HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Miller 1490 Red Butte Dr.0127A-85 i.L P 0 :0 I
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
1/22 City of Aspen n
6 _ DATE RECEIVED:6 3'8 45- ' r� r CASE NO. O M- �
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: � °
STAFF. SC''
PROJECT NAM : 1 ►( I(--(-q- (J l I�(mil f 1 i l/V �6l/(e- �
APPLICANT: (-A .U/y al(LL,f _ ,
Applicant Addres /Phone: , Ok /uar �1[�!i/�'�
�, � s►Zi.. a Z
RE PRES EN TAT IV E: ,Ui fS- O V ( \J 4�' Do--/
Representative Address/Phone: -
Type of Application:
/
I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission ($2,730 .00)
Preliminary Plat ($1,640 .00)
Final Plat - _ - ($ 820 .00) -
II. SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00)
Preliminary Plat ( $1,220 .00)
Final Plat ($ 820 .00)
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING ( 2 step) ( $1,490 .00)
IV SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680 . 00)
Special Review
Use Determination
Conditional Use
Other : L_Yr 1)1 W6i/N /&/
P&Z CC MEETING DATE: -5a%%4- ■g PUBLIC HEARING : YES 0
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS :
REFERRALS :
City Atty•ktt'y Aspen Consol . S. D. School District
City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept . State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: loninq/Inspectn
Envir. Hlth . Fire Chief Other :
I'
FINAL ROUTING : DATE ROUTED: - e'• ,. INITIAL:
0 City Atty \✓City Engineer Building Dept.
Other : Other :
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: VaLiit* — Sc�
,
CASE DISPOSITION: J . f v !(?
Reviewed by : `A: n P&Z> City Council
rPiv1 :± %t51rd t^ SYL:�i: j'I�ls'v�'i J a J? yi'' r <
Y t J
1 . . Clarification of the development plan submittal shall be made by
the applicant submitting a new plan prior to building permi
review eliminating the garage and driveway which have been
deleted from this submission.
2 . The applicant shall verify with the Building Department the
correct calculation of the floor area ratio so as to assure that
the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area.
3 . The applicant shall satisfy the concerns of the Engineering
: Office regarding the existing parking problem by proposing a way
to reduce or eliminate that problem prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any of the improvements approved herein.
"' Reviewed By: e
: As n P&Z
Aspen Council
411
•
/.. •
••1 • • • • _ �.
RECORD OF PRO,CFEPING
REGULAR MEETING PLANNING nv U G kliaS z4N apNE,18, _19E:35
. •
•problem lin the commercial core which has no immediate answer.
The planning office recommends approval of this application.
Anderson asked for comments. Tygre said it 'seemed in the past
when permission was given ' for outdoor dining then there is a
tendency to want to enclose that area for winter use . Tygre would
like. to see a condition that this would be for summer use, and
that there would be no
not have tY,enclose the area e if or winter
use. .Richman said they do
White said that the parking situation is continually exacerbated
• • with growth in the commercial core and we continue to do nothing
about the parking.
iMot ian'
Tygre -moved to approve the special review application for the
Cantina Outdoor . Dining ; Markalunas • seconded. All in favor ;
motion carried.
MILLER STREAM MARGIN REVIEW'
Carol DeGrote was present for the . appuicant �oS eve Burstein,
planner, explained the applicants q
extension over an existing walkway , a new enclosed entryway on
the front, and a second hfe°exi existing covering entryway
•
approximately 2/3 of t
located on the corner of Red Butte Dr. and Cemetery Ln. Burstein
outlined the request garage plans.but upon applicant
then planning
planned to put in g 9
office they deleted that request. .
Burstein said there is no problem with the stream margin but
there is a problem with the parking area. Even though they don ' t
intend to put in a garage or driveway it is that the
Ie
Slaughterhouse bridge and is considered an artery at
was felt by the purview of this special review that it might be
em at this
appropriate for the commen�io�st that address
sho�uldpbe lconsidered
time. Engineering's comm
for . the applicant to locate a driveway, or if they intend toof build
icd
a garage, that access be off of Red Butte Dr. The planning
recommends further consideration of this matter , the floor area
-ratio calculation, and approval.
