Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20151215 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING December 15, 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. Draft of December 1, 2015 Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 360 Lake Ave, Hallam Lake Bluff Review - Public Hearing VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 22 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 December 1, 2015 1 Mr. Walterscheid called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, Spencer McNight and Ryan Walterscheid present. Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff if they were aware of the upcoming developer’s presentation this upcoming Thursday at the Limelight regarding Lift One. Ms. Phelan stated some staff did receive invitations and thought a couple of Staff may attend. She added an application has not been submitted. Mr. McNight asked it would be appropriate for P&Z commissioners to attend the presentation. Mr. True recommends the commissioners not attend because it may raise questions and could possibly place a commissioner in a position that someone may argue the commissioner prejudged an application and attained information outside of the process. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – November 17, 2015 Mr. Goode moved to approve the minutes for October 20th and was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve Sub – Residential Design Standard Variance – Continued Hearing from November 3, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner with the Community Development Department, noted this was hearing for a residential design standard variance for Lot 1 in the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision. She displayed an image as shown in Figure B of the packet depicting the location of the lot bound by the Roaring Fork River and Rio Grande Trail to the south and the Pitkin County, Aspen City limit boundary immediately to the north. Ms. Seminick continued stating the applicant is requesting this variance to allow for the front door to be recessed more than 10 ft from the front most façade of the structure. The residential design standard requires the front door to be no more than 10 ft behind the front most façade of a structure. This is the only variance under consideration for the hearing. She displayed an image as shown in Figures E and F on p 16 of the packet demonstrating the design and perspective of the proposed front door which will be set back about 20 ft. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 2 She noted the application meets all other relevant design standards including the front porch. She displayed the criteria for a residential design standard variance and noted the criteria must take into consideration the neighborhood context or an unusual site-specific constraint. She then stated lot one is the furthest west lot within the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and indicated this on an image of the subdivision plat (Figure C, p 15). She noted the greenbelt line specified on the plat which was established in the planned development in order to protect the Rio Grande Corridor from encroaching development and is intended to remain in a natural condition. She noted the greenbelt line trends away from the front lot line on Pitkin Way which is the road used to access the lots. The greenbelt line is the closest to front lot line for lot one than the other lots on Pitkin Way. The greenbelt line has since been removed from the plats for the subdivision, but it is the City’s position the line is still effect even though it was replaced with building envelopes. She pointed out the building envelope is above the greenbelt line. The greenbelt line results in a site-specific constraint where the building envelope is pushed up against Pitkin Way. Ms. Seminick displayed an image of other structures in the subdivision and noted the distances are 25-44 ft. The proposed 25 ft from the edge of the pavement for the application is consistent with the neighborhood context. Because of the building envelop constraints and the proposed front door distance as compared with neighboring properties, Staff has determined the variance request is in context with the neighborhood standard. Staff recommends P&Z approve the request for the residential design standard variance. Ms. Phelan added typically unless a property or single family home or duplex is designated historic, the applicant would just need to apply for a building permit as long as it meets the setbacks, height, allowable floor area and residential design standards. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any administrative variances granted. Ms. Seminick replied there were none, however with the building envelope has been administratively adjusted. She displayed an image of Figure G on p17 and described the adjustments made to the envelope. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if based on the proposed changes to the residential design standards from a previous meeting, would this application be treated differently. Ms. Seminick stated potentially they would be have been able to administratively approve the request under the proposed amendments. If the applicant did not comply with the standard, they would have applied for an alternate compliance to have the door set further back. Mr. McNellis asked if there are other residences located further west. Ms. Seminick stated there are residences further to the west located within Pitkin County. There are also residences to the north up on Willoughby Way. Mr. Simon Elliott, applicant representative, stated there is one lot beyond the applicant’s lot utilizing Pitkin Way for access. Ms. Seminick noted there is a public comment letter in Exhibit E in the packet from the representative of the owner of the lot beyond the applicant’s lot. Mr. Goode asked if this property currently has story poles. Ms. Seminick stated the Home Owners Association (HOA) requires story poles for any new development in order to receive their approval. In regards to height, they are required to stay under Willoughby Way and she believed there is a 25 ft height limit. Mr. Elliott added the height is measured by finished grade. Mr. Walterscheid asked staff to clarify if the neighbor’s objection as stated in the letter to the application was in regards to height or the envelope adjustment. Ms. Phelan replied further information would probably be available during the public comment portion of the hearing. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 3 Mr. Walterscheid then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Simon Elliot, CCY Architects, represents the applicant. Mr. Elliot believes they meet the context of the neighborhood and they also feel the greenbelt line is a constraint forcing the home closer to Pitkin Way. In regards to neighborhood context, he showed a slide of the existing homes and discussed the distances to the front doors of the existing homes. In regards to the greenbelt line, he displayed an image of the first amended plat of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and noting the depth of the lot one as compared to the other lots. The applicant’s building envelope depth is approximately 47 ft and the neighboring properties build up to over 90 ft. Mr. Elliot stated he wanted to comment on the letter submitted by the neighbor. He then pointed to the neighbor’s property on a displayed image and noted the property is accessed by a 12 ft road access easement which goes by the face of the applicant’s property. He stated the notation of a 20 ft easement in the letter is actually a utility easement and not the road easement. The road is within the 12 ft easement. In response to the letter discussing a footprint or that a house was previously located on the lot, Mr. Elliot stated there is no indications there has ever been a house on the lot. He stated the information described in the letter comes from a document that does not match the recorded plat for the subdivision in that the road is coming in from a different direction, the lot lines are laid out differently and the location of the road is in a different location. He discussed, but did not submit the document as an exhibit to the hearing. He then wanted to respond to a couple of points included in the letter: Elevation – The letter states the house is 17 ft tall on the uninterrupted façade facing Pitkin way. He stated it is actually 11 ft 9 in at its tallest point. He displayed an elevation image and noted it may appear taller in another portion of the building where it is pushed back further away from the road. House location in regards to the road – The letter noted the house is 5 ft 8 in from the road which is a distance at the property line. He stated the way the road and easement comes through the property, there is a bit more room. He showed a series of perspectives moving down the road to demonstrate the house is not an obstruction to the road in any way. He also stated the road is only used by those living at the end of the road and for maintenance of the Pitkin Green’s wells. Mr. Curt Sanders, representative for the applicant, stated the letter submitted indicated the access road is 20 ft in width as it passes the house. It is reflected on plat as a 12 ft service road easement. Subsequently there was an instrument recorded between Pitkin Reserve and Pitkin Way which describes it as a 20 ft easement and the letter does not reference a following agreement indicating the 20 ft easement reference was incorrect and noted it as a 12 ft easement. The building envelope is the result of a planned unit development (PUD) amended two or three times. He stressed it is a very constrained area for building. Mr. Elliot added if this lot was in the standard R-30 zone district and not a PUD, the application would have to respond to the property line setbacks. Since it was defined with a PUD, the building envelope is used instead of setbacks. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for the applicant. No questions were brought forward. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 4 Mr. Walterscheid then opened for public comment. Mr. Mike Hoffman, represents the property owners at the end of the road, RoadsEnd LLC. He stated he needs to meet with Mr. Sanders to discuss what easements exist across the property and agrees with Mr. Sanders in that it is a heavily constrained site. Mr. Hoffman stated they had asked prior to the previous hearing for the structure for the applicant to advantage of the east side of lot for the new development at which the applicant responded it was too difficult and too far down the road. Mr. Hoffman stated no matter what becomes of the easements, the property should respect its neighbors and the fact the garage is within five and a half feet or less than 7 ft, it is clearly very close to the road. Mr. Hoffman then pointed out the location RoadsEnd property and noted the area that had been annexed into the City in the early 1980’s. The owner’s right to use the road was established in the 1984 plat and it was a 20 ft easement. Mr. Hoffman stated they had not yet looked at it to see if the road as it currently exists and proposed improvements conflict with one another. Their complaint is that it is just too close to the road. He feels the proposed dimensions reflect an urban setback from the road. Mr. Hoffman stated