Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Ute Ave.A077-972737-184-03-001 A077-97 Bowden 8040 Gre' enMne, Design Review WtTttmww fc"nxa/ 4�1-0� rLil Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aqi&Colorado 81611 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee e -63860-043 HPC T -63885-268 Public Right -63875-046 Zoning & Sign -MR0II Use'rax 10000-67100-383 Park Dedic 15000-63050-480 AH QMMONO 15000-63065-482 AH Residentla County Land Use Applicati s: 00113-6380"33 Deposit -63805-034 FI e -63820-037 ni -63825-038 oar f ustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 00115-63340-163 62023-03340-190 00125-63340-201 00113-63815-036 00113-63812,6 Sales: 00113-6383t -69000- Cou Engineer City En eer ng Envir al Health Jaunty Clerk County Code , OC r Total Name: ? X �1(��r; Date - Check: Address: 1 Project: Case No: Phone: No. of Copies /� CASE NAMEIBOWDEN 8040 GREENLINE, DESIGN REVIEW PROD ADDR: Lot i OM Park Subdivision CASE TYP: 1 OWN/APP: Mr & Mrs Murry abo ADR 5847 San Felipe Suite C/S/Z: Houston, Texas 77 REP: David Panico ADR 1533 Juniper Hill Rd C!S/Z: Aspen, Co 81611 FEES DUE: 1 080 -1 10+ 155 = 1345 1 FEES RCVD: 1080 + 110 1 155 � 1 345 REF:- B DATE OF FINAL ACTI ' A`ITAC14IIdT 1 dbkT USE APPI.IC=ON KR4 1) Project Name 2) Project Location L Crr t UT = P6 Z.1L S L-1EP 1 \qG LO (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning U 4) Lot Size -960�1 U—ZF— 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # M R 4 M.rzG ,7E4-7 '5iNN -Fe" PE SU17E '2� TX T7 C-)5- 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone �ut d Ft�-N t CC) 15 L Nl j�e Wt�QZ�. (12) E)Ltoii GIZ-, -5:7A4 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual. PUD Minor Historic DE-v. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Malntai n Viers Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Cask iiniumi ration Text/Map Amendment QM:�S Allotment Lot spli.t/Tnt Line X DFC-i6N 9S V I iF W G4QS Em2uption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (numm b= and type of existing ; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the PAY) 9) Description of Development Application ENO NUNI E oN -7 , DT�sZ P1-FE12!�C-z 11-4 114 10) Have you attached the following? Rye to AttaChment 2, Mini rot m Submission i ssion Contents _Response to Attacbment 3, Specific Submission Contents _ Re`spo nse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application VE2fDU!M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director I J, FROM: Mitch HaasCity Planner RE: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review (Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision ,� Farce o. - - -001. DATE: November 18, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review in order to build a single-family home on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision. The proposed home would include approximately 5,300 square feet of living area (of which approximately 1800 square feet would be below grade) and a 650 square foot garage on / the .9891 acre (about 43,084 square feet) parcel. The 8040 Greenline Review application is attached as Exhibit A. Referral comments are attached as Exhibit B. Community Development staff recommends that the 8040 Greenline Review for the proposed residence on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision be denied. APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Murry Bowden, represented by Dave Panico. LOCATION: Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision is located just south of Ute Avenue, behind the affordable housing development. The lot is bounded by undeveloped land to the south, Lot 4 of the Ute Park Subdivision with its seven affordable residential units to the north, a single-family residence on Lot 2 to the west, and an undeveloped lot of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision to the east. ZONING: Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD) CURRENT LAND USE: none/vacant LOT SIZE: Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision = 43,084± square feet. ALLOWABLE FAR: 5,770 square feet (see Exhibit "B," referral memo from Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer) 1 PROPOSED LAND USE: The proposed use of the parcel is single-family residential, as was approved with the subdivision in 1992. REVIEW PROCEDURE: As the proposed development falls within 150 feet of the 8040' elevation contour, and does not meet the exemption provisions of Section 26.68.030(B) of the code, an 8040 Greenline Review is required. 8040 Greenline Review is an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) review and is, therefore, a one-step process culminating in a public meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission. BACKGROUND: In 1992, City Council approved the Ute Park Subdivision with the adoption of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992. The approval included four lots for residential use. Lots 2 and 3 were approved for and have been developed with a single family residence each. Lot 4 was approved for an affordable housing development that has since been built and is now fully occupied. The Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement entered into by the City and the developer of the Ute Park Subdivision, as recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 704, Pages 216-227, states that the "AH development will have already accomplished multiple deed restricted units prior to . . the free market development and there will be no affordable housing mitigation (cash -in -lieu or accessory dwelling units) required of the individual single family Lots #1, #2 or #3." The Ute Park Subdivision approval designated a building envelope on Lot 1, and the envelope is broken into a "conditional zone" and an "unconditional zone" due to the avalanche hazard areas that run through the site. The "conditional zone" includes the "avalanche blue and red zones," and the "unconditional zone" is theoretically outside the avalanche hazard area. The "conditional zone" was defined to mean that structural mit- igation in the construction would be required to support avalanche loads, while the "un- conditional zone" could employ standard/normal construction techniques. As proposed, all of the construction would remain within the designated building envelope, but would take place, largely, in the "conditional zone." Staff is recommending denial of the 8040 Greenline request for reasons outlined at length in the subsequent section of this memo. Staff has also reviewed the proposed design of the single-family residence against the provisions of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 and found that several of the standards were not met, but given site specific constraints, were either incapable of being met or would have dictated a less desirable design than that proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from some of the design standards (explained in detail below), and staff supports granting of these requests. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.68.030, 8040 Greenline Review Pursuant to Section 26.68.030(A), "the provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) 2 in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline." The proposed development is subject to the standards of 8040 greenline review. The applicant has provided responses to the eleven standards contained in Section 26.68.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review Standards, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (see Exhibit "A"). These eleven (11) standards and staff s responses follow. 1. The parcel on which the proposed, development is to be located is suitable for development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsistence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls 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 parcel has not been found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, but it is known to contain avalanche hazards with both blue and red zones. The Ute Park Subdivision was approved with a number of conditions related to mitigation requirements for building in the avalanche hazard zones. As explained earlier in this memo, the building envelope on the subject lot is partially in and partially out of the avalanche path. As proposed, the residence would also be partially in and partially out of the avalanche path, although the majority of the structure would be in the hazard area. The area within the avalanche path was designated as a "conditional building envelope" on the recorded plat and, therefore, is subject to the condition that any structure constructed in that portion of the building envelope be built in accordance with the recommendations of an avalanche expert such as Mr. Art Mears of Crested Butte, Colorado. The applicants propose, under the consultation of Mr. Mears, to engineer the structure of the house itself to divert and withstand the force of any avalanche that might occur. It may also be worth noting that the language of the Ute Park Subdivision approval explained that the reason for including areas in the avalanche hazard zone in the building envelope was that any structure built in the conditional portion of the envelope would serve as an avalanche barrier for the employee housing units below it. From the applicant's submitted information, it is apparent that the structure CAN be engineered to withstand the force of an avalanche; however, this does not directly address the development standard provided above. The standard asks whether the site is "suitable for development," and staff maintains that the portions of Lot 1 designated as the "conditional building envelope" are not "suitable" for development, especially those portions in the "avalanche red zone." While the structure can be engineered, that would not provide any safety for the residents or visitors engaged in activities which occur outdoors, on the decks or in the yards. The avalanche path that runs across the subject site has been known for devastating slides. This hazard is not an "if it happens," but rather a "when it happens" condition. That is, this is not at all like building in a one hundred year flood plain. By way of analogy, it is generally accepted that designated wetlands are not "suitable" sites for development; however, modern engineering practices provide the capability of dredging and filling wetlands and designing 3 foundations to accommodate subsiding soils. These capabilities, however, do not make wetlands "suitable" for development purposes. he ability to overcome obstacles with engineering does not necessarily make it a good dea, that is, simply because a thing can be don oes not follow t should be done. other analo fight be helpful tom this point clear. This ana y refers to the `safe sex versus absti ce" debate/ ' emma. In the present case, a partner (applicant) is completely aware of the at the other partner has a s ally transmitted disease (avalanche path), but is ng to we engineering) and take his/her risks instead of the one -hundred percent afe stinence (build' the �n�nal building �envelope' municipal government c arged with the the ng welfare, the only conscionable decision would be to mandate the one -hundred percent safe path of allowing the applicant to develop only within the unconditional building envelope (and not allow any development in the avalanche path). 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 proposed development would not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, nor would it cause increased runoff, drainage, soil erosion or water pollution. Any development on the site would be required to comply with the city's "Urban Runoff Management Plan" and the requirements of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f) of the Municipal Code. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. RESPONSE: There should be no significant impacts on air quality from the proposed development. The fireplaces in the proposed residence would comply with the standards administered by the Environmental Health Department and, therefore, be gas. At the time the Ute Park Subdivision was approved, it was expected that Lot 1 would be developed as a single-family residence, thus its vehicular impacts were contemplated in said approval. 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 residence would be built into the hillside such that as much as a third (1/3) of the structure would be subgrade. The split-level floor plan of the proposed structure was designed with the intention of stepping up the hillside in order to provide a massing that mimics the slope of the hill it would be built upon. The site contains a nordic trail easement on which a trail currently exists. The driveway to the site was constructed as part of the Ute Park Subdivision and also serves the existing residences on Lots 2 and 3. 4 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. RESPONSE: In the submitted materials, the applicant explains one of the reasons the Bowdens would like to build in the "condition zone" of the building envelope is to preserve three or four large trees that would otherwise need to be removed. The applicant maintains that, as proposed, only one (1) conifer and two (2) aspen trees larger than four (4") inches in caliper would need to be removed, and that there are no large trees in the "conditional zone." However, Parks Department staff has expressed concern that between two and five (2-5) significant trees that are to be preserved would not actually survive construction due to their proximity to areas that would be cut and/or graded. It may be worth noting that the lack of large trees in the conditional zone is more than likely due to avalanche occurrences. As required by the land use code, all of the proposed regrading of the site would occur within the designated building envelope, except where it is necessary to access the site from the street. Given the proposed footprint of the structure, however, staff does not believe all grading work could possibly be confined to within the designated building envelope. That is, the northeasterly portion of the building, as proposed, would abut the edge of the "conditional" building envelope. This situation is potentially problematic given the fact that the Land Use Code provides the following definition of the term "building envelope:" That