\_..•' 5
r
RECORD OF pRQUEDIEGS
REGULAR MEETING 1?L1`NTIING AND ZONIN T n_MMISaI N JDNE 1B. 1985
Hunt moved to approve the Stream Margin Review for the proposed
improvements with conditions 1 ,2 and 3 outlined in the planning
office memorandum dated June 18 , 1985 ; Tygre seconded. All in
favor ; motion carried. .
Anderson adjourned the meeting at 5 : 50 p.m.
. ..K; .
,(.,0',71(--- _____
Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
i
6
•
MEMORANDUM
MAY 2 0 1985
TO: 4,--aUf-sta-acTu—ne, City- Attor-n---ey- 7 II L
H ahrn on d; Ci ty-En-gi nee r- -
Bill Drueding, Zoning Official
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE : Miller - Stream Margin Review
DATE : May 16, 1985
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by
Curtis Odom on behalf of his client, Carolyn Miller requesting stream
margin approval of a proposed addition/renovation of a single story
wood framed residence located at Lot 1 , Block 1 of the Red Butte
Subdivision.
Please review and return your comments no later than June 4, 1985
in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its
presentation before P&Z on June 18, 1985 .
Thank you.
It
\00
41! 411
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Miller Stream Margin Review
DATE: June 18, 1985
LOCATION: 1490 Red Butte Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision
ZONING: R-30
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant proposes to build a roof extension
over an existing walkway along the back side of the house, a new
enclosed entry way on the front, and a second floor covering most of
the entry way addition and approximately two-thirds of the existing
first floor . A portion of the proposed improvements are located
within the Roaring Fork Stream Margin, and therefore the improvement
plan is subject to the Stream Margin Review.
BACKGROUND: The applicant first came in with a proposal for stream
margin review that included a garage to be placed in the northeast
corner of the lot ' s buildable area . After discussion with the
Planning Office, during which time comments from the Engineering and
Building Departments were relayed to the applicant, the garage
proposal was dropped. A similar proposal to the garage addition was
reviewed for this property as the Sullivan Stream Margin Review and
approved on January 22, 1980.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Section 24-6.3 (c) states the criteria
for stream margin review as follows:
" (1) No building shall be located so as to be within a flood
hazard area designated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers Flood
Plain Report for the Roaring Fork River.
(2) In the event there is a trail designated by an approved
trail plan within the development site, such trail shall be
dedicated for public use.
(3) All attempts should be made to implement the recommendations
of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan prepared by the Roaring
Fork Greenway Committee.
(4) Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade changes
made that may produce erosion of the stream bank.
(5) There shall be permitted no changes to the stream channel or
its capacity, and no activity shall be allowed which will
increase stream sedimentation and suspension loads.
(6) All efforts must be made to reduce stream pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the stream, and to
enhance the value of the stream as an important natural
feature.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW:
A. Referral Agency Comments:
1 . Engineering Department - A memo from the Assistant City
Engineer, dated June 4, 1985, contained the following
comments pertaining to the present proposal :
a. The development plan is not on the size of paper
specified for City submissions (24" x 36") .
b. The letter of application should have made reference to
the appropriate section of the Code and addressed each
of the points of that section.
c. The proposed addition is well clear of hazard or effect
of the 100 year flood, therefore, there is no objection
from the floodplain management standpoints to the
development.
In a memorandum dated June 6, 1985, the Assistant Engineer
addressed problems associated with the garage proposal that
would exacerbate some current problems with this residence' s
parking situation off Cemetery Lane. In summary, it is
pointed out that Cemetery Lane is identified as an arterial
at the location of the Miller residence, there would be
visibility problems for a driveway related to the proximity
to the Slaughterhouse Bridge, and it is requested that the
applicant provide access to the property and new garage from
Red Butte Drive . Further discussion with the Assistant
Engineer revealed that the present parking area would appear
to be partially in the right-of-way and creates the same
problems.
