HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Meeker.1973 ..,
January 3, 1973
Mr. Michael A. Chernich
Flood Plain Management Section
Sacramento District Corps of Engineers
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Chernich:
Enclosed are 2 maps showing a proposed project along the
Roaring Fork River.
The applicant is seeking a building permit and the Planning
Commission is responsible for reviewing the development
plan under the stream margins section of the code. We
• would appreciate your detailed analysis in terms of the
Corps' overall study. Please return the maps to us with
your comments as soon as conveniently possible.
I Yours truly,
/e/
Fred Wooden
Asst. Planner
J
FW/db
i
1
i
I
F
rs. -
{, . /
.F.H�ECKEL9.9.81. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM MI C C0.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 6, 1973
Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman James Adams at 5 :00 p.m. with
Bruce Gillis, Victor Goodhard, Barbara Lewis and Anthos Jordan. Also present
City/County Planner Herb Bartel and .Building Inspector Clayton Meyring.
Gillis moved to approve the minutes of. January 16, 1973. Seconded by Good-
hard. All in favor, motion carried.
Charles Collins arriv .
Dick Meeker lat was reviewed, Commission previously viewed the site.
Stream Margin One hundred year flood area was outlined on the plat by the
$ Request Corp of Engineers .
Recommendations from the Planning Office were submitted
stating the following: (1) Prior to the issuance of a
building permit a limitation be placed on the land within
the 100 year flood area so no construction would take place
at, a later date in this area. (2) Easements shown on the
preliminary river study be dedicated to the City as a con-
dition of the building permit; conditional easement between
buildings 1 and 2 to connect to the alley be provided by
the applicant; (3) small section of BLM land feel the City
- 't should be responsible to get an easement on that land; (4)
construction not encroach into the easement areas so that
none of the vegetation or bank of the river are- disturbed.
Applicant request permission to remove the pumphouse now
existing on the property. Building Inspector and Engineer
report the City does not have a use for this . There are no
objections by the applicant of the Planning Office re-
commendations .
Jordan moved to approve and recoinniend to the Building In-
spector that the following conditions be made a part of the
building permit: (1) No further construction in the 100
year flood plain area; (2) Trail easement along the river
be conveyed to the City conditional upon the City solution
on connecting the trail to the BLM land; (3) owner of the
property convey easements to the City for trail system;
(4) recommend landowner remove the pumphouse presently
existing on the property; (5) no motorized vehicles be
} allowed on the premises and (6) no encroachment into the
easement area during construction as that vegetation is
not disturbed. Seconded by Gillis . All in favor, motion
carried.
Towne Place, Attorney Leonard Oates representing K.N. C. B. Moore request
Parking the same privilege as allowed in the C-C zone and that is
to lease parking off the site. Mr. Oates argued the property
is small - one lot - 30 x 100. Underground parking or on
site parking are not practical. Requesting approval of
m-ar °'?',.. .......y_m,,,m'r :..' . .? kommm_ma °s. .97r*, .vPP.z-f a.:ran ' 2 zKmigF":!,imr.- '' "-`4_v' +°-T*- t,^r"N ,. ?, 9 ;µ'mic a
_ 2.,.�..e. .C"D. Nn:UY'..:�SL...u�.� .^.-w- �. .... � _ _. F�Svt..>..
• •
T
, ,, --2 2---,-.2 — /......Lz.,7.--z,....-'.
n‘
P.k: :9
CITY q_ %F AS
aspen ,c® orado, mg box v
, X4.4.7.
November 23, 1973
Leonard. Oates, Esq.
Clark, Oates, Austin & McGrath
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 3707
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Riverview
Lennie:
As I indicated in my Friday call, both the P & Z minutes and the
subsequent agreement appear to be directed to the satisfaction of
the stream margin review requirements. I am told that the only
discussion about "subdivision" was whether the fact that the area
was previously platted into lots and blocks satisfies the lot re-
quirements for permit issuance.
Inasmuch as nothing toward condominiumization has occurred to date,
I cannot see how an unqualified exception grom the City' s subdivi-
sion requirements can be argued. However, if the structure within
an area "platted into lots and blocks by plat recorded in the office
of the . Pitkin County Clerk" on the effective date of the modifica-
tion to the subdivision regulation, Section 20-10 (c) would allow
an exception if the development satisfies the design requirements
of our subdivision regulations.
Please advise as to how you would like to proceed.
Very truly yours,
caa
Sandra M. Stuller
cc Donna Baer City Attorney
=� • •
RichorI J. Meeker
January 26, 1973
•
Mr. James Adams, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
• Dear Mr. Adams:
The purpose of this letter is to thank you and the members of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as Mr. Bartel
•
and Mr. Wooden of the Planning Office, for taking the time to
visit the AR-1 property at the end of East Hopkins Street
which is being reviewed before your committee for stream
margin requirements. The other purpose of communicating
with you and the members of your commission before our
scheduled final hearing on the stream margin requirement
on February 6, is to put in writing to you our positions, as
well as our proposals as the developers of the subject property.
