The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.825 Roaring Fork Rd.0069.2013.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0069.2013.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2735-12-1-04-016 PROJECTS ADDRESS 825 ROARING FORK RD PLANNER SARA NADOLNY CASE DESCRIPTION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE REPRESENTATIVE POSS ARCHITECTURE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3.4.14 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 4.30.14 1 0 Permits | file Edit Record Navigate Fgmi Report Format Iab Help ' Jumpl . 0 U.j. d ...4 ....; Â¥~ ::-I - I : 1% 03 Main Custom Fiekls Routing Status , Fee Summaw *tions Routingtli:tool Peimit *pe E v Aspen Land use Permit 11 0089.2013.ASLU I Addess &25 ROARING FORK RD ; Apt/Suite City ASPEN S tate Co Zip 81611 Permit INormation Master permit Routing queue askj07 Applied 11/01/2013 Proled Status pending Approved Descripoon RESEENBAL DESiGN VARIANCE471ND0WAND DOOR REPLACEMENTAND MNOR 1=d ROOF REMODEL Closed/Final Submitted POSSARCIFECTURE 970-32547.5 Clock Running Daps D Expires Ilp'zi.fLU'14 9~bnltedvia v Ownel i/,b,$ rÂ· , m -7 0 8 -1 17' F Last name M.Il,11 ullâ‚¬KLE: u 6 [Led #st name PO BOX 2256 BIlli'A KS ?7201 Phone () - Addiess Applicant - 4 Owner k appicarit? L [Ontlactor is appkant? Las[ name KOCH CHARLES G & El.ZAE Fist name ru DUA U= : MCHIA. 12 0,201 Phone () - Cud # 29252 Address Lender 1 Last name F,st name i Phone t; - Addkess Enter the proied name AspenGoll {server) diarnam View 1011 RM~Â§?%~2@*}â€ž /:C~1:~~;%---:M#..Â£: ~'I/~1..'...WI-~ m *p /"/, c-94 Â· uc . 00Â¥ 14. Gesoi V\,no~ seiON MO,nol ~ xogiool~ ~ scinoig qe.1 . . -- ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 9 2. 5- (1 0 Ot A n EJA=nof , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 3 lilly . 30_Ef STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) 4\Â£ A n Ho/n being or representing an Applicant to the City o f 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: Mk Publication ofnotice.Â· 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) flays prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. J Posting of notice: By posting o f 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 / -7 day of Fuu , 204-4-, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. l/'000' 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 copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. rin:un...._ .. 0-.-..:lal zoning district map is in any way to be changed or arner.0,20 10(DiOerli?' 2Â· 01' as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of th:s 'Tirle 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 o f an accurate survey map or other su fficient 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. PUL Signature 06*Â£/ Thql~regoing,"Affidavit of Notice" was agkgowledge# before me thist@ day of '14 u Le. k/ , 2006, by 8/0Â£. f-*rd, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAI, SEAL dgp,-%:3)'j:~ Mv commisiiâ‚¬~expires: .: c:~~,~/(2045' H Ce; ~:~:-*OTARY .; 2=2>4\ ... 1 1/A E B 19*/Ra# .- 0..... pos*..f# ~_-Nâ‚¬Uy *u~ l ~%42)fiiÂ¢-689 â„¢tkja~Â·ssS>-' ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS i ND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL po >re.1 11 1- 19 e.-l< 4 1-4 9- L 6-1 , U--* PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 825 ROARING FORK ROAD - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE REQUEST NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 4th, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust for the property located 825 Roaring Fork Road, represented by Davis Horn Incorporated. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Residential Design Standard that disallows windows to be placed between 9'- 12' on residential buildings. The property is legally described as Second Aspen Company Subdivision, Lot 16-A Section 12, Township 10, Range 85, Land in Sec 12-10-85 described as Lot 3, Block 89 and Parts of Lake Avenue and Maroon Avenue in the Hallam Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Sara Nadolny at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2739, sara.nadolny@cityofaspen.com s/LJ Erspamer Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 6, 2014 City of Aspen Account p. v +1 :66#A.3150 Â·A I . + ' . d P. 914.-%... 4.4 ./ ./ t. ll.: - i . K A v t . Â· I . 44 - 4. 4 42Â¥K ./tut f + ~Â£*4 4 9 :0 4&.-4 . I ..1 .1. 1 'Win . 4 . 2 .. + + . ... $. . f .. 2.. 0 9. ' . ' Â¢ 44.- ...4 4..lk 'fli . 1 .... * 12.2, $-4144.4 . 61, 2 .. /1, Â· I :JV*~40&.crr ,+ + *:: . 1 1 I . .e . â‚¬ R. ...4 707" 41 -1,7 Kit *. t.. I * ...44: W I . d' . 1 . 1 ./ . I fy PUBLIC NOTICE ..lt.., $ *%*4, i Â«tÂ·k = || Date: " 9 . 672 . .4- j , a ... . 1 Â· Time. a. . 1/ I.'- ...... IN,74 ./- . + 'Mt.:~ r"w irt i ,Â·f ft r :. 4.. I V hill ./01 . I 1 . m ZE' Ii. Place t 1/1, - * E'/Â·21. 4% 14 t 1 ...h .. -- 9 4 ....i -4. h.- . : 2 .... , 1 â‚¬ 4 PurposeÂ· *~ : .t,- * CMâ€žâ€ž, --Â·- .P r 9 *j..7. Â· Â·viwiv- .. 4/ +M..1.4 - 7* Al 16 Â· 13*~Tr --. * Txl / *4 .- 7 4 f ",Â· . 1 + 0 ..A~~t 01 .. . . - A ..4 + - #1111 1-44.-7 , I h -- k. 41 , 30 D 4 ' + 4 1 .1:. ;t--:*:t'.1 :lanc ' -T,%: . ' & ... 14 Â¢19. 7 4 I. , â€¢ '' V. 4 %141 ./ I ig/9 4 1. * ././. VIC . I . 1. .... 44 2 . ' 3Â«> 1%.1.,W'~. 1, .i ... 1. .. *12. . . f r n. 4 * 'i , . ... 2- . BL - 94*~.,54.-5.1 f . 4..f:) 0 1 12-:403 l. + tâ€¢ Â· r., p t 1Â· â€¢ il a. .5. i .. 14 11*' 9 e . 41&=Grin.... I . 0 - . * 6 /04 # 4 ... 4 4,1 I . +.... .4 + - 1; 4 * . le . p . - P. .Fl- I"dtt D I. . .. .. 4 r tÂ· f Le: I. I - -- ... '91, M i + 2142. %24 *4" Â¥7 91/5-42.oj r 724 1,1 4 uwl ' ' ' ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AML INVESIMENT 11 LLC ASPEN 805 LLC STUDIES 430 PARKSON RD 44 COOK ST #200 100 PUPPY SMITH ST HEND#RSON, NV 89015 DENVER, CO 80206 ATTN KATIE SCHWOERER ASPEN, CO 81611 BERMUDA PROPERTIES INC CHATFIELD CROSSINGS INC FARISH ANNE F 30% ESTEE LAUDER CO ATTN JOAN C/O DWORMAN DARRYL 2200 WILLOWICK#16E KRUPSKAS 65 W 55TH ST STE 4A HOUSTON, TX 77027 767 FIFTH AVE 40TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10019 NEW YORK, NY 10153 FARISH FAMILY 2012 GENERATION KOCH DAVID H TRUSTEE KOCH DAVID H TRUSTEE SKIPPING TRUST 70% C/O KOCH INDUSTRIES KOCH INDUSTRIES C/O 3674 DEL MONTE DR 4111 E 37TH ST N PO BOX 2256 HOUSTON, TX 77019 WICHITA, KS 67220 WICHITA, KS 67201 LAUDER LEONARD A 2013 REV TRUST MARCUS STEPHEN J SAGEBRUSH LODGE LLC 767 FIFTH AVE 40TH FL PO BOX 1709 767 FIFTH AVE 40 FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10153 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10153 SANT ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST VINE CHLOE WALNUT CREEK RANCH LLC MARALYNN VIERSEN SANT TRUST 1802 S UINTA WY 4520 MAIN ST STE 1060 PO BOX 702708 DENVER, CO 802312914 KANSAS CITY, MO 64111-1816 TULSA, OK 741702708 WOOD DUCK REALTY CORP WURTELE CHRISTOPHER C TRUST ZILKHA SELIM K TRUST 450 PARK AVENUE 3RD FLOOR 38 MEHA PL 750 LAUSANNE RD NEW YORK, NY 10022 PAIA, HI 967799738 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date o f this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, P.O. Box 2256, Witchita, KS Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Lot 16-A of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision, commonly known as 825 Rearing Fork Dr., City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Residential Design Standard Variance permitting two windows, measuring approximately 2' in height and 4.5 feet in width, to span one foot into the 9'-12' "no window zone" extending on either side o f the front door transom. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Approval by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission of a PUD Amendment via Resolution 4, Series 2013 on 1/15/2013 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) March 14th, 2014 Effective Date OJ Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) March 15th, 2017 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 4th day of February, 2014, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. 0/liWO Chris Bendon. Community Development Director AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE 0 <53 P a ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: D Gu> -) RockArog 'EDAL< URSE- Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) ' d C 1 0.2 13 4 , 1-1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certi fy that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 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 no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy~ the publication is attached hereto. 04 - /71 (L/â‚¬/~t-/~- I Sigil#Ure The foregoing "Affidavit of NoticÂ¢' was acknowledged before me this TZ,<lay of kliOk ,20#-fi by .Z-)\0.,C~i~Â« 14 01 Alr) PUBLIC NOTICE 0, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specitic development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code 01 the City of Aspen and Title My conimission expires: 3,~E)liv 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain- ing to the following described property: Lot 16-A of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision, com- monly known as 825 Roaring Fork Dr., City and 1 Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, Parcel ID: h-ttit ft~.et -PUL**A. 2735-121-04-016. On March 4,2014, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granted Resi- Notary Public dential Design Standard variance approval to per- mit two small windows to be located on either side of the front door's transom, located in the 9'-12' "no / - - L window zone' on this home through P&Z Resolu- KAREN REED PATTERSON ~ t~oonnta#(3< ~Re~U,W.41 &:yut:ir,K:N.g{:1 NOTARY PUBLIC muniW Development Dept 130 S. Galera St, As- ATTACHMENTS: STATE OF COLORADO pen, Colorado (970) 429-2739. W City of Aspen NOTARY ID #19964002767 Publish in The Aspen Times Weekly on March 13, My Commission Expires February 15, 2016 . 2014. 110014262] COPY OF THE PUBLICATION -~ RECEPTION#: 608734, 03/19/2014 at 10:04:00 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION No. 3 (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 16-A OF THE SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 825 ROARING FORK DRIVE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number: 2735-121-04-016 WHEREAS, The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, as owner of 825 Roaring Fork Drive, submitted a request for Residential Design Standard Variance for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a land use review to allow windows to span the 9'-12' zone at the street-facing entryway of the residential unit; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential zone district and is Lot 16-A ofthe Second Aspen Company Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the subdivision plat for the property was originally approved by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 3,1961 and is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 2, Page 263, Reception No. 122664; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has submitted a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2014, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the Applicant, and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the review as requested by the Applicant, finding that it meets the criteria as described in Subsection 26.410.020.D.2.a of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Windows on either side of the street-facing entryway door shall be permitted to span through the nine (9) foot to twelve (12) foot area, as measured from the finished first floor, and as indicated in Exhibit A of this Resolution. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED ~Di the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4th day of March, 2014/ 7 tj r--1 l-toy~Â«- 14*rspamer, Chairlnan APPROVED AS TO FORM: A. /4 25- DebUie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATIEST: ~16 9~*iat~ l Linda Manning, Records ~lanager Exhibit A: Location and measurement o f approved windows 2 Resolution Exhibit A + /1 Approved Windows l-; i 1 4. 9 - .1 9-1-1 r/ 1 m ' 1 :til . .to .1 'i-- -. - 1 1 1 11 { I'' , ' jfi -' '. 0 1, 0. I , -,do r' , 41. ff . 1 7 -1 v ..r 11' , MI , 1. // k. 1 : ~ . f '.Â· - <04'3- .Â·~ i - i 7-4 / A-7 ,1 f F F'. +.. _-_.j~j zÂ· t .i . - 11 . .1 Eli . < il $ --1 , L N J ~1 I - 1 /1\ 1 . 1- D- kEN , .4. s -- - 1 N-- 7--/j Â·Â· 1 24/_I ri) 0 4 ., , 6 1 .1 1 L_.Â»14_ 1 . -{[F--1 . I 9--t' 21 4, J .' .I . ) .- t- ... C L._ ..N O 3,01.bJ i' ~ M.f,P..9 1. J.MU .' Â¥ â€¢ 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Gibbs, Walterscheid, McNellis, Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, and Elliott present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Naldony COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre said she stopped by the open houses at Aspen Square on her way to the meeting. There are 3 studios on the market. She said these are an example of the type of lodging that has worked for the past 40 years. She said Staffs hybrid units may be similar to these. They rent well and have been upgraded by the owners and are competitive. She said they are only 500 square feet. Mr. Erspamer said he had dinner with someone who works at the Limelight and they said they are busy in the off season. They have a Colorado rate and they are full. STAFF COMMENTS: Jennifer Phelan gave two dates for the commission training and the board agreed to the 3-18 meeting since so far there is no agenda item. Debbie Quinn suggested that at the training each member give a brief background so the members get to know each other. Ms. Phelan said that council gets their packets through a software where the info is uploaded and wanted to know if there is a preference for paper packets or going digital. Mr. Erspamer said he prefers paper. There was no interest from the commission in going paperless. Ms. Phelan asked if the commission still wants to receive the Community Development Update and they said yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments. MINUTES - February 18, 2014 Ms. Tygre made a motion to approve the modified minutes seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Gibbs recused himself from the public hearing for 431/433 W. Hallam St. Ms. Quinn explained what a conflict of interest is. Public Hearings - 431/433 W. Hallam, Residential Design Standards Variances - Continued public hearing Ms. Phelan stated the application was heard on January 7th but there was a limited board so the applicant's representative asked for a continuation to this meeting. This application is for 431/433 W Hallam St. Dylan Johns is the representative. The property is a duplex on a corner lot in the West End. The existing duplex is proposed for demolition with replacement of a new single family residence. The lot is 6000 square feet and does not have alley access. The residential design standards for lots with no alley access require that the garage be set back 10 feet further than the front most wall of the house. The design of garages are to have the look of being single stall doors or looking like single stall doors to break up the massing of the garage doors. The applicant is requesting not to be required to set the 1 Regular Meeting -anning & Zoning Commission March 4,2014 garage back the additional 10 feet but be flush with the side fa,ade along 4th Street. They are also askingto provide a double doorthat matchesthe surrounding materials. Ms. Phelan stated the residential design standards are in place to preserve neighborhood character and to ensure homes contribute to the street scape and ensure parking is concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. The intent with garage doors is to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the street scape where alleys do not exist. There are a few standards to grant a variance including the board needs to determine an appropriate design considering the context and purpose on the neighborhood or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site constraints. Ms. Phelan said Staff does not feel there are any reasons that create an unusual site constraint. It is a 6000 square foot lot with frontage on two sides of the street. She said the one finding you could possibly make is it is an appropriate design considering the context. Ms. Phelan stated there are a lot of different periods of development in this area. There is newer development that has access offof the street for driveways instead of alley access. There are also homes that have garages off the alleys. She stated the purpose of the standard is to minimize the visual impact of garages. The typical West End pattern is to have garages detached from the main residence. She stated with redevelopment Staff feels the standard should be met. The West End context overall warrants meeting the standard and Staff does not see this as having anytype of unusual site constraint. She stated the applicant has shown that the standard can be met but prefer not to meet it. Staff is recommending that the request be denied. Mr. Elliott asked if the recommendation to deny is for both the set back and garage door materials. Ms. Phelan replied yes. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the Hallam side is considered the front yard and asked about an alternate front yard. Ms. Phelan said the front yard requirement is for Hallam, and 4th Street is considered a side yard. She said there is no longer an alternate front yard. She said the combined set back for this is a total of 15 feet with a minimum of five. The determination for front yard is the longest block face. She said the closer the garage gets to the set back the more potential you have for a car to be parked in front of the garage into the right of way. There are currently no sidewalk improvements there now but that doesn't preclude that one may be installed in the future. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if the set back of the garage is currently from the front fagade of the building not the edge of the street. Ms. Phelan said it is required from the front fagade of the street facing wall. Dylan Johns, representing the applicant, said there is currently an encroachment of about 5 feet into the se back and an existing car port. He showed a neighborhood map indicating 11 lots that have a similar garage condition that they are asking for with this application. He said they feel strongly that the context in this environment is not counter to what they are asking for. He said there is a hardship to this property owner because they cannot take advantage of access to the alley. He said there has been some discussion about getting that access from the property owner with the empty lot blocking access, either with an easement or purchasing the land outright. He said at this point it is only a speculation. Mr. Johns stated as far as the second criteria of the design standard regarding being clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints they feel strongly that it is a site specific constraint and a hardship. From their perspective he said the definition of a hardship is being forced to do something due to circumstances outside of your control and not conforming to the typical situation that the rules are patterned after. He said there are not too many options as to how they reconfigure the house. He said they are able to do it but the property owner is having a pretty large loss of their outdoor area because the garage is being pushed back. He said this area of the West End is not 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4,2014 a sidewalk attainment zone. He also said this particular lot is several feet above the street level and there is a noticeable slope. Mr. Johns said the attempt to camouflage the doors is to really reduce the presence of the garage from the street. He said if the commission prefers a two door solution they are fine with it. He said it is possible to keep the massing as it was and have the plane of the garage come across in the same way. He said Staffs opinion is based on what the code says they need to do but it is not about whether the code says you can or can't but whether the code makes sense to this application and if other factors apply. Mr. Erspamer asked what was added since the last presentation. Mr. Johns said he added the slide showing the pushed back version with the door face out to break up the fagade. Mr. Erspamer asked how many of the 11 lots with the same configuration have been built recently. Mr. Johns pointed out several Victorians, a converted garage, a duplex and one built in the 70's. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Johns where he got the definition of hardship. Mr. Johns replied that is his understanding of the definition. Ms. Phelan said there is no definition of hardship in the code. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is an easement for a side walk. Mr. Johns said no. Ms. Phelan said there is public right of way of about 10 feet on either side of the curb. She said the property line is shared with the right of way. Ms. Tygre said there was a time when properties were redeveloped they were required to join a sidewalk improvement district. Ms. Phelan said she doesn't know anything about that. Mr. McNellis said from the roof plan it does not look like they are losing any yard space. Mr. Johns put up a diagram that illustrates the yard loss better than what was in the handout. He said the reason of pushing the upper mass forward is to get more sky. Mr. Goode asked if they did have access from the alley would they need the set back. Mr. Johns said if they had alley access the wall of the garage could go up along the front fa,ade by right. Mr. McNellis asked in that situation would the material change on that side of the house be required. Mr. Johns said other than materials being used appropriately there would be no need. Mr. Erspamer asked if they could they make a fagade on the garage door to look like two doors without actually having two doors. Mr. Johns said they can and would be happy to do that if the commission didn't like the hidden concept. Mr. Erspameropened the publiccomment. No Publiccomment. Mr. Erspamerclosed the public comment period. Ms. Tygre stated Mr. Johns comment on how he interprets the code may apply to him but the commission needs to follow the code the way it is written. She said looking at A and B in the standards, the appropriate design or pattern of development considering context doesn't mean every single house that is existing has to have a certain context for it to be considered neighborhood context. The overall impression of the West End is one where we want to minimize the appearance of garages. The fact there are exceptions is not a convincing argument. She stated the second one about unusual site specific constraints refers to things like a creek running through or physical constraints not that the applicant bought a piece of property without alley access. She stated that was a choice and not a site specific constraint. She stated for those two reasons she has to support Staffs recommendation. Mr. Walterscheid said based on his understanding of how the lot is set up the garage does not face the front of the house and in his opinion where the code states "the part which shall be set back at least ten feet further from the street than the front most wall of the house". He said although it is facing the side street it is not facing the front of the house. He said he has done the same thing Mr. Johns is suggesting 3 Regular Meeting ..anning & Zoning Commission March 4,2014 and would support him completely. He said he does find it site constrained because they do not get to access the alley as the rest of the neighborhood does. Mr. Erspamer said the question is, is this a hardship because there is no alley access. Ms. Phelan stated there are other lots in the West End that don't have alley access, Pearl Ct., North 4th St., Lake Ave. Mr. Walterscheid stated the garage doesn't face the front of the house. Ms. Phelan stated that Staffs opinion is that this is a corner lot with two streets and is applicable to any street facing fa,ade. Mr. Walterscheid said the way he reads the code is it has to be 10 feet further from the street than the front most wall of the house. The front of the house is what is pointing up on the page, opposite the garage. Mr. Erspamer asked if it is a 10 foot set back for either street. Ms. Phelan said Staff would say whether the garage entry is facing Hallam or 4th the garage has to be 10 feet back from the wall along that street. Mr. McNellis said that Staff has interpreted that section of the code correctly. He said it does not matter what road it is facing. The 10 foot standard still applies. He said he agrees with Ms. Tygre that the standards are put in place because of some of the things seen around the neighborhood. He said he does not necessarily agree with them but that is what he sees when interpreting the code. He said with regard to the character of the siding he can see a hardship with the inability to access the alley. He said if they were able to access the alley they would be able to do what they want with the fagade along that side. Mr. McNellis said he is more supportive of option #3 which has the recessed 10 foot garage but allows them to have a continuous material rather than two car ports. Mr. Erspamer asked why the set back was picked as 10 feet. Ms. Phelan said they are trying to create some relief along the fagade with the garage being not as prominent along the streetscape. Mr. Erspamer said originally he was firm on the belief of Ms. Tygre but since the applicant can't access the alley along the side he asked if it would be possible to have it far enough back so the car is clear of any sidewalk. He asked if there is a compromise to the code. Ms. Phelan said the parking space requirement in the code is 18 feet. Mr. McNelllis said with a recessed garage the more space there is to allow a vehicle to be fully within the property is always a good thing. He said they would meet the standard of 18 feet with a recessed garage. Mr. Elliott asked what wall the set back is referred to. Ms. Phelan said the measurement is from the property line to the face of the building, structural frame. There are set back requirements based on front yard, rear yard or side yard. Mr. Erspamer said #3 is ok as long as there is one garage door with a fagade and would go with the 10 foot set back. Mr. Goode said he is in agreement with Staff. He said the owner could purchase the lot next door and there would be no need for the set back. Mr. Elliott said the property is not inexpensive so would that qualify as a hardship. Mr. Johns said purchasing the lot is not out of the realm of possibility but does not know how realistic it is. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki said when you purchase a corner lot it comes with some advantages but there are drawbacks. He said the set backs should apply to both sides since Hallam and 4th are both principle streets. Mr. McNelllis asked if this would have to go before HPC. Ms. Phelan replied no the West End is individually designated properties. Mr. Johns said it is difficult to know what is allowed and what will fit onto a site before a property is purchased. He said if this property was traditionally developed there would be more street frontage. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4,2014 Mr. Erspamer said there are two decisions, one about the garage door and the set back of the garage. Ms. Tygre made a motion to deny resolution 2. No second, motion died. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve resolution 2. No second, motion died. Raise of hand vote to see where the commission stands: who wants no ten foot set back - one vote Who is in favor of ten foot set back - six votes. Can there be a single garage door to make it look like two garage doors - Mr. Walterscheid said what they are approving is an alternate material to make it appear as one door. six votes Ms. Phelan said currently the one garage door variance is written so that the door materials match the surrounding materials and wants to be clearthat the one garage door can have separate looking materials. Mr. McNellis said it could be separate materials or match the siding. Mr. Erspamer said he prefers to leave it to the applicant. Ms. Phelan said the motion will be to amend section one to deny variance la and lb is granted with the change that it is a two car garage doorthat either matches the materials used surrounding the garage or alternative materials. Mr. Erspamer asked her to state it again and Ms. Phelan said it would allow applicant to build a two car garage door that does not need to look like a two stall door and there will be no language of materials. Mr. McNellis made a motion to approve resolution 2 as written with the changes to deny la and change 1b to have a two car garage door that does not need to look like a two stall door, seconded by Mr. Goode. Roll Call: Mr. Elliott yes, Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki yes, Mr. Walterscheid Yes, Mr. McNellis yes, Mr. Goode yes, Ms. Tygre No, Mr. Erspamer Yes. Motion carries. 825 Roaring Fork Road - Residential Design Standards Variance Ms. Quinn said she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice, exhibit c, and they are appropriate. Sara Nadolny, plannertechnician, said the applicant is Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust and representing the project are Glenn Horn and Julie Maple. She stated it is a land use review regarding residential design standard. It is a residential West End property in the R15 zone district in the Second Aspen Company Subdivision. The property is undergoing a remodel of the front fagade and the applicant is requesting a variance from the standard that prohibits windows in the 9-12 foot area. The reason for the standard is to preserve the established neighborhood scale and character and promote the pedestrian experience. She stated the 9-12 foot zone is typically an area where a 2nd level would exist. The separation breaks up the massing of the building into two recognizable floors and reduces the bulkof the building. Ms. Nadolny said the applicant is proposing two windows at the front door location on either side of the transom. The transom is permitted by right in the code. The windows are approximately 4 M feet wide by 2 feet tall. Only one foot of the height spans into the no window zone. She stated there are two criteria to judge a variance, either a hardship on the lot-site specific constraint or an established neighborhood character. She said this is a remodel and they are not finding any site specific constraints. She stated this is a very diverse neighborhood with different types of architectural styles. She said all of the homes in the neighborhood were built prior to the no window zone code which was included in the code in 2005. She stated the majority of the homes do not have this condition visible. 5 Regular Meeting . .anning & Zoning Commission March 4,2014 She said it is not an established neighborhood character to base a variance on. Ms. Nadolny said if the windows are permitted they will create a larger glass frontage and there will be little to break up the front fagade into two distinct levels. She stated it is new development and Staff feels if it is new development and the standard can be met it should be met. Staff is not recommending approval of this variance. Glenn Horn, representing the applicant along with Julie Maple, stated they are requesting two windows on either side of the door in the 9-12 foot no window space. He said the house is currently being remodeled and there is an active permit. He said the current design is for metal panels but if the variance is granted they will be changed to windows. Mr. Horn stated the code reads "provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context into which the development is proposed". He stated the commission may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or broader vicinity. Mr. Horn said this portion of the West End is zoned R15 instead of R6 and the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. He pointed out that there is no alley and the design is dominated by the garages and driveways. He said people don't walk on Roaring Fork Road to get to the Music Tent or Harris Hall but use the pedestrian trail. Mr. Horn said the set back is 38 feet from the front door to the edge of the property. There are 34 spruce trees with a diameter greater than 8 inches. There are 19 aspen trees with a diameter 5 inches or greater. He said the trees tend to dominate the experience of a pedestrian on the street rather than the relationship to the house. Mr. Horn showed several photos taken from last week depicting the heavy screening from the trees. He said the only spot where the home is visible is from the driveway. He said the dominant character of the neighborhood is established by the vegetation and not the front facades of the buildings. Mr. Horn said one concern of Staff is the creation of a precedence if the variance is granted. He said you can differentiate this request from others due to the unique characteristics of Roaring Fork Road. He said given the neighborhood context they feel there is enough information that would warrant the variance for windows in the 9-12 foot space. Ms. Maple said for the client it is an issue of proportion and aesthetics. Ms. Tygre asked why glass. She said there is a lot of glass and asked why the client wants that much glass. Ms. Maple said it was originally glass. Ms. Tygre pointed out that the door was not glass. Ms. Maple said the client likes the transparency and likes to look out into the yard. Ms. Tygre asked about at night when the house has the lights on as to how much light comes out of the windows and door. Ms. Maple said there are shades on the windows and does not think there would be more light than there was before. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is anything that limits the width of the transom to be the same width of the door. Ms. Naldony said the code states a transom is the window above the door. Ms. Maple stated they started out by asking for a taller door but that request was denied. She said they raised the roof to allow for the transom. Mr. Gibbs asked how far the roof above the door projects out. Ms. Maple said it is about 12 inches. Mr. Erspamer asked about creating precedence stating that P&Z has been told in the past that any decision they make does not set precedence for future decisions. Ms. Quinn said she is not familiar with that position. She said each application needs to be considered and there are ways to distinguish one from the other. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4,2014 Mr. Erspameropened the public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamerclosed the publiccomment. Mr. Erspamer stated he is all for an administrative review but understands Staffs position. He said he is in favor for letting the applicant do these two windows, it is south facing and typical of other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Goode brought up the argument that it is so hidden they should get the variance. When you start talking about code why bother having any code for the whole property. He said they can follow the code or not. Mr. Walterscheid said the immediate context of the entry door whether the windows in question are glass or metal there will be a window shaped object there. The intent to prohibit those two items seems extreme. If the code allows a transom above the door why wouldn't they be allowed to do a transom above the side lights. Mr. McNellis said he agrees with Mr. Walterscheid but he also agrees with Mr. Goode. He said he thinks the intent of the code applies to more Victorian architecture. He said personally he thinks windows would look betterthere. He said the entryway feature acts as the differentiation of the upper and lower floors. Mr. Elliott said the transom created the separation of the floors. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki said much of the code language is predicated on the pedestrian experience but given the vegetation, the set back and the more suburban nature of the pedestrian oriented logic does not necessarily apply for this area. Ms. Tygre said the fact the lot is so wooded and the windows would not be obvious to a pedestrian would affect her decision. She said she is concerned with light pollution but it is not one of the criteria. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve request for variance as set forth in resolution 3. Seconded by Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Tygre said given the context of this particular wooded lot she would like to make a reference that this resolution applies to this specific lot and that they specifically met criterion A. Ms. Quinn said if they wish to amend, it can be done in the second to last whereas clause. Ms. Quinn said it would be a friendly amendment as long as it is accepted by Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki yes, Mr. Elliott yes, Mr. Walterscheid yes, Mr. Goode yes, Ms. Tygre yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Mr. Erspameryes. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. McNellis made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion passed. 7 '58 MEMORANDUM TO: City ofAspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director RE: 825 Roaring Fork Rd. MEETING DATE: March 4,2014 APPLICANT/OWNERS: SUMMARY: The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Tile applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Estate Trust Commission approve a variance from the Residential Design Standard that prohibits street-facing windows REPRESENTATIVE: that span through the 9'-12' area of a residence, Glenn Horn, Davis Horn Inc. measuring from the finished first floor. The applicant would like to install windows on either side of the LOCATION: transom above the street-facing entry door. 825 Roaring Fork Rd. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CURRENT ZONING & USE: Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for R-15 zone district, Residential use a variance from this Residential Design Standard, finding the request does not comply with the criteria PROPOSED LAND USE: for receiving a variance. The property will continue to be used residentially. . / 3-' I *lal_.=a'jillillill....lif"NOTPi I /: 4 4 S.'b. 414Â»*.i'Rim-Tit*flf=â€¢27... ..4. - 1 x Â».5.,â€žek...9 6 k, r . ' -" fiâ€¢14 .r-- 41.52~0.le N M.. 1 -4///A 91)4 1 41@rep -1- 9 2.1 4. 1, 11?0911 1 9 -I > ~3~ 1 .* 1 - - Ii.'.T.ir/#2*/4390ill ./J,- I li 46, 4 A 1-1 i 0 .1.- ...,I . t 94*~. + -Â· 1422:~U t.*i. 13&54.k. Figure A: Image of subject property Page 1 of 7 .'*AA i. ' 44 P29 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: Â· Variances from the Residential Design Standards -pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D.2. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review board for this request. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in Aspen's west end near the music tent and the Aspen Meadows properties. e. /. I RtitÂ·gi â€¢ Â· 3 -22" r i ~ '' -*40;3~*:, 't 4 p;u o. 11 . 'AE,g0â‚¬3 ;. ~1 . a'JIULA : Â·*Â¥'*3Â£#.(471.14 020.***S~ . -~~.2. 44 3 - -TR .07* I . 31Â£ 1 . Â»k , I ''. 1 . 4*.. C a ,/ ... I -6 â€¢r r .. , -451 P. I . 2.r- I . . I 44 ' . 76- *,Â·*rÂ·Â·i.W - .. .AL : ..6 Music Tent area ... 1 , 4 / Â·'Â·49*12*At Â· ~,3-. ,-1--=6 1\ . AW tyÂ«./.r,~ ...:63 .# 4-/I'll-"/:/1,1 Lj ,*ti~i '=11 /8 ... : . al.4 . 11$< 2. . 4 I Y# / I -,-*,-GWes pit,Â»--90 Figure B: Location o f subject property indicated with star. The property is Lot 16-A of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision, adjacent to the Aspen Company Subdivision. This subdivision was established by Elizabeth Paepke and The Aspen Company in 1961, at which time the land was subdivided into lots and roads were created. This subdivision was also part of the Hallam Addition. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting a variance from Land Use Code subsection 26.410.040.D.3.a, which states "Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between the nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor." The subject property is undergoing a redesign of its front faâ„¢le, including the front entryway. This entryway has been redesigned to include a transom above the front door, which is permitted 1 : / ..7 A->/r ./ i 1 . . ' 11 i Page 2 of 7 P by the Land Use Code. According to the Code, a transom window above the main entry is exempt from the 9'-12' "no window zone". The applicant would like to extend the glass approximately 4.5' in width on either side of the door, and 2' in height. With this proposed design, one foot of the proposed glazing spans 9' and above. This extension of the glass above the front door does not fall under the definition of a transom. i . ---- -~J\. , / 1- - 1 f f 4 1 i v.. IlL__ Ir. i It ..4 1 0 U 1. 9/k L-zi- 1 L . 1 - 1 . _r Â»L _ T J 1 -r~ b ~ ~- -*-M 12 . _111__1' Bil- 4,+2:g}; - . -, t.'.*il-Â· - -/p /* \ 39-knu~Â«-jin==eÂ· - , b -7 4 1 11 Fill 1 - , â‚¬D -4 ' -1.42 2 2, ' . 1. CIENE' 1 i ' 311[_- '-4 1 lili f .t 1 , 11 ..~11~' % 5 r Figure C: Yellow indicates proposed windows on either side ofthe transom. STAFF COMMENTS: The Residential Design Standards were created with the intent of preserving the established neighborhood scale and character, to promote the pedestrian experience; and to contribute to the streetscape in the neighborhoods throughout the City. The standard the Applicant is seeking a variance from disallows windows in the area measuring 9'-12' from the finished first floor. This "no-window zone" has been established because this area is typically where a second floor level would exist. Minimizing glazing in the 9'-12' zone breaks the mass of the building into recognizable first and second floor levels, creating articulation in the building's form and softening its street presence. Staff has the expectation that all new development will conform to the Residential Design Standards when such standards are able to be achieved. The residence has a large grouping of windows on the second story level above the entry door. The presence of additional glazing aside from what is permitted by Code creates a large glass area without much relief or separation to indicate floor levels. Staff has examined the Applicant's request in terms of the criterion for Variances from Residential Design Standards (Exhibit A). There are two criteria to base a residential design standard variance request on - 1) Does the request provide an appropriate pattern of design based on the context of the surrounding neighborhood, or 2) Is the request clearly necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site-specific constraints. Only one of the two criteria must be met in order for a variance to be granted. Staff notes the following: Page 3 of 7 P31 In regards to criterion 1, Staff has considered the context of the Roaring Fork Drive loop when analyzing the Applicant's request. Staff has taken visual note of four properties in the surrounding neighborhood that appear to have windows spanning the 9'-12 , " no window" zone, only three of which are within the area ofthe front door. However, the majority ofthe properties in the neighborhood do not have this condition. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of different housing types, with styles ranging from 1960's to modern. This particular Residential Design Standard was first implemented in 2005 (via Ordinance 20, Series of 2005). Residences having this nonconformity were constructed prior to this Residential Design Standard. Staff does not find this condition to be typical of the architectural style of this neighborhood, and finds this criterion to not be met. Below are images of the styles of homes that are found within the Second Aspen Company Subdivision neighborhood. 1 13Â£.. 1#. 11â‚¬*aa#".......=*Â·>firq"Mima#M . . p liI' 2-0/l#1 - %'91*<L I '. , 3Â·-*41 Figure D: 815 Roaring Fork Rd. I':05 'I'Mog#wig'IN:, a,MiadE"(.if ui#dgltiÂ·tf:4<3,4'Mi'<Ii'"'Id Figure E: 845 Roaring Fork Rd. (1977) - ..2287/2,"-,r'rs.4.~-, 4...,4 I.-y?43#3 , Â¥.22- 4/.,14.- â‚¬ . 3, . . *Whiq< ~ ~ .*:.Â·Â·Â·Aa~A~ . 1 â€¢ 'â€¢Â·2~ .1.2, â€¢ Figure F: 805 Roaring ForkRd. (1983) 71*_ -/u.&19.*fISU~lf,AL.&,6./...... ~i ~ 3~41'â€¢'~" ~: i .t:4.4.Vi I ir:L Page 4 of 7 . P32 r.del I - I. 1 74:14* ir, $:...iy~I...i .1'ir ' -/ . 4,:. P,**<71.-g,~ 4., 1:2*:,--52- t - - ekt ' ' T â‚¬9".4?1.-1,44Â¥ 44'' Â· - Figure G: 890 Roaring Fork Rd. 1, (1979) 1 , 0 1 ~4 1 4 â‚¬~ - Figure H: 800 Roaring Fork Rd. , ' .2./.2...Â£.0 â€¢ hm. (1989) - --4*~~f".*)&42 ./ I h "32*b ,@Â¥=4~, I *Â«9*4*Vtâ‚¬2~~#ee*1~~- ~ fillilillillilillmliliAinmille'le,h"Â£5. I- 1 3, 1 Figure I: 830 Rearing Fork Rd. (1980) ' 1 0,1 Page 5 0 f 7 1 P33 - 1.--I , ....' - -14 6,1,1,1,f g... /f 4*1 - Figure J: 885 Roaring Fork Rd. (1978) - Windows appearing between 9'-12' . JetiE. C .2.. U..,r..4'3~ 0 . 1 . ..7 1.?I'l Al ' 4 lo~,f - ./+I...r...1-.,I-..Câ€¢...r-/*it~ /* ..-.. LZJ.24914.k i , '1Â¢ .Mm.....Zy-k-Ii.29.9 n . 4.% Vt HA#*1054: 11 1 . L .. ' 2 14â€¢ 4.-4,1 Figure K: 844 Roaring Fork Rd. . - 03,- 9. 9'-I . (1997) - Windows appearing ..#un."5#W./ between 9'-12' 1 - ~ v, '';~4*7<4/ 4 ' 1,~' tlk"Vt'~'*~EN-*FUL& 1 rw .-- - 3.Â·t.\122.-:91*17]7~,1 - ...... :0 -02341tmci; :11.,welÂ·l.t *jÂ·*reiâ‚¬4: .,19*4.vian;*4~ 4&44,4 F ' 5 7-, ' . , . . 15 . ..41.. 4/ # 41# ~ I. 14... I 4*-69/ %+ i, l Â· A ?2 1 2 4 1/4 1 ;3 4, t <1Â¢04 ft f t. I. < . WA~.~,1/34 ..1 'Lt I Mil/AQU{1~/1.<.t :b' 11?â€žeMrril : : 11 12;t.I~' 1 Figure L: 802 Roaring Fork Rd. Â»ruit u ~51 i"'4*ti 1-' 3 ' 20 11-Â·-4--11 1 1 . 14 1 16% 24 1~ (1990) - Windows appearing tal' ' 1 A Â·Â· L K - iT! 1 r. 3 between 9'-12' Rl' 42 N. . - th'*IN~Â£ r#-r-- 4 . 1. 4 31 ' . it. . ift'' .7, 4 .- , AM#q 2 . I It . AN~ 7 . 1 2.~E- E.e. 4 . rt I. FL - Â·Â¥ IT. Â·:Al , tan C *At l Figure M: 870 Rearing Fork Rd. i .,7 #Â· Â·Â·Â· fl{4 t (2000) - Window appearing . .,rist .' t. N between 9'-12' , *I .. .. ...1 _; ; I.j.. 1/4,;I'n.' t 1,- 6 - Page 6 of 7 4 . 1"~ 41%, r. P34 Regarding criterion 2, the subject property does not host any unusual site-specific constraints which would require granting of the variance as a means of fairness to the Applicant's desired design. Staff finds this criterion to also not be met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the request to not meet either review criteria associated with Variances from the Residential Design Standards, and recommends denial of the application. The following Motion and attached Resolution are written in the affirmative, approving the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission must find the application to meet at least one of the necessary criteria associated with a Residential Design Standard variance request and therefore approve this application, approve the application with conditions, or find that the application does not meet the criteria, and deny the application. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve the request for a variance from the Residential Design Standard as noted in Resolution , Series of 2014." ATTACHMENTS: â€¢ EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria â€¢ EXHIBIT B - Application Page 7 of 7 P35 RESOLUTION No. (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 16-A OF THE SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 825 ROARING FORK DRIVE, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel Identification Number: 2735-121-04-016 WHEREAS, The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, as owner of 825 Roaring Fork Drive, submitted a request for ResidentialÂ· Design Standard Variance for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a land use review to allow windows to span the 9'-12' zone at the street-facing entryway of the residential unit; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential zone district and is Lot 16-A of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the subdivision plat for the property was originally approved by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 3, 1961 and is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 2, Page 263, Reception No. 122664; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has submitted a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2014, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the Applicant, and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the review as requested by Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Windows on either side of the street-facing entryway door shall- be permitted to span through the nine (9) foot to twelve (12) foot area, as measured from the finished first floor, and as indicated in Exhibit A of this Resolution. P36 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation Â· presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4~h day of March, 2014. U Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Linda Manning, Records Manager Exhibit A: Location and measurement of approved windows 2 0 9 2. _mi~'Vli 2 D ,â€¢twie*... m.*4 Â¥#1 V f* j *lia *44 19> I .% . ,. \2\ t // . 1 / r ~ . â‚¬ 0 t.) 4 /0 & rod Ki ix // 1: r c : f 1, Fa=:i:= 4 1 <,--Â»Â»- Â·Â·-~i-'.4 04;1 1 ~ *11! * t' t:â‚¬4 vt 0, 11 m I ; '1 lilli <i>,1% I] i Ctti , 1,24 ... '' 0 * 0 1 '4*1.* 4.,Â· blw,lfdp 4/1. 'if:- , +1% rmit,Â¥ia 1 1 f.-- i :i ,- I }111!411Â£ 19~iicimili-4 111111*11; 1 14*.Â»- EÂ»Â·* 2 - --41 - *.-u*.A,L.41 -62=.*PIt . , 6, -.. p 4 t . 1 6 t-'1 <-3 0-7.* 0 2 ./.-' 6 6 40 -4 1 .il - ak Â¢ 1 '. -b 1 413 t? 4.- .al,AVV L ' 1 1 - 1 f-1 ~ ' 1 1- â€¢/_ L.21 1 , / , b' ~- '.2 27 u rEPOED NÂ·,07:.SA,t Orâ€¢UCCast M 2. r-/'Â»,1- lip -f ./ I d i Im P38 Exhibit A Review Criteria Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, i f granted, would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feel is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; Staff Response: The subject home is located iii a residential neighborhood on Roaring Fork Dr., which is a loop. Staff has considered the context of this neighborhood when analyzing the applicant's request. When new development is created within the City of Aspen, expectations are such that the requirements of the Residential Design Standards shaN be complied with. Staff has taken visual note of three properties in the " surrounding neighborhood that have appear to have windows that span the 9'-12' no window" zone. However, the majority of the properties in the neighborhood do not have this condition. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of different housing types, with styles ranging from 1960's to modern. It is difficult to tell whether the houses that have this condition were constructed prior to this Residential Design Standard. At any rate, Staff does not find this condition to be typical of the architectural style of this neighborhood. Staff.finds this criterion to not be met. or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The residence is located on a 12,000+ square foot parcel, of a regular rectangle shape. Staff does not note any unusual site-specific constraints associated with this parcel, and does not find the denial of this request to be unfair. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 1 - &4-~* (BITTE> 1Nimld0 A30 A.LINIMOO N3 V 80 AllO 102 0 Z AON ARCHITECTS L LC. Ell\1303kl November 19,2013 At * City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Mem rs RE: Re st for Residential Design Standards variance r property located at 431/433 West Halla S treet. To the esteemet embers ofthe Planning and Zonil Commission, This is an applicatio to consider a variance exel tion from Section 26.410.040.C.2.b of the Land lIse Code. ich states: "The front cade o f the garage or the front-most supporting column ofac ort shall be set back least ten (10) feet further from the street .. than the front-most wall of t ouse. The subject property is current 1 nfigured a duplex residence and is located has the addresses 431 & 433 West Hallam eet. T e proposed design involves the demolition ofthe existing structure and replacing 4 a Single Family Residence + ADU. The configuration of this property is som unique when compared to the predominant sub-urban pattern of devel men .the West End. Rather than occupying two platted town site lots and having 11 long axis ' the lot extending from the Street to the Alley (North/South), the long axis f this property oriented across a portion of three town site lots in an East/West directi J n. The southern 1 -the three lots are owned by the Weaver Subdivision with the a less of 422 West Bleek treet. and this area curre,itly serves as surface parkinc and a single story garage for k 422 West Bleeker residence. th The effect of this is anomaly i hat the property at the corner of 4 and Ha Street does not currently have driv ay access to the alley and is forced to access the tty via a curb cut on 4th Street. F the Property did have driveway access to the alleywa) (and the garage doors he facing the alley). this variance would not tieed to be requested. since the lan, age within Section 26.410.040.C.2.b specifically states that the front fa,ade ofthe gar (i.e. garage doors) is required to be setback from the front fagade of the Residence by feet, but does not speci fy that any other portion of a garage must be located 10 feet beh' the front faGade of the Residence. The Residential Design Standards were established to primarily protect the character of the West End from redevelopment which was occurring there in the late 80's and early 90's, and thus were codified around typical lot configurations found in this Zone District. The variance process was established to address situations where the lot configurations ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS PO BOX 2508 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 Al-TACHMENTa . -Irinâ‚¬+44---- I 1 1. ~*41 '*..4,- ..9.-t#.M:9r \ 'N -~~47_ -~_~i "*~-~*~-.,, ~~"~~t3*JÂ°*,- ~if .-f--<'..4~~ -",6 . LANDS OF KOCH 4 A.DAM~W,U,E.WaaN/A- (PER CuD RE,Uâ€¢nok ..3~37) . r.- *' .:970 Â·. ill :!t, ill . L . 2, , 4 (MA#. Aqu i:I ~rfE; fl - &92/EEELE&.-i, 4 + =-w~ir- 8 . , f: 4.1? - r ./ H r W--9 .7 UM=~=6::=4....-...0 a,RiCall / i- -Iâ€¢,Al * A l.e-1 -â€žmu . 1- --J:=~a A ~0SE,10 r, j 9 6 1 -4 - A= L * -i--22-21 -3, D 9--- 1, 4-, :22, - -, .mr . ' 24: Â·tÂ· ==,4-M-J#invel . ; 4-~ SJ.rm-U-f_-i39:3-~....-g'~6...8020405- P ~-----4-TrAA_ -_:~22----:1*~~ 'i -7 ri- 34 : ROARING FORk ROAD l , 10'Wâ€¢DER/*(MÂ»,IRA15263) ,t: S ~' â€¢r i' ,~ 4' , 40 -5.~.'.4.4 1- -- i 4-r.~ 1 -/5----.-e,/* agÂ£82 IMPROVEMENT AND PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY RECORDED IN RECEPnON #473437 PTTKIN COUNTY RECORDS OF THE LANDS Of KOCH DESCRIBED IN SPECIAL- WARRANTY DEED F zE.I.-- (ASSESSOR #2735-121-04016) CRAPH. SCALE (825 ROARING FORK RD.) 5. i Z* g. : =&=- ,Â£/Â£11,193,/U/,8,1..... .. .11.I ..ITY IC./ADO .:Aut I - 10 â€¢-21*.*k 20 . lE*YEWER. 20,3 W.- PRo~&21-%2'Uni,tÂ», or- . ......im... 7,8 ct..*MÂ¥ UNF 0 A-Ck :(*.C*ADD -1 f,70, --ou 'SL~'2 95-4 , - I â‚¬94,2 lit~ f $ .S . 9 . - 4 9. 41 2 A '' 1.t . , I , . 2. 2.--4, we. ' fE,1 r ... .2 ./ 1 11-& . .. 1 44. $ - .. - . 16 1 60 1 +47 1. ': . '- Le: If n ' ~t C. -L I). f 4-1 44 . 1- 440*,hitÂ·, 2, po I ' ' *1'1 , - - . , . . Z .112 4 46.~ . Â· .*40Â»Â·~::; 4- Â».. *Lb#: I' ' 4:-i -lbL I. 1%- Â· . 4'Â» 1~ ~_ 6. . . ./ + -- I --# . 44 + i A..+ :.&. . 11. 1 1 . 1 , ./., Attachment 4 3* 41* - 43 *3Â»2 Â¥ 49 - Ill, 825 Roaring Fork Road: Second View of Entry from Road e . 1 .2 4. I ; % 99* -4 >. ,/4 â‚¬68* , / >y!1' 85:1 4 + ,Â¥ -2 . -44 1: I - â€¢4 ... 4 4@* .. 1Â« Attachment 5: 825 Roaring Fork Road: View of the Property Facing Southwest from Road Attachment 6 4,1 4 ,tf:* I . 825 Roaring Fork Road: View of Entry Across Driveway I. '1, 4 .7 A . 9.4 k; 4 09*,3. . V 71Â»21Vr:*if By,/91/4/5,4' 7>Â· *, r.1.44 I * 8714: 4'p- I 61 1 . ./. - .,62 i' ' . 14911Â£. ~ -â€¢'â€¢ - ' i ;~*t+4lf- 14 ~.1.9 < *,-7*M&.1â€ž . ~'*32*9- 45Â·9::7'11'G ..8.Â· .467+ /'14$*'m~~11. 2, ft:244 11*~t~~EL i '4 " 'Jer ,:1 . T. . 7 - r 4 4- L -. 4 A I. * - a #Abit~2'.9 7 4. 041 41 r * t. .:.17, 6 f: 4 -p 7 : - EN 94 elli , 1,0 .: '2 1 ft 1.,4 . . 4%,0 lfÂ¥ I 4 C -ly *i, d 1 er 'lle 1 241 * gr . 1 :1 - 447; 461.10, . .,1. ed:.p r, 4. f. ..9 r4 - 1~ ATTACHMENT-1 ) 90 09 1 1 1%51 la E i /2\ m.=.m,m Â·m,==* -23 <FLIP -- . r..7 =t=1~~r~r'-=.Â·r- L. . Â· -â€¢-1'1, I "19 Mm 1 ..-, -IVT 'I-' 1p *-*-*.-- .6 0-73=<:4~ 1, . i E OTEPED SOUTH ELEVATION_ 00 9 -2 - ==1=01 825 Rol,RING FORK ROAD 'MI 4 li / /5X i I. --i ~~v-R, T liT]-== I*113==- .1-- --- . --.4-* 11=1--f ~ tl,=Pâ€ž1 9.-- Â·Z..] Null'Ir~ 1 7 - -- I -ED-7. Ll [--1 - ./7 - - =-1 1 1 1 Clz PROPOSEDBUILDING REVAPONS A203 E Gh PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION i -- /UL 14 - . i .4 1 . ...re.' A 94% . 11 :- 41*0"*-fj.*4' ~ r. , 1 Â·*'!Met ~ ;I T, 3+. , . â€¢ ./ ./11/ 34: 1, 1 A- I ' .- 3.4,7 4 - 4, I. , D /-8,/ - 0 -- - I./. - . 4 .-9 :taL *9,4'.-'. 7.4*,#* :5'~*~ - .%. A.Z 0Â¢,-44 4; - % ./ 3â‚¬ 3.:...rl - ..2*10,- .;./..~ -44 (S~i ~~~*3=,.4 ~ 1 0 , 11 1 1 1. I - Attachment 10 0. Â·41 - '1 â€¢i, 41: I Â£ , >14 A. 14.. lit ..1,4 '42- - ,â‚¬ ..1- --1--- - 4 27 .- 17:..,i- 8- 1 '6 . .. - View of Roaring Fork Road Facing South I It .:* .4 1. I t â€ž'i#& . 5 1 0. 4 .#If'.~af,1 2,0 14.& , 4.t .,. -e AN.4 ' â€¢ F 6: 12 :/ 6 - tr' 42 10'. â‚¬ 6 v Â·Â·r. I A Â£1 L. 2 --U-2 - f Â¥ 1,11 U ..tr 04Â¥- . 1 4tÂ» 6: f W.04& 'e lj'eÂ»Ct'i ' i - N. ./ *t 1 0 0 49 + â‚¬, 4.9,/128,4. I , I ... . f W. , i U.11:1 i . " 3 ' 9 tui Â¥ .. a 0 *,9* I I P - 1!t %uVI/7.12 I .pn k 4 44/* 7 24*\ f *40744.t -4 I .4., : . 5 ---r > .211.1~ 94 0~0 *- //-,.#pli . li#// -I/*/'* *ilim: 5.- ' 9-- Â·- - # 2 -r '-4- ?*â€ž4 % 4. 40' 1.-Ir .. ,A 14*1,34'e~ 18.07- ... 1 1 '1,1 0 1 , 0 . Attachment 12 2 i. i /* * r 15 1,7 1 14â€¢ 4 4 "Â·'r - I .4 3- -- 1.,4 11[ Â· - ----- I - -. I - 1- =*1*"r 805 Roaring Fork Yard: Front Yard . Attachment 13 f 41 -4 i h - $4. , 1,- , _1 + - e -Se- - . Y 29'tr-gk #t - ft_ ....lr. 43. .; 11.- D k,4. A- ..2 - 2 3, , r 1 4 J .:...tioe%i.e , 4 865 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard Attachment 14 4 . . ic 17Â¢Â¢*41 ' *4*I-- 7,1~ .- . 830 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard ./ ''4 Attachment 15 . -4 ' . r . - . - 10/A '.. +4.2,%1:,01Â» 1NS*004~ I ... rr 5, 3, & I 802 Roaring Fork Road: Front Entry . . -.=----Il.C Attachment 16 -t-- t- - 14 I . - ~. Jim - rew.+U.72.-We. 11. 1//Ir 1.