The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.101 Founders Pl.0001.2013.ASLU0001.2013.ASLU 101 FOUNDERS PL 2737073000040 FINAL PUD - - hip" Ska **Â·11 â‚¬4 2*0 - A 04-4 . L +2~] . f THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0001.2013.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2273707300040 PROJECTS ADDRESS 101 FOUNDERS PL PLANNER SARA NADOLNY CASE DESCRIPTION PUDAMENDMENT REPRESENTATIVE SCOT LUNDEN STUDIO B 920 9428 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 2.19.14 CLOSED BY DJAMA MARTIN ON: 03/06/2014 Regular City Planning x Zoning Meeting - Minutes Ma.... 05, 2013 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Obermever Place - 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 2 Other Business - Code Amendments 8 1 4 Reeular Ci.y Planning & Zoning Meeting - ivimutes March 05,2013 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 05, 2013 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Keith Goode was not present. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Ryan Walterscheid, Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Jim DeFrancia and LJ Erspamer. Cliff Weiss arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were Jim True, City Attorney; Sara Nadolny and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin thanked Community Development for the update and it gives the big picture ofwhat is going on down the road. Bert asked if staff has set up any special meetings and future meetings for what Council handed them to do. Jessica Garrow said she was to go over the long range agenda; Community Development is booked with a lot of Growth Management applications. Jessica said if they were special meetings and staff could not attend those meetings. Jasmine suggested the 4th Tuesday in March which is the 26th for a P&Z meeting without staff so it will be a work session. Conflicts of Interest None stated. Public Hearing: Obermever Place - 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Obermeyer Place PU Amendment. Sara Nadolny submitted the proof of notice and the postings as Exhibit F. Sara said there were 4 letters from the surrounding area o f Obermeyer Place submitted and were all favorable. Sara introduced Scott Lindenau representing the Clancy's in this matter. Sara said the applicant from Founders Place Unit 202 was requesting an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD to permit a section of privacy screen on the unit's patio. The unit was located on the second floor; you had seen this before in May of 2012 for a similar request where the applicant had requested a 30 inch privacy screen to be erected on the patio and staff requested the screen to the west. The screen was built through some*Ommunication of approval and built the length of the unit's patio. Sara said this time the applicants are requesting an amendment to the Obermeyer PUD to bring the now approved patio into compliance. Staff is not in agreement with this request; the request was made for privacy and makes sense on the western side where it was originally approved. The patio on the north and eastern sides are raised up at a second story level approximately 13 feet before the privacy screen from finished grade so we feel that the applicants already enjoy 2 Regular City Planning x Zoning Meeting - Minutes Ma ..... 05,2013 a reasonable degree of privacy from their second story patio. Sara said the materials used for the fence were quality materials and there was no other place in Obermeyer where these materials are used. Sara said the 30 inch screen adds height to an already tall area that is along the pedestrian walkway. Staff is recommending that P&Z deny the request the applicant' s request for the PUD amendment and require the removal o f all sections of the screen that was not approved by Resolution 10 of 2012 within a period of 30 days. Jim DeFrancia asked if your objections are simply as stated, simply your subjective view of creating an appearance of height. Sara replied the height, bulk and the need to be considered private when it' s narratives need to be experiencing a further degree o f privacy and there are a lot o f patios in this area but they don't have more than just a safety railing; they thought that would set a precedent in an overall change in the PUD. Jessica said that it was inconsistent with the existing PUD. LJ asked the definition of a screen. Sara replied there was not a formal working definition of a screen in our code. LJ asked what would you describe that on the upper left. Sara replied a barrier or shield. Jessica stated that it would fall under a fence when we are looking at that balcony. Cliff stated that it was opaque and not transparent which makes it a screen. Burt asked about the Resolution on page 16 the and fourth WHEREAS mentions a fence so was that the determination. Sara said that was from Resolution 10,2012 that mentions the privacy fence as well as the one between the property (Obermeyer Place) from the parking lot. Jim said that a wind screen can be transparent; would it be different in your view if it was less solid, if it was a railing or a screen but if it was less solid. Jessica said that staff' s main issue is that this was inconsistent with anything else in Obermeyer even i f it was more transparent; it was not part o f what was originally approved. Jessica said this does represent a change to the overall PUD and if the HOA wanted to come in that would be fine but doing this on a piecemeal basis doesn't make sense and it adds a lot of bulk and mass. Scott Lindenau, Studio B, asked Sara to go back to the plan on the power point; this was an inadvertent error on several behalf' s so we did not try to do this intentionally. Cliff asked do what intentionally. Scott replied right now we are approved to do this and we wrapped the fence further and so these 2 portions we are hoping to go the five feet. Scott said this was still inconsistent with materials 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 05,2013 and one thing that we could do to the whole thing is paint it that green color to marry it more with the architecture and color. Scott said that he realized that the Exhibit A to Resolution 10,2012 was not in color but more importantly some of the images that you show are from below looking up and the client' s concern was that from Main Street you are higher and you look right into the living room and the terrace. Scott said that there were letters from Joe Vernier, Michael Sailor, Steve Seyffert and Steve and Clare Wilson who were all local and have been here for a long time and they are immediate neighbors. Jim asked if he had any images ofthe fence that you should have built and where. Scott replied if the fence stopped here it would be all the neighbors looking down and this is probably the most looked into apartment. Jim asked if that portion o f the fence exists legitimately as approved. Sara replied on the west side in red is legitimate. Cliff asked who built the fence. Scott replied Craig Woods. Cliff asked if he was given a set of plans from you. Scott replied yes. Cliff asked if Scott was here in 2012 to present this to us when it was originally approved. Scott said that he was. Cliff said he didn't understand where the confusion was; he was handed a set of plans and Cliff was trying to ascertain how he got a set of plans than what were approved. Scott replied that they were in black and white and it could have been his error that he didn't realize that it didn't stop at that peak. Cliff asked if he had nothing to do with supervising him while he was installing this. Scott replied that he did but he went on vacation and maybe he didn't check on it close enough. Sara said that when she initially sent over the plans and the resolution it was a black and white copy but she also forwarded by email a color copy and the resolution said red equals this and yellow equals this. Cliff asked even if it were in black and white does the dotted line show anything different. Sara said it does not and she did send the color one. Cliff said ifyou only had the black and white one could you make this mistake. Sara responded that would be hard to do because. LJ asked if they were happy with the fence that was approved. Sara replied yes, there was a legitimate reason. LJ said you are just asking to remove the new part that wasn't approved and in order for the applicant to apply for something like that they have to apply for a PUD amendment. Sara replied they have to go through a PUD amendment. Ryan looked at what was approved last year and they extended the fence considerably down the sidewalk but there must have been some compromise, did 4 Regular City Planning a Zoning Meeting - Minutes Ma.... 05, 2013 he miss it. Sara responded that what they presented and there wasn't a big discussion and it wasn't debated. Bert said the criteria that we are supposed to decide is located from page 19 on. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Jim said he really didn't have any objection to this; the neighbors have indicated that they don't have any objection to this. Jim agreed that it might be painted a more subdued color but that is just a matter of taste; he didn't see that it had any impact on the public interest. Bert said he usually agreed with staff on these; it is a significant height increase in terms of a blank wall; it adds bulk to the building and on page 25 he agreed with everything; it was not compatible to the surrounding buildings, there is no other place that this is used. Jasmine said that Bert has covered most of what she had to say but more importantly because it is a PUD even though we may not think that this is the most breathtaking architecture it does have a very mute pallet color. Jasmine urged the applicant to change that color because when you walk down Main Street it looks like a crate stuck on that kind of wood. Jasmine said in a PUD there should be a style unless the PUD is going to change and everyone wanted these beige things on their balconies then we could consider it as an amendment to the entire PUD. Cliff said that his biggest concern was how innocent a mistake was this; they came to us, we approved something specifically and then they built something entirely different; that is the precedent that he is truly upset by. Cliff said that he couldn't believe that this wasn't deliberate; that's not what got built. Ryan said that he had no problem with this; it is an extension of a fence that they added 10 more feet to. Ryan said i f the Homeowners complained then it would be different and he doesn't see it as an extension of a 15 foot concrete wall. Stan said he has a hard time since it is a PUD and we had approval for one but then is applicable to all of the other units. Stan said that he didn't know the other balconies very well but I think that they are open railings, is that right. So if someone wanted to put a screen up there they could point to this and say they got to do it, the PUD has been modified. Stan said they don't even have to ask 5 Regular CiÂ« Planning & Zoning Meeting - ininutes March 05,2013 permission; he understood the justification for the other approval, it was very well defined with a walkway right outside their balcony. Stan said that staff can tell me ifthere is another place where there is a walkway right outside somebody's balcony; being the case it was clear that you can walk right there and look into their balcony. Stan said the rest of it is beyond what we approved and my understanding is why should we approve all the rest of the units. Jim said that he followed Stan's reasoning but it speaks to me personally; there has been a propensity for years for City Council to play architect that are not appropriate for government. Jim said because it was an existing PUD and people are there and live there and work there and use it and he doesn't see it having any impact on the public. Jim said if the owners want to see other balconies blocked in he didn't see why we should care. Stan said this would take it out of the hands of the HOA to prevent someone from fencing in their balcony; because this on the right side is all open to the public area; there is no difference between that and a balcony about the same height and if those people want to do it the HOA would have no say. Stan asked what does the code say, what is the justification for an amendment, what was the justification to keep that wall on that side of the balcony. Jim said he followed Stan but the issue of the HOA is a very valid one but the HOA has not appeared to voice any objection so he has to believe that they are not particularly concerned. Jim said so all we are talking about is this approval and if others wanted to enclose their balcony they would have to come back to P&Z to further propose. Jessica said that they would need to come to a further PUD amendment. Jasmine asked i f there could be an insignificant PUD amendment that could be approved by staff. Jessica replied yes. Jasmine said an owner of another unit on a second floor could put up a fence and be considered an insignificant amendment and only go to staff. Jessica replied that she didn't think that it would be approved administratively; the last criteria in the administrative PUD review is a change which is inconsistent with the original character of the PUD and that is really how this privacy screen/fence fails and how other ones would fail at the insubstantial level as well and it is why it is coming to P&Z because it is a deviation from the original approval. 6 Regular City PlanninE u Zoning Meeting - Minutes Ma . I.-. 05,2013 Ryan said that the group already allowed the majority of that fence and already set a prescient and would have already amended the PUD to some extent; the small little extension provides more continuity in his opinion. Jessica said that this first approval was a very site specific within the approval. Jim said that he shares Cliff's frustration the way this was done but he didn't think that we should punish them. Bert said he didn't see what Cliff and Jim has just raised and not basing my decision on whether it has been built or not been built; he is basing his decision on the criteria in the code. LJ asked to go back to the power point picture ofthe railing and the fence. Sara clarified that to the west was a different property and the middle part was unapproved and the part that has been approved is seen only if you are walking up the stairs or if you are at the neighboring property. LJ asked if you take the wood down is that fence what was approved with the original design. Sara stated that it stopped at the concrete wall cap. Scott said the first letter from Steve Seyffert who was on the HOA Board so he wrote a letter of support. Scott said the fact that you could potentially approve 3 lengths of the 5 so they would be happy to paint the color. Jennifer said Community Development does not regulate paint. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 7 series2013 approving amendments to the Obermeyer Place SPA with the added condition that the Failing in question to be painted with a subdued color for the HOA to approve; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, no; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Cliff Weiss, no; Jasmine Tygre, no, Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, no; Stan Gibbs, no. DENIED 5-2. Discussion: Stan said the HOA should drive this PUD Amendment. LJ said that the HOA could come in. Jessica said right now is no action so P&Z should do another motion to deny. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to deny the application submitted by Scott Lindenaufor 101 Founders Place Unit 202 PUD Amendment seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, yes; Ryan Walterscheid; no; Jim DeFrancia, 7 . Regular CiÂ« Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 05, 2013 no; Stan Gibbs, yes ; Jasmine Tygre, yes ; Cliff Weiss, yes ; LJ Erspamer, yes. APPROVED motion to DENY 5-2. Other Business: LJ opened other business. Jessica Garrow stated this was a follow up to the February Council Work Session and also to the memo; staff has moved forward to code amendments related to SPA, PUD, ESA as well as Subdivision. Jessica said the first was to get input from key stakeholders and P&Z is one o f the largest stakeholders related to these kinds of code amendments because you deal with them at every meeting essentially. Jessica said that staff has met with some architects and planners to get their feedback on some o f the changes that they would like to see. Jessica said specifically for PUD and SPA these are code sections that hasn't had an overhaul in probably 20 years or longer; there is a lot of review criteria in PUD in particular and staff would like to work with the review sections of other agencies and departments to make sure the standards meet today. The Engineering standards don't always match up to what the current Engineering code says; the same thing with Parks they want to have additional concerns included here. The same with Environmentally Sensitive Areas and looking at the landscaping and architecture requirements which are pretty vague so looking to the design standards or something more specific. Jessica said they also want to look at the documents that are required for recordation. Jessica said when you go to the PUD section it requires a utility plan, drainage and architectural character and things that could be very specific; so what they are recording doesn't necessarily match up with what was on the ground. SPA doesn't have a P&Z review it is either administrative or it goes to Council. Jessica said the most significant plan is how can we make conceptual SPA and PUD mean more right now it only allows an applicant to apply for final but you could go through a year maybe a year and half planning process; you meet with P&Z and City Council but it does not lock you into anything and that is frustrating for members of the public, for the applicant and staff. Staff would like your input on is making the conceptual review a more binding review and get the Ordinance from City Council and final just comes back to P&Z and doesn't go all the way to Council. Cliff asked why are you suggesting a two step conceptual but a one step final; why not a build the whole this into a one step conceptual/final and they are done. Jessica replied there will be times when you are going to want to have a 4 step 8 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, March 5,2013 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. Obermeyer Place - 101 Founders Place, PUD Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discussion on Code Amendments VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 7 **For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change ** - CITY AGENDAS - City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z-1St and 34 Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-211(1 & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of February 25, 2013 3/5 P&Z @ 4:30 (Jessica will cover for Jen) Notice: 2/11 Obermeyer, PUD Amendment, PH - SN Discussion of Code Amendments (ESA) - JG 3/19 P&Z @ 4:30 Notice: 2/25 501 W. Hopkins, RDS and setback variance, PH - JB 4/2 P&Z @ 4:30 Notice: 3/11 616 E. Hyman, GulfCo, GMQS/Commercial Design, PH - JP 4/16 P&Z @ 4:30 Notice: 3/25 Boogies, GMQS, PH - JG Gap Building, GMQS, PH - JB 5/7 P&Z @ 4:30 - CANCELLED - Election 5/14 P&Z @ 4:30 -Special Meeting - tentative 5/21 P&Z (ED 4:30 (Chris will cover for Jen) Community Development Update February 2013 Project: Aspen Valley Hospital Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The Hospital has applied for approval of Phases 3 and 4. These include the addition o f new medical office space, new hospital space, and a new entry. Update: P&Z recommended approval of the project on January 8th. Council approved first reading on February 258, with second readings to be held in March and April Next Steps: City Council second readings March 11, 18, April 8, and 22. Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending Review by HPC 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: Staff is still reviewing the initial application. The project's conceptual commercial design review will be conducted by HPC. HPC reviewed the project on January 9 and February 1 3and continued their review to March 13. Next Steps: Review by HPC on March 13. Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 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 12,2012. City Council did not call the project up. Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final commercial design review. Project: 610 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Page 1 of 8 Description: The applicant proposes to designate and expand an existing free-market residential unit and add two-story commercial addition to the property. The building houses the Charles Cunniffe offices. Update: Review by Staff. HPC is reviewed the project on May 23, 2012 and recommended a continuance. The was approved, with conditions regarding work required to in order to qualify for designation, by HPC on October 10th. City Council approved the designation on January 14% and gave the applicant 30 days to accept the decision. The applicant accepted the designation decision. Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final HPC review. Project: 601 E Hyman Ave (Victorian Square) Contact: Sara Nadolny, 429-2739 Status: Completed review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes demolishing and replacing the existing building with a mix of commercial space and one free-market residential unit. The applicant proposes to use an affordable housing credit for their affordable housing mitigation. The building is commonly known as the Garfield and Hecht office building. Update: Review by Staff. P&Z reviewed the project at their June 19th and July 3rd meetings, and approved the project by 4:2. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to P&Z for further review of the public amenity space. P&Z reviewed and approved a slightly revised design. P&Z approved a Growth Management Review for commercial space and free-market residential space on December 4th, Next Steps: Applicant is determining ifthey will apply for subdivision approval. Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for their final design review with HPC. Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27. Project: 602 E Hyman Ave Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Page 2 of 8 Description: The applicant had proposed to remodel the existing building and add a new third story. The development would have include updated commercial space, a new affordable housing unit, and an updated free-market residential unit. The applicant has since withdrawn their application and submitted a request to designate the property under AspenModern. The new application includes an updated free-market residential unit and updated commercial space. A small addition in the rear is proposed. Update: HPC will review the requested designation on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27th and then City Council reviews. Project: 419 E Hyman (Paragon Building ) Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is requesting a height variance for roof features and amenities The variance is required because o f the recent changes in the height allowances in the CC zone. Update: City Council will review the request at their meeting on April 8th Next Steps: City Council review on April 8th. Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 Status: Pending review by P&Z and Council 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 25, 2012 by a 3:2 vote. 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 148. The Applicant applied for subdivision and growth management reviews on February 15th. That application is being reviewed by staff and has not yet been scheduled for P&Z review. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. Project: 204 S Galina (Gap) Contact: HPC - Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 GMQS - Justin Barker, 429-2797 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property with a new one to two story building comprised of commercial space and a roof-top deck. The building is commonly referred to as the Gap building. Page 3 0 f 8 Update: HPC voted to approve the conceptual design of the project on August 8,2012. Final HPC Review was granted on December 12, and notice of call up was provided to City Council. The applicant received an amendment to their approval on February 13th to change the second story massing. The applicant has made a growth management application for the changed second floor space and to utilize the basement for commercial space. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively scheduled for April 16. Project: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780 Status: Pending Review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to add a third story free-market residential unit, and convert a second floor deck to commercial space. The building is commonly referred to as the Boogies Building. Update: HPC approved conceptual design ofthe project on July 11,2012 by a 4:0 vote. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and accepted HPC's decision. The applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision reviews. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively scheduled for April 16. Project: 616 E Hyman Ave Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 616 E Hyman, with a new commercial building. Residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: P&Z approved the conceptual design of the project in November 2012, and City Council has exercised their call-up authority to review the decision. Council accepted the decision. The applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision reviews. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively scheduled for April 2. Project: 420 E Cooper Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story commercial building, commonly known as the Red Onion Annex (currently houses the poster shop). The applicant proposes to replace it with a new two - three story mixed use building including commercial space and one free-market unit. Page 4 of 8 Update: HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and approved it on October 24. City Council has exercised their call-up authority, and remanded the project back to HPC for view plane review. Next Steps: HPC reviewed the remanded project, and approved it with no changes. The applicant will apply for growth management and final design reviews. No application has been made to date. Project: Jewish Community Center Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The Jewish Community Center has applied for an Essential Public Facility growth management review for their project. They propose to amend the site plan to replace the social hall with a parsonage for the Rabbi. Update: P&Z recommended approval o f the Essential Public Facility growth management review on December 18th. City Council approved the amended application on February 11 th. Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final design review with HPC. Project: 233 E Hallam Lot Split Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes a lot split for the property at 233 E Hallam. They are requesting removal of a non-historic addition to the historic home. Update: LIPC approved the request for removal of a non-historic addition on the property on November 14. City Council Lot Split Review is required and will take place in February and March Next Steps: City Council first reading on February 25th and second reading on March 11th. Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for their final design review with HPC. Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27. Page 5 of 8 Project: CC and C-1 Zones Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 Status: Complete Closing Date: Jan 2013 Description: City Council amended the allowed height and free-market residential floor area in the CC and C-1 zones in April 2012. The allowed height is 28 feet for 2-story buildings, and a .5: 1 FAR for free-market residential in non-historic buildings, only if equal amounts of affordable housing are provided on-site. Historic properties have a.5:1 free-market residential FAR by right. At the time, City Council indicated an interest in allowing three-story buildings, but that the exact height and uses deserved more discussion. Update: Over 200 individuals participated in the public outreach process on the project. City Council approved a "Policy Resolution" that provided staff with direction for specific code amendments. That direction included a ban on free-market residential uses downtown, and the ability to have 3 story buildings through some kind of review process with City Council. Staff is working on the amendments and will bring those forward later this fall. Council passed a Policy Resolution on August 27th, providing general direction to staff for code amendments. Next Steps: Staff will present proposed code language to City Council at 1St reading on November 12 and 2nd reading on Nov 26, Dec 10 and Jan 14. City Council approved changes to the zones at their January 14th meeting. Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring/Summer 2013 Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "examine the desirability and 5, sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen. As part of this effort, staff is conducting a lodging study to examine our existing inventory and to understand the current state of the lodging market. Staff is utilizing a two-phase approach to Council's Lodging Goal. The first stage includes an overview of the City's role in the lodging sector, interviews with key players in the lodging industry, and an inventory of lodging in Aspen. Phase two would begin with a series of facilitated roundtable discussions between lodging owners, planners, developers, general businesses, ACRA, the Aspen Skiing Company, Stay Aspen Snowmass, and outside lodging experts. The discussion would focus on three topics: 1) Is there a problem in the lodging sector as it relates to product diversity? 2) Should the City have a role is addressing any problems? 3) If so, what can the City do? Update: The Phase 1 Report is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/ Phase 2 consisted of a charrette with Aspen's lodging stakeholders to discuss the issues, challenges and opportunities in the lodging sector. The group also discussed what rles the City could or should have in the lodging sector. The charrette was held on October 23rd and included Page 6 of 8 representatives from Aspen's lodges, ACRA, SS, SkiCo, and the lodging development community. Two lodging consultants from Denver also attended and are writing a report on their conclusions from that meeting. Staff with present the findings and a summary of the meeting at a December work session. Next Steps: Staff is moving forward on the next steps presented to Council at their December 11 th work session. Project: ADUs Code Amendment Contact: Chris Bendon 429-2765 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Jan/Feb 2013 Description: Council, P&Z, and APHCA have all expressed interest in eliminating ADUs as an option when mitigating for housing impacts in single-family and duplex development. This code amendment eliminates the ADU mitigation option, creates a system to remove existing ADUs, and changes the mitigation trigger to any time new floor area is created in a single-family or duplex development. Update: City Council approved policy direction on November 12th, and approved code language at first reading on November 26th. Second reading on December 10 was continued to January 28m Next Steps: Staff is taking direction from the January 28th council meeting and working on the proposal. It will come back to City Council at a later date. Project: Employee Generation Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780 Status: Complete Closing Date: Feb 2013 Description: As part of the implementation of the AACP, City Council asked staff to update the employee generation study completed 10 years ago. This study has been completed, and there were a few changes in the employee generation numbers within different zone districts. This code amendment will update the figures in the code. In addition, Council has previously given staff Policy Direction to eliminate the provision in the growth management code that allows multiple mitigation requirements to be satisfied by mitigating for the largest requirement when on-site housing is provided (also referred to as the "double dip" provision). These two item will be address in the same code amendment. Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on January 28th, with 1St and 2nd readings in February. Council approved Policy Direction on January 28th, and the code amendment was approved on February 25th~ Next Steps: The code amendment goes into effect 30 days from approval (March 27). Project: Sign Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 Page 7 of 8 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Feb/Mar 2013 Description: City Council has asked staff to simpli fy the sign code. Update: City Council provided Policy Direction at their December 10th meeting. First and second readings will be held this spring, but no dates are currently set. Next Steps: Council review at 1St and 2nd readings. Dates to be determined. Project: Business Obstacles Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Mar 2013 Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is related to improving City Codes to eliminate barriers to businesses. As part of this effort, Community Development has identified some obstacles in the Land Use Code that could be eliminated, including size caps on business types. Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on February 11 th, with 1 St and 2nd readings in February and March. City Council approved policy direction on February 11 th, and first reading on February 25m Next Steps: City Council second reading on March 18th. Page 8 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202, PUD - Other Amendment MEETING DATE: March 5,2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony SUMMARY: Planning & Zoning Commission and M. Deborah Clancy- 101 Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012 approved a privacy Founders Pl, Unit 202, Aspen, CO screen to be erected along the western side of the 81611 balcony of Unit 202, intended to extend the length of the patio as outlined in yellow in Figure C of this memo. REPRESENTATIVE: Scott What was built was beyond the scope of this approval, Lindenau, Studio B Architects - 501 and includes the majority of the patio's perimeter. Rio Grande Pl, Suite 104, Aspen CO 81611 The applicants are attempting to bring this privacy screen LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 into 4- Founders Place, Unit 202 compliance at this time , CURRENT ZONING & USE: by w Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) requesting * Zone District with Specially Planned approval of Area (SPA) and Planned Unit what Was Development (PUD) overlays; the actually - - '*413.,~422,i â€ž- subject site is used residentially. See built. . Py. 47 Figure B, below, for a location map. 497 ...ek,k .4. 9 . PROPOSED LAND USE: The - f applicants are requesting amendments to the Obermeyer PUD - '24.2 8, # 03 ' that will permit a length of existing Figure A: * 4â€¢ - /. ' privacy screen to be maintained on Image of 9 / the balcony of the site. subject site T 1 4 & '0 - ' = 2 .-- ..,N 1 4-Â· Â· it -Â·Â·,2 r K et>aa; - J Figure B: Vicinity -2 . 1 Â»N. - â€¢i>1- I '. -- 'Â°93Â· map indicating DE. *~ - s t.Â¢1'. U- - ..~ *9 ~ location of the *f:,4 J@.ff,'r; c-<I -t~~~~ -1 , ,~1 1 9 subject property. ~ -~44%2' A ' t. 4-2.... .."/p .Hi 4 J L j. a . I LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicants are seeking the following approvals: â€¢ Amendment of PUD development order (Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Resolution 10, Series 2012, approved the construction of a fence along the walkway on the property's western edge, as well as a privacy screen of an approved length (as depicted in Figure C, following) that would serve to further provide screening for the applicant's second story unit. The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part of the Obermeyer Place COWOP Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction ofa mixed use project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units. 2 *Ii-\Gh -53 . be Figure C: Exhibit A to ~ ~, Resolution 10, Series 2012, A 1 1 -te depicting the area where . 1 C the privacy screen was /28- r approved by the Planning & 1 Zoning Commission. Yellow depicts the approved / , f > area of privacy screen; Red / 44 depicts the unapproved area k *Â· % Â¥ Existing Patio 4./ - I t,& of privacy screen X ..42 ./OFF / 0 1 1, \ 1/\ *d /-1 , >/6 .1 // / 9.49 \\ -Â·l -a.. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND: In May of 2012 the applicants requested to increase the privacy of their residential unit at 101 Founder's Place, Unit 202, by constructing a wooden slatted screen along the perimeter of the unit's balcony wall. The screen was proposed to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap of the unit's second story balcony. Through Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered staff' s recommendation and approved the placement of the privacy screen at the unit, limited to the majority of the western portion of the balcony wall (as outlined in yellow in Figure C, above). However, the privacy screen was built beyond the approved scope, encompassing the nearly the entire length ofthe unit's patio wall, as depicted in Figure D, below. 3 -- 4 / r 53 - -- Figure D: Yellow indicates ' Â· 222 approved area of patio, per 1 \ \ -2 Resolution 10, Series 2012. A \ Blue indicates area that was built beyond the scope , /2Â£ ' of this approval. 1- \\ , 4 i * /0 Existing Patio 4./ 0 * tuv / 1 / -t. â‚¬0 / 12 //\ 1â‚¬- ' 6 % 10 9, .A\\ -c 6> Ii' ./3 ./ i,X 0 1 7 16.â‚¬:4 4.21 \ --31-=- 1 i / ... 1 PROJECT SUMMARY: At this time the applicants are requesting approval to maintain the existing wooden slatted privacy screen that surrounds the second floor balcony of condominium unit 202, amending the PUD to bring the non-approved portion of the screen into compliance. The %>4 - k f y , t. , privacy screen sits on top of the concrete u 4 / wall cap that surrounds this second story // unit. The wall cap measures 1 . -air .C- . approximately 12'7" in height. The 99.1 screen provides an additional 30" to the , wall, creating a height of approximately # :1...1 15'2" as measured from finished grade, h , and stretching a total length of 44'9". . Im.0 kil 1 *ty 414.,2 2.4 : Figure E: East facing --. ..6 side of Unit 202, as * --v-- 1 * 0 viewed from ground kh - level walkway. ~6 4 STAFF COMMENTS: The privacy screen addition to Unit 202 is proposed within Obermeyer Place, which is subject to the site specific development plan approval by the PUD. Any changes to the land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final development plan. The PUD review criteria discusses the compatibility of changes in light of architectural character, and is concerned with the compatibility and/or enhancement of visual character and relationships to surroundings. While staff finds that the the proposed screen does not change the land use, density, landscaping, or open space of Obermeyer Place, it does create some changes to massing (bulk) that are of concern. The privacy screen adds significant height to the existing deck of , 0 Unit 202, particularly along the eastern 1 J IP h side of the unit where the wall is at its N tallest point (see Figure E, above). The . *, i I $ 30" privacy screen adds additional Pi~ ./ %* 1 12-1 1 -1 height to an already large and prominent ek 4 9 -:.Â· 'AL . 4-=iff.I .f/5 J 4 wall along the pedestrian way. Furthermore, the materials that are used, Fi /4/ 1- e.- z ,/ * while seeming of high quality and k rÂ· 46 Â·Â·,0.Â·3 - F r ZI-- F I ' 11,~ rlâ€¢ attractive, are not found elsewhere . ;,- &u.., ~rtio ~ 1,: , -=,~ a '6 :.- within Obermeyer Place. To the extent 14./1,916/*.,96~..H.~pAimildi- ,.t.~=...7/1 that they are used around the entire + ~17Â·-- A-4 ".- 2 ,403,4 /1, patio, they become much more 'J'03 .Â·Â¥Â·9 1-4Â·..Â·>*t ,Â£ Â·,Â· Â· prominent than if they were found only -Crat,0 " t.1.11 f*-314 *44 along the western edge of the unit's balcony, and do not fit in with the 44 - Â· 42 6.-1 2, character of the immediate area. 44 . ii' Â»4*y 1 44+ + , 9,4 1 I . Lastly, staff fails to recognize the need for such screening outside of that which Figure F: North facing side of Unit 202 had already been approved by Resolution 10, Series 2012. Unit 202 is raised at a second story level on its north and east facing sides, and therefore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side, which is at grade with the neighboring lot. The addition of the screen at these locations is out of character with the architecture of the area, and sets a precedent to allow every other unit owner with a patio to request such a screen purely for aesthetic rather than functional reasons. 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to amend the Obermeyer PUD to allow the extended privacy screen at Unit 202, and require the removal of all sections not previously approved by Resolution 10, Series 2012 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date o f this hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2013, approving amendments to the Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA, with conditions." Attachments: EXHIBIT A - Staff Responses to PUD - Other Amendment Review Criteria EXHIBIT B - Meeting Minutes from May 15, 2012 hearing EXHIBIT C - Memo and Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, from May 15, 2012 hearing EXHIBIT D - Application 6 RESOLUTION No. (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, AKA OBERMEYER PLACE, UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009 WHEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Other Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone district with PUD overlay; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69, Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Obermeyer PUD was approved through Resolution 10, Series of 2012, which included the construction and continuation of a privacy fence along the western edge of the property line, and the erection of a 30" tall privacy screen, limited to a portion of the western edge ofthe balcony's concrete wall at Unit 202; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 5, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; 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; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The PUD is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit 202, aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit 202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution. 1 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 thereoÂ£ APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 5th day of March, 2013. LJ Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Resolution Exhibit A: Site plan 2 Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan 35*13 (14 .4 .r r 53 : \PEI . be \ 1 I / \ 123 0 3% 2/ 4 \ - ng /0 o wall Existing Patio 4/ / le - vt'* < 4. . - ) .<& 1/* i b y :bil. / 0 \ % 6,0 - - - ,<< 0% %/4 \ 1 5- / 4 14 - 11/ U.FOX .lei 61#" i 41 \ ..... I ... .. .â€¢ 1 t - . ., . 41 Green = Privacy screen approved by this resolution Exhibit A PUD - Other Amendment Review Criteria 26.445.100(B) Other Amendment. An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing pursuant to Subsection 26.445.030.C, Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed. Subsection 26.445.030.C, Step 3. Standards of review - Section 26.445.050 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures ofthis Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Response: The privacy screen is not found to be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity in terms of height, bulk and architecture. The 30" privacy screen, as it is built, surrounds the patio of Unit 202. The subject site is a second story unit, and reaches to a height of nearly 13' on the unit's east side. The screen adds another 2.5' to the height of the wall, bringing it to nearly 15.5' in total height. Staff finds this to be a significant height increase in a pedestrian area that already contains a tall, blank wall. This height and slight setback of the screen on the patio perimeter adds a bit of bulk to the building at an area that otherwise contains a degree of transparency. Lastly, the building materials, while attractive and seemingly good quality, are not found at any other location throughout the Obermeyer Place PUD, and are not a good fit when wrapped around the unit's ratio wall. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Response: The proposed development is not consistent with the character of the other residential units found in the immediate vicinity. Those units with balconies do have safety railings; however they do not have additional screening surrounding any of the units. Staff believes the applicants are afforded a reasonable degree of privacy by 1 the nature of their residence being an end unit, and it being raised from the pedestrian walkway to a second story height. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Response: The proposed privacy screen will not affect the future development of the surrounding area; however, it does set a precedent for more of these screens to be requested by neighboring units, thereby changing the character of the PUD. Staff Jinds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Response: The proposed development includes maintaining a privacy screen on the patio of an existing residential unit. This proposal is exempt from GMQS requirements. Sta#Jinds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Response: Stafffinds the privacy screen to be incompatible with the existing upper story units in the surrounding area. Unit 202 is a second story unit, and as such is removed from the ground level by nearly 13'. Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012 granted the applicants permission to erect the privacy screen along the western edge of the patio, which was at grade with the neighboring parking lot and is also visible by the adjacent staircase. However, the unit receives a reasonable degree of privacy from its second story level. No other upper residential unit in the area has such a screen, they only have safety railings. Therefore, the requested screen is incompatible with the other upper level units in Obermeyer Place, and furthermore, sets a precedent to other unit owners to allow aesthetic changes to their ratio units. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Responses: The privacy screen is expected to have no contributing effects to natural or man-made hazards. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2 c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Response: The privacy screen is expected to have no effect on the natural characteristic of the property, overall, although it may contribute to the shade on the subject property. This property contains no steep slopes, waterways or signifcant vegetation and landforms in the subject area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Response: The privacy screen will have no foreseeable effect on the surrounding area in terms of contributing or detracting to noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources in the area. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Response: The PUD sets a height limit for buildings at Obermeyer Pl. not to exceed 35'. The highest point of the privacy screen, when measured from ground level, is 15'5". Although this does not violate the height limitation set by the approvals of the Obermeyer PUD, Staff believes it does create a concern. At the ground level on the east side of the unit the wall measures approximately 12'7". Staff finds this to add height to an already tail, blank wall along a pedestrian corridor, and to create a scale that is out of context with a pedestrian environment. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. 3. The appropriate number of o ff-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Response: There are no changes to parking associated with this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Response: There are no changes to parking associated with this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. e) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Response: There are no changes to public transit or other facilities associated with this proposal. Public bus transit is available on Main Street, directly adjacent to Obermeyer Place. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 3 d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Response: The proposal does not change the proximity to the commercial core or Aspen's activity centers. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. Staff Response: The proposal involves a patio-mounted privacy screen for a single residential unit and does not change the water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities that currently serve the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Response: This proposal is for a second story privacy screen that wit! surround an existing unit. There will be no change to the roadways/walkways that will negatively impact the ability to provide fire protection, snow removal or road maintenance. Staff jinds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced i f there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Staff Response: The proposed privacy screen does not affect the suitability of the Obermeyer Place PUD on the land. The privacy screen is at the second story level and will not impact ground stability. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. b) The effects o f the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. Staff Response: Staff does not find reason to believe the privacy screen will create a detriment to the natural watershed. Staffjinds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Staff Response: The privacy screen will have no pernicious effect on the air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 4 Staff Response: This application is to permit a length of privacy screen, not previously approved, to be maintained on the subject site through an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD. The screen is not incompatible with the natural terrain and will not cause harmful disturbance to the critical natural features of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density within the Obermeyer PUD. Stafflinds this criterion to be not applicable. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exist no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density within the Obermeyer PUD. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff Jinds this criterion to be not applicable. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 5 Staff Response: There are no changes to the overall PUD, including changes to unique and historic features. Staffjinds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Response: There are no changes in the structures that will affect the open space or protected vistas on the site, although it should be noted that the privacy screen does reduce views through the subject site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Response: There are no changes to the orientation of the structure to the street and pedestrian walkway. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the position of buildings or access ways that allow emergency and service vehicle access to the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the existing pedestrian and handicapped access within the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff Jinds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Response: The privacy screen does not affect the site drainage for the unit or the Obermeyer PUD. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Response: This application does not propose any changes to the nonresidential land uses within the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staffjinds this criterion to be not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 6 Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Response: The privacy fence, as it wraps around the perimeter of the ratio of Unit 202, is not compatible with the existing architecture of the surrounding buildings. Although the materials are attractive and seem to be of high quality, they are unique to the area, as there is no other place in the vicinity where these materials are used. Furthermore, they increase the scale Of the subject unit, creating a heightened screen barrier where there previously was none. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Response: The proposal is for a privacy screen and does not include any natural heating or cooling properties, solar access, shade and vegetation, or mechanical systems. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Response: This proposal is for a privacy screen that measures just a couple of inches in width and 30" in height, and will sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap of the subject unit's patio. It is unlikely that the screen will further contribute to the 7 shedding of snow, ice and water any more than the existing concrete wall cap. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Sta# Response: The screen does seem to be constructed of quality materials and is attractive, although it does not compliment the materials used throughout the PUD, or the character of other patios in the area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. Alllighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Response: There is no lighting proposed with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Response: There is no lighting proposed with this application. Staff jinds this criterion to be not applicable. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part of this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part of this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable. 8 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part of this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Response: This proposal is to permit a privacy screen to be maintained along the perimeter of the balcony of Unit 202 requiring nofurther public infrastructure outside of that which is already provided to the unit. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Response: Staff anticipates no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Sta# Response: There are no oversized utilities or public facilities associated with this project. The site improvements include a 30" tail privacy screen that circles the majority of the second floor balcony of Unit 202. This screen has already been constructed at the cost of the owner, and no developer will be reimbursed for the improvements. The screen was constructed beyond the scope that was originally approved by Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, and is not appropriate as compared with this approval. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Response: Unit 202 currently has adequate access to Main Street, a public street, as well as the pedestrian walkway that is part of the general common element of the Obermeyer PUD. This proposal involves permitting a privacy screen to be maintained on the existing patio of the subject unit, and involves no changes that will create barriers to access. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. 9 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. This development will have no impact on the surrounding roadways. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. No further connections to areas of trails are proposed with this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Response: There are no recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans regarding any of the above that are part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. No changes to any streets are being proposed as part of this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Response: No security gates, guard posts, or entryway expressions are proposed as part of this application, and will remain unchanged. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 10 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. Staff Response: Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. (Ord. No. 12,2007, Â§24; Ord. No. 3-2012, Â§12,13,14 & 15)) 11 ake brÂ¥b Reizular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes May 15, 2012 Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre Cliff Weiss, Keith Goode and Stan Gibbs. Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Assets; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jasmine Tygre said she had a processing question on PUD Amendments. Jasmine said that it used to be when you had a PUD or SPA Amendment that there was a process that you had to support the amendment like changed circumstances and there is no mention of Section 26.440.080 in the code. Jennifer Phelan said there was 070 to 090 and wondered what was going on. Cliff Weiss asked what happened to the request for appreciation for the boards by providing an ARC Membership. Jennifer Phelan said that she would talk to Chris tomorrow. Keith Goode said that the City was waiting on a certificate of occupancy for the Motherlode. Jennifer responded that it will be issued soon. Jennifer said that she would do a long raRge update once, monthly at the beginning ofthe month. Jennifer said that they will be booked with current land use cases up to the 2nd week in August. Jennifer introduced Sara Nadolny as the Planner Technician and it presenting 2 cases. Minutes MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of May 1St as amended on page 6; seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated Public Hearing: 101 Founders Place (Obermever Place) PUD Amendment 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meetine - Minutes May 15,2012 Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 101 Founders Place. Sara Nadolny stated that Scott Lindenau was represented by Studio B Architects; the owners o f this property were Anthony and Deborah Clancy. Sara said the issue at 101 Founders Place Unit 202, the Crescent Building, was a privacy screen; these were both PUI) and SPA as they deal with architectural elements and character. The applicant wanted to enhance the residential space; the ' west side of this space overlooks the City o f Aspen impoundment lot. The privacy screen would sit onto of the wall cap surrounding the entire patio on the second story unit. - Second is to continue an existing fence that sits along the property line between Obermeyer Place and the City o f Aspen Parking En forcement Lot. Sara said the privacy screen was 3 feet 4 inches on the West side and sits atop the concrete wall cap and 12 foot 7 inches on the East side of the Unit. The screen will be constructed o f wooden slats and metal and proposed at 44 feet 9 inches in total length. Sara said the fence proposal was to continue the fence that already exists on already a small portion of the northern side of the property line between Obermeyer and Aspen and figure G gives you an idea of what the fence already looks like. The fence proposal extension will extend 76 feet to follow the walkway shown on figure H. Staff is recommending conditional approval of this application. Jasmine said the upstairs neighbor did not object to the fence but requested a gate in the fence; is there a gate planned for this fence. Jennifer replied that walkway was a limited common area to the Crescent Building so when the applicant submits a building permit they will need to obtain approval from all the unit owners. Cliff asked i f this fence or screen would have any visual affect on any other unit in Obermeyer. Sara replied they are both on the property line and unit 202 is the only unit that would see it on the West end and the West side o f Unit 202's patio faces onto the parking lot. Scott Lindenau distributed photos similar to the ones in the packet (Exhibit D); his client' s unit was pretty much in the parking lot and photos were all different. Jennifer stated that Bill Murphy's letter would be (Exhibit C). No public comments. 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes May 15, 2012 MOTION: Jasmine Tygre move to approve Resolution #10, series of 2012 approving an amendment to Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA with the conditions and the correct diagram; seconded Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Keith Goodd, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. All infavor, APPROVED 4-0. / Public Hearing: -%80 Doolittle Drive (Waterplace Affordable Housing) SPA Amen*~nt Sthn Gibbs opened the public hearing. Sara Nadolny said represent~4 the owner of t~property, the City of Aspen, is Jeff Pendarvis, City Assets I~partment. Sara said th#4~uilding was part of the essential public facility to be co~verted into an affordabl344ousing unit. Sara said todo this conversion staff is/tequesting the Planning & Zâ‚¬ling Commission an SPA Amendment, GrowtÂ¢Management Review, Chang~1 Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review and'Residential Design Variances. ~ Sara said the SPA is a Mi* specific approval and this application would be approved administrativelillue to the change in use ofthe originally approved site plan; tonight staff is seekin*~pproval ofthe SPA A~endment to assure compliance with APCHA Starklards. The applicatit is proposing to convert the existing emergency resporise fa&lity to a deed restricted single family unit; this building was currently vacant. Th&~uilding ipÂ£located on the edge ofthe Water Treatment Affordable Housing with thF frolliof the building perpendicular to the street and 580 square feet of net livablevh~'be. They are proposing a covered 70 square foot covered entry and an 11 by 22 {pot carport and a 44 square foot storage closet. 4 \ R '4> Nt. Sara said the 2 Residential Design Variances wereÂ®e building does not face the street and the street orientated en#ance and principaIN*indow will not face the street. The City is proposing a,Category 3 or 4 howeve40 APCHA standards read Category 3 or 4 would be 700 square feet. APCHA alloWia 20% reductionfor a \X studio unit at Category 4 or, lower. f Cliff Weiss asked where' the parking was located. Sara replied thmparking is located directly to the east ofthe unit on Al l. Jeff Pendarvis said thq~whole area is paved. Cliff said nd more asphalt is going to be laid for this. Jeff reph~ no. 'I, * Jeff Pendarvis,ifitroduced himsel f; his understanding was that it was built back in the late 19901 with this in mind, to be converted to affordable housing. leff said the conversion of the City's water process occurred in 2010 and no longer needed 4 Exhah-bc. MA P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202, PUD and SPA Amendment MEETING DATE: May 15,2012 APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff M. Deborah Clancy, Obenneyer Place HOA recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the PUD/SPA amendment. REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval to amend the PUD LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 Founders and SPA to permit a privacy screen around the Place, Unit #202 second floor balcony of condominium unit #202. Applicant further requests approval to continue the existing fence along the western portion of the property, to more fully privatize the limited common element walkway between the Obermeyer Place SPA/PUD and the adjacent City of Aspen Parking Department's impound lot. â‚¬ .2 i Figure A: Unit #202, ~ -- -Â·-Â·Â· -~ - t 1 2 west side: proposed ~ -.. Ill,=Ii.-7# privacy screen ~~.ZiÂ«~1-1~!CZ~~ location ...44 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Service 1 VE - Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone District with 1 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlays, residential use. existing fenc PROPOSED LAND USE: The owners of Unit ~ ,~~' ~*~g~ Figure B. West *iat=Al -44 --=*Eff,~ side of #202 request approval to construct a privacy . >*i,itâ‚¬,-r=mil.1 - 1 0- 44*ZMR*21Ill property screen on the 2nd floor unit's private balcony that '~0 -illiP.*~3-1,(,Mia.fffi- proposed faces an adjacent parking lot, and to continue the E- - continuation of length of fencing that currently exists along the -.=z~ general -91Ellilili.lailmeal common western edge of the property on the limited - element fence common eleinent walkway for the Crescent .- Building. P2 LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals: â€¢ Amendment of PUD development order (Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. â€¢ Amendment of SPA development order (Subsection 26.440.090, Aniendment to development order) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence. The Planning Zoning Commission is the final review authority. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part o f the Obermeyer Place COWOP Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction of a mixed use project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicants request approval to construct a wooden slatted privacy screen to surround the second floor balcony of condominium unit #202. The privacy screen is proposed to sit atop the existing concrete wall cap, which measures approximately 3'4" in height from finished grade on the west side, and approximately 12'7" in height from finished grade on the east side. The privacy screen would provide an additional 30" to these wall measurements, bringing the west side to approximately 5'9" in height and the east side to approximately 15'2" in height, as measured from finished grade, and to a total length of 44'9". The applicant further requests approval to construct a wooden fence on the western edge o f the property between Obermeyer Place and the City o f Aspen Parking Department lot, on the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway, which will complete an existing fence, The existing wooden fence measures 4' 10" in height. The proposed fence will match the existing fence in height, color, and material, and continue for approximately 75'6" towards the southern edge o f the Obermeyer Place property. The completion of this fence will serve to privatize the walkway and screen adjacent the parking lot. The project is before the Planning and Zoning Commission because Staff found the proposed privacy screen to be inconsistent with the representations of the project' s original approval, and therefore does not qualify as an administrative insubstantial PUD amendment. P3 STAFF COMMENTS: PUD and SPA Reviews The privacy screen addition to Unit #202 and the limited common element fence are proposed within Obermeyer Place, which is subject to the site specific development plan approval by the SPA/PUD. Any changes to the land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final development plan. Both the PUD and SPA review criterion discuss the compatibility of changes in light o f architectural character, and is concerned with compatibility and/or enhancement of visual character and its relationship to its surroundings. Staff finds the proposed privacy screen to be compatible in materiality and color with the existing architecture of the Obermeyer SPA/PUD. Furthermore, the proposed screen will not change the land use, density, bulk, landscaping, or open space. It will add height to the existing deck of Unit #202, which will be minimal in nature and serve to create an element of privacy from the adjacent parking lot. The fence continuation is proposed to be maintained at the same height as that of the existing fence (4'10"), and will match the existing fence in color and materials. It will serve to privatize the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway between Obermeyer Place and the adjacent parking lot property for users. Staff finds the proposed fence to be compatible with the existing SPA and PUD. Given the minor architectural changes that are proposed to occur with this application and the compatibility with the existing architecture found within the Obermeyer SPA and PUD, Staff finds the review criterion to be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the fence extension, and finds the design to be compatible with the existing land use, and the materials and design to be consistent with the existing architectural character of Obermeyer Place. The fence will serve as an extension of the existing general common element for Obermeyer Place and will further privatize the walkway between this property and the adjacent parking lot. Staff recommends approval of the privacy screen at Unit #202, to the extent that it be allowed on the west side of the unit. The unit' s west side directly faces the City of Aspen's Parking Enforcement lot at grade, and therefore the applicants are currently unable to enjoy use of their patio with some sense o f privacy that one may expect at a private residential unit. The screen, as proposed, would afford the applicants a degree of privacy. Furthermore. it is found to be compatible with the visual character of Obermeyer Place, and would not add significant height to the wall. However, Staff recommends denial of the extension o f the privacy screen to the south and east ofthe unit. Unit #202 is raised at a second story level on its southern and eastern sides, P4 and therefore does not experience the same level o f visibility as found on its western side. A degree of privacy is further afforded by the tree that is growing on the unit's southern end. /5# C 3&*Y4 va # i .53 -=Fr---_.12\1.- / Vl -!il I 121. ' 7/E#*Li * 1 // 4.4â‚¬> ./ .// 4 ng 1. 1. 11 Existing Patio 4/ 1Â¢*f W o wall k-U--4/1 I i / IX,/ F#;ti ..7\4 0 , at>/ A 61<0 14/ / r. .....1.4.11:...2.. --I Figure C: Proposed privacy screen, plan view. Yellow, Staff approved. Red, Staff denied. 1 4U, I 4Â» 2-i. F - --- .,1. Â·t 1. 2131' *WT p44*#limits.of.Â·,4/*Â¢.sit. }%44 2./ *t. i 1. ./.jll-:; . '' I E-I. Â· L f. v !: ~LÂ·' + : '* 1 . 4.2, 0(ZÂ·Â·*al- x,-~Â·.' ...Mt.42<27.13247..:2 Figure D: Unit #202, west side of property; staff proposed limits of the privacy screen P5 i 4., 6.2 f *t - . . r 4 4 . *m Â¥..1 . I i 44. , - 211 *Pt ':. 54 Y - - Il 2 - f w 4 h, 44 1 - 3 2,Â£ 2..Â·. 41. - A. 11 17,2 Â·'Â·.4, - Â· 4 - bt-0 w.. g 4, 41' 54 '... - . --,i-4 =t.:b-.2.- - . . MVE. m - ..1 - . 1, I V t.. Â· W-: Â·.sad 0 ... ./. ... ' 197~'~... ~~.AÂ·#;f. tl?A.. 9% ... , A .F ., U , 4- 04 Figure E: Unit #202, southwestern view Â¥~9: Figure F: Unit #202, southeastern view 4. ' .*4 -8. \ ..... .. w.-'./A . f~ RESI ASPE ..1,1 1*?. *mk; Â·'. f immili - . -- I./5/ ilo. il J , f-(li! lir; ?: :..:4--03 .. -. I -Ig- 2. r Â¢ i il -i , 101 a i -- 2.- , 4. i 1 111 7.1.44 I f. -Â· tÂ· - 11/ 1 1 1. e., Â¥ .i. 2 IN'll. . 'P .t 1 * Figure G: Existing fence, west side Figure H: Proposed fence extension of Obermeyer Place property P6 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012, approving an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA as proposed, with conditions. Attachments: EXHIBIT A - SPA and PUD Amendment Review Criteria EXHIBIT B - Application RESOLUTION No. 10 (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT AND SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, AKA OBERMEYER PLACE, UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND ON A LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009 WHEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone district with PUD and SPA Overlay; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69, Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and ' WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the PUD and SPA Amendment; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the; Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; 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; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen' Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the prbmotion of public health, safety, and welfare. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit #202, aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit #202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2: The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a fence along the western portion of the Obermeyer Place property, on a limited common element walkway, as depicted in Exhibit B of this Resolution. Section 3: 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 4: : 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 5: 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 15th day of May, 2012. Ed-Er,pomem,Chairman A<ROVED AS TO FORM: .StrA <016 41 86 64; F Â«CQ-- Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney 2 ATTEST: 1.*11 tizi<A,A,4 ~Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Privacy screen plans Exhibit B: Fence plans on limited common element 3 Resolution Exhibit A 1 . *99 /W t \ \ "14-Â«/ 1 i \ ---- Existing Patio 9 7/ ........ .h t. \ '75*1-1/:5 \ 4/ . \U Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen Red = Denied length of privacy screen ' 'ix Resolution Exhibit B Proposed Fence location and Length \/\ / existing Â· Existg P~tio ,*/ </â€žP ~ ~ ~ A~ condo m1l \1, -- - -AL_v Ll \ i.Â¢7" i ,+L - '20 .0. / . .1 \/ \ 'le V , 409 / / ...4.0- . 1. C .,0. -7,2>11 -- Al $ 1 \ \ f terminate new i ..1 \ k fence atexisting 1 43' Ir.1/\ concrete wall 1 r.jit \1 (CA, / i... 446-- 9\.21!/ Â·V. er' l.31f ~ Aew wood fence to 1 t match existing 1 (i) J. 4* / 9 terpinate / connect 2 - 12 \ ~ fence to i N JAN 1 1 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF ASPEN PROJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEr Name: 6,4 Ad 6 Y g A 1 6. / A-5- â€¢Me m l i l i p Location: .8 et-Kr<GA â‚¬014&444 V N Vt- 114 BlJ i Up #+R>- O Nrâ‚¬ (Indicate street address, lot & block numter, legal description w~ere appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Narne: TOW Y + 966*MAH el-4*YA< Fee 3#f Sc,r'r- t- /Wr>el,/44 Address: 96< fL,0 <PRAN* 9.-6,=6 Egre- r,4- A-W ew Phone #: 170 1 + 20 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: SU~rt- 1/4 08 9 Ark ( 59-v Plo 0 Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption D Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMQS Allotment ~~Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) 0 Text/Map Amendment Special Review Â£ Subdivision ~ Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream C] Subdivision Exemption (includes %1 Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane Â£ Commercial Design Review U Lot Split Â£ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion O Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment E Other: E Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 6 Kt ST-T 075- oOP CD liq L~Â·C- PROPOSAL: (description ofpr~posed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) App 19 Â¢7 rs-,vAÂ»'-r FAI ,-1 %3- te Tâ€¢*; e><crTIN-F- 1-IFCA~.8 n,4-4.- 1-Z' fpe'M P., fc-,VA-th' f~/'./,1 A-Kr/HeNT-- 9,4,-16-/N"F Â£-or Havuou attached the following? FEES DUE: S l,1(10.51 ~~ [*|45Â©-Application Conference Summary [2'Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement U ]~sponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Fonn [3fliesponse to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards U 3-D 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. Ouum 3.1.FAN*tt,; 477*%42- 3f4> ,Â·44Â·4'iÂ£ f'i,~t:;yj 2**>is<ir~~~';4 6 . 2,1Â¥27<.19.;0 1, %73~2 441\ik,Jur*i.~ 1.7if.. ~~ f~ Eig.Ex~~ epn~EivEPA]R)~Ffit~~~.I~IkiETU~~~-Â£~N~.~*-J9~:~21 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property (,1,Â» d w er- Â·2, /egeS'th< Phone No.: Owner ("ID: 1 0, FDO F.'*ad / 661# BM/mill.- Email: Address of 1-0 N 4' CLA,Je-Y' Billing 6.4 9 Tw Dto 8 Address: fe { 8.,0 61*,reâ‚¬- f L . Pre t Of Property: V â€¢ , r-* 94 .6 (subject of (send bills here) *CeG.J Co 9(*lt application) C. f F.4, ..00; el . A-ye w, w. e r 4 4 I 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. I understand that as the property owner that I 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. nat fee for /4 1 0#3& Q U D A-*WNP. $ flat fee for $ fiat fee for . $ fiat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I 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. 1 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 listed billing address and not returned 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. I 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. $ #ZÂ· 6#. deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: UL--* Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: 5 6,~rr- C- 1,/DeMA-lk , Title: Ow,/GLY peeÂ· 1/1(i26'15 City Use: Fees Due: $ Received: $ . 64/.,5 d..41 -1â„¢142 Ay,e,r~Â£~~D*'?i;0~95 1.1.5.~2 1--41*7..- v'44- 6~LÂ»Kill 4.e ~ f. 1 - 32 .4.- . C,~ *No'02*ibdi420-119*%,jÂ¢;550Â·.Â·49**94= >-A:>.32*Â·ir ;.1,444-*.Uity:*faspet]430'S?.Gatenast 1 (970) 920:5090.9 44Â·.02*1,<.Ki:,4,aÂ·yÂ·,"- i:Â·t,6-â€ž:*:,1:'5%-4,2,jt,+LLtt~i92*+274*Â·~>2~~;,Bt.P~ iâ‚¬h.~~.Â»4Â·, AA#44fÂ· . ,Â·'~ -Â·Â· -Â· 7...4 Â·* ...8 Â·,Â·-. 2- Â·,1 .'iÂ· Â·Â· - CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 8/03/2012 PROJECT: Obermeyer PUD REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B, 920.9428, stgdig@sopris.net TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment DESCRIPTION: On May 24, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission, through Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012, approved an extension of the existing fence along the western edge of the Obermeyer property, and the construction of a 30" privacy screen to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap on the portion of the property that directly overlooks the neighboring parking lot. The fence was constructed to plan expectations, however, the privacy screen was continued to wrap the entire perimeter of the balcony. .09 + \ a /2/i 1 1 \\ Existing Patio / - J / \ / i- \ / / 1, \ 9 \ .... - r-- \ 1 \ Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen ' Red = Denied length of privacy screen The owner is interested in bringing the privacy screen element into compliance. Obermeyer Place was approved through a PUD process and is zoned SCI PUD, so any change to the design must receive a PUD Amendment. The proposal requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.445.100.B PUD - Other Amendment 26.710.0190 SCI Zone District Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http://www.aspen_pitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Follow the link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Application http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docslcity/Comde,(/AppsÂ°/020and%20Fe#W2011 %20landÂ°/020u se%20app%20form.pdf Review by* Community Development Staff, P&Z Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Fees: $1,260 for a One Step Review. This includes four (4) hours of staff review time. Additional time over four (4) hours will be billed at $315 per hour Total Deposit: $1,260 Fee Note: The typical deposit for this type of land use application is $4,410 for 14 hours of work. Due to the limited nature of this project, the Community Development Director authorizes the acceptance of a lower deposit amount of $1,260 for 4 hours of work. Please not that any time over 4 hours will be billed at the regular rate of $315/hour. Total Number of Application Copies: 12,1 sets of full size plans To appl~,submit the following information: EGAotal Deposit for review of application. 