If our interpretation of the Stream Margin Ordinance is correct,
we, the developers, have satisfied the requirements of paragraph
number 1 , with the five subparagraphs relating to the presenta-
tion of the development plan. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are to be
satisfied by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Building Inspector. Paragraph 4 and the subparagraphs con-
nected therewith I would like to review with you briefly:
Subparagraph (-a) - The report recently received by the
Planning Office from the Army Corps of Engineers indi-
cates that no part of any of our structures are in the
flood plain of the Roaring Fork River and, as a result,
the buildings, or better yet the property on which the
buildings are to be located, is not subject to flooding.
(See copy of letter attached hereto.)
Subparagraph (b) - We agree to not only provide a 10-foot
perpetual easement for a pedestrian trail along the stream,
per our drawings, but to construct the trail with the super-
vision of the Building Department. The maintenance of the
trail would be the responsibility of the city.
•
•
,. •
Mr. James Adams -2- January 26, 1973
Subparagraph (c) - Our construction of the three buildings
•
will not require the removal or destruction of any vegetation,
nor will our work produce erosion of the stream bank or area
• adjacent to the stream. In building the 10-foot trail along the
stream, it may be necessary in a few places to clear brush
because of the dense foilage, but with the supervision of and
guidelines established by the Building Department, the vege-
tation removal will be minimized.
• Subparagraph (d) - There will be no violation, of this provision.
The average distance of our buildings from the edge of the
• stream is approximately 30 feet, with the southeast corner of
building #3 being the closest point to the river.
Subparagraph (e) - There will be no pollution of the stream,
either during or subsequent to the construction of our project.
To insure compliance with this provision, as well as to prevent
erosion (Subparagraph c), we will construct the necessary
retaining barriers along the banks of the river per the recom-
mendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and as
supervised by the Building Department.
Subparagraph (f) - The report of the Army Corps of Engineers
and our development plan should verify that the development
will not interfere with important natural changes now occurring
to the stream.
Subparagraph (g) - When you consider the distance our three
buildings are from the stream, and the fact that we are pro-
.
viding a 10-foot pedestrian trail easement•around the entire
river boundary of our property, and further, that 40 percent
of our total land area is between our structures and the north
and east boundaries of the property along the river and is to
remain in a natural state, you can see that we are making
every effort to preserve the natural features of the Roaring
Fork River and our property.
In anticipation of the enactment of an amended subdivision regulation
which henceforth shall include,among other entities, condominiums,
we would further agree to donate 4 percent of our total land area to
the city of Aspen for park and/or recreation purposes.
•
•
•
•
<A
Mr. James Adams -3-- January 26, 1973
In view of the fact that our property is described by lots and
blocks (i.e. , already subdivided) and already has all utilities
to the property line and a dedicated public street abutting it
on the south, and further that we have already submitted our
site plan for review with the Planning and Zoning Commission,
we would request the Commission grant an exception to the
strict application of the subdivision regulation (if applicable)
except for our gift of land in the preceding paragraph.
Based on the favorable findings of the Army Corps of Engineers,
our compliance with the provisions of the Stream Margin
•
Ordinance and our willingness to go beyond the letter of the
law in that we are not maximizing density; we are providing
a 10-foot trail easement along the river; we are donating
4 percent of our land to the city; we are leaving all of our
property in and along the river in a natural state; and we
have avoided the "monolithic structure" so detested in Aspen
by planning three nine-unit buildings and incorporating our
own strict architectural control, we feel strongly that the
Planning and Zoning Commission should pass favorably on
our development plan.
Thank you for your patience and cooperation.
•
Very truly yours,
0(./f/./
GLLt�
Ri hard eeker/Alfred C. Nicholson
/slr
cc: Planning Office - I
Planning and Zoning Commission Members
•
•
•
•
01 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
4P•' '1".• SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
a A f:--;' 650 CAPITOL MALL
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
cT
SPKED-R 15 January 1973
•
Mr. Fred Wooden •
Assistant Planner, City of Aspen
P.O.. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611 •
Dear Mr. Wooden
This is in reply to your letter dated 3 January 1973 requesting a_flood •
hazard evaluation of the site for a proposed Riverview Condominium.develop-
•ment to be located in the eastern part of the:. City of Aspen as shown on •
the inclosed maps.
. Our studies indicate that the site of the proposed development would not
be subject to flooding from stream overflow up to and including that of
a Standard Project Flood magnitude... A Standard Project Flood is a very
large flood with a frequency'-of.'occurrence considerably less than once
. in 100 years. Estimated elevations of the water surface for 1"00-year
and Standard Project Floods are shown on your development plan. •
•
We trust the above information is satisfactory for your present needs.
Sincerely yours, -
AS'
3 Incl - GEORGE C. DELL
1 . General Location Map Chief, Engineering Division
2. Plot Plan
3 Elevation Plan
•
•
•
•