Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Whitcomb 103 Park Ave.A38-90 #334;)..4 07/01 /91 14:30 Rec $30.0 3k: 650 PS 258 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk :u0c $.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: 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 wish 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 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $30. ,BK 650 PG 259 Silvia 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 Rectuirements. 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 #3341 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $30.0( k: 650 PG 260 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, bac $.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 3 437 '62 07/01/91 14:30 Rec $3C �� ESP. 650 PG 261 311a Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, 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. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is held 4 #37 S2 07/01/91 14:30 Ftec $30, 5k: b Silvia Davis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc 2 n PG 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 ��� O - William L. St rling, Mayor ATTEST: athryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Edward M. Caswall, City Attorney OWNER: • 1 \I . it s , H. •1d ^ C. Whitc'mb, r. . 1711, P `•g itcom -- 5 S i l via t Da;ts, Fi n /9 4:30 Rec $30.00 BK O PG 263 t Cnty Clerk, Doc $.Op STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The , regoing instrument was sworn and subscribed before me this C 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: , ./m71 C/ >> prase ( (41,1v 7c_, NotaYy- ublic t `, O • c . '' ii,), COLORADO ) v,.' ss. t ' ' rd rfi OF PITKIN ) „ -3s ' '( ( The foregoing instrument was sworn and subscribed before m this WI' day of December, 1990 by Harold C. Whitcomb; a y ; , Philippa B. Whitcomb eR WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: /Jevy / /p . 993' Notary/Pub is chm \re \butera.pud 6 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Cindy Wilson Postmark: Oct 17,90 10:51 AM Subject: Reply to: Ord. 1 fund payment incoming Reply text: From Cindy Wilson: fyi -this was paid last week, thanks for the notice. Any time you can let me know if these are due to come in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Preceding message: From Kim Johnson: Dr. Harold Whitcomb is expected to come in today and pay $9,402 into the housing impact fee fund (Ord.1). Please forward a reciept copy to me as well as Yvonne. After today, his payment will go up to over $11,000. Thanks. X MAR -6 GARFIELD & I P.C. RONALD GARFIELD* ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT ** VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925 -1936 ROBERT E. KENDIG TELECOPIER MICHAEL J. HERRON * ** 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925 -3008 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON * * ** also admitted to New York Bar " *also admitted to March 6, 1991 District of Columbia Bar " "alw admitted t0 • Florida Bar "flalso admitrcd m Illinois Bar HAND DELIVERY Kim Johnson Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Whitcomb Duplex Condominiumization Application Dear Kim: In accordance with my meeting with you and Jed Caswell and our subsequent telephone conversations, this letter application is submitted for the condominiumization of the Whitcomb Duplex, which was the subject of a PUD Development Application that was approved by the City Council on October 8, 1990. Since the condominiumization application could have been combined with the PUD Development application, the Planning Office has agreed to waive an additional application fee. Paragraph 14 of the PUD Agreement submitted by the Owner in connection with the PUD Development approval provides as follows: " Condominiumization. The City has approved the condominiumization of the Project, and the City agrees to accept, execute and approve recordation of a Condominium Plat prepared in accordance 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 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 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.G. Kim Johnson March 6, 1991 Page 2 transfer of title, and both Units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per calendar year, pursuant to Section 7- 1007(A)(1)(b)(1) of the Code." We have agreed that the previously executed and submitted PUD Agreement will not be recorded until City Council approves the condominiumization. Section 7 -1007 of the Code provides that condominiumization of a residence requires (1) evidence that tenants have or will be provided notice and the right to purchase the Unit that is being condominiumized; (2) evidence that the proposed condominium Units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases; and (3) demonstration that the proposed condominiumization will have no adverse impact on affordable housing. With respect to the first requirement, it is not applicable to this Project since the PUD Development approval is for the demolition of the existing duplex and the reconstruction of a new duplex. Accordingly, there are no existing tenants. The second requirement is met in paragraph 14 of the PUD Agreement in that the Units are restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies. The third and last requirement with respect to affordable housing has likewise already been met in that an affordable housing impact fee in the amount of $9,402.00 was paid on October 12, 1990 in full satisfaction of Owner's obligation with respect to employee housing. Paragraph 11 of the PUD Agreement refers to the foregoing payment, in addition to setting forth that no additional housing impact fees shall be imposed upon condominiumization of the Project. (The Section 7- 1007 (A)(1)(d) building inspection requirement is not applicable at this time as the building has not yet been constructed, but such inspection will be conducted subsequent to construction of the duplex.) Since all of the Code requirements for the condominiumization of a residence have been met, the condominiumization should be approved. As paragraph 14 of the PUD Agreement requires, upon completion of the construction of the Project the Owner shall be required to record a Condominium Declaration and create a corporate nonprofit homeowners' association with articles of incorporation and by -laws. Should you need anything further in connection with the foregoing application or have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. It is our understanding that this application will be r ^ GARFIELD & HECHT, P.G. Kim Johnson March 6, 1991 Page 3 placed on the City Council's consent agenda as expeditiously as possible. Enclosed herewith (and unrelated to this application) is a new page 4 of the PUD Agreement that corrects some printing errors and the Code reference in paragraph 14 at the top of the page. Please substitute this page for the page 4 previously submitted. Thank you. Sincerely yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Catherine H. McMahon CHM /bc enclosures cc: T. Richard Butera Dr. Harold C. Whitcomb, Jr. Vt. b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Any Margerum, Planning Director 'I FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner l�� RE: Whitcomb Duplex, 103 Park Avenue, Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization, Second Reading Ordinance 7 DATE: May 28, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant has requested a subdivision exemption for condominiumization of the proposed duplex at 103 Park Avenue, Lots 9, 10, 11 and part of Lot 12, Block 1 the Riverside Addition. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 7 (Series of 1991) on second reading. COUNCIL GOALS: The condominiumization of the Whitcomb duplex complies with Goals 14 and 15. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved first reading of Ordinance 7 at their April 8, 1991 meeting. At the October 8, 1990 meeting, Council approved a PUD Development Plan for a new duplex. The applicant also received a Stream Margin approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1990. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Condominiumization is being done subsequent to stream margin and PUD development plan approvals. Typically, condominiumization occurs after a structure is completed to ensure that the final plat accurately reflects the built structure. However, the applicant is seeking condominiumization prior to construction of the structure and agrees to record a Condominium Plat upon completion of construction of the Project. Paragraph 14 of the PUD Agreement submitted by the Owner in connection with the PUD Development approval provides as follows: "Condominiumization. The City has approved the condominiumization of the Project, and the City agrees to accept, execute and approve recordation of a condominium Plat prepared in accordance 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 in incorporation and by -laws. The Association shall be responsible 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 tenancies per calendar year, pursuant to Section 7 -1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Code." The applicant's have agreed that the PUD Agreement will not be recorded until City Council approves the condominiumization. However, according to the Land Use Code, a Final Plat must be recorded within 180 days of Final approval. Final approval occurred October 8, 1990 and April 8 is the deadline for filing the PUD agreement and plat. Because of the need to delay filing the final plat and PUD agreement to accommodate the condominiumization language within the PUD agreement, staff recommends an extension of the filing period for 30 days after Second Reading of Ordinance 7. Both the City Attorney and Engineering Department agree that this is an acceptable procedure. Condominiumization Review: Pursuant to Section 7 -1007 of the Land Use Code condominiumization is exempt from subdivision and shall be reviewed by the Council. The applicant proposes to condominiumize a newly constructed duplex. Section 7 -1007 A requires the following for the condominiumization of a residential building: a. Existing tenants must be notified that the units are for sale. There are no existing tenants as this is a newly constructed building. b. Minimum lease period restricted to six month minimum leases, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. According to the application, 103 Park Avenue will be restricted by agreement between the applicant and the City of Aspen to six month minimum lease, with not more than two shorter tenancies per year. This agreement, although recorded within the PUD Agreement, shall be duly recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County to ensure compliance with the lease restriction and evidences the applicant's compliance with the minimum lease requirements of the Code as required by Section 7 -1007 (B)(2)(c)(2). c. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. The applicant has already paid an affordable housing impact fee of $9,402.00 to satisfy the housing replacement mitigation for the demolition and replacement of an existing duplex. The fee was paid October 12, 1990 in full satisfaction of the applicant's obligation. d. Inspection of the proposed condominium by the Building Department. An inspection is not applicable at this time, however throughout the construction process the building will be inspected by the Building Department. The project will be subject to a final inspection pursuant to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval, on first reading, of the condominiumization of 103 Park Avenue with the following conditions: 1. Prior to signature of the final plat for condominiumization - a. the plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department; b. a registered engineer must determine that historic runoff shall be maintained; c. 103 Park Avenue shall be restricted by an approved and recorded agreement which shall be duly recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County to ensure compliance with the lease restriction and evidences the applicant's compliance with the minimum lease requirements of the Code as required by Section 7 -1007 (B)(2)(c)(2). 2. A Final PUD Plat and PUD agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and recorded, within 30 days of Second Reading and approval of Ordinance 7, with the County Clerk as required by Section 7 -906 of the Land Use Code. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 7, Series of 1991 on Second Reading." "Move to extend the deadline for filing the PUD Agreement and Final PUD Plat until 30 days after second reading and approval of Ordinance 7, Series of 1991." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Ordinance No. 7 whitcomb.cc 3 i / ORDINANCE N0.&4 (SERIES OF 1990) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE WHITCOMB DUPLEX AT 103 PARK 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 con ::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 ©p 2\_; 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 PUBLISHIED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 041-- day of ` �Vl pn,- , 1990. 4 IMR William L. Stirli�� g, y A FP S / !" Kal r Koch, City Clerk F;NALLY, adopted, passed and approved this I day of (JLCCt �P�r� , 1990. William L. Stifling, Mayor A1TES':': 7 'jr • /. / ' 'athryn S' Koch, City Clerk • jtkvj /Whitcomb.ord 5 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 6/14/90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: Ac qb 2737 - 181 -00 -050 A38 -90 STAFF MEMBER: )c1 PROJECT NAME: Whitcomb Stream Margin Review Project Address: 103 Park Avenue Legal Address: Lots 9, 10, 11 and part of Lot 12, Block 1, Riverside Addition APPLICANT: Harold Whitcomb Jr. Applicant Address: 100 E. Main Street Aspen. CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Deanna Olsen, Sutherland Fallin, Inc. Representative Address /Phone: 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $870.00 NO. Ni F COPIES RECEIVED: 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date 757 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO nit VESTED RIGHTS: YES ? NO • . CC Meeting Date ., U BLIC HEARING: YES NO dl.a VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC/ al t °' / Planning Director Appr al: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: ,City Attorney /Mtn. Bell School District ✓ City Engineer ✓ Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center 7 , DATE REFERRED: ' C - INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty __X City Engineer UWZoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: w , CLOSING MEMO TO FILE WHITCOMB STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Date: Oct. 9, 1990 From: Kim Johnson, Planner On October 8, 1990 City Council granted approval for the Final Development Plan for a new duplex at 103 Park Ave with Second Reading of Ordinance 64, Series 1990. First Reading took place on Sept. 