The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.15 Harbour Ln.0021.2010.ASLU- 1 - 0021.2010.ASLU 0815 HARBOUR LANE ~ RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2735 12 3 00 017 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 62,30/1Â·ut )DIm .~r - . . . I a.Â«44. , --2- Â·4 -Â·I-â€¢214.4Â· I - THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0021.2010.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 12 3 00 017 PROJECTS ADDRESS 15 HARBOUR LANE PLANNER JENNIFER PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION RES. DESIGN VARIANCE REPRESENTATIVE DONA STUART DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10.04.2010 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 10. 04.10 DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date o f this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Dona Stuart, 15 Harbour Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number a parcel of land being part of the Northeast quarter o f the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully described as follows: beginning at corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site, U.S.M.S. No. 3268; thence South 15Â°30' West 84.48 feet along the Westerly line of North Texas Mill Site: thence North 59Â°54' West 77 feet more or less to the centerline of Castle Creek: thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the intersection with a line bearing North 49Â°30' West from corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site: thence South 49Â°30' East to the point of beginning as well as a parcel commencing at Corner No. 3 of said North Texas Mill Site, and the northeasterly corner of a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 599 at Page 868; thence South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 25.50 feet along the westerly boundary of the North Texas Mill Site and the easterly boundary of said Special Warranty Deed to the True Point of Beginning: thence continuing southwesterly along said boundaries, South 15 degrees 30 minutes West. a distance of 58.98 feet to the southeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed described property; thence southeasterly departing said North Texas Mill Site, and Special Warranty Deed boundaries South 59 degrees 54 minutes East a distance of 17.50 feet: thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 65.61 feet more or less to the true point of beginning and more commonly known as 15 Harbour Lane, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The Applicant received approval to build a residential addition to the existing residence. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Page 1 of 2 PUD Amendment, Stream Margin Review, a variance via Special Review and Residential Design Variances via Planning and Zoning Commission Resolutions No. 15 and Resolution No. 17 (Series of2010). Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) August 15,2010 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) August 16,2013 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 16th day of August, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. 044- Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Page 2 of 2 PUBLE NOTICE i Of DEVELOPI~ENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested properÂ·ty right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain- ing to the following described property: a parcel of land being part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully described as follows: beginning at corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site, U.S.M.S. No. 3268; thence South 15Â°30' West 84.48 feet along the Westerly line of North Texas Mill Site; thence North 59Â°54' West 77 feet more or less to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the intersection with a line bearing North 49Â°30' West from corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site; thence South 49Â°30' East to the point of beginning as well as a parcel commencing at Corner No. 3 of said North Texas Mill Site, and the northeasterly corner of a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 599 at Page 868: thence South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 25.50 feet along the westerly boundary of the North Texas Mill Site and the easterly boundary of said Special Warranty Deed to the True Point of Beginning: thence continuing southwesterly along said boundaries, South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 58.98 feet to the southeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed described Iproperty, thence southeasterly departing said North Texas Mill Site, and Special Warranty Deed 11 boundaries South 59 degrees 54 minutes East, a distance of 17.50 feet: thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 65.61 feet more or less to the true point of beginning and more commonly known as 15 Harbour Lane, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, by order of the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 3, 2010. The Applicant received approval of two Residential Design Standards Variances to build an addition to the existing single-family residence that is located adjacent to Castle Creek. For further information contact Jennifer Phelan, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 a Galena St, Aspen. Colorado-(970) 920 5090. W City ot AsDen Publish'in The Aspen Times Week/y on August 15, 2010. [5424460] 12 p r t 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 1 REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE I ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~~ , Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin I, (name. please print) 401-A- 3(04- e,Ll being or represendng an Applicant to the City of Aspen. Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section ~ 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 1 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper . or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen ( 14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publicationis attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. /2-. <_> C- Signature The foregoing '-Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this l 6 day of Avwj VUST , 20~Q, by ~Ylâ‚¬Jla SecÂ«â‚¬-,4 WITNESS MY I-lAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 04 LE-~ 1 El- ~JA Ret- flticÂ»77<7 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION 1 RESOLUTION N0.17 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES FOR 15 HARBOUR LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-00-017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the owner of 15 Harbour Lane for a number of land use reviews to develop an addition to a single- family residence as well as a garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located along Castle Creek and is subject to the City' s regulations on stream margin development; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved most of the reviews via Resolution No. 15, Series of 2010 and continued the request for Variances from the Residential Design Standards to August 3, 2010; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the two out variances requested, by a four to zero (4- 0) vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Granted Ihe Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following variances from the Residential Design Standards for the design presented at the hearing. Variances granted are from Land Use Code subsection 26.410.040 A. 1. Building orientation and subsection 26.410.040A.2. Build-to lines. Section 2: Vested Rights This approval shall be valid for the greater of the three-year period of statutory vested rights, as more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department. The period of statutory vested rights may be extended pursuant to Chapter 26.308 of the Land Use Code, Until said time, development on this property in compliance with this resolution may proceed to building permit as allowed herein. RECEPTION#: 572825, 08/20/2010 at 08:49:37 AM, P&Z Resolution No. 17, Series of 2010 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 34 day of August, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Â»U:;Â« /lim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman ATTEST: 27Â¢ kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Site Plan P&Z Resolution No. 17, Series of2010 Page 2 1 4 2= S RUCE 7842,9 EXISTING OUSE f i \5 - 1 1\ 2, ~ NATURAL Â· ; i VEGETATION U 121 1 1 1 784 .1 / .0 k S , 7840. \56. 1 PROPOSED RESID TIAL AdDITIGN i 1 T f/f " i I~--iFE I i i i / \91 1-1\ \\1 TO BE ; REMO 00 Â£ 0 4 DECK / BALC 1 L LL / f \0 4 39 1 1-1 HOUSE k 94, -00* 4, 01: 2 1 1 Gial . 60 846/ *924::4'.,:. -, .2>. .1 21 1 0 - 59 0~ a 9 1 .A espt N LU r. -, City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - August 03, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of August 03,2010 in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:35pm. Commissioners present were LJ Erspamer, Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre and Stan Gibbs. Jim DeFrancia arrived at 4:40 pm. Mike Wampler, Brian Speck and Bert Myrin were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments LJ Erspamer said in the newspaper he saw that the planning and zoning commission declined to review the Wienerstube and wanted some clarification. Jennifer Phelan asked which paper. Erspamer replied the Aspen Times. Jim True said Bert asked ifP&Z wanted the Council to review it and nobody supported it. Erspamer said once there's litigation it doesn't go through the channels again; it goes directly to Council. True replied that was correct; the settlement of litigation was done at Council. Erspamer asked if P&Z had a right to ask Council. True replied that you can ask them anything you want; the comments were that anybody could go to Council and speak. Cliff Weiss said the context why Bert didn't get support was that it was nothing binding and the legal thing took precedent. Erspamer asked i f they could walk into the Council Meeting and make a representation from P&Z. True answered that you couldn't make a comment that is the position o f the Planning & Zoning Commission Recommended but you could go into the meeting and say that you were on the commission and this is my thought about it and that's what came out of the discussion with Bert and talk to the Council. Erspamer said that as an individual he could go in and discuss anything. Minutes The minutes from July 6th and July 20th were postponed for approval until the next meeting. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 15 Harbour Lane - Residential Design Standards Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing on 15 Harbour Lane - Residential Design Standards. Jennifer Phelan explained the reason the hearing was continued was for the residential design standards; the July 6th meeting reviewed the stream margin and PUD amendment to develop a building envelope for the property which ends up shifting where the location of the addition would be located. Phelan 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - August 03, 2010 said the size of the covered porch meets the minimum depth and dimension required. Phelan said there were 2 variances being requested, one is building orientation which requires a building's front fagade to be basically parallel to the street and staff is recommending approval of this design variance with the existing constraint ofthe house and the building addition can't be made parallel to the private road or it would create a really odd shape o f the addition. Staff is recommending a variance from the building orientation requirement so they can build perpendicular to the existing house. Phelan said the second variance being requested was for build to lines and this basically says that on a lot that's less than 15,000 square feet in size, which this lot is, 60% of the front fa~ade will be within 5 feet o f the minimum front yard setback. Phelan said again the way the existing house is orientated from a construction stand point they really don't meet that 60%. Staff is recommending that this variance be approved. Phelan said the neighborhood character allows for this design solution for the house addition. Cliff Weiss said there was an issue with carport versus garage from the last meeting. Dona Stuart responded that they did away with the whole thing. Weiss asked if they were going to see plans. Phelan answered the revised drawings were in your packets and the full size were displayed showing the addition was shifted forward towards the street. Jasmine Tygre said that they were dealing with the residential design standards today and she wasn't at the previous meeting and asked if she shouldn't participate in these actions. True said that you can participate. Phelan said the last review was Stream Margin. Stan Gibbs said that there was a resolution for Stream Margin. Dona Stuart, applicant, summarized that they noticed for a PUD Amendment, Stream Margin Review and Residential Design Standards and based on the Stream Margin Review they moved the proposed addition back from the river and were allowed a variation for the height for the 45 degree angle from the stream margin review. Stuart said that they were allowed a 5 foot setback from the traveled way which is Harbour Lane so we moved the proposed residential towards the road. Stuart said they eliminated the garage and carport all together. 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - August 03, 2010 Erspamer asked i f there were any comments from the neighbors. Phelan said that they haven't received any since the first hearing which were all positive. Stuart asked her other neighbor (Curt Gregory) across the street about the height and he said he didn't care. No public comments. Dona Stuart said this was directly across the river from the proposed hydroelectric plant. Motion: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #17, series of 2010, approving two Residential Design Variances. Specifically Subsection 26.410.040A1 Building orientation and Subsection 26.410.040A.2 Build-to Lines of the Land Use Code for 15 Harbour Lane based on the design presented and the recommendations of stay; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Weiss, yes; Tygre, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes and Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion prior to vote: Jasmine Tygre said that very often in the past when we have specific standards that staff has attached P&Z will say because it fulfills the standards in Exhibit A, which gives you the grounds on which you can grant this variance. Tygre said that both A&B apply in this case. Stan Gibbs said that B would apply because ofthe constraints of the site. Jim DeFrancia said it would be reflected in the minutes. Gibbs asked in the future could staff put the grounds to go forward in the resolution. Phelan stated that they can do that in the resolutions but also ifyou bring up the review criteria during the public hearing and it's on ihe record that's important. Weiss and DeFrancia commended the applicant for the flexibility. Dona Stuart said it was nice for long time locals to see what Planning & Zoning was trying to do but was not possible. Erspamer said it was more than the criteria that P&Z uses. Tygre said that there were problems with the Residential Design Standards in certain neighborhoods that don't fit the pattern. Adjourned at 5:00pm . 4-â‚¬'7/ / Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directodp RE: 15 Harbour Lane - Residential Design Standards Variances - Public Hearing continued from Julv 6,2010 DATE: August 3,2010 Applicant: Dona Stuart *764.' -%.5,%2~'- -1-: 2-CIP~ . u Â·Â· idMreH- , -i. 1244''A Â©f-:(73- . ,/ 71,4. Zoning: R-15 A/PUD (Moderate- ~ ' 14~.1 + Â· 1 2 h I * 51 -- Density Residential and PUD overlay) +91.- :..t ' . 1 222 :0 - 1 4.t: ,7 I. .1 Lot Size: +/- 7,000 Square Feet Â» I 4.2 Â·r.'.W%6 , r.,;e@*1$ - Aw. â€¢cgidlk . --11 - ' -Â· TJ-.3-4Â£ V Land Use: Single-Family Residence .:- ~ .-4 I . Tip. 1 -1, I /.015* ' 0.21... 2 r ,511 -4-11,6 -' 02 H Â· '. -4. I fel Request Summary: The applicant is .*W.,1 requesting Variances from certain Ye e W I Residential Design Standards .~ .':r. Staff Recommendation: Approval of - two out of the three variances 1 requested. 15 Harbour Lane LAND USE REQUESTS: The applicant is proposing to build a residential addition to the existing residence and a new garage. The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site with a single-family residence addition and garage: â€¢ Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. A development application for Residential Design Standards Variance shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant has requested approval to build a residential addition onto the existing single- family residence and a new garage located at 15 Harbour Lane. On July 6% the commission approved Stream Margin Review and a PUD Amendment with conditions. The approval granted modified the building envelope proposed by the applicant resulting in the need for Page 1 of 3 the applicant to amend her design. The amended design requires three variances from the residential design standards. STAFF ANALYSIS: B. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Following are the variances being requested. 1) Subsection 26.410.040 A. 1. Building orientation. The Building Orientation standard requires that the front faQade of the principal structure be parallel to the street. "On curvilinear streets, the front favade shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street." Staff Comment: With the site constraints for development E--: ti \ k,& V WL.1.-4 69'3, \ 1 . / et / along the riverand the meandering nature of the street, #t.. \ 94*/ \ 00 1 2 / Staff feels that the Applicant's request to vary the =8 3- .0. 1 9- orientation of the building is consistent with the variance Yes. Yes- T\~ criteria. Based upon the review criteria, Stat.f is 1 recommending that the building orientation variance be approved. 2) Subsection 26.410.040A.2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front fa~ade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. Staff Comment: As part of the Stream Margin Review and PUD Amendment, the front yard setback granted was five feet, which is 7TmmIrÂ·urmÂ·-! measured from the edge Of the private road. Although portions of the building meet the ' required build-to line, due to the angle of the building in relation to the location Of the road, the building cannot meet the standard. Based Yes. NO. Yes. upon the review criteria, Staff is recommending that the build-to lines variance be approved. 3) Subsection 26.410.040 D.1.b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Staff Comment: Currently the covered entry porch is 4'-6"in depth and 10'in width containing 45 square feet and does not meet the minimum standard. Staff recommends that Page 2 of 3 2 the applicant increase the depth of the porch by eighteen (18) inches so that the porch meets the design standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, staff recommends granting two o f the three variances. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2010, approving two Residential Design Standards Variances. Specifically, Subsection 26.410.040 A.1. Building orientation and Subsection 26.410.040A.2. Build-to lines, of the Land Use Code for 15 Harbour Lane based upon the design presented." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -- Residential Design Variance Review Criteria Exhibit B -- Elevations and site plan Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES FOR 15 HARBOUR LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-00-017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the owner of 15 Harbour Lane for a number of land use reviews to develop an addition to a single- family residence as well as a garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located along Castle Creek and is subject to the City's regulations on stream margin development; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved most of the reviews via Resolution No. 15, Series of 2010 and continued the request for Variances from the Residential Design Standards to August 3, 2010; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved two out of the three variances requested, by a to (_-_) vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Granted The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following variances from the Residential Design Standards for the design presented at the hearing. Variances granted are from Land Use Code subsection 26.410.040 A.1. Building orientation and subsection 26.410.040A.2. Build-to lines. Section 2: Vested Rights This approval shall be valid for the greater of the three-year period of statutory vested rights, as more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department. The period of statutory vested rights may be extended pursuant to Chapter 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Until said time, development on this property in compliance with this resolution may proceed to building permit as allowed herein. P&Z Resolution No. Series of 2010 Page 1 Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3'd day of August, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Site Plan P&Z Resolution No. Series of 2010 Page 2 Exhibit A 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, Â§ 1) Staff Comment: The existing angle of the of the house affects the location of the house's addition as it relates to building orientation and build - to lines. The proposed addition is an appropriate design considering the existing neighborhood character. C.>lflUT b RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ADDENDUM STUART/ HARBOUR LANE PROPERTY July 22, 2010 RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2010 CITY OF ASPEN Review of Residential Design Standards was delayed in order to allow ..c vtÂ£(391'E~r Planning and Zoning to review and decide land use issues of PUD Amendments and Stream Margin Review. We are submitting revised site plan and elevations based on those resolutions. The responses in original packet are revised as follows: Section C: Parking Garages and Carports 1 and 2: This section no longer applies as we are no longer including a garage. Section D: Building Elements 1 a: front door: we comply lb: porch: we comply 3c: Lightwells: The new site plan shows egress lightwells on south side and egress on river side to blend with revegetation and restoration of grade closer to river. 1 11 .1 1 // 9 7 1~ ~ ~ | ~ 4 f ~ O 1[ Li.P~oâ€¢Ii ~ Ir a G / pr./. PED[STAL 1 - r / l PORCY 5 Il b: 1 i , 1 : â‚¬ 1 e ill g / I W f g 7..... 7.4 6 . EXI INC ~ARKING f f mi; tÂ® .1 1 EL NO RANGF i 0 8 / 2 0 11- J I 0 6 / 2 ...7 1 -- 843.7 ..:i . .Â« A DECK \\ A .... A \ 1 Â·' Â·:EXISTING OUSEt f 4: 4 . NATURAL VEGETATION * /, / ip 3~ - M \ \31*.Ctiti<X liÂ«% . Ill 24'f I # 7.0 % t ~,4 thÂ»/1 >f- Â» / % j' ~ I \ ' ~ PROPOSED RESID TIAL 47 7 / / REFf 'f 1 - \ 1 - ~ ~j x '; ~to' U. ' \\ 111 Nulill i i 4 - : , /P p ,/ f,Â·Â·; "kLC DECK + - 0/i \ 1 44Â·s>\ HOUSE 60 846 .1 - 1 4.i\ . 0, 1 j i /11 9 E 1 C.. 0. *PP*02. TO- Or CRCE* C,-NflvE.,CAL EKE ,LONG THE CENTERLINE Or CASTLE â€¢ATCA -ACE Â·- An 50 E- LAME P % 32-0-1- 0102(22/1- CÂ»6983 ~~ STEPS Â¥M-30-1MDIB OÂ¥OH SS]JDY />7 - trÂ· Â· .., // . \4x 1 1 dllÂ¢ lili r------------1 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 -- 9=1.- .li~-ili r_J) * ' -P r - 1_j#=No F FÂ»~,7 DOC* le-4 ErSTÂ»*G HOUSE 10â„¢l NEXT DOM HOUSE ~ P,0/0,0 ADI'now ~ < , rh NORTH ELEVATION C--1 EAST ELEVATION ~ SCALE: 1/- - 1Â·-O- I I 00000000 S.J../40-5 44-1 - 4 1 .,-1 n - M 1 t.t 1 -- 8 - 1 -3-1 ---*9-1 \ -4 L. 1 1 ' 1 /31 //U. C F - I./73 109, ----1- - >1 .*Opos~D tomOM \ I ' ' / 500-al ELEVATi 014 ~ lk) REFT- ill-El/Al ON HA\2-8000- LAN) 9- 0 1/22/t <33<51Â«23 ff r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /~A , Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, .446 Scog-Â·e-~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: J- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A COpy Of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered, A copy Of the publication is attached hereto. 6- 1 Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1 9 day of~'41 , 2000_,by A-v~JA Sr- crJ-Â·-1 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ge. . --liI;IJ*ETICE ~ i LINDA M. i My~dommission expires: 2(01 1- tptu 7 044 DEk LOPMENT APPROVAL I Â°, MANNING 6 ~ Notice is heret, given to the general publicof the fo. s..0 approval of a sile specific development plan, and k - 4Â· :V C )(44 <. Ltlftlbilic itt L the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Mt/th,2 .... '..Â·.p 44022129 Public the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title ~ AS OF O>> 24, Artjcle 68, Colorado Revised Statutes 4~Pri-4 pertaining to the following described property: a parcel of land being part of the Northeast quarter of I the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 10 ImmISSion Expl!?s 03/29/2014 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully described as 1 follows. beginning at corner 3 of the North Texas ATTACHMENTS: Mill Site, U.S.M.S. No. 3268: thence South 15Â°30' I~ West 84.48 feel along the Westerly line of North Texas Mill Site: thence NorÂ·th 59Â°54' West 77 feet I more or less to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle COPY OF THE PUBLICATION Creek to the intersection with a line bearing North 49Â°30' West from corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site: thence South 49Â°30' East to the point of I , beginning as well as a parcel commencing at III Corner No. 3 of said North Texas Mill Site, and the 11 northeasterly corner of a Special Warranty Deed ~ i recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk Â£1 and Recorder in Book 599 at Page 868: thence I ~ L South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of I'l 25.50 feet along the westerly boundary of the North 1 ~ ' Texas Mill Site and the easterly boundary of said ~1 ' Special Warranty Deed to the True Point of Â· Beginning; thence continuing southwesterly along rlor,rAmQ Rn minutes RECEPTION#: 572121, 07/22/2010 at 10:15:24 AM, 1 OF 4, R $26.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION N0. 