HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.17 Shady Ln.A112-01
-;;::;:::V""-'-'" --:-.... __,....c---.--.
i-
t \
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
.!J
A112-01
2737-073-00010
Bell Residence Stream Margin Review
17 Shady Lane
Fred Jarman
Stream Margin Review
Roaring Fork LLC. C/o Fred Smith
Glenn Horn
App. Withdrawn
3/29/02
J. Lindt
~~,!',',,~,>.
--
f' __~
r,
fw\Cl.Vl
r--:
"
t')
Stream Margin Review Standards:
Regarding #3: 13 Trees are planned to be removed from the site. From attachment #13, it
seems that some ofthe trees are outside the two envelopes. Does this comply with the standard?
ESA Application Requirements:
Regarding C.2.d: There does not seem to be a proposition of the construction techniques that
will be used.
Regarding C.3.a: Are the chimneys considered "rooftop equipment"? The elevation of the
"mountain view plane" does not depict the chimneys ofthe proposed home.
K"6"',J,.:.) t:,;\o\"''J tVlv,l",f"o" (~w. $1-". II"')
- L&-"",~$",".\o,~ ?~ \'-<- ",-.k d~e:o, aD ""I;- DI' ~ . A~&> e~l.,f"'&' "'0...
frofOl:..=;...\ \,^J..cC-.".~.... \t:r<;,..e. .::v-<-<-s. '-\f-- \\'20I"-L-~ '\.'\:)1<) '-'c/\/ ~_J \~r-:'
1'\...<. ...:\\ """,J... "'rf'<"-'~\{~ ~ c_l><:... 'i),~~~.
\J.
.
or:;
f""'i
,
. A
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
Sy Kelly * Chairman
Paul Smith * Treas
Michael Kelly * Secy
February 11, 2002
John Keleher
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
Fred Jarman
. Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 17 Shady Lane Stream Margin R.eview
Dear Fred:
The property located at 17 Shady Lane is currently served by Aspen Consolidated. The ccndition
of the existing service line needs to be considered in order to determine if the s:rvice sh.ould be
replaced. The applicant is encouraged to contact our line superintendent to help determine this.
The.location of new conn(lctions and the abandonmentof existing service lines must be approved
by our line superintendent, Tom Bracewell.
The Landscaping Planting Plan (L 3-1) shows plantings on the District property that the applicant
is proposing in order to create visual s~reen f?r th:. applicant's property. We -would like to have
the proposed locations staked in order to evaluate the potential effect bfthe plantings upon our
property, as well as the effect to the view plane from our property. Additional planting around the
existing berm on our property will require sprinkler impro,:,ements that must be included as part of
the applicant's costs. We would like the applicant to consider the addition of deciduous species as
well as the coniferous species proposed. We would also like the city forester's input on the
suggested plantings. .
Please .call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~(~7v-~~
Bruce Matherly . · '. .
District Manager
, .'. ..'/:':....'...,-,..:.<.' ,'-L.,..: :.";:" ..:':':--. i,,-,........-.,: .--'-:.'
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen,CO 81611 j (970)925-3601 j FAX (970)925-2537
t""',
()
17 Shady Lane DRC Comments
City of Aspen Natural Resource Management/Stephen Ellsperman/Brian
Rpn ~
1. The City of Aspen is interested in obtaining a fisherman easement
within the high water mark as outlined in the AACP an official
Greenway Plan. The City has made this a requirement for multiple
properties within the Roaring Fork Corridor at development periods.
The fisherman corridor is becoming intact in many portions of the
corridor throughout this particular area, making the river a true public
resource.
2. The City of Aspen requires more information on the partially abandoned
Harris Ditch as denoted on site plan L1-1. Are there any current water
rights holders on the ditch? Who controls the water access? Is the
City a water right holder on the ditch? Will someone in the future utilize
a ditch maintenance easement that will destroy restoration efforts?
3. There are no detailed design standards submitted for the stream margin
protection barricades referenced in report. Where will this fencing be
situated and by what means? How will this fencing "protect residual
run-off an erosion"? The City can provide specifications if needed.
4. Before any tree permits are issued for this project, pending
aPJlroval, a follow up site visit needs to take place. The trees
denoted on the report and site plan are indeed in declined
condition and will most likely be approved for removal, however,
preserving the root systems of other existing trees is of
paramount importance and some of the construction and
landscaping boundaries proposed will affect these s~me root
zones.
