The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.202001211 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 21, 2020 4:30 PM, I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A.Minutes 12-18-2019 minutes.apz.20191218.pdf V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.A.900 E. Hopkins Ave. - Mountain River Manor Condominiums - Special Review - Stream Margin Review Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards to allow all improvements that are required for building code compliance, including the increased height of the guardrails, but deny the requested increased encroachment of the walkway in the Top of Slope Setback and 45-degree progressive height limit. 900 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Memo - 1.21.20.pdf 900 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Resolution #____, Series 2020.pdf 900 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Exhibit A - Stream Margin Review Criteria.pdf 900 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Exhibit B - Stream Margin Speical Review Review Criteria.pdf 900 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Exhibit C - Application.pdf 900 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Exhibit D - Public Notice Affidavit.pdf VII.OTHER BUSINESS VII.A.Election of Chair and Vice Chair 1 2 VII.B.Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair Appointment memo_2020.docx Chair_Vice Appointment.docx VIII.BOARD REPORTS IX.ADJOURN Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 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. 2 3 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. Revised July 8th, 2019 3 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 2019 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Spencer McKnight Absent: Ryan Walterscheid, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, Don Love Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner Ben Anderson, Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Kraemer stated that there is a Planning and Zoning meeting scheduled for January 7th. They will be electing a chair and a vice chair at that meeting. There will be one land use item on the agenda. Their second meeting in January will be the 21st. There is one land use item scheduled for that agenda. Mr. Kraemer also stated that he has a gift to thank the commissioners for their service. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern stated that she was the chair of the meeting on December 3rd, not Mr. McKnight as stated in the minutes. With that correction, Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Marcus seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Rockhill stated that she currently represents the owner of #3 in this building. She recused herself from the public hearing. Mr. Dupps had also previously recused himself and did not attend the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING 835 E Durant – Residential Design Standard Variation for Garage Placement Mr. Rayes introduced himself as a Planner with Community Development. He introduced the hearing. He stated that the request is to construct a carport façade along Dean Street. The property is located on Durant Street and S W End Street. It has frontage with three streets: Durant, S W End Street, and Dean Street. There are two buildings on site, located perpendicular to each other, and there are eleven units within those buildings. The property is located in the residential multi-family zone district. 4 Mr. Rayes showed a photo on the slide depicting the property from Dean Street at the location where the applicants are requesting to install the carport. The request is to cover ten of the eleven spaces. He showed a rendering of what that would look like. Mr. Rayes stated that this proposal does not comply with the garage placement residential design standard, which states that “the front of a garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport should be set back at least ten feet farther from the street than the front façade of the principal building.” The carport is proposed to be located in front of the building instead of set back ten feet. The intent of the standard is to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages or carports are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. Mr. Rayes showed renderings of the surrounding streets compared to Dean Street to give perspective. Staff finds that the view from Dean Street, the relationship that it has with the building, has the most pedestrian and street-oriented elements. Six of the eleven entries to the units are oriented towards Dean Street. In the perpendicular building, five of the units are located perpendicular to Dean street but are accessed via Dean Street. A large portion of the fenestration, which is a major contributing street- oriented element, is facing Dean Street. When you look at S W End Street or Durant Street, those connecting elements are limited. There are no entrances on those facades and the fenestration is much more limited compared to Dean Street. Staff is recommending denial of this request based on those factors. Mr. Rayes stated that the next question involved is: what defines a street pursuant to RDS standards? Mr. Rayes stated that the definition of a street is: “a way or thoroughfare other than an alley containing a public access easement and intended for vehicular traffic. The term ‘street’ shall include the entire area within a right of way. ‘Street’ shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements serving more than one parcel.” Dean Street is clearly accessing more than one parcel. There are several apartment complexes on this street and they are also accessed via Dean Street. Staff finds that Dean Street should be considered as a street and not treated any differently than the surrounding streets. Mr. Rayes stated that, regarding the Residential Design Standard variations, when it comes time for P&Z to consider whether something should receive a variation, there are really two standards. The first is: does the design provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statement? Mr. Rayes stated that he wanted to highlight some specific parts of the Residential Design Standard. “The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street.” This is a direct quote from the general intent statements of RDS. The building facades that are oriented towards Dean Street contain the most prominent street connecting elements of all the building facades including unit entrances and fenestration. Granting a variation to construct a carport between these building facades and Dean Street would obstruct any visual or physical connection that currently exists with Dean Street. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. The second criterion is: “it must be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.” This property is located on a lot that has no alley access. It has frontage with three different streets on three different sides. While each street maintains different traffic levels, volumes, 5 and patterns, each is still considered a street. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. For the reasons mentioned, staff recommends denial of this request. With that, Mr. Rayes turned his presentation over to commissioner questions. Mr. Marcoux asked if there have been other carports approved in the surrounding area. Mr. Rayes stated that there is a carport across the street, across from Dean Street to the south. Looking at files, he could not find any land use approvals for that. A staff member from the Building Department mentioned that they had permitted that structure, but it didn’t appear to have gone through a land use review. Applicant Presentation Kim Raymond introduced herself as the representative of Aspen Townhouses East. She introduced Tory Thomas, the president of the HOA. Ms. Raymond showed the city map of where the property is located. She stated that Dean Street services the parking for several apartment complexes and two houses. The placement of Dean Street puts it in the middle of the block, serving as an alley, which it always has on the East side of town. Ms. Raymond presented a letter from one of the original owners of one of these townhomes. It states that, in 1965, when the two buildings were constructed, the lane on the south side was an unpaved alleyway. It was paved some years later and, even later, it was officially named Dean Street. She stated that the alley came to be named a “street” because the Dean family donated property to the City of Aspen and requested that this alley be named Dean Street. Ms. Raymond showed a rendering of the property to the west on a slide. She showed the location of their parking. She showed a rendering of the Aspen Townhouses. She showed the location of the utilities along Dean Street and stated that it’s consistent with an alley. She showed a rendering of the carport across the street and the two houses directly across. She stated that they have their trash, transformers, their entry, and their covered parking facing Dean Street. She showed a rendering of the complex on the west end of the block and showed that their transformer, trash, and parking face Dean Street. Most of the block houses parking. Ms. Raymond showed a rendering of the 900 block of Dean Street and stated that it’s basically an alley. It ends at a dead end in a trash enclosure. She showed a rendering of the south side of the block. She stated that it’s a fair thing to grant this request. This building was developed in 1965, before the RDS Standards came into play. This building is a bit of an anomaly because the living part of the units face towards the south for good lighting and heating. This pushed the building back from Durant Avenue. The parking was also located off the alley with a green space creating a transition between the cars and the building. For all the other buildings along Dean Street, it’s the backs of the buildings that face Dean. The applicants’ predicament is that they are between the avenue and the street and they have no access. There’s no way to put a carport on the other side. The proposed carport would still be subordinate to the building. It’s not fair to hold the property to standards that were adopted after the construction of that property. Dean Street was an alley when the Aspen Townhouses East were constructed. Dean Street is used as an alley by all the residents on the east side of town and it’s in the same location as alleys on the east side of town, in the middle of a block. Going back to definitions, an alley is “a narrow street, especially a thoroughfare through the middle of a block, giving access.” It’s really kind of a downzoning for the applicants if they can’t do this because they didn’t build this, they 6 bought into it. Other properties get carports, like the one across the street, just because of different standards that were applied. Ms. McGovern asked what the setback off the alley is. Ms. Raymond stated that it’s five feet. The overhang of the carport can go into the setback or they could move it up and pull it forward. Ms. McGovern asked how wide Dean Street is. Ms. Raymond stated that she has not checked the right-of-way. There is a change to their original application, if they get approval, the carport would cover all spaces. Ms. McGovern asked if that’s how the application is written. Mr. Kraemer stated that that’s not how the application or resolution is written currently. Staff would have to amend that resolution, granting 11 spaces. Mr. Marcoux asked if any employee living in that area ever approached the City about removing Dean Street and turning it into an alley. That would be the proper approach. Mr. Kraemer stated that, to the best of their knowledge, the City has not been approached with that request, but staff could check with Engineering. Mr. Marcus asked if Dean Street is the front entrance for the homes across the street. Ms. Raymond stated that it is. Mr. Marcus stated that that would be awkward. Ms. Thomas stated that that’s how they were built. Both of those houses were built before 1965 when that was a dirt road. Mr. Marcus asked if they have spoken to the neighbors about having a carport. Ms. Thomas stated that she has and no one seemed to have an objection. Mr. Marcus asked which neighbors the applicants talked to. Ms. Thomas stated that she talked to the neighbors from the Alps. Also, one of the houses looks at the backs of their cars. Under this proposal, the only difference is that they will look at the backs of their cars and the cover over them. Most of the structure is actually in the front of it, so it’s not like they’re going to be seeing something in the back. Mr. Marcus asked if they talked to the neighbors in the development to the west. He stated that they have a similar situation. Ms. Thomas stated that she believes that structure actually encroaches on the alleyway. 