Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150217 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING February 17, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Room 130 S Galena St, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. January 13, 2015 Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road - 8040 Greenline Review VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 06-2015 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair, called the Special Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Keith Goode, Jason Elliot, and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Chris Bendon. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan thanked the commissioners for making time for the special meeting tonight. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no comments. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Public Hearing – 212 Lake Avenue, Replacement of nonconforming structure, – Continued from January 6, 2015 Mr. Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 212 Lake Avenue. Ms. Quinn stated the affidavit of public notice had not been previously reviewed. She has reviewed and determined notice was properly provided for the January 6th meeting. Ms. Phelan stated the notice was included as Exhibit C. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, reviewed the application for 212 Lake Avenue request for special review approval. Ms. Phelan stated 212 Lake Avenue is considered a nonconforming structure. The house does not meet the underlying zone district requirements. Demolition has been triggered and under the land use code it requires the building to now conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district. The special review has specific criteria P&Z must determine the application meets. Ms. Phelan then provided background on the project. This property is an 11,000 sf lot and is about 59 ft wide at its narrowest spot and overlooks the Aspen Center for Environment Studies (ACES). It is in the Hallam Lake Bluff review and is designated as a historic landmark. The property is located in the medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district. 1 P1 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 The property is nonconforming with regards to parking (short 2 spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area (about 1,500 sf over), site coverage (small percent) and the Hallam Lake Bluff setback and height requirements (part of the building). The property is an existing duplex and the current owner was granted approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to remodel the house in April, 2014. The granted approvals allowed the applicant to maintain the construction in the setback, provided a parking variance and approved some roof and form changes to simplify the building to be more sensitive to both Hallam Lake and the historic resource (miner’s cottage). The building permit included demo calculations to verify demo is not triggered. A demolition shows what parts of the wall structure will be removed and the assemblies that hold the building together. The City’s code requires if more than 40% or more of an existing structure is removed, then that triggers a demo and requires compliance with the code. The changes to the building came in at 39% and a permit was issued in October, 2014 for the remodel. Prior to issuance of the building permit in October, the contractor received a permit called an interior finish and fixture removal permit which allows for removing drywall and fixtures to perform an initial investigation prior to demolition and reconstruction. During the investigation, mold was discovered and the contractor hired a consultant in July, 2014 to assess the status of mold in the building. The consultant issued a report making recommendations on actions to be taken to remediate the mold. In November, during demo and reconstruction, the City requested an inspection to verify the demolition plan happened as submitted as part of the building permit. During this inspection of the demolition, it became apparent the demolition calculation had been exceeded. The contractor explained mold had been discovered and additional demolition had occurred. The demolition was estimated at 55%. With regards to special review, all review criteria are supposed to be met. The review criteria focus on whether the development is compatible; land uses and the purpose of the zone district and whether there is any impact on the surrounding land uses; where special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate from other properties; whether the structure represents the minimal variance allowing for reasonable use of the property; and whether enforcement of the dimensional requirements of the zoned district will create hardship by prohibiting reasonable use. Based on these criteria, Staff does not find all standards have been met and recommends denial of the request. Specifically Staff does not find there are special characteristics of the property with the large size of the lot and lot width. The code will allow up to a 4,100 sf building in floor area. Mr. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, stated there are two pathways forward for the applicant. One is to argue the definition of demolition to determine if mold is a qualifying aspect of demolition. The interpretation of mold and the appeal would go to City Council. The second pathway is to say there has been demolition and the special review request to be able to replace nonconformities subsequent to demolition. The code allows you to do this after demolition but requires the question to be asked before proceeding with demolition. There is nothing wrong with exceeding demolition and coming in with the request. He stated the applicant is going with the second pathway, but could pursue both. 2 P2 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Goode asked if there has ever been demolition by mold before this instance. Mr. Bendon stated mold has come up before and the applicant has informed the City of the mold. The code limits the demolition at 40% for whatever purpose. Many times the 40% isn’t a factor for a project because they do not have nonconforming issues. Mold can be found in almost every structure and there are many ways to deal with the mold. He does not recall mold coming up in this exact circumstance. Ms. Quinn stated there is a definition from the land use code of demolition as defined on p 2 of the agenda packet. Mr. Walterscheid asked to confirm if the project went before HPC in the previous year. Ms. Phelan stated in went in front of HPC in April 2014 for review of the proposed remodel. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the proposed construction changed from what HPC approved even though demolition has occurred. Ms. Phelan stated the final product will be the same product approved by HPC. The issue is the demolition exceeded what was allowable 40% which triggers a special review. Mr. Gibbs asked given the current location of the historic resource, is the allowable floor area to be developed as stated on p 5 of the packet what HPC approved or the numbers based on land use code. Ms. Phelan stated the amount specified in the packet is what is allowable based on size of the lot and the land use code. Ms. Phelan stated the build exceeds the allowable amount. Mr. Bendon stated Staff feels it is reasonable to stay within the amount. Ms. Phelan stated the façade of the historic resource is 30 ft from the property line. A typical setback is 10 ft. Mr. Bendon stated the approximate size of the resource itself. Ms. Phelan stated this is a deeper lot than typically found in the west end. Mr. Gibbs asked why this would just go back to HPC. Ms. Phelan stated the land use code does not give HPC the authority to review this particular special review. Mr. Walterscheid asked what happens to the resource if for some reason P&Z votes to deny the nonconformities. Ms. Phelan stated the P&Z decision could be appealed to City Council. The applicant could go down the path of asking for an interpretation of demolition. She also added if this was denied by P&Z and no further action was taken, then the applicant would be expected to come up with a plan based on the underlying zoning which would be reviewed by HPC. Mr. Gibbs then asked if P&Z should not consider the first approval because of the special review. Mr. Bendon stated the special review under consideration assumes demolition has occurred and the request is to replace the nonconformities subsequent to the demolition. Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant with Mr. David Kelly representing Harriman Construction and the owner. Also in attendance is Mr. Mitch Haas to provide background of the HPC approvals, Mr. Ben Genshaft serving as the owner’s counsel, and Bill Harriman and Kimberly of Harriman Construction. Mr. Haas provided a background of the project. He wanted to assure P&Z the applicant did not intentionally do an end run around the code to ask for forgiveness. This applicant hired Mr. Haas and 3 P3 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Genshaft to complete due diligence for the purchase of the property. During this effort, it was discovered the building was nonconforming with regard to floor area, setbacks and site coverage. He does not consider the Hallam Lake Bluff items nonconforming because they are not zoning requirements. In the course of due diligence, there was an old City Council document specifying allowable floor area for the property no matter the use. An exhaustive study of the code was completed of the land use code as it pertains to the property. The applicant then purchased the property. Then an HPC application was prepared for a Hallam Lake Bluff review and renovation and restoration of the building. The architects prepared an exhaustive set of plans including full demolition drawings, calculations, residential design standards, Hallam Lake Bluff standards, nonconformities. Mr. Haas continued stating before applying for the HPC approval process, they reviewed several designs with Amy Simon, HPC Senior Planner, and revisions were made. At this time the demolition plans came out at about 30% limit of the demolition calculations. They were asked to take on far more restoration of the historic resource than what would ever be required or necessary. They were afraid to do this because it would bump up the demolition and they were concerned with exceeding the 40% threshold. Mr. Haas stated they were asked to remove non-historic additions to the building and in effect losing sf. The resulting plans decreased the FAR nonconformity. In the process, they were asked to consider taking the entire roof line of the historic resource that had been previously changed and lower it to the original roof line. The applicant agreed to do this and other non-required activities even though it bumped up the demolition calculation. Mr. Haas stated during the pre-application process Ms. Simon stated there is very little historic fabric remaining on the property and not to expect any favors from the HPC. The applicant liked the idea of restoring the property to its original form and was willing to do it. The applicant pointed out the non-native vegetation on the property and had Mr. Haas confirm with the City Forrester to inquire how to remove the vegetation when it is not allowed under the Hallam Lake review. Mr. Haas also met with ACES representatives including Chris Lane and Jim Kravitz who made suggestions. They asked the applicant to modify the construction schedule to minimize the impact to ACES programs during their high season. Mr. Haas feels the applicant has been upfront and gone above and beyond what is required to do the right thing. Mr. Kelly stated the nonconformities existed prior to the HPC approval. The applicant lessened the nonconformities by reducing the building height including 13% demolition on Lake Ave side and 7% on the Hallam St side for a total 20% of the demolition. He stated half of the demolition (20%) was due to the applicant agreed to complete per the request of HPC that were agreed to be beneficial. This change also reduced useable sf. Mr. Kelly stated Harriman Construction discovered pervasive mold during demolition. It was everywhere in the structure including the roof, walls, plaster. Mr. Kelly provided pictures of the mold. Mr. Kelly noted the pictures do not show the worst of it, they only show what is left after the other mold been removed. Ms. Quinn requested a hard copy of the pictures to be included as Exhibit D. Mr. Kelly stated the applicant wants the special review to include not only continue building with what has been approved, but also be allowed to remove the remaining mold. 4 P4 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Kelly stated Harriman Construction engaged a mold expert who discovered several species growing including toxic molds. Harriman Construction then followed the recommendations and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. The independent testing agency recommended physically removing mold from the structure including as the primary remediation. Attempts to kill or encapsulate mold generally are not adequate. OSHA stated the purpose of mold remediation is to correct moisture problems to remove moldy and contaminated materials to prevent human exposure and further damage to building materials and furnishings. Porous materials that are wet and have mold growing on them may need to be discarded to eliminate areas for potential mold growth. As a general rule, simply killing the mold is not enough. Even dead mold may cause a reaction to humans. Mr. Kelly stated Harriman did remove the worst of the contamination, but there is still a lot remaining. The mold was generally located on dimensional lumber and not on the brick or historic façade of the residence. The City building department saw the mold when they were out on their Interior Finish and Fixture Removal (IFFR) inspection. There isn’t any provision in the code that provides for the remediation process regarding the acceptable standards because there really isn’t any federal or state standards regarding acceptable levels of mold. Harriman Construction viewed this as a health safety and welfare issue and not a zoning issue. Mr. Kelly stated the Community Development Department has taken a position that any removal of the moldy material constitutes demolition. Mr. Kelly feels there are numerous reasons why this does not fall under the definition of demolition in the code. They are not raising, disassembling, tearing down or destroying the building. He fells it is a non-willful destruction because it was destroyed by an act of nature and should be allowed to restored. He thinks it should also be declared an unsafe structure which would also allow for restoration under the code. Or it could be considered normal maintenance under the code. If they can obtain special review now, then they can cover the building and make sure it isn’t destroyed. If Harriman Construction knew this was a zoning issue and swapped out the lumber, they would still be at this special review because Staff considers the replacement of the moldy materials to be demolition. The unfortunate thing is if the building is considered demolished, the City may lose the historic resource. Mr. Kelly noted the first review criteria asks if it is compatible with surrounding uses and HPC found the project to be compatible. He also noted the development does not adverse impacts on surrounding uses. The only special characteristics unique to the property he noted was the mold issue. Mr. Kelly stated they are not asking for any dimensional variations other than what was historic and what was already approved. In regards to the standard regarding the enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zoned district causing unnecessary hardship, Mr. Kelly stated perhaps there would be no hardship if the mold had been known when the project was going in for development approvals. The project would suffer hardship of having to go back to scratch at this point adding considerable time to the project and losing 1,500 sf which is equivalent to a two to three million dollar loss of value in the property. He feels the overriding concern is the public health safety and welfare. Future projects encountering mold would be left to live with it or lose the historic resource as part of the property. If the City does grant the special review, then the construction can continue, the mold can be removed and the City gets to keep the historic building in the same footprint, just lowered to accommodate the neighbors. 