The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.202008181 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 18, 2020 4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS JOIN ONLINE: Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join" in the top right corner Enter Meeting Number: 126 189 5513 Enter Password: 81611 Click "Join Meeting" - OR - JOIN BY PHONE Call: 1-408-418-9388 Enter Meeting Number: 126 189 5513 Enter Password: 81611 I.4:30 PM - ROLL CALL II.COMMENTS III.MINUTES III.A.Draft June 2, 2020 minutes minutes.apz.20200602.pdf IV.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V.4:40 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS V.A.743 and 745 Cemetery Ln - Residential Design Standards Variation 743-745 Cemetery Lane_Memo.pdf 743_745 Cemetery Lane_Resolution.pdf 743_745 Cemetery Lane Exhibit A Review Criteria.pdf Exhibit A_Land Use Application.pdf VI.OTHER BUSINESS VII.5:50 PM - ADJOURN 1 2 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. 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 2 3 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 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern, Spencer McKnight, Ruth Carver, Don Love. Commissioners not in Attendance: Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Garrett Larimer, Planner II Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSION VIRTUAL MEETING POLICY Mr. McKnight noted a virtual meeting policy as presented in the agenda packet was required for the commission to have in place to conduct meetings virtually. Ms. Carver motioned to approve Resolution 2-2020 and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Love, yes. The motion passes seven (7) yes, zero (0) no. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the February 18, 2020 minutes and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon stated there will not be a meeting on June 16, 2020. Staff will update the commissioners regarding the possibility of a meeting in July. PUBLIC COMMENTS None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd – Residential Design Standards, Environmentally Sensitive Area – 8040 Greenline Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY5, 2020. McKnight opened the hearing and asked Ms. Bryan if proper public notice was provided. Ms. Bryan stated it was and the applicant had also signed a waiver agreeing to participate in the hearing virtually. 4 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Larimer provided an overview of the application. The property is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district. He identified the surrounding properties and reviewed the annexation history of the subdivision and associated lot. There were three lots in the Arthur O. Pfister Subdivision were annexed at the same time the Maroon Creek Club was annexed, but the lots are not part of the club. He stated there was some lack of clarity in regard to what development was allowed and restricted for the lots. The City Council approved ordinance identified the lot being subject to an 8040 Greenline review, a restricted area for development was established above 8,060 ft except for utilities and the identified the zoning applicable to the lot. He noted the property has gone through previous 8040 Greenline reviews and one approval of which the vesting of it has expired. The applicant is now pursuing a revised design with a new owner and it is subject to a new 8040 Greenline review. The application proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence onsite and develop a new single-family residence as shown in the packet. The applicant is requesting approval of the Residential Design Standards (RDS) review, Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) 8040 Greenline review and a determination of Pre-Development Topography. There was a site visit conducted the same day as the hearing. The commissioners in attendance included McKnight, Ms. Carver, Ms. McGovern, Ms. Rockhill, Mr. Marcus along with applicant representatives including Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, Mark Brunner, DHM Design and Kim Weil, Poss Architecture. Mr. Larimer then showed the existing survey and explained the position of the driveway as it enters the property from the south and wraps around the residence to the north of the residence. He explained the property contains steep slopes that surround an existing bench on the property. He also pointed out the location of the 8,060 ft elevation mark on the property and noted the areas to the right of the elevation line are able to be developed. He then displayed the proposed site plan. One of the more significant changes is the reconfiguration of the driveway and vehicular access. Access is still from the south, but the alignment of the driveway now has it wrapping around to the west of the proposed structure. There are terrace walls and pools to the south. All but two features fall within the existing areas for developed. He also displayed some proposed elevations provided by the applicant and noted the elevations from the east and north are visible from the Maroon Creek Club and Hwy 82. He also displayed the west and south elevations. Regarding the required 8040 Greenline review, staff has found the application complies with all the criteria. Staff has completed an administrative review of the RDS. Due to the location of property outside of town and outside of the infill area, there are a number of standards that do not apply, but the project does comply with all applicable standards. 5 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Larimer then explained the determination of Pre-Development Topography is provided for in the code to allow site impacted by prior development to submit a survey from a licensed engineer estimating what the topography was prior to any development activity. Once the survey is submitted, community development staff in coordination with the engineering department review it based on historical records. The survey for this application has been reviewed and is accepted in an administration review. He then discussed the criteria used to the 8040 Greenline review which was used by community development, engineering and the parks department. The application complies with all five criteria and staff supports the approval of the request. Regarding the criteria 1) The applicant is planning measures to deal with the water and drainage from area uphill from the property. The engineering department is supportive of the proposed drainage plan. 2) The proposed development plan utilizes the majority of the bench that currently exists on the site. The footprint is getting larger than what currently exists, but the proposed development has been found to be compatible for the site by staff and engineering. 3) The grading plan was found to be compatible with the existing vegetation. Terraced retaining walls will break up the height, allow for planting strips and reduce their grading footprint. 4) The massing of the proposed design as viewed from the north and east does not stand out in staff’s opinion from the surrounding mountain character. 5) The utility infrastructure for parcels in this area is restricted by existing wildlife preservation or conservation zoning overlays. The current infrastructure comes from a number of different locations. The proposed design takes all the infrastructure and routes it through Lazy Chair Ranch road. Staff’s opinion is that this is a better approach for the infrastructure. He added Parks department reviewed the application, visited the site and are supportive of the proposed design. They will require a tree permit and mitigation for areas disturbed which will be addressed in the building permit process. He showed a landscaping plan showing the plantings and the location of the walls. Based on the reviews of the Park and Engineering departments and staff’s review, staff recommends the commission approve the land use reviews. He asked for any questions from the commissioners. Ms. McGovern asked how the historic grade change the height of the building. She then asked what is the difference in height if they went off the pre-development grade instead of the existing grade. Mr. Larimer did not know the net difference, but the pre-development topography provided eliminates the bench so there would be a delta when measured at some points. She said she would ask the applicant as well. Mr. Marcus asked in regard to the 8040 criteria, does the applicant have to pass all five criteria? Mr. Larimer stated there are more than five criteria, but he just highlighted the key ones in his presentation. 6 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 4 of 6 He added the application meets all the criteria. Mr. Larimer stated some of the conditions included in the resolution address items that require additional clarification or details to be addressed as the application proceeds. Some of the information was on a conceptual level, so more information will be required during the building permit process. Mr. Love asked the difference between the prior square footage and the proposed new square footage. He also wanted to know if there was any review related to light pollution. Mr. Larimer responded the Zoning department has reviewed the application and has been working with the applicant in preparation for the building permit. To his knowledge, the square footage, floor area and height as identified in the conceptual design comply with the underlying zoning. Regarding light pollution, he stated the project is subject to the outdoor and residential lighting standards which is part of the building permit review. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Bendon, BendonAdams, introduced himself as representing the applicant who were both also on the call. He reviewed the history of the property and the creation of three lots. One is the water tank and two are owned by Van Voorhis. The water tank lot had been donated to the City as part of the Maroon Creek Club development. He then reviewed the features of the current site plan. He then displayed a graphic he handed out at the site visit showing the landscape and building features. He indicated someone had asked about the power poles during the site visit and noted they will be removed and replaced with service that will come through the driveway. He also stated someone had asked about a bunker on the property which had been used pool inhold facility that is no longer in use. Mr. Bendon then showed pictures of the site including the house, the drainage above the house, and the areas that have been regraded. He showed addition pictures depicting views toward Red Mountain and school complex. He then displayed a plat that was part of the earlier clarification efforts by City Council when the 8060 boundary line was identified for the property. He noted Lot 2 is subject to the 8040 Greenline review but Lot 3 is not. He stated there are some dedicated easements that had not been previously clarified. He displayed a site plan for the previously approved project noting is a similar layout as the current application in regard to the access and parking on the property. He stated they did do a comparison of the grading from the prior plan. He noted the previous approval is past its vesting but could be pursued today since the 8040 criteria have not changed since the approval. He believes the earlier project did have a double basement that would not be allowed in a new application. Mr. Bendon stated Marc Diemer, DHM Design, is the landscape architect and participating on the call. He then described the location of the driveway including where a firetruck could turn around and exit 7 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 5 of 6 the property. He pointed out the location of additional wall landscaping features noting their height would typically be in the three to five-foot range. He then displayed their grading plan overlayed on the on the previously approved landscaping plan. He stated this had been provided to staff for review. He then displayed another graphic showing yellow shaded areas where the grading will be in excess of the 2015 plan and red shaded areas where the grading is less than the 2015 plan. He added the 2015 plan went right up to the 8060 line. He then provided a visual of the hill sidestep wall features which take the grades back up the existing grades. A visual of the landscape materials was also displayed. The fire department is fine with the access, turn around and pull off areas related to the property. They have asked them to look for a replacement to the grass paver shown. Mr. Bendon stated Patrick Carpenter and Kim Weil of Poss Architecture are the architects for the project. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Weil along with Andy Wisnoski are on the call if anyone has questions. Mr. Bendon stated the floor area is an allowable of 6,748 sf. They are also adding a historic Transferrable Development Right (TDR) to the site so the total allowable is just at 6,998 sf. He stated the pre-development topography did help the project in the five to ten sf range with the floor area because the existing topography has some steep sections. Mr. Bendon showed the overall layout of the property and discussed using modules to break up the overall massing. He also showed character renderings of the building elevations. He noted there was an extensive materials packet included with the application and is in the agenda packet. He stated the primary materials are stone and wood. He pointed out where the utilities would be brought into the property. He stated Roaring Fork Engineering is the civil engineer for the project. Mr. Richard Goulding is available for questions. He added the existing infrastructure includes a dead-end water line from the tank which may impact service performance. The new infrastructure will be looping the water line out through Lazy Ranch Rd. He then provided visuals as approaching the site from the south. A rendering from the high school was also provided with an approximation of where the new home would be viewable on the property. Another visual was from the Hwy 82 side of the property showing the approximate location of the home. Mr. Bendon concluded his presentation by stating they were fine with the conditions included in the draft resolution. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. 8 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Ms. Carver asked how long the existing curtain drain has been on the property. Mr. Weil estimated it’s been there as long as the house has been there. Mr. Weil added in his opinion the pre-developed topography did not provide any advantage in regard to the height of the building. The most critical point in height on the structure is the eastern elevation which is measured from a patio that is below both pre-existing and current grade. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Bendon to display the eastern elevation and Mr. Weil pointed out a terrace in the upper left elevation which is below both existing and pre- development grade. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment to which there was none, so he closed public comment. Mr. McKnight then opened for board deliberation. Mr. Dupps, Ms. McGovern and Ms. Carver believe the application is straight forward and they have no issues with it. Mr. McKnight stated he was onboard and asked if anyone disagreed with the application to which no one responded. Other commissioners also agreed the application was clean and well done. Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Mr. Marcus motioned to approve the resolution as written and was seconded by Ms. Carver. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Love, yes for a total of seven (7) – zero (0). The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked everyone and asked for someone to motion to adjourn. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:22pm. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager 9 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director RE: 743/745 Cemetery Lane- RDS Variation for Garage Placement MEETING DATE: August 18, 2020 APPLICANT: Hughs Family Trust, 743 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO Robert Winchester, 777 Club, LLC 745 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning Poss Architecture + Planning LOCATION: Sams Condominiums; 743 & 745 Cemetery Lane. Aspen, CO 81611 ZONING: Moderate Density Residential, (R- 15) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard to change a prior approval that complied with the Residential Design Standards to construct two street-facing garages along Cemetery Lane. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard and maintain the prior approval which meets the Residential Design Standards criteria. Figure 2: 743 and 745 Cemetery Lane, currently under construction, westerly view from Cemetery Lane. 745 & 743 Cemetery Lane Figure 1: Vicinity Map 10 Page 2 of 3 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant requests the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Residential Design Standards Variation (Section 26.410.020.C Variations) to grant a variation of the Garage Placement standard to construct two street-facing garages along Cemetery Lane. Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential Design section of the code, in which an applicant is applying for a variation, require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission can approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director based on the standards outlined in section 26.410.020.C, Variation Review Standards. BACKGROUND: 743 & 745 Cemetery Lane is a duplex located within the R-15 Zone District outside of the Infill Area. The lot is approximately 15,000-square feet and has frontage with Cemetery Lane to the East, and the Aspen Municipal Golf Course to the west. Each of the two duplex units are accessed from Cemetery Lane. Both units received prior approval in 2018 for side-loaded garage designs. The project is under construction and the applicants are now requesting to construct front-loaded garages. The proposed location is between the street and the principal buildings, requiring a variation from the Garage Placement (Non-flexible) Residential Design Standard. As a non-flexible standard, no Alternative Compliance is permitted. The applicant is seeking a Residential Design Standard variation pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. DISCUSSION: Staff Comment: An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. 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 statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The general intent statement of the Residential Design Standard code section states that buildings should “connect to the street” by establishing “a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. 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 from the street, improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along street.” Consistent with the general intent statement, the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard requires the front-most element of a garage with doors that face a street to be set back at least ten feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building. As an alternative, a garage or carport located forward of a street-facing façade shall be side-loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. The intent of the standard is to “ensure garages 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. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option.” 11 Page 3 of 3 Both of the subject residential units are accessed via Cemetery Lane, with garage placement located between the street and the principal building. It is worth noting that patterns of garage placement along Cemetery Lane fall into three major categories – 1. street facing and located 10-feet behind the façade of the principal building; 2. Side- loaded garages prominent of the principal building façade; and 3. non-compliant front-loaded garages on properties that have not been redeveloped since the Residential Design Standards were adopted. The Residential Design Standards are written to anticipate precisely the scenario before the board, the redevelopment of a property, and require that the new structures comply with the standards. Under redevelopment scenarios, there are few constraints to properties meeting the standards. Therefore, it is important to reinforce the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Standards by having redeveloped properties meet the non-flexible garage placement standards. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard as the proposal places front-loaded garage doors directly between the street and the principal buildings’- maximizing the presence of garage doors from the street. This proposed design conflicts with the intent of the Standards, and site conditions allow for alternative, compliant designs. PROPOSED MOTION: The resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. If the Commission supports staff’s recommendation, a motion to deny, as suggested below should be used. “I move to deny the request for Variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard.” ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #___, Series of 2020 Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Exhibit B- Application 12 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (SERIES OF 2020) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS 743 AND 745 CEMETERY LANE, SAMS CONDOMINIUMS, NORTH UNIT, SOUTH UNIT AND COMMON AREA, ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 20, 1979 IN BOOK 379 AT PAGE 530 AS RECEPTION NO. 219705, AND ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED NOVERMBER 20, 1979 IN PLAT BOOK 08 AT PAGE 55 AS RECEPTION NO. 219706. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Parcel No. 2735-122-26-001, 2735-122-26-002 AND 2735-122-26-800 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gary Hughes of Hughes Family Revocable Trust, owner of 743 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 and Chet Winchester of 777 Club LLC, owner of 745 Cemetery Lane requesting approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 743 & 745 Cemetery Lane; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Residential Design Standard Variation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 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, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #___, Series of 2020, by a X to X (X-X) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard Variation as identified herein. 13 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard variation to install street-facing garage doors between the primary building façade and Cemetery Lane, (Chapter 26.410.020.C, Variations), varying from the Garage Placement standard. Issuance of this variation does not alter the applicability or intent of the Residential Design Standards as applied to development activities within the City of Aspen. All other dimensional standards including height and setbacks shall be met. Section 2: 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 3: 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 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 18, 2020. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ______________________________ ___________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibits: Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan 14 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan Approved Street Facing Garages Plan 15 Exhibit A Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. 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 statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: The intent of the Garage Placement standard is to ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties featuring driveway and garage access directly from the street. Garages should be subordinate to principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted. Consistent with the Residential Design Standard general intent, the Garage Placement standard intent aims to establish “a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. 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.” Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. Two design options for fulfilling reduced garage prominence are available: 1. Set Back Garage. The front-most element of the garage or carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of any street- facing façade of the principal building. 2. Side-Loaded Garage Forward of Street-Facing Façade. A garage or carport located forward of a street-facing façade shall be side-loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage door shall not be placed on any street-facing façade of the garage. The applicant has received approval for a design that complies with design option 2 above. The proposal to face the garage doors towards the street, forward of the living area of the home is directly in conflict with the intent of this standard. Staff finds this variation criterion is not met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: Each applicant received 2018 approvals for side-loaded garage design consistent with the intent of the Garage Placement standard. Side-loaded garage design improves the pedestrian connection to the structure. There are no site-specific constraints or unusual circumstances that would prevent the applicant from complying with this standard. 16 The applicant has supplied exhibits suggesting existing garage placement patterns in the Cemetery Lane neighborhood noting a significant number of front-loaded garages. The supplied exhibits do not acknowledge the 26.410.030(c)(2)d.1 Set Back Garage option placing a garage 10-feet further from the street than the principal building façade to satisfy the garage placement standard. For example, the properties along Snowbunny Lane are patterned as front facing garages, however it is notable that 95% of those properties meet the 26.410.030(C)(2)d.1 Set Back Garage criteria. Street facing garages in the general Cemetery Lane neighborhood that do not meet the design criteria are largely structures that were constructed prior to the adoption of the Residential Design Standards. The Residential Design Standards are written to apply to new and redeveloped properties, requiring that, to the extent practicable, they comply with all of the standards in the section. Site conditions at the subject property do not justify a variation from non-flexible standards. Staff finds this variation criterion is not met. 17 June 29, 2020 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Ben Anderson, Principal Long Range Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 743/745 Cemetery Lane Residential Design Standards Variation – Sec. 26.410.030.C.2., Garage Placement – Side-Loaded Garage Forward of Street-Facing Façade (Parcel ID No. 2735-122-26-800) Dear Ben and Planning & Zoning Commissioners: Please consider this letter and the accompanying materials to constitute a formal request for a variation from the Garage Placement standard of Code Section 26.410.030.C.2. and, more particularly, the Side-Loaded Garage Forward of Street-Facing Façade standard, which is more practical for single-family than duplex development. Said standard states in relevant part that, A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as viewed from the street…A garage or carport located forward of a street- facing façade shall be side-loaded. The garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to the street... The Applicant has begun construction on the redevelopment of the subject property. The demolished duplex structure had two driveway curb cuts providing access to a pair of front-facing two-car garages. The redevelopment involves a new duplex structure with, per City requirements, a single curb cut that provides access to an auto court serving a pair of garages (one for each dwelling unit). At the time of building permit application, the design was found to be consistent with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) and the Applicant felt that the design was well-suited to the property. However, during the permit review process and since, the design of the access and garages was restudied to more closely review the relationship of the house to HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC • 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM • 18 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 2 the streetscape and the intent of the RDS. This study of an alternative design approach resulted in a realization that changing the garage doors would result in a better product for everyone. The new and now proposed design approach is preferred enough by the Applicant that it has been deemed worth pursuing the required variation from the letter of the standard, although, as demonstrated herein, the new design better addresses functionality, safety, and, most importantly, the intent of the RDS. Per Code Section 26.410.020(d), Variation Review Standards, an application requesting a variation from the RDS shall demonstrate and the P&Z shall find that the variation, if granted, would: (1) 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 statements in Section 26.410.010(a)(1)-(3); or (2) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Before addressing these standards, it is helpful to point out a few important points about their requirements. First, given the “or” language, the applicant must demonstrate, and the Commission must find that only one of two the options is satisfied. Next, since this is an application for a “variation,” and not a zoning or dimensional requirement “variance,” the practical ability of an applicant to comply with the standard is irrelevant, and it is both inappropriate and unlawful to consider whether compliance with the standard would deny reasonable use, result in unnecessary hardship, or otherwise rise to the requirements of inapplicable Code Section 26.314.040. Instead, the only relevant and applicable question here is whether the proposed design meets the intent of the Garage Placement standard and overall intent of the RDS. Per Code Section 26.410.030.C.2.b., the Intent of the Garage Placement RDS is as follows: This standard seeks to prevent large expenses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensures garages 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. Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street. 19 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 3 This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. Let’s begin by viewing the accompanying (with reduced-size versions pasted below) renderings prepared by Poss Architecture + Planning. Renderings numbered 1, 2 and 5 (“Side-Load (Compliant)”) represent the approved design that requires no variation and has been rightfully found by the Community Development Department to comply with the Garage Placement standard for side-loaded garages forward of a street-facing façade. 20 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 4 The garages were placed in this manner as a result of the width of the property, the zoning setback requirements, and the need for two access driveways with only one permissibly curb cut from Cemetery Lane. These factors left it infeasible to place the garages on the side or back of the main duplex structure. In addition, the property is situated adjacent to the City of Aspen Golf Course (on the west) and with great views towards Highlands and Buttermilk. The living areas of the main duplex structure were designed to take advantage of these views and have accessible outdoor areas away from Cemetery Lane traffic. The current plan accomplishes this by placing the garages in the location that serves these purposes while complying with the myriad of applicable City requirements. Unfortunately, the compliant design shown in these Renderings (1 and 2) results in the large expanses of unarticulated design (the sides of the side-loaded garages) being the most prominent portions of the building as viewed from the street, effectively, and contrary to the intent of the standard, rendering the residential portions (i.e., “the front façade of the principal building”) of the design subordinate. The result is not only large expanses of unarticulated facades and unsoftened hardscape prominent along the streetscape but also a real lack of a defined entry connection to the street. (see Rendering 5, below). Consequently, in this case, the three renderings above demonstrate that the requirement for opposing side-loaded garage doors actually makes the garages 21 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 5 and associated need for functionality more dominant on the streetscape. It forces the area between the garages to be hardscape to accommodate vehicle movements from the opposing garages. With the proposed alternative design approach, the area between the garages can instead be landscaped to soften views from the street and sidewalk and a front walkway can be installed to improve the connection with the streetscape. This is demonstrated on the comparative landscape plans shown below. Next, looking at Renderings 3 and 4, “Proposed Alternative Design” (pasted below), which show the identical pedestrian and streetscape vantage points as renderings 1 and 2, above, but for the alternative design approach, it is clear and obvious that the alternative design approach with the street-facing garage doors better addresses and meets the overall intent of the standard. 22 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 6 With this alternative design approach, there are no large expanses of unarticulated facades, and the Applicant is able to decrease the amount of auto court by landscaping the area that would otherwise be between the opposing side-loaded garage doors. In this way, as compared with the compliant side-loaded design, the presence of the auto-oriented design features in the alternative design approach 23 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 7 is effectively minimized as viewed from the street. In other words, odd as it may sound, the proposed alternative design approach meets the overall intent and spirit of the garage placement standard while the design that complies with its letter results in significantly less consistency with the stated intent. (See Renderings 3 and 4, above, the comparative landscape plans, and Rendering 6, pasted below, as compared with code-compliant Renderings 1, 2 and 5.) All renderings are also separately provided at larger scale with comparative images right next to each other. As the variation review standards state, the proposed alternative design approach must also be found consistent with the general intent of the RDS as a whole. The general intent of the RDS is found in Code Section 26.410.010A, are provided below in italics, with each portion followed by an applicant response. (a) Intent. The City's Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: 24 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 8 This Intent language is a blanket statement meant to address all of the Residential Design Standards and not just the Garage Placement provision. It reads such that the vast majority of the Intent language is addressed largely through the various other RDS, including the Location and Massing, Building Orientation, Build-To Requirement, Entry Features, and Fenestration and Materials standards. With regard to the Garage Placement standard, it seems the most relevant parts of this portion of the overall RDS intent statement are ensuring a strong connection between residences and streets, ensuring buildings provide articulation, preserving neighborhood character, and requiring that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contributes positively to the streetscape. It is felt that the provided renderings demonstrate that proposed alternative design is more successful than the compliant design in providing a connection between the residences and the street by virtue of having softened, better articulated facades with greater architectural interest and less hardscape/more landscaping. In addition, as explained above, the proposed street-facing garage designs provide better articulation than do the blank expanses presented by the compliant side- loaded garages. A review of the comparative building renderings makes it very clear that the alternative design is far more successful than the compliant design in contributing positively to the streetscape while serving the needs of the owner. Finally, it is empirical fact that the proposed alternative design is far more consistent with established neighborhood character than is the compliant design and, therefore, better preserves the neighborhood character. The applicant canvased the neighborhood to determine the relative frequency of front-loaded versus side-loaded garages/carports. The results demonstrated that, of 202 total residences surveyed, 155 have front- loaded garages, 19 do not have a garage/carport at all, and only 28 have a side- loaded garage. Thus, of the counted residences with a garage/carport, approximately 85% are front-loaded. These findings are geographically distributed as shown on the two diagrams below (larger versions provided as well). 25 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 9 Relative to garage/carports, the neighborhood character is heavily weighted toward (155-to-28) and far more defined by consistent front-loaded vehicular access, as opposed to the fairly randomly dispersed side-loaded designs. In fact, Page 1 743-745 CEMETERY ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PLANNING & ZONING: GARAGE LOCATION MAP INTERIOR DESIGN 605 East Main Street, Aspen CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 | billposs.com 26 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 10 the side-loaded garages are relatively out of character for the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. It follows that a goal/intent of preserving the established, historic neighborhood character dictates granting of variation approval for the alternative front-loaded garage design, especially given the architectural detailing and articulation contemplated in the proposed design and the resulting reduction of hardscape, enhanced landscape softening, and increased functionality. (1) Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. 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. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. This “Connect to the Street” language is a blanket statement meant to address the Intent of all of the Residential Design Standards and not just the Garage Placement provision. It reads such that the vast majority of the Connect to the Street Intent language is addressed largely through the various other RDS, including the Location and Massing, Building Orientation, Build-To Requirement, Entry Features, and Fenestration and Materials standards. When it comes to the Garage Placement standard and a comparison between the approved, compliant design and the proposed alternative design, the only truly relevant part of this Connect to the Street Intent language is to “improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles…” As demonstrated at length throughout the foregoing, compared with the approved, compliant side-loaded design, the proposed alternative design greatly improves the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles. The compliant, side-loaded garages do little, if anything, to improve the street experience, while the alternative design has substantially more architectural interest, greater articulation of building expanses, proportionally increased landscape softening and better connection from the front doors to the street/sidewalk area. (2) Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense 27 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 11 of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. This “Respond to Neighboring Properties” language is another blanket statement meant to address the Intent of all of the Residential Design Standards and seems to have little direct relevance to the Garage Placement