Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.315 Park Ave.A39-93 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 08/10/93 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737- 181 -00 -050 A39 -93 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: 103 Park Ave. Stream Margin Review Amendment Project Address: 315 -317 Park Ave. Legal Address: S; of Lots 9,10 & 11, part of Lot 12, Block 1 APPLICANT: Lorrie Moss /Lawrence Winnerman 920 -1851 Applicant Address: 154 E. Lupine, Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address /Phone: Aspen, CO 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ 207.00 # APPS RECEIVED 3 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 3 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 207.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: X 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE RO TED: c INITIAL:9't ) _ City Atty >‹: City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: 4/4*1 CZep1KKUSch - 72o.W FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: /E 1� f�C Larry and Lorrie Winnerman 317 Park Ave. Aspen, Co. 81611 August 9, 1994 ASPEN •PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RE: Grass -cel paving Dear Larry and Lorrie, • Thank you for meeting with Bill Drueding and I last Friday to show us the Grass -cel system that you installed for the three parking spaces at your duplex. It is interesting to see this product in use. Neither Chuck Roth nor I recall the conversation you referenced in your letter of August 5, 1994 where you said that gave consent to use this type of paving alternative. Our only office reference to this issue is the building permit site plans which describe gravel parking spaces and my letter dated November 18, 1993 which quotes the land use code requirement for all - weather or gravel surfacing. We are cautious but appreciate your effort to try something different as an alternative to standard paving. Currently the Planning Office is promoting a code amendment to allow "grass- crete" or "grass- ring" type paving stones for limited use on residential properties. These products seem to be substantial enough to withstand the rigors of our climate and plowing needs. Although Planning is suggesting the allowance for alternative systems, the Grass -cel product would not be our top choice at this time. We will be happy to monitor your Grass -cel paving to see if this method will succeed as an all- weather surface for the year -round parking needs on residential parcels. The Planning Office has recently been receiving complaints about the parking congestion problem in your neighborhood. In light of this, we are making every effort to insure the availability of parking on individual parcels. After seeing your parking areas function this winter we will make a final determination whether the Grass -cel system may continue to be used • for your three required parking spaces. I appreciate any assistance you can offer. • Sincerely, K'm J. on, Planner CC: Mayor John Bennett and City Council Any Margerum, City Manager 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303 920 5090 • FAX 303.920.5197 Bill Drueding City Zoning Officer Planning & Zoning Aspen, CO August 5 1994 Dear Bill, I am in receipt of your letter dated August 3rd, 1994 concerning my alleged violation of city off street parking requirements. As per my discussion with Kim Johnson and Chuck Roth in November and December of 1993, I informed them and they agreed that we could use the product "Grass -Cel" to provide our parking spaces with some beauty as well as function. Grass -Cel is a solid base material that allows grass to be grown on top so that one can park on the grass without damage to the grass. This is an all weather surface. Per Section 5 -302A, these are parking spaces and will continue to be functioning parking spaces. We would like to give you a demonstration at your request after the grass has adhered to the Grass -Cel pavers. Our installers have advised us to wait another two weeks or so. Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call us at 920 -1851 or make a site visit at your convenience. Sincerely, L arry WI nerman cc: John Worcester Leslie Lamont LJW /jlb 0 0 Ly !J August 3, 1994 ASPEN •PITKIN PLANN]Nc & ZONING D[PARI MI %I Larry Winnerman 317 Park Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Sir: Your recent building permit approvals for 317 Park Avenue required that you provide three (3) off- street parking spaces. These spaces were indicated on your plans, as approved per building permit #2- 100. A visual inspection on July 28, 1994 showed that•these spaces are grass- covered and unusable. You are, therefore, in violation of the following Sections of the City of Aspen Land Use Code: • Section 5- 201(E)(1), Off- Street Parking Requirement in the R- 6 Zone District • "All residential uses: 1 space /bedroom, fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4 for historic landmarks only." • Section 5- 302(A), Characteristics of Off- Street Parking Spaces and Access to Street or Alley. "Off- street parking must be paved with all- weather surfacing or covered with gravel and maintained in a useable condition at all times." You must bring your parking requirements into compliance within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Please be advised of the following penalties, as stated in Section 13- 103(B), which will apply if you do not comply with these requirements within the stated time period. "Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300) or imprisonment for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense. Each day any violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense." 130 Sou GALENA STREET • AsrEN, COLORADO 81611 • Noy 303920.5090 • FAX 303.920.5197 . , > City Council Planning and Zoning Aspen CO August 5 1994 Dear City Council Members, P & Z Members and City Manager, Please find enclosed a letter from our zoning officer, Bill Drueding and our response to same. I have known Bill Drueding for some 5 years as well as Valerie and their son, Sam. Could Bill have called me on the phone? Is this the Spanish Inquisition? Lorrie and I have attempted to make our home a little less like a concrete jungle. We have spent alot of time, money and energy to come up with a functional alternative to keep the front yard from looking like a giant parking lot. We are very disappointed with the attitude of our city officials. This is a prime example of how our government deals with the citizens in our town. This is the type of behavior that has the population of Aspen so angry with the way the government works. It seems that any citizen who tries to work within the rules to make their home more appealing to both them and the community are stifled. We think it is long overdue that the council and the city manager take steps to make our government more user friendly and responsive to its constituency. We think that is is very important that our city officials talk to people directly before threatening them with jail and fines. We are awaiting your reply. S i licerely yours, C _ 1 l i r ALE - s, iS Q/1-----------__) Lawrence J. and Lorrie B. Winnerman LJW /jlb y November 18, 1993 Larry Winnerman 154 E. Lupine Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: 315 -317 Park Avenue Condominium Plat ASPEN • PITKIN Dear Mr. Winnerman, PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT City Engineer Chuck Roth, Zoning Officer Bill Drueding and I have reviewed the draft condominium plat for the Park Avenue duplex. Attached are comments from Mr. Roth which indicate several minor corrections needed on the mylars prior to signature. Item number three however is brings up a major issue regarding parking and the inconsistency between the building permit site plan and the as -built situation. Mr. Drueding and I .reviewed the site plan approved in your building permit and cannot sign off on a condominium plat until the site conforms to the approved site plan, or an alternative which is acceptable to Engineering, Planning and Zoning. The problems are the double stacking of spaces 4 and 5 rather than the side by side layout on the building permit plan, and the impossible turning radius of space number 6. As pointed out in the Engineering memo, one option for spaces 4 and 5 is to allot one half of the two -car garage as limited common element for each of the dwelling units. The other option is to excavate the northeastern corner of the site to reflect the retaining wall and side by side spaces per the approved site plan. Additional driveway paving may be needed to accommodate a realistic turning radius for these spaces. For space number 6, the 1.0' patio wall will have to be moved towards .the building to accommodate the required 8.5'- minimum width for a parking space. The space will likely have to parallel the front property line as a turning movement is impossible for a perpendicular space as shown on the draft plat. Per Section 24 -5 -302 of the Aspen Municipal Code, all required parking spaces must be 18' long by 8.5' wide, and "must be paved with all- weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and maintained in a useable condition at all times." Until satisfactory parking is accommodated on the property and reflected on the condo plat,. Planning and Engineering cannot approve said plat or Certificates of Occupancy for the duplex. Please call me or Bill Drueding at 920 -5090 when you have determined a solution to the parking and platting issues. Sincerely, n.1/4.-6- Kim .• son, Planner CC: Diane Moore, Planning Director Jed Caswall, City Attorney Gary Lyman, Building Official Jim Breasted 130 $OUT+ GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PNONE 303.920 -5090 • FAA 303.929,5197 Pnn J.w 2.vI ij r MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer GC Date: November 17, 1993 Re: 315 -317 Park Avenue Condominium Plat Having reviewed the above referenced plat, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The surveyor's certificate, or a note on the drawing, must state the following: a. That the survey was performed in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time to time, and that the survey closes to within 1:10,000; b. That all easements of record as indicated on title policy number , dated have been shown on the plat. 2. An easement must be indicated for the irrigation ditch culvert. 