Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.CU.820 Bonita Dr.A68-96
2735-122-09-008 A68-96 820 Bonita DR. ADU YA O CA OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY - — kSPEN DATE RECEIVED: 10/4/96 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # 2735-122-09-008 CASE # A68-96 STAFF: Suzanne Wolfi PROJECT NAME: 820 Bonita Dr. Conditional Use Review for ADU Project Address: 820 Bonita Dr. Aspen, Co. 81611 APPLICANT: Josseph Dunn Address/Phone: P.O. Box 9075, Aspen, Co. 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: samr l Address/Phone: 011_1�" - RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $235 PLANNING $235 # APPS RECEIVED 12 ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: No ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $0 CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $235 TOTAL RCVD $235 Staff Approval ❑ City Attorney City Engineer ❑ Zoning X Housing ❑ Environmental Health N'Parks ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ City Water ❑ City Electric ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Other: ❑ CDOT ❑ ACSD ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Other: DATE REFERRED: I �' INITIALS:�DATE DUE: i Q APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # ` I Date: q1 Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book —,Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: 11(2,( P(2 C- . � 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO LEGALIZE A BANDIT UNIT AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR ADAM ROTHBERG AND JOE DUNN AT 820 BONITA DRIVE Resolution No. 97--1- WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code, accessory dwelling units may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as conditional uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(C) of the Code, a bandit unit may be legalized if it was in existence prior to November 1, 1988, and if it meets the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the chief building official; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Adam Rothberg and Joe Dunn for a Conditional Use review to legalize a bandit unit as an accessory dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the property is located at 820 Bonita Drive (Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 1) and the existing structure contains three dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineer, Parks Department and Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a regular meeting on January 7, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 4-2 vote the Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit, amending the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the 820 Bonita Conditional Use Review for an accessory dwelling unit containing approximately 600 square feet of floor area, is approved with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Community Development Department; B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs; and The applicants shall submit a building Permit for the chief building official to inspect and determine that the ADU complies with the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Any work required shall be completed prior to recording of the deed restriction. Prior to issuance of a Letter of Completion for the ADU, the Community Development and Housing staff shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. The applicants shall remove the existing boulders in the Bonita Drive right-of-way prior to issuance of a. Letter of Completion for the ADU. When a building permit is submitted to expand the existing building footprint or redevelop the property, the applicants shall provide a site plan containing all of the information required for a tree removal permit, driveway location and dimensions, site drainage plan, existing and proposed easements, landscaping plan for the portion of the right-of-way between the edge of pavement and the property line, and as further required by the Aspen Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any expansion of the existing building footprint or redevelopment of the property, the applicants shall remove and replace the circular driveway with a single driveway curb cut and shall submit as -built drawings in digital format to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Department showing property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities and any other improvements 7. A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to submission of any building permits for construction which would expand the existing building footprint. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 4" caliper. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9. The applicants shall cease diversion of water to the pond from the ditch, unless proof of water rights is provided to the City Water Department. 10. The applicants shall provide proof to the Community Development staff that the bandit unit was in existence prior to November 1, 1988, prior to recording of the deed restriction for the ADU. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 7, 1997. Attest: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission: Sara Garton, Chair r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Mary Lackner, Acting Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: 820 Bonita Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Continued Public Hearing DATE: January 7, 1997 SUMMARY: This application was tabled by the Commission on December 10. The issue was raised at that time as to whether or not the applicant would be required to provide an ADU to legalize the existing residence. Since the duplex was in existence prior to the adoption of the ADU regulations, an ADU is not required. The applicants may pull the application and remove the illegal third unit, or may continue with the processing of this application to legalize the unit as a voluntary ADU. The applicants have not yet notified staff as to their intent, therefore, staff is unsure if this item will be removed from the agenda, or if we will proceed with the ADU review. ArA, ,y,,. c a,)," I 11.9 — p-L° L c f w / ADD Gt -p & 7 52)i6 t ��. c4-�-L4-- mow ru �. W��.cl Ley f-D ,�,� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Mary Lackner, Acting Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: 820 Bonita Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing DATE: December 10, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an ADU within an existing residence, which presently contains three dwelling units. In order to legalize two of the dwelling units as a duplex, the third unit is proposed to be deed -restricted as an ADU. The applicants propose to condominiumize and remodel the duplex. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Adam Rothberg & Joseph Dunn LOCATION: 820 Bonita Drive; Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. ZONING: R-15 LOT SIZE: 18,380 square feet ALLOWED FAR: 5,123 square feet REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Parks, Housing, and Engineering Departments attached as Exhibit B. Parks Department: Rebecca Schickling notes that any expansion outside of the existing building footprint could impact significant trees. A tree removal permit is required to remove any trees that exceed 4 inches in diameter. Engineering Department: Ross Soderstrom notes that the boulders in the Bonita Drive right-of-way shall be removed. The circular driveway may remain until the existing dwelling is remodeled or the property is redeveloped, at which time it shall be removed and replaced with a single driveway curb cut. The Water Department is researching water rights, access easements and agreements regarding the irrigation ditch in the rear of the property. Additional information will be provided at the meeting. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen notes that the ADU is 4 square feet smaller than required (to obtain duplex exemption, the ADU shall contain a minimum floor area of 600 square feet), but that the unit is located on the second floor and obtains lots of natural light. STAFF COMMENTS: The ADU is located above -grade, contains approximately 600 net livable square feet, obtains natural light from windows on the northwest and southeast sides of the unit, has a separate exterior entrance and does not connect with either of the other two units. Pursuant to Section 26.40.090(C) of the Code, a bandit unit may be legalized if it was in existence prior to November 1, 1988, and if it meets the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the chief building official. The residence was built in 1968. According to the applicants, the three units were in existence and separately rented before 1988. I'IIrSUant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: A short-term goal of the Housing Action Plan of the Aspen Area Community Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". The R-15 zone district is intended for "long- term residential purposes," and is an appropriate zone for ADUs. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; RESPONSE: In staff s opinion, the proposed ADU is compatible with the surrounding single-family and duplex development. The three units have historically been rented separately; this approval would legalize the existing use of the property. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: This dwelling units are in existence, and, therefore, will not create additional impacts on the surrounding area. This approval would legalize the duplex and provide an ADU to comply with the housing mitigation requirements. Five on -site parking spaces are required: two spaces per dwelling unit and one space for the ADU. The garage and driveway are adequate to accommodate the required spaces. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required to legalize the duplex or to accommodate the ADU. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; 2 RESPONSE: The ADU must comply with the Housing Guidelines and must be deed restricted. Pursuant to the newly adopted amendments to the ADU regulations (Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1996), a maximum of 350 square feet or 50% of the size of the ADU may be excluded from the allowable floor area calculations only if the unit is deed restricted, registered with the housing office and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin County. The owner retains the right to select the renter for the unit. If the unit is deed restricted, but not registered, the floor area exclusion does not apply. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code allows a duplex to be exempt from GMQS competition if the applicant complies with one of four options. The applicants have chosen to create two free market dwelling units, which requires them to provide one accessory dwelling unit with a minimum area of 600 square feet. Although the unit does not meet this minimum requirement (the unit only contains 596.5 square feet), staff supports approval of the unit since the difference is extremely minimal and the unit is already in existence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU at 820 Bonita Drive with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Community Development Department; B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs; and The applicants shall submit a building permit for the chief building official to inspect and determine that the ADU complies with the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Any work required shall be completed prior to recording of the deed restriction. Prior to issuance of a Letter of Completion for the ADU, the Community Development and Housing staff shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. The applicants shall remove the existing boulders in the Bonita Drive right-of-way prior to issuance of a. Letter of Completion for the ADU. When a building permit is submitted to expand the existing building footprint or redevelop the property, the applicants shall provide a site plan containing all of the information required for a tree removal permit, driveway location and dimensions, site drainage plan, existing and proposed easements, landscaping plan for the portion of the right-of-way between the edge of pavement and the property line, and as further required by the Aspen Municipal Code. 6. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any expansion of the existing building footprint or redevelopment of the property, the applicants shall remove and replace the circular driveway with a single driveway curb cut and shall submit as -built drawings in digital format to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Department showing property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities and any other improvements 7. A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to submission of any building permits for construction which would expand the existing building footprint. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 4" caliper. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU at 820 Bonita Drive with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated December 10, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments 4 NOV 27 'Sri 01- 24Ptli ASPEN HC II_.ISING OFC Exhibit B MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: November 27, 1996 RE. 820 Bonita Conditional Use for an ADU Parcel iD No. 2735-122-09-008 ISSUE: There are three existing units within a structure, which they are all presently illegal. The applicant is requesting to use one of the units as an ADU, and the other two Will then be a legal duplex. I CKGROUND: This was a single-family home modified into a triplex. The new owners wish to bring these units under compliance, therefore, they are asking to change one of the units into an accessory dwelling unit. According to Section 26.100.050 A, 2, c, Detached single-family or duplex dwelling units, this exemption shall only apply if the following standards are met: (2) Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex exemption, the applicant shall have four options: (a) providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted, resident -occupied dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of 9,5DO square feet; (b) providing two free market dwelling units and one accessary dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of 600 square feet, (c) providing two deed restricted, resident -occupied dwelling units; or (d) paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee. The applicant wishes to comply with (b) above, The total square footage of the accessory dwelling unit is 596.5 square feet and is to be located on the second fluor. This is about 4 feet smaller than required, but is located on the second floor with lots of light and has parking. RECOMM_ E_NDATION: Staff recommends approval as lung as the following conditions are met: the kitchen contains at least a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; 2. an accessory dwelling unit deed restriction needs to be recorded before building permit approval; this form is provided by the Housing Office; and 3. Housing staff inspects the unit prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 1refarrnlumadu.127 Memorandum TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: November 26, 1996 RE: 820 Bonita Conditional Use Review for an ADU We have reviewed the application for conditional use for an ADU. The application as it exists now appears only to be an interior remodel to conform to the bandit unit to a legal ADU. However, if any expansion occurs outside of the building envelope, then the applicant should contact the Parks Department as soon as possible (even if only with conceptual plans). There are numerous significant trees on this lot that could be impacted by the expansion or reconstruction of the exterior of the building. Any trees proposed to be removed that exceed 4 inches in diameter may require a trees removal permit. MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, City Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: December 2, 1996 Re: 820 Bonita Conditional Use Review for an ADU (820 Bonita Drive; Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing 1, City of Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: 1. R-O-W Encroachment: The existing boulders in the Bonita Drive right-of-way in front of the property need to be removed at this time to clear the right-of-way of obstructions. Only soft landscaping features are acceptable in the right-of-way between the property line and the edge of pavement. 2. Trash & Utility Areas: Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located in the public rights -of -way. Any new easements must be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 3. Site Drainage: The new development cannot release more than historic (pre - development) storm run-off from the site and any increase in storm run-off must be first routed and detained on the site. The proposed legitimization of the existing interior ADU, without modification or remodeling of the existing building exterior, would not increase the site generated drainage flows. 4. , Driveway & Parking: The existing circular driveway may remain until such time as the existing dwelling is remodeled or the property re -developed at which time it should be removed. Residential properties in this zone district are permitted to have one (1) driveway curb cut up to ten (10) ft in width for a single width driveway or up to eighteen (18) ft in width for a double width driveway. I OF 2 DRCM2396.DOC Memo - 820 Bonita Conditional Use -— . iew for an ADU When the non -conforming portion of the circular driveway is removed, the driveway pavement shall be removed to the edge of the public roadway pavement and the shoulder of the road will be restored and landscaped in a manner to discontinue the use of the former curb cut and driveway entrance to the property. The site plan shall contain all the information required of a tree removal permit, driveway location and dimensions, site drainage plan, existing and proposed easements, landscaping plan for the portion of the R-O-W between the edge of pavement and the property line, and as further required by Aspen Municipal Code. S. Irrigation Water & Ditch: At the time of submitting this referral memorandum, the Water Dept. was continuing to research water rights, access easements and agreements regarding the irrigation ditch and water which crosses through the back of the property. Final recommendations will be provided to the City Planner to present at the Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting. Unless there is an adequate existing easement for the irrigation ditch (not indicated on the plat submitted with the application), the property owners may be required by the ditch owners to dedicate and record a ten (10) foot wide irrigation ditch easement, centered on the existing irrigation ditch, as a condition of approval of the present application for the ADU. The submitted Improvement Survey Plat then shall be brought into compliance with Colorado State and Aspen Municipal Codes. 6. Utility Easements: The present application for an ADU is only to legitimize an existing unit without changes to the exterior or historic use of the building. As such, the existing easements are sufficient for the present use. There does not appear to be any encroachments in the easements and any additional development / re -development should avoid encroaching into or over the utility easements. 