Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.505 Sneaky Ln.A008-01 ~\ CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY /' ~ A008-01 2735-122-70004 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin Review 505 Sneaky Lane Nick Lelack Stream Margin Review Bob Camp Rally Dupps 3/6/01 Reso. 10-2001 Approved 6/1/01 J. Lindt i ~ ,'1 ~ k ~ rl December 13, 2001 Bob Camp Cynthia Curlee . PO Box 692 Aspen; cq 81612 .... .. , ASPEN' PITKIN . RE: ADD Proposal Clarification COMMUNITI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, . CERTIFIED MAIL DearMr. Camp & Mrs. Curlee: . , Please let this letter ~erVe as a ~larification or. your options as a re~u]t of your appljcation being withdrawn at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 'last evening. Your options to . . , 'remain in conformance with the applicable zpning requirements are as follows: . . . Maintain a 600 square foot ADU as approved on your building permit plans. This unit would include .both the second floor and the first floor .area that .you ha\le. . proposed to convert to ~ studio/workshop. If you choose this option and wish to rent. 'out the unit, you must rent out the entire 600 sqUare feet because you deed restricted the entire ?OO sqllare feet.' " , . , Convert the 188 square feet on the first floor. to a studio/workshop, for you~ use. If you c!1oose this option, you must wall off the. stairWell to the ADU. unit and provide" another exterior entrance'dinectly into the unit or into the stairwell to the unit. If you . choose this option you. ,must obtain the requiredbuildirig permits to remodel the structure. . . Convert the 188. sq~are feet of the unit on the first floor to a studio/workshop for. your . use and remove the kitchen .( cook~hg devices) in the ADU unit so that you do not . . have three units that count towards the allowable density on your parceL, If YOli choose this option you will ha~e to relinquish the entire FAR exemption that you , gained from constructing the .detached Accessory.Dwelling Unit becauSe"Y9u will no longer be considered to have an ADU. 1 have informed. the AspenlPitkin Housing AuthoritY of your sitUation and they will be required to do enforcernent if your property were' to fall out or,compliance With the terms of your. deed . restriction or the applicable zoning on your prpperty. Please call me at 920-5095 with any questions that you may, have regarding your situiltion. Regards, .' ;... ilL ~~ James Lindt, Planning Technician City of Aspen cc: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Christensen, AspenlPitkin Housing Authority Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer ' " ' Planning and Zohing Commission , .13U SoUTH GALENA STREET' "ASPEN, COLORADO 81611~197S ' PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439 ... Printedon~cydedPaper I"'"'; r) ,111MI11Mjl A\M11ItMII1RII COltIIII'110WJ MEETING DATE: 03/06/01 NAME OF PROJECT: 505 SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CITY CLERK: . Jackie Lothian STAFF: Nick Lelack WITNESSES: Richard Goulding, Engineering Scott Lindeneau, architect Bob Camp, applicant EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable) MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve Resolution 10, series 2001, a Stream Margin Review for the Camp residence at 505 Sneaky Lane as depicted in plan "Set C" finding that all of the review criteria have been met with conditions. Eric Cohen second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich yes. APPROVED 5-0. VOTE: YES _5_ NO _0_ ROBERT BLAICH YES _x_ NO ERIC COHEN YES_x_ NO ROGER HANEMAN YES _x_ NO JASMINE TYGRE YES _x_ NO RON ERICKSON YES _x_ NO PZVOTE ~ t) , J1[.:B. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ,Jf(6 FROM: Nick Le1ack, Planner c. o lox ~ C)/XsJ T PROJECT: 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin Review REQUEST: To partially demolish one-half of an existing duplex and completely demolish a detached garage, and to expand the duplex and to build a new detached garage with an ADU. ApPLICANT: Bob Camp, Cindy Curlee LOCATION: 505 Sneaky Lane PUBLIC HEARING: No - public meeting ZONING: R-30/PUD FLOOR AREA: Existing: 1,529 sq. ft. Allowed: 6,383 sq. ft. ADU: 501 sq. ft. (only 50% counts toward FAR because it is detached); Garage & Duplex FAR: 3,751. The other side of the duplex is 2,291 square feet, and is owned bv Ann Mass. DATE: March 