HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1001 Ute Ave.0001.2007F9e Lot &e[md Navigate Fgrm ReparS5 FwyM lab Lklt, 44.�....�.
I
Main Custom F*& Feeg i]ctms Paces Raying Status Fee Summary Routurg History Adactvierds
Penat Type syan Land Use 2004 Pe.0 p 1601.2067 A5Lu
Addiess,1001 UiE AVE .v......_.�..�....�.�V._.-.., .,.. APVSudef r.
:.
-1
'
City ASPEN Slate i
CO _� Zp jdi811 J
8 Pam, ldwmaam .:... .._. ..
m
Masts Pew
Roong Qu eta NA6 Appted ltE267
..
Prged S
S1d1U4 ".Gerdng APP ved
Dmciplwn ESA ' FREE MARKET SINGLE FAMILY FUD
Issued)
Final
Submitted fdib!�N PORN 9258587____________..
Gook (Runrmg Days,.__ z
121281267
..Ewes
Lao Name (UTE MESA LLC Fill Name f ..............��
- -- 07 FERRYIANE EAST
Phone (2062278&90
kWESTPoRT CT 06880
j
''
!± 4 Owreils Applloanti
..
Lao Nam {57EARN "� Fast Nam LEATNEM '.37 FERRYLNE
WESTPORT CT 06860
_ ___..._....,_,...,.....,._. ..
piw j Cult 0 V73rM
Last Named __j Fiat Nama '..
themastermwnunbar._ .... AspenGol(b). ..
li 77tv
THE CITY OF ASPEN
1�� 06-
Awr
um
vo
I\-N N �-A I f�SN,
°,7917
� III1lllllllll1111ill11111111llillllillllil10 /16/20 001:58
JANICE
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARANCES, A PUD OTHER
AMENDMENT, AND AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE
PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC: ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC:
SECTION 18 -10 -84 WEST OF THE 6TH, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737 - 182 - 000 -63
Resolution #07 - 9
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Ute Mesa, LLC, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Hom Inc., and Jack Miller of
Miller and Associates, for a variance from the residential design standards for secondary
mass; a PUD Other Amendment for building on a lot lire and to permit the transfer of
three - hundred and seventy -eight (378) square feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1; and an 8040
Greenline Review; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R -15 PUD; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended denial of the 8040 Greenline
Review and Residential Design Standard variance, and recommended approval of the
PUD Other Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the all references in the application to Ute Mesa PUD or Ute Mesa
Subdivision shall be construed to mean 1001 Ute Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 9, Series of 2007, by a four to one (4 -1)
vote, approving a variance to the residential design standards for secondary mass;
approving an "8040 Greenline Review"; and, approving a PUD Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 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:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance to the
of 6
IIIIIII VIII IIIIII VIII IIII IIIIIII VIII III VIII IIII 31 .00 3 61 0.00
001:58
s
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R
Residential Design Standards for secondary mass, an "8040 Greenline Review," and a
PUD Other Amendment; on the property located at 1001 Ute Ave, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3• Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final P &Z Resolution.
b. A Construction Management Plan approved by the City Engineering Department.
The plan shall outline how construction shall address, and minimize the negative
impacts of, potentially hazard materials on -site.
c. An Access and Infrastructure Plan
d. A fugitive dust control plan
e. A detailed grading and drainage plan to be reviewed by the Community
Development Engineer. Soil from the site will be tested for 8 -heavy metals as
defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standard. To
determine leachability of the metals, a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) test will be performed on all 8 -heavy metals. As well as TCLP analysis,
total concentrations of the 8 -heavy metals will also be determined.
f. A landscaping plan detailing landscape improvements associated with the
avalanche walls
The total allowed external Floor Area on Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to 10,080 square feet,
pursuant to the PUD approval in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. A PUD Other Amendment is
hereby granted that transfers three- hundred and seventy -eight (378) square feet from Lot 2
to Lot 1, and therefore assigns 5,418 square feet of Floor Area to Lot 1, and 4,662 square
feet of Floor Area to Lot 2.
Floor Area shall be calculated based on the City land use code methodology in effect on
August 14, 2006, the date of passage for Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Pursuant to the PUD
approval, 1,400 square feet of Floor Area is allocated for the development of a "for sale"
Category 4 affordable housing unit on Lot 3.
Section J: r UL _"M l - --
A PUD Other Amendment is hereby granted, which permits below grade structures to be
built with a zero minimum side yard set back along the shared lot line of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
This shall allow for the development of a structure to accommodate the proposed sub -
grade parking garage, basement, and driveway, pursuant to plans submitted December
F7917 3 of
III VIIIIIIII VIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII III VIII 31.00 1/2007 0 000 1:58
ANICE K
29, 2006 and representations made at the April 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. The only part of the two structures permitted to share a common wall shall be
the sub -grade structures. A minimum distance of twenty (20) feet shall be required
between the two dwellings above grade.
Section 6 Residential Design
The two (2) single - family residences and the one (1) affordable housing unit shall be
required to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards.
A variance is granted from the Residential Design Standards requirement for the two (2)
free - market single - family residential structures that ten (1) percent of the mass be located
in a secondary mass (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 B 1
Section 7• Massing Controls
Pursuant to PUD approvals received as part of Ordinance 24, Series 2006, the following
shall apply to the two (2) free - market single - family residential structures: the width of the
north - facing facades shall be limited to 120 feet; the overall ridge- height shall be limited to
twenty -seven (27) feet above finished grade; twenty (20) percent of the width of the front
facades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty -two (22) feet above finished grade; and
non - reflective materials shall be used in construction of the structures.
Section 8: Fire Mitigation
Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be
installed in each of the single - family residences to be constructed within the
subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate
the required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within
the subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards.
Section 9: Landscaping
The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is
proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. The Applicant shall
receive a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any existing on -site trees. Further,
the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department
The Applicant shall provide a financial security to ensure the completion of the
landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in the application is completed prior to a
building permit application being submitted on any of the residential units within the
subdivision.
The site shall be landscaped in the first fall or spring after completion of the site
development.
Section 10: Toxic Soil Controls and Mine Waste
The Applicant shall provide prior to submitting a building permit application on either of
the residences, the City with a mine waste testing and handling plan that complies with
11111111111111111111111 Jill PITKIN COUNTY CO R 111111111111 Ill 111111111111 0'5!1 6900 0 3:58
JANICE K VOS
the following conditions of approval as memorialized in Ordinance No. 25, Series 1994
regarding the handling of any contaminated soils encountered on the property:
a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with a non - permeable tarp or other protective barrier
approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of
contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need
not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the
excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or
2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site.
Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon
acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility.
Soils identified as non -toxic in the RCRA test outlined above in Section 3, part e do
not fall under the toxic handling plan, and are not subject to the above enumerated
requirements.
b. Non - removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall
be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the
site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal
transportation and disposal permits.
C. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to
minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air.
d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds
consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999 -
ppm lead.
e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic
yard of soil shall require a permit as provided in Section 7 -143 (4).
f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on -site shall be placed under
structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be
covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm
lead.
g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall
be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or
contaminate clean soils existing elsewhere on the property.
IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIII IIII IIIIIII IIIII III
11IR 1111
Page: 01:58
JPNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00
Section 11: Mudflow Rockfall, and Avalanche Protection
A wall or berm at least four (4) feet in height that can withstand forces of at least two -
hundred (200) pounds per square foot shall be constructed in conjunction with development
on Lot 1 and Lot 2. The wall or berm shall protect the south- facing facades of the
development from rockfall and avalanche danger.
Section 12: Water Department Regulations
The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City
and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units.
Section 13: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within
the subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate
separation between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common
driveway.
If a glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage areas shall
be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to
installation. Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The
glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary
sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint.
Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the
existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line
extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main
sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be
dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language.
of 6
IIIIII VIII IIIIII VIII IIII Illilil VIII III 1111„111 IIII 059 6/2007 01:58
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00
Sectionl4:
This resolution shall not affect 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.
Sectionl5:
This resolution shall not affect 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 16•
If any section., subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
<City Attorney Ruth Kruger Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lot `an, Deputy City Clerk
G: \cityUessica \Cases \1001 Ute \P &Z \1001Ute_PZReso_04.03.doc
V /
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
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.
Ute Mesa LLC, 1001 Ute Ave, Aspen, CO 81611
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC• ALL
SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC: SECTION 18 -10 -84 WEST OF THE 6TH, CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, parcel ID 273718200063
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
The applicant has received 8040 Greenline Approval for two free -market homes. a PUD Amendment to
allow development along the lot common lot line for the free - market homes. a PUD Amendment to shift
FAR from Lot 2 to Lot 1, and a Residential Design Standard Variance from secondary Mass
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan
City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 9, Series 2007 (attached), PUD
Amendments, Residential Design Standard Variance, 8040 Greenling Approval
Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
June 4, 2010
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,3rd day of June, 2007, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director.
Community Development Director
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the
City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 1001 Ute Avenue, Parcel ID 2737 - 182 -00 -063, by PUD
Amendment, Residential Design Standard Variance, and 8040 Greenline Review on April
3, 2007. For further information contact Jessica Garrow, at the City of Aspen
Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 429 -2780.
s/ City of Aspen
Publish in The Aspen Times on June 3, 2007
PUBLIC NOTICE
OI
OEVELOPUENTAPPROVAL
s/ CM of Aspen
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 3,
2007. (W5801)
Section 18: Vested Property Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site - specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially 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 the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,
pertaining to the following described property: 1001 Ute Ave, City of Aspen, by
Residential Design Standard Variances, PUD Other Amendments, and 8040Greenline
approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planned M(
RE: Ute Mesa PUD (1001 Ute Ave'n'ue),
Residential Design Standards Variance, 8040 Greenline Review, PUD
Other Amendme t
Resolution No. , Series of 2007 — Public Hearing
DATE: April 3, 2007
APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING:
Ute Mesa, LLC No Change
REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment and
and Jack Miller, of Miller denial of the Residential Design Standard Variance and
Associates 8040 Greenline Review.
LOCATION:
1001 Ute Avenue. The property is
legally described as MINE, 1741
MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND
ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0
DESC: ALL SURFACE &
MINERAL RIGHTS DESC:
SECTION 18 -10 -84 WEST OF
THE 6TH .
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R -15 (Moderate Density
Residential) with a PUD
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny
any variance requests from the residential design standards pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.410.020(D), Variances.
1
r
The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040
Greenline Review.
The Planning and Zoning may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an amendment
found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by
the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established
thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.445.100(B), Other Amendment.
STAFF COMMENTS:
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS:
Secondary Mass
The proposed development is located within the Aspen Infill Area, and therefore must
comply with the secondary mass requirement in the Residential Design Standards. The
elimination of a secondary mass contributes to the bulky nature of the development. Staff
finds the requested variance does not create a better design in the context, and in fact
creates a development with little visual or architectural variation or relief. Staff finds that
the inclusion of a secondary mass would improve the overall design and would help the
proposed development better match the character of the area. Staff finds this review
standard is not met. Compliance with this standard is also attached as Exhibit A.
8040 GREENLINE:
The property must obtain 8040 Greenline Review approval prior to applying for a
building permit. The review ensures development within one hundred and fifty (150) feet
of the 8040 elevation line is required to go through an 8040 Greenline Review to ensure
development is provided with adequate utilities, have a minimal impact on runoff, air
pollution, and reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slopes, rock falls, and mud
slides. The review also ensures development at this elevation blends with the open
character of the mountain.
The Applicant has addressed the natural hazard potential on the site, and conditions have
been included to ensure the potential for avalanche, unstable slopes, rock falls, and mud
slides is minimized. Further, adequate ingress and egress is provided to the development.
However, Staff finds that the proposed design maximizes the bulkiness of the building
and that the building fails to blend with the open character of the mountain. The
Applicant has chosen to primarily use stone materials for the development. These
materials are heavy and bulky, and create a massive structure that does not blend in with
its surroundings. The fact that there is little to no material differentiation between the two
proposed structures further contributes the sense of bulkiness of the building. The
Applicant could remedy this by decentralizing some of the mass through the use of a
secondary element. This would do a great deal in ensuring the development blends with
the mountain character.
OA
Staff finds the development does not meet the review standards for an 8040 Greenline
Review based on Criteria 7, minimizing bulk of the structure and blending the structure
into the open character of the mountain. Compliance with this standard is also attached as
Exhibit B.
PUD OTHER AMENDMENT:
The Applicant has proposed that three - hundred seventy -eight (378) square feet of FAR be
transferred from Lot 2 to Lot 1. The original PUD approval, pursuant to Ordinance 24,
Series 2006, limited each lot to 5,040 square feet of FAR, for a total of 10,080 square feet
of FAR. The Applicant has requested the FAR transfer to assign 5,418 square feet of FAR
to Lot 1, and 4,662 square feet of FAR to Lot 2. The overall total FAR would remain at
10,080 square feet. Staff finds this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it
maintains the approved overall FAR.
The Applicant has also proposed a PUD Amendment to permit a zero lot line development
along the internal property line between Lots 1 and 2. This Amendment request has been
made to accommodate the development of shared below grade garage access. Staff finds
that this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it enables the Applicant to minimize
the amount of impermeable surfaces associated with above -grade garage access.
Staff finds this review standard is met. Compliance with this standard is also attached as
Exhibit C.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that this application meets the applicable review standards for granting a PUD
Amendment for the transfer of three- hundred and seventy -eight (378) square feet of FAR
from Lot 2 to Lot 1 and to allow for development along the internal lot lines of Lot I and
Lot 2. Staff recommends against the requested variance from the residential design
standards, and recommends against the 8040 Greenline Review.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. _q, Series of 2007, approving variances to the
residential design standards for secondary mass; approving an "8040 Greenline Review';
and a PUD Other Amendment for the Ute Mesa PUD located at 1001 Ute Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Residential Design Standard Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- 8040 Greenline Review and Staff Findings
Exhibit C -- PUD Other Amendment Review and Staff Findings
Exhibit D -- Development Review Committee Comments
Exhibit E -- Application, Dated December 29, 2006
Exhibit F — Addendum to Application, Dated March 23, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOTES:
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARANCES, A PUD OTHER
AMENDMENT, AND AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE
PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC: ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC:
SECTION 18 -10 -84 WEST OF THE 6TH, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-000-63
Resolution #07 - I
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Ute Mesa, LLC, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn Inc., and Jack Miller of
Miller and Associates, for a variance from the residential design standards for secondary
mass; a PUD Other Amendment for building on a lot line and to permit the transfer of
three - hundred and seventy -eight (378) square feet from Lot 2 to Lot 1; and an 8040
Greenline Review; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R -15 PUD; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended denial of the 8040 Greenline
Review and Residential Design Standard variance, and recommended approval of the
PUD Other Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2007, by a to (--
__) vote, approving a variance to the residential design standards for secondary mass;
approving an "8040 Greenline Review "; and, approving a PUD Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 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:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance to the
Residential Design Standards for secondary mass, an "8040 Greenline Review," and a
PUD Other Amendment; on the property located at 1001 Ute Ave in th
City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final P &Z Resolution.
b. A Construction Management Plan
c. An Access and Infrastructure Plan
d. A fugitive dust control plan
e. A detailed grading and drainage plan to be reviewed by the Community
Development Engineer. This shall include a Leachate test confirming that any
storm runoff from the site will be not exceed accepted environmental limits.
f. A landscaping plan detailing landscape improvements associated with the
avalanche walls
Section 4: PUD Other Amendment for Allowable i f'o( AYTA.-.1
The total allowed external YA!�)an Lots I and 2 shall be limited to 10,080 square feet,
pursuant to the PUD approva m Ordinance 24, Series 2006. A PUD Other Amendment is
hereby granted that transfers three - hundred and seventy-eight (378) square feet from Lot 2
to Lot 1, and therefore assigns 5,418 square feet of�o Lot 1, and 4,662 square feet of
010 Lot 2.
shall be calculated based on the City land use code methodology in effect on August
4 2006, the date of passage for Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Pursuant to the PUD
approval, 1,400 square feet of is allocated for the development of a "for sale"
Category 4 affordable housing um on Lot 3.
Section 5: PUD Other Amendment for Development Along a Lot Line
A PUD Other Amendment is hereby granted, which permits below grade structures to be
built with a zero minimum side yard set back along the shared lot line of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
This shall allow for the development of a structure to accommodate the proposed sub -
grade parking garage, basement, and driveway, pursuant to plans submitted December
29, 2007 and representations made at the April 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. The only part of the two structures permitted to share a common wall shall be
the sub -grade structures. A minimum distance of twenty (20) feet shall be required
between the two dwellings above grade.
Section 6: Residential Design
The two (2) single - family residences and the one (1) accessory dwelling unit shall be
required to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards.
A variance is granted from the Residential Design Standards requirement for the two (2)
free - market single - family residential structures that ten (10) percent of the mass be located
in a secondary mass (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(B)(1)).
�r
Section 7: Massing Controls
Pursuant to PUD approvals received as part of Ordinance 24, Series 2006, the following
shall apply to the two (2) free - market single - family residential structures: the width of the
north- facing facades shall be limited to 120 feet; the overall ridge- height shall be limited to
twenty -seven (27) feet above finished grade; twenty (20) percent of the width of the front
facades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty -two (22) feet above finished grade; and
non - reflective materials shall be used in construction of the structures.
Section 8: Fire Mitigation
Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be
installed in each of the single - family residences to be constructed within the
subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate
the required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within
the subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards.
Section 9: Landscaping
The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is
proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. The Applicant shall
receive a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any existing on -site trees. Further,
the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department
iti ally, individual landscaping plans for the residential parcels shall be submitted
and wed by the City Parks Department as part of the 8040 Greenline Review
ap ications for the individual residences.
The Applicant shall provide a financial security to ensure the completion of the
landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in the application is completed prior to a
building permit application being submitted on any of the residential units within the
subdivision.
The site shall be landscaped in the first fall or spring after completion of the site
development.
Section 10: Toxic Soil Controls and Mine Waste
The Applicant shall provide prior to submitting a building permit application on either of
the residences, the City with a mine waste testing and handling plan that complies with
the following conditions of approval as memorialized in Ordinance No. 25, Series 1994
regarding the handling of any contaminated soils encountered on the property:
El
a�
Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with a non - permeable tarp or other protective barrier
approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of
contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need
not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the
excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or
r2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site.
tI` \Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon
acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility.
b. Non - removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall
be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the
site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal
transportation and disposal permits.
C. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to
minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air.
d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds
consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999 -
ppm lead.
e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic
yard of soil shall require a permit as provided in Section 7 -143 (4).
f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on -site shall be placed under
structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be
covered by a minimum of I foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm
lead.
Section 11: Mudflow Rockfall, and Avalanche Protection
A wall or berm at least four (4) feet in height that can withstand forces of at least two -
hundred (200) pounds per square foot shall be constructed in conjunction with development
on Lot 1 and Lot 2. The wall or berm shall protect the south- facing facades of the
development from rockfa anger.
Section 12: Water Depa meot Reeulatio is
The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City
and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units.
Section 13: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within
the subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate
separation between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common
driveway.
If a glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage areas shall
be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to
installation. Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The
glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary
sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint.
Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the
existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line
extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main
sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be
dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language.
Sectionl4:
This resolution shall not affect 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.
Sectionl5:
This resolution shall not affect 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 16:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Ruth Kruger Chair
G: \city\Jessica \Cases \1001 Ute \P &Z \IOOIUte_PZReso_04.03.doc
r�
EXHIBIT A: REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant variances from the Residential Design
Standards if the proposed application meets the following:
a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the
context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular
standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing
board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with
adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity
as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted, or,
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific
constraints.
The following are Staff s findings in regards to the variance being requested by the
Applicant.
Variance Requested
1. Secondary Mass (26.410.040(B)(1). All new
single family and duplex structures shall locate at least
ten (10 %) percent of their total square footage above
grade in a mass which is completely detached from the
principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element. This standard shall only apply to
parcels within the Aspen Infill Area pursuant to Section
26410.010(B)(2). Accessory buildings such as garages,
sheds, and accessory dwelling units are examples of
appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an
element not more than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height
of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in
length shall be exemptfrom Section 26575.020(A)(8).
a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the
context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular
standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing
board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with
adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity
as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted, or,
Staff Finding:
The proposed development is located within the Aspen Infill Area, and therefore must
comply with the secondary mass requirement in the Residential Design Standards. The
elimination of a secondary mass contributes to the bulky nature of the development. Staff
finds the requested variance does not create a better design in the context, and in fact
creates a development with little visual or architectural variation or relief. Staff finds that
the inclusion of a secondary mass would improve the overall design and would help the
proposed development better match the character of the area. Staff finds this criterion is
not met.
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific
constraints.
The site includes a number of slopes, but Staff does not find that the slopes require the
requested variance. This is a new development, meaning that there exist no built
conditions on the site that would require this variance. The site is not rendered
undevelopable by the requirement to meet this Residential Design Standard. Staff finds
this criterion is not met.
2
Exhibit B -- 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW:
According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be
permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including
mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant
shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be
removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff believes there are rockfall, mudflow, and avalanche hazards on the site. The
Applicant's engineering team has proposed a number of mitigation measures to deal
with these dangers. Environmental analyses of the property indicate contaminants in
soil on site. The Applicant has proposed a number of conditions to deal with these
toxic soils. Conditions of approval are included in the Resolution that address these
concerns. If the Applicant complies with all conditions of approval, Staff finds this
criterion is 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 COMMENT:
Staff does not believe the proposed development will have an adverse affect on the
natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have adverse effects on water
pollution. A condition of approval has been added requiring the Applicant to submit
a grading and drainage plan to the Community Development Engineer. The plan will
be required to demonstrate that the development does not result in an increase in the
historic runoff from the property. 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 COMMENT:
Staff finds that the proposed development will not have a significant air quality
impact. A Construction Management Plan (CMP), approved by the City Engineering
Department, will be submitted as part of the Building Permit Application. The CMP,
will address any pm 10 concerns, will include controls to control engine idling, and
will include a fugitive dust plan. Further, the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2
shall not include coal burning heating devices or woodburning fireplaces. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
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 COMMENT:
The driveway was approved as part of the original PUD approval, and received 8040
Greenline approval as part of the PUD review process. The location of the Lots 1 and
2 was also established as part of the original PUD approval. Staff recommended
approval of the lot locations at that time because they represented the flattest portions
of the site. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with this previous
finding and that the proposed location of the residential development is appropriate.
A condition of approval has been included in the Resolution requiring a retaining wall
or berm four (4) feet in height be placed on the Lots to protect the south side of the
development from potential environmental hazard related to the surrounding terrain.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
STAFF COMMENT:
As stated above, the proposed development is located on the flattest portion of the
site. Further, a condition of approval has been added requiring the Applicant to
submit a grading and drainage plan to the Community Development Engineer. This
plan will ensure the grading will minimize impacts to the terrain, vegetation, and
natural land features. 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 COMMENT:
The location of the lots was determined in the original PUD approval. The Applicant
has proposed to use a common driveway, approved by Ordinance 24, Series 2006, to
provide access to Lots 1 and 2. Further, the Applicant proposes shared access to
individual garages. These garages are located below grade. Staff finds that by using
a common access point for the garages and by placing the garages below grade, that
the Applicant helps minimize the need for roads and limits the cutting and grading
needed to accommodate vehicle access. 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 COMMENT:
Massing controls were included as conditions of approval in Ordinance 24, Series
2006. These included limiting the ridge height and length of the two (2) single -
family structures. While the proposed development meets these massing control
requirements, it fails to meet the secondary mass requirement in the Residential
Design Standards. Staff finds that the proposed design maximizes the bulkiness of
the building and that the building fails to blend with the open character of the
mountain. The Applicant has chosen to primarily use stone materials for the
development. These materials are heavy and bulky, and create a massive structure
that does not blend in with its surroundings. The fact that there is little to no material
differentiation between the two proposed structures further contributes the sense of
bulkiness of the building. The Applicant could remedy this by decentralizing some of
the mass through the use of a secondary element. This would do a great deal in
ensuring the development blends with the mountain character. Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
S. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
STAFF COMMENT:
The proposed development received utility services as part of the original PUD
approval. Conditions of approval from the City Water Department and the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District were included in the original PUD approval, and
have been included in this Resolution. 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 COMMENT:
As was discussed above, a common driveway has been approved that will provide
access to the residences from Ute Ave. This driveway was reviewed by the Fire
Marshall as part of the original PUD, and the Fire Marshal determined the proposed
access plan met all Fire Department requirements for emergency service access. 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 COMMENT:
As noted above, the Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed access plan and has
determined appropriate ingress and egress is provided to the proposed development.
Further, snow removal equipment is able to access the development. 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 COMMENT:
Staff finds that the proposed development meets the goals of the AACP with respect
to Parks /Recreation/Trails. A trail easement is provided over the lot, and the upper
portion of the site is preserved as open space, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series 2006.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
EXHIBIT C: REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the
established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing
pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed.
Staff Finding:
The Applicant has proposed two (2) PUD Amendments. First, the Applicant requests
that three - hundred seventy -eight (378) square feet of FAR be transferred from Lot 2 to
Lot 1. The original PUD approval, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series 2006, limited each
lot to 5,040 square feet of FAR, for a total of 10,080 square feet of FAR. The Applicant
has requested the FAR transfer to assign 5,418 square feet of FAR to Lot 1, and 4,662
square feet of FAR to Lot 2. The overall total FAR would remain at 10,080 square feet.
Staff finds this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it maintains the approved
overall FAR.
Second, the Applicant has request a PUD Amendment to permit a zero lot line development
along the internal property line between Lots 1 and 2. This Amendment request has been
made to accommodate the development of shared below grade garage access. Staff finds
that this request is consistent with the approved PUD, as it enables the Applicant to
minimize the amount of impermeable surfaces associated with above -grade garage access.
The Staff finds this criterion to be met.
lu 1 DIZ -111 13 111u l
To: Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: September 13, 2006
Re: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and Affordable Housing Development
Attendees: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer, Jessica Garrow, Planning, Adam
Trzcinski, City Engineer, Phil Overleylander and Steve Hunter, Public Works,
Denis, Murray, Building Dept., Todd Grange, Zoning, Brian Flynn and Chris
Farmer, Parks, Glenn Horn, Planner.
At the development review committee meeting held on February 7, 2007 comment from
staff included the following regarding the 8040 Greenline Review;
Public Works — Phil Overleylander, Steve Hunter;
• Public Works estimated 5 ECU per unit verses the 1.79 that was included in the
report. The 5 services should be shown on a 20 -foot span length on the main.
• The tennis courts and landscaping will also need to account for water use
estimates.
• The City understands that the Open Space will not anticipate and additional water
use at this time.
Zoning — Todd Grange; No Comments at this time.
Parks - Brian Flynn and Chris Farmer;
• No trees on the property line near the4 driveway cut at the end of the tennis
courts.
• The applicant needs to review page 15 of the Parks requirement for the survey
needed to transfer the City of Aspen easement for the trail. Specifically, showing
that there is no easement required on lot #1.
• Also the applicant needs to reference Section #8 for PitCo referencing the
Conservation review.
• The landscaping plan for behind the avalanche walls must be submitted and
approved.
Engineering — Adam Trzcinski;
• Driveway width has a maximum of 18 -feet wide at the entrance to the existing
ROW line.
• No material storage or stabilization penetration into the City ROW.
All interior property corners must be set as part of the property survey before
the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
\. r
Com. Dev. Engineer — Alex Evonitz;
• A detailed environmental plan must be submitted as part of the building permit
application or the permit application will not be taken.
• Leachate test must be submitted confirming that any storm runoff from the site
will be above accepted environmental limits.
Davis Horn-
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
March 23, 2007
Jessica Garrow
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1001 Ute Avenue 8040 Land Use Application Amendment
Dear Jessica:
Ute Mesa LLC (applicant) is represented in this letter by Davis Horn Incorporated. This letter
responds to your March 21, 2007 email to me. Please include this letter with the materials which
you prepare for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The land use application seeks a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment to increase the
permitted floor area on Lot I by as much as 378 square feet provided there is a corresponding
reduction in the floor area on Lot 2. As noted in the land use application, the floor area change
will not affect the mass or bulk of either of the proposed residences.
During the administrative approval process for the 1001 Ute Avenue Plat, James Lindt, former
City Planner, indicated that minor modifications to the proposed building envelopes would be
permitted provided the changes are consistent with the spirit of the land use process and
representations made in the process. One of these minor modifications was the enlargement of
the proposed building envelopes toward the center of the property. A review of Attachment 3 of
the application shows there is no interior side yard building envelope setback. You may wish to
review this with Jennifer Phelan since she has been reviewing the Final Plat. The purpose of the
zero lot line interior side yard setback is to provide for driveway, basement and garage
construction. The portion of the structures located above finished grade will have a setback from
the interior lot line.
The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 26.410.040 B.1., Secondary Mass, based upon
the specific geographic characteristics of 1001 Ute Avenue site and the relationship of the site to
the development within the immediate site vicinity. The proposed residences are located almost
300 feet from Ute Avenue. The site is not at all like a typical Aspen Infill Area lots located in
the Aspen Townsite. There is a tennis court located between Ute Avenue and the houses. The
Secondary Mass standard may be appropriate for houses developed immediately on Ute Avenue
within a subdivision such as the Ute Addition because the lots are on grade with Ute Avenue and
only 65 feet in depth, but is not appropriate for 1001 Ute Avenue, nor the Aspen Chance
Subdivision to the west. As noted at length in the PUD review process, the 1001 PUD has many
ALICE DAVIS AICP S GLENN HORN AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-970/925-6587- FAX: 970/925-5180
adavis @rof.net ghorn @rof.net
C r
similarities to the Aspen Chance Subdivision and may be viewed in some ways as an extension
of the Subdivision. After several growing seasons, the public views of the houses in the 1001
Ute Avenue PUD will be similar to the public views of the Aspen Chance.
The Aspen Infill Area is that area located south of the Roaring Fork River and east of Castle
Creek. Although the subject site is located in this Area, the 1001 Ute Avenue site has very little
in common with more typical Aspen Townsite infrll sites. The subject site has more in common
with lots located at the base of Red and Smuggler Mountains on the north side of the River where
the Secondary Mass standard is does not apply. A site specific consideration of the geographic
characteristics of the 1001 Ute Avenue PUD and the relationship of the site to the surrounding
area shows that the site should probably not be included within the Aspen Infill Area.
Please consider these comments in preparing your recommendations to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Call me if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN ORN AICP
531499
1111111111
page: 9 of
1111 IN 111111111111111111111 00 ,/27/ 0061:30;
Attest.
Kathryn S. Koc , ity Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of August, 006
el in and d, Mayor
Attest:
ak:S�2
Kathryn S. Vh, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
....John Worcester, City Attorney
7 Is
.,.o
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 59;499 of 9
361
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 0 0.00
ORDINANCE N0.24
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION REVIEW, CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL /FINAL PUD, AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR
THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS FOR THE
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVSION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2737 - 182 -00 -063
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Leathern Steam, owner, represented by Davis Horn Incorporated, requesting approval
of Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development, 8040 Greenline
Review, Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space
Parcels to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential properties and four
(4) separate common areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(1), Detached
Single-family and Duplex Dwelling Units, the Community Development Director approved
a Growth Management Review for the construction of one single- family dwelling unit,
conditioned upon approval of the other associated land use actions requested; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)(2), Consolidated
Conceptual and Final Review, the Community Development Director consented to allow
for the development application to be reviewed as a consolidated PUD review because of
the anticipated limited scope of issues involved with the review; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable sections of the land use code, the
Community Development Director has reviewed the requested land use actions and
recommended denial of the growth management review for the preservation of significant
open space parcels and that a maximum floor area of only 3,830 square feet be allowed per
residential lot; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to
April 18, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 18, 2006, the Planning and
Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to May 2,
2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the development application to include the
development of a Category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate for the second free - market
residential unit in the subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on May 2, 2006, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 16, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6 -0)
vote, approving with conditions an 8040 Greenline Review, a Growth Management Review
1NI IN I'u�II I(I�II 531499
II��IIII�IIIIII�II�III {IIIII���I III�IIIIIIIIo IIIIIIII 00 19Z7 p � 00 1.361
JANICE K
for the Development of Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve
with conditions, Subdivision Review, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth
Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001
Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential
properties, a parcel for the development of a Category 4 AH unit and four (4) separate
common areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2006, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until July 24, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 24, 2006, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until August 14, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on August 14, 2006, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision and approved Ordinance No.
24, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4 -0) vote, approving with conditions, the 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and Growth Management
Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council 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 City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions, a Subdivision Review,
Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the
Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to
divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) single - family residential properties, a
property for the development of a "for sale ", three- bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing
unit and four (4) separate common areas, subject to the conditions contained herein.
...........
JANIK����S CNU ,�LL PI �I111111111oil11111111 it /2 4990 1.36t
Section 2: Anoroved Development
Development of two (2) free- market single - family residential dwelling units, and the
development of a "for sale ", three - bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing unit, the relocation
of the existing tennis courts approximately thirty (30) feet to the west of their current location,
along with the necessary road improvements to access the residential lots are hereby approved
subject to the terms of this ordinance.
Section 3: Dimensional Requirements
The approved dimensional requirements are as follows:
Dimensional
Approved
Requirement
Dimensional
Requirements
Minimum Lot Size
Lot 1= 24,850 SF
Lot 2= 30,060 SF
Common Area 1 Open
Space= 20,860 SF
Common Area 2 Open
Space= 24,860 SF
Common Area 3 Access
Easement= 15,290 SF
Common Area 4 Open
Space= 920 SF
Minimum Lot Width
25 Feet for Common
Area 2 Open Space
Minimum Lot Area
31,655 SF in PUD
Per Dwelling Unit
Minimum Front
Per Building Envelope
Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard
Per Building Envelope
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard
Per Building Envelope
Setback
Maximum Height
25 Feet as measured
from finished grade and
27 Feet to the ridge
Allowable External
5,040 SF per each of the
FAR
two (2) single - family
residential dwelling
units as calculated based
on the City land use
code methodology in
affect at the time of
building permit
submittal. Additionally,
1,400 SF is allocated for
the development of a
"for sale ", Category 4
affordable housing unit.
Minimum Off - Street
2 Spaces per Residential
Parking
Unit
531499
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIINNI111111T1111111111111100i12 ;p e0001:361
Section 4' Snbdivision/PUD Plat and A¢reement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements
of Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The Plat shall contain the property
boundaries, easements, and the building envelopes.
Section 5: 8040 Greenling Review
The 8040 Greenline approval granted herein is only for the road serving the single - family
residence parcels and the relocation of the tennis courts. Prior to applying for building permits
on the two (2) free - market residential units or the associated accessory dwelling units within
the subdivision/PUD, an 8040 Greenling Review on the specific residence designs shall be
applied for and approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenling
Review.
Section 6• Residential Design Standards
The two (2) single - family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required
to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards.
Section 7• Affordable Housing Mitigation
A "for sale ", three - bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing unit consisting of a minimum of
1,400 square feet of net livable space shall be constructed in combination with providing a
conservation easement on the southern 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to mitigate for the
free - market residential dwelling units to be constructed within the subdivision. The affordable
housing unit shall be excluded from the homeowner's association for the subdivision so that it
will not be responsible for maintenance and association fees common to the subdivision. The
homeowner's association documents shall not contain any language that prohibits the owners
of the affordable housing units from having dogs.
Section 8: Conservation Easement
The Applicant shall deed the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to be placed under a
conservation easement to the City of Aspen. Subsequently, the City of Aspen shall record a
conservation easement to be held by a third party on the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to
remain in Pitkin County, that will be sterilized in perpetuity against future development in
exchange for one of the two (2) single - family development rights within the subdivision. The
property shall be deeded to the City prior to submission for an access/infrastructure permit on
the common driveway improvements within the subdivision/PUD. The conservation
easement document shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Pitkin County
Community Development Department prior to recordation.
Section 9: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the
subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the
subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the
subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect
w..
N N NryINI I N 53.1499
I IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII �I,1 IIIIII IIIIII III Illfl IIII IIII 1127 120;B 00 :36i
at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section
26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule.
Section 10: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any
construction within the subdivision that adds new residential/lodge bedrooms and/or
commerciaVoffice square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due
using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development Impact Fee: Fee Schedule.
The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified,
licensed engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development in
conjunction with the 8040 Greenline Review applications for the individual residences
proposed within the subdivision/PUD. The designs for the single - family residences within the
subdivision/PUD shall comply with the recommendations of the Applicant's Avalanche
Specialist, Peter Lev, and Applicant's Geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, by providing an
engineered four (4) foot tall retaining wall on the south side of the residences.
Section 12: Mine Waste
The Applicant shall provide a mine waste testing and handling plan to the City prior to
submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, that complies with the
following conditions of approval regarding development in an Environmentally Sensitive
area and handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code:
a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with a non - permeable tarp or other protective barrier
approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of
contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need
not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the
excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2)
that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil
and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material
at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility.
b. Non - removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be
removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site
without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation
and disposal permits.
C. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to
minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air.
IN VIIIIIIIIIIIIIhIII IIIIII IIIIII III VIII IIII III11/27/2096 1:3Of
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY DO R
d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds
consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999 -
ppm lead.
e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic
yard of soil shall require the same measures outlined in sub - sections a, b, c, f and g.
f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be
contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate
clean soils existing elsewhere on the property.
g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on -site shall be placed under
structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be
covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead.
Section 13: Fire Mitigation
Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be
installed in each of the single - family residences to be constructed within the
subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the
required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the
subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards. Compliance with
the Colorado Defensible Space Standards shall be verified as part of the 8040 Greenling
Review process on the individual residences.
Section 14: Driveway Construction
The driveway shall be constructed to the grades that are proposed in the application and
shall not exceed twelve (12) percent at any point. A hammerhead fire truck turnaround
meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be installed as proposed in the
application. The Applicant shall enter into a recorded road maintenance agreement with
the City that is to be reviewed and accepted by the City Fire Marshal prior to the issuance
of an access/infrastructurc permit to construct the road. An access/infrastructure permit
shall be applied for and approved by the City Community Development Department prior
to commencing any grading or construction activities related to the installation of the
common driveway to the residential parcels. A geotechnical report shall be submitted as
part of the access /infrastructure permit application.
Section 15: Landscaping
The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is
proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. A tree removal permit and
tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the City of Aspen Parks
Department prior to commencing construction activities related to the subdivision access
improvements. Additionally, individual landscaping plans for the residential parcels shall
be submitted and reviewed by the City Parks Department as part of the 8040 Greenline
Review applications for the individual residences. The Applicant shall provide a financial
a.,
IIII�IiIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIInIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIII�II 512 499 01!30f
JPNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 D 0.00
security to ensure the completion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in
w- the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any
of the residential units within the subdivision.
Section 16: Relocation of Tennis Courts
The Applicant shall relocate the existing tennis courts prior to or in conjunction with the
installation of the common driveway to the residential parcels within the subdivision/PUD.
An access /infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved prior to the
commencement of construction activities related to relocating the tennis courts. The
pathway from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis courts shall be improved to comply with
applicable ADA accessibility requirements. A deed restriction shall be recorded on the
Common Area 2 Open Space (parcel to contain the tennis courts) that preserves the parcel
against future development.
Section 17: Trail Easement
The Applicant shall grant a public trail easement to accommodate the existing Ajax Trail if
it is found to be located outside of the existing trail easement in areas. Additionally, the
Applicant shall grant a permanent public trail easement meeting the approval of the City of
Aspen Parks Department along the eastern comer of single - family residential Lot 1 in order
to accommodate a pedestrian trail from the Ajax Trail down to Ajax Park prior to
recordation of the final subdivision/PUD plat.
Section 18: Water Department Requirements
The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City
and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units.
The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules an
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines
shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the
subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate separation
between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. If a
glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage areas shall be
reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation.
Section 20: Massin¢ Controls
The specific designs of the two (2) free - market residential dwelling units that are to be
submitted for 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Section 5 of this ordinance shall be
substantially consistent with the revised massing drawings presented to City Council on
August 14, 2006. A substantial subdivision/PUD amendment review would be necessary
to substantially vary from the massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14,
2006. The width of the north- facing facades of the free- market residential units shall be
limited to 120 feet. The overall ridge height of the free - market, single - family residential
IIUIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIgIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIII I,III1II00
Pae: 92 8990 1:36F
structures shall be limited to twenty-seven (27) feet above finished grade, and twenty (20)
percent of the width of the front fagades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty -two
(22) feet above finished grade. Non - reflective materials shall be used in the construction of
the proposed single - family residences.
Section 21: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be
substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1001 Ute Avenue,
City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City
Council.
Section 22:
This Ordinance shall not affect 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 construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 23:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 24•
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of July, 2006, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 1P day of June, 2006.
Helen 'n andemd, Mayor
149
@61
Davis Horn,',nw-
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
March 23, 2007
Jessica Garrow
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1001 Ute Avenue 8040 Land Use Application Amendment
Dear Jessica:
Ute Mesa LLC (applicant) is represented in this letter by Davis Horn Incorporated. This letter
responds to your March 21, 2007 email to me. Please include this letter with the materials which
you prepare for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The land use application seeks a Planned Unit Development Other Amendment to increase the
permitted floor area on Lot 1 by as much as 378 square feet provided there is a corresponding
reduction in the floor area on Lot 2. As noted in the land use application, the floor area change
will not affect the mass or bulk of either of the proposed residences.
During the administrative approval process for the 1001 Ute Avenue Plat, James Lindt, former
City Planner, indicated that minor modifications to the proposed building envelopes would be
permitted provided the changes are consistent with the spirit of the land use process and
representations made in the process. One of these minor modifications was the enlargement of
the proposed building envelopes toward the center of the property. A review of Attachment 3 of
the application shows there is no interior side yard building envelope setback. You may wish to
review this with Jennifer Phelan since she has been reviewing the Final Plat. The purpose of the
zero lot line interior side yard setback is to provide for driveway, basement and garage
construction. The portion of the structures located above finished grade will have a setback from
the interior lot line.
The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 26.410.040 B.1., Secondary Mass, based upon
the specific geographic characteristics of 1001 Ute Avenue site and the relationship of the site to
the development within the immediate site vicinity. The proposed residences are located almost
300 feet from Ute Avenue. The site is not at all like atypical Aspen Infill Area lots located in
the Aspen Townsite. There is a tennis court located between Ute Avenue and the houses. The
Secondary Mass standard may be appropriate for houses developed immediately on Ute Avenue
within a subdivision such as the Ute Addition because the lots are on grade with Ute Avenue and
only 65 feet in depth, but is not appropriate for 1001 Ute Avenue, nor the Aspen Chance
Subdivision to the west. As noted at length in the PUD review process, the 1001 PUD has many
ALICE DAVIS AICP S GLENN HORN AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 8 161 1 •970/925 -6587 • FAX: 970/925 -5180
adavis @rof.net ghorn @roEnet
similarities to the Aspen Chance Subdivision and may be viewed in some ways as an extension
of the Subdivision. After several growing seasons, the public views of the houses in the 1001
Ute Avenue PUD will be similar to the public views of the Aspen Chance.
The Aspen Infill Area is that area located south of the Roaring Fork River and east of Castle
Creek. Although the subject site is located in this Area, the 1001 Ute Avenue site has very little
in common with more typical Aspen Townsite infill sites. The subject site has more in common
with lots located at the base of Red and Smuggler Mountains on the north side of the River where
the Secondary Mass standard is does not apply. A site specific consideration of the geographic
characteristics of the 1001 Ute Avenue PUD and the relationship of the site to the surrounding
area shows that the site should probably not be included within the Aspen Infill Area.
Please consider these comments in preparing your recommendations to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Call me if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN ORN AICP
Page 1 of 2
o
Jessica Garrow
From: Glenn Horn [ghorn @rof.net] J
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:38 PM
To: Jessica Garrow �0 l d W �tvl � „ ) ? Q p
Subject: [Fwd: Ute Mesa] UlJ C/V �/V�/ -f Kw W Y�
-- - - - - -- Original Message -- - - - - -- 1Y)
Su Date: : Sat, 31 a N,,�
Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:03:06 EDT
F r o im: D unl—op—e m4 aol.c0m
To: ghornpro£ net /1�( n r 1�a
Glenn,
As per our meeting this morning, I recommend the following:
1) Planning and Zoning Commission Reso #07- , Section 3 (e). A requirement is stated that a "Leachate test'
be done to confirm storm water runoff from the site will n t exceed environmental limits. This raises a couple of
questions such as; does the requirement speak to waterlor soil ss, p ,g, and what are the environmental limits
being referred to in the section? A conclusion is also drawn that storm water will leave the site.
For clarity I suggest rewriting Section 3 (c) to read: Soil from the site will be tested for 8 -heavy metals as defined
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standard. To determine leachability of the metals, a
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test will be performed on all 8 -heavy metals. As well as TCLP
analysis, total concentrations of the 8 -heavy metals will also be determined.
The RCRA requirement is a federal standard generally applied when identifying the concentration of metals in or
around mining sites. These metals include: Arsenic, Lead, Barium, Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium, Silver and
Selenium. It will be of value to perform these tests for two reasons. The first being it should satisfy the condition
placed on the application by the City of Aspen, and secondly, knowing the heavy metal concentrations will be
necessary to provide to Pitkin County should soil from the project be exported outside the Aspen city limits and
disposed of in Pitkin County.
Knowing the results of the testing will also aid in designing storm water detention or treatment prior to discharge
onto City streets, if that were to happen. There are mechanical engineered treatment and retention options to
consider to remove the risk of off site transport of contaminated soil or water.
To accomplish metal concentration identification it will be necessary to design and complete a
soil sampling program that will systematically test soil. I suggest contact be made with a geo tech firm to create
the sampling protocol. To begin the discussion I recommend test holes by laid out using a 50 -foot on center grid.
One sample will be taken from a depth of 0 - 2.5 feet from the surface; a second sample will be taken from 2.5 - 5
feet; a third and final sample will be taken between 5ft - desired depth of the excavation or refusal, which ever
comes first. The third sample will be a composite of at least 3 -grab samples taken as the hole deepens. There will
be a total of 3 samples per hole. Each sample will be tested for the metals mentioned above.
When the time comes to actually design the sampling protocol, details can be worked on between those involved
in the project. It will be important to have the City of Aspen approve of this recommended approach to make sure
answers to their questions can be provided.
2) Planning and Zoning Commission Reso #07 -_, Section 10 (a). This condition requires disturbed soil
exported off site be disposed of at a licensed and authorized receiving facility. There is currently only one licensed
and authorized receiving site in Pitkin County, the Pitkin County Landfill. This restriction, as written, prevents
4/3/2007
r� ® Page 2 of 2
disposal of what might be declared "clean soil" from being deposited for other beneficial uses elsewhere off site. If
implemented, the soil testing protocol mentioned in section 1 above will provide needed information that can be
compared to a soil management document adopted by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners on July 11,
2006. This guidance document spells out very precisely what concentrations of heavy metals constitute
contaminated vs. clean soil. The guidance was taken from a similar document created by the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment.
I suggest rewriting this requirement to allow for testing to determine disposition of soil exported off site. For
example; "Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon determination based on
sampling that the soil qualifies as being free of contaminants considered at a level to be harmful to humans and /or
the environment. If the soil contains concentrations of heavy metals in excess of the standard, disposition will be
at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility. It is important to realize that the final decision whether or not to
accept contaminated soil at the Pitkin County Landfill rests with the Landfill Manager. Should he determine the
soil is not welcome at the County Landfill, other licensed receiving facilities must be sought. This may be as far as
Denver or even in another state.
Please contact me should you have questions. As you know I will be on travel most of the first two weeks of April,
but will be available from time to time by cell phone.
Thank you, Tom
Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Thomas S. Dunlop, REHS
PO Box 6289
73 Sinclair Lane
Snowmass Village, CO
81615
Phone and Fax (970) 923 -4820
Cell Phone (970) 379 -4028
DunlooenvOaol.com
See what's free at AOL.com.
x Wb �h'ie�l
wiaxl-c &0i1, hCK
y1nR�
txt-c 10�1 �!/1
Pon
4/3/2007
Page 1 of 2
Jessica Garrow
From: Jennifer Hall [jhall @hollandhart.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:24 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: RE: 1001 Ute Ave
Thanks Jessica-
I already spoke with Glen and let him know I would present comments on behalf of a neighbor, Richard and
Susan Wells, at the hearing. Our main concern in minimizing the spead of lead from the soil during
construction.
We are going to request that the general conditions from Setion 12 of the Ordiance No. 24 (Series of 2006) be
restated and included in the the approvals. We are also going to request that the handling techniques for toxic
soils referred to in the last paragraph of Mr. Dunlop's January 27 2006 letter to David Horn Inc. be specified and
inc u e m any approva resolutions and addressed in any construction management plans. In addtion, if there is
a subdivision PUD agreement for this property, I will request that the handling techniques be set forth in such
agreement.
The Wells are year round Aspen residents immediately adjacent to the Applicant's property and they have several
small children and pets that are all frequently outside on the Wells' property. Given the extremely high levels of
lead in the soil, they have concerns about it spreading through the air and water, as there are numerous
underground and above ground waterways in this area. They also have concerns about contaminated soils
being transported from the property on the wheels of vehicles leaving the construction site, contaminating the
roads and being carried into our water system through storm drains. The plans provided do not indicate whether
below grade space is planned for the home, but in light of the toxic soils present, we will suggest that it is not
appropriate to undergo massive excavations in this area, not only due to the danger it presents to the public, but
the danger it presents to the eventual occupants of the home.
Please call me if you need any clarification on these comments. Thanks.
Jennifer Hall
Holland & Hart LLP
600 East Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ihall hol land hart.com
970- 925 -3476 (main)
970 - 925 -9367 (fax)
866-851-8335 (direct fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e -mail
messages attached to it, may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged.. If you are not
the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution
or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by
telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
saving in any manner. Thank you.
From: Jessica Garrow [mailto:jessicag @ci.aspen.co.us]
4/3/2007
Page 2 of 2
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:03 PM
To: Jennifer Hall
Subject: 1001 Ute Ave
Hi Jennifer —
Attached is the material for the April 3b hearing for the 1001 Ute Ave Application. There is an
attachment in the memo that I am not able to email — I will put it in our "H" pickup file for you. Let
me know if you need any other information prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Cheers,
Jessica
Jessica Garrow, Planner
Community Development Dept.
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2780
www, asp_enpitkin.com
.P w)
IVl wJ v\�qS
A�\R T ��UAn
C.bVY1W - cV)
E� A
l M (Ad�vlx
tbS 2w Co��S
coo 1 �'Nd Y�o�s YA h (�,(�1 � A
� tiG
r-7
W I PTO
no�
4/3/2007
January 27, 2007
Davis Horn, Inc.
Glenn Horn
215 S. Monarch St.
Aspen, CO
81611
Re: Ute Mesa PUD (Formerly 1001 Ute Ave.) Soil Management Protocol
Dear Mr. Horn:
At your request Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc has reviewed City of Aspen
Ordinance 24, Series 2006, an engineering and geological report from Chen & Associates
dated November 21, 1986, and a supplemental geotechnical study done by Chen -
Northern, Inc dated February 23, 1989. All of these documents pertain to the property
being discussed, Ute Mesa at 1001 Ute Avenue in Aspen, CO.
The purpose of this review is to determine compliance of Ute Mesa with City of Aspen
Land Use Code section 26.435.030.C.1. This section states: "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. " The geotechnical reports include observations made that identify the presence of
mine waste on the property. This is not surprising as the base of Aspen Mountain was
heavily mined at the turn of the 20`h century in search of precious metals.
The issue before us is to describe an approved method of soil management to minimize
exposure of humans to soil contaminated with heavy metals. This was realized early in
the approval process of this application and the City of Aspen established compliance
criteria as defined in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. Mine waste existing on the property was
tested for heavy metals in both Chen reports mentioned earlier. Test results appear in
both reports and will not be repeated here. It is clear that heavy metals are present in and
on the soil at Ute Mesa.
The resolution of the issue is as follows: It is the intent of the applicant to retain all soil
on site during construction. This historically has been an acceptable and recommended
course of action by the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department. The advantage
of this strategy is it eliminates off site transport of contaminated soil. Protocol to manage
soil containing hazardous material has been successfully established within the City of
Aspen indirectly through management of the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site. If, for
an unknown reason soil must be removed from Ute Mesa project, Pitkin County has
established prescriptive criteria for disposal of contaminated soil at the Pitkin County
Landfill. Arrangements will be made with the Landfill if necessary to receive soil as
required in Ordinance 24.
m.
The Chen report dated February 23, 1989 mentions a soil cap 2 -3 feet deep may be
required over contaminated soil at Ute Mesa. This criterion is left open in the report for
final ruling by the "...local environmental authorities." In this case the authority is the
City of Aspen Environmental Health Department. Acceptable depth of cover of
contaminated soil has been and continues to be one foot of soil containing less than 999
parts per million (ppm) total lead. A one foot depth is also mentioned in Ordinance 24,
Section 11 (g). A one foot depth of soil with less than 999 ppm lead applied to any
exposed mine waste at Ute Mesa after construction will satisfy this requirement. A one
foot depth has been shown to be protective of human health and the environment as
exhibited in approval documents for the Smuggler Mtn. Superfund Site located across the
valley from Ute Mesa.
With prompt revegetation and maintenance of the one foot cap erosion by wind and water
will be minimized. Off site transport of soil by natural causes can be prevented using
vegetation and other traditional controls.
In conclusion; with proper landscaping, attention to dust suppression techniques during
construction, maintaining contaminated soil on site, properly disposing of contaminated
soil off site at a designated and controlled location (Landfill) if necessary, and proper
handling of soil as described in Ordinance 24, Series 2006, compliance with approval
requirements can be accomplished.
Contact me for further questions,
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Dunlop, REHS
2
phi
moft, ear+- ecwt +a vycs-t s icr - cu-Eig -Wi t
• vnt.f, s— fflctr► �ab I. ' ecu -= 3.(p
wi ! ) Ix 0 -la ,ecvs
in sMds atCQ,vti-t� f
rvav 6e7 VIC� 5" .CGY1YlL°Ct1Gf'b4)opp. do Malin
rd *1W
C1rh�j b p space.: svoutim rvI :-� "a
hyb u&e-/ I Qs.
NO ri pmi � b
`CAS � !� of IT t; !- c6ek 1 pt c ab, z*,)
wOH' -c� �fDVI he ci�•j -�Ct'
lay ac,
f �f: Neta Uu �Rvm 4jox P-
tD Mu6ho fi'cu1 NOS rm 1p�-1
" r r t uD flat � dot cn Pyelk `
Sobmi± �c�lcs apvc�C
MMOOPIrtj M14rCf avct(a11c� we `
.'p-e �V•C, C�7GL'v — blind YVRIh
i(iakt wa... i
,;hatnct Wul(j : -'1(Cl164(;n -} f41�iCllKrtl
-sPQAA,tL OIL- 0 aunut
P&
I MN -V-
Nha1 Cn cfiPLC 5�
co NM /Wify Ol
WUo 3 0 ;t n•
Ua ( - hw _ J?:� 14U%VM)W .
rvw6 j2 0�
ilj��'��
1
�o �`mvlG�ed PsR cl V)d 66DQ6 l0,
• Jeau.&e) hcoQ� oxe-,� to' above) Utz , exe* wm SNJ
M ttl Gl 1tTlo/J Pl- AIQ
So&4l /h-mmE
®f7 Tc—� iT Ciac-tx�
f2V, crvs c rE rov c>
Opmtm
rat
Pyle vek- - C&rtixM
nF_ Gtclv\f soil,
Mt> 5z watt
OFF S 4 . - Al '�
� rev
Nl1G�
I
0 O
Chapter 26.410
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
26.410.010General.
26.410.020Procedures for Review.
26.410.030Administrative checklist.
26.410.040Residential design standards.
26.410.010 General.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established
neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods
are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style,
but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the
streetscape.
Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades
of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and
maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns. there is interaction between
residents and passersby and the built environment.
The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the
public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and
hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off
views of the front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front fagade of a house are
particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide
outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an
appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street - facing windows can establish a
hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones
suggesting private rooms.
Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built
environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the town. Avoiding building
materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal,
as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures.
Finally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the
pedestrian nature of a neighborhood can be further enhanced by reducing conflicts
between people and automobiles, and by making alleys an attractive place to walk.
Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. Secondary
structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleys and inspired by the
tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 5
0 0
B. Applicability. This section applies to all residential development in the City of
Aspen requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the R -15B
zone district.
1. Only the following standards shall apply to multi - family housing: Section
26.410.040(A)(1), building orientation, Section 26.410.040(C)(1)(a), access or, if
not applicable, Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(b), garage setback and 26.410.040(D),
building elements, as outlined in said section for multi - family buildings.
2. Parcels located within and partially within the Aspen Infill Area (see Section
26.104, Definitions) shall be required to comply with all of the standards.
3. Parcels not located in the Aspen Infill Area are required to comply with all the
standards except the following: Section 26.410.040(B)(1), secondary mass,
Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b), non - orthogonal windows and Section
26.410.040(E)(2), inflection, in its entirety.
4. Parcels with no street frontage and parcels with front yard setbacks at least ten
(10) feet vertical above street grade shall be exempt from the following
requirements: Section 26.410.040(A)(1), building orientation and Section
26.410.040(D), building elements, in its entirety.
5. Residential units within mixed -use buildings shall be exempt from the
requirement of this Chapter 26.410 in its entirety.
C. Application. An application for residential development shall consist of an
application for a Development Order as may be required by the Community Development
Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, and an application for "Residential Design
Standards" review, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.
D. Exemptions. No application for a residential development order shall be exempt
from the provisions of this section unless the Planning Director determines that the
proposed development:
1. Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior
of the building; or
2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the
building but are not addressed by any of the Residential Design Standards; or
3. Is an application only for the erection of a fence, and the application meets
Section 26.410.040.A.3.
E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these
regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.150 of the Aspen
Municipal Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply:
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 6
o
Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access
easement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. The
term "street' shall include the entire area within aright of way. For the purposed
of Section 26.410 street shall also include private roads, streets and access
easements serving more than one (1) parcel.
26.410.020 Procedures for Review.
A. Determination of Applicability. Applicability shall be determined at the time of
building permit submittal. The applicant may request a pre - application conference to
determine as to whether the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this
chapter.
B. Determination of Consistency. Consistency with the Residential Design
Standards shall be determined at the time of building permit review. The applicant may
request a pre - application conference to determine consistency with the requirements of
this chapter.
C. Appeal of Adverse Determination. If an application is found to be inconsistent
with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the
application or seek a variance as set forth below.
D. Variances.
1. Administrative Variances. The applicant may seek an administrative variance for
not more than three (3) of the individual requirements. An applicant who desires
a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the
Community Development Director shall find that the variances, if granted, would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the
context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the
particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the
director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with
adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity
as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or,
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific
constraints.
The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning
Commission an annual report of approved administrative variances.
2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do
not meet Section 26.410.020(D) above may be granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires to
M
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 7
L
0
consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission
may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission
reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance
from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board
shall find that the variance, if granted, would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the
context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the
particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the
reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development
with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader
vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or,
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific
constraints.
(Ord. No. 20 —2005, Ord. 52 -2003, §5)
26.410.030 Administrative checklist.
The Director of Community Development shall create a checklist for use by applicants
and community development staff in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for
issuance of a development order for an application that is consistent with the Residential
Design Standards.
26.410.040 Residential design standards.
A. SITE DESIGN. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential
buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent " facade line" and
defines the public and semi- public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping
exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private
property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street.
1. uildin ontation. front facades of all
principal st cues shrie T all b allel to the street. On comer
lots, both street a i facades must be parallel to the
intersecting stre . On c az streets, the front facade
of all stru es shall be pazalle the tangent of the
midpo' of the arc of the street. Parce as outlined in
S on 26.410.010(B)(4) shall be exempt from this
requirement.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 8
I
C
X
One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front comer of the building
may be on a diagonal from the street if desired.
2. Build -to lines. On parcels o of
les 15,000 square fee east 60% of
the front a d s a within 5 feet of the
minimum yar tback line. On comer
site s standard shall be on the frontage
ith the longest block length. Po s may be
used meet the 60% standard.
-� IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '
3. Fence. Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty -two
inches (42 ") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of
the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard set back.
! IIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIiN lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
-� um;iimm-
Fence, no
B. BUILDING FORM. The intent of the following building form standards is to
respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes, which are more
similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the city
alleys, and by preserving solar access.
1. Secondary Mass. All new single family and
duplex structures shall locate at least ten (10 %) percent
of their total square footage above grade in a mass which
is completely detached from the principal building, or
linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. This
standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen
Infill Area pursuant to Section 26.410.010 (B)(2).
Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and
accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate
uses for the secondary mass.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 9
re-
A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an
element not less than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height
of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in
length shall be exemption from Section 26.575.020 (A)(8).
C. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking,
garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between
pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or
to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape
where alleys do not exist.
1. For all residential that have access from an alley or private road, the following
standards shall apply:
v4
a. Parking, garages, and carports shall be
accessed from an alley or private road.
b. If the garage doors are visible from a
street or alley, then they shall be single -
stall doors, or double -stall doors
designed to appear like single -stall
doors.
-rL 11-
street
c. If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may
be either single stall or normal double stall garage doors.
2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following
standards shall be met:
a. On the street facing facade(s), the width of the
living area on the first floor shall be at least five
(5) feet greater than the width of the garage or
carport.
b. The front facade of the garage or the front most
supporting column of a carport shall be set back
at least ten (10) feet further from the street than
the front most wall of the house.
tno is
IM N711pi11,�;, -
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
U-. Ann n -__ In
C
On lots of at least fifteen thousand
(15,000) square feet in size, the garage or
carport maybe forward of the front facade
of the house only if the garage doors or
carport entry are perpendicular to the
street (side - loaded).
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.
8i <$ The vehicular entrance width of a garage
or carport shall not be greater than
twenty -four (24)feet.
W
miowmc;u
1111111011111 If
f. 4 If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be
single -stall doors, or double -stall doors designed to appear like single -stall
doors.
elements
standards is to ensure that each r rd building has street -tac M t}etai s
and elements, whic i e human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience,
and r ' ocal building traditions.
dup es, except as outlined in Section 26.41 0(B)(4)
shall ha street - oriented entrance an street facing
principal w=thefollowing ti- family um shall have at least
one street- ofor ery four (4) units, and
front units stre principal window.
On comer ld principal window ould face
whichever reater block length. This standard
shall be sa of the following conditions are
met:
All single - family homes and
City of Aspen Land Use Code. J une, 2005.
Part 400, Page 11
,The entry door shal ace the street and
>no ore th n f eet (10'0 ") back
fr ost wall of the building.
r all not be taller than eight
�01
b. A cov nt orch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum
depth of si a 6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and
canopie shall not ore than one
sto n height.
c. A s principal window
requires at a sigm t window or
grou f windows face street.
1111111 �� . 0,
All residential ildings shall have a first -story street - facing
compris at least twenty (20) percent of the building's
hi is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first -story
ss 'ng that the first story element includes interior living
ory ellvent shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to
element nNV be a porch or living space. Accessible space
Dr enclosed alfta) shall not be allowed over the first story
space over the remaining first story elements on the front
element the width of whi'b4
overall width and the depth c
element is projecting from.
space, the height of the first
the plate height. A first - r)
(whether it is a deck, orch,
element, howeve cessible
facade shall not be precluded.
