The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1279 Ute Ave.A025-00U. 1\025 - e Lot 1 Ute Park Subdivision - >214/v~ O -t 1 j 2_ DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date o f this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Jim Martin, 67 St. Andrews Circle, Durango, CO 81301 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lot 1. Ute Park Subdivision Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Secondary Mass Variance and Garage not at Grade Variance Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution # 24-2000,4/25/00_ Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) May 6,2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) May 7.2003 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 6th day of May, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. C1%/-Â»4- Jul* Ann Woods, Community Development Director V .... PU-BLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 1, Ute Subdivision, by resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission numbered 24, series of 2000. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/ City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on May 6,2000 , RESOLUTION N0. 24 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE, APPROVING THE VARIANCES OF THE SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Howard G. Stacker and James T. Martin ("Applicants"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1. Ute Park Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43.084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District: and. WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series o f 1992 granted final review - approval for Rezoning from Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision. Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium: and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals o f the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 25,2000. recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standatds finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2000, by a five to two (5-2) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved. by a seven to zero (7-0) vote. variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 442930 05/02/2000 01:20P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, with one condition; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal. with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements o f the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health. safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the Residential Design Standard variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade, Section 26.410.040, are approved for the single family residence at Lot 1. Ute Park Subdivision. Aspen. Colorado. with the following condition: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by vinue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase. or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of April. 2000. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 442930 05/02/2000 01:20P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO -, APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: r Â·~ Â« 11 ) c/ 4-0*2%99-)< :,R,not.&*(2.- City Attorney 4 ~Aert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: on ne0. 0 3884T. I a Â»4. ALA/L/u Â¥ fULLOAL) gpkie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 111111111111 mi lilli lilli lilli 11111111111111111 lili 442930 05/02/2000 01:20P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO RESOLUTION N0. 20 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Howard G. Stacker and James T. Martin ("Applicants"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18. Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning for Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development. Growth Management Quota System Exemption. Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS, the subject house and proposed development are located at an elevation above 8040 feet above sea level and within the review authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.435.020 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at or 150 feet beiow the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 5 R 25.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 18, 2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a six to one (6-1) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence with conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence, Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees. and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized: those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel and proposed addition. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan. when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 3. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator. agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement. a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. 1) Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. 2) If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. 3) If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials. and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the 111111111111111111 lilli lilli lilli 111111111 lilli lili lili 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 12. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. 13. Approval of the 8040 Greenline Review is conditioned upon approval of the variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design Standards for this property. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided. and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 1801 day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 4 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO . f x 1 -11 . 1 &1 #17*2/ li// .Ilf(27'7~/4 ~ij, City-Kitorney 4 ]~Aert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Ned*Â«496*.) 2Â¥kie Lothian, I*puty City Clerk 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 442931 05/02/2000 01:21P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: jwells@sopris.net April 3,2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Hand Delivered Dear Nick: As we have discussed, I am forwarding additional information regarding the 8040 Greenline Review application for Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision in response to staff comments at the recent DRC meeting. 1. I am providing you with five sets of revised drawings reflecting the architectural revisions which have been made to the residence. The changes include the extension of the lower-level facade to the west, to further screen the garage doors from below. Note also that a roof overhang was always planned over the garage doors (see attached), to create a shadow line and to give the appearance that the doors are recessed. There is also a lower-level entry on the south side of the garage doors. 2. I have researched the water installation. Every indication is that the tap which was installed for the service to this lot is a one-inch tap off of an eight- inch service line installed into the subdivision. This is what is shown on the Water Plan, recorded in Book 704 at Page 252 (see attached reduction). As you are aware, there is a requirement that the residence on Lot One be sprinklered; the Water Department does not believe that there is adequate water pressure available to accomplish that. It is my understanding that the solution is to either install a new tap which is larger and to possibly add a booster pump or provide adequate storage to accommodate fire flows. Short of engineering the system, it is not possible to determine which solution is the most cost-effective. It would therefore be my preference to re-affirm this obligation in any approval of the 8040 Greenline and include a condition that this issue be addressed as a part of building permit review. 3. A drainage plan was submitted for review as a part of the subdivision review (see attached copy of plan). The 8040 Greenline approvals for the other two lots (see attached) included conditions regarding drainage. April 3,2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Page two of two 4. Parks Department correctly points out that grading is anticipated close to several of the existing trees which we are planning on saving. Extra care will need to be taken to protect these trees during construction. It is the owner's intention to maintain the existing finish grade around the base of these trees. 5. Both of the other two 8040 Greenline Review approvals included a condition that a detailed landscape plan be submitted for approval prior to building permit issuance. 6. Note that the First Amendment to the Ute Park Subdivision (Exhibit D2 to the application) indicates Fire Access Easements on both Lots 1 and 2, to accommodate the turnaround function for emergency equipment. 7. I will be providing you with the two photographic panoramas that you asked for, as soon as I can determine a suitable location from which the site can actually be seen. So far, I haven't found a spot on the highway that serves this purpose. Let me know if you need additional information regarding this matter. 12*AP Jggepn vvems il , " # 143 lit 77:~ ~ Â»ul__1 1 1 ~, i-i â€¢ 1 j ~~'~ /, 1 -1- ,Â·0. .0 i~ZIU < â€ž k.1 iiI :- 11% ./i//11"--/"/ 5 1 tifg,-7- / a , //.rti:4/ -4 *11, 0 4 /--.El L 1 Ly * 27-i-1 r-- I 1 14- ,76 - :- r.-21-=1100--1 Yt.- 1#* Ii i] 2: 71 4 11 lilli 11 ! 1 U 1. 1 U 0 t; il ILIL!1....a.-3 Ir-1 . ,Â·rÂ· r . __- ~L-1.21_.1~- 20:711. *420. 4â€¢.t fij ti} â€¢4*Mmbildie--P. .. ./ 4{ . It 14 1 - 1 a + ,~4*e-aÂ«*4 *212 41*qfm R Â¥ * 7. . i G *- * I : /; * f r .../../.- 1/1 1 41 1 11 1 j .4-7- -A.,elei 4 VtÂ¢ -1 1 T ...1.-#El , ~ i f 11 - I =-4 . a 1 . /71 4 1 f. bil i F i 1 1 7.-/- -I- -'ll'IN.t-Fll:'Ill.-. -- i--7 $ 1 P & 5 41 ..%18 ' uUil<19'lt - 1 =aE / tz J 1 1 1 4, / 1 0 .Ji Glyd'E'#.4;3 't,rt 'Ni.,4 *: ~ . tt â€ž- 111,- I - 1'' 11 1 4 * 4 + t 3 f 3 - m"KNE#Â£13 9/5230 u -r 2 Â· ...1 2 7 i 9S. ff i '*.-â€ž.ZL=. ~ r : i"14&1 1,4*4 11 1 iii. 11 1 4 40 Weer Elâ‚¬YKE'- * 59Â«r> Â¥ 2 -% 3 ** 4 1 j .fit ~~/---71Â¥84sED UTE PAB~Â¥:SION /0 ~ , I + - L- - -trvi J.-*Accts, A- v,vrv i.,E~â€¢~ . , -- Lori -- -I .-I ..Il - I-.I -- .-... i - =r. . - ---. . -Il. -- I . ---;- . -222-. . L. bio ' I 1 -%*. I. 0 4-*.4 h.1 -- -- 1 - lOT 4 â€¢ ----0-0 iLL Â· f'- i - ....- 2---- . / . f .... i VU-' i I .0 7.--~- L -33 1 0 - - ..e- - I ...../ ---- . 0-- -. .4 -- --- -1--4-.--- -- --j.-all u- - - I.-- -. IA RO= , , _ 0.- -.- - I J / lot.-2,7 -- 190 - r .3 * U. C././. .... 4,1 '. . b 1 19 1 1,203 ,-5 4. kj.Vt 1 L.. -.-0------Il--I- ial' 0 .*.......... I / -I.-*-I.... 45110. 1,4 8 5/â‚¬, a 1 \ ..... -0 ..--- L-=EF 52 -- 'CU-- - r. â€¢- 1 -4 1 .- ..~" 17/0- ./Imlil .... C. -- I.: 1.,1. 1:1- Ltuff ... 6. ?f:. - ..R .B-AAI.~ . :1 - UTE PARK SUBDVT*ION 1 WATER PLAN .................- *354209 02/22/93 16: 36 Rec $200.00 BK~g*-PG 392 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc â€¢.00 . 1. - i, 1.-7 '14--/ - i i :<f .. ,.*, m i. 7 -4- , r el F & 7 (I *'' . , 4".7 ~; *i,44% '1.. 9 VV 1!8IH)<3 4, 4.12Â« 4 11. Â· . 1 0 D - 4 9, BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES INC 2777 Crossroacs Boulevara Grand Junction. Coloraao 81506 303) 243-2242 FAX (303)243.3810 605 East Main. Suite 6 Asoen. Colo'ajo 816' 1 1303) 925-5857 October 10, 1991 Tom Stevens The Stevens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have investigated the drainage issues relative to the proposed Ute Park Subdivision. The enclosed report addresses these grading and drainage issues. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, 1 .39501_~vÂ« t 4 ) Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure RED\clk wp-doc\8203\8203drai.n .. BANNER - GRADING AND DRAINAGE REPORT UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO General This project is located south of existing Ute Avenue at the east limits of the City of Aspen. The site slopes from south to north and consists of grades ranging from eight to 20 percent. The soil types encountered on the site consist of topsoil (2-4 foot depth) which overlays silty sand and gravel with cobble (see Soils Report dated 11/30/90, prepared by Chen Northern, Inc.). There exists both substantial tree and grass vegetation on the property. There appears to be no predominate nor significant erosion problems evident due to concentrated spring runoff or summer showers. The project consists of three single family free market lots and seven deed restricted condominium units. This report, and the drainage plan prepared in conjunction with the grading plan prepared by The Stevens Group, Inc., addresses the development activity associated with the deed restricted units and road/drive to serve the three free market lots. As a part of the submittal for individual building permits on the free market lots, a drainage report should be prepared to address the increased runoff generated from the residential lot development. Improvements The improvements associated with this subdivision that have an impact from a drainage perspective will be the road/drive to serve Lots 1 and 2 and the development of the deed restricted units on Lot 4. The paving improvements to Ute Avenue are being made in conjunction with the Ute Avenue Improvement District. Included in these improvements are accommodation for historical surface runoff for an area approximately 400 feet south of the right-of-way for Ute Avenue. This surface runoff will be carried down (west) Ute Avenue in a roadside ditch that will tie into the lower Ute Avenue improvements. The drainage improvements associated with this plan that are within the Ute Avenue right-of-way will be coordinated and incorporated into the District work. Drainage improvements on Lot 4 will consist of grading to allow the natural historical drainage pattern to continue across the property. Swales should be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales should be vegetated and maintain a minimum of a 2% gradient. The vegetation BANNER 1 1 -â€¢ Will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces on Lot 4 will be graded to allow sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent 1 to Ute Avenue. The runoff generated from the paving of the drive/road for Lots 1 and 2 will be drained to a ditch on either side. This ditch will flow into the existing ditch at the south edge of Ute Avenue. Again for purposes Of minimizing erosion and maximizing percolation, these ditches should be vegetated. Drainage Calculations The calculations showing the historic and developed runoff from this project are attached in the Appendix to this report. 1 1 BANNER 1 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Historical Drainage Acreage C O2 Olo Oloo 1 Area 1 .54 .35 .21cfs .32cfs .55cfs Area 2 2.50 .35 1.Ocfs 1.47cfs 2.54cfs 1 Tc = 15 minutes I2 = 1.15 in./hr. I10 = 1.69 in./hr. I100 = 2.91 in./hr. 1 NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. C is based upon vegetated slope areas. 1 Developed Drainage Acreaqe CavqA 02 010 0100 1 Area 1 .54 .42 .47cfs .71cfs 1.22cfs Area 2 2.50 1.62 1.86cfs 2.74cfs 4.71cfs Tc = 15 minutes I2 = 1.15 in./hr. Ilo = 1.69 in./hr. I100 = 2.91 in./hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property 1 where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. CavgA is a weighted average taking into consideration the impervious and pervious portions of the site. 1 1 1 k A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE WINNERMAN RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 2 OF THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST END OF UTE AVENUE Resolution 94- ~61~ WHEREAS, Section 24-7-503 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval of all development within 100 feet of the 8,040 foot elevation line; and WHEREAS, Larry Winnerman submitted an application to the Planning Office for 8040 Greenline review of his proposed residence; and WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering Department and the Parks Department; and WHEREAS, the site contains red and blue avalanche hazard areas as identified by consultant Art Mears, and the platted building envelope established a conditional building area and an unconditional building area based on the avalanche concerns; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the proposal, a site inspection, and referral comments, the Planning office recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 1994 the Planning -- and Zoning Commission reviewed the project pursuant to the criteria of Section 24-7-503, and voted 5-2 to approve the Winnerman 8040 Greenline review with thirteen conditions amended from staff's recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Commission also approved by 7-0 votes two additional motions: 1) to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail cut on Lot 2 (Ute Park subdivision) is a violation of the 8040 Greenline regulations, and the Council must submit an application for 8040 Review within 30 days of notice; and 2) to direct staff to have on-going inspections of the Winnerman project by appropriate City departments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION that it grants approval for the Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review for a residence of 4,852 s.f. (plus 540 s.f. garage and 774 s.f. deck) as represented by the application subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be 1 approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) The lowest level of the structure on the north (west) side shall not be excavated or exposed except for minimal egress windows which may be required for bedrooms per the Building Code. 3) Excavation shall occur from the " inside out" from the downhill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines on the east, south and west to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 6) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and - approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than two weeks prior to submittal for the building/excavation permits. 9) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 10) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open area to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 11) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access and building sprinklers (required for Lot 2 as a condition of subdivision approval). 12) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to 2 h - the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 13) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. {4 14â€ž, L./ <4Â¥47 0*A-Â»,-~-~jÂ» W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan Cah'ney, Deputy tity Clerk 3 1 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 3 OF THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Resolution No. 94- tb WHEREAS, Gary and Linda Nathanson submitted an application for 8040 Greenline Review to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for referral comments by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, based on the referral comments, Planning staff comments, and presentation by the project representatives, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the project with 15 conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission also passed a motion directing staff to make on-going inspections during the construction process; and WHEREAS, the Commission passed another motion directing staff to contact the Nordic Council to require them to come before the Commission for 8040 Greenline Review for the trail which they cut through the Ute Park Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it approves the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review for the development of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls) not extend beyond the line of the deck. 3) Excavation shall occur from the " inside out" from the uphill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in size to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house, in addition to replacing the at-risk trees caliper inch for caliper inch.. 1 44 - 6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 10) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. 11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access. 13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 14) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 21, 1994. W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan ~rney, Dep'~y City Clerk 2 01-5- L, r L 4 .46,- i PytkÂ« C fhn 16- Pr P, 1 >a wav- 47 h 4. 0 .< rt-4, AA .Ut- 15>E- fida 1 b.9 -te 'tu I Se/Â»*' 4 <f'Ati) 05 F'u\Â« Tmot Ealki '1 vT-JF- 0.70 +253(-497 A fur 2 Ved 4*7/ Ae(44 67'r--3"p>5 - *UHACQ (t f) 4/ 4 68â‚¬ 4- 1-,4*0kk. CÂ¥ *,44-1 9,4 th, 04 fâ€¢4- el- 4004}09& 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directord AID FROM: Nick Lelack, Plailnet~*r RE: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1, Residential Design Standard Variances from Secondary Mass & Garage Not At Grade - Public Hearing DATE: April 25,2000 f. APPLICANT: IL-,9 Ute Park Partnership t' $ . Jim T. Martin . REPRESENTATIVE: -,2. 41 11 Joseph Wells Joseph Wells Land Planning 41 S .r-; 2,24 I LOCATION: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 4 ZONING: -112/1 56.-W, Â¥91* ,44~ 4,â€ž -- 1... Affordable Housing (AH) -- q.4... FA 1-m 4 - ill- CURRENT LAND USE: The arrows point to the approximate location of the Vacant approved building envelope and development site. Most of the trees shielding property will remain. PROPOSED LAND USE: Single Family Residence SUMMARY: LOT SIZE: The Applicant is requesting variances from the 43,084 sq. ft. secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design Standards for a new house to FAR: be located on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision. Existing: 0 sq. ft. This is a one-step review before the Planning and Proposed: 5,770 sq. ft. Zoning Commission. The Commission approved the Allowable: 5,770 sq. ft 8040 Greenline Review for this property on April 18. 1 REVIEW PROCEDURE Residential Design Standards. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) - the Planning and Zoning Commission in this case - may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Ute Park Partnership, Jim Martin, ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, is requesting approval of a variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence in an approved building envelope. Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant, evaluated the site during the original Planned Unit Development and Subdivision review in 1992 and again for this application for avalanche hazards. He identified two (2) potential building envelopes on the site. One building envelope was designated the "conditional building " envelope. This envelope consists o f an "avalanche red zone", which is an area of frequent but not intense avalanche slides, and "avalanche blue zone," an area of powder blast. The second building envelope was designated the "unconditional building envelope." This area was determined to be unaffected by the slide zones, but subject to the lateral spreading o f debris. Staff has been working with the Applicant for the past couple of years on a compact design of a single- family house located only in the unconditional building envelope that meets nearly all ofthe Residential Design Standards and is acceptable to the Applicant. Residential Design Standard variances are requested as part of this application for secondary mass and garage not at grade. Staff supports these variances, finding that the variances are clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site- â€¢. specuic constraints. The undeveloped lot contains slopes in excess of 25%, red and blue avalanche zones, dense native vegetation, and is a scenic resource for the community. The proposed development minimizes the impact on the hillside with a principal structure limited to the unconditional building envelope rather than extending a secondary mass into the avalanche zones and across the hillside, and a relatively short driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot standard because of the natural topography of the lot. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards to build a new single family residence, with the following condition. 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence with the condition in the draft resolution." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings 3 RESOLUTION 30. ~ ~ (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE VARIANCES OF THE SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ute Park Partnership ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning for Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Vested Rights, and Waiver of the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated April 25,2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2000, by a five to two (5-2) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ CO vote, variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade provisions of the Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, with one condition; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the Residential Design Standard variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade, Section 26.410.040, are approved for the single family residence at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence. clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity o f the remaining portions thereo f. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 25m day ofApril, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DRAC VARIANCES FOR SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons o f fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Variances are requested from the following two (2) standards: 1. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. "All new structures shall locate at least 10% o f their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element." 2. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Garage not at Grade. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. However, the 2000 AACP Parks, Open Space and Environment section encourages "an environmentally conscientious community through individually responsible lifestyles and responsible building practices (page 3)." This application attempts to minimize the impact to the native vegetation and visual qualities o f this site to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, Staff does not believe development in this sensitive location can be considered in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP. b) a more effective method Of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. 1 c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding Site-specific constraints on this undeveloped lot include slopes in excess of 25% and red and blue avalanche zones. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. Staff believes the proposed development warrants a variance from this standard because the Applicant has consolidated the residence into a single structure, stepped up the hill (not across the mountain) and out of the avalanche zones. Constructing a secondary mass would increase the impact on the undisturbed natural vegetation and steep slopes into at least the blue avalanche zone and possibly the red zone. A secondary mass would also increase the visibility of this project from below and danger to the structure's occupants. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d)Â· Garage not at Grade. The natural topography of the lot contains steep slopes that require a driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot maximum. The request is to connect the garage to the street in the shortest distance possible while still meeting the front yard setback requirement, thereby reducing the driveway cut to the absolute minimum. It does not appear that this standard could have been met anywhere near the road stub into the property because of the slopes. Staff believes that this criterion is met to grant the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Director JA'D FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner~ RE: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1, 8040 Greenline Review & Residential Design Standard Variances from Secondary Mass & Garage Not At Grade - Public Hearing DATE: April 18, 2000 APPLICANT: Ute Park Partnership 2 40:Ir,yiÂ¢Â£21;1:iBRiti:,41"14359:dillihill'll"/Imi/"blivvilli"gr :1 1 Jim T. Martin :-in:-'&'llit-- Al REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells lifi . t. =2'"i- Joseph Wells Land Planning lillillilielE;jillie/J id,<tlipilill:/"Ill'llill"lill'll"'ll//Imi i../1--1: haillillille. T.1.1.'Pri~.-#-Ill-~jilimillimp LOCATION: r "Â¥,â€ž07-wÂ» 1 4, A.,--1~ Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 'm % b-,-,-,-- A..f; L .'44~*viv/*40:-** ZONING: ---2,6 ~I~f -1,.' 28* 3*GU â€¢,1,;7Â· .....#Ilk- -.4,#656 r.14,=----*:- Affordable Housing (AH) r~-h 10 9 CURRENT LAND USE: The arrows point to the approximate location of the Vacant approved building envelope and development site. Most of the trees shielding property will remain. PROPOSED LAND USE: Single Family Residence SUMMARY: LOT SIZE: The Applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review 43,084 sq. ft. approvals to build a new single-family residence and variances from the secondary mass and garage not at FAR: grade provisions of the Residential Design Existing: 0 sq. ft. Standards. This is a one-step review before the Proposed: 5,770 sq. ft. Planning and Zoning Commission. Allowable: 5,770 sq. ft 1 REVIEW PROCEDURE Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas - 8040 Greenline review: Following the receipt of a recommendation from the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application in an ESA. Residential Design Standards. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) - the Planning and Zoning Commission in this case - may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Ute Park Partnership, Jim Martin, ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, is requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to build a new single family residence iii an approved building envelope, and variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards. The Applicant contends that some o f the design standards do not apply because the subject property is accessed from a private street. However, Community Development Staff has applied these standards to the proposed single-family residence in the same manner that it applies them to all residential developments in the City. Ute Park Subdivision is a four (4)-lot subdivision, created in 1992. Lots 1-3 are free market lots, and Lot 4 is the site of seven (7) deed restricted affordable housing units. Lot 1 is the only remaining undeveloped lot. The ....le. + Planning and Zoning . .. , Commission voted 5-2 for S./ both Resolution 94-14 and . % y -â‚¬. Resolution 94- 15, approving 4, Â¥.' ..41 8040 Greenline Reviews for . I ./ .