The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1125 Ute Ave.A50-966 %:Al O -- <76 - Valerio/Johnson GR/ADU 1125 Ute Ave. 2737-182-68-001 A50-96 ..0 0.-9 - 0\ f i 6 i rl i Â»PILL O 12//CA 11 4 \ G f , )7 , F ' Â¢ RI i lili k . 4/2 --- i j 1 . k - . 4 00.- L-*22=2- ==ME--*mfimil-4772-- =~-mZE"+~ ~'- --UG~.C -*====--==,p-*Â·---,-- ---41ff/2/66;brE.I...=-74,--. -6.p=â‚¬.E.U;W.U-1 -- .- -'-r -4'.*. 1.7-70-82)'=pv-m.-. - .--* 0 4 . 0, D - . I. .... 0 -0 . 0. .. .. . .. .: 4. A t. 0 - -11% .... ... . J - ... Â» .. 0 . .+ D. ... 1. . . I . . . .. .. " t. 0 7 4 -6.- . . . . *. I . I Â· 9.3. , . I I .. -.. . 43, I . 9 I I 92, 15*21% . 0 ..~ 91* ia V... . , .. I . . 0 e .. . -.. I . 0 t. .. . I. , . I - D . I . . . ..0 - 0 . I . .. I. - ././. . , - - .......-- I. .. . . . 0 .. . I D. I . . 6,51' I $ . I .., .E- 1,- . 0 . . Al ./.!E . 90. .'r-.. $34.4 - ClfÂ¥:V . -=-Â· ~__ Â·J<'Â·~~ ', rs â€ž .Ai:56* 66:f,g#- -Â£-.-:b-'22'13?Ill,Y'' .31-41#Pp 4-ri)#trw .r L4*~<:-~~ r . '~I ~4-, 3~D~Z":94 <4 i--7cf#34( , --1 ~'7-'4%fl>*Â·Â·Â·QR)FA .-.4,9. 1 IA . .b - ' ' -7-7 b * ArÂ·Gy ..13.Wwix.- Â· **'%*5Â·j,N: 1.~rÂ·vii,15.â€¢~Â».f~ -.-. __ ... .g. l - .~2- .. . '.? ,-, .- -- .â„¢4-=!- - 4; I + . - --/;--y--- ~. , 2- 1. . =L .. .. 442 - -,4.44 2 3. .- ..9 . .y.ek . +I. i : 4.p I &9. 1 %-44 --:..4 ....AKE#=ID 1 -.r 7 3.- -- -4-22 fl ~p -3.~- 7-1. *.-- ...t.;/.. :& 2 . 1 L= I 9.. - - P v?Q}7 -t? --1-ov rr-ryÂ» 11-11 -'*901,LOJ 4.)/9 . P.> 9,1/ 11Â·~03*9-0-~) 4 p'Â·140 1 m-prn,-6-~re .-yyÂ«A - 14% tu~y) CpfÂ«Â»'- Pro-3 -10 f."4 -p-7+Yb - fli,~ 61 4 A : Â»7-1.0 7 -lyrr,19 - C i kme.yl 1 - -_ OUy39 7Â»Gl/)' 64 7-9 -4 - 0 C>Â«5347 emrÂ»Â·-Ud 4yryn PO *, \\ - Â«F? PÂ«P+Â»79 k ' 1 *Egmvi u..4,1 (r6.Prm Â»â„¢900- 4 -sâ‚¬49 *74-10 -34" - 29-#aud )9-19 1 (222 4 Â«26/ 4116 i' EXISTING FIR > EXISTING FIR , NEW F TREES ~ NEW GUA DRAIL NEW FIR TREES I . 2 145 z i. . - Â·Â·: 1. NEW ROAD 1 /1 0 - NEW ASPEN TREES - > 1000 I , 11 -il 1 1 1 I -i' NEW ASPEN TREES 990 #-1 - - TRAIL -16.- - 980 - DOUBLE STACKED BOULDERS RETAINING WALL ELEVATION @ VECHICLE TURNTABLE 1 11 = 1 01- 2 1-GÂ· 11 LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVSION A '' \9-- 4 / fit \ -4 1 / cl ''/ j/' -1 1 11 1. \\ 4 El \ 1 1/ 1 1 \ \ 1 f 1 /1/1 1 1 \ 1,1 9.~. ///1 1 0 ///11 m / 111 1 FZ 11 1 11 5/ -/ 1 1 Â·11 / // 1 \ \ 1 1 ///// 1 /4/ \ \ 1 \ i 21 1 1 0 / i /1 mi ~1\ t# 1 0 . / ff / h/ ji '1' liIt 1 / 1 151 i /7 1 i / <1 1 / / /\#m\\ 1 f \ \ 1/ 2 1 1 901\\ / \\ 6 /'t 119/1 / i, 1/ 0 4 4 0 / f i \ rs 1 9 6 9 1 X t m d , 1 \ P / (D 2 hi / j < 11\ . 1 1 T# 1 - 1 1 , // 2 / 44% a \ - / 9 / ' I I 1 f li I. 0 - I \ i E / f - / / 0 e ' t// 1 12 .- \4 5 4 - 4 / 0 - 14/ i \O 69 0/1 4,0 r 62 0 \ PROJECT SCALE DATE: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION (2/1/16 HOAG St-BDIVISIOhi LOT #3,ASPEN, COLORADO OWN BY. DRAVmla NO. .=MT NO A2 GIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS LLC. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 46~L))2) ~-D-(LOYH I .LNEINBEVE A LOT 1 Ueld e.!S ..0-.OOK 'Aela Supl,18 = ..O-. '10''t. 1 0 - i m (D 0 9 9 4 = 0 i .. o ------- / 1 j 2- -u--[9 {3 7 1 1 1 li / / 9 1 1 75. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I / / / / / \ I / / f - PROJECT- SCALE DATE:, *C~ ~* VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION HOAG SLBDIVISION LOT #3,ASPEN, COLORADO xcu~ DWN ErÂ¢. DRAWING NO. PROJECT NO A3 GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS LLC. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 leAel JeAAO1 aBe,ols UP ~90'-6- Rec Room Terrace Laund oom ADU 41.j U 12) p 1 1 1 . 1 1------ - 1 , 11 V r--0 I 11 - --1 4...1- 1 1â„¢42 1 3.-*. < It*N' L/,bic V-~ m 54 - - 4/) 4 0 Â£ A ' A 2 2 ..., 1 / 1 O 1 / 12'- 2 ) 1 0. 0 / 50 1 41 / 1 / _ C 1 < / / O 1 . C /// 0 _ 0 N 4-1 0 ' r --0 \ \ 9 .-Ac-- =4- 0 8 \ \ . 0 l_-1' 14 E\ 9-1- 9 1 X 001 Â® 6=1 1 1 1 .... = . 1 \ -0 1 181 , 1 \ 1\ 1 O 9.44 9 \ '*rrqi - - - - - - \ U, * I .+441 \ , IC / I , '*1 1 , . 01.V 9 M 0 0 - % 9 ~r--, 1 Z 1Q 1 le[ .4Â»11 rn- 1 4>4 1 1-47 4<.1% \ f 1 11 , j 'll - 9 0 4 T 1 i \ / 10Â« f , 9 /\ / ' 1 9 1 ,\ /1, \ \ 0 // / I. 1 0 /,/ 1 1 - 0 // / 1 11 12 a \ 1 .1 , ' / / . 1 1//\ 1, s ' . ~.\I 7(I.Px\\ / 1 : / / // / f --4 /// '42// f.i \ 1 / I! \:\ , 1.1 f14 / 7 }1 1 1.-%\ f 1.41 it +41\-\ ..... '/fjil PROJECTÂ· SCALE DATE: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION 1-7./4,/44 HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT #3,ASPEN COLORADO OWN eY: DRAWIN~ NO. HOJECT NO Adl. GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS LLC. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 --- leAe, ule Su!11!S w~_~~ -22- up 959,99 9 4 b 1 6112) p-Â»41,6U~ m b I . r.-11 0 0 1 0 1 1 6-- 9 3 \ Q -6410 0 0, l G f- -1 1 - t--T ;N - Q & 2 Gil \ S Ogg 1 0, 0-3 611 1 /---1 2 /1 / 7 1 1 / It----\9- g / 1 1 \ - \ 31 \ JI 0 /. 1 N-- / 1 0 (D 0 i x 1 1 --- \ I N 1 pÂ·* SCAL.E. DATE- PROJECT: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION ill 1 / 16 4 HOAG SUBON*PON LOT *23,ASPEN COLORADO DWN BY: DRAVANG NO. PAOJECT NO. A5 GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS LLC. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 71 . ~i~~II.-- I -'-aEr .-7--m- - - leAei Jeddn oo,peg Jelse Luoo,pea/Apnts Roof ) PÂ»al/d yo 1. 4 A + .. r, . ,7 hiTD3rr=k 1-1 vel ew W â€¢ A .1 , 11, r 1/ p \\ .9/.4 U en -4 1 11 1 0 A LE= 'n Â· 11. f rJ 34 I-1 + F n, 4 -l -Â¥ 5.2-4. 1-I_.-f i . 9 3 4 4 I . ? U - 11 b -- # M I 4 0 {1 1 0 \1 \ \ - .-1 3% 1 -= 0 t ti 3 tip. P * 1 1,1, 1 C y 7 m 'L-A \ 1 f (-1 -1 r .9111 1 1 i - 3 63.~ tell I 1 1 .-/.. C - 9 1 1 I J 11 1 , 1 k lit ...4 .~ 1.,1 j , i -1 34 Ar f S .1 HS i j 47 Lf 1, .'.,Â¥/'.. r 4 2., id,Ii ' ' 1] f b" ' 4 1 - 1 /1 , M. / =1 -Im Â® Crt . i b h 33 ...... m== 1 tr b , 1 1 ,--t Iii' 3 - 21- --t ht : 55 Trl lilli 17- Ft 1 B 4. 4 t.-1 E 1 1731 M U. 1 1 1 1 1 11 ; 11 17-, 11'll 0 /2 # 1 // 1/ 1 N 4 - 1 # it 1 . L 7 .....#. 8% . i i j L n .,1// 11Â¢/ta , - J| tl 7 ~1~ i - W / .,4 ) ~ i~ -1- 5 ~ :-, k Â£ v: 11 4.094,4 , 1 1 61- 1 , 1-1 1 1 Al i f 0 00 - w < 0, ~ 2.l- =--- ~ fi=-i '105--i~SÂ·~ 0 9 1 1 40 -. )W 1. --- -- -H --4./A I l I /i * 0 1 Il j li -1 ~ r,J. 1--- â‚¬ O 2-' 1 - - :1-"- 17 21.1Â£ 11.rÂ· .7-'] 9,1/ 6- 0 4 - 0 r C i~ i â‚¬ a 'Mt"f .% 05 0 4 9- n< ~1 c 7 0, - -uNF~ 4 0) (0 9 -0-S. R. 2. = 2 5 w 0 ifff 29 51 Â® - 1 .. 0 0 4Â§~1 812 3 i i i i 0 -6- -6- -6- -0- b 00 J ew 1 , '1 Â· 8 '1 1 11 L 1 1 N : m A 1 I , 0, 0 0 293 1,11()411(JI: DCALE DATE: VALERIO/JOHNSON SU~&MISSION Fwi:lialg 0/9/761 HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT #3.ASPEN COLORADO OWN BY: DRAWINO 01= GIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS LL.C. E=INA~ PANECT NO A6 210 FASTHYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 sp,enE) AA sjueooV Sol ~ 1~2:~r Level tr Level Aela 41~'oN jeeueA euelS 1,) Ella P Â»440 e. -6 0 dc N.0 N 0 W, 1 < (D - m af -4 1 1 4 0 2 1- 1 1 1 - m 1 . 1 0 J 11 4 1 ili - I 1 1 l . 1 1 1 , | 1-IT 1 '-I T 1 1 11 I l '1 1- - 1 1 I 1 il -r , 1 1 1 11 I i iii 1 1 1111 ' 1 1 lilli 1 1 e 1 1 1-- Il 1 /1 1 1 11 1 1 , 111* I h 1 0 9 1 1 0 . -0-e- n 1 1 1 1 . 0.1 r 9 ~- ' 2 4 - )CALE. DATE: PROJECT: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION '2/9 /9 6 HOAGSUBDWRBON LOT #43,ASPEN COLORADO (4*.1 OWN BY: DRAWING NO. P'ROJECT NO A7 GIBSON & RENO .ARCHITECTS LLC. 22-Â»CLI~,bÂ«- 9607 210 9-AST HYMAN AVENIE STF 202 ASPEN, COLORA[)0 81611 rl . leAe-, ule.,1 uolte.el) 4JnoS FAel je-O-1 Uvhgoilir Ma~nlL2:~'1 Uppe~~:v6:| ~ Ll}t) P* I I .- 0 g Finish Grade / 9 Â» W m Existing Grade Â£ i ip=lili / /Closet .u *R--2 17-0 - Upper Level 4 ly=0> 112'-6-1 . Living Room Kitchen Main Level i / -------- h~ 102'-6- 4) Living Room A . + "- U .-I'l '-.-'I -+F.*VI:.1 1-/Cti-- )/ SeÂ·-.*.r -.e. Zg 3Â·Â·.Â·Â·'4'.;2Â·: -41~Â·.f~.t- : ~:-f>Â»iÂ·9Â·.- ..032 9>NlÂ·*1Â«kli f.h.3iil-J~f. 0~ff& --- , 100'-O" T -, 00 -J 00 00 Rec Room Stor. 4 Lower Level 1 .1 - 90'-6- 7 0 / 4 Z 0 0 i 0 Building Section Q 1/8"=1'-0 h 0 O~~t-t-rÂ·â‚¬4 {d,~ll ~46 ZO96 L Ig Le 00480700 4Ny'R - Zll-111'::R/AVONNBABAHPiNSOV~801151 ON 103rObid dSVE# 101 NO ... -*.W 'tÂ·Â·I,. :j.L; 4. Â·' . I #...'< : 2 1 f : Â·L :AÂ· -Â·r: 1 j..14 :493 - ' LIT+r 11'W'.1... '11'A CeÂ·:-Â·'3~,r.1. M. ?, 1 1 L f M. 0 . ... 12=22â€¢=--'.lvie, , 1, 0 921 - ./ I. 4 .. $ . â‚¬FZ~*Â»,Cry/1-Sa -1Ai..*1 I . . 't ,r ..0.. 0 , - â€¢ -2**4.Am -2:*4344â€¢k b 7 t . 4. - 25-0, ~VK-- 4 .j 1, I - M . . f# u a:/.5- , 15.Â·---- I I .. . .. I i. a. 0 4. .... .. . ., 4 - I . . r I .. . ...... .. . *... 0 0 0.64*00 1 I U - .4 ; 6 . . . . .. . . I . L ... . I - I - 4 J U . . . I - I . - 2 . . . 0 '.. . 0 - ..... . 0 . IÂ· â€¢ C. I. I Â· ~ * . . -- - 4 . . .. .4 . .4 , . I * 0 9 . . lili ............ . I . .. I ... .. 1 ' 00 % Ite ' <04 5 â€¢ - I. .. . â€¢A . . 4 - . f. t . ., I -Uk - Â·*-2 u j.c ' t. . :it#9#k'. Li 10*' 4hr ,..... . e . 4-14+ ~Â· 4.1, r Â· 2 31.-9 . Â· ?. Â·: ,~-ic,~t C . - 2 ./ 8 1. . ZAâ‚¬ 1 -~~ .~~ - . ...- . P. fof,bfr .. A--* i# . F'.11Â¢/1Â£/52 ty'zi1%6Â£JB&L- - . .~2 45 ... 7 4. . I .. .. ' ... â‚¬ 1 '; t. Â·il .. 72249 ck.y:Z of I*3Â¥EÂ© j .. ..1 1 , Â· 4 ./. I I 1. 4 - . ./ 3 - v 2 1#~5..mr@Â· y ,- - ... : . . 8 i~* ;# 4/Th,IfijÂ·2*m 06 .4 "- 344.-#42 '-74**AM/10.9*- AP'-4 1 fl#--- I , i Â· z< Â·Â·t aÂ·,- i Â· yu# .-w4(.*Ff-Â·Â·Â·34 -Â·Â·Â· Â· . ,, Â·*tu *r , Uf.4,2 9/,Pul tr.427- i.lf. 44-: -9--.S*Â«)Â·Â·~- ,â‚¬2425' - rrâ‚¬ -'Y. 1111 I I ... . .1 *44< a - Â· . -- 1-1--rÂ·- =â€¢l I ' ..7 , j. I I 1:1*.19Â·,Â»i~e*~, b , ,Â·Â·Â·Â·â€¢,0 #m- v..Wt --': t. 1 Â·Â· i.:'Â·Â·46 1'.'t:,.R::. >:A.,I, rÂ· Â·tÂ·,Â·Â«Ry:,5 . . Â· .. M. tpaif#iÂ·.â€¢.: Â·74*/BM. . Â·S ..t Â·23-, ' rAT" c Â· 4 -2.4 Â·Â·~p- AFT*J~ Â·i#?4:; 1 1 -54Â»Â· 2096 l&9Le 00Vt]0100 'N)dSV * ZOZ 31S'3nN3AV NVINAH 1SV 3 O LE â‚¬V ON 103/OUd -01-1 S1031IHOMV ON38 9 NOS819 ON DNUAVWO 0091=00100 NadSV'â‚¬# 101 NOISMIC]EnS DVOH A 8 WAO NOISSIUUMAS NOSNHOr/OIUE],VA 31Â¥0 -31Â¥09 :103rOUd 0- 1--- r---- E 0 1 .C ~01 0 19 , 4\ 6 - 0 C W., r--- 0 000 13 n 5 r m 11 m -4- Lia 't. 0 " 1 15; 11 C i i & 0 &Â£3 1 11 1 5 1.8 3 I--1- - 11 1 11 -1 1 ) f< 6 -At 0 11 v 1 3 c. 1 1 1 : , 0 4 ii E ED 43 8 C Â· f..1 - , 1 7324 . -1 1 0 . 1 11 0 0 6 x 00 11 1 1 11 0 7 0 + c o '31 1 1 11 0 0 1 1 11 1 2 5 45 1- ; 11 1 / 2-3 1 1 & 3 , il (1/ m0 p -- - - 1 0 :L)11 f 1 , 11 / / 11 1 10 1 11 // 1 , 1 -J 05 (4* 11 1/ 0 m (3 4 1/4 4 ILO/ m V -i@44% f 1 - // 0 \ m > j 0 % 1 0 0 / Â£ C // \ 0 // \ \\ 0 i \ 0 // 1 1/ // O // bo \\ ueld leAe-i .leAA01 r // 1 .1 \ 1,1 0 11 j \ ... . .1 X 6 11 0 0 4 5 / 4 1 . / 1 ' 1 , i 0 11 a.'. -'/5 -7---- i V 25 m 1 1 I U J N : 0 1 6 2 4 0 A j -*-1-9ff- .1 91 1 1 1 m -6 4 r ~ 8 0 . 3 4 9 28>f 23#AL 4 < 4 1. 41\ 0 lili , ' 9 ' 2 m r r . /r-4) s -4=1 ---IEE---I tr 9 69 1 C 11' -73 : ~--8-1 Tri=- 100 IT 110 0 * 7-f g ---Jp li-1 11 0 :1 i 7 5 13- 0 1 s 6 / L O 1 / u/ S 74 - 1 -~UZZED,-- 0 7 \ v o 4 0 1 0 0 1 1.K 3 \ 9 - C '1Ur 1 & \ C . 1 0 I \41 /, , 6 ' KES.- MI(14 ) 1 \ 0 0 pof'lla I C .. i , , - 1 I. XI 0 0 3 1 J L /11 1-1 -.' 'I L 7 PROJECT: SCALE DATE: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION HOAG SLE*DIVISION LOT #3.ASPEN, COLORADO OWN BY: DRAWING NO. GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS LLC. pROET No Adl 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 96O7 ueld leAe--1 ule \\ m f 8 1 '1 1 )31 2 / 0 \ rl 0 0 / 11 I *I Â·i. VÂ· A . 1-.i Â·.1 \ 1.1 1 / f . (11,4 -- 1 6471. ~1 1 2 r r -- 3 1, 4 % I ;3<F~ 0 - YL 3 -1 4-------2/4 3 B r# m : / dll - s 0. 1 7 I -ki / 0 S Â° T 0 0 3 g 1 4\421 - I 7 30 2 0 o T----0 1 --- 1 5 1 rn .1 8 0 \ C = 1------ . i 5 5 - 1 a<- rn -6 0 2 <& ---I. 0 9 0 -1 0 & a m 0 /4 / A C a 00 11 6111 PROJECT: SCALE DATE: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT #3,ASPEN, COLORADO DWN BY: DRAWING NO. PAOJECT NO. A5 ~ GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS LLC. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 ueld leAe-1 ieddn 4, < Cedar Shakes ~ 12 - - Snow Gauds (Typ.) ,/ 1 V 4Â«218 , 2.A ir 1 Z Z 1 - .' ff-0- 00 V Y* -=- -- -- /.I-- I.---.- L~-2Â»: ~ -. V J-'Â»' 96..a: AR 4= r_u -3/F '.- i -- t:1 --- 221Â£ n n d 2 1 2 . -r - 2 2 EL I 1 kr r k:1 7 - pt,4. P c Â« 0194[Mit#til~~~~~PPn .1 4 Upper Level . ./Â£-/. 1., . 1 1LUUL 4 '5% 12\ -c *,7-744 Log Accents 91 112'-6- 10'PX EA i m * r F-* ~ f- 094 4 111 Stone Veneer 4 E 8 C ~ _- -I -7- 2 -v=- ~~ n ~ D z ./ f- rk ;)~1 A 31 2 8, - 6 - - Adete--r CKA It - h m>.,Crt~ it 1 r- 4 Log Raings . -7 liÂ»14 im*-9.1 Le-] M 17=-1-Zzl k--il - 10 2-9 . i--4,9 -~r- -Â»r--- -1 17 J .hamwp -- Eg t- --2Â·- 220___ * J ELIJ ' . ...9/3/E - i.-I-- --.i-I M )7 Living Room Â£ - 2[0 r-<ID- *- 0 4 100'-0-' 3'-4-4 6 tv/. , \ h Finish Grade -7 -1 -~ 1 k, i 2-41 Existing Gracie p-7. / ... - t, 0 -0 0 < 8 11[Â»*\ A East Elevation + Ze Â£BEEFEEETIâ€¢ 29 1/8-=T-0- i i 8 < Cedar Shakes 00 00 }t / - y L,974 17$ 91 ./ - Â».--' I 2 r--7 - i :Â·Â· 7Â·-! r r--r- . 169%42 -~ ~- Uj L Â«| Wood Si-9 5 -----I fy iI I i' Snow ~cB (TYP.) 2 05 ~ 1 "ijif~F-- F 1 11 1 11 1 05 o /_11493*L . 1- lilli b i. -TrnlT.' Il.Â· , i., li 1 2 1. d E l li U H H j1)1111 11 ('' 1 1 1:*2242..0. k 2 m d - ULIUM JUJUUU 1.-- 1- )1 9 *-- --- 1.4-1 . , l)pller Level f~ - M 11 ---1 ./. 1~ v j. - 112-6 - 4 - /- A.J , 3 -b.-f. ..44â‚¬ K . \ ati//1/49F#i~~~Ihi~ . ; 1 k n n 2 12 '. I 1 1 . , TR , / ' --- --r. -- R N.-1 ,â€ž-0- & 1 11 / 11 1 1 1 ' , ---- 71 1 A r -4- - . I -i, Stone Veneer i -- , z- i z- j, -- 9 - - L -- - - 7- 1", -Lt Pr=f .dr, 1 ' . -1 J v - Log Accents ' -â‚¬7-Â»44 1 ., , - -* j \L_~~ Â«~-3Gj- WA i 4 -9. i & A ------Il% , 1 ~---7 Log Railngs l-. -1 ---.--- ----1 - 1 -- Main Level 6 , 1--- -zj--1 6:L ..-, r.Â»C 1 64.-1/I 49- -T Go ' , i N - -2-5 4 Z 194 v $ b -7 .--.-...~,.=.- F. P<-6 TY<dil=---- .lili i i [3-:r- -'"" ''i:';Ii; 'Illinlil. 41iiâ€ži,Att-,Ar+~_A.0 Livbg Room 6 3 i i 50 -btl__ - 1 K - I ./.-1. - - 100'-O- T Existing Grade - 5 9 -1,21===-=-=24 242 91 - - b -Fhk :3 1 F:-6 / r 1~ -- -Pa .0..'Ta;..â€ž-E-,-'- --*i;.7-7Qi<rE,06;;00% 0- - - -- --- -fr r ,-- 1 1\04 --.. / -- -- 4 - - h ' 1 zii:' Lower Level 4-. ' '% - -- -- $ S -4 2 -,4-- i -4 - I -; ..3 1 i . - -/ 1- ---- I. North Elevation - 1/8-=T-0- I....\ Finish Gracie ("4Odp,W) .O-.82 '3 u 4 7 Lit f .0 2 LI9Le OOV dSV ZOZ 3-LS '3nN3AV NVINAH 1513 OLE S1031IHO 311 9 NOS819 oiHE,7 133<Obld Y tAG r. F .-- /6/ ; .a r-t 11 ' ti]1 -1 1 . \ 1,1 m V, 40 ft QC WITHIT>,11 1 â€¢4 Â·- 1 -- Ill Ill! 11 1 1 itt jik .h =1=1= 1 1 0 1 11.11 , S..0/4 R 4 Y Â»V A / 1. 44 iwiÂ« U n-- 11 11 1 1 11 , 1 r (D < 70 ' 4 r \\ ....r. \. lili I 1 111 '1 1 , 1\~ 3 ' ' 1 , 1~ 14'ill - C 1 1 1 - 11 ht- XY ... 4 U 11 1 11 11 1 1%.: -. ' L JÂ· 11 11 i i 'Fl-1 11 3 2 4 --- [-1-- 1 -:TI-T -3/ 1; . / 6 1.1 TrT-9 , 111 l./ 2 1 1 1': 1 11! i //.7 lity 111 9 1,117 -3 U. f 11 5: 1.,/ t #IL 1 14- 1-\ 1\ 7 - '3~ 1 1 Ilk// 'il .! '/ / ...., rt i j 11 ti! i >// 1 1 1. 1 :lili 7/ 1 - O 7 ff / *14 . 1- 1 . vi it r,411 t/>7 ) 1 ii 1--9 . 1 -il 19 i v . r- 1 - r X. 1 11 1 C < Z ;x i f - f Relr li Mr 4Â§41 : 41 &< -6- -6- SCALEÂ· DATE: PROJECT: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION DWN BY: HOAG SLBDIVISION LOT #3,ASPEN, COLORADO DRAWING NO PROJECT NO. A7 GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS LLC. 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 ..O-1=..8/1. uoneAelia *se,V~ Existly Grade - S f 13~FirIsh Grade 1 /11 - 1 I / / 1.1 Nip r 14 / Balcon* IL 4 -f..... . i - .'L_2.-:. LU_- I r - . . . _ Upper level cb P --~/:///~milliHillilill 112-6- T r 1 1 1 1: 1 *fl. <'--7 Living 0004}efx Z j24& thitti ' #AllijA\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Main Level A Q \\\Uu\\\\\\\\A\\\ ilk?R 0 :iii>24*>ilillii 102-6-7 rk Living Room -\ \\YA\\\\\\\ \1\\\ \-\ ., % 9 100Â·-00Â· D 0 96 - 6 '144 0 1 4\ zgu 4 1 t~i i Lower level d) 0, -1 ~ Lower Level \ 96'-O" 09 4 Building Section m ~ 1/8"=T-O- S 8Z :11Â¥C El-IVA ON DNDAÂ¥80 OC]VE!0103 2096 L &9Â£8 OaVE1O1O0 'NBdSV 102 31S'3nNEIAV NVINAH 1SV3 0 ON loart)lid -1 S1031IHOHV ON)H 9 NOSS h \ INX , 1 \ i 29 1 \ \ \ 4\\ 1 ... i .m 6. r ZÂ» \\ \\ 1 02 j x': 1 N \ r \\ Ne. 1 \ 1 \ 5. \ 1- 1 \ \4 1 1 41 - h . / , 1 R~ i >4 198~< 1 66 $ .0 Â£1 1 / r., 1 11111/ . \\ 1-44 U < 19. 1 P / I i / INL j I \ # 1 631>\1 / 1 //, It 0-4 / / // 1 1 0'// ilt 1 ..... ~ 7/3 1\\ /11 / 1\ I 7 j / f /7/ \\\ 1 11 1 .1 1 12 Lf j 34:B i ti: 1 j\9i tPG/ 5 I 10,1 / ' ,; i / 7 / / 1 7 --;17 r.r- B i.--~ 1 4 1 14''y \1\ 1 44 4 Ii i ' 1 / 12 1 1 1 N 1 41/1 1/1 / / d r< 0 0 1 / \1 11\ N \ 5.0 f 2 r 1% / f :A.jo, fill / i il / 2 / i \ i 34 /1 , 1 \ 302.0Â».--02 ----L'. 7 'b //\ \ . %5 -3039\=i5299-2221/ 3 F. \\ 1.2 =--â‚¬2,- 1 FIC ~liTalt-zE- *64>. - :-- Foot-~. 1 --37----ahÂ· ,~. /3 3- 11 / 17Â«44.-32- 7.~ 42 /9 Ne . 92% / .12.- --73: L~.-- i---v- ~*Â·-.,- ..J---3 2 5 -4 ,~C=:ik,]~f,-=#41 / \ 51 - .., 3.%- 99:=-0-31.- -- f -447- E / ig=Lf-I,YÂ»F&r~C~~~1 . 4/1 Cb <*00 '7 --1 /.17-kift>,U-2.--71-7.-,1 .~ ./'_..499.42:~-fi.+~- 1'. n 3' 11/9 j /- 442Â¢fÂ»%%Â« 3- -i -ff-f--44924%5 AtiftÂ·Â« Â· ~ / b / \ .42 231 --7=.-4-~ffk#*4#VP~.~~~K- 4 i -1 / Â»-' f,/4.6 :1463'.TY+65'2' f .E / 6 I /-48 - Â£ .1 3 0 f 442&4:FAI J :4, . U i Q li i / / 4 5 ' :5.i Â·.--r.i' ...Â· ~ â€¢If H.;1. C b ./ â‚¬Â·3 ; rrI t...DUL.@"- - c-tt ) I<k l . ~- 3 , Ar i .Ul â€¢ . '" r 1. , PROJECT: SCALE DATE: VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION B HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT #3,ASPEN, COLORADO OWN BY ORA Wl NO NO GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS L.L.C. IP_CI~~~WMIKGOJEED PAOJ ECT NO. Al 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 9607 39- ANIMII,VI A.LI-l.Ln Nois,Alagng ovo 40 ----- \ X/. 1 1 1- 111-\ ix \ 4-4 1 - C' 0 1. -1 1 \ 1 21 4 1 m' \ Â» 1 \ U) 1 /// \ m 1 7 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 t. m 0 ///111 Â« 2 i I / 1 B \ 1 111 \\ r 1 , lilli / Z 0 lill .P, 1 -0 f + i// I / ill /9/ 1 ; ,/r liI ,<740,' ; le' 61, ti im Â£ / /4/ \\ 4,\ Nur , 6- b L / 1 1 / /f-/ /Â» 1 1 11< 0 Wor / 1 0 // 9242 / \ . 48./ \ 13/ i i j \ \ 4% \ Â· 4/ 1 7 i \ 5\ ~ 1 U // Â« // / ~ 4,2 / , p 1 -\\ 1 /ff/faff--7/// 1 i 1 X 1., , 0 71 - A i /\ li 1 f \ / f . f \1 \ 1 \ / -773Â· L=-4 11\ , 1 00*\/ 0 4 0 5 00'Y / / 1 Q -1 6 -- 4- 04 \4/ 1 1 3 i /1 \ (D i 9 . /11 /1 1 / . \ m / A Z 1 1 f i l \ Iii "2 f f, I 6 t. 46 a 02 1 / 1 \ LAr / 0 1 1\. /'\ 7 \ 1 :/ 7 1 0,-ti d Â£ 0,1(/ 1\\11\ 4 9 62 4 1 4 A F \/ / e rl / Â§ 3/ 4 14 1 / 1 1 00,0 / 4 10 V el 1 11 0 PROJECT: SCALE VALERIO/JOHNSON SUBMISSION AN ... -' DATE: HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT #3,ASPEN, COLORADO 8.*.Â»f OWN BY: DRAWING NO. GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS L.L.C. .73Â»LA.- PROJEC T NO, 9607 A2 210 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, STE 202 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 rT NOISIAIDIEnS EVOW-' 1 0-444 CAS * SUMMARY SHEET - CITY OF A EN ' 4 DATE RECEIVED: 7/9/96 * CASE # A50-96 r DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Dave Michaelson AkA SO ZA.,dE- PARCEL ID # 2737-182-68-001 94 0 UF*-1 PROJECT NAME: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline and ADU Review Project Address: 1125 Ute Ave., Aspen APPLICANT: Highlands Investment Company Address/Phone: c/o James Valerio, Box 1376, Aspen, 925-1860 REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson & Reno Architects, Address/Phone: 210 E. Hyman, Ste 202, Aspen ----- 925-5968 FEES: PLANNING $1285 # APPS RECEIVED 24 ENGINEER $105 # PLATS RECEIVED 24 HOUSING $0 ENV HEALTH $0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: TOTAL $1390 One Step AMT. RECEIVED $1485 _/i'Td i' ' I.li- f~918 1, : :t,51*:Tr3, ,N,4 P&Z -3 3 .Ettes C]No CC C]Yes E]No CC (2nd reading) C]Yes [330 REFERRALS: U City Attorney U Aspen Fire Marshal m CDOT SCity Engineer U City Water U ACSD *bzoning U City Electric U Holy Cross Electric ,&Housing U Clean Air Board U Rocky Mtn Natural Gas U Environmental Health U Open Space Board Il Aspen School District 0,Parks Il Other: U Other: DATE REFERRED: 1 ~~% INITIALS: S~\J DATE DUE: 6~7 - r. APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # 7 0--2 3 Date: i Z. < 1-119 0 Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: . 1 1. RESOLITION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR LOT 3 OF THE HOAG SUBDIVISION Resolution No. 96- 0-â‚¬ WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.68.030(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code, no development shall be permitted at, above or !50 feet below the 8040 greenline, unless the Planning and Zoning Lommission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the requirements of said Section; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code. accessory dwelling units inay be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as conditional uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Jim Valerio, Karen Jolinson and Highland Investment, Ltd. requesting 8040 Greenline Review approval to construct a single family residence and Conditional Use Review approval to construct an attached, studio accessory dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Satiitation District Housing Office, and the City Engineering, Parks, and Community Development Departments reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and continued the application at public hearings on September 3 and November 5, 1996; and WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a regular meeting on December 17,1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 3-2 vote the 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. as amended during the meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby approve the 8040 Greenline Review for a single family residence and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. as shown on the revised plans dated 12/9/96, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission shall review and approve the plans for the fire turnaround pursuant to the 8040 Greenline standards of the Code, prior to submission of any construction, excavation or building permits for Lot 3 ofthe Hoag Subdivision. 2. The residence shall be designed to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads, as i recommended by Art Mears in his avalanche analysis dated January, 1987. 1 3. No development. including grading and vegetation removal or landscaping, shall occur outside of the approved building envelope, except for utility and driveway extension and maintenance and grading and construction of a trail within the platted easement. The building envelope shall be staked and fenced prior to commencement of excavation. . 4. A landscape plan and a tree permit shall be slibinitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to building permit submittal. Trees to be retained oil- site shall be protected during construction with fencing around the dripline of the trees. 5. All exterior lighting shall be downeast. 6. All excavated material shall be removed from the site. A plan for deposition ofthe material shall be included with the building permit application for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 7. Concurrent with the excavation and grading required for the residence, the applicants shall rough grade the section ofthe trail within the building envelope to the elevation and width established by the Parks Department and shall construct retaining walls in areas of dismrbance and excavation within the building envelope. 8. The applicants shall install a residential fire sprinkler system to be approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. The unused driveway easement through the lot shall be vacated. The upper portion of the driveway easement shall be revegetated and the lower portion shall be retained solely as a trail easenient. 10, Prior to the issuance ofany building permits, the applicants shall submit the appropriate deed restriction for an accessory dwelling unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval ofthe deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicants shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Office. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. 11. Prior to issuance ofany building permits, kitchen plans shallbeverified bythe Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens iii ADUs. 12. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 13. Prior to issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy, Community Development and Housing staff shall inspect the ADU to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 14. All new surface tltility needs and pedestals shall be installed on-site. 15. A drainage report and plan and a grading plan shall be provided with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. Historic drainage flows shall be accommodated on-site; any increase in storm run-off flows shall be routed and detained on-site. 16. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. The agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to issuance of any building permits. 