The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.38 Trainors Landing.0053.2010.ASLU-- --- 0053.2010.ASLU 38 TRAINORS LANDING RD RES. DESIGN REVIEW 273513103005 -- ~02714Â£4 10 ~ D 7 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0053.2010.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 13 1 03 005 PROJECTS ADDRESS 38 TRAINORS LANDING PLANNER JENNIFER PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION RES. DESIGN VARIANCE REPRESENTATIVE TIM SEMRAU DATE OF FINAL ACTION 1#04.2010 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 10. 04.10 ?wL \ D 279 s - a - I -03-001 0053.201 0 Â·AN-lA *,44*r#401*1Â£/4,dbi, .46.el,/9.*IkiÂ·sE#*j;Â£*.:0Â£*:*,44...Â·wâ€ž,;*.4*U~:Â£,443,4.* Elle Edit Record Navigate Fnrm Reports Format Tab Belp i@@ IX I k, 2% 4I li il Â® 13 <~ d'~i ]1 4 , 4 0 ~ 96 lump 1 : 01 10161 i'* 4~ c.@1 1 2 t] @ ,3 310 f.li@+3 1 3%0 4 91 P. ~~ Royting Status |Feei |Fee 5ummarY FG~~| Actions |Attachments |Routing tlistory | Yaluation ~ Arch/Eng |Custom Fields |Sub Bermits Â·4 ) ~ li~ Permit type aslu . Aspen Land Use Permt # 0053.2010.ASLU ,.--7I L ~ ~ Address 38 TRAINORS LANDING Apt/5uite T- .- City ASPEN Zip 81611 V - i Permit Illformation . Â· ...39:i.=7:1* .' p,-...-...-.....â€ž-.-*':~ -' .,i Master permit ~ Routing queue aslu07 Applied 9/21 Â£2010 p. ~ '~ w Project Status pending Approved - Description RESIDEDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE FOR 38 TRAINORS LANDING RD Issued 1 ~ Final ~ ~ 5ubmitted TIM SEMRAU 925 6447 Clock ~JIE] Days ~~-61 Expires 9/16/2011 . 5ubmitted via . Owner 29*' ./19% Last name TOLLOFSON First name JON 38 TRAINORS LNDG LOT 5 Phone (970) 429-2116 Address ASPEN CO 81611 Applicant 93 Owner is applicant? Il Contractor is applicant? Last name TOLLOFSON First name JON 38 TRAINORS LANDING RD LOTS Phone (970) 429-2116 Cust # 28900 1' * Address ASPEN CO 81611 9 Lender ~4Â· Last name First name ~ Phone ()- Address ~isple the pamkxne's fist name :x~.,~,:~**â€ž~,.,<*.:* .:..,~ia,*6,~..,.w.~..,:~, IA:penG#{suvul 'langelas;~'1011 .:. Â·: & . 19- ... v- - #*-----I i .h#......... ~EES W An VED - 9-Â·â‚¬- e-Tv,A,<31&,2-0 pmoN"46!Abl F -- , Fee Wa' ar Request Form City of Aspen THE OTY OF ASPEN Community Development Department This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notified when a decision has been made to waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form. For what fees are you requesting waiver? Â£ BUILDING X PLANNING Applicant Name: 7-7,v, fbiÂ» i/eal' Contact Ph.# 725 - 6-4 97 Mailing address: Â·520't \'4. 4'40,.JAI-ze n ~ A sp 64 ,(Â» 3-/60/l E-mailaddress: -fs .0-:v,j-câ€ž-0, 9 57=>r-3 Aet Project name & address: 3% / rA-1 ",cÂ·,1 9 LA/urii,Of . 2 4 /7 /,1 k c V FE, J 1 St <AL'A fly .Al,Abs 02 EC.-1 1.?E.Â·//F.%7 - Fee Breakdown: Original Fee Requested Original Fee Requested Fee Description Fee Description Amount Waiver Amount Waiver Energy Code Fee REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee 7.550Â° 735'- Permit Fee HPCApplication Fee Plan Check Other: TOTAL OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST $ 73 5 'Â°Â° Reason for Waiver: 6 General Fund Department U Waived or decreased by City Council (specify ordinance or other decision document) M Other-Please explain: (5EE A-ITACHED E-,AAIL PÂ¥20.0,4 2)2642~ 0 -7 Applicant Signature Date For office use only: Type of fees waived: .59&*tike Â¢2060 Aa Total fees waived: $ 7-37-- A APPROVED U DISAPPROVED Â» 91. 14 .11/3 Community Development Director Date /2/ CITY OF --PEly COMMUNITY DiVELOPMENT DE-RTMENT FEE WAIVER POLICY PURPOSE Fee waivers to eligible individuals and organizations submitting for building permit or land use application may be considered upon filing a fee waiver request form tothe Community Development Department. Approval of fee waiver requests may be made bythe Community Development Director, according to the adopted fee policy of the City of Aspen. Costs for all building permit and land use applications, otherthan those waived bythe Community Development Director, shall be paid as specified by the fee policy; prior to the issuance of building permits and at the time of submittal of land use applications. PROCESS Fees administered bythe Community Development Department can only be waived by submitting a completed fee waiver form to the Community Development Director. The request shall contain a description of the project along with a statement expressing eligibility for fee waiver. The Community Development Director will review the request and give approval or disapproval in accordance with provisions set forth in this policy. The Community Development Director does not have the ability to waive fees administered by other City Departments or other organizations. All organizations and individuals seeking fee waiver MUST submit their written request to the City of Aspen Community Development Director priorto submittingthe building permitor land use application. The approved fee waiver must then be presented at the time the building permit or land use application is submitted to the building or planning departments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA General Fund Departments do not pay fees to the Community Development Department for building permits or planning applications, with the exception of Capital Projects. The fees waived forthese projects will be tracked bythe Community Development Department (journal entries are therefore unnecessary). In effort to keep paperwork and applications consistent, General Fund Departments shall still be required to submit the approved fee waiver with all applications for building and planning applications. General Fund Departments include: Non-Departmental 001.00 Streets Department 001.41 City Council 001.03 Parks Department 001.55 City Manager 001.05 GIS Department 001.60 Personnel 001.06 IT Department 001.61 City Clerk 001.07 Special Events 001.70 City Attorney 001.09 Recreation Activities ' 001.71 Risk Management 001.10 c*.,t r,I Â»per, 8Â¢crea(ion tdnter (ARC) 001.72 . City Finance Department 001.11 Ice Garden Operations 001.74 Community Development 001.13 Cons. Trust FD/Lottery 001.75 Engineering Department 001.15 *Capital Projects 001.90 4 ,' Buil4ing Department 001.21 Asset Management Plan (AMP) 001.91 Environmental Health 001.25 *Tabor Capital Projects 001.94 Police Department 001.31 Outgoing Transfers 001.95 Records 001.33 ComhidAicatibr~3, 4 '. 001.39 NOTE* Capital Projects are not exempt.fl.om fees PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval o f a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following legally described property: Subdivision: Barbee Family PUD, Lot 5, City of Aspen, County o f Pitkin, Colorado, the property commonly known as 38 Trainors Landing, Aspen, Colorado 81611, by order of the City of Aspen Community Development Director on September 301 2010. Parcel Id # 2735-13-1-03-005. The Applicant received an administrative approval for Residential Design Standard variance for Secondary Mass. The approval allows existing homes within the Subdivision to make non-demolition alterations without satisfying the Secondary Mass requirement. New construction, or construction after purposeful demolition, shall comply with all Residential Design Standards. For further information contact Drew Alexander, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 429-2739. s/ City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on October 10, 2010 DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and Telephone Number John Tollofson, 38 Trainors Landing, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, (970) 429-2116 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property â€¢ Subdivision: Barbee Family PUD, Lot:5, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado â€¢ 38 Trainors Landing, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Administrative Residential Design Standard variance for Secondary Mass requirement. Approval grants the ability for existing homes within the Barbee Family PUD (that do not have Secondary Mass) to make alterations that do not trigger demolition. If a new home is constructed, or demolition is triggered, all Residential Design Standards shall be satisfied. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Administrative approval by the Community Development Director for a Residential Design Standard variance regarding the Secondary Mass requirement in the Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD. Issued on September 30,2010. Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) October 10, 2010 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) October 10, 2013 Iss~:d'this 3~th da of September, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bend6OCommunity Developmellit D~~50r NOTICE OF APPROVAL For the grant of a Residential Design Standard (RDS) variance for the Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD regarding RDS requirement for Secondary Mass, specifically for 38 Trainors Landing, on Lot 5 Parcel ID No. 2735-13-1-03-005 APPLICANT: John Tollofson REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Semrau SUBJECT & SITE OF AMENDMENT: Residential Design Standard variance for the Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD, specifically regarding 38 Trainors Landing, with the following legal description: Subdivision: Barbee Family PUD, Lot: 5, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado 81611. SUMMARY: The Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD was approved through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999 (Exhibit B). This approval granted the ability to develop twelve lots with the following mix of residential unit types: â€¢ Lots 1 - 4: free-market, â€¢ Lots 5 - 7: deed restricted with resident occupancy, â€¢ Lots 8 - 11: category-based affordable housing units, â€¢ Lot 12: shared access parcel, and â€¢ the remaining land is a conservation parcel In 2001, an application was submitted by Tim Semrau of Semrau Building and Design. The subsequent review resulted in the following: 1. An increase in floor area by 360 square feet for Lot 7 2. An enlargement ofthe building envelope on Lot 7 3. The establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11 4. The denial of a request to modify the design of affordable housing units on Lots 8 -11 5. The denial o f variance from the secondary mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6 After the 2001 review, several of the residences were developed within the PUD. The Secondary Mass requirement was not checked during the zoning review of these dwelling units even though a variance from the requirement had been denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (see Exhibit C, Resolution No. 27, Series of 2001). Secondary Mass requires that all new single family and duplex structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Page 1 0 f 3 In 2010, the owner of Lot 5 submitted a building permit for interior and exterior changes to the existing residence, on Lot 5. During the zoning review, the Zoning Officer noticed the non-compliance with Secondary Mass. The non-compliance was discussed with the builder, Semrau, who told Community Development that other residences in the area had been built without the Secondary Mass. It was revealed during the resulting research that oversight from City zoning review had allowed certain homes in the PUD to be constructed without satisfying the requirement. All but one of the lots in the Subdivision have been developed, Lot 2, and it appears that only Lots 3 and 4 have met the RDS requirement: The owner of Lot 5 is now requesting a variance from the RDS so that the building permit may receive its Certificate of Occupancy. STAFF EVALUATION: The minutes from the June 26,2001 P&Z meeting do not provide much evidence for the reasoning behind the denial of the RDS variance. The only indication is that the Commission was comfortable with the secondary mass structures being located further up the hillside and the smaller size of the homes. In the Staff review criteria for the hearing, the only criterion not met was the requirement that the variance yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. An investigation of the Barbee Family PUD residences reveals a common lack of compliance with the Secondary Mass requirement. How the oversight occurred is unclear, but a precedent has been unintentionally established for the neighborhood. Staff finds it unreasonable to deny remodels or additions on Lots with existing homes that were reviewed and granted approval by the Zoning Officer. This application requests that a variance be granted so that work may continue on Lot 5. Staff finds that the appropriate course of action would be to provide a variance for those lots that received City approval without the inclusion of a secondary mass. This would allow for minor projects on the existing homes, without implications on the Certificate of Occupancy. If purposeful demolition is triggered on any of the non-conforming homes, the replacement structure shall be in compliance with all Residential Design Standards. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds Residential Design Standard variance request for the Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD to be consistent with the review criteria (Exhibit A) and thereby, APPROVES the variance as specified below. The approved Residential Design Standard variance, allows for Lots (including Lot 5) with existing homes that do not include Secondary Mass requirement to complete alterations as long as demolition is not triggered. New construction, or construction after purposeful demolition, must be in compliance with all Residential Design Standards. ' Section 2 Item 9 of the Final Approval states: "All Lots are subject to the City's Residential Design Guidelines, as amended." Page 2of 3 APPROVED BY: jka, r ~37 6(fE iv/ (03 /1 b Chris B~*lon Date / / Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A - Review Standards Exhibit B - Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD Final Approval Exhibit C - Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 27, Series of 2001 Exhibit D - Planning and Zoning Minutes: June 26,2001 Page 3of 3 Exhibit A Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD, Residential Design Standard Variance 38 Trainors Landing Secondary Mass: 26.410.040.B.1 All new single family duplex structures shall locate at least ten (10%) percent of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. This standard shall apply to parcels within the Aspen Infill Area pursuant to Section 26.410.010B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an element not more than (10) feet in width and ten (10) in length with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length shall be exempt from Section 26.575.020.A.8. Residential Design Standards, Procedures for Review, Variances: Sec. 26.410.020.D Administrative Variances. The applicant may seek an administrative variance for not more than three (3) of the individual requirements. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the Community Development Director shall find that the variances, if granted, would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff finding: The pattern of design in the Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD includes a near complete lack of the Secondary Mass requirement. This Residential Design Standard (RDS) requirement should have been included on the design for all homes within the PUD. Oversight from Community Development, most likely during building permit review, led to this unintentional neighborhood pattern. Staff finds that given this history, existing homes without a secondary mass should be able to retain this style of design. Secondary Mass (and all other RDS requirements) shall be satisfied on newly constructed homes or replacement homes if purposeful demolition is triggered. Staff finds this criterion met. b. Be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site-specijic constraints. Staff finding: Similar to the response of Criterion A, allowing this variance instills a degree of fairness within the PUD. Because the lack of Secondary Mass was not caught during the Zoning Review, these homes shall be allowed to make alterations to the homes without providing Secondary Mass (prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy). If a new home is constructed or purposeful demolition occurs, all RDS requirement shall be satisfied. Staff finds this to be the most fair and reasonable action to take. Staff finds this criterion met. FAM- 1 611- 1~> ORDINANCE N0. 11 (SERIES OF 1999) ANORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, REZONING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS APPROVAL, AND PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WAIVER FOR THE BARBEE PROPERTY, LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 11, AND LOTS 1-9 OF BLOCK 5, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PLUS ADDITIONAL METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY AS REPRESENTED, PARCEL NO. 2735-131-00-100 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Mary Barbee, John Barbee. Hallie Rugheimer, and Aspen-Pitkin Employee Housing Inc., applicant, for a planned unit development, subdivision, rezoning, growth management exemption for affordable housing, vested property rights approval, and park development fee waiver approval on an approximately 17.67 acre parcel of land, described as Lot 1 and 2 of Block 11, and Lots 1 -9 of Block 5, City and Townsite of Aspen plus additional metes and bounds within City of Aspen and Pitkin County as represented, for the development often new residential units consistent with the Affordable Housing - Planned Unit Development (AH1-PUD) Zone District; 2Uld, WHEREAS, the application was referred to the relevant agencies and the Housing Office, Fire Marshall, Environmental Health Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering Department, Parks Department, and Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 16, 1999. the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a 4-0 vote, the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development, subdivision. and rezoning to AH1/PUD, R-15/PUD and Conservation for the Barbee property, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended by the Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 16, 1999, the Growth Management Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, the City Council approve the Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing and the method of providing that housing for the Barbee property, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission, the Growth Management Commission, the Community Development Director, and the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, Ordinance No. _, Series 1999 111111111111 lilli 11111111111111111111111111111 lill illl Page 1 433968 08/02/1999 10:01A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 1 of 9 R 45.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section I: Pursuant to Sections 26.52, and 26.845 and subject to those conditions of approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council hereby grants approval ofthe Planned Unit Development, subdivision, rezoning, growth management exemption for affordable housing, and the method in which the housing will be provided for the Barbee Property, as described. Section 2: Conditions ofApproval. 1. The Land Use action is subject to annexation ofthe property into the City of Aspen. Failure to complete annexation within 180 days of this approval shall render this land use action void, unless the timeframe is extended by City Council. 2. Following annexation, but within 180 days after final land use approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Final PUD/Subdivision development plan. This plan shall include all necessary plat requirements of the City Engineer including site plans, grading plans, utility plans, any physical improvements rÂ·equired to mitigate for additional air quality impacts as determined by the City Environmental Health Department, all utility easements, architectural plans and eIevations, and a landscape plan. 3. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a PUD/Subdivision Improvements Agreement binding the property, the Barbee Subdivision, to this development approval. The Agreement shall describe all subdivision and PUD improvements. requirements, restrictions, and maintenance, and shall provide financial assurance to the City for said improvements and the success of the site landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The agreement shall be reviewed concurrently with the final plat and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. The PUD/SIA will be modified to ensure that trail access and temporary construction access will be allowed as necessary. 4. That the following description of each lot's development provisions be included in the final ordinance. Ordinance No. _, Series 1999 111'111111111111'l lili Ill'111 lili 111111111 lilli 1111 lili Page 2 433968 08/02/1999 10:01A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 2 of 9 R 45.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Requirements Common to Entire Development f Lot Dimensions: As represented on Final Plat. Minimum distance between buildings: 10 Feet. Maximum height: 25 Feet. Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape materials on natural grade, utilities, approved access ways, and approved driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the setbacks. Minimum percent open space: No requirement. Lot 1 (existing Free-Market) Zone District: R-15/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 4,500 s.f. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet. Minimum rear yard: Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat. Minimum side yards: North and East sides 10 feet each. Lot 2 (Free-Market) Zone District: AH1/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 4,500 s.f. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet. r~ Minimum rear yard: 60 feet, Minimum side yards: 10 feet. Lot 3 (Free-Market) Zone District: AH1 /PUD Allowable Floor Area: 4,500 s.f Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet. Minimum rear yard: 50 feet. Minimum side yards: 10 feet. Lot 4 (Free-Market) Zone District: AHI/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 4,500 s.f. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet Minimum rear yard: 50 feet. Minimum side yards: 10 feet. Lot 5 (resident occupied) Zone District: AH1/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 2,575 s.Â£ as measured pursuant to City Zoning. Maximum Gross Floor Area: Pursuant to APCHA Guidelines for RO Units. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet. Minimum rear yard: Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat. Minimum side yards: North 10 feet; South 15 feet. Ordinance No. - Series 1999 1111111 lilli 111111 lili mil 1111111111111 lilli 1111 lili Page 3 433968 08/02/1999 10:019 ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 3 of 9 R 45.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Lot 6 (resident occupiedl Zone District: AH1/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 2,575 s.f. as measured pursuant to City Zoning. Maximum Gross Floor Area: Pursuant to APCHA Guidelines for RO Units. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet. Minimum rear yard: Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat. Minimum side yards: 10 feet. Lot 7 (resident occupied) Zone District: AH1/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 2,575 s.f. as measured pursuant to City Zoning Maximum Gross Floor Area Pursuant to APCHA Guidelines for RO Units. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 10 feet. Minimum rear yard: Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat. Minimum side yards: North 10 feet; South varies; refer to building envelope. Lot 8 (categorÂ¥ unit) Zone District: AHI/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 1,400 s.f. plus a 500 s.Â£ basement. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 35 feet from southern-most lot line. Minimum rear yard: 10 feet. Minimum side yards: east 0 feet; west 9 feet. Lot 9 (category unit) Zone District: AH!/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 1,400 s.Â£ plus a 500 s.f. basement. ~ Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 27 feet. Minimum rear yard: 10 feet. Minimum side yards: east 7 feet; 0 feet. Lot 10 (cateeorÂ¥ unit) Zone District: AH 1/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 1,400 s. f. plus a 500 s.Â£ basement. Setbacks: Minjmum front yard: 14 feet. Minimum rear yard: 10 feet. Minimum side yards: east 0 feet; west 7 feet. Lot 11 (categorÂ¥ unit) Zone District: AHI/PUD Allowable Floor Area: 1,400 s.f plus a 500 s.Â£ basement. Setbacks: Minimum front yard: 6 feet. Minimum rear yard: 10 feet. Minimum side yards: east 14 feet; west 0 feet. Ordinance No. _, Series 1999 1111111111111111'l lili 1111111 lili 11111111111111 lili lili Page 4 433968 08/02/1999 10:01A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 4 of 9 R 45.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Lot 12 (shared access parcel) Zone District: AH1 /PUD Allowed Uses 10 carpor't parking spaces, trash, snow storage, uses accessory to use of residential lots. Residential use shall require a substantial PUD amendment. Allowable Floor Area: 10 covered carports in two structures as represented on final plat. Setbacks: As represented on final plat. Trash access area: Minimum 10 feet wide, unobstructed. Conservation Parcel Zone District: Conservation Allowed Development and Uses: Uses allowed in the Conservation Zone District and allowed pursuant to the Deed of Conservation Easement. Uses and development necessary for community health and safety reasons may occur on thjs parcel. 5. The City shall accept title to the "conservation parcel" only after the City Attorney has reviewed all aspects ofthe Bargain and Sale Deed, the Deed of Conservation Easement, and is satisfied that no inordinate liability issues exist with respect to prior mining activities on the parcel. To satisfy this concern, the City may require areas of mining activity to be mitigated, or otherwise properly treated, or a legal instrument indemnifying the City prior to conveyance. In the event that title cannot be conveyed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, then a trail easement will be conveyed and allowed iii the Conservation Area. 6. Replacement after demolition of the existing single-family residence on Lot # 1 shall require a GMQS Exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.050, as amended. 7. The Home Owners' Association, or similar entity responsible for Lot #12, the common access way, shall install a stop sign at the exit of the access way at such time determined necessary for public safety by the City Engineer. 8. Access to Lots 3 and 4 shall be via the shared access easement as described on the final plat. The City Engineer shall issue only one curb cut permit between these two lots. 9. Al] Lots are subject to the City's Residential Design Standards, as amended. Lot #1 shall be subject to the provisions of the Landscape Guidelines, as proposed in Exhibit B of the draft SIA upon redevelopment of the Lot. All other aspects of the City's Residential Design Standard, as amended, wili apply. 10. For purposes of calculating the fee-in-lieu of school land dedication, the building permit application for each lot shall include an appraisal of the lot's fair market value. The City shall retain the right to concur with the fair market value represented by the owner or obtain a third party appraisal performed by an agreed upon real estate appraiser at the sole cost of the lot owner. 11. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for an individual lot, the School Land Dedication Fee shall be paid in fulI pursuant to the regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 12. Prior to recordation of the final plat, an air quality mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Department for approval. Physical improvements to the site required for mitigation shall be delineated on the final plat. Ordinance No, __J Series 1999 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Page 5 433968 08/02/1999 10:010 ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 5 of 9 R 45.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 13. A Building Permit application for any and all lots shall include a fugitive dust mitigation plan for review and approval by the City Environmental Health Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for each Iot, the applicant shall gain the necessary permits from the appropriate department for any fireplaces or wood burning devices. 15. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No Sunday construction activity will be permitted. Exceeding the City Noise Ordinance may result in a stop work order. 16. The applicant shall provide a street light near the vehicular entrance to the development. The standard for this light shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Ali exterior lighting, including street lights, shall be downcast; sharp cut-off, and not used to accentuate landscape or architectural features of the development. No exterior up-lighting is permitted. No exterior floodlights are permitted. 17. The Community Development Dept. shall assign street addresses as follows: Lots 2-4 shall receive numbers with a Garmisch Street address; Lots 5-11 shall receive numbers with a Dean Street address. 18, The applicant is strongly encouraged to protect the existing shed north of the existing parking pad (approximately Lot 4 of Block 5), The structure could be preserved permanently on-site as a cultural landscape feature, preserved temporarily on-site until development and moved to a receiving site, or the facades could be incorporated into the S. Garmisch Street side ofthe cariort structure. Ifpreserved for storage use. its FAR shall be exempt. 19. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the duplex units, six (6) street trees shall be planted along the S. Garmisch Street R.O.W or Midland Trail in locations approved by the City Forester considering the storage of plowed snow. These trees shall be three- inches or greater in caliper if deciduous or at least six feet in height if coniferous. 20. Prior to applying for a Building Permit for the Affordable Housing units, the applicant will be required to gain approval for a line extension and a collection system agreement from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. For tbe duplex units, a shared service agreement may be required. There exists a possibility that gravity service from Lots 5-7 will require a pump system; if so, its design must be approved by ACSD and the City Engineer. 21. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any tot, adequate silt fencing shall be erected to ensure that no sediment-loaded drainage will be leaving the property during construction. This fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the respective lot. 22. Prior to applying for a Building Permit for any lot, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment forÂ·mula. This agreement can be recorded with the plat and SIA documents. 23. Building Permit applications for any and all lots shall include payment of a $50.00 per project fee in lieu of digital submission requirements. 24. Any work within public rights-of-way shall gain approval from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department. Ordinance No. --~ Series 1999 1111111 lilli 1111111111111111* lili 111111111 lilli lili lili Page 6 433968 08/02/1999 10:01A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 6 of 9 R 45.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 25. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 26, That the final "mix" of categories shall be as follows, and conditioned as follows: a) The project shall consist often (10) new residential units. Three (3) shall be free-market units of no more than three (3) bedrooms each. Three (3) shall be RO Lots (at a price not to exceed $130,000), each for the purpose of a single-family residence of no less than three (3) bedrooms. Four (4) shall be Category 4 three- bedroom units constructed and conveyed pursuant to APCHA Guidelines. The mix is summarized in the table below. b) At or near completion of the Category duplex units, the applicant shall meet with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to review the costs of the project and determine whether there will be an opportunity for the Housing Authority to "buy- down" the Category designations of the Category Units and the RO Lots or Units to a lower Category prior to conveyance. c) Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit on the Free-Market and RO units, the four Category units must have received their Certificate of Occupancy (CO's) and the RO lots will be conveyed to a qualified buyer. Summary Table Units ak Bedrooms h Total Free-Market Units: 3 30% 9 30% Total RO Units: 3 30% 9 30% Total Category- Units: 4 40% 12 40% Total: 10 100% 30 100% Total Free-Market Bedrooms = 30% Total RO/Category units = 70% Total Categor'y units = 40% Total RO units = 30% 27. That the language of these conditions as finally approved by the appropriate authority be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set of plans and all other sets made for the purpose of construction. 28. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of all P&Z, GMC, and City Council resolutions and ordinances applicable to this project. 'The contractor must submit a letter as part of the building permit application indicating that conditions of approval are known and understood. 29. That a Parking Management Plan be submitted for staffs review and approval prior to the Building permit application which will address the phasing, staging, and construction parking on the site. 30. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Growth Management Commission, 'rh and the City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having the authority to do so. Ordinance No. _, Series 1999 l im 11111 mi 11111111111 lili 111111111 lilli lili lili Page 7 433968 08/02/1999 10:01A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 7 of 9 R 45.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO I J Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code and C.R.S. 24-68-104(2), CityÂ· Council does hereby grant the applicant Vested Property Rights status for the site specific development plan for the Barbee application as approved by this Ordinance, for a period of three (3) years from the date said Ordinance is signed with the following conditions: 1. The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Municipal Code shall also result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to ~ run until the date of publication provided for in Section 26.52,080(D) 3. Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. 4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, F - regulations or ordinances of the CityÂ· provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including: but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and aI] such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 4: This Ordinance does hereby waive the park development fee, finding that the conveyance of the Conservation Parcel as described in the site specific development plan adequately addresses the need for open space. Section 5: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase: or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Ordinance No. _, Series 1999 Page 8 111111111111111111 lili 11111111111111111111 lilli lili lili 433968 08/02/1999 10:019 ORDINANC DAVIS SILVA 8 of 9 R 45.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption ofthis ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 8: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 12th day of April, 1999 at 5.00 PM in the City Council Chanibers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PIJBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of March, 1999. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Cjllt ent,dE 4.44 541)~ eityltforney Johnhennett, Mayor ~ .fr....N 4 4 30.44 jÂ·Â·4# .- .~~ 4 /,9. 8 ' Attest: , iÂ·f.:p ok i. i i- 4 1 06'Ft*17Â£ Â£ 2 .-4~ILD 1--44 .: k_* hU _ 1 1'4$40'Kathryn f. 061,0(ty Clerk - 4-- - 5219515' FINALLY, adopted, passed and approvp~ Atâ‚¬12**Â®y of April, 1999. ' / JW: ; p H,r ~7 Approved as to form: & 2 ~:1 1 Approve~ as 6 content: 1 4 ./ ...12' C j :0 F ~255*mdR ' ; 44,7-7~36 Â· afÂ¥ hÂ¢-3 i -<5~ CifFXGorndy Jo* Bennett, Mayor Atte.t:, 4Â£: fiÂ·*C Kathr,S.~Â¢6, Cify Clerk . 2 1 -4 -1194 ~~ Series 1999 l im 1.1111111 lili '111111111111111111111111111' lili 3 +Page 9 ,.r/ 433968 08/02/1999 10:01A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 9 of 9 R 45.00 0 0.00 N 0,00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Ex#,siÂ·r C RESOLUTION N0. 27, SERIES OF 2001 rh A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST OF THE BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION / PUD FOR 1) AN INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA (FAR) BY 360 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT 7,2) AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON LOT 7, AND 4) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BUILDING ENVELOPES FOR LOTS 8-11, AND DENYING THE INSUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR 1) THE MODIFIED DESIGN OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON LOTS 8-11 AND 2) A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY MASS REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION / PUD, CITY OF ASPEN. Parcel ID: 2735-131-00-100 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Applicant, Shadow Mountain Investment, LLC, represented by David Miller, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD for the following: 1) Modify approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11; r .1 2) Increase the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the allowance of moving the Paepkce shed to RO Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards; 3) Increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the Paepkce shed; and 4) Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11. The Applicant also requests the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee: 1) A variance from the Secondary Mass requirement ofthe Residential Design Standards for the Resident Occupied Lots 5 and 6; and WHEREAS, upon review o f the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the requested modification of approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, and recommended approval for 1) an increase in floor area (FAR) by 360 square feet for Lot 7,3) an enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7,4) the establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) a variance from secondary mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the -Municipal Code 111111111111111111111111 lili 1111111111111 lilli lili lili - 456619 07/18/2001 12:02P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO .Â· .~ :. i.# .Â· Â· ~ . .:Â·>H ; :Â·c~ Â· as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community j Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee, has reviewed and considered the secondary mass variance request from the residential design standards and has denied the variance request finding that the criteria are not met, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) for 1) an increase in floor area (FAR-) by 360 square feet for Lot 7, and approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) for 2) an enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7, and approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) for 3) the establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11: and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied, by a vote of zero to four (0 - 4) for the proposed redesign for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11 and the Commission denied, by a vote of one to three (1 - 3), the variance request for secondary mass from the residential design standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 26 TH DAY OF JUNE 2001, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) for 1) an increase in floor area (FAR) by 360 square feet for Lot 7, and approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) for 2) an enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7, and approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0) for 3) tile establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and denied, by a vote of zero to four (0 - 4) for the proposed redesign for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11 and the Commission denied, by a vote of one to three (1 - 3), the variance request for secondary mass from the residential design standards with the following conditions: 1. That the Applicant shall record the Plat Amendments to the Barbee Family " ~ Subdivision / PUD Final Plat within one-hundred-and-eighty (180) days of the 1 adoption date of the Resolution established herein. Failure to file these documents i within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a final development ; rh plan. The City Council may. at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant an 1 l im lilli '11111111111 lilli lili 111111111 lilli 1111 lili , 456619 07/18/2001 12:02P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO l, extension of the deadline, provided a written request for extension is received no less F 7 than thirty (30) days prior to the deadline. Reconsideration of the final development plan and PUD agreement by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may be required before its acceptance and recording. 2. The final development plan, which shall consist, as applicable, of final plats, drawings, and agreements as described below shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns5 and shall constitute the development regulations for the property. 3. Development o f the property shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final development plan and P UD agreement; 4. That the Applicant shall amend the PUD Agreement regarding the approved changes and shall have the Agreement recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute the development regulations for the property within one-hundred-and-eighty (180) days of the adoption date of the Resolution established herein. Section 2 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the f h development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not Affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 26, 2001. I j APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING 1 COMMISSION: ~ 0 1111111 lilli 111111111111 lilli lili ll'111111111111'll lili L 456619 07/18/2001 12:02P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO - ) //?Al) 1 1, City ~orney- Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: LAA lfÂ«Â»rL.-0 Jac~e Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 1111111 lilli 111111 lilli lilli ill' 111111111 lili lili lili 456619 07/18/2001 12:02P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO _ 2 -AnÂ·â‚¬ 4 4 EEX I+ I B IT 17 a ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26, 2001 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1 BARBEE PUD AMENDMENT i 501 EAST HYMAN LANDMARK DESIGNATION 4 RUSTIQUE SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR SEATING 4 CHRISTIANA LODGE PUD 9 1 - ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26,2001 - Jasmine Tygre, chairwoman, called the special meeting at 4:55 p.m. to order with Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson and Steven Buettow present. Bob Blaich arrived at 5:25 p.m. and Steven Buettow excused himself at 6:15 p.m. Eric Cohen was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Fred Jarman, Steve Clay, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. The commission commented that the reason this meeting could not begin was because ofthe lack of P&Z board members not yet appointed by City Council. Ron Erickson noted that while waiting for this meeting to begin, the meeting across the hall on House size unfairly accused P&Z ofpushing the ordinance through. Erickson stated that there were 3-4 work sessions on house size. The commissioners were concerned about work sessions being held without P&Z on subjects and issues important to P&Z. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steven Buettow stated that he had a conflict with the Christiania and would step down from that review. Bob Blaich stated that since he came in late he would not vote on the Barbee project. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/19/01): BARBEE PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Barbee PUD Amendment. Fred Jarman stated that this was a continued hearing from June 19, 2001 due to a lack of P&Z quorum. Shadow Mountain, LLC represented by David Miller was the applicant for an insubstantial PUD Amendment with 4 key items plus a variance from the secondary mass. Jarman utilized maps and drawings to illustrate Lots 8, 9, 10 & 11. The applicant requested (Da redesign for the affordable housing, (2)increase floor area (FAR), Â®increase the approved building envelopes, GDestablish building envelopes for Lots 8-11 and Â®DRAC variance. Jarman stated that staff recommended denial on the architectural change but approval for the other changes. The commission asked how the amendments compared to the original plans. David Miller explained that the original plans could not be built because the floors plans did not match the elevations; that was the major reason for the changes. Miller gave the layout of the neighborhood and the massing of this parcel. The building codes were complied with in the new plans along with better livability because of added storage, mechanical and laundry facilities. Miller noted that the topology of the property included trails. These were vertical townhomes with 2 2 z ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26,2001 bedrooms that were sub-grade with 7-foot window wells and 1 bedroom on the upper floor. The proposal was that the window wells would be outside the current building envelope. The commission discussed the design aspects with the height at 2414 feet raising the sub grade bedrooms to become 2 story buildings or keeping the sub-grade bedrooms. The commissioners agreed that the window wells did not exist any longer because they did not want the sub-grade bedrooms. The shed was not historical but HPC suggested it had historical value and should be preserved. The commission agreed on the additional square footage. DRAC variances were requested on Lots 5&6 were from secondary mass; the commission discussed the variations of the secondary mass. Miller stated that there would be minimal excavation into the hillside for the garage. There was discussion of the buildings built farther up the hillside. No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the modified architectural design for tbe affordable housing units on Lots 8-11 of the Barbee PUD Amendment. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, no; Buettow, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-0. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the increased Floor Area (FAR) by 360 square feet for moving the shed to RO Lot 7 of the Barbee PUD Amendment to satisfy the secondary mass and to increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the Paepeke shed. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve point #4. of the Barbee PUD Amendment to establish the building envelopes for Lots 8-11. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; lygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the variances from the Design Review Standards for secondary mass requirements on Lots 5 & 6 of the Barbee PUD Amendment showing that the criteria has been met. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 3-1. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26,2001 - Discussion of the motion included the below grade bedrooms being at grade; the units would be occupied by employees. PUBLIC HEARING: 501 EAST HYMAN LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 501 East Hyman for Landmark designation. Fred Jannan provided the proof of notice. Stan Clauson represented the applicant. Jarman noted that this application also included the arcades at 304 South Galena. Staff recommended approval. Clauson noted that both properties on the entire site were on the national register of historic importance. No public comments. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve P&Z Resolution #28, series 2001 finding the review standards have been met. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC MEETING: RUSTIOUE SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR SEATING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the special review for outdoor seating , for Rustique. David Hoefer noted that there was no notice required. Stephen Clay stated that the property was located at 216 South Monarch, the Katie Reid Building. Clay provided the background of the outdoor seating from 1994 for 4 two-person tables; the restaurant was allowed 4 four-person tables. The request was to expand to 32 outdoor seats with a total of 8 tables. Staff felt that there was no change in the overall seating and recommended approval with the conditions set forth in the resolution. Charles Dale, applicant, stated that there would be no tables on the Monarch side. Dale said there would be planters on the Monarch side. Joyce Ohlson noted that the Fire Marshall had to sign off on the plan to keep the walkways open. Dale said there would be less than 32 seats, more like 26 or 28. No public comments. Bob Blaich stated that this was what was supported by DEPR Ron Erickson stated that he agreed with Bob and also disliked the tables on Monarch Street and urged the use of planters in the area with benches and no tables. 4 - * ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26. 2001 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve P&Z Resolution #29, series 2001 allowing the outdoor dining with no more than 32 seats in the courtyard for the Katie Reid restaurant space without tables on Monarch Street. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes; APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRISTIANA LODGE PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Christiana Lodge PUD and requested notice. Mitch Haas provided the notice. Fred Jarman explained the owners were 501 West Main, LLC and Austin Lawrence Partners LLC. The request was for conditional use, minor PUD and GMQS exemption for lodge preservation, Jarman stated that the site 27,000 square feet, about M city block, located on Main Street with the underlying zone district as office, with the LP Overlay on this property. The applicant proposed to relocate 3 existing structures (2 pan abodes & the Callahan log cabin) to the Main Street frontage and demolish all of the other existing structures on the site. The applicant would rebuild primarily in the same footprints plus 2 additional buildings; they wish to condominiumize all the structures on the site. Jarman utilized drawings o f the neighborhood to illustrate the 9 parking spaces that the applicant currently used off of the alley. There would be a larger 4-plex off the alley, a new 4-plex will replace the old 4-plex, the old duplex will be replaced plus a new triplex will be placed where there was a one story structure. There will be a 1 bedroom and 2 studios employee housing units located on site; there will be a detailed landscape plan. The main lodge would be in the same place. HPC had work sessions and public hearings to get this project to where it now stands. Jarman stated that the conditional use was for affordable housing units, which could be used for the general public if no Christiana employees wanted the units, and the GMQS Lodge Preservation with the 2 reviews that were final at P&Z. Jarman stated that currently there were 29 lodge units including the affordable unit in the 4-plex with a total of 35 bedrooms. The proposal was for 25 free market lodge units and 3 affordable housing units, with a total of 37 bedrooms. This was a combined conceptual and final PUD. The Lodge Preservation required 0.7 parking spaces per bedroom; this project was under-parked by 15.8 spaces. The Engineering and Parking Departments showed concern for the under-parking of 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26, 2001 this project and suggested the applicant lease 1 I spaces on Fourth Street from the city in the public right-of-way. Ron Erickson asked about the setbacks being allowed to continue as non- conforming when being rebuilt. Jannan answered that was correct through the PUD. Erickson asked about the change of category in the employee housing being set at will. Mitch Haas replied that Housing would set the category at one or two but without income or asset restrictions. Roger Haneman asked i f there was a need for the buildings to be placed on the same footprint. Mitch Haas, planner for applicant, introduced David Brown, architect and Greg Hill the managing partner for the ownership group o f the property. Haas noted the long process with HPC brought this project for this place and that was where the footprints came about. Haas stated that there would be an application for Landmark Designation for the pan abodes and cabin at a later date. The swimming pool will be tom out and remodeled to a more up to date facility but placed in the same place with landscaping and screening from Main Street. The triplex was designed carefully to step-up the design to match the older structures mass in the back portion of the property (70-75 feet back from Main Street) with the existing large spruce trees being maintained. Haas provided the same description of the existing and proposed number o f Lodger Preservation Units, Affordable Housing Units and bedrooms as Fred Jarman presented. Has said that there were 9 existing parking spaces along the alley; proposed there will be 10 spaces on the alley on site. Haas stated that there was parking in the Fourth Street right-of-way for some 50 years or so; it appears to a passerby as parking for the Christiana but it isn't, it is public parking. Haas stated that Parking and Engineering Departments wanted the Christiana to lease the spaces at $1.90 per square foot per month, about $40,000.00 a year. Haas stated that they did not agree to this payment and did not intend to put up signs for Christiana parking; those spaces don't count as parking for the lodge today and will not count as parking for the lodge in the future. Haas said that the Lodge Preservation GMQS standards state that it was allowed to maintain a deficit in parking through re-development of the lodge; that was what was being done. Haas stated that the calculations could be done in different ways and he calculated 24.8 spaces required; there was a deficit of 15.8 spaces for the existing. Haas said that the proposed calculation with 3 employee units would be 26.8; the deficit would become 16 spaces. Haas asked to lower the parking requirement rather than lose the employee unit. Haas stated that the lodge mitigated for transportation with the 6 Â« * ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26, 2001 proximity in town, providing bikes and a van shuttle; there would be a property management company hired. Haas stated that this property would be reestablished as a lodge with the re-development; it hasn't been used as a lodge for the last couple of years. Bob Blaich asked what was the increased height of the buildings. David Brown replied that there was an increase of 5 feet primarily due to the addition of the tower and the increased height of the ridge; there was only one building exceeding the height limit. Brown said that HPC agreed that the one story would face the pool with the two-story facing the alley, which would not be domineering. Ron Erickson asked if there was a plan for the floor plans for the basements o f the 4-plexes and triplex. Brown said that there would be basements for mechanical. Haas mentioned that the floor plans would be moved a little bit here and there for handicap accessibility that they were not aware of before. Erickson said that since this was conceptual and final at this time and it was stated that there would be condominiumization of the units, how would each unit remain on the market short term for 6 months a year. Erickson asked how would it be enforced. Haas replied that it was in the code and that there would be a management company David Hoefer responded that it was enforceable in theory; the reality would be a matter of proof. Greg Hill answered that the unit owner would make the decision of when and for how much he wanted to rent the unit for; the unit would be available for a short-term basis. Haas said the condominium association by-laws and covenants would provide the short-term rental. Hill said the intent of the ordinance was for short-term rental, which was the intent of this project. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to extend the meeting to 7:20 p.m. Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 4-0. Fonda Paterson, public, asked if this was going to be a lodge where was the office on site. Hill responded that there was a small office in the min lodge and the historic cabin would be the managers unit. Paterson asked if the dumpsters and service trucks would use the alley; the Boomerang shared the alley. Haas replied that there was a dumpster spot on the site plan. Brown answered that the maid service was located in the basement on site and individual laundry in the basements of each building. Blaich stated that he did not like the idea of loosing the public parking spaces; he said that they were willing to take their chances with parking. Blaich said that the people who stay 6 months would probably bring cars. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION June 26,2001 Erickson stated that the applicant warranted his concern for the bed base with a 6- month rental requirement. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve P&Z Resolution #30, series 2001 approving the Conditional Use and GMQS Exemption from the Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing Units and recommending approval to City Council for the Minor PUD Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Christiana Lodge located at 501 West Main Street with the change in conditions deleting #5. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes; lygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Adjourned 7:20 p.m. . Â»bekm yx-*/AM lackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 1 geell SEMRAU BUIUIING & DESIGN INC. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 9-9-10 To: Drew Alexander City of aspen Community Development From: Tim Semrau Semrau Building & Design RE: Residential Design Variance for 38 Trainors Landing Rd Drew, Please see attached emails and paperwork per our prior negotiations a few months ago. Here are the "breadcrumbs" you asked for. Please let me know if you need anything else. Tim Semrau RECEIVED Str 0 9 2010 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN1 . 204 North Monarch Â· As,len, Colorado 81611 Â· 970-925-6447 Â· Fax 970-925-6437 Â· www.st][lgreen.com , Page 1 of 2 Tim Semrau From: Drew Alexander [Drew.Alexander@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:45 AM TO: tsemrau@sopris.net CC: Chris Bendon; Claude Salter Subject: 38 Trainors Landing Hi Tim - In response to our conversation last week, this email will include a .pdf of the Land Use Application, a Pre-App Summary, a .pdf of Resolution #27, Series of 2001, and the fee schedule for adding an additional bedroom to the property at 38 Trainers Landing. Community Development is requesting a submittal of a Residential Design Standard (RDS) variance application due to the issue of Secondary Mass. Secondary Mass appears to be an inconsistently applied RDS within the Barbee Subdivision/PUD. Since 2001, the tracking and history on the issue has become convoluted and the only record that Staff could find was the Planning and Zoning Resolution #27, Series of 2001 that denied a request to exempt the Secondary Mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6. Clearly, projects within the PUD have been developed without Secondary Mass, and 38 Trainors Landing has a surrounding neighborhood that matches this pattern. These projects have relied on zoning review by Community Development to find any inconsistency with the Land Use Code or any relevant approvals. This scenario has motivated Com Dev to accept a Residential Design Standards variance application to be handled administratively. This review will provide the process "breadcrumb" that will help zoning officers and planners with future reviews involving the PUD. I spoke with Chris earlier today and he wants to make this process as simple and quick as we can make it for you. He's okay with waiving all the review fees for the RDS variance and keeping your permit moving while we deal with the variance. In order to assist you, and keep the project moving, Com Dev will be able to approve the building permit once a Land Use App. has been submitted for the RDS variance or you have agreed to this requirement. This will avoid you having to wait the three to four weeks it normally takes to turn around a case of this nature. A condition on the Zoning approval for the permit will read something like this: - "Applicant can begin addition to existing home but must complete a Land Use Application for a Residential Design Standards variance (secondary mass) prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy." On a side note, we've calculated the applicable zoning fees for this project based upon the addition of one bedroom: - Parks: $0 (requirement waived by original Barbee approvals) - TDM/Air Quality: $498 - School Lands: $4,962.05 (based on the current actual value of the RO lot which is $250,000) Don't hesitate to call with any questions. Cheers, Drew 5/10/2010 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Drew Alexander, 970.429.2739 DATE: 5/10/10 PROJECT: 38 Trainors Landing REPRESENTATIVE: Timothy Semrau, 970.925.6447 OWNER: Jon Tollofson, 970.429.2116 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Residential Design Standard Variance DESCRIPTION: The owner of 38 Trainors Landing has recently submitted a building permit for an expansion to an existing single family residence. After reviewing the permit for compliance with Title 26, the Zoning Officer discovered that the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards was not being satisfied. This issue was discussed with builder, and it was revealed that many homes in the surrounding neighborhood of the Barbee Family PUD/Subdivision have been developed without Secondary Mass. This includes the adjacent property, 48 Trainors Landing. The builder was under the assumption that a 2001 approval waived the requirement for Secondary Mass. Staff researched the approvals from this time period and found Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 27, Series of 2001 that denied an exemption from the Secondary Mass requirement for the PUD. However, since 2001, properties in the subdivision have still received Zoning approval for projects without Secondary Mass. Staff is requesting that the applicant submit a Land Use Application for a Residential Design Standards variance for Secondary Mass. This application will provide additional background information on the subdivision so that the issue is clearer for future reviews. The Zoning Officer will be able to route the permit once the applicant agrees to this condition and the Land Use Application must be completed prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. This variance review would be handled administratively. No public notice is required. Below is a link to the Land Use Code Form for your convenience. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Com munity-DevelopmenUPIanninq-a nd-Zon inq/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410.020.D Residential Design Standard Variances Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Public Hearing: Not required Planning Fees: $735 for Community Development Administrative Review. This includes three (3) hours of staff review time. Additional time over three (3) hours will be billed at $245 per hour This fee has been waived. Total Deposit: $0 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: _liof-s) 1(1 126 C pence Aod <-h o B Applicant: 42 <eN a u Location: --Tro c z.Â·0~ C \,A NO' 909-1 MA? A Zone District: 011)- 90Â¢_ Lot Size: (A'MS ; Ar- Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: A) (A Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: j Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed: '33 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: |9754--Allowablef>Sl V proposed:33 97, S- Principal bldg. height: Existing:2216 Allowable: DO-D Proposed:022'- 6 Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: -2- Required: 2- Proposed: 'L % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed. % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: ~~1 'Required: ~C)< Proposed: ~ | Rear Setback: Existing: '~S-' Required: /5-; Proposed: 2 9 ' CombinedFI-R: Existing: C~-9 Required: 1~ Proposed: ~ Side Setback: Existing: / K Required: '19* ' Proposed: ) -LI Side Setback: Existing: j (~ Required: ~23 Proposed: C 1-0 Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed- Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Ajo Â©q c-j m G- Seri)6,0/9-f 7 N A-51Â¢ Variations requested: 4 1 10(0 24(&3) Ar A,0 Secod)ory M r; sse O Corb J, ruv e =a ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: A A Ue Nanie: da= 1-8 LLe Fso,# Rcs' pen- r e /bf-f (pll /8 4 Location: 38 -Tro, *oit LM/MNAA*/ 6-I- 57 Bc,&7 fER<IxÂ©Boug (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal dtscription where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2 735- /31 Cd 0.357 APPLICANT: Name: FlÂ° F To L ic ts o r, 1 . Address: 38 4 f Z.trT- /U. N mAÂ·re+1 1 A-SfeN i Co 8 6 li Phone #: .1Ffoi eu 93-9-2/1 6 REPRESENTATIVE: / Name: -RM le,\4 roo Address: P O-40 4 4 1 AgflpÂ» Phone #: 72 96 y y) rl TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check allthat apply): GMQS Exemption 1 Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review E Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review U Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ,~K~00~ Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment 01 Other: U Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, ete.) Ekis-j-uNG â‚¬ F @- I A-DOJTTio,j u#\Der C D-AdfucTdro 816(,en Ger/}gr + FAM,4 ROON PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) *2709-Â¥ -1-0 \Notof â‚¬â‚¬ro,~00(7 /40(ce Refulte/Mete)- Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S ~1 Pre-Application Conference Summary U Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement El Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards U 3-D Model for large project All plans thatare larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D modeI. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate ifyou must submit a 3-D model. m El 01 El CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and -4 9.4 /6 Â° (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (trfe e 38 -[728/# Â£ 1 l.FF *1 0 a- i lu (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest o f the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty ofrecovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ / which is for 21 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded Costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN * Visk, APPLICANT Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: 2 0 4 'v /1/0 NOMA A-<Or~ Cr, 9,16 1 1 901 0-6 Â¥Y) 11 6TH P.M. Ii'- :Â¢4 1 ~1*eli~d,ter Â· --r'~-.901.- COURSE .4.7 -,6---:.2-1.2##f~.itÂ·34..9-w.sU/2,4#*~i~WiLVia -- 199:.Gill F'Â· .Nf:y.~11<ff,24'mt.,(0(-3.1.5< 1-6 / h -6 ,Â·.Wl,:':i,2116-J/FY/e n- 9*.C. akls#V.L'*t.%.1 1. (i,44fin' '4 $2 # - 1 2 4, C/-' 1 , 20 2 .1*'42.3T:~4.441.~~r.~3~4~&1.~.4*9Â»ti~.$4 -itÂ·~~~9 %43*re 3 i â€¢ 0=09â‚¬ ' W .Â·45344,4. 24# --14 8 0 j.600 .-- -,a ; nauven t.Â·- . 1... A, - .. -.-. i,#,~,HA.J-\19 {46 1 . I 2 6Â«72-7 \\ : n ..,*-.4, :Â£11; -2-.*-1 '.,9.J- v Â·'~5Â·.0Â°~'.,-~th~~f~f-:.. 4 L Et= 'LI,/%7 \ 11 J h . .7-r- ..6 -''I . - . 8. .ki,..1 Â·-*.>4*21 1 4 9*Aft 4 ~4-z 40.. â€žÂ·al) .1.Â·,1 1 Â· â€¢IL,U ." 44 0 . /1 â€¢Â· ..1-4 LXII 3 :11)~*~~~~~_ ~~~~~~~fti Z3-3- 6,2 / /4. f ~,~44 8, I. I .#Vi, 440*4 0*1<3:3.Zon),Â¢~f,%Â£4- ~,~ . ,BfÂ£&5.. 4**M & V V# hA ... .t. f *.. , '.. ' *4*V,/j??,1\D - 1. ,/4 j =t, ->Â»* 4" t.,.1. * 4.*h .3 I 1,1 b ..1111 420/~3*716 ~),f81;~':.-. ~ IU* \14' tjA â€¢9 '1.Â·'.'71Â· er--1- U i i . 0 1 I .lf' ' ' 2-vig=7Â»-"1 14 , 1 ..i 1 13 i J.. 0 + . 1 i "81,#r L .9 gÂ»... tb 4 ~)1% 1 1 -94./. Wgi --I '. r. 11 1 - Ar Raf<'. A -1 1;<t '~ vA:f.:t#-.1.Lwit<=11:4Â£ i il *' .. i==â€ž J !' '6Â·' f'li TL ~h 64. . =4 -- t . iÂ¢ lk',1;Ft- j_ ' ?62.4 ~ - , 4/44-* Â·, 4, - P,Â¥4 '11: . *ACE, Bk --- ,Â· .t..4.23%.'...E..-TOJ k. 111 1,4 4-4 ./ .4 I. . .....1 1 ..1- -, 8 P;#- P 11 lilli 11 14*, ~ v, 4 feR \1 4 p % 4 2,0\, 921 , -af Â»139 , 4 .1. 1 1 1 1 , 2 '11*Â· 4*1 -1 11 ill . 42Â£Â« irlh'.1 **1.. . Â·~ I A .. -. 4. $ i.i.- |, I ~ 34Â¢Â· *0~4~>9&7933<4-10'- -0- <- 59'it- , 71 + 916=47. . r 'b ...Â£>/ti:...4 hiN .... 26' . al.. pus,4 C,N . .. . =Ir. 44 - ti.. 4- -- 4 ' r... ,-4 ' EÂ¥-1 . . .%. -U.1 - ..,< J. ilf''i Â©4#3-., / 7 - , , *.<Sczz- Â·Â·Â·*lkÂ·~il.. 2 C ,~Â·I j 4*:4.:ez-.- . .. - -I..- 1 ... '1 ./ ,Â· i< I â€¢ 5 6 -~Crrp .frC K 4 . ' 14*239;9ii<%*M#*6*Ajgd!*ah~rs. /915/44*:MY**BaÂ»-.. \24 -'.22& N. ./ . . 6. 1,\ VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 531307) LOT 5, BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION/PUD, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1999 BOOK 51 AT PAGE 86 AND ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 2001 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 22. X <4< f 9 30< Ul 1 Un I LL-1 VVI I I IlINI 1 1 IC INC i,+ ivc 1/4 ur ocu l lul\1 10, l uvvivbMIr-I U bUU I M, KANUI= 85 WES 1 01- IHE 6 1 H P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORA - '|44 1 JiÂ·.Rk .7*1 lift>-3~34'.(4~324-5/Â·Â·,'i' /Â·'." 74-t ' SHEET 1 OF 1 :- . Vt V ' S<:&Â·(t#*72TÂ·; -34*.2..Ir...:J 1..3 GUL- COURSE 24L ff, j.(f;::, ~:~2~0-~~~45-2Â·Â·1Â·-*,5,2 '.-,-::,:~7 ~:3~,,'~3.~~,<#~'.- + /%....IN ' '/ -'~.' '/ t-f'-:. 11Â· I a " Â·Y>Â· '& Z'â€¢ ..tq.. Â·1- fÂ·Â·'--:Liti:.942'. A.nUR:(4!~_..~.'...,eÂ· li';ylâ€¢;t ,- '* 1-/isr--Tfi~l 4/21,9?~.46<%21*n.1-01,0 %is.'~l2;T 5*FOUND NO. 5 REBAR & PLASTIC CAP LS. 28643, NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7 LOT 6 Â·~ ..ira...3Â·2- i. r i =r -%.f.-1 ,,.....7-:.1=24-iliti4. 1.43~t, Â°,1. irhi ~,~. ji, 95, ~ i Â·e.: 5' PRIVATE ACCESS AND UnUTY EASEMENT FOR LOTS 5&6 .49-Sa â‚¬.4 1 1.11 -Â«f#V i''i 'kIII '~Il~i' 'I -~ -~44011,345/--:I?-*:-4,~ ,Â·....~ .1 CURVE TABLE ,.3 ,%300 7 92*1/%1*05'l#ft, -- 111 1 Of Th' q 911 741 11 - 2.%71;3-24*:.Q~4~- -.*.:..'*Ailiti>- - 4,27â‚¬ I ' '' ,~ r. i~ ~4 ,Ir*-j,~.~'-~*bj . 7./ CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA Cl 7.92 10747 3.96' 7.92 S 2149Â·28Â· E 4'13'25' 0/46 J 9 + r 1 . -.v-, : -"~'j'Â·-~Â·.0.~iMp :2~Â·74 : ;fifit~,3 : FOUND ALUMINUM DISK. LS. 27613 , : un ' Â·tilitdi#%~07. 1... ......... V -7.. --i'/ ~ .-0014*~~ ~ - WIt. 11 .1 11- f Ve: U, 41 j '~:~0%,3 :Â·,-:.0~,-Ci)Â©:k 'Â·,-3 Â·Â· Â·2Â·'4'Â· 1 x X Af )Â·1. B.-2&:--1- i..Â·t VICINITY MAP SCALE 1-= 2000 9*.;,0Â·.'7Â·Â·:Â·:~'JIT,>fl,=Â·4Â·Â·2* SET ALUA#NUM ~SK, LS. 28643 1 Nu,4.44 w>4 FOUND MONUUENT AT THE 4 *: ='25./. ..+...~<' ' \ 4 ,..'',/' ' // // INTERSECTRON OF GARM{SCH/DURANT FOUND NO. 5 REBAR & PLASTIC CAP -/ LS 28643 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION - ft, 1% fli=>?4Â» 4.-b.0<:11''f-?:1\ \\ A 3.5- ALUM/NUM CAP SET BELOW ASP~ALT pt ;~t; t-'t--Â·- 229*Â·323*651...agjb.,;*DaMEÂ»k ..... - . ..,Â·*N**2.-1.\) APROIcT se,aa,~RK ar-v~3'LAng~11 (PER WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO 531307) ~ t:.0,[.t~1.9 .2.i*f.f-221&92$4,AtefAW# f*friEG~{jftÂ·.Â·.:A:,54.4.t.}-ti Iip#VWM 4 ~~~, / LOT 5, A N7905'5211* BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION/PUDJ ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED DECEMBER 6. 1999 ir -0.. - 26E64' BOOK 51 AT PAGE 86 AND ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION RECORDED NOVEMBER 21,2001 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 22. 1 9.' .... -/4 ) I. I ..... CONSER 1/4 TION 5*/FIC,/3,~*NDOW Â»E-LLC#L' -- ~ -i..~~.7~'#RATRK / P.AS' CEL . .. 1 Zi.'B:eleak*:SLE#A~' ..\ 1 ..~~ 4%445 - k) * f-*â‚¬- 7 -~ COIERED Â»000 DECK ~ ~- S~ACK - In.kI-Ize..141~b -- -r~Â»r iâ‚¬ -,- '. r.,- . s.oÂ· .9.-~GE-Châ€¢Â·;46*&2~A~f ~ 4 '~ "' LOT 5 4 .4. A A ,il 38 TRAINORS LANDING RD. (V 6,318 SQ. FT. +/- 6 0.145 AC. +/- z 4.D.3..F.,4*r.fÂ·39-~ Â· SINGLE FAMILY NOTES WOOD FRAMED BUILDING . , 111 4 Â· FOUND NQ 5 REBAR & PLAST.C CAP 72. Â·Â· 1 ' 27Â· 6.01.48 1) DATE OF FIELD WORK: OCTOBER, 2009 L S 28643 - 2) DATE OF PREPARATION. SEPTEMBER -OCTOBER. 2009, DECEMBER, 2009 AND JANUARY. 2010. 