+ ..r,f'. * Lots 2 and 3. Staff has * d,6 4 Â£ 74,4 434 '1.r., ., incorporated modified .i . /~ . Â· a.'4: 6 te ' conditions of approval from CA. ., , Â· 6.9 these resolutions along with 4:- 9,Â·. Â·f: i tt' 4-> , additional conditions of approval in the draft resolution for Lot 1. This photo was taken from the avalanche zone looking Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards toward the private road (west). Shown here are the Consultant, evaluated the site Nordic/Pedestrian Trail to the left and part of the during the original Planned unconditional building envelope to the right. Unit Development and 2 Subdivision review and again for this application for avalanche hazards. He identified two (2) potential building envelopes on the site. One building envelope was designated the "conditional building envelope." This envelope consists of an "avalanche red zone", which is an area of frequent but not intense avalanche slides, and "avalanche blue zone," an area of powder blast. The second building envelope was designated the "unconditional building envelope." This area was determined to be unaffected by the slide zones, but subject to the lateral spreading of debris. Specifically, one event in a lOto 30 year period would result in the deposition of debris against some of the surfaces along the east fagade of the proposed residence, and that a much larger event in a 30 to 100 year period would produce substantial loads of debris against the east fÂ®ade. Staff has been working with the Applicant for the past couple of years on a compact design of a single-family house located only in the unconditional building envelope that meets nearly all of the Residential Design Standards and is acceptable to the Applicant. This application requests approval of a residence in an environmentally sensitive area that largely meets all of Staffs concerns. Most of the existing trees and trail will remain on the property. Residential Design Standard variances are requested as part of this application for secondary mass and garage not at grade. Staff supports these variances, finding that the variances are clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. The undeveloped lot contains slopes in excess of 25%, red and blue avalanche zones, dense native vegetation, and is a scenic resource for the community. The proposed development minimizes the impact on the hillside with a principal structure limited to the unconditional building envelope rather than extending a secondary mass into the avalanche zones and across the hillside, and a relatively short driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot standard because of the natural topography of the lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review and secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards to build a new single family residence with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals'shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. Cl c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel and proposed addition. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City o f Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. 3. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page o f the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion o f the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter. then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. 1) Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. 4 2) If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. 3) If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.in. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative. the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 12. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review and secondary mass and garage not at grade variances from the Residential Design Standards to build a new single family residence with the conditions in the draft resolution." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application Exhibit C -- Referral Agency Comments C :\home\nick]\Active Cases\8040 Ute Park Subdivision\Ute 8040 memo.doc 5 EXHIBIT A LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW DRAC VARIANCES FOR SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.435.030 8040(C) Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning 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, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff Finding City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 approved the Ute Park Subdivision, including the development of a free market single-family residence on Lot 1. During the original subdivision and planned unit development review, the City deemed the parcel suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, and avalanche dangers. In addition, an environmental assessment of the parcel found no hazardous or toxic soils. Arthur Mears, Natural LIazards Consultant, evaluated the site during the original review and again for this application for avalanche hazards. He identified two (2) potential building envelopes on the site. One building envelope was designated the "conditional 5, building envelope. This envelope consists of an "avalanche red zone", area of frequent but not intense avalanche slides, and "avalanche blue zone," area of powder blast. The second building envelope was designated the "unconditional building envelope." This area was determined to be unaffected by the slide zones, but subject to the lateral spreading of debris. Specifically, one event in a 10 to 30 year period would result in the deposition of debris against some o f the surfaces along the east fagade of the proposed residence, and that a much larger event in a 30 to 100 year period would produce substantial loads of debris against the east 1*ade. The Applicant has proposed to build the structure completely within the unconditional building envelope, avoiding the avalanche zones. Mr. Mears recommends that the proposed structure be made strong enough to withstand any avalanche loading to provide protection to the residence's occupants. This criterion is addressed. 6 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. Staff Finding Referral agencies did not identi fy any significant adverse affects from the project on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, and soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. The City Engineer will review the drainage plan prior to the issuance of building permits if this project is approved to ensure that this project does not significantly affect the runoff or drainage. The Parks Department will review the landscape plan for the proposed development to ensure that the natural watershed is not significantly affected through tree removal and subsequent soil erosion. This criterion is addressed. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Finding The Environmental Health Department submitted referral comments stating that "air pollution impacts will come primarily from traffic generated by the home, both by residents and guests. by utilities such as mail, trash, meter readers, etc., and finally by service support providers (gardeners, maids, computer repair people, etc.). The City has traditionally considered the traffic impacts from one single family home to be below the threshold for "significant" impacts." Community Development Staff has included a proposed condition of approval to require the Applicant to submit and Environment Health to approve a fugitive dust control plan before beginning construction. This plan will need to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. The applicant indicates that its consultant determined there were no mine tailings or other hazardous soils present. This criterion is addressed. 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. Staff Finding Staff believes the design and location of the proposed development are appropriate considering the steep slope and proximity to avalanche zones. The proposed development is located within the established unconditional building envelope, which is already served by all public utilities. The driveway cut is expected to exceed the Residential Design Standard of two (2)-feet, but the distance is the minimum required to connect the street to the garage. A public trail exists through the property and will remain. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 7 Staff Finding Staff believes the combination of limiting development to the unconditional building envelope and locating the garage close to the road, which minimizes the driveway cut, minimizes grading for this parcel to the greatest extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. A proposed condition of approval is that the Applicant submits a landscape plan and gains approval of it by the Parks Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parks Department will ensure that the plan demonstrates how the project will minimize to the greatest extent possible impacts to all natural land features. In addition, the Applicant has represented in the application that all of the proposed re-grading of the site will be limited to an area approximately 36 inches around the perimeter of the building footprint, with the exception of the access and the turnaround area adjacent to the garage. 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. Staff Finding The proposed residence would be located completely in the unconditional building envelope out of the avalanche zones in a compact design close to the turnaround at the top of the private road. Approval of the variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards would help to minimize the need for the development of a second structure on site and limit the driveway cut to the minimum needed to connect the garage to the road. Staff believes the design minimizes the need for roads, limits cutting and grading, and maintains open space and preserves the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding The PUD review limited building height to 25 feet, and this development will comply with that established dimension. The structure will be stepped up the hillside rather than along the side of the mountain, which will minimize the visual impact of the building from Ute Avenue, the Aspen Club, and Highway 82. A proposed condition of approval is that the colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding The property is serviced by all public utilities. City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992, approving the subdivision included a condition of approval that the residence located on Lot 8 1 be sprinklered. However, the Water Department does not believe that there is adequate water pressure available to sprinkle the residence. A proposed condition of approval is that: "Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service." This issue would be resolved prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding A private, paved subdivision road connects Lot 1 to Ute Avenue. This road is maintained by the homeowners association. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding Adequate ingress and egress is available to Lot 1 along the private subdivision road. This road provides access for fire protection and private snow removal. There are Fire Access Easements on both Lots 1 and 2 to accommodate the turnaround of emergency vehicles. In addition, both Lots 1 and 2 must sprinklered. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding The AACP Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map designates a Nordic/Pedestrian Trail Easement across Lots 1 and 2. The trail is aligned to avoid building sites on these lots. Therefore, the AACP recommendation would be implemented in this proposed development. SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Variances are requested from the following two (2) standards: 9 1. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass. "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element." 2. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Garage not at Grade. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staffmakes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. However, the 2000 AACP Parks, Open Space and Environment section encourages "an environmentally conscientious community through individually responsible lifestyles and responsible building practices (page 3)." This application attempts to minimize the impact to the native vegetation and visual qualities of this site to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, Staff does not believe development in this sensitive location can be considered in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding This standard is not addressed. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding Site-specific constraints on this undeveloped lot include slopes in excess of 25% and red and blue avalanche zones. Section 26.410.040(B)* Secondary Mass. Staff believes the proposed development warrants a variance from this standard because the Applicant has consolidated the residence into a single structure, stepped up the hill (not across the mountain) and out o f the avalanche zones. Constructing a secondary mass would increase the impact on the undisturbed natural vegetation and steep slopes into at least the blue avalanche zone and possibly the red zone. A secondary mass would also increase the visibility of this project from below and danger to the structure's occupants. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Garage not at Grade. 10 The natural topography o f the lot contains steep slopes that require a driveway cut exceeding the two (2)-foot maximum. The request is to connect the garage to the street in the shortest distance possible while still meeting the front yard setback requirement, thereby reducing the driveway cut to the absolute minimum. It does not appear that this standard could have been met anywhere near the road stub into the property because of the slopes. Staff believes that this criterion is met to grant the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade. 11 MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 27,2000 Re: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 application at their March 15, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way. the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Improvement Survey - Requirement - The building permit application needs to include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines curbs, sidewalks, and easements that exist. 2. Site Drainage - Requirement - A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required 12 by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information - The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also. there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 3. Community Development - Request - The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. The building plan does not show a ground floor entrance. One would be preferred in the garage area to allow access to the ground floor by other means than the overhead garage door. b. The current proposal is supported because there is no element of separation for the building and the high danger avalanche zone has been avoided. 4. Fire Protection District - Information - The following information was provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. b. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. c. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 5. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request o f the Engineering Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. Parks - Requirement - The following information has been provided by the Parks Department: a. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City o f Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. b. There is no mention of a lot-landscaping plan in the application. There is only a reference to the existing landscaping plan for the entire subdivision. One must be 13 submitted for condition of approval by the parks department before the building permit is accepted. c. A Nordic trail does cross Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks have been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because o f this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers i f the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. 7. Utilities: - W ater: City Water Department Requirement - 13. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 14. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest floor elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage. 14 transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920- 5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. DRC Attendees Staff: Phil Overynder Applicant's Representative: Nick Lelack Ed Van Walraven Jo Wells Ben Ludlow Chris Bendon 15 RESOLUTION NO. c~ (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND GRANTING VARIANCES OF THE SECONDARY MASS AND GARAGE NOT AT GRADE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-184-03-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ute Park Partnership ("Applicant"), represented by Joseph Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for variances from the secondary mass and garage not at grade Residential Design Standards for a new single family residence located at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision; and. WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 43,084 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992 granted final review approval for Rezoning for Rural Residential to Affordable Housing, Subdivision. Final Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption. Vested Rights, and Waiver o f the Watermain Extension Moratorium; and, WHEREAS, the subject house and proposed development are located at an elevation above 8040 feet above sea level and within the review authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.435.020 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at or 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan: b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. and WHEREAS The Planning Staff. in a report dated April 18, 2000, recommended approving the variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade from the Residential Design Standards finding that criteria c has been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000. the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ 0_) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard variances for the Ute Park Partnership residence with conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Ute Park Partnership residence, Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain iii full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel and proposed addition. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan for Lot 1. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. 3. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A Nordic trail crosses Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks has been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because o f this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet iii length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate sprinklered system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that a pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. 1) Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. 2) If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. 3) If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 12. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. Section 2 That the Residential Design Standard variances for secondary mass and garage not at grade, Section 26.410.040, are approved for the single family residence at Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent j urisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 18111 day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Lee Cassin, 02:02 PM 3/15/00 -0700, Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: leec@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:02:32 -0700 To: nicki@ci.aspen.co.us From: Lee Cassin <Ieee@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 Nick, I have reviewed the 8040 Greenline review application for Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1. There are no significant Environmental Health concerns for the single home to be built on this lot. The project is to be served by City Water, which conforms with Health Department policies recommending service by City Water instead of individual wells. The project is to be served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District as required. Air pollution impacts will come primarily from traffic generated by the home, both by residents and guests, by utilities such as mail, trash, meter readers, etc.,and finally by service support providers (gardeners, maids, computer repair people, etc.). The City has traditionally considered the traffic impacts from one single family home to be below the threshold for "significant" impacts. The applicant indicates that its consultant determined there were no mine tailings or other hazardous soils present. The applicant should provide a fugitive dust control plan to this office before beginning construction. This plan will need to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. The applicant should follow the advice of the City Engineer to ensure that the added impervious surfaces from roofs and paved areas do not create runoff water problems on this already-steep area. Lee Cassin Lee E. Cassin, City Director Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Ieee@ci.aspen.co.us fax (970)920-5074 http://wwwhispen.com/airquality http://www~aspengoycom/ehnew/city/inglex.html Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 4/10/00 -Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * Cha irnian John Keleher Paul Smith * T reas Fran.6 Loushin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr March 28,2000 Nick Lelack Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re Ute Park Subdivision Dear Nick The development proposed at lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, is located within our service area and service to this property is available. Service to the lot appears to have been "stubbed out" and is shown on Exhibit A ofthe application. There are downstream constraints that will be eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees. A stub out fee will need to be paid as soon as possible if a service line has been stubbed out to the lot. We do not have an account set up for this address which leads us to believe that no fees have been paid. Once detailed plans are made available to our office we can complete a tap permit which estimates the fees for the project. As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. We request that a tap permit be completed and fees paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Sincerely, 714 ~~luu_,#Â«- Bruce Matherly 0 District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: jwells@sopris.net April 3,2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Hand Delivered Dear Nick: As we have discussed, I am forwarding additional information regarding the 8040 Greenline Review application for Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision in response to staff comments at the recent DRC meeting. 1. I am providing you with five sets of revised drawings reflecting the architectural revisions which have been made to the residence. The changes include the extension of the lower-level facade to the west, to further screen the garage doors from below. Note also that a roof overhang was always planned over the garage doors (see attached), to create a shadow line and to give the appearance that the doors are recessed. There is also a lower-level entry on the south side of the garage doors. 2. I have researched the water installation. Every indication is that the tap which was installed for the service to this lot is a one-inch tap off of an eight- inch service line installed into the subdivision. This is what is shown on the Water Plan, recorded in Book 704 at Page 252 (see attached reduction). As you are aware, there is a requirement that the residence on Lot One be sprinklered; the Water Department does not believe that there is adequate water pressure available to accomplish that. It is my understanding that the solution is to either install a new tap which is larger and to possibly add a booster pump or provide adequate storage to accommodate fire flows. Short of engineering the system, it is not possible to determine which solution is the most cost-effective. It would therefore be my preference to re-affirm this obligation in any approval of the 8040 Greenline and include a condition that this issue be addressed as a part of building permit review. 3. A drainage plan was submitted for review as a part of the subdivision review (see attached copy of plan). The 8040 Greenline approvals for the other two lots (see attached) included conditions regarding drainage. April 3,2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Page two of two 4. Parks Department correctly points out that grading is anticipated close to several of the existing trees which we are planning on saving. Extra care will need to be taken to protect these trees during construction. It is the owner's intention to maintain the existing finish grade around the base of these trees. 5. Both of the other two 8040 Greenline Review approvals included a condition that a detailed landscape plan be submitted for approval prior to building permit issuance. 6. Note that the First Amendment to the Ute Park Subdivision (Exhibit D2 to the application) indicates Fire Access Easements on both Lots 1 and 2, to accommodate the turnaround function for emergency equipment. 7. I will be providing you with the two photographic panoramas that you asked for, as soon as I can determine a suitable location from which the site can actually be seen. So far, I haven't found a spot on the highway that serves this purpose. Let me know if you need additional information regarding this matter. siÂ¢GPM ly-~- Y 1. 7 1 Ll'J r - 4 1 - 1 ,,/--7*54~0 un PA 8~~04 ./ + I P l -)" A- WTUTÂ¥ EAM-- . LOT I -- .- -t- - --I---f-- -* -- / - - . - ---I - 1 .... .===/i'.1.gSA=C- - -I...Ii--- ----- - \CZ=> 2/-/*. .L. U.0 / r 1-- . 4 0 - 1 -1 LOT â€¢ -1 - LOT 3 Â· \ k.-- . .. .4 1 -------- A 4 - . - . 1- -- C- i 1 .- 1/i -- 1 --+4 eMAN .. - 1 -. , .- F-2 41 - A 9 - 1., -:-f--2---5.-i --~59 L .... -YUMS'Il Â· 1 - r --1.- /-- . - *-i> 4- m ./E ROâ€¢ ---- - e+A_ _ - - -.- ------ ... I /1. ,- \%1I 1-- f Ar. r ,- i I./ 0./....... 1. ''.1 ll /0. 1 ---;j 1 1 Lige. f i. -*- 1 . I .C- 1 I- 0 -- - D. IS.- Cl. -I.-0 --- .... - .'-...A- 0.------- -. -- ..9 ..r= -+ \=U..- /---- 0 /* = ---0.-I . A I k 84 / I. r. $ ..7.2 =~ '- -- If BAA:*ER r-1 - i r-rv ... i- .- i. -1.7 .* ....... ... 1 - 1 1. - ..4 4 17 + L ... 1 .. 1 1 1 : - UTE PARK SUBDIVISION rrâ€ž 1 1 1 WATER PLAN 1 ./&...=........./-0--Ii . 1 1 1 Iligr. ' -1.-- 3224209 02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK.m,-PG 252, Silvia Davis, Pitl<in Cnty Clerk, Doc â€¢.00 i.â€ž 14 . -. _ , -'Â·. ' â€¢: Â· _,16 ?~4 --4 .e, :*0'.1 ./10 02 .. , '" '' 1 Jr,; .4. , 4. . Vy lIQIH)<3 r . BANNER - GRADING AND DRAINAGE REPORT UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO General This project is located south of existing Ute Avenue at the east limits of the City of Aspen. The site slopes from south to north and consists of grades ranging from eight to 20 percent. The soil types encountered on the site consist of topsoil (2-4 foot depth) which overlays silty sand and gravel with cobble (see Soils Report dated 11/30/90, prepared by Chen Northern, Inc.). There exists both substantial tree and grass vegetation on the property. There appears to be no predominate nor significant erosion problems evident due to concentrated spring runoff or summer showers. The project consists of three single family free market lots and seven deed restricted condominium units. This report, and the drainage plan prepared in conjunction with the grading plan prepared by The Stevens Group, Inc., addresses the development activity associated with the deed restricted units and road/drive to serve the three free market lots. As a part of the submittal for individual building permits on the free market lots, a drainage report should be prepared to address the increased runoff generated from the residential lot development. Improvements The improvements associated with this subdivision that have an impact from a drainage perspective will be the road/drive to serve Lots 1 and 2 and the development of the deed restricted units on Lot 4. The paving improvements to Ute Avenue are being made in conjunction with the Ute Avenue Improvement District. Included in these improvements are accommodation for historical surface runoff for an area approximately 400 feet south of the right-of-way for Ute Avenue. This surface runoff will be carried down (west) Ute Avenue in a roadside ditch that will tie into the lower Ute Avenue improvements. The drainage improvements associated with this plan that are within the Ute Avenue right-of-way will be coordinated and incorporated into the District work. Drainage improvements on Lot 4 will consist of grading to allow the natural historical drainage pattern to continue across the property. Swales should be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales should be vegetated and maintain a minimum of a 2% gradient. The vegetation BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC 2777 Crossroads Boulevara Grana Junction. Coloraco 81506 3031 243-2242 FAX (30312433810 605 East Main. Suite 6 Asoen. Coloâ€¢ado 81611 <3031 925 5857 October 10, 1991 Tom Stevens The Stevens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have investigated the drainage issues relative to the proposed Ute Park Subdivision. The enclosed report addresses these grading and drainage issues. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure RED\clk wp-doc\8203\8203drai.n BANNER 4,- Will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces on Lot 4 will be graded to allow sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent to Ute Avenue. 1 The runoff generated from the paving of the drive/road for Lots 1 and 2 will be drained to a ditch on either side. This ditch will flow into the existing ditch at the south edge of Ute Avenue. Again for purposes of minimizing erosion and maximizing percolation, these ditches should be vegetated. Drainage Calculations The calculations showing the historic and developed runoff from this project are attached in the Appendix to this report. Â· BANNER 1 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Historical Drainaqe Acreaqe C 02 010 0100 1 Area 1 .54 .35 .21cfs .32cfs .55cfs Area 2 2.50 .35 1.Ocfs 1.47cfs 2.54cfs 1 Tc = 15 minutes I2 = 1.15 in./hr. I10 = 1.69 in./hr. I100 = 2.91 in./hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property 1 where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. C is based upon vegetated slope areas. Developed Drainaqe Acreage CavqA O2 olo Oloo 1 Area 1 .54 .42 .47cfs .71cfs 1.22cfs Area 2 2.50 1.62 1.86cfs 2.74cfs 4.71cfs 1 Tc = 15 minutes I2 = 1.15 in./hr. I10 = 1.69 in./hr. I100 = 2.91 in./hr. NOTE: Tc is calculated to the northwest corner of the property 1 where the runoff leaves the property in the Ute Avenue drainage ditch. CavgA is a weighted average taking into consideration the impervious and pervious portions of the site. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE WINNERMAN RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 2 OF THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST END OF UTE AVENUE Resolution 94-~ WHEREAS, Section 24-7-503 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval of all development within 100 feet of the 8,040 foot elevation line; and WHEREAS, Larry Winnerman submitted an application to the Planning Office for 8040 Greenline review of his proposed residence; and WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering Department and the Parks Department; and WHEREAS, the site contains red and blue avalanche hazard areas as identified by consultant Art Mears, and the platted building envelope established a conditional building area and an unconditional building area based on the avalanche concerns; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the proposal, a site inspection, and referral comments, the Planning Office recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 1994 the Planning -- and Zoning Commission reviewed the project pursuant to the criteria of Section 24-7-503, and voted 5-2 to approve the Winnerman 8040 Greenline review with thirteen conditions amended from staff's recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Commission also approved by 7-0 votes two additional motions: 1) to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail cut on Lot 2 (Ute Park Subdivision) is a violation of the 8040 Greenline regulations, and the Council must submit an application for 8040 Review within 30 days of notice; and 2) to direct staff to have on-going inspections of the Winnerman project by appropriate City departments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION that it grants approval for the Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review for a residence of 4,852 s.f. (plus 540 s.f. garage and 774 S.1. deck) as represented by the application subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be 1 approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) The lowest level of the structure on the north (west) side shall not be excavated or exposed except for minimal egress windows which may be required for bedrooms per the Building Code. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the downhill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines on the east, south and west to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 6) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and - approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than two weeks prior to submittal for the building/excavation permits. 9) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 10) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open area to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 11) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access and building sprinklers (required for Lot 2 as a condition of subdivision approval). 12) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to 2 the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 13) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. + Oak//W-al- W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan ceitney, Deputy Ltity Clerk 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 3 OF THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Resolution No. 94- b WHEREAS, Gary and Linda Nathanson submitted an application for 8040 Greenline Review to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for referral comments by the Parks Department and the Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, based on the referral comments, Planning staff comments, and presentation by the project representatives, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the project with 15 conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission also passed a motion directing staff to make on-going inspections during the construction process; and WHEREAS, the Commission passed another motion directing staff to contact the Nordic Council to require them to come before the Commission for 8040 Greenline Review for the trail which they cut through the Ute Park Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it approves the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review for the development of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls) not extend beyond the line of the deck. 3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of the building envelope. 4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades and vegetation. 5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall be reduced in size to retain the mature aspens at the northwest corner of the house, in addition to replacing the at-risk trees caliper inch for caliper inch.. 1 -- 6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted immediately. 7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree 6"diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit. 10) Colors shall tend to earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. 11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review. The open field to the west of the residence shall remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land Management Department. 12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding fire access. 13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place. 14) All representations made by the applicant within the application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval for this project. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 21, 1994. W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan c~rney, DepYPy city Clerk 2 rÂ»it.' . 1 40. , /'513 ./1111 Mb&, 11, A.1.le'h c . .1 *EmIES#lt. N I 1 ... , AH.-4-5,~- -94 et.. "1 1â€¢ * 11 i . 1 i .1 1 . '3 22,S~Er'.DOW'.9&1~27:934 4, ..ihi . . 13 ....2. ' - Ptivilic:*274,512*r)$23:* i !%4*42.222.8*3143** ...9 %# v/M///4 I., *AN 1 334--1-,#19"r:.839 .. 1.932321. Â¢ 416/ IIII AM.# 42/4," Â·5$â€¢â€¢ il; â€¢ i 97-Jot F., . IÂ·,4>99~ ...-r4 t~ V *~ >~5?jits ~ >e , + Â¥' f p , 0 *12&11&26:=.*~<b. 63111:iN,Zi '.222,~rtir: 70414?4{.1~ tai *525<,2Â·32;:85*-50, ili#.13,12-ibed, , 9 -337**07*0Â¥32, 6 *23Â£7:*9522*9Â». - J '946*42#.*81Â«: 92Â§01 *4; .mit f W . 123/1 14 * im 4.reeÂ©$ a ."b 7%/.*/ 2,9 Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: jwells@sopris.net April 24,2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Hand Delivered Dear Nick: One of the current owners of Lot One, Ute Park Subdivision recently pointed out that I had incorrectly identified the ownership of the lot in the 8040 Greenline Application as "Ute Park Partnership". Because of my error, you have referred to the owners as Ute Park Partnership in the resolutions regarding the application. Howard G. Stacker and James T. Martin actually each own an undivided 50 percent interest in the lot. To avoid any problem from a tax standpoint, the owners are requesting that this change be made in the language of the two resolutions. Please let me know if you need additional information regarding this matter. /7 f i (Sincqrely1 / c 2-- JPL f i ez<z j 1 6 U--p ,, Joseph Wells CASE NUMBER A025-00 PARCEL ID # 2737-184-03001 CASE NAME Lot 1 Ute Park 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Revi PROJECT ADDRESS Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision PLANNER Nick Lelack CASE TYPE 8040 Greenline, Residential Design Standards OWNER/APPLICANT Jim Martin REPRESENTATIVE Joe Wells DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/25/00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION Reso #24-2000 ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 5/17/00 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID:~2737-184-03001 DATE RCVD: ~3/2/00 # COPIES:I CASE NO~A025-00 CASE NAME:~ Lot 1 Ute Park 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Review PLNR:~ PROJ ADDR:~Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivkion CASE TYP:18040 Greenline, Residential Design STEPS:~ OWN/APP: Jim Martin ADR~67 St. Andrews Circle * C/S/Z: ~Durango/CO/81301 PHN:~(970)375-2355 REP:~Joe Wells ADR:1602 Midland Park Plac C/S/Z: ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~925-8080 FEES DUE:~ 1155 D 160 E FEES RCVD~1110 D 160 E STAT: F REFERRALS~ REF:~ BY~ DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 1 1- DATE OF FINAL Acl]REI 9/Zato CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ pz: A, eGo. 24.-223 BOA: CLOSED: 16//pit) BY: ICE Li'Ji- DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK, PG):~ ADMIN: MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer 4-K Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 28,2000 Re: Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 application at their March 15, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Improvement Survey - Requirement - The building permit application needs to include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines, curbs, sidewalks, and easements that exist. 2. Site Drainage - Requirement - A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on Page 2 of 4 03/28/00 Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information - The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 3. Community Development - Request - The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. The building plan does not show a ground floor entrance. One would be preferred in the garage area to allow access to the ground floor by other means than the overhead garage door. b. The current proposal is supported because there is no element of separation for the building and the high danger avalanche zone has been avoided. 4. Fire Protection District - Information - The following information was provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Since the building will be sprinkled, then the building may need a water storage area or be re-tapped with a larger tap to provide for sprinkler service. b. If current tap size is adequate, then only a water pump will need to be added for sprinkler service. c. If current tap is inadequate, then a water pump and water storage tank will be needed for sprinkler service. 5. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. Parks - Requirement - The following information has been provided by the parks department: a. The tree removal plan, when compared to the grading plan, seems to interfere with planned saved trees. This issue needs to be clarified and is susceptible to the City of Aspen Tree Removal ordinance. b. There is no mention of a lot landscaping plan in the application. There is only a reference to the existing landscaping plan for the entire subdivision. One must be submitted for condition of approval by the parks department before the building permit is accepted. c. A Nordic trail does cross Lot 1, approximately 50 - 75 feet above the unconditional building envelope. Parks have been working closely with Mr. Martin in selecting an alignment that is amenable to all and recently finished construction on the section that crosses Lot 1. There is a fully 4 1 Page 3 of 4 03/28/00 Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 recorded, legal Nordic trail easement across Lot 1, but Mr. Martin and Ben Dodge, Nordic Trails Coordinator, agreed to adjust the alignment of the trail outside of this easement for a short ways because of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because of this agreement, a portion of the Nordic alignment (approximately 200 feet in length) as it is now located has not been surveyed or officially recorded as an alignment. It would be good to finalize negotiations on this section of trail during the review process. It is important to minimize disturbance of this trail during construction, and if construction is going on during the winter, then it would be advantageous to skiers if the trail remains open and usable i.e., no dirt, rocks, or equipment on the trail. 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department Requirement - a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. b. The current water pressure may be insufficient for a fire sprinkler and that pumping or storage may be required to deliver an adequate flow at the highest floor elevation. The Water Department calculates the available water pressure in the upper floor at approximately 25 psi. - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. . Page 4 of 4 03/28/00 Ute Park Subdivision Lot 1 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. DRC Attendees Staff: Phil Overynder Applicant's Representative: Nick Lelack Ed Van Walraven Jo Wells Ben Ludlow Chris Bendon '-k g NON , --6 Â«91 2 1 i Pb, <1v ) \M + 1 0 1 \f n/. D V f LOT ONE, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a Single-Family Residence LOT ONE, UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a Single-Family Residence February 25,2000 Submitted to: The City of Aspen and The Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.920.5090 Facsimile: 970.920.5439 Applicant: Ute Park Partnership c/o James T. Martin 67 St. Andrews Circle Durango, Colorado 81301 Phone: 970.375.2355 Facsimile: 970.375.2356 Prepared by: Joseph Wells Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.925.8275 CONSULTANT TEAM Architect: Bill Foss and Associates 605 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.4755 Facsimile: 970.920.2950 ' Survevor Robert C. Hutton 725 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.544.9952 Natural Hazards Consultant Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. 222 East Gothic Avenue Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Phone: 970.641.3236 Facsimile: 970.641.3236 Structural Engineering Oddo Engineering 302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970.945.1006 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA'S) (8040 GREENLINE REVIEW) (CHAPTER 26.435) 12 III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW (Chapter 26.410) 23 IV. EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Including Sec. 26.435.080.A) Al. Owner's Letter of Authorization to File. A2. Title Commitment-First American Title Company. A3. Vicinity Map. A4. Topographic Survey of Lot One-Robert C. Hutton. A5. Pre-Application Conference Summary. A6. Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. A7. Land-Use Application Form. A8. Dimensional Requirements Form. B. City Council Ordinance 18, Series of 1992. C. City Council Ordinance 22, Series of 1992. D. Subdivision Plats: Dl. Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision. D2. First Amendment to Ute Park Subdivision. E. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision. F. May 5, 1997 Letter from Charles T. Brandt to John Worcester, City Attorney Re: Vesting. G. May 15, 1997 Response from John Worcester, City Attorney to Charles T. Brandt Re: Vesting. H. Avalanche Loading Analysis. Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. 1 \ I. Tree Removal Plan Bill Poss and Associates I. INTRODUCTION: This application is filed on behalf of Ute Park Partnership, owner of Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision (the "Subdivision"). The applicant requests approval by the City Planning & Zoning Commission of 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435) for the residence proposed to be built on Lot 1. The review provisions for 8040 Greenline Review are addressed in Section II of this application, beginning on page 12. In addition, the - applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider any variances from the Residential Design Standards (Chaper 26.410) which the Community Development Director determines are required for the proposed design. The review provisions for Residential Design Review are addressed in Section III of this application, beginning on page 23. Ute Park Subdivision was the first privately-sponsored project to be approved and built under the API-Affordable Housing zone district regulations which had recently been adopted by the City. In 1992, the City granted Final Plat approval to the Ute Park Subdivision under Ordinance 18, Series of 1992 (see Exhibit B). Following final approval of the Subdivision, the owner of the property constructed the seven affordable housing units which were committed to on Lot 4 and sold the units to eligible employees of the A community. The private street and all utilities serving the three freemarket lots were also completed and Lot 2 and Lot 3 were sold. Residences have since been constructed on those two lots. Lot 1, which has been retained by the original owner of the property since the time that the Subdivision was reviewed and approved, is therefore the only unimproved lot remaining within the Subdivision. As a part of the Final P. U. D. / Subdivision Application, the owners requested approval of an amendment to the dimensional requirements of the AH zone district to establish a sliding scale and cap for permitted floor area for freemarket single-family homes within the zone. As a result of that request, the City adopted Ordinance 22, Series of 1992 (see 1 Exhibit C), which established a sliding scale which permitted 3,660 sq. ft. of floor area for detached residential lots of 9,000 square feet and which increased by 7 sq. ft. of floor area for each 100 sq. ft. of lot area, up to a maximum of 5,770 sq. ft. Under Ordinance 22/92, the maximum floor area was permitted on lots of 39,143 sq. ft. or larger. The lot area of Lot 1 is 43,084 sq. ft. Slope reduction was taken into account during the P. U. D. process (as acknowledged by the Community Development Department in its 1 Pre-App Conference Summary, Exhibit A5) and no reductions in lot area are required for easements or other reasons. Therefore, the lot qualifies for the maximum permitted square footage of 5,770 sq. ft, as established under Ordinance 22, Series of 1992. In 1997, Charles Brandt, the applicant's attorney, requested a clarification from the City Attorney regarding vested rights for Lot 1 (see Exhibit F). Specifically, Mr. Brandt took the position that common law vested rights had been established for Lot 1 as a result of I considerable expenditures made pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision (see Exhibit E), as documented in his letter. Mr. Brandt also explained that the approval status of P. U. D.'s such as Ute Park Subdivision is unique in comparison to approvals which are not associated with P. U. D.'s. In John Worcester's response (see Exhibit G), the City Attorney agreed that the applicant is entitled to complete the development on Lot 1 with the originally approved floor area. The proposed residence is in compliance with this floor area limitation under the current definition of calculating floor area. Since this is the definition used to design the structure as proposed in this application, the applicant is requesting that the current definition vest with any approval which is granted to the current application. I The following narrative provides background regarding the history of the property and describes the architectural concept for the project. The development program for Lot 1 is consistent with that approved for the Subdivision, which called for the following mix of deed-restricted and freemarket units: Units: 1. Deed-Restricted Units: 7 (70%) 2. Freemarket Units: 3(30%) (70% / 30% Unit Mix Requirement Satisfied) Bedrooms: 1. Deed-Restricted Bedrooms (3/unit): 21 (64%) 2. Freemarket Bedrooms (4/unit): 12 (36%) ' U (60% /40% Bedroom Mix Requirement Satisfied) The residence proposed for Lot 1 has been designed by Bill Poss and Associates, Architects. The Schematic Design drawings for the resic .ace are included on the j following 9 pages. 2 \ 7.~ 0/ /2 / 1 - -1 - --- --Ift - 1-*-N 1 0>U 1. -3 *\ 1 L.U 7 i 1 \ .1 - ---\ \~-,- -0 -7 \-1--- L_-/0:2- .Imr//-- M. r R!. 'fetpty; 1.-4 . I .-/9 9 1 / lili L.1-2 11 -- - t LEI--42 \ -. te'.- - - -i 1 $ '~ ill #il 1/ ~ f 1 . ,7 1.7 /, T L----4-Z~*ILJ .*r=.=â€¢ F'CWK.4*Ke I. I V "l' 64Â¥46 '. r - ,:~ 0 +HY,t - 41 Fnl U. i 4 - --1 - 1 ' 1 -j , 4 : - 0 :4.,4. ~='.14#fl.k'.~.. ~ '. 4 '--,4-3. <::/.&.. I ./...1. 1. f - . fU. r zz===- k.-_u=:r 11 J I b ,- 11 :=>f-f-*c, 1.: -~91.-1 1 - M z 1199 ~ --* AC' - -4-.4,@ c 6 .' e - -4\ x. -. - 1 1.- - + Â· .1 .: yt..t/F ]'00 1 1 ./ 1 1 1 / 4 N mi Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado D- Schematic Design - Site Plan Bill Poss and Associates Scale: 1"=20'-0" Architecture and Planning 'spen, C (dorado 111!51111*Bil 11'AW . 12= lillia: i" Sm' f & 5 11.~111* al!112 J ..â€¢14:Â©4"#,c". 4.,ag.# 1 i rÂ· A- .148Â£>It ' ' IeR>MAGE 444- i x /'r--3Â·Â·2 1 : -N V k : P 70- Â· i rfed'Ng . ..... 1 eli \ f i li !41* 15,1 .0"449 80Â©M râ€¢11_ .- MÂ·94-7.- 0201 , 1,1 / i I.F .// 223:61, t=<27*29~/Tri,7 -12Vt,Â¥Ff --5-- N Wible'lzeM ~f~ 7 #i fi-t* Â£" 1147 . 11112 -f- th u l. , ..4, 1 11 - 0 E Fil - f 111 - Â» *.1-9 4 r , 1 A .9< 9:a~.1. f\. 1 Bill=- . L.-1 2_ 'b==m- I Â£ 116 Al i 1 17Â«*04 , , / 4 11/ i - 1 Mypm MazM_ 982 l #.- J 1 i 'T' f =11: X 141 1 t . 11 \ Mut; SM . f 1---Â·--.l wettrwa,up I - 1 ~-'T-F- --TI 38&,famr;6~w - [44 it= ===1 .21.1*2 -~Z__2 = = ar - 1 1 1 11 -Ifi~f%Â£MWH 0 / Ute Park Subdivision 49 1 1\ , 11 1 1 Aspen, Colorado 4 It ' 1 L-L ----:*--- 1-III- *- Schematic Design - Lower Level PtÂ¢fti> Bill Poss and Associates Scale: 1" = 10'-0" 2 - -tl Architecture and Planning .*spen, Color.ido r k 1. f fp,Â¥,C ---t 1--I-If~ 44- i I L 1 - t_ I 1 \11 b 1 1 Â£44 0.<1:267 1- Inft Fl I ; ; i n 1 1 'fl 32,1 1 1 1 /T-1 1 h Â·Â·p- -* . 1 . . ..... .~.â€ž F .7 tt]-6 Â·- L 4~fr L '\ri- m r d Ud 14-~rii-- ~~ f= rl 1 1 0/ f=l -471Â§Â«/13 , m I fit 1 \ 16=t i.-7 ---12 t ~Â© 1 4=*=1 Up-1 f K i M, 8,â‚¬Tti ~ '' Li U 1 1 41. LEÂ·ir,al , ~~ rL==:.2--r~- 6 1 4.M --4/ -44- 1.1 1 l. - 1 . la. 11- 1 91\/thle 022>M Nk>W 1 041 F-Tui N | F Â»449 1 11 /2 4 154 1 9 K y 1 / 1 1 &73\\\ C;Frice E 1 rl ,~'~ 1 \ J ~04 ~09~4 (C 19% 14 ' 11 1 1 J 'P liN TAq] 42-1 ra- A . 1/ 1 L..... 1 /1--1 1 -+rm==4 1 1 1 -4 - - lilli -- -- d -- -- 1,1- r -1 1 1 i# '- 1,9 Ute Park Subdivision -0- --IT -p Â·-_ 4.- 1 1 Aspen, Colorado 1~ Schematic Design - Main Level A4n-gtss=Â»L---- Bill Poss and Associates Scale: i =10'-0" .,-~.9 -,-r Architecture and Planning Upen. C 0101Â·ado 1 1 i 1 IN / IX i 4 1\ - 1 \ -1 -1 1 ' 7 \ pili 1 / / 1 - > 1 Â» 1/ a ..1 1 // 1 'y'll' 11 1 / r Mer 514.- - 11 LU f\\11,1 -9-2 1-- 1 1 1 1 191 1 44 0 9 F-2 I 1 ! 1 1, u-5- 94. -**hurl i . / - - 1 ./ il / -11 - .j.==*.2=41 .: 1 / l j 1 1 1 4 It j '1% b -- -21 1 91 1 -2 Lut Ute Park Subdivision Aspen, Colorado F:.111,11 11 Schematic Design - Upper Level Plaâ‚¬ i 3-L -1.L Bill Poss and Associates i Scale: 1 " = 10'-0. Architecture ancl Planning \,pen. ( 4,1('rado - It i 1- -1- 1 1 1 1 111 i #.\ !' \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 t- -24 / - 4 1 L 1 7 1 1/ 1 1 L// I , -2 -3 1 | E F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 - 1 1 r 4 1 1 1 l 7 /7 -I -- -a -p* ,-2- 1 ~/ M Ute Park Subdivision - ip ~i Aspen, Colorado i i LLi -1--tio~173-ILTF_! Bill Poss and Associates [.M Schematic Design - Roof Plan %1Â«77-E-.56 . --.... - Architecture and Planning Scale: t"= 10'-0 " *spen, ('olotÂ·ado /41 // - \1 54##AE i i li i k a & 1 4 r *-< . El .1 EL. 00'190 Verti4 i 1 -4, . ,/lfi/' 1.Â·0 \%*.Â£-.L-1- L.oJ .IE 1 p ,1-1.i_~__ILJ.â€¢lte:i, 1- r 'L!--EIL,.--â€¢-4/&,irr- - =;1,- *1 JO -i.-ill-- ~P 2 --1 EL. 9094. // -3- 1- -AM,IN #4/*ref MilinmJ'Ij!2%5Â·: El- 08,89,1 k.tr,1 1,0 7-17 T -Tl- 11>r -1 tk It iLLi..2 1 iÂ·u _14-L--2--4--5- -. , 1 it 1 1 - 11 - il i 1 L . 1 - - 1 1--0 1 -4-f-3 1 -----r 7 7 -: ra- 96 009,3 Etâ‚¬.00444 M Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado Schematic Design - West Elevation ( entry side ) Bill Poss and Associates Architecture and Planning Sctlle: 1" = 10'- 0" ./spen. Colorado r--1 . trbt 4- - * - v,prÂ· 7=1 1-1 j#j - 33[- LE i.--â€¢,â€ž,,--1- i -16. i 8/2/jetif'fc 11" . I . .-F...1 p + 1 14'YN-14%11%24 1 TU-111&3=1..$81 -1-wl limmimall a .. . . WqN . *Â£414 7 n Elâ€ž 05*/,15 - - -... 0,0*6% M Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado .w Schematic Design - East Elevation Bill Poss and Associates Scale: 1" = 10'-0" Architectureand Planning \Apen. C olorado F 'A 3 -1 $0 31 + 0 11 4 4 1 2 01- 1 .-' -111 49# 4- 1- 4=-mt#f?:al _~_ - 311' ~ 3 I f Â»mÂ»13- 1, 1-11]t#lil-Iwi~- . 41 4(71 D 11 1 4 1 .-Try-rr 9 1 5 3 1/ 3316 2 L- - -*--- M Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado 1 178:/ -â€¢ Schematic Design - North Elevation Bill Poss and Associates Scale: 1"= 10'- 0" Architecture and Planning ispet:. ( 010]-adc, -JI Lal 1 1 .Â» jew Wlf:- 11 O -' -1 i Ji i i i 2 1 1 1 1 1 -1-1~ i -T 1-- OFFFMZ. Â£ r~-t-r--r-n -ry, 72/ 1 1 ) 1 4 1.-,4 1 1 1 1 V .r-m.--4 14 rril 1. 11,-!1 t tlf-lil\ MH l[ If- 11 -----* -----=7 ---* -'-- 11 31-4---- - 1 -il --: . --4- -1 322 111 1 1.1 1I #,1 *0 91*11 1 L r - -----I.---- I--I- . -I.-#-m- . *Â«eldz:22 * ~ Ze *044,1 - M Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado 1~ Schematic Design - South Elevation Bill Poss and Associates Scale: 1 ; 1. - ., Architecture and Planning isprn, C olo]Â·ad{) II. DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY rT SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA's) (8040 GREENLINE REVIEW) (CHAPTER 26.435): The only natural hazard which affects the property is an area of potential avalanches, which was identified by Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant. Mr. Mears was L I retained by the owners of the property to assess avalanche hazards on the property during the PUD / Sudivision Review. In his 1992 report for the property, he concluded that homes could be built safely within certain areas within the Subdivision which are unaffected by the slide zones. Those areas were designated as unconditional building envelopes on the Final Plat. The "red" (areas of frequent but not intense slides) and "blue" (powder blast) avalanche zones were identified as conditional building envelopes. It is Mr. Mears' opinion that construction can also occur within the conditional building envelopes provided that appropriate mitigation techniques are implemented. The applicant has again retained Mr. Mears to prepare a loading analysis for the proposed residence once the schematic design was completed (see Exhibit H). Even though the habitable space for the residence has been located entirely within the unconditional building envelope, Mr. Mears has concluded that the east facade of the structure will be subject to avalanche loads due to lateral spreading of debris. This spreading will be enhanced by the proposed cuts into the existing terrain. Mr. Mears concludes that one event with a 10 to 30 year return period will result in deposition of debris against some of the surfaces along the east facade but that a much larger event with a return period of 30 to 100 years would be required to produce the loads illustrated in Figure 2 of his analysis. A. Purpose (Sec. 26.435.010): Under the provisions of Sec. 26.435.010, certain land areas within the city are 4 considered to be of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic significance and all development within such areas is subject to the Special Review procedures of Chapter 26.430 and the standards as set forth in Chapter 26.435. Such areas are known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas ("ESA's") and include the following: 12 1. 8040 Greenline (Sec. 26.435.010.A): Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the "8040 Greenline"), including that area extending 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline, are designated as a part of the 8040 Greenline ESA. Development in these areas is subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mud slide, and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review is intended to further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and also ensure that disturbance to the existing terrain and natural land features will be kept to a minimum. B. Authority (Sec. 26.435.020): Following the receipt of a recommendation from the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of Chapter 26.435, is authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for development in an ESA. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for exempt development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). C. 8040 greenline review (Sec. 26.435.030): 1. Applicability (Sec. 26.435.030.A): The provisions of 8040 Greenline Review apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the "8040 Greenline") within the City of Aspen, and all development within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Sec. 26.435.030 (B). The property is located within the City of Aspen. Elevations on the property range between 8038 vertical feet at the lower end of the property and 8120 vertical feet at the upper end. Therefore, 8040 Greenline Review of the proposed development is required. 2. Exemption (Sec. 26.435.030.B): The proposal is not eligible for exemption from 8040 Greenline Review because it is not an expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development on the lot. The lot is presently vacant. 