HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Volk.115A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 12/29/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 1 / /(p /P2 2737- 073 -10 -001 115A -89
2737- 073 -10 -004
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Volk Stream Margin Review
Project Address: Spring Street
Legal Address: Lots N1 /2 7,8,9,10, &11 & Block 1 Lots 1,2,3
Oklahoma Flats Subdivision
APPLICANT: Russel Volk
Applicant Address: 5847 San Felipe Houston. TX 77057
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann & Assoc.
Representative Address /Phone: P 0 Box 8485 Aspen
(303) 925 -6958
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $900.00 NO. qk COPIES RECEIVED: 6
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date aC PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES IN�
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
i City Attorney _Mtn. Bell School District
7 City Engineer '% Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: //76/?C INITIALS: IN
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: - 7/3 / q ° INITIAL: M
City Atty 'x i ty Engine r Zoning Env. Health
Housing Y Other: '?i
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: CA- , -'e �
Closing Memo to File
Volk Stream Margin Review
From: Kim Johnson, Planner)
Date: June 27, 1990 ��J
On February 20, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
and approved Stream Margin Review for 2 separate lots on Spring
Street (Lots 8 -11 plus 1/2 of lot 7 and lots 1,2 plus 1/2 of 3,
Oklahoma Flats Addition) in the name of Richard Volk. Building
envelopes were approved in absence of site specific development
plans. There were 6 conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk
appropriate documents regarding foundation design requirements
for future development on each parcel, the forms of which shall
satisfy the City Attorney and City Engineer. The documents shall
be in the form of graphic representation as well as deed
restriction.
2. Prior to development of the parcels, the developer(s) will be
required to submit to the Engineering Department a description of
proposed construction techniques to be used to insure against
erosion and stream pollution.
3. A landscaping plan indicating existing vegetation and
proposed landscaping for each parcel shall be submitted for
approval to the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
4. The applicant shall dedicate a fisherman's easement from the
centerline to 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the highwater
line of the Roaring Fork River.
5. A F.E.M.A. Elevation Certificate shall be required prior to
issuance of building permit.
6. The Spring Street Easement Reservation shall be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk prior to issuance of building permit.
Resolution #90- C ser
The development rights were then vested for a period of 3 years
from 2/20/90 by Council Ordinance #35 (1990).
jtkvj /volk.close
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Volk Stream Margin Vested Rights f 4 G�
DATE: April 17, 1990 �Y
SUMMARY: The Volk Stream Margin Review was approved with
conditions by the Commission on February 20, 1990. The applicant
has since requested vesting of development rights for three years
as allowed by Section 6 -207 C. of the Land Use Code. The
resolution before you confirms the Stream Margin approval and
vesting of development rights. Recent legal rulings now dictate
that vesting be in ordinance format and adopted by Council.
Bringing this item to Council will be the next and final step in
this process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of
vesting the development rights for the Volk Stream Margin Review.
jtkvj /volk2.memo
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
AND VESTING OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Resolution No. 90- ,
WHEREAS, Russell Volk submitted for approval to the
Commission an application for Stream Margin Review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning staff recommended approval of the
Stream Margin Review with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed and approved said Stream
Margin Review on February 20, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Russell Volk, represented by Sonny Vann, has
requested that the development rights for the Volk Stream Margin
Review be vested pursuant to Section 6 -207 C. of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to vest development rights
in the Volk Stream Margin Review pursuant to Section 6 -207 C. of
the Land Use Regulations for a period of three years from the
effective date hereof subject to the terms and conditions
contained in the Volk Stream Margin approval and herein below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does hereby approve by the Volk Stream Margin Review
with conditions as follows:
1. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk
appropriate documents regarding foundation design requirements
for future development on each parcel, the forms of which shall
satisfy the City Attorney and City Engineer. The documents shall
be in the form of graphic representation as well as deed
restriction.
•
F
2. Prior to development of the parcels, the developer(s) will be
required to submit to the Engineering Department a description of
proposed construction techniques to be used to insure against
erosion and stream pollution.
3. A landscaping plan indicating existing vegetation and
proposed landscaping for each parcel shall be submitted for
approval to the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
4. The applicant shall dedicate .a fisherman's easement from the
centerline to 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the highwater
line of the Roaring Fork River.
5. A F.E.M.A. Elevation Certificate shall be required prior to
issuance of building permit.
6. The Spring Street Easement Reservation shall be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk prior to issuance of building permit.
ALSO, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does vest the development rights of the Volk Stream
Margin Review for three years from the effective date hereof
pursuant to Section 6 -207 C. of the Aspen Land Use Code, subject
to City Council's approval of Ordinance S t .
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 17,
1990.
A T: m is '
D G .OMMISSION:
/ arney, Depu y ' ty Clerk er-- hairman
jtkvj /volk.reso
•
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager i !1
THRU: Any Margerum, Planning Director(`
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: May 9, 1990
RE: First Reading, Ordinance - Volk Stream Margin Vested
Rights
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends First Reading of
Ordinance 5 6
BACKGROUND: On February 20, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously approved with conditions the Volk Stream
Margin Review. The Planning Office has since received a request
from Sonny Vann, representing Russell Volk to establish vested
property rights for the Stream Margin action (Attachment "A ".)
