Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20151201 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING December 01, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. November 17, 2015 Draft Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve - Residential Design Standard Variance VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 21 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ 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 applicant 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 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 1 Mr. Walterscheid was part of the design team for the applicant so he was not present. Mr. Goode served as the Acting Chair. Mr. Goode called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, Jesse Morris and Keith Goode. Spencer Morris, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated Michele Holder would like to take about 10 minutes to introduce the Citizens Academy. Mr. Goode stated she would be provided time after public comments. Ms. Holder, Management Analyst for the City, introduced herself. She was hired on approximately six months ago to create a Citizens Academy for the City of Aspen. She is at the meeting this evening to let P&Z know what she is doing with the academy. She stated the academy will serve to teach the people in the community about how the city works. It will provide an overview of how government works including being a home rule municipality, the City Charter, how decisions are made by Council and how goals are determined at each annual Council retreat. It will also include structural information such as who is the City Manager and the employee hierarchy. Different service areas will be covered such as how the Police keep Aspen safe, how Parks and Recreation works. The idea is to inform people and it provides an opportunity for the City to tell their story. A hopeful outcome would be to have people more interested and involved in local government such as more applications for boards and commissions or have more people comfortable attending council meetings to express their thoughts. She stated they are at the end of their input gathering phase and are now determining when it may be appropriate to start the program. She finished stating she would provide additional information when they are ready to launch. Mr. Goode asked if it is to be a continual program and Ms. Holder replied they are planning a pilot program next year and then continue them annually. She stated they are still trying to identify the needs for Aspen and will be considering offering it in different formats in the future. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this was inspired by some dissatisfaction expressed in community involvement. Ms. Holder replied not that she is aware of at this time. It is her understanding it was conceived about four years ago in a partnership with Pitkin County, Snowmass and Aspen. The partnership fizzled out and then the City decided to pursue it by hiring someone to work on it. She stated it was Mr. Barry Crook’s idea originally with the intent to inform people. She asked P&Z to contact her with any ideas or concerns. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES October 20, 2015 Minutes - Mr. Skippy moved to approve the minutes for October 20th and was seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2015 Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated it is a continued public hearing for the Hotel Lenado. Since the last hearing on October 20th, a number of design changes have occurred for the project. She reviewed the application proposes to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with a new mixed use building containing four lodge units that may be configured for a total of nine keys, two affordable housing units, two free market units as well as lodge amenity space and underground parking. At the last hearing, P&Z raised some concerns on a couple of issues. One concern was the Hopkins façade relating better with the residential character across the street. Another concern was the height of the building. Previously proposals asked for the height to be allowed up to 32 ft, which is permitted in the mixed use zone district. Ms. Phelan then stated she would cover some components of the application since there have been a number of hearings. In regards to the Hopkins façade, there have been some changes since the last hearing. On the corner closest to the park, the second story balcony has been removed which reduces some of the mass of the building. The park level has been redesigned with a balcony along it and there has been a reduction in the glazing. All these changes help reduce the mass and improve the relationship of the façade with the residential buildings across the street and also helps to create a couple of individual modules. Staff feels there has been good progress, but it still needs some to continued refinement. One area in particular is the center module encompassing the gable and the flat story next to it. With regard to height, the proposed structure has been reduced to 28 ft so it meets the underlying mixed use zoning. The only two elements exceeding the 28 ft are the top of the rooftop stairwell and elevator which both meet the height exemptions. Although it meets the 28 ft height, the floor to floor ceiling heights increase as you go up the floors of the building. Staff feels this creates a top heavy feel to the building. For a typical lodge commercial building, the first floor or entry floor should have the most prominence in floor to floor ceiling height. Staff feels there should be continued work on the floor to floor ceiling heights in the building. Regarding the overall design, Staff feels this is a transitional neighborhood from the commercial core to a residential neighborhood. There is quite a bit of residential area in the neighborhood including designated historical landmarks across the street. There are also single family residences, multi-family across the alley, and a small lodge nearby. The building is getting bigger, but the actual lodge rooms are being reduced. Staff feels the overall design has improved, but does not believe the current proposed building design does not include enough to respect the neighborhood and its surroundings, particularly in regards to mass and scale which Staff feels should be reduced. Ms. Phelan then discussed growth management, which she stated is essentially the required affordable housing for the lodge and the free market component. She stated things keep moving with each iteration of the proposal and currently the two affordable housing units being proposed more than meet P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 3 the requirement for affordable housing mitigation but they do need to be amended a bit to meet the above grade requirements for the amount of sf required. Staff is still recommending one unit be designated as a for sale unit and the other be a for rent unit. She explained one of the affordable units mitigates for the lodge while the other unit mitigates for the free market. Staff recommends the unit mitigating for the free market component be a for sale unit. Ms. Phelan continued stating this is the fourth iteration of the project and there has been some progress. She does feel some of the goals for the small lodge character area are to have a lodge where the dimensions and character respect the surroundings. There are single family residences with historic character and development pattern that should be respected. Staff believes there could be changes made to better meet the guidelines by creating more modulation in the form of the building and by reducing the mass. By addressing these two things, the application would meet guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 of the small lodge character area. At this point, Staff recommends denial as they feel the guidelines are not met. If P&Z feels comfortable with the changes and move to approve, Staff suggests certain conditions to be considered: 1. Continue to work with the floor to floor heights to emphasize the entry level 2. Amend the mass, scale and design along Hopkins and the overall mass of the building 3. Meet the growth management requirements for the affordable housing and have one unit as a for sale unit. 4. Verify the dimensional requirements when the next application is submitted. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted there is a combined 1,049 sf of affordable housing net livable area proposed above grade where 1,080 sf is required for the above grade requirement. In regards to the growth management review, she asked how this has changed from earlier proposals. Ms. Phelan stated with the changes in the floor plans, the amount required to be above grade has changed. She feels it something that can be handled if it goes to the final design because some things will move a little bit, but she wanted to outline the requirement to be met. Ms. McNicholas Kury then stated her understanding of the height differential between the lower story to the upper story has been consistent throughout the design and she wanted to confirm this was the case with Staff. Ms. Phelan stated the design has always had the top story taller than the other stories. There have been changes with a reduction over time, but Staff feels the entry level, particularly a hotel, should be the most prominent level. Having the height on upper floor creates a top heavy design. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the reduction was fully absorbed by lowering the height of the first floor height. Ms. Phelan replied it would be best if Mr. Wilson reviewed the heights. Mr. Mesirow stated there are conceptually plenty of things not to like about the project, but their job is not to figure out what is conceptually right and not design the building. He asked what specifically does not meet the guidelines. Ms. Phelan replied Staff feels the building is too large for the site and neighborhood and the sf should be reduced, but she could not point to a specific guideline that is not met in this regard. Mr. Morris asked if it is in the small lodge character area design objectives. Ms. Phelan replied the design objectives discusses projects should be sensitive to the neighborhood and to fit into the neighborhood. She added sometimes the maximum floor area allowed is not achievable because of the design guidelines. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 4 Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. He initiated his presentation with a picture of the Aspen Street façade. Ms. Phelan observed the façade does not represent what was submitted with the most recent application, noting there was an additional gable included one level above the entry level. Mr. Wilson remarked it was different. Mr. Wilson feels they are getting closer with the most recent proposal. He displayed a list of items he described as facts regarding the project. He stated the building hasn’t changed materially, they are shuffling sf in an attempt to provide variegation on the building. He acknowledged the need to meet the additional 31 sf of above grade space and feels it can be achieved in the final design. He displayed a slide showing the FAR ratios and stated they are still considerably lower than the allowable FAR. Mr. Wilson displayed a slide depicting where the property is located and described the type of neighboring properties. He stated everyone would agree it is a transitional neighborhood. Mr. Wilson then described what would be included on each floor. On top is a roof deck including mechanical units. Directly below are the two free market units. On the next two levels down there are walk out levels to the park and on Aspen St there is a mix of lodge units and affordable housing. All the building services including parking, mechanical, employee lounge, and catering kitchen are located in the basement. He then referred to the Commercial Design Standards (Staff memo: Exhibit K) and noted he would discuss the deficiencies as identified in Staff’s memo. A. Mixed use character area: Public amenity space. Mr. Wilson displayed pictures looking up Aspen St of the existing and proposed public amenity spaces and described what is included in the proposed space. B. Small Lodge Character: For guideline 5.5, he feels they have established it is a transitional context and the areas along Hopkins St are really what they are focusing on making it relate to the residences across the street. He displayed a west rendering of the building and described how the façade is broken into three distinctly separate parts. The first part being 30 ft wide with a five ft setback, the middle portion being approximately 31 ft wide stepping down to the larger setback on Aspen St. They are also varying the heights of the building along the modulated façade with a very much recessed deck portion. They feel they are modulating both from a material and height perspective and taking on more of the neighborhood character. C. Building height: For guideline 5.6, he provided slides demonstrating the height of the proposed building as it relates in height to neighboring buildings in each direction. For each slide the building was either at or below the height of neighboring buildings. He noted the higher sections of the building are not on the Hopkins St side. The higher sections are in the back of the building along the alleyway where there is a taller context. He also provided slides demonstrating they meet the minimum nine ft floor to floor heights for each level showing the building from different perspectives. He noted the modulation matches the sloping topography. Near the park, one of the ADUs has a 10 ft 1 in ceiling and the lodge units on the walkout to the park have the same height. The Hopkins side of the building has 9 ft 9 in height respecting the lower height to that side of the building. Along the alley, the heights move up to the 11 ft 5 in heights. From the Hopkins St to the alley, the heights all meet the 9 ft minimum and then again taller near the alley side of the building. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 5 D. For guideline 5.7, he noted it has a lot to do with the same standards in guideline 5.5 respecting the modulated façade along Hopkins façade. They feel the application meets this component. Mr. Wilson then referred to the points identified in the minutes from the previous hearing. A. He stated last time they heard from P&Z they need to stay at 28 ft in height. He added they have abandoned the request for 32 ft and meet the underlying code in regards to height. B. The next item identified was the Hopkins façade. They have varied the materials and including angulation to help the façade. The have been eroding the corners of the building to give the neighbors a better view and moving elements back from the edge and closer to the alley. He provided a slide comparing the existing, previous and current façades. They pulled the entire corner back and created a half story balcony with a cover to bring it back further. The amount of glass was reduced by about 25%. Mr. Wilson then wanted to address the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) commentary and suggestions included in the Staff memo. APCHA recommends both units be for rent and the applicant would like them to remain as rentals. The applicant feels passionately about having a good rental environment for the people who will be working at the hotel. In closing, he feels they have addressed the conditions and would prefer to address mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility in the final review process. He stated they know they will have to meet the growth management net livable space considerations for affordable housing. He would prefer to keep APCHA’s recommendation regarding the units. They’ve tried really hard to keep this from becoming a duplex or single family home with a bunch of empty, lights turned off, empty windows. It may not be the 19 keys, but the proposed keys are better than none. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the building is required to remain a lodge. Mr. Wilson replied no. Ms. Phelan stated if approved, it would be approved as a lodge. She added they could demolish it and build a single family home and a duplex on the site. Mr. Morris asked if the key count has remained the same throughout the review process. Both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Phelan stated it the number of keys has remained the same. Mr. Morris asked if the decision regarding the for sale vs rental unit was subjective and not driven by policy. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA is a recommending body and P&Z is the decision making body. She continued stating the land use code requirements state affordable housing is to be for sale. However, if it is a commercial lodging project, they are encouraged to be rentals. Staff’s position is that one unit mitigates the free market component and the other mitigates the lodging component. Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff is concerned if the units will not end up being used by a hotel employee. She reiterated one unit is mitigating the free market and should be a for sale unit. Mr. Wilson added although they appreciate Staff’s position, he feels there not be a whole lot of employee housing need for the folks living in the free market units and both units would be better served for the lodging component. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the height variations could change through the final review. Ms. Phelan stated it could if identified as a condition. P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 6 Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Karen Day was the interior designer for the original Hotel Lenado in 1983. She feels there is huge contingent in the community emotionally attached to the existing lodge. She stated the logs on each side of fireplace were cut by the people who live in Lenado. There was a photograph in the hotel of the people cutting and carrying the logs. She asked the logs be saved. On a personal note, there are a lot of folks heartbroken that a piece of Harry Teague architecture will be demolished. She does feel the rendering is better than she thought it would be. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Morris wanted to hear from fellow commissioners, assuming the affordable housing items could be dealt with, where they are at on community character and mass. Mr. Goode stated it is a lodge and will be big. He loves the improvements and noted the displays Mr. Wilson used during his discussion included a gable that was not included in the packet. Ms. Phelan stated the latest iteration of the proposal does not have the gable above the gabled entry level. Mr. Goode reiterated what they approve will not have this additional gable. He feels it is not the perfect small lodge P&Z wanted, but he would approve it as submitted. Mr. Mesirow stated they have asked a lot and a lot has been delivered. He feels there is not a lot outside of just mass and scale to not like about the project, but he felt they provided pretty specific directives to the applicant who has met those directives. While he feels it is not a perfect project, it is important for the process that not just the community, but the applicant have trust in P&Zs willingness to follow through on their word, so he will be supportive of the application. Ms. McNicholas also feels the project has come a long way but is sad to see photos comparing the proposed hotel with the existing hotel. She feels Aspen is losing a quaint piece of architecture that provided a lot more lodging for something is very modern looking and doesn’t provide any of the same character. Mr. Mesirow stated it is also important to take into account that while there is the paragraph that gives P&Z some credence to adjust size, the FAR is significantly lower than what is allowed. As the applicant pointed out it could be single family homes. Mr. Elliott agrees with Mr. Mesirow in that the commission had previously outlined items to be addressed and it would not be fair for P&Z to change it now. From a factual standpoint, he is fine with it. The only remaining item he would be open to enforcing would be the affordable housing. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand on defining the one unit for sale. Mr. Morris stated Staff’s logic makes sense for one rental and on for sale unit given the use of the building. Mr. Mesirow stated he is generally comfortable with APCHA’s position and feels they have studied this situation. Although he also agrees Staff’s position make sense given the use, he would tend to let APCHA take the lead on it. He feels language should be added to the resolution to confirm the required amount of above grade area is met for final review. Mr. Goode stated he would go with Staff’s recommendation. P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 7 Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she would support APCHA’s recommendation. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Goode why he defer to Staff. Mr. Goode stated he is concerned with having a for sale unit in the building because APCHA does not have a method in place to verify who is renting properties. He feels the guidelines are not very tight and there may not be anyone available to audit the compliance. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff is they have similar concerns. Ms. Phelan stated she would stick with the mitigation requirement, but she has seen compliance issues in the past on other properties. She stated the mitigation requirement generated for the free market is actually more than one two bedroom unit. The mitigation requirement for the lodge component is actually less than one two bedroom unit. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand regarding the floor to floor ceiling heights. Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see it retained as proposed. Mr. Mesirow agreed. She added she would not want to see something at final that is drastically different than what has been agreed to today. Mr. Goode asked if the commission wanted to include conditions previously recommend by Ms. Phelan to add to the resolution including the entry level, the Hopkins area and growth management. Ms. Phelan wanted clarification if the commission wanted to see continued work on the Hopkins façade or not. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated although she appreciates the varied materials used and the setbacks provide a sense of differing widths requested by P&Z, she would like to see additional work on the middle section. She is not sure she can persuade the applicant to change it however. Mr. Goode feels all the commissioners are on that same page. Mr. Elliott asked where the commissioners where they stand on APCHA’s recommendation and added he is with APCHA and the applicant. Mr. Goode felt a majority of the board is behind APCHA. Mr. Morris added if there is a problem with compliance it should be dealt with using another mechanism. Ms. Phelan suggested adding a third paragraph with the following items under Section 1 of the draft resolution. She referred them to p. 17 of the Staff memo and stated the resolution already states the affordable housing units will be rental units. Prior to submission of Final Commercial Design Review the Applicant shall: • Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. • Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the resolution could also encourage the applicant to come back with improvements to the Hopkins façade. Mr. Mesirow asked if this would be required at which she responded no. Ms. Phelan stated they could add that further review of the façade would be encouraged at which Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Mesirow wanted to state the applicant has done a good job and it is not the job of P&Z to create policy, but to follow the code and he feels the building meets the code. He will vote in favor of the project, but he also feels it has to be recognized this is a poor project for this town. He feels it is unfortunate that it goes from 19 hotel rooms to four, with less use, and less vitality. In the bigger discussion in regards to if the code meet our values as a community, he hopes this project will be a catalyst for further discussion around the LP overlay. He feels if this project can go forward, clearly the code does not meet the community values. He wants to applaud the design team for their good work, P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 8 but he also feels the developer needs to have trust in the process too. He thinks it will be a positive outcome and hopes in the future they are dealing with a different set of criteria. Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve resolution #20, series 2015 adding the following conditions identified by Ms. Phelan as a third paragraph of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. • Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. • Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. • The applicant is encouraged to further review the Hopkins façade. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passed with a total five (5) yes – zero (0) no. Ms. Phelan requested Mr. Wilson to provide an electronic copy of the presentation. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check-In Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS). Mr. Barker provided background on the RDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates. After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the chapter. • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and proposed review processes. With the new review process, they are proposing all projects come in for an administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS. When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 9 listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of the packet. There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following. • Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable • Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear • Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable • Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well. The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December. There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance reading for the specific language to amend the code. Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns. Mr. Mesirow asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of local architects and designers. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr. Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review. Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can’t be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review. Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples. Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the code. Mr. Mesirow does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 10 to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side loading where they typically do not allow for it. Mr. Mesirow asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise. Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard. Mr. Mesirow reiterated having check-in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would also encourage trust with the community. Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr. Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to P&Z. Mr. Mesirow asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RDS when someone submits for a building permit. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn’t meet the standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as much information as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section 26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen’s history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn’t feel in terms of design, it is something that’s been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow feels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like, but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent whether it be messy vitality or something else. Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury’s concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the update being discussed. He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their relevance sometime in the future. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 11 Elevator Overrun Code Amendment Check-In Mr. Barker reviewed the current code allows for elevator overruns for anything but single family homes and duplexes has the capability to be five and in some cases up to 10 ft taller than what code allows based on the setback from the street to reduce visibility. Staff has heard complaints it is difficult to achieve a workable design based on the requirements and Council has directed Staff to look into it. Mr. Barker stated they asked through their newsletter for realistic numbers. From their responses, it seems most standard elevator designs range from 14.5 to 20 ft in height for the entire assembly. This is measured from where you exit the elevator to the very top of the roof of the enclosure. A typical height is 16 ft for a structure available for purchase from vendors serving the valley. Staff is asking if P&Z is interested in increasing the height for an elevator enclosure. He added one of the difficulties identified in regards to the design is currently they end up with awkward elevator ramping systems to get to the actual top and stay under the height limit. For an example, with a 16 ft enclosure the floor would have to be dropped approximately 6 ft below the roof line or have a custom, expensive structure built to achieve the five ft or 10 ft height limit. Mr. Goode doesn’t see the cost as an issue for those who typically build in Aspen. Mr. Morris asked for the typical costs to comply with the existing code requirements. Mr. Barker stated he has not received any specific input regarding how much it costs for a closure requiring ramping for the 19 ft enclosure. Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z this is only to access the roof and this wouldn’t be an issue if they don’t need roof access. Mr. Barker added rooftop views are a hot item lately. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the elevators are used to transport people or a commercial elevator. Mr. Barker answered it is for people. Mr. Barker stated the elevator overrun example provided in the packet is for commercial use and not residential use. Mr. Mesirow asked if this code amendment was applicable to commercial core or other zone districts. Mr. Barker stated the amendment discussion it is not tied specifically to zone district but he would welcome any input from P&Z. Mr. Mesirow looking objectively at the recently approved projects and noted they all had elevators on top conforming to the 10 ft requirement. He feels it is clearly doable and while he doesn’t feel it makes sense to impose superfluous costs on developers, he doesn’t feel 20 ft elevators would be popular with the community. He felt additional height may be possibly allowed if the structure was not visible from the closest structure at street level in each direction. Mr. Elliott supports having roof access but feels the current standard is working. He feels taller structures would impede the views of the mountains. Although the cost to make it possible currently may be higher, he feels there is also a visual impact cost to the community with higher towers. Mr. Mesirow remarked the Sky Hotel will have a roof top access. He stated if the roof takes up 200 sf for ramps to make the 10 ft tower design work. If allowing a higher tower would improve the public amenity space and not a visual impact from the street, he would not have a problem with it. Mr. Elliott feels it is necessary to look for impacts other than from the street. He feels the developers have been able to work out solutions to make it work. Mr. Goode asked how long the rule has been in place. Ms. Phelan believes it has changed somewhat in the last 10 years. Mr. Goode feels technology may provide for opportunities going forward. P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 12 Ms. McNicholas Kury doesn’t feel roof access is a pressing public need at this time. In summary, P&Z does not support an increase in height. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P12 IV.A. Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve Subdivision – RDS Variance Request MEETING DATE: December 1st 2015, continued from November 3rd, 2015 APPLICANT/OWNERS: Aspen Ventures, LLC 6605 Forestshire Drive Dallas, TX 75230 214.580.3704 REPRESENTATIVE: Simon Elliot, CCY Architects LOCATION: Lot 1, Pitkin Reserve Subdivision CURRENT ZONING & USE: Low-Density Residential (R-30) zone district with a Planned Development overlay; vacant lot PROPOSED LAND USE: Single-family residence SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard variance that will permit the entry door to be recessed more than ten feet from the front most wall of the structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the applicants’ request for a residential design standard to permit the entry door to be located more than 10 feet behind the front-most wall of the structure. Figure A: Image of subject property, looking north from behind an existing utility towards Pitkin Way P13 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: Variance from the Residential Design Standard pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D.1(a), which states: 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. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority for this request. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the R-30 zone district, and is Lot 1 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and Planned Development. This property is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, on the border of the Pitkin County/Aspen City limits. Lot 1 is situated on Pitkin Way, a private road and the property abuts the Rio Grande Trail. Lot 1 is vacant and has not been previously developed. Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and Planned Development was approved by Ordinance No. 3, 1982. Pitkin Reserve PD includes 26 acres of area, 6 fee simple lots, one common lot and an open space lot. The area also includes the Rio Grande right of way and the Rio Grande path. The approvals, which have been amended over time, included the “Green Belt Line”, a boundary intended to protect the Rio Grande corridor, shown in Figure C. The area below the Greenbelt Line was required to be maintained in a natural state. The Greenbelt Line has since been removed from the plat and replaced with building envelopes. The City Attorney has been consulted in the matter and determined that the intent of the Greenbelt Line is still in effect and no development, nor building envelope, may be located below the Greenbelt Line. This has resulted in a site-specific condition where the building envelopes are in close proximity to Pitkin Way. Other properties within Pitkin Reserve are not as constrained with regards to building envelope location as the subject property. Existing residences are set back from the front lot line between 12 and 24 feet while the principal, front most wall of these structures range between 27 and 44 feet as shown in Figure D. Figure B: Site Location Map, indicated by highlighted parcel P14 VI.A. Page 3 of 6 Figure C. First Amended Plat, Pitkin Reserve Figure D. Neighborhood Block Plan, Sheet A0 P15 VI.A. Page 4 of 6 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant requests a variance to allow for the entry door to be set back 20 feet from the front most wall of the structure as shown in Figures E and F. Full detail of the entry door and additional perspectives have been provided by the applicant and provided in Exhibit C. STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of this Residential Design Standard is to have a human-scale entry with a clear relationship to the street. With the intent of this standard in mind, Staff has reviewed the request against the RDS variance review criteria. The Code states that the request for an RDS variance must meet one of the following criteria. a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The Greenbelt Line prohibits development below the Line to afford protection to the Rio Grande corridor. Additionally, there is a utility easement that parallels the southeast property line. Both factors have created a site-specific condition resulting in a building envelope that is nearly flush with the front lot line and Pitkin Way. The relationship of the building envelope with Pitkin Way is depicted in Figure G. Figure F. Excerpt from Perspective, A6 Figure E. Excerpt from Entry Door Plan, Sheet A-3 P16 VI.A. Page 5 of 6 Due to the site-specific constraint at the subject property, the Code requires the door to be located 15 feet from the front lot line and Pitkin Way. This would result in a condition where the entry is in close proximity to a street. As mentioned in Project Location and Background, the front most wall location of existing structures range between 27 and 44 feet. The proposed location of the entry door, 25 feet from edge of pavement, is consistent within the context of the neighborhood. Staff finds the entry door location is in context with the neighborhood standard. There are site- specific constraints associated with this parcel that warrant the granting of this variance for the entry door location. Staff finds both criterion 26.410.020.D.2(a) and (b) met. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the applicants’ request for a Residential Design Standard variance. Figure G. Excerpt from First Amended Plat, Lot 1 P17 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 PUBLIC COMMENT: On October 30, 2015, Staff received a letter in opposition to the variance from the law offices of E. Michael Hoffman, representing RoadsEnd LLC. This letter has been included as Exhibit E. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve the applicant’s request, the following motion may be used: “I move to approve the request for a variance from the Residential Design Standard as noted in Resolution ___, Series of 2015.” If the request is not approved, the resolution will need to be modified. Attachments: Exhibit A – Residential Design Standard Variance Criteria Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C – Application Graphics Exhibit D – Public Notice Exhibit E – Public Comment P18 VI.A. 