3. Windows.
a. Street facing w ows
the area where a ec
typically exist, which,
twelve feet (12) above
For interior staircases,
be made from the Yand
transom window
exempt from this
shall of span through
and oor level would
b een nine (9) and
finished first floor.
s easurement will
andin 'f one exists. A
e the entry is
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 12
C
b. No ore than one on- orthogonal
window all be al ed on each facade
of the buil ' single non - orthogonal
window in ble end may be divided
with m tons an till be considered one
I ogonal dow. The
r irement shall only ly to Section
26- 410- 010(B)(2).
stairwells on the
shall be entirely
of the building. ,
lightwells and/or
.de(s) of a building
the frontmost wall
IM
� F1
E. CONTEXT. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique
character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and
neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures.
1. Materials. The following standards must be met:
a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be
consistent on all sides of the building.
Stone yes
Stone no
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 400, Page 13
7t
6
Q
C) O
j7. Materials shall be used in ways that are
true to their characteristics. For instance
stucco, which is a light or non - bearing
material, shall not be used below a heavy
material, such as stone.
Highly reflective surfaces shall not be Yes
used as exterior materials.
2. Inflection. The following standard must be met for
over as outlined in Section 26.410.010(B)(2):
a. a one (1) story building exists di ctly
adja nt to the subject site, then a new
const ion must step down to o story in
height alo their common lot 1' . If there are
one story b ings on both si s of the subject
site, the applic may cho se the side toward
which to inflect.
A one story buildin ha a defined as follows:
A one story buil ' g shall \ea ucture, or
portion of a s cture, whe only one
floor of fully sable living sast 12 feet wide acr the street fronstandard shall b met by providing ment whi is also at least twfeet 'de acr the street frontage ry tall
far back along the common lot line as the
adjacent building is one story.
Ord. No. 20 -2005; Ord. 52 -2003 §7, 8)
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
D-. Ann D--- 1 A
= —10M
N
No
are 6,000 square feet or
011llli411 _ dlllfhhhC! r�u��uw�TT �■
I
Larry Kumpost To: Planner Jessica Garrow
SIMILE COVER PAGI ,
Planner Jessica Garrow
Date: 3/2212007 Time: 3:39:12 PM
From:
SSnt : 3/22/2007 at 3:39:10 PM Pages
Subject : Ute Mesa PUD: Confirm Garage and Auto Court Elevations
Jessica:
. I .•
Larry Kumpost
2 (including Cover)
Page 1 of 2
Jack Miller asked me to send you domething that was cleaner and easy to read to replace the information he
faxed the other day. Please let me know if this is OK.
Thanks
Larry
Lawrence C. Kumpost, Architect
(970) 626 -4040
lark @ouraynet.com
From: Larry Kumpost To: Planner Jessica Garrow
Thursday, March 22, 2007 1'58 PM ,r'
Date: 3/22/2007 Time 3:39:12 PM
Dave Anderson (970) 625 -4255
�PI_WL =yam E= ` ELrV I I(('F
V L C
W V
1,99 F- c ft
y
TEWS COURT ELEVATION
.1 7,975
1001 UTE VE
SUBDIVSI N
Page 2 of 2
�1
a
V1
i
COQ,
�n
�N20 07 06:39p Jack Miller 970 927 8899 p.1
ti■ JACK MILLER & ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTUREIPLANNING r•
P.O. BOX 4285
ASPEN,CO 81612
970.927.95137ELE
970927.8899 FAX
jmiller @rof.net
Attention: From: -
Name �'�Y' �_ Name .sack Miller
Company
Pax FaY (970) 927 -8399
Phone Phone 970/927456
Subject �%fi�' toe fCl
Message:
M7
4)1W Gi1-1,:� Io cf k7 tfe cam' f- 794' 7. h 11 !-f-
(I ,,, n
You should receive pages(s), including this cover sheet. If you do not receive all of the
pages, please call (970) 925 -3476.
Original ~,'gill not follow. __Regular Mail Cerdfiied Mail
Original will follow by: Federal Express Messenger
Mar 20 07 06:39p Jack Miller 970 927 8899 p.2
f
- „pg6y. - - �. f
pro; ''
. •o .. __ � � � � GLOB b,
_Y
/ / A IJtl1
� � m
G5 , l
r-
O
s m
44,�
tt
® f
Wt
- 1
W6L
,1 Zi81 PROPER Y L19E
I�
� I I
°u
loos vre AVE g i
° a •CASBEALIITE
AarPtu•mioenno ro.�x� cAeewmA�co. ENGINEERING rsru
I W9lW /PAIL YO qC '
ATTACHMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1W I \ )^Nall A\ )C) V , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: _ f'��� y i 1 2 , 20o_i7
STATE OF COLORADO ) -
j ss.
County of Pitl:in/ O -
1, i�I l WY VW (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 m tMhe 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 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 fifteen (15) 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 fifteen (15) 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. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be thosC 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 distract 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 shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
c
gnatare
The for o' g "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me tK;X/ day
of 20`- byl� /cv
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1001 UTE AVE, SOLO GBEENLINE REVIEW,
PUD OTHER AMENDMENT, AND RESIDENTIAL
j DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW -- PUBLIC
HEARING
aR th Kloha
Aspen Planning end Zoning Commission
Publl$hM n
City ofASpenAccoun n t (221893) Marcn 10, 200]
C t
WITNZ— SS 'vTy HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
dloVtaryPublic
JAv'IUE
LOTHIAN
ATTACHMENTS: LPA
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
..0TOG&APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL s
PUBLIC
DATE i L
TIME V"
amity Hall:5
J.
PUBLIC TICE
DATETUE3 RIB 3,
TIME
PLACE
De,:-
�k
i..1CHMENT 7
&+ -rjAV, a OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SE4:NI ORi '1. 6.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 10L-)l LJ f 2 V-N U e V, �t -p— Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 4413.10—) 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, G ken r qu✓n (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:
Publicatio notice: By the public in the legal notice sec ' of an official
paper a paper of general circ ion in the City of Aspe a least fifteen (15)
s prior to the public he ' g. A copy of the pubT ion is attached hereto.
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 fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 19 day of
K a-rc -k _' 20Q=, 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 mail g of a notice obtayA from the Commu
Development Department Which contains the ormation describe Section
�e 26.304.060(E)(2) of spen Land Use C e. At least fifteen o) days prior to
the public hearin , once was hand del' red or mailed by f class postage
TT"` �` e `� prepaid U.S. tl to all owners of p erty within three h dyed (300) feet of the
property s� 9- "t to the develop t application. The es and addresses of
prope owners shall be thos on the current tax fate of Pitkin County as they
app red no more than six (60) days prior to thf the public hearing. A
py of the owners and overnmental agencies s d is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text ante _. henever the officia oning district map is in
any way to be than ,d or a;:,Zended incidental to o as part of a general revision
of this Title, or , enever the text of this Titl 's to be amended, whether ch
revision be m e by repeal of this Title a enactment of a new land e
regulation, r otherwise, the requireme of an accurate survey or other
sufficie egal description of, and t notice to and listing o ames and
addre es of owners of real prop y in the area of the pr osed change shall
be ived. However, the prop sed zoning ap shall available for public
in ction in the planning a ncy durin sm hours f fifteen(15)days
or to the public hearin n such amen en /�
The for going "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this � -'day
of r// , 2002, by Glenn 92M
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
UMy commission expires: N ry Public
-2or
Nn moo"
ATTACHMENTS:
COPYOF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF T9E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
State of Colorado )
) ss AFFIDAVIT OF JANET RACZAK
County of Pitkin )
I, GLENN HORN, Affiant, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, do depose and
state as follows:
1. A true and correct copy of the Public Notice for the 1001 Ute Ave, 8040 Greenline Review, PUT
Other Amendment, and Residential Design Standard Review land use application, was placed in
the U.S. Mail, first -class postage prepaid, to all those named in the list provided by the City of
Aspen GIS Office (attached) on the j 6_ day of March, 2007.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
; , kv- 31 -7
GLENN HORN
Date
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me on �, 2007 by
Glenn Horn.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: 10/6/2008
l-
OTARY PUBLI
anet L. Raczak
215 S. Monarch St 106
Aspen CO 81611
Mw•Fc..l 'Slab
/1 �uSTC�
lei
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1001 UTE AVE, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, PUD OTHER AMENDMENT,
AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW — PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 3,
2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to review an
application for 8040 Greenline, PUD Other Amendment, and Residential Design
Standards Review at 1001 Ute Avenue. The subject property is legally described as
MINE, 1741 MINE NAME: ONE THOUSAND ONE PERCENT: 100 ACRES: 0 DESC:
ALL SURFACE & MINERAL RIGHTS DESC: SECTION 18 -10 -84 WEST OF THE
6TH, of the City of Aspen. For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at the City of
Aspen Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2780,
(or j sicagkci.aspen.co.us).
s/Ruth Krueer, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 18, 2007
City of Aspen Account
Impress -on an&i .urrage et a s6chage rapt, " TY•com 1 AVEid`" 5 'so'
Utlllsez le gabsr't 51600 -Z.. -AVERY^ 6
WAGNER PAUL L & DOROTHY H WATCHMAKER LINDA L 95% WATERS MICHAEL A & ADELAIDE ANN
3480 MIDDLEBELT RD 4527 BRUCE AVE PO BOX 8237
W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424 -1122 ASPEN, CO 81612
WEKSTEIN TRUST WELLS RICHARD A & SUSAN T WELSCH SUSAN F TRSTE
100 BELVIDERE ST UNIT 9A 970 POWDER LN 10 LITE PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02199 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2105 ASPEN, CO 81611
WERNST INC WHEELER THOMAS R & PATSY C WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST
8639 DESERT DUSK CT NE 2120 AUSTIN AVE SUITE 100 1910 PINE ST
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113 -2354 ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48309 ST LOUIS, MO 63103
WILKERSON WILLIAM WOODWARD TERRY ZAINO BONIFACE A & ALISON H
3000 NE 30TH PL 3662 BRIDGEPOINTE 876 PARK AVE #4 SOUTH
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33306 OWENSBORO, KY 42303 NEW YORK, NY 10021
ZLN RESIDENTIAL TRUST
C/O CONSTANTINE D GEORGES
701 EDWARDS AVE
ELMWOOD, LA 70123
A83"-O9-008-1, 009L5 31VldW31®tiaAV asn
(w1 ,u 6u!;u!id 88JA a6pnw5 pue wer
4ART SAP,:-:EL P
STEW '^ I
STOPEK RICHARD E 8 J!n F
924 CHARLE@ :N PK
C II iu ""
6311 VIA VENET:? NOR
METAIRIE, L'� 70005
P AY
'
DELRAY BEACH, F' 31�+
S
GYPS _ _ 637
�,TE%f, i, r'ANDOLPH III & SUE
TAWGIN JC'�! ^, ::
TEN TEN LITE H 0 ASSOC_
v
,
129 SEA : .. A` E
19 UTE PL
' U , ' 373
MANASO..; 3o
ASPEN, CO 81611
F . i12 81612
_ s3EY ROBERT W
VANDERLIP HENi iK N
VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNE
41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR
133 RIVER RD
225 ARIZONA AVE PH
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 -7113
COS COB, CT 06807
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 -1243
WAGNER PAUL L & DOROTHY H WATCHMAKER LINDA L 95% WATERS MICHAEL A & ADELAIDE ANN
3480 MIDDLEBELT RD 4527 BRUCE AVE PO BOX 8237
W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424 -1122 ASPEN, CO 81612
WEKSTEIN TRUST WELLS RICHARD A & SUSAN T WELSCH SUSAN F TRSTE
100 BELVIDERE ST UNIT 9A 970 POWDER LN 10 LITE PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02199 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2105 ASPEN, CO 81611
WERNST INC WHEELER THOMAS R & PATSY C WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST
8639 DESERT DUSK CT NE 2120 AUSTIN AVE SUITE 100 1910 PINE ST
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113 -2354 ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48309 ST LOUIS, MO 63103
WILKERSON WILLIAM WOODWARD TERRY ZAINO BONIFACE A & ALISON H
3000 NE 30TH PL 3662 BRIDGEPOINTE 876 PARK AVE #4 SOUTH
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33306 OWENSBORO, KY 42303 NEW YORK, NY 10021
ZLN RESIDENTIAL TRUST
C/O CONSTANTINE D GEORGES
701 EDWARDS AVE
ELMWOOD, LA 70123
A83"-O9-008-1, 009L5 31VldW31®tiaAV asn
(w1 ,u 6u!;u!id 88JA a6pnw5 pue wer
Impressi� , antibcerrage et A sechage rac' " , yctn' AVERY® 5160w'
Utllisez l<z 4.1abarit 5160" Tv , 1,AVF(r(
REICH MELV:., t TRUST
4609 SEASHORE CR
NEWPORT BEA. CA 92663
RODAN FAMILY LIVV
614 LASALLE AVE #442
OAKLAND, CA 94611
SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE
8 PARKWAY DR
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
SCHARLIN HOWARD R & GLORIA G
10 EDGEWATER DR APT 4A
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133 -6962
RICE MARGARET A
13912 FLINT
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221
ROSE FAMILY TRUST
240 S BRISTOL AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
SANDITEN EDWARD STANLEY
PO BOX 11566
ASPEN, CO 81612
SCHIRMER LESLIE M
4100 E QUINCY AVE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
SCHWEPPE DAVID P 85% SCOTT JOSEPH A
SCHWEPPE VALERIE G REV TRUST 15% PO BOX 5941
8435 NW 43RD LN DENVER, CO 80217
OCALA, FL 34482
SEIFERT COLORADO TRUST
2421 HAMILTON DR
AMES, IA 50014
SHIELDS VIVIAN S TRUST
PO BOX 1555
GULF BREEZE, FL 32562 -1555
SIEGEL LOIS H QPRT
3 GROVE ISLE DR #1109
MIAMI, FL 33133
SIMON JEROME M & DONNA
1294 ROCKRIMMON RD
STAMFORD, CT 06903
SLOANE RICHARD A & CAROLYN J
124 RIGHTERS MILL RD
GLADWYNE, PA 19035
SEWELL BEVERLY JEAN & RALPH
BYRON
884 QUAIL RUN DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 -8608
SHIRK JAMES A
PO BOX 1549
BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702
SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C
7404 BROOKVILLE RD
CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
SIMPKINS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE
TETLOW
2921 AVALON PL
HOUSTON, TX 77019
SMART EDWIN J
C/O R L STEENROD JR & ASSOC
2009 MARKET ST
DENVER, CO 80205 -2022
R;CH'-FR +ALERIEARDEN
6'214 N 34TH ST
FARAD -SE VALLEY, AZ 85253
f ?i' 3t:IBERG HENRY A & DOROTHY
20�'dN CENTRAL PET CORP
NE N CHARLES 22ND FL
LTIMORE, MD 21201
SCHALDACH NANCY
2494 S OCEAN BLVD #J -8
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
SCHWARZ JOHN H
CALTECH 452-48
PASADENA, CA 91125
SEAMAN SAUNDRA L
8505 ARLINGTON BLVD #210
FAIRFAX, VA 22031
SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R TRUST
5704 DEVILLE DR
EDWA, MN 55436
SHULMAN ROBERT A
132 NASSAU ST #812
NEW YORK, NY 10038
SIMMONS LEONARD & MARGARET
PO BOX 54
ASPEN, CO 81612
SINAI ALLEN
16 HOLMES RD
LEXINGTON, MA 02173
SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE
1225 BRAEBURN
FLOSSMORE, IL 60422
gD09L5 3Pd3dW31®tiaAV ash
. ` Iisea le gabarit 51600 1 -800-60 -AVERY F
,s,. RNETT MARTIN J & MARCE.A 8
338 EMERSON AVE
ALLIANCE, NE 69301
MCCOY TRUST
3485 S SILVER SPRINGS RD
LAFAYETTE,CA 94549
MARSi.AnG:.,',,ANL .i
Ti <UEi T -^ .4.:'. �3 TRUST AGREEMENT
'.3101' E TCi:; .:;T
t;HICF.r:: !'. 3,'510
MCGG PHILIP C & MARY ANN
33 Pt, ...-F ST
MAN' S ER, MA 01944
MERRILLS DAPHNE
q'i "C' 1 REALTY LTD
THEE WING TYNINGHAME HOUSE
= LA;" BUILDING
DUNBAR E LOTHIAN
333 W LOOP N STE 410
SCOTLAND EH42 1XW,
HOUSTON, TX 77024
MEYER WILLIAM J 2/3
1000 CAMPBELL CT
LAKE BLUFF, IL 60044 -1300
NUTTER GEORGE ERNEST & LYNDSAY
223 HANNA RD
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M4G 3P3
MOEN DONNE P & ELIZABETH A
8 CABALLEROS RD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
LLLP
500 PATTERSON RD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
PAGEAL VENTURES LTD
PAISLEY ON THE BEAR LLC
ATTN LEVIN PAUL C
C/O MARGARET I PROCHASKA
55 DELISLE AVE #1003
191 SPAULDING LN
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M4V 3C2
EVANSTON, WY 82930
PARKER WILLIAM A JR PHILLIPS STEPHEN & BARBARA
1900 GARRAUX WOODS RD NW 900 FIFTH AVE
ATLANTA, GA 30327 NEW YORK, NY 10021
PINSKY STEPHEN & ALENE PITKIN COUNTY
382 DELEGATE DR 530 E MAIN ST STE 302
WORTHINGTON, OH 43235 ASPEN, CO 81611
PROPERTY INVESTORS #1 LLC PROSTIC EDWARD & MARJORIE
8407 BROOKEWOOD CT 2225 STRATFORD RD
MC LEAN, VA 22120 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208
RAMSEY STACIE A RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS LTD
39 CANTERBURY RD PO BOX 127
MADISON, NJ 07940 TIBURON, CA 94920
"ICCORMICK ROGER F FAMIL' TRUST
6:i%
Mi"'CORMICK MARY E 34%
F0 BOX 2':32
OV•', -; S ? '/ .0, KY 42301
MEHL � ;'R.ET
350 W 57TH 3T
NEW Y"%? , !-ITY. NY .00<9
MTYER HOW.
2660 MIDDLE6Ui, - L
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
MORRIS TRUST
906 FRANKLIN
RIVER FOREST, IL 60305
OWEN BILLYE HOWELL
3535 GILLESPIE #303
DALLAS, TX 75219
PANTER BARRY M TRUST
3837 WINFORD DR
TARZANA, CA 91356
PINE A PHILIP
1600 E ATLANTIC BLVD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33060 -6768
PRATER BILL GEORGE & MARIE C
TRUST
1257 POST OAK CT
SPRINGFIELD, MO 65809
PYRFEKT PROPERTIES LLP
1424.CEDAR BAY LN
SARASOTA, FL 34231
REICH DANIEL S TRUST 25% INT
999 N TUSTIN AVE #216
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
AM3AV-09-008-L 009 LS 31V1d W 31®tia^tl asn
®09L5 @M3A / w03•ti8ne*M Mn 6u11•u'Jd 88J3 a6pnw5 pue wer
impresMon anric.ndrrage et 6 s6chage rap "'s y.com T i A �,M'M
Utlllsez le gaba A 51600 - AVERY kF5-
GR4YSON _ -,E4 ALD r -ROL 1f t
40141 BLUFrN(-',NT LN �' "go 1:•' OR -
„NE TREE, '7) 80124 r'."' 9J
�ARRISC-'W JOAN G 50% HARTMAi
-'7,,1 — 4ARLES AVE 2865 N-
W OR 7ANS, LA 70118 FT LAUJr_r Ft ?' 05
i ;ti �_'� BRIAN L HAUGER MIC! ,': i:. F. 5 JUDY L
AC$ 240011 13516 QUAKIN3 ASPEN NE
L'J5? A+IGELES, CA 90024 ALBUQUERQUE, NU 87111
HENDERSON WAYNE F HENRY CHARLES V III AND JEAN D
39 CANTERBURY RD 937 WILLOW ST
MADISON, NJ 07940 LEBANON, PA 17042
HIRSCH MICHAEL & MARY HOCKER DAVID E
63 EMERALD DUNES CIR 610 S WEST END ST #C103
HENDERSON, NV 80105 ASPEN, CO 81611
HYMAN DIANA JACK LP
8 WINTHROP DR ALBERTA OR ROD JACK
DIX HILLS, NY 11746 10 WESTGATE WALK
KITCHENER ONTARIO CANADA,
N2M2T8
JANNA INC KAUFMAN MICHAEL A & SHERRYL W
500 PATTERSON RD 7 FERNWOOD CT
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 E BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816
KEENAN D MICHAEL KNAUS DOUGLAS A & KENDALL J
1135 BELLVIEW RD 1627 SOUTH BLVD
MCLEAN, VA 22102 HOUSTON, TX 77006
LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP LEPOW RANDAL M & DANA S
2836 PATRIOT PARK PLACE 6355 SEWANEE ST
HENDERSON, NV 89052 HOUSTON, TX 77005
LINEBERGER WILLIAM CARL LOWE DEVELOP CORP
145 GREEN ROCK DR 610 S WEST END ST
BOULDER, CO 80302 ASPEN, CO 81611
HAHN TRUST
8405 INDIAN H ?!...S OF
OMAHA, NE 681
HARTMAN DOYLE & MAR
PO BOX 10426
MIDLAND, TX 79702
HEIRLOOM PROPERTIES
LLC
10077 GROGANS MILL RD STE 475
THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380
HEVRDEJS CATHY CAMPBELL
3244 ELLA LEE LN
HOUSTON, TX 77019
HONIGSBERG JOHN
12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE
POTOMAC, MD 20854
JACOBS HARLAN & DEBRA TRUST
8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
KAY REV TRUST
LEVINSON BONNIE
2127 BROADWAY #1
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
LARSON DAYL A & KAY W FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP
119 S JACKSON ST
DENVER, CO 80209 -3125
LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY
TRUST
9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
MADDALONE CHARLES TRUST
C/O PAT MADDALONE TRUSTEE
PO BOX 20124
SEDONA, AZ 86341
00915 31V1d W 31®tiany asD
6uow., tea,, Orin011lG AIIP IIIPI
URIfir Bi le aa4arit 5160' ^' ,. „w1, u AVERY
CLAMAt, HENRY N & JANET S COHEN HOWARD & C,- SL:'AFif
518 RIVE''t VIEW OR 3551 WOODCLIFF RD
GRAND J�. NCTION, CO 81503 SHERMAN OAKS, CA S,
CRONIN CARL T('7.) ?It;
8748 DORRING', Ot
LOS ANGELES, CP e
DAVIS RICHARD M JR Li\'!NG TRUST
C/O DAVIS CANNON
PO BOX 728
SHERIDAN, WY 82801
DEHNERT G PAUL & VICKY
3110 MAYWOOD AVE
AUSTIN, TX 78703 -1133
DESTIN CO
C/O MULLIN TBG
2029 CENTURY PK EAST 37TH
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
EMERSON JANE C & JONATHAN E
129 TUNXIS VILLAGE
FARMINGTON, CT 06032
FONVIELLE HENRY S & LEE
305 LLOYDS LN
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22302
FRAUTSCHI STEVEN & MIE
1561 CREST DR
ALTADENA,CA 91001
GANT 103 LLC
311 TOWN CENTER
BELLA VISTA, AR 72714
GOODSIR SUSAN A 1/3
4009 HIGHWOOD COURT NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
CRUM THOMAS F & CATHRY 2
991 UTE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVIS TERRY CONNALLY
1046 ONTARIO
SHREVEPORT, LA 71106
DENNING ROBERT R & KATE K 1/2 INT
740 WEDGE DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 -1823
DIAMOND NATHAN
5465 BANYAN TRAIL
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
FAVROT CAFFREY
124 CHARLESTON PK
METAIRIE, LA 70005
FOSSIER MIKE W REV TRUST
7 WAINWRIGHT RD #88
WINCHESTER, MA 01890
FRY LLOYD EDWARD
1335 STRATFORD DR
PIQUA, OH 45356
GESSNER RICHARD W REV TRUST
170511 TH ST NE
MASSILLON, OH 44646
GRAHAM MAUREEN & THEODORE L
7507 PHELPS CLOSE
NEW ALBANY, OH 43054
,PA' , =ORD JOAN
12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE
riTC`MAC, MD 20854
'.ITLER SHERRIE STEPHENS TRUST
197 EIGHTH ST #506
C.- IARLESTOWN, MA 02129
DEFRANCIA JAMES M 58%
DEFRANCIA CYNTHIA J 42%
17 LITE PLACE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DEPALMA JOHN R
ATTN MARIA
710 W WILSON AVE
GLENDALE,CA 91206
DILLARD WILLIAM T II & MARY A
C/O DILLARD DEPT STORES INC
PO BOX 486
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 -0486
FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD
30 CARTIER ST
OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA, K2P 2E7
FRANKLIN JULIE L
62 RYE RIDGE RD
HARRISON, NY 10528
FRYKLUND ROBERT
2917 DUKE ST
HOUSTON, TX 77005
GOLUB GENE
GOLUB & CO
625 N MICHIGAN
CHICAGO, IL 60611
GRAHAM NELL C
6081 W CRAWFORD ST
DENISON, TX 75020
®0915 ®J�rJ�t/ A83AV-09-008-L 009LS 31VIdW31�aAV astl
wortiane•AAMA& 6uiluud aari a6pnwS pue wet
Impression Atib �urrage et 8 sibe age ra; ;ri« VIIIIIIIII www.aa .. ;< ` _
ut8lsez le gabars:'.1600 1- 800 -G0-: A.,jl V . AIM AMENT 25
1135 UTE LLC
6363 WOODWAY 10T 1 Fl.
HOUSTON, TX 77057
679534 ONTARIO LTD
C/O CHARLES C GOLD
130 ADELAIDE ST W #3302
TORONTO ONTARIO CANA:1`.,
AGUA FRIA PROPERTIES LLC-- _ .
460 ST MICHAELS DR BLDG 300
SANTA FE, NM 87505
ARNETT DAVID & BETTE
5333 N CAMINO REAL
TUCSON, AZ 85718
ASPEN VIEW LTD
100 S MAIN AVE #300
SIDNEY, OH 45365
BECNEL DANIEL JR & MARY H
PO DRAWER H
RESERVE, LA 70084
BITTEL JUDITH R 50%
801 ARTHUR GODFREY RD STE 600
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 -3323
BOTT ALLEN D
1 DOS POSOS
ORINDA, CA 94563
BURNS DARYL R
7169 SO POPLAR LN
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112
24;f '.:RPRISE LLC
C /O' `'-,AEL WELTY
52 C4 END AVE
7lN DRK, NY 10028
i, DER LAURA
PTN RESORT INTERIORS CORP
BOX 1963
?EN, CO 81612
9,NDERSON JUNE H
C/O BB &T TRUSTEE
PO BOX 10001
OWENSBORO, KY 42302
ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC
PO BOX 1128
ASPEN, CO 81612
BAYLDON BARBARA W TRUSTEE 50%
647 W BARRY AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60657 -4504
BEEM CORPORATION
3528 OAKTON DR
MINNETONKA, MN 55343
BLAUSTAT 202 LLC
1125 PARK AVE #613
NEW YORK, NY 10128
BRENER DANIEL M & SHARON G
5202POCAHONTAS
BELLAIR,TX 77401
CARMAN PETER
ASPEN ALPS #808
700 UTE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
3020 OSBORN PRO71 RTIES LTD
8020 OSBORN
„?l1JSTON, TX 77ri
AGFR F "<ONA� n _LEANOR S
2800 ISL.AN.1 B!''D #2305
'!'AMi,FL 3, -..'"
;'JMAS W TRUSTEC 50%
t00?ei ST
NEV, 1 . f'f 06511
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
PO BOX 1248
ASPEN, CO 81612
BECK CYNTHIA
PO BOX 1569
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
BESHARAT GERALDINE
PO BOX 7
ELBERTON, GA 30635
BLOCK JOEL A TRUSTEE 50%
647 W BARRY AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60657 -4504
BRITTEL STEPHEN H 50%
4125 BRAJANZA ST
COCONUT GROVE, FL
CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L
201 39TH ST
DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515
CHOZEN MERRILL A & JILL E TRST CHU MICHAEL CITY OF ASPEN
1230 SACRAMENTO ST 38 CORMORANT CIR 130 S GALENA ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94010 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, CO 81611
A83AV- 09-008-1,
00915 31V1dW31 efUaAV asfl
0..,n uni vu a6nmue nuo umr
�..........3g.m.e
❑N Mr Y OF KENTUCKY Alumni Ass iauon I' �
awl Mn. JuiAnderson E. Anderson
21 I 1.11 it
2145 Fieldcrest Dr i � yp !
0wensboru KY 42301 I? 'I 1 1. �'�;, 11 li l 1= r ( „I.,
ASPEN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
130 S. GALENA STREET
"PEN CO 81611
ASPEN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
130 S. GALENA STREET
( 'EN CO 81611
I)q
r C a -3 I / 1)
&161 >!a 902 IL.LI dIIII, IIIIIIIIJI ... 111,11,II,II Ill. III III III 111,kill
�pHifd
JV n
pm
x
�;n IS NAR p
2pp7 '
REICH DANIEL S TRUST 25% INT
999 N TUSTIN AVE #216
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
01611 @1902
92105SGS06 0033
NIXIE 927 1 00 09�
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSEE
UNABLE TO FORWARD
BC: ®1611190230 *1479 - 06601
Illllnl Ill lllnn Ill I Illnllllllnlinnll.luli MM
�SFAIrfC
PM
0
w
1p,^77
COHEN HOWARD & CAROL TRIFARI
3551 WOODCLIFF RD
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
ASPEN COMMUNITY
!DEVELOPMENT
13C GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
V� cll�
A, PEN COMMUNITY
ELOPMENT
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 61611
ai6iis1902 Cvi3i
oSf NI >:C„
c
FM
15 wl `o
x.>
�nni
III l„„III I I,,,,. I L,, I I,„ I i t, l„ I I R,,, I III II,1
7 VJ' A l 41' Fi
. _.
M
I,
v (1cal
EC MU)
MAY 2 1 2007
o
KU� �y �M /w1r 1.1�
p�oyPO� DEIAR T t1 IE
ROCKER DAVID E wC 14-C) +Q)
ASpER1- L081Qty�
Gi6iiS2i42
ASPEN COMMUNITY
'DEVELOPMENT
1 " S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 8!611
ASPEN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
' � S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
!esiiii�,,
RETU$IN FUM z
A00'L POSTAG " ' 15 NAe o
r ,
WHEN REMAVLINO CROSS OUT I"
VOTICE OR PASTE STAMPS OVER IT
JACK LP
ALBERTA OR ROD JACK
10 WESTGATE WALK
KITCHENER ONTARIO CANADA,
N2M2T8
RETURN FOR
A00'L POSTAGE I r M
Ifi MAP C,
WHEN REMARI!7G CROSS DUT G D T
Nn lrc OR PASTE STAMPS OVER IT
NUTTER GEORGE ERNEST & LYNDSAY
223 HANNA RD
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M4G 3P3
V
f
C NOTICE
RE: 1001 UT17-, REVIEW, PUD OTHEF� .
AND RESIDENT, " M1 -,�.RD REVIEW = PUBLIC—V.'. ?
NOTICE IS HERE 1 at a public hearing will be held on Tue
2007, at a meeting 30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning
Commission, Sister r,;r a. -ity Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
application for 8040 "LID Other Amendment, and Resid.e
Standards Review at ,; : nue. The subject property is legally c=
MINE, 1741 MINE NAIv s,- .: JO! JSAND ONE PERCENT: IOG
ALL SURFACE &MINER -t_. F_!
April 27, 2006
James Lindt
Planning and Zoning Commi55ion
c/o Community Development Board
City Of Aspen
150 5. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Mr. Lindt:
Thank you for your time on Wednesday the 26'. A5 you 5ugge5ted, I am
following up our conversation with a letter to be placed in the file.
