HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Reich Lot8,9,10,11 N1/2 of 7.A070-981 . 0 0
&cJiYOF ASPEN PLANNING CASELOAD INDEX
PARCEL 1 2737 073 11006 08/27/98 CASE,;N±;AO7O-98
CASE NA - Reich Stream Margin Review Amendment Chris Bendon
PROJ ADD Lots 8,9, 10, 11 and N 1/2 of 7, Stream Margin Review i ;STEPS
0 Denise Reich ( 1873 S. Bellaire, #70 I Denver, CO 80222 1
REP Vann Associates,Sunny V. 230 E. Hopkins Ave. j Aspen, CO 81611 920-9310
-ara
FEES DUE-450(d) I 111=Nallilll
It
REFERRA
' I g
..'� �°a
MI , DATE OF FINAL ACT • ram ck"
CITY COUNCIL,,
REMARKS M W
PZ<
CLOSEL 10.12,''$ �y� r
BOA.
_ DRAG*
PLAT SUBMITD: ADM did !rri.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectoiAP PROVED
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner V v AUG 2 7 1998
RE: Reich Stream Margin Review AmendmentOMMuNI y DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and the North 1/2 of Lot 7 vi; 01e1S9gNOklahoma
Flats Addition.
DATE: August 24, 1998
SUMMARY:
Denice Reich owns a vacant lot along the Roaring Fork River in the Oklahoma Flats
Subdivision. This parcel was granted a Stream Margin Review approval by the Planning
and Zoning Commission in 1990 --Resolution 90-5. This approval was not associated
with a site specific development plan but did determine a building envelope and required
certain foundation design parameters to ensue the appropriate construction practices
would be observed. The approval was then granted vested property rights by City
Council.
The applicant now wishes to move a small cabin and an accessory shed structure to this
parcel. The period of vested right has expired, subjecting the property to changes in the
land use code. The Stream Margin Review criteria have changed with the inclusion of
six additional provisions. The applicant, however, has demonstrated the ability of the
proposed development to comply with the original approval and these additional
provisions.
The building envelope established in 1990 is approximately 35 feet from the edge of the
river. The site is relatively flat and the top-of-slope, using the current definition, would
most likely be within 5 to 10 feet of the edge of the high water line,possibly placing the
building envelope closer to the river. Planning staff has suggested conditions of
approval which will ensure compliance with these criteria and allow the applicant to use
the building envelope designated in 1990.
Staff has reviewed this proposed amendment and recommends administrative approval
by the Director,with conditions.
APPLICANT:
Denice Reich, Owner. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP.
LOCATION:
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and the north half of Lot 7,Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition.
ZONING:
R-30. Low Density Residential.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
• 1
Ark
•
Insubstantial amendments to an approved Stream Margin Review may be approved by
the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.68.040.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Community Development Director approve this Insubstantial
Amendment with the conditions listed below.
APPROVAL:
I hereby approve this Insubstantial Amendment to the approved Stream Margin Review
for the Reich parcel with the following conditions:
1. The following items shall be submitted to complete the land use application:
'/• A site plan showing the parcel, building envelope, significant vegetation, and the
approximate location of the proposed structures within the envelope.
• A site section demonstrating the new structures compliance with the progressive
height limit, a 45 degree line from the top-of-slope.
• A land use review fee in the amount of$450.
• The written authority for any third person to represent the owner of the property.
2. There shall be no development outside the building envelope other than approved
native vegetation. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan with building plans
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and not directed towards the river.
4. The applicant shall gain an exemption from Growth Management for the proposed
residence pursuant to Section 26.100.050. Any"temporary"affordable housing deed
restriction on the new residence,for the purpose of satisfying this requirement, shall
be approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
5. All other aspects of Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 90-5 shall remain in effect.
2 date n ?)
�
� t�
Stan auson, ommunity Development Director
ACCEPTANCE:
I, as a person being or representing the applicant, do hereby agree to the conditions of
this approval and certify the information prov de. ' this application is correct to the
best of my knowledge. /
date
Sdn�y' ,AICP,Vann Associates,
rep -vnting Denice Reich, owner.
•
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Application
•
2
0
VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC
Planning Consultants
October 12, 1998
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Reich Stream Margin Review
Dear Chris:
Enclosed is a site plan depicting the approximate location of the proposed structure
within the previously approved building envelope,a site section demonstrating the
proposed structure's compliance the progressive height limit, a permission to repre-
sent letter, and a check in the amount of$450.00 for the land use review fee. These
items should be sufficient to finalize the Community Development Department's
review of the Reich Stream Margin Review Amendment. I would appreciate a copy
of the staff's executed amendment approval memorandum as soon as it is available.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
V• ► ASSO "' ES, LLC
r
Sun ann, AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
cc: Denice Reich (via fax)
c:\bus\city.ltr\1tr37198.cb3
230 East Hopkins Ave. • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925-6958 • Fax 970/920-9310
1LI-l;Y FkUM IIJ
•
•
•
July 15. 199'8
•
BAND DELIVERED
Mr. Chris t3endon
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
•
Re. Permission to Represent
•
Dear Mr. Fern:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC,
Planning Consultants, to represent me in the processing of my application for a
strew =ruin review amendment for ray property which is located North Spring
Street in the City Of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized ua act on our behalf
• with respect to sU matters reasonably pestering to the aforementioned application_
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further)assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, •
•
L IP
]Denice Reich
c baskdty.Ilx\tr17198-cb2
•
•
•
•
•
.
---- .-
•
. . .
:...a
•
•
•
. „
•
• .
,.
•
. .
.••
•.
_ - -
-
i
i cp
COO
1 I
_ <
13
.)::•147)
0)CLI
...%)di
i 1
t _
fl I: 0
c
_
8 5 a 13)
To-
• al Z3 - -
o
m
E c Mu) co—
EC
dj 2 2 e6 o'
1.-
S._.•
„---;-•--.' ( )
17 NI I ,..7/ )
_
..n :."
