Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20140304 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, March 4, 2014 REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS— A. 431/433 W. Hallam, Residential Design Standards Variances — Continued public hearing B. 825 Roaring Fork Road —Residential Design Standards Variance VI. OTHER BUSINESS Lodging code amendments VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 'L P2 Community Development Update February 2014 Project: 110W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Sarah Adams Status: Pending Review by Council & P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the property from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units, add on-site affordable housing, and create an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less than 300 square feet. Update: The project's conceptual commercial design review was conducted by HPC. on January 9, February 13 and March 13 and continued their review to April 24, when the project was approved. A hearing was scheduled for 10/15 before P&Z to review the application for PUD and subdivision reviews. The hearing for PUD and subdivision & rezoning reviews was continued to 11/19 before P&Z, at which time the Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial to Council, by a vote of 3:1, with one Commissioner abstaining from the vote. The case went before City Council for first reading on 12/9. Second reading was scheduled for 1/13. During the continuation hearing on February 24th Council asked the application to examine the height and size of the free market residential units. Next Steps: The next hearing before Council has been schedule for March 10tH Project: Affordable Housing Credits w/in UGB Contact: Justin Barker Status: Closed Closing Date: 2/24/2014 Description: The applicant has proposed to construct affordable housing units outside of the City's limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for the 24 FTE's generated by the project. Update: On December 17th, 2013 the case went before P&Z in a public hearing. At this time P&Z voted 4-0 to provide a recommendation of approval to City Council for both the development of affordable housing and the establishment of affordable housing credit as proposed by the applicant. The project was then scheduled for first reading before City Council on February 10th, with second hearing scheduled on February 24tH Next Steps: City Council approved the application in a vote of 4:0. Project: Rubey Park Remodel Contact: Justin Barker Status: Pending Reviews by P&Z & Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Page 1 of 4 P3 Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing building and property at 420 E. Durant Ave and add two new one-story structures with a roof that will connect all three structures. The remodel will provide enhanced amenities for users, as well as a separate office for RFTA employees. Update: The applicant is required to undergo Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design reviews before HPC, and Planned Development and Growth Management review before P&Z and City Council. The applicant is required to submit an application for final design review before HPC within one year's time. This matter went before HPC for Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design reviews on February 12th, where it received an approved of-4:0. Next Steps: The applicant will apply for Planned Development and Growth Management Reviews before P&Z, then City Council. Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 420 E Hyman with a new three-story mixed-use building. .Update: HPC approved the project on July 25th, 2012 by a vote of 3:2. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to HPC for further review of the mass and scale. HPC approved the massing on November 14th, 2013. The Applicant applied for subdivision and growth management reviews on February 15th. P&Z granted growth management approval by a vote of 5-0. This case was approved by City Council for Subdivision review on September 9th, 2013. Next Steps: The applicant is expected to be scheduled for final HPC design review in March, 2014. Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12th, 2012. City Council did not call the project up. Next Steps: The applicant is requesting a six month extension of vested rights to their conceptual approval. Page.2 of 4 P.4 Project: Miscellaneous Code Amendment Contact: Sara Adams Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Undetermined Description: Planning Staff has drafted changes to the Calculations and Measurements Section of the Land Use Code to address sections that are outdated or unclear in their current language. Topics include exempting from floor area crawl spaces 4' or less in height and eave overhangs measuring 4' or less, removing the 15% deck exemption in certain zone districts in favor of a 10' setback from street facades, exceptions to height for light wells 100 sf or less .in size, height allowances for permanent rooftop amenities, changes to the calculation of non-unit space, and clarification of the measurement of net livable and net leasable space. Staff drafted Code amendments which. were presented to Council for policy resolution during the February 10th public hearing. Next Steps: Second hearing is scheduled before Council on 3/24. Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Winter 2013/2014 Description: One of City Council's 2012 Top Ten Goals was to "examine the desirability and sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As part of this effort, staff conducted a great deal of background work and stakeholder meetings to gain an understanding of Aspen's lodging sector. The background phase was completed in early May. All the reports are available online at: http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/ In December, City Council identified three (3) goals to focus on: Enabling upgrades to condominium units while maintaining those units in the short-term rental pool,.enabling upgrades to existing lodges, and enabling new lodge product. These goals were reaffirmed at a June 25th work session. Council has included a 2013 Top Ten Goal related to adopting a lodging incentive program. Update: City Council affirmed the goals related to supporting condominiums, existing lodges, and new lodges. Staff presented a detailed matrix of policy options at the June 25th work session, and Council prioritized changes to condominium and existing lodges. Staff presented specific recommendations to City Council as it relates to changes in Condominiums and Existing Lodges during the July 15th work session, and received direction to pursue the "Standard-Plus" option, with particular focus on ensuring any height and floor area changes are consistent with community character. Staff drafted Code amendments that were presented to Planning and Zoning Commission for feedback on February 18th Next Steps: Council worksession has been scheduled for 3/3 with an open house to begin at 3:30 in the Sister Cities Room. Page 3 of 4 P5 Project: SCI Zone District Code Amendment Contact: Sara Nadolny Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring 2014 Description: City Council requested staff to examine amendments to the SCI zone district to better address the current functioning of the zone. SCI is the only zone district that lists specific allowed uses (Coffee Roaster, for instance), rather than relying on general use categories (Commercial Uses, for instance). Update: Staff has met initially with business owners in the different SCI buildings, as well as with the P&Z to gain feedback on what goals they have for the zone district. Staff presented the findings and asked for initial Council direction at an April 23rd work session. Next Steps: Staff is working on continued outreach with SCI owners and businesses based on the direction from Council. Staff member Sara Nadolny is meeting with Wally Obermeyer to discuss the effects of changing the current SCI zoning to NC at Obermeyer Place on May 29th. A meeting with the representatives of Clark's Market is also planned, to discuss any potential impacts of rezoning the Ace Hardware store at N. Mill St. Station to NC. Staff-expects to bring this before Council during a work session early spring. Project: ESA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Summer 201.4 Description: City Council requested staff to update the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review processes. Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their feedback on potential changes. Staff is coordinating with the Parks and Engineering Department on changes related to the Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, and 8040 Greenline reviews. Next Steps: Due to work load in the engineering department, staff has not had an opportunity to refine code language. Staff continues to make progress on this code amendment, and anticipates requesting formal policy direction from City Council in the near future. Page 4 of 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission February 18,2014 P6 U Erspamer,Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Gibbs,Walterscheid, McNellis,and Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki present. Elliott arrived late. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jessica Garrow and Chris Bendon. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms.Tygre welcomed the new members. Mr. Erspamer also welcomed the new members. Mr. Erspamer explained the meeting procedure to the new members and how the agenda is worked. STAFF COMMENTS: Jennifer Phelan said the new member orientation has not been scheduled but she will email all members once it is scheduled: She also welcomed the new members and thanked them for - - - volunteering. Debbie Quinn welcomed the new members and said she is always available to help with the transition. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments. MINUTES Ms.Tygre made a motion to approve the minutes from January 7',seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor, motion passed. Ms.Tygre made a motion to approve the minutes of January 21St,seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There are no conflicts of interest. Work Session - Lodging Code Amendments Jessica Garrow, long range planner, stated Staff wanted some feedback from P&Z on the direction of some code amendments related to the lodge and condominium incentive program. Staff did meet with P&Z previously about PUD and Subdivision amendments. One of City Councils top ten goals for the past couple of years has been to work on some type of program that incentivizes new lodging product as well as looking at condominium units within the short term bed base. In general to have more nightly bed base available for guests and visitors. Currently,Staff has done a lot of background research and included a link in the memo to view the reports. There are six specific questions related to growth management. Any development that occurs in the City must go through growth management and get allotments in order to be built. There are allotments for lodging,free market residential and commercial space. There are also allotments for affordable housing but there is no limit to those in any one year and the same for essential public facilities. #1.) The first question for P&Z is how comfortable are you related to allotments on the lodging side. Currently the allotments are equal to 112 pillows. There are two pillows in one unit or 56 units that can be built in one year under the current growth management system. Ms. Garrow stated the growth management system was readopted in its existing form in 2007 and before that there was not limit to 1 P7 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission February 18,2014 the allotments for lodge units. The 112 lodge pillows represent 1.5 percent annual growth rate. The community plan growth management code includes a suggested 2 percent growth rate in the different development sectors. When the existing growth management system was adopted it was decided that lodging should have a 1.5 percent annual growth limit and free market residential was at a .5 percent. One option on the lodge allotments would be to have no limit or go back to the old system. There could be a pool of allotments available on 5-10 years of estimated growth. Another option would be to keep it as it is. Staff is not sure the number of existing available allotments will meet the demand that is out there for some new lodge product and refurbished lodge product. Chris Bendon,Community Development Director,said it may seem counter intuitive since over the last 20 year period we have lost thousands of lodge pillows out of the inventory. This is mostly due to conversions and demolitions and lodges calling it quits. Mr.Walterscheid asked if refurbished units count towards the allotments. Ms.Garrow responded no that if a lodge wants to remodel and add units they would have to go through growth management for the new units. Mr. Gibbs asked about 2007 when the allotment limit was put in place and what the background for it was. Mr. Bendon stated he was not sure where the 1.5 percent came from. Ms.Garrow said that the current code is conflicting saying we want to encourage lodging and there is no limit but two sections later is the limit of 112 pillows. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki wanted to know if fractionals are included and Ms. Garrow responded they are included. Mr. Bendon said fractional is a type of ownership and type of ownership is not regulated. Ms.Tygre asked if there have been applicants who would like to apply for allotments but have been denied because there have been no allotments available. Ms. Garrow said in 2008 when the Aspen Club came forward they needed more allotments then were available, 124, so they went through the multi-year allotment section of the code. If another lodge had come forward at the same time Staff would have said no because there were none available. Ms.Tygre asked if Council can dip into previous years as well as future years allotments. Ms. Garrow said they can't dip into previous years unless those previous years have been rolled over. At the first meeting of the year City Council reviews the growth management applications that have happened. For 2013 none of the free market or lodging allotments were used. Council chose not to roll over the free market units but did roll over the lodge allotments. In 2014 there are two years worth of allotments available. Mr. McNellis asked if we were to get rid of all the allotments what happens to the application process. Ms.Garrow said there is no scoring of the applications but the application would have to meet their minimum mitigation requirements. Mr. McNellis asked about the 5-10 year period option if potentially all the allotments could be used up in 3 years what would happen for the next 7 years. Mr. Bendon said there would be another conversation at the end of 3 years. He said if there is a queasiness of getting rid of the allotments all together saying there is 10 years worth of allotments available in the first year puts a horizon on it and everyone understands once they are gone there has to be a conversation about reupping the number. Mr.Gibbs asked if City Council could decide the number at the beginning of the year for each year. He stated he is worried about putting zero as the number and is uncertain how to pick a real number for the future without having feedback. He thinks it could be decided by City Council based on what happened the previous year and what is coming forward. Mr. Bendon said it could be a policy decided each year. The only downside may be if you are planning on a project there may be some risk assumptions. Ms.Tygre said the discussion is on growth management rates and an annual review on how things are progressing would give Council a much better handle on how to act proactively and retroactively. Mr. Bendon said the idea would be to start with a bucket and have an annual check in as how much to add to the bucket. Mr.Gibbs stated he feels Council is the place to determine that number. 