HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.550 S Galena St.22A-86 • 5,7-r,SELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
rr City of Aspen -
DATE RECEIVED *.' ,--1-1?,--1-1? '�0 CASE NO. c VA r ( ,
>jECEIVED OMPLETE: 4 /VW" STAFF: S--6 ATE R r ) J
PROJECT NAME:. 1 II .9. A 0 7- , le 1. ,, 1 , '
APPL IC IF ANT: '' . j4 � . '1 I ' I 44 1 1 2 ' _ p
Applicant Address /Ph on:: L L wIt L TNt Ilri %ga, -)— I
REPRESENTATIVE: 111 I 1 �I A G/ G :. /
Representative Address /Phone: - i — rc �Y
Type of Application- E ") :9E(' / i
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00
2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
II. Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 14 $1,900.00
2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.0
' c t- G. J
IV. All "One Step" Applications J 5 $ 6-80
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00
2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00
Referral Fees -.
Engineering
Minor Applications / 80.00
Major Applications 200.00
a CC MEETING DATE: 5 ;:a P� EAR ING: YES NO
f DATE EFERRED: ,NITIAL . WI
REFERRALS:
City Atty Aspen Consul. S.D. -- School District
City Engineer Mtn. Hell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. Stateliwy Dept (Glenrwd)
-
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric _ State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall . Bldg: Zoning /Inspects
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other :
Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center
FINAL ROUTING: DATE. ROUTED: ?lee INITIAL -�-'
• i c City Atty C ity Engineer _ 13ui1ding Dept.
Other: Other:
i; .
TRAIL EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT, made and entered into this 2C
day of \ ANV P,¢1k , 1989, by WILLIAM YARBROUGH, as owner Lot 5
the Tipple Woods Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado (hereafter referred to as "Grantor" and THE CITY OF
ASPEN, a home rule municipal corporation, Pitkin County, Colorado
(hereafter "Grantee") .
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owners of certain real property
being Lot 5, Tipple Woods Subdivision to the City of Aspen,
Colorado, as recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder,
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, Ditch Book 2a, Page 250.
WHEREAS, the Grantor are conveying to Grantee a perpet-
ual and non-exclusive ski trail easement and right-of-way over
and across that part of said real property described below under
certain terms and conditions hereafter enumerated; and,
WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of accepting said easement
and right-of-way under the terms, conditions and agreements
hereby specified;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained
herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is
agreed as follows:
I.
DESCRIPTION
Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee, its successors
and assigns forever, the following described perpetual and non-
exclusive ski trail easement and trail right-of-way: a strip of
land generally ten (10) feet in width, as more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" , as annexed hereto and incorporated
herein.
II
USE
The trail easement and right-of-way shall be for use by
downhill and cross-country skiers only and shall be utilized only
from November 1 to May 1, 1987 and in successive years. Other
than November 1 to May 1, Grantor may deny any entity the use of
the aforementioned property.
III
MOTOR VEHICLES
The use of motorized vehicles, including but not limited to,
four wheel drive vehicles, snowmobiles (other than emergency
equipment) , motorcycles, and camping and campfires is prohibited.
IV
COMMERCIAL USE
The ski trail easement and right-of-way shall not be used
for commercial purposes or any other use not specifically
permitted herein. Grantor shall promptly notify, in writing,
Grantee of any apparent commercial use of the that portion of the
ski trail easement and right-of-way crossing Grantor's property.
Grantee, upon such written notification, shall take immediate
steps to prevent further commercial use of the ski trail easement
and right-of-way crossing Grantor's property. In the event
Grantee fails to reasonably enforce the rules and regulations
prohibiting the commercial use of the ski trail easement and
right-of-way crossing Grantor's property, Grantor may, upon
thirty (30) days written notice to Grantee, close that portion of
the ski trail and right-of-way that crosses Grantor's property
pending a reasonable resolution to the dispute.
V
ACCESS
Grantor expressly retain the right to traverse said ski
trail easement and right-of-way with foot-traffic along that
portion of the ski trail easement and right-of-way which must co-
exist with the entrance to Grantor's property for the purpose of
accessing the property encumbered hereby. Further, Grantor may,
at their sole election, place shrubbery and or trees in those
areas depicted in Exhibit "A", as protection for foot traffic
crossing the easement in order to access Grantor's residence.
VI
OBSTRUCTIONS
Grantor agree not to obstruct, impede or interfere with said
ski trail easement and right-of-way during the specified period
of use, and Grantee agrees not to interfere with the rights of
Grantor for ingress and egress to the property encumbered hereby.