•
,, ,.\_____N_J-v-1.-1 _,.,.•--7'-'\_••(.' '''' • -
._.---
_-----"
•
>-----
. I
__ .._.....
..-----
..._ _.......
II'
a
1- !
-SI
....,..
I c\
r---
:'..
. -\
_
„, ........ . ..
.•,
....
St
-z.
.
I i
Tr ''—lii.i10•'-'-'i:.\- `----
.I .... I •--')
• \ c----- ..
--\
C. ('
A
- AA
•
qj
-;'--G1---- '.
.
g i
CZ-
i
..,
•
) C\-.• 4.\
J . .
. _ t
(
. /I? .... r:
.. ......--
....- ... --1.'''
-.,
...,
I.,
. .
_.... _.• .._.
....- . •
, ....-- ...„..,-....---1.
1.......;:,.. .--- .
. . . _ .. . . .
I 1
II!VI 1 i[ II tt. 11 tfl 1 11 11 1 11 1 Pt 11 it 1 1 N=1 li i
1 t., •
, 1
3,,0,••••••4.
I c; ;;C• "..l ,,„„:e•el qe
a ,
I F.:. 4' '''" .:.'7'..CZ, 'Ti".7; ,....,■ P.1 d a% k:i Illi ; 11111 ki %i IC I f 1 kli 0 i 1
, ....
.0^
,••-.; ing g7F,% 1 p i .mit t 3 •AS
p111[ 11 illitgli! ~.14I"qIt it t 1 "I 2 i
,Cii 1 i ., .1., , ., /,.:: J ,. . cz : ,
Fr= el' Itt leF:l p.,...e
LS ■'' rle ;.".." '6.'" r"". :le ."Ar, .el Ir0 I . I I II I
1 !
1 •; 'le, C•S 0.. dt till
1 I 1 Il ilil t j
rr=;; li= e t.,...4 a - , L L u : t .
1 = .1 - L m E.4.
,.. ,...„,A .0 is , ...... ..,.....
1 , :v ,.. rm. i
1 .
I , -1C............
...
it....t.
I ,
I
1 .
L
.... z
la
I —
"—I I ti
AN 1 1 t--
thli
il 0.
••=.
...,
I I,
I - I
I . ---------"------ L r ,
,
1 7,.
1 ..
I .. _..
,
. Ca. .
1 \ •
....
C4....'.■.
I \
IN
• 1 \ 0-• V
I \
1 \
,
. it .•
,
'
1 \
1 \
1 :
;
11
1 .„.
\ •.
,
I .„....
I
I \
I \\ •
1
i . \
• \ :
H
I
\
•
\\
1 . \
\
i
4. ■ 1
\ lZ/ ... • 44
•,
1,1
i\
I . ..
la. )
1:Zi Q.
4..... .......
C....-.......
•
I .
L • a
VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC
Planning Consultants
July 15, 1998
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Reich Stream Margin Review
Dear Chris:
I represent Denice Reich who owns a vacant parcel of land located adjacent to the
Roaring Fork River on North Spring Street in the City of Aspen. The parcel is
legally described as Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and the north 1/2 of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma
Flats Addition, City and•Townsite of Aspen.
As we discussed, Ms. Reich wishes to relocate a small single-family residence from a
neighboring property to her vacant.parcel to reduce her property taxes. The resi-
dence which she proposes to relocate is scheduled for demolition to make way for the
construction of a new, larger single-family home. As the attached special warranty
deed indicates (see Exhibit 1), she acquired the parcel in question from her brother,
Richard Volk, in August of 1990.
The relocation of the existing residence to the Reich property is exempt from growth
management pursuant to Section 26.100.050.A.2.c. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
as the parcel was legally described prior to November 14, 1977. Ms. Reich need only
comply with the affordable housing mitigation requirements of Section 26.100.050.A.
2.c.(1) and the conditions of a prior stream margin review approval which encumber
the property. Obviously, other municipal regulations of general applicability (e.g., the
Uniform Building Code, etc.) would also apply to the proposed relocation.
At issue is the expiration of the prior stream margin review approval's vested rights
status. As attached Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 90-5 indicates
(see Exhibit 2), the parcel received stream margin review approval on February 20,
1990. Vested rights status was granted by the City Council on June 11, 1990 pursuant
to Ordinance No. 90-35 (see Exhibit 3). An Agreement of Dedication and Restriction
(see Exhibit 4) was executed by Ms. Reich and her brother on August 3, 1990, as
required pursuant to condition #1 of P&Z Resolution No. 90-5.
230 East Hopkins Ave. • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925-6958 • Fax 970/920-9310
•
Mr. Chris Bendon
July 15, 1998
Page 2
As the attached copy of my original stream margin review application indicates (see
Exhibit 5), the P&Z granted approval to two separate parcels, Ms. Reich's property
(which was referred to in the application as Parcel 1) and a second parcel (referred
to as Parcel 2) which has since been sold and developed. A map depicting the two
parcels is attached as Exhibit 6.
A letter from Vann Associates requesting confirmation of the approval status of
Parcel 2 was submitted to the Planning Office in December of 1992 (see Exhibit 7).
Kim Johnson's response is attached as Exhibit 8. While Kim generally confirmed the
content of my letter, she clarified the expiration date of the approval's vested rights
status which subsequently expired on February 20, 1993. The original stream margin
approval, however, remains in full force and effect, subject of course to any changes
in the Land Use Regulations which may have occurred since the expiration of vested
rights status.
With respect to the City's stream margin review process, please note that six addition-
al review criteria have been adopted since the original stream margin application was
approved. These criteria are listed as criteria number 9 through 14 in Section
26.68.040.B. of the Regulations. Criteria number 1 through 8 are identical to those in
effect at the time of the original,approval. The six new review criteria, and the
approved application's compliance therewith, are summarized below.