5 P5 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Ben Genshaft represents the property owner and wanted to point out this special review is a one off case and will not be setting a precedent. They are hoping P&Z will recognize the unique situation and allow them to complete the fully permitted project. Mr. Kelly then provided P&Z with a draft resolution granting the special review. Ms. Quinn noted it would be identified as Exhibit E. Mr. Gibbs asked the commission for questions of the applicant. There were none and he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs then opened for public comment. There were none and he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs then asked for rebuttal or clarification from Staff and the applicant. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify Staff’s understanding was the mold studies were completed prior to initiating the demolition. The importance of issuing building permits is for clarity and eliminating surprises. His problem is that there was no discussion with Staff when mold was discovered. It was by chance City Staff discovered the extent of situation. He suggested just because the Building Department saw the mold does not provide direction to initiate the demolition and remediation. Mr. Genshaft responded there was never any intention to hide or deceive anyone. They have a very reputable builder and he did not consider what he was doing any kind of violation. He thought he was acting in accordance with the code in regards to health, safety and welfare. Mr. Kelly stated unless zoning wanted to take a different position on mold in that its removal doesn’t constitute demolition, then they will cross the 40% threshold. Mr. Haas stated if they had known then what they know now, he would have advised the applicant to not restore the historic roofline, not restore the historic window openings, and do not remove the solarium because they all contributed to the percentage of demolition. Mr. Gibbs closed the rebuttal part of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs opened for discussion from the commission. Mr. Goode thought the applicant did not have the intent to hide the mold problem but they knew the mold survey would say there would be mold. Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff to clarify what contributes to demolition. Mr. Benson said there is a section stating the obligation of the applicant to fully understand the structure they are dealing with no matter the intent. A wall could fall down and it would then be included in the calculation of the demolition. Mr. Walterscheid asked if nature took a course such as fire, how Staff would evaluate the demolition. Mr. Benson stated there is a section discussing willful and non-willful demolition. Non-willful demolition includes floods, fires and similar circumstances truly out of the ordinary and not from human interaction causing the demolition. Ms. Quinn mentioned the applicable code sections is on p 14. 6 P6 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Elliott asked for the timing of the permits and the discovery of the mold to be clarified. Ms. Phelan stated in April, HPC approved the project for the remodel. In July there was a report by a consultant in regards to the mold in the building which occurred because the contractor had pulled a permit which allows for initial investigation behind the walls of the building. The actual permit for the remodel was issued in October. The contractor discovered the mold during the initial investigation. Mr. Elliott asked if the building would be the same as the renovations approved by the HPC. Ms. Phelan stated if the special review is approved tonight, it would be for what had been previously approved by HPC. Mr. Gibbs asked it would be handled if they had been doing just an interior renovation instead of a major renovation and discovered the mold which resulted in as much demolition as the current situation. Ms. Phelan stated if this occurred and the applicant decided to remediate the mold requiring the removal of exterior sheeting, roof which would push them over the 40% allowance. A special review would be necessary to request to maintain the nonconformities were associated with the existing building. Mr. Gibbs then asked what criteria would be applied for that scenario that would be different from tonight. Ms. Phelan stated it would be the same criteria. Mr. Benson in other situations there may be additional analysis performed to identify the types of remediation and determine if it actually requires demolition. There could be additional conversations to look at if there were other portions of the building that had been originally intended to be demolished that could be left in place to stay under the 40%. Mr. Benson stated the code provides for replacement of nonconformities through a special review which is what is happening tonight. The applicant can request a special review based on mold or a number of desires or needs to replace nonconformities. Mr. Walterscheid feels the intent speaks a lot and if the applicant desires to complete what was approved by HPC, he does not have an issue with their special review. He also understands Staff in that there should have been a conversation earlier in the process. Because there are no changes being requested, he supports providing the exemption. Mr. Elliot feels we wouldn’t be here if staff had not driven by and noticed the demolition. The applicant should have come to the City and had a discussion regarding the discovery of the mold to ask for permission instead of forgiveness. He also understands the applicant wants to go the absolute safest route to mitigate the mold. He feels they should have come in to discuss the situation but because they are not changing anything from what HPC approved, he would reluctantly allow the exemption. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Quinn to confirm there would be not action if the board voted 2-2. Ms. Quinn confirmed there would be no action for a 2-2 vote but if it appeared the board would vote 2-2, then the applicant could ask to continue the hearing. The applicant does not have the option to appeal on the 2-2 vote. Mr. Gibbs feels this is an unfortunate situation and does not appreciate applicants asking for forgiveness and feels process should be followed. His sense is if this issue had been brought to them earlier when the mold was discovered, they would be in the same situation. He feels the applicant intends to build the project as approved and based on that he will likely vote yes. The fairness aspect plays an important 7 P7 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 part and the reality is P&Z probably would have approved this in July with no discussion had it been brought to the boards attention earlier by the applicant. But he also feels the code regarding demolition is perhaps too rigid in these situations and council should be aware. Both Mr. Benson and Ms. Phelan stated the applicant’s draft resolution could be reviewed and modified if P&Z wanted to use it. Mr. Benson and Ms. Phelan provided recommendations regarding additions, modifications and deletion of the sections. Mr. Goode motioned to approve special resolution #2, 2015 with the amendments as represented to maintain the nonconformities associated with 212 Lake Avenue, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Roll call to vote; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes for a total of four (4) yes and zero (0) no. Other Business – Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2015 Mr. Goode nominated Mr. Walterscheid for Chair; seconded by Mr. Elliott. Mr. Gibbs nominated Mr. Goode for Chair; which was seconded. Mr. Elliot suggested Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Goode decide who should be chair. Mr. Walterscheid agreed to serve as chair and Mr. Goode agreed to serve as Vice- Chair at which the P&Z members agreed all in favor. Mr. Gibbs closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 8 P8 IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician RE: 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road, 8040 Greenline Review, Resolution __, Series 2015. MEETING DATE: February 17, 2015 APPLICANT /O WNER : Lazy Chair Lot 2, LLC REPRESENTATIVE : Steev Wilson, Forum Phi Architecture LOCATION : 511 Lazy Chair RanchRoad PID #2735-113-02-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Rural Residential (RR) zone district. PROPOSED LAND USE : The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a new single family residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request with conditions. Vicinity map of the site LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review ) for development within the 8040 Greenline Review area. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision-making authority. The purpose of the 8040 Greenline Review is to protect the ecological, environmental, and scenic significance of high elevation areas through a heighted review process for new development. Development within the 8040 Greenline Review Area is subject to a heighted review to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry uses to urban uses. P9 VI.A. Page 2 of 3 PROJECT SUMMARY: The subject property is approximately 2.4 acres and is located in the RR zone district. The property is located in the Arthur O. Pfister Subdivision and surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club PUD. An existing 7 bedroom/5.5 bathroom single-family residence with a 2-car garage is located on the property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a 5 bedroom/5.5 bathroom new single family home with a 3-car garage. STAFF EVALUATION: The 8040 Greenline is the topographical line located 8040 feet above mean sea level. The Land Use Code states no development shall be permitted at, above or 150 feet below (measured horizontally) the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with the review standards. Figure A. 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road As shown in Figure A, the 8040 Greenline runs through the middle of the property; therefore, nearly the entire property is subject to review. The property has an additional condition that no P10 VI.A. Page 3 of 3 development may occur above 8060 feet above mean sea level (Ordinance 12, Series 2014) except as reasonably necessary for utility infrastructure, storm water mitigation, maintenance or restoration of native landscape, and wildlife mitigation needs. No development is proposed above the 8060 line with the exception of connecting to an existing utility line. Staff finds this is allowed by the condition defined in Ordinance 12, Series 2014. The 8040 Greenline Review Criteria primarily focuses on the site suitability, environmental impacts, and availability of services and infrastructure of the proposed development. The proposed development is larger than the existing development and therefore has the potential to have a greater impact to these criteria; however, the applicant has demonstrated that the impacts to the surrounding environment will be either minimized or mitigated. The site currently has a large concrete driving surface that will be replaced with a smaller, narrower driveway that meets fire and snow plow requirements. Visual impacts will be reduced with extensive tree plantings. Native vegetation, including gamble oak groves located on the southeast and northern portions of the property, will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Nearly half of the residence will have a green roof, reducing aerial visual impacts. Engineering has found the proposed stormwater management plan will treat stormwater with minimal disturbance. The subject property is currently developed; therefore, standard services and infrastructure are present. Staff finds the proposed project to consistent with the 8040 Greenline Review Criteria found in Exhibit A. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: Engineering, Parks and Utilities departments have reviewed the application and any applicable comments were included in the resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review with conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move adoption of Resolution No. ___, Series 2015; approving 8040 Greenline Review for the project located at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road” ATTACHMENTS : EXHIBIT A – Review Criteria – 8040 Greenline Review standards EXHIBIT B – Land Use Application P11 VI.A. pg. 1 RESOLUTION NO ___ (Series of 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 511 LAZY CHAIR RANCH ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, ARTHUR O. PFISTER FULLY DEVELOPED LANDS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 14, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 42 AT PAGE 45, AS RECEPTION NO. 4033369, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel No. 2735-113-02-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Lazy Chair Lot 2 LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architecture, requesting approval of 8040 Greenline Review for the construction of a new single-family home at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road, legally described as Lot 2, Arthur O. Pfister Fully Developed Lands Subdivision Exemption, according to the plat thereof recorded April 14, 1993 in Plat Book 42 at Page 45, as Reception No. 4033369, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Rural Residential (RR); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and recommended approval the removal of two parking spaces and setback variation for construction of a pedestrian tunnel between both lodges; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 17, 2015 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. Series of 2015, by a ___to___ vote, approving 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets, or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, P12 VI.A. pg. 2 WHEREAS, the 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: General Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves 8040 Greenline Review for the property located at 511 Lazy Chair Ranch Road. Section 2: Dimensional Requirements Approval of 8040 Greenline review for this project is not a reliance on the dimensions provided in the application. All aspects of this project shall still meet the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located, and all other requirements of the Land Use Code, as applicable. Section 3: Engineering Requirements Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Titles 21, 28, and 29. The design for the site must meet the Engineering Design Standards which includes the Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements, Construction Mitigation Plan, and Construction and Excavation Standards. All conditions of current Water Distribution System Standards will be met. Section 4: Parks Requirements The removal or relocation of any trees will require a Tree Removal permit from the Parks Department in accordance with Title 13 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, prior to any removal or relocation. The removal of the existing fence that currently runs through the drip lines of trees will need to be addressed from the Parks Department, prior to Building Permit submittal. Tree protection fencing shall be up prior to any construction or demolition on this property. A fence line shall be erected that keeps the existing natural vegetation safe and secure from any activity around the proposed development. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance of native vegetation & preserve groupings of Gamble Oak. Section 5: 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 or City Council, 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. P13 VI.A. pg. 3 Section 6: 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 7: 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. Section 8 Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Resolution. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17 th day of February, 2015. Approved as to form: Planning and Zoning Commission: __________________________ ______________________________ Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Walterscheid, Vice Chair Attest: _______________________________ Cindy Kolb, Records Manager ATTACHMENTS : EXHIBIT A – Review Criteria – 8040 Greenline Review standards EXHIBIT B – Land Use Application P14 VI.A. C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff findings: The Soil and Foundation Investigation by CTL Thompson evaluated the geotechnical risk of development on the subject property. The site is suitable for development with the geotechnical engineering recommendations provided in the Soil and Foundation Investigation. A letter dated December 19, 2014 from CTL Thompson to Forum Phi Architecture stated there are no slope stability nor geologic hazards present at the subject location; these include avalanche hazard, rockfall, and mudflows. The applicant has provided an erosion control plan detailing the revegetation and stabilization of disturbed areas. (Civil 6/6) The Engineering Department reviewed the Soil and Foundation Investigation report in addition to the grading and erosion control plan. The Engineering Department has determined the parcel is suitable for redevelopment with respect to the review criteria above. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. Staff findings: The applicant has provided analysis of the drainage and discharge from the site and an erosion control plan. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be utilized during and post- construction to manage discharge from the site to minimize impacts to the watershed. Discharge from the site will be at or less than the historical undeveloped flow rates stipulated by the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The proposed site plan meets the City of Aspen’s Water Quality Capture Volume and Flood Detention standards. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality in the City. Staff findings: Best Management Practices will be used during and post-construction to minimize impacts to air quality. BMPs include inspection and removal of debris and hand sweeping of soil tracked by truck traffic intersection of the driveway at Lazy Chair Road. Rumble strips will be placed on the driveway near the intersection to limit the distribution of soil off-site. Fugitive dust P15 VI.A. will be controlled by automatic sprinklers during excavation and additional site watering will occur as necessary. In compliance with the City of Aspen Construction Management Plan Requirements Manual (August 2010); diesel engine emissions will not exceed 40% opacity, except for starting or stationary operation, which will not exceed 10 seconds. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff findings: The proposed structure will be constructed within the same approximate location of the existing structure to be demolished. Currently, a large concrete pad exists on the site. This impervious surface will be removed and replaced with a narrower, access-compliant driveway within the existing driveway footprint. The proposed house is larger than the existing development; however, the impervious surface on the site will be reduced and storm water discharge will be managed to current standards. Additionally, the proposed green roof element will help integrate the development into the hillside. The home will be built into the sloping topography of the site. The structure is completely below the 8060 line and other areas are where the steepest terrain of the property were identified. No new roads or trails are proposed. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff findings: In accordance with Ordinance 12, Series 2014; development is prohibited above 8060-foot elevation with the exception of necessary utility infrastructure, storm water mitigation, maintenance or restoration of native landscape, and wildlife mitigation needs. The proposed landscaping plan was reviewed by the Parks Department and they have no objections to the final landscape plan; with the following conditions: retainage of some of the Gamble Oak clump on the southeast property corner. Care and diligence during planting on the north and west side of the property. Maintain as native growth to the greatest extent possible. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff findings: One structure is proposed in the location of the existing structure site. No additional access will be created. Grading is proposed only to the extent necessary for construction and stormwater management. Staff finds this criterion met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. P16 VI.A. Staff findings: The proposed structure is under the allowable height of 28’ for the Rural Residential (RR) Zone District. A portion of the structure will have a green roof. Extensive landscaping is required by the Maroon Creek Club HOA to conceal the residence from the golf course. These plantings are included in the landscaping plan and were approved by the Parks Department. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: A City of Aspen potable water tank is located just west of this property. The bottom of the tank sits 31. 5 feet higher than the upper floor of the house creating approximately 13.5 psi of static head. A booster pump may be required for the upper floors depending on flows. A fire pump will be needed for the sprinkler system and an existing hydrant will be moved closer to the driveway. Overhead electrical service is from the west and is proposed to be relocated underground. Sewer will be discharged to the manhole to the northeast. All other utilities will run under the driveway. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff findings: The driveway connects to an existing access, Lazy Chair Road, which is accessed by Tiehack Road. Lazy Chair Ranch Road can be properly maintained and maintenance of this private road will be provided by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff findings: The proposed driveway provides adequate clearance for both fire truck and snow plow access. The design proposed allows for a “Y” style turn sufficient for both service vehicle types. Staff finds this criterion met. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff findings: The proposed development does not have an effect on any Open Space and Trails Board adopted regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P17 VI.A. 1405 – 511 Lazy Chair Road, Lot 2 – 8040 Greenline Review Land Use Application 12/24/2014 Section Title Pg(s) _____________________________________________________________________________ I Completed Land Use Application 2-8, 10-12 Review criteria response to attachment 4 9 Signed fee agreement 13-14 II Pre-application Conference Summary 15-17 III Total deposit for review of the application 18 IV Street address and legal description of parcel 19 V Applicant's name (Deed & Title)20-21, 22-34 Consent and Authorization to Represent 35 VI 1st Amendment Final Plat, Site Improvement Surveys See plan set VII HOA Compliance Form 36 Letter from the HOA regarding Schematic Design Approval 37-40 VIII Written description of the proposal See pg 9, #7 VIIII Written responses to all review criteria 41-43 X Vicinity map with adjacent properties list 44-45 XI Geotechnical Soils Report 46-78 Geotechnical Hazards Report 79-83 _____________________________________________________________________________ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and associated drawings A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format - Enclosed thumb drive A 3D file will be presented at the public hearing P18 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET 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 of Notice All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the 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 of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the 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 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. P19 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other: Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. P20 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (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 % of demolition (Historic properties only):__________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Access. bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined F/R: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance Between Buildings Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____ Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: ______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ P21 VI.A. AT T A C H M E N T 4 - M A T R I X O F L A N D US E A P P L I C A T I O N R E Q U I R E M E N T S Fo r a p p l i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s , r e f e r t o t h e n u m b e r s i n t h e i n se c o n d c o l u m n . T h e s e n u m b e r s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e k e y o n p a g e 9 . F o r multiple re v i e w s , d o n o t d u p l i c a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . A l l a p p l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l s m u s t b e c o m p l e t e a n d s u b m i t t e d i n c o l l a t e d p a c k e t s . A l l d r a w ings must include an a c c u r a t e g r a p h i c s c a l e Ty p e o f R e v i e w Ap p . S u b m i s s i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s (S e e k e y o n p a g e 9 . ) Pr o c e s s T y p e ( S e e P r o c e s s De s c r i p t i o n i n A t t . 5 ) Nu m b e r o f R e q u i r e d S u b m i t t a l Pa c k e t s 80 4 0 G RE E N L I N E R EV I E W 1- 7 , 8 - 1 0 , 3 5 P & Z 10 80 4 0 G RE E N L I N E E XE M P T I O N 1- 7 , 8 - 1 0 , 3 5 A DM I N I S T R A T I V E R EV I E W 2 S TR E A M M AR G I N R EV I E W 1- 7 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 3 5 P & Z O R A D M I N I S T R A T I V E ( B a s e d on L o c a t i o n ) 2 f o r 0 A d m i n . , 1 0 f o r P & Z S TR E A M M AR G I N E XE M P T I O N 1- 7 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 3 5 A DM I N I S T R A T I V E R EV I E W 2 H AL L A M L AK E B LU F F R EV I E W 1- 7 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 3 5 P & Z 10 M OU N T A I N V IE W P LA N E 1- 7 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 3 5 P & Z 10 C ON D I T I O N A L U SE 1- 7 , 9 , 1 7 P & Z 10 S PE C I A L R EV I E W * 1- 7 , Ad d i t i o n a l S u b m i s s i o n R e q . d e p e n d on n a t u r e o f t h e S p e c i a l R e v i e w R e q u e s t . P & Z 10 S UB D I V I S I O N 1- 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 3 5 P & Z, A N D C IT Y C OU N C I L 20 E XE M P T S UB D I V I S I O N 1- 7 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 3 5 C IT Y C OU N C I L 10 L OT L IN E A DJ U S T M E N T 1- 7 , 2 2 A DM I N I S T R A T I V E R EV I E W 2 L OT S PL I T 1- 7 , 2 2 C IT Y C OU N C I L 10 C OD E A ME N D M E N T 1- 4 , 7 , 2 3 P & Z, A N D C IT Y C OU N C I L 20 W IR E L E S S T EL E C O M . 1- 7 , 1 6 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 3 5 A DM I N . O R P & Z 2 f o r A d m i n . , 1 0 f o r P & Z S AT E L I T E D IS H O V E R 24 ” I N D IA M E T E R 1- 7 A DM I N . O R P & Z 2 f o r A d m i n . , 1 0 f o r P & Z R ES . D ES I G N S TA N D A R D S V AR I A N C E 1- 7 , 9 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 0 P & Z O R DR A C 10 GM Q S E XE M P T I O N * 1- 7 , Ad d i t i o n a l S u b m i s s i o n R e q . d e p e n d on n a t u r e o f t h e E x e m p t i o n R e q u e s t . A DM I N ., O R P & Z, A N D /OR CC (B AS E D O N E XE M P T I O N T YP E ) 2 f o r A d m i n . , 1 0 f o r P & Z , 2 0 f o r P & Z a n d C C C ON D O M I N I U M I Z A T I O N 1, 3 1 A DM I N I S T R A T I V E 2 PU D 1- 7 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 5 C ON C E P T U A L – P & Z, A N D CC F IN A L – P & Z, A N D CC 20 f o r P & Z a n d C C ( S u b m i t Se p a r a t e l y f o r F i n a l P U D R e v i e w ) L OD G E P RE S E R V A T I O N PU D 1- 7 , 3 5 P & Z, A N D CC 20 P22 VI.A. PU D A ME N D M E N T 1- 7 A DM I N ., O R P & Z, A N D /OR CC (B AS E D O N A ME N D M E N T T YP E ) 2 f o r A d m i n . , 1 0 f o r P & Z , 2 0 f o r P & Z a n d C C S PE C I A L L Y P LA N N E D A RE A (S P A ) 1- 7 , 3 5 C ON C E P T U A L – P & Z, A N D CC F IN A L - P & Z, A N D CC 20 f o r P & Z a n d C C ( S u b m i t Se p a r a t e l y f o r F i n a l S P A ) A ME N D M E N T T O SP A 1- 7 A DM I N ., O R P & Z A N D CC (B AS E D O N S IG N I F I C A N C E O F A ME N D M E N T ) 2 f o r A d m i n . , 2 0 f o r P & Z a n d C C T EM P O R A R Y U SE 1- 7 A DM I N . O R CC (B AS E D O N D UR A T I O N T IM E ) 2 f o r A d m i n . , 1 0 f o r C i t y C o u n c i l A CC E S S O R Y D WE L L I N G U NI T 1- 7 , 9 A DM I N O R P &Z ( B AS E D O N I F TH E P R O P O S A L M E E T S R E V I E W ST A N D A R D S ) 2 f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w R EZ O N I N G 1- 7 P & Z A N D CC 20 D IM E N S I O N A L R EQ U I R E M E N T S V AR I A N C E 1- 7 , 3 4 B OA R D O F A DJ U S T M E N T 9 * C o n s u l t w i t h a P l a n n e r a b o u t s u b m i t t a l r e q u i r e m e n t s . ** A p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n c o n f e r e n c e w i t h a P l a n n e r s h o u l d b e c o n d u c te d p r i o r t o s u b m i t t i n g a n y l a n d u s e a p p l i c a t i o n . P l e a s e c a l l 9 20-5090 to sc h e d u l e a p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n c o n f e r e n c e . P23 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 4-CONT’D- SUBMITTAL KEY 1. Land Use Application with Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership 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. 