7. Record Drawings: When the building footprint is remodeled or the property re -developed and prior to C.O. issuance, the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 2OF2 DRCM2396.DOC PLANNING & ZOT G COMMISSION 'ECEMBER 10, 1996 Community Development Memo. Garton commented that the Housing Office also supported this ADU. Chuck Vidal, Public, stated the Korn application (not an existing unit but in that neighborhood) for an ADU and a number of the Snow -bunny area residents appeared at the meeting P & Z rejected the Korn application on the premise that if every unit were entitled to an ADU it would increase the density by 50 % in an already existing employee residential neighborhood. He said this was across from Cemetery Lane residents who were concerned about setting the precedent. Vidal noted they were working with staff to change the zoning or eliminate ADU's in this neighborhood. He said that he was working with Dave Michaelson on this before he left the City. Vidal stated the concerns were additional traffic, parking and congestion in the neighborhood area. Fred Pierce, Public, stated the application was in the West Aspen Subdivision (his residence also) across Cemetery Lane from Snowbunny. He said from the highway down Cemetery Lane through Snowbunny Subdivision and West Aspen Subdivision virtually every lot was a duplex and (to his knowledge) there were no approved ADU's in that area now and once we start approving ADU's all those lots have the possibility of becoming a triplex which will significantly increase the density in that area as Chuck had mentioned. He continued in that this area was unlike the West End where there are many second home owners with larger lots Which have ADU's and more appropriate in that area. Pierce mentioned that he also speaks for his brother and Boots Ferguson who have residences in this West Aspen/Cemetery Lane area. He stated in concept the applicant had an existing triplex which will not have any additional impact, but was not in his mind because of the precedence an ADU approval will have in that area. Pierce further stated then what happens potentially was that people who want to build first and legalize later, do so. He said that when this triplex was constructed it was not pursuant to code and not allowed under the West Aspen Homeowners Covenants. COMMISSION COMMENTS Bob Blaich remembered the case clearly and asked why the commission would approve this now when it'was voted against. He wanted to know if anything had changed. Sara Garton responded that the commission turned down the approval because it was a re -development as a duplex the code now states an ADU must be provided or cash -in -lieu with a duplex. She noted that P & Z would only accept cash -in -lieu because of the density on Snowbunny Court. Sara said this was not a re -development but an existing duplex and that ADU's were a conditional use. 5 PLANNING & ZO , 'G COMMISSION-)ECEMBER 10, 1996 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the conditional use for the Farish ADU and Hallam Lake ESA review at 844 Roaring Fork Road with the 9 conditions as outlined in the Community Development Memo dated December 10, 1996 and the revised drawings presented at the December 10, 1996 P&Z Meeting. Jasmine Tygre seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. Mooney asked if staff investigated any specificity in the code that required an ADU on the same grid system and if not, what ramifications were there so in the future so there would not be two separate parcels. Lackner asked if this was for utilities. Mooney said it was, so there was not a separate sewer and water tap for the ADU. Blaich and Garton added that even the address would not be separate but 844 '/2. Sara Garton stated the next Public Hearing was for the Tache ADU. Bob Nevins asked if it could be tabled until Al Beyer, Architect for applicant, arrived. PUBLIC HEARING: 820 BONITA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU Suzanne Wolff, Staff, stated the applicant requested a conditional use approval for an ADU within an existing residence which presently contains three dwelling units. They would like to legalize two of the dwelling units as a duplex and the third unit a deed restricted ADU. She noted they will condominiumize and remodel the duplex. Wolff said Phil Overyender from City Water Department would provide information about the ditch at the rear of the property. They could not find any water rights records for the ditch diversion into a small pond in the back yard. Wolff noted City Water asked to add a condition to cease diversion of water to the pond unless they could provide proof of water rights. NN'olff said the ADU located above grade was just under 600 sq.ft. net livable space with natural light from windows on the northwest and southeast sides. The ADU had a separate entrance not connecting with the other two units. She said they were not changing anything at this point but just looking to legalize the duplex and ADU. Wolff stated the ADU application was submitted prior to the new ADU regulations, therefore they would only get the bonus for the ADU if it \were registered with the Housing Office. She noted the unit doesn't quite meet the requirement of 600 sq.ft. for an ADU to legalize the duplex, but it is such a minimal difference that staff recommended approval subject to conditions in the PLANNING & ZOi G COMMISSION ECEMBER 10, 1996 their heads but this doesn't solve the problem of a triplex in a duplex zone. Rothberg said Aspen Code read that a duplex required an ADU with a deed restriction. Mooney said where it was compatible with the neighborhood and that was a P & Z decision on the conditional use for an ADU. Garton commented the argument was that ADU's were appropriate in a residential neighborhood, and then all of a sudden there was a saturation point. Vidal and Pierce's concerns are that every owner would be entitled to an ADU in the neighborhood. Garton would approve this particular development because it already was there and not onerous to that specific street. She said that Snowbunny Court was a whole different neighborhood and would not approve a development like this one there. She noted the other commissioners were wrestling with this because they see such an influx in development potential with adding an ADU since the cash -in -lieu was so steep. Rothberg replied that the next door neighbor built a duplex and did not have or want the ADU, but in their case an ADU was the only option otherwise they will have to sell their property. Pierce said the neighbor was a remodel and did not come under the demolition definition. Mooney asked Vidal what stage