Grantor may, at their election, deposit snow on and along the ski
trail and right-of-way without constituting an obstruction or
interference with the ski trail and right-of-way. Grantor
expressly agrees not to shovel, remove or otherwise interfere the
snow required by skiers to utilize said ski trail easement and
right-of-way. Further, Grantor, may place a flagstone walkway
upon and across said ski trail easement and right-of-way;
providing however, that the entire section of flagstone walkway
within the ski trail easement and right-of-way be covered with a
plastic mat of type and quality satisfying the Engineering
Department of the City of Aspen, which protects skiers from
contacting said flagstone surface. The Engineering Department
shall not be unreasonable in approving the plastic mats. Said
plastic mat shall be set in place on the flagstone within the ski
trail easement and right-of-way by Grantor by December 1, 1987 ,
and by November 20 of each successive year. Further, said mats
shall not be removed by Grantor, his agents, employees, or
contractors and until May 1 of the following year.
VI
INDEMNIFICATION
The City shall hold Grantor harmless and indemnify them
against any and all claims, public or private, liability, losses,
expenses, damages or causes of actions, including, but not
limited to, all legal fees and damages arising after the commen-
cement of the term hereof and any adjudicated claims, decrees or
judgments which may be entered therein, suits brought for damages
or alleged damages resulting from injury to person or property or
the loss of life sustained by the general public in or about the
ski trail easement and right-of-way, and from any damage or
injury of any kind to Grantor's Property, or for any matter or
thing growing out of the use or occupation of the ski trail
easement and right-of-way by the general public, or any part
thereof, or possession occasioned by the City, its agents,
employees or assigns, respectively, or which may be occasioned by
any person or thing whatsoever or which may be caused by the
operations of the City or any of its agents, in the construction
of any improvements on the ski trail easement and right-of-way;
however, nothing described herein shall excuse, reduce, or
release Grantor, their families, agents, invitees, employees,
guests or assigns from negligent, recklessness or deliberate
acts, claims, expenses, damages, or causes of action, including
legal fees by Grantor, their families, guests, invitees, agents,
employees or assigns which result in claims against the City or
Grantor.
Nothing herein shall be construed to be any type of a waiver
or release by the Grantor of any rights or claims Grantor, his
assigns, invitees, successors or guests may have against City in
event of an injury not the product of Grantor, his assigns,
invitees, successors and guests own act of negligence, reckless-
ness or deliberate acts.
VII
CARE
Grantee agrees to use reasonable care in the construction of
said ski trail and to avoid damage to the land and improvements
thereto, and further agrees to restore such land and improvements
to their condition immediately prior to such construction by
appropriate grading, planting and repair. Grantor shall prepare
and sod, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, all
areas within the ski trail easement and right-of-way by June 1,
1988.
VIII
WHOLE AGREEMENT
It is expressly agreed that this Agreement contains the
entire understanding of the parties relevant to the subject
matter hereof and that there are no verbal or written representa-
tions, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the
subject matter hereof not expressly incorporated in this writing.
IX
MODIFICATION
It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its
terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can
be modified, changed, terminated, amended, superseded, waived or
extended except by an appropriate written instrument duly
executed and subsequently recorded by all parties.
X
SEVERABILITY
If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held
invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair
the validity, legality or enforceability of this Agreement itself
or any other provision hereof, and there will be substituted for
the affected provision a valid and enforceable provision as
•
similar as possible to the affected provision which shall, to the
maximum extent possible, provide for the intent of the parties as
set forth in the original provision.
XI
TITLE
Grantor warrants title to the property encumbered hereby is
in the names of Grantor, and further warrants that said title is
good and sufficient as against all the world, and covered by a
general title insurance policy issued by a local title insurance
company.
XII
NOTICES
All notices, communications, or written devices concerning
the aforementioned trail easement and right-of-way depicted
herein shall be delivered by hand to the party(s) listed below at
the respective addresses listed below, or mailed by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed below.
Notices become effective upon receipt (against delivery) by the
appropriate party when delivered by hand, or upon acceptance of
certified mail by the appropriate party or their designated
agent.
CITY OF ASPEN WILLIAM YARBROUGH
c4 CiTt ATSbRnt-`C'S c%cc AP1'4RnnekT i or) I
13 f) S, GRc.cu c 010 U;- D U2 AuF1a0F
ps1SPeu C-0 0 Slbll kbeq02-it I) /ditwATr 9t&ZZ.,
XIII
RUNNING OF BENEFITS AND BURDENS
All provisions of the instrument, including the benefits and
burdens, run with the lands owned by the parties herein which are
affected hereby, and are binding upon and inure to the assigns
and successors of the parties hereto.