2 I . I ... . 1 7. All material representations made by the applicant in the application anci during public meetings with the Plaiming and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on [December 17,1996. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: 444 4Â»42 <,--i (-44,(1 4~aitcic~*p bhekie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garl.on, Chair *'Ca,4 ful 19.10 -1 J u'u'o 3 , MEMORANDUM AppÂ»-CA 3 -2 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Mary Lackner, Acting Deputy Director (>OA(.4102.7- FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: December 17,1996 SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting 8040 Greenline approval to construct a single-family residence and Conditional Use approval for an accessory dwelling unit. This application was tabled on September 3 and November 5 pending receipt of additional information concerning the fire turnaround and to allow the applicant to redesign the proposal based on input from staff and the Commission. Revised plans for the residence are included as Exhibit A. For reference, the original plans are included as Exhibit B and the minutes ofthe September 3 meeting are included as Exhibit C. The applicants have been unsuccessful in obtaining information on the fire turnaround from the owner of the adjacent property, but have requested that the Commission review the revised design for the residence at this meeting. Ifthe Planning Commission agrees with staff's recommendation to approve the revised design, a condition of approval would require review and approval of the fire turnaround by the Planning Commission prior to submission of any building permits for Hoag Lot 3. APPLICANTS: James Valerio and Karen Johnson, represented by Roy Parsons of Gibson & Reno LOCATION: 1125 Ute Ave.; Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. The Hoag Subdivision includes Ajax Parkon Lot 1, single-family residences on Lots 2 and 5, and a duplex on Lot 4. ZONING: Conservation LOT SIZE: 3.04 acres STAFF COMMENTS: Staff recommended denial of the original application based on the finding that the proposed development did not comply with the following 8040 Greenline standards: 4. The design ond location ofany proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural landfeatures. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character Of the mountain. Specific concerns of staff and the Commission included: â€¢ Mass and bulk of the residence are not appropriate on such a steep site; â€¢ Amount of square footage is excessive because ofthe environmental and visual impacts; â€¢ Visual impact of glazing/vaulted ceiling in the living room; â€¢ Amount of excavation/depth of cut required to accommodate the square footage; â€¢ Patio on the lower level is located within 5 feet of the trail easement; â€¢ Extent of the area of disturbance necessary to accommodate the residence (approximately 120' by 100'). The applicants have provided revised plans which respond to these concerns. Specific changes include: â€¢ The residence has been re-oriented to be parallel to the slope, thereby reducing the amount of cut required. The original building section (sheet A8 - Exhibit B) showed a cut of approximately 30' in height by 61' in depth; the revised section (sheet A8 - Exhibit A) shows a cut of approximately 24' in height by 42' in depth. â€¢ The area of disturbance has been reduced to approximately 130' by 70' by re-orienting the house and by narrowing the north/south width ofthe house on all three levels. The lower level has been narrowed from approximately 56' to 42' (including the patio) by removing a bedroom, reconfiguring, and reducing the patio; the main level has been narrowed from 72' to 56' (including the deck) by eliminating the crawlspace and reducing the deck space; and the upper level has been narrowed from approximately 37' to 26' by reconfiguring the space. â€¢ The square footage summary provided by the applicants shows that the floor area has been reduced by 542 square feet, or by a total of 966 square feet, which includes the areas counted at a 2:1 FAR due to violation ofthe volume standard ("no window zone"). â€¢ The front (north) facade has been redesigned so as to be much less "imposing" than the previous design. The height ofthe roof ridge above the living room has been reduced by approximately 6-7'; the amount of glass has been greatly reduced; the facade has been broken up with the addition of stronger vertical elements (chimney, stone piers), dormers, and an octagonal roof, all of which lessen the perceived mass of the facade. â€¢ The south elevation (sheet A7) shows an earth sheltered roof on the upper level, which provides a more natural transition into the slope requires less grading above the house, and reduces roof mass. â€¢ The bulk ofthe house has been reduced by creating 2-2 1/2 story volumes which step up the slope. An extensive cut into the slope is still required, but the bulk, mass and height of the house have been noticeably reduced. The revised design is more compatible with the terrain, and more responsive to the environmental and visual impacts ofthe house. One ofthe concerns with the original design was the proximity ofthe lower patio to the trail easement: approximately 25' in length ofthe patio was within 5' of the easement. The revised site plan (sheet A2) shows that a corner of the patio is within 2' of the easement, but from that point the patio angles away from the easement. Staff would prefer to have more of a buffer space between the house and the easement, but would not recommend creating a buffer space if moving the house uphill would create other visual and environmental impacts. Another issue that was raised during the original review was the appropriateness of allowing an ADU on the property, which would add additional square footage and bulk to the residence. The bulk and mass of the structure have been reduced, and the square footage of the ADU contributes minimally to the bulk of the structure. The Housing Office recommended approval of the original unit, but requested that more natural light be provided to the ADU. Re-orientation ofthe residence has allowed the applicants to increase slightly the net livable square footage of the ADU and to provide additional windows on the east side oftlie ADU. Also, the ADU connects with the main residence through the laundry room, rather than through the rec room. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review for a single family residence and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, as shown on the revised plans dated 12/9/96, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission shall review and approve the plans for the fire turnaround pursuant to the 8040 Greenline standards of the Code, prior to submission of any construction, excavation or building permits for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. 2. The residence shall be designed to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads, as recommended by Art Mears in his avalanche analysis dated January, 1987. 3. No development, including grading and vegetation removal or landscaping, shall occur outside of the approved building envelope, except for utility and driveway extension and maintenance. The building envelope shall be staked and fenced prior to commencement of excavation. 4. A landscape plan and a tree permit shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to building permit submittal. Trees to be retained on-site shall be protected during construction with fencing around the dripline ofthe trees. 5. All exterior lighting shall be downcast. 6. All excavated material shall be removed from the site. A plan for deposition ofthe material shall be included with the building permit application for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 7. No additional square footage shall be added without full 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning Commission. 8. The applicants shall install a residential fire sprinkler system to be approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. The unused driveway easement through the lot shall be vacated. The upper portion of the driveway easement shall be revegetated and the lower portion shall be retained solely as a trail easement. 10. A Colorado registered professional engineer shall sign and stamp the construction design. 11. Prior to the issuance ofany building permits, the applicants shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicants shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Office. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. 12. Prior to issuance of any building permits, kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 13. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 14. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Community Development and Housing staff shall inspect the ADU to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 15. All new surface utility needs and pedestals shall be installed on-site. 16. A drainage report and plan and a grading plan shall be provided with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. Historic drainage flows shall be accommodated on-site; any increase in storm run-off flows shall be routed and detained on-site. 17. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. The agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to issuance of any building permits. 18. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Exhibits A - Revised Plans dated 12/9/96 B - Original Plans (undated) C - Minutes of 9/3/96 P&Z meeting Exhibit A December 9, 1996 VALERIO/JOHNSON HOAG SUBDIVISION #3 NOTE:The zoning for this lot is "Conservation" which has no F.A.R. requirements. The F.A.R. for the proposed design is being listed so the maximum F.A.R. allowed for an approved design can be determined. SQUARE FOOTAGE/FAR SUMMARY: Proposed Building FAR: PREVIOUS CURRENT Lower Level: 801 SF 681 SF Exposed wall area: 34% 35% Main Level: 1169 SF 1471 SF Exposed wall area: 44% 55qi Upper Level: *008 SF 1285 SF Exposed wall area: 100% 75% TOTAL: 3978 SF *3437 SF *The current scheme has been reduced by 542 SF Areas @ 2:1 due to expression of plate height over 10'-0" (Ordinance 30 "No Window Zone") Main Level: 840 SF 656 SF (Living Room & Entry) Upper Level: -831-SE 591=SE (Master Bedroom & Study) Subtotal: 1.611-SE 1259-2 TOTAL FAR: ~'-5653 Sp~ *4687 SF *The current scheme has been reduced overall by 966 SF. valarfar.doc December 9, 1996 1)AVII) lill,\c )N Suzanne Wolff, Planner AIA City of Aspen Aljl;l;\1 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 INNI) \ 1 Â·\ RE: Revised Drawings for Hoag Lot #3 SCO-11 S J\,1 1-111 Valerio/Johnson Submittal \l A Dear Suzanne: Please accept these revisions to our application for the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use for an ADU. We were directed by the P&Z Committee to address some issues and the p=T application was tabled. These revisions, as well as our presentation scheduled for December 17th are intended to resolve the Committee's GIBSON Â· R A R t'll 1 1 It L.1 5, concerns. Ill Some of the revisions include: 210 E. 11YMANI N" 202 - Re-orientation of the Building on the Site: The main structure was shifted to be parallel to the slope A % P[-N thus reducing the amount of cut required and moving it (1)1(11(Al)() farther away from the trail easements. 816! 1 970.925 5%8 Simplification of Plan and Structure: By simplifying the structural system for the main section Â£ ACh IMIIE of the house, the overall depth was reduced. The result 970 923 6993 is less impact on grade, lower overall height and a reduction in square footage. P O BOX 278 Reduction in Roof Heights and Configuration: 117 N. WI[ 1.0\,4 The overall mass has been reduced by lowering ridge N" 2 heights and reconfiguring roof shapes. The Living lili LJRII)! Room has an octagonal roof plane with Dormers for CO[.O16\1)0 accent and light while reducing overall mass and visible 81435 glass planes. The upper level has a partial earth sheltered roof allowing for better site compatability and 970 728 (,607 significantly reducing overall roof mass. The result is a lowering of both major roof planes that is well below 1/\ChIMI[1 '17(1.70,8 (,(,58 maximum allowables. Suzanne Wolff December 9, 1996 Page 2 Enclosed are the Revised Drawings for your review and distribution to committee members. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Roy B. Parsons III, AIA enclosure ' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 17.1996 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: VALERIO/JOHNSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ADU Steve Buettow stepped down since he was employed by the applicant's architect. Sara Garton opened the public hearing continued from 9/3/96 and 11/5/96. Suzanne Wolff, Staff, stated the applicant requested an 8040 Greenline approval to construct a single-family residence and Conditional Use Approval for an ADU. She said there were two issues: 1. the fire department turn around and 2. re- designing the residence. Wolff said staff and the applicant have not been able to reach the owners of the Newfoundland Lode to coordinate additional information on the fire turn around. She said the applicants would like to go ahead on the re- design of the residence located 1125 Ute Avenue, Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision. Wolff stated the standards that staff noted for denial at the last nieeting were related to the design issues. She noted on the second page of the Community Development Memo 12/17/96 was based on staff response to their new design. She commented that some of the specific changes are: building orientation was now parallel to the slope so the amount of cut required has been reduced. The area of disturbance has been reduced, the floor area has been slightly reduced, the front facade was re-designed, the height ofthe roof ridge has been reduced by 6' - 7' the amount of glass has been reduced, the front facade has been broken up more (lessening perceived mass), an earth sheltered roof on the upper level has been added, and the bulk of the house has been reduced. It is now mostly a 214 story house instead of 3. Staffnoted there is still an extensive cut but the bulk, mass and height have been reduced. She said the revised design is more compatible to the terrain, more responsive to the environmental and visual impacts of the house. Staff felt that the applicant had done a nice job in addressing their concerns. Wolff said that some outstanding issues are the proximity of the lower patio to the trail easement. The patio is within 2' ofthe trail easement and John Krueger, Parks, will address that issue. She said with re-orientating the house they re- 1 designed the ADU a bit. The ADU square footage contributes minimally to the j bulk of the structure. She noted windows were added to the ADU, the net livable increase slightly and the ADU connects through the laundry room rather than into the rec room. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions noted in the 12/17/96 Community Development Memo. Wol ff stated that condition #1 related to the fire turn around, the issuance of any building permits, construction permits 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 17.1996 would not be allowed until the tire turn around problem was resolved. This would put them back to P&Z before construction could begin. Krueger said the trail easement that close to a home is a problem and there are technical problems to go in and build after the house is completed with drainage. He said with only 2' -3' would be difficult to landscape to anyone's satisfaction. He said he could foresee problems down the road with this trail. Garton noted that the Lacet Subdivision had a trail very close to a building envelope. She asked for other trails close to subdivisions in the city. 1010 Ute was one but not 2' or 3'. Krueger said with the edge of the avalanche path and the steepness it would be better for all concerned if there were more space between the house and the trail. He said landscaping would need to be developed. Brooke Peterson, Attorney for the applicant, suggested that the trail easement be moved because it was part of the original driveway 10 years ago. He said at that time the City had wanted to loop the driveway around and the vacation ofthat driveway. Peterson stated there is a public trail easement below the house now, and they do not object to that trail easement but if they can accommodate the trail easement. Garton asked if they were talking about the Nordic Trail, circling the City. Krueger said the Aspen Mountain Trail that ties into the Benedict piece oftrail. Krueger said they are fighting the Nordic Trail on several fronts but Parks willlook into possibilities. Wolff said there is a trail there now when you come across from Little Nell but was not sure if it sits in this easement or not. Wolff said the lower trail, Utility Easement, is the road that goes to Gaard Moses' house. Gaard Moses, Public, stated that any trail movement will require more shoring as well, producing a step effect up the hill. Roger Hunt asked if there was a reason to get the trail up to the higher point near the switch back before continuing. Peterson recalled to bring the trail up so you could get a fairly good decent incline down to Forest service property to hook up to the Benedict Trail System. Wolff said that you cannot get any lower because of the private property. Hunt asked how Lot 2 would be serviced. Wolff said Lot 2 is accessed from Ute Avenue and Lot 1 is Aj ax Park. Peterson noted when they did the driveway alignment (a long time ago) it was picked because of the potential for the least disturbance to the slope and vegetation. Krueger said that was why the trail easement is where it is. Peterson said the potential trail easement and driveway have always been as close to the building site as they are now. He noted that it was the most level and farthest from the avalanche site. Krueger commented the trail will be significantly lower but it will take a lot of fill to get the trail bed in there. Augie Reno, Architect, stated there was a 5' drop 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 17. 1996 from the corner of the house to the center of the easement. Bob Blaich asked why couldn't the patio just be a retaining wall for the trail. He said it is the risk of the owner when this is done and not to come back to this board saying they do not want people looking in their windows from the trail. Blaich asked if that section of the trail could be prepared at the same time the construction of the house is being done. Hunt said at least the establish the level of the trail so whoever is responsible for the retaining wall can do it. Krueger said that maybe the language might have to be flexible. Hunt asked if a grade for the trail could be established now to give that grade to the developer. Krueger said there is the historic roadbed trail now. Reno said they would have no problem if there was a grade established that they could work to that grade. Wolff asked the width of the trail. Krueger said at least a 14' for the track to be set. Peterson said that this easement is a.t 15'. Hunt asked for language for a condition. Garton said there are many issues to be met on the 8040 Greenline and the ADU Conditional Use. Roy Parsons, Architect, said they were given some direction on how to address the 8040 Greenline standards 4,5&7 which were identified for them by staff. He said the previous discussions led them to meeting the other conditions. Parsons stated so there is no misunderstanding about the building being placed in the best location on this site with the avalanche conditions as well as the proximity to access from a driveway. He said the development will need some studies done with a full drainage report supplied before a building permit is required. Parsons said there were no effects on air quality and the availability of utilities from Ute Avenue under the driveway were no problem. The adequate roads are available from Ute Avenue and drive way that is being developed will have direct connection to Ute Avenue. He said agreements have been made with the fire department for adequate turn around and full sprinkling of the building for safety reasons. He stated they will to comply with the trail plans and easements. Parsons noted the most significant change is the re-orientation of the building being pushed into the hill, reduced the depth of the deck and the upper portion of the building has an earth sheltered roof system which blends it into the hillside. He said the amount of cut for grading is reduced, floor area, mass and depth of the building reduced. He said there are a few portions with dormers. Parsons stated the drawings show the significant change of the over all mass. He said the over all depth has been reduced by 24% and 20% reduction on height of the living room. He said the primary FAR of the house has a 13% reduction. He said the wall of the entrance was spread out which increased the ADU general net livable space and made the ADU kitchen more efficient. 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 17.1996 Garton asked if parking would be on the driveway. Parsons said the parking has more area with the building moved back. He said that the building moved back a few feet might be able to be done to help the easement situation. Jasmine Tygre asked if the width of the north facade has changed. Parsons noted it changed minimally, being that portion of the building is the only true ability to have a view and natural light. Tygre stated in her opinion the width of the facade is not compatible with the terrain and should be narrower to blend into the hillside. Garton said the application would have been enhanced if there were computer graphics or a model because the site is difficult and sensitive to the area. She noted that is why there is 8040 Greenline Review. She did not think by eliminating the ADU and pay cash-in-lieu would change the mass of the design. Tygre commented the cuts of the FAR are into the hillside and does not reduce the apparent mass and bulk. She said it was an improvement over the first design bill still felt as presented it does not fulfill the open character ofthe mountain. She said that the trail situation has to be settled first. Garton asked staff what was helpful was to have all the standards because all must be met for the 8040 Greenline. She stated that they have come a long way but all the criteria have not been met. Moses stated he looked at the Utility and Public Trail Easement below and felt it was a beautiful house. He read into the record the Utility and Public Trail Easement was an access to his house and the back side of many houses along there. He said everyone would like to maintain this as a public easement during the summer. Moses stated that alot of the old nature of the trail had been destroyed and he would like to see it preserved. It was a railroad access to the mountain and you can still see railroad tracks in that access. He wanted to make sure that it was in fact an access easement and it not the ski trail. He noted there are drainage elements that would come down there and that is the natural way for the water to come down. Garton said it was a neighborhood concern to maintain it because it was mostly on private properties. Moses wanted some support when someone shows up with a forty ton bulldozer to do what they want along the trail, he would like to protect against that kind of thing happening. Wolff said it was a trail easement which was platted in 1971Â· Mary Lackner stated that this could not be part of this application. Peterson reiterated the easement shows up on the Hoag Subdivision Plat and there was concern at that time how many vehicles would be using this easement. Reno said that particular easement is not on their property but rather on Lots 1 & 2. Gallon asked how the other houses are accessed. Moses 8 I . PLANNING & ZONIi,G COMMISSION December 17.1996 said 2 are accessed from Ute Avenue and a few of the others from Powdei- Lane offthe Aspen Alps Road and go into the Chance Subdivision. Dave Johnston commented that anything built there will alter that site whether it was vertical, horizontal or whatever. He said they had done a very good job from an architectural stand point. He noted because of a site specific nature, he is having a hard time with a house on that site. Blaich stated that he had the same concerns as Dave on the scale of the house. He tried to figure out a way to put something on that property after studying the drawings and it is still over powering. He said they had come a long way in redesigning but it still has a lot of bulk. Blaich asked if this was a spec house. Reno said it was for a client. Blaich said that he was on the border for a decision. Roger Hunt said that he was at the threshold like Bob but the apparent mass is there. He noted the design may be re- orientated more towards the contour line it might relieve some of the bulk. Blaich said it would help to superimpose the elevation onto the house. Reno stated that the trees cover up the house and the trees are actually on the property in front of their property. Blaich said it was huge but not out of character for the other houses in the area. Parsons showed a color version of the west elevation and the house was set back and really won't be that visible from the trail because it was stepped back. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review for a single family residence and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit located on Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision as shown on the revised plans dated 12/9/96 subject to conditions 1 - 18 on Community Development Memo dated 12/17/96 except condition 3 is modified in the first sentence to include: and grading in construction of trail easement. Condition 7 deleted and replaced with: Concurrent with the activation and grading required for the residence, the applicant shall rough grade the section of the trail adjacent to the building envelope to the elevation and width established by the Parks Department and shall construct retaining walls in areas of disturbance and excavation within the building envelope. Bob Blaich seconded. Dave Johniton, Bob Blaich and Roger Hunt voted for and Jasmine Tygre and Sara Garton voted against. MOTION PASSED 3-2. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. l- 90/60'*Â£ivel 4~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 1MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director 02 14 , FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: A#weS, 1996 SUMMARY: Tile applicants are requesting 8040 Greenline approval to construct a single-family residence and Conditional Use approval for an accessory dwelling unit. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. APPLICANT: James Valerie and Karen Johnson, represented by Roy Parsons of Gibson & Reno LOCATION: 1125 Ute Ave.; Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. The Hoag Subdivision includes Aja Park on Lot 1, single-family residences on Lots 2 and 5, and a duplex on Lot 4. ZONING: Conservation LOT SIZE: 3.04 acres BACKGROUND: â€¢ October 18, 1971: The 5 lot Hoag Subdivision was approved by City Council. â€¢ July 20,1976: Virden 8040 Greenline Review was approved. â€¢ October 7,1985: An access road to Hoag Lot 3 was approved by the Commission in conjunction with the Nordic Council Trail Greenline Review, however, the Forest Service subsequently denied the request for a Special Use Road Permit. â€¢ December 2,1986: The Commission approved a new driveway which entered Lot 3 off of the Utility and Trail Easement, crossed the site almost to the western edge of the property, and switched back to access the building site from above. â€¢ January 2. 1990: The Commission granted 8040 Greenline approval for the building site on Lot 3 by Resolution No. 90-4. Access was provided along the panhandle of Lot 3 directly to the building site, which eliminated the switchback from the driveway. â€¢ January 19, 1993: The Commission amended the 8040 Greenline approval to allow a precast aggregate concrete stem wall along the access instead of the previously approved boulder retaining wall in order to lessen the amount of grading and cutting into the backslope. â€¢ March 2, 1993: The 1990 8040 Greenline approval was revoked by Resolution No. 93-7 after the Commission found that the owner had violated or failed to comply with conditions of Resolution No. 90-4. 8040 Greenline Review was required for any further development ofthe property. Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is adjacent to the Newfoundland Lode, which is located outside of the City limits and which has received 1041 Hazard Review approval from Pitkin County to construct a single- 1, family residence. These two properties share the access drive from Ute Avenue subject to an easement agreement recorded in Book 681 at Page 147. Both owners must obtain Special Use Permits from the US Forest Service for the portion of the driveway located on the adjacent USFS parcel. REQUEST: The applicants are requesting approval to construct an approximately 7,000 square foot single-family residence. The entire lot is located above the 8040 Greenline. The proposed studio ADU is located on the lower level of the residence and contains 412 square feet. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments are summarized below and are attached as Exhibit C. Engineering: Ross Soderstrom' s comments are incorporated below with the staff responses to the 8040 Greenline standards. A Colorado registered professional engineer shall sign and stamp the construction design. Housing: Cindy Christensen recommends approval of the ADU subject to provision of additional natural light to the unit, removal of the connection between the ADU and the main residence, and the standard conditions concerning deed restriction of the unit, compliance with the requirements for the kitchen, and inspection of the unit prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Zoning: The Conservation zone district does not have an FAR requirement. The proposed residence does not comply with the required 100' front yard setback; the applicants shall apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. A variance was previously granted for a residence in this location, but that approval is no longer valid. Parks: Rebecca Schickling states that the previous development proposal for this lot estimated that 57 trees with a total of 416 caliper inches would be lost, which would require a payment-in-lieu fee of $97,667, if no caliper inches were replaced on-site. A landscape plan has not been provided to determine the tree mitigation impact of the current proposal. A landscape plan shall be submitted to Parks and a tree permit shall be obtained prior to building permit submittal. Another concern is the impact of utility - - installation on the trail; if utilities are extended along the driveway, impact on the trail will not be an issue. Fire Marshal: The residence shall be completely protected by a residential fire sprinkler system to be approved by the Fire Marshal. A turnaround for fire apparatus is being constructed to serve both this lot and the adjacent Newfoundland Lode. --.1 - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Sufficient capacity is available to serve the residence and ADU. The applicants shall provide tax receipts to ACSD to verify inclusion of the entire lot within ACSD's service area. All connection costs shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review: Pursuant to Section 26.68.030(C), no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the 2 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: The entire lot contains steep slopes, with slopes of approximately 45% within the building site. The building site is in the bet possible-'Pcation on the property, since the majority ofthe lot is located within a prominent avalanche path. A report from Art Mears dated January of 1987 addresses the avalanche hazard on the site (included with the application in Exhibit A). The avalanche path is located approximately 50' west ofthe proposed building site, which is within a stand of Douglas fin Mears notes that the building site may be exposed to avalanches with a return period of 50-100 years, and recommends that the residence be constructed to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads. Mears' comments concerning the driveway are not relevant because the current access driveway does not cross the avalanche path. Engineering also recommends that the applicants confirm the location and depth of the existing mine tunnels that underlie the property to avoid areas susceptible to subsidence or rupture. 3 -Â·44542 1~Cl Â·- 61.0 W-U- 06(- 1 GLE*c*k-4 402) 4/ Stâ‚¬-Acl Autd 447 CQÂ·.1 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: Due to the steepness of the lot, the development must adequately mitigate its impact on the existing surface drainage flow. Displacement of flows can increase erosion and flooding elsewhere on the property and on adjacent properties. A drainage report and plan and a grading plan shall be provided with the building permit application for review by City Engineering. Historic storm run-off flows shall be accommodated on-site; any increase in storm run-off flows shall first be routed and detained on-site. The existing surface drainage flow pattern shall be retained, and concentrated drainage shall be conveyed so as not to cause flooding, erosion nor other damage to adjacent or downstream properties. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Response: The proposed residence will not adversely affect air quality. No wood-burning fire places may be installed. Two certified solid-fuel burning devices may be installed (gas log or clean-burning woodstoves), as well as an unlimited number of decorative gas appliances. 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 entire lot contains very steep slopes. Rather than stepping the structure up the hillside in response to the slope, the applicants propose a deep cut into the slops-wilich will create a significant amount of subgrade space. As shown on the building section (sheAAS-of the application), a cut of approximately 30' in depth is required to accommodate the proposed square footage. Creating subgrade space lessens the amount ofthe structure which will be visible, but such a substantial cut is not "compatible with the terrain". 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: As noted above, an extensixicut_intQ..the_slope_ is necessary to accommodate the proposed amount of square footage. The site plan (sheet A2) shows that an area of approximately 120' by 100' . - will be disturbed. The entire building site is within a stand of Douglas fir, therefore, a substantial number oftrees will be removed to accommodate the residence. A landscaping plan was not provided with the application, so staff is unable to determine the number of trees that must be removed. Staff acknowledges that any construction will require removal of trees in order to locate the residence outside of the avalanche area, but questions whether the grading proposed to accommodate a 7,000 square foot residence "minimizes...disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features". The applicant represents that "the remainder of the site will be left undisturbed". Staff recommends delineation of a building envelope, outside of which no development, including grading and vegetation removal or landscaping, may occur. 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: The building site is located in the corner of the lot which is closest to the already developed lots in the Hoag subdivision and to the building site on the adjacent Newfoundland Lode. The building site is on the lowest portion of the lot in a wooded area, which will have less visual impact than anywhere else on the lot. However, the size of this structure will make it highly visible, possibly more so from a distance (particularly from the north side of town) than from Ute Avenue. A front yard setback of 100' is required in the Conservation zone district. The applicants must request a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow the 30' setback, which will keep the structure away from the avalanche zone and will also keep the development closer to the surrounding development. A combined driveway will serve this lot and the adjacent lot. No development will be allowed outside of a designated building envelope, therefore, the majority of the parcel will remain open space. - 5ct,ou-â‚¬--4 b c.~ 6.-~~-j<j G~cud- CC'bl z p 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the '~-g ki- 6 open character of the mountain. Response: The purpose of the Conservation zone is "to provide areas of low density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development." A detached residential dwelling is a permitted use in this zone district. The Conservation zone district does not have an FAR requirement. The estimated square footage of the residence is 6,992 square feet, with a total floor area of 5,653 square feet. This lot would be subject to the maximum slope reduction of 25% since the entire lot contains slopes in excess of 30%, ho*ever, without an FAR requirement, this reduction of the lot area has no value. Several floor area comparisons are provided below: â€¢ The other lots in the Hoag Subdivision are zoned R-15, Moderate Density Residential. Under R-15 zoning, Lot 3 would be allowed 7,588 square feet of floor area (which includes the 25% slope reduction). â€¢ The County restricted the allowed square footage (not floor area) on the Newfoundland Lode to 5,930 square feet for the residence and 750 square feet for the garage, for a total of 6,680 square feet. The calculation of the floor area that would be allowed on this lot if it was zoned R-15 is misleading because the impacts of development of this lot are much greater than the impacts of the other Hoag lots, and it does not seem appropriate to compare the floor area with that of a zone district which allows more dense development. Although a floor area ratio is not specified for the Conservation zone, staff would . argue that a 7,000 square foot residence is excessive for this site because of the environmental and visual 4 . U ./1 A <, 14 til A impacts. The design tries to lessen the bulk by creating subgrade.space, however, this must be balanced with the impact of the cut required to accommodate this amount of square footage. The proposed residence appears to comply with the maximum allowed height limit of 28'. However, the roof ridge on the north facade (sheet A6) is approximately 35' above finished grade: the lower level is totally exposed, and the living room is a two-story space with approximately 24' of windows. Staff is concerned with the visual impact of this building mass. The extensive amount of glass used on this facade only serves to accentuate this mass, and lighting from within this space will be highly visible. This massive facade does not "blend into the open character of the mountain". The applicants should also be aware that the structure does not appear to comply with the Model Energy Code, though not enough information has been provided at this time. Compliance must be demonstrated at building permit review. 8. Su#icient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: The City Water Department and ACSD have sufficient capacity to serve this lot. Utility service must be extended to the property. Engineering recommends that utilities be placed in the new driveway in order to minimize grading, erosion and vegetation removal. Use of the dedicated utility easements, which are parallel to the fall-line ofthe slope, would cause much greater impact. A separate special use permit must be obtained from the US Forest Service to place utilities in the driveway. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: The property is accessed from Ute Avenue. 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 Fire Marshal reviewed and approved the County's access permit for the driveway. The . driveway is 12' wide, and currently includes an additional 8' width for the trail beside the driveway from Ute Avenue to the intersection where the trail separates from the driveway. A.45' by 35 ' turnaroundfur fire apparatus is being constructed to serve both this lot and the adiacent lot (Newfoundland Lode). Parking shall be prohibited in the turnaround. Adequate areas shall be provided for snow storage and removal. 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. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. Response: A trail easement across Lot 3 was granted to the City and recorded in Book 610 at Page 877 in 1990. This trail will be maintained in the winter as a cross country trail. As originally proposed, the trail was to be located beside the driveway from the intersection of the trail to Ute Avenue. The Parks Department hopes to amend the alignment so the trail crosses the driveway at the intersection and runs along the hillside above the driveway. In its 1041 approval for the Newfoundland Lode, the County required the applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Office depicting the design and location of the nordic trail as it relates to the access road and the residence, prior to issuance of an access permit. . - 5 However, the access permit was approved by the County without this plan. Parks is working with the owner of the Newfoundland Lode and the US Forest Service to finalize the alignment. Conditional Use Review: Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up-valley ofthe Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee-occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". The purpose of the Conservation zone is "to provide areas of low density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development." An ADU may be appropdale-inthw_Conservation zone,_sjnce the 1gw-density nature of the zone district would minimize the impact of the.N)U on adjacent properties. The proximity to downtown is convenient for local-Nsidents. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity ofthe 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: An ADU is compatible with the surrounding residential properties. Several AH projects are located in the vicinity (Ute Park and Billings), as well as other ADUs. The ADU does add additional bulk - to a residence which will have a significant impact on the "open character of the mountain" because of its size and design. 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: The issue ofthe visual and environmental impact of the structure is addressed above. If it is determined by the Commission that 7,000 square feet is ex*eps49#for this lot, then the Commission may want to consider denying the ADU in order to lessen the-s~+~Â¢fbotage. Also, the ADU is located on the lower level of the residence. In order to lessen the impact ofthe north facade, the applicants could expose less of the lower level, however, this would also decrease the livability of the ADU, since natural light is only accessible from the north side. If the ADU is denied, the cash-in-lieu payment under the current guidelines would be $108,368 (based on an FAR of 5,653). Under the guidelines which go into effect on September 23, 1996, the payment would be $132,845. If the Commission approves the ADU, Housing recommends that more natural light be provided to the unit, and that the connection with the rec room be removed. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, jire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools: 6 RESPONSE: Adequate facilities and services are available. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADU must comply with the Housing Guidelines and must be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. Ifthe unit is rented, it must be used to house a qualified working.resident of Pitkin County. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed unit is one method of meeting the requirements of Section 26.100.050, GMQS Exemptions, (Ordinance 1 - 1990) and must be deed restricted. Ifthe ADU is denied, the applicant will be required to provide a cash-in-lieu payment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that Lot 3 ofthe Hoag Subdivision is a legally developable lot, however, approval of development above the 8040 greenline requires compliance with all ofthe requirements addressed above. Staff recommends denial based on the finding that the proposed development does not comply wjth the followin$ *andards: /4. The design and location ofany proposed development, road, or trailis compatible with the terrain < on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and 1 natural landfeatures. < 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open <character of the mountain. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: The Commission may table the application to allow the - - applicants to redesign to address the three criteria noted above. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Ifthe Commission determines that the proposed development complies with the standards, staff suggests that the Commission approve the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following conditions: 1. The residence shall be designed to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads, as recommended by Art Mears in his avalanche analysis dated January, 1987. 2. No development, including grading and vegetation removal or landscaping, shall occur outside of the approved building envelope, except for utility and driveway extension and maintenance. The building envelope shall be staked and fenced prior to commencement of excavation. 3. A landscape plan and a tree permit shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to building permit submittal. Trees to be retained on-site shall be protected during construction with fencing around the dripline of the trees. 4'IDÂ» ...h 4. All exterior lighting shall be downcast. 7 5. All excavated material shall be removed from the site. A plan for deposition ofthe material shall be included with the building permit application. 6. No additional square footage shall be added without full 8040 Greenline review; this lot shall not be subject to the 8040 Greenline exemptions. 7. The applicants shall install a residential fire sprinkler system to be approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. The unused driveway easement through the lot shall be vacated. The upper portion of the driveway easement shall be revegetated and the lower portion shall be retained solely as a trail easement. 9. A Colorado registered professional engineer shall sign and stamp the construction design. 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval ofthe deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicants shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. 11. Prior to issuance of any building permits, kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 12. The connection between the ADU and the main residence shall be removed from the plans and additional natural light shall be provided to the ADU prior to submission ofthe deed restriction to the Housing Office. 13. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 14. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department and the Housing Office shall inspect the ADU to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 15. All new surface utility needs and pedestals shall be installed on-site. 16. A drainage report and plan and a grading plan shall be provided with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. Historic drainage flows shall be accommodated on-site; any increase in storm run-off flows shall be routed and detained on-site. 17. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. The agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to issuance of any building permits. I.B. . 8 \ 18. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline based on the finding that the proposed development does not comply with the following standards: 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. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural 1cmd features. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain." ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to table the Valerio/Johnson application to to allow the applicants to redesign to address the three criteria noted above." ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the conditions listed in the Community Development Department Memo dated September 3, 1996". Exhibits: A - Application Packet B - Referral Comments .., 9 Exhibit B Memorandum TO: Suzanne Wolf, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: August 28,1996 RE: Valerio/Johnson- 8040 Greenline Review & Conditional Use Review for ADU (Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3) The Parks Department has reviewed the submitted application and offers the following comments: The previous proposal for development o f this lot estimated that 57 trees o f varying diameter would be lost to the proposed house construction and lot development. This was calculated to be a loss o f approximately 416 caliper inches o f trees or i f caliper inches were not made up on site a payment-in-lieu fee of $97,667. No landscape plan has , been submitted with the proposal, however. the applicant should be made aware of the possible tree mitigation impact. We would ask that a condition of approval require a landscape plan be submitted as soon as possible and that no building permit will be issued without a tree permit being obtained first ( a minimum o f two weeks prior to submitting a building permit). On large tree removal permits we have sometimes asked that the total mitigation fee be held in escrow until landscaping is complete. However. we = call work with the applicant on this issue when a landscape plan is submitted. All trees to be preserved on site must be protected during construction including placement of protective fencing around the dripline of the trees. The other concern with the application is the utility easement as it crosses the trail easement. The trail easement must be the brought back to the same condition or better after utilities are installed. This may include requiring the applicant to stabilize the bank on the south side of the trail easement to prevent future erosion o f the bank. MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zonin~4~) RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for ADU (Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3) DATE: August 6, 1996 1125 Ute Avenue is located in the Conservation Zone, which has the following dimensional requirements: Front Yard - 100 feet Side Yard - 30 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Height - 28 feet FAR - No requirement The proposed residence does not comply with the front yard setback and will be required to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a setback variance. All heights and FAR calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. MEMO To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: 1125 Ute Avenue, Hoag Subdivision Lot #3 I)ate: August 13, 1996 Suzanne, As per conversations with Augie Reno this structure is to be completely protected by a residential fire sprinkler system, as approved by the Fire Marshal's Office. Also an approved fire apparatus turnaround is being constructed between the Hoag and Newfoundland lots. This project shall also meet all other codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. . 6 AUG 09 '96 09: 57AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: August 9, 1996 RE: Valerio/Johnson Review for an ADU Parcel ID No. 2737.182-68â€¢001 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to build a 412 square foot studio ADU to be located in the lower level of a single-family residence. BACKGROUND: The size of the accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the Code: Accessory dwelling units shaN contain lot less than three hundred (3001 square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. Tile unit shall be deed retitricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and snall be limited to rental periods of not tess than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the light to place a quallied employee or employees of his or her ChÂ©O5Ing in the accessory dwelling unit. The applicant states that the unit will have a private exterior entrance. The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications: Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a min~num of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a kubic foot reftlgerator pluG fteezer. The plans do not show any other natural light into the unit except the front door. There is also a door entering the lower level of the main residence. RECO-"ENDATION: Staff recommends approval as long as the following conditions are met: 1. windows be placed in the unit providing more natural light into the unit: 2. the door into the main residence be turned into a wall, creating a totally private separate residence; 3. the kitchen abides by the requirements as stated above; 4. an accessory dwelling unit deed restriction be recorded before building permit approval (this form is provided by the Housing Office); and 5. inspection of the unit by the Housing Office prior to Certificate of Occupancy mformAvalario.adu -3-Ii,1 -J , .1 Jispen uonsofidated danilation bisirlet 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~ AUG 7 0 1996 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 92*2537 AL=@@4=AA=== Sy Kelly Â· Chairman Albert Bishop Â· Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish Â· Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. August 2. 1996 Suzanne Wolff Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen. CO 81611 Re: Hoag Subdivision lot 3 Dear Suzanne: ' I have enclosed a copy of our comments from the Newfoundland Lode Mining appiication of 1994. I beiieve this is the same area/lot and the concerns expressed at that time remain accurate. We wili need the applicant to produce tax receipts illustrating inclusion in our' District if we are to serve the development. We would require the inclusion of the entire lot/claim. Capacity is available at this time. and service is contingent upon compliance with the District's Rules. Regulations. and Specifications which are on file at the District office. Since we are still not part of the building department's permit process. we would request that all connection costs be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. as a condition of approval. We will be able to estimate fees for the primary residence and ADU once detailed plans are made available to our office. There is a downstream constraint that will be eliminated through a prorated system of additional fees. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely. Bruce Matherly - District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 Â· 1986 Â· 1990 Regional and National '.1.. October 11. 1994 Rick Magill Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen. Co 81611 Re: Newfoundland Lode Mining Ciaim request for vested rights Dear Rick: Sanitation concerns are addressed in item 7, page 5 of Resolution 91-87 which states "prior to the issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the ACSD stating that this site can and will be served bv the District". The only thing that I would add is to require the applicant to include the entire parcel into the District. From reviewing our maps. it looks as though the dwelling unit area may be currently included in our service area. but most of the Newfoundland claim appears to be outside our boundaries. We would normally require the entire parcel to be included. in the event that the parcel is developed further in the future. I have the required paperwork here at the office. It's a relatively simple process t ha-t the applicant pays for. Verification of inclusion can be determined from the applicant's property tax receipts. Since the time of the 1991 Resolution. a downstream constraint has been identified. It will be eiiminated through a system of fee surcharges based upon prorated shares. As usual. service wili be contingent upon compiiance with the District's Ruies and Regulations which are on file at the District office. Please cali if you need additional information. Sincerely, Bruce Matheriy District Manager * MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, City PI anner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engine~0415/ From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer 23. Date: August 27,1996 Re: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an ADU (1125 Ute Avenue. City of Aspen: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit. I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: Summary From the information provided in the application and a review of the site, we do not see any condition which would preclude development of this property given proper site design, utility design. and structural design of the improvements by the properly owner' s architect and consulting engineer. We will accept a construction design signed and stamped by the applicant's engineer who is a current Colorado registered professional engineer practicing within his/her area of expertise. 1. Parcel Suitability for Development: As discussed in the submitted report Avalanche Hazard Analysis. Baker Property. Aspen. Colorado by Arthur I. Mears, P.E. (January 1987), the avalanche exposure of the building site may be minimized by locating permanent improvements in the eastern portion of the lot although an avalanche of "exceptional volume" could reach the building site according to this report. We concur with the recommendations of the report that. in addition to building site location. that the following considerations be fully addressed in the development plans for the property: â€¢ Design criteria should include specification of avalanche forces tmd determination of loading criteria. and ~ â€¢ Limiting construction of permanent structures to the area within the timber wedge on the eastern portion of the lot. 1 OF 4 DRC\12096-D(DC Memo - Valerio/Johnson 8040 Green eview and Conditional lJse Review for an ADU Since the submitted report is nine and one-half years (9 1/2 yr.) old at this time. advances in avalanche resistant design and construction should be applied as appropriate. The owner should also confirm the location and depth of the existing mining tunnels that underlie the property to avoid areas susceptible to subsidence or rupture. During the site review. I noticed that the mine tunnel portal at the corner of the switchback in the old roadway (western portion of the property) is partially open. This portal opening is an "attractive nuisance" and should be properly and permanently closed since it lies within fifteen feet (15 ft) of, if not within. a public trail easement. Since the proposed site design uses a driveway route through the adjacent property to the east rather than the existing roadway / driveway which lies in the identified avalanche path on the western portion o f the property. the avalanche exposure associated with the use o f this previous access route has been effectively avoided. 2. Watershed, Erosion, Site Drainage, and Grading: While this application package does not contain a grading or landscaping site plan. disruption of the watershed and increased soil erosion may be controlled by minimizing the graded and defoliated land areas. (The text of the application states 1. the remainder of the site will be left undisturbed. ... " Presumably. this means the area outside o f the building envelope.) One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is the availability and adequacy of public facilities to service the proposed use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City stoilli sewer system. As such. the new development cannot release more than historic (pre- development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and plan must be included in the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. (No drainage report nor plan were included in the submitted application.) The final site grading plan should retain the existing overland sheet fiow drainage pattern for the lot. If the site drainage is concentrated or channelized, a drainage system will need to be designed and built to convey the drainage to an appropriate and adequate drainage facility without causing flooding. erosion nor other damage to adjacent or downstream properties. Presently there are inadequate public storm drainage facilities to serve this area of the City. 3. Roadway Access, Driveway and Parking: The proposed roadway access from an b extension of the driveway to the adjacent property to the east (Newfoundland Lode. Pitkin County) with a turn-around area for fire and emergency vehicles is acceptable. While the site design. including access driveway, of the adjacent property was reviewed and approved by Pitkin County and this application did not include any information about the geometry of the driveway outside of the property lines of Lot 3, the applicant should provide adequate access (e.g. mutual access 2 OF 4 DRCM2096.DOC ' Memo - Vaterio/Johnson 8040 Green eview and Conditional Use Review for an ADU agreement. easements) prior to approval of this application. Typical minimum access for fire and emergency vehicles is twenty feet (20 ft) o f year-round. unobstructed roadway width and an area o f sufficient width for turning around these vehicles, particularly on a cul-de-sac road of over 150 feet in length which is built on a grade of more than five percent (59/0). The applicant and his neighbors should also coordinate site designs and driveway construction to provide adequate area(s) for snow storage and removal. The parking configuration will need to be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 4. Utilities and Utility Easements: The applicant will need to extend utility service to the property since there are no utilities readily available. In keeping with the need to minimize grading, removing vegetation. limiting erosion, and preserving the scenic qualities of the area. extension of underground utilities should be placed primarily in the new driveway. diagonal to the fall-line of the slope. Since the dedicated utility easements around the Hoag Subdivision lots are approximately parallel to the slope fall-line, use of these easements should be avoided or minimized in extending utility services to this lot. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not located in the public rights-of-way. This will avoid any conflict with use of the rights-of- way for public facilities and improvements. All existing and any iiew easements for utilities must be shown on the final improvement plans and be recorded prior to issuance o f the building permit. The existing fifteen foot ( 15 ft) utility and public trail easement along the property line common with Hoag Subdi, ision Lots 1,2.4, and 5 has been previously identified as the most desirable retiring of area-wide storm drainage improvements for the Spar Gulch basin further up-slope thus must be left unencumbered for this purpose. 5. Nordic Ski Trail Access: Access to and use of the Nordic ski trail needs to be coordinated with the site design, particularly the intersection of the driveway and the Nordic ski trail. While we understand that the design of the retaining wall. presently under construction along the southern side of the driveway was approved by Pitkin County. we have not seen any design plans for the intersection of the Nordic ski trail. Ser eral designs may be used for this intersection including grading the Nordic ski trail down to cross the driveway at a diagonal; building wooden stairs for sidestepping between the grades of the driveway and Nordic ski trail; or a combination of these. In any case, proper grading to minimize erosion and drainage problems needs to be built into the intersection. Adequate mutual, dite distance of vehicle drivers on the driveway and ikiers on the Nordic trail for one another also needs to be factored into the design to minimize conflicts between the two uses. 3 OF 4 DRC\!2096.DOC ' Memo - Valerio/Johnson 8040 Green eview and Conditional Use Review for an ADU 6. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment fonnula. The agreement must be executed and recorded prior to issuance ofthe building permit for the project. 7. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. - j . 4 OF 4 DRCM2096.DOC PLANNING & ZON NG COMMISSION 'EPTIal HER 1 -1-996 PUBLIC HEARING: Valerio/Jolinson 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use for Al)L (1 125 Ute Avenue, City of Aspen: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen) bteven Buettow asked to step down for this item since he is employed by Gibsoii Reno. David 1-loefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notice was sufficient and the Commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Suzanne Wolff, Planner, stated the applicants are represented by Augie Reno and Roy Parsons of Gibson Reno and Attorney Brooke Peterson. Wolff said the applicant requests 8040 Greenline approval to construct a 7,000 sf single family residence and Conditional Use approval for a 412 sf Accessory Dwelling Unit. She noted Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision (above 8040 Greenline) is adjacent to the Newfoundland Lode (located outside City limits) which received 1041 Hazard Review approval from Pitkin County to construct a single family residence. She further noted these two properties share the access driveway from Ute Avenue and both owners must obtain Special Use Permits from US Forest Service for tile poition of the driveway located on USFS parcel. The 8040 Greenline Review: Section 26.68(C), no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the commission determines that proposed development complies with all requirements set forth. (71 Sta# Comments fol' consideration) Wolffsaid the entire lot contains very steep slopes (within the building site 45% ) with trees. She said drainage concerns must be met and the deep cut (30') proposed into the slope is not compatible with this terrain. Wolff further explained the deep cut is necessary to accommodate the amount of square footage proposed. She said trees will have to be removed but no building envelope delineated. She commented the residence (3 story) will be very visible from Ute Avenue and town even though it does comply with the allowed height limit of 28' She said the roof ridge on the north facade is approximately 35' above finished grade with an extensive amount o f glass (24'). Wolff stated there is question of compliance with the Model Energy;Code. She noted the residence will be sprinkled. Wolff said Parks wanted to amend a trail easement. Wolff stated tile ADU is located on the lower level of the residence with very little Not-thern exposed natural light. Exhibit C m PLANNING & ZOI G COMMISSION 'El'l EMBER 3.1996 Roy Parsons, Architect for Applicant, noted a history on this project of approval and denial. He said this was a new client with an improved plan and reduction ill size. He stated the external treatment had been refined to include Ordinance 30, reduced height and overall mass. He said the proposed building would be 25 - 30' iii elevation lower than the approved adjacent properly residence. Parsons responded to staff comments: 1. Building placement in the best location on the parcel. 2. Drainage will be mitigated. 3. Air quality is not an issue. 4. The subgrade actually lessens the impact on the site because the cut is designed to make the most of the slope and minimize visual impact with a smaller footprint. 5. The current footprint is 3978 sf distributed evenly over three floors. 6. The use of retaining walls as stepped down design to minimize disturbance of terrain and vegetation. There are many tall trees on this site that will not be disturbed by this project. 7. The Northern facade will have a gable roof to comply with maximum height requirements. 8. Sufficient water and utilities are available from Ute Avenue to be extended to the site under the driveway. 9. The driveway access will be shared with adjacent property and will include a turn around for the fire department. 10. Road will be maintained. 11. Access to the existing Nordic Trail on the site will be maintained for public access. Parsons stated compliance with staff recommendations for grading and size will be minimized on the best possible location. Garion asked the commission for questions to the applicant. Dave Johnston stated the .Â·\DU does not have enough ventilation or light from a code issue. He asked how it will be miligated. Parsons replied the ventilation can be handled mechanically and by extending the hallway, more light could be introduced from the living room above to the ADU. Hunt said (after the site visit) the trail appears to be at the same level as the patio. Parsons replied that the building is set back about five feet from the trail. Hunt stated that the trees will probably be lost (cut) along the trail. Hunt said there is a great big abutment (15 + foot concrete wall) which is not a fire department turn around. Hunt would like to know how that wall got approved. Parsons stated that i he had no prior knowledge of the wall. Hunt also noted the building looks like a 7000 s f residence not a 3900 sfone. Johnston stated the 86 elevation puts the living area at the same elevation as the trail. 4 PLANNING & ZOi G COMMISSION Elrr-EM-HER_3. 1996 NO Comments from the public. /h bal-ton stated the commission is charged with a sensitive 8040 Greenline issue including specific criteria to review and agreed with staff that this applicant did not meet the criteria. She said the project doesn't meet standards #4,5,6 & 7. She noted the mass & bulk are not appropriate for tile steepness of the site cut and grade. Garton further commented the commission has to comply with all eleven requirenients. Ailgie Reno said to clarify the area that is affected is less than 10% of the parcel. He said the FAR is 800 s f less than what was approved in 1980. He stated the glazing is what adds the extra square footage to the FAR. Garton and Tygre stated that the glazing is a major issue. Garton further stated there is another wall on the other side of the road. Brooke Peterson, Attorney for applicant, said the road issue is a major one. He said the Newfoundland Road Access Design had to be approved by the County Engineer and Fire Department turn-around is County (not in the City). Peterson stated this road was not built by his client although it will serve their property. Wolff said the driveway sits on the panhandle of Hoag Lot 3 (located in the City). Michaelson asked Peterson to find out where the cut is in terms of City and/or County property. Reno stated the reason the building will be sprinkled is so that smaller sized fire trucks could service these properties. Garton said it might be appropriate to table but give the applicant some direction on the design. She stated clarification is needed from Staff and applicant regarding the access. Mooney said the glazing, the size of the house, amount of excavation and not a quality design is inappropriate on the site. Mooney said that he could not vote for the 8040. Chaikovska stated after looking at the very steep slope, her concerns are the turn around and the landscaping. Hunt said the screen landscaping won't be recouped below the existing trail and the house is too big for this spot. Tygre agreed with Mooney and Hunt. Tygre said every slope is over 30% with an avalanche path on one side and steeper slopes on the other side, plus the entire envelope is covered with a building. She noted this ik not keeping with the Conservation Zone. She stated the building might be icceptable on a different lot in a different location but not there. Tygre said the large facades with double glazing do not blend into the mountain to minimize its visibility. Johnston said most of his concerns were already brought up and he is at a quandary with this project. 3 PLANNING & ZO G COMMISSION 'EPTEMBER 3.1996 MOTION: Hunt moved to table the Valerio/Johnson application to October 1,1996 to allinv the applicants to redesign the three criteria as listed as #4, #5 & #7 and the ADU from the Community Development Memo dated August 20, 1996 with the addition of establishing a plan for the fire apparatus turn-around. 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. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and land features. 7. Building height und bulk wit! be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into tile open character of the nlountain. Tygre seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Peterson asked the Commission for direction on the ADU. Garton stated the Housing Authority had concern for many improvements to the ADU. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 (Top of Mill Site) and Lot 5 (Grande Aspen Site) Conceptual Review - Continued Hunt asked to be excused from the rest of the meeting. Michaelson gave a compilation introduction of the standards for review by the Commission to determine a motion to take to Council. He said the 9/3/96 memo was edited from the last two hearings to include conditions for the Top of Mill. He stated the code is quite specific and the Commission needed to make a motion to approve, deny or approve with conditions in terms of the conceptual PUD. Michaelson, Sarpa, Rebecca took another look at the Top of Mill Trail on Thursday. Michaelson said the applicant is not convinced to give up that property but are willing to look at alternatives with a staked trail. Michaelson further noted that a site plan must be submitted including the~of approval condition #6 for relocation of the trail. , John Sarpa, Applicant, said the proposed conditions for Lot 5 are not as they amended them. Sarpa stated that on page 3, item #7 of the September 3,1996 memo should read: (deleting al[ and replacing with its) The applicant shall 6 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name: Valerio/Johnson Residence 2) Project Location: 1125 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado Hoag Subdivision Lot #3 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate.) 3) Present Zoning Conservation 4) Lot Size approx. 