Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.800 S Aspen Alps Rd.0001.2008.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 2737 18 2 56 003 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD ERRINE EVANS GREENLINE REVIEW STAN@ CLAUSON 6/27/2009 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey on 11/3/2009 r 3111 ✓ Ind Elie Edit Eecard Itj"ata Fgrm Reporrs Format Tab Ilelp 6 )'0 ►>-=tg �g �j !�d• 14 A � >0C3 L� X19 Atj -4 A�i . 13 ■a®Ch j h * -t [Mar ( Custom Plelds I & b m I F Parce)S JrwSuwry. Sub emits Attadvnents l Roijin status ] Roww 4 ► Permit Type laslu . Aspen Land Use Permit X 10001.200B.A5LU Address 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS RD J AptjSsite City JA5PEN CO Zip F-1611-1 ..State _ Permit Information Master Permit F—J Routing Queue aslu07 Applied 01/0812008 J Project Status pending Approved F Description GREENLINE REVIEW Issued �J Final F— —j Submitted STAN CLAUSON ASSOC 925 -2323 Clock Running Days F 470 Expires 0,10212009 J Owner Last Name GRAYSON J First Name GERALD 10147 BLUFFMONT LN LITTLETON CO B0124 Phone (970)948 -5090 r Owner Is Applicant? .:Applicant_.: '. III Last Name LITTLE NELL HOUSE 2 LLC J First Name ST STE 9007TH Phone (303) 531 -5013 Cust X 26617 J DENVER. CO 80202 -5828 Lender Last Name F— -J Firs[ Name Phone ASpenGOkgb) _'.,'+ r Record:1 of t File edit Retard tb[avigate Form Reports Format lab Grid Help &'�`4ij►0 V�A jIjj- i14 J J i/d El ��d Q�A' A tj A ® ®`h ij Mi $1 Custom Fields &cticns l Feet Perc* Fee Summary ISub&mts Attadvnents Roo g Status Routeg b* r 4 D i Permit # 10001.2008.ASLU Address 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS RD ASPEN CO 81611 Permit Type lAspan Land Use Grou Action In Date Out Date I' Permit Coordinator lRouted 11812008 412212009 9:41:41 AM Approver angelas Comment emo 412212009 09:42:31 AM angelas THE ADDRESS FOR THIS PERMIT WAS ENTERED INCORRECT - THE ADDRESS SHOULD BE 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS ROAD - MAIN PAGE HAS BEEN CORRECTED, BUT THE PARCEL ID STIIL READS THE INCORRECT ADDRESS AND EDEN WONT LET ME CORRECT IT. AS 4.22.2009 AspenGoldjbj _� ...._Record:l oft MIN 9e F& ft v N.,Y Fpm Re Fame[ I& H* aft eg i..z� A ,_y- _. iN 1 $ Mm�CUIanF� YeMeBm PSCeN Qclara Fw Sumen Sw Eemie ":Lmanau flMrgtl�aY Few i TY ad - f L"DSe Perm# LNOBA u L.. ti. Rdieet AI RD ANSUIe� p Lig PEN —(� ZV 1611 J G. Ma.MrPm���J R. ng D.�aela>tm Ap*d CIJ-I 09 _J �A -- gem iv..+e Aww F Dempem GPEENLME PfleEW Inved �J Fed �J SWrYetl STAN CIN150NASSOC S2 M —FR— D.F 0 Epw lMP— J 0. Lex Name PZWAN J FYMNwe GEFW D 10147BLUFFMONTLN Tuw 19101 SaR50EO LITTLETON COM24 A Ow I*Appkaii _... _.. _ LaN Ne.»�J F.ON.r 12W 11TMSi PMw 130'BI5315013 Culp 26611 J DENKfl CO&>2025B2B_- Larder LaM Ne __ FM NaroF Twee F_ E. Ce 'A Rm�R JNJ 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. Gerald Grayson, 10147 Bluffmont Lane, Lone Tree, Colorado, 80124 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Moses Split, Lot 1, Aspen, Colorado, more commonly known as 800 Aspen Alps Road Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The Applicant received approval to construct a new single family dwelling located in an environmentally sensitive area under 8040 Greenline Review subject to the approved conditions. See attached site plan. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan Grant of a an approval of an 8040 Greenling Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and associated approvals via Resolution No. 019. Series of 2008, June 3rd, 2008. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) June 22, 2008 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) 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, 27`h day of June, 2008, by the City of Aspen Community Development Chris Bendon, Community Development Director " ,CEPTIONM 550520, 06/25/2008 at . .02:52 PM, 1 of 6, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMWSS16N APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE - FA 6Y RESIDENCE ON LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS ROAD. Parcel No. 2737 - 182 -56 -003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gerald Grayson, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single - family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 0.6 acre and is located in the R- 15 (PUD) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,056 - 8,130 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a 3 - 2 vote, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution farthers 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 Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single - family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, is hereby approved with the following conditions: L 1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 3,800 square feet. The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 2. No further development shall occur on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. 019, Series of 2008. 3. All the required parking shall be provided on -site. There shall be no parking on Aspen Alps Road. 4. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. 5. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regarding the load - bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 6. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences around the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site - specific construction drawings of the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code (IRC — R401.3 and IBC — 1805.3.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. Cm -site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The � ! l erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A soils and foundation report, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer with the Building Permit. g) A detailed landscaping plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department. The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to, the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials, project access, and construction foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native quality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. h) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. i) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. j) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. k) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with r� excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The management of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association shall be consulted in the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. 1) A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. m) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 8. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time. Section 2: 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 resolution, 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: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, by Resolution No. OXX, Series of 2008, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. 1 Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This 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 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of May, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 1) S Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Bri an Sp k, Ae ' hair ATTEST: v dacre Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Items presented during the Public Hearing — June 3`d. 2008 (a, 4:30 pm Exhibit 1 — May 22, 2008 Engineer's Assessment of South Aspen Alps Road from Yeh and Associates, Inc. Presented by the applicant. Exhibit 2 — 24 x 36 Entry perspectives (Included as Attachment 4 in the application) Exhibit 3 — 24 x 36 Site Plan (Included as Exhibit 4) Exhibit 4 — 24 x 36 North Elevation (Included as Attachment 4) Exhibit 5 — 24 x 36 South Elevation (included as Attachment 4) Exhibit 6 — Photos submitted by Aspen Alps Condominium Association RECEPTION #: 554912,12109/2008 10:26:00 AM, 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN DECISION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITIQN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE GRAYSON ACTIVITY ENVELOPE Administrative Decision No. [E-2008 RECITALS 1. Gerald Grayson (hereafter referred to as "Applicant ") has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County ( "Director") for Activity Envelope approval for the excavation and backfill to install a foundation for a home located on the City of Aspen portion of a split jurisdiction properly. No vertical development will take place within the County. 2. The Lot is located at 800 Alps Road, Lot I of the Moses Lot Split. The Lot is zoned R -15 (PUD) .Zone District in the City of Aspen and in the SKI -REC Zone District of Pitkin County and is approximately .6 acres. PID#:2737- 182 -56 -003. 3. No previous County land use approvals apply to the parcel. The Lot is currently constructed with a single family residence on the City portion and small accessory storage structure on the County portion. 4. The proposed Activity Envelope encompasses slopes that are less than 30% gradient 5. The Director finds that the Lot is: (1) mapped within Mule Deer Summer and Overall ranges and Elk overall range; and (2) within a low wildfire hazard area and the hazard can be mitigated. 6. The Director finds this request is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code. APPROVED by the Director, subject to the following conditions: The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the current or prior applications or in public meetings or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. Prior to submission of any future land use or building permit applications the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development an Activity Envelope in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2- 30 -20(g) and Application manual Section 2.1.1. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. The Activity Envelope Plan shall also incorporate the following changes: a. The title of the plan shall say "Grayson Activity Envelope". b. A Community Development Director Signature block shall be added. c. A Disclaimer stating, "Environmental hazard areas exist that might affect the property, any improvements and occupancy thereof;" which shall be signed by the property owner prior to recordation. 3. The Applicant sh911 submit and obtain an earthmoving permit. 4. Prior to the issuance of an earthmoving permit, the Applicant shall submit an erosion control, grading and drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Engineer. All slopes steeper than 2:1 shall utilize erosion control blankets. Page / aj 2 5. Prior to the issuance of an earthmoving permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed re- vegetation plan to the Community Development Department for disturbed areas with only native vegetation as listed in the Pitkin County Revegetation Guideline booklet 6. No development shall occur outside the approved activity envelope. No structures shall be permitted outside of the approved activity envelope. 7. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or other construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the comers of the activity envelope and install construction fencing around the construction site within the perimeter of the building envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. All areas disturbed by construction shall be re- vegetated with native shrubs and grasses within one growing season of the project's completion. 9. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated with this property. APPROVED by the Director, this �6tkday ofNO�. 2008. Wa. CU LCft Cindy Houben Community Development Director P1D0 2737 - 182 -56 -003 P 121 -08 Page 2 oft T ° T uD7d app- 0,7 wads{ o ado,?aau,7 - zWlwod pd sdly uaday S 008 aiis3iviaossv Nosnvia`xvis' a b kn U [V 1 N O m N N i i 33 y J i '02 �xx .bx s° 2 2 ! O° p � � M / h o O' Hy l 06'90Z (H) .l690Z c !f� �J �G X62 M ,.LZ .tL S0 N M .bi 6l C0 N 4 d� �s a F 3� c$ f4 'i 1 N pill till to ° i i 33 y J i '02 �xx .bx s° 2 2 ! O° p � � M / h o O' Hy l 06'90Z (H) .l690Z c !f� �J �G X62 M ,.LZ .tL S0 N M .bi 6l C0 N 4 d� �s a F 3� c$ \ I � !f i i 33 y J i '02 �xx .bx s° 2 2 ! O° p � � M / h o O' Hy l 06'90Z (H) .l690Z c !f� �J �G X62 M ,.LZ .tL S0 N M .bi 6l C0 N 4 d� �s a F 3� c$ ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Location: M05eS 1A 4W } 00 MN M E pI�M I L 5 0063 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: 00 Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: wo Gww P( oclofn .la nn �/ 1 Address: "l � N. 4 fid 21 /rW 91011 Phone #: �F ?/b f� TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment Other: 5040 CwMI1 4e ❑ Conditional Use alview PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) �IV101/ �Vf111Y UP51G��VIGP, [-have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $-2-D 21 CYO Pre - Application Conference Summary /Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing. Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On -Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: Combined F/R: Side Setback: Side Setback: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed. Existing: Required.• Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed. Existing: Required: Proposed.• Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required.• Proposed. Combined Sides: Existing Distance Between Existing Buildings _Required.• Proposed: Required. Proposed.•_ Existing non - conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pa3ment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Gerald Grayson (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 8040 Greenline Review (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 2006) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is 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 hearings 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 as 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 the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the 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 the amount of $1,41 0 which is for 6 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 above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failuFen pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building its be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. O CITY OF ASPEN By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required MJeI7 ?V—dArIWAIr 1�1e/C i. c�i.'7=rte. -- c icy 7L] THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: January 22, 2008 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0001.2008.ASLU (800 Alps Road.)The planner assigned to this case is Ben Gagnon. The public meeting on the application is scheduled for June 3, 2008. ❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. 2. 3. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429 -2759 if you have any questions. Tha You, ennifer P el Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department C: \Documents and Settings \jennifep \Desktop \organized \G Drive \Templates \Completeness Letter Land Use.doc STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado Bt6tt t.970/925-2323 f.970/92o -1628 info ®scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 12 May 2008 Errin Evans City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split - Historic Grade Documentation 800 South Alps Road (PID: 2737 - 182 -56 -003) Dear Errin: Enclosed please find two full -size and two l 1x17 sets of the plans related to the historic grade of the property at 800 S. Alps Road (lot 1, Moses Lot Split. I have included copies of the package that was submitted in January as an addendum to the 8040 Greenline Review application as well as three additional plans that were created in response to the Todd's comments at the 7 May DRC meeting. Please distribute these packages to Tricia Nelson and Todd Grange for review prior to the meeting that I am hoping to schedule for next week. Thank you for your assistance and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, W&4u__� Ellen Falender STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. a 3 z - a ui W 4_ r Q � v U - u wQo w W� H�aW rTl y a „ 198VE, 9MAYE 8 LITTLE NELL US. PROIECE , .1 S ETTIIEE: t z z s i ,I z z s LU Cl- V) LU W d z - a U - U�Q W Wa Q O W w O Vl Q 4 O 11 SIZE: I MAY 3WB LIME HELL RES9 eROJ ano. msol s¢Wnn. 1C rt W u W¢o wqWo H ¢W f� o ISSUE: 9 MAY 2W8 P0.0 NO. 51nuT .E'. 3c VICINITY MAP `PRO oN ¢.ry S 45' 00' W' W (R) S 44. 43' JY W (M) (BASS OF BEARINGS) J.M.H. BY: J.M.K. SO BY: J.M.H. ag/ JONATHAN M. KOBYLAHZ, P.L.S. CONSULTING LAND SURVEYOR P.O. BOX 40893, GRAND nNC170N, W 81504 E PMk: 1970) 434 -3109 – evu11' jmk�is CJ 61emm.n<t LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT t, HISTORIC CONTOURS MAP LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Ne, g �r NNN my u�zm u;6 mY G1M FY u` ea a \ ° . . �etkn dew, fid..m z "Ass a 6E.NYNL4 nw uwwr me N b1 \. 4aedu IW Sq% murvMwr \tlle five p °euM1.9 alfie9 MF9 WeYw dv�° dw °edFp de.n Mem BA S R EIEYATCNS Re em�lwy seed mW,de ._lad t 10 FEET .e.Y. 4 meumW tp fiew m HewtFn N FEET 10 0 eDTS]tl MeM >� mdmam� Wnn GRAPHIC SCALE ,M ed\ad d.. e.pk1M nd.d d. m �v.aHmdF, SCALE: 1 INCH =10 FEET of ue fib\e,k em\dm a tp, 1. Need ta\ svx\ dk' aan.wna. EHdFe dm,.a vd a e.fie,.a t °. w N.d.e fir m.nwnk,. ... nm .rn.�e dar. N. ue e ? •etl <o —=? u. kldk cn\wn Mpk\e6 CIXRWR INTERVAL 2 5, TN. fi... cenW map 4 wM cn fiHE vwv eem c w „ oyya..�ed a6DT. F 11,se 5 \o\ ef�Wuela Ea elde°Y elela e11M \M� XF4\vk�Cm6 \wn 4ep pepdea unee� my apes\ wagn,eF61ry, wpwHMm em dc4Nry me 4 1rve ane ¢.vrele b \fia °m\ el mY I'^^\eGpe me °Nk1. [N) iN MM5 1e oMa mY fime ue eflkld etl DYGS� fi , no. 2 o J• 8 Jj n.ql Ferq Im° W'. 01' 30 E iR) N (M) Se.Og• t l O1En V UD / £ 0°5 z 1 z � I fi EIp 69 m'W) ASPEN, COLORADO w "� xe xn c Gerald Grayson 1•' 1 °' w1z —Wd HISTORIC CONTOURS MAP 9 R LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT 1 of 1 CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO W-1 IN M alit al R * ral � 1 �f w I'M Allow: A ii n A 71 -ARK, LO 1IM iS Gifliul. JONYUCIfflO NildiS z A ii n A -ARK, LO 1IM iS Gifliul. JONYUCIfflO NildiS Yl t —♦ l •` 1� 4� t � .Q 4 -1 N, a t M i� CGAPARTNERSASPEN AUN UM PA" w LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 1958 GIS MAP ' 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO 1 "= 200' -0" �izswTM S!xm�sr. rzo�o uPeN CO eiaii 7 rcza M 783 rroza; vzo ooeo '.wvrv+.ccvnRtN[eS.Nff • 9 0 1! P E m j/ .. Az Bf ss 6� kg� at g.Z - a i jig K \ C Y j V 1 a F• ° t I " \Vlll f'ee� rFi yt f�J. '�'E 2<Y'2 X08 °16034 h. L 1 l lb� to GIA uF,v,ND AND I- 'D7Fti I.o..a... '' fF I tl" I^'FORMPT1vN 123d (A eioEi E<J rw4Nb SJIm/Y/� �SPF.N °11P`�CT 66RY, iIJL. pPT6� il-I %BG. — fP�T�UFb AR6 S;bWN W6R! 2''O� — rrHiT. �A�F�NR �2_FFl15R taNNJF SJMb/ PFGI'L. G�evS. ♦FGP5W4gN5 GPK.IZM1O"•lb9'i -. Li. i2B ''I91b ")IltUe41'.fJm�9%W -RY�wV d �ryry'JNO��Lw w rim �`O+NitN Vealleee PMRK+ oN �E{j vyu PR cVo .,o .Pw _,- - -ee.� [y{yT.{pJJ &WPY uMlT3 _ W14t LVVG (WTPFI "Mij, 1.G+'eI. E r iNT oJT11N0 PRO!'bPaT U T PNO PRINT -- �E —�^/� I.IN6(UPIZTINb� sl �KcBiNb Ne) LANDSCAPE: - -w— W`WfA.;P+4 ivcS �N Nw+ A GRADING -- PN- rimOiooGnw.76R -.1Ne 'PLAN -- e— �bY�- (.5 °RJ.UNeikKWUf) 6eele.k f.d _ _Pe— P�,yuY. 6BK�. uNG PROW - -C-- GAN� ptVNe(Pa rwb] A2 4; m'198"lwuui�mw a'. -LO6 PL.d -ATE 6TN1ABeW – – - - F1 v.5kARE PAP –I I ND. TwH {We us o 3100' 1 PknNTdR I - -- wo -TRin .-- 6 T� 16�IL �T�J I {I n � 6 NHLIR%L JJWiTv1R26� ypoJNO ZtOM wWeR- Le•/eL wo,� >>1 �ARACTr PI.I.N.A�_ _ ' -- ts9'•q'I r I �•_- __ ___ _..__. _____ - GIIPINCI WITH 1 �MNFw _ 6RGV b�Nv LIGK•T 4R Na !AT LIMN® �I hL Ve x/11 H. W Wm- 12 _ Typ ZL.0 RAKS 11 eR56 OORICR �\ _: -. eIGIKl6 -- LeaEl rwo. J X, 'i?P Gtl2F1eR 41.OM BYb<Y- d — � lin-, pN1MNE'1 !A° nl. of owes sroNB KX�H2 6P�P fT 6.1. %b.EC1oW IMY11R/ h'iYAr -�. scE V+�oPPl.el1 HEPAL Bav6 WITN >INb 9Y:^H Wat . ol"6P� _11PR"R IlrvYL PNb tq I.iJb P.a.vu,. rodNbz 5�oIN6 �I �.IH JS.a.K T/Plu.l PLnNTa0. YialN LPT'EL NO loaf on J6 vtit6fX/- TRIM wo Fi�ISN LwG u Pwv T�eAR. SLAGCNP� a. _ VIRAL IJNDK111RCVb 6Wd 51OP6 4 62AGQ ;FtIrvN6Y uP%PNb, -- 24 Y.. b.I: MiI.4rlP -_ PCO�6 _7eY6 v5NEeA _ Wb.51i4Kt RwPnu —_ _ IyRi" mNEOTtb� _Gpcb PLa. m'a WD. TRli'I - 51ER ro etsxaOM2 xu'I.4 PWD� �.VNI�Nb - unLL C �96 I WIW1NJfYIM PWS b'' �1 - NI�WJI LPkt.PHD _. _- py� I' ttP. RObP 12 I I I � mkt, �VJ, LP L PWD— _ I I III I LM <oWMNB vfyF PAIL '` Pe.,zu U _ d — � lin-, pN1MNE'1 !A° nl. of owes sroNB KX�H2 6P�P fT 6.1. %b.EC1oW IMY11R/ h'iYAr -�. scE V+�oPPl.el1 HEPAL Bav6 WITN >INb 9Y:^H Wat . ol"6P� _11PR"R IlrvYL PNb tq I.iJb P.a.vu,. rodNbz 5�oIN6 �I �.IH JS.a.K T/Plu.l PLnNTa0. YialN LPT'EL NO loaf on J6 vtit6fX/- TRIM wo Fi�ISN LwG u Pwv T�eAR. SLAGCNP� a. _ VIRAL IJNDK111RCVb 6Wd 51OP6 4 62AGQ ;FtIrvN6Y uP%PNb, -- 24 Y.. b.I: MiI.4rlP -_ PCO�6 _7eY6 v5NEeA _ Wb.51i4Kt RwPnu —_ _ IyRi" mNEOTtb� _Gpcb PLa. m'a WD. TRli'I - 51ER ro etsxaOM2 xu'I.4 PWD� �.VNI�Nb - unLL C �96 I WIW1NJfYIM PWS b'' �1 - NI�WJI LPkt.PHD _. II ,I I' I I I � mkt, �VJ, LP L PWD— _ d — � lin-, pN1MNE'1 !A° nl. of owes sroNB KX�H2 6P�P fT 6.1. %b.EC1oW IMY11R/ h'iYAr -�. scE V+�oPPl.el1 HEPAL Bav6 WITN >INb 9Y:^H Wat . ol"6P� _11PR"R IlrvYL PNb tq I.iJb P.a.vu,. rodNbz 5�oIN6 �I �.IH JS.a.K T/Plu.l PLnNTa0. YialN LPT'EL NO loaf on J6 vtit6fX/- TRIM wo Fi�ISN LwG u Pwv T�eAR. SLAGCNP� a. _ VIRAL IJNDK111RCVb 6Wd 51OP6 4 62AGQ ;FtIrvN6Y uP%PNb, -- 24 Y.. b.I: MiI.4rlP -_ PCO�6 _7eY6 v5NEeA _ Wb.51i4Kt RwPnu —_ _ IyRi" mNEOTtb� _Gpcb PLa. m'a WD. TRli'I - 51ER ro etsxaOM2 xu'I.4 PWD� �.VNI�Nb - unLL C �96 I WIW1NJfYIM PWS i 1 O NOR! fir 44� � ' � r� II 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES iNc landscape architecture planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t- 970/925-2323 f.970/92o -1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaptanning.com i .. 18 January 2008 Jessica Garrow Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 8040 Greenline Review - Lot 1, Moses Lot Split (Grayson) Historic Grade Documentation Dear Jessica: As a follow -up to our application for 8040 Greenline Review, submitted on 4 January 2008, 1 am enclosed supporting materials to establish the historic grade for the Moses Lot Split, Lot 1 Parcel. Jonathan Kobylarz, professional land surveyor, has created an "Historic Contours Map," based on a number of historical documents which are also provided. This map supports the height and subgrade exposure calculations provided by CGA Partners— Architects in the application. The intention is to effect a restoration of the historic site grades originally found on the parcel. The supporting materials used to determine the historic contours include: 1. Current 2007 Aspen /Pitkin GIS map showing the disturbance and modifications of natural contours on the Grayson property; 2. 1958 USGS map, showing natural contours in the area (though difficult to read, this map provides the basis for the following magnified view): 3. Magnified area of 1958 USGS map showing regular contours in the area of the residential site before any construction activities; 4. Recorded "Topography and Parking Plan" by Aspen Survey Engineers, showing contour changes for original construction on the site; 5. 1987 "Site, Landscape & Grading Plan (Sheet A2)" by William John Pass showing further changes for the second residence to be constructed on the site; 6. 1987 "North & East Elevations (Sheet A6)" showing new grade established for basement and walk -out area (Note the references to 'natural undisturbed ground slope" and "new grade. "); 7. Similar 1987 plan for "South & West Elevations (Sheet A7)." Taken together, these sheets detail the history of grade changes and support the Historic Contours Map prepared by Jonathan Kobylarz. Moreover, the Kobylarz map shows the regular distribution of contours in this area, a distribution which would also have occurred on the subject property. Jessica Garrow City of Aspen 18 January 2008 Page Two Please let me know if there is additional information which I can provide. Thank you very much for your assistance with this land use application. �* ! Very truly yours, Stan lauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC Attachments: Drawings as indicated r AWEN \ /I(`INIITV KJ AD 3 22 LOCATION 9' r) I I Aso- HISTORIC CONTOURS MAP LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO I I I I I I LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT Imn 1. n� IF S.Pll w�Nmim ®1 l IT rlu w ouv pauFP dwngiww / BF95 6 EIEV T —^ w'Iw P v n., FEET 10 0 10 FEET IssMInmB'u. k ewrb, w weih u `wnm I,.. m .- GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1 INCH =10 FEET nn pl'n pw 16n. Emlip gwnJ pmLL peMM la pe h e:enpmwpy w.v4u.lbnw .a Mdenapa assn 0 / CCNTWR INTERVAL 2 .w le ncmmuelee ue n.•1 m m naa vey eem � ' aPoU. Mpk,sl I a m�nl.a , wc.npu xcox I U. m _ . ,M K�umunn� Ik , pol.s�a 9 w N 99' (R) m vmI1E4ss aa•we m "new else le ue "e,a�me emcu "w wkl. tia o. xae 59.8 (M) / H�� ub �,=ewq• w,y°� / a LtA F y6 un ]q .3 s..paLI�` I l o�(fgJl I 66j �ISYO • E:N) W L 1, SES T S 26.111 sq . re. 0 I acre mq w O�,m a uo x H w M" E Ia) 69 BT la) 5 OS NO' 00' W (R) 397.01' (R –M) S 44' 43' 37• W (M) (BASIS OF BEARINGS) WRIM BY J.M.K. I Gerald Grayson ASPEN, COLORADO %'+E JONATHAN M. $OBYLAIiZ, P.L.S. r = l9• 3012 -033 m -Oe -os nI10 er CONSULTING LARD SURVEYOfi J.M.K. P.O.HCK4mr.GRANDNNC)70N,�81504 LOT 1, MO ES LOT SPLIT i 1 Of 1 OEIXEO BV PbTx: (970 )459- ffi09– waiL'jmk_11I @U6aao.net CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO M.K. f o •.• h .` ;rl'I; e �[ s Ni IlL bEPE I mP, enuiuCl L Y \ i 1? I� { t_ d � \ J 4 r II 1! It It 1 l I fi /, T l 0. `J 1 I• I' 11 Il 1' 1 T F `,.. 1' ne° ID fi I ry a , 1 v ♦ � - V rx \ \ 1„ � IC *p t • q a n ri d +r.i t e/ 1 ^1 \ ,b ! ry i J1 C 1 ._ .:.. •, i Vi it I 'f „r a 1, I q� p 'Y• /J A \'s yi , lFPFN. UIEa. f) '�t •titt jsjj`+ 1 1�` M1 •� `• \ ` ,r " Y e l Pit/ `}y )e1� UNDISTURBE - - 1.� r f*• i l 8080' LINE i"�) LITTLE NELL f 4 f RESIDENCE LOT 7l'•s- y\ •4 _ way �� � •. � -� � ,� � l � 1 — •�'w.M ."y.` ♦u V ♦ t. 4 .rte r —•.. �` , \,�� -. Zoe Q- `.� \ _ -. —_ v �, \w \j `+s.�.� -.�yt_• Lam_ _�" •fr •` � \ \l _ �- rte_ ` �� \1 tom` � `�\ �1 w I ^� ^� c ■ (A�r *I .i z M 1 LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO 1958 GIS 1 "= 200'-0" MAP CGAPARTNERSASPEN A OA9i® WWIM PAWTWB IP IV50U1 SLANG 4. V201 6HN CO 61611 T67011C]838 f19?0, 920IX106 *Vhv CGVMNEPS.NET u P n S �c a D Fd "nt 4) �f. F1 x si \n .mtat )PO.Srx +C\ Z o % Fd -P4561 b 0 — EwhriJ� sURV�y INMRPMPTivo 1. x3 LO TAKE» FlWrl noZbZ wrsrLir 4'b.Cl IrcJIBI YpC {Nb SUI[VbJr BY AZPF.N Z�R�`Y 66R/� itL'. PAT6� II I >BG. — WD ivur ARE s,* l+w WGR/ V... — � "��R� i2_ftF?t6RCOMDIIK NHJ coNipuP- 6'e's.PREI.ZWIIMJZr GAR. SJFr'M P--, LL. 125' =(91' -0��11.L.S94� Qov'd/rUllfl' m PiT {Ja9l M q �rvNHrEk. -Pd9J — %mlNgcN bRIV PIPE s� �J�IITN VeNIL.eePPaaait+ vN" SVMgNlD io pa it ' Le-' g�♦.vyn�Prt G'e4.Dre�4aP ----. 4�: NISI.CWV2WnY Ue111S — LaweR- ie+w {oorrw�+r, — - - - -- nloDw i,E�eLfroPrRi NT -- RCOP OUTLW6 — UN6 Nlb �rRofYPlr cOR+iBR PoiNi GE —GA5 LN6(E%IhTINb) SITE, —�— - -� —GA5 LINE ' - -w— Urea(cx iNe uw�) LANDSCAPE – ws ER a vGS IN N&w & GRADING i4UTOM' 'PLAN — PFI —PPD cn w PCeeO. lP+ER - :iuk - -� - F.LEGT. zERJ.UNECEXRI() '. - -PE— glXi T hEM. uNE PFOPakv Scalar LgS pc' --c— C}. 7v {� PFnNt,((aclhT�I+E) A2 01981.,r udlnwrirs .' . NO R . . . . . . . ..... .....� ... ........ . .. ..... .......� .. . /- � \ ,! \ » . .. �y . 2 . ;g \ �\ \6 x \ ,! \ » . .. �y \6 x \ \� ` ! ; ( }} \ � I 144 A A z L a i i ado °o �i I I I i I�^ III qqL N ag � yZ V FO F¢ �o �T Li s _ oil � a 3 a N W W. m Q a � m m m v Ad �i I I I i I�^ III qqL N ag � yZ V FO F¢ �o �T Li N ,�� i� �e�� +'I i e fl 01& f3� - I� III �II II I ' I I I I 1 I I�III I ICI I'II I III I I I II I I �I, 11 , 1;1 I Tm _ III n � 77- ; II I' 1 I I hNI"IIII,i I I I, I III _ II h� - �I a I s I Ip�o III li S ,I I. 1 I ,I �a 1h i i a I oil W W. m Q N ,�� i� �e�� +'I i e fl 01& f3� - I� III �II II I ' I I I I 1 I I�III I ICI I'II I III I I I II I I �I, 11 , 1;1 I Tm _ III n � 77- ; II I' 1 I I hNI"IIII,i I I I, I III _ II h� - �I a I s I Ip�o III li S ,I I. 1 I ,I �a 1h i i a I REa4i" -, ED �'JP� 2 6 2008 0r ASPEN ,IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 24, 2008 Mr. Gerald Grayson 2638 Juniper Hills Rd. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Grayson, Aspen Alps "< (0+L,-\ J t John Corcoran, General Manager, (and Pamela Cunningham) have informed me that you received 8040 Green Line approval at the last Planning and Zoning meeting, which enables you to apply for permits to demolish the Gaard Moses House and to build a new 3820 square foot structure as allowed under the original subdivision agreement. I have reviewed the plans which show that the structure is actually 10,000 square feet, but 6,000 square feet are not calculated because there are no windows and are "underground ". Even though the size of the house is of concern to the Aspen Alps owners, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the house complied with current zoning code. Your architects are to be commended for their design which appears to diminish the extraordinary size. It is also my understanding that this approval is contingent upon City Engineering review and requirements, AND to work with the Aspen Alps on construction mitigation and planning. When you owned the other parcel in the Moses Subdivision, part of the 8040 Green Line approval was your agreement to work with the Aspen Alps on concerns mutual to both you and the Aspen Alps. When you sold the property last year, the purchaser began construction, but has not complied with your agreements with the Aspen Alps. During the recent P &Z meeting, your planner Stan Clausen, the same planner for the prior application, stated that you should not be held responsible for the current owners lack of compliance. While I understand that you are no longer the owner of that property, it is the Alps' concern that you may also "flip" this property (Lot 1), leaving the Alps in the same unfortunate situation as when you sold the last parcel. The Alps' concerns remain the same and relate to the uniqueness of the Aspen Alps community and its urban/wildland property. The relationship between the developers on the two parcels contiguous to the Alps' property reflect the different needs and desires of the Aspen Alps' community and the spec house development community, and in many ways exemplify the major concern of the current City Council and its attendant Community Development Department. These different core needs of your development and the Aspen Alps' community make it incumbent upon me to assure the protection of my fellow owners. The Alps' concerns remain much the same as those which you agreed to two years ago, namely: 1. The structural integrity of the Aspen Alps South Private Road: The issuance of a bond in favor of Aspen Alps will be required for repair and replacement of the road during the construction of your residence so that if the road were to fail during the construction period, there would be funds to repair and /or replace it while providing alternate access up Aspen Mountain for the owners and guests of the 700 building. 2. Upon completion of your project, the asphalt on the Aspen Alps South Private Road will need to be resurfaced, for which sufficient funds will be required from you to be escrowed prior to 700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (800) 228 -7820 Fax(970)920 -2528 Info @aspenalps.com Environmental Stewardshiv 2. Upon completion of your project, the asphalt on the Aspen Alps South Private Road will need to be resurfaced, for which sufficient funds will be required from you to be escrowed prior to starting the project. The asphalt was completely replaced by the Mitchell family after the construction of their house in 2003 -4. 3. A construction mitigation plan must be approved by the Aspen Alps with days and times of heavy construction traffic, parking and staging, with appropriate penalties for non - compliance. 4. No construction vehicles during the two weeks of the Christmas period will be allowed on Aspen Alps South Private Road. 5. Any construction vehicle weighing over 7,000 pounds must be pre - scheduled with Aspen Alps Management to gain access up the Aspen Alps South Private Road. 6. An owner's representative must be engaged to provide a full construction schedule to Aspen Alps' management along with weekly meetings with management to review the scope of work scheduled for that week. 7. You will be responsible for ongoing maintenance and cleaning of the Aspen Alps' South Private Road during the construction. This list is by no means complete, but at least provides a starting point for some of the written agreements, bonds and escrows which will be required between you and the Alps. It is also important to note that while Lot 2 negotiated a skier access agreement with the Aspen Alps which was in place when you purchased that parcel, there is no such agreement associated with Lot 1. There will be no skier access to Aspen Mountain over Aspen Alps' property or any property controlled by the Aspen Alps, absent an agreement. Mr. Grayson, you need only look at the development and construction of the Mitchell House as a model for effective and mutually beneficial development. But then, the Mitchell's motive was not a sale for profit, but rather to continue as part of the Aspen Alps' Community. Our experiences this winter with your colleague, owner of Lot 2, were diametrically opposed to those of the Mitchell House redevelopment. Needless to say, the Aspen Alps has serious concerns about your development on Lot 1. Please let me know when John and I can meet with you regarding your plans. I will be in town until Saturday June 28 and will not be returning until March. Todd Figi Board Representative, Aspen Alps South Condominium Association Cc: Aspen City Council; Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; City Engineering; John Wocester and James True, City Attorneys; Chris Bendon and Stephen Kanipe, Community Development; Jennifer Phelan, City Zoning .a. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner (� THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directo i DATE OF MEMO: April 30, 2008 MEETING DATE: June 3, 2008 RE: 800 S. Aspen Alps Road — 8040 Greenline Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Gerald Grayson REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates Inc. LOCATION: Civic Address - 800 S. Aspen Alps Road; Legal Description — Moses Split Lot 1; Parcel Identification Number — 2737- 182 -56 -003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential zone district with an overlay Planned Unit Development (R -15 / PUD) containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a new single family residential dwelling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review Application with the recommended conditions. SUMMARY: The Applicant would like to replace the existing single family dwelling with the construction of a new single family dwelling. The applicants are requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review. Photo of the Revised 5/29/2008 Page 1 of 11 Figure 1: Zoning Map Figure 2: Vicinity Map Revised 5/29/2008 Page 2 of 11 BACKGROUND: The applicant intends to redevelop the lot located at 800 S. Aspen Alps Road. There is currently a single family dwelling located on the lot and the applicant would like to replace it with a new single family dwelling. The lowest part of the parcel is located at 8,056 feet which is above the 8,040 contour line. As a result, the new construction is considered to be located within an environmentally sensitive area. Development in this area is subject to review of the impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, air pollution, potential for avalanches, and transitions to forest and agricultural lands. Other matters considered include suitability for development, compatible design, minimizing disturbance to vegetation and natural land features. The City Council approved the Moses Lot Split in 1987. This resulted in establishing Lot 1 and 2 and a voluntary prohibition of development on the remaining property, approximately three acres of open space. This approval capped the allowable floor area for Lot 1 at a maximum of 3,800 square feet. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This will require review as pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code 26.435.030; all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level in the City of Aspen and all development within 150 feet below as measured horizontally, shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standards and criteria. The applicant is also required to meet the Residential Design Standards in Chapter 26.410 of the Land Use Code. This section applies to any residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit, unless the property is located within the R -15B zone district. Under Section 26.410 (B) (2), parcels located within the Aspen Infill Area are required to comply with all the standards, though parcels with no street frontage shall be exempt from the following requirements: Section 26.410.040(A)(1) and Section 26.410.040(D). This lot is subject to the requirements of Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992 that was created during the Moses Lot Split that resulted in creating Lot 1. Ordinance No. 31 states that the maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 shall be 3,800 square feet. KEY ISSUES: There are several concerns with this application that need to be resolved before the building permit stage. One issue is how height is determined relative to the existing and natural grade. The applicant is permitted to use historic grades to measure the maximum height for structure levels that do not line up with walls that extend to the ground. The applicant has provided an interpolation of historic grades at two feet intervals to determine the maximum allowable height. The applicant has indicated that the new design will not increase the visual impacts from this lot from the house design that is currently on the site. The new structure has been designed to mimic the natural slope of the site. During the 8040 Greenline Review minimum impacts to the view planes should be encouraged. When reviewing a development under 8040 Greenline Review, the Planning and Zoning Revised 5/29/2008 Page 3 of 11 Commission shall consider whether the applicant has made an effort to ensure design is compatible with the terrain and that minimum disturbances have been made to vegetation and natural land features. A cut is proposed into the bank and the applicant proposes to fill some areas to the south of the proposed structure. The existing house is sitting on a bench that was artificially excavated to accommodate the development that exists on S. Aspen Alps Road. No other excavation is proposed. The proposed structure meets the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. There are large trees along the front of the lot that assist in shielding the impacts from the view perspectives from the town and surrounding properties. The proposed structure has a larger mass than the existing one. This lot is capped at a maximum of 3,800 square feet of floor area, designated by the PUD. The City Engineer has indicated that the lot is located in a designated avalanche and mud flow area. The City Engineer is also requesting more information regarding impacts on runoff and the natural watershed. The applicant is required to show plans that mitigate any safety hazards to the residence, inhabitants and surrounding properties, in the form of a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Mitigation Plan. The applicant is also required to submit an engineer's assessment of the capacity of construction traffic on S. Aspen Alps Road. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: (Development Review Committee Minutes — Exhibit C) Ashen Consolidated Sanitation District The below grade development may require the installation of a pumping system. (Exhibit D) Water Department The property currently uses a pump. As a result the water is pressurized. Parks Department The Parks Department indicated that they were concerned about the cut into the bank and the visual impacts. They requested a landscape plan that was ecologically connected to the site and provided information on the native vegetation replacement plan. The Parks Department has forwarded a list of requests regarding tree permits, tree and native vegetation protection, erosion control fencing and a landscape plan. (Exhibit E) City En ig neer The Engineering Department requires an erosion, grading and drainage mitigation plan to provide more information regarding the effects on water quality. This site is located in a designated mudflow zone. As a result, an avalanche hazard and mudflow analysis will also be required. Any windows that are located below grade will require safety mitigation plans. Also an Engineer's Assessment will be required to outline the capacity of the road during the construction process. (Exhibit F) Fire Department The Fire Department will require a detailed drawing of the fire truck turn around on the site with the necessary dimensions. Also a wildfire mitigation plan will be required for the building Revised 5/29/2008 Page 4 of 11 permit. The Fire Marshall noted that the water lines should be sized for sprinkling systems and that a minimum of 16 feet of the access easement needs to be maintained for emergency ingress. He also asked the applicant to indicate the location of the nearest fire hydrant. Community Development — Zoning Officer The Zoning Officer pointed out that grading appeared to be the biggest issue. The existing grade is lower than the natural grade. Using the natural grade will result in a higher permitted height. The code requires that the more restrictive measurement is used for calculating height. He requested that the applicant supply a map of natural grade of the original topography. One copy was supplied with the application. He suggested that the applicant take the contours from the historical maps and have the surveyor document the sections in between. The applicant will be required to attend a meeting with staff to resolve the grading issue. A meeting will be arranged prior to the June 3rd meeting. He pointed out that it appeared that there was some screening proposed and that hedgerows are not permitted. The FAR is set at 3800 square feet according to the PUD. There are no calculations provided for the demolition credits, the garage may be able to increase the exempted area to 375 square feet depending on the demolition measurements. There will be fees calculated for GMQS, parks, school district and TDM. The details for exposed below grade walls will be required. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL: If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to approve the application, it is recommended to do so with the following conditions: 1. All parking will be required on the site. Parking on S. Aspen Alps Road is not permitted. 2. An approved detailed landscaping plan, tree permit, tree and native vegetation protection plan and erosion control fences will be required before application of a building permit. 3. The applicant is required to provide a drainage, erosion and grading mitigation plan to the Engineering Department. 4. The applicant is required to submit an engineering assessment of S. Aspen Alps Road in regard to the capacity of the road during construction that must be approved by the City Engineer. 5. The applicant is required to submit a Wildfire Mitigation Plan to the Fire Department. 6. The applicant will not be permitted to apply for a building permit until all conditions have been met and approved. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review. PROPOSED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommends that if the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the 8040 Greenline Review to use this motion. "I move to approve Resolution No. 00X, Series of 2008, to approve, with conditions, the application for 8040 Greenline Review at 800 S. Alps Road, also known as Moses Split Lot 1." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Application Revised 5/29/2008 Page 5 of 11 Exhibit C — Minutes from Development Review Committee Meeting Exhibit D — Referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Exhibit E — Referral comments from the City Parks Department Exhibit F — Referral comments from the City Engineer 6466 ( — Picl:n� a i /&4d Asscg5o.,,V J,)14(61—[ ? - (k�1 o s o mac, C) — e4n, Revised 5/29/2008 Page 6 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. OXX (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS ROAD. Parcel No. 2737- 182 -56 -003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gerald Grayson, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single - family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 0.6 acre and is located in the R- 15 (PUD) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,056 - 8,130 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a _ - _ vote, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single - family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 3,800 square feet. The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 2. No further development shall occur on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. OXX, Series of 2008. 3. All the required parking shall be provided on -site. There shall be no parking on Aspen Alps Road. 4. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. 5. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regarding the load- bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 6. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences around the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site - specific construction drawings of the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code (IRC — R401.3 and IBC — 1805.3.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On -site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The r-• erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A soils and foundation report, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer with the Building Permit. g) A detailed landscaping plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department. The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to, the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and /or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials, project access, construction foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native quality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. h) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. i) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. j) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. k) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with woo excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. 1) A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. m) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 8. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time. Section 2: 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 resolution, 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: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, by Resolution No. OXX, Series of 2008, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4• This 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 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of May, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk LJ Erspamer, Chair Exhibit A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Section 26.435.030 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications that are located at elevations greater than 8040 feet are subject to a review for impacts on environmentally sensitive features including the watershed, avalanche hazards, unstable slopes, mudslides, air pollution and transitions to forests and agricultural lands. A. 8040 Greenline Review Standards. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Finding This lot is located on an east facing slope on the north side of Aspen Mountain. The City Engineer has indicated that more information is needed regarding avalanche hazards, and mud flow analysis. This property is located in a designated mud flow area. Mitigation plans are required to ensure that development can occur safely on this site. The Parks Department is also requesting a tree permit, tree and native vegetation protection plan and an erosion fence plan. Staff will find this standard met with the submission of the appropriate plans. 2. The proposed development does not have significant adverse effects on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff Finding The City Engineer has indicated that a drainage, erosion, grading mitigation plan will be required to ensure that development can occur without negatively affecting the watershed and natural runoff. Staff will find this condition met with approval from the City Engineer. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on air quality in the City. Staff Finding The City Engineer has indicated that there is not a significant effect on air quality in the City. Stafffnds this criterion met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Finding Revised 5/29/2008 Page 7 of 11 The only proposed development is the replacement of the single family dwelling. It appears that the design of the building attempts to mimic the general slope of the mountain; however the new structure proposes to remove a portion of the slope in the rear of the lot. The proposed structure is also substantially larger than the existing one; however, the height of the structure will appear visually smaller than the existing structure. The trees along South Aspen Alps Road help to screen the structure from lower elevations. Stafffinds this criterion met. 5. Any grading will minimize to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. Staff Finding The applicant proposes to cut into the existing bank and to fill a small area to the south of the proposed structure to attempt to return a portion of the site back to historic grade. Staff will find this criterion met with approval from the City Engineer. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Finding There is only one structure proposed for this site. The driveway and the access will not be changed for the new development. The trees along the road may screen some of the new development. The applicant has proposed a structure that mimics the existing slope to reduce the visual impacts on the surrounding area. Stafffinds this criterion met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding The building height is not minimized. The applicant has designed the structure to the maximum permitted height under the Land Use Code. The majority of the mass of the home will be located below grade. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding The Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have confirmed that sufficient utilities service the site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding South Aspen Alps road is currently the main access to the lot via an easement through the adjacent lot to the north. The applicant will be required to provide an engineer's assessment to verify that the road will have the capacity to withstand the increase traffic and impacts Revised 5/29/2008 Page 8 of 11 from the new construction. The report has been submitted. Staff will find this criterion met with City Engineer Approval. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding The Fire Department has requested that the applicant provide a site plan that shows an adequate area for emergency access. The applicant must ensure that there is at least 16 feet of road width cleared at all times for emergency access. Staff will find this criterion met with approval from the Fire Department. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding There are no changes proposed that are addressed by the Aspen Area Community Plan. Stafffmds this criterion met. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 9 of 11 Exhibit A (continued) RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Section 26.410.040 of the City Land Use Code ensures that structures are built to standards with regard to site design, building form, parking, building elements and context. A. Site Design. 1. Building orientation. Staff finding — this section does not apply. 2. Build to lines. On parcels or lots of then than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front fagade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the 60% standard. Staff finding —This lot is just over 26, 000 square feet. This standard does not apply 3. Fences. Staff finding —Fences are not shown on the site plan. B. Building Form 1. Secondary Mass. All new single family and duplex structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or is linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Staff finding — The garage serves as the connecting element on this site plan and meets the criteria. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. For all residential uses that have access only from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a. Parking 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. 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. Staff finding —This property accesses a private road via an access easement. The garage doors are both single stall doors and meet this requirement. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 10 of 11 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be met: StafFtnding — This property does not have access from a public street. D. Building Elements Sta Finding — This section does not apply. E. Context 1. Materials a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their applications shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials should be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. c. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. StaffFindinQ—The building elevations submitted meet this requirement. 2. Inflection — The following must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or larger. a. If a one storey building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in the height along their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose which side to inflect. Staff Finding —There are no single story buildings adjacent to this property. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 11 of 11 -1 ¢xl,Nt g I T L Minutes for the DRC Meeting TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner MEETING DATE: May 7, 2008 RE: 800 Alps Road — 8040 Greenline Review Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District — Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system Water Department — John — current waterline uses a pump so it is pressurized Parks Department — Steve • This appears to be a large cut into the bank. The scope and extent are extremely visible from many locations • The cut is lateral and into the slope • Parks appreciates that there is terracing and an attempt to fit into the landscape • Will require information on the native vegetation replacement plan • Need to see an ecologically connected landscape plan • Appears to be a propensity for erosion and sediment • Applicant responded • The backyard is benched • Not expanding into the existing vegetation • Area is graveled • Existing cut — where the garage will be located • Will be providing more vegetation between the properties, the lower left will be visible from the street • What will the vegetation be below the slope ■ Evergreens and Aspen • Parks will ensure that the applicant gets the information regarding the relevant permits that will be required for the building permits Engineering Department — Trish Aragon • Engineering will require more information regarding effects on water quality in the form of a erosion, grading and drainage mitigation plan (a full drainage report) • This is a difficult site, it is located in the mudflow zone • Engineering will also require an avalanche hazard and mud flow analysis • The information for this is outlined in the engineering criteria • Point out any windows that will be located more than 3 feet below grade and the mitigation plans for them Revised 5/23/2008 Page 1 of 2 ACSD Requirements — Lot I Moses Lot Split DRC 5 -7 -08 The existing sanitary sewer services for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split connect to the Alps private sewer collection system, which in turn then connects to the district's main sanitary sewer system lower in the Aspen Alps road. A shared service line agreement between the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split and the Aspen Alps shall be required. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 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. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. 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. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). Glycol heating and snow melt systems 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. O(Kt grr f- DRC May 12, 2008 City Parks Department Requirements Property: 8040 Green Line Review Aspen Alps 1. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920 -5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. Tree Protection and Native Vegetation Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120) before any construction activities are to commence. 3. Protective fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction impacts. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. 4. A landscape plan should be submitted for review and approval by the parks department. The plan should include a detailed landscape design, which helps to decrease the impacts from the slope excavations. Design should include a legend of plantings which will blend with the native characteristics of the hillside. C ,. fuf4161r F Errin Evans Subject: FW: 800 Aspen Alps Road From: Tricia Aragon Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:33 PM To: Trisha Nelson Cc: Errin Evans Subject: 800 Aspen Alps Road Trisha, I did go to the meeting but forgot to forward my comments to Errin. Below are my comments: Requirement: 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. Response: Parcel does not meet this requirement. Parcel is located in a potential geologic hazard area according to figure ES -5, and a mudflow hazard area according to figure 11 as outlined in the Surface Drainage Master Plan dated 2001 additionally. Requirement: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: Unable to determine compliance with requirement, application does not include a drainage report or an erosion and sediment control plan. Requirement: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: Unable to determine compliance with requirement, application does not include information on the stability of Aspen Alps Road. In particular the during the construction of the proposed development. Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 429-2785 Fax: (970) 920 -5081 VYeh and Assc Consulting EnSineas & scientists May 22, 2007 John Olson Builders Attn: Mr. John Olson 200 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 ✓` i�" �'n Project No. 27 -071 Subject: Retaining Wall Monitoring and Assessment, Aspen Alps Road in Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Olson, Yeh and Associates provided a preliminary assessment of the retaining wall along Aspen Alps Road under our project number 27 -071 (report dated May 11, 2007). On April 18, 2007, we installed two inclinometers to monitor potential wall movement during construction of the residence at 900 South Aspen Alps Road. This report presents the results of our inclinometer monitoring. Initial readings were obtained on May 2, 2007. Subsequent readings were obtained on the following dates: • May 18, 2007 • August 16, 2007 • October 24, 2007 • May 14, 2008 The subsequent readings are compared to the initial reading to evaluate magnitude of movements and apparent direction. Based on our monitoring, movements of less than 0.1 inches were measured. We believe movements of this magnitude are likely instrument background noise and do not represent actual wall movement. The results of the inclinometer monitoring are attached. Our observations and monitoring indicated the existing retaining wall has not experienced measurable movement due to the construction traffic since are initial reading on May 2, 2007. Please call with questions or if additional information is required. YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,,.„ Richard D. Johnson P.E. Mo-r Senior Geotechnical Engineer sd�,at� 0 5700 East Evans Avenue, Denver, CO 80222 170 Met Ray Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 570 Turner Drive, Suite D, Durango, CO 81303 c L d 1 r ALPS UPPER, A -Axis ALPS UPPER, B -Axis U 2 4 6 8 2 . ...._ ... _.... . .__... 6 -0 5/18/2007 8131/2007 1-0/24/2007 5/1412008 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 512/2007 c L d N 1 0 2 4. 6 8 .._,_. _ ., ...... 12 . 14 _ 16 -o- 5/18/2007 — 8/31/2007 -o- 10/24/2007 — 5114/2008 1A -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 5/2/2007 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 5/2/2007 m w c L a O 4 ALPS LOWER, A -Axis u 2 4 6 .:. 8 10 ..... ; _.. _ __ ... ... 12 14 .- .... _;_. 16 5/18/2007 8/16/2007 1 :0/24/2007 -� 5/14/2008 1R -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 51212007 m c C. N 0 ALPS LOWER, B -Axis 0 2 4. 6 l_ 10 _ __ ... ... 12 14 .- .... _;_. 16 — 5/18/2007 -_- 8/16/2007 -a- 10/202007 b 5/14/2008 18 1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 5/2/2007 1 (9 1 rPV I R lVjyr L c m C 0 � \ � .. ... \\ All - � k q '4 A.r f \. `.J a ,E , n •• r.,.,¢4 , U C � d I ai.�b"� ' i Y Y'. G � i 1 x `l 1 L 4, �i II } I��33 f :' a o. i 5 1: y z Y � 1 L 4, �i II } I��33 f :' a Aw" C E 101 0 u ,} -x.:- , •... _� \'i 1 �. 6 r�. i. C 1N MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked -off below: ..... X... City Engineer ......... Community Development Engineer .......... Police Department .....X.... Zoning Officer .......... Housing Director X... Parks Department X... Aspen Fire Marshal X... City Water X... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District A.... Building Department ........... Environmental Health ........... Electric Department ........... Holy Cross Electric ........... City Attorney .....X... Streets Department ........... Historic Preservation Officer .........City Parking Manager ........... Pitkin County Planning FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Errin Evans, Current Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 429 -2745 Fax: 920 -5439 RE: Single Family Dwelling (800 Alps Road) — Greenline Review Parcel ID #2737 - 182 -56 -003 DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 COMMENTS: Please review the attached application for a Greenline Review for the replacement of a single family dwelling at 800 Alps Road. A DRC meeting will be held on May 7, 2008. Please have your comments returned by May 19, 2008. Please return your application if you do not want to hold onto it once the review is finished. DRC Meeting: May 7", 2008 Thank You, Errin Evans DRC Fehr f5, 2006 City Parks Department Requirements Property: 8040 Green Line Review Aspen Alps 1. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920 -5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. Tree Protection and Native Vegetation Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their rel2resented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the blde permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120) before any construction activities are to commence. Protective fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction impacts. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. 4. A landscape plan should be submitted for review and approval by the parks department. The plan should include a detailed landscape design, which helps to decrease the impacts from the slope excavations. Design should include a legend of plantings which will blend with the native characteristics of the hillside. ..9 Errin Evans From: Tricia Aragon Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:33 PM To: Trisha Nelson Cc: Errin Evans Subject: 800 Aspen Alps Road Trisha, I did go to the meeting but forgot to forward my comments to Errin. Below are my comments Requirement: 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. Response: Parcel does not meet this requirement. Parcel is located in a potential geologic hazard area according to figure ES -5, and a mudflow hazard area according to figure 11 as outlined in the Surface Drainage Master Plan dated 2001 additionally. Requirement: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: Unable to determine compliance with requirement, application does not include a drainage report or an erosion and sediment control plan. Requirement: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: Unable to determine compliance with requirement, application does not include information on the stability of Aspen Alps Road. In particular the during the construction of the proposed development. Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 429 -2785 Fax: (970) 920 -5081 From: Trisha Nelson Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:30 PM To: Tricia Aragon Subject: FW: 8040 Greenline Trish, Did you go to the DRC meeting for the 8040 greenline review of 800 Aspen Alps Rd? Errin is asking me the question below, my thoughts are they need to have a grading, drainage and erosion control plan, not in complete detail BUT in looking at the contours, first of all the drainage area coming into the property is somewhat significant in size, secondly the property has limited outfall /overflow locations and thirdly has steep slopes surrounding. Your thoughts? r^ Trisha L. Nelson, CFM, P.E. Senior Project Manager I Engineering Dept. City of Aspen 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 1 F 970.920.5081 P 970.429.2784 1 C 970.309.5604 From: Errin Evans Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:10 PM To: Trisha Nelson Subject: 8040 Greenline Hi Trisha: The applicant at 800 Aspen Alps Road is trying to get the mitigation plan for grading, drainage and erosion completed. What is the latest date possible to get this to you? If they can't get it in before the end of May, can it be a condition to approval in the resolution? Errin Evans Current Planner Community Development City of Aspen 130 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-429-2745 Fax: 970-920-5439 6 www.aspenpitkin.com Information for the DRC Meeting TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner MEETING DATE: May 7, 2008 RE: 800 Alps Road — 8040 Greenline Review - Aspen Sanitation District — Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system - Water Department — John — current waterline uses a pump so it is pressurized - Parks Department — Steve • This appears to be a large cut into the bank. The scope and extent are extremely visible from many locations • The cut is lateral and into the slope • Parks appreciates that there is terracing and an attempt to fit into the landscape • Will require information on the native vegetation replacement plan • Need to see an ecologically connected landscape plan • Appears to be a propensity for erosion and sediment • Applicant responded • The backyard is benched • Not expanding into the existing vegetation • Area is graveled • Existing cut — where the garage will be located • Will be providing more vegetation between the properties, the lower left will be visible from the street • What will the vegetation be below the slope ■ Evergreens and Aspen • Parks will ensure that the applicant gets the information regarding the relevant permits that will be required for the building permits - Engineering Department — Trish Aragon • Engineering will require more information regarding effects on water quality in the form of a erosion, grading and drainage mitigation plan (a full drainage report) • This is a difficult site, it is located in the mudflow zone • Engineering will also require an avalanche hazard and mud flow analysis • The information for this is outlined in the engineering criteria • Point out any windows that will be located more than 3 feet below grade and the mitigation plans for them Revised 5/9/2008 Page 1 of 2 ,^ o The access road is failing, engineering will require an engineer's assessment for capacity on the road during construction Fire Department — Ed • How far is house located off Aspen Alps Road? • It is greater than 150 feet • Submit a detailed drawing of the fire truck turn around dimensions on site, need radius and other dimensions • Supply a wildfire mitigation plan for the building permit • Ensure water lines are sized for sprinkling systems • The access easement is 20 feet, the Fire Department requires at least 16 feet minimum when there are snow banks. ■ The only thing that will change is the material on the driveway o Where is the nearest hydrant? Please locate it on your mitigation plans Community Development — Todd Grange • Grading appears to be the biggest issue • The existing grade is lower than the natural grade • Using the natural grade will result in a higher permitted height, the code requires that the more restrictive measurement is used • Supply a map of natural grade for the original ■ One copy was supplied with the application • Take the contours from the historical maps and have the surveyor document the sections in between • The applicant will be required to attend a meeting, the City Engineer will also be in attendance to resolve the grading measurements • A meeting will be arranged prior to the June 3`d meeting • It appears there is some screening proposed, hedgerows are not permitted • The intent is to screen the neighboring house not the road • The FAR is set at 3800 according to the PUD • There are no calculations provided for the demolition credits, the garage may be able to increase the exempted area to 375 square feet depending on the demolition measurements • There will be fees calculated for GMQS, parks, school district and TDM • The details for exposed subgrade walls will be required - Next steps • Meet with Pam — Aspen Alps and Stan • Public Hearing P &Z — June 3rd Revised 5/9/2008 Page 2 of 2 0- Information for the DRC Meeting TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner MEETING DATE: May 7, 2008 RE: 800 Alps Road — 8040 Greenline Review - Aspen Sanitation District — Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system - Water Department — John — current waterline uses a pump so it is pressurized Next steps • Meet with Pam — Aspen Alps and Stan • Public Hearing P &Z — June 3rd W le � '� Revised 5/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 —IN Errin Evans From: Shaun Rourke Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:21 PM To: Errin Evans Cc: Tricia Aragon; Trisha Nelson; Adam Trzcinski Subject: RE: DRC Meeting Erinn As I am sure you are aware Alps Road is a private road owned by the Aspen Alps. The Engineering Dept is dealing with a large volume of complaints from Aspen Alps management with a project at 900 Alps Rd that is currently under construction. Would it be possible to require that the applicant for 800 Alps Rd get a letter from Aspen Alps management as a condition of approval? If you could make this part of your DRC discussion, it may help alleviate Aspen Alps concerns before construction begins. Thanks for your consideration. Shaun Rourke City of Aspen, Engineering Dept 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 (0) 970.920.5080 x2782 (F) 970.920.5081 (Email) shaunnAciesoen.co.us From: Errin Evans Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:23 PM To: Aaron Reed; Adam Trzcinski; Amy Guthrie; April Barker; Blake Fitch; Brian Flynn; Cindy Christensen; Denis Murray; Ed Van Walraven; Erich Grueter; Errin Evans; Jackie Lothian; Jannette Whitcomb; Jason Lasser; Jennifer Phelan; Jerry Nye; Jessica Garrow; John Hines; John Krueger; Kim Peterson; Larry Doble; Linda Chi; Lynn Rumbaugh; Phil Overeynder; Randy Ready; Rich Ryan; Richard Pryor; Rick Fout; Sara Adams; Shaun Rourke; Shirley Ritter; Stephen Kanipe; Tim Ware; Todd Grange; Tom Bracewell forward; Travis Coggin; Tricia Aragon; Trisha Nelson Subject: DRC Meeting There will be a DRC meeting for the replacement of a single family at 800 Alps Road. This property is subject to 8040 Greenline Review. The meeting will be on May 7`", at 1:30pm in the annex on Hopkins where the Engineering and Building Departments are located. Errin Evans Current Planner Community Development City of Aspen 130 S Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-429-2745 Fax: 970-920-5439 0 T18 QITfT aiV41 ACSD Requirements — Lot 1 Moses Lot Split DRC 5 -7 -08 The existing sanitary sewer services for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split connect to the Alps private sewer collection system, which in turn then connects to the district's main sanitary sewer system lower in the Aspen Alps road. A shared service line agreement between the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split and the Aspen Alps shall be required. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 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. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. 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. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). Glycol heating and snow melt systems 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. s4 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESiNc landscape architecture. planning_ resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t. 97o/925�2323 (•970/920 -1628 infoOscaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 9 May 2008 Tricia Aragon, P.E. City Engineer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split - Responses to DRC Comments 800 South Alps Road (PID: 2737 - 182 - 56.003) Dear Tricia: On behalf of our client, Gerald Grayson, owner of Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split, we are writing to respond to the concerns and requirements mentioned at the 7 May 2008 DRC meeting for the 8040 Greenline Review at 800 South Alps Road. Our first concern is regarding the timing of the drainage report submittal. It was our understanding, as was true for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, that this report would need to be submitted at building permit, not as part of the 8040 Greenline Review. A Grading Plan and Drainage Report is required by the code to be submitted as part of the building permit submittal. We request that the standard timing for this requirement be followed in the case of this land use review. I would also note that this application was tendered to the City on 8 January 2008, so there would have been ample time to notify the applicant of this request so that it could be provided in a timely way without delaying the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. At this point in time, it would be impossible to comply with your request without further delay to a long- awaited hearing. Please refer to the Lot 2 8040 Greenline approval for language addressing the Drainage Report submittal at building permit as a condition of approval (Resolution No. 17, Series of 2006 9.e., which is attached and highlighted(. Our second concern is regarding the requested verification of the structural capability of South Alps Road. We are prepared to submit a letter stamped by a registered professional engineer addressing the load capacity and stability of the road. Yeh and Associates, Inc. provided a report for the Lot 2 building permit that was accepted by the City of Aspen Community Development Engineer. We intend to submit a follow -up document based on their continued monitoring of the road's condition during the construction on Lot 2. Please let 1 Tricia Aragon, P.E. ®� City of Aspen 9 May 2008 1* Page Two us know if you have any specific requirements for this follow -up report so we can make sure to address your concerns in advance. Also, we expect that an engineer's assessment will be reviewed by City Engineering and if accepted, will be a conclusive document for determining the capacity for the road. It is our understanding that this report does not need to gain the approval of Pam Cunningham and the Aspen Alps but needs only to be accepted and approved by the City Engineering Department. We would appreciate your feedback on these two Issues as soon as possible so we can properly prepare for the Planning 8. Zoning Commission hearing scheduled for 3 June 2008. Thank you in advance for you assistance with these matters and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Very ly y UR, Stan lauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Trisha Nelson, City of Aspen Engineering Errin Evans, City of Aspen Community Development Gerald Grayson Ryan Waiterscheid, Cornerstone Group Architects an 8 new f� AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070, ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1`" �� sN Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I,c,c A (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of A en, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: / Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signat The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 2-3 day of un3 L , 2001, by f4je? ' ^ArA Sccs`l 9til WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL STICE p APPROVAL My commission expires: _ Q p t D /@L 01 e general public a' the 1 1 a moral lfplan, he Perty right pursuant to dY 01 Aspen and Title ,.ad Statutes, pertain Notary Public i property: 800 Aspen rat of of only I the 130 s/C11y Of ASpen Publishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 22, 2008.(1731570) ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION I E LAURA MEYER IIp C01"$$6 Expires 08 Wojo PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 800 ALPS ROAD, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW — PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates Inc. 412 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81612 on behalf of Gerald Grayson, 10147 Blutfmont Lane, Lone Tree, Colorado, 80124 who is the owner of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting development approval for an 8040 Greenline Review to redevelop the property. The property is legally described as Lot 1 Moses Split Subdivision and more commonly known as 800 Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For finther information, contact Errin Evans at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2745, errine@ci.aspen.co.us. s/LJ Erspamer, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 18, 2008 City of Aspen Account RECEIVED MAY ? r, 2008 CITY OF ASPEN -'IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: $6b &jps PRoPt> Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: �.o�_IiiNE 3 P ( ,30pon ,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, J C.O_(e y (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the ty 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: t/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made 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 those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 0� --% Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map 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. rgnatur The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac}} nowled ed before me this /9 day of MEN y , 200_0r, by -Sca%1 PUBLI NOTICE RE REVIEW NO ALPS RINGREENLINE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: o' 00 1 t) Notary Public LAURA ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: It MEYER THEPUBLICATION s2J Erspamer, Chair RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly °^ MaY,e. THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL A! 2008.(1548488) � L i✓Ltgt • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 800 Alps Road, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 3 June 2008 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, F. L. (Stan) Clauson (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: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X 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 16th day of May, 2008, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi- govermnental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) H E Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such agiendmgnts. The foregoing "Affidavit of No ice" was acknowledged before me this r day of 0YK/t , 200_L by_ 1 . - 1411 ) [ItU.An WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL �P�iY PVe My commission expires: 52.3 Zfl D �O.•'' '•.11 I n n. l d PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 800 ALPS ROAD, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW — PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates Inc. 412 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81612 on behalf of Gerald Grayson, 10147 Bluffinont Lane, Lone Tree, Colorado, 80124 who is the owner of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a new single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting development approval for an 8040 Greenline Review to redevelop the property. The property is legally described as Lot 1 Moses Split Subdivision and more commonly known as 800 Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Errin Evans at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2745, errine @ci.aspen.co.us. s/LJ Erspamer, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 18, 2008 City of Aspen Account 120 WATER STREET CORP C/O PASPALEY PEARLS GRP GPO BOX 338 DARWIN AUSTRAILIA, NT 0801 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAECHLE JAMES 156 HORSESHOE RD MILL NECK, NY 11765 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FIG] J TODD REV TRUST C/O JT FIGI ENTERPRISES PO BOX 1668 LA JOLLA, CA 92038 GELFAND HERBERT M TRUSTEE 50% GELFAND BEVERLY J TRUSTEE 50% 9431 SUNSET BLVD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 HARRIS NANCY M REV TRUST 31 MARJORY LN SCARSDALE, NY 10583 ISAAC JENNIFER F TRUSTEE PO BOX 1300 SONOITA, AZ 85637 -1300 KENNER PATRICIA 720 PARK AVE NEW YORK, NY 10021 MARTIN MARIANNE 1/61NT 2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 ASPEN ALPS 123 LLC ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC C/O TOM GRIFFIN PO BOX 1128 PO BOX 9152 ASPEN, CO 81612 AVON, CO 81620 ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST AUHLL RICHARD A PO BOX 940 ASPEN ALPS CONDO #710 700 AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 O ASPEEN, N, CO 81611 CABANISS WILLIAM J QUAL RES TRUST CHANDLER CLARISSA H 3812 FOREST GLEN DR 902 N GREEN BAY RD BIRMINGHAM, AL 35213 LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 DILLARD WILLIAM T II & MARY A DRAKE RODMAN L 50% C/O DILLARD DEPT STORES INC 485 PARK AVE #5A PO BOX 486 NEW YORK, NY 10020 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 -0486 FOX JOAN D TRUSTEE 50% GARTEN HERBERT & SUSAN F 6675 AUDUBON RD 36 S CHARLES ST HOLLAND, MI 49423 2300 CHARLES CENTER S BALTIMORE, MD 21201 GRIEF IRVIN JR & NANETTE HALGLENN CORP 36 S CHARLES ST 4400 BISCAYNE BLVD #950 2300 CHARLES CENTER S MIAMI, FL 33137 -3212 BALTIMORE, MD 21201 HARTMAN DOYLE & MARGARET HURT FAMILY LP 426 CAPITAL GROUP INC PO BOX 10 MIDLAND, 42 79702 1060 AVONDALE RD SAN MARINO, CA 91108 JACOBS HARLAN & DEBRA TRUST KAPLAN JEROME A 8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR 6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 LNR LLC LODESTAR WEST LLC C/O AMERICA DEV & INVEST LTD 175 BELLEVUE DR 14881 QUORUM DR # 200 BOULDER, CO 80302 DALLAS, TX 75254 MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M MMR ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST TWO COVENTRY CT 1225 WESTMOOR RD PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208 WINNETKA, IL 60093 MORRIS DIANE L TRUST MORTON JENNY S C/O BROWN SUSAN BOEING 8 PELHAM CRESENT 2550 SCOTT ST LONDON SW7 2NP, UK SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 PITKIN COUNTY PORTER ROBERT A & CHARLYNN MAXWELL 530 E MAIN ST #302 ASPEN, CO 81611 611 PARKWAY STE 7-13 GATLINBURG, TN 37738 ROTH WALTER TRUSTEE SCHAFFER REALTY HOLDINGS II LLC C/O D ANCONA & PFLAUM C/O LESLIE SCHAFFER 111 E WACKER DR STE 2800 161 E CHICAGO AVE #36E CHICAGO, IL 60601 CHICAGO, IL 60611 STEEL ROBERT & GILLIAN TAGUE PETER & CHERYL 71 MAYFAIR LN 7 PARK AVE TER GREENWICH, CT 06831 BRONXVILLE, NY 10708 WILSON MICHAEL WINTER RUTH F TRUSTEE 8 ELM ST 175 E DELAWARE PL APT 8404 MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 CHICAGO, IL 60616 PARKER K E TRUSTEE 101 LIBERTY ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 RIDDELL JOHN F JR & BARBARA B 2900 WESLAYAN RD STE 500 HOUSTON, TX 77027 SEIDMAN DOV LIVING TRUST 466 HALVERN DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 WELLS RICHARD A & SUSAN T 970 POWDER LN ASPEN, CO 81611 -2105 ZEFF RICHARD L TRUST 14 EVERGREEN WAY STRATHAM, NH 03885 P,�rcel Detail Page 1 of 4 Pitkin County Assessor /Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor /Treasurer Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Building Characteristics I Tax Information Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail Residential /Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number I 2007 Mill Levy 056 1 R012510 273718256003 IF 29.667 Owner Name and Address GRAYSON GERALD 10147 BLUFFMONT LN LONE TREE, CO 80124 Legal Description Es 1:0SES SPLIT LOT:1 Location Physical Address: 800 ALPS RD ASPEN Subdivision: JFMOSES SPLIT Land Acres: 0.6 Land Sq Ft: 0 2007 Property Tax Valuation Information Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 4,375,000 348,250 Improvements: 1,000,000 79,600 Total: 5,375,000 427,850 Sale Date: http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber--ROI 25 10 4/30/2008 Parcel Detail ... Page 2 of 4 „ 11 Sale Price: 113,165,000 11 Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential II 1 I Buildings: GARDEN LEVEL BS MT: Number of Comm/Ind 0 Buildings: WOOD BALCONY: Tax Information Tax Year I Transaction Type I Amount 199771 Tax Amount 17 $5,976.60 http: / /www.pitkinassessor.org/ assessor /parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= RO12510 4/30/2008 Residential Building Occurrence 1 Characteristics GARDEN LEVEL BS MT: 1,100 FINISHED GARAGE: 606 WOOD BALCONY: 482 1/2 STORY: 469 2ND FLOOR: 2,317 Total Heated Area: 3,886 Property Class: SINGLE FAM RES- IMPROVEMEN Actual Year Built: 1988 Effective Year Built: 1988 Bedrooms: 4 Baths: 4 Quality of Construction: VG 12 +BASE Exterior Wall: LOG 9" - Exterior Wall: WD SID LOW Interior Wall: DRYWALL Floor: BASE Heat Type: HT WTR B/B Heating Fuel: GAS Roof Cover: CEDAR SHAK Roof Structure: GABLE/HIP Neighborhood: ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION Super Nbad: JFCITY OF ASPEN Tax Information Tax Year I Transaction Type I Amount 199771 Tax Amount 17 $5,976.60 http: / /www.pitkinassessor.org/ assessor /parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= RO12510 4/30/2008 PArcel Detail Page 3 of 4 1997 I Tax Payment: First Half 1 ($2,988.30)1 1997 Tax Payment: Second Half ($2,988.30) 1998 Tax Amount $5,890.18 1998 Tax Payment: First Half 1998 Tax Payment: Second Half 1999 Tax Amount $5,499.98 1999 Tax Payment: First Half 1999 Tax Payment: Second Half 2000 Tax Amount $6,228.08 2000 Tax Payment: First Half 2000 Tax Payment: Second Half 2001 Tax Amount $6,640.24 2001 Tax Payment: Whole ($6,640.24) 2002 Tax Arno 1 $6,647.94 2002 Interest C 1 $132.96 2002 Interest Pay 1 ($132.96) 2002 Tax Payment: Whole 2003 Tax Amount $6,668.36 2003 Tax Payment: Fi 1 ($3,334.18) 2003 Tax Payment: Second Half ($3,334.18) 2004 Tax Amount $6,747.06 2004 Tax Payment: First Half 2004 Tax Payment: Second Half 2005 Tax Amount $8,648.00 2005 Tax Payment: Whole 2006 Tax Amount $9,009.20 2006 Tax Payment: Whole 2007 Tax Amount $13,578.60 200771 Tax Abatement 2007 Tax Payment: Whole ($12,693.04) 2007 Tax Payment: Whole ($12,693.04) Ton of Page Assessor Database Search_ODtions I Treasurer Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page http: / /www.pitkinassessor.org/ assessor /parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= RO12510 4/30/2008 Parcel Detail /^1 Page 4 of 4 .i The Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2008 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http: / /www.pitkinassessor.org/ assessor /parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= R012510 4/30/2008 'I- #357013 12/16/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 tab:. 698 P6 146 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.00 RESOLUTION OF T ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE AND RECOMMENDING TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, ASPEN COLORADO Resolution No. 92- WHEREAS, a'duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on April 7, 1992 to consider the 8040 Greenline and Subdivision application for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to demolish an existing home on Lot 2 and redevelop a single family residence;and WHEREAS, a 1987 Lot Split created.Moses Lots 1 & 2 with a condition upon the size of the home not to exceed 3,800 square feet of allowable floor area; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to increase the size of Lot 2 to encompass the open land area between four of the Aspen Alps buildings, the Mitchell House and the Aspen Alps tennis courts; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to retain enough land area required for a 5,000 square foot home in the R -15 Zone District and convey the rest of the land area (approximately 3 acres) to the Aspen Alps to be deeded against further development; and WHEREAS, in exchange for conveying the open space to the Aspen Alps and deeding it against further development, the applicant has requested an increase in the limited floor area of Lot 2 up to 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area; and WHEREAS, the reconfiguration of Lot 2 and the conveyance of the rest of the parcel to the Aspen Alps requires subdivision review; and WHEREAS, the development of the new home is above the 8040 elevation thus requiring 8040 Greenline review; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline for the new single family residence; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby approve the 8040 Greenline for a new single family residence with the following conditions: 1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 5,000 sq. ft. The height shall be 25 feet. �+. 2. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide ( a letter from a registered professional engineer that all �+ applicable geotechnical concerns of the Lampiris letter submitted #352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK 698 PG 14... Silvia Davis, Pitkkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission recommends to the City Council subdivision approval of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within 180 days of final land use approval by the City Council. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. 2. The final plat shall depict the following: a. the tennis courts (Lot 2B) and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association (Lot 2A). b. Notes shall refer to Deed , Book , Page indicating the restrictions against any further development on Lots 2A and 2B, or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes on existing Alps buildings for the tennis courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split. c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split. d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split. e. No parking along the road unless approved by the Fire Marshal. £. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of the Aspen Alps South Road. g. All improvements on the site including the entire" length of the actual access road and the revised access easement including the roadway surface. h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 - 1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general note, that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated have been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12 months. i. The USFS tract, if conveyed to Mitchell /Bornefeld, or heirs and assigns shall be deed restricted against further development. 3. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall meet code requirements (201). 1-., 3 Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 9633600 (24 HOURS) January 20, 1992 Alan M. Richman, AICF' Bo;: '61.' Aspen Co. 81612 RE: Aspen Alps Lot Dear Mr. Richman: I have completed my geologic investigation of the Proposed building site on the maps which accompany this report. The building site lies along the east slope of the lobe containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Fitk:in County, Colorado. The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses. It is between the home of Gaard Moses and other Aspen Alps buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building envelope as shown. The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands, gravels and boulders of colluvial and some debris tlow material deposited perhaps hundred=_ of years ago. These materials are generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet thick. at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate or sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area. This faulting is mostly from :7.0 million years ago and there is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform Building Code. The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the the home site because of the distance involved and the relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability in this.steep slope is possible: therefore; the mar (west) wall of the home should be at least si:: feet above finished grade and designed to accept forces Of up to 200 pounds per square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval within 'the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope. The material of the site is suitable for the development of a i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 60-6 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amenenedColo- public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Asp , rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state - yotr views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment oownersland serious of surrounding property grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: May 8, 1980 Time: 4 PM City Council Chambers Name and address of Ayplicant for Variance: Name: Gaard Moses Address: Box 21, Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: Location: 800 Aspen Alps Drive Description: MS 3881 Variance Requested: Application is made for a building permit to build an addition to an existing one family dwelling. The proposed addition will have a front yard setback less than the 100 foot required setback and will have aside yard less than the 30 foot required setback. Sec. 24- 3.4 "C" Conservation Zoning District. Duration of V iance: (Please cross out one) Tempora ✓ry Permanent x Will not be represented by counsel THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT By Remo Lavagnino, Chairman by Susan'Johnson, Deputy City Clerk -7. ' 1[peon;rl •t........ ....... ........ —. .... ...... rot., tt,eptian So. ........... ... I._.._.... .'^_.._.____.... r ardor. Tins INDENT11nFy M11edd this 6th day of Julio .19 74 , between GAARD HOPKINS MOSES whose address is Post Office Box 2388, Aspen, Colorado Part y of the first part, and the Public Trustee of (aunty of Pitkin in the Slate of Colorado, party of the meond part, Witnesseth: THAT. WHEREAS. Tito said GAARD HOPKINS MOSES his s executed his promissory note bearing even date herewith, for the principal sum of Fifteen Thousand------------- ------- ---- ------------ ----- --- --------Delta", Payable to the order of JAMES C. BLANKING, JR. whose address is Post Office Box 33, Aspen, Colorado 81611 after the date hereof, w1Y�intc„ee4 {he�.a {ronrHro-0 ate- lhereef - a thin ' ate- W ------------ per •aem•per•,+mmm,- yayabla in accordance with that Agreement of even date herewith by and between GAARD HOPKINS MOSES and JAMES C. BLANNING, JR. AND WHERF415, The said part y of the tint part is desirous of securing payment of the principal and interfest of said promissory note in whose hands soever the acid note or any of them may be. NOW, THERE OIL$ The said party of the tint part, in consideration of the premises and for the purpose nfacessid, does thereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said pertly of the second pert in trust forever, the following described property, situate in the County of Pitkin , state of Colorado, to wit: A tract of land situated in Sec. 18 T10S R84W GPM being described as follows: -- ,- BEGINNING at a point on line 4 -5 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM "Little Nell" being S43 0 28'44 "W 70.00 ft. from corner No. 4 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM "Little Nell" (a No. 5 re -rod in place); THENCE S43 °28'44W 136.76 ft, along line 4 -5 Mineral Survey No. 3381 AM "Little Nell" to corner No. 5 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM; THENCE S45036'W 197.73 ft. along line 5 -1 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM to the compromise line with the "Millionaire" (Mineral Survey No. 3620 ' kM); THENCE S14 30'W 397.85 ft, along the compromise line to a point of , intersection with line 1 -2 Mineral Survey No. 3981 AM & line 4 -1 Mineral Survey No. 1830 "Cho ce "; THENCE N45 °00' E 672.80 ft. along line 1 -4 Mineral Survey No. 183 P "Chance "; THENCE N43 46'W 203.47 ft, to the point of . Deginning,cont fining 2.324 acres more or less. ._ W HAVE AN) TO BOLD Um same, brmber w1U an ltd elevator the 'nand end ..parted..... I.Madeb 4beper: re 'had N.I.Ukd , Thet he rope of ddault In the payment of said nae of the, of them, or -T part Uerce1 or 1. the pa rMML of the lu[emt - d,e m, eemNlor b the . d afreet of said nab , of them, ar In he torment of ..,reeds mmmbrade.. pro. -fp{ e ka " In 411 -11 h.11 he reed In 0 1 a of elolellun r be.eh f TM I the barred evavm q Al he aideb lalv!A,oth .1 $1ka 1 h : ur Cho inset hoar of lM IalfbIM u red he .LT , de[Inn . ol.,.lon f .n, e<Ne e b lenb slwined J Le( to adrerlre id DmttrtI for M. d deaunJ ueh ..Jr. thee, upon Illint nonce of ev[Ir el¢tdao and a 0. far ■ wab the u1J DaMy qr the derond part. who a1uIt upon r Ipmef such note# of el•etlun rod demand for sale [nose o real of the cone W " NawmJN s U",emNfY elHU of the ante Iv whleh old I mbW 1. leusbaJ, n hall and r k 1 hd ter old o.ay n! the rod Mir b U ad d6sm. at the ores (es roues 1. arpreb Dared, u We uW PaLaa 11v.We me may b feet). 1.. end,. Id .ehl, f h ad fin. moms of said party of Ue, font Part, holes or .sal -t th.r,b, of publo, .Oe,,.O at if.., frost dm, of Ua can rwp e u Celt et Pitk In . slab a Colorado, ..m memt.m. or .a, part th L. me, 1'a fpeehllN la 0utle; i Id .6, Ter th hash t .ad bntnp "lee the . taro at Coloa A. rreue w p m. ., harm w O d rites ai . sal, hT drenlaemen4 Yb. b .area tewmmer of reoerel ev uleW..t that time pub oAW V'a el a ..V ei me Pi u .. ear, of which better.han her mailed wi%in lea dye from the data of Me tin\ publication MMmr W Me prlrT• J rc - of t e finl Daft at the odd.... here:. rirre .nJ uIh to 'd a Pan Aa .pDmrint b Fare .enuUN . oo"Orat cared 1155 uun yddea' en en In .0 nod ni :. en L; uM1.•n "nl> \hr —all ,rod .beta le alrm a We aJNm be. ,ueh naNee .Fail b mailed b the [ t A W --e 'ad pp W the', III+ Ier nr p <hna<n of .ueh VmDerll of Vmh ..I, n -M ft -. W ur earearl.W. In rrn""v dv er;hinv a h are ... 1, V.Mhuaa. ad the di rn ar ,u a ngi.l the,'. for, a J eh, time .Ihed the Vur[I,e,er o[ Durthuen M state "MIA ntlnl ntel ehrJl be r titled to a deed or Aeeb Wenle,' lees he a.nn rLnil he rNe[[mul b pmriJN by le,,: and aaY I \hoe Tmer.e .A�II. u tan J. mmJ Fv hr. frrv.n or f[e.a. halJinv a[ aA., v:&e", or r.rtlneelr at 1—h r•, pan eM u as n mad, ae dreastime a dm.ud L, the a -, ea mtll:M b a dMA he snJ r., the p ,, .. p _b_ 1. t tea. Woe meh ,' nJ ta f n L•, the lime nfw r I. 411 ti er the evrdin hMd. wM1 .nil a «u W W o h r r—A- . a'A! "r ;Ire" W Iha "I'd area- l ym<b -od. +Meh aid Jatl a dr 1 n f r al. nee and 1 "11 be a N. r. kvuxlols.d nea e:IlranJ Ly U.. old I bli. Trv.ts. rranb .ad h.11 . aY OWWto m b ueh oft. or penam —1111.4 W ..dh 4N, a 'Moore. lies ado pmperV parchsaN u rloem.IJ and eU U. ,tsL, Npe lioL n• t,vem sad mutt, of . tontines at th...A Y of u, fh-t a.M. his ',des dad ..star. Uercbae d .bJl tie I1.,.uy u m h" which Iha r ",ft, w, Id an.1 doll W- to N, "0.