1-/ Pre-application Conference Summary. 1-0 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. [33 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 Ppication [i71 A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the ~~[and and its surroundings. 1--U~ompleted Land Use application and signed fee agreement. [7] An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. [-:a.~2 copies of the complete application packet and maps. / Â· ~Â·NWMAÂ·. Â· ,t :.W Â·2"/6 .-I ...... -1,2- - :i~ ..1 44 It,ki.â€¢u S - h.- .9,1 4 â€¢., . 11 .3,2- r ..S. . ':-4 - -. 0 - t ; 82 j i t. .I 4 55 , j< ty- 8 4.1 3 0 /27 3 ****fs f 4, P W ate- St 0 3 4.b -T:*46,29*94;3.Â·-. r f 2 /440 1 , /4- 1 'r % , 2 4 1, 9 2 2 08 'jil L - A-4.-0 it.\ LOUS. 1 .1 9 E 41*47 SIA.19~- 7. e Co -: -: ff...~ - /5 1 - 2 ~ ?'~:4,*.0 ill -- ,+44LA $1 142' Â·i --- I 1 -CI#-44. r ..J /4 2 ...." ke.r.5-2 ******--4*I: \4* - 2-9 -4â€žjt- ~)>4~7 ff-3, f y fC--*- -- . al 2%44 - " '1 1, /1 , L -21 , 4-04- 4 01- ~.1-* 3&/ 7 u )# f', 61 Â·40 i na.'ll"91 6 j I'RE,~ 6 1. ' 'AcitÂ· 44' Ch' 5 -;25,1~ 4.9 1 - YL 1 4 ~ t : 32 1 3/wirl///"a~<, '*,. r ~~~L#FO - .i &/. -- 2./.Imiluchur -. 6 }, 19 1 <2 1:709 . 1 1~% 4; ?~2 *Â¥&Â»1* Â· Poitten, *012 NAVTEO. 144<10*0~1 a'U.%,124. CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that J. ANTHONY CLANCY AND M. DEBORAH CLANCY are the owner's in fee simple of the following described property: CONDOMINIUM UNIT 202, CRESCENT BUILDING. OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Exemption Map of the Obermeyer Place Condominiums recorded July 26,2006 in Plat Bdok 80 at Page 57 as Reception No. 526898 and First Supplemental Condominium Exemption Map recorded September 19, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 20 as Reception No. 528770 and Second Supplemental Condominium Exemption Map recorded January 16,2008 in Plat Book 86 at Page 44 as Reception No. 545903 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the Obermeyer Place Condominiums recorded July 26,2006 as Reception No. 526895 and First Amendment recorded September 19,2006 as Reception No. 528769 and Second Amendment recorded January 16,2008 as Reception No. 545904 and Third Amendment recorded October 6, 2010 as Reception No. 574121. County o f Pitkin, State of Colorado ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Encumbrances: NONE This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: 2Â«Tro Z~~FJ*9 authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: March 30,2012 at 8:00 A.M. Job No. ACCOM2581 STUDIO B architects 9 January, 2013 City of Aspen 140 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Obermeyer PUD Minor amendment, Clancy Residence, 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Scott Lindenau of Studio B Architects is hereby appointed as our representative and is authorized to serve on our behalf for our minor PUD amendment at our Unit located at 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 at the Obermeyer Complex. LXJL,1.5' Scott Lindenau Studio B Architects 970 920 9428 501 rio grande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822 www.studiobarchite ets.net STUDIOB architects 9 January, 2013 City of Aspen 130 Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Written Description: Clancy Unit 202, Founders Place at Obermeyer Complex The Owners originally requested 2 items from the original submittal dated 4 April, 2012. The first was a continuation/connection of the existing slated wood fence that separates the Obermeyer Complex from the City of Aspen Parking Department's open gravel parking area to provide privacy and the second was the installation of a 30" tall slated horizontal wood railing at their exterior terrace wall to buffer additional privacy from that parking area and the public walkway from Main Street to the Obermeyer Complex which the Clancy Unit terrace directly faces. (See attached photos). Both were approved at the P+Z hearing and the resolution was given to Studio B which was then passed along to the general contractor for construction. It was later learned, that a constructed portion of the exterior terrace railing was not approved as it exceeded vertical height limits from the walking area below in Obermeyer. This work was not performed intentionally to be out of compliance but was discovered to be an 'unintentiona/ mistake' as the approved resolution sent to the architects and contractor was delivered in 'Black+White" and not in Color. The color version does show where the exact lengths of railing were approved. There is some discrepancy on what lengths of the built railing exist which shall be clarified thru the presentation. The Clients ask that the City and the P+Z consider allowing these 2 lengths of railing to remain as they offer privacy to this exposed terrace, there have been no inquiries or complaints from the Obermeyer community or governing board and that is was a genuine mistake. Sincerely, A A M--#A 4- N r\\ Scott Lindenau Studio B Architects Owners Representative riogrande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822 w w w.studiobarchitects.net Resolution Exhibit A * ,/f-,3 ~r / 1 1 -ir Al / f i ' </ / 19 i I Existing Patio \ <r / i * \ // A / - -7 1 - \ Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen Red = Denied length of privacy screen ~4~l, v, ~ *4.4 N N-'t ~ / Resolution Exhibit A 2* +as; C N I Ir Ir A '111-4, 2 7 1 . i * / 1\90/ 4 /4 C j . 4 -h \ 1 1- Existing Patio / /-03--0. 13 1 \ \ 7/ Â» 1 -02- 4/ \ Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen Red = Denied length of privacy screen ' 4 . Â£ 04 r 4 ./ A-, I ' 4 17.1. 4 4 .. '7- r 1 . . 4 V. . ./ . t., ..31~.8... 7Â· V ... 1 ' K~ - - - : -1 1. 48 2 . ' i "k'% 6,- 2- , SI.. --I ~. -3 4 - -1..e,/ . _-06 - -f -f: I.L. k - E - 1,1 ... -- & -1 11*e . M , 2. .2 r 2-y -'ia"-: .N 1 .9711, 7 1* .:/STA 1 .i... y i I. - I ... 7 4 .J : . de, 9 i fai .,1 r . 4 :16 C 1*;. F 4 2 ' -3195* - hy" z # .f ';i 11"* 01 43-4%Â¢31 4 \1 *94*1'4 Â·Â· t~ 0 3 0~ i a 7 '7 if Â®, 1, 1,1* 1 '2.14 =t . 2 .r' ./. 1 -Ill.~ . 1 J - -r... I A - 4 1/ k : 26/' /. 7,~ f ..'. ..2 1**4 tr~illi~il#.- - --I. . . . a. I â‚¬ I. R .- h I r W ...0 . 1 ,-a , 4 --*%1-44Â£ V . . . 0 t- -m.. -~A , 3 V 2 3 . . U. 4. 1 ~ 44.3. . ./ ' C . . I . + A: 112~ IP - 3/ 1/0 1.41 * 1 -~ '0.R-.. 'll#Â·14. t... - 7 i . 4 4, ''A C B. 49 4 . 1 . 4402: -..1!.r ... p 1'12.LA*r ' rÂ· /4,4 1/L Â· -/*44 ~ .- ~- s ' , . Â· -k .4.1,1.pÂ·.]Dll'd*â€¢'r" W Â£ '.1,1 1 4, 4 .-6 ' :F,/4..':*" h Elaz .1 , i 4,140.4....2 '. 0 '.A P. . 4 ~~:/*LI VÂ¢ ' iN #., I :, .1 e Y - Fil.,4./.-'-, ' 11 -b. -9Â£~ . ., - ** // .Â·f 14 It . 1' 1 n // , FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM EXEMPTION MAP OF: b 01 1 2- r , i u ., L tivi t__j --1 1 -_j~ f i _of-l u F a U U 1 N 17 91*E l i N ~ U lt_1 Lj 1 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO -22027*- ...FROA. OVA.l'..REEDFNE AND I:?cÂ·v 'ARKFT in@Â·r COYDOPINFI DFE"AT~ONS ..ART - THS C-Â·ART SETS THE CCUIERIAL UNITS i.!AFFED IN THIS FlRST SUPPLEMENTAL MAP â„¢15 CHAR 7 iNCLUDES THE -<44> 9% ' . RECEPTION NO 526898 ARE INCLUDED KERE.A. THESE P.REV.GUS.7 NAPPED QUALL'-JED RESDENCE AND FREE MARKET .. m ~.. Al'r ESS Ce:...... .1/15 ARE Al f OLL'llÂ· EUIC.5 'crr. Ty:e AÂ·eo ReceÂ©tior O-6.n:nce Ng. li A:ki"rn U" CORRESPOIDiNG STREET ADDRESS AND Alle/ED USE wOR EACH COM&'ERCIAL UNG FOR ILUSUÂ¢ATAE PURPOSES, THE CUAJF,ED RESSE+,CE ANS FREE MARKET CONDC/.NUE UNTS AS Shoah ANC DEDICATED ON THE VAP FECORDED UNDER - - F 3/2... Â«12\ Â·el C.. :0Â· Fourcer. F:CCE ':Cl S.: s - 5*pierrent Ner'Â©rfÂ©rring 0.et ; 1 2.'scer,- 6.7,/ies -O' CO, 'CÂ· fouriers ..cce # 0 453 64 5.4:Flerne= Ser,ce/C:rr=er=o tr.0.2-9/ 12 :2 COR' 10Â· Fourders P.cce f.013 285 s.:. SDp~eÂ·nert Non.costrrr;ng Off.ce ...4 Â·Câ€¢ 20Â» C- FoÂ·.reâ‚¬M Piece #04 683 5.7. 5.peement Ne:ghtcrhed com,rnerc:c ~. 105 C.V /< FÂ©uncers /J<xe #105 49 s.1 5~pp'emer,1 S~yce/Co-n,nerci~A~*9 1 1 FAR?<alk -iNE_ ~ -. io~ 101 Four.ders PIece 0106 99 s.: Suppbernint Nonconk,rming Office t 1.- 108 car C- nuncers P oce d,OB Â£77 d Supp:email Servce/Cornrrercid,Ardverid (501 010 07=nde .Flace) --00- . 107 CO' 10' founders /Jice itic; 672 5 f S.*emint Serrce/Cornmercic/,nk/rioi t - T-1 -- . ----2-2=Â». -%1 K 5' F=- 226,30â€¢11 51.c Ccrnmor, Element Det/5 See Sheet 21 & 22 id 2 - Ce/ 10 FouncecE Piece Â¢109 735 s f. SupFÂ·emert SerÂ¥:ce/Comae'NE,lne/striol t 2 px-2 -z&& - 00,2,ne 100 COM~ 102 Founders Piece 7100 942 5 1 9.:pp~ement SErv:ce/fCÂ©mrrerriel/'indusÂ·trld J., 11 Fourcers Ploce +201 EEC 4526292 i 1 Â· 202 TV 10 Fecriers Picce Â¢202 REC #526Â£92 W I 0 Founders /Joce #301 REC #526598 .4422- .-+ lel CR 102 anders Piece #10 REC #526898 - L 102 OR 102 Fctnders Piece f 02 REC #52â‚¬898 ] ' 4.791 -4\1 94\ L A = -7 m CR 102 Founders /]Cce /201 REC /526898 1 - =- - 202 OR 102 Fewndâ‚¬/ Piece 0202 EEC #52â‚¬898 1 -/ I L. ' 4 203 QR 102 Four.oers Picce 0203 EEC #26898 \ 141 i 204 OR 102 Founders Piece 4204 REC 05268928 '- 41 4 20 QI 102 Four,dem Place 0205 REC 0526898 301 102 FourÂ·de s PIece #301 REC #526892 1101 1 1 4 - 4 .---3 rÂ·%~ .=: 1 ---'7-1-r . --Ri E-Â«4 -4# 302 0 102 Founders FEace 0302 REC #526898 / 2 303 OR 102 Feunders Piece 0303 EEC #526898 102 m 101 N. Spring St. #102 REC #52098 Spri// Street Ew!!d/9 â€¢01 FW 10: K. Speg 51 'Cl REC #526898 I ? 1 103 At 101 N. Spring St. #103 REC %26898 1 1 ' lbOX 104 OR 101 N. Spring St. 0104 REC #525898 Â«Utti0 / 105 OR 101 N. Spr~ng St. #105 REC #526898 106 QR 101 N. Spring St. #106 REC #526898 1 - 107 OR 101 N. Spring StÂ· 0107 REC #526898 Ry 108 OR 101 N. Spring St. #108 REI #526898 41'' 14 /7 r 202 FÂ» 101 N. Spring St. #202 REC #526898 0 1 109 QR 101 N. Sprig St. #109 REC #526898 201 Fy 101 N Spring St #2(71 REC #526898 203 OR 101 N. Spring St. #203 REC #525898 204 QR 101 N Spring St #204 REC f525898 205 QR 101 N. Sping St. #205 REC #526898 301 FI 101 N. Spring 51. #301 REC #526898 -=. 4 Xk 302 .61 101 N Spring St. #302 REC 0526398 0 ~ 303 F/ 101 N Spring St. #303 REC #523898 304 I 131 N. Spring St. 0304 NEC #526898 - i J-=7====gN 02-"5; .ets 6,1 I â‚¬ 10$ F i:30 Oberme~ P?oce Dr. â€¢101 REC #525:98 - i ~02 OR 100 Obermeyer Ploce DrÂ· ;102 REC #526838 i 103 .R 100 Obermeyer Place Dr. #103 REC #526898 L 4 104 OR 100 Obermeyer Ploce Dr #104 REC #525898 ~ C ,Â¢52Â¢ MAnoE-*C W COIM 100 Obermâ„¢:r Ploce Dr. #105 2..348 s.f. Suppliment Nonconformhg Fitness Cut> 106 COM 100 Oberrnejer P~cce Dr. #106 411 s.f. Supplement Service/Commercial/Industrial , 107 COM 100 Obermeyer Piece Dr #107 969 s.f. Supplement Neighborhood commercial 2 /- ----Â«-7.C- 103 FM 501 Rio Grande mace # 103 REC #526898 ~- Porkside Bundin g 1 01 n,! 501 Rio G unde Picce # 101 REC #526898 102 F/ 501 Rio Grande paoce # 102 REC #526898 .1=03.5- r.# '. COM 501 R; Grolde Piece # 104 2,224 s f. Supplement ServicÂ«Cornmerci,0nductr.1 i 105 COM 501 Rio Grande Plece # 105 1.226 s.f. Supplement Se/ce/Commercial/Ind/strict >i .1 ~~~~~~~. ~9 Obenlwyer Place DÂ¤*~/- ~ 202 '14 501 Rio Grfy,de Fiace * 202 REC #526898 106 COM 501 Rio Graide Pioce # 106 829 st. SuppleÂ·ment Seâ„¢-cogcmrnerciat~ndustrtat 1- 1 R=TIKFIrrum!299119<*la - 107 COM 501 Rio Gpinde Plece # 107 1,977 s T. Supplment Nonconformhg Office M -r#th>. See Sneet 19 of 23 - 1 ~ 108 COM 531 Ric Grande PEace # 108 381 9.1. Supplement Neighborhood commerclal J 109 COM 501 Rio Grande Pke #109 764 s.f. Sup@ement Neighbo-hood commercio! ~ 1 ik 201 FM 501 Rio Gror,de Pisce # 201 REC #526898 / . 204 Fl 501 Rio Graide P;oct # 204 REC #526395 203 Fy 501 RIo Grcride Plice , 203 REC #526898 205 FM 301 Rio Grunde Flace # 205 REC /326598 2,\ 205 n,1 501 Rio Grande P,ace # 206 REC #526898 Park?,9 20'4/ 01 COM 601 Rio Graide P.'ace #101 3.554 s.f. Supplemen. Se-vice/Commerci/And/strial GRAPHIC SCALE \ A ~---~Lh~ 102 COM 601 RIo Graide Plice #102 707 . . SUppieMel : Ser vice~Com-nerci~Ancbslri! 1 104 COM 501 Rio GroÂ·~de P;ace #104 1.396 . Supplernen Se*ze/Commere#/Anilstr#1 S o â€ž 20 40 - 105 COM 601 Rio Graode Pioce 4105 642 S/pplemen Serfc//Cammercial/ndistrict DRESCENJ- hj[UPITÂ© ' '03 COM 501 Rio Groode Pioca /103 98.3 - . Supplemen Service/Commerciol,And.istrial i (101 Founders Piece) 107 .3. 50} RiD Graide Plice #107 308 . Â· Supple/er: Ser,ice/Cornmercia/lndiliial i Â·Â· 105 COM 501 Rio Grande Place r 05 345 , Suppe-nen Servi,e/Cornrnercial,4nd.:strial Â·- 1 for Unit & Cimmon Element ~ 105 COM 601 Rio Groid - 902 ~08 94 . S/pple/,1 5/vice/Corn:nercld/lnduatrial C INEEr > Deto s See Sheet il of 23 /1 1 1 E :09 2011 601 Rio Gionct PiÂ¤ie 5109 644 . Supp'iern/01 Ser~c//Cornmer=i/!/Indâ„¢r/1 113 COM 501 Ric Grund Place #11/ 2.240 .. Swpplemer, se:vice/ConÂ·nercio}A,distriol ~ 1 inch= 20 I i ' : 1 - t- 4%91-3 7 1 / It 1 1 '' 111 SDI' 601 Rio G cod PI:102 All 575 .. 5up/le:ner. 5.9.ce/C:,mmercia],Allstriai : 1 a -12 CDâ€¢2 50Â· Rio G-3,0 Pic=e #112 427 . 5,-=e. 5.42:/Com-nere-,al/'d#trio' , : 111 L Â·13 COM 801 Rio G-0-Id Pla=e #113 1.433 S.1//linen Serwl///CornÂ·ner;i39'ind.:slrial 1 > ALL AREAS OÂ·ja/f â„¢E ll/DUAL AiR SPACE CONDOMINIUM UN,TE ARE GENERAL COMMOV ELEMENTS ~GCE) OF IHE / 14 COM 601 Rio G-and PIRN' 482 . SupÂ»rnen Snica/Commercia}/1,/8/131 4 05:FRVFYFEr Pl /CF- COND),pÂ·vt,w; UNLESS DENTFIED AS A LIM;TED COWWON 6.EMIT (LDE) RESERVED FOR USE BY FEIER I 15 COM 9 Ric G-Ind Place #115 255 ., 3-ipple-ne, Ser.4/5/Corn:nercic,!/Irli,~lric,! t=1 15 COM 501 Rb G-on j Floce #116 655 ,. Sipplerren ScTYice/Cornmerck,IA,3/ntrio niAâ€¢,I ALL THE OvIERS OF THE 'NOMPUAL AIR SPACE .INITS, \ 1 1 1 \ 20 201,1 IM Ric Groid #120 Suople.,1 Ser~ce/Comme~Cid/W/** L 17 COM 60Â·1 Ric Grond PI=I /117 1,556 . S.Ip/,eme; Snice/Commercia!/IndÂ·.1,trial ~ 2) DECURANT RESERVES THE RiGHT ro DEVELDP THE AREA *11'H A MONUMENT, STATUE OR SCULPTURE N ACCORDANCE - 1 + 18 COM 601 Rio Gre,d Pjoce #118 476 :. S;pplemen Serr;ie/Commerciol/lidistrit U | | Ploce 587 - MTH THE DECLARATION 19 COM 601 Rio G-:nd Pi==e #119 935 I =, S.pp~emen. Service/Co.Imercia!/Ild,strlat 1) - -Â·- -*--â€¢- NDICATES THE ANTICIPATED CONDOP,f.NUM UN'T BOUNDARIES IMEN :ULL" CONSTRUCTED -0 C I | 5 i 1 21 COM 601 RiD Grond Proce #121 834 . Sappleme, Serice/CommerÂ©i/tinduerial # THE EX'EN' THE AS-St LT LOCA-TIONS OF 942 CONDOWN UW UNI BOUNDARIES RE NOT IDNS STENT /TH -ME ANTS PATED CONDO/l/Ul UNIT IOUNDAIES DED'(TED HEEDN, DECLAIANT RESERVES ykâ‚¬ REGHT -0 SLJRÂ¢Er AND 6/Ap r.â‚¬ 71â‚¬0- , D. 50 9:2 3-0./ p Oce riu 001 350 S...me- ElliL 1 ~1=3 - /9 1 22 COI, 601 Rio Grorld Place #122 746 Suppiemen Servte/Commerc~o,/inoustril AS-BUIC- BOUNDARIES AND RECORD A DORRECTON TO 7415 &/AP 'N ACCOF?DANCE 1444 TME DEa-ARâ€¢.TO'. \ -:.b/ ~ : ~~i1--J--L____~.. ~Z.; )0Z T 0Â¥ 50' Ric G'o~d ;',oce FCJ D02 33B Sa:,p1e~,r 4 ) ALL NON-CONFORMING USES ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDiTIONS SET FORTH IN RE OTy OF ASPEN ORD#4 ANCE 18. flo LI=qut 11 - PCU 005 COM 631 Rio Grcnd Piece FPCU 005 426 f. Supp}emen SERES OF 2003. AS AMENDED 5 =2. ZE-M ES, ~2 2-=-= =2=i - r - 5 =g. FCC 003 2011 631 Ric 3-0-16 P,oce #?CU X)3 517 f. Supp}emen .: PCU 004 COM 601 Ric Grand Picce FCU 004 5) f. Supplemen PCU 006 601 Rio Grord Place 0PCU 006 151 PCU 012 COM 601 Rio Groid Ploce FCU 012 395 . f. Supdemen. PCU 008 COM 601 RB Grcid P ace FCU 008 363 1 Supplemen 501 Rio Grond P oct #PCU 010 352 i I.#e-nen PCU 009 COM 601 Ric Grand Ploce FCU 009 323 1 Supplemen PCU 011 C.1,1 601 Ric Grand Ploce iF JU 011 260 f. Supplemen PC' 013 COM 601 Ric Grond Pice #DCU 013 %3 f Supplemen PCU 014 COM 601 Rio G'ornd Pl/ce FCX) 014 475 1 54/picmen PCU 015 COM 601 Rio Grond Mice iFCU 015 323 f. Supplernen 0\191.-DOK DUILPINe PCU 016 COM 601 Rb G-ond Ptice #93 CMS 4/6 .f. S/ppiernen (102 FoundeÂ·rs Ptil.ce) PCU 017 COM 601 Re Grond Ploce #PCU 017 385 .f. S.,9/emen Â· Pa, O,9 COM 601 R,0 Grande Piece FCU 019 380 33. Supp!emen ~ 1 IL...~. PCU 018 .04 601 Rio G-end. Ploce liPEU 018 325 A. 5uppioner, : r IC - f , 3 1 h -or unit & Con-non le lent Detc,!s Â·40/ Sheet 3 9 23 SCE - GENE'?AL COMA/ON ELEMENT 1 1,1 PCU 020 COM 601 Rio G G,de Pk}ze FCU 020 478 s.f Sapplemen PCU 021 COM 601 mo Grande Pke F'Cu 021 195 st. Supplemen : LCE - UMITED COMMON E.IMENT Â« SPRIND ST REET- vOIL_t, IND COM - COL[MEROAL CONDOMNIUM .3 (101 N Spring Street) SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC N< lili['lliw.- .. I. 111'111 FV - FEEE MARKET CON,)O#â€¢m,UUM UNIT : For Ond end Common Element letc:s 20'ZE K /05 ==-D:. .:-I:% S..., . RZ.1.00 ocIe 1 CIVIL CONSULTANTS Nk== --.~ . - kee Sheets 15.16 & 17 of 23 OR - OUAURED RESIDENCE CONDOM:NIUM UNIT 502 ALAIN STREET, SUITE AS -- - -- ---- 3 r ~1 ; SHEET 5 OF 23 L NonCE ACCO;UNG TO COLORADO LAW YOU ./5/ COWME]ICI ANY ...1 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 ACTION 8A5ED UPON AN' DEFECT N MIS S..7â‚¬r HTHN TH'Er IRS lk---- ---1 Plaza Level, Common Elements Detail i ... 3&"St W....S.1 %:. : N .ZA.:1472.& (970) 704-0311 Â¥TARS FPN TH' DATE rÂ¥- C"/fri/0,1 qurnâ€¢N Hipm,4 23539.06 09/13/05 c.mend 73099 06 0*0 9 C-96 ib i* dÂ¥% 27 February; 2013 GYM ASPEN Sara Nadolny - Planner Technician City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. i Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 To: Sara Nadolny I own the Bleeker Street Gym which is located directly across from 101 Founders Place Unit 202.1 do not have any issue with the wood and metal railing constructed there and in fact never really noticed it. I f it provides privacy for those owners in this dense neighborhood, it is fine that it remains as is. Don't hesitate to call me. Regards, A Â»31Â« Joe Vernie v 1 4335-7 0 43 . Michael Sailor I Charfered Financial Consultant p: 970.920.9500 1 800.933.3778 Obermeyer Place f: 970.920.2363 -~||~sailor 101 Founders Place I Suite 104 e: michael@sailorinsurance.conn insurance Aspen, Colorado 81611 HEALTH INSURANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS ' LIFE â€¢ DISABILITY â€¢ LONG TERM CARE Â· RETIREMENT PLANS â€¢ WEALTH TRANSFER February 27, 2013 Sara Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Sara, I have my insurance office here at Obermeyer in Unit 104 and feel fortunate to own my space in this locals complex and I know many of my neighbors both professionally and socially. I am aware of the wood railing in question in the unit above me at the South end of my building which the Clancy's own and I did speak to Scott Lindenau as their architect who works across the 'mall' from me. 1 visited the patio and I do not have any issue with it or its construction. It gives privacy from both the path from Main Street and from the surrounding neighbors as that patio is in a very public spot. Please call me should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, . A} /1 1 /) rÂ·--1.*,j )< ~. VY luy-_.-8/ 01- Michael Sailor Steve Seyffert 102 Founders Place #201 Aspen, CO 82611 March 1,2013 1 Sara Nadolny PlannerTechnician CityofAspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Clancy railing, 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Sara, As a adjacent neighbor (one who's unit most directly faces towards the Clancy's patioand residence) and board memberof the Obermeyer Place Condominium Association, I have spoken to the Clancy's regardingtheir patio railing and the concern the planning department has. I do not feel this impacts the neighborhood negatively nor has any implications to the Obermeyer community. It does provide the much-needed privacy forthe Clancy's. I am absolutely fine with itstaying as is. To my knowledge none of my neighbors have a concern about it either. Please call me with any questions at 544Â·3344 or3O9.9698. Sig,derely, ~- 3teve Seyffeft' c 102 Founders Place #201 Saturday, March 2, 2013 12:21:23 PM Mountain Standard Time Subject: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Date: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:47:30 AM Mountain Standard Time From: Steve Wilson To: Scott Undenau Dear Sir or Madam: I understand that the short fence that the Clancy' s have installed is in partial violation of city code. My wife and I live next door to the Clancy's at 101 Founders Place, #201.* We pass by that fence daily and find that it is esthetically pleasing and provides privacy for the Clancy's as well as for those passing. Weiike the fence as it is. To require that they remove part of that fence will actually make it more noticeable. The Clancy's have done an excellent job, with neighbor and HOA approval, of keeping the architectural integrity of the Obermeyer Place with the fence design. We support keeping it as it is. Regards, Steve and Clare Wilson P age 1 of 1 <Al Exhi KI F AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPE~TY: 101 fibl.i/Â¥*fs 9 bx c.4- , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /m-2,0804-1 feb [ 9 â‚¬ 41 Â» t)4015 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitl<in ) I. ' I /9 .6 sco-g~,~ (name, please print) being or r@resenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting ofnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the 0-wners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached herelo. (Continued on next page) , Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing ofnames and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 5 (day o fjar\UA.,v~ , 2011, by AV.,9 <'{rl S'Â£,N~.9 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, PUD - OTHER AMENDMENT LAND USE REVIEW i WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 19,2013, at a meeting lo begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister My commission expires: 43/,1 Up Cities meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street. Aspen, CO, to review the proposal submit- *u.Â« Rai -Â«uâ‚¬h~ ted by Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy of 101 i Founders Place, Unit 202. Aspen, CO 81611, for 1 the property commonly known as 101 Founders Place, and legally described as Condominium Unit 4 - Notary Public 202, Crescent Building, Obermeyer Place Condo- miniums. Applicant seeks to amend the current PUD and bring into compliance a section of the 30' privacy screen addition to an existing concrete wall cap at south and east facing sides of the patio. In order to gain approval for the development pro- posal, Applicant seeks a recommendation of ap- proval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for a PUD - Other Amendment for the develop- ment of the privacy screen, which is an enhance- ment of the originally approved final PUD develop- ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: I ment plan. EIE PUBLICATION I For further information, contact Sara Nadolny at the City of Aspen Community Development Depart- ment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) d?H OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 429.2739, Sara.Nadolny@ci.aspen.co.us. -E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED SZWLE[spamer, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ' Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on January r CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE 31, 2013 [8849457] .ED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 01 F. 4 w Dae-5- Pwl-â‚¬e , v N ll- 'Z, 2 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 'A A-/4 54 92017 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 4 4-4-7f & i */ D vivlÂ« (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: L,/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) *'s prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in ' height. Said notice ps Dosted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on thel 1- day of 1--EQr--Ok, , 20 l~, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photogr~h of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A cqpy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) L-, ~ Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum. Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially ~~~/ Planned Areas. are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature Z., 7, The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this day of f-!202-ur /142- tur ' 20 1 3, by Soo T r A N Je-N Ad WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 061 ~0 -7 ~20/ 9/ i UNNECk: i a.ikjÂ».14kf/4 Me co.Of Notary Public dsÂ» ' ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: ~ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ~ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL o APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 4 , - - 4*. .+A. 1 6 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Date: 11~ .......4- w. biA AmendmerÂ·e to ce,w<qrvvy 0*neÂ·. 10*1 Arn,tn llr.411 01 PU D 3,:,pul:93rt,Drd,f For furUâ€¢Ir Ti me: 4.*pm Place:Ce,nat'. 130 S 61,6, Irfi.â€¢,mit:Kir, c,y,isct :Ite AÂ®erÂ· 1,4 + 0% St A~oar co *1611 Pla~Mng 00:,1. al 970.9:FuÂ·5090 Purpose .â€¢ er . . *0' 4' 4 DeÂ·*1.1 v#31:9. 3/ ye f r.tur,10'P -12 *50'/â‚¬Â¢* 01 1/.': r. ~* 1 th.k i,N.4. *e Pr="; fe 47*rÂ«.1 ts mâ€¢,Ot,eÂ·'rmer SPA 6 a.}D bo trill tle Strit,4.<:0 â€¢ 1/4,5 # 4 81 itÂ«'e plian, W'tÂ·Â». 1 N! 4,15 :7 1 Â· -7/1- 4. c,a.1 ta-:Ijet, ;lit 4111, U| biÂ¢t pL' 1 & Â·U 4Â¥1 * t' bekx,1 2, ~ 245,4 6 Zer,91 Cy!,rr:n,BA /1 i~ tte *rkerÂ©nlont,1 7 0 an,1 Inâ€¢ &1,6.4 -i- Â¥- tle,Pe . ... ~ 1.4Â·4.1 42â€¢Â· re: e'* ,Â·N , ~rth,~>R' r -1,31. 7 0 r 4 *1Â· 4 *t . t. . PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Date: ~ 4â€¢Â£(.Â· 4-- '#, SPA Amendment to development order. and Amendment of PUD . Time: 4:30 pm - development order. For further Place: City Hall, 130 S. Galena information contact the Aspen . k. St, Aspen CO 81611 Planning Dept. al 970-920-5090. Purpose: Ah;)-3 92Â· r- Tony & Deborah Clancy, of 101 Founders EL Unit 202, as owners of mis properly, are proposing an I- 1. 