HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Ute Ave.A077-97
~
,-.
""',!!~
.~1
'- ,
....'._~_. ,._ t
J.)
2)
AT:rAQlMI;llr J.
~ USE APPUCATICN roBM !~
Project Name t30viDeN I2eP IDENtE
Project IDeation Lor I UTE Pb./2,1l SUBOMGtON,
rtx*ll~rr '1]
(iI:rlicate ..L..~ address, lot & block rn.....n..-r, legal descr:ipti.on wheJ:e
~~.iate)
3) Present ZoniDJ P Ll. D. 4) roc Size .G'!eql/){.1?C,
5) Awlicant's Name, Address & Blcne * MIZ~ MIa; fJ\UI2R(BOVi~
?e4-""1 ~';:::euPE <?U1"lE ~ -HaJ6TD~"IX T1051
11:;,1eo'1SJ:D '
6) ~.L S~l,tative'S Name, Address & Imne * ~ID ~L('() Ir;;;~ .Ju"",~
Htu...flJ.? ~~ aD t:)llPU "'12-; .S2..Ci4
7) ~ of AW1ication (please dleck all that awlY) :
Corxti.tional Use '_ 0Jrrept:ua1 SPA
_ Q:lnceptua1 Historic Dev.
~ Final Historic Dev.
_ Minor. H:ist:or.i.c Dev.
_ Historic nonnlition
_ Historic Designation
-'- ~ AllvL..:.it
_ ~"1 :Revi..8f Final SPA
XS040Greenline'
,>
_ stream Margin
_ 0Jrrept:ua1 roo
_ Final roo
_ Ccrxkmini.umization --'- Text:jMap An.en.lu."ut
!bmt:a:in View Plane
.
~_....... . .
~=,
_ roc SplitjIDt Line -& ~ ~l€W _ ~ ~Lion
1\dju..L..:.d:
8) Description of Ex:ist:inJ Uses (rn~ am. type of exist::in;J, strocb.Jresi
~te sq. ft. i J"IImn;.r of be.h.Ol..a=i arr{ prev:ioos awrovaJ.s gJ:aIItai to the
property) .
tzD:,1E!e{.1 V.6.CA1\tI LAND
~"'.- ~..
9)
Descripti.on of Deve1VJ:oUE"1l.. 1\tPlication
A N,Utv1 BEe. CF ~ rr:e.. f'rECEb OF 'fAPte Hint 14 I2...\, Tl "lCt
AND NUM~ eN f1..l.E:M I C>n-161Z P~2::b WfT1.f
~l Nti~ t!J '" 1tf1E..M.
J.O)
Have :you a.t:I""1~ the follow:inj?
X Re;ponse to Attad:Jment 2, ':kiniJmlm Snhni=ion O:llltents
X ~ to Attad:Jment 3, SI-"i-fic ~lhni.....,jOl1 O:llltents
-+- ~ to Atfad1ment 4, Review st:armms for Your AJ::tll i=tion
9,)./ --\v
'~CI ./'
~,J\V '" ,-" v )..
'~ )-~.\lv./
1'v <,r >-
0/ '>sv-/ i
J ~. V
Mitch Haas, City Planner \> if ).3 _ fJ'"
(1- ~ I" "\~
Bowden 8040 Greenline Review (Lot I, Ute Park Subdivision~ 0
wrf~' R.to~-~ .J;y~- ~~~~.
November 18, 199(; if \r9-' '-- \"J . ~,./
_ ,~/-.'l~ ^ &'"')"
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review in ~ if ~,
order to build a single-family home on Lot I of the Ute Park Subdivision, The proposed \. \ /
home would include approximately 5,300 square feet of living area (of which ...y
approximately 1800 square feet would be below grade) and a 650 square foot garage on ~ L /
the ,9891 acre (about 43,084 square feet) parcel. "/ '
.~
~.
"
f!fLJrtT
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
The 8040 Greenline Review application is attached as Exhibit A. Referral comments are
attached as Exhibit B.
Community Development staff recommends that the 8040 Greenline Review for the
proposed residence on Lot 1 ofthe Ute Park Subdivision be denied.
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs, Murry Bowden, represented by Dave Panico,
LOCATION: Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision is located just south of Ute Avenue,
behind the affordable housing development. The lot is bounded by undeveloped land to
the south, Lot 4 of the Ute Park Subdivision with its seven affordable residential units to
the north, a single-family residence on Lot 2 to the west, and an undeveloped lot of the
Stillwater Ranch Subdivision to the east.
ZONING: Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AHI/PUD)
CURRENT LAND USE: none/vacant
LOT SIZE: Lot I of the Ute Park Subdivision ~ 43,084:t square feet.
ALLOWABLE FAR: 5,770 square feet (see Exhibit "B," referral memo from Sara
Thomas, Zoning Officer)
if (} 'f' .
/' tAl
{\S_~~P
'~) )
l ..ell
fO~O
/
"
j
/
/
/
I
/
I
/
/
/
~
--
PROPOSED LAND USE: The proposed use of the parcel is single-family residential,
as was approved with the subdivision in 1992.
REVIEW PROCEDURE: As the proposed development falls within 150 feet of the
8040' elevation contour, and does not meet the exemption provisions of Section
26.68.030(B) of the code, an 8040 Greenline Review is required. 8040 Greenline Review
is an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) review and is, therefore, a one-step process
culminating in a public meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
BACKGROUND: In 1992, City COlincil approved the Ute Park Subdivision with the
adoption of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992. The approval included four lots for
residential use. Lots 2 and 3 were approved for and have been developed with a single
family residence each. Lot 4 was approved for an affordable housing development that
has since been built and is now fully occupied. The Planned Unit Development and
Subdivision Improvement Agreement entered into by the City and the developer of the
Ute Park Subdivision, as recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 704,
Pages 216-227, states that the "AH development will have already accomplished multiple
deed restricted units prior to ,. ' the free market development and there will be no
affordable housing mitigation (cash-in-lieu or accessory dwelling units) required of the
individual single family Lots #1, #2 or #3."
The Ute Park Subdivision approval designated a building envelope on Lot 1, and the
envelope is broken into a "conditional zone" and an "unconditional zone" due to the
avalanche hazard areas that run through the site. The "conditional zone" includes the
"avalanche blue and red zones," and the "unconditional zone" is theoretically outside the
avalanche hazard area. The "conditional zone" was defined to mean that structural mit-
igation in the construction would be required to support avalanche loads, while the "un-
conditional zone" could employ standard/normal construction techniques. As proposed,
all of the construction would remain within the designated building envelope, but would
take place, largely, in the "conditional zone." Staifis recommending denial of the 8040
Greenline request for reasons outlined at length in the subsequent section of this memo.
Staff has also reviewed the proposed design of the single-family residence against the
provisions of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 and found that
several of the standards were not met, but given site specific constraints, were either
incapable of being met or would have dictated a less desirable design than that proposed.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from some of the design standards
(explained in detail below), and staff supports granting of these requests.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Section 26.68.030, 8040 Greenline Review
Pursuant to Section 26.68.030(A), "the provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to
all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline)
2
r--..
.,.-,
in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) fiet below the
8040 greenline."
The proposed development is subject to the standards of 8040 greenline review. The
applicant has provided responses to the eleven standards contained in Section
26.68.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review Standards, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
(see Exhibit "A"), These eleven (II) standards and staff s responses follow.
1. The parcel on which the proposed . development is to be located is suitable for
development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsistence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers, If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to
a location acceptable to the city,
RESPONSE: The parcel has not been found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, but it is
known to contain avalanche hazards with both blue and red zones. The Ute Park
Subdivision was approved with a number of conditions related to mitigation requirements
for building in the avalanche hazard zones. As explained earlier in this memo, the
building envelope on the subject lot is partially in .and partially out of the avalanche path.
As proposed, the residence would also be partially in and partially out of the avalanche
path, although the majority of the structure would be in the hazard area. The area within
the avalanche path was designated as a "conditional building envelope" on the recorded
plat and, therefore, is subject to the condition that any structure constructed in that
portion of the building envelope be built in accordance with the recommendations of an
avalanche expert such as Mr. Art Mears of Crested Butte, Colorado. The applicants
propose, under the consultation of Mr. Mears, to engineer the structure of the house itself
to divert and withstand the force of any avalanche that might occur. It may also be worth
noting that the language of the Ute Park Subdivision approval explained that the reason
for including areas in the avalanche hazard zone in the building envelope was that any
structure built in the conditional portion of the envelope would serve as an avalanche
barrier for the employee housing units below it.
From the applicant's submitted information, it is apparent that the structure CAN be
engineered to withstand the force of an avalanche; however, this does not directly
address the development standard provided above. The standard asks whether the site is
"suitable for development," and staff maintains that the portions of Lot I designated as
the "conditional building envelope" are not "suitable" for development, especially those
portions in the "avalanche red zone." While the structure can be engineered, that would.
not provide any safety for the residents or visitors engaged in activities which occur
outdoors, on the decks or in the yards. The avalanche path that nms across the subject
site has been known for devastating slides. This hazard is not an "if it happens," but
rather a "when it happens" condition. That is, this is not at all like building in a one
hundred year flood plain. By way of analogy, it is generally accepted that designated
wetlands are not "suitable" sites for development; however, modem engineering
practices provide the capability of dredging and filling wetlands and designing
3
r'\
r'\
foundations to accommodate subsiding soils. These capabilities, however, do not make
wetlands "suitable" for development purposes.
e ability to overcome obstacles with engineering does not necessarily make it a good
dea, that is, simply because a thing can be don . oes not follow . t should be done.
other analo ight be helpful to m this point clear. This ana refers to the
'safe sex versus abstl ce" debate! . emma. In the present case, e partner (applicant)
is completely aware of the at the other partner has a s ually transmitted disease
(avalanche path), but is . .ng to we engineering) and take his/her
risks instead 0 the one-hundred percent safe a stinence (build.
the "unconditional building envelope"). As a municipal government c arged with the
duty 0 pro ec mg 'a ,s ety and welfare, the only conscionable decision
would be to mandate the one-hundred percent safe path of allowing the applicant to
develop only within the unconditional building envelope (and not allow any development
in the avalanche path),
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water
pollution.
RESPONSE: The proposed development would not have a significant adverse affect on
the, natural watershed, nor would it cause increased runoff, drainage, soil erosion or water
pollution. Any development on the site would be required to comply with the city's
"Urban Runoff Management Plan" and the requirements of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f) of
the Municipal Code.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the city,
RESPONSE: There should be no significant impacts on air quality from the proposed
development. The fueplaces in the proposed residence would comply with the standards
administered by the Environmental Health Department and, therefore, be gas. At the time
the Ute Park Subdivision was approved, it was expected that LotI would be developed as
a single-family residence, thus its vehicular impacts were contemplated in said approval.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible
with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
RESPONSE: The proposed residence would be built into the hillside such that as much
as a third (113) of the structure would be subgrade. The split-level floor plan of the ,
proposed structure was designed with the intention of stepping up the hillside in order to
provide a massing that mimics the slope of the hill it would be built upon. The site
contains a nordic trail easement on which a trail currently exists. The driveway to the site
was constructed as part of the Ute Park Subdivision and also serves the existing
residences on Lots 2 and 3.
4
x
00{~
o?~
?'~
.
.,-.".
~
5, Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural features,
RESPONSE: In the submitted materials, the applicant explains one of the reasons the
Bowdens would like to build in the "condition zone" of the building envelope is to
preserve three or four large trees that would otherwise need to be removed. The applicant
maintains that, as proposed, only one (I) conifer and two (2) aspen trees larger than four
(4") inches in caliper would need to be removed, and that there are no large trees in the
"conditional zone." However, Parks Department staff has expressed concern that
between two and five (2-5) significant trees that are to be preserved would not actually
survive construction due to their proximity to areas that would be cut and/or graded, It
may be worth noting that the lack of large trees in the conditional zone is more than likely
due to avalanche occurrences.
As required by the land use code, all of the proposed regrading of the site would occur
within the designated building envelope, except where it is necessary to access the site
from the street. Given the proposed footprint of the structure, however, staff does not
believe all grading work could possibly be confined to within the designated building
envelope, That is, the northeasterly portion of the building, as proposed, would abut the
edge of the "conditional" building envelope. This situation is potentially problematic
given the fact that the Land Use Code provides the following definition of the term
"building envelope:"
That area of a lot whieh eneompasses all development including but not limited to
exeavation, fill, grading, storage, demolition, structures, building heights, decks,
roof overhangs, porches, patios and terraces, pools, any area of disturbanee, aecess
ways and parking. Approved plantings of landscape materials on natural grade and
approved walkways and driveways may oeeur outside of a building envelope.
Otherwise, all area outside of a building envelope shall remain in pristine and
untouched eondition unless approved by the Community Development Director.
Given the placement of the building footprint, there would be a high probability of
needing to grade outside of the building envelope. It is believed by staff that, with a
redesign of the proposal, the site and the designated building envelope could reasonably
accommodate a house without having to grade or disturb any areas outside of the
envelope while still preserving the significant trees on the site., Thus, as proposed, staff
does not feel that criterion number five of the 8040 greenline review standards has been
satisfied.
It should also be noted that the applicant has requested, as part of this review, that a
variance be granted from the code requirement prohibiting regrading of the existing
topography outside of the building envelope by more than two feet six inches (2'6").
Although the merits of the request might be laudable, the Planning and Zoning
Commission does not have the authority necessary to make such a decision. Rather, ~
variances from setback requirements can be made only be the Zoning Board of c::r\
Adjustment,..aftd must be applied for under separate cover. IJV ~... /
~oY:;fA '\0/ V'~~
.~'V'\ ~ ~~
, ..Y
,0/
~-v<:Y'
5
.
1"'"'.
,.-.
6, The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit
cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic
resource. '
RESPONSE: The proposed residence would be built at the end of an existing road, The
driveway cut would be approximately sixty (60) feet long and would be about as minimal
as can reasonably be expected for any structure on the given lot. The driveway is shared
by the existing residences on Lots 2 and 3, and thereby, minimizes the need for roads,
Also, as the site is difficult to see from Ute Avenue, its impact on perceived open space
would be minimal and would tend to preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
RESPONSE: The height of the proposed residence would be well within the restrictions
imposed by the Land Use Code. A substantial amount of the structure would be located
below grade while the bulk of the structure has been designed to mimic the slope of the
hillside. As viewed from Ute Avenue, the height and bulk of the proposed structure
would, given the location of the affordable units between the subject site and the street,
tend to blend into the open character of the mountain as effectively as could be expected.
8, Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
RESPONSE: Utility capacities to service the lots of the Ute Park Subdivision were
reviewed in depth as part of the subdivisionlPUD approval. Since then, the developer of
the Ute Park Subdivision has supplied the building site with adequate water service for
both household use and the required fire sprinkler system. All other utilities are
sufficiently sized and were installed within the last five years as part of the Ute Park
Subdivision infrastructure.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can
be properly maintained
RESPONSE: Roads to the site are available to serve the proposed development and said
roads can be properly maintained. At the time the Ute Park Subdivision was approved, it
was expected that Lot I would be developed as a single-family residence, thus its
vehicular impacts were contemplated in said approval.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE: As was a condition of the original PUD approval, the driveways were
constructed to assure access for fire and emergency equipment. There is also a dedicated
access easement from Ute Avenue to Lot 1. The house would also have a fire sprinkler
system as required by the PUD approval.
6
.
,~
,~
1l.Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.'
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide
access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community.
RESPONSE: By PUD Agreement, an easement for year-round pedestrian/recreation use
crosses Lot 1 directly uphill (to the south) of the building envelope. The owners and
applicants understand that it is a public trail easement and wet:dCI not do anything to
preclude its use. '^-~ ~ r:
Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards
Staff has also reviewed the proposed design of the single-family residence against the
provisions of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 and found that
several of the standards were not met, but given site specific constraints, were either
incapable of being met or would have dictated a less desirable design than that proposed.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from some of the design standards
(explained in detail below), and staff supports granting of these requests. Although staff
is recommending denial of the 8040 greenline review, waivers from the provisions of the
Residential Design Standards might still be helpful to the applicant in preparing a revised
proposal.
Specifically, the proposed design does not appear to comply with the letter of standards
26.58,040(B) and (F)(12), Building Elements and Volume, respectively. Standard
26.58,040(B), Building Elements, requires that all residential buildings have a one-story
street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall
width. On the subject lot, it could be argued that there is no "street facing" side and,
furthermore, if it is agreed that the west elevation is street facing, then the site specific
constraint of the sloped hillside would dictate that a two story design on this elevation is
clearly necessary for reasons of fairness.
Next, Standard 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, requires that no windows extend to beyond
nine (9) feet above the level of the finished floor. The east and west elevations of the
proposed design contain windows that extent above the given limitations. However, the
lack of visibility from any public ways coupled with the site's location outside of the
Townsite and off of the grid have consistently been viewed by the Design Review Appeal
Committee (DRAC) as a site specific constraint worthy of a variance for reasons of
fairness. In summary, staff supports granting variances from both of the cited provisions
of the Residential Design Standards based on a finding that the variances are "clearly
necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints."
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that the design and placement of the proposed residence
on Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision does not satisfy the standards of an 8040 Greenline
Review, as outlined in Section 26.68.030 of the Municipal Code, Staff also finds that
two of the Residential Design Standards are not complied with in the proposed design of
the residence, but variances from these standards are justifiable.
7
.
.-
f .,
.~
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends
granting variances from the provisions of Section 26.58,040(B) and 26.58.040(F)(12),
Building Elements and Volume, respectively, based on a finding that said variances are
"clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints."
Staff further recommends denial of the 8040 Greenline Review application finding that,
as proposed, criteria 1 and 5 of Section 26,68.030(C) are not adequately satisfied. Staff
recommends that, prior to re-applying, the applicant thoroughly review the rationale for
this recommendation, as provided in this memo, then work with staff to come to an
agreement on a proposal that more clearly meets the 8040 greenline criteria.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to deny the Bowden 8040 Greenline Review
based on a finding that the proposal does not satisfy the standards of Section
26.68.030(C)(1) and (5) of the Municipal Code. 1 also move to approve variances from
the requirements of Standards 26.58.040(B) and (F)(12) as they relate to the development
of Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit "A" - Bowden 8040 Greenline Review Development Application
Exhibit "B" - Referral Comments
8
..
~.
.~
c
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mitch Haas, Planner
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From:
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer ,/l:::J
November 12, 1997,
Date:
Re:
Bowden 8040 Greenline Review
Physical Address:
Legal Address:
(Tentatively) 1279 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO
Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision, Aspen, CO
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the
combined comments made by the members of the DRC:
Summary: The application, as submitted, is insufficient to adequately address the hazards to the
property owners and adjoining property owners created by the proposed construction in an active
avalanche zone. The original application for the Ute Park Subdivision makes numerous references
to the need for future, in-depth review of the avalanche potential and impacts upon the development
of this property however, it appears that the detailed study spoken of in the subdivision application
(Ute Park Subdivision Application, November 27, 1991, pp. 7, 14,26, and Exhibit H) has not been
,submitted as part of this application and only a general "Snowslide Mitigation Report" (cousisting
of 1 page) was submitted for the subdivision application.
Ai; such, there are two (2) alternatives available to the applicant if he desires to contiD.ue the
application process; both alternatives will require additional information to address the potential
hazard created by constructing within the identified avalanche zone before a final recommendation
may be presented by the Engineering Dept. These altematives are:
A. Limit the above grade development to the lUlconditional portion of the bUilding envelope
and the area identified as the "Avalanche Blue Zone". Under this scenario, complete the following:
, J
1. Design the structure to withstand the impact loading of an avalanchelsnowslide or
rockfall event to the specifications and requirements provided by a qualified
authority in avalanche events (pUD & Subdivision Agreement, Reception No.
354208, Bk 704, Pg 216);
2. Provide a written report from a qualified authority in avalanche events
regarding the effects and impacts to the adjacent and downstreampropemes caused
by the construction of a structure (final design of the proposed building and site
1 OF 5
DRCM2097,DOC
DRAFT
~
r\
c~
<
DRAFT
Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review
including exterior landscaping, driveway, grading and appurtenances) within the
above described portion of the lot;
3. Complete the mitigation recommendations from the above report to reduce or
eliminate the hazard to this property and adjacent and downstream properties
created by the structure on lot I; and
4. Complete the common improvements, conditions and requirements explained in
sections 1 through 13 of this memorandum. Or,
B. Permit above grade development in the conditional portion of the building envelope (avalanche red
zone), as well as, the remainder of the building envelope. Under this scenario, complete the
following:
1. Design the structure to withstand the impact loading of an avalanchelsnowslide or
rockfall event to the specifications and requirements provided by a qualified
authority in avalanche events (pUD & Subdivision Agreement, Reception No.
354208, Bk 704, Pg 216); ,
2. Provide a written report from a qualified authority in avalanche events regarding the
effects and impacts to the adjacent and downstream properties caused by the
construction of a structure (final design of the proposed building and site including
exterior landscaping, driveway, grading and appurtenances) in the proposed
building location and orientation. Specifically addressing the following topics:
a. Frequency distribution of avalanchelsnowslide events verses size of the
ava1anchelsnowslide;
b. Magnitude (force on the structure) and volume of the estimated events;
c. Design of the building itself and how the building design (orientation,
placement, geometry, height, materials, etc.) will reduce or contribute to the
hazard conditions to this property and adjacent and downstream properties
(see letter report of Arthur Mears, November 1, 1991);
d. Means of reducing the hazard to this property and adjacent and downstream
properties, i.e. removal of debris and loose boulders from the'
,avalanchelsnowslide path, construction of earthen benns, benching, long
term maintenance procedures for the property, etc.; and,
e. Effects and changes to the configuration of the Red Zone boundary caused
by construction of a building on this property and how that may impact the
subject property and adjacent and downstream properties;
3. Complete the mitigation recommendations from the above report to reduce or
e1iminate the hazard to this property and adj acent and downstream properties
created by the structure on lot 1; and,
4, Complete the common improvements, conditions and requirements explained in
sections 1 through 13 of this review memorandum.
The intent of the above recommendations is to make the depth of planning and design prior to city
staff review proportional to the extent of development proposed in the avalanche Red Zone. The
greater the extension of development, the greater the amount of planning and design to mitigate
2 OF 5
DRCM2097.DOC
DRAFT
,
~
^
DRAFT,
Memo: Bowden 8040 GreenHoe Review
and minimize the potential hazards to the property and adjacent and downstream properties caused
by building within the avalanche zone. ' The design process should be iterative between the
applicant's severa1designers and consultants to assure consistency and reduce conflicting aspects in
the designs of the building, site, drainage and grading, and avalanche impacts, etc.
1. Independent, Third party Review of Avalanche and Rockfall Calculations and
Structural Calculations and Designs: Due to the specialized nature of quantifying
avalanche/snowslide and rockfall events and the resulting structural design of the building, the
applicant will pay the review fees for the City to hire an independent, qualified, third party to
review the report, calculations and plans prepared by the applicant's avalanche consultant and
structural engineer.
2. ' Site Plan and Grading Design: As presently proposed, the northerly side of the
residence lies too close to the existing building envelope to permit excavation and construction of
the building. Either the building footprint will need to be changed, rotated or translated, or the
building envelope will need to be modified. Recognizing that the geometry (width, length and
height) of the proposed building, as well as its placement and orientation upon the property, will
affect the behavior of an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall event, the applicant needs to prepare a
detailed site plan and grading design in conjunction with the proposed building plan for evaluation
by the avalanche consultant and city staff. The grading plan should extend at least 20 ft .from the
building footprint and areas re-graded for retaining walls, driveways, and other features creating
vertical cuts of 2 ft or greater, or horizontal plains of 8 ft width or greater. The intent of the review
will be to identify potential problems and resolve conflicts prior to construction to prevent
unintended or undesirable consequences for the property owner and other parties.
';i
3. Site Impacts and Constraints: Development of Lot 1 must be such that, it does not
deflect an avalanche/snowslide or rockfall onto adjacent properties. The building must be designed
to withstand avalanche forces and to prevent contributing debris or deleterious material to the
avalanche which may impact the employee housing units below. The residence andlor any
retaining structure may not deflect the avalanche force onto adjoining properties. (Ordinance 18,
Series 1992, Section 2, Condition 2).
1
4. Site Drainage: As required by the subdivision approvals, the proposed development
cannot release more than historic (pre-development) stonn run-off from the site and any increase in
stonn run-off must be first routed and detained on the site. Given the existing prevailing gradient
of the site, the landscape and grading plans need to be coordinated to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during and after development. The building envelope will need to be delineated by
construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing to minimize the erosion potential. All
proposed slopes in excess of 2: 1 shall receive erosion control netting, as per the subdivision
agreement (Condition 10.a). The barrier should be erected and maintained throughout the
3 OF 5
DRCM2097,DOC
DRAFT
..;
~'
, '
.'
".~
/"""\.
A
, ,
DRAFT
Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review
construction until the later of either the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or completion and
establishment of the landscaping and ground covering.
The drainage report will address detention of site drainage; means of mitigating potential erosion on
the steep slopes of this property (25% to +30%), both during and after construction; and
coordination with the structural features necessitated by the avalanche/snowslide design of the
structures and site plan. ' To the extend possible, flows leaving the site will be discharged to
downstream properties as sheet flows. The drainage plan will be prepared on 24" x 36" sheets and
included with the plan set submitted for building permit review.
5. Avalanche & Rockfall Warning Signs: The property owner shall install and
permanently maintain these signs in the location(s) shown on the subdivision plat around his
property and permit the installation of such signs along the Nordic ski trail easement.
6. Fire Sprinklering: As per the Subdivision Plat, Condition 8, all buildings upon Lot I
are required to have fire sprinklers. The water mains for the subdivision were sized to serve this
water demand.
7. Soils Investigation Report: A soils investigation report will be conducted to establish the
footing requirements of the building, percolation rate of the soils and to verify whether there are
any hazardous or toxic soils on the site which must be mitigated. Copies of the soils report will be
submitted with the building permit plan sets for building permit review.
8. Utilities: The necessary utilities were sized and constructed during the subdivision
development so' the proposed development will not increase nor change the demands on the
existing utility services.
9. Trees and Landscaping Plan: While it is desirable to retain existing, healthy trees
and native vegetation, the physical constraints of the site and the necessity to mitigate and minimize
, the hazards created by the avalanchelsnowslide and rockfall events may necessitate the removal and
replacement of trees in addition to those proposed. Given that several of the conifers in the
Avalanche Blue Zone and in the unconditional building envelope have been previously damaged,
consideration should be given to the possibility of removing these trees and replacing them with
healthy trees planted in other locations upon the property. Removal and replacement of additional
trees may also be necessary to place the building and driveway suitably within the building
envelope.
If the proposed building footprint or deep excavations (including over-excavation) may impact the
root systems of existing trees as detennined by the City Parks Dept., the contractor will use. sheet
4 OF 5
DRCM2097,DOC
DRAFT
.
~,
^
, "
. ,
DRAFT
Memo: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review
piles or other techniques pre-approved by the City Parks Dept. to protect the tree root systems from
the excavation.
10. Site Mitigation: To the extent supported by the report from the avalanchelsnowslide
and rockfall consultant, the following site mitigation should be performed by the owners to reduce
the effects of an avalanchelsnowslide or rockfall event.
a. Remove standing or fallen dead trees and wood (greater than 4" diameter or longer
than 5' length) from the site to reduce the debris loading on the site;
b. Remove loose boulders of 18 inch or larger diameter from the site to reduce the
debris loading of the site; and,
c. Do not place or construct any structures or improvements in the Avalanche Red
Zone which are not securely anchored to the ground, i.e. un-reinforced bouider
walls, timber crib walls, outbuildings, tool sheds, picnic tables, etc.;
11., Street Addressing: Due to the distance from Ute Avenue to the three residences at the
end of the access and utility easement within the Ute Park Subdivision, the conunon driveway ,
serving the subdivision may need to be named so as to enable emergency responders to locate these
, residences which are presently not readily identifiable from Ute Avenue. This would entail
assigning a unique name to this roadway and re-assigning new house numbers to these three
properties. This property owner will agree to such a naming of the access driveway and re-
assigning of house numbers if such is found necessary by the City Zoning Officer.
12. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any
future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement must be executed and recorded
prior to issuance of the building permit for the project.
13. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required
to submit to the Aspen!Pitkin County Data ProcessingDept. as-builts drawings for the project
showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments (removed before C,O.
issuance), entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements.
5 OF 5
~j
DRCM2097.DOC
DRAFT
<"-j
";,.:1
j
r-.,
~
Memorandum
TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department
DATE: November 11, 1997
RE: Bowden 8040 Greenline Review
We have reviewed the application submitted by David Panico for the Bowden 8040 Greenline
review, and the issue of trees was discussed with the applicant at the DRC meeting. Based on
our review of the application and our discussion with the applicant, the Parks Department offers
the following comments:
. The 12", 17", and 22" ponderosa pines and the 18" douglas fir are to be preserved and
protected during construction including no excavation within the driplines of the trees.
. Initially, the applicant had shown only the 14" pine in the center of the building envelope to
be removed. However, the Parks would consider allowing the 11" douglas fir to be removed
if it better preserved the other trees listed above, If it's possible to preserve the 11" fir, the
Parks Department would prefer that; however, due to excavation of the lot it may not be
possible.
. A landscaping/tree mitigation plan must be submitted with the tree permit.
. Because of the surrounding dense forest vegetation of this lot, we would encourage the
applicant to plant native species consistent with the surrounding forest.
.
~
"~
,~
'~~IBtT N 6"1 1
..
:MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mitch Haas
FROM:
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
RE:
8040 Greenline Review, Lot 1 Ute Park Subdivision
DATE:
November 4, 1997
The proposed residence at Lot 1 of the Ute Park Subdivision is located in the AHl Zone
District within a PUD overlay. A building envelope was established for this parcel in the
PUDapproval process. The parcel contains approximately 43,084 square feet oflot area.
While the lot is extremely steep, containing slopes greater than 20%, it has been
determined by the City Attorney that the lot will not be subject to floor area reductions
based on slope and is entitled to develop at the floor area as originally approved. (See
attached letter from John Worcester dated May 15, 1997).
The floor area permitted for this lot is based on the AH dimensional requirements in
effect at the time the PUD was approved. For a lot of 43,084 the permitted FAR is 5770
square feet.
All setbacks, heights and FAR calculations will be verified when working drawings are
submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included
in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review.
r-- . .. . /'"
. 7lspeI1 0onsofidaledC5arl1faHon 7)islric/
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925-3601
Sy Kelly. Chairman
Paul Smith. Treas.
Louis Popish .. Secy.
November4,1997
_ FAX #(970) 925-2537
RECEWEO
. " \991
i'\Q'l ..J .
1"";1'\'\\\'4 ...\"1'
I'Sr't:.N1 e/iO\..OP\'\iO,"
co\,\MUl'l\1'ID
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly"Mgr.
Mitch Hass
CommunIty Development
no S. Galena
Aspen, CO 816U .
Re:Bowden 8040 greenline review
Delli-Mitch:
.. I
The Aspen Consolidated Samtation District currently has sufficient collection and treatment .
. capacity to serve this project] Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules,
, '.~'., . . I .' . . '. . _ ' . " .' _ ' , , .
regulations, and specificationis which are on file at the District office, Once c1etailed plans are
available, a tap permit can bel completed at our office w~ch will estimate the total connection
charges for the project. 'I .~. .
I
,. ,
A four irich serVice line hasb~en extended to a point near the property li~e. Atap permit must be
completed. and the associated fees paid prior to connection to the public system.
.. I .
I
I
Please call if you have any q~estions
Sincerely,
~ ~.~..<2v if
Bruce Matherly
DistrictManager.
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976. 1986. 1990
Regional and National
,~
,
,.-,.
DESIGN BY DAVID PANICO INe
1533 JUNIPER HILL ROAD, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 970-923-5394 FAX 970-923-1260
October 23, 1997
Mr. Mitch Haas
City Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
130 S. Galena St Aspen, Colorado
Re: Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review and Design Stancbrds Review
Dear Mitch;
This letter will serve as lhe response to item 9 in your Pre-application Conference Summary letter
of September 17".
As is stated elsewhere in lhis submittal pack2ge, I am representing Murry and Polly Bowden of
Houston, Texas. The Bowdens have an agreement to purchase the subject property from Jim
Martin who developed lhe Ute Park Subdivision and took it 1hrough lhe P. U. D. process in 1992.
The other lots in lhe subdivision have been built upon, two of lhe lots have single fami1y
residences on lhem. The fourth lot is occupied by 7 units of employee housing lhat lhe developer
was required to build to mitigate lhe project'shousing requirements.
The Bowdens would like to build a residence for lheir family on Lot 1. The family intends to
reside in Aspen for 3 or 4 monlhs of the year. The Bowdens and I have developed a Schematic
Plan for lhis residence and lhose plans are a part of lhis submittal. The plans describe a structure
lhat is nestled into lhe hillside surrounded by existing mature Pine, Spruce and Aspen trees. As
submitted lhe plan is comprised of approximately 5300 sq. ft. of living area and a 650 sq. ft.
gat:lge. Because a 1arge per-centage of lhe structure is below grade, I would estimate thatlhe
FAR as submitred for perrnit will be approximately 3500 sq. ft. The allowable FAR forlhe lot
is 5770 sq. ft.
The style of lhe exterior architecture can be described as ''Mountain Rustic" and is
complementa1y to, and in keeping with, the two houses on the adjacent lots. The materials palette
will be comprised of cedar board and batten and cedar shingles over a base of Farmer's Stone.
Timber elements will be used as accents on lhe porches and gable ends.
Response to Review Standards as outlined in Attachment 4
1. As <mn PI' ~een on lhe Improvement Survey, the building site is partially in a mapped
avalari,;,ne paih:'This fact was reviewed at length during lhe P.UD. process. The P.UD. was
appro\;ed Wilh numerous conditions that would have to be met related to the mitigation of
lhe avalanche hazards. I have included with lhis submission some of the documents pertinent
to these concerns. The building envelope on the Bowden's lot is partially in and partially out
of lhe avalanche palh. As proposed, lhe residence will also be partially in and partially out of
1""""\
,-,.
,
10/23/97
lhe avalanche palh. The area wilhin lhe avalanche palh was designated as a "Conditional
Zone" on lhe Recorded Plat and lherefore subject to lhe condition lhat any structure built in
lhat part of lhe building envelope be constructed in accordance wilh lhe recommendations of
an Av:lianche Consultant The Consultant referred to in lhe P.UD. Agreement is Mr. Art
Mears of Crested Butte. Mr. Mears is known internationally as an expert in his field. Previous
to lhe Bowdens signing lhe purchase agreement for lhis lot, lhey brought Mr. Mears over to
Aspen for lhe day to hear for lhemselves what the potential risks of building on lhis lot were.
After a lengthy explanation of lhe power and force ofan avalanche, in which Mr. Mears did
not mince words, The Bowdensand I asked lhequestion,"Can aresidence be built on lhis
site in lhe conditional zone, that in no uncertain terms, would wilhstand the force of an
av:lianche?" Mr Mears assured us lhat it could be done and lhat it could be done wilhout lhe
construction of diversion barriers or structures uphill from lhe residence. Wilh Mr. Mears
input we propose to engineer lhe structure of lhe house itself to divert and wilhstand lhe
force of any avalanche lhat might strike it. It should also be noted lhat part of lhe reason lhat
lhe building envelope included an area in an av:lianche zone was lhat any structure built in lhe
east end of lhat building envelope would act as a an avalanche barrier for lhe employee
housing units below it This is stated in the enclosed P.UD. approval.
2. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural
watershed.
3. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on lhe air quality of lhe
city. The fireplaces in lhe proposed residence will comply with the Municipal Code and
lherefore be gas.
4. As stated in lhe response to lhe first question, lhe proposed residence will be nestled into lhe
hillside so lhat as much as 1/3 of lhe structure will be subgrade. The floor plan can be
described as "split level" and steps it's way up lhe hill. The massing will mimic lhe slope of lhe
hill it will be built on.
5. All of the proposed regrading of lhe site will happen wilhin lhe building envelope except
where it is necessary to access lhe site from the street As a part of this review I would like to
request a variance be granted from lhe Municipal code requirement related to regrading oflhe
existing topography outside of lhe building envelope by more lhan 2:-6". I believe this project
will need to havelhis variance to create a drivewaylhat meets lhe Engineering Department's
driveway guidelines. One of lhe. reasons lhe Bowdens would like to build in lhe conditional
zone of lhebuilding envelope is lhat if the house were constructed in lhe unconditional zone,
3 or 4 large trees would have to be removed. As this project is submitted only one conifer
and two aspen trees larger than 4" caliper will need to be removed. There are no large trees in
lhe conditional zone.
6. The proposed residence will be built at lhe end of an existing road. The driveway cut will be
approximately 60 ft. long and is about as minimal as can be expected for any house on lhis
particular lot Any olher driveway configuration would probably cause lhe remov:li of existing
trees. As designed, lhe house is to be located on lhe east side ofa nl.lmber of mature Fir trees
and a small Aspen grove. The vast majority of foot and automobile traffic approaches lhe site
from lhe west and goes no further lhan the Aspen Club which is directly nor1h of lhe site.
.1"""'\.
1"""\
10/23/97
Therefore the project's impact on perceived open space will be minimal thereby helping to
preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. .
7. The height of lhe proposed building will be well wilhin lhe height restrictions as described in
lhe Municipal Code. As previously stated a substantial amount of lhe perceived bulk of the
house will be sub grade.
8. The developer has supplied lhe building site wilh adequate water service for bolh household
use and lhe required fire sprinkler system. All olher utilities are adequately sized and were
installed within the last five years as part of lhe Ute Park Subdivision infrastructure.
9. The roads to 1his site are of adequate widlh to serve lhe proposed development.
10. The same roads were constructed to assure access to fire and emetgency equipment This was
a condition of lhe P.U.D. approval. There is also a dedicated access easement from Ute
Avenue to Lot 1. The house will also have a fire sprinkler system as required by lhe P.UD.
approval.
11. By P.UD. agreement, an easement for lhe Aspen Nordic Trail crosses Lot 1 directly uphill (to
lhe soulh) from lhe building envelope. The Bowdens understand lhat lhis is a public trail
easement.
vid E. K Panico
Bowden Residence
1""'\
'-',
unit. One space will be garage while the other will be exterior surface parking. All parking
has been relocated so that no spaces access directly onto Ute Avenue in response to City
of Aspen Planning staff directive at Conceptual Submission.
The three free market lots have been assigned building envelopes. These envelopes have
been designed to be substantially more restrictive than the lot setbacks as defined by the
zone district. The primary criteria for the establishment of these envelopes was geologic
hazards, slope and access. Secondary criteria included views, orientation, privacy and
vegetation. The envelopes have been divided into two area designations which respond to
. the mapped snow slide zones. The "unconditional" zones are not affected by the slide zones
as they are outside of their boundaries and therefore considered safe with no mitigation
required. The Site Development Plan graphically delineates these zones. The "conditional"
zones are within the mapped slide areas which have been designated on the Existing
Conditions Map. These slide areas have identified as blue and red zones. The red zone
are frequent but not intense slides while the blue zones are "powder blast" zones. As is
represented on Lots 2 and 3, the majority of the lot is contained in "unconditional" zone.
A small portion of "conditional" zone, which is only located in the blue zone, has been
added to the envelope to give buyers added flexibility. In the event a buyer decides to build
in this "conditional" zone, adequate construction mitigation will need to be included in the
design of the house. In the case of Lot 1. the line of "unconditional" and "conditional"
divides the lot equally. This has been done intentionally. As a result of an on-site review
with snow slide consultant Art Mears, this envelope has been designed to protect the units
below by creating a slide "shadow"" eliminating the units below from danger. This house will
require the structural modifications specified by Mears (which will need to be provided by
each applicant for a building permit).
As contrasted by the approved conceptual submission plan, all building locations can now
be located out of the designated slide paths with the exception of Lot 1 which will require
structural mitigation.
7
SEP-29-1997 15:19
~TAB
1""\
9709204378 P.02
'h' >~,
~.
UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP
Box 10502
Aspen, Colorado 81611
September29,1997
Aspel1/Pitkin County CommunityiDevelopment
130 $. Galerla St.
Aspen, CO 81611""
To Whom It May Concem:
..
As General Partner of Ute Park Partnership, owner of record of Lot 1, Ute Park
Subdivision, I authorize Murry Bqwden, contract purchasers of said Lot 1, to initiate any
building permit applications, reviews, or applications for other permits that may be required to
get pl'lrmission to start construct~on of a new, single family home on that site next year. He
and his agents (including Daivd Panico, Architect, and Jim Iglehart, Iglehart Construction) have
... "-my permIssion-to acrin-rny p1ace;-attheir sole-cost"and at n-a-cost tot,lte-P-arlc"Partnership-on-
all application and administrative matters and approvals.
I have enclosed Schedule A from the CUrrent title commitment for that property.
Sincerely,
....'.._~
~c_ ....1 Vl'kt::--...:..
V
James T. Martin
General Partner, Ute Park Partnership
f'.
r'\
. THE HANOVER COMPANY
September 18, 1997
Mr. Mitch Hass
City Planner
AspenlPitkin County
Community Development 130
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Hass:
David Panico is authorized to act on my behalf relative to the planned residential
home on Lot 1, in the Ute Park Subdivision. I currently have the home site under
contract and plan to build a home there. Mr. Panico will be my architect and planner
and you may deal with him on my behalf.
Thanks for your consideration.
-
5847 5AN Flll.ll'e, St!l'I'E 3600, HOU5TON, 'nXi>5 77057, (713) 267-2100, 1'AX (71;3) 267-2121
SEP-29-1997 15:20
-.....
-~
^
, .AB
^
9709204378 P.03
COMMJ.'J:M.I'd't'1'
SQIE[Jll!'p- A
OJUMELL BANI<E:R/Ul'E P1\ElK p~, LID
720 EAST IXlRANl'
AsPEN, m g1611
1. Effec:tive Date:
PE/b:!. .
July 18, 1997 at 7:00 11M
Or:del:' No. 404955 -c3
cw.~ Reference
1lDI:lunt: $ 950; 000.00
2. AIlm OWner' s Policy
p",. .pc i Ii ~ :Insured:
MJRRi' a::MOE:N
3. ALTA Ulan PoUcies
P.... '1- ird Insu:red:
, .
llnnJnt: $
A I&lDER '10 BE DE:l'EfMINEO
Pl.. 12. ~J: woo. Insured:
,
llnDunt: $
4. '1he estate or .interest .in 'the land descr:'ihed cr; refernd 1:0 in 1:his O:lami:tlll!ln:t and
CCII'E!I:Ed hm:e:in is: .
FEESIMIi'LE
and title 't:h&....tu is at 'the effective date hereof """"led .in:
'l1l'E PARK PARl'NEE'SHIP, LTD. ,a Colorado limi:t:ed partnership
(Mner's P.r:anium:
ten:3er's Premium:
J\dd'l ~ Chg:
lldd'l Charges:
Tax Certifilcate:
Endo:I::..e:lIel ~t Chg:
'I'BD 0"Ia:rge$:
Tal'AL QJA1lGI!S:
$ 1,037.00
$
$
$
$ 10.00
$ 207.00
$
$ 1,254.00
is$UE!d by:
ASPEN TITlE a::RR:lR1I.TIU'i
600 EJl,ST HOPI<.lNS A'JENUS: #305
M3PEN OJ 81611
FAX 970-920-4052
PH 970-920-4050 DEWER 303-595-8463
FIRST lIMEIUCAN TITLE: :IMSURAN:E CXM?ANY
SEP-29-1997 15:20
9709204378 P.04
,--.;
COMMITMENT
~TLE A (oxrtinued)
Pl.at id No. 00/66
Order No. 404955 -c3
o.
5. '%be land refer.red 1:0 in "the ~"l:Irent is CCI.'edng "the land :in the S1:a;te of
Colorado, CCUoty of Pitkin ! desc:d.bed as follows:
rot: 1,
U'!'Ei PJIRK SUBOIVISICN,
acx:Jb:rd1rq to t'lE Plat thereof, filed February 22, 1993, :in Plat: Book
30 at Page 66. .
FIl'lST JlMEEttCJ\N TITLE ~ o:M'ANY
~\
.1""',;
.
'-1.. J-y
N;j
dS\7
~
.
;;
"
<
1""'\
\
1""'\
L
I
~'
Q
Z
~
g
F=t
Q'i}o;:;O
~ -~
~~
Z
~
~
~
o
~
r-
~
-
-
<::-J
bL
uJ
i)
o
\-
\J
\:)
7
~
}-
4:
..>
\)J
-'
!\-l
l-
.\\
,Jf.l
::I
,
1""".
I }.- ---'. l-~
If; --------.--. _1--______
j
,
;::.,,_::d', "',
;:.'
,.,- ",': ';"0' ",>~
'......:,...,'...
:
J
+
::t'. I't'
;1 if
I Ii
l~: I -
Ii [
J f !
.. ]
,I-
.:1
l-
t
.,'~ .
~
>Q
........iid
~
@
~
tYd
W
.~
Z
~
~.
.~
~
~
r
r
t-J
N
tl.)
to
()
t-
-..)
\)
o
.
-
_Ii
:~
Z
~
t-
4
>
I
IjJ
.-1
\lJ
T
).-.;
.~
\)
12
,
.
~.
~"';~'A""" d"
"., ~'.
n'I~'1
;;'t.1dt ';",~'~.':'~:'~=<'~": ,"-' .'
-'
I c';:,-, .,
I
I
..t:.
...::;
.-;-
r"'V'.". rT
~(rt
;" ~
g~
~M
f~" ~
~b
~b
t===1\)
QJJ ::"0
~ --4
~i
--
~.: z
~.ti
OOt-:
-<
~ -?i.- '.
~S
CJ~
~
~i.I+
i :
,
. I
, .'
1'1' 1:/1
~,
!
. .
1 1
.-'--7"-- i-1'
I ' :
I I
I I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
:.{
,
,
,
I
I
I
;
,
I
I
I
,
j .
I
i
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I I I
. j. !
p+l
I -
,
,
,
!
I
i
I
i
'. 1
'j' ~ .
~
g
Z
~
g
~
~
~
..~
Z
~
~
.~
~
~
;..,f."
1"",
/oi
)\
//
.~
/
I
I
I
- =pp.::rro
I
!
i
I
i
I
, . .\
r
I
.1
'! -
VIN~~eA;: -
: .1 t2:%-1.17,-- -,-
!
I
:e.;:
1 CV"t~~;';=::=
--=-~-1.:"":i:. -.o-A--=-' --,
<'::;' -k.~-___.~...,
I
I
i
.
!;
i
,
!
i
l
."~ . .....-.
,.. SiL' ,
",' 't.,,; '!
r.<:' ". -.--- "
es- '" I
I ---
,
-~
~~.;'.'
o
l ~.
.
!
-,<! ,-I., ..'.-
:,.,',',-....1.'
" ~nt".1f '6
.,.~t.ir-'
!
,
~~Y'-.-
Li
______ JllOWDEN.RESliDENCE
rref'::EK-LE VEL'?'_ ~'?I , t:P,~:DCTOe'-E.R;Z-r;"'r-i ..
-rrn.n--- 1...-.. . .'_ __ _...____.__ ..---.-.
_ -oT.z''74!>' --~----t:O..~--- ~._~~~__Z.O
r-,.
1"1
,Y..
,
.:,....1 '
. -.:.:.:.~.. ".":,,,,,,;,,,.." .---:-,.~o:,.l-' ':.y~"-:"c::.
.:~ . "
"
--- _... ----...
" .. .... . ,. . ~.
"
i I T .-\ 1.1 ____: .
, U'.-w
: j!,IIISl:lC:'-1"oo.K ......
" , .,':' ,~.
, l~ --r~I#L\.."L_
".......',/.
i
I \
l J
-=15e;~"oQ.M
.=:14_xJP.:7
,
1-[.
:.' . . I I
I,n ." ,-
'II ': n. .:$'S:~=oll-1;
~,I "," ,.
- i' I ,: I '
, _L:t...::x.::tc:;..L_'
I , ~ ' I 1
I ~L-LLi
,: . O'
, ....l>'!::I;,(J,';:U?;OOM"
I
,
~R]..
zd~
\ .
i
:JI c "\
?
"
.~
~
L
. '/.
~
I"
JEcQ) WID JE NRJESTI ]]J>]E N CCJE
'2l~-Ztl1
.::to v.l.-E R L:C VEL ~
IUU'T I I
Dt'Z,4.?IO '2.0
OCTObE.R 2-1\<11
,I"""',
r""'\
"
II
i'u Csrr OF AmH .
. o;.."'1lIIon-_
~
May 1S, 1m
. .
~.S1'.'c.oPj
. .
. Clades T. B.cacdt, Esq.
BoUaul-&: Hart
600 But MJin SItcclt .
Aspeu. Colorado 81611
VIA FAX- HARD CoPY.TO Pou.o.w
,;
. .
.'
"
.'
~:
Lot I, UlI:: Park SubcIivision PtJD
,
.
Dear CblI::k:
'This is in respouse to ypar lel:ter dal:d May 5. 1997, in which you smamarized your:
cliclt& ""5\1WV' ,I , in ~ of the ~ of'VeStcd xight5 tiir Lot 1.
, . .
I.do :QOt beliC:ve tbat your diem his a iesa:drigbt ~ v.ii:cue of the ~ ~'II.: ,,~
in Section 6 of Qr,n__ No. 30. Sr~ {t) S\BfI:lIlbat Olrlin~.No. 30 don 1lOt
applylQ 8lS.f pt~t! ~ which aYeSll:d..n~'1Ias bclm ~ I.~i'.a ~
&IlClioD. to apply DOt only whc::n a YC5lI::Il d;b1 i- ~. but also aD 1o.og as it if; stl1l
in effccZ..'As yOu IalaW,'tbc 'YCSIl:d ~;obtaiIIl::lfby:ygar ctiI::als""1'~" tlm:ie
1= and ~ 1:IOt ~ "!lPl the 'ge&led'z:ig1dI ~..d tllll ~u1""1J ~ SubJ=
to all sap&equmt ~ in thea, i'O'"Twling ()rr'I~ No. 30. That is the w1H>lc
JlUIPose of ~~ '1ested rigbts, whidl1:iY I1aSDte ate limiTori 10.3. three year ,peIlod.
yOur c:1ieuts (jo.......im law ",&_.,., haWlo...., ate ~,I(is ~ c!ear that
yoar cliaJt. :bas ~\e.ted 1I. ~ Of actioJis in ,..1~ 'of ibe "l'~o.a1a l:Ic:teeem:d. .
It is 1:aSOnab1e for him to expect 1Ilat he WOQ]d receive an - ......11".. :relmn on his
project lit 11m timti. T.bus, 1 bcJievc yom c:iG r1xJul4 be ~ to' ~tb&!
~. em. I,.ot 1 with a flovr -= as origmalIy, "i'~,,-d.; I do lIOt ~
bu",..vm, 1lIaI: your clicm is I,'-"'~ iiom the ~ It:.k.1rS~4s.It''l>Ooltd b.1
Oldi_~ No. 30 as you bave proyidecf 1IO~fm= 1bat be IC1ie4 in any :="~.1x:l my
ft&.;gJ" ....-"',4<< ~ ~ law gJ.len 1:\, ~ his appro1laIs. It is my
~. m !act. tbat ~ Usign wark b2s bcl:n ,......:~ 10 dale for that..
'_I_Lot. ' ,-
r-- .'
UllSoooll__. ......c:..-sw.h "-""'....~ . ,..af.l4JllJ
--
'.
en: E1!l\ld
SSt.'/Pt.~S01.S'al
~~\I~aN\l"OH'WO~= 9S''/Pt t.S-St-l
i
~.
"
c/c
,
.J..~~ "J,.~.,,;
"2
,~.
....'
. ,
!
Itmlttbe fc:m:aoiDa ~wet5yoar~T'4aDd~ ~..tl. MjL".
. ... . . ,.- .' ." . .~
~.~/~~~
. P..\f~I~Ultr'
City A1ir.Jktfi
~;
C' ., ~1-D' .'.
................'Ll' ~"1iol6IW~ a~
. '
.
3~'o'd
,
. ; ~:~;.
. "
'.
"
,.
_i
-.
.; ~:
..~.; 1
:!.j
J ~'~.:
,.
....;;.:.:
SSl.l>1.<:S01.S'OI
~ i"
....~. .~
,
If _.i'1..- gM: :me ac:a11..
. ,
"
1a'o'~CN'o'~~O~'KO~4 5S'!>! l.S-S!-A'o'W