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Stream Margin Review on Aug. 7 and the PUD Development Plan on Aug. 21, 1990. The conditions of approval as amended and approved in Ord. 64 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 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 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. a • 12 October 12, 1990 1� Kim Johnson ` Planning and Zoning Department Aspen, Colorado RE: Project # 90 -05 Whitcomb Duplex Dear Kim, This letter is written to request the issuance at this time of permit for demolition of the existing duplex. We are aware that the ordinance granting final P.U.D. Development Plan approval stipulates that the s he r man Fi 's Ea sement and the final P.U.D. DIan and agreement must be filed with the county clerk's office prior o issuance of any demolition or building permit. At this time, the preparation of these two documents is in progress. Andrew Hecht, an attorney in Aspen (925- 1396), is presently preparing this documentation and will have i om •late ctober 11990. The Whitcomb's would like to be able fo pro wi the emo i ion at this time in order to be able to start the foundation work prior to any major snowfalls. We will certainly appreciate your cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, (680.-e-PL) Deanna nken SLJTHER D° -0AILUUNoINC Bruce SuiLerll nd, President ° Ric_uincl ll allin, Vice President ° David Pamlico, Associate Architecture & Planning ° 11280 Die Avenue ° Aspen, Colorado 81161111 ° 303/9254252 ° FAX 303/925-2639 S MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ��/ THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager// THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director/1V -- FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner cc�� 6 DATE: September 28, 1990 RE: Final PUD Approval for the Whitcomb Duplex - Second Reading of Ordinance 64. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Final PUD Development Plan with conditions for a duplex at 103 Park Ave. Council had First Reading of Ordinance 64 on September 5, 1990. COUNCIL GOALS: The Planning Office seeks consistency in code interpretation (goal #14.) Sensitivity to nature and each other may be compromised with this proposal (goal #5.) BACKGROUND: The applicant, Harold Whitcomb Jr., wishes to demolish and replace a duplex along the Roaring Fork River. Please see Attachment "A ", memo to P &Z with site and floorplan sketches. The lot is located in a PUD overlay, and is zoned R -6. There is no Final Development Plan for this site. In the absence of a Final Development Plan, the process for approval is two -step, requiring a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by Council. If approved by Council, the proposed plan will become the Final Development Plan and any revisions to it will require amendment by P &Z and Council. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The placement of the structure cantilevered over the slope concerns Engineering, and Planning. The PUD overlay allows for flexibility and sensitivity to development on slopes. Refer to P &Z memo for discussion of PUD standards. ADVISORY COMMITTE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the proposal by a 4 -2 vote. KEY ISSUES: The Commission's minority opinion felt that the proposed structure is of a size and closeness to the river as to cause a negative impact on the riverbank environment as well as views from across the river and the E. Hopkins pedestrian bridge. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that Council approve the Whitcomb PUD with the following conditions: 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 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. 2 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 under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5' distance measured horizontally from the high water line. 10. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the change in use of the existing ditch easement will meet any easement standards and that an amended agreement is provided. 11. Any changes to the existing ditch must be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. 12. The drainage system / dry well must be redesigned and /or relocated out of the water table. 13. 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. In addition to the Commission's conditions, the following shall be required for the fulfillment of the PUD requirements: 14. A Final PUD Plan and PUD agreement must be filed with the County Clerk within 180 days of City Council's approval as required by Section 7 -907 of the Land Use Code. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect not to approve Ordinance 64 for approval of this duplex as proposed. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Whitcomb Duplex Final PUD Development Plan with conditions and have Second Reading of Ordinance 64. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Cona�r Attachments: "A" - Planning Memo to P &Z dated August 10, 1990 Ordinance 64 for consideration jtkvj /whitcomb.ccmemo 3 ithrac Mull MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Whitcomb Duplex PUD Final Development Plan - Public Hearing DATE: August 10, 1990 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Whitcomb ,Duplex Final PUD plan with conditions, The P &Z approved Stream Margin Review for this project on August 7, by a vote of 5 -1. APPLICANT: Harold Whitcomb Jr., represented by Deanna Olsen of Sutherland Fallin, Inc. LOCATION: 103 Park Ave. (Lots 9,10,11 and pt.of 12, Block 1, Riverside Addition) ZONING: R -6 PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Final PUD approval for demolition and reconstruction of a duplex. The applicant has submitted an elevation drawing to accompany the plans, as requested at the last Commission meeting. See Attachment "A ". Please Note: Due to a notification error, this Final PUD public hearing is taking place at the August 21 meeting. The Commission shall open Public Hearing, have discussion, and make a motion on the PUD issues at this time. A recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council. REFERRAL COMMENTS: See previous memo dated August 7, 1990. PROPOSAL: Demolition and reconstruction of a Duplex along the bank of the Roaring Fork River. STAFF COMMENTS: The existing duplex was built prior to the PUD overlay being created in this neighborhood. Therefore, an approved final development plan does not exist for this site. Approval of this proposal by the City Council will constitute approval of a Final Development Plan and will require filing of the site plan and Notice of PUD Designation with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. If the duplex will be condominiumized, the condo plat must be submitted and approved by the City Council as a Subdivision Exemption. Section 7 -903 describes the development review process for projects with PUD designation. The General Requirements are: 11/4 ,. , c a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed development shall consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. This proposed duplex complies with the above requirements. It is consistent with land uses in the neighbo}hood and will not affect future development in the area. The Land Use Code lists many design and functional elements to be considered at Final Review. Due to the limited scope of duplex development, many items on this list do not apply. The following is a synopsis of the details which are affected by this proposal: Density: As discussed at the last meeting, the existing duplex is a non - conforming structure because slope density reductions in the PUD chapter would limit development to one unit. As the Land Use Code allows, a duplex can be replaced within 12 months of demolition as long as a non - conformity is not increased (number of units.) Land Uses: The Duplex use complies with the R -6 permitted uses. Dimensional Requirements: Prior to a detailed