4. An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 6. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project’s physical relationship to the land and it’s surroundings. 7 . A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 8. Plan with Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. 9. Proposed elevations of the development 10. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 11. A Plan with the 100-year floodplain line and the high water line. 12. Accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect. 13. A landscape plan that includes native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. 14. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level. 15. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. 16. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened. 17. A sketch plan of the site showing existing and proposed features which are relevant to the review. 18. One (1) inch equals four hundred (400) feet scale city map showing the location of the proposed subdivision, all adjacent lands owned by or under option to the applicant, commonly known landmarks, and the zone district in which the proposed subdivision and adjacent properties are located. 19. A plat which reflects the layout of the lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) equals one hundred (100) feet or larger. Architectural scales are not acceptable. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches. If it is necessary to place the plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an index shall be included on the first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appear on the first sheet showing the subdivision as it relates to the rest of the city and the street system in the area of the proposed subdivision. The contents of the plat shall be of sufficient detail to determine whether the proposed subdivision will meet the design standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.060(3).20. Subdivision GIS Data. 21. A landscape plan showing location, size, and type of proposed landscape features. 22. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. 2 3 . T h e precise wording of any proposed amendment. 24. Site Plan or plans drawn to a scale of one (1”) inch equals ten (10’) feet or one (1”) inch equals twenty (20’) feet, including before and “after” photographs (simulations) specifying the location of antennas, support structures, transmission buildings and/or other accessory uses, access, parking, fences, signs, lighting, landscaped areas and all adjacent land uses within one-hundred fifty (150’) feet. Such plans and drawings should demonstrate compliance with the Review Standards of this Section. 25. FAA and FCC Coordination. Statements regarding the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 26. Structural Integrity Report from a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. 27. Evidence that an effort was made to locate on an existing wireless telecommunication services facility site including coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis and a brief statement as to other reasons for success or no success. 28. Neighborhood block plan at 1”=50’ (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. (Continued on next page.) P24 VI.A. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one living level). 29. Roof Plan. 30. Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present condition of 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) inches on the left hand side of the sheet and a one-half (1/2) 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 of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the 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 of the proposed buildings. 34. A written description of the variance being requested. 35. Exterior Lighting Plan. Show the location, height, type and luminous intensity of each above grade fixture. Estimate the site illumination as measured in foot candles and include minimum, maximum, and average illumination. Additionally, provide comparable examples already in the community that demonstrate technique, specification, and/ or light level if they exist. P25 VI.A. 511 Lazy Chair Lot: 2 – 8040 Greenline Review Criteria Response to Land Use Application, attachment 4 1.Land Use Application, enclosed 2.Arthur O Pfister Exemption, 511 Lazy Chair Road, Parcel # 273511302002 3.Disclosure of ownership, enclosed 4.Vicinity Map, enclosed 5.Site Improvement Survey, Historical Survey, and 1st Amendment to Final Plat, enclosed 6.Site Plans – Existing site demo, see Z-007, Proposed, see Z-013 7.This application for 8040 Greenline Review demonstrates our calculation of net lot area through the historical grade survey provided by Colorado licensed surveyor. This lot is not affected by many intents of the 8040 Greenline Review. This lot is on a stand alone knoll, outside of dangers such as debris flow, substantial surface water run-off, ground stability, and/or avalanche conditions. Utility services are present at site, although deficient. Proposed new utilities placed under Lazy Chair Road requiring minimal disturbance to undisturbed areas. 8.Plans with existing and proposed grading, see A-102, A104, A106 (See Civil C.4 for grading) 9.Proposed Elevations of the development, see Z-205, Z-206. (Z201-Z-204 Axon for reference) 10. Proposed construction techniques will include: cast in place concrete foundation, steel and wood framed floor and wall structures, and traditional residential infill walls. Soil nail and concrete site walls. 35. Exterior Lighting Plan, see Z-014. Cut sheets are attached to demonstrate type and luminous intensity of each fixture type. Average estimate of illumination is: 15 FC, with minimum being 2 FC and maximum illumination of 30 FC P26 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 1. Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. 3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. A memo will be written by the staff member for signature by the Community Development Director. The memo will explain whether your application complies with the Code and will list any conditions which should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 5. Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, then the Planning Staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the Application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The Applicant will be required to mail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date (please see Attachment 6 for instructions). The P27 VI.A. Planning Staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning Staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the Applicant with a copy of the Planning Staff’s memo approximately 5 days prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public Hearings include a presentation by the Planning Staff, a presentation by the Applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board’s questions and decision. 6. Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning Staff will issue a Development Order which allows the Applicant to proceed into Building Permit Application. 7. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will need to be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted. P28 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 6 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Three forms of notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and mailing to surrounding landowners. Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including identification of who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department and we will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and to bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use attached affidavit). 3. Mailing - Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it according to the following standards, and to bring proof to the hearing that the mailing took place (use attached affidavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An Applicant for surface Development shall notify affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. 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 public hearing. P29 VI.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 Pay 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. January, 2013 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090 P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker DATE: December 11, 2014 PROJECT: Lot 2, Arthur O. Pfister Subdivision Exemption REPRESENTATIVE: Dustin Anderson, Forum Phi, LLC; 970.319.7399 REQUEST: 8040 Greenline Review DESCRIPTION: The owner is demolishing and replacing an existing single-family home at 511 Lazy Chair Road. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR). The lot was a part of the three-lot subdivision known as the Arthur O. Pfister Fully Developed Land Subdivision Exemption (Pfister Subdivision), which was approved by Pitkin County and subsequently annexed into the City of Aspen. The property was subject to a mix of County and City land use approvals. These Pitkin County entitlements are removed from the Pfister Subdivision on May 27, 2014 in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2014. Conditions of these approvals included a prohibition of development above 8060’ above mean sea level because of the steep grade and natural vegetation in this portion of the parcel. An 8040 Greenline Review is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The property is also subject to Residential Design Standards. Any variances from the standards may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission concurrently with the 8040 Greenline Review. Please note that increasing floor area will trigger impact fees, including Parks, TDM/Air Quality, and School Lands Dedication fee in lieu, and that increasing square footage will trigger Affordable Housing Mitigation. The applicant should document the number of bedrooms and square footage of the house being demolished to ensure they get credit for the existing building when they proceed to building permit. 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%20land %20use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review Standards 26.470 Growth Management Quota Systems (GMQS) 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.600 Impact Fees and Dedications 26.710.130 Rural Residential (RR) Zone District ASLU 8040 Greenline Review 511 Lazy Chair Road, Lot 2 2735-113-02-002 1 P32 VI.A. Review by: Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing:Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission Neighborhood Outreach: Not required. Planning Fees: $3,250 for 10 hours of Planning review. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Referrals:$265 for one hour of Engineering review, $975 for one hour of Parks review. Total Deposit:$4,490 To apply, submit the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Total deposit for review of the application. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months ) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. 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. A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. HOA Compliance form (Attached) 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. Written responses to all review criteria. 2 P33 VI.A. An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  10 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. (list # of copies typically associated with PZ, HPC, and CC review, 1 per referral agency) A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. A sketch up model will be required for the public hearing. 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. 3 P34 VI.A. 12/24/2014 Parcel Detail data:text/html;charset=utf­8,%3Cdiv%20align%3D%22center%22%20style%3D%22color %3A%20r gb(0%2C%200%2C%200)%3B%20font­family%3A%20'Ti…1/1 Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number Property Type 2013 Mill Levy 001 R016359 273511302002 RESIDENTIAL 33.542 Primary Owner Name and Address LAZY CHAIR LOT 2 LLC 0133 PROSPECTOR RD #4102B ASPEN, CO 81611 Additional Owner Detail Legal Description Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 Location Physical Address: 511 LAZY CHAIR LN ASPEN Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Land Acres: 2.400 Land Sq Ft: 0 2014 Property Value Summary  Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 3,450,000 274,620 Improvements: 265,800 21,160 Total: 3,715,800 295,780 Sale Date: 2/28/2014 Sale Price: 2,500,000 P35 VI.A. P36 VI.A. P37 VI.A. P38 VI.A. P39 VI.A. P40 VI.A. P41 VI.A. P42 VI.A. P43 VI.A. P44 VI.A. P45 VI.A. P46 VI.A. P47 VI.A. P48 VI.A. P49 VI.A. P50 VI.A. P51 VI.A. P52 VI.A. W I L L I A M C L I N T O N L U K E S a r c h I t e c t Tuesday, December 23, 2014 Steev W ilson Forum Phi Architects 715 W es t Main Street, Suite 20 As pen, Colorado 81611 sent via email re:M aroon Creek Club, Pfister S ubdivision Lot 2 Site and A rchitecture Review Com m ittee Approvals Steev: This will c on f irm that the S ite and Architecture R eview C omm ittee of the M aroon Creek Club M as ter As s ociation, by a vote of the C omm ittee mem bers pres ent at the December 18, 2014 meeting, granted the following approval: Sc hematic Plan Architectural Approvals for Pfis ter Subdiv ision Lot 2 as provided by the Maroon Creek C lub Design Guidelines based on plans received 12/4/2014. T his is a preliminary approval. Approval to proceed w ith any construction or w ork on site w as not included in the approval granted. By the vote of the Com mittee members present, this approval is subje c t to the following conditions : Standard Conditions of Approval: 1.No varianc es from the Maroon Creek Club D es ign Guidelines are given or im plied by this approval, except as specifically identified herein. 2.At the tim e of application for Final [Construction D oc ument] Review, the owner must have; a.S igned and returned the Maroon Creek C lu b M as ter Association C omplianc e and Construction Com pletion Guaranty. This docum ent can be downloaded from the M aroon Creek Club web page at w ww .williamlukes.com . b.P rovided a Letter of Credit or equivalent financial security in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars [$100,000.00] provided in a form and from a source as is acceptable to the Association, all as provided in the Maroon C reek Club Master Association Compliance and Construction Completion Guaranty. The approved language and form for a letter of T h e L a k e s i d e S t u d i o 8 0 1 L a k e s i d e D r i v e C a r b o n d a l e C o l o r a d o 8 1 6 2 3 -3 1 0 9 P h o n e 9 7 0 9 6 3 8 0 2 5 w w w .w i l l i a m l u k e s .c o m P53 VI.A. credit is available at www.w illiamlukes.c om. Separate deposits and documentation will be required for the proje c ts on Lots 2 and 3 since they are tw o independent res idenc es on separate lots. c.The Road Impact Fee has been determined by MC C to not apply to Lots 2 an d 3 of the Pfister S ubdivis ion by virtue of language included in the Protec tive Covenants for both subdivisions. 3.Prior to the start of any c onstruction on site, the owner m ust have completed the following: a.Sig ned and returned the Agreement Regarding Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans which provides that the ow ner agrees to im mediately ceas e all c onstruction activity on the site upon written notice from the A ss ociation if the Site and Architecture Review Committee has not approved a final landscape plan. S uch n otic e may be sent at any time after a date forty-five (45) cale nd ar days after the date of Final (c ons truc tion docum ent) Architec tural Approval. The owner m us t further stipulate that construction activity will not resume until a final lands c ape plan is approved by SARC. This document is required only if final landscape and grading approval is not received at the same time as final architectural approval. This document is available at ww w.w illiamluk es .c om . Specific Conditions of Approval: 1.Additional items required to be s ubmitted to SA RC for review and approval, prior to or as part of the application for final approval; a.A ll items required in the Design Guidelines for final review , b.Final sam ples (actual s amples with the proposed c olor and finish) of materials and colors for all ex terior materials . c.Letters from MCC Golf and the owner(s) of the adjacent Pfister L ot 3 confirm ing their approval for any drawings and plans to be subm itted to SARC. d.E ngineering drawings for all utility w ork and road work within the MC C boundaries. 2.A site inspection will be arranged by Andy H echt and will include the architect, the Architectural Advisor, and David Chadbourne or other representatives of MCC Golf to review landscape plans, vis ibility of the hom e from the golf course, materials and c olors, access and traffic , and new trees and irrigation responsibilities . 3.Draw ings for final review must address the following; a.A landscape plan will be submitted that inc ludes the following; i.A gap between existin g stan ds of oaks, between the house and the 8 holeth fairway / tee areas, is to be filled with trees and other landscaping as approved by MCC Golf and SA RC, to effect s c reening of the house and pool areas from the golf c ours e. ii.The landscap e plan fo r this area s hould include a layering of plant materials including shrubbery and/or other plants that are lower in height than trees so that the under-story area is also fully screened, and so that the appearance from the golf c ours e is natural looking and compatible with other landscaping around the golf c ours e and along this hills ide. iii.Maintenanc e res pons ibilities, in cluding the ins tallation and maintenanc e / operation of irrigation for these s c reening trees , are to be work ed out between the ap plic ant and MCC Golf, and clearly shown on the docum ents subm itted to SARC. iv.All ex is ting stands of oaks and other vegetation between the house and the golf course are to be protec ted during construction by approved fencing and may not be removed or altered without SA RC approval. v.Additional tall trees may be required in order to mitigate the visibility of the house from the golf c ours e and prevent undesirable reflections from larger areas of glass. T h e L a k e s i d e S t u d i o 8 0 1 L a k e s i d e D r i v e C a r b o n d a l e C o l o r a d o 8 1 6 2 3 -3 1 0 9 P h o n e 9 7 0 9 6 3 8 0 2 5 w w w .w i l l i a m l u k e s .c o m P54 VI.A. b.W hile SARC is not opposed to granting a number of variances for this hom e, prim arily with respect to arc hitec tural design and elements, the colors of m aterials should comply w ith the Design Guidelines . c.P rovisions for creating a safe boundary or physical barrier between the s hared driveway for Lots 2 and 3 and the cart path belonging to the golf c ours e. The applicant shall provide a single or multiple s olutions which address this c onflict a re a f or both the temporary process of c ons tructing the homes on lots 2 and 3, and a permanent solution meeting the requirements of MC C G olf and the SARC , as well as any requirem ents that the Aspen Fire Department may impose for the driveway. d.C omplete engineering and design drawings for the proposed extension of utilities under or near the shared drivew ay, and connections to exis ting m ains in the vicinity of the lazy Chair /Tiehack R oad intersection within M CC . i.This portion of the project will require review and approval by the Association’s c onsulting engineer, Dean Gordon of SGM , for c ompatibility with the existing infrastruc ture, m aintenance requirem ents , and roads . Th is review may require additional time if submitted with the final review pac k age, so the applicant should allow for the time req uired for a detailed engineering review and possible revisions, or should submit that portion of the work separately in advance to avoid delays in scheduling the final review. ii.SARC reserves th e rig ht to inc rease the normal $100,000 Maroon Creek C lub Master Assoc iation Complianc e and Cons truction Completion Guaranty depending on the engineer’s assessment o f the work proposed, or to require a separate dedic ated depos it or bond to cover the utility and road w ork. This will be addressed w hen final drawings are rec eived and reviewed. iii.All utility work an d roa d work w ithin the boundaries of MCC shall meet M CC standards, as well as any City or utility company requirements. iv.The Association’s attorney will determine w hether an eas ement or lic ens e agreement or similar documentation is required to c over the installation of private utilities within M CC , and execution of any such agreement w ill be a condition of this and any final approval. e.Location and use of any outdoor speakers m us t not create a nuisance for golfers on the nearby holes and paths of travel. 4.The s chematic approval includes tentative variances for the following items as s hown on the drawings, subject to Final Approval by the SARC ; a.The ex tent of variances from the Design Guidelines that would be required to approve the massing, proposed exterior materials, and general design o f this home w ould be numerous, but in rec ognition of the facts that 1) the home is n ot ge ne ra lly visible from other homes and roads within MCC, 2) the design of the home will primarily affect only the golf course and the a dja ce nt P fister Lot 3, and 3) this property is not within the actual boundaries of MC C, SARC is not opposed to including several varianc es in a subsequent final a pp ro v al if the ow ner of the adjacent Lot 3 and MCC Golf have no objec tion to the design. 5.No construc tion, staging, or access will be allowed within the MCC Golf E asement area without the prior written consent of MCC Golf. This area must be c ompletely fenc ed during construction. 6.Temporary screening by means of fencing with “opaque” fabric or other privacy measures a re generally required for construc tion sites that are im mediately adjacent to golf play areas at MC C. It is likely that suc h measures will be required during the construction phase for this home, but the extent has not been determined. C ons truc tion fencing will be required to be placed, and approved by the Arc hitec tural Advis or, prior to any demolition or earthwork on site. T h e L a k e s i d e S t u d i o 8 0 1 L a k e s i d e D r i v e C a r b o n d a l e C o l o r a d o 8 1 6 2 3 -3 1 0 9 P h o n e 9 7 0 9 6 3 8 0 2 5 w w w .w i l l i a m l u k e s .c o m P55 VI.A. a.The boundaries betw een either Lot 2 or Lot 3 and any M CC Common Are as s h all be fenced, as approved by the A rc hitectural Advisor. No vegetation on Common Areas shall be removed or disturbed, and no m a terials may be stored or vehicles park ed on any Comm on Areas. 7.No air conditioning equipment was included in the review or approval. 8.No exterior lighting was included in the review or approval. 9.All c ons truction operations must comply with the MCC approved w orking hours and days in addition to any requirements that may be imposed by the C ity of Aspen or M CC Golf. 10.All c onstruction operations must c omply w ith MC C springtime W eight Limits on Tiehac k Road from Marc h 15 through J une 15 . th th 11.This approval is based on the proposed construc tion schedule of approximately 16 months for both the Lot 2 and Lot 3 homes, plus a reasonable allowanc e of time during the spring and s umm er of 2016 to complete landscaping and irrigation. All construction is to be com pleted by June 2016. IM PORTAN T NO TES: Construction that is either not in full accordance with the approved docum ents or that has not been approved in advance will result in substantial fines being levied against the property owner. Funds used to secure the Construction and Com pletion Guaranty m ay be collected by the M aster Association to pay any fines that are assessed. Approval by the Site and Architecture C ommittee of the M aroon Creek Club M aster Association does not constitute an assurance that the design of the project or the application complies with all applicable provisions of the County approvals for the M aroon Creek Club or that a building permit will be issued. It is the owner’s responsibility to obtain building and other perm its as m ay be required by the C ity of Aspen. Pleas e let me know if you have any questions regarding the Committee’s action, or if we c an be of any further as s is tanc e. W e w ill send you s eparately one s et of the approved plans for the owner’s records. Cordially, T HE LAK ES IDE ST UD IO for the Maroon C reek Club Master Association W illiam Lukes , Architect Arc hitectural A dvisor to SA RC copies:A ll SAR C m em bers Sarah Korpela, Joshua & Co.A s sociation M anagem ent Hal Dishler Association Counsel David Chadbourne MC C G eneral Manager Dean Gordon Association Engineer T h e L a k e s i d e S t u d i o 8 0 1 L a k e s i d e D r i v e C a r b o n d a l e C o l o r a d o 8 1 6 2 3 -3 1 0 9 P h o n e 9 7 0 9 6 3 8 0 2 5 w w w .w i l l i a m l u k e s .c o m P56 VI.A. 511 Lazy Chair Lot: 2 – 8040 Greenline Review Criteria Response Sec. 26.435.030 City of Aspen Land Use Code C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. Per City of Aspen Pre-Application Conference Summary, Lazy Chair Lot 2: “Conditions of these approvals included a prohibition of development above 8060' above mean sea level because of the steep grade and natural vegetation in this portion of of the parcel.” Also, according to the First Amendment Final Plat: “development in the hatched area above elevation 8060 is prohibited except as reasonably necessary for utility infrastructure, storm water mitigation, maintenance or restoration of native landscape, and wildfire mitigation needs:” 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and re-vegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. See the geotechnical soils and hazards reports enclosed. The civil application includes an erosion control plan to re vegetate and stabilize the cut slopes post final grading. See Civil 6/6. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. See Civil, 2/6 & 3/6. Runoff from impervious surfaces will be retained and infiltrated onsite. Over flows from retention facilities will be sized to release at the historical undeveloped flow rate as per the URMP rules. Rip Rap and vegetation will be used in swales to dissipate energy leaving the site to negate any downstream effects. The City of Aspen’s Water Quality Capture Volume and Flood Detention Volume requirements can be met with the proposed site design. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Hand Sweeping with brooms and shovels, and daily visual checks and removal of debris along the Project entry areas, the intersection of the driveway at Lazy Chair Road will be washed clean as needed. During Excavation, site watering will be performed by automatic sprinkler system as required to control dust. Additional site watering will be performed as necessary to limit air borne dust. Rumble strips will be applied near the boundary of property to limit distributing soils off site. As per City of Aspen Construction Management Plan Requirements Manual dated August 2010, no diesel engine emissions will exceed 40% opacity, except for starting or stationary operation not exceeding 10 seconds. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. See Civil, 3/6. Off site flows from above will be routed around the structure before returning to P57 VI.A. their natural drainage pattern. There are no trials within the development area and the existing access off Tiehack Road will be used. There is a 30’ access and utilities easement and there is no plan to go outside of this. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. See Civil grading plan 3/6. Soil nail walls are proposed for shoring to minimize the disturbance to the site. Grading is not to extend above the 8060’ contour elevation. The only exception to the disturbance area elevation is for utility connections. No grading is proposed within the Maroon Creek Golf Course Easements. Increased driveway grading within the front setback will decrease required cut for the driveway approach. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. There is only one structure situated near the center of the property. The access already exists and there is no request to for a second access. The road entering the site follows the natural terrain minimizing the need to for excessive cuts/fills. See driveway grading addressed in item #5. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. See Z1-201 thru Z1-206. The proposed structure is under maximum allowable height limit. Some areas of roof and exterior walls will be vegetated roof. Extensive landscaping is required by HOA to conceal the building from major view corridors of the golf course. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. See Civil, 4/6. The water pressure was tested at the on site hydrant 175psi static, 155psi residual and 1654 GPM. The existing hydrant on site that will be relocated closer to the driveway when the waterline is extended to form a loop back to the Tiehack Rd main in lieu of remaing a terminus as it currently exists. Aspen City Water Department has been apart of this ongoing improvement discussion. A new curb stop will be installed within the driveway paving for access. Electrical service, cable/telephone/data, forced sewer, and natural gas utilities are proposed to be new and located under Lazy Chair Road, tying into existing utilities off site near Tiehack Road. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. See Civil, 3/6 & 5/6. The driveway connects to an existing access, Lazy Chair Road, which interested Tiehack Road. The applicant will plow the access in the winter and there is room on the downhill side of the road for snow storage. Additionally, the golf course is requesting an improved access along Lazy Chair Road to separate residential and golf/maintenance traffic. This design is under development and would be addressed under separate permit as it is on MCC Golf Course property. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. P58 VI.A. See Civil, 5/6. The on site driveway is proposed to be 16’ wide with inside turn radii of 30’ and “Y” style turn around that is also 16’ wide. Auto turn simulation was performed to demonstrate the turning movement for a fire truck. Grades don’t exceed 6.1% within the site driveways and turn rounds. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. This development dose not impact he open space plan. No disturbance will occur within the MCC easement to the east of the property without their prior approval. This would only include plantings to further screen views of the development from the golf course as directed by the MCC. P59 VI.A. P60 VI.A. P61 VI.A. P62 VI.A. P63 VI.A. P64 VI.A. P65 VI.A. P66 VI.A. P67 VI.A. P68 VI.A. P69 VI.A. P70 VI.A. P71 VI.A. P72 VI.A. P73 VI.A. P74 VI.A. P75 VI.A. P76 VI.A. P77 VI.A. P78 VI.A. P79 VI.A. P80 VI.A. P81 VI.A. P82 VI.A. P83 VI.A. P84 VI.A. P85 VI.A. P86 VI.A. P87 VI.A. P88 VI.A. P89 VI.A. P90 VI.A. P91 VI.A. P92 VI.A. P93 VI.A. P94 VI.A. P95 VI.A. P96 VI.A. P97 VI.A. P98 VI.A. P99 VI.A. Residential Design Standards Compliance 511 Lazy Chair Road RDS Section Code Description Compliance Description (Note Approved Variances)Reference A. Site Design 1. Building orientation.Exempt, per 26.410.040.4.1 Survey ½ 2. Build-to lines. Exempt, per 26.410.040.4.2 Survey ½ 3. Fences.Yes, none in front facade or front yard setback L1 B. Building Form 1. Secondary mass.Exempt, per 26.410.040.B.1 N/A a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.Exempt per 26.410.010.B.4, Private Road accessing single parcel Z-005 Exempt per 26.410.010.B.4, Private Road accessing single parcel Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 N/A, accessed by Private Drive Z-005 D. Building Elements Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 3. Windows.Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 4. Lightwells.Exempt, per 26.410.010.B.4 Z-005 E. Context 1. Materials.Yes Z-205, Z-206 Yes Z-205, Z-206 c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials.Using Stone, wood siding, pretreated patina copper and fenestration Z-205, Z-206 2. Inflection.Exempt per 26.410.040.E.2 N/A Exempt per 26.410.040.E.2 N/A Exempt per 26.410.040.E.2 N/A The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street- facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single- stall or normal double-stall garage doors. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be apply: a) On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b) The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet. f) If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. b) No more than one (1) non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to Inflect. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-003 RDS COMPLIANCE 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 0 V I . A . 20 ' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 30' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 8060' 8055' 8050' 8045' 8040' 8035' 8030' 8060' 8055' 8050' 8045' 8040' 8035' 8030' 8025' 8025' 8027' LOWER EDGE OF DISTURBANCE GOLF COURSE EASEMENT PROPOSED SEWAGE LIFT STATION PROPOSED SITE WALLS AND HARDSCAPE PROPOSED MECHANICAL COOLING UNITS PROPOSED HYDRANT LOCATION PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION ELEVATION OF MAX EXTENT OF DISTURBANCE PROPOSED SITE RETAINING WALLS, SEE CIVIL FOR LOCATION AND STRUCT. FOR DESIGN PROPOSED FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND SEE CIVIL PROPOSED DRIVE PROPOSED SITE RETAINING WALLS, SEE CIVIL FOR LOCATION AND STRUCT. FOR DESIGN EXIST WATER, TELEPHONE, CABLE SERVICES TO REMAIN BY PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT GOLF COURSE EASEMENT RETAIN EXISTING NATIVE GAMBEL OAK TREES. NEW PLANTINGS SHALL NOT ENCROACH ON EXISTING DRIPLINES NATIVE OAK GROVE TO REMAIN. ONLY REMOVE APPROVED CLUSTERS OF NATIVE TREES FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. GENERAL NOTE: ALL TREE PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF APPROVED TREE CLUSTERS PROPOSED MOTOR COURT PATIO POOL SPA PR O P E R T Y LIN E PR O P E R T Y LIN E PR O P E R T Y LIN E PR O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERT Y LINE PR O P E R T Y LIN E SE T B A C K LIN E SET B A C K LIN E SE T B A C K LIN E S E T B A C K L I N E SETBACK LINE SE T B A C K LIN E SET B A C K LIN E LAZY CHAIR ROAD PRIVATE DRIVE EXISTING NATIVE AREA NO DISTURBANCE, SEE 1ST AMENDMENT FINAL PLAT EX I S T OV E R H E A D PO W E R TO RE M A I N BY PR E S C R I P T I V E EA S E M E N T NPROPOSED SITE PLAN 1" = 20' NOTE: SOME TREE PLANTINGS WILL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, PER MCC GOLF. THESE AREAS WILL BE REPLANTED WITH NATIVE GRASSES AND WATERED FOR PROPIGATION. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-005 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 1 V I . A . 511  Lazy  Chair Tree  Worksheet Condition  Scale 1-­‐Excellent 2-­‐Good 3-­‐Fair 4-­‐Poor 5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service 1111  Village  Road Carbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   Tree  #Species D.B.H.Condition Comments Mitigation 1 Aspen 9 3 low  vigor 2,606.99$                       2 Aspen 3,3,3,2 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         3 Aspen 4,4,3,4 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         4 Aspen 5,5 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         5 S.W.  White  Pine 7 1 relocate  if  accessible 1,577.07$                       6 Spruce 3 3 5  stem  multi-­‐‑  poor -­‐‑$                                         7 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         8 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         9 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         10 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         11 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         12 Spruce 6 2 relocatable 1,158.66$                       13 Spruce 4 2 relocatable 514.96$                             14 Crabapple 3,3 4 50%  dead -­‐‑$                                         15 Crabapple 4,3 3 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         16 Crabapple 4.5 3 -­‐‑$                                         17 Crabapple 3 4 75%  dead -­‐‑$                                         18 Crabapple 3 3 sapsucker  damage -­‐‑$                                         19 Spruce 11 3 3,894.39$                       20 Spruce 9 3 2,606.99$                       21 Spruce 14 3 6,308.26$                       22 Spruce 12 3 4,634.64$                       23 Fir 7 2 1,577.07$                       24 Fir 4 4 -­‐‑$                                         25 Juniper 4 3 crowded  by  oaks 514.96$                             26 Spruce 3 4 very  weak -­‐‑$                                         27 Aspen 4 3 dead  leader -­‐‑$                                         511  Lazy  Chair Tree  Worksheet Condition  Scale 1-­‐Excellent 2-­‐Good 3-­‐Fair 4-­‐Poor 5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service 1111  Village  Road Carbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   28 Aspen 4 3 -­‐‑$                                         29 Spruce 3 3 -­‐‑$                                         30 Aspen 4 3 -­‐‑$                                         31 Spruce 4 4 -­‐‑$                                         32 Spruce 4 4 -­‐‑$                                         33 Aspen 3-­‐‑Mar 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         34 Spruce 4 4 -­‐‑$                                         35 Aspen 3 4 -­‐‑$                                         36 Aspen 5 2 -­‐‑$                                         37 Aspen 4 2 -­‐‑$                                         38 Aspen 5 2 -­‐‑$                                         39 Aspen 9 3 2,606.99$                       40 Aspen 6 3 1,158.66$                       41 Spruce 6 3 relocatable 1,158.66$                       42 Aspen 15 5 Fallen  stem   codominant -­‐‑$                                         43 Spruce 17 3 heavy  needle  drop 9,301.47$                       44 Aspen 13 5 dead -­‐‑$                                         45 Aspen 7 3 1,577.07$                       46 Spruce 17 3 9,301.47$                       47 Aspen 8 3 2,059.84$                       48 Aspen 8 3 2,059.84$                       49 Aspen 4 3 -­‐‑$                                         50 Lilac 6  ft 3 3  six  ft  clumps,  not   transplantable -­‐‑$                                         51 Aspen 2 3 -­‐‑$                                         52 Aspen 3 3 -­‐‑$                                         53 Aspen 3 3 -­‐‑$                                         54 Aspen 3 3 -­‐‑$                                         55 Aspen 4 3 -­‐‑$                                         56 Aspen 4 3 -­‐‑$                                         511  Lazy  Chair Tree  Worksheet Condition  Scale 1-­‐Excellent 2-­‐Good 3-­‐Fair 4-­‐Poor 5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service 1111  Village  Road Carbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   57 Aspen 4 3 -­‐‑$                                         58 Aspen 5 3 -­‐‑$                                         59 Aspen 5,5 3 multi  stem  all   under  6  dbh -­‐‑$                                         60 Aspen 5,5 3 multi  stem  all   under  6  dbh -­‐‑$                                         61 Crabapple 4,4 3 multi  stem  all   under  6  dbh -­‐‑$                                         62 Aspen 6 3 Codominant,  weak   vigor,  one  stem  6   dbh 1,158.66$                       63 Aspen 7.5 2 relocatable 1,810.41$                       64 Aspen 8 4 Codominant,  weak   vigor -­‐‑$                                         65 Crabapple 6 4 poor  condition -­‐‑$                                         66 Amur  Maple 5  ft 2 relocatable -­‐‑$                                         67 Amur  Maple 5  ft 2 relocatable -­‐‑$                                         68 Lilac 10  ft.2 relocatable -­‐‑$                                         69 Dwarf  Alb.   spruce 4  ft.3 poor  condition -­‐‑$                                         70 Mtn  Ash 11ft.4 poor  condition -­‐‑$                                         71 Lilac 8  ft.3 relocatable -­‐‑$                                         72 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             72 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             73 oak 4 3 514.96$                             511  Lazy  Chair Tree  Worksheet Condition  Scale 1-­‐Excellent 2-­‐Good 3-­‐Fair 4-­‐Poor 5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service 1111  Village  Road Carbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   Tree  #Species D.B.H.Condition Comments Mitigation 1 Aspen 9 3 low  vigor 2,606.99$                       2 Aspen 3,3,3,2 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         3 Aspen 4,4,3,4 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         4 Aspen 5,5 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         5 S.W.  White  Pine 7 1 relocate  if  accessible 1,577.07$                       6 Spruce 3 3 5  stem  multi-­‐‑  poor -­‐‑$                                         7 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         8 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         9 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         10 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         11 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         12 Spruce 6 2 relocatable 1,158.66$                       13 Spruce 4 2 relocatable 514.96$                             14 Crabapple 3,3 4 50%  dead -­‐‑$                                         15 Crabapple 4,3 3 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         16 Crabapple 4.5 3 -­‐‑$                                         17 Crabapple 3 4 75%  dead -­‐‑$                                         18 Crabapple 3 3 sapsucker  damage -­‐‑$                                         19 Spruce 11 3 3,894.39$                       20 Spruce 9 3 2,606.99$                       21 Spruce 14 3 6,308.26$                       22 Spruce 12 3 4,634.64$                       23 Fir 7 2 1,577.07$                       24 Fir 4 4 -­‐‑$                                         25 Juniper 4 3 crowded  by  oaks 514.96$                             26 Spruce 3 4 very  weak -­‐‑$                                         27 Aspen 4 3 dead  leader -­‐‑$                                         x x x x x x x xxx x x x x x x xx x x xx x x ov e r h e a d po w e r ov e r h e a d po w e r Po w e r Po l e G o l f T e e Fenc e H o u s e Co n c r e t e Pa d W a l l C o n c r e t e D r i v e C o n c r e t e A s p h a l t Lo t 2 2 .40 Ac r e s +/ - L o t 1 N 77 °27 '55 "W 26 0 .00 N 1 2 ° 3 2 ' 0 5 " E 1 1 5 . 0 0 S 77 °27 '55 "E 70 .00 N 1 2 ° 3 2 ' 0 5 " E 1 9 0 . 0 0 S 77 °27 '55 "E 33 5 .00 S 25 °57 '30 "E 117 .33 S 32 ° 38 ' 22 " W 227 . 00 M a r o o n C r e e k C l u b C o m m o n Fo u n d No . 5 Re b a r wi t h Ye l l o w Pl a s t i c Ca p L .S . #91 8 4 S 34 ° 13 ' 00 " W 13 9 . 50 Golf Corse Easemen t (hatched area ) As graphica l l y shown but not dimensio n e d in Book 735 at Page 400 St a i r s Pa t i o Bo u l d e r Stairs Wall Wall 61 .40 1.90 25 .40 43.20 23 .70 12.40 1 .80 11.30 6 .90 1.50 35 .20 24.50 20 .80 22.001.60 22.40 Wall 93 .78 ' 10 7 .53 ' Wall Co n c . P a d F .F . 80 4 0 .2 N 3°26'22" W6028.54' CI T Y OF AS P E N GP S -13 C i t y o f A s p e n H2O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O H 2 O Gas G a s Ga s 7 " 7 " 5 " 7 " 7 "5 "5 " 5 " 5 " Ga m b l e Oa k Tr e e lin e WV SS D YHSS SS SS TE E BO X GASGAS GA S GAS A 8 0 2 9 . 0 0 7995 .00 8000 .00 8005 .00 8010 .00 8 0 1 5 . 0 0 8 0 2 0 . 0 0 8 0 2 5 . 0 0 20 ' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 8060' 8055' 8050' 8045' 8040' 8035' 8030' 8060' 8055' 8050' 8045' 8040' 8035' 8030' 8025' 8025' 8027' LOWER EDGE OF DISTURBANCE GOLF COURSE EASEMENT RETAIN EXISTING NATIVE GAMBEL OAK TREES. NEW PLANTINGS SHALL NOT ENCROACH ON EXISTING DRIPLINES NATIVE OAK GROVE TO REMAIN. ONLY REMOVE APPROVED CLUSTERS OF NATIVE TREES FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. GENERAL NOTE: ALL TREE PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF APPROVED TREE CLUSTERS PR O P E R T Y LIN E PR O P E R T Y LIN E PR O P E R T Y LIN E PR O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERT Y LINE PR O P E R T Y LIN E SE T B A C K LIN E SET B A C K LIN E SE T B A C K LIN E S E T B A C K L I N E SETBACK LINE SE T B A C K LIN E SE T B A C K LIN E 2 6 7-11 12 13 14 1615 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 262728 2930 32 34 33 35 39 40 41 3736 38 46 4244 45 43 47 48 49 50-57 58-60 61 62 63 66 67 68 69 70 71 77 78 72 7374 75 76 31 134 511  Lazy  ChairTree  Worksheet Condition  Scale1-­‐Excellent2-­‐Good3-­‐Fair4-­‐Poor5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service1111  Village  RoadCarbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   75 Oak 5 3 804.63$                            75 Oak 5 3 804.63$                            75 Oak 5 3 804.63$                            75 Oak 6 3 1,158.66$                      75 Oak 6 3 1,158.66$                      75 Oak 7 3 1,577.07$                      75 Oak 7 3 1,577.07$                      75 Oak 7 3 1,577.07$                       75 Oak 7 3 1,577.07$                       75 Oak 7 3 1,577.07$                       75 Oak 8 3 2,059.84$                       75 Oak 8 3 2,059.84$                       75 Oak 9 3 2,606.99$                       76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             511  Lazy  Chair Tree  Worksheet Condition  Scale 1-­‐Excellent 2-­‐Good 3-­‐Fair 4-­‐Poor 5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service 1111  Village  Road Carbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 4 3 514.96$                             76 Oak 5 3 804.63$                             76 Oak 5 3 804.63$                             76 Oak 5 3 804.63$                             76 Oak 5 3 804.63$                             76 Oak 5 3 804.63$                             76 Oak 6 3 1,158.66$                       77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             77 Oak 3 3 289.67$                             511  Lazy  ChairTree  Worksheet Condition  Scale1-­‐Excellent2-­‐Good 3-­‐Fair 4-­‐Poor 5-­‐Dead Aspen  Tree  Service1111  Village  RoadCarbondale  ,  CO  81623 Mitigation  values  were  zeroed  on  trees  with  condition  ratings  of  4-­‐‑5   Tree  #Species D.B.H.Condition Comments Mitigation 1 Aspen 9 3 low  vigor 2,606.99$                       2 Aspen 3,3,3,2 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         3 Aspen 4,4,3,4 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         4 Aspen 5,5 2 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         5 S.W.  