2 L. 1 - amendment to the Obermeyer SPA & ew[) to bring into compliance a section of the existing privacy screen that sits on the north & east facades 4 otlfle patio, & will appear before Ihe Planning & Zoning Commission at 'e J *f k> 41 03 k Ai?: JG i 7%, the aforementioned date and time. 2/. . ./. - 1 Land use revrews will include 1,4. Easy PeelÂ® Labels ~ Bend along line to i Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ' Fe r expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ 1 A ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ 1 , 311 ASPEN LLC ALLEN CARROL A REV TRUST ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST 2317 PENNSYLVANIAAVE 15495 SW ALDERBROOK CIR 50 SW 137TH AV WILMINGTON, DE 19806 TIGARD, OR 97224 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 ANDERTON JAMES L ARENELLA BETH & FRANK 111 ARTIM LLC 100 OBERMEYER PL #4101 101 N SPRING ST #107 PO BOX 30106 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10011 ASPEN BLEEKER ST LIMITED ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN PCU 010 HOLDINGS LLC 520 S MAI N #178 17740 E HINSDALE AVE PO BOX 11600 GROVE, OK 74344 FOXFIELD, CO 80016 ASPEN, CO 81612 ATWOODSTANFORD H JR & PAMELA S ASPEN RIO LLC BALLINGER ELIZABETH F LIVING TRUST 520 S MAIN ST # 178 PO BOX 10205 16125 GREENWOOD LN GROVE, OK 74344 ASPEN, CO 81612 MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 BERG KRISTOFOR BIG BOY LLC BOMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST 102 FOUNDERS PL #202 106 S MILL ST #202 5601 HIGH DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 BOSELY MARY ANNE REVOCABLE BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BROUGH STEVE B & DEBORAH A TRUST 1555 WASHTENAW 599 TROUT LK DR PO BOX 26 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 SANGER, CA 93657 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J CALCOTT JOHN R CALHOON THOMAS C PO BOX 450 7800 LOMAS BLVD NE 3405 CLEARVIEW DR RED OAK, IA 51566 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87110 AUSTIN, TX 78703 CITY OF ASPEN COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 85% INT CONCEPT 600 LLC ATTN FINANCE DEPT 2026 N MOHAWK PO BOX 2914 130 S GALENA ST CHICAGO, IL 60614 BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 COPPOCK RICHARD P CROUSEN GUINN D TRUST CRUMMER KLEIN TITLE TRUST 2008 PO BOX 44 4435 BUENA VISTA ST 1305 N BEVERLY DR DEXTER, MI 48130 DALLAS, TX 752054118 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC DML REALTY LLC DODDS ALAINA 1690 HOMESTAKE DR PO BOX 305 101 N SPRING ST #104 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHAVIES, KY 41727 ASPEN, CO 81611 ttiquettes faciles h peler j A Repliez & la hachure afin de ~ www.avery.com i Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 -6.......I- ..... r*v*ler le rebord POD-UDMC ! 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Sens de Easy PeelÂ® Labels i A I Bend along line to 2 Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ~| Feed Paper expose PopÂ·-up Edge'M ~ '~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® | A EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY DONAHUE ELIZABETH DORAN RALPH 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D 102 FOUNDERS PLACE #2302 2600 WOODWARD WAY PENTHOUSE 11D ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 MIAMI, FL 33129 FELDMAN JONATHAN FICKE FAMILY REV TRUST FORTIER TIMOTHY 100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR #102 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 601 RIO GRANDE PL #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 ASPEN, CO 81611 GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50% G & G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC GALANTER YALE & ELYSE 1449 E 56TH ST 2520 S GRAND AV # 114 525 S ANDREWS AVE GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 333012831 CHICAGO, IL 60637 GOLDFEIN MICHAEL 85% GLATHAR KIMBERLY J GRAHAM NARELDA GOLDFEIN PAMELA J 15% PO BOX 12197 101 N SPRING ST #203 1724 BRAESIDE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC GWM PROPERTIES LLC HAAG MATTHEW R PO BOX 4491 PO BOX 4146 PO BOX 4446 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 HANEY PERRY L & SHEA NOREEN M HAUSER MARY JANE HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE 5455 LANDMARK PL #408 1540 BOHNS POINT RD 2495 ADARE GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 WAYZATA, MN 55391 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HOLLAND AND HART HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K HORNBECK KIMBERLY E ATTN: CONTROLLER 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 102 FOUNDERS PL #2101 PO BOX 8749 HONOLULU, HI 96822 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80201 HUNTER ALEXANDER JENSEN CARLY J JOSA LLC PO BOX 1638 600 E MAIN ST #408 PO BOX 10147 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 K & J ENTERPRISES LLC KLEIN JAMES J & SALLIE R LAMB DON REV TRUST 50% 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119A PO BOX 12022 1449 E 56TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60637 LANE TAMMIE LARSON KARL G & MARIA M LAZAR GARY S & CAROLE S BRUNSWOLD KIRK PO BOX 8207 5342 ALDEA AVE 601 RIO GRANDE PL #118 ASPEN, CO 81612 ENCINO, CA 91316 ASPEN, CO 81611 ttiquettes faciles & peler 1 Repliez & la hachure afin de I www.avery.com 9 Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® Sens de chargement r*v6Ier le rebord Pop-UpMC 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Easy PeelÂ® Labels | A I Bend along line to | ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® 1 Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ J A LEBARRE FAM LLC LEITCH B BRYAN 111 LEONARD FAMILY TRUST 7518 MIDDLEWOOD ST 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 710 HOUSTON, TX 77063 DALLAS, TX 75204 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 LIEBOWITZ BRYNA S REV TRUST LINDENAU SCOTT MAESTRANZI ALEXA LEE 601 RIO GRANDE PL #103 501 RIO GRANDE PL #104 1736 PARK RIDGE PT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PARK RIDGE, IL 600681311 MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA MANN KATHLEEN A REV TRUST 99% MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% 11.0446% PO BOX 1455 320 DAKOTA DR 21701 FLAMENCO CARBONDALE, CO 81623 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MCCUTCHIN GENE P 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 14833 MIDWAY RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ADDISON, TX 75001 MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC MILNE SHEILA MOSCOE THOMAS D 2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH PO BOX 8286 14700 ROCKSBOROUGH RD SEATTLE, WA 98109 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 NGUYEN MICHAEL TAM MURPHY GEORGE W NGS LLC DAO OANH KIM PO BOX 4146 101 FOUNDERS PL #109 430 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIBLACK SCOTT OBERMEYER 102 LLC OBERMEYER 204 LLC 101 N SPRING ST #3109 805 LAKESIDE DR 2727 ALLEN PKWY 14TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 HOUSTON, TX 77019 OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GRP LLC OBP LLC OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN OBERMEYER PLACE SALES GRP LLC 101 FOUNDERS PL #104 PO BOX 514 115 AABC ASPEN, CO 81611 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 ASPEN, CO 81611 ONE ONE SEVEN LLC OP LLC PARDEE JAMES LEE 111 REV LIV TRST PO BOX 7911 424 PARK CIR #6 PO BOX 4153 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816124153 PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING PEARSON DOUG PITKIN COUNTY CORP 101 N SPRING ST #3105 530 E MAIN ST #302 530 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 816111518 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles A peler 1 A Repliez & la hachure afin de j www.avery.com ~ Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® chargement r*v*ler le rebord Pop-UpMC 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Sens de Easy PeelÂ® Labels i A I Bend along line to i Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ; Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ ~ ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ A PR ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC RAMOS WALTHER JR & MARJORIE R RIO GRANDE PARTNERS 88 LLC PO BOX 1006 133 TALL TREES DR 1008 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 ASPEN, CO 81611 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD ROSSI ELAYNE R TRUST SATTLER SANDRA A 5934 ROYAL LN #250 PO BOX 7961 101 NORTH SPRING ST #3204 DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHENKELBERG LLC SEGREST DAVID H SEYFFERT STEVEN J 140 VISTA GRANDE 2606 STATE ST 102 FOUNDERS PL #201 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAPIRO FREDERIC M & SUSAN SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SMITH H W 111 101 N SPRING ST #3108 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 10914 ASPEN, CO 81611 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 ASPEN, CO 81612 SMITH JAMES F&N LINDSAY STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% TASTERS RESTAURANT INC 600 E MAIN ST #302 12738 W 84TH DR PO BOX 6211 ASPEN, CO 81611 ARVADA, CO 80001 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 THE KIMPLE 2004 TRUST TREDER CAROLE A TSE HOLDINGS LLC 3505 TURTLE CREEK RD 101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 601 RIO GRANDE PL #120 DALLAS, TX 75219 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TUSCANA LLC UNIT 106 OP LLC UNIT 109 OP LLC 90% 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105 106 S MILL ST #203 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 107 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816112497 ASPEN, CO 81611 VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C REV TRUST UNIT 5E OP LLC DBA BIG BOY LLC VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC 1% 106 MILL ST #202 0490 ASPEN OAK DR PO BOX 1455 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 WAGAR RICHARD H VOORHEES PETER A W STORAGE PLUS LLC C/O RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC PO BOX 4446 4040 NE 2ND AVE #414 100 S SPRING ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33137 ASPEN, CO 81611 WELSCH SUSAN FLEET REVOCABLE WASKOW SUSAN A TRUST WILSON FAMILY TRUST 08/20/1999 TRUST 11/30/1983 PO BOX 4975 13513 RIVERS RD 101 N SPRING ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles & peler Repliez & la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com 1 A Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 chamement r6v6Ier le rebord Pop-UpMC 1 1-800-GO-AVERY ' Sens de 1 Easy PeelÂ® Labels i A I Bend along line to 1 ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ~ Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ ,| A WOODSON TOM 101 NORTH SPRING ST #106 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles & peler ] A Repliez & la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com [ Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i Sens de ravaler le rebord Pop-UpMC 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 A charaement 1 14 L p....4* i. . I ... 4 4 9 â€¢ 5 , C.~A : .T . I I ..4 1 i - . '..4 -1 - I 1 .1- i C i . 1, * 43J ?P 1 .74 . Â·40 44 k 41 rAy'll.. :. ~ a @. 934 1 '. .3 ,~ 6 I ./ I Â» hi**.1% 7.~./SÂ¥:tr -,- .f. - . .it *3,6,Qk. - 4./ 4 . ~1*~~Â·Â· ~ ' -1.- I Q tfa.1 ./gram/#19(â€¢ -- 4 '4 94,32,1K.42 ,fL . . -4 ** 57 , 4 19. , 1 -,Ii 4 & 1 11. r. // ~~S> ~5 1-/t. i 1, I # 1 - 44 - I % . 7.51 . IM I I , , 1 1 rk . 11'. 4 1...lee ./11,41 Â¥744Â¥~ , - '' - i.1&1.,â„¢L-,-/ ' r F i 1 7 ''P...1,1/, 1 1. Â· Â· . 1 y f . 777 , t ... .*:241-.t3-w~ 4. L . V -..- p 2 1 . -. Â£56442Â» 4 -a 1 I 1/ 14% : 1Â¥* 3 < gs Â· cry # p ~ '4rt:U - - 4,-3 32;:--,ei I Ii/35'JA' ./.. Â· ,Â·t't' 7 '-'.'~44 4.4 I ..,41+4â‚¬4444 '14 0 .44: 4,1, , I , 2 ./ -/3 -' 61/31/2@13 401/31/201 9 F 4 />40*4 1.,5.. f, / / // 2- 8(12..Â· 0001 5[- Ags L,4 RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ASPEN Name: 6,4 *W 0 1' g A 1 1- /,~50- "le*li~ Location: .8 et-KOCGA CON&1444 V NVI- 144 B'J i (A>#+~60- O NE (Indicate street address, lot & block numder, legal description w~ere appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: TON W + 966.84â€ž e.c-Arrâ‚¬-f 9â‚¬f - 89 Se,rn- t- twt>el,44 Address: 9" f-,0 <PRAN* ?c.-,we <5're-- r,+ Arsed'W Phone #: 110 1 + 10 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 4 Â£,rÂ¥ {,-4/De,4 414 ( 5iv D, 0 FA Address: Phone #: TYIPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): 0 GMQS Exemption U Conceptual PUD El Temporary Use 0 GMQS Allotment El'~Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) El Text/Map Amendment U Special Review U Subdivision 8 Conceptual SPA El ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes ~1 Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review U Lot Split D Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Â£ Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment Â£ Other: U Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 6 KIST-[ AL- 0 uP d~ 69 LE<- PROPOSAL: (description pfpr;posed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) App ~Eff 4,'j" fkvkthr lt*lt-,thra- rre 110; ex:irrit<1- 1-%%*44=6 #4-4.- 127 fpevt P#= fg.,11-th' f?l,M, AVKT/Me,1- FAA,6-/~fy- 6,7: Haveyou attached the following? FEES DUE: S 1,2(147.2 .911/::6#:'Mil/1/1,:45/Zeff:#Fl [2'be-Application Conference Summary [2'Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Â£ RÂ»ponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form [*Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards U 3-D 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. -t *,B,.ah.â€¢S.*1/24.mx'#EY-. 01â€¢~=.;/5.Â·e ,~ 4%21':. it- ,44. - E..>litvt*Â©4~Lf'1,332~L:{:T4~,.I.0- I . '.,:aÂ·:Â·el#Thi.,rÂ·t. A ...-.I,=;;i ~;0Â·;1.,t.*4*râ‚¬14,4.* L*tk,41-~I~A~%,tgft;i~~~1'4- Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property C.,1,Â» d M te- 1, /eceS'Ler< Phone No.: Owner (un. 1 0, F.) N...5 / 6669-.pitwgi Email: Address of 1-0 N Lf' CLA,JÂ¢-r Billing 4. 9 rv Dt. 15 Property: V â€¢ , r- 9. 1- Address: fet 12Â·,0 61â€¢Ah/*G fL- F're-tot (subject of (send bills here) *Ce 64 60 9 fâ€¢ U application) lâ€¢ C .bu W..0.f ec . ~-Se en/, w. R rk 4 I 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. I understand that as the property owner that I 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. $ C 3 60, 8 at fee for M 1 WOB- 1 u 1> AÂ·*L#NP Â· $ flat fee for $ flat fee for . $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I 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. 1 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 listed billing address and not returned 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. I 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. $ 1, 1 60. deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: 4-t Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: 5 U'TE- (- LA/DeA/~rt,l Title: O,â€¢,ve-; Pee. 1/11121715 City Use: Fees Due: $ Received: $ .0-Â¥01. ff~RJURi64:i&6YiikÂ£4*h&43fi82146*Gff*yA;24142*iMAÂ¥~A*AfffjoÂ®tÂ¢*Ra;St.fl (970) 920-5090 ff 3 4. ''.;~.:Â»:-â‚¬':flâ€ž 4.**%4,4%1ylih ~:1*rÂ·.,41*:'441143*Â«~.â€žre, die i.â‚¬iÂ· .Lt-'â‚¬ *is,lrâ‚¬NÂ·Â·tl.Â· U. .:. -'~ 44Â·...i . . Â· . /7 1/ ' ' " ' ~' I . . I. Â·. . '/ RECEIVED JAN 1 1 ?013 CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARAOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 8/03/2012 PROJECT: Obermeyer PUD REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B, 920.9428, studio@,sop.[ls~t TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment DESCRIPTION: On May 24, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission, through Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012, approved an extension of the existing fence along the western edge of the Obermeyer property, and the construction of a 30" privacy screen to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap on the portion of the property that directly overlooks the neighboring parking lot. The fence was constructed to plan expectations, however, the privacy screen was continued to wrap the entire perimeter of the balcony. l t 1 / . I-- 1 i // Existing Patio % J \ \ / \ 54 ./ \ 1 -I......lil Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen Red = Denied length of privacy screen The owner is interested in bringing the privacy screen element into compliance. Obermeyer Place was approved through a PUD process and is zoned SCI PUD, so any change to the design must receive a PUD Amendment. The proposal requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.445.100.B PUD - Other Amendment 26.710.0190 SCI Zone District Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code httpÂ»vww.aspenpitkin.qom/Departments/Comm unity-Development/Plan-ning-and-- Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Follow the link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Application http://www.aspenpitkin.corn/Portals/0/docs/C ity/ComdeY/AppsÂ°420andÂ°/020Fees/2011 %20Iand%20u se%20app%20form.pdf Review by: Community Development Staff, P&Z Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Fees: $1,260 for a One Step Review. This includes four (4) hours of staff review time. Additional time over four (4) hours will be billed at $315 per hour Total Deposit: $1,260 Fee Note: The typical deposit for this type of land use application is $4,410 for 14 hours of work. Due to the limited nature of this project, the Community Development Director authorizes the acceptance of a lower deposit amount of $1,260 for 4 hours of work. Please not that any time over 4 hours will be billed at the regular rate of $315/hour. Total Number of Application Copies: 12,1 sets of full size plans To app~submit the following information: [3Â¥Total Deposit for review of application. 1-l' Pre-application Conference Summary. 1-17f~pplicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative ~uthorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 1 ' 1 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 Â¥plication. 1 171 A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the ~and and its surroundings. r-~~ompleted Land Use application and signed fee agreement. I-MAn 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. r-:i' 1~2 copies of the complete application packet and maps. .1. f + 4. 9. L . h Â£ 6 1, pe.. 1 7/ 444'4'u 9 .. ~~ f .. r. :40 1-4 t y .4, 4,<400 4 9.44 n I ' f u9 f. 3 2 *4..4 ~**lia ~ \34 - 44 94,84:Â»,& . t... ! 821 2 :pr 0 #i#Zip' i i r< 9--*19 31* 8 ' 25 r . f *4... 0 2 C.=74 y<61 t. 4/ 1 â€¢I Â·. i F i / /4 1 . *-4 3 , 'C ....7. Â« â‚¬ A t. e.:.4 . 14/5/)726 3 4 1 1 V 2 EÂ»St 2 11- #14 ft,4 . 1 143 4,4 . Â£ 4*43, '/4,1 1 /44 \44? 14* l 1, 9 . . /, 5,3, #, ~.. ~0 ~ ~ - Â»E94 siA, J77~.4-3 ft:t::~ .1 ~:ja; ~: e,~ -f' r . * ,) Th i ' fi 4 CO -0,1. .9 fr'~*~fE'.' 444* '4.41.. 11 .29* 8 / - 1 (* 94"*444.-g:er-%* :44:.-'td'7~~2: 1 r.-1 1 .tr ' Â»'U 2 I -'- , L ./ r. ctÂ« rÂ» -5 1-'14 8 -1 ts 2 0 1. 7 44 5 f . 1/54:: . ~- 5/ jr /UM,6 1~L<*-*4+43-6 P 11 1 >.7 1 1 d O J U Awâ€¢v,Gvve n ..Ji 2 , + -k# -5 .: I CAVâ„¢.9 - ,<./ 1 U k h duÂ· O - â‚¬3?03: ~~r~0,~~â„¢7~ ; 04/ 1 V.-1.,cur De i - ~O/t,~/Sr ./1.:f//////./~~~I 0. '*%1.4 ~~ 2 440~'mR-~ Y i (Pi: 604 RJ ~ 1 -- 1# Cl' ~ :.3*,m#*&*bv#%2%.ri,Iing., ,.461424Â· i= Lar'. .'.4.a~ 'L 6 9~L . ..a//Ill"://"//"/..e,uao.........~ -rl-/ 1. '.4.. 1 412% ___ I . ..S~ ". f i <1$1 ,-1.-.2~ :ia -kS~ *I#Oullt Â· PO,tioN #012 N AV I EG . frilfri* 1 : 1 Le om.Ail 40Â·tt.,rt' -4 STUDIO B architects 9 January, 2013 City of Aspen 140 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Obermeyer PUD Minor amendment, Clancy Residence, 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Scott Lindenau of Studio B Architects is hereby appointed as our representative and is authorized to serve on our behalf for our minor PUD amendment at our Unit located at 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 at the Obermeyer Complex. 91 64 24/f Scott Lindenau Studio B Architects 970 920 9428 501 rio grandeplace suite 104 aspen co. 81611 9'70.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822 www. studiobarchitects.net CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that J. ANTHON-Y CLANCY AND M. DEBORAH CLANCY are the owner's in fee simple of the following described property: CONDOMINIUM UNIT 202, CRESCENT BUILDING, OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS: according to the Condominium Exemption Map of the Obermeyer Place Condominiums recorded July 26,2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 57 as Reception No. 526898 and First Supplemental Condominium Exemption Map recorded September 19, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 20 as Reception No. 528770 and Second Supplemental Condominium Exemption Map recorded January 16, 2008 in Plat Book 86 at Page 44 as Reception No. 545903 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the Obermeyer Place Condominiums recorded July 26,2006 as Reception No. 526895 and First Amendment recorded September 19,2006 as Reception No. 528769 and Second Amendment recorded January 16,2008 as Reception No. 545904 and Third Amendment recorded October 6. 2010 as Reception No. 574121. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Encumbrances: NONE This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: Â»Â«74Â»44 V authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: March 30, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. Job No. ACCOM2581 - STUDIO B architects 9 January, 2013 City of Aspen 130 Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Written Description: Clancy Unit 202, Founders Place at Obermeyer Complex The Owners originally requested 2 items from the original submittal dated 4 April, 2012. The first was a continuation/connection of the existing slated wood fence that separates the Obermeyer Complex from the City of Aspen Parking Department's open gravel parking area to provide privacy and the second was the installation of a 30" tall slated horizontal wood railing at their exterior terrace wall to buffer additional privacy from that parking area and the public walkway from Main Street to the Obermeyer Complex which the Clancy Unit terrace directly faces. (See attached photos). Both were approved at the P+Z hearing and the resolution was given to Studio B which was then passed along to the general contractor for construction. It was later learned, that a constructed portion of the exterior terrace railing was not approved as it exceeded vertical height limits from the walking area below in Obermeyer. This work was not performed intentionally to be out of compliance but was discovered to be an 'unintentiona/ mistake' as the approved resolution sent to the architects and contractor was delivered in 'Black+White" and not in Color. The color version does show where the exact lengths of railing were approved. There is some discrepancy on what lengths of the built railing exist which shall be clarified thru the presentation. The Clients ask that the City and the P+Z consider allowing these 2 lengths of railing to remain as they offer privacy to this exposed terrace, there have been no inquiries or complaints from the Obermeyer community or governing board and that is was a genuine mistake. Sincerely, AA ---41Ahe Scott Lindenau Studio B Architects Owners Representative rio grande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822 www.studiobarchite cts.net Resolution Exhibit A 109 \ 3- / r -mt * ,/1- 4) , // . 1 *-1 -- / 1 4\ 1 -- '' 1 1 Existing Patio / , 1 <r J // , 1 Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen Red = Denied length of privacy screen ~~l,v, . fi.A- ht AL*t ~ Resolution Exhibit A Ati:.1 4 < \ ./th 1 1 2-428..A 3, 1 - 7 1 4 \ .... // 7% / \ Existing Patio / i . \ . 11 .. . i Yellow = Approved length of privacy screen Red = Denied length of privacy screen d.t :'' laL it, k .. :4 ,c- 'r,8 74: R -I- 0 I 1*r r ts . * I T INÂ· 5. 4. --, 21 - 4 1.i. . 4: PT . t 2-,; 392. g. . j.i,?â‚¬-t..... 3~* 5 4 *,%7, -r,+14.11 ~9 .1. $244*ti.//,. %%4 . i: ?.f {' . 4,/.Tr Y 1/ 41, Ae, r2~, .,4| ~i, '(+t "~449, 4 4,1i-LILL.-E .. 4 .9 ---.. 65,4 1.Â¢,Â§:3,31 ..TWAA#<*93; . . 6. .1 . . . 4 : - , M. . i . -.3Â«,) 3 -1 Â·L .u-~ '? 4 Â·a , ~ j, I , Mtâ€¢+ ' 2~ â€¢-9- a-ib'H*f;.,~~~~~:~ Â· )' I . a.*5 .9 4,7 h Â¥ - A-'Â· 1# 7 .AL, i .. -Â·-.9% .04*46*â€¢â‚¬2.;A.'Â·' . 1...... r '24'%"6- I''tÂ· 7.~2~14 'Â·7'Â·Â·h: t '. /1, - Â· ./4 .4.14 . 4 Â· ,~ â€¢Â· ...... . -IN .J, I . . Â·./Â·_' "Ke L . 4 4 1 Â¥1 ./ - ./0 r , I '- ..ht I . - Wh ./. **-1: 41'W. .i -91 P , f.- .mi/ r.Â». I ' ... r m * - .+ f !-4. 1. ""i k. ... *4 1!1 = 2 k 'OF- 4:1 t*r? ' T i 1-1.. 4 --- , 4 L- .: :- ..19 ' 1 *A#71%- ' ......=j. Wibl- - 6-ia I h 4. - 0 -. 4 e. . - E- .... I - I .. .1 , ..2 re. 9 . . I Ii= im- --~.r~r : . 5 ' -Ii,11 26 -...Au1 - ..41/.-I'Ji,r .art a .ivt,91(w & r -- r Swl . Â· Â·4.,.4.<54 '- s 1, ..' .. .*4 1 . 9,?4!'*l>1 fet >Â¥ft.J.'~9 2,7 ~Â«44 .Â»-4 r, 3...=.r.& L. 24 . . 7~ I ... - - 44*14'h*" %,41 - ~110. D,J k ..44 4%-tâ‚¬ W.le.' :f, . f . 9 . I 4. FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM EXEMPTION MAP OF: . 7 th 1 nit I OApT-n/VA ITATTT 7-1 1-6-1 .) n. J , 1- iÂ« V : 1 9 1_0) 10 1 L 1Â¥1 13 1 Lj 1 L i. A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE Gth P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 1 0 cok'/FRCIA. CUAL'KIEQ REWDENCT ANC FIE MARKFT <UNT CONDâ„¢IMUV [25!GNATONS CHART -hau\\ Th'S CH/Rl Sâ‚¬TE THE COUVERCLAL UNITS MAPPED IN T}RS /RST SUPPLEMENTAL MAP *16 CHAR 7 ACLUDES THE ' \/ CORRESPONDIN'G STREET ADDRESS ANC ALLe*ED USE FOR EACH CONVERCIAL UNG FOR ILUSTFUTNE PURPOSES, THE ' \? OUAJEED RESâ‚¬ENCE AND FREE MARKET CONICA' 4'2 UNTS AS FOV,74 ANC DEDICATED ON â„¢E UAP RECORDED UNDER i RECEPret te SZâ‚¬828 ARE 1,410Â£0 hEREd,â€¢ rHESE PREY.OUSLY NAPPED QUALIAED RES'ENCE ANS FREE WARKET Â« 1 1 ---I .. CONDOMINIUM UNA ARE AS FOLLOWSÂ· 1 Â«11Â«\3 . Buldir.g NIc- Â·arÂ·.r. T,te AE.rIIs .5 lecept// 0-cr"nce No 18 A.Der - r 2-.scer: 6.:10195 -c' CC. i Â· FourceÂ·. p cce #Â·c 3.3 , ' supv'err,e - strvce/Corr.rerÂ©,c t...sul. P Â·ci co. : Fcc-ce:~ P ga ,143+ N s - Â£*pierrlrl Nentortrnin~ Office 1 ' 2 CO" ~ Â· Founders P.oce #103 185 ..7 9/:pÂ·â‚¬meri 'gric/rforrr}ng Office ~ Cd Co~ "1 FeÂ·.rcers Ecce #'04 683 s.i ScPFâ‚¬mert NeIghcc/ocd commirc.a ~ 105 COW Â·,0- Fcur.ce $ Acce 4305 458 5.1 Suppkment Serâ€¢,ce./â€¢Comn-,ercidbnousiricl , : - Coh' 1/ hounder= Ploce #108 577 0 Supp'ement Senrce/CommercifÂ£0ndistrl/ ~ 1 PARKSIPE *ltPINEÂ»k. 105 Ce. 10; Founders Place ~105 99 3,1. Suppernâ‚¬nt Noncs/forming Cfice ~ 107 COW 101 Founders Plcce #107 â‚¬73 5.1 Supplement grice/CÂ©rnm.,cid/ndustria. 