13 3. 8040 greenline review standards (Sec. 26.435.030.C): Development is only permitted at, above, or 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all of the requirements set forth below: - a. "The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability 1 F characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility Of mud flow, rock falls and aualanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and reuegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a - location acceptable to the city." Response: The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located has previously been deemed suitable for development considering its slope, C ground stability characteristics (including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers) as a result of the City's review and approval of the Subdivision in 1992 (see Exhibit B). A Phase One level environmental assessment was conducted as a part of the subdivision approval process and no hazardous or toxic soils, such as mine tailings, were identified on the site under that analysis. Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant was originally retained by the owners of the property to assess avalanche hazards within the Subdivision and has analyzed the proposed residence for Lot 1 to determine the extent of avalanche loads on the structure. Mr. Mears does not recommend diversionary structures (uphill walls and barriers) in dealing with the slide zones. Instead, he recommends that the structure itself be made strong enough to withstand any avalanche loading to provide protection for its occupants. The applicant worked closely with Mr. Mears and a structural engineer during the construction of the affordable housing on Lot 4 and determined that, with the relatively smallloads that are involved in that case, the one building element requiring more strength than that offered by conventional construction techniques involved the ground floor windows. In that situation, windows developed to withstand hurricane-force winds were specified. These window units are steel-frame units bolted into the surrounding concrete. i 14 ? The applicant is committed to undertake a similar investigation during the preparation of construction documents for this residence to assure that the 1 1 structure can easily withstand the loads of a larger event as determined by Mr. Mears. b. "The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution." Response: The proposed development of the residence will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Erosion control fencing will be erected at the lower perimeter of the area to be disturbed prior to commencement of excavation. Areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated within one growing season. c. "The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on , the air quality in the city. " Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality within the City of Aspen. When occupied, the average daily traffic to and from the residence is expected to contribute an additional 5.86 round trips per day to Ute Avenue. The applicant previously committed to participate in the Ute Avenue Improvement District. Fireplaces and other woodburning devices will be in compliance with City regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. d. "The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed deuelopment is to be located." Response: During construction of the infrastructure for the subdivision, the driveway to the building site on Lot 1 was rough-graded and all utilities were extended underground to the lot boundary. The conceptual design of the residence has been revised to locate all enclosed areas of the residence outside of the avalanche blue zone as mapped by Arthur Mears, Natural Hazards Consultant while saving as many of the existing trees as possible (see Tree Removal Plan, Exhibit I). The public trail through the Subdivision has been constructed generally in the approved location. 15 .~. e. "Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features." Response: F The concept for site grading is to maintain natural grade around the perimeter of the structure except where terraces, the auto court and the entry area are located in order to minimize disturbance to the terrain, vegetation f L and natural land features on the balance of the site. The location of the structure in close proximity to the turnaround also minimizes site disturbance on the one-acre parcel. All of the proposed regrading of the site will be limited to an area approximately 36 inches around the perimeter to the building footprint, with the exception of the access and the turnaround area adjacent to the garage. The access will be built in compliance with any City standards for driveways, except as discussed in this application. r - i. "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 placement of the residence entirely within the unconditional building envelope in the western half of the lot has been chosen to avoid the avalanche blue zone and to save as many trees as possible. The compact configuration of the structure will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. g. "Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character Of the mountain. " Response: Building height established during the P. U. D. review is consistent with the j current height limit of 25 feet for the single-family residential zones. The bulk i of the structure when viewed from Ute Avenue has been minimized by extending the structure up, rather than across, the sidehill. A substantial percentage of the structure will be subgrade as a result of building the residence into the sidehill. The site of the residence is well screened by other existing structures and trees which will be maintained where possible and F augmented with additional trees planted to screen the structure from below. 16 The structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. / h. "Su#ident water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development." Response: Water service has previously been extended to the lot boundary within the subdivision by means of an 8" main, as required under the Water Service Agreement entered into between the developer and the City of Aspen. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District lines are in place for sewer service. Holy Cross Electric service, gas service from K N Energy and cable TV service from AT&T Cable Services are also available to the lot boundary. Adequate water pressure and other utilities are available for both domestic use and to meet the fireflow requirements of the sprinkler system which must be provided. L "Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained." Response: An adequate road has previously been extended into the subdivision from Ute Avenue and is available to serve the proposed development on Lot 1. The subdivision road is maintained by the owners of the three lots which are served by the road. j. "Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment." Response: Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development on Lot 1 along the private access road into Ute Park Subdivision from Ute Avenue. Adequate access for fire protection and private snow removal i equipment is available. The design standards for the private road were previously established through the approval process for the Subdivision and the road was constructed to assure access to fire and other emergency vehicles. The Plat includes a dedicated access and utility easement from Ute Avenue to Lot 1. Snow storage typically occurs on the downhill side of the Subdivision's access road. 17 k. "The recommendations of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical." Response: A trail alignment is designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/ Open Space/ Trails Plan map in the general vicinity of the Subdivision. An easement for a non-motorized trail for public use was previously dedicated on the Plat (see Exhibit Dl). A rough trail alignment was constructed by the Nordic Council several years ago, and parts of the trail across Lots 1 and 2 were recently re-aligned to shift the trail slightly away from the building sites. D. Procedure for approval of development in ESA (Sec. 26.435.070): Under the provisions of Sec. 26.435.070.A, a development application for development in an ESA shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304, as discussed below in Section E. A one-step review is required, with a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission. There are no notice requirements, however. E. Application (Sec. 26.435.080): Under the provisions of Sec. 26.435.080, a development application for development in an ESA shall include the following: 1. General Application Information (Sec. 26.435.080.A): The general application information required in Sec. 26.304.030, Application and Fees: a. General (Sec. 26.304.030.A): Sixteen copies of this application are being submitted in the form, and which includes the information and materials specified for ESA Review in Sec. 26.435.030, and those for Residential Design Review in Chapter 26.410. The application is accompanied by a fee of $ 1,260.00, as requested by the Planning Office. 18 b. Application (Sec. 26.304.030.B): The application includes the following information and materials: i. "Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalfof the applicant." A letter signed by the applicant which includes the applicant's name, address and telephone number and which designates Joseph Wells Land Planning as its representative authorized to act on its behalf is included as i Exhibit Al. ii. "The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development." The street address of the parcel is 1279 Ute Avenue. The legal description is Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision. The parcel identification number of the lot is 2737-184-03-001. m. "A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application." A disclosure of ownership of the parcel, consisting of a certificate from First American Title Company, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application is included as Exhibit A2. iv. "An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen." An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen is included as Exhibit A3. v. "A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. " The site plan for the proposed residence which illustrates the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings, has been prepared by Bill Poss and Associates (see architectural drawings following page 2). 19 vi. "A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surue-yor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)" The site is presently vacant. The only man-made improvements on the property include the access drive to the building site and a trail alignment which was constructed by the Parks Department. A site topographic survey prepared byRobert C. Hutton which includes topography and trees in excess of 8" caliper is included as Exhibit A4 showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. vii. " A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application." A written description of the proposal is included in Section I as well as the introductions to Sections II and III of this application. A written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to 8040 Greenline Review is included in Sec. II.C.3, beginning on page 14 and those relevant to Residential Design Review is included in Sec. III.D, beginning on page 26. Viii. "Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. " The applicant has included in this application the materials, documentation and reports as requested by the Community Development Department as a result of the pre-app conference. c. Consolidation of applications (Sec. 26.304.030.C): Consolidated review of 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested by the applicant. d. Copyrighted materials (Sec. 26.304.030.D): No copyright applications have been made for the materials submitted with this application. In the event that the applicant should desire to make such copyright application in the future, at that time the applicant will agree to 20 waive all claims and indemnify the City. The applicant consents that any 1 document submitted to the City of Aspen as part of this development application may be utilized by the City in any manner deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, recording at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, to preserve the representations made during the development review process. 2. Proposed Development Plan (Sec. 26.435.080.B): A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following information: a. "The boundary of the property for which development is requested. " The boundary of the property is illustrated on the Topographic Survey prepared by Robert C. Hutton, Professional Land Survyor, included as Exhibit A4. b. "Existing and proposed improvements." Existing improvements, including the location of the roughed-in driveway, trail, approved building envelopes and utility locations are illustrated on the Topographic Survey. Proposed improvements are illustrated on the architectural drawings prepared by Bill Poss and Associates following page 2. c. "Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. " Significant natural features, including the boundary of the avalanche red and blue zones as mapped by Arthur Mears, and existing trees are illustrated on the Topographic Survey. 3. Additional ESA Requirements (Sec. 26.435.080.C): In addition to the minimum plan contents described above, the development plan submitted for development in each type of ESA is also required to include the following: a. Additional 8040 Greenline Requirements (Sec. 26.435.080.C.1): For development subject to 8040 greenline review, the plan is also required to depict: 21 i. "Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with fiue-foot intervals for grades ouer ten (10) percent." Existing grades at two-foot contours are illustrated on the Topographic Survey. Proposed grades are illustrated on the architectural Site Plan prepared by Bill Poss and Associates. U. "Proposed eleuations of the development." Elevations of the proposed residence are illustrated on the architectural drawings prepared by Bill Poss and Associates. m. " A description of proposed construction techniques to be used." It is anticipated that the construction techniques to be employed on the proposed residence will be traditional stick-built construction on spread concrete footings and foundation walls. 22 III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (CHAPTER 26.410): r Ute Park Subdivision is a four-lot subdivision located on the sidehill to the south of Ute Avenue near the Aspen Club. Lot 4 is the site of seven deed-restricted townhomes. The townhomes front on Ute Avenue. The three remaining lots in the subdivision are freemarket single-family homesites accessed from a private street which departs from Ute Avenue and climbs gradually up to the southeast to a turnaround which serves all three of these homesites. Because two of the three single-family sites are well above the public street, they do not have a strong relationship to the public street below. In fact, Lot 1, the subject site, is almost completely hidden from view from Ute Avenue by the existing home on Lot 3 and the three-story townhouses which lie between the public street and the building site on Lot 1. The building site on Lot 1 is also separated vertically by approximately 50 feet of elevation change and horizontally by approximately 150 feet from Ute Avenue, further weakening the relationship between the public street and the building site. It The applicant previously presented to the Community Development Department an alternative design for the proposed residence on Lot 1 which encroached into the so- called avalanche 'blue zone", as identified by Arthur Mears. Under that alternative, the larger area available to design the structure created additional flexibility for the architects and therefore greater opportunities for further compliance with the strict language of the Residential Design Standards. After a review of that alternative, however, the applicant was encouraged by the Community Development Department staff to re-design the residence in a location outside of the avalanche blue zone, and the applicant has opted to follow that recommendation, as indicated by the current design (refer to Schematic Design drawings following page 2). Finally, in some cases, the language of the standards themselves suggests that the regulations were written for relatively small, flat lots, fronting on public streets within the Aspen Townsite, and then later applied to virtually all residential development within the City, without regard to the difficulties owners of lots with significantly , different characteristics would have in complying with some of the standards. t 23 A. General (Sec. 26.410.010): 1. Purpose. Portions of the following language incorporated in Sec. 26.410.010.A, Purpose, - support the applicant's contention that the residential design standards were written primarily for Aspen Townsite lots within the City grid. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the strict language of all of the standards when designing a structure for an approved lot such as the one which is the subject of this request. The underlining below indicates language which seems to be inapplicable to the single-family lots within the subdivision where the site is located: "The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between .front facades Of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in .front setback patterns. there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. The area between the street and the front door Of the home is a transition between the public realin of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and liedges may be used to delineate the edge of a propertg, but it is important not to close off views Of the.front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front facade of a house are particularly important components of ~ neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor liuing space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. Acknowledgement Of the context that has been established by the existing built environment, is important to protecting the uniqueness of the town. Avoiding building materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures. Finally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature o.fa neighborhood can befurther enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and automobiles, and by making allevs an 24 attractive place to walk. Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleus and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged." 2. Applicability: The site is within the City of Aspen and is not within the R-15B zone district, and therefore review under Section 26-410 is required. 3. Application: This application for residential development addresses the applicable requirements of the Code for the required reviews, including those of Sec. 26.304.030 addressed in Section II above, beginning on page 12, as well as those for Residential Design Standards review, pursuant to Section 26.410.020. 4. Exemptions: The proposed development is not an addition or remodel of an existing structure or an application only for the erection of a fence, and is therefore not exempt from review under the provisions of Section 26.410.010.D. B. Procedures for Review (Sec. 26.410.020): 1. Determination of Applicability: The applicant's representative has attended a pre-application conference with Nick Lelack of the Community Development Department and a determination has been made that the proposed project is not exempt from the requirements of Chapter 26-410 (see pre-app form, included as Exhibit A5). The applicant's representative has received an application packet as a result of that pre-app conference. 2. Determination of Consistency: Under the provisions of Sec. 26.410.020.B, upon receipt of an application for Residential Design Standards review, the Community Development Director shall first determine if the development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards set forth in Sec. 26.410.040. The applicant's responses to the standards of Sec. 26.410.040 are discussed in Subsection III.D below, beginning on page 26. 25 3. Appeal or Adverse Determination: If the application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant is seeking a variance from that standard, as permitted under Sec. 26.410.020.D. 4. Variances: It is anticipated that variances from certain of the Residential Design Standards (Sec. 26.410.040) will be required, as noted below. Variances may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee as established in Chapter 26.222. Because the applicant is consolidating Residential Design Review with 8040 Greenline Review, however, the applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the variances requested. C. Administrative checklist (Sec. 26.410.030): The applicant's representatives have utilized the information provided by the Community Development Department in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for the proposed development. D. Residential Design Standards (Sec. 26.410.040): 1. Site Design (Sec. 26.410.040.A): "The intent Of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries Of private property without eliminating the visibility Of the house and front yard from the street." a. Building Orientation (Sec. 26.410.040.A.1): " The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner Of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired." Response: This standard is not applicable to the proposed design because the lot does not front on a public street and is not a corner lot under the Code definition. The standard does not address a condition similar to this specific site in which there is no relationship to a public street and where the private street 26 terminates at the lot, rather than continue on past the lot. The principal mass of the structure is, however, effectively parallel to the radius of the turnaround for the private street that it faces. The inference of the standard is that the preferred orientation would be similar to that proposed. b. Build-to Lines (Sec. 26.410.040.A.2): " On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, at least 60% of both street facades of the building shall be within 5 feet Of the minimum setback lines. Porches may be used to meet the 60% standard. " Response: The lot area of the subject parcel is in excess of 15,000 sq.ft. (approximately 43,084 sq. ft.) and no specific requirement for build-to lines are incorporated in the standard for lots larger than 15,000 sq. ft. Therefore, this standard is not applicable to the proposed design. Nonetheless, the proposed design complies with this standard. c. Fences (Sec. 26.410.040.A.3): " Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (4") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback" Response: Any fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes which are installed in areas forward of the front facade of the house (facing the turnaround) will not exceed a height of forty-two inches, measured from natural grade. No berms will be installed in the front yard setback. 2. Building Form (Sec. 26.410.040.B): "The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City allevs, and by preserving solar access." a. Secondary Mass (Sec. 26.410.040.B.1): " All new structures shall locate at least 10 % of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building> or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory 27 buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass." Response: The proposed design requires a variance from this standard. The sidehill topographic conditions and access to the site from the front of the property with no alley access available make compliance this standard problematic. The architects have attempted to break down the massing by stepping the structure down along the slope. The applicant's and staff's desire to avoid the avalanche blue zone and to save existing trees where possible has consolidated the footprint in such a way that there is inadequate area to employ a secondary mass. There are no historic residences in the neighborhood of the subject parcel. A scale sympathetic with the residences on neighboring parcels has been maintained in the design. 3. Parking, Garages and Carports (Sec. 26.410.040.C): "The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile tra#ic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." a. Access from Alley or Private Road (Sec. 26.410.040.C.1): "For all residential uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one exists." Response: No alley access is available. The garage of the proposed residence is, however, accessed from a private street, in compliance with this standard. b. If no Access from Alley or Private Road (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2): "For all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall be met:" i. Relationship of First-floor Living Area to Garage (Sec. 26.410.040.Cia): " On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least fiue (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. " Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized. The standards of Sec. 26.410.040.C are intended to minimize the visual impact of parking 28 areas from public streets and are therefore not applicable in this case. If the standard did apply, the steep topography of the site would preclude the applicant from meeting the standard on level without creating extensive grading cuts into the hillside. The garage does conform to the standard if the overalllength of the front facade is taken into account in lieu of the first level only. ii. Garage Setback (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.b): r "The front facade of the garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten feet (10' 0") further from the street than the frontmost wall of the house." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the garage would not conform with the 10 foot setback requirement from the front facade. The unconventional limitations imposed by the designated building envelope, site topography, existing tree locations and a desire to avoid the designated avalanche zone all pose restrictions to the design of the residence. A single-story porch- like shed roof has been added over the garage doors to visually mitigate i the impact to the private street. iii. Garage Forward of Facade (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.c): " On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of tile house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded)." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the proposed design does not take advantage of the option to locate the garage forward of the front facade. The alternative design which was developed and presented to the Community Development Department staff included a garage element forward of the facade. That design was in conformance with this standard. 29 iv. Garage not at Grade (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.d): "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the proposed design would require a variance from this standard. The steepness of the cross slope upon which the drive and garage are situated requires a cut in excess of 2 feet in order to have an access solution which is workable. v. Width of Garage Doors (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.e): "The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four feet (24')." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this standard. The garage entrance width is approximately 20 feet. vi. Single-stall Garage Doors (Sec. 26.410.040.C.2.6: "The garage doors shall be single stall doors." Response: This standard does not apply to the project because access is available from a private street and that access is being utilized (see above). If the standard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this standard. Two single-stall doors are proposed. 4. Building Elements (Sec. 26.410.040.D): "The intent Of the following building elements standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." 30 a. Street-oriented Entrance and Principal Window (Sec. 26.410.040.Ill): "All single-family homes, townhouses, and duplexes shall have a street- I oriented entrance and a street-facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and principal windows should face those features." Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. The residence is entered from the west, facing the private street turnaround. The principal window element on the west facade is above the garage. b. Corner Lots and Multiple-Unit Residential Buildings (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1): "On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. Multiple unit residential buildings shall have at least one street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units, and front units I must have a street-facing principal window. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met:" i. Entrv Doors (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1.a): "The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10,0") back from the frontmost wall Of the building. Entry doors shall not be p taller than eight feet. " Response: i This standard is not applicable to the site, as the lot is not a corner lot under the Code definition, nor is the proposed structure considered a multi-family residence. If the standard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this standard. The entry doors face the 01 street turnaround and are located within the plane of the west facade. Where the facade has been modulated, the elements do not extend over two feet in front of the main mass of the facade. The eight-foot deep entry porch is not enclosed. Entry doors will not be taller than eight feet." ii. Entry Porch (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1.b): "A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. " Response: This standard is not applicable to the site, as the lot is not a corner lot 1 1 under the Code definition, nor is the proposed structure considered a multi-family residence. If the standard did apply, the proposed design 31 would be in compliance with this standard. A covered entry porch of approximately 100 square feet, with a depth of eight feet, has been incorporated into the front facade. The entry porch is a one-story design element located at the top of a flight of exterior stairs leading up to the entry. iii. Street-facing Principal Window (Sec. 26.410.040.D.1.c): "A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or K0 group of windows face the street." Response: This standard is not applicable to the site, as the lot is not a corner lot under the Code definition, nor is the proposed structure considered a multi-family residence. If the standard did apply, the proposed design would be in compliance with this standard. b. One-story Element (Sec. 26.410.040.D.2): "All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one-story element may be a porch roof, Â£ architectural projection, or living space." Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. A porch-like canopy 26 feet in length has been placed along the elevation facing the private street. This design element comprises approximately 37 percent of the overall building width. c. Windows (Sec. 26.410.040.ID.3): i. No-Window Zone (Sec. 26.410.040.D.3.a): "Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. All street-facing areas with an exterior expression of plate height greater than ten (10) feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) squarefoot of floor area. Exterior expressionshallbe defined asfacade 32 penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of finished floor." ' Response: As the attached architectural drawings following page 2 illustrate, the r proposed design complies with this standard. No areas of glazing span more than one floor of the residence. ii. Non-orthogonal Windows (Sec. 26.410.040.D.3.b): 'No more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one non- orthogonal window." Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. No more than one non-orthogonal window is contemplated for each facade. d. Lightwells (Sec. 26.410.040.D.4): * All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wall Of the r building." 1 Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. No such features are planned for the street-facing facade. 5. Context (Sec. 26.410.040.E): The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures.' a. Materials (Sec. 26.410.040.El): "The following standards must be met: i. Consistent Use of Materials (Sec. 26.410.040.El.a): "The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides Of the building. " Response: As the attached architectural drawings following page 2 illustrate, the proposed design complies with this standard. The use of materials is consistent on all facades of the residence. 33 ii. Characteristics of Materials (Sec. 26.410.040.E.1.b): "Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone" Response: The proposed design complies with this standard. Exterior building , materials include wood siding over a stone base and wood shingles on the roof. iii. Reflective Surfaces (Sec. 26.410.040.E.1.4 "Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials." Response: With the obvious exception of the windows, the proposed design complies with this standard. If metal roofing is used, it will include a non- reflective coating. b. Inflection: (Sec. 26.410.040.E.2): "The following standard must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or ouer: i. Relationship to Neighboring Sites (Sec. 26.410.040.Ela): "If a one (1) story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side towards which to inflect. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one story." Response: The non-traditional nature of the Subdivision creates a question regarding how this standard should be applied to the site. The three single-family lots are not laid out in a strict side-by-side arrangement, but rather in a U-shaped configuration around the end of the turnaround. No adjacent lot exists as illustrated in the graphic example. The subject lot has a stronger relationship to Lot 2, on the uphill side of the private street, than 34 to Lot 3, below, but Lot 3 relates more to Ute Avenue than the upper two sites. Even though the portion of the residence on the neighboring Lot 2 closest to Lot 1 is only one level above grade along the common boundary, it reads as a two-story element when viewed from the private street below. This is perhaps the more appropriate point of comparison for Lot 2. Lot 3 reads as a one-story building adjacent to the private street but as a two- story structure when viewed from Ute Avenue. An 11-foot tall single- story inflecting element on the north (downhill) side of the proposed residence has been incorporated in the design which relates to the lower design elements of the two adjacent residences. 35 V. EXHIBITS A. General Application Information (Including Sec. 26.435.080.A) Al. Owner's Letter of Authorization to File. A2. Title Commitment. First American Title Company A3. Vicinity Map. A4. Topographic Survey of Lot One. Robert C. Hutton, Professional Land Surveyor A5. Pre-Application Conference Summary. A6. Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees. A7. Land-Use Application Form. A8. Dimensional Requirements Form. B. City Council Ordinance 18, Series of 1992. C. City Council Ordinance 22, Series of 1992. D. Subdivision Plats: Dl. Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision. D2. First Amendment to Ute Park Subdivision. E. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision. F. May 5, 1997 Letter from Charles T. Brandt to John Worcester, City Attorney Re: Vesting. G. May 15, 1997 Response from John Worcester, City Attorney to Charles T. Brandt Re: Vesting. H. Avalanche Loading Analysis. Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. I. Tree Removal Plan Bill Poss and Associates EXHIBIT A. General Application Information (Including Sec. 26.435.080.A) Al. Owner's Letter of Authorization to File. A2. Title Commitment. First American Title Company A3. Vicinity Map. A4. Topographic Survey of Lot One. Robert C. Hutton, Professional Land Surveyor A5. Pre-Application Conference Summary. A6. Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees. A7. Land-Use Application Form. A8. Dimensional Requirements Form. Exhibit Al. HOWARD G. STACKER 1100 Internationai Centre 900 Secona Avenue South Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 (612) 347-7112 February 3,2000 Ms. Julie Ann Woods i Director of Community Development, / City o f Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: f James T. Martin and I each own an undivided 50% interest in Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision. This letter is to confirm that Mr. Martin and I have authorized Joseph Wells Land Planning to file on our behalf the attached application for 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a residence proposed for the lot. During the processing ofthis request, please contact Joe Wells at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely yours, --pof''dn.~u 4 / Howard G. Stacker HGS/sjm 2346966 ,j James T. Martin 67 St. Andrews Circle Durango, CO 81301 February 7,2000 Ms. Julie Ann Woods $ Director of Community Development, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: I am writing to you as owner of an undivided 50% interest in Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision. My letter is to confirm that the other owner, Howard Stacker, and l have authorized Joseph Wells Land Planning to file on our behalf the attached application for 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Review for a residence proposed for the lot. i During the processing of this request, please contact Joe Wells at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely yours, '06Â«4-4_ 31 ) 3 7 ift__ James T. Martin 970/375-2355 Office 970/375-2356 Fax 1) CO{ME-MENT SCHEDULE A Exhibit A2. COIDWELL BA~aCER/UIE PARK PARINERSHIP, LTD 720 EAST DURANT 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: August 8, 1997 at 7:00 AM Order No. 404955 -(6 JM/bi aista,Er Reference 6 2. ALTA Owner's Policy Aaamt: S Proposed Insured: MJRRY BOWDEN 3. ALTA Loan Policies Amount: S Proposed Insured: A LENDER TO BE DETERMINED Proposed Insured: Amount: S 4. The estate or interest in the land described ar referred to in this Carinity '- and covered herein is: j FEE SIMPLE and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: UIE PARK PARINERSHIP, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership issued by: Owner's Premium: S ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION Lender' s Premium: S 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE #305 Add,1 Lender Chg: $ ASPEN 00 81611 Add'l Charges: S FAX 970-920-4052 Tax Certificate: $ PH 970-920-4050 DENVER 303-595-8463 Endorsanent Chg: S TBE) aiarges: S TUIAL DIARGES: S FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Order No. 404955 -26 Secticn 1 REQUIREMENIS THE FOLIOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENI'S TO BE COâ€¢[PLIED WITH: Item (a) Payment to or for the aocount of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured Irust be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Deed fran UTE PARK PARINERSHIP, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership to >URRY BOWDEN. NCIE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to ;vrrâ€¢npany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288 - CRS 39-14-102. NOIE: Certificate of Limited Partnership for Ute Park Partnership, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership, a Colarado limited partnership, recorded January 17, 1994, in Book 739 at Page 29, discloses that the name(s) and address( es) of the general partner(s) of said limited partnership are as follows: James T. Martin 215 South Monarch Aspen CO 81611 Howard G. Stacker 300 Shepard Park Office Center St. Paul, MN 55116. 2. Deed of Trust frcm >UIRRY BOWDEN to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of A IENDER TO BE DEFEEMINED, to seaire AN AM)UNI' 'ID BE DEISMINED. ( Continued) r FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE O]APANY COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Section 2 EXCEPTIOE Order No. 404955 -26 The policy or policies to be issued will oontain eocepticns to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public reoards but which could ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the public reoords. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroadments, and \ any other facts which a correct survey would disclose and which are not shcwn by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labar or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, f. appearing in the public reoords or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of reoord for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Calmitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. NOTE: The Policy to be issued will reflect the status of taxes as of the date of closing. 7. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in thited States Patent recorded August 26, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 299. 8. Fire access easement being 30' in width, nordic/pedestrian trail easement being 15' in width, building envelope, unccoditional envelope, avalanche blue zone, avalanche red zone and falling rock zone as shown an the Plat of said subdivision. 9. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvements Agreenent between The City of Aspen and The Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado General PartrEship, recorded February 22, 1993, in Book 704 at Page 216. 10. Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1992) by the Aspen City Council recorded August 4, 1995, in Book 789 at Page 131. (Continued) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE IDEURANCE COWPANY EXCEPrmNS (continued) arder No. 404955 -C6 f 11. Easement and right of way for installation, ocnstruction, operation, use inspection, repair and maintenance of a trail suitable for bicyclists, pedestrians, cross coun-try skier and for other similar recreational purposes, as granted by Ute Park Partnership to City of Aspen by instrunent recorded February 22, 1993, in Book 704 at Page 242, said easement being more particularly described therein. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE IDSURANCE CaÂ¢[PANY 7 41 3 / *24- \F-/ C 47 17 -~ik Ely= - -* a '- / 23 -1 1 k 14 -~F-9 + Ilo Â«144< 1 12 , 0.0 11 4 4 -Â»11 \Wrf - .. , 4~ -/31/,/05'A-7111 , 0 -h . .I 't ...i-- mult ' \31\X\\0\ \ 'ir \ 4 /=ae- f ,/ -r '/2-;14*294,Bji 449 Â« / . U â‚¬ Lh\I\blf///~ ; 1 / 4 + -' .r 9.61 - r /,4- 01~ 1/ 4/' , 8 - /4/'34,71*215 14' 41?11'11*?PI'll - .0 3. 4 / 1% 3 0---3 /Â»i.- 9/4(49= . -0:â€¢ e 32,~ j . I -. , .= 8 2$4 1 95Â» - D Â£ , 111 Â¢C j *22/017~9Â¢- I /'-/0 - / ./' 4 .... . f th 1 Ely 11 i/\,l /11181< b 'Og\\\ /2 )1111 41 41111), 2 . 0 NfirÂ»/ , bÂ© r, 9/ . . fvjd Â°\ , - 2* ~ (fil ) 2/#,4 - (/ C, ~q C Â· / ~j k . /\(1, 7fk==16 411141.11 . .... e . ' 1 .51& (MA // , 1 11 or n .0 4Â»? ),31 11. I . - #Â·*: 4 fx<.2,~4#5(~uItlwTTY- 0 6 g f 1 x-Â·'... ---yo ~Â« S,t~~pl)) /9, 11,022 54/,j~ . ,/*41 1,1"fEZ~r >77 Ab. 1 \,\ i > i . Fic\*2/ l-45 /k - p 44<:94-1(4Â»4<~6Â»~~ 129 j % 'Ull/' /4 // : 5 -4 Ltiff#ffftÂ«~49; AfF// FY.LA-RK I A)# C), d f litÂ«. :1,1'~i U ,//lf \\\Wke=le/rt) i -41 J - 44 1 9,/~22 fj ('ft,8~9934 ~ C~L -5( ii) ) Gr ve 1 L :, <Â· .,24*f~En--- Gerri te g 4 1 1 / il f 1 ' ,-i~f Ck, e ) / U //)/ rn Â« UZZ>--- 4.334 (/( f / fraurÂ«==r k-j,4/ 3- tÂ«A i j \>N>til.6Â©Â» ~T#f \10* r /1 1 j Â¢ I 111 1--. .- r r Â® tÂ·fuâ‚¬ rl, f- 1~111~'1~1'Bc:'m=~941 - /0582=Zipt~N 112= *1 j / r h' 2:4% . / 91% 1 .4, \ \ -1- 11~LiNAAM,j -* 9 <tj Â£ f ~ 5.J =Â».2Â»4/// A < 1 11 "1111-iL ||1.16 \ Ar-\ 1/ /11 1\\\ \ 1 , C 9/ -v - 1 ( / 'll*t\Â»Â«er< 19 f jn-_2? /- XÂ»<22 . 7 --t~OLF COU - - - - - 61 ZU - N 4919'13- W - b 13333"- A râ€¢.3 05 46*' I - ' ASPEN Â·31- Â·' LM TE _ - , -- 7-t. 0 5 -e,GA 9 ALUMINUM CAP '20632 - ~ (AS PER ASSESSORS VAP 2-J---22 Exhibit A4. - 'P716 - __ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY \ 9, 8110 u. OF THE LANDS OF UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP N SCALE: ---- BEING LOT 1 OF PLAT OF UTE PARK SUBDIVISION \ (1ST AMENDMENT) FILED IN PLAT BOOK 38 AT PAGE 39, --- --- -~ (4' IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUND 6. B CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY \\ - -1 - ---dÂ·* \1. APRIL, 199- COLORADZ - * -N21 00- I 1- -- / SCALEÂ· 1" = 10 L.C--~ / 9 :_14//- Â·2 r n - -- 24-FW './- --- ROBERT C. HUTTON, 4 - -- - - PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR "", E â‚¬rnetÂ¢, 9 LO" - cr~' ' ' In. 816 1 -- V. ./ 1. 4. 0Â·. licensâ€¢ r.u 24 3 2 - 090-/- - , / - , / + * I- -- - ' NOTES. SURVE '"OP'S CFRTIFICATE , - 7/ ' 1271/ --- / _ _ -Ii -- , ASSESSOFES PARCEL NUMBEP 2737- UU-03-001 (#4030 M UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CER,IFIES TO FEDERIC B HOPNE AND AEPEN %- K - - -9231 - 2 TOTAL AREA = 43.084/ SQUARE FEE, OR 09291 ACRE. - - LOT 1 TITLE CORPORATION THAT THE IMPROVEMENE SUR 4 Â¥ TO WirCH â„¢'S CERTIFit â€¢Â·: 3 TiTLE REPORT USED FOF THIS SuRVE i FIRST AMERICAN TIE INSURANCE CO *t04817 2 3/28/9 AREA = 43,084 * SQ.F- WAN i I. % 4 7111.E REPORT ExCEPRON r & R - D S PATEN' RECORDED JUNE 17. '943. iN 80> 175 AT 14 ATTACHED PREPARED B, THE UNDERS.GNIC A PROFESSIONAL REG'STERE[ - 0.9891 i ACRE- ---=--p /70Â£ Ic>par~/ PEDEs-r=41\Â£PTLk:Â·- CALE -- i.. 14.PIM f liTLE REPORT EXCEPIONS #9 '0 & 11 *RE [ASEMENTS WHOâ€¢ APE CON-AINED WITHIN â„¢E PUBLIC DRI/ :PON THE GRCX!,4 THE SUR,T, AND -HE INFORM"* COORGEF ANL /45*er#Â»PACit'-t_Â©2 -4, -_ -retÂ¥L 1373. 40% PACE 246 IRIVERSIDE PLACERr DOES NOT AFFECT THE LANDS /.THIN TRE BOUNDARY OF INIS SURVEÂ¥ ICENSED LANI) SURVEYOP WAS ACTUALLY MADE BÂ¥ NSTRUMEN) SCEVE AND 'ARD LINES. ARE CORRIE'. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF AL' 8/LDINE SHO# As -UTE AVENUE- AS DEDICATED 8 38 /APS 39 16'42 . - w TOLL AREA OF LOT THAT HAS A MOPE OF 301. OR LED= 20.4501 fal C- SDISTANCES SHOWN THEREIN liCÂ·.U[)~NG *UHOUT .IMITATiON ALL SETPAL, - STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENIS ARE AS 56â€¢OWN. IF ANY ---- ' FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUÂ¢LDINGE STRUJURES AND IMPROVEIENTE 64' IF ANY ON SA 0 PREMISES CN THIS DATE APRIL 18 1997 EXCEPT UnL IY 444 1 4â‚¬3~ 0.:6 CONNE CTIONS ARE FNTIRELY WITHIT, TAE BOUNDARIES Or THE PARCEL L, 21 -->9=_EL // 4\ /= --- - 0/ .%J --- -- .... - ENCEPT AS SHOWN IMAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCR]FFC j / - -- / '4Â¢-- 4-PINE ---- PREMISES 81 IMPROVEMENTS ON ANv ADJOINING PREMIES EXCEPT AE 4, ~ -- - .Lit) 63'â‚¬3 . - - INDICATED. AND THAT THERE â‚¬ NO APPAPENT EM,DENCE OR BON OF AN T -+EY r 32 - - \ \ (-1. 4 -- EASEMENT CROSSING OP BURDENING AN i PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT z : ,>------- -- --I .-il- Ii-I. =IK % AS NOTED -- cr . ioo- EAP r:OOD PLAIN AS SHOWN ON THE FLOOD INS'~ANC. RA-F IM ~ ~ - THIS IS 'O SEP'/2 THAT THE PROPERT' IS NOT LOCATED WITH Â· THE BOUNDARIES -RJ â€¢All,TAINED 8' THE FLOOD INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION AND â„¢Al L.â€¢ SURve IR - WAS MADE IN ACCOPDANCE *TH D.- MIN:MU# STANDARD DETAIL REOUIREMENTS FO'i -LeND #5 REBAR */ 15 Auck!!2~.1 CAP '20632 1 ANT Tâ€¢â€¢LE 92'REYS" JOINT.v ESTAB.'SHED AND ADOPTED Bv ALTA AÂ·ED ACSâ€¢ Â·1 1992 --8070 1 \ 8,5 04 1/C - 0,04/ t \ --* DATE[, 2-*&*33 i \ 2 RCeERT C *.4# ./04 31., ... 0 / Â·Â·Â· r o REGI tO P.H $ z: 1 - 5 , E "Â·59'59' * 0.3 $-* *ip. ~~4. C. '1,4 A /7/ 2 .0 .5/ ..,--.....14, 8 0. I. 4, L Abo . " 2432 SE TPAiNT 1,1 Al ON ROCK 2 &16 PINE Un LITY NOTE tu WE u 19 DE E EXISTiNG. ON TH E SWI?FACE ANE"f54O>IA ON THIS DRAWNC HAVE BEE'. LOCATED / FIELD SURVEÂ¥ ALL UNDERGRCM;NO UT,LIDES WOWN ON THIS DRAW,NG APE FRO" IECOROS C VARIOUS UnLITY COMPANIES AND DE SURVEVOP DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIWIT r 1 0/ 1 HEIP Lor < CONCIPMED BY EXPOSINS THE url TY Itt- COMPLEIENESS INDICATED ,OCATON OR SIZE RECORD L.IlITY LOCAION SHOU'ID EIF I j .-%% /4 f LS:\ 0' en, j,/X- Roubl GRADED ACCEss . *. -? / %4Â£104 1 (D'Irrb n C fe-f \/ BENCHMARKÂ· #9 - , /- 1 t FOUND BRASS CAP 73 BE.NG CONNER /9 M 41 EAST ASPEN 10mS[TE AND THE COR'll Of - - 41%2 1 - -----GCONCEONAL BUILDING ENVELOPE/ i lOT Â·3 &07 18 78 '105 RIIâ€¢ ELE' = 7996 12.. USA DAT:/ AS PER COOPER / \ AERIAL SURVEY CO (SHT Wei AERrAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DATED 10- 27-75. C,IY Of ,â€¢SPEN REOF, i - 1 81 R - - 9,9,4-1 1Â·Â·U>GE CONVION A eu,' DINO ENVELOPE ~~~~'-Â·-- l- - - 1 z -Lk. - - 14 CON}FER -- - -- - - -- i $ 1 - 111 - 1/ 4 K â‚¬ \ \ 30 4 - \ \ Pr . 2/M / 0 IL : 1- - i - 11 29~ / 44*- ---- \\09Â»424 I T :1\ - -- \ / - 4 Q. 4<0.,Â¥ 14- .u.ee*r~Le,4.. 1 --\ \ \ --~iNED; A ZOND;Tio,~.--' -IN -4-_ pUD--M~,>toN:Efrf;*fs 26*5:.2_ -ZIp -/ - *-40' WIDE ACCESS AND UniTY EASEMENT 1.)11 / i / 6, .DIN ENVEUSErÂ·' ,- /Â« Â«\4892ift~~Â£~/1-2 ;- 20 v.,DE SEWERLINE E ASEMENT - ~ vedÂ·â€¢24 1-#~fsÂ© Nitz,weae , j 1,â€¢73,6 1 i---BifiL/0,_- 43:15- kEE... 4 - '~~alkâ‚¬'-- 6/ FRE ACCESS EA,EMENT ANC APPPOVEE--1 1 - ,--% -1- - ACCESS EASEMENT (PER 38 haA~2-00, 0' --2.- -/1 - \~ DO ------0 -=------r--- ---1 20981' 3 49*'- 1 I. S 4950'00. E 4. SE' 03 REBAR W PLAST'C OR CHUTTÂ©N LS .' 1 NUND ./ DEBA' I Alv'Â· . I 1 (e,CÂ»40.44. ..... ' 0.4 0. ... 6-- 20 PEDRESTRIAN EASE - <A+E To Ic.â€¢.OvuAY ADJACEN-- *WEE Exhibit A5. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY' PLANNER: Nick Lelack, 920-5095 DATE: 9/24/99 PROJECT: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Standards Review REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells --- 925-8080; FAX = 925-8275 602 Midland Park Place; Aspen, CO 81611 OWNER: Jim Martin TYPE OF APPLICATION: 8040 Greenline and Residential Design Review 2 DESCRIPTION: Construction of a Free Market Single Family Home on Lot 1 ofthe Ute Park Subdivision. Located off Ute Avenue, just south of the 7 deed restricted units. Slope reduction does not apply to this lot and housing mitigation is not required. Land Use Code Section(s) Section 26.435.030,8040 Greenline Review; Section 26.710.110, Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD) Zone District; and, 1 Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Review by: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. , Public Hearing: No, only a public meeting is required. Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, Zoning, Building Dept., Fire, Water, ACSD, Streets. i Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor ($1100), covers six (6) hours of review time ' Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($160) Total Deposit: $1260.00 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $185/hour) To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) 1. Proof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreennent 3. Applicant' s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner' s right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application 6 lÂ¢-2# Copies of the complete application packet and maps. f HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 2 7. An 8 14" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ~ 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status. including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor. licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic. or model form describing how the proposed development complies with EACH of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals (Resolutions, Ordinances, Agreements, Covenants, etc.). ., 11. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. ~ 12. For Residential Proposals: a) Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the front portions o f all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). L.~ b) Siteplanat 1"=10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. -' c) All building elevations at 1/8" = 1'-0. d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary Mass" standard. e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. 1 13. All other materials required pursuant to the Residential Design Review and 8040 Greenline Review submittal requirements packets. 1- ) Detailed submittal requirements, in addition to those mentioned above: 20 copies: Site plan drawings of the development, at a scale of either one (1") inch equals twenty (20') feet or one (1") inch equals thirty (30') feet, composed of one or more sheets with an outer dimension of twenty- four by thirty-six (24" x 36") inches, showing the following information: 1. Title by which the proposed development is to be referred. 2. Scale (graphic and written), north point, and date of preparation. 3. Location of municipal boundaries at or near the development. 4. Parcel size in gross and net acres as well as gross and net square feet. 5. Total bedrooms per each dwelling unit type. 6. Estimated total floor area and estimated ratio of floor area to lot size, with a breakdown by building. 7. Proposed coverage ofbuildings and structures, including the following: a. Percentage and square footage of building coverage. b. Percentage and square footage o f driveway and parking. c. Percentage and square footage of public street right-of-way. d. Percentage and square footage of open space and/or landscaped area. 8. Number and location of off-street parking, including guest, handicapped, bicycle and motorcycle parking including typical dimensions of each. 9. Lot lines, easements, public right-of ways as per subdivision plat. 10. Exact location of all buildings and structures and building envelopes dimensioned on at least two (2) sides to the nearest platted property line. 11. Location of temporary construction facilities. including temporary signs and parking areas (as applicable). r 4.3,~--â€¢ 2 9'i 12. Topographic contours at two (2') foot intervals. 13. Location, species and size of existing plant materials. 14. Location/boundaries of all hazard areas including but not limited to avalanche zones, rockfall areas, mudslide areas, etc. 15. Maximum building height of all structures. 16. Existing zoning and minimum required setbacks (front, sides, rear). 17. Area shown on the site plan shall extend beyond the property lines of the proposal to include a survey of the area and uses within fifty (50') feet of the proposal, exclusive of public right-of-way, at the same scale as the proposal. In the event that you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact Nick Lelack ofthe Community Development Department at 920-5095. * The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. t Exhibit A6. }Snlil'Er,im COMMUNrrt DIVEU,/821<T DEPAP:rMENT Mâ€¢,7,=te for p.v...1 efatv of Aipâ€¢n De,re,r,Iâ€¢,4-di-%981~131.~1!Mf CrrY OF ASPEN (hercinaa- CITY) *nd James T. Martin and HOward G. Stacker (berÂ¢ixult=-APPUCANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1- dg~~5;3$547&T<27 yz:23*Ne,-dilÂ£.ZÂ» c; 4 A-,14,3 ~ (bereinafter, THE PROJECT). 3. APPLICANT und*rmods md Feet tut City of Aspon OMI*yu= No. 49 (Series of !998) establishez a fee =acturt Ar Lied Uw :pplicâ€¢*locza =d thâ€¢ piymate of 8,1 preces,lng I#â€¢1 1% R eondtdan precedent 00 â€¢ dow,miliation of*plicmion ccmplatness. 3. APPLICANT md CrfÂ¥,grw tht< b-lu ofthe :Ixe, nirgre or scopc aftht poposed pcoject it 8 not possible = thls drug â€¢0 a=:tain the *11 exxow of %1Â» 9011: involved in pegessi:18 thâ€¢ appUN:lan. APPUCANT Ind CITY airthe ag- that it i:10 the inter= of,110 parties tharAPKICANT mike p*ymer or an initial deposit and m thercencr permiE additional 0- to & bined m APPLICANT on a monaly batic. APPLICANT agrces addttional costs mxy lecroc fbllowing elcir hearings and/or mrovall APPLICANT â€¢grces he win b, btnelited by retaining grcafer cash liquidky â€¢ad will make.additional flment: upon nodÂ¢,non by the CIrr wheo *Â«y â€¢re nâ€¢-=, - caltâ€¢ - ind#red. CtrY agroot U will bâ€¢ binened th:wgh the gre.Ler certainty ofreÂ©-,Ing its full costs Â» pfac= APPLICANr' 5 oppligation. 4. CrrY and APPLICANT furthE â€¢gr= th= it i. ap*titable Br CrrY *aff to complcte processing or ple,ent snmeia. 10*rm.:11.1 0 the Manniag CÂ¢ein,IntÂ£2 and/or City Council m =ble tile Mannins Cootatitsion Iod'or City Cou=It to make legally mquired nadings for peject comid=ation. ual- current billtrB ari pald in &11 prior to dE;Iioo. 5. 'Ihercojn. APPI.[CANT *gr- (knt in Â¢0~Idâ€¢râ€¢tion oftlic CrrY's waiver of Its yight to collect fun Bees prioÂ«L i deÂ®Em!=ion of applic*toâ€¢ complettness, APPLICANT shall pay an a:itial deposit in 11,0 amount of S â‚¬;' 60 "hich b for hourn of Community Dovel,pme: ofF time, mid 1Â£ acatal rooo,ded cost. exceed ae initial depollt. APPLICANT obill p,y n,)ditiot,~1 Moodily blmngs = CrIY te rcimbarse th: CrfY for the proccging of the *pplication men*ioned above. lactudtng poGE approval review. Such p,riodie payments **11 bl m,de within 30 dm of dic bink, dat= APPLICANT ntlher :Lroes thot fhilt** to pay such .cruad ca,ts *hall begromads te *upeasion of p.wis,k. and b nocaze will building permia be issued until all com assocnred wah =se processing have bÂ«aperd. Crry oÂ¥ Asrus APPLICANT James T. Martin and Ho,ard G. Stacker . 564.4<..-ZL Woods bcommuoily D,â€¢-pmâ€¢mt Dir,ctor 4~st February 4, 2000 Mimn:Addrin c/o James T. Martin , 67 St. Andrews Circle .. Durango, CO 81301 LAND USE APPLICATION Exhibit A7. PROJECT: Name: 2-et Go , Ofkj fu-L Euh=Uu u Â» Acad>j -1414.-4 FlwfUcÂ« U LocaE=. l 299 Ola dveÂ«Â£*Â· j /4@gu Cd> 26 ~4>-*Â«:Â¥d iuha=+Rlc3&etljf-, (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) U APPLICANT: Name: 01 fL L pyr-/uÂ«hip Address: 90 374.te~ 7. u ,4>9- St.ift-U raus Orde---i Dm>Moct */301 Phone #: 9 30 , -51-5.-* -2.159 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Joe- l/Ualu,Jo-3 676 wells 44 ~(04,&4#4 AaessÂ·. 602-- Nu (aÂ»W ' PS.WJPL20~ kpew Co '8142(f Phone#: 9 70.9 22 3-opo TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): El Conditional Use El Conceptual PUD El Conceptual Historic Devt. ~ Special Review Â£ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) El Final Historic Development ,~E[ Design Review Appeal/ L;<gry' U Conceptual SPA ~ Minor Historic Devt. 01 GMQS Allotment ~ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ~ Historic Demolition El GMOS Exemption ~ Subdivision El Historic Designation S ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream Â£ Subdivision Exemption (includes El Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane El Lot Split El Temporary Use El Other: 03 Lot Line Adjustment El Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings. uses, previous approvals, etc.) 1/02>65:2 PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 9,46--fLu; 4 râ‚¬-1'Jeuet 1 1 Have you attached the following? C FEES DUE: $ ~260 2.- 0 Pre-Application Conference Summary Â»- 4 64't- 3 ~ Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement (52, 4*44;f- 3 8 Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form (L-**Lik 3 ~[ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents C .520 -1944.2.2. 2 .6-1 65< Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents (2592__.,@~~Clf â‚¬%9 ,K Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application (~.3'ec- Exhibit AS. ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: .41 / 01Â£ fl.A,~3,Giwb ki Applicant: A~ fÂ«6 (ANI &40 Location: /2,- *7 ~~54:'4Â£, ,;,6,â‚¬Â»u/Fr- Zone District: ~0,04* - ~>Â·%0*E:g66/R/ 4-9 (34) Lot Size: 43 163,4/4-4 t=tf ' Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: O Proposed: NA-- Number of residential units: Existing: O Proposed: 1- Number o f bedrooms: Existing: O Proposed: 4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): /94 DIMENSIONS: tieÂ° Floor Area: Existing: O Allowable:Slid,Â«5caltÂ·Proposed-- 5,77â‚¬3 <3~ R- Principal bldg. height: Existing: AlÂ» Allowable: 2~ 26' Access. bldg. height: Existing: N~ Allowable: b? ~UL) Proposed: 61+ 0 On-Site parking: Existing: Required: NA Proposed: 144 % Site coverage: Existing: A/,4- Required: AH Proposed: N A Â°/o Open Space: Existing: /00 Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: *4- Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: AM- Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: _ _BA Lkequiredâ‚¬&#thdlej proposed.Â·113%(m= Side Setback: Existing:_liA -R-equiredPT--8~1 Proposed: i Side Setback: Existing: N/~ Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: NA Required: Â»' Proposed: h./ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: L YGKâ‚¬M N 88Â»jkons t~Nestd. 