he was at with Michaelson and how far will he pursue neighborhood ramifications. He said because of the specifics of this application, a vote taken sets what looks like a precedent, so how can he help with this in the future. Vidal said he was at point zero, because some special R-15 R-15A, R-15B zones exist but they looked at those zones and concluded that those zone were not appropriate. He noted to propose an R-15C or D and in that context it would eliminate a particular area which would have too significant an impact of an ADU. He suggested payment of cash -in -lieu and in addition to a reduction of FAR by 500 sq.ft. in that neighborhood. Vidal stated that was where he was going with Dave Michaelson before he left. Blaich asked who took this caseload. Vidal replied that it was on a case to case basis and not a particular case. He said that he was encouraged by these discussions because you never know if it is "the white horse of employee housing" or it's the concern of the neighborhood or whatever. Garton asked that this change be minimized to Snowbunny and Cemetery Lane. Mooney asked if they could take that commitment one step further and find out if you can represent your homeowners association and present a consensus to allow us to direct staff to pursue some kind of change. Vidal said if you direct staff 4to work with me I will endeavor to bring back a consensus. Garton explained that Counsel was not present she would point out that there is an application on the table with neighborhood concerns and have voiced opinions at this public hearing. She said precedent is a good argument but each conditional use is a case by case basis. Rothberg asked if the option to take the ADU out but still legalize the PLANNING & ZOr - G COMMISSION ECEMBER 10, 1996 Garton said that a precedent would be set and that is dangerous, but asked Fred Pierce and Chuck Vidal to trust P & Z because they review everything on a case by case basis. She explained they look at the neighborhood, and she can accept the ADU in this existing building. However, if other people came in and tore down single family homes that had the FAR to do a duplexes with existing zoning. This commission would not look favorably on an ADU in that kind of re- development in this neighborhood. Mooney said according to the application, they were planning an extensive or remodel depending on financing, and to him that was re -development. He would like to see the re -development plans, because if the ADU was not up to code then the entire structure should be up to code including the ADU with a plan. Wolff stated that conditions related to remodeling at this point must be met to bring it up to UBC standards for separate dwelling units. She said the conditions were included in the Community Development Memo but no plans were included for extensive remodeling by the applicant. The Applicants, Adam Rothberg and Joseph Dunn, stated that was not their intention, but rather wanted the option. They are basically going to leave it as is. Rothberg said they found an opportunity for both of their families because of the price of the house and the way it was separated wasn't an attractive property to most people but it suited their needs. He said that they cannot afford the cash -in - lieu and the ADU was the only choice feasible for them. Rothberg noted the triplex had existed before 1988 and they plan on living it. Garton asked if the only options were to keep it as a bandit unit or carve it off the building. Steve Buettow said they could remodel and divide up the space into two units. But Rothberg said they couldn't do that either because it doesn't abide by the conditional use for a duplex. Gat -ton explained that they would still have to provide the cash -in -lieu or the ADU. Jasmine Tygre asked who was living in the ADU now. Rothberg said a local guy who works in Pitkin County had lived there for several years. Vidal sympathized with their situation but worried about the precedent of leQalizin'g an illegal unit. He understood that someone abused the`regulation, and not, these owners, but there was much dialog in asking for forgiveness rather than permission. Rothberg stated their first intention was to legalize and make amends for something that had been operated illegally prior to their ownership. Mooney said it was a tough one because who will own it next, or what will happen to the neighborhood after these owners move. Mooney said there was the continuance of that non -conformity and would like to solve the problem of having a roof over 6 PLANNING & ZO1 G COMMISSION ECEMBER 10, 1996 in the area and no plans, he currently could not support this project and since there were two people from the public who seemed to want to help, they should come back with a clear position. Garton explained to the applicants that the commission felt this application for an ADU was premature if the intention was to remodel they might want to bring the entire project back. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to table and continue the public hearing to January 7, 1997. l3ob Blaich seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES UNITS 1, 10 and 11 SPA AMENDMENT Sara Garton asked for proof of notification and it was received into the record. Mary Lackner, Staff, explained that the Trustee Townhomes that exist at Aspen Meadows have approval to add three additional units. The initial proposal was to add these to the existing historic townhomes but HPC prefers that the new units not be connected to the existing townhome structures. She stated this proposal separates these three units locating one on one side of the existing structure and two on the other side of the existing structure. She noted the proposal was in compliance with the SPA review criteria of the Land Use Code and staff recommended approval. Dave Johnston noted that in past meetings elevation plans were requested. He asked if those drawings were produced. Doug MacPherson, Representative, said that HPC conceptually approved it with elevations provided to them. Johnston stated that what was being asked of the commission was for the approval of the property line shift, therefore the orientation of the new buildings to the existing becomes very important. MacPherson stated the only reason for the shift was because of HPC and the neighbors wanting a separation between the new and existing Trustee Townhomes. He said HPC does not want to see historic buildings replicated but rather a marriage of concepts. Garton said the drawing would be helpful to see what it was before and