White  Pine 7 1 relocate  if  accessible 1,577.07$                       6 Spruce 3 3 5  stem  multi-­‐‑  poor -­‐‑$                                         7 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         8 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         9 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         10 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         11 Spruce 3 3 tight  spacing -­‐‑$                                         12 Spruce 6 2 relocatable 1,158.66$                       13 Spruce 4 2 relocatable 514.96$                             14 Crabapple 3,3 4 50%  dead -­‐‑$                                         15 Crabapple 4,3 3 multi  stem  all  under  6   dbh -­‐‑$                                         16 Crabapple 4.5 3 -­‐‑$                                         17 Crabapple 3 4 75%  dead -­‐‑$                                         18 Crabapple 3 3 sapsucker  damage -­‐‑$                                         19 Spruce 11 3 3,894.39$                       20 Spruce 9 3 2,606.99$                       21 Spruce 14 3 6,308.26$                       22 Spruce 12 3 4,634.64$                       23 Fir 7 2 1,577.07$                       24 Fir 4 4 -­‐‑$                                         25 Juniper 4 3 crowded  by  oaks 514.96$                             26 Spruce 3 4 very  weak -­‐‑$                                         27 Aspen 4 3 dead  leader -­‐‑$                                         TREE DEMO NOTES AREAS 75, 77, & 78 WILL RECEIVE SELECTIVE CUTTING PER PROJECT ARBORIST AND CITY OF ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. TREE PROTECTION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TREE DEMO. 2. PROTECT TREES SCHEDULED FOR PHASED DEMO 3. SITE PROTECTION REQUIRED FOR ALL TREES TO REMAIN. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-007 TREE REMOVAL 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 2 V I . A . BB B B B B B DDDD D D D D D D CCC C C C C CC C C C C C D D D D D D C C C C C C C C FF C C E E E E E E C C C F F 20'- 0 " 8036' MSL 8031' - 3" MSL 8036' MSL S E T B A C K L I N E EXTERIOR LIGHTING 1/8" = 1'-0" A - ENTRANCE SCONCE B - EXTERIOR DOWNLIGHT C - EXTERIOR PATH DOWNLIGHT D - EXTERIOR CAN DOWNLIGHT E - DRIVEWAY BALLARD F - UNDERWATER POOL LIGHT SEE PAGE Z-016 FOR SPECIFICATIONS SEE PAGE Z-205 & Z-206 FOR HEIGHTS STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-015 EXTERIOR LIGHTING 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 3 V I . A . hubbardtonforge.comAll designs and images ©1989-2013 Hubbardton Forge®. All rights reserved. 306405 Axis lArge outdoor sconce As shown: 306405-17 hubbardtonforge.com For more information call customer service at 800-826-4766 or email customerservice@vtforge.com for residential; contract@vtforge.com for commercial. 154 rt. 30 South • caStleton, Vermont 05735 • t 800-826-4766 • f 877-910-3700 All designs and images ©1989-2013 Hubbardton Forge®. All rights reserved. 306405 Axis Outdoor aluminum sconce with glass, large. Patent Pending Dimensions Height 24" Width 5.5" Projection 3.8" Backplate 24.0" x 5.5"Mounting Height 12" ADA Compliant? Yes Max Hanging Weight 13 lbs Incandescent Lamping Socket: GU10 halogen Bulb: MR-16 reflector, 50 watt max Glass 333 - Block 2.28" x 14.63" Glass Color ZM - Clear UL / CUL ListingOutdoor wet ADA Updated 1.13 5.5" 3.8" 24" MONO LED WW 6 223 11 4102 Available colors : ALU GREY / GREY BROWN INCL.1 x POWERLED WHITE 7W / CRI>80 / 3000K / 525lm INCL.1 x LENS INCL.LED POWER SUPPLY 350mA-DC Weight : 1.3 LBS Protection Level : IP55 OPTIONS : MUD KIT 2 For detailed installation instructions, please consult the manual. Technical Data 1/2 MONO LED WW 6 223 11 4102 Technical Data 2/2 HELI X SCREEN LED WW 6 202 04 22 2" 15/16 x 3" 7/16 x 2" 3/8 Available colors : ALU GREY / DARK GREY INCL.PC SBL INCL.1 x POWERLED WHITE 1W / 3000K EXCL.LED POWER SUPPLY 350mA-DC CLASS 2 CIRCUITS ONLY Weight : 0.7 LBS Protection Level : IP54 OPTIONS - CLASS 2 : CONCRETE BOX 187 LED POWER SUPPLY 350mA-DC DIM For detailed installation instructions, please consult the manual. Technical Data 1/2 HELI X SCREEN LED WW 6 202 04 22 Technical Data 2/2 90mm3”-9/16 90mm 3”-9/16 CARREE II X S1 6 202 20 41 = A FIXED GX5.3 / 12V 1 x MR16 max.50W 0.7 0,5 RequiRements / stAnDARDHOUSING 7 SpecificationSheetNorth America USA / deltalight.us / +1(954) 677 9800Canada / deltalight.ca / +1(905) 813 6130 Date Specifier Name Client Project name Quote# Type / Quantity FeaturesPowder coated stainless steelPre-installed springs for easy installationPre-installed snap-in connector ApplicationSuitable for damp locationsFor ambient lightingResidential, commercial, retail, and hospitality spacesOutdoor use Light Source1 x MR16 max.50W Dimming OptionsRefer to power supply spec sheet.Dimmable Finish OptionsA = Aluminum Gray Carree II X S1 171mm6”-3/4 353mm14”216mm8”-1/2 SpecificationSheetNorth America USA / deltalight.us / +1(954) 677 9800Canada / deltalight.ca / +1(905) 813 6130 EXAMPLE How to specify? Fixture Options required for non-class 2 power limited circuits (Fixture + Housing) Housing for NIC and/or airtight applications = SPACE = sPACe 6 202 20 41 A = Carree II X S1, Aluminum Gray finish FINISH 6 202 20 41 X A = Aluminum Gray INSTALLATION TYPE LAMP SOURCE OPENING VOLTAGE MOUNTING OPTION 6 202 X XX XX X X 1 = niC At HOusinG m 01 = HALOGen 75W 120V 1 = 120V 0 = nO BAR HAnGeRs52 = PK 161 2 = 277V - (nA)1 = BAR HAnGeRs stAnDARD 3 = 120-277V - (nA) Carree II X S1 PhotometricData USA / deltalight.us / +1(954) 677 9800Canada / deltalight.ca / +1(905) 813 6130 North America Polar Diagram Carree II X S1 AULA 60 WW 6 318 17 4102 Available colors : GREY BROWN-WHITE INCL.1 x POWERLED WHITE 7W / CRI>80 / 3000K / 525lm INCL.1 x LENS INCL.LED POWER SUPPLY 3500mA-DC INCL.1 x CABLE 5' SJ00W 3 x 18 AWG Weight : 4 LBS Protection Level : IP55 OPTIONS : JUNCTION BOX PIN 15 IP68 CONNECTOR 3P For detailed installation instructions, please consult the manual. Technical Data 1/2 AULA 60 WW 6 318 17 4102 Technical Data 2/2 FIXTURE A FIXTURE A FIXTURE B FIXTURE C FIXTURE D FIXTURE D FIXTURE E STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 L D I C ENSE A R C H I T E C T S F T A T E O COLO R A D O 7/11/2014 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SMW 1405 FORUM PHI, LLC Z 3/28/14 PLAT AMENDMENT Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Ave Glenwood Springs, CO 81901 (970)928-9708 jeff@tss-us.com Roaring Fork Engineering PO Box 9554 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 448-7474 RichardG@rfeng.biz CTL Thompson TBD Kevin McClure PO Box 6957 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 (970) 379 9088 KvnMcClure@gmail.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z1-013EXTERIOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET 511 LAZY CHAIR LOT 2 LLC 511 Lazy Chair Aspen, CO 81611 511 LAZY CHAIR 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 8040 GREENLINEZ7/11/14 5 THE SOLID GEOMETRIC MODEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRAWING MUST BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE SPEC FOR THIS PART AND MUST BE REFFERED TO FOR FEATURES THAT CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY DIMENSIONS ON THE DRAWING. THIS PART IS TO CONFORM TO SOLIDWORKS GEOMETRY 601000.SLDPRT 4 SYMBOL ' ' DENOTES LAST CHANGE. 3 SYMBOL ' ' DENOTES CRITICAL DIMENSION. 2 INTERPRET DIMENSIONING AND TOLERANCING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.5-1999 1 MATERIAL: SEE COMPONENT DRAWINGS. NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED WEIGHT: SIZE:D DWG. NO. TITLE: SEE PCO FORAPPROVAL SIGNATURES REV. 1620 Hawkins Ave.Sanford, NC 27330 DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SIGNATURESDRAWN: CHECKED: COMMENTS: DATE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: THIRD ANGLE PROJECTION DIMESIONS ARE IN INCHESTOLERANCES:.X OR X/X = 1/64".XX =.01" .XXX = .005"ANGULARITY: 1REMOVE ALL BURRS & BREAKSHARP EDGES .010" MAXIMUMEXCEPT P/L & SHUT OFFSDIAMETERS TO BE CONCENTRICWITHIN .005" T.I.R. SCALE: 2:3 SHEET: 1 OF 2 120V COLOR POOL SDENST 11/15/08 LT INTLBRT 5G 601000TAB F COMPUTER GENERATEDDOCUMENT.MANUAL CHANGES NOT ALLOWED. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREON IS THE PROPERTY OF PENTAIR WATER, INC.NO PORTION OF THIS DATA SHALL BE RELEASED, DISCLOSED, USED, ORDUPLICATED FOR USE IN PROCUREMENT OR MANUFACTURING WITHOUT SPECIFICWRITTEN PERMISSION FROM PENTAIR WATER, INC. 1 5 6 7 12 15 16 1817 20 21 23 2422 3 8 2 10 12 2526 10 19 11 9 11 4 14 14 F F 13 2° 14 A A 14 FRONT VIEW B SECTION A-A SCALE 1 : 2 27 28 8 9 8PCBA MOUNTINGSURFACE 15LABEL & PILOT SCREW (DATA LABEL) .50.25 .50±.13 DETAIL B SCALE 2 : 2.2 6CRITICAL GROMMET VIEW BACK VIEW 16 16 2.548.0102.540.010 3.000±.010 1.515±.010 1.515±.010 2.478±.010 2.500±.010 2X .350±.010 HOUSING & THREADED STUD VIEW 2 1 19 20 REVISIONS PCO REV.DESCRIPTION DRWN DATE 18560 A RELEASE TO PRODUCTION SD 05/18/10 19400 B (DEL) 619821 & 98204611 ; (ADD) 619907 ;REMOVE PULL TEST REQUIREMENT FROM NOTE 7 ;SD 07/08/10 19573 C (ADD TO BOM) 610029 ; (ADD VIEW W/ DIMS) HOUSING & THREADED STUD ;(ADD NOTES) 19 & 20 ;SD 09/07/10 20563 D CHANGE ITEM 18, WAS 51008500, IS 072183 DJH 10/14/11 21174 E ADDED P/N 990055 (ITEM 37)JFC 7/6/12 22185 F P/N 619487 REPLACED WITH P/N 620141 & P/N 79101600 REPLACED WITH 79101601 SWG 9/13/13 37 1 990055 LBL SM PART NUMBER ONLY 36 1 SEE TAB 250' LBL 35 SEE TAB SEE TAB BUBBLE WRAP 34 1 619355 SCREW PILOT SS SUBASSY 33 1 151629 WARRANTY CARD LTD 32 1 619827 INST MANUAL RGB INTLBRT 2 POOL LT 31 1 98611000 LBL PAPER 4X6 WHT 30 1 SEE TAB INSERT CTN LT 29 1 SEE TAB CTN 28 .072LB(32.67g)619787 EPOXY HARDNR EFI 4296H55 27 .369LB(167.33g)619786 EPOXY RESIN EFI 4123R55 ITEM NO.QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BILL OF MATERIAL FOR PART NOT SHOWN 601004 LT INTLBRT 5G 250' 120V COLOR POOL 619706 619780 619427 9730004QTY 14 619777 601003 LT INTLBRT 5G 150' 120V COLOR POOL 619704 61001-0123 619879 &619427 9730004QTY 8 - 601002 LT INTLBRT 5G 100' 120V COLOR POOL 619703 619878 619879 -- 601001 LT INTLBRT 5G 50' 120V COLOR POOL 619701 619878 619879 -- 601000 LT INTLBRT 5G 30' 120V COLOR POOL 619699 619878 619879 -- LIGHT ASSEMBLY NO. LIGHT ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTION ITEM 1CORD ITEM 29CTN ITEM 30INSERT ITEM 35QTYBUBBLE WRAP ITEM 36250' LBL TABULATION 26 1 619540 LABEL FOUNTAIN UL 25 1 359540 LABEL SMALL SERIAL NUMBER 24 1 98220200 SCREW, PILOT LIGHTS 23 1 79110202 FACERING AMERLITE, SAM 22 6 79110300 CLIP FACE RING 21 1 98208500 WASHER, GUM, #10 20 1 79110400 WIRE SPRING CLAMP LG 19 1 79112000 BOLT 1/4-20x2.5-3/8PHWH 18 1 072183 WASHER, FLAT .25 X .562 X .049 STL 17 1 98216100 NUT, 1/4-20UNC-2B, BRONZE 16 1 619864 LENS INTBLT 5G & WHT GEN II LTs 15 1 79101601 GASKET LENS LG SILICONE 14 5 620141 NUT #8-32 ZN STEEL 5/16 HEX 13 1 619818 PCBA (5G VERSION 2) INTLBRT 5G POOL 12 2 619849 STRIP THERMAL IB 5G/WHT GEN 2 POOL LT 11 1 98213900 LKWSHR #10 S/S 10 1 619907 WIRE GROUND RNG TERM ASY 9 1 840230 WASHER, #8, .438 O.D. 8 3 98217900 CONN CLOSED END SM CHAL #1614-SDB 7 1 619871 TOROID ASY INTLBRT 5G 120V POOL LT 6 1 98802800 METAL STRAIN RELIEF BUSHING CRIMP TYPE 5 1 619774 MUSHROOM GROMMET 16-3 CORD 4 5 610029 SCR 8-32 X 1/2 SS FLNGE CD 3 1 619848 HSG INTBRT 5G & WHT GEN II INTBRT 5G & WHT GEN II 2 1 619828 DATA LBL 5g LT 1 1 98801800 CORD, 16/3, BLK, UL, STW, A UL, TYPE STW-105DegC ITEM NO.QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BILL OF MATERIALSA B B C C D D 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 A 2 1 20 SURFACE MUST BE FREE OF WELD SPLATTER OR ANY OTHER DEBRIS 19 WELD THREADED STUDS (ITEM 4) TO THE HOUSING (ITEM 3) PER THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN. WELDED THREADED STUDS MUST WITHSTAND A MINIMUM OF 35IN-LB TURQUE. 18 INSTRUCTION MANUAL (ITEMS 32) AND WARRANTY CARD (ITEM 33) TO BE SUPPLIED LOOSE IN BOTTOM OF CARTON (ITEMS 29). 17 SCREW PILOT SS SUB ASSY (ITEM 34) IS ENCLOSED IN POLYBAG AND SUPPLIED LOOSE IN CARTON (ITEMS 29). 16 ADHERE THE UL LABEL (ITEM 26) AND SERIAL LABEL (ITEM 25) TO THE HOUSING (ITEM 3) IN THE APPOX POSITION AND LOCATION SHOWN. 15 ALIGN THE DATA LABEL (ITEM 2) BY LINING UP THE LABEL'S "TOP" ARROW SYMBOL TO THE PILOT SCREW (ITEM 24). THEN ADHERE THE DATA LABEL AROUND REAR CYLINDER OF THE HOUSING (ITEM 3). 14 ORIENTATE LENS (ITEM 16), PILOT SCREW (ITEM 24), AND THE HOUSING (ITEM 3) TO WITHIN 2° MAX OF ALIGNMENT AS SHOWN. TIGHTENING BOLT (ITEM 19), NUT (ITEM 17), AND WASHER (ITEM 18)AGAINST THE WIRE SPRING (ITEM 20) UNTIL THE GAP BETWEEN THE TWO RIGHT-ANGLES OF THE WIRE SPRING ARE LESS THAN 1/4" . 13 ASSEMBLE THE GASKET (ITEM 15) ONTO THE LENS (ITEM 16). 12 USE THE FOUR NUTS (ITEM 14) TO SECURE THE PCBA (ITEM 13) TO THE HOUSING (ITEM 3). TORQUE NUTS TO 6-8 IN-LB. 11 PLACE THE PCBA (ITEM 13) INTO THE HOUSING (ITEM 3) AND OVER THE THERMO STRIPS (ITEM 12). BE SURE THE TORIOD'S WIRES (ITEM 7) ARE POSITIONED BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE PCBA AND THE INSIDE DIAMETER OF THE HOUSING. SEE SHEET TWO FOR CLARITY. 10 PLACE THE TWO THERMO STRIPS (ITEM 12) INTO THE HOUSING (ITEM 3), USING THE TWO HOLES IN THE THERMO STRIP'S AND THE HOUSING'S THREADED STUDS AS GUIDES FOR PROPER PLACEMENT. ONE THERMO STRIP PER SIDE AS SHOWN. 9 BE SURE THE TOROID'S (ITEM 7) FLAG CONNECTORS ARE ABOVE OF EPOXY (ITEMS 27 & 28). 8 EPOXY (ITEMS 27 & 28) TO BE FILLED UP TO LEVEL INDICATED COVERING THE TORIOD'S (ITEM 7) PRIMARY CONNECTORS (ITEM 8), AND GROUND CONNECTOR (ITEM 8). EPOXY LEVEL MUST BE BELOW THE PCBA'S (ITEM 13) MOUNTING SURFACE AS SHOWN. EPOXY CURING TIME 1 HOUR MIN. MAX EXOTHERMIC TEMP NOT TO EXCEED 180°F AS MEASURED ON SURFACE. 7 INSERT THE TORIOD (ITEM 7) INTO THE HOUSING WITH THE FUSE SIDE DOWN. (SEE TOROID/HOUSING VIEW ON SHEET 2). ALL WIRES TO BE CONFIGURATED AS PER WIRE DIAGRAM ON SHEET 2. TORQUE NUT (ITEM 14), SECURING THE GROUND WIRE/RING TERM (ITEM 10) TO THE HSG (ITEM 3) , TO 16-18 IN/LB. 6 THE GROMMET (ITEM 5) MUST BE PULLED THROUGH THE HOUSING’S (ITEM 3) CORD-SEAL HOLE FAR ENOUGH, SO THAT THE SMALL STEP ON THE GROMMET REST AGAINST THE OUTER RIM OF THE CORD-SEAL HOLE. (SEE GROMMET VIEW) FIXTURE F STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-016EXTERIOR LIGHTING CUTSHEET 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 4 V I . A . 