7 Ms. Raymond stated that the one across the alley, right to the west, has the same situation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Mr. Marcus stated that he is not feeling favorable towards this. Ms. McGovern agreed. They do not provide enough proof of hardship that meets the Commission’s guidelines. Dean Street serves multiple properties that don’t have public access to any other street. That makes it a street. Mr. Marcus stated his agreement. The other properties have a different primary entrance. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees. Mr. Marcoux’s question about whether anyone has asked the City to reconsider whether Dean Street is a street or an alley was an interesting one. Mr. Marcus stated that he’s not sure that would work. There are some residences along there whose addresses are Dean Street. He is concerned that putting structures there is going to make it feel more cramped than it already is. Then it’s a slippery slope to other residences along this street putting these structures in. Mr. Kraemer stated that he wanted to add a little more for the Commissioner discussion and clarify a point that was made in the applicant’s presentation. Ms. Raymond did provide a definition of an alley, but what she used is not the land use code definition. The land use code definition is: “a pubic or private way for vehicular traffic having less width than a street and used as a secondary access to abutting property, normally at the rear.” Pursuant to the land use code and the definition of a street and how an alley was defined, this is most certainly a street. This is not an alley. In consideration of the applicant’s request, that is very firm in the land use code. If P&Z is going to make a determination or grant a variance, consideration should be given to the two land use code standards that the commission has. The first one for their consideration is: “provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as general intent statements in” the RDS section. The second criteria that they have for this consideration is: “be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific circumstances.” Staff feel that the definition of an alley is very firm in the land use code. If they’re going to make a determination on this, these two criteria should be considered. Mr. McKnight asked if someone would like to make a motion. Mr. Marcus moved to deny Resolution 14. Ms. Bryan stated that the commissioners can make a motion to approve Resolution 14 denying the applicants’ request for a variance. The resolution would actually then be rewritten as a denial. They can vote to deny the resolution to approve the request, but staff would have to draft a resolution memorializing the denial. Mr. Kraemer asked what Ms. Bryan would prefer. 8 Ms. Bryan stated that she can talk with staff about that after. She has seen it done both ways. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion to deny the resolution approving the request. Mr. Kraemer held a vote. All commissioners voted to deny the resolution approving the request. OTHER BUSINESS Wireless Facility Design Standards Mr. Anderson introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He introduced Justin Forman with the Engineering Department. He has been the project manager on the City’s efforts to respond to some changes to federal and state law around wireless communication. Staff is asking for comments from P&Z on some decision points that staff has landed on in consultation with an engineering consultation group, HR Green, staff’s own expertise, and public outreach. He also welcomed the commissioners to reach out to him via email with any other comments they might have. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has re-written its land use code to accommodate these changes. They have changed the land use application creating a wireless-specific land use application in response to this. Staff have come up with a basic set of design guidelines to avoid the worst outcomes that they were concerned about. It was clear to staff that that wasn’t enough. This summer, the City engaged the engineering firm, HR Green, to work with staff in the creation of a more robust set of design guidelines. Applications for wireless communication facilities are rare. To this point, it’s been about private property. The City has a clear set of rules that aren’t really changing. Ms. Rockhill reentered the meeting at 5:06 pm. Mr. Anderson stated that the big change is that the FCC granted access to municipalities’ right-of-way for wireless facilities, specifically a type of wireless facility called small cell facilities. Small cell facilities are designed as any tower that’s less than 50 feet. The antenna portion, which is at the top of the pole, has to be less than three cubic feet in area. If it meets that, it qualifies as a small cell and it can be located within the right-of-way. The City didn’t have any rules about this because they never would have considered granting access to the right-of-way to this facility. They’ve also shortened the review time, limited the fees that the City can charge for these kinds of facilities, and really they’ve only given municipalities the ability to review aesthetic and location preferences. Small cell facilities are allowed by right in all of the City’s zone districts. The City cannot prohibit these facilities. Mr. Anderson stated that communities around the country are having to respond to this in the same way. This technology is being driven by desires within the telecom industry to increase speeds. That’s important because the facilities that currently exist run off of macro towers. They use a radio frequency, they can travel long distance. It’s fairly reliable but has limits on the number of phones that can be connected at any given time. It’s really limited in terms of high data-intensity information. Aspen has some of these facilities already in town, but they’re on private property, generally rooftops. Mr. Marcus asked if they rent that. Mr. Anderson stated that they do. This is why they were so desirous of getting access to the right-of- way. The small cell technology is a part of coming 5G technology. The big difference is that there is a 9 macro tower and small cells that are much more densely located, smaller facilities. Because of the amount of data, the facilities are connected underground by fiberoptic cabling. Mr. Anderson showed some renderings of some small cell facilities. The City is proposing a limit of 25 feet. The telecommunication companies will have to follow the City’s design guidelines if they want to get their requests approved. Mr. Marcoux asked what the chances are that they’re going to follow the guidelines. Mr. Anderson stated that it’s one of the things that the City has some power on. The City can’t treat these requests differently than any other development application. Mr. Marcus asked if they can make the limits more difficult for the applicants. Ms. Bryan stated that the FCC has been very clear that they cannot enact regulations that have the effect of actively prohibiting them from providing service. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of what the new system will look like. There is a lot of concern and question about these facilities related to health concerns. There is a rule from 1996 that municipalities cannot regulate any kind of cellular facilities based on environmental or health effects. As long as these facilities are compliant with FCC rules in terms of radio frequency emissions, the City can’t say no to them just because they’re concerned about the kind of waves that are being produced. Staff’s response to this is that people are asking fair questions. There’s not a lot of good research or data on this. Staff are trying to keep up with information as it’s being made available. No organization that we typically rely on for public health information has come out definitively on this topic. There is not a lot of research that’s been done. Staff are taking an additional step to require them to provide a report so that the City clearly understands the equipment that’s going into these facilities and the radio frequencies that are coming out of them and how that relates to maximum permissible exposure. What the City can do is deal with height and aesthetics, identify preferred and discouraged locations, require compliance with FCC rules related to radio frequency emissions, and collocate these facilities with existing streetlight and traffic signal infrastructure so that, rather than creating new vertical infrastructure, they’re replacing stuff that already exists. This is where staff have landed after thinking about this. The City owns the streetlights, which is a huge advantage. Ms. McGovern stated that the streetlights are pretty low. She asked if they will end up being taller. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has control over the location of the luminere. It’s going to be best practices in terms of heights, which they are working to establish. The light itself will be 12 to 15 feet off the ground. The facility itself will be 25. Staff really feels imposed upon. Aspen has worked hard to get rid of vertical clutter and put all utilities underground. Now these things are popping back up in perhaps large numbers. Ms. McGovern asked if staff have received any applications. Mr. Anderson stated that they have. Ms. McGovern asked if they are on hold until this gets done. 10 Mr. Anderson stated that they are on hold because the City sent them a five page letter listing all the things they haven’t given the City. They are responding to those now. Ms. Rockhill asked what would happen if they went with a private property. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be a land use application and there are already very clear rules about that. Whether they are a standalone tower or a rooftop, there are rules that aren’t changing very much. The change are these facilities that are going in the right-of-way that the City had no rules about. One of the things that the City is requiring is that any related facilities that go along with these poles go underground. There is often a lot of equipment that go along with these poles that is often adjacent in a cabinet. The City is not allowing those cabinets to be in the right-of-way. One of the things to reduce the number of poles is to try to encourage collocation, meaning that multiple carriers will be on the same facility. The City can’t require that but is trying to create incentives to do that. The City is also contemplating giving access to City of Aspen buildings and providing an electricity hookup and fiberoptic connection on top of the armory building as a mechanism to try to keep these out of the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has received an application. AT&T has been the most active. They’ve submitted applications for two facilities and had talked with staff about applications for an additional eight. Verizon is coming soon. Ms. McGovern asked what locations are currently candidates for these facilities. Mr. Anderson showed a photo on the slide of a rendering provided by AT&T for a facility at the corner of Lone Pine and Gibson. Ms. McGovern asked if the decorative street lamps will be going away. Mr. Anderson stated that there is an option to add fluting to the pole. They can also paint them. The diameter can also be changed. Mr. Marcoux asked if it was ever discussed to fully embrace 5G technology. He stated that this could help traffic. Mr. Anderson stated that there’s a balance that the City is trying to strike. A lot of people see a huge advantage to this and want to encourage better service. When there are a lot of tourist in town, cell service becomes poor. At the same time, the City has worked very hard on the aesthetic of this community. The City has been told that, worst case scenario, there could potentially be 100 towers per carrier in a square mile. Mr. Marcus asked if there is an opportunity to partner with private property owners and go back to rooftops and areas that aren’t in the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that it used to be that the companies had to go to private property owners and negotiate. Now, with access to the right-of-way, they don’t need to do that anymore. Staff tried to come up with incentives to incentivize private property owners to get on board with providing space for this. They asked Verizon about this and their response was: “why would we?” 11 Mr. Marcus asked if the City could go to the private property owners and negotiate the leases ahead of time. Mr. Anderson stated that the City signed a contract last week with a neutral host provider. This is a third-party facility builder. They operate all over the country and do this. The idea is that the City works with them to make it easy to put up these facilities either on rooftops or private properties on strategically-located buildings in the right-of-way. They then approach carriers. That is in place. It’s an experiment right now. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the second proposed location on Main Street. He stated that there is a larger conversation that needs to happen about what the streetlight system should look like and how it functions. The streetlights now are not historic. They were brought here from San Francisco in the ‘70’s. They’re not built particularly well so small cell facilities can’t be located within the poles because they are not structurally sound. Staff are trying to identify something that is pretty low-key as a placeholder until they can have a larger conversation about what the streetlight system should look like. Staff have landed on something nondescript and as small as possible. The Historic Preservation Commission did not like staff’s choice. Mr. Marcoux asked if staff have looked in to smart lights. Mr. Anderson stated that there are different kinds of sensor options that could be used. He is not sure how much support there is in the Utilities Department. Mr. Marcoux stated that, with the amount of construction, they might as well go all-in now. Mr. Anderson stated that staff have a list of bulleted list of things that they’ve landed on to this point. He asked for feedback from staff. He will send out an email to the commissioners. January 21st, staff are going to City Council with the list and with the comments from P&Z and HPC. They will get feedback from City Council. Then that will go to HR Green to write the document. It will sit outside the land use code and there will be a section of the land use code that talks about how to use this document. Staff will come back to P&Z in February with the design guidelines and amended land use code, looking for a recommendation to Council for their adoption. The first thing that staff have talked about is preferred installation for these wireless facilities. Staff would like them to be on rooftops collocated on rooftops where they’re already present. Staff’s second choice would be new facilities. Collocated on one of the facilities in the City’s right-of-way is the fifth choice. Staff thinks that most of this stuff is going to be preference number six. Staff wanted to state clearly that they have other preferences before that. Twenty-five feet for height, which is about as restrictive as the City can get. There is a minimum distance between facilities between carriers of 600 feet. The City will get pushback on this as it goes forward. Staff have heard as low as 150 feet between these facilities. A fluted pattern to emulate the existing streetlight design. Pole diameter, no more than eighteen inches. Staff heard that any less than that would preclude a collocated structure. Antennas will be painted to match the rest of the pole. After that, there is more technical direction about what happens underground. Staff are working with Engineering and Utilities Departments to come up with the standard for how that looks. Staff have landed on matching the color of the poles to the existing infrastructure. Staff is discouraging or possibly prohibiting electric meters. If there does need to be a meter, it will have to be offsite, related to the transformer that they’re connected to rather than on the pole sitting in the right-of-way. Right now staff are using a hockey-puck design as a placeholder for a better luminere design. 12 Mr. Anderson stated that one of the important things that adds to the expense of the facilities for the carriers is that staff are requiring everything to be concealed within a pole or underground. That is something that staff are getting pushback on because of the expense associated with that, but staff feel strongly about it. It is the same thing they expect of other utilities that are operating in the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that the City can, with specific language, prohibit these things in protection of iconic historically-designated buildings. They are working with HPC and Amy Simon to create that list. Staff are proposing to prohibit these in the Aspen pedestrian malls and prohibiting them in the foreground of a designated mountain view plane. These are things that the City can justify with the way other utilities and development are treated. Similarly, to designate an open space within the right-of- way adjacent to, say Marolt Open Space, so that we don’t have one of these blocking the view up to Castle Creek. Mr. Anderson stated that there are reporting requirements. Every facility would require a report, which talks about the radio frequency that is coming out of them so that the City would have a clear understanding and know that they are compliant with FCC regulations. This is not something that currently exists for the facilities that are in town and it’s a good idea for these, especially as the technology is changing. If these meet the design guidelines, it will be a fully administrative process. If they do not, they would have to appeal to P&Z and HPC. Because of that, as an administrative process there’s no public hearing which also means no public notice. Staff have decided to notice these facilities as soon as they have a complete application. They will notice it the same way they do for a public hearings with a poster on site, a mailing to neighbors within 300 feet, and a newspaper notice. This is a change from normal procedure but staff think that it’s good to let people know what’s coming to the neighborhood. With that, Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to commissioner comments. Ms. McGovern stated that alleyway placement should be prioritized. Mr. Forman stated that staff will definitely look into alleys, but it does seem like they might be too tight to begin with. Mr. Marcus stated that, just a few people own over half of the downtown core. It would be easy to talk to that small group to figure out how to get these things on rooftops. There is probably a way to incentivize the property owners to figure out a way to get it out of the right-of-way and up on the roofs. Mr. Anderson stated that the conversation is about getting the telecom companies figuring out what’s in their benefit to have a conversation with the owners of private residences. Right now, they don’t have an incentive. It’s probably the neutral host provider that is the conduit for something like that. Mr. McKnight stated that he sat in on one of these meetings and he was very proud of staff for tackling this. It sounds like it’s hitting other communities in a way that they’re not going to be on top of this in time. He thanked staff for taking the initiative to get ahead of this. Mr. Anderson stated that Ms. Bryan and Jessica Garrow were very on top of this. Mr. Forman and Paul Schultz have been very helpful. There are a lot of staff trying to get their arms around this in a way that they can understand. It’s challenging. 13 Mr. McKnight stated that this is a quick process, so he plans to respond as quickly as possible. Mr. Anderson stated that City Council is going to be looking at this same list on the 21st of January. Staff will be coming back to Planning and Zoning quickly after that with a draft of land use code update. ADJOURN Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 PM. Ms. Rockhill seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager 14 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEMO DATE: January 16, 2020 MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 RE: 900 East Hopkins Ave., Special Review - Stream Margin Review Standard Variance APPLICANT: Mountain River Manor Condominiums REPRESENTATIVE: David Rybak, Rybak Architecture & Development, P.C. LOCATION: 900 E Hopkins Ave. CURRENT ZONING & USE This property is located in the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district and is developed with an existing 16-unit multi- family residential building. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting a Stream Margin Review Standard Variance to allow for alterations to existing deck, stair, and guardrails that provide access to second story units. The proposed improvements increase the height of the handrails and width of the stairs that are within the restricted Top of Slope 15’ Setback and 45- degree Progressive Height Limit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny portions of the request for a Stream Margin Review Standard Variance that are not required for building code compliance, and approved all improvements that are required for building code compliance. Figure 1. 900 E Hopkins Ave. Aerial Image : 15 Page 2 of 6 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Special Review (Pursuant to Lane Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting a Stream Margin Review Standard Variance to increase the encroachment of the deck, stairs and guardrail height in the Top of Slope Setback and 45-Degree Progressive height limit, which requires Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Mountain River Manor Condominiums are located at 900 E. Hopkins Ave. in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district. The 12,000 square foot lot contains a 16-unit multi-family residential building. The building is a two-story structure and access is provided to the units via wood stairs, a second story wood deck, and various walkways on site. The wood decks and stairs are original to the building which was built in 1972. The property is located above the south bank of the Roaring Fork River and is entirely within the Stream Margin review area. The Top of Slope intersects the property on the northwest corner. The land use code prohibits development within 15’ setback from the Top of Slope, with the exception of native vegetation planting. Figure 2 shows the Top of slope Setback and the proposed alterations that are in conflict with the Stream Margin review standards are shown in blue. The existing building also projects into the 45-degree progressive height limit (Figure 3). The property was developed prior to the adoption of these Stream Margin Review standards and is considered non-conforming in terms of the building location within the 15’ Top of Slope Setback and 45-degree progressive height limit from the Top of Slope. Figure 2: 900 E Hopkins Existing Conditions - Top of Slope 16 Page 3 of 6 Figure 3: Existing West Elevation with Progressive Height limit shown PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to upgrade and replace the existing wood decks, stairs and guardrails. The deck boards, guard