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission February 18,2014 P8 Mr.Walterscheid asked what the average requested allotments over the past 5 years has been. Ms. Garrow stated the only lodge that has come through in the last 5 years has been the Aspen Club. Mr. Erspamer asked what is the cumulative number of current pillows are. Mr. Bendon stated it is around 8,000. Mr. Erspamer said every year there are 56 lodge units available and there haven't been any done in 5 years. He asked if the allotments are 56 times 5,or 280. Mr. Bendon replied that Council has zeroed it out every year. This past year is the only one where the allotments have been rolled over. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Gibbs what he thinks about keeping it cumulative. Mr. Gibbs replied the problem is you don't want to get into a situation where nothing happens and then someone wants to build a mega lodge. He said the thing to do is to have Council look at it every year. Mr. Erspamer said he is not opposed to that. He said that Council will know what applications are in the pipeline. Mr. Bendon said they probably would not know the applications until they are into the process.-He-said if there are no allotments available they can't apply until the next growth management year. Mr.Walterscheid asked if the allotment limit has never been hit why change it. Mr. Bendon said it hasn't been working because the current set of codes is not attractive to lodge development. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki said it takes years to move a complicated development forward and a developer would want certainty and there are other regulations in place from a mega lodge coming in and using up all the allotments. Mr. Bendon said the allotments does not necessarily prevent a lodge from developing if there are other issues. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki asked if there are other ways of putting on the breaks outside of the lodge pillow allotments if it were to go. Mr. Bendon said this is probably the easier one but there are other mitigation factors. Mr.Gibbs said this is not a great mechanism for limiting things because there should be other places in terms of mass and scale and brought up construction pacing. He said if there was no limit and 42 small lodges wanted to build in the same year and met all the land use requirements there would be a huge amount of construction. He said there should be some limit on how much activity there is in any one year. He said there has been an issue of construction management within the community as to how much we can endure. Ms.Tygre said that procedurally we don't know if Council will approve any changes or the developers will think they are a good thing. She said that to start by changing the number of allotments is like putting the cart before the horse. She said she would rather stick with Mr.Gibbs suggestion of having a yearly review by Council and wait until we see the effects of some of the other changes. Mr. Erspamer asked how do we know they are going to stay rentals. Mr. Bendon said there is a process to do that. Mr.Walterscheid asked if Council can arbitrarily shift the number backwards. Ms.Quinn, Assistant City Attorney,said it depends on how it is worded. She said if there is an annual setting for the allotments if it won't work for someone in the development community they will be in front of Council to talk about it. Ms. Garrow said it might make sense to have a baseline that Council can adjust from to help out with predictability. P&Z agreed they are comfortable with that scenario. #2.) Is related to lodging but is a general growth management question. Currently there are three levels of reviews;administrative, review with P&Z and review with City Council which requires a two-step review with P&Z. In the past few years when growth management reviews have been brought to P&Z, Ms.Garrow said one of the comments they keep hearing is there is no way P&Z can deny the application if the allotments are available. She stated that this question is if P&Z is interested in continuing to see these applications or to stream line some of them into an administrative review but still keep seeing the more subjective reviews. Mr. Bendon said it is also a criticisms from the development community. They go through the initial reviews then come back through for basically an administrative review for P&Z to count the numbers. The developers have to wait for the review just to say"what was that for". Mr. Gibbs said the memo stated this would eliminate the opportunity for some projects to be discussed. He said if it was simply a growth management number counting exercise P&Z wouldn't need to see it. He said he is concerned about not seeing the projects that are more than just numbers. Ms. Garrow said 3 P9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 18,2014 she would recommend essential public facilities and multi-year allotments still go through a public hearing process. #3.) Ms.Garrow said this is related to condominium units,free market residential and the multi-family replacement program. The multi-family replacement program has been in place since the late 1980's. If you have a multi-family condo building and want to combine units or tear the building down and rebuild, if any of those units in their history have ever been rented by a local working resident you have to provide mitigation in the form of a newly built affordable housing unit located on the site of the project. The question for P&Z is are you interested in loosening some of these requirements for only those units that would participate in some sort of incentive program. In exchange for agreeing with participating in the short term rental pool for a portion of the year they would be exempt or have a lower mitigation requirement. Mr.Gibbs asked what incentive programs were included. Ms.Garrow said they are looking at a short term rental incentive program including lodges and condominiums. They are trying to move some of the condos from being just a second home to functioning more like a lodge. Mr. Bendon said that condos are 40 percent of the bed base and there is a big spectrum of quality. Mr. Gibbs asked if there is an estimate of the number of employees still in town because of this program. Mr. Bendon said there may be a horizon on it if the unit has not housed a worker in a number of years since there would be no sense of loss. This only applies to 3 or more unit condos. Mr. Elliott asked how they would monitor to make sure the units are actually being rented. Ms. Garrow said that will be one of the challenges. Mr. Elliott suggested using a third party to handle the renting. Ms. Garrow said that is one of the options they are exploring. Mr. Bendon said they think there is room between a unit being a residence and a rental, a hybrid unit. Mr.Walterscheid asked if the entire HOA would have to agree or if individual units can do it. Ms. Garrow said they are contemplating different tiers within the incentive program for the entire HOA or individual units. Ms.Tygre said the incentive program is very worthy but fraught with headaches. She said the motives of those who rent versus those who own is completely different. She said the incentive of you must be in the rental program is just not going to work. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki said we may see a net loss in beds with the incentive program. Mr. Bendon said it may be an issue with quality. They went to look at the units at the Viceroy and the units in Aspen. He said his reaction to the units at the Viceroy was an I get this and the ones in town were a good grief. Mr. Gibbs said we shouldn't lose site of the cost, continuing to have local working people not being able to live here. Eliminating the requirement may be too extreme. Mr. Bendon asked if he feels differently if it hasn't housed any workers in the last 5 years. Mr. Gibbs said he can see that. If that unit goes away it will not have a huge impact since it has not been performing in that capacity. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki asked if it disincentivises landlords from renting to locals in the future. Mr. Gibbs said he is sure there are people who won't rent because of that. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki said he has some discomfort with the outright exemption. Mr. Walterscheid said that over a period of time if they are not living there now they have essentially been priced out of it. Instead of doing away with the mitigation maybe they have to do cash in lieu or build something in town instead of on the actual site. Ms.Tygre said that when people combine units they don't do it because they want to put them in the rental pool. She said that people don't put the money into the renovations and upgrades if they are not planning on living there. #4.) Amending the location requirements. Allowing a cash in lieu or housing certificate or offsite housing as opposed to requiring the onsite housing. Ms.Garrow said it sounded like P&Z was comfortable with instead of getting rid of the multi-family replacement program to loosen it and allow a cash in lieu payment. Ms.Tygre brought up when P&Z was reviewing the housing credits at the ABC, Justin talked about giving less mitigation credit to a project as they get further from the city. She said 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission _February 18,2014 P10 this would be a really good place to establish that as part of this review. Mr. Elliott said he is concerned that cash in lieu is taking workers from inside the city and pushing them outside to the urban growth boundary. Mr.Gibbs said this is a place where you can establish the difference between private and lodging. The lodging could have a better deal and the mitigation requirements are a little lower. He suggested a scale of policy benefits. #5.) Free market residential. Currently there are 18 allotments available in any one year, .5 percent growth rate. Is P&Z interested in an increase of this number or eliminating it. Mr. Bendon said that there could potentially be a different rate for units associated with lodge development or hybrid units. He said if you don't hit the lodging limit you might hit this free market residential limit. Ms.Garrow said this is across the board and only multi-family, 3 units or more. Mr. Erspamer asked if the need has ever increased per year. Mr. Bendon said it has been decreased and 18 units is a lot per year. Mr. Erspamer asked how we would know they stayed in the rental pool. Ms.Garrow said they would build in some kind of safeguards. Mr. Erspamer asked if 18 has been a problem in the past. Ms.Garrow said the last time the number was hit was in 2007. Mr. Erspamer said he sees no reason to change it until he hears something different. Mr. Bendon said it may be needed with the hybrid unit hoping it will be an attractive proposal. He said they asked Chuck Frias if he could put another unit in his rental pool what would it be. He said 2 bedroom 2 bathroom 1,000 square foot. Mr. Bendon said the hybrid unit would guarantee that it is part of the rental pool. To incentivize these units and see them not rented out would be disappointing. Mr.Walterscheid brought up the Hotel Aspen where they wanted to build free market units but it seemed distasteful to P&Z and Council. He asked how it balances out. Mr. Bendon said it is tricky but the hybrid units may help in financing the project. Mr.Walterscheid said he would like to see something written into it about sizes and dimensions focused around 1,000 square feet. Mr. Erspamer said he would support that. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki said the enforcement mechanism of the rental pool is a big concern. Mr. Gibbs said the concept of blunt limits is a distraction because they are hard to come up with and tend to reduce the certainty of the project being built. He said we should focus on the other controls we have to manage growth, height and mass limits. #6.) Ms. Garrow said that currently there are growth ceilings within the growth management code technically limiting the population to 30,000. This number has been exceeded for many number of years and the enforceability of it is an issue. The options are to keep the ceiling or get rid of it. Staff recommends getting rid of the growth ceilings due to the enforceability issues. Mr. Bendon said that during food and wine the number increases to around 35,000. These numbers are based on flush flow. Mr. Gibbs asked if there is a specific number in the code for growth ceiling. Ms.Garrow said the ceiling is by unit and square footage. The commercial square footage ceiling is around 1.8 million square feet of commercial space. She stated we are not near the growth ceilings but they have no basis in reality. Mr. Erspamer mentioned the ecological bill of rights and the carrying capacity and if this number would prevent the building of 5 or 6 story buildings. Mr. Bendon said zoning review would prevent that. Mr. Gibbs asked what effect this number has on growth. Ms.Garrow stated it doesn't. The 30,000 number is arbitrary and we are thousands of units below the residential and lodge number and tens of thousands below on commercial. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff how they would advise Council. Mr. Bendon said he would take it out. Mr. Elliott said that eliminating something that doesn't matter at least hits the goal of streamlining and being more efficient. Mr. Gibbs proposed an analysis of what the ceiling is, based on our infrastructure and current technology,to determine how close we really are. Mr. Bendon suggested weaving that into a purpose statement with the need to re-evaluate the capacity of the community as well as what future build out would be. Mr. Erspamer said it is not just the number of flushes but traffic and parking as well. 5 P 1 'Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission February 18,2014 #1.) Free Market Residential Unit Size: Ms.Garrow said there are currently unit size limitations for all residential units depending on zone district. Multi-family and lodge have a limit of 1500 square feet but can be increased to 2000 with the landing of a TDR. The limit for C-1 is 2000 square feet but can be increased to 2500 with a TDR. During Staffs public outreach there was discussion on increasing unit sizes with an incentive program. Staff has some concerns with drastically increasing the number if they want the units to be available to the short term market. Mr. Erspamer asked if the FAR was dropped down previously. Mr. Bendon said these were installed in 2006 and there was no history of unit size limitations before. Staff sees it as a way for TDR's to be used and there are between 30-40 outstanding. Ms.Tygre said larger units reduces density where we want to increase density. The hybrid units may be a good solution but she is reluctant to encourage larger units. Mr. Walterscheid said from what they hear from the community they would not want units larger than 2500 square feet. Mr. Nieuwaland- Zlotnicki asked if there is demand in the marker for rentals that large. Mr. Bendon said there is high demand for 3-4 bedroom units but there is not a lot of them specifically in the timeshare pool. Mr. Walterscheid asked if Staff has considered as an incentive to build larger to require building an affordable housing unit in town. Mr. Bendon said they could but it is a question of what you want to leverage. Ms. Garrow asked if a TDR should be increased to 1000 square feet or the possibility of landing 2 TDB's. Mr.Gibbs said the incentive should be focused on lodging. Mr. Erspamer said he is concerned with changing the code to create something not sustainable. Mr.Gibbs said it might make sense to limit the increase to only the lodge zone. He said the TDR is the way to do it. Mr. Bendon said they are concerned with the demand side for TDR's. #3.) Ms.Garrow said height is based on uses and zone district. They just changed the commercial core and C-1 district limiting heights on the south side to two stories or 28 feet,the north side 36-40 feet downtown, and 36-38 in C-1. In lodge district it depends on density, low density gets a lower height and high density projects get a higher height. Staff is asking P&Z how comfortable they are seeing four story buildings in this areas, particularly the lodge district. Mr. Erspamer asked what lodge room heights typically are. Mr. Bendon said at the Viceroy the ceiling heights are about 9 feet and felt comfortable. Lower than that he said it would feel like a compromised product. Mr. Erspamer asked how height is measured on a hill like south of Durant. Ms. Garrow said the height is measures 30 feet back into the middle of the building. Mr. Bendon said a few options might be;the height on the south side is not counted-walk out,or might be ok with a 4th floor but have it go through a stricter review process. Mr. Erspamer said he is not for the 4th story but is up for more discussion. Mr. Gibbs said the defining difference between too tall and just fine is the Hyatt and the Residences. The Hyatt.fits in and feels good and the Residences is massive and sticks out. Four stories on a fagade is going to be massive and is not sure if digging out will work because of the need for massive retaining walls. He said he may go for it in the lodge district as an incentive but 3 stories is a limit that makes sense. Mr. McNellis said he would be for a 4th floor if it went through review. There may be instances where it is appropriate. Mr. Walterscheid said he would agree with a review for a 4th floor. Mr. Elliott also agreed with review for 4th floor but he doesn't want to see buildings heading up the mountain. Mr. Erspamer stated for pockets not the entire development. Mr.Walterscheid made a motion to extend the meeting to 7:15, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor except Mr. McNellis and Ms.Tygre. #3.) Floor Area. Ms. Garrow said it is not really related to overall floor area but specific to lodges. Floor area is tied into unit size and the more dense the more floor area. She asked if P&Z would allow more floor area in commercial zones regardless of unit size or get rid of the density tie in. Mr. Gibbs asked why developers feel the tie in to density is not working. Ms. Garrow said based on the size of the property they want to build amenity space but in doing that they can't meet the density requirement 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission February 18,2014 P 1 2 and have to remove some of the amenity space. Mr. Bendon said the one lodge unit per 500 square feet of lot area can be a challenge to meet due to hallways and amenity.space. Mr. Erspamer asked if it could be differentiated based on the positioning to Durant St. Staff replied it could. Ms.Tygre said she has the same problem with increasing dimensions that tend to reduce density. There may be a way to refine this to take into account the need for non-room and amenity space than just granting an increase for floor area. Mr.Gibbs suggested an incentive for lodges whose amenities are open to the public. Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki asked if existing businesses would go for that. He said we may need to re-calibrate how density is computed. Ms.Tygre made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Nieuwaland-Zlotnicki. All in favor, motion passed. 7 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 431/433 W. Hallam Street-Residential Design Standards Variances,-Public Hearinp-(continued from January 7"' and January 21s) DATE: March 4, 2013 Applicant: DH Hallam LLC i Representative: Dylan Johns s' Zoning: R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) F' 1 Land Use: Existing duplex proposed to be demolished and replaced with a Single-Fainily Residence Request Summary: The Applicant is requesting two variance from the Residential Design Standards with regard to the setback required of a garage and the appearance of the garage door. 431/433 W. Hallam(from Hallam) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial the variance requests. } '' .r (from N. 4t'Street) NOTE: At the end of the January 7' hearing, the Applicant's representative requested a continuation of the hearing to January 215` and then to March 4". The request was partly due to the fact that the original hearing had a minimum number of Commissioners present and the Applicant's representative indicated his preference to have the agenda item heard under a full Page 1 of 6 P15 Commission. Included as an exhibit are the minutes from the January 7`' hearing as no hearing was conducted on January 21". Otherwise there are no changes to the staff memo. LAND USE REQUESTS' The Applicant proposes to demolish an existing duplex on the corner lot and replace it with a new single family residence. The Applicant is requesting two variances from the Residential Design Standards, one that requires a street facing garage to be set back further than the front— most wall of the house and one that requires street facing garages to either be single-stall doors or double-stall doors that look like single-stall doors. Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code (L.U.C.) Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. The applicant is requesting a variance from L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2.b and f: "The front fagade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house." "If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single- stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors." REVIEW PROCEDURE' Variances from the Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. Fi re 1: Vicinity in Subject Site �'s+rar 'r ! Y z . � V Page 2 of 6 P16 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing duplex located at the corner of N. 4a' Street and W. Hallam Street and construct a new single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The 6,073 sq.R. lot does not have access to the alley opposite W. Hallam Street as a separate lot is located between the subject lot and alleyy. As the lot does not have alley access the garage and parking for the site is proposed along N. 4t1 Street. Figure 2: Lot Configuration W51- srrz<T op \J ajl �,�..�•-;�,.�_� :�...''�r,-�'=���lam:-•-�.., 4) 1 „gym �• rr�,_� "' - ,�+ R carp I!!; --=.I ! I I I V IN � _ - - - - 1 - - I- - - - - - - -1 Alley The proposal is to have the face of the garage flush with the facade along N. 4t1i Street, rather than set back ten (10) feet from the front-most fagade as required by the Land Use Code and as shown in Figure 2,below. Figure 3: Original and Proposed site plan ------------ ---T---------- 1 i 4 --r---- ------v I I,ti. I ' _ I I I , I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I Page 3 of 6 P17 Additionally, the Applicant would like to propose a "hidden" garage door by proposing a door that matches the materials of the building. - ---------- :j CURRENT DESIGN !'•e'` .4, ^J-(` it«;���Y i�.ii,`t` .�{ .s .z`1,g� -. - ,y .. �N ,�,,. �,�r� � , ta, O 4 ��` S�+i�`Y,Y`�P+�:"r f' S !`��i�� '({f ' � � �: �'_� �_ d��,L•+,c d/��Yi�i '+.F !"`�� . • � r J�''� [ � n S S "i �r'fa Zvi• y 6 _ --=••—ti � ......ice.4.. t�i r s [ i tT PROPOSED DESIGN Page 4of6 P18 STAFF ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All new structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." Additionally, "Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence." Parking, garages and carports. As noted previously, the parking, garages and carport standard requires that "all residential uses that have access only from a public street" meet certain design standards including having the garage located behind the fagade of the building and to have garage doors "be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single- stall doors." The intent of this standard is "to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." There are two review standards that the applicant may meet if the Board is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Comment: Residential Design Standards have been adopted to contribute to the streetscape, enhance the pedestrian environment and promote architectural elements that are important components to neighborhood character. Although older development examples are sprinkled throughout the neighborhood that do,not comply with the garage door standard, some do. The historic context within the West End is to have detached accessory structures, such as garages, located towards the rear of the property. As this is an attached garage, providing a garage entrance that is set back front the fagade assists in minimizing its presence along the street and should be required with new development. This variance request is not related to reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints, as the Applicant has shown within the application that the set back standard can be met. Adopted standards require garages that are single-stall doors or double-stall doors that look like single-stall doors. The intent of the standard is to break up the mass of the garage doors, Page 5 of 6 P19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does not meet the variance review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.020 D, Variances, for the Parking, garage and carport'variance request as there are examples of residences meeting the standard and there is not a site specific constraint. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application. The Resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. Changes may be necessary depending on the motion. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny Resolution No. , Series of 2014, approving variance requests from the Residential Design Standards." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Review Criteria& Staff Findings Exhibit B —Application(provided on 1/7/14 and 3/4/14 for new commissioners) Exhibit C—Hearing minutes from the January 7, 2014 Page 6 of 6 P20 Resolution No._ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES AT 431/433 W. HALLAM STREET,LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 70 FEET OF LOTS A,B,AND C,EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 39 INCHES OF LOT C,ALL OF WHICH PROPERTY IS SITUATE IN BLOCK 36 IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel No. 273512433001 WHEREAS, the Community Development .Department received an application from Dylan Johns of Zone 4 Architects, on behalf of DH Hallam LLC requesting Variance approval from two Residential Design Standards for a new single family home located at.431/433 W. .Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the two Variance requests; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 2014, and where the hearing was continued to January 21"and again to March 40'; 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 Planning and Zoning Commission approves the requests; 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. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Residential Design Standards Variances Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves two variances from the following Residential Design Standards that are underlined below, as represented in the application presented before the commission and included as an exhibit to this resolution: P21 A. 26 410.040.C.2.b. Parking, garages and carports. The front fagade of the garage or the front most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. The variance granted from sub-section 26.410.040.C.2.b. allows the applicant to build a garage that is flush with the building along N. 4th Street. B. 26.410.040.C.2.f. Parking, garages and carports. If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley,then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. The variance granted from sub-section 26.410.040.C.2.f. allows the applicant to build a two car garage door that matches the materials used surrounding the garage. Section 2: Building Permit Application Other than the two variances granted, the building permit application shall be compliant with all other standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted regulations. Section 3• Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 4• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on March 4, 2014. P22 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney U Erspamer,Chair ATTEST: Linda Manning;Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Approved site plan, elevations P23 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA&STAFF FINDINGS A. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW No variance shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with either of the requirements set forth below: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is 'proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Sta Finding Residential Design Standards have been adopted to contribute to the streetscape, enhance the pedestrian environment and promote architectural elements that are important components to neighborhood character. Although older development examples are sprinkled throughout the neighborhood that do not comply with the garage door standard, some do. The historic context within the West End is to have detached accessory structures, such as garages, located towards the rear of the property. As this is an attached garage, providing a garage entrance that is set back from the facade assists in minimizing its presence along the street and should be required with new development. This variance request is not related to reasons of fairness or unusual site specific constraints, as the Applicant has shown within the application that the set back standard can be met. Adopted standards require garages that are single-stall doors or double-stall doors that look like single-stall doors. The intent of the standard is to break up the mass of the garage doors, although a "seamless"finish may assist in minimizing the presence of the garage, the curb cut and driveway are telltale signs that there is a garage. A hidden look can still be accomplished by providing two stalls. Staff does not find either criterion met. P24 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 U Erspamer, Chair,called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin asked if the Motherlode affordable housing has been occupied and Ms. Phelan stated she did not know. Mr. Myrin said there is an open house this week and he may attend. Mr. Erspamer stated he went to the work session last night for the cash in lieu discussion. He stated that the council wanted more accurate data so they can figure out,what kind of system can be used to create the cash in lieu program. Ms.Tygre asked for more clarification-and Ms. Phelan said there was a study for the cash in lieu in regard to income categories and it showed the current numbers are quite low to what today's market would require. Ms.Tygre asked why it has to bean ADU and Ms. Phelan said that is one of the options when building a single family home or duplex. Ms.Tygre said she wanted clarification that an ADU is one of the options and not a requirement. STAFF COMMENTS: There is a joint work session on Monday February, 3`d with City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments MINUTES - December 17, 2013 Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the minutes from December 17`h,seconded by Mr. Myrin. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms.Tygre suggested the commission wait until more members are present before a decision is made. Ms.Quinn stated that the commission can delay if they do not feel there is a sufficient number of members present. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to continue the election of chair and vice chair,seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr.Gibbs recused himself from the public hearing. Public Hearing- 431/433 W. Hallam St. Residential Design Standards Variances Mr. Erspamer notified the applicant that since only three members are present,all three members need to vote in the affirimative in order to pass a motion one way or the other. He told the applicant that if he feels the hearing is not going the way he would like he could continue until more commissioners are present. The applicant said he has spoken with the owner and he would like to present the application and see where the commission stands before they make a decision to continue or not. 1 P25 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7,2014 Ms. Quinn stated she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice and they are appropriate. Ms. Phelan, community development department,stated that the application is a request for two variances from the residential design standards. The property is 431 and 433 W Hallam. It is a corner lot in the West End on the corner of Hallam and 4th Street. There is an existing duplex. The owner is proposing to demolish and redevelop with a new single family home. She said that Dylan Johns is the representative for the applicant, DH Hallam,LLC. The lot is just over 6,000 square feet. There is not alley access because of how the property was subdivided in the past. The residential design standards have a provision that for lots without alley access a garage is required to be set back ten feet further that the front most wall of the house. There is another standard that requires garage doors that face the street to be either single stall doors or appear to be single stall. There are multiple residential design standards for single family homes including orientation and window requirements. She stated that the request tonight is not to have to set back the garage but be flush with the rest of the wall of the house and to provide a double garage door that matches the surrounding materials. The garage door should be hidden and blend in with the rest of the surrounding materials. Ms. Phelan stated the design standards are in place to preserve the neighborhood character. The intent is to have homes that contribute to the street scape and insure parking is concentrated to the rear or side of the home. She said that in regards to garage doors the intent of the standard is to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the street scape. To grant a variance from the design standards the board needs to determine that the design solution, as being proposed, is an appropriate solution considering the context of the neighborhood and the purpose of the standard, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site constraints. Ms. Phelan said the purpose of the standards is to minimize the visual impact of garages. She said that the historic pattern of the West End is to have garages that are detached accessing the alley or a side street as an accessory structure. She said that this helps to minimize the presence of ,garages. This is a new redevelopment project and Staff feels that the standards should be met. The overall context of the West End warrants meeting the standard. She stated that Staff does not see this having unusual site constraints. There are multiple lots in the West End that do not have alley access, Pearl Ct., parts of N 4t'St.,Lake. Ms. Phelan said that as shown in the application the standard can be met. The garage can be set back to meet the 10 foot setback. She stated that they can use materials that blend in with the rest of the home for the garage door. Ms.Tygre asked what hidden garage door means. Ms. Phelan said it is using similar materials so the garage door blends in with the rest of the materials of the home. There is no real official definition of hidden. Mr. Myrin asked if the garage is along the front most wall or side wall of the home. Ms. Phelan replied that the standard is when it is street facing so as a corner lot it would need to be set back on either side. Mr. Erspamer asked if it is a single family home. Ms. Phelan replied it will be a single family home. Dylan Johns,Zone 4 Architects, is representing DH Hallam. He stated that the project involves an existing duplex, late 60's edition. It is a single story home with a few set back encroachments. There is one on the 4th Street facade about five feet over the line and a few inches on the East side. He said that trying to put a single family home with an ADU and a detached garage on a lot of this configuration is 2 P26 Regular Meeting Planninji& Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 extremely difficult. He said the reason they are here tonight is not to say that they could not come up with a solution to get the garage in there but they have a solution where the owner is a bit uncomfortable with the amount of outdoor area remaining. He said that because of the site condition and property configuration the project may not work for the owner. Mr.Johns noted that the garage on the Weaver property contains a garage as well as a surface parking area. The owner has been in talk with the owner of the Weaver property to try to acquire rights to go through the surface parking part of the property. So far the price is where they do not want to do it. Mr.Johns said that they are asking to move the garage mass towards the front facade of the building which would open up the outdoor area by 21 percent. He stated if they did have alley access it would be allowed and the only difference would be the garage doors would be off to the side. He said there are a few options of making the garage doors blend in to the fagade. He stated he took a half block radius and looked at the existing garage conditions. He pointed out multiple examples of Victorian and similar era homes that do not conform to the standard. He stated that there are 11 non-conforming garages in the three blocks he looked at. He stated that doing the hidden door solution is not a deal breaker. Mr. Erspamer stated if the garage set back is ten feet there would be an overhang often feet. He asked if the applicant is requesting to not have the set back but leave the garage flush with the house. Mr. Johns said they would like to bring it flush to the fagade. He said they don't feel that the pedestrians are being impacted here and it is not a sidewalk attainment zone and there is no current sidewalk. He said there is a few feet rise from the curb line to where the house is'built. He also said there is an irrigation ditch that runs through along 0 Street. He said they are losing usable space.for the family on the interior courtyard in exchange for conforming to the design regulations. He said the town is not gaining anything but the owner is losing a significant portion of their outdoor space. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was a survey of what the back looks like ten feet in. Ms. Phelan replied it is diagram A100. He also asked if there are two doors would there need to be a post in the middle. Ms. Phelan said the requirement could be two individual doors that require a post or one double door that appears to be one door. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. Scott Hoffman,the owner of 501 W Hallam,stated he is new to the area and came for information. He said that if Staff says no then it should be no. He said the main reason seems to be they want more yard. Mr. Hoffman said that his home would be remodeled at some part. Mr. Erspamer stated that normally the commission does not let dialog go on and asked if he had an opinion one way or another. Mr. Hoffman stated he thinks the house looks better with the offset forms. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Ms.Tygre stated that there are residential design standards and they are very clearly explained in the code. She said they need to choose A or B or not at all. That is the role of P&Z. She stated if it meets A or B they approve it and if it does not they don't approve it. She said everything else they are discussing is not relevant including their own opinions. She wants to focus the discussion on either A or B. She stated she is trying to find anything in the presentation that would contradict what Staff's findings are. She stated she did walk around the property this afternoon and double garage doors seem like a very suburban subdivision approach. She said that the context makes the design not compatible with the neighborhood unless there is a way to disguise the doors. She said the original solution did as good a 3 P27 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7, 201.4 job for the double garage and what is proposed is not an improvement over that. She said she can't find the justification in the code as it is written to grant this request. Mr. Myrin stated that page 16,A and B and Staff's comments summarize what he would say. He agrees with Staff and if it is something where they need to change the code then they should change the code and should not be a one-time exception for a brand new construction. He said the house does not need to be as large as it is and they can give some of the house space to yard space or some ADU space to yard. Mr. Erspamer said that he and his wife own a unit with no alley and it is a hardship. He said that the blank door does not meet the code. He said it is acceptable to put a fagade on the door to make it blend in and look like two single doors. He said he does not see anything compelling why they can't do the set back other than losing ten feet in the yard on the backside. He said it gives it dimension and unless he sees something compelling he agrees with Staff. Mr.Johns stated he would like to continue and discuss with the owner. He asked if the feeling is that the alley condition does not represent a hardship. Ms.Tygre and Mr. Myrin agreed with this. Ms.Tygre made a motion to continue to the January 21St meeting,seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn,seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Linda Manning Records Manager 4 8 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan,Deputy Director RE: 825 Roaring Fork Rd. MEETING DATE: March 4,2014 PPLICANT/OWNERS: SUMMARY: The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real The applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Estate Trust Commission approve a variance from the Residential Design Standard that prohibits street-facing windows REPRESENTATIVE: that span through the 9'-12' area of a residence, Glenn Horn,Davis Horn Inc. measuring from the finished first floor. The applicant would like to install windows on either side of the OCATION' transom above the street-facing entry door. 825 Roaring Fork Rd. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CURRENT ZONING&USE: Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for -15 zone district,Residential use a variance from this Residential Design Standard, finding the request does not comply with the criteria PROPOSED LAND USE: for receiving a variance. he property will continue to be used residentially. F oil t , t ' � Figure A: Image of subject property Page 1 of 7 P29 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Variances from the Residential Design Standards —pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D.2. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review board for this request. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in Aspen's west end near the music tent and the Aspen Meadows properties. .Y r _ �J 11 i Music Tent area Figure B: Location of subject property indicated with star. The property is Lot 16-A of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision, adjacent to the Aspen Company Subdivision. This subdivision was established by Elizabeth Paepke and The Aspen Company in 1961, at which time the land was subdivided into lots and roads were created. This subdivision was also part of the Hallam Addition. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting a variance from Land Use Code subsection 26.410.040.D.3.a, which states "Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between the nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor." The subject property is undergoing a redesign of its front fagade, including the front entryway. This enhyway has been redesigned to include a transom above the front door, which is permitted Page 2 of 7 P30 by the Land Use Code. According to the Code, a transom window above the main entry is exempt from the 9'-12' "no window zone". The applicant would like to extend the glass approximately 4.5' in width on either side of the door, and 2' in height. With this proposed design, one foot of the proposed glazing spans 9' and above. This extension of the glass above the front door does not fall under the definition of a transom. r �.. •. 