The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ca.Fox Crossing Sub.0081.2013.aslu THE CITY OF .ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0081.2013.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS PROJECTS ADDRESS FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION PLANNER JENNIFER PHEAN CASE DESCRIPTION CODE INTERPREATION/VARIANCE REPRESENTATIVE CITY OF ASPEN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 1.8.14 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 1.8.14 Jennifer Phelan From: Stan Clauson [scan @scaplanning.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:29 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Larisa LaLonde Subject: RE: Code interpretation - Fox Crossing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Wow, that's great! I'd love to see the draft. Of course, I'd be happy to support the amendment when it comes up. Given the winter and the need to re-grade the property before installing any fence, we can retract the code interpretation request. C_P�-Y�---- Merry Christmas! Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA " _�.i�►� »� STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC �v From: Jennifer Phelan [ma i Ito:Jennifer.phelanCaacityofaspen.com] Sent: 19 December 2013 15:51 ` To: Stan Clauson Subject: Code interpretation - Fox Crossing Hi Stan: I wanted to touch base on the interpretation you requested with regard to fencing and Residential Design Standards. We have drafted language for a code amendment to permit the type of fencing material being proposed for the lot and expect to start the review process in January. With that in mind, I wanted to check and see if you still wanted us to write an interpretation on whether a Residential Design Standard variance may be requested. Best regards,Jennifer Jennifer Phelan,AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. 1 coo t • 2c)t3 • AS G LA ,.. Permits 07" WM77 File Edit Regard Wgate Form Report Format Tab Help l gain Custom Fie is Routing Staffs Fee Summary lions Routing Fitory Perms type aspen Land Use Pem�t 10081,2013,ASLU `" Addre 0 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION PARCE Apt,'Suite' ' City ±SPEN Mate CO Zip 01611 Permit Information._ Plaster permit Routing queue 'aslu07 7 Applied 12+1'2013 Z Project i Status ;pending Approved ' Description APPLICATION FOR LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION IFEIJCE DESIGN1 tamed .DMINSTRATPIE VARI,ATJCE Closed,°Final Submitted ISTAN CAUSEN 926 2323 Clock Running pays n Expires 12`12'201 0ainer Last name PORTER First name SUZANNE j X229 EDMtOf JDSON DALLAS TX 7520 Phone 0,41526-7123 Address r Applicant Owner is applicant? L Contractor is applicant? ' PORTER Last name First name SUZANNE dL29 ED1�1ONDSOf1 DALLAS TI,7;L0t Phone ii`21J :26?123 Oust 120091gra4 Lender Last name First name Phone ! Address 3� i 3' w AspenGold6(senfer angelas 1021 . ' ootk- 2-WS-AIL-LA , w STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC � landscape architecture. planning. resort design RECEIVED o 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t-970/925-2323 f.97 /9 2o-i628 ' info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com DEC 16 2013 CITY OF ASPEN 16 December 2013 COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Chris Bendon, AICP City of Aspen Community Development Director 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Code Interpretation--Section 26.410.020D/ Fence Design Dear Chris: On behalf of our client and in connection with the proposed creation of a park space on Lot 12 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision,we are requesting an interpretation regarding Administrative Variances as provided for in Sec. 26.410.020(D)(1) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Specifically, can an Administrative Variance be requested in connection with the materials utilized in the construction of a fence as contained in Sec. 26.575.050 (Fences)? Section 26.410.040(A)(3) of the Residential Design Standards (Site Design, Fences) provides dimensional limitations for fences based on location. Section 26.575.050 (Fences) refers to Residential and Commercial Design Standards, and provides additional dimensional limitations as well as a list of approved materials for fence construction. In this latter code section the specified materials for fence construction are wood, stone, masonry, or wrought iron. Since there is a reference to the Residential Design Standards in this section, and the Residential Design Standards provide for a variance option, we believe that it should be permissible to seek a variance for fence materials, even though fence materials are not specifically mentioned in the Residential Design Standards. Specifically, our client would like to provide a fence enclosing the proposed park that would be constructed with a cedar wood frame and a powder coated welded wire mesh. This would be a high quality construction, considerably different from the chain link fencing which the code is no doubt seeking to prohibit. The welded wire mesh we are proposing is powder-coated, galvanized "mild steel," and is the closest material available to wrought iron. Wrought iron actually, is no longer commercially produced and is limited in its application. Mild steel is more appropriate than wrought iron because it is less brittle. In fact, of all the historic replica fencing shown at the 2013 ASLA National Conference Expo all were produced with aluminum or steel. None were available with wrought iron. The welded wire is an aesthetically pleasing material and will blend well with the surrounding properties. The ability to see through the fence will enhance the park by making it feel larger than it is and preserving the view from adjacent properties. The resulting fence would be transparent for public safety, extremely durable, require minimal maintenance, and allow improved visibility into the park and landscaping. Based on these considerations, we are seeking your interpretation that the fencing materials in a residential context can, indeed, be the subject of an administrative variance as provided for in the Residential Design Standards. I� I it I �W Ai Chris Bendon, AICP Code Interpretation Request 16 December 2013 t*A h " Page Two Please call me with any questions. Very truly yours, I Stan �uson, ICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Attachments: Drawing and Photo of Proposed Fence Material III �I ICI I RECEIVED 16 2013 ',I I Y OF ASPEN l,')MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4"X 4"CEDAR POST 2"X 6" CEDAR TOP RAIL 6' SPACING BETWEEN POSTS 2"X 4" CEDAR BOARD F 4" OPENING WELDED WIRE MESH, z 2"X 6" CEDAR TOP RAIL SIN -IN , M C_oiclj 2"X 4" CEDAR BOARD IN 4"X 4"CEDAR POST _4"OPENING WELDED WIRE MESH =�104 C, 2"X 4" CEDAR BOARD —10 C154F FINISHED GRADE T i [77 7 7.1 1 j ............. 7� a o k: • .......... ------ -- ----—2 cl) .......... . ...... .......... ..... .......... J .......... T —UNDISTURBED �i,l l� 1 7- !__i i I 7A I i v —UNDISTURBED _5 i ......... .......... ...... 1 L SUBGRADE �J SUBGRADE . .......... 1 I I i7lf 71 .......... S ........... 3/4"SCREENED i 2T i i- J, 7 7 T O CRUSHED ROCK ............ .......... COMPACT SUBGRADE TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR _T__ ...... 1 77 7 wl 3/4"SCREENED .......... CRUSHED ROCK 13 6 -------COMPACT SUBGRADE TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR WELDED WIRE FENCE WELDED WIRE FENCE SECTION/ ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16"=V-0" CROSS SECTION SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 1ZtF T" �H H44+1L7 77 Sco. Sol �LD15 d a � �'�� .- ,��, � r � s•, ,�� . � _ .. p,.xr"+' "pax .°� � � i8 � .� r� aZ' d Y fy AW ow JAW w � 2 „ .p s' a Y _.,, .�. �• �h < �.J; ��" . `.fie.. , v a.