- of ..I. theft. Mdn b%N, .rod b the .. a .led nut i> .Irlvn 1prrml: , d In v of roe ,.helvmne t of nu[h a tjf;- pY[nWn of e pllrch to ] ae In A'' 4f ll:. reJeniVl:A. of -:h MVeeIT to .'+baeVUe t e robes .r -due anlvnmaid r teWmue. rth,, ..t M scrotal In Io meh A' 'd o a.Y woad sal lea yS eul 1 ou[v WMeor Yude'.mtl Ne aid 1'uLlle '1'rv.les ,hell, out of Ilu DmerJ, or ...4. of .ueh W, ,b- Haley ylne At" eaotl.Wr.n ter., < nn .nil :a.0 ar n,.my:.,ld ode. calf In U, L- efi[hry kpm._w m Ue I.e[I �au.iAUWit>e jRE.,45lik)E ' ."art,] enA bieemt nab ea old saw ,earth., to the other ad effect thereof. -d all manrn ad ro ,robe half' at WJ .ere far W. -Ore, bon and awoemmb, .10 1.0 .l Umee.e at Pan e cc, -n:w. L• w,, mb Ito yt: ta:t f of V. f:uf pro nLkL +/p 7('p p J 'Ijya7 deb a.iad ulWl M . Drm,l.W hr. WU In Lw mJ nult >.,o1nrt We aW po,t y of We lint uory I f]'Ir'fl .9 aka. „N -if "fee - -ail fhimir. be aal•I ^ron,l>, o .nr Mrt tLmwn. br. from, rLruu.b ar .nJe IT'.... ( nr.1 l4rem. T.m F��l'hr ur he1J<n Of ,Jd nr. m>, -> nu on LI Lmp. r,y n ,ny pa rf late,,f; IL.i� 1 _ of llru flu Ito Ve .r VuNl, vin .t ea> -elf 1 b ear W It. raVV•!nl,M'Ol��pa fe.ft t temp. It 'de,0j, :6eury IMYraa Wr t1,e pare y d tae mat pan. his Ldn w .n . will D., U•. n. ".., \Fm�r fr�l. CnLolfA°D 81611 Na SHIA, ;bbD or vup::r- -Putpe ru.,:.._:h Dl.n'. u..e, - -uwr. • .11— 1— • ..... "a -4.: Yo"' en rest ill:. Mire. aef•uln + r Jmin4a.,n.i.. /.uJ We mW Mll F ?I l \r r ant Y +r<• b..It hllncrit' b•rd with On m14 Carl) eel an rv.oJ 1•14 Ynl at lea. w .M unedlu[ o[ and J<Ibol of Ihe.a w Smr". mad h [nest Irl4 Cdl b.— resat Ivful n,b he Jr well w1� or lM null bn•1 wJ knr +,der v tea alt ICiq IJ: Mrs rally mod m4+dubl) wmlrinY +nJ IA<nlnY 1 NWOr,,, in treat. barvalu, mat mead e[ less vas m In lM mmnn ° u wad 1'n n.Pllmn. or miner ra nTtloo, Ir1rs he may bee. In or to mall lend. b P....anre. enJ I•.I 11otY o .tlld my here-eter be pasara In�ml.tlu° Ja and L) at the A en) mart III has d Ideal 1 dl ties. IJ .....Lrence. e1rWrvr. a .. Wnb uJ best IM nnu m free tea c east u n m w to Md'tbi ahw! farmstead ptmilemy U On aukt od peserebU psersin. of them JA pares W On moved part, hb suemwn pa mLryA' "•last dl and even Ferree or narrow Usefully ddmemg or to J•Im tha'ihola .r any part thermal. the mid pre y - N On fort prl shot and was Warrant sad termer Defend. r•' •.. . at me nest part will In aY..eamrl D.> Ad that dud°> be mad..... at .old Indebtedness or my part merwf. the saw pore V t pall bud Ins that m" .1 •oY aid apM on Wall n1, 1 aural "nine iwnaby fire tw{th eel- " mvtrtp r.d.re -mraw he amenacWnpery er swpnics m On bolder of sold seem , nn. hem lime b thn. direst far sect, was mar ww m weF nmpwY or ammpnb will Imvn (mar, of On first Dort. selb fall. it •.>, .,auto 1. Or bane eat r seemed the smart of asld ledebwentw y a pt at the option of moist party lob of lasunua b be beralhem" herw.deq m nri.m Mrmmm.. •• his l.lerme may appear. and .m aau.er On panes w w the tolidm d 1.Yesarrvnlhe ill a 1N.ucs Vr� °•And I- re or of the dote oa to U<ume due on maytprb•c sebr"cev- ,fumy. N ndtalfie MI er me M meld .ola , er may o! hem, mm poraun wadi lsnnom: me pay mod.... or .mm-nmla or ...at dal. mMe Priw eeewmb[-aees, if 4 nn beaoeye One paid, with interest inton e .t no ve par • th.D 6esme a b additional b sell padnm. N Yra lint this Dent of for tacbd bell bMln a t of falm °f 1Fb uses dal pled of the mraparty abroJd. It at oNerwbe paid by mW part AND TDAT IN CASE OP ANY DEFAULT• YJhenby the right of fwedoavn racers benunder. be mesa pres of W .esmma pre or Ina 6c'ds N nld eeoem m odlfWfl of pnhue, bell at "u became nodded b the Cmmmbn, um and mlwmenl a the pnment • Oro- lust b Ina note, bws red Dwfiu tNrmae, from the tea[ mar reeh riwhi and Juries[ he pendency d l.raalmn prOn holder ma aw �d'INi, of tedmDlin0. R "y IAad M; mad elea - in. -ha0 at coca N delivered b the maid p.N N the leaned put ar tM AolJer at -.ld seta s «'ll-m, a of pnbua pea rswmt "d n. radial, the Misery of each prolamines m•y M entwaN by On nid party of the seemed put w be holder of mold new my mrdfimu of Yurab-se by 'my .,ropri.em drS wit w pi odin[. red Ns mold A es of Ae d oft part. or Ina bdam e! old anb r «rtifba4 of pnhue, or met ArreoL -bell he entitle b Rmebm for add "'n"'A), a.d of Ins nnW Was deer of old Iat. afar wch defeul4 (".he be lima mrend by fondmure pros mines and Ina Wind of rNemptlon, If any lFen t the first un aI M, ad u Mena entitle oftht d.Pam . file ofi right trip nab she lnlva thereof. and I Ie by Reeeinrtha I be - 'emiaaN I' of veopivladndumamru lhme . s dell her 1bati Ly and dA Iitaeiver bltM pasmeni 101 tbe aindebrednev Aenby • rad.l.rea divla b law 1nJ flew mean awl dirmtbn of, court AND, no, In rue of Woolf In any of mob "Ymwu of principal or interest ucmNin. em be floor tad effect of nld ptombmn eepu aforesaid, are any at lNm, or ny pre theta(, or of . breach or violation of may of the nvmmnb or rcrmmmto bents. b) the part y of the tint p•r4 narrators, •deninblr.bn mat then 4jo. f•the lI...I holder tbeynr, barons due mod payable, old he rN..na the bmmt In-'— b Nn alms of ..le. mw at mvn. ufd passed, Ina and Iv them xaPer asst with be mama rifest m if mto indeerM.sm- Md m1-10- modl•na berfaervim In tlw wpenidon of amid Tmabr, m atilrnm1 fee or the was mI h :he .cad+ foredn.rev •e odml ss fee W 11 tedeb Of thASOlur �aVU[ of the caste of rush fomimvR DruedeJl "eredown be u.d. Mwu: . roIN I of On tint part he s berse.b sea his . a "a "d eel Ina eve Ma e`.': i rst aWve !the •dal party . n t R•1TNESR: eft! COUNTY TREASURER AIPR.161330 ] TIUN COUNTY = - .,l�a COIORAD9 57611. ' N I �CJ W i w w 11 j � tiiett my /Ca r - V PK J�+'tuJ�aSaha�+ - ISEAL7 t sets, ubmowlNgN before m- thin- ----- ' 6th 29-M by--- —iSlN6 `TW.----------' Natw D.W: Stickp'� s ' r.=1 u I ' S I Y I no q E u m .m+l i TI se V W 9 f Is ti. O w N i h I Y ' I �. v Y J TATF OT COWRADO... T T+m ° {g. COUNTY TREASURER AIPR.161330 ] TIUN COUNTY = - .,l�a COIORAD9 57611. ' N I �CJ W i w w 11 j � tiiett my /Ca r - V PK J�+'tuJ�aSaha�+ - ISEAL7 t sets, ubmowlNgN before m- thin- ----- ' 6th 29-M by--- —iSlN6 `TW.----------' Natw D.W: Stickp'� s ' r.=1 u I ' S I Y I no q E u m .m+l i TI se V W 9 f Is ti. O w N i h I Y ' I �. v Y J my /Ca r - V PK J�+'tuJ�aSaha�+ - ISEAL7 t sets, ubmowlNgN before m- thin- ----- ' 6th 29-M by--- —iSlN6 `TW.----------' Natw D.W: Stickp'� s ' r.=1 u I ' S I Y I no q E u m .m+l i TI se V W 9 f Is ti. O w N i h I Y ' I �. v Y J 4 1 c welton anderson & assodates architects / planners box 9946 /aspen, colorodo 81611/(303) 925 -4576 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN RE: GAARD MOSES APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DATE: 12 April, 1980 Dear Board Members: This application is for a variance from the strict interpreta- ion of the setback requirements in the Conservation Zone as ictated in Section 24 -3.4. When Gaard Moses bought the subject one acre of land and improvements (some of which were originally fining structures) in 1974, it was conforming and zoned R -15. hat area of East Aspen Mountain above the Gant tennis courts as subsequently rezoned Conservation (10 acres minimum lot ize, 100 foot front setback, etc.) without a genuine effort by the City to notify Gaard of the rezoning or its implications. In fact, it is the only house in Aspen in the Conservation Zone. Because of the size and shape of the lot, and its natural topo- graphy, the requirements of the "C" zone effectively eliminate the possibility of any structure on said property. These circumstances, most certainly, are valid reasons for granting a variance, as defined in Section 2 -22 (d)(1) through (4). As mentioned earlier, parts of the site improvements date back to Aspen's earliest mining days. However, in 1955, the then owner, Chuck Bolte, elaborated on the original structure to create a truly bizarre two- bedroom house, which is all at once unsafe, not waterproof, structurally unsound, dangerous in too many respects, and so far from conforming with any zoning or building codes that this architect has bashed his head against the ceiling several times and hesitates to even enter the house. The plans prepared and submitted to the building department for the repairs and new construction show a reduction to a one bed - room house, which is slightly larger, but in all respects in conformance with all current.local and national building codes; !. and retains as roach of the original 1880's construction as is possible. Presently, it is one of all too many non - conforming substandard dangerous "slum" structures in Aspen, which we hope Board of Adjustment, ity of Aspen 121ICCII��April, 1980 Pa e Two to make habitable with your help. Gaard will be happy to pro- vide any assistance and additional information to any Board members wishing to make a sight inspection of the subject property. Please call 925 -9222 to make arrangements. We appreciate your consideration of this application for a variance from setback requirements and a variance from "non - cc forming status." Because of its unique situation in this zo a (primarily Ski Corporation and mining land), and the de ire to upgrade an individual's own home, we feel your con- sideration can only be helpful. Sincerely, C. Welton Anderson, Architect Representing Gaard Moses CWA:fc Enclosures R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Board of Adjustment May 8, 1980 The Aspen Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on May B. 1980, at 4:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Fred Smith, Charles Paterson, Francis Whitaker, John Herz, and Marilyn Beers. Remo Lavagnino was out of town. Also present were Clayton Meyring, City building inspector, and Ron Stock, City Attorney, Fred Smith, vice chairman, acted as chairman in Remo's . absence. Approval of Minutes Francis Whitaker moved that the minutes of March 27, 1980, be approved as presented. Seconded by Charles Paterson; all in favor, motion carried. New Business Case No. 80 -6 Fred Smith read the variance request: "Application is made Gaard Moses for a building permit to build an addition to an existing 800 Aspen Alps Dr. single family dwelling. The proposed addition will have a front yard setback less than the 100 feet required setbac'. and will have a side yard setback less than the 30 feet re- quired. Section 24 -3.4 "C" Conservation Zoning District." The request is permanent. Gaard Moses was present and also being represented by architect Welton Anderson. Gaard gave historical background information and presented photos of the property in question. He stated that the history of the property was important; it dates back to the early mining days of Aspen and was originally an 1883 min- ing claim. The house in question was built by Chuck Bolts in 1955. Gaard purchased the house from Jim Blanning in 1974. Gaard said that during the succeeding two years, there was a continual court battle between the City, Pitkin County and himself as to clear title of the property. He said he did obtain clear .title after deeding 1.3 acres of greenspace to Pitkin County. At the same time, the pro- perty was down -zoned from R -15 to "C" Conservation Zone. He stated that the house is currently without many social, aesthetic, or safety amenities. The building materials used and construction itself are impractical, unsafe, and even rotting. Welton Anderson had submitted a letter veri- fying the condition of the house. However, Gaard said he was living in it. Gaard said that because it is in the "C" Conservation Zone, he is asking for a variance from the 100 'foot setback requirement (including the 30 foot sideyard setback) so as to update and bring up to current safety standards. Down- zoning it to a one - bedroom (currently two), and expanding it to practical "useableness" of 400 square feet are his basic plans. He would also like a variance from its non- conforming status so as not to incur anymore hardship or + practical difficulties on the project at present and in the future. He presented the Board with working drawings of the changes he wanted to make. Gaard said that the hardship was due to the 100 foot set- back requirement in the "C" Conservation Zone; that he could not build anything except on a 45 degree stone ledge which is behind the house. The house is approximately 70 feet from the front property line. He stated that the practical difficulty was that he owned the only two houses in Aspen that are in the "C" Conservation Zone. All the other C -Zone lands are either vacant or ski slope. -z- Fred asked Gaard if he had appeared at the rezoning meet- ing which created the "C" Conservation Zones. Gaard said that he was in litigation for a number of months with the County as to who owned the property, and that eventually, through trading, it was settled to the title company's satisfaction that Gaard owned the property. Continuing, -he stated, "I assume that they didn't know that the resi- dences existed or they assume that they (the County) were the owners, and could do with them as they pleased." The "C" Conservation Zones were created-about the spring of '74. Charles Paterson asked again, "They didn't notify you in writing or otherwise about a hearing (for rezoning) ?" Gaard - "No, not myself, nor Jim Blanning, nor anyone else." Questions were then asked about the second lot structure on the property... Fred asked when it was built. Gaard said that the "foundation has always been there..." Marilyn Beer asked if there was anyone living in the second house. Gaard said yes. Fred asked if the accessor's records in- dicated two houses on the property. Gaard said yes, and presented photos as evidence. i Fred asked why Gaard needed a variance if he was not de- creasing his setbacks? - Clayton Meyring, City building inspector, said that it was non - conforming as far as setback requirements and that anything built on it must meet the requirements. Ron Stock continued by explaining that the property was non- conforming in two respects: first, it was nonconform- ing as to use because there are two units on a piece of property on about one acre of land. In the "C' Zone only one house is allowed on 10 acres and if you have a non - conforming site it limits you to have a single family dwelling. This has two single family houses and is there- fore non - conforming as far as use. There cannot be any reconstruction or expansion. As a non - conforming structure, if it is remodeled, or restructured it must be within the setback requirements. Fred Smith asked what the City's or Planning Office posit- ion was. Sunny Vann, representing the Planning Office said again that it was a non - conforming lot because it has two single family structures and the requirements are for just one. Therefore, he ( Gaard) would not be allowed to expand or reconstruct according to the Municipal Code. That alone should be enough to deny the application itself," in- dicated Sunny. He continued by stating that remodeling can be done within the existing footprints of the building. Therefore, Gaard has an opportunity to remedy some of the structural /safety problems as long as he doesn't expand intc the setbacks. Dates of events were clarified: Gaard purchased the pro- perty in 1974; the 80/40 Greenline was established in 1974; and the "C" Conservation Zone was .established in 1975. According to Gaard, he began remodeling his building shortly after purchasing the property - "probably within a month or two." Clayton said that the remodeling was done without a building permit. A stop work order was issued a couple of years ago for the remodeling (Clayton was unsure of the exact date of this). -3- or r n R n n F C one, F F n I N r S -^e Ron Stock clarified some of the events leading up to the issuance of the Esstoppel. -He stated that the process of litigation had been started to require that the structure be removed; a possible settlement was reached. The case went before P E Z for the 80/40 Greenline review to see if they would accept the settlement. P 0 Zwould not only accept the settlement, but would allow him to complete his full project.. We (the City) were asking that the sec- ond story be removed, or at least a good portion of it. It went before City Council with the recommendation that a good portion of the structure be removed. City Coundil made the decision to allow Gaard to build the entire struc- ture. This was the original, log structure now before this Board. Francis Whitaker then made the comment that the Board should have written record of what the property has been through before they make any decisions. Many things have been said without the record to confirm them; i.e. meetings of last year with City Council and 8 Z. Ron itemized what the Board needed to review and judge this case: 1) rezoning information, 2) aerial photos to show historical development, 3) 80/40 Greenline decision of last summer ('79), 4) City Council action of last summer (179). Ron said that there had been no mention of setbacks when the property went through 80/40 Greenline review and City Council; there had been no mention of it until this variance had been requested. Various question arose from the Board: Fred asked, "Why are there two structures on land zoned for only one struc- ture on 10 acres of land ?" Ron stated that the photo history was not very conclusive, but that aerial surveys were kept in the Engineering office. They show size and footprints of various structures in the City at various times. Fred then asked, "If there is a building - which is unoccupied - what is required to convert it to a residence: Also he asked, "Do you think there are two Certificates of Occupancy, or one that is a mining era continuing residence and the other a Certificate of Occupancy issued by City Council ?" Clayton said that there was only one Certificate of Occupancy; the other house he was not sure. Ron then mentioned that there were actually three structure Gaard said that the third structure is linked to the log house (the one involved in the variance request). Ron continued stating that the third structure (garage witt a studio above) is what was in contention last summer with P 8 Z and City Council. Fred requested that the minutes of that City Council meeting in 1979 be available for the Board to review. Marilyn commented that according to the date on the plans submitted to the Board (November 22., 1979 - date of plans), and the approximate date of the City Council's approval... these were not the plans submitted to the Council when they granted permission for continuing the project. Fred asked if they had the current survey? Gaard said, "I think both of those are correct, the survey you see is a stamped and proven survey." Francis said that one of the surveys was dated June 14, 1979. w, aro Gaard. then said, "I was told to submit plans for this part, this part was not in contention at that time (he referred to the surveys). I had to step pretty quickly; Welton had to step quickly too, to get those plans done. At that time, and before I went into Council, I was told by a member of the Building Department that what I should do is have all the plans together and do the whole thing as a packet. Well, time didn't permit and time ran out. Shortly thereafter, I left the country. When I got back, the plans were done. I think the original plans were done in September." Ron said that it was not known why City Council granted the approval; it was over the objection of the City staff. The staff was asking that there be criminal prosecution for construction without a building permit. The structure al- ready had the building envelope and all that was left was the interior finish work by the time it reached City Council. He suggested a few reasons that it was granted: because of Gaard's good reputation among the Council, per- haps because the penalty being asked was too great or that .it would cost too much. The decision frustrated the staff. Fred opened the discussion to the public. Jerry Hewey, man- ager of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, first asked about the notification process of surrounding property own- ers in the case of the City Council's review of the case. This was clarified by Ron. Then Mr. Hewey said that he had thought that the newer structure (the studio /garage) was not going to be a residence. Gaard said that he was using it as a studio /garage and living in it. Because City Council passed a home occupa- tion use, this meant that the structure must be joined to and have access to the main house. The studio /garage is part of the house subject to the variance. Mr. Hewey said he also had an interest in the case because of the road leading to the house. It is owned by Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bornefeld (sp ?). The Aspen Alsps and Mr. Moses have easement rights to use the road; this based on a single family residence so that it doesn't become too congested. Fred as Mr. Hewey, "You thought there was one house and a studio? But there is, in face, two houses and a studio connected to one of the houses." Gaard answered yes, there are two houses, one of which incorporates a studio. Concerning the road, Gaard stated that he also has access by way of a back road which is an old railroad right -of- way. It was not determined who owns the road because it goes through many different properties.. Francis wanted to postpone the case to a date certain. Charles Paterson made the motion to 'postpone the case bear- ing until June 26, 1980. Motion was seconded by Francis who added that all information from the City be included. Marilyn asked that Gaard also prepare a written history. All members in favor; motion to table the case to a later date carried. Acting Chairman Smith read the variance request: To divide nine (9) City lots into two parcels; a two (2) lot parcel and a seven (7) lot parcel. The two lot parcel would have the following non- conformaties: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Mee ing Aspen Board of Adjustment: July to 19mu The Aspen B and of Adjustment hbld -la regular meeting on July 10 1980 at 4:00 PM in the C.ty Council Chambers. Members present were Remo Lavagnino, Charles Patterson, red Smith, Francis Whitaker, Josephine Mann, John Herz and Marilyn Beer. Also present were City Building Inspector Clayton Meyring and City Attorney Ro Stock. APPROVAL Ot MINUTES.! Minutes of June 26, 1980 were presented. Josephine Mann moved that the 3rd paragraph on page 4 begin- ning "A property owner ..." be corrected to include the name of the property owner, who was Mary Luhnow. Remo Lavagnino suggested that the 2nd paragraph on page 5 should have said July 1, 1980 instead of July 2, 1980. Francis Whitaker moved that the minutes be approved as corrected; seconded by Mann. All in favor, minutes approved as corrected. OLD BUSINESSJS ' Case No. 8� -6 Gaard Moses stated that one of the problems concern - Gaard Mo. - ing his case was that the Board wasnted a more con - Aspen Alps Drive cise history on the buildings in question.. He said he went back as far as 1957 to the tax records which he quoted from and described. He thought there were questions as to what . the improvements were and when - they were made.. Moses said he bought the property in 1974 and at that time it was in the County and was to remain there for another year. He then pre- sented a handwritten note from Jim Blanning which . confirmed two habitations from 1970 to 1974. He als had a statement from Warren Conner, Deputy County Assessor. Moses stated he believed that one of the 'questions involved stemmed from the fact he was in the C conservation zone and not R -15 which was the zoning before he was placed in C. He was downzoned in 1975 when his property was annexed to the City. He thought he was before the Board at this meeting because of the setbacks required in the C conser- vation zone. Moses then presented a note from Bill Kane, Aspen /Pitkin County Director of Palnning. Another statement from Kane said the North of Nell building was also zoned C conservation but the owner complained and it was upgraded to what it is new - SPA. Moses also presented photographs of where the second kitchen had been when the site was inspected. He said Clayton Meyring had been there the day of the meeting to take a look at the•site of the photo- , graphs. Chairman Lavagnino said he would like copie ofthe pictures to remain a part of the record. At this point, the tape went blank. Discussed was Moses past building ventures, such as when he built on without having been issued a building permit. Alhtough several members of the Board could see whet there was hardship.and practical difficulty, they did not think the application should be granted. Moses decided to withdraw his application and there was discussion as to whether this was allowed. Ron Stock said it was allowable, but Moses changed his mind. Francis Whitaker made a motion to deny Moses his application; Charles Patterson seconded the motion. All in favor; application denied. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1 -11 Francis Whitaker excused himself because of a con - The Forge partnership flict of interest. The man who presented the case 300 F. Hymen went through a short history of what they have done to get their application. Ile 'said they went thrown A E!pNIT7 --}}�I--77}}on THE UNDERSIGNED 0—E.5 HEREBY F.ERT+FV THAT THiS Y ! 4URVEY WAS FIELD SURYEYEG JU1.E,1979 ON THE GROlm THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREON,AND IS CORRECT l' + t «I 'BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE SHOWN ON THIS PLAT : -A6 FOUN r `, THAT THERE .ARE. NO DISCREFANCIES, CONFLICTS,•SHORI BOUNDARY LINE CONF_!:TS, ENCROACHMEAlTSftlVER�:If >. { li I (°ts�i "IMPROV[MENTS, EASE VIe ?p. ItlG1175 of WAY IN FIELD EYIU� PI X;': DR- KNOWN TO ME1 EXCEPT A H REOti . HDVVN. UND"aROUN0 H1'iUT,,ITIE4 WITH NO V158LE AH N� '.NOUr10 VALVE BO XES OR MANHOLE+?;, _.1° 1 p cw I ND DOCUMENTS OF R °CORE +' bUPPLIED 'T'? YHF SURVEYOR A EXPECTED. §� t" SI&NED DAVID W.'MC BRIOC _...... i 1jf,ppjgyk ERED GOLOAADO At1D SURVEYOR # 16{29 r F �^tl +'2tl Y OYERHM yy6 DEC)(:.. F� P'i r p ', f. (1 M'ti Nil i AFi d �DEL;K I'9 ;'OVERHANG OLD 555$VED- PARTIAL ,,c on ``96 OVER HANG let � 1 EC r NM' d4,.1�. � "d:@ OL'ERHA�IN � r. • � - . rr :: ., *t.. 0 1_. BASEMENT jq i P. A v I N , , i , STORY . d L r , i WOOD 0) n I FRAME 1 O OVE'RHAN4 /' +� ee Ot 1, 9.4 i' r, JS' OVERHANG o 10 j 11 wY:} 1 �$ M1 F li 1 SHOT ^;h kq fF t.1 uti pi Pt AJ "r zl May 12, 1980 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: It was not for the intention of restriction of upgrading or reconstruction of existing residences (if in fact any were known at the time) that the "C" Conservation zone was passed In April, 1975. Signed, ill Kane Aspen /Pitkin County Director of Planning y 1/ II , GAARD'S GRAPHICS j Box ?588 j Aspen, Colo. 81611 r t i pn -'mn coy -xj oTlw 506 east main street aspen, colorado 81611 May 10, 1980 To Whom It May Concern: From Assessment information in the Pitkin County Assessors office and from my own personal knowledge as Deputy County Assessor, I will state that there were two separate residences on what is now known as the Gaard Moses property, situate on a portion of the Little Nell Mining Claim, U.S.M.S. # 1830, R.F. Mining District also known as 800 Aspen Alps Drive, since the January 1, 1975 assessment. Those structures which were in place at that time, even though one has been added to, are both �n place at this date. pectful y submitte W rre J. Conner Deputy County Assessor Court House Aspen, Colorado .,r ... i` n i V GAARD'S GRAPHICS Box ?388 Aspen, Colo. 81611 clf57 # !qo � ' t, " IM��n�t5 ©fJ � �4►c.�o,9p C��-�c r° AsP, 6a -1 co2� VALvc # qvo T-AV'lriD IJ) k'jti M ITG 1�Z - YLIIIFt�I� TAX s4i-(Feac ' • la o CHAS, r3cti`r� box .33(J I9 '71 uOriei -. -rO -PAUL S(F1WC1J lu 1pi5- l5rL cUG vu'O f�011APEFFZ J ,f,Yca Ass mil✓ /c_M•T �2)2_Z iAK i. 19�u C sc �DTlcly �Nawwc- To M(Pcr" � 800 a-') V4_ ATtvm SLmps -ro �¢ U�lo TAy X311 z� i ! PAID 8V G, Mv5t-s AP2 /F 1 7,5- I4 � Pt22LP()5. 94cw 1NsSeA5NlL--tr Or--,&6a5-t) 4�4GP-E w Fac w&WIM `i� 7tct '(CTl�LTQ1C �Q11� � � Z. saber -- - !u veY +a.•r- i,�,i1N301Sdt1— UL1l1Jna 1JVJ 11V.�bY�J V,IuZIa \, i t s. F I I e' �1 "-/ '0 l' N'9l1 111101 0000 % 0315nrOtl % Lif %001 i 1N3W15nr00 AlI1vn0 lvlol C 1v01NaNO3W B S33 1144V 1x10 '1!K a at \I v;S'xq: I al'l vasuJ! alr`< L pN. C ��f K -.Nac a _1 >••X »O xel•wa3 100) wmxalw9p Iweyaunf 1301 .uq .ry OaM•mbi;C ;A 0000 % 031SOrOtl u ^"3 N1NUt .1 -IN IIeM'Iaw3n M8 {t w - ih3X -i peM % 1 IpN _ NInB , Apt IpY IC0) - atl X t901 paPWU i 3JNVIbOn13N tool RO.....ubl tool ,W,gal RC wneR Ieal f SM311 83H10 a 19Q1 p ry M _ a +w_]x1 x.oN ^,!3:.f _ anlGq ,..m,n —^, fl l I4aM od'9r +q' ^- H IaN^p xi WletJ•f•6 � Iry p f r ONIl00]F ONIItldvw. N [ q7K: pi:: 'Jtll! F SbOJIa;' __ ._-_ -, ig a 1 P " <Id L..93. 0U. i (96: gl,pauab ,NA IQ01 1 30 <av0 .p 01 ^e , A 1001 IQ Rx W^Y ^enl Yeuro (Vol 1 j It 1 If81 A d aVO 61 fL 61 INIewGY term- N011V103tld3U 1N3N1SnrDv ! lV^IIMrL'ta le mil ryl AlilvnD w a re' f IN '1A S 'o13'S3HOaOd o Zl a lwvl a:'.'r +'�.% •:J?/ •i'9.^ a IS S t Y eaa +f lu d s.0000. N Tr +l r 1 n 3uT a M M neG /n m 1 r + cna aa.,ae n t.; • =:a. -': r.l +• t .p` ^ "?!� J � 1 i 3 I G y - !: 9Nib BlfCe! +.' )i eeK na»ue] S511VW3tl SW311 a3N10 1v101 'Iptl emmuf _ ' SI taetl aaoN /'u1T'N 3 I I:W1 S1M13141SnrOtl tlVll00 Qs` _ / `•.) Ya, + ./ t }�' =-IJ% nu,N» Mu6 yvA 0 6 1V91NVH33W 9 S33NVIlddv 1 Spy 11v101 (30 1 :,� <.� .:.! ",LS- »elw,l! tl 'NOa 153 S1. Ull a3H. n 9 o I i 1N3"3"1 039SINt! fIY nv).. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .... . .. .... .. . . . . ... ..... .. . .. .... .. ......... ... ....... ... . . • . . . . ' . . .. ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... " ... ... . " ....... ... ....... ... .... ....... - ,�^ .�f. ••i ... • . ... • . .... ... .. • .... .. ....... . .. ... .. � .. .. , • ' �' . .. .r. ::: ..::..:�.....: .. • ..... .. .. sf'-.. ..... V:. �� \LLL ` • ..... • .. `. • ZY .... - _� • : _ ..... .... . ..... ......... ... .: d� 8150D •% .� " . • . - g .. .$ . ...... ..... ,t .. - . ....... . • I'F .. .. .. O'r- .. •,.�,• oClaa iYl.eeM ! ,, pa S N I tl Yua ennf 2 0 7 $ 1509 3SVe C315nrov YIeB In o _ 1! m 1bNwf /WT'.': % :% 1N3WSSnrDv kitivnO VPg canny f 0 1 • = —c6v 1• -1>n'. —SGt M _ XQ/r2n.:e 9 -a'Q.. $'. S'. 1509 3558 1v101 ONIe Wnld 111 I $;0 t'101 1081 _ : Z 9,T •lewab'.ueal,l +. ry wM16 ! a9 3 - i ('NIl NO11W58 lviltlad fl 21 a lbvl n!n! -ritl 'r. >I'r. >IeL uaaan an.,•n rumen 1^.wq r -� e» ^:S '•i ] wa r�TYS,o 11110, 1081 '0e 9 a�a»n''r i ...a 1 BB'M ;d31 %3b am a p n, 1_w +�RI>^W�'O ,ns a a f a•,''3 9 I]Ii :tl -N I AIA001S J1VH f1.F Ilrtll .n' .IL $1, ` In IBSI ua 0 P. 61 1509 61 11Nn 1tl01NVX03W "ON VA 539NVndar ONV IS' 939NVI14de quAMP NO1ICOKlIOi 113 , Y 3ACeV ONtl 11001,1 ON0335 V3tltl'NIl 1dM IN 711 NV. ( +ao[_;'�IV ❑rl ❑! ❑n �l�laM 30t6»awtl 1..;-..' -flu 31vbp lOr1 _J'f GYNId fOOY bCVdrJ UY. 1-160a'vaill f�f Glw lSbu 3AO9r IOV1 _alp ❑ ❑ - N la a ^! iN3a35f91 R1 Z, ❑n ab01S aSnl !Q V: 530aa:+b3,1 311 31ev1 SSC) 14101 feel' �!C3!ltlNld .O 1 _ -- 103aV - D .• 0 m 1d N]a ^+3115 L•Ji! 1 +101 1 _.- tl311v'Nid 1!13iY 35VB_ V3tiv' NIA 1Sall -340FV V3HV'NI1 NOOld 15111! 5N1Ptl (OM SW_OOa03a ( --I SWDCH IDtlI NV3A 0315: H'0V - — lllllE H>'.A - — N0153C 4601 CTNIIr111r1O a i � ................. - - ... ..:.. .:.. .. ....... .. .. _ ..... ...... .. .. .... ... .. ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' . .. ... .. .....'. : . .... • ... ' . ' . .. ' . .... .. —t -- iiai6 • "�., .� • .N UAPO IMtl) ' :As 03TIrN3dV14v: y % r ✓/ • i. i i 11001,1 1SHItl 61; 61 :Ra 0•Nalub lAVI :AO Dawdwo0 -- '" a �r /1 •ory 3dA1 i�Y)' saber -- - !u veY +a.•r- i,�,i1N301Sdt1— UL1l1Jna 1JVJ 11V.�bY�J V,IuZIa \, i t s. F I I e' �1 I I I.AC)CITY NO. JOAO) SUN, NO. (CAAI PROPERTY ADDRESS IRpu (" I OWNERS NAME STREET ADC 2 49b1 1 R NIDSES, GAARD HOPKINS P u b0X 2388 ASPEN, CULORADU RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL RECORD IAAI PARCEL NO __— IAS) SCHEDULE IDAEI CENSUS N0. (CAD) CITY B STATE Z 8161 (DAG) PLAN DIST. (CAB) ZIP CODE INAI SNAF) MA TR MMK PAGE F ;' - ` <_ e l • r I _ s. LAND ATTRIBUTES APPRAISER'S INTERVIEW AND VALUE ESTIMATE .INCOME APPROACH SUBJECT PROPERTY IWAAI 01TF (W48 APPRAISER CONFIRMED SFLE (RICE (IAA) «[UPANCY PYxE T[x4xT ISABI MONTHLY RE UPC NIrNIMRD NFlMxNX[o IA01 EST. ECONDNIC pENTIUxNF IWAE) ESL PflOPEMY VALUE DATE 4ROSS:dT yVLTUJER ECOxONIC R_NT DATA REFERENCE )ND.CATED r VILIJE (9LH)20NING_ WAAIUSE__ P(Tr IMPROVEMENTS :3a Paved Slnee 3B J Srr°e+ '8.'. Un.mprprN :50'SO... -3E Cu•e d G11141 (JAS) LAND CUSS LAND VALUE CALCULATION APPROACH USED (CORRELATION) FOR ACTUAL VALUE DETERMINATION DATE K DDF (CAD) SIZE SASE UNIT ADJUSTMENT FACTORS SASE UNIT VALVE TOTAL LANG VALUE dF'SVeer LiSma (WIN) DATE IWBBI APPROACH USED IWyF) ACTUAL VALUE LAND /IMPS. ERMC RAT10 CETERV;NEO BT N[[ MOpL LKeTI. T. A prr10SR[ 35 An.Y UTILITIES JCA Prm'c'xa+ar Al A, 'il $$, FAO ' :C2' or W 'C[; 0.0+2 Suer :CC Sepr2 STprem I CE. Ncrural Gat - COST APPROACH + ?Ertax2 ^I DATE TOTAL RC.N.L.D. �i i r COST FACTORS ADJUSTED RC.MLD. - ADD LAND 0000 IX DILATED VALUE %GOO ACTUAL VALUE ASSESSED VALVE I A IGABI (Fa8 TOTAL LAND IMPS. TOTAL ' EATERED TGR LAND IMPS. By TOPOGRAPHY JOA1 Level AREA x TINE %'r' x J ^B' F. x yr 19 %� Sere °SLb O. 1' • , T' ' Jtt. Suer r �n E smaaa x x !4L. 19 Soo . 0 4�v .CF P.rlp MARKET APPROACH ICOM) 19 . '' �'•r} ] `.