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 have First Reading of Ordinance . the Volk Stream
Margin Vested Rights Ordinance.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have the First Reading of Ordinance
05 for Vesting Development Rights of the Volk Stream Margin
Review.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: T cnn.vr
Attachment - "A" - letter from Sunny Vann
- Ordinance 3r for First Reading
jtkvj /volk.vest
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office C t �����
RE: Volk Stream Margin Review l(
DATE: February 8, 1990
SUMMARY: Section 7 -504, Stream Margin Review, of the Aspen
Development Code requires development review of proposals within
100' feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River.
APPLICANT: Richard Volk, represented by Sunny Vann.
LOCATION: Both parcels are on Spring Street in Block 1 of the
Oklahoma Flats Addition in the original Aspen Townsite. Parcel 1
is lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and the north half of Lot 7. Parcel 2 is
lots 1, 2 and the south half of lot 3. (Attachment "A ")
ZONING: R -30 (PUD)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting stream margin,
review for two non - contiguous parcels situated within 100' of the_
high water line of the Roaring River. .No development plan
is proposed at this time. The applicant seeks approval for - a
site specific building envelope on each parcel. The bulk of
Parcel 1 is wit to the 1 yr. floodplain and would contain a
{ ,. 8,900 sq.ft. building envelope. All of Parcel 2 is within the
9 1/ �• 100 yr. floodplain and would contain a 3,630 sq.ft. building
�i' envelope. Maximum allowable floor areas allowed by code are:
f parcel 1 - 4,930 sq.ft. and parcel 2 - 4,150 sq.ft. (Attachments
r "B" and "C ")
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
A: Engineering: Having reviewed the above application and made a
site visit, the Engineering Department has the following
comments: (Attachment "D ")
1. The proposal submitted by the applicant satisfies al) of the,
. dards in Land Use Code section 7 -504 C.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer of
these parcels will be required to demonstrate that the elevation
of the lowest floor, including basement, will be elevated at
least two feet above the base flood elevation as certified by a
registered engineer or architect.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer of
these parcels will be required to follow the reec ions in
the report submitted in this application by Sc mum eser, Gordon and
Meyer. in relation to the protection of these properties and
future structures from damage due to flood waters.
4. The Engineering Department will accept the applicant's
proposal to reserve a 20 foot easement on parcel 1 for the
purpose of widening Spring Street sometime in the future.
j 5. We recommend that the applicant grant a fisherman's easement
in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet from the high
water line on both parcels along the edge of the river.
6. The applicant must receive a permit from the City Parks
Department to cut or remove any trees with a diameter of, more
than 6 inches.
7. The Engineering Department requires that there be no
disturbance of vegetation on the stream side of the proposed
building envelope. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
( 4 plt
w developer will be required to submit a description of nr0
L construction techniques to be used to - ..ainst -era • e_ and
1 1( stream pollution, especially in this area.
8. The submitted site plan needs to have a high water line drawn
-7 and labeled.
Addendum: The applicant needs to record the easement he has
proposed to grant to the City for the future widening of String
Street. This recordation must include language indicating that
the easement is granted and a metes and bounds description of the
easement. (Attachment "E ")
PARKS DEPT: George Robinson comments that prior to issuance of
building permits, complete landscaping plans shall be submitted
for approval to the Parks Dept.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7 -504 outlines the criteria for Stream
Margin Review as follows:
Criteria - des, . ed that any proposed development
which is 1 ,e S•-cia Flood Hazar• -. • not increases the
base flood elevate• - _- • ••osed :eve opment.
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
Response: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, the consulting engineer for
the applicant, has calculated that the base flood elevation will
not be increased if each building foundation does not exceed 50
feet in width. Filed deed restrictions and graphic examples of
foundation design on development conditions of approval
offered by the applicant. (Atta hment "F ")
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 trails map, no trail has been
designated across the parcels. The Rio Grande Trail runs along
the other side of the river. Engineering recommends dedication
of a 5 foot Fisherman's Easement on each parcel. 4.111ali—
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 address these parcels in its
recommendations. The building envelopes proposed will not
significantly affect the riverfront vegetation or natural
appearance, according to the applicant.
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 sites are fairly flat, so minimal
grading should take place. Any tree over 6 inches caliper on the
lots will require a permit for removal. Small aspens are the
primary vegetation found within the proposed building envelopes.
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.
Foundation design as described by Schmueser Gordon & Meyer will
be adhered to for the residences. Staff has concern that future
property owners be apprised of revegetation and pollution control
measures at time of construction. Co* t•�e ' lans and methQds
should be rei, /awed and approved by Engineering prior to issuance
of building Hermit.
3
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
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 - 'rain. - ..
Howeve ••ineering Department requires ompliance with FEMA
E - ation Certifica - - ..lremen -.
• - •MMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Stre:m Margin review for both parcels of this application with
0 11/4/A ,
e ollowing conditions:
1. The applicant shall file /:oc ments with the Pitkin County
eh
erk regarding foundation design requirements for future
• velopment on each parcel. The documents shall be in the form
c graphic representation as well as deed restriction. Prior to
f ' f ling, these documents shall be reviewed by the City Engineering
t I .Office.
l 2. Prior to development of the parcels, the developer(s) will be
required to submit to the Engineering Department a description of
proposed construction techniques to be used to insure against
erosion and stream pollution.