1. "There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting
taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of
slope or the high waterline."
A site specific building envelope was approved in 1990 and is depicted on the
exhibit which is attached to the Agreement of Dedication and Restriction. As the
exhibit illustrates, the envelope is setback approximately thirty-five feet from the edge
of the River. This setback will ensure compliance with this review criteria.
2. "All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope
does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree
angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and
determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section
26.04.100."
The exact location of the relocated structure within the building envelope has
not been determined. Compliance with this review criteria, however, can easily be
demonstrated in connection with Ms. Reich's application for a building permit. The
existing residence which Ms. Reich proposes to relocate to the property is quite small
and limited to a single story.
Mr. Chris Bendon
July 15, 1998
Page 3
3. "A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan
shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses)
outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native ripari-
an vegetation."
Condition number 3 of the P&Z Resolution No. 90-5 requires the submission
of a landscape plan for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to
issuance of a building permit. Extensive landscaping is not anticipated in connection
with the relocation of the existing residence. All ornamental landscaping, however,
will be confined to the previously approved building envelope.
4. "All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the
river or located down the slope."
Compliance with this condition will be demonstrated in connection with Ms.
Reich's application for a building permit.
5. "Site sections drawn by a registered architect,landscape architect, or engineer
are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of
slope, and pertinent elevations above seal level."
An existing conditions map is attached to the Agreement of Dedication and
Restriction.
6. "There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones."
The property's riparian area is depicted on the existing conditions map. The
approved building envelope setback from the River is more than adequate to
preserve the depicted riparian area.
Based on the above, it would appear unnecessary for Ms. Reich to undergo further
stream margin review at this time. Compliance with the additional review criteria
which were adopted subsequent to the original approval has already been demonstrat-
ed or will be addressed in connection with the issuance of a building permit for the
relocation of the existing residence to the property. The building permit application
will comply with all conditions of the original stream margin review approval, the
requirements of the Agreement of Dedication and Restriction, and the additional review
criteria which were adopted subsequent to the original approval.
I would appreciate it if you would review the attached material and advise me as to
whether additional approvals will be required to accommodate the proposed reloca-
tion. As the existing residence must be relocated this summer, your timely response
would be appreciated.
•
Mr. Chris Bendon
July 15, 1998
Page 4
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VA ASSOCIA;¢ S, LLC
Sunny c , AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
c:\bus\city.ltAltr37198.cb 1
. .
•
..,.„..' . .•:••••P;---
- ••••• . J--.,,•-•;•,••,- - ,.-:•-. •:-.1`,
V..1.: •;•• •-;••:' ..':,;,-. - ,;,:.',.•,:"t„.,Y,77:. :::.-LF%'-':.'•:!,..• •
.,:- , ..„
."-''.:'..;•-tp .,•••••-. :\--., —,..
0 . ''',;•. , ,•:.•-).::::-..;:l'-.. . •
EXHIBIT'll'i
,.....).,..*:,,,,,T,-,-,z.-..:•;,,f.:,...:-..,,i,,,.:,„.-....-.,-....:,.-4.- ,,:.x.,.-„,...-,.--.;-: -.7.-::::.,.._ii,.:r.:-,z::...: -._...--.......,. . . .. ,,,...„..,,,,,,,:••••,..4..:..7).,,,, 7.:::,;,....;:.„„:::,
,.. ,...,..„.„..,,, ,,,.„:„..... .. , _,:....,,, ......,..:,•, . •....• ,._ .,-..„,.•,..., ., ...,.... •
:,....,...--....:„ ...„...„. ........,..„..... . . l #329738•01/23/91 10i 18 Rec $5.00 B 638 PG 317 . _ .. . .• - A ,.. ;,,i.;: ..,,,,,,,.
•.1`,..i7r..1.-'-:::, .-:::..4,;--- , Recorded at . •
o c
Silvia Davis, Pitkih,.:Cnty Clerr, Doc $.00
; . i, • .- , ,:•:.; • ' Reception No. .. , ,
1", IS•ii '',;;;;,',:.
SPECIAI.SS'ARRANTY DEED
C .. .
,. .
...
,. ...
. THIS DEED.Made this 3rd di)or August .1990 . .
.. . .
•
z ?. between Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA dated . ‘
• ..L..',
10, 1984
a■ !....- ' . ,z,....
-,-..'''' :::.---:. • (r.:
4rd 74.: ' • , . -ht•1,
• :.. -.. 0 C. t,f the . --,
1..t? IT II:, Ctiunty of Pi tkin •slaw nr(•,,hwado.vanumsc and • :.,„, . .1.f.,''../...
'-' ..spenice C. Reich
•, . .
_—._ >, •,'. ',.. , ..,
t•-■ =-•:. et ,: , . 2,
r.4 i' - ..
C.'
tat e-t-
x whine legal address is Suite 200, 3801 E. Florida,
ff.....,'".
Denver, Colorado 80210 ' •
4,-,
.
•
. .. .• ..
.,.,,- - 1,,,•.•••
.-- :,---•,. . .-. • r,„rs'i 0,
the
',.}. County of •
State of Col.--'.'.. nept grantee S .' • ',.:',: t.-
•1
H •., WITNFSSETH.That the grantor(al.for and in consideration of the c.im of'Ten Dollars ($10.00) and
E-i 0
-% ' •. .‘-: ."' . Ce,zother good and valuable considerations . XKOOCARt.
, .
-•:.'- .,:,'' *..•''',:i...,:,..i.....-.:..., ....t arlt
,•••,-\,i the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.MS granted.bargained.sold and ermveyed.and by these presents does grant. „, •..;.7 :I':!