rails, and stairs are being replaced throughout the property on the first and second level. Only the deck boards on the walkways will be replaced, the joists supporting the deck walkways are cantilevered from the building and will remain unless structural improvements are needed, then additional joists will be sistered to the existing joists. The deck walkway uses 2”x6” wood decking and will be replaced with 2”x6” boards. The existing handrails are 2”x2” wood balusters with a 2”x6” wood top cap. The proposed handrails are made of 4”x4” wood posts with a 2”x4” wood top cap and metal baluster panels between the wood posts. The existing guardrails are 36” tall and do not meet current building code. 42” guardrails are proposed throughout the property, which is the minimum height allowed to meet current building code requirements. The east stairs will be replaced, and improvements will be made so the stairs comply with building code requirements. This means that the stairs will be detached from the building and relocated slightly to the north. The stairs will be relocated so the top stair does not terminate adjacent to the window. The alterations will allow for the preferred handrail design that meets building code requirements to be installed on both sides of the stairs. Detaching the stairs from the structure provides adequate egress path clearance from existing utilities located at the bottom of the stairs and improves the function of the stairs by reducing noise transmission from use of the stairs. The west stairs will also be reconfigured to allow for the preferred hand rail design that meets building code requirements to be installed and the applicant is requesting to widen the stairs and walkway to improve usability. The top of the existing stairs ends adjacent to a window that prevents the preferred handrail design that meets building code requirements from being installed. The stairs will be relocated so the stairs do not terminate adjacent to the window. Similar to the east stairs, the west stairs are currently attached the exterior wall which causes excessive noise within the building when the stairs are used. The applicant proposes to disconnect the stair from the exterior of the building by installing a wood stringer to support the stairs. The proposed increase in clear width and disconnecting the stair by using additional structure increases the width of the stair and walkway by 9” as measured from the side of the building. The existing width of the stair and walkway is 4’3” (51”), the proposed width is 5’. Building code requires a minimum of 36” clear width for the stairs and walkway. E Hopkins Roaring Fork River 17 Page 4 of 6 All decks and stairs are proposed to be replaced, but only the northwest corner of the second story walkway (highlighted in Exhibit 2) encroaches into the Top of Slope Setback. The area identified in black in Exhibit 4 represents the approximate increase of the encroachment of the walkway in the Top of Slope Setback and 45-degree progressive height limit. The yellow area represents the width of the existing walkway within the progressive height limit. The deck on the north of the building falls within the 45-degree progressive height limit and will have deck boards replaced, but the width will remain the same (identified in green). The stairs on the west side of the building are proposed to widen but are not within the Top of Slope Setback or 45-degree progressive height limit and comply with the Stream Margin Review Standards. Only the areas highlighted in Figure 4 are subject to the progressive height limit and Top of Slope Setback on the second floor. All guardrails along the north and west walkways and stairs infringe in the 45-degree progressive height limit, including the first and second floor guardrails on the north and west sides of the building. Including all areas clouded in Figure 5 and the exterior deck perimeter of the highlighted area of Figure 4. All other work on the remainder of the structure complies with the Stream Margin Review Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is only asked to review the widened walkway in the northwest corner identified in Exhibit 4, and the 6” increase in guardrail height along west and north walkways within the 45- degree progressive height limit. Figure 4: Second Level Plan View Detail of Improvements in Top of Slope Setback Figure 5: North Façade Guardrails to be replace in 45-Degree Progressive Height Limit 18 Page 5 of 6 STAFF COMMENT: Special Review: The application is subject to Stream Margin Review and does not qualify for a Stream Margin Exemption because the proposed alterations result in development closer to the Roaring Fork River. Stream Margin Review Standard 26.435.040.C.8 prohibits all development within a 15’ Top of Slope Setback, except for native vegetation planting. Stream Margin Review standard 26.435.040.C.9 establishes a 45-degree progressive height limit measured from the Top of Slope. The existing building was constructed prior to the adoption of these regulations. The northwest corner of the deck and stair fall within the 15’ Top of Slope Setback and portions of the building are above the 45-degree progressive height limit (Figure 2 & 3). The proposed alterations to the decks, stairs and guardrails do not meet the Stream Margin Review criteria since additional development is proposed that increases the non-conforming development in the Top of Slope Setback and above the progressive height limit. Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) review applications that do not comply with the Stream Margin Review Standards. There are two review criteria for Special Review. The first standard addresses alternative a new Top of Slope determination, which is not included in this request. The second addresses applications that do not comply with the Stream Margin Review Criteria. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff has found the application does not meet the review standards for Stream Margin Review since the application proposes to increase the elements within the Top of Slope Setback and progressive height limit. Detailed responses to the review criteria can be found in Exhibit A and B. Staff acknowledges the wood decks, stairs, and guardrails require maintenance and eventually replacement; however, the proposed increased width of the northwest walkway increases the encroachment into the Top of Slope Setback and progressive height limit and is not required for building code compliance but is requested as a matter of convenience. Staff supports the 42” guardrails in order to comply with building code requirements. The existing walkway’s clear width measures 47.5” and complies with the current building code required 36” clear width. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the increased guardrail height of 42” in all areas within the Top of Slope Setback and progressive height limit but deny the requested increase in the second level walkway width. The applicant can still make the requested improvements to the west stairs and maintain the existing walkway encroachment into the Top of Slope Setback and progressive height limit. REFERRALS: The application was referred to the Building, Parks and Engineering Departments for review. Parks and Engineering had no comments. The Building Department has discussed the proposed design and approves of the initial plans submitted by the applicant. The proposed design will be formally reviewed to confirm code compliance during building permit review. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed request for Special Review requesting a variance from the Stream Margin Review Standards to allow for a 42” guardrail, as required for building code compliance, to be installed within the Top of Slope Setback and 45-degree progressive height limit. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the requested increase in the second story walkway width within the Top of Slope Setback and progressive height limit since it’s not required for building code compliance. 19 Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDED MOTION: The draft resolution is written in the affirmative. If the P&Z disagrees with Staff’s recommendation and wishes to approve the current request for Special Review for a Stream Margin Review Standard Variance, including the wider walkway and taller guardrails, the following motion should be used. “I move to approve Resolution #__, Series of 2020 granting approval for Special Review for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards, subject to the attached draft Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution.” If the P&Z agrees with Staff’s recommendation and wishes to approve the Special Review request for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards to allow for code compliant guardrails to be installed but maintain the existing walkway encroachment, the following motion should be used. “I move to amend Resolution #__, Series of 2020 eliminating Section 1.A and approve the amended Resolution seeking approval for Special Review for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards to allow for 42” guardrails within the Top of Slope Setback and 45-degree progressive height limit as required for building code compliance.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Stream Margin Review Criteria Exhibit B – Stream Margin Special Review - Review Criteria Exhibit C – Application Exhibit D – Public Notice Affidavit 20 RESOLUTION NO. ______ (SERIES OF 2020) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A VARIANCE TO THE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS, FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE COMMON ELEMENTS OF MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 374, AND CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 13 AT PAGE 30, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 900 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE. Parcel No. 273718205800 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dave Rybak with Rybak Architecture & Development, P.C. (Representative), on behalf of the Mountain River Manor Condominium Association (Applicant), requesting Special Review approval for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards for property at 900 E. Hopkins Avenue; 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 and Parks Department who found no issues with the proposed scope of work; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission deny portions of the requested Special Review for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards that are not required for building code compliance; 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 January 21st, 2020; 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, 21 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution _____, Series of 2020, by a _____ to ______ (_____ - _____) vote, granting approval of Special Review for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for a Variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards, including subsections 26.435.030.C.8: There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100- year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and and subsection 26.435.030.C.9: All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A". The following improvements are allowed within the Top of Slope Setback and 45-degree progressive height limit: A. The second level walkway within the Top of Slope setback may be replaced, relocated, and the overall width expanded by a total of nine (9) inches. The total width of the walkway deck on the northwest corner of the building is allowed to extend a total of five (5) feet from the west façade of the structure, as depicted in Exhibit A. No expansion of the deck or stairs to the northeast is allowed. All necessary structural support is also permitted within the Top of Slope setback. B. New guardrails measuring no more than 42” tall, as required for Building Code Compliance are allowed within the 45-degree progressive height limit. 