� .r /"' +� i L1=� JeG Rccl "' "4 Wp1I PSMAPE SALES REFERENCE DAY[ OI SAL[ IRE. RN:E IKD DNLtl TIME ADA LOCATION A" HARACTER sms Awy.TNENTM INDICATED VALUE y C. IB J4. rep•e.eme+ ne JES Yrrauar ,JrL .y JECi Cur -Oe -Sec EY Grroe REvieWEG JEE: H m / ,r • /� °' JEF1 Non -SL Front I P.egulcr M etiug _ sp +c I.ty Con cil June 25, 1979 MOBILE Hop- f•P_R% REGULATIONS Stock sut itted to council the cirre.t mobile ho + code and state health standards, which Mobile here par <V x minimum standc.d- These ply -lad's the City's Code is ;nor, restrictive; in most mgulations case., the C ty's Lode 1S not rtore r strictl.ve Stock told Council the County has hired a onsultint to help them write a mobile home code, which was also submitted to Council. Stock r,quc -ted authority to prepare a doc,mcnt modeled on the County proposal to be brouch back or consideration. Mayor Ede] said he found the County ordinance terribly restrictive Jolene Vrciata, planning office, told Council there are three sets of regulations for park ovncrs. Th, first set of standards is to be at in the first year, and these are the least restrictive. The second set is to be met within 5 years to bring them slightly above minimum health and safety standards, and does include some aesthetic standards. The third set of standards, which includes the density of 4 units per acre, is strictly for expansion and new mobile home parks. Councilman I::aac moved to have Stock draft an ordinance and come back to Council with it; Seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Gaard Moses settlement @d. 41, 1979 Cable TV theft GAAAD MOSES SETTLEMENT Stock explained the situation in his memorandum. The house is just east of the Aspen Alps. The property currently has two Single family dwellings and a pump house, it is in the conservation district. The property is one acre in size, and under zoning it would allow for one s.irgle family house. This property is considered to be a non - conforming use, and consider the two units to be legal. He could not currently build them now. Stock told Council Moses began construction of an addition in 1977, which is a garage in lower level, and second level an art studio. Moses did this without getting a building permit and without obtaining 8040 greenline review. The building inspector put a stop work order on the property; Moses has been working with the City on how to solve this problem. Stock said he would recommend the ripping down of the structure, if he had gone to Court. The negotiated settlement is to Obtain 8040 greenline review; which Moses has obtained from P 6 Z. Secondly, to obtain building permits at double rates. Third, the City's Code would not allow a home occupation to have a total area greater than 1/2 of the first floor area of the principle dwelling. Stock told Council the area for the home occupation is too great by almost 1/3. Stock has asked that Moses be required to rip out that 1 /3. Moses presented an alternative to P a Z of changing that area into employee housing. Stock objected because if you have the right to 1 unit and go to 3, it would require rezoning. Stock said another alternative would be a cash payment of some type. Stock stated he would rather have some portion of the structure removed to meet with Code requirements. _ Moses outlined the three points; ll) removal; (2) retain approximately 400 feet, which would be ripped out, and put employee housing into it, and (3) because the house has bsen expanded at least twice before 1973, in the interest of simplification, let the lower level of the new structure become part of the house and contribute to FAR of the house. It would be larger than twice the area of the art studio then. Stock said what he felt was important in his solution is not so much whether he rips down the structure, but to create an indication to the public that they cannot avoid the City's rules and regulations, that they will be enforced. The City has got to become more restrictive in their enforcement. Stock said he was totally against trying to obtain rezoning to allow a density Of three units. Councilman Parry said he felt it would be better to increase the projection room and let the other part remain the way it is. Councilman Parry said he could not see tearing down the structure. Councilwoman Michael Stated this is a case of how important the Council feels their rules are. There was a reason to set 8040 greenline against the mountain, and to have reviews for building. Councilman Isaac agreed he did not feel Moses' house was an appropriate place to put employee housing. Councilman Isaac ^•aid he felt Moses should pay double building permit fees and make the corrections in the projection room so that the FAR complies with home occupation. Councilman Collins stated he would be inclined to follow the recommendations of the City Attorney. Mayor Idol said he couldn't see the house being ripped down; it is nicely done. Mayor Edel said he would like to get Moses go after rezoning. Mayor Edel said although he would not like to have Moses rip down 1/3 of his house there are laws and statutes. Stock suggested the alternative of Moses accepting criminal charges and allowing the Court to impose the penalty. Councilwoman Michael said the Council is abrogating their responsibili by sending Moses to Court. Councilman Parry noted this has gone on for two years. He would like Moses to be right as far as the building permit. Councilman Parry moved to let the lower level become part of the house so that the FAR is right,. and Moses pay double building permits; seconded by Councilman Isaac. CouncilmemberE Parry, Isaac, and Mayor Edel in favor; Council members Michael and Collins opposed. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 641, SERIES OF 1979 - Cable Television Theft Stock told Council there is a provision in the Code currently that says it is illegal to steal cable television, and the City has been asked on numerous occasions to enforce that ordinance. The City has no way to enforce the ordinance. The ordinance has been redrafted making it clear this is a theft. If a person has illegal cable, Canyon Cable will photo it, disconnect it and leave a note telling the people they are not paying for cable. They will reinspect in two weeks; if it has been reconnected, Canyon Cable can come in and sign a complaint and take the people to Court. Councilman Isaac asked why the City should get involved. Stock told Council this is not an unusual request from cable companies. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance 641, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING Case No. 80 -6 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PR PERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended„ a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state - yoir views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or :deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date: Me �J 8, 1980 Time: 4 M City Council Chambers Name: Ga rd Moses Address: Box 21, Aspen, CO 81611 Location 800 Aspen Alps Drive Description: MS 3881 Variance Requested- Application is made for a building permit to build an addition to an existing one family dwelling. The proposed addition will have a f ont yard setback less than the 100 foot required setback and will have a s'de yard less than the 30 foot required setback. Sec. 24- 3.4 "C" Conserva ion Zoning District. Durationlof !#iance: (Please cross out one) Permanent x Will .not !be represented by counsel THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT By Remo Lavagnino, Chairman by Susan Johnson, Deputy City Clerk Ra'a'or ed ._ ......... M No_.......... .... _�_..___- _._..� Tills INDENTUµE, Made this 6th GAARD HOFK_llILV_S MOSES day of June .19 74 , between whose address is I Post Office Box 2388, Aspen, Colorado , part y of th first part, and the Public Treated of County of Pitkin In the State of Col ado, party of the second part, Witnesseth: THAT, WHEE-S, The said GAARD HOPKINS MOSES he s areated his promissory note bearing even date herewith, for the principal Born of Fifteen Thous nd ---------------------------------------------------- Dollars, payable to the orde of JAMES C. BUNNING, JR. whose address III Post Office Box 33, Aspen, Colorado 816H after the date hereof, svl{ll- :necrea�lhelava {lam- Nn- dste-tl+ereef attlm- nerrrot - -- -------- payabto In accordance with that Agreement of even date h rewith by and between GAARD HOPKINS MOSES and JAMES C. BUNNING, JR M AND WHER . The said part y of the first pert is desirous of succoring payment of the principal and Idde•,lat of said promissory note in whose hands soever the mid note or any of them may be. NOW, THERE ORE, 1Ts said party of the first part, in consideration of the premises and for the purpose afot'eeaid, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey onto the said party of the second part in trust forcer, the foilow'vlg deer Al property, situate in the County of Pitkin State of Colorado, to wit; A tract of land situated in Sec. 18 T10S R84W 6PM being described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on line 4 -5 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM "Little Nell" being S43028' 4 "W 70.00 ft. from corner No. 4 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM "Little Nell" l No. 5 re -rod in place); THENCE 543028 -44W 136.76 ft. along line 4 -5 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM "Little Nell" to corner No. 5 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM; THENCE S45036 -W 197.73 ft, along line 5 -1 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM to the - omgromise line with the "Millionaire" (Mineral Survey No. 3620 AM); THENC S14 30'W 397.85 ft. along the compromise line to a point of intersection w th line 1 -2 Mineral Survey No. 3881 AM 5 line 4 -1 Mineral Survey No. 1830 "Cha ce "; THENCE N450 00' E 672.80 ft. along line 1 -4 Mineral Survey No. 18 0 "Chance "; THENCE N43o46'W 203.47 ft. to the point of beginning,con afning 2.324 acres more or less. M Rk" AND DDf.D the amens, tMthm With all W dnmdq the pnaeses and hpeattonhpee Ih r.eoL Wevelvel fa 'fart N.retal.m. TFm} b of da.. t ID the p.,.t of said nap er col a them, m arcs pest W.I. m L the crmmt a ft. Intoned same.. semrdlns a W toner and effect of mold nele _ and of Went' he In Ws p.smat .r arse Drtee _mca!LncT_ vebdal °. xM with the Bald pa of lM1 d D rt Who awl opens raO,Vt of such notice of tlmtiov and demand far Wa oars • cape of ssa saw... a. ft sail and disease a to five (m muncceeor V eanuous Ian Ny as tie said It Ihall made Nmk bn't),j, "Led all the rpelent tiW sad In- Lent of cold Darty of the. not peat. alts an mow thaea, at gWhW awt oo at elm fcwt door of to ensues Dm.... In the counts at Pitkin . athb rat W.hedn, .r as said premie®, m Iq pert We.anf he mar In machine W th. aW.We of said • e. lot the highest and brut peke W. ems will btL. Is, ooh. fw, want p-hi's nolire herine ban Vanicall I— of th. Uses and elect of c th COIL a "vehement wcehb. In some eewspaper of fsaeM ni,cWutkn of chat time VAN"ad In said om of Pitkin .. sage a ,rhw malan soon a—Use .I... tan don from the alas H W nest wNimtnce Wmwl N, the ,n - . ... ... .... ............__. _. wemua Woos w m. aw.q >arq omd aulLeLlm rhea some er D<rwsa mUUa b meth dce0. a eraatce, she a pnpertr Dan u title. inleml, pensect • d so. of n emplion of thr oast y or tl.e flnl pmA his helm one onlan. th<nln, and ,hall .: :. I).'. ram. or u [ r wldeh the ..I,l pmartY was ,eld and he refer to the pewm of sale 0". naaieeA, and ho the sale or com rude a tllve thnrof and ID of an hashuc rat of such e.ri fioC: or Ifinb -of purrhu., or to of We sniemptloe of .uch Mnwrq, by mbtV t eneumbr....r. run -.lanment r redemytion shall has a refencl a 1" such are o deed.: but lh. actin of 4 need mot he rut on; o sura died a cnn'nnd U.s aid PYNI. TmWas $hall, out of We Pmnsade or so:Y offe nsu�th��o�ak, Sas floc peel., Dad netolnlaf, JI Liu, h.qo anal waV of mohle sale ale, rap a We hmnfkl.q kivmale car the 1,,,al h4&CWN COW TREA5URE WW,sl end I.W.t le, om said awto ,WA,,Aa to We Yam end effect thawof, and all monm Idea tlrh efk at bhn of old onto fee Lrmnnu. Lan and eagcnwY. nIN I.Cmt tlh, m a' f D e. .:a, h u,, ale e a a:.:.a _'J of Un fL.t pet l.aat u• urrveY Urn el .11as..66; oLMtpy 16 m� chid, m Ind -.l be If nrctwal ar. aid ID too had w"ly, $ial.ut tie $ald pnn of Ws (Ind pate 1'1�"uf( 1 dud D., an, r d d: Wryre Ders.me IelminR the .nldVnperp =o see prt lM r W. Ymn, +hewers node — �� –jh1_r � or We fin ghee ) Of We.n.tI{I.y Fabler orrhol.len l r IJ a nc ee mn> Dunn a .. Id ynq•ert�Y oe anY yore n.rlwr dad Igi'It'jale �.d seen Vas yunhaw., m urW,nm e1 ace e'ch sale he .n he I'.tamialka of We Poach IWIYp- that IM arty 14e first $sat his Win, m smlvn.. rill car W. u'.mnsa lh.nt. WtAWADO 81611 Ne.311 -A, pRan Up'(nllay –PaN4 Trta...– naeLeel pu$a– alY.ur1 r+va. – ❑ndf...d 1'cU'e.e.ai• :n, t2:biJ Jt -ant f /set IHO.n, Calnrade -e-RS P,g-Trltf :' A.� W. wa pee Y _ ar W.,. .forme, br hlmse) f ..c far his A ' heln.`�.an .N ad.Wlebrttm., s' .awe. t S aea narsa If t f am lb. mid MAT at W ..Fa.a pn.t. Wet .t W. pr W e°eeelW / //e et es' d.1b.n nr Uw psmen he is WI ruled or W cold land End aaro.Efa 1. fora temple. end has pod debt. ell nor .N malum • t wNCrl W .net. W nelo..eU and mn.n We wn. la WE mua, end form u of. —.W: henbl full, ad usual uu11 =no red nlesalnp an rW to and elaio he my bed. In m to nMl Wawa Wnemun., End trouser sa . Homestead C,.mntlan,.e other an Em"ne, al, ad by ... of Syr .et of We G ... nl A•.emW, ac IL. hat. r G,lan.m. now Inw or .hoW mr Wedw be pwnd W mission WEc W sad War rhe ssa we 1w and .Iw of el 11m1 and cal—se wu.WVaF .. IE 'wd it ab.. bulled pr°maey. he W neld pd,petmbl. ocowelm. d W asW .party d W awned M•k her wawdre and wlp.p melee At W wren 1r.rSau ar mawm leNole e1tWl°a a, M del. We *hod. or any pen nh.oL W mid man Y. d W fed part shall . 41 1 We.%and raw. Ddnd. .. A best dude. W. ueUouanco of said Imbdom tow o En1 mot there. We said van d W Mt part wW Ir do creme our be budWp that my attdao. tim.pbe m sold Its'., loured "Elect Iw by Dr. a6thu.wedd barom ma near an an con nedemnemenb se he Ends monW l, .1 wI . W. holder et sae vmW my, form time to time dhc.r. for soh tome ar ... sa EnW awma.y at remmalm will town far. ad W..ned W unouat of us' IvdabWenb. mesa, .t W ylW d sae MnY of W first poet. NW lam. R ay, pnbe m W brew naboo, hemoadn..n. his Ivtewe may an., sad "I &W., W malls of plielr d Imwww W W bandeau beoedn. o fare w°ee far We ldebtdno afc w.ld. And In cone d W falls. of sald tort Y d W Ml maw a Way Won .ad "],or We pollee of Insuyaae.. el, b any rush W.. or ..msm.W se amaEnan do. or W Immune due on an1 pre nwmbnnear, fi any, We W homes d EEW sae , or any o/ W., now peaeun .vW Iwnara: or pt, male town y ..to or o.at due ep° prior tenembne.n. If an, not all moon Woo m,bb 1IW (newt Wewe et no w Wm per ...a.. hall Wmom .o W additional l.d.hldnw, d re fine this Dart oaf Tar redf Wall be said. Out 01ItWE of c Win at WE nl.d I W mee�e afanuld It net oWrrW me" by oW mart and AND MAT IN CA11N or ANY D6rADLT, WhwW We eye of increasers aeean Wwader, W rearre mars' of W .ens' maw or W bp7dn d said oe or weltWa d Wrwhu4 .ball d nee Mmm. mUUd a the owerelan, w .N miymmt of lid Demmer, afore Wt. 1s' to W rc.u, twee end profits thereof, from We ammlm of such right and doers the tendency d towlaeun procession and the facial d r.dmpllaa. Nay Wro W t mad .uW vwnem .bW toe ... he d.11yetd in We sae me, of answered a.r, or We solder of ..id pee an certificate of purchase an rwmrt, sad can rdsa.L W deUeen of suss p°conslm my he mend W W reld part, of the coma d par, W elder d m,, ear n sanUW W at poehw W anY upproprWM eMl .ds ar pare r. toad W rata pact, of W sawed pun, . W day of said amp or wiffkaa of v°yrbsam y ant Wnedi, Wall Im mtltld to a nweer for Wd'roman'. and of W W. YSw as' rraDW Wrosub after such dr .Wt. Ineodiap tj. U.e awed W fawbsun era sdiv. ad W plod d rdmali°n, If et, Wem U, a bell M Entitled Woman an . matter d West 11Waut nerd W W lean. a in honey of We man j1 f W first porn or of the Was n of mid V,cmads' ad without rind W We olue Warred. and .uW Reeelwn y W m�dd by my came of beat Joe", came an as. Eradication and Itlmut °nlea —eeUn bdf bents a pod/ valved—and all W. Wun red profits. lam wed mow. tMnfew .hall Im noticed W Such Dees.. W W pyw°t of the Indchdures hens, wumd, umrdiq W l,1 End the andim ad directions of We ours TWe In two d thistle he say d old pym..W Of pnnelmal or inewt. .w,,im W We Us. End Effect d .W pramWmn aom of d ar any of them, m may re Wwf, m or • each an r r,,m d tart' d We wean.. or sursmem s Wale. W W mart 1r of tint pan ecwWn, dmininnan m Igm, we a Iv Wt a the ent. of .aid prmsi,ol hemby V ruptdKttbada ante mttM menm°°m ethnea than ie.nlam.' Meet ... wi�Wlend! gout htbedd sawarm, End cast u became canna °se he mad ev the a the Try, ..n aarod. l, of the .. of deers by. 1. In the nmanWim at old fowl consoc atto sys'm I" "boll m Ward by WE by WE mutt9 p of We Of ame a auN Grnlacconn p dramadl °0. wn he ode WnuYh W woueW the, W d IES i WRTH :Deprri". .wd pat Y d W Mt pet W s hew.W w his hand anal ,N i - $KIIy51Tvi6SE� tesAw WII 41111111, .. .. .. - - .. a ___ —__ — ---- — _________.__-- _— __— _1116AL1 :1 ... .�. 1'h'A1W Dnc .t, at —PD0. t kn -r day, at-- e I ur — Mossaems. My �1-. BOUNTY TREASURER WW�Ly APR 16'1980 TKIN COUMYV 81 NOME COLORADO 81611 �IW C•t y .. O aW w0 0 W W A . w7 r. Wile. -- -••- 6th . -- -- hp—_, W_— _.ikrpisils D.W. Stickv6v- X Name, rebus. i i ,d w ip . to z 9 i I o ' n : I u OMO 4 : i ti i A i M v o z q ti E i i ,d w a adchitects / plamers b6 9946 /aspen, colorado 81611/(303) 925-4576 T BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN R GAARD MOSES APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 12 April, 1980 Board Members: its application is for a variance from the strict interpreta- ion of the setback requirements in the Conservation Zone as ictated in Section 24 -3.4. When Gaard Moses bought the subject ne acre of land and improvements (some of which were originally ining structures) in 1974, it was conforming and zoned R -15. hat area of East Aspen Mountain above the Gant tennis courts as subsequently rezoned Conservation (10 acres minimum lot ize, 100 foot front setback, etc.) without a genuine effort y the City to notify Gaard of the rezoning or its implications. n fact, it is the only house in Aspen in the Conservation Zone. ecause of the size and shape of the lot, and its natural topo- raphy, the requirements of the "C" zone effectively eliminate he possibility of any structure on said property. These ircumstances, most certainly, are valid reasons for granting a ariance, as defined in Section 2 -22 (d)(1) through (4). ,s mentioned earlier, parts of the site improvements date back :o Aspen's earliest mining days. However, in 1955, the then iwner, Chuck Bolts, elaborated on the original structure to !reate a truly bizarre two - bedroom house, which is all at once rnsafe, not waterproof, structurally unsound, dangerous in too iany respects, and so far from conforming with any zoning or )uilding codes that this architect has bashed his head against :he ceiling several times and hesitates to even enter the house. Phe plans prepared and submitted to the building department for :he repairs and new construction show a reduction to a one bed- room house, which is slightly larger, but in all respects in :onformance with all current local and national building codes; snd retains as much of the original 1880's construction as is possible. Presently, it is one of all too many non - conforming substandard dangerous "slum" structures in Aspen, which we hope n 01 Board of Adjustment, City of Aspen 1 April, 1980 P ge Two make habitable with your help. Gaard will be happy to pro - e any assistance and additional information to any Board bers wishing to make a sight inspection of the subject perty. Please call 925 -9222 to make arrangements. We appreciate your consideration of this application for a variance from setback requirements and a variance from "non- conforming status." Because of its unique situation in this zone (primarily Ski Corporation and mining land), and the d sire to upgrade an individual's own home, we feel your con- s deration can only be helpful. Sincerely, O !.Oden C} Welton Anderson, Architect R @presenting Gaard Moses CWA:fc E Closures II APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST1,01T CITY OF ASPEN DATE �� OV CASE NO. APPELLANT �iAf1 /I/�5f5 ADDRESS 4ee PHONE iWNER ADDRESS 1?>-nYy(' _9.1 . tQQptyA C(1 f�l(rit LOCATION OF PROPERTY rn ��a .• TStreet 8 Number of `�ugi 1vislon Blk. 8 Cot No. Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent •. data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. SS'il- THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION'IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS: Will you be represented by counsel ? Yes—No x SIGNED: / •U// Appellant PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: Application is made for a building permit to build an addition to an existing one family dwelling. The proposed addition will have a front yard set back less than the 100 foot required setback and will have a side yard less than the 30 foot required setback. Sec. 24 -3.4 "C" Conservation Zoning District. Status COUNTY TREASURER O s APR 6 1980 7ouo R�Pi y, s a PI IN COUNTY jKPF,N. COLORADO 8181P Signed PERMIT REJECTED, DATE DECISION DATE APPLICATION FILED H- I -'trO DATE IF HEARING MAILE aZl � SECRETARY M _ 'n tt �' r+ K ♦tl f0. w 4w w RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS — Rc�ula x: Meeting, __._Aspen planni net and lonin<2 Conunission June 5_. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on June 5, 3.979, Charles Collins, at 5LOU P14 in the City Council Chambers. Nicmbers present were McDonnell. Also present were Karen Smith Olaf Hedstrom, welton Anderson and Nancy the Planning Office. Jim Reents and Richard Grice of Grice introduced the application. The application requests Dittmar .. Subdivision subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of an is located in Exemption existing duplex owned by Billy Dittmar which Ellis noted a problem the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Dave Stock reconmiended approval with the legal description. Ron is deed restricted to grant provided that the property tenants the right to notice if the unit is the existing offered for sale and granting to the tenants a 90 day option to purchase as well as a 90 day exclusive right Of first refusal. Furthermore, he recommended that the property be deed restricted to a six month minimum lease term with no more than two shorter tenancies in any calendar year. subject to these The Planning Office recommends approval conditions. lledstrom moved to recommend exemption from the application duplex of the subdivision regulations for the Dittmar inasmuch located in Block 1 of the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision been as the intents and purposes of the regulati.ons have fallen within the satisfied and the rental unit has not Middle Income Guidelines and subject to Low, Moderate and the following conditions: 1) the existing tenant be grantee the right to notice if the unit is offered for sale and to as well granting to the tenants a 90 day option purchase 2) the as a 90 day exclusive right of first refusal, lease property be deed restricted to a six month minimums term with no more than two shorter tenancies in any in favorf motion calendar year, Anderson seconded. All approved. Jerome Professional Reents introduced the application. This application is a in the ,0,, office zone Building, special review for parking reduction totals 9100 square feet on a 12,000. Special Review The proposed. structure Sleeker and Mill. The current Code square foot lot at requires three parking spaces per 1000 square feet of commercial area with a reduction by special review to a feet. The applicant minimum of 1.5 spaces per 1000 square in to 15 spaces which is is requesting a reduction parking the 1.5 to 1000 ratio. The Planning Office one space over recorL7ends approval. Jeffrey Sachs .noted that if this is denied they will have t use the alley which he did not feel was the City's first choice. A man from the audience who owns the property next door bad. noted that the parking in the neighborhood is very although he He said he often gets parked into his driveway Sachs noted that this has agreements with the dairyman. and the customers can will add 15 spaces for the employees park at the Rio Grande. The Board discussed their concerns with the parking and - circulation problems in that area and the possible increase impacts of the Trueman Center and its new uses. Anderson moved to approve the special review for reduction required in parking from 27 spaces required to 15 spaces the site, the locati.c because of the. physical restraints of seconded. All in favor and proximity to parking, McDonnell motion approved. Rocnts introduced the application. lie noted that the Gaard Moses, building is already in existence without review approval. 8040 Greenline The City Attorney has proposed that Gaard Moses remove Rrview -2 V Regular N,c eti nq As�ien Planni�iq and 'ioni.nq Commission June 5, 1979 approcimately ! of the second floor as a punitive action duo to the fact the building was built without proper ap- provals. Tom Dunlop has requested no final approval until he can examine the permit and design for the onsitc waste disposal system. The removal of the portion of the structure would eliminate the area of the building which can currently be seer: from town. The Planning office recommends approval based on inspection and the existing project being brought up to City Code for both building and sanitation and what removals required by the City Attorney take place in a timely fashion. Moses was present and submitted pictures of the dwelling and the surrounding property. lie said the addition was 902 completed. Reents read the nine criteria for 8040 Greenline Review. Sheryl en, Deputy U1 ty Clerk Hedstrom moved to approve the entire structure conditioned on sanitation approval by the City Sanitarian that the project be brought up to the City Building Code and that an agreement reached by the applicant and the City Attorney to legalize the structure take place in a timely fashion, Andersonseconded. All in favor, motion approved. L -1 Zone Rcents introduced an amendment that would add multifamily Code Amendment residences, single family and duplex residences to the permitted use section of the L -1 zone. The Board was concerned with the possible impacts of this amendment. They felt it would take alot of documentation to deter- mine the number of lots that would be affected. They did not feel there was much demand for such an amendment and noted that the amendment was initiated by one specific application. They did not support the amendment at this time. S /C /I Zone The Board set a public hearing for this item on July 2, Redraft 1979, at 5:00 PM. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. Sheryl en, Deputy U1 ty Clerk .r NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING 80 -6 Case No. BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amed dColo- public hearing will be held in the Council Room, CitthenHall, Aspnn, to redo, (or at such other place as the meeting may be consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the affected Zoning proposedevariancer 24, Official Code ear and l state their views, protests or objections. If are invited to app then ou are urged to state.. you cannot appear personally at such meeting, y your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, a9 the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: „_. =r''9" Z-'3 "1 to 119" Time: 4 PM City Council Chambers Name and address of A licant for Variance: Name: Gaard Moses Address: Box 21, Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: Location: 800 Aspen Alps Drive Description: MS 3681 Variance Requested: Application is made for a building permit to build an addition to an existing one family dwelling. The proposed addition will have a front yard setback less than the 100 foot required setback and will have aside yard less than the 30 foot required setback. Sec. 24- 3.4 "C" Conservation Zoning District. Duration of #Lance: (Please cross out.ane) Temporary permanent x Will not be represented by counsel THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Lavagnino, Chairman by Susan'Johnson, Deputy City Clerk n .o.,..... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspeen Planni.n ^zLnd7,op:Ll2a Commission Jimc 5, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Conm;ission held a regular meeting oil June 5, 1979, at 5L00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, Olaf Hedstrom, 'Welton Anderson and N.::ncy McDonnell. Also present were Karen Smith Jim Reents and Richard Grice of the Planning Office. Dittmar _ Grice introduced the application. The application requests Subdivision subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of an Exemption existing dupl.cx owned by Billy Dittmar which is located in the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Dave Ellis noted a problem with the legal description. Ron Stock recommended approval provided that the property is deed restricted to grant the existing tenants the right to notice if the unit is offered for sale and granting to the tenants a 90 day option to purchase as well as a 90 day exclusive right of first refusal. Furthermore, he recommended that the property be deed restricted to a six month minimum lease term with no more than two shorter tenancies in any calendar year. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to these conditions. Redstrom moved to recommend exemption from the application of the subdivision regulations for the Dittmar duplex located in Block 1 of the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision inasmuch as the intents and purposes of the regulations have been satisfied and the rental unit has not fallen within the Low, Moderate and Middle Income Guidelines and subject to the following_ conditions: 1) the existing tenant be granted the right to notice if the unit is offered for sale and granting to the tenants a 90 day option to purchase as well as a 90 day exclusive right of first refusal, 2) the property be deed restricted to a six month minimum lease term with no more than two shorter tenancies in any calendar year, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Jerome Professional Reents introduced the application. This application is a Building, special review for parking reduction in the "O" office zone Special Review The proposed structure totals 9100 square feet on a 12,000 square foot lot at Bleeker and Mill. The current Code requires three parking spaces per 1000 square feet of commercial area with a reduction by special review to a' minimum of 1.5 spaces per 1000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a reduction in parking to 15 spaces which is one space over the 1.5 to 1000 ratio. The Planning office recommends approval. Jeffrey Sachs noted that if this is denied they will have t, use the alley which he did not feel was the City's first choice. A man from the audience who owns the property next door noted that the parking in the neighborhood is very bad, He said he often gets parked into his driveway although he has agreements with the dairyman. Sachs noted that this will add 15 spaces for the employees and the customers can park at the Rio Grande. The Board discussed their concerns with the parking and circulation problems in that area and the possible increase impacts of the Trueman Center and its new uses. Anderson moved to approve the special review for reduction in parking from 27 spaces required to 15 spaces required because of the physical restraints of the site, the locati.c and proximity to parking, McDonnell seconded. All in favor motion approved. Gaard Moses, Reents introduced the application. He noted that the 6040 Greenline building is already in existence without review approval. Review The City Attorney has proposed that Gaard Moses remove r^ -2-- V _ Regular Meeting Aspen Planning_= _nd._'lnnincf Cenun is Sion Junc -5,1971) approcimately k of the second floor as a punitive action due to the fact tt:e building was built without proper ap- provals. Tom Dunlop has requested no final approval for the onsite until he can examine tt:c permit and design of the portion of the waste disposal system. The removal of the building which structure would eliminate the area be from town. The Planning Office can currently seen recommends approval based on inspection and the existing project being brought up to city Code for both building and sanitation and what removals required by the City was Attorney take place in a timely fashion. Moses present the dwelling and the surrounding and submitted pictures of the addition was 90° completed. Reents property. He said read the nine criteria for 8040 Greenline Review. Hedstrom moved to approve the entire structure conditioned on sanitation approval by the City Sanitarian that the and that an project be brought up to the City Building Code by the applicant and the City Attorney - agreement reached to legalize the structure take place in a timely fashion, Andersonseconded. All in favor, motion approved. Reents introduced an amendment that would add multifamily L -1 Zone Code Amendment residences, single family and duplex residences to the permitted use section of the L -1 zone. The Board was this amendment. concerned with the possible impacts of take alot of documentation to deter- They felt it would the number of lots that would be affected. They did mine not feel there was much demand for such an amendment and that the amendment was initiated by one specific noted application. They did not support the amendment at this time. 5 /C /I Zone The Board set a public hearing for this item on July 2, Redraft 1979, at 5:00 PM. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8.00 PM. S�yli men, Deputy C y C1 v v Regular Meeting. Aspen City Council June 25, 1979 MOBILE H014E PARK REGULAT'1ONS Stock submitted to Council the currentt mohilc home code and state health standards, which while home park are minimum standards. These a: %ply unle:,s the City's Code is more restrictive; in most regulations cases the City's Code is not mnre restrictive. Stock told Council the County has hired a consultant to help them write a mobile hor<e code, which was also submitted to Council. Stock requested authority to Pre' are a dnoument modeled on the County proposal to be brougt back for consideration. Mayor it5el sei.d !!e found the County ordinance terribly restrictive Jolene Vrchota, planning office, told Council there are three sets of regulations for park owners. The first set of standards is to be met in the first year, and these are the least restrictive. The second set is to be met within 5 years to bring them slightly above minimum health and safety standards, and does include some aesthetic standards. The third at of standards, which includes the density of 4 units per acre, is strictly for expansion and new mobile home parks. Councilman Isaac moved to have Stock draft. an ordinance and come back to Council with it; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. GAARD MOSES SETTLEMENT Stock explained the situation in his memorandum. The house is just cast of the Aspen Alps. The property currently has two single family dwellings and a pump house, it is in the Gaani Moses conservation district. The property is one acre in size, and under zoning it would allow settlement for one single family house. This property is considered to be a non - conforming use, and consider the two units to be legal. lie could not currently build them now. Stock told Council Moses began construction of an addition in 1977, which is a garage in lower level, and second level an art studio. Moses did this without getting a building permit and without obtaining 8040 greenline review. The building inspector put a stop work order on the property; Moses has been working with the City on how to solve this problem. Stock said he would recommend the ripping down of the structure, if he had gone to Court. The negotiated settlement is to obtain 8040 greenline review; which Moses has obtained from P & Z. Secondly, to obtain building permits at double rates. Third, the City's Code would not allow a home occupation to have a total area greater than 1/2 of the first floor area of the principle dwelling. Stack told Council the area for the home occupation is too great by almost 1/3. Stock has asked that Moses be required to rip out that 1/3. Moses presented an alternative to P S Z of changing that area into employee housing. Stock objected because if you have the right to 1 unit and go to 3, it would require rezoning. Stock said another alternative would be a cash payment of some type. Stool: stated he would rather have some portion of the structure removed to meet with Code reouirements. Moses outlined 'he three points; (1) removal; (2) retain approximately 400 feet, which would be ripped out, and put employee housing into it, and (3) because the house has been expanded at least twice before 1973, in the interest of simplification, let the lower level of the new structure become part of the house and contribute to FAR of the house. It would be larger than twice the area of the art studio then. Stock said what he felt was important in his solution is not so much whether he rips down the structure, but to create an indication to the public that they cannot avoid the City's rules and regulations, that they will be enforced. The City has got to become more restrictive in their enforcement. Stock said he was totally against trying to obtain rezoning to allow a density of three units. Councilman Parry said he felt it would be better to increase the projection room and let the other part remain the way it is. Councilman Parry said he could not see tearing down the structure. Councilwoman Michael stated this is a case of how important the Council feels their rules are. There was a reason to set 8040 greenline against the mountain, and to have reviews for building. Councilman Isaac agreed he did not feel Moses' house was an appropriate place to put employee housing. Councilman. Isaac said he felt Moses should pay double building permit fees and make the corrections in the projection room so that the PAR complies with home occupation. Councilman Collins stated he would be inclined to follow the recommendations of the City Attorney. Mayor Edel said he couldn't see the house being ripped down; it is nicely done. Mayor Ede. said he would like to get Moses go after rezoning. Mayor Edel said although he would not like to have Moses rip down 1/3 of his house there are laws and statutes. Stock suggested the alternative of Moses accepting criminal charges and allowing the Court to impose the penalty. Councilwoman Michael said the Council is abrogating their responsibil. by sending Moses to Court. Councilman Parry noted this has gone on for two year.. He would like Moses to be right as far as the building permit. Councilman Parry moved to let the lower level become part of the house so that the FAR is right, and Moses pay double building permits; seconded by.Councilman Isaac. Councilmemberi Parry, Isaac, and Mayor Edel in favor; Councilmembers Michael and Collins opposed. Motion carried. ORDINANCE. 841, SERIES OF 1979 - Cable Television Theft Stock told Council there is a provision in the Code currently that says it is illegal Ord. 41, 1979 to steal cable television, anP. the City has been asked on numerous occasions to enforce Cable TV theft that ordinance. The City has n�4ay to enforce the ordinance. The ordinance has been redrafted making it clear this is a theft. If a person has illegal cable, Canyon Cable will photo it, disconnect it and leave a note telling the people they are not paying for cable. They will reinspect is twu weeks; if it has been reconnected, Canyon Cable can come in and sign a complaint and take the people to Court. Councilman Isaac asked why the City should get involved. Stock told Council this is not an unusual request from cable companies. Councilwoman Michael moved b+ read Ordinance 841, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, at rind. C, MEMORANDUM I To: Aspen City Council From: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director(_-,-V. Thru: Robert S. Anderson, City Manager RE: Moses Rezoning Ordinance: First Reading Summary and Recommendation Attached for your consideration is a copy of a proposed zoning ordinance for the Gaard Moses property which is located south of the Aspen Alps and east of the new gondola. Since this is just the first reading of the ordinance the staff has simply included the memorandum on this application which was sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission rather thant preparing a new memorandum. At the time of the public hearing a revised memorand- um will be distributed. It is recommended that the CityC'ouncil approve on first reading the attached ordinance which rezones approximately one acre of land located south of the Aspen Alps and east of the gondola from C {conservation} to R -16 {residentialI. City Manager Comments m W MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director RE: Moses Rezoning and Subdivision Exception DATE: . January 28, 1987 BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: Gaard Moses LOCATION: Just to the southeast of the Aspen Alps and east of the Silver Queen Gondola at the base of Aspen Mountain (please refer to Attachment 1). ZONING: C- Conservation (See attachment 2). SIZE: 1 acre (43,560 s.f.). APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting rezoning from Conservation (C) to R -15 and a subdivision exception for the purposes of creating two lots in accordance with Section 20 -19(c) of the Land Use Code. SITE DESCRIPTION: Attachment 3 depicts the subject property on a topographic map. We encourage you to carefully study the topography of this area because it has a very significant bearing upon our zoning recommendation. The map shows that the Moses property is well above the 8040 Greenline elevation. There are two existing residential struc- tures on the site which have been located in the ideal building site from the public's perspective. The site is flat and is located over 70' below the Little Nell ski slope to the west. The building site also avoids the very steep grades to the west, south, and east. This large elevation change between Little Nell and the structures isolates the buildings from the ski slope. For years, until the gondola was constructed, few people in the community even realized that the Moses property was developed. With the construction of the gondola, the site has become visible from the lift but remains relatively isolated from the ski slopes. The existing structure on the east side of the site is approxi -_ mately 2,800 s.f. in size. The upstairs portion of the structure is Gaard Moses' residence. The downstairs contains a studio workshop including a kitchen and bathroom. Technically, the N Y , structure on the east side of the site is a duplex. The struc- ture on the west side of the site contains 1,700 s.f. and is a duplex. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Moses property is bounded by the Little Nell Ski slope to the west (C zone), the Alps Condominiums to the north (C zone), the Aspen Chance Subdivision to the east (R -15 PUD zone) and undeveloped ground to the south (C zone). A spur of the old Midland railroad traverses the subject. property. The applicant permits the Aspen /Snowmass Nordic Council to cross his property on a newly constructed t. rail located above the existing development. As you well know from our recent residential growth management submissions, the area around Ute Avenue east. of the gondola is in transition. "The barn ", one of Aspen's funkiest old residential buildings, which was located just to the east of the Moses property has been demolished and replaced by modern residences in the Aspen Chance Subdivision. One single - family house in the Aspen Chance Subdivision is approximately 6,000 s.f. while a smaller single - family unit is 3,065 s.f.. There is also a duplex of approximately 5,450 s.f. in size. Proposed residential structures in the 1010 and 1001 Subdivisions are expected to range between 3,000 and 4,3000 s.f. in size. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS BACKGROUND: The history of the Moses property affects our zoning recommendation. It was established and recognized by the Aspen City Council in June of 1979 that the subject property contains two legal, single - family, dwelling units. Based upon the staff's review of existing City records, we have concluded that any additional dwelling units which currently exist on the site beyond two legal units are illegal. The applicant and his representative have discussed the problem of the illegal dwelling units with the staff. The applicant's goal is to legalize the existing structures and make them conforming. Therefore, the applicant has committed to remove a kitchen from each structure and convert the buildings into single - family residences. MASTER PLAN: Although the subject site is located just outside the boundaries of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, it is possible to use the Plan as a guide for this parcel. The land use pattern suggested by the Plan would indicate that the mixed - residential district is the most appropriate district for the subject site. The applicant's R -15 zoning request is consistent with this district. ZONING ISSUE: The staff has researched the process by which the subject site came to be zoned C. Bill Kane, _former Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office Planning Director, indicates in Attachment 4 that C zoning was applied to lands at the base of Aspen Mountain which E W "were generally considered of public interest." According to Bill, it was not the City's intent to zone existing residential developments C, but the district may have been applied to devel- oped land containing residences which were not identified on the land use inventory. A search of historic land use inventories shows that the Moses property was not identified as developed. Given the isolation and vegetation of the site it does not surprise us that the property was missed during the inventory. The R -15 zoning request for the Moses property should be evalua- ted based upon the ,criteria of Section 24- 12.5(d) of the Zoning Code which are listed below: 1) Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require- ments, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on -site characteristics. 2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic genera- tion and road safety, availability of on and off - street parking and ability to provide utility service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment of the fiscal impact. upon the community of the proposed rezoning. 3) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water quality in the vicinity of the site. 4) Analysis of the community need for the proposed rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the rezoning proposal to the goal of overall community balance. 5) Compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan of 9166, as amended. 6) Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen. Each of the criteria are addressed below: 1) The applicants R -15 zoning request would be consistent with the land uses and zoning to the east of the subject site if a mandatory PUD requirement is applied. The PUD designation is essential because the designa- tion requires -slope density reduction calculations to be made in the event that the applicant seeks to build duplex structures. 3 At first glance, it may appear to be inconsistent with the C zoning to the south and east to zone the Moses property R -15 PUD. However, an understanding of the topography as depicted on attachment 3 indicates that there are unusual site characteristics which lead us to believe that R -15 PUD is appropriate for this site despite the adjacent C zoning and the 8060 elevation elevation of the site. Due to the visual isolation of the only building site on the parcel, seventy feet below the Little Nell slope, the Moses site can be distinguished from other lands in the C zone which are also east of Little Nell but by contrast are generally at grade with the ski slope and highly visible to the general public. In our opinion, the recognized community goal of protecting the mountainsides and skiing runs from development which was re- affirmed in the Little Nell SPA review is not compromised by the Moses rezoning due to the topography of the site. In fact, due to the topography of this site and the transition of the south side of Ute Avenue to a residential area, we believe as a general rule, the Midland railroad spur line rather than the 8040' Greenline might be better a dividing line between the C zone and residential districts for properties to the east and out of sight from little Nell. 2) If the applicant converts the two duplexes to single - family structures, impacts on the road system will probably be decreased as a result of this rezoning. 3) The rezoning should probably not affect air and water quality. 4) The rezoning does not affect community balance. 5) As indicated in the proceeding Master Plan discussion, the rezoning request is generally consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. 6) The rezoning of this property to conforming status will most likely enhance the health, safety and welfare of Aspen residents and visitors by creating a conforming use capable of major renovations or demolition and reconstruction. Our R -15 PUD zoning recommendation is conditioned upon the applicant converting- both structures to single - family dwellings and his voluntary commitment to limit the -total size of each single - family residence to 3,800 s.f.. Based upon the Code, if the parcel is rezoned R -15 PUD and the proposed lot split is 4 r approved single - family structures totaling 4,640 and 5,173 s.f. could be built on each lot. Therefore, the applicants commitment to restrict the potential square footage per house to 3,800 s.f. is significant and also insures houses which are the same size or smaller than existing and proposed housing sizes in the area. This commitment can be insured through the 8040 Greenline process, to which any additions to the existing units must be subject. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION REQUEST: Attachment 5 depicts the proposed subdivision exception plat. Section 20- 19(c.) of the Code enables the City Council to grant exceptions from the strict subdivision requirements of Section 20 when it is determined that the strict application of Section 20 would be redundant, unnecessary and serve no public purpose. City Council may request a recom- mendation from the P &7, prior to approving the proposed subdivi- sion exceptions. It is our opinion that this is a simple, straight - forward application and a subdivision exception is an appropriate request for this site. Further, we feel that Council should have the benefit of a P &Z recommendation on this matter. Jay Hammond, City Engineer has commented that the Moses property is currently served with potable water from surface sources, including a spring and the Durant Mine run -off through a junior water right. The Engineer comments that subdivision is a good time to provide a connection to the City water line near the Aspen Alps. Prior to consideration of the subdivision exception by Council, Jay would like to review a proposal for the water connection including routing, size and length of the water line extension. Additionally, Jay Hammond requests the following to be shown on the subdivision exception plat prior to recording: 1) Topographic information; 2) Drainage easements on the adjacent Aspen Chance Subdivision. 3) Individual parking spaces; 4) The dedication to the City of Aspen of a 15' wide year round pedestrian, bicycle and nordic trail easement located where the existing nordic trail currently exists. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends that the P &Z recommend to Council the rezoning of the Moses property from Conservation (C) to R -15 PUD, and the granting of a subdivision exception, subject to the following: 1) The applicant commits to convert each of the existing duplex structures to a single - family dwelling by 5 r^ removing a kitchen from each building prior to recorda- tions of the final plat by the City. Removal of kitchens must be inspected and confirmed by the City Zoning Officer. 2) The applicant shall dedicate a year round, pedestrian, bicycle and Nordic Ski Trail easement 15' wide travers- ing the parcel in the same location as the existing Nordic Trail. The easement shall be placed upon the plat prior to approval. 3) The applicant shall remove the existing shed on Lot 1 which encroaches into the side yard setback prior to recordation of the final plat by the City. Removal of the shed must be inspected and confirmed by the City Zoning Officer. 4) The subdivision exception plat shall include: o Topographic information; o Existing utility connections, service routing, meter locations and distance to the existing Aspen Alps water main. 0 Drainage easements on the adjacent. Aspen Chance Subdivision. 0 Individual parking spaces. o A note indicating that the existing structures are single - family dwellings. 5) The applicant shall agree to submit to 8040 Greenline review for all additions to existing buildings and to voluntarily limit the total square footage of the single - family residences to 3,800 square feet each. Demolitions and reconstructions shall also be subject to 8040 Greenline review. 6) The applicant shall commit to prepare a water connec- tion plan for review in conjunction with City Council action and connect to the City water system prior to recordation of the subdivision exception plat. GH.003 Ll r1 VICINITY MAP TO-gc o "-o A Lrt`( T4Y haPS - Attachment 1 ' � ► P .7 /iA 29 U '�` 2! 16 1 r ; J% 27 __ a S ► 1 2♦ �r- '' RR r� 14 ��_ I t 4�F (Pub) iks- ITO i 11` lPU in \ s ^� 1i (R B) 2 '/� � P . . . . ....... it � Ali Al, \ X\ rmo 17 z Attachment 4 September 13, 1985 To Whom It May Concern: 710 East Durant Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 I,have been asked by Gaard Moses to clarify the Aspen rezoning processof 1975, based upon my best recollection. While I receive;requests like this from time to time, I do not normally respond, simply because my memory of individual land use situations is not usually relevant to current problems. However, in the case of Gaard's land at the base of Aspen Mountain, I do remember, in general, the basis for the application of the "C ", Conservation Zone: Conservation zoning was applied to lands which were generally considered of public interest to remain in an open space condition. This included skiing and skier access to the base of the mountain. Being a public, open space zone, we did not intend this district to cover existing, residential development. It is possible that the C zone was extended to areas on the base of Aspen Mountain which contained residences which were not identified in our land use inventory. This letter is written to help clarify the zoning process which took place at the time. I have not been retained by Gaard or his attorney. Sincerely, Kane r Aspen /Pitkin County ing Director i ,I r z O LOT 2 0.198'- ACRES Pq/vATE GGESS E �.SE ME NT FOQ =0 T 1 /--! O Pere p(!4 /•ot: LOT I i0 0.602 - 4CRE3 O O ti \ C IV \ ). 0 10 PPLWATC • uNOP:RGROUNO Fock [T E MENT \ FOR LOT L Attachment 5 � Jn" r L6.26 / SP�Jy f� ao..o�J4. TnJ.� is >untr.Yr 0 N 3 a1 a i V Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 963-3600 (26 HOURS) Januar/ 20, 199- Alan M. Richman, AICF' PC,, '61 Aspen CO. 81612 F.E: Aspen Alps Lot Dear Mr. Richman: I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed building site on the maps which accompany this report. The building site lies along the east slope of the lobe cantainino the Little Nell ski Faun. This is in the southern part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses. It is between the home of Gaard Moses and other Aspen Alps buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building envelope as shown. The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands, gravels and boulders of colluvial and some debris flow material deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago. These materials are generally graded and sorted and are probably between 5V and 70 feet thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be determined but is probably one of the Palec =oic carbonate or sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area. This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and there is no evidence of recent. activity. it is still prudent to design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform Building Code. The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the the home site because of the distance involved and the relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear !west? wall of the home should be at least six feet above finished grade and designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds per square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval within the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope. The material of the site is suitable for the development of a 0.1 ,. ORDINANCE NO. IL (Series of 1997) AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS EAST OF THE SILVER QUEEN GONDOLA AT THE RASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN, THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITEIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM C (CONSERVATION) TO R -15 PUD (RESIDENTIAL) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Gaard Moses family to rezone to R -15 (PUD) a one acre parcel of land generally located on the old Midland Railroad spurline, southeast of the Aspen Alps, east of the Silver Queen gondola and specific- ally described in Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, the parcel is presently zoned C (Conservation); and WHEREAS, as part of the rezoning request, the Moses family has submitted a subdivision exception request for the purposes of creating two lots; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 28, 1987. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that the subdivision exception and rezoning be approved; and WHEREAS, the application has been found to be generally consistent with Section 24 -12.5 of the Land Use Code which establishes criteria for rezoning; and WHERHAS, the City Council has found that due to the existing topography of this particular site east to ::t of the Little Nell ski run, the old Midland Railroad spurline rather than the 8040' elevation line is a logical dividing line between the C (Conser- vation) zone and residential districts; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the recommen- dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed rezoning to be compatible with surrounding zone .-. 10N, 4 districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOWT THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPENr COLORADO: That it does hereby rezone to R -15 PUD the area generally located southeast of the Aspen Alps Condominiums, east of the Silver Queen Gondola at the base of Aspen Mountain (specifically described in Attachment 1). Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer's authoriz- ed and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4 If any section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent Provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the ­�_3 day of �_8 •1;,. 1987, at 5.00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to 11 l^a which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. IN'TMDDCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of %ije City of Aspen on the 23rd day of February, 1987. William L. Stirling, May ATTEST: Kathryn . Ro h, City Clerk �I FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this•.?3 day of 1987. William L. Stirling, Ma or ATTEST: Kathryn S ,f Koch, City Clerk gh.49 .-1 Attachment 1 Legal Description A tract of land situated in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, being part of the Little Nell Mining Claim MS 3881 AM described as follows: Beginning at corner no. 5 MS 3881 (Little Nell) thence North 43028144" East 136.76 feet along the line 5 -4 MS 3881; thence South 430281440, East 203.47' to line 1 -4 MS 1830 AM (Chance); thence South 45000' West 297.01' feet along line 1 -4 MS 1830 AM (Chance); thence North 05019134" West 259.54 feet to the point of beginning containing 1.0 acres more or less. u� r� #352013 12/18/92'14,;23 Rec $45.00 BK 698 PG 141 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ORDINANCE NO. 31 (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION FOR LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL /BORNEFELD PARCEL, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ALL LOCATED ON ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24 -7 -503 and 24 -7 -1004 C of the Municipal Code the applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the Aspen Alps Condominium Association and George Mitchell have submitted an application for subdivision of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split and a lot line adjustment for the Mitchell parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel all located on the Aspen Alps South Road, City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, the applicant has also requested Vested Rights of the subdivision and lot line adjustment and 8040 Greenline; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public.hearing held April 7, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline and Subdivision proposal; and WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review (see Commission Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein); and WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City Council subdivision approval for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the subdivision of Lot 2 eliminates the floor area cap of 3,800 square feet that was originally imposed upon Lot 2 during the 1987 Moses Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the applicants have offered to voluntarily prohibit all future development on Lots 2A and 2B of the new subdivision as created herein, consisting of approximately three acres of valuable open space and an existing tennis court area, in exchange for the City granting permanent vesting for the development of a 5,000 square foot (allowable floor area) residence upon Lot 2 within the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the existing underlying zoning for the subdivision al: for the construction of a single family residence of 5,000 sql feet (allowable floor area) on Lot 2; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the neighborhood community at large will derive a significant benefit from 1 #352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK 698 PG 142 Silvia Davis, Pitk.in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 permanent preservation of remaining open space within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council may grant vesting of site specific development plans for periods in excess of three years where warranted in light of all relevant circumstances in accordance with C.R.S. Section 24 -68- 104(2); and WHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That it does hereby approve the Moses Lot 2 Subdivision as recommended by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission consisting of Lots 2, 2A, and 2B, Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite',of Aspen subject to the following conditions: 1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, LOts.2A. and 2B shall be conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association subject to deed restrictions in favor and for the benefit of the City of Aspen permanently prohibiting any future development on said lots. Further development 'shall include the application or crediting of the lots toward additional lot area for floor area, IS bedrooms and density purposes for all existing or future Aspen Alps Condominium Association buildings. For Lots 2A and 2B, further development shall include additional floor area, bedrooms and density or major new recreational facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools. The deed restrictions shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within 180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders office. The final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. 3. The final plat shall depict the following: a. Lots 2, 2A and 2B; b. that Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes for all existing and future Aspen Alps Condominium Association buildings. The documents restricting Lots 2A and 2B shall be referenced by the Book and Page number. c. the new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split; d. graphic description of the zoning designations for Lott'2; 2 #352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 698 PG 143 e.00 e. no parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless approved by the Fire Marshal; f. an easement indicating Lot 2 access off of the Aspen Alps South Road. g. all improvements on Lot 2 including the entire length',of the actual access road and the revised access easement including the roadway surface; h. the contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 - 1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the Municipal Code. There must be a statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general note, that all easements of record have been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past ',12 months; i. in the event any of the applicants obtain title to the USFS Tract as depicted on the plat they shall deed restrict said tract against all development. Said deed restriction shall be in favor and for the benefit of the City of Aspen and shall be approved by the City Attorney. 4. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 Moses Lot Split across Lot 2 shall meet code requirements (201). Section 2 That it does hereby approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association) on Aspen Alps South Road with the following conditions: 1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the Mitchel l /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision plat for Moses Lot 2. 2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional floor area shall be granted due to the increase in lot size of the Mitchell parcel. Section 3• That it does hereby grant Vested Rights in perpetuity for this Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, and 8040 Greenline including a 5,000 square foot single family residence (allowable floor area which includes exemptions allowed for in, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code) as approved by the Commission on April 7, 1992, (please see Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein) with conditions as follows: 3 Ell� 0 �1Y #3522013 12/18/42 14:23 Rec $45.00 Bk 698 PG 144 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 1. Any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture iof said vested rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of vested rights. 