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1 OF THE PITKIN RESERVE SUBDIVISION, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, THE PITKIN RESERVE, TOGETHER WITH AN UNDIVIDED ONE-SIXTH INTEREST IN LOT 7, THE PITKIN RESERVE, ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT RECORDED JUNE 25TH, 1984 IN PLAT BOOK 16 AT PAGE 15, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273501203012 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Ventures, LLC (Applicants), represented by Simon Elliot of CCY Architects, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a Residential Design Standard Variance at Lot 1 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.D of the Land Use Code approval for a Residential Design Standard Variance may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was opened on November 3, 2015 and continued to December 1st, 2015; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable review standards; and, 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: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard Variance that will permit the front entry door to be set back more than 10 feet from the front most wall of the structure, and as depicted in Exhibit 1. Planning and Zoning Commission have found the proposed design to meet the requirements of the review criteria for a Residential Design Standard variance as there are site-specific constraints due to where the building P19 VI.A. 2 envelope may be located on the property and the entry door location is in context of the neighborhood standard. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1st day of December, 2015. __________________________________ Ryan Walterscheid, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: _________________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P20 VI.A. 3 Exhibit 1: Approved plans for RDS variance (recorded) P21 VI.A. 8 8 A A NORTH B U I L D I N G E N V E L O P E P R O P E R T Y L I N E P I T K I N R ESE RVE R I O G R A N D E T R A I L R E D B U T T E M T N . RO A R I N G F OR K R I V E R 9 0 .0 0 ° 5 ' - 8 " 1 3 '-0 " R 2 9 '-0 " RELOCATED TRANSFORMER INTO EXISTING UTIL. EASEMENT 29' RADIUS AS REQ'D BY AFPDRELOCATED HYDRANT AS REQ'D BY AFPD RE L O C A T E D U T I L I T I E S 0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1" = 20'-0"CCY14022 SITE PLAN ROOF PLAN A-110LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/21/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1. A R C H I T E C T U R A L E L E V A T I O N O F 100.-0" = SITE ELEVATION OF 7804'-6". RE : S U R V E Y . 2. P R O P E R T Y L I N E , B U I L D I N G E N V E L O P E , T O P O G R A P H Y , E T C . I N D I C A T E D H E R O N A R E T A K E N F R O M I M P R O V E M E N T S U R V E Y PREPARED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING. ( S E E I M P R O V E M E N T A N D T O P O G R A P H I C S U R V E Y : L O T 1 , T H E P I T K I N R E S E R V E ) . 3. G . C . T O E S T A B L I S H P E R M A N E N T CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK PRIOR TO C O M M E N C E M E N T O F W O R K . 4. V E R I F Y F I N A L L A Y O U T W I T H A R C H I T E C T PRIOR TO CLEARING AND EXCAVATION. 5. N O E X I S T I N G T R E E S O R S H R U B S O N S I T E M A Y B E R E M O V E D O R T R I M M E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N P U R P O S E S W I T H O U T PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE A R C H I T E C T . 6. L A Y O U T S I T E U T I L I T Y R U N S S O A S T O M I N I M I Z E D I S T U R B A N C E O F E X I S T I N G T R E E S A N D S H R U B S . V E R I F Y U T I L I T Y L A Y O U T W I T H A R C H I T E C T P R I O R T O C L E A R I N G A N D E X C A V A T I O N . 7. P R O T E C T A L L O N - S I T E V E G E T A T I O N N O T A P P R O V E D B Y T H E A R C H I T E C T F O R R E M O V A L O R T R I M M I N G F R O M D A M A GE DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 8. C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L O B T A I N T H E S E R V I C ES OF A PROFESSION AL SOILS ENGINEER W H O S H A L L M A K E A N O N S I T E I N V E S T I G A T I O N O F T H E E X I S T I N G S O I L S C O N D I T I O N S A F T E R T H E S T R U C T U R A L E X C A V A T I O N IS COMPLETE AND SHALL PREPARE A LETTER W I T H C O P I E S T O T H E A R C H I T E C T A N D STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DESCRIBING SOIL C O N D I T I O N S I N S U F F I C I E N T D E T A I L S U C H T H A T T H E F O U N D A T I O N D E S I G N I N D I C A T E D O N T H E D O C U M E N T S M A Y B E V E R I F I E D A S B E I N G A D E Q U A T E O R M A Y B E R E V I S E D A S N E C E S S A R Y B Y T H E S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R . 9. L O C A T E A N D I N S T A L L F O U N D A T I O N D R A I N S , D R Y W E L L S A N D C A T C H B A S I N S E T C . P E R R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D D E T A I L S O F S O I L S A N D C I V I L E N G I N E E R S . SI T E P L A N N O T E S 1" = 20'-0"SITE PLAN 1 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0"=SITE ELEVATION 7804'-6"ISSUE DATE ISSUED P22 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0"3 4 5 10 0 . 1 10 0 . A 121.A 10 6 . 1 T.O. DECK 113'-0" GA R A G E D O O R LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A1 1/4" = 1'-0" GA R A G E D O O R E L E V A T I O N P23 VI.A. UP UP UP UP 3 C 4 5 A B MU D 10 4 ST O N E T I L E PW D 10 5 ST O N E T I L E GA R A G E 10 6 EP X P N T DO G WA S H TR A S H 10 7 EP X P N T 10 4 . 2 10 6 . 1 10 5 . 2 10 0 . 2 10 7 . 2 10 7 . 1 ENTRY PORCH 113 DU M B W A I T E R 10 4 . 4 10 4 . 3 ST O R A G E 100.1 10 4 . 1 10 5 . 1 PI T K I N W A Y GA R A G E A P R O N PR O P E R T Y L I N E M1 LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A2 1/4" = 1'-0" GA R A G E P L A N P24 VI.A. UP UP DN UP 8 7 6 C 5 A B WA T E R FE A T U R E PL A N T E R B E N C H PL A N T E R OP E N T O B E L O W / S K Y L I G H T A B O V E EN T R Y 10 0 ST O N E T I L E AU T O C O U R T 10 0 . 2 EN T R Y P O R C H 11 3 ST A I R 10 8 10 4 . 4 PLANTER 10 0 . 1 S L O P E - 2 % 10 4 . 1 PI T K I N W A Y 2 6 ' - 9 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 9 ' - 9 1 / 2 " . LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A3 1/4" = 1'-0" EN T R Y D O O R P L A N EN T R Y D O O R CO V E R E D A R E A P25 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0" 7 6 4 5 T.O. DECK 113'-0" 10 0 . 1 10 8 . B 10 8 . A 10 0 . A EN T R Y D O O R TR A N S O M W I N D O W LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A4 1/4" = 1'-0" EN T R Y D O O R E L E V A T I O N P26 VI.A. MA S T E R W I N G 96'-6" M3 STONE TILES CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) COR-TEN STEEL PANELS 01 0 . B 01 2 . A 10 2 . 2 12 3 . A M1 M2 MA I N L E V E L F . F . 100'-0" LO W E R L E V E L F . F . 89'-0" C F A B D COR-TEN STEEL PANELS ST O N E T I L E S ST E E L P A N E L S 01 6 . B G CEMENT COMPOSITE FACADE SYSTEM (e.g. SWISSPEARL) 11 0 . B T.O. DECK 113'-0" E 0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1/4" = 1'-0"CCY14022 EAST/WEST ELEVATION A-210LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/21/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " WE S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " EA S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 2 ISSUE DATE ISSUED P27 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0" 8 7 6 3 4 5 10 0 . 1 11 2 . A 10 8 . B 10 8 . A 10 0 . A 121.A CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) ST E E L P A N E L S CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S 10 6 . 1 /2A-211 CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S & D O O R F. D . S T R O B E & C O N N E C T I O N T.O. DECK 113'-0"9'-0"12'-0" 9 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " FR O N T D O O R & T R A M S O M GA R A G E D O O R 9' - 1 2 ' Z O N E MA I N L E V E L F . F . 10 0 ' - 0 " 3 2 12 1 . A ST O N E T I L E S / 1 A - 2 1 1 CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) 12 1 . 2 12 1 . B 12 2 . B CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) T. O . D E C K 11 3 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 9' - 1 2 ' Z O N E 0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1/4" = 1'-0"CCY14022 NORTH ELEVATION A-211LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/21/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1/4" = 1'-0" NO R T H E L E V A T I O N E A S T 1 1/4" = 1'-0" NO R T H E L E V A T I O N W E S T 2ISSUEDATEISSUED P28 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0"LOWER LEVEL F.F.89'-0"8 7 6 3 4 5 2 01 0 . 2 00 7 . 2 00 3 . 2 00 1 . 1 11 4 . 1 11 0 . 2 016.A CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) ST O N E T I L E S CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S 110.A 00 7 . A 01 0 . A 00 9 . A / 2 A - 2 1 2 10 2 . 1 10 1 . 1 CEMENT COMPOSITE FACADE SYSTEM (e.g. SWISSPEARL) CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S T.O. DECK 113'-0" 01 6 . 2 00 4 . a MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0"LOWER LEVEL F.F.89'-0"MASTER WING 96'-6" 1 2 /1A-212 HVAC INTAKE 12 3 . 2 12 2 . A 12 0 . A AR C H I T E C T U R A L C O N C R E T E AR C H I T E C T U R A L C O N C R E T E CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) T.O. DECK 113'-0"0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1/4" = 1'-0"CCY14022 SOUTH ELEVATION A-212LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/21/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1/4" = 1'-0" SO U T H E L E V A T I O N E A S T 1 1/4" = 1'-0" SO U T H E L E V A T I O N W E S T 2 ISSUE DATE ISSUED P29 VI.A. EN T R Y D O O R TR A N S O M W I N D O W GA R A G E D O O R LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A5 3/32" = 1'-0" NO R T H E L E V A T I O N - O V E R A L L 1 P30 VI.A. LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A6 P31 VI.A. LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 5 A7 P32 VI.A. 1 Exhibit B Review Criteria 26.410.020.D. Variances. 