1-'49Â£91 deÂ« Pdd 13bg 4 vt %18(A~KO+A f af 16â‚¬40 irÂ·â‚¬1 . l 1 EXHIBIT B. City Council Ordinance 18, Series of 1992, An Ordinance Granting Approval for Rezoning, Final PUD and Subdivision Approval, Growth Management Exemption, Condominiumization and Related Reviews for Ute Park Subdivision. ORDINANCE N0.18 (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM (RR) RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR 'FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, VESTED RIGHTS, AND WAIVER OF THE WATERMAIN EXTENSION MORATORIUM FOR THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION, A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 3.8 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, in April 1990 the Ute Park Partnership (Applicant) submitted an application for rezoning of a 3.8 acre parcel on the east end Of Ute Avenue from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH) Affordable Housing in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended ' approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan with conditions on July 3, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Flan and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, discussed rezoning of the parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing as a threshold issue, And approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on August 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, in December 1991, the Applicant submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and 1 for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, 8040 Greenline Review, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 'seven deed restricted affordable townhome units and three free market lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested an extension to the one- year filing deadline for submission of a Final PUD Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, upon staff's recommendation, the City Council granted a 160 day filing extension effective retroactively from August 1991; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having reviewed the development proposal for the Ute Park Subdivision and the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning staff, approved Rezoning from (RR) Rural Residential to (AH) Affordable Housing, Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market residential development and affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested rights, and waiver of the waterline extension moratorium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it hereby grants the following approvals for the Ute Park Subdivision pursuant to the applicable sections in the Aspen Municipal Code: Rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 11); 2 Subdivision (Chapter 24, Section 7-1004); Final PUD Plan (Chapter 24, Section 7, Division 903); Growth Management Exemption for Free Market Development in an AH Zone District, and Affordable Housing (Chapter 24, Section 8-104.C.); and Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization (Chapter 24, Section 7-1007). Section 2: The following conditions shall apply to the approvals: 1. The Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances for the construction of the affordable housing component of the project. This shall consist of placement of First Deeds of Trust of $10.00 value on Lots 1,2 and 3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of the first free market lot, the deed to Lot 4 will be placed in escrow for the City of Aspen. In addition, a letter of credit payable to the City of Aspen shall be provided by the Applicant which covers the construction costs of the townhomes. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and placement of the Lot 4 deed in escrow, the City shall release the remaining First Deeds of Trust. If construction of the townhomes by the Applicant has not begun within two years of recordation of the Final Plat, the City shall take possession of Lot 4, the architectural plans of the townhomes shall be turned over to the City, and the City shall redeem the letter of credit in order to construct the townhomes within one year. 2. The applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement specific provisions for the mitigation of avalanche dangers 3 for the seven deed restricted townhome units. Protection of the townhouses (by retaining wall or residential structure) must extend the entire length of the "conditional zone" on Lot 1 unless the unprotected townhouses are designed to standards established by Art Mears or similar avalanche expert. Avalanches shall not be def lected onto neighboring properties. 3. The home on Lot 1 shall be constructed prior to or simultaneously with construction of the seven townhouses. If built simultan-eously, the structural framing of the Lot 1 house and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the townhouses. 4. In the event that the Final Plat and Subdivision agreement have not been filed prior to issuance of any Building Permits for the Ute Park lots, the financial assurance and avalanche protection documents must be approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of any building permits on Ute Park parcels. 5. The applicant will continue to coordinate roadway design, drainage, snow storage, etc. with City staff. Any improvement work must be done in accordance with City specifications. Alternative on-site parking locations for the townhomes shall be noted on the PUD Plan and Final Plat. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the townhomes, the applicant shall satisfy the City Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage 1 4 calculations must be provided for the free market homes at the time of individual building permit application. 7. The applicant shall indicate the entire avalanche zones on the Final PUD Plan. 8. Avalanche warning signs shall be indicated on the plat along the property boundaries along Ute Ave. and along the nordic trail. 9. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the City. 10. Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this office. 11. If the water line in the proposed utility corridor is dedicated to the City of Aspen a water main easement must be executed between the Applicant and the City prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 12. The Final Plat and PUD Plan shall indicate that the homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be sprinklered for fire protection. The Applicant shall satisfy the Fire Marshal regarding emergency access prior to filing the Final Plat. 13. The Subdivision Final Plat shall indicate the conceptual trail alignment. The County Open Space and Trails Program (COSTP) may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction and maintenance of the trail. Upon completion of this trail, the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as- built trail easement. Plat note #7 shall be amended to: 5 remove the one year deadline for trail construction; state that conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement will run with the land and bind future heirs and assigns of the developer; the trail alignment may be amended by mutual consent of both parties (lot owners and City/COSTP). The year-round trail easement shall be 15' wide with side slopes not to exceed 6%. The Nordic Council and the applicant shall work together and verify the trail alignment as shown on the Plat and PUD Plan complies with the most workable alignment for skiing and trail connections. Signage shall indicate avalanche and rockfall hazards to trail users. These signs shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work. 14. The seven townhomes shall be deed restricted as four Category 4 units and three Category 3 units in accordance with Housing Authority Guidelines. The restrictions shall be approved by the Housing Authority and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to issuance of City approval of the Final Plat. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 16. The Subdivision Plat and Subdivision / PUD Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the 6 Plat and Agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat and PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval of both by the Commission and City Council will be required before their acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. Section 3: An exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the City's municipal water system as imposed by Resolutions 12 and 45 (Series 1991) be and is hereby granted so as to allow the extension of the municipal water delivery system for three single family residences in the Ute Park Subdivision. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Ute Park Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 7 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 5: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is hereby amended to reflect that rezoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the i Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. Section 6: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded 8 under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 9: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin qounty Clerk and Recorder. Section 10: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of (f~Ah.t-,@~ , 1992 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a 9 public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 43 day of ~<~i(td* 1992. P (FÂ»-09 - John Bennett, Mayor Attest: jfÂ»Â»-) 4- AQ.4---- Kathryn 9. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this =Co day of , 1 \LKAÂ«,- , 1992. 0 John gennett, Mayor Kathryn 9. Koch, City Clerk 10 EXHIBIT C. City Council Ordinance 22, Series of 1992, An Ordinance Amending Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, "Dimensional Requirements" for Affordable Housing (AH), so as to Establish a Sliding Scale and Cap for Floor Area Ratios for Single-Family Dwellings. ORDINANCE 22 (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 5-206.2 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, "DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS" FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH), SO AS TO TO ESTABLISH A SLIDING SCALE AND CAP FOR FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to Wit, "Land Use Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive and has reviewed and recommended for approval a certain text amendment to Chapter 24 arising from the Ute Park Subdivision/PUD submission relating to the establishment of a sliding scale and cap for floor area ratios for single family dwellings in an AH Affordable Housing Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and approved at public hearing those Code text amendments as recommended by the Planning Director associated with the Ute Park Subdivision/PUD submission, pursuant to procedure as authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A) 8 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments as approved and recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and are not in conflict with other portions of Chapter 24; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments as amended by City Council will allow and promote compatibility of zone districts and land uses with existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Section 1: Section 24-5-206.2 D.10, "External floor area ratio" for Affordable Housing (AH) Dimensional Requirements, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, is hereby amended at "Detached Residential Dwellings", for Lot Size "9,000 + " which new text shall read as follows: "9,000+ 3,660 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet for each additional 100 square feet of floor area to a maximum of 5,770 square feet of floor area." Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the -14 day of ~0424, , 1992 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City 0 Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the co.:;PÂ¢ll-- day of L,g2,0-.6 , 1992. 1 A A- John 96nnett, Mayor ATTEST: ~~UJ. iLL-' Kathryn g01 Koch, City Clerk P NAZL-~YL, adopted, passed and approved this <=26 day of , 1992. O 14 13-- John Wennett, Mayor ATTEST: 4Â«0414Â« Kathryn~$. Koch, City tlerk 3 EXHIBIT D. Subdivision Plats: Dl. Plat Of Ute Park Subdivision. D2. First Amendment to Ute Park Subdivision. 55 W U. *7 Â» 1%* 30 0~a~â‚¬ 86 N / 4 -E:ST ASPEN 7,9/NE,TE AirÂ· evâ€¢â€¢MEN oF 1.1- t.3 .0 ' LEGEND - JT 'A. FEC TIUM 18. r 'L' 2 . 4 84 .1.. 6-rH P 114 5,42,69_2819/glt_,KZleYAL 2 21 uTE CM, .)RENS 2ARK , .. MoldMENT. FOUND al PLACE ~ =ill,WC. AS XECRIBED ,#44 2 11'E /â€¢12'â‚¬ SUK:V,croll -- â€¢ID~ov~~ bÂ·, â€¢h, C'Â» 0f â€¢ 9,â€¢â€¢ .-I - Ar. WEEL'LE./ Ir<Â£. lAÂ·â€¢CE .ecIN ~n-t,L-- - G, fe~-- - - -3 0 1 24' d.. -.Al Dit-Â»F .9â‚¬22'ther) .,121 4 -4 ' / ~ MANAGEMENT BRASS CAP. FOUND. BUREAU OF LAND -//.Q */ 4â€¢c.â€¢0~. c# Â· Â·â€¢â€¢â€¢4 C.-â€¢I. 2 ../ a . 1-Ill.. I 'TE -IK ./'Irl../ *..... 9 '.... 1.- ... 1. I. Â· i 49 NESCRIBED .al . 0, .O,â€¢ L ,=,*ln t 03. 9. M &4 1 / 44Â£4 , -U 4*.4, L.* -lt~â€¢, ~~ Ler,7 ..i;.1,iTE L.L ZAT,- 1 -F , ' SET THIS SURVEY. 5/8- REBAR r,0.;-~4,e DIKIcâ€¢ ..VA...f.CHE U. ) i AL-ING #M 06â‚¬- ' ,4,Te . 4 2- A--1-,41/1/ 'LAP r . - U F 11 * ~ - WARE REd*le i I.UNKED BANIâ‚¬R. 44 23632 QIÂ¥ UhaiR--22â„¢2Â£4&.Â·.,. t*- V 1-'' Â¥. /3 1 "ll'. 01 ....... 5 ......4 ............. h. 04 E...... 0, in, C.. 01 .... .4 _32 _ _ a. câ€¢ FE/1/uM.:t_-, .3 FEET 30 0 !2 EL-.8!>e/2iBL 09 A-Lt.BIA;Cl 9 Â® 36 - 4 h 30 FEE r ' ' U.L.U.LUU ..__ -_.2 - , LOT 16 ~ GRAPHIC SCALE "t p..4 ~ 1 TE ed" tuarÂ·ivd:04 40,0 1- *ale'n~,2 4~*eaeâ€¢~ â€¢-I ~~~ -"*â€¢4 C;ty ..9-* -1 140 1.0, AA,0 + - 9/1- SCALE , ,/:4 4 30 FEET -- ....51 .1- -ee, ",1- ind accul" t, '14' /4 CH,â€¢ce :f me . 4 -, â€¢â€¢crr ... $ 00- 6 . ex - r "HE BENEDICT BUILD'NG ' . e ' W I -7 4' .- , CURVE iNFORMAT,014 - f u . r,Â£ 5-14,9 jc.M-ur; 00. - 4, 4,1.61 0 2.k. , ". r,,-" ="y '. , .. -I n uhn .an/ 'Â·(0,0, '.r- ./ - 3Â· * ,-,Â«EA; 4,92 CAp 1 2. aÂ·al ,- 9 e o. . = '5 " r 14 'n 41.2 l'51 -I_*BE /4&7,1/4 & I 'V ~.. 1.Â· ~- &&4 + &' 29. 0. 34- R . 250 Q . I '2/ 04 T- 64 li C '25.48Â· .. N :C.* ./lit f .......,I ...... . 1 " I. I d. 3./.1 f./' '2 .// I. Â® .1 2 zaÂ· 49 â€¢ . 70 00Â· _ .5 2 T â€¢ '7,9/ , 34 84 .*I ** V -N.iâ€¢~ *, qÂ· â€¢~tâ€¢ ~~â€¢ - '4 'i P =.0 00- _. Ct 66 . . 30 -8 C . 56 04 / ... I-,4/ I. .......â€¢~Il .. N.â€¢' .I ~.I .... 0~r â€¢Il '. I '"Iâ€¢+ 20' I. I .... 4 k â‚¬,7 +Â·N)I .* .I~*~e-â€¢ luâ€¢ c .â€¢c .,Â·i- â€¢I â€¢â€¢i ,t ..-â€¢' - 1 ./4.46 -ill _ . . I p 1/4 04' / . V . 2.Altiell.Ntt)-1 9 90'CL :61â€¢Mlii").91199 Â·' A. 1 ..1 ./ile, d./ce- io â€¢â€¢I o.... .. I./ Â· 'i â€¢.-â€¢/" i.. .. â€¢'â€¢ â€¢ I = 220 /0 _. /7,3Â· T 2 75'9 0.,43 36 41 21 + 52 6 ...4 9,- I ...C ..2 3. C. 42 10' rub./14 t,W# - ' ,â€¢~ ZOâ€¢~, COâ€¢-,1,â€¢0~ i'N, 2-- _ Ja, el Unt. 014, 6t 4.â€¢EL â€¢AWK '1*Ch.'Itâ€¢Ct -t ouâ„¢sÂ·,â€¢4~ 5/ . ....~r.0 1..4 - /**,c,MI. Â®'-pel :U./ Ird ./.I lae-/ er *MI ,Â©- eâ€¢ --.. mâ€¢<.I L â€¢/ for' r .- I.* 1. ... 6 3% 'CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION Ret- Awn- , r I. JECTIr I I . I. ~Â· *W.. . :1= ... 3-*â€¢/â€¢09 440 Â·,0, .. ...#. 7. I. -'. .......9- 4 ....... â€¢e ./. Icâ€¢ . Avi....... I.m...4 -,â€¢â€¢-â€¢iâ€¢ PLAT BOOK 5,*PAGE 7 - 2 LOT 3 ". 4 /. o Cb. 644 I -JiTILIYf1RANQE_81&.M2.-_61*73&!I ..7.1 1 , 1, C K 'r', 12, t. 'L J Ila n .. ...,. p,rform... 0, â€¢n- 3,... " I .4,~#'31<k. O.744 ACRES :1=- < .'*4, ,., '*t'e.,113.~ 0.0Â¢157.2 c~ f . LOT 15 I. Ati--1 4 An'Â¥,WA.- -4 == U#*. * --- =-* /1â€¢ - * .C#. b. Ra' C. 1â€¢1.- 'â€¢ CÂ·â€¢â€¢dâ€¢I. I'-*I I.dÂ·k/%-g -,1/1,'- n. 1 1Â·6 .' 0 . I .27 lot; â€¢â€¢*r-br :,flif Â¥ â€¢ha* -, â€¢,av, -0--~ .â€¢. i.,4 le u TE Pâ€¢WK g Jer,~isÂ·â‚¬4 4/ m../..... u"/"..4 .....4 9- C.. W.-0 .,-â€ž 1 THE ASPEN CLUB Mode W.. Portr,r.. 0â€ž4 ./ ... -, cl,<* . /1 licumbial,cl.- 1 0â€ž4 1- the â€¢,4,8 10 - Â·o.w i. . 14. ...,. u, Ll~ Par4 PerlfÂ®r- I ./. 1â€ž....... 4..... -y-. .... -........ .ti 4Â· Â·0 4 Â© ./r.Tr'll<AT z ** '~22- 194 loall e,c,~ O, lol,c.,Â· ... \\\ '.3.1. 20' .. 4)80 46" -~*6.26 0 -Truhhi Lu,Â£,lksk. :r~ (6.ev.- dv 6,)Â· *xY..17 0, .#* *.. t. m~ 0-De-â€¢ â€¢' â€¢:.IN 'CÂ©Â·~" -~ .-' '"* Y. : 6 00- I-/3, 4,41,04 4, - -*-f j- D--' N .......# /.--â€¢* " \\. ' <01Â¥01"C':AL .p~ 4$ 0' * ~4 b "~-cl 4 , ,ife,4- -ce- ,ew-~1 â€¢, - A4*ee,)- 9,- -4 eciÂ«, . 0.342., -- ENVELOPE .%/0 ~. 4Â© .c '. I tr 0007. thâ€¢- â€¢Â¢cÂ«~i -a ~i,Aâ€¢, E,â€¢-. 0 ./ -Ju~i j ./0. J.. I. 4 W 3 < - L'I ... SI.#.. ./ .... .d,c~W ./ Iâ€¢/ C~. 01 â€¢4~~-~ I .. '-~~ \... ul. i. :4/ . I ~oidk -~ al~M' 4- N h~ acd,- i-- . - .*. *â€¢W~ -â€¢1~ 61,4 DING $ r- ~rk..4,~ fl - - -. ' -0 ,h,~1 ,~ ~~,4, N,r, ~~ ~~,~, ,~ 1~,~ 4~~,~D~: 11Â» IrÂ«F ,â€¢~~ ENLELOPE 1./ I 1 3~~ $9>t <-~ ~ 24 EASEâ€¢ENT FOR "Ied *' --~~.J~2. _ da, 0, Â·'. fi :"- 1. 193. 4 0. /--. 6, 1 - """1 / -/./ ... 4.. /-// - t.. Wh / / ~h6 4, \ -LiT.ES. ACCESS- 2 ror . I.C.*I / 6.. 0.1, - I. . Coâ€¢~,h-SI ./. .. rl/- O, 4. / AND SERVICE 4 -2 Ner- 4, Co-* M w .,4 *nÂ·} 1,-1 ce,-,4 co--0-6 11 r . r A *4 1 V: ,/ 1 Â» XC Kz- BOOK 32. PAGE SOC , ' 1 -9 i ..40 M r..0.1-- 1- 1.- Câ€ž...1.- . - Â». ..1 -- .1-1 . i :3&65- * 4-- E~UrE /6:19 9 \ \ 1. 44. ........... - W 'Iâ€ž- ..... 4.1.- A P....1... .V N U. \ ACCESS AND -4 ~1< Ph~~~/ ~~~* ~-2- 9 ~ AREA TA8LE g; r., RATNESS ~ UnLITY EASEMENT r u C JPNER ' FIC . 9/9 lilli i 43.064 ./. FT. \ 42 4 6 2 ' 000 ACRES i 1 43.572 SO. FT LOT 2 , Â« r /47 - - 7 . ./ UOT 3 0 141 ACRES s < 32,385 90. FT 0 + 4,2 1.000\ACRES *,49 : I 39. d.*. / / I. / .3 C.,67-w.v â€¢bx .4Â¢<* / 0/ ./4 . \ / 1 "2/V' 4,1.24- * 4 0* 3/ '1 7 LOT 4 . 409 ACRES . 1 17. 828 50. FT lAp Â¥ I Â£ .7, 4 - M"Mh..4 . -a i nr. A..f *f ... 0 6/8 ACRES i I 28.664 SO. Ir. AP'-5 - 0 .., . 2 4 32=Ul'' '/ aBIL[~NG urE AvE low UTE PARK St#SIO~. . Cal--, 6--/ P-t-Â·,1Â» REBAR ANO CAP PLILLING 4 82 . 20\ 1 : 0/ A ENÂ·'FLOPE /9 â€¢-w . 7 1/k . 9=14/ELOPE ~ ~ /,0 12'07 Ca41'ERE . _.I : :1 ,# 0.409% \ ' 4 TOTAL 3 799 ACRES . 165,533 50 F f. 4.Â·A ----L .- TRAL EASEMENT *7% 1 - . / ... i 1 1- Nll/CAT CIAL ~ I - 1 /F :0 c / 5 / - . V EN'.40/6 29: ' " , ./ 44' 0, .3' v li 1 Â£ /301- 4 X I. \ 4.-<ED.DENT + O.-19 -2 71 ,Â»t~ , ~ iÂ·~~\ ' ' ~ 9.3 4''PROMATE LOCATEDâ€¢1 :F /0 .- -- AVALANCHE AND FAL.ING QOCK ..4 ...... 1 i , 47. .9 / I. 00 '' I. . i. SK Â° JO *) . - 0- .YARNING 5!GN ./ N ... V> i h ~ 74 . ./. th ' ON' , , 34 / ' FNVEL OPE ' 4 CX ' BUILD /G . . N .4 /4 39,0. 6/ ./ \ R Jib :FSERVATION . 4-ee=== ./7 L./ /25% <~t--- 1140(ONO.TONAL /7 // .95$ I 4 Â·MAÂ¥ BE LIED FCR PARKING ..FRAL Ium... . Câ€¢--/ @--â€¢ .-- N 0 - UNTIL SUCH T.ME AS R O.W, . InE- ..*E. ' --0.... I. -â€¢ ./. I. ENVELA PE ---'. ~ '' . x._so. ' ASPEN) ..-- 1. M-16 2\4. g7 0 2,> IS ACQUIRED BY TrIE C,TY OF /,1 0 L.- 30 . K-A '. Â»/ 172Â» f Â° --14- 1 1'- AL i 1 :1- . - - BUP.-DIN~ EN 45Â£OPE 4 o r :I i / i \ 6 / 6- p.- 0- ./. 1. 7- \\ 4/, 0- . 1. I ....N / f 0 45 * ..Jal.n // -- L . C . 1 J / \20 -- --- LNCONDITIONAL I . / 499 ENVELOPE i. / ev 1 b ' .PJ APPROX,MATE LOCATION OF /~ 'hÂ·J <29 - - ---~ AVA!_ANCHE AND FALLING ROCK 1-9 -- O - ARN* SIGN. % 'v ~B.L.M BRASS CAP& ~~~-~-<-- 4,5 63Â», LOT 18 11. SECTION 18 LOT 1 # 4'~ TIO S. R 84 /. t' '49 1 GTH PM 6& : 84 * + O.989 ACAE? *>7 \/ 2 ) 6 - ..9 -*0~ i -A-*di---- - \ 4 * 2 4 1 -- Y Â« O% ss& A .......'-....=1 r I -k 1, 0 / / Â·' CEâ€¢TZILÂ»â‚¬ is j COR 6. 11% 46 2 / e TRAL EASE*. 4 . 1 - - - 1. b i J. NOTES r. 44. Â·Y;ZaÂ· REBAR ANO C UP , 2 1 - 4 i f 40 20,51 2 THI PnokITY I SLUIC; TO REWRVAT,ONS -C Â¢*SE,hON, 45 LttrED 'C~Ck, 9 1, . / 00â‚¬UIENT /tu,ACC 9, 1~0Â©14 175 PAG< 24* 4-04 -611*JES Bur $ 5 4 1 Â·Â· 1 --9.w â„¢ ENâ„¢ACTION 1 -6-5 A- WATE. m-Tt FOR VAMIOUS <stk <44. / 4 4 c.'-Â»M L 1 EASE.ENT: OF RECOÂ®O AS 910- O,0 TTru POLICÂ¥ Ne eEL:.38~ 0/rED 24/21/0 NOnCE ACCOMO- TO Cat.DIADO LAI You vily Coa- A,rf LEIAL AUTOI, / MIED 1/â‚¬41 /IfÂ¥ CIFICT I THS SURVEY Wrn- T>*Ill YEDS AFTER YOu . ...,1 - ... 0,/COVE* .... 0..... N /O EVI'l 'AY AlÂ¥ Ac /01, .... -0,4 A , . , ' I ' : . ' '. : :- - 0ECT N T- SU-VE, - COWhENIED MO~ â„¢- TEN YEARS FR- ng CAT~ ..~l--u& zw z - OF CE.T,64*,101, ... Â£.01, PLAT CF UTE- PARK SUBDrASION 0 - w t 820101; S.** I.. i.,t ASPEN. Pl'TKIN COUNTY. COLORADO I. 1 OfÂ·Â·ttl '. yeezE>24+R.44,~ .~- -â€¢.t-, _ *.:" .3~IF#Â·' N 00' 49' ' 1 390 96' - R BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT N 01' 04' 00" E - M CA L, POR TU~A A LL- 421.lRA]U. AC.*BjUL.LIGmEK,Er FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 8)<3g Rb 39 61<: 9 97 eg . 6 89 N ERK - RECORD*9 $ ACCFâ€¢'ANCE ~*Ful / Al-,1/ â€¢â€¢0 CEDCATI< f 4 An-c,0 4 01 .-E PAN,; 5/36/40 -0, acc,~},0 Â·" Ii-q.,r. 1,â€¢e "ace " â€¢9, ~i Â£41' M' 94 4â‚¬5* PRES['715 4Â· ..Â·, Fof. --C pc.1,-14 I C-4,9* 9. aleâ€¢Câ€že. 01 0,1vk.41% Ceâ€¢o'-k of /A" L o C,0 L W SY. P-/...,- 0.-I . .0~ .... c,+ i.c -E Â·'All ........1 6./1 n-(p, â€¢*,ell m, A,i .cm, .. ..o,en $ ce<~0<,4- w â€¢e ... D...4.r p.* 204. 161'- yD .eceâ€¢t- 40 11idil- - 4 VE .Aeâ€¢ SUBOnnSâ€¢0% 1 Â·ocor,4 ~ â€¢Â·I I. â€¢1 . ;ne St 4 p 001,4111#TÂ¥ DEVILOPIENT DEPARTMEN' APPRONA,~ *â€¢4 8 040 40 -m e-g, 4 m 04 ~Â· c.=904 -,eâ€¢.Â» e, LEGEND #I /-0" '3~~fefIf 'WK SUL-&Â°hz~~ov*~Di th, Clt, 0 /~Ot' .*OrÂ¥19 FOUND. BUREAU OF LAND ~ MANAGEMENT BAASS CAP, # e *Â¥câ„¢- a ' le s ../ . 6- p I Dey, 4 3 :,5 6, . 6,2 1-1 AS DESCRFBED ... -7 ~t, Ir APPROVAL AND ACCE P T ANU 1 1.... 0 60- 25 r r Â·291 el F L CIO-Il Â» 6â€¢KI. 2 40." 5 68- 02' 2Â· 0 20 0. Â·" )267- 640, 0, L TE PARK S BDI,1~'0~ cf~e !â€¢mir ea,emeâ€¢, 5-C~Jolâ€¢6f % B#- o~*4'A 9 h..ce $ 49Â· 3/ 0.- f .9 I 'll FEET 50 0 50 FEET ./ . len" I 4.- 0( 0, I ./l ' 7 'â€¢e .rto- Pereb, aMMo ors xedâ€¢ec h â€¢4 1 , 38 / â€¢4 2,Â·. 6 42 \ do, 01 '99. 1.. 5 ./a'/ 4 49 13/ 31226 â€¢el 11'1111,1,1 1 CTâ€¢ Effâ€¢ APPROVAL - ~ .~.c, ~ Â¥ 05 *' E '5 06 â€¢e,Â· 6 r.l:,~.â‚¬ 4 4p * C. .0 E 25 90 â€¢ir GRAPHIC SCALE ,-4 PARIâ‚¬ Su,3Â»190â€¢ 04 0â€¢,cÂ·ce. ~06.â€¢ rÂ·oÂ·. ' 99 ,CÂ·" -- I. i inch = 50 I T- 8.-4"0 Fici c, UTE PA21( SUB/'.5/h ,Cl oÂ¢,ers,~.0 OY 'he C Â·, Er,~er, O, 11,â‚¬ C.1, / 1 K 0 Â¢4 C..V- 995 - *fâ€¢-11 *0. B L M BRASS CAP, CORNER NO 9 OF TRACT Â·1: * Ain,oceÂ¢ moÂ· 04 UTE PARK SUBDI+5404 .es 00/0..0 8, 4 A,p.n ~Me Prolection Chst,x, A,fll. of P).m ./. I. C.40Â·yo 05 '40/P ~.'.6, â€¢~0 W. *0~h Â£ O, * SU~I. s.o-r J. rf tÂ·$2,6 Cou0â€¢i ,-EAST ASPEN TOWNS'rE AND CORNER OF LOT 13 AND / LOT 8. SECTION 18. T,0 S, 9 84 W. 641 PI 2 ....liell oeÂ¢c,1/ Ii. ...Â·.we = 50 0/ Â·olÂ· - fe I.% Â·,/1 -0, 74 PAC., 2,90"" 24,4 50.. f[15(* ..... h.r.a. . â€¢,- c.4 01 6.pee. e. Dâ€¢.,0 ~1 4... .*. ... c. 0 ,Â·-.e' ca~ ~ 008+Or I t 00 ~80Â¢ -de i,tei,Ob- 'aÂ· *V FÂ·6$ -0, 2, $40-r Yor i. -k: ed ieâ€¢ ided,or* Â·Ilâ€¢ r' le. c i.câ€¢ â€¢cr~e -- ~4 - 4 . SU , L. C' Fl 04 N. /// ///>1 \\ %\ of he~â€¢ .e,01 â„¢e lod,lig' â€¢9'T.' /0Â· 9 .wt' %,e POINT OF BEGINNING ASPEM KIE PRgrECTION DISTRK- Appâ€¢OVAW 1 *"1â€¢47 i I PLAW..g ..,O ZO,//1 r.@&45ll, APPROv AN 3 De'l IIi,t, 0,0,/cil I :ne Dub,6, ... Â·Il .17Â·Â·. 00....", 0... IIiâ€¢.B 1- * i#/1 uw , oic.ided 14 ..4 ec~e~rl. D+--e pa~ . 0 * A...0Â®~ P1otÂ·dr UTE PAIâ„¢ 5# SKÂ» -0, 0,0,0.~~~~â€¢QI, 01 A~.4 â„¢crâ€¢liâ€ž; M. J.IeÂ¥ s.- .1 , 995 Mes/5. po zg~. 1.-'" .' * . \ Â·9. 4 ... her... 0,0,cole I - *.*-ill eci,*.' â€¢. *.â€¢. 0~0 â€¢g-/1, ' * ~ -Hcl Sh-Â·" 4. .0~Â«de-Â· om~-<e Oio Of* 6â€¢-Â« e-.F:, ./%+ . I.*0/. M. Â· 0, â€¢1--Â¢1,1 -cliung .. ..' 5~ Â»/Â·w,Â· 2-0 ....... 4 -4 1-* . I.I. Acc, 4 â‚¬ 0.-......... ~01*6 â€¢â€¢ Ule Pon Sub-,Â·~,0.1 or,0 - -r wo,irl, * .A* Â°ork - I Ed Ve,9 *0*IN Ff, 1.1,0/ . rhe f... ........ 01 '.. I.. TITLE "SURANCF .01-NCÂ¥ 6.f;10:,CATE -'PAIC.,.477,+12.Tuc. -6 *creâ€¢â€¢ Laâ€¢~0*-9 -' 4-,I.-c, â‚¬0~--1 Ar-â€¢ ...â€¢ .â€¢i ...a 5 D-I "10, 01)10'0 10 " 40--0-Â«, Aâ€¢"00â€¢.- 0..r.â€¢â€¢wc .......4 - M.. Dwl Lei D. h0â€¢1*0 10 0â€ž.~ .-*., -A.... w .,~s.<0* *- C-. 'VB'-S. 1...c- ~~rrÂ»,g. ceâ€¢~n~, .0 k~~,â„¢,*, r.... c'WNERS CEKTIFÂ·IUTE - 1_cr 2 995 0........C.01 05 1--â€¢-r61 4 hedact 6 De.* r.r". /1//i' 10 11- M/A/â€¢ 4, 0-1,/ â€¢- "c,4/ -0 Ut-1 E-/ *" ~917'9tZM'ttf_ .* Lot a: W.. G)*u E.Amp.,.05 AL: o. .... -â€¢.,o, - --*. .cÂ»â€ž,yac.â€ž. ./ ... .. ./ Lat-2'. 95#Al#v'l.daA "44-w ,â€¢.. *--y E--1 u,6*1 0 p-*u- occes, **% . iÂ·.; A...c~,* -. ., ..... â€¢4541,***Citdl'LA.C. DÂ°71 -1-: co, o, De ~SLE.2 199. . I. P-h ./.'.'./. -// ./.e~â€ž 4,/,I . I. I..,..... ...,/.. 81 M BRASS CAP APOâ€¢QWL*OG{INT OF 0*â€¢CAÂ¥4,P wl Lo'/ 1 -d 2 - coa.-- *. 1.~e r~ 14~1 V *- - 11#04.44? - ~hall -4 1,â€¢twâ€¢ )-â€¢ -d -â€¢11Â·i â€¢e' - *-. â€¢- I- -El LOT !8. SECTION ]8 5,01â€¢ It ....10 I c \\ 4 - m.-0- DY - - C.U.4 0, â€ž101- - 1-41 0-1- a. - 01Â¥ 0 T IO S 9.84 * ./B. Aspe~,COSTP S- ,<-* t~ e, ,~ . ..,m .Im ... ..â€ž 6TH P Â¥. MS 638 #978 CO-*, 01 /0/j- 1 -u -Cm . 6~. -Id - - a co~~6~~ *i- I- *- . - to 70 00, . I- Cerâ€¢..... ./ -1 - le/* /*- .... u. P.. P.,â€¢I. A-hof,14 -* # - focâ€¢ -,~~4 -*- 1-0 - -~t-- -* diFA 8 Lot, 1 0-6 2 -0 bâ€¢ -*m#.- 1- *â€¢ po~'-Â· -~ -0,1-t -0 0,N,4 1;4~6Â£:FT-% --UZil ~NHER,2, CEKTIFICATE - Ler 1 ' â€¢ -Tâ€¢ESS WHE"of: i her'-fe 004 -01 ,"" c.wl oil,cla_"/ -LE- 71 ---*--p*--.- . '10 411 h ff=8 1 /: 1 11,A, 0 1/ghtÂ»- -â€¢â€¢â€¢ T -Â·. 0.4- N lot i .O'., .... , .#*,** XI,A, 0. .2. /23 Fllk 43 â‚¬91 2/?P.~~~ Stoâ€¢* 01 Co,oro- 1 E..C.'.0 '.4 - 0. 1 --- *4*4/ 'u 0 1 / \ .TE PAnK WaDVISM* I C-.-0 0.-0 â€¢.â€¢n--. i \ 1 T,s ; ht 0-rn,*1 ,0 = .~ Pâ‚¬*t 5-*vâ€¢-e i. belâ€¢* 1%00Â» 10 =Nâ€¢-1/ Of r eg6,/,y ''-~*' T ,..hn " '94... .1 t., 1 / O - =on"/g.- I 1~â€ž a.'*I- F-/ Acces. Ec-1 -4 1, cs,r% I i /1 0 ./.cr-y . I. ... 01 n. -Ce,â€¢/ -01 Enâ€¢*4Â»,- t.â€¢- ,1- r.l : Â· 1 LOT 2 ~ lg -, LOT 4 4,~ rece.- Pkcl ck.Â¢v#.4 . .1-ne, T --3- PU T /'-- 1 0*.ty,â€¢-~ rÂ¥- E -gor, 22. 9'kl â€¢ Pt' 8- 10 - Pâ€¢4â€¢ 56. \~~~ 82~~EN~~Ml--2.-2~Â»kE /fi Pubâ€¢c \ 9- *.,.c- 1 0 4 .I...- 1 CWHEEÂ£, CEâ‚¬nPKME - LETT L oy E""44 ", 1404 Aj,~Air 995 ...... 'ANT.....) I ..... G.... P-'ll 1 - INEW WILINEOF, 1--7, 08 -7 1-/ I'/'iri'* IK ~ L=Â£2~___ LOT 1 G.7 1.--/0.- of Let 3 , I . S.. .. ..&/I , \ B.L.M BRASS CAP .1 ' ' ' -' MIâ€¢l,U=RIE~&11 \ WS 631!. LOT 18 â€¢ L-SECTION 11 D- -~,Â» --* c-*- -S *#-* %- - - B+ - Th. .....a.1 196, . UTE PARK -"..% -- *- I I.* .... . - I.I 01 IP /94 0/ /-1 Ne:-s- 0 /0, 01"* / L./1 - T.10 5. R - W. ~Iq,# 4. i A I.TMUS ../OF.1 --. .. -, - ..c- w. 6â„¢ P. . ./ \ 9 t . - 424-9.i: ~'9 /Â· ; ./ 1.. I. Ay---MA r 1- m 14 h - L .9 lilli .... 1 i =. I I MI/.9-/&"// C.-V,/ r- - T.I. Cll.*I INDEX OF SHEETS OWNEP; CER#1{*rE - Uffr 3 Ng'./ ./../.4 --~' * 0 00 Â£41&1 I m*4> 2-- \ I el 2 CERTIFICâ€¢l ES. INEDICATIONS AND NOTES Â·Â· , . . . 4-4 da At i U,u t-â€¢T - 20,2 LOT CONFIGURAT,0.5 - r- 04~LaC,f-,*,-*=- 44, 4-eÂ·- p:,41.fr'' %',Â·L- C - 'l i~e~1-01â„¢1G,Il - Jf .. -Â· ......--/./.------* .....I./. _L~ ./ + . . r .... - 12. : .../. *-0. 1 ......../ ...*..... I. .. r.Â·Â·Â· 14'1-- Â· Â·.--.0..u'll'"1----- el.. . i 1 7 ~ ILF// " /1. t./ Â· I Â· 6- tt:~ 'I- - ,-71 8>.91 t PLAT OF UTE PARK SUBDIVISION f ,. ..9 .. .. T - . - ASPEN, Pi-1-KtN COUNTY, COLORADO - ZE*pi *2:,.--= U<itÂ»ri.~ I.1 . :/ 47.* I M 4 \- FLU BRASS CAP. CORIER NO 9 OF TRACT 41 0 j EAST ASPEN TOWNSTTE AND CORNER OF LOT 13 AND N Or 05Â· 16- E ; ~ LOT 18, SECTION ja Tio S. R 84 w. 6TH P M FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 5 LM PC. 40 67 21Â·- 1 b UTE C,._DRENS PARK \ REBAR AND CAP POINDQF BEGINNING ~~~,~~~~ 20151 S CURVE INFORMATION , 0 8 - 2. 49Â· 36Â· . 30 00' L . 15.09 7 7 F C . I. 93 1 1 APPPOXIMATE LOCATION OF 21 0- x # {0 6 29-'08- R - 2/0 00 , . 126 84 . 64 87 C - 1 ./ 48 Av ALANC- AND FALLING BOO< 26 E-- 1 WARNING SIGN 4/ / N Â®6 lino 00Â· L. 37 646 T . /0 58Â· C Â· 56 04 76-4 ~ BARE REe*R / ~ Â® A z 29* 04 08~ . . 290.00 L (47 '3 1 '5 I. C . /45 5,6 8 0 6 2. e 70 00 L 3 S 2 T Â¢ 99 C. 3. 8/ . 21,7. '21. 8 Â® 127.6 . Â® 6,22Â· 04 or R. 10 00 ...231 T.2,45 C. 42 10 3 6 : 03Â· 5,- /8 R . 29â‚¬} 00 . . 20 03 r. 10 02 C â€¢ 20 03 \It 64 620 2,7'~ LOT 16 .Â¥ Â® A . 05- 03 16 0 5 2/0 00 1. 22 0/ T 11 03 c . 2. 05 - TX}ffs:*:tr :-- * . . '145 22 . I. 321 35 ' 16' '4 C . 320 30 004 E - THE BENEDICT BUILDING S 29- y 42Â· W N E - 944 @ A - I.Â· 02 28- I . 115/ 29 L = 521 20 , . 15' 63 C . 320 7 : -- 9 -3,- 17.06 x x 4 #/4.\ . 720Â·02Â· T,k 54 v 00 - 4 06 V Zo- -1 - R ,-Â· REBAR AND CAP FEET 30 0 30 FEET 0 1 2 , - / 540. 20~51 GRAPHIC SCALE -- 30 1, 1 AREA TABLEI APPROXIIATE LOCATION OF- i- A~ ~\ 3 4 4 oe *-%44 1 Inch: lOT 1 0 989 ACRES i 43.084 SO ET AVALANCHE AND FALLING ROC~ 0 \ WARNING SIGN ~ 2 i - A E - LOT 2 000 ACRE S , 43 ~72 SO , \ 4 4 /6 /4, r.2 ./. I LOT 3 0 743 ACRES i 32 385 50 " B.L U. BRASS CAP It 4, 13~ - -- ~pi ...P 2- y Â£01 4 0 409 ACRES , 7,828 90 ./ \6 9 15 16, r - 0 658 ACRED i 28.864 W ; 7 UTE AVE 0 0 I + ~ + .P CALLAHAN SUBDIVIS:ON LEGEND LOT 18, SECTION IS ~ 2 .\ ... \2. TOTAL 3 79~ ACRES + 165,633 SQ F T TIO S, R.84 W. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LOT 3 0 '3< /04 < Fo< L~T BOOK 5, PACE 7 6TH PM, MS 631. 1978 Q MONUMENT, FOUND IN PLACE 9 \ i.1. ~ Joy 0. 1 4 *4 \ 0.744 ACRES * . 4 99. AS DESCRIBED A I O. e LOT 15 t* 1 3 53 0. 01 e, 4. FOUND, BUREAU oF LAND Â«p'q, r Â»Â·%> \1* .34 42 \ A 3~\\\ ~-he T'' 00- \ \ Â·~ MANAGEMENT BRASS CAP. THE ASPEN CLUB AS DESCRIBED \ 2 \\ ~\--91~4\ /h \ 00- ...6 Â».3,0. \33 I \ 1,34.4. 1-QA" SET THIS SURVEY. 5/8 RE8AR \ \ /4 0. MARKED BANNER.iNC 20632 ~ WITH Â¢ 1/2- ALUMINUM CAP \.\ e 01 'le / (740% 4.\ 4 \ 4/4 9 8 UILDING 1 0 \ I \ d. ENVELOPE \ \Ad \ /0 \\ .00 j 24' EASEMENT FOR 0-, 0 \ _UTIL.TIES. ACCESS, 1 C .0 I / AND SERVICE 94 / / \ BOOK 312. PAGE 200 RA U. 2, ' -. 4 uri ACCESS AM) - ~~944~-1 42Â· V K. Â£ 10. f 44Â· / 't 4 1 - WITNESS ~|~ UTIL]TY EASEMENT Â», 144 - / I V 4. *72 ed /\ . 0/ ~ 42 ~ M Q CORNER ~ %. / (5 \,N \ Â»2 C Â»02 r \ toT 2 irÂ«. et/ .5 a. . 7-- .di t.:Â« \ \\4.,>12 1 \ 1 1.000\~ACRES :ty/ ./ Â»001 / 11. ./1 0 N o 2,2- V. .\ 0 / NE k BUILDING ARI A 44\ \â€¢ 4 0 4,%' 4. , 1, 1 >, O BWL G , LOT.4 7 \ REBAR AND CAP . 49. d. . ENVELOPE 4-U/0 \ P.6 0 4 0 NO :2707 / ENV Opt g' , f / 4 .17' % : 0.40 \ . /A I \ \ 4%?2 0 61 . 4.23 UNCONOTKNAL \Nd- 0 , 2 Gif / f I - 4300 ACRES i \ ENVELOPE 4~42: 0 Â¢ t. M P\- I \ '00 . '%b ~\ LOT 3 1/ Z + I AVALANCHE AND F Al LING o orâ€¢ APPROXUATE LOCATION OF 0/0 91:4 /Â¥ \ \.44/ E- 28*af\ v A T i 00. 4 WARNING SIGN 41 1 BUEDmG 1 1 9 0 9*4 00' ENVELOPE . ~~44 9594 ~96<6////2,0 + 10' ROW. RESERVATION 4% pi ~ iMAY BE USED FOR PARK$NO \ 24\ 8 .t/?94423 * 12- 15 â€¢COUIRED BÂ¥ THE Â· CITY OF _ UNCONDITIONAL ' 7 RETA,-0 90 ENVELOPE e 2 4'- UNTAL SUCH Â·TIME AS R O W \ .*50725& ,4/0 1- 4- 0% 1\\\Â»~ 39#VLMA/-21-1 -LL , . )X.TWAKink""Rbil- O ht e Â·tr ASPEN}. LOT 4 BUILDIN ENV OPE LOT 2 "0. \ 43:50, 4,44Â« e J Â·Â· A <43 ./4 0 4 - CONDITIONAL A / ... ' ENVELOPE .. â€¢ '|~ ~ ~~ AVAL.ANCHE AND FALLING ROCK 9, / t -6-7/ 0 APPROXIMATE LOCATTON OF b. â‚¬> d 9 109 - Ly, TO BE ABA'Â®Â©â€¢EO / 4 + ARNING SteR . , ~ 8.L.M. BRASS CAP , * tv J , 7 I. , SECTION 18. . I I - U. T.10 S. R.84 W. LOT ~4 . e.. f / 1 c - â€¢14/ 7, --1 r - Xlsr 6â„¢ p. 62 (bly- . 