15 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, A VARIANCE VIA SPECIAL REVIEW, AND A PUD AMENDMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT FOR 15 HARBOUR LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-00-017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the owner of 15 Harbour Lane for a number of land use reviews to develop an addition to a single- family residence as well as a garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located along Castle Creek and is subject to the City's regulations on stream margin development; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has identified a Top of Slope for this property as part of the review to indicate where development can occur and the applicant has submitted a variance request through Special Review, a request for Stream Margin Review, and a PUD Amendment- Other Amendment to develop her site with a residential addition and garage; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the reviews, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Granted The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use reviews with the following conditions: A. Stream Margin Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants Stream Margin Review approval for the subject property. All new development within the development boundary shall be set back fifteen (15) feet from the top-of-slope, except for the corner of the new addition and western fagde, as identified by the City Engineer and as memorialized in a recorded plat. No development other than native vegetation planting shall take place between the building envelope on the Castle Creek side and the Top of Slope unless expressly permitted by the city. 1) A riparian restoration plan approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department and Engineering Department shall be required as part of the building permit application for this property. The restoration plan shall require implementation of the restoration P&Z Resolution No. 15, Series of2010 Page I prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Remodeling or other similarly limited development activity, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall not trigger this restoration requirement. B. Special Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants a Variance from the progressive height limit (Sub-section 26.435.040 C.9. of the Land Use Code) and all development shall not be subject to a forty-five degree (45Â°) progressive height limit from the top-of-slope. C. Planned Unit Development - Other Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants certain variations from the R-15A zone district requirements. Specifically, the Applicant is permitted a five (5) foot minimum side yard setback for a residential dwelling and a minimum front yard setback of five (5) feet. The front yard setback shall be measure as outlined in Sub-section 26.575.040 B., Required yards adjacent to private streets or rights of way of the Land Use Code and memorialized through the creation of a building envelope. D. A Building Envelope for this property shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The map shall describe and depict a building envelope based upon the requirements listed previously within this section o f the resolution. 1) Building eaves may project outside the building envelope by no more than eighteen inches. 2) Egress window wells for the proposed addition may project outside the building envelope only when the egress meets both the minimum dimensions and number necessary to meet building code requirements. 3) The proposed residential addition may use the existing dug out area on the westerly side of the property for egress but may not be altered from the existing conditions without the express consent of the Engineering department. The map shall also indicate and tabulate all areas of the property above and below the high water line, those areas affected by steep slopes, and those areas affected by right-of- way or access easements. This plat shall be attached to and recorded along with this Resolution. A 24" x 36" copy of the map shall also be retained in the planning file and the building address file. E. In the event the event the existing house and planned addition are demolished in the future and the property is redeveloped, the building envelope created as a result of this resolution shall be null and void and the property will be subject to applicable land use reviews at the time of redevelopment. Section 2: Building Permit A building permit application shall meet all adopted standards of the city. Additionally, a copy of this resolution and the plat approving the building envelope shall be submitted with the application. The two following items will be addressed in the application. P&Z Resolution No. 15, Series of2010 Page 2 1. It is prohibited to impact or construct within the drip line of the existing spruce tree. The project shall redesigned in such a way as to develop the residential addition without impacting or excavating within the drip line of the large spruce tree adjacent to the river corridor. 2. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. This is critical and required at all times around the large spruce tree adjacent to the river corridor. Section 3: Fishing Easement The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages the applicant to provide a Fisherman's Easement along the watercourses within this property. The applicant is encouraged to discuss with the City of Aspen Parks Department ideas that may facilitate such a grant of easement such as labor or design assistance with the riparian restoration plan. Section 4: Vested Rights This approval shall be valid for the greater of the three-year period of statutory vested rights, as more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department, or until the City's Stream Margin regulations are amended. The period of statutory vested rights may be extended pursuant to Chapter 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Until said time, development on this property in compliance with this resolution may proceed to building permit as allowed herein. After said timeframe, this approval shall be subject to any revised provisions of the Land Use Code and may, based on a determination by the Community Development Director, be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity, Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion o f this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed P&Z Resolution No, 15, Series of 2010 Page 3 a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of July, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman ATTEST: *kie Lothian, Deputy City P&Z Resolution No. 15, Series of 20 [0 Page 4 Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - July 06, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of July 6, 2010 in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre, Mike Wampler, Brian Speck and Bert Myrin were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; April Barker, Engineering; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jim DeFrancia said that he has to leave by 6:20pm. Jennifer Phelan said that there were public hearings for the next couple of meetings and she would put a long range plan in the next meeting packet. Minutes MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from June 15, 2010 with one change to page 4; seconded by U Erspamer. All in favor, Approved. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 15 Harbour Lane - Stream Marizin Review Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 15 Harbour Ln - Stream Margin Review and associated reviews. Gibbs asked for the public notice. Jennifer Phelan supplied the public notice. Phelan stated this application was for 15 Harbour Lane; Harbour Lane runs adjacent to Castle Creek and access via Power Plant Road. The owner Dona Stuart is present and is proposing to build a special addition on the property and a new garage, this property is adjacent to this private road Harbour Lane and the other side is backed by Castle Creek. Phelan said the property is zoned R-15A PUD and to build this addition the property Stream Margin Review is needed. Special Review for 2 variances from the Stream Margin Review Standard, a PUD Amendment for setbacks for this property and she is requesting Residential Design Variances. Phelan said there was some work that went on in between the application and tonight's hearing so we've agreed to continue the Residential Design Variances to August 31 Phelan said Stream Margin Review requires 15 feet from the top of slope; the City Engineering Department has identified the top of slope for this property on page 3 figure 1; it's basically the 100 year flood plain line so any development has to be 15 feet from that top of slope and you can see in this application the 2 story residential addition and the garage that's being 2 City Plannine & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - July 06, 2010 proposed are within that 15 foot setback on the river side. Phelan said the applicant also has some setback constraints on the Harbour Lane right-of-way that is a 25 foot required front yard setback from essentially the right-of-way and it's a 10 foot setback on the side of the property. Phelan said the red hatching on figure 1 is really the only developable area for this site, which is quite constrained. Phelan said that the planning, engineering and parks staff went to the site with the applicant and her architect and have worked on kind of an agreement to the residential addition. Phelan said what they have been working with is how do you accommodate some development and still protect the river. lf the applicant were to develop the property as proposed she woutd need variances from the 15 foot top o f slope setback requirement as well as the 15 foot progressive height requirement on page 4 of the memo that shows how that progressive height is measured; it's from the top of slope at a 45 degree angle and nothing is supposed to encroach in that. Staff is recommending that we essentially maintain the 15 foot setback specifically for the garage and the addition but provide a little into that 15 setback for the home addition about a foot or 2 into that 15 foot top of slope for the residential addition. The building envelope would come closer to Harbour Lane. Phelan said the constraints for the second story addition where they need to have a beam to carry the load for the second story but most of that addition could be pushed forward towards Harbour Lane so staff is recommending maintaining most of that 15 foot setback. Staff is recommending an exemption from the progressive height requirement because it is so close to the stream; it really isn't setting anything further back from Castle Creek and through the PUD staff is recommending shifting the setbacks so essentially creating a building envelope which is page 6 of the staff memo; there would be a 15 foot setback from the top of slope with the exception of that residential house addition and a 5 foot setback (the applicant is asking for a 3 foot setback) and a 5 foot front yard setback from Harbour Lane. Staff feels that this will allow for some possibility for the applicant to develop the property and still maintain the health of Castle Creek. Phelan said the applicant would make some changes to the PUD process and when we record a plat that would essentially create the building envelope for the applicant and is a requirement for the resolution. Phelan said that Parks commented on Section 2 0 f the Resolution that needed some word smiting to ensure that existing spruce tree that is not impacted. Cliff Weiss said the setback to the south between the houses the applicant proposed 3 feet and staff proposed 5 feet and how far is the house directly to the south. Phelan replied there are a number of houses that are quite close but there is a walkway. Olle Johannsson, architect for applicant, said it was about 2% feet, 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - July 06, 2010 Weiss asked ifthe house was 26 feet. Johannsson said there was a deck and a walkway that was like a balcony that sticks out as part of the house. Phelan said the actual wall ofthe house was about 5 to 6 feet from the property line. Weiss said that staff was willing to work out the retained area and that must be of interest because he looked at the photograph; Dona Stuart said it was in the blue section. Weiss said the actual cribbing that's there looks like it been there a long time. Stuart replied that's actually concurrent with the 100 year flood line as determined by FEMA at the edge of that cribbing. Phelan stated that they weren't saying that has to be rebuill. Brian Flynn said that they all noticed it and definitely agree that they are there historically if you do it correctly you would have to move it back so far and redo it there wouldn't be a building site. Flynn said it has survived high water for so many years. Weiss said that you call the lot size 7,000 square foot in one of the diagrams and it seems the lot size itself goes into the river; is that being included in the 7,000. Phelan replied this was one of the things that needs to get cleaned up with platting the building envelope; we need a surveyor to survey the entire lot area which would include the overall lot, gross area but then it would subtract anything below the high water line, any steep slopes so the expectation is to clean that up and give you a baseline. LJ Erspamer said on page 2 of 7 talks about definitions of a high water line; is that from FEMA also. Phelan replied that's the definition of high water line in the code. Phelan said that if we have a disagreement with an applicant we will bring in engineering and try to find an agreement for calculating. Erspamer asked ifthey were going to extend this to the next meeting. Phelan answered that it would be good to resolve this creating a building envelope for this property and one of the things i f P&Z agrees to shifting the property so the house can shift forward; it might change some o f the design variances that they may need to ask for. Erspamer said the photo was taken May not in June when the high water mark was. Erspamer asked what the straw bales were doing on the power plant side, how high did the river come, did it come over that side. Phelan said there were some straw bales for erosion control for work being done on the hydroelectric pipe, that penstock. Stan Gibbs asked why there was a PUD on this property. Phelan replied there was no good reason for it in the resolution zoning this property, R15A makes this a non-conforming lot size and a number of things but a lot of times in the 1980's when there was a steep slope they would put a PUD on it. Gibbs said that he wanted to understand figure 4 as to what staff is actually proposing with the 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - July 06, 2010 garage. Gibbs said the house would be back to where this straight line comes back for the addition on the house. Phelan responded that was right; there was a blue line and it encompassed the rock wall that exists which would encroach about 2 feet into that setback. Phelan said as you can see some of the existing house is outside of the envelope that's allowed to be maintained; right now the proposal would be a garage, it is a pretty tight spot there. Dona Stuart, applicant, said that she has been on this property for 20 years and in Aspen more than 30 years; she said that she respected the rules of the city and has tried very hard to stay within the regulations and reviews but the property has a lot of constraints and we are trying to exist there. Stuart introduced Olle Johannsson her architect. Stuart said that they have come to agreements with Community Development about the residential addition and she feels comfortable with the constraints there. Olie Johannsson said that the new setback on the front will enable them to move what is shown there on the plan towards the street a little bit and he said they can work with that. Stuart said there is that dug out area and the current house has a basement door that goes out (picture 4 shows the egress from the basement). Stuart said that Community Development said ifwe build to that will be able to make some sort of egress to that already excavated area. Stuart said it was adjacent to the neighbor's house so they would like to request a variance or parking in the garage situation. Stuart said photo 1 gives a good perspective of the neighborhood even though it's in black and white so we are looking at the north side of the Castle Creek Bridge you can see where the power plant area is with the road coming around and the subject property 15 Harbour Lane right across the river. Stuart asked P&Z for a variance to cover the existing parking area with this constraint that we do excavation, peer and grade beam construction andwould be hand dug. Stuart said they have worked hours where else this could be positioned, how much it could be moved back and Olle suggested that we could trim the garage by 1 foot and move it 1 foot is this direction. Stuart said that in considering where to place the garage; the neighbor's carport is right at the edge ofthe traveled road so each of us need a way to get in and out of our garages. Johannsson said this was the hardest project that he has ever worked on and the . reality on the ground and in the winter there is so much snow there in the winter. Weiss asked which way the cars would pull into this garage. Johannsson replied the cars would enter from the street; the new location is to pull the whole thing back and egress out here. Jim DeFrancia asked the applicant ifthey had any objections to the conditions proposed. Stuart replied yes the one says we can't have a garage because we are 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - July 06, 2010 already parking there and reluctance about how much we are supposed to re- vegetate; am I supposed to re-vegetate the area where she was parking. Erspamer asked what kind of floor do you want in that garage. Johannsson replied he was assuming slab on grade. Erspamer asked ifthere was underground gas and water so you couldn't put slab on that. Stuart said that she just talked to the gas company and he said that the gas comes from the south; she said that she asked why she had a gas easement to the adjacent property on the south. Erspamer said your title insurance should look at the survey or any improvements. Stuart said that she was the only one on the street that was on city water. Stan Gibbs asked ifthe code said anything about parking in a setback. Jennifer Phelan responded that I think you can but you can have driveway access through the setback. Gibbs asked i f there was going to be a resolution tonight. Phelan replied that she was hoping to bifurcate it and carry the residential designs standards to the August 3rd meeting. Erspamer asked about the word approximately in relation to the setback. Gibbs said maybe we should say 15 feet except at the corner where the house juts out. Weiss said there was a slope and asked if the thing actually cantilevers out off the back here, the garage. Johannsson replied no there's a top of bank here and there's a slope then to the river. Weiss asked what he was talking about posts in construction. Johannsson utilized a drawing to illustrate instead of using a footer that supports this wall along the whole length they can do piers that come down and do a beam that holds up that wall. Johannsson said they would plant behind that to stabilize that further back. April Barker commented that he was talking about would minimize the impact during construction; the impact would still exist to the bank permanently by the placement of impervious surface. Barker said if we were to allow a garage we would require that it be done with that kind of construction in the setback but staff is not supportive of getting into that 15 foot setback with an impervious surface. Weiss said that it sounded like you are not fond of where the garage is about to be located. Barker replied right. No public comments. Weiss said he was struggling with this application. Weiss asked why not a carport instead of a garage; he's not thrilled with the cribbing and doesn't care if it's been there a hundred years or not; everybody wants to get as close to the river as they can and he sympathizes and he realized there was a tough design situation here. 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - Julv 06, 2010 Weiss said you would have a lot more flexibility if you scrape and replace rather than trying to figure out how to make the garage not come to a point where it meets the house. Weiss agreed with staff to use the 2 setbacks on the sides and get closer to the road and he was somewhat comfortable with. Weiss said there just wasn't room for a 2 car garage. LJ Erspamer said that they always question staff as well as the applicants; we disagree with staff but use criteria to make a judgment and we do hear what your reasoning is but he is going to agree with staff. Stan Gibbs said that from the environmental perspective is a carport any different from a garage. April Barker replied that a carport still generates increased run off and generates it more often than the area is used to seeing it; engineering is not in favor of that either but she said they would be more flexible with a carport than the slab on grade. Barker said again not that far into top of slope setback. Brian Flynn said when you asked staff if a carport or a single car parked outside the setback was the same as a garage; the roof is a structure either inside or outside the setback. Flynn said that outside of the setback a carport would work. Barker agreed. Gibbs said the garage could be one car and if you have a second car it could be parked next to it. Gibbs said that he would be open to flexibility to some sort or carport or garage but it has to on the site. Jim DeFrancia supported that position. Gibbs said that carport could perhaps violate that front setback towards the road. Weiss said another solution might be to use this side for living and use this for garage. Johannsson said it was a lot smaller and you are pointing at the 15 foot setback as living area; it's so skinny you could park one car coming in straight in from the street. Erspamer asked how many feet it was from the river. Johannsson replied about 20 feet. Erspamer asked how many feet from that 15 foot setback. Johannsson answered it cuts off the corner and maybe 10 feet. Phelan said that engineering would love to see this whole area re-vegetated and where the proposed addition is because that is the most impacted land. Gibbs said that the applicant knows how the commission feels about these issues of building in the setback and when the applicant comes back in August may have a different response. Jim DeFrancia said he was looking at what the recommended action by staff is that we are approving the Stream Margin Review and the PUD Amendment with Special Review for the Stream Margin Review anc[ the single family and continuing for the Residential Design Standards and we've made it clear that we 7 ./.'.'-- City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes - July 06, 2010 are supporting the staff' s position on this; so he didn't see any reason not to go forward. Stan Gibbs asked i f that gets the P&Z where we want to be in August so if they want to make design changes that would be the time to make them. Jennifer Phelan said that you can look at this in two ways; the applicant has a feeling where this Planning & Zoning Commission is landing and they could ask for the whole thing to be continued and be able to work with that proposed envelope or you could make a motion tonight on what was recommended and then the applicant is forced to design within that parameter. Barker said that the addition on the corner o f the house as just being aesthetic and is a not a good enough reason to need 2 feet; she agreed with needing support for a foundation wall. Motion: U Erspamer moved to approve Resolution #15, and conditions, a Stream Margin Review, PUD Amendment and a Special Review from the Stream Margin Review Standard to construct a single family residential addition located at 15 Harbour Lane and continue the balance of this hearing to August 3 rd r Jor consideration ofthe Res idential Design Standards Variances request and on Section 1 A. with changes to page one deleting "approximately " and adding "with the exception for the corner of the new addition and western facade"and adding subsection " E. In the event the existing house and planned addition are demolished in the future and the property is redeveloped, the building envelope created as a result ofthis resolution shall be null and void and the proptrty will be subject to applicable land use reviews at the time of redevelopment" and the next #2 and replace "the residential addition without impacting or excavating within the drip line ofthe spruce tree"; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. Roli callvote: Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes and Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Discussion prior to vote: Phelan said there was clarification under Section 1 A. with changes to page one deleting "approximately" and adding "with the exceptionfor the corner ofthe new addition and westernfacade "and adding subsection "E. In the event the existing house and planned addition are demolished in the future and the property is redeveloped, the building envelope created as a result of this resolution shall be null and void and the property will be subject to applicable land use reviews at the time of redevelopment" and the next #2 and replace "the residential addition without impacting or excavating within the drip line of the spruce tree". Erspamer said he wanted to delete the fishing easement. Stuart said she didn't care i f they walked through the river. Adjourned at 6:20pm *,6, >*U 49 Â£9Â·CU- 8 -- i E - ERLINE OF- STLE CREEK N 1905571" E 96.63' -- .: J-LIVV--.. - - -- . - I.--- / 7 CASTLE CREEK A â‚¬0 1~ VERTICAL CRIBBIN APPROXIMATE HIGH WATER LINE ~ - PROX. TOP OF CREEK $ CHANNEL BANK & 100 YEAR 5 5 FLOOD PLAIN LINE - ~ CREEK EROStoH DEBRIS CRIBBING C; 0 -1 2 01 STEPS 0, B APPROX. TOP OF CREEK CHANN LVERTICAL REEKEROSION CO 2 + 5 0 2 0 4 BANK P IN UNE 5 8 2 iA e 00- A - 11 il 6. Â£- 0 A CO 9 1 1 - fl UNDER GROUND WATER - G#, 24.7' 1 4 A -- b O - 16 0, TA d g * 0 31 - //0 7 /9 A - 4 -ROOF RIDGELINE ~~ ~ *1 ~ % t: 1 4 .-/K \ 1444 Al 0, Cl e - - 1~ 6 bo- / Ct .......I ELEVATION 7859.3 -0- d g 444-~ ew d , 4 al .:':. 1Â¢1 - / 7 //.tn 2 1 TRAVELED WAY 07 - EDGEoN ~~ ~I / r.< GR,ilet (C) -- / 22.9, t.- - 737- . '6%%45..p..,~..1 ////. I //// - #: 4 4- 00 G S 15030' W 84.48' - Ity .- - 15033' W-58.98' rplch HOUSE - ED<9\ T 1 ~333 --f~ //// Y/. -- C.,7 (0 0 [W fer,<l ; Ca 45 N 00032'34-~--E=65Â» '.