. a) "The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located." The proposed accessory dwelling unit has been designed to comply with the requirements of Section 5- 508.A. of the Regulations. The studio unit will contain approxi- mately three hundred and eighty -four (384) square feet of net livable area, is located within the proposed single - family structure, and will be deed restricted pursuant to the Housing Authority's "Resident Occupied" guidelines. The proposed accessory unit is consistent with the purpose of the R -30 zone district and with the City's policy of encouraging the voluntary development of such units in its residential neighborhoods. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the property as single - family residential, which is reflected in the underlying zone district classification. b) "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the vicinity of the parcel proposed for development." With the exception of the various public uses located on the City's Rio Grande property, the area immedi- ately surrounding the project site is devoted entirely to residential use. The inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit within the proposed single - family residence is a desirable compliment to free market residential development and, as discussed above, consistent with current community goals and objectives. c) "The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 8 adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedes- trian and vehicular circulation, parking, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties." The inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit within the proposed single - family residence will have no adverse effect upon surrounding properties. Given the size of the project site, and the fact that the accessory unit is located within the proposed residence, no additional visual impact will occur. The proposed residence will continue to appear as a single - family structure. Parking for the unit can be provided on -site if necessary, and no significant impact is anticipated on the existing road system. d) "There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage' systems, and schools." All utilities and the public road system are adequate to serve the proposed conditional use. Given the limited nature of the use, no adverse impact on such public facilities as hospitals, schools, etc. is anticipated. e) "The Applicants commit to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the condition use." The proposed free market unit is exempt from growth management. As a result, the provision of affordable housing is optional as opposed to required. The Applicant's volun- tary inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit within the proposed residence, therefore, should be viewed as a positive contribution to the solution of the community's affordable housing problem. f) "The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter." As discussed under criteria a) above, the proposed conditional use is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehen- sive Plan, the purpose of the underlying zone district, and the specific standards which govern such uses. The structure in which the accessory use is located has been designed in compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements of the R -30 Zone District. The Applicant is aware of no other Ms. Kim Johnson October 30, 1991 Page 9 standards or review requirements which pertain to the development of the proposed unit. 3. Growth Management Quota System Exemption Pursuant to Section 8- 104.B.1.d., the Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt from the City's GMQS regulations one (1) accessory dwelling unit located on a parcel contain- ing a single - family structure. As there are no specific exemption review criteria, compliance with the accessory dwelling unit provisions of Section 5- 508.A., and the receipt of conditional use approval, should be sufficient to warrant approval of the requested GMQS exemption. Should you have any questions, or require additional informa- tion, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, VANN AS IATES, INC. Sunny Vann, CP SV:cwv Attachments a a. ./ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Emde Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: December 17, 1991 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Stream Margin review and Conditional Use /GMQS Exemption for an attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions. -- APPLICANT: William and Sally Emde, represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: The parcel is at 285 N. Spring Street (Block 1, Lots 4,5,6 and half of Lots 3 and 7 of the Oklahoma Flats Addition) ZONING: R -30 (PUD) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting stream margin review for the development of a single family residence situated within 100' of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The home will contain a 384 s.f. accessory dwelling unit. Please see Attachment "A ". REFERRAL COMMENTS: The complete Engineering memo from Chuck Roth is as follows: (Please reference Attachments "B" and "C" for floodplain information.) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: Stream Margin Review 1. The application presents a site - specific floodway line prepared, by a consulting engineer. This floodway line and the existing FEMA study floodway line must be shown on the map prepared by the surveyor in order to determine if there is a difference and in order to see the relationship to the high water line. If the new floodway line is closer to the river than FEMA's, the applicant must obtain a map revision approval from FEMA. Depending on how much difference there is between the two lines, it may be preferable to the applicant to accept the FEMA floodway line. 2. The building envelope as staked in the field appeared to be closer to the high water line than as shown on the engineer's map. There are no setback requirements from the floodway line, however ., ,. the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan may be interpreted to address how close to the river the house could be. In any event, there must be no disturbance of native vegetation, including root systems, of any vegetation within the floodway. A setback line from the floodway line must be indicated on the final stream margin review map which states that the setback distance varies according to depth of construction and width of root systems of adjacent native vegetation. Building permit plans should be approved by planning, engineering and parks before permits are issued. Any excavation for foundation or any other disturbance or development must not encroach into the floodway. These requirements must be clearly stated on construction plans to ensure that the contractor is informed. It is recommended that the stream margin map be required to be submitted with the building permit package to help insure proper development. 3. The municipal code requires that no increase in the base flood elevation occur as a result of development within the 100 year floodplain. The engineer's letter does not state what the rise in the base flood elevation will be if a fifty foot wide building with a solid walled foundation is constructed within the 100 year floodplain. This must be clarified. It may be necessary to require that the structure be built on piers such as the Wiener Residence which is located a hundred yards or so downstream and on the same side of the river, by the Art Museum. 