The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.253 Silverlode Dr.A021-021577 5. luttlot<.1>' :-Lot 11, Silverlode 8040 Greenline & - Reidential DesiRn Variance 1 ~/CANNED â‚¬~ lae-2-- jG L R 1 - CASE NUMBER A021-02 PARCEL ID # 2737-074-30004 CASE NAME Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 8040 Greenline PROJECT ADDRESS Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision PLANNER James Lindt CASE TYPE 8040 Greenline OWNER/APPLICANT John Elmore REPRESENTATIVE Stan Mathis DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/2/02 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION Reso. #14-2002 ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 4/3/02 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID: |2737-074-30004 DATE RCVD: j3/4/02 # COPIES:~ CASE NO~A021-02 CASE NAME:|Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 8040 Greenline PLNR:| ~~-,t~.~~,5.0 l-,~1,~d!~- PROJ ADDR:[Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision ~ CASE TYP:]8040 Greenline ' STEPS:j OWN/APP:~ John Elmore ADR~ PO Box 318 C/S/Z: ~Writesville Beach/NC PHN:1920-1368 REP:~Stan Mathis ADR:j Cis/Z:I PHN:j FEES DUE:~ 1205 D 180 E ~ FEES RCVD:~ 1395 STAT: F REFERRALS| REF:~ BY| DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| 4/ zion CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ pz: RE Â©031/44=7-Â¢42- BOA: CLOSED:|* * 7- BY: 1 JI , l--410(+ 1 DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ 1 PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMINi.///toved-" , 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 of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. John Elmore, PO Box 318, Writesville Beach, NC 28480 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property 8040 Greenline Review Approval, Variances from the Secondary Mass, Building Orientation, and Driveway Cut Residential Design Standards Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #14-2002, 4/2/02 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) April 13,2002 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) April 14,2005 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 13th day of April, 2002, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. -_.). Joyce d]#son, Community Development Deputy Director AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: LOT 1 1 9-1 ll,-Uffti Â£31(?f 400) tfAspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: -Artic 4 , 200-0, STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) 51-4 k[ Ma 6 being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: < Publication ofnotice.- By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. . 1 ~<5 Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (19)J s priouto the public hearing and was continuously visible from the4.I y of rla En.:it-u-2001->to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. /'~~ Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendn~ents. n /\1 \ 0Â«4_ 1 4-1 A ) SignaturJ V h'L The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this J day , of /1Â·<Prh 1 , 2006, by ~5-42 - c.477 6 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 141236/22 733 6 Notary Public ~-TARYB g %... ate... U47*8 . # /O# ...... ......49 ATTACHMENTS: COLOB~ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL / PARCEL ACCOUNTNO OWNERNAME ADDRESS1 '273707400046 R016625 WILKINSON GEORGE MARSH DB PO BOX 4067 2 / 273707400002 R013303 TIMROTH GRANT TIMROTH ALBERT G C/O 3 1 273707400045 R015597 TIMROTH ALBERT & DONNA PO BOX 89 3 ' 273707428002 R015122 WRIGHT & PRUESCH MINING L WRIGHT GARY -C/O 6 Â·273707430007 R015251 KOWALICK ROBERT M JR & LA 27190 LEDGEWOOD CT 6 .273707400103 R016631 NEW CONSOLIDATED ET AL PO BOX 4067 7 . 273707429001 R015208 OWEN KEVIN PO BOX 1518 9.273707430008 R015252 SUTHERLIN-MARTIN LTD 3616 MAPLEWOOD AVE 4.273707429003 R015210 SHANDLING MICHAEL A & ANT 401 E HYMAN AVE 0 - 273707429002 R015209 SPARKS CYNTHIA SUSAN PO BOX 3056 l<- 273707430009 R015253 SIMMONS GREGORY T 295 SILVERLODE DR ll'273707429005 R015212 HAGOPIAN SANDY 52% 213 S MILL ST 5'273707429004 R015211 WAMPLER MIKE & SANDY 465 N MILL ST STE 19 Cd. 273707429023 R015230 HAMOUZ JAMES B & KERRI L 130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR lf'273707430010 R015254 FUCHS PETER H & HENRICKA 1 SEA COLONY DR 16,273707429007 R015214 HOROWITZ MARTHA MEAGHER 115 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 0 '273707429024 R015231 PARKER ALEC J 120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 18 '273707429006 R015213 KELLY GARY P PO BOX 12356 R- 273707429025 R015232 CAREY JANE ELIZABETH 110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 20-273707429008 R015215 SCHAEFER TERRY 117 S SPRING ST STE 101 2< ~273707429026 R015233 JOSEPH MARK C 100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 21-273707430011 R015255 ELMORE JOHN A 11 1900 EASTWOOD RD 24,273707429010 R015217 HARRIS WAYNE S JR & JUDI 715 W MAIN ST #103 6 273707429009 R015216 MORRIS ROBERT P 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 95 -273707429027 R015234 HOFFMAN E MICHAEL & SHARO 80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 26 -273707429028 R015235 FINGERMAN SHELDON PO BOX 8692 90 ' 273707429011 R015218 WHITE RIVER MANAGEMENT CO C/O GARY WRIGHT ';Â»273707429029 R015236 DALESSIO ROBERT J & JEAN 60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 14 *273707430012 R015256 ERB MARY ANN 8401 GREENWOOD DR 30-273707429012 R015219 POPISH KIM & DOMINIC PO BOX 434 br -'273707429030 R015237 PARKER JACQUELINE A 50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 31 Â· 273707429031 R015238 KNIGHT DANA ERIC 627 RIO GRANDE PL 33 - 273707430013 R015257 REYNOLDS JOHN D & SHEILA 1279 LAKE WORTH LN 36+273707430015 R015259 ABELIA INVESTMENT LTD PO BOX 8029 3<r 273707430014 R015258 WENDEL GERALD 201 SILVERLODE DR ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE ASPEN CO 81612 PO BOX 89 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CO 81611 ROCHESTER HILLS MI 48306 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 DALLAS TX 75205 ASPEN CO 81611-2903 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611-1588 ASPEN CO 81611 SANTA MONICA CA 90405-5322 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611-2068 ASPEN CO 81611 WILMINGTON NC 28403 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 201 NORTH MILL - STE 106 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 LONGMONT CO 80503 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33408 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by John Elmore, requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard Variances from the following standards: 26.410.040(A)(1) Building Orientation, 26.410.040(A)(2) Build-to-lines, 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass, 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Parking, Garages, and Carports. The property is described as Lot #11, Silverlode Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tvirre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 16,2002. City of Aspen Account AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: l,--0-1- I) 1 Efi~litÂ°lfOC~k~__- 1i-~41101--sbox 1. 1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,200 44 l 11 0--2-_ ic f STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) / I, FT 6-3 1,t,l 5 --El E--4 t.40f- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: .~~--Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made o f suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not. less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prioi' to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment, Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. \ /3.tu-i - \-/ v v LA__,9 L, 1 Â§*Nure I U 1 Â£--fi The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this J 3 day of 3'--37Â»,r u-,f_. , 200~1 by ~31-=. -4 j.-O r- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LOT 11, SILMERLODE SUBDIVISION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, .Â£3IDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDVAitiANCm I My Commission expires: NOTICE IS HEREB) C.vEN that a public hearing win be held on Tuesday, April 2,2002 at a meet- ing to bellm at 4:30 p.m. before Ihe Aspen Plan- Â« 02Â« ning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meet- ing Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, to consider an application submitted by John El- Notary Public Aty,9.:...(-r,94 more, requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard Varian- ces I= the following standards~ ~~~ -- 26.410.040(A)(1) Building Orientation, ~~ i '24 ~Â·. E- 26.410.040(A)(2) Build-to-lines, 26.410.04003)(1) 01'--1: A Secondary Mass, 26.410.040(0(2)(d) Parking, Ga R ni. wl*f ) 0 rages, and Carports. The property is described as Lot #11. Silverlode Subdivision, City and Town- v ri\.... site of Aspen i For further infr -,mation contact james Lindt at i. n.. the City of Aspel, Community Development De- Â» dol-OB40 partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO (970) 920- 5095, james!@ci.aspen.co us. ATTACHMENTS: s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on March 16,2002. COPY OF THE PUBLICATION (8494) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B Y MAIL RESOLUTION N0. 14 (SERIES OF 2002) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 1) 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE ELMORE RESIDENCE, AND 2) APPROVING VARIANCES FROM BUILDING ORIENTATION AND DRIVEWAY SLOPE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND 3) APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-074-30-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review to increase the allowable FAR on the site to 3,489 square feet and an application for variances from the Building Orientation, Driveway Slope, and Secondary Mass Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 13,329 square feet and is . located in the Affordable Housing-Planned Unit Development Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994 granted final review approval for Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, and Vested Rights for the Williams Ranch Project, including the Silverlode subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8070 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 Planning and Zoning Commission may approve variances from the Residential Design Standards when the variance request is consolidated with another land use request in which the Commission has the review authority; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review and variance requests from the Building Orientation and Driveway Slope Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed Secondary Mass Variance; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Elmore residence with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, a variance from the Building Orientation Residential Design Standard; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, a variance from the Driveway Cut Residential Design Standard; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, a variance from the Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard; 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 ofpublic 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 Elmore residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, allowing for an increase in allowable FAR of 317 square feet to construct the proposed single-family residence is approved with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the City of Aspen Parks Department at the time of building permit submittal. 2. The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for any trees to be removed. 3. Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the driplines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the driplines. 5. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence i f it is over 5,000 SF. 6. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final 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 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, if applicable. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall snowmelt the driveway. Section 2: That the requested variances from the Building Orientation, Driveway Cut, and Secondary Mass Residential Design Standards are approved. 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 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 2nd day ofApril, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 1 7.-% 1 *r - 4 PUBUC NOTICE 0 - DATE . 4 Â£*1~~Â£~~ , - PLACE PURPOSE - I 4. 14 - Lor 11 6, ive.6-046 5,ubdiv, 5,8,4 A d oÂ« 4 MEMORANDUM -441/ TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission -4040 f~" THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director .. \ Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director .1 44 r FROM: James Lindt, Planner 3-L Â«ti~â‚¬'21?apÂ« RE: Elmore 8040 Greenline Review and ResiBenTial-D ~dh ktandard Variances - Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision - Public Hearing DATE: April 2,2002 APPLICANT: John Elmore ~ Smuggler Mountain REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Mathis LOCATION: Hr .1.21'Z:*41.4,"" Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision - 4 19 - ZONING: AH-PUD 4 . 004. -2 .4. 4ilillillill./1/. -:-3*/6,6.6 4 * .6 CURRENT LAND USE: ' ,-2â€¢ Area of proposed driveway 1-* 2 24Â». 14..12, Vacant Lot bLE======7..i-Il 1 1 Photo: Lot 11, Silverlode Drive. Lot 11 is the only lot PROPOSED LAND USE: within the Silverlode Subdivision that has yet to be Single Family Residence developed. LOT SIZE: 13,329 SF SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting 8040 Greenline Review FAR: approval to increase the allowable floor area ratio Allowable (without 8040 Greenline from 3,172 SF to 3,489 SF pursuant to Condition Approval): 3,172 SF No. 11 in City Council Ordinance No. 52, Series of Allowable (with 8040 Greenline 1994. The Applicant is also requesting approval of Approval): 3,489 SF several variances from the Residential Design Standards. This is a one-step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. 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. Variances from the Residential Design Standards: Following the receipt of a recommendation from the Community Development Department, and after hearing and considering public comment, the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance request from the Residential Design Standards. BACKGROUND: John Elmore ("Applicant"), represented by Stan Mathis, is requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a 3,489 square foot single-family residence on Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision. The Silverlode Subdivision allows for 3,171 square feet of FAR to be constructed on the parcel by right (without obtaining 8040 Greenline Approval). The Applicant may increase the allowable FAR on the parcel to 3,489 square feet by gaining approval of an 8040 Greenline Review from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to paragraph 11 of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review applies to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline. Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, approved the Williams Ranch/Silverlode Subdivision. Condition 11 of this Ordinance states that "the allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not exceed 90 % of what is permitted in the AH zone district (AH Zone District has since been amended to require the allowable dimensional requirements to be set through the PUD process). If the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 80 % of the permitted floor area for the former AH zone district, then a complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits for the lot. " The Applicant is also requesting variances from the following Residential Design Standards (Please see Exhibit B for descriptions of the specific standards): 1. Building Orientation 2. Secondary Mass 3. Driveway Slope STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review If the proposed 8040 Greenline Review application were approved, the Applicant could build an additional 317 square feet of FAR. Staff feels that the additional 317 square feet of FAR would not have a great impact on the visual or environmental character of the lot. The additional square footage is likely to be subtracted out of the rear of the structure if the 2 Applicant is required to build to the FAR that is vested through the subdivision approval. In Staff' s opinion, the likelihood that the additional square footage would be subtracted in a manner that would reduce the visual impact of the structure on the most visible, street facing fagade is very unlikely because the front portion of the floor plan is where the most attractive outward views are. Thus, the front facade is where the architect is going to want to place the maximum amount of floor area. Therefore, Staff believes that the visible street facing elevation will not change regardless ofthe outcome of adding approximately 300 square feet. Additionally, Staff believes that the additional square footage that would be provided by the proposed 8040 Greenline Review would not increase the site coverage or the necessary grading on the parcel. In all likelihood, the proposed residence will completely encompass the entire building envelope regardless of if 317 additional square feet is allotted through the review. In the past, there have been several 8040 Greenline Reviews approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and supported by the Staff that allowed for increases in the allowable FAR for additions to existing residences in the Silverlode Subdivision. The common design characteristic in the aforementioned proposals was that the addition was placed on the rear of the structure and could not be seen from the street. Staff feels that this is a similar situation to the previous proposals with the exception that the request for the additional square footage is coming prior to the construction of the residence. Thus, Staff does not believe that the additional square footage will have any impact on Smuggler Mountain as a scenic resource. The Applicant has submitted a soils report that indicates that there are no geologic hazards or reasons related to the site that would prohibit the additional 317 square feet of structure from being added to the site. Also, due to the fact that Staff feels that the site coverage of the proposed residence will not be impacted by the additional 317 square feet of FAR, Staff believes that there will not be an additional impact on the natural watershed and drainage of the site. Additionally, there are sufficient utilities to serve the site. Staff feels that the review criteria is met and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed 8040 Greenline Application. Building Orientation Variance: The Building Orientation Residential Design Standard (please see Exhibit '13" for a description of the standard) requires any new residence within the City of Aspen to be constructed with the front faGade parallel to the street. The subj ect site contains an approved building envelope that is not parallel to the street due to the existing 20 foot wide pedestrian access and utility access easement on the north side of the property. Due to site-specific constraints provided by the off-center building envelope, Staff supports the variance request from the building orientation design standard. The Applicant has made a reasonable effort to orient the front door and the front *ade to the street and meet the intent of the standard. Driveway Slope Variance: The Residential Design Standards require that a driveway cut not exceed two feet in depth as measured from natural grade within the front yard setback. Staff acknowledges that the subject site slopes up significantly from the front property line to the building envelope. Staff believes that due to the steep nature of the front of the lot, that there is also a site specific constraint as it relates to this specific design standard (please see Exhibit "B" for C= description of the standard). Staff supports this variance request, but requires that a condition be required that the Applicant snowmelt the driveway. Secondary Mass Variance: The Secondary Mass Standard (please see Exhibit "B" for a description of the standard) requires that all new residences locate at least 10% of their square footage above grade in a mass that is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. In April of 2001, a Secondary Mass Variance was approved on this lot for a different residence design. The previous design (Exhibit "D") provided a two-story linking element that broke up the street facing fagade into two distinct elements. Staff supported the variance request on the previous design because it was felt that it met the intent of the secondary mass standard on a lot that provided unusual site constraints. Staff feels that the proposed design does not effectively break up the mass as the standard intended. The design that is currently being reviewed makes an attempt to break up the mass o f the structure from the side (north) elevation. The proposed linking element is one story in height but does not remain one story throughout the entire width of the structure. South of the proposed one-story linking element, a two-story element exists that gives the appearance that the structure is two stories from the side elevation with no distinct break in the massing. Staff does not feel that this an effective way of meeting the secondary mass standard and distinguishing between two separate masses. Given that the previous design on the site was successful in breaking up the mass and distinguishing between two separate elements, Staff feels that it is possible to more distinctly separate the masses in spite of the site constraint of the steeply sloped lot. Therefore, Staff does not support the proposed secondary mass variance request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the proposed 8040 Greenline Review Application to increase the allowable FAR on Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision to 3,489 SF. Staff is also recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed variances from the Building Orientation, and Driveway Slope Residential Design Standards. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed variance from the secondary mass standard of the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve, with conditions, the Elmore 8040 Greenline Review to increase the allowable FAR on Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision to 3,489 SF, and to approve variances from the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Driveway Slope, and Secondary Mass." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- 8040 Greenline Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Design Standards Variance Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit C -- Development Application Exhibit D -- Previous Residence Design for Subject Site 4 RESOLUTION NO. /1~ (SERIES OF 2002) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 1) 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE ELMORE RESIDENCE, AND 2) APPROVING VARIANCES FROM BUILDING ORIENTATION AND DRIVEWAY SLOPE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND 3) APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-074-30-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review to increase the allowable FAR on the site to 3,489 square feet and an application for variances from the Building Orientation, Driveway Slope, and Secondary Mass Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 13,329 square feet and is located in the Affordable Housing-Planned Unit Development Zone District; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994 granted final review approval for Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota System Exemption, and Vested Rights for the Williams Ranch Project, including the Silverlode subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8070 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 Planning and Zoning Commission may approve variances from the Residential Design Standards when the variance request is consolidated with another land use request in which the Commission has the review authority; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review and variance requests from the Building Orientation and Driveway Slope Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed Secondary Mass Variance; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a to C_-2) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review for the Elmore residence with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a to (__-_3 vote, a variance from the Building Orientation Residential Design Standard; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a to C_-_) vote, a variance from the Driveway Slope Residential Design Standard; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied, by a to (__-_) vote, a variance from the Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard; 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 Elmore residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, allowing for an increase in allowable FAR of 317 square feet to construct the proposed single-family residence is approved with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the City of Aspen Parks Department at the time of building permit submittal. 2. The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for any trees to be removed. 3. Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the driplines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the driplines. 5. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. 6. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final 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 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, if applicable. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. 7. 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 o f this condition. 8. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall snowmelt the driveway. Section 2: That the requested variances from the Building Orientation, Driveway Cut, and Secondary Mass Residential Design Standards are approved. 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 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 2nd day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A ELMORE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 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 mudjlow, 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 Staff feels that the site is suitable for a single-family residence. A building envelope was established through the subdivision process in 1994. A Geotechnical Report created by a Colorado Licensed Engineer was conducted and concluded that the ground stability was sufficient for a residence of the size requested by the applicant. The aforementioned report did not find any geologic hazards that would make the site un-developable. The applicant shall not develop or regrade outside the approved building envelope. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff does not believe the development will have any adverse affect on the natural watershed. runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have consequent effects on water pollution. The City Engineer will review the grading and drainage plan for the site and proposed residence prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Finding Staff does not believe this project will have an adverse affect on the air quality of the city. The Environmental Health Department does not require air quality mitigation for single-family residences. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5 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 does not feel that the proposal to add 317 square feet of FAR to the site will have a significant impact on the location of the design and it's compatibility with the natural terrain of the parcel. The road serving the parcel already exists and is not required to be improved by the Applicant. Additionally, the proposed residence design is completely within the previously established building envelope. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural landfeatures. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposed increase in allowable FAR that is being requested by the Applicant will not increase the grading or disturbance to the terrain on the site. Staff believes that regardless of whether the proposed residence is allotted an additional 317 square feet, that there will be no increase in the site coverage of structure on the lot. Additionally, the proposed residence is completely located within the established building envelope. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 There is only one structure proposed for the site. As was mentioned previously, Staff does not feel that there will be an additional need for grading due to the 8040 Greenline proposal. The proposed structure will be completely contained within the established building envelope. Additionally, Staff feels that the added square footage as result of the 8040 Greenline Review will be likely be added to the back of the structure where it will not increase the disturbance of Smuggler Mountain as a scenic resource. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff feels that it is difficult to design a residence on a site that slopes as significantly as the site that is subject to review. Staff does not believe that the building height will be affected by the additional 317 square feet of FAR being proposed for the site. Staff also believes that the additional 317 square feet will not have a tremendous affect on the bulk of the structure. However, Staff does feel that the massing could be more effectively broken up and has thus recommended denial on the proposed secondary mass variance. Staff does not feel that the additional 317 square feet are 6 instrumental in keeping the Applicant from meeting the intent of the secondary mass standard. Staff finds this criterion not to be met, as it relates to secondary mass. 8. Sumcient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding The property is serviced by all public utilities. Staff does not feel that allowing for an additional 317 square feet of FAR would affect the water pressure or utilities available to the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding The proposed development will not require the addition or expansion of the existing road network to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to install a fire sprinkler system if the proposed residence is over 5,000 square feet. The Fire Marshall was consulted and did not have issue with the ingress and egress. An additional condition of approval requires the applicant to snowmelt the driveway. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff does not believe the proposed development conflicts with the AACP or Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS The Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee may approve a variance from the Residential Design Standards if the proposed application meets the following: 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 offairness related to unusual site specific constraints; The following are Staff's findings in regards to the variances being requested by the Applicant Variance Requested Building orientation The.front facades of all principal structures shall Yes. No. Yes. 1 1 be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both 1 1- i street facing facades must be parallel to the \ intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the \ \ \ front facade ofall structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff Finding: Staff feels that the Applicant is making an attempt to meet the intent of the standard. The front door and front fag(le of the proposed residence are as parallel to the street as the tilted building envelope will allow. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessaryfor reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints; 8 125/.ME....A Staff Finding: Staff feels that due to the fact that the front edge of the approved building envelope is not parallel to the street and that unusual site constraints exist in relation to this design standard, there is reasoning to allow for the proposed residence to be slightly non-parallel to the street. The Applicant has made a reasonable effort to orient the front faGade of the proposed residence to the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Variance Requested Parking, Garages, and Carports: For all residential uses that do not have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall be met: 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. 034+ <25 0 a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff Finding: Staff believes that a variance from this standard is required due to unusual site-specific constraints in regards to the steep nature of the west side of the lot. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to snowmelt the proposed driveway to minimize any safety issues related to the steepness of the drive. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessaryfor reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints; Staff Finding: Staff feels that the proposed variance to allow a driveway cut to exceed 2 feet in depth is needed within the front yard setback to provide safe driveway access due to the steep nature of the lot. Staff finds that the variance is needed for reasons of fairness and safety related to unusual site specific constraints of the sloping lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 Variance Requested SECONDARY MASS The secondary mass standard requires that all new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total squarefootage above grade in a mass, which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the Secondary Mass. a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff Finding: Staff feels that the proposed design does not effectively meet the Secondary Mass Standard. Staff believes that it is important on this site to break up the roof line and the massing on the street facing elevation because the lot is so steep. Staff feels that a previous residence design (attached as Exhibit "D") more effectively distinguished between the masses on the subject site. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints; Staff Finding: Staff understands that this is a difficult site to design a residence that minimizes the massing appearance. However, Staff feels that the design does not more effectively address the issue that the secondary mass standard responds to. Staff believes that there are unusual site- specific constraints in relation to this site, but given the fact that a previous design was submitted for the subject lot that more clearly defines separate masses and breaks up the roof lines, Staff does not support the proposed variance. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. 10 Ex li In It_10 ' 5 U SOEP, h.*râ‚¬ EUE>Â·14-1'T 43 F*ON-< 5Ecrto,J ONâ‚¬ SroR.9 ~ t4~ Al- EN r*ZE AWS> FDtteR- tl 66614. s ecru>14 -TWO STteâ€¢f, Air s-rÂ»a ~us 12 8 -- -f r - - -** rve V 9 -1 -\ 11 - 09 ~,,~ 1-40)~ 1~IT-- '2170TI-Ir@3TTTA ILUIh Zill - - ! 1311-3128UJ[_ll)W i) 11 6- i Illill~illrialull )il-j~il I~Il iii li j]Illl IT-1-5 Il lili, I ~ : 1 MT *N,- 1 :E-- --- N 1 - 2-Â©-I ta- -~ . 11 12 - F -1 - C ZEI. .- fu-il--fi~At*~~[trt~Yall/.=~~ : ---- 12 -- 71 07 1-1 [--3 F 1 1--11.-=]ri -,2~~/44~#~~,Oc IJ~O~~r<L-~pit wil 01_il-1 . 1..l.H _[QUIC:= rnÂ·i62_2~l--1 L_J O 6Lj ELIL..3 11 rilil L:U,LU,Li:351Â¤CIr-1,1 71! ,. -1 -1 r--tr~, i'-3-~Yrk~'251'-7- ~ ari - rÂ·'t i 1. liu 1=.2; -V- I 0 0 8 r E., 1 It El Â· ~~__... ~_ opb--1 [3 romou, 1 ~ WEST ELEVATION 1% = 1â€¢0' , V I 00 Eli 021 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: March 13,2002 Re: Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, 8040 Greenline Review Attendees: John Niewoehner, Community Development Department James Lindt, Community Development Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Jerry Nye, Street Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Richard Goulding, Engineering Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Brian Flynn (not present, comments submitted by e-mail) Stan Mathis, Architect representing owner (fax:419-391-8199, PMBADDOGS@hotmail.com) The Development Review Committee reviewed the Lot 11 -Silverthorne proposal at their March 13,2002 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we assume the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that proposed development 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 and delays 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, encroachments must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. 3. Greenline Exemption: Per Mr. Mathis, if a Greenline Exemption is awarded, the owner would like to build a 3489 sf dwelling. Without the exemption, the size is limited to 3172 sf Site Review 1. Engineering Department: a. No construction material storage or dumpster in ROW unless encroachment permit is obtained. b. Existing easements and irrigation ditch need to be shown on plans. c. Driveway must be designed to prevent storm water from flooding street. 2. Community Development Engineer: The foundation drainage system should be separate from site storm drainage system. Rain and snowmelt runoff must be detained and routed on site. These facilities must be shown on drainage plans and submitted for approval 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. Page 2 of 4 March 13 2002 Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented completely. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and re- vegetation in disturbed areas. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow. 3. Zoning: No comments from Zoning Officer at this time. 4. Housing Department: No comments at this time. 5. Fire Protection District: No comments at this time. 6. Parks Department: Pursuant to the Williams Ranch PUD #16 letter B "prior to any issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that identifies trees six inches in diameter and over. Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on the landscape plan. As of 3/12/02 a detailed plan has not been submitted. A detailed site plan needs to be submitted with the identification of any trees (numbers and species). If any of these trees located on site are to be disturbed during construction a tree permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. As of 3/12/02 no such permit has been applied for. Contact the Parks Department for tree permit: 920- 5120. Response #4, Parks Department strongly encourages the applicant to landscape the property to match with the native vegetation currently located on site and around the neighborhood. Response #5, Parks will not allow any disturbance beyond the building envelope for any reason. A construction fence will be required to be placed along the entire building envelope, except for that area along Silverlode Drive. This fence will be erected prior to any construction activity begins and kept up during the entire project. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. Any exception to this will require a review by Parks Department Staff. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees to remain on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. A native vegetation protection fencing system shall be installed at the edge of the construction envelope. This fencing shall consist of a barrier fencing at the edge of the building envelope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. 7 Building Department: a. No comments at this time. Page 3 of 4 March 13 2002 Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 8. City Water Department a. The area above the '8040 greenline' in Silverlode is served by a private water system with a pump station. b. The pipe in the street should be pre-tapped but the tap may be too small to meet the fire flow requirement. Some people have put in a tank to remedy the problem. c. 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. 9 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District a. Sewer service stub should be in street. 10. Environmental Health a. No comments at this time. 11. City Community Development - Planning <<<James - - Did you have any comments??>>>> 12. Electric Department No comments at this time 13. Holy Cross Electric No comments at this time 14. City Attorney No comments at this time 15. Streets Department No comments at this time 16. Historic Preservation Officer No comments at this time 17. Pitkin County Planning No comments at this time 16. County and City Disaster Coordinator No comments at this time 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. Page 4 of 4 March 13 2002 Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 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 D:\DRC\SilverlodeLotll.doc . 0 l FEBRUARY 3,2002 APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN ELMORE STAN MATHIS P.O. BOX 318 7515 COAL CREEK CIRCLE WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480 WIDEFIELD, CO. 80911 910.256.4780 970.618.6636 CELL 719.390.6065 JAMES LINDT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RE: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION DEAR JAMES, MY CLIENT, JOHN ELMORE, THE OWNER OF LOT 11, IS REQUESTING AN 8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW THAT WOULD ALLOW A 10% (317 SQ FT.) INCREASE OF THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 3172 SQ. FT. RESULTING INA TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 3489 SQ. FT. THIS INCREASE lS ALLOWED PER PARA. 11 OF ORDINANCE 54, SERIES OF 1994. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SEC 26.435.030 (8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW) OF THE ASPEN ZONING CODE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE WILL HAVE 5 BEDROOMS, ASSOCIATED LIVING SPACES, A TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND A SMALL BASEMENT. THE ENTRY LEVEL AND GARAGE ARE BUILT WELL INTO THE HILL SIDE, THE LIVING LEVEL IS OFF SET BACK FROM THE FACE OF THE ENTRY LEVEL AND THE UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL IS AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE STEPPING BACK OF EACH LEVEL WILL RESULT IN A MASSING THAT HIDES THE ADDITIONAL 317 SQ. FT. REQUESTED. THE ATTACHED SITE SECTIONS SHOW THAT THE ROOF OF THE LIVING ROOM AND DINING ROOM SHIELDS THE UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL. THE MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM THE STREET (WEST) ELEVATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. THE RESIDENCE WILL HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT WELL BELOW THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ATTACHED SOILS REPORT FROM H- P GEOTECT. RELIEF FROM CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS IS ALSO REQUESTED. THOSE STANDARDS ARE: 1) BUILDING ORIENTATION. THERE IS HARDSHIP CREATED BECAUSE THE STREET FACING BUILDING ENVELOPE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THE STREET. 2) BUILD TO LINES. THE SLOPE OF THE SITE CREATES A HARDSHIP IN THAT THE DRIVEWAY BECOMES TO STEEP TO ACCESS THE GARAGE AND PROVIDE THE FIFTH PARKING SPACE REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED SET BACK IS 9'-0". 3) SECONDARYMASS. THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY AND NO ALLEY CREATES A HARDSHIP CREATING A SECONDARY MASS. 4) PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. (d). THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A DRIVEWAY CUT MORE THAN 2 FT. THE FOLLOWING EXPLAINS HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE 8040 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. RESPONSE THE LOT HAS A DEFINED BUILDING ENVELOPE IN WHICH ALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONTAINED EXCEPT FOR THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS CUT WHICH IS ALLOWED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE SOILS REPORT AND LETTER FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THIS LOT IS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET. 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE NATURAL WATERSHED, RUNOFF, DRAINAGE, SOIL EROSION OR HAVE CONSEQUENT EFFECTS ON WATER POLLUTION. RESPONSE: THE PROPOSAL WILL HAVE DRYWELLS TO RETAIN RUNOFF AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE AIR QUALITY IN THE CITY. RESPONSE: THERE IS NO ADVERSE AFFECT ON AIR QUALITY. 4. THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ROAD, OR TRAIL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TERRAIN ON THE, PARCEL ON WHICH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE LOCATED. RESPONSE: THE, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TERRAIN ON THE PARCEL. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS TO BE BUILT INTO THE HILL SIDE AND STEP BACK FROM THE STREET AS THE TERRAIN RISES TO THE EAST AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED SITE SECTIONS. 5. ANY GRADING WILL MINIMIZE, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, DISTURBANCE TO THE TERRAIN, VEGETATION AND NATURAL LAND FEATURES. RESPONSE: THERE WILL BE LIMITED SITE DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE TO FACILITATE ACCESS AND STAGING DURING CONSTRUCTION, EROSION CONTROL, AND REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS. 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 RIESOURCE. RESPONSE: THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND WILL BE BUILT INTO THE HILL SIDE PRESERVING SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN AS A SCENIC RESOURCE. 7. BUILDING HEIGHT AND BULK WILL BE MINIMIZED AND THE STRUCTURE WILL BE DESIGNED TO BLEND INTO THE OPEN CHAR-ACTER OF THE MOUNTAIN. ] l RESPONSE.. HOW THE HEIGHT AND BULK OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS MINIMIZED AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TERRAIN HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ABOVE IN THIS LETTER. FURTHER, THE ATTACHED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND SITE SECTIONS DEMONSTRATE THIS GRAPHICALLY. 8. SUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE AND OTHER UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. RESPONSE: THERE IS SUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE AND OTHER UTILITIES AVAILABLE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 9. ADEQUATE ROADS ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND SAID ROADS CAN BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED. RESPONSE: THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS OFF SILVERLODE DR.IVE AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED. ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS IS AVAILABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SO AS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT. RESPONSE. THE 16-FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY OFF SILVERLODE DRIVE IS ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS ACCESS FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: PARKS/RECREATION/TRAILS PLAN ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICAL. RESPONSE: THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICAL, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN. THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THIS APPLICATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME. BEST REGARDS STAN MATHIS FOR JOHN ELMORE Mar 06 21 04:56p an Mathis 7'-3918199 p.5 MAR-06-2002 10:03 P GEOTECH P.02/03 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, hic. SON) County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7938 Fax: 970-945-8454 11pgco@hpgeotcch.com March 5,2002 John ElInore P.O, Box 318 Wrightsvillc, North Carolina 28480 Job No. 102 140 Subject: Geotcchnical Conditions for 8040 Greentine Review, Proposed Residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Mr. Elmore: As requested by Stan Mathis, we made a reconnaissance of Ihe subject site on March 5, 2002. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions with respect to the proposed construction based on our observations and experience in the area. We previously conducted a subsoil study for design of fuundations at the site and presented our findings in a report dated February 25,2002, Job No. 102 140. Proposed Construction: The proposed construction is generally similar to that described in our previous report. We have been provided plans and sections that show the proposed residence will consist of a two story wood frame structure over a walkout basement level. The walkout basement levcl will generally be structural over a crawlspace except when it is underlain by a partial basement for mechanical equipment. Cut depths are typically planned to be up to about 16 to 18 feet except in the mechanical room which will be up to about 22 feet. Geotechnical Conditions: The subsoils in the proposed building area consist of glacial moraine containing poorly sorted gravel, cobble and boulder deposits in a silty sand matrix (Bryant, 1971) and were encountered in our borings to the maximum depth drilled of 20 feet. Boulders up to several feet in size are embedded in the deposits and exposed throughout the property. The natural terrain in the proposed building area slopes down to the west at grades between about 20% and 45%. The hillside on the lot appears to have had a relatively stable, recent geologic history. Existing residences are located on the adjacent lots. Vegetation consists of scattered aspen trees. There was up to about 2 feet of snow cover at the ttme of our site reconnaissance. Conclusions and Recommendations: Development of the property as proposed should be feasible based on the geotechnical conditions. There are no geologic hazards that would make the proposed construction infeasible. The steep natural slopes and proposed cut depths should be considered in the project planning and design. Generally, cut slopes should be stoped at 1 th horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter or retained such as with temporary shoring. Ocher recommendations presented in our previous report which are applicable should also be observed. Mar 06 21 04:56p in Mathis ' 818199 p.6 MAR-06-2002 10:04 H-P GEOTECH P.03/03 , John Elmore March 5,2002 Page 2 Limitations: This review was conducted according to generally accepted gcotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. Our findings are based on a site reconnaissance and review of published geologic maps. This report has been preparcd for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance. please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTEGIBELL, INC. Jordy Z. Adamson. ~r., rÂ·11} / i# 29704 !@i 0 Wo \ 1.1%0 Rev. by: SLP < JZA/ksw cc: Stan Mathis REFERENCE Bryant, B., 1971. Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-933. H-P GEOTGCH TOTAL P.03 P.2 FEB. 19,2002 JOHN ELMORE P.O. BOX 318 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480 970.920.1368 910.256.4280 JAMES LINDT CITY OP ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RE; LOT 1 1, SILVERLODE SUBDI'VISION DEAR JAMES, I,JOHN ELMORE, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REFERENCED ABOVE, AUTHORIZE STAN MATHIS TO ACT IN MY BEHALF FOR THE 8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW AND VARIANCE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS. THANKYOU, //un ~ JOHNE ORE CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY* 2/1/02_ PLANNER: James Lindt DATE: 42**4 PROJECT: Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Mathis OWNER: John Elmore TYPE OF APPLICATION: 8040 Greenline Review DESCRIPTION: 8040 Greenline Review for Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision. Silverlode Subdivision/PUD allows for 90% of allowable FAR as set forth in the former AH Zone District to be constructed on the free market lots if the lot is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the square footage through an 8040 Greenline Review. Land Use Code Section(s) Section 26.435.030,8040 Greenline Review; 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, Fire, Water, ACSD Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor ($1205), covers six (6) hours of review time. Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($190) Total Deposit: $1395.00 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $205/hour) To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) 1. 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 behalf o f the applicant. 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. 3. 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 -25 , parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. The site plan shall depict, at a minimum, the following information: a. The boundary of the property for which development is requested. b. Existing and proposed improvements. c. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees. d. Existing and proposed grades as two foot contours, with five foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. e. Proposed elevations ofthe development. f. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, 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 i f the proj ect is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 7. 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. 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 9. Signed fee agreement 10. 14 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+8; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 2 11. Copies of prior approvals (Resolutions, Ordinances, Agreements, Covenants, etc.). In the event that you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the Community Development Department at 920-5090. * 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. Violkillk .49 LOT 11 #SIL Ell[DDE Sub. Aspen, Colorado, United States -\ 3Â« Ntt j -> 1 \\ 1 V 4~ i Â«\\---\ i A : 1 )\ /1 \ /. / /-- Y / 1 / / 11 1-1 1 St e ; t Aspen : Â¢2225 \ 1 1 -49't \ - Jl b The 7- 4 WHITE /Hotel / / The / he,r-8/ Sardy/ C / .RIVER / ~...JUMÂ»=Housd â€¢Â·re#Ir-ir--J- 1 TIONAL gte erome -, - //Hotel 1 - 9 1 1 1~1 1 / \ F X li ~k) ~/8299 Â«l ~ H Â»40 p \\ \1 -t -L / / Limelith Â£ Midland-m>- 1 gA .--*LO \ 11 \ U 1*wHotel/ourantl Moun 01(~ \ 1 hal Aspen .82 l rat - 1 / f~ ., Aspe T Little 1 0 JA /1 / I. 1 11 Oil 4 11 :/i r. - rand 1 1 1 1 0 yds 200 400 600 Copyright Â© 1988-1999 Microson Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http://wi/#.mpediarnaps.com. Copyright Â© 1998 Geographic Data Technology. All righti reserved. Â© 1998 Navigation Technologies. All rights reserved. Page 1 in'f 379604 8-775 F :2 03/09/95 02:03P PG 1 : 11 REC DOC , SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RE DER 55.00 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 5-2 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION, PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT 35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 15 FREE MARKET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM WHEREAS, the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation ("Applicant") , represented by Tom Stevens and Gary Wright, submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting approval of the Williams Ranch development which consists of 35 deed restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and / WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch property is located immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin County; and WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex the subject property to the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of 1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and determine, following a public hgzaring, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S, and 379604 B-775 123 03/09/95 02:03P PG 2 ]F 11 WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City of Aspen have consented to that certain Annexation Agreement dated , 1994; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at which time the Commission recommended approval to City Council for the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Annexation. The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94- ; and WHEREAS, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this project to City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24-7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS Exemption, City Council may approve the Applicant's request; and WHEREAS, City Council considered the Applicant's request at a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time Council determined that this project complies with the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, City Council has found that a multi-year development allotment for one free market unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103(D) is appropriate to accommodate this project; and WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically conditioned upon City Council approval of said Petition for Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY j OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 2 379604 B-775 P-824 03/09/95 02:03P PG 3 OF 11 Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24- 7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS Exemption, City Council does hereby approve the applicant' s request subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement and upon adoption by the City Council of an Annexation Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of'Aspen; and subject further to the following conditions: 1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has recommended the following conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the applicant: a. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain all development and disturbance proposed for those lots. Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the designated building envelopes. This condition shall be noted on the Final Plat. b. No development shall be permitted to encroach into any easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This condition shall be noted on the Final Plat. C. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and submitted with the building permit. d. The free market units shall provide one parking space per bedroom. e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the lot areas identified on the Final Plat. f. Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and determining natural grade shall be used for this project. g. Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front yard that addresses the requirement of Section 24-3-101 Yard (A) (5) , which permits driveways or cut slabs greater than 30 inches below grade within the required yards. h. All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when 3 379604 B-775 P-82 03/09/95 02:03P PG 4 01 working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. 2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions regarding pedestrian areas: a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all lots that are adjacent to roads. b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on one side of all roads within the subdivision and along one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson park to Smuggler Mountain Road. C. All hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be maintained in a suitable walking condition on a year round basis. d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these walkways. 3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental Health Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant: a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control plan filed in the Environmental Health Department. b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for each structure with the Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits. C. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00am to 10:00pm to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties. 5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as they relate to the Housing Office: a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines and each purphaser has been approved by the APCHA. b. All resale affordable housing units shall come under the jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines. 4 379604 B-775 P-82- 03/09/95 02:034 PG 5 OF- -1 C. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved by the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council approval of the project. d. Ten of the Resident Occupied "RO" units shall comply with the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines, except there will be no asset or income limitations for these residents. 6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subject to approval of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all residential units. 7. Lots 1 - 15 shall have a residential sprinkler system installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit drawings. 8. Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height (plus five feet to the mid-point), as calculated by Pitkin County's Land Use Code. All other lots-are subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height. 9. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate records of pump maintenance and servicing available for inspection by the Fire Marshall. 10. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis. The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's Associations for the emergency access road. 11. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not exceed 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. If the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 80% of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits for that lot. In the 8040 Greenline Review process, particular attention shall be focussed on requirements 7 and 8, which provide for the preservation of the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into the j open character of the mountain. 12. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site 5 --r 3/9604 B-775 P-82 03/09/95 02:03P PG 6 OF 0 conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building permit review on each parcel. 13. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994 from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The free market units shall be required to provide for on-site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of any building permits. b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall be indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Construction drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving activities. C. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an easement for Spruce Street along the north property boundary on Lots 1-4 and provide a seven foot easement for snow storage along these lots. d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving width. This also applies to the "driveway" called Williams Court. e. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building permits. f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and specifications, stamped by a registered engineer, and obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage construction. g. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7- 1004(C)(4)(a)(10) and (13). h. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs to be installed by the applicant as identified in the 6 379604 B-775 P-E 03/09/95 02: 03P PG 7 I 11 Traffic Report. i. In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround for the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer shall be designed outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This shall be identified on the Final Plat. Â¢ j. An easement for the snow storage areas within the development shall be indicated on the Final Plat. k. The applicant shall provide three single globe antique street lights for this project, one at the intersection of Williams Drive and Teal Court, one at the intersection/turnaround of Williams Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road, and one at the intersection of Williams Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level street lighting shall be provided between intersections. Design, style and location of these lights shall be approved by the City Engineer. 1. All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out to the property lines prior to paving the access roads. m. Any property monuments removed or disturbed during a land surveyor. construction (including landscaping) shall be reset by n. Prior to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments shall be set on the external boundaries of the subdivision. O. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas will be located on private property and not within access and utility easements. p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24- 7-1004(D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also include certificates of plat approval for utility location and easement width by all utility companies and approval by all easement holders on the property. q. The "Final Plat" Will consist of all boundary, certificate, site, engineering, and architectural drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered engineer. r. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of l 7 779604 8-775 P 3 03/09/95 02:03P PG 8 11 constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area public rights-of-way. S. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights- of-way from the city street department (920-5130). t. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code. 15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed in any of the Williams Ranch residences. 16. As stated in the Parks Department referral comments dated September 7, 1994, the applicant shall comply with the following: - a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch. Specific information regarding trail standards and materials shall be included in the application. The applicant should dedicate this as a public easement. b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that identifies trees six inches in diameter and over. Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with the Final Plat documents. C. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance 37 Series of 1991 as it relates to irrigation methods. 17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park development impact fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements as specified Section 24-5-608. 4- 18. The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature \\\\ along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic *i character of this area. \P 19. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the Cityi Attorney, Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place 8 179604 B-775 30 03/09/95 02:03P PG 9 nF 11 / before the issuance of any building permits. All public improvements shall be completed, in place and accepted by the appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy's. 20. The applicant shall explore restricting residential development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with the exception of -a night watchman' s quarters, not to exceed 1,500 square feet in floor area. 21. The City Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow - variations of subdivision design standards as set forth in Section 24-7-1004(C)(4) of the Aspen Municipal Code. 22. Only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street. 23. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen. 24. The applicant'shall comply with the recommendations made by Bruce Collins in his geologic report dated January 19, 1994. 25. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. ~26. The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation Easement to the - City of Aspen for the open space parcel adjacent to Salvation Ditch. 27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development 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 9 379604 B-775 P-831 03/09/95 02:03P PG 10 OF 11 Â· Â· vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein 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. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided by 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 of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approval 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 properties 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 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation 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. Section 4: This ordinance shall not become effective unless and until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of 10 6 L 9 5 04 b- I (b P-832 03/09/95 02:03P PG 11 OF 11 . Aspen. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the '0~ day of (~ 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing 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 .:~E, day of ,;4,Â¢4.,clet_ 1994. 06 6,-34- JohA Bennett, Mayor ".1 1 lilli,4 . ./. H CF DI ,Â£2'. 9 ...... V 2 L */ ATTEST: 4 3 SAL ~334 ---Kathrvn.-'Sdittoch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~/4 day of ~f--- , 1994. p# 81- John Mennett, Mayor 23*pwk-leÂ¢ iye /i2UND /04Â£-- **28)EYA YOP:~Mch, City Clerk I'lifi J 041. cc. ah.~3~123.ranch. final Â°-Â·,-.144 .6 A.ki.*~ 11 =47 CMBtech Phone: 970-945-7988 He h-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 uounty Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO. 102 140 FEBRUARY 25,2002 PREPARED FOR: JOHN ELMORE P.O. BOX 318 WRIGHTSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28480 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECIIA,unL, INC. February 25,2002 John Elmore P.O. Box 318 Wrightsville, North Carolina 28480 Job No. 102 140 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Mr. Elmore: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense, silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders. About 5 feet of granular fill was encountered above the natural gravels in Boring 2. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 4 days later. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation o f the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 04Â»6 ). Jord/Z. fdatson, Jr., P.7 Rer by: SLP JZA/ksw TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITIONS MINE SUBSIDENCE .........................................2 FIELD EXPLORATION SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ...............,..................... 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS ........................................4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS FLOOR SLABS UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM SITE GRADING SURFACE DRAINAGE LIMITATIONS FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS H-P GEOTECH PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to John Elmore dated January 28,2002. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a two story wood frame structure over a walkout basement (entry) level and essentially cover the entire building envelope shown on Fig. 1. A subbasement is proposed below the entry level. Ground floors will be slab-on- grade. Grading for the structure is proposed to be relatively extensive and involve cut depths up to about 20 to 22 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site was vacant and covered with about 1 to 11/2 feet of snow at the time of our field exploration. An existing boulder wall is located in the southwest portion of H-P GEOTECH -2- the lot. It appears that some fill is located on the lot due to previous grading. The ground surface in the building envelope is gently rolling with a moderately steep to steep slope down to the west at grades between about 20% and 45 %. There is about 22 feet of elevation difference across the building envelope and about 38 feet across the lot. The terrain becomes steeper downhill to the west of the building envelope with grades up to about 50%. The base of the steep mountain slope is located to the east of the lot. Vegetation consists of aspen and cottonwood trees. Scattered cobbles and boulders are exposed on the ground surface. MINE SUBSIDENCE The site is located within the Smuggler Mountain mining district and may be underlain by old mine works. Evidence of surface mining activity was not observed on the property. The risk o f future ground subsidence due to underground mine works in this area is typically low, in our opinion, but the property should not be considered totally risk free. If further investigation of the underground mine works is desired, we should be contacted. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 7, 2002. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Access was limited due to the steep slopes and snow cover. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a track-mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of H-P GEOTECH -3- Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense, silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders. About 5 feet of granular fill was encountered above the natural gravels in Boring 2. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 116 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 4 days later and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Based on geotechnical considerations, it should be feasible to construct the proposed residence on the site with proper planning and design. The proposed relatively deep cuts will tend to increase the risk of construction induced slope instability. The building foundation and retaining walls will need to be designed to resist appropriate lateral earth (backfill) pressures. The uphill cut may encounter very hard and cemented bedrock and could require rock excavation techniques, such as blasting, chipping and splitting. Very large boulders may also be encountered. Spread footings bearing on the natural soils or bedrock should be feasible for building support. There could be some differential settlement due to possible variable bearing conditions. We should observe the excavation to evaluate the suitability of the bearing materials. H-P GEOTECH -4- DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing,on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure can be increased by 1/3 for eccentrically loaded footings provided the resultant of all forces acts within the central third of the footing section. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in thi s area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuning an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils. Voids created by the removal of large rocks should be backfilled with compacted sand and gravel or with concrete. If H-P GEOTECH -5- water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures up to about 15 feet tall which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pef for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures up to about 15 feet tall which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pef for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils. Foundation walls and retaining structures greater than 15 feet tall should be designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure in psf of 24 and 18 times the wall height in feet for the restrained condition and active condition, respectively. Backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the H-P GEOTECH -6- material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular soil compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A nlinimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50 % retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill,materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the oIl-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of H-P GEOTECH -7- heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 th feet deep. SITE GRADING There is a risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site due to the proposed extensive cuts. We have not performed a formal slope stability analysis of the site. The recommendations presented below are based on our previous experience in the area and are intended for preliminary design purposes. Cuts up to about 20 feet deep in the gravel soils should be sloped to at least 1 M horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Steeper and deeper cuts may be feasible and should be evaluated on a site specific basis. Temporary shoring such as soil nailing could be needed to maintain the deep cuts within the property limits. Embankment fills should be limited to about 10 feet and be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95 % standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20 % grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 11/2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to detennine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. H-P GEOTECH -8- SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our H-P GEOTECH -9- recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the reconimendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEQIâ‚¬â‚¬HNE*L. INC. -x 1 Â£u A H - 12\ 1 A-2. /'/ 75&1 4'a.Â£'...2. I u~ od ...4, Pj Reviewed by: 1fs,14, ...OEff vi'.370NAL Er&54 Â»out.fl,LE~ Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/ksw ec: Stan Mathis H-P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 8090 1" = 20' \ \ r------------ --------7 \ -0- - - - 8090 / BORING 1 --/ \1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 1\ LOT 11 I l 1 -- 1 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 1.\1 BORING 2 1 \ -----1--- 1 1\ LOT 10 1 | 1 LOT 12 | 8080 1 1 1 8070 ~ P\\ i \1\ 1 I --- ---- 1 ~ BUILDING / = ENVELOPE / \ -k--L / 1 \ / J - - - 8070 -- ---- -- - IL>'0- - 8060 / .-/ Mkkx 0-1 LOT <.-- << 900-NDARIES . 8060 SILVERLODE HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 102 140 LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. BORING 1 BORING 2 ELEV.= 8086' ELEV.= 8079' 8090 8090- 8085 8085 9.& APPROXIMATE MAIN LEVEL :*: - 8080 03 8080 - X - 9 X *~ 20/6.58/1 X - :5* WC=11.8 8075 12 +4=19 A 8075 .ty -200=42 Yl 12/12 â‚¬e= WC=8.9 T ru DD=121 22 -200=27 APPROXIMATE ENTRY LEVEL 1 :.6 8070 8070 ~ 12/3 42. AE i~i 8065 - 8065 . *1 42/12 - ~~~ WC==8.5 +4=14 0 -200=25 APPROXIMATE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR _ 8060 ~ 25/12 8060 8055 8055 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 102 140 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1111111111 Elevation - Feet 111111111111111111 lllllllllllllll 1003 - uo!10Ael] LEGEND: ~~ FILL; clayey sand with grovel, medium dense, slightly moist to moist, mottled brown, organics. ~ TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay with grovel and cobbles, organic, firm, slightly moist, dark brown. ~ SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty, with cobbles and boulders, dense, slightly moist, brown. ~1 Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 42 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were 42/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. 7- Practical drilling refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. -* Depth at which boring had coved when checked on February 11, 2002. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on February 7, 2002 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by taping from the northeast corner property stake. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 4 days later. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. 102 140 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ~ HYDROUSER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS | 11ME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES | CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS | 24 HR. 7 HR ' 45 MIN. 15 WIN. 6011Â»4. 