3. As we have discussed, the parking spaces as shown do not function properly. There is no access to space number 6. (Access may not encroach in the public right -of -way because any future sidewalk may abut the property line.) Spaces 4 and 5 could only be stacked if the spaces were for the same unit, and that would necessitate spaces 2 and 3 in the same garage being designated for separate condominium units. The best thing to address the parking space discrepancies is to meet with the applicant or representative. The parking spaces must be indicated as limited common elements to the appropriate units. Also, the surface of the parking spaces must be of acceptable material and must be indicated on the plat. 4. The yard space around the condominium must be indicated as limited or general common elements. 5. The width of the public right -of -way along the full frontage of the property must be indicated. 6. The City Council approval must indicate the name by which Council approved the application. The approval was by Ordinance 7 (Series of 1991). 7. For your information, I have mailed a copy of a sidewalk curb and gutter agreement to the contractor and explained that the agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a C.O. This is a function not of condominiumization but of Section 19 -98 of the Municipal Code. Also for your information, storm runoff mitigation has been satisfactorily mitigated. M91268 L MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer Cg Date: December 14, 1993 Re: 315 -317 Park Avenue Condominium Final Plat Having reviewed the above referenced final plat, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking Spaces - The current plat does not respond to comment number 3 in the Engineering Department memo of November 17, 1993. One or two of the parking spaces as shown are non - functional. A letter and drawing which are signed and stamped by an architect or engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado must be submitted which shows and labels vehicle turning movements and radii and which references appropriate page numbers of "Architectural Graphic Standards," Institute of Transportation Engineer reference manuals, or equivalent design guides. The location of parking space number 4 is shown in the entry way to North Unit. This is unacceptable as a matter of common sense and practicality. The entry way is located closest to the street and the driveway, at the front of the house. Accessibility to the rear entrance becomes an issue of safety, such as in the use of gurneys and so on. It has come to our attention that the plat does not reflect the parking space layout as depicted in the building permit application drawings. The applicant must obtain appropriate approvals from the building department prior to signing the final plat. 2. Irrigation Ditch Easement - It appears that the indicated easement width is inadequate for maintenance purposes. An easement width acceptable to the ditch company must be indicated on the plat, and the acceptability must be provided in writing to the City prior to signing the final plat. 3. Plat Details - It is not clear to what portions of the plat the north arrow pertains. Separate north arrows should be provided for the floor plans. The floor plans have been drawn to architectural scales which are not permitted for platting. The plat must be drawn in an engineering scale at 1" = 100 feet or larger. (Section 24- 7- 1007.B.1.b(ii); Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1993)). The scale indications are unacceptable. There are no scales that can be purchased that are labelled in a manner such as on the plat where it states 1" = 120 ". The labels must be in the form of 1" = feet and must be in engineering scales of 1" = 100' or larger. The Planning Director Approval must be revised to read ".... approved by the City of Aspen Planning Director " 4. Condominium Element Designations - It has been this reviewer's experience that condominium elements are labelled and indicated as being either limited common elements or general common elements. Designating "all yards" as common elements may not be current condominiumization element designation practice. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director Larry Winnerman Bill Campbell M93.282 July 29, 1993 Aspen /Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Amendment of Stream Margin Revue Plan Dear Sirs, My name is Lawrence J. Winnerman. I reside at 154 East Lupine Drive in Aspen, Colorado, 81611. My telephone number is (303)920 -1851. I am a general partner in 103 Park Partnership which owns 315 -317 Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. 315 -317 consists of the south half of lots 9, 10 and 11, and part of lot 12, Block 1, Townsite of Aspen. I am proposing a revised stream margin plan as is shown in Exhibit #1, enclosed herein, which is in accordance with the letter dated July 16th, 1993 from Diane Moore regarding Stream Margin Corrections at 103 Park Avenue. This plan is in compliance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. This plan does not cause any interference with the course of the river or the hundred year flood. This plan is acceptable to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Army Corp of Engineers, and will be an asset to our property as well as the property of our neighbors on both sides of the river. This plan will keep the river bank stable and will allow all the little riparians and fishes to live happily ever after. Sincer =l', f l Lawrence J. Winnerman Encl: Exhibit #1 LJW /akh November 3, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen Planning and Zoning Department " 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 FAX (303)920 -5439 RE: Stream Margin Corrections at 103 Park Avenue Dear Kim, Enclosed please find a composition list of the seed mix from American Tree and Cement, Inc. This is the seed mix that was used on the river bank at the Park Avenue address. Also, be informed that the willows you have requested will be planted at the base of the bank in springtime of 1994, as is recommended by both our general contractor and our landscaper. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (303)920 -1851. Sincerely, / 7' Lancrence J. Winnerman LJW:akh FROM : RTCMSD6 PH]ME MCI. : 303 953 249? Pe 1. '• . AMERICAN TREE AND CEMENT, Inc. ' P.O. Box 1200 a Carbondale, Colorado 81623 963 -2497 - r /OM I1. 11 , d id wz ,,,,) 4 4 7 2 . a i ..teat-er_,Lt,„; y r 4.44/-u.... 41 d n - - , I' . de t2 0Z a pq P (21--64-4094-sca-} A 01 I OD fisRA.13-a/h--' laeLair-41-Aj 6: te j e� 1 7 . s RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AT 315 -317 PARK AVENUE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE WHITCOMB PROPERTY, 103 PARK AVENUE) (S. half of Lots 9,10 and 11 and part of Lot 12, Block 1, Townsite of Aspen) Resolution No. 93- WHEREAS, the subject property received stream margin and PUD approval with conditions in 1990 on behalf of the then -owner Dr. Whitcomb for the redevelopment of a duplex; and WHEREAS, the building plans submitted and issued to the original owner contained a revision to the culvert details not represented in the 1990 PUD and stream margin approval; and WHEREAS, the 103 Park Avenue Partnership purchased the parcel including the building plans issued for the redevelopment which contained the un- approved culvert detail, and commenced construction on the duplex and riverbank; and WHEREAS, because of the change to the culvert detail and subsequent placement of boulders along the bank of the Roaring Fork River which were not approved by stream margin review, the project was issued a red tag to require compliance with stream margin approval; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, staff from Planning and Engineering made numerous site inspections and contacts with the current property owners and agreed to provisions to improve and revegetate the disturbed riverbank; and WHEREAS, because of the extent of the changes from the 1990 approval, Planning staff determined that the project should officially amend its stream margin plan before the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the 103 Park Avenue Partnership submitted for approval to the Commission an application for Amended Stream Margin Review; and WHEREAS, Planning and Engineering staff reviewed the application and recommended approval of the Amended Stream Margin Review with conditions based on the earlier input from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado Division of Wildlife; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the am&ndment in light of the changed conditions of the riverbank caused by the culvert changes and placement of boulders, and agreed with the comments from city staff and the referral groups that additional negative impacts would result to the river corridor by attempting removal of the 1 boulders because of the proximity of the new duplex structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 6 -0 vote the Amended Stream Margin Review on September 7, 1993; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby approve the Amended Stream Margin Review for the 315 -317 Park Avenue property (formerly known as 103 Park Avenue, the Whitcomb property) with conditions as follows: 1) The applicant shall install a total of 12 serviceberry or chokecherry shrubs amongst the boulders. 2) The applicant shall confirm to the Planning Office the specie(s) of the grass currently seeded on the slope. 3) The applicant shall complete all of the above requirements and the requirements contained in the July 16, 1993 Planning Office letter and shall contact the Planning Office for a compliance inspection. This shall be accomplished no later than October 29, 1993. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 5, 1993. ATTEST: PLANNING 4 D ZONI COMMISSION: /ey pmi' Za Jan Ca ney, eputy Clerk Bruce Kerr, Chairman t i 2 Sighor . tlF MEMORANDUM Its TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: 315 -317 Park Avenue Stream Margin Amendment (property formerly known as the Whitcomb property, 103 Park Avenue) DATE: September 7, 1993 SUMMARY: This project is before the Commission in order to ratify an amended plan concerning riverbank changes which have been made contrary to the 1990 stream margin approval. The Planning Office recommends approval of the amended Stream Margin plan with conditions. APPLICANT: 103 Park Avenue Partnership (Larry Winnerman and Lorrie Moss) LOCATION: 315 -317 Park Avenue, formerly known as the Whitcomb property, 103 Park Avenue (S. half of Lots 9,10 and 11 and part of Lot 12, Block 1, Townsite of Aspen) ZONING: R -6 PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks Amended Stream Margin approval for the riverbank and culvert changes which vary from the original 1990 approval. Specifically the applicant added large boulders as rip -rap along the steep river bank. Also without Commission approval, the design of the irrigation culvert had been amended by the previous owner which in effect steepened the bank. Included is an amended landscaping plan. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the plan approved in 1990. Exhibit "B" is the application information for amendment to the 1990 Stream Margin review. The revised culvert plan from the Whitcomb's 1991 building permit application will be presented at the P &Z meeting. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: Chuck Roth comments that there needs to be more replacement vegetation to, lessen the visual impacts of the boulder rip -rap. STAFF COMMENTS: On June 1, 1993, The project received a red tag for non - compliance with the 1990 stream margin /PUD approval. On July 7, 1993, Engineering and Planning staff met with Mike Claffey of the Army Corps of Engineers and Alan Czenkusch of the Division of Wildlife at the site to determine the extent of the impacts to the river and vegetation. It was determined by staff and Messrs. Claffey and Czenkusch that the least impactive solution was to leave the boulders in place and take aggressive erosion control, sedimentation removal and landscaping measures to ameliorate the problems created by the boulder "wall ". This consensus was reached because of the size and location of the boulders, the steepness of the slope, and the reality that the new structure was already framed on its foundation. Staff sent a letter to the applicant on July 16, 1993 (Exhibit "C ") outlining the measures necessary for compliance with our immediate concerns regarding erosion, sedimentation and revegetation. Because of the extent of the changes, staff also made the decision to bring this project back to the Commission for official approval of a revised stream margin plan. Staff believes that additional visual relief is needed to reduce the visual impact of the large expanse of boulders. To restore the lost riparian habitat, the D.O.W. representative prescribed a mix of native plant materials as a requirement for this revised project. On August 23, 1993, Planning and Engineering staff inspected the property for compliance with the requirements of the July 16 correspondence. Staff noted that the culvert had been contained within a low rock wall, a micro -spray irrigation system had been installed, topsoil had replaced the unacceptable fill dirt, grass seed was sprouting, and five shrubs had been planted in pockets between the boulders. Staff's only outstanding concerns are that the irrigation system appeared to be leaking (potentially over - watering the unstablized topsoil) and that five shrubs will not adequately provide for visual buffering of the boulder rip -rap. The landscape plan submitted in the amendment application called for six shrubs, but staff believes that a total of twelve shrubs should be planted among the boulders. 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: Per Mike Claffey of the Army Corp of Engineers, the boulders themselves are not within the 100 year flood boundary. However, sedimentation of fine sand and gravel in the river bottom eroded from unstable backfill must be removed or it will be considered a violation of 404 Permit regulations. 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. C T Response: No pedestrian trail has been designated across the parcel However, a 5' wide fisherman's easement was obtained through the 1990 approval. 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 makes no specific recommendations for this site. However, staff is very concerned that more shrub type vegetation be incorporated among the boulders to soften the visual impact of the bank reconstruction and to recreate native riparian habitat. Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. Response: The applicant asserts that when they purchased the property from the Whitcombs, the bank had already been cleared of most existing trees and shrubs. A photographic record of the property from 1990 or before is not available. However, a condition of the 1990 approval required relocation of several small clumps of aspens prior to construction, so some identifiable vegetation was evidently on the parcel. As mentioned in the July 16 1993 letter from staff to the applicant, certain requirements for sediment removal and revegetation will help to correct the erosion problems which have occurred due to date due to the bank work. Based on the requirements of Division of Wildlife representative, revegetation with native willow, serviceberry and chokecherry species is being proposed and required. The letter also allows removal of existing dead willow debris. It is important that the revegetation effort be successful in order to prevent future erosion problems. 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 work required by staff's July 16, 1993 letter must be accomplished by hand to limit further sediment problems. The construction of the duplex itself has not specifically caused any visible pollution or interference problems. According to Mike Claffey of the Army Corps of Engineers, the boulders do not affect any natural changes to the river. 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: Not Applicable 0 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 - no impacts on the flood plain occur with this plan if the removal of sediment is done per the July 16 letter. Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. Response: Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Engineering recommends approval of the 315/317 Park Avenue Stream Margin Amendment with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall install a total of 12 serviceberry or chokecherry shrubs amongst the boulders. 2) The applicant shall confirm to the Planning Office the specie(s) of the grass currently seeded on the slope. 3) The applicant shall complete all of the above requirements and the requirements contained in the July 16, 1993 Planning Office letter and shall contact the Planning Office for a compliance inspection. This shall be accomplished no later than October 29, 1993. Exhibits: "A" - 1990 Approved Plans for 103 Park Ave. "B" - Application Information for Stream Margin Amendment "C" - July 16, 1993 Correction Letter to Applicants PLANN "' & TONING COMMISSION \,..,• EXHIBIT' APPROVED 119 BY RESOLUTION ORDINANCE NO.6 (SERIES OF 1990) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE WHITCOMB DUPLEX AT 103 PARR AVE. (LOTS 9,10,11 AND PT. OF 12, BLOCK 1, RIVERSIDE ADDITION) WHEREAS, Harold Whitcomb Jr. submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final PUD Development Plan to construct a duplex, replacing a duplex at 103 Park Ave; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Stream Margin Review for the project by a 5 -1 vote; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 1990 at a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a vote of the Final PUD Development Plan with conditions, and recommended to Council the approval of the Final PUD with conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -903 of the Aspen Land Use Code (revision date August 14, 1989,) the City Council may grant approval to Final PUD Development Plans; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, does wish to grant the Final PUD Development Plan request for the Whitcomb Duplex redevelopment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant Final PUD Approval with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to 1 the Whitcomb Duplex. Section 2. The cont2.itions of approval which apply to this project are: 1. A mesh barrier fence must be erected immediately below the location of the relocated culvert during all phases of demolition and construction. This shall prevent any construction debris, soil, rock, or vegetation from falling down the slope. 2. The demolition process shall occur "inside out" from within the existing building envelope. No heavy equipment shall work outside of the existing envelope. -3. Relocate at least 6 clumps of single or multi - trunked young trees from the disturbed areas to other locations along the bank below the new structure. These shall be moved by professional landscaping personnel knowledgeable in moving trees. This vegetation must be watered and maintained until well - established, at least two growing seasons. 4. The disturbed areas of the bank shall be reestablished with a mix of native grasses and wildflowers. Urban -type turfs (bluegrass sod, etc.) and flower plantings shall not be located downslope of the building envelope and patio. Wildflower "sod ", in conjunction with grass seeding, shall be planted for immediate erosion control if seasonally available at the time of completion of the exterior construction work. 5. Erosion control (spread hay, hay bales and rock waterbreaks) along the front and sides of the new structure and along disturbed slopes must be in place as soon as the new groundform 2 has been graded. These efforts will be monitored by Planning staff during and after construction. 6. Any outdoor lighting on the rear half of the lot be downcast, low wattage fixtures. If detached from the structure, light fixtures shall not exceed four feet in height. This will limit light intrusion to adjacent and cross -river properties. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permit: 7. The applicant shall have a detailed inspection of the existing structure(s) done by the Zoning Official to verify square footage to be used when calculating the affordable housing impact fee required by Section 5 -702 of Ordinance 1 (1990). As per the information submitted in the application, the net gain of square footage from the existing to proposed structure is 2,325 s.f. This would compute to an impact fee of $15,508.00. 8. The applicant shall make payment of the affordable housing impact fee, as calculated based on the Zoning inspection, to the City Finance Director for deposit in the Affordable Housing Fund. If the applicant chooses to satisfy the housing mitigation requirement by providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit as per Ordinance 1 (1990) options, a Conditional Use Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. Approval by the Commission must be granted prior to issuance of any building permit(s). 9. A fisherman's easement must be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder. This easement shall include the land area 3 under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5' distance measured horizontally from the high water line. 10. Any changes to the existing ditch must be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. 11. The drainage system / dry well must be redesigned and /or relocated out of the water table. 12. The parking space in front of Unit A must be extended in order for the required 18' length dimension to be beyond the entry gate to the residence. Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this plan the following must occur:- - 13. A Final PUD Plan and PUD agreement must be filed with the County Clerk as required by Section 7 -907 of the Land Use Code. Section 3: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 2_ day of 22611 n,, 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /0 day of 0 10 ee4 . , 1990. I 4 • William L. Stirling, May Ay S .: s..4/ J� Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Kathryn. FL adopted, passed and approved this 7 day of Cka , 1990. William L. Sti ling, Mayor ATTEST: : sift_ athrYr. 5 Koch, City Clerk • jtkvj /Whitcomb.ord 5 • ...... FOP•WHITCOMB DUPI .,,, . ,. ,.., . , 1 9 7- --. f 4 .... c n • ..... .--'• :>. a _ .,- •0_ (...• . - 1 i ‘ ' ■••• sr ..; ..4_ C., , .1 7 . 20 :24 77 • °"-1 I-1S' :2 • 74. - a- 117..- -- 1. , _.-- v.:.-... . .. e --- e.•00 20 ; . e " ..... -• 0 04 0 .„- _ . ■ - - L te.....--- . ........... - r --" - '''‘ -- - ,-- - S _ _,„ • _ ••• s.e...5.,e,..-..' .e.t... • 6>••- :w ! -".• — 11 - . ., - • -v ar.,:uarli- ..., I V EgTE.I4li 02 „ - -- 4- I _. . , .474.......74 Li - , - sea 04. i . r -.-...: .............) -- EA.,-,.... e4- - • 4...'"-.4.-- 7 - _ (.5 jf 1 • - . - ,C06.44.7.Cr / .:- _,... .... . , cr.? ----;-..” ' :- ,:::: .)-------—- . . / T ••••••ne- *** . - )""' , - .. . .t•-••n. , . •-• ' It 6" ECEL- _ . .. ,"./ . _ j -:, / . ; .. ;;IT- 11 .2:- ,_ _ . , 1,, _ --- --e s k'. _ - / - - -...nt.. t.,.Lanan. ..._ ,, kw, , 14C.1.17 Z E '' 1 EL , 12 7. . 1 1 444-la, 0 . 7 . e ' I A \- 1'..-. -. , i uNr ..... UNIT 6 • • i I .. lArata I i ip3 \ d en 7 Nit 0-4.24 1 i . - 7 77 7 li12 Eatse.,....0 Agualtia26 74-LW - 2•141 .7)._ 4 .0 77 - 4 2— I , - ---• 'Sr -.••..m • - 1 V t7 • '` . I r..- ..; , -A .... - ,N d WO 0. it' 9 P 3,0.,■a. A 0040 lb El....e;.>1 .. .1 M4/4 , 4 _.. / .. r . .\ . . F • e.t..,cyst • ' c..,N. t ckae t/ Is' . . ........... .4: . \ SI/ 4 e 0:44C 0.4 0■44 Mar • 4.:17.4..../,..' 7 ;y4 , 1 , _ „ --... , . .„0-_ , ....e,'" ' A `F. , ..s, / ' • , • / :..,1 r. /. fi \ 4 / ---------, AS • -di . 4.4.., ..., , ,•,•...,_, , v /, ., ,....D...c... I • 7 4,0 441571•46, .... 4 te. : 1 WNW' ?ME D° ,,......,,,,,..s, ,...„ . _ 4 — t e, -■■• ■ --_yr -24 •17, 4 7 . -- ./ 4 .: i , ., 4 .f.- — Q --- --- - .. , . z--- —. 0/ .i, . -: -• n -.; ...-,:j ft.:.....-02.c-7e,„....., :t. ,n,.?" .,_ - •;,, --' l' n - - .. • - - . - - e ------ -- - - - -_ _ _ 1 --------.• - ----__ , ,e , _ :---- - ------------ --"-"--- r -----m-fi"-------.. I . 'irk..44,-- ---------------------__"---------___________ . - , - .. Tr - r. 7777 . • 7 , . ( . ,:...r`.. r. • ' - • v = ,r� --� �.� i J _ Y ' o I • • F y \ 3 r 3 i C 5 ‘. , P . W 4 _ 1 . , L 4 - _ W LIJ \\ o H Y — (/) Y , l \ Q 4 1 d ; :41 t 1 t aF T' 19'0 z 1 u �L - �.: i- W' . .,Z. ma iii , ,z sv t �' F s � � L 3 J V: .� �` .r- Ilk t b J I #y w 4r ,.a T iR 1. }} PLANY & ONING COMMISSION EXHIBflt' , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION July 29, 1993 Aspen /Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Amendment of Stream Margin Revue Plan Dear Sirs, My name is Lawrence J. Winnerman. I reside at 154 East Lupine Drive in Aspen, Colorado, 81611. My telephone number is (303)920 -1851. I am a general partner in 103 Park Partnership which owns 315 -317 Park Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. 315 -317 consists of the south half of lots 9, 10 and 11, and part of lot 12, Block 1, Townsite of Aspen. I am proposing a revised stream margin plan as is shown in Exhibit $1, enclosed herein, which is in accordance with the letter dated July 16th, 1993 from Diane Moore regarding Stream Margin Corrections at 103 Park Avenue. This plan is in compliance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. This plan does not cause any interference with the course of the river or the hundred year flood. This plan is acceptable to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Army Corp of Engineers, and will be an asset to our property as well as the property of our neighbors on both sides of the river. This plan will keep the river bank stable and will allow all the little riparians and fishes to live happily ever after. Sincerely, 7 ' Lawrence J. innerman Encl: Exhibit 41 LJW /akh ..- -... • • oi--1*Y 1 C) I Ht 1 ..-14 ...., 0 C C , . , . • 1 l' t ' e ..„.. .• • :....... ...- . . . • --att. . . n • '. : \ , ,. 7.1 1 , --- ,... • t • sc:/::., •.-/"Cl, 'It 1 ' k ---' -..:: --...._.„ ---- ......\ ,' NiL vi° iv— % • t . Z %, E-i . t .. ',. Pi I' ......., —.t • ---4. ,- --1. . '' .1-. O • / \, \, . • . .. :41... , .-.: cc)) - 37 c\ \I= a k \ 1 II 1 I Cen1 4: -3 ( ic. -7-1-:; It • -,___./- I' , , •, 1 • I , ..," r „-- , -Inc-- seliQ?..k. . , .1 • .\ 0 , t \ ' , . z., ,.... 1 . ■ , • \ \ • -! 'fii ?.--, e. , . . . 7 --- SEC 2- 1 f 21 reac- - -7-ZA ■, . - -1 : "41111 \ ‘,J_N __e...---.-/ • • • . E - _:_2 • z_tc \ \ _6_ „,......._, v Al • .../ ; 0 , -la a n ki+ 12\Y W r I C c-: /17 ft 8 c--c- --1 n v (-2tkrni .... w-gc • "Q§ / , ',roc? ATTAo1Matt 1 I21ND USE APPLLc ATION KIM 1) Project Name 143 t ?ick Pa-/chach 2) Project Incation 3SZS _ / ' ? tIL 4 (indicate street address, s, iot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) pr *nt Zoning — I R - (a 4) Dot Size 7 • �O 5) Applicant's Name, Act & Etyone # 103 PWRk ficheka ers. fi,e 4-n 97.0 970—' sle / 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # .7-7.4.14✓4/eFtH9") � 7! og.1. r tt�- 14sre,✓ y20 /tX7 7) Type of Application (please check all. that apply): _ oanditia al Use Concepthal SIPA Careptual Historic Dev. 'nrial Review _____ Final SPA Final Historic Des!. 8040 one __ Oarceptual HUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin x _ Final RID _ Historic Demolition _ Mountain View plane _ Subdivision __. Historic Desigflatica Condzmini*nization — Text/Map Amendment _ OW Allotment of ment Iot Split,/Int Lim G W Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of • Existing Uses (mite' aril type of exisr;m structures; apprcotimate sq. ft..; number of bedtoums; any previous approvals granted to the ProP Y) - �yJeaYDy. '30.00 57. 7. tines of 3 hedraomf i /7d 2 A2 . / f'//D apy va /s ruerr j%un DT Cab/Womb /4 J44 9) Description of Develcpmatt Application ale 2/C roil ylnq °- 2fl 2,ne/Sea /2nd se2d s ss /osa yo X2a � / / r � /oir2fior, of /l c vl.spn M A 4S1 ✓ia/' 'ro 40. g• i ✓,, i /;_ ' Ii S /' i .'` 2 /frOX. i /eet 10) Have you attached the following? ,mm Submission Oarcterits / Response to Attad,ment 2, Min Response to Attachment 3, Specific Su sign Oontents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application c a- June 29, 1993 To Whom Di- May Concern! As the owner and caretaker of the Aspen Ditck and Water Right, No. 451, Priority No. 640, J am entirely satisfied with the realignment and culverting done on the Aspen Ditck by Carmichael Construction (963 -1436) through the properly located at 315 and 317 Park Avenue. J have inspected the work, and it has been very well done. The ditch has been fully tested, there are no leaks, and J am very satisfied with the project. All Innclacnpin0 nnrl cnvrrin0 of lko cnlvort ra,nnlna to tn. done by the construction company. J f there are any other questions or concerns about this, please contact me at 9S- 5 -7117 or P© Box 1962, Aspen, CO 81612. c ..------ /7 . ..... _ (------- ,....is Ernst Kappali CII i ' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT C■ , APPROVED • 19 BY RESOLUTION . ASPEN • PITKIN • , PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Lorrie Moss / Larry Winnerman . ' 154 E. lupine - Aspen, Co. 81611 July 16., 1993 RE: Stream - Margin Corrections at 103 Park Avenue . , I Dear Ms. Moss and Mr. Winnerman, • Thank you for meeting with our group at your property on-July - 7, 1993. As was pointed out, the deposit of boulders, gravel,•and soil fill on the bank violates the Planning Commission's 1990 • stream _ margin approval for this parcel. This letter is a follow up to our discussions for the rectification of the river bank - disturbance, The following items are 1. Mike Claffey made the determination that to avoid having to go through the Corps' 404 Permit process for placing fill - in a river, you must 'remove the sand and . gravel which has . . washed down and settled on the river bottom. You must also ' . remove the dirt /gravel material at the base of the slope up • to the bottoms of the lowest row of boulde in order to prevent additional material from washing into the river. These removals must be done by hand and shovel in the autumn during lowest water level in the river channel_ • 2. The fill dirt among the boulders on the slope from the • water level•up to the culvert. is not suitable to support plant growth. This material needs to be replaced with a loamy top soil. Where necessary, the top soil "pockets" may need . additional retaining with rocks to prevent .slumping and erosion down the hill. 1 3. Replantings shall consist of•native willows at the ''water's edge 'up to the middle of the first row of boulders . Above that level, plant chokecherry shrubs and serviceberry • - shrubs among the boulders. Pockets of native - grasses and wild• • flowers may .also be tucked in amongst the shrub plantings. • • For optimum .survival, the willows should be plante. n October. The existing dead willows at the river's edg = - _ , :d y,�• be removed. 