3. A landscaping plan indicating existing vegetation and
proposed landscaping for each parcel shall be submitted for
approval to the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
4. The applicant shall dedicate a fisherman's easement from the
centerline to 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the highwater
line of the Roaring Fork River.
® fGu^h OM :3 ;v\ etkr+0 e
. 6.-41 4 °
���
■
Attachments: "A" - Area Map
"B" - Parcel 1, Topo and Proposed Building Envelope
"C" - Parcel 2, Topo and Proposed Building Envelope
"D" - Engineering Referral
"E" - Engineering Department Addendum
"F" - Foundation Graphics
Volkmemo
kvj
5
1 1,,,,E 3tachment "A" x -
1 _ N
I ` -iEr: KESVC < CAP, 1,-", ` / �1L.�i. 20t 91 °O,
S z o ,) � � ` / / C.
,,,��JJ : N----.4 ' S FRJND L S 1 7 07
, a.. .4 z .: 1 I ' • e kt
• wir
t1
P
FT 1r�r • • -I /� h
" / 1 i v. z t 4. --• n
L C L�7 A
1-. a°
P
it
'/,} y Z
y p q �; b
\ 7 . 44 M i 1 7
i r 'O
•� \\.Q'
1,. \ .. . ,lyre �.
ccr-c I L.7. 'l 01 \ l ' `. key
d
7 \ a 1 �� z
vT O
0 or
\
iii � 01 d eg � e ef � rAgeet--#* \\ '�� ° t/E 'ip 1� o.ro Z 2 r � + N'19— O' -r�c�
I . / . H . MSE -1 �1 qE.n 1cErv�iCC CAP � O ¢O ' E' � R' .r L.S. 30191
NQYQS , ", 1 7 r - (
\ N D • � -l yd � 3 E1d'�B'!y f
\ \
la) Tc FL.W _AIN .1-
/ ; (FX S07 r.. A NWS )
. S 4' O.W!e 106.p4' ( C/ ( °
° 154(741....'•• \ II \ `
c, :1 I r�` w
C9
it I C< ( ci E.' 1
\I I 1, ) 3 ,xaE L.IN0� \ 3 3 H
2 1 6. 1 ti - ? v µ a r \ r`I ct
\
\ t�TO 0, a. 10, 1 14 WS-7 I - 1 t i,
c uss V!.. � ,, / l; D-
V. . - \
It
(h
•.‘ \ , � l / .1 1
4
,L(� e\^ 1 65671 ` :°
° t om \ w 74 , ,c 9 CCPW 145.67'. i
__ __
NT(
, 7 , _.• c, .; I
' ` N \\
\ \ \, . .. I. .: 1 , .. ::...... ) \* Z
Parcel 1
\-. p iUIL.OiNO EN•/ - E i n.6.2_.
, t
\ii 1; ,.
y .
.• . • i .:: 1
\ ... __l_a 1\c.,„ i
\ ,,,\A
\ , :.... i
.\\ N.
•
) *V .vctso F1-4400WA`( 1 t .
I
I
i F. E.M..v. FL 0 . 0 0 V•i,Y
C Attu' \hment " C "
�✓ .•
ti
c p�
1 74',1Y17'q 125.
° I ` O,� 90.0' 4 , [t, t / ��
- ' ` n i l JJJ'
1 � 1 1 L... c
F.:!t T N LINE ' 1 ,'1 ��
c rEK 19t: �' r r_ �I. A. MA /V L
id
J C � ` t LOP, 1., z 4 .5)i a V"
. 1 \ m-ocx 1 L -
R 1? ` ` \ OK1."4-0MA FLATS r. L "'KEE. LINE/ ' t ` -
fee ti\ ` \� �� c^^
` \
, \ ) \ n
\�
�ti o
VS-GE P-OULPEK5 a �... �`H ^ � �� (n
N -0.-c-..• LwX 6.7 • •
K•n• ° 92.4,'
N 72' 23'32- ' W
•
mss' — °U. • , .
H
•
\ Parcel 2 ii
t .S 3,G S.F. 1-
. GNV4art 1
.. ' NH.... Z
Z
‘ " K,00Ow
. F E M. /..
...— fLootu
Attachment "D"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: February 2, 1990
Volk Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The proposal submitted by the applicant satisfies all of the
stream margin review standards in Land Use Code section 7 -504 C.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer of these
parcels will be required to demonstrate that the elevation of the
lowest floor, including basement, will be elevated at least two
feet above the base flood elevation as certified by a registered
engineer or architect.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer of these
parcels will be required to follow the recommendations in the
report submitted in this application by Schmueser, Gordon, and
Meyer in relation to the protection of these properties and
future structures from damage due to flood waters.
4. The Engineering Department will accept the applicant's
proposal to reserve a 20 foot easement on parcel 1 for the
purpose of widening Spring Street sometime in the future.
5. We recommend that the applicant grant a fisherman's easement
in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet from the high
water line on both parcels along the edge of the river.
6. The applicant must receive a permit from the City Parks
Department to cut or remove any trees with a diameter of more
than 6 inches.
7. The Engineering Department requires that there be no
disturbance of vegetation on the stream side of the proposed
building envelope. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
developer will be required to submit a description of proposed
construction techniques to be used to insure against erosion and
stream pollution, especially this area.