2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this ordinance jor the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of the vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom '',is granted in writing. Section 4• The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following - described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. section 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions 4 [11 6 #352013 12/18/92 14.23 Rec $45.00 BK 698 PS 145 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 thereof. section 6• This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. section 7: (�CJ A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the Vsp en City day ofAAl at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Asp Hall, Asp diS Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,-by th City Council of the City of Aspen on the o1 day of ! 1992. qy� le '4_�z ggt goch, City Clerk John Bennett, Mayor V 11 11Y, adopted, passed and approved this (V day , 1992. 5 (3- John Bennett, Mayor of APPLICATION 4 January 2008 Applicant: Gerald Grayson Location: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 800 Alps Road Aspen, CO 81611 An application for 8040 Greenline Review Represented by: i STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. resort design Gtz North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970192o -t628 info @scaptanning.com www.scapianning.com STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES iNc landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 816n t-970/92S-2323 f-970/920 j628 info@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 4 January 2007 Jessica Garrow Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 8040 Greenline Review - Lot 1, Moses Lot Split Dear Jessica: On behalf of our client, Gerald Grayson, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct an 8040 Greenline Review for Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split. This application is in conformance with your Pre - application Conference Summary, dated 25 October 2007. It seeks approval for a new single - family residence on the property. Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split is a 0.6 acre parcel located in the R -15 (PUD) Zone District. The parcel is the southern lot of the subdivision that was approved in 1987 per a subdivision exemption (Reception No. 290476. This approval restricted the floor area to 3,800 sq. ft. and required that all plans for redevelopment must go through an 8040 Greenline Review. The proposed residence will be the third single family residence to have existed on the site. Because the grading of the site has been manipulated several times, the applicant would like to return the site to its historic grade and consequently restore the integrity of the mountain slope. The enclosed application and exhibits provide documentation of the existing and the proposed -or natural - grade, as well as clarification on previous grade changes. The proposed design is intended to minimize the footprint and visual impact of the new residence by nestling the structure into the slope and creating several partially subgrade spaces. The architectural style is a modern mountain vernacular, using natural stones and woods. It is unobtrusive and well- screened in its proposed location. The proposed single - family residence complies with all applicable Residential Design Guidelines. Please let me know ff there is additional information which I can provide. Thank you very much for your help with this request. yerytr ly ars, Si 2a on,1ig1 p q ST ;N CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC Attachments: Land Use application in 15 copies City of Aspen application fee of $2022,00 TABLE OF CONTENTS • Project Overview and Code Response • Attachment 1 - Snow - Avalanche Loading & Hazard Analysis • Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map • Attachment 3 - Improvement Survey • Attachment 4 -Architectural Plans • Attachment 5 - Previous Approvals • Attachment 6 - Proof of Ownership • Attachment 7 - Letter of Authorization • Attachment 8 - Parcel Description • Attachment 9 - Pre - Application Conference Summary Project Overview This application seeks approvals for an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new residence on Lot I of the Moses Lot Split. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, a 0.6 acre parcel, is located in the R -15 (PUD) Zone District. The parcel is the southern lot of the subdivision which was created in 1987 per a subdivision exemption. The lot is accessed via a private access easement by Southern Aspen Alps Road from the northeast. The approval restricted the floor area to 3,800 sq. ft. and required that all plans for reconstruction must be reviewed as part of an 8040 Greenline Review. The existing residence was built shortly after subdivision approval in 1987. The proposed residence will be the third single family residence to have existed on the site. The structure will lay northeast to southwest to maximized views and solar access. The existing driveway will be utilized but shortened. Grading of the site has been manipulated several times. As seen on the recorded plat for the second residence in 1987, several areas, including the driveway, were cut and filled to level out the area. The attached exhibits provide clarification on the natural grade that occurred on the site. It is the intention of this project to restore the site to its natural grade, and as a consequence, the integrity of the mountain itself. The new structure will mimic a tiered wedding cake, stepping out from the mountain side. The proposed design is intended to minimize the footprint and visual impact of the new residence by consolidating the residence and nestling the structure into the slope. The single family residence will comply with all applicable Residential Design Guidelines. The property is not located within a traditionally laid out neighborhood such as the West End, but it is located near the end of a remote dead -end road and even further removed without direct frontage to that road. Because the property is accessed by a private access easement, the residence will have no street frontage, and as a result, the project is exempt from several design guidelines. The proposed single - family dwelling is sited towards the southeastern lot line to maximize views. The proposed residence will continue to use existing roads leading to the residence. To further preserve the mountain as a scenic resource, the updated architecture will be mountain contemporary style, where natural materials and tiered massing will be used. The exterior materials are proposed to include a large amount of stone veneer particularly at the base of the volumes, with horizontal wood siding on a large area of the garage, study, kitchen, foyer, and master suite. The living/dining volume will employ a large amount of glass to engage views to the east and south. This glass is to be balanced with a heavy timber structural system and a large stone masonry mass on the south elevation containing an indoor and outdoor fireplace. A light guardrail made of steel, glass, cable, or a combination of the three will surround the terrace on the South. Exposed steel and timber connections and accents are to be employed throughout the design. Roofs will consist of non - reflective materials. The site design includes large random rectangular blocks of stone that serve as landscaped stairs to and from the `at grade' patio on the west side of the project, and also provide access to the elevated entry porch. Heavy planting of trees and shrubs particularly on the north and south elevations is planned to screen the project from adjacent homes. The architectural design intends to blend the house into the hillside and engage the existing hillside on the west without any substantial cut being necessary. A narrative and visual elevations are provided with this application to respond to visual and siting criteria as part of the 8040 Greenline Review. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.010 General. B. Applicability. 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. 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. The property is located in the Aspen Infill Area, defined as being east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork Rive. The property, however, does not have any street frontage, only an access easement across the neighboring lot that serves as the connection to Aspen Alps Road This will allow for a number of exemptions as listed below. A. Site Design 1. Building orientation. Parcels as outlined in Section 26.410.010(B)(4) shall be exempt from this requirement. Asper Section 26.410.010(B)(4), the applicant's parcel is exempt from this requirement because it has no street frontage. 2. Build -to lines. On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. The lot size of this parcel is 26,172 square feet. Because the lot is larger than 15, 000 square feet, the property is exempt from this requirement. 3. Fences. 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. There will not be any fences, hedgerows, or planter boxes higher than forty-two inches (42') forward of the front facade. B. Building Form 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. The proposed garage is a linked secondary mass that accounts for approximately 10% of the total above grade square footage. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 C. Parking, Garages, and Carports. 1. For all residential that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: 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. The proposed garage has 2 single stall doors. D. Building Elements. Asper Section 26 410. 010(B)(4), the applicant's parcel is exempt from this requirement because it has no street frontage, only an access easement across the neighboring lot that serves as the connection to Aspen Alps Road. E. Context. 1. Materials. a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. c. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. The quality of the exterior materials and details will be consistent on all sides of the building, materials will remain true to their characteristics, and highly reflective surfaces will not be used as exterior materials. Stone will be used as the base material directly above grade and wood will be used on areas above masonry. A combination of wood and steel will be used for structural support. A significant amount ofglass windows will allow for views to the east. All roof elements will be covered with non - reflective metal roofing. 1. Inflection. a. If a one (1) story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their common lot line. A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. The proposed house will step down to one story along the property line common with the adjacent house. However, because the single story element on the neighboring property is only approximately ten feet (10 ) wide, this requirement is not applicable. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 3 Chapter 26.435 DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) 26.435.030 8040 Greenline review. C. 8040 Greenline Review Standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development and has been previously approved for development. This application proposes to utilize the existing building envelope for the new single-family residence. The avalanche hazard of the parcel has been analyzed by consultant Art Mears. See attached report. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects oh water pollution. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. The proposed architectural design of the single family home is compatible with the surrounding terrain. It uses natural building materials, and the style is today common throughout mountain communities. Roads to the site are in place, and there will be no significant effect on the adjacent terrain. The applicant does intend to restore the site to its natural grade which will in turn restore the integrity ofthe mountain itself Please see a description of the design in response to Criterion 6, below. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 In order to lessen the visual impact of the structure from the street, the new architectural design calls for the residence to be built into the hillside and to blend in with the treed slopes. The applicant intends to restore the natural grading as the grading on the site has been manipulated for past developments. The grading required will be minimized to create the least amount of disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. The applicant proposes to restore the natural grade to preserve the integrity of the mountain. This site had been 'benched' or cut at some point in the past, and existing grade is clearly substantially lower than where historic grade would have been. Finish grade must be brought up on the west and east sides of the house in order to match historic grade and provide for an at- grade patio behind the house. The proposed deck will extend from the upper level living room to the west until natural grade is encountered. The architectural design engages the existing hillside on the west without any substantial cut being necessary. This tiered wedding cake design will break down the mass of the building and aids in blending the project into the hillside from both the north and south elevations. Please refer to the attached grading plan. Any required grading will minimize disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features to the greatest extent practicable. 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. The proposed single-family dwelling is sited towards the southeastern lot line to maximize views. The proposed residence will continue to use existing roads leading to the residence. To further preserve the mountain as a scenic resource, the updated architecture will be mountain contemporary style, where natural materials and tiered massing will be used The exterior materials are proposed to include a large amount ofstone veneer particularly at the base of the volumes, with horizontal wood siding on a large area of the garage, study, kitchen, foyer and master suite. The living /dining volume will employ a large amount ofglass to engage views to the east and south. This glass is to be balanced with a heavy timber structural system and a large stone masonry mass on the south elevation containing an indoor and outdoor fireplace. A light guardrail made of steel, glass, cable, or a combination of the three will surround the terrace on the South. Exposed steel and timber connections and accents are to be employed throughout the design. Roofs will consist of non- reflective materials. The site design includes large random rectangular blocks ofstone that serve as landscaped stairs to and from the 'at grade' patio on the west side of the project, and also provide access to the elevated entry porch. Heavy planting of trees and shrubs particularly on the north and south elevations is planned to screen the project from adjacent homes. The architectural design intends to blend the house into the hillside and engage the existing hillside on the west without any substantial cut being necessary. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Lot I, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 The proposed design is in character with the mountain terrain. The new residence will be nestled into the hillside, which will lessen the visual impact from the road and neighboring residences. Large windows will face the southeast and northeast. Little reflectivity will occur to the north due to minimal solar access. Reflectivity is further reduced by the use of roof overhangs overall windows that also provide shading and of Low E glass. The architecture design mimics a tiered wedding cake. The building is stepped into the mountain side to minimize bulk and massing. The master bedroom will be perched on top to maximize views. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are already available. The proposed building will use the same utilities that serve the current house and neighboring residence. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Well- maintained roads already serve the proposed building site. The new residence will utilize the existing driveway which provides adequate access for f re protection and snow removal equipment. The Residential Design Standards suggest that the new residence should engage the curvature of S. Aspen Alps Road perpendicularly. However, the location of the building envelope precludes this possibility. The property is located in the Aspen Infill Area, defined as being east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River, but we do not have any street frontage, only an access easement across the neighboring lot that serves as the connection to Aspen Alps Road. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The proposed redevelopment has adequate ingress and egress for access by fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, § 7) The proposed residence will not disturb any surrounding trails or open space. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 Chapter 26.575 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 26.575.20 Calculations and measurements. A. Floor area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: General. In measuring floor area for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included that floor area within the surrounding exterior walls (measured from their exterior surface) of a building, or portion thereof. When measuring from exterior walls, the veneer and all exterior treatments shall be included. When calculating areas with stairs, each floor -to -floor staircase is counted only once. 2. Decks, Balconies, Porches, Loggias and Stairways. The calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, exterior stairways, gazebos, and similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen (15) percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building (the excess of the 15% shall be included). Porches and landscape terraces shall not be counted towards FAR. Garages, Carports and Storage Areas. In all zone districts except the R- 15-13 zone district, for the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, garages, carports, and storage areas shall be excluded up to a maximum area of two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit; all garage, carport, and storage areas between two hundred fifty (250) and five hundred (500) square feet shall count fifty (50) percent towards allowable floor area; all garage, carport and storage areas in excess of five hundred (500) square feet per dwelling unit shall be included as part of the residential floor area calculation. For garages that are part of a basement, the garage exemption is taken from the total below grade area before the sub -grade calculation takes place. 4. Subgrade areas. To determine the portion of sub -grade areas that are to be included in calculating floor area, the following shall apply: a. For any story that is partially above and partially below natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, the total percentage of exterior surface wall area that is exposed above the most restrictive of the grades shall be the total percentage of the gross square footage of the subject story included in the floor area calculation. Sub -grade stories with no exposed exterior surface wall area shall be excluded from floor area calculations. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS (3800 S.F. Allowed) Lower Level: Livable Area 3590 S.F. %of Wall Exposed 7% Lower Level FAR 251 S.F. Garden Level: Livable Area 2601 S.F. Garage Area 602 S.F. Garage Exemption 325 S.F. Garage Applied 277 S.F. %of Wall Exposed 24% Garden Level FAR 691 S.F. Living Level: Livable Area 2331 S.F. %of Wall Exposed 72% Living Level FAR 1678 S.F. Master Level: Livable Area 971 S.F. %of Wall Exposed 100% Master Level FAR 971 S.F. Deck and Patlos: )570 S.F. Allowed) Living Level 475 S.F. Master Level 125 S.F. Total Deck Area 600 S.F. Deck Area FAR 30 S.F. Total FAR: Lower Level 251 S.F. Garden Level 691 S.F. Living Level 1678 S.F. Master Level 971 S.F. Deck Area 30 S.F. Total FAR 3621 S.F. Total Livable Area: Lower Level 3590 S.F. Garden Level 2601 S.F. Garage 602 S.F. Living Level 2331 S.F. Master Level 971 S.F. Total Livable Area 10,095 S.F. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8 4 January 2008 B. Building Heights. 1. Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. a. Flat Roofs or Roofs with a Slope of Less Than 3:12. The height of the building shall be the maximum distance measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top or ridge of a flat, mansard, or other roof with a slope of less than 3:12. All roofs are to be 2:12 pitch, fat, or shallow pitched barrel - vaulted. Heights shall be measured as specified above. 2. Exemptions for Buildings on Slopes. The maximum height of a building's front (street facing) facade may extend for the first thirty (30) feet of the building's depth. Not applicable on this sloping site. 3. Exceptions for Areaways, Lightwells and Basement Stairwells. An areaway, lightwell or basement stairwell of less than one hundred (100) square feet, entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street, and enclosed on all four sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height. No Lightwells are larger than 100 square feet or placed forward of the front facade. C. Lot Area. The Floor Area Ratio is restricted to 3800 square feet in a single-family residence as specified in the "Statement Of Exception From The Full Subdivision Process For The Purpose Of Subdividing The Moses Property " and recorded on June 26, 1987 (Reception No. 290476). D. Site Coverage. Site coverage is typically expressed as a percentage. When calculating site coverage of a structure or building, the exterior walls of the structure or building at ground level should be used. There is no maximum site coverage stated in the R -15 zone. E. Measurement of Demolition. 100% of the existing structure is to be demolished A demolition plan shall be submitted prior to building permit submittal. LOT i, proses Lot Split 4 January 2008 Chapter 26.600 IMPACT FEES 26.610 Impact Fees 26.610.080 Credits. A. A property owner who dedicates land or improvements or agrees to participate in an improvement district or otherwise contributes funds for capital facilities as defined in this Chapter may be eligible for a credit for such contribution against the impact fee paid. 1. The City Council shall determine: a. The value of the developer contribution; b. Whether the contribution meets capital facilities needs for which the particular impact fee has been imposed; and c. Whether the contribution will substitute or otherwise reduce the need for capital facilities anticipated to be provided with impact fee funds. In no event, however, shall the credit exceed the amount of the applicable impact fee. B. When additional residential bedrooms, hotel bedrooms, or net leasable space are proposed, either individually or in combination, a credit for the existing bedrooms or net leasable space shall be credited towards the development. A credit may only be allocated towards the development on an individual lot and cannot be assigned towards development on a separate lot. C. Any application for credit must be submitted on forms provided by the City before development project approval. The application shall contain a declaration under oath of those facts which qualify the property owner for the credit, accompanied by the relevant documentary evidence. The proposed residence houses five (5) bedrooms. A credit for the four (4) bedrooms is allocated for this property towards the Parks Development Fee and TDM/Air Quality Fee. The resulting Parks Development Fee is then $4,429 and the TDAIIAir Quality Fee, $498. 26.620 School Land Dedication 26.620.070 Current Land Dedication and Cash in -lieu fees. No School Dedication fee is required as four bedrooms already exist in the current residence. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 10 4 January 2008 ZONING DISTRICTS 26.710.050 Moderate - Density Residential (R -15). B. Permitted uses. 1. Detached residential dwelling; The proposed building will be a single-family residence. D. Dimensional requirements. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). The lot size is 26,172 square feet, which conforms to the requirement. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000 The proposed redevelopment consists of one single-family residence on a lot that is larger than 15, 000 square feet. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30). The lot was created by a lot split, and therefore is only required to be 30 feet wide. The lot is 60 feet at its narrowest, which conforms to this requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential dwellings: Twenty-rive (25). 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): Ten (10). 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Principal buildings: Ten (10). The lot will have a front setback of twenty-five feet (25 ), side setbacks of ten feet (10 ), and a rear setback of ten feet (10 ). 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-five (25). The maximum height of the proposed building is less than twenty -five feet. With the construction of the existing residence, the natural grade of the site has been altered significantly to create a fat front and rear yard. This application requests that the natural grade be determined to be higher at the rear of the existing house and lower toward the front as demonstrated in a prepared site section. The proposed residence would then be sited to sit more appropriately within the historic natural grade, with the proposed finished grading to be complementary to this, and in all cases, having the height of the proposed structure less than 25 feet above grade. 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). No detached buildings are proposed to be on the property. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio The Floor Area Ratio is restricted to 3800 square feet in a single - family residence as specified in the "Statement Of Exception From The Full Subdivision Process For The Purpose Of Subdividing The Moses Property " and recorded on June 26, 1987. Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 4 January 2008 1 1 SNOW - AVALANCHE LOADING & HAZARD ANALYSIS LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT Prepared For Cornerstone Architects Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado 81230 November, 2007 Attachment 1 1 Arthur L Mears, P.E., Inc. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, CO 81230 Tel/Fax: (970) 641-3236 December 8, 2007 Gerald Grayson, Manager Little Nell House 1, LLC 10147 Bluffmont Lane Lone Tree, CO 80124 RE: Avalanche hazard & Loading analysis Dear Mr. Grayson: As outlined in my executed proposal of November 8, 2007 this report has the following objectives: 1. Calculation of design- magnitude (100 -year return period) avalanches that may reach and impact the proposed house; 2. Mapping of the design - avalanche extent on detailed GIS topographic maps; 3. Calculation of loads on the proposed house; 4. Evaluation of avalanche risk to persons. This report also has the following limitations which must be understood by all those relying of the conclusions and recommendations of this report: 1. Avalanches even larger and more energetic than the design - magnitude (100 - year) avalanche could occur, and may exceed the design capacity specified in this report; these very rare events could cause structural damage; 2. This analysis evaluated the current, partially- forested conditions in the avalanche path; substantial removal of the forest (natural or by man) could result in more frequent avalanches or larger design avalanches; 3. This report is site and design specific and applies only to the design and layout provided me by Cornerstone Group Architects during my November, 2007 site inspection; 4. Any substantial modifications to these plans may invalidate the results, conclusions and recommendations of this report. I have enjoyed my association with you, Cornerstone Group Architects, and Stan Clauson landscape architects during this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer 2 1. AVALANCHE PATH DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN AVALANCHES 1.1 Terrain overview The proposed building site lies within the runout zone of a small avalanche path as mapped in Figure 1. �fVIo5E5 LOT Split Figure 1. Avalanche path and building design point. Map from AspeMPitkin GIs r vala xhe path. Path do5snption is in text. Red (high -haza dr and blue I) t auderate hazard) zones are defined in teal and shevm on this nap Building V • — �eslgn point used in ,pputat on of avalanche-dynamics and loads is show, De ads about loads are m Figure 2. qy Y r^ In as `� -v sW� mil- „' i. �� •sw >' :9 _ \., �f''. f A a+ r E e A field inspection showed that this avalanche has not been large or reached the building site during recent decades. However the avalanche path is sufficiently steep, a relatively deep snowcover can develop in the upper path (the "starting zone ") on some years and snow will persist for the entire winter. A ski run is located west (and upwind) of the avalanche path; this provides an additional source for snow that can be blown into the starting zone. Although major avalanches have not occurred recently, damage to trees in the starting zone indicates that smaller avalanches have occurred in recent years. The steep terrain in the starting zone ( >400) indicates that larger avalanches (the "design - magnitude" avalanche) could occur and involve substantial volumes of snow on the steep slope. 1.2 The design - magnitude avalanche The design- magnitude avalanche must be considered in Aspen and Pitkin County for engineering, architecture and land -use planning. This avalanche represents the largest K3 that could occur during a 100 -year period and has a constantl% annual probability. The design avalanche has been computed using a two -step procedure as follows; a. The maximum stopping position (the runout distance of the design avalanche) was estimated based on experience with numerous unusually -large avalanches personally observed in similar terrain during the past 3 decades in Colorado and elsewhere in North America; the design avalanche will stop on a bench at 8,030 elevation approximately 60 vertical feet below the building site; b. Given the maximum avalanche -path extent as estimated in "a," the velocity, flow thickness, and energy was computed through using the Swiss avalanche - dynamics simulation program AVAL -1D, v.1.3; "red" (high- hazard) and "blue" (moderate- hazard) zones were thus determined and are defined below. These hazard -zone definitions are the same as used in Pitkin County, Aspen and are similar to those used throughout North America and Europe. c. Red zone —Avalanches have return periods of 30 years or lessor produce impact pressures of 30kPa (630 Ibs1ft2) or more; d. Blue zone — Avalanches have return periods of 30 to 100 years and produce impact pressures of less than 30 kPa (630 Ibs /ft2). The building site is located in a Blue zone. According to normal international standards building is permitted in the Blue zone if structural avalanche mitigation is incorporated into the building or if the building is otherwise protected. 1.3 Dynamics parameters used in design The computed avalanche- dynamics parameters at the back walls of the proposed house are: Velocity — 8.0 m/s (20 mph); Flow thickness — 0.9m (3.0 feet); Impact energy — 12.9 kPa (270 Ibs /ft2). These parameters were used in calculations (summarized in Figures 2 and 3) to compute the distribution of forces on the rear building walls. 2 DESIGN LOADS ON BACK WALLS The back wall of the proposed house exposed to the design - magnitude avalanche is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the wall impacted by the avalanche and requiring reinforcement; Figure 3 shows the vertical distribution of impact loads. The following load characteristics must be considered by the structural engineer and /or architect: 1. Loads are impact loads, increasing from zero to the maximum specified in Figure 3 in 3.0 seconds; the loads of Figure 3 may need to be multiplied by an impact factor by the structural engineer; 4 2. The avalanche will contain fragments of tree limbs which may produce pressures double those specified in Figure 3 over isolated surface areas of 1.0 ft2; less than 10% of the exposed surfaces would be thus impacted; 3. After the design avalanche occurs, static loads will remain against the walls and will persist through April or May on major snow years unless it is removed; 4. Although the static loads may persist for several weeks or months unless removed, they will be less than 50% of the impact load. The following criteria should also be considered in design of this building: 5. The impact loads should be assumed uniform over the first 6.0 feet above grade, decreasing to zero at height of 12 feet; 6. The overhang should be designed for a uniform q2M load of 60 Ibs /ft2 over its lower surface; this results from unpredictable effects of avalanche damming below the overhangs; 7. If doors are planned on the uphill wall, they must be designed for avalanche impact; as currently planned, the main entrances are on the opposite (avalanche -free) side as they should be; t3. Windows should be located at least 12 feet above grade or be designed for impact. 