what it is now. MacPherson said what it is now is what was conceptually approved by HPC from three meetings. He said there may be some minor window movements which will take place between the architect and HPC. 9 PLANNING & ZOI G COMMISSION ECEMBER 10, 1996 duplex. Garton asked Wolff if they had the option of deed restricting one side. Wolff said it was one of the four options when duplexing. Garton stated the public hearing was closed but Fred Pierce was an attorney and may clarify some questions. Pierce said the question is this: If we are talking a remodel, it's a condominium in a duplex why would there be a cash -in -lieu or an ADU requirement? Garton said that this was a housekeeping measure on their part and they were trying to clean up. Vidal noted the applicant said they would be willing if they were able to have a legal duplex which exists there today to eliminate the ADU. Wolff stated in order to legalize it as a duplex if they were building a new one, they would have to fulfill one of those requirements. Rothberg said it was not a duplex and that was the problem. Vidal clarified that duplexes do not have divided interests so it was not a land use issue but a condominimization issue. He said if they change the form of ownership on an existing duplex through a condominimization document they do not have to go through this land use process and an ADU or cash -in -lieu may not be required for a split in ownership for the condominimized duplex. Bob Nevins said that if it is an existing duplex that conforms to the underlying zone district, and they just want to change the ownership, that can be done in a staff level condominimization approval of a condo plat. Blaich asked if they needed the income from the ADU. Rothberg said it would be a nice plus but for them to have their houses and make them better, then they could go without the ADU. Dunn said they thought that it was a requirement. Nevins said if they have separate kitchen facilities then they have a duplex. He said that if they wanted to keep all three kitchens they would still condominimize the property to allow separate title and one of those properties would have the ADU shown on the plat. Garton asked the applicants what would be most beneficial for them. Dunn said that if they have another legal avenue they may take it, but he did not know what. the options were at this point. Wolff stated that they could do the UBC updates without going through a conditional use. Vidal said that they could remodel all they wanted within the footprint. Pierce said as long as it is less than 50% demolition then they can remodel all they want without paying a cash -in -lieu or' provide an ADU. Wolff said that any square footage added is based upon a cash - in -lieu. Dave Johnston stated that if the board voted and approved the point discussions are moot. Tygre asked the applicant if they would like to reconsider all of the options presented. Blaich said that he felt that with other ramifications 8 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Ross Soderstrom CC Suzanne Wolff CC Dominick Lanese From: Phil Overeynder Postmark: Dec 05,96 4:29 I'M Subject: Reply to a reply: 820 Bonita Reply text: From Phil Overeynder: There is no evidence in our recrds that the propety has a raw water license from the City or separate rights of their own which would permit them to store water in an off stream pond. Our water rights do not permit storage of ditch water at this location. Our water council advises that we should condition ADU to require the use of the pond to cease unless they can prove they have rights. Also if this property uses raw water from ditch for irrigation they will be required to enter into a raw water license agreement with City. Preceding message: From Ross Soderstrom: I have the draft of the memo finished except for the questions about 1) easement for the ditch, 2) whether the property owner may use the water, and if so, how much, and 3) whether the "pond" is already permitted, if not, do we wish to make it permitted and under what conditions. If we don't have all the questions & conditions regarding the ditch answered in time, I will make a general reference to the ditch & water rights and that the terms & conditions will be presented at the mtg due to research time. From Suzanne Wolff: If possible, could you get your comments to me sometime tomorrow - my memo is due on thursday. Thanks To whom it may concern, We, Adam Rothberg and Joseph Dunn, are applying for a conditional use permit for the property at 820 Bonita. The current zoning is for a Duplex. We are in the process of legalizing the existing structure by: 1. Obtaining a conditional use permit for one the existing units within the existing structure. 2. Condominiumizing the remaining two units according to the City of Aspen guidelines. 3. Depending upon available financing, we are planning either an extensive remodel or a minor remodel. The current owners of the property are Adam Rothberg and Joseph Dunn. Adam Rothberg 1695 Silverking Dr Aspen, CO 81611 925-1252 Joseph Dunn 950 Matchless Dr Aspen, CO 81611 925-5476 There is one mortgage on the property through Southern Pacific Funding Corporation located at 4100 E Mississippi Ave. Denver, CO 80222. The legal address of the property is Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision Filing No. 1 Pitkin County, Colorado. Currently there are 3 existing units within the structure. It is our intention as new owners to bring these units into compliance with the current Aspen Code. The first step in this procedure as prescribed the the City of Aspen planning office is the conditional use permit for the ADU. Assuming that we are granted this permit we are planning a remodel as stated above. The unit which we are designating the ADU is less than 700 sq. ft. and fits the description according the the City of Aspen Code. k you for your consid ation, Adam Rothberg Jose p unn To whom it may concern, This letter shall address the review standards set forth for the conditional use permit application for an accessory dwelling unit. A. We, Adam Rothberg and Joseph Dunn, acquired Lot 19, filing # 1 with the intention of legalizing the house within its permitted uses. The lot is zoned for a duplex, and according to County Code 26.40.090 concerning accessory dwelling units, the unit we wish to designate as the accessory dwelling unit fits all requirements of the city. The zone district requires that upon the condominiumization of a duplex, the applicants must meet one of 4 requirements. The requirement that we are