8. The submitted site plan needs to have a high water line drawn
and labeled.
jg /volk4
cc: Chuck Roth
0
Attachment "E'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: February 7, 1990
RE: Addendum to Volk Stream Margin Review
The applicant needs to record the easement he has proposed to
grant to the City for the future widening of Spring Street. This
recordation must include language indicating that the easement is
granted and a metes and bounds description of the easement.
jg /Volk5
cc: Chuck Roth
W�3h _
2142 w
C
ti 6
t
)
W °o
W 3
0
o� i — Q
Q
1 la
Q � — O
K.
m m 1 `
W
�� -�
k s� Q
W
x
Q. W K
o i Q
k. 2
1 Q I SC
8 O
r• I v
�1 W
a 41 1 Er! fir
g?
ifI
i
LO
3.g
k ti
0
�Q
. EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF ASPEN
< RE
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT:\ & ll \ c ) \GP.LL., \mr�L , r) /TN. � pc --0-6‘ ti ' "I(�10i1 i
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:_ 3O Y\ h\ \ \iCI' 7T /J
REPRESENTATIVES PHONE: - (0 C I .c- i
OWNER'S NAME: ') G ; C l\ (Li` CC y� l s,
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application::5'krC ,a,v 1^nc „ i)'1 (IC: Eui�O C , d :_o_ro
: LL
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
: , 7 ,c_ remR, r4 F) e (Lyn m(A.i r1 Cep e). x -)
ACDOUY■N tml) .,7) ) C\-210)1C-Cf/Oic ( a i /Le -e__
c 1,- i S. 011 3
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
i
-er -Pi r\c` - )0+ ) 5a :� £-) ■,o,1
J
4. Review is. (P &Z Only) (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) . C1 (NO)'
6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: /).
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: P
1 I
8. Anticipated date of submission: �, , z - (A/
9. - COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS: c� .
i∎ . ■ -
___\.. ) 1 S , „1 1' ., -� -b, G
frm.pre_app
EXHIBIT 2
July 31, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of
Vann Associates, Inc. to represent me in the processing of
a stream margin review application(s) for my property which
is located on Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats area of
the City of Aspen. 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 I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (713)
780 -5348.
Sincerely,
17t �(� 61 / eft
Richard W. Volk
SV:cwv
'cles1 . M . ily
ItelN:J.1 o I .net
- - -- - SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED 2 7 6 9 7 2 Th
M
M TII1S DEED. madr q a5 x du. vi
Mardi The
of the 10th . u 84 .
7 D ' amto, Richard W. folk, Russell D. folk, Dasa A. Metzler, I 131 � e
•—O e: and Denlce C. Reich LORE (TA BANNER MY
I FIIKIN CTY. RECORDER
`:'� 61 air C 1 [y and .
. C1401. g u niolla and 07 a; L G'omr of Denver SLAW o1 Col„I 1 9 64 Jufl 9 11 DI Ill Ip
caw 9 1 RIl (01U
' u: i' Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA dated March , • a-
-ww 1
i . 6 .1„,..., e aJdrc••ia 217 North Water Street, P.O. Box 1201
l a a C rc, Wichita, Kansas 67201 n
p
. ' xxxxxxxx xxx xx xx6J4x% YxY.xx)utxxxxxxxxxxxxxirxnattax Iecpe .
1 and other good - -.
w(rsEssErn.lhanhe aramnna ldo "
.1111 and en c„n.ann „r the SUM of Ten Dollars ($10.00) er good
and valuable considerations p pan I
I I the tempi aufhcernm ol .Iuchnh c
cN.. \mn' INpcd, ha ve panted. bepamd, sold and comn ant ht lhc.c icunn du t.
5
l hatpin. tell. comet and confirm. umn tlN Folmar, his SuCC e %IRx 50x5 aeJ awpm before. all the rta1 prvnl. together unh Impnlrement+.
x�il:mutkldxxbr.
it an)'.xgag,4J9y`G0. / illxdQm dt >: 7tYSaa%x
i' •
dncritcd as Iolla•s:
See Exhibit A attached here and made a Par[ hereof by this re
i II
I It being the express intention of the parties that this instrument I .
II convey all real property interests transferred to grantors hereunder
under and by virtue of that certain Special Warranty Deed recorded in
l i BookSt2 at page 383 of the Pitkin County real property records.
I
I{
I 1 7;'F DOCUMENTARY
•
9 l•.v• I
i;
j xdnxkmwxict:7ma xothi errx7:
1 OGETIII:N wnh all and ampules dm hcreJe menr' and appurtenance, Memo hlnnpmr. or m ant aim ap o ttamenr. and the env.nm and
rc'er.nnn. remainder r'
and rcnuud.. non. ntue. and probe Ihrrc'•l. and all the etude. opin. tab.. mean. and dr nand 4haar'cu of the
punk,..... [W in lam ea Nem ,. eel. in and 16 der ahe.' harramrJ premem•. 6.11 the heeedllanem• and appunr a - part a • r.r pS
Ile IIA11/01. A \I I II 11.p ila said memo at. or harpmed and dm.rels - J .4 111, dr appnnrn+n.e.. um:. the pantrex7: ` IIi S su lialn „ FS'r5
a
'vpn finer' MC pram..., 1e, thCmaIVCS their Imo pm npm.n,mme. me n.. d., m a and apm Mar
n N. pmr.....1 raI,Ir ps se•van61 lh. panmrxx
they . rt J ANkn\ InC IHULPL \Udeal..'ubapenrJpn'lunne manner,'
ti � II F NLSS
his sucC£enn"Ja .wrn.. nano' all mid no, meson or piton• duunnl' Ik r Ik'n au. p ar Meerut h'. Meteor l: ea undo der
un ee. Wr. Ile, des ejl tit dar at Mole AN,
�( N' / 1 � EN � I UI. the Fum .e h, ve r`
// ' / / 112----- f / » /(i24
d W. V 11: UasaA. Me tz1er �j
Denlce C. Reich
Russell U. Volk
S1.\11 01 C. C.I<4h"
City and C „ran;, 1.1 Denver ..