>rl////// XM- --- 1 go m\ 3963 >41 --0 % I RIGHT-OF- t-44Â«(43 ---4- /71 - 30"J- .. 01/ 7843.7 3SnOH 14 PEDESTAL TRANSFORMEk O TELEPHONE ~ PORCH TELEP CZE.09 .0. 6' ' 2'-4 25/ ' 4 4 2 Â·.- 4 . I. Ir 1 : .. r.~Â¥ 0. ' . N . r, '' . ..- 1 t ' 1 . .... . ...i- .' 4-,F-k Â·Â·. . 1. .6 . li e. I Â· 4 y 1 < - 44 4 ., ' .r ,&PVS'" *4'ir 8..... .2 . 0- Un - .....4 . C *11 r .i. 4 *2 4 4,1 Vt 9 3 - . - -11 1.-, ..S , - -4 "rÂ¢ 4.- 4 4. 4 Â¢ , .4.Ill -- - -Â·Â· //3 1 I.,4112* % 1 ,-IMIN'.0/m&** .L , ar ./ . =m * - .r: 1- '5'*L , :4 f..f -7.... < , I. . . 1 , .PA- .~~'A*- -5 V-- . N, ,-1 I L. . 6 -0 1 t ' 1'7 T I . .. . 41.- / 7rl//1 Jal "6M. 7/'~Il I ' j~0~"4 Â·Â·' .Â·L=*Â· Â·Â·BJ . OÂ· J' 1 ~'~ ~ ' ' . - ,~~4Â·1 I. I. Mf ..h . h ) , 1 L . , 0.-1....:, . I.â€ž"I Â¥ 1 64 .4- Â·Ob 1, f ~lu i & -9-/ 1 , il-I Â· -1(. .= Ill - .- ' . *t/ 4- â€¢ 1.6 6 ... ..1 4 â€¢ â€¢ - I.â€¢ . 1. -,--=1.. .. L- :-pak;. - . rn:,1 6194 4, 26.~ :*4& ,/ . 72- . 4- .1 - 4... 't 1'0 - . - . I -. . '.. - '.1 . 9 1 ./*t .13--0 ,- d pi--A* .. ''11. . r . -1, --'9- : ayâ€¢Â·~c j ., kit-r .4 ...~4..Ly>TLY*n.7/11/-/'..b. .,Al- 4~ le . 11 . 2 6 . - 4 K ..A.M.=AL'. biff<UMN# V 2.7 r. 9-, , 4 V .1 1. 1 /,3 3.- , e..t'J . S- 1 10 -- - ..1 . r .1 I : ,A I -42. r . =ELA.â€¢ .-, . ... .1 . r :~.,8 4 '. 6 Â£ ' . 1 .Â·Dp. -t m I. - W $ 4 .-I 6 0Â¢ -~!U.z Â·' 1*â€¢D J.â€¢Â·Â· All . itÂ¥' TZI.v 1 . E "- . fu/4?1. --r, Â·.â€¢ . 14 0 - 7,2 .'1 Â· 0~ lk. Â· . 4, -0 p -'.. . 4. 42 1 t,-4 + 1 16 I , $ r.1 d a. J . a ' U I .1 .. 1 4 . " 1 . ... J ... U.L.I...6 . i. - 4(flk - r 44:i Â·i $ Â¥ ti i./tj/2.4, . - L tO : ..1//4*Â· , .. I ,/ , r. t'*.' , '. 4, Je.9.2 . 1 I . I .. b - h PIll=. . 3 %-/' 4 - .1/% . 424, 4 1 + C . Â«11 0 .le. 1,1. I Ex H-\ 6\ T- 3 July 6, 2010 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Committee From: Jack and Anneke DePagter 0217 Harhour Ijane 925-2930 As residents of Harbour Lane, since 1962 we have no objection at all to the proposed addition and garage of Dona Stuart' s residence. She has been our good and responsible neighbor since 1991. Dona Stuart has upgraded the appearance of the house and the landscaping since she bought the property and we know she will continue to improve her home considering her neighbors and the environment. 9 -- 10 , c 1 42 3 0 1/94-c) C,2 7 7 07 7 /7 5 7 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directocif> RE: 15 Harbour Lane - Stream Margin Review, Residential Design Standards Variances, and a Special Review variance from Stream Margin Review Standards, and PUD Amendment - Public Hearing DATE: July 6,2010 Applicant: Dona Stewart wit .~ - -4,2.Â·=~2 ~ F ~<-M'E~ I . Â·Â· -ze',314;r- .I.>, 1 - r./- Â·t;d'14/. C .A .17 % Zoning: R-15 A/PUD (Moderate- ' '444;41% -- Density Residential and PUD overlay) . ./*. t- uÂ®t.-'-j 1.<- 7;:-,1 Lot Size: +/- 7,000 Square Feet , , -1 1 ..3Â¥Â¢8 1 'tal ~ C - + 2 . 14 ,-1* 1 . 14Â¥1 i... Â·Â· 9~ iIi: b- -Al Land Use: Single-Family Residence F'--:j- .- . ., ' ~ 'It , v:c:,V: ..:., -/-, ,/I /-::".~.4 tel. Id:-'-Â·~Â·'- ~ 1Â·10,4.~ .'.'-ti-: IF$44. g~ 'B,ME, 4- -, Request Summary: The Applicant is *3491 - requesting a Stream Margin Review 4 + i .4 Approval, Variances from certain ---- Residential Design Standards, and 0-1 . 1 'V:, Special Review for variances from .- - ~' -,1 ~ ' -0|1 ' r' 4.4+-' ~*: -Â· e Stream Margin Review, as 1 well as a PUD Amendment. 15 Harbour Lane Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions of the Stream Margin Review, granting of one variance from Stream Margin Review, Granting of dimensional variations through the PUD Amendment and continuation of the hearing to a future date certain for variances from the Residential Design Standard. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant is proposing to build a residential addition to the existing residence and a new garage. The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site with a single-family residence addition and garage: â€¢ Stream Margin Review approval for development within 100 feet of the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries (Castle Creek) pursuant to Land Use Code (L.U.C.) Chapter 26.435, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Page 1 of 7 â€¢ Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. â€¢ Special Review approval for variances from the Stream Margin review standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.520.080 D., Special Review. The Applicant is requesting a variance from L.U.C. Sub-Section 26.435.040 C.8. (requires that no development other than native vegetation occur within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or high water line, and Sub-Section 26.435.040 C.9. (requires development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback to meet a progressive height requirement). â€¢ PUD Amendment - Other Amendment approval for varying of dimensional requirements pursuant to L.U.C. Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development. REVIEW PROCEDURE: A development application for Stream Margin review, Residential Design Standards Variance, Special Review, and PUD Amendment - Other Amendment shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested approval to build a residential addition onto the existing single- family residence and a new garage located at 15 Harbour Lane. The river, high-water line, top-of-slope, and floodplain all converge on this property and make development difficult. For that reason, the applicant is pursuing this review to establish the development parameters for the property. The subject property is located in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) zone district and has a PUD overlay upon it. The property backs up to Castle Creek and Harbour Lane is a private access easement that runs through part of the property. TERMS: A few terms of art will be used for this case. TheflooÂ®/ain is the area affected by flood waters and certain building restrictions are effective in this area - principally that development may not increase the height of flood water and that the finished floor level of a structure must be one foot or higher above that base flood level. The City Engineer is the City's designated flood plain administrator and is responsible for implementing these development restrictions. Mapping of this area provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. The high-water line is used to determine a property' s development rights. Areas below a high- water line do not contribute to Lot Area and do not increase a property's floor area or allowed density. The high-water line is the point at which the presence and action of water are so regular as to impress a character distinguishing a river bank from a river bed. (I.e. a river bank has soil and vegetation and a river bed does not.) Page 2 of 7 The top-*slope is the point along a river separating the flat or natural topography of the land from the steeper river bank. It can be considered the top edge of the river bank. STAFF ANALYSIS: A. Stream Margin Review: The intent of Stream Margin review is to "reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features." The Applicant's site is constrained by a required twenty-five (25) feet front yard setback requirement (which is measured from the private road), a ten (10) feet minimum side yard setback and a required fifteen (15) feet setback from the Top of Slope. Along Castle Creek there exists vertical cribbing that retains the bank and delineates the 100 year flood plain line (as indicated by the surveyor). The Engineering department has recommended determining a Top of Slope for this property which follows the cribbing and flood plain line as indicated in Figure 1. Currently, the existing residence sits approximately eleven to sixteen feet from the Top of Slope. The proposed residential addition and garage would sit within the required minimum Top of Slope setback as well as the minimum front yard setback and the northerly side yard setback. Figure 1: Setback Constraints [----- AEONG THE CplIERUNE OF CASTLE CREEK Staff N 19,55 1 r E 96.63 - ----- -I-. -- Proposed CASTLE CREEK Top of -- - Slope 'Ell// -I------ . ' APPROXIMATE HIGH WATER UNE 1 TOP OF CRER BANK I 100 TfAR 1 '$..$00. , n.000 r.. I. . L #-:-0,%'I kl < STEPS i i 1 1 0 A- I.4 0 -3 1 1 -4 0 Ill.. A o / 8 -00 // i 'FL '14 Twenty-five - .. 0 Fifteen Foot Front 2'll ' : 1 Yard & Ten \41- 11 1-1 f nE'-1 -3- FootT olD dc- - 4 1 - 4% 3'/- 429*svt Foot Side * M --- Yard Z <***i Setback GRAVEL ROADWAY Setback ~--29-2- 0Â¥- ~ 222' -1 1/ //3> - * .'.... ,-'h , % #61- -37 f-TT533' W-Flf- --557# 10 . *Ksk 4 -53*#*rsâ€¢ -%% -ix /1.-r 222:W2 ***_ Â·---- -ft>â‚¬50 - Page 3 of 7 414 3.aoH 0 91.6 TRNASFORMEN B. Special Review: The Applicant is requesting two variances from the Stream Margin Review Standards. The first variance being requested is from the required setback from the Top of Slope (review standard 26.435.040 C.8.). The applicant notes that the actual Top of Slope is much higher in elevation (in the vicinity of the Villa of Aspen Townhouses or 8th and Bleeker) and that a more reasonable measurement would be from the 100 year flood plain. The flood plain line is essentially the same Top of Slope being recommended by the City Engineer as noted previously in Figure 1. As proposed, the new addition and garage will not meet the required fifteen (15) feet setback from the Top of Slope delineated by the City Engineer. The second variance is from the requirement of Stream Margin Review that no building breach the progressive forty-five (45) degree height limit from the Top-of-Slope as required by Land Use Code Sub-Section 16.435.040 C.9. and shown below in Figure 2. Again, as proposed, it appears that both the residential addition and garage would not meet the progressive height limit. Figure 2: Progressive Height Measurement 45 degree ,~ progressive / A height / limit / FLEI,Â®h / 1 00 +41111 Top of Slope 1/ min.m - AI E 014-1.=25i777=-FL_ 15 Foot _1/ 1 Setback '1 F i gure "A" Staff Comment on Stream Margin and Special Review: As one can see by Figure 1, the potential for development is quite constrained on this lot with regard to setback Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to meet the required fifteen (15) feet setback from the Top of Slope that has been determined by the City Engineer for most of the proper ty, however, the Applicant has an existing dug out/retained area adjacent to the existing building that is used for exiting the basement and staff is willing to work with the Applicant in the area shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Egress Area 1 1 Specifically, Staff recommends that this existing area be - allowed to be maintained by the Applicant for any necessary & -eli Egress egress (such as a window well or doorway) from the PROL TOP OF CREEK proposed addition but not expanded and that the proposed Â· ' Area SANK & 100 YEAR ~ BOOD PLAUN UNEÂ· G residential addition be allowed to sit within two feet of the - tr the fifteen foot setback. This will require shifting both the i , 3/ a proposed residential addition and garage closer to Harbour Lane. Both the Parks and Engineering Departments have ~ %- .5 1 noted that the area between the house and Castle Creek has 9 2 1,51.1 - 7 been severely degraded. The area will be required to be il - W \ Page 4 of 7 -1 r' 214 .~" ./Dor .., 74.6 restored with native vegetation. Staff recommends granting a variance from the progressive height measurement. B. PUD AMENDMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT 15 Harbour Lane was annexed into the city in 1989 and provided a zone district designation of Moderate-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-15A/PUD). Although there is not a site specific development plan on file, a single family dwelling is permitted to be developed in conformance with the underlying zone district requirements 1 As a PUD, the Applicant may request a variation from the dimensional standards. As seen in Figure 1, the site's development potential is quite constrained and the Applicant is requesting certain dimensional variations to develop the addition. Table 1, below, outlines the underlying zone district requirements, the request of the Applicant and staff' s recommendation. Table 1: R-15 A Zone District Standards Dimensional Requirement Underlying Moderate- Applicant's Proposed Staff Recommended Density Residential(R- Dimensional Dimensional 15A) Zone District Requirements Requirements Requirements Minimum Lot Size 15,000 SF Existing Lot 15,000 Minimum Lot Width 75 Feet 75 Feet 75 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 15,000 SF 15,000SF 15,000 SF Minimum Front Yard 25 Feet - Residential 5 Feet 5 Feet Setback Dwellings Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet on the north 5 Feet 3 Feet on the south Top of Slope Setback 15 Feet 8 Feet from Top of 13-15 Feet Slope - residence 4 Feet from Top of Slope - garage Maximum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Calculate per code as amended from time to time Staff Comment: The underlying zone district standards as well as the Stream Margin Review standards leave the Applicant with a very limited development envelope. Staff recommends modifying the underlying front and side yard setbacks to allow the development to be closer to the private road and further away from Castle Creek. Additionally, stajfrecommends platting a development envelope on the site to clearly delineate where development may occur. See Figure 4 on the next page for a conceptual building envelope. Staff believes these dimensional variances are consistent with the neighborhood. 1 The current lot is considered a nonconforming lot as it does not meet the minimum lot size within the R-15A zone district. A detached single family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be developed on a nonconforming lot. Page 5 of 7 C. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: Staff Comment: Staff is recommending a different "development envelope" than what the Applicant is proposing. If an amended envelope is approved, the Applicant -will need to reconsider the design and location of the proposed addition which could change what Residential Design Variances are requested. Staff is recommending that the design variance component be continued to a future date so that any changes to the addition can be evaluated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request meets most of the Stream Margin Review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.040(C), Stream Margin Review and should be granted a variance from the progressive height requirement but not a variance from required setback from the Top of Slope (other than the small encroachment for the addition. Staff recommends that the applicant map a development boundary line that is fifteen feet from the top-of-slope delineated by the City Engineer, with the plat to be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director and then recorded. Additionally, Staff recommends that the side yard setbacks and front yard setback be allowed to be five feet from the property line and delineated on the plat, essentially defining the building envelope. Figure 4 Conceptual Building Envelope -A'ENG THE CENTERUNE OF CASTLE cREEK N 19;E'Tin - 06]r-~ - ---- ------ CASTLE CREEK I ' APPROXIMATE HIGH WATER ONE 0 i :ZAÂ°99â„¢ t. IRCIK .06)014 OC~0 i * m-*w'w M *WAL RESCENDSION 4 STEPS i u i...<... or .... 1 3 --7 1- 0 4 --1 . 4 1 +Z" IL.., , 4 /41 9 1/.3.-1 13 lilli.* 9. ...01 0 - 4/ *-1 O, < 4 1 Q 4 -31 I .447 // ~ ~ ~ I .~ -~4ial 7-Â« ., m C. CP //// M - / //0.9 ROADWAY .0/. + i &*G / 22.y / -33 * x %%/%%%LIE % - 1 0 HOUSE / 4/ // %-% :0 Z/o~~~f-/ /// \ - 4 -Ad kx 3/ ROAD RIGHT-OF / 1 Page 6 of 7 Qfol-Â» -t 78/3.7 $ TRANSFORMEE 45 Community Development staff also believes the map should indicate and tabulate all areas of the property above/below the high water line, or affected by easements. This will enable the owner, prospective owners, and staff to easily determine Lot Area and development rights. Parks and Engineering Department staff recommend that riparian areas of the property be rehabilitated. The area between the house and the Top of Slope is significantly degraded and restoration can be done at the time the property is redeveloped. Parks is also requesting a fishing easement be provided by the applicant. This is a request and not a requirement. Staff is recommending adoption of a resolution defining conditions of approval and requiring recordation of this development boundary map mentioned above. Staff is recommending future redevelopment in compliance with these regulations not be subj ect to an additional review by the Commission. This allowance would be in place for at least the period of vested rights or as long as the City' s riverfront regulations remained the same. Staff recommends that if the City changes riverfront development restrictions that the property be subject to those new requirements and possibly another Commission review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2010, approving with conditions, a Stream Margin Review, PUD Amendment and a variance granted via Special Review from the Stream Margin Review Standard to construct a single-family residential addition located at 15 Harbour Lane and continue the balance of this hearing to , 2010 for consideration of the Residential Design Standards Variance(s) request." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -- Stream Margin Review Criteria Exhibit B -- Special Review Criteria Exhibit C - PUD Amendment Review Criteria Exhibit D -- Application Page 7 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, A VARIANCE VIA SPECIAL REVIEW, AND A PUD AMENDMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT FOR 15 HARBOUR LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-00-017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the owner of 15 Harbour Lane for a number of land use reviews to develop an addition to a single- family residence as well as a garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located along Castle Creek and is subject to the City's regulations on stream margin development; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has identified a Top of Slope for this property as part of the review to indicate where development can occur and the applicant has submitted a variance request through Special Review, a request for Stream Margin Review, and a PUD Amendment- Other Amendment to develop her site with a residential addition and garage; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the reviews, by a to Q_-__j vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Granted The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use reviews with the following conditions: A. Stream Margin Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants Stream Margin Review approval for the subject property. All development within the development boundary shall be setback approximately fifteen (15) feet from the top-of-slope as identified by the City Engineer and as memorialized in a recorded plat. No development other than native vegetation planting shall take place between the building envelope on the Castle Creek side and the Top of Slope unless expressly permitted by the city. 1) A riparian restoration plan approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department and Engineering Department shall be required as part of the building permit application for this property. The restoration plan shall require implementation of the restoration prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Remodeling or other similarly limited P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of2010 Page 1 development activity, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall not trigger this restoration requirement. B. Special Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants a Variance from the progressive height limit (Sub-section 26.435.040 C.9. of the Land Use Code) and all development shall not be subject to a forty-five degree (45Â°) progressive height limit from the top-of-slope. C. Planned Unit Development - Other Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants certain variations from the R-15A zone district requirements. Specifically, the Applicant is permitted a five (5) foot minimum side yard setback for a residential dwelling and a minimum front yard setback of five (5) feet. The front yard setback shall be measure as outlined in Sub-section 26.575.040 B., Required yards adjacent to private streets or rights of way of the Land Use Code and memorialized through the creation of a building envelope. D. A Building Envelope for this property shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The map shall describe and depict a building envelope based upon the requirements listed previously within this section of the resolution. 1) Building eaves may project outside the building envelope by no more than eighteen inches. 2) Egress window wells for the proposed addition may project outside the building envelope only when the egress meets both the minimum dimensions and number necessary to meet building code requirements. 3) The proposed residential addition may use the existing dug out area on the westerly side of the property for egress but may not be altered from the existing conditions without the express consent of the Engineering department. The map shall also indicate and tabulate all areas of the property above and below the high water line, those areas affected by steep slopes, and those areas affected by right-of- way or access easements. This plat shall be attached to and recorded along with this Resolution. A 24" x 36" copy of the map shall also be retained in the planning file and the building address file. Section 2: Building Permit A building permit application shall meet all adopted standards of the city. Additionally, a copy of this resolution and the plat approving the building envelope shall be submitted with the application. The two following items will be addressed in the application. 1. It is prohibited to impact or construct within the drip line of the existing spruce tree. The Current plans shows that the corner of the new addition inside of this zone. The project shall redesign a way to develop the proposed plan and not impact or excavate for the structural portion of the corner. P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 2 2. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. This is critical and required at all times around the large spruce tree adjacent to the river corridor. Section 3: Fishing Easement The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages the applicant to provide a Fisherman's Easement along the watercourses within this property. The applicant is encouraged to discuss with the City of Aspen Parks Department ideas that may facilitate such a grant of easement such as labor or design assistance with the riparian restoration plan. Section 4: Vested Rights This approval shall be valid for the greater of the three-year period of statutory vested rights, as more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department, or until the City's Stream Margin regulations are amended. The period of statutory vested rights may be extended pursuant to Chapter 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Until said time, development on this property in compliance with this resolution may proceed to building permit as allowed herein. After said timeframe, this approval shall be subject to any revised provisions of the Land Use Code and may, based on a determination by the Community Development Director, be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion o f this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of July, 2010. P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 4 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS A. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS The proposed development is located within an environmentally sensitive area described as a Stream Margin and is subject to 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. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation in that it is proposed in a location outside the 100 year floodplain. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails 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 to the greatest extent possible via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement." Staff Finding Staff finds that this proposal will not be in conflict with the AACP or the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan because the entire scope of work is to be confined outside of the native riparian area as defined by the fifteen (15) foot setback from the river's top-of-slope. 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 recorded on a plat pursuant to Section 26.435.040(F)(1). Staff Finding The subject property will be required to plat a building envelope. Staff finds this review standard not to be met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or 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. Staff Finding The proposal does not interfere with the natural changes of the river. Erosion control will be required as part of the construction management plan with building permit submittal. A drainage plan will need to also be submitted with the building permit application. Stafffinds this standard to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a -watercourse, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the watercourse in any way. Stafffinds this standard to be met. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a watercourse 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. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the -watercourse in any way. Staff.finds this standard to be met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one-hundred-year floodplain. Staff Finding There is no proposed development within the one-hundred year floodplain. Staff finds this standard to be met. 8, There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting within fifteen (15) feet back 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. Ne-w plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with alldevelopment applications. The top ofslope and 100 year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing development that encroaches within the fifteen foot setback from the Top of Slope and is requesting a variance from this standard. Staff finds this standard to not be met. 