6,2001 PROCESS: PZ Final Decision RECOMMENDATION: Approval for proposal that complies with Land Use Code, with Conditions (proposed motion on page 13.) SUMMARY: Bob Camp and Cindy Curlee (Applicant), represented by Rally Dupps of Studio B, is requesting Stream Margin Review approval for development within 100 feet of the Castle Creek 100-year floodplain. The Applicant is proposing two options for P&Z's review. One option complies with the Land Use Code in all regards. The other option does not meet the 45-degree angle requirement. The Applicant disagrees with the City Engineer's top-of-s10pe determination because of this site's characteristics. Castle Creek, not shown, is located just beyond the dense vegetation behind the duplex. The detached garage is the building on the left side of the photograph. 1 t"""'l r) .. . This map shows the subject parcel shaded gray. North is at the top of the map. ...... ~ . ., .. , .. STAFF COMMENTS: The Land Use Code requires that all "Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area" be subject to the Stream Margin Review. All of the proposed development associated with the duplex is within 100 feet of Castle Creek's 100 year floodplain, and part of the garage and proposed new accessory dwelling unit appears to be within 100 feet of the floodplain line. The proposed addition and new garage/ADU would be built on flat ground, and in areas that avoid the 100-year floodplain, the I5-foot setback from the top-of-slope, and significant vegetation. The kev issue for this development proposal is Stream Margin Review Criteria 9, which states the following: 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 fortYcfive (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes). 2 ,....." rl j It is difficult to determine exactly where the top of slope is for this parcel. The Applicant's surveyor contends that the top of slope is between Castle Creek and the 100-year floodplain. However, City staff - planning and engineering - do not believe it is possible to have a top of slope below the roO-year floodplain, especially when the Applicant told City Staff on a site visit in January 2001 that limited water entered into 100-year floodplain area within the past couple of months. Therefore, the City Engineer has determined the top of slope to be the same as the roO-year floodplain line. As a result, the 45-degree angle line is drawn from the roo- year floodplain line. This picture shows the existing duplex as viewed from Castle Creek. The people on the left are standing on the "top of slope". However, the swa1e between the top of slope and house is within the roO-year floodplain; water has entered this area within the past couple of months. The City Engineer has determined the top of slope to be the 100- year floodplain in this case. The Applicant contends that it is difficult to determine exactly where to draw the 45-degree angle line because water only enters the roO-year floodplain area in winter, but not during the spring run-off. The Applicant has submitted two sets of architectural drawings for the Planning and Zoning Commission's review. Both drawings have the same building footprint, which is over 20 feet away from the 100-year floodplain line as required, but Set A 3 f"J n (the Applicant's preference) does not meet the 45-degree angle requirement and the Set B does meet the requirement. The Set B drawings also show an ADU above the detached garage. The Applicant intends to built the ADU regardless of which proposal is approved. Staff recommends the P1annin!l" and Zonin!l" Commission approve the Stream Mar!l"in Review for the proposal that complies with the Land Use Code requirements, with conditions. This picture shows the portion of the existing duplex to be demolished, and the location of the 2-story expansion partly into an existing yard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this Stream Margin Review application for the site plan and architectural drawings that comply with the Land Use Code requirements for development in environmentally sensitive areas. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. to Series of 2000, a Stream Margin Review for the Camp residence, at 505 Sneaky Lane, as depicted in plan set B, finding that all of the review criteria have been met, with conditions," (:) f c- ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Review Criteria and Staff Findings Referral Agency Comments -- Development Application 4 ^ ,~ EXHIBIT A 505 SNEAKY LANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review. Applicability. The provisions of the Stream Margin Review shall apply to all development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain. Stream Margin Review Standards. No development shall be permitted within the. Stream Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Staff Finding The proposed development completely avoids the Special Flood Hazard Area. This criterion is met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: ParkslRecreationlOpen SpacelTrails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and, Staff Finding The Pedestrian and River Recreation Easement on the property will not be affected by this proposaL This criterion is met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The 5 r'l r') barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; a~d Staff Findine: According to the City's Parks Department, the site planllandscape plan indicates that several trees are to be removed as part of this development. The Applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit from the Parks Department and provide appropriate mitigation for the removal of the trees. This criterion is met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion andlor sedimentation during construction. Increased on- site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and Staff Findine: Staff does not believe the proposed development will pollute or interfere with the natural changes of Castle Creek or the riparian area. Conditions of approval address site drainage to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. This criterion has been met. 5. 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; and Staff Findine: The proposal does not include any alteration or relocation of Castle Creek. 6. 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; and Staff Findine: The proposal does not include any alteration or relocation of Castle Creek. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one-hundred-year floodplain; and Staff Findine: The proposed development is not within the 100 year floodplain. 8. 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, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and 6 ("\ n Staff Finding The proposed development is not within the 15-foot setback from the top of slope or high waterline; in fact, it is about 20 feet from the top of slope/l00-year floodplain line. 9. 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 Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Se~tion 26.575.020 (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and Staff Finding Proposal A would encroach into this 45-degree angle from the ground level at the top of slope, and Proposal B meets this criterion. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission uphold the City Engineer's determination of slope and approve only Proposal B. This criterion is met. 10. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new p1antings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and Staff Finding Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant submit a Landscape Plan to the Parks Department for the Parks Department review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope; and Staff Finding The property must comply with the City's lighting code, which will be in full force and effect this November. According to the application, all exterior lighting will be low and downcast with no lights directed towards the river. 12. 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 sea level; and Staff Finding This criterion has been met; the site sections are included in the application, and have been verified by the City Engineer's Office. . 7 ^ t') 13. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding This criterion has been met; the riparian areas have been identified and verified by the City Engineer's Office. 8 ~ (i \.'} MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Richard Goulding, Project Engineer Reference DRC Case load Coordinator Date: Feb 12th, 2001 Re: 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin Review application at their Jan 31, 2001 meeting and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way. the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review Planning Department - Requirement - The following Requirements have been provided by the City Planning Department: a. The proposed structure must be within a plane that makes an angle of 45 degrees with the horizontal. The plane begins at the 1 OO-year flood plane. b. That the proposed structure be 15 fl of greater from the 1 DO-year flood plane 1. . Fire Protection District - Requirement - The following requirements have been provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. That a sprinkler system be installed if the floor area of the house exceeds 5000 square fl 2. Housing Department - Information - The following information has been provided by the Housing Department: a. At this stage of the development the housing department has no comment 4. Streets Department The following requirement has been provided by the Streets Department: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction 9 1"", ~ 5. Parks - Requirement - The following requirement has been provided by the Parks Department: a. The improvement survey notes a Pedestrian and River Recreation easement, however. no lines appear to indicate the width or exact location of the easement. The applicant should provide a legal description of the easement for this application. b. A requirement should be to place silt fencing at the 1 OO-year flood plane and remain in place until construction is complete, No construction or alteration of the landscape is permitted beyond the 1 DO-year flood plane. c. The site planllandscape plan indicates that several trees are to be removed as part of this development. The improvement survey should indicate the size and species of the trees on the lot over four (4) inches in diameter at four and a half feet (4 W) above grade. This information should be provided before proceeding to Planning and Zoning. No excavation or storage of materials is permitted within the dripline of existing trees to be saved. 6. Engineering - Requirement - The following requirements have been provide by the Engineering Department: a. A cross section of the most restrictive situation (at the top of the ridge of the proposed structure be provide by a licensed surveyor b. The proposed structure must be outside of the view of the plane that makes an angle of 45 degrees with the horizontal surface. The plane begins at the 100-year flood plane. It should be noted due the uniqueness of this case, it was impractical to establish the top of slope and it was felt the I OO-year flood plane would be the more restrictive c. The structure must be 15ft or greater back from the IOO-year flood plane 6. . Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator -Information the following information has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster Coordinator: a. The 1 OO-year flood plain data from the 1987 FEMA Flood Plain Risk Maps is the current criteria to which this property is being evaluated and does not seem to display issues with flooding. However, just recently the City of Aspen has updated the Roaring Fork river flood inundation maps. The data from these most current maps will be used when the information is made public. b. It is recommended that the applicant comply with engineering concerns and issues. Mitigation efforts affect both the applicant and public safety issues. 10 f'. 1"""\ ...J ,'..,..<,,' 8. Utilities: A utility plan needs to be submitted before any real comments and conclusions can be drawn by the utility companies, Water: City Water Department - Requirement - The following requirement was given by the City of Aspen Water Department: a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Tille 25 and applicable portions of Tille 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities, Wastewater: Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Informaticn - As a request of the Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows: a. No comment submitted Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follow: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportationlstreets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3, Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. DRC Attendees Staff: Nick Adeh Richard Goulding Nick Lelack Applicant's Representative: Scott Lindeneau Bob Camp 11 ..