Jl •
SW'
rtes lurrpoor onam,,. V a- a, 1 nary la hmn: m' In an Ci ty and Comet ed Denver
III rob'Ia... 11'1• E `'da. . Jun . iu 86.1•, Richard W, Vo11. , P. us sel 3 U. Volt.,
• Dasa A. TIt:Ezler, -and Venice C. Reich. \\,Inc, ne' IunJ and „Ie. u:.r.!
1
( r' 1
/' � z ', l f
U \ ii ;_ 3. 4.-i vim: 1 / . .
o•- r ,.
'Il Tn gr.. 1.'Il rtes,. ... _.-
61e. 11.. N. ". 7•MJ. til'1 t 111
n\NN \ \1 \111.11. Y.•.'.. r +.. ... •.:'.4'.e .. I�...
EXH1llI't A
•
•
•
TRACT A. -- FILLTNG STATION
603K 512 P45_403
LAND DESCRIPTIO! ::
The South 68 feet of Lots iK and L, Elock 95, City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as fol-
lows :
. Commencing at the intersection formed by the Easterly side of
Galcna'Strect (State Highway 82) and the Northerly side of
Cooper Street (State Highway 82); thence North along the East-
erly side of Galena Street the distance of 68 feet; thence East
at right angles to the last course and parallel with Cooper
Street the distance of 60 feet; thence South at right angles
to the last course and parallel with Galena Street the distance •
_...of 66 feet to a point on the Northerly side of Cooper Street;
thence West along the Northerly side of Cooper Street the dis-
tance of 60 feet to the point and place of beginning, less and
--except the East 1S inches of Lot "L ", Block 95, City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado; •
Subject to an easement or right of way agreement dated July 29,
1952, between Russell H. Volk and Aspen Aerie No. 1S4, Fraternal
Order of Eagles, covering the North 3 feet of the preeises here -
in described;
TRACT B -- CABIN
•
LAND DESCRIPTION: •
•
•
Lots 4, 5, and 6. Block 3. Oklahoma Addition, City of Aspen,
•
Pitkin County, Colorado.
•
•
TRACT C -- UNDEVELOPED LANDS - • .
LAND DESCRIPTION:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20,
Block 3, Oklahoma Flats and the N/2 of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 10
and 11, Bloc}: 1, Oklahoma Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
TRACT D - DENVER BUILDING
• LAND DESCRIPTION
Lot= 35, 36 and 37, Elock 43, Byers Addition, City and County of
Denver, Colorado.
•
•
• II ,�, 4 :.._ • XHIBIT 4
Recorded at_ ._o'clock M.. C
xorder. F
Reception No
-- RE(i@RDER STAMP N
x
r•-) ,u G7
I li THIS DEED, Made this 22ND day of _ �' - ' '
MARCH ' ,. 0
between RUSSELL D. VOLK, RICHARD W. VOLK AND v fn
° 0
DENICE C. REICH and state of �
ris
" the CITY AND C ° ° "`y °f DENVER "'s CO Colorado, of the first part, and c- rel
L A
RICHARD W. VOLK AND DENICE C. REICH, AS TENANTS IN COM10N
•
1 whose legal address is 33 SOUTH BIRCH •
DENVER, COLORADO
of the C ITY AND County of DENVER and state of
I Colorado, of the second part, I
I WITNESSETH, That the said part1 S of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of
li TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD A ND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION DOLLARS,
to the said part 1 e9f the first part in hand paid by the said part 105 of the second part, the receipt whereof 'l
is hereby confessed and acknowledged, haveremised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED. and by these
presents do remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said parq es of the second part, thei ( heirs,
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said partj es of the first part
ha ve in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the CITY OF ASPEltounty
II of PITKIN and State of Colorado, to wit:
LOTS SOUTHIHALFF THE BLOCK 2F BLOCK 1; AND CITY OF LOT 1 AND
ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
( NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED , DEED OF CONVEYANCE ONLY)
I
S , C
also known as street and number 230 NORTH SPRING STREET
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same. together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining. and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the
said part 1 esof the first part, either in law or equity. to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said parts es of
the second part. the7M+irs and assigns forever.
11 WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part 1 eadf the first part have hereeunto set the j Rand
and seal 5 the day and year first above written. // // 4' ,!
• 1 J • f r _ H , i f' - ISEALI II
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of dI CHA D W. VOLK
_ ___ _ _ISEAL I
--- --- - - - - -- — : R�ISSELL D VOLK. , i
'L- L^ :! e.. _ i r te_ [SEAL/
DENICE C.. REICH i1
__- _____ ( :-Ituace- _C-_ /: r C ISEALI } i
STATE OF COLORADO. 1 i
y9
CITY AND Countyof DENVER II
The form/omit instrument was acknowledged before me this 22ND day of MARCH
1983.0x. DENICE C. REICH AND RICHARD W. VOLK I
M y coatmi ssio d :eapirvs 2-20 , 1985 . Witness my hand and official seal.