plans check by the Zoning staff, it appears that this plan complies with setbacks, heights, and floor area requirements. These items will be reviewed upon submittal for Building Permit. Parking: Six spaces are provided and six bedrooms are proposed according to the application. This complies with minimum requirements. However, the space located in front of Unit A must be extended so that its full 18' dimension does not conflict with the entry gate into the residence. Landscape Plan: Landscaping details regarding native plantings along the river side of the project have been addressed in the conditions of approval. Also required are erosion control measures. Architectural Site Plan: The Code reads that "building design should minimize disturbance to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation... ". While the applicant has made an applaudable effort to retain the grade of the slope below the structure, it is felt by the Planning Staff that the • 5 • structure is still too close and low to the river given the size of the building. Conditions of approval pay specific attention to the revegetation of disturbed areas on the site. The plan will be accompanied by an elevation drawing. These plans and elevations become part of the project approval and cannot be changed without approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Planning Director. Lighting: Lighting was not specifically addressed in the application. Planning Staff recommends that a condition of approval require that any outdoor lighting on the rear half of the structure be downcast, low wattage fixtures under four feet in height. This will limit light intrusion to adjacent and cross -river properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Whitcomb Duplex Final PUD Development Plan with the following conditions: 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 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 under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5' distance measured horizontally from the high water line. 10. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the change in use of the existing ditch easement will meet any easement standards and that an amended agreement is provided. 11. Any changes to the existing ditch must be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. 12. The drainage system / dry well must be redesigned and /or relocated out of the water table. 13. 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. Attachments: "A" - P &Z memo dated August 7, with added elevation drawing jtkvj /whitcomb2.memo _ I‘ _ . C ATTACHMENT "A" . •, W,. 1 f W v v the 0 Fi t< t / Gt. 4 ie ttt �t ml f'f0�T S Ln \ \/ 5 i< ME 2 \C - P°11< NS . t +ofKINt AVM- - _' - ner 1 vi -- \ \ t � c - LI H'1 Matt' -la PAL E AVE J1 • , .,, ‘ . i as .y. CoopEr. ,Ave • y w, 37 , - a I • 'hi YIGtt‘l in MAP sCA1_E.: I " -400' s . a / 8 p / - 1 / / - 1 " .� .. v / h > r . -4 -- . 4 4.... L ... ..e:) e - _ ' 6/ - l l J / X : 1 •r_ /.' -',.. p / - S N O — o ' Na /' i 0 / , - _ A -- i" J � 6 o z!1�6 , ;& ' / , \ x S o S f} J. (� -/� /`� , 6 ' a - " ` � . a nti / / + ! ! ! ! r ' Y[a 45 St -9�� _ ` ^s , x � \ \w - 4 I„fp4 / - . / • / ^ ! l i ! iJ0 L _ S ' ,• :tea cr. \ [,� ' 3 ,1 1 1 G` , 1 j Y O ' • '-' �l - 1 , ; `u O - V / p ® In \ jj - 1 V ' I i 4 t / I / / I ,_ 1 :o 4 T 2- F HI g / — _\ _ - _ - % i ,z ei s- / 1 ` FJJGRO/ t LICENSE - - ' / - 7149 5 +. F f t • _ — - t _ - I T O � 3e C 7 - - - -. ; N /G - l.(J C 24,.'0' NM'r5•E! 21,0 _F T� __ _ [=JFE C !"' 1 - AYE M_IYI "--"" ......4 l� -- f .‘-'f':"-'‘.' 7 C ✓'C / -.<••. [ .n5 LI 1:- M.Wf �� I . t ' Y q l F T I Y } 0, fr ' ti /O = � rPi / '/ /! '(J V' i / ' � /� ton 06°41, l --- ".{,v, L v ate / Si \if /�' vt ro s 1 r ° �/ % . / ,$ • la » /te / f / 67� ,e ��.a .. ti \ �.R - r � ___ ,o..• /� / -/ / / / -, - .„ 6 bee c am'' - // _ _ i �/J'` T Py hin / 9° '�... / �� ,, aE` .� w ,-,... = ildir / >/ -' /� c, •.r/ % __- $.+ F y t� st- tUrl / v os (--F-- 0- .fY ' ' / ;ai - � �e - -y^� _ / / _ _ co - c;° f a R �Y � P rot � - / a of o t as I + . 6 - / P41 / - -0- _ r i / / I __ � S ftA c^ OW A i % / -- b` nail - - . / / v - - t 1 , d 6A / / . t " 05 e „3... ). \ . .1._ %t :),...., s 1 4, V se ofra _„(- a 'A -9 cc. t rice ..." - , ' el VT 1'..* P %:;• .ri h i . \ / ? � \ el 4 13 ' frafra:faacte‘ 7 0 A 1.4 aingio.„000:00 ...„,,,,,„... _ te.;77".(t.dir \ .. j h_ / % aE - � .., _— • ' I 1,w-_ « L !I - 1' ! -- s 14' 34 61,8 I / Y - V O� / I s�TrctP 9 /7' / 2 / 1 / / � ' 1 �\ '$ 'r 4 I A I ) 4 r e v ii . MEMORANDUM *.celake-am4-)}4- Lohte--7 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner 1 `�� 7l ' . ` P 1 RE: Whitcomb Duplex Stream Margin Review ant Final PUD Development Plan DATE: August 7, 1990 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Whitcomb Stream Margin Review and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions. APPLICANT: Harold Whitcomb Jr., represented by Deanna Olsen of Sutherland Fallin, Inc. LOCATION: 103 Park Ave. (Lots 9,10,11 and pt.of 12, Block 1, Riverside Addition) ZONING: R -6 PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests stream margin approval and Final PUD approval for demolition and reconstruction of a duplex. See Attachment "A ". Please Note: Due to a.notification error, the public hearing for this Final PUD application will take place at the August 21 meeting. It is suggested that the Commission discuss PUD issues along with the Stream Margin review, then motion to continue the PUD hearing and open public hearing on the 21st. At that date, the Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Jim Gibbard from Engineering submitted the following comments: Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The location of this proposed building approximately 30 feet over the stream bank appears to be in conflict with the goals of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 2. The proposed relocation of the irrigation ditch and resulting berm will impact the bank and vegetation significantly. The Engineering Department recommends against the proposed design and would recommend instead that a design be submitted where there is no change in the existing alignment of the irrigation ditch. The applicant's representative has suggested that the ditch could be lowered and inverted under the proposed building. The Engineering Department would rather see a cantilevering of the building over this ditch but if this ditch lowering plan is approved then the following will be required: a. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the change in use of the existing easement will meet any easement standards and that an amended agreement is provided. b. Any changes to the existing ditch must be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. 3. The Engineering Department recommends against the proposed changes to the slope grading of the stream bank. The submitted site plan shows a significant drainage swale on the north side of the proposed building which may have some impact on both the stream bank and the irrigation ditch. 4. The applicant must grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet along the property side of the river. As an addendum to these comments, Jim reviewed a revised drawing (the one before you today) and adds: The Applicant has submitted a new design for the relocation of the irrigation ditch which eliminates the need for the addition of a berm to the stream bank. This design lowers and relocates the existing alignment of the ditch. The Engineering Department is in agreement with this design although the recommended conditions from the previous memo that pertain to the ditch lowering would still apply. Attachment "B" PROPOSAL: This plan requires demolition of an existing duplex of approximately 2,737 s.f. The new duplex will be 5,062 s.f. and will be 2 levels above grade and a walk -out basement level. The proposed structure will be 20 ft. closer to the river than the existing building. The lot area is 8,720 s.f. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 5 -201 of the Land Use Code (revision date August 1989) includes Duplex dwellings as permitted uses in the district. The required lot area for a duplex is 8,000 s.f. for lots subdivided prior to 1975. In reviewing this application in light of its PUD overlay, it was discussed by Planning staff that if this were an undeveloped property, slope density reduction calculations would reduce the size of the Lot Area, thus reducing the number of allowable units by 50% (from two units to one unit.) 4 Upon consultation with Zoning Officer Bill Drueding, it was determined that since there is an existing duplex, it is considered a non- conforming structure. Two dwelling units can be replaced within 12 months if willfully demolished, as long as the non - conformity is not expanded (number of units per lot area.) Aside from the density reduction issue, the new structure should be reviewed with Section 7 -901, PUD Purpose in mind: The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. This proposal goes to the limit of the allowable floor area at 5,062 s.f. This falls within the site coverage provisions of the R -6 Zone. However, Engineering and Planning staffs are concerned that a structure in this configuration looms over the riverbank. The irrigation ditch as it currently lies, forms a natural boundary / buffer between the river and the residential use uphill. The proposal calls for lowering the ditch and moving it 10 ft. closer to the river to accommodate the structure. A letter has been provided by the proprietor of the ditch granting consent for this proposal. The new building will be 20 ft. closer to the river and 7 ft. lower than the existing structure. The property is very visible from the E. Hopkins footbridge and the City alley /easement across the river. Stream Margin Review criteria are contained in Section 7 -504: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. response: The proposed development is not within a flood hazard area. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. response: There is no trail or proposed easement on this parcel. Across the river is a proposed bike trail corridor in a City alley. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. response: The Greenway Plan establishes goals for protecting the natural river corridor which is one of the community's prized assets. While no trails are proposed on this parcel, the natural character of the riverway should be maintained for the benefit of those who see the area from the Hopkins footbridge or the proposed trail in the City's alley / access across the river. This structure will be more visibly intrusive to the riverway than the existing residences on the parcel and in the vicinity. If neighboring parcels are developed in a similar way, the open, wooded slope and riparian habitats will be lost in a canyon of hard architecture. In an effort to maintain the natural vegetation character found on the site, staff recommends landscaping requirements including moving small clumps of existing trees, wildflower and native grasses on the slope, and limitations on urban turf treatments downslope of the proposed patio. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. response: The applicant offers that no erosion will take place because of the construction or slope changes. Moving the irrigation ditch horizontally and vertically will have the most impact on the slope. Staff recommends erosion control measures on disturbed slopes and swales such as placement of hay and /or hay bales and rock water breaks. The project should be monitored by staff and the architect to insure these measures are effective in preventing erosion. Staff recommends that native young trees . be moved and re- established on the site to maintain the slope and vegetation characteristics. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. response: The river channel will not be directly affected by this proposal. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. response: Not applicable. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. response: The applicant has provided guarantee language in the application. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. response: Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Whitcomb Stream Margin Review and Final PUD Development Plan with the following conditions: 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 has been graded. These efforts will be monitored by Planning staff during and after construction. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permit: 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. A fisherman's easement must be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder. This easement shall include the land area under the Roaring Fork River, and on land, a 5' distance measured horizontally from the high water line. 9. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the change in use of the existing ditch easement will meet any easement standards and that an amended agreement is provided. 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. Attachments: "A" - Site Plan, Site Section, and Application "B" - Engineering Referral Comments / Addendum jtkvj /whitcomb.memo ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION F0R4 �Yrw 1) Project Name Whi nnmh Dtmlex 2) PLuject location 103 Park Avenue, Aspen, Co. _ Lots 9,10.11 & Part of 17 (Rik 1 Riverside Additinnl (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R -6 4) lot Size 8720.11 Sq Ft 5) Applicant's Name, Adtm s s & Phase 11 Dr. H.C. Whitcomb Jr. 100 E. Main, Aspen, Co. 81611 (925 -5440) 6) Representative's Nye, Address & Phone # Sutherland,Fallin,Inc. (Deanna Olsen - Proj. Arch.) 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Co. 81611 (925 - 4252) 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) : Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review _ Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenly _ Conceptual HID _ Minor Historic Dev. X Stream Margin _ Final HOD _ Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condnminiimixation Text/Map Amendment _ QW Allotment Int Split,/Iot Line GMQS Domption Adjustment 8) Description of Mdstinrq Uses (ember and type of existing st ns: approximate sq. ft.; amber of bedxocrs; any previous approvals granted to the ProPerY) - 1 Stor Frame House w Basement A■artment 1 ::t • 4 . led to 2 Story Frame House (857 Sq Ft) 9) Description of Development Application - • Proposed new development demolition of existing building & construction of 1 Duplex (2 levels above grade & basement level F = 5,061.75 Sq Ft). New construction adjacent to Ro'ring Fork River. 10) Have you attached the follcMing? Yes Pesp nse to Attadtiment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents yes Pnsponse to Attactmriit 4, Review Stanrtanls for Your Application WHITCOMB DUPLEX DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed new development consists of the demolition of two existing attached single family houses and the construction of one residential duplex. The proposed wood frame structure is comprised of two levels above grade and one level partially below grade. This application for stream margin development review has been prepared because location of the proposed structure lies within one hundred feet (100'), measured horizontally from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The following is an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 1. This proposed development is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area as verified by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. 