~ f"', A Cindy Mohat Ed VanWalraven 12 PROJECT: A ~ Name: Location: G/tMP I LotJDO '>oS S1JF~ LAt-lE CJ<f'-OVlJJ f'A-~ U l 0 (Indicate street address, lot & hlock number, legal description where appropriate) ApPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: o o LAND USE ApPLICATION s So+ o o ';"0; .0 o o Temporary Use Text/Map Amendment Conceptual Historic Devt. Final Historic Development Minor HistoricDevt:"'i; .," Historic f)emoHtibn ",' . Historic beslgr1~t'l()n SfualJ Lodge Conversion! Expansion o Other: TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply): o Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD o Special Review 0 " ' Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) o Design Review Appeal 0 'i." Conceptual SPA o GMQSAlJotment ,;;,,,Final SPA (&SP A Ani'~lldrrient) o GMQSExemption,;\t,,:5i ON,Subdivision' ~ ESA -8Q40Gret;u1ine, Strelpll . ii; O. ;:;Su~~ivision E;xemption(includes Margin, Hallam li'.ake Bluff, condominiumization) Mountain View Plane Lot Split Lot Line Adjustment I =;':==::=~:==='&~~~IWIU6< - ~~ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) L::~D~~:{'::M7~: ~~~~. ~}:":~:f= lb'fSe~~\f~=, O~ FEES DUE: $ . h~o. 00 Have you attached the following? o Pre-Application Conference Summary o Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement o Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form o Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Suhmission Contents to '('J .i\t~ac-~~u>:\ei';l ,',i-;' ;(;\\' J: oonsortiumj 'i.. f"'\ 970 925 6797; Jan-~1 10:38AMj Page 1/2 505 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin.Review Proposal Tu: TIle City Of Aspen <<: James Lindt, Bob Camp, Sarah Oatcs 0.11:: January 18, ZOOI Subj~d: Camp Residence @ 505 Sneaky Lane From: Rally Dupps of Studio B Architects (Representative) .' Auulieant's Information: Bob Camp, Cindy Curlee POB 692 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ph: 970-925-5049 Representative's Information: Rally Dupps Studio B Architects 555 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ph: 970-920-9428 fax: 970-920-7822 Proiect Deseriution: The Camp residence is located at 505 Sneaky Lane in Aspen, Colorado within the Carolyn Parry Subdivision. unit North. There are three slroctures on the site. The duplex building which consists of two single-family residences, and a separate, detached garage. The proposed development will add square footage and another story to the existing North unit and will replace the existing garage with a new building that will use the foundation from the previous garage. Review Criteria: The following are responses to Attachment 4 of the Stream Margin Review Application: A. No development is proposed within the floodway. B. (see below) 1. The proposed development will not encroach within the 100 year flood plain. 2. The propo$ed development does not encroach upon any trail or areas of historic public use or access. 3. Currently there is a pedestrian and river recreation easement on Castle Creek. The proposed development does not encroach upon this easement. 4. No vegetation shall be disturbed within the 15'-0" setback from the top of slope as shown on the site improvement sUIVey or outside the building envelope. No grade changes are proposed outside the building envelope. The building envelope shall be barricaded for construction as required by the City of Aspen. Sent J ..;6nsortium; ~.... ~it~ f""\ 970 925 6797; Jan-17~ 10:38AM; Page 2/2 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of Castle Creek. All increased on site drainage will be handled 10 prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. No pools or hot tubs are proposed. 6. The watercourse will not be altered in any way by this proposal. 7. The watercourse will not be altered in any way by this proposal. However, a guarantee can be provided in the event that the watercourse is altered or relocated thut the ilood carrying capacity on the pacel shall not he diminished. 8. The proposed development will not encroach within the 100 year flood plain. 9. 1be proposed development will not occur below the top of slope, it will not encroach within the 15'-0" setback from the top of slope nor will it encroach the 100 year flood plain boundary. 10. All development outside the 15'-0" setback from the top of slope does not exceed the height delineated by a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Please refer to drawing L1.0 (exhibit B) for this diagram. 