•'.., I,'i',,-
, -,..„' ,:.,- _:4-S&s.....•': .f CO .... bargain sell convey and confirm.unto the granteepg i
.,. her heirs ar.d assigns forever.all Ile real pmpeny.together with improsements.
et E .1
ci pi if any.situate lying and being in the County of,,: Pitkin .State of Colorado.
r;-:-.'.. ; t8 E9 f§1., described as follows:
lift iz-.
, , .4,,,---f-1....:...,: ._. •1
-.• ', ' "i?4.."',,,---• - 4.,-,
'-... -— ,=,,,,,,k,;:.'•-,..t.,• c_. , ,,
.-- ' •• - eag.;4-...--,-,-, o I.,:,F.,:,,g Lots 8, 9, 10, :11 and the North half of
''' - • - '4-'1'.>-•<'• .••• - >4 4'''' Lot 7, Block 1, •Oklahoma Flats Addition,
'4 ns . .
.i.:. . ' - -.‘'. ',':.;t:•=i':',7iT. , City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado .
1.., :','...•.':.'.
i.. .. --..3, .Y-'1"-:' ' • . .
'...,••••`- -al.•:'..- 4 '
, .
'. . ",.'.•-...
c',.'
1 i .
:i..'.. .1.."' '4.4.1r.N;:,,t?:-.. .! . .• •
• 1
•-•. • ,:.'. • •11:7:4,i1;:;.•.:1 , ;1 .. •
•-. ... ,4-.,,„,,,,,,,,,,,...,„,. ,.. ,
. • ,, ..i.,..,...
•, _.
...,
., .. .,..., ,.,....... . . ,, .-„%.- -,..,:„
. ... .,., . .......... ...
, . ..,.
. , ..
,, ..,.,. -,,. ..., ,...,...„„
.,•,, ,,,,,-....,,, '1. .
X940(94/(iYAVegthY4/1.141grat:
1 /a
- .'•
."' '-- /
i i TOGETHER with all and singular the hensditanWnts and appunenances thereto belonging.or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and . :-'-''-. ,=::-.4-r.
1; reversions,remainder and remaindets.tents.Mums and profits thereof;and all the estate.right.title.interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the . -.
.--.i,.,.r..
':. '-.t'.r,-..'',::. " , ''' • 1 I granton al.either in law or equity of.in and to the above bargained premises.with the hereditaments and appurtenances:
4,-- .4-- ...,-:.:;.•;:,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said prmnises above bargained and described with the appurtenances.unto the granteetit her ',ens and
t'''I.' ''::-:,r,.;:.11'i':'::,,,• .i ' ,i
!I as'ilns forever-The graincekl.for him sel f-;;;;.:his heir5 and Prs.analrelneletnaliws or,neee's'esIOIRCI° "Inanl and agree lbw ,
he shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee011. i'.'8■":
,
•,',', '.,:."•..,, ,'''•,'.'• '..',',;::; 'f'• ':41 '' her heirs and assigns.against all and every parson or persons claiming the whole or any pan thereof.bs.thnsugh or under the *** 'Nti• '•.;',......%:"..,".
.... .... ,
,••':-''.:-.-..`..',..,. .;'::/...,'!^.-',-.`7.;::- , IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the grantog ha S c„;:-.;.. accused this deed co the... e forsh A..o .
, . .
. • . ..,....,%:..
',..:,,,-' ..: 7° ,•,'=iiii.,'.",... • li t lift.,i/ Igla
1, :T=.7.-r--,,.., ..:i .:. .,. .
III 'Richard W. Volk, Trustee 6: ,•ri,'... ....!:,.'''
4 IIi ....':; ..:
i UTA dated March 10. 1984
ii :',.:%•.; 2,. .':'}.Ci.,-":,
..'.....,..;••
i I;
:i.,...i.•-•...,.. *. :.,ta;:.:;,,,,..11:
;',....f-_•;-„•.,.,". ;I ...,,,.,..-:,.:!- •‘;'..,:..1:-,•
. •-• ,:lialip.,: -.:.•.;•.i.,,,„.1.,!:
;..:-..':....:',.'„ :..., . -
t: ': STATE OF COLOFtADO. lr,.
i!
■ ,
•1 •. ....5...1 SS.
.I COUnt)or Pitkin
II \' i,:':::,:'
. ..-,., '••.. ',.:!?;••.-,.. • I I The foregoing instrument Was aCkllessledged before me this ,...1 4„1 August .tv 90.
P :'-: •• .4,..;•:4,Q-..
- .- , . .
•.• .. ... .... • 4 „ by Richard W. yolk, Trustee UTA dated. March 10, 1984. • -..: rA) 1 t
. -1 ....
..
"s4
i, ;.., - - :- ::,: •: ..
.: ***grantor, except and subject Wanes%my band amd offkiai•cal.
, L ._...0.,4,, .,.. • 43'l.;:',";
''."`-.',*;.;■`-,,, "7"-?-...::''' :..' i; Agreement Qf_Dgigicaclon -.• Res-trio- My .0.e:reining'evens J -e - F . • J
. tIon recoro:w . p• at,page . ,f.i°:--,--.2-,1:..,-/".• - ••• - , .• •.'---. .•/.1.*".....1?!
...- •. ..1-4;--•
'...:,,,:•., '-'••t.5i,;:,;_'....`....• • f 1
of the Pitkin Coun'''._recccds: . - ,-,•-•:-.ii•-•,c-7-.,:•-• -- ---.-- 0,, s.( -..•,_;. -- -. .• --.-,••••• ..-. , ',...-:;,.:::-..-....,... ,,,,,,41.1.?...•
1-•-•;:.•,.>•• Nti:::•7---...-• ; '
.:••••:?r,-.':-g-t--,--••;.t••.t.',..-.,,.; '• -- -...:::`,"....i:;:.'/-iiA:',••",:,.f-::: ••.• '- .••'.;.•-:-:::::$`... ..:=•:,••,.'-:•':-•,.-.:7,-,..."....P""" - .-,.-. . :. I. -.... ...:„:;...-..61...,,,.1:,;:„,.•• 1/1,;1''i'f°.C7,.