4. It is recommended that the applicant provide a fisherman's easement. Generally these easements are to a distance five feet beyond the high water line. 5. The applicant is advised that design and construction within the 100 year floodplain must comply with Section 7- 141(c) of the municipal code. 6. The Schedule B was lacking one or more pages as indicated by the word "continued" on the sheet included with the application. This should be required to be submitted for review prior to final approvals for the application. Conditional Use and GMQS Exemption 7. It is recommended that parking on site for the accessory dwelling unit be required because the adjacent street is not developed to typical residential widths, and there is no on- street parking. 8. It is advisable that the City accept the offered 20 foot right - of -way reservation so that typical right -of -way development might occur in the future when the need arises. Since no plat is required for this land use development, the applicant may need to provide an agreement which is approved by the city attorney and engineering offices. 2 9. Plans for a building permit must indicate a trash storage area which is on the applicant's property and not in the right -of -way. Any utility pedestals required by the project must also be installed on the applicant's private property. General 10. Both conditional use and stream margin review require that the applicant address stream pollution. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a drainage plan which demonstrates compliance with this requirement, that stream pollution will not be caused by this development during a 100 -year runoff event. 11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920- 5130). This is perhaps especially relevant in terms of the driveway and curb cut. Section 19 -101 of the municipal code regulates driveways and curb cuts within public rights -of -ways. For this property, the maximum width of a driveway and curb cut within the right -of -way is 10 (ten) feet for a single driveway or 18 (eighteen) for a double driveway. Only one "curb" cut or driveway is permitted. The property owner may not develop a personal parking lot in the right -of -way. Parking in the right -of -way shall be parallel parking available to the public. 12. The conditions of approval recommended in this memo should be required to be met to the satisfaction of the engineering department before issuance of a building permit. PARKS DEPT: At the Development Review Committee meeting on this project, George Robinson's comments were: 1. A condition is needed that prohibits current or future removal of any vegetation outside of the building envelope without Parks Department approval and required permits. 2. Check Pedestrian Plan for public trails requirement on this parcel. 3 STAFF COMMENTS: Stream Margin Review: Section 7 -504 outlines the criteria for Stream Margin Review as follows: Criteria 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. Response: The applicant's engineer, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, has calculated that the base flood elevation will not be increased if the building foundation does not exceed 50 feet in width. According to the comments from Engineering, the applicant's engineer has not specified the actual increase in the base flood elevation if a solid foundationed structure is built. City Engineer Chuck Roth wants this information provided. Graphic examples of foundation design based on the Schmueser Gordon Meyer information are offered to be filed by the applicant. Criteria 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: According to the adopted Pedestrian and Walkways Plan, no trail has been designated across the parcel. Planning and Engineering recommend dedication of a 5 foot Fisherman's Easement on this parcel. Fisherman's easements were granted by the lots owners on either side of the Emde lot during stream margin approvals last year. Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Response: The plan does not specifically address these parcels in its recommendations. The building envelopes proposed will not significantly affect the riverfront vegetation or natural appearance, according to the applicant. The Engineering Department expresses concern that any vegetation (including roots of vegetation) in the floodway must not be harmed. Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. Response: According to the applicant, no vegetation will be removed or any slope regraded such that the river would be adversely affected. The site is fairly flat, so minimal grading 4 .. t ... 4 should take place. However, the building envelope staked on site showed the northwest corner of the proposed house to be approximately 10 feet from the top of the bank /high water line. This does not agree with the site plan which shows the area of building corner approximately 18' from the mean high water line. Planning concurs with Engineering that one map should show all pertinent information including FEMA flood information and proposed footprint. Any tree over 6 inches caliper on the lots will require a permit for removal. Additionally, Parks Department comments recommend that no vegetation occurring outside of the building envelope be removed. Small aspens are the primary vegetation found within the proposed building envelopes. The application mentions that other landscaping will be added after construction. Planning recommends that due to the proximity of the river and riparian vegetation, all excavation should be done from the "inside out" of the building footprint on the river side of the house. This will limit compaction of the topsoil layer. Criteria 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 proposed envelopes will have no adverse effect upon the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring Fork, according to the applicant. Revegetation of disturbed areas will preclude erosion and appropriate safeguards will be utilized during construction to prevent pollution of the river. The Engineering Department requires that the applicant must submit a drainage plan addressing stream pollution prior to issuance of any building permits. Foundation design as described by Schmueser Gordon & Meyer and filed with the County Clerk will be adhered to for the residence and will put future property owners on notice of these requirements. Criteria 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: No alteration or relocation of the existing water course will be required. Criteria 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 5 .• ./ Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. Response: The applicant states that no federal or state permits are required to construct within the proposed building envelopes. However, the Engineering Department requires compliance with FEMA Elevation Certificate requirements. Conditional Use for attached accessory dwelling unit: Ordinance 1 (the housing replacement ordinance) requires that development of a single family residence (either new or resulting from demolition of an existing house) must mitigate for affordable housing by either restricting the new residence to resident' occupancy, providing a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit, or paying a cash -in -lieu amount based on square footage of the home. An existing house on the property will be demolished in order to construct the new house. The Emdes have chosen to provide a 384 s.f. second floor accessory dwelling unit as mitigation (see Attachment "D ".) An accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use in the R -30 zone district. The Commission has the authority to review and approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to the standards of Section 7 -304: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. _ RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the property to house a local employee in a residential area, which complies with the zoning and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: This use is compatible with the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The unit will not be visible from the outside as a separate unit. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, 6 vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. RESPONSE: The proposed accessory unit will be completely contained within the existing home. A parking space is not required by code for a studio accessory unit. Engineering states that a parking space should be provided on the Emde property as Spring St. is not developed to handle on street parking. Access to the unit is internal through the home with exterior entry at the front of the house. Engineering also wants a trash storage area indicated on- site on the building permit plans. No other significant impacts are anticipated. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the existing neighborhood. Engineering is willing to accept the 20' right -of -way reservation for future road development. Chuck Roth is exploring whether an agreement of some form will be required for the reservation. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy Ordinance 1 requirements and contribute to the affordable housing stock. The applicant must file appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy, including 6 month minimum leases. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable conditional use standards. Note: As this unit is 100% above grade, a floor area bonus according to the terms of Ordinance 1 may be granted to the primary residence. GMOS Exemption for Accessory Dwellincz Units Section 8 -104 1.d. allows the Commission to approve accessory dwelling units to be exempt from growth management competition. This proposal qualifies upon approval of its conditional use review. 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of Stream Margin review for a new residence and Conditional Use /GMQS Exemption for an attached accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall satisfy the Engineering Department regarding documentation of the floodway lines and rise in flood level as discussed in the Engineering referral comments. 2. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk the approved site plan and foundation design requirements for the subject parcel. The documents shall be in the form of graphic representation as well as deed restriction. Prior to filing, these documents shall be reviewed by the City Engineering Office. 3. The appl si t shall verify on site the di » etween -tae y j h - .- . • _ • ner of the house as s o • -- n 4. Excavation for the foundation on the river side of the house shall be done from the inside out. Excavated soil shall not be placed on the river side of the building footprint in order to protect existing vegetation and grade. 5. There shall be no removal of vegetation outside of the building _041 �rcx/�e iL without Parks Department approval and required permits. ^ 2 Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applignd 1 dedicate a fisherman's easement from the 4entanakive to 5 feet s (measured horizontally) above the highwater line of the Roaring Fork River. 7. If it is determined that an agreement between the applicant and ,the City is required for City acceptance of the 20' right -of -way dedication, the applicant agrees to provide such agreement prior to issuance of any building permits. Conditional Use /GMOS Exemption 8. The owner shall submit an appropriate deed restriction with the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The unit shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing Authority the Owner shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the accessory dwelling unit, a copy of the recorded deed restriction must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 8 10. The development must comply with curb cut requirements as stipulated by the City Engineer. 11. One parking space shall be provided on -site for use by the A.D.U. occupant. 12. A trash storage area must be indicated on the site plan in the building permit plans. 13. Any utility pedestals required by the project must be installed on the subject property. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed construction complies with drattage- requ4vements, including stream pollution criteria. w"t s- a.,u,_. 15. Permits are required from the City Streets Department for any work within the public rights of way. 16. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Attachments: "A" - ite Plan / "B" - Existing Conditions map "C" - Floodplain Drawing from Applicant' Engineer "D" - Floorplan Sketch of Accessory Dwelling Unit P6/ 7 cc ✓yl" , k 7- emde.memo 9 ' 4 o A a IN a. p o p_ pfaNNI{ G� ,� Ot NG COMMISSION O oft r EXBIBZTr AP' • r tl' " e 19 BY RESOLUT Ij /1,� —• f 1 F2 °5 am.. _ o - . G Vat oOo 08 � . / - na°S a� n4rn.•o Wean LSO a O O 0 ° �C Kau„ D O • Q 8 0 0 O vi^ 093 •••� 1 11111 ardi 1 I \ 1.--- .. a rip �kr D t o : 1 �' ® o 1 as Q • ne.i - ! r 1 Na N • 0 3 1 1 Vil) ( 1 1[ 2 , ' * l i ar) . IS 1 . . ''........ S. ' • . C# w 1 ( AP-SA 7 . i _ i . +• ----- ._._ L . oe • i a�v (Sams •aesaw.nTWA) s TWA) n �l" • N• /6 so C. • ,,,,, �rrr,,,000 .1, a• ) / A 5 O V -r H 5 r i N G 3 T R G L T • tb SITE PLAN 1,2,0,,.„..../,. / Resident Housing. _ (o. I-1- 91 EMDE RESIDE _ .. __..............____ ' PLANNING & "NING COMMISSION EXHIBIT . L., , APPROVED . . . . ' . . ... • ,Z; lg_ BY RESOLUTION . cc I 1 1 ,\ . 14 O , ( (.1 mi (50.00) 4- • : --• T L4" tr., die 1 1,344 I , .,'. ), el .... .- 1 \ 1 : \ ‘ i \ / / • I CA- ., A 02,...„- i r."5 / . I 1 I t ^./. \ C AGM 1 I : •----- ." I .......... ..." t I ..".••••• ......•• 1 1 • • -• YS4 1;4 \ .."- " CO .. • ! - - ) ti , „...., o 1 f .- \ \ \ 0 i 4 _1 e *flea- i \ \ • • . , . • ‘ \ - 1 - if 11 sen.. firc•.•••••:"...•••.r . fe.te );(7 / 1' - recta .r...• e•-.." . 0 J I \,, A. en'? A e.../..... .••••(.0e. tr.41 .. corc.., es• z.113 i.4•0 . ••,-. . I- r • .....-- cit ..... • • § . iii. . i'' s ic-006 1 .teec. cik. tO 6 / f 1.- , ,, 4 1 1 .....--... MK KIWI , 1 .1 6..) t mow 1 It le4 wATep, uir..4c 19 ,,,, ... t.5. -- 1 \ fi . s> 4- A Oa (2-1 CCeli .... . PC) .t. \ ....-'... - 2 ; a y "' .....#.r ./..... • . • ' i , I I • *14 \ 1 0 CO2g1C- IP5 C It ff i II I I t C tee I . / ci y Cl - .1. HIGH 1 13 a " NiU WAlr-Ft. I g t l 1 Oen, 00 i> -tfr, I I-- - - • ct - _ . _ . _ _ - - - - - - -- c•cat- or 41z-4. thsurr- illit . • \ rec- r 0 enor-Ale.4.- ..... _ I .-..- .. / .... .. " 7 r so 0 ou• ow,- 1 t • I 7/ �F) ‘t, rot-4 4 e vry-r--0 I 44 i - „i we/he- i l U'41- le $ .r:i la 3 L a" 255 r: CD / r- ,z 0 ,i, Lsiroi . . en cir2: st SET cc T "1 -. -* -- - (.. 14 .cy-; 5. - 14 . 2.5 1 $2:E. 1 - Pr' C ‘e 4 / . 5 et 6 rale-r-raarear t• I— ci) '74. 4 0 I rl , ‘1.4er-04•44r4C...11" Aoyr-f-r_me......tr 7 ace, so, PAcre- 4o5 --' —A 1 I 1.• 4 z A al 4 5+ i AG ..er CDPiprtl DPI s / I __:-.\ A p , I °`� i '. ION -c. xas t ar "frorro - , t . i ' �� C� ; ` �— `... E • I Bts✓ �i BONING BY 1tESOLUTION 1 , 00 , 10 , 1 , t . . _ -fr - -,,,,:. i - 44- ,,. _‘ t i s.,..,,... , , . i t , I i . \ . ...,..e.,..: , ., 40, ' :, r< is ..x' . � l x786 #11 I OfrPb � °✓ • � r i - . Kr r,'ci a Ara ' Ar e rr ®S j. 1 41 I '- + \ • S.tS1P k%i , ,.� N bi ..._.- -^. - - - %_..14,--et - ...- , ..4 ,., .. - r 4 $ 1 4 1/2 c: , , . \ APPRIQXAIL4T - i �;, LO�CATIIO/V -- J" s , - � � ® .i�� x /% 42. ;, ®�/ ARE< O f - \\ ' . R id ti r ■ 1 -` L ''''� ••• -, • 'moo 2 - FLOOD HAY (MUST ABSOLUTELY ' BE KEPT FREE OF O al LL - i Q (t r.