L ND FI1T./..GUARANTEE COMPANY
1665 D O V CHERRY CREOK N. DRIVE / // C.j`! Ui :, >p ser l
D1VV,2R� I d(iLORI\C0 : 80209 J .. r' J 1 ii
yr C .r cc J
i.__-- -_ - - -- - bait , +
<
ti OS.: *fKh 1)f: Y I(
II STATE D J i
I a. F -
II I
i .4: ,
County of .r•..;�•,.L /1:"/-1 day of .'
The faregninginNtrume ntwa+acknywlr //dgeA before me this I
9 ,5 AY. .Z J. IO /F-
PJf '�. Witness my hand and official seal. 11
�,,,� 1512 .nd Avenue, Suite 212
SCHMUESER GORDON M.. /ER INC. / ailb. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Ps1111 (303) 945 -1004
\O\• i t
f CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/ EXHIBIT 5
September 12, 1989
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Volk Floodplain Study
Oklahoma Flats
Dear Sunny:
Per your request, we have completed the floodplain study on Oklahoma
Flats as it relates the buildability of Parcels 1 and 2 owned by Mr.
Volk.
The approach to the work involved plotting field surveyed cross sections
to supplement the floodplain studies already in existence for this area.
Also, the approach was to specifically identify a foundation system that
could be installed in the City's adopted floodplain without raising the
elevation of the base flood on the Roaring Fork River in this area. The
study involved the use of nine cross sections, of which the cross sec-
tions between 141.2 and 143 (on the attached map) were enhanced or
updated with the surveyed field information. Our methodology utilized
the survey data to establish an existing conditions model from which
modifications would be made in following models to represent the maximum
amount of blockage (or total width of structure foundation) that could
exist in the City's adopted floodplain without raising the base flood
elevation. This blockage could occur continuously (solid foundation) or
discontinuously (piers).
The data obtained from the existing conditions run indicated that the
flood water depths topped out of the bank between cross sections 142 and
142.1. After topping the bank between cross sections 142 and 142.1, the
flood waters flow through the Oklahoma Flats area as shown on the at-
tached map at very shallow depths, eventually working their way back to
the main channel of the Roaring Fork River. It was interesting to note
that cross section 141.2 through 141.5 indicated that these cross sec-
tions alone could confine the entire flow of the 100 -year flood (i.e.,
no overbank topping would occur).
The attached floodplain map represents the closest encroachment of the
floodplain on the Oklahoma Flats property. Also, it indicates loca-
tions on Parcels 1 and 2 where development may exist as long as the
entire blockage that is created from this development is not more than
50 feet in width at any one cross section.
w 1
September 12, 1989
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page two
The enclosed floodplain map identifies a typical example of blockage (50
foot blockage) that was modeled for the study. You will note on the
floodplain map that there have been areas identified for development,
and areas that are identified as areas that must be kept absolutely free
of development. It is also important to note that, when development
occurs on these lots that these lots will still be inundated by the
100 -year flood event. Because these lots are being inundated by the
100 -year flood event, the properties must be protected from damage due
to the flood waters. Each structure must be designed so that it can
withstand the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loadings imposed from flood
waters, they must withstand the buoyant effects created by the flood
waters, and, in addition, each structure must be protected from scour
due to the flood waters.
I hope this information serves its intended purpose. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SCBMUESER CORDON MEYER, INC.
J- /e S. Simonson, P.E.
iS+:co /8103
Enclosure
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 4
tion, a similar easement has been depicted on the accompany-
ing site development plan. The front yard setback has been
measured from the easement boundary.
Inasmuch as Spring Street may never be widened in the
vicinity of the project site, the Applicants propose to
reserve the easement as opposed to dedicating it at this
time. This approach was also used in the Volk lot split
application. As only two (2) properties are served by the
southern most end of Spring Street, it is extremely unlikely
that the street would be widened adjacent to Parcel 2.
Hence, no easement has been depicted on Parcel 2's site
development plan.
As both parcels are located within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. was retained to
address potential flood impacts upon the development of the
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,
Floodplain Study). 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).
It should be noted that a 100 year flood event may inundate
one or both of the parcels. As a result, the residences will
have to be properly designed to withstand the hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loadings imposed by potential flood waters. A
condition of stream margin approval requiring that the future
residences' foundations be engineered to address these
concerns is acceptable to the Applicants.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Land Use Regulations, all
development within one hundred (100) feet of the high water
line of the Roaring Fork River, or within the one hundred
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 5
(100) year flood plain, is subject to stream margin review.
As all of the Applicant's proposed improvements are located
within 100 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 crite-
ria, and the proposed building envelopes' compliance there-
with, 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."
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, a graphical
example of the required foundation design will be depicted
on the respective site development plans. These plans, and
appropriate deed restrictions, will be recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk. As a result, title commitments will
note the deed restriction and alert prospective purchasers
to the recorded site development plan and its foundation
design parameters.
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."
According to the adopted trails plan map, no trail has been
designated across the parcels.