XIV
CANCELLATION OF NOTICE OF TRAIL EASEMENT
By their signatures hereon, the Parties agree that certain
"Notice of Trail Easement" recorded in Book 488, Page 616 of the
records of Pitkin County is cancelled and rescinded, and that
document shall be of no further force and effect
whatsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto set their hands
and seals on the date and year shown.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By 1`%Grid Wce
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
,14
Kathryn Koch
City Cl k / drat
William Yarbr
ATTEST: g
STATE OF COLORADO ) �• " / ���
ss. `� b, 22 IcI vCc zA.
t4 , X1/27 h')
, •
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
47(,// day of uu,t & l9(, by William L. Stirling as Mayor and
Kathryn S. _ ch as ity Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
. �My commission expires �.
1�£: (1l% AC 19 Witness
my hand and seal. /I 0
/(7 I 1LQ ,/( . 0 Ad-bX--Y
Notary Public
Exh∎ 6it " A'
h N
a- W
2'
1,0t 3 4...
0
�O 0
b0 / /
aI
N a�� ti
N
o "-� o la
0 0
p�1 a
Seale • r` ; 4 07 S"
Z f
f
to s
Loth W s,
O • w
O O
0 , O
in
J' 3 story Fraa,t Hann
..•
laecates Walkwar , •
d
05
• I n. i.taics Survey Q '
Mort•A,..a•.t 0
N '+4 a 30'00" W 60.00'
EDWARDS & TADDUNE, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BARMY D. EowARO• A P•OFE••IONAL BUILDING OFFICES:
PAUL • J. Tw000N[ 600 EAST HOPKIN•, SUITE 301
July 9, 1985 Anew. CO 81611
13031 925.9)80
CITY HALL Orrice:
130 SOUTH GALENA
Martin H. Kahn, Esquire A•E[ «.CO
13031 925-3247
415 East Hyman, #301
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: City of Aspen /William Yarbrough; notice of trail easement;
requested clarification and resolution of dispute
Dear Marty:
I enclose a copy of the Notice of Trail Easement that the City
Clerk and City Engineer signed on June 18, 1985, and is recorded in
Book 488, Page 616 and following, Pitkin County, Colorado records.
We are, of course, interested in having Dr. Yarbrough sign the
trail easement that was forwarded to your office over a year ago,
specifically designating the easement. To that end, the City remains
willing to discuss with Dr. Yarbrough his proposed flagstone paving
and possible realignment of the trail on his property when and if he
is willing to address the matter in a more expeditious fashion.
In the meantime, this instrument will notify Dr. Yarbrough and
the public that the City intends to preserve its rights in the trail
easement that he granted in 1979 as a condition to his 80/40
greenline review approval.
Very truly yours,
EDWAWIr TADDUNE •
' O
1. Edwarys
l
BDE:gms
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Encl.
�g Ctir klip
gev: fled (ih8r )
)4 a,
Aspen /Pit •i (\\ • - ing Office
130s� � � -,
treet
aspen, A i w 81611
'fr.
May 29, 1986
Mr. Michael Thompson
Mr. Welton Anderson
Hagman -Yaw Architects
210 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Michael and Welton:
I have reviewed the memo you have submitted to me with respect to
an addition to the Yarbrough residence on Lot 5, Tipple Wood
Subdivision. It is my conclusion that the activity described in
that memo (attached) and in the plan set accompanying your
request does not constitute "development" as defined in Section
24 -6.2 of the Code. The addition of a 200 square foot master
bathroom on the uphill side of an existing residence has no effect
whatsoever on any of the criteria of 8040 greenline review.
Further, your memo demonstrates that were we to review this
activity through the greenline review procedure, no public
purpose whatever would be served, and your applicant would be
rendered a considerable disservice. Therefore, I authorize you
to proceed to building permit review, subject to your agreement
to revegetate any disturbed areas of the site immediately upon
completion of construction in this portion of the site.
As we discussed on the phone today, I am unable to sign off on
the porch work on the downhill side of the building. Since this
activity will result in a visible change to the structure, it
must be considered by the Planning Commission. It is, therefore
necessary for you to submit new drawings for this work only,
and a letter addressing the applicable criteria. Due to the
minor nature of the work required of our office, you need only
submit a check for 2 hours of staff time ($270.00) plus an
engineering referral ($80.00) for a total of $350.00.
I believe that this is an equitable resolution of this issue and
expect that you too will view the situation in this manner.
Please let me know if we can otherwise be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR:nec
cc: Jim Wilson Building Official
Bill Droning Official
ecl y; en PLZ City Cot it Ya,brcill 30`10 fr17
h, f� *�� �3 i 1981 1)U pc/aw 1 d sr�� .�� -rr�n �. vtins+rs r a n, fl / ^� �a�s✓o 7 I
� & e: kelidw tr, C U e, a. f44 a o if:et/ Ju a4J
—
1. The proposal walkway to be constructed between the entcv a
tramway and within the trail easement shall be gravel and
not flagstone.