2. Building Department - In a memo from the Zoning Inspector
dated June 5, 1985, comments were made primarily with regard
to the proposed garage, mentioning proposed setback require-
ments, possible encroachments and allowable floor area.
Pertaining to the current proposal are the following com-
ments:
a. Section 24-2.6, Land Under Water, requires the portion
of the parcel under the Roaring Fork River to be.
deducted when calculating FAR.
b. Any tree removal has to be approved by the Parks
Director.
B. STAFF COMMENTS: It appears that the proposal would not adversely
effect any of the components necessitated in the stream margin
review. The construction is outside the 100 year floodplain.
The project does not interfere with any trails or the implementa-
tion of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. No removal of existing
trees, change in slope grade of stream bank, or change in stream
flow will result from the proposed construction.
The problem of existing parking on the right-of-way of Cemetery
Lane has been raised. It would appear that this is a legitimate
concern of the review based on the intention [Section 24-6.3 (a) ]
"to guide development and encourage appropriate use of land in
proximity to designated natural water courses. " It is possible
that there may even be some environmental hazards associated with
parking and the accessory uses so close to the river. _However,
clearly the main concern is with adverse effects on traffic flow
and safety. The aFT 'nriing Commission should be aware that this
parking area was previously used to store a variety of vehicles
which were being repaired but that the present owner has elimi-
nated all of those problems and thereby substantially upgraded
the appearance of the site.
It is not entirely clear if the proposed addition would meet the
FAR requirements, although they appear to do so even after
subtracting the land under water from the lot size calculation.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
applicant's proposed improvements under the Stream Margin Review with
the following conditions :
1. Clarification of the development plan submittal shall be made by
2
410 41,
the applicant submitting a new plan prior to building permit
review eliminating the garage and driveway which have been
deleted from this submission. '
2. The applicant shall verify with the Building Department the
correct calculation of the floor area ratio so as to assure that
the addition does not exceed the allowable floor area.
3. The applicant shall satisfy the concerns of the Engineering
Office regarding the existing parking problem by proposing a way
to reduce or eliminate that problem prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any of the improvements approved herein.
SB.5
3
r:- -- .'r- _L
• •
Ask Cu f ;3 : § 1,4-6 ,3 (13) 1(t)
-) ao 014 c4-1,‘, mio - Flit — S orLieys eta it
N 41 — CtAA- AA, ffv9 A. ,f £ il
Anyt, a ? _i)r
i 4 0 .
--')Ofth-) " k riA%4-101- ,(/(s\vT Ph
(- )1 f cioi(lc 11141ICAteS, Part- 4.41•CP 4.t.Jelde-LV Ay
n J jI _ �,_
( ') h 1 a'SCJSS;Dn (� 4.„i'VM�'G
CvIi h /►o + f40(f),t;i.
--- s i Iv. fve. ° $1 talria4i 4' J. nips) h 00 Yh,b C Ohrr n N D 6-1-y b uss
4,)70, 4 wit.j b' - 1,4 i O / p{�
J, �"v,,b1r, T1' Ir 1<,f( 4 .4. n 014 , ICJ,II lith if Awe IA-ca.Tv I V. 6iiith,f
Ott , ) dtsi;4. — --
6 k a10) frah+ rC.4)1\L fL —
C t'd' 141 s ' r as o, ? 211i work DA +kt r,,� ;Q,,J�?
Wko ei,,ovtts •C""f4h1 /1 c' s ib yori yd.Iwk Ir S4d. c oveMri l l s
t
I,
1.
-- —
MIIIPWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Hit) G On, —P?.,,(k,
5t(eA, ,. Mnr &I-fa
�Qb j -Ip c. ovl
5042 (j1< 5+4
E — 3 I
biet r, 1 .
t'14:01" 1/14/rt IS /40/1210"4"/ 1)1' CM,,CYPICkW ptA
! 41J -Li rk, tA•4 2:404,4%," .. .01 tkpna
en,i,t,A;viYEAZO,, 4,14 friv-soto
— et . / I it r —
tolitok, kik rwax Are .&yz./14,4 totofq
n • ' 41 k tr44.1,4 `y MW� v� F `�� ✓N y"^= Q9 i . ----..
- F ,c4 ,60,;(1,
6,„1, ,th, u,titipiL b14A' 6 va (21,111 ',° 1 ! o'icl /rk i- r
- 7X11 4,4vi 4 , a 14 cif pi --
otilikui raft, J„A,
61;111 E t5,b14, t DMe111 ID✓U tr, 44.< Akv.
‘)E ��M left 1n1o��, x,11 ndo, .
)4- - jbd' (x)-11 ,.'
a/t/C4&),11S 61'4 Ili i n,cl Uta h w Lotwuj ev 11 r Q A44ø 1 W
JIB e i)'
l/u — 'J Q,IMF-Y1M I -
tmib 30
Otv 16911-r
• •
5*'r a M / in Rtr;e0 — ))-er
D 1Z-PA Id+1.4 , Ci V1,6 cit) ki,us
R - 10 6A- 4 eY+P_ in r ���
IIo� � ^ f
vvU W 1
119 [4)4, �1 h w .v w1+1 M h R.-r, MJ .L
70 0 1 II � f
— 2 f t, t DrV�I✓��— y f�. 4 y„,h, IQ ; h 0+ S h DWh b y bill fVrlh,flvdfi.,,
e-)tw 1,9 eige. i3trs. f 4±,fi,,,,r490,i
�i7hytfv�.��at� eroceiim• 1D'we A 041 ?Sili44."' A ppf LI r y� �C�GJIrJ b►' 1,44
eX 1471.16) r445 clsl+vJ9s F,
b ►f�or,,��tt f,61,1 -
.
hb r
F ti . Lhr, lc t43‘.( $2 12 b' d _.
C st„ -tvk T '31,55 2I, ` 9.I loa) )4a).)0 = iv% ci '
pr y 4- 51-ovn) Boor 3 --
" Zh f Ipar beir ro. I y y 6
01 stbr)i 2h1-(v i-Jp,+• b4 '+
D 620dJexakiteis93004k0 zovn
b`)'a OYnObud 'FAbrsr-f
s 3- 'i-..3 01,7
(-Z )C.I.4.'7)- 2
(/, 5% L-11) 1'5, 2 3 a 7r
Li6 5-14
(r-jk )( 3 id vi.
27-z c:75- 1k rifer
/ Cool L15 aD
7*
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer ale—
Date: June 6, 1985
Re: Miller Stream Margin Review
This is a second memo on the above referenced application,
written in response to your request for further information.
1 . The definitions of arterial and collector are as follows from
Section 20-3 :
(b) Arterial street. A street which has the primary
function of carrying through traffic, but which also provides
access to abutting property. An arterial street is also a
through street.
(c) Collector street. A street which has the .primary
function of providing for the distribution of traffic within
neighborhoods, and which carries through traffic and
provides access to abutting property. A collector street is
also a through street.
2 . At the Lot 1 , Block 1 , Red Butte Subdivision, all of the
traffic on Cemetery Lane is through' traffic, therefore Cemetery
Lane at that location is an arterial .
3. The following is Section 19-101 of the Code :
(f) No driveway or curb cut shall be allowed on State
Highway 82 or other designated arterial where public alley
access exists, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
4 . Given the setback requirements, given that the property is
accessible from Red Butte Drive, considering the closeness of the
• proposed driveway to the bridge, and in consideration of the
visibility and sight distance problems of through traffic
crossing the bridge, the Engineering Department recommends
against approval of the proposed improvements and requests that
the applicant provide access to the property and new garage from
Red Butte Drive.
5 . Note that this property was reviewed for a Stream Margin
application in 1979 under the name Sullivan. The floodplain
mapping has been redone since then, and comments of the Engineering
.V
Page 2
Miller Stream Margin Review
June 6 , 1985
Department at that time are no longer valid. The applicant' s
property is out of the floodplain as stated in the memo of June 4 .
The comments of that memo are still valid.
CR/cr/miller. strm.marg. 2
cc: Bill Dreuding, Building Department
•
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 5 , 1985
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Dept .
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning
SUBJECT: MilliAtream Margin Review GOO
After reviewing the improvement survey I have the following
observations and comments :
1 . In the R-30 zone the setbacks are:
Frontyard - Dwelling 25 ' , Accessory Building 30 '
Sideyard - 10 '
Rearyard - Dwelling 15 ' , Accessory Building 5 '
Distance between dwelling and accessory building 10 '
The applicants indication of setbacks is in error. These appear
to be County setbacks .
Section 24-3 . 7 (f)c applies as a corner lot reference setbacks.
Section 24-3. 7(f)b would also apply if Cemetery Lane is con-
sidered -an arterial roadway. The proper setbacks should be
addressed. If Cemetery Lane is considered the frontyard we might
have an encroachment problem.
2. Section 24-2 . 6 Land under water. I believe this section
requires the land under water (Roaring Fork River) would have to
be deducted when calculating the F. A. R.
3 . If this is a single family house, only 600 sq. ft. of the
proposed 900 sq. ft . garage would be exempt in calculating the
allowable floor area.
4. It also appears that a telephone line extends over the corner
of the proposed garage. What problem does this cause?
5 . Over the years I have received complaints about the parking
on Cemetery Lane between Red Butte Drive and Slaughterhouse
Bridge because of sight view. The new garage would permit stack
parking. Should Engineering look at the impact of the stack
parking and existing parking as a hazardous situation?
6. Any tree removal has to be approved by the Parks Dept .
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Chuck Roth, Engineering
Hal Schilling, City Manager
BD/ar
sTAN r�i,aTH1S
it_!Ic arin: n n.;nninn;
ror,rl;*D 'Ili 12
May 13, 1985
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman
Stream Margin Review
City of Aspen, Colorado
Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of my client, Carolyn W. Miller, I submit the attached
documents to the Stream Margin Review for approval of a proposed
addition/renovation of a ,single story wood framed residence
located at Lot 1, Block 1 of the Red Butte Subdivision.
The attached survey/site plan illustrates the extent of added
building footprint including a three car garage (900 sq. ft.), a
new entry and ground floor area (176 sq. ft. ) , and a new second
floor master bedroom (1,446 sq. ft.) The new construction shall
be wood framing on a concrete foundation and asphalt shingles on
wood framed roof, along with new exterior siding with rigid . _
insulation, entirely remodeled interior , and extensive
landscaping.
None of the proposed construction shall take place within the
100 foot flood plain. Preliminary research shows these proposed
improvements to be within rights from all aspects including the
F.A.R., Building Code, and Subdivision Covenants.
This proposal represents an attempt by my client to dramatically
improve what has been a public eyesore and source of complaints
for many years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
j
Curtis dom
Designer
CO: mao
dik
,
0TA\ MATHIS
cY.rc:hi■e . andoianning
p.o. :Jox ';q„
aspen, colo rado 81612
May 13 , 1985
•
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman
Stream. Margin Review
City of Aspen, Colorado
Mr. Chairman:
This letter shall serve as an Agreement between my client,
Carolyn W. Miller, and the current owners of a residence located
at Lot 1 , Block 1 of the Red Butte Subdivision. The present
owners (or legal representatives) by signing this letter, hereby
consent to the attached Stream Margin Review submittal for
proposed property improvements.