!..f,-,..: '--: ,-4!kil'-',-t'.'-',..•.: 1' • • "'''.—v :-•'4h1,°V • • ' •,..,,-,::-.5.4y.;::,...-.-. - - - . ' ' il•.;';,,';',
. .„:.;
'-:::.'•.•,:`•-k.''•• , . __ r:..4.-,,;,::
f, :••••-•,.,..„••• --;,.., .. It .. -..,,..
. ....„ -.:::-:"-A-;;;•-••:-...•-:•,_ •
:'; ,WAIVA.A44(71714iikei . ....,;.„.„........ .• .e.",fr.,,,..?,,,',..
:::',., ..'i.'''':i' :-:;:k ' - • --.-..._ _ . -
. .
•I '•-",t1,1,1:',", - .
'''.',-.,4-,jf',' !;"••”:4-.,-. -. --------
k•- . .
..,‘;'Ut ,-,2:... • . . .
_ .
•
410
�i. • EXHIBIT 2
• RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
• AND VESTING OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Resolution No. 90- . ,
•
WHEREAS, Russell Volk submitted for approval to the
Commission an application for Stream Margin Review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning staff ' recommended approval of the
Stream Margin Review with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed and approved said Stream
Margin Review on February 20, 1990; and •
WHEREAS, Russell Volk, represented by Sonny Vann, has
requested that the development rights for the Volk Stream Margin
Review be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 C. of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to vest development rights
in the Volk Stream Margin Review pursuant to Section 6-207 C. of
the Land Use Regulations for a period of three years from the
effective date hereof subject to the terms and conditions .
contained in the Volk Stream Margin approval and herein below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does hereby approve by the Volk Stream Margin Review
with conditions .as follows:
1. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk
appropriate documents regarding foundation design requirements •
for future development on each parcel, the forms of which shall
satisfy the City Attorney and City Engineer. Me documents shall
be - in the . form of graphic representation as well as deed
restriction. •
2 . Prior to development of the parcels, the developers) will be
required to submit to the Engineering Department a description of
proposed construction techniques to be used to insure against
erosion and stream pollution. .
• 3 . A landscaping plan indicating existing vegetation and
proposed landscaping for 'each parcel shall be submitted for
approval to the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
4 . The applicant shall dedicate .a fisherman' s easement from the
• centerline to 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the highwater
line of the Roaring Fork River.
5. A F.E.M.A. Elevation Certificate shall be required prior to •
issuance of building permit.
6. The Spring Street Easement Reservation shall be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk prior to issuance of building permit.
ALSO, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does vest the development rights of the Volk Stream .
Margin Review for three years from the effective date hereof
pursuant to Section 6-207 C. of the. Aspen Land Use Code, subject
to City Council ' s approval of Ordinance SS .
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 17 ,
1990.
A T: Px• D Z. ' G % OMMISSION:
arney, Depu y • ty Clerk ' - •n . 'her-. •17 Chairman
•
•
_
jtkvj/volk.reso
•
•
•
•
/•
•
EXHIBIT 3
•
ORDINANCE NO. 36-
(SERIES OF 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
FOR THE VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the Volk
Stream Margin Review was submitted to the Planning Office by
project representative Sunny Vann; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights
for a period of three years; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office recommends that Council approve
Vesting of Development Rights for the Volk Stream Margin Review;
and
-n.
_ WHEREAS,. the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning Office ' s recommendations for Vesting Development Rights
does wish to grant the requested Vesting of Development Rights
for the Volk Stream Margin Review for three years from the date
of approval . •
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the Volk Stream
Margin Review for a period of three (3) years from the date of
approval in accordance to the terms and provisions of Section 6-
207 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Section 2:
. That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
•
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 3 :
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the //"
day of , 1990 at 5 : 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen ity Hall , Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen 'on the /j day of
G/,4"..„ , 1990.
•
William L. Stirling, Mayor
AZ ST. j,
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk ,
•
ti
•
■■
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approv-4 his // ' :day of
, 19)0. •
I I • ,1 •
Mi haeI-Ga sm n, _Mayor-Pro Tem
ATTEST:
Kathryn S/ ' och, City C erk
c7/
•
'N
jtkvj/volk. ord
3
•
•
(-4
EXHIBIT 4
AGREEMENT OF DEDICATION AND RESTRICTION
i
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this -w ---day of ac�J
1990, by Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 10, 1984
("Owner) ,
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of Lots 8, 9 , 10, 11 and
the North half of Lot 7, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Addition, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Subject
Parcel") ; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 6' -90, the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission granted approval to the Volk Stream Margin
Review (which included the Subject Parcel) , subject to the
condition that the Owner agree to certain development
restrictions and dedicate a fisherman' s easement with respect to
the Subject Parcel; ,and
WHEREAS, Owner desires by this instrument to establish such
restrictions and to accomplish such dedication;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the City's .
approval of the Volk Stream Margin Review and for other good and
valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Owner agrees as follows:
1. Dedication of Fisherman' s Easement. Owner hereby
dedicates to the use of the general public, for fishing purposes
only and not as a public trail, a perpetual, non-exclusive
easement and right-of-way along that portion of the Subject
Parcel lying between the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and
a line which is 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River. Owner reserves to itself
the right to use and enjoy the easement area for all purposes
which do not interfere with the public fishing rights dedicated
hereby, and shall have no responsibility or liability in
connection with the use of the easement by the fishing. public.