7'v .. Â·Â·,2:,Â·'Â·9.441<43 PR1VATE ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT ~ ''>92Â·92-2-:.22:-YLS# 365.4 FOR LOTS 5-;2, MATCHED AREA 1 \112 7.9253:40--4 7.0 ......: k 4 .2.4....1-7â‚¬9'42*4Â·.5: 4 . (PLAr BOOK 51- PAGE 86) , 0 -7922 --7 0 1 ~ 1 ..01-,1.41 iw , . ..... .. (Ls 7156) ANDRE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THESUBJECT PROPERTY,A FOUNDREBAR AND CAP (LS 28643) 3) BASIS OF BEARING A BEARING OF N 75Â°09'11- E BETWEEN THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 5, A FOUND ALUMINUL *nip Lft- 1-- ZI-_,/ 1. --- 4- 4) BASIS OF SURVEY THE FINAL PLAT OF BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RECORDED DECEMB 1 9 75Â·n f L,9,17. E 1 11 11, ' \,3\ 1999 AS RECEPTION NO 438303 (PLAT BOOK 51 PAGE 86). THE FIRST AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF BARBEE FAMILY SUBDMSIOA 4 : RECORDED NOVEMBER 21.2001 AS RECEPTION NO. 461107 PLAT BOOK 59 PAGE 22), VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD At - 15' SETBACK # 2 LOT 1 - Â«-.,.,4 FOUND MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON 5) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TffLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP O 0 --377\ 2 EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS. RIGHT&Â·OF-WAY AN[)/OR TTLE OF RECORD SE, UPON THE ITEMS OUTLINED IN NOTE 4 AND THE WARRANTY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 17,2006 AS RECEPTION NO 5313 LOT 4 i r * SET NO. 5 REBAR & PLASDC CAP. LS 28643 TITLE WORK WAS SUPPLIED TO SE FOR USE IN COMPLETION OF THIS SURVEY ROCK RETAÂ»liNG WALL (TYP) _21.2 --- - . Â· 6) ALL REFERENCES TO RECORDED DOCUMENTS AND PLATS INDICATED HEREIN REFER TO THE RECORDS OF THE PITKIN C px 84 97, 1 -41 CLERK AND RECORDER 7) BASIS OF ELEVATION THE 1998 CITY Of ASPEN DREXEL BARREL CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN4 ELEVATION C GRAPHIC SCALE ~~~ FLOOR ELEVATION AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 7923,50 FEET. CONTOUR NTERVAL IS ONE (1) FC 925 7917.14Â· FEET (NAVD 1988) ON THE FOUND STREET MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF GARMISCH AND DURANT THE FA LEGEND ( IN FErr) D CATV PEDESTAL 1 inch = 10 ft m TELEPHONE PEDESTAL S ELECTRIC METER Â® SEWER MANHOLE CV A GAS METER Â© STORM DRAINAGE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING. LLC (SE) FOR JON S TOLLEFSON & JOANN M TOLLEFSON AND TIM SEMRAU 1 FURTHERMORE STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE. OCTOBER 9, 2000, E UTILITY CONNECTIONS ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDIC; AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID P, SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR 1N PLACE EXCEPT AS NOTED I FURTHERMORE STATE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVEW CIVIL CONSULTANTS 40.9.40 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 1. 1 1* EL r"'1 V 'L -4 *f y.~% *4%1 NOTICE ACCORDING TO COLORADOLmr YOU ~uST CO-ENCE .INY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT W THIS SURVEY WITHIN DIFI YEAR5 AFTER YOU f*ST CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 D:SCOVER SUal DEFECT IN NO EVENT W,Y ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT / (970) 704-0311 Mark S. BeckleK/~.4. #28643 2Â°4 TIOS SURdÂ¥ aE COINENCED UORE â„¢4N TEN YEARS FROM nE [1~TE OF CERâ„¢CATIONS},ov~'HEREON sopris@sopriseng.com 29210 01/5/20 .444>L 0*25.1 7922- S 01'04'38" E 69.67' 0 - S-1549.3211 C, Re NIC 7 ~ 7. ~ 5 PRVAU ACCES&. ktib Ul\01. LA,Â£U r 4 --1 1 j ./.Lf,SumEL,Ii zil:, 1- 1 If U OTS 5&6 1 . i - 1/ 4< 1 6, //1 Ly- 7 \\1 / / / -1912 Â·Â·- .. aLÂ®b AioniÂ·Â·ufur 47 THE INTERSEC NON OF G t.RA#,SCH /Dimk.'4 F 1 35 41UAIMIU CAP SET RE:011 ASPLIT -4 -- f 0-64Â· fr--Â·~ 4 / PR~C, BEN(DIA'ARK ELE'Arta-71107 16 k\\ - N'11, 4111 1 1 Ii'1111 / l -1 1 11\\Itt i - / / ...Ot'iNG-NQUSâ‚¬ E th EÂ·'. G GARB 6 f P,/120 / FOUND REBAR & CAP - t S 2/643 ~14111 1.12111- 4 ----1,(~â€¢14{111''" k 4--A \/// 1 19 1 .... - 44 22~ r lri~1-,~13--14~r 6.P -28/, S-SI=7 1 111 1 1 1 -1 j ~ I -- ~ P A.ttv -0.-6.gâ€ž - 0~ ?Fr-7~,~,~1 ~ \ A / : 2 1 4 4/ AN N.=42/0 11 Id,1111/1 4.- --- Â«429, Sphx \\ \ \ 1. 1 41 11 CO 4 j.,111 illo -- -,4<-0 - ---Â« --- ~1~ l_ q.%402.- E-* 1 43.- 5 4 - 0-LE 1 17' 84 0-- 5, --1 C' -7/1 , 3.-,4 & 4 1-- - .i= v K - \ /1 f 1/1 'Â¤' g LL CONSEREADON r.,a,gagre 1 1 Kl bif 2 ----- .4 0 - / W Cfr- E.,17,/G 41' I 4 EN PARCEL , 11+K & r 11â‚¬ 93 1 4 CJ L ~1 4,1~ ID' SE,BACK '~ 3-6 5Â°~cÂ·aeo m A E NK- a 06/ d 4*/1 0 1 aw, 1 4 # 4 1 94 i S C ff ~Te . 1 J ~ 1 ~A,~1{1 f,?12 i (3-AQADe 5 iA,3 1--E>,4.-l pe w i 64,JT,4, i AttteÂ«-eli Mrow LevEL FAC Â£ 1 FOUND REBAR & CAP 7430 -~~~1-\/1/ikti'*9~,Â·(1/-.ArS. 97229Â·tiuy-oÂ·Â· 1 hor'ir S-CALÂ¢ 79 0'= )' O 1- 1 5 2.643 1 r j-iN r.4 \2}n67/4,21-4 1 n E / f /a.VATE ACCES5 & UTILITY EASEMENT 1-4. P' 7 (PLT BOOK 51- PACE 86) 4Flb H T PUTE i.le.JE ~p~Â·-<<--7, "14%{t;L ~ ~'1 ~ FOR LOFS 5-12. Mâ€¢.10IED *RE~ 1<ist ,Â· ~ S ~~Â» X~11~;r~1,~.~.11||1~11./ R.lifJ'tu~I -"f) - fÂ«---~-u~-Â·-~-1 /-----en==2= / i L/0 71., 1:11!1121:Lu:.1.,u.El& ~ 86 6/ - 8 -9 P'.3.8,Â·D \ /13.2 OP*--.f ./ } j '. 9 15 5~042+ , --'...112=22 i N Jl l A 1 k PoÂ·R.Tif LE ~ ROCK RE I A#/Â·4 -- 557 /?08 4' 6 24=. r S yal'j 97'-..1:Â·Â·4fkt ... I U FR?,2- &3Â« 3/f# - -- Dec A .. UPPER Le]VEL PAR ADPED S ,-re PLAe /100 6,0 1,3 /0, I 8 2 275- 4 98. 9 5 g 11-6, 29 14 " 5 -6 44â€¢ O.VotED EXIST-,r-GÂ· Square Footage Calculations FAR remaining per attached A 01 of 1/8/02 1099.5 Proposed added garage (2815) Proposed added upperlevel (640 5) Total proposed addition (922SF) Drawing FAR remaining after addition 1775 6,TE , PLA-IFAR See atiached development order from 12/6/99 Scale Date Revised 3--1.,I Sheet Nurnber AO.1 AL91,8 OO I I 9I 8 opE.10[0 0 'uadsv 'pw SUip[Iiaq S,-IOUmli 8 E 5 01'04'38" E 00uop!60-H uosjOI-[03~ 32'-0 5 142 31'-1" 2, 3' _ 0- > r- 22 3-0 r- 0 5 i, 2 . U TPLT 109'-7- b TPLT 109'-4- FROM NEW SLAB - -1 7 I 4Â¥- i lo 1 in tt-h co n,1 EXISTING FOUNDATION . â€ž1 4 ro i 4 TOP OF EXISTING SLAB . â€ž1 i. DRAIN P 100 -0. 71 - EXISTING WINDOW ,61[I C 1 6 2- EXISTING SLAB --1 NEW SLAB Â© rN Z 13-8. 3 1/2 17'-1 1/2 a: 18'Ke' HIGH k 0 6 .. p OARAGE 800 2 0 1 UP. A h k N 1.- 1 4 3/ COATS/SHELVES Â£ LO ----- 2 b . .F 100'-5 Vl E A Top OF NEW SLAB %1 FkiSTING FOUNDATION 1 r---- -- MUD ROOM 11 I. 11 TOP OF SLAB 1 1 6 11 1 % - 5 TRIT 109'-7' , 2/6 Ll 1 '6/8 , 3 9 g EXISTING MECHANICAL 11 /7 98 4, up | L__j zÂ£j~47---rFEMeâ€¢,2 1 1 501 &/M) To - ZiN 2 RISERS O 7 5 n 1 Id - M \ H 11 \ 11 -al - 1 7- -11 71 17--1 71 Z~- EXISTING BASEMENT / z-- EXISTING MAIN LEVEL - 11 / E E b 6,11 k 11 IL__ L---1.-~ I \\ 1 1 11 -1 1 11 11 It 11 It 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1] 11 1 L I 1 I Mi i 1 1 1 1 Drawing rj.out C 1 1 PL,A Scale rh LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN rn MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ":111 iE':! 111:1:1!lid:iII!Â·111. Date Revised 1 02.9 I! 111 Il[~]111!11[[1 [11011[1[[i~==a[[=~ 8 7-19-,0 01 4 8 Sheet Number A-1 5 1,2* 61.52<1 oouop!so-H uosjollol 9 IL~,9-d V 17~jlt e-i s,joulell- I 1918 opeloloj 'uadsv 'pw Buipue'-{ S,10tneil SE 926 Z6 .L-,601 1151 24'-0 Tollofson Residence 38 Trainoi Landing Rd Jeld Wen premium winaows U= 35 Revised 7-29 10 -- [3*2--Nili----12*2KIE~Bi-12--*i.--TimEifE--iiii--28&188-EHeaderHtj~RfIL-1 LM,!17 -1 iii i--- 1- 'iuÂ«11Â»Â«141*1421Â»44t~Â«4-un 3 -_ML_ TCC 2448 l 24 3/4 1 32 3/4 1 21 1 4 lite I cl--7 8 -3 -6' ib' 1_ - - M4 -CFBU-1-60)(66 1421/2 ~ Â® d___123--134%3- 9~7--6~ ~-- 1 M5 TR;*OM- 48 1 21-9--1 - L=ME-~ j---4 -~22~3%*-23 -2---1=Ip--- --- - - Total lazin - T86.67 TRANSOM 48 1 241/2 yaj?95 -1 2 f 5'-1 15'-0 7/8" 1'-4 3/8- .- 0. LO ....'40 1 3'-3/4 * 5*-3/4~ ---- F--1 CN < 0 TV TPLT 7'-8-1/2- DRWR DRWR urD rl 7 60 ABV PLY FLOOR 24 24 7-7 4*) 1 LL ----- I. -4 WALL TO. 7-7 1 WINDOW SEAT WITH DRAWERS ~ RUSTED MIL ROOF ~ 3 ~ i f//// - - BELOW -I... 4 -1 1 --1 - CE 00 1 2 tt Ir- / k NFVJ 21 - 1 : r/lf.4 P O," I 2--r - . el \ - 8/0/ 8'-0 7-1/2 ./'- - !Â· -_ ..f'ElliW#f w RIDGE VENT rn 281 1 -2- 1 sâ€¢-44 â„¢ DECK 4'-V *9Â·.9-1/2. 1\ 10 DECK 53 mt,LE; â€ž, 24 r~-1 *MOR a'-1/2~ OW, _ --29- 1 M.Ir-~i/2 041 + - * TOP Of PLY 70424-3/4 110-9-3/4' WD PAN.-I RE[ 1 B HOR ie'-8 -1 30 -- - 3 ~Â¥ 2/4 ~-7-7- ~ -9 5'-6 1/2 30-6' , led -Â»11 5/8 ~24 6 --1 . -1- , 14/3 --7--- 1 1 ./8 5'-10 TV I 36 -1/27 * 4-JAI H i TICC 36Â¥ | .-.r-1 7.-1- 6 ~{_ 1 TPLY 110'-9-3/4- $&23 TPLT 115-1-1/4= 1 - 1 1 Wte- 21.----- -- - ----- -- - - TPLT lie'-1-1/2 , TV. fPLT 118'-6-1/4 -2-1 -- - ---------Ty/1 ff' r 3'-0 ., .L ~f ' 1 6,/ove Me .7,0 8.12 ~ Oc'2 / NEW - 1091 1 1 1 2/ EXISTING 1 1 1 16 1 9.12 s,ow>ect & e 11 111 I ' 1 up lili' 11 1 1 1 1 lili !1 11 1 lili 11 111 1 11 12------- ~ ~~ ' L L L.____~ 1 11 4-- -1---- -01=1 /1 I Ik I .| 94-3/4~*48-3/ -------- 1 DN 1 LLC_--- 1 11 8 12-4 \. 11 11 , 1 - 11 1 1 +8 12 11 11 1 r-----/ 1 1 11 011 11 11 1 1 I----_J 11 .11 1 ;1 6: L-----7 --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 Drawing FU-'PLAN . 1 Scale rn UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /24\ ROOF PLAN lA "=- 1 ' I,i lilli -1[1]iUimlfiNE[&2~ ~ !-ffETFU,ITTT-EFri Date Revised \493/ :i!Â·I: _Il,AM.'!1;I'll W'I,]11 481/ ~!11/57!,ilt[1!Ifil: 01 4 7--54 <1 u Q 0 1 4 8 - Sheet Number A-2 ~ 1463514 4 614 00uop{Sopt uosionol L'Â»91Â·9 03'ue S , hi Buipuel s,Jou!edl 89 2Â£179- Z xe 2449-916 026 1'"*4 1/4. I [9[8 opelo[03 'tiodsv 'Py Bu!pUE'~ 6,1OUIE.Ii 8Â£ ~ . 1 th a - 0 O 0 0 /1 01332 11 -- 51 R lili + 1 . 1- .-i-+-] M ./ ri M j~il 1---9 EE[3 + 1 6--m d - Ink C. --1 86 8= * 52 . 6 3;W 9 M = .9 <1-0 < -0 10'-9 3/4' 7 | 7-8 1/2- 9'- 1/40 1 Z N / 2-= *./. #6 0 2-3.=.~33Etco \ men=Â«&Â¥27gÂ»2*- EE. ...SELL_=Eb=-17-=--7--=-15"2â‚¬ #t 7 A 22% A L.91-== - ~<2l - =- I--- -.-. - =EIA 323 : 0#Â·lartil Â· 225~ Arhiia 2 -fET--------~* * --- ---- -- -- N=LA--65Â£6-r.-fÂ£A-rq - -- yea=9111 -- - - - -anÂ©not-- be - I -- .- - - -- - - - - I - -- -St-"aÂ·.a.--E i Â¢=7=---------------9= - 0 3 / Â£ -06 h m - r~Y, --B 18 oR 2,#!St / -- I -- 1. - = - - -- - -- - -â‚¬1 0â‚¬â‚¬7Â«7= - - =- - -L= - -- -- -- - i. - - pM g 9'-7~ am G Z 0 rn 0 I 1 90 11 2 0 .12 co h 2 -foliRIEFResidence Se.pn,ra,U huit<ip,1 4 1325*1Â· | 38 Trainor's Landing Rd, Aspen, Colorado 81611 _~ 68 Trainor's Landing Road, Aspen, CO 81611 970 925-6447 Fax 925-6437 EXISTING HOUSE EL. = 100'-1 V..F NOI.LVAEIGI 1SJIAA N0ILLVA313[ H.LROS z NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVAT:)N 3008 ,!A]N - 40 -- HORIZONTA[ SO)INC NEW ENTRY ROOF EL.= 109' ' T NE~ ~01 EL. = 110-9-3 CANIREVER -- RUSTED MR ROOf EL = 118'-6-1/4 EL. = 127-9-5/8' V. F I.O. RIDGE. Jequir N leells 00'C 10*4440*9 T.0, SLAB e--------p~ EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING WINDOWS BEYOND