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 Section 26.575.020, as shown in Figure "A". Staff Finding As submitted, some of the development -will be -within the forty-five degree height limit. The Applicant is requesting a variance from this standard. Stafffinds this standard to not be met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downeast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications. Staff Finding Any proposed outdoor lighting must be in compliance with the City of Aspen Outdoor Lighting Code and will be reviewed at building permit. Stafffinds this standard to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding The Applicant's surveyor has not indicated that there are any wetlands on the property.. Statifinds this standard to be met. B. VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS - REVIEW STANDARDS An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted, would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding The Applicant is requesting two variances from the residential design standards so that the entryway door is not required to be oriented towards the street and that the front fa~ade of the building not be required to be parallel with the street. The intent of the design standards is to reinforce the typical characteristics of the front fa~ade of a building and reinforce the relationship between the building and the street, by enhancing the streetscape. With the meandering nature o f the street Staff feels that it can support the Applicant' s request to vary the orientation of the building. However, the lack of a front door facing the street negatively impacts the character of the neighborhood and the public realm. Many of the adjacent neighboring doorways are oriented towards the street. Staff feels the design of the entry could be amended to provide the required front door entry and still be accessible from the garage. C. Special Review Criteria for a Variance from the ADU Design Standards. An application requesting a variance from the ADU and Carriage House design standards, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property. 3. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Staff Finding One of the primary goals of the ADU/Carriage House program is to provide viable housing opportunities for working residents. As stated in the purpose o f the program, "detached ADUs and Carriage Houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident". Detached ADUs are less likely to be used as an extension o f the primary residence. Exhibit B E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending a variance from the required Top of Slope setback as the building can be moved closer to the road to accommodate the development. The buffer between the house and the river can assist in protecting the health of the river. Staff does recommend a variance from the progressive 45 degree height limit as the house is close to the river corridor and little will be visually gained by enforcing the height restriction. EXHIBIT C Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures o f this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The redevelopment of the property will: ' Protect and enhance the natural environment" by rehabilitation the Top of slope and area between the house and the river. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is for an addition onto a single family residence. Harbour Lane contains a number of single family residences as well as a duplex The site is adjacent to other residential uses and fits the character of the neighborhood. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: The Applicant is exempt from GMQS B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional standards recommended by staff will mitigate impacts to Castle Creek. Many of the houses along Harbour Lane are quite close to the road and locating the house closer to the road is appropriate. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional standards will permit a massing that is moved away from Castle Creek and fits the development pattern of the area. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: Not Applicable, the Applicant will meet underlying zone distric requirements, 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Not Applicable, density is not being varied. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Not Applicable, density is not being varied. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site' s physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: Not Applicable, density is not being varied C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: The Applicant is being required to develop a certain distance from Castle Creek and rehabilitate the landscape to provide more protection to Castle Creek. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan with the building permit application. A large Spruce is required to be protected as well as rehabilitation of the area between the house and the river. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing o f nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing a modest addition that fits the character of this eclectic neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: The Applicant will comply with all lighting regulations in place. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design o f the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: Not Applicable. No open space is proposed. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost o f the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: The Applicant has appropriate access to adequate utilities/facilities Â®r the site. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The lot has adequate access to Harbour Lane and currently has adequate off-street parking. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. Staff Finding: Not Applicable .No phasing is proposed. L - PROPOSED ADDITION 1_ _r EXISTING STEPS AND RETAINING WALLS ,/3/ \ 611 / 273 < NEW PORCH AND FRONT DOOR RIVERBANK | EXISTING HOUSE BEYOND | 1 1 $ 1.D' ---2 -~ E- 1 u\- ---- _ _ 7 EXISTING COURTYARD ~ HISTORIC GRADE LINE L______-- WATER HIGH WATER MARK AS MEASURED 05/05/10 SEE BUETTNER SURVEY 05/09/10 STUART RESIDENCE 0015 HARBOUR LANE PRELIMINARY SECTION 06/16/10 JOHANNSSON ARCHITECTS, INC. INFORMATION BASED ON BUETTNER SURVEY DATED 05/05/10 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 20' f. - 1 tr TRANSFORMER SEWER IMANHOLE m 11 1 ~ TELEPHONE ~ ~ 7~ ~ TV PEDESTAL 11 1 G ESTAL 1 1 / 0.\ 4441 i ~.A a, 1 8 2.4 @ SETBACKS PROPOSED BY ARCHITECT 5 #0 PROP D GARAGE * ARE BASED ON EXISTING CONDTTONS. //1 IT IS THE ARCHrrECT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 121 HARBOUR LANE PROPERTY WAS E f r THE SUBJECT HOUSE WAS BUILT 11 . , m . ANNEXED TO THE CITY IN 1980. THE HOUSE WAS BUILT CmCA 1984. 1 7.43.7 PRIOR TO 1980 AND WAS NOT ANNEXED TO THE CITY UNTIL 1989. /1 I 1 MEETS THE SETBACK REGUIATIONS AS Â£ /41.7 NEITHER HOUSE AS THEY EXIST STATED IN THE R-15A ZONE DISTRICT. l NOTES: ~ , EXISTING HOUSE ' Â® / ~ SIDE YARD SETBACK 3' ON THIS SIDE. NEXT DOOR HOUSE IS ALREADY ABOUT 2'-1= FROM THE h PROPERTY LINE SO THIS IS 1 \ WITHIN EXISTING CONDmONS ON ~~r THAT SIDE. 4... BASED ON THE EnSTING 4 / Â® NEW FRONT SETBACK 10'9 3/8" t~ STRUCTURE. THIS HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS THE FRONT OF / 0/ i THE HOUSE. 1â€ž . ~ SIDE YARD SETBACK 10' THIS IS 7/40 -\- ACCORDING TO THE ZONE PROPO ADDITIO DISTRICT. ~ EXISTING HOUSE 2'-5' FROM PROPERTY LINE. E HOUSE TO CREEK ESTnaTED. 1= & 1 @ DISTANCE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORS @ -1 4Â«\ ACTUAL DISTANCE VISUAILY CHECKED REVEALED A DISTANCE DECK 4 THAT IS SHORTER. FINAL N DETERMINATION MUST BE DETRMINED WHEN SNOW IS GONE. HOUSE 4.4. 0 CREEK SET AT 10' SEE ALSO NOTE @ DISTANCE TO NEW STRUCTURE 1 #5. Â® TOP OF SLOPE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE SURVEY AREA AND ABOUT 4 \ 200' HIGHER AT THE VILLAS OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES AND THEREFORE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT. E f i-- 00 2'4'6'8'10' 20' l REQUEST FOR LAND USE APROVAL INTRODUCTION Project: Stuart/Harbour Lane 0015 Harbour Lane, Aspen Location: Lower west end on Castle Creek across from the Power Plant Parcel ID#: 273512300017 Legal description: Section: 12 Township: 10 Range: 85 Parcel of Land being Part of NE4SW4of SEC 12-10-85 (see survey or "ownership documents" for detailed description) , 4 Applicant: Dona Stuart P.O. Box 11733 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Tel: 970-925-8656 Cell: 970-309-0069 . Lot description: North Texas Mill Site ( lower and northern West End) Zoned R-15 A with PUD overlay Lot size: 7000 sq ft; house size 984 sq ft (696 above grade) Built prior to 1960; annexed to City 1989. The owner desires land use application for PUD amendment for setbacks, Stream Margin Review, and Residential Design Standard variances Owner desires to add square footage of living space by building a two story structure over and festoring to original grade the south excavated courtyard and deck. Solar panels would be added on this south facing roof slope. Additionally the owner wishes to obtain land use approval to construct a garage over the existing gravel parking lot on the North side. , This land use application includes the following sections: , Introduction: , Project Applicant , Site description Project description /. : Index to sections: Application-pre-app conference summary and fee agreement - Maps and Surveys/ Dimensional Requirements * Photo section PUD review standards response Residential Design Standards response 0 , Stream'Margin Review response , ~ Ownership documents Public Notice information . . 1 . 1 i , . ~ SITE DESCRIPTION: I 5 Harbour Lane is on the lower West End of Aspen on Castle Creek across - the river from the Power Plant-specifically directly across from the proposed location ofthe new hydro-electric facility. The lot is zoned R 15A; however, it is only 7500 sq ft. The house was built prior to 1960 and is 984 sq ft. (696 above ground) The 5-6 foot vertical cribbing at rivers edge supposedly dates back to mining --- . times when a road crossed Castle Creek in that location. The lot was subsequently excavated for a lower courtyard. All vegetation was stripped and steps and railroad tie terraces were put in place. There is a steep slope on the northern half of the lot bordering the river ~ There is no riparian or natural vegetation beyond the 100 yr flood line on the property either in the courtyard area or adjacent to the parking area. (see photo section) It has been suggested that the top of slope or top of bank is actually up on ' the Villas of Aspen Townhouses property some 200 ft higher in elevation and that Harbour lane is a bench or terrace on the slope. Harbour Lane branches off ofPower Plant road and continues under Castle Creek bridge to the south, It is a dead end private road. There are four houses on the street. All have been owned by the same permanent residents for the last 20-50 years. The adjacent property at 121 Harbour Lane was annexed to the city in 1980 and the house was built circa 1984. It is 2 1/2 stories high and the structure is within 2 1/2 feet of our common property line and considerably closer to the river. The adjacent house on the Northeast corner is 3 stories high and is actually V touching the common property line. Consideration had to be given to each owner's access to their respective garages. 1 I /% . I / k $ j I PROJECT DESCRIPTION - 3 We are asking for our rights to develop, the property in a reasonable manner and to be given the same consideration that the adjacent City property was given when it was built 5 years earlier than the project's , annexation. It is our desire to propose an addition that blends with the similar character of the neighborhood and brings this property up to the common standard of this neighborhood in which all other houses are greater than 1800 sq ft, more than one story and all have garages. We wish to comply with the current land use codes, stream margin considerations, and building standards of the City to the extent that is possible given the inherent non-conformity when the property was annexed as an R 15A zone. We are also desire to install solar panels facing south. In designing the proposed residential addition ofthe project we chose maximum allowable height and extension of the structure to the North in order to escape the shadowing of the neighbor's house. We felt this was compatible with the topography, residential design standards, and an appropriate distance from the flood hazard zone of Castle Creek as further explained in the response , sections. f 1 , I . - I .1 I 1 ' I , . / , ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION 'ROJECT: <ST U AtI / HAR.Boo e_ LAN Q- \ ame JONA 1-TO Agor- ocation: DO \5 KA Raou e_ LAM E , 145ea_\\3 , CO (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 1arcel [D E (REQUIRED) 09--35123 000 \ 1- APPLIC.ANT: lame DO hbA S-L)A \25-E . Address. PÂ· 0. 20* C 1 -4- 358 AVE-\4 ~ 0 O Bl * 12_ Phone = 910 -2>09-00(0 9 REPRESENTATIVE: ---. t- Name Address: Phone dd: Th PE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): E GMOS Exemption U Conceptual PUD D TemporaoÂ· Use 2 GMQS Allotment 2 Final PUD (& Ill.Q-Amendment) E] Text/N/tap Amendment U Special Review D Subdivision U Conceptual SPA 4~ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream El Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA MargÂ® Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane 1 2 Commercial Design Review U Lot Split E Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion g EgildmliaLE=ign-MadanÂ£Â£- U Lot Line Adjustment E Other: E Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 25\ N 6 Un_ WArn i Ly TZES i Dilk]Cy PROPOS.AL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc,) PerDP CDC>214 22531 \OCAN-nAL Ar>Di 3-1014 Ploposigib (2>Ae-AcbfE-. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 1261L , 00 E Pre-Application Conference Summary 2 Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement 2 Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form 2 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 2 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an Blectronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and 20 NA sr uAgr (hereinafter APPL]CANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for STÂ© A(ZIE / M AE-2,00 (2_ LAra E (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of applieation completeness. x. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved iii processing the application .APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make pa>ment 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 44-ill be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification b> the C]TY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certaint> 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 processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision, 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application comoleteness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S \8614 .C;~ which is fofRM?%2~EXH~&Mrs of Community Development staff time. and if actual recorded costs 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 at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPL]CANT furtheragrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT BL: By X )~Â«C,4 -, , 3 Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: 05/14// 20 le) Billing Addressand Telephone Number: 7,0, Flox \ 13-Â·33% ALPEN ,Co 5\612_ 91-0 --2>C,9 -00(09 - CELL CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 970.429.2780 DATE. 1/19/10 PROJECT: 15 Harbour Lane REPRESENTATIVE: Dona Stuart, 970-925-8656, dona@1 Othmountain com TYPE OF APPLICATION: Stream Margin Review, PUD Amendment DESCRIPTION: The owner is interested in creating an addition to the existing residence, including adding a new garage. The property is located adjacent to the Castle Creek River, just south of the City power plant, and is required to undergo a stream margin review. The property was annexed into the city in 1989 and was zoned R-15A with a PUD overlay. The setbacks for the zone district and the stream margin create a non-conforming building (portions of the existing building are located within the zoning prescribed setbacks). The owner ts interested in amending the setbacks and establishing new dimensional requirements through a PUD amendment. The proposed addition may require a number of variances from the Residential Design Standards. These variances can be combined with the other requests. Based on an initial staff review, it appears a total of five (5) vanances may be needed, including variances from the following standards: 26.410.040.A. 1, Building Orientation 26.410.040.A.2, Build-to-lines 26.410.040.D.1.a, Entry Door 26.410.040.D. 1.b, covered entry porch 26.410.040.D.2, First Story Element Below is a link to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience. http //www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/41/landuseappform.pdf Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.435.040 Environmentally Sensitive Areas - Stream Margin 26.445 Planned Unit Development - Other Amendment 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.060 R-15A zone district Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http.//www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/38/citycode.cfm Review by. Community Development Staff for Completeness, Development Review Committee (DRC) for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning for dimensional changes and stream margin. Public Hearing: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Fees. $1470.00 for minor review & six (6) hours of work. Additional time over six (6) hours will be billed at $245 per hour. Referral Fees: Minor Parks: $212 Minor Engineering: $212 Total Deposit: $1894.00 Total Number of Application Copies: 12, 2 sets of full size plans To apply, submit the following information: E-1 Total Deposit for review of application. [-1 Pre-application Conference Summary. 71 Applicants name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. [--1 Proof of ownership E] Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. [-1 A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. E-1 A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 1-1 List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet for public hearing E--1 Completed Land Use application E--1 Signed fee agreement I--3 An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. E--112 copies of the complete application packet and maps, El A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. E-1 Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building- related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920- 5090 for additional information. CJ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. Message Page 1 of 2 dona@10thmountain.com : rom: Jessica Garrow [Jessica.Garrow@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Monday, May 10,2010 2:53 PM To: dona@10thmountain.com Subject=RE: new-Pre=ag- ---1- -1-- -- - --rl <1<Hi Dona- -. -)- < Don't worry about the CD. You 11 need to provide 2 full size (24 inch by 36 inch) copies of. 1, Survey 2 Site Plan ~ 3 Elevat ons (or make the smaller copies of the elevations scalable). ~ ~t me know if you have any other questions! // j eaÂ·tÂ·ca-~_~ Jessica Garrow. AICP Long Range Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 970 429 2780 'www a spe nco mmun ityvision.com rom: dona@10thmountain.com [mailto:tenthl@10thmountain.com] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:27 PM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: RE: new Pre-app conference summary. Hi Jessica. Thank you for sending the revised pre-app summary. 1 Just leftyou a message. My question is about the 2 copies of plans that were on the fi rst preapp Do you want 1 or 2 fullsize copies of the survey? Do you want 1 or 2 fullsize copies of the site plan? and how any big copies of elevations ? I will put 81/2" x 11" or 14"copies inthe packets, but, of course, it is difficult to read some of the details Am I correct in remembering that you said a CD was not necessary ? Thanks' Dona -----Original Message----- From: Jessica Garrow [mailto:Jessica.Garrow@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:53 PM To: dona@10thmountain.com Subject: RE: new Pre-app conference summary. Hi Dona - Eve updated the pre-app, which is attached. Use this one when preparing and submitting your application. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Hope you had a wonderful /eekend! Cheers. 5/11/2010 *1*1**1â€¢1*%/"5391/Mwin ATTACHMVNT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM -* 2-2-9 1 6 â‚¬2> Proiect Slu Agzy- ~ \AARBO-DE- LAME_ Applicant: hbo k) 4 5%reARLI- Ijxation: 00\56 KAK.200 2.- LAbbe- - \SPER Zone District: -R IS A 1-Â»t Size: 70 00 50 VE, Lot Area: ~~4;19, 2-1 41 -9-1 -44 ( for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements. and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code. ) Commercial net leasable: Existing>32/ Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: ~ Proposed. 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: \ proposed. -5 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):,.25 DIMENSIONS: 44&812_ Floor Area: Existing: 44 ~ Allowable: 235,2z Proposed: Dr --- Principal bldg. height: Existing: \bi*. Allowable: ZE> Proposed: 4-2 O 11 L-2.-9-5 "~~~ Â¥\DGEL\ NE Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2_ Proposed: 2- % Site coverage: Existing: 1 1 90 Required: RÂ©*Aulep, Proposed: 2> i 96 % Open Space:_ Existing: Required: ~26:Gly\PPUPRProposed. Iiront Setback: Existing: 10' 73%" Required: 23 - Proposedl~ 93/8 0 Rear Setback: Existing: > \D Required: C O Proposed: 7 1 (3 CeO-129-UNE. Ce=.IL. PuMULAO Sr-ZE:AMÂ» 44252 1 A Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: (Noent) Existing: l 0 Required: C D Proposed: 10 Side Setback:59331Â· Existing: 1(D Required: \O . Proposed. 3- ( 13â‚¬19+ aoveryAWD.- 9- 9 Combined Sides: Existing: 20 Required: ZO Proposed: 1 75 Distance Betwn Bldgs Existirg '9 A- Required: Proposed. Existing non-conformities or encroachments: SE.3-PAC16, 9\20) NTE- .ck\(-be--\2.,DA.\2_ 1 229Â·, M.%16ll SltiEYS I FrlD tor- irod , AD\,2-0 i \ WrÂ« ' E-Â»TRy ibnolt' COL)Â¢ (eib EbiTEL -Po (2-CAA Variations requested: *DES An-T-- 2kLST, ), \ST- STD \Zy ELEDAE_h i . 729ezEBAC36 --EQDUT- 0, SACE> ' 9.2:2:94 i_32%-T-\ t\L OE.Fl\6,th .SEN43 t-4431 , 2*3\ LID\Â©CD 00-2 ~EA+to A ' 05\03 -TD UCKEE>'~ 1@I~(2-ODÂ·37 -bcO Q., (1009-2-0 POQCH ', \EST'~ SEn Yzy y--1 2-fos--NE 6 5*eF A N\ N\A\26( ra \Fb Er SE-3-2>ACE -1- .c\Ef ANGLE- WE, ia,SrRlcIELOU -bU Ez-~10 PARCEL UDcNY ON +co Â»D\T-\ crAS , 0015 Harbour Lane - FAR calculations Lot area that can contribute to floor area is approximately~618~5quare feet this is excluding the triangle piece. 449Â· 1 We get 2400 square feet from the first 3000 SF lot area. 444 1 - 300. /41 1 4618 1 3000 = 1618 We get 28 SF for each 100 SF of lot area beyond the 3000 SF 14-9.1~/00,~ 20â‚¬ ~ 4-0.gE -*0 Â£ 412 1618/100 x 28 = 453 SF 411 4 18 11- 2400 + 453 = 2853 SF allowed. Existing house above grade 696 SF Existing house below grade 308 SF Percent of exposed below grade wall 16.8% Below grade that will count towards FAR = 308 x .168 = 52 SF Total existing FAR 696 + 52 = 748 SF Additional FAR can then be 9.853 - 748 - ro~ SF 9-6 11 2.ore + /11 lilli,/1,1 , . 1 1, 1 1 -11....1!11'1040 - 1Â·Â·0#NMNâ€¢ippili 1 *"mimi 111 *:*410#'t '.1 1111 1 11"0 0, A /, / Mdi'%.~w,4,9924 -=Im...ri-V~==~"i~ 0~~hti~1~~~ .1 llI i*Ew. -1 I I rill, , 1 fli!~JiliIlk. 1 1 1.11 :(1~"41't Nil - I...â€žlli lj~ 4* ,A NI'IP Â· If 111:Q , 'ildill I 1,0 I k.lmisallillililillilil:j.~::110,4,11'Imillillili~'j#*r#d!.!!!111 liti 1 \2 um AV % lit / ti 11 1 \ 4 1 0 \ 76\ 1 11 11 *4'11. @ 40+ tili 0 00% Pitkin County Parcels Page 1 of 1 Vt c.1 0,TY MAP '* Pitkin County Parcels -L 4 -15 I - 4 ..'.1. Garbondale .7..5 4 U 0 . Town of Snowmass Village .,f F:Â¢ 1 4! , Â£3 --0-r' .~*.#~Ha<(arh . Layers 16@ * 9. 9 jwt, Â» TTL VisibleActive [0 + Cities & Towns :01 1 4 4. 0 0' .,0 1.' 11, - 1 1 0.4 '22 .>91 . k ...t # -1 .4. , 1 ... Â¥ 04. 10 1 ~ 81 0 Addresses r ~ 63 C Trails . . 3 h :, I .' 1*21 r V â€¢ ' Â· Â· â€¢ -â€¢1 .1 1, 4.02 ... * 9 9 p.*.b'/r '*M: 2 4 2 if 461 O Airport Runway Â· , k t,Â·. 4 < /29 - . . , 6. 80 Roads / 4 v ./4 Â·Â¢4 J. 44 , . 15 1.371# 4â€¢ Maroll Ranc h 7 63 41 Edge of Pavement :I.& . - .: w --' 1 . 63 (Ir CO Roads - Eagle and Garfield , - r# -,6, .. ,: *tis I'll. 4 'ifilt 99'Imje ?. P 4 U Â·3.'rl. Â· j 91 0 Drives ~..1 9 ~41,4. 1 -m 1 i.t t .It V r 2 Rivers and Streams -- 21.. I * E O Subdivisions .lit .' lf..F , !~ 1 4 W & p ' 81 0 Structures / 6, r 4 + r, Â¥ I. 3 Â® O Condos M,ged=twt,ArcUS, CÂ©urÂ·ir,!<C; 1992:a)10 [SR,ht 1-~ .~I~~ - E O Parcels *] C Lakes and Ponds E O 100ft Topo [2] ' Federal Lands AERIAL PHOTOS 04 Aspen Area 0015__H_8â‚¬BDU 2- LAAJEL 05 RFV North 05 RFV Mid North 05 RFV Mid South 05 RFV South 05 CRV Upper 05 CRV Lower v Zoom Out http://20: I.51.230/website/parcels/viewer.htm 17/2010 16)~h TRANSFORMER O TELEPHONE 11 4 SEWER~â€¢ANHOLE I ~ 9 543.7 ~ TV PEDESTAL \11 ESTAL / PORCHI =1 1 ~W, 0 4 i * 40. rAE * 9 f i 'Â·.4 9 1 i; 9 4 4- L 9 4.@t 3 1 . 78439 2-4 4 / y p; f: 5 /2 PROPO ED,GARAGE' ~s ~ 7843.7 17\ S ..7 4 4 9." 32. 9 I 0 f , e . , 9.J, f . 4 Â« PROPO ADDIT /1 ' I : /-4 2 04Â©K .2 1 DECK 47 r HOUSE .4. de i i' 1 4 1 <4:0 1 *S ~ 60 8 W j S \ 1--1--E 64'4'8'890' 20 CREEK 3SAOH HE CENTERUNE OF- CASTLE *9 59 3.i ZY.OON -1-4--2422- - -----------------=Ovoa 1]AÂ¥80 -- P , STUART CASTLE CREEK PROPERTY 1-'.L - .....L .... ./.."..1 . . . 11! . 4 il --, --. : & 1. C 1 ' lilli 1i Â· 1 '' g Â» , , 1 1 1, i. 11 1 Ill- 1 2 + 4, .------ . , --. ....AE I . \ . 11 ..&.=.......... i f \\ , d Ti . 1 1 i. 4 1,0 Â¢ m i , /4 1, 4- 2 ' t â€¢4 1 ''/ 2 .. ' 1 .. 0 , 4700 I ./ 4 4 i 1 , .. /5 1,11 4 1 i '1 31 11 1 11 1 1 12 11 ' 1\ A 1 & #../.I- , e.-10 1---I" T ---- -'........... .... .., 1 11 1 --=..=.=/ 0 ------1 J()HANNSSON |l ~RoirrK-,pâ€¢c W----------7 . .Ull WAY U-,08,611 â€žâ€ž011'.9 $.,/7 ------4 1 1 1 /1 NORTH ELEVATION R EAST ELEVATION A LUJU-LUJ -/ 1 1 1 1 -1 - '1 1 liallgil. EurvA]*Â»~ ,~b WEST ELEVATION rn SOUTH ELEVATION - A2.0 1'' 3~7 }100Â£11!7 AT 3 NEIGISHM 1 VA 1 1918 OaVNG-!00 N3dSV 0 11 1 0- Il Il I / Ill . ..0- JOHANNSSON ' JW WAY 41 14 1 IT .1 NE .<Â» 5. 1377 AAPE~. CO 8- 1 1 11 2Â»Th' 7 1Â® 5 1 III . - ..= 0. U,."lig Col'."glm. f'f I -=TO ==i"* = U- /'.0//arr d. 1- 1 ~ \ 1.mul...1 .01'r HZ. 1.1, -= TO 1.I N' ...OT / # 9- *7 - 1 i \ \ 1= =ma.:1=-= AS l\ 0 1.1- \ 069 - and- Asour t-1. NOM ME r.0... 1= 00 =. ./ /:f c' " ?E@. %%" =. RE E ZE:2 -â€ž r:-,34 ' Â®=V ....9- A=-r..76 I j ......&.r~ -1,4 i / 11 \ 1 = ='I... ' 0â‚¬Â»~ . 