51^/ be- , . • 4. ' Irrigation p s , .1 e. invited to use of low -water fixtures such as "micro emitters" placed at the base of. each shrub. 130 SouTII GALENA ST REET • AsrEN, COLORADO 81611 • PNONr 303.920.5090 • FAX 303.921.5197 • ' The use conventional overhead spray equipment could easily lead to over- watering, soil erosion, and destabilization of the steep slope. 5. Except for the October planting allowance for the willows and removal of _sediment in the river, all of the above work . shall be completed within 20 days of the date of this letter. If this cannot be accomplished, please contact me. Staff has determined that the planning and Zoning Commission must be presented with an amendment to the approved stream margin. Attached is a copy of the application form. Also include in your . submission a landscape plan and an accurate section drawing of the slope / river area. Three copies of your application are needed. The fee which must accompany your application is $207.00. We must receive your application packet no later than. Monday, August 2 in order to keep your item on the August 17 Planning Commission agenda: - If you have any questions about the stream margin process or the application, please call Kim Johnson at 920 -5090. Sincerely, Diane Moore (� City Planning Director cc: Mike Claffey, U.S.' Army Corps of Engineers Alan Czenkusch, Colorado Division of Wildlife 'Jed Caswall, City Attorney Chuck Roth, City Engineer PZM9.7.93 objectives. SODKI CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Bruce opened the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to continue the public hearing and table action to September 21, 1993 at the applicant's request. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 103 PARK STREAM MARGIN AMENDMENT Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sara: I feel that the banks look different now. The stream line is different. It is different than we wanted it to look and the boulders give it a whole different feeling. Secondly the earth moving permit It is a waste of our time to approve to ask for Stream Margin Review and then make recommendations if there is no one from the City up observing. Tim: Now what we are doing is basically changing it so that it complies with what is already done - -not with what was approved. Kim: This is the set of plans that Larry bought. ?: This is stamped and approved. Roger: That is not what we approved. I would like to know who was responsible for drawing in that minor change on that because what I am very distressed about is had I seen that at the time of Stream Margin Review - -no way would I have voted for a Stream Margin Review. This is just wrong. And as far as I am concerned Sutherland is the darer here. ?: Well, Sutherland is dead. Roger: Well his estate isn't. This really irritates me. I saw one thing and that is one thing I very specifically looked at. That in effect the final grade wasn't changed by the moving of that pipe because that was very important to me. Now all of a sudden it is in a dike. ?: No. The point of it is the differential between the way was drawn either one way or the other and the way it is now we are 13 PZM9.7.93 approximately 4 feet above the grade. You are saying that "No, in reality it is on the grade ". ?: Yes. As the house sits and the deck comes out the deck will be actually even with the top of that pipe. As you walk out on the deck you will essentially step from the deck to the top of that pipe with a couple of inches of soil on top. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Roger voted in favor under protest. Bruce then adjourned the meeting. Time was 7:10 P.M. Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk 15 .F. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Chuck Roth Postmark: Aug 27,93 2:02 PM Subject: Winnerman Stream Margin Amendment Message: The Engineering Department recommends maximizing the revegetation. There was no intent in previous approvals to approve visual changes to the riparian zone by replacing vegetation surfaces with rock surfaces. The amount of vegetation could be greatly multiplied over existing amount in order to hide those rock surfaces. There could be riparian shrubs at all pockets in boulders X 1 1 ig ALLEN SHARKEY BRADEN & ALLEN_ T H E R E A L E S T A T E O F F I C E June 4, 1993 Letters to the Editor The Aspen Times 310 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: June 4, 1993 article pertaining to Park Avenue Duplex Dear Editor: We wish to thank Diane Moore, director of planning, and Chuck Roth, City of Aspen engineer, for their rational and intelligent approach to a resolvable problem. The front page article in the June 4th edition regarding our Park Avenue duplex is unfortunate for everyone. Aspen is our home and has been for many years. We are moving into this property from the neighborhood up the block, and the accusations that we would intentionally destroy any area where we will personally live is insulting and non - productive. Unfortunately, the Aspen ditch had to be culverted and attached to the existing culvert of our neighbor. The placement and support of the culvert needed to be addressed when the city stamped and approved the plans. The only way to do so was rock support. We used the rocks found on the property to do so. The approved plans call for a re -plant of natural grass and wildflowers. This indicates an expectation that the soil would be disturbed during culvert placement. It takes people like Chuck and Diane who understand building department approved and stamped plans to make intelligent interpretations. We have worked with them and they with us to diligently reach a consensus. We would welcome the "anonymous" P & Z member to work with all of us. Tha k you, Ai orrie B. Moss and L Winn m an LBM /LW:ms cc: . Diane Moore, City of Aspen director of planning Mr. Chuck Roth, City of Aspen engineer Mayor John Bennett Ms. Amy Margerum, City of Aspen city manager 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Office 303 - 920 -1234 Fax 303 920 -4432 A ` ` 1992 it ALLEN SHARKEY BRADEN & 1VIcCORMICK T H E R E A L E S T A T E O F F I C E September 24, 1992 Ms. D. Moore City of Aspen Planning Director 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Dr. H. Whitcomb duplex property, 103 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Approval #334162 Dated December 28, 1990 Dear Ms. Moore: I am "under contract" to purchase the above referenced property. My dilemma is that I am adding a second car garage to one unit for a primary residence. After speaking with Mayor Bennett, Councilperson Pendleton, City Manager Margerum, and Bill Drueding, they suggested that I write you to get your approval to amend the site plan on the above captioned matter without going through a new PUD procedure. As you know, the PUD procedure was totally dropped and removed subsequent to this specific parcel approval because of the extreme time constraints with City Council. So it is their personal request that you handle the matter administratively: -- -� c I have been preparing the necessary plans and specs for buildin department approval. I appreciate your consideration in this matter at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to contact me any time at either 920 -1234 or 925 -5620. �2 , 6 ,v Thank you. ( v 7Y 1 /Lt � Y (/� (di 2! I t �i Yours very truly, frfe,,,,,km„, orrie Berland Moss LBM:ms Enclosures 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Office 303 - 920 -1234 Fax 303 920 -4432 ALLEN SHARKEY BRADEN & I PIcCORMICK T H E R E A L E S T A T E O F F I C E October 6, 1992 Ms. Amy Margerum City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 103 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Thank you so much for your advice in the above captioned matter. Kim Johnson telephoned immediately upon receipt of the letter. She approved it and sent a memo to Mr. Drueding advising him of the same. I truly appreciate your responsiveness. My best regards, 4 ,1/ A L /1/4---CA Lorrie Berland Moss LBM:ms cc: yerliim Johnson 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Office 303 - 920 -1234 Fax 303 920 -4432 ' 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $30 ` 3K 650 PG 258 ' Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 PUD AGREEMENT FOR THE WHITCOMB DUPLEX (103 PARK AVENUE) This Agreement is made this 1st day of December, 1990, between HAROLD C. WHITCOMB, JR. ( "Owner ") and the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain real property located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, legally described as: A t Lots 9, 10, 11 and part of 12, Block 1, Riverside Addition commonly known as 103 Park Avenue; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on August 21, 1990 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions the Final PUD Devel- opment Plan submitted by Owner for the development of a duplex project (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council granted with conditions the Final PUD Development Plan request for the Project at a public hearing on October 8, 1990 pursuant to Ordinance No. 64, Series of 1990; and WHEREAS, the City and the Owner Ash to enter into a PUD Agreement for the Project that will establish a Final PUD Devel- opment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a Final PUD Development Plan for the Project (the "Plan ") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plan on the agreement of the Owner to the matters described herein, subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code ") and other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plan and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to the Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein will be faithfully performed by the Owner and the Owner's successors and assigns; and WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such agreement with the City and to provide assurances to the City. 1 #3 2 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $30 Bk: 650 PG 259 • Sil,.a Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants con- tained herein and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plan for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description. The Project consists of a duplex residence, consisting of two three - bedroom residential living units, each with an attached one -car garage. The construction of the duplex will replace a pre- existing duplex building. 