132,500 SF 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No. Highlands Investment, Ltd. do James Valerio P.O. Box 1376 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (970) 925-1860 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone No. Gibson & Reno Architects, L.L.C. 210 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): 0 Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. X 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization TexUMap Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.: number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property), There are no existing structures. This is a previously approved sub-divided single family lot. 9) Description of Development Application: 8040 Greenline review for a single family residence. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application landuse.frm June 28,1996 VALERIO/JOHNSON HOAG SUBDIVISION #3 8040 GREENLINE: ATTACHMENT 2 1. Please see enclosed letters authorizing Gibson & Reno Architects L.L.C. to act on behalf of the applicants. 2. This project is located at 1125 Ute Ave. The legal description is the Hoag Subdivision, Lot #3. 3. Please see enclosed disclosure of Ownership. 4. Please see enclosed vicinity map. 5. This proposal is for a single family residence. The proposed location of the residence is in the eastern most corner of the property, and it is designed to fit into the steep slope. For additional graphic information concerning this proposed residence, see Attachment 3. For additional written information, see Attachment 4. July 5, 1996 G "BON \IA \UGUST Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. IRENO 130 South Galena \!A Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCOTT SMITH RE: Valerio/Jonhson Residence AIA Conditional Use (A.D.U.) 1125 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado NX.. A 1~4 r:=% We are submitting the enclosed appiication for the Conditional Use of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (A.D.U.) within the GIBSONÂ·RENO 1 A . :! liE C T S.L.L,C. residence located at 1125 Ute Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. m The following addresses Attachment 4, Item A-F of the Review 210 E. HYMAN Standards for the development of a Conditional Use: N '202 A. The current zoning of the property is Conservation Abl'EN which allows Accessory Dwelling Units as a Conditional COLORADO Use of this zone district. The Aspen Area 81011 Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of 070.925.508 A.D.U.'s within residences to help supply housing within the Aspen area. !Â·ACSIMI[.1 ]70 425 509; B. The Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity. The surrounding area consists of similar projects with P.l). M )X 278 existing A.D.U.'s. :7- N. WI[ Le)\V N' 2 C. The proposed residence will have a 412 square foot studio A.D.U. The A.D.U. will be located at the lower 1-1 L LURIDE COLOR,\[3() level of the unit at the front side with a separate 81435 exterior entry. There is a provision for one(1) parking space for the A.D.U. within the driveway. The A.D.U. ,)70 728Â»007 will have no adverse effects on the surrounding properties. FACSIMILE 970.728.6058 Valerio/Johnson Residence July 5, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department Page 2 D. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within the 'City limits of Aspen and has access to all public facilities and services. E. As a requirement of Ordinance #1, replacement housing program, for a new residence in the Conservation Zone District the applicant must provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit or pay a fee in lieu. This A.D.U. fulfills this requirement. F. The Conditional Use of the Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with all standards by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Ordinance #1. Thank you for your time in reviewing our request for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Please contact me with any further questions regarding this application. Respectfully, -Â»-64-57>> Roy B. Parsons III, AIA valadu.doc June 28, 1996 VALERIO/JOHNSON HOAG SUBDIVISION #3 8040 GREENLINE: ATTACHMENT 3 Enclosed are drawings that depict the requested information. The following information is supplementary to the drawings. A. Plan Information 1. The Boundary is shown on the Site Plan. 2. The proposed improvements are shown, there are no significant existing structures. 3. Significant natural features include a steep slope with large trees covering the majority of the site. An avalanche zone is identified on the Site Plan. B. Additional Plan Information 1. Existing contours around the building envelope are shown at five-foot intervals due to steep (over 10%) slope. 2. Proposed elevations are shown. 3. The proposed construction techniques will be poured in place concrete footings, walls and retaining walls with wood frame construcuon above grade. Large log and timber elements will be used as accents as well as structurally when feasible. The proposed exterior materials will be stone veneer, wood siding and fascias, heavy cedar shake roofing, log accents and log deck railings. Windows will be clad wood. Concrete retaining walls, as well as framed walls and roofs will be designed for appropriate loads for a steep site and avalanche potential. Snow guards will be used at appropriate roof locations to mitigate snow slide. 4. The Zoning (conservation) for this proposed residence doesn't have F.A.R. requirements. We have enclosed a square footage/FAR Analysis of the project so the approved F.A.R. can be documented. June 28,1996 VALERIO/JOHNSON HOAG SUBDIVISION #3 SQUARE FOOTAGE/FAR SUMMARY: Proposed Building Square Footage: Lower Level: 2355 SF Main Level: 2053 SF Garage: 576 SF Upper Level: 2008 SF TOTAL: 6992 SF Proposed Building FAR: Lower Level 801 SF (34% exposed wall area) Main Level 1169 SF (44% exposed wall area) Upper Level: -2QQ8_SE (100% exposed wall area) TOTAL 3978 SF Areas @ 2:1 due to plate height over 10'-0" Main Level: 840 SF (Living Room & Entry) Upper Level: _.835-SE (Master Bedroom & Study) Subtotal: 1675 SF TOTAL FAR: 5653 SF U June 28, 1996 VALERIO/JOHNSON HOAG SUBDIVISION #3 8040 GREENLINE: ATTACHMENT 4 7 1. The proposed development is located on a sloped site 1 /00'r suitable for development. There doesn't appear to be F any soil instability or presence of mine subsistence. The project will be located on a portion of the site away from an avalanche path. This location complies with an Avalanche Hazard Analysis dated January 1987, (see enclosed). There are no visible signs of hazardous or toxic soils. 4 02 *b , 2. The size and location of the proposed development should not have any adverse affect on watershed, runoff, tr drainage, soil erosion or water pollution. 3. The proposed development should not have any adverse affects on air quality. 4. The design of the proposed structure is compatible with the sloped terrain. The driveway will be located on an existing roadbed with an already established easement. 5. Use of retaining walls as well as a stepped design will ~ minimize disturbance of terrain and vegetation. C uu fÂ«f~ 6. The placement of the proposed structure is located in a ./ UU 0. corner of the site closest to the proposed access road, - le with the least amount of grading and tree cutting possible for this site. The remainder of the site will be left undisturbed. 1 5- .\ V U J Valario/Johnson - Hoag Subdivision #3 June 28, 1996 7. The Northern most facade of the proposed structure will have a gable roof configuration that will comply with maximum height requirements for an 8:12 roof slope. The upper level of the proposed structure will be below the maximum allowable height above natural grade. The use of gables will minimize the visual impact of the roof and allow the overall building mass to be reduced. 8. Sufficient water and other utilities are available from 7 Ute Ave via an existing utility easement. - 9. Driveway access to the property will occur on an existing road bed with easy access directly onto Ute AE c p,t/r Avenue. The driveway will be shared with the adjacent * A 3-054 kn property owner who has already gained approval for the A- ri & -40-v- 440 ..,r road. gy & p P 61-1 10. Ingress and egress for safety vehicles and snow removal equipment can be maintained. 11. Access to the existing Nordic Trail on the site will be - h Lut. puÂ»_+ P- Cc cÂ·-~*-<j j maintained for public access. 2,L L,tr-(2(.u /&~ 7 01/9 valhoag.doc 6 e #Lif+Ad k- l.,1 Pea-t - June 20, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson aqd Reno Architects L.L.C.located at 210 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado (970) 925 5968 to submit and. process the application for an 8040 Greenline Review on my behalf. Sincerely, ~[ighlands Investments, Ltd June 20, 1996 Aspe,UPitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Stlect Alpen, Colorado 81611 Please accept this lermr as authorization for the firm of Clibson and Reno Architects L.L.C., locamd at 210 But Hyman Avenue, Suite 202. Aspen, Colorado 81611(970) 925-5968 to mbmit and process the Application for all 8040 Omenline Review on my behalf. Sinoemly, July 3, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Please accept this letter u authorizanion for the firm of Gibson and Reno Architects L.L.C., looared at 210 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 923-5968 to submit and process the Application for a Conditional Use of an Aocessory Dwelling Unit (A.D.U.) on my behalf. A Sincerely, U-01Â» ~~ Highlands Investmonts, LQ 26 C July 3, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson and Reno Architects L.L.C., located at 210 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-5968 to submit and process the Application for a Conditional Use of an Accessory Dwelling Unit CAD.U.) on my behalf. Sincerely, Karen Johnion LAW OFFICES OF BROOKE A. PETERSON KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. TELEPHONE GIDEON I. KAUFMAN' (970) 925-8166 ERIN L. FERNANDEZ" FACSIMILE 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (970) 925-1090 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 HAL S. DISHLER - â€¢ ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND " ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA Â·Â·' ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS VIA HAND DELIVERY June 28, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 3. Hoag Subdivision Ladies and Gentlemen: Please allow this letter to serve as the disclosure of ownership required by the land use regulations of the City of Aspen concerning Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. At the present time, according to the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is owned by Highlands Investment, Ltd. and Karen Johnson. These entities acquired title to this property by virtue of a Treasurer's Deed issued November 23, 1994, recorded in Book 767 at Page 778 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado. The Property is affected by the following reservations and easements: 1. 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 and 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 Book 175 at Page 229. 2. Easement and right of way for ski lift purposes granted by Hoag Investment Associates, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partner- ship, to Little Annie Limited Partnership, a Colorado Limited Partnership, in instrument recorded February 12, 1981 in Book 404 at Page 167 and Page 169. 3. Easement and right of way for access purposes, as granted by Hoag Investment Associates, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership to the Owners of Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision, in instrument recorded November 7, 1980 in Book 398 at Page 639. Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department June 28, 1996 Page 2 4. Easement and right of way for multi-recreational trail purposes granted by Jack Barker to The City of Aspen in instrument recorded February 24, 1988 in Book 557 at Page 729 and in instru- ment recorded in Book 610 at Page 877. 5. All matters in regard to the easement and right of way for access purposes, as granted by The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to Blue Sky Corporation in instrument recorded December 27, 1977 in Book 341 at Page 11, August 23, 1978 in Book 353 at Page 316. 6. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded November 5, 1971 in Plat Book 4 at Page 218. 7. All matters as set forth in Easement Agreement by and between Gordon Miller, Stanley R. Shaffran and Joseph S. Zaluba and Ronald C. Collen recorded June 17, 1992 in Book 681 at Page 147 and re-recorded June 25, 1992 in Book 681 at Page 873. Based upon my review of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, there are no other agreements, liens or easements of record which affect the subject property. Should you have any need for any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, A PyOessiRhal/'Corpob tion <Br _.- _ _-. _ - - _ f#on BAP/ljk CC: Gibson & Reno Architects letters\asp-pit.com .\ 01 1 \\\/jj . 1 2.... UN /knk x .lah- --*,1 li 91" Â©1'J- 2 . 11 T f i 1 6 . t 1111.- 1116-Ek':r-\ ..0. .1'.*.U . . 11 1 7-lili- -4 1.(BM 7907) 1 8564 0 ) r.-- â€¢JL 1 * # Cowen over ETunnel 1. /7 - - 2- 3\ '1 /J . \1 . Â» 7\ 4 00 0%/P l 1 3/3&"Sm#*/1.Jl â€¢114---7"-0.. \V l ' 1,-G-=-=-1 v. ~i 0 0 // r*.9/!==a=Z:::}f<D-Â£21 V /2,5 0 11 ... . . 0-9/9il:./642/1/1 7,1,1./4/'I..4." .// --'370.\ N:%. 74 f - \ 9 ~ ~4/*~467 2.!Wgar 1~y - ~ . .-=74'.0 N. 1 \X, 17, .OU,d - .7/Â»3479::,0:i:oof -4-241,11 1< / . / 1 .4 / I * 1Â«91.. 1 11.: **Util[ c . -*\ \ '. .6 <5, \C 'â€¢ 0% \Xu O -122 - 1 4 trtic 5 ff * ' - "- 'IÂ· â€¢li:. 4) v *ifff,tiff * 6 ~ t: 7 L. . /l ro //' 44Â¥...,/ . -:-- 4ff)40 { i L it ~ <-< 11\.f:> 4 /71..yo~~jul:7:*42: 23: C. 3 1 Â·I-~~ fl ZE : " f :f ... .744 0 3 C Ilâ€¢: f. .. 12 j Â¢ 4 ./1 0 ' . . . Fe=7 / -' A 1.,. ill v/b j.6 9% 1 \\#h i /3 = -- /4/// . 6 *\G fAvel / â€¢\\3(01 4 - .1. /-pit./ .V J. .. _tb- 33 Â«.\ 3 1 . 1/ 1 1itJ c 44 V - , 1 rhy- 9*NÂ«/4- ffu 'i 3 ' '2 0 * ) , ' hh 1 1%9\ 9 4 MI- \ %/ D O . f: 2fft//9 1(<083;cffÂ»z 74 1 f Vicinity Map 1_.-SIFE. Lawr-IcÂ»-1 -MEÂ©[ 151 .2,9197/ -, 1..-- AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS, BARKER PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR ' MR. JACK BARKER Arthur I. tlears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado January, 1987 INTRODUCTION This analysis of avalanche hazard was requested by Mr. Jack Barker of Aspen and has the following objectives: 1. site inspection of avalanche terrain; 2. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk; 3. review of previous work; 4. recommendations. The report is site specific, thus the results and recommendationsÂ· cannot be extended to other locations. AVALANCHE CONDITIONS Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 11., City of Aspen, originate on the northeast-facing slope of Bell Mountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately below promin- ent cliffs at approximately 8,800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable snow accumulates, are small, steep, and generally discontinuous. There- i fore, avalanches will usually be small and unlikely to reach the Barker property. However, major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional weather and/or snowpack conditions at any time during the November- April snow season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973, and 1974. The largest and most frequent avalanches occur in the approximately 50-yard wide open slope on the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the lower portion of this path. -2- The slope immediately east of the prominent path supports a thick, triangular wedge of Douglas fir with interspersed aspen. This stand of trees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years). Site inspection showed some damage to aspen within the forest, but this was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984. This storm produced similar widespread damage throughoutÂ· central Colorado. The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. McAuley which was authored in 1973 by Whitney M. Borland and Hans Frutiger. In my opinion, the Borland/ Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche conditions at this site. The present study discusses in greater detail the nature of the risk involved in building within the potential avalanche area. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD Discussions and a site inspection with Mr. Jack Barker provided-- detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map. The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types: 1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche path discussed above; and 2. hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge. Because hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, theyare discussed separately below. The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main western avalanche path. Both upper and low6r legs of the proposed -3- driveway have been overrun 3 times during the past 22 years, (in 1964, 1973, and 1974), as noted above. Smaller avalanches may have also reached the driveway alignment, but gone undetected. Although firm data on avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive- way) of 3-5 years seems reasonable, based on Vegetation damage and the sporadic and discontinuous historical record. Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of driveway. If we assume an exposure time (to the avalanche) of 1 minute per trip and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is 10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba- bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling the driveway is computed P = (-1-) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year. This calculation assumes random avalanche occurrence and random driveway use. In other words, the prevailing avalanche and/or weather conditions will have no influence on the use of the driveway. , From the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability should be compared with other risks that are commonly accepted. For example, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain passes, each of which is crossed by numerous avalanches every year. Some of these avalanches occur more often than once per year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the avalanche hazard encountered on a trip to Aspen may exceed the risk. in ascending the driveway. -4- In contrast, avalanche exposure of the 'house is less tolerable because.we must assume it will be occupied continuously, especially during severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter the undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could , be reached by avalanches with return periods of 50-100 years (1-2% annual probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy must be designed for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Final design criteria should be developed in conjunction with building plans and ~~ should include: 1. Specification-of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually perpendicular direttions); and 2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact). None of these design parameters can be specified at present because details of building size, shape, and orientation strongly control the details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many avalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction of an "avalanche-proof" structure is feasible at this location. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics and relative hazard as discussed above. 1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent west avalanche path. 2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and ' inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached map). .. . -5- 3. Accept the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk is small compared with others nofmally taken in winter travel-. Although the avalanche risk is small when compared to the risk accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta), the potential hazard should be carefully discussed with and understood by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk even further through learning about the nature and timing of avalanches. 5 /1\111 IM 124 f- 3 1 r Â·- ./ , 0.- Â·Â· --- 424-7/iff*AtÂ» 1 4, 11'<<lthlb,Li~~'.0 ~ 1> 4 1~'Fr:23 intlit<--C- #92:1-/AV 24_(( -2 4 c *-20 ...1. 1 + 0 X~ --&-- 1 > (7Â»71 \--53-: Â»Â« f /23Â«9Â«Â»Â«- 03 -11 f\ 1.\ -- -2Â»20 - - ' L+I , 14.4*4-6-12 - - /1. 1 Ah'*ectÂ»-0~1 --- -- 0 - - 0 \ .1 \1 97/1 Cof Â· L -y \ C / 10 -344.373Â»1 :4 9 41,42-112â€¢eaug. - 721. ., 241~3(':Â·~:~*~:I~ 79~:6.Â·.- ,~Â·.- 41** i 34 -9. P.tra=-rt.24'%44.1.10-\I . e.,\ -: {; 1/' 74:------ KN\-- , ' / / , -L- . r . - .I39<f/~. .. . ~.f>\tj f.i- Ii-.1>141>1./ff/~/c 9 -' 9 '1. .-/Al 9800 O,35 $ - 4 1/bl~ 11.11 . \Â·X li; 11,11/ 111; .In V Irl: Â£.IN \Ow a f , /, I- .\ , /0/ 11 . ' 1--Ve 41 1 41{~~-11110, /////, \ --- 4 ..1 1 21 , l.. ., / 41 'd 1/1 1 , AO :/11 1 9 1 1.19 i '.. h 1Â«.P.triâ€¢.4. 1 9 , â€ž, , â€ž11 /1,1.7 34's wacker, 4\ . (/ D '.,110 4 af k [Aegen 4 \ .1.Â· 5 1 11Â· i 1 1 1 -1 1 4 { 39 4 11. Shaft -- '. A \' ' qi'. Â·:"-. 4 <~4sp 111 '.x,r,v-5% 1 .thh '\ GiÂ·Â· /41.1 1,4 f p- V , / 3/ -/2 Â·/1 N. I i J j r â€¢41 1 1 /Â· S '' 1 1. 11 â‚¬ r, 3 Il 1 J C Voh Ason v '14.. :, C en 4 - â€ž owenpoi O, al Â·,ra 9 Tun el r '.3 \? 7 . C. . liÂ·-i,~t-i-~'.4/~Li-Â·" 214 . Ir..It. 1 1 3 tunne l Sh@4 , t '3 ' 1 / 4.1 Sm)ggl + / ) 7 7 ,- D- - r. ... In' . f e. , C .1 1 4 itâ€¢ , .\ '1 1-1.1 / i , 4/:Â·< c 1 0(C (f- ~f-kj ~ 7 / ,#.,...i' 11;h :')/ 1 \4 1 < Ir / P. .ni \ 41 \ I 'C \\'' . . 4â€¢â€¢,Ch-- Â·M Â· .9...32'.13 lt:] 2. 1'.. .1,1 f ..P # -I- I .' " , 7.C r n /4. Gl 5 \ < /#i 'f~ IC .A{!23-1.0.~2 ~.. 1 1 on '11\ 0 4,_ ... 7 Â·rÂ·4 1 Â· Pailt-Â·1-'-zL . 1- , .: i' 0,1. ,*t\V 1 .if,>, ('i "Â·, ? / !/,7;111\\~\\ \. A \ - ..<ji\.\\1Jk 4 - 0Â»--4/Fl 0.- C 1 , .. / re , h.> (i,~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ * ~~~ir -11 1 -/-7,1, ji~///Â»\41./~) c \ , .1. 1 \ I 1, Al )Al El Z , 1 /i l~?lit 2,5 Ap ii #2:1- :,7.:41.,-3 . 1 ./ I ...4 n h ) (d O 3. A ..04. f \ 0 11 \ f1\ 1 1 ' ' 7.\/1%\ V. '\ I ., I I. --cyÂ»- 4417 2/9'' , ' , I (!0 11 Â£9~AL 2. 4.72:3Â·<: Â·f ,Â· r.,ra:r..... t. 4., 1 .. C .,.,\,col. .,R 1 /.41 21 . 1 '1 11 . cÂ· i414# x ,'4.684 1. Â·94 4 / .41:\ i,-1Â·:Â·-*-1Â·.1.~ft:Â·41:.A:%11Â· ..11 /â‚¬ 1 11.1 \\.. 0.22 0*43:. 14. 0.~01(394 -3 9%/4. ''Â· :JÂ·.*Â·7' ''Af' cy 642 iÂ· kÂ· Â·Â· 0}~~ i ;k : Â· 1 1 1.\ ji / If 4% A~ \7 3 3 . 1 3 im K rf#AEÂ·'4* - 64 00Â© 1 1.. 1=Xm~A#.4.1 4.4.1 1 944 %- Â¢349926<t2~~~~~~41~701 <~'~~ ~ ~~ff-.tit' ~ 1..97%244, r# 769 - -1 ~ 2/4 'illgallÂ·\:94// 1. 4% 1*57 1 4 .Â·j .(ift- ' Grave: P Â·$Â· 0 *. 4 lif /Â·1, A 4<--t )~{~~.'~< /~z~~6 *~-4%11- - ~t%1,-1 1/. 2 h k..,.\i f \\1 .,9.!1#? l.>1 11 fr~ '' .' / / his' 1 \ / //l <,1 l 44.v? ._e,/,~~i~,f,Â·'//?,''if,lÂ«~043' ikyN27 TY&~#V-*-f 09#11\2 41<, - '- 41\'(% . 2 2 \ approximate positions of site ' 10 1 4.# \ 4 4 Ff#//6 ,Â£61 ,~.6,V j \ 1*' N< : 4 "X" and avalanche path. 1 11 \\00 *< J~4~8'fvkthht j- 4 3 ' ij~ Scale: 1" = 2000' ,~ .2â€ž,,1 ,%9.(4:. ,%)<~art.l.49.''f /~7 14 \ Â·i,44'c<j<(~34,<VÂ·944~f A~dilli -2 .-~Â¤Â©-PIVY'77'3932'3\',~r: - L' / 400/ 4 . 376413 8-767 P-177 11/15/94 10:164 PG 1 OF 6 REC DOC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE NEWFOUNDLAND (MILLER) EXTENSION OF A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT 1 4% Resolution No. 94- ,(1 RECITALS 1. Dr. Gordon R. Miller, hereinafter "Applicant" has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Board", for approval of the extension of a vested property right pursuant to Section 4-14 of the Land Use Code. 2. Said parcel is located adjacent to the City of Aspen on Aspen Mountain, more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached. 3. The Board heard this application at a regularly scheduled meeting on October 25, 1994, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application. 