Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.1125 Ute Ave.A35-93 '' CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET � U City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 7 06 3 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737 - 182 -68 -001 A35 -93 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Souki Conditional Use Review & 8040 Greenline Project Address: 112 Cute Avenue Legal Address: Lot 3. Hoaq Subdivision APPLICANT: Charif Souki Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Brooke Peterson Representative Address /Phone: 315 E. Hyman Aspen. CO 81611 925 -8166 FEES: PLANNING $ 942.00 # APPS RECEIVED 8 ENGINEER $ 93.00 # PLATS RECEIVED 8 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $1035.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date - PUBLIC HEARING:NCYE NO (U� VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: 7 4,-- City Attorney Parks Dept. School District 7 City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas X Housing Dir. )( Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. \.- ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: 5M INITIALS: iv," DUE: ]i 'r FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: /0#94 INITIAL: %GJ. City Atty _ City Engineer _Zoning _Env. Health _ Housing _ Open Space _ Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: t 6124735369 S'" RAPPAPORT 09/13/93 2' r4 P01 SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT 3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 PHONE: (612) 473 -3065 FAX: (612) 473 -5369 September 13, 1993 Leslie Lamont Aspen Planning and Zoning S� e 4 FAX (303) 920 -5197 Dear Leslie, I am writing in response to the notification of the Souki Conditional use review and 8040 Greenline Review. I am enclosing a copy of the letter I wrote to the Board of Adjustment. It summarizes our objections to the development of Lot 3 Hoags Addition. Since the variance has been granted, I hope that those issues will be addressed at the 8040 hearing. In addition, Gary and I STRONGLY OBJECT to the accessory dwelling unit for that property. The road to it is and will remain (I hope!) a single lane. If an accessory dwelling unit is approved, there will be far more traffic and a higher occupancy density than was ever intended for that site. In addition, if it is approved, then it will set a precedent for the Newfoundland Claim to also have an ADD. The amount of car and truck traffic would be impossible. We also worry about the viability of the Nordic Ski Trail. It has been messed up for several seasons now, and more traffic would make it worse. Since we are not able to attend the meeting on September 21st, please make sure that our views are known. Thank you. 31e Rs, Susan H. Rappaport IT 6124735369 S' RAPPAPORT 09/13/93 2 P02 GARY AND SUSAN RAPPAPORT 3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 PHONE: (612) 473 -3065 FAX: (612) 473 -5369 September 13, 1993 Remo Livagnino The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 FAX (303) 920 -5197 Dear Remo, We own the property at 115 Ute Avenue, Lot 5, Hoag's Edition, and we have comments about the variance request for Lot 3, Hoag's Edition, about which the Board of Adjustment plans to meet on August 12 at 4:OOPM. Hopefully, you are aware of the long history about the development of that property. We urge you to review the file on it (Leslie Lamont, at Planning and Zoning office, probably has it or can get it), as it went through variance, P & 2, and finally revocation of its building permit. You will also find letters from us in that file, detailing the many issues that we found and still find objectionable. We believe that the approval of a development plan for lot 3 should be denied because the scope is extremely steep, and the resulting tree removal and excavation will cause high risk of rock slides and avalanches both during and after construction. If for some reason you do approve it, we urge you to make that approval contingent on certain conditions: • The owners/developers MUST post a performance bond before any work whatsoever begins on that project. • The new road to access the property and the original Nordic Trail road must be completed in at least as good a way as the city planning office originally stipulated. This includes re vegetation, boulder walls, avalanche mitigation, etc. - all of this was detailed in earlier documents on file with the city. Because the original developer did not have a performance bond, he was able to really open up some wide areas on very steep and treed terrain. One of the results, besides big scarring, is that there are numerous snow slides on the trail. The trail was dosed for all of March and April this year, and while it was a heavy snow year, there were slides in other years too, which had not happened before those roads were cut. As a matter t 6124735369 r W RAPPAPORT 09/13/93 2' P03 of fact, a slide came over the road and lodged against the roof and back of our neighbor's home. The Nordic trail is scarred and damaged, and we are especially concerned with the unacceptable part directly above our home. The easement along our property line, (which was designated as a utility easement, by the way), has been trashed. The terrain is uneven and not graded for proper drainage. There are rocks, boulders and dead tree strewn around. On the upper side of the road, there are enormous tree roots that have been exposed from the road cutting. There is one large double trunk tree in particular that could seriously damage our home if it falls, and while the Forest Service agrees that it could fall and has given us permission to remove it, we feel that the expense and responsibility should be borne by those who originally damaged it or the new owners. • During any building, roads or homes, there must be construction fences which protect our property as well as our neighbors, from debris, boulders, etc. falling down upon us. ▪ There must be limitations set on the number of trucks and large vehicles that can go up and down there, and they must not be allowed to use the Nordic Trail which was designated originally and should remain a non- vehicular road. • Needless to say, a responsible person and agency must bc appointed to closely monitor any of these stipulations that you approve. The previous owner agreed to many things and then did not do them. No one was there to check on him or red tag him for his lack of compliance. Please also review the agreement between the subject property and the Newfoundland Claim next door. The Newfoundland has access rights across the Hoag #3 property. They are also part of this puzzle and the potential for future problems. Both of these properties should be part of the same sorts of limitations, because of the fragile nature of their location. We urge all the members of the committee to personally go to the site, so they can appreciate the seriousness and difficulties of building in that area. Thank you for allowing us to express our views. Please do not let these issues drop into the cracks) We would also appreciate being copied on the outcome of the meeting. Sinter -LL i ale - p et- P J ' ' Crazy B. Rappaport Susan H. Rappaport cc: Tommy Coleman Jack Davis McFLYNN & PICKETT 1 LAWYERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I I THE SMITH- ELISHA HOUSE - "' - - - -- 320 WEST' MAIN STREET. SUITE 1 p er ' ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 4l � . TIMOI IiY McFLYNN" i e 0 )9' T • PI (303) •2 -2 4, MARTIiA 0 PI . C KETT M E M O R A N D U M W i 9 December 15, 1992 TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Martha C. Pickett RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline I. HISTORY OF PROJECT APPROVAL The Hoag Subdivision was created and approved by the City of Aspen on October 18, 1971. Joe Zaluba, on behalf of himself and Ron Collen, co -owner of the Hoag Lot 3, applied for an 8040 Greenline review in February 1989. There were several hearings, some of which I was not involved in, but after my involvement included April 4, 1989; August 8, 1989; November 14, 1989; December 19, 1989; and January 2, 1990. During these hearings, various revisions and additions to the application, were requested by P &Z members and planning staff. Approval was finally made January 2, 1990. Messrs. Zaluba and Collen were extremely accommodating and spent thousands of dollars in excess of what was anticipated in satisfying all of the questions and concerns of the Staff and P &Z. One of the major revisions to the application was the design and alignment of the new upper driveway, rather than using the lower access driveway which had been approved by the City in previous years and in an application from Mr. Jack Barker. Review of the history of this application is necessary to remind Commission members that were on the board before and new members that the many hearings continually referred to by various members of P &Z and Staff with regard to this application were not all at the request of the applicant, but at the request of the City. Also importantly, there were no time requirements for completion of improvements and no requirement for a performance MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 2 bond or financial security of any kind for the improvements under the initial 8040 approval. Immediately upon receipt of the grant of approval, Messrs. Zaluba and Collen submitted a building permit application for commencement of construction immediately. Because of the City's busy schedule and various delays, the building permit was not issued until late September, 1990. Because of this issuance of a building permit several months after its application, the first building season was lost, and further, the contract to construct a home for a contract purchaser was terminated because Messrs. Zaluba and Collen were unable to meet the time requirements of the purchaser. II. COMMENCEMENT OF DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION Meanwhile, in an effort to begin construction and to cooperate with the neighboring landowners who would share the driveway, the Hoag property owners began construction of the new driveway. Also, condition No. 12 of the 8040 Resolution required that the driveway be constructed prior to commencement of construction of the house. The driveway was excavated to a preliminary grade, awaiting final grade for excavation of the building foundation which would determine more accurately the final grade of the driveway. When the building permit was not issued until late September, all work on the project was stopped as inclement weather began. III. COMPLAINT FROM NEIGHBOR on or about Sept. 11, 1990, the neighboring owner below the driveway where it forks off from the ski trail, Mrs. Susan Rappaport, wrote the City Attorney to express her concern that there could be drainage from the new driveway which could create problems for her landscaping and retainage in her backyard, which was very steep. At that time, Jed Caswall and I had several telephone conversations as well as some correspondence which MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 3 confirmed that Mr. Zaluba had immediately had his experts, Chen Northern and High Country Engineering, visit the'site, visit with Mrs. Rappaport and her attorney, John Kelly, to address her concerns and do additional work on the driveway to winterize its condition. Once again, please note that the initial contact from Mrs. Rappaport was mid-September and therefore winterization work occurred late in the fall just prior to inclement weather. The next summer the issue was raised again, apparently by Mrs. Rappaport, in her letter dated August 8, 1991, as to the state of the ski trail grade. Please note that her letter was in response to a report from Chen Northern to Gary and Susan Rappaport dated July 31, 1991, re: the state of the Rappaports' driveway and grading on the Rappaports' property (not Hoag Lot 3). See Chen's letter of July 31, 1991, referencing Job No. 4 438 87, which was Rappaports' property. In that letter, Chen reported that there was some final grading to be completed on the ski trail above the Rappaports which should address drainage on the Rappaports' property. Mrs. Rappaport's subsequent letter to the City was to inquire as to the status of the final grade on the ski trail, and did not question the status of the driveway on Lot 3. Somehow, this inquiry led to the Notice to Show Cause for the July 21, 1992, hearing which raised various issues related to the driveway, not the ski trail. IV. NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING The first Notice to Show Cause Hearing occurred on July 21, 1992. The Notice to Show Cause listed the reasons for the City's position that the 8040 Greenline approval should be revoked. The applicant's position has continually been that these conditions had not been finalized, but that most importantly, that this was not an issue of non - compliance because the initial 8040 Greenline Approval did not impose any time restrictions for when the improvements must be completed. The P &Z at its first hearing in July relied upon a MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 4 theory that because the building application was granted that somehow a time period was inferred to be imposed upon the applicant for other conditions on the property not related to building of the structure. It is our position that this theory is not a valid one. Most importantly, we maintain that the applicant has been cooperative in trying to address all of theme concern the neighbors' concerns and has made much progress in completing these conditions in a satisfactory manner. (See Exhibit "A" setting forth a summary of correspondence by the Applicants' representatives; and Exhibit "B" setting forth a list of hearing dates related to this noncompliance issue, summarizing the action taken at each hearing.) All of the applicants' experts, as well as the City Engineer and Planner, have agreed that the driveway is in a stable condition, not a hazardous one. There have been various comments by staff members and P &Z members that Mr. Zaluba has not been cooperative in this non- compliance process. I submit that as evidenced by the reports submitted to the staff and P &Z, the Applicants have indeed been extremely cooperative and anxious to resolve the issues raised. First of all, at the first Show Cause Hearing Mr. Zaluba was personally present and agreed to various conditions, which his experts immediately explained to him were overzealous. When Jed Caswall provided to me a copy of the proposed resolution, I spoke with him on the phone and wrote him a letter with regard to our position that some of the dates were optimistic but that some of the items could be completed in a timely fashion. Because I was out of town, I did not receive a copy of the proposed resolution until after it had been executed, and I was given one day in which to respond. Immediately after the July 21 hearing, Mr. Zaluba met with various workers and engineers on the property, including the City Engineer to discuss the best way to proceed on all the issues. The MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 5 initial 8040 Greenline Approval requires that the applicant have final approval by the City Engineer as to its engineered drawings for any retaining walls prior to commencement of construction. Because Mr. Zaluba had committed to completion of the wall prior to the winter, and his engineers and designers had explained to him that this time schedule was not feasible, Messrs. Zaluba, Collen and the neighboring owners who would be sharing the driveway, suggested a proposal that a temporary concrete wall be placed along the upper edge of the driveway merely as a temporary measure for the winter season. This proposal was nixed upon a determination by the City Engineer and Staff that this temporary measure was not necessary because the slope was indeed stabilized and in a safe condition. Next, Messrs. Zaluba and Collen, along with the neighboring property owner who is to share the driveway, submitted a proposal of plans and specifications for a wall which would not be a tall, complex boulder and retaining wall which was contemplated during the application but a simpler, smaller wall which would be more aesthetically pleasing because more the slough would be able to be visible and there would be more vegetation showing because the slope could be cut back and the existing vegetation could slough over and regrow. Ron Thompson, Assistant City Engineer has approved these plans and specifications and Leslie Lamont has stated that she supports approval of this wall for the reasons stated above. Also during this time immediately following the first hearing, Mr. Zaluba worked with a local hydromulch expert to determine how best to handle the area downhill from the new driveway. It was suggested that rather than removing all of the rocks as required and agreed to with P &Z, that some additional sod be placed along the slope and that the area be hyrdomulched. Initially when Mr. Zaluba asked Ron Thompson for his permission to do this within the time frame set out by P &Z, Ron Thompson agreed. However, a couple MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 6 of days later Ron Thompson called to say that in speaking with Leslie Lamont they believed that this hydromulch plan was accept- able but that it should be approved by P &Z. Because Mr. Zaluba believed that this was a better alternative, he risked not picking up the rocks but waiting till the next P &Z for approval. However, at the next P &Z hearing this item was used against him as a condition which he had not literally met. Once again, it is important to note that the downhill slope which was subject to this hydromulch or removal of rocks was not in an unsafe condition but, rather, had rocks which had spilled over from the excavation which needed to be corrected. Today, our proposal is to not only remove the rocks but also to hydromulch to give double protection to ensure that this revegetation method will be successful through more than one growing season. Ron Thompson has stated that because this work wi L1 now be done in the spring, rather than the fall which was initially contemplated, there is a greater chance of its success. V. REVEGETATION OP OLD HAIRPIN TURN As part of the underlying approvals, the applicants were to revegetate the old hairpin turn which had now been abandoned. The approval itself contemplated use of the spoils from the excavation of the house foundation to revegetate this area. This would allow on -site dirt to be used rather than trucking many truckloads of dirt through town to the site for this purpose. At this time, please note that the city engineer's office and the planning staff have agreed that the requirement at the July 21 hearing, to immediately revegetate that area should be given some additional time to hopefully allow on -site spoils to be used for this purpose. Therefore, this condition, required by P &Z at its July 21 hearing, is now being recommended to be amended by the staff. MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 7 VI. COOPERATION FROM Applicants As noted above, Messrs. Zaluba and Collen have worked diLigently to cooperate with the City and the neighbors each time an issue has arisen. They have not consistently ignored nor sought the requirements imposed by the City, whether legal or not. Please note that this has been an evolving process. Although the applicant has raised various revisions as to how to handle certain conditions and to the plans and design for the wall and revegetation measures, so has the City taken this opportunity to revise its conditions, supplement, amend, and add brand new conditions which were never contemplated nor required before. One good example is after a meeting with staff, the Staff Planner, Assistant City Engineer and City Attorney on September _, the parties agreed that Ron Thompson would provide a memorandum or a letter to the applicants setting forth all of the items he wanted addressed. Ron Thompson called me on September 24 and specifical- ly listed the items which would be required. I took notes verbatim and immediately sent a letter to my clients and their experts so that this work could begin. At the same time, I wrote a letter to Ron Thompson confirming in writing all of the items he had listed for. me. On September 29, I received a letter from Ron and Leslie once again revising those requirements given by Ron, and that information was later once again used against the applicant by stating that I had changed a time requirement period. The time requirement that I had changed was actually moving up a date to three days earlier so that Ron would have three additional days to review something which he had required. I thought modification of that date which would favor the City and not my client would be acceptable. On several occasions the Assistant City Engineer, Leslie Lamont and Jed Caswall met with me and /or Randy Wedum to discuss resolution of these issues. Consistently, we have thought that we had resolved the issues, addressed all of the concerns and met MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 8 deadlines imposed. However, at each hearing, the presentation made by staff and the discussion among P &Z members has failed to acknowledge cooperation by the applicants and their representatives and have relied upon a literal interpretation of dates for compli- ance imposed by P &Z without input by the applicants, their representatives and city staff members who have agreed that certain time frames were unrealistic and agreed that other time frames were acceptable. It has been a difficult process for the applicants to work on two levels, one with the staff in believing that their time frames and solutions were acceptable and were to be recommended to P &Z, and then understandably from the P &Z members' point of view not having these recommendations clearly set forth at hearings in front of P &Z. As I recall, Bruce Kerr, for one, noted on a couple of occasions that he was receiving mixed messages from staff and could not discern what in fact staff was recommending. VII. SUMMARY Mr. Zaluba's property is admittedly a steep, difficult site for development. However, this property is a legally subdivided City lot which has been reviewed by the City first in its subdivi- sion process and secondly in an 8040 Greenline Approval for Jack Barker, which approved a lower driveway. The 8040 Approval process for Messrs. Zaluba and Collen was a long and tedious one, which was not mandated by the Applicants, but by the City; a process which the Applicants participated in agreeably and cooperatively. The issue of non - compliance arose not by the City's concern but by an adjacent property owner, who objected to the approval of the 8040 Greenline in the first place because she did not want a house and the traffic behind her, and by raising concerns relating to the state the driveway which the City has consistently agreed did not exist. The slope where the driveway is cut has remained stable as evidenced by various letters from the Applicants' experts, as well MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 9 as from the City Engineer's and Planning Staff's office. The other conditions which have been imposed by the City during this non- compliance process were either not a part of the initial 8040 Greenline Approval or did not have a time period in which they must be finished. The only amendment that the Applicants are seeking is the new design of the wall which has arisen because once the excavation for the driveway was completed, it was not as steep as originally contemplated and because the Applicants, who must now work with an adjacent owner to share the costs as well as the actual use of the road have agreed upon a plan which is not only less expensive (which should not be penalized) but is also more visually acceptable to these Applicants who must travel it each day because it is less visually impactive by allowing more vegetation to be shown. Hoag Lot 3 is currently under Contract for Sale with a closing scheduled for February 28, 1993. The new purchasers, Dr. and Mrs. Jeff Rush, as part of their Contract, have agreed to provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of $80,000, to the benefit of the City of Aspen. Our proposal today is that you accept this Letter of Credit, the original of which is being Federal Expressed for arrival in Jed Caswall's office tomorrow, December 16. This Letter of Credit may be revoked by the Rushes only in the event for some reason they do not consummate their closing in February. At that time, if indeed the Rushes choose to revoke the Letter of Credit, the Applicants will have the right to substitute the Letter of Credit, in the same form, to be acceptable by the City Attorney, and if such Letter of Credit cannot be supplied by the Applicants prior to withdrawal of the Rushes' Letter of Credit, then, the Applicants have agreed that the 8040 Approvals shall automatically be revoked. Most importantly, they have agreed to waive their rights to a hearing at that time. The Applicants believe that their proposal is a fair one and includes a major concession on their partly because they are of the MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline December 15, 1992 Page 10 adamant belief that this non - compliance process and the conditions required have been imposed without the necessary criteria as required by law. The charges against the Applicants are unfounded because the conditions required in the 8040 Greenline which have not been completed did not have a time restriction for completion. The time requirements have been artificially imposed, or as one of the planning members determined "inferred" by other items such as issuance of a building permit. To revoke the 8040 approvals will greatly diminish the value of the property, particularly given the fact that it is currently under Contract for sale. EXHIBIT "A" CORRESPONDENCE FROM APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVES 1. November 9, 1990 letter from Marty Pickett (confirming retention of Steve Pollach, Chen Associates to oversee work and confirm that all necessary measures are being taken to provide stabilization. This letter was in response to a letter from Jed Caswall, dated October 30, 1990, subsequent to a letter from Susan Rappaport, dated September 11, 1990. 2. November 12, 1990 letter from Chen Northern re: observation of the temporary driveway grading verifying that there was "no seepage and no indications of massive slope instability associated with this cut." Also noting that approximately one month earlier, he had observed the site when clear of snow and it was in a similar condition to the present condition, ie., "there appears to be little risk of massive slope instability or erosion that can impact structures below the site." 3. July 31, 1991 letter from Chen Northern to the Rappaports. This letter was for purposes of reporting on the retainage work done on the Rappaport property by Chen Northern. In addition, Chen Northern noted that "additional grading of the outside edge of Ute Trail may be needed so that surface water runoff is not directed onto the subject [Rappaport] site." 4. July 10, 1992 letter from Chen Northern to Joe Zaluba noting "the temporary grading for the driveway appears to be perform- ing as expected and there were no indications of upslope destabilization." Also, "no indications of seepage were observed." "The slopes along the downhill side of the drive appeared stable and no indications of accelerated erosion were noted." 5. July 21, 1992 letter from Chen Northern to Joe Zaluba "there was no seepage and no indication of massive slope instability associated with the cut. A small amount of rock had ravelled from the cut face and came to rest on the driveway sur- face...we understand that the driveway excavation is tempo- rary, mainly for construction access, and the road will be final graded by additional downcutting during the residence construction. This sequence should be acceptable and the applicable recommendations presented in our previous report should be observed in completing the driveway grading." 6. September 15, 1992 letter from Marty Pickett to Leslie Lamont regarding outstanding issues relating to hydromulch, wall design, and handling the issue of where the driveway meets the trail. 7. September 15, 1992 letter from High Country Engineering to Marty Pickett in response to the City's request for additional information on the initial temporary stabilization and later ti This letter was proposing a temporary measure for the winter which at the time was a recommendation or proposal by the Applicants. 8. September 15, 1992 letter Gene Cilli regarding proposal to hydromulch the downside slope from the driveway. 9. September 16, 1992 letter from Marty Pickett to Rob Thompson regarding the proposed temporary pre -cast wall for the winter. 10. September 16, 1992 letter from Chen Northern from Joe Zaluba summarizing the September 8 site visit. He notes that "the driveway alignment is identical to that described in our July 21 letter. Additional excavation has been made by cutting down and into the hillside. ...the driveway surface had a noticeable cross slope into the hillside to contain surface runoff along the uphill side. ...and there was no indications of massive slope instability caused by additional excavation. ...hydromulching the uphill excavation phase is not warranted at this time since the cut is temporary and will be flattened for the final grading configuration." 11. September 24, 1992 letter from Marty Pickett to Rob Thompson confirming requirements stated on the telephone on September 23, 1992. This is where the October 15 deadline for submit- ting an engineering drawing was changed to October 12, 1992 by Marty to allow three days review by the engineer. Also note that on September 29, 1992, there was a letter to Marty from Rob Thompson and Leslie making revisions to the requirements stated in the telephone conversation September 23 and con- firmed in writing by Marty on September 24, 1992. 12. October 12, 1992 design drawings by High Country Engineering for a concrete wall which will expose more vegetation by allowing the existing vegetative slope to slough over. 13. October 16, 1992 letter from Chen Northern from Randy Wedum regarding retaining wall details by High Country Engineers. They state that this plan is in accordance with their recom- mendations for driveway grading presented on pages 9 and 10 of their subsoil study report dated June 26, 1989. Further, they suggest that they observe the final slope grading during and after the retaining wall construction. 14. November 13, 1992 letter from Chen Northern to Randy Wedum regarding their review of design drawings by High Country Engineering and Construction procedures regarding geotechnical field monitoring. They suggest that field inspection should be made when the wall area is cut to rough grade and after the walls have been set in backfield. 15. November 16, 1992 letter to Rob Thompson from Greg Mosian regarding tree location replacement, hydroseed /mulching and reseeding plan. ATTACHMENT E h� White River 1^ ^en Ranger District 4 ' A United ent of Set West Hallam D epartment of Sec �e National Agriculture Forest Aspen, CO 81611 Reply To: 2730 Date: October 16, 1989 Ms. Marty Pickett Smith Elisha Rouse 320 West Main Aspen CO 81611 Dear Marty: This letter will serve to document the Forest Service's approval of the plans submitted for improvements to the access road over National Forest System Lands to the Hoag Subdivision. This road, .04 miles in length, is under Special Use Permit. The right -of -way of the permitted road is 20 feet. The improvements to the road have been described in drawings which have been reviewed and approved by Forest Service engineer Bob Berg. These plans may be implemented under the following conditions: 1. The Aspen Ranger District will be notified of and approve the proposed schedule of work. 2. All disturbance must remain within the 20 -foot right -of -way authorized under the existing Special Use Permit. • Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, 1414- / 3/4 i 'ETCHER MERRILL District Ranger cc: City of Aspen Planning Department, attn. Leslie Lamont/ SO South Zone Engineering Caring for the Land and Serving People 11 a 4$ F5- 8200 - 29(782) ti.. U 1 ✓ THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY January 4, 1993 Ms. Martha C. Pickett McFlynn & Pickett 320 West Main Street, Suite 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Zaluba -Hoag Lot 3 • Dear Marty: This is just to confirm that I have found the letter of credit as issued by Imperial Bank of Inglewood, California, relevant to the above -noted property, to be consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings and order of December 15, 1992 (copy enclosed) and acceptable to this office. The original will be kept on file in the City Clerk's office. Hopefully, this matter will now resolve itself in accordance with the P /Z's order. • Let me know should you have any questions. - Very truly yours, Edward M. Caswall City Attorney EMC /mc Enc. jc14.2 cc: \1Leslie Lamont, Planning Department City Clerk 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303 920 5055 • FAX 303.920.5119 r111110i oon. MEMORANDUM TO Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: December 15, 1992 RE: Continued Hoag Lot 3 Noncompliance Hearing For this continued hearing the Planning staff does not have additional packet material for the Commission. However, Jan attached Zaluba- related meeting minutes for your review. Please bring the packet that was prepared a month ago for your review. _ r BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A /K /A 1125 UTE 16ar_ AVENUE, JOSEPH 8. ZALUBA, APPLICANT FINDINGS AND ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Planning and Zoning Commission for hearing on December 15, 1992, upon written notice to Joseph S. Zaluba, to determine whether Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply with or has violated the terms and conditions of 8040 Greenline Land Use Development Approvals awarded to him on January 2, 1990, as amended on July 21, 1992 by the Findings and Order of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission entered August 24, 1992. Mr. Zaluba and his co -owner and Applicant, Mr. Ronald Collen, appeared before the Commission represented by legal counsel, Martha C. Pickett and Timothy McFlynn of McFlynn & Pickett, P. C. The Commission heard the presentation of the evidence from the staff of the Planning Department, from Mr. Zaluba's representatives and from interested persons during a public hearing on the Notice to Show Cause. Having considered the testimony, the documents presented and the other evidence, the Commission finds as follows: 1. On November 4, 1992, written Notice to Show Cause was issued by the Commission to Joseph S. Zaluba alleging that grounds existed to believe that he had violated and /or failed to comply with enumerated terms and /or conditions of the 8040 Greenline Approval, as modified by the Commission at the July 21, 1992 Show Cause hearing. 2. Mr. Zaluba, through his representatives, received notice of the hearing on said Notice to Show Cause scheduled for November 10, 1992 and appeared through his legal representatives at said hearing on November 10 and at the continued hearing on December 15, 1992. 3. Mr. Zaluba failed to revegetate the road cut and remove all spoils from the bank of the new road cut by September 1; 1992 and therefore violated Condition Number 1 of the July 21, 1992 Modified Conditions of the 8040 Greenline Approval. 4. Mr. Zaluba failed to post a performance bond or other similar security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to $300,000.00, to secure the successful completion of the revegetation, installation of the retaining walls, slope stabiliza- tion, drainage mitigation, and road surface stabilization, all in violation of Condition Number 3 of the July 21, 1992 Modified Conditions of the 8040 Greenline Approval. r , 5. Mr. Zaluba failed to complete the slope and road , stabilization work, the removal of all spoils, and the construction of the retaining walls by October 15, 1992, in violation of Condition Number 4 of the July 21, 1992 Modified Conditions of the 8040 Greenline Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Mr. Zaluba's 1990 8040 Development Greenline Approval, as amended July 21, 1992, shall be revoked at this time, but said revocation shall be stayed pending timely and satisfactory compliance with each of the following new conditions: (a) Submission by December 18, 1992 of an irrevocable standby Letter of Credit in the amount of $80,000.00 in favor of the City of Aspen, issued on behalf of Jeffrey Rush, M.D., the contract purchaser of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, from a finan- cial institution and in a form approved by the City Attorney on or before December 31, 1992, and if said letter of credit is not so approved by said date then the 8040 Greenline Approval shall automatically expire and the Applicant shall be deemed to have waived his right to any further hearings before the Commission. Said Letter of Credit shall be effective until September 15, 1993. (b) If Jeffrey Rush, M.D., as contract purchaser of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, fails to close on the said purchase on or before February 24, 1993, and no substitute Letter of Credit is submitted by or on behalf of the Applicant from an institu- tion and in a form approved by the City Attorney on or before said closing date, the 8040 Greenline Approval shall automati- cally expire and the Applicant shall be deemed to have waived the right to any further hearings before the Commission. (c) Design approval by the Commission of plans for the retaining wall proposed by the Applicant, as designed by Greg Mosian, landscape architect, and engineered by High Country Engineering, dated October 15, 1992, and approved by the Aspen City Engineering Department, to be approved as an Amendment to the 8040 Greenline Approval by the Commission on or before February 9, 1993. (d) Satisfactory completion of all on -site work required by the 8040 Greenline Approval, as modified on July 21, 1992 and as further modified by these conditions, including but not limited to the construction of the retaining wall, removal of spoils and revegetation, on or before July 1, 1993, except for the revegetation of the upper road cut which shall have the right to be completed on or before July 31, 1993, and if any of said work is not satisfactorily completed by said dates the City shall have the right to draw upon the Letter of Credit to 2 insure that such work is completed as soon as practicable thereafter. Satisfactory completion of any required emergency remedial work, arising or resulting from Spring runoff onto adjacent properties, timely performed either by or on behalf of the Applicant and /or Jeffrey Rush, M.D., the contract purchaser, and if not satisfactorily and timely performed, the City shall have the right to draw upon the Letter o a Credit to cause such work to be completed as soon as p 2. If each of the foregoing conditions is complied with, the revocation of the 8040 Greenline Approval, stayed by the Commission G ll automatically be rescinded and the 8040 r this Order, sha as amended, shall be r inst t d without further Greenline Approval, hearing by or action of the Commission. Entered this /i day of December, 1992. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By `- /k1,-C- /A Jasmine Tygre, Chair.. son ATTEST: Jan Car y, Deput City Clerk Approved as to substance and form: McFLYNN & PICKETT, . C• By: / 1. ..� ':rtha C. Pic ett At_•rneys for Applicant m ube \fmdinge.ord 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: November 10, 1992 RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Noncompliance SUMMARY: ft he Hoag Subdivision, owned by 04 Greenline MrJoe Zaluba, in L in J nuary 3 of of 1990. The Commission, at their October 20, 1992 meeting, voted to schedule a noncompliance hearing to consider revocation of the Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision 8040 Greenline approval. This is the second scheduled noncompliance hearing regarding this 8040 Greenline approval. The Commission held a noncompliance hearing July 21, 1992. At that time the Commission did not revoke the 8040 Greenline but delineated a set of conditions of approval that were to be adhered to in order for Mr. Zaluba to maintain his 8040 Greenline approval. Staff recommends that the Commission revoke the 8040 Greenline approval for Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision because Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply with the conditions of approval as established during the July 21, 1992 noncompliance hearing. BACKGROUND: Mr. Zaluba received an 8040 Greenline approval for a single family residence on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision in January of 1990. Please see attached Resolution 90 -4 approving the 8040 Greenline, Exhibit A. Mr. Zaluba proceeded with site improvements in anticipation of constructing the single family home on this parcel. An excavation permit was issued for the new access road. A foundation permit was also issued. A new access road was cut approximately two ago. Shortly thereafter the excavation and foundation permits expired. In the ensuing years the City received many complaints from neighbors regarding the safety and condition of the access road that was never finished. Based upon the lack of follow through regarding the road and lack of compliance with the conditions of approval as stipulation in the 1990 Resolution, the Commission held a noncompliance hearing July 21, 1992 to consider revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval. Please see the July 21, 1992 memo with attachments, Exhibit B. At that hearing the Commission voted not to revoke subject Greenline approval but the development app was t to the approval. timely and satisfactory compliance with 2ndi1io m a pg and the Please see attached minutes of the C a D. Findings and Order Resolution, Staff updated the Commission several times between e the July Staff , 1992 show cause hearing and the October 20, eting. M a was also working with Mr. Zaluba and his r wirese th the condition Pickett during that time attempting to comply of approval. Please see attached correspondence and memos, Exhibit E. On October 20, 1992 the Commission voted to not a Notice to Show Ca why the 8040 Greenline app roval Zaluba was directed to appear at the November 10, 1992 Commission meeting. Please see attached notice, Exhibit . Finally, although it was not included in the Notice for Show Cause, staff has recently become aware . Mr. r that ZZaluba still owes closed his i0 account with the Planning Department. is development application fees for the original review of the 8040 during 1989 and 1990. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Zaluba did stabilize the bed of the new road cut and mitigate drainage problems on the road to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and adjacent residences. also been working with the Planning and Engsneering Departments to ' develop a retaining wall solution that would stabilize the cut in an effective and aesthetic manner and an effective removal and revegetation of the lower bank of the road cut. However, two months have lapsed beyond the deadline for work to begin or a financial security establishedfore ompletednplans toMbe s for review and app toMrl Zaluba has not complied with the following conditions of app in a timely and satisfactorily manner: 1. Revegetation of the road cut, removal the the bank of the new road cut as approved by City Engineer accomplished by September 1, 1992. er 2. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie-in ta the ul der retaining walls shall be99 submitted for app Engineer by September 1, 3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond, or other similar security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to $300,000.00 to secure the successful completion of the 2 revegetation, installation of stabilization, drainage mitigation, and road surface stabilization. The exact amount of the bond shall be determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney upon examination and approval of the plans for the work. 4. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization work, removal of all spoils, and construction of the retaining walls by October 15, 1992, shall cause the City to access and draw down on the performance security to perform and complete all the required work as specified herein and shall, further, result in the revocation of the 1990 8040 Greenline development approval. If Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval is revoked no building permits may be issued for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision prior to a 8040 Greenline approval for a specific development proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission revoke the 8040 Greenline approval for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision because Mr. Zaluba has failed to comply with the following conditions of approval as stipulated in the July 21, 1992 Findings and Order Resolution: 1. Revegetation of the road cut, removal of all spoils from the bank of the new road cut as approved by the City Engineer shall be accomplished by September 1, 1992. 2. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie -in and boulder retaining walls shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer by September 1, 1992. 3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond, or other similar security as approved by the City Attorney, in a sum up to $300,000.00 to secure the successful completion of the revegetation, installation of stabilization, drainage mitigation, and road surface stabilization. The exact amount of the bond shall be determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney upon examination and approval of the plans for the work. 4. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization work, removal of all spoils, and construction of the retaining walls by October 15, 1992, shall cause the City to access and draw down on the performance security to perform and complete all the required work as specified herein and shall, further, result in the revocation of the 1990 8040 Greenline development approval. 5. If the Planning and Zoning Commission takes such action to continue the 8040 Greenline approval staff requests that the unpaid Planning Department development application fee of $3,570 be paid as a condition of the 8040 Greenline extension. However, if the 8040 Greenline is revoked the Department will have to pursue other measures for payment. 3 PLANNINI JON COMMISSION EXHIBIT �, APPROVED 19 _ BY RESOLUTION - mil) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT Resolution No_ 90- WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting January 2, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed an application for a 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed this .application several times during 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission was concerned about the avalanche hazards on the site, preservation of the Nordic trail and the visual impact of a large home on the hillside; and WHEREAS, the applicant continued to work with the Commission = ` r to present a proposal that the Commission could approve; and WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to construct a new access drive in order to preserve the Nordic trail; and WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to restrict the floor area of the house to 2,438. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant approval of the 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall create a barrier between the driveway and the trail on the Forest Service property to reduce the potential conflict between trail users and Lot 3 users. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant Resolution No. 90- ! w Page 2 shall have a confirmed tree relocation plan and /or replacement program in place to be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. 3. A vertical tie -in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and . approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen- - Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation-of the' road and site and those plans and recommendations shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to perform field monitoring during the excavation and construction of the site. r � 6. The applicant shall implement the sprinkler plan as approved by the Fire Marshall. 7. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the Engineering Department shall review a final drainage plan. 8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side o&,the road cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the site if not used in the construction of the residence. 9. The applicant shall post signage on the utility /trail easement to prevent vehicular access. 10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut, beginning at the hairpin turn. 11. The access road shall not be expanded beyond access for one single family home on the Newfoundland parcel. Resolution No. 90 -_ -- Page 3 12. The new access road shall be constructed first to accommodate excavation and development of the building site so as not to use the trail. 13. No additional square footage shall be added to the house without a full 8040 Greenline review. This building site shall not be subject to any exemptions pursuant to the 8040 Greenline review process for any additions. - 14. The approved revised plans indicate a reduction of square footage of 402.75 and approximately a 20 reduction in the facade of the structure. The calculable floor area of the home was approved at 2,438 square feet. 15. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shall be agreed upon between the applicant, Planning and Engineering ° Departments. The grade on the west side shall be raised to approximately window sill level. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 2, 1990. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By r, Chairman C. Welton Andes -•, ATTEST: • t1. LILO Jan . yrney, r •uty City lerk I 1 . 0 EXHIBIT "B' SUMMARY OF HEARINGS RELATED TO NONCOMPLIANCE 1. Notice to Show Cause, July 21, 1992 2. Zaluba update, Sept. 22, 1992 where Leslie's memo dated September 22, 1992 discussed the possibility of temporary retaining wall for the winter but suggested that P &Z review y that proposal. Staff also requested h t o k there the a 15th l organized outline of work to be performed work that would be delayed but noted that they "not have a problem discussing a realistic time frame to do the work." Staff recommended the commission schedule on October 20, date to review Mr. Zaluba's latest plans for completing their required work. 3. October 20, 1992 Leslie called Marty Pickett to explain that this meeting was being tabled because they did not have time to review and said that Marty did not need to attend. At that meeting, apparently Leslie reported to the P &Z that we were cooperating to come up with a resolution and apparently one of the P &Z members said that he would like to see a bond or some Subseque sort of financial security at Rob Thompson, a rin g . Lamont Jed that meeting, Joe Zaluba, P Oc, to Caswall, Randy Wedum and Marty Pickett met (Friday, 23, at 2:30) to discuss how to resolve the problem. At that time, everyone agreed that the temporary wall was not neces- sary and in fact Rob and Leslie both o et t hat hatl wey w o ul d recommend the currently proposed on vegetative slope above. 4. Hearing November 10, 1992 (tabled because Jed Caswall was not there because of a snow storm.) At this time, the only outstanding issue as far as the staff was concerned was the performance bond or financial security and Jed Caswall and I discussed and agreed upon a viable solution being a deed of trust against the property. 5. Hearing November 17, 1992. At this hearing, the P &Z denied trust and was tabled 1992. 6. Hearing December 15, 1992. Hearing for applicant to present case as to why the 8040 Greenline approvals should not be revoked. zalubalaltach.p &z MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: November 17, 1992 RE: Zaluba Noncompliance The Commission opened the Show /Cause hearing at the November 10, 1992 meeting and tabled the hearing to November 17, 1992. Please bring your memo dated November 10, 1992 to this meeting. I have not made additional copies. Also, at the time of this memo nothing has changed. I q MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer RS l Date: October 29, 1992 Re: Zaluba Access Road After reviewing the submitted drawings and cost estimates for the above referenced I have the following comments: 1. The applicant should submit the approved (by the Park's Department) tree location plan and /or replacement program with associated costs. This was a condition of the original approvals that needs to be incorporated with the overall plan. 2. The plan does not include any costs for a geotechinical engineer to perform field monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall construction /installation. 3. The submitted plan did not show locations for the required signage, nor was there any estimates of costs. 4. The estimates for the earthwork, precast units, and crushed rock appear to be reasonable. There needs to be further detailing on the appearance of the joints between the units or consideration given to a cast in place system. 5. There was no mention of regrading and revegetation of the upper road cut. Detail and costs should be provided. 6. Further detail and associated cost estimates should be provided for the separation fence. 7. There needs to be an estimate added for landscaping. It appears that the earthwork number given would only consider the rough grading and installation of the precast units. The undercutting and final grading above the precast units needs to be taken into consideration. 8. Cost estimates need to be provided for area two. Included in the estimate must be hydroseed /mulching for any areas disturbed by the removal of the debris. 9. The hyudroseed /mulching number should be doubled to cover the cost of having to come back next spring for anything that did not vegetate. It is important to note that the applicants landscape designer has made a note in the specs that the hydroseed/mulching needs to take place the last week in September to the second week in November. 10. There should be a contingency of 30% on the total agreed costs to handle City administration time should they have to complete the project. 11. As a general comment I have concern that the trail width near the lower portion of the access road will be less than eight feet. The width of the trail should not be compromised for the access road. mzaluba PLANNING 3oNING COMNMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED 1 9 , BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont DATE: September 22, 1992 RE: Zaluba Noncompliance Update According to the Findings and Order Resolution of July 21, 1992, Mr. Joe Zaluba was required to revegetate the road cut, remove all spoils from the bank of the new road cut, stabilize the road surface and provide proper drainage mitigation by September 1, 1992. Architectural drawings and plans for the tie -in and boulder retaining walls were also to be_submitted by September 1, 1992. addition, a performance bond, or other similar security as approved by the City Attorney shall be posted based on the September 1, 1992 submission. Failure to complete the slope and road stabilization work, drainage mitigation and removal of all spoils and construction of the retaining walls by October 15, 1992 shall cause the City to access and draw down on the performance security to perform and complete all the required work as specified. Staff received a packet of information from Marty Pickett, Joe Zaluba's attorney, on August 27, 1992. The packet contained drawings and specs for a boulder and tie -in retaining wall only. Rob Thomson of the Engineering Department did review the information and found them to be incomplete (please see attached review). Mr. Zaluba would not have been able to submit the plans for a required building permit for the wall. On September 8, 1992, Rob met Mr. Zaluba on -site together with the Rappaports (concerned neighbors). Rob and Joe discussed several alterations to the Findings and Order Resolution of July 21, 1992. Joe has proposed the following: 1. On the down hill slope of the new road a hydro -mulch process will be used to revegetate the slope. Instead of removing the rocks and debris which will expose the soil, a layer of dirt will cover the debris which will be planted. Staff Recommendation: Submit a detailed hydro - mulch /replanting plan for review. Staff will seek referral comments from the parks department as to determine reliability. The performance bond will include the additional cost if the replanting is not successful. 1 0 From the incomplete submission August 27, 1992 and subsequent c anges proposed by Mr. Zaluba, the October 15, 1992 deadline for the installation of a boulder retaining and tie -in wall does not appear to be realistic. Therefore, Joe proposes to install pre- ! PLANNING t ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT 9 , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • MEMORANDUM — TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning DATE: July 21, 1992 RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Approval Noncompliance Hearing SUMMARY: In January of 1990 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 8040 Greenline approval for the construction of a single family residence on Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision. The previous excavation permit for the new access road along with several other permits were issued but have expired. A result of the previous roadway excavation has been the existence of unstable soil conditions and this has impacted the surrounding properties. In addition, there are several conditions of approval that have not been observed with regard to the excavation of the access road. The specific conditions of approval that have not been adhered to are the following (please see the attached 1990 Resolution #4): 3. A vertical tie -in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen - Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation of the road and site and those plans and recommendations shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department. 8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of the road cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the site if not used in the construction of the residence. 10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut, beginning at the hairpin turn. Although the conditions of approval to not specify a date by which the "vertical tie -in wall" shall be constructed or the "upper road cut" shall be revegetated, Mr. Zaluba excavated a rough road cut two years ago without a follow through on recommendations from Chen - Northern regarding slope stability and revegatation of the upper road cut. In addition, Mr. Zaluba has not responded to letters of concern from adjacent property owners and the City complaining about potential erosion problems with the spring thaws. Finally, staff has reason to believe that when the new road was cut "spoils and fill" were allowed to fall over the side and were then scraped up by heavy equipment potentially damaging hillside vegetation. Please find attached the correspondence between the City, the adjacent property owners and Mr. Zaluba and his attorney Marty Pickett. Marty Pickett has recently indicated to staff that Mr. Zaluba has begun to rectify the rough road cut situation. Chen - Northern has been retained to stabilize the road cut and the banks and to design a vertical tie -in wall to support the upper bank. Mr. Zaluba is also working with the property owner's of the Newfoundland Lode to secure the road for access to both properties. If Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval is revoked no building permits may be issued for the Hoag Lot 3 prior to a 8040 Greenline approval for a specific development proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider one of the following alternatives with regard to Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval: 1. Revegetation of the upper road cut and stabilization of the new road cut shall be accomplished by September 1, 1992. The plans for the tie -in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen - Northern regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and revegatation process. Failure to complete the stabilization and revegatation shall cause the revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Lot 3. 2. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond for $300,000 for the stabilization of the new road cut and revegetation of the upper road cut to be completed prior to the issuance of any foundation /excavation and building permits. The plans for the tie - in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen - Northern regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and revegatation process. Failure to complete the road stabilization and revegetation within one year from this review shall cause the City to utilize the bond to perform the work required. 2 3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond for $300,000 for the stabilization of the new road cut and revegetation of the upper road cut with work to be completed by September 1, 1992. The plans for the tie -in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen - Northern regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and revegatation process. Failure to complete the work required by September 1, 1992 shall cause the City to utilize the bond to perform the work required. 4. Revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 4, 1990. 5. The Commission may choose, based upon the facts presented, to not take action thus allowing the 8040 Greenline approval to remain valid. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 4, 1990 2. Correspondence between City Attorney, staff, Mr. Zaluba and his representative, adjacent property owners and engineers. 3. Certified Notification of Noncompliance Hearing to Mr. Zaluba 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Non - Compliance Hearing DATE: July 7, 1992 The Commission set a hearing date for July 7, 1992 to review Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline non - compliance. Unfortunately the City Attorney will not be available at that date so the hearing has been moved to the July 21, 1992 Commission meeting. Members of the Commission requested a site visit. Staff recommends a site visit at 3:45 July 21, 1992. • ,..„! .. , PLANNING & ZONING COMMISS> r 14 h EXHIBIT 3 , APPROVED et*. 19 BY RESOLUTION Ci / / � • BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A /K /A 1125 UTE AVENUE, JOSEPH S. ZALUBA, APPLICANT 41V NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE TO: Joseph S. Zaluba 8899 William Cody Drive Evergreen, Colorado 80439 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that on June 16, 1992, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted to issue a Notice to Show Cause why the following land use development approval as previously granted on January 2, 1990, should not be revoked and /or modified: 8040 Greenline Approval for a Single - Family House on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado. Based upon information made available to the Planning and Zoning Commission, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the applicant, Joseph S. Zaluba, has violated and /or failed to comply . with following terms and /or conditions of the 8040 Greenline Approval: Condition 3. A vertical tie -in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and. Departments. Condition 4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommenda- tions of Chen - Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation of the road and site and those plans and recommenda- tions shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department. Condition 8.• No : spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of the road cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the'site if not used in the construction of the residence. Condition 10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut, beginning at the hairpin turn. WHEREFORE, you are directed to appear before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 21, 1992, at 4:30 o'clock p.m., at the Second Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, and show cause why the land use development approval as set forth above should not be revoked or i modified. The hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission will be conducted in accordance with the procedures established in Section 24- 6 -205B of the Municipal Code. Dated this * -day of June, 1992. r- ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION c By: � %�����II� £ •if.��l 6J 4 City 9lerk / j cc: Marty Pickett • • 2 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director RE: Souki 8040 Greenline - Closed DATE: November 11, 1994 The applicant Charif Souki submitted an application for 8040 Greenline review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission reviewed the proposal at a September 21, 1993 meeting and recommended denial of the accessory dwelling unit proposal and tabled review of 8040 Greenline. The applicant has discontinued the review process and this file is closed. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner RE: Souki 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review DATE: September 21, 1993 Summary: The applicant proposes to develop a single - family home on a 3+ acre lot off of Ute Avenue. The applicant also proposes to provide an attached accessory dwelling unit. The site and access is located on the steep forested hillside south of Ute Avenue and above the elevation of 8040 thus necessitating 8040 Greenline review. The inclusion of the accessory dwelling unit requires conditional use review. Staff recommends tabling the 8040 Greenline review in order to gather more information and resolve several outstanding issues. Staff recommends denial of the accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Charif Souki as represented by Brooke Peterson LOCATION: Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen ZONING: Conservation APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 8040 Greenline approval for the construction of a single family home and conditional use approval for an accessory dwelling unit. BACKGROUND: Following is the history of development proposals of Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision: October 18, 1971 The Hoag Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council creating 5 lots south of Ute Avenue. Lot 3, is the highest up the hill and on the steepest terrain. On the original plat, the old Midland right -of -way was designated a "Utility and Public Trail Easement." The Midland appears to be the only improved access to Lot 3, although it was not shown as an ingress /egress access. July 20, 1976 Virden 8040 Greenline was approved for a 2,324 single family residence. A detached garage was to be located off the old railroad right of way; and the house was to be placed with walk -up access only. A temporary construction road was to be built, and recovered and reseeded prior to the certificate of occupancy. As part of the Virden Review, an avalanche hazard study conducted by Hans Frintiger and Whitney Boland in 1976 was submitted. Three avalanche tracks were identified across the property. It was concluded that within the "wedge" of Douglas fir, where the Virden house was proposed, the probability of avalanche penetration was small. October 7, 1985 Barker Greenline Review was approved in conjunction with the Nordic Council Trail Greenline Review for the development of an access road to a proposed building site. However condition #1 of the Greenline approval, was that no construction on Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision shall be allowed until a development plan is given approval through a separate 8040 Greenline Review. The proposed access road, approximately 690 feet long, would go from Ute Avenue to the Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 building site, passing through Forest Service property, Lot 4 Hoag Subdivision and the Newfoundland Mining Claim. This proposal eliminated the need to use the Utility and Trail easement that is shared by Lots 4 and 5. Barker however needed a Forest Service Special Use Road Permit for construction of the driveway on its property. August 27, 1986 The Forest Service, after an environmental assessment of Barker's proposal, denied the request for a Special Use Road Permit. December 2, 1986 A new driveway, approximately 545 feet in length, providing access to the building site was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The road, which has since been constructed, enters Lot 3 off of the Utility and Trail Easement, runs through the site almost to the western edge, switching back once, up into the lot, to access the building site from above. April 4, 1989 Jack Barker and Joe Zaluba request 8040 Greenline approval to construct a single - family home. The 8040 request was subsequently tabled so the applicant could submit information that would address issues of concern. January 2, 1990 The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Zaluba 8040 greenline which included the creation of a new access road in order to preserve the majority of the nordic trail. Please see attached Resolution 4, 1990, exhibit A. The large driveway and hairpin turn that was cut into the hill pursuant to the December 2, 1986 approval were to be revegetated as part of this approval. Summer of 1990 Mr. Zaluba cut a new access road to the approved building envelop. May 28, 1991 The Board of County Commissioners approved a single - family residence on the Newfoundland Lode directly to the east of 2 2- the approved Zaluba building envelop. The Newfoundland and Zaluba developments are to share the same access road. See Resolution 91- 87, exhibit B. January 19, 1993 The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a revised retaining wall plan. The approved plan was for a 32" precast aggregate concrete stem wall. Please see January 19 memo, exhibit C. March 2, 1993 The 8040 greenline approval of 1990 was revoked due to noncompliance with the original approval. Please see attached memo and resolution, exhibit D. STAFF COMMENTS: Since the 1990 approval, the property owner, Mr. Zaluba has constructed the new access road and left the road unfinished. Numerous citizen complaints and the failure of Mr. Zaluba to finish the work that was started, which included several conditions of the 1990 approval, led to the revocation of the 8040 greenline approval. Therefore, this application is considered a new 8040 review. The proposal is essentially the same proposal that was before the Commission in the fall of 1989 and approved in January of 1990. The current applicant has also committed to abide by the conditions of approval from the 1990 approval. Development of this parcel requires 8040 greenline review and compliance with Ordinance 1, 1990 Housing Replacement. The applicant has requested the approval of an attached accessory dwelling unit to comply with Ordinance 1. Hoag Lot 3 is a legally subdivided parcel. The zone district is Conservation which permits the development of a single family home. A. 8040 Greenline - Pursuant to Section 24 -7 -503 the development of this site is subject to 8040 Greenline review. The purpose of the 8040 greenline review is to subject development to a heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rock fall and mud slide, and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum. Section 7 -503 C. outlines the review standards for 8040 Greenline Review: 1: The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground 3 3 stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. RESPONSE: If the City were reviewing the proposal as a new subdivision, this location for development would not be approved today. This is a very difficult site, at best. Because of the steep slopes, dense forest, and nordic trail and homes below the proposed building site, development must occur in a very sensitive and guarded manner. The Board of Adjustment has approved a front yard setback variance to locate the building envelop further away from identified avalanche paths. 2: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. RESPONSE: Although a drainage plan was submitted for the 1990 application and the current proposal is essentially the same as was approved in 1990, a new road has been roughly cut into the hillside and the garage has been shifted further into the hillside. Therefore the applicant shall submit a new drainage plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. A subsoil study for foundation and grading design shall also be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The grading design, to include the building envelop and new access road, shall highlight how the trail easement and homes below the building site are to be protected from raveling of the slope and falling debris. In the past Chen - Northern has made specific recommendations regarding soil stability, the applicant shall follow those recommendations and review the Chen - Northern findings with the Engineering Department. The City is proposing to place a drainage culvert along this Utility and Trail easement and this will have to be accommodated by whatever building and access design is approved. The applicant needs to make an agreement to this to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 3: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. RESPONSE: The application has stated that a gas type fireplace will be used thus minimizing the air pollution. The fireplace 4 shall be deed restricted with the Environmental Health Department. 4: The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. RESPONSE: The building site is located in what is estimated to be the safest portion of the lot from an avalanche perspective. The building site is located in a "wedge" of Douglas fir thus helping to protect against avalanche hazard. The design of the home, at the maximum height allowed in the zone district (28 feet), is incompatible with the very steep terrain of the site. Size and height are further discussed in item 7. The requirements for adequate emergency vehicular access, as recommended by the Fire Marshal, are incompatible with the terrain of this parcel. This is discussed at length under number 10. 5: Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. RESPONSE: A new landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Parks and Planning Departments. The plan shall include the number of trees and their caliper that will be removed from the site and mitigation for those lost trees. In 1990, the Parks Department estimated that 50 trees, 6" in diameter or greater, would be removed with development of the building site. The plan shall also include the lost vegetation on the new access road and mitigation for their removal. According to the 1990 review, the Parks Department approximated 100 trees, 6" in diameter or greater, would have been removed with the applicant's proposed road cut plan. The applicant should confirm with the Parks Department the number of trees lost or staff will assume 100 were lost. To the greatest extent possible the disturbed land area surrounding the new home shall be terraced to prevent further erosion and more effective support for planted vegetation. To further reduce the amount of disturbance to the hillside, the applicant shall excavate the site from the inside out beginning at the end of the new access road. Excavated material shall be used to fill and revegetate the upper road cut including the hairpin turn. The applicant shall submit an excavation plan which defines the boundary of slope and vegetation disturbance. The submitted elevations show an approximately 9 foot retaining wall system flanking the west side of the home. Staff suggests that the outer edge of that wall should be the western boundary of disturbance and this boundary should be fenced. 5 5 A retaining wall system shall be used to reinforce the slope cut behind the new home with the least amount of disturbance or further cutting of the slope. Laying back the slope at 1:1 is unacceptable. In January of this year, the P &Z approved a revised wall plan for the stabilization of the new access road. The P &Z approved a 32" precast aggregate concrete wall and the applicant has committed to comply with that approval. However, the Engineering Department has recently been made aware of a new technique for building retaining walls that do not require laid back slopes. The Department expects to have materials on this technique in order to review the matter with the applicant. Because this is a new 8040 Greenline review staff recommends that the applicant reconsider using a retaining wall along the road where required. The Fire Marshal will only allow a maximum slope of 12% on the new road. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicant to raise the road bed to achieve a 12% slope. A new soil and grading plan for the proposed work on the road and the installation of the retaining wall must be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Departments. 6: The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. RESPONSE: Only one structure is proposed for the lot. The highest portion of the lot will remain undisturbed. However because the upper road cut, intended as access to the building site, is no longer needed, staff recommends that the road be filled in and revegetated beginning at the hairpin turn and completing the revegetation to the upper end of the road cut. 7: Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. RESPONSE: The 1990 application proposed a home which had 5,799 gross square feet of living area. The total calculable floor area was 2,840 square feet. The current proposal indicates that the home is essentially the same. There appear to be a few differences between the new plans and the 1990 plans. Staff has requested verification of square footage but has not yet received the information. According to the new plans, the Zoning Officer has concluded that height of the building is 29.3 feet which exceeds the height limit of the Conservation zone district which is 28 feet. In addition, height is measured from the mid -point of the ridge. According to the plans the top of the ridge, the very top of the building, measures 35 feet and 2 inches. The majority of the roof peaks out at 33 feet. This 33 -35 foot tall residence will be very visible 6 on the mountain. As one views the home from Ute Avenue or the east end of town the principal facade is perpendicular to the fall line and stretches 60 feet across the hill. Other than having to reduce the proposed the height to the required limit of 28 feet, the applicant has made no attempt to minimize the height of the building to blend into the mountain. In 1990 the applicant redesigned the building and reduced the length of the building across the hillside. The current plans step the building up the hill however there are "wings" on either side of the structure that could be reduced to minimize the home's width on the hillside. A less prominent design, including the deck over the garage, and building height may better preserve the open character of the mountain and be more consistent with the purpose of 8040 greenline. The original approval for a single family home on this site is a good example of a design the was sensitive to the mountain setting. The Virden residence, proposed at 2,324 square feet with a 24 foot wide facade, was to be built into the hillside, requiring a narrow cut along the face of the mountain. The facade of this new proposal, according to the submitted plan, is 73.5 feet wide, which includes the garage that is visible in the front elevation. According to the submitted plans, the home protrudes out of the hillside approximately 62 feet, which includes the front deck. In reviewing the plans, staff would suggest moving the home back into the foundation wall where current plans show a blank space on the main floor and an indoor pool on the lower level. If the home is moved back into the foundation it might be less prominent on the steep hill. Staff recommends that the applicant submit an alternative home design for this very visible mountain slope. A design that reduces the height and the bulk of the building should be considered. In order to better determine the size and height of the home on the site, a topographic survey with slope percentages throughout the footprint must be submitted to the Planning Department for review. 8: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. RESPONSE: There is adequate capacity and infrastructure in place on Ute Avenue to serve this proposal. The Water Department will need information regarding whether the installation of a booster pump and pressure tank or a meter is required. The Sanitation District was unable to determine whether this lot is within their district boundaries. The applicant must review their development plans with the Sanitation District so an adequate referral can be made. 7 When the Hoag subdivision was created there was an utility easement provided to Lot 3. It is staff's understanding that both the development on the Newfoundland Lode and Hoag Lot 3 intend to share costs for the provision of utilities and use the same utility trench. In the past, there was considerable discussion as to the best location of the trenches for water and sewer service. Because water and sewer lines require a wide separation significant vegetation would be lost with their installation. It is unknown whether that has been resolved. Specific plans for the provision of utilities and the affect on the landscape shall be provided for staff's review. 9: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. RESPONSE: The development site is serviced off of Ute Avenue. The County review for the Newfoundland Lode is requiring an access drive that runs perpendicular to Ute Avenue for 20 feet before turning up the hill to access the development sites. Although this is a requirement of the County, and a portion of the road is in the County, it affects either development on the site. Providing 20 feet perpendicular off of Ute Avenue will eliminate some vegetation. An inventory of the number of significant trees that will be removed must be provided to the Parks Department with a mitigation plan for those trees that are removed. In addition, because the access to Hoag Lot 3 is over a USFS and County road a County access permit is required before any development may occur. The new access road must be stabilized and the downhill side of the slope that was damaged when the road was cut must be revegetated. Debris from cutting the new road remains on that slope. Prior approvals recommended a revegetation plan that included several layers of top soil to restore the slope. The applicant has offered to snowmelt the driveway for emergency access proposes. Any snowmelting must stop at the junction with the nordic trail. 10: Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to provide a sprinkler system in the house. A plan must be submitted for review by the Fire Marshal. Staff finds that the recommendations of the Fire Marshal are not compatible with this site and the terrain. An emergency vehicular 8 turn around up on the site (50x50) would require a demolition of terrain and vegetation that is unacceptable based upon these 8040 greenline standards. The County approved a 1041 review for the single - family home adjacent to the Hoag Lot 3 proposal and required "plans which illustrate that adequate space is provided for fire apparatus to maneuver at the residence." Clearly there is no need for two platforms for emergency maneuverability up on the site. Yet, staff is concerned that the County approval, requiring Fire Marshal review of "adequate space ", will defeat the City's 8040 review and the attempt to preserve the terrain and vegetation. Therefore, because improvements to this road are shared costs by both property owners and the owner of Hoag Lot 3 has guaranteed access to the owner of the Newfoundland Lode, staff cannot approve this 8040 Greenline review until such time that an alternative emergency mitigation plan, that pertains to both parcels, is approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments and the Fire Marshal. In addition, to enable a three -point turn for emergency vehicles would require an increase in the width of the intersection at Ute Avenue. Again, the elimination of significant vegetation would have to occur to accomplish this requirement. Staff does not believe this is necessary. Further up Ute Avenue the roadway dead - ends with a cul -de -sac, the turning radius of which can accommodate fire apparatus (we tested it and got to ride in the truck). Staff recommends that the Fire Department use the cul -de -sac at the end of Ute Avenue to turn around thus enabling a truck to then enter the access road for emergency purposes. Staff realizes that this is not a preferable solution for the Fire Department. "We usually don't pass the fire to get to the fire." However, further elimination of vegetation is not consistent with the standards of 8040 Greenline review. 11: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: After very lengthy discussions with neighbors, consulting engineers, the Parks Department, the Nordic Council and review of past files, the new road accessing the building site was viewed as the best, perhaps only alternative for access that would not compromise the nordic trail. However, a dangerous conflict between recreational trail users and vehicles still exists on the USFS road. It has been suggested that the nordic trail cross the road, at the junction with the USFS road, and cut up into the forest above the road. The trail would then run parallel to the road across the hill and would be in a better position to connect into the easement at Ute Park and continue up to the Preserve. It is necessary for staff, the applicant and a representative of the USFS to walk the site and 9 determine whether this is a better alternative. Some parts of the trail easement below the building site have eroded off the bank making the trail very narrow. The 1990 applicant proposed to use the material from excavation to fill in the trail easement to its fully platted width. Staff recommends that this applicant commit to the same trail work. B. Conditional Use Review - Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 7 - 304 the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is approximately 420 square feet of net liveable space below grade. The unit is proposed to comply with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: The surrounding neighborhood is entirely residential with the exception of the Benedict office building and the Aspen Club. The accessory dwelling unit is attached to the proposed single - family residence and will not increase the mass or floor area of the proposed home. Yet, staff is recommending a reduction in the bulk and height of the home. However because of the difficult nature of the site, review has centered around reductions, to the greatest extent possible, of the impacts from the development. Although only one detached residence has been proposed on the site, review has been very long and demanding. The approval of an accessory dwelling unit, a second unit on the site, would not enhance the surrounding area or the site. Ideally, ADUs are to be occupied year- round. Really rented. If this unit is occupied year- round, the impacts imposed by this unit would be significant on this site. During the 1990 approval of the single - family home (without an accessory dwelling unit), the Planning and Zoning Commission also approved the new access road with a condition that it was to service only one other dwelling unit, the Newfoundland Lode. Staff does not support a second unit on the Hoag Lot 3 in light of the potential impacts from a year -round occupant on the property. In 10 the event the primary residence became a year -round home for the owner, a duplex would effectively occupy the site. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. RESPONSE: Although the applicant believes that the proximity of the property to town would mitigate any traffic impacts that an ADU would create, staff disagrees. Given most people's relationship with the private automobile, this parcel is not close enough to town. At night in the winter it is unreasonable to expect the occupant of the ADU to walk to and from town. There are no transit routes on Ute Avenue, the closest route is on SH 82. There is however, a very comprehensive bike /pedestrain trail system close to the property. The operating characteristics of the proposed ADU, primarily the private automobile, noise and lights, will create adverse affects on neighbors below the property and create a year round presence (potentially 2 dwelling units) that is not compatible with this relatively isolated and delicate forest parcel. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. RESPONSE: No new services are required for the ADU that will not be required for the primary residence. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: Although the applicant proposes the ADU to supply an affordable dwelling unit, review of an ADU is required as a public hearing to protect surrounding neighbors from adverse impacts of increased density and to insure that adequate units are being provided. In the event that an ADU is found inappropriate, Ordinance 1 provides for an alternative mechanism for employee mitigation, cash -in -lieu. In the case of Hoag Lot 3, staff and the neighbors are uncomfortable with the increased density and potential impacts that a second dwelling unit may have on surrounding properties and the site itself. Notwithstanding that this is a 3+ acre parcel, the building envelop is located very close to the front property line and close to adjacent homes because of the avalanche hazard. A front yard 11 11 setback variance was granted by the BOA. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The concept of an ADU meets the requirements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan but the unique characteristic of this site render the ADU incompatible with this location. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends tabling the Souki 8040 Greenline Review until the applicant and staff resolve the following concerns: 1. A new drainage and grading plan shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall consider the shifted garage envelope, the new road cut and the fill that is required for a 12% slope, an outline of the excavation /disturbance area around the building envelop which will be minimal as possible, and include protective measures for the trail and properties below the building site. 2. A new landscape plan shall be submitted to the Parks Department. The plan shall map existing vegetation and the vegetation that will be lost. The applicant shall confirm the number of trees lost during the cutting of the new road or staff will rely upon the previous approval that identified 100 trees to be lost. Mitigation measures for the trees lost during the cutting of the road and those to be lost during excavation and building shall also be submitted for the Parks Department review. The landscape plan shall also identify the number of trees that may be lost at the intersection of Ute Avenue because of the requirement of a 20 foot drive perpendicular to Ute Avenue. Mitigation for their loss shall also be proposed. 3. A revegetation plan for the disturbed slope below the new road cut and the upper road cut beginning at the hairpin turn shall also be submitted to the Parks Department for review. 4. Retaining wall plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The plans shall detail the retaining walls behind the house and explore, with the Engineering Department, a revised retaining wall plan for the road cut. 5. Preserving the character of the mountain and encouraging development, at such visible elevations, that are sensitive to the surrounding environs is paramount to 8040 Greenline review. Aspen residents need only look up and around to be reminded of development that could have been designed in a less discernable fashion for their elevated locations. A redesign of the proposed single family home is crucial for 8040 approval of a development on this lot. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department 12 la revised building plans to include heights, elevations, total square footage and calculable floor area, and a topographic survey with slope percentages throughout the building footprint. 6. Review by the Water Department and Sanitation District is required to ensure that adequate pressure and services are available. 7. Specific plans for the provision of the utilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. Mapping the number of trees that will be lost and mitigation for their loss must also be submitted to the Parks Department. An Access Permit from the County may be necessary. Staff will request County review of the access for this proposal. 9. Staff, the Engineering Department, the applicant and the Fire Marshal shall review the proposal and develop an emergency Mitigation plan that is consistent with the standards of 8040 and the County 1041 approval of the Newfoundland Lode. 10. Staff, the applicant, and representatives from the Parks Department and the USFS shall review an alternative nordic trail alignment that removes the conflict between nordic and vehicular use. Staff recommends denial of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit based upon the impacts of a second dwelling unit on this remote parcel and staff's desire to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, potential impacts of development and use of this parcel. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to table the Souki 8040 greenline review in order for the applicant address issues number 1 -10 listed in Planning office memo dated September 21, 1993." "I move to deny the conditional use approval for the accessory dwelling unit finding that the provision of a second dwelling unit on this particular parcel is incompatible with the necessity to reduce development and use impacts on the site." EXHIBITS A. 1990 P &Z Resolution B. County Resolution 91 -87 C. P &Z Memo for Revised Wall Plan D. Resolution Revoking 8040 Approval E. Referral Comments F. Citizen Letters G. Plans 13 �3 LANNTNC j COMMISSION EXHIBIT` n , APPROVED r 19 BY RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT Resolution No. 90- if WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting January 2, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed an application for a 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed this application several times during 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission was concerned about the avalanche hazards on the site, preservation of the Nordic trail and the visual impact of a large home on the hillside; and WHEREAS, the applicant continued to work with the Commission to present a proposal that the Commission could approve; and WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to construct a new access drive in order to preserve the Nordic trail; and WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to restrict the floor area of the house to 2,438. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant approval of the 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall create a barrier between the driveway and the trail on the Forest Service property to reduce the potential conflict between trail users and Lot 3 users. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant 1k Resolution No. 90 -_ Page 2 shall have a confirmed tree relocation plan and /or replacement program in place to be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. 3. A vertical tie -in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen - Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation of the road and site and those plans and recommendations shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to perform field monitoring during the excavation and construction of the site. 6. The applicant shall implement the sprinkler plan as approved by the Fire Marshall. 7. Prior to the. issuance of an excavation permit, the Engineering Department shall review a final drainage plan. 8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of the road cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the site if not used in the construction of the residence. 9. The applicant shall post signage on the utility /trail easement to prevent vehicular access. 10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut, beginning at the hairpin turn. 11. The access road shall not be expanded beyond access for one single family home on the Newfoundland parcel. ��� Resolution No. 90 -_ Page 3 12. The new access road shall be constructed first to accommodate excavation and development of the building site so as not to use the trail. 13. No additional square footage shall be added to the house without a full 8040 Greenline review. This building site shall not be subject to any exemptions pursuant to the 8040 Greenline review process for any additions. 14. The approved revised plans indicate a reduction of square footage of 402.75 and approximately a 20 reduction in the facade of the structure. The calculable floor area of the home was approved at 2,438 square feet. 15. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shall be agreed upon between the applicant, Planning and Engineering Departments. The grade on the west side shall be raised to approximately window sill level. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 2, 1990. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By tig a C. Welton Andes ' Chairman ATTEST: E t i 1/ 40,il./, Jan i t rney, uty City lerk \V en, #335975., /29/91 09:28 Rec.$:00_$K rS P6 2492 Silvia t..*is, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, DL... $.00 . RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • APPROVING SCENIC FOREGROUND OVERLAY REVIEW, GENERAL SUBMISSION 1041 GEOLOGIC AND WILDFIRE HAZARD REVIEW TO GORDON MILLER'S AMENDED APPLICATION - TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE NEWFOUNDLAND LODE MINING CLAIM NING & ZONING COMMISSION Resolution No. 91 - SIT $ , APPROVED • 19 BY RESOLUTION • WHEREAS, Gordon Miller (hereinafter "Applicant ") has applied to Pitkin County for Scenic Foreground Overlay, 1041 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Review and General Submission, to construct a single - family house. a parcel of land adjacent to the City of , Aspen on Aspen Mountain (more specifically described in "Exhibit "A ", attached); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission :,(hereinafter "Commission ") considered the Applicant's original request at a duly noticed public meeting on October 16, 1990 and denied the Applicant's request by Resolution PZ- 90 -36; and WHEREAS, the Commission heard the Applicant's amended request at a duly noticed public hearing on February 5, 1991 and denied the request by Resolution PZ- 91 -08; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed for an appeal of the Commission's denial pursuant to Section 5 -400.7 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Appeal of the Commissions decision was heard by the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter "Board ") at a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1991 and May 28, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Applicant has adequately addressed the mitigation requirements to construct a • #335975 OE� /91 09:28 Rec COO BK 65'' 250 -` - Silvia Dav3�, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.30 Resolution No. 91- Si Page 2 single family residence on slopes in excess of 50 %, potential unstable slopes, potential debris flow, known avalanche area, severe wildfire area and Scenic Foreground Overlay area; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the avalanche hazards are low, the visual impacts reduced by stepping the residence down the hillside, minimal number of trees will be removed and the applicant is providing a separation between the nordic trail on part of the driveway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the Applicant's 1041 Hazard Review for Geologic and Wildfire hazards and Scenic Foreground Overlay Appeal requests and granting General Submission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide a 1041 Hazard Review Plat which meets approval of the Board of County Commissioners, County Engineer and Planning Office. a. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer shall be noted on the Plat: "The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure or imply that areas outside of designated hazard areas will be free from hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will guarantee the safety of any property." 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall meet the following requirements identified by the Fire District: a. In order for the access driveway to be constructed at a width of 12 -feet, the building plans must indicate that an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed in the residence. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, this system \t ea #335975 >9/91 09:28 Rec '$.00_'BK ti FG Silvia Doyle, Dayis, .Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ,..00 Resolution No. 91- $i Page 3 must be in place. b. Prior to issuance of an Access Permit the Aspen Fire Protection District shall approve plans which illustrate that adequate space is provided for fire apparatus to maneuver at the residence. c. As part of the excavation work, the Applicant shall provide a fire hydrant' on site pursuant to the • specifications of the Fire District and the Aspen Water Department. 3. The following wildfire mitigation measures res shall be adher to by the app prior Certificate of Occupancy for the residence; a. The applicant shall install an exterior sprinkler system for the suppression of wildfire. b. All marked, dead and suppressed trees shall be removed from within the 45 foot thinning line identified by. the State Forest Service and referenced in the November 12, 1990 letter (Exhibit "B"). c. The Applicant shall utilize non - combustible roof materials and may not provide exposed overhanging decks. Roof decks are acceptable. d. The area within 10 -feet of the home shall be revegetated with low growing forbs or grasses and kept free of tall brush and trees. e. The trees that are to be left standing, within the 45 foot radius, shall be pruned to a height of 10- feet. f. Tall brush shall be removed or broken up into non- contiguous groups. g. The recommendations of the State Forest Service handbook, "Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners" shall be adhered to by the applicant. 4. The applicant shall address the following concerns identified by the Environmental Health Department: a. During construction the Applicant shall prevent mud and dirt carry -out onto roads caused by vehicle traffic from the site. \6\ N #335�i:08/29/91 09428 -Rec ;$ 00 (2655 !PG 2523' ES/ ,Mavis, FPitkin SCnty..C1erk " oc 41:00 Resolution No. 91-In Page 4 b. The Applicant shall contact the Environmental}:ealth Department should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during excavation of the property. 5. The Applicant•shall either have finally addressed -or indicate how the following concerns identified by the County Engineer shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. a. The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris's March 21, 1990 letter, Chen- Northern's letter of April 18, 1990, Arthur Mears August 2, 1990 letter and September 1990 report, Schmueser Gordon Meyer September 25, 1990. letter and Design Structures October 15, 1990 letter shall be followed with respect to building design, placement and mitigation techniques (Exhibit "C "). b. The foundation shall be designed by a licensed civil engineer. c. The Applicant shall submit a landscape and road cut mitigation plan for the driveway and intersection, developed and stamped by a professional engineer, as a part of the Access Permit process, prior to improvement of the access road. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Access Permit shall be secured by the applicant. 1: The driveway needs to approach Ute Avenue in a perpendicular fashion for the first 20 -feet. 2. The driveway shall not exceed a slope greater than 2% for the first 20 -feet as measured from Ute Avenue. 3. The applicant shall submit an excavation and reworking plan for the driveway, prior to the issuance of an access permit. 4. An area for a nordic ski trail along the driveway shall be provided and be separated from the driveway, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. d. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the September 25, 1990 Schmueser Gordon Meyer report in regards to drainage and erosion mitigation and t0 4335(M +08/29/91 '09:2B Rec -$.00 '655:'PG '253 'Si1v`.3 Wavis, Pitkin :Casty Clerk, :boc 4.00 Resolution No. 91-1R1 Page 5 as illustrated in the Schmueser Gordon Meyer "1041 Review Drainage Plan" dated May 7, 1991 which are attached as Exhibit "D ". e. A Revegetation Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall provide financial assurances to accommodate the proposed landscaping plan to be held by the County for one full growing season after revegation is complete. The financial assurances shall be accepted by the County Attorney and the amount and type of work shall be accepted by the Planning Director and the County Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit a letter from the City of Aspen Water Department indicating that there is adequate water available to service the site. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District stating that this site can and will be serviced by the District. 8. No expansion of the approved square footage of the structure shall be permitted in the future. This 1041 Hazard Review approval is based on a conceptual design of the structure proposed in "Exhibit E ", consisting of a 5,930 square foot residence and 750 square foot garage. 9. The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreement on the property for erosion, rockfall and drainage issues associated with the proposed access, excavation and foundation stages of the development. This Improvements Agreement shall be accepted by the County Attorney and the financial amount and type of work shall be accepted by the Planning Director and the County Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The access driveway shall be posted with avalanche warning signs as required by Section 5 -401 of the Land Use Code, by the applicant prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 11. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of insurance for protection of neighboring properties water and rock damage from above during the construction of the residence. #335975 OED 19/91 09:28 Rec $:00 ..BK 65• 254ZS 1 Silvia Da Pitkin Cnty.Clerk, Doc 30 Resolution No. 91-S1 Page 6 • 12. The exterior finish material shall be of earthtone colors to address the Scenic Foreground Overlay concerns. 13. All utilities shall be placed under the driveway, or within the existing utility easement. 14. The proposed:residence is allowed one fireplace and one certified woodstove. 15. A construction schedule and mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. This plan shall include a dust mitigation plan, rockfall and drainage mitigation during construction, construction time frame for access driveway and ski trail, excavation, foundation and revegetation completion dates. 16. All material representations made by the Applicant in the application and public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting on May 28, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By (11 , •,/ / Wayne thridge, Chkrman Date . J .1 nette Jones, •<puty Clerk Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: .- • Tel's► cM g i ncha. -- Tim °•i =it , W Amy gerum, Coun•y A. o•.ey Planning Director reso.bocc.1041.miller PLANNING f & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: January 19, 1993 RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline Wall Amendment SUMMARY: When the 8040 Greenline approval was granted for Hoag Lot 3 in January of 1990 there was a specific retaining wall plan approved by the Commission. Since that approval the applicant, together with Randy/Wedum the architect for the adjacent property owner, have revised the plans for the retaining wall. A revision of this extent is a substantial amendment to the original 8040 Greenline review. APPLICANT: Joe Zaluba, as represented by Marti Pickett and Randy Wedum LOCATION: Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Conservation REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please refer to Engineering comments, Exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS: The 1990 Greenline approval included a tie -in and boulder retaining wall for the new road cut to access the proposed single family home. Please see typical section for tie -in wall and boulder wall, Exhibit B. During recent non - compliance hearings, the applicant proposed a new wall design for staff's review. The original wall was designed for retainage purposes and meant to reduce erosion of the upper slope. The boulder wall segments were also intended for aesthetic purposes. The revised wall is a 32" precast exposed aggregate concrete stem wall. Please see entry road sketch, Exhibit C. As the application states, "Its purpose is not to retain; it is mainly serving as a barrier for water drainage from the hillside, debris flow from the uphill side, as well as allowing for a drainage channel for the driveway." The wall will also act as a barrier from cars and snowplows under - cutting the base of the cut hillside. Staff has reviewed this revision with the applicant's representatives. Based upon the expertise of the engineers working on this revision, staff understands that the precast wall will require less grading and cutting back of the upper slope compared to a boulder wall or any other system. Because of the structural integrity of the slope, basically dry stacked stones, a strong retainage system is unnecessary. A tie -in wall would require extensive cribbing of the slope which is not required. The precast wall provides a barrier to undercutting and channels drainage. With hydromulching and revegetation of the upper slope, erosion potential will be reduced. In addition the precast wall has a lower profile than a tie -in wall. The revised wall proposal offers a physically sound solution with minimal impact. RECOMMENDATION: Because less grading of the upper slope is required and the lower wall is less obtrusive than a potentially 8 foot high tie -in wall staff recommends approval of the revised wall plan with the following conditions: 1. Prior to construction of the wall: a. all previous approvals that do not pertain to design shall remain in effect. b. the applicant shall coordinate the tree location plan and /or replacement program with the Park's Department. c. details showing final grades and revegetation of the upper road cut shall be provided. d. the applicant shall consult with the Rappaport's to determine whether a large evergreen above their residence is unstable and should be cut down. 2. A geotechnical engineer shall perform field monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall construction /installation. A signed and stamped letter shall be provided that all construction was completed in accordance to drawings and specifications. 3. Signage shall be posted warning nordic skiers and drivers that they share the lower driveway. Only the uphill side of the shared auto /nordic road shall be plowed. 4. Hydroseeding /mulching shall be provided for any areas disturbed by the removal of the debris. 5. A guarantee for the hydroseeding /mulching, plus a 30% contingency for City administration time to compete the project, shall be provided on or before February 24, 1993 if this was not already included in the original letter of credit. 2 . , 6. The trail width near the lower portion of the access road shall not be compromised for the access road and shall remain 8 feet wide. 7. This approval is subject to all the terms and conditions of the Findings and Order Resolution of December 15, 1992. 8. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made during the Commission's review. EXHIBITS A. Referral Comments B. Section of the tie -in wall and boulder wall C. Entry Road Sketch and explanation of wall and revegetation 3 r •-& c PLANNING & ''NI •G COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1 •, APPROVED MEMORANDUMS _ BY RE •L .ION To: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer t gcot Date: January 13, 1993 Re: Zaluba Access Road - amendment With reference to the drawings submitted requesting precast wall units in lieu of a tie back retaining wall I have the following comments: 1. All previous approvals that do not pertain to design shall remain in effect. 1. The applicant shall coordinate the tree location plan and /or replacement program with the Park's Department. 2. A geotechinical engineer must perform field monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall construction/installation. A signed and stamped letter must be provided that all construction was completed in accordance to drawings and specifications. 3. The submitted plan did not show locations for the required signage. There was no mention of regrading and revegetation of the upper road cut. Details showing final grades and revegetation should be provided. 5. Apparently the fence separating the trail and the driveway has been deleted. Warning signs should be placed notifying both skiers and motorists. 6. Hydroseeding/mulching must be provided for any areas disturbed by the removal of the debris. 7. A guarantee for the hydroseeding/mulching must be provided. 10. There should be a contingency of 30% on the total agreed costs to handle City administration time should they have to complete the project. 11. As a general comment I have concern that the trail width near the lower portion of the access road will be less than eight feet. The width of the trail should not be compromised for the access road. mialuba 1 1 fi"- PLANNING' • e ING COMMISSION ti EXHIBIT ' A. , APPROVED . 19 :y Ink, j 9 1 EXISTING SLOPE V �. WIDTH OF TIE -BACK WALL: N. 3 FT. MAXIMUM N. 2 FT. MINIMUM N 1 T N. rI '\ _i- REMOTE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY. PLACE 4" OF COMPACTED CI ASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE /S- 20 (ALL TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR). 4 FT. MINIMUM - 2 FT. DEEP ROCK FILLED DITCH/TOE DRAM. nu DITCH Will 1 -1/2" SCREENED ROCK TYPICAL SECTION, I +00 TO 5 +73.35 YJ 4 AL. NOTE: TIE -BACK WALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE LET AS A SEPARATE DESIGN /BUILD CONTRACT TO A CONTRACTOR NORMALLY ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS. EXIST. SLOPE N /2: I CUT SLOPE OR EXISTING SLOPE WHERE REASONABLE EXIST. ROADWAY BENCH NOT TO BE WIDENED) ' L, / FT. 120' WIOLY VARES MIN. ROAD PORTION TRAIL POR)70N PLACE NEW CUT 6.00' BOULDERS SCARIFY RESEED AGAIN . • • 05 6.00' T SHORT I5' TO 61 RETAINING , �� / M /N T WALL AS WEYSTOAC SYSTEM OR FR ! GRAVITY ROCK WALL WHERE NEEDED 3 , X ro PROTECT DUSTING TREES OR .. ', �� �� 3% 1 '\ STEEP CUT SLOPES. _ j ;: toll 'F EX DO ANGULAR BOULDERS TYP. MINIMUM BASE ;ii- j� / , SIZE 2 FT. MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE REMOVE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY, FOR INCLUSION IN WALL IS L5 FT. PLACE " OF C0M1°ACTEO CL. 6 2 FT. DEEP, ROCK FILLED DITCH /TOE AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPACTED OR4 1N F /LL DITCH WITH 1-1/2" SLBGRADE (ALL TO 95% STAMJARD SCREENED ROCK. PROCTOR) /ref 57 ' F '' TYPICAL ROAD SECTION STATION 10.00 TO 12.52.13, EXISTING ROADWAY NO SCALE a0 . . --edtke-cLAQ,":A ga ila G Z 17 Ap CO PR MN OvE IS D SION • 19 , BY UTION 7 4. - .2-' ' \ ti • ' 4 e # 4 9/ --=t1=lie ' b - " is - 41(4. ,5 ' 4, , CIV4 t ■ '' " . , I, •...(4 ' 1ft, . X ‘.14 ° '' 1 : - - '4, e • AC `'$ . '''..kr `,/ ' 'S k ' : .' .. L- jalkill ' 00 li A *% . , ' • • ptiraX01406011itr . to it. , 01. 1 4. k • , .K, nz4 n , 4 '4A‘ l',..k • '7,4 • 'Pet " • t o% I, %, \ , 4 , 4 r , Y r 4 t) ' ' ? IC C .144 kt O illi e4 re ,,, . r 4, 44 .4, % 10 l'44,34•44%.,- ,7? fa , r ■ "4 . 113:01,1Nr&-••••••ser 'br :711,30: " naa Isi — • - - 1 1— • - - - - ''. ' < 4 , ' •. "` ! I / 14> . n V _It lit • , i lvai • an rWCOW IF ' `... .1 toroinstio" ii • .r•-: , N f '. 4 ir -. "1 '''' IP-- le.* P ■ , 'w.V.:2\ \ Mta Aia'buf€.4.`r - T * i - , I k •,, ,,,,, -k - • _ - :„...• - a-..‘ ; 4 1, , , , -it; - ,-,-,1 •• \ C ,. , ,,,,,, ,.,..- () ,,,' ,,nitUtro nr_ . - .4:,A-,-. 1. ilk __.....,._....... -. ov \ , ei jz, • ■ wi.....— „ a .....„ ,_ , ,.,,,,,....... ‘ ■ ,_ .... , „ ........--- ..... ir 46 \ ,.. ,. zik. , - " , - -- 4." cirrt• e ,„ ,. ,., ,‘.. t 5 s• 5 , , -- 4 00\*, \ Jr 1 \ ;I' st s '' 4 .1. 0 ' 7 . . -44 •- ,47•7---. - Am.:, n/s4 nris ,‘' s frk - . # Ss' 'Z' ' .3 . 4 , k, i 4 • " 4c - -.•-• 51; . '''' ' ' 1 % ' k alf S - 7"4 1 1: - ` \ , .,..\ \ 1 4 ( - b4 , I f' _ • --- ,-, 4k‘ 4 . ,4% ,‘ likf eisArri ..ta 1 4 ;art , et‘,::-4 ,• t.- , r g, • c li" s " F. 404‘ _., .. -- ft \--irel •-•.gt, i isr ' . , k -.4-g.sq•-•. i . k eib lits, I ig,• g Wr , ,- .„#.41,i, ror Ilk , ,,i e , -. ',1>te-, `. ,, Lc" r, ' ' r• -14r,„ ,,-,, ' ,-,.. „,„ -„„,„, .z• n \ G / AI' 4 4 ' ,, , 4/ " k. , 4 , i,' et 4 0 1 =,,i' s — —_.• ' , , 04 .3 4z 41-.7 4 , ,Irna Irligr On PI ' .; ' , .4 4 • .,.. - .... • .• ..- c „tie, - „A ,..31k.„-:— ,. - i 6 - # .... 1 • 4 4 1 %.• PLANNING ITSNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED — RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AS SON3�[GRrj6 T bN ( REVOKING THE 1990 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL FOR LOT 3 OF THE HOAG SUBDIVISION ASPEN COLORADO Resolution No. 93 -a WHEREAS,. on December 15, 1992, the applicant Mr. Joseph Zaluba entered into a Findings and Order agreement regarding his.1990 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Subdivision Lot 3; and WHEREAS, condition (b) of the Order stated that if the contract purchaser of the property fails to close on or before February 24, 1993, and no substitute Letter of Credit is submitted by or on behalf of the applicant from an institution and in a form approved by the City Attorney on or before said closing date, the 8040 Greenline Approval shall automatically expire and the applicant shall be deemed to have waived the right to any further hearings before the Commission; and WHEREAS, the applicant has failed to comply with condition (b): the contract purchaser did not close on the property on or before February 24, 1993, and a substitute Letter of Credit was not submitted to the City Attorney before the close of the business day February 24, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Findings and Order of December 15, 1992, the 1990 8040 Greenline Approval has expired on February 25, 1993. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission affirms that pursuant to the Findings and Order of December 15, 1993, the January 2, 1990, 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, Aspen Colorado is revoked. Any further development of the property shall require an 8040 Greenline approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Entered this day of March 2, 1993. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By CJ�/JrnAAA- Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson ATTEST: 9 „,) oyek Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk ° "'- zo wrIliI EXHIBIT �, , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • MEMORANDUM — . 111)1 To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office SEP 13 From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer a Date: September 12, 1993 Re: Souki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Reviews Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit 1. This parcel has been the subject of numerous discussions which usually include the statement that the lot would not be approved as a subdivided lot under current standards. Therefore it appears to he inadvisable to approve any increased density on the parcel, and the Engineering Department recommends against approval of the accessory dwelling unit. This is due most specifically to problems related to emergency vehicle access discussed below, but also relates to the undesirability of any more traffic on the access road. 8040 Greenline Review 1. If and where possible, the access road shall he constructed 28' in width in order to provide. a 20' wide emergency access width with the Nordic trail located on the inside, uphill side of the road so that snow removal does not push snow onto the Nordic trail. A Nordic trail might he aligned through the trees in lieu of alongside the access road. 2. The recent symposium in Snowmass, Transportation Facilities through Difficult Terrains, provided the information that retaining walls can now be built from the top down. Thus, retaining walls can be virtually perpendicular and do not require laid back slopes with increased removal of vegetation. I am working on having materials concerning this technique for the P & Z meeting. Is suggested that a condition of approval he that all necessary retaining walls be constructed using this technique and that the architectural appearance he approved by city staff and /or the P & Z. 3. It does not appear feasible to provide significant improvements for fire truck access to the intersection of the access road and Ute Avenue. It appears that fire response vehicles must turn around in the cul de sac at the end of Ute Avenue. This should still provide response times equal to or better than other locations in City limits. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director M^" • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO LESLIE LAMONT From: Wayne Vandemark Postmark: Aug 25,93 10:44 AM Status: Certified Urgent Subject: SOUKI CONDITIONAL Message: WE NEED TO SEE MORE ON THIS PROJECT. AS IT IS NOW THE GRADE WILL BE TO STEEP FOR FIRE APPARATUS. " • ^ e THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE TO BE SPRINKLERED PER ORD. # 31 DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHICS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. I THINK WE ALL BETTER TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO LESLIE LAMONT From: Wayne Vandemark Postmark: Sep 02,93 1:26 PM Status: Certified Urgent Subject: SOUKI SITE VISIT Message: THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL APPROVE A THREE POINT ENTRANCE FROM UTE AVE. THE ACCESS ROADWAY SHALL BE 16!. I AM WAITING TO SEE THE PRINTS FROM ALFRED TO SEE THE ENTRANCE, ROADWAY, AND THE AREA FOR THE FIRE APPARATUS TO TURN AROUND AND GET BACK DOWN THE HILL. ALL THESE ISSUES MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN CLEAR THE PROJECT AND ESTABLISH AN ISO RATING WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT DRIVING PAST THE ADDRESS TO THE CUL- DE-SAC WOULD NOT WORK DUE TO THE TIME, DISTANCE, AND CARS PARKED THERE DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. X • SEP MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Rebecca Baker, Assistant Parks Director DATE: September 8, 1993 - RE: Souki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Application Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision We have reviewed the documents submitted on behalf of Mr. Souki for development of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision and have a few questions /concerns regarding the application. On page 2, second paragraph, the applicant discusses the previous approvals of the property. The statement regarding plowing of the shared auto /nordic road is confusing. It currently reads, "plowing on the uphill side only if the shared auto /nordic road..." The statement would make sense if the "if" is supposed to be "of." However, if the original is correct, then more information is necessary to understand the meaning the applicant intends. Additionally, we would request detailed specifications for the shared driveway /nordic trail, including surface material, width of area to be paved (if paved), curb and gutter detail if proposed, and information on how to separate driveway use from pedestrian /nordic uses. The method of plowing is also important so as not to obstruct the use of the nordic trail. 1 2 MEMORANDUM TO: LESLIE LAMONT, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER SUPER I :,1,11 ENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 1993 SUBJECT: SOUKI 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW The Water Department has reviewed the Conditional Use and 8040 Review for application by Souki. The City does have adequate capacities and infrastructure in place in Ute Avenue to serve this proposal. The applicants design engineer needs to determine if adequate pressures exist in the City system to supply this residence. If the residence is located at an elevation that minimum water pressures, as established by the Colorado Health Department, cannot be achieved, the applicant will have to install a booster pump and pressure tank to compensate for that deficiency. LB:rl IablOhouki.mem Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Di strict 565 North Mill Street ` _ "` -` Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 FAX #(303) 925 -2537 Sy Kelly - Chairman Albert Bishop John J. Snyder - Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish - Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. August 27, 1993 Leslie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Souki Conditional Use Review Dear Leslie: I cannot tell from our maps whether or not lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is within our district boundaries. The applicant will need to review his most recent tax notice to see if a mill levy was charged for our District. If a levy was not charged then the applicant will need to petition for inclusion. I have the forms available at our office. Our boundary appears to run through the Hoag Subdivision. Once membership to the District is established, then service can be provided contingent upon compliance with our rules and regulations. If a common service line is to be used to connect both dwellings to our system, then the line will need to be 6" in diameter. No clear water connections may be made to our system such as roof. patio, foundation or terrace drains. We need to see a site plan of the subdivision which shows current service line locations and easements and a site plan for lot 3 showing the proposed route and easement for the service line to connect this project to our system. I cannot tell from the drawings submitted how the lot matches up with public rights of way or our system. Sincerely, re, .1 Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL 1)C MESSAGE DISPLAY TO LESLIE LAMONT CC BILL DRUEDING From: Bill Drueding Postmark: Aug 25,93 10:50 AM Subject: CONDITIONAL USE AND 8040 GREENLINE LOT 3 HOAG SUBD. Message: THE ELEVATIONS SUPPLIED IN THE PACKET INDICATE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS 29.3 FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE 28 FEET ALLOWED BY CODE MEASURED BETWEEN THE RIDGE AND THE EAVE..THIS IS ALL I HAVE TO GO ON. THIS PROJECT IS BEFOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND FOR FRONT YARD SET BACK VARIANCE...WE NO LONGER HAVE THE PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR ZALUBA SO I CANNOT VERIFY THAT THIS BUILDING IS IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION,I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE THE ADU IS GOING. X - - -- MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: September 8, 1993 RE: SOURI CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Parcel ID No. 2737- 182 -68 - After reviewing the above — referenced application, the Housing Office approves the proposed attached accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 5 -510, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred ( flour square fa ca allowable ona shah) be area and not more than seven hundred (700) square deed restrleted, meeting the housing authority% guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months In duration. Owners of the pdncipal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. The floor area requirement is for net liveable square feet as defined by the Housing Office below: Net liveable Square Footers Is calculated on interior living area and Is measured kntedor wall to Interlor wall, including all interior panalons including, but not limited to, habitable basements and Interior storage areas, closets and laundry area Exclusions Include, but are not limited to, uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or detached), patios, decks and porches -�jI Per the applicant's calculations, the accessory dwelling unit is to be 420 net liveable square feet, which meets the minimum Housing Office Guidelines. W .l, 12 6124735369 SUcAN RAPPAPORT 09/13/93 21=.54 P01 PLANNING & ZONIL., C0/sMISSION EXHIBIT F , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLPTT_ON • SUSAN IL RAPPAPORT 3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 PHONE: (612) 473 -3065 FAX: (612) 473 -5369 September 13, 1993 Leslie Lamont Sc? 4 Aspen Planning and Zoning FAX (303) 920 -5197 Dear Leslie, I am writing in response to the notification of the Souki Conditional use review and 8040 Greenline Review. I am enclosing a copy of the letter I wrote to the Board of Adjustment. It summarizes our objections to the development of Lot 3 Hoags Addition. Since the variance has been granted, I hope that those issues will be addressed at the 8040 hearing. In addition, Gary and 1 STRONGLY OBJECT to the accessory dwelling unit for that property. The road to it is and will remain (I hope!) a single lane. If an accessory dwelling unit is approved, there will be far more traffic and a higher occupancy density than was ever intended for that site. In addition, if it is approved, then it will set a precedent for the Newfoundland Claim to also have an ADU. The amount of car and truck traffic would be impossible. We also worry about the viability of the Nordic Ski Trail. It has been messed up for several seasons now, and more traffic would make it worse. Since we are not able to attend the meeting on September 21st, please make sure that our views are known. Thank you. s, Susan H. Rappaport '8 6124735369 SIXAN RAPPAPORT 09/13/93 21.'.54 P02 GARY AND SUSAN RAPPAPORT 3940 WALDEN. SHORES ROAD WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 PHONE: (612) 473 -3065 FAX: (612) 473 -5369 September 13, 1993 Remo Livagnino The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 FAX (303) 920 -5197 Dear Remo, We own the property at 115 Ute Avenue, Lot 5, Hoag's Edition, and we have comments about the variance request for Lot 3, Hoag's Edition, about which the Board of Adjustment plans to meet on August 12 at 4:00PM Hopefully, you are aware of the long history about the development of that property. We urge you to review the file on it (Leslie Lamont, at Planning and Zoning office, probably has it or can get it), as it went through variance, P & 2, and finally revocation of its building permit. You will also find letters from us in that file, detailing the many issues that we found and still find objectionable. We believe that the approval of a development plan for lot 3 should be denied because the slope is extremely steep, and the resulting tree removal and excavation will cause high risk of rock slides and avalanches both during and after construction. If for some reason you do approve it, we urge you to make that approval contingent on certain conditions: • The owners/developers MUST post a performance bond before any work whatsoever begins on that project. • The new road to access the property and the original Nordic Trail road must be completed in at least as good a way as the city planning office originally stipulated. This includes re vegetation, boulder walls, avalanche mitigation, etc. - all of this was detailed in earlier documents on file with the city. Because the original developer did not have a performance bond, he was able to really open up some wide areas on very steep and treed terrain. One of the results, besides big scarring, is that there are numerous snow slides on the trait. The trail was closed for all of March and April this year, and while it was a heavy snow year, there were slides in other years too, which had not happened before those roads were cut. As a matter IT 6124735369 SUCAN RAPPAPORT 09/13/93 21A55 P03 of fact, a slide came over the road and lodged against the roof and back of our neighbor's home. The Nordic trail is scarred and damaged, and we are especially concerned with the unacceptable part directly above our home. The easement along our property line, (which was designated as a utility easement, by the way), has been trashed - The terrain is uneven and not waded for proper drainage. There are rocks, boulders and dead tree strewn around. On the upper side of the road, there are enormous tree roo ts that have been exposed from the road cutting. There is one large double trunk tree in particular that could seriously damage our home if it falls, and while the Forest Service agrees that it could fall and has given us permission to remove it, we feel that the expense and responsibility should be borne by those who originally damaged it or the new owners. • During any building, roads or homes, there must be construction fences which protect our property as well as our neighbors, from debris, boulders, etc. falling down upon us. • There must be limitations set on the number of tnrcks and large vehicles that can go up and down there, and they must not be allowed to use the Nordic Trail which was designated originally and should remain a non vehr� a road. • Needless to say, a responsible person and agency appointed to closely monitor any of these stipulations that you approve. The previous owner agreed to many things and then did not do them. No one was there to check on him or red tag him for his lack of compliance. Please also review the agreement between the subject property and the Newfoundland Claim next door. The Newfoundland has access rights across the Hoag #3 property. They are also part of this puzzle and the potential for future problems. Both of these properties should be part of the same sorts of limitations, because of the fragile nature of their location. We urge all the members of the committee to personally go to the site, so they can appreciate the seriousness and difficulties of building in that area. Thank you for allowing us to express our views. Please do not let these issues drop into the cracks! We would also appreciate being copied on the outcome of the meeting. Since* ` 1 Gary B. Rappaport Susan H. Rappaport cc: Tommy Coleman Jack Davis MEMORANDUM TO: LESLIE LAMONT, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER SUPE ' .:.ul:' 01 ENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 1993 SUBJECT: SOUK' 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW The Water Department has reviewed the Conditional Use and 8040 Review for application by Souki. The City does have adequate capacities and infrastructure in place in Ute Avenue to serve this proposal. The applicants design engineer needs to determine if adequate pressures exist in the City system to supply this residence. If the residence is located at an elevation that minimum water pressures, as established by the Colorado Health Department, cannot be achieved, the applicant will have to install a booster pump and pressure tank to compensate for that deficiency. LB:rl Ieb10 /souki.mem r >, f?., fln 1;1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SOUKI CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND 8040 REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 'a public hearing will kyd held on Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at a meeting to be "`a 4:30 p.m before the Aspen Planning and Zoning CommiscionT -2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Charif Souki, 615 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO, requesting Conditional Use approval for an attached accessory dwelling unit, and 8040 Greenline review approval for a single family residence. The property is located at Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5101 s /Bruce Kerr, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission . MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Leslie Lamont CC BUD EYLAR From: Tom Newland Postmark: Oct 28,93 8:34 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: county road permit Reply text: From Tom Newland: BUD EYLAR HANDLES ACCESS PERMITS. AS I RECALL, WE DIDN'T REQUIRE COUNTY ACCESS PERMITS ON THE HOAG SUBDIVISION FOR A FEW REASONS: 1) CITY APPROVES LAND USE DEVELOPMENT, SO YOYU COULD REVIEW DRIVEWAY FOR CITY REQUIREMENTS; 2) ALTHOUGH UTE AVE IS A COUNTY ROAD, WE HAVE "GIVEN" IT TO THE CITY FOR MAINTENANCE. I SAY DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE ACCESS PERMIT. BUD, DO YOU CONCUR? Preceding message: From Leslie Lamont: the access to hoag lot 3 (which is in the City off of Ute ave.) is on a county road. last time around i failed to get a county road permit what does the applicant need to do to get one how much info. do you need from me ?? and does it make a difference if the road is also USFS road ? ?? thanks X ll� M1 R, y GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS DAVID GIBSON AIA AUGUST G. RENO, AIA SCOTT C. SMITH, AIA Sept. 14, 1993 TO: Leslie Lamont Planning and Zoning Department RE: Lot 3, Hoag Driveway As you know, the fire marshall has requested the following criterias for Lot 3 driveway: 1. Maximum slope of 12 %. 2. Minimum width 16' -0" 3. Means to turn around at the residence. After considerable academic analysis of the site, I have concluded that we can only provide the fire marshall with two of the three requests -12% slope and 16' -0" width- for the following reason: The structure needs to sit on the site at elevation 150' -0" which can be achieved with a 12% slope. Otherwise, anything lower will create a cut that is aesthetically unacceptable and environmentally more damaging. Consequently, however, we cannot provide a turn - around for the fire truck. In order to attain the vertical elevation of 150 ft. @ 12% grading, we need a horizontal distance of 463 ft. this leaves us with only 25 ft. clear for parking by the garage. Sincerely, Alfred N. Beadleston 418 E. COOPER AVENUE • ASPEN. COLORADO 91511 • 303/925 -5968 • FAX 303/925 -5993 • LAW OFFICES I ; , BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE BROOKE A. PETERSON 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE 13031 . 9-25 -8186 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -- FACSIMILE ROBYN J. SMERLING 13031 925 -1090 OF COUNSEL ERIN FERNANDEZ HAZEN. P.C.• July 6, 1993 ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT * AL50 ADMITTED IN FLORIDA AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VIA HAND DELIVERED City of Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department 301 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Leslie Lamont Re: Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Application Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision Dear Leslie: Pursuant to our pre - application conference, please consider this an application on behalf of Mr. Charif Souki, the contract purchaser of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision for 8040 Greenline review approval pursuant to Section 7 -503 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and for a conditional use permit for an additional dwelling unit pursuant to Section 5 -510 of the Aspen Municipal Code for the construction of improvements to be located on Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. The office of the undersigned and Gibson and Reno Architects represents Mr. Souki with respect to this application. In summary, Mr. Souki proposes to complete the construction of a single family home (and additional dwelling unit) pursuant to the approvals previously granted by Mr. Joseph Zaluba, which approvals we understand to have expired. The additional dwelling unit will not increase the square footage or change the foot print of the improvements proposed by Mr. Zaluba. To the extent possible, I would incorporate into the application the materials previously presented to you by Mr. Zaluba. As you know, the development is proposed on a legally subdivided lot within The City of Aspen, Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. The area that has been selected for the construction of the improvements is a relatively level portion of the lot, and is outside of any known avalanche hazard areas. The development will not have a significant impact on the natural water shed, and design has been created in order to mitigate any impacts on a natural drainage. As this is a single family home, the proposed development should not have significant adverse impact on the air quality in The City of Aspen. Leslie Lamont July 6, 1993 Page Two The house, as proposed, has been designed in order to fit within the existing terrain, and a minimum of vegetation will be removed in order to construct the home and the adjacent drive -way. The existing driveway that has been constructed will be appropriately re- vegetated and stabilized in order to also minimize the visual impacts of the project. As this is a single family home, there is no need to address the issue of clustering, and the building height and bulk has been designed in order to blend into the open character of the mountain. Utilities will be available to this property from the City services, including water, sewer and electric. The property is located on approved roadways and adjacent to Ute Avenue, as the stay before the driveway will be improved so as to minimize any adverse impacts. The applicant is willing to commit to following the terms and conditions of previous approvals, as they relate to the physical construction on the property. It is my understanding that these include the construction of a 32" precast exposed aggregate concrete stem wall, the coordination of a tree relocation plan with the Parks Department, field monitoring of the slope grading and retaining wall during construction, signage for the shared lower driveway, plowing on the uphill side onl the shared auto /nordic road, appropriate hydroseeding and mule ing, adherence to the recommendation of Chen - Northern, the re- vegetation of the upper road at the hairpin turn, and the other physical conditions set forth in Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution 90 -4. With respect to the conditional application for the addition of the additional dwelling unit, the applicant is committed to supplying affordable housing to meet the incremental needs for increased employees generated with The City of Aspen. The traffic impacts created by this additional dwelling unit will be mitigated, as the property is located close to existing facilities within The City of Aspen, and accordingly it is proposed that the occupant of the employee dwelling will be able to utilize the public transportation and to walk to and from downtown Aspen, a distance of approximately three (3) blocks. As there will be no additional design changes to the project as previously proved, there will be no adverse visual impact of this conditional dwelling facility. All of the public facilities are available in order to serve this additional dwelling unit. In accordance with the application, you will find eight (8) of each of the following documents: a) Completed Land Use Application form; and ,.., Leslie Lamont July 6, 1993 Page Two b) Letter from Charif Souki authorizing the office of the undersigned, as well as Gibson and Reno, to act on his behalf; and c) Copies of the title insurance commitment with respect to the property indicating all owners of the property, as well as all mortgages, judgements, liens, easements and contracts affecting the property; and d) 8 -1/2 x 11 vicinity map located in the subject property within The City of Aspen; and e) Proposed site improvement plan showing the boundaries of the property, topographical features, significant natural features and proposed grades and elevations of the development, including the employee dwelling unit. Finally, you will find the application check in the amount of One Thousand Thirty -Five Dollars ($1,035.00). Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very t yo rs, :•OOKE A. P 12 '.C. A Professi Corpo .tion By: ! 4 ► .� :too e A. '•et =3 -o BAP /krl Encls. cc: Charif Souki Gibson & Reno Architects 1720 /1950 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ACTION: Barker /Smuggler Durant Road Proposal TITLE LOCATION OF ACTION: Aspen Pitkin RANGER DISTRICT COUNTY (IES) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: USDA - FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: WILLIAM N. JOHNSON District Ranger NAME TITLE Aspen Ranger District White River National Forest UNIT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Magwire Forestry Technician NAME TITLE Aspen Ranger District UNIT 806 West Hallam. Aspen. CO 81611 ADDRESS ZIP (303) 925 -3445 TELEPHONE ABSTRACT: (ONE PARAGRAPH) This Environmental Assessment describes two alternatives for the Barker /Smuggler Durant road proposal. U4S ` "Tam WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST WR 19so-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BARKER /SMUGGLER DIJRANT ROAD PROPOSAL Aspen Ranger District White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this environmental assessment is to document the analysis of the two alternatives considered for the Barker /Smuggler Durant road proposal (Appendix A and B). The alternative selected must permit the Forest Service to continue to meet the management objectives identified in the Land Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest. II. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed road is to provide access to lot three of the Hoag Subdivision within The City of Aspen and to the adjacent Newfoundland Lode M.S. 5190 of Pitkin County. This proposal would then allow the existing road access across National Forest land and across the private properties to be reissued to the Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council for a public ski trail. This environmental assessment is not a decision document. It is a document disclosing the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and the other alternatives analyzed. Environmental consequences on lands and activities administered by other federal, state, and local jurisdictions resulting from the proposal will not be disclosed in this assessment. The Forest Service decision will relate only to lands administered by the Forest Service and will be documented in a Decision Notice. III. PRIMARY FOREST SERVICE ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Would this proposal allow for a second access route across National Forest land to the Hoag Subdivision. B. Could the objectives of this proposal be reasonably met on private or other Federal lands. C. Is the construction of this road on National Forest land in the public interest. D. Would this proposal benefit only private users. E. How would this proposal effect the value of the National Forest land tract for potential sale or trade. F. Could the road construction be carried out to Forest Service standards, with all associated impacts mitigated (Appendix C). IV. GENERAL LOCATION The parcel of National Forest land is situated in the NW' of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, 6th P.M. within Pitkin County, Colorado. V. ALTERNATIVES (including the proposed action) A. No Action Under this alternative the Forest Service would not permit the proposed Barker /Smuggler Durant road construction across National Forest land. B. Issue A Special Use Road Permit Under this alternative the Forest Service would issue a special use road permit with the following mitigating measures: 1. Complete a cultural resource survey on the affected area. 2. Identify and preserve any witness trees and monuments in the affected area. 3. Reseed and mulch all disturbed areas with the seed mix to be determined by the Forest Service. 4. Road construction to Forest Service standards, with a verticle cut slope reinforced with a retaining wall. The subgrade will he widened to provide adequate width for a retaining wall. 5. Submit a road construction plan for approval prior to construction which adequately addresses all engineering concerns (Appendix C). -2- VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Alternative A This alternative would have no environmental consequences to National Forest land. B. Alternative B This alternative would have negative environmental consequences. Soil and vegetation would he adversely impacted for a short terns under this alternative. Visual resources would be negatively impacted for the long -term as a result of the. project. This parcel of National Forest Service land is highly visible from the City of Aspen. There is also a potential for increasing the avalanche hazard due to vegetative clearing associated with the road construction. VII. DECISION NOTICE It is my decision to select Alternative A. Alternative B does not meet the objectives identified in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest for the following reasons: A. The road construction would create a second unnecessary access route across the National Forest to the Hoag Subdivision ( *L.R.M.P. Page III -63, Item 06). B. It is feasible to construct an access road on private land as a spur from the existing road without further impacting National Forest System land (L.R.M.P.. Page III -61, Item 02). C. Construction of the second road would allow the existing road to be used for track skiing as part of the public ski trail. However; the benefit to the public in providing 700 -feet of ski trail is not as great as the loss to the public due to loss in land value to the Forest Service parcel resulting from construction of the second road (L.R.M.P. Page III -61, Item 01 -C and 02). The public interest is currently served by foot access to the ski trail on the existing road. VIII.AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Forest Service Bill Johnson Aspen District Ranger Ray Langstaff Civil Engineering Technician Hollis Johnson Civil Engineering Technician Bob Berg Civil Engineering Technician Craig Magwire Forestry Technician Greg Thompson Forester * Land and Resource Management !'Ian, White River National. Forest -3- Others. Steve Bernstein City of Aspen Brook A. Perterson Law Offices representing Jack Barker Craig Ward Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council VIIII.FINDINC OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT This decision will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. There are no adverse cumulative or secondary effects created as a result of this decision. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18 (Federal Register, Vol. 48, March 31, 1983, pages 13420 to 13426). Notice of appeal must be in writing and submitted to the District Ranger, Aspen Ranger District, 806 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, within 45 days from the date of this decision. A statement of reasons to support the appeal and any request for oral presentation must be filed within the 45 day period for filing a notice of appeal. /9 i � / � .- 2 / / ; (. WILLIAM N. JOHNSON DATE J Aspen District Ranger -4- FOREST F' .ICE USE ONLY I USDAfcres• Service ' Late Received I Region Nu r State Code County Loot 'SPE!c!.. ;L.USE APPLICATION AND RErO':T (n•nrdev /vrl • (Ref.: FSM 2712, 36 CFR 251.54) _ -- - -- i. Congr' i " � \ - - ' " ' t / Unit ID Symbol Dist. I No.) (NFFID No.) INSTRUCTIONS Applicant should request a meeting with the Forest -- - - -- Service representative responsible for processing the application, prior to completing this form. This meeting Range Kind of Use Code _ will allow a discussion of the form's requirements and i identify these items to be omitted. p PART I— APPLICATION (Applicant Completes) 4 1. A pplicant Name acid Address• 2. Authorized Agent Name, Title and Address (in- 3. Area Code and le!epnone (include Zip Cade i elude Zip Code) if different from Item 1. Number Barker /Smuggler- Durant Association a. Applicant's : /oJack G. P.'rker Brooke Peterson P.O. Box 3379 315 E. Hyman Ave. 925 -8580 Aspen, Co. 81612 Aspen, Co. 81611 b. Authorized Agent's 925 -8166 I 4. f s app' cant are ycu? (Mark one box with "X ") 5. Specify what application is for. (Mark one box with "X ") I r a. 9l !ndivi?ual a. DI, New authorization I b. El Corporation` b. 9 Renew existing authorization 1 c. Yj Partnership /Association` e. C Amend existing authorization* ' d. ❑ State Government/State Agency d. 9 Cther• I e. Local Government • If marked ••X'•, provide details under Item 7. f f. ❑ Federal Agency I • If rar:ed "X ". ccmpiete PART H. 1 6. If ',:u are an individual or partnership, are you also a citizen(s) of the United States? I 71 Yes ❑ No - -! • Describe in detail the land use, including: (a) type of use, activity or facility; (b) related structures and facilities; (c) physical seed I _ Jen< (lencth, width, acres, etc.); (d) term of years needed; (e) time of year of use or operation: (f) duration and timing of cr. struction; (g) temporary work areas needed for construction; and (tl) anticipated need for future expansion. (If extra space is needed. use Page 3, REMARKS). A driveway to be constructed across a corner of Forest Service land. The current access road is to be used by the City of Aspen for the nordi.c trail sys tem which is 36 I WO incompatable with vehicular use. We propose a new access driveway that is k11" wide and aprox- imately 400' long. This new road will also serve as access for the Newfoundland Lode mining claim property adjacent to the Forest service property. • 1 I 8. Attach map covering area and show location of proposed use and /.or furnish legal description of the land. , 9. Give statement of your technical and financial capability to construct, operate, and terminate the use for which authorization is requesteS. ' inc!uacs the prctactien and restoration of Federal lands. (If extra space is needed, use page 3, REMARKS). The Newfoundland Lode owners and Hr. Barker will joint venture the proposed driveway. We have obtained cost estimates of 25,000 dollars for the entire driveway of which aproximatoly one ha is on the Forest Service property. We see no problem in financing thi s budget faith Our own • resources. ._. ..._. .,, r• .... d.,• ___ 01 rn) rt..'- -3 (WO,') 1Ga. Les-Jibe ether reasonable alternative pro'- als considered. The.otber alternative was to use the existing road and then construct a driveway to the building site across Lot three of the Hoag subdivision. This alternative would not allow the use of the existing road for the nordic trail system and would also result in a much more visible road from the town of Aspen. ICb. Give explanation of why it is necessary to utilize Federal lands and why the alternatives in item l0a were not selected. `Ir. Barker is currently using Federal land for access to his City lot. But the current access does not provide access for the Newfoundland Lode property and would be in conflict with the proposed use by the City of Aspen for the nordic trail system. 11. Provide statement of reed for proposed use, including the economic feasibility and items each as: (a) cost of proposal (construction, c.e: aticn. and maintenance); (b) estimated cost of next best alternative; and (c) expected public benefits. (If extra space is needed, use page 3, REMARKS). Considering the market proce of the properties that this driveway will access the 25,000 dollars to build the driveway is not at all unreasonable. The maintenance costs are to be shared by the association of the two lot owners. Because these properties are on the border of the City of Aspen they are very valuable homesites. 12. Ceseribe probable effects on the area population, including social and economic aspects, and rural lifestyles. This is not a rural area as stated above. The density in this area will be much less than other nearby areas that are farther from the City of Aspen. • 13. Describe like'v environmental effects that the proposed use will have on: (a) air quality, (b) visual impact; (c) surface and ground water ality and quantity; (d) control or structural change on any stream or other body of water, (e) existing noise levels; (f) land surface, in- c!ed:::g vegetation, permafrost, soil and soil stability; and (g) populations of fish, plant, wildlife and marine life, including threatened and endarzered species. (If extra space is needed, use page 3, REMARKS). Since Lot three is already an approved building site within the City of Aspen, air quality has already been addressed. Visual impact will be less than other alternatives and is minimal because of the heavily wooded terrain. There is no surface water in this area and the soil has extremely porous broken rock composition. Therefore the ground water is not at all a problem. Because of its proximity to Aspen, noise will not be noticeable. The soil in this area is almost all broken rock and is very stable. Because of the large Pine and Spruce population in the area there is little surface vegetation. We will reseed any disturbed areas. 14. Describe what actions will be taken to protect the environment Iran the effects of the proposed use. The plan for this driveway is to cut and haul the rock away. Therefore there will he no effect to the downhill side of the driveway. Some trees wi.11 him removed but there ale many more on both sides of the driveway. The uphill bank could remain quite steep because of the natural stability of the soil and the remaining trees, t4.7 me all Federal, State, County or other departmsnt(s) /agency(ies) where an application for this is being filer:. Attach appropriate license, building permit, certificate or other approval document. City of Aspen 8040 Greenline review application in process. City of Aspen building Department will -be given a set of plans for review after the 8040 Creenline review. _ - tot i am of legal ace and authorized to do business in the State arid that 1 have personally examined the information zed in he aoplica5en and that this information is correct to } b t r 1 n 16b. Gate test of my knovaiedge ei r�I �f �'??r� s , >� Y�L> � �s 1rTlnr1 , a ! �.! f '2 IR. U.S.C. Section 1C01. makes it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department cr agency of the United States fair. Eat:tides, or fraudulent statements or representation1s as to ar y matter within its jurisdiction. k, PART III —F JRT ON APPLICATION (Forest Offic Completes) .4 3. General description of the area and adaptability for the proposed use. Outline area on separate map if needed to clarify proposed use. 4 — 5 r_pAcr ` ck ? o 0. (('� e tvvnt� has oIget#L 1'55 (tieel +O Tnc ( . Pokyl er -It>✓ an. 0OS�,.H .q Yoo,C. Y • J 2. If previously uncer authorization indicate: a: Name of Holder b. Date Authorized c. Date Closed ar. Describe any encumberances on the land, such as withdrawals, boner projects, easements, rights -of -way, mining claims, leases, etc. r Shcw on (( map provided. rr tt Ivs:; ease, wtc�� j Ct ✓oacll PcrnLvt 14 ! 