Sincerel
Curt ' Odom. -'
CO: mao
. Attachment
Signatures of Property Owners
-� fives _
or'4111■1111alik
4/ -,K
-
oe.c•_oc.,,,n .. .. ..4 T,awo.on Code )Enau,+er..enr Coo. 10 Sin,.Corte 13 Sourced Buvnese
COMMITMENT: )oar lncw .N.po{re0 b•1,1r 8 17.1.•,r.n.en:Char Cwnr,Code 14 Comm. .on Reienlr on
3 Gw M..r..oe. Chary. 9 Tow]H.v.nue ,ouerrr rr Ise
1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 • 12 14
• 0 0 0
8 11 13
M M M _M
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
National Headquarters •
• Richmond, Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
.• SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date APRIL 4, 1985 at 7:00 A.M. Case No. PCT-102-85
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
(a) Amount S 245,(10(1 00
) ALTA Owner's Policy—Form B-1970 (Rev. 10-17-70) with a premium
❑ ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 of $680.75,
Proposed insured:
CAROLYN WINN MILLER
•
(b) ALTA Loan Policy, 1970(Rev. 10-17-70) • Amount S 137,000.00
Proposed insured: with a premium
of $40:00 •
ROBERT RUG, , PHILIP L. SULLIVAN AND HARVEY GILMORE .
Tax Certificate
5.00-
(c) Amount S
•
Proposed insured:
3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land
described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in:
•
PHILIP L. SULLIVAN, HARVEY GILMORE AND ROBERT REGULSKI,
as tenants in common
•
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION
•
•
Countersigned at Aspen, Colorado Commitment No. BD-640058
1; Schedule A—Page 1 •
•
•
U This commitment is invalid unless
A 1 e 0 ficer or Agent the Insuring Provisions.and Sched-
Form No.91-88(SCH.A) ules A and B are attached. •
•
•r
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I �`\ \ u fVah ,of the
County of ���" f K , State of eo lo tr•et CIO
1-1-tvVGy 6i14eto
reposing special trust and confidence in `J� of
Co• 1e V
the County of �t , State of �•
have made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint the said
aY ve y C'r(wort my true and lawful attorney to exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right or
obligation whatsoever that I now have or may hereafter acquire, relatinrgg to any person, matter,transaction or property, real or
�MC1M \N+ Ll I �'b(,F ' -Rau( s...4 de Ws/Y1A r'ak.�G.�4S �yvPS
personal,tangible or intangible,now owned or hereafter acquired by m*grant to my said attorney full power and authority to do
and perform all and every act necessary in exercising any of the powers granted herein as fully as I might do if personally present,
with full power of revocation,hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
of this Power of Attorney.
*"This Power of Attorney shall not be affected by disability of the principal.
EXECUTED this 14 +1‘ day of t , 19 g S Litg2e.e.x....\
•
p no vo.v%
STATE OF 0-0147v-
ss.
County of MI4C'r•
The foregoing i trument was acknowledged before me this IL+L day of ' a
19 �� ,by `l\1 L . SvI(iJAM
My commission expires J CtK 4 I Q$fD • , 19 . Witness m hand and official seal.
Notary Public
14'i ,f/. s
Address
‘Si,e4 S/67.
*Strike either or both according to fact.
No.34.Rev.9-83. POWER OF ATTORNEY Bradford Publishing,5825 W.6th Ave.,Lakewood,CO 80214—(303)233-6900 i
10-83 ,1,t
,�
I- 1
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that 1, Harvey Gilmore, individually and as ,of the
:attorney in fact for Robert Regulski and Philip L. Sullivan
County of Pitkin , State of Colorado ,
reposing special trust and confidence in B. Joseph Krabacher , of
the County of Pitkin State of Colorado ,
have made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint the said
R_ .TnaPph Krahacber my true and lawful attorney to exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right or
obligation whatsoever that I now have or may hereafter acquire, relating to any person, matter, transaction or property,real or
including Lot 1, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado
personal,tangible or intangible,now owned or hereafter acquired by me,I grant to my said attorney full power and authority to do
and perform all and every act necessary in exercising any of the powers granted herein as fully as I might do if personally present,
I with full power of revocation,hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
of this Power of Attorney.
*This Power of Attorney shall not be affected by disability of the principal: .: _
/71N ikiV WAhGdneifKal►/b€i ifIe Aie/Vp6111tVti aikktitti hi vf4 kfi/tdiN
EXECUTED this 13 day of May 19 .