4. The Board determined that the proposed extension of a vested property right is consistent with the requirements of Section 4-14 of the Land Use Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby grant approval of the Newfoundland (Miller) Extension of a Vested Property Right for a period of three years, subject to the conditions of Resolution NO. 91-87 and following additional conditions: 1. All provisions of Resolution 91-87 shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified herein. 2. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations in the application and in the public meeting. 1 1 , 15/9'+ -:- . 16.A PG 2 i~ ' i , Resolution No. 94 Page 2 3. If the trees originally marked by the CSFS have not been removed, the Applicant shall contact the District Forester to schedule the remarking of the trees, prior to the commencement of tree removal operations. 4. The area around the structure shall incorporate landscaping with wildfire defensible space considerations as follows: NOTE: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions may not be necessary where the natural vegetation patterns have already fulfilled these conditions. a. Brush, debris and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed a minimum 10' perimeter around the structure. b. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels a minimum of a 30' perimeter around a structure built on flat ground. (for greater slopes ref. CSFS Safety Zone chart pg. 13 Wildfire Guidelines For Rural Homeowners) C. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30' perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel. d. All branches from trees and brush within the 30' perimeter shall be pruned to a height of 10' above the ground and removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush. e. Tree crown separation within the 30' perimeters shall have a minimum of 10' between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendanion for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines (c.) shall be followed. f. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15' of the chimneys shall be removed. g. The density of fuels within a 100' perimeter of the structures shall be reduce where natural reduction ' .76413 8-767 P-179 -1/15/94 ... Â·.- il J -Â· .- ~' Resolution No. 94Â« Page 3 has not already occurred. h. All deadfall within the 100' perimeter shall be removed. i. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 5. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation measures: a. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. b. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. C. All flammable materials shall be stored on a contour a minimum of 15' away from any structure. d. Weeds and grasses with-in the 10' perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than 6". e. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked minimum 15' on a contour away from the structure. f. Pools/ponds shall be accessible to F.D. vehicle g. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. h. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. i. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as primary structures. j. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. k. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure w/standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above-ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hr. fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. 1. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 lb. approved ABC class fire extinguisher in an accessible and visible location. m. Addresses shall be clearly marked and visible according to NFPA 299 standards installed on a non- combustible post and sign. . I 376413 8-767 ,-160 11/15,94 10:_BA 03 + ur e , Resolution No. 94 Page 4 6. The Applicant shall submit a road improvement plan to the County Engineer for approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall depict improvements to the driveway, intersection, and turn-around area, to provide adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. The plan shall be prepared and stamped by a professional engineer. 7. The Applicant shall submit a plan depicting the design and location of the nordic trail, as it relates to the access road and the residence, to the Planning Office for approval, prior to the issuance of a access permit. 8. The Applicant shall submit a plan depicting the design and location for the required avalanche hazard area warning signs, to the County Zoning Official for approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. The Applicant shall contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District concerning the requirement that the entire parcel be included in the District. Verification of inclusion shall be submitted to the Planning Office, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The Applicant shall obtain a fireplace/woodstove permit from the Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The Applicant shall obtain Board of Adjustment approval for a variance to the setbacks, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. The Applicant shall comply with the exterior lighting standards as set forth in Section 3-1110 of the Land Use Code. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 25TH OF OCTOBER, 1994. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ~,~ (366,Â·,~Irct: 40Â« Robert W.,Child, Chairman Date / f / n /6> 44 .1 <f,# . - . Id Y Resolution No. 94-1( Page 5 /n ATTEST: , 31) f OIL _ 4-.111' Jeanette Jones Deputy Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: r, - 1 9 Dect,1,9Â¥J K rÂ·(lcl,- h Timothy E. Whip,Â«t, Suza#he Konchan, County Atto]:ney Community Development Director 376413 3-767 P-181 11/15/94 10:16A PG 5 oF 6 reso newfoundland extvest ##3: - 5.08229/91 -Â·09: 29- C--1-1- ' . f sSi. a-Â·Davis,'Pitkirt--dr:ty:CI@Ik-k,r,DaccKs-â‚¬90 - J~ I '6 2 ,-- i. - 3Kv655 PG' 256 2 ~ Exhibit "1" Miller 1041 Hazard Review, Scenic Foreground Overlay Review and General Submission Legal Description: The Newfoundland Lode Mining Claim, M. S. 5190; excluding that portion of Newfoundland M. S. 5190 ouverlapping Hcag Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado, Lot 3. Starting at point 03, S 04 degrees 49'48" W 227.9 feet, thence N 55 degrees 48'50" W 33.54 feet; thence N 65 degrees 31'10" W 37.97 feet; to rebar and plastic cap #9184 leaving line N 59 degrees 54' E 134.21 feet. 376413 B-767 P-182 11/15/94 10:16A PG 6 OF 6 1 , #33597L /29/91 09:28 Rec $.00.Bk 5 'PG 249 1. M . Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 .. 3 RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN 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 Resolution No. 91-<FJ WHEREAS, Gordcn 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 on 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 WHERns, 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 29/91 09:28 Rec 5.00 BK . PG 250.-Â· ~ .r Silvia __.is, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Resolution No. 91- 8 1 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 cf 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." Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant 2. 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 : Â·#335975 29/91 09:28 Rec $.00. BK PG 251 .1 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc -.00 Resolution No. 91- 37 Page 3 must be in place. b. prior to issuance of an Access Permit the Aspen Fire Protection District shall approve plans which illustrate that adequate space is provided for fire apparatus to maneuver at the residence. C. As part of the excavation work, the Applicant shall provide a fire hydrant on site pursuant to the specifications of the Fire District and the Aspen Water Department. 3. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered to by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence; a. The applicant shall install an exterior sprinkler system for the suppression of wildfire. b. All marked, dead and suppressed trees shall be removed from within the 45 foot thinning line identified by the State Forest Service and referenced in the November 12, 1990 letter (Exhibit C. The Applicant shall utilize non-combustible roof materials and may not provide exposed overhanging decks. Roof decks are acceptable. d. The area within 10-feet of the home shall be revegetated with low growing forbs or grasses and kept free of tall brush and trees. e. The trees that are to be left standing, within the 45 foot radius, shall be pruned to a height of 10- feet. f. Tall brush shall be removed or broken up into non- contiguous groups. g. The recommendations of the State Forest Service handbook, "Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners" shall be adhered to by the applicant. 4. The applicant shall address the following concerns identified by the Environmental Health Department: a. During construction the Applicant shall prevent mud and dirt carry-out onto roads caused by vehicle traffic from the site. N N# 75 08/29/91 09:28 Rec :$ BK 655 fPG -252 0. ES ia-Davis, Pitkin Â·Cnty ClerK, Doc 'S.00 Resolution No. 91- â‚¬1 Page 4 b. The Applicant shall contact the Environmental Health 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 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 :#32 5 08/29/91 09:28 Rec $.Ot 655 PG 253 ~ :Silv Davis, Pitkin -Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 . Resolution No. 91- 27 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 '29/91 09:28 Rec $.00.alÂ· J PG 254 21.1.. 1 h Silvia .is, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, D_. $.00 Resolution No. 91- 31 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 21 Wayne/*thridge, Chailiman Date Il <i . 11 Â·119 ATTES7: C it<* Iu, 1---4~ J/Anette Jone,sl,/ Peputy Clerk *''Recorder APPROV~& AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Of 500- 2, 4,1 b.- AL Tim Whit#it~, - 1-6 AmY Ma:6gerum, i l./ Countly Akerey Planning Director reso.bocc.1041.miller RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVOKING THE 1990 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL FOR LOT 3 OF THE HOAG SUBDIVISION ASPEN COLORADO Resolution No. 93Â·,6~ 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 V..MLL.LM 701~/4 /U Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson ATTEST: c 946/ 06*Â» il (J Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk A 'r'.. BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IN RE THE MATTER OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A/K/A 1125 UTE AVENUE, JOSEPH S. 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. . I 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, THFAEFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Nr. 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 A insure that such work is completed as soon as practicable thereafter. (e) 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 of Credit to cause such work to be completed as soon as practicable. 2. If each of the foregoing conditions is complied with, the revocation of the 8040 Greenline Approval, stayed by the Commission in this Order, shall automatically be rescinded and the 8040 Greenline Approval, as amended, shall be reinstated without further hearing by or action of the Commission. Entered this /3~Â¥ day of December, 1992. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION M C A. By - -/9 ~4371,Li/C-C /6 / 4 -1 1 Jasmine Tygre, Chairpetson ATTEST: L-6., j / 16 ... 14.U LITA,liti'\- Jan Carnky, Deputy~City Clerk V Approved as to substance and form: McFLYNN & PICKETT, /. C. By : 1/1 X if,~0- Cl-. - --~604 A*rtha C. Pickett Atterneys for Applicant zaluba\findings.ord 3 1 , 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 C 1 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 PLANNING )NING COMMISSION EXHIBIT A , APPROVED , MEMORANDUNP BY RESOLUTION To: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer ~4DC Date: January 13,1993 Re: Zaltiba 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 gentechinical 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. The submitted plan did not show locations for the required signage. 4. There was no mention of regrading and revegetation of the tipper 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 1101 [le compromised for the access road. mz.,lub: 1 4. PLANNIN( ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT 3 , APPROVED 19 BY nESOLUTION . EXISTING SLOPE -4 - WIDTH OF 1[1'- nA(.1< WALL: 1 )\ 1 \\ 1 3 FT, MAXIMUM 2 FT. MINIMUM 1 6 * i lu 12 3 9 .< 2%1 \ 1- -- \ t- REMOVE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY. PLACE 4- OF COMPACTED CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE. /6-20 (ALL TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR). 4 FT. MINIMUM - 2 FT. DEEM ROCK FILLED DITCH/TOE DRAIN. FILL_ DITCH WI11-1 1Â·-1/2' SCREENED ROCK. TYPICAL SECTION, 1 +00 TO 5<73.35 NOTE: TIE-BACK WALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE LET AS A SEPARATE DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACT TO A CONTRACTOR NORMALLY ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS. EX/ST.... SLOPE j C 1 -4 / 2 : 1 CUT SLOPE 1 / OR EXISTING SLOPE / WHERE REASONABLE EXIST. ROADWAY BENCH (NOT TO BE WIDENEDJ 4AJ w f- r. 1 !2.0 WIDTY VAR'ES .. PLACE BOULDERS ROAD PORTION TRAIL PORBON SCARIFY 8 RESEED AGAINST NEW CUT 6.00' 600 SHORT (3' TO 6') RETAINING - pO-(10-5 -f WALL AS "KEYSTONE" SYSTEM OR GRAVITY ROCK WALL WHERE NEEDED TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES OR : 1 3% <STEEP CUT SLOPES. f ";PF,9 I ANGULAR BOULDERS TYP. MINIMUM BASE-~ SIZE 2 FT. MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR INCLUSION IN WALL IS 1.5 FT. 8.ASE . /' / <- REMOVE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY, 2/3 EWT \ PLACE 4" OF COMPAC1 ED CL. 6 & 2 FT. DEEP, ROCK FILLED ~TCH/TOE 'Â·-Â·Â·Â·'~ AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPLETED DRAIN. FILL BITCH WITH 1-1/2 SUBGRADE. (ALL TO 35% STANDARD SCREENED ROCK. PROCTOR.} - 1 /FACE 4 - fi. TYPICAL ROAD SECTION STATION 10+00 TO 12â€¢52.13, EXISTING ROADWAY NO SCALE 0 1 - . '. !474 I i .1 1 , I J (19.1.349 1 N.- 1 ./ .fa' 1 , 4 i*p. f \1 V ..,- -91 Ni *uy/ , - ~Â· 1 Flv , 2 .,.. il '' ||21.'/ flattlfikrt'-5 + 1./2 - I . r rir ..3 1 Ilt' i / 1 2 >' f:.21 ..1 3.,f.i,Kh! .: ... 1 J i.:t.# b - =.â€¢ .t..1 -1.<*- 4 j; ~ ' f+U 44 6 i71 . 1f \ I Â·.*1 1 d~ er '92**r-lit 14 4.1. 1 7/ . \ 1.1 -- i wf' 1 .2 q ; -aN â„¢3-0~--2 ~- .'- Cl. ;41 .U 2 1-144 *lfÂ· ;ul . I .. ... , I. -1 7 U . :"f-Â· t el- 1-.40 4 . i:Jal'47,2.'42 - - . . 4 6 i. e f . 1 14 - . Ki , ~L . . . Â·'~ fÂ¢, . * 9*1- i , I k, 1 4 -3. * - 1 . ' , $ I'-0-*" 24 2 & VE 4 k . -Â·llc, A.L . I '.-: 1 . - /0.2 . 3 - f. .1 . k . . % - ' Â· - ' . . 11 i + 2 i : : :,y,dy ' I . '' 9-:-~I-%33:,II,~z ~ '.D . . 0 1.4 L '24 2.- , V . ..1 - .tr . -r ' .. 1 . . 14- 10 1<0 4~.. Â· ... 44.w 7. % I- a . r 7 2 t. I. P. I. . Â©, , 4, '*31 1 Â· I I.f \.0 I . 17 + ~ I . .â€¢ '' .. M~ 771 . 0 3 â‚¬ 0.9 f.,3.- . ...&.- - 2 1 ., * *52 $ . 1 . _.1 + p Â·GP ~ Â· 4 ..Â·. â€¢~.~. .~~ AÂ· - â‚¬. /--1 1 t. NE 1. '902 O i R +IDAG+OT3 i.-iÂ·..1~.~49': Â·"r.-Â·.Â·.. 44* Â· .. I. , I I. ../ /,PAITIEIV RAA n CHI=T 46 ..,0 ' EXHI T LANN~NG ONING CO SION SOLUTION PZM1.19.93 ~ara: I feel that creating a project like this for families and employees is more a community benefit than a half empty substandard i community building. 1 David: I also think that this is going to reduce the traffic impact of bringing workers up and down valley. Jasmine: I think it is very exciting that you people have put this kind of work into a project like this. I appreciate that we need employee housing as much as anyone as I am at the very low end of the scale. It is very easy to complain about employee housing. But when you have more than 200 people applying for 11 units over in the East Hopkins project it lets you know that this is not some kind of frivolous thing. This represents a very significant need in the community. And the extent to which people can take the initiative as you people have done to bring the project this far I think is tremendously praiseworthy. And I think you have done a great job. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Bruce, yes, David, yes, Jasmine, yes. ZALUBA 8040 WALL AMENDMENT Leslie made presentation as attached in record. John Weedum, Architect: I had no participation in the original design concepts so I really don't know what they were other than from a verbal description. The way the wall was designed here after the excavation was complete over a year or so ago over the first cut of the road the soil was visibly stable due to the character of the stone in the area. It is basically a dry stack soils condition in that whole general area. So after looking at that and talking with the soils engineer who made the first reports in the original design of the retaining walls we looked at their soils report and said the soils conditions are that your soil is pretty stable in its own structural make up. And that it is not a clay wall and it is not a boulder wall so that you are not needing retainage because the wall is acting as its own retaining wall. What you need to do is control erosion, reflow and retainage on your road and any type of damage to the toe of the hill. So based on those comments I worked with the structural engineer on what would accomplish that the most efficiently. Taking each section into mind and using the recommendations of basically scraping the hill back using the hydromulch technique for controlling erosion 12 PZM1.19.93 that that would probably be the least disturbance to the area. The hydromulch and the structure at the base would basically not be used for retainage so much as to hold back any falling rocks and reflow also would take the drainage from the mountain before it hits the road and take it behind the wall and then by the way the road design is draining into the hill so all the water would drain on the inside of the wall to go down to a distribution point. So this concrete stemwall is what was the best solution. Then there is space behind it for the reflow of the water to congregate. And then the hydromulch plan would be done in accordance with the specs. Basically scrape it so it is an acceptable surface for pitch and for adherence and that there is some kind of come back next year and check on it and maybe touch up in places. But that would handle all of your drainage. All your debris from falling down the hill. And it would be visually very small impact. It is not very deep because it doesn't have to have this huge footer. By doing it this way I can cut a minimal amount of damage to the hill and accomplish my objective. If I went with a boulder wall- -same problem. I am stacking up a boulder wall--I need to start with boulders a certain dimension. So therefor I have got to cut the hill back in order to place the boulder there to get the same physical solution to the problem. If I went with a tie-crib wall the same principle applies. I would have to cut back X amount of feet in order to get my cribbing to hold my wall from falling over therefore I have more hillside that I have got to handle. So that was the rational for doing this approach. What we have used was a concrete stemwall system which can either be cast in place or can be pre-cast in modular units and brought in and set. It is not a question so much of visual. I can make it look the same with quality control on how you do your seams. But we do need seams in the wall for functional reasons that allow some water for overflow. It does serve a functional purpose to have expansion joints. What I am doing is exposed aggregate concrete. So whether it is precast or cast in place I will have that same aggregate finish. The colors of the aggregate and the concrete can be made to blend into the existing colors of the stone on the hill that are there. So I think it functions. Can solve the problem with the least amount of cutting the least disturbance and visually is the most compatible with what is there. Rob Thomson, City Engineer: This is an alternate solution. My only concern as far as the joints and they are trying to eliminate the seams in there but the more i got to look at it any normal precast wall would have to have expansion joints in it too. You 13 PZM1.19.93 may get a few more seams but the lower heights will definitely take away from that. Jasmine: But as far ,as safety standpoint and accomplishing-- Thomson: We had several letters from the soils engineer and he went out and looked at it and last Fall they were saying it is basically stable and can last through the winter and that is when his soil engineer came back and took another look at it physically from--it had been sitting there for 2 years like it was. So that is where I accepted the alternative. Jasmine: SO as far as yOU are concerned this would be an acceptable alternative. Thomson: Yes. I do have one question. Where are you going to handle the drainage work? It originally had a couple of drywells. Weedum: I think we were doing this as somewhat of a drywell. That will still be maintained all the way down. So we have got built- in retention all the way down. Sara: Why won't the water if it builds up behind freeze and then start popping out the aggregate? Weedum: I am not a water engineer but I will give you what I can. The reason the material is here is crushed rock is like a drywell. It could freeze but you are going to ave water basically coming down below and it will seek it's lowest level. So in the winter time when this is frozen, this is frozen also. When this starts thawing, it will thaw too and the engineers feel that by doing this system that when it starts melting it will go into the rocks and act like a big drywell all the way down the road. Sara: Is it like a gutter where you have to get behind there and clean out the debris every spring. Weedum: I don't believe so. Thomson: I think you would have the same problems you have for a retaining wall. You still have backup behind there. You do holes for the water to get out from behind it. That is the idea of the seams so the water has a place to travel to get out. Weedum : So this is like a big sponge here. The water has a place to collect and then it will--you cut the wall out and backfill with all your gravel and all your drainage material and put your top soil in the very top and then you hydromulch the top so that it is a complete system. 14 PZM1.19.93 rhe water going down the other side of the road is traveling in a whole different drainage system. And it has got a drywell of gravel--it is a glorified gutter with gravel in it so that all the water that is flowing down .that road will go into the drywell basically as it is going down the road. That is the concept. Richard: The idea is that it will go into the drywell and seep into the ground more than it will run off? Weedum: Historically--I have been up there every time of the year and there is no evidence over the last 2 years of any substantial amount of water going down and across the road except right behind the Rappaports where you have got a natural swell that is pushing it over. Bruce: This solution is less expensive than what was originally approved. Weedum: Just looking at X amount of concrete I would say yes you have got twice as much concrete than you had before. Bruce: We are not ? on our bond requirements. Thomson: No. ? are based on this type of system. Bruce: ? Just checking it out. Tim: What is going to be the finish surface on the whole road? Weedum: I don't think it has ever been discussed. Tim: Is there any kind of consistent curb or rim or is it just going to be as it drops off. I am concerned about the other side of the road. Thomson: There is a little bit of a build up there. The road is sloping into-- Rob: This area down here there is some concern that going through the beginning the actual cut there right now is probably the only 12 to 15 feet or something like that. Mr. Zaluba's comment at the time were "The first 12 feet is mine and if there is anything left over that is the trail". Which means that at some point there wouldn't be a full 8 foot wide trail. So what I want to make sure is that we have full 20 feet through there of flat surface not part of the edge of the easement or the trail would have been 6 feet of flat and 2 feet of slope. Leslie: The actual easement compared to the road is mumble 15 4 1 PZM1.19.93 Marti: The bigger concern came from when we first started the design having the barrier between which was going to take up some of the land and to where that came out. But now that we have taken that out mumble , Weedum: Now we don't have the barrier. And then what we have done too is that I had the engineer shelve the thing further up the hill and more out so that we had a 20 foot bench. So we are addressing that and we agreed that it will be a 20 foot plus or minus bench on all sections of the road. Thomson: Item #5 in the recommendations. Leslie: I would add--we are not sure that the hydromulching includes both sides of the road. Thomson: The down side they were going to hydromulch wherever it needed to be or wherever it was disturbed. And the 30% was overall contract if the City has to take it over. That is why the 30% does need to be in there. Leslie: OK. And I would like to amend condition #7 to throw that one out and add "This approval is subject to all terms and conditions of the findings and order resolution of December 15, 1992". That way we don't have to mumble And I would also add item #8 based upon David's comments--"The applicant shall adhere to all representations made during the conditional review." David: And #5 gets what language? Leslie: #5 we added that this is already included in the original letter of credit. I read into the record what #7 is and added #8. MOTION David: I will move to amend the 8040 Greenline approval with the following condition #1 through #6 as stated in the staff memo as previously modified by Leslie's language for #7 and #8 as also stated by Leslie. (attached in record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:05pm. /--nupÂ»/Â»1/7Â«27-- Janice 4@i~~Carney,-City De~dty Clerk 16 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- *L 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 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 1*4942 C. Welton Andei~bi, Chairman ATTEST: F O ~Â»(flÂ« Jan ay, Bâ‚¬puty City/Flerk f .P 1.../.99 Â·Â· ikA j u . I 6 1 ... 