1 (501 Rio G,unde J:Tace,1 --~-- f fÂ· -/ L F=:- 1-42-unit cr.c Commc~ Ekment Dctcils See 9-,eet 21 & 22 ~-23 Â· I- ./ CCM 10- Founcers Pjace #109 7336 1 1 Suppliment Ser,i<2e/00,nrre,cicl/]ndistrid 4 R 101 Founders PKâ‚¬ 0201 REC 7526298 -: ~L_FEZZIZE-"--~ ~02 m 101 Fourcer= Picce Â¢200 REC #5202 1 ZE. I 1 01 Focnders F ove #30. REC #526598 ~- N i ' 0..Mook Bund,nâ‚¬ 100 CO}, 102 Founders Pae /100 942 5 1 5-*Â»mer:t Service/Ccmrnerci/9,4/ustrid L 101 CR -02 Frunders Ploce #101 REC #526898 OR 102 Fanders Piece #102 REC #526298 Â£ '4*474*Â« 201 0 102 Fcinders Fic~ 0201 RIC #5268398 \ 11 el N A X 202 OR 102 Fcundâ‚¬rs Picc, #202 REC /06858 1, ... :CJ OR 102 Founcers Piece 1203 REC #526298 / \ 204 OFF 102 Founders Piece 7204 REC #526898 : i L.1 - 1 205 QR 102 Fcwnders Piece #205 REC #526898 302 OR 102 F.Unders Froce #302 REC #526892 $ F# 102 FÂ©uncers Ficce #301 REC #526898 J 3C3 OR 102 FÂ©unders Piece /303 REC #526898 1 Spring street Ewi'ding 101 Fh! 10: K. Spring 51 #-Cl REC #526898 L. 102 Fy, 101 N Spring St. #102 REC #526598 . 103 Fy 101 N. Spring St. #103 REC #526898 104 OR 101 N. Spring St. 0104 REC #525898 1 f 105 OR 101 N. Spring St. IF: 05 REC #526898 1 1 4/ 106 QR 101 N. Spring St #106 REC #526898 1 . J 107 QR 101 N. Spnog St. 0107 REC #526898 Â«/ 1 1% 108 OR 101 N Spring St. #108 REC #526898 109 QR 101 N. Spring St. #109 REC #526898 -1 201 R 1.01 N Spring St. 02{n REC #526898 202 N 101 N. Spring st. f202 REC #526898 203 OR 101 N. Spring St. #203 REC #526898 52 204 QR 101 N Spring St #204 REC #526398 205 QR 101 N. Spring St- #205 REC 1Â¥826898 301 F-6' 101 N. Spring St. #301 REC /526898 302 F. 101 N Â»Mng St. #302 REC #526898 303 R, 101 N Spring St. #303 REC #526895 304 F-1, 101 N Spring St. #304 REC #526898 46." Lohs 6.1 J.-1: 101 24 t:X; Ober-Teye~ F-oce Dr #101 EEC #525830 - 4 - 1-,02 OR 100 Obermeyer Pioce Dr. #102 RIC #S26898 P 103 OR 100 Obermeyer Place Dr. #103 REI #526898 6:2.A~DEL..,u x- 104 QR 100 Oberrneyer Ploce Dr #104 REC #526898 2 107 COM 100 Oberme>er Place Dr #107 969 9.1. Supplement Neighbolood commercial Â«LÂ«-LEÂ«11134 1 106 CON 1(0 Obermeyef Plcce Dr. #106 411 2.f. tupplement Seric /CommercicIAndustrial 105 COM 100 Oberme~r Pioce Dr. #105 2â€ž343 s.f. Supplemint Nonconforming Fitness aul ' 1 Pcrkside Building 101 n. 501 8,0 G-ande Pioce # 101 REC *26898 7 102 501 Rio Grande Ficce # 102 REC #526898 1 b 104 COM 501 Rio Grolde Place # 104 2.224 s f. Supplernent Service/Commercial/Industrial ]: - DEN--iLTTS-DU[~-Arkij- \\ 103 FM 501 Rio Grande Place / 103 REC #526898 / j :k~_ ~020 05.,mt,yer Place D.ill --00'0~' 105 COM Sel Rie Gronde Ficce # 105 1.226 9.L Suppliment Service/CommerciiI/Industrkil r- 106 COM 50; Rio G..de Piace + 106 829 s.f. Supplement Seâ„¢ice/CommerciÂ®Andust,1.1 h CDM 501 Rio Grande Ploce # 107 1,977 8 f. Suppleme.t Nonconforming Office L 400 Â«f Â· 1 -~Th See Sheet 19 of 23 ~~ 1~. toe COM Sol Rio Gfande Pioce # 108 381 sT. Supplenent Neighborhood commercial r 201 Al 501 Rm Grande Picce # 201 RE #526895 202 FU 501 Rio Graide Piace # 202 REC F526898 109 COM 501 Rio Graide Place # 109 784 s.f. Supplernent Neighborhood commercio! < 203 R 501 Rjo Grunde Ploce Â¢ 203 REC f525898 204 FM! 501 Rio Gronde Phoce # 204 REI #526898 f 205 1 301 Rip Gr[Inds Place # 205 REC #526598 v ' 4.4 /\.\ 1 205 N 501 Rio Gronde P,oce # 206 REC #526893 j Pa=*19 30Â·03. lot COM 60 Rip Grorde Pjece 901 3.554 s.f. Supple~en. S:-R//limerci/Anbstial 2 -/ r-j,Ty 102 COM 60 Rio Grcide Pia= 902 707 . Supplemer, I SMÂ¥ice/Com-norcial/Incbstrol 1 GRAPHIC SCALE \ b c $0 20 40 . DRES>EN F CULPit '- 105 COM ID Rio Gronde Place 405 642 St/plemen Str~ce/(Drn.nerci/Andiati $ 1 r==9= Im' 1 , 103 COM 60Â· Rio C/a, de Ploci 103 953 1 Supplemen. Snice/Commered/Md,strial i 1% COM 50 Rio Groide lice 104 1,396 .. Supplemen S,/ce/Ccrnmercio(Andastral 1 {or unit & Commor Els-Tent ill. il: M" 0" :1 J-3 . /11 4 ' (101 Founders Flace) / 105 COM 60 Rio Grande Place 105 345 . Suppmemen Se,vio:e/Commercia|,Andz// ~ 107 COM 57 Ri) Grande Ploce 107 308 .. Sjpplemen . Snce/Corrgne~cial,Andustrial 1/5 COM 60 Rio Grinde Piece 108 554 . 9/lemon Scr~=e/Commercial/hdastlel 1 C m FEEr ) Detoirs See Sheet 11 00 23 . COM 50 Ric Gronde PIJ/0 110 2.240 . Sulpplemen Sen'ice/Com-nercicl~,d/stric,1 ; 79 COM 60 Rn G-onde Place 309 644 . SJ>*!eme, S:nice/Cornmerci*Ind.litrbl ~ 1 =ch = 21 1 111 COM 8 Rio G oide Place 111 575 . 5/plmer. Sm-Ice/Commercial/Ind/stri= ~ lue VNES , i 1 D â€¢12 COM 50 Rio G-I.ce Pioss 112 427 - 5,pelem.47: Ser;=./Com-neâ€¢ciai/lidistâ€¢.5 & 1 ) ALL AREAS OUTS'/ THE 'OPÂ¢DUAL AR PACE CONOOIN/4 UNITE ARE JEYER,L COM4O,4 ELEMEN?E (GI) OF THE / 1 1- 113 2 60 Rio G-0-,de "ze Â·113 1.433 .. Sipilenen Ser/ve/Commercio}Andailiol j CeFRVF-YER Pt ACE' CONDOMINJrili,IQ UNLESS OENTFIED AS A LIMTED COMMON ELE,ENT 0-CE) RESERVED FOR USE BY xEER \ 0 ' ~~~~ - 114 COM 60 Rio Grande Piece - lt4 42 .. Supplemen Ser/M/CH.merci/#tÂ·.d/stl/ $ r 1 4 115 COM 50 Ric G-onde Place '115 285 . Sippleme. Scr~/1/CommercioIN.dJ.t-b! 5 L--1 THAN ALL THE OWNERS OF THE NO VIDUAL AN? SPACE UNITS. 1 -A .-I 116 COM 60 R[o G-ande Place 115 Sipplemen . S*le/Commercia013-15- : \ 117 COM 60 83 Grondi Piece 117 2) DECLARANT RESERVES THE R.IMT TO DEVELOP THSS AREA Â·*NH A MC)NUMENT. STATUE OR SCULPTURE IN ACCORIANDE - .B Ccy 60 Rio Grende P,3,2 118 M TH DE DECLARATON 119 COM 60 Rio G=nde Plice 119 '-* i{ 9223333- NEEZE:EE?3~.I~~393~.,~~ t U --Â·- -Â·---- INDICATES THE ANTIC,PATED CONDOMNIUM L.WIT BOUNDARIES *NEN FULLY CONSTRUCTED. -0 \ 1 ~ - '~~ 120 306 80 Re G'o.de Ploce 120 587 - . Supp.emei Series/Commetic!/Ind/strio! - TME EVEN' 9â‚¬ AS-1 LT LDCAIONS OF 'HE COWDOW'N UW UNIT SOL/NDARIES ARE NOT CONS STENT // 1â‚¬ AIDS.PATED :1 121 COM 6) Ric Gronde Ploce 121 834 - . SUpplernen Sete/Corn,nercia'.AIL#/ COND/MiNIUM UNT BOUNDARIES DED,CTED 4EION, DECLANANT IESERES THE ES/T TO SUP?vEY AND WAE> r.â‚¬ Ch/ 122 COM 60 Rio Gronde Pioce 122 Suppiemel ....ce/Co=.mer../.0/stril AS-BUIL" BOUNDARIES AND RECORD A .ORRECTION TO 7415 1/ AP ni ACCORDANCE 14;74 1â‚¬ DECLARAION. \ 4 31 32 23 61 9:C Gronae 3 008 1-0 00' 350 SVI'leme- 50 Ric GÂ·o-de Dice 02 002 538 5 59/*emr W 1 L /21 /33 27 63 Ric S=,ae P:cce 97 003 517 . 5upplemen 4.) Ali NON-CONFORMING USES ARE SUB, ECT TO ThE COND,TIONS SET FORTH W THE CTY OF A.SPEN ORDNANCE 18, SERES OF 2003. AS AMENDED P.U 004 COM 60 Rio Gronde Ploce -5'CU 004 5[yl ., SupplerneA P/u 005 COM 60 Rio Gronde Ploce 2/11 005 425 Suppjemen = ~4=4-3- L__ Â·-61 . ~ PCU 006 COM 60 Rio Grande Place =CJ 006 151 Â· Suppiemen DZ -7 22.â€¢ 52 9 = 9-2-.ce C :ze Pr 227 42- .i 5-;pe-e- 440) I L J ZEd_~tf~ ~0808 c 60Â· RI Grande P ace -PCU 008 353 .f. Supplemen , pcu o,c COM 50 Rio Gronde Place PCU 010 352 f Suppiemen PCU 009 COM 60 Rig G+Inde Place 23 009 323 1 Supplemen PCl 011 CON 60 Rio G-onde Ploce P=U 011 260 f Suppiemen Pell 013 COM 50 Ric Grande Place Pal 013 213 f Suppiemrn PCU 012 COM 60 Rio Groide Place PCL 012 395 .f. Supplemen 1 2 1 V - ./ 014 COM 60Â· Rio Gronde Place eCU 014 475 .f. Sopplamen - PCl 015 COM 60 Rio Grande Piece /CU 015 323 f. Supplemen 1 \ 441 OVERLOOK DU!LPINS lau 017 COM 60 Rio Grcnde Ploce PCl 017 385 1. Soppernen PCU 016 CON 60 Rio G-onde loce /09 016 425 .f. S/pplernen (102 Founders Flm) POU 018 COM 60 Rio Grande Piece /CU 018 325 + f Suppierne, r 612'DeNS TABLE cor Unit & Cornmon De nent Detch See Sheet Â·3 of 23 - ~ r - jr . PCU 019 COM 60 Ri Gronde Piece FCU 019 360 a.f Supplemen : PCU 020 COM 60 Rio Grcndle Ploce /CU 020 478 s.f 5.Ipplemer F PCU 021 CoM 67 Rio Gronds Ploce Â¥90 021 195 5 f. Supplemen 6 ICE - GENERAL COMMON ELEVEN r 9%. h L.CE - LIAInED CONMov ELEWENT Â«. 9FRINS STREET- PULPINE; "-' ' -- '", 528770 i. COM - CO#.0/EROAL CONDOM.N!W UNT SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC Xy {lon N Spring Street) .age 5 If 2 3 -Â·.SE < :05 :ill:L. I:-<:Â·. 0:.Â·.-' SO R 231.00 0 0.00 +~ 09/19'lies .3 1/ FV - FREE MARKET CONOOWINIUM UNIT 1 . For Unit and Common Element De:ous CIVIL CONSULTANTS See Sheets 15.16 & 17 of 23 QR - QUALIFIED RESIDENCE CONDOU'NUM UN{T 02~22 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE AS - - - -- - - SHEET 5 OF 23 ; NOTKI ACCORDING I COLORADO LAW YOU hlu5T COMMENCE ANY LEGAL CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 i f ACIION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN IHS SURVEY mâ„¢4 1}Â·REE YELAR5 Plaza Level, Common Elements Detail r AFIER YOU FRST DISCOÂ·YER SUCH DEFECT IN NO 887 WAY "Y ACTIJr{ BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN 7HS SuiniEY BE CCÂ»Â·WENCED IORE 1HAN TEN (970) 704-0311 2/009.06 09/13/05 cr,end .2371/ 06.DI i Â¥~09 FPru IM nATF r,- rr*Â¥,FrAnCIN 9,40,4 xr/Fr,4 *'--ITT':1'.5-7.2237.i,19 =FEX,#S il 06.1 new 30" tall privacy 1-lrn:OWN 1 screen at patio - zWl perimeter Hot 07 r AkAAkkk//kkIkA 0 -13 r x \ \ re- 0830 , IiI 1 ~ Ea. \ Ea. 1 d) 01 -7 1 \ T 98 :_ _ I _73_ r: --- 69Â· 4 --- -- 1- 0. \ -- i 1 2 '221 I -- -- - 1 ---- , 1 1,\7 ! 1 --; I A \/ Â£-1.. I / _ M --p.r -.C t / 14 / /1 \ e.\ 1 - 1-r, < , l /V , /A I . 2 -- \ 1 / \ /\ I -1 9/4 92 1 1 I \ if> ./ // , 1 /1 - lili 1 / 1 , , I \ , 1 1 1 / 0 '0 ~ /~ existing , condo wall Existing Patio , , / -#--/ 4 .... _2\ 1 /\ . - ======A 2 Di \ -- -1 - \ / ~ Â£ rig \ =ll , 1 0,0 / a.- / 44 \> 10.. 2 \ / 5 / 8 â€¢Â·* \ 0. 1 4 1 / ........... \ / / C \ ......9 I...# 11 7 4, F . 0.0 \ l \ 41\:i // \\ \\ / 0 \ \ terminate new 4 + fence at existing ~ 06' " ~ ,_ , 0 1 concrete wall /1, i \ \ , .../ . / ./ 00 i \0 0 1 -4 \ ; . 7- 94 , 4,1 / / / ++ new wood fence to \ f . r# / 44 1 match existing J * Al.y 0 1/7 (39 , ' J N r. / \111 . 04 ) h / 1 te //5 \ I , in \.J tic\Â·x , Herminate/-connectl â„¢ 4 I 0 -L' 453 Â· -2 new fence to 1 - \ - r -4 - C : 0 ED gj . / \ Â¢ existing fence \ \ 1,1 \ I / , 75) clancy _ obermeyer place privacy fence + screen 11.28.2011 STUDIO~ architects CANOPY DEN na actvogaN,1 EC fib f /0 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes Mav 15,2012 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 101 Founders Place (Obermever Place) PUD Amendment 2 480 Doolittle Dr (Waterplace Affordable Housing) - SPA Amendment 4 1 Regular City Planning & Zonine Meeting - Minutes May 15, 2012 Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting o f the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre Cliff Weiss, Keith Goode and Stan Gibbs. Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Assets; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jasmine Tygre said she had a processing question on PUD Amendments. Jasmine said that it used to be when you had a PUD or SPA Amendment that there was a process that you had to support the amendment like changed circumstances and there is no mention of Section 26.440.080 in the code. Jennifer Phelan said there was 070 to 090 and wondered what was going on. Cliff Weiss asked what happened to the request for appreciation for the boards by providing an ARC Membership. Jennifer Phelan said that she would talk to Chris tomorrow. Keith Goode said that the City was waiting on a certificate of occupancy for the Motherlode. Jennifer responded that it will be issued soon. Jennifer said that she would do a long range update once, monthly at the beginning o f the month. Jenni fer said that they will be booked with current land use cases up to the 2nd week in August. Jennifer introduced Sara Nadolny as the Planner Technician and it presenting 2 cases. Minutes MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of May ls' as amended on page 6; seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated Public Hearing: 101 Founders Place (Obermever Place) PUD Amendment 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes Mav 15, 2012 Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 101 Founders Place. Sara Nadolny stated that Scott Lindenau was represented by Studio B Architects; the owners o f this property were Anthony and Deborah Clancy. Sara said the issue at 101 Founders Place Unit 202, the Crescent Building, was a privacy screen; these were both PUD and SPA as they deal with architectural elements and character. The applicant wanted to enhance the residential space; the ~ west side ofthis space overlooks the City of Aspen impoundment lot. The privacy screen would sit onto o f the wall cap surrounding the entire patio on the second story unit. Second is to continue an existing fence that sits along the property line between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Enforcement Lot. Sara said the privacy screen was 3 feet 4 inches on the West side and sits atop the concrete wall cap and 12 foot 7 inches on the East side ofthe Unit. The screen will be constructed of wooden slats and metal and proposed at 44 feet 9 inches in total length. Sara said the fence proposal was to continue the fence that already exists on already a small portion ofthe northern side of the property line between Obermeyer and Aspen and figure G gives you an idea of what the fence already looks like. The fence proposal extension will extend 76 feet to follow the walkway shown on figure H. Staff is recommending conditional approval of this application. Jasmine said the upstairs neighbor did not object to the fence but requested a gate in the fence; is there a gate planned for this fence. Jennifer replied that walkway was a limited common area to the Crescent Building so when the applicant submits a building permit they will need to obtain approval from all the unit owners. Cliff asked i f this fence or screen would have any visual affect on any other unit in Obermeyer. Sara replied they are both on the property line and unit 202 is the only unit that would see it on the West end and the West side of Unit 202's patio faces onto the parking lot. Scott Lindenau distributed photos similar to the ones in the packet (Exhibit D); his client' s unit was pretty much in the parking lot and photos were all different. Jennifer stated that Bill Murphy's letter would be (Exhibit C). No public comments. 3 ' Regular City Plannine & Zoning Meeting - Minutes May 15,2012 MOTION: Jasmine Tygre move to approve Resolution #10, series of 2012 approving an amendment to Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA with the conditions and the correct diagram; seconded Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Keith Goodd, yes ; Clijf Weiss, yes ; Jasmine Tygre, yes ; Stan Gibbs, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 4-0. Public Hearing: 480 Doolittle Drive (Waterplace Affordable Housing) SPA Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Sara Nadolny said representing the owner o f the property, the City o f Aspen, is Jeff Pendarvis, City Assets Department. Sara said the building was part ofthe essential public facility to be converted into an affordable housing unit. Sara said todo this conversion staff is requesting the Planning & Zoning Commission an SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Variances. Sara said the SPA is a site specific approval and this application would be approved administratively due to the change in use of the originally approved site plan; tonight staff is seeking approval o f the SPA Amendment to assure compliance with APCHA Standards. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing emergency response facility to a deed restricted single family unit; this building was currently vacant. The building is located on the edge ofthe Water Treatment Affordable Housing with the front of the building perpendicular to the street and 580 square feet of net livable space. They are proposing a covered 70 square foot covered entry and an 11 by 22 foot carport and a 44 square foot storage closet. Sara said the 2 Residential Design Variances were the building does not face the street and the street orientated entrance and principal window will not face the street. The City is proposing a Category 3 or 4 however in APCHA standards read Category 3 or 4 would be 700 square feet. APCHA allows a 20% reduction<for a studio unit at Category 4 or lower. Cliff Weiss asked where the parking was located. Sara replied that parking is located directly to the east of the unit on All. Jeff Pendarvis said the whole area is paved. Cliff said no more asphalt is going to be laid for this. Jeff replied no. Jeff Pendarvis introduced himsel f; his understanding was that it was built back in the late 1990s with this in mind, to be converted to affordable housing. Jeff said the conversion of the City's water process occurred in 2010 and no longer needed 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes May 15.2012 the facility and has been transferred to the 505 Employee Housing Fund, owned by the City and have first responders as owners. jeff said they will call it a studio but will live like a 1 bedroom. Stan said that Section 2 of the resolution should say recorded not recoded. Debbie Quinn -said the deed restriction for Water Place and not as a Category. Jenni fer said Section 8 got cut off and needs to say calculated by Community Development using this calculated fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant submits a building permit. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution 11, series 2012 as amended for Waterplace Housing; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. All infavor, APPROVED 4-0. Adjourned at ;:4j pm. ID #~ful. #ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 1 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, May 15, 2012 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. 101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place)- PUD Amendment B. 480 Doolittle Drive (Waterplace Affordable Housing) - SPA Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 10 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, May 15, 2012 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. 101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place)- PUD Amendment B. 480 Doolittle Drive (Waterplace Affordable Housing) - SPA Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 10 YA P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202, PUD and SPA Amendment MEETING DATE: May 15,2012 APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff M. Deborah Clancy, Obermeyer Place HOA recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the PUD/SPA amendment. REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval to amend the PUD LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 Founders and SPA to permit a privacy screen around the Place, Unit #202 second floor balcony of condominium unit #202. =2ii ' U.4.. Applicant further requests approval to continue the existing fence along the western portion of the - property, to more fully privatize the limited common element walkway between the Obermeyer Place 0 - 7 / .i SPA/PUD and the adjacent City of Aspen Parking .. Department's impound lot. u, ' ,Â«2 0 , i Figure A: Unit #202, ~)~TÂ» C -2~ 1,1 k. Â· . ..2 - lix ,=~ west side: proposed --4Â· 0--t H-tz:~ 11/16- privacy screen . 14-119.1.q=~R location .-4 ~L... - 11= r - CURRENT ZONING & USE: Service Commercial Industrial (SCD Zone District with Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Specially 9/"-I i Planned Area (SPA) overlays, residential use. PROPOSED LAND USE: The owners of Unit West ~ ~ ~ 4*â‚¬ Â·153 4- 33"E*01 side of #202 request approval to construct a privacy mi, Â· - â€¢,Lf. Â·Me -ti,ffig faces an adjacent parking lot, and to continue the ~ contm~~ion of screen on the 2nd floor unit's private balcony that 1/.ilie,~. length of fencing that currently exists along the --- --219#-Wms/:::0%1 ---5/DIN/*&~1#61 common western edge ofthe properly on the limited --~ element fence common element walkway for the Crescent . Building. P2 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals: â€¢ Amendment of PUD development order (Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. â€¢ Amendment of SPA development order (Subsection 26.440.090, Amendment to development order) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence. The Planning Zoning Commission is the final review authority. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part o f the Obermeyer Place COWOP Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction of a mixed use project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicants request approval to construct a wooden slatted privacy screen to surround the second f[oor balcony of condominium unit #202. The privacy screen is proposed to sit atop the existing concrete wall cap, which measures approximately 3'4" in height from finished grade on the west side, and approximately 12' 7" in height from finished grade on the east side. The privacy screen would provide an additional 30" to these wall measurements, bringing the west side to approximately 5'9" in height and the east side to approximately 15'2" ill height, as measured from finished grade, and to a total length of 44'9". The applicant further requests approval to construct a wooden fence on the western edge of the property between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Department lot, on the Crescent Building' s limited common element walkway, which will complete an existing fence. The existing wooden fence measures 4'10" iii height. The proposed fence will match the existing fence in height, color, and material, and continue for approximately 75'6" towards the southern edge o f the Obermeyer Place property. The completion of this fence will serve to privatize the walkway and screen adj acent the parking lot. The project is before the Planning and Zoning Commission because Staff found the proposed privacy screen to be inconsistent with the representations of the project' s original approval, and therefore does not qualify as an administrative insubstantial PUD amendment. P3 STAFF COMMENTS: PUD and SPA Reviews The privacy screen addition to Unit #202 and the limited common element felice are proposed within Obermeyer Place, which is subject to the site specific development plan approval by the SPA/PUD. Any changes to the land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final development plan. Both the PUD and SPA review criterion discuss the compatibility of changes in light of architectural character, and is concerned with compatibility and/or enhancement of visual character and its relationship to its surroundings. Staff finds the proposed privacy screen to be compatible in materiality and color with the existing architecture of the Obermeyer SPA/PUD. Furthermore, the proposed screen will not change the land use, density, bulk, landscaping, or open space. It will add height to the existing deck of Unit #202, which will be minimal in nature and serve to create an element of privacy from the adjacent parking lot. The fence continuation is proposed to be maintained at the same height as that of the existing fence (4' 10"), and will match the existing fence in color and materials. It will serve to privatize the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway between Obermeyer Place and the adj acent parking lot property for users. Staff finds the proposed fence to be compatible with the existing SPA and PUD. Given the minor architectural changes that are proposed to occur with this application and the compatibility with the existing architecture found within the Obermeyer SPA and PUD, Staff finds the review criterion to be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the fence extension, and finds the design to be compatible with the existing land use, and the materials and design to be consistent with the existing architectural character of Obermeyer Place. The fence will serve as an extension of the existing general common element for Obermeyer Place and will further privatize the walkway between this property and the adjacent parking lot. Staff recommends approval of the privacy screen at Unit #2025 to the extent that it be allowed on the west side of the unit. The unit' s west side directly faces the City of Aspen' s Parking Enforcement lot at grade, and therefore the applicants are currently unable to enjoy use o f their patio with some sense of privacy that one may expect at a private residential unit. The screen, as proposed, would afford the applicants a degree of privacy. Furthermore, it is found to be compatible with the visual character of Obermeyer Place, and would not add significant height to the wall. However, Staff recommends denial of the extension of the privacy screen to the south and east o f the unit. Unit #202 is raised at a second story level on its southern and eastern sides, P4 and there fore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side. A degree of privacy is further afforded by the tree that is growing on the unit's southern end. 754Â¥4 ouas_ \ 1- *k bal f \ 1 1 -4 32Â£ r 1 Â» \ 1 ,/ A 96'5 - ng . Existing Patio 4/ 'Â·*3= UP o wall 44 .2 ru )3 ..:< 24~* Â»/ 9.2. . Gr \ - C,. t....,.. er+YÂ·/ Figure C: Proposed privacy screen, plan view. Yellow, Staff approved. Red, Staff denied. 2=3=3~~ . r - - - 1 6077'<11/ ~2*124'aray'FAMP . 9 -- -- upâ€¢. 1. 6=.240 4 -71 ' LV#A---1 i r.\1 14 - 42"N-'.-1 7 Â·--'443,- . Â· Figure D: Unit #202, west side of property; staff proposed limits of the privacy screen P5 4 I I p' 14 4 .2.4 49. 11{ *4:*Z=i-Â¥11,2.1 2Â·~ 1-t .al 1.1,Â¥ f..'pi . 4 + I /' 841 - ,~-,3k n -*- ~q.,~t. ' 3 2 -1 1 Â·s .4=Ziâ€¢Â£,1/3/.-= 1*<-- -yÂ·'7"~'~-.~~ ~30~ I"I- 62866 1 82*Â· â€¢ .. , . 9,â€¢...002elâ€ž~ r ist â€¢. 1 ... lit- 1 5/2/t -9.f -jail b---:Â· ~ 12 Â· ~0 - :.7..=E -..-............. -.7- Â·Â·Â· f - 3922-- 1/W= I- t /'llit 5&/9 -2- --- m.lil c - Figure E: Unit#202, southwestern view 24: - Figure F: Unit #202, southeastern view ~ A.~~ ~- .- \ * 0 . 2; ~ 4-2~*ubTA; RESA = 4 AspEli J - - . 14Â» 9 a.: ~13 - /1//4# -d86-BE-BIM.Immi/Em= 4, 11-2 'Lb.,/114' 1!1'lilli 4~ 1 14_.. ,~ i , 7' & .Uti--~.~I 10 1 - 4 . ricw: . 1 /&/a*FinimÂ£ 1 1 " , i t: lytili-# . /1 1 , 11:1Â· 'Ar"ZEF F#,-1 **S=-%miv ..2 - 1 0 1 i IN 4 '29 29-- 1*7 â‚¬- . f L .1. j= - =0=1 Erk... 8' t. Figure G: Existing fence, west side ~ Figure H: Proposed fence extension of Obermeyer Place property P6 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012, approving an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA as proposed, with conditions. Attachments: EXHIBIT A - SPA and PUD Amendment Review Criteria EXHIBIT B - Application P7 RESOLUTION No. (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT AND SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, AKA OBERMEYER PLACE, UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND ON A LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009 WIIEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone district with PUD and SPA Overlay; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69, Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the PUD and SPA Amendment; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; 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; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; 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. 1 P8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit #202, aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit #202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2: The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a fence along the western portion of the Obermeyer Place property, on a limited common element walkway, as depicted in Exhibit B of this Resolution. Section 3: 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 4: 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 5: 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 15th day of May, 2012. LJ Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: 2 P9 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Privacy screen plans Exhibit B: Fence plans on limited common element 3 Plo Resolution Exhibit A i OR C 1 35*33 /3 , -5 , -1 / 2 597 t. . -1 A \ i 0 . /9, , f .--9, 1Â» 4 \ \ \ -1 1 4% N/44 6 + / ng ./ / 0 o wall N i Existing Patio +/ 0 6 tÂ·: 06 A J N. 1 1 rl. 1% f 1 4/ 400 /2 ./.--- -./.-* I. . \ - 11 11. -1 //\ 1 4 ./ 0. 413 1 9 1 4.1 Ki 4/ 47Â» 6%12 1.9/ 64 i ...111.--\ , ..-'.' , ., . I Yellow = Staff recommended length of approval of privacy screen Red = Staff recommended denial of length of privacy screen P11 Resolution Exhibit B Proposed Fence location and Length /\ i / existing ~, ~.. Existing Patio j/ A condo wall 1 . / t-y to/ .3.- 1\ / M. Ntt,t / 6 \ Trraitee.:~li~ \ , -1 \0,/2.V \ \ 16 -AN / \ 1 / 1.3 , A 0 I \\ I. /VI 1 1 + \ L terminate new ) 1* 6 50 I fence at existing 03Â» 1 / \ 0 I concrete wall ~ / 6. Râ€¢- i \ / 1.. 4 ,#1 0. L A Â·',4 (ck'j 4 - ~ new wood fe n~t~ 01' 43 # -1 2 match existing j 1 \ 91 \ 49â‚¬ N \ C A ) 1 â‚¬' .IN \ ttere'inate/ connecti Vt'l + \ - -Â£nar fence to 1 . 4-9 P12 Exhibit A Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA) A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or en-hances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Response: The building already exists at 480 Doolittle Drive. The proposed use is compatible with the mix of development in the vicinity, in that it is proposed to become an affordable housing unit, and will be within the Water Place Affordable Housing area. The structure's change in use will not alter the existing land use, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, or open space, as relatively little exterior changes will occur to the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Response: The project is presently served by existing roads and public facilities. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Response: The building already exists on this parcel. There will be no changes that will affect the possibility of mudflows, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Response There will be no change in the height and mass ofthe existing building that will cause impacts to significant view planes, have adverse environmental impacts, or change the way the area's open space, trails, and similar amenities are used. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan supports the development of affordable housing. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. P13 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. Sta# Response: The project will not require any expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or surrounding neighborhood. Public facilities such as roads and infrastructure already serve the building. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. Staff Response: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) below the area of development. Staffinds the criterion to be met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Response: There are no limits to the gro-wth of affordable housing within the City ofAspen Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. P14 Exhibit B Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Response: The proposed change in use does comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is included in Appendix E, Department Responses. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable LIousing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§4) Staff Response: The proposed unit is a deed-restricted affordable housing unit, and requires no further mitigation. Stajffinds the criterion to be non-applicable. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No. 14 - 2011, Â§3) Staff Response: The proposed unit is entirely a one story, at grade building, -which requires no dimensional variances. Stajffinds the criterion to be met. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to P15 own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Response: The proposed unit will be deed restricted as a for-sale unit and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Staff finds the criterion to be met. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6 - 20103 Â§4) Staff Response: Stajffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. Pl 6 Exhibit C Change in Use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the change-in-use. 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Response: The proposal is for an affordable housing unit, and no growth management allotments are placed on this type of development. Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: Affordable housing is an important component of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This proposal will add a one-bedroom unit to the housing stock. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: The zoning for this development is Public with a Specially Planned Area overlay, which would require a site specific approval. Sta#Jinds the criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Response: Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§2) P17 Staff Response: This proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit. No employee mitigation is necessary in this event. Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§2) Staff Response: The proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit and not as mitigation for free market residential development. Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: As a one-bedroom unit, the project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. There will be no need for additional roads, fire and police protection utilities, drainage control, solid waste disposal, or parking and road and transit services. Staff finds the criterion to be met, P18 Exhibit D 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Response: The parcel on which the development already exists is aflat site, suitable for this existing development. No stabilization, revegetation, or niitigation of toxic soils is necessary. Staff.Ands the criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runo ff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. Staff Response: The development already exists. The proposed minor changes (carport with storage and covered front entry) are expected to have no adverse affects as they will be constructed on the existing asphalt base, and no new disturbance is expected to occur. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Staff Response: The proposed change in use will have no significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Response: The primary building already exists and is found to be compatible with the parcel's terrain. The proposed minor development (carport with storage and covered front entry) is also compatible with the parcel's terrain, as it will be located on the existing flat asphalt surface. No new roads or trails are proposed for this change in use project. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Response: No grading is proposed with this application. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. P19 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Response: The structure is pre-existing and will undergo minimal development and a change in use. There is no need for additional roads or cutting and grading, and open space and preservation -will not be changed by this proposal. Stajffinds the criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Response: The structure is a single story, and smaller in mass and height than the adjacent two story affordable housing units and storage units. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Response: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service this project. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Response: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, which are property maintained by the City of Aspen. No additional roads or maintenance needs are proposed for this development. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Response: Adequate ingress and egress is currently available for this project for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55-2000, Â§ 7) Stalf Response: This proposal is located adjacent to a neighborhood park, the Waite/Robinson Park, Water Place trail system, and Twin Ridge Open Space. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. P20 Exhibit E Residential Design Standards. 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 Chapter 26.415. 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 adj acent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine i f the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, Â§ 1) Staff Response: This unit is proposed within a pre-existing affordable housing SPA, and the building proposed for the change in use is alsopre-existing. The surrounding pattern of developmentis a horseshoe grouping ofaffordable housing buildings and storage unitsfor these buildings. As this building was formerly used as an emergency response center for the -water treatment plant, it is situated on the southern portion Of the grouping, Due to the fact that this building already exists, there will be limited exterior development necessary to complete the change in use. The applicant is proposing to maintain the exterior materials and massing. The exterior changes that will occur are minor, and include the addition of a carport with storage unit and a covered front entryway. The building as proposedwill meet the Residential Design Guidelines in the Code in all ways but one. As it exists, the building's front fagade is perpendicular to the street. The Code requires the following: â€¢ According to Section 26.410.040 (A) (1.) Building orientation of the Land Use Code, the front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. In this instance, the existing building's front fagade faces south, and Doolittle Drive runs north/south. Therefore thefrontfagade does not face the street. Due to the pre-existing nature of this building, and the applicant's desire to limit the amount of exterior renovation performed on this building, the applicant requests a variance from this section of the Code. P21 â€¢ According to Section 26.410.040 (D) (1.) Street oriented entrance and principal window ofthe Land Use Code, the unit, as a single-family home, should have a street oriented entrance and principal window. Due to the pre-existing nature of the building and applicant's desire to use the building as it exists to the extent possible, the unit will not have a street oriented entrance and principal window. The applicant requests a val'iance from this section of the Code. a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall o f the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Sta#Response: The applicant requests a variance from the requirement of a street-facing entry door. b. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group or windows face street. Staff Response: This project requests a variance from the requirement of a street-facing principal window, and from the requirement that a significant window or group ofwindow face the street. The applicant is requesting#om Planning and Zoning Commission the approval of the above residential design variances that are necessary due to the site specific constraints that are created by the adaptive reuse Of an existing building, causing it to not meet residential design code standards that would be possible if the building were demolished and rebuilt. Stafffinds the criterion to be met for the approval for these residential design variances. IVS P1 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: Water Place Affordable Housing Project, 480 Doolittle Dr - SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential Design Standards Variances MEETING DATE: May 15, 2012 APPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recoiiimends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Pendarvis, City the SPA amendment. Asset Management LOCATION: Water Place Housing, 480 A - 1/9- Doolittle Dr. ..4.**2962 + -Ii:+ '/ ap#Â¢ 31 n%.I / -. ' B .9%4=; 914,1 , 4 <-r.= - 'U CURRENT ZONING & USE: Public SUMMARY: The applicant requests ofthe (PUB) zone district with a Specially Planning and Zoning Commission approval to Planned Area (SPA) over lay. This amend the Aspen Water Place Treatment Plant building is currently vacant; however, it and Affordable Housing SPA to change the use has served as an emergency response of a vacant emergency response facility to an facility for the Water Treatment Plant in affordable housing unit. This request will require the past and is considered to be an an SPA Amendment, Growth Management Essential Public Facility review, Change in Use review, 8040 Greenline review, and variances of existing Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant Design Standards. requests approval to change the use of the building to a for-sale deed restricted housing unit. P2 / I .<1. .. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting four (4) land use approvals requiring a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). â€¢ SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.090, the P&Z shall issue a decision to grant or deny the change in use that is being requested by this application. â€¢ Growth Management Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070 (41 the P&Z shall issue a decision regarding the approval to develop a deed-restricted affordable housing unit at this site. â€¢ Change in Use Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070 (2), the P&Z shall issue a decision regarding the approval to change the use of an Essential Public Facility to a deed-restricted affordable housing unit at this site. â€¢ 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 (C), the P&Z shall issue a decision regarding the impact of any new development (carport, exterior storage space, covered front entry). â€¢ Residential Design Standards Variance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 (A)( 1) and (D)( 1)(a, b, & c), the P&Z shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the request for residential design variances, which include building street orientation, primary window facing street, and a covered entry porch as part of the front faGade. BACKGROUND: 480 Doolittle Drive is part of the larger Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project at 500 Doolittle Dr. The property's underlying zone district designation is Public with an SPA overlay. The SPA was created via City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2009. 480 Doolittle Dr. was historically used as an emergency response center for the water treatment plant. All equipment stored in the building was non-chemical in nature. Due to changes iii technology, the emergency response center is no longer necessary to the operation of the water treatment plant, and therefore the building is current vacant and unused. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing a change in use to 480 Doolittle Dr, from its current unused state to a deed-restricted for-sale affordable housing unit. The one-story unit is proposed to be 572 square foot in size, with 508.1 square feet of net livable space. The unit's exterior will largely remain ' unchanged, save for the following. The applicant proposes a 70 square foot covered entry to the building's front face, and a carport to the immediate east that will contain a 44 square foot storage closet. Due to its location 480 Doolittle Drive is subject to the heightened level of review associated with the 8040 Greenline. Although the development has previously undergone this review when first constructed as part of the Water Place Affordable Housing SPA, the additional structure being proposed causes this review to be revisited. STAFF COMMENTS: SPA Amendment The building that is proposed for a change in use exists within the Water Place Affordable Housing SPA, and therefore must undergo review to change the Final Development Plan. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the proposed changes are consistent with the final development plan. 2 P3 Staff Comment: The building is pre-existing, and there are minor plans for development on the site (a carport with outdoor storage unit and covered front entry). The proposed use for the building is compatible with the mix of development in the vicinity, the majority of which is affordable housing units. No new roads or infrastructure is necessary for the change in use of this building, and it in no way will impact the area's open space, trails, view planes, or surrounding environment. The parcel is stable and there will be no need to stabilize or regrade. Stafffeels this proposal meets the requirements of SPA Amendment review, and recommends a change to the Water Place Affordable Housing SPA. Growth Management The proposal is to turn an existing underutilized building into an affordable housing unit. The applicant is proposing it as a Category 3 or 4 deed-restricted housing unit. The purpose of this review is to ensure the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to deed-restrict the for-sale unit at a Category 3 or 4 level. According to APCHA guidelines, a Category 3 or 4 one-bedroom unit should contain a minimum net livable area of 700 square feet. APCHA does allow for a twenty percent reduction in net livable area, provided certain conditions are met. These include: â€¢ Additional storage outside the unit; â€¢ Additional window for natural light; . Efficient and flexible layout; â€¢ Site amenities; â€¢ Location within the project; and â€¢ Achievement of higher density deed-restricted units withvariance. The application does meet each Of these conditions with the follo-wing: â€¢ The applicant is proposing to provide an additional 44 4 of storage space within the outdoor carport; â€¢ Additional windo-ws will be added for enhanced natural light and southern exposure; â€¢ The interior layout is efficient, without hallways and staircases; â€¢ The site is located adjacent to a neighborhood park, the Waite/Robinson Park, Water Place trail system, and Twin Ridge Open Space; â€¢ The project is single-story ground level unit; and â€¢ A higher density of deed-restricted units willbe achieved with this project. However, even -with a twenty percent reduction the applicant is below the minimum net livable area for a Category 3 or 4 one-bedroom unit. The minimum net livable area for a Category 3 or 4 designation is 700 4 which may be reduced to 560 sf by taking the 20% reduction as stated above. The net livable areafor this unit is 508.1 sf Ho-wever, the minimum net livable area for a Category 3-4 studio unit is 500 4 -which this application meets. Categorizing this unit as a studio rather than a one-bedroom unit will decrease the allowable for-sale price; however, this designation more accurately fits the square footage of the unit. Staff recommends approval of the Growth Management Review, with the condition that the unit be deed-restricted as a studio for-sale unit at Category 4 or to-wer. CO P4 Change in Use The proposal involves a change in use of an essential public facility to a for-sale one-bedroom deed-restricted residential housing unit. The purpose of this review is to ensure the proposed change in use is appropriate. Staff Response The essential public facility is currently unused and vacant. The addition of one- bedroom deed restricted unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing stock is desirable, and approved by the Housing Department. Stafffinds the proposed Change in Use to be an appropriate use of this building. 8040 Greenline Review The proposal involves a building that is located above the 8040 Greenline. The purpose of this review is to ensure reduced impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide, aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses, and ensure the availability of utilities and access to development that exists above 8040 feet mean sea level. Staff Comment: This building is largely pre-existing and has previously undergone this heightened level of review upon the initial development of the Water Place Affordable Housing SPA. The changes that are proposed include a 70 sf coveredfront entryway and a carport with a 44 sf storage closet. These additions will not require additional excavation of land, regrading, or stabilization. The change in use will have no significant adverse affects on air quality and no new roads or utilities will be required to service this unit. The structure is smaller in bulk and height as compared to adjacent buildings. It is located adjacent to a park trail system, and open space. Staffeels this proposal meets the requirements for an 8040 Greenline Review. Residential Design Standards Variances The applicant is requesting several Residential Design Standards variances with regard to building orientation and street facing windows, as noted in Exhibit D. The purpose of this review is to ensure the preservation of established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure street and neighborhood walkability. Staff Comment: The building is pre-existing is proposed as an affordable housing unit. The variances that are requested deal primarily with the building's orientation. The front of the building is not street-facing, which also affects the ability to have a street-facing window standard. These standards will be met with having a primary window and front covered entry way, just not to the letter of the Code. The issue is to allow these standards to be met with a non- street facing orientation. Due to the efforts of the applicant to use an existing building and to minimize any new development, as well as the intent to change the use to affordable housing, Staff supports the recommendation for the granting of residential design variances. REFERRALS: Staff solicited the opinions of several City departments regarding this project, including the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), Engineering, Water Treatment, and Parks. Following is a summary of the comments received from these departments. 4 P5 â€¢ Water Treatment - o The Emergency Response Center has never housed, stored, filled, spilled, cleanup, remediated or decontaminated anything having to do with hazardous chemicals. o The building was staff as a training/staging area for emergency responders. â€¢ Engineering - o The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements, and a compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat. o A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. o This major project is subject to the Fee in Lieu per Sec. 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. â€¢ APCHA - o The remodel would provide needed employee housing. o Although the size of this unit would typically fall into a Category 1 or 2, Water Place housing does not specify categories for any of its 22 available units; o The affordable housing category will be determined based on the City employee purchasing the unit. o APCHA is recommending approval of this project with deed-restriction similar to the Water Place housing project. â€¢ Parks - o Any tree removal will require a tree permit to be approved prior to the approval of building permits. Mitigation for removal will be in accordance with Municipal Code 13.20. o A vegetation protection fence must be erected at the drip line of each tree remaining on the site, which will be inspected by the City forester or his designee prior to any construction. o A formal plan indicating the location of tree protection is required for the building permit set. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2012, approving SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, 8040 Greenline Review, Change in Use, and Residential Design Variances for Building Orientation and Street Facing Principal Windows." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - SPA Amendment Review Criteria Exhibit B - Growth Management Review Criteria Exhibit C - Change in Use Review Criteria Exhibit D - 8040 Greenline Exemption Review Criteria Exhibit E - Residential Design Variance Review Criteria Exhibit F - Application Exhibit G - DRC Comments 5 P6 RESOLUTION No. (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, CHANGE IN USE REVIEW, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 480 DOOLITTLE DR, AKA THE WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPA, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number: 2735-132-04-024, 2735-132-04-825 WIIEREAS, the City of Aspen has submitted a request for Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment, Growth Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential Design Variances to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Public (PUB) zone district with SPA Overlay; and WHEREAS, the Specially Planned Area approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1996; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential Design Variances; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; 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; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; 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: 1 P7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: SPA Amendment The SPA is hereby amended to allow the change in use from an essential public facility to a for- sale deed-restricted affordable housing unit. Section 2: Growth Management Review The Growth Management Review has been satisfied to deed restrict this unit at a studio Category 4 or lower affordable housing unit iii compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority standards. Deed restriction shall be reeoded prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3: Chance in Use Review The Change in Use Review has been satisfied and the changing of an essential public facility to a for-sale deed-restricted affordable housing unit has been found to be an appropriate use of this property. Section 4: 8040 Greenline Review The 8040 Greenline Review has been completed and found to meet the criteria for an 8040 Greenline exemption. See Exhibit A for the approved site plan. Section 5: 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 variances for Residential Design Standards listed in Section 26.410.040 D, Building Elements, (1) (a), (c) and (3) (a) for single family residences as represented in the application. Section 6: Engineering The Applicant' s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. A completed drainage report/plan as outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to Building Permit issuance. This major project is subject to the fee in lieu requirement of Section 2.12.140 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 7: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City' s Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 8: School Lands Dedication Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication pursuant to Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedication. The amount of the fee shall be 2 P8 Section 9: Impact Fees Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees.The amount o f the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 10: AI1 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 11: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. Tile vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three (3) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site- specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of this Resolution, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to Section 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 233 East Cooper Avenue, Monarch on the Park Condominiums Unit P-3, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of 3 P9 vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 12: 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 13: 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 15th day of May, 2012. LJ Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Site plan 4 4 - 1 I ./I-/<I i ARCHITECTS '' 4 29 GREY TAL<Â»ICT. Â·1 .. 40. \ 1.'..â€ž,I AEPEN, COLORADO 1 ~ t//IV-Y-5/3Â·t#..M%#W~-8- + N. . 1 810'0 i , 9704'U.93 ~ 1 =49 .*# ff .. 60/44 C 1 -/.low.com 6; Steven Buettow I 1 JÂ¥ h - . \\- 13 ~ buitl~ophs,nel I I. - l 1 1 1 ~1 AFTER ALL ~: ~ 0- .// 0- i,.1 /Â»5 64 It r-- - 1 1 141... 61 - FRipogEO- 1 75 7 1 -- 1 HEW U HIT 1 - S-I , 15 I I - P,*1*14 -- #1 1 77 1 , , 1 7 1 fer*rhen... - LU 10-12Et itttlgarr ] c, 1 ' _ -~ ''7 +, 0 40MMA,!4 1 16 1 1 . i . O 2*liÂ® 1 . ' , L-- 2 1 , ' / CD i / , z , 17-4 1 1 1 .. #.4 1 O 241/01 1 . / 1 1 / ' Omi 41 1)1 -- , . 0 0 6 1 -1 - 1 =-\C n I . 5 13 -1 1 ' /.1 Â£ 01- 1 .4\ f 9 ; 1 . -:Â· K 11.- , - - 1 'E_ 3- ' 4.2# . ~ C ; i~ 'i. ~~ 4< ~ 2, - Site Plan ~ r ti}iret-ritm##ER-_- __ i ~-~ T- Il Â· All i 1. 1 1 2././/c, '1 1(im|*lion Exkabil A and uo!S~/\!Pqns goeld Jal A d MELLVAA Pll Exhibit A Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA) A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Response: The building already exists at 480 Doolittle Drive. The proposed use is compatible with the mix of development in the vicinity, in that it is proposed to become an affordable housing unit, and will be within the Water Place Affordable Housing area. The structure's change in use will not alter the existing land use, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, or open space, as relatively little exterior changes will occur to the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Response: The project is presently served by existing roads and public facilities. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanehe dangers and flood hazards. Staff Response: The building already exists on this parcel. There will be no changes that will affect the possibility of mudflows, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Response: There will be no change in the height and mass of the existing building that will cause impacts to significant vie-w planes, have adverse environmental impacts, or change the way the area's open space, trails, and similar amenities are used. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan supports the development of affordable housing. Stajffinds the criterion to be met. Pl 2 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Response: The project will not require any expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or surrounding neighborhood. Public facilities such as roads and infrastructure already serve the building. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. Staff Response: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) below the area of development. Stajffinds the criterion to be met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Response: There are no limits to the growth of affordable housing within the City of Aspen. StaFfirIds this criterion to be non-applicable. P13 Exhibit B Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County LIousing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Response. The proposed change in use does comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is included in Appendix E, Department Responses. However, due to the size of the unit, which is proposed net livable at 508.1 square feet, Staff recommends the unit be deed-restricted to a for- sale studio, rather than a one-bedroom unit, which will affect the potential for-sale price Of the unit. Even with the allowed 20% floor area reduction due per APCHA standards, the unit does not meet the size standards for a one-bedroom Category 3-4 unit. According to APCHA guidelines, Category 3-4 one-bedroom units must be a minimum of 700 4 With the 20% alto-wable reduction, the unit must be a minimum size of 560 sf However, a Category 4 or lower studio may be a minimum of 500 st which this application meets. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Applicant pursue a for-sale, deed restricted Category 4 or lo-wer studio designation. Stafffinds the criterion to be met, with this condition. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§4) Staff Response: The proposed unit is a deed-restricted affordable housing unit, and requires no further mitigation. Sta#Jinds the criterion to be non-applicable. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No, 14 - 2011, Â§3) P14 Staff Response: The proposed unit is entirely a one story, at grade building, which requires no dimensional variances. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Response: The proposed unit will be deed restricted as a for-sale unit and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Staff finds the criterion to be met. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§4) Staff Response: Sta#finds this criterion to be non-applicable. P15 Exhibit C Change in Use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the change-in-use. 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Response: The proposal is for an affordable housing unit, and no growth management allotments are placed on this type of development. Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: Affordable housing is an important component of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This proposal will add a one-bedroom unit to the housing stock. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Sta# Response: The zoning for this development is Public with a Specially Planned Area overlay, which would require a site specific approval. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic I?reservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Response: Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§2) P16 Staff Response: This proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit. No employee mitigation is necessary in this event. Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County LIousing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6 - 2010, Â§2) Staff Response : The proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit and not as mitigation for free market residential development. Stajffinds this criterion to be non-applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14,2007, Â§1) Staff Response: As a one-bedroom unit, the project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. There will be no need for additional roads, fire and police protection utilities, drainage control, solid waste disposal, or parking and road and transit services. Staff finds the criterion to be met. P17 Exhibit D 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Response: The parcel on which the development already exists is a flat site, suitable for this existing development. No stabilization, revegetation, or mitigation of toxic soils is necessary. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. Staff Response: The development already exists. The proposed minor changes (carport with storage and covered front entry) are expected to have no adverse affects as they will be constructed on the existing asphalt base, and no new disturbance is expected to occur. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Staff Response: The proposed change in use will have no significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. staff Response: The primary building already exists and is found to be compatible with the parcel's terrain. The proposed minor development (carport with storage and covered front entry) is also compatible with the parcel's terrain, as it will be located on the existing flat asphalt surface. No new roads or trails are proposed for this change in use project. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Response: No gradingis proposed with this application. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. P18 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Response: The structure is pre-existing and will undergo minimal development and a change in use. There is no needfor additional roads or cutting and grading, and open space and preservation will not be changed by this proposal. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Sta# Response. The structure is a single story, and smaller in mass and height than the adjacent two story affordable housing units and storage units. Stajffinds the criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Response: Sufficient water pressure and other litilities are available to service this project. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Response: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, which are properly maintained by the City of Aspen. No additional roads or maintenance needs are proposed for this development. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Response: Adequate ingress and egress is currently available for this project for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Sta#finds the criterion to be met. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55-2000, Â§ 7) Staff Response: This proposal is located adjacent to a neighborhood park, the Waite/Robinson Park, Water Place trail system, and Twin Ridge Open Space. Stafffinds the criterion to be met. Pl 9 Exhibit E Residential Design Standards. 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 Chapter 26.415. 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 feels is necessary to determine i f the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, Â§ 1) Staff Response: This unit is proposed within a pre-existing affordable housing SPA, and the building proposed for the change in use is also pre-existing. The surrounding pattern of development is a horseshoe grouping of affordable housing buildings and storage units for these buildings. As this building was formerly used as an emergency response center for the water treatment plant, it is situated on the southern portion of the grouping, Due to the fact that this building already exists, there will be limited exterior development necessary to complete the change in use. The applicant is proposing to maintain the exterior materials and massing. The exterior changes that will occur are minor, and include the addition of a carport with storage unit and a covered front entryway. The building as proposedwillmeet the Residential Design Guidelines in the Code in all ways but one. As it exists, the building's front fagade is perpendicular to the street. The Code requires the following: â€¢ According to Section 26.410.040 (A) (1.) Building orientation ofthe Land Use Code, the frontfacades ofall principal structures shall be parallel to the street. In this instance, the existing building's front fagade faces south, and Doolittle Drive runs north/south. Therefore the front fagade does not face the street. Due to the pre-existing nature of this building, and the applicant's desire to limit the amount of exterior renovation performed on this building, the applicant requests a variance from this section of the Code. P20 â€¢ According to Section 26.410.040 (D) (1.) Street oriented entrance andprincipal -window ofthe Land Use Code, the unit, as a single-family home, should have a street oriented entrance and principal window. Due to the pre-existing nature of the building and applicant's desire to use the building as it exists to the extent possible, the unit will not have a street oriented entrance and principal window, The applicant requests a variance from this section ofthe Code. a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Staff Response: The applicant requests a variance from the requirement of a street-facing entry door. b. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group or windows face street. Staff Response: This project requests a variance from the requirement ofa street-facing principal window, andfrom the requirement that a significant window or group ofwindow face the street. The applicant is requestingfrom Planning and Zoning Commission the approval of the above residential design variances that are necessary due to the site specific constraints that are created by the adaptive reuse of an existing building, causing it to not meet residential design code standards that would be possible if the building -were demolished and rebuilt. Stafffinds the criterion to be met for the approval for these residential design variances. - P April 27, 2012 THE CITY OF ASPEN , WATER DEPARTMENT To whom it may concern; The property located at 480 Doolittle Drive, what the Water department has referred to as the Emergency Response Center (ERC) since it's construction, has hever housed, stored, filled, spilled, cleaned up, remediated, nor decontaminated anything having to do with any Hazardous Chemicals what so ever. I have personally managed this facility since its construction and it was staffed as a training, staging area for emergency responders only. Please contact me if I maybe further assistance. C__ce, - t , Charles O. Bailey Treatment Supervisor City of Aspen Water Dept. . Â·130 South Galena St, Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5110 chuckb@ci. aspen.co.us ~ 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5110 FAX 970.920.5117 Printed on Recyc]ed Paper 57--90 'W 5- Ai 2-141Mfah I . P22 Date: May 9,2012 Project: Doolittle Affordable Housing City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. General A compliant and accurate survey, must be submitted. We are unable to determine (among other things) utility easements and access easements needed for the site. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed when there is enough information to review. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet the Drainage Principals: 1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process 2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. Construction Management - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. I , . Fee in Lieu -This project is considered a Major project and is sunjeet to the Fee in Lieu P23 please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. P24 MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Nadolny FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager DATE: May 2,2012 RE: CHEMICAL TREATMENT BUILDING REMODEL Parcel ID No. ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to remodel a structure into a deed-restricted affordable housing unit. BACKGROUND: The structure was used for chlorine disaster preparedness. At no name were harmful chemicals get in the structure. The structure has been unused for years and the remodel would provide needed employee housing. The cost of the remodel is to be from the fund that is supported by the City departments and not from the 150 affordable housing development fund that is provided with taxpayer money. The City plans to utilize the remodeled structure for a City employee similar to the Water Place housing project. Although the application is proposing the unit be a Category 3 or Category 4 ownership unit, it has been the City's objective to provide housing for any City employee. The unit is proposed at 572 square feet, which is a Category 1 or 2 for a one-bedroom unit stated in the Guidelines. Water Place housing does not specify categories for any of the 22 available units. The category is based on the employee purchasing the unit. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the fact that one-bedroom units are the most sought-after type of unit, based on the location of the proposed affordable housing unit, and in conjunction with the funding of the remodel through the City of Aspen employee fund, APCHA staff is recommending approval of the remodel, as it provides an additional affordable housing unit into the program. The deed restriction should be similar to the Water Place housing project. 1 P25 Memorandum Date: April 30, 2012 To: Sara Nadolny From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: DRC comments for 500 Doolittle Drive Housing Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit is required for the removal of any tree or the excavation under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of building permits. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site per City Code 13.20. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage o f equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 , . *90 Â·- 1 . 44. f.,4 J 1 -4,9 1 . Ne 5 0 e. 4. t: *4~ ~*be 4 5 . . , 041 Y .414 .2. V.. 12. 7 :t.le k~ 12, R. . 4 1, I. . #f :- * P.t.:I.Â¢. S 4 , 4.116,6 *k :A ***74/ f il X 4, 14 * i E ,}* fz ., 4 * 41. ''.0. 0 *er ,> I - -- .....Por 2 9*Â¥.VE--->tt-+4 '. -/,3. W 't.Fit)04, -i//-' lin 134 .H C- --â€¢1â‚¬ 4 Y /9 4/ *347 . 62 . ..42 1 /,4,/ 14<,4,~ / ~44 *4.r~..d <@r trI Jâ€ž:A PS w -"., :.Ill: -FS F. ir i # 2' 1 1....~6 - 4./. . k f -' % I . .' - by 1 , 7, I %* i~ :01*~ Â· 91#12Â· - 43, /4 , 49 4/ f F" 744 â€ž i , 1,lill 1 Iii 11 11111 iiii'11111111 482691 Page: 8 of 22 05/14/2003 11:46A SILLIA [RVIS FIT"IN --Ul' IY j R 111.00 D 0.00 Minimum percent open space No requirement Maximum height 35 feet measured from existing grade depicted on Final PUD Plans with the following noted exceptions: Elevator enclosures and roof access hatches may extend up to 5 feet above 35 feet if they are at least ten feet back from the main building face. Chimneys, exhaust flues, etc. may extend up to 10 feet above 35 feet ifthey are at least 10 feet back from the main building face. Skylights, solar panels, water towers and mechanical equipment may extend up to 5' above 35' if they are at least 10 feet back from the main building face. Stair enclosures required by code to access roofs may extend up to 10 feet above 35 feet if they are at least10 feet back from the main building face. Trash access area As shown on Final PUD Plans Minimum off-street parking spaces (allocated by use, includes spaces designated for loading): SCI and NC commercial uses 1.5 spaces/1000 square feet net leasable = 60 Medical Offices 3 spaces/1000 square feet net leasable = 27 Affordable Residential 1 per unit = 21 Free-Market Residential 1 per unit = 21 20 spaces City of Aspen Extra (unallocated) 36 +/- 5 spaces according to final design of parking garage as depicted on Final PUD Plans. (Also see Section #4) Total Gross Enclosed Square Footage Not to exceed 265,000 square feet. (includes all parking, storage, mechanical, commercial, residential, circulations, etc.): Service Commercial Industrial Net Minimum of38,977 square feet. Leasable Square Foote (includes nonconforming and conditional uses): Neighborhood Commercial Net Leasable Not to exceed 900 square feet. Square Footage: Medical Office Net Leasable Square Not to exceed 9,000 square feet plus 5%. Footage: Affordable Residential Units 21 Affordable Residential Bedrooms 25 minimum to 42 maximum. Affordable Residential Square Footage 14,950 square feet, which may be increased (measured as net livable) by 10%. Plus associated garage-level storage and decks as shown on the Final PUD Plans. Free-Market Residential Units 21 j Free-Market Residential Bedrooms Not to exceed 70. Free-Market Residential Square Footage Not to exceed 57,750 square feet. Plus I (measured as net livable) associated garage-level storage and decks as 1 shown on the Final PUD Plans b Ordinance No. 18, Series of2003. Page 8 ....4 ./ 111 lili -lil li 111 1111111111111111111 482691 Page: 7 of 22 05/14/2003 11:45A S.LV.R CAVi S FI-I:.,1 COU~TY CO R 111.00 D 0.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF n THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: The Obermeyer Place COWOP Project is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Rezoning of Rio Grande SUbdiVisiod Lois 6,7, 8, and 9 to the Service Commercial Industrial (SCD Zone District, Rezoning of all lands within the Project to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay, Final PUD Plan and Final SPA Plan approval, land use code Text Amendment, Replacement of Multi-Family Housing, Temporary Use, replacement of Nonconforming Uses, replacement of Conditional Uses, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Stream Margin Review, Residential Design Review, Final Growth Management approval for exemption, Vested Rights, and vacation of right-of-way subject to conditions of approval as described herein. Section 1: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Subdivision plat and Final PUD Plans, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the following property as included in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone District, to reflect a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, and to reflect a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay on all portions of said land: Gignoux-Lynch Subdivision Lots 1 and 2; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 20, East Aspen Addition; Lots 6,7,8, and 9 Rio Grande Subdivision, a tract of land identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.00.040 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 600 East Bleeker Street, a tract of land identified as Parcel No. 2737.073.00.041 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 530 East Bleeker Street, and all portions of East Bleeker Street right-of-way vacated between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place described and depicted on the Final Subdivision/Vacation plat of the Obermeyer Place Subdivision. Section 2: Vacation ofEast Bleeker Street East Bleeker Street right-of-way between Spring Street to the east and "sheriffs alley" to the west shall be and is hereby vacated and the fee simple ownership of the lands underlying such vacated rights-of-way shall be and are hereby combined with and incorporated into the respective adjacent parcels as depicted and described on the Obermeyer Place Subdivision/Vacation plat. Section 3: Approved Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions ofthe project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Minimum Lot Size Minimum lot width Minimum front yard As represented on the Final PUD Plans Minimum side yard rl Minimum rear yard Maximum site coverage i Minimum distance between buildings ~ Ordinance No. 18, Series of2003. Page 7 2727 -07 ,-000 -DC+ 0 0 Dot. 20 8% At(-U . t ....... ... 2.- . ~9 st 00.6 1Jd'= *211 Repe FotÂ¥ Iab * 4 0 i Â· e i.. 'i 1% . J. _, k Â®ng 9/3 '* Fe 5rm JJ *005 22@015 Ral*1 &491 *1 Ar*B, Culor' Fe!05 29* Fir[Nd -- 1*mIt bp. Â·?318 ~ P.mt: iÂ®)1291 3 :RU Atdre. 47 FDWDE~SPL , 1...L_ 1 Permit *rr@Â§04 135153* 1 uni au.7 ~ *16 '11,61] 1 h]Ed 1 51*us @ning *4 -- DES*R APPLICABON FOR OBER:MEYER COMB UNE 2' 1 BUILDING 01]E E@JE FIA PLC-P.04Â£10191- 00249, :: I -- --1-1--7 SucmÂ·ted KOT.UNL,6 -u,-w....., Clot S. A 0 Bpi'~ ' 5311 1 0,15 *Ear:Â£ CLANSÂ¥ I fir/1/ FOth' 4 8 DEKâ‚¬AH : %1 RD GRA'E PL 101 4:ne ~'v,". 9;645 deis ASPEN CO 81611 ~ ReT 4 8*19 TZ ~0*30[15 8@11 72.1 Lagnme #TLD& 3,iR.H t.13 1 Fr~.0 501 RIO) 3% IDE GL 1104 - '., M.:01. .9 1 PrVIE i.. /1..Â£ 21; ~trbi Addrpx |ASPEN 18 1 1611 i Lender Wn/. Fg5t 1181110 M.~Eg ; PtÂ·i: ADBAGMiseM' r:-'Qi ~ 10~1 et 11: 25 04 C j â‚¬00 40, 00 Fl -Real~ k 3 3 tos- 11 160.00 1 .............11 ......1. ' 11 ,"41"... râ€¢X-,3 THE CITY OF AspEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: January 16.2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0001.2013.ASLU - PUD Amendment. The planner assigned to this case is Sara Nadolny. D Your Land Use Application is incomplete: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ~ilYour Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. I,You, C _Â«9Â«AL_ Jennifer PEDn, Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New SPA New PUD Yes - No~& Subdivision, SPA, or PUD (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes- NO-2E- Commercial E.P.F.