Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.201911191 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2019 4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A.Minutes 10/1/2019 minutes.apz20191001.pdf V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.A.1140 Black Birch Drive, Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope Determination Approval 1140 Black Birch memo_11-19-19.pdf PZ Resolution #____, Series 2019_1140 Black Birch Dr.pdf Exhibit A_1140 Black Birch Dr. - Special Review -Criteria.pdf Exhibit B-1140 Black Birch Drive_Complete Land Use Application.pdf VII.OTHER BUSINESS VII.A.Dockless Mobility Outreach Information & Discussion Dockless Mobility Memo_Planning & Zoning Commission_November 19, 2019.pdf VIII.BOARD REPORTS IX.ADJOURN Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1 2 1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS: Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues. Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting. Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items. The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is not designated as a public hearing. All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public. Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting. 2 3 Revised July 8th, 2019 3 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2019 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver, Jimmy Marcus, Don Love, Ryan Walterscheid Absent: Scott Marcoux, Rally Dupps, Brittanie Rockhill Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager James True, City Attorney Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Kraemer thanked the P&Z commissioners who attended the workshop at the APA Colorado conference. He stated that he’s open to any comments and feedback. Mr. McKnight stated that he found some of the session to be pretty informative. It was a quick session that brought together people from a lot of different cities with very different problems. He felt that the discussion they had in their breakout group was not long enough. Overall, it was still beneficial. Ms. Carver stated that it would have been more useful if they were in a group of just smaller cities or ski resort communities. Mr. Kraemer stated that the City is starting a process to develop new cellular wireless guidelines and regulations. There will be a consultant in town next week who is going to meet with staff. He introduced Mr. Anderson who was present to brief the Commission on the project. Mr. Anderson introduced himself as planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that there are some changing FCC rules. Currently, all facilities in town are on private property. One of the recent changes is the degree of regulation that local communities can put on wireless facilities and the need to allow these facilities to be located in public right of way. According to new FCC regulations, there are some things that the City will have control over but not others. The City is working with a consultant from Colorado Springs, HR Green, an engineering firm who has done several of these plans for other communities in Colorado. The purpose of this document will be to put together some agreed-upon standards for what the City is expecting when these facilities get located in the right of way. There are some things that the community will have the ability to respond to. The City hopes to have a draft document by mid-November, which will then come to P&Z for review and recommendation to Council. Mr. Marcus joined in the meeting at 4:35 PM. Mr. Love asked how the City will deal with multiple carriers. Mr. Anderson stated that carriers used to be incentivized to co-locate when they were restricted to private property. Now that they’re allowed to be located in the right of way, that incentive goes away. The City is contemplating neutral hosting where they would negotiate with a third party, they put up the towers, and then they go after the carriers to try to co locate on their facilities. 4 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Carver stated pointed out the use of a wrong pronoun. Ms. McGovern pointed out an incomplete sentence at the bottom of page 5. Mr. Love voted to approve the minutes from August 6th, 2019 with those changes. Mr. Marcus seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid recused himself from the continuation of the first hearing. PUBLIC HEARING 1130 Black Birch Drive, Special Review for Top of Slope Determination Mr. Kraemer stated that the requirements for providing public noticing for this hearing were not met, so this hearing will need to be continued. He requested that P&Z continue this hearing to November 19th. Ms. Carver motioned to continue the hearing. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 1001 Ute Subdivision/PUD: Major Amendment to a Planned Development, 8040 Greenline Review & Major Subdivision to memorialize existing improvements on this property. Mr. Rayes introduced himself as a planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that this request is a little different from what P&Z normally reviews because these improvements are already existing on site. The goal is to determine if these improvements do not comply with City standards or previous approvals and determine what should be done to fix them onsite. This is a two step process. It will be reviewed by Planning and Zoning and then the recommendations from the commissioners at this hearing will be sent on when this project is reviewed by City Council. Mr. Rayes stated that 1001 Ute is a planned development located on Ute Avenue just across the street from The Gant. It was approved in the 2006, 2007 timeframe and received final PD approval, growth management approval, an RDS variation, and 8040 Greenline approval during those original approvals. During that time, this site was undeveloped and located on an old mining claim. The property owner was interested in developing the site. As part of the approval, it was agreed upon that the soil onsite would stay because there are mine tailings in the soil and the City didn't want those to be moved. He showed a rendering of the planned development on a slide and pointed out the different lots. Common Area Lot A is open space. The first purpose of this was to have a place for all the dirt that was supposed to be remain onsite. The second was to comply with the Engineering standards for drainage. This is located at the base of Aspen Mountain. It's very steep so Engineering had some specific and robust standards regarding the drainage. 5 Mr. Rayes stated that Lot One and Lot Two are the locations of the free market houses. As of today, the house on Lot Two has received a certificate of occupancy and the house on Lot One is still being developed and has not yet received a certificate of occupancy. Lot 3 is the affordable housing unit. As part of the original approvals, it was agreed that the PD would provide onsite affordable housing. It has is also not yet received a certificate of occupancy is still being developed. Mr. Rayes stated that Common Area Lot B is the location of three tennis courts. Prior to the development of the site, they existed about 30 feet to the east of their current location. During the approval process, they were allowed to maintain an existing lease that they had with The Gant Hotel for guests to use these tennis courts. That is a 100 year lease, set to expire in 2083. Since the tennis courts were intended to be used for commercial purposes, they were required to be ADA accessible as part of the approvals. Common Area Lot C is the driveway, intended to connect all these other lots. Common Area Lot D was given to the City as a way to meet some of the housing mitigation requirements. It was a big benefit to the City at the time because it is a major connection trail. Mr. Rayes stated that a few months ago, the City received a complaint by the neighbor regarding the noise of some air conditioning units that were put on Common Area Lot A. The letter is included in Exhibit D of the packet. When staff went on a site visit, they noticed several other questionable improvements on site, some of which ended up not needing additional staff review. The improvements staff will address are those that need additional review. My Rayes stated common area Lot A contains the air conditioning units that were complained about by the neighbor. These units were never approved according to the City’s records. And they're located on the open space, which was intended to be used as an open space. Also on common area Lot A is a stairwell that's inconsistent with the original approvals. He showed a picture on the slide that showed where the stairwell of the house on Lot 2 encroaches into common area Lot A. Mr. Rayes stated that there are also inconsistencies with approvals on Lot One and Lot Two, which are both free market dwellings. The inconsistency for these related to the elevation at which these houses were built. He showed on a diagram on a slide that both houses were to be built at the same exact elevation. He showed the subdivision agreement. In that agreement, the first floor elevation was approved of 8,007 feet. There was a subdivision agreement clause that said the dimension requirements provided here in are consistent with the final representations reviewed and approved by City Council on August 14, 2006, showing that it was consistent with the approvals. Mr. Rayes showed an improvement survey on the slide, stating that it showed what was actually constructed. It showed that the first floor elevation is at 8,012, five feet higher than what was originally approved. That applies to both Lot One and Lot Two, two separate houses both built at the same elevation. Mr. Rayes stated that the next thing staff identified is a stairwell that’s to the benefit of the house on Lot 2. He showed on the rendering on the side where the stairwell encroaches into Common Area Lot A, which was not in the original approvals for this Planned Development. Lot 1 and Lot 2 are both free market dwellings. For these, the inconsistency found is related to the elevation at which these houses were built. 6 Mr. Rayes addressed the inconsistencies on Common Area Lot B, the location of the tennis courts. He showed a rendering of the area on the slide, pointing out the pathway from Ute Avenue to the tennis courts. According to the original approvals, there should be a walkway in compliance with ADA access requirements from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis courts on Lot B. During the site visit, staff found that this walkway did not meet ADA accessibility requirements. Mr. Rayes stated that Common Area Lot B and Lot 3 both have an improvement that appears to be questionable, which is the front wall along each of these lots. He showed on a rendering on the slide where the front wall was located and a picture of the wall. He stated that it’s being used as a retaining wall and it’s located above grade from what was approved. It varies anywhere between 3.7 to 6.1 feet in height, where you're measuring. The site plan that was presented at Council represented a three-foot stone wall to define the property with an opening for the driveway and the path to the tennis courts. He showed the orientation of the wall on a rendering on the slide and the subdivision agreement and the exhibit to the subdivision agreement and stated that what was approved is different than what was constructed. He showed a comparison with a rendering of what was approved by Council and stated that what was built spans all the way across Lot 3, which is where that affordable housing unit is. The initial representations made sure that wall was not spanning the entire front line. Mr. Rayes addressed Lot 3, the affordable housing unit. He showed the improvement survey on the slide, showing what was actually built. He showed that the boulder retaining walls are encroaching into Common Area Lot C, into the driveway. He showed on the map where the window well and the retaining wall are also encroaching into Common Area Lot C. He stated that the retaining wall benefits Lot 3 because it's retaining the yard associated with the affordable housing unit. The retaining wall is 5.1 feet in height. Mr. Rayes addressed the review criteria. He stated that, for a major PD, all dimensions including density, mass, and height shall be established during the project review and development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this title. In meeting the standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff finds that these criteria are not met. Mr. Rayes stated that, during the original project review with P&Z and City Council, there was a lot of concern regarding the mass and bulk of each of the free market houses. The applicants came to an agreement that these houses would sit in a way that they would be seen as a one-story from the street. Meeting minutes stating that are included in Exhibit A of the packet. They were also supposed to be consistent with the neighborhood context and not be any higher than some of the surrounding houses in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Rayes stated that the houses also received additional floor area. Staff recommended 3,900 square feet of floor area to be allocated to each house. Each house was ultimately awarded just over 5,000 square feet with the understanding that these houses would be built at 8,007 feet elevation. 7 Mr. Rayes stated that the next criterion is related to design standards. “The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area.” In meeting this standard, the following criteria should be used: design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in the City’s Residential Design Standards, Commercial Design Standards, and historic preservation. Staff finds that this criterion is not met as the elevations of the houses are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Rayes stated that the criterion related to public infrastructure and facilities is: proposed planned development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project improvements at the sole cost of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines to be defined as part of the detailed review and documented within development agreement. He referred this case to the Engineering Department and they reviewed the draft drainage plan that was associated with this project, which they determined meets the Engineering Standards. However, Engineering reviews the project according to their standards, they don't refer to the standards related to planning and zoning. From an Engineering perspective, the drainage that was required met what they needed, even if it wasn't consistent with the original approvals. Engineering did not have a comment related to the ADA accessibility, which was a requirement. ADA accessibility has not been met on site. At 8040 Greenline review, building height and bulk should be minimized and the structure should be designed to blend in with the open character of the mountain. Staff finds this criterion not met. The house does not blend in with the open character of the mountain given that it's five feet higher than it was represented. Mr. Rayes stated that the criterion related to major subdivisions is: the proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic cultural, visual, or ecological importance, or contribute to the identity of town. Staff finds these criteria not met for the reasons previously mentioned. Also, there was some other grading that was done on site. It met the Design Standards of Engineering, but it appears that some of the grading that took place specifically with regards to that front wall was not part of the original approval and not necessary. Mr. Rayes stated that the last criterion he wanted to touch on is: the proposed subdivision shall upgrade the public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements will be at the sole cost of the developer. This relates to the ADA standards and staff finds that this criterion is not met. Mr. Rayes stated that staff has several recommendations regarding rectifying these existing improvements on site. First, he addressed the improvements on Common Area Lot A, related to the AC units and the stairwell. Staff recommends removal of these. Mr. Rayes addressed Lot One and Lot Two, stating that both houses were built five feet higher than originally represented. One house has already received a certificate of occupancy and the other house is almost done. Staff finds that it might be difficult to rectify that problem, so are recommending memorializing the existing elevation of 8,012 for each of the dwellings. Not only would it be difficult to fix that, a couple of building permits were duly issued for these houses specifically. The house on Lot Two has received a CO and had a final inspection. Mr. Rayes addressed Common Area Lot B, the tennis courts. He stated that staff recommends removing the retaining wall and regrading to comply with the original PD approvals. A three foot tall aesthetic 8 wall maybe erected following the review and approval from the Community Development staff. And onsite ADA accessibility from Ute Ave should be provided to the tennis courts. Mr. Rayes addressed the affordable housing unit lot, stating that the retaining wall should be removed and recreated as much as possible to comply with the original PD approvals. Following review and approval from the Community Development staff, a three foot tall aesthetic wall may be erected in the configuration depicted in the original PD approvals. Staff recommends approval of the window well pursuant to the Land Use Code section that allows features like egress that are related to life safety to be located within setbacks or within adjacent properties for the purpose of life safety and to meet building standards. Mr. Rayes stated that he did not cover the building permits that were issued by Engineering. The history there is fuzzy at best. There were a lot of change orders associated with this site and a lot of that was reviewed by Engineering but never reviewed by zoning. Specifically, with the change in grade related to the two single family houses, there was a change order submitted and Engineering reviewed it to make sure the change in grading would comply with their standards related to drainage. It was never queued to the Zoning Department. Mr. Kraemer stated that there are two resolutions included in the packet. Resolution A queues up an approval pursuant to the applicant’s request with no conditions, except for receiving a building permit for the air conditioning units on the common area. Resolution B includes all the recommendations that Mr. Rayes outlined in his presentation. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any improvements that didn't go through the change order process. Mr. Rayes stated that the AC units did not go through that process. Ms. McGovern asked if the two houses still comply with the height limit. Mr. Rayes stated that it's hard to say. The improvement survey shows basic improvements, but he can't tell what the top height of the house is from the information he has in the improvement survey. Ms. McGovern asked if the applicants submitted the zoning verification form and stated that it gives point heights that they’re supposed to survey to. Mr. Rayes stated that it was submitted. It did not show the elevation changing. He does have one showing it at 8,007. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. True for guidance for what information the commissioners can consider as part of their decision. Mr. True stated that the commissioners should evaluate what is being requested to be approved versus what was not part of prior approval. The fact that there were submissions that were not fully approved through the change order process does not mean that the City consented to it just because the City didn’t catch the changes. The commissioners are being asked to consider if they should approve those changes after they were made. 9 Ms. Carver asked how far the egress is from the driveway of the house on Lot 3. She asked if it need to be that large and if it could be angled differently. Mr. Bendon stated that it’s 15 feet or so from the edge of the driveway. It’s larger than it needs to be, by code. Ms. Carver asked if there is a requirement for how far an egress needs to be from a driveway. Mr. Kraemer stated that staff would research that. Mr. Rayes stated that his information says that it’s about three feet away from the driveway. Mr. Walterscheid asked when the first house got its CO. Mr. Rayes stated 2011. Applicant Presentation Mr. Bendon introduced himself as the representative for the project. He introduced Leatham Stearn, the owner of the property. He introduced Donnie Lee, the general manager of The Gant, who is representing The Gant Condominiums as a co-applicant on the project related to the tennis facilities that sit on the properties. He showed a diagram of the property on the slide. He pointed out Lot D, which is not a part of the property as it was annexed to the City. He showed a picture of the property as it exists today. He stated that the applications went through reviews and approvals in 2006 and got building permits in 2008, right at the cusp of the recession. The first house received its CO in 2011. The second house and the affordable housing unit are nearing completion. Mr. Bendon stated that there were some issues that staff identified that have now been resolved. In addition to some that Mr. Rayes didn’t mention, he stated that the utility vault was called into question because it exists over the property line, but that's how it was originally approved. The same thing with the tennis maintenance facility and some site walls surrounding those tennis courts. They were called into question but those things were shown that way in the original planning application and that's how they were built. Those are resolved items as far as the applicants understand them. Lastly, the issue of the rocks that are off the side of the hill is now resolved, which is good because underneath those rocks are other rocks. Mr. Bendon addressed the affordable housing unit window well. It’s in the three foot range. Mr. Stearn snow blows the driveway he has not had an issue with it. He’s been operating the property for ten years now. This structure has been there for a couple of years. The window well does extend over the property line. It's larger than what is required, but it allows for good natural light into the basement of that unit. The applicants are asking to maintain that. The fix would be making the window well smaller which would allow less light and the applicants don’t think is a good idea. Mr. Bendon addressed the affordable housing unit retaining wall, stating that the circumstance is similar. The wall is of benefit to Lot 3 and a fix would make their lot smaller. He stated the encroachment is just over the property line according to the survey and showed that on a rendering on the slide. It goes into the common area, not into a right of way or public parcels. The applicants request that it stays there. 10 Mr. Bendon stated that the building heights, the walls along Ute Avenue, and the stairway to the house on Lot Two were all things related to a change order that came in to the City. It was submitted to the Building Department, which was the process at the time for submitting a change order, and reviewed by Engineering. He showed the approval stamp on the change order and stated that it was then issued by the City. The heights of the buildings, the stairway, and the configuration and heights of the walls along Ute Avenue are on this approved change order. Mr. Bendon addressed the walls. He showed a rendering on the slide from the change order. He pointed out that the original approvals stated that the top of the wall would be 72.0 and the bottom of the wall would be at 66.3, meaning that the wall is 5.7 feet tall. This is part of the change order permit that was reviewed and issued by the City and the applicants built in compliance with that. Mr. Bendon addressed the pathway coming up to the tennis courts, which is also shown on that rendering. He stated that the steps in the rendering indicate a significant grade change. There's also a lift that was drawn in, indicating that the back of the wall is at a much higher plane than the right of way on the other side of the wall. The second thing that indicates that height is the size of the drainage facility. It’s 15 feet deep of gravel. The drainage fills up, the water goes into the pipe, and then goes out the right of way. The rim of this is at 7,971, which is only a foot less than the top of the wall. Mr. Bendon stated that this indicates to him that these heights were approved through the proper process. The applicants built what was approved in this rendering. Mr. Bendon stated that 2008 was somewhat of a bumpy patch for the Zoning position for the City. Shortly after that, the City didn’t have a Zoning Officer for a period of time. He believes the applicant built what he submitted for and got a permit for. Mr. Bendon addressed the wall in front of the affordable housing unit. The rendering shows that that wall is the entire distance. The applicants feel confident that they built what they were approved to build. To the extent that there is inconsistency, the applicants believe it’s between the Zoning and Building Departments. Mr. Bendon stated that the Zoning Officer’s job was to go through the civil sets, drainage sets, and the architecturals trying to find all the zoning information. That since has changed. Now there is a zoning set of sheets where that information is done so they don’t have to veer off those. The process has been improved. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants feel that the wall is something that they are memorializing in terms of it being inconsistent with the original representations but consistent with what they had approvals to build. Mr. Bendon stated that the second piece on that was the drainage plan that was submitted in September 2008, reviewed by the City, and issued was accompanied by with a letter from High Country Engineering. That letter described a series of changes that are being made to the site grading. As staff mentioned, the site was previously a mining site, so all the material needed to be kept onsite, which was a challenge. The dirt was re-situated in the soil and rock onsite. As a result, the change from 8,007 feet on the main floor was cited as 8,012 on both homes. From the applicants’ standpoint, that change was reviewed and approved by the City. They are not in a position to move the houses now. The applicants feel that those are items that can be memorialized. 11 Mr. Bendon showed the plan showing the stairs encroaching into Lot A, an open space parcel that's owned by the applicant for the enjoyment of these lots. The applicants think that this can be memorialized. Mr. Bendon addressed the air conditioning units. He stated that these are new and not part of a change order that was submitted and reviewed. This is something that was assumed to be under the umbrella of the permit for the property. A neighbor has an issue with aesthetes and noise. The applicants reached out and had a preliminary discussion regarding what the applicants can do. They are roughly 100 feet or more away from any of the surrounding homes and are setback complaint. The noise is about 60 DBA, which is a “restaurant conversation” level. They can provide additional noise mitigation and screening if that fixes the issue, but they believe this is the best location for them. He showed pictures showing substantial vegetation to the immediate west, which make it tough to see the houses. He stated that this is just a neighbor issue that has gone into the attorney realm as opposed to the talking it out realm. He thinks that this is the location for these and they can provide fencing or additional plantings or anything else. Also, all along through the planning of this, Lot C has the mechanical vaults. That portion of Lot A was intended to be the area where mechanical things occur. Mr. Bendon addressed the ADA access. He stated that The Gant has five tennis courts. Two are on Gant property and three are on the applicant’s property. They own the courts at The Gant, those on Mr. Stearn’s property are a long-term lease. Because of their hospitality status, they need to provide an accessible amenity. The applicants propose to make the tennis courts at The Gant accessible. The Gant is amenable to this solution. Donnie Lee is at the meeting to speak to that. They will provide an accessible pathway to those tennis courts. As the applicants understand it, making the courts at The Gant accessible satisfies the ADA requirements. From a technical code standpoint, it does not have to be on this property, it can be either one. Another option would be to make the courts on Mr. Stearn’s property a purely private facility, which would be a kind of technical exemption from the ADA requirements. With that, Mr. Bendon turned the hearing over to commissioner questions. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the lift Mr. Bendon mentioned was installed. Mr. Bendon stated that it was not. It is the applicant’s request to shift that requirement over to The Gant. Ms. Carver asked if the utility bunker and the AC units serve both houses even though they both sit on common land. Mr. Bendon stated that that is correct. This is developed as a Planned Development with multiple parcels. There are common parcels that serve as more than just driveway access. It also serves as housing and utility bunker for the properties. Ms. Carver asked why the location of the utility bunker was not suitable for the air conditioner units. Mr. Bendon stated that they blow air up, so they can’t be enclosed in that bunker. Ms. Carver asked if they could have sat closer to that area. 12 Mr. Bendon stated that that would have had more impact on the tennis courts. Ms. McGovern stated that, in the survey from 2011, the lower portion of the driveway looks like it’s in a different location than what’s shown in the civil drawing that was submitted with the change order. In the civil drawing, it looks like it's much closer to the affordable housing unit, which would be more consistent with the photo where Ms. Carver was concerned about its proximity to the affordable housing unit. Mr. Bendon stated that the affordable housing unit had a substantial change order. In 2008 it was planned to be a two-story, pitched roof building. In 2012, a change order was submitted to make it a one-story building with a basement flat roof. Ms. McGovern stated the affordable housing unit changed, the driveway configuration did not. Mr. Bendon stated that that is correct. Ms. Carver asked how far away the utility bunker is from the tennis courts and if the tennis courts are at a lower elevation. Mr. Bendon stated that they are lower elevation and far from the tennis courts. Ms. Carver asked if any noise from the AC units would travel vertically. Mr. Bendon stated that that is correct. Ms. Marcus asked when the AC units were installed. Mr. Stearn responded that they were probably installed in 2014. Mr. Marcus asked when the CO from the house was approved. Mr. Bendon responded 2011. Mr. Marcus asked what the regular process would be to have something like these AC units added to the building. Mr. Kramer stated that a building permit would be required, which was not done. Mr. Rayes stated that it would also require an 8040 Greenline review by staff and administrative review, which was not done. Mr. Love asked when the AC units were operable. Mr. Stearn responded that they’ve been in operation since 2014. Mr. Love asked if the sound issue is new. 13 Mr. Latham stated that they worked hard get something that was quiet. Lot 2 would get noise from the units, but the sound goes straight up. He is happy to abide by decibel limits. Mr. Bendon stated that it’s an aesthetic issue. Ms. McGovern stated that it’s also an inconsistency with the permits. Mr. Stearn stated that AC was always intended by him to be in that area. It’s the least impactful area to locate it. The most impact is on Lot 2 which is looking straight down at the units. Mr. Love asked if the CO for Lot 1 has been issued. Mr. Bendon stated that it has not. Ms. McGovern asked if the floor area was fully built out to 100%. Mr. Bendon stated that it was. Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Heather Manolakas introduced herself and stated that she is the attorney for neighbor who filed the complaint. She stated that they stated this process several years ago, but for whatever reason nothing came of it until last year when she renewed the complaint. It started as a complaint about the re- grading of Lot A and the retaining walls. The neighbor felt that it pushed the slope closer to the property line. Their second complaint is about the AC units. They Impact his property and he can see them from his backyard and the first and second floors of his home. Those were the two items raised with the Zoning Department. They haven’t talked about the retaining walls at all. She stated that the applicants have many other options about where to place the AC that would have less impact on the neighbors. Donny Lee introduced himself as the General Manager of The Gant. He stated that he is here to provide context on the tennis courts. He stated that The Gant originally initiated a lease on that land in the ‘70’s. They provide utilities and maintain the landscaping for that location. In trying to accommodate the development of this, they worked out a deal with Mr. Stearn to accommodate for the driveway which triggered this accessibility issue. They are happy to accommodate that. There is not even good accessibility from the campus to that location. From an accessibility standpoint, they would much rather accommodate that on the two courts on the campus. Mr. McKnight asked if there are further questions from the public. Seeing none, he turned the hearing over to commissioner deliberation. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the rectangles are on the rendering on the slide. Mr. Bendon answered that those are platforms, potentially for two additional AC units. Mr. Love asked how many tons of AC they are dealing with. 14 Mr. Stearn stated that he did not know. They would have to get back to the commissioners with that information. Mr. Kraemer stated that it might be good to get a little clarification on The Gant tennis courts, if Mr. Lee could provide more info about the tennis courts and ADA accessibility. It might be good to start a discussion about if there is an accessibility requirement for the courts today. It also might be good to understand if The Gant is aware that a commercial lease for the subject courts and the subject property would go away making them private, so that there is clarity on that topic. Ms. McGovern asked if the lease was allowed as long as the courts are accessible. Mr. Kraemer stated that that might be something they get clarity from the applicants on. Mr. Lee stated that he acknowledges that it was part of the PD approval to put a lift in. Mr. Stearn would have to put a lift in and The Gant would have to maintain that. The lease is not subject to whether or not those are accessible. In terms of the campus, The Gant has never rebuilt the original tennis courts, so was ever triggered regarding accessibility requirements. They are happy to modify that and it makes sense to do it. The Gant does have accommodations in the general campus. In terms of privatizing the courts, he does not know what that would look like. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was a certificate of occupancy for the new courts when they were built. Mr. Lee stated that originally that was a mining claim. There was nothing on that property. When they redeveloped, it was in the ‘90’s, so they actually brought water and power to the land that they lease to accommodate the landscaping. There was no accessibility required at that time. The stairs have been there since at least 1985. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the new courts that have been reconstructed as part of a site and Engineering approval that is yet to occur. Mr. Lee stated that all they did was take half of one court on the east and move it to the west to accommodate the driveway and redo the infrastructure for that. They did not completely rebuild those courts. Ms. McGovern asked if that was submitted to the City for their review. Mr. Lee stated that it was. Ms. McGovern asked if the courts were supposed to be made accessible at some point in the future. Mr. Rayes stated that, in 2014, staff was trying to accommodate the owner to get the house on Lot 1 COed. There was some concern about the affordable housing unit and the ADA accessibility on the courts. In 2014, there was an amendment to the subdivision. It was a way of getting that first property COed and tying the CO of the second property to the ADA accessibility. There’s a clause that says that the City and the owner have agreed that final certificates of occupancy for the free market residence on Lot 2 and the affordable housing unit on Lot 3 may be issued prior to completion of the tennis court proper, but the tennis court walkway must be constructed and completed prior to issuance of the CO for the free market residences on Lot One. This was an amendment to the PD in 2014. 15 Mr. McKnight stated that that doesn’t answer the question about if the facilities become private. Mr. Bendon stated that the trigger for the ADA requirement is that it’s a hospitality business. Since people from the public can rent a room there and use the facilities, that makes it a public facility. If there’s a way that it could be private in some way, the requirement just goes away. Better than that would be the staff making the courts on The Gant property to be accessible. Ms. Carver stated that the Commission should stay out of the private tennis court issue as it’s not what before them. Mr. Love, Ms. McGovern, and Mr. McKnight voiced their agreement. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. True how to apply the dispute about who is at fault for the approvals to their decision, if at all. Mr. True stated that there are a lot of legal questions associated with this issue. The Commission has to consider if a repair of the issue is reasonable. Commissioner Deliberation Ms. Carver stated that she does not believe that the development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area, from what she has personally seen. But they’re already there. Regarding the affordable housing on Lot 3, the egress is really close to the driveway. The stairwell is beautiful, but it does sit on common property. The air conditioners should be moved to where the other utilities are stored. They should not approve the front wall, which should go back to three feet tall. The applicants should make the tennis courts accessible. Overall, she agrees with all staff proposals. Ms. McGovern stated that this was a “do what we want and ask for forgiveness later” situation. It’s hard to point fingers and say who did it, but it doesn’t matter at this point. She agrees with staff proposals. Providing ADA accessibility for the tennis courts should be required. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he has been through the same route where he’s experienced the City’s process changing radically. The level of detailed information that is required now is much higher than what it used to be. You did have to do some detective work to figure out measurements and such. Now the City does a great job of routing paperwork through the appropriate channels, but that wasn’t really the case when this was all submitted. Ms. McGovern stated that they have a PUD that has all these approvals. It’s up to the applicants to ensure that the development complies with their approvals. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he understands that but believes that there was probably a breakdown along the way. The applicants should only have to remedy the items that were not submitted to the City. He asked if the air conditioning units were the only things not submitted to the City. Mr. Marcus stated that that is correct. Mr. Walterscheid stated that the Gant will have to fix the accessibility on the tennis courts with the next project. The lift was what should have been installed. 16 Mr. Love voiced agreement with Mr. Walterscheid. He stated that it’s not reasonable to erect old approvals and try to make them comply. The location of the AC units might be the best one, they just might need a wall screen around them or something. Mr. Marcus voiced agreement that it’s not for the Commission to determine intent and they need to decide what’s reasonable. The AC units were completely disregarded. He likes the compromise with the tennis courts. If the lift is built, it will never be used. Mr. McKnight asked if everyone agrees that the AC units are a problem. Mr. Walterscheid stated that they all agree, they don’t all agree on the solution. Mr. Marcus asked where it would have been located if it had been approved. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he imagines the intention was to put them in that utility vault or in that general location. Ms. McKnight asked if Ms. Carver and Ms. McGovern are still on the total staff recommendation. Ms. McGovern stated that she would like to see the commissioners come as close to the staff recommendation as possible. She would like to see removal of the inconsistent uses from parcel A, the stairs and AC, and accessibility of the tennis courts are the three things that she would really like to see happen. Mr. Walterscheid stated that it’s a subdivision of a parcel owned by one owner, so he does not see the need to relocate the staircase. When it’s sold, it’s existing and documented. Mr. McKnight stated that the staircase is one that can be considered reasonable not to touch. Ms. Carver stated that the air conditioners should be moved to by the utility bunker. The tennis courts need to be made accessible. The retaining walls are too large. Mr. Love stated that a retaining wall is not like a fence because your ground elevation is higher. It softens the abruptness of it. Mr. McKnight stated that he wants to see if the commissioners are close to being in agreement on the customized package. The ADA and AC seem to be the big concern. He asked if anyone agrees with Ms. McGovern that the stairwell is a problem. Ms. Carver stated that she doesn’t think we should move it at this point. Mr. McKnight stated that he would like to find a common motion that everyone could get behind. Mr. Love stated that he could totally live with the ADA being on campus at The Gant. Ms. McGovern stated that she would like to see the ADA. 17 Ms. Carver stated that the ADA can go up the driveway. Ms. Carver stated that it’s important to give the City Council clear direction. Mr. McKnight stated that he has a feeling that the City Council does not read their suggestions anyway. He asked for a suggestion from Mr. Kraemer on how to proceed. Mr. Kraemer stated that he would like to see the Commission modify Resolution B. The commissioners could take a straw poll to determine how they stand on each item and then draft recommendations based on that. Mr. McKnight stated that’s how the commissioners will proceed. He asked who is in favor of the AC units moving. Five commissioners voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of moving the stairwell. One commissioner voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of modifying the retaining wall on Common Area Lot B. Two commissioners voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of providing ADA accessibility from Ute Avenue to the tennis courts. Three commissioners voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of providing ADA accessibility on The Gant tennis courts. Three commissioners voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of removing the retaining wall on Lot 3 and regrading the lot to comply with the original PD approvals. One commissioner voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of approving the window well in its current configuration on Lot 3. Four commissioners voted in favor. Mr. McKnight asked who is in favor of amending the PD approvals to memorialize the existing first floor elevation of the single-family dwelling on Lot One and Lot Two. The commissioners voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Kraemer reviewed the recommendations as decided by majority vote. They were to: move the AC units to an alternate location and leave the stairwell as it is on Common Area Lot A. On Common Area 18 Lot B, half of the commissioners were in favor of providing ADA accessibility to the tennis courts from Ute Ave and half were in favor of seeing ADA accessibility on The Gant tennis courts instead. The retaining wall may remain in its existing configuration. On Lot 3, the commissioners recommended approving the retaining wall in its existing configuration. On Lot 1 and Lot 2, they recommended memorializing the existing first floor elevation of the single-family dwellings. Mr. Bendon stated that he wanted to make sure that the commissioners understand that they will continue to look for a solution with the neighbors on the AC units to provide for visual and sound buffering in their current location. If they work out a solution, that will be presented to City Council. Mr. Stearn thanked the commissioners and staff. He stated that the retaining wall is the same height as the one across the street and he believes the AC unit is currently in the best place. He believes the compromise with The Gant is the best one. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve Resolution 11 with the terms as stated. Mr. Love seconded. Formal vote taken, motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:59 PM. Mr. Walterscheid seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager 19 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner MEMO DATE: November 14th, 2019 MEETING DATE: November 19th, 2019 RE: 1140 Black Birch Drive, Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope Determination APPLICANT/OWNER: Clayton Clark REPRESENTATIVE: Andrew Dillon, Forum Phi Architecture LOCATION: 1140 Black Birch Drive. Lot 14 Black Birch Estates Subdivision CURRENT ZONING & USE This property is located in the Low-Density Residential (R-30) zone district and is developed with an existing single-family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting an alternative top of slope determination from what is specified by the City of Aspen Stream Margin Map. This request requires a Special Review procedure by the Planning and Zoning Commission. No development or redevelopment is proposed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for an alternative Top of Slope Determination, subject to the draft P&Z Resolution. Figure 1. 1140 Black Birch Drive, highlighted in red: 20 Page 2 of 3 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Special Review (Pursuant to Lane Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting an appeal of the Stream Margin Map’s top of slope determination requires Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1140 Black Birch is located in the Black Birch Estates subdivision outside the Aspen Infill area. The property is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-30), is approximately 25,796 sq. ft., and contains an approximately 3,400-sq. ft. single family residence. Located at the confluence of Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, the property is entirely within the established Top of Slope demarcation pursuant to the City of Aspen adopted Stream Margin maps (Figure 3). The 100’ year floodplain also encumbers the eastern portion of the property. Property topography is generally flat with the exception of a steeper slope leading down to the Roaring Fork River. PROPOSAL: At this time, no development plans are proposed for the property and an alternative Top of Slope Determination is the only requested review. It is the Applicant’s intention to demolish the existing single family residence in the near term and construct a new single family residence. If successful in this request, a future site plan and building plans will be developed for the property. Should the future project move forward, a Stream Margin Review and Residential Design Standards (RDS) Review will be required prior to Building Permit Submittal. Figure 2 – Adopted Stream Margin Review map 21 Page 3 of 3 Figure 3 – proposed top of bank and setback STAFF COMMENT: Special Review: Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review, requires an application seeking an appeal of the Stream Margin Map’s Top of Slope designation be processed as a Special Review. The criteria for seeking variance from the adopted Top of Slope map requires a surveyor to make an alternative determination which is substantiated by the City Engineering Department. There are two (2) review criteria associated with Special Review for an alternative Top of Slope Determination, Section 26.435.040.E and are included in Exhibit A. The Top of Slope determination site plan was submitted by a licensed surveyor and referred to the City of Aspen Engineering for review. The application is supported by the Engineering Department and is consistent with a Top of Slope Determination that was recently approved for the adjacent property to the south. Staff finds that the proposal meets all of the standards of Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope Determination. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve the 1140 Black Birch Drive Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope Determination, subject to the attached draft Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Stream Margin Special Review- Top of Slope Determination - Review Criteria Exhibit B – Application 22 RESOLUTION NO. ______ (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION, FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 1, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 244, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE Parcel No. 273501307005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Andrew Dillon with Forum Phi Architecture LLC (Representative), on behalf Clayton Clark (Property Owner and Applicant), requesting Special Review approval for an alternative Top of Slope Determination for property at 1140 Black Birch Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, the application was referred to the City of Aspen Engineering Department who agreed with the alternative Top of Slope and stated that the proposal was consistent with other alternative Top of Slope Determinations made in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Special Review for an Alternative Top of Slope Determination to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 19th, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, 23 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution _____, Series of 2019, by a _____ to ______ (_____ - _____) vote, granting approval of Special Review for an alternative Top of Slope Determination as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for Top of Slope Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an alternative Top of Slope Determination as identified in the attached Exhibit A. Section 2: Further City of Aspen Review Required No development plans have been provided in the application and this resolution is solely to establish an alternative Top of Slope for the property. Prior to building permit submittal, the property is subject to Stream Margin Review and Residential Design Review, including further Engineering Review should proposed development impact the 100-year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. Section 3: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5 This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: 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. 24 APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on November 19th, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Assistant City Clerk 25 HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HWWSWVDYHWN 85°08'41" E194.90'#5 REBAR BEARSS82°55'48"W 50.56'#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #2376 TBMEL=7753.20'TELE.PED.SEWER MANHOLERIM EL=7754.40'II EL=7743.20'IO EL=7743.00'WATERVALVEFIREHYD.100 YEAR FLOODPLAINPER FEMA PANEL08097C0203C, DATEDJUNE 04, 1987LOT 13C.O.A. GPS#10S42°08'41"W1863.70'C.O.A. GPSS-159N39°20'17"W2636.16'T83EEELEC.MANHOLEELEC.METERSELEC.TRANS.TELE.PED.XXXXXXGGASMETERROARING F O R K R I V E R GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T TTTTTTTTTEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UECTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCT V CTVCTVEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEF.F.EL=7751.1'F.F.EL=7748.7'F.F.EL=7753.9'CHIMNEYEL=7780.7'RIDGEEL=7778.5'F.F.EL=7753.8'F.F.EL=7753.8'G#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #37972 W.C. BEARSS67°57'19"W 31.52'#5 REBAR BEARSS82°48'59"E 1.63'T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16T17T18T19T20T21T22T23T24T25T26T27T28T29T30T31T32T33T34T35T36T37T38T39T40T41T42T43T44T45T46T47T48T49T50T51T52T53T54T55T56T57T58T59T60T61T62T63T64T65T66T67T68T69T70T71T72T73T74T75T76T77T78T79T80T81T82STONE WALKSTONE WALKBOULDER WALL(TYP.)BOULDER WALL(TYP.)BOULDERWALL(TYP.)FLOWLINEDITCH18" CMP ASPHALTDRIVEWAYASPHALTDRIVEWAYSHEDSTONEWALKSTEPSDRAIN RIM EL=7748.54'FLOWLINE DITCH 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINPER FEMA PANEL08097C0203C, DATEDJUNE 04, 1987FENCELOT 1425,796 S.F.± PER PLAT25,996 S.F.± CALC.MULTI LEVEL WOOD FRAMEAND STONE HOUSE1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVEBASE FLOOD ELEVATION=7748.7' (NAVD88)BASE FLOOD ELEVATION=7743.4' (NGVD29)GASLINETELEPHONETELEPHONEPOSSIBLEELECTRIC 15' SIDE SETBACKPER BK 227 PG 452TELEPHONEELECTRICGASLINEBLACK BIRCH DRIVE30' R-O-W ASPHALT RIVER DRIVE30' R-O-W ASPHALT LOT 1510' UTILITY EASEMENTPER PLAT BK 3 PG 24410' UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT BK 3 PG 24410'15'15' SETBACK FROMTOP BANK15' SETBACK FROMTOP BANK PERBK 227 PG 45215'WOOD DECKWOOD DECK10'20'20'EDGE OF WATER11/15/18APPROX HIGHWATER MARKEDGE OF WATER11/15/18APPROX HIGHWATER MARKTOP BANKTOP BANK25.7'70.4'30'61'29.30 '7.80'8.00 '14.70'30.40 '5.60'1.80 '9.80'1.80 '5.70'9.30 '2.00'3.50 '28.60'16.50 '4.40'34.40 '22.60'4.00 '26.60'∆=32°17'25"R=192.26'L=108.35'ChB=S02°45'50"WChL=106.92'S 73°42'28" W 210.92' N 08°37'00" W 22.00' N 07°27'00" E 128.81'MAILBOX77547754775377527751775077497749 7750 775177527751 7750 77497748 7747 7746 7745 7744 7743 7742 7743 7744 7745 7746 7747 77487749774977 5 077497 7 4 8 7748 7747774777487749775077517752775325' BUILDING SETBACKPER BK 227 PG 45215' BUILDING SETBACK PER BK 227 PG 45215'25'20' IRRIGATION DITCHEASEMENT AS SHOWNON ADJOINING LOTDOCUMENTSASPHALTDRIVEWAY15'BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF7748.7' (NAVD88) = 7743.4'(NGVD29)BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF7748.7' (NAVD88) = 7743.4'(NGVD29)EW W WWWWWWWWWWWW WWEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEOSWWATERSERVICEWATERLINEAPPROX.WATERLINEELECTRICSERVICE FORLOT 13SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSEWER LINESEWER SERVICE LINE PER ACSDSLOPE TABLE ABOVE HWLNUMBER1234MIN. SLOPE0.001%20.000%30.000%40.000%MAX. SLOPE20.000%30.000%40.000%3000.000%COLORAREA17569.531985.16849.601081.30AREA ABOVE HWL21485.59AREA BELOW HWL4510.41TOTAL25996NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Since 2007180871 OF 1CLAYTON A. CLARKCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT AND TOPO SURVEYLOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVEJRNJRNNOV. 30, 2018087.DWG1 12/13/18UPDATE SURVEYJRNIMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING, INC.FOR CLAYTON A. CLARK.I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE,NOVEMBER 15 & 28, AND DECEMBER 04, 2018, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELYWITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NOENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOININGPREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OFANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. IFURTHER STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKINCOUNTY TITLE, INC., CASE NO. PCT25274W3, DATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 AND FINDALL EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE THAT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN HEREON TO THEBEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN1:15,000.BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUBDIVISIONACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED MAY 01. 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 244CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDEDMAY 01. 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 244, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADO.NOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDINGSETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN INTHE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., CASE NO. PCT25274W3,DATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS NOVEMBER 15 & 28, AND DECEMBER 04, 2018.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S87°04'23"E BETWEEN THESOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, A P.K. NAIL & SHINER L.S. #25947 FOUND IN PLACE ANDTHE 52' WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S.#25947 FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE BLACK BIRCH ESTATES FINAL PLAT RECORDED MAY 01, 1967IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 244 IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE ANDCORNERS FOUND IN PLACE.6) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERN COLORADORTVRN GPS NETWORK (1988 ORTHO DATUM) YIELDING AN ON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7753.20' ONTHE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 14 AS SHOWN. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.7) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R-30 ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.BUILDING SETBACKS SHOULD BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN, PLANNING ORCONSTRUCTION.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e a k S urveying,Inc.0101020405SUBJECTPROPERTYVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'COL O R ADO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND S U RVEYOR JAS O N R. NEIL3793512/13/18Exhibit A26 Exhibit A Special Review Criteria Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review. E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regard to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Staff Response: The Applicant is proposing a new top of slope determination, and has submitted a survey from a licensed surveyor showing the proposed Top of Slope and 100-year flood plain. The Engineering Department has confirmed the proposed alternative Top of Slope as sufficient and consistent with the alternative Top of Slope Determination approved on the adjacent property to the south. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Response: Development/redevelopment is not proposed at this time. This criterion is Not applicable. 27 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ KAJ@KAJLAWFIRM.COM(281) 646-2905 440 LOUISIANA, SUITE 1600, HOUSTON TX, 77002 28 29 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: December 13, 2018 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 1140 Black Birch PARCEL ID# 273501307005 REPRESENTATIVE: Jordan Rich, Forum Phi DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) 1140 Black Birch is in the R-30 Zone District. It is situated on the Roaring Fork River just beyond the confluence with Castle Creek. The existing home (and the entire parcel) currently sits below the established Top of Slope (according to the adopted Stream Margin Map). If future redevelopment of the property were to happen, an alternative Top of Slope Determination must be established through a Special Review, by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E. At this time, redevelopment is not proposed and the request is solely to determine an Alternative Top of Slope. If an alternative Top of Slope and corresponding 15’ setback can be established, future redevelopment will then be subject to a Stream Margin Review based on the new alternative Top of Slope. Important to this process, early consultation with the City of Aspen’s Engineering Department in determining if an alternative Top of Slope is possible and the location for an alternative is highly recommended. The application for this review will be referred to the both the Engineering and Parks Departments. Additionally, an accurate site improvement survey is required that depicts the relationship with the Roaring Fork River, the 100 year floodplain, and the existing and proposed top of slope. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application • Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Special Review – Alternative Top of Slope PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission 30 It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing: PLANNING FEES: $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) REFERRAL FEES: Yes -Engineering - $325 per Hour (1 hour deposit – additional hours will be billed at $325/hr.) -Parks - $975 Flat Fee TOTAL DEPOSIT: $4,550 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  Environmentally Sensitive Areas Specific Requirements Stream Margin Review 1) Site Improvement Survey that clearly depicts existing and proposed top of slope and the 15’ top of slope setback, floodplain, etc.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  Written responses to applicable review criteria. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 31 MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP-ACCOMMODATION NO LIABILITY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE IN THE LAST INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE CLAYTON A. CLARK LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded May 1, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 244. DEED OF TRUST APPARENTLY UNRELEASED DEED OF TRUST FROM : CLAYTON A. CLARK TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN FOR THE USE OF : CADENCE BANK, N.A. TO SECURE : $6,000,000.00 DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 RECORDED : SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 RECEPTION NO. : 650721 LIENS AND JUDGMENTS (AGAINST LAST GRANTEE) APPARENTLY UNRELEASED NONE THIS INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT AND IS FURNISHED AS AN ACCOMMODATION. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO, OR EXAMINATION OF, INSTRUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS TO AFFECT THE REAL PROPERTY. THE INFORMATION IS NEITHER GUARANTEED NOR CERTIFIED, AND IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND OUR LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 2, 2019 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: Authorized Officer JOB NO: ACCOM-CLARK 32 FO~U ~'~-~i ~ Consent and Authorization to Represent Date: July 24, 2019 Client: Clayton Clark, c/o Kendrick James Client Address: 440 Louisiana, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002 City of Aspen Community Development Department 1 30 South Galena Street, 3~d Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1140 Black Birch Dr., Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Director, This letter shall serve as my approval for Clayton Clark, c/o Kendrick James (represented by Forum Phi) to apply for and submit land use applications, building permit applications, and subsequent documentation for the property at 1140 Black Birch Dr., Aspen, CO 81611. I authorize Forum Phi to submit, represent and obtain materials on the behalf of the owner of 1140 Black Birch Dr., Aspen, CO 81611. h ereby authorize Steev Wilson and Forum Phi to perform and submit documents related to planning, Building Permit Application, or to gain building file information on our behalf for the project located at 1140 Black Birch Dr., Aspen, CO 81611. They may represent us during the application review and approval processes. They may act on our behalf, may sign on our behalf all applications and permits, and any documents required or ancillary thereto. Steev Wilson, Partner, AIA Forum Phi Architecture, LLC 715 W Main Street —Suite 204 Aspen, CO 81611 Sincerely, Clayton Clark ~~ c D at 4 czr~i~~~K>i~i.r.~>rt~ I P. 970.279.4157 ~ f. 866.770.5585 A spen: 715 W. Main Sl, #204 Aspen, CO 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4"' Slreet Carbondale, CO 81623 33 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by fheLroperty owner or Attorney represenfinq the property owner. Name: CLAYTON CLARK C/O KENDRICK JAMESProperty Owner ("I"): Email: KAJ@KAJLAWFIRM.COM Phone No.: (281) 646-2905 Address of Property: 1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE, ASPEN CO, 81611 (subject of application) certify as follows: (pick one) q This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. q This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. u nderstand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: Owner printed name: or, Attorney signature: Attorney printed name: date: ;' `. ►- ~+ ,~ i 34 forumphi.com | p. 970.279.4109 | f. 866.770.5585 Aspen: 715 W. Main St, #204 Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt: 104 Midland Ave, #202 Basalt, CO 81621 FORUM PHI | 1140 Black Birch Description of Proposal APPEAL OF THE STREAM MARGIN MAP’S TOP OF SLOPE The applicant is requesting an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, to be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure. The existing T.O. Slope is recorded on the other side of Black Birch Drive; per our survey the T.O. Slope has been determined to be located on the property with a closer adjacency to the river. Please see the improvement survey plat & topographic survey attached to this application packet, an authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor, depicting a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map filed in the City Engineering Department. There is no proposed development for the property at this time. 35 HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HW HWWSWVDYHWN 85°08'41" E 194.90'#5 REBAR BEARSS82°55'48"W 50.56'#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #2376 TBMEL=7753.20'TELE.PED.SEWER MANHOLERIM EL=7754.40'II EL=7743.20'IO EL=7743.00'WATERVALVEFIREHYD.100 YEAR FLOODPLAINPER FEMA PANEL08097C0203C, DATEDJUNE 04, 1987LOT 13C.O.A. GPS#10S42°08'41"W1863.70'C.O.A. GPSS-159N39°20'17"W2636.16'T83EEELEC.MANHOLEELEC.METERSELEC.TRANS.TELE.PED.XXXXXXGGASMETERROARING F O R K R I V E R GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T TTTTTTTTTEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UECTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCT V CTVCTVEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEF.F.EL=7751.1'F.F.EL=7748.7'F.F.EL=7753.9'CHIMNEYEL=7780.7'RIDGEEL=7778.5'F.F.EL=7753.8'F.F.EL=7753.8'G#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #37972 W.C. BEARSS67°57'19"W 31.52'#5 REBAR BEARSS82°48'59"E 1.63'T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16T17T18T19T20T21T22T23T24T25T26T27T28T29T30T31T32T33T34T35T36T37T38T39T40T41T42T43T44T45T46T47T48T49T50T51T52T53T54T55T56T57T58T59T60T61T62T63T64T65T66T67T68T69T70T71T72T73T74T75T76T77T78T79T80T81T82STONE WALKSTONE WALKBOULDER WALL(TYP.)BOULDER WALL(TYP.)BOULDERWALL(TYP.)FLOWLINEDITCH18" CMP ASPHALTDRIVEWAYASPHALTDRIVEWAYSHEDSTONEWALKSTEPSDRAIN RIM EL=7748.54'FLOWLINE DITCH 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINPER FEMA PANEL08097C0203C, DATEDJUNE 04, 1987FENCELOT 1425,796 S.F.± PER PLAT25,996 S.F.± CALC.MULTI LEVEL WOOD FRAMEAND STONE HOUSE1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVEBASE FLOOD ELEVATION=7748.7' (NAVD88)BASE FLOOD ELEVATION=7743.4' (NGVD29)GASLINETELEPHONETELEPHONEPOSSIBLEELECTRIC 15' SIDE SETBACK PER BK 227 PG 452TELEPHONEELECTRICGASLINEBLACK BIRCH DRIVE30' R-O-W ASPHALT RIVER DRIVE30' R-O-W ASPHALT LOT 1510' UTILITY EASEMENTPER PLAT BK 3 PG 24410' UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT BK 3 PG 24410'15'15' SETBACK FROMTOP BANK15' SETBACK FROMTOP BANK PERBK 227 PG 45215'WOOD DECKWOOD DECK10'20'20'EDGE OF WATER11/15/18APPROX HIGHWATER MARKEDGE OF WATER11/15/18APPROX HIGHWATER MARKTOP BANKTOP BANK25.7'70.4'30'61'29.30 '7.80'8.00 '14.70'30.40 '5.60'1.80 '9.80'1.80 '5.70'9.30 '2.00'3.50 '28.60'16.50 '4.40'34.40 '22.60'4.00 '26.60'∆=32°17'25"R=192.26'L=108.35'ChB=S02°45'50"WChL=106.92'S 73°42'28" W 210.92 ' N 08°37'00" W 2 2 . 