1/, t.. 4 , . 17 . I .1 9.4 0:2 116 10 -ltâ€¢ . 'tu Â·Â·t 'K. : '' / , iE* . %Â· I rÂ· EASEMENT AGREEMENT .. THIS AGREEMENT,made this ____30. day of Uug"Ulttl~-, 1987, by and between JACK BARKER (hereina fter referred to as "Barker") , and the CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter referred to as "City"). w 1-T_N_E_21.-i_E_I_H WHEREAS, Barker is the owner Of certain real property commonly known as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, Barker is also the holder of Special Use Permit which affects certain property owned by the United States Forest Service; and WHEREAS, the City is desirous of obtaining an easement across Barker's property and the right to use the United States i TÂ¢tc Forest Service property for the purpose of constructing a recreational trail; and 4 WHEREAS, Barker is desirous of granting an easement across tis property and allowing the use of the United States Forest Service property upon the terms and conditions contained herein, NOW THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and . valuable consideration, and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 44 1. EasementÂ· Barker hereby grants to the City, its ; successors and assigns forever, the following described perpetual and non-exclusive trail easement and right-of-way, for multi- 1Â¢2 recreational use, including but not limited to, croms country ~ skiing, hiking, bicycling, equestrian and other uses, over that property described as Driveway and Trail Easement in Exhibit A, . 4, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and he ' hereby grants to the CitY the right to utilize certain real :n:i~: T:?~11:roned hy thrd~~ed~ $I:tesea~ CJic: , C which Barker has the right to use pursuant to a Special Use property ownel by the United States Forest Service shall collect- ively be referred to hereafter as the "Property". 494 2. Use. The use of the Property shall include, but not be limited to, the setting and maintenance of cross country skiing tracks by mechanized equipment or by hand, as well as the - ' construction and placement of information trail markers. The City shall, at its own expense and cost, install such gates, bridges r : or other improvements as are necessary for the use and mainten- ance of th, trail located on the Property and for the passage of r track setting equipment in the winter. No construction shall be performed upon the Property except as is necessary to accommodate I the purposes of Loll grant and except with the permission of >Â¥ 1 / ...r. r J. 0.,â‚¬9 :Â»465//EL &,37 + t, 'f '0 ' 0 , ' I f *,1 0 1 474 Barker. The Prcperty hereafter mu be used by any person gaining access through authorized access roints or trail heads estab- I. 1 lished and maintained by the City. Any use of snowmobiles, except for those minimally utilized by the City, snall be prohibited. 1 11 0 .1 !40 3. Maintenance. The maintenance of the Property, and all 4 facilities located thereon, shall be donr solely at the expense of the City. Anythirg to the contrary contained herein notwith- 1 & lt-F,-, I : :tanding, any damage caused due to negligence of avy person who rses or has used the Pronâ‚¬ .ty pursuart to the authority of the '6 14 1. City shall be the respons.bility of the City. - 1 r 4. Ng Ea__semellt_I.gr Acgq~A. Nothjng contained herein " 1111 shall De construed to grant as easement acrosg any other prnperty , lilli A- 1 - 11 owned by Barker in order for individuals tu gain acc=tss to the Property. The City shall i.,ovide and maintain reasonable access and trail h.ad Foints in order to minimize the opp.rtill ttleg for ~ 1~*,41,1 entering or leaving the Prorenty, Â¥11 4 5. Indemnity_and_ Insurance. The City shall hold Barker . harmless and indemnify him against any and all claims, liability, . 11.1 loss, expense, damages or causes of actiors including all legal 1 1 k. fees, for damages arising after the commencement of the term ' hereof and any order, decrees or judgments which may be entered therein, brought for damages or alleged damages resulting from injury to person or property or the loss of life sustained in or 7 re Ia, Ui 3 about the Property, and from any damage or injury of any kind to , Barker's Proper,y, or for any matter or thing growing out of the USe or occupation of the Property, or any part thereof, or pongession occasioned by the City, its agents, employees or assigns, respectively, or which may be occasioned by any person or thing whatsoever or which may be caused by the operations of the City or any of its agents, in the construction of any . EA , mprovements on the Property. It is the intention end agreement ./Â·1 that Barker shall not be liable for any personal injuries or .1 4, 4, '1-1 2 '9 damage to any persons to persons utilizing the Property, however, nothing described herein shall excuse, reduce, release Barker . . -69. from regligent, recklessness or deliberate acts, claims, expen- . Â·Â·4.PÂ·' 4â‚¬ 4, ses, damages, or causes of action, including legal fees by : himself, agents, employees or asjigns which result in claims 1 agaii,st the City or Barker. The City shall maintain adequate _ liability and property damage insurance covering the Property and evidence c: the same shall be furnished to Barker. 6. No Interference. The exercise of the rights granted P' $ t.~/ herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with the C,t..1 use of the properties burdened hereby. ..1. 7. Construction. The rule of strict construction aoes not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable Z. construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a ,~' ./t mutually usable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out. 4 5; 8. Notices. All notices, demands and communications , .4, g 't *. uy'Â·Ap. .t .P.,IZ#*1'Epe- f 1 1 . - .. 14- f. b : 4 .. . 2'.Â£ *: ./. ' ' L - 1.%, I ' i ,.,... #t 8 71 1 .4. f r required hereunder shall be served or given to the respective party at its respective address as set forth below or aâ€¢ other- wise designated in the manner set forth herein. All notice, demand or communication shall be given by personal service, or certified mail, return receipt requested with first class postage pre-pald thereon, and unless sooner, received three (3) days afcer the date of certification. The address of the parties , F hereto are Jac< Barker Poi,t Office Box 3379 , Aspen, Colorado 81612 City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 9. Us.ismmenks- This Agreement shall not be assignable in whole or in part, without written consent of the other party, which consent shall be unreasonably withheld. 10. Attorney#_Feel. Should any party hereunder be required ~ ~ to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of ary of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other party all of its reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs. Jurisdiction for 3 any legal proceeding shall be witnin the District Court, Pitkin County, Colorado. 11. Running_gf ret:efits and Burdens. All provibions of the instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the lands owned by the parties herein which are affected hereby, and are binding upon and inure to the assigns and successors of the ~ 0 parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. 74 CITY OF ASPEN 1 . .5. ~ ~ y ~_ kt - JACK BARKER , STATE OF COLORADO ) ~â€¢ 44 . ' :9-1 Col'INTY' OF PITKIN ) 4 l ' Th, foregoing document wa, acknowf~*0~ed/4nd ,lworn to bofore r mâ€¢4411. N day of WI>dIA Â£4 . 1987 ,/bl ikt K BARKER. Of /F/1\ Al . 0Â¥ 5.-31. 4 : 0.+fall' fl \4'4 - 6. UP,Etb ' PYary 'ubild j ~,i.'3. / - 3. 0*;19-4 i. 41-,~0'864.> 1.1.. ~ t ~,114.*,1.,< ./.liietite ' .: 4,2. /*i?114 : . , "!b:* * ' 'r,0 610 ,.,ht[) ' STATE OF COLORADO ) :88 4 COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing document was acknowledged and 0,(or, ke Jb,fore , me this ..St day of 11(Â£4,2.1 , 198'7, as (&4 (10 /" X City of Aspen. -h 111 k.ke \1'! C /ts Wize- Notary Public - 0 1 k 1. f i.. 1 U. A. 6 3,(10. 1,f'Â·2 .4/ 71 Q *.4 1 0 . --19 0><1*~~1 Â· 4-e.,1 -2.--s#2 . -===3-2442-%- ------ N .-~461~:b. .A .... 1/4 I \\\ . 1 .. \ ' fr *42::'3512/52*E-- .- -h/-04 I -P. - 2.--7 fl,1 1 1 . 3--~ -~/Â·Le- u . I. - . sig./.~..1:/ .<- =.)/.1Â»~ 1 -- B. rxhibit "A" to r.â€¢sehent ArreenÂ·pt h'tween .'ar! Darker "Â· ' th, f il of Â»41'en Ad00 NOOd I Y> . 4 , f,72 y r . 422 4, 3 9*. â€¢14 . - F .-&. . j~i.- -I --5-- -I--~ **30* Bi M-.k+I" -14 i ..- 2:1?Jil t:.im #Lei ./. 0 4- Â£.2 L. .,t , f.0 ./ 9 %4Â« , eM Ittekh ti e 40â„¢' 7Â· : 4.*RA,#I,&:Â£=Â£."In.... /61 Y EWA/9 :- 19 .4- ~~745*Z~.4-3--tt- 1, --A- 4,; 'a :. 4', ra .1: Â·'p14 .. ." 0 .4 .. , -r 4.=-7 Â· - . 1. .'. 9 4/./ I .' , 1 41 .. 0 14%, cÂ·:..cil.klij...:. 24Â» , 4. 2 4Â¢345940 06,017/92 16:28 Rec â€¢45.00 Bk 681 PG /47 511 . t A Davis, Fi tt i n Cnty Clerk, Doc *.00 1*ilÂ·211Â·Nt Al.Id.1Â·)11.UV ' 4 Â·.4 v Â°K, 4 E ...A'. 7 ' %34 This Easement Agreenent ("Agr,vintÂ·Â·nt") h made this _..*_ day of . 1 1,,NE , 1992 by il,Id blÂ·twiÂ·en c . itÂ·Lk ir; Miller ;tlid Stanley -4 , R. Shaffran (antlectively, "MS") and Joseph M. 7.aluba 1111(1 lk,unld C. Collen (collectively, "72'), 111*) st tile a.4 h,1 1 r,ws : IYHEHEAS, on or atnut Harch 21 , 1989 an 1Â·'iesanent Agrefrnent ("Easement Â¢ Agregrent") was recorded in the Pltk!,1 (.1>imty, f-olorado, "tiblic Records . I in Book 588 at Page 212 which crefit,rÂ·,1 Fln *Â·i.>Â·,~fli,Â·lit. over real plÂ·oporty nciw I ' c,wred bv 74 known af tot 3, Ikiag j?,ildivlsinn, City of A.Â·41*m, County of Pltkin, State of (hlorade, for l.he henel jtÂ·â€žI real pn,pe,Â·tv now owned 44*--3 : by HS, known as the Nevroundl Bnd irxleâ€¢ Minim: Chilm, U.S.M..9. 5190, j ~ * Bunty of Pitkin, State of a,lorado; and I 1 + I 7 0 WHEREAS, the uy,eR and 10,Â·ation of 1 1,9 4'Ll.(irk'lit areR giÂ·Â·anted by the ; Easemen t Affreâ‚¬rnent are now difterunt, 11,u; t):irt 1{,> WliÂ·ih U, .41.-4 1 1> the p exact location of the enserlent nrea, to <11,Â·11141Â· define ri Klits under this new easement ntÂ·nd und to 18Â·ant Jul,Ii 1 iâ€žn,1 ,Â·:r.il,lt'llt tÂ·ight q :,IK| itreas; AIX| Ptl WHERMS, tile parties hereto are destrons ol establishing certain procedures for the sharing of costs of construction and maintenance of the easenent areas; NOX, 11!KIEUUE, the parties, ill <'unbideration of 1!leir mutual promises ri 1 and covenants herein, cio hereby al:ree as fc)11(nei : 1. Thig Agreement shall Kilw,rhede nli right 4 and privileges granted 1 1, f under the Fasment Agretrrient recorried in Pitkin County, State of Colorado, Public Record,Â· in [1 x,k 588 :, 1 Puge 212, on or about March 21, 1989. noth parties agree thilt this Agreement shall be the , only Agrennent in force tjet:ween t.lie Ii:~,Â·ties unliÂ·99 superseded by , Ally a future ngrerient. 2. MS agrees that the portion of the iond const.ntellxt under the terina ~Â· * 1 of the Easemenl Agre#,ent which ts nol also part or the eawnents granted or contirmed hereby, 'ilmll be reveget.aled by 7Â£ as required ~, hv the City of Aspen. 2 and KS ackitriwledge thal vehicular use of X tile sk! trail, which is not. located within any portion of the easement as now defined, is probil,1 lixt . ./.C slu, 11 1*utÂ· tile entire cost Â» ASSOCI 111 4 wi t h revom_'tat ion of this road. 3. MS acknowledges and afrrees that 7Â£ IM the owner of the property which was the subject of <Afiet '11 tle Action 82-(V--159 und that MS has no further claim in or to Hilid properly. t. * P . fi .1.... - 1 , *W - 4 - Mt Â·Â· 1 1 Rtiu_ CtÂ«(4 R 7.11 -7 . ttic (Vy l f/9 .0 lÂ» -i . -42Â· I -1 7* .1. 44 ~akâ€¢ ak,tat 'Â· .~a. 't .1 9. , T., t. -ir,4 h 9,0" 7.47' .: 1 22, tr' - .f hvmr J.Â£d # & -..la. -4 4 4 *345940 06/17/92 36:28 her. $45. 00 81: 681 PG 1 48 /4- 0% 1 5. . Silvia E,vis, Pitkin CritÂ·, ClerkÂ·, Doc $.00 . .,4/7 - 1. M hereby gru,11 4 to MS an (Nwal,en| 01 |149'UNS ;lfil| tâ€¢grl-14% |fir ' . Â· 71% -# I . . 4 roadway linl,rovilments for Plxle'Â·;tri Ult Hitil vi,IliculntÂ· traffic, . 2'Â·4!4 ine.luding retention structures, and toiÂ· r.he installation. repair, Â£ 4 S constrcution, placâ‚¬ment, maintenance, replacentint, and operation of such underÂ·ground pipes, lines, and cond,11 1.9 8.4 my be necessary A /1 . I to Convey water, gus, and eleceÂ·left.v, or any other utility to i. either party's properly, all for Lhe exelusive use of 7Â£ and MS, tlieir rest)ect Ive hel M , i,214'4'I-if,<,tÂ·H, 1,1111 lk>,!:it:114, tlrun the property deserlhed on t.Â·khihi t "A" as af t.uched lierao and incorporated herein â€¢ t.pÂ·Off..Lf by t'his ri.ference, and descril,Â«1 therean as the "20.00 Fool Wide '' tkjadway Easement" ChetÂ·eintifter, the "lloudway Ensullent '). Â·**11' 72 fitrt.her grants to MS art exclusive easement of ingress, egress. and parking, for driveway, parking, and turnaround improvements . 4..,.47..4 . frnÂ· pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including retention structures, Â·Â· 4 Â· ' and for installation, repair, const rlicÂ·t.!un, placement, maintenance, . replacement, and operation of stich underground plpes, lines, and cor,duits as mn he n<.ceÂ·iNiure' 1- ponvtÂ·v 41,Â·r, i.b , 01â‚¬,~:1.rleity, '~ ' or ally (9111(11Â· 11[ility Ic) the. Al& 1,1Â·ritx,irr. Iil,~,i, 11,4Â· i,iÂ·t,Virty described on Fhhibit "A", as at.t.ached li,Â·tÂ·cdo und i Inorporot (41 herein by this 1 *isÂ¢44, i ~. ., rrference, und (ltr,crihix' ther,-un tui ''thÂ·ivt,vity, 1â€¢,11Â·king, und 01'Urn- 2 around Eascrrnent'' (hereintifter, the "Ilriveâ€¢'ity Elt.â€¢;al*-,tit"). CE Â£44 49 3 .Â· r .6 11Â» "lk,adway 1/49, ment" and the "Drive,vity Fasunent" shall be collectively yr~ 'I referred to heroin ns the ''1Eascment Al(NU;"Â· 1 1 5. Tnthe event either party installs utilities; of unv type within it > Â·t.Wk' 41 thr, Fbadway Easenent, and the other party wishes at a later date 1. to Lip into any of those utilities, that other partÂ·y may do mo -1* , ; Â·4 + * 104 4 0, uper, payment to the party who installed the util l lies an amount , -' Jill '! 4 Â«lual to 50% (Fifty percent) of the inst of that installation, but B L. ~lit ~ Â· only to t.he point where the tap is maule, of the utilities tapped into. 2 MS shall alw hnve tile right to lap int.0 utilitti.*4 und obtain .to easanents therefor, for any wility i,nd installation by M that ': 1 do Int ent.er the Rondway Easenent, wit.h tile same payment plan , 1) .. as described above, 7 V 11& f . - Tap fees pidd hy any parly lieret.0 lo ully Knver,mintal entity for " connection to any utility service bli,11 1,0 the reNponsibility of ' the party pitylint: 111nt fe,., und cont 11,1,1 1â€ž11 th<.redâ€ž >Â·.ImI] not be f L sought by the plging party f 1'11 the ulher purty, f <4 4 ~ The above grant of Easenent Areas does not include access from the '' present location of Ute Avenue (.1 cily street within the City of 1 T Aspen ) through t.he United States Forest Service hind, and each -ye,i r i 42% p party herÂ·eto has an obligation t,4 01Â·}tilin whillever e,Ismerit or permit ' u :4.,~ i 1 which niny lie nfresâ€¢Â·mrv ri.rn the thil ted St:,1 1,9 14,1Â·ext Service or any other Federal, State, or local goverilmental authority for that 1 Party's use of the Faserient Areas, 1 4 9 -2- 1 1 172 *1,6 3. 414. 8-0 44 - A= 1 2*Af T ;, ' 4 4 6,4 A. 9,97 't>.â€¢lic t. u . b + 1-1 - 1 , 1, iÂ¥' ../. 9. ' '' 4. i .9 2 ...Al 'te . * . i. I. r, 6- 1 Â¢ . 6 6-t.,1 1. .1 ' fi' ..49 -Mr 4#~I: *3467.1,Â· 06, 1 A'92 16:28 1?ec â€¢45.00 RE 681 PG 1401 1 -1~*. ' >1. 911 vid De, 1 9, P'itkin Crity Cler k , Doc S. 00 9 S-9 :,40 1 6. Neither party hereto shall r,!,Mt.ruct, imprde, or interfere with . 3 t. I , the other 's reupionable use of the 1*indwily En:(ment , a>, Huch use - 4 427,/4 is set forth herein. . *i 7. 'Ihe partj OS hereto agree to hluire id 1 of t.lio (Â·cwts Of col*tru *tion and mintenance of the Jmproviments macle to the Rn:,rlway Easenent, including, lint nr,1 limili,1 1-0, 1%31Â·mits an,! appl init ions that are in the name of and benef'it. both parties, legal, engineering, anci insurance fees that benefit both inrties as well :u, r'rwiterials and labor costs associated with rn:,king the jint,toverntÂ·nts end any other fee or cost of any type or nature which ts reasonably necessary *Hi and 18 assortiated with 01Â· incurred in or as part of such improvenents. 32 All improvements made or Imintenance prformed to the Easenent Areas i shall be macie in a useal>le, nent, und url I fo m mitiner. In the event ' ri any improvallenl ; mude to th,Â· i':t>i, menl AtÂ·ens alÂ·e dan,98-<1 by the f.' Det:lect or mitÂ·ele#SneSS c if' c,1 4 lit tÂ· 1,1,01 v , f )10 m, n 10<Â·hul l. 01 unreum,011- nl,le wpar and t,wr by eitherÂ· 1,10Â·tv, 113,1, the palÂ·ly causing Ruch l i damp.ge shall, In a timely rruittiti31Â·, reD:,!1 the Impir,ve,nent to Its 'â€ž condition prior to such damage, al 1 1,1 Lhat purly' s NO] e cost and expeng'. 4 All cosâ„¢ cir,yir'ribed tn flit,Â·4 i,id,â‚¬â€¢tÂ·i,1 1,;i,Â·me'nph sh:ill hereinafter ~~ ,, be relenÂ·ed 1.0 11:,1 "11111#*rk Â·tit U).il " trnÂ· "!114,1Â·ovi.ine L Cowls", the " following Shull IX, i:ntt.Â·iflâ€¢,1 1 1 1.- ' A. 11,e parly who will De incurring the Improv.ment Cbst shall . 1,11 M ' submil to the other putÂ·tv a detailed estimate of the j +14,GE, 0 , ImprovtÂ·inent Cist, which ,Â·,hall include, without limitation, -~"t IM *I- ' 4 a comy of all aski,clal ed or related bid.4, proposed or actual Â¥1Â·X" 4 Contrilets, draw'ing>;, pl.,Ins, specifications, proposed and al tornate payment plans, and all other documents and treterials "' *1 '1 r e . 2 which may relate to such Improvenents Costs or to the need f A for the work which shall result in the Improvanent Cbsts. .N 1Â·. 1 B. After receipt of all materials describid in the above â€¢ Aragnwh A., the other im,Â·f v sh.ill have ten (10) days to n.view A w.â€¢ :Interint i ;:IRI ej Ille,Â· approve ntÂ· (11>mppri 'ie, in a 9 ..1 ., writing delivered to the' 01 31,7Â· inirly, cillier the Im:)rovement .. 01Â· the Improvirnent (1 Â»it x p, upaÂ· i.d lur th.. Improveme,lt C. If approved, or neither upproved nor disal,proved al the expiration ,)f said ten (10) day period, the i,ork. as proposed, /6 may be corrmenced hy the party proposing the Imprrivenent, and j , thiâ€¢ other party *liall become lial le for une-hal [ thereof , (to the C..unt as prrivided elfle,4410re herein), Dayable when any I bill or other evidence of the delit created by the Improvenent shall become due or has been paid, i . 1 jit 9Â· 1 *i i -3- 'K 1 . 1 . LS' I' .... 0 01 - I.-:9% , Â·Â· 0 r. fr. n ? . .Y '6 f. ' r...30 1 J r le 1.1 Â»,14 9 ... 14- 4 4, ..â‚¬ 0.40 I W A ,Â©41 - W. Nlt ' :. '' %:/ 1/a,u"&9X ''3'I 4 .1 - 1. i Â· 4 406..b-17/Weelmi"/MiN 1 ./L~A. "91. >72 " .f. i ' lial. 1*3/15940 06/1, '92 16:28 Rec *45.00 BK 681 PG I â‚¬0 - .... I â‚¬11 .1.4 114/ls, Puttin Cnty Clerl , Doc I.,)O 06 r *,1 .4* 1.4:,J . I A - I 4. I D, If disapproved, the disapproving party shall state, in - writing, the specific objections which the disapproving i ; sugge.st alternatives ucceplible to the disapproving party. party has to the Improvement or the ImprovE,nent Costs, and , ' . 'fhe part i eh' shall then, acting in good faith, attenpt to resolve , in twenty (20, dnvs any iNS,leS in dispute between them. If the Partl,â€¢1. liture not reached an agreement within said twenty (20) days, tile dispute shall, at written dEmand of either rarty, be submitted to binding arbitration. frE '7' .& Said arbitration shall be conmenced by br, th parties choosing an arbitrator, 8 1 thereafter, the two arbi trators choosing , a third arbi t rator. Each arbitrator shall be a local contractor, 74.4441 . r engineer, or architect (such titles being given their usual and custanary meaning). Other titan as may be in conflict with the provisions hereof, the arbitration proceedings shall be conducÂ·Ind in nerâ€žr<lance .vi l!1 1 Ile then current rules for arbitration , as used by the American Arbitration Association, - ~f:41Â£4 ~ E. The Driveway Ensen,ent shall be for the exclusive use of MS, title shall bear all costs associated with the construction - Â«92- f pnd maintenance of the easenent, without contribution for wrÂ·' f. I . fi-,P,Â·. 3 1 , same by M. i # 4 F. In the event either party hereto shall no longer require, }34., k and does not use the Roadway Easenent, that party may convey 2 4 ; .4 Al ,42 3 to the ether party all of that party's right title, and interest to the Roadway Easement, and shall thereafter be released from any and all obilgations to maintain the Roadway Easement improverne,1.-3. t hit A G. In the event that it should beoome necessary to change the 1, e 4 ?41 location of either of the EaMEment Areas, the parties hireto 1 . 41 shall cooperate with each other, in good faith, for the purpose % of establishing nev areas for either or both of the easements i 9 4 as described herein. i In the event that a change of the easement location is for the benefit, or is cal.1,Â·ed by the action or inaction of only one party, &1- 1 924. i then that party shall bear all costs associated with the change ~ 4 of the Easement Area, as well as subsequent improvment to the = - *2 4 % new Easement Area to match the impnovements of the original 9 :i Easement Area, and to return, to the extent that is practical, .. :er< - ~=Pâ‚¬ the original Easenent Area to its natural stale as it existed prior to its impruvt,nent. -1 .1 -1 H. This Easement shall be recorded in the Public Record.s of Pitkin County, Colorado, and all provisions of the Easanent, including . its benefits and burdens, shall run with the lands affected B~ 1 , hereby, and shall be by such recording binding upon and inure to ..' the benefit and burden of the heire, successors, and assigns of . 4 4 the parties hereto, unless modi fled in a writing signed by all ., .~ , i parties then owning any interest in the lands refprenced herein. -4,u t. -4- jit V i VA 1. t 'T:=. . h . 4 .416 , &, v .r . F + 1 U 4 7,134% . 1 ...~ ~ ...t 4/ , 1 * "'Â·. RkÂ·, Â· 4 . '' w 1.r, '97 74*-g I ' 0 6 â€¢ 0 0 c ~ v - e I . i i Â£,4 i 34 0 145941.' 06/1 r/92 16:28 Rec Â·445.00 1* 681 PG 1151 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clert , Doc *.01) ... 1. Anything to the contrary herej n not.wi thst,Lfilting, in the Â· ,K, event of any litigation or atÂ·hj triltion litÂ·igng out of , 7 110 tne Easement Agreement, the court or arbitrator having 6 jurisdiction over the parties Viall award to the prevailing , party all reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees. Â· J. Notices as desired or required hereby shall be deemed ./ . 1 effective upon mailing so long as such mailing takes place A-4.44*. -4. from within the Continental United States and is deposited, postage prepaid, certified and return raceipt requested, or . I' by Federal Express (overnight serviDe), to the addresses set forth below. NOTICES 'ID MS Nar/(11 TO 7(; Stanley Shaffran Joseph S. 7allba 0164 Lupine Drive 8894 William Oxly Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 Evergreen, Oolorado 80439 with copy toi with Copy to: Hebert S. Klein Daniel Haskell Suite 203 Suite 201 + 201 North Mill Street 3003 East Third Avenue Aspen, Cblorado Blt;11 Denver, Colorado 80206 , . or such other addresses as directed by the parties hereto, or as may be shown in the public records of Pitkin Wunty v when the title to the properties referenced here are conveyed , to another party. , MS: Ze: 0 44 . f b 1/ Â· Efuf*<-n 43)h'1*-- -- 7 â‚¬ Â·41, .