28 ' - 0 " 9' - 4 " -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL 28 ' - 0 " 11 3 /4 " 1 '-4 1 /2 " 1 '-4 1 /2 " 16 ' - 3 " 13 ' - 9 " 9 '-7 1 /4 " -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 6" VERTICAL RAISED GRAIN CEDAR STONE VENEER - CHOPPED FACE COLORADO BUFF 12" PATINA FLAT SEAM COPPER WINDOW FRAMES & METAL ACCESSORIES ARE EBONY 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 22 1 GLASSGLASSGLASS 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 22 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-205 HEIGHTS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 5 V I . A . 28 ' - 0 " 8 '-5 1 /4 " 8' - 4 " 16 ' - 3 " 2 '-2 1 /4 " (EX T . LI G H T I N G ) (EX T . LI G H T I N G ) (EX T . LI G H T I N G ) ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL 28 ' - 6 " 1 '-4 1 /4 " 1 '-5 1 /4 " 13 ' - 9 " 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 3 GLASS HANDRAIL GLASS HANDRAIL 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 6" VERTICAL RAISED GRAIN CEDAR STONE VENEER - CHOPPED FACE COLORADO BUFF 12" PATINA FLAT SEAM COPPER WINDOW FRAMES & METAL ACCESSORIES ARE EBONY 1 2 3 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-206 HEIGHTS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 6 V I . A . DW DW F W/D L Z-209 L Z-209 M Z-209 M Z-209 K Z-209 K Z-209 8060' 8055' 8050' 8045' 8040' 8035' 8030' 8060' 8055' 8050' 8045' 8040' 8035' 8030' 8025' 8025' 8027' LOWER EDGE OF DISTURBANCE RG SITE SECTIONS 1" = 20' STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-208 SITE SECTIONS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 7 V I . A . 30'-2" 15 '-7 1 /4 " EXISTING TOPO PROPOSED TOPO 8060' LINE 8040' MSL 8036' MAIN LEVEL 8055'-4 1/4" ROOF LEVEL 39'-8" 13 ' - 8 " PROPOSED TOPO EXISTING TOPO 8060' LINE 8040' MSL 8036' MAIN LEVEL 8025' LOWER LEVEL 8052'-5" ROOF LEVEL 8049'-2" ROOF LEVEL 8020'-2" FOUNDATION 90'-91/2" 10 '-9 1 /2 " EXISTING TOPO PROPOSED TOPO 8060' LINE 8040' MSL 8036' MAIN LEVEL 8025' LOWER LEVEL 8052'-5" ROOF LEVEL M SITE SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0" L SITE SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0" K SITE SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-209 SITE SECTIONS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 8 V I . A . 1 1 B A-301 A A-301 C A-302 D A-302 D A-302 E A-303 E A-303 C1 A-401 C1 A-401 C2 A-401 C2 A-401 F1 A-402 F1 A-402 F2 A-402 F2 A-402 P1 A-404 P1 A-404 1 Z-205 2 Z-206 3 Z-205 4 Z-206 1'-0"1' - 0 " 1'-0" 4' - 0 " 34 '-9 3 /4 " 17 '-6 1 /4 " 31 '-10 3 /4 " 2 1 /4 " 24 ' - 1 " 10 8 ' - 6 " 139'-0" 58'-0"16'-5"19'-4"45'-3" 34 '-9 3 /4 " 19 '-0 1 /4 " 35 '-4 3 /4 " 19 '-3 1 /4 " 10 8 ' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 58'-0"4'-5"22'-2"9'-2"45'-3" 3'-1" 139'-0" 113'-0" T.O. PLY 111'-6" T.O. PLY 111'-6" T.O. PLY VEGITATED ROOFVEGETATED ROOF 1/8 : 12 1/8 : 12 1 1/2" : 12" TRELLIS IN COPPER SINGLE PLY ROOFING 1/8 : 12 SINGLE PLY ROOFING 1/8 : 12 SINGLE PLY ROOFING 1/8 : 12SINGLE PLY ROOFING 1/8 : 12 GRAVEL BORDER GRAVEL BORDER GRAVEL BORDER GRAVEL BORDER GRAVEL BORDER NO BALLAST PAST G.L. G 1/8 : 12 TRELLIS CONTAINS NO GUTTERS OR DRAINS A A B B C C H H D D 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 8 8 F F G G A A E E F A-303 F A-303 N ROOF MODEL 3/16" = 1'-0" MAIN LEVEL GROSS SF - 6103' MAIN LEVEL DECK SF - 282' LOWER LEVEL GROSS SF - 2642' TOTAL GROSS SF - 9027' PROJECT 100'-0" = 8036 MSL STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION A-108 ROOF LEVEL 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 0 9 V I . A . AA B C ED F G H39'-2"2'-4"3'-6"8'-10"24'-8"5'-11"24'-1" 4' - 0 " 4' - 9 " KITCHEN 122 HALL 102 MUD 105 LOCKERS 109 GARAGE 108 REC 002 BED 3 011 BED 3 011 CRAWL CRAWL -6'-3" UPPER CRAWL 16'-5" UPPER ROOF MECHANICAL 014 -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL B C ED F G HAA 4' - 9 " 39'-2"2'-4"3'-6"8'-10"24'-8"5'-11"24'-1" MASTER BED 116 MASTER CLOS 114 MASTER HALL 113 BED 1 004 CRAWL CRAWL -6'-3" CRAWL 16'-5" ROOF -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL B SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" A SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION A-301 SECTIONS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 1 0 V I . A . B C ED F G HAA 4' - 9 " 6' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 39'-2"2'-4"3'-6"8'-10"24'-8"5'-11"24'-1" ENTRY 101 GREAT ROOM 124 CRAWL -6'-3" UPPER CRAWL 19'-4 1/4" UPPER ROOF POOL -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL 3 4 52 6 81 41'-6"16'-11"12'-7"6'-6"14'-2"39'-4" GARAGE 108 19'-4 1/4" UPPER ROOF -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL C SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" D SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION A-302 SECTIONS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 1 1 V I . A . 3 4 5 6 821 4' - 9 " 4' - 0 " 4' - 9 " 41'-6"16'-11"12'-7"6'-6"14'-2"39'-4" MSTR BATH 115 MSTR HALL 113 MSTR OFFICE SITTING 111 STAIR/ELEV 110 MUD 105 POWDER 106 PANTRY 104 LIBRARY 103 ENTRY 101 CRAWL STAIR/ELEV 001 LAUNDRY 003 CRAWL -6'-3" UPPER CRAWL 19'-4 1/4" UPPER ROOF -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL 2 3 4 5 6 81 4' - 9 " 4' - 0 " 41'-6"16'-11"12'-7"6'-6"14'-2"39'-4" MSTR BATH 115 MSTR HALL 113 GUEST MSTR BATH 119 GUEST MSTR CLOS 118 GUEST MSTR HALL 117 LIVING ROOM 121 HALL 102 DINING ROOM 123 GREAT ROOM 124 CLOS 1 005 CLOS 1 005 BATH 3 013 REC 002 CRAWLCRAWLCRAWLCRAWLCRAWLCRAWL 19'-4 1/4" UPPER ROOF CRAWLCRAWL -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL E SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" F SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION A-303 SECTIONS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 1 2 V I . A . 2 3 4 5 6 81 4' - 9 " 4' - 0 " 41'-6"16'-11"12'-7"6'-6"14'-2"39'-4" MSTR BATH 115 MSTR HALL 113 GUEST MSTR BATH 119 GUEST MSTR CLOS 118 GUEST MSTR HALL 117 LIVING ROOM 121 HALL 102 DINING ROOM 123 GREAT ROOM 124 CLOS 1 005 CLOS 1 005 BATH 3 013 REC 002 CRAWLCRAWLCRAWLCRAWLCRAWLCRAWL 19'-4 1/4" UPPER ROOF CRAWLCRAWL -15'-10" -2 FOUNDATION -11'-0" -1 LOWER LEVEL ±0" 1 MAIN LEVEL +11'-6" 2 ROOF MODEL F SECTION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE STEVEN WILSON 402127 S T A T E O F COLO R A D O L I C ENSED AR C H I T E C T 2/11/2015 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:SEM 1420 FORUM PHI, LLC 12/4/14SD SARC SUBMISSION Tuttle Surveying Services Jeff Tuttle 823 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.0 jeff@tss-us.com (970) 928-9708 Roaring Fork Engineering Richard Goulding Suite 200b, 0123 Emma Rd, Basalt, CO 81621 richardg@rfeng.biz (970) 948-7474 AEC 40801 U.S. 6 #214, Avon, CO 81620 970-748-8520 Taylor@AEC-Vail.com S K Peightal Engineers Adrienne Prosser 298 Park Ave #301 Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-9510 skpe@sopris.net Tom Sherlock Construction Inc. Tom Sherlock 133 Prospector Suite 4102D Aspen, CO 81611 (970)923-1122 info@sherlockhomesaspen.com DATE OF PUBLICATION A-304 SECTIONS 511 Lazy Chair, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 511 Lazy Chair - Lot 2 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273511302002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/11/2015 Subdivision: ARTHUR O PFISTER EXEMPTION Lot: 2 ZONE DISTRICT RR 12/24/14 8040 GREENLINEP&Z 01/28/15 TREE REMOVAL PERMITTR CD 02/19/15 SARC SUBMISSION P 1 1 3 V I . A . P114 V I . A . FI RE TRU CK P ULL IN PAVERS SE T I N TU RF / NATIV E T A/C A/C M A I N L E V E L F .F .=8 0 3 6 ' L O W E R L E V E L F .F .=8 0 2 5 ' H Y D L O T 2 8035 8 0 1 5 8 0 5 5 8 0 5 6 8 0 4 6 8 0 4 2 8 0 5 5 8 0 5 0 8 0 4 0 8 0 3 2 8 0 3 5 8 0 3 0 8 0 2 9 8 0 2 7 8 0 3 6 8 0 3 8 8 0 3 9 8 0 4 0 8 0 5 0 8 0 5 6 8 0 3 0 M A I N L E V E L F .F .=8 0 3 1 ' D S S THIS PLAN IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY 12149 E. Baseline Rd. Lafayette, Colorado 80026 Phone: (303) 926-7260 Fax: (303) 926-7262 291 Summit Dr. Carbondale, Co 81623 Phone:(970) 963-9154 511 LAZY CHAIR LOT 2 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE ISSUE SHEET 2 2 ' - 2 4 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 2 0 ' - 2 1 ' 2 2 ' - 2 4 ' 2 2 ' - 2 4 ' 2 0 ' - 2 1 ' 2 0 ' - 2 1 ' 2 0 ' - 2 1 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 2 0 ' - 2 1 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 1 5'- 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 5'- 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 7 ' - 1 9 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' 1 5 ' - 1 6 ' L O W E R E D G E O F D I S T U R B A N C E U P P E R E D G E O F D IS T U R B A N C E G O L F C O U R S E E A S E M E N T UN D I S T U R B E D S I T E AR E A UN D I S T U R B E D S I T E AR E A UN D I S T U R B E D S I T E AR E A LA W N 80 2 5 LA W N LA W N MA S T E R P A T I O CO N C R E T E D I V E W I T H S T O N E O R C O L O R B A N D I N G WA T E R F E A T U R E (S E E 3 - D ) DR I V E ST O N E B E A M O R CO N C R E T E S T E P S SI T E W A L L S P. I . P . C O N C R E T E W A L L S ST O N E V E N E E R A N D ST O N E C A P SI T E W A L L S P. I . P . C O N C R E T E W A L L S ST O N E V E N E E R A N D ST O N E C A P 24 " S I T E W A L L S C O N C R E T E W A L L S ST O N E V E N E E R A N D ST O N E C A P SI T E W A L L S P. I . P . C O N C R E T E W A L L S ST O N E V E N E E R A N D ST O N E C A P S T E P S SE A T W A L L / B E N C H SE A T I N G GA S F I R E P I T WA T E R F E A T U R E C O N C R E T E P A T I O S A V E C U T J O I N T S W . S W E A T F I N I S H P O O L A N D S P A BA R PL A N T I N G B E D PL A N T I N G B E D S PL A N T I N G B E D S PL A N T I N G B E D S PL A N T I N G B E D S PL A N T I N G B E D S P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E (S E E 3 - D ) 24 " X 2 4 " S A N D S E T P R E CA S T C O N C R E T E / S T O N E PA V E R S SA N D - S E T S T E P P I N G ST O N E P A T H , ST O N E T O M A T C H H O U S E VE N E E R O R P A T I O S . ( S E E E N G I N E E R S E T ) ( S E E E N G I N E E R S E T ) ( S E E E N G I N E E R S E T ) SI T E W A L L SI T E W O R K N O T E S : 1) C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A L L C O N D I T I O N S A T J O B S I T E A N D N O T I F Y GE N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R O F D I M E N S I O N A L E R R O R S , O M I S S I O N S O R D I S C R E P A N C I E S B E F O R E B E G I N N I N G A N Y W O R K . 2) C O N T R A C T O R T O O B T A I N A L L N E C E S S A R Y P E R M I T S P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . A L L C O N T R A C T O R S M U S T CO M P L Y W I T H P E R M I T R E Q U I R E M E N T S , C I T Y O R C O U N T Y R U L ES A N D R E G U L A T I O N S A N D L A N D U S E A P P R O V A L C O N D I T I O N S AT ALL TIMES. 3) A L L W O R K S H A L L C O N F O R M T O T H E A P P R O P R I A T E A G E N C I E S. C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y L O C A T I O N O F P O I N T O F C U R VATURE AL L E X I S T I N G U T I L I T I E S , L I N E S A N D S T R U C T U R E S P R I O R TO E X C A V A T I O N O R T R E N C H I N G . D A M A G E SH A L L B E R E P A I R E D B Y T H E C O N T R A C T O R A T N O C O S T T O T HE O W N E R . 4) SE E A R C H S E T F O R T R E E R E M O V A L U T I L I T I E S , D R A I N A G E A ND G R A D I N G . PR E M I E R G R E E N A S S U M E S N O R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y F O R U T I L I T I ES O R S T R U C T U R E S N O T S H O W N O N T H E D R A W I N G S . CO N T R A C T O R I S T O V E R I F Y T H E E X A C T L O C A T I O N O F U T I L I TI E S P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D N O T I F Y PR E M I E R G R E E N O F A N Y D I S C R E P A N C I E S . C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L U S E E X T R E M E C A U T I O N W H E N WO R K I N G O V E R O R N E A R E X I S T I N G G A S A N D E L E C T R I C A L L I NE S . 5) P R E M I E R G R E E N I S N O T R E S P O N S I B L E F O R T H E C O N S T R U C TI O N M E A N S . M E T H O D S . AN D T E C H N I Q U E S O F T H E C O N T R A C T O R . 6) L A Y O U T A N D V E R I F Y D I M E N S I O N S P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N. N O T I F Y G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R O F A N Y DIS C R E P A N C I E S . 7) V E R I F Y E X I S T I N G E L E V A T I O N S P R I O R T O S T A R T I N G W O R K . N O T I F Y G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R O F A N Y DIS C R E P A N C I E S . E X I S T I N G A N D P R O P O S E D G R A D E S A R E B A S ED O N S U R V E Y D O C U M E N T S P R E P A R E D B Y SU R V E Y O R . 8) C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y T H E P L A C E M E N T O F F L A T W O R K P E N E T R A T I O N S T O E N S U R E C O O R D I N A T I O N OF S U R F A C E F I X T U R E S , S U C H A S D R A I N S A N D L I G H T S . N O T IF Y G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R O F D I S C R E P A N C I E S P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . 9) A L L F I N I S H E D G R A D E S S H A L L M E E T A N D B L E N D S M O O T H L Y W I T H E X I S T I N G G R A D E S A T T H E P R O J E C T LI M I T . 10 ) T H E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L P R O V I D E P O S I T I V E D R A I N A G E A WA Y F R O M A L L S T R U C T U R E S . 11 ) A L L D I S T U R B E D N A T I V E A R E A S T O B E R E P A I R E D A S G O OD O R B E T T E R T H E N O R I G I N A L C O N D I T I O N A ) R E F E R E N C E A S P E N N A T I V E G R A S S M I X 15 ' - 1 6 ' 20 ' - 2 1 ' 22 ' - 2 4 ' 17 ' - 1 9 ' 15 ' - 1 6 ' LE G E N D PR O P O S E D S P R U C E PR O P O S E D P O N D E R O S A P I N E PR O P O S E D P I N O N P I N E PR O P O S E D A S P E N PR O P O S E D G A M B L E O A K EX I S T I N G G A M B L E O A K NA T I V E A R E A S AL L D I S T U R B E D A R E A T O B E RE - S E E D E D W I T H A P P R O V E D S E E D M I X 1. 5 " M E X I C A N B E A C H P E B B L E PL A N T I N G B E D S 3 " D E P T H M I N I N U G G E T M U L C H T Y P E SE E P E R E N N I A L / S H R U B D E S I G N / B E D D E A T I L LA W N A R E A S SE E D E A T I L N O T E S PR E - C A S T C O N C R E T E P A V E R S OR S T O N E P A V E R S . T Y P E T B D 3/ 4 W A S H E D C R U S H E D G R A N I T E BO U L D E R S T Y P E T O B E D E T E R M I N E D LA W N FI R E P I T GR I L L S T A T I O N NA T I V E NA T I V E NA T I V E NA T I V E NA T I V E NA T I V E NA T I V E CR U S H E D G R A N I T E BO A R D E R P A T H T O L O T 3 SITE PLAN L1 0 24 " X 2 4 " S A N D S E T P R E C A S T CO N C R E T E / S T O N E PA V E R S SE E D E T A I L ME X I C A N B E A C H P E B B L E SE E D E T A I L SE E D E T A I L SE E D E T A I L DE C O R T I V E P L A N T E R PO T S 24 " X 2 4 " S A N D S E T P R E CA S T C O N C R E T E / S T O N E PA V E R S ME X I C A N B E A C H P E B B L E 1. 5 " - 2 " ST O N E S L A P / F L A G S T O N E P A T H PA T H C O N S T R U C T I O N / L A Y O U T T O B E B U I L T W I T H M I N I M A L I M P A C T T O W A R D S E X I S T I N G E N V I R O N M E N T . FI E L D L O C A T E P R O P O S E D T R E E S NO T T O D I S T U R B N A T I V E O A K . RE T A I N E X I S T I N G N A T I V E O A K V E G E T A T I O N A T E X T I N G B L OC K W A L L AN Y N E W T R E E P L A N T I N G I N W A L L A R E A T O B E F I L L E D W H E RE P O S S I B L E NE W T R E E S P A C I N G T O B E S I T E P L A C E N O T T O D I S T U R B E D EX I S T I N G NA T I V E O A K R O O T D R I P Z O N E S 2.11.15 SC A L E : 1 " = 2 0 ' 0 10 30 50 70 90 FTNORTH P115 VI.A.