19MIN. 4 WIN. 1 MIN. 0200 #100 #0 #30 p 0 #4 3/8- 3/4' 1 1/2- 3- 5-6' 8~ , 100 01 1 1 , a ; :1 4 -1 : i; 1 1, 111:1:1111 1 :: : i : , 1 : 1 1 14,/1 1 1, I 10~ i , 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 ~ 1 1- 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 11 1' 1 1 1 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 I '11. 1 1 1 1 1 1,1 1 111 * 1 1,111 .1,11 20; 5 ; 80 1111,1,1 .111,1.1 11 1111,11~, 1,11!1'.1,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-.. 1 1 1 1 11 , 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 ...1 1 ..lilli 1 1 1, 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 - 1 Ill , 1 1 1- 170 1 ': 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 -t 1 1 11 1 1 1 1. 1 1 11 1 1 . 1 1 1,1 1 1 111 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ~ 60 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 :f ; 1 1 , 1,1 1 1 1 111 , lili 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 i ' , ' i ' ' '' 1 1 ' â€¢ ' 1 ' ' ' :; ; 50 1, i: 1 .'-'.1 1 1 . 1 111 , 0 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1,1 i 1 1 1 1 111 ' ''' ' ,1 1,1,1./1 11'11,1.'' .1, ., ;; ; 40 60 ~ 1,1,,],,','' 1 1 :91:1 111 1 1 1 11,111.! 1 1,11 11,111,1.,11.'.11 70! i Ill]'.,[.1., 11., 1., 11 111111,1.1,1.1, 1 1 1.1,..11.,1..1.,,1 80; : 11'lilli, ....1,1 1 1: 1 1 lili]Iii'.1,1,1,1 1 11 1111,11,1 1 i , i 1 1 1 1 , 1 ' , 1 11: ''111'11'1111'','' ; lilli , 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Â·Â· 110 11'lili],1.,11,1 1,1,11,1,11,1,111 1 1 ,,,.,,',,,,'',,,, 111.i1111111.:1;91,,1 100 ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' â€¢ 0 '' '0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12~52 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL COBBLEE CLAY TO SILT FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 19 % SAND 39 % SILT AND CLAY 42 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 1 ot 9 Feet HWROWETER ANALYSIS SEME ANALYSIS 1 1 TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 1 1 24 ,IR. 7 HR 11â‚¬ 3/C 1 1/2' r 56~ 8- 45 'AIN. 15 MIN. BOUN. 19*JIN. 4 MIN. 1 WIN. #200 #100 050 130 016 0 M 0 1111,111 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 . 1.-1.- 1 1 1 11 10 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '-4'' ;90 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 11 1 111111.11 t.'Â»11,1.1, 1 11 9 1 Ill 1 1 1,1111 1 11,1 20 ' 1 1 1 ' I j ' '' i ' i ' ~ I :80 111,11, i 'Â·:Â·'''Ii=~,ii'iiiiii 11,1... 30 , 0 , i , i , , i i . i i ,~ 9 ~ ~ ~; â€¢70 i : : : 5 4 1 1 , 11 5 1 lili 1,1 : 6 11 1 1 1 11: 1 1 '' 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 40 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' '' '60 /1 1 1 1 1 1 1. Eilitil/Eii iIi i *:ip ' 'lilli, 50 ' ' ' ' ' m ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ~50 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 60 ' t . 1 4 1 . , ;40 ' 1 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 ]11111,11. I '11.1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 70 ' ' , '-' ' ' ' ' ~' ' 30 1 1 1.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111.111.11 1.1 ..1,1 1 ' ' â€¢ Â·;;,",;20 1.1.1. 111 80 i ' 1 11'' ' 1 11,1.11'11 :1 :: 1 1 11 , 11,111,11 1 .... 11,1111.1,1.''ll.1 90 , 1,1,1,11â€¢'' :1 : : : : 5 : 10 1 11.111,11.'..11,11 1 111,1,11...11'.11' 1 1,1.111.111 111 lilli 100 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r ' ' '1' ' 1 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .074 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203 .019 .037 .150 12.5 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILUMETERS SANO GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY TO SLT ANE 1 MEDIUM ICOARSE ANE 1 COARSE GRAVEL 14 % SAND 61 % SILT AND CLAY 25 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand with Gravel FROM: Boring 2 at 14 Feet HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 102 140 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PERCENT RETAINED PERCENT RETAINED ONISSVd 1N30hI3d SNISSVd 1N30N3d I HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. , TABLE I JOB NO. 102 140 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED BORING DEPTH MOISTURE DAY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR (feet) CONTENT DENSITY (0411 (%) NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE 1%) (pcf) SIEVE 1%) (56) (PSF) 1 9 11.8 19 39 42 silty sand with gravel 2 4 8.9 121 27 clayey sand with gravel ful 14 8.5 14 61 25 silty sand with gravel .. .... .. .. .. .. SilverLode3282002 March 28,2002 From G. M Wilk Wilkinson, Fidelity Trust Bldg. Inc., The New Consolidated Standardl Fulton/Della S. etc. Mining Company d.b.a. Aspen Free Silver Mining Co-, and Aspen Mt. Construction Co. Re: Lot 11 SilverLode Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review, Residential Design Standard Variances: To City of Aspen Community Development Dept. Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Tue. April 2,2002 Adjacent Land owner public comment for the Application Record. As representative for Fidelity Trust Building Inc. and Aspen Free Silver Mining Company and as an owner of properties adjacent to the Silver Lode Subdivision and adjacent to Lot 11 we respectfully summit the following comments for the record 1. We have no objection the approval of the John Elmore requests as stated in the Public Notice. John has always built unique and quality homes in the Aspen and Pitkin County Area. He has always lived up to his commitments, and has added a great deal to the community of Aspen and Pitkin County over he years. 2. The design standards and request meet the Silver Lode Subdivision approvals, the historic zone density and F.A.R in place on the property since 1955 County zoning and Master Planning in 1976 and all amendments there too. 3. It is noted for the record that there are utility easements, rights to access utilities, a tunnel easement for the Cowenhoven Tunnel and a road access easement which runs between SilverLode Lot 10 and 11. See Silver Lode Subdivision Plat Book 37 page 6, Book 37 page 7. These rights of way and access easements are for the benefit of adjacent properties ( Pride of Aspen USMS 7883, General Jackson USMS 3941, the Ballarat USMS 4438, Glendale USMS 6859, and Parcel E. The above respondents George M Wilkinson, Fidelity Trust Bldg. Inc., Aspen Free Silver Mining Company, Aspen Mt. Construction Co. are owners of part of the mining claims and mineral interests which have use of these easements and rights of way between Lots 10 and 11. Any changes to the lot grade, house placement, and easement should take into account the use of the easements and rights of way for the benefit of the ( Pfide of Aspen USMS 7883, General Jackson USMS 3941, the Ballarat USMS 4438, Glendale USMS 6859, and Parcel E) properties. Sincerely George M. Wilk Wilkinson -Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * Chairman John Keleher Paul Smith * T reas Frank Loushin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr March 18, 2002 James Lindt Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re Lot 11, Silverlode Greenline Dear James: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient treatment and collection system capacity to serve this project. Sewer service has been stubbed into the lot. The total connection fees for the project can be estimated once detailed plan for the development become available. A new tap permit will be required. All fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscaping that is shown in the utility easement to the north of the property will not be permitted. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 Mar 06 21 04:55p an Mathis 3918199 P.2 ~ MAR. 5.2002 1Â·26FM i ,~TKIN COUNTY TITLE NO. 2911 P.2 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that JOHN A. ELMORE Il is the owner in fcc simple of the following described property: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, according to the Subdivision Plat thereof filed for record in Plat Book 37 at Page 3 and First Amendment thereof recorded August 20, 1998 In Plat Book 45 at Page 97. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Subject Io encumbrances, easements, rights of way and recorded matters. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PlTKIN COUNT~ TI~LE. INC, aurhonzed siggyure 1 CERTIFIED TO: FEBROARY 21, 2002 @ 8:00 A.M. Mar 06 21 04:56p .an Mathis I3918199 P.3 MAR. 5. 1002 1:2?PM PITKIN COUNTY T]TLE NO. 297? P. 3 , .1'... .1 1 CITY O/ AEâ€¢'EN 0,â„¢ O/ A--1 EXEMPT ERÂ©11 WRETT DATE REP EXEMPT FROM H,IETT / DATE Pl.Â¥'A No. U >f>A I 1 -<y)Â·0 ~2*~W WARRANTY DEED CORRECTION l(-56.0, 44Â© Na Lfn} THIS DEED, made October 25, 2001, Between WILUAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP af the County of . State of CA. GAANTOR. AND JOHN A. ELMORE 11. GRANTEE whoge lagal address le : 1900 EASIWOOD AOAD, SUITE 11, WILMINGTON, NC, 28403 of the CountÂ¥ 01 ,. State al NC WITNESSETH. TIÂ·w,t for and In consideration of the Gum of ton dollars and other good and valuable Â©onalderation, the receipt encl aulftclency of which 15 hereby acknowledged, the grantor hes granted. bargained, sold arld conveyed. and by these present$ does grant. bargain. sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, hlu heirs and a68igns forever, all the real properly together with Improvernente, It any, situate end lying and balno In the County d PITKIN. State of COLORADO, described â€¢â€¢ followe LOT 11 SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, according to the Subdivielon Plat thereof filed lor record In Plat Book 37 al Page 3 and Flrot Arnindrnent thereof recefead August 20, 16188 In Plat Book 45 at Page 97. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditament, and appurtenancig thereto belong,ng, or In anywise appertainIng. and the revorslon and reverelorte, remainders. rents, lasups and profits thereof, and â€¢11 the estate. right. title. Inte,eat. claim and demand whatsoever of the gmntor either in law or equity. of. In and I thâ€¢ above bargained promIses. w,m the heridltuments and appurtinancee. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the sald premises above bargatned and descr,bed, with the appurtanances, unto the gmntee. his hetrs end assigng lorever And the Grantor, for hir,mell. hi, heirs and assigns, does Dovenant, grant, bamal,1, and agree m and with the Grantee, his hers and essigne. that at the time 01 The enniallng and delivery ol the preaerits, he 1,1 well seized of the pr-,teea above conveyed, haa good, aure, parfect, absolute and Indefe-ble Istate of Inheritance, In law, In lea #Imple, and has good flght. full power and lawful mulhority to grant, bargatn. sall and convey the same In mwÂ·Iner and form as atoresald, and tbet the Barne am free and cloer from all former and other grants, bargalna, eales, Mens, ta][ee, aek,easments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature loevâ€¢r. except thoes matters u aur ruTh on Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and Ingorporated herein by reference. The grantof â€¢Mall and wHI WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFENC) the above bargained prâ€¢mleee In the quiet and peaceable poseesÂ®lon of the grantee. his heirs and assigns. agalns, all and every person or pereons lawfully clalming the whom or uny part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural. the plural the Bingular, and the uue of Wer,dor shan be applleâ€¢ble to an 11*WITNESSA~55.e,ye grantor hai execuled thia deed. WILLIA#Â«SANCH JOINT VENTURE--A COLOIi*50-6C~MAL7*FITNERSHIP bjb054., D.,v-,Ute- 944,2â‚¬e*t D- 1. r E 32,, â€¢Ju. I irS 9 6/,1 2 vulÂ£ as,Grl-ne-r. i STATE OF ) SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowled,E*.0,626 me thls _ day of OCTOBER, 2001, by WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT X5NmeREA COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BY: ITS: WITNESUPÂ¥-"AP,d and omcial seal my egoâ€¢)966{on expireâ€¢- Notary Publk S<-e- -,44-kek fnent 1*~1111!0~*11Â®11 1 111Â·-- 010.1 460417 1///2/2//1 /2:13/ Par 1 51 18 Mar 06 21 04:56p an Mathis 3918199 P.4 NO.?97? P. 4 MAR. 5. 2002 1:27PM ITKIN COUNTY TITLE .-.1 ....... 1.1 .1 1:.1 . 11 1 , , EXHIHIT W 1 Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable, 2. Rlght of the propâ€¢letor of a vein or lode to extract or râ€¢move Ma ore therefrom, ahould the Same be found to penetrate or Infersect me pron,leeo hereby granted as reae,ved in Unfted Statee Patents recorded Dâ€¢cernber 22, 1909 In Book 136 al Page 365. recordid May 20. 1949 in Book 175 at P.ga 162 and recordea December 24, 1902 In Book 65 at Page 118 3 Right 01 way for ditchea or canals oonltructed by the authority 01 the Unitâ€¢d Stat.â€¢s &6 resentld In United States Patenta reeorded Novernber 22. 1910 In Book 136 at Page 373. and recorded December 24, 1902 In Book 55 at Page 116, 4. Parpetual right of wayand *asâ€¢ments to emend or drive levela or tunnell through the Subjact property â€¢s ser forth and regerved In deed recorded March 30. 1896 in Book 131 al Page 426 5 Reservation by Wright & Prousch Mining, UN.. 01 any and ail suD-surface and mineral rights below 50 fee! below fha surface, however. epecmoally w,mout any accompenyhg rlght to use or In any way burden lhe surlace estate to obtain and use the benelit 01 thâ€¢ ownership of thâ€¢lorna, as net forth In Ceed recorded March 22.1995 in Book 778 at Page 880. 6. Easements, rights 01 way and all matters al disck=ed gn Plate of SUvertÂ«le Subdivlsion and Wimams Ranch Subalvlsion, reoorded May 9,1995 In Plat Book 37 at Pagâ€¢ 3 and Pfrst amondment thereof recorded Augu,1 20, 1998 * Plat Book â€¢S at Page 97, 7. U.S. Wout appreval and moreement lor WN)lami Ranch Subdivtdon and Silverlode Subdjv#*on recorded May 9, 1995 In Book 780 at Page 368. 8. Terms, condltions, pfovielone and obilgattorts as set forth In Williams Ranch - City of Aspen Annexation Agreement racorded May 9. 1996 In Book 700 - Page 370. 9. Those terms, gondltions, provisions. obtlgattons, ease,nents, reorrictions. aaâ€¢â€¢sements and â€¢11 matters ae, set form In Oodaratton for Sllverlode recordid MiÂ¥ 12.1995 In Book 780 at Page 755 al Reception No. 381278, deleting ther-om any reetrIctions Inalcating any pretmence, limitation or discrimlnallon bued on faca, color. ronglorâ€¢. ee*, handicap, famillâ€¢l sturun. or national origin. The above Protect,ve Covenant, wer, arnended by FIrst Amendment recorded November 5.1990 aâ€¢ Reception NO. 424224. 10. Termâ€¢. conditions, provlatons and obllgations al Gel forth In Easement Agreement recorded March 15, 1995 In Book 776 at Page SOl. 11. Encroachmenl Ee@em0nt ricarded Juty 2, 1998 ae Receptlon No. 394308 12. Consent of Owners and Mortgaggea to Flrnt Amendment to rhâ€¢ Final Subdlvlsion Plat of Gliverloce Sucalvtâ€¢lon and Williams Ranch Subdivlslon râ€¢corded August 20, 1898 as Receplion NO. 420942 13. Terrns. Conditlona. provllicng. 001,gations and all mettirs 88 sat lorth In Resolurlon of the Ampen Planning and Zontr,0 Commisslon rocorded February 11, 2000 - Fleception No. 440391 al Reeolutlon No. 99-27. 14. All mallars aG dlacloaed by Survey of Banner AnsociaiN, Inc. 4-d January 4,2601 u Job No. 40046 00-01 1,|m 111111Â§~"im , 11 11//2/2/01 /2 5//I 460417 P*: 2 0/ 3 UL#tâ€¢ 0-16 DiTKIN COUNTY Â¢0 R IS 00 0 0 - -Ell! p.1 FEB-19-2002 TUE 04:50 P FAX NO. P, 01 , CIOIl 'A GLMO AL . ASPEN/MTKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT *recinent for Payment of City of A,pen Development Ap,ilication Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinaller, THE PROJECT) 2. APPI.ICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications 2nd the payment of all processing fees is a condilion precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope ofthe proposed project, it is not possible ar thif time to ascertain Ge full extent of the costs involved in processing the applicatioii. APPLICANT atid CITY furthe, agree that it [s in the interest of tlic parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit addilional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accruc following their hearings Andior approvals. APPLICANT alitÂ·ees he will be bencfited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be bencfhed through the grenter certainty of recovering 315 full cosls to process A PPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT funher agree thot it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient infonnation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project considclation, unlcis current billing, are paid in full prior lo decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrecs that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the am,>imt of $ which is for __ - hours of Community Development staff time, and ir actual recordcd costs exceed the initial deposit, APPI.!CANT shall pay additional nionlhly billings to CJTY 20 reimburse Ilic CITY for the processing ofthe appliation menlioncd at)ove, including post approval revicw at a rate of S205.00 peiÂ· planner hour over the initial deposi!. Such periodic payments shall be m:de within 30 days of the billing date. APPL]CANI' flirlher airccs that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and m no case will bililding permits be ismcd unul all costi associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: - Julic Ann Woods Community Development Director \Datc: 20.61 Mailing Addres:: 47. D{-BOO(.-3(81 13 A; 5 44 u; 11 e 3204- 1, rue. g:\Rupport\forms\,grpayas.doc 1/10/01 2 9Â¥20 MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: City Engineer Zoning Officer Housing Director ............. Parks Department -1 ........... Aspen Fire Marshal City Water Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 1........... Building Department Environmental Health Electric Department Holy Cross Electric City Attorney Streets Department Historic Preservation Officer Pitkin County Planning County & City Disaster Coordinator FROM: James Lindt, Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5095 Fax-920.5439 RE: Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review DATE: 3/8/02 DATE OF DRC MEETING: 3/13/02 REFERRAL SCHEDULE APPLICATION SENT OUT TO REFERRAL AGENCIES* 3/8/02 WRITTEN REFERRALS DUE 3/20/02 Thank you, FEBRUARY 3,2002 APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN ELMORE STAN MATHIS P.O. BOX 318 7515 COAL CREEK CIRCLE WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480 WIDEFIELD, CO. 80911 910.256.4780 970.618.6636 CELL 719.390.6065 JAMES LINDT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RE: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION DEAR JAMES, MY CLIENT, JOHN ELMORE, THE OWNER OF LOT 11, IS REQUESTING AN 8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW THAT WOULD ALLOW A 10Â°/0 (317 SQ FT.) INCREASE OF THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 3172 SQ. FT. RESULTING INA TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 3489 SQ. FT. THIS INCREASE IS ALLOWED PER PARA. 11 OF ORDINANCE 54, SERIES OF 1994. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SEC 26.435.030 (8040 GREEN LINE REVIEW) OF THE ASPEN ZONING CODE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE WILL HAVE 5 BEDROOMS, ASSOCIATED LIVING SPACES, A TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND A SMALL BASEMENT. THE ENTRY LEVEL AND GARAGE ARE BUILT WELL INTO THE HILL SIDE, THE LIVING LEVEL IS OFF SET BACK FROM THE FACE OF THE ENTRY LEVEL AND THE UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL IS AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE STEPPING BACK OF EACH LEVEL WILL RESULT IN A MASSING THAT HIDES THE ADDITIONAL 317 SQ. FT. REQUESTED. THE ATTACHED SITE SECTIONS SHOW THAT THE ROOF OF THE LIVING ROOM AND DINING ROOM SHIELDS THE UPPER BEDROOM LEVEL. THE MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM THE STREET (WEST) ELEVATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. THE RESIDENCE WILL HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT WELL BELOW THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ATTACHED SOILS REPORT FROM H- P GEOTECT. RELIEF FROM CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS IS ALSO REQUESTED. THOSE STANDARDS ARE: 1) BUILDING ORIENTATION. THERE IS HARDSHIP CREATED BECAUSE THE STREET FACING BUILDING ENVELOPE IS NOT PARALLEL TO THE STREET. 23 BUILD TO LINES. THE SLOPE OF THE SITE CREATES A HARDSHIP IN THAT THE DRIVEWAY BECOMES TO STEEP TO ACCESS THE GARAGE AND PROVIDE THE FIFTH PARKING SPACE REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED SET BACK IS 9'-0". 3) SECONDARY MASS. THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY AND NO ALLEY CREATES A HARDSHIP CREATING A SECONDARY MASS. 4) PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. (60. THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A DRIVEWAY CUT MORE THAN 2 FT. THE FOLLOWING EXPLAINS HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE 8040 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." 00-1 1 1-491 _32/<77 160*IN. 2101 --- - 2*60139 - I==t'NINE- 1 1 --Mon.24-1 . L- A<1924(19â‚¬ 'rl- i i 1*1074â‚¬1Â·-- 1042731 Â©hi vvi- - , >939- Na == Fal-39 +0*g H tal- L - bhutgo _ 290719.-rtin -4- - ll - Â»Â«ED -- -- --- MO'1341 ot,urt=- --192Â©2id*U ! . 4-t'*L C f Ill// i O 0 ktit=71,4.- - .- WAL *-A t==r := W. .+484 1- i Â®CORPOH - c-r -- ---2 ~PFOOM| =R77- == 1 - 1 1 -INA -- -- Al ~- L. 3 * 12_jlo OÂ¢ mlu 1 M - -fAMILY_tooy - 1 *= #t.Al O, p / 71. CAA 4%#Ad# 1\ p-i. 1 1 - LIF: FT U Of- a =- 1 1 BNfTef- 110 11 1 -t= 1 =El j _ tk=-Â·t:k--4 024-IL- 211 - OFfICEÂ· -GOVERgO --2Â«f_ -*Rcer - i .. ' 1 t=z} lt- 1 -i~---7-â€žI -\!*1 ----- -- E -- - \ -04*ED '214:44 - _ 1 L â€ž 121 -__-.--ig[' 9 --4 -3 9*140 Â©INes 1142Â· 010;F Am#VE - R - - -Â«.{HÂ»ri-~__ -16-=*41Â·451 - /1 nx u=)2-0 3--- & 4 0'g,-. ' i I t i 7 111: i il i 1 1 i : : -B#+TFÂ¥--- - BE&Â¢3@0r ----- - ~ 1 1 >3 ~_ 0* CO 1 1 4 R 1 al!Â·I 1 1 L Ne <15 0 0 18 881 1 2 - H. otÂ£>Â©4_ M.WH f 03 Ji I. 11:, ..% It 21 -INTCMEN. _ il \ 0 0 4 7 = 111;Ii .1-1 Pool - 1, 1 9 . 7 6 ftÂ£>'/, n 11-4 PkIll 1,11 .,1 f 1,2. 1-MNA Pmkl- 1 Of - MIEDKH -- - = , ::, iii:.: t=--=3Â« 'It:III iii.i 2 UP,1 1 i. .li!Iii= : 1 1 14 :5.i ? 1 6 t. - 2Â©181}44-120*1 11'ir 1, 1,!1 4 -- - - 1 1141 -IN.5 it ! 31 t L . i U 1 1; 1 1 ..41 A -/ --- -P ---- -41 :i .44' Â· '' 4- 11 1.: iii 11 1*=2 --- ., ....-:~ I 34 - %- LIZEZZÂ¥ 1 4:--- 2---- - --1-- --1:1, 1 ;:lill-,-- ~W~1~ ~ _ __~__ ~__~___ __~~" ~ ~~~~~11~ Â»u~ At~ : I br .. - 9.007=04%20 8)88# E-#41\-- ~ 4:4:11Â·,t....1 II.- 1 40;.1 : _11'giblo_-1-ML - - Â«6, +40'Qa 1/Dll....$1.01 L , -0-0 ~ UL{ A 4 41 , b-/ p 2 0 2 -0 - u E - 1- 51*11231216*14 8 -LivIRIA Ra)Fl KIEE,Eabloo'-~~00~AL 1 LA 6 8465'-511 Â«Â»1-9-Â»69017 tacy?t- 104 0.7 Klt:05 -TT \ \ 1 1 1 "-r' \ Vull~Â»7*Â»-_~ 11 1 : -1/1.-1< %-4 .1 1 I -- ..9-4 -= -f/98\Nb-Â· \Â»CL-21 379- 1 â€ž , Â©2=0 - L 1 -- --- - -ill , _* 1 3 11 0-4.2 r. 1 .2--- - . f1-/ClfilIT-i~EEELEEFLAILK/------N--"-1 /,3/ 111 -=Â»-.. -~ '1 T-,-'' L* ~ *~i~ 1-=4Â»' -~ic " -r;Â· ' 1. 10 -04" J LY id i 8 4.7-1 11 A. . . . KIJ 4 -_..Â«9'AÂ»C '"-=== --- - ---- L ~f.~--~--~~~~"-~~~-E i. -:ali J.i.-1.-At ..i 6-I,*t~tt~V#ti/ n j -,-Â·.-~--Â·-~-Â·4 "ff,-Â·Â·1-~3- -- 21 , t,11 I 11'/hc , 1 1 :4.-23>- 1. 31-100 1 1 474-0 1 -. ;.6 , 1 1 i Im-1:7-9 ~ ~ 1 -LvL. 1. 1 J ~ ~ ' 1 17~7--TE Â·y,L : ~, il,t 1 41 1; 11 B .1 1. 1 1 1 0 11'11 7 ' 1â€žvi:ir @ 1 0.:i '1â€ž=8 1 le , 113< f '6Â·2 1 1'K . - 4Â£5 .lilli 61, 71 2 Â·. S 4 111,1iF:301 b., . 1.+-1.V .~ 1 1 ---74 -i r- n Â«- 1/41*T * ELE-hgFIÂ« 1- --- - --- ~- . 6 ITIÂ£ TTO14___ _ 7=4 8 686-80 N <> 1210{teÂ©low'-11" Â· Ill. '21 1 Â·---' - ~ Â·Â·Â· ~~~~ i.iÂ·i.-Â·--~Â·~------Et--Â§-A- tk M, I 1 r,- 30 l lili r -. V.P.!.~-4/746 - I.0-7 H~9 - t_ RIDGE I 485018. lot pÂ»j~.--20.-~1 -- Â«Orifi --'- * -21,1.-.r 1 -76 - ... ...... ....L. - Â·Â· - "Â·T" ~+ .fÂ·~- 1 Lili ! 44'NA peaK 1 1 E 01 i 1 Â£444511 -UN~ 11 11 11! 1-1 lilli it , - -_-- - 9 J-- 01Â¥eit tuRM 'RLEStÂ·* '*,In., ,1.'APHUU,61 11'4'J'. -'- T . 91- ; 91- 6 0088 1-11 41' 111 i Irl- 1 f 73- 11 1 111 '1 1 1 % ' 111 1 i -1 , Phi i , .f . i ' 1 il-1 ;,i ' 1 1 1 .' E.-'Â·1 91 lili,tj '0 i .U --1 14 Â· - t- vt, 1 [ 1 13\/1 No LEVEL & 801â‚¬- 61411 --EAÂ« ELE,Â«Flok-1 Y - .U E ALF 9 -1=c Ift~ 44 -6 + 1 11<N 3-2 ; 1-4.15% .,4. --'=- -1--9 1-lj~f 9 / - 0 - -2 0// 1 . -7 -30/./ 1(3> 1 ~1 IL==Eli ' IR, , L 1:1 -U, 1 i 111 it / 1 4% 4 9 9 ' !11: 0 4 11 11, 1 // 1:lili 1 JACÂ» {Â»0/ i ~ 1~ ~ -.- Â¥'/, / ' / --Â·Â·~ VE' D-1-\ Ii' 1 11 J . 1 Â·~\ f. 0 /Â«f r---/Â¥' -4 .th i) ! 1 ~1244Â«Â« 1 1111 : 1 6444 -Â·>42: n-- - -'~.-1,---n 1\ Ij i 1 -rFT- -3-- 2-3 - - 71--j--M 95-34 >f-ir~ - 491~8&~~ I- 9/ 1, -1 -F ' - ' - )~; i,1 lia 1 D 44 Dal A hi~ft 4- yy fu-3 - 91 \, 8-Ily*D. M i '4> 19-, r , Ct-:r/ 4 . 1 ': -*- 1 Rm 0k '. '-') -Ll 112 7 26 .1..... i' 1 +42 ..1.3 i n :-- .7-~7 ! 1 1 1 '|t !1 1 1 1 .1 :.1 -: ..1,1.121/1:94111~1+-,1~1. 1 1.1 r , 1 b Â·qu, - i,4, L.j ' ' A" 1 A y 1 - r 1 4: 1/11 , 1 2/- . 4 ria st %R 1 k -7---mil Â©M 4 0 0 ,07-&206*7927*A97 hy#Ng ---- - F KIDGE EL-- Â®106'- 1 1" - Plo 119/rm @,1 2>103'-6 L.K. glootagitooti'/z" .KIPOE , E.1/0106 Lilli l>- A /t 1 2-111 STAIR 12111:15 , n 62>103'-9 t- F+433 F -------4---Isti'lr''I 4.4 TLLLr+4 - 4-2 ---- - &1 1 i - A J ~,tr'.ilt_~Ch. -- -~ 5 -144%4 f -4-k 'f 1 1 t>WIUA K\PAS 2=.ag.%-a V i k I 44 V 1 ,Â·" - 1,4 1 / 9, 1 1..t 1 809 (PLU' -.-~-- - ...1 --- M -. â€ž- '41' Â£ 0,Â£1 /*r:11 \ ..1 r. . 14,Â·1\\- r ~ . - XyczzLILER=2 - =I,7 /.1J/. , ~ - '1- -,hi.14.9. -+- 1 41k.. 1-Mt-* 0 1 1 1 , +1 1~ 14 , 1 1 1 - 1.1 1*- 4 in,h - 1 1 41- 1,-/ r. 44*:Al '111 -E ly '. . 1 1 -r-Q--i,<Fl-11,<A...24 1,1-rÂ·--:.=- E . Ili.f U.~ 06, r, 1 4,5 p C. - 1 + 1, 92 -- Z Jlf..3 1jh. 4'GE)Â· '~ 3 t. '*ert'hi, -7-1,4, .-i jE---T/Iwidlir.------- --'-f/LUF-----..--- / .lili ' 'r U-f -- 1 111 â€žJ ' ./11 -12 ---- 9'. E.BTâ‚¬-f *>Â·/SLE 2)0*6- Cgn DOUTÂ«- ELEVATI -01% --10 >19 0,1 -1\ --BM - ---- -Il- cgi 1-lol-lami -t~rs> -/ , =42007 2 41Â¥19 1 1-101- 7F- ~~7995~20 -3 i i E rn r .-. - - HAN.'w --uiatia=Â·tzy, 1 0 \ F F- r /. ,01-,*bog 27Xlr*- - :./ 4 i 1,0.11 -41 1 \ -El Â¥-9 Holl.(319-2 ~ BÂ¢ L.1 i~3 0 7 %14 1*W go.A -1197*7 11 ./ '4.1.00 .12. 1*All All/GL g 2400*:ag ~R~- -,pli- -~~~_*~~ ~â€ž. 11. E It 1 71 1 -/tl ABIA#%*AL ? 1 -1= t... R * 3,â„¢:ST -F'/78% 4 q lib 5 // 7 R Â«9 1 9 v - 017(3100â€ž.11 Â·*dr* Â», At-90,9.72 j 31 \ / i ' 90412+ 3 9 51 0 A '4 i Â·01 V 1 Improvement Surtey Legend - C Lot 11, Silverlode Subdi*ision CURI TABLE l/ ~ Found Aluminum, Capi 0, morkid CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT ICHORD DIST, CHORD DEARÂ»4 1 DELTA Â· * Found BLM Bra# Cg, 1Â¢1 836.14 56.06 28.04 1 56 04 S19'24'17-[ 1 3'46'04~ 1 Cy *14.79 0.88 344 1 0. N20'21'46*W | 1Â·50'or Pitkin County, Colorado l ~ Found Robor o: mork,d 0 [),ciduoui Trio 1* Fri Hydrant @Â· Electric 66ter -064#9. 11 ) , ) ~ T.1.phon. Ped..tal * Pin. Tr.. -BITE AND GRADM 4 PLAN 1 - Ccca Boulder Woll ./ .1 /ff Sot 1 . 1 k 1 i i , / / ' 1.--Â·----Qf End #6 Rebo~ dc Alu~ninum Cap ' Morkef LS20#32 86'41' "EÂ· ' I 1 .1 ~ 152;03' ,/ $* * ' / Ligind and Notic - S i -r 1 1 1 1 f 1'.~5. / I / 107 edestrian Abcess / / / .Description: Lot 11, First Amendment to thi Final Plat of Silverlode Subdivision, City of / apen, Pltkin County. Colorado. according to the Plot recorded in Plot Book 45 at Â· 4 1, ,,15-Â£ I-L~~#, ~~*Â· 51 utvity Ea~#ement, j Â£ I / /1 / Pm Iii \ 4 2/ -i 1--i---r-F------4 Pr.~de of Asjen ' k \1 Mf. 7883 A){ - This survey does not represent o titto siorch by this surve,or to determine - The boils of boqring le N8941'13"W on o Ilne between #5 Retars with Aluminum 8â‚¬11'OP-1--- ----- cops marked LS20632 found at the Douthoost ond southwest cormen of Lot 11. ' .D P ~ -- ownership or to discover eosements or other encumbronces of re :ord. AN information 74--18'-till pertainin-g to ownership. eosements or other encumbrances of. reord has been tokert 2-~ 5 - 1811*U,4 ; - City of Mper, GPS Information 1 - from First Amendment to the Final Plat of Silverlode Subdivision. i. g*\ 1 I \ / f /11 01 ------ . / 1 thi coordinat- of the southoast col-ner of Lot 11 ore N 149900â€¢.455 E 2630511.481 -- \ UP 1 -~ VÂ®v- -Arigled 8 1 Lo. ?ign .. C Â· The coordinate of the southwest corner of Lot 11 ore N 1499006.796 E 2630393.410 \ 1 j 11// I t S... ( ~ .,.~6 4%0'" ' Thele coordinates are relative to the CRY of Aspen GPS Control Monumen.tation. 1 / --,Ii, N76'21'1 W ~/ Elevotionâ€¢ on this survey. ore NAVD 88 originating form Benchmark Q-159 (Elev 1 Ul 7911.98) found ot the southwest corner of Pitkin County Courthouse property. i \ 1 1 - i g " Â£,i 1, p j S'79'61'36... iÂ¢ , ./,24,2 1 \ 1 1,4 1 1 ( 11 'TI\- 2 al/// 6 3 03 4 - 90 N'' 0 it / 2- \ A,t lb#RebÂ¢ 4 / / 1 .\ 1 6, Pr 1. g /8 K. '90 , , / 1 , U. 0% 1 .4 / 1Â£ % 1 27= "/4205 / 11 // / , S,rw,or'# Cklia:otaÂ· . 9 D. LEER . / . 6 1 .-7 ----- 7 --(31 1 6.' .-Â·- i / 3 1, K,nneth R. Â»9*on. being o R*glatered Land Surwker h thi Stote of Colorado. do hereby cortily that this . '# knprovement survey was mode und- my sup-:Won and ts tru. \ l and oon,ct to the best of my belief ond know#edge. I 4 -A i 1.'14, ldp 0 Cy). 1 , 1 ,~ itti 71Â®~ . -r..21-~- 0- w~ Eres 1 '~~U,a the bound<.- 0/th, parc,4 -cwf o, shown, thof U ~~ .4Â» /96 1 T j 1 1 1 ' Al,ther torÂ¢14 thc,t ~â€¢ *nprov,ments on th. obo. dâ€žc,~.d t\ r ~ Pored 0/7 Fabrwo' 1. 2002 â€¢xedot uu/ty connactans or. intray \ 1 - hnprovernents or} ory od)Â®ing premises excipt os indicated. 2 / and thot thari is no aoborent ~Wince or sign of cny - r. , 0-ment cro-g or buk!-g any port of said porcel \ 1, \1 nd #5 1RebarÂ· ~ent ' Â· ' ' ~ excipt os noted 0 0 11 11 0,41. \ ~ r- 16 + t 41. b - ~ Fnd #5 ReborÂ· & #~uminum ~ op 1 Y/X/ 169/ / 1. L TUZCD ) f \ - A I k '/' ~ ~ 13 Fnd #5*ebor & minum Cop Maryed LS208 2. -<'u'llp.09' 7 1 1 .; l. ty LS20632 4/ \ TBM EA.= 8060.r' 11 \OF (069 \ /1 - Noter This topography mip compre with National Wae Accurocy Standords for th,re ore no encroochments upon the described promises by Â»1 4< 1 1 mr I \1 4 + c 1 -' 27~So 1 / , Wh..44' Kanno ' Date 1 1 \ 1/), i r , \ / topogrophic maps. *hire checked 90% of poklts should bo within 1/2 thi contour . .i- ..1 Interval ond wd definod points should 60 wottid withh 1/50* of Â·their true position. I Building L 1 Critical disign ,hould b, bos,d upon spot devotions, ploosâ€¢ contact Schmuss,r Gordon \ U,ker. Act /b,- this apot a/â€¢potion i,tb,motion GRAPHIC SCALE 1/340,r 1 Lot 12 < | ~~n~BLU Bross Cop 1 ' 4// \ Corner 1, MS 7883 AM 1 , 1 1 Inch..10 It. 1 A,-c *Cor.Â¥ 00 Cob,- I...... m.f SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER REWSOV WE Br Lot 11 Ubb * 2002-115001 ' 11 118 W. eâ„¢ 9â„¢Err, SurrE 200 Drolf, by: t*m I 74Ug rs...~~...7%2i.r:1 - i&-53r~27302'p*NaS? 842&6.8 Improvement Survey Silverlode Subd. Dot. 02/14/02 2 6 AspEN, Col.oRA.0 (970) 925-6727 . ~~it,kin County> CY) 7 * 1 ,-â€¢ na.. a. 4- w - c.â€¢wi.,0...... SCHMUESER I GORDON | MEYER CHESTED BUTrE, CO (970) 349-5355 L g.â€¢iâ€¢.... a .Uâ€¢V.YO Mâ€¢ E...t..veyai,mAR#9. ropo-, //10///1,/00,1.11-- s-/ n. 1, I./ 100/ ./3/â€ž //blb# n.4 . 0 0 . . . . . -'Ill".Il: r;1 Improvement Survey Legend - Lot 11 Silve-rlode Su-bdivision 5 77 ~ Found Aluminum Caps as marked CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD DIST. CHORD BEARING DELTA -~ Found BLM Brass Cap Cl 856.14 56.05 28.04 56.04 99'24'17"E 3'45'04" C2 214.79 6.88 3.44 6.88 N20"21'46"W 1'50'07" Pitkin County, Colorado Â® Found Rebar as marked â‚¬3 Deciduous Tree 0~ \ 1@ Fire Hydrant /5 1 ~ Electric Meter , di'Ch 4~ 1/ / \ Â® Telephone Pedestal 4~46 .' :' / 1!: Pine Tree f \ t 4/ \ acca Boulder Wall fj1 // b D ' 1 r / r \ , 1 i , \/ /1 1 /// //1 // 1 1 ot 19 / / / 1 t 1, if,/ Jf // , 1 1 1 1 / 1 /./ r ./ / 1 1 / / lili \ r /:, / f 10 / , i / 1 i j 1. f // ' f ./ t j \ It 1 1 , 4 5 ~ Fnd #~ Reba~ & Alu inurn Cap \ 1 1 1 1 1 i , 14~86Â°41' "E ' Iti i Marked LS20632 ~ 1 1 / 1 / , 1 1 1 1 i -0 1 , -- 0 0 / 152. 4 4 "x" \ Co~rete ' j + :9 / . 20' // Legend and Notes: - 1 / / j \ ec=ia Adeskian Atcess / , , / Description: Lot 11, First Amendment to the Vina\ Plat of S\\ver\ode Subdivision, City of \ f \ 3/ fc Ut~fity Ea~ement / / / Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, according to the Plat recorded in Plat Book 45 at / -The basis of bearing is N89'41'13"W on a line between #5 Rebars with Aluminum 9-/// caps marked LS20632 found at the southeast and southwest corners of Lot 11. -- N86Â°41'00"E Page 97. 