provision. It reads such that the vast majority of the Respond to Neighboring Properties Intent language is addressed almost exclusively through the various other RDS, including the Location and Massing, Building Orientation, Build-To Requirement, Entry Features, and Fenestration and Materials standards. The proposed alternative design and the approved compliant design have identical heights, massing, scale, setbacks, and forms. Nonetheless, as the diagrams above show, both of the adjacent neighboring properties feature front-loaded garages/carports. (3) Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen's historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to "human-scale" in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. This “Reflect Traditional Building Scale” language is also a blanket statement meant to address the Intent of all of the Residential Design Standards and seems to have little direct relevance to the Garage Placement provision. It reads such that the vast majority of the Reflect Traditional Building Scale Intent language is addressed almost exclusively through the various other RDS, including the Location and Massing, Building Orientation, Build-To Requirement, Entry Features, and Fenestration and Materials standards. Again, the approved compliant design and the proposed alternative design retain the same physical scale and proportions. Even so, better perceived “human scale and proportions” are achieved with the proposed alternative design by replacing long, largely blank wall expanses closest 28 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 12 to the street with architecturally interesting and articulated garage doors that respect historic design traditions and the character of the neighborhood. This “human scale” is also improved through the increased landscape softening that can only be achieved with the front-loaded garages. In the end, upon reviewing the current garage design after permit submittal, the applicant prefers the proposed alternative design approach that requires a variation from the letter of the standard but, as demonstrated herein, better addresses functionality, safety, and, most importantly, the spirit and intent of the RDS while also better providing for consistency with established neighborhood character. It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the accompanying plans and renderings proves helpful in the review and approval of this warranted and appropriate variation request. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/President Exhibits: • Exhibit 1: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership • Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Ben Anderson • Exhibit 3: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Poss Architecture + Planning (POSS) to represent the applicant • Exhibit 4: Land Use Application and HOA Compliance Policy forms • Exhibit 5: An executed application fee agreement • Exhibit 6: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property • Exhibit 7: Vicinity Map at 8.5” x 11” 29 743/745 Cemetery Lane RDS Variation (PID# 2735-122-26-800) Page 13 Plan Sets and Diagrams prepared by Poss Architecture + Planning, including plans from Richard Camp Landscape Architecture (RCLA) and an Improvement Survey Map prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services (TSS), are provided herewith, under separate cover. 30 31 32 33 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO CERTIFICATE OF FACT OF GOOD STANDING I, Jena Griswold , as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that, according to the records of this office, is a formed or registered on under the law of Colorado, has complied with all applicable requirements of this office, and is in good standing with this office. This entity has been assigned entity identification number . This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on paper through that have been posted, and by documents delivered to this office electronically through @ . I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated, executed, and issued this official certificate at Denver, Colorado on @ in accordance with applicable law. This certificate is assigned Confirmation Number . *********************************************End of Certificate******************************************* Notice: A certificate issued electronically from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Web site is fully and immediately valid and effective. However, as an option, the issuance and validity of a certificate obtained electronically may be established by visiting the Validate a Certificate page of the Secretary of State’s Web site, http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/CertificateSearchCriteria.do entering the certificate’s confirmation number displayed on the certificate, and following the instructions displayed. Confirming the issuance of a certificate is merely optional and is not necessary to the valid and effective issuance of a certificate. For more information, visit our Web site, http:// www.sos.state.co.us/ click “Businesses, trademarks, trade names” and select “Frequently Asked Questions.” 777 CLUB, LLC Limited Liability Company 20001230636 04/17/2020 04/21/2020 15:49:36 04/21/2020 15:49:36 12267539 11/28/2000 34 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by as agent for Chicago Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE A Reference: 743 Cemetery Lane, South Unit Commitment Number: 0706213-C2 1.Effective Date: February 21, 2020, 7:00 am Issue Date: March 06, 2020 2.Policy (or Policies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06)Policy Amount:$6,100,000.00 Premium:$10,545.00 Proposed Insured:Tracy McLaughlin 3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee Simple. 4.The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in: Hughes Family Revocable Trust dated 9 July 2007, a Colorado trust 5.The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE SCHEDULE A CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Countersigned The Title Company of the Rockies By: Mike Brudwick This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. 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. 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. Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016) Technical Correction 4-2-2018 Schedule A Page 1 35 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 SCHEDULE A (continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Land referred to herein is located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and described as follows: South Unit, SAMS CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded November 20, 1979 in Plat Book 08 at Page 55 as Reception No. 219706, and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Sams Condominiums recorded November 20, 1979 in Book 379 at Page 530 as Reception No. 219705, and Supplemental Declaration recorded September 17, 2018 as Reception No. 650400, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. 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. 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. Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016) Technical Correction 4-2-2018 Schedule A Page 2 36 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE B, PART I Requirements All of the following Requirements must be met: 1.The 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. 2.Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. 3.Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. 4.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. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Hughes Family5. Revocable Trust dated 9 July 2007, a Colorado trust for the use of First Western Trust Bank, to secure $3,100,000.00, dated October 28, 2019, and recorded October 29, 2019 as Reception No. 660023. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent that all dues and/or6. assessments levied by the Homeowners Association have been paid through the date of closing. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a) that the "real estate7. transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have been fully satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to the provisions thereof. Statement of authority for the Hughes Family Revocable Trust dated 9 July 2007, a Colorado8. trust, evidencing the existence of said trust and the authority of one or more trustees to act on behalf of said trust and otherwise complying with C.R.S. 38-30-108.5, et. seq. This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. 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. 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. Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016) Technical Correction 4-2-2018 Schedule B - Part I Page 3 37 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 NOTE: Review Trust Agreement for authority of party(ies) to act on behalf of said trust and complete the transaction contemplated herein. Deed from Hughes Family Revocable Trust dated 9 July 2007, a Colorado trust to Tracy9. McLaughlin. NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288-CRA 39-14-102. The Owner's Policy, when issued, will not contain Exceptions No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 provided that: (A) The enclosed form, of indemnity agreement or final affidavit and agreement is properly executed and acknowledged by the party(ies) indicated and returned to the Company or its duly authorized agent, and (B) The applicable scheduled charges in the amount of $75.00, are paid to the Company or its duly authorized agent. Exception No. 5 under Schedule B, Section II of this commitment will not appear in the policy or policies to be issued pursuant hereto, provided that (a) the documents contemplated by the requirements set forth in Schedule B, Section I of this commitment are submitted to and approved and recorded by the Company or its duly authorized agent, and (b) an examination of the records in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder by the Company or its duly authorized agent discloses that no defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters have been recorded in such records subsequent to the effective date hereof, and prior to the recording date of such recording(s). Upon receipt of evidence that taxes and assessments for the year 2019 have been paid, Exception No. 6 under Schedule B, Section II of this commitment will be amended in the policy or policies to be issued pursuant hereto, to read “Taxes and Assessments for the year 2020 and subsequent years, a lien, not yet due or payable". This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. 