area of a lot which encompasses all development including but not limited to excavation, fill, grading, storage, demolition, structures, building heights, decks, roof overhangs, porches, patios and terraces, pools, any area of disturbance, access ways and parking. Approved plantings of landscape materials on natural grade and approved walkways and driveways may occur outside of a building envelope. Otherwise, all area outside of a building envelope shall remain in pristine and untouched condition unless approved by the Community Development Director. Given the placement of the building footprint, there would be a high probability of needing to grade outside of the building envelope. It is believed by staff that, with a redesign of the proposal, the site and the designated building envelope could reasonably accommodate a house without having to grade or disturb any areas outside of the envelope while still preserving the significant trees on the site. Thus, as proposed, staff does not feel that criterion number five of the 8040 greenline review standards has been satisfied. It should also be noted that the applicant has requested, as part of this review, that a variance be granted from the code requirement prohibiting regrading of the existing topography outside of the building envelope by more than two feet six inches (2'6"). Although the merits of the request might be laudable, the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority necessary to make such a decision. Rather, variances from setback requirements can be made only be the Zoning Board of Adjustment,,and must be applied for under separate cover. w 5 - ZY v� 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. RESPONSE: The proposed residence would be built at the end of an existing road. The driveway cut would be approximately sixty (60) feet long and would be about as minimal as can reasonably be expected for any structure on the given lot. The driveway is shared by the existing residences on Lots 2 and 3, and thereby, minimizes the need for roads. Also, as the site is difficult to see from Ute Avenue, its impact on perceived open space would be minimal and would tend to preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. RESPONSE: The height of the proposed residence would be well within the restrictions imposed by the Land Use Code. A substantial amount of the structure would be located below grade while the bulk of the structure has been designed to mimic the slope of the hillside. As viewed from Ute Avenue, the height and bulk of the proposed structure would, given the location of the affordable units between the subject site and the street, tend to blend into the open character of the mountain as effectively as could be expected. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. RESPONSE: Utility capacities to service the lots of the Ute Park Subdivision were reviewed in depth as part of the subdivision/PUD approval. Since then, the developer of the Ute Park Subdivision has supplied the building site with adequate water service for both household use and the required fire sprinkler system. All other utilities are sufficiently sized and were installed within the last five years as part of the Ute Park Subdivision infrastructure. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. RESPONSE: Roads to the site are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. At the time the Ute Park Subdivision was approved, it was expected that Lot 1 would be developed as a single-family residence, thus its vehicular impacts were contemplated in said approval. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. RESPONSE: As was a condition of the original PUD approval, the driveways were constructed to assure access for fire and emergency equipment. There is also a dedicated access easement from Ute Avenue to Lot 1. The house would also have a fire sprinkler system as required by the PUD approval. 6 # 0 0 II.Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. RESPONSE: By PUD Agreement, an easement for year-round pedestrian/recreation use crosses Lot 1 directly uphill (to the south) of the building envelope. The owners and applicants understand that it is a public trail easement and WOVM not do anything to preclude its use. Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards Staff has also reviewed the proposed design of the single-family residence against the provisions of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 and found that several of the standards were not met, but given site specific constraints, were either incapable of being met or would have dictated a less desirable design than that proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from some of the design standards (explained in detail below), and staff supports granting of these requests. Although staff is recommending denial of the 8040 greenline review, waivers from the provisions of the Residential Design Standards might still be helpful to the applicant in preparing a revised proposal. Specifically, the proposed design does not appear to comply with the letter of standards 26.58.040(B) and (17)(12), Building Elements and Volume, respectively. Standard 26.58.040(B), Building Elements, requires that all residential buildings have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. On the subject lot, it could be argued that there is no "street facing" side and, furthermore, if it is agreed that the west elevation is street facing, then the site specific constraint of the sloped hillside would dictate that a two story design on this elevation is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness. Next, Standard 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, requires that no windows extend to beyond nine (9) feet above the level of the finished floor. The east and west elevations of the proposed design contain windows that extent above the given limitations. However, the lack of visibility from any public ways coupled with the site's location outside of the Townsite and off of the grid have consistently been viewed by the Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) as a site specific constraint worthy of a variance for reasons of fairness. In summary, staff supports granting variances from both of the cited provisions of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the variances are "clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that the design and placement of the proposed residence on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision does not satisfy the standards of an 8040 Greenline Review, as outlined in Section 26.68.030 of the Municipal Code. Staff also finds that two of the Residential Design Standards are not complied with in the proposed design of the residence, but variances from these standards are justifiable. 7 RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends granting variances from the provisions of Section 26.58.040(B) and 26.58.040(F)(12), Building Elements and Volume, respectively, based on a finding that said variances are "clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." Staff further recommends denial of the 8040 Greenline Review application finding that, as proposed, criteria 1 and 5 of Section 26.68.030(C) are not adequately satisfied. Staff recommends that, prior to re -applying, the applicant thoroughly review the rationale for this recommendation, as provided in this memo, then work with staff to come to an agreement on a proposal that more clearly meets the 8040 greenline criteria. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the Bowden 8040 Greenline Review based on a finding that the proposal does not satisfy the standards of Section 26.68.030(C)(1) and (5) of the Municipal Code. I also move to approve variances from the requirements of Standards 26.58.040(B) and (F)(12) as they relate to the development of Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision." EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - Bowden 8040 Greenline Review Development Application Exhibit "B" - Referral Comments 8 • DRAFT 0 MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer / 51 Date: November 12, 1997 /(�(�' Re: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review Physical Address: (Tentatively) 1279 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO Legal Address: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, CO After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: Summary: The application, as submitted, is insufficient to adequately address the hazards to the property owners and adjoining property owners created by the proposed construction in an active avalanche zone. The original application for the Ute Park Subdivision makes numerous references to the need for future, in-depth review of the avalanche potential and impacts upon the development of this property however, it appears that the detailed study spoken of in the subdivision application (Ute Park Subdivision Application, November 27, 1991, pp. 7, 14, 26, and Exhibit H) has not been submitted as part of this application and only a general "Snowslide Mitigation Report" (consisting of 1 page) was submitted for the subdivision application. As such, there are two (2) alternatives available to the applicant if he desires to continue the application process; both alternatives will require additional information to address the potential hazard created by constructing within the identified avalanche zone before a final recommendation may be presented by the Engineering Dept. These alternatives are: A. Limit the above grade development to the unconditional portion of the building envelope and the area identified as the "Avalanche Blue Zone". Under this scenario, complete the following: 1. Design the structure to withstand the impact loading of an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall event to the specifications and requirements provided by a qualified authority in avalanche events (PUD & Subdivision Agreement, Reception No. 354208, Bk 704, Pg 216); 2. Provide a written report from a qualified authority in avalanche events regarding the effects and impacts to the adjacent and downstream properties caused by the construction of a structure (final design of the proposed building and site 1 OF 5 DRCM2097. DOC DRAFT t • DRAFT Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review including exterior landscaping, driveway, grading and appurtenances) within the above described portion of the lot; 3. Complete the mitigation recommendations from the above report to reduce or eliminate the hazard to this property and adjacent and downstream properties created by the structure on lot l; and 4. Complete the common improvements, conditions and requirements explained in sections 1 through 13 of this memorandum. Or, B. Permit above grade development in the conditional portion of the building envelope (avalanche red zone), as well as, the remainder of the building envelope. Under this scenario, complete the following: 1. Design the structure to withstand the impact loading of an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall event to the specifications and requirements provided by a qualified authority in avalanche events (PUD & Subdivision Agreement, Reception No. 354208, Bk 704, Pg 216); 2. Provide a written report from a qualified authority in avalanche events regarding the effects and impacts to the adjacent and downstream properties caused by the construction of a structure (final design of the proposed building and site including exterior landscaping, driveway, grading and appurtenances) in the proposed building location and orientation. Specifically addressing the following topics: a. Frequency distribution of avalanche/snowslide events verses size of the avalanche/snowslide; b. Magnitude (force on the structure) and volume of the estimated events; C. Design of the building itself and how the building design (orientation, placement, geometry, height, materials, etc.) will reduce or contribute to the hazard conditions to this property and adjacent and downstream properties (see letter report of Arthur Mears, November 1, 1991); d. Means of reducing the hazard to this property and adjacent and downstream properties, i.e. removal of debris and loose boulders from the avalanche/snowslide path, construction of earthen berms, benching, long term maintenance procedures for the property, etc.; and, e. Effects and changes to the configuration of the Red Zone boundary caused by construction of a building on this property and how that may impact the subject property and adjacent and downstream properties; 3. Complete the mitigation recommendations from the above report to reduce or eliminate the hazard to this property and adjacent and downstream properties created by the structure on lot 1; and, 4. Complete the common improvements, conditions and requirements explained in sections 1 through 13 of this review memorandum. The intent of the above recommendations is to make the depth of planning and design prior to city staff review proportional to the extent of development proposed in the avalanche Red Zone. The greater the extension of development, the greater the amount of planning and design to mitigate 2OF5 DRCM2097.DOC F1371"IatI r , DRAFT 0 Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review and minimize the potential hazards to the property and adjacent and downstream properties caused by building within the avalanche zone. The design process should be iterative between the applicant's several designers and consultants to assure consistency and reduce conflicting aspects in the designs of the building, site, drainage and grading, and avalanche impacts, etc. 1. Independent, Third Party Review of Avalanche and Rockfall Calculations and Structural Calculations and Designs: Due to the specialized nature of quantifying avalanche/snowslide and rockfall events and the resulting structural design of the building, the applicant will pay the review fees for the City to hire an independent, qualified, third party to review the report, calculations and plans prepared by the applicant's avalanche consultant and structural engineer. 