0 "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 either parcel. The proposed
building envelopes, 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 foresee-
able manner.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 6
While some vegetation will obviously have to be removed from
within the proposed building envelopes, loss of vegetation
will be mitigated by additional landscaping to be installed
in connection with the construction of the individual
residences. 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 Vetleta within the proposed building
envelopes consists primarily of small aspen trees.
n
4./ "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.
5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed devel-
opment reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary."
The proposed building envelopes will have no adverse effect
upon the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring
Fork River. AJL disturbed areas will be revegetated to
prpol ude erosion and appropriate safeguards will be utilized'
to prevent poltu tir of the River during construction. As
discussed previously, Schmueser Gordon Meyer's recommenda-
tions with regard to foundation design will be adhered to in
the construction of the residences.
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 diminished."
This review criteria is not applicable.
8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100)
year floodplain."
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
December 28, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Volk Stream Margin Review
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application for stream margin
review for two (2) parcels of land located adjacent to Spring
Street in the Oklahoma Flats area of the City of Aspen (see
Pre - Application Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit
1). The application is submitted pursuant to Section 7 -504
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Richard W. Volk and
Denice C. Reich, the owners of the property. Permission for
Vann Associates to represent the Applicants is attached as
Exhibit 2.
Project Site
As the accompanying surveys illustrate, Parcel 1 consists of
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and the north half of Lot 7, Block 1, of
the Oklahoma Flats Addition to the original Aspen Townsite.
Similarly, Parcel 2 consists of Lots 1, 2 and the south half
of Lot 3, Block 1, of the Oklahoma Flats Addition. Parcel
1 is owned by Richard Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 10, 1984
(see Exhibit 3, Special Warranty Deed). Parcel 2 is owned
by Richard Volk and Denice Reich as tenants in common (see
Exhibit 4, Warranty Deed).
While the two parcels are not contiguous, the lots within
each parcel are held in single ownership, and are deemed to
have merged pursuant to Section 7- 1004.A.5. of the R
-tions. Parcel. 1 contains 0.52 acres, or approximatel 22 650
square feet of land -ar-e while Parcel 2 contains 0.29 acres,
or approximately/ 12 63 quare feet. As the surveys illus-
trate, the western oundaries of the parcels are located
within the Roaring Fork River and both parcels are located
within the one hundred (100) year flood plain.
1
230 East HoDKIns Avenue • Asoen. Cc)oraao 81611 • 303:925 -6958
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 2
The parcels are essentially flat and devoid of man -made
improvements. Existing vegetation consists primarily of
scattered small aspen trees and various larger cottonwoods,
the majority of which are located adjacent to the River. The
parcels are zoned R -30, Low - Density Residential, Mandatory
Planned Unit Development.
Both parcels are non - conforming with respect to the minimum
lot size requirement of the R -30 zone district. As a result,
each parcel's development potential is limited to one (1)
single - family residence. Single - family residences are exempt
from mandatory PUD review pursuant to Section 7 -902 of the
Regulations.
Proposed Development
At present, there are no development plans for the property.
The Applicants, however, wish to obtain stream margin review
approval for a site specific building envelope on each
parcel. Given the similarity of the parcels, and the nature
of their ownership, we believe that it is appropriate to
address both parcels in a single application. This approach
is not only less costly, but less time consuming for everyone
involved.
The proposed building envelopes are depicted on each parcel's
respective site development plan. The envelopes have been
designed in compliance with the City's stream margin review
criteria and the dimensional requirements of the R -30 zone
district. The resulting building envelopes are located
outside of the floodway and all setbacks meet or exceed
applicable requirements. These 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.)
Parcel 1 22,650
Parcel 2 12,630
3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 30,000
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 3
4. Minimum Required Building Setbacks (Ft.)
Front Yard 25
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 15
5. Proposed Building Setbacks (Ft.)
Parcel 1
Front Yard 45
Side Yard 15
Rear Yard 35
Parcel 2
Front Yard 25
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 30
6. Minimum Required Open Space None
7. Proposed Open Space (Sq. Ft.)
Parcel 1
Building Envelope 8,900
Land Under Water 500
Open Space 13,250
Parcel 2
Building Envelope 3,630
Land Under Water 2,660_
Open Space 6,340
8. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
Parcel 1 4 .
Parcel 2 - � <_ ,5 ��
Note: All square footages are rounded to the nearest ten (10)
square feet.
It should be noted that a twenty (20) foot easement was
obtained along the east side of Spring Street in connection
with the recent approval of the Volk lot split application.
The purpose of this easement was to permit the widening of
Spring Street should future improvements be required. As
Parcel 1 is located on the west side of Spring Street
directly across from the site of the previous Volk applica-
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 7
No federal or state permits are required to construct within
the proposed building envelopes.
Summary
Based on the above, the Applicants believe that the proposed
building envelopes are in compliance with the intent and
requirements of Section 7 -504 of the Land Use Regulations
and, consequently, will have no adverse effect upon the
Roaring Fork River. The Applicants, therefore, respectfully
request stream margin approval for the proposed envelopes as
depicted on the accompanying site development plans.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assis-
tance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANSOCIATEB P
SV:cwv
Attachments
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND VESTED RIGHTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Sunny Vann on behalf of Richard Volk
requesting Stream Margin Review approval and vesting of property
rights for two non - contiguous parcels located on Spring Street,
Block 1 of the Oklahoma Flats Addition of the City of Aspen.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5090.
s /C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on March 29, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
At-tachment A
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
March 26, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Volk Stream Margin Review /Vested Rights Status
Dear Ms. Johnson:
As we discussed, I apparently failed to request vested
rights status for the Volk stream margin review application
which was approved by the P &Z on February 20, 1990.