22 Section 2: Stream Margin Review: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Stream Margin Review for all standards not listed above, including Section 26.435.030.C.1 through Section 26.435.030.C.7 and Sections 26.435.030.C.10 & 26.435.030.C11. Section 3: Residential Design Standard Exemption: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Residential Design Standard Exemption. The exemption is approved as none of the work proposed affects elements regulated by the Residential Design Standards. Section 4: 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 5: 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 6: 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 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on January 21, 2020. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair 23 ATTEST: ____________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk Exhibits: Exhibit A – Approved Plans 24 P R O P E R T Y LI N E 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K DOUIBLE STAIR -RAISED LANDINGNEW EAST DECKNEW WEST DECKNEW WEST DECK2A-21 A-23RAISE EXISTING FIRE EXTINGUISH CABINETPRICING OPTIONS ON DECKING AND GUARDRAILSEXISTING NORTH DECK - TO REMAIN55' - 6 7/8"4A-21 A-2315' TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK1 0 ' P R O P E R T Y S E T B A C K I .B .C.I.B.C. ENCROACH 1/8" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN25 P R O P E R T Y LI N E 5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K NEW OPEN GUARDRAIL AT BASEMENT STAIRNEW CONCRETE PAD, STAIR AND GUARDAILS TO NORTH FIRST FLOOR DECKNEW COLUMNSRELOCATE EXISTING MAIL BOXESNEW COLUMNSNEW STAIRNEW COLUMNSNEW CONCRETE PAD AND STAIR UP TO LANDINGNEW CONCRETE WALK TIED INTO EXISTING WALK1A-21 A-23-A-21 ---REMOVE EXISTING STEEL BOLLARDPRICING OPTIONS FOR DECK AND GUARDRAILEXISTING NORTH DECK - TO REMAIN46' - 9 3/8"5' FRONT YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE3A-21 A-23TOP OF SLOPE15' TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK1 0 ' P R O P E R T Y S E T B A C K I .B .C.I.B.C. ENCROACHMENTTOP OF SLOPEA-21 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANNORTH26 2A-243A-243' - 11 1/4"0' - 6"11' - 6 1/2"12' - 0"4' - 9 1/2"12' - 1 1/4"11' - 5 5/16"F.V.51' - 10 1/2"6' - 0"9' - 2"CONCRETE STAIR PLATFORMEXISTING TIMBER CURB TO REMAIN- REMOVE AT NEW CONCRETE STAIR PLATFORMNEW STAIR & GUARDRAIL TO NORTH DECKNEW H.T. COLUMNSNEW STAIR SYSTEMNEW STAIR SYSTEMNEW GUARDRAIL AT EXISTING BASEMENT STAIRREMOVE EXISTING STEEL BOLLARDNEW H.T. COLUMNS3' - 9 1/2"3' - 9 1/2"1A-244' - 9"2A-25 1/4" = 1'-0"1WEST STAIR FIRST FLOOR PLAN2A-243A-24NEW T&G DECKING ON H.T. STRUCTURENEW STAIRRAISE EXISTING MAILBOXES TO 4' ABOVE LANDING ELEVATIONNEW T&G DECK ON H.T. STRUCTURE1-1/2" DIA. HANDRAIL ON EACH SIDE OF STAIRLED PATH LIGHT AT EACH GUARDRAIL POST2' - 9"3 T @ 11" EA.4 R @ 6 7/8" EA.11' - 0"12 T @ 11" EA. - 13 R @ 6 7/8" EA.1A-245' - 0 1/2"DASHED LINE INDICATES EDGE OF EXISTING DECK RAILING0' - 8 1/4"2A-25 1/4" = 1'-0"2WEST STAIR SECOND FLOOR PLANFIRST FLOOR PLAN100' - 0"SECOND FLOOR PLAN108' - 8"0' - 0 3/4"3' - 6 1/4"0' - 2"6X12 HEAVY TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE8X8 HEAVY TIMBER COLUMNSGUARDRAIL SYSTEM: 4X4 HEAVY TIMBER POSTS 2X4 WD TOP RAIL METAL BALUSTERS: 2" X 1/2" STEEL TOP RAIL 1/2" STEEL PICKETS 2" X 1" STEEL BOTTOM RAIL EXISTING BUILDING2X6 T&G WOOD DECKINGNO CONTACT BETWEEN NEW DECK STRUCTURE AND BUILDING TO PREVENT VIBRATION NOISEF.V.8' - 6 3/4"VARIES2' - 0"REQ'D3' - 6"LED PATH LIGHT AT GUARDRAIL POST12" DIA. SONA TUBE POST BASE SYSTEMGRADE - VAREIS0' - 0 3/4"0' - 1 1/2"3' - 1 3/4"0' - 3"2X12 P.T. JOISTS AT 16" O.C.POST BASE AT EXISTING CONC. FOUNDATION WALLS: 12' X 12' CONC. W/ THROUGH BOLTS AND STEEL PLATES #5 REINF.2' - 4"PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT5' - 0 1/2" 3/4" = 1'-0"1DECK SECTION - HEAVY TIMBER STRUCTURE27 Exhibit A Stream Margin Review Criteria C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Staff Response: The development will occur outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and will not increase the base flood elevation as no site work or development will occur in that area. The Special Flood Hazard Area is below the 15’ top of slope setback that restricts grading and development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Staff Response: At this time no public use, access, or easements exist on the property. The No problem Joe Trail exists north of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and Staff Response: No vegetation is to be removed or damaged. The extent of site work includes the installation of structural column foundations and a slab on grade to support the stairs and deck. Although limited site disturbance is proposed, the new structure requires development beyond the existing intrusion into the 15’ Top of Slope Setback and 45 deg. Progressive height limit and new site disturbance. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. 28 Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and Staff Response: The applicant has indicated that sedimentation that occurs during construction will be mitigated in accordance with an erosion control plan to be submitted for review as part of the building permit. Drainage from the development will be treated and detained in accordance with the City of Aspen URMP. Pools and hot tubs will not be drained into storm water systems. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Staff Response: No alteration of the watercourse is proposed. Written notice to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are not required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and Staff Response: The proposed development will not alter or relocate the existing water course. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and Staff Response: No development is proposed within the 100-year flood plain (Special Flood Hazard Area). Staff finds this criterion met. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and Staff Response: The proposed deck replacement and enlarged stairs on the north-west corner of the building will occur within the 15’ Top of Slope setback. Minimal site disturbance is proposed, however, development in this area is restricted and the proposed renovation increases the intrusion into the setback and is closer to the Roaring Fork 29 River. The handrails are also proposed to increase from 36” to 42”. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and Staff Response: The existing structure projects into the restricted height area as defined by this standard. The proposed alterations to the northwest deck and stairs increase the projection of the deck structure into the progressive height limit. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Staff Response: A lighting plan was submitted and complies with the Outdoor lighting regulations. This will be confirmed at building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. The applicant has indicated, and no documentation has been found by staff that there are any wetlands or riparian zones located within the property. Staff finds this criterion met. 30 Exhibit B 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 Top of Slope is not in question and no change is pro posed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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: The proposed development does not meet the review criteria of Section 26.435.040.C., Stream Margin Review. The proposed alterations increase the non- conforming elements of the deck and handrail within the Top of Slope Setback and 45- degree top of slope progressive height limit. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 31 EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϳ City of AƐpen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION WƌŽũĞĐƚEĂŵĞĂŶĚĚĚƌĞƐƐ:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ APPLICANT: Name:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĞŵĂŝů͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĞŵĂŝů͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ: ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁ: ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞŽƌŽĂƌĚZĞǀŝĞǁ Have you ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement ,KŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞĨŽƌŵ ůůŝƚĞŵƐůŝƐƚĞĚŝŶĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŽŶWƌĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ>ĂŶĚhƐĞZĞǀŝĞǁ;ƐͿ: 'ƌŽǁƚŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚYƵŽƚĂ^ǇƐƚĞŵ;'DY^ͿƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŝĞůĚƐ͗ EĞƚ>ĞĂƐĂďůĞƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ>ŽĚŐĞWŝůůŽǁƐͺͺͺͺͺͺ&ƌĞĞDĂƌŬĞƚĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͺͺͺͺͺƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůWƵďůŝĐ&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Mountain River Manor Condominiums, 900 E. Hopkins Ave. 2737 182 05 800 Mountain River Manor Condominium Association nancyagrent@gmail.com 900 E. Hopkins Ave. Rybak Architecture & Development, P.C., David Rybak 600 E. Hopkins Ave., Suite 303 925 1125 dave@daverybak.com Existing two-story multi-family condominium building with exterior stairs and walkways. Proposal includes reconstruction of existing East and West Stairs in a Building Code compliant form, replacement of the existing walkway decking boards, and replacement of the existing walkway guardrails. Administrative X X X X 2,275.00 Stream Margin Review, Non-Conforming Structures, Residential Design: Multi-Family Standards Exemption 32 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϳ City of AƐpen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM ProjectĂŶĚ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ __________________________________________________________________ͺͺ Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________________ 'ƌŽƐƐ>ŽƚƌĞĂ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺŽŶĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺEĞƚ>ŽƚƌĞĂ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WůĞĂƐĞĨŝůůŽƵƚĂůůƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐ ^ŝŶŐůĞ&ĂŵŝůǇĂŶĚƵƉůĞǆZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐůůŽǁĞĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ϭͿ&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ ϮͿDĂǆŝŵƵŵ,ĞŝŐŚƚ ϯͿ&ƌŽŶƚ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ ϰͿZĞĂƌ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ ϱͿ^ŝĚĞ^ĞƚďĂĐŬƐ ϲͿŽŵďŝŶĞĚ^ŝĚĞ^ĞƚďĂĐŬƐ ϳͿй^ŝƚĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ ϴͿDŝŶŝŵƵŵĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚйŽĨĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶͺͺͺͺͺͺ ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞ;ƐͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐůůŽǁĞĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ϭͿ&Z;&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂZĂƚŝŽͿ ϮͿ&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ ϯͿDĂǆŝŵƵŵ,ĞŝŐŚƚ ϰͿKĨĨͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƉĂĐĞƐ ϱͿ^ĞĐŽŶĚdŝĞƌ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ ϲͿWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶŵĞŶŝƚǇ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚйŽĨĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶͺͺͺͺͺͺ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŶŽŶͲĐŽŶĨŽƌŵŝƚŝĞƐŽƌĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ͗ sĂƌŝĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͗ ΎΎWůĞĂƐĞƌĞĨĞƌƚŽƐĞĐƚŝŽŶϮϲ͘ϱϳϱ͘ϬϮϬĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶŚŽǁƚŽĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞEĞƚ>ŽƚƌĞĂ DƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐůůŽǁĞĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ϭͿ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨhŶŝƚƐ ϮͿ WĂƌĐĞůĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ƐĞĞϮϲ͘ϳϭϬ͘ϬϵϬ͘͘ϭϬͿ ϯͿ &Z;&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂZĂƚŝŽͿ ϰͿ &ůŽŽƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ ϰͿ DĂǆŝŵƵŵ,ĞŝŐŚƚ ϱͿ &ƌŽŶƚ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ ϲͿ ZĞĂƌ^ĞƚďĂĐŬ ϳͿ ^ŝĚĞ^ĞƚďĂĐŬƐ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚйŽĨĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶͺͺͺͺͺͺ >ŽĚŐĞ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůhƐĞ;ƐͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐůůŽǁĞĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ϭͿ &Z;&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂZĂƚŝŽͿ ϮͿ &ůŽŽƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ ϯͿ DĂǆŝŵƵŵ,ĞŝŐŚƚ ϰͿ &ƌĞĞDĂƌŬĞƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ ϰͿ &ƌŽŶƚƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ϱͿ ZĞĂƌƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ϲͿ ^ŝĚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐ ϳͿ KĨĨͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƉĂĐĞƐ ϴͿ WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶŵĞŶŝƚǇ;ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚйŽĨĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶͺͺͺͺͺͺ ŽŵƉůĞƚĞŽŶůǇŝĨƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞWƌĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚ 900 E. Hopkins Avenue Mountain River Manor Condominium Association RMF 12,000 SF 12,000-(327/2)-(229+976)=10,631.50 SF 10,631.50 SF 6'-3" E, 43'-10" W 5'No Change 12'-4"5'No Change 22'-0"5'20' No Change32'34'-6 1/8" 16 No Change 1/750 SF No Change1/750 SF 1.5:1 No Change 18,000 SF No Change6,839 SF Existing development encroaches into current Stream Margin Top of Slope setback per 26.435.040.C.9. EXEMPT AREA 974 SF 2,700 SF 1,062 SF 33 34 35 600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 303 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PH/FX 970 925 1125 daverybak.com December 10, 2019 Garret Larimer, Planner City of Aspen, Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Mountain River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Residential Design: Multi-Family Standards SUBJECT PROPERTY: Mountain River Manor Condominiums 900 East Hopkins Avenue Parcel I.D.: 2737-182-05-800 Dear Mr. Larimer: Mountain River Manor is a 16-unit Multi-Family condominium building located at 900 East Hopkins Avenue. The two-story structure, built in the 1970’s, is a wood framed, wood sided building with exterior walkways and stairs accessing the individual units. The existing wood stairs and walkway guardrail structures are original construction, have deteriorated despite regular maintenance, and are in need of replacement. The building sits along the South bank of the Roaring Fork River, near the Top of Slope, requiring Stream Margin Review for any exterior modifications. The Northwest corner of the building sits on the 15’ Top of Slope Setback, with the exterior stairs and walkway encroaching into the setback at this location. The basement level is partially exposed on the North Façade. Due to the siting of the building, the existing structure encroaches into the Top of Slope 45 degree height limit of the current Land Use Code, 26.435.040.C.9. PROPOSAL: Due to the pour condition of the wood stairs, and age of the wood decking and guardrails, we propose to replace the East and West stair structures, replace the existing wood walkway deck boards and the existing walkway guardrails. The walk way joist are cantilevered from the interior floor framing and will not be replaced under the proposed work. Additional framing may be added within the existing joist depth if structurally required. East Stair: The Existing East stair runs North from the Southeast corner of the building. The exiting stair does not meet International Building Code requirements in several conditions. The proposed replacement stair will rectify these conditions to the extent possible, provided site constraints. The new stair will run north, similar to the existing, however it will be placed East and North of the existing footprint, to locate the stair away from existing windows on the East Elevation of the building. This relocation allows handrails to be installed on both sides of the stair, as required by the I.B.C. The existing condition 36 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 2 prevents a handrail from being installed on the East Façade because it would overlap the existing window of the Second Floor. Locating the stair slightly East of the current condition allows the stair to end at the ground level with a clear path of egress, away from the existing Electrical gear mounted on the East Façade of the building. Both the existing and proposed stair conflict with the I.B.C. requirement that this Exit Stair be located no closure than 10 feet to the Property Line. The Existing Condition encroaches approximately 1’-6” into the 10’ requirement. The proposed stair will encroach approximately 2’-7” into the 10’ requirement. This condition has been discussed with the Building Department, and they have agreed to accept this encroachment as it improves other conditions of the stair which are unsafe in its current condition. West Stairs: The existing West stairs access both the North and South Second Floor walkways independently. The proposed stair will mimic the existing layout, but will resolve Building Code compliance issues. Like the East stair, the West stairs run along windows which prevent handrail installation. The proposed West stairs will start beyond the windows allowing installation of handrails. This change of footprint will require a landing and short flight of steps turning West to meet grade at the parking area. The existing Northwest corner of the walkway encroaches upon the 15’ Setback from Top of Slope. The majority of the existing building, including the Northern West Stair encroaches above the 45 degree height limit from the Top of Slope. The placement of the building was prior to this requirement being included in the Land Use Code. The proposed West Stair will widen approximately 9”, increasing the non-conformity. The existing stair structure is connected to the building and transmits vibration into the adjacent units. The proposed replacement stair will disconnect the stair structure from the building, limiting the vibration transmission. The new stair structure will utilize wider wood stringers for additional strength to meet current loading requirements. Detachment of the structure, increased structural width, and a handrail on both sides of the stair, as required by the I.B.C. widens the footprint of the stair by approximately 9”, while maintaining a clear stair width of approximately 4 feet. Reducing the clear width to less than 4’ would constrict moving furniture up and down the stairs. Existing walkways and guardrails: The existing walkways are wood construction, consisting of wood deck joists cantilevered from the building, 2x6 wood decking, and wood guardrails composed of 2x2 wood balusters with a 2x6 wood top cap. The proposed renovation will replace the 2x6 deck boards with new material, leaving cantilevered wood joists in place. Some sistering of additional wood joists to the existing may be required to remedy any structural concerns found during construction. The existing guardrails will be removed and replaced with 4x4 wood posts at 48” O.C. (+/-) a 2x4 wood cap and metal baluster panels. Lighting will be incorporated into the guardrails at each 4x4 post to illuminate the walk way. The light fixtures focus light down onto the walk and stair surfaces and comply with the City of Aspen Lighting Code. 37 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 3 A Land Use Code Review follows, providing commentary on how the proposed reconstruction meets the required regulations. The Land Use Application documents, drawings, photographs and lighting cut sheet accompany this letter. Please review the submittal package and let me know if you require any additional information. Sincerely David Rybak, A.I.A. 38 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 4 LAND USE CODE REVIEW: 26.435.040(C): Environmentally Sensitive Areas – Stream Margin Review C. Stream Margin Review Standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base floor elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and No work is proposed within the Special Flood Hazard Area. 2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman’s easement granting fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded “Fisherman’s Easement:” and The north property line is at the Top of Slope, or near the top of slope from the Roaring Fork River. The subject property does not extend to the river bank. The No Problem Joe Trail exists, north of the property. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and There will be no vegetation removed or damage to the slope. The on-grade construction is limited to installation of structural column foundations, and slabs on grade to support the stair structures. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and The proposed development will not affect the river, or drainage to the river. 39 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 5 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alternation or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and No alterations to the river will occur under this proposal. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the develop and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and No alterations to the river will occur under this proposal. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and No alterations to the river will occur under this proposal; therefore, no federal or state permits are required. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope, or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings, (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and The existing vegetation within the fifteen (15) foot setback from top of slope is grass. Installation of new columns and concrete slabs will occur within the 15 foot setback to support the stair and walkways. Any disturbance to the vegetation due to construction will be repaired with grass seed to match the existing. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.010 as shown in Figure “A”; and The existing building, and exterior walk and stairways encroach upon 15 foot setback from Top of Slope and the forty-five (45) degree angle height restriction from the ground level at Top of Slope. The building was constructed in the 1970’s under the Land Use Code of that era, and conformed to the Codes of that era. The existing building, exterior walkways and stairs are considered Non-conforming under the current Land Use Code due to the location of the structure in relation to the Top of Slope and the 45 degree height restriction from the Top of Slope. 40 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 6 The existing guardrails of the stairs and walkways are 36” high, which does not comply with the I.B.C. requirements of 42”. The proposed guardrails will be increased to 42” height to comply with the I.B.C. The proposed reconstruction of the West Stairs will create a footprint that is approximately 9” wider than the existing conditions. This additional footprint allows the following issues with the existing stair to be addressed: 1. Detach the stair structure from the building to prevent vibration being transferred into the adjacent dwelling units. Requires 2” of additional width for the stair. 2. Utilize wider stair stringer structural members to support the stair and meet the current International Building Code (I.B.C.) loading requirements. The existing stair stringers are single 2x12 which are over stressed. The footprint is being widened to incorporate the additional width of 4x Heavy Timber stringers, while maintain a 4 foot clear path for the stair. The existing stair has a 3-11 ½” clear path. Requires 4” of additional width for the stair 3. Installation of I.B.C. compliant handrails on both sides of the stair. The existing stairway has a handrail on the building side only; the existing guardrail to the open side, does not have a compliant handrail. Requires 3” of additional width to install compliant handrails to both sides of the stair. The 9” increase in the footprint within the 15 foot Top of Slope setback, and encroachment into the 45 degree height setback, and increased height of the guardrails will be nearly imperceptible to the public. Those who utilize the No Problem Joe Trail, walk along Neale Avenue or live on the South side of Queen Street will have a view of the new stairs and guardrails. The distance to those on Neale or Queen Street will render this change difficult to notice. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Lighting proposed included in the proposed reconstruction are directed down onto the adjacent walking surfaces and comply with the City of Aspen lighting requirements. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. The subject property contains no wetlands or riparian zones. 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 the 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. 41 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 7 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 Not applicable. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standards(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Not applicable. A Variance is being requested to increase encroachments of the existing non-conforming structure. The request for variance is based upon the desire to construct stairways and guardrails which will meet the current I.B.C., protect the occupants and guests of the buildings, and allow for the movement of furniture and fixtures in a manner consistent with the existing conditions. This building was constructed prior to the Top of Slope and 45 degree height limit requirements being incorporated into the Land Use Code. The stairs and guardrails are over forty years old, and while they have been maintained well, they are at the end of their useful life cycles. Increasing the guardrail height from 36” to 42” is required by the building code. This height increase will be unperceivable with the backdrop of the existing structure, which encroaches above the height limit well beyond the guardrails. Increasing the width of the West Stair by 9” to achieve code compliance and provide better noise reduction to the residents, is a minimal request with little to no impact upon adjacent residences or public ways. 26.410.040 Residential Design: Multi-family Standards A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all multi-family development. B. Design Standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). Standard not applicable to the scope of work. 2. Garage Access (Non-flexible). 42 Mt. River Manor Condominiums Stream Margin Exemption & Res. Design December 10, 2019 8 Standard not applicable to the scope of work. 3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). Standard not applicable to the scope of work. 4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). The individual unit entries are not being modified under this proposal. The West Stair configuration will be very similar to the existing condition, with the stairs accessed at the center of the West façade at grade level. This location provides convenient access to the parking area, while also maintain quick access to the various units. The East Stair will be reconfigured to face Hopkins Avenue, promoting the visual and physical connection between the street and building. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). Standard not applicable to the scope of work. 43 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE‐APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Garrett Larimer 429‐2739, Garrett.Larimer@cityofaspen.com DATE: December 3, 2019 PROJECT: 900 E Hopkins, Mountain River Manor REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Rybak, Dave@daverybak.com REQUEST: Stream Margin Review DESCRIPTION: The subject property contains 16 multi‐family residential units and is located near the southern bank of the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant desires to replace existing exterior stairs on the west side of the building that provide ground level access to 2nd floor units on the north side of the building. The Applicant indicates that the subject stairs are failing and require building code updates and maintenance. A portion of the stairs and decks reside within the 15’ top of slope setback and are entirely within the 100’ stream margin review area. From the scope of work presented, the project is not eligible for administrative Stream Margin Review approval. Stream Margin Special Review requires P&Z review per section 26.435.040.E to vary Section 26.435.040.C.8 and 26.435.040.C.9. Section 26.435.040.C.8 limits development within the 15’ Top of slope setback and Section 26.435.040.C.9 restricts development in the 45‐degree progressive height plane measured from the top of bank. The existing building and portions of the structure to be replaced are in the top of slope setback and infringe on the 45‐degree progressive height plane. To receive P&Z approval, the applicant shall respond to the review criteria found in Section 26.435.040.C ‐ Stream Margin Review and Section 26.435.040.E – Special Review. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: For your convenience – links to the Land Use Code and Land Use Application are below: Land Use Code Land Use Application Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.435.040(C): Environmentally Sensitive Areas – Stream Margin Review 26.435.040(E): Special Review 26.410.040 Residential Design: Multi‐family Standards Review by: Staff for complete application and decision. Public Hearing: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Fees: $1,300 deposit for 4 hours of staff time for Stream Margin Review. Any unbilled portion of the deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Referrals: $650 for Parks Department (flat fee) $325/hour for Engineering Review. All additional hours are billed at $325 per hour). 44 2 Total Deposit: $2,275 To apply, submit 1 copy of the following information:  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)  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.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  One 11x17 copy and one full sized copy of plans depicting the project and the Stream Margin Review Area, Top of Slope, and the 15’ setback from Top of Slope to confirm applicability and any impacts to these areas. (Existing and Proposed)  1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total deposit for review of the application.  a digital copy of all application materials provided in pdf file format. 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. 45 City C970 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □ This property is subject to a homeowner’s association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowner’s association or covenant beneficiary. □ This property is subject to a homeowner’s association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowner’s association or covenant beneficiary. I 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. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ 46 C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\12055A.gxd -- 11/27/2018 -- 12:03 PM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000 47 TV TV TVTVTVTV phphph POW POW P O W PO WPOW7929.0 '7 9 2 8 .3 '7 9 2 1 .8 '2 n d S T O R Y 7 9 3 8 .4 '2 n d S T O R Y 7 9 3 8 .5 '2 n d S T O R Y 7 9 3 8 .5 'S 14°50'49"W 100.00'N 14°50'49"E 100.00'N 75°09'1 1"W 1 20 .00' S 75°09 '11"E 1 20 .00 ' 7 9 0 0 79257 9 2 0 7 9 15 7 9 10 7 9 0 5 792555.3' 55.3'44.3'44.3'S T A I R S U P S I L L 7 9 3 0 .0 '7 9 2 1 .1 '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 0 N O P R O B L E M J O E T R A I L S H E D CON CRETE WALK M E A N H I G H W A T E R R E B R E D D I S E A ST H OP K I N S A V E N U E CP P CECPWUP UP UP DN DN MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS 900 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPHALT PARKING15' TOP OF SLOPE SETBACKTOP OF SLOPE15' TOP OF SLOPE SETBACK TOP OF SLOPE PROPERTY LINE 5' REAR YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE 5' FRONT YARD SETBACKEXISTING SETBACK22' - 0 3/4"4' - 3" REPLACE EXISTING DECKING AND GUARDRAIL EXISTING NORTH DECK - TO REMAIN REPLACE EXISTING STAIR & GUARDRAIL REPLACE EXISTING BASEMENT STAIR GUARDRAIL REPLACE EXISTING WEST STAIRSTOP OF SLOPE1 A-25 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKZONING10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.I.B.C. ENCROACHMENT 1 5 ' T O P O F SLO P E SE T B A C K REPLACE EXISTING DECKING AND GUARDRAILS EXISTING SOUTH DECK - TO REMAIN REPLACE EXISTING DECKING AND GUARDRAILS EXISTING NORTH DECK - TO REMAIN TO BE REPLACEDEXISTING EAST STAIR & DECKTO BE REPLACEDEXISTING WEST STAIRSEXIST'G ENCROACHMENT 4' - 3 3/4" 4' - 6"TOP OF SLOPE1 A-25 1 5 ' T O P O F SLO P E SE T B A C K 10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.I.B.C. ENCROACHMENT ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. As indicated A-01 EXISTING CONDITION PLANS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 NORTH 1" = 10'-0"1 SITE PLAN - TRUE NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING - FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING - SECOND FLOOR PLAN REPLACE EXISTING EAST STAIR 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 48 45.00°ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. 1/8" = 1'-0" A-02 EXISTING CONDITION ELEVATIONS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 5 SOUTH VIEW - EXISTING6SOUTH WEST VIEW - EXISTING 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 49 PROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKNEW OPEN GUARDRAIL AT BASEMENT STAIR NEW CONCRETE PAD, STAIR AND GUARDAILS TO NORTH FIRST FLOOR DECK NEW COLUMNS RELOCATE EXISTING MAIL BOXES NEW COLUMNS NEW STAIR NEW COLUMNS NEW CONCRETE PAD AND STAIR UP TO LANDING NEW CONCRETE WALK TIED INTO EXISTING WALK 1 A-21 A-23 - A-21 --- REMOVE EXISTING STEEL BOLLARD PRICING OPTIONS FOR DECK AND GUARDRAIL EXISTING NORTH DECK - TO REMAIN 46' - 9 3/8" 5 ' F R O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K P R O P E R T Y L I N E 3 A-21 A-23TOP OF SLOPE1 5' T O P O F SLO P E SE T B A C K 10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.I.B.C. ENCROACHMENTPROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKDOUIBLE STAIR - RAISED LANDING NEW EAST DECK NEW WEST DECK NEW WEST DECK 2 A-21 A-23 RAISE EXISTING FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET PRICING OPTIONS ON DECKING AND GUARDRAILS EXISTING NORTH DECK - TO REMAIN 55' - 6 7/8" 4 A-21 A-23TOP OF SLOPE1 5' T O P O F SLO P E SE T B A C K 10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.I.B.C. ENCROACHMENT RELOCATE EXISTING MAILBOXES 45.00°TOP OF SLOPE45.00°ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. 1/8" = 1'-0" A-21 PROPOSED STAIR AND GUARDRAIL REPLACEMENTS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"5 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"6 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION NEW H.T. DECK AND GUARDRAIL AT WEST AND EAST ENDS OF BUILDING NEW H.T. STAIR AND GUARDRAIL AT WESTAND EAST ENDS OF BUILDING NEW GUARDRAIL AT BASEMENT STAIR OPENING NEW H.T. DECK AND GUARDRAIL NEW H.T. STAIR AND GUARDRAIL NEW H.T. STAIR AND GUARDRAIL NEW GUARDRAIL ON EXISTING DECK NEW GUARDRAIL ON EXISTING DECK NEW H.T. DECK AND GUARDRAIL NEW H.T. STAIR AND GUARDRAIL NEW GUARDRAIL AT EXISTING DECK REPLACE EXISTING WD DECKING AT EXISTING DECKS REPLACE EXISTING WD DECKING AT EXISTING DECKS NEW GUARDRAIL AT EXISTING DECK REPLACE EXISTING WD DECKING AT EXISTING DECKS TOP OF SLOPE 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 50 ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. A-22 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 2 PROPOSED SOUTH WEST VIEW 4 PROPOSED SOUTH VIEW3PROPOSED SOUTH EAST VIEW 1 NORTH VIEW 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 51 SB SB SB SB SB SB 2 A-24 3 A-24 3' - 11 1/4"0' - 6"11' - 6 1/2"12' - 0"4' - 9 1/2"12' - 1 1/4"11' - 5 5/16"F.V.51' - 10 1/2"6' - 0"9' - 2" CONCRETE STAIR PLATFORM EXISTING TIMBER CURB TO REMAIN- REMOVE AT NEW CONCRETE STAIR PLATFORM NEW STAIR & GUARDRAIL TO NORTH DECK NEW H.T. COLUMNS NEW STAIR SYSTEM NEW STAIR SYSTEM NEW GUARDRAIL AT EXISTING BASEMENT STAIR REMOVE EXISTING STEEL BOLLARD NEW H.T. COLUMNS 3' - 9 1/2"3' - 9 1/2"1 A-24 4' - 9" 2 A-25 2 A-24 3 A-24 NEW T&G DECKING ON H.T. STRUCTURE NEW STAIR RAISE EXISTING MAILBOXES TO 4' ABOVE LANDING ELEVATION NEW T&G DECK ON H.T. STRUCTURE 1-1/2" DIA. HANDRAIL ON EACH SIDE OF STAIR LED PATH LIGHT AT EACH GUARDRAIL POST 2' - 9" 3 T @ 11" EA. 4 R @ 6 7/8" EA.11' - 0"12 T @ 11" EA. - 13 R @ 6 7/8" EA.1 A-24 5' - 0 1/2" DASHED LINE INDICATES EDGE OF EXISTING DECK RAILING 0' - 8 1/4" 2 A-25 NEW H.T. COLUMNS NEW STAIR SYSTEM I.B.C. ENCROACHMENT 10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.5' SIDE YARD SETBACKZONINGPROPERTY LINELED PATH LIGHTING AT GUARDRAIL POSTS NEW T&G DECKING ON H.T. STRUCTURE NEW GUARDRAIL SYSTEM RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINENT TO 4'-0" ABOVE DECK 16 T @ 11" EA. - 17 R @ 6 3/4" EA.14' - 8"5' - 3"4' - 1"0' - 10 1/2"4' - 7" I.B.C. ENCROACHMENT 10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.10' SIDE YARD SETBACKZONINGPROPERTY LINEISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. 