2. Site Plan and Grading Design: As presently proposed, the northerly side of the residence lies too close to the existing building envelope to permit excavation and construction of the building. Either the building footprint will need to be changed, rotated or translated, or the building envelope will need to be modified. Recognizing that the geometry (width, length and height) of the proposed building, as well as its placement and orientation upon the property, will affect the behavior of an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall event, the applicant needs to prepare a detailed site plan and grading design in conjunction with the proposed building plan for evaluation by the avalanche consultant and city staff. The grading plan should extend at least 20 ft from the building footprint and areas re -graded for retaining walls, driveways, and other features creating vertical cuts of 2 ft or greater, or horizontal plains of 8 ft width or greater. The intent of the review will be to identify potential problems and resolve conflicts prior to construction to prevent unintended or undesirable consequences for the property owner and other parties. 3. Site Impacts and Constraints: Development of Lot 1 must be such that it does not deflect an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall onto adjacent properties. The building must be designed to withstand avalanche forces and to prevent contributing debris or deleterious material to the avalanche which may impact the employee housing units below. The residence and/or any retaining structure may not deflect the avalanche force onto adjoining properties. (Ordinance 18, Series 1992, Section 2, Condition 2). 4. Site Drainage: As required by the subdivision approvals, the proposed development cannot release more than historic (pre -development) storm run-off from the site and any increase in storm run-off must be first routed and detained on the site. Given the existing prevailing gradient of the site, the landscape and grading plans need to be coordinated to minimize erosion and sedimentation during and after development. The building envelope will need to be delineated by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing to minimize the erosion potential. All proposed slopes in excess of 2:1 shall receive erosion control netting, as per the subdivision agreement (Condition 10.a). The barrier should be erected and maintained throughout the 3OF5 DRCM2097.DOC DRAFT r • DRAFT Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review construction until the later of either the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or completion and establishment of the landscaping and ground covering. The drainage report will address detention of site drainage; means of mitigating potential erosion on the steep slopes of this property (25% to +30%), both during and after construction; and coordination with the structural features necessitated by the avalanche/snowslide design of the structures and site plan. To the extend possible, flows leaving the site will be discharged to downstream properties as sheet flows. The drainage plan will be prepared on 24" x 36" sheets and included with the plan set submitted for building permit review. 5. Avalanche & Rockfall Warning Signs: The property owner shall install and permanently maintain these signs in the location(s) shown on the subdivision plat around his property and permit the installation of such signs along the Nordic ski trail easement. 6. Fire Sprinklering: As per the Subdivision Plat, Condition 8, all buildings upon Lot 1 are required to have fire sprinklers. The water mains for the subdivision were sized to serve this water demand. 7. Soils Investigation Report: A soils investigation report will be conducted to establish the footing requirements of the building, percolation rate of the soils and to verify whether there are any hazardous or toxic soils on the site which must be mitigated. Copies of the soils report will be submitted with the building permit plan sets for building permit review. 8. Utilities: The necessary utilities were sized and constructed during the subdivision development so the proposed development will not increase nor change the demands on the existing utility services. 9. Trees and Landscaping Plan: While it is desirable to retain existing, healthy trees and native vegetation, the physical constraints of the site and the necessity to mitigate and minimize the hazards created by the avalanche/snowslide and rockfall events may necessitate the removal and replacement of trees in addition to those proposed. Given that several of the conifers in the Avalanche Blue Zone and in the unconditional building envelope have been previously damaged, consideration should be given to the possibility of removing these trees and replacing them with healthy trees planted in other locations upon the property. Removal and replacement of additional trees may also be necessary to place the building and driveway suitably within the building envelope. If the proposed building footprint or deep excavations (including over -excavation) may impact the root systems of existing trees as determined by the City Parks Dept., the contractor will use sheet DRCM2097. DOC 4OF5 W t7\ W 0 • . 1 DRAFT Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review piles or other techniques pre -approved by the City Parks Dept. to protect the tree root systems from the excavation. 10. Site Mitigation: To the extent supported by the report from the avalanche/snowslide and rockfall consultant, the following site mitigation should be performed by the owners to reduce the effects of an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall event. a. Remove standing or fallen dead trees and wood (greater than 4" diameter or longer than 5' length) from the site to reduce the debris loading on the site; b. Remove loose boulders of 18 inch or larger diameter from the site to reduce the debris loading of the site; and, c. Do not place or construct any structures or improvements in the Avalanche Red Zone which are not securely anchored to the ground, i.e. un-reinforced boulder walls, timber crib walls, outbuildings, tool sheds, picnic tables, etc.; 11. Street Addressing: Due to the distance from Ute Avenue to the three residences at the end of the access and utility easement within the Ute Park Subdivision, the common driveway serving the subdivision may need to be named so as to enable emergency responders to locate these residences which are presently not readily identifiable from Ute Avenue. This would entail assigning a unique name to this roadway and re -assigning new house numbers to these three properties. This property owner will agree to such a naming of the access driveway and re- assigning of house numbers if such is found necessary by the City Zoning Officer. 12. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement must be executed and recorded prior to issuance of the building permit for the project. 13. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments (removed before C.O. issuance), entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. DRCM2097.DOC 5OF5 FIT�75NWA • .7 Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: November 11, 1997 RE: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review We have reviewed the application submitted by David Panico for the Bowden 8040 Greenline review, and the issue of trees was discussed with the applicant at the DRC meeting. Based on our review of the application and our discussion with the applicant, the Parks Department offers the following comments: • The 12", 17", and 22" ponderosa pines and the 18" douglas fir are to be preserved and protected during construction including no excavation within the driplines of the trees. • Initially, the applicant had shown only the 14" pine in the center of the building envelope to be removed. However, the Parks would consider allowing the 11" douglas fir to be removed if it better preserved the other trees listed above. If it's possible to preserve the I V fir, the Parks Department would prefer that; however, due to excavation of the lot it may not be possible. • A landscaping/tree mitigation plan must be submitted with the tree permit. • Because of the surrounding dense forest vegetation of this lot, we would encourage the applicant to plant native species consistent with the surrounding forest. • rA MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer RE: 8040 Greenline Review, Lot 1 Ute Park Subdivision DATE: November 4, 1997 The proposed residence at Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision is located in the AH1 Zone District within a PUD overlay. A building envelope was established for this parcel in the PUD approval process. The parcel contains approximately 43,084 square feet of lot area. While the lot is extremely steep, containing slopes greater than 20%, it has been determined by the City Attorney that the lot will not be subject to floor area reductions based on slope and is entitled to develop at the floor area as originally approved. (See attached letter from John Worcester dated May 15, 1997). The floor area permitted for this lot is based on the AH dimensional requirements in effect at the time the PUD was approved. For a lot of 43,084 the permitted FAR is 5770 square feet. All setbacks, heights and FAR calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. 12-s e*onsol.-,i7j'aledcSczn,,fal,,;gn �r icf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly - Chairman tV E� Michael Kelly Paul Smith • Treas. RECE 9� Frank Loushin Louis Popish Secy. to, � o9 Bruce Matherly, Mgr. November 4, 1997 Mitch Hass Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Bowden 8040 greenline review Dear Mitch: t rkN WMMUN1V pEVEIAPMEW The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to serve this project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Once detailed plans are available, a tap permit can be completed at our office which will estimate the total connection charges for the project. A four inch service line has been extended to a point near the property line. A tap permit must be completed and the associated fees paid prior to connection to the public system. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly (� District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 - 1986 • 1990 Regional and National DESIGN BY AN -ID PAICO INC. 1533 JUNIPER HILL ROAD, A.:PI:N, COLORAnn 81611 P1 [ONE 970-923-5394 FAX 970-923-1260 October 23, 1997 Mr. Mitch Haas City Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado Re: Lot 1, Ube Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review and Design Standards Review Dear Mitch; This letter will serve as the response to item 9 in your Pre -application Conference Summary letter of September 17'h. As is stated elsewhere in this submittal package, I am representing Murry and Polly Bowden of Houston, Texas. The Bowdens have an agreement to purchase the subject property from Jim Martin who developed the Ube Park Subdivision and took it through the P. U. D. process in 1992. The other lots in the subdivision have been built upon, two of the lots have single family residences on them. The fourth lot is occupied by 7 units of employee housing that the developer was required to build to mitigate the projeces housing requirements. The Bowdens would like to build a residence for their family on Lot 1. The family intends to reside in Aspen for 3 or 4 months of the year. The Bowdens and I have developed a Schematic Plan for this residence and those plans are a part of this submittal. The plans describe a structure that is nestled into the hillside surrounded by existing mature Pine, Spruce and Aspen trees. As submitted the plan is comprised of approximately 5300 sq. ft of living area and a 650 sq. ft. garage. Because a large per-centage of the structure is below grade, I would estimate that the FAR- as submitted for pen -nit will be approximately 3500 sq. ft. The allowable FAR for the lot is 5770 sq. ft The style of the exterior architecture can be described as "Mountain Rustic" and is complementary to, and in keeping with, the two houses on the adjacent lots. The materials palette will be comprised of cedar board and batten and cedar shingles over a base of Farmer's Stone. Timber elements will be used as accents on the porches and gable ends. Rest)onse to Review Standards as outlined in Attachment 4 1. As M �e seen on the Improvement Survey, the building site is partially in a mapped avalanche path: This fact was reviewed at length during the P.U.D. process. The P.U.D. was approved with numerous conditions that would have to be met related to the mitigation of the avalanche hazards. I have included with this submission some of the documents pertinent to these concerns. The building envelope on the Bowden's lot is partially in and partially out of the avalanche path. As proposed, the residence will also be partially in and partially out of 10/23/97 the avalanche path. The area within the avalanche path was designated as a "Conditional Zone" on the Recorded Plat and therefore subject to the condition that any structure built in that part of the building envelope be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of an Avalanche Consultant The Consultant referred to in the P.U.D. Agreement is Mr. Art Mears of Crested Butte. Mr. Mears is known internationally as an expert in his field. Previous to the Bowdens signing the purchase agreement for this lot, they brought Mr. Mears over to Aspen for the day to hear for themselves what the potential risks of building on this lot were. After a lengthy explanation of the power and force of an avalanche, in which Mr. Mears did not mince words, The Bowdens and I asked the question, "Can a residence be built on this site in the conditional zone, that in no uncertain temms, would withstand the force of an avalanche?" Mr Mears assured us that it could be done and that it could be done without the construction of diversion barriers or structures uphill from the residence. With Mr. Mears input we propose to engineer the structure of the house itself to divert and withstand the force of any avalanche that might strike it It should also be noted that part of the reason that the building envelope included an area in an avalanche zone was that any structure built in the east end of that building envelope would act as a an avalanche barrier for the employee housing units below it This is stated in the enclosed P.U.D. approval. 2. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed. 3. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the city. The fireplaces in the proposed residence will comply with the Municipal Code and therefore be gas. 4. As stated in the response to the first question, the proposed residence will be nestled into the hillside so that as much as 1/3 of the structure will be subgrade. The floor plan can be described as "split level" and steps it's way up the hill. The massing will manic the slope of the hill it will be built on. 5. All of the proposed regrading of the site will happen within the building envelope except where it is necessary to access the site from the street As a part of this review I would like to request a variance be granted from the Municipal code requirement related to regrading of the existing topography outside of the building envelope by more than T-6". I believe this project will need to have this variance to create a driveway that meets the Engineering Department's driveway guidelines. One of the reasons the Bowdens would like to build in the conditional zone of the building envelope is that if the house were constructed in the unconditional zone, 3 or 4 large trees would have to be removed. As this project is submitted only one conifer and two aspen trees larger than 4" caliper will need to be removed. There are no large trees in the conditional zone. 6. The proposed residence will be built at the end of an existing road. The driveway cut will be approximately 60 ft long and is about as minimal as can be expected for any house on this particular lot Any other driveway configuration would probably cause the removal of existing trees. As designed, the house is to be located on the east side of a number of mature Fir trees and a small Aspen grove. The vast majority of foot and automobile traffic approaches the site from the west and goes no further than the Aspen Club which is directly north of the site. • • 10/23/97 Therefore the project's impact on perceived open space will be minimal thereby helping to preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. The height of the proposed building will be well within the height restrictions as described in the Municipal Code. As previously stated a substantial amount of the perceived bulk of the house will be subgrade. 8. The developer has supplied the building site with adequate water service for both household use and the required fire sprinkler system. All other utilities are adequately sized and were installed within the last five years as part of the Ute Park Subdivision infrastructure. 9. The roads to this site are of adequate width to serve the proposed development. 10. The same roads were constructed to assure access to fire and emergency equipment. This was a condition of the P.U.D. approval. There is also a dedicated access easement from Ute Avenue to Lot 1. The house will also have a fire sprinkler system as required by the P.U.D. approval. 11. By P.U.D. agreement, an easement for the Aspen Nordic Trail crosses Lot 1 directly uphill (to the south) from the building envelope. The Bowdens understand that this is a public trail easement. Bowden Residence unit. One space will be garage while the other will be exterior surface parking. All parking has been relocated so that no spaces access directly onto Ute Avenue in response to City of Aspen Planning staff directive at Conceptual Submission. The three free market lots have been assigned building envelopes. These envelopes have been designed to be substantially more restrictive than the lot setbacks as defined by the zone district. The primary criteria for the establishment of these envelopes was geologic hazards, slope and access. Secondary criteria included views, orientation, privacy and vegetation. The envelopes have been divided into two area designations which respond to the mapped snow slide zones. The "unconditional" zones are not affected by the slide zones as they are outside of their boundaries and therefore considered safe with no mitigation required. The Site Development Plan graphically delineates these zones. The "conditional" zones are within the mapped slide areas which have been designated on the Existing Conditions Map. These slide areas have identified as blue and red zones. The red zone are frequent but not intense slides while the blue zones are "powder blast" zones. As is represented on Lots 2 and 3, the majority of the lot is contained in "unconditional" zone. A small portion of "conditional" zone, which is only located in the blue zone, has been added to the envelope to give buyers added flexibility. In the event a buyer decides to build in this "conditional" zone, adequate construction mitigation will need to be included in the design of the house. In the case of Lot 1, the line of "unconditional" and "conditional" divides the lot equally. This has been done intentionally. As a result of an on -site review with snow slide consultant Art Mears, this envelope has been designed to protect the units below by creating a slide "shadow' eliminating the units below from danger. This house will require the structural modifications specified by Mears (which will need to be provided by each applicant for a building permit). As contrasted by the approved conceptual submission plan, all building locations can now be located out of the designated slide paths with the exception of Lot 1 which will require structural mitigation. 7 SEP-29-199 15:19 THE 9709224378 P.32 UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP Box10502 Aspen, Colorado 81611 September 29, 1997 Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: As General Partner of Ute Park Partnership, owner of record of Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, 1 authorize Murry Bowden, contract purchasers of said Lot 1, to initiate any building permit applications, reviews, or applications for other permits that may be required to get permission to start construction of a new, single family home on that site next year. He and his agents (including Daivd Panico, Architect, and Jim Iglehart, Iglehart Construction) have --my permission to act -in -my place,-at,their soles cost and at rio cost to Ute Paric"Partnership on-, all application and administrative matters and approvals. l have enclosed Schedule A from the current title commitment for that property. Sincerely, .lames T. Martin General Partner, Ute Park Partnership • I'm HANOVER COMPANY September 18, 1997 Mr. Mitch Hass City Planner Aspen(Pitkin County Community Development 130 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Hass: David Panico is authorized to act on my behalf relative to the planned residential home on Lot 1, in the Ute Park Subdivision. 1 currently have the home site under contract and plan to build a home there. Mr. Panico will be my architect and planner and you may deal with him on my behalf. Thanks for your consideration. V 5&4 i SAN *'BLIPS, SLTrE 3600, HOUSTON, Tvu s 77057, (713) 267-2100, Fax (713) 267-2121 jEF +-1997 15:20 WF • COMM 1 TMr-N SCHEDULE A CX)LoATEyL /UTE PAW PARIT, - IP, LTD 720 EAST DURANI` ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: July 18, 1997 at 7:00 AM PE/bi 2. ALTA Owner's A01-i.Cy lu �13 =0 .is b" V.see 21 ..� -. 