-L ...:I./*/';I'al-du./.I-'ll/"Ill/'.Il-- 885 Roaring Fork Road: Front Yard >d+u- 72. CM.62 6 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 6 25 ADA\Lit\]dr FE>KLE- AD A D , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1 Tzi E-66/N j YM/+Al-6+4 4 , 201* STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I. <IA-2(2 u m.jO Â·-A , LAâ‚¬ A 8 A c,/4 (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) 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 o f general circulation in the City o f Aspen at least fifteen (15) days 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 was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on 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 of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy ofthe 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 suniniary, including the niethod ofpublic notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 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 Pitl<in. 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 o f 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. Â·, trlk It. ttal-tzl_-> 44 - The fgregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~tid-ay of 4<414&861 2011' by V*0 64 Valvd 4. 1**99- 6 #46.r/ PUBUC-NOTICE RE: 825 ROARING FORK ROAD - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE REQUEST WITNESS MY- HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 4th, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pIn. before the Aspen Planning and ..12 -704 Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, Mymmmistion expires: t- 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an applica- lion submitted by The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust for the property located 825 Roaring Fork Road, represented by Davis Horn In- corporated. The applicant Is requesting a variance from the Residential Design Standard that disal lows windows to be placed between 9'+ 12' on reg- Notary Public 97 dential buildings. The property ls legally described M as Second Aspen Company Subdivision, Lot 16-A f LINDAM. i Section 12, Township 10, Range 85, Land in Sec 0 12-10-85 described as Lot 3, Block 89 and Parts of 1 MANNING i Lake Avenue and Maroon Avenue in the Hallam G Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For I further information, contact Sara Nadokly at the ~'~Â° ~ 2%23.EUSÂ» rCHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Â¥4*dgiF Aspen planning and zoninfMmmdE. IC>(1TION My Commission Expires 03/2912014 Published in the Aspen Times on February 6, 2014. rHE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) [99253021 â€¢ 1161 urinn urri,LRS AND GOVERNMENTALAGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 ....Mfy#RE '. 7 Â¢'4,4 1-/1 d 6 1,1 Â» (fâ€žU.*'4 . .1 4:. :~.. .. I ' - 4 1. 7... I J A I Af,- . Â· 7/: 0 - * . I , - i' *phÂ· wr .FE 3 . ..4 ..Prix..... "D. e I 44 ' P 1, t e A B r/:2 ./ k . 0 DOOR HEIGHT: -71 n" 7'-80 DOOR HEIGHT: . -w I I 6, 6 . .. FIRST STORY ELEMENT: 9'-8" FIRST STORY ELEMENT: 7'-10" ' STREET-FACING WINDOWS: DO NOT EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12 STREET-FACING WINDOWS: DO NOT EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12' 4 .. 0, C A 1,i -~ '1'. zn ' * * SEE EXHIBIT B 1.... <.14/Vill'.I' - . I. :t Atils"I .r. 4 &'41'"'4'"<267-'.'<ri'"'-I FOR EXISTING ~ 9Â¥ 94 . . V CONDITIONS . 6921, L ..# 6 2 :Ar Imijf: 4: pa~/1 ../ 4, ..4 11'. - 'Nt =*3 0~<12.014/'..4~ i; r + 7 Â· . get - -' .,t ' im.al .12 2 .4... *4.4.I, 4Â» - ,.. . M..3==~ Ef '.> 0 7~f > * *U. Â»1~1' . A . I 1 ic ) /D ) ... 4 9, 2 t P , <DOgp''HEIGHT: 8'-0' L_.900R HEIGHT: 71-9. I V. r.. 1 - ty - i 29 .b . *Â·4.- ..Â· SATZ'Thi:1&744 FTRST STORY ELEMENT: 10'-10'(HIGH PLATE HEIGHT) FIRST STORY ELEMENT: 7'- 5â€¢ /.4... I 9'-2" (LOW PLATE HEIGHT) STREET-FACING WINDOWS: EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12 4 4.-:hi-- ///'1.. 207 i 4 ~ STREET-FACING WINDOWS: EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12' ~ , ji e Â·Â· . L ., 3<1â€¢immm.. Â» 4 mw,/I'llillill'll'llill/Illill/Q--1/ Â· Â·â€¢E.*1 .U '.a=,42* - I . 1> 11 ..f\\ B 2 5- 4 ~* + 1 k ZeÂ·x J Â»:Â«,~ Â· be - *15Â· f ' 4 14: , ./.46.6-luM&*Ame,V</59<9+=- 79d .8.......=44- .9..Ill ' .'). I I , , Ff~ ./ +. 0 - 44 1 -7...1.1 .. ~ ........ . â‚¬49 i # 4, ./. '/.I- ' ' i. ~Ply -1~ * . 9 04 \D ./ 5% 2 1 .9,-4 0 0 .8"-/-*4~ i- .... C=Li.......4/...I/19",1///11:/1 j- .4 -----~ 7..==~ 1 I : ... I rfe.,-7~.% ''1'.U..p ..Li. ' - Â· ~ -- 2â„¢ ~e -b ~ : E E F -a:=93 ... DOOR HEIGHT: 9' 8' FIRST STORY ELEMENT: 10'-6" FIRST STORY ELEMENT: 16'-0" (HIGH PLATE HEIGHT) R HEIGHT: I *-4.6 , STREET FACING WINDOWS: EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12' 10'-2" (LOW PLATE HEIGHT) STREET-FACING WINDOWS: DO NOT EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12' F \ i #./. %2 '.... G <Gh/2 . 2 :Â·%3, 7- ~ /0 L DOOR HEIGHT: 10'-0Â» FIRST STORY ELEMENT: 12'-3" STREET-FACING WINDOWS: EXIST BETWEEN 9'-12' 825 ROARING FORK REMODEL ASPEN, CO poss _ STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 0 10 20 40 0 20113 *M-*24,c OCTOBER 15, 2013 Ii' 1!P: I'l / ~ EXHIBIT A : NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ~ M 970/925 4755 {F) 970/920 2950 NCRTH ~09 Â·*Acl CITY'OF ASPEN -- CITY OF ASPEN EXEMPT FROM HRETT ./-9 u EXEMPT FROM WRETI DATE REP NO. DATE REP. NO. i-t 4Rd ' Recording Requested by and f Â°p~ 6-3.- fv\ i 99 24 f 01 15/0.9- When Recorded Return to: Koch Family Management 473437 4111 E. 37th Street North Page: 1 of 3 ( -th Wichita, KS 67220 1 li lilli 11111 1 lilli ill lilli li lili 10/15/2002 01:22P Dir >gy Attn: Erin Cyphers SIL'via DAVIS FITKIN C,UN,7 CO R 16.00 D 0.00 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made to be effective as of this 1 st day of October, 2002, between Charles G. Koch and Elizabeth B. Koch, as joint tenants, of the said County of Sedgwick and State of Kansas ("Grantor"), and Charles G. Koch, Trustee of the Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, u/t/a dated April 1 i, 1997, whose legal address is 4111 E. 37th Street North, Wichita, Kansas, Attention: Koch Family Management, of the said County of Sedgwick and State of Kansas ("Grantee"): WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the said County of Eagle County and State of Colorado described as follows: A Tract of Land situated in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Colorado, and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly Corner of Lot 10, Second Aspen Company Subdivision in said City of Aspen, Thence North 70Â°23' East 140.18 feet to the Southeasterly Corner of said Lot 10 and being the point of intersection with the Westerly Boundary line of Lot 16 of said Section Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence along said Westerly Boundary line South 23Â°00' East 85.85 feet to the point of intersection with the Northerly right-of-way line of Rearing Fork Road; Thence 22.21 feel along theÂ·arc of a curve to the left and said right-of-way line having a radius of 1467.46 feet; Thence South 65Â°16' West 117.79 feet along said right-of-way line to the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 15 of said Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence North 23Â°00' West 98.20 feet along the Easterly Boundary line of said Lot 15 to the Point of Beginning. AND HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED AS: A Tract of Land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more formerly described as Lot 3 in Block 89 and parts of Lave Avenue and Maroon Avenue in Hallams Addition in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Said above Tract being now located in and being part of the Aspen Company Subdivision and being . 5 # 112392 - lillill lill illill ilill ~ill illill ilillill ilill ilillill 10/15/2002 01:22P 473437 Page: 2 of 3 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUN-Y CO R 16.00 D 0.00 described as follows: Beginning at a point on Street Right of Way line as Platted and recorded in the Pitkin County Recorders Office whence the Northeast Corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Aspen Company Subdivision bears South 02Â°40' West 56 feet, said point being the same as the Southeast Corner of Lot 14, Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence South 70Â°23' West 140.1 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 10; Thence South 23Â°00' East 98.00 feet along the Easterly line of Lot 15, Second Aspen Company Subdivision to the Point of Beginning. also known by street and number as: 825 Roaring Fork Road TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances, SUBJECT, however to all easements, covenants, restrictions and reservations now of record and subject to all taxes and assessments, general and special, not now due and payable, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever. The Grantor, his heirs and assigns, do covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee. and Grantee's successors and assigns, against all and every person or entity claiming the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the Grantor, except as hereinabove stated. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural and the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. CHARLES G. KOCH 0,\ 1.\ t. ro t U#LiL__~ ELIZABETH B. KOCH /1 ' %Â«[44 4 kook 1 li lili 473437 STATE OF KANSAS ) Page: 3 of 3 I li ill lillillilli 10/15/2002 01:22P ) SS: SILVIA C:.&.S FITK:N COL..Tr CO R 16.00 D 0.00 COUNTY OF SEDGWICK ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ illay of October, 2002, by Charles G. Koch. Witness my hand and official seal. ~~ MARSHAA. DOWELL I NOTARY PUBLIC n 1 - t - & Ch. .. AA STATE OF KANSAS Notary Public My commission expires: Id&0/04 STATE OF KANSAS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SEDGWICK ) 01% The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7 day of October, 2002, by Elizabeth B. Koch. Witness my hand and official seal. Â£~~ ~ MAR#HA A. DOWELL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF KANSA& My Appt. Exp. /0/06/0 2 J_(1=_Ca=L Notary Public My commission expires: 14@4061 ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING November 1St, 2013 Jilstin Barker Community Development Re: 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel To Whom It May Concern: We've attached the required forms as required by the Pre-Application Conference Summary and Land Use Application to apply for a Residential Design Standard Variance for the 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel project. Please feel ftee to contact us ifyou have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Nicholas Chan, LEED AP, Architect Email: nchan@billposs.com Phone: 970.925.4755 Poss Architecture + Planning P.C, RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 (f) 970/920-2950 WWW.BILLPOSS.COM 1.1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 429.2797 DATE: 9/30/2013 PROJECT: 825 Roaring Fork Road REPRESENTATIVE: Nick Chan & Julie Maple, Poss Architects REQUEST: Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variances DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests three (3) residential design standard variances (Land Use Code Section): 1. Entry door taller than 8 ft. (26.410.040.D.1.a) 2. First story element taller than 10 ft. (26.410.040.D.2) 3. Street-facing windows between 9-12 feet above the finished floor. (26.410.040.D.3.a) The subject property is 825 Roaring Fork Road and is located in the Second Aspen Company Subdivision. The property is zoned R-15 and contains a single-family house. The proposal includes exterior changes to the front entryway and window replacement. Staff will accept an application for administrative review. The following two criteria are used in determining the appropriateness of a variance: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. If staff cannot support administrative approval, application can be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www .aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20Iand%20 use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPIanning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.306 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards Review by: Community Development for determination of completeness Public Hearing: Not required 1 Planning Fees: $650 flat fee for two (2) hours of work. If the application is required to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review, all time beyond two (2) hours of work will be billed at $325 an hour. Total Deposit: $650 To apply, submit 2 copies of the following information: O Completed Land Use Application. Il Signed fee agreement. Â¤ Total deposit for review of the application. 0 Pre-application Conference Summary. Il Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Il Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 0 A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. O Existing and proposed plans and elevations. Â¤ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 2 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET THE CITY OF A~PEN Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement for Payment Form 2. Land Use Application Form 3. Dimensional Requirements Form 4. Matrix of Land Use Application Requirements/Submittal Requirements Key 5. General Summary of Your Application Process 6. Public Hearing Notice Requirements 7. Affidavit ofNotice All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk's Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet at www.aspenpitkin.com, City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre-application conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, insufficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time. Please recognize that review ofthese materials does not substitute for a complete review ofthe Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions ofthe Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope ofthe Code. Ifyou have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections ofthe Aspen Land Use Regulations. i.â‚¬!OMMUNITY DEVELOIMMENT Â·D.El*\~RTA+EN'115%, :ti foy,- 2131;41:. -1.---- ~ 1 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative - meaning an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amounts may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pav Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant's request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 or more days past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, an unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. b33.1-Â·unitilii*>, 20134:...... ' :-~'.1 . Â©.942 7/1 1~ L , ..~'~..~ ~ Â·Â· : I- 'CÂ·;it->. 0.1 AspenÂ·' .1'30 X. C I,alena KÂ·.t. I (070) 920'-50911 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Phone No. 316-828-5222 Owner El"): Real Estate Trust u/t/a April 11,1997 Email: ruth.williams@kochind.com Address of 825 Roaring Fork Road Billing Koch Family Management Property: Aspen, CO 81611 Address: P.O. Box 2256 (subject of (send bills here) Wichita, KS 67201 application) 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 properly 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. 0 0 Select Dept $ flat fee for Select Dept $ flat fee for _ __ 0 $ flat fee for Select Dept 0 Select Review $ 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. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above 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. 650 2 $ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $0 0 deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. Cityof Aspen: Property Owner: al - 41 Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name:Charles Koch Trustee City Use: 650 Fees Due: $ Received: $ Jammry. 2013 City of Aspen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920-5090 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel Location: Subdivision SECOND ASPEN COMPANY Lot: 16-A Section: 12 Township: 10 Range: 85 LAND IN SEC 12-10-85 DESC AS LOT 3 IN BLK 89 & PARTS OF LAKE AVENUE & MAROON AVENUE IN HALLAM ADD TO CITY & TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512104016 APPLICANI: Name: The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, U/T/A dated April 11, 1997 Address: 4111 E 37th St. N Wichita, KS 67220 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Poss Architecture + Planning Address: 605 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970.925.4755 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption D Conceptual PUD ~ Temporary Use GMQS Allotment C Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review C] Subdivision D Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Â¤ Subdivision Exemption (includes Â£ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane El Commercial Design Review U Lot Split El Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion E Residential Design Variance D Lot Line Adjustment U Other: C Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Single Family Residence @ -6,000 SF PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Window and door replacement and minor roof remodel. Existing footprint and use to remain the same. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $650 Â® Pre-Application Conference Summary |1 Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement I Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U 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 ofthe 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. 0000 3 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 825 Roarinig Fork Remodel Applicant: The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, U/T/A dated April 11,1997 Location: 825 Roaring Fork Road Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 12,868 SF Lot Area: 12,868 SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number ofresidential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: N/A ~ Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: l Principal Bl.height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:/ Access. bldg. 1;44: Existing: Allowable: Pi zed: On-Site parking: Wisting: Required: â€ž Proposed: % Site coverage: Existi'RA Required: ~ Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: ~ Requir&.~ Proposed: Front Setback: Existing. uired. Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: ~Requi% Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing/ Required.-~ Proposed: Side Setback:~~ting: Required: ~ Proposed: Side Se~pki Existing: Required: prbpâ‚¬(f.. Combineâ‚¬Aides: Existing: Required: Proposedt** Iliefhnce Between Existing Required: Proposed: \ Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: NONE Variations requested: NONE ATTACHMENT 4- MATRIX OF LAND USE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS For application requirements, refer to the numbers in the in second column. These numbers correspond to the key on page 9. For multiple reviews, do not duplicate information. All application materials must be complete and submitted in collated packets. All drawings must include an accurate graphic scale Type of Review App. Submission Requirements Process Type (See Process Number of Required Submittal (See key on page 9.) Description in Att.5) Packets 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 1-7,8-10,35 P& Z 10 8040 GREENLINE EXEMPTION 1-7,8-10,35 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 2 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 1-7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 35 P & Z OR ADMINISTRATIVE (Based 2 for 0 Admin., 10 for P &Z on Location) STREAM MARGIN ExEMPTION 1-7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 35 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 2 HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW 1-7,13,14,35 P& Z 10 MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE 1-7,15,16,35 P& Z 10 CONDmONAL USE 1-7,9,17 P& Z 10 SPECIAL REVIEW* 1-7, Additional Submission Reg. depend P& Z 10 on nature of the Special Review Request. SUBDIVISION 1-7,18,19,20,21,35 P & Z, AND CITY COUNCIL 20 EXEMPT SUBDIVISION 1-7, 18, 19,20,21,35 CITY COUNCIL 10 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1-7,22 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 2 LOT SPLIT 1-7, 22 CITY COUNCIL 10 CODE AMENDMENT 1-4,7,23 P & Z, AND CITY COUNCIL 20 WIRELESS TELECOM. 