— 2. The three new spruce trees shall be planted on both sidr.,,: of
the north entry and south of the trail easement prior to
issuance of any temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy -
� µ� � q y � p I .1;
;, -
2 tiv 1,t l�C Fr/ P pkti) ,,,>. /J /4„,", y6. f_, "),LP:C -_ ).
4'� kl 4 A f / i i A .,. 1/ dLi ^. !L (� , „?,,,,, cV.,ld . N 4 .1i;/ 1. ,..:�71- ottn,t-1
441 LC ^>?e ^t) il (4 =7 -t. ( 1,./ 1 Lc: f l it : /It, h' ' v tit LAY-t. ,.
.1
• let, ,Pv , Fl ( ) Gera / ✓:4 04 047„ii'ry .
• V
F.eviewer. ry: Aspen PO. City Council
.
w
A
B
9
1
1
•
6 1 1 e ; •• ` Il l Ill I. till , � 4.
EXCEPTIONAL ACCOMMODATIONS i { � • i 111 •b I 1 ` AT THE FOOT OF ASPEN MTN.
1111,1 •
;,1 - -it 1 , 11 1 iI
4 k II -7` - t l
aURAUT
0 0 N 0 0 M I N I U IVI A PAR T M i T S
July 23, 1986 a 2 0
'I
Aspen Planing and Zoning Commission V
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO. 81611
Dear Commission Members,
The Durant Condominiums wish to express their strong opposition
to any change or impacts to the existing easement right -of -way
going from behind the Durant Condominiums to the Little Nell ski
slope.
It has been our experience that when a request for a 2 foot impact
is made, that the end result often takes up significantly more than
the original proposed 2 feet.
Sincerely,
"`= y\j‘°°"e 2„1
Dick Moore, President
Durant Board of Managers
DM: I kn
BOX 2108 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1303) 925 -7910
,OZr „I:31VOS 1 F ' 8bv -- : 9 8 bi9 fir: -,
Z02- £96 -£0£ '0103'31VONOSHVO IZI XOG '"?'"�T”
f
(// /fri 6''77) 3fl0 / / ON //7 A 3 ' e t
3 t �V / I/ SJ I/ I , /' /��� , „a ,.. 0 , . .
ry� A9 d” p {1��0 Ay is
lAio's)n? i1C Spo° . D591df I S ion . i i i i/ i
1 1q3 -c
.
TTItiT 'S "T awooTau , A C a %A S
/ pp IBg
• , .
i .
rTeq pus a2.aTMoui
Rw Jo q.saq aql oz goaa,zoo pus anal. sT AaAans stgj 'uMogs £Tays.znoos
an sestwajd aqq. uo Jo /Sq szuawgouo ioua pus am oi. UMOUS[ ,zo aouapTAa uT
RAM- Jo -sq.q tJ pus s .uawassa 'sq.uawano.zdwt 'sOutpTTnq TTa ,to suotsuawrp
pus uotvsooj aq/ •zsjd sTgl. uo umOgs Ss qoj pass uo aq oi. punoj sem
asnoq aws.zj R,zoa.s aaJq . y •ops.zoTop do °V.sa.S 'uT31Td ,to RQ-uno0 'uad
-sy so f4T0 'uorsTATpgng spooM OTddTW 'c i_07 Jo uotstniadns goa.zrp Am
.zapun pai.onpuoo ssM /SaAans s ' T96T 'T go.zsj uo zsg} RjTq,zeo Rga.iaq I
0'0 • • L , OO.OE.0hLTC
, tit --; ,, .7
� 1 .0 .t.,. :.__
M 0 01 s; - 9 .6 i O
din h o
CO o�
S
R j may mac _4'1
. O \ 6 8
0 ` ` \d' }9r t o 0 / v. ov pno; Sad v
• e
/
�\
0 / #3 '.
In 1N p C
0 / 0
/ Or nt..' -
r% 1
111\ ..
w
i �. , 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Yarbrough 8040 Greenline Review
Parcel ID# 2737 - 182 -73 -004 Case No. 022A -86
DATE: July 11, 1986
ZONING: R- 15 /PUD /L
LOCATION: Lot 5, Tipple Woods Subdivision, City of Aspen, on
Aspen Mountain accessed by tramway and staircase south of Tipple
Inn on Galena Street.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant requests to build a one story
open porch (approximately 200 s.f.) projecting 6 feet from the
house and lay a flagstone walk from the top of the tramway to the
entry. Three new blue spruce trees would be planted on both
sides of the entry.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF CODE: The 8040 Greenline Review criteria
is stated in Section 24- 6.2(b) as quoted in the Applicant's
letter attached hereto.