2 . Site Development Plan; Foundation Design. Attached to
this Agreement as Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this
reference is a Site Development Plan for the Subject Parcel,
which Plan was approved as a part of the Volk Stream Margin
Review. Owner hereby agrees that any future development of the
Subject Parcel will be in complete conformity with the attached
Site Development Plan, and in particular will comply with the
Foundation Design requirements which are graphically depicted on
page 2 of said Plan. Before obtaining a building permit for the
Subject Parcel, the developer thereof shall submit to the City
Engineering Department a foundation plan which meets said
attached design requirements.
(1
•
3 . Other Development Reviews. Also prior to obtaining a
building permit for the Subject Parcel, the developer thereof
shall do the following:
(a) submit to the City Engineering
Department for approval a description of
proposed construction techniques to be used
to insure against erosion and stream
pollution;
(b) submit to the City Parks Department for
approval a landscaping plan indicating
existing vegetation and proposed landscaping;
and
(c) obtain an F.E.M.A. Elevation Certificate.
4 . Area Reserved for Dedication. The 20 foot wide portion
of the Subject Parcel adjacent to Spring Street, as depicted on
the attached Plan, is reserved for dedication to the City of
Aspen at such time as the City resolves to widen and improve said
street. Within 10 days of receipt of a written request therefor
from the City, the then record owner of the Subject Parcel shall
convey to the City by quitclaim deed that part of the reserved
area which is required by the City for street widening and
improvement purposes.
5. Binding Clause. This Agreement shall run with and
constitute a burden upon the title to the Subject Parcel, and
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and the
City of Aspen and their respective heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns.
In witness whereof, Owner has hereunto set his hand and seal
as of the day and year first above written.
- -ew
OWNER: �1%�
Richard W. Volk, Trustee
UTA dated March 10, 1984
2
110
110
State of Li )
County of
The foregoi Agreement was acknowledged before me this
day of —7- 1990, by Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA
dated March 10, 1984 . ' ) ) 1 )
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: „7 '17'
'
r
Notar Public
3
(3135)
• i� IC[7 YK. FLmc7('� 1•+.1E.
.. PER 1407 P.E.
■LIME ',( 4 7-12..Y..._...- - „ r'-v.
.'*(\........... ...... 4 J.r.-... ,i 3/■
r • u1
ii I
-...1) --....._..._-----) \ N.:
�ctl_k-
A 1
tc. ti ? t urn -
r 1
g 'L; )'j twPc,r ` _3
_
LI\ LOT., b,a,Io, 114 F cY_ I , Z �.,
. 1 \ -lot-etA FLAT'-';
` �. t --7f' - • ? ;
r vLres :t/•., / J. D_
�,-, 3
L% �''', ? /7 CP7' L / e
°to -)� N 74',o CO"W 14-5.GT' ) j
4Q /
. . 1 ZL,Ro.W.F
..\ I. %- ' .. \ '. • \ .
1 ' . . \tk\
•
\ .'.•••* ..*
•
'
\ z
ak‘ \\ .,\\ •
Parcel •. 1
p>uLLon-io ENV ' E -
I 1 f. 1 U v
. . --
\ 1, -
JhuKV i 7 F(1L:7 'WA-C
IF_E:M.-.4,.. FI_ooawt+"r
,... .
. . . . 0 •
Q .
NS141 - -
h
a a w-
21 1 .
m4. .4 4 1 li
IL
Q
1 4
Q
0
Q 3 ==
c� J � � y ,
- .3 W W
Q J
J
So Q
• W Q 3.a
LL o T 1-1.1 \•: Q
Q
k Q
S
O
L-�
la
f--.
i
Wg3 to,
o�� °'
o
m
o�
-C;),14) .
4
4WD
4o
Qti
• • • EXHIBIT 5
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
December 28, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Volk Stream Margin Review
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application for stream margin
review for two (2) parcels of land located adjacent to Spring
Street in the Oklahoma Flats area of the City of Aspen (see
Pre-Application Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit
1) . The application is submitted pursuant to Section 7-504
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Richard W. Volk and
Denice C. Reich, the owners of the property. Permission for
Vann Associates to represent the Applicants is attached as
Exhibit 2 .
Project Site
As the accompanying surveys illustrate, Parcel 1 consists of
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and the north half of Lot 7 , Block 1, of
the Oklahoma Flats Addition to the original Aspen Townsite.
Similarly, Parcel 2 consists of Lots 1, 2 and the south half
of Lot 3 , Block 1, of the Oklahoma Flats Addition. Parcel
1 is owned by Richard Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 10, 1984
(see Exhibit 3 , Special Warranty Deed) . Parcel 2 is owned
by Richard Volk and Denice Reich as tenants in common (see
Exhibit 4 , Warranty Deed) .
While the two parcels are not contiguous, the lots within
each parcel are held in single ownership, and are deemed to
have merged pursuant to Section 7-1004 .A. 5. of the Regula-
tions. Parcel 1 contains 0. 52 acres, or approximately 22, 650
square feet of land area, while Parcel 2 contains 0. 29 acres,
or approximately 12 , 630 square feet. As the surveys illus-
trate, the western boundaries of the parcels are located
within the Roaring Fork River and both parcels are located
within the one hundred (100) year flood plain.
230 East Hopkins Avenue•Aspen. Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958 •
•
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 2
The parcels are essentially flat and devoid of man-made
improvements. Existing vegetation consists primarily of
scattered small aspen trees and various larger cottonwoods,
the majority of which are located adjacent to the River. The
parcels are zoned R-30, Low-Density Residential, Mandatory
Planned Unit Development.
Both parcels are non-conforming with respect to the minimum
lot size requirement of the R-30 zone district. As a result,
each parcel 's development potential is limited to one (1)
single-family residence. Single-family residences are exempt
from mandatory PUD review pursuant to Section 7-902 of the
Regulations.
Proposed Development
At present, there are no development plans for the property.