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. 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. Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016) Technical Correction 4-2-2018 Schedule B - Part I - continued Page 4 38 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 SCHEDULE B, PART II Exceptions THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: Any facts, right, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could1. be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.2. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the3. Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. 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. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore there from, should the same7. be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded October 27, 1892 in Book 55 at Page 33 as Reception No. 49768. INTENTIONALLY DELETED8. This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. 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. 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. Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016) Technical Correction 4-2-2018 Schedule B - Part II Page 5 39 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 Covenants, conditions, restrictions, notes, easements, reservations and rights of ways as shown on9. the Plat of West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 1 recorded September 5, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 252 as Reception No. 128426. Covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and restrictions contained in the Condominium10. Declaration for Sams Condominium recorded November 20, 1979 in Book 379 at Page 530 as Reception No. 219705, and Supplemental Declaration recorded September 17, 2018 as Reception No. 650400. Covenants, conditions, restrictions, notes, easements, reservations and rights of ways as shown on11. the Condominium Map of Sams Condominiums recorded November 20, 1979 in Book 8 at Page 55 as Reception No. 219706. INTENTIONALLY DELETED12. This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. 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. 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. Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016) Technical Correction 4-2-2018 Schedule B - Part II - continued Page 6 40 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note 1: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII, 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.” (Gap Protection) Note 2: Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of this Commitment may be deleted from the Owner's Policy to be issued hereunder upon compliance with the following conditions: The Land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a1. condominium or townhouse unit. No labor or materials may have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purpose of construction on2. the Land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 13 months. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's3. and materialmen's liens. Any deviation from conditions A though C above is subject to such additional requirements or Information4. as the Company may deem necessary, or, at its option, the Company may refuse to delete the exception. Payment of the premium for said coverage.5. Note 3: The following disclosures are hereby made pursuant to §10-11-122, C.R.S.: The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district;(i) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the(ii) County Treasurer's authorized agent; and Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the(iii) County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note 4: If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00, the seller shall be required to comply with the disclosure or withholding provisions of C.R.S. §39-22-604.5 (Non-resident withholding). Note 5: Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123 Notice is hereby given: (a)If there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate then there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property, and (b)That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Note 6: Effective September 1, 1997, C.R.S. §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 inch the clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform. Note 7: Our Privacy Policy: We will not reveal nonpublic personal customer information to any external non-affiliated organization unless we have been authorized by the customer, or are required by law. Note 8: Records: Regulation 3-5-1 Section 7 (N) provides that each title entity shall maintain adequate documentation and records sufficient to show compliance with this regulation and Title 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes for a period of not less than seven (7) years, except as otherwise permitted by law. Note 9: Pursuant Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (F) notice is hereby given that “A title entity shall not earn interest on fiduciary funds unless disclosure is made to all necessary parties to a transaction that interest is or has been earned. Said disclosure must offer the opportunity to receive payment of any interest earned on such funds beyond any administrative fees as may be on file with the division. Said disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, and may be made at any time up to and including closing.” Be advised that the closing agent will or could charge an Administrative Fee for processing such an additional services request and any resulting payee will also be subjected to a W-9 or other required tax documentation for such Page 7 41 purpose(s). Be further advised that, for many transactions, the imposed Administrative Fee associated with such an additional service may exceed any such interest earned. Therefore, you may have the right to some of the interest earned over and above the Administrative Fee, if applicable (e.g., any money over any administrative fees involved in figuring the amounts earned). Note 10: Pursuant to Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (G) notice is hereby given that “Until a title entity receives written instructions pertaining to the holding of fiduciary funds, in a form agreeable to the title entity, it shall comply with the following: The title entity shall deposit funds into an escrow, trust, or other fiduciary account and hold them in a1. fiduciary capacity. The title entity shall use any funds designated as “earnest money” for the consummation of the transaction2. as evidenced by the contract to buy and sell real estate applicable to said transaction, except as otherwise provided in this section. If the transaction does not close, the title entity shall: Release the earnest money funds as directed by written instructions signed by both the buyer and seller;(a) or If acceptable written instructions are not received, uncontested funds shall be held by the title entity for(b) 180 days from the scheduled date of closing, after which the title entity shall return said funds to the payor. In the event of any controversy regarding the funds held by the title entity (notwithstanding any termination3. of the contract), the title entity shall not be required to take any action unless and until such controversy is resolved. At its option and discretion, the title entity may: Await any proceeding; or(a) Interplead all parties and deposit such funds into a court of competent jurisdiction, and recover court(b) costs and reasonable attorney and legal fees; or Deliver written notice to the buyer and seller that unless the title entity receives a copy of a summons(c) and complaint or claim (between buyer and seller), containing the case number of the lawsuit or lawsuits, within 120 days of the title entity's written notice delivered to the parties, title entity shall return the funds to the depositing party.” Page 8 42 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT · Pursuant to Section 38-35-125 of Colorado Revised Statutes and Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2 (Section 5), if the parties to the subject transaction request us to provide escrow-settlement and disbursement services to facilitate the closing of the transaction, then all funds submitted for disbursement must be available for immediate withdrawal. · Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Section 5, Paragraph H, requires that "Every title insurance company shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title insurance commitment, other than the effective date of the title insurance commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owners policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that The Title Company of the Rockies conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception No. 5 in Schedule B-2 will not appear in the Owner's Title Policy and Lender's Title Policy when issued. · Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Paragraph M of Section 5, requires that prospective insured(s) of a single family residence be notified in writing that the standard exception from coverage for unfiled Mechanics or Materialmans Liens may or may not be deleted upon the satisfaction of the requirement(s) pertinent to the transaction. These requirements will be addressed upon receipt of a written request to provide said coverage, or if the Purchase and Sale Agreement/Contract is provided to the Company then the