2. The Planning Department has verified that there are no proposed or existing trails designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan - Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map for public use located on this parcel. 3. The parcel under consideration is not located within the planning corridor which is addressed by the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. This parcel is located to the east side of the river. 4. Care will be taken that no vegetation will be removed without replacement and that no slope changes will be made that will produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. The construction impact to the site will involve both the relocation of the existing drainage culvert to a location 15 feet west of its present location and the excavation required for the construction of the duplex. The relocation of the existing culvert will guarantee that the existing runoff quantities will be maintained. This relocation will require berming approximately 10 feet to the river side of the culvert. This area will be revegitated to prevent erosion. The excavation for the duplex will be undertaken by the use of normal mechanical methods. A minimal amount of regrading is being proposed to gain proper drainage off drives and walkways. Regrading that is required is designed to maintain the existing trees and any areas of vegetation which are disturbed will be revegetated in order to prevent erosion. Also, there will be no excavation dumping allowed into the river. 5. The proposed development will not create any interference with the natural changes of the river. With regard to pollution, the proposed duplex units will use gas log fireplaces in lieu of the wood burning fireplace which is presently in use in the existing structure which will assist in reducing pollution. 6. This proposed development does not require any alteration or relocation of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries. 7. A guarantee is herein provided by the developer, his heirs and successors that neither the water course of the river nor its tributaries will be altered or relocated and that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel will not be diminished. In the event that any such alterations do occur during construction, the developer guarantees to repair any altered conditions to their original functioning state. 8. Regarding permits for work within the one hundred year floor plain, no work is to be done within this flood plain area. Whitcomb Duplex Demolition Phase - Stream Margin Review 1. All Demolition of the existing structures on site will be accomplished from within the limit of the building envelope line wherever the existing building lies within this boundary. Care will be taken in the remaining portion of the demolition to minimize as much as possible any disturbance to the natural vegetation on the site. 2. A protective mesh fence will be used to cordon off the area of the site below the relocated culvert in order to prevent any disturbance to the remainder of the site adjacent to the river. , t 1 I le._! . �I - _. 9 -' - a: p -< � o :" , 0 t, �.IVaa97a+ A P Y4' - I' o " L.._ i __ I i . 7 1; 7i,.. , el ex. &C. --eat es. _ r • II d Wr 15)6f 10 G,—C,11O1--1 Y \Lt, 111 laJ %C/A UUUWIII - z U �� >>s p t tc? � a x 00i3tL.\ ail 11l ,\ - 7 1`L`11 6 111 w\ Q 111Q��1 00 ■ 0 N .5 S \00 $ lv co; °ro a 6 ' a / to a 1\ 1 \ ` \ \ \ 1 7\ \ \ \ \ t \ \ \ ‘k \ li \ \ \ \ Q. r — c1 AN.... / 1)? ' ?..., I / _ — \ Y ` TTT 14\ \ \. \\, . ,\\ , \ . t \\\ mr.vt • s tc, \ \\ \ \ ‘ a ( . •,ki, I \ \ , 0 \\ i '') \‘i Ise i \ t , \ 1��� I ` ` � I Z ' z v * 1 ' 'V 4 41 1 ? A 1 \ a I \ � � O CSS V \ .ti I -131 4 � c l I � '- An U.1 i no 6 \ — =21 k ii t 5 cc % LL , "tr) i / z.-k.._ ,..... r- , p o \ ip 1 ' , 1 6 A in I 3 1 - I 1 1 I l I I 1 y I r' Y -y III I / 1. L _ c - . .- s. 1 - I t , \ \ \ A lire Sirik i r rar , \ V_ Is; ' 1 1 \ A \ \It, wI ��4 _ \ _ o g ' 1 \ N • b, o_ in 1 i 7- 7 .--- "Ift - -"--- r ....L K__Ei a. \ 4,1 i I/ i 4=1 Q. fr/ e --,_ 3 / 4 - I k . o • 4 (S" e cr ci "ft --- W - 1 j � Attachment "B" MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: July 20, 1990 - RE: Whitcomb Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The location of this proposed building approximately 30 feet over the stream bank appears to be in conflict with the goals of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 2. The proposed relocation of the irrigation ditch and resulting berm will impact the bank and vegetation significantly. The Engineering Department recommends against the proposed design and would recommend instead that a design be submitted where there is no change in the existing alignment of the irrigation ditch. The applicant's representative has suggested that the ditch could be lowered and inverted under the proposed building. The Engineering Department would rather see a cantilevering of the building over this ditch but if this ditch lowering plan is approved then the following will be required: a. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the change in use of the existing easement will meet any easement standards and that an amended agreement is provided. b. Any changes to the existing ditch must be designed by a professional engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department. 3. The Engineering Department recommends against the proposed changes to the slope grading of the stream bank. The submitted site plan shows a significant drainage swale on the north side of the proposed building which may have some impact on both the stream bank and the irrigation ditch. 4. The applicant must grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet along the property side of the river. jg /whitcomb cc: Chuck Roth Bob Gish MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: July 31, 1990 RE: Whitcomb Stream Margin Review Addendum The applicant has submitted a new design for the relocation of the irrigation ditch which eliminates the need for the addition of a berm to the stream bank. This design lowers and relocates the existing alignment of the ditch. The Engineering Department is in agreement with this design although the recommended conditions from the previous memo that pertain to the ditch lowering would still apply. jg /whitl cc: Chuck Roth 7 . . e/8/1`° e August 8, 1990 City of Aspen Planning Department Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it May Concern: This letter is to certify that the notices for the August 21 Planning/Zoning public hearing for the Whitcomb Duplex, requesting final PUD approval, were mailed on August 7. Sincerely, ,, __� �6"�' Deanna Olsen • Bruce SUM ER 1DoFALLINoINC. Bau rce Sutherland, President resident ° Richard Failin, Vice President ° David Panic, Associate Architecture & Planning ° 1280 lite Avenue ° Aspen, Colorado 816111 ° 303/925 -44252 3 FAX 303/925 -2639 A/2M Mk R eaftg AIN 2 6 !Pm June 20, 1990 Amy Margerum Planning Director Planning and Zoning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy, I an assisting Dr. Whitcomb and his wife Polly in the building of a duplex on their property on Park Avenue. Our architect, Sutherland Fallin, has submitted construction plans as well as a Stream Margin Review. I was shocked to learn today that we cannot be scheduled for the Stream Margin Review with the Planning Board until August 23rd. This is a very routine