0 0 ' N 07°27'00" E 1 2 8 . 8 1 'MAILBOX77547754775377527751775077497749 7750 775177527751 7750 77497748 7747 7746 7745 7744 7743 7742 7743 7744 7745 7746 7747 77487749774977 5 077497 7 4 8 7748 7747774777487749775077517752775325' BUILDING SETBACKPER BK 227 PG 45215' BUILDING SETBACK PER BK 227 PG 45215'25'20' IRRIGATION DITCHEASEMENT AS SHOWNON ADJOINING LOTDOCUMENTSASPHALTDRIVEWAY15'BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF7748.7' (NAVD88) = 7743.4'(NGVD29)BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF7748.7' (NAVD88) = 7743.4'(NGVD29)EW W WWWWWWWWWWWW WWEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEOSWWATERSERVICEWATERLINEAPPROX.WATERLINEELECTRICSERVICE FORLOT 13SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSEWER LINESEWER SERVICE LINE PER ACSDSLOPE TABLE ABOVE HWLNUMBER1234MIN. SLOPE0.001%20.000%30.000%40.000%MAX. SLOPE20.000%30.000%40.000%3000.000%COLORAREA17569.531985.16849.601081.30AREA ABOVE HWL21485.59AREA BELOW HWL4510.41TOTAL25996NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Since 2007180871 OF 1CLAYTON A. CLARKCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT AND TOPO SURVEYLOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVEJRNJRNNOV. 30, 2018087.DWG112/13/18UPDATE SURVEYJRNIMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING, INC.FOR CLAYTON A. CLARK.I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE,NOVEMBER 15 & 28, AND DECEMBER 04, 2018, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELYWITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NOENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOININGPREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OFANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. IFURTHER STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKINCOUNTY TITLE, INC., CASE NO. PCT25274W3, DATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 AND FINDALL EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE THAT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN HEREON TO THEBEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN1:15,000.BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUBDIVISIONACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED MAY 01. 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 244CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOT 14, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDEDMAY 01. 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 244, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADO.NOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDINGSETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN INTHE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., CASE NO. PCT25274W3,DATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS NOVEMBER 15 & 28, AND DECEMBER 04, 2018.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S87°04'23"E BETWEEN THESOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, A P.K. NAIL & SHINER L.S. #25947 FOUND IN PLACE ANDTHE 52' WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 13, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S.#25947 FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE BLACK BIRCH ESTATES FINAL PLAT RECORDED MAY 01, 1967IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 244 IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE ANDCORNERS FOUND IN PLACE.6) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERN COLORADORTVRN GPS NETWORK (1988 ORTHO DATUM) YIELDING AN ON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7753.20' ONTHE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 14 AS SHOWN. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.7) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R-30 ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.BUILDING SETBACKS SHOULD BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN, PLANNING ORCONSTRUCTION.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e a k S urveying, Inc.0101020405SUBJECTPROPERTYVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'COL O R ADO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND S U RVEYOR JAS O N R. NEIL3793512/13/1836 PROJECT SITE: 1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE 37 PROJECT SITE: 1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE 38 forumphi.com | p. 970.279.4109 | f. 866.770.5585 Aspen: 715 W. Main St, #204 Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt: 104 Midland Ave, #202 Basalt, CO 81621 FORUM PHI | 1140 Black Birch Code Responses 26.435.040 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Please see attached Survey for top of slope determination and base flood elevation. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. The applicant meets all requirements of this standard as there is no proposed development. 39 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner & Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Program Manager THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Dockless Mobility Outreach MEETING DATE: November 19, 2019 BACKGROUND: Dockless mobility is defined as systems of electric (or manual) bicycles and/or scooters that are available for short-term rentals. These devices may be locked and unlocked using a smartphone app without the requirement of a bicycle rack or other docking station. The dockless business model exists in many cities throughout the country, bringing both benefits and challenges (see Figures 1 & 2). DOCKLESS MOBILITY IN ASPEN In June 2019 Council directed staff to pause any encroachment licensing for the dockless industry and undertake a public outreach effort to gather community sentiment around these programs. In winter 2020, staff will return to Council with a synopsis of public feedback as well as options for dockless mobility management. REQUEST OF P&Z Staff hopes to maximize community input on this topic- comments from commissioners plays an important role in the discussion. You may share any feedback / thoughts via the following methods: • Discuss at P&Z Hearing • Email: Kevin: kevin.rayes@cityofasen.com • Visit the Aspen Community Voice website and share your thoughts via the online survey at: Aspencommunityvoice.com/docklessmobility • Attend one of the open house sessions taking place on December 4 at the Limelight: o Session 1- 11:30 am – 1:30 pm o Session 2- 4:00pm – 6:00pm Figure 1: One benefit of dockless mobility is providing alternative transportation options Figure 2: One challenge of dockless mobility is parking on public rights-of- way 40 EXHIBIT i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1140 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 19TH 2019 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, ANDREW DILLON (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: VPublication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 29 day of OCTOBER , 20 19 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the oivners and goverrvnental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. N/A Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, suminarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of' the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) VERY 5160` i Easy Peel�Address Labels Go to avery.com/templates 1 Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge' 1 Use Avery Template 51601 MORROW DARRELL C CITY OF ASPEN BLACK BIRCH ESTATES LLC 1120 BLACK BIRCH DR 130 S GALENA ST 6925 HILL FOREST DR ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75230 RANSFORD SARA P HERNANDEZ LORENE M MOUNT DALY LLC 1150 RIVER DR 1145 BLACK BIRCH DR 7688 SE 27TH ST#224 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816111003 MERCER ISLAND,WA 98040 1160 LLC PITKIN COUNTY HAZEN BRIAN L 1150 RIVER DR 530 E MAIN ST#301 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHARLES TIMOTHY JOHN LPRP RIVER II LLC BLACK BIRCHES ESTATES HOA 1195 BLACK BIRCH DR 1100 BLACK BIRCH DR BLACK BIRCH DR ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAUSSUS GUY&MARTINE 20% SAUSSUS PATRICK T 80% CAMPBELL MICHAEL 3015 BRYAN ST#3A 8576 E MINERAL CIR 140 N DOWNING ST DALLAS,TX 75204 CENTENNIAL,CO 80112 DENVER,CO 80218 GASPEN ASSOCIATES LLC GRUENBERG WILLIAM A&JOYCE TRUSTS ENSIGN I LTD 4197 DOUGLAS RD PO BOX 704 2001 KIRBY DR#1300 MIAMI, FL 33133 ASPEN,CO 81612-0704 HOUSTON,TX 77019 1180 BLACK BIRCH HOLDINGS LLC RIVERFRONT FORK LLC PO BOX 1860 3724 HULEN ST BENTONVILLE,AR 72712 FORT WORTH,TX 76107 Pat:avery.com/patents ; Etiquettes d'adresse Easy PeelAllez a avery.ca/gabarits 1 Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler Ie rebord Pop-up' 1 Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 1 f I� f •rf . { +� Irk brae , • Se '�� 1 .`�J( � ;�i",E. 4c� { t7��.. ' 'rt• j.rr ink. {'..' �, ` ` ,� {` ; •. ' 1��L:.?tom ,_S`�1+1a t � S� ` �L maw er/ 7.�t'`I ,j {, ��' -� t � � ��.. I + yY,r Via:•, r �� � •��•:• :• ,�. \ {r "y ' i {• QJ'hl� V1t ':"tea; i � Y 1�' +`~1 1'L ��` + * }.1 dam` i, , 1t It � j�` OF Ij `r ,9 ` •1 k 1`� M1/ •,Y ,/� 1.11 i i. , o ,y • f ` 11.)� ''v'. , vl- +�1 �1`t ►�•, r S ��,,,, t �t �y Tfi !�� � `� , t •� � 4"fit+' e let • _fir � / . I � 1 :�E• f. �'sli. ;!}1`�,ry, w� •4.11 1t •�_ 1I�,\` { \' r �� ' r - lit 1 :r 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1140 61V_-K 'Dx,-Pf , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, W\ax-' C D)V (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V-11'-publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page)