necessary requirements will be reflected on the commitment. · Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-3, Paragraph C. 11.f. of Section 5 - requires a title insurance company to make the following notice to the consumer: “A closing protection letter is available to be issued to lenders, buyers and sellers” · If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00 the seller shall be required to comply with the Disclosure of Withholding Provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident Withholding). · Section 39-14-102 of Colorado Revised Statutes requires that a Real Property Transfer Declaration accompany any conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said Declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee. · Recording statutes contained in Section 30-10-406(3)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes require 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 a document that does not conform to requirements of this paragraph. · Section 38-35-109 (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, requires that a notation of the purchasers legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the deed to be recorded. · Regulations of County Clerk and Recorder's offices require that all documents submitted for recording must contain a return address on the front page of every document being recorded. · Pursuant to Section 10-11-122 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1987 the Company is required to disclose the following information: Page 9 43 Commitment No: 0706213-C2 o The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. o A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent. o 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. · Pursuant to Section 10-11-123 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, when it is determined that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, the Company is required to disclose the following information: that there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and that such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Note: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Commitment, if the policy to be issued is other than an ALTA Owner's Policy (6/17/06), the policy may not contain an arbitration clause, or the terms of the arbitration clause may be different from those set forth in this Commitment. If the policy does contain an arbitration clause, and the Amount of Insurance is less than the amount, if any, set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Page 10 44 45 46 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: 3/16/2020 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429-2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 743/745 Cemetery Lane -RDS Variation REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas DESCRIPTION: 743/745 Cemetery Lane is a duplex that is currently under construction. This project has previously received RDS administrative approval. During construction, the potential applicant became concerned regarding the practical function of the garage design. To meet RDS standards, the garages for both units were designed as side-loaded garages that face each other, sharing an auto court for access. The potential applicant is contemplating a redesign of the garage that would have the garage doors shift to a front-loading scenario – that is not consistent with RDS. 26.410.030.C.2; Garage Door Placement is a non-flexible standard. A variation to a non-flexible standard requires review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standards as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. An approval by P&Z will grant a variation to the standard and provide RDS approval. A denial will require a redesign to meet the requirements of the standard. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.410.020.C Residential Design Standard Variations 26.410.030.C.2 Garage Placement For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: Community Development Staff for complete application; Planning and Zoning Commission for case review PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Planning & Zoning Commission – Applicant will work with staff to provide public noticing requirements. PLANNING FEES: $3,250 Deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional or less hours will be billed or refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) REFERRAL FEES: None TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250 47 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should be submitted digitally – in PDF or Word Format  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to action on behalf of the applicant.  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.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  HOA Compliance form (Attached).  A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. As this is an active building permit – the site improvement survey submitted with the building permit is acceptable.  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.  Completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist: (Optional) https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1697  Written responses to all applicable review criteria. Important to this application is a response that explains how the proposed design meets the standard’s intent statement. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total deposit for review of the application. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512226800 on 06/25/2020 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 56 CARRIS SANDRA L TRUST #2 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 966 FAIRWAY CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 735 CEMETERY LN WEIMANN-WINCHESTER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 775 & 777 CEMETERY LN RABINOW RICHARD A HOUSTON, TX 77027 3711 SAN FELIPE #12-1 SEAMANS STERLING WILLIAM ASPEN, CO 81611 717 CEMETERY LN RED MTN GRILL ASPEN, CO 81611 1000 TRUSCOTT PL 725 CEMETERY DUPLEXES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 312 AABC STE D CERISE JAMES M ASPEN, CO 81611 790 CASTLE CREEK DR BRODSKY BARRY MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 70 W SAN MARINO DR CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ROWLANDS DONNA K REV TRST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8310 BRENNAN CHRISTINE CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 3 BOARDMAN PL HUGHES FAMILY REV TRUST SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5547 THOMPSON DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 710 CEMETERY LN ZANIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 0308 MCSKIMMING RD CASTLE FELIZ 8 PROPERTY LLC HOUSTON, TX 77024 10910 KEMWOOD CHAPMAN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 717 CEMETERY LN TAML HOLDINGS LTD HOUSTON, TX 77042 3120 ROGERDALE #150 WAYBURN CYNTHIA ANN REV LVG TRUST MEDINA, WA 98039 2441 EVERGREEN POINT RD CASTLE CREEK DUPLEX CONDO ASPEN, CO 81611 735 CASTLE CREEK DR KATZ ANDREW & DEBORAH VERO BEACH, FL 32963 9480 DOUBLOON DR DRUEDING THOMAS W CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 3 BOARDMAN PL 777 CLUB LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5000 HUDSON FRASHER ANN FORT WORTH, TX 76102 616 TEXAS ST MELLIN RAYMOND S & HEIDI A ASPEN, CO 81611 725 CASTLE CREEK DR #2 BARABE CAROLYN ASPEN, CO 81611 790 CASTLE CREEK DR ENGLANDER ALAN S QPRT SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 11060 E GRAYTHORN DR IRONWOODS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 729 CEMETERY LN HORAN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 805 CEMERTERY LN CASTLE CREEK DRIVE TOWNHOMES ASPEN, CO 81611 777 CASTLE CREEK DR 57 MEYER FAMILY LLC RIVER RIDGE, LA 70123 101 DESTIN 745-755 CASTLE CREEK DR OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 745-755 CASTLE CREEK DR GOLDSMITH TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 795 CEMETERY LN CASTLE CREEK PROPERTIES WEST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 705 CASTLE CREEK DR ENGLANDER ALAN S QPRT SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 11060 E GRAYTHORN DR GRIZBALL LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 132 W MAIN ST #E SEGUIN MICHAEL A & KIMBERLY ASPEN, CO 81611 793 CEMETARY LN BICKHAM FAMILY INTERESTS LLC HOUSTON, TX 77019 2136 CHILTON RD GREENE ANTHONY FRANK TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 705 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD ENGLANDER LINDA K QPRT SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 11060 E GRAYTHORN DR WINCHESTER ROBERT P SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5000 RABINOW KATHRYN L E HOUSTON, TX 77027 3711 SAN FELIPE #12-I ENGLANDER LINDA K QPRT SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 11060 E GRAYTHORN DR EJEMPLAR LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S MILL ST # 301 725 CEMETERY DUPLEXES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 312 AABC STE D SEELEY EILEEN MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611 717 CEMETERY LN GCC PROP LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 787 CASTLE CREEK DR 58 59 60 FIN . FLR . 99'-3" T .O . PLY . 99'-0" DN. 2@6"DN. 2@6"FIN . FLR . 100'-3" T .O . PLY . 100'-0" FIN . FLR . 98'-9" T .O . SUBFLO O R : 98'-2" FIN . FLR . 98'-9" T .O . SUBFLO O R : 98'-2" STEP 6" 98'-9"98'-9" T .O . PLY . 100'-0" FIN . FLR . 100'-3" DN . 21@7 .5" UP 18@7 .5" LIGHTWE L L METAL GRATEEGRESS LIGHTWE L L EGRESS T .O . PLY . 100'-0" FIN . FLR . 100'-3" DN . 18 @ 7 .5" 7883.5'+ 7882 7883 7884.0'+ 16' 12' 12' 16' 12' 12' 8' E E E T C T C T E Qty.Common Name / Scientific Name Size Spacing ConditionSymbol Plant Key 20 Lavender Rhododendron / Rhododendron 'P.J.M.'