1 1111_- JIIII � `.! o Figure C:Yellow indicates proposed windows on either side of the transom. STAFF COMMENTS: The Residential Design Standards were created with the intent of preserving the established neighborhood scale and character, to promote the pedestrian experience, and to contribute to the streetscape in the neighborhoods throughout the City. The standard the Applicant is seeking a variance from disallows windows in the area measuring 9'-12' from the finished first floor. This "no-window zone"has been established because this area is typically where a second floor level would exist. Minimizing glazing in the 9'-12' zone breaks the mass of the building into recognizable first and second floor levels, creating articulation in the building's form and softening its street presence. Staff has the expectation that all new development will conform to the Residential Design Standards when such standards are able to be achieved. The residence has a large grouping of windows on the second story level above the entry door. The presence of additional glazing aside from what is permitted by Code creates a large glass area without much relief or separation to indicate floor levels. Staff has examined the Applicant's request in terms of the criterion for Variances from Residential Design Standards (Exhibit A). There are two criteria to base a residential design standard variance request on— 1)Does the request provide an appropriate pattern of design based on the context of the surrounding neighborhood, or 2) Is the request clearly necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site-specific constraints. Only one of the two criteria inust be met in order for a variance to be granted. Staff notes the following: Page 3 of 7 P31 In regards to criterion 1, Staff has considered the context of the Roaring Fork Drive loop when analyzing the Applicant's request. Staff has taken visual note of four properties in the surrounding neighborhood that appear to have windows spanning the 9'-12' "no window" zone, only three of which are within the area of the front door. However, the majority of the properties in the neighborhood do not have this condition. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of different housing types, with styles ranging from 1960's to modern. This particular Residential Design Standard was first implemented in 2005 (via Ordinance 20, Series of 2005). Residences having this nonconformity were constructed prior to this Residential Design Standard. Staff does not fmd this condition to be typical of the architectural style of this neighborhood, and fords this criterion to not be met. Below are images of the styles of homes that are found within the Second Aspen Company Subdivision neighborhood. Fl Figure D: 815 Roaring Fork Rd. - (2002) :' • % rri -- , °'t FBI i. ���•�- S Figure E: 845 Roaring Fork Rd. (1977) y< r � Figure F: 805 Roaring Fork Rd. (1983) �a 4 Page 4of7 P32 r Figure G: 890 Roaring Fork Rd. (1979) I r Yik1 r 1 Figure H: 800 Roaring Fork Rd. (1989) Figure I: 830 Roaring Fork Rd. (1980) IF �.. r Page 5 of 7 P33 Figure J: 885 Roaring Fork Rd. (1978)—Windows appearing between 9'-12' S '/ t 'm `f t fit: Figure K: 844 Roaring Fork Rd. (1997)—Windows appearing between 9'-12' kv Y t•7 1 { rqf c1 fFF ' v- ,,• -�z.. ' ,-__ ��" r��, S°"'��r�'�tl�,� � ice. Figure L: 802 Roaring Fork Rd. - � (1990)—Windows appearing between 9'-12' 1 - RTTI . ll Figure M: 870 Roaring Fork Rd. r I 2000 —Window appearing R9 ( ) fi� �. s.•- between 9'-12' '°"°a, a' Ii Page 6 of 7 P34 Regarding criterion 2, the subject property does not host any unusual site-specific constraints which would require granting of the variance as a means of fairness to the Applicant's desired design. Staff finds this criterion to also not be met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the request to not meet either review criteria associated with Variances from the Residential Design Standards, and recommends denial of the application. The following Motion and attached Resolution are written in the affirmative, approving the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission must find the application to meet at least one of the necessary criteria associated with a Residential Design Standard variance request and therefore approve this application, *approve the application with conditions, or find that the application does not meet the criteria, and deny the application. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve the request for a variance from the Residential Design Standard as noted in Resolution , Series of 2014." ATTACHMENTS: • EXHIBIT A—Review Criteria • EXHIBIT B—Application Page 7 of 7 P35 RESOLUTION No._ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR . THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 16-A OF THE SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION,COMMONLY KNOWN AS 825 ROARING FORK DRIVE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number: 2735-121-04-016 WHEREAS, The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, as owner of 825 Roaring Fork Drive, submitted a request for Residential, Design Standard Variance for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a land use review to allow windows to span the 9'-12' zone at the street-facing entryway of the residential unit; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1.5 Moderate-Density Residential zone district and is Lot 16-A of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the subdivision plat for the property was originally approved by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 3, 1961 and is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 2, Page 263, Reception No. 122664; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has submitted a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2014, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the Applicant, and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the review as requested by Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Windows on either side of the street-facing entryway door shall be permitted to span through the nine (9) foot to twelve (12) foot area, as measured from the finished first floor, and as indicated in Exhibit A of this Resolution. P36 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 plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4►h day of March,2014. LJ Erspamer,Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Linda Manning,Records Manager Exhibit A: Location and measurement of approved windows 2 d � - � o W o � a � �.1't Mfn HDPo3CtRA1 n9dJ y�33 HLW hC••"Y��kY3twt $141HL'rvYC I AE(17Ayp1 1'mE 71"x`'147 rte"' / { b 6w_ '•.Z71 Ail1'R M--CONI!100•h5AREOrHAGUYC771'f'/ { { � � Y• N7A' � Jl� i l r M a P38 Exhibit A Review Criteria Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted, would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feel is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; Staff Response: The subject home is located in a residential neighborhood on Roaring Fork Dr., which is a loop. Staff has considered the context of this neighborhood when analyzing the applicant's request. When new development is created within the City of Aspen, expectations are such that the requirements of the Residential Design Standards shall be complied with. Staff has taken visual note of three properties in the surrounding neighborhood that have appear to have windows that span the 9'-12' "no window" zone. However, the majority of the properties in the neighborhood do not have this condition. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of different housing types, with styles ranging from 1960's to modern. It is difficult to tell whether the houses that have this condition were constructed prior to this Residential Design Standard. At .any rate, Staff does not find this condition to be typical of the architectural style of this neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The residence is located on a 12,000+ square foot parcel, of a regular rectangle shape. Staff does not note any unusual site-specific constraints associated with this parcel, and does not find the denial of this request to be unfair. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 1 Z O N E ®L_ AMMAN UNnnwoo ,�.� it N3dSV d0 AM DOZ 0 7, AON A R C H I T E C T S L L 0. a3AI333H November 19, 2013 Attn: City of Aspen Planning&Zoning Commission Members RE: Request for Residential Design Standards variance for property located at 431/433 West Hallam Street. To the esteemed members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, This is an application to consider a variance exemption from Section 26.410.040.0 2.b of the Land Use Code, which states: "The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house." The subject property is currently configured as a duplex residence and is located has the addresses 431 & 433 West Hallam Street. The proposed design involves the demolition of the existing structure and replacing it with a Single Family Residence+ADU. The configuration of this property is somewhat unique when compared to the predominant sub-urban pattern of development in the West End. Rather than occupying two platted town site lots and having the long axis of the lot extending from the Street to the Alley(North/South), the long axis of this property is oriented across a portion of three town site lots in an East/West direction. The southern 1/3 of the three lots are owned by the Weaver Subdivision with the address of 422 West Bleeker Street, and this area currently serves as surface parking and a single story garage for the 422 West Bleeker residence. The effect of this is anomaly is that the property at the corner of 4th and Hallam Street does not currently have driveway access to the alley and is forced to access the property via a curb cut on 4th Street. IF the Property did have driveway access to the alleyway (and the garage doors hence facing the alley),this variance would not need to be requested, since the language within Section 26.410.040.C.2.b specifically states that the front facade of the garage (i.e.garage doors) is required to be setback from the front facade of the Residence by 10 feet,but does not specify that any other portion of a garage must be located 10 feet behind the front facade of the Residence. The Residential Design Standards were established to primarily protect the character of the West End from redevelopment which was occurring there in the late 80's and early 90's, and thus were codified around typical lot configurations found in this Zone District. The variance process was established to address situations where the lot configurations ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS 110 BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 did not conform to the typical 30x100 foot platted lots which spanned from Street to Alley,both in the West End and in other Zone Districts within the City of Aspen. In response to the criteria for review of this variance request application,please see below: 2. Y ariances ji•ont the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section, may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Ad ustntent or the Historic Preservation Conrnrission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board ofAdjustrnent or the Planning and Zoning Commission ntay elect to have the variance application decided by the board or cormnission reviewing the other land use application.An applicant who desires a variance front the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would a)Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard.In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board ntay consider the relationship oj'the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board,feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted: or -Response: There are several properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property which do not conform to Section 26.41.0.040.C.2.b The proposed design is not out of context within the immediate neighborhood. b)Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. -Response: This Property has unusual site-specific constraints by virtue of the atypical lot configuration,which creates an unfair burden on the property because Section 26.410.040.C.2.b forces the reduction of usable lot area that is not within a right of way or setback for no other reason than the Property Owner not being unable to utilize the clear access to the alley. Application of 26.410.040.C.2.b in this case does not further the intentions of this code section by either"minimizing the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic"(as the lot is not located within the City's Sidewalk Attainment Zone, and the right of way is not pedestrian friendly by nature of being sloped), or"reduce lifeless parts of the streetscape" by virtue of a having a slight facade offset and creating longer driveway. If the intention of the code section is to minimize the presence of what a garage door looks like to a pedestrian,there are much more effective ways of masking the visual impact of these elements(examples below),although an additional variance from variance from Section 26.410.040.C.Lb would be also required. It is important to consider that if the Property Owner was able to secure an access easement or property rights to the portion of the Weaver Subdivision area which would allow entry to the garage from the alley,the garage wall facing 4'i' Street would be allowed,by right,to have the same western garage wall setback as what is being requested in this application. Thank you for your consideration, Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS PO BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 Examples of Garage Doors which do not look like garage doors. Implementation of door designs below would also require a variance from Section 26.410.040.C.1.b "If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. " F 2 a i k� r `3 fi I r_ `t ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS PO BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 10.22.2013 PROJECT: 431/433 West Hallam St REPRESENTATIVE: Dylan Johns& Bill Pollock-970.948.6787 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Residential design standards variance DESCRIPTION: The potential applicant is interested in demolishing the existing duplex on the site and replacing it with a single family residence and on-site ADU. The subject parcel is approximately 6,073 sq. ft. (per the Assessor, a survey is required to confirm the actual lot area), and is located in the R-6 zone district. The property does not have access to the alley directly south, as a portion of the land adjacent to the subject parcel and the alley belongs to the neighboring Weaver subdivision, the bulk of which exists just across (south of)the alley. The potential applicant has proposed a design where the garage's front facade is set back less than ten (10) feet from the front-most wall of the house. This will require a variance from Section 26.410.040.C.2.b of the Land Use Code, which states: `The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house." A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Notice requirements include publication, mailing and posting per section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a"c). Below is a link to the Land Use application Form for your convenience. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/O/does/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011°/`20land%20use %20app%20form.pdf Provided below is a link to the Land Use Code. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/PIanning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land- Use-Code/ Applicable Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.410.040.0 Parking, garages and carports Review by: Community Development Staff for complete application Planning & Zoning Commission for determination Public Hearing: Required Fees: $3,250 deposit for up to 10 hours of review (additional billable hours, or hours to be refunded will be at the rate of$325 per hour) To apply, submit the following information • Total Deposit for review of application. • Pre-application Conference Summary. • 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 act on behalf of the applicant. • Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, 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. • A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. • A recent survey of the subject parcel. • Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. • An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. • Existing elevations of the development. • A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards (26.410.040) relevant to the development application. • 10 copies of the Land Use Application and all additional letters, maps, and agreements. 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. January 9, 2013 City of Aspen Building Department 517 E. Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 4311433 West Hallam Owner Authorization Parcel #273512433001 To Whom it May Concern: Zone 4 Architects has the authorization of DH Hallam LLC, the property Owner, to meet with City of Aspen officials as well as submit any required land use applications,permit applications, and change orders for the sole purpose of constructing of a new residence on the property currently designated by the addresses 431 &433 West Hallam Street in Aspen Colorado and having a Parcel ID#273512433001. Sincerel;, Ma DH Hallar Joeseph Land Title Guarantee Company - 'A CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Land GUARA M CDMMW tWe W W W.LT64.GOY Date: 11-02-2012 Our Order Number. Q62004916 Property Address: ' 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN,CO 81611 If you have any inquiries or require further assistance,please contact one of the numbers below. For Closin8 Assistance- For Title Assistance- Kate Staskauskas Aspen Title Dept. 533 E HOPKINS#102 Kurt Beereboom ASPEN,CO 81611 533 E HOPKINS#102 Phone:970-925-1678 ASPEN,CO 81611 Fax: 800-318-8202 Phone:970-925-1678 Email: kstaskanskas @ltgc.co% Fax: 970-925-6243 k Email: kbeereboom@Itgc.com ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL R14ALTY BJ ADAMS AND COMPANY`TMX* 415 E HYMAN AVE 534 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 Attn: TRACY EGGLESTON Attn: ANDREW ERNEMANN Phone: 970-948-7130 Phone: 970-379-8125 Fax: 970-920-3880 Fax: 970-920-2927 Email:tracyaspen@yahoo.cam Entail:andrew @bjac.net Sent Via EMail Sent Via Email ._ WALNUT CREEK RANCH LLC LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES,INC 4520 MAIN ST#1060 Attn: JOE WOLF KANSAS CITY MO 64111 Email:jWOLF@LAKESHOREMHC.COM Attn: BUSH HELZBERG Sent Via Email . Email:BUSH @PVAFUND.COM LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY 533 E HOPKINS#102 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 Attu: Kate Staskauskas Attn: ASHLEY CHOD Phone: 970-925-1678 Phone: 970-925-66 Fax: 800-318-8202 Fax: 970-920-9993 Email:kstaskauskas @ltgc.com Email:abley.dwd@sothebysrealty.com Sent Via Email Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Laid TWe G!AMNM COMPI-r WWW.LT GC.COY Date: 11-02-2012 Our Order Number: Q62004916 Property Address: 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 Attn: ROBERT EGGLESTON,JR Phone: 970-925-6060 Fax: 970-920-9993 ' EMad:BUBBAEGGCMYAHOO.COM Sent Via EMail 11.15.12 OaTSVERY.0 (9/2003) Land Title Guarantee Company Date: 11-02-2012 Me e Our Order Number: Q62004916 GUARANTEE COMPANY ■-LTGC.00M Property Address: 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Buyer/Borrower: LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES,INC Seller/Owner: WALNUT CREEK RANCH,LLC, A KANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Wire Information: Bank:ALPINE BANK 600 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone: Credit: ABA No.:1OZ103407 Account:ZOZW10529 Attention:Kate Staskauskas Need a map or directions for your upcoming dosing?Check out Land Title's web site at www.ltgc.com for directions to an of our 54 office locations. ESTIMATE OF TnILE FEES ALTA Owners Policy 06-17-06 $4,552.00 Deletion of Standard Exception(s) (Owner) $65.00 Tax Report $25.00 If Land Title Guarantee cagmny will be closing this transaction, above fees will be collected at that time. TOTAL $4,642.00 rocs coin=06/04 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDERt Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q62004916 Schedule A Cust.Ref.: Property Address: 431-433 W HALLAM ST ASPEN,CO 81611 1. Effective Date: October 24,2012 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued,and Proposed Insured: "ALTA"Owner's Policy 06-17-06 $2,550,000.00 Proposed Insured: LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES,INC 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: WALNUT CREEK RANCH,LLC,A KANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: THE NORTHERLY 70 FEET OF LOTS A,B AND C, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 39 INCHES OF LOT C. ALL OF WHICH PROPERTY IS SITUATE IN BLOCK 36 IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO. ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION PROJWr: Name: �t31 wE'S-r � - ► Location: q31 u; S? W •/�'+�l S J�SVtx� (indicate street address,lot&block number,legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID# UIRED )Z q3 301 APPLICANT: Name: _� N )4 AI-L L L C. Address: Z.T t G dJ LGfs (ZG I�1 L Ml1+tlGtJ ' Phone#: 11"RFSENTATWE: Name: K JTt' --D G Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION:(please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use E7QSTING CONDITIONS: descri lion of existing buildings, prej6ous vats,etc. PROPOSAL: lion of Proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc. &� iT�Sit7t:�us'" ?a $E Gv ?jZrw7 . trz?/vie J t 4" Gb' 39W--40;dr 7"Ki� T -pt�5 WT H*W l414- -G 0S Flu psi Al- rs ca-sli—anvr W. Have you attached the following? FEES Di3E:$ ,3 250 ilr 1&f eon HctN� ❑ Pre Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3-13 Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate If you must submit a 3-D modeL Agreement to Pay Application Fees agreement between the City of Aspen "C' and Property Phone No.: OwnerCl'): DH Hallam, LLC Email: Address of y;1I sm WEST O LA+M Bing Prop": Address: 2711 Centerville Road, #300 (subject of (send bills here) application) Wilmington, DE 19808-1645 1 understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No. ,Series of 2011,review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. 1 understand that as the property owner that 1 am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees:I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. i understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ Nl flat fee for $IA flat fee for flat fee for $ A YA- flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and 1 understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above.the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration,unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above fisted billing address and not retumed to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. 1 understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 3,'7.50 deposit for 10 hours of Community Development Dep7Addirtdi time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be MW at$315 per hour- , $ e A deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. al tim a ove the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner. A r� Chris Bandon Name: DH Hall LL Community Development Director h I. Wo , President By: Jo City use: Title: Fees Due:s ReWIVOCI:s ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 4-SI / 453 WEST NAU A� Applicant: LL LLG.. Location: 4-Al Jq33 WasS7 114LL414f ST Zone District: Q 6 Lot Size: (�� 0*43 Lot Area: G . D l 3 (f purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas within.the high water mark,easements,and steep slopes.Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in theme Municipal Code.) N Commercial net leasable: Existing: MIA Proposed: Al A" Number of residential units: Existing: Z--Proposed: 1 t �V Number of bedrooms: Existing. fe _Proposed: G -e A4l;)u Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties DIMENSIONS: gt{q p Floor Area: Existing. I STI Allowable: w 7bR_ Proposed: -5465w/7pn- Principal bldg.height: Existing: 17.'VST Allowable: 25' _Proposed: VT Access.bldg.height: Existing. V A Allowable: 7-' Proposed: W 4A On-Site parking: Existing: 1 Required: Z{4VU Proposed. Zf AW e • %Site coverage: Existing: 31% Required.- 50,% Proposed: 39 %Open Space: Existing.—AVA Required: 14 Proposed. �ortn�aYt� Front Setback: Existing: 16- S,7-Required: )0 15 ACL Proposed. 10-10 fo'y l- -T o ka+46�" Rear Setback: Existing: 32 Required: 10 5 Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: IZ. Required: /11A Proposed. LO-10 Side Setback: Existing Required: Jf Proposed: .6-7- Side Setback: Existing--_W Required: IV A Proposed: /V A Combined Sides: Existing. /V Required: >q Proposed: N A' Distance Between Existing lv�� Required: Jr Proposed: 5 Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: FX1S7"1#V(r R.ES1v&Vr G' HAS -FamT 4 S 1tf SE-r645.K Al"'COWFOL01111 ES . 'P�21Ct�U No1U-(�F't/x�'"I Variations requested: NO 1;4MW4JS1 0"/A?- V MJ AWCi3 �EZ7V�Tc� o1�tE2 -Ti+�v c�+tn F 7 CrT0 t* TEM Rte '�Fsttr� S'1DS �• west End Halter t Lo J, f "tt�Y "SdO Weal francs t„at Spot ' Sr ,.t`'.•J 14W ear 4w 6tU Y.' 817. 602• � 4_ 1 . . 425# 411, 401 .w. - x 43a. y`* 430. 426 R-6 ^-• q, 511, s "+ �• � 7 r [/, t 244 F N4 �1 �t Y x m W4. Br �- 210, 4 � r weaver j 120. tt `"`.. Z 0-. N E F- — -- ARCHITECTS t U L L -Tr ASPEN 00 81612 WWVV.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM ITI ,I P.0. B oxo* 2508 7 F01 D L W. L w -------------- ------- UJ w ---------------------------- CID ui V. Lil . ..........- <0 o - PROPOSED j���I�IEV�ATIO�N- PR�0 v F BY!REVISIONS DATE C--- L E L A L—ii ILL==iJl L�11 Drawn by: FZ— -4A a 3N 0\.�0 CIO -------- ----------; 3j IF�e - A— T AFF-1-ALL I.ASELED XALES Date: 111/712013 Scale: I AS NOTED WEST ELEVATION-ORIGINAL DESIGN R S r ELEVATION A302 P.ft,dO.: 11/M013 F:100 ZONE 4100 NALLAWH.0 n G..g.Roj.iun.pin a > - 3 = w <_ Co D z N W w O ° m4 z z n0 P II M r m D O z X G) z D r 0 m G) z n z n O u M r m D O z -o O u O m 0 I 0 Ow - WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE i� 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET 2 ASPEN, CO 81611 DV a N O 0 p pZm I >oo =OX m 00 m N 0 i 0 N N N N �II 11■11 n z n O u M r m D O z -o O u O m 0 I 0 Ow - WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE i� 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET 2 ASPEN, CO 81611 DV a N O 0 p pZm I >oo =OX m 00 m N 0 i 0 N N N N ROO ZONE 4b0 XALLAA1 H,bm G—g,ROu si-pin ,\ r m mom R W m < ;0 a 5 Q —DI Ill mod �ggq W O o =4 Z o w w � o� m °D ;m 'm D O z x O z D r m G) z D m r m D O z -D O u O U) m 0 ?o,, WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 D� D NCO 0 O >Zm 2 r. iOX ni O-N m n 0 N OO Ol N Z m FVO ZONE 4100 HALLAWHaLw Gamp Revision.pin X 0 0 n z 0 ;u G) z m U) G) z ;o 0 0 n z 0 a 0 cn m 0 > X u u lkj ;o 0 z 0 p -z > w z cl) -n 0 H 21 w m 0 ?o,, WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 DV > N up 0m 0 z m Z ca X 0 0 0 r- 0 X 0 OD m CN' K) 0 ED 0 i. K 0 0 u u u ---------- ?o,, WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 DV > N up 0m 0 z m Z ca X 0 0 0 r- 0 X 0 OD m CN' K) 0 ED 0 i. K 0 0 u ---------- ?o,, WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 DV > N up 0m 0 z m Z ca X 0 0 0 r- 0 X 0 OD m CN' K) 0 ED 0 i. K 0 0 ��• �� y9 t �/lfA.�7 ���r '' `{ +I�k �SJr� - ,�V• /'� r�')`��' .�1�.;i� �'�i/��� 'a r'. J• •J.'�',rtil ( •f�' I- 1 .a; ra .{ .',il .� '�� � "T'� �. f.3 .1 ., if#e`if r �Y•� r� � r;r,y�J :�J .rof.� .�'..� #'� st :� ,r; 1 .C, 1.e �- r. ;�. `!F. .e l�,�s'�'. ({; ) �•�'.' �r+� ��,°s ia. + �� „?, r r t I. .t,+� y ,J, j:•' r� ,t`v. � 1r�c� ) '�` ,,, J} q � 5.,�'1j�f f�e4�!�' ��;3,•i J��.r �r �, �Y�''� ,Y.r�,��, ;Lf,G. �Y�'�.a�.i��"Ir.5�;3.'r?!:syJ!��✓:C'�N l.t'l�kS•d.1)S..�rt`r Vii.�i rir ' - ^( "?�T:�l •� .�/•;•'�7. e,}l �(�+4! �•1, ��t+ 'c!„ ?1 �.'kT1!!l� . -T 'firr 0. r. �y,� �' 1 Fr.>fYe,1�.�3 �' � i j'�.I. a ,�;• _ [[[f,/,w[ r 4,� �.�.�>-.� ` /G* F '�:v '�f`O�.l``Y� ;I; �r.1 �i,,Zy7R�,•t�j_/c1 ryrF t?j��'!., 4,r rltJ' [r�� t r � Y I J I�I�'�,�� �,� ��1' tr �• t11_ 1� '� �. f4 -,^1��i1 1S Y :�,'+�1'2l � .j -4� lt� � J - f 1,( l; t � PZ �, �rrl����,° air � . .,•. ,; CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN HALLAM ST 3D ELEVATION AT , ► LLC M rtr x a�R3 1�' L i!!i � �j.Y.. �. �[. a �; .Ff�.-f- �' •�� -`i �.5 � }1 "ey' fi.0- .'��.-x ,� •�.. ., .. .i.. Sr S_'b •E,',�.n'f., �i.-l'w'r�''%P ,"f � t�... 1',:' s`Y'ti t{r�" ul q .Fns..' ti _ • - JII i CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN Z O N E 431 /433 HALLAM ST AERIAL VIEW N.T.S. 1 1 .1 5.201 3 ARCHITECTS «c r CURRENT DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN Z O i N E i 1 431 /433 HALLAM ST 3D VIEW ATCORNER OF 4TH & HALLAM dL N.T.S. 11 .15.2013 ARCHITECTS uc a �i A r� F� � � f� ■ 1��� �� ! _ �.SY +�A;r y �.,'i.+r er�•J� ' ��i� CURRENT ' PROPOSED ' 431 /433 HALLAM ST 3D PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTHEAST ONSTREET ARCHiTECTS LLO Ira Iif� i{t��• 1 CURRENT ' PROPOSED ' PERSPECTIVE 431 /433 HALLAM ST _j 3D . ; ARCHiTECTS LLC s w r t' f i ,h E r •— •,l Z O i N E � 431 /433 HALLAM ST HIDDEN GARAGE DOOR CONCEPTS N.T.S. 11 .1 5.2 0 1 3 ARCHITECTS uC CURRENT ' PROPOSED ' E S I G N i 31 /433 HALLAM ST 3D ELEVATION AT 4TH STEET , LLC FA00 ZONE 400 HP LAMW,K—Gaape Rlmlln.yln a m 2 ° _ m < ..i Z o £ liA C m --i m r m D O z O z D r m z n 'n U) n -m =r m D O z -o O a O m 0 ?o� WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 >:u D N up m Zm 0 pZw 2 0 r. =0X ni m co m C) N 0 NrnUl 0yo 0 NW 0 1 � C m --i m r m D O z O z D r m z n 'n U) n -m =r m D O z -o O a O m 0 ?o� WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 >:u D N up m Zm 0 pZw 2 0 r. =0X ni m co m C) N 0 NrnUl 0yo 0 NW 0 F;%00 ZONE 0100 HALlAM1Ha0am Ganpa Rav6bn.pin T m r m D r m X z D m 0 n D 4m -o 9 O u O m 0 ?o� WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 Dv D N O m 0 O T 2 O =Ox 1i mm m , " O nm °' 1 0 3 N W N z a»»� o ?o� WEST HALLAM RESIDENCE 431 / 433 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 Dv D N O m 0 O T 2 O =Ox 1i mm m , " O nm °' 1 0 3 N W N Z ON E A R 0 H I T E 0 T S LL C. P.O. BOX 2508 ASPEN CO 81612 WVVW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM ----------------------- ------- -------------------- ---------------------- ------............ ---------------- ------------ LU 7 ❑z 0! W I W j i c C R 5' ji, j `l , Q N 3 n TREADAT12-1 JRISERZATr 2TREADAT14 1 RISERS AT r u P uj SLOPE RE;WL R 5' IAG' j ---------- ' I i L9 POU 0� Go -BY REVISIONS DATE A B c A B Drawn by: Z4A IF NOT E­RE SEE.Z ..OR —M Date:_ 7/2013 SITE -ORIGINAL DESIGN SITE - �ROPOSED . AS NOTE D 02 � = R SITE PLAN A100 PI.—O, 1IM2013 Eo 4th STREET ( EAST SIDE ) _ �gy4 4 ;l ♦; _. �h.k "�- 1,� - ..* lF",tT� f' .+.'�• L �'.}' �_ � � p '�F.s,S,t 1. ��Y r:� '.�'f .�' __ _ _ :- t� ,'� - - 2 TL �'th r• ,�;-fir T� y -raw-. r� ,( _+� � ,o. r ail f }`e � � 'r � 'g• k yp yr. f - .vr:. I�; .fT y.: I t i ;.�,r ,. Y •F'y ��,� � 4:i�W��y iii,_-�=alfFa "' •:� f �; 4 � � � � ".' _ (( -__ i 1 °g __ - 1 �" j,,;�'.i'1 ►. _l�. •`:, ~�'- �i f h 'I "•i 1 f :. . •.' A 4 - _ r.a4.'. � ..... :,f' a ..'^:R�F. � -aa ()' , 4 � _ uf� 6 y - . •r• �+- - -- . �-a • . _ --tom.. -• i _ .� _.— --. - _. ._ i ti r �'�"✓ �w+r�rr�/+r►.'�i.rr.i .-..�srri.�.rrsvr'is-�f� ♦.r.ri�.�'-�'n+rr� ._ r. i •� �"� .- �...;,..,r.�«r'r+ � ; �..� 'ice*Via,. !p v _ psi, �. --=-a "'• - _- � - - -.- _ - � -— -_ ';i � - .� . _ 3 - _.• 1 _ a 4th STREET (WEST SIDE FLIPPED ) Z O i N E 431 /433 HALLAM ST I 3D ELEVATION AT HALLAM STREET N.T.5. 1 1 .1 5.2 01 3 ------ ARCHITECTS uc HALLAM STREET ( SOUTH SIDE ) UL Gs � `).. M^r. � 10.1- _�� Z �, � � e• � '�Iy4.. _ '7�' 'II ,F�' � "� � !`J 'I is yl{'�` �`_ i� _wi.��, , � .J. r �{' `�' •` ■Y_ 1 * � 11� i�: --cr 1 i �Ir.r��ll�r►,■�..���s���!/^/�ILIJIJ�I>/i.ff�..t�r�rr�f/�►rel��i►lJ,.Ir� ��1�r1� � r.�s��:r�r.r..+�j1s� s ".. . .....�,,.�.ra�s�— . .,•�.s�.rr - _ _i. ►.II,r• �IaIi.R�r►s,•`.•rrIIf♦rIV�1I`I�Ir.r�.�.+.. �+I.►r�+•' rrr..�►I !!.r!.Iww&%W'r.#......s i lot z- C, i II �', F' 1' ;.p Y■ a .r: .S.! "»'ti,. _� �'. .� �� .� .{'�?� � 1 'Ri wa ( /�n „i': - ---- � J � .. .■ f..:�r�' 1 ;�'� fit: � 1�. ( = �:.• �. ��� , i i HALLAM STREET ( NORTH SIDE FLIPPED ) Z O N E i 431 /433 HALLAM ST I 3D ELEVATION AT HALLAM STREET N.T.S. 11 .15.2013 ARCHITECTS Lac Impro vem en t Survey Pla t The -lVorMerly 70 TTeet of .Lots 4, P and C, Excepe the ffaseerly 39 Inches of toe C, X111 of Xhich is Situate in Block' ?6' in Me CI OF ASPEN City and Townsiee off' 14spen, Piekin County, Colorado GPS MONUMENT NO. 9 CITY OF ASPEN . CPS MONUMENT N0. 20 \$, Legend and Notes, O indicates found monument as described J; indicates Spruce Tree J3 indicates Cottonwood Tree $f indicates Plater Serv/ce Reber&Cop LS/I 918 v_ Site enchmork 4 �Di �V ~ 32 a �,•,°,\ Ian. , 90380 \ __/� %-�� - Bearings are based upon a No. 5 rebar with a plastic cap L.S.,/9184 at the (r)tlV // �3, ' / S' northwesterly comer of sold Lof and o No. 5 Rebar C\ -1 found at the northeasterly comer, using a bearing of 575VOI E between said monumen ts. { - Are unit of measurement for this survey Is the U.S Survey Foot. REBAR z - The vertical datum used In this survey is based upon NA IUD B8. 1 GRAPHIC SCALE - y p January a 7904.19 � � >Ire dote that this survey was reformed was Jonuo 22, 2012. � x 7903. s u Trees are measured by the diameter at breast height(D8H)and the symbol is scaled to the drip line \ 2 I e Be Y / °�IN ,� - Sold Parcel is entirely within "Zone X.• Area determined to be outside of 500),ear e 43f g 433 Ha9on Stree 5 1 inch=10 fL flood Plain'per fEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map,Panel 203 of 325. Cate 7814 LOT AREA/ - 7h/s survey does not represent a title search by this surveyor fa determine ownership troy 4� / or to discover easements or other encumbrances of record.All information pertainin to / /6 ownership, easements or other encumbrances of record has been taken from a title- Carport I u/ insurance commitment issued by Land Title Guarantee Company, dated October 24,2012, as Order Number 462004916 mis PRA°OERTY/S SUB.ECT 7o ANY FACT$RICHM fN1ER£S75 OR CLAIMS NMCN MAY Q7ST oR / AR/SE BY REAWN ODD 7H£ZOWNG FACTS.WORN ON IMPROYENENT SURVEY DA7ED AUGLST Ol,2012 r� PREPARED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN SURDEIING,"f 12548 Vol P /� ANY BOUNDARY DISCREPANCY OUE TO 7NE LON77OV a'FENCE IJAW ALONG 7HE v �T A' (y EA57ERN BOUNOARY OF SUB CT PROPERTY AND 7NE EFFECT OF ANY RIGY 7171E OR X 7904.r ` �RY. x ^/ INTERS T 771A MAY B£LiA/MED OUE TO ANY SAID D/SO74EPANCY.(PER SA70 7771E OwunuENT EXCEP7TON l 1C 7904,04 / -79X3 90 `- Na 9 +w' - DITCH No. 5 Rebor and Cop Illegible 4 /I \ /• �` r�. i `� / ,OQOyV/ / LOtB l Fence '' Yieinitey 1LIap 1 "— 500' � l � l �G l � �I-� � �.•� �-,--y_ �.n t=om\ � ay {i N R W,{,� "i`1 (�t� Surveyors Certificate. / ♦♦ IL Jeffrey Allen Tuttle, being a Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado, � do hereby certify that this improvement survey was prepared from on actual . t wi s ` ,..,,..:.... monumented land survey of the property comer monuments,both found and set, under my direct superdslon and checking,, that it is correct to the best of my belief and knowledge and that all dimensions,both linear and angular were determined by an accurate control survey In the field which balanced and closed within a limit of 1 In 15,000(which complies with Colorado Professional standards / I�', �! �;,`'l•� t'� e W , ;ms,"' for a land survey plot and the current accuracy standards for AL TA/ACSM Land Title h,��r•' G �` !yf - - - ear i, Surveys).•/further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, January 22 2013, except utility connections, ore enthral within the .f boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises except as •� i _ Z s Indicated, and that there is no apparent ev/dence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of sold parcel, except as noted. Jeffrey Al/en Tutt/a LS 33636 Dote I Ca-., ' '°"°�``°m�° 727 Blake Avenue 431 and 433 Aese Hallam Crown by. sRe p 4yar action doxd upon any dU•ct in IAer Aalhnrioy sr r rrndcu:Air.x°,vr ee a yw°m o aur.dr°n r°Ar/a14 na,"ne ed en z e�•eNaHh r°,°._°r n,.°a ln u adras,:A/n r.y�corr n eu n r n y e°,r Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ImprovemeW Survey -Plae (970) 928-9708 (FAX 947-9007) Date.. 1 Ispen, Colorado 81611 jeff®tss-us com GF • I Davis Horn• PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING t-H r 5'2014 JTY February 25' 2015f ..1 - z Sara Nadolny, Planner City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 825 Roaring Fork Road Residential Design Variance for Windows Which Span the 9'- 12" Zone Dear Sara& Commissioners: There is an existing single family house located at 825 Roaring Fork Road which is legally described as Lot 16 A of the Second Aspen Company in the Hallam Addition to the City of Aspen Townsite. The Applicant is represented by Poss Architecture and Planning("Poss") in this application. Davis Horn Incorporated is assisting Poss with this request. Attachment I is a Site Vicinity Map which depicts the subject site and demonstrates the relationship of the site to the surrounding properties. Attachment 2 is an Improvement and Partial Topographic Survey of the property. This application seeks a variance from the City Residential Design Standards to permit two small windows on each side of the front door in a space which is between 9' and 12' above the finished first floor. The Applicant's request is addressed within the following sections of the letter. I. Existing Conditions; and II. Residential Design Standards. The following is a list of Attachments referenced in this application. 1. Roaring Fork Road Site Vicinity Map 2. Improvement and Partial Topographic Survey 3. 825 Roaring Fork Road: View of Entry from Road 4. 825 Roaring Fork Road: Second View of Entry from Road 5. 825 Roaring Fork Road: View of Entry Facing Southwest from Road 6. 825 Roaring Fork Road: View of Entry Across Driveway ALICE DAVIS AICP S GLENN HORN AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX:970/925-5180 adavis @rof.net ghorn @rof.net 7. 825 Roaring Fork Road: Former Entry to House Which is Being Altered 8. 825 Roaring Fork Road: Proposed South Elevation 9. View of Roaring Fork Road Facing Southwest North Subject Site 10. View of Roaring Fork Road Facing South 11. 844 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard 12. 805 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard 13. 825 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard 14. 830 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard 15. 802 Roaring Fork Road: Front Entry 16. 885 Roaring Fork Road: Front Entry I. Existing Conditions Attachment 2 shows the subject site is improved with a two story house located on a 12,868 +/- square foot lot. Virtually the entire Aspen West End is zoned R-6 with the exception of the Aspen Meadow/Institute and the Second Aspen Company in the Hallam Addition ("the Addition"). The Addition is zoned R-15 and contains substantially larger lots than those in the West End. Lots sizes in the Addition generally range between approximately one-third of an acre and one and one-quarter acres in size as compared to the vast majority of the West End where homes are typically located on 6,000 square foot parcels (.15 +/- acres). The minimum front yard setback in the R-15 zone is 25 feet which is 2.5 times greater than the 10 foot front yard setback in the West End's R-6 zone. Attachment 1 shows that Roaring Fork Road is different than other streets in the West End because it is curvilinear rather than straight and is a looped Road similar to a cul-de-sac. Pedestrians typically walk the other streets in the West End usually destined for either downtown on one end the music tent or the Aspen Meadows on the other end. This is not the case with Roaring Fork Road. Pedestrians rarely walk the Roaring Fork Road loop to travel to these major pedestrian destinations. Pedestrians typically access the music tent via the pedestrian trail at Gillespie Street just to the West of Third Street rather than walking north on Roaring Fork Road (see Attachment 1). The west side of Roaring Fork Road experiences significant vehicular traffic, not pedestrian traffic, before and after performances (see Attachment 1). Consequently, there is less pedestrian traffic on Roaring Fork Road than on other West End streets. There are no alleys accessing the houses on Roaring Fork Road. This means that each house has a driveway and garage facing the Road. The driveways and garages are significant design features which dominate the streetscape and differentiate the Addition from the West End. Attachment 1 shows the entire west side of the Roaring Fork Road Loop is bordered by the backside of Harris Hall and the Music Tent parking lot. There are no houses located on the west side of the Road. This large area located west side of Roaring Fork Road detracts from the applicability of the Residential Design standards to the Addition. There is no relationship between the front entry of houses and the western segment of the Roaring Fork Road loop. The front door of the subject property is setback 38 +/- feet from Roaring Fork Road. Attachment 1, a City of Aspen GIS ortho photo of the neighborhood, shows the existing dense vegetation which screens the front door of the subject property from the adjacent Roaring Fork Road. The front door is only visible at a diagonal view across the driveway. Attachment 2 depicts 24 mature Spruce trees and six Aspen trees with diameters in excess 5"which screen the view of the front entry from the Road. Attachments 3 and 4 are photos of the front entry of the subject property as viewed from the south on Roaring Fork Road. Attachment 5 is a view of the landscaping in front of the subject property facing southwest on Roaring Fork Road. The photo shows the front entry of the house is screened by a small wooden brown fence and Aspen and Spruce trees which are in excess of 30 feet tall. Attachment 1 shows approximately 120 lineal feet of the front yard is contiguous with Roaring Fork Road. A pedestrian walking on the Road can see the front entry across the driveway for approximately 18' of the frontage (see Attachment 6). As previously indicated and depicted by Attachment 6, the house is being remodeled and the entry to the house is being improved. Attachment 7 depicts the former house entry which is being altered. Attachment 7 shows the old entry windows in the 9'-12' space located above the front door. Attachment 8 depicts the Proposed South Elevation which has been permitted by the City of Aspen and is being constructed at this time. As currently permitted the two small panels proposed to be located in the 9'-12' space above the front door will be metal panels rather than glass. Residential Design Standards The general purposes of the residential design standards are to "preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking." The standards seek to establish a relationship between a pedestrian on the street and the front doors of homes. Low fences and hedges may delineate edges of properties. The standards are not designed for property such as the subject site where there is a significant stand of vegetation which blocks virtually all views of the front entry. Refer to Attachments 3-6. Section 26.410.020 D. of the Code establishes standards for variances from the standards. The standards say the Planning Director may consider"the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted." The Planning and Zoning Commission is to consider the following standard when evaluating a variance request. "Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which development is proposed and the purposed of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures , the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted...." (emphasis added). The Addition has a different character than the rest of the West End because due to the following factors which are illustrated in this application. 1. Larger Lots R-15 Zone(see Attachment 1); 2. R-15 Zone 25 Foot Front Yard Setbacks vs. R-6 Zone 10 Foot Front Yard Setback; 3. Significant Landscaping Growing Along the Road Screen Front Doors (see Attachments 5, 9 & 10); 4. No Alleys (see Attachment 1); 5. Driveways and Garages Dominating Front Yards (Attachments I 1-14); 6. Looped Road with no Pedestrian Traffic Destined for Major West End Attractions; and 7. Neighboring Houses with Windows in Space 9'-12' Above Entry(Attachments 15 and 16) The requested residential design variance is warranted when one considers the following factors. 1. The Second Aspen Company Hallam Addition is zoned R-15 in contrast to the majority of the West End. Lots are significantly larger in the Addition then the rest of the West End and the minimum front yard setback in the Zone is 25 as compared to 10 feet in the R-6 zone. 2. The subject house is setback 38 feet from the Road(see Attachment 2). 3. Due to the dense mature trees located along the Road, pedestrians can barely see the house except for a limited view across the driveway(see Attachments 3-8). 4. The subject site has 120 lineal feet of frontage along Roaring Fork Road. The front door is visible at a diagonal across the driveway for only 18 +/- feet(see Attachments I and 6. 5. Roaring Fork Road is a curvilinear, isolated looped Road with less pedestrian traffic than other West End streets. Pedestrians do not travel on Roaring Fork Road to reach the music tent or downtown Aspen(see Attachment 1). 6. There are no alleys accessing the houses. Consequently, driveway and garages dominate the front yards of the houses on the Road as opposed to the front entry of the houses (see Attachments 11-14. 7. There are no houses located on the west side of Roaring Fork Road for approximately 900 lineal feet. Consequently, there is no relationship between pedestrians and the front facades of houses for a distance equivalent to three football fields. Instead of houses, the land uses on the west side of Roaring Fork Road are a large parking lot, an vacant field and the backside of Harris Hall (see Attachment 1). 8. The Applicant has been issued a building permit to build the front entry which is depicted by Attachment 8. The front entry is under construction as shown in Attachment 6. In the event the design variance is denied the Applicant will install metal panels in the 9'-12' space rather than glass. The limited views of the front entry from Roaring Fork Road will not look much different if glass panels are installed rather than metal panels. Summary The Applicant is seeking a residential design variance to install two small windows on each side of the front door in a space which is 9'-12' above the first floor finished grade. This letter has described the neighborhood context in which the development is proposed and described the impact of the proposed variance within the neighborhood setting. The design variance is warranted based upon these considerations. We look forward to discussing the issues raised in this letter at your meeting on March 4. Sincerely, DAV HORN INCORPORATED GLENN HORN AICP �I I nv►nnt`n� 1.. 250 wlu.oucHeYwav ROARING FORK RD PROPERTIE r , ` N 0 60 120 Roaring Fork<R'!�r ,� f� Feet 2012 Digital Orthophoto - This map/drawing/image is a graphical representat 3z I of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change ,. depending on the enlargement or reduction. ro Copyright 2014Aspen/Pitkin GIS 2/20/2014 3 16:13 PM C\GISltemp\Feb14\Roarin ForkRd.mzd WILL - WAY 5` 870 ROARING, WILLOUGHBY 000 E 'an FORK RD '•�� WAY RD;ST t 886'ROARING 1 FORK RD ROARING Fp �860xROARING j RkR�> FORK,RD 1 890 ROARING ' } 855 ROARING 850 OARING FORK RD t FORK RD j • I 980 N 865 ROARING 845 ROARING 3RD ST FORK RD i'f FORK RD 875 ROARING 1 OR RD I` 846 ROARING / 960 N ROARING i 3RD ST FORK RD 825 ROARING * '" . 844 ROARING I 815 ROARING ORK RD - I ,w. FORKoRD 830 ROARING 1 FORK RD 895 ROARING FORK RD 820 ROARING i j .189_ 80 ROARING SHADY LN FORk RDA a F WOOD 4 F 102;WOOD�,�, OARING DUCK LNG, I own FORK�RD AVE Z 802 ROARING r r ,�;' ,,�» 16•,1 FORK�RD 33n 314 342 GILLESPIE ST °5� J1 SHADl �� GILLES�GILLESPIE ST 400;LAKE �t � '�V *�� � �' ,t�7 ATTACHMENT a Cqp o.g x �p 6 ------------------- ------- s( PER SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TION 787 x LAN S OF MARCUS (LOT 10,SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUB �N LOT tt,SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION ) d41\ ( 875 ROARING FORK ROAD ) BBS ROARING FORK ROAD _ H �• lx 3B /x z A ' �`` -------------- _ 3e ^w 6 ` \ FOUND CITY MONUMENT"OPS/20' _ _ _ '\ �1�, 6•� gA \ / _ A'THE INTERSECTION OF E.EATI OF AULMD 771=1706.41'15 � 1------ ®��\ - - \-- ���� ` •IC ('I �O JP0\R / x>g>g -�0�`� D •65FR Aft, - -•1 � �. \ N� j6B% / FND.5/8'REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP W> •7886.8 6 \ --_'1 ,`` \\ ®7PE4. \\ + L$129D30(HELD POSITRON) J 6:p 07656.1 5'ASP 0 b �R R3>� ELEVATION OF TOP CAP=788253' \y _ 4g 6"SPR A".> 0 7886.5 ��, •7881.8 ( L X33 B fig^ Q` / _ gC�4'J�•L \ 0 7885.] •8'SPSR•n�r� ,.(-F 6"SPR O o\\OnyP \\ 4"ASP•> ®e ® Q=_ /x> > J .A }/ }�) •4 7"SPR _ '��O 4D] i> J• s.J> �J•.•�✓l 7 Q>*g(>B>.µ3 i �YJFN>q 7885-- � l•� x g 1 4�ASP 0 7055.3 JAI h� '> Jt \ 8821'�Qyp-`�7 x> \ �V (. _$°� +7eas.7 5 _ S°a s\w�' / 2S • _____.___ �S X02300' W`-�7�BSFa_%fig '�>ge6.o �\7gp VICINITY MAP OB'ASP o _------ ----- _ .o _`T *o + Ce�tp a 7974.7\ S .'JJ -k,,, /���.y918 \ AC _ +7 .3 TJI _-1�.1B 05.ZP ---06-AS? 7g84.66•A - R m I�.Af >BBJ. 1 \ x> 33 1 B> SCALE: 1'.500' 5 \ ®9 U.9 i 12.5. ^ 8.AOPRR E WALL HI "BPR-- \\ v 7880±- 12 AC&' •]eet.4 23.3' 01" - I� A 8"ASPO of �a+"881.3 .� 9 nVl 'ODS e:3 J 9"SPR > V�® I / /n.i +T>�; \\`7875 NOTES, . \ 5"ASP �l'� \ - g 'k° 837 W. /o�`� FU 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE CALCULATED BEARING N 3899'32'E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS AT THE + B7B.9 _____ __ ____ __ _ - >.qgJ T�.C4 Alf SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10,AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 9 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP TBg�i- mil♦ . �/•qp / I / o o� ENTITLED"SECGNO ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION"RECORDED IN DITCH PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 263 �� STONE PATID LAWN ^R WAS TANfN AS THE BASS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. OUNO CITY MONUMENT'GPS 9(R' By.B'�o1�,J 6 8'ASP G I > 125: AT THE INTERSECTION DF 6T�9 FRANCIS + 78.9 •-"O, }/TY1� O I 7882.1 f(3>3.0 qq 2. THE SURVEY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED IN PART ON THE GENERAL WARRANTY DEEDS RECORDED OCTOBER 6, ELEVATION OF ALLOW DISC-]906.09' `1 3 STONE PATIO K� � 1992 IN 8001(690 AT PAGE 583.AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1,1992 IN BOOK 687 AT PAGE 680. I23.9'- I LANDS OF KOCH THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IN PART E THE FOLLOWING: �AS LISTED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED GENERAL WARRANTY DEEDS) ZO 7875.8 'l PER DEED RECEPTION 73437 ?pp/ / /Y I E>B>I o¢ A)RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT OR REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM.SHOULD THE 7878.1 5 'GRD \\ ( ) 120, 7881.2 W//j 1.J 1 MTy3i.c1 SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED AS RECORDED IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. GAD g \ z F I (UNDESIGNATED LOT WITHIN SECOND 07881.7 / ! 1 fCBj;1 7<��" 8 TERMS.CONDITIONS,AND°BUGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS,RESERVATIONS, ✓� \ ®787721� ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION) I 4"ASP / 1 A'o�LL ) II (DITCH PLAT BOOK 2A PAGE 283) •8 ! I I O 5i AND COVENANTS AFFECTING SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION.RECORDED IN BOOK 197 AT PAGE 475. LOT AREA m 12,868 f SOFT. + ND6g21 If I B)TERMS,CONDITIONS.AND OBLIGATIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 380 AT PAGE 466. a 5. BENCHMARK: ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE"CITY OF ASPEN DATUM NAVD 8B" p • 2-STORY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE i pfry I I ) 1 l > x> oe TOP OF ENCASED 3' BRASS DISC'GPS-B(R)"NEAR THE CENTER OF INTERSECTION OF WEST U +9976.8 ttt"' 1 r 8 B> B> a i= S Q 6'SPR I' W/BASEMENT +R • \ !J ( s.g FRANCIS STREET AND NORTH SIXTH STREET ELEVATION=]908.09'FEET(PER MARGIN,PLS m g$ P 78]6.48'7 RI ( /825 ROARING FORK RD. ) I W1WppW W� 1I I \ w SURVEY DATED JULY 27,2010 FILED IN CITY ENGINEERS OFFICE) DIMENSIONS m OUTSIDE FACE SIDING I I + 8 5 (T >g>46 6. THE SITE SETBACKS SHOWN WITHIN THE PARCEL SHOWN ARE BASED ON A CITY OF ASPEN ZONING DESIGNATION SO AC:`� _-'+78]18/ JaE �� ,10n�• 02 77.8 ,(I I ( \\\ S OF R-15. VERIFY WTH THE CITY OF ASPEN ZONING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. IeCOT 281 \ " +7B75.a GRD 1-COT l/ / I •D.• ^' 1z o.J P, o P„1 +7661.1 s� I °�:m „g>q Q '��. SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE: + 7e74.B'-'1 / m� �{ I sTOxE PATH 1 Y' +''' �"\ > �Y m GRD I / I W �� 4.8' �` I i.s' 25.8' 7881.5 I i�, \ 'TIME UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO CHARLES KOCH AND TO C�j H / ♦ I " STM B Bgp y B THE CITY OF ASPEN THAT THE IMPROVEMENT AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO WHICH > / N C 73.6 0.75 9 >B J. m V_^? q l I \ > '- >g� 0'988..0 / S° `r THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED,PREPARED BY THE UNDERSIGNED,A REGISTERED 7875.7 eY's + 674.1 n 1.p' tp - 11JPJ YM•.3--788D- yBR,.yaVE BB>9z I \ \ PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR,WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY INSTRUMENT SURVEY GIRD _ q:P GARAGE I STONE PARO _ e �,e.70fi •> / / •>6.I \ a 24.9' + 9737 •78731 - • + "o.F ®> >3 A,PYg J 0 / g.»4 /•> / UPON THE GROUND; THE SURVEY AND THE INFORMATION.COURSES AND CpA,C3 - 03.1 •%�? / 6"ASP / +7173.1 756 >6 '>� C ryB>g 3' 3` 6. / / DISTANCES SHOVM THEREIN,INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SETBACK n 7873.6 + ---?--------- •7873.1 > 3'1 / GRD •'19�Rm 23 i yp 1�Y� J / / / AND YARD UNES,ARE CORRECT; THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, 18 SPIT 116 fC J I fi _-' 4 >3>> l �,�m m -- `5`ASP-_ - $Ja B'• 3�- g�B/ STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN,IF ANY'. + CONCRETE DRIVEWAY // e //0 7687-�It®�'3 BE STONE RETA1trWAk1--_- 0��3 > 1�0 •s Spk �>g> //•g•3>•SB/ / FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS,STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ON SAID 5(( / b' '�J: g T J 3OR m�/N n$ / 1�: \ s ---___ •-tp >>p-__ / Sogli / i PREMISES ON THIS DATE,FEBRUARY 28,2013,MARCH 6,2012,SEPT 12,2012 AND +7872.6 ----_y/ ___ / / • /x> /' SEPT.2013,EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS,ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF g7B73.0 (7.6Rp2.J J y, CONC L WT" f 78M3.p • / •78]4. \ i 78]8.4 >3 >> >g> �OU +7872.7 > 7872.7 ! / •]875.2 0 7876.4 _-...6}PR->'3 R2' 7875.5 78]5.4-x>�- A�J.J i / /i / i P O THE PARCEL,EXCEPT AS SHOWN.THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE CRO 6'C Z6 EC b{ 5"ASP B'SPR \` IR - ! /m I _2WR-®77975.8 - - 3.J / / 041 DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES,EXCEPT AS /-k I-' 7674.9 6"SPR _- ___- // �' •pg /'1 INDICATED,AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY ;$ '^ YSRR --------{S _ J /� ��B•..>l.3 EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL,EXCEPT \ fC Z4 / Nn •7874.4 \40780.2 --- > 7@7 _ �' �.AIB/// AS NOTED. THE ACCURACY OF ALL BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON IS 7B]�] q / ®586"ASPO\ € 7'ASP 7875r R __-_-'_w -_oY l _-1RP-- -_' / /// 8"TREE 9'11' h / \ �P N -__ 0 i/ // / BETTER THAN 1:15.000. FND.5/8"REBAR ) -- 0019 H`'P n,(t- \ T.. 0 7874.5 - =♦7�/f1 O 6 nGS _ 2dt'-�1 fF 76]21 9 =s -//// // ELEVATION OF TOP REBAR 7871.6' •66R ^ __ __--_ \� �7 • 34 N�-25PR' 8'SPR - �'� : W 8" A Ste®510 7889.8- s • - /i ROBERT C.HUTTON.PLS 4312 / 1 �°• \ a 79'18 DATED: BY: • 10c +7CONC 10dt1bsT •1�17.7�y \--_- -------- "-- - CN _ R •7 2. 5 6"wQO_W917B724 No ---®`+4 ___(C'222fl _ --+SB- - J I ASP --12•mP---a_ s ----- _ �3: /IJ-B igl 78]2 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 7871.4 �{,..L4,�._ J> - .48p8,g (07872.10'Nsp3 ®A > EC ®9 SPR _---?- "6_ --ri- ►�'7B7D� --F7'ID.dISL'+'Ct1]1TP-RLYSC-- `�" /_- - i� -- t 'xtC66?) 971.4 8'ASP B> 5 ,I-.8�'@�T _ >r-- _ M \ _ FC 1.6 9'15' A' _ - _-M-B'27WB.1rw11V%_C.LOR. _ x>gg _ /- AY 0 �� �K3 ZI MB9 " �'0�i ^W-� I - r• y'786>.2\ AVEL SHOULDER / fC 9.J / 1 r EA 6z1/ 243 •Ci fii 1 GRAVEL SHOULDER ( > // J i- � e.J I �J wf-- W w ROARING FORk ROAD ' + e.e ; l / // BJ.4J' +7871.6 NAIL I 50' WIDE R/W(PER 2A�PLATS 263) I C0 69'J /1 CL y 50.0'R/W ( ! / / & / ///' x0�Na'// N(a J•B . CONC pRIVEXAY .B///GONG QMLB W/ `' I I m66gz fa>Rg AA J 6A6>l3 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 01.0 19.53' R=141]AB' L=14290' 124.02' ` N 856'0'E 5 6516'00'W R.33218• 5g 1.64 FND.5/6"REBAR W/YELLOW PlASTC CAP LEGEND FOUND D.1'SOUTHEASTERLY OF RIGHT OF WAYLI IMPROVEMENT AND PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY STN - STONE SU DACE ELEVATION LWN - EMEVA77ON ON MANICURED LATIN OF THE LANDS OF KOCH EL = EDGE OF WALL EELLEVVAAT1o`Ni+"N DESCRIBED IN SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ORD - OROIIIND ELEVATION RECORDED IN RECEPTION #473437 PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS ED - EDGE OF GRAVEL SURFACE FH _ FIRE HYDRANT (ASSESSOR #2735-121-04016) CONC - CONCRETE GRAPHIC SCALE (825 ROARING FORK RD.) F.M. - WATER METER -T 8 E- - TELEPHONE B ELECTRICAL(UNDERGROUND)LINE -G- - GAS LINE ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO -w - HATER LOVE EP - EDGE OF ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT PAVE - ASPHALTIC PAVING SCALE: 1° = 10' DATE: JULY, 2007 GRVL - GRAVEL SURFACE IN FELT) ED - EDGE OF DITCH/CREEK 1 Inch- 10 ri REVISED: SEPTEMBER, 2012 SEPTEMBER, 2013 08"saR - COTTONWOOD E TTRRE(DIAMETER 0 DB•TT)° ') ROBERT C. HUTTON 0 6"ASP - ASPEN TREE(DIAMETER 0 DBH) PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR Q - SET 6/6" REBAR WITH YELLOW CAP(UNLESS OTHERTILRE NOTED) CEMETERY LAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970 544-9952 SHEET 1 OF 1 JOB/168-8258 Attachment 3 ' w NIk Roaring. i from Road Attachment 4 -eyenFt 825 Roaring Fork Road: 1 ' of Entry from 1 { Ail I "�t- s� , f Attachment 1 Roaring Fork ' oad: View of Entry Across Driveway 11 J J ; ' �Ap AA '� ♦ '%-.F � �" - � � 111 . l� "f y�I.0 � •�- 1 -r- k•.`Y ��1`�f�1 r '' '�j' �r t � J v �� mss. ,1 �Y ... +7 ti •_ � `mss M y o w^ i, ATTACHMENT posy Q Q � 4 NEW HORIZONTAL WORD -2--33--NEW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING SIDING TYPE 1-REF VA501 TYPE 2(TYF)-REF?IA501 ` —.—. T.O.pQOF 130'S i I I — , wr un�u�uun run eourroo um r n u u r r In non rc»so - _ ,. IRON GUARDRAIL-PER .. - —. yg I ..... ......... .....— _ l6 1111 n - CODE —. r. --- — _ — ( ___._____..______.. ..____. _ .._._.. .... -_. ... ._ .. .... o-,'.,z �(,v.9,, .. ._ T.O.FIN D UPP-'R V-0* T i n -o• _ -METAL-PANUG - - —_ - - wDMArcx i ,e ----N---- ----�---- a73062013 P1uonE3sSEr 1015-22013 eeRMrr I I 1:-042073 PL'AMII'REVSKW —T.O,flN O,S/AIN LEVEL 100'•0` Y b 1 •�15--� I .�. 27' ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS ARE ORTHAGONAL(TYPI I }18'•4' 8' PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION -34-NEW HORIZONTAL WOOD 35-",STING HORIZONTAL WOOD Q SIDING TYPE 2-REF 2IA501 SIDING TYPE I-REF IlA50l 825 ROARING FORK ROAD l'.0.ROGF 130..S. I ) ... ___ _.... 22 .... _ .. ...:. .. ..... I ....................__..__.._....—.___--__ T.O.Fl p UPPER LEV[1 1. PROJECT NO 2132&00 -0-27-ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS ARE ORTHAGONAL(TYP) I I SHaTTRLE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS A203 ,, I PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION „2011; G / SCALE 114'=1'-0' ��mrne:e c Attachment 9 View of 1 ' Fork Road Facing Southwest North of 1 ' Attachment i View of. .,� .ice.+i.. � •... -ate - v - . � . Roaring i rk Road Facing South s e. "w Attachment 11 844 A 1 1 . ' Fork Road:1 1 1 Y Attachment 12 805 Roaring Attachment 13 �- ANMM- 865 Roaring. ' i i Attachment 14 e _r y, 830 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard i Attachment 15 802 Roaring Fork Road: Front Entry Attachment 1 i 885 Roaring Fork Road: 1