41 Â®=Z,=71=,A=,~ ir a,1 111 - i -,or =wne m, .De'l.. / i 13\\ 1 m.;fillid 111 1 111 iwililys UTEâ€¢LAN 111 r'\ SITE PLAN ~..~ AO. 1 1 1 1 COE tion Projects - Aspen PE of 1 40, Construction Projects - Aspen 18-42 21< 3 .IM-41. i.- r - /1.W............illi.4 Pr ---/ancir/ 4 , i....lrf':Wy"Pa .1 4 4 ....i 1 ,â€žLT Layers f u.~i Visible AcUve f' Â® , Encroachment 4.:4& Permanent 1/8/10 4 4 'I . - qprh 4,7- Â£ 'F ,:'faw . 3 4% I ' '4'. 10. Encroachement - 4 .. . Â® C ~ Temp 10/29/09 , 44. --I â€¢ e ' ~ v 41 4 0 All'Willed -I Right of Wa . 81 <3 Accepted 1:~24/09 Right of Way ~ c ' Working 1/8/10 2, â€¢ + 4 44 4# 0..86.dii :1 'VA . Construction I 4 M; I $ j IE C Parking 12/24/09 .- Al. I m Â·' .91 [El q CMP 1/8/10 . , . Â® c , Addrou -4* 121 1J~~ f'' 4. 1 , 4- . ,~.;at * 4,Â· m.2 . PS .t R] , Road Centerllne 9-9. 4 11 , 2 1, .AN. . . / I + Structure to, 4..p ., .... 1 j @ . . City of Aspen (Ai . E 0 Water )71*0.4 ~t., E.1. 21'.1 Â® 2004 Aerial ViocalledÂ·,Â¥VIA-CIMS CoÂ«FgÂ·1110; 19~2.0.Ill Â£.SHICK:. , Refresh Map Zoom Out http://205.170.51.230/website/construction/viewer.htm 1/17/2010 Intranetix Viewer [08097C0203Ctif] ' Page 1 of 1 Scale 01-40 I % F/(aw\ BASE- Â·El-00-0 ELEVAEn C)14 1 ~* Â· 4 walg 6 1 , Ft ' :T- 4 - ~1 1' ~~--~7829 ~ - r L '"* R t />St Â® . I -r - tr . =g. 4%7~M - i f f,/1 784*229-- - - -- N - r - ZONE AE : 3 , ,\\ 7843F ! k 4 4/3 0 3 N ' .1 2 3. fi? . -- -1 6 2 .,ALL.. 0 1 6 . 5 r. 11 0 0/1 110 -l 1 : I 1952 ~\ /2 --9~32' ZONE X-- 7857 ~ \1 7880 4 M 3 - -0,-7861 11 1 .4,4 0 - . \% A % ./ Table 3. Floodway Data FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD ELEVATION Mean Velocity Without With Width Section Area (Feet per Regulatory Floodway Floodway Increase 1 Cross Section Distance (Feet) (Square Feet) Second) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Castle Creek A 180 60 266 4.9 7,749.0 7,749.0 7,750.0 1.0 B 605 60 147 8.8 7,756.9 7,756.9 7,757.0 0.1 C 1,165 60 164 7.9 7,771.3 7,771.3 7,771.3 0.0 D 1,735 45 155 8.4 7,783.9 7,783.9 7,783.9 0.0 E 2,230 55 159 . 8.2 7,794.2 7,794.2 7,795.2 1.0 F 2,690 49 160 8.1 7,806.2 7,806.2 7,806.2 0.0 G 3,130 55 158 8.3 7,813.5 7,813.5 7,813.5 0.0 H 3,725 30 117 11.1 7,829.0 7,829.0 7,829.0 0.0 I 3,760 33 114 11.4 7,829.1 7,829.1 7,829.1 0.0 J 4,070 30 116 11.2 7,837.6 7,837.6 7,837.6 0.0 K 4,625 40 139 9.3 7,848.9 7,848.9 7,849.2 0.3 L 5,129 42 130 10.0 7,861.4 7,861.4 7,861.4 0.0 M 5,755 44 132 9.9 7,880.2 7,880.2 7,880.2 0.0 N 6,265 39 142 9.2 7,893.4 7,893.4 7,893.8 0.4 0 6,840 32 119 11.0 7,918.2 7,918.2 7,918.2 0.0 P 7,385 45 132 9.8 7,941.2 7,941.2 7,941.2 0.0 0 7,920 50 137 9.5 7,962.9 7,962.9 7,962.9 0.0 R 8,325 50 138 9.4 7,972.9 7,972.9 7,072.9 0.0 S 8,970 55 147 8.8 7,988.8 7,988.8 7,988.8 0.0 T 9,390 60 155 8.4 7,997.5 7,997.5 7,998.0 0.5 1 Feet Above Mouth http://mapl.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=9837&O_Y==4413&O_ZM==0.1547... 4/29/2010 4-1,4.1, '44,Â¥.60 "A P\ACTO LEGEND ,01 ,Or,8 19 ,, 1 2-0 1 m f 2 424, O T 34) Ar , P N f 8 ' 4.6 ]SOOH >Â¢030 @ 1- \â‚¬/ , \ /Gay OdOMdm 1 - 1 4 - 9 . 9%34 4 7 6 ' 44 , / E1~ .:' < i Jr : \m 9,Â£ 611 i 1# 2 4 DISAO DN13.SIX) . 1 $ le 3 Â£Â·rn J 1 t 1 4 9 1' 2 .Rk w. ~ 29Â¥EVO Â£ al dOEd 74 f li w 1 f ..r,94 1 0 0, 31 i f P / f *4 * ' fi 4 4 4.4 0 3 4 491 4 50 9,0 1.1.Z bn i B# 4 2 1 NOMN 1 M 1Â¥153 0 1Â¥1530]d Al ~ ~ ]NOHd]1310 - 0 0 310HNY)'1~ @3AOS 8]nao,iSNVB,l 40%0 ~ AVEÂ¥021 11Â»NO AVA- :10-1.HOQi OVOM SS]JOV t9-997 . IrÂ·00 N TIE CREEK NE OF HAR.aooki_ l.-ANE- LD-EU G.FL toE_\-400-0 7 Â¥11:?W .*1Â¥ r. .A 'a '' r te ' 0 + 13 44* 1 1 1 ' ..4 Villa of Aspen Townhouses ' '~ 1,1 1 1 A .6 ..2 4 5 1. .,4 . + I 4 VA . /1 2 1.- Â· --- - .-99..ff ' 4 + . 4 , C: Lf..i '4441.2: -- . 1,1 *4 f . 0 .J ., .1. de '14 *.;t;~Â·Â·Â·tÂ¢i~ ik ~~Â¢4.Â·~4Â·~ ;1~ 3 ; f N. TrdÂ¥+ T 92 - - 9 a ~' i ~3 7 4 .8. r . b.~J~ . 4, 4 ..p ..... I. I e r 4-,J?19Â· ' 9!Â¢j j ~Harhour ~I,ane 1?'Â£2'..t'.21 . 1,.11... ,; P , Illt . ',*. 4 ,, 121 Harbour Lane & .'. ;40* D. Â· 5 4 217 Harbour Lane ' 7'22Â· 1 44>~ SUBJEET .~6 * ~41~ <3 i . p . - Â· Ul,4 r 7 j - r.'.4 - 15 Harbour Lane ~ iÂ·Â· :. 1 '74: "e , I ' 1 ie 1 66 : 14 5 : 1. . 11 1 1 . 31Â·f'? :2'.~Â·.:344?j:) rv 4* 2/13"--gri_11Â·gi. U + 1 .4 , , '076 - Lf..~k2,Â£.L.jrrf;tâ‚¬W.~: .~4 -~if ' ,; fi,t f j. -- .. '4 - 5,- 4 .1/< .A I -- I 4 * ' '# 4.. 92 1 , % . I. ... . . . I , f 1 '. ~imt '41, 44 -6 1 /.1 Â·t..... 2#WAT-h-'/2,2 4 power Plant Road& . , - ~ 11-~ 4 site of Hydro-Electric plant 1' f,1.414 ~2 :~1':fl~ ~,~s*' ' ~, t~ Â· ,4 " 1 1 1 11/1 , v â€¢4 , ,/ â€¢6 : Â»#'. ri~â€¢I, :5~) .M-'10* "* '%*Ne:;1-'.:20/3.1 ' 21''f~t.*t . r , 1- 1Â·12.... I M .4 31Â·342Â· , I .22. 0 72 1 1 7.- *... - Ui*3% 5 i.* : r 4 ..'*11'.w,Â·9,2 t:~ ..t'.42'. i ': 4 11* - .4 1 . 1444: '* 'A *4.- , A~A# I,*-Ijili..LA--- -- Â«11, E r.=m.9.9,), 3 .. t i I . I......f 11...4/ 14 4 I L ' I. 2. ./- - -- -0 1-*-: ' 4, - I / 9.4 .L , 1 % it} 1 ~ ji /4 I I. r 17 1, 7.'Mt' 1 1~1'.~'-RB,loi~- *- / f 7 -//L,---11.-~, -Il'lk-, 1 7'L :t A it# /.///i#~~//////F *f w////B"'-- e. N... fok ID L'JI N. ...2Â¥.0.%4- - 7.......Milt .ve// 0 'iry,2 ty'mt $167Dg, ZN-Â£. 0 WN,%3*4'. .4,; 2 17 , ' 40 Â¥#.im.Â· Â·Â·'t,2, t*e'.1406":95 :Â·' :i<.'..'','~7/~~1>i ' ,~ , 4 , 31,294.4,<t,-7 4, A - . , r.'Â·MA Xtrd %49 S i. 44, ' > - Alt . e 1EE , .1 e â€¢â€¢Â¥â€¢r" 1, / .it<, , 14.170 .9 , 02 - - Â«, 4* '. 4 dijild:W.... '23 r.... . 92 . 'Utit'j ..1.. .. I 4 . 1 . 2 p , J LRYWEIWIi 71. I : r . b .. Â·i 4 7: e 9 4 <.r PARCN Q Â» 1 12' . 1 , 6 - I - - 'St 412 - 4.V V. - - r ' E 4 TÂ·*,<0. Nt.4. th r ,..$'4~ 1 - 1Â·2 Â· Â¢1Â£'d-~ 4, 3 0.4 t I 1 4. 1 14 . , .,1.4,4 ., 27 14# @ 1, .,41 4:14> 4 i Â¥ , 4.4 .. .5. it. ' * Ti{*4 + 1 4. 9 FÂ¢, 41.1, : I.* -4 41 1 4-*44 4: J 40 1 . 4 - . , 4 I * " 3 } 4 a L / U . 2 .. +340 'll.- f--L #3& / r f L <00 r 4* .*. .f 1/Lill'. * 44 * 1,4.. ' 1, -- . *.' 9* .p.. -#4---- ./ M - l. 9, . 4 9, .W)' 14 99 . . a ON., 1 . 4 0 ..r - S "W,1 .r, kÂ» 1~Â£1 - Â¥ â€¢ â€¢I Â¥ 4'I â€¢,1, . *111. N'.1, ,? ..6 1 - '' 44 . . A Â¥ $ I / 4.* 4#...& /3 I t.4 Â¢ I ,/ * .66.4 .9., dval ... 4 W. 'It ~ 1 - 1 -%. - . ' }. I -4 41 ..5 .1 2-2,1 21 - ..; -1 I. * r.. r. f 3 . f 'IC /1 + .01 # 4 .- I ./-Ill=- / I.' 1 I--&1 - tr -ir- . Arl .4.1, V- 11 39'JUÂ¢thry. ~ 1 - â‚¬ Â· 1% . W.'f/&1/Y .4/.1 1 '4Â· /1.-ii Â·Â· 5 h 9 }: + I 1 -18/11fm/////fl//i-IM _j k ./ 1 + I L-- -- $ f.':2 -12 1 *f 14*.~~cf -24 4 l4 : / /4.. 4-- K ..0 ':'. ' .'<C i, ~ ~~ 1 4 41 1 f : , Â£, I I'Â· I 4 4,1,Â¢ .11 4.7 44 + 4.*. 4 7 1 f Â¢ f'i? f ' A, v -Â·. Â· it. ~ f . Â· 9 : 4Â·ill J 7/ 1 + Â¢,46 14-4 7. Â¥:. -.lk , . ~R .r -- 9 . 11 , -I I.- ' ...+I I ... a .. -'er- -..T & R J. 4 . - - . 4 6,1 - f --11 -9 *. h 1 .41 .......*.*- 4, 7 ... L. --l/ .2 . -1172*'. '4 - f 4, .Ill . . 44 + 4/t:/-4//.- 42'1//,~I' e. 0~ . . ' . . 440 --, i *.4,Â¢ 4 ~(,4 41 :4, 9.,9. h 'Â«+ 6 .=. 4% I. - , + 61, t.4,2 . A / y I $ . ' P . _-A Â¥ I.Â¥iÂ« 24 -- 'Â· "11 1 #wr I . 11. % 4,-- . 10.4 + . /1,8/4 ./ I .....1 -4 1 -, + 6.1..2 -.79 ) 4 * - ~tUâ€¢*t~- 1. J ./ #14 1# p 1,>% Â¥ $ 1&.*1*h :. -1 71/**Ji, 73*... . . /.W,-*r- 4.- . 11. 7 7 / i /..6.. -~ --~ ./ St Â·*4 -9 -/ , ... h 0.1. -r -'- t r 6.-- .-~ *Â·cjr--1- I . -fr -r 4. .7 - A mt * . 1' - . - -1 %1,7 - 0 1/4--I .Z - ,==1â€ž- 3.. 4 - 4, gaL j ;. 313144%*4*+ i ,/g#-22...3=/.1*~ - e 4/4 . 42: N -k 44, I. IZEd*PEilims'.. 4 6 .* 7 . , 1 7 1/<~fEL*. : + . (4 . ~. 4 tr#. I 1 W 1. I '2Â£-AM//8./.9 Â·r ~ , . 9 . . - #ill.,: j. 6. ~* i - 6 - 3: kNÂ· ""'; 4 - ;: 7 1744/ 4 -- 1--Â·" F 34. 94 ---i- '' .., . '11.-1 * I , 90 1 22"y ' 'Ri .1 Lile/f* -1 J , 2- W--U -- . t 1 1 - e U *,Â¥ it , -16' ..'.-*..-'BA" .- /4/" e I. - 7 1. 1 :* >i 7 Bbi 'CRI -I.* 1/4/ 6 /4 :I:,-,Â£1 - 74 Â·2,Â· 1,UL/- 9 1 -7- J./.4*' i. 0-1 #. 0-- . - ./7 . C :1* . + 69/Al.80: Â·,6/g-Â·uv- 4.0 --i < . 1 . . -I . -4~~27 -* . . - .AM"w - < 31$.i:r I . -*'u :Aâ€¢**3 ~ 1 5 , - 4 PUD REVIEW STANDARDS Sec. 26.445.050.Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it contributes to the inventory which demonstrates mixed economic levels and single family long-term residents. It is a "local's neighborhood", an example of the "messy vitality" which Aspen desires to preserve as discussed in the Aspen Community Plans. All four houses on Harbour Lane have had the same long-term residents for the last 20 years, 25 years, 26 years, and 50 + years respectfully. We agree and hope for the 2000 vision for the Aspen area which calls for allowing "change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles community creativity". We intent to comply with zoning requirements, residential design standards, and stream margin considerations as closely as possible. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. With the proposed improvements this parcel will become more consistent with the existing land uses in the immediate surrounding area. The other three houses on Harbour Lane are 2 to 2 1/2 story houses with garages. The next smallest house has 1880 feet. The existing house of the proposed development is currently only 696 sq ft above grade. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. It will have no effect on future development. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. The GMQS are not applicable to the proposed development of this single family home. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: We are asking to vary the underlying zone district requirement. The property was annexed to City in 1989 and zoned R15A with PUD overlay. The lot was only 7000 sq ft, and the house existed as present with non-conforming setbacks. The requirements for R 15A were the same then as they are today. . Community Development staff has requested we designate the current side of the house as the front. With that consideration we are asking for the following set-backs: front 10' 9 3/8"(existing); north side: 10' ; south side: 3' ; rear: 10' from property line/center line castle creek (refer to stream margin). 1.The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following infuences on the property. The proposed setbacks are compatible with adjacent properties and with the constraints of the lot and the existing house. Requested front set back is same as existing (now that front of house was redesignated). North side setback will be 10 as per requirements of zoning district: the south side setback will be greater than existing setback of neighboring house. Rear setback is appropriate distance considering the lot line is the center-line of Castle Creek: however this setback designation shall be referred to stream margin review which will consider the existing conditions of previous development and landscaping ofthis bench as well we the man-made cribbing at rivers edge. a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed design is compatible and comparable to adjacent houses and lot usage. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Refer to stream margin review. There is no proposed development within the flood hazard zone. No other hazard zones have been identified in this neighborhood. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. The proposed development is compatible with and will not interfere with the waterway or existing riparian vegetation on the slope adjacent to the Creek. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and hisforical resources. I-he proposed set-backs have considered. traffic on the private road. access to the garage. the neighbor's access to his garage and snow removal. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. The proposed development with new requested setbacks are more compatible with the neighborhood regarding scale, massing, and inflection than the existing very small house. Proposed site coverage is appropriate for the area considering neighboring houses. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed dev4ooment including any nonresidential land uses. The number of parking spaces on the property -2-will not change We are requesting permission to build a garage on the current gravel parking lot. There is no public parking on Harbour Lane. b) The varying time periods ofuse, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City Harbour Lane is in the infill area of the city iii the lower and to the north of the West End. It is across the river from the Power Plant -public maintenance facility and proposed hydro-electric plant. Harbour Lane is a private road with parts in the city with private easements and dedicated land to the state of Colorado under the Castle Creek Bridge. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of ~ PlID may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of Found instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful dipturbance to critical natural features of the site. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. The project development is not requesting increased density; it is single family residence. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. We shall preserve the natural features. Nothing will be disturbed within the 100 yr flood plain. There are no open spaces or common areas on the property. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Our intent is to comply to the extent possible within the constrictions o f the lot size and considering City of Aspen residential design standards. Harbour Lane is a private road. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. There is emergency and service vehicle access via Harbour Lane. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. There are no pedestrian walkways on Power Plant Road or any branches of Power Plant road. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Site drainage will be accommodated in a reasonable manner and will not negatively impact the surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. This is residential land use. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior snaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Much of the landscaping and natural vegetation on the lot was destroyed and replaced with gravel and railroad ties long ago. In the redevelopment of this property we are attempting to restore some of the excavation to original grade and after construction of the garage over the existing gravel parking lot. we desire to restore the surrounding area to natural vegetation. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Architectural design is compatible with surrounding structures and the historical Power Plant across the river. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. The proposed residential addition is two story and extends halfway across the stairs and railroad cribbing toward the north in order to access solar light which has previously been blocked by the house at 121 Harbour Lane. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Architectural design has considered snow removal access and shedding of snow. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aes}hetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. We will follow alllighting standards as defined in the residential design standards for the city as explained in section 26.575.150. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of *e various land uses and property users ofthe PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. There will be no common park. open space or recreation area in this single family development. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public faciAities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Fhe proposed development has City of Aspen water and electric power from Holy Cross. The property was part of the Cemetary Lane undergrounding project. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, dqÂ©s not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure Bppropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. There will be no changes in the access to Power Plant Road from Harbour Lane. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, Â§24) All phases are included in this plan. Introduction: Residential design standards responses: The applicant is requesting certain variances of the residential design standards in order to develop a reasonable design for a structure to increase the square footage of a dwelling which is currently more than a 1000 sq ft smaller than any other structure in the neighborhood. Our proposed development has considered the relationship to adjacent structures, and the immediate neighborhood setting, as well as the unusual site-specific constraints which were -inherited" when the City annexed the property in 1989. Although the property is part ofthe Aspen infill area. it is North and below the West End. The road is not a proper paved City street and there are no alleyways. The visible neighborhood consists of three other houses on Harbour Lane and the Power Plant (City Maintenance shops) across the river. (See photo section) 26.410.040. Residential design standards. A. Site design. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "faQade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility ofthe house and front yard from the street. 1 1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal r--,r r ~ structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, 07 41 40 -' both street-facing facades must be parallel to the 1 intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front ves - I facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of Yes. the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined 1 in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this 1 requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. Planning and Zoning staff has requested that we change the '-front of house" designation to the East wall of the house which is still not parallel to Harbour Lane The proposed development is aligned with the house and nearly parallel to the side property line. It should be noted that this facade ofthe existing building as well as the proposed addition are not exactly parallel to the traveled way and we request a variance for that. 2.Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent . (60%) of the front faâ„¢le shall be within five (5) feet I- ~ EFEITE of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner , sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage Yes. NO. Yes. with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. Build to lines --response Applicant requests variance for the build-to-line standard due to the constraints of the 7000 ft lot and the angle ofthe existing house which was not parallel to Harbour Lane. The current and proposed facade may be close to but not exactly meet the 60% requirement. The intent is to meet this requirement as closely as possible. 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man- made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. L Yes Ail No It Flillit< -1"3.jiilliilil AJA We agree and comply. B. Building form. The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys and by preserving solar access. 1. Secondary mass. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. -I This standard shall only apply to parcels -L-i within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. /\ A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an element not more than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length shall be exempt from Subsection 26.575.020.A.8. The proposed development complies with secondary mass requirements. C. Parking, garages and carports. The intent of the following parking, garages and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages and carports on alleys or City ofAspen Part 400, Page 11 to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a. Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road. 1 L/--- No- i Yes. R_]Â· b. If the garage doors are visible from a street or , Yes. Ar~M Â· 0 alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or ~ tÂ¥ Ill_ double-stall doors designed to appear like ~ "711 single-stall doors. fa-El c. If the garage doors are not visible from a street _L- - . . I Street or alley, the garage doors may be either single- stall or normal double-stall garage doors. We shall comply. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be apply: a. On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living 4 22 7 area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. 12- 0. b. The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet - ~ - ~ further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. c. On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) .,r-. 9--1~ ate 1 - /8 1 square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if 1 Li_ the garage doors or carport entry are ,/ . 7 \ perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). Â£ v la i v .'=. This section does not apply because Harbour Lane is a private road. (See easement in ownership documents section of application) ---- - .Lt l. ritv nf A enen T an,1 I Tep CAA. d. When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from -1 =lijittirmail 1 /-50~'~~1 natural grade. / 2' e. The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) , feet. E. A- 24. --Ft These requirements do not apply. f. If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. The proposed design complies with this requirement D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal ..1: 1 - 1 ; 1 t: window. Multi-family units shall have at least one '. 11 71 . 1 (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units -,ill:,i and front units must have a street facing a principal c._, * i i ' 0 i 1 window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should Â· i i I , i face whichever street has a greater block length. This ,r standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: -14 - IZZEr i F%-7 N/-#1 - 1[24 a. The entry door shall face the street and be no \ 4[35 more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most ~Fij~ RE~FEâ‚¬- wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be ~*,=VIJ~~~ taller than eight (8) feet. â‚¬ / ~41#26, We request a variance since the existing house orientation does not allow the front door to directly face the street. rN+,; Af A -an T nnA T Toa rarlo mll:jf.litilio,111111111â€¢116 b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. We request a variance for these dimentional requirements. The porch is not directly facing the street and may not be able to meet the exact dimensi~ without taking out of the proposed rootnrint and staying within the proposed setbacks. We are definitelv doing a "front" door on this side of the house as Community Development Dept has stated we should consider this side the front of the house. * Revi**ligil%ll{) c. A street-facing principal window requires 1 4 that a significant window or group of ~ nerv windows face street. One Story Window Element 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front fa,ade shall not be precluded. The existing building will be the first story element * revised 6/14/10 3. Windows. La a. Street-facing windows shall not span through / "No window zone" the area where a second floor level would '~- ~,f- typically exist, which is between nine (9) and 12' twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A ,)' ,|~ Â£rl:==12:2~ 1 transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. b. No more than one (1) nonorthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of rl T--11 the building. A single nonorthogonal Orthogonal 1 - -- window in a gable end may be divided ~04 k * 1 with mullions and still be considered one (1) nonorthogonal window. The Non-Orthogonal 00(B requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. -y We shall comply. City of Aspen Land Use Code 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. - i 6 - LJ We shall comply T '*-r No E. Context. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures. 1. Materials. The following standards must be met: a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. 4 tt 44.1/ U 2.0- ST =220002 Yes No b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used .1.21 below a heavy material, such as stone. 2*44=3 --t -1- c. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as Yes No exterior materials. We shall comply. 2. 1ntlection. the following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: a. If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along 11011;1 UT their common lot line. If there are one-story bmrn b =m buildings on both sides of the subject site, the 111] rli FAN ~9kfi 13 applicant may choose the side toward which to inflect. If... Then A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one-stocy building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one-story element which is also at ~~ ~ ---- least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along 2l2 >12' 4 the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. (Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§Â§6-8; Ord. No. 20-2005, Â§1) The proposed residential addition conforms with principles of inflection. City ofAspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 16 C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Developm.ent Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: The proposed development is not on the Roaring Fork river; however, we have been asked to address the pertinent issues for this tributary, Castle Creek. Since there is no stream margin map for Castle Creek according to the City Engineer's office, we shall refer to other data provided by licensed surveyors, FEMA, and topographic maps as well as definitions as stated by the City of Aspen, our consulting licensed architect and licensed surveyor regarding top of bank, top of slope, nood hazard areas, base flood elevations, high water mark, and 100 yr nood plain. 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 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 2. The proposed development will not affect the Special Flood Hazard area as defined by the City of Aspen and their reference to the FEMA definition; that is, there will be no development within, nothing disturbed within, and nothing drained into the area within 100 yr flood plain. Half of the river side boundary adjacent to the proposed addition is vertical cribbing which was built long before the parcel was annexed to the City in 1989. The other half is a near vertical side of the river channel. The flat bench above was converted to a gravel parking lot with plastic vegetation barriers. The parking lot is approximately 12 ft in elevation above the adjacent base flood elevation. The proposed garage is approximately 17-19 ft horizontally from the high water line. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation /Open Space /Trails 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 We shall continue to grant a "Fisherman's Easement" within the high water boundary. 