#5 3' o.c. 1/2 C.Y. Bailey Redtwig Dogwood / Cornus sericea 'Baileyi'#10 6' min.34 Feather Reed Grass/ Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foester' #1 3' min.15 Spring Snow Crabapple / Malus sp. (Fruitless)3 Specimen3.5" cal.12' min. 8 Dwarf Globe Spruce / Picea pungens 'Glauca Globosa'#10 5' min. Full to base Full to base Norway Maple / Acer platanoides 1 Specimen4" cal.15' min. #1 18" min.Recommended Medium Water Use Perennials: Shade: Columbine, Bleeding Heart, Hosta, Sun: Fox Glove, Red Coral Bells, Campanula, Iris, Shasta Daisy, Peony 300 15 Froebel Spirea / Spiraea japonica 'Froebelii' #5 3' o.c. Quaking Aspen / Populus tremuloides 4" cal.5' min.Field Collected3 White Fir / Abies concolor1 Specimen8'10' min. White Fir / Abies concolor4 Specimen12'10' min. White Fir / Abies concolor2 Specimen16'10' min. 10 flats 2" minus River Rock (around stepping stones) Periwinkel / Vinca minor 'Bowles' 620 s.f.Bluegrass Sod F32 8" min.F32 8" min. 8 Sunrise Forsythia / Forsythia 'Sunrise'#5 3' min.Full to base Existing Sub Alpine Fir (to be transplanted)1 60" Tree Spade transplant18'10' min. Quaking Aspen / Populus tremuloides 3" cal.5' min.Field Collected3 Existing Deciduous R.O.W. Trees (to be transplanted)2 48" Tree Spade transplantas shown 10' min. Medium Water Use Shrubs: 620 s.f.Native Low Grow Seed Mix: Pawnee Butte Seed, Inc Mix: Idaho Fescue, Sandberg Bluegrass, Rocky Mountain Fescue, Big Bluegrass City of Aspen Water Efﬁcient Landscaping Standards Non‐Living General Landscape Design Criteria Organic Mulch: a. Shall be applied at one (1) cubic yard per eighty (80) square feet at a depth of four (4) inches, and as appropriate to each species. b. Shall be applied to the soil surface, not against the plant stem or high against the base of trunks to minimize disease. c. Organic mulch material includes bark and wood chips. Avoid mulch consisting of construction debris such as pallets. Inorganic Mulch: a.Inorganic mulch includes rock, gravel, or pebbles. b. Rock mulch shall have a minimum depth of two inches (2”). Landscape Architect's Statement: I have complied with the criteria of the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards and applied them for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan. Planting Notes: 1. Location of all trees shall be staked and approved by Landscape Architect prior to final installation. 2. Exact placement and shape of planting beds shall be reviewed by Landscape Architect prior to final installation. 3. Verify locations of all pertinent existing site improvements and utilities already installed prior to commencing planting work. If any part of the this plan cannot be implemented due to site conditions, contact the Landscape Architect for instructions prior to commencing work 4. Four inch steel edging shall be installed between all grass areas and planting beds. 5. All planting beds shall receive 4" small Pine bark mulch. 6. Grades shown in the landscape areas are finish grades, including 6" of topsoil in lawn areas and 12" of topsoil in planting areas. See City of Aspen "Soil Criteria" on this sheet for soil specifications. 7. See Civil Engineer's Plan for grading and drainage information. 8. All sod and perennial areas shall receive spray irrigation with 100% overlap. This system shall be automatic. Mulch Bed Mulch Bed Sod Sod Native Grass Native Grass Native Grass Transplant Transplant to front yard Transplanted R.O.W. Tree Transplanted R.O.W. Tree Native Grass Native Grass Native Grass Native Grass Soil texture; Total exchange capacity; Conductivity; Organic matter; Acidity; and Content of nitrogen (NO3, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Iron, Copper, Manganese and Lime). iii. The soil analysis shall include speciﬁc recommendations based on the soil test for the type of plant material to be grown in each landscaped area. The type and volume of soil amendment shall be determined by the soil scientist and be consistent with the indigenous soil and the needs of the plant materials in each area of the landscape. iv. Upon receipt of the information, the City of Aspen shall approve or deny the soil amendment. If the amendment is denied, the City of Aspen shall provide information to the project applicant regarding additional requirements. Soil Preparation: a. Amendment shall be tilled to a minimum depth of six inches (6”). b. Site shall be graded to within two‐tenths of a foot (2/10th’) of the grading plan. c. Site shall be free of rocks and debris over one inch (1”) diameter in size. Rocks and debris 0.5 inch (0.5”) to one inch (1”) shall not exceed 5 percent (5%) by volume and gravel 0.6 inch (0.6”) to 1.25 inches (1.25”) shall not exceed 5 percent (5%) by volume. Particles such as concrete, brick, glass, metal, wood or plastic greater than one inch (1”) shall not be allowed. The total volume of these materials smaller than one inch (1”) shall not exceed 5 percent (5%). d.Site shall be free of dirt clods over three‐quarter inch (3/4”) diameter in size. Dryland seed areas may contain dirt clods up to two inch (2”) diameter in size. i. Stockpiling ‐ Stripping and stockpiling of indigenous soil (topsoil) shall be required during construction (except as waived by the City of Aspen). The replacement of this soil, plus additional soil amendments, are critical to successful plant material establishment, ongoing health, and efﬁcient use of water through the life of the project. e. The soil shall have no herbicides, heavy metals, biological toxins or hydrocarbons that impact plant growth or exceed the EPA’s standards for soil contaminant. f. All applicable soil criteria and standards shall be noted on the landscape design plan. Written veriﬁcation of approved soil amendment type and volume is required. Projects with inadequate soil amendment and preparation will not be approved. Soil Inspection: a. Soil inspections prior to installation of plant material may be conducted by the City of Aspen as deemed necessary and shall include a review of adherence to all criteria and performance standards. b. Written documentation reﬂecting approved volume and type of soil amendment is required upon inspection.   Soil Amendment: a. Topsoil of irrigated grasses (including turf) , shrubs, perennials, and annuals shall be a sandy loam to a depth of at least 6 inches (6") containing at least 5 percent (5%) organic matter by volume. b. Tree soil must be a sandy loam and 36" deep for areas where trees are planted. The total soil depth shall have at least one to three percent (1-3%) organic matter by volume. (NOTE: If in turf, top soil should be 6" and have 5% organic matter by volume.) In good existing soils, dig and turn the soils to three times the dimension of the root ball. hard or compacted sub soil or lower soil layers should be broken up to create adequate drainage and avoid trapping water creating saturated and anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer. In newly developed planting sites, soil depth shall be 20' diameter around the trees to a depth of 36" c. Soil amendment organic matter shall consist of either Class I and Class II compost. City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Soil Criteria g. Removing sod and amending soild under protected trees requires hand grubbing no deeper than 4 inches. Any additional soil above existing grade limited to a maximum 3 inches (3") Soil Inspection: a. Soil inspections prior to installation of plant material may be conducted by the City of Aspen as deemed necessary and shall include a review of adherence to all criteria and performance standards. b. Written documentation reflecting approved volume and type of soil amendment is required upon inspection. h. All Irrigation work performed under protected trees requires hand grubbing no deeper than four inches (4"). Native Grass 0 5 10 20 Property Line 5'-0" Utility Easeme n t Golf Course5'-0" Utility Easeme n t Property Line Cemetery LaneExisting 8'-0" Sidewalk10'-0" Utility Easement7881 7882 7880788 3 7884 788278817879 787878797880 7884 7883Bus StopExisting Fence 787 8 78857885Proposed Residence (Architectural Elev. 100'-0" - Site Elev. 7884.0') Proposed Residence (Architectural Elev. 100'-0" - Site Elev. 7884.0') Garage (Slab Elev. 7882.5') Garage (Slab Elev. 7882.5') Auto Court (3,170 sq. ft. UNILOCK "ECO-PRIORA™" permeable pavers or equal w/ 405 sq.ft. of 12" colored concrete border. Pattern and color to be selected by owners.) Proposed Spa (Hot Springs "Grandee" 8'-4" x 7'-7" x 38" prefabricated spa w/ stone wall surround. T.O.W. = 7885.0' Stone to match residence. ) Proposed Spa (Hot Springs "Jetsetter" 7'-0" x 5'-5" x 38" prefabricated spa. T.O.W. = flush w/ terrace.) Area Drain (Rim Elev. = 7882.75' Drain to daylight at detention area.) 18" Gravel Area (2" of road base w/ 1/2" crushed, washed gravel. Edge w/ 4" "roll top" metal edging.) Terrace (800 sq.ft. of colored, sand finish concrete.) Existing Trees (To remain.) Existing Trees (To be removed.) Drainage Swale (See Civil Engineer's Plan for grading and drainage information.) Proposed Storm Water Detention Area (See Civil Engineer's plan.) Mulch Path 3'-0" Gravel Area (2" of road base w/ 1/2" crushed, washed gravel. Edge w/ 4" "roll top" metal edging.) 4'-6" 20'-11" 30" Stone Wall (Stone to match residence. T.O.W. = 7885.5') Mech. Access Terrace (605 sq.ft. of colored, sand finish concrete. Color to be selected by owner.)788178817882Existing Trees in R.O.W. (To be transplanted.) + H.P. = 7883.92' T.O.Foundation = 7884.0' Area Drain (Rim Elev. = 7882.17' drain to daylight at detention area.) +7883.64' +7883.5' 18" Boulder Retaining Wall (T.O.W. = 7884.0') 788 4 7880101 101 78817882 Mech. Access Existing Trees (To remain.) Existing Trees (To be removed.) 61 62 INTERIOR DESIGN 605 East Main Street, Aspen CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 | billposs.com 63 INTERIOR DESIGN 605 East Main Street, Aspen CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 | billposs.com 64 Page 1 743-745 CEMETERY ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PLANNING & ZONING: GARAGE LOCATION MAP INTERIOR DESIGN 605 East Main Street, Aspen CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 | billposs.com 65 Page 2 743-745 CEMETERY ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PLANNING & ZONING: GARAGE INFOGRAPHIC INTERIOR DESIGN 605 East Main Street, Aspen CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 | billposs.com 66