A5 adjacent property owners to 1001 Ute Ave. we are not opposed to the
proposed lot Split provided there is no additional FAR approved above the
current limits. We are absolutely opposed to the split Should it include or
result in any variance to the current FAR limits either now or in the future.
Again, thank you for your time.
Regards,
Rich and Susie Wells
7JcoW
April 24, 2006
Richard and Susan Wells
970 Powder Lane
Aspen, Co 81611-2105
Dear Richard and Susan;
nn�4tA
i ra
4 5Dv
CvLo
Thank you for taking the time to review the enclosed request for your support of the proposed lot
split on 1001 Ute Ave. We are presently on the Planning an Zoning Commission agenda for
May 2, 2006. At that time the Commission will consider the appropriateness of the proposal.
Effectively, the lot split will cause a clean up of the tailings area and create a park -like setting on
the remainder of the property. Only two homes are contemplated on approximately 7 acres of
land of which 4 acres are to be gifted to the City of Aspen for purposes of creating a permanent
ski trail access and open space. As an adjacent property owner, you have already been provided a
copy of the aforementioned proposal for a lot split, however if you have any questions regarding
its contents, don't hesitate to call and we will be happy to clarify any confusion.
I have taken the liberty of enclosing a letter of support for your signature or you may create your
own if you are in support of the application.
Very Truly Yo
li4ckead
enclosure
DOWNTOWN ASPEN • 606 LAST HYMAN AvENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
OFFICE 970.925.2811 OR TOLL FREL 866.925.2811 • FAx 970.925.9182 • E MAIL CA]R @sORIS.NFT • WFRSITF. www.carolannjacobson.com
call
Caml Ann Js,,sb n Realty — Prand partnn is the Real Estate family of Snawmass Real Estate Company and the Roaring Fork bed Company
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
I
1
C/
M
1
Davis Horn•
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
December 29, 2006
Jessica Garrow, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Ute Mesa Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) -- 8040
Greenline Review, PUD Amendment and Residential Design Review
Dear Jessica:
Ute Mesa, LLC (applicant) owns the Ute Mesa Subdivision Planned
Unit Development (PUD) which is also known as the 1001 Ute Avenue
Subdivision PUD. The applicant is represented in this land use
application by Davis Horn Incorporated, Planners and Jack Miller
and Associates Incorporated, Architects. This land use application
requests the following land use approvals which were identified in
the City of Aspen Pre - application Conference Summary Sheet (see
Attachment 1).
* 8040 Greenline Review (Section 26.435.030);
* PUD Other Amendment (Section 26.445.100 B.);
* Residential Design Review (Section 26.410);
* Slope Reduction for Lot Area (Section 25.575 C.); and
* Impact Fees and Dedications (Section 26.600).
The land use application is divided in to the following sections:
I. Background; .Is►.�r
II. Project Description;
III. Land Use Approvals; and
IV. Summary.
ALICE DAVIS AICP S GLENN HORN AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. -SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 •970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925 -5180
adavis @rof.net ghorn @rof.net
IAI
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
.. Page 2
e^
I.
BACKGROUND
The Ute Mesa Subdivision PUD is generally located at the base of
Aspen Mountain, north of United States Forest Service land, south
of Ute Avenue and east of Aspen Chance and Ute Additions
Subdivisions and west of the Hoag Subdivision Lot 1 and the City of
Aspen Ajax Park. Refer to Attachment 2, Site Vicinity Map.
The upper portion of the property which includes approximately 4.1
.. +/- acres is generally located above the old Midland Railroad spur
line within the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The lower 2.7 +/-
�- acres are located within the Aspen City limits. The subject site is
a metes and bounds parcel which includes a portion of the 1001
mining claim (M.S. 1741).
M. The site is bounded by Ute Avenue to the north, Ajax Park and Hoag
•- Subdivision Lot 3 to the east, Aspen Mountain to the south (USFS),
and Aspen Chance and Ute Additions Subdivisions to the west. Lot
3 Hoag Subdivision, the lots in the Aspen Chance and Ute Additions
Subdivisions are developed, while Ajax Park to the west and Forest
Service land south are undeveloped.
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is from Ute Avenue.
Pedestrians, skiers, and bicycle riders may access the site from
the nordic trail which traverses the south side of the property
providing access to the Little Nell ski trail and Aspen Mountain
Road.
Attachment 3 is a copy of the draft Final Plat of Ute Mesa
Subdivision /PUD which has been submitted to the City of Aspen for
approval and recordation. The Plat shows that 2.8 acres of the
.. site are located within the City limits and the remaining 4.1 acres
located within unincorporated Pitkin County. The unincorporated
land is zoned AFR -10. The Ute Mesa Subdivision PUD (aka 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision PUD) was approved pursuant to Ordinance 24,
Series of 2006 which appears as Attachment 4.
M
A triangular strip of land located between the Aspen city limits
4ft and the 8040' contour line is zoned C (Conservation) . The land
2W below the 8040' contour line which is zoned R -15 PUD (Moderate
Density Residential Planned Unit Development) . A ski trail and an
abandoned right -of -way of the Midland Railroad spur traverses the
upper portion of the property above the city limits line.
r
The land encompassing the ski trail and old railroad spur is
# densely vegetated with mature aspen, spruce, fir and serviceberry
#
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 3
r
trees and shrubs. Mine tailings are located below the mature trees
,. and shrubs. There is a pocket of serviceberry shrubs and maple
trees within the tailings. When the Aspen Chance Subdivision was
developed evergreen trees were planted on the west side of the
tailings pile.
The northwest corner of the property is well vegetated with
cottonwood and spruce trees and native grasses and shrubs. Figure
5 shows three tennis courts are located in the northeast corner of
the property.
Attachment 5, is a November, 2005 1001 Ute Avenue: Topographic
Improvement Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers,
.. Incorporated. The land in the City of Aspen is split between two
zone districts by the 8040 topographic line. Approximately 5,540
square feet of land is located between the 8040' elevation line and
the City limits and is zoned C (Conservation) . The remaining
111,064 square feet of land within the City limits is zoned R -15
-. PUD (Moderate- Density Residential, Planned Unit Development).
Attachment 5 includes a slope analysis of the property prepared in
.. accordance with Section 26.575.020 C. of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Table 1, presents Aspen Survey Engineer's topographic slope
categorization of land in the R -15 PUD zone in a tabular format.
The data in Table 1 show there are approximately 110,080 square
feat of land in the R -15 PUD zone. After applying slope reduction
factors, approximately 63,310 square feet of land may be used as
Lot Area. Total Lot Area in Table 1 is further reduced by
subtracting surface easements for driveways.
a
r
r
Jessica Garrow
�. December 29, 2006
Page 4
TABLE 1
1001 UTE AVENUE:
SLOPE ANALYSIS FOR R -15 PUD ZONE*
Per Cent
Square Feet
Per Cent
Square Feet
Slope Category
Gross Area
Factor **
Lot Area
a
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0 -20
60,310
100
60,310
20 -30
6,000
50
3,000
> -30
44,770
0
0
W
Total
110,080
NA
63,310
" * Land in the C (Conservation) zone is not included in the
Lot Area calculation.
** Reduction Factors from Aspen Land Use Code, Section
26.575.020 C.
Source: Aspen Survey Engineers Inc., and Davis Horn Inc.; January,
2006
Attachment 5 shows that the site is relatively flat adjacent to Ute
Avenue. Three tennis courts are located on the east side of the
.. flat area. The area to the west of the tennis courts is
undeveloped.
f
r
An eight inch sanitary sewer line, a 12 inch water line and
electric and telephone and natural gas service are located in Ute
Avenue. An existing fire hydrant is located across Ute Avenue near
the northeast corner of the site.
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attachment 3, the draft Final Plat of Ute Mesa Subdivision /PUD,
shows the PUD is composed of three lots for development and four
common areas. Lots 1 and 2 will be improved with free market
single family dwelling units and Lot 3 will be improved with a deed
restricted affordable housing "for sale" dwelling unit. Common
*' Area Lots A, B, and C will be owned and maintained by the Ute Mesa
r Homeowners Association while Common Area Lot D will be deeded to
the City of Aspen and preserved as open space pursuant to a
,. conservation easement.
I
LJ
1
1
1
11
I
11
I
1
1
1
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 5
Attachment 6 depicts the Ute Mesa PUD Landscape Plan. The Plan
shows the proposed building footprints, driveway, emergency vehicle
turnaround, relocated tennis court and landscaping.
Site development will begin with rough grading for the driveway and
tennis court relocation. The tennis court relocation will be done
by a certified and licensed tennis court manufacturer and
installer. It is anticipated that all three dwelling units will be
stick built off site and shipped to a staging area located outside
the City of Aspen. The various house sections will be placed on
the site by a crane. Exterior and interior finishes will be
completed on site in the traditional manner. The final phase of
construction will site clean up and landscaping. All site
activities will follow the Construction Managment Plan submitted
with the Access and Infrastructure and Building Permits.
III.
LAND USE REVIEWS
This section of the land use application demonstrates compliance
with the following sections of the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
* 8040 Greenline Review (Section 26.435.030);
* PUD Other Amendment (Section 26.445.100 B.);
* Residential Design Review (Section 26.410);
* Slope Reduction for Lot Area (Section 25.575); and
* Impact Fees (Section 26.600).
The Code standards appear in bold followed by the applicant's
responses.
Section 26.435.030
8040 Greenline Review
Section 5 of City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 granted
8040 Greenline review for the "road serving the single family
residence parcels and the relocation of the tennis courts" (see
Attachment 4) . This 8040 Greenline review is limited to "the
specific residence designs" (emphasis added). Throughout this
section of the application references are made to Exhibit A, Review
Criteria and Staff Findings, of the July 10, 2006 Community
Development Department Memorandum entitled "Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 -Ute Avenue Subdivision,
I
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 6
' Consolidated Conceptual /Final PUD Growth Management Review for
Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels" (see Attachment 7) .
' Section 26.435.030.0.1.
' 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
C 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.
CThe Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
regarding this standard is:
C "Staff believes that the proposed building sites do contain
the possibility of avalanche and rockfall hazards.
Additionally, the proposed building sites the proposed
building sites are located on mine tailings. However, the
Applicant's engineers have recommended mitigation measures for
these hazards that have been incorporated as conditions of
approval in the proposed resolution. Staff finds this
criterion to be met as long as the conditions of approval in
the resolution are complied with" (emphasis added) .
The applicant's responses to this standard are addressed under the
following sub - headings:
■ * Slope and Ground Stability Characteristics;
�.
* Mine Subsidence;
' * Mud flow and Rockfall;
* Avalanche Danger; and
' * Toxic Soils.
' The following expert reports are referred to in this section and
appear as attachments to the land use application.
* Attachment 8 November 21, 1986 Engineering Geologic
' Reconnaissance and Mine Dump Study
Proposed Residential Development 1001
Claim, Ute Avenue, Colorado prepared by
' Chen & Associates
* Attachment 9 February 23, 1989 Supplemental
1
L
I
1
i
LJ
[l
F7
U
`J
J
LI
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 7
Geotechnical Study Proposed 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision Aspen, Colorado
prepared by Chen - Northern Inc.
Attachment 10 February 13, 1989 Letter from Nicholas
Lampiris, Ph.D. to Sunny Vann, Geologic
Investigation addressing 1001 Ute Avenue
Attachment 11 May 20, 1991 Letter from Nicholas
Lampiris, Ph.D. to Glenn Horn, addressing
1001 Ute Avenue
Attachment 12 January 20, 2006 Avalanche Hazard Report
prepared by Peter Lev Alpentech, Salt
Lake City Utah & March 10, 2006
Memorandum to Glenn Horn from Peter Lev
and Beat vonAllmen
Slope and Ground Stability Characteristics. Attachment 5
shows that the site is relatively flat adjacent to Ute Avenue.
Three tennis courts are located on the east side of the flat area.
Slope stability was analyzed extensively in the five prior land use
applications for this property which were reviewed by the City of
Aspen. Refer to Attachment 8, a November 21, 1986 Engineering
Geologic Reconnaissance and Mine Dump Study Proposed Residential
Development 1001 Claim, Ute Avenue, Colorado prepared by Chen &
Associates and Appendix 8, a February 23, 1989 Supplemental
Geotechnical Study Proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Aspen,
Colorado prepared by Chen - Northern Incorporated.
The Geologic reports state that slopes on the property are steep
and extensive site grading for development may be needed. The
portion of the site between the tennis courts and the City limits
may be subject to slope instability. Site development is feasible
based upon geotechnical considerations. The two proposed dwelling
units will require special foundation treatment such as spread
footings or pile foundations bearing on the underlying natural
soils. Structural retaining walls will be required along the
proposed driveway. It is recommended that cut and fill slope
grades along the roadway and downhill side of the tailings pile
should be graded to 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Graded
slopes should be revegatated or protected by other means to prevent to
erosion.
Mine Subsidence. According to Attachment 8, the November 21,
1986 Engineering Geologic Reconnaissance and Mine Dump Study
Proposed Residential Development 1001 Claim, Ute Avenue, Colorado
prepared by Chen & Associates, the source of the mine dump
materials on the site is the Lower Durant Tunnel. The tunnel
portal lies 200 to 300 feet to the west of the site. °Chen &
Associates found no documentation of major underground mines below
the property. The property lies east of major areas of mining
I
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 8
' activity. Chen & Associates conclude in Attachment 8 that "the
risk for mine induced subsidence is considered to be low."
Mud flow and Rockfall. Mudflow, also known as debris flow, is
evaluated in Attachment 9, the February 23, 1989 Supplemental
Geotechnical Study Proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Aspen,
Colorado prepared by Chen - Northern Incorporated. According to the
report, there may be debris flow potential originating from Spar
Gulch within the lower western portion of the site. The proposed
houses are to be located above the area which may be affected by
potential Spar Gulch debris flows. The preservation of Common Area
D (upper portion of property) which is densely vegetated should
help limit debris flow potential.
Minor rockfall potential is evaluated in Attachment 10, a February
13, 1989 Letter from Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. to Sunny Vann,
Geologic Investigation addressing 1001 Ute Avenue and Attachment
11, a May 20, 1991 Letter from Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. to Glenn
Horn, addressing 1001 Ute Avenue. Lampiris states in Attachment 10
that rockfall can occur from the outcrops above the site which are
' visible from Smuggler Mountain on the other side of the Roaring
Fork Valley. There are not significant fractures in the rocks to
contribute to loose rocks on the hillside. The low elevation of
' the outcrops and the significant tree cover on the hillside will
not allow rocks to gain much momentum. In spite of the low
rockfall danger, Lampiris recommends that the rear foundation walls
of the houses be designed to protrude at least four feet above
' finished grade and be without doors or windows on south facing side
of the proposed homes (Lots 1 and 2) . A review of Attachment 11
shows Lampiris modified his original recommendation to indicate
' that a wall or berm located on the south side of the back yards at
the toe of the steep slope would also provide adequate rockfall
mitigation and mitigate snow slides as well. The wall or berm
should be at least four feet tall and be designed to withstand
forces of at least 200 pounds per square foot. The installation of
the wall shall protect southfacing doors and windows from rockfall ge
danr.
' Avalanche Danger. Avalanche danger has been evaluated in
Lampiris' letters, Attachments 9 and 10 and more specifically in
Attachment 11, a January 20, 2006 Avalanche Hazard Report prepared
by Peter Lev Alpentech, Salt Lake City Utah and a March 10, 2006
Memorandum to Glenn Horn from Peter Lev and Beat vonAllmen.
Lampiris concludes in Attachment 9 that the extensive tree cover
above the sites should minimize potential avalanche hazard. He
concludes there is not enough relief or catchment area above the
sites to produce a major avalanche. Lampiris indicates that the
' recommended rockfall mitigation will also mitigate for minor
avalanches.
Peter Lev of Alpentech concludes his report by stating that the
I
' Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 9
' site is free of any significant avalanche hazard at this time.
Alpentech classifies the building site as being in the Yellow
Avalanche Hazard Zone. According to Alpentech:
"The Yellow Zone classification applies when the terrain
is sufficiently steep and extensive to theoretically
' produce avalanches. However, the lack of snowcover, or
the presence of a dense vegetation cover, and lack of
historical support for avalanche activity all indicate
there to be no significant avalanche activity. The
' Yellow classification does not require impact studies for
building defense structures, or special building codes,
as would the Blue Zone classification."
' The January 20, 2005 report recommends small or no windows on the
uphill side of the proposed residences. Alpentech elaborates upon
this recommendation in their March 10, 2006 Memorandum recommending
there be a three foot high retaining wall constructed at the toe of
the slope to protect south facing windows. Portable wood shutters
covering the windows could provide further protection when
conditions warrant.
Toxic Soils. Chen - Northern Incorporated addresses toxic soils
' in Attachment 9, February 23, 1989 Supplemental Geotechnical Study
Proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Aspen, Colorado. Soils test
show potentially hazardous lead concentration in the soils.
tigation will consist of disposing of the contaminated soils on-
to and providing a two to three foot soil cap. The applicant is
consulting with Tom Dunlop, REHS of Dunlop Environmental Consulting
Inc., to insure that potentially toxic soils are handled
appropriately.
Section 26.435.030.0.2
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.
The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
regarding this standard is:
"Staff does not believe the development will have an adverse
affect on the natural watershed runoff, drainage, soil
erosion, or have consequent effects on water pollution. The
Community Development Engineer will review a grading and
drainage plan for the site upon permit for the subdivision
improvements and for the proposed residences when that are
' submitted for 8040 Greenline Review. The drainage plan will
have to demonstrate that there will not be an increase in the
historic run -off from the property. Staff finds this criterion
I
' Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 10
' to be met" (emphasis added) .
Attachment 13 is a December 12, 2006 letter from David Powell, PE
of Timberline Engineering which addresses the conceptual drainage
plan for the subject site. The Conceptual Grading and Drainage
Plan is an attachment to the letter. According to Powell, drainage
' patterns for the site will remain essentially unaltered and
bstoric runoff rates will not be exceeded.
Best construction management methods shall be utilized during the
construction period to minimize soil erosion. The site will be
landscaped in the first fall or spring after completion of site
development.
Section 26.435.030.0.3.
' The proposed development does not have a significant affect on the
air quality in the City.
The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
' regarding this standard is:
"Staff does not believe this project will have an adverse
effect 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" (emphasis added) .
The applicant will prepare a Construction Management Plan which
' will be reviewed and approved by the City in conjunction with the
Access and Infrastructure and Building Permit processes. The Plan
will include a fugitive dust control plan which will include
fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, cleaning of
adjacent paved roads, speed limits for construction related
vehicles and other measures to control construction dust. The
Construction Managment Plan shall also include controls which will
' be implemented by the contractor to control engine idling to comply
with City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 13.08.110.
Each residence shall be limited to two gas log fireplaces or two
certified clean burning woods burning stoves and an unlimited
number of gas fireplace appliances. There will be no woodburning
fireplaces, nor coal burning heating devices.
Section 26.435.030.C.4.
t The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail
is compatible with the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
1
I
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 11
' The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
regarding this standard is:
"Staff agrees with the Applicant's contention that the
proposed building sites are sited on the flattest portions of
the site. Staff does believe that the retaining wall
' necessary for the driveway will be substantial in size.
However, Staff does believe that the tennis court fencing and
the proposed Evergreen trees will screen the retaining wall
from significant view after they mature. Staff does not
really see a better location on the site from which to take
access. Staff finds this criterion to be met" (emphasis
added).
' The applicant is dedicating Common Area D which encompasses the
existing City of Aspen trail to the City of Aspen. Attachment 6,
' the Ute Mesa PUD: Landscape Plan and Attachment 13, depict the
proposed grading and driveway plan to serve the PUD. The driveway
plan was approved during the subdivision /PUD land use review
process after extensive Planning and Zoning Commission and City
' Council review at multiple public hearings. Trees lost as part of
site development will be replaced as required by the Municipal
Code.
' Section 26.435.030.0.5.
Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance
to the terrain vegetation and natural features.
The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
' regarding this standard is:
"As was previously discussed, the Applicant has proposed to
' site the building envelopes in the flattest portions of the
site. However, further grading of the building envelopes may
be required in the future when the lots are to be built upon.
The Applicant has proposed that more specific grading plans
' will be submitted in conjunction with 8040 Greenline
applications that will be needed for the actual development of
the single - family residences. Staff finds this criterion to
be met" (emphasis added) .
The subject site has been significantly disturbed with mine
tailings and the existing tennis courts. The proposed site
development plan will significantly improve the appearance of land
which is an eyesore to the neighborhood. The improvement in the
appearance of the site will be similar to the transformation of the
Aspen Chance from a community eyesore to a attractive, landscaped
residential area.
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
' Page 12
Section 26.435.030.0.6.
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 believes that the proposed building envelopes are
clustered to allow for a common access driveway that will be
installed prior to application for residences on the lots.
Staff finds this criterion to be met" (emphasis added) .
Attachment 6, Ute Mesa PUD: Landscape Plan, shows that two of the
proposed dwelling units are to be located at the toe of the steep
slope behind the tennis courts and the third dwelling unit is
proposed to be located adjacent to Ute Avenue. The site design
seeks to limit cutting and grading. Common AreA D is the most
scenic portion of the property and has the steepest slopes. All
of Common Area D which comprises approximately 4.1 acres will be
-+ dedicated to the City of Aspen as open space. Common Areas A and
B which comprise approximately one acre of land will also be
preserved as open space. A total of approximately 5.1 acres or 75
percent of the 6.8 acre site will be preserved as open space.
Section 26.435.030.C.7.
Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will
be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain.
The height and bulk of the proposed dwelling units to be located on
Lots 1 and 2 were a major topic of discussion during the PUD review
process. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
concurred with the applicant that current appearance of the site is
a blight on Aspen Mountain. The applicant presented photos of the
Aspen Chance Subdivision (west of the site) taken in the mid 1980's
which showed that the Aspen Chance Subdivision was similar in
appearance to the 1001 claim prior to development as a Subdivision.
It was demonstrated in the PUD review process that the base floor
elevation of the houses proposed for Ute Mesa PUD Lots 1 and 2 will
be at a lower elevation than the highest houses in the Aspen Chance
Subdivision. By comparison, the existing houses located to the
east on Hoag Subdivision Lot 3 and the Newfoundland Claim are
significantly higher in elevation than the houses proposed on Ute
Mesa PUD Lots 1 and 2. It was also demonstrated during the PUD
P review process that the topography of the lot located to the east
is far steeper than the topography of Ute Mesa PUD Lots 1 and 2.
The location of the houses on Lots 1 and 2 at a lower elevation
then the neighboring lots and the gentle topography of lots 1 and
2, as compared to the lots to the east, are the most significant
I�,
I
I
Cl
I
I
L
I
1
I
1
1
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 13
factors which will reduce the perception of the height and bulk of
the structures proposed for Lots 1 and 2. The proposed landscaping
depicted in Attachment 6 will also help to screen the proposed
structures and minimize the perception of height and bulk.
Attachment 14 contains photo simulations of the Lots 1 and 2 houses
and landscaping as viewed from Ute Avenue. The simulations are
consistent with representations made during the PUD process and the
following "Massing Controls" in Ordinance No. 24 Series of 2006,
Section 20.
1. The specific designs of the two (2) free - market
residential units that are to be submitted for 8040
Greenline Review pursuant to Section 5 of this ordinance
shall be substantially consistent with the revised
massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14,
2006.
2. A substantial subdivision /PUD amendment review would be
necessary to substantially vary from the massing drawings
presented to City Council on August 14, 2006.
3. The width of the north - facing facades of the free - market
residential units shall be limited to 120 feet.
The north facing facade of the Lot 1 dwelling unit is 111
feet in width and the north facing facade of the Lot 2
dwelling unit is 91 feet in width.
4. The overall ridge height of the free - market, single -
family residential structures shall be limited to twenty -
seven (27) feet above finished grade, and twenty (20)
percent of the width of the front facades shall be
limited to a ridge height of twenty (22) feet above
finished grade.
The ridge height of both dwelling units is limited to 27
feet at the top of the ridge. Each of the proposed
dwelling units limits over 30 percent of the front facade
to 22 feet in height which is 10 percent more than
required.
S. Non - reflective materials shall be used in the
construction of the proposed single - family residences.
Section 26.435.030.0.8
Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to
service the proposed development.
The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
C
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 14
regarding this standard is:
"Utility services would have to be provided to the property.
' The City Water Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District have reviewed the proposal and their comments have
been incorporated in the resolution as Staff deems
' appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met" (emphasis
added).
Refer to Attachment 15, a December 29, 2005 letter from David
Powell, PE of Timberline Engineering to Glenn Horn entitled 1001
Ute Avenue Infrastructure" and Attachment 16, a September 30, 2005
memorandum from Tom Newland to Glenn Horn entitled "Utility
Placement and Traffic Generation at 1001 Ute Avenue." Powell finds
in his letter that sewer, water, electric and natural gas utilities
are readily available in Ute Avenue to serve the proposed
L development. Newland finds in his memorandum that City of Aspen
water service and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer
service are accessible to the site in Ute Avenue and the Water
Department and Sanitation District are capable of serving the
proposed development.
Section 26.435.030.C.9.
' Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and
said roads can be properly maintained.
The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
regarding this standard is:
"As has been previously discussed, a common driveway would be
installed to serve both of the residential properties. The
Fire Marshall has indicated that the road would be sufficient
' to serve the properties with emergency services and a
hammerhead turn around is provided for fire truck access.
Therefore, Staff believes that this criterion is met as long
as the conditions of approval are complied with it (emphasis
added).
Access to the site was specifically approved by Ordinance No. 24,
Series of 2006.
Section 26.435.030.C.10
Adequate ingress and egress is available to service the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and
snow removal equipment.
' The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
regarding this standard is:
1
9
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 15
"The Fire Marshall has indicated that the road would be
sufficient to serve the properties with emergency services and
a hammerhead turn around is provided for fire truck access.
Therefore, Staff believes that this criterion is met as long
as the conditions of approval are complied with.
Additionally, the City Streets Department has reviewed the
' application and expressed that the proposed driveway is
acceptable to serve the property with snow removal equipment.
Staff finds this criterion to be met" (emphasis added) .
Attachment 17 is a copy of the driveway plan which will serve Lots
1 and 2. This plan has been reviewed and approved by Orin Moon,
Assistant Fire Chief, of the Aspen Fire District as indicated by
the stamp of approval on the plan.
Section 26.435.030.0.11
The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community
Plan:Parks /Recreation /Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed
development, to the greatest extent practical.
' The Community Development Department staff finding in Attachment 7
' regarding this standard is:
"Staff believes that the proposed Subdivision /PUD enhances the
goals and objectives of the AACP's Parks /Recreation /Trails
Plan. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
The recommendations of the AACP were addressed in detail within
1001 Ute Avenue PUD application. The upper portion of the property
will be preserved as open space as recommended in the Plan.
Additionally, this 4.1 acre parcel will be granted to the City of
Aspen as Open Space. A prior owner of the property has already
dedicated a trail easement across the property. During the PUD land
use review process the applicant visited the site several times
with the Parks Department and reviewed the field survey. The
applicant and City staff determined that the existing Ajax Park;
trail does not cross the subject site and an additional trail
easement is not required.
Section 26.445.100 B.
Planned Unit Development Other Amendment
Section 3, of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 establishes the
Dimensional Requirements for the PUD. External floor area on Lots
1 and 2 is limited to 5,040 square feet per lot. The applicant
' requests that the allowable floor area be amended to permit the
floor area of Lots 1 and 2 to vary by up to 378 square feet (5
percent of the permitted floor area on each lot) provided that the
X19
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 16
total floor area of Lots 1 and 2 does not exceed 10,080 square feet
of total floor area on the lots.
The increased floor area will not effect the mass or bulk of either
of the proposed houses on Lots 1 and 2. This minor floor area
change is entirely within the buildings and has no impact on the
A appearance of the PUD.
Section 26.410
Residential Design Review
W Jack Miller & Associates, Inc. has prepared schematic architectural
plans for the proposed dwelling units to be located on Lots 1 and
2. Refer to the following attachments which show the plans.
w
* Attachment 18 Ute Mesa PUD: Architectural Elevations
.. * Attachment 19 Ute Mesa PUD: Birds Eye Perspective and
Residence 1 Garage Opening
Attachment 20, is a December 15, 2006 letter from Jack Miller to
W Jessica Garrow which addresses the Residential Design Standards.
Section 25.575 C.
Slope Reduction for Lot Area
.. The applicant addressed Section 25.575 C., Slope Reduction for Lot
Area as part of the PUD review process. Slope analysis was
a- addressed in the background section of this application, but is
repeated here to assist in the review of the land use application.
Attachment 5 includes a slope analysis of the property prepared in
accordance with Section 26.575.020 C. of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Table 1, presents Aspen Survey Engineer's topographic slope
categorization of land in the R -15 PUD zone in a tabular format.
• The data in Table 1 show there are approximately 110,080 square
feat of land in the R -15 PUD zone. After applying slope reduction
factors, approximately 63,310 square feet of land may be used as
•+ Lot Area. Total Lot Area in Table 1 is further reduced by
subtracting surface easements for driveways.
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 17
TABLE 1
1001 UTE AVENUE:
SLOPE ANALYSIS FOR R -15 PUD ZONE*
Per Cent
Square Feet
Per Cent
Square Feet
Slope Category
Gross Area
Factor **
Lot Area
----------------------------------------------------------
0 -20
60,310
100
60,310
20 -30
6,000
50
3,000
> -30
44,770
0
0
Total
110,080
NA
63,310
Land in the C (Conservation) zone is not included in the
Lot Area calculation.
** Reduction Factors from Aspen Land Use Code, Section
26.575.020 C.
Source: Aspen Survey Engineers Inc., and Davis Horn Inc.; January,
2006
Section 26.600
Impact Fees and Dedications
r
Impact Fees and Dedications were addressed as part of the PUD
^- review process. Refer to Sections 9 and 10 of Ordinance 24, Series
of 2006 (see Attachment 4) . These sections of the Ordinance
W require the Park Development Impact Fee to be paid at the time of
,. building permit issuance pursuant to Section 26.610 of the Land Use
Code. Likewise, the School Lands Dedication fee is to be paid at
the time of the issuance of building permit pursuant to Section
26.630 of the Code.
r
IV.
SUMMARY
This land use application has explained the background associated
with the Ute Mesa PUD land use approvals and demonstrated
compliance with the Land Use Code standards identified in the City
of Aspen Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet (see Attachment
1). Please contact use if we have inadvertently neglected to
address a Code provision to your satisfaction. We will be happy to
provide additional information in a timely manner.
The following is an list of attachments to this land use
r
W
Jessica yarrow
December 23, 2006
Page 18
0
application.
.. Attachment 1
Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet
Attachment 2
Site Vicinity Map
w
Attachment 3
Draft Final Plat of Ute Mesa Subdivision /PUD
+ Attachment 4
Ordinance 24, Series of 2006 -- An Ordinance of the
Aspen City Council Approving With Conditions, A
Subdivision Review, Consolidated Conceptual /Final
PUD, And A Growth Managment Review For The
Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels For
-°
the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado
r
Attachment 5
1001 Ute Avenue: Topographic Improvement Survey
prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Incorporated
r
,b Attachment 6
Ute Mesa PUD Landscape Plan
Attachment 7
Exhibit A, Review Criteria and Staff Findings, of
„
the July 10, 2006 Community Development Department
..
Memorandum entitled "Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 24, Series of 2006 -Ute Avenue Subdivision,
`•
Consolidated Conceptual/ Final PUD Growth Management
Review for Preservation of Significant Open Space
Parcels"
r
Attachment 8
November 21, 1986 Engineering Geologic
Reconnaissance and Mine Dump Study Proposed
Residential Development 1001 Claim, Ute Avenue,
"
Colorado prepared by Chen & Associates
Attachment 9
February 23, 1989 Supplemental Geotechnical Study
Proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Aspen,
Colorado prepared by Chen - Northern Inc.