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 designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F. 1; and We shall not remove or damage any riparian vegetation or make any slope grade changes within the 100 yr nood plain. We shall not make any grade changes other than to restore to historic grade the excavation for the stairs and cribbing leading to the courtyard on the south side 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or 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 The proposed development will not pollute or interfere with this tributary of the Roaring Fork river. Increased drainage if applicable will be accommodated within the parcel. 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 We shall not alter or relocate any portion of the water course. 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 This does not apply. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100- year flood plain; and This proposed development will not be working within the 100 yr ilood plain. 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. It has been stated by our consultants that the proposed development in situated on a bench or terrace on the slope of Castle Creek and that, in fact, the top of slope is some 200 ft higher in elevation at the Villa of Aspen Townhouses. We seek to follow the intent of the standards and have therefore provided certain measurements based on the 100 yr flood plain line (base flood elevation) from Fema's FIRM map and the high water line or high water mark as recorded by the licensed surveyor. The proposed residential addition is NOT within the flood hazard area as defined by FEMA and the City Engineering Dept. The base flood elevation at Marker J according to FIRM map is 7837. (see map and survey section) The topo lines on the cribbing and landscaping recorded by the surveyor in that area and in the proposed development area range from 7842 to 7846 in elevation. The lowest floor of the existing structure (courtyard) is 7838.7. None of the existing or proposed structures are within the 100 yr flood plain or within the flood hazard area. We have based our proposal and requested design on our desire NOT to endanger or destroy any vegetation or riparian environments. The proposed residential addition is adjacent to a manmade 6 ft high railroad tie cribbing rather than a natural dirt bank. We intent for the building envelope of the residential addition to exist only where there is existing courtyard and gravel and railroad ties cribbing. We are not asking for special privilege but only to be given the same consideration as the neighborhood properties (specifically the adjacent neighbor) with respect to setbacks and development in close proximity to the Creek. If the City has allowed three other houses to be developed on this bench and disallows any development of this fourth parcel, we would need to address a "takings" issue. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and 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) dggree 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 Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and 45 ...... 4 pr,40...1- ' , 1..'t / / ... .1 , / I. 6 RE_'12-lt3:amÂ·,U#i 21 .'i-.... -4 4// 4 t.th./ 1 F I gurâ€¢ Â·Â·A We hope that this standard will be interpreted as to our intent and considering our specific site constraints and not so literally as to be restrictive or discriminatory. It is our intent that our proposed development be least restrictive to neighbors' views in this environmentally sensitive area. There is no structure or buildable lot up slope from the proposed 2 story residential addition. The side of our two story addition will face the neighbors garage wall. There will be no riparian or natural vegetation disrupted or destroyed on the river side of the proposed addition; it is currently gravel and railroad ties. (see photo section) We do desire the height and extension toward North in order to be able to access solar light which the neighbor's house is currently blocking. We have considered top of bank to be some 200ft up slope at the Aspen Villas. If one were to consider the 45 degree angle from top of river channel, then the neighbor's house built in 1984 has their entire structure built into this space. We believe our proposed development is the best solution considering the existing lot, the neighborhood characteristics and the environmental preservation of the Castle Creek waterway. As an aside note: the area directly across the Creek is the Power Plant and the location of the proposed hydro-electric plant which I understand has requested exemption from the requirements of stream margin review as a public utility is allowed to do. Therefore, we will not be encroaching upon or interfering with any views of any residential neighborhood across the Creek. - 33111 '%*4= 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and We shall not have any lights directed toward the river or up the slope. We shall also comply with the miscellaneous supplemental regulations; outdoor lighting as stated in Section 26.575.150. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. The City has hired a firm to identify the existing wetlands and riparian areas of this section of Castle Creek in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed hydro-electric plant and the proposed significant reduction of stream flow to a minimum of 12 cfs. between the out-take up river from this project and input down river from this project. Presently the wetland areas are marked with pink plastic strips on the opposite side of the Creek. I am told the rest of the channel areas are riparian. lt is unclear at this time how these wetlands and riparian zones will ultimately be changed or removed if the hydro-electric plant is put into service as proposed. City of Aspen Land Use LAWOFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY, P.C. PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533E HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 .EONARD M OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE 970) 920-1121 T ED D GARDENSWARTZ DAVID B KELLy MARIA MORROW L- 1 '2 %62. . " Â·Â·Â· - KELLY smo@JokgÂ·aw conr 5' --Â·=: .Â·: CONNOR ANNE MARE MCPHEE .INDY C FOSTVED SARAH M DATES May 14,2010 VIA HAND-DELIVERY City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen. CO 81611 Re: 15 Hai*bour Lane -- Ownership To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to confirm that Dona Stuart, who is submitting a Land Use Application for 15 Harbour Lane (the "Property"), is the same Dona Stuart who purchased the Property in 1991 and is listed on the Title Commitment Policy included in her application. Should you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, OATES, KNEZEVICH, GAADENSWARTZ & KE11Â¥, P.C. Sarah M. Oates LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONALCORPORATION THIRD FLOOR ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M GATES ASPEN. COLORADO 816lt AREA CODE 303 ROBERTW HUGHES TELEPHONE 920-1700 RICHAROA KNEZEVICH October 11, 1991 TELECOPIER 920-1121 TED D GARDENSWARTZ OF COUNSEL. JOHN THOMAS KELLY Dona Stuart P.O. Box 11733 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Closing Documents on Harbour Lane Property Dear Dona: In my previous correspondence to you I had assumed that you had received copies of all of the closing documentation in connection with the Harbour Lane property however, I just received a a note from Pitkin County Title Inc. forwarding me copies verifying that they did not deliver you copies at the closing. As a consequence, I am enclosing herewith a package of the documentation enumerated for your permanent record: The documents are: 1. Certificate o f taxes paid reflecting that all taxes on the property up to and including the 1990 taxes have been paid in full. 2. A copy of the Warranty De#d the original recorded copy of which I previously delivered to you. 1,1 1((Â·t uoil-4 112*cts, 3. A signed copy o f your HUD Statement. 4. A signed copy of your Agreement with CTX Mortgage to correct any errors found to exist in the loan documents. 5. A copy of Survey Indemnity signed by you. 6. A copy o f Non- foreign Status Affidavit signed by Nick Coates. 7. A copy of Mechanic's Lien Affidavit signed by Nick Coates. 8. A copy of Real Estate Transfer Declaration now required pursuant to 39-14-102 (4), C.R.S. 9. A copy of the Deed of Trust securing your $80,000 note to CTX Mortgage Co. OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. October 11, 1991 Page #2 10. A copy of your $80,000 Promissory Note to CTX Mortgage Co. 11. A copy of Borrower's Affidavit and Agreement regarding Equity in the Property and Secondary Financing. 12. A copy of your Request for Taxpayer's Identification Number and Certification. 13. First Payment Letter signed by you in connection with the CTX Mortgage Co. 14. A copy o f Truth in Lending Statement signed by you. 15. A copy of the Release Agreement as to the height restriction the original recorded copy of which was previously sent to you. 16. A copy of your Financial Statement delivered in connection with your application CTX Mortgage Co. 17. A letter of authorization to Pitkin County Title signed by you and Nick Coates authorizing closing the transaction. 18. A copy of the signed Buyer's Closing Statement. 19. A copy o f the Real Estate Tax Agreement signed by you and Nick Coates. With this transmittal, your file should now be complete in connection with this transaction. Very Truly Yours, Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C. I+2//l/K/(-2 Leonard M. Oates LMO/pg Enclosures . O 6% 25 WARRANTY DE ED 04 THIS DEED, made this 31 day of JULY 1991, between NELIGH C. COATES, 0 0 OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO GRANTOR, AND DONA STUART, , , whose legal address is : 0015 HARBOUR LANE, ASPEN, CO, 81611 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO WITNESSETH, That- for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowl edged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and 1.ying and being in the City of ASPEN, County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF THE NE.1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE ~-D OF COLORADO. MORE FULLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT B ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 1 G- TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, - with t:he appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing delivery of the presents, he is ' well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inher.itance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full. power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesa.id, and that, the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, l lens, taxes, asses sments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth oIl Exhi.bit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND t:he above bargained premises in the qiii.et and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. 235%'*Â«37 -.LIGH C. COATES CT I TE Ar ) .) Ill -1 I, V i COUNTY OF SS. ...r- 4 ,.Â·'The noregoing instrument was acknj,(5Y~~~j~ b~ore 7Â¢F~*is 54 day of 41Â»40~ 9 * f,.~*t*~.* ~I XET,IGH C. coATERS, ~ ~~;1 L /A 1Fbl/- = . i -*w?firkss.0 my; hand and official s/al FM>':5--271~,-<~3_____~__- --__ i Â·2Â·Â·,fUr@L\~%'ilfion expires: Notary Public . .f o, r. 0. Â·' 601 E. Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 My Commission explres 11/01/93 #335081 08/01/91 09:45 Rec $15.00 BK 652 PG 919 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $26.25 129 23 4 [cli Mâ‚¬ 4 2-2323 1-41 112 -V I Ual'15 KEP. #335081 08/01/91 09:45 Rec $15.00 ~K 652 PG 921 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $26.25 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ A Parcel of Land being part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site, U.S.M.S. No. 3268; thence South 15o30' West 84.48 feet along the Westerly line of said North Texas Mill Site; thence North 59*54' West 77 feet more or less to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the intersection with a line bearing North 49Â°30' West from corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site; thence South 49030' East to the point of beginning. 0 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 3 ~ CommonwealthÂ® Land Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT-5259 8/1/91 @ 9:46 A.M. $ 262,500.00 128-034868 1. NAME OF INSURED: DONA STUART 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: DONA STUART 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. O% AnKM. 6I-JAil *9-93 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. couhtersigned ful:horized Agent ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1766 THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. Ilil 11 1\11\1~%111\uni ~11 10/30/2001 01:21P 460215 Page: 1 of 1 ILLIA DAVIS F I r K I N COL .-4 CO R 5.00 D 0.00 WaMu # 0004069446 P/O DATE: 10/17/2001 NAME: DONA STUART REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST AND RELEASE (WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF DEBT PURSUANT TO 38-39-102{3.5), C.R.S.) 10/19/2001 Date DONA STUART Original Grantor (Borrower) Original Beneficiary UNIVERSAL LENDING CORPORATION (Lender) 10/16/1992 Date of Deed of Trust Recording Date of 10/28/1992 Deed of Trust PITKIN County of Recording 350144 of Recorded Deed of Trust Reception No. and/or Film No. 692 724 of Recorded Deed of Trust Book No Page No. TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN County (The Public Trustee to which the above Deed of Trust conveys the said property.) PLEASE EXECUTE AND RECORD A RELEASE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED DEED OF TRUST pursuant to 38-39-102(3.5), C.R.S. In support of this Request for Release of Deed of Trust, the undersigned, as the owner of the evidence of debt secured by the above-described Deed of Trust or the agent or attorney thereof, in lieu of the production or exhibition of the original evidence of debt with this Request for Release, certifies as follows: 1. The purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully satisfied. 2. The original evidence of debt is not being exhibited or produced herewith. 3. The owner of the evidence of debt agrees that it is obligated to indemnify the Public Trustee pursuant to 38-39-102 (3.5)(a), C.R.S. for any and all damages, costs, liabilities, and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of the action of the Public Trustee taken in accordance with this Request for Release. 4. It is one of the entities described in 38-39-102(3.5)(b), C.R.S. WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS, INC. SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY MERGER TO FLEET MORTGAGE CORP. 11200 W PARKLAND AVE MILWAUKEE, WI 53224- Current Owner and Holder 01 the Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (Lender) Address of Current Owner and Holder ANDREA YOUNG-JONES ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT Name and Title-ofÂ·*6@nfbl~ Officer/of Current Ow r and Holder State of WISCONSIN County of MILWAUKEE E---'~~'~~-- C Ill Signature MARY R WICHNER The foregoing request for release was acknowledged before me on 10/19/2001 (date) by* Notary Public Witness~my hand and official seal State of Wisconsin ANDREA YOUNG-JONES ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT 08/14/2005 Date Commission Expires MARY F WIC ER Notary Public -Omi a i/4 aur,~ RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST WHEREAS, the above referenced Grantor(s), by Deed of Trust, conveyed certain real property described in said Deed of Trust to the Public Trustee of the County referenced above, in the State of Colorado, to be held in trust to secure the payment of the indebtedness referred to therein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully satisfied according to the written request of the current owner and holder of the said indebtedness; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the payment of the statutory sum, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, 1, as the Public Trustee in the County first referenced above, do hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto the .. present owner or owners of said real property, and unto the heirs, BuccesporsÂ·Brld assigns of such owner or owners forever, all ,,â€ž the right, title and interest which 1 havo under and by virtue Â·Of th* atoresaid-Deed N Trust in the real estate described thereiQ,416*.~'~rÂ· have and to hold the same, with all the privileges and apburtenances theretin.te,+dlhnging forever; and further I do herew and absolutely release, cancel and forever discharge said,Â·Deed.of .Trust. 9 '.'., G>" 64,u,1 1-13** 9-/9 3.: County of State of Colorado * . r. , ..... 3 t1- .' . 44*4* Pitkin Vi The foregoing inÂ¥rument was acknowledged before me i)it /*,~D|0 I by Carol L. Foote as the i Deputy Trustee fdr Pitkin County. Colorado. -as theff off c ouftlf S. ,/ 4 ..1 1-, P? It Depuly,Pebbâ‚¬ 990*94 . My commission expires December 2 2003. rustee of u.132slESS>. '4, 0/t . I:.Â· Colorâ€¢Â£1Â£4 4-'. 1/ /N '... Witness my hand and offic'161*se61' 4 Date Commission Expl*Ommission Exfres 12/02,2*L/~_ .,l * If applicable. insert title of agent or officer and name of current owner and holder. -17,140(,1( 13+ 01.; '<Sz Notary Public AFTER RECORDING, FORWARD TO: THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: DONA STUART CELIA GARRY P 0 BOX 11733 WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS, INC. 11200 W PARKLAND AVE DEPT 2602 ASPEN, C081612 MILWAUKEE, WI 53224 M ERS MIN: MERS Phone: CO_REL2 (040) , t Â·Â·4913 ~~.Â· iÂ·; .7 RE , EALE_bl.E.Lb-0 - RAFBOULL L./11~bE . I .0.-1 - I & 1 -' -91 204 i,U 256 1 2 v........4 . 9._-Aw LOCL-. 6 n .41. ..1141.Aw...1.u. ./..1-L. Coble.EÂ¥?fL . RECORDER- . 6-B. 116376 h .. Dtrt,r'. .. 1 1 7 /3 Ellig *arrh, M.dâ€¢ 9 d., d September k the re. 4 our Lord , 1 .1 00. tho-and Â»in. b.4.4 and sixty-three bâ€¢tr- BETTY JANE HARBOUR 0( 16â€¢ Co,ant, U Pitkin aul Stalâ€¢ 04 Color,do, 4 1 h. Ant p,rl, Lnd JACOBUS ADRIAAN DePACTER and JOHANNA SUZANNA MARGARETTA DePAGTER Â· Wita,-th, T'bat thâ€¢ mid pert y of the Ant p.rt, for and in Coosidefation of the lum of 04 tbe County of Pitkin Lnd State of Colorâ€¢do, of the â€¢ra,nd part, A TEN DOLLARS And Orher Valuable Consideration -- - - ---- - - Bel.LAÂ¥18,- . 1 toi he Mid pâ€¢rÂ·V of the int p.rt in kand pid by U. .id putleâ€¢ of the weond put, the receipt a her,of u hereby eoh- frâ€¢-3 and #knowled,ed, ha 8 rranied, bar,mined, mid and conveyed, and by the*e prmentâ€¢ do esrrant, bargain, ,Â·11, r,mvey And ronflrm. unto thi mid partieâ€¢ W tbe ,Â®rood p~rt, Do< in tening in coenmon but in,oint teninry, the Burv;vor of Â· lirm, their m.p,ignâ€¢ ind the heirâ€¢ and -ign: of ouch mrvivor forever, at] the following deâ€¢eribed lot or parcel of land â€¢imale, 1)ing and bring in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to-â€¢it: A tracv rf' land lying in the NE]: of the SW]c of Sec"ten 1.2, Township 10 Sou-h. Range 83 West of the 6th P M Smid '-race Is more fully described as rollows: Br,ginning at a point which is corner 4 of the Nirth Texas Millsite US MS 3288; thence N 15'30' F 316 69 feet; rhence 1 * N 74Â°30' W 130 feet. more or less, to the centerline of Cas'-1.e Creek: thence Southeasterlv 360 feet, more or less. al.one th, cpnfer line of Ca 5- le Creek -n f-he point of beginning Confaining 0.75 or an acre, more r,r less â€ž Topether with an easement for a 13 Foot rradway as now crn- 9"ruc'-ed and In use running Southerly and parallel to the centerline or Casple Creek,more or less. From the County Road P.o the above descrfbed 4 lend, said r i n h- WA v - e be used i ointlv bv M he first partv and '- he Socrnl PArvies i This convevpnce is sublect to easements ror vtÂ·flitips 25 nr,w c(,nftructed, srec{ ficallv, but not limited to, easements for electric lin=s. ' Moler>honr' lines, end natural Ras pipelines Tenther with al! ed â€¢ingular the ber,diument.0 and appurteninceâ€¢ thereunto belonging, or in any,-im appertaining, â€¢nd the rnÂ·enion ind river:30% remAir,der and remlinden, rtou, i-ueâ€¢ Lod proSU tbereof, and all tbe Mtate, right, tide, int,-t, claim Li,d derrund vkat.â€¢Dive of tb. -id pet v of the Ant pet, either in law or equity, of, in und to the above 1,cniz-d primi,i, with tbe ber,dil.,ment, And appanthine., To Kan and te Rold the -td pr,rnbeâ€¢ abovâ€¢ bar:aiDed wd de,cribed, with the appurunancel, unts tbe â€¢â€¢!d Frtle, of tbâ€¢ Decond p,rt, the mirvivor of tbem, tbeit azign, wd the beD, aod ulies o Buch :urrtvor forever. And the uid put v of the Ant part, for tier .1 F. her beirm, exerutorâ€¢, and administrlton, do e s covenant, grant, b*rfin and 4ree to and with the *id pufies of the *cord part. the lurvivor of them, their weigna and the hein and usign, : of iuch â€¢urvivor, that at the time of the en.â€¢ling and deLÂ¥ery of thei preâ€¢entâ€¢, s he i s Â¥ell Mited of the premivi , above conve)Â·ed. u of rod, *urÂ¥. perfeft. ibeolut.e lr,d indefeadble râ€¢t,t, of inheritance, in law, in fee gimple. and hi pod right, full poâ€¢Â·er and 18â€¢ful aut!,or.11Â· to rrint.bartlin. Bell and ronvey the same in m,Lner and form aforejaid, trld that , the -me irÂ·r free ind clear from *11 (ormer ind otber grlnta, bargaina, blel, Dens, taxes, 13521.,ments and incumbrances of whatever kind or nature mever, excen" vexes ror 1063 pavable <n 1955 .i;,1 11* atwi.Â·r t,Ar,Rined pr,mipe, in the qu- and pearrabie poises,ion of the ,aid parties of the Decond pirt, th,-BurÂ¥UÂ·or of r thrm, thrir xmign, 11,d ihe hein atrj 1.-i,r# of Duch /unÂ·,vor, Vainst all and every per,on or perâ€¢ons laâ€¢-1Ntly flairni~ or , iâ€ž rIJm the whole or w)Â· part thereof, ,he said put V of the Ant part shall hod â€¢ill WARR~9'~'~:AND FOREVER ' t)+.FEND. % In Witne- Whir,Â« The ad r.rt v of tbe Ant pwi h. S hereunto Bet 1:~e.'Â£~ h,nd ind i â€¢eal the day And >re fint aboiÂ·f â€¢Â·nt ten. 7. . ' Sitned, 9,1ed Ed Detivered tu lb* Prtsfore d , (SEAL) ..(SEAL) .. . . ........(SEAL) :TAT; Or COLOUDO, 4 County 04 Pi -kin f "' The foreging irutiument wu 3-kne-tedÂ«â€¢J mk before me thu a Sl .day of ... e p tem.her , 19...63. . 4... BETTY J,NE HA.9Ber?.. f. C 7.4 0 i A . : - - Wttz-, my band wd ome,al 42â€¢1. 1,41 . r . -1 ' 6 Sour, Pu64 ....... iÂ· #335845 08/26/91 14:45 Rec $15.00 BK 654 PG 818 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $â€ž00 OUT CLAIM DEED NELIGH C. COATES, for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid (and other good and valuable consideration), hereby sell and quit claim to DONA STUART, whose address is 0015 Harbour Lane, Aspen, CO 81611, the following real property in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado: A parcel of land being part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, and within the North Texas Mill Site USMS 3288, Said parcelis more fully described as follows: Commencing at Corner no. 3 of said North Texas Mill Site, and he northeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 599 at Page 868; thence South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 25.50 feet along the westerly boundary of the North Texas Mill Site and the easterly boundary of said Special Warranty Deed to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing southwesterly along said boundaries, South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 58.98 feet to the southeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed described property; thence southeasterly departing said North Texas Mill Site, and Special Warranty Deed boundaries South 59 degrees 54 minutes East, a distance of 17.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 65.61 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 499.41 square feet more or less. Signed this 13 day of August, 1991. 252%207 ,-NETigh C. Coate,/ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) (Signature Acknowledgement Continues On Next Page) #335845 08/26/91 14:45 Rec $15.0. K 654 PG 819 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 -4 Pef /3 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ok') day of i El. 613#09, 1991 by Neligh C. Coates. O Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: /~/ /3747/ (SEAL) Notary Public f/4$,ARY .1 : UOR,F, 2 1 1. .. p U Â©, f '44 0; C' ' #333845 08/26/91 14:45 Rec $1J.00 BK 654 PG 820 , Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Louis H. Buettner Surveying 0040 West Sopris Creek Road Basalt, Colorado 81621 (303-927-3611) Exhibit A A parcel of land being part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, and within the North Texas Mill Site USMS 3288, Said parcel is more fully described as follows: Commencing at Corner no. 3 of said North Texas Mill Site, and the northeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 599 at page 868; thence South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 25.50 feet along the westerly boundary of the North Texas Mill Site and the easterly boundary of said Special Warranty Deed to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing southwesterly along said boundaries, South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 58.98 feet to the southeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed described property; thence southeasterly departing said North Texas Mill Site, and Special Warranty Deed boundaries South 59 degrees 54 minutes East, a distance of 17.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 65.61 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 499.41 square feet more of less. 1. 1 L_., #359781 08/09/93 13:17 Rec $20.00 BK .40 PG 566 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Crity Clerk, Doc $.00 ORDINANCE NO. 32- (Series of 1989) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AS REFERRED TO AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN CERTIFIED BY THE CITY CLERK ON NOVEMBER 29, 1988, COMMONLY KNOWN AS "0015 HARBOUR IANE" WHEREAS, a petition for annexation of territory to the City of Aspen was certified by the City Clerk on or about November 29, 1988, whereby that territory referred to and described in said petition commonly known as the "0015 Harbour Lane" was petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 1988, the City Council of the City of Aspen by Resolution No. 46 (Series of 1988), which resolution is incorporated by reference herein, found and determined that the aforesaid petition was in substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 1 of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., and established January 23, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, as a date, time and place to hold a hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, said hearing was duly noticed as required by Section 31-12-108, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the hearing was conducted on the aforesaid annexa- tion petition on January 23, 1989, and upon the completion of the hearing, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1989), set forth its findings of fact and its conclusions based thereon and found that the requirements of the applicable parts of 0 - ~2. %42.