meeting is the provision of the ADU. This is a legal and common use within our zone district and is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. B. The property has long been rented out as a 3 unit complex, before Nov 1, 1988, (bandit unit legalization deadline) and it is our intention to beautify the propery and bring it into compliance with all of the City of Aspen's requirements for a duplex. The property immediately next door has just been built into a duplex unit and our property fits into the neighborhood perfectly with its present zoning as a duplex. C. The size of the unit designated as the ADU is approximately 600 sq. ft. It has been rented out long term to an employee in Pitkin County. The unit already fits into the requirements of a conditional use ADU. Our intention is to comply with the city so that our house is completely legal in every sense. Off street parking is already provided and should we obtain financing for a more extensive remodeling, then we will supply an additional garage for side of the duplex which we hope to construct. The property is presently separated into 3 units. Depending upon available financing, we plan to exercise on of two options. 1. According to Aspen City Planners, first obtain the conditional use permit for the existing ADU allowing us to condominiumize the existing units into a duplex. 2. According to Aspen City Planners, first obtain the conditional use permit for the existing ADU before engaging in an extensive remodel. This option is completely dependent upon available financing. There will be no additional visual impacts as the ADU is attached to the back of the house where it is completely enclosed by trees. In addition, there will be no impact on pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic whatsoever. To the best of our knowledge there has never been any complaints about noise and all of the neighbors who we have been able to contact are agreeable to our needs. D. All public facilities are adequate to supply the existing units, since we have the biggest lot on the block with one of the smallest structures. 820 Bonita is just off of Cemetary lane and all county services are readily available. E. The intention of the ADU is to comply with the affordable housing guidelines. F. Upon meeting with County Planners, to the best of our knowledge, we are in compliance with all standards set forth by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other requirements. -70 4--c, 1 � = S- (� - S 2 NCJ F{ooc- C 3 EZ 18 MAPS AND TRANSPORTATION je SUiB II II II II II Glenwood �` aRn 2 q Raising 40 SopAe 1 _ 'a asaBasalt Fl To Blt R D. I � _ --� _ Qf ` s � \ Cdorado� Z � Fork CHRISTINE y � i Rocky9 -_ STATE WILDLIFE k ipaSchool Pan, Mountelin To IS an ;r;$ iaa Carbondale Rl,t't AREA �Ordi a �rNvdeAr Lake Solarfe Ski Area Rederor.e Ar Christine rn � �+ kMrrlll Ar wkl4nd Ar G �fjj Clerernd Air 2 � ° a r i S cr t Q uncw Ar R i torn rk c �i atnl St Owey l?d _ EAGLE CO. n ge t''i u MrIR / Ln PUICIN CO. 9r FW TAN F_mme Rd To / r /,••`�� RO C oy n male BAsa/tB 5 mina E ZY White Hill a ArBor �y FlouLn To 10 4# To ;.Redstone i $ Aspen Park d N wounIn VNw Rd ■Fry � e1' "'st �l- � �i� Cceck .P Bin 4 lot Q. Sno Bunny Ct ASW -'� BIgBBit----�'�� 11urMr JJ 1 e F music% 6" S Taro cod Duck Ln 6i Q ,+a -:F- Na all streets or roeas Gotl Course sho— on maps or n yorr cutn,cnon of quid" and —& rney inPjF f. Bp. 7` Vine 8f 9MC9 n oarwr areas. �< m I Maroon Creek Rd� c Aspen q A. ¢ 5 a Park F a 'ey&I f !# Maa— k PL - 4 q f M.om0.Ik Or —.xl �. M.®0. Rd_.Gf41•] Marfb R_.GH-6 4 To pjePAMdd's / Mayfb.wLT I -I) sr Maroon Lake Pam" _ 1 ►I s+aa�s °d u-I-7 > p� ` Mdo. oc_._—.GH-7 a -"►�. W � Dod�ete OrMd— R4—FG� W � Ura 3 MaR.d A• 7 Ar Rd Lrke~ Ln Lke M wJl Sz r143 a Er.oad 7 w�.d51_ GH-3 ,fir Ma• 0. "7 i+aaSt���.G• }6 woo V m c_lJ �' pi AS•a A._ _.G6 F.d La.�/�-3� 7 w. lad 4 Or_LJ-1 Ta Ak¢N-7 Fee Sure C- j .Gb-7 VS Oet. It .42 At VW R e2.] Cris lL--+- W-! Hsle A• Ab Md..e 0. U� _-w7 G.e a GH�3 N.W. • ri•7 '.;'`...: 13 5 l o,.l 6—Ste. G-H-3 Ge•ea —3.6 or a3 I I a M-i at+Drl v u.a.a llu—ee O � th ar..e. Beef 0. Rae F 15 H.R.m G}3 o.weaak Ik d7 F.k or- e-7 Bkrk Berl d ea7.3 Harmc tz—.._M, b e66 Rarwt Svrk Re •e-! f%e 47rwL�� 4 R Backer eG}3 Nvry HeRae_. u tit Sr u Bo. C ru S Birk. A r 3-6 Haws ot- - -3 Pits Re a3 e 7• Se. "—.A'i ~7S �I DSci= Seelig A. G W3! PA. s r Bsf e_7.3 3 Mm PIS Sw f4R J Cek = s1•L ni AA �uSJf Cisk B6 s-u P— I l— Re 4G.) !s-2_.. \ e Cak OW Hlls A•.__—.GHA-6 P— Y.A u-2 srdeeml OcL_J-L7J T� I- W) a Q 9 [:earY Or u7 fi— pw" SsA a G! Si.y t. rtiy Tr.wea fil ntl-2. C7rdrld tee 2 Ry A.__. 11.6 r7e+d Re. RI Ov 4._�. .OA T.. R� O 12 C— M_ 7 Lean Cl taH44.7 qs a2 tk. A.. w 11- ek. Mu CSr.elsd'f H6 L_......__ �e RQa _A-6 Yoaa�3 V 7 V.ra G4 Caep. A._ / le.t.y. Ls w-2 Red 1111— Or ti67-J S..Rd. A aO-}! wk.. Cas..d G.�/ Lae! ta____ w2 Bad woa Re ^G-S6 SrVor ties RL_H4-7 Ceaoe...d la P+s Rd._- GSA •d kGmNH� RuG3 3 . Ix- H7++aCw�7 Lw— Lk JJ-e 8�-1 s To Twin Lakes. ties 3 Mr. x...__—.._ r H 3.3 Rat 6sde rn G-H-se sue. R—) R r<3 w.Wr Rd_-- IrLdBpendertce ase IITo II A 1! II n 8 .�, MLt a,AM II GENERAL WARRANTY DEED MARGARET C. BIPPUS, whose address is .2for- `t C-4&C6'2 s "�o •&��t 33y0/ for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good ang valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to JOSEPH P . DUNN 6 ADAM B . ROTHBERG AS TENANTS IN COMMON ,whoseaddress is P.O. BOX 9075 ASPEN CO 81612 the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: LOT 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 1 also known by street and number as: S�Ao Aspen, CO 81611 with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: 1. General taxes for 1996 and thereafter payable in 1997 and thereafter. 2. Building and zoning regulations. 3. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to ectract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in F United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 33. �- 4. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed an Plats of subject property j recorded in Plat Book 3 at Page 252. 5. Easement and right of way for utilities as set forth in instrument recorded January 21, 1968 in Book 235 at Page 118. ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Signed this �1 day of July, 1996. MARGA T C. BIPPUS [Notary Block to Follow] 1 STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 0 day of July, 1996, by Margaret C. Bippus. _ Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public jtk\bippus.gwd ANN C. BRUMBACK Notary Public. slate of Florida My Comm. Expies J* 7.19M No. CC 390108 Bonded TNmUlrtrl irrtu� Brnlcr When recorded mail to% SOUTHERN PACIFIC FUNDING CORPORATION 6800 INDIANA AVSIruE, #110 i RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 LOAN t#t 0200602583 Spin Above This lAne For Recording natal - DEED OF TRUST T)<IIS DAD OF TRUST ("Security Instrument") is made on AUGUST 9 , 1996, among the grantor, JOSEPH P. DUNN AND ADAM B. ROTHBERG ("Borrower"), the Public Trustee of PITKIN County ("Trustee"). and the beneficiary SOUTHERN PACIFIC FUNDING CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION w4,ch is organizod and existing tender the laws of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA andwhoseaddressis 6800 INDIANA AVENUE, #110, RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 ("Lender"). Borrower owes L ender the principal stem of FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND IP IVE HUNDRED* AND k******Dollars (U.S. $ 4 6 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ).This debt is evidenced by Borrower's note dated the same date as this Security I rstrument ("Note"). which provides fa, monthly payments, with the full debt, if not paid earlier, due and payable on SEPTEbMU ;t 1, 2026. This Socurtly Inst t ument wares to Lender: (a) the repayment of the - lcbt evidenced by the Note, with i awicbt, and a L rencwals, extensions and modifications of the Note; (b) the payment of all other sums, wi h iltterest, advanwd under paragraph 7 to pro, act the security of this Security histrumant, and (c) the performance of Borrower's covenxits and agreements tinder this Security Instrura ml and the Note. For this purpose, Boninver, in consi(kration of the dcbt and the trust he, tin created, irrevocably grants and conveys to Crustee, in trust, with power of sale, th( following described property located in PIT4IN County, Colorado: LOT 19, WTiST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILIVG NO. 1 AP #: 273!')12209008 which has the address of 820 BONITA DRIVE, ASP'W Colorado 81611 ("Proper y Address"), [Zip Codel COLORADO- Single [:amity -Fannie Maa/Fre"ie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUD LENT VMP-6A(CO) (9209) Form 30061/91 Amended -"I COVDEED 311 COVDEED Page i of 5 Istrect, City). Initials t PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 820 BONITA DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 10, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Joseph Dunn and Adam Rothberg, requesting Conditional Use approval for an accessory dwelling unit within the existing structure. The property is located at 820 Bonita Drive, and is described as Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision Filing No. 1. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5093. s/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439 November 18, 1996 Adam Rothberg 1695 Silverking Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 820 Bonita Drive Conditional Use for ADU Case A68-96 Dear Adam, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, Decemer 10, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community Development Department. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case, Suzanne Wolff, at 920- 5093. Sincerely, Rhonda Harris Administrative Assistant ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439 September 5, 1996 Adam Rothberg RE: 820 Bonita Drive Conditional Use Review for ADU Dear Adam, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is incomplete, and will not schedule the application until we receive the following information. ✓1. Fee of $235 2. Site plan (12 copies) 3. Elevations (12 copies) ✓4. Response to review standards (12 copies) 5. ADU floor plan, including kitchen, bath, etc. (12 copies) 6. Please identify the ADU on the first or second floor plan view (Unit 2?) If you have any questions, please call me at 920-5093. Thank you. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wolff IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 0 0 LEGEND FOUND SURVEY MONUMEI RECORD SUBDIVISION BASIS OF BEARINGS I (AL CAP 7168) N74'4, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE DATED OCT. 01, 1995 2-3 FEET OF SNOW CO QW REMOTE WATER METER I ❑ UTILITY BOX 9 SET STEEL SPIKE OR I $ WOOD FENCE ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUS' BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS_PLA' FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. IN UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE CI FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATf01 LOT 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. I CITY OF ASPEN AL CAP CERTIFICATION CERTIFY TO; MARY 6 GEORGE BERESKA PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. I, DAVID W. McBRIDE, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS FIELD SURVEYED DURING A PRIL- 1996 ON THE GROUND OF THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREON, AND IS CORRECT BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE SHOWN AS FOUND HEREON) AND THAT THERE ARE NO DEISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS, SHORTAGES IN AREA, BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS, ENCROACHMENTS, OVERLAPPING OF IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN FIELD EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME, EXCEPT AS HEREON SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH NO VISIBLE APPURTENANCES AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT FURNISHED TO THE SURVEYOR ARE EXCEPTED. THIS CERTIFICATION IS VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED BY THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR. SIGNED THIS Z DAY OF C2G / , 199 6- cfOKIUt KLJ IOIZV e�s Te 3 J'©1n \ DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE DEPOSITED THIS _ DAY OF ,199_IN BOOK OF THE COUNTY'S LAND SURVEY PLATS AT PAGE AS RECEPTION NO. .THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 38-51-102 COLORADO REVISED STATUES. COUNTY CLERK SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE85 WEST 6rh PM PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 S. GALENA STREET P.O. BOX 2506 ASPEN, COLO. 81611 PHONE/FAX (303) 925-3816 REVISED OCT. 25, 1995 JOB NO 25069 APR. 15, 1995 ob 40 a 41 3' --- --- - -- - - - - 5 7 N N -AL r B0OR PLAN V 1 EW ill + G I; CONC WALK L.C.E.i o ii �_ I �� L IJNiT'Z 29.5* CONC. WALK. MC -CH 1 32.3' i ROOM C.A.V) Ln 2 8.7' UN I T,-2 sv ;5-2 Le) c",IPAD/ !_ M I clw PIJI-URE WALL 23.6' CO 26.3 I3.C, P., 7 1 o L.C.E.UNIT i 11; N I T I — LLL --,I -4 - 2 i�4 ENTRY 7 GARAGE UNIT I 21 .4' 22. 4 * F L 0 () R PLAN V I EW I 'I 0