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that variance, if granted, would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b). Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The proposed entry door is located 20 feet from the front most wall of the structure. The front most wall of the proposed structure is five feet from the front lot line and the entry door is recessed 20 feet behind this wall. The entry door is setback from the front lot line and Pitkin Way approximately 25 feet. The RDS standard requires the door to be located 15 feet from the front lot line and Pitkin Way. Portions of existing structures within Pitkin Reserve are recessed from the front lot line between 12 and 24 feet while the principal, front most wall of these structures range between 27 and 44 feet as shown in Exhibit C, Neighborhood Block Plan A0. If a variance were not granted, the front entry would be very close to the edge of pavement relative to other structures in Pitkin Reserve. Permitting the entry door placement in the proposed location, 25 feet from the edge of pavement, would speak to the neighborhood context where the foremost walls of residences are between 27 and 44 feet from the road. The approvals for Pitkin Reserve, which have been amended over time, included the Greenbelt Line, a boundary intended to protect the Rio Grande corridor. Condition VI.A. of the Subdivision Agreement (Reception No. 260662) requires the area below the Greenbelt Line shall be maintained in a natural state. The Greenbelt Line has since been removed from the plat and replaced with building envelopes. The City Attorney has been consulted in the matter and determined that the intent of the Greenbelt Line is still in effect and no development, nor building envelope, may be located below the Greenbelt P33 VI.A. 2 Line. Additionally, there is a utility easement that parallels the southeast property line. The location of the building envelope, Greenbelt Line and utility easement are shown on Figure 4. Both factors have created a site-specific condition where the building envelopes are in close proximity to Pitkin Way. Staff finds the entry door location is in context with the neighborhood standard, and finds the criterion 26.410.020.D.2.a to be met. There are site-specific constraints associated with this parcel that warrant the granting of this variance for the entry door location. Staff finds criterion 26.410.020.D.2.b met. P34 VI.A. PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP 10/26/2015 P35 VI.A. RI O G R A N D E TR A I L 1 4 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 16'-0" 24'-0" 4 4 ' - 0 " 4 3 ' - 0 " 3 8 ' - 0 " 2 7 ' - 0 " 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD. 1" = 50'-0"Author14022 NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PLAN A0LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/26/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO Checker 1" = 50'-0"NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PLANNORTHISSUEDATEISSUED P36 VI.A. 10/26/15 SOUTH PANORAMA NORTH PANORAMA P 3 7 V I . A . 10/26/15 64 PITKIN WAY P 3 8 V I . A . 10/26/15 58 PITKIN WAY P 3 9 V I . A . 10/26/15 52 PITKIN WAY P 4 0 V I . A . 10/26/15 44 PITKIN WAY P 4 1 V I . A . P42 V I . A . P 4 3 V I . A . 8 8 A A NORTH B U I L D I N G E N V E L O P E P R O P E R T Y L I N E P I T K I N R ESE RVE R I O G R A N D E T R A I L R E D B U T T E M T N . RO A R I N G F OR K R I V E R 9 0 .0 0 ° 5 ' - 8 " 1 3 '-0 " R 2 9 '-0 " RELOCATED TRANSFORMER INTO EXISTING UTIL. EASEMENT 29' RADIUS AS REQ'D BY AFPDRELOCATED HYDRANT AS REQ'D BY AFPD RE L O C A T E D U T I L I T I E S 0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1" = 20'-0"CCY14022 SITE PLAN ROOF PLAN A-110LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/26/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1. A R C H I T E C T U R A L E L E V A T I O N O F 100.-0" = SITE ELEVATION OF 7804'-6". RE : S U R V E Y . 2. P R O P E R T Y L I N E , B U I L D I N G E N V E L O P E , T O P O G R A P H Y , E T C . I N D I C A T E D H E R O N A R E T A K E N F R O M I M P R O V E M E N T S U R V E Y PREPARED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING. ( S E E I M P R O V E M E N T A N D T O P O G R A P H I C S U R V E Y : L O T 1 , T H E P I T K I N R E S E R V E ) . 3. G . C . T O E S T A B L I S H P E R M A N E N T CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK PRIOR TO C O M M E N C E M E N T O F W O R K . 4. V E R I F Y F I N A L L A Y O U T W I T H A R C H I T E C T PRIOR TO CLEARING AND EXCAVATION. 5. N O E X I S T I N G T R E E S O R S H R U B S O N S I T E M A Y B E R E M O V E D O R T R I M M E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N P U R P O S E S W I T H O U T PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE A R C H I T E C T . 6. L A Y O U T S I T E U T I L I T Y R U N S S O A S T O M I N I M I Z E D I S T U R B A N C E O F E X I S T I N G T R E E S A N D S H R U B S . V E R I F Y U T I L I T Y L A Y O U T W I T H A R C H I T E C T P R I O R T O C L E A R I N G A N D E X C A V A T I O N . 7. P R O T E C T A L L O N - S I T E V E G E T A T I O N N O T A P P R O V E D B Y T H E A R C H I T E C T F O R R E M O V A L O R T R I M M I N G F R O M D A M A GE DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 8. C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L O B T A I N T H E S E R V I C ES OF A PROFESSION AL SOILS ENGINEER W H O S H A L L M A K E A N O N S I T E I N V E S T I G A T I O N O F T H E E X I S T I N G S O I L S C O N D I T I O N S A F T E R T H E S T R U C T U R A L E X C A V A T I O N IS COMPLETE AND SHALL PREPARE A LETTER W I T H C O P I E S T O T H E A R C H I T E C T A N D STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DESCRIBING SOIL C O N D I T I O N S I N S U F F I C I E N T D E T A I L S U C H T H A T T H E F O U N D A T I O N D E S I G N I N D I C A T E D O N T H E D O C U M E N T S M A Y B E V E R I F I E D A S B E I N G A D E Q U A T E O R M A Y B E R E V I S E D A S N E C E S S A R Y B Y T H E S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R . 9. L O C A T E A N D I N S T A L L F O U N D A T I O N D R A I N S , D R Y W E L L S A N D C A T C H B A S I N S E T C . P E R R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D D E T A I L S O F S O I L S A N D C I V I L E N G I N E E R S . SI T E P L A N N O T E S 1" = 20'-0"SITE PLAN 1 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0"=SITE ELEVATION 7804'-6"ISSUE DATE ISSUED P44 VI.A. UP UP DN UP 8 7 6 C 5 A B WA T E R FE A T U R E PL A N T E R B E N C H PL A N T E R OP E N T O B E L O W / S K Y L I G H T A B O V E EN T R Y 10 0 ST O N E T I L E AU T O C O U R T 10 0 . 2 EN T R Y P O R C H 11 3 ST A I R 10 8 10 4 . 4 PLANTER 10 0 . 1 S L O P E - 2 % 10 4 . 1 PI T K I N W A Y 2 6 ' - 9 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E 9 ' - 9 1 / 2 " . LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 A1 1/4" = 1'-0" EN T R Y D O O R P L A N EN T R Y D O O R CO V E R E D A R E A P45 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0" 7 6 4 5 T.O. DECK 113'-0" 10 0 . 1 10 8 . B 10 8 . A 10 0 . A EN T R Y D O O R TR A N S O M W I N D O W LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 A3 1/4" = 1'-0" EN T R Y D O O R E L E V A T I O N P46 VI.A. EN T R Y D O O R TR A N S O M W I N D O W LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 A4 3/32" = 1'-0" NO R T H E L E V A T I O N - O V E R A L L 1 P47 VI.A. LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 A5 P48 VI.A. LO T 1 P I T K I N R E S E R V E 10 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 5 A6 P49 VI.A. MA S T E R W I N G 96'-6" M3 STONE TILES CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) COR-TEN STEEL PANELS 01 0 . B 01 2 . A 10 2 . 2 12 3 . A M1 M2 MA I N L E V E L F . F . 100'-0" LO W E R L E V E L F . F . 89'-0" C F A B D COR-TEN STEEL PANELS ST O N E T I L E S ST E E L P A N E L S 01 6 . B G CEMENT COMPOSITE FACADE SYSTEM (e.g. SWISSPEARL) 11 0 . B T.O. DECK 113'-0" E 0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1/4" = 1'-0"CCY14022 EAST/WEST ELEVATION A-210LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/26/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " WE S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " EA S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 2 ISSUE DATE ISSUED P50 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0" 8 7 6 3 4 5 10 0 . 1 11 2 . A 10 8 . B 10 8 . A 10 0 . A 121.A CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) ST E E L P A N E L S CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S 10 6 . 1 /2A-211 F. D . S T R O B E & C O N N E C T I O N T.O. DECK 113'-0"9'-0"12'-0" 9 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " FR O N T D O O R & T R A M S O M GA R A G E D O O R 9' - 1 2 ' Z O N E MA I N L E V E L F . F . 10 0 ' - 0 " 3 2 12 1 . A ST O N E T I L E S / 1 A - 2 1 1 CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) 12 1 . 2 12 1 . B 12 2 . B CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) T. O . D E C K 11 3 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 9' - 1 2 ' Z O N E 0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1/4" = 1'-0"CCY14022 NORTH ELEVATION A-211LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/26/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1/4" = 1'-0" NO R T H E L E V A T I O N E A S T 1 1/4" = 1'-0" NO R T H E L E V A T I O N W E S T 2ISSUEDATEISSUED P51 VI.A. MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0"LOWER LEVEL F.F.89'-0"8 7 6 3 4 5 2 01 0 . 2 00 7 . 2 00 3 . 2 00 1 . 1 11 4 . 1 11 0 . 2 016.A CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) ST O N E T I L E S CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S 110.A 00 7 . A 01 0 . A 00 9 . A / 2 A - 2 1 2 10 2 . 1 10 1 . 1 CEMENT COMPOSITE FACADE SYSTEM (e.g. SWISSPEARL) CO R - T E N S T E E L P A N E L S T.O. DECK 113'-0" 01 6 . 2 00 4 . a MAIN LEVEL F.F.100'-0"LOWER LEVEL F.F.89'-0"MASTER WING 96'-6" 1 2 /1A-212 HVAC INTAKE 12 3 . 2 12 2 . A 12 0 . A AR C H I T E C T U R A L C O N C R E T E AR C H I T E C T U R A L C O N C R E T E CE M E N T C O M P O S I T E F A C A D E SY S T E M ( e . g . S W I S S P E A R L ) T.O. DECK 113'-0"0 228 Midland Avenue | PO Box 529 | Basalt,Colorado 81621 970-927-4925 | www.ccyarchitects.comDATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:ISSUE:HISTORY:SCALE:© COTTLE CARR YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD.4'8'2' 1/4" = 1'-0"CCY14022 SOUTH ELEVATION A-212LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE VARIANCE REQUEST10/26/2015LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE ASPEN, CO CCY 1/4" = 1'-0" SO U T H E L E V A T I O N E A S T 1 1/4" = 1'-0" SO U T H E L E V A T I O N W E S T 2 ISSUE DATE ISSUED P52 VI.A. ASLU Insubstantial PD/RDS Lot 1, Pitkin Reserve Parcel ID: 2735-014-07-001 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, 970.429.2758 DATE: 6/22/15 PROJECT: Lot 1, Pitkin Reserve PD REPRESENTATIVE: Simon Elliot, selliot@ccyarchitects.com REQUEST: Building Envelope Adjustment and Residential Design Standards Variances DESCRIPTION: The prospective applicant would like to alter the boundaries of the building envelope on Lot 1 of the Pitkin Reserve PD. The property is currently vacant. The lot is part of a Planned Development (PD) and PD Amendment approval is required. To qualify for administrative approval, the overall size of the proposed new building envelope must be the same as originally approved and allowed floor area will not change. There should not be a significant impact on native vegetation. The draft plat must include different types of hatching to clearly indicate the existing and the proposed building envelopes. The applicant also wishes to request Administrative approval of variances to Residential Design Standards. The following two criteria are used in determining the appropriateness of a variance, which must: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. If an Administrative RDS variance is not approved, the applicant must revise the project or request a hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.p df 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 26.410.020.D Residential Design Standards Variances 26.445.100 A. Planned Development –Insubstantial Amendment P53 VI.A. 2 Review by: Staff for completeness Review agencies for compliance Staff for determination P&Z for review of RDS variances if needed Public Hearing: No (unless RDS is reviewed by P&Z) Planning Fees: $1,300 for 4 hours of staff time. 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 Engineering, billed hourly thereafter $650 for Parks, flat fee Total Deposit: $2,215 To apply, submit one printed copy of the following information:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  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.  A proposed plat representing the new building envelope.  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 and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Once the application has been deemed complete by Planning Staff, please submit:  Total deposit for review of the application. P54 VI.A. 3  A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Additional printed copies TBD. 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. P55 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. -DQXDU\ &LW\RI$VSHQ_6*DOHQD6W_   P56 VI.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Owner (“I”): Phone No.: Email: Address of Property: (subject of application) Billing Address: (send bills here) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $_________ flat fee for _____________________. $_________ flat fee for _____________________. $_________ flat fee for _____________________. $_________ flat fee for _____________________. For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $___________ deposit for _______ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $___________ deposit for ______ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $25 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: Title: ____ City Use: Fees Due: $___________ Received: $____________ -DQXDU\ &LW\RI$VSHQ_6*DOHQD6W_   Aspen Ventures, LLC Jack Lafield 214.580.3704 jack@caimanenergy.com Lot#1 Pitkin Reserve 6605 Forestshire Dr. Dallas, TX 75230 650 Parks 0 Select Dept 0 Select Dept 0 Select Review 1,300 4 265 1 2215 P57 VI.A. P58 VI.A. P59 VI.A. P60 VI.A. Aspen Ventures, LLC 6605 Forestshire Dr. Dallas, TX 75230 August 27, 2015 City of Aspen Community Development Department Planning and Zoning 130 S. Galena Street 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot #1 Pitkin Reserve, Building Envelope Adjustment and RDS Variances. To whom it may concern, I, Jack Lafield, of Aspen Ventures, LLC, (6605 Forestshire Drive, Dallas, Texas, 75230 Tel # 214. 580.3704) authorize CCY Architects (228 Midland Ave, P.O Box 529 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Tel#970.927.4925) to act on our behalf with regard to the planning application pertaining to Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve. Respectfully, Jack Lafield Aspen Ventures, LLC P61 VI.A. P62 VI.A. P 6 3 V I . A .       September , 2015 City of Aspen Community Development Department Planning and Zoning 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO81611 Re: Lot #1 Pitkin Reserve, Building Envelope Adjustment and Variance Request To whom it may concern, Our client, Aspen Ventures, LLC is requesting a building envelope adjustment at the above referenced property. The requested adjustment is graphically described in the attached “Proposed Building Envelope Map” prepared by High Country Engineering. The proposed building envelope has the same square foot area as the original building envelope. The building envelope modifications are being requested for the following reasons. The northeast side of the property (bordering Pitkin Way) will require shoring and stabilization for the excavation. The adjusted envelope is concurrent with the edge of an access and utility easement on the northeast side of the property; this allows the greatest flexibility for the shoring system. On the southeast side the envelope has been adjusted to allow a little more space for construction access. The southeast line does not interfere with existing, mature, vegetation on this end of the property. The envelope line on the northwest side of the property has been moved to the southeast to maintain the building envelope area (square footage). Adjusting the northwest line has the added benefit of protecting a mature group of scrub oaks; it also pulls the building envelope further away from the Rio Grande Trail. In addition, we are requesting variances to the following two sections of the Residential Design Standards: 26.410.040.C.1.b (garage doors) and 26.410.040.D.a (entry door). The property is not located in the Aspen infill area. In addition, the property is accessed from a private road, Pitkin Way. The garage door is graphically described in the attached sheets A1 and A2. We are requesting a variance to section 26.410.040.c.1.b; “a double stall door shall be designed to appear like two single stall doors”. The garage door at this project is designed to be flush to the adjacent walls and to appear as a wall and not a door, or doors. In addition, a double garage door is in context and appropriate considering the adjacent structures. Of the four other houses on this private road two of them have double garage doors (see attached neighborhood context photographs). The entry door is graphically described in the attached sheet A3. Per section 26.410.040.D.a, the entry door is facing the street, visible from the street, and only 8’-0” tall. We request only a variance to the distance from the “front-most wall of the building”. We request this variance on the basis that site constraints (steepness and narrowness of the site) require that the garage be located close to the street. However, the entry door should be kept further from the street for comfort and safety. Although this property is not governed by setbacks, the entry door and primary façade are located approximately 25 feet from the property line as would be required in the R30 zone district; the garage, the forward most face of the building, must be located closer to the road. In addition, creating a buffer between the road and the entry door is an appropriate design considering the pattern of development/context of the neighborhood (see attached neighborhood context photographs). Respectfully, Simon Elliot, AIA CCY Architects P64 VI.A. PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP 09/09/2015 P65 VI.A. P66 VI.A. P67 VI.A. P 6 8 V I . A . P 6 9 V I . A . P70 VI.A. P71 VI.A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: LOT 1 PITKIN RESERVE Public Hearing: 4:30 PM, Tuesday, December 1, 2015 Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Project Name: Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve Project Location: Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve, PID #, 2735-014-07-001 Lot 1 of The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision, Legally Described As Lot 1, The Pitkin Reserve, Together With An Undivided One-Sixth Interest In Lot 7, The Pitkin Reserve, According To The Second Amended Plat Recorded June 25th, 1984 In Plat Book 16 At Page 15, City Of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Description: The applicant has made a request for a Residential Design Standard Variance that will permit the front entry door to be set back more than 10 feet from the front most