- 0 DIr -- . f f , * 1 P.1 46 11.1 1 1. 4 1 3 27 - - .1 r . .. . 24 /. I Â¥60 r.*ft . . -4. A KY' I.' * ... . *re I .. - 1 drrco.Â¥k ' - ..i - r *,4 ' 14 r.â€¢ar Bur t. .,Â· Â·74 .1,Â· C 9, . 4 . t I ' , il//4/9/.LI//1,/14/,C â€¢'*420/.1,&9Â£/1103'li)/Eli, , 115*107*1 '.er,1.>. '4 + . i Y P.. . r .....FV~ ~lie#3* 1 - 4 .1 ~ l F;:Â£/$ - , 14* - ' 01 1;1594,! 06it */92 16:24 Rec $45.00 BE 681 96 161 ,Â· *44 Silvia Davis, Pitkin l.fity Cleri, Doc *.00 1. 4 4,1111 4 1 1,1 STATE OF Al â€¢- ) N SS. ' ~ COUNIY OF <A-/ ) I .I- - .1 i'' 0 Subscribed and sworn to before rtÂ·--i~, , 1992, by Gordon Miller. Witness my hand and official seal~'Â·4,2.43 ......N.--i My oorrmission expires: 11 A 'r Ir, 5 3 Vt Â·:3 3 1 139 01 704~Â·. 1 1 i: 1 f. 7 4 * Notary Public 9 '~*ti) rit ...0.f $3 .T<5, Aft MATE OF . 0,{_66.18- j Â· ; SS. :if -1, ./ 0310 6 (4)Yt ; r 1 6 1 . 4 , Subscribed and sworn to beft-re me this 4 day of '7>1 6[1~ 1 1992, by Stanley R. Shaffran, 4 ..1 , 4 0 1 Witness my hand and off icial seal. My comnies ion expires: 71/htd. Al /7% - 1, dor/14*~:' 2 ~t f -ht , Â£ 1 64 AA Uff.6 a.amâ€¢11 cl //0 L\O ' Nothry Public / r A 4. STATE OF L 0 U?A# 66 1 4 (1 ) SS. OCK]WIY CIF '>LLUDidd 7(/ ) U . b. Subscribed and sworn to before me thts 20 day of '~71,7 , 1992, < ~ by Joseph S. Zaluba, 4 41 Witness nty hand and official seal. 4 My comnission expires : 11-22-94 V U~Uhfuh) 2 + 5 d STATE OF h..al.D,Â·~.uâ€¢w-C ) ' 1, 4 .4:j ''46 .. -0/ 4 ' i' 0.. ) 89. 1 1 f>.11 Oa,WIY OF &94/ 2 9:L ) :' 4'04',,0â€žâ€ž,, J 9 4 albscribed and gworn to before me this ~ Ct- day of ('7...., .,0.f , 2,2, t, 44' 9 by Bonald C. Oollen. 1 Witneep my hana and official seal My a,Imission expi~,>- -35*,gr 7 -31 A l vÂ· 1 i tary Public , 7 /-1 . 1 Â·Â·0/nct* iLVrfF A.1.-I M. Ca. 1 '- ' -7- C Notâ€¢ry P.Wle, 31.1. .f mi.6 1 Â¢ 5 My CM.41'0'1 Eâ€¢P#,0, All, IS. 1,91 Pl /41 E.r - -4 . 4 -4 , * 14 1 6. I #1 3.4 I Â· 4 14' . 4.Â» 9.17 I f Â· ,"/4 /1 t . 1 4 - ..1 1,4 .'. -1.1 1, r 0. .K- ' I..lili%:.-' *FÂ» . 1. Y ~' .~'4;r~ 6 *'.~~iâ€ž . 4 - Â· '44, 444 1 ~~l ...... . tb. h.f,G. 4 . . . I. U. . F *345940 06/17/92 16:28 Rer *45.00 BE 681 PG lf;3 . 511 via Davis . FÂ·1 Â¢.11 n (-'Ity Cler L , Doc $.00 â€¢ ... 6 I 81212ENQUM-IQ /3.60 : Â·4 EASEMENT AGREEMENT &2 This Addendum ("Addendum") is entered into simultaneously with 1 :' the Easement Agieement ("Agreement") between Gordon Miller and Stanely R. Shaffran as "MS" and Joseph S. Zaluta and Ronald C. Collen as "Ze" and is supported by the same rlonsiderations as !.2.. expressed in said Agreement, as well as the mutual terms, conditions, and covenants set forth below, the receipt and ,-- Â·Â· -Â·Y:<*Â· 1 sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by all partiea hereto. i - In the event of a conflict between the Agreement and this Addendum, 244 the provisions of this Addendum shall govern and control. Â¥*t i,1~, 1. ZC has an easement right for the installation of 4 utilities across lands within Hoag Subdivimion, as recorded in Book 8* 4, at PÂ·â€¢ge 218. The second paragraph of paragraph 5 of the ' 4.. AqreemenL, which refers to the right of MS to tap onto utilities j 14' % I. 1 installed by ZC in areas outside of the Roadway Easement, is hereby l af firmed and rat ified, and specifically as it relates to ZC'e right , to install utilities across lands within Hoag Subdivision. +034* 6 lp' - Iliv In the event that MS destre, to tap into or install utilitiei out Mide of the Roadway Basement before ZC has installed such , ~ utilities, ZC will install, within the Roag Subdivislon utility -- 2 easement areas, such underground pipes, lines, and conduiti am may 41, be necessary to convey water, gas, electricity, or any other titil ity to the MS property, ae epecifically dlrected by MS. MS ~ K ' 2 A shall immediately rein*urse ZC for all costs for such installation 0,6 ' which are both actually incurred by Ze and also specifically authorized and directed by MS. In the event that ZC wishes to laeer tap into any of the utilities installed by ZC but paid for by Il . r 5 MS, ZC may do 80 upon payment to MS of an amount equal to f i f ty 1 143 (50%) percent of the cost paid by MS for the installation of that 9 1 9.,I k. utility to the point where the tap is made. 4,66 MS: ic: x 4-146_ '1 - borden Miller ' 1 C 1 t 1 1 (- i .It stahley ~ Shaffran Re~ald C. Collen r, 6 r . P t - e, '14 ,Â£ . :Â·J C . 4.' W.W . 4. Â·31:...44 d ... h? 4 - 5*1 1 -1 I . P /5 9 4 â‚¬:'r'- ." 41 1 I r 3 1-2 .41~494 1~.1 6 % L. 2,2-, t. 1. , .rÂ¥,240/8: . f *f.y 12?41. r. .j '91 , .. Al 4 *345940 06/17/92 16:28 R.c *45.00 BE. 681 PG PH 4/ 1 X Silvia Davis, Pit.k in Cnty Clerk, Doc 0.00 , ' 71'-, i 4, STATE OF le.-0.- ) 2â‚¬41 , A COUNTY OF LIU ,) . ~4~ Subscribed and sworn to before me thiâ€¢ 1-ME_ day ,RAN .# 6111 1 4 r , 1992, by Gordon Miller. , 17 t .Pr - Â· L Widess my hand and offici~4,Â·*~l. CAm.100*M / 7.Â· ' 9/ 14,4.6 +1 - .41 i.9 1-1 .A 11Â¥, Cf".'"I,0.1 Â©C 1-1 - f -1. i 41& : .VL :Co i . i My commission expires: 4.1 ' 1. 4 4 V 10 0 I. f 1 + 1 0Â«. u f Â£ L / 9%.. - r. I : - Notary Publid 'J STATE OF -CU, 1% 1 ... t. i COUNTY OF ~' f-h*._ 1 rk t' 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this // day of 'pl a ~ 4 , 1992, by Stanley R. Shaffran. Witness my hand and official seal. 4 10' '0 1400.,isâ€¢lon expireâ€¢: 791,d. 2 -D /190 . ct' -pend ' 4% Â·,3 % r I 7)10-8 - 49(uti.=.m (i j; 4 0 5'Â· Ay. 0 b Not!ary Public I 1 *64 I. sTATE '81 6.6uuk- j i .4Â¥ f 1 , ... COUNTY OP ~1~1162/V ) I I 4. 11 + 4 1 - Subâ€¢cribed and iworn to before mi thle % f 1* day 01 0.71 in.1 0 , 1992, by Joieph S. Saluba. /14/1 .94 Ft/*--" Witne,â€¢ my hand and official seal. 0 i.Â»..A P, 4~ ,~~~,13 r.#11"*ommiâ€¢sion expire.: ,}-22.94 1 1 t ,~red* 271 ~71-U,4 j 4.1 A Notar$ Public -2- 6 , A e* i. - 4. Â· h'.p ./.Â·.4 ... Â· ' C D y ..' . /B ,. 'H .-3 6 .., ./.1 A' 4 - Â£9"9"'Fip&4*,6/ki ... . El ~14*1 ,%"Fi.,XM<'P'h. b ' -' :. 40%.2,#.3 :<i.ir' 7/447*4*142*7/1*P,E..4 0 S. 3.Â· Â£ ' 1 4% I 74/k 1Â» It #4*Ellowâ€¢:r, , ~. . #345940 06/17/92 16:28 Ret *45.00 84. mel PG <~ ' Silvia Davis, FitlÂ·Ln Cnty Clerk, Doc *.00 1-- - - STATE OF L.+11Â£4 1 L.,24 Â¥ 1-1 , 0: COUNTY OF d .2 ) 00. 44 / ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me thie .L- day of ' #. Â¥.+ 2 L. , 1992, by Ronald C. Collen. Witnese my hand and official eeal. 11. VII My commiesion expires: 51 /5 / -t. S C ,-ri~6<72Â· FCAL h ; .4 4 9 "OFFICIAL BEAL" Notary Public E -1 . 47(. 2/62121/ Ant-u M. Cawy .-1 . i Wy Comm.on Emâ€¢- -y 15. 1993 - shaffran\67 , '1 , f I 7/ .5 fl - 'tt 4 h q f j. 3 4 .. '41 A 1. . . - 7.: h, i.* -- ' 4 '. 1 n d F. Â·7;V Â· a D k.-1 & EWA \f r S U P E CCEDEP ':i euc, 5.41% 2,521.2 r>tr EASEMENT AGREEMENT ~~ between JACK BARKER (hereinafter referred to' as "Barker"), and y THIS AGREEMENT, trade thisâ‚¬1Aday of ~1â€¢V , 1987, by and k ~ SMUGGLER-DURANT MINING CORPORATION ot New York, New York, (hereinafter referred to as "Smuggler-Durant"). .i WITNESSETH " 35 be.1 li WHEREAS, Barke. is the owner of certain real property commotily known as lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and property known as the Newfoundland Lode, County of Pitkin, State WHEREAS, Smuggler-Durant is the owner of certain real I of Colorado; and + #ga WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of agreeing upon the use M <Q~ by Smuggler-Durant Of a driveway on Barker's property Tor driveway purposes and ski access; and WHEREAS, the parties, by this agreement, wish to make ' 4 provisions for the unobstructed use of the driveway improvements and ski access for ingress and egress and for the maintenance of 'Jil said improvements for their mutual benefit; and . 1 f NOW THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and '~ valuable consideration, each in hand paid to the other and in J 4 consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained â€ž ~ herein, it is agreed as follows: , =- C 4 1. Easement. Barker hereby grants to Smuggler-Dur,nt a non- I exclusive easement of ingress and egress over so much of their respective property as is recessarY to accommodate the ski access and driveway improvements, for vehicular traffic, and for 1:he installation, repair, construction, placement, maintenance, replacement and operation of such underground pipes, lires or ~ ~ ~ conduits as map- be necessary to convey water, gas or electricity, I 1 or any other utility, to any party's property, the exact location fp4 of which shall be designated upon a survey to be prepared by 1 Alpine surveys and subject to the reasonable approval of the parties. In no event, however, shall the easement be greater than ~ -0 thirty (30) feet in width, nor shall the roadway as constructed I j be wider than fifteen (15) feet in width. i 2 1. In the event either party installs utilities of any type within the easement and the other party wishes at a later date to "tap on" to said utilities, that party may do so upon the payment 3 ' ' to the party installing the utilities in the first instance of an l amount equal to fifty (50) percent of the cost of the installat- N ion of said utilitie:. r The parties further agree to execute any and all documents as may be appropriate when the exact legal description of the i easement has been prepared by Al pine Surveys in order to evidence I the exact location of the easement upon the Barker property. r 2. Obstructions. The parties hereto agree not to obstruct, 1 Ill . 4 ..4 I Y rev' 0. *Â· Â·7 + j m. 1 - A -- 1, Â« , - 8000 544 9,64213 p .% impede or interfete one with the other in the reasonable use of such driveway improvements for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from their properties, or with the use of the driveway for c Al r4 ski access by the parties hereto or any other third patty. . eli . ... .1 3. Construction and Maintenance. The parties hereto agree to share all of the costs Of construction and maintenance of *ho r respective driveway improvements, including but not limited to ' any legal fees, englneering fees, insurance fees or any other ' fees of any type or nature, associated with or incurred in the .4 : obtaining if approval of this driveway access easement from any F governmental entity whether it be the City of Aspen, Pitkin i. < county or the United States Forest Service, or any cost of any type incurred in the constiuction of the driveway improvements. ,Â·.fâ€ž In the event one party chooses to erect improvements upon its .b %3# property prior to the time when the other party does so, the 1.'.ee party first erecting inprovements shall bear the entire costs of spicw removal until such time as the other party begins the construction of improvements on its propertyÂ·. The improvements K 14-P - 11 4,31, shall be constructed in a usable, neat and uniform manner. Anything to the contrary contained herein notwithstanding, any **1*L ' J. damage due to the negligence of any person who uses or has used ~ kt the driveway improvement pursuant to authority of either party , 2'41 1 4 4. m. hereto shall be the responsibility of the party so negligent or , .1 '~2' r P who granted such authority. 0 / :*R 6 4. Future Improvements. The parties hereto agree that if : ~ 4 0 the location of any roads in the City of Aspen or the County of J Pitkin are changed, and such change affects either of the parties her'eto, they will meet for the purpose of creating any new , , easements as may be recessary. They further agree to cooperate with each other if the relocation or the creation of these new I i easements is necessary to the end that neither will be denied I t full access to its property for the purposes discussed herein. 9.-I. i j 5. No Interference. The exercise of the rights granted herein by either party shall not unreasonably interfere with the ~~ use of the propetties burdened hereby. 6. Constraction. The rule of strict construction does not '.mr j apply to this grant. Thls grant shall be given a reasonable i U construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a 1-0. mutually ueable right of enjoyment on each other is carried out. I 1 1 :,04 7. hotices. All notices, demands and communications required t , 4 hereundur shall be served or given to the respective party at its t respective address as set forth below or as otherwise designated I in tha manner set forth herein. Any notice, demand or communicat- ion shall be given by personal service or certified mail, return ~ receipt requested with first class postage pre-paid thereon, and i ur,less sooner, received thlee (33 days after the date of certif ication. The address of the parties hereto are as follows: f Jack Barker Post Office Box 3379 Aspen, Colorado 81612 . 2 . 1.7 . ...a--re /1 . '78 .... 91:L . 1.' . -:44Â·i 4 11- ..â‚¬. . Effrt, 5%9 ev 214 Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation cio Martin Kahn, Esquire 415 East Hyman Avenue k Aspen, Colorado 81511 4 + I 8. Attorneys' Fees. Should anY party hereunder be required .: j -* U to resort to legal 01 equitable process for the enforcement of , any of the prOVISLOns of this Agicement, the prevailing party 0 x shall be entitle'd to collect from the other party all of its t,usonable attoineys' fees, expenses and costs. Jurisdiction for 4 any legal proceeding shall be within the District Court, Pitkin Â¥ ~ A County, Colorado. *t 9. Running of Benefits and Burdens. All provisions of this instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the lands owned by the parties 1 erein which are affected hereby. and -4-t are binding upon and inure to the assigns and successors of the A# I paitte: telÂ·eto. 41 10. Execution of Documents. Upon the full execution hereof, Smuggler-Durant agrees to execute any and all documents necessary to quiet title in that property which is the subjnct of the ' lita . 4 3 12* - I . dispute between the parties hereto, in Barker, including but not El 1 -f..4..~39,1 2... 1 limited to the approfriate Stipulation to be filed with the District Court in and fc,Â· Pitkin County, Colorado. 4:q ?. *c IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their D hands and seals the day and year first above written. \ /1/ J..2 - D SMUGGLER-DURANT MINING CORPORATION 1 '424 /AL4Klwjf: By:'A,44Q A/56-v JACK BARKER 2 Phylll~ Koteen, President 1 ) SS. ~10 E '/41711 COUNTY OF PITKIN ) - The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn to before me L/â‚¬TATE OF COLORADO ) .it,i:f' ~';Cithist~b day of L/ 1 -' 1987, by JACK BARKER. 4hp,e ~.Â·'*f My commission expires:lj ~ \ [ f I .......... 0 2 witness my hand and 41 4 0, to'.â€¢'e i MU Â«94Â»7Â»- f ~,w~~44 ,/ official seal. N'6tary I'4~lic STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. 1 11 ..........0...... OF PITKIN ) 4 K A H *Â·'.6 COUNTY . 'I Â·"-0- al Q.. QX Ji: Wrtcl:y dNume~ was acknowledged and sworn to before I o , 1987, by Phyllis 1~teen as sident of SMUGGLER-DURANT MINING CORPORATION. / , 12224''ex /2, r' <Ty commission expires: 4. 1 /1 61Atness my hand and li5*4-/C k__ - 1 "2ikRotfbfficial seal. NÂ©tary Public ~ - / 91. 3 1 .4 1 1- . '4*Â£ 1'*' '12 '...2;~~:; ~3.2 i.- 64 - ,. fdoffIE-D)--- AUG 2 3 1996 August 21, 1996 John Forier , THE CITY OF ASPEN Box 11 Wolcott, CO 81655 Subject: Water Service to Newfoundland Lode Property Dear Mr. Forier: The Aspen WaterDepartment recently received a copy ofPitkin County's 1041 approval permitting a single family dwelling on the subject property. Paragraph 6 of Pitkin County Resolution 91-87 specifies that the approval is subject to the provision of water service through the City of Aspen's ' municipal system. Please be advised that prior to providing water service, the City of Aspen will require the execution of a water service agreement. Because the property is located outside of the present City limits and willtikely require a water main extension to adequately serve the property, the agreement will require approval by City Council. The enclosed materials will provide you with. the necessary forms and information necessary to file an application for water service. You will note that Council must find that any application for water service and the development itself is consistent with policies. The enclosed application materials include a summary ofthe standard conditions which apply to water service extensions outside the current City limits. If you wish to pursue extension of City water service to the property, please feel free to contact me at 920-5111 regarding the application requirements. Sincerely, Phil Overeynder, Water Director CC: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development John Worcester, City Manger enc: Water Service Agreement application materials PO:rl \ let.142 130 Souni GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5000 Â· FAx 970.920.5197 Printed on Recycled Paper PUBLIC NOTICE RE: VALERIO/JOHNSON CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT & 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Highlands Investment, Ltd., requesting Conditiona Use Review approval for a 412 square foot studio Accessory Dwelling Unit. The studio Accessory Dwelling Unit will be located at the lower level of the unit at the front side with a separate exterior entry. The applicant is also requesting 8040 Greenline approval to construct a new single family residence. The property is located at 1125 Ute Avenue, and is described as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093. s/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439 July 23, 1996 Gibson & Reno Architects 210 E. Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use for ADU Review Case A50-96 The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review o f 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 3, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date. we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is avaiiable at the Community Development Department. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case. Suzanne Wolff, at 920- 5093. Sincerely. Rhonda Harris Administrative Assistant apz.ph MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Parks City Zoning FROM: Suzanne Wolff RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review & Conditional Use Review for ADU (Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3) DATE: July 18, 1996 The Hoag Subdivision was approved by City Council in 1971. An 8040 Greenline approval for Lot 3 was granted by the Planning Commission in 1990 (Resolution No. 90-4). This approval was revoked in 1993 (Resolution No. 93-7). The driveway will be shared with the adjacent owner ofthe Newfoundland Lode. The portion of the driveway from Ute Ave. to Hoag Lot 3 is outside ofthe City limits and was reviewed under the County's 1041 hazard review regulations. The driveway is currently under construction. Please return your comments to me by August 9. ',AUG-05-1996 09:32 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEU TO 9-9255993 P.04 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees /6 9 k lo-Ads/Ru c ik-e c k f CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and K Odh -34 t. h. 9 D-yl (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1 1 ' 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an applikat.on for l/Urâ‚¬)214/18 07\ go 99 GleÂ£Â·plÂ« / (-441.A on- J t/lu Ammu t , (hereinafter,1 THE PROJECT). 2. 'APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of A ipen Ordinance No. 53 !(Series of 1995) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because bf the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full eixtent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to alIow APPLICANT to makd payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter petimil additional costs to 4e billed to APPLICANT on a momhly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be blenefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments Upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary las costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty cf recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4 CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is in~prac ticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Rlanning Commission and/or City Council to enable the +Pls nning Commission I and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billi?gs are paid in full prior to decision. 11 1 TFI : Aug 05.96 9:59 Nn.001 P.01 1 h 1 1 1.- 1 1 . 1 I 1 1 5 1 0-hre, 43,6]CANT 4- thâ€¢ 111 04*4*iod of *0 CatÂ¥" s 10 li . 1 . 1 4 *liver bf 16 rlght to 0011â€¢ot Alll f- p,lor to . d.*Â¢~4*104 of im*&4PKL /0 50 , APPUCANT,hall pay ao initial depoalt Int *,6 â€¢;*mggit ox ar~*-0 . : whiaM~Ztz: hours of Planni= staff time, and B actual] rego,40,1 Nat~~ the initi*l deposit, APPLICANT ihall pay additional =00*ly b~~ag~d to nimburle the CrrY for the procaung of the application -an above, includink pott approval reviow. Such periodic payments shall bo *tado *Whin 30 days of the bilifi date. APPLICANT fucther agrees tket 68*c Â¢0 pay ,uch accrued com: shall be grÂ¢ und: for suspension of plgessi#g. i 1 , .l 0 1 '1' 1,Â· 4%,Â·. D. .. OfTY ~ 4*EN AP.LICANT 4 , 1 , ~C-â€¢f_ b,A L O 'ti'J,*!14 py:JA, 1 <16) _JET"Vjr-rb.f.119 C=+0*Development Dire- Datâ€¢L K/6/9 4 i , Mailing *- . 9-5> -96* (-4.7 >:bit /1 , 1 ,. 'l ' . 1 ; Fi: \L \C '' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,0 1 i . 1 0 1 ./ '41,0 . .C . . . , 1 , ' 11 1 1 11:1 1 1 a. 0 1 11 1 1 , 1 I 0. 1 . ., '1 .7 1 1 .- 1 .1 i. i 1 1 1 1 , '1 f . f .i 1 , i; Â·' 2 1 . 1 1, 1 1 , , . :1 1. .1 1'. 1. , I 1. 1 . .1, , TOML P.,/ AUG-05-1996 09:32 P KUM HbFEN/r' 1 I K 1 N Lul 'I unv lu I 2 La U I I U 1 I .I.V. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideratiod of the CITY's waiver bf its right to collect full fees prior to a determinatioW of applicatioB/ 2 cbmpleteness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of 5 21600'-tf 4hich N for / 2 hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to rkimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mdntioned above, includink post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be ~nade within 30 days oft the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accruedicosts shall be grounds for suspension of processing. (3ITY OF ASPEN APPLICANr By.~,Cty,tz<x-- ) WK,3149Â» /~7 : Bi ~ - _-- - _ausbn * Community Development Director Date: M,/94 1 / i Mailing Address: fe &* 4,1- 6 V ~A/0 4''Al /153' fb ~Â»9 1 1 1 1 1 1 .I '/4 ' 1 2 , : 1. I j TOTAL P.05 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: VALERIO/JOHNSON CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT & 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 3, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Highlands Investment, Ltd., requesting Conditiona Use Review approval for a 412 square foot studio Accessory Dwelling Unit. The studio Accessory Dwelling Unit will be located at the lower level of the unit at the front side with a separate exterior entry. The applicant is also requesting 8040 Greenline approval to construct a new single family residence. The property is located at 1125 Ute Avenue, and is described as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093. s/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission K I9 1.8 1.)(J NNdSV 19 NIVW 3 009 13VH 9 UNVINOH NJUVN "NONNHOP 9 SLNEWISHAN] UNVNHOIH 04[0 96%400 9~~0 [00 89 EBI /9/7 . . 7. 1 N MONINS IA BAV NOINVN S 0[K or i.i .1. GIA V O CITI 882*00 9%0 600 89 Zer LEAL i~,1.9.Ip' 03 p . j ..I (2 1-4 18 VN33VS S 021 NkdSV 30 1113 AMJ.13N33 31.0 grÂ· 14 00 701 . CÂ· /7 'ONVOIHO MUDiHOIN "H %89 0/3 ANVJHOD UNV HA %19 "Hillog 1111 LISCI:0 990 400 99 *81 '.r: ) 1 NldEV LS VNd IVS S WEI M~,4 SV 3 0 ..1..l. Il. 3 UVW.; Xvr V 89,8 99 3 8 L L 9/ 3 Xi "NO.,SAOH 0119 5 . 11 19 SI AV@1 009 'ON I "(VEn> 1[0199 399600 910 P90 0 0 681 22/8 Und kg- , 3 1 7 18 993Â®GOV 993aadv 1 W U 1.4 (I V.l. 103 38 INS "NMJ 1 lÂ·.1 1 1Â· 1 1Â·1 0 i Â·I 0 I f f I A i. (,1 9 H b 1.,4 1; n j. 1 8 11 ' 1 1 2 P i i.Â· 1: 1 1' . 1 ..... I. 1 1 , SUBDIVES [ON n M N F 6 1. TWNâ€ž SE1 Bl.. L.. 07 TAD SCHEDUE TX I 1,11 jill:L NAMI: ADDRESS ADDRESS ST 7. IP B[ 00. LOT 182 00 061 01 1 ASPEN SKI[NG COMPANY CHANCE LODE POST OPPICE BOX 1248 ASPENâ€ž CO 81612 2737 182 68 021 056 009546 FRAZER. JANE Z. FRAZERâ€ž WILLIAM Râ€ž 250 TUNNEL ROAD BERKELEY, 4 -rx 7 -1 0 '-, 'R 004 C.% U. / 0. :;'1 G .,-i ./1 9 it 1112 ... ...... j......'. RAPPAPORT SUSAN H & GAnY B TRUSInce RAPPAPORT SUSAN H REVOCABLE TRUST 3940 WAI.DON SHORES ED WAYZATA FllÂ·-I 553 91 , 056 009547 1130 COLEMANâ€ž THOMAS B. v.n, , r CHARLES AVEâ€ž ') 1 1, NEW ORLEANSâ€ž L: O/ 183 00 001 001 '.':'. I 'A i.,41..I (....0 1.4 '.2 8100 FC.} Rl I:Â·. R JOHN & CLARK NEA I J SHIRSAT AJAY D PO BOX 11 WOLCUTT (0 81655