-Ef.-3-13\~3- ~-/N )(4 11; \ k -3-0 130 0 1-24Â» /h ' i- 1 4 1 /09 m*x 61 1 ~Â·a:632 I j f j -1 'f. 1. , 4 1 1 3.>f G., 4-1 1 -% (. y t \ / r\ ORDINANCE NO.1.Â· , (Series of 1989) C / A AN ORDINANCE ZONING 0015 HARBOR LANE, A 6,000 SQ~RE FOOT PARCEL ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15A (PUD) LOCATED ALONG CASTLE CREEK IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE CITY OF WHEREAS, on August 28, 1989, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 52, (Series of 1989) annexing a parcel of land known as 0015 Harbor Lane; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 1989 and February 21, 1989, to consider alternative zoning designations for this parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the p proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts ~ and land use in the vicinity of the parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That it does hereby zone to R-15A (PUD) the 0015 Harbor Lane parcel. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the zoning described in Section 1 and the Planting D -ector be authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 1 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of is ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin 3:unty 1 - /O- VU VU",44 + .. . ' :'4. 41. ,1 ;11 f Â£51 Clerk and Recorder. 2=Ll=n_A If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Sectign__& Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6 4-K A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of 42-49 , 1989, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~59-Kj day of Â£~.4*V , 1989. /. ./9.3/0,3/ 'll â€ž-, 942 William L. Stirling, Mayoj 9.rHEFT; I 4~IL j 2 Â¢4-i Rath*Â£ 5/7 )[och; City clerk-- v' F . : - IW- 1V Parcel Detail Page 1 of 3 Pitkin County Assessor/Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor/Treasurer Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Building Characteristics I Tax Information Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number 2009 Mill Levy 001 R004490 273512300017 25.253 Owner Name and Address STUART DONA PO BOX 11733 ASPEN, CO 81612 Legal Description Section: 12 Township: 10 Range: 85 PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF NE4SW4 OF SEC 12-10-85 DESC BY M/B BK 599 PG 866 Location Physical Address: 15 HARBOUR LN ASPEN Subdivision: Land Acres: 0 Land Sq Ft: 7,000 Section Township Range 12 10 85 2010 Property Tax Valuation Information Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 1,836,000 146,150 http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber==R004490 5/12/2010 ArcIMS Viewer Page 1 ofl /06.ic- bbeyr-le E #\All_-106 U ST MAP 1 - 0 , 1 Uyi.. , Odelia Â·9:,49, Â·-I ~1 21 ---Â»=LÂ»--j f Carbondale 8 Town of S nowmass Village . m rh r H,2449 Ex -iÂ¥,11,2,1 ! 1 -1,4 2915 711.S R87WN- !l I c r 1 1 .1- 0 ,. 2997 Tl 2 S RE' 591 E- 1--B ~ , A e.19;u# 4 7 73 0 2 -'.3. :- 1.9 4; . 1 0.\\ ! 1 6.6//tr-i Md:~on Lj.. /~Â·.-*t.2, ' COTi<4 \\ 1>57,3.0- -494"1 Hislonc C,311:3*,Â£ 1 ~-U 1 . 'A-2// 1*-2[~4(GL,t., f / .. 1 1 =,-11 - . Vi . ff \,Â· t., -/7 JÂ·Â»- 1 ~ 3 40 Â· f MarcM franc n â€¢ . 0, \1 - f i V \UA 1 - .2 - I , il . a 7 1 ; t . Â£ 1.,r 41'h 7/.,Lff':,un"F Car,j~' 44-ol' 0 ' 'â€¢ ~ ~ X ..N ..1 i:i c Â·<tuâ€¢j .0 --i AÂ·< 1%f b Â·_cer.-- aÂ·r i libl~' 2310 EGR,1-i. 4 1 - i h.- , a . . - 1 RED HOLLE ELOCLAUE http://205.170.51.230/website/parcels/MapFrame.hun 5/6/2010 Â¥r LOLDEE_ Lousy Ekbb W EST 641 *St,bak,ES ( 'r\ \ S t-0 \21 c (10-17-Pe E_63 e G Y Op Aseabl Pâ‚¬UE]-2.. G\Aeld Lay C H e.-\CIEVi *52 hk/1,4 2-kil-2.Y El MAKLE iDE- Pr 1 30 S, 6 AL-alhbA 9 Z.Z. Lo, MAL_ LA M top E-Ab . CO 8 1 dc> 1 1 Abeau ,(20 8 [Coll RmÂ·, POUOE.2- PLANT k~ 2.-14_ Grz-e-6 ora_>/ ey\(asroeREE- -5. BehabON PE-1-26 62-EGOEF 9 2-0 'LO Â· G ALLAM PO ao>< 10(DES -ASP'aa : 0 0 81 dc>\ l ASPERJ ~ 0-0 81 40 1 2 LIZE-,AO \ANZe>Ch.>e_ LArÂ·be Iftesus Aly.j AAN bEPASTEE kaSA ELED ASDEBAL, LE P. O, BOX \ 2 2 \00 0 -El BacolbÂ·.30 ~ -ASP Ekb, 00 8 1 9 1 2 4% 28 CDC RE_, \21 #Aekboot- LAk-q:. N.(AtÂ«i , EL_0210* 331.3 1 Â¢Â·E.. 919 LO Â· tl/\.LL-Anl 30 R 9431 El MAE ALDE:2_F EE_ CAyS-AL Py\LAGE- CUE=P P. O. 20>4 1 0%80 P O Â· ilek 3-21 443 92-U , CO 31 CO 1 -2- ASPEK] , O-0 8 143 1 2 RE. 922> U.2,11ALLAM \41, 2 3- *\12-Boull LAÂ·NE UOEST- g..bbb (CCE~,ES K.\ M M l L_LE-2_ KE 1 LI M. P. O Â· BOX l OOCo4 4Â©VE-ha j CO S 1 G I 2 RE q Â©cl (13 FRANCLE -US IT A PATCKLE_ 00\Â«ariS 13'ER, -HARDÂ© 7.O 1 20>4 2902 AE>P 2-\Â© , CO 8 14=, 1 21 WE. C.1331 UOÂ· EQMÂ«-153 l>knT- ft> GE_01262_ u.3 MADSE-U 332 COQ_haa\_\ A A.LADE>EA 9 3 r \,0 , PRAOG LE:> +5922 U , 00 8 1 6 1 1 k. 93 I U.3 , re.ANCLLED . 5Â«au-370% collEn 4 \ 0 U.3 1 UAL-AÂ» ST - UN i T 4, C c,MAL3J AQEA 12-ab \'\O USE. EACLADE. i -Tho MAS LO Â· 033 Ah 2-OV GO bbibo AE:>SOC , ' D'(hicHfLLE (DI~3 2.01~ \ 32-3 C-Upt.Ess hAKOE- be Be.Gle_Emob J UV 2>90\ Z (16_ : UNt T l TRAME- 3 - Aia=1-LA I[IL \ADAP (3-1 29 Al DING 1 LLC RET 90. UALLAM. ULS E- P. O, Eox \003 98-3- -As*pa<:s j EC) 21* 1 -2- 94*2Â¥.3 ~ C.O gle\\ REÂ·. uÂ«ir 2 MAtâ‚¬-E_ BEDDERCE SARAM 9-EASEBU) 12(52Â£ 9 39 0, U A u._AM 9 10 U.3. RAL_LAN APT 3 U U \T- 9 31 -ASPE.hb i (10 B 16 11 -Aspaa l CUD 8 \ Gp 11 le \AbfoeD 2-. BLA Â£ A C.\*2-LES F. 2-\CAET AUSCD M B LAI 2- 3 \ 9 MAV LE LAME 94 \ Lo, MAL_LANI -ASPE-N "CO 31+11 U ki t-T. 941 RE. l.thb ir b -ASPE.4,(10 21611 32-An\93\2- f .ROBEZET- R.yAbl -Elzj A NO 60 ra-T-4 43 70. 90% 232-35 mÂ» 0-1 CA U 60 [23-ARt -As Pe-D, C.0 8 1 G 1 -2- 9 1 0 LE) HALLAU AP< 3 â‚¬E. 9425 113. HAL.LAM As,eamo 100 gica l \ K\23 E=Tr- PR bL-rukkAR- 4 -30+A D <4> CAED!_*14 f\A OT-3- E.U-ZASE:ER I. S L.,83-EU_ \-2-9 Uffl-6.- EUC CaEt AVE 945 LO. UALLAra BROUJUÂ»69/ 00 21(054 UM l-7 945 RE, U Â¥Â·.3-1 r 1- ADVE-Kb ' CO 81 G [ \ RoÂ©Al_.D L, -RAKEST E&10 1 1%JATUAM 2. 61 LES k MAE>liv~ AC)Â©2-1 AM 941-, lo. .RALLA~ ud , r 949 \ 880 Le, AU--0 -Da +5924, O-CD 81 G\ \ ' ~-T-6.kkEEL , A~ 3526 4 Ahboy L SANTJ-kEE irt I cH Fl 1. 1= NIA' NG P.D.box\801 -ASPGAJ I C-CD 3 1 /0 12 F-E U D \ 1--- 9 82& A Gb L. 03 c_mal-Us V\T26\9\A M COLLUM P, D Â· Box 46 -ASP Â·64 , 00 81612 'RE-: UNVE \O SÂ©16\120Â«3 ' V \ LIA OF jlte'E..10 (-CDel>) 70 LON-MOUDES 400 9-E) LiTV OF AE>VE.4 MON-\CA -DRHUNG NE-41 E \%46*C-2- IXEPT- P.O. Box 123 53 \50 5 , GA LEKIA ASVEÂ» , CO 81 e 1 -2- +692.M , CID 8 1 40 \ C 212.. le<' D . 5503 ENT- UNi'T- @ 22: q \0 \13 . HALLAM *11 1 \<Reall k, B\EAD v RE-\L B 3/2-62 L 279- DA) 2ANAL AUE EU=ABET\4 4 3\66EL- 1 00 N 8+ A BE LADD By :EEA,T- L 3336% Uu YT- db E RE_, Uky\-r- 1 2 Ase.E+6, 00 3 1 dc> \ \ VI LLA O E -ADVEN =Oy 82504 a-* 321)97 3056 A\29 1 Al k)Â¥DE Ell~ 3).O. 8(D>< 2=1- 1 SULPMUTE 1 0\4 9-5096 RE-: \00 M E-th ST- UN tr- 9 IOUACY-\4 AN (3\ 2,0:431 9\Â»\O% VEOF>agn E-6 LLC \ DO 14 23-h. 35% Ukill- 1 2- 1% E \,~Au.Ey -eD 3% 1 014 -326 f-\Beabb, GO B \G I 1 C.Aeepot<b-~LE , CO 3 1 U-2-3 QU_. lt'CD R. 21-\h 3-Ti Â»66 \O Day BUIK..36 ALOUD LLC_ En \CHAEL A l_EV L DE_ 7 Â· O ' BOX 320 \ 00 \3, 813 9-1- * \ 1 *\CiDSA (1 LD 49>69-- -ADE.en , 032 8 1 6 1 \ AUSTZA Ll A RE. '. , 03 R. Sth SE. L' kii T 2- A'3*2\ SCRL*24 COMYO AS*_ MA\2.-22 5. feT-4 hAAN 6 1 9- 21 l C.OOFER- 26\013 RA C_ 201-Â¥1 NIAU ASP Eau )00 8 16(1 \ O0 F <Ath -* \ 2- --RE>eau 1 CO 8 16 11 RtE- too Ab. 53'41 ST U.Mir- 6 GAey M . SUAE.12.UAW M(CAAE- A 4 A,DGEÂ¥ \ 00 \\3 80 6-r. urvif 4 grip-Â»El E \O 144\ Dowiz 145*>24 , 00 3 \9 [ 1 1 8 2,0 21 TTER.Â¥Â©CEâ‚¬ SQ '*Â¥\ \ ~AlDELPA-1 1 A-~-PA 3 91 03 RE \ ex-p Kb, E-,Â¥n EL> 1-- L' 63 11- 1 3 AWER 200â‚¬401 LLC- boabl-Ab 1 GLEKE>A Off-â‚¬34 1004 Sth %- 4,5 5 \0 3 1-2*33 h.125 -DE-, +apek/,CLIZ> 2%/6 l \ JALLAS I -TX 9-52-89- REÂ· \ oco U . 2-'r-h ST' Ltholl- 1 4 BQEÂ»T- \4, a-Eb 2-4213-T-0 AAEâ‚¬_ 4 5 U I-ni \00 \6 8-4-\ 29 =* 6 1220(2-AH SU-134 -An>92*b 1 20 31(01\ -ASPE-M, CO 8 \ Col 2_ 7.0, Eec \22>(D Ce Rfa, 1 00 k. 8-th Csr U U fi- 1S 1 U.A OF AE>9%24 07-4 ARIZOD\S> ter -ftifY 90 LobÂ»Â·4009'2-5~D 22 1 -1-ODÂ©(2- TD 2 02.Ohb-1.-3 (121.J ELAM_D RE 16#TS, OH 9 4 1OB h. \00 Â¥.3,2'[i~ UT- UtÂ«\T 2-G 0-DEE- R. 4*EVRE,lQS 38378/5 4. HA\2332.2_ 5 1 24 EZ haD ST Abllo 2-\ 00 PALIulâ‚¬VT-0 7233Â· LOAD\-1.\ ASTD M IKE 2-Colle- BE_Ie_4 2-. < PL 3-3-+56 tÂ« . 1 Do Kb . gth asi- U kj \ 7- 1 (c 9-EL. l 00 *j Et h ZbC UtÂ«-\-r ZI~-Â· 4~3>3Â·9 -Balo\.37 iNg\W t.*> 962mtÂ« ve' TANNAN. 4AEPE.2.- tE\Â«0 5-9 P. 0 Â· Sok Â©04 9 6 9- \50 PAL<\AE..77.0 -abl 250 TROMAD , NI- 0(%)3 -9>aLLE-81 re_ .EL 3-Â©790 4951- 12.2 : \O o kh , 9-3Â¥Â·h Ebr U.wn -r- \-i (ZE_,100 0. 9-h ..ST, UU-\T 22> U.Â»l [TE_ OAL Asse ZE-bu 41 1 ~-A U ELLAN.3 28( 0 UkbblE-ELOO[215 30. 062.DO/Kb 244 U eklAND 1-EDUSE-0 hb t-FI 923-030 1 00 U *th 51 =* 29 72 c Â· 1 0 0 10 , 8 th ST-, 10 NhT- 15% .PBVE:+6 , CO %\Gi \ 302'AME ArK' 98014 SHE.21-yAKE (%10)83- -BELEE 1 00 M 84Â¥3 SE-' -40 1 q 1 245 O lib -VALE -WID . BOO LID Em_ ) C.0 30303 Al. loo 03. 81\7 9\ UkbiT :50. NI A C VALUEF susÂ»i '4. 1402-,2-VEOEL- 1 00 4 Eth 21- it ED 309 8 E-Oer 61-4421-2.5 -DEL REW . i V-Ll ST- te*>2-ha l C-O 8 ) (O1 C DAP L=GE> , EL 54 102- - 1-920 2.E; \00 Kb. Stâ‚¬Esl- UKn-t b \ MAR.1043 62 A/\VA Bubb A-ee-EE L, BED.N -37- GyÂ¥<T- 2-\5 (EXLEAM 232 , inEST- 1-1-(03- a MC-VO LulK ST-, SEADAVOE-lb ,(70{090-2- Clibic-\Â»\3~In , 0% 4 9-20(â‚¬ REE_: 1 De U. 91\'h SE U.balr 21 (02 0 \ e e U % \1\ 25-E Uk) 1-7 32_ -IDDy b . AleD{2.EiLLDS -8\21 Ate b Abel U-A.Ki 1043 4416bl LAhâ‚¬E-2- pe ANDEITE V Abelle.AO 3-BAS\DE,0,4 9Â·zata 6\ Co aa*leÂ© G>LEGS 2,2. 9..a. toc 10. Sth 57- U.hnT- 22_ 11) BLOOME) Elib , MI- qgÂ©-21 CE'Â· \ cr \43 S>,th ST. 0 (\1 1 r 3 3 CAAESTEE EM-LAMAN bill-BLDe-% Sta[204 Mc_BAY 8822:4245. Ell,bUAIM 1-3-\-3 01129<82.8200<.VALE,(13-. 7,0. <Box 8,9 a Mc.LE-AtÂ© 1 VA 22-10 I +Spejj (10 81(01 2- RE-Â·, locj h:3 . 9.-r~\1 fiÂ·r- 0 k.31-r 31>.4 RE. 100 0, 80 91- UMiT 22) p~*naa A -5,0 UEeyDN U UE- 06 14_ ASSC_ \00 U 8+09< Â«24 2 02- 1 0 Obteetenct> SE, Â·AE*De,3 310 8 Mel \ RO OST-0 t* 1 ~-TX 43-030 RE. \00 Kh, 911-h SE Ubbl-T- 55 Jo \44 REE.DANN PAE-Es> 9-4-4, -311VESNEUT5 l-Le- 0 2222- SNER Mod\CA BLub -* 20 4 48 KE-Mr- Bect.)6-rY SEEVICES b bhs--R Uohn~ 124 10404 14 *co -8\ SCAV Â»FE --El_Ub, A 126. 100 14. 61Â¥ 55Â¥Â· 11 W ir 25 19:ik V*)/ANA BEACH,FL 3312 1 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 5- ktarip ou,r Lan. f _ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBL~C HEARING DATE: 'Fle,weÂ« j._1 6 -4. % 3**1, zoe_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Â»al lavot (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado. hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: B.y the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fi ileen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six 0 (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing , and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. A- 10-/-/D Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this .Eday of ~6,;~â‚¬-- , 200_61, by 747(7404 S caÂ« 6-1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My~ommissiol) expires: 73/79,/20,1 6< 1 (1 rh 70Â«(it-Â£ 7 ~Notary Publib i 'mE?%\ # 40. .% g i LINDA M. 1 ~ ~ 1 MANNING ~ ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION My Commis~ Exowes 03/29/2014 â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL ACENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 EL!BUG-NOTACE RE: 15 HARBOR LANE, PLANNED UNIT DE- L ' <W fPECEANDMENT, STREAM MARGIN ti,StiY ' 4,[lL REVIEW AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STAC ADS VARIANCES NOTICE #S HE';Eay GIVEN that a public hearing I wilibe held on , :esday, July 6,2010. al a meetjng to begin at 4:34 m. before the Aspen Planning and Zonino Commission, Sister Cities Meeting I Room, Ch,Â· Had, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to con- sider an Application submitted by Dona Stuart, PO Box 11733, Aspen, CO 81612 who is the owner of 1 the subject property. The applicant is proposing to build a residential addition to the existing single family residence as well as a garage. In order to 1 build the addition, the applicant is requesting the following development approvals: Stream Margin Review for development within 100 feet of the high water line of Castle Creek, Special Review for vari- ances tram certain Stream Margin Review Stan- dards, certain Variances from the Residential De- sign Standards, and Planned Unit Development -Other Amendment to vary certain minimum re- quired yard setbacks. The property is legally de- scribed as a parcel of land being part of the North- east quarter of the Southwest quarler of Section Â· ~ 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West of the 1 Sixth Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully 1 described as follows: beginning at corner 3 of the 1 North Texas Mill Site, U.S.M.S, No. 3268; thence I South 15Â°30' West 84.48 feet along the Westerly line of North Texas Mill Site; thence North 59Â°54' Â· West 77 feet more or less to the centerline of Cas- w tie Creek: thence Northeasterly along the center- ; line of Castle Creek to the intersection with a line bearino North 49Â°30' West from corner 3 ot the North fexas Mill Site: thence South 49Â°30' East to the point ot beginning as well as a parcel com- mencing at Corner No. 3 of said North Texas Mill 1 Site, and the northeasterly corner of a Special 1 Warranb, Deed recorded in the office of the Pitkin I cr-ty Clerk and Recorder m Book 599 at Page P , 868; thence South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a I distance of 25.50 leet along the westerly boundary .1 I I Of the North Texas Mill Site and the easterly . I I boundary of said Special Warranty Deed to the 1 5 1 True Point of Beginning: thence continuing south- westerly along said boundaries, South 15 degrees , 1 30 minutes West. a distance of 58.98 leet to the , I ~ soutneasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed I described property; thence southeasterly departjng ' 1 Deed boundaries Souih 59 degrees 54 minutes I I said North Texas Mill Site, and Special Warranty East, a distance of 17.50 feet; thence Nonh 00 de- I 1 grees 32 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of < I 65.61 feet more or less to the true point of begin- ning and more commonly known as 15 Harbor Lane, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For further jnfor- I mation, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of As- ' I pen Community Development Department, 130 S. 1 Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.5090. 10801!&9%91,AsINUQNL - J Wimn_G#*LChair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ~ Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 20. ~ ~2010.[5173470] Â·, /u, v et Jlly 4,11,10, cv,v. r...... -., - 1 A PUBLIC NOTICE ~ C COMBINED NOTICE - PUB, LATIcm, y CRS Â§38-38-103 FORECLt"~~ -- c SALE NO. 10-047 - o Whom It May Concern: This Notic.T~ given with A 3gard to the following described Dee.' of Trust: In April 15,2010, the undersigned -ublic Trustee aused the Notice of Election and D3rnand relating i the Deed of Trust described below to be record- T c in the County ot Pitkjn records. Aginal Grantor{s) ROBYN L FOREMAN fi rjgira! Beneficiaryfies) MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE FOR g COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. .trrent Ho?der of Evidence of Debt S THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE s BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 4 CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,INC.,AS- 0, SET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-25 Pl te of Deed of Trust 12/6/2006 SE unty of Recording Pitkin Tr cording Date of Deed of Trust 12/15/2006 ar cording Receetion Number 52335 th recording Date of Deed of Dust 3/29/2010 Pr -recording Reception Number 568020 1 ginal Princ,pal Amount $330,000.00 Fill 'tstandjng Prjncjcal Balance $330,000.00 Lai N2 rsuant to CRS Â§38-38-101(4)(i), you are here- notified that the covenants of the deed of D; st have been violated as follows: Failure to PU , principal and interest when due together with Sk other payments provided for in the Evidence of Thi bt secured by the Deed of Trust and other viola. By: s thereof. E LIEN FORECLOSED MAY NOT BE A FIRST Th. N. reg E PROPERTY DESCFUBED HEREIN IS ALL the, THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY E,IOUM- RED BY THE LIEN OF THE DEED OF TRUS T, , LEGAL.-125(BIPTIQN Nnhome Unit No. 8 (Lot 8) together with Parking it No. 8 and Parking Space No. 8, SOUTHSIDE ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-PHASE 111, ac ding to the Final Plat thereof recorded July 17, 8 in Plat Book 45 at Page 40 as Reception No. I 3536, and the Townhome Map for Lots 1-16 and king Units 1-24 Souths,de Planned unit DevelÂ· nent-Phase 111, recorded December 29, 1998 in 1 Book 48 at Page 20 as Reception No. 425949, i the Declaration for Southside Townhomes re- 1 Cal ded December 29, 1998 as Reception No. 999 5948. COUNTY OF P]TKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ~ ~ Th E o known bv street and number as: 263 @OUTHSIDE DR, BASALT, CO 81621 I tor infi NOTICE OF SALE pur e current ho13376rm-Â¥-EVidence of Debt se- 1 Â©< ed by the Deed of Trust, described herein, has 12/ d Notice of Election and Demand for sale as v*led by law and in said Deed of Trust. EREFORE, Notice Is Hereby Given that I will at | 5,~ blic auction, at 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, I " ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: CÂ©\5 HA\200 6 LA ME , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: -1 U lÂ¥ 43 , 204 O STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I. 13 kA Er U A E--r- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 34 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ,Â« Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to_the public hearing and was continuously visible from the~qtr~lay of -3 U ME, 200 D , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Ofthe posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. 0 k Mailing of notice. By Ge mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet o f the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on ~c~mendments. X\ ~L~-11 04.~~_1 CL< \ Signature BA The foregoing "Affidavit o f Notice" was acknowledged before me this,1,2 day of \ -31,Â£Â·7,41 , 2002, by 30,74 5 ht 4.- f WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL /0/HOTAR)MA f ~-~ ~ My c~mmission expires: .-3?jbj>~~51Â£1/6-/ o\'>\PUBLIC /40-I 66Â·,c-kt,t <t-/0 94 N6tary Public y *ON EXP\89Â·~ ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 15 HARBOUR LANE, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARTANCES NOTICE IS lIEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 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 Dona Stuart, PO Box 11733. Aspen. CO 81612 who is the owner of the subiect property. The applicant is proposing to build a residential addition to the existing single family residence as well as a garage. In order to build the addition, the applicant is requesting the following develepment approvals: Stream Margin Review for development within 100 feet of the high water line of Castle Creek. Special Review for variances from certain Stream Margin Review Standards. certain Variances from the Residential Design Standards, and Planned Unit Development - Other Amendment to vary certain minimum required yard setbacks. The property is legally described as a parcel of land being part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully described as follows: beginning at corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site, U.S.M.S. No. 3268; thence South 15Â°30' West 84.48 feet along the Westerly line ofNorth Texas Mill Site: thence North 59Â°54' West 77 feet more or less to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the intersection with a line bearing North 49Â°30' West from corner 3 of the North Texas Mill Site; thence South 49Â°30' East to the point of beginning as well as a parcel commencing at Corner No. 3 of said North Texas Mill Site. and the portheasterly corner of a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 599 at Page 868: thence South 15 degrees 30 minutes West. a distance of 25.50 feet along the westerly boundary of the North Texas Mill Site and the easterly boundary of said Special Warranty Deed to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing southwesterly along said boundaries, South 15 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 58.98 feet to the southeasterly corner of the Special Warranty Deed described property; thence southeasterly departing said North Texas Mill Site, and Special Warranty Deed boundaries South 59 degrees 54 minutes East, a distance of 17.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 34 seconds EAst a distance of 65.61 feet more or less to the true point of beginning and more commonly known as 15 Harbour Lane, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City ofAspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena Stâ€ž Aspen, CO, (970) 429.5090. jennifep@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Stan Gibbs, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 20,2010 City of Aspen Account PUBLIC NOTICE DAT E Jug#*liu,419111 - 11 'pul lillit)& * .PR f r"f,Â»/1â€ž0614 Â· [4 ias.2;'3' -4109 *Pâ‚¬1 ' el ,0 p,irt - 14 â€¢; As i orter 01 theSouttlw TIME 1141" 'tuat'trint S'erâ€žâ€¢,Â·, Â·Â·. *o..,râ€¢rnaOSO,Ah, Ran!},035!h,..,: of tho R c,"P,Â·n, i 'Me'll; 'r 57 .''afte;!FROUht, Rster nllr, 11{H,111 (11Â¥ Hill~ descr,bpry follows 1,41,1,1,! il,631 comef 301ttl*Nor'l~ PLACE 130 Â§, (,alt'na St.. ffilel- West84,48 leet ainrigthe *esterly lineof Nortl: Texas Texas Mt|| Site, l 9 Â¥.S Nc 2681 thencesoullÂ·*5'30 PURPOSE-Fof AMirti Planning_ami lollitw Millsitp''henen':r,râ€¢F 59*9Â· West?7fle[ moreorle*510 the Conte,Irre nf 0- r t, CreekÂ· thenceNortheaSterly f{,111!111Â§51911 tl) fl)11Â§11;elilli OPP|latilon ilillmilip,1 along thecentr,liget Cast*Creektolhe nte,secljol with alinet>earingharthâ€¢19~30 Westfromconle,3of the b) Dona Smart, 110 Boi 11733. Afpen. {0 81612 NorthTe*aâ€¢ Mill Site' thence Sour, 4930 East to the owner 01 Ihe 511*fl propern,Appllf.lilli proptneS Wint of bpoinr,Â·ri,~ well asa D.arcelcommencing al Comet No 361 Sai e NorthTexas Mill Sile and ttlencllÂ· a._refillential aottilli,11 & a ilaralf. Appliolill_ eastert> comer of ~ SpeciaBWarranti Oeedrecordedir the oftice <.GrN - -D:.kinCouatgCIerkandRecorderir,Bocâ€¢ requeft; m:velopmrnl approvali:31'eam Marlm 509Page858*thenceSourht.5degree530minules'ms' Renew &, imanref tromferl:1111 Wream_Mar#m a d#stancoof 25 50feet ak,â€¢926,ewestert,boundar, of the Nort:.TerasM,115.ttandt,teeasteflybounder,0152 1 Refleâ€¢ Stiloilarils, He,lile!11|81 11(4mt|1 flil|1Â®01 SpecialWarranty[)eedtoth,True Point of Beginrbs & Planill'(1 Unlt IN'Â¥flop,110111 Olle[-Alnent!01!111 thencecontinuingâ€¢outhwesterly,tongsak:*>ound,pe: South 15degreesÂ®minutos*ect,advs:anceof58.98 1, rrgaraine yartl frillarld. tothesoutheasteflveornerof theSDecal WarranhÂ·Deer f OR FURTHER :*FORIATIQN CONTACT: : "piliter iIi,1 ial} tioScribed property thence southeasterly denatir., THE C,rY Of 15,Â£11 PLANNING, DEPANTAIRâ€¢t' 130 1 66-ENA H ,$PEN CO *9 TD,9'21Â·58: Said Northrelas MiliSile. ald Special Warranty De.Â·s botindanesSouth59de#fees 54minutenEAt a dir lance of 17.50 feet tte enceNorthOO degrees 321'llnute. 34 secondsEast. adistanceof 65 6 i feet moretit bess the true point 00 beginni Â·Â·gartd more Â¢007!monly kneâ€¢ 8 5 , Lai,e.Aspry ; 07 orada 31614 , Prollty gal Descri!,- .r, r Thepropertyislegally scribedasz narc, r,f , being part of theNortheastquarter of the :Sc, ,4 4 ~ quarterof Section 12,Township10 South. Ranuek,J vvesi . of the Sixth PrincipaIMeridian. Saidl'a, rÂ·eli94. iter-1,11 describedas follows:beginninilat corner 3of#her,nrth Texas Mill Site, U.S.M.S.No.3268; thenceSouth 15 '30' West 84.48 feet alongthe Westerly lineof North fexas Mill Site;thence North 59Â°54' West 77feet moreor less to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly 3{1 along the centerlineof Castle Creekto the intersection ~ with alinebearingNorth49Â°30'Westfrom corner3of th -2 North Texas Mill Site: thence South 49Â°30' East to the tes Point ofbeginningas well asa parcel commencing at ~ easterly corner of a Special WarrantyDeedrecordedin Corner No.3of said NorthTexas Mill Site,andthenerth the office of the PitkinCountyCIerkandRecorderinBoo ~11| 599Page868;thenceSouth15degrees30 minutesWest, adistanceof 25.50feetalongthewesterlyboundaryof the NorthTexasMill Site andtheeasterlyboundaryofsaid IX, pecialWarrantyDeed tothe True Point of Beginning; Ntt jhencecontinuingsouthwester'yalongsaidboundaries~ , Isouth15degrees30minutesWest,adistance of58.98 ft lelan~tothesoutheasterlvcornerof theSpecial Warra nty Deed described property; thence southeasterly departing ~ 1 said NorthTexas Mill Site, and Special Warranty Deed -lboundariesSouth 59degrees 54 minutes East, a dis - tance of 17.50 feet:thenceNorth00 degrees 32minute 34secondsEast, adistance of 65,61 feetmore or less Ithe true point of beginningandmore commonly known ~--rbourlan*Aspen, Colorado, 81611. 1.Ki LD LOGE DEST E-k.3~ 10 2959 E<b -KES>\ DE<J_66 ( Vt \ STD 42.1 c.- 232-Tl-A(bf~ h 6 17 Y OP Aseat P.Er-61-2.- (\AA 212 LE 'Y CAL\<ET-1 Â»2 hkA\2.-E_ L-Er El MAAILE 'DEPT- 150 5, GAL.aÂ»/4 9 Â·2-ZL 'LO , MAL LA 6,/1 -te>Pate , CO S (Co I C Abeak.3,00 81(21 1 REÂ·, Pou-3 jae_ PLKÂ»bT Â· ki izac- 42>\â‚¬...E-60(2->/ Ch\(21329#62 -3- , Ban.DON P 83-26 622602.-0 9 20 lÂ© 1 PALL-Al\A P .0 .20>< \ 00 ES 74392-ka , C O 8 <40\ 4 Aspata , Cho 8 1401 2 UIL \CD WW,30<.be- LAME I AQÂ·caus Atej AAN bEPAS-E-2- Mosm E-Lib ASPE Al , L.CL P. O.2>ex \ 2 2 \00 5, -EL_ LJ>ECLO'KE> ST +39 E-Kb, CO S l e 1 2 alÂ· 2-8 CÂ© EE_, \21 HA.Lubbee_ LA'KbrE. NjAM \ , 9 .02-1 CA 33'~-3 01 eâ‚¬. 91â‚¬ GO . 4+LLAD.1 30 H \*31 E MAE ALDEE-FEE CAYSTAL PAACE (0025> P- 0 Â· '20% 1 (2880 P CD . Erp>< 6 2._ -Aspae p Co Blcol z Â·Aspeu , C-0 8 140 1 7- 4uz, 928 \12, HALLAr\A 42-Â· 21 3- RfULBOL:312. LAME- 438:51- eÂ·62> RES\DMIEED k.\ fÂ» M j LLE-12_ KE 1 Lt Ki -PÂ· O. 2>ok \ 00 64 -ASFE.hb , CO) 81 Gl 2- Re. 9-1/cl lt:> EMALI l.5 - U'14 u- A PAT \2 ICE- COM'/E:[25 ~BEA -HAM00 7.0 Â· Box 2902 ASPEK.3, CO 8 1 6 & 2. RE-.9-7 UDÂ· rEARC UL Dklir fb 620262. UD MAD.SE'IÂ© 23 4 002_43Â£11 A MADDER 9 3 \ LD. V (2AKKL LED -+392.U , 0.0 81(0 1 1 R.aÂ·, 931 1,0 Â· FRANCLO . CK I O Ub , UAL_ADA. SE Unt -E 4 C 0'*MEDK?h Â·Â·AeEA ps-D HOUSE- Ebbel.ADE , -11%0 0361> LO Â· C.