1-7, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35 ADMIN. OR P&Z 2 for Admin., 10 for P&Z SATELITE DISH OVER 24" IN 1-7 ADMIN. OR P&Z 2 for Admin., 10 for P&Z DIAMETER RES. DESIGN STANDARDS 1-7, 9, 28, 29, 30 P & Z OR DRAC 10 VARIANCE GMQS EXEMPTION* 1-7, Additional Submission Reg. depend ADMIN., OR P & Z, AND/OR CC 2 for Admin., 10 for P & Z, 20 for P on nature of the Exemption Request. (BASED ON ExEMPTION TYPE) & Z and CC CONDOMINIUMIZATION 1,31 ADMINISTRATIVE 2 PUD 1-7,32,33,35 CONCEPTUAL -P& Z, AND CC 20 for P&Z and CC (Submit FINAL-P& Z, AND CC Separately for Final PUD Review) LODGE PRESERVATION PUD 1-7,35 P & Z, AND CC 20 PUD AMENDMENT 1-7 ADMIN., OR P & Z, AND/OR CC 2 for Admin., 10 for P & Z, 20 for P (BASED ON AMENDMENT TYPE) & Z and CC SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA 1-7, 35 CONCEPTUAL-P& Z, AND CC 20 for P&Z and CC (Submit ~ (SPA) FINAL- P & Z, AND CC Separately for Final SPA) AMENDMENT TO SPA 1-7 ADMIN., OR P&Z AND CC 2 for Admin., 20 for P&Z and CC (BASED ON SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT) TEMPORARY USE 1-7 ADMIN. OR CC (BASED ON 2 for Admin., 10 for City Council DURATION TIME) ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 1-7,9 ADMIN OR P &Z(BASED ON IF 2 for Administrative Review THE PROPOSAL MEETS REVIEW ~ STANDARDS) REZONING 1-7 P& Z AND CC 20 DIMENSIONAL REQIJ[REMENTS 1-7,34 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 9 VARIANCE * Consult with a Planner about submittal requirements. ** A pre-application conference with a Planner should be conducted prior to submitting any land use application. Please call 920-5090 to schedule a pre-application conference. ATTACHMENT 4-CONT'D- SUBMITTAL KEY 1. Land Use Application with 12 Accurate elevations (in relation to system in the area of the proposed Applicant's name, address and telephone mean sea level) of the lowest floor, subdivision. The contents of the plat shall number, contained within a letter signed including basement, ofall new or be of sumcient detail to determine by the applicant stating the name, address, substantially improved structures; a whether the proposed subdivision will and telephone number of the verification and recordation ofthe actual meet the design standards pursuant to representative authorized to act on behalf elevation in relation to mean sea level to Land Use Code Section 26.480.060(3).20. ofthe applicant. which any structure is constructed; a Subdivision GIS Data demonstration that all new construction or 2. The street address and legal substantial improvements will be 21. A landscape plan showing location, description of the parcel on which anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or size, and type of proposed landscape development is proposed to occur. lateral movement of any structure to be features. constructed or improved; a demonstration 3. A disclosure of ownership of the that the structure will have the lowest 22. A subdivision plat which meets the parcel on which development is proposed floor, including basement, elevated to at terms of this chapter, and conforms to the to occur, consisting of a current certificate least two (2) feet above the base flood requirements of this title indicating that no from a title insurance company, or elevation, all as certified by a registered further subdivision may be granted for attorney licensed to practice in the State of professional engineer or architect. these lots nor will additional units be built Colorado, listing the names of all owners without receipt of applicable approvals of the property, and all mortgages, 13. A landscape plan that includes pursuant to this chapter and growth judgments, liens, easements, contracts and native vegetative screening of no less than management allocation pursuant to agreements affecting the parcel, and fifty (50) percent of the development as Chapter 26.470. demonstrating the owner's right to apply viewed from the rear (slope) ofthe parcel for the Development Application. All vegetative screening shall be 23. The precise wording of any maintained in perpetuity and shall be proposed amendment 4 An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating replaced with the same or comparable the subject parcel within the City of material should it die, 24 Site Plan or plans drawn to a scale of Aspen. one (1") inch equals ten (10') feet or one 14. Site sections drawn by a registered (1") inch equals twenty (20') feet, 5. A site improvement survey including architect, landscape architect, or including before and "after" photographs topography and vegetation showing the engineer shall be submitted showing all (simulations) specifying the location of current status of the parcel certified by a existing and proposed site elements, the antennas, support structures, transmission registered land surveyor, licensed in the top of slope, and pertinent elevations buildings and/or other accessory uses, State of Colorado. (This requirement, or above sea level. access, parking, fences, signs, lighting, any part thereof, may be waived by the landscaped areas and all adjacent land Community Development Department if 15. Proposed elevations of the uses within one-hundred fifty (150') feet. the project is determined not to warrant a development, including any rooftop Such plans and drawings should survey document.) equipment and how it will be screened. demonstrate compliance with the Review Standards of this Section. 6. A site plan depicting the proposed 16. Proposed elevations of the layout and the project's physical development, including any rooftop 25. FAA and FCC Coordination. relationship to the land and it's equipment and how it will be screened. Statements regarding the regulations of surroundings. the Federal Aviation Administration 17. A sketch plan ofthe site showing (FAA) and the Federal Communications 7. A written description of the existing and proposed features which are Commission (FCC). proposal and a written explanation of relevant to the review how a proposed development complies 26. Structural Integrity Report from a with the review standards relevant to the 18. One (1) inch equals four hundred professional engineer licensed in the development application. (400) feet scale city map showing the State of Colorado location of the proposed subdivision, all 8. Plan with Existing and proposed adjacent lands owned by or under option 27. Evidence that an effort was made to grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot to the applicant, commonly known locate on an existing wireless intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. landmarks, and the zone district in which telecommunication services facility the proposed subdivision and adjacent site including coverage/ interference 9. Proposed elevations ofthe development properties are located. analysis and capacity analysis and a brief statement as to other reasons for 10. A description of proposed 19 A plat which reflects the layout of success or no success. construction techniques to be used. the lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall 28. Neighborhood block plan at 11. A Plan with the 100-year floodplain be drawn at a scale of one (1) equals one 1"=50' (available from City Engineering line and the high water line. hundred (100) feet or larger. Architectural Department) Graphically show the front scales are not acceptable. Sheet size shall portions of all existing buildings on both be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six sides of the block and their setback from (36) inches. If it is necessary to place the the street in feet. Identify parking and plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an index front entry for each building and locate shall be included on the first sheet A any accessory dwelling units along the vicinity map shall also appear on the first alley. (Continued on next page.) sheet showing the subdivision as it relates to the rest ofthe city and the street Indicate whether any portions of the 35. Exterior Lighting Plan Show the houses immediately adjacent to the location, height, type and luminous subject parcel are one story (only one intensity of each above grade fixture, living level). Estimate the site illumination as measured in foot candles and include minimum, 29. Roof Plan. maximum, and average illumination. Additionally, provide comparable 30. Photographic panorama Show examples already in the community that elevations of all buildings on both sides of demonstrate technique, specification, and/ the block, including present condition of or light level if they exist. the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board 31 A condominium subdivision exemption plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches with an unencumbered margin of one and one-half (11/2) inches on thelefthand side of the sheet and a one-half (112) inch margin around the other three (3) sides of the sheet pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090. 32. A description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement ofthe objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description ofthe proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, and site drainage 33 An architectural character plan generally indicating the use, massing, scale, and orientation ofthe proposed buildings. 34. A written description ofthe variance being requested. Project: 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel Representative: Nick Chan & Julie Maple, Poss Architecture + Planning We are requesting three Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variances for the following residential design standards (Land Use Code Section): 1. Entry door tallerthan eight (8) feet (26.410.040.D.1.a) 2. First story element tallerthan 10 ft. (26.410.040.D.2) 3. Street-facing windows between 9-12 feet above the finished floor. (26.410.040.D.3.a) Refer to exhibit A for a map of the neighborhood that illustrates the context of this project. The door heights (item 1), first story element (item 2), and street-facing window heights (item 3) are noted for each adjacent property in exhibit A. Refer to exhibit B (A203) for the existing elevation of the property. Please consider the following explanation of the context and existing conditions for the requested variances: 1. Entry door tallerthan eight (8) feet (26.410.040.D. 1.a): Of the adjacent properties illustrated in exhibit A, 3 properties (E, F, and G) out of 7 doors exceed eight (8) feet. The existing elevation (exhibit B) shows the door heights exceeding eight (8) feet. Due to the fact that half of the properties shown in both exhibits A and B do not comply with this part of the residential design standard (26.410.040.D.la), we believe that this standard is not in context with this neighborhood. In addition the abovementioned context where half of the properties do not comply, the scale and mass of the existing house would benefit from a taller door. The ridge of the roof directly behind this first story element is 30'-8" tall. A taller door would provide a better proportion with the existing mass of the residence. 2. First story element taller than 10 ft. (26.410.040.D.2): Of the adjacent properties illustrated in exhibit A, 3 properties (E, F, and G) out of 7 properties clearly exceed the ten (10) foot height limit. Property "C" complies with the lower plate height, but exceeds this limit on the higher plate height. The existing elevation (exhibit B) complies with this height limit. Due to the fact that half of the properties shown in both exhibits A and B do not comply with this part of the residential design standard (26.410.040.D.2), we believe that this justifies granting a variance for this standard. In addition the abovementioned context where half of the properties do not comply, the scale and mass of the existing house would benefit from a taller first story element. As noted in item #1, the ridge of the roof directly behind this first story element is 30'-8" tall. A taller first story element would provide a better proportion with the existing mass of the residence. 3. Street-facing windows between 9-12 feet above the finished floor. (26.410.040.D.3.a): Of the adjacent properties illustrated in exhibit A 4 properties (C, D, E, and G) out of 7 have windows that span between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above finished first floor. The existing elevation (exhibit B) also has windows that span between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above finished first floor. Due to the fact that more than half of the properties shown in both exhibits A and B do not comply with this part of the residential design standard (26.410.040.D.3.a), we believe that this justifies granting a variance for this standard. In Summary: all three of the requested variances relate to the same proportional relationship of the remodeled entry to the existing massing of the residence. The applicant attests that existing neighborhood is predominantly out of context with the proportions identified in these Residential Design Standards as more than half of the properties do not comply. The applicant appeals to the planning staff to grant a variance to (26.410.040.D. 1.a), (26.410.040.D.2) and (26.410.040.D.3.a) to improve the proportion of the entrance to the existing massing of the 30'-8" tall gabled roof it projects from. F 9 5) U CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN EXEMPT FROM HRETT . ~-2--2, C EXEMPT FROM WRETI DATE REP NO. DATE REP. NO. rvi Â¢+ 41406Â£ 1 b~)5400 Recording Requesied by and fe>83~6.3.- rn * 9981.1 When Recorded Return to: Koch Family Management 473437 4111 E. 37th Street North Page: 1 of 3 Wichita, KS 67220 l i ll ill 1 1 lillill'lll lilli 10/15/2002 01:22P Attn: Erin Cyphers SILVIA DAL.S FI-KIN COL.--Y CO R 16.00 D 0.00 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made to be effective as of this 1 st day of October, 2002, between Charles G. Koch and Elizabeth B. Koch, as joint tenants, of the said County of Sedgwick and State of Kansas ("Grantor"), and Charles G. Koch, Trustee of the Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, u/t/a dated April 11, 1997, whose legal address is 4111 E. 37th Street North, Wichita, Kansas, Attention: Koch Family Management, of the said County of Sedgwick and State of Kansas ("Grantee"): WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the said County of Eagle County and State of Colorado described as follows: A Tract of Land situated in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Colorado, and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly Corner of Lot 10, Second Aspen Company Subdivision in said City of Aspen, Thence North 70Â°23' East 140.18 feet to the Southeasterly Corner of said Lot 10 and being the point of intersection with the Westerly Boundary line of Lot 16 of said Section Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence along said Westerly Boundary line South 23Â°00' East 85.85 feet to the point of intersection with the Northerly right-of-way line of Roaring Fork Road; Thence 22.21 feel along the arc ofa curve to the left and said right-of-way line having a radius of 1467.46 feet; Thence South 65Â°16' West 117.79 feet-along said right-of-way line to the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 15 of said secdKA gativED Company Subdivision; Thence North 23Â°00' West 98.20 feet along the Easterly Boundary line of said Lot 15 to the Point of Beginning. NOV 0 1 2013 AND HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ASPEN A Tract of Land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more formerly described as Lot 3 in Block 89 and parts of Lave Avenue and Maroon Avenue in Hallams Addition in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Said above Tract being now located in and being part of the Aspen Company Subdivision and being 3. ! f ;'â€¢ # 112392 i ilitil ilill lilill illi iliti Illill itill ill ilill lili illi 10/15/2002 01:22P 473437 Page: 2 of 3 SILVIA DAVIS PI-KIN COUN-Y CO R 16.00 D 0.00 described as follows: Beginning at a point on Street Right of Way line as Platted and recorded in the Pitkin County Recorders Office whence the Northeast Corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Aspen Company Subdivision bears South 02Â°40' West 56 feet, said point being the same as the Southeast Corner of Lot 14, Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence South 70Â°23' West 140.1 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 10; Thence South 23Â°00' East 98.00 feet along the Easterly line of Lot 15, Second Aspen Company Subdivision to the Point of Beginning. also known by street and number as: 825 Rearing Fork Road TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances, SUBJECT, however to all easements, covenants, restrictions and reservations now of record and subject to all taxes and assessments, general and special, not now due and payable, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever. The Grantor, his heirs and assigns, do covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns, against all and every person or entity claiming the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the Grantor, except as hereinabove stated. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural and the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. CHARLES G. KOCH n 01 Cd- 4-4 ELIZABETH B. KOCH , RECEIVED /1/ 4 0 4 1 >%14.kg, U /4904 NOV 0 1 2013 (0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I . STATE OF KANSAS ) 10/15/2002 01:22P l ili 11 lilli 11111111 lilli 473437 Page: 3 of 3 ) SS: SILVIA C..VIS F.TKIN iCL..fY CO R 16.00 D 0.00 COUNTY OF SEDGWICK ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 67 (lay of October, 2002, by Charles G. Koch. Witness my hand and official seal. MARSHAA. DOWELL NOTARY PUBLIC A 4 STATE OF KANSAS A \. 9 -44Â£&4Â£0=_dL_11.111 MyAppt. Exp. /06#5/OR_ Notary Public My commission expires: 16~640/04 STATE OF KANSAS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SEDGWICK ) of-4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -t - day of October, 2002, by Elizabeth B. Koch. Witness my hand and official seal. MARSHA A. DOWELL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF KANSAS 41. MyAppt. Exp. /0/06/82 Notary Public My commission expires: 1490/OR RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~~ TITLE COMPANY r'111'g of the rockies 132 W Main Street, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 927-Â·8288 www. titlecorockies.com OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT & INVOICE Prepared Republic Title of Texas Date: November 7, 2013 for: Attn: Chase Evans Order: 0704153 0&E 2626 Howell Street 10th Floor Ref: Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214-754-7780 Fax: 972-516-2511 PROPERTY |DENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP Legal Description: A Tract of Land Situated in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Colorado, and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly Corner of Lot 10, Second Aspen Company Subdivision in said City of Aspen, Thence North 70* 23' East 140.18 feet to the Southeasterly Corner of said Lot 10 and being the point of intersection with the Westerly Boundary line of Lot 16 of said Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence along said Westerly boundary line South 23* 00' East of 85.85 feet to the point of intersection with the Northerly right-of-way line of Roaring Fork Road; Thence 22.21 feet along the arc of a curve to the left and said right-of-way line having a radius of 1467.46 feet; Thence South 65*16' West 117.79 feet along said right-of-way line to the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 15 of said Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence North 23* 00' West 98.20 feet along the Easterly boundary line of said Lot 15 to the Point of Beginning. AND HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED AS: A Tract of Land in Section in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being formerly described as Lot 3 in Block 89 and parts of the Lave Avenue and Maroon Avenue in Hallams Addition in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Said above Tract being now located in and being part of the Aspen Company Subdivision and being described as follows: Beginning at the a point on the Street Right of Way line as Platted and recorded in the Pitkin County Recorders Office whence the Northeast Corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Aspen Company Subdivision bears South 02*40' West 56 feet, said point being the same as the Southeast Corner of Lot 14, Second Aspen Company Subdivion; Thence South 70* 23' West 140.1 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 10; Thence South 23* 00' East 98.00 feet along the Easterly line of Lot 15, Second Aspen Company Subdivion to the Point of Beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Property Address: 825 Roaring Fork Rd, Aspen, CO 81611 County: Pitkin, Colorado Schedule/Parcel #: R007964/273512104016 Owner's Name(s): Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust u/t/a dated April 11,1997 TITLE ABSTRACT Warranty Deed from Whipple & Brewster Corporation to Charles G. Koch and Elizabeth B. Koch, recorded on October 6,1992 at Recpetion # 349342. Warranty Deed from Whipple & Brewster Corporation to Charles G. Koch and Elizabeth B. Koch, re-recorded on October 22, 1992 at Reception # 349960 to correct Legal Description. Special Warranty Deed from Charles G. Koch and Elizabeth B. Koch to Charles G. Koch, Trustee of the Charles and Elizabeth Kock Real Estate Trust, u/t/a dated April 11,1997, recorded on October 15,2002 at Reception # 473437. Nothing Further of Record Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records Through November 7, 2013. Senice Beyond Expecmfion bi Coloradofar: Eagle. Ga,jield. Grand. Pitkin and Summit Cowies. (Limited Coverage: Jackson. Lake, Park and RouÂ« Cowimes) Locations In: Amn/eemer Creek flmatt. Breckemdge, Gialiby, aild 1!111{er Part (Clostâ€žg Services a,Â·ailable iii A,pell aild Giemod Splillgs). MO'Â·"~~ .~C Â·:t'S. RdllIA l. CHARGES FOR THIS REPORT AND Â·DOCUMENTS ArrACHED Description of Charge Amount Qty Total Written O&E $100.00 1 $100.00 Please return one copy of this report with your remittance Total Due: $100.00 payable to Title Company of the Rockies Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the county records posted to the above described real estate only, and does not necessarily reflect involuntary Nens or other matters which might be disdosed by a search on the individual owner's or other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report. THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE Sm,ice Beyond Expectation in Cdorado for: Eagle. Gafeld, Grand, Pitkin aid Sweint, Coutifies. (Le<ted Co, emle: Jackson, Lake, Park Md Roâ€ž11 Counlies) Locations IM: Avail/Beaver C,Â·eek Bascli. Breckenridge. Granby, and Miter Park- (Closing Sen.im available in Aspen alld Gle,lwood Sprillgs). Â·Â· I .Â· Â· , 4Â·.li, 4",9 "M#---j..=inia--81Â·i-:.Â·M:-Â· .â€¢ 4,2=-4~ -'--6 5.77 .., ' ' ~ ~ .j ' I -, ,-, .~~tmMidgi&,~.:ieifZik~ipti:a--*sr?bip:-Firu**46*6Â¢*-23'*4*fmtiatpÂ£%4 -"I"Ji,"ir~,-I",~~~.~, #349342 10/06/92 13:52 Rec $10.00 BK 690 PG 583 310 5.60 --- Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $265.00 -:= tj ' 1 -j mog~ E-+.'21.-111- GENERAL WARRANTY DEED 111 . F WHIPPLE & BREWSTER CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, a/Ida The ~ E ~ c ~ Whipple-Brewster Corporation, whose address is 121 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for N . - 0 ~ 2- the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand % 6 0 g paid, hereby sells and conveys to CHARLES G, KOCH and BLIZABETH B. KOCH, asjoint C , 1 tenants whose street address is Koch Industries, Attn: Ruth Williams, 4111 East 37th Street f f V. North, Wichita, Kansas 67220, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of a j .131Â£ 114 5 21% C olorado: :--3 00=1 Please see Exhibit 'A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, i .,ti..~.~7.' - ". E,4 N Â·,& .Â· 1 19Â·, also known by street and number aa* 825 Roadng Fork Road, City of Aspen, 1 Ete' : 4 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 81611, ': r,1 + . with allits appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: : -: 1. General taxes for 1992 and thereafter payable in 1993 and thereafter; 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should "a '- = j 1.- f * the samebe found to penetrate or intersect the premises, as reserved in the United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 2. blf-~1-1 1 1.- ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL, PROPERTY RECORDS OF PrI'KIN COUNTY, 1-~:~; 6 COLORADO. 33 4 'e.:4 ./ Signed this 404 day of October 1992. 011 WHIPPLE & BREWSTER CORPORATIOPL'~01 a Colorad*torpot~on .. *,1..' C t...CA I' STATE OF COLORADO ) 4*:- 1. : beorgh.'WhfpNetpgident t~**.~~~~~:/ 1-1 ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) JÂ·A The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 6 day of October 1992, by George S. Whipple as the President of Whipple & Brewster-Forporation, a Colorado ~~ - - corporation. Witnes: my hand and official seal. 131.1.11 1 ....~.:lk My commission expires: 9Â·13Â·Â°.6 g..0/72...,. : r (SEAU ---- 79Â·>p' .t U < - NoÂ»*blic P -: A.. AP., C.1.#0 816,1 .1.-4 Â· ~ '-' ;%1~0*Â·1'Pnâ‚¬*,09*92142*1'2WOMoF,-2NitraÂ£rmÂ·4'Â·47,.-....A10Â·. Â·,Â·Â·.e~ .C ,-~Â·-2+ -, - Â·- : 7~CJW 1-IL~ ~~r . qgie..,â€ž,..â€ž .~~. ~ .~.~; f.1Â·- ~ ~ .. - *16 .~ ~ f'Etr~Â£:r,'~<. . 3914<~ . 4.-1... 454-U .:Lf '/ 4194 t..%,RE ' i. 4 CITY OF Â»11414141 .1.Ii . - &-' . I ,-.'1'24,. , ' I--- -Bul#l~~~m~i-lit,~ -Il!2 11. -2--I~~ #349342 10/06/92 13:52 Rec $10.00 SK 690 PG 584 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $265.00 EXHIBIT "A" A Tract of Land Situated in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Asnen, Colorado, and being more fully described as follows: 1 Beginning at the Southwesterly Corner of Lot 10, Second Aspen Company 4 Subdivision in said City of Aspen, Thence North 70â€¢23' East 140.18 feet to the Southeasterly Corner of said Lot 10 and being the point of intersection with the Wesferly Boundary line of Lot 16 of said Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence along said Westerly boundary line South 23Â·00' East 85.85 feet to the point of interseczion with the Nor=herly right-oz-way line of Rearing Fork Road; Thence 22.21 feen along zhe arc of a curve to the left and said right- . of-way line having a radius of 1467.46 ieee; Thence South 65'16' West 117.70 feet along said right-of-way line to the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 15 02 said Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence Notch 23Â°00' West 98,20 feet along the Eas:erly boundary line of 2 said Lon 15 to the Point of Beginning. AND HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED AS: A Tract of Land in Section in Section 12, Township 10 Souzh, Range 85 Wes-c of the Six=h Principal Meridian being formerly described as Lo: 3 in Block 89 and parts of Lave Avenue and Maroon Avenue in Hallams Addition in and to the Cizy and Townsine of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Stane of Colorado. Said above Tracz being now locared in and being par= of the Aspen Company Subdivision and being described as follows: Beginning at a poinr on Street Right of Way line as Plat=ed and recorded in the Pitkin County Recorders Office whence the Northeast ~ Corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Aspen Company Subdivision bears Sourh 02Â·40' Wes= 56 feet, said poine being the same as the SouÂ·cheas: Corner of Lon 14, Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence South 70â€¢23' West 140.1 feet m the Southwest Corner of said Lou 10; Thence South 23Â·00' East 98.00 feet along the Easeerly line 02 Lon 15, Second Aspen Company Subdivision to the Paint of Beginning. r COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Â· r . . *Fi . 74,31. 4 I *44 MI fÂ£ 'Â· -,1 <,re;'Oa,L . i '/ grilsÂ·'" 111 lili r' 111 11 111 11-1 1 1 u. I * 4.4 - #349342 10/06/92 13:52 Rec $10.00 BK 690 PG 583 a-(05 -60 Â» Â· Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $265.00 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED . -1 8 2/ 1 ** B.':M.- id 1,Â· hiÂ·le WHIPPLE & BREWSTER CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, 0/Wa The 2 0 05: Whipple-Brewster Corporation, whose address 11 121 S. Galena, A pen Colorado 816 1 for 1 + air . '. ~-1 ~~~ ~ the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and vatu~le consideration, i~ hand 2N lt?At . Â¤ g paid, hereby sells and conveys to CHARLES G. KOCH and ELIZABETH B, KOCH, as joint 11 1%6, 1 ~ - tenants whose street address is Koch Industries, Attn: Ruth Williams, 4111 East 37th Street ~:.'. ~~ . ' ~ Â¤ tancm ~ool~~ichita, Kansas 67220, the following real property in the County of Pitldn, State of # ti.. 0 46'..,.1 1-1 - 3 4.4.J : Please see Exhibit "A' attached hereto and made a part hereof, Z *4 ~~ M also 1[nown by street and number as: 825 Roaring Fork Road, City of Aspen, : 4% County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 8161 1, <:.:r. fD I ~ ~ wittl all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: 0 Â·1. General taxes for 1992 and thereafter payable in 1993 and thereafter; 2. Ri&nt of theproprictorof a veinor lode to ext[act and remove his om therefrom, should the same be found to penetIate or intersect the premises, as Ieserved in the United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 2. - ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITK[N COUNTY, COLORADO. ~h..Â· Signed this /4 day of October 1992. WHIPPLE & BREWSTER CORPORATIO~7.1 " 9. ...1 1. e a Colora~~torporation ~9 .~t: ~~ - ~ ".,1 :2 0 1 1,1 u.1 1 ..616 be&&0' wilfpNe,~dident *,140 ..Â·Â·Â·.. f ;~; 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. OL J~ lf---1 COUNTÂ¥ OF PITKIN ) -w The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ma this 11 day of October 1992, U - - ~, : ~ by George S. Whipple as the President of Whipple & Brewster Corporation, a Colorado 32 r S N cotporation L.3 'Â·. U 5 3 k..1 - - -1 gid . I Witness my hand and official seal ....3 E R -< ineÂ·.Â·... My commission expires: 9 Â· 8,6 , M N [th 1,. St *1 (SEAM 1 1 v 1 1 Nota.[94]Mic -ess: 633 2' A'P"- Ar., C.to..t[. 81611 =el, 4 - 4,/ 2 m rÂ· -4 44.:11% . < .4* 1 I Sjnk FÂ¢ 2-Â· -A-7. ..Â·- 41*Z :I.*9 L 1 i.* .1 PÂ·:<Â·Â· Â·..Bt.943' :-f-'W k i . / 191Â·:U.ttlff Ar.Â·iÂ·P ' Â· 5 .... at . :, f- ;Â·lU-0 6 'Â·IÂ· 1.Â·'L '7Â·.: ..tÂ·~ .' 1Â·1Â· '.'3?4 Â·1> â‚¬Â· 4'~:.Â·'r.Â·t 7Â·Â· Â· ki â€¢ ~Â· Â· : S. ~.. -- f. 4..T- '.. - L Â·Â· Â· Â· â€¢U Â· , Â·,ly Â·Â· Â·....'.-;:~Â·.Â·= .*,- ..3~': -,- i.+e-,a:Â·,-':0Â·w.~~-4Â· 1,+M:-:.3"94"13!44,.fbÂ·-611443f qf.tv.Â©i*%4:{ot~2.2 :'aÂ·..041.4-2,Â·et.Â·4>t*iu CITY OF ASP RERECORDED TO CORM)567-- 6,427â‚¬JL '14 ~dÂ»9*4, FL-br~),~,,(2'i ' ~fr, ,~~ ff*11Â·~~4-'fl~~~4â€ž2~,J~Â·GL 1 *349342 10/06/92 13:232 Rec $10.00 BK 690 Pe 584 0 1.-->lz Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $265.00 EXHIBIT Â·AÂ· A Tract of Land Situated in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Colorado, and being more fully described as follows : , 4. . Beginning at the Southwesterly Corner of Lot 10, Second Aspen Company Ff~+1. Subdivision in said City of Aspect Thence North 70â€¢23' East 140.18 feet to the Southeasterly Corner of said Lot 10 and being the point of intersection with the Westerly El~- Boundary line of Lot 16 of said Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence along said Westerly boundary line South 23Â·00' East 85.85 feet ':.: 43Â» 3, ' '.1. . to the pcint of interseczion with the Northerly right-of-way line of - Roaring Fork Road; ir?.. Thence 22.21 ieee along =he arc of a curve to the left and said right- of-way line having a radius of 1467.46 feet; :8 .Thence South 65'16' West 117.79. feet: along said right-of-way line to - the Southeasterly Corner of Lot 15 02 said Second Aspen Company Â·Subdivision; i.4' said Lot 15 to the Point of Beginning. Thence Nor-ch 23'00' West 98.20 feet along the Easnerly boundary line of .. .AND\Â·HISTORICALUY DESCRIBED AS: A,Tract of Land in Section in Seccion 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 g.f.4 .Wes: of the Sixth Principal Meridian being formerly described as Lot 3 >in Block 89 and parts of Lave Avenue and Maroon Avenue in Hallams r. f Addition in and zo the Ci=y and Townsite of Aspen, Counzy of Pitkin, 11 1 :1(,1 -: State of Colorado. Said above Tract bei2g now located in and being -ppar. of the Aspen Company Subdivision and being described as follows: f. Beginning at a point on Street Right of Way line as Pla:=ed and recorded in the Pitkin County Recorders Office whence the NorÂ·:heasn Corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Aspen Company Subdivision bears Sou=h 02Â·40' West 56 feen, said point being Ele same as the Southeast Corner of Lon 14, Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence South 70â€¢23' West 140.1 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1. -Â·10; Thence South 23Â·00' East 98.00 feet along the Easterly line.of Lou 15, Second Aspen Company Subdivision to the Point of 3ecinning. i COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO #349960 10/22/92 14:31 Rec $10.00 BK 692 PG 266 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ,#ri b Xt:.4 ~121(7'.;'Â·Â©t 1,Â·9Â·k .Â· - Â· J.Â¥W"Mm/--*V"Jug,~=I-- ..r -' I h *:NIMP I Â· 74*FF 1 1- ~ liti Â· -1 . . ~4t*04â‚¬ L ~' Â· - 92 ATâ€¢ %~lifi'.)*24Â·.6)3.9Itti' 14; :1,Fl..~~.til ~,~2'Â·p~* .:~rk:~.,4~7~ft:22%il:*7 ,~ -4Â·~':,~ "' Al''rÂ·,4%. *1 '2~.,3{ift31 ..)%/FiÂ·f}3 t''.,tÂ·r?,43 '360,11,7.6,4,4,Â·21Â·Jt'-0 1 . . .. - .... Â·r-6 â€¢iti. 7 71,&/1/gaiMS; CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN EXEMPT FROM HRETT EXEMPT FROM WRETT DATE REP NO. DATE REP. NO. 44RLL f D IMP G Recording Requeed by and felt.5/op- Mk 99 09 , When Recorded Return to: 473437 i Koch Family Management 4111 E. 37* Street North Page: 1 of 3 ? Wichita, KS 67220 1 MmilllÂ®Ii lilli rlililliHl flilliillillillillill 10/15/2002 01:22P Dg 0 4 Attn: Erin Cyphers SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 0.00 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made to be effective as of this 1st day of October, 2002, between Charles G. Koch and Elizabeth B. Koch, as joint tenants, of the said County of Sedgwick and State of Kansas ("Grantor"), and Charles G. Koch, Trustee of the Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate r Trust, u/Va dated April 11, 1997, whose legal address is 4111 E, 37th Street North, Wichita, Kansas, Attention: Koch Family Management, of the said County of Sedgwick and State of Kansas ("Grantee"): WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00),the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confinn, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the said County of Eagle County and State of Colorado described as follows: A Tract of Land situated in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Colorado, and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly Corner of Lot 10, Second Aspen Company Subdivision in said City of Aspen, Thence North 70Â°23' East 140.18 feet to the Southeasterly Comer of said Lot 10 and being the point of intersection with the We,fterly Bnlindary line. rif T nt 16 nf Rairl Rpction.Aspen-Company-Subdivision,-- -- -------Â·Â·Â·-Â· -- --Â·Â·Â·--- --Â·- Thence along said Westerly Boundary line South 23Â°00' East 85.85 feet to the point of intersection with the Northerly right-of-way line of Roaring Fork Road; Thence 22.21 feel along theÂ· arc of a curve to the left and said light-of-way line having a radius of 1467.46 feet; Thence South 65Â°16' West 117.79 feet along said right-of-way line to the Southeasterly Comer of Lot 15 of said Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence North 23Â°00' West 98.20 feet along the Easterly Boundary line of said Lot 15 to the Point of Beginning. AND HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED AS: A Tract of Land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more fonnerly described as Lot 3 in Block 89 and parts of Lave Avenue and Maroon Avenue in Hallams Addition in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Said above Tract being now located in and being part of the Aspen Company Subdivision and being !41 # 112392 i Immimmimmimimilmim 10/15/2002 01:22P 473437 Page: 2 of 3 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 0 0.00 described as follows: Beginning at a point on Street Right of Way line as Platted and recorded in the Pitkin County Recorders Office whence the Northeast Corner of Lot 6, Block 3, : Aspen Company Subdivision bears South 02Â°40' West 56 feet, said point being the same as the Southeast Comer of Lot 14, Second Aspen Company Subdivision; Thence South 70Â°23' West 140.1 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 10; Thence South 23Â°00' East 98.00 feet along the Easterly line of Lot 15, Second Aspen Company Subdivision to the Point of Beginning. also known by street and number as: 835 Roaring Fork Road TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances, SUBJECT, however to all easements, covenants, restrictions and reservations now of record and subject to all taxes and assessments, general and special, not now due and payable, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever. The Grantor, his heirs and assigns, do covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns, against all and every person or entity claiming the whole i or any part thereof, by, through or under the Grantor, except as hereinabove stated. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural and the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. CHARLES G. KOCH 04_ dÂ» ELIZABETH B. KOCH 4~Â« ~ 44 rv 0 STATE OF KANSAS ) Page: 3 of 3 10/15/2002 01:22P 473437 ) SS: R 16.00 D 0.00 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO COUNTY OF SEDGWICK ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~Ptlay of October, 2002, by Charles G, Koch. Witness my hand and official seal. ~- - ~ -MARSHAA. DOWELL NOTARY PUBLIC 4}1/4 nA-ka_ 4 tÂ«u.0 5.9 L IM,Appt,Em..GZE;34 |g~~| STATE OF Notary Public My commission expires: 16/&484 STATE OF KANSAS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SEDGWICK ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 98 day of October, 2002, by Elizabeth B. Koch. Witness my hand and official seal. El MAASHAA DOWE[[-1 | A . NOTARY Pilm w. Lf}hka- 4 C*u,ed 21 Notary Public My commission expires: Ib/@010â‚¬1 â‚¬0.9 + 06 1 -d__,1-v--1949<>,%:r/ 1- - -- 1 1 / \. Â· j ------ ----- --- M \ 1< W- J 0-1 \ 4Â»----/4Â«9.4 f.*f 16 - -- -- - - -- - -LANDS QF_KOCH 3 14/56 â€¢Â£*Â·Â°1< if yi -"tk/ f#L PER SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED~REGEET]ON #480797 + x r s,E) 1 / cÂ£2Nt~ 16/945 LANDS OF MARCUS (LOT 10, SECONO ASPEN COMPANY '0301'90') U g :95% 46 1 1 1 1 14 46*0 (LOT 11, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION) ~\_ t~ A ~ 865 ROARING FORK ROAD - x 875 ROARING FORK ROAD - - ~,~~g q o.~ + 78Â» #782 - 482.5 â€¢ 7 - fort \ 1 E/-4,/1 \ 18â‚¬. SP A 9: FOUND CITY MONUMENT -GPS#20" -----7885-----__ Â£ il \ -- - . *44Â£8*. 6 0.,/42 \*1, ProÂ·, V-5iLrri fÂ«1~ -frn Ar THE INTERSECTION OF 7TH & FRANCIS 1 - - - . . 42#, 0 \~ r> r ,- I 671 /3 /11\ j E.EVATION OF ALLUM DISC = 7905.41 el \ . 1 -N ' 4 . - '.111) 0 7884.2 \ . #1.. 415 :) FID, 5/8" REBAR W/ YELLOW PLASTIC CAP / 7886.8 t-2,0 44 0 7886.1 5-AIP , 1, 0 6. --0* *< ' 1 A .SPR \ LS#29030 (HELD POSi TION) / /43 2'Â»0Gn 233> ELEVATION OF TOP CAP = 7882 53' le 5SPR 004 4 0 7886 5 0< <PyÂ·~ 0 7884.17\ 9. 2 ,/ 42 9 \ ~404Â»~~~~ * ~ CIO. 6 - ..1,43.... 6 \ 94 1 \AffryÂ« 4.44 x- Abp 0 788548 7.Â¥ f. 1â‚¬24 0~S~~P 0*7Â®j:*90 y .:f 3,6*ir&#.. *J.9Â£1243 . .14k-xs, m 4---Â» i di ge:~Â©1* 6 :Â«Aj~pgerbiZff /~ 9 0 SPR Â® 6 :SPR :AS' liles - =:31. -. + 7885.7 SCALE; 1Â» = 500 //- --SY,&:Ft-_-9-1%-_Â®39----râ‚¬Â£*,4*42#.:~5+788~~~11 5 , r.li '. % .â€¢r-/4=; Â· ---4-:A- _21 05 AS, b E 2%20% - - M!.ClbliII.MAE -21 47 - ;1-2 2-~ C A-321-1Â«3-10 -f?93 u ~ 21#LY# Tr - 1 -Â£ , â€¢ 3 -t'J?Wl 3 lu i,, ?ft \\) 1*s.5 x - 792 -tr +7813 TE 8-ASP CÂ»-1 P.V.. 1 , 6 1/1.6/ * 9 SPR 11 e â€¢it f FJ /8 MQIESL 78801 IEP - - 23.3' - *-2---1- r.EL AC :& 4 1/ 7581>191,124?. f 31 -/3-rat ~ 7~4~44~ j I 7~-- --. -- 01 x tâ‚¬,ftâ‚¬42 7874.71 -7875 :94~;' 2144 9 A. e. 1 34P 1. BASIS OF BEARiNGS THE CALCULATED BEARING N 38Â·09'32Â» E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS AT THE +'878.9 \ 5 ASP - -e-1- -un-*-- ~5~5zp#AL-prm vipUNF,47 5 N e SOUTHWE5T CORNER OFLOT 10. AND THE NORTIHEAST CORNER OFLOT 9 AS SHOWN ON l HAT CERTAIN MAP \ WELL 55 ENTITLED -SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION- RECORDED IN DITCH PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 263 55.8' WAS TAKEN AS â„¢E BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. AT THE INTERSECTION OF STA' & fRANcis /4 Â¥7878 9, 14.Itj' 42- 0 - i - T.. 7-1 Â» 144. / Â®4623..LAWN ~ FOUND CITY MONUMENT -GPS#9(R7 34 STONE PASO 1 42Â«41*im STONE PA 710 ~ 0 . wo . 0 1992 IN BOOK 690 AT PAGE 583, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1,1992 IN BOOK 687 AT PAGE 680. 7882.1 2. THE SURVEY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED IN PART ON -HE GENERAL WARRANTY DEEDS RECORDED OCTOBER 6, ELEVATION OF ALLUM DiSC = 7906.09' \ ; 0420~SAR . 462 , 4 JA = - I . _ 6.82 0 + 451 ~5239-13#Z-- 3 THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT.N PART TO THE FOLLOWING: 23.5' LANDS OF KOCH 4,9 : /398 (AS LISTED i N THE ABOVE MENTIONED GENERAL WARRANTY DEEDS) A) RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A WIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT OR REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM. SHOULD THE 1- 7876,8, ./ (PER DEED RECEPTION #473437) 12.0' ~1.2 *.3 / 1 k 9)43 4, .4,4 9 ma Y 7876.1 4 WI GRD c TRD . ..- SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED AS RECORDED IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. (UNDESIGNATED LOT WITHIN SECOND , ,fl /1 ne, 1 7 M Â» 5 5 ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION) 0 7881.7 ~*-- SEo ~ ~73.0 LOT AREA = 12,868 * SQ.FT. . 9 1 *, M M / 4 4-ASP APA, I 4 : i( Jl 11 b 3&. B) TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND OBUGARONS AS SET FORTH IN DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND COVENANTS AFFECTING SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISiON, RECORDED IN BOOK 197 AT PAGE 475. :SPT - 6 23 (DITCH PLAT BOOK 2A PAGE 263) 03:% 13) TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND OBLIGAIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 360 AT PAGE 466 r-Til +p::Rs --- -----E j lif" 4 f <3 5 1\'44% 2 2 5. BENCHMARK: ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE 8ASED ON THE kCITY OF ASPEN DATUM NAVD 88" 2-STORY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE 7,4.5 FRANCIS STREET AND NORTH SXâ„¢ STREET ELEVATION = 7905.09' FEET (PER MARGIN, PLS -OP OF ENCASED 3" BRASS DISC -GPS-9(R)" NEAR THE CENTER OF INTERSECT!ON OF WEST W/ BASEMENT N K : 4 7876.45'T,/ ~ ~ ~ 4 1 (oidMo,s O~R~N~.~O,RAI,FT,i,No> 1 WIDOW WEI 1 /~ '87~5 44,6 ~ SURVEY DATED /1 27, 2010 FILED N CITY ENGINEERS OFFICE) 6. THE SITE SETSACKS SHOWN WITh[N THE PARCEL SHOWN ARE BASED ON A CITY OF ASPEN ZONING DESIGNATON + 65/94 81 46.8,4 6 - 29,1' loÂ· . 1, 494 ,-------' - 0. 11.9 , I 3*Pl OF R-15. VERIFY WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN ZONING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. ~ + ~5.8 â‚¬.5- -f / / 4, - Â°6.7' 1811.5 Ge: f Â°> f.8..Â· IfÂ© e I i -.352-*-ikâ‚¬1-- sTE :Fr 2 \10 1-Â«47 24.: 3 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: 4 . <56 IRD 2 %,4 14.66 ~ <73 wk3% m ~91.-Vt, \Â» 1 9 25.8' 7881.5 -THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO CHARLES KOCH AND TO STN THE CITY OF ASPEN THAT TzE IMPROVEMENT AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO WHICH 4- | 873.6 0.75 ,Â»22 1 \ 6 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, PREPARED BY THE UNDERSIGNED, A REGISTERED 4 +6; f 443.8,254--3,2*1**2--~%2 4--p~ao-â‚¬/3mu~~ .al 2 STONE PATIO :*A i 7875 7 10 / 0 . - -- e.kng . . UPON THE GROUND: THE SURVEY AND THE INFORMATION, COURSES AND 932. SRO --- -4 t ~*Â¥19 // 24.9' 1 4 j e.6 . 9 78731 -- , / / DISTANCES SHOWN -THEREIN, INCLUD'NIG, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SETBACK GARAGE 04- 3 0~> ~ AND YARD UNES, ARE CORRECT; THE SJZE AND LOCATION OF ALL Bulu]INGS, 4. dhtst*1. 7-// 6.14 7873.1 .14'P :ASP / PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY INSTRUMENT SURVEY 0 7875 7 *7873.6 L._4 '-42 -_-------- --* 4,6%_ â‚¬Â©,244234 1 +Mr 44& 39>,M 0 -- 7%#-- - 73Â«2" E#.23-- 7.4'. ,- -,u r Pf 6018'SPR I ,-i STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN, IF ANY". / / 77 0,1.P.?E STONE liETAJN-,VAELr- __ _ -04:14<,2.46/Nd 4#.5608// 7 9 7874.Lu . - 6 -- --- - 16* j,15, CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 4 / 8~ASM A F IA \ 1 1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ON SAID N - 'I. R *4 , / / PREMISES ON THIS DATE, FEBRUARY 28. 2013. MARCH 6, 2012, SEPT 12, 2012 AND +7872.8 SEPT.2013, EXCEPT UTIUTY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF b 7872 3 CONC 2 0 7874 ~9 7875.2 F 0 7876.4 + 7875.4 THE PARCEL. EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE 47/87.3.0 GRD .- f'~.0 38.3' ,A'~xM~ 1~ 6~<Â» 1-------- -- ///E - 45%<~u-$1-0~~~~-~////// '16**/~~*~4 , GM + 7872.7 m the 4. 7872.7 1 40 DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS ~~* ~ 5-*S78~4.9 8"SPR \ - - z:SPR~- --* 7875.8 GRD EC / 8'SPR INDICATED, AND THAT THERE TS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY 94 / 22 1 7874.4rSRR ------1----gil- / / / EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT K , Vt I AS NOTED. THE ACCURACY OF ALL HEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON E / 8 7873.6 * 6 7"ASP 78)2'*f- --- - s _._ - --- - ---~P_~__ --*Â·i&*--11-1 -- ,- pâ‚¬- _- .< -- ~- -ji----I -3--- --~~ BETTER THAN 1: 15.000. -787+67 5"6'ASP \~ ~ 35*i f /--I-~~_~~UAb~&=~~~~~~~*~~~~I~~~~~~I~ik~*Â©B~g~.<--~201~-- -Â·-- --~~<~~ FWD. 5/r REBAR ,) 8-TREE~ ~~ -- I @ 7873.4 <Â»10:~ /* ~ DATED: 9/301,9 20 (UÂ«- ELEVATION OF TOP REBAR = 7871.61 - ~ 4 .C l. 9-spi, .- / R08ERT C. HUTTON, PLS #24312 / 0 78721 +0 BY: 5-SPR K + --- + 7871.9 '4â‚¬12 .(117.7F) - - 4 e J t, CONC ~, - -:/,-Â·- ~----Â·- - --1~ ~2.22' ----- -Â·6 ..................3,%9-------- ----P,----- .---Cr ---r< ----- 47/R -0 - --- ~*,0=4~~ 117.78 / 7871 7 eASP .4 -----07871.8 --- ---- - ----~câ‚¬9Â·**IL---1-,31 --,543%- --1-6ff *----Il,Â·-' ---- --/ 1 * 0 7572. / s 65â€¢16'Q< ~e-/~_--t-*L._ *%(3-- - -------~warsâ‚¬5---LK=2~~~ _---'7 7869.5 -12*43*4 -- - -- o -- <- 42 4265- - - --- - -iff-3- *Â£-_ __ -.- / 4'?Â° 5.992; 11"SPR 7872\0 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 7871.4 9 SPR ---- 1O~SER i 6, 1 I 7872.1~ 7872 3 ~ 6;I~ >*1 -----%--k - 30 ~/ ..Â¥3 C. 44... 1.2 EC 0 7871.6 2/871,4 I 6-ASP cÂ» 12. - --*- - -of - -~133.L - - _~8737:f@E-_ - -1 9%42-mol=+ - 2 fu- 5 -0.2-2 ----*44;-- t - -- --- -*<<r-_0/70*J.5--*-----~$.1,<- /4 Er 2.1 r___ _ 2* -<*le .6 UL - - f 9 2 6 22 -------99 r - - - - - ~~86>.il ~EL SHOULDER / Â£ 1 3 F v \ 2 24312 i.4 1 1 / / - 1 ./ 4 -:AGH-,4..1.-W~ . . CAN . )â€¢I : / 22 4.-....* I -------- w ----------+ wt-------- W afs.6 444 1 / W..Mi \ 10// 6.271.s " / + 7871.6 1 /+7866 8/ / Â£ ROARING FORk ROAD 1 1 / / / 834,0 /62 / / / .' 0264 0 , / NAIL 1 7869.3 1 | 50' WIDE R/W (PER 2~PLATS 263) 1 1 / 1 1 i / / // 50.00 R/W K _1___1__Â«~fi . 3 / ./ 1 7.81 5 // . - CONC DRIVEWAY 'Pu_L---+--*<------1 CONC CURB (FLUSH */ GRADE) 626?.4 -C. Al 2, s CONCREE DRIVEWAY 277.0 19.58'I-1417.465-142.9E1 1- - wx N 65-16'00- E R=332.28'- S 65115'04 W -L-9184 FND. 5/8- REBAR W/' YEU-OW PLASTIC CAP FOUND 01' SOUTHEASTERLY OF RIGHT OF WAY UNE LEGEND IMPROVEMENT AND PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY STN - STONE SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE LANDS OF KOCH LWN - ELEVAT[ON ON MANICURED LAVON EL - EDGE oF MANICURED LAWN DESCRIBED IN SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED T/W - TOP OF WALL ELEVATION RECORDED IN RECEPTION #473437 PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS GRD - GROUND ELEVATION EG - EDGE OF GRAVEL SURFACE FH - FIRE HYDRANT (ASSESSOR #2735-121-04016) CONC - CONCRETE GRAPHIC SCALE (825 ROARING FORK RD.) Â¥f.M. - WATER METER -T & E - TELEPHONE & ELECTRICAL (UNDERGROUND) LLNE -G- - GAS LINE ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO -W- - WATER LINE EP - EDGE OF ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE: JULY, 2007 PAVE - ASPHALTIC PAVING ( IN FEET ) GRVL - GRAVEL SURFACE 1 SEPTEMBER, 2013 linch = 10 REVISED: SEPTEMBER, 2012 ED - EDGE OF DITCH/CREEK 08" COT - COMONWOOD TREE (DIAMETER 0 DBH) ROBERT C. HUTTON 08" SPR - SPRUCE TREE (DIAMETER @ DBH) PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 0/ AS? - ASPEN TREE (DIAMETER O DBH) 725 CEMETERY LANE O - SET 5// REBAR WITH YELLOW CAP (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 544-9952 SHEET 1 OF 1 JOB #168-8258 ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION 3SnOH 1N30Â¥rOv NDS OF SANT OARING FORK ROAD 30hli 0*008 6 101 0311Vld3B zg,94 + poss --- ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING - - /,11' A -- 0 - I - // 1 1 0 0 1/4,7 - 00 I - --- . 7 O . m 8 Ch rY,Â·/3 ... n 4/ 91 I 0 0 00 0 0 0 - 0 0, O , 'I O 4 Â° o.. 0 605 EAST - ST#EET As E. COLOGADC B 1611 ,"0/925 4755 --.0 0 0 0 0 - - - , - 0 - ~ 713 Kne h Consultant -.0 - -- _ 1 2 - ( 3 1 ( 4 1 6 ful 1,\} - GE.â€ž /0 1 0,3 ' 7%' 1 1 0\ 1 -/ 0 [A , . a . n 0 Or , T 43 A 0 ./V I r__t- - --7 F--- REAR SETBACK p A 1 71 . /7"h j ~\111 11 /--1... 0 ./ 1~ / //~ /,ti 1 1 1, 1-- \-- m --- v--f---- -Â«f-104--21Â« i~- 1 ~ - 9\ 5 1 i ri I f jl'I) Issue 1 j i 00Â·)0Â·2013 PROGRESS SE ] 1 1 Wh j 1 43/1 '' b TE 1# E , Â·Â·~ I ~ i/04/94 1 41 77Â£ j 0 . Â»<A O 1 / I / 91 -- 1 1 - I 3 - 1 0 - Ill 4-2-4-f - - ,0 66 1 0 ., 6 \ 1Â·~ /I - PROPOSED ROOF - ... / J / r. .' ---L=L - O -- 0 , cy \+J '%%.I -111_ I #- - I. -4, -~ - _ â€ž-_ - , - - - ~râ‚¬ _-73 0 - , ~ / , / FRONT SET*ACK -- - O -Â· - O â€¢. 1 1 .- d - 825 ROARING FORK ROAD ;- â€¢Ch_Tr p.-~ /- 1. , 1 1 -' 0 K - r. , ( 3 ) 4 .- --* * ~ - - / 0---- M 0 IC . 01 ./ 0 0 0 1 / I = .* *' '' .' 0/. - 1 --- 0 - 1 / + It 2 CD-/ / , p. ~.- W 5--0 C Â·-- -- - 00 -- 9- -14 --/ 0 -1 ----- -- -- -- - 0 ~ , 0 . - -i --it ~iÂ· - ,~ - --- 0 -- 8 0 - 1 Â·Â·N- PF 7 1-'Â· 2/ 9 1 0 -- 19'-5 7/8â€¢ 8> - _ - I, - Â·. 1/.9 1- 9 '01 -ER O V,I,F, 3 / ' ' 08 - 0 --Cho - 1 1 '/ , , PROJECT NO / 0 , 21328.00 / 1 SHEET TITLE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALEÂ· A105 ~ PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN N....UD.. SCALE 1/8' -1-0 0 2011 .>u 7-JREN!42"ll. I : ..04/nll)/.CO~-DIT.XC..CTI PeWT JU.21,~Anate Altfâ‚¬C'~Â£~PI% 'C ./AT I T~ WC*0..T BE IC..:l ./.Il PE.....LLPCS,~.S... Al.Enâ‚¬AIP- P Z BILLP~KC.la,Alm'U~*P-PiC!*Ul. ALL:O,En LAW S APJT~t - DTHER ~SEm EC - -* 2....In *0Â¥813?3019 - - ~ SIDE SETBACK (~7 34'- 7 9/16 V. I.F. 10/16/20134:23.35 FN poss ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 32- MEVÂ¢ HORIZONTAL WOOD 33- NEWHORIZONTALWOODSIDING (21 (4) ' 1 = 1 9 SIDING TYPE 1 - REF 1/A501 TYPE 2 (TYP.) -REF 2/A501 ' - T.0. ROOF ,lk 130'-8'7 1 -- 1 - - 1 1 10 - 1 605 EAST ~AIN STREET 1 = 04 9 3 1-=.Il- 11 Consultant _- 15 ' 1 13 - B.O. SOFFIT 1 11Â¥.0 1 -ill 1 1 0-7-1 - 191 ~ 16 4 34 . Â§?i I'll _ 36 ~ . 9,; 1 1 -1 - Â¥ m 144 Â·Â· - I :412.1 3 -- ........... ' " $4%%MIX %/ 191 0 (14> 1 .-7 ~ " " ~~ ~ ' A501 1--h=LJ 44 -- -- ----- --- 1/Ls 1 FER, PE. ' 1 INMFI11 1 7 6 1 .(t{ r---351 1.Â· Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· lai L___ill IXÂ®* T.O. FIN Â© UPPER LEVEL 1 p, 1 10---0 1*TS w ai>krÂ· Â· W"~ k a S A- 31 W 01--IMPEFI 14 , 1. JJA % - 1 1 1 1 ::~ {{4 2 ISS. 2 2 >Â« f] 1 11 m 09Â»2013 Flux iRE,S SE r ~ 23-~~~ - ~#0 1' F*~ Â°~~ 1015-ZOI 3 PERMir I s:i;4 09** . 4% / I I 1 8152013 ADMINISIRAInqi \Â·ARIANCE T.O. FIN.@ MAIN LEVEL 4 - 100' -0- 7 1 1 1 I I -27- ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS ARE ORTHAGONAL (TYP) 15 2 18 Ch PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION i 1 - / SCALE 1/4' = 1-0 34- NEW HORIZONTAL WOOD 35- NEW HORIZONTAL WOOD ~ - (3) (23 V SIDING TYPE 2- REF 2/A501 SIDING TYPE 1 - REF 1/A501 825 ROARING FORK ROAD T.D. ROOF 1 10=Â¥-'r- 1 1 1 -- 1 1 43% ill .I E 1 91 P ] B.O. SOFFIT 4 11Â¥Jy--7- L *95 - .- -..Â·Â·Â·Â· ... Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·----Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â· $,2%Eft Â« /1 Z. - - g ~il- E 0-or--i- * 47 4 .es ?i? ? 4.28 Mt 4 + ...2 - - E, m----.- 20 - -- 21 , fte ff 1.16 ,~ ~~ ' * t 1Â·1 92. . - - - -- --- 25 26 - T.O. FIN Â© UPPER LEVEL 110'-0 PROJECT NO 21328.00 27- ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS ARE ORTHAGONAL (TYP) - SHEET TITLE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS SCALE A203 Ch PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 0 2{)11 Afc'Â·E-via CAWi ': ..25/=Â£ ,2 - 7-=ri;E--10. -E 1Â¥:*Il< Ill ....All/AÂ·/ DIL~~ C TIE =RECER-' C#BIL, PEâ‚¬ZA. AXEC~Â£2 *~~rE-..E~O'*0C 'PART I TIC......Â· EE./.-HS........ PE~EOICNCF BILL PÂ¢35 <A~SCCIATES A~HITECTUE A~PL~' G 91 LuCZA. C....CH-ECTURE.DPLA~/ PC .... A_LJ-/12-ATJ-IT--MERRESEmEDRIC~ I. LUD~C Dy'413-- -.m 10/17/2013112845 AM DOOR SCEEDULE WINDOW SCHEDULE pos s DOOR DpQR FRAME DETAILS FIRE WINDOW FRAM E SILL DETAILS HARDWARE WINDOW MARK DOOR TYPE WIDTH ./Fit,IGHT~ THICKNESS TYPE HEAD JAMB SILL HARDWARE RATING NOTES MARK Type Mark WI DTH ,HeOkt[ A HEAD JAMB SILL GROUP HEIGHT NOTES ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 001 A A 7'-0Â· lâ€ž 10'-0 1 34Â· C 1 A 2-91/4 ; 10' -OÂ·811 11-0' C 003 A D 9'-0Â· 1-' 13/4Â· G 2 A 7 - 91/4 2 10' -0Â· b 11'-0Â· C 003 8 D 1 NÂ· G 3 E 5Â· - 4 1/2' '~Â·St.,e" 8' - 0Â· B&F 005 A C 3'-0Â· 7' -0 2 1/4Â· 8 4 E 5'- 41/2Â· 5'- 0 8' - 0' BIF 101 A 8 6 .0 8'- 0Â· 134Â· 0 5 L 7'- 6 4-8 7-0' B 102 A B 6'-0 8'-0 1304Â· D 6 E 3' - 10 1/2' 4'- 81/2 7- 0122* D 103 A B 6.0 7'- 0Â· 13/4Â· D 7 E 3'- 101/2Â· 4'-81/2 7'- 01/2Â· D ID 104 A B 6'- 0Â· 7'-0 13/4Â· E 8 B 2' - 9 3/4 6'- 101/8' 9'.41/8 C 105 A C 3' - 6 8' - 0Â· 21/4Â· A 9 D 7'- 0 6'- 101/8Â· 9'.41/8Â· C 106 A 8 / 0Â· 8- 0Â· 13/4Â· A 10 8 2Â·-9 3/4 6'- 10 1/8 9- 41/8Â· C 11 I 7'-0 3-6 13' - 3 5/8Â· C 12 F 2 - 111/2 6'- 10' 8,-0Â· D 13 D 8 0 7'- 10Â· 9 0' C GENERA! NOTFS 6'- 10 14 F 2 - 111/2 8'- 0Â· D 1. ALL UNITS TO MEET FENESTRATION U-FACTOR .35 PER IECC 402.1.1, CLIMATE ZONE 15 I 8'- 0 3'- 6 12'- 111/2 C 7&8. MANUFACTURER STICKER & SUBMInAL DATA REQUIRED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE 15 E 5'- 41/2' 5'.0 8-6' D 605 EAST .Al~ STREET AS'E. COLORADC 8I61' 17 D 4'- 6' 8'-0 9'- 0Â· D 2. EXTERIOR FINISH DARK BRONZE ANODIZED ALUMINUM. ~F~ 91C~920 Zg5C 18 D 4'- 6 8'- 0 9-0Â· D 3. NATURAL WOOD STAINED INTERIOR -DARK WALNUT FINISH. 19 1 61- 0. 3' -0 12' - 5 1/2Â· C Consultant 20 E 4'-5 4- 5 7'-5' D 4. PROVIDE SAFETY GLAZINGAS REQUIRED PERIRC, R308. 21 G 2' - 6 5' - 0 8'-0Â· D 22 H 6'-10' 5'-0 9-0 C NOTES: 23 1 6'-10 4' - 0 13 6' C 24 G 2'- 6' 5' - 0 8 0' E A. MOTORIZED SUNSHADEIN SURFACE MOUNTED VALENCE. COCO 1%OPENESS WEAVE. 25 G 2' - 6 5' - 0' 8-0 E B. MANUAL SUNSHADEIN SURFACEMOUNTED VALENCE. COCO 1% OPENESS WEAVE. 26 G 2'-6' 5'- 0 E 27 E 5Â·- 0Â· 6'- 0* 9-0' A C. MOTORIZED SUNSHADE IN SURFACE MOUNTED VALENCE, COCO 10% OPENESS WEAVE 28 E 5'- 0Â· 6Â· - 0 9-0' A 29 G 2' - 6 4' - 8 8-6' A D. MANUAL SUNSHADE IN SURFACE MOUNTED VALENCEr COCO 10% OPFNESS WEAVE. 30 E 4'.9Â· 50 - 0 8 6' A E. MANUAL BLACK-OUT SHADES IN SURFACE MOUNTED VALENCE. 31 G 2 41/2Â· 4'-8 8'- 6Â· A 32 J 5'- 0Â· 6' - 6 14-0Â· A 33 G 2 -4 1/2' 4' - 8 8-6Â· A 34 G 2'- 6 4'-8 8-8' A 35 1 8'- 0Â· 3' - 6 13'-0' A 36 G 2 6 4'- 8 8'-8 A I , tssul ./.> 1 09,32013 PROGRESS SET PERMIT [015-2013 \'ARIAND 1 1A15-2013 At)M EN IbIRATIVE I . t / \ I \ / 4 1 DOOR TYPE A DOOR TYPE B DOOR TYPE C DOOR TYPE D 825 ROARING FORK ROAD 29 Al L WINDOWS ARE ORTHAGONAL (TYP) 1 0+ 1 ?*pfi> t 1 t =1 - 11 1411-111- WINDOW TYPE A WINDOW TYPE B WINDOW TYPE C WINDOW TYPE D WINDOW TYPE E WINDOW TYPE F 2132&.00 0 LE_ 1 - 1,- - 11---4- -1- PROJECT NO 11. 1 SHEETTITLE 2%43< li I r WINDOW & DOOR TYPES & Â» *P 1 ELEVATIONS C.LA SCALE -- M A600 0 201 I K 2 - = + M. P.C. in ' 7'.Cat,Com.Er.Tâ‚¬ f' '2 1 I .- K.TE.1*NOPIN~ PC WINDOW TYPE G WINDOW TYPE H WINDOW TYPE I WINDOW TYPE J WINDOWTYPEK 0-r:O,-L. 1 ,~ 0-4 - A~let~N,p-:1 .Â©Utâ„¢E./.rE' N ..Alâ€¢=CIA Â·- - -./.W~P/0,4.- A.Ly-/#3-AU--g. - RErmES~~ Im CCP~mGH--HERET' 10/17/20131128 46 AM ~OSS ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING November 1St, 2013 Justin Barker Community Development Re: 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel To Whom It May Concern: We're attached the required forms as required by the Pre-Application Conference Summary and Land Use Application to apply for a Residential Design Standard Variance for the 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Nicholas Chan, LEED AP, Architect Email: nchan@billpo ss.coin Phone: 970.925.4755 Poss Architecture + Planning P.C. RECEIVED NOV O 1 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 (f) 970/920-2950 WWW.BILLPOSS.COM CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET THE CITY OF ASPEN Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to the City ofAspen Land Use Code. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement for Payment Form 2. Land Use Application Form 3. Dimensional Requirements Form 4. Matrix ofLand Use Application Requirements/Submittal Requirements Key 5. General Summary ofYour Application Process 6. Public Hearing Notice Requirements 7. Affidavit ofNotice All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk's Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet at www.ast)enpitkin.com, City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre-application conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, insufficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time. Please recognize that review ofthese materials does not substitute for a complete review ofthe Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections ofthe Aspen Land Use Regulations. RECEIVED NOV O 1 2013 Cl rY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'Â·CON/1 M UN~1-1/Â¥ DICÂ¥*1101'111ENT Â·DEPARTA*12- 1 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative - meaning an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amounts may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Aareement to Pav Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant's request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 or more days past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, an unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. RECEIVFn The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs 6Â§68tiated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property gyvn9Frw)dan applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between tHd,de private parties. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .|:2111 ll,11-\.Â·- 20 1 3. j :': . :- Â·CÂ·~in, 01 /ispen - .130 4. C ,Â·aleÂ·na %Â·i. I ( 970) 920-.5090 2 0," COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Properly The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Phone No.: 316-828-5222 Owner ('1"): Real Estate Trust u/t/a April 11,1997 Email: ruth.williams@kochind.com Address of 825 Roaring Fork Road Billing Koch Family Management Property: Aspen, CO 81611 Address: P.O. Box 2256 (subject of (send bills here) Wichita, KS 67201 application) 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 properly 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. 0 0 Select Dept $ flat fee for Select Dept $ flat fee for 0 Select Review $ flat fee for Select Dept O $ 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. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above 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. $650 2 deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $ 0 0 deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above thdkle#Ch amount will be billed at $265 per hour. V W NOV 0 1 2013 Cityof Aspen: Property Owner: (L -1 4(M~ CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name:Charles Koch Trustee City Use: 650 Fees Due: $ Received: $ Janilary, 2013 City of Aspen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920-5090 ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 825 Roaring Fork Road Remodel Location: Subdivision: SECOND ASPEN COMPANY Lot: 16-A Section: 12 Township: 10 Range: 85 LAND IN SEC 12-10-85 DESC AS LOT 3 IN BLK 89 & PARTS OF LAKE AVENUE & MAROON AVENUE IN HALLAM ADD TO CITY & TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512104016 APPLICANT: Name: The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, U/T/A dated April 11, 1997 Address: 4111 E 37th St. N Wichita, KS 67220 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Poss Architecture + Planning Address: 605 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970.925.4755 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption Â¤ Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Text/Map Amendment Special Review Â¤ Subdivision El Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ~ Subdivision Exemption (includes El Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review U Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion M Residential Design Variance E Lot Line Adjustment El Other: El Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Single Family Residence @ 4,000 SF PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Window and door replacement and minor roofremodel. Existing footprint and use to remain the same. Have you attached the following? FEES I)UE: $650 . 4&0 Â® Pre-Application Conference Summary #EIVED Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement NOV 0 1 2013 Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review S '36*k OF ASPEN ~ 3-D Model for large project ~ful/VITY opa All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text - C WENT (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 PÂ«m *E 0069, 2-013 ALLu Ree_ -uzz 3496-9 C,ke-exc_ a:_ L.{ G .50 G 0000 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 825 Roarinig Fork Remodel Applicant: The Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust, U/T/A dated April 11,1997 Location: 825 Roaring Fork Road Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 12,868 SF Lot Area: 12,868 SF (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Proposed % ofdemolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: N/A ~ Floor Area: Existing: / Allowable: Proposed: Principal BldÂ£Lheight: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:/ Access. bldg. i;3}84~.~ Existing: Allowable: Prydsed: On-Site parking: ~ng: Required: / Proposed: % Site coverage: ExistihA Required: ~ Proposed: % Open Space: Existing. ~ Requir#t~ Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: 1Quired: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: ~Requir~4 Proposed: Combined F/R: Existin#/ Required.~ Proposed: Side Setback: ~*etfting: Required: ~ Proposed. Side Se~>916 Existing: Required: P'*19:f: Combine~Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed~ Iligtance Between Exisung Required: Proposec~132:z~~ Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: NONE Variations requested: NONE RECEIVED NOV 01 2013 COU~ZJ?f/46/,eN '.... :,t...Cl'F - -â€ž 1.-- 12941 ATTACHMENT 4- MATRIX OF LAND USE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS For application requirements, refer to the numbers in the in second column. These numbers correspond to the key on page 9. For multiple reviews, do not duplicate information. All application materials must be complete and submitted in collated packets. All drawings must include an accurate graphic scale Type of Review App. Submission Requirements Process Type (See Process Number of Required Submittal (See key on page 9.) Description in Att.5) Packets 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 1-7, 8-10,35 P& Z 10 8040 GREENLINE EXEMPTION 1-7,8-10,35 ADMINISTRATIVE REV]EW 2 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 1-7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 35 P & Z OR ADMINISTRATIVE (Based 2 for 0 Admin., 10 for P &Z on Location) STREAM MARGIN EXEMPTION 1-7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 35 ADM[NISTRATIVE REVIEW 2 HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW 1-7, 13, 14, 35 P& Z 10 MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE 1-7, 15, 16, 35 P& Z 10 CONDITIONAL USE 1-7,9,17 P& Z 10 SPECIAL REVIEW* 1-7, Additional Submission Reg. depend P& Z 10 on nature of the Special Review Request. SUBDIVISION 1-7,18,19,20,21,35 P & Z, AND CITY COUNCIL 20 EXEMPT SUBDIVISION 1-7, 18, 19, 20,21,35 CrrY COUNCIL 10 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1-7,22 ADM[NISTRATIVE REVIEW 2 LOT SPLrr 1-7, 22 CITY COUNCIL 10 CODE AMENDMENT 1-4, 7, 23 P & Z, AND CrrY COUNCIL 20 WIRELESS TELECOM. 1-7, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35 ADMIN. OR P&Z 2 for Admin., 10 for P&Z SATEL]TE DISH OVER 24" IN 1-7 ADMIN. OR P&Z 2 for Admin., 10 for P&Z DIAMETER RES. DESIGN STANDARDS 1-7, 9, 28, 29, 30 P & Z OR DRAC 10 VARIANCE 0 GMQS ExEMPTION* 1-7, Additional Submission Reg. depend ADMIN., OR P & Z, AND/OR CC 2 for Admin., 10 for P & Z, 20 for P O,</f) on nature of the Exemption Request. (BASED ON ExEMPTION TYPE) & Z and CC i 3 g cONDOMINIUMIZATION 1,31 ADMINISTRATIVE 2 30 < 47 PUD 1-7,32,33,35 CONCEPTUAL -P& Z, AND CC 20 for P&Z and CC (Submit FINAL-P& Z, AND CC Separately for Final PUD Review) -- 1-1 ~ .. LODGE PRESERVATION PUD 1-7, 35 P & Z, AND CC 20 Z INBA201 A3 PUD AMENDMENT 1-7 ADMIN., OR P & Z, AND/OR CC 2 for Admin., 10 for P & Z, 20 for P (BASED ON AMENDMENT TYPE) & Z and CC SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA 1-7,35 CONCEPTUAL-P& Z, AND CC 20 for P&Z and CC (Submit (SPA) ANAL- P & Z, AND CC Separately for Final SPA) AMENDMENT TO SPA 1-7 ADMIN., OR P&Z AND CC 2 for Admin., 20 for P&Z and CC (BASED ON SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT) TEMPORARY USE 1-7 ADMIN. OR CC (BASED ON 2 for Admin., 10 for City Council DURATION TIME) ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 1-7,9 ADMIN OR P &Z(BASED ON IF 2 for Administrative Review THE PROPOSAL MEETS REVIEW STANDARDS) REZONING 1-7 P& Z AND CC 20 DIMENSIONAL REQU[REMENTS 1-7,34 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 9 VARIANCE * Consult with a Planner about submittal requirements. ** A pre-application conference with a Planner should be conducted prior to submitting any land use application. Please call 920-5090 to schedule a pre-application conference. 0 /- 2-< 2 r, 40 0 all - m W o b -0 0 m Z 03A13 3ki . ATTACHMENT 4-CONT'D- SUBMITTAL KEY 1. Land Use Application with 12 Accurate elevations (in relation to system in the area of the proposed Applicant's name, address and telephone mean sea level) ofthe lowest floor, subdivision. The contents ofthe plat shall number, contained within a letter signed including basement, of all new or be of sufficient detail to determine by the applicant stating the name, address, substantially improved structures; a whether the proposed subdivision will and telephone number of the verification and recordation ofthe actual meet the design standards pursuant to representative authorized to act on behalf elevation in relation to mean sea level to Land Use Code Section 26.480.060(3).20. of the applicant which any structure is constructed, a Subdivision GIS Data demonstration that all new construction or 2. The street address and legal substantial improvements will be 21 A landscape plan showing location, description of the parcel on which anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or size, and type of proposed landscape development is proposed to occur. lateral movement of any structure to be features. constructed or improved; a demonstration 3. A disclosure of ownership of the that the structure will have the lowest 22. A subdivision plat which meets the parcel on which development is proposed floor, including basement, elevated to at terms of this chapter, and conforms to the to occur, consisting of a current certificate least two (2) feet above the base flood requirements ofthis title indicating that no from a title insurance company, or elevation, all as certified by a registered further subdivision may be granted for attorney licensed to practice in the State of professional engineer or architect. these lots nor will additional units be built Colorado, listing the names of all owners without receipt of applicable approvals of the property, and all mortgages, 13. A landscape plan that includes pursuant to this chapter and growth judgments, liens, easements, contracts and native vegetative screening of no less than management allocation pursuant to agreements affecting the parcel, and fifty (50) percent ofthe development as Chapter 26.470. demonstrating the owner's right to apply viewed from the rear (slope) ofthe parcel. for the Development Application. All vegetative screening shall be 23. The precise wording of any maintained in perpetuity and shall be proposed amendment 4. An 8 1/2" 1 11" vicinity map locating replaced with the same or comparable the subject parcel within the City of material should it die. 24. Site Plan or plans drawn to a scale of Aspen. one (1") inch equals ten (10') feet or one 14. Site sections drawn by a registered (1") inch equals twenty (20') feet, 5 A site improvement survey including architect landscape architect, or including before and "after" photographs topography and vegetation showing the engineer shall be submitted showing all (simulations) specifying the location of current status of the parcel certified by a existing and proposed site elements, the antennas, support structures, transmission registered land surveyor, licensed in the top of slope, and pertinent elevations buildings and/or other accessory uses, State of Colorado. (This requirement, or above sea level. access, parking, fences, signs, lighting any part thereof, may be waived by the landscaped areas and all adjacent land Community Development Department if 15. Proposed elevations ofthe uses within one-hundred fifty (150') feet. the project is determined not to warrant a development, including any rooftop Such plans and drawings should survey document.) equipment and how it will be screened. demonstrate compliance with the Review Standards ofthis Section. 6. A site plan depicting the proposed 16. Proposed elevations of the layout and the project's physical development, including any rooftop 25. FAA and FCC Coordination. relationship to the land and it's equipment and how it will be screened Statements regarding the regulations of surroundings. the Federal Aviation Administration 17 A sketch plan ofthe site showing (FAA) and the Federal Communications 7. A written description of the existing and proposed features which are Commission (FCC). proposal and a written explanation of relevant to the review how a proposed development complies 26. Structural Integrity Report from a with the review standards relevant to the 18 One(I)inchequalsfourhundred professional engineer licensed in the development application. (400) feet scale city map showing the State of Colorado. location of the proposed subdivision, all 8. Plan with Existing and proposed adjacent lands owned by or under option 27. Evidence that an effort was made to grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot to the applicant, commonly known locate on an existing wireless intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. landmarks, and the zone district in which telecommunication services facility the proposed subdivision and adjacent site including coverage/ interference 9. Proposed elevations ofthe development properties are located. analysis and capacity analysis and a brief statement as to other reasons for 10 A description ofproposed 19. A plat which reflects the layout of success or no success. construction techniques to be used. the lots, blocks and stnictures in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall 28. Neighborhood block plan at 11. A Plan with the 100-year floodplain be drawn at a scale of one (1) equals one 1"=50' (available from City Engineering line and the high water line. hundred (100) feet or larger. Architectural Department) Graphically show the front scales are not acceptable. Sheet size shall portions of all existing buildings on both be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six sides of the block and their setback from (36) inches. If it is necessary to place the AhAtreet in feet F Identify parking and plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an index front entry for each building and locate shall be included on the first sheet A any accessory dwelling units along the vicinity map shall also appear on the first alleyÂ· (contin,ed2119It plge,) sheet showing the subdivision as it relates IN U V 9 - to the rest of the city and the street Cl i Y Or AbrEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I . ' D .. Indicate whether any portions of the 35. Exterior Lighting Plan. Show the houses immediately adjacent to the location, height type and luminous subject parcel are one story (only one intensity of each above grade fixture. living level). Estimate the site illumination as measured in foot candles and include minimum, 29. RoofPlan. maximum, and average illumination. Additionally, provide comparable 30. Photographic panorama Show examples already in the community that elevations ofall buildings on both sides of demonstrate technique, specification, and/ the block, including present condition of or light level if they exist the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board 31. A condominium subdivision exemption plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches with an unencumbered margin of one and one-half (1 1/2) inchesontheleft hand side of the sheet and a one-half(112) inch margin around the other three (3) sides of the sheet pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090. 32. A description and site plan ofthe proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description ofthe proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, and site drainage. 33. An architectural character plan generally indicating the use, massing, scale, and orientation ofthe proposed buildings 34. A written description ofthe variance being requested. RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 THE CITY oF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: November 5,2013 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 0069.2013.ASLU -825 Rearing Fork Road. Your planner assigned to the case is Justin Barker. ~ 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. 1) Proof of Ownership. Adequate proof of ownership can be in the form of a current certificate from a title company title insurance company (or an ownership and Encumbrance report), or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner' s right to apply for the Development Application. A warranty deed is not acceptable. O Your 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. Thank You, lennifer~h~lan, 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 ~><~ Commercial E.P.F. Lodging 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 429.2797 DATE: 9/30/2013 PROJECT: 825 Roaring Fork Road REPRESENTATIVE: Nick Chan & Julie Maple, Poss Architects REQUEST: Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variances DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests three (3) residential design standard variances (Land Use Code Section): 1. Entry door taller than 8 ft. (26.410.040.D.1.a) 2. First story element taller than 10 ft. (26.410.040.D.2) 3. Street-facing windows between 9-12 feet above the finished floor. (26.410.040.D.3.a) The subject property is 825 Roaring Fork Road and is located in the Second Aspen Company Subdivision. The property is zoned R-15 and contains a single-family house. The proposal includes exterior changes to the front entryway and window replacement. Staff will accept an application for administrative review. The following two criteria are used in determining the appropriateness of a variance: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. If staff cannot support administrative approval, application can be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20Iand%20 use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http:Uwww.aspen pitki n. com/Departments/Comm u n itv-Development/Planning-a nd-Zon i nq/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ RECEIVED Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.306 Common Development Review Proceduq, 0 1 2013 26.410 Residential Design Standards CITY OF ASPEN Review by: Community Development for determination of completeriea '4" INg DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing: Not required 1 e Planning Fees: $650 flat fee for two (2) hours of work. If the application is required to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review, all time beyond two (2) hours of work will be billed at $325 an hour. Total Deposit: $650 To apply, submit 2 copies of the following information: O Completed Land Use Application. Il Signed fee agreement. Il Total deposit for review of the application. Il Pre-application Conference Summary. Il Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Il Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 0 A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Il Existing and proposed plans and elevations. O An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2