4/ -4 0.989 A E tr .9 41 / 449 43. LOT I t /2$ 4 46 44 SE~ ~ 4 ' . CO Â· '~ . CE..t- 1, , . / 404 46 ~ TR# Eki*- 14 Â·44 . REBAR Aâ€¢10 CAP . / 1 W.. 292. ---- , 4 - -- f DETAIL 9 41.Drr~ Â£ )~r-&~Li_- 431 T~: Â· 0:~ Ivegr I T- Iiyn 1 00-â€¢0Â©ED IM 1.04 TEN Â¥EARS FR- 1.E OATE 92:?,1 ., E I'll'll"/*/*.."M* C.*-,0,199 5 4 - PLAT oF UTE PARK SUBDIVISION - *141 4 0 0*,21 BEET- ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO , 2 of 2 0 t~ Â·i ' s. N 00' 49' 21~ E-R 390.96' - R BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 3 01~ 04 7 N 08â€¢ 05' 20* EXHIBIT E. Planned Unit Development and Subdivision ImprovementAgreement for Ute Park Subdivision. #354209 02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 216 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc S-00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SURDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 1 FOR UTE PARK SUEDIVISION THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ANC) SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Aspen. Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule charter city (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and the Ute Park Partnership, a Colorado partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") on the dates as indicated below. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recording a Fillal Pianned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat (hereinafter referred to as the "Plat") pertaining to the develobment of a residential project conj,isting of three free-market single-family lots and seven reed- restricced townhomes known as the Ute Park Subdivision (hereinafter collectively known as the "I-roject") on real property owned by the Owner which is more. particularly described on Exhibit "A", as attached and incorporated herein. A reduced copy of Plat is attached as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated h,!re in. WHEREAS, the Project receh'ed approvals pursuant to the following sections in the h,spen Municipal Code: Rezoning from RR (Rural Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) pursuant to Cl mrter 24, Section 7, Division 11; Subdivision pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 7-1004; Final Planned Unit Development pursuant to Chapter 24, 7-903(c)(2)(a); Growth Management Exemption for Free Market Development in an AH Zone District pursuant to Chapter 24, S ection 7-903: Affordable Housing pilly'.ant to Chapter 24, Section 8-104.C.; 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 7-503: Text/Map Amendment pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 7-102 and Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 7-1007 and Exemption from Ordinance 1, Series of 1990 for the free market lots. WIIEREAS, prior to entering this Agreement, the City fully considered the developmin applications dated April, 1990 and December, 1991, filed by the Owner with the City Planr inf Department, the plat for the Project and the anticipated benefits and burdens to neighboring or adjoining properties by reason of the Project. Further, the City has considered the requirements, terrat and conditions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and such laws, rules and regulations as are applip hle. WHEREAS, the City has imposed on the Owner conditions and requireinents in connection with the approvals described above such conditions and requirements being necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare. Such conditions are set forth in Ordinance No. 18. (Series of 1992), attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein. WHEREAS, t,nder Section 7-904 and 7-1005 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "L:n., Use Regulations"), the City is entitled to assurance that the matters agreed to herein will be performed by the Owner and its successors or assigns. 1 #354208 02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 217' Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 1.00 WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such Agreement with the City and to provide the ~ assurances set forth herein to the City. WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and accept for recordation the Plat. WHER]EAS, this Agreement, the Plat and Ordinance No. 18, (Series of 1992), shall constitute Â£he final development plan and development regulations for the Project pursuant to Section 7-906, of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. NOW, TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is greek as follows: 1. Descriotion of Proiect. The Project consists of four (4) lots, the legal description for which are set forth on the attached Exhibit "A". Lot #1 shall contain approximately 47,916 square ~ square feet, and Lot # 4 shall contain approximately 23,552 square feet. Lots #1, #2 and #3 have been feet, Lot #2 shall contain approximately 43,560 square feet, Lot #3 shall contain approximately 50,530 approved as free-market single-family lots. Lot #4 shall contain seven (01) affordable deed-restricted townhomes which will be sold to qualified buyers meeting the buyer qualifications of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines with the following development mix: A. Category 3 Deed Restrictions: i. Three (3) approximate 1,290.77 net livable square foot three- bedroom 2. townhomes. B. Category 4 Deed Restrictions: 7 i. Three (3) approximate 1,285.31 net livable square foot three-bedroom townhomes. ii. One (1) approximate 1,308.75 net livable squrre foot three-bedroom townhome. 2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and Planning Office, the City agrees to approve, and execute the final plat for the Project submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The City agrees to accept the Plat for recording in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owner. Reduced size copies of the followin,g documents, representing plats and plans that have ~ been approved as part of this Subdivision Improvements Agreement, are attached as the following Exhibits: A. Legal Description, Exhibit "A". B. Reduced Copy of Plat, Exhibit "B". C. Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1992), Exhibit "C". D. Recordation Information of Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant. Exhibit "D". 2 #351:08 02/22/93 16:36 Rec 0200.00 BK 704 PG 218 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 1. Legal description, Lot #4, Attachment 1. 2. Reduced Site: Plan, Attachment 2. 3. Categorization of Units and Net Livable Square Footage, Attachment 3. E. Letter from Emerson Culbertson, Inc. for Townhome Construction Cost Estimates, Exhibit "E". F. Grant of Trail Easement, Exhibit "F". G. Final PUD De'ielopment Plan, Exhibit "G" H. Final Grading Plan, Exhibit "H". I. Final Landscape Plan, Exhibit "I". J. Landscape improvement Cost Estimate, Exhibit "J". K. Private UtiLities Plan, Exhibit "K". L. Letter from Banner Associates, Inc. fur Utilities Installation Cost Estimate, Exhibit "L-. M. Water Plan, Exhibit "M". N. Sanitary Sewerline "B" Plan and Profile, Exhibit "N". O. Sanitary Sewerline "A" and "B" Stub-Out Plan and Profile, Exhibit "O". P. Sanitary Sewer and Water Tap Fees, Exhibit "P". 3. Construction and Phasing. The City and Owner mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined for the development on Lot #4 at this time. Therefore, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Owner shall provide financial assurances to the City ~-, for the construction of the affordable housing situate on Lot #4 in the form of a second mortgage against Lots #1, #2 and #3 in the name of the City of Aspen. Upon the sale of one or more of the free market lots, a fully executed deed conveying Lot #4 by Owner to the City free and clear of all liens and other encumbrances shall be placed in escrow for the benefit of the City of Aspen. In addition, to secure the performance by Owner of the construction of the contemplated affordable housing units of Lot 4, an irrevocable letter of credit payable by the City of Aspen shall he provided by the Owner in the amount of $632,854.00. A letter from Emerson Culbertson is attached as Exhibit "E" verifying the estimated cost of construction for the affordable housinr Â·Â·lits located on Lot #4. Upon delivery of the letter of credit and the deed to Lot #4 irl escrow. the ''ty shall release the mortgage against Lots #1, 02 and #3. If construction of the arfu. . .'did housing units required under this Agreement by the Owner has not begun within two (2) years 01 recordation of the Final Plat, the City may record the deed, take possession of Lot #4, and the architectural plans for the affordable housing units shall be turned over to the City, and the Cirj shall redeem the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units within one (1) year. Said affordable housing units shall be sold by the City to qualifying employees and so much of the net proceeds of the sales shall be delivered to Owner by the City as are necessary for the repayment of the Owner's promissory note to the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. The Owner acknowledges that the sole source of repayment of the Letter of Credit shall be limited to the Net Proceeds derived from the sale, lease or other disposition of Lot #4 or the affordable housing units constructed thereon, and/or as a result of any permanent financing secured by Lot 44. as more particularly described as follows: "Net Proceeds" are hereby defined as any funds received by the City from the sale of Lot #4 or the affordable housing units to be constructed thereon. and/or any funds disbursed to the City pursuant to the Letter of Credit, less all costs incurred by the City in the development and construction of said units, including, but not limited to, planning, legal. architectural, engineering, interest and financing costs, and all costs of construction including materials and labor. The City shall in no manner be responsible for Owner's obligations, if any, to reimbune funds drawn on the Letter of Credit. In the event that the City takes possession of Lot #4 and redeents the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units, the Owner's obligations under this Agreement 3 -354208 02/22/93 16:36 Rec %200.00 BK 704 PG 219 Silvia Davis, Pit!.:in Cnty Clerk, Dec $Â·00 shall be deemed fully satisfied. 4. ParkinE Owner agrees to construct seven (7) surface parking spaces and seven (7) garage covered parking spaces as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plair. attached as Exhibit "GM, as parking for the affordable townhome units of the Project. As represti.,cd, townhome parking spaces 1,.2 aild 5 have been partiaily designed within the ten foot (10') R.O.W. reservation. In the event the ten foot (10') reservation easennent is acquired by the City of Aspen, an alternate location for the three parking spaces has been shown on the PUD Plan and Final Plat. 5. Lanciscaning Plan. The owner agrees that it shall landscape the Prcject in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "I", which plan shows the extent and location of plants to be installed, all landscape features, flowers and shrub definition, the proposed treatment of all gi'ound surfaces *aving, sod. etc.3, and the other elements of the landscape plan, including associated irrigation systems and revegetation of all disturbed areas. The landscaping is anticipated to be installed no later than the first planting season for the type of plants involved following the completion of the construction of the Project. The Owner or its successor homeowners' association will nromptly replace any plants which have not sun,jved for a period of one growing season following the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. 6. Security for Landscaping, The City is entitled to and requirss the provisio:. uy the Owner of financial assurances for the landscaping of the Project. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $12,762.50 securing to the City the installation of the landscaping described on Exhibit "I", as attached. A letter from The Stevens Group, Inc. is attached as Exhibit T for the estimated costs of landscaping for the project. Such security document shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not fully have installed the landscaping as represented herein, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation of such 1 landscaping. The security document shall provide that on completion of the landscaping, the Owner may obtain the release of the security document. 7. Exemption from Morator:um for Water Main Extensions. Pursuant to Orrlinance No. 18 (Series of 1990), an exemption from the moratorium on expansions to the City's municipal water - system as imposed by Resolutions No. 12 and No. 45 (Series of 1991) was granted so as to allow the extension of the municipal water delivery system for three (3) free-market single-family residences in the subdivision. 8. Public Imorovements, The Owner agrees to construct the following site improvements in relation to its construction of the Project: a. Ute Avenue Improvements District, Owner or the owners of the free market lots and any subgroup of any saccessor homeowners' association consisting of only the owners of the free- market lots agree to join any public improvements district formed for improvements along Ute Avenue benefiting the Project. The owners of the affordable housing units shall have no liability with respect to such iniprovements. h. Security br P.,blic Imorovements. in order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the public improvements for Sanitary Sewer and Water System improvements, the (hvner shall provide a bond, letter of errÂ¢'t, ash or other guarantee in a form 4 #354208 02/22/93 16:36 Rec 5200.00 BK 704 PG 220 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc S.00 satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $45,000.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project. The documents shall give - the City the unconditional right, upon ciear and unequivocal default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such public improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, the district representative of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and representative of the Aspen City Water Department shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. The Owner shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that aii improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one (1) year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged. during the Project construction, on request by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and/or the Aspen City Water Department, a bond or other suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvements shall be provided by Owner to the City. c. Sewer TAD Fees, Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer tap fees to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the amount equivalent to 5.5 EQR's and the same equivalent EQR's for downstream constraints. Current estimates provide for a fee in the amcunt of $30,250.00 ($ 13.750.00 tap fees and $16,500.00 downstream constraints). Exact calculations tor tap fees and downstream constraints shall be provided by the ACSD at issuance of building permits for Lot #4 and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to connection of any sewer service hook-ups to Lot #4. d. Water Tap Fees. Owner agrees to pay to the Aspen Water Department a taD fee surcharge in the amount in effect at issuance of building permit for the development of the affordable housing project located on Lot #4 containing seven (7) townhomes of three (3) bedrooms each. Payment shall be paid by Owner to the Aspen Water Department prior to issuance of building permits for townhome units on Lot #4. In the event the City of Aspen amends their policy as to payment required for water tap fees for affordable housing created in the AH zone district, the Owner requests review under the amended policy prior to payment of water tap fees, or reimbursement for water tap fees paid to the City Water Department. 9. Private Utilities, The Owner agrees to extend the utility lines to provide. connections through the Project as shown on the Private Utility Plan. Exhibit 'K" as attached. In recognition of the City's request, the utilities will be placed in a utility corridor running up the driveway of Lots #1 and #2 and is so noted on the Utility Plan. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the private utilities described hereto, the Owner shall provide a bond. letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $15,000.00. Said documents shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of any building permits for the Project. Said guarantee will give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default b v the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for the installation of such private itilities. As portions of the improvements are completed, a representative of the Aspen Water Department shall inspect the same end, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. 10. Site Drainagi The Grading Plan, attached as Exhibit "H" shall be submitted to the City in accordance with Section 24-7-1004 (C)(4)(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code and shall he approved by the Engineering Department. The Owner will continue to coordinate drainage and snow storage design 5 <4354208 .02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 021 olivia Davis, Fltkin Cnty Clerk, Doc S.00 and plans with City staff. Any improvement work will be performed in accordance with the Aspen Municipal Code and City specifications. The Drainage Plan includes the following information: a. All proposed slopes in excess of R: 1 shall receive erosion control netting to minimize erosion. b. The paving improvements to Ute Avenue, in conjunction with the Ute Avenue Improvement District, will accommodate the historic surface run-off for an area approxitnately 400 feet south of the right-of-way for Ute Avenue. This surface runoff will be carried down (west) Ute Avenue in a road side ditch that wil; tie into the lower Ute Avenue improvements. The drainage improvements associated with this plaA that are within the Ute Avenue right-of-wa-- will be coordinated and incorporated into the District work. c. Drainage improvements on Lot #4 will consist of grading to allow the natural historic pattern to continue across the property. Swales will be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales will be vegetated and maintain a minimum of 2 % gradient. The vegetation will minimize any erosion c potential and create 2 natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces will be graded to allow a sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent to Ute Avenue. d. Prior to issuance of building permits for the townhomes, the Owner shall satisfy the City ' Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage calculations must be provided for the free-market single-family homes at the time of individual building permit applications. e. Securitv for Grading and Drainage Improvements. In order to secure performance of the grading and drainage improvements described above, the Owner shall provide a bond,letter of credit, cash or other guarantee on a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $15,000.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of building permits for the Project. The documents wili give the City the unconditional right , upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, The City Engineer shall inspect the same ar j, upon approval and acceptance. the City Engineer shall authorize the release of the agreed :stimated costs for the completed improvements. 11. Common Access Driveway Improvements. The Owner agrees that he will provide a common driveway providing access to Lots #1, #2 and 53 from L te Avenue. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Lots #1, #2 or #3, tile Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount of $20,000.00 securing to the City the installation of the common private access driveway. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Lots #1, #2 or #3, the common access driveway form Ute Avenue to Lots #1, #2 and #3 shall be completed by the Owner. Tne security provided at issuance of the first building permit for the free market lots shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not have fully completed the common access private driveway to the free market lots, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete the proposed work. 6 - . U . O 0 nec i: 2 vt-). CO J A , 4/ P G 222 bilvia Davis, Pit!::in Cnty Clerk, Doc S.00 TABLE I SCHEDULE, CF SECURITY PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENT FEE TIMEFRAME Sanitary Sewer and Water System 545,000.Co Prior to issuance of any building permits. Private Utilities $15,OCO.CO Prior to issuance of any building permits. Common Accea Driveway $20,000.Co Prior to issuance of firct building permit for free market lots. Grading and Dminage 515,009,00 Prior to issuance of any building permits. L.andscaping $12,762.50 Prior to issuance of any building permits. TOTAL $107,762.50 12. Dust Control Plan, Prior to construction, and as a condition of building permit issuance, a fugitive dust control plan must b: obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and the Planning Office. 13. Trail Easement Dedication. The Owner will dedicate a year-round publictrail easement to be fifteen (15) feet wide. The Nordic Council and the Owner shall work together and verify the trial alignment as shown on the Plat and PUD Plan to comply with the most workable alignment for skiing and trail connections. Signage at property boundaries shall indicate potential avalanche and rockfall hazard to trial users. These signs shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work. The Subdivision Final Plat shall indicate the conceptual trail alignment. The County Open Space and Trails Program (COSTP) may act as assignee of the City of Aspen for the construction and maintenance of the trail. Upon completion of this trail. the COSTP will be responsible for surveying and filing the as-built trail easement. The conceptual trail alignment and subsequent trail easement shall run with the land and be binding on the Owner, its successors and assigns. The trial alignment may be amended by mutual consent of both the City, its successors and assigns and the Owner, his successors and assigns. 14. Park Development Impact Fee. Pursuant to Section 5-601. et.seq., of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City is entitled to a park development impact fee for construction of the new ' residential townhome units. In the event the City establishes this fee is warranted. the Owner agrees -~ pay a park development impact fee indexed prior to issuance of any building permits for the free marke lots. 15. Affordable Housing Imoact Fee. Pursuantto Section 7-1007 (a)(c)(2), ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, the affordable housing impact fee applies to condominiumization of new residential units. The townhome units on this Project are to be condominiumized. However. the Owner has demonstrated the net effect of tile Project is to increase the square footage number of bedrooms available as affordable housing in the community and, therefore, the condeminiumization of this Project will have no negative impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community and the City has exempted the Project from the affordable housing impact fee. 16. Exemption from Ordinance I, Series of 1990, Pursuant to Ordinance 1. Series of 1990. it is tile dete-mination of the City Planning Director that the proposed AH development will have already 9354209 02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 223 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $Â·00 accomplished multiple 'leed restricted units prior to or concurrent with the free market development and there will be no affordabL: hcusinr mitigation (cash-in-lieu or accessory dwelling units) required of the individual single family Lots,Â¥1, #2 or #3. 17. Deed Restrictions. Attached as Exhibit "D" is the recordation information of the Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenan. to be used for the seven cD affordable townhomes units of the Project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall execute and record in the Pitkin County Real Property Records a Master I-,eed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction. Prior to sale of any individual unit in the Project to a purchaser, such purchaser shall be required to execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction. which shall then be recorded in the Pitkin County Real Property Records and placed on file with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Nothing herein shall rocuire the immediate sale of the seven (7) affordable housing townhome units. The Owner may retain ownership cf such units and rent them fr r a period not to exceed one (1) year while the units are being marketed for sale to qualified buyers. If the affordable housing townhome units are not sold within one (1) year, they may be offered for sale by the APCHA to qualified buyers. While being marketed, the affordable townhome units may only be rented to persons who qualify under the APCHA guidelines as Category #3 and #4 income residents, and such rentals shall be subject to the price and income guidelines. 18. Wood Burning Devices. Any combustibledevices shall be built in accordance with the regulations in effect at issuance of building permits. 19. Building Permits, Prior to issuance of any building permits for the townhomes or the single-family residence located on Lot #1, the following design standards shall be approved by the Building Department: a. Free Market Single-Family Home Lot #1: The single-family home located on Lot #1 shall be built simultaneously with or prior to the seven (7) del restricted townhomes. If the single-family home and the townhomes are built simu:taneously, the structural framing of the single-family home and any necessary retaining walls must be complete and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of Certificates Of Occupancy for the townhomes. b. Deed Restricted Affordable Townhomes: In tile event the townhomes are constructed prior to a single family residence on Lot #1, the townhomes will be constructed ro within potential avalanche loads as designed to standards established by Art Mears or a similar avalanche expert. For the protection of the toWnhomes from any potential avalanche, the designed retaining wall or residential structure on Lot #1 must extend the entire length of the conditional zone on Lot #1. 20. Fire Protection. The free-market single-family homes to be located on Lots #1 and #2 must be sprinkerled for fire protection. The Owner shall satisfy the Fire Marshall regarding emergency access prior to filing the Final Plat. 21. Hazard Notifications. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized mid revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Environrrantal Health Department. 8 425420@ 02/22/93 16:35 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 224 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 22. Condominiumization, The City approves the exemption of condominiumization for the Project subject to the deed restricting of the condominiumized townhome units to the price, income, occupancy, and asset limitations imposed by the Master Housing Authority Deed Restriction (attached as Exhibit TO of this Agreement. The master deed restriction restricts the use and occupancy of the townhome units as the sole and exclusive place of residency of qualified buyers or initial Ownefs renters. The townhome units can not be rented without prior written approval of the APCHA. 23. Condominium Map. Upon substantial completion of the townhomes, a condominium map and condominium declaration for the townhomes must be prepared, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and the Planning Office. The condominium map and declaration shall be approved and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the conveyance of any of the individual units within the Project. 24. Material Reoresentations. All material representations made by the Owner on record i to the City in accordance with the approval of the Project shall be binding upon the Owner, its successors and assigns. 25. Notice. Notices to the parties shali be sent by the United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid, to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of mailing of same. To the City: c/o City Manager 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 To the Owner: James T. Martin Ute Park Partnership 215 South Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 26. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance ' with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Aspen Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 27. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions hereof. 28. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Preject is located and shall be binding on and enure to the benefit of the Owner, its successors and assigns and the City, its successors and assigns. 29. Enforcement, In the event the City determines the Owner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the final plat, the City may serve a Notice of Non- Compliance and request 'hat the deficiency be corrected within a period of forty-five (45) days. In the event the Owner believes that it is in compliance or that the non-compliance is insubstantial, the Owner may request a hearing bifore the City Council to determine whether the alleged non-compliance exists 9 â€ž364204 02/22/93 16:36 Rec $200.00 BK 704 PG 226 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 A parcel of land situated in the N-W-1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18. Township 10 South, Range 84 West of.theE:STat-!~S,Principal Meridian. Pitkin County. Colorado. Said Parcel is liordÂ¢Â¥Ully*d@scribed ag follows: Beginning at a point wheri'6"2-562&403;34674,9 of Riverside Placer, MS 3905 AM bears North 38*11'25" '8â€¢FE'Â¢15,195Udet; thence South 68'00'00" 2.475-121):P.0,(gÂ»bÂ· thence South 49'00'00" Eait335'honitivt;4 thence South 41*00'00" lfâ‚¬~t'-36*.83Mflet: : thence North 49'00'00" We.,t'I33#.