4. State approximate amount and kinds of timber to be cut, recommended stumpage prices, method of scaling; include recommendation em d sacral of merchantable timber. (a) to holder at current damage appraisal or (b) to others than holder under regular timber sale I rrocedure. I I Will proposed use conform to Forest Land and Resource Management Plan? ❑ Yes o No t_ Has an Environmental Assessment been prepared? Yes (Attach) No c Has an E ❑.ironmental Imoa:t Statement (P.L. 91-190,42 USA 4321) been prepared? ❑ Yes (Attach) Es No ;Note: If "No" is marked with an "X" in any of the above questions, explain in item 6 below.) E. Recommendations, including any factors which might affect the granting of the authorization or future use of the land. I j 7. L - st mandatory and optional clauses which should be made a part of this authorization (See FSM 2780). I t E. Fee recommendation (DescrtLe here or on computation sheet attached). I 1 Sc. REC,:'..lEe'.D Approvals or b. Signature (Sign in i.' c. Title d. Date (Disapprova!•, , �""qq'�,�,'� L � 11 _ "St . r- . 1,41.�, 1 nreSkil z7/g 1:. FINAL AGGraval• cr b. Signature Sign i ink) U c. Title d. ate Dis-pprcval. United States Forest South P.O. Box 248 4 % Department of Service Zone Carbondale, CO 2 Agriculture Engineering 81623 REPLY TO: 2730 RIGHTS -OF -WAY 74_, !(.J £/ June 4, 1986 SUBJECT: BARKER PROPOSED ACCESS TO: Bill Johnson, Aspen District Ran On May 27, 1986; Bob Berg, Zone u..ovu and myself accompanied Bill Johnson, Aspen District Ranger and Craig Magwire to the site. The proposal under consideration is; access to a building site and use of the existing road for ski - touring. The grooming equipment will require, as I understand, at least 10 ft. We examined the road location and the property line locations. A monumented (brass cap) corner at the point of the wedge was found. There is not a legal description on the cap. The bearing tree showed T10, R.84 W., SEC 18, SPM. Several options were discussed which Craig will document. The proposed length of road along centerline is approximately 700 ft. as shown on the blueprints. The clearing limits will be approximately 52 feet wide for full bench cuts for 1:1 cut slopes. Cross- slopes range from 45 percent to 65 percent. Road centerline grade as shown on the drawings ranges from 7.0 percent to 12.0 percent. Designed cut and fill slopes are 1 to 1. Top width of the road is 14 feet including ditch. The ditch is a gravel French Drain System. A total of five pipes were shown on the drawings. There is an old existing road just below the proposed location. The existing cut slopes are well stabilized, with some minor raveling. The soils are rocky; average rock size appears to be 4 to 12 inches. There is no pistol- butting of the trees, indicating a fairly stable site. There are several potential avalanche paths along the proposed location. Engineering concerns are the following: 1. The side slopes are excessive, ranging as noted above, from 40% to 65 %. The basic design shows a full bench, which is okay. The cut slopes will require extensive clearing. What will happen to excavated material from the full bench cuts? Will it be used for entrance at the junction with Ute Avenue? Also the material from the excavation will in all liklihood ravel onto the existing road during construction. 2. The utlities needed for the site; electric, gas, phone, sewer, and water; what routes will they take? How much of an easment will be required and how much construction will be required. If propane is used will a turnaround be needed? Will the city of Aspen require firetruck access and therefore a turnaround? Will the city require a fire hydrant? 3. The avalanche hazard will be increased because of additional clearing. The net effect with two roads will be a clearing swath of about 75 feet wide. 'a 4. Visuals; the view from across the valley may be of concern. As i ssei noted above the clearing swath would be 75 feet wide. Also the cut catch to the fill toe as shown on the drawing is 26 feet to 56 feet wide. This plus the existing road would make a swath quite wide on the face of the mountain. 5. Are there other lots that will need access too? If so, any proposed access needs to be planned to provide service to the other lots. 6. The drainage on the proposed structure will affect the existing road. Mitigations will have to be made to prevent damage to the existing road. Recommendations 1. Use the existing road to provide access. Bob Berg suggests combining the nordic use with the proposed access on the existing road. Skiers on other trails have to travel along roadways for short distances. 2. If the road is constructed the cut slope should be vertical and reinforced with retaining walls. This will limit the amount of clearing needed (to approximately 34 to 40 ft.) and help reduce raveling of the slopes. The cuts will be reduced to an average six foot height. The subgrade excavation will need to be widened to provide adequate width for the retaining wall structure. F 4t Raymond Langstaff Civil Engineering Technician South Zone Engineering, White River National Forest cc: D.Wagner R.Berg ASPEN DISTRICT r A PEN DIST ICT JUN 51986 j 986 T O��. N: r ACT r, 1N E �. A CT Ar F, le �N srr.F " - n"' SIN tiIA:F t. rte; u' n r r itC a l t r ) 1 1 It c l no ...G s.- I: _ P 1 j Il l ■ m ... , =r 1 1rV /' 1. :ce p jl i.R��. b � - � -� I CJPIES TO Y: .. r0 L. __ _ _ rr '7 2n17 nol 72 0 1950 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ACTION: Barker /Smuggler Durant Road Proposal TITLE LOCATION OF ACTION: Aspen Pitkin RANGER DISTRICT COUNTY (IES) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: USDA - FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: WILLIAM N. JOHNSON District Ranger NAME TITLE Aspen Ranger District White River National Forest UNIT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Magwire Forestry Technician NAME TITLE Aspen Ranger District UNIT 806 West Hallam. Aspen. CO 81611 ADDRESS ZIP (303) 925 -3445 TELEPHONE ABSTRACT: ( ONE PARAGRAPH ) This Environmental Assessment describes two alternatives for the Barker /Smuggler Durant road proposal. ro p 5T SFIM._ U4 S 1/IMITOWDOCr WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST W1oo -i %"°' 4. Visuals; the view from ,o cross the valley may be of concern. As ` ) noted above the clearing swath would be 75 feet wide. Also the cut catch to the fill toe as shown on the drawing is 26 feet to 56 feet wide. This plus the existing road would make a swath quite wide on the face of the mountain. 5. Are there other lots tha'_ will need access too? If so, any proposed access needs to be planned to provide service to the . other lots. 6. The drainage on the proposed structure will affect the existing road. Mitigations will have to be made to prevent damage to the existing road. Recommendations 1. Use the existing road to provide access. Bob Berg suggests combining the nordic use with the proposed access on the existing road. Skiers on other trails have to travel along roadways for short distances. 2. If the road is constructed the cut slope should be vertical and reinforced with retaining walls. This will limit the amount of clearing needed (to approximately 34 to 40 ft.) and help reduce raveling of the slopes. The cuts will be reduced to an average six foot height. The subgrade excavation will need to be widened to provide adequate width for the retaining wall structure. 7 k Raymond Langstaff Civil Engineering Technician . South Zone Engineering, White River National Forest cc: D.Wagner R.Berg PEN DIST ICT ASPEN DISTRICT p, JUN 51986 _ 1 J • 1986 _ T , — —Pc Atl r, la e l ' ��cT f . Trrf • r t ' i r t ti ['1 1 �t Ui� .IA F �. _ '. 1 u _u Li fts To Form No. 1343 (00-90) ALTA.PIain Language Commitment COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY agent for FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, referredto in thisCommitmentastheCompany, through its agent, identified above, referred to in this Agreement as theAgent, agrees to Issue a policy to you according to the terms of this Commitment When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, thisCommitment becomes effective as of theCommitment Dateshown in Schedule A. If the Requirementsshown in thisCommitment have not been met within six monthsaftertheCom mitment date, our obligation underthisCommitment will end. Also our obligation under thisCommitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: The Provisions in Schedule A. The Requirements in Schedule B -1. The Exceptions in Schedule B -2. The Conditions on the reverse side of this page This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections 1 and 2 of SCHEDULE B. First American Title Insurance Company BY ja PRESIDENT "'Ott IryS .} �. 0. A 9r, `" � • er ✓ A SEPTEMBER 2A • u ; • BY S ECRETAR Y y d 1968 = • rvtl� c �.� .•• BY tit i&h lu .L y e COUNTERSIGNED C O M M I T M E N T • SCHEDULE A MARTY PICKEPP NCF LYNN & PIC KE T 320 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 1. Effective Date: Mardi 23, 1993 at 7:00 AM Order No. 402654-C PL /cr Custamer Reference ZALUBA 2. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $ 400,000.00 Proposed Insured: CHARIF SOUKI 3. ALTA Loan Policies Amount: $ Proposed Insured: Proposed Insured: Amount: $ 4. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Cannitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: JOSEPH S. ZALUBA, as to an undivided one -half (1/2) interest and RONALD C. DOLLEN, as to an undivided one -half (1/2) interest • issued by: Owner's Premium: $ 1,085.00 Aspen Title Corporation Lender's Premium: $ 600 E. Hopkins Avenue, #102 Add'l Lender Chg: $ ASPEN CO 81611 Add'l Charges: $ FAX (303) 920 -4052 Tax Certificate: $ 10.00 (303) 920 -4050 Denver 595 -8463 Endorsement Chg: $ TBD Charges: S TOTAL CHARGES: $ 1,095.00 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY C O M M I T M E N T SCHEDULE B Order No. 402654 -C Section 1 RE]QUIREmENTs THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or nnrtgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Joseph S. Zaluba and Ronald C. Cullen for the use of Pitkin Bank & Trust Company, to secure $145,000.00, dated January 5, 1990, and recorded January 8, 1990, in Boos 611 at Page 449. 2. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Joseph S. Zaluba and Ronald C. Cullen for the ;,aa of Hank of Evergreek, to secure $25,000.00, dated January 29, 1991, and recorded February 5, 1991, in Hook 639 at Page 94. 3. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Joseph S. Zaluba for the use of Timothy N. Gardner, to secure $5,000.00, dated January 19, 1992, and recorded February 10, 1992, in Bock 669 at Page 127. 4. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from for the use of Daniel M. Haskell of Haskell and menter, to 'secure $21,392.48, dated May 1, 1992, and recorded May 6, 1992, in Book 677 at Page 20. 5. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Joseph S. Zaluba for the use of Don Oatley, to secure $3,000.00, dated June 30, 1992, and recorded July 6, 1992, in Book 682 at Page 650. NOTE: Promissory Note recorded July 6, 1992, in Hook 682 at Page 651, given in connection with the above Deed of Trust. 6. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Joseph S. Zaluba for the use of Don Graham, to secure $5,000.00, dated June 30, 1992, and recorded July 9, 1992, in Book 682 at Page 929. NOTE: Promissory Note recorded July 9, 1992, in Bode 682 at Page 930, given in connection with the above Deed of Trust. (Continued) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY C O M M I T M E N T SQH RULE B Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order No. 402654 -C The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Eassmnts or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any other facts which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date herreof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, Should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 26, 1949, in Hook 175 at Page 229. 8. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 26, 1949—in. 175 at Page 229. 9. Easenwnt and right of way for ski lift purposes, as granted by Hoag Associates. Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership to Little Annie, Li Partnership by instrument recorded February 12, 1981, in Hods 404 at 169, said easement being more particularly c3esr*ibed therein. tpkg v�r' 10. Easement and right of way for access purposes, as granted by Hoag In !'l Associates, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership to the owners of Lc Subdivision by instilment recorded November 7, 1980, in Hook 398 at which the specific location of said easement is not defined. (Continued) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXCEPTIONS (continued) Order No. 402654 -C 11. Easement and right of way for multi- recreational trail purposes, as grand by Jack Barker to City of Aspen by instrument recorded February 24, 1988, in Boos 557 at Page 729, said easement being over that portion of subject property shown as Utility and Public Trail Easement on the filed Plat thereof. 12. Obligations with respect to easement and right of way for access purposes, as granted by United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to Blue Sky Corporation by instrument recorded December 27, 1977, in Book 341 at Page 11, and August 23, 1978, in Book 353 at Page 316, in whidh the specific location of said easement is not defined. 13. Utility easement as shown on the Plat of said Subdivision, said easement being 15 feet in width along exterior boundaries as strewn on Plat recorded November 5, 1971, in Plat Book 4 at Page 218. 14. Easement and right of way for ingress and egress purposes, as granted by Jack Barker to Smiggler- Durant Mining Corporation by instrument recorded March 21, 1989, in Book 588 at Page 212, in which the specific location of said easement is not defined. 15. Easement and right of way for recreational trail purposes, as granted by Jac in Barker to United States Forest Service by instrument recorded January 2, Book 610 at Page 877, in which the specific location of said easement is not defined. 16. Easement Agreement between Cordon Miller and Stanley R. Shaffran and Joseph S. Zaluba and Ronald C. Collen recorded June 17, 1992, in Book 681 at Page 147 re-recorded June 25, 1992, in Book 681 at Page 873. and 17. Any and all unredeemed tax sales. NOTE: Upon receipt of a Certificate of Taxes Due evidencing that there are no existing open tax sales, the above exception will not appear on the policies to be issued hereunder. • FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • • No I ICE TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (PURSUANT TO INSURANCE REGULATION 89 -2) A. "GAP" PROTECTION When First American Title Insurance Company or its authorized agent, (hereinafter referred to as "Com- pany"), is responsible for recording or filing the legal documents creating the estate or interest to be insured in a single family residence and for disbursing funds necessary to complete the transaction, the Company shall be responsible for any deeds, mortgages, lis- pendens, liens or other title encumbrances which first appear in the public records subsequent to the Effective Date of the Commitment but prior to the Effective Date of the Policy, provided the following conditions are satisfied prior to the Company's disbursement of the funds: 1. Properly executed documents creating the estate or interest are in the possession of the Company. 2. A fully executed Affidavit and Indemnity form signed by the seller and satisfactory to the Com- pany is in the possession of the Company. No Coverage will be afforded against deeds, mortgages, lis- pendens, liens or other title encumbrances ac- tually known to the proposed insured prior to or at the time of recordation of the documents. Public Records as used herein means those records established under state statutes for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of deeds, mortgages, lis- pendens, liens or other title encumbrances to purchasers for value and without knowledge. B. MECHANICS' LIEN PROTECTION If you are a buyer of a single family residence, you may request coverage against loss because of unrecorded claims asserted by construction, labor or material suppliers against your home. If no construction, improvements or major repairs have been undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will be payment of the appropriate premium and the execution by the seller of an Affidavit and Indemnity form satisfactory to the Company. If there have been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be pur- chased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and /or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity Agreements satis- factory to the Company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which you have contracted or agreed to pay. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. C-3 (Commitment Notice) r Inrnnn • DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED BY COLORADO REVISED STATUTES §10 -11 -122 Colorado Revised Statutes §10 -11 -122 requires that "every title insurance agent or title insurance company shall provide, along with each title commitment issued, a statement disclosing the following information: (a) That the subject real property may be located in a special taxing district; (b) That a certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the county treasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent; (c) That information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder or the County Assessor." ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 MEMORANDUM leeP T43:-- City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Parks Department Zoning Administration Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District / `) - Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Souki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Reviews Parcel ID No. 2737 - 182 -68 -001 DATE: August 18, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Charif Souki. Please return your comments to me no later than August 27. Thank you. S E CEO July 2, 1993 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department 301 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Leslie Lamont Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Please allow this letter to serve as authorization to the law firm of Brooke A. Peterson, P.C. and Gibson and Reno Architects to represent me with respect to all land use applications affecting Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. Yours ery t ■ , • Ile "OPP Charif Souki - - LAND LSE APPLICATION FCIUM , 1) Pwject Nana Souk d ome -. Lot 3 Hoa: Subd •n J 2) Y.tnjecL Location Lot o.1 04 •.' -- - - • -, • . ..• (indicate sUtet address, lot & block nmber, legal option where ' • appropriate) 3) present Zocting Conservation 4) lot Size_ 3 acres 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone $ Charif Souki, 615 Cemetary Lane, 'Aspen, Colorado 81611 (920 -3861) G) Representative's Name, Address & Phone 1 Brooke A. Peterson. Esq.. 315 E. Hyman Ave, Aspen CO (925 -8166) and August Reno. Gibson & Reno, 418 . E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (925 -5968 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) - Conditional Use crno ptual SPA Pal Historic Dev_ f Special Review Final. SPA Final Historic Dev- X 8040 G enl.ine boncePbnisPUlli • — Minor Historic Dev- _ Stream Margin Final POD — Historic Demolition . Mountain Vida Plane Subdivision ' Historic Designation _ . . .. — _ Condamini e nation _ Text/Nab Amendment -- Q Auotment _ Lot Split/Zot Line — ( 425 LOn. • • . __ • Adjustment 8) Description of Existing ncg Uses ' (number and type of existing granted to the she approximate sq- ft-; number of bedroxs; any previous approvals Proi.tY) • • N/A . • 9) D of Development Application Single Family Home and Accessory Unit on approved Subdivided City Lot. • 10) X�ve you p attached s tAttachment A t f hmeent 2, Minimum submission Contents X Response. to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Ibasponse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5197 August 18, 1993 Brooke Peterson 315 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Souki Conditional Use Review and 8040 Greenline Review Case A35 -93 Dear Brooke, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, September 7, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) daysprior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5101. Sincerely, l(1- { -4` Suzan'Ae L. Wolff Administrative Assistant form apt ph ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Parks Department Zoning Administration Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Souki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Reviews Parcel ID No. 2737 - 182 -68 -001 DATE: August 18, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Charif Souki. Please return your comments to me no later than August 27. Thank you. ASPEN/PITI IN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 July 7, 1993 Brooke Peterson 315 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Souki Conditional Use and 8040 Greenline Reviews Case #A35 -93 Dear Brooke, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is incomplete. Please submit the following items in order to complete the application. 1. Provide elevations of the home from all directions. 2. The front yard setback in the Conservation zone district is 100 feet; you propose a 30 foot front yard setback. The variance for the front yard setback that was granted by the Board of Adjustment in 1989 has expired, and must be reviewed again before the application is scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the Planner assigned to this case at 920 -5101. Thank you. Sincerely, Suza ne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SOURI CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Charif Souki, 615 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO, requesting Conditional Use approval for an attached accessory dwelling unit, and 8040 Greenline review approval for a single family residence. The property is located at Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5101 s /Bruce Kerr, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission o ic)f 0p--6i)0