2. Acceptance of Plan. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and execute the Plan for the Project submitted herewith and reduced -size copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A, which Plan conforms to the requirements of the Code. The City agrees to accept such Plan for recording in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of the recordation fee and costs to the City by Owner. 3. Construction Schedule and Phasing. The City and Owner mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined at this time. However, demolition of the existing duplex structure will commence upon issuance of the demolition per- mit in October, 1990. Construction of the new duplex will commence no later than Spring 1991 and it is anticipated that construction will be completed no later than December 1, 1991. 4. Demolition Requirements. Prior to demolition of the existing duplex, Owner shall erect a mesh barrier fence immediately below the location of the relocated culvert in order to prevent construction debris, soil, rock or vegetation from falling down the slope. The fence shall remain in place during all phases of demo- lition and construction. The demolition process shall occur "inside out" from within the existing envelope. Further, no heavy equipment shall work outside of the existing envelope. 5. Landscaping and Erosion Control. Upon grading of the new ground form, erosion control (spread hay, hay bales and rock water - breaks) along the front and sides of the new structure and along disturbed slopes must be in place. A minimum of six clumps of single or multi - trunked trees from the disturbed areas must be relocated to other locations along the bank below the new structure by professional landscaping personnel knowledgeable in moving trees. The relocated vegetation must be watered and maintained until well - established, or at least two growing seasons. The disturbed areas shall be reestablished with a mix of native grasses and wild flowers. Wild flower "sod ", in conjunction with grass seeding, shall be planted for immediate erosion control if sea- sonably available at the time of completion of the exterior con- struction work. No urban -type turfs or flower plantings shall be 2 #334' 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $30. K 650 PG 260 Silks Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Uoc $.00 located down slope of the building envelope and patio. 6. Outdoor Lighting. Any outdoor lighting on the rear half of the lot shall be downcast, low wattage fixtures. If detached from the structure, light fixtures shall not exceed four feet in height. 7. Public Improvements. There are no public improvements required or provided on the site. 8. Parking. There shall be one parking space per bedroom, for a total of six spaces, provided on site. One space for each unit is provided within the attached garage and four additional uncovered parking spaces, each meeting the minimum off - street parking space requirement, are provided on site. The entire eighteen -foot parking space in front of Unit A shall be located beyond the entry gate to the residence. 9. Existing Ditch. Any changes to the existing ditch on site shall be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. 10. Drainage. The drainage system /dry well shall be rede- signed and /or relocated out of the water table. 11. Employee Housing Requirements. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the affordable housing impact fee required by Section 5 -702 of Ordinance No. 1 (1990) in the amount of $9,402.00 was paid on October 12, 1990 as payment in lieu of construction of employee housing on site. The foregoing payment is in full satisfaction of Owner's obligation with respect to employee housing, and additional housing impact fees shall not be imposed upon condominiumization of the Project pursuant to Section 7- 1008 (A) (1) (c) . 12. Park Dedication Fees. Since the new duplex building will not contain any bedrooms in addition to those in the existing duplex, there are no park dedication fees required by the Owner. 13. Fisherman's Easement. The Owner shall grant a fisher- man's easement along the east bank of the Roaring Fork River five feet in width measured horizontally from the water line, as shown on the Final PUD Development Plan for the Project. 14. Condominiumization. The City has approved the condomin- iumization of the Project, and the City agrees to accept, execute and approve recordation of a Condominium Plat prepared in accor- dance with the Code upon the completion of construction of the Project. Owner shall record a Condominium Declaration and shall create a corporate nonprofit homeowners' association and articles of incorporation and by -laws. The Association shall be responsible 3 #3a‹ 62 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $3.-, ) BV 650 PG 261 Sx ,.ia Davis, Pitkin Cnty C1e'•r, Doc $.00 for the perpetual maintenance of the Project common elements and open space in good repair and in a clean and attractive condition. Membership in the homeowners' association shall inure to a Unit owner on transfer of title, and both Units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter ten- ancies per calendar year, pursuant to Section 7- 1008(A)(1)(b)(1) of the Code.] 15. Material Representations. All material representations made by Owner on the record to the City in accordance with the Final PUD Development Plan approval shall be binding on the Owner. 16. Enforcement. In the event the City maintains that the Owner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the Final Development Plan, the City Council may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiency be cor- rected within a period of forty -five days. In the event the Owner believes that he is in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owner may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its normal procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. 17. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Philippa B. Whitcomb To the Owner: Harold C. Whitcomb, Jr. 100 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 To the City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street' Aspen, CO 81611 with a copy to: City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 18. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owner and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns. 19. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by a written instrument executed by both parties. 20. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held 4 #3. i2 Or /01/91 14:30 Rec $ BK • a Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, D g5O�)PC 262 • invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other provision and the remaining provisions shall be considered severable and remain in full force and effect. THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation BY William St rling, Mayor or Y ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Edward M. Caswall, City Attorney OWNER: 1 ,^N7 /r 1 H. •id C. Whitc.'mb, j ', Al P P• `w ;T itcam.� 5 # ,P ) 1/91 s 14: Silvia L, ,s, r itkin 3 Cnt ;c o BI 45O PG 263 Y Clerk, Doc $.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The i regoing instrument was sworn and subscribed before me this L day of December, 1990 by William L. Stirling, as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch, as City Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 7- �� /'"/ /C/ / Gu �,4 ( %. O tL Nota y /flublic <1 . o ' - STAIE COL ORADO ) fti / s , . ) ss. ( �� . Iir�'i'• '' `` CO iiN T Z OF PITKIN ) , f ...... t ` o The foregoing instrument was sworn and subscribed before me this w d o day of December, 1990 by Harold C. Whitcomb;.. Jt`L A, Philippa B. Whitcomb'W41 WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: U(J // //J, ! 99 i i le. --k •- - / era /.. %i_' No ary.•ub is chm \re \butera.pud 6 • June 16, 1993 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Chuck Roth, City Engineer RE: Park Avenue Ditch Relocation HCE Job No. 93071.01 Dear Chuck: To address the City's concerns regarding the relocation and piping of the irrigation ditch at the construction site on Park Avenue, just north of Hopkins, HCE personnel observed the visible construction of the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) placed just westerly of the new buildings. The new pipe in place is 24" diameter, galvanized steel pipe meeting AASHTO specification M218. The bends appear to be factory fabricated, welded, and galvanized. The joints appear to be factory type "hugger bands" with gaskets, with the addition of some "Rub - R-Nek" type sealant material adjacent to the gaskets, but still under the bands. Apparently, the Rub -R -Nek was added for an additional "safety factor" against joint leakage. The factor controlling flow in the CMP appears to be either the inlet to a 12" diameter CMP, on the East side of Park Avenue, or the inlet to a 12" CMP at a diversion box, just westerly of Park Avenue. Both of these lie approximately 100 to 150 feet upstream along the ditch. Based on these controls, the maximum flow into the new pipe would most likely be between 2 and 4 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, the flow capacity of the 24" CMP at a fairly flat slope (approximately 0.5% to match the ditch slope) is nearly 9 cfs. Therefore, the new pipe should always be running as an open channel and not a pressure conduit. Therefore, no thrust restraint, other than the existing joints should be needed. In summary, it appears that the new 24" CMP in place at the site is adequate for the intended use. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. Tim thy P. Be P.E. Prin ipal Engineer TPB rjh 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-5676 • FAX: 303-945-2555 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson CC Francis Krizmanich From: Leslie Lamont Postmark: May 27,93 9:19 AM Subject: Forwarded: Reply to: Forwarded: Whitcomb site (Park Ave) Comments: From Leslie Lamont: fyi Previous comments: From George Robinson: THE CORP. ALREADY KNOWS ABOUY THIS AS OF LAST FRI. CALLED CHUCK ABOUT DITCH AND HE SAID IT WASN'T OURS, BUT CALL AND UPDATE ME, THANKS Message: From Leslie Lamont: i would like to inform the corps and /or DOW about this any contacts and numbers i may use? From Kim Johnson: Les and I and Bill are headed over there today, likely to redtag the project for gross violations of their stream margin /PUD conditions of approval. Les and I were a couple hundred feet down -river last evening and saw that they decimated the river bank and vegetation. I'll take pictures and keep you posted. X 130 S._Galena BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION General Aspen, CO 81611 ASICI *PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING :RARTNIENT Construction t - 303/920 -5440 / Permit PITKIN COUNTY ❑ CITY OF ASPEN t I to complete numbered spaces only. a *et/r G•U /✓��tS Zr "I9n/ No. . ' 4 -t JOB ADDRESS y 1. 103 Park Avenue LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT OR SUBDIVISION ESC ( ❑ SEE ATTACHED SHEET) I ^` 2 " 9,10,11, & 12 1 Riverside Addition J r OWNER ,� L� MAILED, gRF�J r- W. ? % tcnm ., / 0 n' I1 Y _ E. a n /C l%O /� ay_ PHONE 3. 1 >� H: . -- i ' r. 10' // 920 - 3 CONTRACTOR . ' 4 1 (MAIL ADDRESS C PHONE LICENSE NO. a tK ' . -lam ( ��� 1 ARCHITECTOR DESIGNER MAPL IYJ C 9o,...3 /954 PHONE LICENSE NO. 5. Suyherland - Fallin, Inc. 1280 Ute Ave., Aspen, CO 925 -4252 B357 �` ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. "i 6. Maggart & Assoc. (Harry Cole) 963 -9643 26377 CLASS OF WORK: CENSUS CODE TOTAL FEE 7. i NEW ❑ ADDITION LI ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR [1 MOVE IA WRECK //}} ^^ 10 i G ') USE OF BUILDING eLAN CHECK FE)/ y PERMIT FEE 3% USE TAX DEP. 8. Residential Duplex .]SH&.G$ . 2439.50 VALUATION OF WORK i ���11((�� '(� .�-r e6lCbasflrBion Occupancy Group Lot Area 9. $ 500,000. a:awe Li T - / r LIL- !�► R-3/ � -I 8 720 + a ai 10. Remarks c)L L Size of Building No. of Stones Occ, Load (Total Square FL) reapplication of expired permit #1348. 966 L 3 NO. OF BEDROOMS Use Zone Fire Sprinklers Required' EXISTING ADDED ❑Yes 0 No /� \ yL / ,., } No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: /1/0 ( £'H /. ,r Covered Uncovered 44 � V L R ` /� SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED/ /%/V' AUUTHHOR ✓IZZEEED BY DATE L r� l_ S .0 '� ` V L l!Y C1.'L, C ZONING ✓ I '7 -4} 1 1. -, (il _ l // / / 9 I . - 7 Ph , Ga-L 1, _,Z;t - 6L) , 4 -z (/ > H ' 5. /w! H PC. / V �' Fixture Count: • : � - , - -: . PARN DILATION f iA R7 ■■ (� 1 ' HEALTH „61ARTMENT � 5 4 . .4 � ' _ aP?LCATlaN ACCEVrEO FIREPLACE PLWS CHECKED APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE ) //,, //11 l FIRE MARSHAL BY_ - BY' ! _ By ev - _A w n / � /��/� G , v jj a jjj������ SPRINKLER . I � . DATE V 1 = DATEE/ I v \ - i •� i �}NATER C. T�.... t'1. a- ln ��.. !\_ L r r) 1. d Joe , I J , , OTHER .. (; ' L ; SE ARATC PFRMITS ARE : a.311;i9a %I • Fl FrTRICgL, PLUMBING, " q K ey �� ' � � TING - VO�LATING O' AIR C ' DITIONING. SELECTION bF' HO a Of 14 P A$ � NT O F US TAX --2 THIS PERMITBECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ONTHLY USE OF QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120/180 DAYS, OR IF CON- STRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR ❑ DEPOSIT METHOD: 3% OF 25% OF PERMIT VALUATION PAID NOW PERIOD OF 120/180 DAYS ATANYTIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. AT ISSUANCE. FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL MATERIALS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND COST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES COVE NG THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WORK. GENERAL CONTRACTORS CHOOSING THIS METHOD WHETHER SPECIFIE EREIN O -t4 .THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT MUST REPORT AND REMIT TAX FOR ALL SUBCONTRACTORS PRESUME TO GIV UTHORIFYT IOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF THAT DO NOT OBTAIN THEIR OWN PERMIT. ANY OTHER STA OR LOCAL REGULATING COQ , •UCTION OR THE PER - FORMANCEf3FCONSTRU N. /, \ ❑ EXEMPT: STATE & PITKIN COUNTY RESALE NO. e x' " r--.� /AY rf . 0 /U 73 • EXEMPT ORGANIZATION S TURF . • - • - OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IDATEI THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED. WORK STARTED WITHOUT PE pMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE (7 GNAiuPE OF nM FR OF OWNER SUnnFRi (DATE) ., / � 3 n t� 3 Y� P lan Check Validation PArmit Validation Us e ax , ` 1 .: :ti n �'I n - n � D 0 / C: J. LJ i S y iL� - L — U - U OPY GREEN- FINANCE ,1 PT PIN 00 WHITE -FILE ,,31.eItt i 9 6 J . l,. C;tit {.,,� � 1 r _ c C� -LDING DEPARTMENT YELLOW- ASSESSOR GOLD - CUSTOMER ASPEN • PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Larry Winnerman Hand Delivered June 2, 1993 RE: Violations of Stream Margin and PUD Approvals at 103 Park Ave. Dear Mr. Winnerman, A stop work order is in effect for the above address which prohibits any further work from the rear wall of the house to the river. Within 10 days from today, you must provide to the Planning Office the following information so that staff can evaluate the exact extent of violations and determine how to proceed with additional reviews and /or corrective actions: • 1) A certified survey of the site including but not limited to: the structure, culvert, boulder retaining wall, all trees (including any in the .public right -of -way), setback lines, and topographic lines. We also need the survey to indicate the original contour of the land before excavation. 2) Certified Engineered designs for the drywell(s) that will replace the one shown on the recorded plans. 3) New details regarding the relocated culvert including but not limited to new cross sections, coverage, and precise calculations of the slope from the structure to the waterline of the river. If you fail to provide the above items within 10 days from today, a stop work order will be placed on the entire project. Within two days from today, you must provide a protective barricade and erosion control measures as specified in the approval ordinance which I provided to the contractor on May 26, 1993. Failure to comply will result in a stop work order for the entire project. I presented an update of the situation to the Planning and Zoning Commission last night and they are completely supportive of staff • actions. I may be reached at 920 -5100. rerely, • Kim J nson, Planner 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303 920 5090 • FAX 303 920 5197 Nid•dm we 6d met r MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Diane Moore From: Leslie Lamont Postmark: Jun 29,93 5:53 PM Subject: Reply to a reply: Winnerman Stream Margin Reply text: From Leslie Lamont: good response i will be curious to know what he told them Preceding message: From Diane Moore: Jed, I have made 3 site visits and have spent countless hours with these folks and I am concerned that you held a mtg with them without either myself or kim at the meeting. It undermines my position as Planning Director and you are not aware of the representations or discussions that I have had with them. I do not view this as insubstantial...they are attempting to "shop" for a decision and we need to coordinate on this. I have also been working with the ACOE...please include us in these meetings. Thanks From Jed Caswall: Met with M.Pickett and Winnerman re bank disturbance - -they now agree that as -built is different from plan as approved -- issue,I guess,is whether the change is substantial(requiring P/Z approval)or insubstan. YOu could view change as resulting from engineering /tech problems first encountered during construction and thus insubstan. and avoid P /Z(that's what Winnerman wants).He also wants to change floor areas slightly between units by transferring closet from one unit to other. I guess Drueding needs to look at that.I did not commit one way or the other - -said its your decision on sub /insub issue.Call if questions X • R, MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson CC Diane Moore From: Jed Caswall Postmark: Jun 29,93 6:42 PM Subject: Winnerman Message: Per your comment that they changed the plans re culvert for personal/ aesthetic reasons - -they bought the plans as is from Whitcomb and the Bldg Dept approved those plans -- problem seems to be that Whitcomb changed the plans from what was approved by P/Z without telling Win - nerman.Winnerman is simply building from plans he bought and had approved by Bldg Dept. Again,no communication between Bldg and Planning Depts,or Drueding missed the change when he reviewed plans Winnerman is building from.They are building in accord with plans approved by Bldg Dept as far as I can tell. X • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Diane Moore From: Jed Caswall Postmark: Jun 29,93 6:06 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to a reply: Winnerman Stream Margin Reply text: From Jed Caswall: I did not set this mtg up - -I was also told that Kim would be there and that they tried to get her there today but that she did not show.I was not told in advance what the meeting was on other than it was to be about Winnerman.The mtg was set by Peggy in my absence at Marty Pickett's request and both Winnerman and Marty said that you said that they needed to see me about having to go the P/Z for an amendment.I assumed you told them to see me without telling me.IN any event,what they want is action and I told them it was your call. Preceding message: From Diane Moore: Jed, I have made 3 site visits and have spent countless hours with these folks and I am concerned that you held a mtg with them without either myself or kim at the meeting. It undermines my position as Planning Director and you are not aware of the representations or discussions that I have had with them. I do not view this as insubstantial...they are