5 F6.0feet. ure 3. Elevation view of back wall_ act pressure decreases linearly above 270p,sf 3 RESIDUAL RISK 6,0 ft People may be outside and exposed within the path when the design avalanche occurs. See Figure 1 for a map of avalanche extent. However, because the design avalanche or any avalanche capable of reaching the building is a rare event, the probability of a person being reached by this avalanche is very small. This is true because people are outside only a small percentage of the total time at a site where avalanches are not common. This risk probability is similar to risks we normally accept in everyday activity. However, the risk probability of being caught by an avalanche outside the building is not zero. It can be further minimized by taking the following recommended steps: a. People using the area should be aware that i is located in the path of the rare, design avalanche; b. Person living in this area should educate themselves about avalanches; c. They should heed all official avalanche warning and advisories; d. They should avoid using the uphill outside areas during periods of high and extreme avalanche danger; e. They should be prepared for self rescue. 4 DISCLAIMERS 4.1 Specific disclaimer This report has evaluated current forest and terrain conditions and the site plans provided by Cornerstone Architects. Changes to the forest, terrain, or site plans may invalidate the findings of this report. 0 4.2 General disclaimer You as my client should know that while our company can and does attempt to uphold the highest professional standards, the state of scientific and engineering knowledge is incomplete, and does not always permit certainty. The complex phenomena involved in avalanches cannot be perfectly evaluated and predicted, and methods used to predict avalanche behavior change as new research becomes available. While we can and will offer our best professional judgment, we cannot and do not offer any warranty or guarantee of results. Report prepared by Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer 7 Road, Aspen, CO - Google Maps ^► Address .JOC) a 800 Alps Rd Maps Aspen, CO 81611 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl- Notes Vicinity Map h- ..,ark ; Feekec�� h y RS -ve He CO �r hym n Ave - m Ave h. y ark o0OP"Av- �Par1c a - m C9 0 Coopft Elan Ave t � h - .Eparanf N Ave Evey Way & Epea�St frd�Ave y fCdoperAvQ --- ,i'rntAve -ark sr y' FSU,amnst .qti Hole EWete�Ave . S`.. 6 M1 f� Attachment 2 G4., 4 ax Park,` �+ Qi d Oete Ave m Q � R a, Ni ar Wa c S�. egte Map data 012007 NAVrEGTM of I 13- Dec -07 11:51 AM Attachment 3 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT AND LOT 2, REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO I VICINITY MAP iN 010W f / y [EET 20 I 2I FEET GRAPHIC SCALE 1 I y SCPLG , 1N _M MT p9' ,n I i CONTOEN INTERVK - 2' % � / W L i / {% IIR t. Y� IOT sNR IltrfdM,E w TE EU.i NiVRNS J[E N. t9[) / l Wl U I NN / j ' S NIUT N.Nt ».TT VME BS i NNn I N S i 1 - - �� i / / / � u € g�{ � (vm w.m •sNr. m) 33 NN wzr+..�.�bX�WIdN®Ir seNpu u. re'�.w..n_).r U emne saswlr d b vr,w v. wa.d ra Nx Ea,.Na +. , ®+o M / / E'' W i I I / '1 O � � V Ibt Ns. f Wfllrsebl SdtmLV 119it i PIa1 8 1. LL vya85 I A � % / OW I i • rm£s � mrn rm [,we[N c,r >, I 9 s-T rx w• No rwna sr.1ESX ssaa \ . � ` \'�7. n•�'IST, !s`F:r:: W= '. ,, 6 ) rw ° / / � / a7s �aolml �r.�TvwraaXO vur \\1 1)NE TA UE f.11NE °64NS N. V °C X If SY 9 Q • t4 W E W EV °C [ 9 b AY ffi [ Jt1f W n.iY V WWI" XW ][ Sd a LlV aIS . w w. w 00 e uwwf MwwX Mlv b MS Mww MEss W 6 v Www wWW, n.w DO u T wwE ww. u i YWl p) NSE 4N w p) M r xsr p0 ° N NINi3s Y1NC ?.1 Xwnb ih NY IqY sr ,Ndf M �•rJtu d 14 rs�� e. m�m� w a. M Ir Jm li. frol mr°nN�srN 0{WY� yW p G�,N.4 � $61�N11. r .M NWtY .ivs �Y Ge4aL mr,Sl�s/ms �r Wn,andlVRCW WVMS ]NM bdl vlr nl YOd MXb�me drYy, aO Y er L Mac°Y2 en esMsu � tlNnN s m s )b' vNeN el M a qys b unr.el r m.IM sr Iw NV s lI + W. e 4 Nmqcd.r 4f �voy 0 b4ies aM M M ,a. rwn mm,l ® wm. r ryWN � ay taa tlr p w'.waas Inl,,. ,,�.wF r l Xw. lrwa w NM.e � NN b =m d X b b gh [ An IbM l le e4i p 6e 9rom r G.ab N MMy CebNb M Mr,e ar 6sNe nN . •n mo[ x enlsa err .. Irr ra dvXa ..a '. tlrAp INN, M � , Yh d 1e,swir me b eft M/. Wd M YNM N r [.,r,.r eXnpX Xe,. e,e� rL eea � NrX Y OdBN SV I V � b ,sIN�I.w sN hm rl d . etle m s by p [.N rma1O m mMLL Md r . ° Mr .. i .,t , vr.96,vt fN1}.i�MM w1AWa ,M1m eot b ppsMl y� elel ,ees bM v 91N3 ] I,M,Nai Ise YwP A [e AY N fJVOb Ce b'N �a T L Lrl�m Y XNYi M.V . LLMf n[IKIOe m1 LL ^'a Im..°.ar� �e.w�.M bsuLL ar °r N �N a rr . e.m� XN Nsr .ner r u..r � e.e[a nNE» n..m ' °trwdn we w � �ao � e :i r ..w� 4 � e mie�.X.wr s e5ns wlna m�ws..0 l wrNw x vrma msm.� ep0W , w s�,w pm0re s.v, ri1w . 5rN �m�[ �y�yy�m ��d,rveb YeNNh ta. 6on M Ma1rs Na1n (ast) MN' I N Nb tt mITW. MWIIlw qw WW — � MMX.yOdSNISS w w,l. x.. SOATN M latkll&H 2-lu LnW JNK a LS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT AND W. �lEB 3TZ4G m-03{6 PA :=M , y�•JW. LOT 2, REPEAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT 1 of 2 oE� �K a (M)04- M- awl}•nyr @e�.axA CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO wo ae.e m ml 1N, d nm oa. IMYV I+x me Me v. 2064 MN' I N Nb tt mITW. MWIIlw qw WW — � MMX.yOdSNISS w w,l. x.. SOATN M latkll&H 2-lu LnW JNK a LS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT AND W. �lEB 3TZ4G m-03{6 PA :=M , y�•JW. LOT 2, REPEAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT 1 of 2 oE� �K a (M)04- M- awl}•nyr @e�.axA CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ENTRY PERSPECTIVE CGAPARTNERSA:R aED E1A81ERT PARTNMill Attachment 4 117 5. SPRING 5 T, SUITE 2 01_p ASPEN CO 81611 T 19707 920 7838 P (9701 920 0086 ORNERSTONE GROUP - CHF7 -CT F — s �. • • PROPOSED GRADE J GARDEN LEVEL • ' U . e s LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE SOUTH ELEVATION eAP'vt7N�ty` 7/0=11 " i 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO rbsa.m 9rgnic R:>miu pua+mn�ai� .:mc7 v1u;e3e ep�a vso cues wi+w.ccnrNarv�i+4 25' ROOF HEIGHT RESTRICTION I MASTER LEVEL T. O. PLYWD. ,L 11Y-4' - 8 - -- 100'-8' Y MAIN LEVEL T.0. PLYWD. •L I W-O00' GARDEN LEVEL _ T. O. PLYWD. it EL. 88 LOWER LEVEL T. P. SLAB A EL.7T -4' -SW-W LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE NORTH ELEVATION CGAPARTNERSASPEN s 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO. 114' =1' -0' s ` itisuynw!fia?GS(sabfD pSLnetaFf tl4*- Nmzeae Fw�:gvz¢a�sa ;wtx.t ,+ixrtre.nur LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE LOW_ ER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CGAPARTNERSASPEN A WBe➢V PAR➢Mw lam 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO '.$lll'.H 9`FR:6 c- -1CII: =IF=4 CC _ °!III ::J'fi5 F(:'CI V)Cf. &: WihW CGISnP?NEFS N%i LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE GARDEN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CGAPARTNERSASPEN ALL ltd &B PAtlift31N 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO 1/4 -I''0" "r ! NT15"iklG '£viC -SRN cc; BW1 - ,o!Ci:. ^C X3? f(; % +, MC S.LL'. P: \V.'Lt:GL ➢ngYOZS.N KITCHEN I BIO KITCHEN DINMMa 1 OUTDOOR VERANDA ma awml SIDE ENTRY PATK) SKILOCKER EM Fa,-1 im a n WING COVERED ENTRY ENTRY FOYER F-1 Ll ILL OUTDOOR WING F-1-11 LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE LIVING LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CGAPARTNERSASPEN AUNREp BMItt PARTN@91M 800 S. ASPEN ALPS RD., ASPEN COLORADO 1/4'_V-0" °+— 1 i —� +«y1H SR1 {S ?. 4':r;.; a5R`N tL __ °yell +SIC J]6i5 fIS%j m x'86 Y.lVri ;.36f:A1NfC N:? W W 0 C) W.0 w W'CLO J J N W � ZW W ua-> JQ HN F- $ J 6'! YB9B'tL8 "OLBZW'gB9p'gL8'OLB KI'LIB LB O�u�W'Br68 mB'O'd b 'a uol ;on�su fg0 o3 Jo ;;oN ;IldS;ol sesoyy '� aol N BJ u4ojy.edeo8puel s ueld a eospuel c tieulwllead esno HJIIIIaN $U ' U6ISe3(] 3NidIV i t .z Y� I �u CEd � d 9 8 £F a. - Egkeso P w EBB , :Eg g � 111 gg 1E gg$9p gg 8sffip 8g8 E� p88 'E °rX 6 E§ II$yfE pp Willi �E ,! y2_ pa' <F" flag 9� fail N 4 m m m q T j £F a. - Egkeso P w EBB , :Eg g � 111 gg 1E gg$9p gg 8sffip 8g8 E� p88 'E °rX 6 E§ II$yfE pp Willi �E ,! y2_ pa' <F" flag 9� fail N 4 m m m q T N e KBB'SLO'B<6 •a' S89B'BLO'SLO NI' LlBl80� B�Po' BOSB •OB'O'd uolaona}suoo jo;;oN pjdg;ol sesow ' 6 ao-1 ejnp9jjgan/ edeospuel Buipei0 fieulwilGJd asnoH 011 119N 6UIUUL'�d �g U61SaQ 3NId'IV ........_.... c R m J 1 S$$ y0 r 00 n 00° fi jilt' Him Y ro s € L l IM a 9;gCgro fyp$aFa,ggg @EroggE! 'g ggy dbgro€, Julien] M1112,11111112 i a V v 6 S 7 I L w u7 � n$: N •. _._ .... j � �w R rc �o ge 3u .. J Bo6888$8i a 8'8 8 c� a V v 6 S 7 I w u7 � N •. _._ .... j � �w R rc �o ge .. J a c� Ln Z_Z e ui a 'h o .0 o, ui U $ VJ W W N Q CL a W s 16Z 0 ti Z w N ui a � w I 0^ I I I I - I 0^ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I' I. I II '„ I I II I I'. i li I, I I I I 0 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W 4 r I I I I I I I'. I I I I I 0^ do I I I I' I I I I I I 0 I I I Z I I I O II III I I I I 1 I I I II U I I I I W I I I � I I I I W 4 r I I I I I I I'. I I I I I 0^ do I I I I' I I I I I i i I I i I I I I.• I I I,, I I III f E I � I : I „ I I I I I� I I I I L I � II � I I I I I I I I I I a I',, II III I I I I 1 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '.I W II U) i i I I i I I I I.• I I I,, I I III f E I � I : I „ I I I I I� I I I I L I � II � I I I I I I I I I I a 4 Y H L e: d LO v t¢ l CC W 9 H f 'nom k V U z b Z 0L_ r 'W'^ vJ W4 C/) w W og vJ 2 W NW n N Q Ja. Wa Z w Wa J � 8 J I',, II III I I I I 1 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III' II 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I li 1 4 Y H L e: d LO v t¢ l CC W 9 H f 'nom k V U z b Z 0L_ r 'W'^ vJ W4 C/) w W og vJ 2 W NW n N Q Ja. Wa Z w Wa J � 8 J Z o? 00 00 4Y yo U LU W I I M I I I 1 I I I I ry0 0� I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I 111 ',.I III I I II I1 I I ', 11 I I I I I I I I W V/ 0 O �I uj W0 00 U) 2 W Wr Q // LL. J � J a W ZW W J a N J Z 0 I I I I I I I I I I II I I 111 ',.I III I I II I1 I I ', 11 I I I I I I I I W V/ 0 O �I uj W0 00 U) 2 W Wr Q // LL. J � J a W ZW W J a N J T M L 10 ++ OC F- n (f) 0 J W U) SO W U 2 Q H 0. w U U a df Q O a r H m J ` Q O a CL 4 a N it w W Z z w } r W Q U w F- a: w U Un a 0 r W a N 4� 8« m t � m � a o Q � w i-"- ¢ w a �ptt i r :s w 1' U Z �� w 1 � °sc ,io m YY a gg ew J d 1� W W UU U Woa XWO WyFl zW w i �0 �d ULL f U u YW >Wf� d(0 6W� N R=N aw A o N 4 mA C a 4 a. r �5[ ~ 3 Z V 7 t Q N U) n R=N aw A o N 4 mA C a 4 a. r �5[ ~ 3 Z V 7 t Q 3 aS,. 00 ty 6 U i N p d o RR Z0 n ? x w z as . �.._ CE Q Z cc OJ. 4 E SM� .p P F 9 v 9 ZN W2o W Z> Z z ? � � 7 �T d fUp� I ' f e ,J a a o i� 4 6 ei4 �fii � °■ n e i e� � �aa 7f3h Pqq�g tl% Jill R=N aw A o N 4 mA C a 4 a. r �5[ ~ 3 Z V 7 t ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS EAST OF THE SILVER QUEEN GONDOLA AT THE BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN, THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM C (CONSERVATION) TO R -15 PUD (RESIDENTIAL) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Gaard Moses family to rezone to R -15 (PUD) a one acre parcel of land generally located on the old Midland Railroad spurline, southeast of the Aspen Alps, east of the Silver Queen gondola and specific - ally described in Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, the parcel is presently zoned C (Conservation); and WHEREAS, as part of the rezoning request, the Moses family i has submitted a subdivision exception request for the purposes of creating two lots; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 28, 1987. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that the subdivision exception and rezoning be approved; and WHEREAS, the application has been found to be generally consistent with Section 24 -12.5 of the Land Use Code which . establishes criteria for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that due to the existing topography of this particular site east tree of the Little Nell ski run, the old Midland Railroad spurline rather than the 8040' elevation line is a logical dividing line between the C (Conser- vation) zone and residential districts; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the recommen- dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed rezoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1 That it does hereby rezone to R -15 PUD the area generally located southeast of the Aspen Alps Condominiums, east of the Silver Queen Gondola at the base of Aspen Mountain (specifically described in Attachment 1). Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer's authoriz- ed and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4 If any section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 6&gtion 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the---_'3 day of �thf- , 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once 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 %:!e City of Aspen on the 23rd day of February, 1987. William L. Stirling, May ATTEST: 1 7 c./ Kathryn W. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this,13 day of d . 1987. William L. Stirling, Ma'or ATTEST: Kathryn Sy Koch, City Clerk gh.49 Attachment 1 Legal Description A tract of land situated in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, being part of the Little Nell Mining Claim MS 3881 AM described as follows: Beginning at corner no. 5 MS 3881 (Little Nell) thence North 43028'44" East 136.76 feet along the line 5 -4 MS 3881; thence South 43028'44 ", East 203.47' to line 1 -4 MS 1830 AM (Chance); thence South 45000' West 297.01' feet along line 1 -4 MS 1830 AM (Chance); thence North 05019'34" West 259.54 feet to the point of beginning containing 1.0 acres more or less. 07/09/2007 17:38 3034847679 r rm, 5214 r'.'...: V GRAYSON AND ASSOC PAGE 05 Recorded a` —0 clock�M�_ 1 Reception Pao SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER OF AMENDIk ENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 9th day of duly, 1987, by and between GEORGE P. MITCHELL, CYNTHSA W. MITCHELL, H.A. BOP,NEPELD, ??t- and MARY BORNEFELD (hereinafter referred to a$ "Parties of the First Part ") and CAARD HOPKINS MOSF,S (hereinift ?r referred to as "Party of the Second Part "), W_TTNESSETlJ, THAT: WHEREAS, Parties of the First Part have Executed that certain Special Warranty Deed dated May 16, 1977, and recorded in Book 330 at Page 946 of the Pitkin county records granting a non - exclusive, easement as described therein to .Party of the Second Par-: (hereine. .tter referred to as the "Easement "); ._ WHEREAS, the parties amended said Easement •hy Agreement of P.mendmenrt dated December 26, 1986, and recorded January 27, 1987, in Book 528 at Page 684 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Amendment "); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto des-ire to amend the Eas•aTnent and k`irst Amendment as set forth hzFrpag W.3.t,h Sated EaSeVEAl to continue in full force and effect, as mmerrAOd and',e. ZgAa.'. d ir. aoc:)rdancp with the terms stated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in cFJ719,iC i' L3;O?,F .Q.£. tl;ae" ,tmitual covenants and agreements hezeinafter stet f0!tt7t," its i-9 aqz -eed as follows: 1. The Partizs of iclte. Sars4`, Pat .is$- s"r;75y' gi_aat to Party of the Second Part a non- ercelaasi*re. �rYr e . 33a_5 _ wji3r, across, under and along the Easement px- 2IILi5. e%-. a' c3 In tI.e F'i�r;t Asa ndment for the - puzpose of eoanzcting'`:o a�..:lsS va±te -,'��e .t live cwt:ed by Parties. of the First Part and servicing t�hQ 7M �p'u$ di o£ the Aspen Alps South Condominium, Pitkin Cc,)rnty, Coleradb_ -- - -2: Parties of-the First Part Ilereby further :. grant Party of the Second Part the non - exclusive perpett2al night to :ap into and use said private sewer line to provide sanit.axy sewer service to the property of the Party of the Second Part, dezcri.bad as followe; Lots 1 and 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT, according to tae Plat thereof recorded June 26, 1987, in Plat Book 19 at .Pages 83 and 84 in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitki.ng County, Colorado, together with a right of access to said line as nay be necessary or desirable to fully service, repair and /or replace e:aid sewer line. 31 Party of the, Second Part covenants with varties of the First Part that: (a) The land to which this Fasement is eppurtenant will be used for a naainum of two (2) legal single- fanily :residences only as - I - 4 (( l 07/09/2007 17:38 3034847679 GRAYSON AND ASSOC PAGE 06 F 54.1 rlu553 bFfi.red. by(the Municipal Code of the City of Asl:er., Colnzado. diately following his distur:>ing of the surtar_E of the land to exercise his rights hereunder, Par.:,, of the second Fart agrzes to return said surface to its original condition of his expense- with with minimal ydisturb disturbance to the a Cetsi rigranteddShall be sewer service to the Aspen Alps South Condoinini:.tns. hazard t0 (d) No condition .ion, will be allowed to the surrounding area- that cogld causE aspe (e) Part of the Second Part will fully cooperate with* the n Alps South condominium Association. (f) Party of the 5econd Part will pa_,, promptly upon .being billed therefor., his prorata portion of all costs incurred by Aspen Alps Condominium Association, its successors or 'assigns, i With the maintenance, repair and /or replacement including, but n of said _ ^.ewe r 1.n connection reconstruction Of Said Sewer to, costs of resurf :.c:Ln regrSdinq artd reco� sewer Line and t, (41 Before to he Aspen .jps'Road bed. the Second Fart shall PP-ng into said sewer line, Pasty or and obtain lawful a prepare' file with the Aspen sanitary District, including PProval of an application fox a 4 the payment of all costs and expenses of Such connect, 4. Any violation by Party of the Seconc Part, his heirs,. successors or assigns of any of th,e covenants se -; forth in paragraph 3 above shell cause the ?mme4iatli ��rslon of tit '.e to the Easement and rights herein described to Parties of the First Part, theirs heirs ,uccessors or ass,i.gns. j 5- This Second Ageement of .� rights and obligations betweexi ten`lssnt shall not affect the Special warranty Deed and FiS5t h� bdrties beret, under the aforesaid -( herein.tPsyt115ent, except: as expressly stated - -- -� IN WITNESS WHE)3MP the secona Part have hereunto s+ first above written, Pa effect. r 1 I C�OR E G P. MITCxE (Rushand _ X _Y�j fi.A. SORNEFE &D,f•JR. (Husl, and) Parties of he First Part and Party ox- the 't their h4zds and seals the day and- year. _ - -- .ve when executed and ,acknowledged by all F: CYNTHI - -- A Wes... :..t..,._.,..�.[.? i ..�. MARY E ;NE FIT -- j ( GAA,.Rr IiOp I S [r i72�ES A (NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CN PAGE 3) - 2 - 07/09/2007 17:38 3034847679 GRAYSON AND ASSOC PAGE 07 STATE OF TEXAS ) ) ss. COiNTY OF MONTGOMERY ) ei,.The foregoing instrv_•ment was acknowledged before me this 1C' day of August, 19 87, by GF,ORCE r. MITCHELL and CYNTHIA W. MITCHELL. Fjat�A4 my. hand and official seal. > °MYy commission. expires -,2 S TA4 -A* COUNTIV Or HANIRzs 1 The foregoing Rte fit `•i y day. of iR)yr-983, ... v c71 ¢ y °•WdTM'�S S X?y en.'am t CF cQ�O ' amendeas /LANp2 0 W x, AND A�OC PAGE 01 07/09/2007 17:38 3034847679 GRAYSON Recwwljt � d LF�'� dc*Lm. t t Reception NO ...Z- S;LVIA DAM pnMN COUIM REWROER BUR M0 PAGZ186 WHEREAS, GAARD HOPKINS MOSES ( hereinafter referred to as "Moses ") is the owner of a parcel of real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and wHEREAS, Moses has requested an exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1987, determined that Moses' request for such subdivision was appropriate and granted the same, subject however, to the conditions; described hereinafter. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspect, Colorado, does determine that the application for exceptio:1 from the full subdivision process for the purpose of su: dividing the property described on the attached Exhibit "!!" is proper and hereby approves said subdivision, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing approval is expressly conditioned upon: 1. Recording, by Moses, of a lot split plat designating the two lots forined prior to the issuance of ar_y building permits. Said plat shall conform to Section 20 -15 of the Municipal Code of the City-of Aspen, Colorado. 2. Conversion of each of the existing duplex structures to single - family dwelling units by removing kitchens from each building within eighteen months of recording the Lot Split Plat or prior to the- issuance of a Certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. Removal of kitchens shall be verified by the City zoning officer. 3. Removal of the existing shed on Lot 1 which encroaches over the building setback lines a-id verification thereof by the City zoning officer prior to t:ie issuance of a building permit. 4. Restriction of the floor area in each of -the;. single- family residences to 3,800 square feet and to submit all plans for demolition and reconstruction, or additions to 8040 greenline review_ Notification of the A.::pen Alps Of any 8040 greenline review date. 07/09/2007 17:38 3034847679 GRAYSON AND ASSOC PAGE 02 T tJ'�i- 4 06', r'4G.130 5. Implementation of the water connection plan shown on the final plat within eighteen months of its recording c Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Cccupancy for the remodeled or reconstructed single- family iWelling units, whichever comes first. DATED this ' > day of April, 1987_ GAARD HOPKINS MOSES GIDEON I. __KAOFM=, as attorney -in -fact CITY OF 1',SPEN, a municipal corporation WILI.IAN_ _T, .. TIRLING Mayor I. KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify t:7at the foregoing $- tiatement of Exception from the Full Subdiv.9.sion Process for `It" 4orpbse of Subdividing the Moses Proi,erty, Aspen, 4� Coibra) Qounci j was considered and approved by the Aspen City ibd that the Mayor, William L. Skirling, was �zecT'_ to execute the same on behalf c:E the City of \ - KATHRYN , . KOC i, City Clerk ;� �) �•A AS TO PAUL J. TAD ONE, City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF/�_ ss. .„S� The 'forego in rument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by GIDEON r. YAUFMAN as .,, - •••�'t.at�orney- in -fac on behalf {p L of GAARD HOPKiN S MOSES. WITNESS my hand and official seal. rcw_ My commission expires: �i' T.01hf7iSS n Fxpir.,, FefiMe- �r b..d Q► CQ N 4ary Min L (ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON POLLOWI]:G PAGE) 2 - d ffi r 07/09/2007 17:38 3034647679 GRAYSON AND ASSOC PAGE 03 I 9a0K 540 PAGE188 STATE OF COLORADO j } ss. COUNTY OF PXTRIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J Z day of Jlj 1987, by William L. Stirling, as Mayor, and Kathryn s. Koch as City Clerk C £ the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, . WITNESS my hand and official seal. i4 ?: ::��.; !�:s!. -, e :c� 9Ji: Y1F,j,.,�v? •. `fir My commission expires: d: LuFary Publ r' Moses ex stmt /RLEST5 - 3 - a n I I t 07/09/2007 17:38 3034847679 1 GRAYSON AND ASSOC EXHIBIT A PAGE 04 i �ODX 40 fAGE189 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract oL land situated in section 18, tow- . -iship 10 south, range. 84 west of the sixth principal meridiai, being part of the Little Nell Mining claim MS 3681 AM described as ;.ollows: Beginning at corner number 5 MS 3881 AM ( Little Nell) N 43 28'44 "E 136.76 feet: thence Thence S43 28144 "E 203.47 feet to line 1 -4 ME 1830 AM (CHANCE): - Thence S45 00'00 "W 297,01 feet along line 1 -4 Mss 1830 AM (CHANCE): Thence NOS 19'34 "W 259.54 feet to the point or beginning. I i� "HOT PAID- "TRI Rip NO. Y N pIn LO °$n O wNQ Y� aom$ ac �x m N a= .`o m W Y/ W NW Cog 42E Attachment 6 WRETT Pao NO WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made this 12'" day of June, 2003, between GAARD HOPKINS MOSES and MARY LYNN PATTON, Grantors, and GERALD GRAYSON, whose legal address is One Tabor Center, 1200 176 Sheet, Suite 980, Denver, CO 80202, Grantee: WITNESS, that the Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, described as follows: LOT I, MOSES LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditamcnts and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantors, for themselves, their successors and assigns, do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, Grantors are well seized of the premises above conveyed, have good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee sirrrplc, and have good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear fiom all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances of record, except for those matters described on Exhibit A, anached hereto and made a part hereof. The Grantors shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above- bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any pan thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this deed on the date set forth above. GRANTORS: Ga ins s s 'T STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN I I Mai Patton, by Garret .Bradt, her attorney -in -fact W The foregoing insnvment was acknowledge before me this 12 day of June, 2003, by Claard Hopkins Moses. Witness my hand and offici 1 seal �' My commission expires: r JANICE L. JOHNSON NOTARY PUBLIC S�TonATE OF COLORADO STATE OF CWfKi�iIFY Erpires Aorll 16'2004 ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this Lo day of June, 2003, by Garret S. Brandt as attorney -if -fact for Mary Lynn Patron. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _/'!v � QaYy c % L✓ Mary Public / _ m L /an° /')� S�TPe%J Suife % &fl ('/ & RU ')° IIINIIIIIIIIIIINIINN�IIIINIINNINnIIIIIIN °w4 x0t 2 SrLViB DBMS r•ITx IN Co, @5/17 55/17/$003 03:45P R 11.00 0 310.50 EXHIBIT A to Warranty Deed EXCEPTIONS Taxes for the year 2003 due and payable in 2004 2. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded November 01, 1888, in Book 136 at Page 173 and Recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 213. 3. Right of proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises as reserved in United States Patent recorded November 01, 1888, in Book 136 at Page 173 and Recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 213, 4. Terms, conditions and provisions of easements in Deed recorded December 27, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 980. S. Terms, conditions and provisions of Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process recorded June 26, 1987 in Book 540 at Page 186. 6. Terms, easements, Rights -of -way, and all other matters as contained in Moses Lot Split Plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83. 7. Terms, conditions and provisions of Restated Easement Agreement recorded September 03, 1992 in Book 687 at Page 915. 8. Terms, conditions and provision or Easement Agreement recorded February 10, 2003 at Reception No. 478491. 9. Encroachment of fenceline on adjoining property along the easterly boundary. 10. Possessory rights outside of fenceline on the north and easterly boundary lines Mr. Gerald Grayson 10147 Bluffmont Lane Lone Tree, CO 80124 29 October 2007 Ms. Jessica Garrow City of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jessica: Attachment 7 This letter is to certify that I, Gerald Grayson, owner of Lot I of the Moses Lot Split, give Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. and its staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding the application for a 8040 Greenline Review at Lot 1, Moses Lot Split. We have retained this firm to represent us in the application for this project. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Their contact information is as follows: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc 412 N. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 Tel(970)925 -2323 Fax(970)920 -1628 arcel Detail http:/ /www.pitkinassessor.org/assessc Attachment 8 Pitkin County Assessor /Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor /Treasurer Property Search 1 Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Building Characteristics ( Tax Information Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential /Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number Mill Levy 056 R012510 273718256003 33.55 Owner Name and Address GRAYSON GERALD 10147 BLUFFMONT LN LONE TREE, CO 80124 Legal Description SUB:MOSES SPLIT LOT:1 Location Physical Address: 800 ALPS RD ASPEN Subdivision: 'MOSES SPLIT I Land Acres: _ '0.6 Land Sq Ft: .. ... ........ 0 Property Tax Valuation Information Actual Value I Assessed Value Land:. 4,274,0001 340,210', Improvements: 1,476,000 117,490 Total: 5,750,000 457,700: 1 of 3 13- Dec -07 11:52 AM Parcel Detail http: / /www.pitkinassessor.ore -/ assessor /Parcel.asp ?AccountNuinber Sale Date: '6 /6/2003 Sale Price: ;3,165,000 -- - - — Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential Buildings: ! 1 Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: '0 Residential Building Occurrence 1 Characteristics GARDEN LEVEL BSMT:'I,100 FINISHED GARAGE: WOOD BALCONY: 606 '482 -- - -I 1/2 STORY: '469 -- — -- - -' 2ND FLOOR: '2,317 Total Heated Area: !3,886- - -- — Property Class: Actual Year Built: SINGLE FAM RES- IMPROVEMEN 1988 Effective Year Built: 1988 Bedrooms: 4 Baths: 4 Quality of Construction: Exterior Wall: Exterior Wall: Interior Wall: Floor: Heat Type: jHeating Fuel: Roof Cover: Roof Structure: Neighborhood: Super Nbad: VG 12 +BASE LOG 9" - WD SID LOW DRYWALL BASE HT WTR B/B GAS CEDARSHAK GABLE /HIP ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION CITY OF ASPEN Tax Information Tax Year Transaction Type Amount 1997 Tax Amount $5,976.60 - — — - -- -- 1997 1997 Tax Payment: First Half Tax Payment: Second Half ($2,988.30) ($2,988.30) 2 of 3 13- Dec -07 11:52 AN rcel Detail http: / /www.pitkinassessor.org/ assessor /Parcel.asp ?AccountNumber... 1998 Tax Amount $5,890.18 1998 Tax Payment: First Half ($2,945.09) : 1998 Tax Payment: Second Half ($2,945.09) I 1999 Tax Amount $5,499.98', 1999 Tax Payment: First Half ($2,749.99) 1999 Tax Payment: Second Half ($2,749.99)'i 2000 Tax Amount $6,228.08: 2000 - - - -- Tax Payment: First Half - - ($3,114.04)', 2000 Tax Payment: Second Half ($3,114.04) j 2001 Tax Amount $6,640.24 001 _ Tax Payment: Whole ($6,640.24)' 2002 Tax Amount $6,647.94 � 2002 - -- Tax Payment: Whole y $6 647.94 , ( ) 2002 Interest Charge - $132.96 2002 Interest Payment - '� ($132.96) 2003 Tax Amount $6,668.36' 2003 Tax Payment: First Half ($3,334.18) 2003 Tax Payment: Second Half ($3,334.18) 2004 Tax Amount $6,747.06 2004 Tax Payment: First Half ($3,373.53) 2004 Tax Payment: Second Half ($3,373.53) 2005 Tax Amount $8,648.00 2005 Tax Payment: Whole ($8,648.00)! 2006 Tax Amount $9,009.20 2006 Tax Payment: Whole ($9,009.20) Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options I Treasurer Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2004 - 2007 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. of 3 13- Dec -07 11:52 AM Attachment 9 CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 429 -2780 DATE: 10.25.2007 PROJECT: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split REPRESENTATIVE: Tanya Stevens Stan Clauson Associates Tel: 925.2323 DESCRIPTION: The prospective Applicant is interested in redeveloping Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split. In 1987 the area was re -zoned to R -15 PUD and a lot split was approved which limited the lot to 3,800 sq. ft. of Floor Area and required an 8040 Greenline Review for any future development on the site. The record indicates the PUD designation was placed on the lot to ensure slope density calculations are made should the site undergoes duplex redevelopment. The proposal is for a single - family home, so a PUD review is not required. The Applicant is required to receive an 8040 Greenline Review. As part of the 8040 Greenline Review, the Applicant should provide documentation regarding the avalanche danger and other environmental hazards on the site (see section 26.435.030.C.1). Any additional engineering, topographic, grading, etc information should also be provided. The Applicant has indicated that the site has undergone significant grade changes over the years, and would like to return the site to "historic grade." As part of the 8040 Greenline Review, the Applicant must provide documentation regarding grade changes previously made, and how the "historic grade" has been determined. Residential development on this lot is subject to the Residential Design Standards. Pursuant to section 26.410.010.8.4, because the lot gains access from a private street, the project is exempt from Building Elements (26.410.040.D) and Building Orientation (26.410.040.A.1). Any variances required should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the 8040 Greenline Review. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.410 Residential Design Review 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review 25.575 Calculations 26.600 Impact Fees http:/Iwww.aspenpitkin.com/deptsi38/citycode.cfm Review by: Minor Applications to the Planning and Zoning Commission require a deposit of $1,410 for 6 hours of time. Additional time is billed at a rate of $235 per hour. Minor Referrals from Parks, Engineering, and Environmental Health are also required; these are each billed at $204. Referral Agencies: Parks, Engineering, Environmental Health, ACSD, Water, Fire, Building. Planning Fees: Minor. $1,410 Referral Agency Fees: Parks. $204; Engineering. $204. Environmental Health. $204. Total Deposit: $2,022. 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. ❑ 15 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 8 112" 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.) ❑ 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.