9709204378 i78 P . Gi- ♦ welt s. - J Amount: S AMDMt: $ 4. The estate Cr i.n t ain t3ie land described ar refc=' to xn this iimelit aTX1 coveCed herein is: FEE SIM11E and title t lereto is at the effelctive date hereof vested in: UrE PARK P , LTD., a Colorado limited par+sv-rshiP issued by: Cxgner' s premituTi: $ 1, 037. 00 ASPEN TITLE CORPOPATICX4 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ##305 Lender' s premium: Add' I Lender Cx g : $ $ ASPEN CO 81.611 Add,1 S: $ FAX 970-920-4052 PH 970-920-4050 DoAIE Z 303-595-8463 Tax Certificate: $ 10.00 ErKkyrl3ement Chg.- $ 207.00 TED Charges: $ TUrpL CHARGES: $ 1,254.00 FIRST ANERICAN TITLE INSURANCE C Ot`�PANY 8EP-29-1997 15:20 �+B 9709204378 P.04 COMMITMENT Plat id No. 30/86 SCHEDULE A (Contimied) QL'der No. 404955 -C3 5. The land refex=ed to in the Cannitment is mves-i ng the land in the State of Colorado, County of Pltkin described as follows: UrE, PARK SUBDIWSICN, according to the Plat thereof, filed February 22, 1993, in Plat Book 30 at Page 86. FIPST AMRICAN TITLE DZUPA.� COMPX-Pf AF 31936 {uN4 ST.. CO. W as�N �wg Q.. v LOT .1 U T E PA K I,-- =% Su6PiVih►oN • 0 -30W_11/E N RESff DENCE NO RiN f-Lf_VA'ji0rl I�b�t=1'`0 OGT06,F-I2 21,`I1 D ll:e N RESHDEN(CE ~- -------'--'-- ---- --------'--- - -------------''l- -� - ) ~~ ------- - - ------- - -----|------'--'------== - . . ~ \ \ ~~ � ------ --' --'- -- ------ -'- ---------_- -- --- 4 ^ | �� PDOWDEN RESHDENCE i TIDOWDEN R Ef SEDENCE U-PK-Lf-Y-E.L r2 _:3'-t2.35 .- BOVilDEN -RESHIDENC�iH: -LOf.4IIiz L1 VEL5 2 R'Zllgl c:2I47 10 20 THE CnT of ASM . 5. -T May 15, 1997 Charica T. 3ra=it, Esq- Holland-& Hart 600 East MAm Stet ,Aspen,, C01=40 81611 , VIA FAX - BARD COPY,?'O FOLLOR Re: Lot 1, Utc Park Sibdivision PUD - Dear C4%M dL is in response to Ie�r dated lnay 199T, in whiff yat� summui� your- Tidsiu smart of the zevoguiti,ol; of v=tcd ror Iat 1- i.do not behove dwi your chtnt has avested right by viMe of the ImIguW eon in Section 6 of Ordin Va. 30. 4) stases that Ordtu&n=,No. 30 does not that apQlto aay P �r which a vested •.nit 'uas beca obtastaed. 1. iatczPret y - season to VPjY �C � -when a vcstcd right i'-ktamed. but also so lcmg as a y. stub e$e 'As ycm Iwow.' the Yestcd rigtb = abUincd by YWr c1rtnts cxPked aitl= thr�e pears and were uOt X-eaewed. Alen lzbe vested nghts Cu theXoputy was subs into an subsequent cbxagrs � 11w, inctudmg Ozdiz� No. 30. Tbat is the whO1c purpose of obmWing valed nglbts, which by statute are iimiied to a fbm year mod. Your :liem oaten law argMM==, howev+ % are Pers'asve' it is pretty cIrar that Your client has camplewd, a nambes of actions is zeiiance of the approvals he mod. . It is reasonable for buts to Mea 'tt& he R,MW receive an gnomic retina on his Projectat this tm - 'Thus. I believe your c:i�t should be edi LW to' cvmPlc ft �lop� on Lot 1 a floor � :��• I do nobelieve, ' however, that your client is � sramd8rd4 Or&uance. No- 30 as you hAvc Froyded no evicr= dw he relied in any rcspect.to any d== . sunulards under custlng law -when L% reLdved his approuals. It is my m racj, that no <jcsig-- waQk bL,3 been performed to date for that.. . ' gamcuiar Lot - uo SCG= c uoa• sru= - C*mKAEo 3W-I — P;cmw 3MSM5D59 PAZ 3M920MIg »r-" oo I L?31tH4Nb('I'IOH' y.102I3 95 ' b L L6-S L -1 �/Z 37'dd S9G,�LZg0G6'aI I trasi the f=gotag answers }root' Qncsdaas 3Ad c=,2n3. If not. gm gm mz a call_ City A=MCY cc: cb=mmity Dcvilopma=1?itC= 59GbL�g0G6'QI � Z21tlH021t�'I'IOii'Y10?!3 95'bL G6-SL-1CtlY1 4b15z. �O -10R0pQ�f-D Ff-`7'-1 DENCf- u-F Ir-4 15Z r YZL4NT �;O D 4 E -OF - �X.lSrl F.�Ci IL 44 O O O \ J� �Xx�TrNG 1 Tf LA N f2I Gf"i ^� f \ K. o rEtz T-' N E �, •�. - - -- - �.-- - !l �uual uG f-NVP-wPS ----B(C)WDEN RES�DENCE --1 0 ASPEN CITY LIMITS (AS PER ASSESSORS MAP 2737-184) 0 NOTES: IMPROVEMENT & \ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE LANDS OF MURRY BOWDEN BEING LOT 1 OF PLAT OF UTE PARK SUBDIVISION (1ST AMENDMENT) FILED IN PLAT BOOK 38 AT PAGE 39, IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO SCALE: 1" = 10' SEPTEMBER, 1997 1. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 2737-184-03-001 (04U3001) 2. TOTAL AREA = 43.084t SQUARE FEET OR 0.9891 ACRES 3. TITLE REPORT USED FOR THIS SURVEY: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO. #404817-C 3/28/97 4. TITLE REPORT EXCEPTION #7 k #8 - U.S. PATENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1949. IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 246 (RIVERSIDE PLACER) DOES NOT AFFECT THE LANDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THIS SURVEY. 5. TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS #9,10 & 11 ARE EASEMENTS WHICH ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PUBLIC DRIVE SHOWN AS "UTE AVENUE" AS DEDICATED BY 38 MAPS 39 I.5" ALUMINUM CAP 020632 v oNPRW)l AC _-7 x- COtkl-. :v Lor a 910,4E-,_2 x, prepared an d surveyed by: ROBERT C. HUTTON, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 725 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 (9h70) 544-9952 Colo. Licern se No. 24312 YOR'S CERTIFICATE: "THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO MURRY HOWDEN AND ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION THAT THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, PREPARED BY THE UNDERSIGNED, A PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY INSTRUMENT SURVEY UPON THE GROUND; THE SURVEY AND THE INFORMATION, COURSES AND DISTANCES SHOWN THEREIN, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SETBACK AND YARD LINES, ARE CORRECT; THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN, IF ANY". I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, ON SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE, APRIL 18, 1997, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS WO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AS, SHOWN ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP MAINTAINED BY THE FLOOD INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION AND THAT SUCH SURVEY WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND TITLE SURVEYS" JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND ACSM IN 1992. DATED: 10 -Ce - 9 1 BY: PGr"{ u ROBERT C. HUTTON, PLS #24312 ����OapgO kF�s"�y •C ci 5: i hGT • 9� :¢ 24312 z . o :a = �> : o UTILITY NOTE: s.uaL LANq��`� t�� THE UTILITIES EXISTING ON THE SURFACE AN DO ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY FIELD SURVEY. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE FROM RECORDS OF VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND THE SURVEYOR DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR COMPLETENESS, INDICATED LOCATION OR SIZE. RECORD UTILITY LOCATION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY EXPOSING THE UTILITY. BENCHMARK: FOUND BRASS CAP 23 BEING CORNER #9 TR 41 EAST ASPEN TOWNSITE AND THE CORNER OF LOT 13 & LOT 18, S18, T10S, R84W. ELEV = 7996.12;, USGS DATUM AS PER COOPER AERIAL SURVEY CO. (SHT 0-16), AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DATED 10-17-75, CITY OF ASPEN RECORD 40' WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 07!o`i ��� V GT �o o• � WIDE SEWERLINE EASEMENT SET #3 REBAR W/'PLASTIC CAP ('HUTTON LS" I Bo4c.M. To; HUq ) �— 20' PEDRESTRIAN E To kc>kOv4 0