attempting to "shop" for a decision and we need to coordinate on this. I have also been working with the ACOE...please include us in these meetings. Thanks From Jed Caswall: Met with M.Pickett and Winnerman re bank disturbance - -they now agree that as -built is different from plan as approved -- issue,I guess,is whether the change is substantial(requiring P/Z approval)or insubstan. YOu could view change as resulting from engineering /tech problems X MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Jed Caswall CC Diane Moore From: Kim Johnson Postmark: Jun 29,93 7:24 PM Subject: Reply to: Winnerman Reply text: From Kim Johnson: you're correct - the "they" in question was the original contractor or architects. Preceding message: From Jed Caswall: Per your comment that they changed the plans re culvert for personal/ aesthetic reasons - -they bought the plans as is from Whitcomb and the Bldg Dept approved those plans -- problem seems to be that Whitcomb changed the plans from what was approved by P/Z without telling Win - nerman.Winnerman is simply building from plans he bought and had approved by Bldg Dept. Again,no communication between Bldg and Planning Depts,or Drueding missed the change when he reviewed plans Winnerman is building from.They are building in accord with plans approved by Bldg Dept as far as I can tell. X • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Jed Caswall CC Diane Moore From: Kim Johnson Postmark: Jun 29,93 7:22 PM Subject: Reply to: Forwarded: Reply to a reply: Winnerman Stream Margin Reply text: From Kim Johnson: This is the first I heard about this meeting. There were no messages for me from them during my absence. Have they provided a survey of the improvements, engineer info on culvert and drywells, etc.? Preceding message: From Jed Caswall: fyi Previous comments: From Jed Caswall: I did not set this mtg up - -I was also told that Kim would be there and that they tried to get her there today but that she did not show.I was not told in advance what the meeting was on other than it was to be about Winnerman.The mtg was set by Peggy in my absence at Marty Pickett's request and both Winnerman and Marty said that you said that they needed to see me about having to go the P/Z for an amendment.I assumed you told them to see me without telling me.IN any event,what they want is action and I told them it was your call. From Diane Moore: Jed, I have made 3 site visits and have spent countless hours with these folks and I am concerned that you held a mtg with them without either myself or kim at the meeting. It undermines my position as Planning Director and you are not aware of the representations or discussions that I have had with them. I do not view this as insubstantial...they are attempting to "shop" for a decision and we need to coordinate on this. I have also been working with the ACOE...please include us in these meetings. Thanks From Jed Caswall: X i GIS14 4 c4 b t_.1 QJM Co 24u lwLPAA : j " 1 of diatom; om; it 11e R0 ilAir/' • l v� occu;u� , t � � ° 6 do�1�. 10 �1.i e rum edt p W 0 O tr wLflv a/mitt t di cW wdr it) d ta"j' / tt ) } �} �3 73gf; V lXX/( /J Lit r (�J(/��� } '}}) .77}i }�7 }� }t'�a� l � } ' iE t�i7f�1�1 � 1 1 ? }/1 i f c do .4214t `i W _'" . 11 " � l ;} 1 Joao wv Q (cvia w e, Int 1 41,43 `tom C tiiil GALLI , > . .151.. Z SV° . ob 02 N • b 6b 9 a N 00'29'20 "W 20.90 . NORTH / a /!z O. o m rA K _ p ( /. o r 0 C o oC .9 lit. .:. ga a v W NI In c^ O O O N o 0 Z I I _ . e w co o x —2 w N N o u V A `I - ,t,°' � t. 0.90 A .,m - _ 3800 ° o m_ e t • . I 0 .50' . - J ' P 0 F 4 t , G! cm 4 12.00 Q•. 12. LI q a' 3 B2 83 G - w m�PV�awNrrr `•PNPuNrrn v O m O 6' Z0ZZZ VN y,' .nzm Z U. Pmz oa.b u 4 NB , Cpb n O 9OO -O' o a OO Nn "' 4 P P a P a a P a P P a P a P a P P C N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O p O O H N \x F II, F m££ In m T F n, F T m m f m£ O I .. J 0 ,4104. - Crl 0 _ 0 _ _ _ _ .O w a D 000,0 - 00,..0,030•000-0N- o i o _ e0 CITY OF ASPEN * PITKIN COUNTY ti CORRECTION NOTICE STOP WORK ORDER Job Located at / --� IR - \rk A J »f r C I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and have found the following violations of City, County and /or Colorado State laws governing same: / 1 S b TA , sire io, kek0 k t..Grk does Poi CG 4 /":jy t „l4"h ey2 Tel, r - J /?, 1S C1l. /C cif Py — e� l p , , _ Gr dn c �1c �j "). +� Na. � T MCP / �.e � ( ) ,(� ( l t o wer ici 1 i 7_ /n r/I )) -,G TZ 1t.• S 't — ' T t 1 1 e I ^o ∎. 5 ¢ 1. . ef tn 4r l In ✓1 yI 1 • � s 1 I r� // 5QfVL1 - 1^ J coritn : KM 1 JC111 56f a 9g � o 7 -5760 — O : �Ah t5 �f2. l' -J 1 -`� /(3 1 Respond By .1,, A I - 4 Photos Taken: Yes No ❑ _ You are hereby notified that no more work may be done upon the — { premises until the above violations are corrected. If you do not ^_ I communicate with this office by the above date, this matter will be _ j referred to the appropriate authorities for enforcement. Failure to correct the violations may subject you to a civil suit for an injunction, or a fine or both; or to misdemeanor criminal prosecution, which upon conviction may carry a sentence of fine or imprisonment, or both. Date • C ityYounty Official > ❑ Building Department Phone: 920 -5440 r Planning/Zoning Department Pho 920 -509 �Th DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG E PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080 -122 County Code - 69000 -145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL r 00 Nam , -1 L�' C. „r add, Phone: 990 C S/ QQ�^- . /; Address: /5 t - je /(d r Inns L — Pro' ct o „�✓ Check #: 5 / 67 Date: � �.�c . No of Copies: a is W+F� "° 3 iri q � �� 4 1 �+�s � C W } } Y A kj` `h.q N 4'c''4.?? 'k u x x i4 1 4 L . . ._ u 1 .W_ ..., I , : .... .. FRIDAY • Ri ver bank work x . ,. halted by red tag .... .• ,. • . , • Development on any plans or drawings of the Park Avenue project. Also, when Park Avenue approval for the project was blasted by planning given in 1990, Johnson said that planning and zoning staff was commission concerned about keeping the member ri bank intact. The river bank work also goes against the city - adopted Roaring By GIL I. RUDAWSKY Fork Greenway plan, which calls ' ASPEN TIMES DAILY STAFF WRITER for the protection of the river Local developers who are in flow and the natural habitat the process of building a duplex along the bank, and goes against on the Roaring Fork River have the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- torn apart the river bank, neers' river bank regulations. destroyed vegetation, put in A planning and zoning com- landfill and placed huge boulders missioner said the developer's up against the bank — all in vio- violations of the zoning laws lation of zoning regulations, have even brought into question according to city officials. the entire stream margin review Despite obvious changes to process. The stream margin is the river bank, developers Larry the distance between the river Winnerman and Lorrie Moss, and where a home can be built. who are building the 5,000 The commissioner, who asked t square-foot duplex on 103 Park not to be named, said that this Ave., adamantly deny they have type of violation is the reason done anything wrong or that they why there are so many regula- `• have damaged the river bank. Lions. Winnerman's violations The Aspen Planning and Zon- make the planning and zoning • ing Department and at least one commission look seriously at • planning and zoning commis- more strict enforcement and sioner disagree, and the partially requiring moiepermits. ' completed duplex was "red "There's only so much river `\ tagged" earlier this week. bank, and it's critical that it be The red tag for this develop- shared properly with all the citi- ment forbids the developers to zens of Aspen," the commission - do any work on the river bank er said. until the developers can prove "This guy can't go in there they were given permission to and reconstruct something that destroy the bank or until the only pertains to his own use. developers can give the planning "If one guy does what he t department a survey that outlines wants it infringes on everybody's 1 what can be done to salvage the quality of life here." • river bank. If a survey is not sub- The duplex itself follows the mitted by the end of next week, original plans, according to the whole project will be red- Johnson, but the planning depart- tagged, and all construction on ment said that the river work • the duplex will have to stop. does not. According to Kim Johnson of "They placed huge boulders the city planning and zoning and landfill, none of which was office, the destruction of the indicated in any of the plans," river bank was not represented in • See River on page 17 . N. • The project by developers Larry Winnerman and Lome Moss at 103 Park Ave. has raised concerns among planning officials regarding the river bank. Aspen Times photo. River • continued from page 1 not planning on heeding the red Johnson said. "They destroyed tag and providing a survey of the • the natural habitat of the riven river bank. Now there is not a shred of grass Johnson is worried that the left." section of river bank will never Winnerman downplayed his be the same, and will stand out m work to the bank. Winnerman from the rest of the bank up and said there is a misconception down the river. about the destruction of the river Johnson said that in order to bank, and he is just trying to put the boulders, described as make the bank look good for his being the .size of Volkswagens, project and for the town. up against the bank, heavy "Sure the weeds and grass are equipment needed to be brought not there, but that stuff grows in and this also destroyed the back," Winnerman said. "Noth- slope going down to the river. ing major was destroyed aside "When you put boulders of from some brush." that size in, you're not going to As far as placing the boulders get the same kind of revegetation and landfill along the bank, Win- cover and visual feel that is nerman said, "I'm in the process along the rest of the bank," John - of resolving this with (the) city." son said. "This is definitely not He did not go into specifics. what (the planning and zoning • Winnerman did say that he was department) intended." • 7 i °' 4p- . a� 4k • .. ._ 1 ) ...), IP . ' .,, \....; ' . - 'f7:"N . 94 1