*7,Â£911; thence North 00'49'21" East2390.94 %6et; themce South 60*24'26" EasT. 121 E-55: fde-E to the point of beginning. ' 2 .. COUNTY OP PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO .....ir. I This commitment im invalid unless Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3633 A and B are attached. EXHIBIT A buyers 'Ilile Insurance Grporallot ..."<:Bf.~(-6.2?~6- // LEGDO N 0 ... ,////,. ...6------V#-- - I. '...I- -'- .316- I--I -1--I- 4 -â€¢ 1 -44: : - , 4- I :/ 9 , Shnt-rnr.v:*-: 441 h ./. .0 =*Ell- .â€ž... -- 14 - A-4 / :=2 06,1 1.1. 1 .- Â£ BEE<--32 01 41 . - --- ..... W C- - ---. -i L>:,4...k- ----- 6.-I- ...-I....... .........-I. F- 9.=17=â€ž==.0-- 9 -*.'.- --- ...--- ...~ ...I .... ...- 'lizi.%0-41-31-163~EE 0,1 det N _- - -0-~ 44~ â€¢12 j,~1,0~9,=*4/1,~I,~Mli - N, Un~~-2mr.r:-4--/--~râ€¢ "r:=V=tutt%%-r-41 -9114]li e.<%,kh 0.71:TAAES * *\ p**44 - i . 7.-. P I. 1 1/ 3 F.=~1'r"-,r"I'~'."'~,roi~Yx='.~'â€ž- :1.=j:r=~=r---*- W ..el ./. ... \\k ...2/ *1 3353Â£3EESES'-El- tri 5.0..3.64 . Elat--rri==l - f -- - .3,7,siA-.I--Ii,/75-le/* 1, /1.~...... .- --.........*-.- -- I ........ Â£:, I.(I~ a , --- -- .-I-/1- - -I.--0.-4 - 2 I - ./. D.I I â€¢ LOT 2 e rk - --. .... ----Ill.--. . 1.000 ACRES * hoLA ,/ 4 9 , ... .--. .*.. n--I--- b I # / ,1 U h -93,4.:dri \ --I- Mr .--...... 0 0% 041 N \ 3 k . 9 =r :P / ff ACRES *\ \ \ ..... 1 .. rt JO /3 Â·< ID $ --I---- . 4 â‚¬- , '' .-I..- / 060/0 -- rD N \h 10 --.----I.-Il.-.0- r O : .1 al - ..1/.-Ill.I- O -, O . 00 -m â€¢- w ** a ~ ~ Â¥/6~21-6 f 4 0 .... ra.... t.*tt. LOT ..'. n W 0989 A i Â£, 7---UNml~JOit Agv X K .-- 04. a , = .4. 0 . / ZE'SEZEEDEE32EZE-EJÂ¥= LOUTIUM'C"'kh .. wA&%41424Â·.QQ-~ 29--::Â£*.r--=E..-66 'QlS" PLAT OF UTE PARX Slen,9011 tr:. i--'-2,Â·. ASPEN. PITIC,4 COUNTY. COLORADO |* Â·' toil L 1111J11 LZE Eld *02 26/ZZ/30 80 UIM-4.Id EXHIBIT F. May 5, 1997 Letter from Charles T. Brandt to John Worcester, City Attorney Re: Vesting. HOLLAND & HART LLF ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER - ASPEN 600 EAST MAIN 8TREET TELEPHONE (970) 925-3476 BOULDER â€¢ COLORADO SPRiNGS ASPEN COLORADO 81611-1953 FACSIMILE {970) 825-9367 DENVER TECM CENTER BILLINGS Â· BOIGE CHEYENNE Â· JACKSON MOLE CHARLES T. BRANDT SALT LAKE CITY cbrandt@hollandhart.com May 5, 1997 HAND DELIVERED John Worcester, City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, P.U.D. Dear John: Thank you for meeting with us last week on the question of vested rights as they pertain to Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision and the right to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 1 to the approved floor area of approximately 5,800 square feet notwithstanding the adoption of Ordinance No. 30, series of 1995. This letter will summarize the arguments made during our meeting in support of the recognition of vested rights for Lot 1. VESTED RIGHTS UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 18. Ute Park Subdivision P.U.D. was approved by the adoption by the City Council of Ordinance No. 18, series of 1992, copy of which is attached to the enclosed Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement as Exhibit "C.". Section 6 of Ordinance No. 30 provides, as follows: "Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and in the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Furthermore, the provisions of this ordinance shall not apply in the following specific circumgrances: a. To the development of any property for which a vested right, as defined by Colorado law, has been obtained prior to the effective date here." We believe that the plain language of Section 6 pennits the completion of the Ute Park Subdivision development. including the right to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 1 of approximately 5,800 square feet (a proportionate reduction in floor area is appropriate as the lot size was reduced from the square footage originally set forth in the application), as the Ute Park Subdivision approval ordinance was an "ordinance in effect prior to the effective sate of " Ordinance No. 30. This would appear to be rather straight fonvard. HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Worcester, City Attorney May 5,1997 Page 2 VESTED RIGHTS UNDER COLORADO LAW. As you are aware, Colorado courts have recognized the existence of common law vested rights as did the General Assembly in creating Colorado' s statutory vested rights scheme. See Section 24-68-106(3), C.R.S. ("Nothing in this article shall preclude judicial determination, based on common law principles, that a vested properly right exists in a particular case or that a compensable taking has occurred."). Subparagraph a. in Section 6 or Ordinance No. 30 (quoted above) appears to do the same thing. We contend that common Iaw vested rights have clearly been established by the developer's reliance upon the Ute Park Subdivision approval by the City of Aspen and the substantial expenditures made pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ute Park Subdivision. Expenditures included the following: 1. Construction of the seven (7) unit employee housing townhome project at a cost of over $1,000,000,00; 2. Townhome tap and connection fees - $106,000.00 3. Subdivision infrastructure costs of - $95,000.00 4. Grading and drainage work rotaling - $15,000.00 5. Landscaping expenses of - $12,700 6. Dedication to the City of Aspen of a forty foot right-of-way for Ute Avenue and an additional ten foot right-oftway dedication if required by the City 7. Dedication of cross country ski and hiking trail to the Aspen Nordic Council 8. The sale of Lots 2 and 3 to purchasers who have constructed residences on the lots, i As we discussed, Ute Park Subdivision was zon.ed Affordable Housing as part of the approval process. The concept of this zoning category under the City's Land LIse Code is to encourage private development of affordable housing for qualified employees and subsidize the developer's expenditures on the employee housing component of the project by approving a limited number of "free market" lors. We strongly believe it would be vary unfair for the City of Aspen to effectively "down-zone" Lot 1 by reducing the allowed floor area, which, in turn adversely affects the value of this property, value which the developer is reasonably expecting in return for fulfilling its obligations under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. I'll spare you the citation of Colorado cases supporting this proposition as I believe you are aware of them. Let me know, however. if you would like to have them. HOLLAND & HART LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW John Worcester, City Attorney May 5, 1997 Page 3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS HAVE A UNIQUE STATUS. During our meeting we also pointed out that under the City's P.U.D. Ordinance. it appears that P.U.D.'s have a unique approval status which may not be altered by subsequent ordinances such as Ordinance No. 30, Section 26.84.090 Enforcement of P.U.D. Develooment Order, enables the City, resident occupants and owners of the P.U.D. to enfol-ce the P.U.D. ordinance. Furthermore, for the P.U.D. ordinance to be modified, the requirements of Section 26.84.090(B) must be complied with. And, perhaps more importantly, this section provides that no modification of the provisions of a P.U.D. ordinance ... shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development (P.U.D.) to maintain and enforce these provisions at law or equity as provided in Section - 26.84.090(B)." Thus, we question whether the floor area limitations set forth in Ordinance No. 30 can legally affect Ute Park Subdivision P.U.D. without compliance with the specific procedures relating to modification of a previously approved P.U.D. One additional factor which I do not believe was mentioned during our meeting last week, the two residences on Lots 2 and 3 are both in excess of 5.000 square feet Both lots went through 8040 green line review by the City. Based upon the foregoing arguments, we believe Lot 1 should receive similar treatment and achieve a similar result. We trust the City will see the fairness of permitting tbe development of the third and final ]ot in this Subdivision to take place consistent with the development of the other two free market lots. Thank you. Very truly yours, -L-3 C.- Â· ---4 Charles T. Brandt for Holland & Hart LLP CTB\mlp Enclosures CC: James T. Martin /- Howard G. Stacker. Esq. Tom Stevens Brooke Peterson. Esq. HH:20316 vl EXHIBIT G. May 15, 1997 Response from John Worcester, City Attorney to Charles T. Brandt Re: Vesting. . . - I I , 12 Orr oF Agn, . Â· . - . . 0& 5 8 Orr Ar-0 .. , 4 . 31*y 15,1997 . ChariesY. Brmat Esq. 7 - . Holl,ade Hart 600 East M:3n Sncet A:pen. Colagdo 81611 4. 1, VIA FAX - HARD COPY TO FOI.LOW a. . . .. Rc: Lot 1, Ut:=Park SubdivisionFUD . r 4 - Dear Chuck: . 1!as is in ne,pome ro ymlr Ictivr dsfd May 5. 190, En gitich yon s=Â¤mmized yoon ClicatS argulne:!ti 1Ii 81!ppqrt of 018 moogniaoÂ¥ of vwtcd Iigks for Lo[ 1. I.do not l,elieve fbatycor cntet has a vested 13* by,pirme affbe language Cantsined in Section 5 of Ozdimme No. 30. Sab=ction fi') stums ant Crdia.ncc.No. 30 ders not *ply tq =ly Nopelly for which a vested jight ims len obtakzd. 1 . hatprct limt Eection tb qpply not only whmn n Â·ve:bed 11:11 U Â·A,la~ed, but :130 80 104% m k W ,till in effect ME you k=w.'lhc Yclied Ii:18-obtnizi by juar clik:* cxp~cd *f~ 6162 ycHIS -i -cre not reaswed. Wlle 1Â» vested Iigbds expicd Ae property wa subject m all subee+ear ch,nies in OkÂ·ls., incading Ormo=z No. 30. 'Ib*t iâ€¢ :bc whole PUKPO= of Wainipg veâ€¢cd rights, 4396 14 1#11* m limited to a *bree yok pedod- . Viogr enet]:B Â©cmman law 2/599"My". how.vet, aze term,8!iÂ¥e- a 3, 10Â§113, Alegr n=t your cliect has cogÂ®ted 1 Immber df actiom in,Cliante'of 11â€¢, approval: bc rece*,cd. It is ma,onable for him to e*ped fial he would recâ€¢tvs an Cemomic .63 06 his pmject at thil itmE Thus. I balk,c your CLE,m thoold be ~i!101 to conÂ¥12= 1116 .. devolopmae gn Lot 1 with . Ilour â€¢em n Â©rizininy, 4,09Â®d. I do not believe however, mai yom- clic:Â£ 53 c=t, tum 6; de,im] *evieâ€¢ m=â€¢lird,- h.roped by - Cidinance No. 30 u yco bare pmvided no eviÂ¢Eu:= tbar Iz reli.1 in ne n=xpectlo any d:=ign - sw=kmis uâ„¢ler c,dsting l.w vbea 11 retcived his appmels- R i. Iny =def:lavding, & fact 11:11 90 Jugn wrik *c: beell perfonmd lu datc for thmt.Â· paxeculâ€¢r I4 . . . 13,6= 5.-S=-. A-.Cag=,81531- Piâ€¢Â»/3=NOSS â€¢ P..SUÂ£311~ .. Charl. T. 8,=dt, Esg- M,y 15,1997 P.262 . I .. I trost 1112 fOFegoiI,g *INWCIN your qnmtiam all# goncic,73- If Do< .12=C give mc, can. a . 136116 P..War=.*r Cia Al==y - ,. I - cc: Cdmmmity Devalopment Dixttor , . . I .. .. .. ' I. . . .. . . ,.. I - . - I . .. . I . 1. I P . EXHIBIT H. Avalanche Loading Analysis. Arthur I. Mears, P. E., Inc. ARTHUR I. MEARS, RE., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax: 970-641-3236 artmears@rmii.com November 27, 1999 Mr. Andy Wisnoski Bill Poss Architecture and Planning 605 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision Dear Mr. Wisnoski: I have reviewed the November 11, 1999 site plan and am providing the following comments and loading analysis as you requested. Any substantial modifications to this plan may invalidate the findings reported in this letter. Building location According to the revised plan dated "11/12/99" the house will be located at the western edge of the avalanche 'blue zone," an area of reduced avalanche energy and frequency. The garage and east entry areas are located outside the avalanche area, however the east exposure will be subject to avalanche loads due to lateral spreading of debris as avalanches decelerate. This lateral spreading will be enhanced by cuts into the existing terrain (as shown on the 11/12/99 plans), which are required to accommodate decks, a patio and east entries. The southeast comer of the building (uphill side) will also be subject to avalanche depositional loads for a distance of 15 feet along the south wall. The wall surfaces which are subject to static depositional loads are labeled "A" through "IE" on Figure 1. Loading characteristics Loads will result from an avalanche deposit against the affected walls and will be distributed vertically as shown on Figure 2. Because these are depositional (static) loads they need not be multiplied by an impact fador. Avalanche debris deposited against walls will contain a large percentage of aspen tree limbs and vegetative debris (up to 10- 20% volume) up to the loading height of 10 feet. All windows and doors should be reinforced for the specified forces. i Avalanche frequency Judging from vegetation and evidence of recent avalanche activity, I assume avalanche frequency at the proposed house is approximately one event in a 10-30 year period. Any avalanche during one of these large events could deposit debris against some of the surfaces identified in Figure 1, however a much larger event with a return period of 30 - 100 years would be required to produce the loads illustrated in Figure 2. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, RECP' 1-1/37]n O/L 4 U.taid DEC - 3 1999 Arthur I. Meals, P.E. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES Avalanche-control engineer ,-l~, i =- . L Â·-- Â·-Â· -4; .4. j Mass Wasting â€¢ Avalanches â€¢ Avalanche Control Engineering FIGURE 1. Revised site plan showing wall surfaces exposed to avalanche forces detailed in Figure 2. I I.J -- Scale: 1" = 10.0' 1 , . , A 1 -4--1; Â» fer..... 4. 41 1 1 7 .lop. 1 f , - *sri - 77 1 1 N / - 1 . It 1 j f L -- 1 .. . N=i . 1 Â· I. -LE i - r...r. I , 1 I. -- 1 -. 1 P 1 , -* i 1 D , 14. 6 1 . 04. 1 t -/ .,~! 4 i . 1 k 1 J . 1 1 d Ni, 1. ,1 4 . . r . 4/...fl- - - I i 21 4. 3 -t â€¢ 9E-Trimi- ' E , -8- 64-,1 - -9- .-I--I....I~ ' M r v.re YAKR evet,{V ~206 INâ€¢ *'Te_: P60â€¢N * AdDEC JAC Im,1 'a,â€ž. /04 0-p . I Me ' Aâ€¢ wrf'f - 4}10 11-_ r- REV. 11/ 11 / 99 8=G NORTH + ,/' -. 1 -- 10.0 ft - , - ~- 150 psf-~ 1 1 FIGURE 2. Vertical distribution of static depositionai loads against wall surfaces 'A' through "E". Scale: 1" =5.0' EXHIBIT I. Tree Removal Plan. Bill Poss and Associates 1 - 1Â°.70:/ . 1 -- 0%2 -=== -4 i> te ~ 22/- -- 7 ' / -- -1 - --L -%2- , 1--- it _- i.:e'Â·'*-3-:'7Â·9*4: --)1 \ \ k ~ 40/Ef* 4/.4- - 1 L // -\ - ./. t - %- i - Â· 1 1 & - - 1 - i iÂ· i wwgz. eoâ‚¬13~ t- )ttl'.'I- ~- **N= D. 1 4Â» , - . jes.Â·r/ziN=.- F.---* -*M~ *- --tr-. -1 -----==i.21 C ; 11 2 14 3 2 -\~ â€¢-7- -: .. .,P Â©*-riÂ» 2--Â·Â·Â·--Ti-444*4: Id,â€¢Cmr i -~ m 681/'fÂ« ' ". t.././- - Unâ€¢4â‚¬; 4. A >f-9/.g, /0/=mt- 1-*-9-- - 3-34:;:># 1 1 1 2 r.r- 1 L F-l,Xll<-4 Ans-_ p -14 ./, 7 [1-1- - - i f':1 1.h --1~ 74 1-44 tt Ft-.r--7-1--- . *-. -4*(-lat/ 44 Â»24* < ~t-'tfib /.1 1 91 t~ '11 _. I i 1 1 1 lf.... , 1 / + 10 1Â»mb"El ~6 0Â°49 \417] :-: r~ 1*{A. m. i#~ , s ,<zu - -1 - 90 -4*---*~-CPI - - '023 \ 11 /1,.- , 4 \ 4 Â»f#'_'1 './ -- - 20.ce dF -- -- '- r?ver IM 94Â« 2.- --2-Trees-7* 1Fie Rg muVeÂ¢=~ vt x Â«7 -1 14" conifer --- *-) - i I /2 N NO : F TYJ AU ..CH : 6 1~ 1 ~\4.4 ft,07Â« =I-I 209.81' , .4.1 '-L : I -15,/"VI - -, -rv tv " I .. * 4 7- iI .7,90 44, '4 AS 7,4 1 0 - 67â€¢15.6 - ., ,-/ h -- a I-,-, -' â€¢'' E.fF-- t b.1 -r C ti Paik Subili V ibiU_1-1, Lut, 1 ~ Site Plan August 24.1999 Ill,6 1.4 \.2, 9 l! 4 f -1 .-- L *. , f ; 2 / 541 ..a 1. i./.1 9 , - 19 r:10 Ir 11 4 - P U; It *Rk..inwr~m...6 444'115;i~ t'LE 14 r:}i prÂ·, Â·r .ca,J 1Â·â€¢ 9.45 5~6 ' rÂ¢*7yiFI/91/2 7.1 pl *; 2.3,<~~1414:~1,"p"M" 47 1 4 4. 4 f,Â¥64, af , 4/4/ **14*44% 4 8 Â· ./ 're %22.Mas- 4 $ ,t, 414Â¥r,4,41'~ 6. q â€¢1 9*â€¢4' Pl Â¥24 'WA . AD' 411.PAQÂ¥< bi wlÂ¢,10Â¥116,4.4.1.1 '1~ itit ~1 i~* 4Â£/*I://:*'.*/.*.Il '04 - 54.42*'M*4,143* 44 '64$ &22. f.,~'. R.1,49 11 1'** RA'.* *,trâ€ž â‚¬'~ 1Â·50'ti %1*44 N.3;11 ' Â·. QW*w.91*dif*!MiLA *t -9 2151:NG#W i ji w:/4/1 1 4â€¢.â€¢ I Â¥r, r At Â¥50 NEO Fum ./$.i - 54 ,Â· ;4Â·3(Â·.4 KAÂ¥# t;*'*t 1 Â·71<h's.F,rf#*,1:4*, N I yÂ·*11 )5~*-4 , . 0 *AA M Mmf<A 1.5,3 1% WerÂ·r 0, i r 14: ~. ~1 3 i* .1 ~9 37- - I 1.T #at.tlt~~'~~. 4|~|1 1[~9 Y 14; k H .0' y.. p i Â¢% Â§131 X 51 W 1 1 + t 4. ~4Â»-â€¢,m ./.:Ar 4'0Â· I. h.r- t .1Â·Â»Â»2.2/le'l .)4 "1~Fk<~dÂ« R. . lt, Ulf=Mwl> 13Â· * Â· I I. % t- 1.., / \ / 7/IN./.i"Mil".IFF".Ill-- 4 1 1 & 31 1 1. 111 11 1 Iii 11 U .111 11 ' i . Â·I . t 1 2 1 . 1,1 lilill . ;6 11-7+ J.- - 4 all 4 * - 1--T-*.Ill"'.-- lit ' i 1 4 1 ~( 1/ 1- ft ' t - -4-1 44 , 1 ' â€¢Â·Â·11 '1-D 6 1.!14 -. . 1 1- I > * D--'73'd'--/'I/'/I't.IZI.'12 1 LE I ~----- *- . It lit i i ili i*1./. 111 It , 11 1 1.444 - 410 - T i j..1 Wmr 6 lâ‚¬YM-1Â¢19 29Â«4 N *t ni CO Erb (Silverlode) 8040 Greenline Review - 1. Introduction 2. Public Hearing to Consider Reso #19 CucED 3. 235 Silverlode Drive, Lot 12 ofthe Silverlode Subdivision 4. addition for a media room and powder/bathroom on the northwest corner (rear) of an existing house. Foot print of the addition is about 235 square feet and total FAR increase is 370, which bring the total for the lot to the maximum of 3,837 square feet. 5. The addition may be barely visible from Silverlode and town, although the applicant ' disagrees. 6. Flat bench, no vegetation. - no adverse scenic or environmental effect. Public facilities are fine, height and bulk are minimized, grading is minimal. Ute Park Subdivision, Lot 1 - 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard Variances 1. Introduce Joe Wells 2. Public Hearing to Consider Reso. # 20 3. 8040 Greenline Review 4. Background Ute Park Subdivision is a 4 lot subdivision created in 1992. Lots 1-3 are free niarket lots and Lot 4 is the site of 7 deed restricted AH units. All the lots are fully developed except Lot 1. Lots 2 and 3 received 8040 approvals in 1994. For the past couple of years Community Development Staff has worked with Joe Wells on an application that Staff could support. The first proposals included locating a house in the blue and red zones. After a couple of pre-application conferences, site visits, exchanges over plan designs, etc., the applicant has proposed a house that Staff can recommend approval on. The proposal is for a house located solely within the unconditional building envelope outside of both avalanche zones. The structure is to build to withstand the force of the lateral spreading of debris of an avalanche rather that further impacting the sensitive site with a retaining wall. 5. Residential Design Standards: secondary mass and garage not at grade Staff can support these variances finding that they are clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related site-specific constraints. Staff believes the proposal minimizes the impact on the hillside with a principal structure limited to the building envelope rather than extending up the hill or into the blue or red avalanche zones. In addition, the driveway cut is just about the shortest possible to meet the Residential Design Standards - the garage must be 10 feet setback from the front of the building. Conditions: a) Landscaping plan(2f) b) Finalize negotiations on the exact placement of the Nordic trail and it shall remain open during winter. (3d) ft ;4#--~ e. - W--0 . -8090- 7 Â¢=F 18"FIR \ 12"FIR LOT 1 - AREA = 43,084 * SQ.FT. - 0-- -4- IL ZTâ€¢â‚¬52 = 0.9891* ACRES_ltf=EEEâ‚¬2~ER -t99>EDES,Al ( PER. 1 e ah ft 14"PINE 22Â«r---8080 Â«Prek \ -*~ \ Â«<51-14-FIRS- 0* BAW . __4_ _ 8"FIR *1FC \ --..le\-2Â¤7 661W 10 . 0#Al 4/ . -- / i R I *.VI- 3 ----- - -4 , *74 ,.GRADED 91 Â¢3 exr H / 1 * Â·& I. Â·Â·;12' .Et.*I-,0.Â·Â·Â·-Â·IÂ·". .,0,- . , - -- -- . t - 4 - - 4------ 1 4 -AE 5./, .43 - 1- // / U . Ki / 1 A 70- - - -1 - I 14-A ' - , .... U rh . 1 -Kil- It 0 2. R I 91=, ./ 4 -- S 8939'59" W 79,97' ./ 4 --r -Â«111/ \~ ---40 - *..... j ...7 -.1.- 'r 1- . -: . 1 1,1- 1_ \ Mil t 1 0% 111-T -*29*9-#- 1 1 1 i 7 1 l ~ ./A' tf T *.* ~ 0.... 50*~M \ 1-;1 I 2#J 0'?3-Â· 0 41 e... M Â£11*1*W-Â·naccu. . 7 ' -Â·- ,~--- I 1 1 9 8060-_ I '7 1\ 4 31 #48,0â‚¬H~ - 04"i- -0 1.0,0 0 DM a: '00 4 -- -- 1- i 4 C 1 -- f...4-,zil?/bt<~LEA'* 41 , .-~ r #rep, Cm~%\% - 9/6 ; 1& / t-V .J..0 le[NNINÂ¢7 NAU-- Â¢31/.1 i 2 1 1., ' 6-42*.2 f N'!tli~--*#'.1 t' ; h. uâ€¢ _ i Â·~a. -L .i Â¥ - .*.X VYV,-,47- Mv=q# ~19 9' 1 N , - CONDITIONAL BUILDING ENVELOPE - 3 ; 4 1 - . i 4Â© A p Â·Â» 0 .....4. 1/4 F . -,1,0 ' 1 .. 5 b 8 .: - ..4- ... gl-nui,le W.-4-1'â‚¬4 'e ' . I. i i . 16-- Â· ;t- -A Â· ~ r.Â· 1 ..4, ' 11, Z 29 T -fA f., F .k. :. .140 - A -1 -- f --/ -7 4 / -X- 2 ~* *~ ~ ~'~ ~' ~~ ~ *r.. ~ ~ *~~~~ * ~ 1....., .:- I'- . leTAININD p t S - iâ‚¬'. 44/- ) 1 -I lk - t..n 4 WAW *. /7, : 'uN I. a i . . 1, 1. 1 - ... f 2 Y kill' .1'' 4. F 0-1 i ' ...P -6.- 9- Â· ~Â«fi-<,;M ...{ .t t .. 192Â· : : r ..I -1 g C . ' ' Me*/ 2,2(1Â£/ .. --' .*,2 ~4 .fdf 23,1,/2 ~ An.-pm - - #*+ . --Ar I â€¢ - 4 9.rÂ»~ Â·i,~ ~.*~~,;gE MNH 010,Â· 00:*.~ Â©-.; 1Â· 9 FtjjÂ»9â€ž~T5 - - 4. '< ..r... - f.~. f *.<421 * . *- pinti i I'-I *.&.- 4< WAI'AGE i 0041.- . Â· *0*T, . Â·L':- 1, i...t .. .. 4 Â· A Â·.., 00#le \ 1% O, 1,-4 - 2 644:-' --- Â· 80.50-___ -â‚¬-< 1 - 1 . ~. ~93%; , . 0/ : 1 r.1 I ' 541 Â·'Â·' ' 9.1 ..... - r ' ) i. . ....-,10,~IÂ»,M-~ WWÂ£,#4~ +4â€¢4-1- IM %0 #-I.Â«4 9â€žI m . . t . I 2 i. . e ' ' rfÂ· '.,.Â·2â€ž ,iÂ·~ W :1:. ..,J-/....~ â€¢ , -.... 1 , /. 4 , J . 7 , ~,r' 4 ,- 10 :Â·Â»- /. I ' 7 -4 .. f \11 B f.t'li P 11 1 3 ... h - 26 *2 .:D ;Â·-JÂ«-r-:~~~.~v' i' "b' i L : < - S 90'00'00" W ..'.---- - - .01 . ... I j 1-+%4 -3 'Â£ -I 1 - ...'. . ./.7~Â«4 li A/, 4*4+ . r. .1 #jpl-*,F '5 .f- - 7 / a .U 2- â€¢ - 1 -.-474 . j 1.- 9/ r ,t.NO '. - /4,~ - - \1 -l u -. --M.... Il 1 1 1, 1., ,. tor 2 ** q . -\ N 90'00'00".&/O1 I E 1 ] , lied 7-23:5:1â€¢~ th-' 1 Â· u cogo Â·Â·.w Â£4*. i ikliydE TRNAZÂ¥5~AER* 3' s<46 vAM 209.81 S 49'00'00" E \ 0 0040 A' , rOUND #5 REBAR W/ 1.5" ALUMINUM CAP #20632 0 SET #3 REBAR W/ PLASTIC CAP ("HUTTON LS"} ---- ---- ...4.- ---le ~ LOT 4 1 004<444 Toe cAP. ) 8040.23*F /'.It - 20' PEDRESTRIAN EASE-- 01*14;E 1 TO ke>AOW AN Ab:FACENT NousÂ¢ ... . . A k - 0 1 $, 0 10 20 w Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado Biu Poss and Associates Schematic Design - Site Plan Architecture and Planning March 10, 2000 Aspen, Colorado I 1 00-09 1 i I-*Ed,M. 1--7- -1- h 111411191* "112 -4 1 - : rEt Â£:1 1 1:Mi==~ 1 XI-littÂ· 1 U - -1 - ~1 {L ~4 5 Â· : 1~ t.-Â¥- 1 I lij:â‚¬42 5719 - 11 HI ' Mt . t#Â»Â·14; t ; 1 1 1-1; 119 ...a Alt - - : arDFAGe r- 1% 1 1 4Â¢421 1, 1 11 Ir 4 TVÂ· 441 t-~ 2 0Â· 1 L_-2 4-4 == 1 1 / k 20: i i r kg 1 L +3Â©4 MN ~< L ' 11 -:agr MEDHEN" =6- 0-4 /--_eÂ® *-9 ti; I '' l 0-4 -34Â£re-~.-. - -1 1 F 14* 12' -- 0+We 8094 1 !1/ f.-1 *IN'Ne' fi =i 11 -- M 9 01 7. 459 T t-*+ ~I~ M 1-~~-4-j-j**(Â¥- P 42 _--r_ 1 Wi thut.*027/ t t .liLIL Â· Â· AR.'a / 1 HE ; 4- 204 -j r 11% W.Ne Â¥450M !4~. r---4 U # 1 -- -- p ___ â€ž-3-1 -4 11 0 n--1 . - ~Â· i 111 :=m, 49.K 1 -0,86-EM_ 1 41 1 NF- ~'ty~ 7 : njKI / ~ITT 1 1 0--- b k 24_t -) 0 LO >4 l {0 - \~ 1.-- 1 ! M.1 f - = mr . 1 . - li 'fLLA-\1-,-41 11 /9 1 1 -11 i I mil ly i -1 - .- --6- 1 & 1. lilli:!11 1 1 1 Â¢111 ---+ -i '1 1 11% 1 U 1 (24â„¢._=f\11 ~1 33$460 i' 1 A-+--- 11/ 1 It 4- -.-- - _ -2 OpeN,1-0 :46Â»- .- - 1 It 11'RE i eAM' *.tto. $111=111 1 9\VING, 12,Â»M Pek>,4 1 Â«\4-:~ 2 7+74-1 - 1 . -~#W*-- +h. 1 - ' -- Â»19+Ae * f I 1 f *1---LL$X..i- i i Â· ' Â· 1--r 1 /061 >6:041 /. Â£ =1= .1 ; 1 11 t- ---n/ PM ! - ME:764. f*ovi ! 297-- 52 11 i 4 1 *,41:27 - 1 1 1 = i<*14' ; 1\1 1/ l Ill .\ ), I 1 1-1~]-22 _MVIP *4. 1 8,1 47 i--i Â·Â· 4 f . 81:TKE / 1\ i ' ~A i_liL O 40'"~ t :: o 1 1 14.136.-- 1 1-TI ._1-4 1 1 . 4* Ilillifi) .. -FPFÂ·I. I~ 1 1 : - i ' 1 1 1- 4 1 ' i i I- 91- / ' Rt--PÂ» ., 1. 11. 1 ~ 0-,--LL .... i~ 1-- :â€ž " 4 4 4 + 11 1 11.11 1 11.149=.=- - - -4 1 ----1-1 1.,12'MT WelÂ»â‚¬2 1 111 ,, 1!ljzdmill[Ialln h .=f!(-1Â»GE 1 Ne:=411=/1 111 L---1 1-4- 4- -7, 4- b- 91 1 :14 1-I â€¢--'-- -- vt' i.11 -\lk'ili|| A IN ~ Ill j -1.22--#- It ---C===> 1 i Cl.-1-Â«E-- / Main Level Plan Lower Level Plan N 0 8 16 bil Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado 0:*ktlâ€¢~,40*t Schematic Design - Plans Bill P oSS and Associates -Architecture and Planning March 10, 2000 Aspen, Colorado 1 H li t 1 I 1 , 11 1 . 1 1 , -\41 r 4-4 -1-7 -- 1 1 F 1. 1 1 11 '. 1 -. 1 p-- ----------------:-~-_-jiz--- f 7 1 1 Lr 41,3 - - -il 11 i__ , ~ ' 8 \ 1 / f i 11- . ..4 1 0 1 .1 1 4-4 li 11 1. 1-4- i/- 1- J - 1 i ./1 I @14'791' 1 X --9 1 1 l --~121-+ i 14=91- \\ 1\ 1 1 \ 4-1 - 1 - 94. --*IM - 1 lili ... 1 \ - ~ _--4_--rzo O TUWIll 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 i 1-70 If 1-7 ~3 1 1 1 1 1 '26_922=- ~ U.j 1 -4 11 1 1 --- / 1 XI 1 1 1 1. 1 - , 1 1 !1 1 1 44 4 -4 , 1 1 111 li 1 1 1 11! 1 iiiii i I i Il -; 1111 '111 1 li i lilli:1 1 11 Â·il!11 1- [ 1 -|-141 -Liumud 1 i 1 1041==1 Upper Level Plan Roof Plan N 0 8 16 w Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado 1** 04*tt~o.Lpmti.t Schematic Design - Plans Bill P oss and Associates -Architecture and Planning March 10, 2000 Aspen, Colorado ' .4 1 41 3 - / i--#iÂ·ti--ii g . *,_ 6 ---:Trl-[~ -4%404.....id - 4- A 1=lk==1 ' . . 114 1 JI bj~Â£ r-<ALL' ~ _ liU -_ _ Â·i_i~_i ~ 11 1 111 4 L ~~ 4 *9 lbO.9- .. 11- / t; Nl N-Ui 1 1 -1 2 1 1 '31 -11 -11 -1 m -2 1 1 ~ 7 ~ 2 3- UfFGF. ,f>pur~4-Â·4 4 4 44 + 4 -77 lt ., : /0 7- i t. ,. JET -67#2*kiÂ¢ 3,-4 1 1-11**CÂ¥- 11=-f tr _* 11 F n.2-11-Â·-5--t-/ /Â«92/ 1 0-- 1 1 7 T I i- f + 4-:44=-- 4--111 1=11=1 1 tr--if 1 1// /' 0-01 I .i--1 .f 1 11 \\ -.Ill -Il.*- --- -I--*: ---* --#.- I.-' 2 EE Il i' 211 / 1 \\~ 4 i :i'-~1= r TFÂ°11 --m. P 11 6 - 1 4 P..1 . . LE - L U A ~_=L.flaÂ·Jilt! , .361/. 0676Â». .-I --* 1~12 | Â·I it ,=dÂ£2:,I H 1 9 It - IIi Â·Â· 1 11 1 11 -~F- 9- 1-- ATJ: ,il,-1241 1 -- 114 -: '4 0 a... *747,3 , .1111111~11111~1 , \ I ,~i,!,Â·~' Il '! i ~'~1~~T--1111'lil #11-1111111~1-Ill-~-fÂ¢9:YliZ ''Tii -i-Ti i 11 1 -1 11 1 1 1 1# -f ~-if - f -IATFfil, zjfrÂ©~~~~I#- -li.--A 1 417 ..1 t. j; 0, 3 ... 1 If' Â¥~Â¥lt- r 1: 11 , Â®=7 =41 e=#== luli 11 11 --*E_,2274*'557 - \4\44 % 1 1/ dl[ 11_.._...ti_J,__i V. %- ~~Ezi- - 15, 00*fl --------- South Elevation North Elevation 1, r..1 30\ A _ t--i I - / r~4- Â»~-1 1 11 1 It ' Il yb/ \ 2. tIlt -61-Ct-fic | \\\ j# i ~ cir -uL._ p.i- --280" 001Â·20 28/ *19- <tÂ¥*L. i. L..L... } '~ \Â», r Mf).' &~.4~1 ~1 # vrl:9~ . f-41/4 -*, T'-- 1: il, 1.I ~ 4 1 1 1 It it. + i f 1.>Â».7 vre,- 1 /lit 1/1 ,! 1 14-11 6 11 It 1.-,3 |t~ 11 N#~U~111'11 1. . _1 i lt.. 11 -. n. Â·rt-Â·-ti-1!11- 1-It--11Â·-~lF-+ Â·+7-1*Â« 0, '--t '6 F 1 1Â¢1 1, Ill[ L.-4.,11 1,5 11 4-- p i-i--- ---'Vt r=F---lt-Â» il .61" eve,3, I Ilf- 1 ,I , Â·ti ; a 59 '20(72. .- 11 1-4 1 1 + 1.1-180lin! i H 4 11. , ' il L. ---| , ,t Â· it , ' ' ' 4 -I #+IN Mt#TEEL 111 12.. -L--11 1,1 41 1 L~=- it 1 1 - 1 - MKN MP,0186 r -1--~U 1 11 1.11 1 11 1: 11 1 1 1 /1, , 121:\ h 1 -i- IÂ¢TrittiltilIZIilixiffiE&-;' ~Â· I 1~~-fii-111 1~~I~I-~:-i~:1'!il...: ~11;i 43*.0,69.1 ; I . ,! 1. ;It 1/ 'Ell 'ill} ' il i iÂ·'. Fi ~Ii ~1 '' .1 : 11 11 11 1. 1~ 1~~J ; </04:N t 1 ..1. -4 1 1 -- i -- 4 %<55/ IL 11 ' t-1 1 U _i -11 Â£ 1 1 1 - - 2Â« 1.ovÂ» --7 1 1 f 1 1 1 ! 111 /1 4 1 ; 1 11 1:1 1 1 111 11,1.- --... 1-1 --,-1-k--444-1-4-1- ' 4,--1 ' -Â·Â·I Â·Â·1-+-4----Â· 4 4/ re 1 1 1 '/1 1 1 i '1!11 111 4 Em- 1 B 1.- - 41-.41-41 2 1 liliti -E-Jr[-I Â·:Flit[ i 0.- 41 -- % - ;+ - - 4141 t-f--9-{...r.4.- .:-t,-0 1.1.-1 1 1 =1 --ED %044,4-- 042/Xee |' 1, r.rE da--0944,4 East Elevation West Elevation ( Entry) M-~4 0 8 16 bil Ute Park Subdivision - Lot 1 Aspen, Colorado Nd'**Re.0.L"9- Schematic Design - Elevations Bill P oss an d Associates Architecture and Planning March 10, 2000 Aspen, Colorado . . 1 N 4919'13" W ---~ 81 LU - f r 133. *-- 18"FIR -FOUND #5 REBAR W/ 1 5" ALUMINUM CAP #20632 ASPEN CITY LIMITS VND. * 5 PEBAR Â¥4/ALUMINUM CAP '20632 (AS PER ASSESSORS MAP 2737-184) , \ /7 18"FIR ** ?,1 V 1 \ ~ 2-14"FIRS 2 TO POGRAPHIC SURVEY ~ 1 - -\ 8110 OF THE LANDS OF UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP SCALE: 1" = 10" /4 71- AL, r-kinkirkIT\ r-11 rn :Al nt AT onnt/ 38 AT PAGE 39, \ BEING LOT 1 OF PLAT OF UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ER OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO APRIL, 1997 by \ EYOR IORNE AND ASPEN O WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE FESSIONAL REGISTERED JSTRUMENT SURVEY ON, COURSES AND JION, ALL SETBACK TION OF ALL BUILDINGS, NY" , AND IMPROVEMENTS, 997, EXCEPT UTILITY OF THE PARCEL, - NTS UPON THE DESCRIBED SES, EXCEPT AS I OR SIGN OF ANY like D PARCEL EXCEPT TED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES ~ter' i_ - -- - -- )DINSURANCE RATE MAP 1 AND THAT SUCH SURVEY 1 16..-'* t. ARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR )TED BY ALTA AND ACSM IN 1992. r,go REG/ '%' 0.4.E:'i;.:4Â¢' ~4312 ~A ~ 24312 ?((i .O. $/4 L L AND .2 S 89'f ~.Gose..0/9 1*#-#.44" THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY IHIS DRAWING ARE FROM RECORDS OF )T ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR -*A G.t KS I !1?ee Â·41Â· Â·' . i '- ~ TILITY LOCATION SHOULD BE JSGS DATUM AS PER COOPER vIAP DATED 10-17-75, CITY OF ASPEN RECORDS PEN TOWNSITE AND THE CORNER OF 1 SEWERLINE EASEMENT W-eWa Wr-/ \ W 2\+/ \- \AF*o p â€ž*..Ip...#56 95.8, -Mo- -~9 0 - leb~Ei- Ntth::g,Â¢, 1- ~4 . Trkirk#Â£ 24>178Â§2 1 4/0 (vA/461Â·r 790*00'00-W 114.85' - /99/ 9-1 4 - " DUGNNY~~ ~~*f~~ -- Ar /EP-# Â©La ~ - 0-rv ~ SET 1 (TNPJCAL) ~--i#-*--i 1-2. E -1/ - -- - I"- /// \\Â»Â«32.3/ -CTÂ¥- ~6:DJÂ¢40) ' \\ FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT AND APPROVE[17- c - 0 40*/ *-I-'<<fl#< \ ACCESS EASEMENT (PER 38 MAPS _00) h.\6& 1-1~~-- 30.00' 0 r----1 - --2-1 .ix- -XE~ N 90Â·00'00' -E,Â·O 1 Eli VEW Â· ' LOT S A Â· / '\,pERVIc..E 7*,~6aiER~ :i 209.81' , A,O- S 49'00'00" E SET #3 REBAR W/ ~PLASTIC CAP ("HUTTON LS"f~ jÂ·Â·Â· 0Â£~41â‚¬ FOUND #5 REBAR W/ 1.5" ALUMINUM CAP #20632 0(7'â€¢ I *040,4, Toe CAP.) 1//\ ./ . / I / . LOT 4 -- 20' PEDRESTRIAN EASE - GARAB E 1 TO ke>*Out AN ROJACENT HOUSE 4 1 0. .... ... ... 0 :- 0 0 7 ' . f I /. .-1 - 41. 0 ... .A .D I ..... . A .. . .. --0 I . ... U. : 0 0. . 00 ,. . 0 1. : ..... 0 ... 0 4 . 0 ..e .. I . I ,... . . ..3 . D .0 . 4 . . ..1 1 . . :, I I . I 10 0 1 .1 :.' 0 - 1 1 . .. . A . .1 : ' . . I ... I. . 0 D .: .. . .D .- .... 0 1, 1 : I ..... I./0 I. ... 0 . 1 ..D ... . 0 ,, D -- . 0 - 0 , .. - I , . lA... 0 , ... : : I. 0 0 .. . , .... I . .. .. . 0 ... . 3 . 0 1 .. ... . ' ID. .. .. . I .. ..... A .0 0 , ..1 ./ .1 . . ... ..1 , D - 0 : 0 D .0 . I . D -:/- , I 0. D , ..:. .. . d m , 4 . 46 - . 0 . I. I. I 4 . . . . /4 I - 0 ...... .. 4 ... . .. . D . 0. D. 0 - . ...... ... $ 3. 0 - D: . 1. ..:. . I , . 0 . b. ' 0 . I .. 4 . . 4. 2 2 ... e .De':D .. ........ 4. . Â·Â·9 ... :D . 0 - .. 0 . 5 , , . I - 5.' ' 4 ' .. 4 . I . 4 . â€¢V .. 0 00 , .. I I. I . 4,1. D f .... 0 D. . 1