1 --42------- -- --7---7 \ ~ 82.99' ~5â€ž :' I ,Â£1~ --- t~ pl-/de o~ 1 - 3 9 -/ 7 9. 7483 A I 4-- 18' ---ill- AN. ,< ~ \S \ - This survey does not represent a title search by this surveyor to determine 1 95 \ 01\ \\\ 4\ / C 4- / '' ownership or to discover easernents or other encumbrances of record. All information ~ ~ pertaining to ownership, easements or other encumbrances of record has been taken 1 //,4*e \ 1 2 1\ki 00 1 ---j ty uc \ O from First Amendment to the Final Plat of Silverlode Subdivision. - City of Aspen GPS Information 1 \ 479 \\ \ \- / f 10 ' co\ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ The coordinates of the southwest corner of Lot 11 are N 1499006.796 E 2630393.410 / o Vi w Ang I ~s o ~ Lot Sign , he coordinates of the southeast corner of Lot 11 are N 1499004.455 E 2630511.481 -.----/1 j \ \ \ \ 0 \ 1 \\ Aft. SOPT'.s q) / ~ These coordinates are relative to the City of Aspen GPS Control Monumentation. t 1 /4 ~ //1\1 9{ 020 1 1 1 j N7621 '13"IP \\ \(A \ ' 1 1 f L 579-51' 36'~ f .em = 81 Elevations on this survey are NAVD 88 originating form Benchmark Q-159 (Elev 7911.98) found at the southwest corner of Pitkin County Courthouse property. t <13 o Cgpital Peak 1 \ / N//00 \ 1361 0 1 h -7 6. i-I ( Tll \ /2 3 1 N /0.69 1 , / 04 \ f==t /3 / 7 ~\ Al /5" / ~,d #5 ebcj~ BAt / / 3 C / . /% / N 81 1 , 1- 1 ~EW l 0 1 a \ - / / / 1, Kenneth R. Wilson, being a Registered Land Surveyor in \ r \ ..< 1 / the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this CL \ \ c \\\ 1 , 1 --/ -- \ Vil \\\\\ - 1 \\ ar:\ . 1 \ 3 --/ irnprovement survey was mode under my supervision and is true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. 1 6) A f further certify that the improvements on the above described \ 1 1 1 , , parcel on Februory 1,2002, except utility connections are entirely \ ~ 0.306,:A-tres ~ within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that \ u i .9 2 F-/lot -fl f i - \ \1 \ \ 111 1 / / , # , improvements on any adjoining premises except as indicated, i AM \ h 1 / 1 4 U / there are no encroachments upon the described premises by 3 1 1 1///1 1 Â»EA . IN / ---- / and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any , easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, N89 31'13"W ~ < 1 \ 44 nd #5 ~Rebar tnt //1/ / , / except as noted. r /Â£90.*,9-*gA 1/ 10 - 10'\ 02 /. 2 41.z ', Fnd #5 Rebar & 6~luminurn Cap 3' Bou\der 11 A / LV /// ,/ / 'er,/'-/ 9 11 f. 09' l----------~7Â£~4~ \ \0 Fnd #5(-Abar & *fuminum Cap NOOFFO'-O,.7 Kenne,~0/?~'~i~~3 LS 15-71OL.4**0 Date / % 0:94,0 eb Â·4 11 Marided L620632 < ~ ~ V'~24 .9,/Rve:...45. Ff . C WV \3" \* ~ ~ \ Mark@ LS,20632/ O / 1 1 / 0 , I / / topographic maps. Where checked 90% of points should be within 1/2 the contour 1 1 1 / / 0 f.- Note: This topography map complies with National Map Accuracy Standards for - b 1 \ lizill\ /// / i// 1/96/ / r, / / interval and well defined points should be plotted within 1 /50" of their true position. i, ././ Critical design should be based upon spot elevations, please contact Schmueser Gordon GRAPHIC SCALE - Meyer, Inc. for this spot elevotion information. 10 5 10 20 40 \ 1 Corner 1, MS 7883 AM Lot- 1 2 ~ ~-Fnd BLM Brass Cap ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 10 ft Notice: SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER According to Colorado Low, you must NUM- commence any legal action based upon any 118 W. 6â„¢ STREET, SUITE 200 BER REVISION DATE BY Job No. 2002-115.001 defect in this survey within three years ofter you first discover such defect. In no event GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 tkrn Lot 11 1 , may any legal action based upon any defect (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 Silverlode Subd. Date: 02/14/02 Drawn by: in this survey be commenced more than ten ASPEN, COLORADO (970) 925-6727 Improvement Survey years from the date of the certification shown SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER CRESTED BunE, CO (970) 349-5355 Pitkin County, CO Approved: OF ~ hereon. ~ ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS E-mail: survey@sgm-inc.com Ate: topo.dwg ........ ---h\\I *0.33 32 0:\2002\115.001\dwg\topo.dwg Saved: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 9:53cm Plotted: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 4:06pm tmoore ON; 'INDS ZOOZ 1HOt>LidOD ..... Improvemen-t Su-rvey Legend - Lot 11, Silverlode S u b div-ision ~ Found Aluminum Caps as marked CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD DIST. CHORD BEARING DELTA -0 Found BLM Brass Cap Cl 856.14 56.05 28.04 56.04 519'24'17"E 3'45'04" Pitkin Countv Colorado C2 214.79 6.88 3.44 6.88 N20*21'46"W 1'50'07" ~ Found Rebar as marked J' ~ Deciduous Tree )g Fire Hydrant \\ [Â¢0 Electric Meter ,\ ~ Telephone Pedestal ~ j*6fl~5%' - \ 0 1 1 i * Pine Tree / 1/ 1 ..3 4 acca Boulder Wall 1// 1 1 1 /1 3 1 / /// 1 1 / \ 1 // / 1 / 1 + r 3 5 / //' 1 I ./,/ E. 9 1 , 1 1 1 j j f ) , 2 : . 1 / 11 / / 1 / 4 5. / / 1 ) \ 1 i 1 I \ 1,5 Fnd Â® RebaA & Alurninum Cap ie . / N 86Â°41' 1 MarkeN LS20032 ~ L / /// 'i ~ 151. 3, / 0 \ i ------ 1 1 1 , & Fn~ "X" i~ Coqcrete \ i OJ 1 uu 6,1 / Legend and Notes: - 41/ / 1 13 -----, i 20' , 1 \ %<014 ~edes ric n Aheess / , 1 Description: Lot 11, First Amendment to the Final Plat of Silverlode Subdivision, City of 1 1 re 1 1 ~ , Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, according to the Plat recorded in Plat Book 45 at 0- iÂ»Â·/{" Â¢ Utifity EcÂ¢ement C. 0. 4 0 ' 1 U- 0 ~\ 1 \ k 1 - The basis of bearing is N89'41'13 W on a line between #5 Rebars with Aluminurn 9.J L ~_444Â« 1 -- / N86'41'00"E Page 97. As en caps marked LS20632 found at the southeast and southwest corners of Lot 11. \ 0 -----1 1 > Mfs . 7 883 A i ~ 82.99' *~ I.4 18' - This survey does not represent a title search by this surveyor to determine - City of Aspen GPS Information 11 \ ownership or to discover easements or other encumbrances of record. All information / from First Amendment to the Final Plat of Silverlode Subdivision. pertaining to ownership, easements or other encurnbrances of record has been taken \ \\ \ 1 1 \1' o W55â€ž 1 ut \ vi w Angl ~s ' L.I.~~-~~ -~ i ~ ~ The coordinates of the southeast corner of Lot 11 are N 1499004.455 E 2630511.481 1 / / 5 1 oil /1 \ 1 0 1 The coordinates of the southwest corner of Lot 11 are N 1499006.796 E 2630393.410 1 / )0 1 \ \\I O These coordinates are relative to the City of Aspen GPS Control Monumentation. 0 \ 1 1 0 / f / / 60 f ~ Mt. Sopris N76'21'13"W Elevations on this survey are NAVD 88 originating form Benchmark Q-159 (Dev \ 1 11 C \\l,\09?,\0\ 702 579'51'39 f 05,1 ~ <1 1 , \ 1 7911.98) found at the southwest corner of Pitkin County Courthouse property. 60 00 / 0 ''\ L \ Â© 9 0 10\ 1< 6 ' ft t\\ .1 / / h /3 I 4.~d #5 ebat B#nt / 1 ~ j Surveyor's Certificate: 1 11 , V / 3Â£ /5, , j f / / 1, 4 f t<{4\ //// \ 1 , / 1, Kenneth R. Wilson, being a Registered Land Surveyor in k 1 \ 7 1 l/ the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this ' 1 1 1 1 lill-Il,/ I / / ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~0--~6 '~ ~-~~ ~---~~~~ ~~ ~ sement crossing or burdening any part of said Parcek , and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. 1 ~ - improvement survey was mode under my supervision and isÂ· true , f ' further certify that the improvements on the above described \ i. / Â«2 \ Â«0 1 1 1 1 within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that 3 1 0.306,~â€ž,.,Ad res ' 1 Parcel on February 1. 2002 except utihty connections ore ent,Yely / // there are no encroachments upon the described premises by 1, 1 ,/'1 / 3 1 ~~ , , improvements on any adjoining premises except as indicated, 1 / i I48921'13"W ~ , r ~ , ~ and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any 1 / ncÂ«Â¢5 Rebar 1~ent except as noted. I -gy,72-Ims-& ~ AFT M R. Â»50 7~ .88 ~ ~ 10' 1 / \ 0 2 'j End #5 Rebar & 6~uminum Cap x \ i KenneMi- R. I/~661 LS 15110Lskh}NO Date 74 9, fat \ 3' Boulder ''j f i 11 r?l J 1 r \ 4. '.:â€¢Â·oÂ®Â· 14 .4 Marie.ed LS20632 , ULA "4 0 1 YA -4 ..,4 404.'23 '111 I i ilif ~~ 10 F-nd #4---j#bor & 4Â·Â·tbminum Cap- k .P> 4, ly/,RVE:LG' 2 .4 / ~ \ Marke,d LS20632/1/, 49 / 9%1-0, co\>) -20 TB M ~ = 8060.f' h / Note: This topogrophy map complies with Notionol Mop Accuracy Standards for \ 4/9/ h X \\ \ \ /-- / 1 / / topographic maps. Where checked 90% of points should be within 1/2 the contour I J. R Building- .< , interval and well defined points should be plotted within 1 /50" of their true position. 1 0-/ .- GRAPHIC SCALE Meyer, Inc. for this spot elevation information. 1 1 //i F' '-I- Critical design should be based upon spot elevations, please contact Schmueser Gordon 10 40 \ Lot 12 ~ ~Fnd BLM Brass Cap f lf'imil~- I \ Corner 1, MS 7883 AM ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 10 ft. / Notice: SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER According to Colorado Low, you must BER REVISION DATE BY Job No. 2002-115.001 NUM- commence any legal action based upon any 118 W. 6TH STREET, SUITE 200 defect in this survey within three years after GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 you first discover such defect. In no event Lot 11 Drawn by: tkrn may any legal action based upon any defect (970) 945- 1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 Silverlode Subd. Date: 02/14/02 1 in this survey be commenced more than ten ASPEN, COLORADO (970) 925-6727 Improvement Survey years from the date of the certification shown SCHMUESER | GORDON | MEYER CRESTED BUTTE, CO (970) 349-5355 File: topo.dwq hereon. ~ ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS E-mail: survey@sgm-inc.com Pitkin County, CO Approved: oF 1 apopIJAITE Q:\2002\115.001\dwg\topo.dwg Saved: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 9:53om Plotted: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 4:06pm tmoore 'ONI VISS ZOOZ 1,191*lidOO . . 0 . . , I , ImprovementÂ· Survey 1 7. 0 A / 1 7 -11 tifision t I 1 1 of Silverlode Subdivision, City of :en #5 Rebars with Aluminum ecorded in Plat Book 45 at \ thwest corners of Lot 1Â·1. \ is surveyor to deterrnine \ nces of reford. All information ~ces of recprd.has been taken ubdivision. \ N 1499004.455 E 2630511.481 \ N 1499006.796 E 2630393.410 \ S Control Monumentation. \ \ \ Benchmark Q-159 (Elev \ :y Courthouse property. ,yor in i and is true , described *ns are entirely vn, that emises by indicated, any arcel, 11 U.,fat 10 Date ou/d be within 1/2 the contour Map Accuracy Standards for dthin 1/50" of Â·their true position. 9, please contact Schmueser Gordon 10 %2~ (IN FEET ) 1 inch =10 ft. / Notice: According to Colorado Law, you must SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER m REVISION DATE BY Job No. 2002-115.001 commence any legal action based upon any 118 W. 6TH STREET, SUITE 200 Drawn by.Â· tkrn NUM- defect in. this, survey within three years after you first discover such defect. Â·In no event GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Lo t 11 may any legal action based upon.any defect (970) 945- 1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 - Silverlode Subd. Date: 02/14/02 6 in this survey be commenced more than ten ASPEN, COLORADO (970) 925-6727 Improvement Survey years from the date of the certification shown SCIiMUESER I GORDON I MEYER CRESTED BUTTE, CO (970) 349-5355 Pitkin County, CO Approved: oF 1 hereon. < ENGINEERS & SURVEYOR'S E-mail: survey@sgm-inc.com 0 0 File: topo,dwg , I al .i 4% A 8 9-1 0 ...A .... .. D ... D - . ..: .. C *flfaf\ ... 0 .0 20 I .-Il. I Ill' -- â‚¬ - I. . --.I-/-0-I ~ ~ $ 1 \'t . *~ / ,/ -.// & A ., 1&â€¢ A 0. .- . a. 0, ll. ... . 1 . 4 : 0 .- . 0 0 D- A - D . . 4-0- 0- ... 0 A. ,: 01- * . I .. ... .... . ... .. 4 00 1 i .'' 0 , . ./ ~ .... ''. 7 . 0 -- 01 0 -, 0. ... 0 0 -1 ... 4. 1 1. 11.a .7- 0, .- 0 - . - . .... . - -0 . ' . *,1. 9 - t:: 6 1, , - e. e. - 0 0 - - .1 .... .*.-- 0 0 - - I. - i . I 0 quill , . A- . .. . . . 00 . A .- . ... ...1- , ..... e r A 0- 00 , .... . - - -0 0 0 .. 4 - ...I . -. - E .. - .- 4 ..... .. 0 . ...0 -0 - ..... e ... I . -1 , . . ---- .... ~ 00 0 0 . ...... :r . 1/6 6 - 0 - , = 4 . I .. --tf- I e ... .0 -/0 - I , d ... a - I . 1 .. .. e Â£ / 9 :-' U Â£ I - - ... . -0- 0 ... /1 .... .--0 -- .. 4 ' 'll 1 0. 4 * I . . --.. 0 . .1 - D. 4-0.A ..17 ...... - - : I Imis ... '' I -- .. A Z . 3./. - .. . 0-. .. 0 / . 1 '4 1 - 5. 1 , 0 / / / .'. 6 0 , .-0.4 A 4.. ~Ii./."- 0 1-0 .. ./ . I *. A .0 4 . : 0 -0 . . . 4 . .. .. I ... .. ..... 0 000' :0 .-0 0 .. .. - A 0 --0 0 ... . a , . I .. - - 4. . .44 1 -0. J 50 610(9'-ItÂ» =24 boaL 11 , 1 ' 4 1 1. n '688'100'2'z ANC. 12106 E 601*r-G. - 3 - 4 : 3/5/06 1 /1 . mi- 0 . . Â©Alu -6. ,, 10,1~ mf. A A AMI. :2= .. ..,9-:~ 1..J .111'll -24 - ~~Illi'.1. ill -/ 1--1 Wailillilillillillillilli#milly.lillilliwilHill.. mi - /*.....fuli~/immotibily/E ==11 -=;*--1igni1imaill-':lilinrilliguil".2.1.8.:d :Elin'Inwe:Mii~inlill':lill".MI. iâ€ž111 -'.1./1/.-0~1-=. -1.1. L -:11.B - t~.1 -./ 11*:1 r int 1.1 il//11 ..... 4 11 - - . 8...'- 9.-9 A . A , . 9-/ ' 1 , A. 7".r . 6. 1.1 Ak'.:. AiA/8 ./mi~ iliek#m 46 - .i-'..-/.= :. ,A' -- =&,9/55/%/5=-.=..~..:,NIAAZI//~ , . ,%lilli...../I'"/////':2269"//Fi:it'rill"/i'elli;#Imill'le M.I.-71*44- 1~~'~'~' ~~L.a~adl-Â§p~r '9â€¢C p.=/-1-lamif -96*/idi/.ie =sm~ -----0/- = iwimmaggzmlifbm _-2_ 1â€¢â€¢1 ~~11 1 1 D i . A /.. 0 : 0 ..... @1 @ @ 24 0" 1 1,41407 211-2 ,%-d,- 044 : 443.0 2rt 1 %" ff P --4 . 0-7 - 11.-4- ..- -- 1 .-* te - 11 1 L - rih -211-1 r-1--'.-Â»--1 , 1-4 \/110 =r = LJ.J t..-Ir N '9 - 4 1 . i Â· ~ -Â· ' ,- WEUL 9 . ENT'o -2=*AID IM,LOW ..--7 D ~-- _ 3 -, tter)CPOH ... . MIÂ»OF' - 11 1 7111 = .1 l - ...=-. (I,l 1 ,I. 00 1.E 1 0 O 1 DO \-4 18 i 1 6> 1. r-+ I -4 - 0 1 12 1 91 1 iF#11 / ~ / . - ----,41 1--= --1-fll) ~ 3 4 - 3 4 / 1 A n f 'J 12'll'll'881 1 i Clo,~n -- L_I 0.11 47\\ - Tte t--- .Rup r laf 5 M,c,~Â©~ M.ZATH.Â· IA , -- iv 1 1 t t=== .. 13 - rd-FOHE}4 a _FLAr Iwor ~ 1 1= O -5177144 ~ tt# M, IWH -1 /-~X - - S 4 - A m 6===i=- 2 - -1 M - @ ~ .-*11Cr.K,mt:4 A 41 $ Fi - n t!==:g DN -1t - - ru- - ~ te#*4'91-- -- b-LK, 9 pÂ®-9*6 / \ Â» Â»wnk---1 3 ~-19 ~i o D 1 / 1~ -- 1 1 1-,~11~1 .1 -O r i-Eblt-~i IUE)H EÂ£,1,-ON i i Â· - .. PI ; ]350,4*M . LhAN A A.*1 - , It - // 1 1 4 1Â« tire>ID}*1 ur-Â·. 1 '1 / 42-i + 1 MU214- - TT 43 3 -e- 7- 1-k: = J 1 L# -- <4 up + ___1 Â£43 5.1 4 111 1 - 1 i BH114 - <22 11 2 f E 02 - ,â€ž-- 1.- 1 1 ---â€ž.-1.--.+ ---1.~'.4-*-----......Â® -9, :- Pll-41144 120*1 - ~ /1--- 111111 111~ il (0 't----â‚¬) 4 ~~-*~J -,4 '1 , 31 *Ip Â© 4%{)<51Â£~ <34~ o i': 1 9 0 /,PLIO~- ... __- - UPED&#1 applet 2 -O ild! *90 ''' 3? '1 oc>VERED 1 1 i. 1 1-1 Â®<P 1 . 1 --=--*ME*f Jâ€ž7â‚¬Â£)82_a Â®' i 1.' . ~a i lum. . 1 11,1, 11 â€ž 1, e \/~-~1 -4 :, r= ----- 1-1'Â£./ .Â·-Â·Â·- - -- - ~-- 18:1 /;E~\ ~ . C Â·r-1 .0 to rmlh| |1|.2.1 ----~ -. --.------ 16 I " 1 .11.- - - ------ ------ -- Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â· 84 W fuÂ·42'.0--im'? -Aaev& .. ili 1 filt/[140 LUEL 1 J~ 11 ENTmlf LEvEl + . -Â« 1>19120Â·t ... 1/5 - 1 :011 -4, Nom?t Â·H V : Â·-4 =140Â¤1 = UPER MOKÂ»1113/fir_- - PÂ»*,------4 1.-42.1 1 1 If 251- le' 14- 6 1 (Ad 1 (pl D 5-0 4 4 1 ' U I . 1 + ; If Â© 0 0 Â©e EL= tiC)6-110 /0\ 2& ool'29â‚¬11 El---- / 1-a -ii -; =---KIEUe golf-1011 1/ r. 4 .2 i ...t : ~ 4 / R -21 i IX3 ANTIC , 41. b -1 L - 1 ' 1 )544<Er: 1515)KOotÂ·Â·4 M. IWD+ - - I - Uvi14Â£4 AC;Ob/| ==BE KM'GHEM DRIENA~FAST -A*&06 1 80122-51 - %01%4*Ze U-- ~ET -7;=I Â· 1*16- --13Â»40.-CBm-6- 80.0. 661 -muloe' 1 -f , C sCOKÂ«-- - AMO-:-'W'111.5 - '19411. -_7- 16EPItokl 23 1 #1*< 1. CAKCARACÂ£ - --9 11Â£FI - MUT" LEVEL 1 / ..-- FARNMO --O -- tls boot'-9 1061 2., 01.AD ego(ob'-c' 1 -1 _CRAWL *PACE . -- â€¢I&WL VACE-=-2-==--Â·- 1 13 El r 1 - - +-d- 1 FkrIAL 1~ser**T UCFFI Â«1 6-'b < 3-313Â£FIC?KI A-A~ ~~~-~~ ght' -1.-.i 1,O,1 E-1 L.1 libt- I 1-011 - 1.-A ... --0- - 1- 2 *-- 0 1[VE,131-OPE- DI_]CE _FtiNOL _ - .. 0 -0 5O1LE)INC; ENVEU:FEEÂ· -