-- \ 1 c:, , Bt 6. watt Li S CCI ii .. kJ .1 iczE I QJ Q o l i 9 t/ 1 C 3� ■ il w / / / �/ /! � �`� . ....... _... .. . . . EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT I T) 17 , APPROVED r 19 BY RESOLUTION /8•G _ _ ------ ...--- -" • --- . -- ...- . „--- • ‘ 1 •,,,,.., 0 ,,,i- u2p LI .. . M HISIiiiIIIM •-• ' \i . .... I ■ , I _ , FII try 1-- I 0 ( Hell dr . 1 I k I rtl f`k : I ' 1 1 1 -k-r7 IA' asillt■ileili0:111.1. Tig= 111.211.111/ SE .1 1 _Env .sr=inim• /Livin =I° • . .. IN link & Bun - - --. 1111111111•t nnui. 1-- a -. 1 ..i. vt„ __.._ .1,----,4 • ,. , 1 1 3.s g a I 4. • . Stairs to Exterior Ent r I _---- --- . . . .---- - - FLOOR PLAN Resident .Housing Unit t 384 8.F. PROJECT TITLE EMDE RESIDENCE wiz 1 . 6 's / DATE: 10/121/131 Di " 'Pr-0- DRAWING NO. GIBSON C. RENO • ARCHITECTS PICJECT 7...../ are E COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. COLORADO err #342, 7 02/10/92 14:12 Rec $20.00 BK 669 PG 47 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 3O day of January, 1992, by William O. Emde, whose address is #11 Pine Briar Circle, Houston, Texas, 77056 (hereinafter "Owner "), W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of the north 1/2 of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5 and 6, and the south 1/2 of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Subject Parcel "); and WHEREAS, By Resolution No. 91 -32, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval to the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use application (which included the Subject Parcel), subject to the condition that the Owner agree to certain development restrictions with respect to the Subject Parcel; and WHEREAS, Owner desires by this instrument to establish such restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the City's approval of the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use application, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Owner agrees as follows: 1. Site Development Plan and Foundation Design. Attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference, is a Site Development Plan for the Subject Parcel, which Plan was approved as a part of the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use application. Owner hereby agrees that any future development of the Subject Parcel will be in complete conformity with the attached Site Development Plan, and in particular will comply with the foundation design requirements which are graphical- ly depicted on page 2 of said Plan. Before obtaining a building permit for the Subject Parcel, the developer thereof shall submit to the City Engineering Department a foundation plan which meets said attached design requirements. 2. Other Development Reviews. Also prior to obtaining a building permit for the Subject Parcel, the developer thereof shall do the following: (a) submit to the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office a copy of the recorded deed restriction for the attached accessory dwelling unit to be constructed on the Subject Parcel; (b) submit to the City Engineering Department for approval a grading and drainage plan which demonstrates that the proposed development complies with stream pollution criteria; and #341487 02/10/92 14:12 Rec $20.00 BK 669 P6 48 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 (c) submit to the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office suffi- cient information to permit the staff to verify on -site the approved building envelope. 3. Binding Clause. This Agreement shall run with an constitute a burden upon the title to the Subject Parcel, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and the City of Aspen and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. In witness whereof, Owner has hereunto set his hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. OTR4F ..... ,,,Y r-. r..; iwi • By Wrl iam 0. Emde STATE OF TEXAS ss. COUNTY OF e- « ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1992, by William O. Emde. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 1 - '� 3 e. Notary Publ 2 i , _ ri Eg 1 ; it 1 EXHIBIT A ; � d _ e 9 � sa ! 1 it 3: is - ! + e'. : is 2e e- i .p p a qa ii gx- F- S + 13; E 9:6 is 3 - 1 it - - $EE �'- i iE ' N al : - I a ' 9!e P e - e a - € 3 i: in a : ? 3 r :+ ' Ea � a 5 T 341 is a o , - • 4 is i _ €: 1 -e4 E i i E j i 12 , _ R 9 a . € = a i ' ¢ f ; i = y a E p G = - : .' _ ._.. c.a S.i 4` a aE C a 9i r is i _ an - � i E !E i .aita ° - F gs3 e fa E r 2ci : :a: W cc i i m9 @ i is -i gi e a l ^ i . c = _ re a- • ^ a ?iii+ •i \ 1 N ' -C u i n W 213 8i E" 'a32 I S -. • If ? = _ d : = 1s . _ °: z tree J nee € c Z. 6c. - - p a_ p a s / :r a _-i ig iii a • e ° 4 • 0 1 / $Q`2 h $ 6 C u w m 5 c tu C 1 \ nil = 6 \ fill 3 d 1 S C -s3 9 N/ N d S 0 "•\\\ ul •- nl • - Y• a I al .`0 3 ° ` `I4'. ^.l i 0. I i \ t\ . 9 ` O N 9 101 S i L Ol ti 101' b 101 7 3101 W � £ a a t \ o \ O ' 1 \ i " a 1.11 W \� �� � ■ W , ° I .. 11 f r.., rt 73 7, lit . «- / i/ � n y1 ' a 113 r.3 / � A 6 l•..J + S 0 , _ n .- r ' J rI 9 N i N d o d1 I X H �3 d o : --r+ -- W O. y nu • (.: ,i) ..d.14 «.. + (o. o s , <) Co 441 ' NO E. ,I) i 3 ��ii�. - i al M i i; v I . 1 ,1"-.4 4 4 - 7:41487 02/10/92 14:12 Rec $20/ BK 669 PG 50 Sily Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc $ -00 O • 2f W ° a 2 . at °i ce o �� a i 8 u Wgo a — Q tt Q 1 m ^ o F. Q p a p Q = 3 I C..1 o ao —T-- f jt � m m0 J t Li � Q.: 4:t 32 Q , 'C o W Q Q 4411 , 4. g 0 AM 1 o1 •0 Li 3 W ' CO 4. N. LJ 2t 0 a 4. -4 tri Oa o ko Qh a 0 Page 2 � Q ia.. #341486 /10/92 14 ;i0 Rec 515.00 sr : 669 PG 44 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk Doc $.00 OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION A REEMENT (the "Agree- ment") is made and entered into this G.day of January, 1992, by and between William O. Emde, whose address is #11 Pine Briar Circle, Houston, Texas, 77056 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner "), and the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Authority "), a multi - jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property more specifically described as the north 1/2 of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5 and 6, and the south 1/2 of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen (hereinafter "Real Property "), upon which the Owner intends to construct a single - family residence and a studio Accessory Dwelling Uni r (hereinafter "Unit "), which Unit shall contain approximately C square feet of net livable area. For purposes of this Agreement, the Accessory Dwelling Unit, the single - family residence, and all appurtenances, improvements, and fixtures associated therewith shall be referred to as the "Proper- ty"; and WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the Property which restrict the use and occupancy of the Unit to working residents of Pitkin County and their families who fall within the resident qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Owner hereby covenants and agrees that the Property shall not be condominiumized during the term of this agreement such that the Unit and the single - family residence are considered separate properties. The Unit shall be constructed and maintained so as to be capable of being rented separately from the single - family residence. 2. The Owner shall not be required to rent or lease the Unit, but if it is rented or leased, occupancy shall be limited exclusively to individuals who are employed full - time in Pitkin County, together with a spouse and related children. The lessee shall meet and comply with the definition and requirements of a working resident established and from time to time amended by the Authori- ty. Owner shall have the right to lease the Unit to a qualified working resident of his selection. 