11. Please refer to landscape plan L 1.0 (exhibit B) for this requirement. No vegetation shall be added within the 15'.0" setback from the top of slope as shown on the site improvement survey. 12. All el<lerior lighting shall be low and downcasl with no lights directed toward the river or located down the slope. 13. Please refer to landscape plan Ll.O (exhibit B) for lhis requirement. '14. Please refer to the site improvement survey (exhibit A) drawn by Tom Yokum for this requirement. List of Exhibits: A - Site Improvement Survey from Tom Yokum B - Ll.O - Landscape Plan from Studio B Architects C - Stream Margin Review Proposal D - 8 W'xll " Vicinity Map E - Deed & Deed ofTrust for 505 Sneaky Lane . F - Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees G - Pre-application Conference Summary H ~ Land Use Application Form i/!?,d--J C U- Date:~/ Bob Camp, owner N 4-< o - " ~ ~ ~ # ::0: o u 1""1 (i , -e I . :s~) 1,1 h\ I ~o/ ~)/t_./ oa::.\ ' t' "I../(~,. 1 q;o " I'~ ~(;i~llf ~i\- ;1,1..- ./ ; /h~"l "/ 131 i.! "ai,,)'';>i &l / / '<l~ i 1)' . v UJ co // /1' / '(lI./rf,/ :::l 9} li i I, / ~! ; i.~-'\ 1/, ~.P"', .. ,_-. /b'<, j ,EJ"./ '."",,", .;,"// / .... /9'/ i:,:..f ""\" -.:- r \./ ~~: QQ/SJ ..1 ~ je,"'.Cl.,,/Zf1 I. CO' G 1.'1]/ .', ',' ", Q /M -,/ 6 I '\.~/ ~";:) c.J 11 e~j ~:/ , /,'1 .~~// Z 1/ LJ/ ' w / a.' UJ c( Z ...J ~ c( W Z UJ It) o It) _J 1-/ . , ./ i: go ~ - ~ ~ CIl .Q . ~ "tl iJ ';:: "" , '-' ..... E .D '" 'I:: ~ ~ - t- OO ~ t\l CI go - ~ .:t: -1' {J ~ , z. ,. ? ~ ~ .~ " ::; ~ ~ .. ~ 8 , ~ .. > _. 8 '" " _. , - p . , 0- Cl . _. ~ "'~ . . , o ''"__._____.. +;...,.......u_______... --_.,-,_.,,_.~ ---._- ..-.,,-.------.. . " ~~ ~ ~ il ~ ... = " ~ ... Ii: ~ - :Hi ;;. So ; ~ I~i ,,~ =:9., i" > ~ ~ .:.! ~ , 11 > ~ i! '2: d'1l ~ g. ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~i f ~ ~~. s ;g lC...';OZ i!. 1i".. 0 :~f:~ ~'[ if ~. .. 1; f!" ~ ~ '5 ~ 3' ~[ , '] =E [ , , i ~. g ~ ~" " 0 ;: ~. ii ~ ~ , E . . :: ~ ~ ~ ~. ~r ~~ .: ~~ .=-}: .-., Qt ~.r" " ;;l ~~ ~~'~dg~.~ g~..~~~> ~;: iH~HflH (\) ::J a if if or. _ ",' ~ .. n-~a:~.i~~re.~ mWHll t1atl!>"T.[~~"-~ '0 F. 2' ! ~ <l d '\,; "2 '" g ;t ~ 1 ~ ! if ~. ~, III ,. ~ [ l': l; .. c.. _ .,' \"1"gli-"'.!~[]r] (l)"2 =: l!. if ~" _:.....:: O'rta~~.;:s.~~~ g5~~~~R~~~ --l;"'~~ - ~~~j:;1.~[gif~ ~Ul~:~~~.[j~ (D ~ "- if '!!: !T ".. ;; ~rtE.f]~~~~~. t..td~:s=.[:g~::'!> Ii 0.. ~ ~ .. !; .. :: s; (\) 11 ;: 50 g E" l; [ .? _. ;tg:F~.~..~:g~.g 11 g6a~r:sa1 l'lI....:.io:e "'00." __. ",~.~.j~~~~: o .:- Q. 0 . ;; _.~ ~~~!F~!!"~] !;,~HH H ".l, ,., H .!~ffi !:- g ~Ar"\ . ~ 9Wd~' . , ; , a .. . J , '" o '" '" , o . " '" to . , o " o G '" ". C , _. '" Nt'{ 0 "tl 2:0 en .l>.lll t1 Qt 0 HoO -...JO .....0.0 c; 000"(\) 11 ('t ,....11(\) l'Jtll::r" Wo.o.UH,-,O (\) -...JWO C 0'....0'\~11 :1 :J -...10...... Coj nt-...J(\)('t ntrt"fII.. 0... ,"" c::co:untCoj() nt (\):Jc::nt 11 no 0.:J 11 '<O(\) (\)0 :J'Ort" f-' .....O'('t::r",....'< 00 .....lD Ul:J - 30 .....:1)::< '0 ,....:J :3 1-'01 ...,.....% m \011 coc::o:Jcol1 w3 0.1-'''<: 3 .....Orvm .....f) :JroOJ:1:l0 OCO('t :1 ttr,....O\ '00. o nt""'I1,....O 011 -...J (\) III :3 X'QI 0 ('t..... rt"1lI0 :l .t:>.....:l11 ttr..... woo.o.oc CO:J m03 ll>0.X'.. . ~oo ('to 3:1-'ll> 11 HIll> 1-'0 '0 C,,<: 0 flJf)11 ll>0 o.QQlrt".-...In-11 CDI1::T" 0. om '0..... O\....I1f-'flJ:l w'< \Oo.Ot,Q ~:Jo.'CO(\) ro ~ '" flJ'tlHl 0\0 !II Pt..........Ul 11:J:l ('t :UI1CD flJ::T CD'< Od;;:l((l tll o 0 CD f)1lI 0::03: 'OO:J X'CD (lJ ('t::J 0. 0'0 1-"0. UlCD 00 o.w'O ('t :13CDUlrt;::r ....l.Il ....(\) Z::J 101011 0...... ('t:1 (\) C , -.. .'? g < - .~ ~ e.;: 7- 1: i' c::j a ~ ~~ ~ ~i:; a ~ (\):::i ~ fi' O? ~:g[ t":l 'S ~ ~.~ gig: o.ij <<'.. CD;! 2, ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ ('t~ ;?~ ~ b'a ('t &. ~::l t":l ~i'l i I ~ f ~ : g' :0.. '" '0 ~ ~ I 1-'. :;. ~ I ('t ..!'" I );' i! if I ...- ';-0<: le::;l ~ ~' : >-3 -; ~ : g .;t Co I ~ !!... I 0. ~ ~ ~ r 0 ~ ! ~ : ~ <:> -. 'if I (lJ ;:;j 0. 111 =- ~;. ((10. i ~ ... " ! -! g.. ~~. ~ o.~ ::!,;,] 0" [~I: ('t~ ;, ~'~ g-.g- g,:> 2" 11'" ~ ~.; o.Q ~ ";'; ~ g.. ~ ~ 8 0. ~'~, r: g ~' ;.. ~ 0. if _= !'> if '~ . 7 l . E ~ - .. " .. o X ~ ~ ~ ,. . " o , o o ~ o " . 0. o m ~ ~ ~ ~ f OI? !II r if c..,~ 0';'. ....;:; , , rt' .. ro ,,, . 0 '0- ,"0 Ul:i F ~.< o . 3 " . , 0. o '" , '" ". _. . ?<. o c " ~ o .. _. '" " _. , . '- . m ~ ~ X in " '" ? , ~ " ?