The Applicants, however, wish to obtain stream margin review
approval for a site specific building envelope on each
parcel. Given the similarity of the parcels, and the nature
of their ownership, we believe that it is appropriate to
address both parcels in a single application. This approach
is not only less costly, but less time consuming for everyone
involved.
The proposed building envelopes are depicted on each parcel 's
respective site development plan. The envelopes have been
designed in compliance with the City' s stream margin review
criteria and the dimensional requirements of the R-30 zone
district. The resulting building envelopes are located
outside of the floodway and all setbacks meet or exceed
applicable requirements. These setbacks, and other relevant
development parameters, are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Existing Zoning R-30, Residential, PUD
2 . Existing Site Area (Sq. Ft. )
Parcel 1 22 , 650
Parcel 2 12 , 630
3 . Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft. ) 30, 000
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28 , 1989
Page 3
4 . Minimum Required Building Setbacks (Ft. )
Front Yard 25
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 15
5. Proposed Building Setbacks (Ft. )
Parcel 1
Front Yard 45
Side Yard 15
Rear Yard 35
Parcel 2
Front Yard 25
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 30
6. Minimum Required Open Space None
7 . Proposed Open Space (Sq. Ft. )
Parcel 1
Building Envelope 8, 900
Land Under Water 500
Open Space 13 , 250
Parcel 2
Building Envelope 3 , 630
Land Under Water 2, 660
Open Space 6, 340
8. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft. )
Parcel 1 4 , 930
Parcel 2 4 , 150
Note: All square footages are rounded to the nearest ten (10)
square feet.
It should be noted that a twenty (20) foot easement was
obtained along the east side of Spring Street in connection
with the recent approval of the Volk lot split application.
The purpose of this easement was to permit the widening of
Spring Street should future improvements be required. As
Parcel 1 is located on the west side of Spring Street
directly across from the site of the previous Volk applica-
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 4
tion, a similar easement has been depicted on the accompany-
ing site development plan. The front yard setback has been
measured from the easement boundary.
Inasmuch as Spring Street may never be widened in the
vicinity of the project site, the Applicants propose to
reserve the easement as opposed to dedicating it at this
time. This approach was also used in the Volk lot split
application. As only two (2) properties are served by the
southern most end of Spring Street, it is extremely unlikely
that the street would be widened adjacent to Parcel 2 .
Hence, no easement has been depicted on Parcel 2 's site
development plan.
parcels are located within the one hundred (100) year
As both ar ( ) Y
P
floodplain, Schmueser Gordon Meyer,
Inc. was retained to
address potential flood impacts upon the development of the
property. Field surveyed cross sections were plotted in
order to supplement existing floodplain data. The original
HEC-II analysis was then updated to reflect the new informa-
tion. As a result of this work, a more accurate floodway
boundary has been determined, the location of which is
depicted on the accompanying site development plans.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer' s analysis also determined that a
residential foundation system could be constructed within the
City' s adopted floodplain without increasing the base flood
elevation on the property in question (see Exhibit 5,
Floodplain Study) . In general, the analysis concluded that
fifty (50) feet of blockage (i.e. , the total width of the
structure 's foundation measured perpendicular to the flood
water flow) could occur without increasing the River' s base
flood elevation. This blockage could occur continuously
(i.e. , a solid foundation) or discontinuously (i.e. , a system
of structural piers) .
It should be noted that a 100 year flood event may inundate
one or both of the parcels. As a result, the residences will
have to be properly designed to withstand the hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loadings imposed by potential flood waters. A
condition of stream margin approval requiring that the future
residences ' foundations be engineered to address these
concerns is acceptable to the Applicants.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regulations, all
development within one hundred (100) feet of the high water
line of the Roaring Fork River, or within the one hundred
,110
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 5
(100) year flood plain, is subject to stream margin review.
As all of the Applicant' s proposed improvements are located
within 100 feet of the River, as well as within the flood
plain, review and approval pursuant to the City's stream
margin regulations is required. The specific review crite-
ria, and the proposed building envelopes ' compliance there-
with, are summarized as follows.
1. "It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not in-
crease the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development."
As discussed previously, Schmueser Gordon Meyer' s flood plain
analysis has determined that the property can be developed
without increasing the River' s base flood elevation provided
that the total blockage that occurs from each building
foundation does not exceed fifty (50) feet in width.
Building foundations may be solid or consist of a system of
structural piers.
To insure compliance with this requirement, a graphical
example of the required foundation design will be depicted
on the respective site development plans. These plans, and
appropriate deed restrictions, will be recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk. As a result, title commitments will
note the deed restriction and alert prospective purchasers
to the recorded site development plan and its foundation
design parameters.
2 . "Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
plan map is dedicated for public use."
According to the adopted trails plan map, no trail has been
designated across the parcels.
3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan
are implemented in the proposed plan for development to
the greatest extent practicable."
The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site specific
recommendations with respect to either parcel. The proposed
building envelopes, however, will have no significant effect
on the site' s existing river front vegetation nor will the
natural appearance of the River be impacted in any foresee-
able manner.
r1
IIP
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 6
While some vegetation will obviously have to be removed from
within the proposed building envelopes, loss of vegetation
will be mitigated by additional landscaping to be installed
in connection with the construction of the individual
residences. It should also, be noted that a permit is
required for the removal of any tree with a trunk diameter
in excess of six (6) inches. As discussed previously, the
majority of the vegetation within the proposed building
envelopes consists primarily of small aspen trees.
4. "No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream
bank."
No vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such
that the River would be adversely affected.
5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed devel-
opment reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.”
The proposed building envelopes will have no adverse effect
upon the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring
Fork River. All disturbed areas will be revegetated to
ro
preclude erosion and appropriate safeguards gu will be utilized
to prevent pollution of the River during construction. As
discussed previously, Schmueser Gordon Meyer' s recommenda-
tions with regard to foundation design will be adhered to in
the construction of the residences.
6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conserva-
tion Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to'
the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
No alteration or relocation of the existing water course will
be required.
7 . "A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and
his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished."
This review criteria is not applicable.
8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100)
year floodplain."
' •
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 28, 1989
Page 7
No federal or state permits are required to construct within
the proposed building envelopes.
Summary
Based on the above, the Applicants believe that the proposed
building envelopes are in compliance with the intent and
requirements of Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regulations
and, consequently, will have no adverse effect upon the
Roaring Fork River. The Applicants, therefore, respectfully
request stream margin approval for the proposed envelopes as
depicted on the accompanying site development plans.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assis-
tance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly, yours,
•
VANN •.-SOCIATES, INC.
Sunny Van • ICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
.. r 410 i
' 0tachment
1:
i '. \
I ter: KEpsyC 4 c/w, '��
-- �1 L-.7 V.01,31 t
I s �.� ` / i
I � ■' 1850¢ —ter/
•% _
1 k c S 7... LfCf�YdC O Cif
lAgr...EL .11,.., .
4.71,0, - . •Ni i alas- let
,
• e n� �t�'/1 1 ,
11 ‘
l c G-- v j •y' a
t p c,:1Ci-1�vc.t car /
._ l L
s. .r27rn • c co .
.:4
4, 4 <-ex--c ..\
\.- ~fir
I wry. ?Off/ I • \\
I • A.0011•411,-U• j 7fW`1 o
^Y?/ `I
D
, L
... ;. % NY-ye_ .x1,-.50. ,c. --.14:-J , , 0 Al
:::, = v4.. Nv.-,.;.0) I r z A ....„.
- -.: ill i,..:..
11$4 ,- 1
7 : ,\.. . ik ......_...
y
• AT w�/' O'— " K�PSV�
p1 N h1 /i Yf L.'Y. 1 1 8
\ rN
- En °/ K Z n. a x v�
,� k'7zr 020 it �-\3 — e, 8'
�/C r L - ✓I qET KEP!^iC CAP
ptl[(/t'� �'-. N . .,..� •,. _r r L.S. zDi-si
.\ R
.; : -410
EXHIBIT 7
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
December 24, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
•
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Parcel 2, Volk Stream Margin Review Application •
Dear Kim:
Richard Volk has asked that I write to you regarding the status of a parcel of land which
he owns with his sister, Denice Reich.
The parcel, which is referred to as Parcel 2, received stream margin review approval
from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 20, 1990. P&Z Resolu-
tion No. 90-5, which was adopted on April 17, 1990, memorialized the conditions of
approval. Vested rights status was granted by the City Council via Ordinance No. 35,
Series of 1990, on June 11. An Agreement of Dedication and Restriction was executed
by Richard and Denice on August 3, 1990, as required pursuant to condition #1 of P&Z
Resolution No. 90-5. A copy of each of these documents is attached hereto.
It is my understanding that the owner of Parcel 2 need only comply with the provisions
of the Agreement of Dedication, the remaining conditions of approval contained in
Resolution No. 90-5, and the requirements of City Council Ordinance 1, Series of 1990
in order to obtain a building permit for a single family residence. The specific require-
ments which must be met prior to the issuance of a building permit are as follows.
1) The owner must submit a foundation plan to the City Engineering De-
partment which demonstrates compliance with the foundation design
requirements contained in the Agreement of Dedication and Restriction.
2) The owner must also submit to the Engineering Department a description
of the construction techniques to be used to insure against erosion and
stream pollution.
3) The owner must submit a landscaping plan for the proposed residence to
the City Parks Department.
4) The owner must obtain a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate for the proposed
residence.
230 East Hopkins Avenue•Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958•Fax 303/920-9310
(-4)
to
Ms.Kim Johnson
December 24, 1992
Page 2
5) Pursuant to Section 8-104(A)(1)(c)(1) of the Land Use Regulations, the
owner must either provide an on-site accessory dwelling unit,pay the
applicable affordable housing impact fee, or deed restrict the single-family
residence to so-called "resident occupancy". Conditional use review and
approval will be required in the event the owner elects to provide an
accessory dwelling unit.
With respect to vested rights status, it is also my understanding that the approval is
immune from changes in relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations for
three (3) years from the date of approval of City Council Ordinance No. 90-15.
However, should the approval's vested rights status expire prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the development of the property will be subject to such additional
regulatory requirements as may have been adopted since the original approval.
While I believe the above to be an accurate summary of the approval status of Parcel 2,
I would appreciate it if you would provide me with your written confirmation so that I
may forward the same to Mr. Volk.
Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate
to call.
Yours truly,
VANN ASS :CIATES
/ 4
Sunny Vann, i.CP
SV:cwv
Attachments
cc: Richard Volk
Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
c:`,bus\city.ltrUtr10289.kj3
EXHIBIT 8
Aspen/Pit' ', ; ;- r ;J, :ing Office
i fie!
130 `,as:��. � d :;treet
Asp �t r =�;� y, = ,q; u 611
(303) 921-'-' �` . ts"".?3 == 920-5197
Sunny Vann
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Co. 81611 February 4 , 1993
RE: Parcel 2 , Volk Stream Margin Review
Dear Sunny,
I reviewed your December 24 , 1992 letter outlining the history
of the Volk approval and have the following comments. I understand
that the "Agreement of Dedication and Restriction" was recorded
with the County Clerk. A copy of the recorded agreement including
book/page and date references must accompany any building permit
application.
Page two of your letter states that the three year vested
rights period began on the approval date of City Council Ordinance
90-15 (sic) . Vested rights are actually effective from the date
of the development plan approval, in this case the P&Z ' s stream
margin approval on February 20, 1990 .
Your reference to compliance with affordable housing
mitigation pursuant to Ordinance 1 is correct. If you have any
questions about my comments, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Kim Johnson
Planner
recycled paper
•