1/4" = 1'-0" A-23 PROPOSED STAIR PLANS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST STAIR FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST STAIR SECOND FLOOR PLAN NORTH 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EAST STAIR FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EAST STAIR SECOND FLOOR PLAN 52 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 108' - 8"0' - 0 3/4"3' - 6 1/4"0' - 2" 6X12 HEAVY TIMBER DECK STRUCTURE 8X8 HEAVY TIMBER COLUMNS GUARDRAIL SYSTEM: 4X4 HEAVY TIMBER POSTS 2X4 WD TOP RAIL METAL BALUSTERS: 2" X 1/2" STEEL TOP RAIL 1/2" STEEL PICKETS 2" X 1" STEEL BOTTOM RAIL EXISTING BUILDING 2X6 T&G WOOD DECKING NO CONTACT BETWEEN NEW DECK STRUCTURE AND BUILDING TO PREVENT VIBRATION NOISE F.V.8' - 6 3/4"VARIES2' - 0"REQ'D3' - 6"LED PATH LIGHT AT GUARDRAIL POST 12" DIA. SONA TUBE POST BASE SYSTEM GRADE - VAREIS 0' - 0 3/4"0' - 1 1/2"3' - 1 3/4"0' - 3"2X12 P.T. JOISTS AT 16" O.C. POST BASE AT EXISTING CONC. FOUNDATION WALLS: 12' X 12' CONC. W/ THROUGH BOLTS AND STEEL PLATES #5 REINF.2' - 4"PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT 5' - 0 1/2"4' - 4"0' - 6"HEAVY TIMBER STRINGERS GUARDRAIL SYSTEM WOOD HANDRAIL 2X6 T&G WOOD DECKING @ LANDING EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING NEW 6" THICK CONCRETE PLATFORM W/ THICKENED EDGE 6" GRAVEL SUBSTRATE EXISTING BUILDING HEAVY TIMBER FRAMING TREAD 0' - 11"RISE0' - 6 7/8"PREFAB STAIR TREAD W/ NON-SLIP COVER FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 108' - 8"3' - 6 1/4"0' - 0 3/4"0' - 1 1/2"3' - 0 3/4"0' - 1"0' - 3"6X14 HT BEAMS 8X8 HT POSTS - ON EXISTING CONCRETE WALL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM: 4X4 POSTS AT 4'-0" +/- 2X4 WD TOP RAIL METAL BALUSTERS: 2" X 1/2" STEEL TOP RAIL 1/2" X 1/2" STEEL BALLUSTERS @ 4" O.C. 2" X 1" STEEL BOTTOM RAIL 2X6 T&G DECKING NEW GUARDRAIL SYSTEM AT EXISTING BASEMENT STAIR 3' - 6 1/4"EXISTING BUILDILNG NEW STRUCTURE SEPERATED FROM EXISTING FOR SOUND MITIGATION EXISTING CONCRETE WALL FOR BASEMENT STAIR LED PATH LIGHT AT GUARDRAIL POST 2x12 P.T. JOISTS @ 16" PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT 5' - 0 1/2" GUARDRAIL SYSTEM: 4X4 POSTS AT 4'-0" +/- 2X4 WD TOP RAIL METAL BALUSTERS: 2" X 1/2" STEEL TOP RAIL 1/2" X 1/2" STEEL BALLUSTERS @ 4" O.C. 2" X 1" STEEL BOTTOM RAIL ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. 3/4" = 1'-0" A-24 PROPOSED DETAILS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 3/4" = 1'-0"1 DECK SECTION - HEAVY TIMBER STRUCTURE 3/4" = 1'-0"2 STAIR LANDING SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0"3 DECK SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0"4 GUARDRAIL ELEV. 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 53 2X12 TREADS 2X12 STRINGERS EXISTING GUARDRAIL SYSTEM EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING SIDING TRIM 4X4 COLUMNS BEYOND STRINGER ATTACHED TO STRUCTURE CLEAR STAIR WIDTH 3' - 11 1/2"0' - 4 1/4" EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 4' - 3 3/4" 2X6 TOP CAP EXISTING HANDRAIL 0' - 7" CLEAR STAIR WIDTH 4' - 0"0' - 5 1/2" PRE-FABRICATED STEEL TREADS 4X H.T. STRINGERS GUARDRAIL SYSTEM EXISTING STRUCTURE 0' - 2"PHYSICAL GAP TO ISOLATE VIBRATION FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING SIDING TRIM H.T. COLUMNS BEYOND PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT 5' - 0 1/2" HANDRAIL PROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACK1 5 ' T O P O F SLO P E SE T B A C K PROSED PATH LIGHT LOCATIONS ON STAIRS AND WALKWAYS EXISTING WALL SCONCES PROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACK1 5 ' T O P O F SLO P E SE T B A C K 10' PROPERTY SETBACKI.B.C.PROSED PATH LIGHT LOCATIONS ON STAIRS AND WALKWAYS EXISTING WALL SCONCES ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. As indicated A-25 STAIR SECTION COMPARISON & LIGHTING PLANS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 3/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING STAIR SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED STAIR SECTION 900 EAST HOPKINS AVE. PARCEL I.D.: 2737 182 05 800 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR LIGHITNG PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN NORTH 54 UP UP DN DN DN 1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D T V T V TVTVT V T V php h p h POW PO W P O W POWWTOP O F B A N K 1 5 ' T O P O F B A N K S E T B A C K 7 9 2 8 .3 'S 14°50'49"W 100.00'N 14°50'49"E 100.00'N 7 5 °0 9 '1 1 "W 1 2 0 .0 0 ' S 7 5 °0 9 '1 1 "E 1 2 0 .0 0 ' 9 0 .0 0 ' 4 5 .0 0 '7 9 0 0 79257 9 2 0 7 915 7 9 107905 7925S T A IR S U P T R A N S F O R M E R 7 9 2 1 .1 '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 0 N O P R O B L E M J O E T R A IL S H E D C O N C R E T E W A L K M E A N H IG H W A T E R R O A R I N G F O R K R I V E R R E B A R W IT H 1 .2 5 "R E D C A P L S 3 3 6 3 8 D IS T U R B E D E A S T H O P K I N S A V E N U E CP P C DN DN DN DN 2434 SF FIRST FLOOR 225 SF FIRST FLOOR NORTH DECK 2436 SF SECOND FLOOR 249 SF NORTH 2ND FLR DECK 121 SF NORTHWEST STAIR 120 SF SOUTHWEST STAIR 242 SF SOUTH DECK 122 SF EAST STAIR4' - 4 9/16"4' - 4 1/2"5' - 1 7/16" 40 SF LANDING 6 ' - 0 1 /4"3' - 4"21' - 10 1/2"4 3 ' - 7 13 /1 6 " ISSUE: SCALE: c Rybak Architecture and Development, P. C. As indicated A-31 DECK AREA CALCULATIONS MT. RIVER MANOR 12/10/19 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA PLAN DECK AREA: FIREST FLOOR 225 SECOND FLOOR 40 121 249 120 242 TOTAL 1,119 S.F. 1" = 20'-0"3 SITE PLAN - PROJECT NORTH TOTAL LOT AREA:12,000 S.F. SLOPES 20-30%327 S.F. @ 50% 163.5 S.F SLOPES 30-40% 229 S.F. SLOPES > 40% 976 S.F. NET LOT AREA:10,631.5 S.F. ALLOWABLE DECK AREA 15% 1,594.72 S.F. 55 Page 1 of 4 4/24/2019http://www.angstromcreative.com/digital/flipbooks/kichler/landscape-lighting/ 56 South view from Hopkins Ave. 57 West Facade 58 North West Facade 59 Northeast Facade 60 East Stair 61 Southeast Facade 62 Residential Design Standards Exemption FormExemption Applies NotesRemodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the Residential Design StandardsResidential unit within a mixed-use buildingDesignated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and StructuresHas already received a board design approvalDisclaimer: This exemption is only valid for the attached scope of work. If the project scope ex-pands to include work subject to Residential Design Standards, the applicant shall be required to apply for an Administrative Compliance Review.Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Scope of Work: Reviewed by:(Project plans/elevations attached)900 E. Hopkins Ave.2737-182-05-800R/MFDavid Rybakdave@daverybak.com970 925 1125East and West stair replaclementWalkway decking and guardrail replacementStandard 4, Entry Connection could be construed to address the proposed reconstruction.Stair configuration does not reduce the Entry Connections to the Hopkins Avenue.✔63 64 Copyright 2006-2019 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 900 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1.Effective Date: 08/27/2019 at 5:00 P.M. 2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED $0.00 3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: ALL THE VESTED OWNERS OF MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 374, AND CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 13 AT PAGE 30, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: THE COMMON ELEMENTS OF MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 374, AND CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 13 AT PAGE 30, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:ABS62010683 65 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: ABS62010683 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. 1.WARRANTY DEED FROM ALL THE VESTED OWNERS OF MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 374, AND CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN BOOK 13 AT PAGE 30, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO TO A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO. 66 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8.EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES, IF ANY. 9.RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958, IN BOOK 185 AT PAGE 69. 10.RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 1890 IN BOOK 90 AT PAGE 152. 11.RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 14, 1982, IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 64. 12.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS RECORDED APRIL 14, 1982 IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 66. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: ABS62010683 67 13.CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION WHICH DOES NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982, IN BOOK 425 AT PAGE 374. 14.EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR RECORDED APRIL 20, 1982 IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 30. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: ABS62010683 68 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) 69 Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) 70 JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.71 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Corporation NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Comitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) 72 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title Insurance Corporation. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) 73 9,&,1,7<6RXUFHV(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ,QWHUPDSLQFUHPHQW3&RUS*(%&286*60$6WUHDP0DUJLQ3DUFHO%RXQGDU\30 PL NP&RXQW\RI3LWNLQ &LW\RI$VSHQ%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ,1&5(0(17386*6(3$86'$_&LW\RI$VSHQ*,6&LW\RI$VSHQ&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW_7KH&LW\RI$VSHQ*,6'HSDUWPHQWSUHVHQWVWKHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKLVZHEVLWHDVD900 E. Hopkins Ave. 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 MEMORANDUM TO:Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE:January 21, 2020 Re:Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. Since the first meeting of the year was cancelled, we should hold the election of officers at the second regularly scheduled meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice- chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2020.” 97 RESOLUTION NO. ___ Series of 2020 A RESOULTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND COMMISSION ELECTING A CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS,the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS,the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 3, 2017; and WHEREAS,__________________ was elected chairperson and _________________ was elected vice-chairperson; and WHEREAS,both positions shall expire on January 6, 2021; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that _______________be appointed as chairperson and ___________________ be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: January 21, 2020 _________________________ Spencer McNight, Chair ATTEST:__________________________ Nicole Henning, City Clerk 98