5. Along with a stream margin barricade system, there also needs
to be a upland native vegetation and tree protection fencing
system installed. This will protect other areas on the property
outside the stream margin from construction damage. There
should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the
plan.
-
fi' ..,
~
6. The ecological report finding "no observed wetlands in the area"
is misleading. There are jurisdictional wetlands within the area
directly adjacent to the stream bed within the proposed
restoration area. Altholigh no proposed structures exist within a
delineated wetland area, the restoration activities do. This work
still needs to be identified as a project to the Sacramento District
of the Corps of Engineers (Grand Junction). There is a
"nationwide" admini~;trative permit available for restoration
activities which will preclude going forth with a full CofE 404
permit.
7. River Restoration Area General Comments
The City of Aspen is excited by the prospect of having a portion
of the Roaring Fork River Corridor restored during this project,
yet has some concerns as to the process and the technical
function of the design proposed. Riparian restoration is much
more of a process than the planting of various plants within
certain areas. It involves soil identification and management,
studies of typical water flow (hydrogeomorphology), baseline
botanical studies on existing herbaceous vegetation,
identification of appropriate planting times, identification of
appropriate planting methods, supplemental temporary irrigation
requirements, temporary erosion control requirements, native
seeding regimes for various of disturbed soil within the project.
Most of these items are missing within the proposed plan. We
realize that the applicant is making a wonderful effort to restore
this portion of the river beyond what a normal redevelopment
would include, vet we would require these above mentioned
items before anv finalapprovarcould be qiven fortheproiect.
We remain committed to assisting the applicant in any way
possible including technical expertise and direction in order to
propel the project towards approval.
r-.
~
8. Plant Material Comments Zone B (Ornamental)
This portion of the landscape is reserved for obvious functional
ornamental form than ecological restoration. In these cases we
provide latitude to the LA to use different plant palettes to
achieve the desired results. Oxeye Daisy is 011 the state
registered noxious weed list. It is illegal to SE!II or plant in the
state of Colorado. It must be removed from thislisf of plant
materials.
9. Plant Material Comments Zone A
Cornus sericea ... not Corn us stolonifera
Mountain Nine Bark (P. opulifolis) is not native to this
ecotype. Nearest range is near Leadville
Prunus virginiana melanocarpa .. not Prunus virginiana
Ribes inerme .. (Wax Current) .. where it just says Ribes
Symphoricarpos orephalus .. not Symphoricarpos alba (non-
native)
Again, these plants need to be placed on site within different
hydrological zones. On the top of slope where this vegetation is
proposed, permanent i...rigation will need to be installed as these plant
materials are very hydric.. require a specification amount of moisture.
Larger plant materials existing on site have tapped into the water
table. A blue spruce and a ponderosa pine have obvious initial water
requirements for establishment.. where do each of them fit into this
zone.. no real planting plan.
10. Plant Materials Comments Zone D and Zone E
Each of these plant materials are native to this ecotype and will work
well in certain configurations. The problem is their locatiolls6ased
upon the site plan will not work well as C)lItlined. The Zone E plant
materials have excellent survival potential.. yet for example S. acutus
and S. pungens are found in submerged zones of still water at various
depths. Although these plant materials are found along some portions
of the riparian corridor, the ephemeral nature of the water precludes
them in most areas. These plant materials would be extremely difficult
to establish on this site. D.cespitosa is a much more tolerant wetland
iJVL'''--
6>'-1JVl.J
\"w..,>v
IYt &.,j
CVV'A-)
~
"
t"I
-/
A
grammanoid which would be better to use in higher concentrations
within this restoration plan. Rather than go into great detail about
plant locations here.. City staff will assist in a fQlfowup meeting about
each individual plant chosen and appropriate locations and strategies.
11. Zone C Wildflower Sod
Wildflower sod has been used with marginal success in the Aspen area.