BACKGROUND: On August 7, 1979, P &Z approved construction of the
Yarbrough residence. One of the conditions of approval was that
a trail easement be reserved on Lot 5. In 1982, a fifteen (15)
foot perpetual foot trail easement across Lots 4 and 5, Tipple -
woods Subdivision and Lot 14, Anthony Acres was recorded in Ditch
Book 2A, page 250.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
1. Referral Comments
A. Engineering - In a memorandum from Jim Gibbard dated
June 30, 1986, recommendations were made to: (1)
replace the proposed flagstone walk with gravel; (2)
locate trees so they do not protrude into the trail
easement; and (3) realign the trail easement to the
north so the proposed structure does not protrude into
the trail easement.
2. Staff Comments: The proposed entry would have no visual
impacts, as it is located in an area not seen from Galena
Street. There will be no significant disturbance of
terrain, vegetation, or other natural features from the
structure.
The only issues of this review appear to be those identified
by the Engineering Department, and we agree with their
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
requested 8040 Greenline Review for construction of a porch
attached to the Yarbrough house subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. The proposal walkway to be constructed between the entry and
tramway and within the trail easement shall be gravel and
not flagstone.
2. The three new spruce trees shall be planted on both sides of
the north entry and south of the trail easement prior to
issuance of any temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy.
3. The centerline of the Little Nell Foot Trail Easement shall
be moved north approximately three feet so that the center-
line of the trail is 7 1/2 feet from the existing tram
structure. This realignment shall be recorded with the
County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of any
temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy.
SB . 3
,-.
ilsQ NOe�
nlllllll 26 June 1986 4I 3 O 11
HAGMAN YAW /
ARCHITECTS U
MD Alan Richman
210 SOUTH GALENA Planning Director
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
3031925 -2867 130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re: Yarbrough Setback
Dear Alan:
I believe the existing problem with the Yarbrough residence
to be quite unique, and I would like this opportunity to
communicate the reasons for that belief to you.
As nearly as we can determine from City records, the lot was
zoned R- 15 /PUD /L, along with a swath of land from the top of
Mill, across Hemmeters lot to Yarbroughs. Several areas
around town were zoned in the same manner also, during the
period of 1973 - 1975. The people I could locate who were
involved at the time, including Bill Kane, Hal Clark and
Gideon Kaufman, all indicate that the majority of these
areas were zoned in this manner because of steep slopes. No
one remembered any specifics about this site, however.
It seems odd to us that more of the land surrounding this
particular area was not included in the PUD overlay, because
a good deal of it is much steeper than the zoned area. But
something else could explain this; the area zoned happens to
contain a trail much used by all the condominiums south and
east of Galena St. for ski -in, ski -out access. The trail
had no legal easement on any of the private lands it crossed
when my client sought to build his house in 1979. In order
to fit a building on his lot and within the side and rear
setbacks, even one which was 600 sf less than the allowable
F.A.R. and three stories tall, we had to encroach on the ski
trail. One of the conditions of 8040 Greenline approval, by
P &Z on 7 August 1979, was that the house be pushed up the
hill far enough to allow for this trail to continue in its
use of my client's land. We then found ourselves with a
deck and retaining wall 5 feet into a 10 foot setback.
After a long legal offensive by the Durant Condominium
Association, the easement finally became a legal entity in
1982.
The improvements my client wishes to make to his house are
still within the allowable F.A.R. for his site, and the work
to the south, or uphill side of the house will not encroach
any further into the rear setback than the existing deck and
retaining wall already do. It is my opinion that we should
be allowed to use the PUD overlay zone to amend the rear
setback from 10 feet to 5 feet.
C
Page 2
Since single family homes are exempt from the PUD process,
and as a result from the process of amending a PUD Plat, I
suggest the setback revision could be handled
administratively, in your office.
Another possibility is to let P &Z determine, at the 8040
Greenline Review, that the "proposed development meets the
objectives of planned unit development and therefore, in
compliance with this article (Sec. 24 -8.13) is not
necessary ", and then approve the site plan and setback
revision.
I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter,
Alan; please let me know if there is any further information
needed for you to make a decision.
Very truly yours,
Hagman Yaw Archit - / td.