3. Written verification of employment of prospective tenants of the Unit shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the Owner prior to occupancy thereof. Said 341486 02/10/92 14:10 Rec $15.00 BFI' 669 PG 45 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $,00 verification shall be acceptable to the Housing Authori- ty. 4. Occupancy of the Unit shall be limited to no more than two (2) adults and related children. 5. Any lease of the Unit shall provide for a term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease for the Unit shall be submit- ted to the Housing Authority within ten (10) days of the approval of residents. 6. This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Property as a burden for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Authority and the City of Aspen, their respective successors as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying lessees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the day and year above first written. OWNER: By: l ia m 0. C `"T W lliam O. mde Mailing Address: #11 Pine Briar Circle Houston, Texas 77056 STATE OF TEXAS ) ) ss. COUNTY OF / in ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1992, by William O. Emde. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4:7 ), -- - 7- , ,,, :111( ,�i , / /J,' j Y d. ; ,'L , , It ,.� yN ' ; . � VO ,�, Notary Public A Y ROC' ro. # T 486 02/10/92 14:10 Rec $15.00 BK 669 ES 46 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing Agreement and its terms and accepted by the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By: 0,1414;6 L (1—✓ awes L. Curti hairman Mailing Address: 50 Truscott Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) p The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 0 day of , 992, by James L. Curtis, for the Housing Authority of the ity of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado. Witness my hand and offici al seal. My commission expires: T/a S/ K Notary 7-17/1"24 lic am' /, (i APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: By: ' . S� Thomas Smith Attorney for APCHA MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer Date: December 5, 1991 Re: Emde Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 1. The application presents a site - specific floodway line prepared by a consulting engineer. This floodway line and the existing FEMA study floodway line must be shown on the map prepared by the surveyor in order to determine if there is a difference and in order to see the relationship to the high water line. If the new floodway line is closer to the river than FEMA's, the applicant must obtain a map revision approval from FEMA. Depending on how much difference there is between the two lines, it may be preferable to the applicant to accept the FEMA floodway line. 2. The building envelope as staked in the field appeared to be closer to the high water line than as shown on the engineer's map. There are no setback requirements from the floodway line, however the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan may be interpreted to address how close to the river the house could be. In any event, there must be no disturbance of native vegetation, including root systems, of any vegetation within the floodway. A setback line from the floodway line must be indicated on the final stream margin review map which states that the setback distance varies according to depth of construction and width of root systems of adjacent native vegetation. Building permit plans should be approved by planning, engineering and parks before permits are issued. Any excavation for foundation or any other disturbance or development must not encroach into the floodway. These requirements must be clearly stated on construction plans to ensure that the contractor is informed. It is recommended that the stream margin map be required to be submitted with the building permit package to help insure proper development. 3. The municipal code requires that no increase in the base flood elevation occur as a result of development within the 100 year floodplain. The engineer's letter does not state what the rise in the base flood elevation will be if a fifty foot wide building with a solid walled foundation is constructed within the 100 year floodplain. This must be clarified. It may be necessary to require that the structure be built on piers such as the Wiener Residence which is located a hundred yards or so downstream and on the same side of the river, by the Art Museum. 4. It is recommended that the applicant provide a fisherman's easement. Generally these easements are to a distance five feet beyond the high water line. 5. The applicant is advised that design and construction within the 100 year floodplain must comply with Section 7- 141(c) of the municipal code. 6. The Schedule B was lacking one or more pages as indicated by the word "continued" on the sheet included with the application. This should be required to be submitted for review prior to final approvals for the application. CONDITIONAL USE & GMQS EXEMPTION REVIEW 7. It is recommended that parking on site for the accessory dwelling unit be required because the adjacent street is not developed to typical residential widths, and there is no on- street parking. 8. It is advisable that the City accept the offered 20 foot right -of -way reservation so that typical right -of -way development might occur in the future when the need arises. Since no plat is required for this land use development, the applicant may need to provide an agreement which is approved by the city attorney and engineering offices. 9. Plans for a building permit must indicate a trash storage area which is on the applicant's property and not in the right -of -way. Any utility pedestals required by the project must also be installed on the applicant's private property. GENERAL 10. Both conditional use and stream margin review require that the applicant address stream pollution. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a drainage plan which demonstrates compliance with this requirement, that stream pollution will not be caused by this development during a 100 -year runoff event. 11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5080) for design 9 considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of- way from city streets department (920 - 5130). This is perhaps especially relevant in terms of the driveway and curb cut. Section 19 -101 of the municipal code regulates driveways and curb cuts within public rights -of -ways. For this property, the maximum width of a driveway and curb cut within the right -of -way is 10 (ten) feet for a single driveway or 18 (eighteen) for a double driveway. Only one "curb" cut or driveway is permitted. The property owner may not develop a personal parking lot in the right -of -way. Parking in the right -of -way shall be parallel parking available to the public. 12. The conditions of approval recommended in this memo should be required to be met to the satisfaction of the engineering department before issuance of a building permit. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director cr/M91.268 IN Commonwealth. �^ �' EXHIBIT 2 Land Title Insurance Corn 14 r✓ SCHEDULE A- OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT -5455 5/13/91 @ 1:26 P.M. $ 840,000.00 128- 034785 1. NAME OF INSURED: WILLIAM 0. EMDE AND SALLY S. EMDE 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND 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: WILLIAM 0. EMDE AND SALLY S. EMDE 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. N /r j 4 /1 . - , ! 