Pursuant to Section 6- 207.C. of the Land Use Regulations,
final approvals which are granted by the P &Z may be vested
by the adoption of a resolution at a public hearing. I
would appreciate it if you would prepare the necessary
resolution for the Volk project and schedule a public
hearing before the P &Z.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSO INC.
Sunny Va , AICP
SV:cwv
will 2 61
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958
AGREEMENT OF DEDICATION AND RESTRICTION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of June,
1990, by Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 10, 1984
( "Owner),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and
the North half of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Subject
Parcel "); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution -90, the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission granted approval to the Volk Stream Margin
Review (which included the Subject Parcel), subject to the
condition that the Owner agree to certain development
restrictions and dedicate a fisherman's easement with respect to
the Subject Parcel; and
WHEREAS, Owner desires by this instrument to establish such
restrictions and to accomplish such dedication;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the City's
approval of the Volk Stream Margin Review and for other good and
valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Owner agrees as follows:
1. Dedication of Fisherman's Easement. Owner hereby
dedicates to the use of the general public, for fishing purposes
only and not as a public trail, a perpetual, non - exclusive
easement and right -of -way along that portion of the Subject
Parcel lying between the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and
a line which is 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River. Owner reserves to itself
the right to use and enjoy the easement area for all purposes
which do not interfere with the public fishing rights dedicated
hereby, and shall have no responsibility or liability in
connection with the use of the easement by the fishing public.
2. Site Development Plan; 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 Volk Stream Margin
Review. 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 graphically 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.
3. 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 City Engineering
Department for approval a description of
proposed construction techniques to be used
to insure against erosion and stream
pollution;
(b) submit to the City Parks Department for
approval a landscaping plan indicating
existing vegetation and proposed landscaping;
and
(c) obtain an F.E.M.A. Elevation Certificate.
4. Area Reserved for Dedication. The 20 foot wide portion
of the Subject Parcel adjacent to Spring Street, as depicted on
the attached Plan, is reserved for dedication to the City of
Aspen at such time as the City resolves to widen and improve said
street. Within 10 days of receipt of a written request therefor
from the City, the then record owner of the Subject Parcel shall
convey to the City by quitclaim deed that part of the reserved
area which is required by the City for street widening and
improvement purposes.
5. Binding Clause. This Agreement shall run with and
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.
OWNER:
Richard W. Volk, Trustee
UTA dated March 10, 1984
2
State of
County of
The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1990, by Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA
dated March 10, 1984.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
(3» 3
/ Silvia 4 #325416 08/17/90 1050 Re,. , 115.00 BK 627 PG 663
a . _, Pit;::i.n Casty Clerk, Doc 2,.00
ORDINANCE NO. 56
(SERIES OF 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
FOR THE VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the Volk
Stream Margin Review was submitted to the Planning Office by
project representative Sunny Vann; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 -207 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights
for a period of three years; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office recommends that Council approve
Vesting of Development Rights for the Volk Stream Margin Review;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning Office's recommendations for Vesting Development Rights
does wish to grant the requested Vesting of Development Rights
for the Volk Stream Margin Review for three years from the date
of approval .
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 Volk Stream
Margin Review for a period of three (3) years from the date of
approval in accordance to the terms and provisions of Section 6-
207 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Section 2:
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
4 #325416 09/17/4 ,/10250 Rec $17.00 BK 627 PG 664
Silvia Davis, Pt!kin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
adoption or this orainance, to recora a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen ity 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
, 1990. f
CF 4
v s William L. S irling, Mayor
iF y�
bt.
\Kathryzt:° r Koch, City Clerk
1 03/17/90 1050 Rec $15.00 ELK 627 PG 665
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
„y-,C-
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approv-= his // day of
, 19S. •
_A Nils
..• •
GF AI 1 -, Mi hael-GL sm n,,.Mayor Tem
,
•. •.••
a—seam' rai
City C erk
*** ' ........
"—w
jtkvj/volk.ord
3
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
,2
June 20, 1990
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Volk Stream Margin Review
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Attached for your review and comment are copies of two (2)
draft agreements which memorialize the P &Z's conditions of
approval for the Volk Stream Margin Review. I would
appreciate it if you wouldforward copies of the agreements
ty Engineering ail to ths,City Attorney's Office a required
pursuant to condition number one of the P &Z resolution.
Upon receipt of your comments, I will revise the agreements
as may be required, and forward them to my clients for their
signatures. I will return the executed agreements to you
for recordation with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Recordation should insure that the development restrictions
imposed by the P &Z appear on any subsequent title commit-
ments for the properties.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN SOCIATES, INC,,
Poat�lt ° routing request pod 788
ROUTING — REQUEST }y
Sunny Vann AICP R EA 1 / C pp 1
SV:cwv HANDLE S 1
❑ APPROVE L '�
Attachments and ��� A LL
.? :FORWARD
{L—J e
RETURN
❑ KEEP OR DISCARD n -'
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen f = i ^,• _ .; p' ,, :
L_. REVIEW WITH ME
Dale _S;iZ !, (i
[ From