-O 9 (209 (10 Â£00 ASSOC PALCHE CLE Q.D >6 209 \ R- 2-3 2-YERâ‚¬Â·93 4/ltÂ« 4 ble.4,3~E2_230hb ~ 4.3V BRD \ 2.- RE.: UNCT 1 DRAME- 3 Â· AN_A -ILL WOAP En tubleNG 41-2 353. 03. MALLAM ULS iT- p O . 230>4 \ Oob 9-31- -AE>Pah.3 ~ C.O 8 1 4,\\ 12Â£. UU'-r- 2- -As:â‚¬2.Kb , CO B \ 6 1 2 MA\LE- 2>2613221CE SAUNÂ·-1 Sr-EAE,92>L) 26 2,2 93>9 D , U All_AM 9 1 0 UD, RALL-AAA Ag>f 3 Ulier- 9259 -ASPE-ba ~ 0-O B 1 63 1 1 -AE>P.2-Kb 1 CED 8 \ 4, 1 1 \2> C g Foe-D RL . DIA I 1-2- -Al_(SCD M D Lk 1 2- I \ A MAPLE LA K.3 E 9 4 \ Lo c \4 ALLAM\ -ASPEN, CO 8 \ 6, 1 1 Ud Er Â· 94 1 RE.. u te I r FI, -AS-re-4,00 91 tcoN 3Â£-An\Va\22 X -2.0 2,222:T- 2/Abl 3--IZ-) AAZO 60(2-UALJ 70. Sex 7_82-35 E-Re-1 CA U 60 (2.3--AN -AS Pell, C.CD 81 63 1 -2- cl to BO. H All--ARA At B â‚¬E; 943 le. HAL-1.AM ASPE-Na j CO 81 Co (\ KE:2.1 951-4 -ID 1 -rrkkAQ- 4 JOU \3 1> CAED!_y 14 M Cyr--T- EL-ZASE-114 I SLATER_ \29 UfTLE- Eli- C.Ealt AvE 945 LO. UALLAM BROUDAAÂ»+9,00 El (054 U ki 17 945 RE.. U D 1 r 3- 6592-Kb , CO 81 Gli FOUAL-D L. PAKEsr Ezill) ~ MATUAM 12 0 6 I LES 27 NAE> 1 N 90 U 52-1 AM 949. LO. Â·RALLANA 4Â«r (197- \830 lo, AUTD 132 +57213 , C.CD 81 4:3\ 1 --7'64*~E, A-2 3523 9 CLEL , Ll th IT 95 AMOY L SAMOA EE- 90 1 0-\ ELLIE_ Ul.Al NG 7,0.box\801 -ASPE:Kb , C-O 5 3 4, 1 2- 12.-31 U Ab / 1- C\ 9,25 A Ab L. fa c_blal-Ll S V\T26\U\A M COLLUM P, D Â· Box =?-6 -ASPEAX, C.-0 8 1 612 \254 u ta -u \O SA<222.UDOÂ«b V \ L.LA 09 AGGE!Â·0 CCOur>) -Th l.<34-44 0 'uNbES COC 073 2-\4% 09 ASPEd MON-\CA -DRAL--1 74 6 %60 E \MANCE IDE PT- P. 0. 80>< 12653 \50 3, GA LE,MA .ASVEÂ» , C.0 8 1 (2 1 2- -Aseau , C.0 8 1 dc> \ l 2-12.. \ Cx:- L . 1,+17 550 2 54 73- 3 22: R IC) \,0 Â· HALLAM #11 L \<A e.abl k, -2>FAD V 'RE-\ L B 5/ E_(bE L 2-3--9- M \ 2/Â»AAe_ AUE_ EUZABET\4 4 6\666- LADD -By SEA,FF\-3330% 1 00 93 81\7 257 U Â©317- 2Â£ 8 RE U Mi r 12 -ASPE_M , CO 3 1 40 1 \ Vi LLA o E -ADVEN -Ioy E\D.60'4 raa/ -12.UST ~TOLOM HOUSES:, A\20/ 1 Al \00Â»39- E.1 h.92 4 EEV #PÂ·O Â· BOX 23- 1 BU LA-4 U 2 1 0 \4 9.-30<32 RE'. \ 00 9 & th D T- 41 hb tr- 7 SobbATHAN Cl>\ E>AUL Pi Â»\O (\3 920-PEEr) E-5 LLC \DO 14 83.h. 350 UDIT 1 2-\S E LALLEzy -20 *t \04 -'33Ez~ Aseaba,O-0 3 \Gil C.AeeÂ©QUALE, 0.0 319 -23 QU-, ttx> A. 2-fh ST: UÂ» \T '\ D iny a U &36 A LOUD LLC_ int \CH Aal_ A l.-EV 1 ho E_ 7Â· O ' BOX 320 \ (DO U. E+37 97 * 1 1 ACOSA GLD 1466+ -ADVELB 1 0-0 8\11\ AUSTEA Lla REÂ·. I cO 63.%-th SE. 12 kil T 2 AS;24 5(Rly* QÂ©40 AifE- mAE-L 5. fer-40Â«N CO 1 9- 2_', CLOOPEYZ_ SAUD 04 C â‚¬0794 luAd ASPE:u i GO 8 ldp L 1 \00 U <2>1\-h -* \ 2_ (le too hb <8 0 9- UNK.5 Aspabl )00 816\1 GA-29 M. SHEEIJAIJ MIQUAEL A 4 A\DOWÂ¥ \Do \\J E-Â¥h S-r, Ut41-f 4 GrIP-*Mi E \4) 44\ DOUR ASPan , 00 3 \al I 1 8 2,0 2,1 Tr-ER.\AC)~E SQ iN i \ADELE-4 1 A T-PA I qi en RE 1 00 '23 , E, i h 0 1- Â·. L' Â¥43 13 - 1 32 ADVER 001-DEAto I LLC UOU(bLAS> 1 (bLEKDD A ort-6-4 (coN Sth 91 465 . 5\03 1-EA-F>i KleS -DE +SPE:U , 2/ 8 ju[\ -JAU-AS , -TX 952-8 9- 2.SLÂ· \ Oc= O . R.t h 9 r Lt Ke -1-12 1 4 BR-E-*3- 4, 22-23 C.-4212-709%212_ R buG-4 I 00 U BA\A 5ST Â»= 6 ~~~3280(2AA. 31- 4 -TAA -An>92*23 1 0-0 31 (0 L\ p.0, 830/ 1 220 9 ADPE-ba , Co S \ (b I Z_ QE- , 1Ce ki. 9.1,7 E.Dr U k 3 1-7 1 23 9 CLLA OF Asse:24 W,Bak AAE ORS ter -Tar- 222 1 7-Â©Dot ED 2. '-TO U.DRAOLDSU:Sp (11_El,) E.1~+.oiD R E_ I Â»4~TE, ~ 2.k~ CCOKb-â‚¬) 9 4 1Otc '21. \00 KD,BA EST UNMTÂ· 2-4- LES- R. 1\UkET-Mallb S 3Ar'orES it. 442.-Paâ‚¬_ 5 laI 52 MD ST 'ball) # Do FALMER-70 7233, 9043\41 jÂ·U~DA ID(2 2031(2 - -EELLE* E., 1 9 L 333Â» RE=-. 1 00 10. EtÂ¥\ 2:FF- U ki , 7-- 1 (c 4~379 VE..., 1 00 M. R.>-tjl 1- I.lul-T- 24 E:21)or *MLY 15% PAer'&B234 9 130*Â·A 4, 4 AE-DEE YE'v'3.r. 57 P. 0. Boc Â©04 9 3 -3- \60 PALME.372 2.23 90 11,\Ok,1-Ab , 435 edu)3 -Bal-LE-11 K.. ,9-'L -3~2>390 19371- Q.2: 10 0 1<3 , %Â¥44.\ 56,- U,-harr- \-i (42-noo ko. SM ST UU,ni 21 \Â»H [TE OAK. ASSO 250'el hb 23 H O CLLAU 02-240 Ubjf)/EELDÂ©Clb SE. 06(200/43 34 0 2-kine \t>LD SrotÂ·6 1-rK N.9-030 \(DO U Sth ST- * 29 Y< 9 too D. 8-'Al EST- b 66 /7 1% -PE,963<3 1 C.O 9 \ 6=, 1 1 5UZADNE Ar-KI USÂ©Ki ON-yuke- 90123- BELVE Â£ 00 th 81-h SE. -* i q 1 245 0 LD -YALE- -22) 94222-\3 1 <LCD 8 1 4, 1 1 BOO L-Deft )C-0 80303 22.. toe le. St\1 1261- Uk) 13- 8 0 RIA C VALLEY SUS 44 4. 14 0\2-21 50-bl rZEL \ r U.ST \ 00 M 8-Vn 3-r :th 20 309 3 geer- GAâ‚¬126 DEL ;Ae*>2-kb , C.-CD 8 1 Got l MAE L=E=Ep , 7 L aut 10 2- - -9-920 22; (00 9.Sth EÂ« L'Kn-r 24 rnART\4 62 A/\VA Bul>ID Akee-Ef \â€ž, ~â‚¬2-(DLON -32 * W..7 2\ 5 CCEAM U) e , '03 EST- 1 -+Cork a . MOJO L.LAk 29 STAMFOâ‚¬b 'Ch--0 GROL (1\AbC.4,3\oarl , OR 45-2-063 Re_: 1 00 U. 9Â»\ SE U.Nlr 2.1 GLE , Ice %6 2 ft 'DI. D U IT 3 2. SODy b AND{ZE.LOS 821 AN b ADE L LiAN 1 04-3 44\6MLAbbLE.Q. Â©t AMMETTE E ADELLe.AU 5645\ DE-, CA (15495 6* Co BLe[*1919 GLERS El). W.E. 100 Kb . Sth 9-r- Ll#11- 22_ ll) 3~LcohMA ELiZ> 1 NCE 4%2322- ChED. lee \3 9,th 57. 0(xjtr 33, CAA â‚¬25-rEE EEUE>UAN 60 (LEL,~24 3.10[204 \40_2>N~ 882-GIBA -5. Ell.1)4(114 "\-E) C.AES-92.82.DO\4\/ALECES 7.0.804 3,92> M - D i VA 2 2 toi +SPER 0-0 26\661 2 RE.. \00 hz: . 9%'Al ysÂ·r- 0 kbir -54 WL \00 10Â· 8 1-h Ebr U te-1-r- 23, PArâ‚¬101 A -5 . bUE-2.3-04 LUE- 0614-ASSC \DO 44 2,+t sr -33:224 2.24 0 LDKEDGz.(21(adÂ© ST AEREAb , 20 8 Ke c i \40 051-0 M , 7 y. 74-0 30 RE. \00 Ah, 143 9- UNT 35 -30 \44 \AIRE-DAk+0 PAE'SE> 9 -+-G INV EGNÂ«1-5 LL-eL g 2 222 SNER 9\03\CA BLub @b KEKNT- 5ecl.36-rf 326/116 4 *AbSER \4097(A,CA 90404 1 1-\ / -rvh -D- P'ft *n. ,/ o .BA r CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM~fl 1 4 A2reement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees ,%.9 ' 1 0 CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and be,le A Gal) A.23-~ (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Un) ACE- / HAR.800121_ l.-Ad<jE_ (hereinafter. THE PROJECT). 2 APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. .x. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at 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 payment 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 greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs 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 processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determ ination,-~of EtliREn .completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S '~Ef** ,Cy--> whicn is tor G hours of Community Development staff time. and if actual f#* FC.*1 tv â€¢ recorded costs 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 at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. 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 permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN O-APPLICANT C 1/- 1\ \ By: By: U~1Ck -32. -ck /\\ Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: 5/ , 4</210\ O Billing Address and Telephone Number: Â»--0 62 4 6 cal 624- * 1-1 607 Ar_~r- 4 19 4,Â·90- 94 19 iÂ»K 11 3 y - i,z -3 -Ov -O j i 4 - -0021 . 2000Â·2662 Elle Edit Record Navigate FQrm Reporis Format Iab Belp i@ @ * 4 '/ -3 g ihi fl] 6 _1 <2 di ~ 1 14 4 , 4 0 21 A lump ~-~20 ~i O I 6 ~ i 9 16 4 192 Clear @ ~ ill 44 6 J 3 6 *~im:3@ 90 2 49 ;2 ~ P . ~~- Routing Status |Fees |Fee Summary- ~GK| Actions |Attachments |Routing tlistory |Yaluation |Arch/Eng |Custom Fields |Sub Eermits 4 k IC) 4Â£947/I///Il"a ' ../.-Il--Ill--I-*.il/../m./.lip 1 Ll- 7Epe â€¢-r- F. Us#HI- - Permit # ~00212010 Amj-- -~ i Address 15 HARBOUR LN Â·Â·Â· Apt/5uite rf y. v - City ASPEN 0'~~-â€¢-~k. State CO V Zip 81611 Permit Information fr ' * 17::=TW* .....r .0.. 72//AreN~ Master permit Routing queue aslu07 ' Applied 5117/2010 ~ Project Â·Â·Â· Status pending 4 J Approved Description RES. DESIGN VARIANCE - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND GARAGE Issued 1 Final ~i Submitted DONNA STUART Clock FI;ningl Days |~~6| Expires 5/12,2011 v k Submitted via i. 1 F. Et': 2 li* Owner elli 1 Last name STUART DONA Â·Â·Â· First name PC)BOX11733 17 ASPEN CO 81612 Phone k970) 309-0069 Address ' r, 1 i Â·+4 Applicant 9 Owner is applicant? Il Contractor is applicant? 1: ef.;f Last name STUART DONA Â·Â·Â· First name ~~~612~'~~ Phone ~ ) .~ .~ Cust # 28801 Â·Â·Â· Address 6- Lender i Last name Â·Â·Â· First name Phone () - . 1.. Address / ~Displays the permit lender's address 'AspenGold5 [server) Fngelas Edit --"1 01 1 -~- ..3 441 c.(t *41 7 A-~~â€ž/Jr 4,994Â·0 0 1 1 - actdA <5 212 <~-rl<,5 th-6 * 2-1 6 0 ~~~~~~~ 51-~ Â· 4-01*455 04\ NOLE O're-4. -1- 01 001 gil/G \ le r.?[0/V\6 4 601 4\5 Fii-FU PROPERTY DESCRIPTION RETRACEkIENT, IMPROVEMENT SURVEY RECEIVED A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF MAY 1 7 2010 SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER 3 OF THE NORTH TEXAS MILL SITE, U.S.M.S. NO. 3268; STUART CITY OF ASPEN THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 84.48 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SAID NORTH TEXAS MILL SITE; THENCE NORTH 59 DEGREES 54 MINUTES WEST 77 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTERLINE OF CASTLE CREEK; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF CASTLE CREEK TO THE INTERSECTION CASTLE CREEK PROPERTY WITH A LINE BEARING NORTH 49 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST FROM CORNER 3 OF THE NORTH TEXAS MILL SITE; SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 0015 HARBOUR LANE, ASPEN, COLORADO THIS DESCRIPTION WAS COPIED FROM THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 652 AT PAGE 919 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO OFFICIAL RECORDS. NOTE: SURVEYOR BELIEVES THE CALL FOR THE CORNER 3 OF U.S.M.S. NO. 3268 SHOULD BE U.S.M.S. NO. 3288. NOTES 8 . ' ALSO 8=2 7 1. AN ORIGINAL PLAT (MAP) PRINT PREPARED AS A PICTORIAL REPORT OF SURVEY BEARS , 2 - 949*X< 0 fÂ· e v - /1, -0 4Â»72 AN ORIGINAL (INK) SIGNATURE AND SURVEYOR'S SEAL. REPRODUCTION COPIES OF A A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF 4, b- r ~' f 'A + , PLAT (MAP) PRINT SHOWING SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE AND SEAL MAY CONTAIN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FRAUDULENT, INCORRECT, ERRONEOUS, OR MISLEADING INFORMATION. POSSESSION ' I j ' 1 1.iâ€¢19Â·12Â· 5 1 UNAUTHORIZED BY SURVEYOR. DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY SURVEYOR AND WITHOUT A AND WITHIN THE NORTH TEXAS MILL SITE USMS 3288, SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY .,0 2 OF SUCH REPRODUCTION COPIES AND THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREON IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 4 07 r ' . : 0. 'Ae'* 44*KÂ»46i/ 1 SIGNATURE AND SEAL ARE TO BE VIEWED AS PRELIMINARY WITH ALL INFORMATION COMMENCING AT CORNER NO. 3OF SAID NORTH TEXAS WILL SITE, AND THE NORTHEASTERLY 1 SHOWN SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AN ORIGINAL PRINT CORNER OF THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY f<q -./EE---- 3 m 21 s MUGN-48Â£2 -5-1 SHALL VOID SURVEYOR'S SIGNATURE AND SEAL. CLERK AND RECORDER IN BOOK 599 AT PAGE 868; THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 30 MINUTES Sdz . WEST, A DISTANCE OF 25.50 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH TEXAS . # 2. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS AND LOCATION FOR THIS RETRACEMENT SURVEY IS THE MILL SITE AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO THE TRUE .CHâ€¢ 14,0 1 * 2 2 M*A l RECORD BEARING BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS AS DESCRIBED HEREON AND SHOWN ON POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARIES, 6 * 1 10k TRANSFORMER SEWER 4AANHOLE ~ ~ , > clrÂ¥ 76 A JAzcir't#Zi'-1.1 k THE ORIGINAL SURVEY BY TRI-CO MANAGEMENT, INC., JOB NO. 76-22-1, FOR A SOUTH 15 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST, A DISTANCE OF 58.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY === 0 T 1 .: i .zz~... . 4 lid FIiI'(97.7 0 l CLIENT BY THE NAME OF WINDMULLER. THE ORIGINAL SURVEY USED A BASIS OF CORNER OF THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DESCRIBED PROPERTY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ...... BEARINGS AS FOUND BETWEEN MONUMENTS ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 11. DEPARTING SAID NORTH TEXAS MILL SITE, AND SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED BOUNDARIES SOUTH 77 4 .-*.I-/. Cn , ./Ck: " '*44â€¢ / 2 ..... SECONDS EAST. THE BASIS OF ELEVATION FOR THE CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON IS THE ...4 4 59 DEGREES 54 MINUTES EAST, A DISTANCE OF 17.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES ~ TELEPHONE 4 & Mâ€¢1â€¢ 1~ lâ€¢1.1 I i -wi 6'. â€¢: ./77-r~Â·7~.-~ U.S.G.S. Q 159 MONUMENT, USING THE 1960 ADJUSTMENT. 32 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 65.61 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE CITY OF ASPEN 1959 OFFICIAL CITY MAP: NORTH 75 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 11 ~ ~~ If- 5~1 Tv PEDESTAL ~ ,4 .LLU 1 11'14,Â£1 . ft R POINT OF BEGINNING. ESTAL 1 R?77-741/Ltl //A< 3. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE PORCH 4 "9 4, -- l;~'~ TITLE OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. RESEARCH FOR THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED IN Containing 499.41 square foot more of less. M . - 1 la .. 1 -rÂ·Â·-- 2 6 < - '.N- 6.- ple.Â¥91. <- # 4 .//f i i Â· - ACCORDANCE WITH COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 38-51-106 AND THE RULES OF THIS DESCRIPTION WAS COPIED FROM THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 654 AT PAGE 818 14 674111Hal: l;Fl: PROCEDURE AND BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS OF- THE STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO OFFICIAL RECORDS. 0. 0- 1 2- 8?022Â£79 -1 ENGINEERS AND PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE BOARD RULES e '4.1 0 - A 3 /7 1 kirl,3-, k 19'1.61 & 1~1 Ihl AND POLICY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE DEPICTION OF EASEMENTS AND mGHT-OF- WAY ON SURVEY PLATS. THE TITLE POLICY FROM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. , 3 1 le \ r ~ POLICY NO.PCT-5259, WAS ALSO USED FOR INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, TITLE, AND CIVIL COURT ACTIONS OF RECORD. 2 83 4. THE UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE LOCATED AND MARKED BY EACH UTILITY o . 3/2~ 4 ZOÂ¥21 COMPANY ON THE GROUND BEFORE THE START OF THIS RETRACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT .gy - - ~ 1; TlT/E 1 i (j J SURVEY FIELD WORK. <f f f 1~,9*4, I 0 0|NT OF BEGINNING DEED BOOK 652, PAGE 919 5. THE TELEPHONE, TELEVISION, SEWER, GAS, AND WATER SERVICES ARE POSSIBLE 1 4, B.9 ir.. , -32 1 7843.9 2 G~W P k 0100Â©-~ D 21 Ma N a : 0 f 864. 4. \ b FOUND ORIGINAL 5/8' STEEL ROD VICINITY MAP INFRINGEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY. THE SERVICES CROSS THIS PROPERTY TO WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED NOT TO SCALE SERVICE OTHER PROPERTIES. THE TITLE POUCY LIST NO EASEMENTS FOR THESE I LS 12707 SERVICES. THE TITLE POLICY LIST EASEMENTS FOR SOME UTILITIES BUT THE = 1 it TEMP. BENCH 7751.46 TIED TO USGS Q 159, DOCUMENTS LAKE A DESCRIPTION FOR THEIR LOCATION. 0 4 6 // 0 -. U / Equ . V \ UT/E 1960 ADJUSTMENT * 1/ i 6. THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS OBTAINED FROM THE DOCUMENTS 4, . r RECORDED IN BOOK 652 AT PAGE 919, AND BOOK 654 AT PAGE 818 OF THE OFFICIAL gs f N RECORDS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AND THE ORIGINAL SURVEY BY TRI-CO 2 & 4 9 e d 2 12- ~- MANAGEMENT LISTED ABOVE. 0 - . 1\ = 7. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO NATIONAL FLOOD #f 7843.7 -- f ~ ~f----- y ~ ' INSURANCE PROGRAM, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DATED DECEMBER 4,1985, 1 COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 080143 0001. THE SURVEYORS INTERPRETATION OF THIS <2 COMMUNITY-PANEL IS THE PROPERTY EXCEPT THAT WITHIN CASTLE CREEK IS OUTSIDE SET /4" STEEL ROD WITH OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. 843.7 ../ YELL W fLASTIC CAP MARKED L i f El|~ 13166 8. THE CENTERLINE LOCATION OF CASTLE CREEK, WITH THE BEARING AND DISTANCE / 43Â· POINT OF BEGINNING FOT THEREON IS SUPPLIED FOR THE MATHEMATICAL CLOSURE OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ONLY. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE ABSOLUTE AND ONLY ~ DEED BOOK 654. PAGE 818 LOCATION FOR THE CENTERLÂ»IE OF CASTLE CREEK. THE AREA OF A PARCEL OF REAL .+ f \A PROPERTY IS A QUESTION OF LAW NOT SURVEY. 784 0 1 1 I fl \ 9. THE PROPERTY IS ACCESSED BY A ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 204 AT PAGE ONE STORY FRAME 255, OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. BASEMENT 49 10. THE PROPERTY MAY BE ENCUMBERED BY A RESERVED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A NATURAL GAS UNE PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 254 AT PAGE 901 OF THE OFFICIAL C / d * f ~ RECORDS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT DESCRIBED THIS 4 - RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DOCUMENT ALSO STATES THERE IS A WELL AND WATER LINE THAT MAY BE AN ENCUMBRANCE. 1 5%3 / 9. Ell i : ~ ~ | i ~ ~ - 11. THIS PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 21,2006 WAS ZONED R-15A PUD. THE BUILDING SET 8, BACKS FOR THIS PROPERTY IS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN STAFF TO )42. ESTABLISH. ~ ~ IMPROVEMENTS ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES. EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE SHOWN HEREON. '~ ~~~h 7040 112 : 12. SURVEYOR OBSERVED NO OVERLAPS BY IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY OR BY 4-1 O 0*WK Ei 0/2= 4 1~ 13. THE DEED BETWEEN NELIGH C. OATES. GRANTOR AND DONA STUART, GRANTEE RECORDED < 3-- - DECK rd 1~ IN BOOK 652 AT PAGE 919, OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR PIâ„¢IN COUNTY, t COLORADO WAS RECORDED ON AUGUST 1, 1991. THIS DOCUMENT HAS A TOPOGRAPHICAL Mt-fi i I 28 N + + 52 ERROR IN THE EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION. THE ERROR IS U.S.M.S. NO. 3268, WHICH Ed; b:ME. 4o# .F. SHOULD READ U.S.M.S 3288. i q Eig 3*-E= POSSIBLE 0~~ - ~|| ~ ~ ~ 14. THE STATUS OF THE ACCESS ROAD LISTED ON THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN THE .id 4 2 OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO IN BOOK 204 AT PAGE 255 IS A r.1 DECK 31 0 1 LEGAL QUESTION NOT A SURVEYOR QUESTION. a A. \\ 4,4,42. 4 f.f ~ ~ fl, â€¢.4 15. ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TIES FROM THE PARCELS BOOK 652 AT PAGE 919 POINT OF HOUSE & 9. \ 9 4.. \ M 0 1 BEGINNING TO: (41- Cke ~ Ar j :,1 1 1 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE A. CORNER 6 OF THE OFFICIAL 1959 MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. NORTH 16 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST , A DISTANCE OF 1124.25 FEET. 6.1 *08. 60'. 846-- Â» 1, LOUIS H. BUETTNER, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO B. CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST - N 04<517 \ 2\ \ HEREBY CONFIRM THAT THIS RETRACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS WADE FROM OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, A 1954/1978 SPM BRASS CAP MONUMENT OF 248 FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEYS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY CONDUCTED IN 1991, THE 1978 OFFICIAL BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SURVEY. IiI < SET 5/8" STEEL RO~ WITH ~\ - 1 11 a i 1 CHECKING. THE MONUMENTATION SHOWN HEREON FOR THE PROPERTY CORNERS WAS FOUND OR FEET. YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED 2005, 2006, MADE BY MYSELF, OR UNDER MY DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY, SUPERVISION, AND NORTH 48 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 797.54 41 BUETTNER 13166 SET FOR THIS RETRACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SURVEY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS SHOWN C. CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARI~ED \\ 2 \ \ - HEREON ARE CORRECT.:m*~'-GI OF MY KNOWLEDGE. OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, OF THE 1978 OFFICIAL BUREAU OF LAND SET 5/8Â» STEEL ROD WITH MANAGEMENT SURVEY, A NAIL FLUSH WITH THE ASPHALT PAVING. f NORTH 44 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 743.71 BUETTNER 13166 ~ >-1,=.A-28Â£Â»9eE,f-L---/ FEET. SCALE 1- - 10. - LOUIS H. .Â£"Mi Y,v,& 1*1 THESE TIES ARE BASED ON THE VILLA OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED 31 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 296 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 34 .1 5/Ntt.1*4 ( 4*34 0 10 20 30 ' .44~ A l DATE --------------------- ELEVATION CONTOUR ~ / N424:25~ A '2%. 96/9 -4'Vie UliT OF -ASURE IS FEET, TENTH AND HUNDREDâ„¢ Of A FOOT ; NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COM.ENCE ANY LEGAL. LOUIS H. BUETTNER UVEYNG ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT N ThIS SURVEY WITHIN THEE YEARS 0040 WEST SOPRIS CREEK ROAD AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. N NO EVENT. MAY ANY BASALT. COLORADO 81621 ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THS SURVEY BE COMMENCED WORE 1 THAN TEN YEARS FROM TIE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN IEREON 970-927-MI 1 1 1 'E 39.P " STEEL ROD CAP MARKED RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2010 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 -------7 JOHANNSSON \ ARCHITECTS, INC. \ 27 NARROW WAY 4----------7 ASPEN, CO 81611 \ PHONE (970) 544 3377 U \ 1 \ E-MAIL 1 \ ojohannsson@comcast.net 1 \ -------------1 - 6 \ aim=Â£2 1 1 1 - =Il 1 E I 22 1 E- ~--rt - , FE~= - 1 Hil .1 --0 --- NEW PORCH AND FRONT DOOR EXISTING NEXT DOOR HOUSE < PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE ~ PROPOSED GARAGE (AT AN ANGLE) > X > rh NORTH ELEVATION ~~~0,/~ SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Â© EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 00000000 SOLAR PANELS J IN *11 -1 I I r' 1 1 1 -- li PROPOSED GARAGE (AT AN ANGLE) EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED ADDITION > 1-< < copyright Â© 2010 ELEVATIONS Â® WEST ELEVATION ~ SOUTH ELEVATION Sheet No. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.0 3[ONHaISH-H.LPIVILLS VT NflOE[HVH 9 1 00 II9I8 OCIVHOE[OD NE[dSV 312(I mulls//Â¥I ' sonss] 01/El/50 0 -7 JOHANNSSON \ ARCHITECTS, INC. \ 8' A.v. ExleTINB WISTORIC G.ADE y *1*10 W , ASPEN, CO 81611 27 NARROW WAY \ U \ PHONE (970) 544 3377 --------4 \ | E-MAIL ojohannsson@comcast.net ~0//CND FL 1 -9 =1 1 \R I 1 1. 11 1 9 1 g 1 1 1 1 1 1 . _ _ ~11-T FL EXISTNG NOUOG 1 I -0-I - 11 1 IL_J NEW PORCH AND 40_0â€ž FRONT DOOR , 1 1,SM'T .% 18'-0Â» EXISTING NEXT DOOR HOUSE < PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE > X > C-)NORTH ELEVATION 3 EAST ELEVATION ~~00,~ SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" i. U Z < i 0 a u u El E~ El E~ El 0 0 SOLAR PANELS , ~/ u Â»ik ' ,. Â®8-11- 1 . 14 3 14 b g 1 N $ FIRDT FL , *Fl-T FL EXIOTINa NOUZE $184.1 1 ----H--, Â· 0ieyo~Ic: 8~2/DE '9 1 1 9 - '--'-|~ UGHT 15'1 l ir 1 L J L 3 - _ _ _ 1 LIGHT WELL E 1- 1 - ,., $....r _ - 1 EXISTING HOUSE > PROPOSED ADDITION ~ -Â»44-/ 8/6/ \0 copyright Â© 2010 -\*ovie>Â«Sp ELEVATIONS (g WEST ELEVATION ~ SOUTH ELEVATION Sheet No. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.0 HN HaISIH 12IVILLS O I/EULO II9I8 OCIVHOTOO NEIdSV OI/ZI/0 SUO!"AIW % SanSSI TRANSFORMER SEWERIMANHOLE 1//2 9 -- 7843.7 0 / a , M Z IN ~ TELEPHONE j ~ JOHANNSSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 27 NARROW WAY ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 544 3377 E-MAIL ojohannsson@comcast.net WI 0 0 0 R llc Va/\ o copyright Â© 2010 SITE PLAN 41 - SITE PLAN Sheet No. . AO. 1 ~0000,~ SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT V .1. \ 4% 4 1Â£4 < CITY OF ASPEN - . &- 26;$.4.k.~1TZ- - ~~1 L. M & 45, HONE[GISERI 11IVf-LLS 0 1/ZE/LO II9I8 OC[VNOTOE) NE[dSV 01/ZI/50 91.0 ~SU/!SIAIM / sonssl 7 Â® ... -. . 1 . . .. 1 ... 4 0 .lf, I . .. 4~ . . --= 11 I Jilliallmililliv 440. 1. 1 - A :Fallur .. e .. 0.0 1 T - 0 ..:0 0 Â·9 1 & . dli~/ *0. - 1 < 2*:AE-,Â· 4 . >r~,_ RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2010 O CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1sk6 TRANSFORMER SEWERIMANHOLE 7843.7 li g ~ TELEPHONE ~ TV PEDESTAL JOHANNSSON G/ Fâ‚¬DESTAL ARCHITECTS, INC. " 1 lsi po.c 27 NARROW WAY ASPEN, CO 81611 T/ /E S \ 9 \ ~ PHONE (970) 544 3377 1- - 7843.9 ~ *JOI . IE-MAIL G/W ojohannsson@comcast.net 1 .3, 4 0 <A,\ W \ \40' 0 W O Â»4 ; 20 = oc * ~ td v /E De @i --UNDER 4 racp b 7843.9 2,415 . t.,J ~ -1\ 24/,0 11 -4 NOTES: H e 11:111 SETBACKS PROPOSED BY ARCHITECT 0 k ARE BASED ON EXISTING CONDITONS. 111 4,- 0 2 1 ,, ~ ~ / UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 121 PROPO ED GARAGE 0 GAS HARBOUR LANE PROPERTY WAS 2 4 0 41 0 ~2 m~ IT IS THE ARCHITECT'S 3/3 J ANNEXED TO THE CITY IN 1980. 1* ~ THE HOUSE WAS BUILT CIRCA 1984. f 7843.7 PRIOR TO 1960 AND WAS NOT ~ ~~ ~ THE SUBJECT HOUSE WAS BUILT ANNEXED TO THE CITY UNTIL 1989. 1 1 1 NEITHER HOUSE AS THEY EXIST 8 MEETS THE SETBACK REGULATIONS AS 1 0. 8437 2 l 185, DISTRICT. 32" S RUCE ~ . 10' 3/8 / 1~ \ NOTES: 7842,9 04# 0 EXISTING ~HOUSE " ~ SIDE YARD SETBACK 3' ON THIS 13 14 - 4 SIDE. NEXT DOOR HOUSE IS Z- 42 ALREADY ABOUT 2'-1" FROM THE <u 4 1 0 WITHIN EXISTING CONDITIONS ON 2\ CRIBBING #43 8 \ PROPERTY LINE SO THIS IS a 9 4 / bli ; 1 "13 1 &5 | THAT SIDE. -4 r > 4.t' 0) e CD 4 STATED IN THE R-15A ZONE I 39A 9 e 4 ~ NEW FRONT SETBACK 10'9 3/8" 6' 00 i BASED ON THE EXISTING O 4/ hl # ## 47 4/ STRUCTURE. THIS HAS BEEN ~ 1 2 ' i i j DETERMINED AS THE FRONT OF 1.8' 12&.1 v Â¢' 2 / 4 THE HOUSE. 128' @ SIDE YARD SETBACK 10' THIS IS ~ 7840. ACCORDING TO THE ZONE - PROPO St L ADDIT \\ /2. DISTRICT. M 4 1* @ EXISTING HOUSE 2'-5" FROM 00 8 95, 7. 4,1. ia / u. PROPERTY LINE. 49 4* 00:7 #44-/ /6 8/1 1 1 @ DISTANCE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORS r HOUSE TO CREEK ESTIMATED. ACTUAL DISTANCE VISUALLY , El i 4 0 THAT IS SHORTER. FINAL DECK f // t i IG CHECKED REVEALED A DISTANCE DETERMINATION MUST BE W DETRMINED WHEN SNOW IS GONE. 4 Â® DISTANCE TO NEW STRUCTURE HOUSE * 03Â¥, ~ 1*bel /\\ ~ CREEK SET AT 10' SEE ALSO NOTE #5. . 60 8464 4 1 Â® TOP OF SLOPE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE SURVEY AREA AND ABOUT s $ 200' HIGHER AT THE VILLAS OF es> - ASPEN TOWNHOUSES AND r\ THEREFORE NOT RELEVANT TO ~ THIS PROJECT. \1 0' 2' 4' 6' 8'10' 20' 1 3/.6/10 coppight Â© 2010 SITE PLAN Â© SITE PLAN 1-kaviqzj Sheet No. SCALE: 1"=10' AO.1 C I i VsÂ»= i /66%6. CREEK EROSION DEBRIS APPROX. TOP OF CR K CHANN LVERTICAL REEKER )F CASTLE CREEK GROUND CRIBBIN IN U~E DNEIGISERI IMV]l 0700 NHdSV 01/ZI/90 Issues / Revisions: