HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273706304001 (4)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat(s)
t COPIES: 10
Planners
DIl,Aatte o, Mary Ellen -0110 Mountain Yew R jllllllllllllllllllll1Carbondale,CO816
ALLOCATED
FEES DU 1110 +160 Eng, 1430
REF 4/27/19991 TKT D111 6/1%1999 ag
BODY PH i. I ' D DATE OF FINALAaON:
, BOCCReso: i
vesting HO denial 6119199, Appeal to
PLAT
HO
ADMIN INDEX.
#436299
CASE T'y 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Ov LCASE E'I
CASE CA SE -- j
CASE 0412412012
ile LocatillFFBoxt218
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, DETERMINATION ON DIMATTEO 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL
AND SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW TAKING HEARING FINDING NO TAKING
Resolution No. 99 -_Z//
RECITALS
L The Board of County Commissioners (`BOCC ") of Pitkin County, Colorado makes the
following findings:
A. Mary Ellen Di Matteo ( "Applicant ") is the owner of the subject property at 1 121 Red
Mountain Road, which is referred to as Lot 1 -A, Block 3 Revised, Red Mountain Subdivision according to
plat tiled July 28, 1956 in Plat Book 3 at Page 182, Pitkin County, Colorado.
B. On July 20, 1999, by Determination No. 99 -19, the Pitkin County Hearing Officer denied
the Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay Review application
because the proposed development encroached into slopes of 30% and greater which is prohibited pursuant
to Section 3- 80- 050(C)(2) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code ( "Code ").
C. The Applicant applied to the BOCC for a takings determination hearing pursuant to section,
4 -150 of the Code. The Applicant contended that the Di Matteo Land Use application denial constituted a
taking of private property without just compensation.
D. On August 11, 1999, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the BOCC considered the evidence
and testimony presented by the County Attorney's Office, the Community Development Department and the
Applicant on the issue of whether the land use application denial effected a compensable taking of private
property.
E. After considering all of the evidence and testimony presented and made a part of the
record, the BOCC determined that no taking had occurred pursuant to section 3 -290 and 4 -150 of the
Code. In addition to record evidence that supports the BOCC's determination, the BOCC makes the
following findings based on the evidence presented at the hearing:
1) Slopes. Section 3- 80 -050(C )(2) of the Code prohibits development on slopes greater than
30 %. The only exception to this prohibition is when there is no area on the site with slopes less than 30%
and if the BOCC finds that a taking has occurred. The slope calculation provided with the application
indicates that 18,156 square feet of the 37,480 square foot property is encumbered by slopes in excess of
30 %, therefore, approximately 19.324 square feet of the property is not encumbered by slopes in excess of
30 %. There are substantial areas on the property where development may potentially avoid slopes in excess
of 30 %, therefore there is no taking. The Applicant may reapply for approval to develop on the portion of
the property that does not contain slope hazards, as provided by the Code.
2) Reasonable Investment- Backed Exceptions. The Applicant knew or should have known
when she purchased the property that the developability of the subject property was constrained by slopes
and setbacks, and that the Pitkin County Land Use Code prohibited development in these areas. Therefore,
1111111 11111 111111 Ill 11111 IIIII 111111 III 111 1111 IN
1.j�j�)ljl�1 436620 10/14/1999 01:39P RESOLUTI DAVIS V SILVI
Op� 1 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
i Resolution No. 99-
Page 2
as supported by the following findings, the Applicant does not have a reasonable investment backed
expectation to develop the property as proposed in slopes of 30% and greater:
The Applicant purchased the property in February of 1999 for $1,750,000.
ii. The Applicant already has a reasonable use of the property by virtue of existing strictures
on the property, which also provide rental income.
iii. The property is not part of BOCC approved subdivision, therefore, 1041 Hazard Review is
required for any re- development of the property.
iv. The following information was visible and/or of record at the time of the Applicant's
purchase:
a) The assessed valuation at the time of the Applicant's purchase of the property was
$137,200 and the actual value was $1,407,800.
b) At the time of the Applicant's acquisition of the property, the Pitkin County Land
Use Code prohibited development on slopes greater than 30 %.
V. On March 19, 1999, the Applicant's representative ( "Representative "), Janver Darringtion
of Charles Cunniffe Architects conducted a pre - application conference with the Community
Development Department. The Representative was informed that slopes may be an issue on the
property. A slope analysis was not provided during the pre - application conference. The applicant
did provide a slope calculation of the property. Staff prepared a memorandum to the Pitkin County
Hearing Officer recommending denial of the applicant's request because section 3- 80 -050(C )(2) of
the Code prohibited development on slopes greater than 30 %. The Hearing Officer agreed with
staff's analysis and forwarded a recommendation of denial to the BOCC.
vi. The valuation of the property is unaffected by the BOCC denial of the Applicant's
application. Both before and after the BOCC's denial, the assessment of the property is the same.
Thus, the Board's actions have had absolutely no effect on the value of the property.
vii. Given the reasonable investment backed exception of the Applicant — a purchaser who paid
$1,750,000 for the property constrained by hazards — and the other facts of record at the time of
purchase, the Applicant did not have a reasonable investment backed expectation to develop the
property with a single - family dwelling unit in a hazard area.
3) Reasonable Use, Economic Return and Remaining Beneficial Use The Applicant has
not been denied all reasonable use and economic return in connection with the denial of its
development application and remaining potentially beneficial uses of the property remains:
i. Beneficial uses of the property remain. The property is current improved with a 1,344
square foot primary residence and a 1,030 square foot guesthouse. An appraisal submitted by the
Applicant estimated the value of the property vacant at $2,000,000.00.
ii. The Code does not allow development on slopes of greater than 30% except if there is no
area on the site with slopes less than 30 %, and/or the development proposed does not comply with
the criteria of Section 3- 80 -050(C )(2)(a), or if the BOCC finds that a taking has occurred. Because
U U U j 2 1 111111 IIIII llllll 11111 IIIII IIIII llllll 111111111111 IN
436620 10/14/1999 01:39P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI
2 of 3 R 15.00 D 0,00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
s Resolution No. 99 -1L
Page 3
a portion of the property is outside of the slope hazard areas, and the Applicant has not sought
development in that potentially hazard -free area, the Code does not allow the BOCC to authorize
development under any circumstances.
4) Ripeness. The Applicant's request that the BOCC find that a taking has occurred is not
ripe for review. The Applicant has failed to exhaust all possibilities for development of the
property, hazard free areas exist on the property and the Board of Adjustment may permit some
development within the setbacks.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
State of Colorado, that the Board denial of the Di Nlatteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, and
Scenic Overlay Review does not constitute a taking pursuant to sections J-290 and 4 -150 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
PUBLIC MEETING HELD AND TAKINGS DETERMINATION RENDERED ON AUGUST 11,
1999.
ADOPTED ON AUGUST 11, 1999.
ATTEST:
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John E,!%
County Attorney
Case #P56 -99
PID 112735- 063 -04 -001
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PITICINOUN COLD
i I f
Leslie J. Lain t,
Chair
Date l I q
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
11 yam,
IW , d7 �y
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
111111111111 111111 11'11 1111111111 111111 III 11111 1III IN
U i uiJtJ 436620 10/14/1999 01:39P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI
3 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
DENYING THE DI MATTEO 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND
SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW
Determination No. 99 --L9
RECITALS
1. Mary Ellen Di Matteo ( "Applicant') has applied to the Pitkin Comty Hearing Officer for 1041
Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay Review approval to establish a
building envelope in order to accommodate the replacement of an existing residence with a new
single - family residence.
2. The subject parcel is located at 1121 Red Mountain Road, and is referred to as Lot 1 -A, Block 3
Revised, Red Mountain Subdivision.
3. The property contains approximately 37,480 square feet and is zoned R -30.
4. This application was reviewed by the Hearing Officer at a duly noticed public hearing on July 20,
1999, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
5. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed development of the property is prohibited, pursuant to
Section 3 -80 -050 (C)(2) of the Land Use Code, which prohibits development on slopes in excess of
30 %.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer that the Di
Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay Review is hereby denied,
pursuant to Section 3- 80- 050(C)(2).
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 19th of
June 1999.
DENIED on the 20th of July 1999.
N-Hu
Tenley ylor,
Adminis ative ssistant
HEARING OFFICER
OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO
Lance Clar ce,
Hearing Officer
Date: 91 (4I yQ
1111111 11111 111111 11111 IN 111111 111111 III 11111 IN IN
436299 10/06/1999 11:59A DETERMIN DAVIS SILVI
1 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
60OLjU.r
Determination No. 99 - t9
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John E ,,
Coiffity Attorney
Case #P56 -99
PID #2735- 063 -04 -001
.are IOWNivv
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
6)7z4/" --- 7113.89
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
436299 10/06/999 11:5911 DETERMIN MIS SILVI
2 of 2 R 0-00-0@.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
:UG035
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting— August 11, 1999
10
THRU: Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner
RE: Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay - Taking
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant requested a hearing, pursuant to Section 4 -150 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code, as a result of the Hearing Officer's denial of the Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review,
Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay Review application on July 20, 1999. The Applicant
contends the denial constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation.
APPLICANT: Mary Ellen Di Matteo
REPRESENTATIVE: Janver Darrington; Charles Cunniffe Architects
LOCATION: The property is addressed at 1121 Red Mountain Road and is referred to as Lot 1 -A, Block
3, Red Mountain Subdivision.
ZONING/LOT SIZE: R -30; the property contains approximately 37,480 sq. ft. and is conforming in size.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board consider whether or not a
taking has occurred by virtue of the Hearing Officer's denial given the fact that:
• The Applicant is already the beneficiary of significant economic value on the property by
virtue of the existing house and guest house, which are valued by the Applicant at ,$1.9
million (the Applicant purchased the property for $1.75 million, and has already achieved an
economic return of $150,000);
• The proposed new residence, garage and driveway require significant encroachment on to
30% slopes (which is prohibited by the Code) to accommodate a much larger structures than
what already exists. The Applicant's complaint with the Hearing Officer's refusal to allow
this encroachment prohibited by the Code can be characterized as just a denial of the
Applicant's effort to achieve the maximum profit on the property which is not a taking.
• The Code requires that the Board find bath that there has been a taking of all reasonable use
and economic return on the property and that there is no hazard free site available. Because
the Applicant concedes the property is worth $1.9 million, and there are existing structures on
site which do not necessitate additional development in hazard areas, this provision of the
Code cannot be satisfied.
STAFF COMMENTS: The standard of review for a Board taking determination is identified in Section 3-
290 of the Land Use Code, and reads as follows:
1111 C; Lit1�
Di Matteo
August 11, 1999
Page 2
e.�
"The Board shall determine whether the property owner will be denied all reasonable use and
economic return on the property as a result of the questioned determination. If the Board
determines that a taking has or may occur, it shall take such action as it deems appropriate to
remedy the situation. In making its decision the Board shall consider the value of the property as a
whole and shall not base its decision on the impact of the regulation: on one portion of the
ownership interest. In making its determination, the Board shall consider the beneficial uses which
remain in the property notwithstanding the challenged determination and shall give due
consideration to the reasonable investment - backed expectations of the landowner. "
Section 4 -150 of the Code requires that the Applicant submit the request for a taking hearing within 15 days
of the Board's decision and that the Board schedule a hearing within 15 days of the request. The Board is
required to make a decision regarding the application for a taking determination within 15 days after the
hearing on the matter.
SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S POSITION: The applicant requests a taking determination pursuant to
Code section 4 -150 and has provided some of the information required pursuant to Code section 5- 220 -010.
The applicant contends that the Hearing Officer's denial of the application has denied her all reasonable use
and economic return on the property. The Applicant paid $1,750,000 for the property in February of this
year and has indicated that the appraised value of the property, which currently has a house and a "guest
house," is $1,900,000. In addition, the Applicant has indicated that based on current application and
building plans, if approved, it is estimated that the resale value would be approximately $8,000,000, which
presumably would include the cost of a new structure.
ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
Slope: The application submitted a "grade calculation" site plan along with the application that delineates
the slopes on the property that are 30% or greater. These areas are identified on the site plan with cross-
hatching. The majority of these slopes are along the northern portion of the property. There is a continuous
band of 30% and greater slopes that runs through the proposed building envelope, in addition, the applicant
is proposing to install a secondary driveway to access a three car garage below the residence which will
encroach into slopes of 30% or greater.
The applicant has asserted that the slopes that are 30% and greater are a result of installation of the existing
driveway, the construction of the residence and from construction of Red Mountain Road. The applicant
maintains that these are man-made slopes and that encroachment into these areas should be considered
minor and insignificant. There are some "man- altered" slopes, but the property is also part of the continuous
natural slope of Red Mountain. The Pitkin County Land Use Code does not distinguish between natural or
man-made changes to the gradient of a slope. The Land Use Code clearly states that development on slopes
in excess of 30% is prohibited. The code does allow for exceptions to this provision, however, staff and the
Hearing Officer have taken the position that the slopes, as indicated on the "grade calculation" site plan, are
not minor, therefore, denial is required by the Land Use Code.
Section 3- 80- 050(C)(2) of the Land Use Code, which deals with 30% slopes and greater, reads as follows
ULJG JV I
Di Matteo
August 11, 1999
Page 3
Development is prohibited on slopes greater than 30 %, except as permitted herein.
a. Exception for Minor changes in Slope- Development may be permitted on lands that have a slope in
excess of thirty percent (30 %) when the slope is due to the presence of a minor natural or man-
made change in the gradient of a continuous slope, provided the following conditions are met
1. Not Subject to Instability — The applicant demonstrates that the slope's ground surfaces are not
prone to instability or failure and that the proposed development will not cause greater instability or
increase the potential for slope failure.
2. Compliance with Other Regulations — The applicant demonstrates that development on slopes in
excess of thirty percent (30 %) does not increase visual, wildlife or wildfire impacts, or compromise
or conflict with other policies or standards of the Land Use Code.
In the event that there is no area on a site with slopes less than thirty percent (30%), and/or the
development proposed does not comply with the criteria of Section 3- 80- 050(C) (2)(a) as determined
by the Community Development Director, and a development application is subsequently denied, an
applicant may petition the Board of County Commissioners for consideration pursuant to Section 3-
290 of the Code. If an appeal is granted by the Board and the development is permitted, an
application shall be reviewed according to the criteria in section 3- 80- 050(C) (1).
There is a very limited area for development on this property. The actual development area on this
property has been dictated by the required road and yard setbacks. The proposed residence will be
located approximately in the same location as the existing house. Staff is concerned with the secondary
driveway that accesses the three car garage on the west side of the property. As mentioned previously,
this proposed secondary driveway will encroach into slopes of 30% and greater. If the Board found that
there was a taking and development could proceed, it is staff's opinion that the garage should be relocated
within the dotted area (setback area), instead of being allowed within the setback and to encroach into
slopes.
Legal Access: As part of the submission requirements of the Land Use Code, Section 5- 70- 020(E), the
applicant is required to submit "sufficient information to demonstrate that the applicant has adequate legal
access to the parcel for the development proposal" The applicant did submit with the application aletter
from Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.(Attorneys at Law) that attests to the fact the main house on the
property has been in existence since at least the later 1950s and the owners have maintained uninterrupted
ingress and egress to and from Red Mountain Road since that time. On December 14, 1981, the owner of
the Hodges property (located south of and contiguous to the subject property) granted a perpetual
easement to the Board of County Commissioners for public access through the portion of the Hodge
property between the subject property and the existing public right -of -way containing Red Mountain
Road. Apparently this easement was never accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as required.
At the Hearing Officer meeting, David Mueller of Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, asserted that the
application should be denied since adequate proof or legal access had not be demonstrated and that
improvements were proposed on the portion of the road that lies on Lot 2 of the Hodges Subdivision.
The applicant noted at the meeting that no improvements were proposed on this portion of the driveway.
Staff received a letter from Mr. Mueller, dated July 22, 1999 (Attachment 2), outlining his concerns with
legal access to the subject property. Mr. Mueller has noted that the property has no legal access and that
UUU Jljil
Di Matteo
August 11, 1999
Page 4
the applicant's claim that the property has a "prescriptive easement" based on historic use has not been
legally determined.
Garrett Brandt of Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C. has submitted a letter dated July 27, 1999 refuting
Mr. Mueller position regarding legal access to the property. Mr. Brandt's letter can be seen in more
detail in Attachment 3. In summary, Mr. Brandt has indicated that the subject property does have
adequate access and that "a prescriptive easement exists over and across both lots of the Hodges
Subdivision, and that no "final legal determination" is required to make this driveway "legal access."
Rather, the only purpose of a legal determination would be to quiet title so the access could be placed of
record and insured as part of the property."
The County Attorney's office has determined that a claim of a prescriptive right is inadequate to
demonstrate legal access. However, the Attorneys are of the position that the easement, if accepted by the
Board of County Commissioners, does provide public access that could in turn be enjoyed by the Applicant
to access his property. As the Board has not accepted the easement as of this date, however, there is no
proof of legal access. This issue need only be addressed if the Board finds that a taking has occurred and
that development should proceed on the parcel.
Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan submitted with the application was revised prior to the
Hearing Officer meeting to comply with the wildfire mitigation measures recommended by Vince Urbina of
the Colorado State Forest Service. A revised plan (Attachment 4) has been resubmitted to Mr. Urbina for
comments. No written comments have been provided, however, Mr. Urbina has verbally indicated that if
the residence will be constructed of stone and other non - combustible materials, as represented on the
elevation plans submitted with the application, that the revised landscape is adequate.
Scenic Overlay: All the criteria outlined in Section 3- 60- 040(E) of the Land Use Code for Scenic Overlay
Review have been addressed in staff s memorandum to the Hearing Officer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board either:
I. Find that no compensable taking has occurred and direct Staff to prepare a resolution of
denial because:
1. The Applicant has no reasonable investment - backed expectation to develop a new single -
family residence in a hazard area (slopes in excess of 30 %), particularly given the fact that two
residences already exist on the property;
2. The Applicant has not been denied all reasonable use and economic return in connection
with the denial of the development application since on the property there is a primary residence and
a "guest house" with a value represented by the Applicant to be $1.9 million; and
3. The Applicant does not have the right to the most profitable use of his property which
would require development in a hazard area, and a reasonable use and economic return has already
been achieved on the property.
UuuuU/
Di Matteo
August 11, 1999
Page 5
H. Find that a taking has occurred and direct Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the
Board's review, addressing the issue of access at that time.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Letter from Applicant's representative regarding takings determination
2. Letter from Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C. dated July 22, 1999
3. Letter from Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C. dated July 27, 1999
4. Revised landscape plan
5. Staff's memo to the Hearing Officer dated July 20, 1999
000jio
t y
Attachment 1
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHARLES T. BRANDT US Bank Building
-� 420 East Main Street, Suite 204
TRAVIS S. THORNTON Aspen, Colorado 81611 C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL
GARRET S. BRANDT Telephone 970 - 925 -5196
Fax 970 - 925-4559
July 21, 1999 JUL 2 !999
Members, Board of County Commissioners -"
506 E. Main
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Appeal of Denial of DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review; Hearing Request
Dear Commissioners:
This letter requests an appeal of the denial by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer of a
development application under a 1041 Hazard Review for Lot 1 -A, Block 3, Red Mountain
Subdivision, known as 1121 Red Mountain Road (the "Property"). The date of the hearing and
denial was July 20, 1999. We request a takings determination pursuant to Section 5 -220 of the
Pitkin County Land Use Code (the "Code ").
The following information is respectfully submitted to comply with the requirements of Section
5- 220 -010 of the Code:
A. A written request for the takings hearing prepared pursuant to the procedure in
Section 4 -150.
This letter is the written request for the takings hearing. Section 4 -150 states that an
appeal must be made within 15 days of the decision. The denial of the development
application-was made on July 20, 1999, so this request meets the requirements of the
Code.
B. An identification of the property and the property interest adversely affected by the
determination.
The Property is located on Red Mountain as described above, and consists of two
residential structures, a parking area and a small garage /shed built into the side of the hill.
The development application was denied due to the existence of slopes exceeding 30%
on the lot. The denial of the 1041 Hazard Review adversely impacts the ability of the
owner to replace the existing single - family residence with a new, modem single - family
residence.
UUGLJJ -i
DIMatteo, 1121 Red Mountainroad
1041 Hazard Review Appeal
Page 2
C. Past and current uses of the property.
The property has been used for residential purposes since the main house was built in
1955, which use continues to the present. The "guest house" was built in 1964.
D. The petitioners's original purchase price for the property.
The Property was purchased in February of this year for $1,750,000.00.
E. The assessed valuation of the property.
The Assessor's Office has a current actual value for the Property of $1,407,800.00 and an
assessed value of $137,120.00.
F. Appraisals and/or preliminary estimates of value made on the property.
When purchased, the Property had an appraised value of $1,900,000.00.
G. Current mortgage principal balance and interest rate.
Mortgage balance is $1,250,000.00 at an interest rate of 9.00 %.
H. Past income generated by the property and expenses relating to the property.
The past income is dependent upon renting the Property, and is offset by the expenses of
the property taxes, utilities, and general upkeep. No specific profit/loss statements were
available at the time of this letter.
I. Ownership Structure for the property (partnership, corporation, etc.).
Ownership is through a Georgia limited partnership, with a limited liability company as
the general partner.
J. Owner's tax bracket.
Unknown
K Rental value of the property with and without the offending determination.
Due to the existence of the "guest house," the rental value of the Property has been
approximately $5,000.00 per month for long term rentals. For short term rentals during
peak seasons, the rental of the main house has been as much as $6,000.00 per month, and
the "guest house" has been $3,500.00 per month. The current plans call for the
demolition of both residential structures and the construction of a 8,648 square foot, five
bedroom house with several amenities. It is estimated that houses of this size and
location can command rental incomes of $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 per month on long
term rentals, and significantly higher for short-term, peak season rentals.
ou0ji -2
DiMatteo, 1121 Red Mountain NKad
1041 Hazard Review Appeal
Page 3
L. Sale value of the property with and without the offending determination.
The sale value of the Property after the denial is probably less than $1,700,000.00,
assuming that the existing houses have value as they exist. The appraisal of
$1,900,000.00 was based partially on the potential to redevelop the Property and resell it
at a substantially higher price. Based on the current application and building plans, if
approved, it is estimated that the resale value would be approximately $8,000,000.00.
M. Any other information bearing on the difference in value of the property with and
without the offending determination.
The owner purchased this property with legitimate investment- backed expectations that
property on Red Mountain, especially older homes, could be remolded or completely
redeveloped and sold for a reasonable profit in today's real estate market. This scenario
has occurred on numerous other projects all over Red Mountain, including lots near this
one. A denial of the 1041 Hazard Review, and prohibiting redevelopment of the
Property, will result in a takings of the owner's property which requires just
compensation.
Therefore, we respectfully request that a takings hearing be held to determine where a
taking has occurred given the information provided above. If a taking is found to have occurred,
we request that the Board either approve the 1041 Hazard Review on the development
application, or compensate the owner for the taking of the owner's property.
Yours very truly,
Garret S. Brandt for
Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C.
cc: Janver Derrington, via facsimile
Ivan Novick, via facsimile
OUGLiA
Attachment 2 RECEIVED
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C.
LEONARD M. OATES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
TED O. GAROENSWARTZ
DAVID B. KELLY
OF COUNSEL'
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
Vli. JOit Ely, Esq.
Pitkin County Attorney
530 East Main
Aspen, CO 81611
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
July 22, 1999
Re: DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review
Dear Mr. Ely:
2 z 1999
TELEPHONE 19701 920 -1700
FACSIMILE 19]01920 -1121
e -mail ohkg®rof.Pet
HAND DELIVERED
I am writing to you regarding the DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review land use application, which was
denied by the Hearing Officer at the July 20, 1999 public hearing due to slopes. We represent Ms. Marilyn
Wilmerding, who is the owner of Lot 2 in the Hodges Subdivision adjacent to and immediately south of the
DiMatteo property. We appeared at the public hearing and stated that since adequate proof of legal access
has not been demonstrated concerning the DiMatteo's existing driveway, the application should be denied.
The application was denied on other grounds, and there was no discussion of access until we made our
objection. In any event, the applicant's representative indicated they would appeal and request a takings
determination hearing. In the meantime, the Hearing Officer suggested we bring the following concerns to
your attention.
It is our view that there is no legal access to the DiMatteo residence. There is some claim of a
"Prescriptive Easement," (see enclosed OpinionLetter dated 2/11/98 of Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq.) based
upon historic use, upon which the applicant appears to rely, but to date there has been no final legal
determination of this opinion. Despite the claims of the applicant that the requisite elements of a
prescriptive easement may exist, the burden of proof is on the party claiming a prescriptive easement to
"prove up" the existence of all facts necessary to create such an easement.' This has yet to be determined,
and at such time a claim is made, my clients would contest such creation based on historic "permissive use"
given to earlier parties in title to the DiMatteos.
'See Proper v. Greager, 827 P.2d 591 (Colo App. 1992); see also, Dzuris v. Kucharik, 164 Colo.
278, 434 P.2d 414 (1967); Segelke v. Atkins, 144 Colo. 558, 357 P.2d 636 (1960); Hayden v. Morrison,
152 Colo. 435, 382 P2d 1003 (1963); Sanchez v. Taylor, 377 F.2d 733 (lOw Cir. 1967); Raftopoulos V.
Monger, 656 P.2d 1308 (Colo. 1983); Matter of Estate ofQualteri, 757 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1988);
Sehutten v. Beck, 757 P.2d 1139 (Colo. App. 1988); Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. App. 1989);
Board of County Comm'rs v. Ritchey, 888 P.2d 298 (Colo. App. 1994).
t�Ul�J�4
v,
O?kTES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C.
Mr. John Ely, Esq.
July 22, 1999
Page 2
Second, we also dispute that the granting of a perpetual easement, granted December 14, 1981, from
William V. Hodges, Jr. to Pitkin County for maintenance of Red Mountain Road and utility purposes, which
included "public access" constitutes the grant of a right of way for a driveway to the DiMatteo parcel. The
grant was not intended to accomplish that purpose, but to allow the County to maintain and repair the road.
We are concerned that the County has not yet adequately investigated "Legal Access" as required
by the Pitkin County Land Use Code at Sec. 5 -70 -020 (E). Until this issue can be concretely resolved, either
by legal action, or agreement between the parties, then any development proposal for the DiMatteo parcel
should be denied.
Sincerely,
OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C.
David B. Mueller
cc: Marilyn Wilmerding
William V. Hodges, Esq., III
Tamara Pregl
Garret Brandt, Esq.
=C 1
YAD.MWkw&V k.wpd
utiuiJ -b
IF
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHARLES T. BRANDT
TRAVIS S. THORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
John Ely, Esq.
Marcella Larsen, Esq.
Pitkin County Attorney
530 East Main
Aspen, CO 81611
US Bank Building
420 East Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone 970 - 925 -5196
Fax 970 -925 -4559
July 27, 1999
Re: DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review; Access
Dear Mr. Ely and Ms. Larsen:
Attachment 3
C.T.BRANDT,PARALEGAL
P -1 . - - -
JUL 2 7 X999
This letter is in response to the letter dated July 22, 1999 from David Mueller, Esq.,
attorney for Ms. Marilyn Wilmerding, regarding the issue of legal access to the DiMatteo lot
across the Hodges Subdivision. While Mr. Mueller's recitation of the facts is generally correct,
we believe his conclusions are in error.
We do not believe that the continued denial of the application under Section 5- 70- 020(E)
of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, as requested by Mr. Mueller in his last par:,graph, is
warranted. In addition to the argument concerning adverse possession of the existing driveway
made below, the property in question is boarded on two sides by the county road. As you can see
from the enclosed drawing of the lot, access to this lot could be taken directly from Red
Mountain Road along the southwesterly or northeasterly boundary. Therefore, Ms. DiMatteo has
"adequate legal access to the parcel," as required.
According to Mr. Mueller's letter, you were given a copy of the letter by Loyal E.
Leavenworth, Esq. stating the history of access along the present driveway alignment, and I refer
you to his letter for that information. It is our position that a prescriptive easement exists over
and across both lots of the Hodges Subdivision, and that no "final legal determination" is
required to make this driveway "legal access." Rather, the only purpose of a legal determination
would be to quiet title so the access could placed of record and insured as part of the property.
It is correct that in claims for prescriptive easements the party claiming the easement has
the burden to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence continuous, open, and adverse use ...
for the statutory period of 18 years." (Proper v Greager, 827 P.2d 591 at 595 (Colo. App.
1992)). In the case at hand, open and continuous use has never been questioned. Until Mr.
Mueller's letter arrived in the mail, we had no knowledge of any claim to permissive use, and
0 ll'U J-
still have not seen any substantive evidence of such a claim, so we argue that the use has been
adverse.
In Trueblood v Pierce, 179 P.2d 671 (1947), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the
use of a road over the property of another for the statutory period created a presumption that the
use was adverse, and that the opponents of the easement had to overcome that presumption. Two
years later, the Colorado Supreme Court in Allen v First National Bank, 208 P.2d 935 (1949),
created another presumption that when a property owner constructs a passageway over his own
property, at his own expense, any use of that passageway is permissive.
There is no indication that Ms. Wilmerding or Mr. Hodges built the driveway over their
property to the lot now owned by Ms. DiMatteo to make this use permissive. Mr. Leavenworth's
letter on behalf of his client, who own the property for nearly 20 years, made no mention of any
permissive use, and there is no recorded permission that we could find. Since the case law grants
a presumption in our favor that the use of this driveway was adverse, we believe that the element
of adverse use has also been met, and Ms. DiMatteo's claim of a prescriptive easement is
complete. Under Trueblood, it is Ms. Wilmerding's burden to prove permissive use.
Colorado Revised Statutes §38-41 -101 et seq is the statute that governs the limitation of
bringing an action in adverse possession claims. The statute states that "(n)o person shall
commence or maintain an action for the recovery of the ... possession ... to real property ...
unless commenced within eighteen years after the right to bring such action ... has first
accrued.... Eighteen years adverse possession of any land shall be conclusive evidence of
absolute ownership." (Emphasis added.) Unless permissive use can be proven, this statute bars
any action to recover the property. Therefore, it is our position that access is legal.
In the alternative, since the County holds a perpetual easement over the property in
question and this easement abuts Ms. DiMatteo's property, we submit that Ms. DiMatteo is a
member of the public that can use and enjoy the County's easement. We request that the County
recognize the right of Ms. DiMatteo to use this easement, and has legal access to her property.
We have drafted a document to this effect for your review.
Yours very truly,
is(
. Brandt for
Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C.
cc: Mary Ellen DiMatteo
Janver Derrington
Curtis Cleveland
Ivan Novick
Tamara Pregl
David Mueller, Esq.
tUGL7
AGREEMENT OF
RECOGNITION OF
RIGHT TO USE COUNTY EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of 1999, by and between the Pitkin
County Board of County Commissions ( "County") and DiMatteoBond Development Company, LP, a
Georgia limited partnership ( "DiMatteo ").
WHEREAS, in 1981 the County was granted a perpetual easement covering the property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto, for public access and utility purposes ( "County Easement "), which
easement is recorded in Book 418 at Page 556 as Reception No. 237720 in the Office of the Clerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
WHEREAS, the County Easement abuts Lot 1 -A, Red Mountain Subdivision, owned by
DiMatteo ( "DiMatteo Property").
WHEREAS, there exists a driveway across the County Easement from the public road to the
DiMatteo Property, which driveway has been in existence and continually used as a residential driveway
for the DiMatteo Property since at least 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties
agr: ^ as follows:
1. Rinht to Use Easement. DiMatteo, its successors and assigns, is granted a non - exclusive right, as
members of the public, to use the County Easement for ingress and egress to the DiMatteo Property from
the public road surface as the same presently exists, until such rime as the County Easement ceases to
exist under the terms of the County Easement, or DiMatteo gains access to the DiMatteo Property at a
location that does not cross the County Easement.
2. Maintenance. DiMatteo, its heirs, successors and assigns, shall maintain the driveway across the
County Easement in its current condition and location, at no cost to Pitkin County, during the term of this
Agreement.
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the date and ye_r first written above.
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners:
0
Chairperson
DiMatteo/Bond Development Company, LP,
a Georgia limited partnership, By DiMatteo/Bond, LLC,
a Deleware limited liability company, its General Partner
Mary Ellen DiMatteo, Manager
60616- i8
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1999, by
, Chairperson, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1999, by Mary
Ellen DiMatteo, Manager, DiMatteoBond, LLC, a Deleware limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
U(1GJi')
!� _ \__ ,_\
k
@ !f
v f � ,X�)■
@§
buci
�
/
�
4-
{
J
a
�
�®
§
�
Ell,
� _o_m
\
n`
c
�
4-
{
J
a
�
�®
§
�� � u - ��I�Il.il� i di! Il•f Il �' .r
x
Attachment 41
1
g•
S l! Y k
��� ,
rV-
6 S�"
E._ 3
i
uucj21
Attachment 5
�� � J�
TO: Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Regular Meeting — July 20, 1999
FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner 'A
RE: Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting 1041 Hazard and Scenic Overlay Review
approval to establish a building envelope for the construction of a single - family residence.
APPLICANT: Mary Ellen Di Matteo
REPRESENTATIVE: Janver Darrington; Charles Cunniffe Architects
LOCATION: The property is addressed at 1121 Red Mountain Road and is referred to as Lot ] -A. Block
3, Red Mountain Subdivision.
ZONING/LOT SIZE: R -30; the property contains approximately 37,480 sq. ft, and is conforming in size.
BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is part of the Red Mountain Subdivision
which is not a Board approved subdivision, therefore it is subject to 1041 Environmental Hazard Review.
There is an existing primary residence on the property and a residence that is referred to as the "guest
house ". There is also a shed type garage which is built into the slope, below Red Mountain Road, on the
northeast part of the property. The applicant is proposing to remove both units and the garage /shed and
replace them with one single - family home.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral agency comments are incorporated throughout this memorandum
and are attached for reference. Referral comments were received from Zoning, Aspen Fire District, Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen Water Department, and the Colorado State Forest Service (which
has been included as part of the application). Written comments were not received from the County
Engineer, County Attorney's Office, Red Mountain Subdivision Homeowners Association.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Wildfire: Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has rated the wildfire hazard on the
site as medium. Mr. Urbina has indicated that the vegetation on the site consists of native gambel oak and
other mature landscaping planted by the previous property owner (i.e. aspen, blue spruce, lodgepole pine,
honeysuckle and lilac). Mr. Urbina has noted that if left alone, the gambel oak/serviceberry would return to
its former density and height. Mr. Urbina has offered a number of wildfire mitigation measures which
should be included as conditions of approval. Mr. Urbina's letter has been attached to this memorandum.
Wildlife: The property is not mapped for wildlife.
6U01J_ 22
i
Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review
July 20, 1999
Page 2
Slopes: The subject property does not contain any slopes less than 15 %, except for the existing parking
area. The applicant has provided a "grade calculation" site plan that delineates the slopes on the property
that are 30% or greater. These areas are identified on the site plan with cross - hatching. The majority of
these slopes are along the northern portion of the property. There is a continuous band of 30% and greater
slopes that runs through the proposed building envelope, in addition, the applicant is proposing to install a
secondary driveway to access a three car garage below the residence which will encroach into slopes of 30%
or greater.
The applicant has asserted that the slopes that are 30% and greater are a result of installation of the existing
driveway, the construction of the residence and from construction of Red Mountain Road. The applicant
maintains that these are man -made slopes and that encroachment into these areas should be considered
minor and insignificant. There are some "man- altered" slopes, but the property is also part of the continuous
natural slope of Red Mountain. The Pitkin County Land Use Code does not distinguish between natural or
man -made changes to the gradient of a slope. The Land Use Code clear states that development on slopes
30% or greater is prohibited. The code does allow for exceptions to this provision, however, staff has taken
the position the that slopes, as indicated on the "grade calculation" site plan, are not minor, therefore, denial
is required by the Land Use Code.
Section 3- 80 -050(C )(2) of the Land Use Code, which deals with 30% slopes and greater, reads as follows:
Development is prohibited on slopes greater than 30 %, except as permitted herein.
a. Exception for Minor changes in Slope- Development may be permitted on lands that have a
slope in excess of thirty percent (3001o) when the slope is due to the presence of a minor natural
or man -made change in the gradient of a continuous slope, provided the following conditions
are met:
1. Not Subject to Instability — The applicant demonstrates that the slope's ground surfaces are not
prone to instability or failure and that the proposed development will not cause greater
instability or increase the potential for slope failure.
2. Compliance with Other Regulations — The applicant demonstrates that development on slopes
in excess of thirty percent (30%) does not increase visual, wildlife or wildfire impacts, or
compromise or conflict with other policies or standards of the Land Use Code.
In the event that there is no area on a site with slopes less than thirty percent (30.0), and/or the
development proposed does not comply with the criteria of Section 3-80- 050(C)(2) (a) as
determined by the Community Development Director, and a development application is
subsequently denied, an applicant may petition the Board of County Commissioners for
consideration pursuant to Section 3 -290 of the Code. If an appeal is granted by the Board and the
development is permitted, an application shall be reviewed according to the criteria in section 3-80 -
050(C)(1).
The applicant has provided a soil boring analysis conducted by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. which
indicates that the area does not contain any potentially unstable slopes. The applicant has incorporated
additional retaining walls on the site plan along the northwesterly portion of the property to ensure the
stability of the slopes.
uuu'j23
Imm
Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review
July 20, 1999
Page 3
GENERAL SUBMISSION REVIEW
Water: Phil Overeynder has reviewed the application and has indicated that if the applicant is intending to
replace the existing water service line with a larger size, the existing water service line must first be
abandoned according to Aspen Water Department standards. In order to abandon the water service line, the
existing water line shall be disconnected and plugged at the water main in Red Mountain Road before a new
water service will be provided. The applicant will need to pay utility connection charges (tap fees) and
comply with all Water Department standards for a new service connection. The applicant will need to
provide at the time of building permit submittal, "a commitment to serve letter" from the Water Department.
Sewer: Bruce Matherly of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) reviewed the application and
has indicated that the existing structures on the site are currently served by ACSD. Mr. Matherly has noted
that the demolition of the two units and the construction of a new residence will not adversely impact ACSD.
Mr. Matherly has indicated that prior to making final on -site utility plans, the use of the existing service line
should be reviewed with the line superintendent. Continued service is contingent upon compliance with
ACSD's rules, regulations and specifications. The applicant will need to provide at building permit
submittal, "a commitment to serve" letter from the ACSD.
Access: The property is encompassed by Red Mountain Road on three sides. The driveway is located at
the intersection of the upper and lower runs for Red Mountain Road. The driveway crosses over a small
parcel of land that is not currently owned by the applicant, however, the applicant has provided a letter
from Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.(Attorneys at Law) that attests to the fact the main house on the
property has been in existence since at least the later 1950s and the owners have maintained uninterrupted
ingress and egress to and from Red Mountain Road since that time. On December 14, 19981, the owner
of the Hodges property (located south of and contiguous to the subject property) granted a perpetual
easement to the Board of County Commissioners for public access through the portion of the Hodge
property between the subject property and the existing public right -of -way containing Red Mountain
Road.
There are two driveways proposed for the property. As seen on the site plan submitted with the
application, the main - driveway lies in the general location of the existing driveway. There is also another
driveway that branches off the main driveway. The purpose >f this driveway is for access to a three car
garage located below the residence. This driveway is located outside of the building envelope and within
the setbacks of the property, in addition, this driveway encroaches into slopes of 30% or greater, which is
prohibited by the land use code, which is addressed previously in this memorandum.
Fire: Ed Van Walraven of the Aspen Fire Protection District reviewed this application and has indicated
that development shall meet all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. Mr. Van
Walraven's comments have been attached to this memorandum.
Zoning: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer, has reviewed the application and has indicated that the proposed
building envelope appears to lie outside of the required setbacks for the property, which include: 50'
setback from Red Mountain Road right -of -way and 10' setback for side yards. The building envelope itself
uUC�'J24
Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review
July 20, 1999
is defined by the property lines. The majority of the development is included within the setbacks of the
property. The setbacks are represented on the site plan with a dotted line. The applicant is proposing some
development outside of the setbacks of the property (i.e. driveway extension, landscaping, retaining walls,
and garage). The applicant is aware that development that exceeds 30 inches below or above the natural
grade within the setbacks requires Board of Adjustment (BOA) approval. Upon approval of this application,
the applicant will pursue BOA approvals.
SCEPTIC OVERLAY
Development that is mapped for Scenic Overlay or Ridgeline Review shall comply with criteria outlined
in Section 3- 60- 040(E) of the Land Use Code.
Whether the proposed development has utilized existing topography and natural vegetation, such
as ridges and hills to screen the buildings to the maximum extent possible.
Response: The applicant has indicated that the proposed residence will be dug down to sit about 6'
lower on the site then that existing residence and the guest house. The applicant is proposing extensive
landscaping as well as to maintain a lot of the existing mature vegetation along the property line (this will
be addressed in more detail further in the memorandum) for the purpose of screening the proposed
residence. There are not ridges and hills to aid in the screening of the proposed residence.
2. Whether the proposed development has been designed to complement the natural topography of
the land, including, whenever possible and appropriate, the utilization of innovative architectural
techniques such as earth sheltered design, natural materials and coloring, non- reflectability and
clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site.
Response: The applicant has not provided building material samples of the proposed residence. It
appears from the elevation plans provided with the application, that the majority of the residence will be
stone. The applicant shall be aware that the materials for the residence shall comply with wildfire
mitigation measures outlined in the Land Use Code and by the CSFS, shall "blend" in to the surrounding
topography and shall.not utilize reflective material. It is staff's understanding that sample building
materials will be provided at the meeting.
3. Whether the proposed development's height and bulk has been designed to avoid, to the
maximum extent possible, the visibility of buildings from the highway and public viewplanes.
Response: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer, has indicated that sufficient information has not been
submitted to determine compliance to the county height requirements. As mentioned before, the
applicant has indicated that the proposed residence will be located 6' lower on the site then that existing
house and guest house. The applicant has not provided photographs or illustration with regard to the
visibility of the structure from the highway and public viewplanes. It is staffs understanding that these
photographs will be provided at the meeting.
4. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a ridgeline, unless there are not
alternate building sites on the lot.
LIUUJ25
Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review
July 20, 1999
Response: The proposed development does not break a ridgeline.
5. Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses on the highest ground or
most visible portion of the site as viewed by the State Higi:way 82 and public rights -of -way,
identified in Section (B) (1).
Response: The applicant has avoided the highest ground and most visible portion of the site. There is a
very limited area for development on this site. The actual development area on this property has been
dictated by the required road and yard setbacks. The proposed residence will be located approximately
in the same location as the existing house.
6 Whether the proposed development has been located outside the designated Scenic Overlay, or
on a suitable site at the greatest distance possible from State Highway 82 and identifies
ridgelines.
Response: The entire property is located in an area mapped for Scenic Overlay Review. As mentioned
previously, development on this site has been limited because of the setback requirements on this
property.
Whether the proposed development has been landscaped in accordance with the adopted State
Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and has reserved natural vegetation, to the maximum
extent possible, including the avoidance of development within irrigated meadows. Existing
vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible, while using existing vegetation to
screen development. A landscaping plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the
Hearing Officer.
Response: The applicant has provided a landscaping plan for the proposed residence. The applicant is
proposing to maintain a lot of the mature vegetation along the property lines. However, the majority of
the existing vegetation within the proposed development area will be removed for the construction of the
proposed residence. Staff is concerned that the proposed landscaping plan does not comply with the
wildfire mitigation measure recommended by Vince Urbina of CSFS. Staff has recommended that
landscape architect for the development, Shannon Murphy, work with Mr. Urbina to assure that the
proposed landscape plan is acceptable with regard to wildfire mitigation. Ms. Murphy has indicated that
an updated landscaping plan will be provided at the meeting.
8. Whether the proposed development's exterior lighting has been designed in such a manner that
light sources, such as facade and landscape lighting, will not be seen f •om public rights-of-way
as identified in Section (B) (1). In addition, an application shall be consistent with the lighting
regulations identified in the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Response: The applicant has indicated that exterior lighting fixtures will be selected to shield the light
source from view of any public right -of -way as required by the Pitkin County lighting regulations. The
applicant has not provided a lighting plan indicating where the lighting will be located.
UUVi126
Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review
July 20, 1999
Page 6
9. Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable as the sole measure of compliance
with these regulations. However, they may be utilized in conjunction with other site techniques
designed into the development plan. These methods maybe acceptable when utilized as one of
several methods to complement and enhance development, rather than as the single device for
screening development from view from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Response: The applicant does not propose any landforms or earth moving to comply to the Scenic
Overlay Review criteria. The applicant is proposing some grading and the installation of the retaining
walls along the northwestern portion of the property within the setback area, however, this is also not
related to the Scenic Overlay Review criteria.
10. Whether the proposed development has been designed so as to avoid, to the maximum extent
possible, any Scenic Viewplane identified on the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and
Down Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Not applicable.
H. In the case where 1041 hazard areas may be in conflict with preservation of scenic areas, the
Board acknowledges that 1041 issues take precedence over scenic concerns. These issues shall
be reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
Response: 1041 Hazard issues have been addressed previously in this memorandum.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny the Di Matteo 1041
Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission, since development is prohibited, pursuant to Section 3-80 -
050(C )(2) of the Land Use Code, on slopes greater than 30 %.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Zoning
C. Aspen Water Department
D. Aspen Fire Protection District
E. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Application and site plan have been attached separately.
L- - - -
DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF PITIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
DENYING THE DI MATTEO 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND
SCENIC OVERLAY
Determination No. 99-
RECITALS
1. Mary Ellen Di.Matteo ( "Applicant') has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer for 1041
Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay Review to establish a building
envelope for the construction of a single family residence.
?. The property is addressed as 1121 Red Mountain Road and referred to as Lot 1 -A. Block 3, Red
Mountain Subdivision, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A.
3. The property is zoned R -30 and contains approximately 37,480 sq. ft. (conforming in size).
4. The Hearing Officer heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on July20, 1999, at
which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
5. The Hearing Officer finds that development of the subject property is prohibited, pursuant to
Section 3- 80 -050(C )(2) of the Land Use Code, which prohibits development on slopes of 30% or
greater.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RI SOLVED by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer that it hereby
denies the Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Scenic Overlay Review.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES ON THE 19TH DAY OF
JUNE 1999.
DENIED ON THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 1999.
ATTEoT:
HEARING OFFICER
OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO
Tenley Taylor, Lance Clarke,
Administrative Assistant Hearing Officer
Date:
UUGJ�'u'
Di Matteo Hearing Officer EX"rmination
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely,
County Attorney
Case #P56 -99
PID #2737- 063 -04 -001
i.iUL;JL`7
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
Attachment B
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Tamara Pregl, Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning
DATE: May 29, 1999
RE: DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay
Parcel ID# 2737- 063 -04 -001
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following questions and comments:
ZONE: R -30, thirty thousand square foot minimum lot size.
This parcel contains 37,480 square feet and is conforming in size.
SETBACKS: On this lot, the south lot line along the lower portion
of Red Mountain Road through Parcel A, is considered the front lot
line. As this lot is triangular in shape, the applicant may
determine which lot lines will be the rear and the side.
The required setbacks for this parcel are:
50 foot Collector Street setback as measured from the
Red Mountain Road right -of -way
30 foot front yard setback
15 foot side yard setback
30 foot rear yard setback
The proposed building envelope appears to lie outside of these
required setbacks.
The large retaining wall located south of the proposed garage is
located within the required setback and outside of the proposed
building envelope. Is this to be allowed as a `driveway"
improvement? Board of Adjustment approval is required for this
wall (see above paragraph).
All development, including driveway construction, which exceeds 30
inches in height above or below the existing grade, and which is
located within a required setback, requires a variance from the
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, prior to permit issuance.
QOe0 4r� v Dtz r 1� -
uLJL - - l
FLOOR AREA: The applicant represents that the proposed house will
be well under the allowed floor area of 15,000 square feet. The
floor area ratio for the R -30 zone district is thirteen percent of
Lot Area (not Lot Size).
To determine the Lot Area, the area of any portion of Red Mountain
Road that may be conta -ned within the boundaries of this parcel
must be deducted from the lot size. This amount is not available
at this time. If no such reduction is required, this parcel is
allowed no more than 4,872 square feet of floor area.
Lot Size 37,480 sq ft*
R -30 .13
Allowed floor area 4,872 sq ft
*The area contained within Parcel A has not been included in the
lot area for the subject lot. No floor area will result from this
Parcel A.
HEIGHT: Sufficient information has not been submitted to determine
compliance with county height requirements.
OTHER:
1. Why are
2. Who owns
not been
3. Is there
subject
Permit.
iivoi31
two driveways necessary?
the adjacent Parcel A? The area within Parcel
included in the lot area of the subject parcel.
an easement agreement with Parcel A for access
site? This should be submitted with the
A has
to the
Access
Phil Overeynder, 07:08 AM 7/8/99 -, DiMatteo Residence - -1121 Red M
X- Sender: philo @water
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 07:08:16 -0600
To: tamarap @ci.aspen.co.us Attachment C
From: Phil Overeynder <philo @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: DiMatteo Residence - -1121 Red Mountain Road
Cc: edv @ci.aspen.co.us, ryanm @ci.aspen.co.us
Tamara,
I reviewed the plan submittal for the DiMatteo residence (scenic overlay and
1041 Geologic Hazard Review). It is not clear from the submittal if the
proposed replacement residence will exceed 5000 square feet and therefore
require a fire sprinkler system. If so and if it is the intent of the
applicant to replace the existing water service line with a larger size, the
existing water service line must first be abandoned according to Aspen Water
Department Standards. This requres that the existing service line be
disconnected and plugged at the water main in Red Mountain Road before a new
water service will be provided. The applicant will need to pay utility
connection charges (tap fees) and comply with all Water Depoartment
standards for a new service coonnection. We will ensure this review takes
place at the time of building permit issuance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Phil Overeynder
Water Director
Printed for Tamara Pre i <tamarap@co.pitkin.co.us> i 1 ,
UUOJ,)2
�e
Attachment D
Memo
To: Tamara Pre9l, Community Development Department
From: Aspen Fire Protection District
Subject: DihUtteo P#2737- 063 - 04-001
Date: June 2, 1999
Tamara,
This project shall meet all codes and re ,uirements of the Aspen Fire Protection DenThis and
incluees but is not limited to: Adequate fire department access, provisions
of firk, department apparatus, providing the required fire flow, and the installation of approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems where applicable.
please contact me if you have any comments or concerns.
Tban� 6V — you
l
/Ed
"L,i,J33
Aspenw'onsolidated Sanitation°'JistrictAttachment E
Sy Kelly' Chairman
Paul Smith . Treas
Michael Kelly' Secy
May 6, 1999
Tamara Pregl
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: DiMatteo 1041
Dear Tamara:
John Keleher
Frantz Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
MAT 1 U 1999
Both the existing main house and guest house are currently served by our District. The demolition
of the two units and construction of a new larger residential unit will not adversely impact the
District. Use of the existing service line should be reviewed with our line superintendent prior to
making final on -site utility plans.
As usual, continued service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations
and specifications which are on file at the District office.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill SL,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925 -3601 / FAX (970) 925 -2537
Uu0J3- 4
July 22, 1999
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
Colorado State Forest Service
State Service Building
222 S. 6`h Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, CO 81501
RE: Di Matteo 1041 Hazard Review — Revised Landscape Plan
Vince,
i
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMCNm DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Shannon Murphy has submitted a revised Landscaping Plan for the Di Matteo residence on Red
Mountain (1121 Red Mountain Road) which I am forwarding to you for your review and
comment. I have also attached a copy of the Landscape Plan ( "Plan") that was submitted with
the application. During the initial review,of the Plan, it appeared that the proposed landscaping
did not comply with the wildfire hazard mitigation measures outlined in your letter date
December 17, 1998. Staff recommended that Ms. Murphy work with you to revise the Plan so
that it complies with your recommendations for wildfire mitigation: It is my understanding that
Ms. Murphy did speak with you regarding revising the Plan, however, it is my understanding that
you have not seen the revised Plan. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
I can be reached at 970 = 920 -5103 and Shannon Murphy can be reached at 970 - 963 -8524.
The - application has been scheduled for a Takings Hearing on August 11, 1999 in front of the
Board of County Commissioners. Please forward your comments to me prior to August 4`'.
Sincerely,
4W 11
Tamara Pregl
Planner
Attachments.,
Cc: Shannon Murphy Landscape Architect
uUCJ65
130 >_ P�nNE O -p a_n c, - ) P,, �'U qY 943�i
o
APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S
(TAKINGS DETERMINATION) - MOTION TO DENY APPEAL - Tamara Pregl -
staff planner; Mary Ellen DiMatteo - applicant; Janver Darrington of Charles Cunniffe
Architects - applicant's representative; Garrett Brandt - applicant's attorney
Garrett Brandt of Charles Brandt and Associates, applicant's attorney, gave his
presentation to the Board based upon his letter dated July 21, 1999 to the Board of
County Commissioners and his letter dated July 27, 1999, to John Ely and Marcella
Larsen of the County Attorney's office in response to the July 22, 1999 letter from the
law firm of Oates, Knezevich and Gardenswartz to County Attorney John Ely. All three
letters, along with the memorandum from staff planner, Ms. Pregl, are attached hereto
and made a part of this record as EXIIIBIT ""
Commissioner Ireland asked Mr. Brandt to verify that he had said the applicant purchased
this property for $1.75 million dollars and if she spends $100,000.00 to demolish the
houses, she can then sell the vacant lot for $2,000,000.00. He asked how that was not a
gain on the property?
Mr. Brandt responded by saying by the time you factor in the add costs such as real estate
commissions, fees, etc., there will be a loss.
Commissioner Ireland said there will always be a real estate commission and fees, if a
real estate agent is going to be used.
Mr. Darrington, applicant's architectural representative, gave a short presentation to
Board. He explained that the original house was built, as he understands it, aboi tZ 45
years ago and the guest house approximately 35 years ago. There were no desi 'codes
at that time and so these houses would not comply with any of the codes today. Certainly
by Red Mountain residential community standards, he added, they are woefully below
standard. It is doubtful, he concluded, that anyone would want to use them even if they
could be rented for a reasonable return on the property.
Commissioner Ireland said "you hit the nail on the head, reasonable return on the
property". He asked Mr. Darrington, " how is it relevant that you bought some structures
that we can concede have no value, in fact, your analysis is that they have negative value
and are worth more gone than there" ? He continued by asking, "...how is this a taking if
you purchased those properties willfully on the free market ?" "Do we have an obligation
to grant you an approval that increases the value of your property ", he queried? He
doesn't think that is in any case law he's ever read.
Mr. Darrington responded by saying Red Mountain has been subdivided as a residential
community. It is not a pristine wilderness area. His interpretation of the 1041 review
OU0036
E
was that it was primarily for properties in hazard areas that would constitute danger
situations for a residential structure on the property.
As various discussions began, Chairperson Lamont asked the Board to allow Mr. Brandt
to continue and finish his presentation before more discussions ensued.
Mr. Brandt continued with his presentation and concluded by urging the Board to look at
this as if the buildings weren't there, because they are obsolete, ineffective and worthless,
and consider this as if it were a vacant lot building on potentially unstable slopes,
according to the code, and grant a takings determination.
Commissioner Ireland said there is confusion here about highest and best use in taking
and he would deny this appeal because taking requires one to show that we have taken all
or subtantially all the economic value of the property without a ruling. He does not
believe that is the case there.
Mr. Brandt asked Commissioner Ireland, "do you agree that buildings gone, we come up
and we want to build this house and the hearing officer denies it because there's 30%
slopes and should we come to you and say we have this $2 million dollar vacant lot, if we
can get the building permit and we can't get one, now it's, in other words what I'm
asking you" --
Chairperson Lamont interrupted by telling Mr. Brandt he was asking a question that
should would like moved to staff's presentation.
Mr. Darrington informed the Board before staff's presentation that with the very
restricted building envelope by County set back standards of the zoning, roads and what
not, there is approximately 45% of the building envelope within the required set back
lines that is over 30% slope and 55% is less than 30 %.
Ms. Pregl proceeded with her presentation as outlined in her memorandum as shown in
Exhibit "" focusing in on the 30% slope issue.
A discussion ensued regarding 30% or greater slopes and if redevelopment could occur
on sections less than 30 %. The Board and Cindy Houben, Director of Community
Development also discussed the minor 30% slope encroachment
Marcella Larsen, Assistant County Attorney, interjected that the easiest way to look at
this issue is whether or not it was a reasonable expectation for this particular property
owner to go out and buy a piece of property and expect to violate the land use code to
obtain a higher profit. The 30% slope provision of the code, she added, is mandatory of
the Board. The only exception to that is when the Board finds a taking AND fords that
there is no hazard free area on site, i.e. no site that doesn't exceed 30% slopes.
OUGU37
G
Mr. Darrington objects to the mention that his client set out to violate the code by
ignoring the 30% slopes. He said that was discussed with staff and felt that was a minor
impact as they were man made.
Commissioner Ireland moved to deny the appeal of the hearing officer's denial of
the DiMatteo 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission and scenic overlay.
Commissioner Farris seconded the motion.
Chairperson Lamont said she would add that applicant has not sought out all
reasonable processes to determine, find and create a building envelope that is 1041
hazard free or minimizes to the greatest extent possible compromising 1041 hazards.
There is a Board of Adjustment process that the applicant can avail herself of to
amend the building envelope. There is land outside the building envelope, but not
on the road, that is not within 30% slope. She would like this added as a finding of
fact to Commissioner Ireland's motion.
Commissioner Ireland and Commissioner Farris withdrew their original first
motion and second, respectively.
Commissioner Ireland then RESTATED HIS MOTION to deny the appeal with the
following findings of fact. That applicant has not exhausted other possibilities
including a hazard free or a minimally hazard site on property. Secondly, there is
no evidence on the record that the Board has that the property has diminished in
value let alone be a taking. And, finally, there is no evidence of the record that the
Board has been presented that the property has no reasonable economic uses other
than the ones proposed before it. Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER SHELLIE ROY HARPER ENTERED THE ROOM AT THIS
POINT OF THE MEETING.
Mr. Darrington wanted to ask a question. Suppose he goes before the Board of
Adjustment and proposes a building envelope that is outside, that is 20' from Red
Mountain Road or something like that because that is where the less than 30% slopes
exist. And what if they say no, you can't do that. Then he would come back to the Board
and tell them that he has exhausted all possibilities.
Chairperson Lamont said that's a process question that should would like Ms. Larson of
the County Attorney's office to answer.
Ms. Larsen stated that the process after this point will be that applicant will have to
reapply for 1041 approval, presumably identifying the areas that are under 30%
slopes. If she wishes to encroach upon the set -back area assuming she gets 1041
approval then she will go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance.
000030
C a
Chairperson Lamont called the question. Motion passed four to none with
Commissioner Harper abstaining.
000639
000040
P 8• �s Ip•
0
Landscane Plan
1121 Red MauWain Road
Aapm Coimado
BA®op ARMY. LL dw." Arthgrc[
PD Box 466
916M k, CO
81623
(970)963-0524
N_�
April 14, 1999
v�
ARCHITECTURE
Ms. Tamara Pregl, Planner PLANNING
Pitkin County Community Development
131 S. Galena Street INTERIORS
Aspen / Pitkin County, CO 81611
Re: Scenic Overlay and 1041 Geologic Hazard Review
DiMatteo Residence
1121 Red Mountain Road
Aspen / Pitkin County, Colorado
Dear Tamara;
As the designated representative for the Applicant, Mary Ellen Di Matteo, we are hereby requesting a
review by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer for Scenic Overlay and 1041 Geologic Hazards on the
referenced project.
First, regarding Scenic Overlay, the lot is on the middle level of Red Mountain Subdivision and is
surrounded by developed residential property on all sides in addition to being situated in the center of the
hairpin curve of Red Mountain Road. It is well screened by existing vegetation, mature Aspen,
Cottonwood and Scrub Oak trees that surround the site along the road and on the downhill side ( toward
the town ) of the lower leg of the road. Please refer to the photographs provided with this application and
the landscape plan. The new residence will be dug down to sit about six feet (6') lower on the site than
the existing main house which is to be demolished along with the existing guest house. These houses are
barely visible from the scenic view corridor on Highway 82 through Aspen now when the trees have no
leaves as shown in the photographs. With the extensive landscaping that is proposed, the new house will
be well screened from view and does not break a ridgeline. The exterior lighting fixtures will be selected
to shield the light source from view of any public right -of way as required by Pitkin County lighting
regulations. Therefore, we believe we are in compliance with the Scenic Overlay Regulations in Section
3 -60 -040.
In the Geological Hazard Area Regulations, Section 3 -80 -050, this lot is not in an avalanche zone or a
landslide area. Is also not in an area that has potentially unstable slopes, since there is only about six feet
(6')average soil coverage over bedrock in this area. See attached map, test hole diagram and legend which
are excerpted from a soils study prepared January 29, 1999 by Hepworth- Pawkak Geotechnical, Inc.. The
exposed bedrock will be incorporated into the slope retention / landscaping scheme wherever possible and
suitable engineered retaining walls with native rock facing will be utilized where required. As you will see
on the enclosed slope analysis map, the average slope over the entire lot is less than thirty percent ( 30% ).
Those areas that are in excess of 30% slope were man-made for the driveway turn-around and the
shoulder of the upper loop of Red Mountain Road. This lot is also not within a rockfall hazard zone,
alluvial fan, talus slope or mancos shale area. Therefore, we believe we are in compliance with the
Geological Hazard Area Regulations.
The existing vegetation has been thinned out so that the Wildfire Hazard is currently rated as medium by
Vince Urbina, Assistant District Forester. Please refer to the enclosed letter. The recommended mitigation
measures contained in that letter and in Section 3 -80 -070 for defensible space, roof materials and
projections, etc., will be observed in the new residence construction and landscaping so that the completed
project will remain in the Low and Medium Wildfire Hazard category. As shown on the site plan, the lot is
situated between the lower and upper runs of Red Mountain Road and the access driveway has a cul -de-
sac next to the new residence, so that access by firefighting equipment is excellent on all sides. All on -site
utilities will be underground and the Aspen Water Department provides water to this area.
uLjG' J41
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS • 610 EAST HYMAN AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970/925 -5590 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE 970/925 -5076 FAX ARCHITECTS 970/920 -4557 www.cunniffe.com
CARBONDALE TELLURIDE VAIL
DiMatteo Residence
Scenic Overlay / 1041 Review
Page 2
In reference to County Land Use Code Section 3 -110, this property is designated as Lot 1 -A, Block 3, Red
Mountain Subdivision. The subdivision is serviced by all of the public utilities; water, sewer, gas, electric
and telephone, which are in the Red Mountain Road right -of -way. The property is accessed from the
public right -of -way across a small parcel of land that is not currently owned by the Applicant. However,
the existing residence has used the driveway shown on the site plan for access since the late 1950's and is
therefore entitled to perpetual access by virtue of adverse possession. Please refer to the attached letter
from Loyal Leavenworth, Attorney. The parking requirements for a single family residence have been met
by providing a three -car garage which is at the lower level and the roof is earth covered to minimize visual
impact. There are no public trail easements through this property. As was mentioned earlier , the exterior
lighting for the new residence and driveway will be designed and installed in accordance with the standards
prescribed by the County Land Use Code. There is no signage intended for the project at this time.
As outlined in County Land Use Code Section 4 -50, This will be a Minor Review for Development of a
Single Family Dwelling Unit in Areas of Local of State Interest / Environmental Hazard Review / Scenic
Overlay Review. The proposed residence will have five (5) bedrooms and is well below the maximum of
15,000 square feet of floor area. We have had the required pre - application review meeting with you and are
requesting the Administrative level of review by the County Hearing Officer.
You will find attached hereto the required documentation outlined in County Land Use Code Section 5 -70.
Please notify us if you nave any questions concerning this application or require additional information.
We appreciate your cooperation.
.AAAAA &t4000*_
Sinc `"` QFW
)anve errin
Seni ProjectArchitecT/Manag
osures
UJUJ42
PITKIN• COUNTY PRE- APPLICNOVION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay
LOCATION: 1121 Red Mountain Road
REPRESENTATIVE:IanverDarrington PHONE/FAX:920- 3739/925 -5076
DATE: March 19, 1999 PLANNER: Tamara Pregl, 920 -5103
Type of Application: 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay
Description of Project/Development: The applicant is requesting Scenic Overlay and 1041 Hazard Review approval for the
construction of a new residence which will replace two existing residences.
Areas in which the Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested:
Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application):
• Section 3 -60 -040, Scenic Overlay
• Section 3- 80- 050(C), Geologic Hazard Areas (slopes)
• Section 3 -80 -070, Wildfire Areas
• Section 3 -110, Improvements and Services
• Section 4 -50, Procedure
• Section 5 -70, Submission Contents
Staff will refer the application to the following agencies:
County Attorney, Zoning, Colorado State Forest Service, Aspen Water Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen
Fire Protection District, County Engineer, ? Homeowners Association
Review by: Hearing Officer. Public Hearing? Yes. A public notice sign shall be posted on the property at least 15 days prior to
the hearing pursuant to Section 4 -90 of the Land Use Code. The Applicant shall mail notices to all adjacent property owners at
least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (a copy of notice shall be
obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of
Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The Applicant shall submit a copy of
the adjacent property owners with the complete applications.
What fee is the applicant requested to submit:
Total Deposit. $1,430: Planning Office (deposit) $1,110 (additional hrs are billed at a rate of $185 /hr); Referral Fees required:
County Engineer ($160), Environmental Health ($160)
Note. Colorado State Forest Service has a separate fee. (970) 248 -7325.
Application fee and the `Agreement To Pay' form (2 copies) shall be submitted with the complete applications.
Number of copies of the application and maps to be submitted: 10
For a complete application, please include the following in each packet:
a. Summary letter explaining the request and addressing all Land Use Code standards listed above (under #3).
b. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (if applicable).
c. Parcel description, including legal description.
d. Proof of ownership (from a title company or attorney licensed in the State of Colorado).
e. 24" X 36" Site Plan showing topography (2' contour) and delineating the building envelope, access, and vicinity map.
f If landscaping is proposed outside of the proposed building envelope, a Landscaping Plan should be submitted.
g. Elevation /section plans of the proposed dwelling. Photographs of the site as viewed from State Highway 82.
h. Copy of this pre -app form.
NOTE: This preapplication conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in
this summary is based on current zoning standards and staffs interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional
information may be required upon complete review of the application.
uuOjO
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
April 2, 1999
Tamara Pregl, Planner
Pitkin County Community Development
131 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: DiMatteo Residence
1121 Red Mountain Road
Aspen / Pitkin County, Colorado
Dear Ms. Pregl,
I hereby authorize Charles Cunniffe Architects to represent me in processing the
application for 1041 Hazard and Scenic Overlay Review to the County Hearing
Officer.
Sincerely,
pennitei Doncl tsf—
Mary Ellen DiMatteo
u60 J-44
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS • 610 EAST HYMAN AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970/925 -5590 FAX EXECUTIVE OFFICE 970/925 -5076 FAX ARCHITECTS 970/920 -4557 www.cunniffe.com
CARBONDALE TELLURIDE VAIL
ImR -1J -I JJJ 10 -"t rICUPI MOrCIV /rIINIIN IUPI LCV IU 77GJZ)10(b Y. uz>
i f�
ASPEN/PITKIN
j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and M a /TJ G n tl
Y!� dim (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPtTGANT has ubmittgd to COU�NNTY an pplication for
Sonic Oftft*M 8na 1041 Grnloaair-
1.�azan�i Rovis�.
(hereinafter, THE !PROJECT).
2. APPI ICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Resolution
No. 98 -7 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of
all processing fees is a condition precedent Lo a determination', of application
completeness.
3. APP! ICANT and COUNTY agree that because of they size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
COUNTY furtherlagree that it is in the interest of the parties to all APPLICANT to
make payment ofian initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification'by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
COUNTY agrees at will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its
full costs to proce6s APPLICANT's application.
4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners; to enable the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners tp make legally
required findings !for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision.
UOPJ45
Received TimO eb•16, 2:54PM
jinn- i� -i»> io • �av� rnun "Ormil/ r I I N IIY l.ul'I UCV I LJ 77G»U' (b r. Ub
I fv
5. Therefore. APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the
COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a deiermination of
application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount
of $ t, owhich is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual
recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional
monthly billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the
application mentioned above, including post approval review. ;Such periodic
payments shall be: made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICAI T ffirther
agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for', suspension of
processing.
I
PITK N COUNTY APPLICANT
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
I
I
glsepportlFvrMft§r0.ypLdoc
12130/98
i
uilliJ46
Received Time!Feb,l6• 2 :54PM
p'. mshpf bond Dcvie'l.
Prin Name pG�.�..1/
Signature
Date-
Mailing Address:
V"ii
TOTAL P.06
i
`^ CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP 4
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that DIMATTEO /BOND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A GEORGIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is the owner in fee simple
of the following described property:
LOT 1A, BLOCK 3 REVISED, RED MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat
thereof recorded in Ditch Book 2A at Page 182.
Subject to encumbrances, easements, restrictions and rights of way of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITK COUNTY T LE, INC.
BY:
authors ignature
CERTIFIED TO: ch 15, 1999 @ 3:30 p.m.
iiUUJ4,
COUNTY Ur' L� ,
WITNESSETH, That fo`f and in consideration of the mum of ten dollars
and other goc%.end valuable consideration, the r,,,,yipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and
conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and
confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real
property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in
the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows:
LOT 1A, BLOCK 3 REVISED, RED MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat
thereof recorded in Ditch Hook 2A at Page 182.
111111111111111111 IIII 11111111111111111111111111111 IN IIII
427696 02/12/1999 02:19P ND DAVIS SILVI
1 of 2 R 11.90 D 175.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
+att deg r(�Id
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances
thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and
reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the
estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor
either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with
the hereditaments and appurtenances.
V I TO HAVE AND To HOLD the said premises above bargained and described,
with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever.
\'� l And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant,
\ bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at
the time of the ensealing delivery of the presents, he is well seized of
the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and
indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good
right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey
the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free
and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes,
assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature
soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained
premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs
and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the
whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural,
the plural the s' lar, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all
genders.
.c.L
RE6 MOUNTAIN INVESTMEN S, LLC
A CCL.ORADD LMTED LL461LITY CQVANY
STATE OF C 010 1, ) .
COUNTY OF �L- k, yL, ) ss.
�
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j day of�v
19 1°( by RED MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS OLC , r1 CQ.ORe1D0 L�CCMPMR BY
WITNESS my hand and official seal l ',�t LnL�l_- tfry —_�
my commission expires: Notary Public
UUUJ40
at Page 345.
4. That portion of thE*,,,,ithin described property, i,,,any, conveyed to the
Board of County Commissioners by Deed recorded July 17, 1951 in Book
177 at Page 132.
5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of
subject property recorded in Plat Book 2A at Page 182.
6. Right of way and agreement as set forth in instrument recorded in Book
142 at Page 81.
7. Red Mountain Ditch and right of way as set forth in instrument
recorded in Book 162 at Page 277.
8. Agreement and Mutual Deed of Easement as set forth in instrument
recorded November 3, 1971 in Book 259 at Page 33.
9. Existing lease as set forth in Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate
dated October 26, 1998
10. Encroachment of underground parking area, discrepancy in distance of
southerly boundaryline, and other matters disclosed on Improvement
Survey by Aspen Survey Engineers dated 2/98, Job No. 28001.
111111 11111 111111111111111111111 HIM IN
427000 02/12/1999 02,19P WD DAVIS SILVI
2 of 2 9 11.00 D 175.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
UUGj4,)
VICINITY MAP
duce -50
FES -19 -99 14 =29 FROM =CHARLES T
rte
December 17,, 1998
Garret Brandt
420 Fast Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, CO 81611
BRANDT & ASSOC ID.97OP254655 PAGE
100
WFORM
SERVICE
Re: DiMadeo 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
Garret,
Stare Services BWdb*
2?2 S. 6th SUVM Room 416
Grand h nallm. Colorado 81501
Talaphono- (970) 248 -7325
Please submit this letter with the application to Pitkin County. When I receive the referral from
-. Pitkin County I will defer to my comments in the letter.
I visited the 1121 Red Mountain Road property with Garret Brandt, Curtis Cleveland and
-Gharfes Kneff on December 8. These men AN represented Mary- Ellen DiMatteo- Access to,
-c: the property is from Red Mountain Road. The driveway originates at a right angle to Red
.:Mountain Road, which is desirable. Red Mountain Road encircles this property on the south
-::and north ends. The aspect is south with an average slope of 20%. The existing vegetation is
native Gambel oats and other mature landscaping planted by the previous owner (e.g., aspen,
r..blue spruce, lodgepole pine, honeysuckle, lilac)- I would rate the wildfire hazard as medium
fused on the fact that the previous owners have thinned the Gambel oak/serviceberry below the
existing house. If left alone the Gambel oak/serviceberry would return to its former density and
height. The•wildfire hazard would then be rated as severe as is most of the Red Mountain
Subdivision.. But the wildfire hazard is now less than severe because the vegetation has been
thinned but
uUC'J51
I have the following recommendations to mitigate the wildfire hazard and keep the wildfire
hazard at its present rating of medium.
1) For a distance of ten feet around all structures establish and maintain vegetation at 6 inches
or less. This can be done by using walkways, rock mulch beds or planting vegetation that
can be kept at 6 inches or less. Tall woody vegetation should not be planted in this zone. In
addition, tiammabte material (e.g., firewood) should not be stored here -
2) For a distance of 40 feet uphill and to the sides, and 47 feet downhill (see enclosed chart)
thin and dump existing vegetation- Trees should have tree crowns (I-e-, edge of branches)
no closer than ten feet between trees. There are some evergreens on the west end of the
house that should be thinned out to achieve this desired spacing. Below the house the
Gambol oak can be allowed to grow back. However, they should be dumped so that the
dumps allowed to remain are no larger than two times the height With a Gear area (i.e.,
:. devoid of oakbrush) between the dumps of equal distance.
3) The lower limbs of trees and Gambel oak should be removed to a height of ten feet or half
the total height, whichever is least. Removing these lower branches, takes care of the ladder
fuels.
Feel free to call me with any questions.
SinceLely, ,
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
Enclosure
Received Time Jarl•19. 11:37AM
2/2
APR -08-99 12.49 FROM•CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID:9709254559 PAGE 2/4
M
LEAVavwo$TH & x ; p.C-
.t ATMIlIV M AT LAW
LOYAL L• LEAVPI UOATR
CYNTBIA Cl- T£RP&R
DAVID I- LFAVIR WORJ4i,IIL
JOS.YN V. WOOD'
GREGORY I. HALL
-nomm 1Pa"ad- raIldy
1 Cbzdcs .1 .It;♦
Charles am Associates
420 Fast 11 • it
Aspen, 1 1 . 1 1
Fdwnary 11, 1948
1 - �'+ I 11 1 � 1 1 _• w- \ �S•itl ' t rfn'
• IGS1 1 1 � 1j 1 1
W
1011 GRAND AVENM-
P•Q. DRAWER 2400
GIMMOQD SPRINGS• COIARADO ffi=E
TEL3 fKwz Com "s-za
PAX, OM %5-73M
Dear Mr. Bran&:
As you 1• represeift, Rosemarie who has ell a wl into a real r G 1 contract
11 your client, CharIcs / YI for the of 1 I-A. Block • w1 Mountain 1 1 f ' 6Y 11
Pffian Counq, Colorado 1 .1 a •'1 r n IJ I understand r .en 1 I contract will
be conveyed to Red Mountain broesuneuts, LLC at ciosing. per our w4cphow Y• 1 -1 'an..1 I
wating to pravide +1 Mountain 1 ..'!11 F IL LLc with a legal opium concerning-the
1 1 the GIM PrOPULY to the odsting southerly public riglit-of-way 1, 11 ..11:,11 it
"SSeS 1 I and Hodges Subdivision 1 W, YI south of 1111 contiguous 1 dic Glas Propeny,
rl r Y 1 1 9r. ' 1'•'i1
The nY. 11 housc an the property, has been II amanoe since at r:1.4 II.' .1 7♦ and
to owners have maintained unnuermpted. ingress and egress to and from :. I • Inn n Road
v 1 w that by e Ms. Glas 1 1 f . - the property 1 1979, and his .veuol : n1 ✓ u the
driveway as it presently t ♦ access e• Mountain Road- Ilie driveway had • erl
exine= for 111:11 years prior to Ms. r . of the property. • 1 Dw=bcr
1 owner of I Hodges •p- granted paTctaal easement to 11 Board of In
Commissioners of 11 k( •1 1•Ye. for public access 111!'1 the portion I the Hodges
properry • :.11 the r : Property and I 1 1. mistIng public ! 11 • containing :4
Mountain IIIY. 11 ' • I
IYI fic saudierly of the Glas Property A • 11 1 • I. to the
public 'JII 1 casernenr .Il a 11 favor of 1 11 and in light I clear 1 wLY that.
Ms. Glas and *c preceding • ' 1 - .. of 11 • r - Property bve 11• .t 11 pr=cady exiting
driveway •AII w1•p- property 11 ..1 Mountain '•.'.1 ♦ period 1BYrw(1 statutory
ANWAD UR
Received Time Mar, 8
0100 J 5-2
9:58AM-
APR -86 -99 12:49 FROM :CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC
- UAVEN"RTIH & TESTER, P.0
Red Monarain Investments:' ti,
cfo Charles T. Bnndc,
Page 2
February 111 1998
ID:9769254559
v-w
PAGE 3/4
#W*At eRas�v .shu�ggqrn. +lnwnll.ar�4fca
I w 19 f l I M f f 111 I A 11 -I,
1 f a V. 111.• 1 wl
I amiczpaw this letter will Provide You with adequate assuran= as to access from the
Gins Property 10 the Public right -of - -way over the ]'lodges Property, as indicMM on Exhibit A
attached htxetD and inecxporated herein by mf eream. As you know, Stewart Tide Cannot
pmvide title insurance for access Mrough the pnblic nght-0f -way eat on the Hodges
property, and this opinion is rota nth w alleviate accM conceiis through ilia Hodges Pmperty- —.— -
Which you may have in connecsion with the purchase of the property.
This low is arrinen for your benefit and the benefit Rosemarie Mu oalp, 6d may ooc
be relied upon by a tfiird party for any reason whatsoever_
.. Vezy tMly Yom, •I�N✓.L AF -46M: 1YPM 'z"0A!'/`�11Ti1M11.
LEAVENWORTH & TESM, P_c_
LF- -1h
cc: Rosemarie Gies
NMAtffir.I.TR
Received Time Mar. 8• 9 :58AM
4o
r worEh
APR -00-9S 12:49 FROM =CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID= 9709254559 PAGE 4/4
l ,w,
// J Iu;e A% _
..!a Mw'+1
_4
i
3-.4 /''Y!r � / M
�Y
I b °
� DC
JJ�
Received Time Mar. 8• 9:58AM
lill`� •-
APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT
OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE 8190
8160 8170 8180 1
8200
8210 8220
- _
1
-r
I /
i
BORING 31 • I �' '\�� 1
II I
8160
•
BORIN 2
8220
182 0
Z /
0 8170 ` 8180
EXISTING
/
I UNDERGROUND
It 8190 I
PARKING
BORING 1 I
APPROXIMATE
FOOTPRINT OF DRIVE/
PARKING WITH BELOW
EXISTING
GRADE GARAGE
GUEST HOUSE \ I
0
0
\
z
I
o
i
0
Sk
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 40'
198 818
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY
BORINGS
Fig. 1
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
000j55
G'Jib
OU
BORING 1 BORING 2
BORING 3
ELEV. = 8196' ELEV.
= 8166'
ELEV. = 8161'
0
0
i' 44/12
32/12
WC =13.0
- 200-50
LL=31
5
PI -15
5
27/12
20/6,50/3
46/12
^r
WC =11.0
t
+4-21
- 200 =40
i LL-27
PI =9
w
10~
10
I
17/6,50/3 •r:' 25/0
50/6
L.
WC =11.0
+4=35
of
t
a
N
- 200 -32 !+
v
•rte
15
`a 50/3
15
20
20
Note: Explanation of symbols
is shown
on Fig. 3.
198
818
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
LOGS OF
EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
G'Jib
OU
LEGEND:
®MANPLACED
FILL; silty to
clayey sand with
gravel, scattered cobbles, medium dense, slightly moist,
red.
®TOPSOIL;
sandy silty clay,
scattered gravel,
possible cobbles, organic, medium stiff, moist,
dark brown.
CLAY AND SAND (CL –SC);
silty, scattered
gravel and cobbles, very stiff to medium dense,
slightly moist, reddish brown.
SANDSTONE /SILTSTONE BEDROCK; hard to very hard, dry, red. Maroon Formation.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample, 2 –inch I.D. California liner sample.
■ Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8 –inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D – 1586.
32/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 32 blows of a 140 –pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches_
fir- Practical rig refusal.
—> Caved depth when measured on January 25, 1999.
NOTES_
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on January 12, 1999 with a 4 –inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown
on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan
provided.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 13 days later.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
+4 = Percent retained an No. 4 sieve.
–200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
LL = Liquid Limit ( i )
PI = Plasticity Index ( % )
I198 818 I GEOTECHNICAL,NINC I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3 I
U0j57
0
Z
m
0
U U)
Z
J
J �
a U)
U ul
Z �
(n
U w
w �-
1-
W0
UJ
J Q
Y m
Q �
J F- m
� a
Q J
a LL
= 0
0
CL
w
ouGi `i
75
>
m
�
i
L
N
A
m
lC0
N
a
N
c0
N
N
T
T
T
(0
f0
10
U
U
U
2 x
f w
z
U
O
LO
de
Q)
�
F
a
u
o
a
_
4 2=
Cl)
N
0
a O
M
N
i LL Z
°
M
m
�
2
O
a
LO
=
co
N
°
° W
Q
Z
F°
W
O
Q
Q
co
ao o
,-
Z i U
F _
°
=
N
LO
r
U
°
O
w
O
f
Z
a
c
�
N
M
m
Z 390 000 136
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See re
X
Z 390 000 134
yam„ US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See re
Q Re Q p
p ¢seas
TO AL Po & O T Ponta eas �, '.�� rk P tmark ate IY9s o a GSPS a GSP$
N
in
a
7
3
10
N
E
`o
i
Z 390 000 139
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
On not use fnr Intomafinnal Mail (.Saw r.v mn)
Sent to EJB IVUSr
Street 8 N mher
RO 57-C-1
Po I Office, State, ZIP C a
Postage $ 33
Certified Fee y0
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Rec pal / ?s
Wtwm 3E
Realm
Date, ee's �r �
TO L age &!Pees $
FOS k Da
(�JS P S
ut1L�16t1
�2
i(dl
Z 390 000 138
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See re
N
A
Q
O
CO
li
u,
a
Z 390 000 135
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See reversal
%t°oka 2 W- *I,ci;wt A til
Street & Number
L60 a- -W He S-(�
Post Re,Sta ZIP Code
1062
Postage $
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showmg to
Whom & DalliSairnmL -Z�
Realm
Date, B
TO AL stage s
Po or D
11
Z 390 000 137
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail See reverse
Sent to
S 1 Z) 64-5y
Postage $ 33 Postage
Certified Fee y O Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Spatial Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee
m
m Return Recap[ ShShowing to 7 Return Receipt slwwin{
a
r
$
0.
$
Postage $
$ 33 P
Postage
$ X33
Certified Fee C
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee S
Special Delivery Fee
m R
Restricted Delivery Fee R
Restricted Delivery Fee
mm R
m R
Return Recapt Showing to —
— m
Return Recei howng to
125'
N
in
a
7
3
10
N
E
`o
i
Z 390 000 139
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
On not use fnr Intomafinnal Mail (.Saw r.v mn)
Sent to EJB IVUSr
Street 8 N mher
RO 57-C-1
Po I Office, State, ZIP C a
Postage $ 33
Certified Fee y0
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Rec pal / ?s
Wtwm 3E
Realm
Date, ee's �r �
TO L age &!Pees $
FOS k Da
(�JS P S
ut1L�16t1
�2
i(dl
Z 390 000 138
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See re
N
A
Q
O
CO
li
u,
a
Z 390 000 135
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See reversal
%t°oka 2 W- *I,ci;wt A til
Street & Number
L60 a- -W He S-(�
Post Re,Sta ZIP Code
1062
Postage $
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showmg to
Whom & DalliSairnmL -Z�
Realm
Date, B
TO AL stage s
Po or D
11
Z 390 000 137
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail See reverse
Sent to
S 1 Z) 64-5y
Postage $ 33 Postage
Certified Fee y O Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Spatial Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee
m
m Return Recap[ ShShowing to 7 Return Receipt slwwin{
a
r
$
0.
$
ut1L�16t1
�2
i(dl
Z 390 000 138
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See re
N
A
Q
O
CO
li
u,
a
Z 390 000 135
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See reversal
%t°oka 2 W- *I,ci;wt A til
Street & Number
L60 a- -W He S-(�
Post Re,Sta ZIP Code
1062
Postage $
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showmg to
Whom & DalliSairnmL -Z�
Realm
Date, B
TO AL stage s
Po or D
11
Z 390 000 137
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail See reverse
Sent to
S 1 Z) 64-5y
Postage $ 33 Postage
Certified Fee y O Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Spatial Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee
m
m Return Recap[ ShShowing to 7 Return Receipt slwwin{
a
r
$
0.
$
Z 390 000 137
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail See reverse
Sent to
S 1 Z) 64-5y
Postage $ 33 Postage
Certified Fee y O Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Spatial Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee
m
m Return Recap[ ShShowing to 7 Return Receipt slwwin{
a
r
$
0.
$
a
r
$
0.
$
JUL- 20 -1`yJ 1333 1-KUM HSF'tN/Y11K1N 1-UM JtV
00GJ61
County of Pitkin
(State of Colorado
AFFIDAVIT OF N
ss. M.A.iLING PURSU
PITS IN COUNTY
CODE SECTION
1 I, ViI I L , bei
Applicant to the Pitkin County Deve, em Permit, personally certify that
I
he public notice requirements pursuant to Section 4-90 of the Pitkin Count:
in the following manner:
i
1. By mailing of notice, a cgipy of which is attached hereto, by first
i
U.S. Mail at least 30 day prior to the public hearing to all own(
II to the subject propem�, i indicated on the attached list, on the
I (which X-days prior to the public hearing date o4��.
1111 i
of lice adjacent property owncrs shall be those ou the current tax
County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the publi
1
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property
j from the nearest public way) and that said sign was posted and u
1
the 6 day of � 199gto the ZO day of J a
I. posted for at least fifteen(15) full days before the hearing date)
Signature
19 1by
WITNESS MY HAND f
My commission expires:
Notary
7E &
TO
D USE
g or representing an
have complied with
Land Use Regulations
i
lass. post8ge prepaid
of propertyy adjacent
davofV*4 11999
ie names a,hd addresses
;cords of Pitkin
hearing.
it could!be seen
...
199- (Must be
of the
W t 4"_ /,
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920 -5090 FAX9 (970) 920 -5439
July 27, 1999
Garret Brandt
420 East Main St., Ste. 204
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: DiMatteo Takings Determination Hearing
Case t1P56 -99
Dear Garret,
We have scheduled this application for review by the Board of County Commissioners on
Wednesday, August 11, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 3:00 P.M. Should this date be inconvenient
for you, please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda
date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be
allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to
inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community
Development Department.
If you have any questions, please call Tamara Pregl, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5103.
Sincerely,
Tenley Taylor
Administrative Assistant
060J62
Tamara Pregl, 10:13 AM 7/22/99 , DiMatteo
X- Sender: tamarap @comdev
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:13:49 -0600
To: tenleyt @co.pitkin.co.us
From: Tamara Pregl <tamarap @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: DiMatteo
Tenley,
Can you please send a letter to Garret Brandt (address in DiMatteo
file)
that we have scheduled the Taking Determination Hearing for August 11.
Thanks
Tamara
Printed for Tenley Taylor <tenleyt @co.pitkin.co.us> 1
UUU, 1103
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: DIMATTEO 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND SCENIC OVERLAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at a
meeting to begin at 3:00pm before the Pitkin County Hearing Officer, Commissioners Meeting
Room, 506 East Main Street, Aspen to consider an application submitted Mary Ellen DiMatteo
requesting 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay approval for the construction of a new
residence which will replace two existing residences. The property is located at 1121 Red Mt.
Road, and is more specifically described as Lot 1A, Block 3 Revised, Red Mt. Subdivision. For
further information contact Tamara Pregl at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, (970) 920 -5103.
s/Lance Clarke
Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Published in The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999
Pitkin County Account No. 002.02
wju .lv
Post -W Fax Note 7671
Date D
Pa of 1,
70 :
N O
From (CV1
Co. /Dept.
Co
Phone #
Phone #
Fax # Q _ 0
Fax #
Saturday- Sunday, June 19.20, 1999 a The Aspen Times 19-C
FORT ,IC N(II r
(11 "1 Y Or ASPEN
PUBLIC AUCTION
IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 24.118-0611 OF FILE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY Or ASPEN, AND
UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF TIDE COLORADO REVISED STATO rF5 1973, SECTION 42-4 -1103 AS
AMENDED, A PUBLIC AUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING IMPOUNDED MOTOR VEHICLES WILL BE HELD
ON SATURDAY, JUNE 26,1999, AT THE COUNTY DUMP (NINE MILES WEST OF ASPEN ON HIGHWAY
82). 1 H GATE WILL OPEN AT 9 A.M. FOR INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLES THE AUCTION WILL
BEGIN PROMPTLY AT 9:30 A.M. AND THE IMPOUND LOT WILL BE OPEN UNTIL 2:30 P.M. FOR
REMOVAL OF VEHICLES.
FALLOWING IS A LIST OF VEHICLES TO BE SOLD AND TERMS OF
THE SALE:
Au_ ctlon. June 26,1999 - Gates open at 9 a.m., auction starts at 9.30 p m.
he prepared to remove vehicles by 230 is m. the same day Cars sold as is.
donvear Make Body Model Plate VIN Registered
`I
2
1972 Chevy
1984 Chevy
3 1984 VW
4 1976 Chevy
5 1982 Ford
are available for public Inspection from 830 to
4-301n the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530
Fast Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Phone:
910-920-5180.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.104.100,
DEFINITIONS, "SIGN"
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday. July 6, 1999 at a meet -
MIT to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council
Chambers or the Sister Cities Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S Galena St., Aspen, to consider an
application submitted by City of Aspen
Community Development Department, request-
ing approval for a Proposed Code Amendment
to Sou:Uon 26 104100, Definitions, revising the
definition of "Sign." The proposed code amend-
ment would change the definition of "sign" to
exclude window displays. For further Informa-
tion, contact Sara Thomas at the Aspen/ Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5441 or by email
at saraho®cl.aspen.co us.
6 1983 Ford Van XLT no plate IFBHS31G8DHA.VO69
Aspen
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Owner(s)
Van
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
V954298 CGE352UI59611
Gary Hayes
UT
Blazer
WPA8776 RIFICTI8R21.012422
Brian D.
8 1978 VW HB EME55401793208593
Marla
Aspen Highlands -Cloud Nine Lift Replacement
Morris
SD
(ILI
VCN735 WVWGBOI60EWI62792
Marilyn
National Forest is Initiating a formal public
located In a tract of land located In that portion
kilning Claims Cora Lee, MS #5304
Whltmer
Gleason
Suburban
Custom
ETW1124CKU166FI544I9
J. Michael
Escarceps
Deluxe 10
11 1977 Ford CP Granada ENY976 GAGTU1750517
Snihelm
PK
Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the fith Principal Meridian This approval of a
14962YM IFTDF14F6CPA32600
Silveslre
12 1984 Honda Motorcycle no plate IHFSCI701EA002438
Chas Goss
approved In the 1994 Decision Notice for Aspen
Silva -
'no record'
Highlands Ski Area Improvements In that docu-
1981 Hat SO EME2201 ZPADDIOAIB2536958
Limones
are available for public Inspection from 830 to
4-301n the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530
Fast Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Phone:
910-920-5180.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.104.100,
DEFINITIONS, "SIGN"
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday. July 6, 1999 at a meet -
MIT to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council
Chambers or the Sister Cities Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S Galena St., Aspen, to consider an
application submitted by City of Aspen
Community Development Department, request-
ing approval for a Proposed Code Amendment
to Sou:Uon 26 104100, Definitions, revising the
definition of "Sign." The proposed code amend-
ment would change the definition of "sign" to
exclude window displays. For further Informa-
tion, contact Sara Thomas at the Aspen/ Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5441 or by email
at saraho®cl.aspen.co us.
6 1983 Ford Van XLT no plate IFBHS31G8DHA.VO69
Aspen
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Rwagon
Outdoor
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
Adventures, Inc.
Published In The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999.
7 1983 Buick SD LaSabre no plate IG4AP69Y2CH466249
'no record•
PUBLIC NOTICE
8 1978 VW HB EME55401793208593
Marla
Aspen Highlands -Cloud Nine Lift Replacement
Planning and Zoning Commission, Council
0hambers. City Hall, Aspen, to consider an
Sanchez
The Aspen Ranger District, White River
9 1976 Dodge PK 1P13673 W14BF6S269468
Keith G.
National Forest is Initiating a formal public
located In a tract of land located In that portion
kilning Claims Cora Lee, MS #5304
Whltmer
seeping process to solicit comments on a minor
10 1986 Chevy CP FTX684g JGIMR0955GK702202
Enrique
change In the top terminal location of the new
Amended and Ella Sherwood MS #5304
Escarceps
Cloud Nine high speed lift scheduled to be con -
11 1977 Ford CP Granada ENY976 GAGTU1750517
Dieter
structed prior to the 199912000 ski season.
Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the fith Principal Meridian This approval of a
Canlrup
The replacement of the Cloud Nine was
12 1984 Honda Motorcycle no plate IHFSCI701EA002438
Chas Goss
approved In the 1994 Decision Notice for Aspen
13 Yamaha Snowmobile no plate 8Y7000940
'no record'
Highlands Ski Area Improvements In that docu-
1981 Hat SO EME2201 ZPADDIOAIB2536958
Shamn
menl, two potential top terminal locations were
Jeanette Jones,
Johnson
approved. The first approved location was to
Is 1983 Subam SW no plate JF2AM5.WEE434520
'no record'
use the existing lop terminal site. The second
16 1974 BMW CP 2002 VBS3708 4222326
William
location was to use the top terminal site of the
Pollock
Olympic Wfi. Flexibility in the decision was con-
sidered to allow the ski area to monitor skier
17 1989 Pontiac SD GOOOLE WPA23081G2AFSSIWIK6214017
John Gillis
flow and distribution changes that might occur
with the Installation of the new Exhibition I and
18 1977 VW CP VBW650 3272/71069
Patricia M.
Loge Peak high speed quad lifts.
Bueltow
After Interdisciplinary review and considera-
tion of the more recent skier patterns at Aspen
19 1988 Toyota TK Facts 5683ZG JT4V'N67MXJ0002150
W Scott
Highlands, a top terminal location approximate -
Cab
Strickland
ly 500 feet uphill of the existing Cloud Nine top
20 AMC Rona lerCP Rogue 9406319 A9AO979289420
'no record'
terminal was determined to be the best spot for
21 1968 VW CP VBS2985118893905
Karen
the new top terminal.Thisliftalignmentandter-
Gelounal
minal location was displayed In the 1997 Record
22 1981 Buick SD Skylark VCL996 IG4AB6956BW227091
William A.
of Decision for the Aspen Highlands
Cowglll
Environmental Impact Statement. However, at
23 1975 Dodge Van VBT1145 BI IAE5XO36575
Karl David
that time no grading of a small, narrow rock out -
Clifford
cropping,just above the old lop terminal loca-
Watson
tlon was anticipated to be necessary for lift COW
24 1984 Mercury CP Cougar ETV7467 IMEBP92F7FA645349
Ricardo
struction.
Hernandez
The engineered "HIT profile' of the new Cloud
Gonzalez
Nine Wt supplied by the lift manufacturer has
25 1988 Cadillac CP Crnrpe 5GYW IG6CD1157J4291756
Denny Noel
provided new information that supports real
Drkflle
Ing 8-12 feet of the narrow outcropping to result
26 1987 Jeep TK Comanche ZD07568 IJTHS6413HTU72595
'no record'
in a net overall reduction of the grading maces-
TERMS OF SALE
sary for the lop terminal. All Initial field reviews
1. All vehicles sold as Is, where Is.
have resulted in the determination that the pro-
2. All sales final.
ject is within the context of the envlronmPntal
3. No vehicles sold to persons under 21 years of age
Impacts analyzed within the 1994 Environmental
4. No vehicle appraised $200 or less can obtain title.
Assessment and 1997 Environmental Impact
S. MINIMUM of $2500 en all vehicles
S(atemem
6. Avehicle may be pulled from the auction If the paperwork process Is not completed by the date of
If you would like to resmmd to this request for
the auction. A finalized list of vehicles to be sold will be available to all attendees at 9 a.m. prior to
comments on the proposal Mw4up terminal
the auction.
location of the Cloud Nine Lift, please send "Pe
7. Cash, money order, cashier's checks, traveler's checks. and local checks with proper
Identification
cllle written comments to the Aspen Ranger
are acceptable (MUST PRESENT 2 FORMS OFID: One photo ID such as Driver's License, and a major
District, 806 W Hallam. Aspen, CO 81611, no
credit card).
later than July 2, 1999.
NOTICE TO CHECK WRITERS
Published in The Aspen Times June 19, 1999.
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION AS STATED ABOVE AT THE
TIME OF PAY-
MENT, YOUR CHECK WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE VEHICLE WILL BE REAUCIIONED.
PUBLIC NOTICE
PUBLIC N
8 All vehicles sold will receive a "Bill of Sale" upon presentation of payment to the City of Aspen and
RE: COLLINS/ EAST 1041 HAZARD
upon removal of the vehicle from the Impound Lot and the County Dump.
REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
9 All vehicles must be paid for at the time of the auction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
10 The City of Aspen reserves the right to bid on and buy any vehicle. The City may refuse any and
will be held on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at a meet -
all bids and maintains the right bi buy any vehicle in the Auction as first right.
ing to begin at 3.00 pm before the Pitkin County
11 You will be required to remove vehicles by 2:30 p.m. on the day of the auction,
so please make
Hearing Officer, Commissioners Meeting Reel
advance arrangements for removal of vehicles.
506 East Main Street, Aspen to consider an appli-
12 The dump Is closed on Sunday
cation submitted John Collins & .Ian Martens
11 If you abandon a vehicle on City or County property, you will be prosecuted for
abandoned vehl
requesting 1041 Hazard Review approval for a
cle under section CR 18-3406
building envelope for the construction of a rest -
14 The vehicle must be removed from the Impound lot before it earn be stripped for parts, you may
dente. The property Is located adjacent to the
dispose of the vehicle afterward by signing the receipt over to the "County Dump."
Wild Rose Subdivision 2 miles north of
Published in The Aspen Times 12, 19. 26, 1999.
Redstone, CO and is described as a tract of land
.June
situated in the NE 1/4 and NW 1/4 Of Section 9,
Township 10 South Range 8 8 West of the 6' P.M
PUBLIC NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE
For further Information contact Gabe Preston at
RE: 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL
the Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
PUBLIC'
Department, (970) 9245092.
will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 1999, at a meet-
On May 26.1999, the Board of County
s /lance Clarke.
Ing to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado,
Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Planning and Zoning Commission, Council
0hambers. City Hall, Aspen, to consider an
adopted Resolution 99 -92 granting approval to
Raymond and Camilla Auger for an attached
Published in The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999.
Icatlon submitted by Paul Anderson, 309 M
caretaker dwelling unit The subject properly Is PUBLIC NOTICE
y�C, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting rezoning of
located In a tract of land located In that portion
kilning Claims Cora Lee, MS #5304
X RE: DIMATTEO 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND
Zia property from R -15A 1 PUD to R -15A The
of the
SCENIC OVERLAY
properly Is legally described as a tract of land
Amended and Ella Sherwood MS #5304
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
located in Sections 12 and 13, TSIOS. R85W of
Amended located in the S 1/2 of the NEI /4 0l
will be held on Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at a meet -
1he 6th PM For further Inlorma tun, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/ Pntknn (',immunity
Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the fith Principal Meridian This approval of a
ing to begin at 3:00 pm before the Pitkln County
Development Department, 1:70 S Galena St.,
sill epet iflc development plan includes a vested
Hearing Officer, Commissioners Meeting Room,
Aspen, CO, (970) 920.5072,
property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
506 East Main Street, Aspen to consider anappll-
chrisb ®cn aspen,co,us.
CRS.
cation submitted Mary Ellen DIMatleo request-
s /Bob Blaich, Chair
Jeanette Jones,
Ing 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Deputy County Clerk
approval for the construction of a new residence
Published in The Aspen Times June 19, 1999
Published in The AsTmot Thrust on June 19, 1999
which will replace two existing residences The
property is located at 1121 Red Mt. Road and is
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC
On April 06,1999, the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County. Colorado,
adopted Resolution 9979 granting scenic over-
lay, special review, and minor amendment to a
development permit for the Pitkin County
Airport/ Sandy Field This approval of a site spo
cilic development plan Includes a vested prop-
erty right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, CRS.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
sloshed In The Aspen Times on ]line 19, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN THAI' the Board of
County Commissioners, at a special meeting on
May 12 1999 and alter a duly-noticed public
hearing published in the Weekend Edition of The
Aspen Times on April 12, 1998, adopted the fol-
lowing Resolution 99 -90.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF l'OUN'FY
COMMISSIONERS OF PO'KIN COUNTY, Lot -
ORADO AUTHORIZING PITKIN COUNTY TO
ENTER INTO A ROAD MAINTENANCE CON-
TRACT WITH THE BRUSH CREEK METROPOLI-
'T'AN DISTRICT
Copies of the lull lent of the Resolution #9y -!III
are available for public inspection from 830 to
4-301n the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530
Fast Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 91611 Phone:
970-9245/80
lemiett, June,.
Deputy County Clerk
Published In the Weekend Edition of the Aspen
Tlmea on June �9m,}9 . (43056)
_ {ih It
PUBLIC NOTICE
PILASF. 'TAKE NOTICE That the Board of
County ('omndssloners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, at Its regular meeting on June 9, 1999,
and after a duty - noticed public hearing, adopted
the lollowing resolution
AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LITERS!
COUNTY, COLORADO, PROVIDING
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE
1999 BUDGET AND APPROVING CONTRACTS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MAROON CREEK ROUNDABOUT
SUMMARY RY OF PROPOSE -' 1DCEr CH.AN .F5
Net E tuenditum
Use Tax Fund TO 1,897,459
0 5 cent Sales and Use Tax Fund 1 624 514
NET INCREASED EXPENDIFURES IT 3,521,978
Copies of the full text of the Resolution are
available for public inspection Irom 8 30 A.M to
4:30 RM, In the office of the Clerk and Recorder,
506 Fast Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
Phone: 970.920 -5180.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Puhlr,hed in The Aspen Times on June 19,1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of
County Commissioners, at its regular meeting
on .tune 9, 1999, and alter a duly-noticed public
hearing paMished lu the Weekend Edltlon of the
Aspen I Tunes ou May 29, 1999, adopted the fol-
lowing Resolution No. 99-91'
AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD
OF COON 'l COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN
COUNTY COLORADO, PROVIDING
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE
P1911 BUDGET AND APPROVING CONTRACTS
FOR II IE CONSTRUCTION OI' THE MAROON
CREEK ROUNDABOUT
Resolution #99-91
Copies of tine full text of Resolution No. Ill
more specifically described as Lot IA, Block 3
Revised, Red Mt. Subdivision For further infor-
mation contact Tamara Pregl at the Aspen/
Pitkin Community Development Department,
(970) 9205103.
s/Lance Clarke,
Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Published In The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: DJUNA HOME FURNISHINGS, 332 WEST
MAIN STREET CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 1999 at a meet-
ing to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena SL, Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Djuna
Home Furnishings, represented by Alan
Richman Planning Services The applicant Is
requesting Conditional Use approval to locate a
furniture store In a building designated as a his-
irk In the (0) Office zone district.
The property Is located at 332 West Main Street,
which Is described as Lot K and the West 1/2 of
Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. For
further information, contact Joyce Ohlso t at the
Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena SL, Aspen, CO (970)
920-SW2.
s /Robert Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published In The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The annual tax return of the Goldenberg
Foundation for the fiscal year ended April 30,
19991s available at its principal office located at
430 W Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (970)
925-1294, for inspection during regular business
hours by any citizen who requests It within
three years hereof. The principal manager at
this foundation Is Stephen R. Goldenberg.
Published in The Aspen Times July 19, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MITTEL EUROPA, 516 EAST SLEEKER
STREET C'ONDIT'IONAL USE REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
wBl be held on Tuesday, July 6, 1999 at a meet-
ing to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, Council
Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Mittel
Europa, 516 Fast Bleeker, Aspen, CO. The apple
cant Is requesting Conditional Use approval to
locate a consignment retail establishment and
sales of new and antique furniture with more
than 25% of the floor area dedicated to recall
space In the Service/ Commercial/ Industrial
(S /C /O zone district. The property Is located 516
East Bleeker Street, and is owned by BCS
Propertles, P.O. Box 5078, Aspen, CO 81612. For
further Information, contact Chris Hendon at the
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)
920-5072.
s /Robert Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published In The Aspen Times on June 19, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO 22
(Series of 1999)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $4,544,422„ TRANS HERRING $10,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO
THE TRANSPORTATION /PARKING FUND;
APPROPRIATING WHEELER FUND EXPENDI.
TURFS OF $147.329; TRANSFERRING. $1,400,000
FROM THE WHEELER FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND; RECOGNIZING PARKS & OPEN SPACE
REVENUE OF $7,500, APPROPRIATING PARKS &
OPEN SPACE FUND EXPENDITURES OF
$2,603,810; TRANSFERRING $60,000 FROM
PARKS & OPEN SPACE FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND; APPROPRIATING HOUSING /DAYCARE
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $3,599,810; TRANS-
HERRING $1,350,000 FROM THE HOUSING /DAY-
CARE FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND, APPRO-
PRIATING WATER FUND EXPENSES OF
$1,117,306; APPROPRIATING MALL FUND
EXPENDITURES OF $52,163, APPROPRIATING
PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
OF $163,312; APPROPRIATING ELECTRIC FUND
EXPENDITURES OF $253,718; APPROPRIATING
TRANSPORTATION /PARKING FUND EXPENDI-
TURES OF $2,272.998; APPROPRIATING GOLF
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $121,810APPROPRI-
ATING RUEDI FUND EXPENDITURES OF $40,000;
APPROPRIATING
RED BRICK FUND EXPENDITURES OF $21,971;
APPROPRIATION WATER PLACE HOUSING FUND
OF $80,792.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home
Rule Charter the City Council may make supple-
mental appropriations; and
WHEREAS. Isle City Manager has certified that
the City has unappropriated current year my-
enues and /or unappropriated prior year fund
balance available for appropriation In the
General Fund, Parks & Open Space Fund,
Wheeler Fund, Housing/Daycare Fund, Water
Fund, Mall Fond. Parking Improvement Fund,
Electric Fund, Transportation/ Parking Fund,
Golf Fund, Ruedl Fund, Red Brick Fund and
Water Place Housing Fund.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that cer-
tain expenditures, revenues and transfers must
., i
NOW, THERk3ORF RE If- ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF ASPEN, COL
ORADO:
Secllon I
Upon the City Manager's certification that there
are current year revenues and /or prior year
fund balance available for appropriation in the
General Fund, Parks & Open Space Fund,
Wheeler Fund, Housing/Daycare Fund, Water
Fund, Mall Fund, Parking Improvement Fund,
Electric Fund, Transportation/ Parking Fund,
Golf Fund, Ruedn Fund, Red Brick Fund and
Water Place Housing Fund, the City Council
hereby makes supplemental appropriations as
Itemized in Exhibit "1" attached.
Section 2
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason Invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion thereof.
Section 3
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held
on the 28th of June, 1999 at 5:00 p.m in the City
Council Chamber, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published
as provided by law by the City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, at It's regular meeting
held at the City of Aspen, June 14, 1999.
Rachel Richards,
Mayor
ATTEST Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times June 19, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO. 24
('Series of 1999)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED AS THE -MOORE FAMILY
PUD "ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on March 29,1999, the City Manager
of the City of Aspen, on behalf of the City of
Aspen, the James E. Moore Family Partnership,
LLLP, Mark B Whitson, the Asld Corporation,
Thomas H Bailey, Robert M. and Nancy L.
Beevers, the Zoom Flume LLC, Kevin L Patrick,
and Patricia gal constituting one hundred
percent of the owners of the property proposed
to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the
City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of tenri
tory to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 1999, the City Council
did adopt Resolution No 30, Series of 1999, find.
ing substantial compliance with Section 31-12 -
107CE. C R.S.; establishing May 24, 1999, as the
dale for a public hearing to determine complF
once wish Sections 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105,
C.R.S.; and authorizing publication of said hear.
Ing, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May
24, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution
(Number 42, Series of 1999) at Its regular meet-
ing on May 24, 1999, following a public hearing
did find and determine said Petition for
Annexation to be In substantial compliance with
§§ 31- 12404 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council doss hereby find
and determine that approval of the anrimilot
of said territory to be In the City's best Interest;
and
WHEREAS, Pltkin County granted the owners of
the Moore Family PUD land use approvals that
have been memorialized I. a Subdivision
Improvements Agreement and Planned Unit
Development pursuant to the County's Planned
Unit Development (PUD) regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County PUT) regulations
differ slightly from the City's PUD land use regp
lations and experience has Indicated that on
nccasmn, lollowing .n aro luni of properly
Into the City that has received land ,
approvals In the Cmmty, II becomes uercesary
to make minor arrem Gents to the Final Plat and
PUD; and
WHEREAS, the City i mmsJI dvsrres to allow kill
City's Community Development Director to
approve said minor a nendments to the PUD and
Final Plat consistent with the County PUD land
use regulations that do not clearly Contradict
City PUD regulation• without the necessity to
amend the City land Ilse reguations or require
the applicant to follow needlessly mpabersome
City land use regulations for minor amend-
ments.
NOW, THFREFORE, OE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF 3 HE C1 t Y OF ASPEN, COI,
ORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of land descrit" in
the Petition for Ann, nation, commonly referred
to as the "Moore Family PUD ", and as shown on
the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the
City of Aspen, Colorado
Section 2. The City ' Ierk of the City of Aspen is
hereby directed as is Ilows:
(a) To file one copy "d the annexation map with
the original of this aumexatlo r ordinance in the
office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and lily two copies of this annex-
ation nrdinance and of the annexation map with
file Clerk and Recorr'er of the County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado.
(c) To request the ( lerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County to file one certified copy of this annexa-
Ron ordinance and r I the annexation map with
the Division of Local Government ul the
Department of Local Affairs, State of CrJnrado
Section 3. The Cit, Engineer of the City of
Aspen is hereby dirt rled to amend the Olflcial
Map of the City of As ,en to reflect the boundary
changes adopted pt rsuant to this annexation
ordinance
Section 4. The ' ommunity Development
Director is hereby at thorized to approve minor
PUD amendments t , the Moore Family PUD
which are intended to change an element or
condition .(the dew lopment permit; provided,
however, that the 1 reposed amendments are
consistent with the hdlowing standards'
a. The amendment r cost be a clarification or a
technical correcrion'o a plat.
b. The amendment nest not change the use of
the proposed development between residential,
commercial and lemon accommodation uses
c. The amendment must be consistent with
action taken during the review of the original
development and does not constitute new land
development acliviry
d. The proposed activity does not'
I Change the basic character of the approved
use of land on whicl the activity occurs inrlud-
Ing basic visual appearance and method of oper-
ation;
Ii. Increase elf -site impacts in the surrounding
neighborhood;
lit Endanger public health, safety or welfare;
Iv Substantially increase the need for on -siro
parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing
generation; and
v. Increase the floor , rea of the use by more than
two (2) percent or Occrease open space on the
site by more than th ee (3) percent
Section 5. The ''ommunity Development
Director is hereby to othorized to approve minor
plat amendments to `he Moore Family PUD, prc-
vtd..d, how ... or. thin ••Le propnrnd . ...do.P.o.
are amsh!md with u m loll• �wmg srarNm d..
a. The amendment , creases or does not allecc
the degree ofcors, force us
with land e code
standards,
b. The amendment i, being made In a reconmeu
plat which has been approved by the City, and
c. The amendment n- consistent with represen-
rations made to Pill in County during the con-
ceptual and deta led subdivision reviews
whichever is appllo,hle.
Section 6. That it a ny section. subsection, sen-
tence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordi-
nance is for any rea-on held invalid or unconsti-
tutional In a Count of competent pnisdidinn,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, dis-
tinct and Indepenr6 nt provision and shall not
affect the validity pf the remaining pennons
thereof.
Section 7. That thus ordinance shall not have
any effect on exist ng litigation and shall not
operate as an about Gent of any action or pro-
ceeding now pendii g under or by virtue of the
ordinances amendtd as herein provided, and
the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior or nuances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held
on the 28th day of J, me, 19991 in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen C ry Hall, Aspen, Colorado,
INTRODUCED, RI AD AND ORDERED PUB-
LISHED as provided ny law by the City Council of
the City of Aspen m the 14th day of June. 1999
Rachel Richards,
Mayor
ATTEST: Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
Published In The A =pen Times June 14, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
WATF,RTREATMEN' I PLANT EXPANSION
SNOWMASS WATER AND SANITATION DIS FRICT
PITKIN COUNTY, Ci LORADO
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
1 Sealed Proposeiv for construction of the
Water Treatment Plant Expansion will be
received by the Sno, wmass Water and Sanitation
District at the office of the Owner of 660 Fairway
Drive, Snowmass Vi' [age, Colorado, 81615, nn or
before 200 PM, Jun � 22,1999, at which Ume the
proposals will be pt hllcly opened and read. Any
proposal received a ter the above spemlJed time
will be immediate y returned to the Bidder
unopened
The site of the work Is at the District's water
treatment plant.
The work Includes construction of a sixth rapid
. sand filler and will update existing controls for
the water tMatiol r plant. This will all lude a
building addition, a new flocculation mecha-
mam, filler media, nipmgg and modifications to
the water treatment bull Ing
2. The contract Documents, containing the
detailed Draw[ngs and Specifications for the
construction of the work, together with the pro
posed ConstruOlor Contract. may be seen at
or the District Off 'es. Copies thereof may he
obtained Irom M, Laughlin Water Engineers
District by depositing $60 of which $25 will be
refunded upon if a return of the contract
Documents In goal ,»ndltlon ten (10) days after
the Proposals arc r, ceived.
3. Bid security In the amount of 5 percent,
unqualified, of the otal Proposal prre, will be
required with each "roposal. ('haracler and dis-
position of such rW security are stated in
'Tnstrucllons to aidders" of the contract
Documents. Includ d with the contact docu-
ments is a Bid Bon, form to be used by bidders
not submitting a o shler's check or a certified
check.
4. Further Inlommtlon will be Inund in
"Inslructlou to Bi, tiers" of the contras duru-
ments. Each Bidder will be assumed to he famll-
lor with all Contra t documents, Including all
Drawings and Specifications Bidders am
encouraged to Visit the site prior to the bid
opening
Published: Owner
By /s/ Richard G Wall, Manager
Published in The aspen Times June S. 12, 19,
1999. (42092)
ASPEN/PITE IN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920 -5090 FAX (970) 920 -5439
MEMORANDUM
TO: Attorney
Engineer
Zoning
CSFS
Aspen Water District
ACSD
Aspen Fire District
Red Mt. Subdivision HOA
FROM: Tamara Pregl, Community Development Department
RE: DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay
P #2737 - 063 -04 -001
P56 -99
DATE: April 27, 1999
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Mary Ellen DiMatteo. The
Pitkin County Community Hearing Officer will review this application July 20, 1999.
Please return your comments to me no later than June 1, 1999.
Thank you.
t1U1sjb
ASPEN/PITKEVveOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEIv4RTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920 -5090 FAX# (970) 920 -5439
April 27, 1999
Janver Darrington
610 East Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: DiMatteo 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay
#P56 -99
Dear Janver,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined
that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional
information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the
application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly.
We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer on
Tuesday, July 20, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 3:00 p.m. in the Commissioner's Meeting Room in the
Courthouse. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of
this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the
application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date,
we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning
Office.
We have forwarded a copy of this application to the Colorado State Forest Service for referral comments.
Please contact them directly at (970) 248 -7325 to arrange for payment of their fees. Comments will not be
released until payment is received.
Please note that it is your responsibillity to post a public notice sign on the property at least fifteen days
prior to the hearing (and remove it within one week after) and to mail notice to all adjacent property
owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development
Department (copy of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names
and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60
days prior to the date of the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Tamara Pregl, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5093.
Sincerely,
Tenley Taylor
Administrative Assistant
600'J0, (
CASE /PERMIT #: - #OFCOPIES:
CO%wJMTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM,__;2
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920 -5090
Pitkin County
Land Use:
172
Board of Adjustment
159
County Land Use Code
173
Deposit
174
Flat Fee
162
Zoning and Sign
169
Public Notice
160
Planning Enforcement
Referral Fees:
RB115 Access Permit
179
County Clerk
193
County Engineer •Q
194
Environmental Health W 100
198
Housing
190
Land Management
i196
Wildlife Officer
Building Fees:
170
Board of Appeals
135
Building Code Sales
105
Building Permit
100
Contractor License
120
Electrical Permit
195
Energy Code Review
115
Mechanical Permit
150
Plan Check
110
Plumbing Permit
130
Reinspection
151
Aspen Sanitation
152
AVFD Fire Marshal
'
Other Fees:
155
Use Tax
165
Copy
Performance Deposit
185
Park Dedication
i 186
Parking Cash in Lieu
166
GIS Maps
is
GIS Requirements
RB116
Road Impact Fees
�UG %&TOTAL
NAME:
ADDRESS /PROJECT:
nv�nm.
CASE /PERMIT #: - #OFCOPIES:
f
�0- , [-
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MARCH 23, 1999
DIMATTEO RESIDENCE
1121 RED MOUNTAIN ROAD ASPEN, CO 81611
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
610 EAST HYMAN AVENUE * ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 * TELE: 970325 -5590 * FAX: 970920 -4557
00006`)
M
N
U
Q
i
w
W ~
U w
z �
W
o a
v, O
W W
W
0
W
�z
�N
_ W
00
ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS
Nf
MYE fWSNfD fDpp
EV
fMf r/
v
VSIr
WE l
S m
N1pJY .mISTCAI
EI£CI
EIEW.PCK
IY6
YMMKTL4CR
SM
SEWLfl
IM
MY-VDEpW.M /Y
EC
E(ELIMLK LYW /R.CTM
YNL
YYEPoK
$M
9W[I
pL
pIKlM
EL
LIEVYRYI
LO
Y.IOYM O^fXNRI
yYF
SxL£I VMI FI(WYD
N{
p ETAE
E.
ML
YCTft
vpY
SICd IESJIMi)
KI
N, ERYOE
D
E ED
f.O/.
YM
W.YILLW
py
SYyp
NLY
NIWIWIY
ER
FI51M.
YEEI/
YE[HM,CIL
SI,
gL(JAE
N°PD
YWRY[O
EJ
ENMSW ✓YMF
K
uEOIMFK CTMfN,C/DV
S c
SDWDrRMwv Hit
N°PIA+ .VYMwNNC
EDP
UR D
YED
YEDC WEH.W
SPEC
SaEOfIWiOV
WCH
p EW NANJ
EST
EMEAtlI
WY
WNIWY
5p
SyMf
AEM
A5 yyy K /RSSB'E
FD
F.CE 6
WSy'
W5411AVE015
SE
SD1WE 'EM
(BV
RRSEpR4D IIMY.DY
fW
1Y
NW
eg9NN
SS
STY n STEEL
BY
W.
FP
REP /W`
wS
WI uv CDTTRKT
SIO
STNWWp
9T.
W.
FM1
FIRERKE
10T RMFjVE
5'fL
STC¢
Wf
WVW FIWSMD Fl m'1
FT
lli
MS
IpT TO YNE
STR.CI
STRLrIMY
YFT
WTYEEw
iLR
RWY
a
W rLMER
NY
SU4rlTyr[
WR
9'¢'R
PD
Ff1M DiYN
ry6
WENHS
9/ML
Sd94NEM
B511r
RNSElY/I
FT
sWFfFlr
p^P
pyp5/fE
SS
.4NFNCFD FDN SINS
WV
RK/$x THEM. VIYrry
AC
FmILW
pIY
DVN .K
SVSP
SWEMEd
W
B1YW
W
fWYNW
dM
�£ RMD
TEL
rELERME
BS'
DAx SSfS
f1 /M
fVMyl
Z
u sm f/NIETER
TV
rEIENSdI
p
®Rllt' D`
6LL
4YIDw
PTw
PMInW
TENT
rEW Afb
WLE
dKK41f G
G'WE
Y
/ENM INHLCFWJ
rNR
TH[R
G1N
rA9'W'T
fM'V
DNVIWEEO
PEW
KRF.vm
ra
TDW
¢ 4
WNEEfl IME
6'
WYfRK LDY/R.CTW
PIAS(
pLtSreR
rM
rqy[ NW fn. q'E
dG
IYHIW
Q
MSSLYAIEO
PEAS
IM1KTK'
TLB
T(P AM ®rTW
EEP
CfIINYC
G
4RADE
R
XNE
ro
rM W
Qfl
O2M
p'I
gP9/Y
pEF
q£SISIASS
T
rWp
CIO
Gx6ET
LWD
4YISM rNIIDMtl
%YP
ryL/IgWD
rYP
M1RCAL
CIO
CIOIIIES DP'ER
l.'d1
x.YRWpE
qy
pyN2y
I,6
LNWTA]WD
4Y
(VITNFS IAWf -F
IW
IFp
Mtll
PIWQCI
VW3
U ED
C9L
DU.
MK
WOMVEMMMA
P/dY
PRWYPIr
ypW
LTFIWSHED
COS
CHERYL
Or
O/Mq' rRE
VM6
NESS WED 0` F.E
G
CiWS/A4Cr'OV AWT
IMtll
IWW 4
WT
OINTRY
VOR.
W£SS WMMY WED
NYI
CDYTIM4/S
M
196E NEfl
fl
RATS
VS'
LIVCNY WMR' 21Y
MYW
RMbMYE
INx
MT INCR NENER
�
/� DpYy
Yf
VEPofY M FYIO
CIR
CLLWIER
M
If.ENr
Ry
IWV
yEM
VEpTLAL
GS
C9WICR SWR
NCl
NWOW /d IAG
R5
gjlM/ SMI
K'1
YIWL WIV m rNE
Cf
D9C FEET
pi0
MIWIYW
,®
pE510[9 QYE GSE
YQI
W
DAIWNI` /AG
W.V
NS/ECIM,p$IEWW
W
/p'rNAi R.YL
NNW IIENfR
WIT
WPprMF/
9
IWW pMETfR
REF
WFER
YC
rNFA 0f6fT
WL
WTM
N/516
4YSV/NM
qFR
Wf26ERVW
IP
WR'EMYRF
M�
NYEIER
Wr
IMERW
qEN
rFMFbIfF ld
p
NfpD
WI
PYENSW
JT
AYr
/®NI
WMAWyW BM f51
'MI
NEIL'ED r4E F/DK
d
dsMASI4R
Lr
AM.'IW
M
LADS
g'M
OV
OSTN
RRDVNr IWR
WW
WM
REINRED
W
MNN
IlR
LY•YWDT
R
,05ER
NA
IIR/RVT
us
WRNYN
w
I.NWrnE' /a
.®
RKW WCNNN
RD
r¢o
u
EN]I
w
wwoW
sM
sAMNN
WRD
YdFJW
GENERAL NOTES
G NL COYSTRATNW 4M YNfRNS 3NNG RE AS SPfi'N'KO RM IN MYLTYM1
WTN KG MPLSFYI£ DDfS(YKWMCESIAWSPEPYITSMD TIE RW AW OII ws
2 rw OWRK DR SN Be R£y91YSP1£ FOR THE N WE P EmEM ff NL NEW
RWS %9 m M THE SITE.