Invariably there are a few dominant plant materials which after a few
years crowd out the weaker plant materials in the mix. This results in
a monoculture of flowers in the landscape. Some of the individual
plants within this wildflower sod are very aggressive and would nofbe
appropriate along the river corridor. They are marked on the site plan
comments.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
,I""',
~
MEMORANDUM
Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below:
X ........... City Engineer
X ........... Zoning Officer
o ........... Housing Director
X ........... Parks Department
X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal
X ..........0 City Water
X ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
X........... Bnilding Department
X ........... Environmental Health \;1
o ........... Electric Department r 0 f---
o ........... Holy Cross Electric ~7\ _ ....() , ~ 0 ')
0........... City Attorney 'f:/V ~ V' ~ ^ ~
X .......0... Streets Department ArQtJ-" _. . ',.~
o ......0.... Historic Preservation Officer ~ b \ , '; ~
o ........... Pitkin County Planning OJ' J~ ~
X ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator ~ V\' ~ ~
Fred Jarman, Planner ~
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 8161 I
Phone-920.5 I 02 Fax-920.5439
17 Shady Lane Stream Margin Review
January 23, 2002
DATE OF DRC MEETING: January 30, 2002
REFERRAL SCHEDULE
APPLICATION SENT OUT TO REFERRAL AGENCIES*
WRITTEN REFERRALS DUE
Thank you,
Fred
January 23, 2002
February 11, 2002
1-04-19955,15AM
~rJ:l9!Si~ ;~
~~~\~.
yYb~
The fOllowing Iract of land located in the 'NWX SWX of Section" ,. Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th
P.r<!. .
FROM
1 "'-''/--'
IOU
~/dj
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRACT NO.1
Beginning at Corner No 1, a pine post, whence the West Xi corner to Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th P.M., bears West 562.6 feet; U.S.LM. Ute No.4 bears S 28004' E 3654.4 feet; .
thence East 376 feel; ,
thence South 200 feet;
, thence N 7j'34' W 395.3 feet;
thence North 75 feet to place of beginning. Variation of 14G40', East.
TRAc'r NO.2
,
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of tract descrjbedin Deed recorded in 8Qok 49 at Page 12, Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder's Office (being also the Southeast Corner of Tract 1 above);
thence South 125 feet, more or less to the North Bank of the Roaring Fork Riyer;
thence Westerly along the Nonh Bank of the Roaring Fork River 305 feet. more or less;
thence North 150 feet, more or less, to the South line of said trqct described in Book 49 at Page: 12, Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office;
thence S 71034'. E 341.3 feet to the place of beginning,
TRACT NO.3
Beginning at a point whence the West X 90mer of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.
bears North 200.0 feet, and West 938,6 feet, (the true point of triangular parcel of land more fully described as
follows); T
thence Southeastedy along the South right of way line of the Cou'nty Road.a distance of 300 feet to the
,intersection ~f said road with the North Bank of the RoarIng Fork River;;: '.1
thence NortHerly and Westerly along teh North Sank of the Roaring Fork River a disfance of 21 0.0 feet to the
Southeast corner of that c~rt.ain tract described In Book 49 at Page 57, Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder; :
thence North 125,0 feet to the point of beginning, being the same property described upon Deed recorded in Book
177 at Page 128, Pitkin COllnty Clerk: and Recorder's Office.
TRACT NO.4
Beginning a,t a poinl whence the West Y. corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.ryt.
bears North1175.06 feet and West 938.6 feet;
thence 5 44"29'24" E 159.10 feel;
thence S 34'05'00" E 119.84 feet;
thence S 52~30'OO" W 52 feet more or less to the apparent mean high water tine of the Roaring Fork River;
thence N 32006'24" W 258,90 feet;
thence North 24.$4 feet, mOre or less, to the point of beginning,
EXCEPTING FROM TH~ ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY THE FOLLOWING OESCRIBED PROPERTY:
Beginning at a pOint' whence the West X corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.
beats West 802.70 feel;
thence East 63.49 feet;
thence 58.48 feet al009 a curve to the,left. whose radius is 153.33 feet,~h~;dbe~';~ S 33;3.J'~~" ~ 5813 teet.
thence S 44"29'24" E 57.48 feet; . 'l
thence South SS,62 feel to the point of beginning of Tract 3 as amended;
thence N 44'29'24" W 11855 feel;
thonce 105.86 feet .I~"g a C"rve to the rl9nt, whose ra\flus is 213.33 feet, chord bears N 30"16'26" W104.77 feet.
to the pOInt of beSllnnmg. .
ALSO EXCEPTING: Any po'tien of the abovo oescribed property lying and being within the O&RG railro.o right of
way, ,.
(rr . 5~.d~. k0
x(ecl~L.~?J (,
4+J iCt:J~ 3%1
P.1