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. Co tersigned fhorized Agent ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -1766 THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. • ® Commonwealth. --- Land Title Insurance Cont _ iy POLICY NO. 128 - 034785 CASE NO. PCT -5455 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A Tract of Land being the Northerly 1/2 of Lot 3 and all of Lots 4, 5 and 6 and the Southerly 1/2 of LOT 7 OF BLOCK 1, OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Said Tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 3, whence the Northeast corner of Lot 3 bears N. 15 ° 30' E. 17.50 feet and corner 27 of Tract 40 of East Aspen Addition bears S. 66 ° 15' E. 285.46 feet; thence N. 74 ° 30' W. 150.00 feet; thence N. 15 ° 30' E. 140.00 feet; thence S. 74 ° 30' E. 150.00 feet; thence S. 15 ° 30' W. 140.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Exhibit 3 September 19, 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 Venn of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent me in the processing of my application for Stream Margin review for my property located at 285 North Spring Street. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act for me 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, 4! /LQ toe I lliam 0. Etude #11 Pine Briar Circle Houston, TX 77056 (713) 963 -0274 SV:cwv NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RE: EMDE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW NOTICE I8 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 17, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application submitted by William & Sally Emde, 11 Pine Briar Circle, Houston, TX 77056 requesting Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Stream Margin Review. The applicant proposes to construct a new single - family dwelling containing a 384 square foot (net livable area) accessory dwelling unit. The property is located at 285 North Spring Street, 1/2 Lots 3 & 7, Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5090. s /Jasmine Tyare, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission tit got,_ / _ � nb 01 Grand Avenue, Suite 2 -E SCNMUESELADON MEYER INC. Ai at `• X Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 September 27, 1991 I for pen' (303) 945 -1004 (303) 925.6727 Van' 17 Fax (303)945-5948 EXHIBIT 5 \���[�� % CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/ Mr. Sunny Vann Vann & Associates, Inc. 230 East Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EMDE PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO SPRING STREET OKLAHOMA FLATS - CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO Dear Sunny: Per your request, I am providing this letter to discuss the effect of development within the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River located on the property identified above. We previously performed a floodplain study for this property which identified the effect of development on three properties located in Oklahoma Flats. I have attached a copy of the floodplain map that identifies the location of the floodplain, flood fringe and floodway of the Roaring Fork River. Also, this map identifies the type of development that can occur in the floodplain without having an impact upon the floodplain. Based upon this mapping and the associated hydraulic calculations used to prepare this map, the following elevations denote the elevation of the water during the 100 -year flood at the property corners of the lot. Location 100 -Year Flood Elevation Upper property line (SW corner of property) 7864.5 Upper property line (SE corner of property) 7865.7 Lower property line (NW corner of property) 7862.6 Lower property line (NE corner of property) 7864.3 The information provided on the map, as well as the elevations identified above, should provide you with enough information to properly locate the proposed residence and construct the residence such that the net obstruction from the construction will not increase the base flood of the Roaring Fork River. In addition, it should be of sufficient detail to allow the architect to properly elevate the first floor of the structure above the floodplain according to City of Aspen Floodplain Regulations. I hope this information serves its intended purpose. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GO N MEYER, INC. % , , Ji / ; ( J fibr . Simonson, P.E. 6 ( 1 , JSS:Iec /91145 Enclosure FEBI2S VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants February 10, 1992 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Emde Stream Margin and Conditional Use Review Dear Kim: Attached for your records are copies of the executed and recorded agreement which memorializes the Emde stream margin review, site development plan and foundation design limita- tions, and the accessory dwelling unit deed restriction. Please note that the site plan and foundation design drawings are attached as an exhibit to the agreement. The recordation of these documents was the primary condition of P &Z Resolution No. 91 -32 which was required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Emde residence. The only other condition precedent to building permit requires the project architect to review the residence's drainage plan with the Engineering Department. All other conditions pertain to the construction of the residence, and will be met as the project progresses. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, VANN SSOCIATES Sunny Van AICP SV:cwv Attachments cc: David Gibson 230 Cast Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Co orads 8161' • 303/925 -6958 • Fax 303/920 -9310 t Il ` rya ha i fi.D. David Muckenhirn 5 P.O. Box 8353 Aspen, CO 81612 / 44 � c-ntae 41.04,,/ (303) 925 -8889 // e /' ,, / 4.04S. fib it '? 18/1ea• G\• D Oc /.er 12, 1994 3 Mr. Stan Clauson 1. City Community Development Director City of Aspen, Planning Department 7 ''' 130 South Galena Street v(i. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Clauson: In 1991, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval for a Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Application for a property located at 285 North Spring Street by Resolution 91- 32. On February 10, 1992, Ordinance 2 -92 vested the rights of this resolution for a period of three years. At this time, I have a contract to purchase this property. I would like to close and proceed with the design process for a modified single family house on this property with the assurance that the rights and conditions relating to this property will not change in the near future. Therefore, please consider this letter to be: 1) an application for an extension of the vested rights period from February 10, 1995 to May 10, 1995; and 2) a request for an indication that this modified building would qualify for an exemption from the Stream Margin Review (paragraph B of section 7 -504 of the Land Use Regulations) through May 10, 1995, if: a) it has less floor area than the approved building; and b) a permit to remove different trees is obtained; and c) no part of the building is closer to the high water line; and d) it falls within the existing building envelope; and e) it will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structure(s) within the special flood hazard area. Attached you will find copies of P & Z Resolution 91 -32, Council Ordinance 2 -92 and Section 7 -504.b of the Land Use Regulations. Please contact me at your earliest convenience regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Si r 7 - -- --3 avid Muckenhirn DM /cda c: Res. 91 -32 Ord. 2 -92 Sec. 7 -504.b c: \david \clauson. ltr 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 Rider 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. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 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 develc meat; and 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. #341, 7 02/10/92 14:12 Rec $20.00 BK 669 PG 47 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this .9d day of January, 1992, by William O. Emde, whose address is #11 Pine Briar Circle, Houston, Texas, 77056 (hereinafter "Owner "), WIT N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of the north 1/2 of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5 and 6, and the south 1/2 of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Subject Parcel "); and WHEREAS, By Resolution No. 91 -32, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval to the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use application (which included the Subject Parcel), subject to the condition that the Owner agree to certain development restrictions with respect to the Subject Parcel; and WHEREAS, Owner desires by this instrument to establish such restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the City's approval of the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use application, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Owner agrees as follows: 1. Site Development Plan and Foundation Design. Attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference, is a Site Development Plan for the Subject Parcel, which Plan was approved as a part of the Emde Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use application. Owner hereby agrees that any future development of the Subject Parcel will be in complete conformity with the attached Site Development Plan, and in particular will comply with the foundation design requirements which are graphical- ly depicted on page 2 of said Plan. Before obtaining a building permit for the Subject Parcel, the developer thereof shall submit to the City Engineering Department a foundation plan which meets said attached design requirements. 2. Other Development Reviews. Also prior to obtaining a building permit for the Subject Parcel, the developer thereof shall do the following: (a) submit to the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office a copy of the recorded deed restriction for the attached dwelling unit to be constructed on the Subject Parcel (b) submit to the City Engineering Department for approval a grading and drainage plan which demonstrates that the proposed development complies with stream pollution criteria; and #341497 02/10/92 14:12 Rec $20.00 BK 669 PG 48 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 (c) submit to the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office suffi- cient information to permit the staff to verify on -site the approved building envelope. 3. Binding Clause. This Agreement shall run with an constitute a burden upon the title to the Subject Parcel, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and the City of Aspen and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. In witness whereof, Owner has hereunto set his hand and segl as of the day and year first above written. ciWPT ...;,� .5xtJ 105 By ii "'- yi S . _Wrl iam O. Emde STATE OF TE S COUNTY Off" .� (s ss. The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1992, by William O. Etude. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 1 UP cry �; ' Notary Public/ • 2 I-- e i ix1' I EXHIBIT 4 i 3 cE e 1: ;? .. - e • F :Pi h irk 2 Ix a3 : : .a t 4 i fl , �+ Z P. !- . a i P k , g > : 3 = ; : P Z o t 2 i a = I! s ,_a t [1 .e9 i >i Ai is I Z ei y s : , 4 a •P i aF P H cc . I' ..I e. 9 i Px I j i Pe :xil et a a y ! @[ tt P o • ds x $ t- - ea 1 . pa Z it:. h 1 _ I a 7. - .. 1 !. V: :MI W .4 w 4 if a ".:1 3 z= P ' p .: - a !'s by' w y x7 i 1 3 �I !II 5 B- S !" • ■ L ° x * .lii iii x! � N vE3 a w ski y! Pn �a! 2 1.. a II ! . - 3 a d =P P , .:.:x : g z lc/ - P a ti c.P Ili! li P @tPP a .P ! a - s : „ e x.j 11911111 P.... x• / i .V G !fl 3 • 9 • • 80 r 1 '-z • c. , .7 a Z g \ W m W \ • V ' C Z 6 6 \ ,4111-7341.1.5* [-mi.,...) 9 N/ d d S A y \\ ! I I2 .. UJ $ ..a 3 N,... ` Ste ;11—.,„1 # 9 a al W i \. `.\ 1 s v o W L .,LOS 9 101 S i.oi a , b 1.0 1—....--=, E S J. < tJ • 1 rt F. II a \; ` 1` , ! 7 n ea - - gi g - J ,4,,,..-.. ` �— _ :I 0c r n 7. " 83 N,,.r r - Q " � - . i -- Ni+r.^°d 0 d W ~ ' • ( • ' ;i7 -, ry l' < •.•. A• c r' ton., ,.a. 11 ' C...1 [• «7 'Q S! 1 ` T . 1 "IP6 G7 1 . 1 Is"; . . 1 IT t ` it3414ex'' 0 2/10/92 14:12 Rec $20.( BK 669 PG $O Sil Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc S.00 It. � tyl 2 JQ aajiSiVai I.... k Q O p4� Q tiQ pp X 00 0 th Q > c., 1 col = 0 �i 1,- p 0 m� kJ T f v I CO m C • zi • W 32 k '' W • �` Q Q. Q Q k. - 0 o W '=•I v 0 W CO X80 CD • a ��� 0 h 1 ill o ,? o 0 1 0 0 Page 2 �C . • la r. -- . , . , _ . -- 1 „ At ',st ..,.. -.. .."•-• • 14 ' . . ,. ,.-- - tip, ..., :it .{ .. . t• ' • 1 : • • y elef Ca t k it.p . a. .. I . .. ..... .1' ..t tra a t t ikec i rkqt --. 44 '" - ? r ■- t. t.in; " .0 ',.. -4 :- t r' • ' • • 4 . 4 ' - a...! - • 4-trth 'I'"? ,.C.'..-44144-4 *342276 03/O5/9.. Ira 4 Pvc $7:0.1•0 9? 471 PC 40 • . . • .. . - Silytn Day's, PstAtn Cnty :Jon, Doc 11.o9 -1 __:-. • -.2..4 - • , - • ,.. .... • ORDI10•14CIE ,32. - . • - - • (DUXES Or .912) . ' - . MI ORDINANCE OP THE CITY COUNCIL Or VIE cm or ASPEN. COLORADO. :- • . - ;••#•;:2- "-• - VLOTINO TX= DEVELOPMENT RIOSTJ YOR TEE ENDA STRUMS NAROIX / ;i. ,.....7, - CONDITIONAL 1 APPROVAL (LOCATED AT 2415 N. SPRII/13 STREIT, SI.= 1, LOTS 4 AND PnLT OP LOTS 3 AND 7, OKLANOK11 PLATS ADDITION) • . WHEREAS, William and Sally Erde submitted to the Planning Office an application for Stream Margld review and Conditional Use • .t -, . . . _ , •- _ . i . review for a single family residence with an accessory dwelling • . Unit; and - • _, • - m aws, at a regular meeting on December 17, 1991, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved a building envelope for the - ...-„, ' ' • A . . -- .... ictst:-.=, 4%4. -.t_. t ran idance ; and fa:- .:-...i.te....„ c o?... st..7. 1 WEI .._,....IV't illii3SUI jinni:14; ,..- Zoning Teamaision : R -,...,tc,.. ... .: -- -2.tp- -.- ..,-enr.-....7:.,./....:- :•-ez P - 4 - - ,-- ---,•• • ---. ---•• - ,.--.• .7 • ' • • • - - 1---4--e p 's , --4---st - dOcUments. - the. - Ccinditione.'Of „approval)" and ;......; - --.- ta*, -,--2.t1/21-'0,---tre."•-•:ok: ... . . .. - ,..„..; .1 7=-1r;inttiwczt - also 'requested Vested Rights -i-forrr.r- ' • st so .• '. --• se ci -- iii'.z ' — •••••-_-"'- - 1 . - -7 - .. - -t:r 7 r-r4 7 e - .2- -,- "maiwg: -1 ... . .. , .-: - 4•47, - 4:_si - il t; Frirr:::: - - - -;. - - - - ::WIERTairp;irotianiTto Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Land UsekFiy.-T-T,47,'",. . . _ -,-- -. '• - coda revision date Hay 25, 1988, the City Council may grant Vesiirag - . 2 .. fri:- . .... - .. ,,‘,.: s. . A.:. -4, of Development Rights for a period of three years. , ..4. . ..Vt } . . .. -. ." NOW, TTIERETORE, DE IT ORDAINED ST TEE CI•rT CO17)IC17. Or TEE CITY .. •, -• . - . 'action 14 - :' - " •• . Yt Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council • ,...--•-2,- . , -% - does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Enda Stream -.. " - •. -.-. . , . . Margin review and Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit +,,. i . .. .. .._.. . i ... .•' as follows: 1 - . - . . „. ... ....-4 . ... .-, _ . . • • . . . ... . .. . .. . _ ... . t 1 -..... . . . . . .... . :At . .— ■tt - 7 ." . - . - ;:r It • tA --Z. • . ..,.....