•
SKIIM' /
Michael Patrick Thompson AIA
Partner
cc: Dr. William Yarbrough
r OWE
MEMORANDUM JUL - T 1986 j
iLi
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: June 30, 1986
RE: Yarbrough 8040 Greenline Review
Parcel ID# 2735- 261 -00 -005 Case No. 022A -86
The Engineering Department has reviewed the submitted application
and would like to make the following recommendations:
1. The proposed flagstone walk on the north side of the structure
presents a potential hazard to skiers using the trail it crosses
and should be replaced with a gravel walk that would have a
drainage system similar to that proposed for the flagstone walk.
2. The tree that is proposed for the west side of the north
entry should be moved approximately 3 and 1/2 feet to the south
so it will not be within the trail easement.
3. The centerline of the Little Nell Foot Trail Easement should
be moved further north so that the proposed north entry structure
will no longer be within that easement. This realignment should
be done at the applicants expense and should be recorded with the
county clerk.
jg /yarbro
cc: Jay Hammmond
00 N 74 ° 30'00 W
"rte . 120.00. ', .0
"
tog LOT 3 ° I N 19
•
( +' h ^ i 296.98' es
1 0 2 3 2
h
in cP ' S57 °40' I I "W
to 0 4 3 / 73.88'
1 o LOT 4 - 6
t° -
■ i i
0
M O M
w S58 °49'41 "W
1 0 -t°Y LOT5 41.20'-
! 8� S40 ° 58'01 ° W
N75 00 " W 114.29 60.00 z 60.00 0 69.4T
N 7400' 00" W 120.00 n
1
LOT 14 —S28°40'09" W
41.14'
(ANTHONY ACRES) I .
1
i
•
I I s10° 34' 39" W
I I 92.17'
1 C. FOOT TRAIL tit
n
EASEMENT •
m
M
/ 1
1 w sh
o S 36° 34'09" W m4
229.30'
I
0 0 3b 60 120
0 / --
z 3
` o SCALE: I" = 60'
o
• o
M
°
h
t i
/
1
o
(47.77')
I N 74 30'00" W 230.82
/ S 32 ° 35'27 "W
116.87'
/ .
EXHIBIT 11
LITTLE NELL FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT
-s-
� .. .. �
a ,
- „ R E C O R D O F PROCE S
3c1ar Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission - °'August'7,,2979 '- ,
• Hedstrom felt there were two questions: the use of public
• property in a public zone by a private company and the • 1'
desirability of the possible affect on the neighborhood. I1
Pardee felt the third question is the loss of use of a I.
• structure that was built with public funds .for the public.
He suggested letting the taxi company use the stables in
the winter when it is necessary to be near town. Ochs
. noted they are using two of the four stalls, two horses in
one stall and one horse and the tack in the other. Hunt `,
asked if the public would be getting some income from the � x
• use. Ochs said they would pay $50 /month. f`
• Hunt moved to determine the use of the County Stable facili-
ties by a horse- driven taxi company within the original
. conditional use provided that: 1) the stalls be cleared
daily of manure and at all times properly maintained to
avoid obnoxious odor, 2) that no maintainance or repair of
the horse - driven vehicles be accomplished on -site, 3) main- 'i
• tain the grounds in a sanitary, litterfree state, 4) the I f
• approval be conditioned on a hearing being held sometime
in October of this year to review the extent of compliance
with the stated conditions and with neighborhood impacts,
5) no more than two horse - powered vehicles be parked on the
property, and 6) the horse - driven taxi company occupy no
more than two of the existing stalls, however, are respon-
sible for the service maintenance of all four stalls,
Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved,
1 .
orough Smith noted the P &Z attended a site inspection of t
0 Greenline : property. She added to her list of conditions that the
iew applicant comply with the construction techniques and •
inspection requirements suggested in the letter of Bob Bash
from Lincoln Devore Lab dated August 6, 1979. She also •
added the trail easement and an escrow for landscaping to
the list of conditions. Klar asked if the adjacent property;
owners were aware of the fire access problem. Smith noted
{ some of the adjacent properties were put through the same-
review. There is no notice requirement for this type of
application. The Fire Marshal has suggested several modi-
! . fications that will make'firefighting easier which the
applicant has agreed to comply with. McDonnell asked who
. would check to be sure these requirements, such as the•'fire
cabinet with firefighting. equipment, would be maintained
• after the approval. Smith said the Fire Marshal makes the
inspections. Pardee asked about the liability on the ease -
ment. Stock said the liability on the improved trail would
' lie with the City. .