,r
Attachment 10
February 13, 1989 Letter from Nicholas Lampiris,
Ph.D. to Sunny Vann, Geologic Investigation
addressing 1001 Ute Avenue
Attachment it
May 20, 1991 Letter from Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
*
to Glenn Horn, addressing 1001 Ute Avenue
r
Attachment 12
January 20, 2006 Avalanche Hazard Report prepared
by Peter Lev Alpentech, Salt Lake City Utah & March
10, 2006 Memorandum to Glenn Horn from Peter Lev
r
and Beat vonAllmen
.+ Attachment 13 December 12, 2006 letter from David Powell, PE of
r
w
r
w
r
w.
+r
w
w
W
r
w
w
r
•
r
w
on
w
r
Jessica Garrow
December 29, 2006
Page 19
Timberline Engineering
Attachment 14 Photo simulations of the Lots 1 and 2 Houses and
Landscaping Viewed from Ute Avenue
Attachment 15 December 29, 2005 letter from David Powell, PE of
Timberline Engineering to Glenn Horn entitled 1001
Ute Avenue Infrastructure
Attachment 16 September 30, 2005 memorandum from Tom Newland to
Glenn Horn entitled "Utility Placement and Traffic
Generation at 1001 Ute Avenue"
Attachment 17 Ute Mesa Driveway Plan
Attachment 18 Ute Mesa PUD: Architectural Elevations
Attachment 19 Ute Mesa PUD: Birds Eye Perspective and Residence 1
Garage Opening
Attachment 20 December 15, 2006 letter from Jack Miller to
Jessica Garrow which addresses the Residential
Design Standards
Attachment 21 Title Policy which shows Proof of Ownership
Attachment 22 Fee Agreement
Attachment 23 Letter Authorizing Submission of Land Use
Application
Attachment 24 Land Use Application Form
Attachment 25 Property Owners within 300 Feet
Thank you for your assistance in preparing this land use
application. We look forward to completion of the land use review
process.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
,7 u%--
GLENN HORN AICP
A.
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 429 -2780 DATE: 12.08.2006
PROJECT: 1001 Ute Ave.
REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Miller
Jack Miller Associates
Tel: 927.9513
DESCRIPTION:
The area in question received Final PUD approval on August 14, 2006 in Ordinance 24, Series 2006. This Ordinance
approved the subdivision of an existing lot into two (2) lots and four (4) Common Open Space areas, an 8040 Greenline review
for a shared driveway and for the relocation of tennis courts, and a conservation easement. The Ordinance further provided
for "Massing Controls" that call for north- facing facades to be no more than 120 feet in width, the overall ridge height of the
free - market single - family units to be no more than twenty -seven (27) feet in height, and twenty (20) percent of the width of the
front facades be no more than twenty-two (22) feet in height. The Ordinance required the applicant receive a separate review
for Residential Design Standards and 8040 Greenline for the free - market single - family residences.
The two single family residences require four (4) variances from the Residential Design Standards. The buildings are currently
oriented towards the private road that was approved in the PUD. The buildings will require a variance from this standards, as
they should be oriented toward Ute Ave. (26.410.040A1) The buildings each lack a street facing entrance, which requires a
variance. (26.410.040D1) Additionally, the buildings lack a first story element, which requires a variance. (26.410.040D2) The
buildings will also require a variance from the section requiring windows be absent between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet on
the first floor. (24.410.040D3a)
Finally, the garages are below the street level. The Residential Design Standards state that the driveway cut may not exceed
two (2) feet in depth. It was unclear if this was the case from the drawing presented in the Pre - Application meeting.
Verification that this standard is met is required.
Additionally, the ADU will require a variance from the materials requirement in the Residential Design Standards as there is
stucco under the windows and stone. (26.410.040E1 b)
.. The ADU and two Free - Market Single Family residences require an 8040 Greenline Review. As part of the 8040 Greenline
Review, it is advised that the applicant re- submit all avalanche and hazard forms that were provided for the original approvals.
Any additional engineering, topographic, grading, etc information should also be provided.
M Any more than three (3) Residential Design Standard variances require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
8040 Greenline review is also a Planning and Zoning Commission review. The Land use Application may include all the
reviews required for all the structures on the property.
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.410 Residential Design Review
26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review
.. 25.575 Slope Reduction for lot area
26.600 Impact Fees
hftp:liwww.asponpitkin.com/depts/38/citycode.cfm
►� Also, Ordinance 24, Series 2006 (attached)
•
r
Review by: Minor Applications to the Planning and Zoning Commission require a deposit of $1,350 for 6 hours of time.
Additional time is billed at a rate of $225 per hour. Major Referrals from Parks and Engineering are also required; these are
-� each billed at $376.
Referral Agencies: None.
.. Planning Fees: Minor. $1,350
Referral Agency Fees: Parks. $376; Engineering. $376. Environmental Health. $376
Total Deposit: $2,478
To apply, submit the following information:
❑ Proof of ownership with payment.
❑ Signed fee agreement.
❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
❑ Total deposit for review of the application.
❑ 13 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC =12; PZ =10; GMC = PZ +5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1 /ea.; Planning Staff = 1
❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements
and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
(This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is
�- determined not to warrant a survey document.)
R ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing
❑ Copies of prior approvals.
❑ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of
the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is
preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable.
❑ Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by
the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application
submittal addresses these building - related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department
at 920 -5090 for additional information.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning,
which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary
does not create a legal or vested right.
W
M
W
A
r
i
w
•
Is-
ATTACHMENT 2
w
m
O 6
O �
O
i a v
ROynn9.Fgh.River
`I
_ mi
1
w
w
w
a Ti m
2 w
w
1
N
��
LL
r
�;
ma
41
�
NU
J
W
Q
m B ?
J/
S Y
M
1�^
LL Z
fmO
Z
'
UU
Kti
W >
m
W
t
w
D
LL
N
�Cf
ao f
N
3
�c
0
°oU
�
O
Z
mU
_
yoing,�
c
��
N a
u y
My
N Z
c
W
°
a
o
cw wrn
m o
N
J��C
�S
N L 9j
w
N
SQ
d L
_ O m N
� w
C
F-
q D w
N
E w
LD o o
w
�
3 w 5 a
T
�S2 C
uw
i
w
L
f
d' hm e ss�s¢d a 9� $. $, x � w
F� "
It Mal
W.1-1 °E °„& g€ most s z a 1. -
;8.�ix� ,k
T V x °a
. t _ o >I > &� z
° " c 'Y`• ^Bxx: k 84e x5. ^ MI w <
In 1
< = <x °� a ^_ s s� " N ys$gussk
xi-a k=§ $ °_ , $ ° ° k.
¢e:�� "Y I3
$ x °z kid
- -`°
LL a a x w m.:5xk -° w kw^.km ld ^ o'
ak$ 1 x $<� °� � �> m °a ^'•s � xa° _ c
¢asps K. y "sggsaq_ Fyaim^°<:..ai�.s "i > m
0
F
m
R � u
ff4 C 6Ek Wk w -
All $I Y=
'
i �£4 ;g w� k
Oti z
° v a €xeg ey m =sue o a
D ° zz _ _ s;. fl-x ga qx I$3agx ;5 V
58 a
Ow
% : m = z ° =s 88 ss • _.€ � ' x° s $
4.W �s`- xe .s ;.a,a < x
^�$ese ' ae" , Tri k :e exe 3
u % m V 8. g�588888de3r 88� 8 SW 8g'R'8 ^8
a� �CkO'9 < m o IP l �a.8E xNS pay 84. � " sr
a
(tea z0 -���Z €$ g$a 153- mum PLC
° ` q0 -y4k t$w` -1. 1:$'as$.
rte. " q^ , ro 8J< F o ., < ^: $_x�.4$'�$xs� e, fill 191.,k=' €eye "
San
01 k
z \
OZ
r 5a sex 0
m
h V _
Mme
m m
�f c w z o \ +� °
00 ZO
Z.
2 om
® OR
S
z
z F z 8 .a8
O
a ti
d
b rm
OV
m
@'iak
Y �S,
inn+ Y
pggy.y
z8
..
azaz UM,
4
==7
yy33 C
ME
4i °NS.
7:11i
S hy
ac�a: !
aarc>
i5 >:en:
U
? m�
Y?g_ tltl $MM w
dggffitl Yg -
8 <z 8s 8 $, Y o
_ _ a
s
Pz
se:se�€ a _ r Est , ss8
$ ell
O
t�
w
w
x
� q
a
z z
C > i
u
O
�z@�
F0
a CIO
F
�<
vi
a �N
z
tra °., z _ W , aw w s° '" g.a °" a ea "e a e w _ e -� `.'E - Y§ z _ _ -
a c Ws> €a : a° ' o E =mna a w° �: m a. s` 5m = €<ao °s g es` 3� �r yLL.: a
w ° �. $ n; ` 6 W >€ . >s=gW`a >$ <€ = =_.m° $ .se' p- $; ss a: .. ,> $�w 's
s .e�w as ° " o. ° .8 ^_, as ° ": m 3 a E,4 5 oLLa s r �_
qam 8 ws sg $`' €sw.s-= E t ;cis e,W^ $E.— ,. m c °s ." ^ � s�.YS _
€ "a1 'xw "" °_' w.s �W.... .E Sw`.. . ... ".' clp a 8LLO Eye
_ w €aa <. g g ^s °' €_ <ma` .s8s' 8� =cs9ae
x w .8's w E. s ; V'H m " s8 �` "W..<> u�9 °;<a €` z
F w o - C _ -- w ° _ �W €o <3'W°- fm.. °,s lm °�`W - 4 -
z 0 a zsm�m = § �= e;; °$� � ��s.Y � :� � �ws�sges � » ^�= �8e s$ °�_8 g � s "s $as s3sw
" :€ mad € "? - " °4m.. E.8E5E LLd'� moa " Y'= EY. _ ° �' . °8 "> ww p " Y cY2.t. _ _ °3 Wmw w3<
8 `g8. ° _ - —w. - _ - °E4 is i F` -EB-s T =40 °momw� °SLL` y : "o$�'m�'Y.3tC' "'€ �1Y8 -` 8E €Y T:.. ^.d
Qw _° ° ",`vea $w ea.a. �sr; ;"_`<w'` €. _ @' x; ; em= m € E �- ._
F YE e €. o o8£Yo Y €^ EY- zw2`.W ` °€ p �W. >I °5. �� #4 "..CG Y "ue5 '�:5'
<a vu- 3 $ €:$ m.o ». €;. $._ sx o _ors "' ;a c a > = s<
a z "So `go $o _ eg _ _ :ce :EvYSa,aa= _ °$ns° 3 :§ €m,' € =<. °Qd,.` a ° ,�°' °, #W< E o _
p - �FE -:` - < E W -� €. �� _ `� ° °<m -Sp - 3.3m gE :` 8LL35 "gigEe :� » "° °Y _
< °€ ;da .98 -Z -A.2 <Y R :o6'° -2.u3 - .9 .. 3 ^H °2 >w�Em��"6�i g: m °4> .. _ _,°.k..V yY: - >.a
!m ® "3� - - w €, _ .a� `• €.'Y .Y -°<4, Rd ..V d. 'ge.' °�:.€ '4 "W° _ _ `:73i Ya: 09..0` 'Yw
o >an >s w,W:E>wggr- > 'gg: eass<. < �° .E > =<.;�y �8w ^ ` � � ^g ass$;
Q a V - _ Y> m8w _ = __. .' :_" :4 'S :4 ° : "`5 :`. - u T -M-1 ` -` Y °7 °^w` -
€ p § :` � ° ° -Y.5._ a Y �� .' 'oj °Em- 34 °`< "`" 3.. $`off °
€w wr wsW °o` ,,; =_.. , WsgW.YH, aaas�s €.°, rl', ° $, ,° s ^W is " >.�� wgm� -y, --- —€- -A _ - :a§ o
$s °= -a °gym o °w m a,�s: ^s Ag .� z :s ss$,wsse ' €fig ° °s^ < $ K. :° o
,'- ass '°2m $ -.
T� x m� Y$ ^ °es we-x-€ �gLL €= m m "as °.e xe w.$aEY °8W ° -.<a,< € ".=.ta�W�€ _a> <m$ aw `= "s = ^8 "`o
F rn W - ``I_€ a. 8 S —..S35 E "» >w "8 � :.SgWw.�. �';ao"w6_ ;e�$_'6^waxg mi` �:° :.9' �`., <Ss `e. s.k "<: W` o 8 3 5 J.E 9- ` 8 € E E9 ,m =€ 8Y ' :C & ^S :: `o 4 > � s. s < Qe= s 's.m " -9 ' Y °` w `.. g _ E$m_sos " °a < � s< 8 ° s a sl ^g°e a_ ':S f ^`YSwy'E � �.. <° mE ! € €a.Ta = "E ^� m Ysm— m C dEz— 'YwEe4�4' �8 g° c5 `cegw _ w€ g,:�__.g=W. °m v g° � ga,Em 8 YW` wi - 51Y 3- _ <YS�' ,.E` :E` <` E < �E aN va : - .Y -sue - :3 - w <k' `_ - �� of � §WS =� wx BEY ' :� ;- e m "she ° '$;. s °3s€ ° `3> 8< °a= -s ww g- $wa.:w as ¢.w., = $e...,gec .sg °s .: s E.$ €�s =3s°e w<$�.v °3' a °8o8 " ° ° €w . g s s s A _ w a e, ^ew $s w
® . .- ".<�<.. °<_ °, _, °,,..a.,�<�<...<sm`#c wa r - °°,<� <�- ..a..w °.<_ =sass �.�� >., > ° -z °« " "< "��., °<..__,.«" - „<_<.�'<:. °,.„ _..-m -<._ - °° -
z
> F
® U
� ad
a
o-o-�� a
(tee
b
TT,
a
ya x
ar
•4 °L
a.xa�S
a=s••.
Ey's
'
ea'F3-
p
gaa
^•t3a
4 #Y9C�2
r 531499 A77ACHMEN7 4
.,. IIIIIII
12127/2006
VIIIIIIIIIIIhIIIII IIIIII IIIIII III VIIIIIIi llll 00 D 0.00
1.361
ORDINANCE N0.24
(SERIES OF 2006)
Y„ AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
-- CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION REVIEW, CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL /FINAL PUD, AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR
THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS FOR THE
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVSION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITIUN
COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel M. 2737 -182- 00-063
W.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Leathern Steam, owner, represented by Davis Horn Incorporated, requesting approval
of Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development, 8040 Greenline
-
Review, Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space
Parcels to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential properties and four
„.
(4) separate common areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,470.040(B)(1), Detached
..
Single-family and Duplex Dwelling Units, the Community Development Director approved
"
a Growth Management Review for the construction of one single- family dwelling unit,
conditioned upon approval of the other associated land use actions requested; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)(2), Consolidated
Conceptual and Final Review, the Community Development Director consented to allow
for the development application to be reviewed as a consolidated PUD review because of
the anticipated limited scope of issues involved with the review; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable sections of the land use code, the
Community Development Director has reviewed the requested land use actions and
°-
recommended denial of the growth management review for the preservation of significant
open space parcels and that a maximum floor area of only 3,830 square feet be allowed per
residential lot; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to
r
April 18, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 18, 2006, the Planning and
Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to May 2,
r
2006; and,
..
WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the development application to include the
development of a Category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate for the second free- market
residential unit in the subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued pub'ir, hearing on May 2, 2006, the Planning and
+�
Zoning Commission approved Resolution Nr, , 6, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6 0)
vote, approving with conditions an 8040 Grs;anline Review, a Growth Management Review
w
r
U
66- ''.49AV`C; 7Y OF R� - --- JC.IC7� 2
������� 9� 2 of er:36f
I���1111111111 co R �6 -00 0 0.00
j
for the Development of Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve
with conditions, Subdivision Review, Consolidated ConceptuaUFinal YUD, and a Growth
Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001
Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential
properties, a parcel for the development of a Category 4 AH unit and four (4) separate
common areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2006, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until July 24, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 24, 2006, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposal and continued the hearing until August 14, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on August 14, 2006, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision and approved Ordinance No.
24, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4 -0) vote, approving with conditions, the 1001 Ute
Avenue Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and Growth Management
Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council fords 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 City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1;
y Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions, a Subdivision Review,
Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the
Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to
divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) single- family residential properties, a
property for the development of a "for sale ", three- bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing
unit and four (4) separate common areas, subject to the conditions contained herein,
i
r
DEC, 27. 2006 * 419AM _CITY OF ASPEN
NO. 7 8i1 'r.
� 6 °e 126891:36F
JRNICE K VOS C{IUDILL FITKtN COUNTY CO R 46.00 D 0.90
U Section 2• Aunroved Development erktial dwelling units, Development of two (2) free - market single -fam"y affordable housing spirt the reocatiton
development of a "for sale ", three - bedroom, Category g
*� of the existing tennis courts approximately thirty (30) feet to the west of their ettrrent location,
along with the necessary road improvements to access the residential lots are hereby approved
subject to the terms of this ordinance.
Section 3: Dimensional R uirements
The approved dimensional requirements are as follows:
�i
y.
V
w
ar
a•
a■
� u
r
Dimensional
Approved
Requirement
Dimensional
Requirements
Minimum Lot Size
Lot 1= 24,850 SF
Lot 2— 30,060 SF
Common Area 1 Open
Space= 20,860 SF
Common Area 2 Open
Space= 24,860 SP
Common Area 3 Access
Easennenr- 15,290 SF
Common Area 4 Open
S ce= 920 SF
mum Lot Width
25 Feet for Common
Area 2 en S act
mum Lot Area
31,655 SF in PUD
Per Dwellin Unit
Minimum Front
Per Building Envelope
Yard Setback
Minimum Side Yard
Per Building Envelope
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard
Per Building Envelope
Setback
Maximum Height
25 Feet as measured
from finished grade and
27 Feet to the rid e
Allowable External
5,040 SF per each of the
FAR
two (2) single -family
residential dwelling
units as calculated based
on the City land use
code methodology in
affect at the time of
building permit
submittal. Additionally,
1,400 SF is allocated for
the development of a
"for sale", Category 4
affordable housinp unit.
Minimum Off -Street
2 Spaces per Residential
Parking
I Unit
C.27.2006- 11:49AW —CITY OF A'F-' � — 7877 4
27/20 5 of 9
01:30
JiiNiCf K Y05 C4WOILL PIMIN COUNTY CO R 48.00 0 0.00
^^ Section 4• subdivision/PUD Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements
of Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The Plat shall contain the Property
boundaries, easements, and the building envelopes.
Section 5: 8040 Green a Revi
The 8040 Greenline approval granted herein is only for the road serving the single-family
,. residence parcels and the relocation of the tennis courts. Prior to applying for building permits
on the two (2) free- market residential units or the associated accessory dwelling units within
the subdivision/PUD, an 8040 Greeriline Review on the specific residence designs shall be
., applied for and approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline
Review.
Section 6• Residential Design Standards
The two (2) single - family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shalt be required
to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to Lend Use Code
.. Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards.
Section 7• Ai%rdable Housing Mitigation
A "for sale ", three- bedroom, Category 4 affordable housing unit consisting of a minimum of
1,400 square feet of net livable space shall be constructed in combination with providing a
conservation easement on the southern 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to mitigate for the
free-market residential dwelling units to be constructed within the subdivision. The affordable
v housing unit shall be excluded finm the homeowner's association for the subdivision so that it
" will not be responsible for maintenance and association fees common to the subdivision The
homeowner's association documents shall not contain any language that prohibits the owners
of the affordable housing units from having dogs.
Section 8• Conservation Easement
The Applicant shall deed the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to be placed under a
conservation easement to the City of Aspen. Subsequently, the City of Aspen shall record a
conservation easement to be held by a third party on the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to
remain in Pitkin County, that will be sterilized in perpetuity against fume development in
" exchange for one of the two (2) single - family development rights within the subdivision The
property shall be deeded to the City prior to submission for an access/infrastructure permit on
the common driveway improvements within the subdivision/PUD. The conservation
® easement document shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Pitkin County
+r Community Development Department prior to recordation.
Section 9: School Lands Dedication Fee
+� Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the
subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the
subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the
subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect
r '
r
-- - -DEC. 27. 2006- 11:50ANi --CITY OF ASPE
NO 7877 P. i
111 531499
�������������������� 0 L�Z�O 0. 1:36F
JANICE K V06 CPUCILL PITKIN COUNT 0
at the time of building permit submission as set forth in land Use Code Section
26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule.
Section ark Development Im ac ee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any
construction within the subdivision that adds new residentiaModge bedrooms and/or
commercialloffice square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due
.. using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development Impact Fee: Fee Schedule.
The Applicant shall submit geotechmeal and soil stability reports performed by a qualified,
licensed engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development in
conjunction with the 8040 Greenling Review applications for the individual residences
proposed within the subdivision /pUD. The designs for the single - family residences within the
subdivision/pUD shall comply with the recommendations of the Applicant's Avalanche
�- Specialist, Peter Lev, and Applicant's Geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, by providing an
engineered four (4) foot tall retaining wall on the south side of the residences.
Section 2: Nne waste
The Applicant shall provide a mine waste testing and handling plan to the City prior to
submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, that complies with the
following conditions of approval regarding development in an Environmentally Sensitive
�-' area and handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code:
a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with a non - permeable tarp or other protective barrier
-. approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of
contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need
not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1) the
�. excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2)
that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil
and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material
-. at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility.
b. Non - removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be
.. removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site
without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation
' and disposal permits.
m
w
C. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to
1° minimize the citation and release of dust and other particulates into the air.
�r
i
i
—DEC. 21. 2006_11 :50AM -CITY OF ASPEN NO. 7877 P. 6
��� ������ �� ���� ���� e 53 Page! / 99® 01:35;
JANICE K V05 CRUD
d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds
consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999 -
ppm lead.
C. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic
�• yard of soil shall require the same measures outlined in sub - sections a b, c, f and g.
.. f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be
contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate
clean soils existing elsewhere on the property.
g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on -site shall be placed under
structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be
covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead.
Section 13: Fire Mitl4ation
Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be
installed in each of the single - family residences to be constructed within the
subdivision/PUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the
required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the
subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards. Compliance with
U the Colorado Defensible Space Standards shall be verified as part of the 8040 Greenline
Review process on the individual residences.
Section 14: Driveway Construction
The driveway shall be constructed to the grades that are proposed in the application and
" shall not exceed twelve (12) percent at any point. A hammerhead fire truck tumaround
meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be installed as proposed in the
application. The Applicant shall enter into a recorded mad maintenance agreement with
the City that is to be reviewed and accepted by the City Fire Marshal prior to the issuance
., of an accesshnfrastructure permit to construct the road. An access/infrastructure permit
shall be applied for and approved by the City Community Development Department prior
to commencing any grading or construction activities related to the installation of the
common driveway to the residential parcels. A geotechnical report shall be submitted as
part of the access/infrastructure permit application.
.� Section 15: Landseauine
The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is
proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. A tree removal permit and
W tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the City of Aspen Parks
Department prior to commencing construction activities related to the subdivision access
improvements. Additionally, individual landscaping plans for the residential parcels shall
r be submitted and reviewed by the City Parks Department as part of the 8040 Greenline
Review applications for the individual residences. The Applicant shall provide a financial
� U
M
DEC. 27.2006-11:;0Aht`CITY OF ASPEN - ---NO, 7877 —F. 1 —
'.'
Page: 74006 01:36T
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY Co R 46.00 0 0.00
security to ensure the completion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in
i the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any
of the residential units within the subdivision.
Section elegation of Tennis Courts
The Applicant shall relocate the existing tennis courts prior to or in conjunction with the
installation of the common driveway to the residential parcels within the subdivision/PUD.
An access/infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved prior to the
commencement of construction activities related to relocating the tennis courts. The
r. pathway from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis courts shall be improved to comply with
+. applicable ADA accessibility requirements. A deed restriction shall be recorded on the
Common Area 2 Open Space (parcel to contain the tennis courts) that preserves the parcel
r against future development.
Section 17: Trail E26ement
The Applicant shall grant a public trail easement to accommodate the existing Ajax Trail if
-. it is found to be located outside of the existing trail easement in areas. Additionally, the
Applicant shall grant a permanent public trail easement meeting the approval of the City of
Aspen Parks Department along the eastern comer of single - family residential Lot 1 in order
to accommodate a pedestrian trail from the Ajax Trail down to Ajax Park prior to
recordation of the final subdivision/PUD plat
Section 18: 'Water Dengrtment Reguiremenji
The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City
r and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units.
" The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines
shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the
subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate separation
between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. if a
glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage areas shall be
reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation.
Section 20: Massing Controls
r The specific designs of the two (2) free- market residential dwelling units that are to be
submitted for 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Section 5 of this ordinance shall be
substantially consistent with the revised massing drawings presented to City Council on
August 14, 2006. A substantial subdivision/PUD amendment review would be necessary
,., to substantially vary from the massing drawings presented to City Council on August 14,
2006. The width of the north- facing facades of the free- market residential units shall be
limited to 120 feet. The overall ridge height of the free - market, single-family residential
OW
Me
DEC .21.2M6 11:51AM CITY OF ASP'
7871- r.
7/200006 01 :36F
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITK[N COUNTY CO R 46.00 D 0.00
structures shall be limited to twenty -seven (27) feet above finished grade, and twenty (20)
percent of the width of the front fagades shall be limited to a ridge height of twenty -two
w. (22) feet above finished grade. Non- refiective materials shall be used in the construction of
the proposed single - family residences.
Section 21: Vested Riehts
.v, The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order.
.. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
r. of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be
substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1001 Ute Avenue,
City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City
Council.
Section 22:
a �J This Ordinance shall not affect 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 construed and concluded under such prior
-• ordinances.
Section 23:
.. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
., the remaining portions thereof.
Section 24:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of July, 2006, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
we City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
ri Council of the City of Aspen on the 12'h day of June, 2006.
r
U Helen anderud, Mayor
in
AM
On
DEC. 21.2005 11:5'AMlCITY OF ASPEN
NO. 7877 r. 9
IINNNNII II 'IuuII'' IINN'NN II IIuuII 531499
IIIIIIIIIIIII��I�nII�II�Kllll �ll II I IIII'IIIII II 601927/ 00601:36;
.." j Attest: JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PIT
Kathryn S. Koc , ity Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of August, 006
96191ISlin d Mayor
Attest:
0
Kathryn S. Vh, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
L_Iohrr - . Worcester, City Attomey
e
r
s
+A
w
rf
•
w
w
w
r
U
3a i. a t b va A Y Ei z o
n WE
IVY --Yg-
55Y'Y % w PSg i.
3t YB�.Y i 8 d
°`
Elm I
LU
Y
YY GH Q
3
a o �
J �
/
/ �11/7/ Y a
O �-
��'3 W O
H J
1 s is J a
8 \
/
a
h
/
a ° 5gig
LIJ
IL
Y88Ro_
Y8888«
3
Y :b
b
C
E
ya _ •
a e
a
�5
a
^Y
IS
'e.
3a i. a t b va A Y Ei z o
n WE
IVY --Yg-
55Y'Y % w PSg i.
3t YB�.Y i 8 d
°`
Elm I
LU
Y
YY GH Q
3
a o �
J �
/
/ �11/7/ Y a
O �-
��'3 W O
H J
1 s is J a
8 \
/
a
h
/
a ° 5gig
LIJ
IL
Y88Ro_
Y8888«
3
Y :b
b
C
E
ya _ •
a e
r
W
W
r
W
MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 7
TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: James Lindt, Senior Planner
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 -1001 Ute Avenue
Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, Growth Management
Review for Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels- Publt'e Hearing
DATE; Jul; 10, 2006
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Leathern Stearn
REPRESENTATIVE:
Davis Horn Incorporated.
LOCATION:
1001 Ute Avenue.
CURRENT ZONING:
Northenimost 2.7 acres is located in City's
R -15 Zoning w/ a PUD overlay.
Southernmost 4.1 acres is located in Pitkin
County's AFR -10 Zoning.
Photo Above: Property as seen from
Ute Avenue.
SUMMARY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Applicant requests subdivision approval Staff recommends that City Council approve
to divide the existing parcel into six (6) the requests with a lower FAR than is being
separate parcels; two (2) of which are to proposed for each of the single- family
contain single - family residences, one of residential units in the subdivision.
which is to contain a "for sale ", Category 4
affordable housing unit, one of which is to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
contain the existing tennis courts used by the RECOMMENDATION:
Gant, one of which is to contain a common The Planning and Zoning Commission
driveway, and the other parcel is to be unanimously recommended approval of the
common open space. land use actions being requested.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said
roads can be properly maintained
.� Staff Finding
As has been previously discussed, a common driveway would be installed to serve both of the
residential properties. The Fire Marshall has indicated that the road would be sufficient to
serve the properties with emergency services and a hammerhead turn around is provided for
fire truck access. Therefore, Staff believes that this criterion is met as long as the conditions
of approval are complied with.
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
The Fire Marshall has indicated that the road would be sufficient to serve the properties
with emergency services and a hammerhead turn around is provided for fire truck access.
Therefore, Staff believes that this criterion is met as long as the conditions of approval are
complied with. Additionally, the City Streets Department has reviewed the application and
-• expressed that the proposed driveway is acceptable to serve the property with snow removal
equipment. 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,
r Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed Subdivision/PUD enhances the goals and objectives of the
AACP's Parks/ Recreation/Trails Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
r
r
w
w
r
r
W
W
W
W
w
W
W
W
w
r
Chen &Associates Gl�
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 303
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE
AND MINE DUMP STUDY
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1001 CLAIM, UTE AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO
Prepared For:
Dale C. Bullough
5960 South DTC Boulevard, Suite 600
Englewood, CO 80111
Attention: Mr. J. R. McIntyre
Job No. 4 423 86
ATTACHMENT 8
November 21, 1986
C
r-
'L
I
C
C
k
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Site Geology
POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC IMPACTS
Snow Avalanches
Potentially Unstable Slopes
Mine Dump
Subsidence Due to Underground Mines
Debris Flows
Soil Erosion
Seismicity
MINE WASTE TOXICITY
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION TYPES
LIMITATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FIGURE 1 - SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
FIGURE 2 - GRADATI014 TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF TEST PIT PROFILES
TABLE II - SUMMARY OF LEAD CONCENTRATION TESTS
TABLE III - SUt114ARY OF EP TOXICITY TESTS
Chen &Associates
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
8
9
10
SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of an engineering geologic
reconnaissance and preliminary mine dump evaluation for the
� f
I' proposed 1001 Claim Residential Development located in the south-
am eastern part of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, as shown on
I
Fig. 1. The study was performed as authorized by Mr. J. R.
McIntyre.
This report describes the general engineering geologic condi-
tions at the site and identifies potential geologic impacts to
the proposed development. A preliminary evaluation of the poten-
tially toxic constituents in the mine dumps on the property was
also made. The study includes a review of published geologic
literature, a geologic site reconnaissance, test pit excavation,
and chemical analysis of mine dump samples from the test pits.
The purpose of this report is to provide the owner with a prelim-
inary site characterization to aid in planning and preliminary
design.
O
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
We understand the proposed development will include subdi-
vision of the property into four duplex residential lots and an
access road. We assume the structures will be wood frame con-
struction and typical of residences in the area. The development
r will be serviced by Aspen municipal water and sewerlines. There
are various development configurations being considered for the
access road and the proposed structures. The proposed building
r
Chen & Associates
W.
locations for Alternative 1 are shown on Fig. 1. Because of the
steep site terrain, grading will be an important aspect of the
' property improvement.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site consists of approximately two acres of land that is
occupied by mine waste piles and tennis courts, Ute Avenue
borders the property on the north. Existing residential develop-
,...
ments are adjacent to the western and northwestern boundaries of
the site. The land to the south and to the east of the site is
undeveloped and forested.
-- The property lies near the toe of Aspen Mountain on the
,^ southern edge of the Roaring Fork Valley. The site topography is
Cirregular and generally slopes steeply down to the north. The
natural terrain has been modified by a large mine dump near the
middle of the property. Slopes in the area of the mine dump are
locally as steep as 100% but generally 65% and less. The lower
I'
part of the site has been leveled and three paved tennis courts
constructed. The tennis courts may remain in the present
•� location or may be relocated as part of the development. An old
railroad grade lies to the south and upslope of the mine dump and
r is paralleled by a trail approximately 70 to 80 feet further
., upslope, We understand the upper trail bench has been
" constructed in the last year or two.
Above the mine dump, the natural slopes are thickly vegetated
�r
with aspens and pines. The mine dump is sparsely vegetated with
w
rt
r^
,� Chen &Associates
D
a
L
:Ir
t
t
1
—3—
grasses
and
brush.
A few cottonwood trees grow on the lower
parts of
the
site near
the valley floor.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The geology in the project area is complex. Three major
structural elements, the Sawatch Uplift, the Colorado Mineral
Belt, and the southwest part of the Eagle Structural Basin come
together in the vicinity of Aspen, Colorado. The bedrock in this
area is complexly folded and faulted. Regional geologic mapping
of the Aspen area (Bryant, 1971) indicates that the near - surface
bedrock beneath the site is a complexly faulted series of Cam-
brian to Mississippian -age sedimentary rocks and Precambrian
igneous rocks. Bedrock outcrops are not present on the site.
The Roaring' Fork Valley was occupied by valley glaciers
during the Pleistocene. Glacial deposits occur at places on the
valley slopes and along the valley floor.
Site Geoloav: Our interpretation of the surficial geology on the
site is shown on Fig. 1. The surface deposits on the southern
part of the site above the mine dump consist mainly of colluvial
soils composed of angular rock fragments in a clayey sand
matrix. These deposits are identified by map symbol Qc.
Near the center of the site, the mine dump is the surface
deposit. The mine dump is mainly angular limestone, shale and
igneous rock fragments in a clayey and silty matrix. The mine
dump is identified by map symbol MD.
On the lower part of the site, the soil is a. poorly sorted
glacial moraine deposit which ranges from clay to boulder -size
Chen R Associates
a
ra
-f
-w
-r�
a
r
aka
.w
AL
P
r
4
^IL
r
.r
r
•
particles.
subrounded
Qg.
-y-
The gravel to boulder sized materials are generally
The glacial deposits are identified by map symbol
POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC IMPACTS
Based on our geologic evaluation, several conditions of a
geologic nature have been identified which should be considered
during development of the site. These conditions include poten-
tial snow avalanches, potentially unstable slopes, the mine dump,
potential subsidence due to underground mines, the potential for
debris flows, erosion potential, and seismicity.
Snow Avalanches: The vacant area directly adjacent to the
property on the east has been identified as a snow avalanche
track (Mears, 1979). The distribution of vegetation and broken
trees indicate that an avalanche probably occurred here in the
relatively recent past. In addition, the steep slopes on the
upper part of the site and directly above the site have been
identified as a potential avalanche area (Colorado State Univer-
sity, 1974, Bryant, 1972 and Mears, 1979). Several small to
moderate -sized avalanche tracks occur above the site. We recom-
mend that an avalanche expert be consulted to evaluate the
potential for snow avalanches and impact on the proposed
development.
Potentially Unstable Slopes: Evidence of landslides was not
observed on the site. The slopes on the property are steep to
locally very steep and extensive site grading for the development
may be needed. The slopes may be subject to movement due to the
Chen & Associates
�w
-5-
w
F site grading or construction. The sections of the site which may
be affected by potentially unstable slopes in our opinion extend
from the tennis courts to the south boundary of the site. When
�. grading plans are more complete, we should be contacted to
provide geotechnical evaluation. Site specific geotechnical
investigations should be conducted to evaluate the stability of
I.w+ proposed cuts and fills that are planned in the areas above the
a
tennis courts.
^� Mine Dumo: The dump covers approximately one -half of the area of
the property. The mine dump materials, based on our experience,
,d do not comprise a suitable soil for providing foundation sup-
port. These materials may be extremely variable in texture and
density and may include miscellaneous debris such as mine tim-
bers, old metal waste, and other debris. The impacts of the mine
dump materials with respect to building foundations and toxicity
- potential are discussed later in this report.
Subsidence Due to Underground Mines: to Underground Mines: The apparent source of the
mine dump materials that occur on the site is the Lower Durant
r Tunnel. The portal for the tunnel lies 200 to 300 feet to the
west of the site. During our review of geologic literature, we
found no documentation of major underground mines below the
property. The property lies to the east of the major areas of
mining activity. Based on our reconnaissance and literature
review, we believe it is unlikely that extensive mine workings
underlie the site. The risk for mine - induced subsidence is
considered to be low.
Chen &Associates
_6-
Debris Flows: One of the major gulches that drains runoff from
w
Aspen Mountain, Spar Gulch, empties onto a small debris fan
approximately 300 feet west of the site. Historic floods and
., debris flows resulting from intense thunderstorms have occurred
in the vicinity of Spar Gulch and have inundated areas downslope
(Aspen Times, 1919; Aspen Times, 1964). A debris flow or flood
originating from Spar Gulch could impact the lower, western
section of the site. Since other areas not involved in the
development may be impacted, debris flow mitigation for the
project can be handled by an overall storm water and debris flow
management plan for the sections of the City of Aspen near the
base of Aspen Mountain.
The steep slopes above the site may constitute a potential
source for small debris flows. This heavily vegetated part of
the site should not be disturbed to help limit debris flow
potential. We recommend that the potential for debris flow /flood
impact on the site be evaluated by a surface water hydrologist
and that high sediment concentrations be analyzed in connection
with such events.
-y Soil Erosion: Because of the steepness of the site, areas
stripped of vegetation for construction will be subject to ero-
sion. Concentrated runoff should not be allowed to discharge
onto steep, unprotected slopes. All stripped areas should be
revegetated or protected by other means. Erosion control mea-
sures should be made part of the overall development plan.
Seismicity: Historic seismic activity in the Aspen area has been
i relatively low. Potentially active faults have not been iden-
r
Chen &Associates
-7-
tified in the project area (Kirkham & Rogers, 1981). In our
opinion, the area does not present an earthquake risk above that
normally considered for the region. The site is in Uniform
Building Code Seismic Zone 1.
419 MINE WASTE TOXICITY
A preliminary evaluation of the extent of the mine dump at
the site was performed by making a geologic reconnaissance and by
digging five pits with a backhoe. Our interpretation of the
extent of the mine dump and the test pit locations is shown on
Fig. 1. A summary of the subsurface profiles encountered in the
Pits is presented in Table I. Pit 1, located near the top edge
i of the dump where the depth is probably tens of feet deep, did
not penetrate the pile depth. Pits 2 through 5, which were
excavated near the periphery or in less extensive dump areas,
penetrated the mine waste and extended into the underlying
-° natural soils.
Samples of the mine waste and natural soils were subjected to
laboratory testing to evaluate their toxicity potential. The
results of the lead concentration tests are presented in
Table II. Three of the samples which showed the highest lead
�
-� concentration were subjected to EP Toxicity Tests which are
:P'
presented in Table III.
Based on the laboratory testing and our experience in the
area, the mine waste materials represent a hazard with respect to
lead concentration. It appears that some of the natural soil
r. below the mine dump could also be classified as a hazardous
r
Chen &Associates
r
rr
•i"
F
I
I
I
material. We understand that mitigation of the toxicity hazard
will probably consist of a soil cap and revegetation of the
slopes. The specific mitigation plan and level of protection
will need to be coordinated with local environmental
authorities. When more specific property development plans are
known, an appropriate level toxicity mitigation plan should be
included as part of the development plans.
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION TYPES
Limited subsurface exploration was performed as part of the
mine waste evaluation. The natural soils encountered below the
mine waste consist mainly of coarse granular soils. The mine
waste material is a variable type, relatively loose and contains
miscellaneous debris. Building foundations constructed at the
site should be placed entirely on the undisturbed natural
soils. Where the mine waste is relatively deep, pile foundations
will probably be needed. Where the depth of the mine dump is
relatively shallow, excavating through the material and placing
spread footings on the natural soil can probably be used. This
procedure of foundation construction has been successfully
followed on the adjacent Chance Claim Subdivision. When the
building locations and grading plans have been determined, a site
specific subsurface investigation should be performed to
determine foundation design parameters.
Chen &Associates
I
(f_
tip
.d
r.
r
W
—9—
LIMITATIONS
I
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use
by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommen-
dations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the geologic reconnaissance, the exploratory pits excavated
at the locations indicated on the exploratory pit plan, and the
proposed development plans. The information presented in this
report is suitable for planning and preliminary design pur-
poses. We recommend additional exploration and evaluation for
specific grading and building design.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assis-
tance, please let us know.
`w RS /SLP /ec
cc: Doremus and Wells
eJ
it
�r
Chen &Associates
Very truly yours,
CNEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By G
Ro Sp z ,
En nee ri g Geologist
and By-'A `�
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
? BIBLIOGRAPHY
}G1� Aspen Times, September 5, 1919, Page 1, Cloudburst Scatters Mud
Over City.
41 Aspen Times, August 7, 1964, Page 16, Worst Cloudburst in Years
Floods Aspen on August 5.
Bryant, Bruce, 1971, Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin
County, Colorado, U.S.G.S. Map GQ -933•
Bryant, Bruce, 1972, Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential
Geologic Hazards in the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County,
Colorado, U.S.G.S. Map I- 785 -A.
Bryant, Bruce, 1972, Map Showing Avalanche Areas in the Aspen
Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado, U.S.G.S. Map I- 785 -G.
Bryant, Bruce, 1972, Map Showing Mines, Prospects, and Areas of
Significant Silver, Lead and Zinc Production in the Aspen
Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado, U.S.G.S. Map I- 785 -G.
�i Colorado State University, 1974, Pitkin County, Colorado, Lower
p"Y Roaring Fork Valley, Environmental Resource Analysis.
Kirkham, Robert M., and Rogers, William P., 1981, Earthquake
Potential in Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Bulletin
43•
Mears, Arthur I., 1979, Colorado Snow - Avalanche Area Studies and
Guidelines for Avalanche Hazard Planning, Colorado
ErJ Geological Survey, Special Publication 7.
Rohlfing, 1943, Map of Workings in the Aspen Mining District,
Pitkin County, Colorado.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1928, Field Record File, RQ -34, Mines
of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
C
C
Low
N
r
r
4-nen & Associates
�Tr
rw,
■
Few
Ar
I�
L
L
r
Cr
C
j
p
is
qK a. .1 • va(.VC �
f•
Id
• a �r
y! a
i Fill
3i _�.(/ .) r' � •tom .• ::
0
Y�
�8
i
rA
rig
L
X
ry .
e
rx
p1m
I
W
IW
TABLE I Job No. 4 423 86
Summary of Test Pit Profiles
Pit
Pit
Mine Waste
Natural
Number
Depth-(f-t'
Deoth (ft)
Soil
Comments
1
10
10
Not encountered
Wood debris in
mine waste.
2
10
5
Silty sand, gravel
and cobbles
3
9
3
Silty sandy, gravel
with cobbles
4
8
3 112
Clayey sand and
Refusal on large
gravel with cobbles
boulders
and boulders
5
8
7 112
Clayey sand and
Refusal on large
gravel with cobbles
boulders
and boulders
f !_
4
'1+�1
�rl
f
I
1
P
t
TABLE II
Job No. 4 423 86
Summary of Lead Concentration Tests
Sample Lead Material
Location Concentration Tvoe
(ppm)
Pit
1
at
3
- 6'
2,190
Mine Waste
Pit
2
at
0
- 31
16,600
Mine Waste
Pit
2
at
6
- 9'
5,350
Natural Soil
Pit
3
at
0
- 2'
1,160
Mine Waste
Pit
3
at
3
- 51
391
Natural Soil
Pit
4
at
0
- 3'
1,110
Mine Waste
Pit
4
at .5
- 8'
213
Natural Soil
Pit
5
at
3 -
6'
3,640
Mine Waste
,r
,
r
r
I"
TABLE III 4 423 86
Note: All results in mg /1.
Maximum
Sample
Pit 2 at
01
Pit 2 at
Pit 5 at
Concentration
_ It
61 _ q.
1 _ 61
Allowable
Arsenic
0.002
0.000
0.000
5.0
Barium
3.24
2.06
2.84
100.0
Cadmium
0.788
0.585
0.277
1.0
Chromium
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
Lead
8.14
7.82
4.56
5.0
Mercury
0.00042
0.00006
0.00021
0.2
Selenium
0.000
0.006
0.006
1.0
Silver
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
Note: All results in mg /1.
i
s
K� TABLE III 4 423 86
Y
Sample
Pit 2 at
Pit 2 at
pit 5 at
Maximum
Concentration
of _
6' - 9,
If _ 61
Allowable
�q
Arsenic'
0.002
0.000
0.000
5,0
Barium
3.24
2.06
2.84
100.0
"#
Cadmium
0.788
0.585
0.277
1.0
Chromium
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
Lead
8.14
7.82
4.56
5.0
rs
Mercury
0.00042
0.00006
0.00021
0.2
w
Selenium
0.000
0.006
0.006
1.0
IL
Silver
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
..
a
Note: All results
in mg /1.
rr..
F,
r
F
'0
I'Y
rrr
r
�r
r
Ir
r
r
Pik
IL
to
IN
11A
I r'
TABLE III
4 423 86
am le
Pit 2 at
Pit 2 at
Pit 5 at
Maximum
Concentration
Of _ 31
6• _ q.
_
Allowable
Arsenic
0.002
0.000
0.000
5,0
Barium
3.24
2.06
2.84
100.0
Cadmium
0.788
0.585
0.277
1.0
Chromium
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
Lead
8.14
7.82
4.56
5.0
Mercury
0.00042
0.00006
0.00021
0.2
Selenium
0.000
0.006
0.006
1.0
Silver
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
Note: All results in mg /1.
r
+r
Y
W
M+
W
W
Yri
W
W
M
U1�
w
APPENDIX C
Chen- Northen Inc. 5080 Road 154
. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
303!945 -7458
w
r
W
.a
a
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROPOSED 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION
ASPEN, COLORADO
Prepared For:
1001 Ute Avenue Partnership
c/o Richard Neiley
Attorney at Law
600 East Hopkins, Suite 3
Aspen CO 81611
Attn: Richard Neiley
Billings
Great Falls
Boise
Helena
Casper
Phoenix
Colorado Springs
Pocatello
Denver
Rock Springs
Elko
Sall Lake City
Evanston
San Antonio
Gilette
Tri Cities
Glenwood Springs
Yakima
ATTACHMENT 9
Job No. 4 209 89 February 23, 1989
A member of the HIH group of companies
r
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r
CONCLUSIONS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
-- FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
.- POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC IMPACTS
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
SITE GRADING
MINE WASTE TOXICITY
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
,. FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
,. FIGURES 4 AND 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
r
r
r Chen - Northern, Inc.
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
w
r
CONCLUSIONS
Development of the site as planned appears feasible based on
geotechnical considerations. The two proposed residences are
located on top of the existing tailings piles and special founda-
tion treatment such as spread footings or pile foundations bearing
on the underlying natural soils are recommended for the building
support. A structural retaining wall will be needed along the
uphill side of the access road. Cut and fill slope grades along
the roadway and downhill side of the tailings pile should be graded
to 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. The graded slopes should
be revegetated or protected by other means to prevent erosion. The
toxicity of the mine waste can probably be mitigated by capping
them with noncontaminated soil and revegetation.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical study for
the proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision located in the southeastern part of
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The
study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for professional services
-- letter to Vann Associates, Inc., dated January 27, 1989. Chen & Associates,
Inc. (now known as Chen - Northern, Inc.), previously conducted an engineering
geology and mine dump study at the site and reported our findings on Novem-
ber 21, 1986, Job No. 4 423 86. The purpose of the current study is to
provide subsurface information for use in planning and preliminary design and
to address the potential geologic impacts on the current development plans.
A field exploration program consisting of drilling exploratory borings
was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples
obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to deter -
•
mine their engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration
r and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop preliminary recommendations
for possible foundation types, depths and allowable bearing pressures and for
Chen - Northern, Inc.
r
-2-
grading criteria of the access road and mine dump pile. The results of the
,. field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the report.
-� This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this
study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the geologic
r conditions identified, the proposed construction, and the subsurface condi-
tions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engi-
neering considerations related to construction of the proposed subdivision are
included in the report.
V
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
m The subdivision is proposed to consist of two residential buildings and
.. an access road located approximately as shown on Fig. 1. The existing tennis
courts will be relocated to accommodate the driveway access. The building
sites are situated on top of the existing mine dump which will be downcut up
to about 10 feet to achieve a relatively flat building area. The downhill
side of the mine dump will be graded to a maximum slope of 2 horizontal to
1 vertical. Cut and fill sections up to about 10 to 12 feet deep are proposed
along the access road. The uphill cut which is into the natural hillside is
proposed to be supported by a retaining wall. The mine dump material is
proposed to be disposed of on -site.
�. If building locations or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations
r contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is in similar condition to that described in our previous report
of November 21, 1986. The site slopes down to the north at irregular grades
s
it
r
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-3-
r
., due to the past development with an elevation differential of about 50 feet
_ within the proposed development area. The lower and middle parts of the sites
•- are relatively flat with a very steep intervening slope consisting of mine
dump material. The hillside above the development area is heavily forested
and has an average grade of about 50 %. The old Midland Railroad grade and an
,. uphill ski trail which were present at the time of our 1986 study are located
on the steep slope above the development area. About 2 to 3 feet of snow
covered the property at the time of our field work.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 1, 1989.
_ Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to
- evaluate the subsurface conditions including the mine dump depth. The borings
were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a
`- track- mounted CME -45 drill rig. Access onto the mine dump piles was difficult
due to the snow cover and steep irregular terrain. A small dozer was used to
make a trail into the property from the vacant lot to the east which is the
same access route used in the 1986 exploration work. The borings were logged
by a representative of Chen - Northern, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8 -inch I.D. spoon sampler.
The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a
140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
w
r penetration test described by ASTM Method D -1586. The penetration resistance
values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the sub -
soils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance
values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were
i
returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
r
Chen- Northern, Inc.
-4-
m SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
v Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown
on Fig. 2. The two borings drilled in the proposed building sites encountered
mine dump waste up to a depth of about 30 feet below the existing ground
W surface. The depth to the contact with the natural ground surface likely
increases to the north due to the natural ground surface slope. Hole 3,
-, located in the upper part of the access road, encountered a much smaller fill
-� depth. The mine waste consists mainly of sand and gravel -size fragments that
are silty to clayey and contain cobbles and possibly boulder -size material.
.r The underlying soils encountered in the borings consist of medium dense silty
.- to clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and probable boulders. The mine waste and
.. natural subsoils are like those described in our previous engineering report.
.. The penetration resistance testing of the soils indicates the mine waste is
relatively loose and the natural gravels are medium dense to dense.
.. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings con -
-, sisted of in -situ moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of
gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2 -inch
.. fraction) of the mine waste and natural coarse granular soils are shown on
Figs. 4 and 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and
the subsoils were generally moist. The groundwater level is generally known
to be relatively deep in the area except for possible seasonal perched water
r conditions due to snowmelt.
r
r POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC IMPACTS
r The geologic conditions which could potentially impact development on the
r
site were presented in our previous engineering report and consist of snow
r
A
r Chen - Northern, Inc.
-5-
y, avalanche, unstable slopes, mine dump, subsidence due to underground mines,
debris flow, erosion and seismicity. We understand that the potential snow
avalanche impact and mitigation are being studied by others. The risk of
subsidence due to underground mines is considered to be low since we found no
documentation of any major underground mines below the property. The earth-
y quake risk is considered typical for the area and buildings should be designed
in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 1 requirements.
Evidence of landslides was not observed on the site but there is a risk of
construction induced slope instability due to the proposed cuts and fills
., within the development areas. Methods to reduce the risk of instability
^ associated with the grading are presented below in the "Site Grading" section.
There may be debris flow or flooding potential originating from Spar Gulch
W within the lower western part of the site. The proposed development is
located within the upper part of the site which should be outside of Spar
Gulch impact but could be impacted by other small debris flows. Development
is not proposed within the upper, steeply sloping and heavily vegetated part
of the site which should help to limit the debris flow potential. We recom-
mend that the grading surrounding the proposed residences be designed by a
surface water hydrologist to allow for potential flooding including high
sediment concentrations. Erosion potential of the graded areas should be
controllable by revegetation where there is sheet flow runoff and by riprapped
r
channels where flow is concentrated such as along the edge of the road.
r Comments regarding the mine dump impacts are discussed below in subsequent
sections and should be mitigable as part of the final design.
rr
w
r Chen- Northern, Inc.
W
r
r
w
r
r
r
r
511
FOMATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The residential buildings are proposed to be located on top of the
existing mine dump which has a depth of 30 feet or more. The mine waste
material is of variable type and density and is not considered suitable for
support of foundation loadings. Based on the residential type construction
and the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, we
recommend building foundations constructed at the site be placed entirely on
the undisturbed natural soils. The mine dump is relatively deep on Lot 2 and
a drilled pier or driven pile foundation will probably be needed. At Lot 1,
the mine waste depth is more limited and a spread footing foundation excavated
to below the waste material may be feasible. Small diameter pressure - grouted
piles have been used for support of residences constructed on mine waste fill
in the Chance Claim Subdivision. Driven piles such as a heavy steel H- section
with tip reinforcement are probably also a feasible foundation type. Piles
should be designed based on an end bearing capacity on the order of 10,000 psf
and a skin friction of 500 psf to 800 psf. We expect that piles will pene-
trate the natural soils about 5 to 10 feet to achieve the desired load capac-
ity. Piles should have a minimum total embedment length of 15 feet. Due to
the coarse and dense nature of the natural subsoils, difficult driving and
drilling conditions should be anticipated. We expect there could be some
ground subsidence during the pile installations due to the loose nature of the
mine waste. A representative of the soil engineer should observe the pile
installations on a full -time basis.
Spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be
designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 3000 psf. As an alternative, the
subexcavated mine waste could be replaced with structural fill compacted to at
least 100% of standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. We
Chen. Northern, Inc.
-7-
expect settlements to range to about 1 inch. Footings should have a minimum
width of 16 inches for walls and 2 feet for columns. Continuous foundation
.. walls should be reinforced to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
+� Exterior footings or footings placed beneath unheated areas should be provided
r with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Areas of loose or soft material and existing fill encountered within the
r
foundation excavations should be removed. New fill placed beneath foundation
w
areas should extend down from the edges of the footings at an effective grade
- of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Foundation excavations and struc-
tural fill compaction should be observed and tested by a representative of the
soil engineer.
r
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Building foundation walls 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 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils.
Cantilevered retaining structures such as site grading walls along the access
drive which can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full
active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth Ares-
sure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf for
backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils.
The recommended pressures assume drained conditions behind the walls and
a horizontal backfill surface. An underdrain system is recommended to prevent
the buildup of water behind a wall. An upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining struc-
ture. The walls along the driveway should be designed for a lateral earth
Chen - Northern, Inc.
w
pressure of at least 50 pef equivalent fluid unit weight for a 2 horizontal to
1 vertical backslope.
.. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materi-
als 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 coeffi-
cient of friction of 0.5. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings
can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pef. The
m 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, particu-
larly in the case of passive resistance.
- FLOOR SLABS
The natural granular soils are suitable to support lightly to moderately
M loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
_ movement, nonstructural 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. We suggest joints be provided on the order of 15 feet on center.
The requirements for slab reinforcement should be established by the designer
r
based on experience and the intended slab use. A thin layer of fine gravel
e�
may be placed beneath floor slabs to facilitate construction.
., The existing mine waste fill is considered unsuitable for support of
floor slabs. In the building areas, the fill should be removed and replaced
with properly compacted structural fill. As an alternative to removal of the
fill, a structural slab supported on the building foundations may also be
r
Chen - Northern, Inc.
considered. All fill material for support of floor slabs should be placed and
compacted according to the criteria presented in "Site Grading ".
r
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has
ti been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may
_ develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground
.. during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade
construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be
protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain
system.
The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall
backfill surrounded above the invert level with free - draining granular mate-
rial. The drain should be placed 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 2 feet
deep.
r
SITE GRADING
irr
Natural hillsides in the area appear to have had a relatively stable
geologic history and major stability problems are not anticipated with the use
of proper grading procedures. To limit the potential of construction induced
slope instability, we recommend that cuts into the steep natural hillside
above the proposed building area be retained by structural walls designed
according to the criteria presented in this report. The cut and fill sections
+r
r
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-10-
should also be limited in depth to about 12 feet as proposed. Permanent
_ unretained cut and fill sections should be graded to 2 horizontal to 1 verti-
cal or flatter. If seepage is encountered in cut sections, an investigation
should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut
stability.
Fill sections beneath roadway and floor slab areas should be compacted to
_ at least 95% of standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
.. Before placing fill, the exposed surface should be cleared of all organic
- matter and loose soil and benched into hillsides exceeding 5 horizontal to
1 vertical. In general, the on -site natural soils and granular portions of
the existing mine waste should be suitable for use in fills. The fill mate-
.,.
rial should be free of vegetation, topsoil or other deleterious substances and
- oversized rock. The soil engineer should approve all fill utilized on the
-- site prior to placement.
Graded slopes should be protected against erosion by revegetation or
other means. Surface water should not be concentrated and directed onto steep
slopes unless drainage channels with erosion protection are provided. The
ground surface surrounding the proposed buildings should have a minimum slope
of 12 inches in the first 10 feet and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first
` 10 feet in paved areas. Diversion ditches or swales should be provided around
M' buildings or above cut slopes to control the surface runoff.
r
MINE WASTE TOXICITY
The testing performed as part of our previous site investigation identi-
fied the mine waste to have a potentially hazardous lead concentration.
Am Leaching of the lead into the underlying natural soils below the mine dump may
also have occurred. We understand that mitigation of the toxicity hazard is
r
r
r
Chen - Northern, Inc.
-11-
planned to consist of disposing of the contaminated soils and mine waste
on -site and providing an imported noncontaminated soil to cap the materials.
.. We expect that the soil cap depth will need to be 2 to 3 feet but the specific
+� mitigation plan and level of protection will need to be coordinated with local
r environmental authorities.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for
design purposes. 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 and the proposed type of construction. The
nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become
evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil,
` rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein,
this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations
may be made. We recommend on -site observation of excavations, foundation
bearing strata, pile installation and structural fill testing by a representa-
tive of the soil engineer.
r
•
w
r ,
Very truly yours,
CHEN - NORTHERN, INC.
By 9:�_ A.1..�s
Steven L. Pawlak, P. .
Reviewed By b—'-_ �
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP /ec
cc: Vann Associates, Attn: Sunny Vann
The Stevens Group, Inc., Attn: Tom Stevens
Chen - Northern, Inc.
i
i
i
w
r
r
W
mp
r
r
r
i
r
i
i
-
/ s° 1
yi
r
I
)
I
I
I
I
)
I
)
1
r J I I 9>
m W
I• r N I �' + J// a
0 f ❑ � /
�I a
L
H
z
Z
O
m
Y
gy0
S
W
O
0
Q
9
N
C
U
m
0
N
a
Y
� N
N ¢
0 W
2T
W
LL
m O Oj
2
LL's
N
W
Up O�
J
p
N
ugQm
Z 2 JN W
Z
O
J• ❑�
)
I
/N
w
a
I
i
\ N
)W
O
W
r
N
w
0
a�
-
/ s° 1
yi
r
I
)
I
I
I
I
)
I
)
1
r J I I 9>
m W
I• r N I �' + J// a
0 f ❑ � /
�I a
L
H
z
Z
O
m
Y
gy0
S
W
O
0
Q
9
N
C
U
m
0
N
a
Hole 1
Elev. = 8022'
Lot 1
Film
Hole 2
Elev. = 8021'
Lot 2
8020 Buildi\nj
Pad Grac
NA
8/12
8015 +WC =2.6
4 =45
�- 200 =12
9/12
8010
0
` 15/12
K 8005 0
0
>
_m
23/12
e'
8000
7995
WTI
6/12
Hole 3
Elev. = 8020'
Access Road
Road
9/12 Gradi
17/12
WC =2.5
4 =44
200 =12
14/12
28/12
30/12
8025
8020
7995
7990
7985 Y�° 85/12 7985 _ 1
Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3.
4 209 89 1 Chen & Associates I Logs of Exploratory Borings Fit. 2
8015
18/12
20/12
WWqCS =S2.6
g010
X200215
v
0
a
102/12
8005
..
m
m
a
8000
7995
7990
7985 Y�° 85/12 7985 _ 1
Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3.
4 209 89 1 Chen & Associates I Logs of Exploratory Borings Fit. 2
r
A
.r
of
r
i
r
M
LEGEND:
®Fill; mine waste, mainly silty sand and gravel with cobbles, some timber debris,
loose, moist, dark brown.
®Gravel (GM); sandy, silty to clayey, cobbles, possible boulders, medium dense
to dense, moist, brown.
L Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon
I■ sample, ASTM D -1586.
8/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 8 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling
30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches.
--r Depth at which boring caved following drilling.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on February 1, 1989 with a 4 -inch diameter
continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by taping from
features shown on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours
on the site plan provided.
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. Fluctu-
ations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (o)
+4 Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
4 209 89 Chen & Associates I Legend and Notes I M• 3
W
AA
W
#
Y
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
ci
co
W
I.-
U
O
N
D
2
2
W
U
N
H
J
N
W
H
W
H
}
O
W
J Q
m
< cc
F- O
m
Q
J
LL
O
}
cc
Q
N
N
NII
gill
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II
61O
N
II
I�IIII
I��I�I
„w
W.
A
r
Sunny Vann
2117 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAD
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(303) 963.3600 (24 HOURS)
February 13, 1989
RE: 1011 Ute Avenue Subdivision
ATTACHMENT 10
Dear Sunny:
I have completed my limited geologic investigation concerning
only the potential for rock fall and snow sliding on the
above referenced property on the north - facing slope of Aspen
Mountain above Ute Avenue as shown on the accompanying map.���
Chen and Associates has already addressed tTie °o er iss .
This is along the southern edge of the Town of Aspen within
r the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The dual envelope or proposed site is at the base of a steep,
conifer- covered hillside on a large tailing pile which will
be modified. There are two rights -of -way above the sites as
., shown. The ridge line just above the property is held up by
bedrock.
The geology above the site (which will be located on mine
tailings) consists of a thin veneer of colluvial deposits
.. containing angular blocks of limestone, sandstone and some
granitic rocks. The matrix; is mostly silty sand. This
surficial deposit has been mapped by Bruce Bryant, 1971, as a
talus deposit but I believe that the term colluvium is more
accurate at this location. The underlying bedrock: could riot
be determined because of lack of nearby outcrops, but is
probably the Cambrian age Sawatch Uuartzite or one of the
` Lower Paleozoic carbonate units. Because of the steep
.. attitude of bedrock units in this area and the faulting
present, the bedrock could even be the Precambrian age quartz
.. monzonite,
Snow sliding and minor rock: fall is a possibility on this
property and there is a well established chute on the
northwest side of the site. This small chute can be well
seen and its relationship to the site evaluated from across
the valley in the Smuggler area. It appears to be directed
more toward the neighboring y g property to the narthwes it. Snow
sliding can occur elsewhere as well but will be. minor. The
extensive tree cover above the sites sFaoLlld minimize the
potential hazard. There is simply not enough relief car
catchment area above the sites to produce a major avalanche.
M
r
W
W
W
Rock fall can occur at this location from the outcrops above
but they are not much fractured and therefore not likely to
contribute frequent loose rocks to the hillside. The low
-- elevation of the outcrops and the significant tree cover will
not allow rocks to gain much momentum. Nevertheless, the
rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude at least
four feet above finished grade and be without doors or
windows on this upslope- facing side of the proposed homes.
They should be strong enough to withstand forces of at least
200 pounds per square foot. This should provide a large
measure of protection from either rolling rocks or snow
r slides that may reach the sites. Any positive landscaping
which can be done at the rear of the homes during or soon
r after construction would also be helpful. If there are
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
W
r
W
•
r
M
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. ATTACHMENT 11
.. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAD
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
�w (303) 9633600 Q HOURS)
r
May 20, 1991
Glen Horn
.. 500 E. Hyman, Suite I:'
r
Aspen CG 81611
RE: 1001 Ute Avenue
Iiear Glen:
I recently spoke to David Finholm, architect, about
mitigating the two units at the above referenced site rear of
.. the buildings rather than at the rear wall of the buildings.
This is entirely possible at this site because the hillside
above the property is not overly high nor hazardous at this
end of the ridge.
.. My original recommendation can be modified to include the
option to create a wall or berm(s) at the rear of the yard
and before the break: in slope which will at least equal the
four feet of protection I recommended. Thus, four feet of
protection in the form of walls or berms with steep uphill
faces will be just as good. Angles of the mitigation
features can also be utilized to lessen the impact of snow or
rocks; this would be harder to accomplish at the rear walls.
These structures should be just as strong as those originally
contemplated. T.f there are questions remaining please call.
w
•
•
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
Sincerely,
/ '4
Nicholas La6mpiris
Consulting Geologist
ATTACHMENT 12
CHOZEN PROPERTY
UTE AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO
Avalanche Hazard Report by Peter Lev
Alpentech, Salt Lake City, Utah
20 January 2006
PITKIN COUNTY OVERVIEW
Alpentech has been asked a number of times to evaluate avalanche hazard to Pitkin
County and Aspen properties and has made a number of visits to Pitkin County over the
years. Unlike many other areas of the mountain west Pitkin County and Aspen have
seen a steady stream of avalanche consultants, avalanche hazard map makers, and
disparate chroniclers of the local avalanche history. The result is a complex and
sometimes conflicting picture of avalanche hazard potential.
The Red and Blue Zone Avalanche Hazard Classification (Avalanche High Hazard Zone
and Avalanche Moderate Hazard Zone respectively) and reliance on the Pitkin County
Snow Avalanche Areas map (showing Historic Avalanche Areas and Potential Avalanche
Areas respectively)* has provided the framework for evaluating avalanche hazard in
Pitkin County. However, as more obscure land comes to real estate development, these
traditional avalanche hazard classifications may not be sufficient for accurately
describing the avalanche hazard. This new development land may be on or under steep
_. slopes, yet there may still be a legitimate question whether or not there is avalanche
hazard.
There are some special considerations when evaluating Pitkin County terrain and snow
climate. The first is the extreme variability from south - aspect slopes to north - aspect
slopes. South- aspect slopes are typically covered in oak brush, sometimes as tall as six to
_. ten feet, while the north - aspect terrain may be heavily forested in conifers and the "open"
avalanche paths covered in a variety of "destruction" vegetation sometimes over six feet
high. In either case the Pitkin County terrain which may be subject to avalanche hazard
is clothed in natural cover and is not typically bare ground or grass, except at the highest
elevations (or on the ski area runs). The second major consideration is the extreme
variability of snow cover from south aspect to north aspect. South - facing slopes often
- have no snow cover at all, while north - facing slopes may have 1 to 4 feet of snow. The
third major consideration is the variation in snow depth when comparing, for example,
the relatively lower altitude and minor north aspect slopes adjacent to and above the town
of Aspen (8000 feet) to the more seriously impacted development terrain in the County
affected by avalanches originating at 10,000 feet or higher.
The point is there is not a `one size fits all' for designating a particular terrain as an
avalanche path. The traditional Red and Blue Zone classification is primarily based on
the configuration and steepness of a relatively bare slope (or at best, open trees), and the
-- known avalanche history. The three considerations outlined above do not significantly
come into play in the Red/Blue Zone classification, and this is a shortcoming. Yet some
�^ of the land coming to development, although either on or affected by steep terrain, lacks
any obvious avalanche paths and lacks history. Therefore, ground cover must play an
important role in determining potential avalanche hazard, as must the varying depth of
snowcover (due to aspect and elevation).. It is therefore important to incorporate these
.. considerations in any realistic avalanche hazard evaluation.
Some of the terrain we have been asked to evaluate is adjacent to the town of Aspen,
lower elevation and north - facing, very steep and covered in dense forest. Tree core
samples at various locations show the oldest trees to be on average 6o years old. We
judge this to be the time marker near the end of the mining days, a time when the slopes
•- had been cleared of nearly every tree. We have no doubt that during the mining period
avalanches did indeed occur on the de -nuded slopes. Today, however, we see little or no
sign of avalanche activity on these slopes. In the European Alps, particularly in
-- Switzerland, forests are planted and maintained to protect towns. Forests are a proven
w. and highly regarded method of avalanche protection. This is as true in Pitkin County as
in the Alps, although perhaps without the intention.
Summing up, we are seeing some new development in Pitkin County taking place on
terrain which does not appear to us to be either Red or Blue Avalanche Hazard Zone
terrain, but rather a sort of `grey' zone somewhere between Blue (moderate avalanche
hazard) and White Zone (no possibility of avalanches). Because of this situation, we are
utilizing, as needed, an additional hazard classification, which we call the `Yellow Zone'
This Yellow Zone classification applies where the terrain is sufficiently steep and
extensive to theoretically produce avalanches. However, the lack of snowcover, or the
presence of a dense vegetation cover, and a lack of historical support for avalanche
activity all indicate there to be no significant avalanche activity. The `Yellow'
classification does not require impact studies necessary for building defense structures, or
to special building codes, as would the Blue Zone classification.
A conservative tilt to the above conclusion would take into account the possibility of 1)
climate change producing much more snow, leading to, 2) loss of forest due to huge
snowfalls and unusually large avalanches, and 3) as a separate threat, loss of protective
forest due to bug infestation or fire. However, these possibilities are speculative and are
not supported by the snow climate history of Pitkin County.
* 1974 Colorado State University at Fort Collins
«A
r
w
r
r
CHOZEN PROPERTY ANALYSIS
The proposed building site is on a mine dump at 8,025 feet. Above this site the slope
rises gradually to the Ute Hiking/Ski Trail which traverses above the site at about 8,060
feet elevation. Above the Ute Trail the terrain rises steeply to a shallow bowl at about
8,500 feet. This is a vertical distance of about 475 feet. The slope above the Ute Trail
ranges in steepness from 70% to over 100% (see map attachment "Slope Steepness ").
The attached photo shows the important features and findings of our investigation. Our
ski inspection route (yellow dash line) is indicated. We dropped into the upper bowl
then exited over the ridge into the ski area. In the bowl we noted some possible
avalanche starting zones amongst the trees. The rock outcrop (on map) and generally
thin snow cover encouraged us to renew our inspection from below and just above the
Ute Trail. At this point we observed four small and narrow (10 feet wide or less)
moderately active avalanche paths, which appeared to stop at the Ute Trail (green solid
lines). A spotty thinning of the forest and some broken branches vaguely defines these
,. slide paths. Also, we noted rockfall damage throughout the lower forest. We understand
from talking with the Aspen Ski Patrol that these avalanches occur primarily as wet
spring slides. Four years ago a number of them hit the Ute Trail but did not go beyond.
The Trail appears to work as a catchment area for these small slides. We could find no
defining evidence that any of these small slides reach beyond the Trail and the relatively
short distance down to the mine dump.
The slopes rising from the mine dump to the ridge -line (described above) are densely
forested in mature conifers, with some scattered aspen along the lower end. Referring to
the photo, notice at the left comer of the mine dump is the number `57'. This number and
location refer to a tree core taken at that spot. The core (see photo attachment) is from a
typical, healthy conifer, of the type and age to be found throughout the subject terrain all
the way up into the Upper Bowl. Fifty -seven is the age of this tree. We find the age of
60 years to be common for conifers in the Aspen area. This is the marker at the end of
the mining era, prior to which almost every tree available had been cut down. On a slope
such as this, denuded of trees, there were no doubt avalanches. Today, the forest
" provides a viable protection from almost all avalanches and certainly from serious
avalanches. Although this forest is without `intention' it is just as legitimate avalanche
protection as the much cared -for avalanche protection forests above villages in
Switzerland.
Conclusion: The Chozen property and building site are, in our opinion, free of any
significant avalanche hazard at this time. However, should the forest be lost, then the
mine dump building site will be subject to potentially serious avalanche hazard. There is
s no reason to expect a demise of the protective forest, but some possibilities are: 1) too
r much warmth/drought could promote a bug infestation which kills a significant number
of trees, 2) an unusually heavy winter snowfall could enlarge the existing small avalanche
paths, 3) and really massive snowfalls could occur, followed by massive avalanching
r. which clears out the forest. The relatively lower elevation of the slopes affecting the
subject property and historical climate record for Pitkin County suggests possibilities 2)
and 3) above to be unlikely occurrences. Possibility 1), however, could be a concern
given the extent of bug infestation elsewhere throughout Rocky Mountain forests.
.. We are giving the subject property a Yellow Zone avalanche hazard classification. This
classification (see Introduction page) applies to terrain which is sufficiently steep and
expansive enough to produce dangerous avalanches, if it were relatively bare ground.
-� This terrain, however, is very densely forested. The forest shows no significant tree
damage from avalanches (attention: there is considerable rockfall damage). Some minor
avalanche tree damage does appear in the marked (green lines) paths.
Yellow Avalanche Hazard Zone classification does not require the building site to be
protected by avalanche defense structures or special avalanche building code. Therefore,
an avalanche impact study is not necessary. However, we recommend there to be only
small or no windows placed on the uphill side of the proposed residences.
Enclosure(s)
r
r
w
w
w
s
r
i
11�
r
W
r
r
r
r
w
r
r
r
r
r
March 28, 2006
James Lindt
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Planned Unit Development
Dear James:
Enclosed with this letter are:
1. March 24, 2006 Memorandum to Glenn Horn from Peter Lev,
of Alpentech Addressing Avalanche Protection on South
Side of Proposed Residences;
2. Warranty Deed conveying 1001 Ute Avenue from Chozen to
Leathem Stearn; and
3. March 27, 2006 letter from Leathem Stearn to James Lindt
authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to represent him in
the land use review process.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for your assistance.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
GLENN HORN AICP
To: Glenn Horn
From: Alpentech - Peter Lev and Beat vonAllmen
Date: 10 March 2006
Regarding: Chozen Property
This is an addendum to our Avalanche Hazard Report dated 20 January 2006.
The last sentence in the Report says: "However, we recommend there to be only small or
no windows placed on the uphill side of the proposed residences." We would like to re-
visit this statement.
As indicated in the Report we don't expect any significant avalanche hazard to the
proposed buildings. As also indicated in the report things can change, such as loss of the
protective forest, however unlikely. Here is what we propose:
We understand there is to be a patio /open area and a retaining wall behind the houses
(between the houses and the slope). A patio is fine. A retaining wall could be raised
above grade three feet and this would offer some protection, especially for the occasional
small spring slide as noted in the report.
Further, if one wanted to place more extensive glass on the patio -side of the buildings
(south facing), the exposed glass could be protected by solid doors /shutters when
conditions appear to warrant, thereby providing some additional security to the structures.
The Iron Blosam Lodge at Snowbird (Utah) is exposed on its north side to truly serious
avalanches descending from the south - facing slopes and cliffs above the road. All the
�+ rooms on that north side have big windows, which are protected by heavy wood
,., doors /shutters which can be moved into place as needed.
.r For Alpentech,
Peter Lev
r
r
r
s
iC
s.
w 7:•
N
r
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
1
i
i
N
C3
V-
0
0)
0
N
LO
r
� r
Q
Q
N
0
t
U
a�
0
Q)
XZ-
N
0
Q)
Q) C
L
0 0
Q 0
C C
O Q
0 Q
� 0
ON
° U a
f _
t � �
awl
e - O0 RAs
i 1
Ute A�en�e 1
1
N
M IN \\ eL
Oil tam
ds
0 50 IN 150 200 400
SLOPE
Avalanche Haconnamemrce
Investigation
route, 1 -10 -06
""
vx -15%
Chozen Memll Pro e
in rtY
16% -25%
located at Apart Mountain. lAe Avenue
C.] Approximate
building site(s)
3s% -35%
Prepared for Davis Horn Inc.
215 S Monarch, 0104, Aspen, 00 81611
36% -45%
a6 % -6o%
Peter Lm. Avalanched Expert
Approximate
property outline
61 %n5%
am Beat voMlmen, P.E.
76% -100%
BM1Y M1 Prelimnary. 1 -11 -06
101 % -50%
i
i
r
♦ / C \
p /l
I e,�
1
i
i_ � w "'p
I
S
"1 \
Ute 1
Ave��e 1
0 50 100 150 266 460
SOLAR ASPECT Avalanche Reconnoissance
Investigation route, 1 -10 -06 NE Chozen Merrill Property
Hw Iodated at Aspen Mountain, Ute Manor
Approximate building site(s) E Prepared for Davis Horn Inc
w 215 s Monarch. /104, Aspen. CO 61611
Approximate property outline SE aand Baect .anrdlmw.P.E�„
SW WWW.SORbdLrgd Preliminary. 1 -11 -06
s
1
• 4P �� -- - --
lip
1
1
i I \
t I
(1t� gV�nue
I
Investigation route, 1 -10 -06
� ] Approximate building site(s)
= Approximate property outline
0 50 100 150 zoo 400 vA
Axalunche Reconnaissance
ATION Chozen Merrill Property
oca
500 lted at Aspen Mountain. Ute Avenue
Prepared for Dais Ram Inc.
- 6500' 215 6 Monarch. /104, Aspen, 00 91611
Peter Lev, Avalanched Expert
—9000, and neat . I—I n, P.E
IYN'W.Bj7YMf�l.01f Pro6mirwry: 1 -11 -06
Investigation route, 1 -10 -06
EW Approximate building site(s)
Approximate property outline
M
0 50 100 150 200 600
Awlanche Reconnoissance
Chozen Merrill Property
be ted of Aspen Mountain, Ute Ave.
Prepared for OaWs Horn Wm.
215 S Monarch, /106, Aspen, CO 81611
Peter Lev, AWarched Export
and Beat vonAlhrarr, P.E.
WWWAj8nbdLId Prernninary. 1 -11-08
/r 4P
I
�i
/
i
�I
� I
/
f'
/
Ute Av�n�e
Investigation route, 1 -10 -06 ELEVATI
<7500
-�� Approximate building site(s) 8061-65
I = Approximate property outline 8501 - 90
e1
I.A-
J� —
0 30 108 138 808 100
Awlanelro Reconnoissance
Chozen Merrill Property
located at Aspen Mountain, Ute Ave.
Prepared (ar Davis Horn Inr_
215 5 Monarch, {101, Aspen, 00 81811
Peter Lev, Avalanched Expert
and Beat -. 1-1 -0 P.E. N N N
wYW,BIINdJdIdM1 Preliminary. 1 -11—OG FU'jl��
.n
a
IIATTACHMENT 13
"f lit 111 M IN-11- ` 11,
STRUJCTURAII, 114L
December 12, 2006
Davis -Horn Planning
Mr. Glen Horn
215 So Monarch St.
Aspen, CO 81611
♦ CONTRA=G # CJER'1rIDF10EIID ]ENERGY DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
Re: 1001 Ute Ave. Site Conceptual Drainage Plan
Dear Mr. Horn:
Drainage patterns for the site will remain essentially unaltered and historic runoff rates will not be
exceeded. Runoff above the bench for the residences will continue to be deflected by the old railroad
bed and be coursed to the easterly property line and adjacent property. Runoff from the historic bench
area and proposed construction will continue to be coursed around the tennis courts. Culverts and drain
inlets will be installed as necessary to permit water movement around the site improvements.
Lot land common areas: A dry well is anticipated along the easterly property line for drainage
mitigation from Lot 1. A second dry well is anticipated in the parking area near the intersection of the
driveway with Ute Ave for drainage mitigation of the runoff from the driveway. The proposed drywells
will be sized to provide adequate detention capacity so as to not exceed existing storm runoff rates.
Lot 2 and common areas: An existing tree lined depression area to the northwest of the tennis courts
will be reworked and continue to accept runoff waters that have historically been coursed that way from
the Lot 2 area and improvements. This proposed depression will be sized to provide adequate detention
capacity so as to not exceed existing storm runoff quantities. Overflow from the detention facility will
continue in its historic orientation to the adjacent properties.
Please call us at 970 - 963 -9869 if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
■ TI RLINE E
OKI
r
IN
,n David A. Powell, Pty. 112 s'
o. Off:' a
+� Reg. No. 25851 �q'1;lvy�t @•:
W
"" PA ]8O% 631 CARBONDALEX0. 81623 PHONE 970 963 9869 / FAX 970 963 9003
r
r
r
tl..
r
r
r
IYI
r
11�
r
r
r
w�
r
r
■IL
Li Li91tl OJ 31VONf10NtlJ IIIE9 %09 eOJ
� DMN33MDN3 3NI'INHHWI,L '
12�
1�i
�� i
�r
0
m
"M' -
3fN3 IOOI
�
¢
RNE]r�
1� ®p.
1l�p
L
Imo'
li�_GJ
�M
r �r
.II. ri t }
f YYY77777
t OpQ=x
\J Z
U Z =
� - --
i
t o
}11I 3 ?
Q
t
* A
,.N
K
lij
• ate ° " � Ott (- i
4 J
y
4
tw
IMF
1 lip
v
EWAN
7
Y4 AV •.
P4
�. Vii•,'
4
lit
4b
V4,
CIO
V4
9
E
III
!..J `71 rUSERUNE
j ATTACHMENT 15
I
Egg �7
STRUJCTURAI,/CPAL IEPdQ'aW EERING # CONT1RAC^II'II G # CERTIIMIID IE.gI]ERGY DESIGN ]PROIFIESSIIONAII
iINI
December 29, 2005
Davis -Horn Planning
Mr. Glen Horn
„u 215 So Monarch St.
Aspen, CO 81611
••^ Re: 1001 Ute Ave. Site Infrastructure
Dear Mr. Hom:
This report presents the proposed infrastructure for the development.
DRIVEWAY
^ ^° The proposed driveway accesses the City of Aspen street system near the tennis courts on Ute
Avenue. The length of the driveway will be approximately 400 feet. The grade of the driveway at the
intersection of the drive and Ute Avenue is 4% and this grade continues into the site for 40 feet. The
^'^ remainder of the driveway climbs the hill to the building sites at 12 %. Radii of curves along the
not centerline of the road vary from 37 feet to 68 feet. A hammerhead fire truck turnaround is proposed at
the top of the road. A guardrail is proposed in those areas where the driveway is above the adjacent
grade. Construction of the driveway will require approximately 500 yards of cut and 1,800 yards of fill
material. The approximate 1,300 yards of fill will be generated by the site preparation for a building
.. platform.
RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls associated with the driveway construction will be necessary. The maximum height of
... these structures will be approximately 20 feet at the north end of the fire truck turnaround.
Cantilevered concrete retaining walls and/or Mechanically Stabilized Earth technologies will be used.
... Retaining walls will be necessary along the perimeter of the changed area of tennis court. These walls
will vary from 14 feet high for retaining the existing hillside above to 8 feet high for retaining the tennis
court above the existing ground below.
SITE GRADING
Grading of the bench at the top of the driveway down to the 8010 elevation will generate approximately
7,500 cubic yards of material. The movement of the tennis court will generate approximately 600 cubic
M
W
"' P.O. BOX 631 CARBON DALE, CO. 81623 PHONE 970 963 9869 / FAX 970 963 9003
Its
1001 Ute Ave, Page 2, December 29, 2005
yards of fill material. The construction of the driveway will require approximately 1,300 cubic yards of
material. There will be approximately 6,800 cubic yards of material exported from the site.
DRAINAGE
Drainage patterns will remain essentially unaltered. Runoff above the bench will continue to be
deflected by the old railroad bed and be coursed to the southerly property line and adjacent property.
Runoff from the bench will continue to be coursed around the tennis courts. An existing tree lined
depression to the north of the tennis courts will continue to accept runoff waters that have historically
been coursed that way. Culverts will be installed as necessary to permit water movement around the
site improvements. A dry well installation is anticipated near the intersection of the driveway with Ute
r
Ave. in order to pick up runoff from the driveway.
SEWER
Aspen Consolidated Sewer District has an existing sewer main in Ute Avenue. Sewer services from
the homes to the main will gravity flow along the driveway to Ute Ave. A street cut will be necessary to
accomplish tapping into the sewer main.
WATER
The City of Aspen has a main water line in Ute Ave and taps for the proposed construction should be
available. Extension of the main water line up the driveway and into the construction area may be
problematic due to the inability to loop the line. If a main line extension is not approved, a large
( +20,000 gallon) water storage tank will be necessary at the top of the drive for fire fighting purposes.
• A street cut will be necessary to accomplish tapping into the water main.
ELECTRIC
An electrical transformer currently exists along the project side of Ute Ave. and electrical cables will be
routed along the driveway. A street cut for connection to this utility is not anticipated.
NATURAL GAS
Natural gas service currently exists along the project side of Ute Ave. and gas piping will be routed
-- along the driveway. A street cut for connection to this utility is not anticipated.
Please call us at 970 - 963 -9869 if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
TIMBERLINE E)?djiINEERING
r
David A. Powell, PE
Reg. No. 25851
r
r
gym.
r
�w
r
ti
11/13/2006 05:03 9709255180
FEMUN.r:i.
J� PAGE 01/03
A; -r ToGc,t, n11t1 L - -~
Newhard Prolect Resources, Inc,
PROJECTMANAGEMENT ✓OEMOPMEMAPPROVALS ✓TRANSPORTATION PLANN/NO
MCRaTIMPCANNING ✓E MRMMENIALANA M$ "'eRANTWRNMG
(9TO) 9274875 MCE 41TOMINAL ROAD, 448ALT, CO 83621
(970) 92T -" FAX 40nnOscaft W
This is to report to you my findings regarding the availability of utilities and to submit a
traffic generation analysis for the development proposal at 1001 Ute Avenue.
DEVELOPMENT A55UMPTIONS
The development proposal for the property is to place two single - family residences on
the upper bench above the existing tennis courts. For the purposes of this analysis, the
single- family residences are assumed to have 1- kitchen, 4- bedrooms, 4 1/2 - bathrooms,
and two outside house bibs.
AVAILAeII.ITY OF UTILITIES:
C/tyofAspen WaGerDepar&nent: Section 26.470.080C.2.b.(1)(a) of the code
requires a written description of how the proposed development will be connected to the
public water system, Including information on main size and pressure; the excess
capacity available in the public water system; the location of the nearest main; and the
estimated water demand of the proposed development.
M I spoke to the Aspen Water Department and was told that the nearest water main is
located within the Ute Avenue right -of -way adjacent to the proposed development. The
main is either 8 or 12- inches in diameter and has more than sufficient pressure to
accommodate the development as described above. There is also adequate availability
in the water system to supply such a development The estimated water demand for
.. the proposed development would be about 1.79 ECU (Equivalent Capacity Units) /unit or
3.58 ECU for the development based on the information supplied.
Aspen Cvj%WIefaW Sanitation Dis&kt.• Section 26.470.080C.2.b.(1)(b) of the
code requires a written description of how the proposed development shall be connected
M
M
16
11/13/2006 05:03 9709255180 DAVIS HORN PAGE 02/03
to the public sewage treatment system, Including the access capacity available in the
public sewage system; the nearest location to the building site of a truck or connecting
sewer line; and the expected sewage treatment demand of the proposed development
I met with Mr. Tom Bracewell, System Engineer for the district and described to him the
proposed development. Tom said that the existing sewer line connection for the
building is located along the Ute Avenue right -of -way adjacent to the proposed
development. In fad, Tom remembered that a previous owner of this property did pay
for a line extension from eth street to the property and that this extension may actually
be in place. However, this would need to be investigated when construction begins, as
no written record of the extension could be found. Tom said that the district measures
., demand in units that are equivalent to the capacity units calculated by the city water
department, but that they are known as EQRs for purposes of sewage capacity. As
^- such, the development's sewage demand would be about 1.79 EQR/unit or 3.58 EQR
based on the information supplied. Tom stated that this demand could be easily
accommodated with the existing public sewage system.
As far as the current condition of the sewage system, Tom stated that the sewer line in
Ute Avenue is not In need of replacement at this time or in the near future. However,
». as with all new developments, an impact fee equivalent to $11200 /EQR for upgrade of
the system would be assessed at the time the sewer line is connected.
W
TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS
r
I have been asked to supply answers to a portion of the information requested under
Section 26.470.080C.2,b.(1)(f) of the code regarding the expected traffic generated by
.. the proposed development:
Est/mabM hufTlc coant /flows& on adjacentsmeefs rffu/iHnq fmm the
proposeddew%pment. Using established trip generation rates from the a Edition
of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
the following Average Daily Trips will be generated by the development:
Amt.
Use
Ave. Daily
Total ADT
Traffic AD
2
Single Family Detached Housing
9.53
19.06
Land Use Code 210
r In summary, the proposed development will generate about 19 additional vehicles per
day. Currently, approximately 1,600 -2,000 vehicles per day travel on Ute Avenue. The
proposed development would Increase the traffic on Ute Avenue no more than 1.2 %.
°p.nr�P� q •• N -n ", If ► t'7! y� '��I 'J - ZOl ." .r N
11/13/2006 05:03 9709255180 DAVIS HORN PAGE 03/03
A desrriptlon of the types and condition of Muds to serive Ma proposed
development: The proposed development will be directly served by Ute Avenue. The
condition of this city street Is satisfactory and condition is maintained by the City of
Aspen.
The tota ls number of vehicles expecYtsd to use or be stabfoned in the
dembopn W. It is expected that the number of vehicles that will use or be stationed
at the development would be between 4 and 8 vehicles at any one time. This figure is
.. based on the potential number of bedrooms (8) contained within the development
proposal.
T The hours ofp indp/e daiiytm on aWaaentroads; Daily use on the road from
the proposed development should peak between 6:00 am — 9:00 am and 3:00 pm -7 :00
pm.
Locadon ofa/trrnatg transit (bus ro^ bike padA* eft). The closest city bus
stop is at the City market This stop is used by the Cemetery Lane, Maroon/Castle and
Hunter Creek bus routes. This bus stop is approximately 2,000 feet from the proposed
development. The regional bus system, RFTA, uses the same stop and the Ruby Park
Terminal which is located approximately 2,500 -feet from the proposed development.
The nearest bike path is the Ute Avenue and Aspen Club Trail, located immediately
adjacent to the proposed development.
rr
r�
. 1.,,L.i.l. 1'Ilr NI 4` r. ! -/ 'dry• I'h 9.I +' ,Iy v.�y. ,..
-1 .,
r
h
�a
lY
l
1
f-
z
W
S
V
a
WM £9¢ OL6 XYd! 6986 £96 016 HHOH4
R9I8 OJ 3NONOHHYJ [£9 XOH'O "d
r raHaWONR RMTrnxa�nu L
�Q
OUVUOZOO
NHdSV
Z �
2�1
CD
i
Ck CE ir
Ld
N N /
TO6L
(7)
/ D /
0 16
ru
+
'Lw
'V
tr / 11
I
KKK
+
� 5L
PAP
vow v4 1�_
y � / � \\ \.\
f-
111
i
o.
\
nLIL
\6�A
nesLo
\
Ceti 9 ,
o
.Yq��
s 131'
c
1
m
- b
snK
g
ANA I ;�Jt ♦
I
O
D 1
h
v v
0
O) n)
I
o
F
❑ l
C
Z
b
1
+
o
18
18
8
8
:8
s
.8
8
8
'°
8
'8
8
s
S
a
Al
Igs
S
''..Y
'.8
9NO
al
h
LM
r
A
It M
61 IN3WRIV11V 1911M Var ezz:60 go 8L o9a m
I� IS
N�pu r.
Il��lai�
I�
0'
..
1
_
� n
�,I�IN N
`
Illll
!�hl`n
— _ .' --
I� IS
ATTACHMENT 20
JACK MILLER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Post Office Box 4285
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(970)927 -9513
December 15, 2006
0
Jessica Garrow, Planner
Aspen Community Development Department
,. 130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subject: 8040 Greenline Review
r
Dear Jessica:
.. In response to your comments on the 8040 Greenline review, and in addressing the
required PUD massing controls that the council required and the applicant agreed to, we have
complied on both length and height.
r
1) Length Requirement. The north facing facades must be limited to 120' in width.
Actual Design. The north facing facade of Residence 1 is 111' in width and
Residence 2 is 91' in width, substantially within the limits.
r 2) Height Requirements. The overall ridge height to be no more than 27' in height
-» and 20% of the ridge height shall be no more than 22' high.
w
Actual Design. Residence I and 2 both have a maximum ridge height of 27' (the
normal city height requirement is 32') and each has over 30% of the front facade at 22' in height,
r 10% more than required.
SUBJECT: Residential Design Standards.
In response to your pre - application comments on design standard variances that will be
required, we have made some revisions, and will offer our interpretations, which we feel will
comply with the design standards, with no variances required.
AA =1 - It is not possible to orient the facades directly parallel to Ute Avenue, as we are
building on a mine tailings pile, which has a steep slope and the crest of the pile angles away to
the south from Ute Avenue. We need to follow the crest for the design concept we are following
W
W
so as not to disturb the existing site more than is required. The residences are basically parallel
to the axis of the new drive which relates much more directly to the residences, as Ute Avenue is
*' almost 400 feet to the north, and 50' lower. In addition, and more importantly, the ordinance
r includes a quote " For the purj2osed of section 26.410 street shall also include private roads ,
streets and access easements serving more than one parcel" Also the residences are heavily
screened with landscaping, it is unlikely that the angle to Ute Ave would be distinguishable.
Within the adjacent subdivisions and PUD most all the facades are oriented to their respective
private roads. We don't feel that this should even be considered as a variance, considering that
r
our facades do parallel the axis of the private drive.
.. DD =1 - Due to the fact that we are creating a common drive between Residence 1 and 2, to
be able to share 1 -14' wide garage opening, it appears to us that since a driveway or access ✓
easement is considered a street, as described above in paragraph Al , for all intents and
purposes, the entry is facing the common drive, and we feel that this shouldn't be considered as
W a variance.
DD =2 - We have redesigned the Residence 1 and 2 structures to comply with the one -story
-- requirement. On Residence 1, we have created a one =story porch in front of the master bedroom
which has no access on top, the distance is 6' deep and 34' long which exceeds the 20
requirement of 111'x 20% = 22' long. On Residence 2 we have created a one -story porch, non
accessible, on the roof, in front of the master bedroom which is 20' long, exceeding the 20%
requirement of 91'x.20 =18' long.
^ DD =2 - Since the lower level is considered the first story, the windows restriction of 9' -
- 12' do not apply on the upper level. We do not consider this to require a variance.
C.2s - The garage floor level is now only 1' higher then the auto court in front of the
garages at the end of the drive, so this should not require a variance.
E_1b - We do not think this comment is in keeping with the intention of the design
standards. The plaster is below a glass window. The stone arch is a classic system of structural
•- support which should not be considered a heavy material above lighter material. In that context,
a glass window could not be put into a stone wall.
In summary, we consider that we have complied with all of the design standards and
.. conditions and shouldn't be required to apply for variations before the P and Z commission.
r
r
r
r
w.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
Effective D;ue: October 3(l. 2000 at 7:30 a.m.