- ' t4 • . . .. . .. . ... . . L'vd 'wise It • - .... , . i 1 0;-. . r ' . .n4. ' ---,. • to• • -- .s• :-•:-..., - - ....._. . . • 7-- 1 >ft" , ;t41 - ..i • - , • • •••• :-..... - • • --- k � , -_ � y1 c. °5 �+v ; 6 It l , e. J U I Xi • rte• i , :..i : V et . a"4227e, 07•00/72 1.714: Rem 420. (n) N. 671 on 41 - - • _ +' S11vte Davis, P1tkin Cnty Ciott Dnc 4.0.E • _ i s , . • am,.w 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) - ` • years from the data of final ,adoption specified below. _. '. # • However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions } S -- ' - attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said js{ . vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record j all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the "- j ,,, _ Municipal Coda shall also result in the forfeiture of said i.:Y • vested tights. t y ,- 1 . 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 7 Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall ; - , • � _- -_ : ., -. a , t t om t{ e xempt t . elite specific • developunt plan from subsequent 77__-tz � e " :: s -.1 nd r. • ap ''`°-�}a�'d .;"2.. g uired by z a a� H . p Y ' { reviews ' a or approvals req this'brdinanceor Lhe , t,. Fn s..._. .ms ,,,..�. Qan . eral rules, reghlatlona or ordinanesa or: the City provided Y •.x that such reviews ar approvals are not inconsistent with the 7T' +.•'ww.v'r'fr"�'.F _ .+a oval p . - _ r - - prg granted: andlvestsd herein. �' c 411.' > - , k+�......a ,i..; :-A - may,, _ . -- 4 V Rhe establishment herein of 'a vested property right shall not - - ,'g,,3 -c' preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which ' t■s �� t: - :a... r+ 1 in nature and are applicable to all property c. c Wti ;x • 5 t-„ r �r land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, ,..:-.0,..... = - `'—'• r•f ,p `• 1 ` but not - limited t building, fire, plumbing, electrical and .. -" -- "' mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this sits - • development approval, the developer shall abide by any and t - all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical 1 r 1 T co des, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. . 5, . 2 • • • t - vo - 1. - s 4 - w n. C • • ,.'1. 1• . • -- - ' • - •-• : " . .. : . • ; -1 0*;- - "Z* 6 "_,..,' - -- . - • • • 1/,--74tt,./ r Tr ; r . . ' • 1 ,■!'at' *- •lb' „,.. "-* I ! ...?" a. . • • • - 1 - .:-, -iL.i b" -, ' .• -;:i -.L.,... . " • 1 • . ''-‘' , . , . • ' "1. .. • , - ' 3. • " -',.. , . ' 1 . ' Pt • ... ;67 _Z : A ..:5 , 7 • 1..zea: .,4.,... . . 1., t . , • - '' • .r 11 a; 0.• - ^ - 1 l a r atil l . - . 4 ' - ' .. -■ N " .7.? . . " ' . - . . .. . " '' . I I- :4 • ';* I: -•••■ 1.: ..■ ' IV' -- . . "1 : , • . ... , ... . ' . • •342276 0 3/05/v2 35142 Roc 320.00 Sr 471 PO 42 _ Silvia Davie, Rs tkin entyClore, Doc 3.00 . -- -*-.-••• , .. _ •. - . - . • _ . _ • - . - .. ---------"--- Section it • , --• . • . - The City Clerk shall cause notice . thisiOrdinanc.e to be published ---*---,-;-:. , .,: 1 -2-=4- , • ' - ---- _ • -7- r'" • ! - .'":72_ 11- 7:.:_ in 'a newspaper of general - Circulations within the City of Aspen no :: - 7‘..7.7.7.c......6.72..Li.„7...:;;;?.. latsi than fourteen (14) days'following final ..adoption hereof...•"..t:.1"--17-.. - =- -It: 1 "..t." ' Such 'notice shall be given in the following forms -;: . -.---:-..::---a.----.4.--,- • Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval....:_,- -- _ • :- _____ . _ .. of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a 7 .- --- " -; "tie-t ....-- . . . vested property right pursuant to Titli , Article _,.41, 2.. - - ' - __. .., ......... ,......,....;.4..., _ ...., . Colorado Revised fitatutes,'- pertaining - to the. *folloWing- _ . . i _ . -- . ..-nn f _ _ ..,...... - described property: . . ''' .... , ... . . ', The property shall be describedj.n the notice and appidtded t.O•llaid --4::-=.....;■.2z..%,..‘-- ..;.- ...•frt .-,.. , ...e . _ ,..,,,,,la• ' .be the ordinance granting :.."-:..-.01' such approval '' '. notice , ishall : a traf. - . - et T &" .... : te - - - - It ' :4 * - ?• - ••:•:• - • - ."7:.Vi L e.... - .:.:. , - - -.".t.t. ........ ---,--. a. ,.,: - .e.: ,- . --,,..-...,;_,:7,.•••.• •- • :- .:.;;;;:s.;•.&.i. - ,4=C• ,..i • A - '-.. .....,,.....-vpir ... ...-::;;;;;;,. :-;;:...: -4,;-.- a 7. ... ,. / . t.; , :a4;74 , ,,T. , 22 . .„.„zat, kt ,.-.....:-..,.•.. c , 24 .,i_ s .... ... r ,... ........ -, i a , ..t_the - = City Clitrk: is; , dirt:Cited. , :upon t therladoption • of 14„ • • inier...crd Ranclai--% 0 ripcord a-coPret.this" Ordinence:ILthe - office of e:•,-.7 '77 '.&./ . • ... . .....,-,,-.......,e..,.._..,_ --,a-,..,-, vat1-.. ,".....-...: : s tia:.--i-Z 2 ricaRk ' L. •-••■71-an'41 r-..."--'•-,tPitkin- C oun ty .Clerk and Reiierdeit,=:$N71"14.,..4:(Mt?frfre...,44,--AMM914-44--e-?7*=,-. i a 2.--.•-z. --.. ---;.--..-- Assitis t iLiil . r.- , --.::....---,-..:-. 7? ,- .! - , : ,:z4.., -_-.7:C...,...,.....-.4... ,..,.71t,:...1-,-..r.....-a-ziz.-----...,-...-..,,-,..:.--‘...-..... l..:t . -2-.:Th•Or 4. . _i: - '-a _ , . . 2,7, Iriris.,.. me_ _ ,. . . - ,,,, • - - , - - - 1 . - - - - - - • - public hearing 'on the oidinaiei I i r iisid on ..the " - --.t.`,.--- - .‘ . ... /1 of ±z - r-l y - '" ''''' , 3993 at . 5.00 .. in th• City ..- Ci:Courtoil:Chambers, -7 :4•• 1 • 2)• • •• • "'S-. - "4— u- . . s ' ' r•-••-•"•••±2?-7.:"".- •4-74".?;'....4tfAtt_'.1-,`"7.;::7T-t • '.' :.E.7:.. `.. - 1 " ' - 7 .. .4' ./ .: -.._ It ,-.2„,..Aspen.City lialLtAspen. Colorado,. fifteen .(15) ' days prior to which ,• r ' . ." . .r.:=J4‘ , ..:. F--.11.t- az-A-9.;?:;;"-gilet-fra''''alk$4dlit.--6444-C---ixt.t c:! ' -_- T7; 7....' -:,...--:= - f - : - . - ,;:cx-0_9_, ' - t-2. - ...;, - • notice:of-.-121e' eaae,arsha lr'birpublished7in7iCat-- - - - c- __g ' .,.. ---itt;Leszin,‘..e.e. newspaper-of general circulation withinthe City- of Aspen. . -I -.--- rite;17r- -"-- - --- te....„_:A....sn. .. ILIAD JUI DORDE 3 . 13 3 . 2175L21:120 as providod law, Iarsri:— ..„..... - _, V -....- City Council - of the City of Aspen on the -` •:' day of . ...... - • . " --• • - . ---,!--- 4 ' • 1992. - - • • - • _ • .otuv Bennett, Mayor .• . - - - 4. . ., 3 -• • . . . • - - l' 1 ‘ % t r i- - . . .- * - .. • • . at... •_,' r7 . - . • • - . . . . . .1 ... _..... .. . •:. . . . - - --... • ' ".•.- •••••-e- ••••- -. Z. ' ._ . . . . , - — . . _ ' • - • ' ' ... • • • . . . , . . , .. . • '-•.• . ■ • . . . . ,. . . . . •••'•/ • •• ... _. ... . . I. g MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council - THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: January 13, 1992 RE: Emde Stream Margin / Conditional Use Vested Rights - First Reading of Ordinance I. , Series 1992 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends First Reading of Ordinance ,1 Series 1992 to vest the Emde Stream Margin / Conditional Use development approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1992 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions a Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for a new residence and accessory dwelling unit for a site in the Ok ahoma Flats Addition. Representative Sunny Vann has requestedoperty rights for the approval actions. Pursuant to Section 6 -207, vesting of property rights requires a Vested Rights Ordinance and two readings before Council. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Emde Stream Margin / Conditional Use Vested Rights and have First Reading of Ordinance AL PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Vested Development Rights for the Emde Stream Margin / Conditional Use Review and have First Reading of Ordinance 51,,. , Series 1992. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment - Ordinance , Series 1992