J. THE 0WAWW WH VEPo NG DWNSNWS MD WE aawi LEFARE SIMFRN
YAW'. SMYIIO A gSCREFAW MFEM IN rNE OwflM LRLYENTSD4 9ETWEEN rw
QWrR DYXW s MD ENISrING O]YM,CNSW" THE MGMELT N WE FOR
INSTRECTM W A M P EED
E. SMLLD N COYFLCT =0 W W DEMEEN DRMMSS MD SFECFI MS ME
SPSM"MS SHNG WE PNECEXWE. UNLESS AWPo EN DEMM Fr THE
MCNFEa HA$ BEER OHTNN£D WHW DESC S A (EMI M OR NJERNNE
YETINL m0 YNFINNS
i FHE DW AW09 S QWINE NV/ D°EWN W THE WE TO MEAS
PER ED 6 THE WNER
fi THE .M WE SHNL M Y.WNWD IN AWM,DTGERLT Zf(yTM,FAEE W DEBNS
MD ILTTERMD SHNG W M UNREASTWA&Y EAQ/YArR£D W?H AW Y Zffl S W
EU/IPYEM. EKH SUBmYTRKTW N 90ELY U (GYry£TM DN EM! PRISE ( r
NSIWR Y K SLANG RENWE NG MR MD EEB M LF REp W Hy ER
WERNW.
T. NG WEM S WD W W SIZE SHNE W P/ W S WED MD PWf fa
TO PPEYEM DWXE MD WT£RMNM. FN W TO NWfECr MNMPo YN BE
C.YISE FW NEJERM W Y
B. rw DSYTRWOR SNNL ED NL N MFDTN.GW PNCHRG w HL WR IIO'M TNN YR
W WWM'EO TO MME FS SEYERK PMTS FF TDIETRER RL^EPoY MD SNNL IWF
ENM R MT WWR W d'Wr EXCNNIAAW OFHEIINISE NTEMV THE TWK
YMN W Ml' WIIER 1f.4r W lT NG PNTC KAfPNNNW MO PEPLCAG D YNEMNS
MD SURFA,ES LYF W ONUOED W EXE W O° WD'Lf SHNE W IRYE WITH MPLCA9IE
YNEPoNS W THN WRF S NEP D WlLM DM LWETMMMCH FIRR MW
SIY9A4 SLNEFDES.
4 ,W i M W THE 11A¢f R£DIIRW A 5MW DR.M W S. SIIRYSSM SNNL ([
WYY£M'ED UMY, rNf AIB ON HM BEEN NE FD W W MC EC
NG A RAr W THE YL4V SM.YL W N NCA'WLNCE W U R "ED SM1A°
DwV MD SM%ES
9 pYEN5p
ANL pYEM5M5 SN/GL THE PRECECEN'CE WR S W WIMLWS
fl NJ (NYENSWS ARE TO FKE W MD H.WESS AWED WHE91
C CENIM. H£Nfr UMEN£AK A FTNW FWSII FL SW rO FNZ W FM
cvvU MATERM UME55 WED WHEmw
R CWrRCTD9 rO P IDE NG NECES BLWIp.ABN]C MD FRNUW
FOR IGIIT Ff MY:S£IECT LWFS EDGWNFM.REMSSED FEKMD NL
WHET FEYS M REWWa
l2 WH£IK IMY.ER 5IV05 W FMMIAG ME RCW D r0 CWEP PWRW MD N/pgTS
THE LAN: ER STUD SIZE W FURRMG SHNG EATEND rNE FML 511/ENY W THE ff L
WWH MD LE.WTN WHERE NE FW W ¢IYIRS
13 . PIWIOE FME SP aft PWEWM THRYFIp/T TXE WILW ME DMRMIW
SLANG RE R£STd15IBLE FOR P PN THE WHIMS MO WfNNM THE PERMS
FW THE FNE SP NWR yAEY. TIT FME SP "ft Vr EYS SHNG MEET THE
.BWM£YEMS OF NG MPLNAWE ¢ MW WmNMt£S
N, P Vf NG FG{£55 P.WEES M Wf D BV "ERNM CWES M NG WWTN£D
W° YLMCNTF3.ECT. VfM rTFE R£WMED W ?H NRYRTEU MMf TO WSTNGATM.
ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS
.tl/
CfMEPK INFORYNRW /ABWEIIKM$
iMl
CODE ANALYSIS
SYMBOL LEGEND
YEPµ
NPl
YNY (EVEL P
A22
FILM
UPPER "EL FILM %AY
Af]
UIYER 1EYEL fUM F(AY
NCI
� WOMI
$' S6! !'OT 9HNlIDN
DETER NUMBER
I
EDHigR ELEVMION
U9 AND AW REWIN£YENIS W THE ASPEN /%KEN LA/MIY =V W WPMFYENF
TB] TFHT BOLD
SHEET NUMBER
pl
9iffT NUMBER
2ONMG iNFGRMMION'.
IWIA;
YY
C BURDRIO SECTgN
r
YNN FIDN URYRURE fNp?
FIT
AKS
xF1GM IIYR: D£
)O %)NOD R1P OF HHIAIIDN
Wd
SHEET NLAABFA
FIWT rM0 SETB.CK ax
A NEw CDNIpUq
WNG $E�Rlpy
MG 9NEEi
REVISIpl9
SKE rND SETBCK YD
.YIgIAB(E FLGM MEA m SF
�"It;� FJWTING COMg1R
NIPBEIi
RWR ABTA MAD:
K�!R]1EN" k�' ROON MME
KEYNmE
EDT TRS D SF
— - —' CENIEA UNE
/ i.. ROOIY NUMBER
fM TMS AY SF
— — — HIDDETY LWE
EAT rm A SF
Oi WIND lYPE
EDT tZ KK y
SEf6LK UNE
G) WO I E
LMTOI uw
FWN
BRFM UNE
G1A95 MFA CIRCNNTpN3:
PROPERII' UNE
`
EJLEAOR EGEVATM()
WA HENED NKA KK SF
6 NM ] SHEET NUMBEA
TNIE N(IWIi
NININW£ necc MEA IN W
HENED FI MEA S DN!
A
WW¢IF M'B 6lW LTKMS
PLAN 8 SECTION
WH lT SF
MATERIAL INDICATIONS
E n'uf
WEST II sF
EMDL
MR.40NR1'
INSIHATgN
FWN R9MBSED QWS
CGMPNCIED FILL
W1ICRETE BLOCK
!yyy -yy
AREA
PROJECT DIRECTORY
POROUS FAl
)JJJJJJJJJJJJJ
u!!L!!!!!U!4 BWCI(
Mryp
UNDISIUf10Ed FILL
% STONE
NXWECT SfRWTLMAC ENOWER CdTRACrW
CHARLES MMFFE whYf.
S E,pYM wE.
ROCK
7•T�j'Tr-
Ld�Lyi X99 BLOCX
RNISH
SURE ]p
rEPI,WW9 SM
Fu': 19p19nS 6
CIXJDRETE
METAL
BOUL'H
UvOSCAPE AFCH ?ELT YECHAMCAL EAEWEEA E£WECHNCK EAG
EAST
� 51EEL
�
BLDGUNG
GROUT, ufiHDNE1CilR
CONCRETE
GLLLUUL
FtWN]OD
00007
SHEET INDEX
LYW£R SHEET
.tl/
CfMEPK INFORYNRW /ABWEIIKM$
iMl
FAR. CNLVWWYS
N
YEPµ
NPl
YNY (EVEL P
A22
FILM
UPPER "EL FILM %AY
Af]
UIYER 1EYEL fUM F(AY
NCI
R0F P{M
AL
W;ST f1EVNW
AI2
£AS/ EIEVNM
Ml 9JILGVNG SECTRAYS
MT [WIL6LW' $ERNS
AN WILW.W WCfMS
W WNL SECIAWS
A52 NNL SfCTMS
A5J WNL SEW WS
ASA WNG SELTMS
4i5 EITFXpf (YTMS
456 EATERNYI REIMS
AV fATfRU4 DETMS
.LSB EIIfR69 DETMS
91
GENERK IWQ%0W 15LSC PLATES
5/Y
FWNMTM %.W
SR]
YNN LEVEL FR W ftAv
SIA
UPPER LEVEL FP.WIM" PL
515
WLE/F![W P
SL
YM LEYEL / FWNDNW FRMING SELTNMS
SET
YNN LEVEL / FWNWN FRN9AY. EECTMS
52J
YNN IEVEL / FWNOLTW FRMINL SEL'FMS
VICINITY MAP
NJ
REFLECTED Muw PLW
02
REFIECFEO CENAG PIAY
NJ
REfL ED CEp PLw
N1
ENWWED alMV SELTWS
p1
FIREPLACE S UMIELEVNW
A91
FUEP 5ECTM/ELEYNM
AAT
STNR SEWDN$ / EL 0V
AO/
WN6M / (pi'L SCM£WLE$
NO2
Y5f£LLWE DEf
AAJ
Y/SCFIIAYfon IX/5 WAYS
ul
LWHfWG FN.w
U2
LLMNNi flAY
UJ
LGIITUG
FIl
r
YNN FIDN URYRURE fNp?
FIT
u R F FN9NIFDRf w
F/J
ILWER i" LDM fYRNFME wWJ
III
4
a�
Lw
LQ
2 Yee
2 s
UR$8
Rg
U
Lu
O
Z
?0
o �
7
0
Ly WW.q'
Ln mW
H
Z_
� N6 fM
Q MR O -T39
J_
O 96E119
z A0.1
0
W MFft C6
0
000071
W �k�
U �g
W e
- 8
U :axa
W
U
a
co
0
N WE ILY
F-
Z
<W
y ua sev
Q arz
> sm rn
w
o
2 -A
37980 SaFF.
SLOPE. 18156 S4fT:
W jig!
3
R.
Z a8
Z 88
a
U a� °al
,
UA
\ w roc eaow wclr c m� e a
O
Ii! 1 =
RUN
it
to - -
m+r\ _
LOT I \ r
HODGES SUBDIVISION
� A=
00001
LOT 2
usrew' m.ow. w
J
W
itA0! 6
O
z A1.2
y
W yffI 0{
Ow�a�Yeem
mall
WaVIN
10
A
ISO
I
37980 SaFF.
SLOPE. 18156 S4fT:
W jig!
3
R.
Z a8
Z 88
a
U a� °al
,
UA
\ w roc eaow wclr c m� e a
O
Ii! 1 =
RUN
it
to - -
m+r\ _
LOT I \ r
HODGES SUBDIVISION
� A=
00001
LOT 2
usrew' m.ow. w
J
W
itA0! 6
O
z A1.2
y
W yffI 0{
Ow�a�Yeem
00
000073
I I �
I � �
I I
I I �
0
1
nv �-
I.
O Q Q O O
I j I j
I I
.
u�_siGloonnuo
It U t1 ±�►� --�
� � mil jai
I y_
e
I
I I I
I
I I
1 Oj
JF`,o �� I�,.
1111
o-rdrwn oEa
O
❑®
I
i
!jag
------ - - - -�— p i
k• °��
— - - - -- — — — — —f— p W Zile
li U :a °a@
i
� l
U
--- -- O W
Q
9
3
�
! QC
z
- — — - - — - — - — [----C)
I �
7
�
I �
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
y
� �10l1
Z
W
y M YY
O dR
J
W
91@l lU
W SNHI P
Omo ooa�m
Q
I � i
i
i
I �
i
I i i
i
� I
1
i
I r
i
III a�•1a
im
antnlox ¢c.
I
I � I
� I
I
0000711
1
u
n
O
I
j I I I
-I - I ------ - - - - - -;
i i I I j i i T
-I- -'
— - - — - — - — - i - — - — - — -I - — - — - — - ------ — ' — - — i — - O Z 088
p
ga 0 2 8
oreu ra mnw - — -
i
i
I I
mrnaw
. m maw
I
L
I I
( I
I
I I
I I
L Oo L
- — - — - — - F
i
i
I V
------ ------ _O O
0
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
I
I
I
� nwwwla
cW
C
d x6 wwl
Q MR mum
J
91Hf 110.
U A2.2
H
W am a
00 o Q
H'O ry
I I i I
I I i I I
I I i j
—j —r— — i---- - - - - -- -
- — — — _ - - - -- _ - - - - --
I
I
I
I
I
000075
D o 0 0 0 0�
I
I
I
I
0U
I I
I I
— — — — I- — — — I— ------- - - -
I---------- - - - - --
s
— — lo:
----- - - - - -- — — u - - -, o �'" o
A A
I z
-- - - -
I �
'o
LOWER LEVEL PLAN /h
• ` 'A'
Z
<W
C
1 W �
0 nrz may.»
J
W
96I W.
z A2.3
W
Q 91Bf q
tmvar a�w��o
— E
00007
I
I I
I
I
i
[MEN
I �
I
P r'
W
u
by�
Q � C
2 e °�
z � s
U�
Un4
U 83151
I i I I
I i I I
i I I
I i I I
O
Z,
�o
O $�
i
I
I
I
N
W W
O g 10 d en �
Q art
J
9@f 1Q
ROOF PLAN
o ate, a
�CL�O
Y fL+00
jU007
� WFR IAYL
NORTH ELEVATION
JM1MI/f
ELIL�
4N0
f4W
G
U a
LLJ
e
2 `eel
� e
J d�
� C g
U a�23
W
U 9
W ap
ad
`o a
� X09
O Nu
Q
awwc
N
~ diA
Z
cW
C
Ll �u W
� an �xan
uLrc �
aar xo
0
ELEVATION
U A3.1
�� k•F0•
o
Afm _
Y ha;
aao —
00078
SOUTH ELEVATION
c • .o
a�
16flYE
age
_
fAWO
may}
' BFOO1' IML
f4'g -S
-
¢Bl
WEST ELEVATION
N
G
W
E
U
2
W
o
a
�o
k �7
'o
W �
N
cW
C
p. W Y9
O an man
�1J.I
W 96l M
W
0 sar a
I
I I I \\
I i
_ _— _— _ —_ —___ —_ate _ 3i3i
I I I I I \ a
1 1 I I � Q IIIIa
- - --
1 I I I I Y 4
raaW I I I \ l✓, � a 8
W
I 1 I i I t J
I I 1 1 I V
I I I 1 1 I I I I I
------ ------
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III
I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I III
I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I III I mo` r�sm w.oe rey'F� F
I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1\
J- L ------ 1
- I 1 I I I I 1 1 _________ _____ 1\ _
_�. _ 1 _J L ______
BUILDING SECTION
W • r•r
W
U
W S
I Q g qo
1 1 \ ---- -' —_ —_ ur�moE - H Z$
I I I \
I I I tg
1 I I 1
I 1 I I I\
1 Q
1 1 1 1 l\
•-
1 I I I
I _
esa
I I I I I I I i I I 1\
1 I i 1 I i I I I
� �\ rsmry wz ari �
I I I 1 1 I I 1 I to rsr>m�
1 1 I\ c+rsrw eu¢ H
I I 1 \ W
I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I \ urFx 9[paq - -
1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 __ ravr —_�
I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I \ naa Q an oao-a
T
_L L___ i 1 1 I I I W
0000 C)
BUILDING SECTION W•r� z A4.1
h
W f�LLr 6
O Omvu��.m
0 BUILDING SECTION
BUILDING SECTION
U0008G
a
rasue `
(I p9
t¢MT IEVfI
_YM
ft9A
U
Q o
o H z
js
u
i
0
.aw _
L4m9
Ip -m9•!I
��[[q W wAK1G
_(a$LU�I yy{y
f6`�y 1lYQ W
Q an
J
W
PQ IA
0
O A4.2
W
Q 9f @T Oi
pv �m�m
& x asg
ZU
K
aA gg�
2
`eed
8
h
Lw
a :
;ate` Td
w mo eve
rasue `
(I p9
t¢MT IEVfI
_YM
ft9A
U
Q o
o H z
js
u
i
0
.aw _
L4m9
Ip -m9•!I
��[[q W wAK1G
_(a$LU�I yy{y
f6`�y 1lYQ W
Q an
J
W
PQ IA
0
O A4.2
W
Q 9f @T Oi
pv �m�m
1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 i I I I
I I 1 1 I I I I i I I
1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I
I 1
_J I I J -L 1 -1 1 1
I
I
I I \
1 1
ol�
I I I
I 1 I 1 I 1 1
I 1 I 1 i I 1 I
I I I I I 1 1 1 I
I 1
I I I I I
I 1 I 1 1 I I
I I I I I I I 1 1
1 1 I 1 I �ecidw l___L 1 I
—
1
1 I
-a-
1
J0008
BUILDING SECTION
¢mo
IA�.OTO.OI�T
I I
1 I 1 \\
i1 BUILDING SECTION
2 8
.�
La
J
U
W p
¢O
N z�
z
C �o
o°
W RgrR%
H
W
y xu so
0 wn
J
flm MU
W
Q 91@i 9
lwnwawnso
1
1 I I I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 I
I 1
1--------------- J--------------------------
I_ L - -I I
0 000
I I I 1
I I 1
r,LUILDING SECTION