matter and it would seem highly unusual that it would take over two months to see the Board. I know that you have been working to improve relations between the general public and your office, therefore, I was very surprised to hear of this delay. I know that the architect will be happy to relate any thechnical data to your staff, and cooperate in any way possible. Is there anything you can do to speed up the pro-ass of Stream Margin Review? As you know, the approval of plans and issuance of a Building Permit cannot begin until after Stream Margin Review which would then take us into October and the winter months to begin construction. This seems like an unusually long time for a simple duplex procedure. I would greatly appreciate any help you could give us to smooth out this matter. in 520 East Durant, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -2000 800/882 -2582 800/443 -2582 (Colorado) 303/920 -2020 (FAX) C 3 Page 2 I will be out of town until July 9th, however, Bruce Sutherland will be happy to discuss this with you at any time. I thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, T. Richard Butera cc. Bruce Sutherland Dr. & Mrs. Whitcomb TRB /mb Whitcomb Duplex P.U.D. Development Application 1. Parking: The proposed development plan provides one parking space per bedroom as required for medium - density residential development in an R -6 zone. One space for each unit is provided within a garage and 2 additional uncovered parking spaces for each unit are provided on site. Each parking space meets the minimum off - street parking space requirement measuring 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 feet long. The uncovered parking areas shall be graveled and maintained in a usable condition at all times. 2. Public Facilities: There are no public facilities provided on this site. 3. Development Schedule: Construction Initiation -As of permit date Construction Completion -7 months 4. Open Space Plan: The proposed site plan indicates the open space which will be provided around the proposed duplex. These areas will be maintained in a " fee simple ownership" by the owner of each duplex. 5. Topographic map: The PUD requirement to provide a topographic map /slope analysis prepared by a land surveyor has been waived by the City of Aspen Planning Department because of the existing " Two unit credit " which supercedes the need for this analysis. July 16, 1990 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: WHITCOMB DUPLEX & THE ASPEN DITCH AND WATER RIGHT, NO. 451, PRIORITY NO. 640 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding the change proposed in the portion of the Aspen Ditch that flows through the property of Harold Whitcomb, at 103 Park Avenue, I have been shown the suggested plans to alter the course of the Aspen Ditch to accommodate a new duplex by Ms. Deanna Olsen of Sutherland Fallin. I have agreed to alterations being made as long as the change is "workable." However, if any damage results to Mr. Whitcomb's property or building as a consequence of the change, the responsibility should fall on the parties designing and/or installing the change. Thank you, Ernst Kappeli Owner /Operator of Aspen Ditch r Whitcomb Duplex Meeting with: Kim Johnson/Jim Gibbard/Deanna Olsen Purpose: to discuss lot area requirement for Whitcomb duplex construction. 1.) At the beginning of our meeting Kim told me that our lot area since it was in a PUD had to be reduced by performing the slope reduction calculations, and that lot area would therefore be less than the 8000 square feet required for a duplex. She then checked with Bill Drueding, regarding my question on getting a variance to the minimum lot area required. Drueding said that because there is an existing duplex on the site, although it is a non-conforming-mew the owner would be permitted to replace the existing duplex ith a new duplex ( the owner is allowed a 2 unit credit). .7111ChAdtC 7' 31 ' J / We do not then have to do the slope analysis typically required to obtain PUD development approval. 2.) We should review "PUD requirements" for additional information we may need to submit. 3.) Regarding stream margin review: Jim Gibbard informed us that the engineering department does not want to see grades as radically disturbed outside the building envelope as we have shown on the initial permit set caused by relocation of the existing culvert. The recommendation is to have the culvert remain under the building, and engineer it to be relocated beneath the lower level of the building. Recommendation #2, addressing grade revisions along each side of the site was that the recontouring which is shown on the permit set must be followed by immediate sodding of these side yards, and by providing bails of hay and gravel water breaks at intermediate points to prevent erosion. Recommendation #3, regarding site excavation in general was that all excavation should be done from within the building envelope area. The building envelope line should be cordoned off so that land outside this envelope will not be disturbed. 4.) Kim verified that our FAR was done correctly, and that it was correct to base the FAR on the total site area of 8720 square feet. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: WHITCOMB FINAL PUD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 21, 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 Sutherland Fallin, Inc. on behalf of their client Harold Whitcomb, Jr. requesting Final PUD approval for demolition and reconstruction of a duplex located at 103 Park Avenue, Lots 9, 10, 11, and part of 12, Block 1, Riverside Addition. 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 August 9, 1990. City of Aspen Account. W H I1"Gor fie 11JPLIe54 Ida F',421c AYE, t F lo -aS Wz.l /10 ASpE4 -1 Co, 49 C_ lre- AfaaA : _ 872.o, r l _ s, F I) YN = Gr/S. G c.xlsroi . SIB 2 c 2 , 1 4 9 S2,t) H 615 x*()) t(19x �1 +(4-75 x lags ... sour C.0 ci<`.sp{tL, i tr4 yWSVE . Z( _ t 1700, 4 +_. __ 14 ) 50110 y yme„ y toce cov -weL �/N = 171,1 G.c. Vp = G PA c. r sez SIT -1 orp q`4 +(,° .ZC(.2 +(•g5x'Igo� 15x25s4,1) + (,zyx IM2-) toN` PF°�T Iop G�p_&VE = .X + . -t- 2.•%7,3 t 3Io. 001 i. ` nr _ . 2 C460 'fee, I ) 3) vs - vN 127, z '7 - 7 I , R IC,-, ea WM{ I-rooMps DUtx 4) _ .- Vs h x _. R Z) I58 ° h k (3.1411 x co ,2s ... 3Q ' 4 k cj 1 .42 0 6w- -tc. 6 C yc _ ,1 t1 rpEEF Cre otrr -Te0 DR weru.. pips) ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 June 25, 1990 Deanna Olsen Sutherland Fallin, Inc. 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Dear Deanna, As you discussed with Kim last week, she has determined that your application is not complete. We are unable to schedule it for review at this time. We will try to put it on the August 21st P &Z agenda if you are able to submit the revised plans that you talked to Kim about within one week. The following is a list of the items Kim asked you to submit: 1. 3 sets of the revised plans. 2. 3 copies of a revegetation plan for potential erosion purposes. If you have any questions please call, Kim Johnson. Thank you. Sincerely, GL/ ' Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ds 11 iaa 100 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5440 June 5, 1990 Planning Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Project #90 -05 Whitcomb Duplex To Whom it May Concern: 1, Dr. H.C. Whitcomb Jr., am authorizing Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. to act as my representative for the purpose of processing this Stream Margin Development Application for my property at 103 Park Avenue in Aspen (Lots 9,10,11 and part of Lot 12 - Block 1 Riverside Addition). Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. is located at 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611; phone number 925 -4252. Sincerely, 1 to Dr. H.C. Whitcomb Jr. �,},� .. ri iw.>•n. rr sn '.IM.Werbk,: k ` vataia.ke4'Z z; _ a::.e1 c .. anon --.l` • ...a u!.: i•M Peat. r t_. F r 1 k r� d A , ( i ... 1m mtue 1 wet. W Y A i ` . rawrM bl tb.w r+ara.s• ` .. :CI, ^ 1 , k ,"( et Mon r . cc r , .u - L - r ..m .Coat.• i.war .Y am i.t:a.•ar i y t 1 _ s lock 1, �L ! ': r a r . 1 il . 3 h j i t �r x . P .1 t,4,4,,,,?5v,..,....,, N h' ik i x i � F � * r" • . Te d . tnE:;r es s.m'eb a.ea d al:e t rn eaaoae ir ..Lbw. r robe Ws' - , t - f.. taYa,t, d n. .wa.m ►x w.a+m *.. �.:� r w�.+ad+a ...+a. !r•a d Prr Y w4 a lrt t tar. awn . than: wet *ea .Low... t ate sit art 7 1 the Mt Pw, table r L• t , .h ; r �) . S. wt. I. art r tai ton rrL�' P+r•4 _ to �ewi/rrxna mod •tla 'k ' Sri' ! h A�` i s! i n Rev. ma r Rata ear ewe ran is - rwad mil errrikd. mad W spots a.. 6w Ina ., ! T ' Y • fads at the most rat- the et et Imo. u ttin their amino r De hells el Ileac, tel .r .riot total , 1 , 1^ , r k" 3(,' Ant W ad feet r d Cie trot part fa her r f.i rerya, a�itttedd --- - - _ • ... C } '' ` il v .r r { # t eenesat est hvpr d ire mo ei silk do nit polio t x .1101! sot Se awraration, Oar i 1 0- 1 le wed the bore at Sris d ax% tai. t *et at the use d the to -t d tie tta in '' _ iiyt , i >, , A i ..n rear d il• snobs .r...eseer.+. m d Pete mam P1622822. SS r tiara. ado• c i.lrr.q C' (i:. a,. ai ke, n to Arta d r 1 rat r e n t td lent ad Safi .mow t o ten. Spit. at at tin, . , p , wo re r east of teen at. .C. rd tae l . ma awe La d ode be H ftea at tin /a t Y Mph.. ma hose d 41=1• d IstLte t sole! W es Sit tai 1 , ( ti ` 7 .vh tar a... aa.{'a.'Jrt meiwa t err d ra.arra raarda t ` a aY t SS aaad .tt. to .Y eit f gfFE F+ : R j5 g :a.dtt d re. 6.11' .aso d r tr 1� td . also t ea .awe. tw •�"� •en n�a p raa� e rr. 1l uMr b aa r we twr 7 tea wr.twr.l 3 " ; e ttir..t TS raw 1 d r in rat i• • ice• aM St ion r 1 4 1 totet seOn tan sin e ! f ` Al � , I I I r .4. . K: :.L.+' ' f 1___ se_c _s_*. t____ t _ _ — lye � o „ 4 � 7 t « . � � 1 � O ___ ef ' jr' _ 4 � e , y S "Jed i. Y 7I 5. t u ,t} r a k tni WOO a u+ ,__/' .. .... A '' f is + "^ . nurrli 3dT1ES5 l _ - r%r yLp9rez i f r. : y a 1. ' _ r� r a Ity ______ ubstia4i.. t t `1 , , �I - k z max„ ` . — _� . . / _ dd , It ....e rr a...� •. , ........ roan imam ter Ms ••= •agar ter. i • t .... ; . .auenr. , TO MIR +wanr vs swot wt ease tom. r mow.. it test ,p} t,. ! ' 1 4 - k '+ 01 3 a E . 'S a s`w '..." i . ' , s y t i .- � , s,,,„,„,, dka+5l .r d' ^ 'l tee: hire . .:;w .,.+�i.t. t'+.. t .. • d t � sr. PgraT SITE N 1 \ O` 2.S n ;o 4- Op}CINS t. f4OflC Ne Avg- 111 n • W 1- MAN �o t'AL.6 Avg • Coop Er. AVE f/ a 37 I( VIGIL! IT`( MAP SCAI -E. J" - 4Q0' Arnua Ia r 1 LAND USE APPISCATION 1Of*( 1) Project Name Wh; omhft�fMY Dnpl 2) Project location 103 Park Avenue, Aspen, Co. L. • 1 _ • . - '•- L••' '•. (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R -6 4) rat Size 8720.11 Sq Ft 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone $ Dr. H.C. Whitcomb Jr. 100 E. Main, Aspen, Co. 81611 (925 -5440) 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone Sutherland,Fallin,Inc. (Deanna Olsen - Proj. Arch.) 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Co. 81611 (925 -4252) 7) Type of Application (please Bieck all that apply): Conditional Use _ Oonoeptual SPA _ dal Historic rev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD _ Minor Historic Dev. X Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane _ Subdivision _ Historic Designation Ckxd niniumization _ Text/Map Amendment _ GMQ,$ Allotment Iot Split/Lot Line _ CMS Tertian Adjustment 8) Description of - Existing Uses (camber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms: any previous approvals granted to the Pte) 1 Story Frame House w /Basement Apartment (1.880 SgFtl At _ached to 2 Story Frame House (857 Sq Ft) 9) Description of Development Application Proposed new development demolition of existing building & construction of 1 Duplex (2 levels above grade & basement level = 5,061.75 Sq Ft). New construction adjacent to Roaring Fork River. 10) Have you attached the following? Yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents YPS Response to Attachment 3, Specific submission Contents Ypq Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application WHITCOMB DUPLEX DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed new development consists of the demolition of two existing attached single family houses and the construction of one residential duplex. The proposed wood frame structure is comprised of two levels above grade and one level partially below grade. This application for stream margin development review has been prepared because location of the proposed structure lies within one hundred feet (100'), measured horizontally from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The following is an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 1. This proposed development is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area as verified by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. 2. The Planning Department has verified that there are no proposed or existing trails designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan - Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map for public use located on this parcel. 3. The parcel under consideration is not located within the planning corridor which is addressed by the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. This parcel is located to the east side of the river. 4. Care will be taken that no vegetation will be removed without replacement and that no slope changes will be made that will produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. The construction impact to the site will involve both the relocation of the existing drainage culvert to a location 15 feet west of its present location and the excavation required for the construction of the duplex. The relocation of the existing culvert will guarantee that the existing runoff quantities will be maintained. This relocation will require berming approximately 10 feet to the river side of the culvert. This area will be revegitated to prevent erosion. The excavation for the duplex will be undertaken by the use of normal mechanical methods. A minimal amount of regrading is being proposed to gain proper drainage off drives and walkways. Regrading that is required is designed to maintain the existing trees and any areas of vegetation which are disturbed will be revegetated in order to prevent erosion. Also, there will be no excavation dumping allowed into the river. 5. The proposed development will not create any interference with the natural changes of the river. With regard to pollution, the proposed duplex units will use gas log fireplaces in lieu of the wood burning fireplace which is presently in use in the existing structure which will assist in reducing pollution. 6. This proposed development does not require any alteration or relocation of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries. 7. A guarantee is herein provided by the developer, his heirs and successors that neither the water course of the river nor its tributaries will be altered or relocated and that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel will not be diminished. In the event that any such alterations do occur during construction, the developer guarantees to repair any altered conditions to their original functioning state. 8. Regarding permits for work within the one hundred year floor plain, no work is to be done within this flood plain area.