Harvey G• mor N«PAL
STATE OF Colorado
ss.
County of Pitkin
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .134- day of
19 ,by Harvey Gilmore individually and as attorney in fact foe Robert Reguls *:
and Philip L. Sullivan
My commission expires q — 11 , .19 '7- . Witness my hand and official seal.
L.L&i -° t04-1'")(
—_—"N,n:,ry polir
. s II p "T) _cj s 3-
- I Adair,
r *Strike either or both tot t. l
: r..34'Rev943 POWER OF ATTORNEY Bradford Publishing,3M?t W,hlhAve..1,keaao1COV(1!la- (1111)21.1.69(1(1 8-84 kg
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer
Date: June 4 , 1985
Re: Miller Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering
Department has the following comments :
1 . The development plan, while acceptable, is not on the size of
paper elsewhere specified for city submissions, which is 24"x36" .
2 . The letter of application should have made reference to the
appropriate section of the Municipal Code, Section 24-6 . 3 , and
should have addressed each of the points of that section regarding
development subject to stream margin review. The applicant must
comply with the following sections of 24-6 .3 :
(3) All attempts should be made to implement the
recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan:
prepared by the Roaring Fork Greenway Committee.
(4) Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade
changes made that may produce erosion of the stream
bank.
(5) There shall be permitted no changes to the stream
channel or its capacity, and no activity shall be
allowed which will increase stream sedimentation and
suspension loads.
(6) All efforts must be made to reduce stream pollution
and interference with the natural changes of the
stream, and to enhance the value of the stream as an
important natural feature. (Ord. No. 11-1975,§ 1)
3 . The proposed addition is well clear of hazard or effect of
the 100-year flood, therefore there is no objection from flood-
plain management standpoints to the development.
CR/cr/miller. strm.marg
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Bill Drueding, Zoning Official
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office •
RE : Miller e Stream Margin Review
DATE : May 16, 1985
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by
Curtis Odom on behalf of his client, Carolyn Miller requesting 'stream
margin approval of a proposed addition/renovation of a single story
wood framed residence located at Lot 1 , Block 1 of the Red Butte
Subdivision.
Please review and return your comments no later than June 4, 1985
in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its •
presentation before P&Z on June 18, 1985 . •
Thank you.
� i
•
•
I
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 5 , 1985
TO: Steve Burstein , Planning Dept .
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning �� //��
SUBJECT: Millti5tream Margin Review G44. /
After reviewing the improvement survey I have the following
observations and comments :
1 . In the R---30 zone the setbacks are:
Frontyard - Dwelling 25 ' , Accessory Building 30 '
Sideyard - 10 '
Rearyard -- Dwelling 15 ' , Accessory Building 5 '
Distance between dwelling and accessory building 10 ' -
The applicants indication of setbacks is in error. These-appeffr' -
to be County setbacks .
Section 24-3 . 7 (f) c applies as a corner lot reference setbacks .
Section 24-3 . 7 ( f)b would also apply if Cemetery Lane is con-
sidered an arterial roadway. The proper setbacks should be
addressed. If Cemetery Lane is considered the frontyard we might
have an encroachment problem.
2 . Section 24-2 . 6 Land under water . I believe this section
requires the land under water (Roaring Fork River) would have to
be deducted when calculating the F. A. R.
3 . If this is a single family house, only 600 sq . ft . of the
proposed 900 sq. ft . garage would be exempt in calculating the
allowable floor area.
4 . It also appears that a telephone line extends over the corner
of the proposed garage. What. problem does this cause?
5 . Over the years I have received complaints about the parking
on Cemetery Lane between Red Butte Drive and Slaughterhouse
Bridge because of sight view. The new garage would permit stack
parking. Should Engineering look at the impact of the stack
parking and existing parking as a hazardous situation?
6. Any tree removal has to be approved by the Parks. Dept .
•
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Chuck Roth, Engineering
Hal Schilling, City Manager
BD/ar
•
•