wall of the structure. Land Use Reviews Requested: Residential Design Standard variance Decision Making Body: The Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant: Aspen Ventures, LLC 6604 Forestshire Dr Dallas, TX 75230 214.580.3704 Represented by Simon Elliot of CCY Architects, 970.927.4925 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Hillary Seminick at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2741, hillary.seminick@cityofaspen.com. P72 VI.A. P73 VI.A. P74 VI.A. P75 VI.A. P76 VI.A. LAW OFFICES OF E.MICHAEL HOFFMAN,P.C. 200 EAST MAIN STREET P.O.BOX EE ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE: (970) 544-3442 FACSIMILE: (866) 929-7870 E-MAIL:mhoffman@emhlaw.net October 30, 2015 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Hillary Seminick, Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of Lafield Aspen Ventures, LLC for Variance from the Residential Design Standards, Lot 1, Aspen Reserve Subdivision, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent RoadsEnd LLC (“RoadsEnd”), the owner of 89 Pitkin Way 1 in unincorporated Pitkin County (the “RoadsEnd Property”). The RoadsEnd Property is located immediately adjacent to the property which is the subject of a hearing scheduled for Tuesday evening, November 3, 2015. (That lot will be referred to in this letter as the “Subject Property.”) The only access to the RoadsEnd Property is by use of Pitkin Way, which exists along the northerly lot line of the Subject Property. Pitkin Way connects the RoadsEnd Property to Willoughby Way, as shown below. 1 The RoadsEnd Property is legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Pitkin Green Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado. P77 VI.A. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission October 30, 2015 Page 2 RoadsEnd opposes the variance request because it will create a wall without fenestration over 17 feet high immediately adjacent to Pitkin Way. The property owner’s own application clearly demonstrates what the structure will look like if this variance request is granted. At its closest point, the residence will be five feet, eight inches from the road itself. The right of RoadsEnd to use Pitkin Way was established in (a) the Second Amendment to PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Pitkin Reserve, recorded in the County records on June 29, 1984, 2 (b) the Second Amended Plat of The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision which was recorded on June 4, 1984, 3 and (c) a “Right of User” recorded June 5, 1985. 4 In the first two of these documents, an easement was established for the benefit of the RoadsEnd Property (and the lots owned by the other Pitkin Reserve owners) by the following language: The owner hereby dedicates and grants unto the owner(s) of Lots 1-6 of The Pitkin Reserve and totheowner(s)of Lot 7,Block 1,Pitkin Green Subdivision, theirsuccessors,grantees 2 Recorded in Book 468 at Page 853, as Reception No. 260662. 3 Recorded in Plat Book 16 at Pages 15 through 23. 4 Recorded in Book 487 at Page 181, as Reception No. 268657. P78 VI.A. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission October 30, 2015 Page 3 and assigns,the twenty-foot (20') access and utility easement shown and indicated on the Amended Plat for their sole and exclusive use and enjoyment and that of their guests, invitees and licensees. 5 In the Right of User, the owner of the RoadsEnd Property was granted “an irrevocable right of user over and across . . . ‘The Pitkin Reserve Road’ for purposes of vehicular and pedestrian ingress to and egress from” the RoadsEnd Property. The Right of User required the owner of the RoadsEnd Property to pay a one-seventh share of all costs of “maintenance, repair and reconstruction of The Pitkin Reserve Road.” Further, the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners Association were permitted to establish rules, regulations and restrictions concerning the operation and usage of the” road, so long as those decisions did not “unreasonably interfere with or restrict the use of The Pitkin Reserve Road by the owner of” the RoadsEnd Property. The owner of the RoadsEnd Propertyhas paid its allotted share of the costs of PitkinWaysince the Right of User was signed on May 31, 1985. The precise location of the Pitkin Way easement is unclear from the drawings supplied by the applicant. It is clear, however, that installing a garage and related improvements on the edge of pavement will unreasonably interfere with the use of Pitkin Way by RoadsEnd. 2.A Variance from the Residential Design Standards is Not Warranted. Theapplicant seeks avariancefrom theResidential DesignStandardset forth in“LandUseCodeSection 26.410.020.D.1(a), which states:The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building.” The variance and front setback from the property boundary sought by the applicant are shown in the diagram found at the top of the next page. 5 Emphasis added. P79 VI.A. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission October 30, 2015 Page 4 The focus of the property owner’s application is Distance A, which is the distance from the front-most wall of the residence to its front door. That makes sense because that distance is regulated by the Residential Design Standard at issue here. That distance is approximately 20 feet. What is not highlighted by the applicant, but what is critical to RoadsEnd, is Distance B, the setback from the property boundary to the front-most wall of the building. That distance, according to the applicant, is five feet, eight inches. A variance from the RDS would not be required if the front-most wall of the residence was set back from the property boundary by a reasonable distance. Distance A would shrink to zero if the front-most wall of the structure was 25 feet from the property boundary, as would be required in the R-30 zone district. As shown in the exhibit found in Figure D of the staff memorandum (page 16 of your packet), a 25-foot setback would match the smallest front setback found in the subdivision. The Code permits a variance when one of the following two standards are met: 6 A variance is allowed when it will: a.Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or 6 Aspen Land Use Code, § 26.410.020.D.. P80 VI.A. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission October 30, 2015 Page 5 broader vicinityas the director feels is necessaryto determine ifthe exceptionis warranted; or b.Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Neither of these standards are met here. The Second Amended Plat of Pitkin Reserve Subdivision, which was recorded in June of 1984, shows that a home actually existing on Lot 1 at the time that plat was prepared. The following drawing is from the drainage plan page of the Second Amended Plat. As shown in this excerpt from the Plat, improvements on the lot were located well behind the front propertyboundaryandthefront edgeofthebuildingenvelope.Theentirestructurefit withinthebuilding envelope, which appears from the Plat to be the same as its current configuration. As shown in the enlargement of this drawing found at the top of the next page, the northeast corner of the building(which is closest tothebuildingenvelope) appears tohave beenabout six feet from thefront edgeofthe building envelope. The rest of the building was further away from the building envelope and the property boundary and, therefore, further from Pitkin Way. P81 VI.A. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission October 30, 2015 Page 6 From these drawings it is apparent that the closest the building came to the front edge of the nothern property boundary was approximately 12 feet. The front door appears to have been approximately three or four feet behind the front-most aspect of this wall. No variance from the RDS would be required if the 1984 residence was to be re-constructed on the lot today. The entrance to the residence appears to have been slightly below or above the elevation of the road, as stairs are shown on the Second Amended Plat. Additional research will be needed to determine where cars wereparkedonthepropertyin1984.However,forthecurrentstructure,thereappearstobeadequate space and a gentle-enough slope to permit a garage located on the eastern side of the structure. Therelationships oftheproposeddevelopment withadjacent structures and theimmediateneighborhood setting do not warrant granting of this variance. As shown with great clarity in Figure D of the staff memorandum, the setbacks between the residences and front property boundaries of other lots in The Pitkin Reserve vary from 44 to 25 feet, not the five feet, eight inches requested here. Much has been made of the Greenbelt Line which constrains this lot and most of the other lots within the subdivision. ThebuildingenvelopesestablishedintheSecondAmendedPlatmodifiedalloftheresidentiallotswithin the subdivision to honor the Greenbelt Line. The other homes located in The Pitkin Reserve also honor a front yard setback which acknowledges the rural residential nature of the neighborhood. An urban, five foot, eight inch, setback is inconsistent with the nature of The Pitkin Reserve and will damage the property rights, safety and aesthetic perceptions of the owner and guests of the RoadsEnd Property. It this applicant’s insistence on locating its garage so close to Pitkin Way that necessitates the request for a variance from the Residential Design Standard. The structure should be redesigned so that no variance is required and so that users of the RoadsEnd will continue to enjoy reasonable use of Pitkin Way. P82 VI.A. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission October 30, 2015 Page 7 Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Michael Hoffman P83 VI.A.