- . I ,. ~ . , '" ~ ~ '" '" >- Z -l "' " "' "' " '" o ". < . " rt N . , 0. Cl . _. ~ '" ~ . rt . o o o '" o <T o " I II '" o " < . " '" N Sent By: consortium; ~ 970 925 6797; Jan-1fi1 4:26PM; Page 2/4 ASPENIPITKlN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agr.eemeul for Payment orCily of Aspen'Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and . _ 1Ol!:l6 C.AM P (hereinafter APPi..lCANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for ""THiS. CA loI P \2.I;S 1DJ:':t.:) Ch (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordil'1<1nce No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determ ination of application completeness. / 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of Ihe proposed projeet. it is not possible al this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make paymeot of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining graa",r cash liquidity and will make additional payment. upon notification by' the CITY when they are necessary as cost> are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application_ 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete . ,processinllor'present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Plailning' Commissiclf,t~d/or City Council to make legally required fmdings.for projeclconside:-adon, unless current billin'gs are paid in full prior 10 decision. . 5:,. Therefore. APPLICA."NT agrees that in considerntion of the CITY's waiver of ils ripllo ~(Wecl . tUllfees prior. to a.determination of...~plicationcompleteness, APPLICANT shall pay an inilial deposit kthe amount of$ . ,,~O. 0 0 which is for_ hours of Cpmmunity Development staff time, and if actual recorded COsl:! exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in nO case will building penults be i,,<ued lIntil all costs associnted with ease processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: c1'tJ e Ann Woods ommunlty Development Director By: ~~~y / /~?/C)/ , Date: Mailing Address: PO eo b'l'2.. _~~f<v-l (0 'V (b / 1- g:\supportlforms\agrpayas_doc 1%1:7/99 JAN-16-2001 TUE 10:41 AM r", FAX NO. f'""', P. 02 \.. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESh'NTA TIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DESCRIPTION: Jamcs Lindt, 920.5104 DATE: 1.16.01 Sneaky Lane Stream Margin Review Rally Dupps 1 Step. Stream Margin Review Addition to existing house within 100 feet of the river. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review. ../ Rcvicw by: Slafffor complete application, referral agencies for teChtlical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for Approval determination. No. Ungineering Planning Deposit $500 Engineering Referral $180 $680 Public Hearing: Rcferral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency '(1ccs: Total Deposit: To apply, submit the foUowirig information: . a. t<1.. 9. I!>'- 10. ... . TOlal Deposit foncviewefar,pliOOlion. '^ppliCllJ)l'S~~I"!loadd",ss l)lldJelephoncnumger. eonlajn~dw,lbin a leiJer ,igi,edby t1i"'IlPpli""riistatingthen""ie. add,,,,$. and tek-phorie number of lhe representative authorized to act 0.... 1,ehnlf oflbe applicant c." .. '. . . Signed fee agreement Pro-appliealiun Conference Sumrn>ry. Gr ^ site improvement survey. Po An 8 112" x Iln vicinity map locating the subject parcels within tlle City of A'pen. ~ A wrinell description oCthe propos", and a wrillen explanation of how a proposed development complies with tlle review stondards relevant to the development 'pplicalion.l. A copy of the .reeorded dOCUm'"llls which affects the proposed developm'"llt.' Proor of ownership. 1:. . Addilional mate-rillls t\~. required by specific review. Plca.'lc rer~r to the f1pplicittion p3ckt.'t tor s)lecit'ic submiUal n:quircmcnt<: or to the cade seclions noted above. t> . _l~_Col'ie.' oflhe compMe application pocket (itetns 1-10) - I:",'" ,-2. ./I<c ~ 3. II>'- - 4."'- - S. It" 6..... - 7. '" 11. Process: Apply. Plonncr reviews cose for completencss and send, to Engineering for rd'crraI eommelll', often ~,ken to Design Review Committee. C!I:;C Planner tokes to staffmccting for rccotnrnendation. Case pJanner writes memo ofn:comnll,-nda1ion to the Planning find Zoning Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission makes tinal dt::tenninl'ltion on application. OJ,c1aimer: TIle foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on tbe Cily. The summary is based on current zoning, which is suhjeello change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested rigbt.