I. Policv or Policies To Be Issued:
X) ALTA ( 1992) Owner's Policy
Amount:
X) Standard ( ) Extended
Premium:
2. Propo,cd Insured: To Be Determined
( ) ALTA 1992 Loan Policy
Amount:
Standard ( ) Extended
Premium:
ATTACHMENT 21
Order Number: 45474
TO BE
DETERMINED
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
Ute Mesa, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows.
See "Exhibit A" attached hereto
Title Examiner: Chuck Dorn E -mail: chuck.dorn @stewart.com
Escrow Officer: Carolyn Ethridge E- mail: carolyn.ethridge@stewart.com
Statement of Charges:
Policy premiums shown above, and
any charges shown below are due and
payable before a policy can be issued.
To Be Determined
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Order No.: 45474
i
A portion of the 1001 Lode Mining Claim USMS No. 1741 situated in Section 18, Township 10
.. South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian more particularly described as follows:
i
Beginnine at Corner No. 3 of the 1001 Lode, USMS No. 1741 whence an iron post with brass
i cap affixed for Corner No. 1 of Aspen Townsite bears North 66'l F30" West 132.50 feet;
i thence South 47 °07'00" West 1000.00 feet along the Southeasterly line of the said 1001 Lode to
a point;
thence Not 45 °10'00" West 300.00 feet along the Northeasterly line of that land described in
Book 390 at Page 897 of the Clerk and Recorders Office of Pitkin County, Colorado to a point on
the Northwesterly line of said 1001 Lode;
thence North 47 °07'00" East 968.65 feet along the Northwesterly line of said 1001 Lode to a
point on the Southwesterly line of the Ute Addition to the City of Aspen;
thence along said Southwesterly line of the Ute Addition South 39 °57'22" East 178.31 feet to
said Corner No. 1 Aspen Townsite;
W thence North 28 °28'00" East 49.54 feet along the Southeasterly line of Lot 1 Ute Addition to the
City of Aspen said line also being between Corner 1 and 2 of the Aspen Townsite Boundary, to a
point on the Northeasterly line of said 1001 Lode Claim South 45 °10'00" East 137.64 feet along
-- the Northeasterly line of said 1001 Lode to Corner No. 3 the Point of Beginning.
And also a tract of land situated in the Southeast' /4 Northwest 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10
-� South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at Corner No. 3 of the 1001 Lode Mining Claim USMS No. 1741, whence Corner No.
I of Aspen Townsite bears North 66 °11'30" West 132.50 feet;
thence North 47 °07'00" East 2.20 feet along the Northwesterly line of Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision
to a point on the Southerly right of way of Ute Avenue;
thence Not 33 °48'30" West 149.99 feet along said right of way to a point on Line 1 -2 of said
Aspen Townsite;
thence South 28 °28'00" West 33.08 feet along Line 1 -2 to a point on Line 3 -4 of said 1001 Lode;
thence South 45 °10'00" East 137.64 feet along Line 3 -4 to the Point of Beginning.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
r
r
r
r
M Order Number: 45474
SCHEDULE B — Section 1
REQUIREMENTS
r The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full
consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed
and duly filed for record, to wit:
1. Partial Release of Deed of Trust
Dated: March 22, 2006,
Executed by: Leathern Stearn,
to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness
in the amount of: $2,600,000.00,
in favor of: Merrill A. Chozen and Jill E. Chozen 1981 Trust,
Recorded: March 22, 2006
a, Reception No.: 522055.
2. The following is required with respect to Ute Mesa, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability
Company:
a. Satisfactory evidence furnished by the Secretary of State in which Articles were filed,
" confirming that said Limited Liability Company is in good standing. (i.e., Certificate of
Good Standing, or copy of Articles of Organization bearing file stamp from the Secretary of
State.)
b. Copy of the Articles of Organization of said Limited Liability Company.
NOTE: If any Managers are themselves partnerships trusts, limited liability companies or
corporations, additional requirements will be necessary.
3. Good and Sufficient Subdivision Plat approved by the City of Aspen and recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
4. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office of the
Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that
conveyance is exempt from said taxes:
(1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979)
*� and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of
1 990).
r
r
i
w
#
911
r
r
r
r
#
w
r
5. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s).
6. Indemnity and Affidavit as to Debts, Liens and Leases, duly executed by the seller and buyer
and approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc.
r
r
SCHEDULE B — Section 2
EXCEPTIONS
Order Number: 45474
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same
are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
r
L Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records.
., 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts
which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not
shown by the public records.
«^ 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
�• 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing
in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date
the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covcred by this commitment.
W 6. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the
issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water.
.. 7. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales.
The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil
w conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area.
8. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the
W. same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United
-v States Patents recorded May 1, 1884 in Book 11 at Page 97 as Reception No. 4536 and
recorded August 26, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 299 as Reception No. 96828.
9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Leasehold Agreement between Destination
r
Resorts- Aspen, Ltd., a California limited partnership and Smuggler- Durant Mining
Company, a New York corporation as set forth in instrument recorded October 30, 1979 in
,. Book 378 at Page 419 as Reception No. 219149; and Assignment of Leasehold Interest
recorded June 15, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 88 as Reception No. 250929; and Amendment to
Agreement recorded June 15, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 90 as Reception No. 250930.
10. Terms, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of Access Easement Agreement
between Harley Baldwin and The Gant Condominium Association, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit
r
r
w
r
2 -• corporation as set forth in instrument recorded June 15, 1983 in Book 447 at Page 100 as
Reception No. 250931.
11. Right of way for Ute Avenue.
12. Terms, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of Grant of Trail Easement by and
between Bayoil (USA), Inc., a Delaware corporation and the City of Aspen, Colorado as set
forth in instrument recorded May 18, 1992 in Book 678 at Page 214 as Reception No.
144893.
�. 13. Encroachment and /or Possessory rights of Lots 1 and 3 of Hoag Subdivision on the
Southeasterly portion of the subject property as evidenced by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.,
-- Survey No. 19029 revised November 15, 1990 and referenced in Warranty Deed recorded
October 15, 1997 as Reception No. 409451.
14. Terms, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of Agreement by and between
Merrill A. Chozen and Jill E. Chozen 1981 Trust and Leathern Stearn as set forth in
instrument recorded March 22, 2006 as Reception No. 522056.
15. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Resolution No. 16 (Series of 2006) A
Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Approving with Conditions and
8040 Greenline Review, A Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable
Housing, and Recommending that City Council Approve with Conditions, Subdivision
Review, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the
Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado as set forth in instrument recorded June 7,
«. 2006 as Reception No. 525008.
NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Paragraph C of Article VII
requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record
prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible
for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed."
.. Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and
_ is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5
will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Policy when issued.
NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set
.. forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy form. Copies of the 1992 form Policy Jacket, setting forth
said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon request.
r
r•
110
r�1
DISCLOSURES
Pursuant to C.R.S. 10 -11 -122, notice is hereby given that:
A. The subject real property may be located in a Special Taxing District;
.. B. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained form the County Treasurer or the County
Treasurer's authorized agent-,
C. Information recording Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of
�.. County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
.. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity
shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity
conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction
W. which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. - Aspen Division conducts the closing of the
insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5
will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued.
Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4
of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment form the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the
following conditions:
A. T'he land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence, which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
g' B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the
�. land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's
and materialmen's liens.
D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
*� E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased,
within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded
liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the
builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements
satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of
�. the aforesaid information by the Company.
r
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
W NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVDE ANY
OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY
`IM SATISFIED.
M
Fite Number: 45474
Stewart Title of Culoiado. Inc. -Aspen Division
` Disclosures
Page 1 or 1
A
r
PRIVACY POLICY NOTICE
T PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
Title V of the Gramm - Leach - Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly
or through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic personal information about you with a nonaffiliated
third party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such
as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom
it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which
notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. - Aspen
Division and Stewart Title Guaranty Company
r
We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources:
• Information we receive from you, such as on applications or other forms.
• Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from our affiliates or others.
• Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency.
• Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate
agent or lender.
Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional
nonpublic personal information will be collected about you.
We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former
customers to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law.
We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following
types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have
joint marketing agreements:
• Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance,
securities and insurance.
.. • Nun - financial companies such as envelope stuffer.s and other fulfillment service providers.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH
ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW.
.• We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know
r
that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic,
and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal
information.
w
r
File Number: 43474
Ylov iii fide ,d( ',,Inmdo. lue A,pen Division
r P... Policy Non"
I'aue I of I
iYl
Dec 12 2006 1:42PM Stearn Enterprises 203 2
Dec 11 2003 12:51PM MRCNIE ELEC71RONIC SYSTEMS 970 925 ATTACHMENT 22
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Favmepl of City of Aspen Development App Ilea lion Feet ,
- CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and V Tie- f -\-e -S "` L- t- C-
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
r 1, APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
U-T-r— t \tS PJ (J r6L' "to t
'^ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). �� Rtv , ew, "F- c)Tr`Ner PL/ j) �^^ c'"71 m c n T-
2. APPLICANT understarids and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the paynnant of all processing fees is a
condition precedentto a determination ofapplieationcompletoneat ..
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, name or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of ilia costs involved in processing the
.- application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it it in the Interest of the parties that APPLICANT
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
... a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearing/ and/or
approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
.�• additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary or costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
... APPLICANT'S application,
., 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to'rhe Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the
r Planning Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration,
unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5., Therefore, APPLICANT agrees 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 rho amount of$14'11 which is for_ hours of Community Development staff
time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly _
billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned ubove, including
post approval review as a rate of 1122C.00 per.planner hour over the initial deposit Such periodic payment
shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
eccrucd costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued
until all coats associated with case processing have been paid,
` - CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT -
Julie Ann Woods -
""' Community Development Director Date: `�-
., Billing Address nnd Telephone Numhert
a.
Reoillred � 7'
(27 OG e8o
g;leupport \forms \agrpayes.dac
2�3- 22--7 -X90
son
11/30104
it
r
r
RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECOR
Dec 12 2006 2:14PM Stearn Enterprises P•2
10/23/2006 06:14 VN255100 Davis H ATTACHMENT 23 '02,
s
r
r
December 12, 2006
UTE MESA LLC
LEATHEM STEARN, MANAGER
37 FERRY LANE
WESTPURT, CT 06880
„o JessieaGarrow
City ofAspen Community Development 1DNpamnent
130 South Galena Street
r Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Ute Mena Planned Unit Development 0040 Greenline and Residential Design Review
(1001 Ute Avenue)
Dear Jessica:
® This letter authorizes Davis Horn Incorporated and Jack Miller to prepare a 8040 Greenline and
Residential Design Review land use application for the Ute Mesa Planned Unit Development.
Davis Horn Incorporated and Jack Miller shall repremit the Ute Mesa LLC in the land use
review process.
Please confect me if you have any questions. Thank you.
.� Siucerel
�a
LEATHEM STEARN
MANAGER
r
r
r
r
w
APPLICANT:
r
r
r
w
r
r
ATTACHMENT 24
ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION
Name: U 1 c_ n e_ S , Lt-(:- I L erti i t..e.n S'jec.t rn t-"1c� •�•� e/'
Location: I L)u I U T'e pto v.-&e_
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID #(REQUIRED) '2-73-7 1 $2 LO 0G3
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: n rn1!Q Kern =re
Address: 2 1 S 5. f`t gnu rc, L fL e n L.::) (J C, x LA Z 4sS
Phone #: r1-10 °IZ5 (,j N �e rt Lv G Z7 G$ 13
PRntT?rr-
Name: y -T e t"\-e- S. � c>y
Address:
Phone #:
Tvve nr APPLICATION[ (nlease check all that annlv):
❑
Conditional Use
❑
Conceptual PUD
❑
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑
Special Review
❑
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
❑
Design Review Appeal
❑
Conceptual SPA
❑
Minor Historic Devt.
❑
GMQS Allotment
❑
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
❑
Historic Demolition
Exemption
❑
Subdivision
E]
Historic Designation
4MQS
SA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condominiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
•
Lot Split
❑
Temporary Use
❑
Other:
•
Lot Line Adjustment
❑
Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings uses, previous approvals, etc.)
v r�Lw r.T'
'ROPOSAL• (description of proposed buildings uses modifications etc.)
Z. � re..e rv�..� � 1-z:�r O. V • IS
Havg you attached the following? FEES Dt1E: S
r, E Pre- Application Conference Summary
'Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
• Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
rr
❑'liesponse to Attachment 94, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x I I" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
r text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
r
RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD
r
r
r
r
ATTACHMENT
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: Li i2 rtes- P ✓D %OLAO f7t.e.0; cw (Av-cp 10oi
Applicant: J "T-p-- MT-$" L- L- C- Au-
Location: Location: I o (:;> \ y T�- e to 2 Zone District: R -1 S
Lot Size: 3 1 655- der lu'r
Lot Area: (03 , 3 10 'o"
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
r' Commercial net leasable: Existing: o Proposed: O
Number of residential units: Existing: —a O Proposed: 3
Number of bedrooms: Existing: d Proposed.• t
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
w
M Variations requested: n °^ r-
r
r
Floor Area:
Existing:
D
Allowable:
I t H w
Proposed:
11"460
Principal bldg. height:
Existing:
O
Allowable:
Proposed:
Z t
°-
Access. bldg. height:
Existing:
O
Allowable:---2L-1
Proposed:
?n I
On -Site parking:
Existing: o Required:
Proposed:
6
..
% Site coverage:
Existing.
Required:
N
Proposed:
% Open Space:
Existing:
O
Required:
N Pr
Proposed:
b • i C-'-Y" S
Front Setback:
Existing:
Required:
1V C'r
Proposed:
r
Rear Setback:
Existing: ---
R
Proposed:
S-r- 6-A
Combined F /R:
Existing.
Required: ,ALR Proposed:
G ,
Side Setback:
Existing:
Required:
N Ps
Proposed.
Side Setback:
Existing:
D
Required:
NO*
Proposed:
�.
Combined Sides:
Existing:
d
Required:
N A
Proposed:
..
Distance Between
Existing
Required.
Proposed:_
Buildings
r
■+
Existing non - conformities or encroachments
(1 ^e
w
M Variations requested: n °^ r-
r
r
Impression antibourrage et h sechage rapide www.averycom
Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1- 800-GO -AVERY
1135 UTE LLC 247 ENTERPRISE LLC
6363 WOODWAY 10TH FL C/O MICHAEL WELTY
HOUSTON, TX 77057 52 EAST END AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10028
4 679534 ONTARIO LTD ADLER LAURA
C/O CHARLES C GOLD MTN RESORT INTERIORS CORP
130 ADELAIDE ST W #3302 PO BOX 1963
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M5H3P5 ASPEN, CO 81612
AGUA FRIA PROPERTIES LLC
460 ST MICHAELS DR BLDG 300
—SANTA FE, NM 87505
ARNETT DAVID & BETTE
5333 N CAMINO REAL
TUCSON, AZ 85718
— ASPEN VIEW LTD
100 S MAIN AVE #300
— SIDNEY, OH 45365
BECNEL DANIEL JR & MARY H
^^ PO DRAWER H
RESERVE, LA 70084
BITTEL JUDITH R 50%
801 ARTHUR GODFREY RD STE 600
—MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 -3323
w
BOTT ALLEN D
"1 DOS POSOS
ORINDA, CA 94563
r
'BURNS DARYLR
7169 SO POPLAR LN
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112
CHOZEN MERRILL A & JILL E TRST
^1230 SACRAMENTO ST
r,.SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94010
w
ANDERSON JUNE H
C/O BB&T TRUSTEE
PO BOX 10001
OWENSBORO, KY 42302
ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC
PO BOX 1128
ASPEN, CO 81612
BAYLDON BARBARA W TRUSTEE 50%
647 W BARRY AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60657 -4504
BEEM CORPORATION
3528 OAKTON DR
MINNETONKA, MN 55343
BLAUSTAT 202 LLC
1125 PARK AVE #613
NEW YORK, NY 10128
BRENER DANIEL M & SHARON G
5202 POCAHONTAS
BELLAIR,TX 77401
CARMAN PETER
ASPEN ALPS #808
700 LITE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
CHU MICHAEL
38 CORMORANT CIR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
ATTACHMENT 25
6020 OSBORN PROPERTIES LTD
6020 OSBORN
HOUSTON, TX 77033
AGER RONALD & ELEANOR S
2800 ISLAND BLVD #2305
MIAMI, FL 33160
APPELQUIST THOMAS W TRUSTEE 50%
400 LIVINGSTON ST
NEW HAVEN, CT 06511
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
PO BOX 1248
ASPEN, CO 81612
BECK CYNTHIA
PO BOX 1569
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
BESHARAT GERALDINE
PO BOX 7
ELBERTON, GA 30635
BLOCK JOEL A TRUSTEE 50%
647 W BARRY AVE
CHICAGO, IL 606574504
BRITTEL STEPHEN H 50%
4125 BRAJANZA ST
COCONUT GROVE, FL
CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L
201 39TH ST
DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
M AH21AV-O9-008-L ®09LS 31V1dW31&f+a ^V asn
®09,5 (...MAv ��1//� unnr6iawo•MMM 6wiuuA awj a6onwe oue wer
Impression antibourrage et a s6chage rapide www.averycom AVERY® 51600
Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY
CLAMAN HENRY N & JANET S 1/2 INT
518 RIVER VIEW DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503
CRONIN CARL & TOBY ANN
1,8748 DORRINGTON AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 -1724
DAVIS RICHARD M JR LIVING TRUST
.0 /O DAVIS CANNON
PO BOX 728
— SHERIDAN, WY 82801
DEHNERT G PAUL & VICKY
3110 MAYWOOD AVE
AUSTIN, TX 78703 -1133
DESTIN CO
C/O MULLIN TBG
.2029 CENTURY PK EAST 37TH
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
e..
EMERSON JANE C & JONATHAN E
129 TUNXIS VILLAGE
FARMINGTON, CT 06032
"FONVIELLE HENRY S & LEE
305 LLOYDS LN
— ALEXANDRIA, VA 22302
FRAUTSCHI STEVEN & MIE
1561 CREST DR
ALTADENA, CA 91001
M
"GANT 103 LLC
W311 TOWN CENTER
BELLA VISTA, AR 72714
A
GOODSIR SUSAN A 1/3
4009 HIGHWOOD COURT NW
r„WASHINGTON, DC 20007
®09LS )AHM l/ 1v1
COHEN HOWARD & CAROL TRIFARI
3551 WOODCLIFF RD
SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
CRUM THOMAS F & CATHRYN R
991 UTE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVIS TERRY CONNALLY
1046 ONTARIO
SHREVEPORT, LA 71106
DENNING ROBERT R & KATE K 1/2 INT
740 WEDGE DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506-1823
DIAMOND NATHAN
5465 BANYAN TRAIL
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
FAVROT CAFFREY
124 CHARLESTON PK
METAIRIE, LA 70005
FOSSIER MIKE W REV TRUST
7 WAINWRIGHT RD #88
WINCHESTER, MA 01890
FRY LLOYD EDWARD
1335 STRATFORD DR
PIOUA, OH 45356
GESSNER RICHARD W REV TRUST
1705 11TH ST NE
MASSILLON, OH 44646
GRAHAM MAUREEN & THEODORE L
7507 PHELPS CLOSE
NEW ALBANY, OH 43054
AH3AV- 09-009-L
worAane•mmmmmm
CRAWFORDJOAN
12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE
POTOMAC, MD 20854
CUTLER SHERRIE STEPHENS TRUST
197 EIGHTH ST #506
CHARLESTOWN, MA 02129
DEFRANCIA JAMES M 58%
DEFRANCIA CYNTHIA J 42%
17 LITE PLACE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DEPALMA JOHN R
ATTN MARIA
710 W WILSON AVE
GLENDALE,CA 91206
DILLARD WILLIAM T II & MARY A
C/O DILLARD DEPT STORES INC
PO BOX 486
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 -0486
FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD
30 CARTIER ST
OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA, K2P 2E7
FRANKLIN JULIE L
62 RYE RIDGE RD
HARRISON, NY 10528
FRYKLUND ROBERT
2917 DUKE ST
HOUSTON, TX 77005
GOLUB GENE
GOLUB & CO
625 N MICHIGAN
CHICAGO, IL 60611
GRAHAM NELL C
6081 W CRAWFORD ST
DENISON, TX 75020
009LS 31V1dW31 e4any asD
6wauua aaN a6unwc Due wer
Impression antibourrage et 5 sechage rapide www.avery.com AVERY® 51600
Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1- 800-GO -AVERY
GRAYSON GERALD GROUP 102 LLC HAHN TRUST
10147 BLUFFMONT LN 6400 RIVERSIDE DR BLDG B 8405 INDIAN HILLS DR
LONE TREE, CO 80124 DUBLIN, OH 43017 OMAHA, NE 68114
HARRISON JOAN G 50% HARTMAN BARTON HARTMAN DOYLE & MARGARET
w 7701 ST CHARLES AVE 2865 NE 24TH CT PO BOX 10426
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70118 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305 MIDLAND, TX 79702
uw
u HARVEY BRIAN L HAUGER MICHAEL A & JUDY L HEIRLOOM PROPERTIES COLORADO
PO BOX 240011 13516 QUAKING ASPEN NE LLC
u LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111 10077 GROGANS MILL RD STE 475
THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380
HENDERSON WAYNE F HENRY CHARLES V III AND JEAN D HEVRDEJS CATHY CAMPBELL
.. 39 CANTERBURY RD 937 WILLOW ST 3244 ELLA LEE LN
MADISON, NJ 07940 LEBANON, PA 17042 HOUSTON, TX 77019
HIRSCH MICHAEL & MARY HOCKER DAVID E HONIGSBERG JOHN
63 EMERALD DUNES CIR 610 S WEST END ST #C103 12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE
— HENDERSON, NV 80105 ASPEN, CO 81611 POTOMAC, MD 20854
.. HYMAN DIANA JACK LP RUST
JACOBS HARLAN &DEBRA T
8 WINTHROP DR ALBERTA OR ROD JACK 8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC T
DIX HILLS, NY 11746 10 WESTGATE WALK LA JOLLA, CA 92037
r KITCHENER ONTARIO CANADA,
N2M2T8
"JANNA INC
KAUFMAN MICHAEL A & SHERRYL W
KAY REV TRUST
500 PATTERSON RD
7 FERNWOOD CT
LEVINSON BONNIE
—GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
E BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816
2127 BROADWAY #1
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
R.. KEENAN D MICHAEL
KNAUS DOUGLAS A & KENDALL J
LARSON DAYL A & KAY W FAMILY
r 1135 BELLVIEW RD
1627 SOUTH BLVD
PARTNERSHIP
MCLEAN, VA 22102
HOUSTON, TX 77006
119 S JACKSON ST
r
DENVER, CO 80209 -3125
'*LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP
LEPOW RANDAL M & DANA S
LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY
.2836 PATRIOT PARK PLACE
6355 SEWANEE ST
TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89052
HOUSTON, TX 77005
9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
LINEBERGER WILLIAM CARL
LOWE DEVELOP CORP
MADDALONE CHARLES TRUST
X145 GREEN ROCK DR
610 S WEST END ST
C/O PAT MADDALONE TRUSTEE
a„BOULDER, CO 80302
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 20124
SEDONA,AZ 86341
r n
AN3AV-09-009-L
009 L5 31VIdIN31 many asn
®09L5 ®��r/ w!n 1
wo3*A4anemNLm
6unuud aau a6onwc Due wer
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide www.averycom a AVERY® 51600
Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1- 800-GO -AVERY
MARNETT MARTIN J & MARCELA B
608 EMERSON AVE
ALLIANCE, NE 69301
.d
MCCOY TRUST
3485 S SILVER SPRINGS RD
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
0.YY
N'MI
MERRILLS DAPHNE
' THEE WING TYNINGHAME HOUSE
DUNBAR E LOTHIAN
SCOTLAND EH42 1XW,
MEYER WILLIAM J 213
.� 1000 CAMPBELL CT
LAKE BLUFF, IL 60044 -1300
MARSLAND SUSAN
TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT
1310 N RITCHIE CT
CHICAGO, IL 60610
MCGOVERN PHILIP C & MARY ANN
33 PLEASANT ST
MANCHESTER, MA 01944
METCO REALTY LTD
TEXAN BUILDING
333 W LOOP N STE 410
HOUSTON, TX 77024
MOEN DONNE P & ELIZABETH A
8 CABALLEROS RD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
— NUTTER GEORGE ERNEST & LYNDSAY ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
223 HANNA RD . LLLP
— TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M4G 3P3 500 PATTERSON RD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
.. PAGEAL VENTURES LTD PAISLEY ON THE BEAR LLC
ATTN LEVIN PAUL C C/O MARGARET I PROCHASKA
55 DELISLE AVE #1003 191 SPAULDING LN
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M4V 3C2 EVANSTON, WY 82930
— PARKER WILLIAM A JR
1900 GARRAUX WOODS RD NW
— ATLANTA, GA 30327
PINSKY STEPHEN & ALENE
382 DELEGATE DR
WORTHINGTON, OH 43235
=PROPERTY INVESTORS #1 LLC
8407 BROOKEWOOD CT
W MC LEAN, VA 22120
RAMSEY STACIE A
X39 CANTERBURY RD
.MADISON, NJ 07940
PHILLIPS STEPHEN & BARBARA
900 FIFTH AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
ASPEN, CO 81611
PROSTIC EDWARD & MARJORIE
2225 STRATFORD RD
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208
RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS LTD
PO BOX 127
TIBURON, CA 94920
MCCORMICK ROGER F FAMILY TRUST
66%
MCCORMICK MARY E 34%
PO BOX 21532
OWENSBORO, KY 42304
MEHL HARRIET
350 W 57TH ST
NEW YORK CITY, NY 10019
MEYER HOWARD W
2660 MIDDLEBURY LN
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
MORRIS TRUST
906 FRANKLIN
RIVER FOREST. IL 60305
OWEN BILLYE HOWELL
3535 GILLESPIE #303
DALLAS,TX 75219
PAINTER BARRY M TRUST
3837 WINFORD DR
TARZANA, CA 91356
PINE A PHILIP
1600 E ATLANTIC BLVD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33060 -6768
PRATER BILL GEORGE & MARIE C
TRUST
1257 POST OAK CT
SPRINGFIELD, MO 65809
PYRFEKT PROPERTIES LLP
1424 CEDAR BAY LN
SARASOTA, FL 34231
REICH DANIEL S TRUST 25% INT
999 N TUSTIN AVE #216
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
®09L5 ®JIZ13/�rj d113AV-09-008 -L e09 LS 3J.VldW3J. many as0
W03- )U8Ae'MMM 6wluud aaii a6pnWs pue wet
Impression antibourrage et a scchage rapide www.avery.com AVERY® 51601D
— Utilisez le gabiarit 51600 1- 800-GO -AVERY
REICH MELVIN L TRUST
4609 SEASHORE DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
RODAN FAMILY LIVING TRUST
614 LASALLE AVE #442
OAKLAND, CA 94611
IM
it SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE
8 PARKWAY DR
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
V
SCHARLIN HOWARD R & GLORIA G
w 10 EDGEWATER DR APT 4A
CORAL GABLES, FL 33133 -6962
RICE MARGARET A
13912 FLINT
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221
ROSE FAMILY TRUST
240 S BRISTOL AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
SANDITEN EDWARD STANLEY
PO BOX 11566
ASPEN, CO 81612
SCHIRMER LESLIE M
4100 E QUINCY AVE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
SCHWEPPE DAVID P 85% SCOTT JOSEPH A
T SCHWEPPE VALERIE G REV TRUST 15% SC BOX JOSEPH
OCA A, IL RD LN DENVER, CO 80217
OCALA,FL 34482
SEIFERT COLORADO TRUST
2421 HAMILTON OR
AMES, IA 50014
SHIELDS VIVIAN S TRUST
PO BOX 1555
GULF BREEZE, FL 32562 -1555
SIEGEL LOIS H QPRT
r 3 GROVE ISLE DR #1109
MIAMI, FL 33133
q.
M
w SIMON JEROME M & DONNA
ON 1294 ROCKRIMMON RD
STAMFORD, CT 06903
SLOANE RICHARD A & CAROLYN J
124 RIGHTERS MILL RD
rr GLADWYNE, PA 19035
w
SEWELL BEVERLY JEAN & RALPH
BYRON
884 QUAIL RUN DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 -8608
SHIRK JAMES A
PO BOX 1549
BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702
SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C
7404 BROOKVILLE RD
CHEW CHASE, MD 20815
SIMPKINS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE
TETLOW
2921 AVALON PL
HOUSTON, TX 77019
SMART EDWIN J
C/O R L STEENROD JR & ASSOC
2009 MARKET ST
DENVER, CO 80205 -2022
RICHTER VALERIE ARDEN
6214 N 34TH ST
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
ROSENBERG HENRY A & DOROTHY
CROWN CENTRAL PET CORP
ONE N CHARLES 22ND FL
BALTIMORE, MD 21201
SCHALDACH NANCY
2494 S OCEAN BLVD #J -8
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
SCHWARZ JOHN H
CALTECH 452-48
PASADENA, CA 91125
SEAMAN SAUNDRA L
8505 ARLINGTON BLVD #210
FAIRFAX,VA 22031
SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R TRUST
5704 DEVILLE DR
EDINA, MN 55436
SHULMAN ROBERTA
132 NASSAU ST #812
NEW YORK, NY 10038
SIMMONS LEONARD & MARGARET
PO BOX 54
ASPEN, CO 81612
SINAI ALLEN
16 HOLMES RD
LEXINGTON, MA 02173
SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE
1225 BRAEBURN
FLOSSMORE, IL 60422
®A213At/ r1 AH3AV -09 -008 -L ®09LS 9XVIdW31 akew asD
LS n wmtiane•en m 6unwjj a j a6nnwc nua mpr
Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide www.averycom AVERYOD 51600
Utilisez le gabarit 51600 14W"O -AVERY
N STEWART SAMUEL P STEWART TITLE CO STOPEK RICHARD E & JULIE
124 CHARLESTON PK C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 6311 VIA VENETIA NORTH
METAIRIE, LA 70005 PO BOX 133 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33484
GYPSUM, CO 81637
TATEM H RANDOLPH III & SUE TAWGIN JOHN S TEN TEN LITE H 0 ASSOC
BRINKLEY 129 SEA GIRT AVE 19 LITE PL
" PO BOX 12373 MANASQUAN, NJ 08736 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
r TOBEY ROBERT W VANDERLIP HENRIK N VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNE
41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR 133 RIVER RD 225 ARIZONA AVE PH
+. ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 -7113 COS COB, CT 06807 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 -1243
WAGNER PAUL L & DOROTHY H WATCHMAKER LINDA L 95% WATERS MICHAEL A & ADELAIDE ANN
3480 MIDDLEBELT RD 4527 BRUCE AVE PO BOX 8237
W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424 -1122 ASPEN, CO 81612
WEKSTEIN TRUST WELLS RICHARD A & SUSAN T WELSCH SUSAN F TRSTE
100 BELVIDERE ST UNIT 9A 970 POWDER LN 10 LITE PLACE
" BOSTON, MA 02199 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2105 ASPEN, CO 81611
r
WERNST INC WHEELER THOMAS R & PATSY C WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST
8639 DESERT DUSK CT NE 2120 AUSTIN AVE SUITE 100 1910 PINE ST
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113 -2354 ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48309 ST LOUIS, MO 63103
r
`y WILKERSON WILLIAM WOODWARD TERRY ZAINO BONIFACE A & ALISON H
3000 NE 30TH PL 3662 BRIDGEPOINTE 876 PARK AVE #4 SOUTH
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33306 OWENSBORO, KY 42303 NEW YORK, NY 10021
r
s
ZLN RESIDENTIAL TRUST
C/O CONSTANTINE D GEORGES
701 EDWARDS AVE
ELMWOOD, LA 70123
r
s
1111
IIYI
W
u�
r � A113AV-09-009-L ®09 LS 31V1d W 31 many asD
a nntc A A..AM n%w ... 6unwjj aajj a6Dnwc Due wer