Pardee moved to approve the Yarbrough 8040 Greenline Review
subject to the following: 1) the conditions recommended
by the Fire Marshal that a 2" standpipe be installed between
Yarbrough's property and Galena Street as a supplement to
the existing fire hydrant on the property immediately to
the South; hose and other necessary fire equipment to be
stored in a cabinet adjacent to the property, 2) a covenant
of indemnity be implemented to absolve the City from any
responsibility in the case of fire, 3) a trail easement be
• reserved along the existing trail alignment the width of
which to be determined by the City Engineer, 4) pursuant to
the recommendation of the Aspen Water Department, water
hookup is made on the 6" main supplying the Blitz residence,
• . 5) that there be an escrow placed in reserve for landscaping
specifically for the replacement of dead trees and any
vegetation damaged by construction, 6) the building is con-
structed of fire resistant :materials and ht ?i,lt to one -hour
standards, 7) the recommendations for construction and id-
tgL°etYc fl?iade in the August 6, 1979, letter of Lincoln
_. .. _ _., R .]
MEMORANDUM �: JUL - 7 1986
i
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 1
DATE: June 30, 1986
RE: Yarbrough 8040 Greenline Review
Parcel ID# 2735- 261 -00 -005 Case No. 022A -86
The Engineering Department has reviewed the submitted application
and would like to make the following recommendations:
1. The proposed flagstone walk on the north side of the structure
presents a potential hazard to skiers using the trail it crosses
and should be replaced with a gravel walk that would have a
drainage system similar to that proposed for the flagstone walk.
2. The tree that is proposed for the west side of the north
entry should be moved approximately 3 and 1/2 feet to the south
so it will not be within the trail easement.
3. The centerline of the Little Nell Foot Trail Easement should
be moved further north so that the proposed north entry structure
will no longer be within that easement. This realignment should
be done at the applicants expense and should be recorded with the
county clerk.
jg /yarbro
cc: Jay Hammmond
. r
Ill
IIAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECTS MEMORANDUM
LTD
2m COL A8A
ASPEN COLORADO dlbll Aspen TO As Planning and Zoning Commission
, g
303/925 -2867
FROM: Michael Thompson, Hagman Yaw Architects
DATE: 27 May 1986
RE: 8040 Green line Review - Yarbrough Residence Addition
Pursuant to Section 24 -6.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code,application
is hereby made for 8040 Greenline Review for an addition to the
Yarbrough residence located on Lot 5, Tipple Woods Subdivision
(directly below the Hemmeter House).
Project Description: The addition consists of a new master
bathroom of approximately 200 square feet built on the south
(uphill) side of the house, on the middle level. It is tucked
up against an existing retaining wall and is about 80% undeground.
The roof of the addition forms a deck off of the top level.
On the North (downhill) side at the lowest level,a one story open
porch with a gabled roof will project out 6 feet from the building
face to divert snow falling off the north roof above. The distance
between the end of the tramway structure and the new porch
will be 12 feet and as such will not interfere with the 6 foot ski
access path as it is currently aligned.
Review Criteria: The effect this mostly underground addition
would have on the 9 criteria listed in 24- 6.2(b) are as follows:
1. "Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other
other utilities to service the intended development." - One
new lavatory and one shower will not affect water pressure.
2. "The existence of adequate roads to insure for fire protection,
snow removal and road maintenance." -
No change in intensity of use.
3. "The suitability of the site for development considering
the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow,
rock falls and avalanche dangers;" - Site is already developed.
4. "The affects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff,
drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution."
Drainage and runoff should be improved by moving patio
from middle level to roof deck at top level.
5. "The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide."
No effect.
6. "The Design and location of any proposed structure, : roads,
driveways or trails and their compatibility with the terrain."
No incompatibility with terrain.
Memo
28 May 1986
Page Two
7. "Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance
to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features."
No effect.
8. "The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize
roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and
preserve the mountain as a scenic resource."
Not applicable.
9. "The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the
open character of the mountain." - No substantial effect.
As the applicants representatives, we request that the Planning
Director make a determination that this modest addition has such
insignificant impact when considered against the Review Criteria
listed above that full 8040 Greenline Review be considered in-
appropriate and serving no constructive public purpose.
Because the backlog of cases to be heard by P &Z is so great that
the Applicant's case can not be scheduled until late summer, the
delay will cause unnecessary financial hardship. In addition, the
General Contractor, who had scheduled his work and transport of
materials to coordinate with the regrading of Aspen Mountain finds
a three month delay in construction start will make his job much
more difficult and costly.
Your consideration of this application is appreciated.
' /PITRIN PLANNING OFFS
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -2020
t- V 3, Y
RE: Yin +in 4 t3 GrEgirWR V Wt
Dear 1'Sl
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of your ROW) C application for complete-
ness. We have determined that your application
_ K is complete.
_ is not complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed).
Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed).
Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
__ Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
\/ A check in the amount of $ is due.
�`- _ A. Since your application i complete, we Y}aye sched ed it
for review by the �pon r !+ 2Z t`5(
We will be calling you if a need any addition1 information
prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review memorandum available to you. Please note that it
(is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Please feel free to call StFth..73UVS** - Eln , who is the planner
assigned to this case, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman, Plann g and
Development Director
AR:jlr
w
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP
Planning and Development Director
Q Q c \ e 'er r .fi. � � �z� -s �3)
•4k A ra ( .1 \ - - .-1. SSte-.{ N \ .-^- 0411 - —
\ 0 - Lo_4 a
�i0 .n NC �S l \ \ tAr. .. 4
c Cit-a--.2 • S
{Sc V■4._
ACC) a- aC a 4"-0 --.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Yarbrough 8040 Greeline Review
Parcel I Case No. 022A -86
DATE: June 17, 1986
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Dr.
William Yarbrough, requesting 8040 Greenline Review for the
purpose of an approximately 200 s.f. addition to an existing home
located on Lot 5, Tipple Woods Subdivision (directly below the
Hemaneter House) .
Please review this application and return your referral comments
to the Planning Office no later than July 2, 1986.
Thank you.
M.4
0 i /
Id lc
HAGMAN YAW MEMORANDUM
ARCHITECTS
LTD
210 SOUTH GA�NA TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
30319252867
FROM: Michael Thompson, Hagman Yaw Architects
DATE: 27 May 1986
RE: 8040 Green line Review - Yarbrough Residence Addition
Pursuant to Section 24 -6.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code,application
is hereby made for 8040 Greenline Review for an addition to the
Yarbrough residence located on Lot 5, Tipple Woods Subdivision
(directly below the Hemmeter House).
Project Description: The addition consists of a new master
bathroom of approximately 200 square feet built on the south
(uphill) side of the house, on the middle level. It is tucked
up aaint The g roof s of the e forms a wall and
off the top deground.
t p leve
On the North (downhill) side at the lowest level,a one story open
porch with a gabled roof will project out 6 feet from the building
face to divert snow falling off the north roof above. The distance
between the end of the tramway structure and the new porch
will be 12 feet and as such will not interfere with the 6 foot ski
access path as it is currently aligned.
Review Criteria: The effect this mostly underground addition
would have on the 9 criteria listed in 24- 6.2(b) are as follows:
1. "Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other
other utilities to service the intended development." - One
new lavatory and one shower will not affect water pressure.
2. "The existence of adequate roads to insure for fire protection,
snow removal and road maintenance." -
No change in intensity of use.
3. "The suitability of the site for development considering
the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud
dy flow, ped.
rock falls and avalanche dangers;" runoff,
4. "The affects of the development on the natural watershed,
drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution."
Drainage and runoff should be improved by moving patio
from middle level to roof deck at top level.
5. "The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide."
No effect.
6. "The Design and location of any proposed structure,
driveways or trails and their compatibility with the terrain."
No incompatibility with terrain.
Memo
28 May 1986
Page Two
7. "Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance
to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features."
No effect.
8. "The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize
roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and
preserve the mountain as a scenic resource."
Not applicable.
9. "The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the
open character of the mountain." - No substantial effect.
As the applicants representatives, we request that the Planning
Director make a determination that this modest addition has such
insignificant impact when considered against the Review Criteria
listed above that full 8040 Greenline Review be considered in-
appropriate and serving no constructive public purpose.
Because the backlog of cases to be heard by P &Z is so great that
the Applicant's case can not be scheduled until late summer, the
delay will cause unnecessary financial hardship. In addition, the
General Contractor, who had scheduled his work and transport of
materials to coordinate with the regrading of Aspen Mountain finds
a three month delay in construction start will make his job much
more difficult and costly.
Your consideration of this application is appreciated.
6 / 2 7 WC
DR. WILLIAM J. YARBROUGH
1010 WILDER AVE., NO. 1001
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96822
ACEIVED JUN 0 s ass
gLer
zugy , ac ji - t& cr- nen 4 -/f ri . 7
/1/ES 7/4
u
,� SI
v „ de-el/
k
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBCICE REPORT 2370AB ✓ $ 100.00
Made For:
Hagman and Yaw
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of
Lot 5, Tipple Woods Subdivision
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of
William Joseph Yarbrough
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following:
None
EXCEPT all easements, right -of -ways, restrictions and reservations of record.
EXCEPT any and all unpaid taxes and assessments.
This report does not reflect any of the following matters:
1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report
by more than fourteen (14) years.
2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or
until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years.
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of title,
nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen,
Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any state-
ment contained herein.
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 30th day of M A.D. 1986 at 8: 00 A.M.
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
BY
Authorized Signature
CI-ann.-I- Min Vnrrn ncrz