the documents establishing the Pitkin Reserve subdivision and the easement required his client to pay an equal share of the road maintenance cost. For purposes of paying these costs, he is almost a member of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision. Mr. Hoffman stated they object to the proposed variance because it will allow the garage to exist too close to the road. Mr. Hoffman then displayed a close up of the plat and described the proposed location of the garage in respect to the road. He stated the variance would not be required if garage was placed elsewhere on the lot. He asked P&Z to deny the request. Technically, the request does not meet the standards and it is not consistent with the neighborhood. There is room on the eastern side of the lot for a garage. He pointed out on an enlargement of the 1984 plat and noted there was hardscape including a stairway leading up to the structure and a place to park a car. He also pointed to a turnout which he states currently exists on the property. Mr. Walterscheid then asked if the commissioners had questions. Mr. McNellis asked Staff to confirm the variance requested pertains to the location of the front door and if a variance is needed to build within an established setback. Ms. Seminick stated if they did not need a design variance for the front door setback, they could have come in and applied for a building permit. Mr. Walterscheid asked what exemptions were allowed to the applicant for setbacks regarding the front facing façade. Ms. Seminick stated the property is outside the infill area so they are already exempt from many residential design standards. She reiterated the only variance the applicant is seeking is the front door. Mr. Walterscheid stated it appears when the building envelope was adjusted, the setback lines were not adjusted at which Ms. Seminick confirmed was true. She displayed the envelope as shown in Figure G and described the adjustments made to the building envelope. She noted the survey is included in the packet as Exhibit C. Mr. Elliot stated the building envelope adjustments actually included a small movement further away from Pitkin Way to prevent any development encroachment in the 20 ft sewer easement. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to confirm if they had moved the front door closer to the road, the variance would not be necessary. Staff confirmed this was correct. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 5 Mr. Elliot reiterated the slide displayed by Mr. Hoffman does not represent existing conditions. He added the owner of the lot went through an approval process with the Pitkin Reserve HOA which included the previous owner of the RoadsEnd property. Ms. Phelan stated she had reviewed the design standards and noted on a private road a garage may be forward and there is more leniency on its location. If it was a public road, the garage would have to be setback from the façade. She reiterated this is a private road and the biggest issue is the location of the front door in relation to the front façade of the building. Mr. Sanders wanted to note the slide of the plat page presented by Mr. Hoffman does not represent the page of the plat which shows the establishment of the easement. Other pages show Pitkin Way in different locations and configurations. Mr. Hoffman recollected it was from the drainage plan on the PUD and he was not relying on it to represent Pitkin Way. His point was the turn out does exist and there is room on the side of the property for the garage. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Goode understands the concern of the neighbor but does not have a problem with what the applicant is requesting. Mr. McNight feels the site constraints warrant the variance and because it came before P&Z, it opened the door for the neighbor to voice their concerns. He does believe the commissioners can make a decision on the neighbors’ concerns and feels the request is consistent with the neighborhood context. Although it does not impact his decision, he is a bit concerned regarding the hearsay by the representatives of both the applicant and the neighbor. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels if there is disagreement regarding the legal mass and easements, it is not P&Z’s role to adjudicate. She doesn’t feel denying the request offers any remedy for the neighbor’s concerns. She feels the variance request meets the standards. Ms. Tygre agrees with the other commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid agrees P&Z is only reviewing the front door setback and does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Goode motioned to approve the request for a variance from the residential design standards as described in resolution #21, series 2015. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. McNight, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a total six (6) yes – zero (0) no. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P5 IV.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: 360 Lake Avenue – Hallam Lake Bluff Review Resolution No.___, Series of 2015 MEETING DATE: December 15, 2015 APPLICANT /OWNER: Bell 26, LLC, 360 Lake Ave, Aspen CO REPRESENTATIVE: Kara Thompson, Forum Phi LOCATION: 360 Lake Avenue CURRENT ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests Hallam Bluff Review approval to move the proposed residence from the location approved by P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013 to a new location 24’ to the west. Moving the structure will cause the residence to be in conformance with Hallam Lake Bluff review standards and will meet all zoning requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the request to meet all required Hallam Lake Bluff review criteria, and recommends approval of this request. REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to remodel and expand the existing building: • Hallam Lake Bluff Review, Other Amendment – This is an Amendment to an Approved Development Order, per 26.435.100.B of the Land Use Code, for development within the bluff area. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. LOCATION & BACKGROUND: The subject site is located in the R-6 zone district and backs up to the Hallam Lake Bluff. Figure A: Aerial image of subject property. P6 VI.A. 2 Figure B: Location of 360 Lake Avenue. The star indicates the subject property and the blue hatching shows the protected Hallam Bluff area. The existing residence was constructed in early 1990, prior to Hallam Lake Bluff review being adopted into the Land Use Code (November, 1990). A large portion of the natural slope was removed during construction to make room for the house, which sits within the landscape. In 2013 the applicant received approval via P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013 to remodel the existing residence which involved removing a portion of the structure from the rear of the lot and placing it at the front of the structure, further away from Hallam Lake Bluff. Although portions of the remodeled residence were still considered non-conforming in regards to placement and height, the new location on the lot was seen as a significant improvement for the preservation of the bluff. The approval further detailed an extensive work plan to stabilize, restore, and revegetate the bluff under the supervision of the City’s Engineering and Parks departments. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The current request involves shifting the proposed residence 24’ to the west, as measured from the 2013 approved building location (represented in the red in Figure C, right). The applicant is proposing no changes to the approved top of slope or the restoration plan for the bluff. The applicant has been working diligently with the City’s Engineering and Parks departments since 2013 and intends to continue the plan as outlined in Resolution 12, 2013 (Exhibit B). Figure C: Position of structure on lot as approved in 2013 (in red) overlayed on the current proposed position of structure (in grey). P7 VI.A. 3 The applicant is proposing some minor structural changes to the residence that differ from that which was approved in 2013. These include changes to an at-grade patio at the rear of the property and to the roof forms, both as depicted in Figure D. The applicant has proposed an at- grade patio and hot tub at the rear of the site. The patio encroaches into the 15’ setback from the top of slope. At-grade development is permitted in within this setback, so long as it does not encroach past the top of slope. The hot tub is not within this setback and it meets the height limitation imposed by the Hallam Lake Bluff review. As previously discussed the structure approved in 2013 did not fully comply with the progressive height requirement for Hallam Lake Bluff (see Exhibit E following). That approval reduced the structure’s nonconformity, but did not eliminate it fully. Because the code allows for the maintenance of non-conformities but not their expansion, the applicant was required to maintain the same roof forms found on the existing residence. However, physical shift that is proposed in the current application moves the structure so that it falls fully inside of the 15’ setback from the top of slope. This would cause the structure to become Figure D: Top – structure from 2013 approval, maintaining roof forms of existing structure situated w/in the progressive height limitation. Bottom – structure with newly proposed roof forms, fully outside of the progressive height limitation. P8 VI.A. 4 compliant with the height criteria, and so the existing roof form is not required to be maintained. As a result the applicant has changed roof forms in a number of locations, while still meeting the height requirement for the zone district. STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of Hallam Lake Bluff Review is to protect the ecological, environmental and scenic significance of Hallam Lake through a heighted review process for new development. Development within the Hallam Lake Bluff review area is subject to a more rigorous level of review to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. Staff is supportive of the proposal as it brings the development into compliance with the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards rather than just lessening the nonconformity, as was accomplished by the 2013 P&Z approval. Hallam Lake Bluff review requires all development within the 15’ setback from top of slope to be at grade and that all development fit within the 45 degree angle that is measures from the top of slope. Staff finds all review standards are met with the application to relocate the residence on the site. The review criteria are addressed fully in Exhibit A. There will be no development, excavation or fill other than native vegetation planting outside of what was approved by Resolution 12, 2013 as a result of this application. The applicant has shown intent to meet the progressive height limitation that is measured as a 45 degree angle from the 15’ setback from the top of slope. The only development that is beyond this setback is an on- grade patio, which is permitted by the code. All exterior lighting will be low, downcast, with no light directed toward the nature preserve or down the slope. The applicant has worked extensively with the City’s Storm Water engineer to create a drainage plan for the site, and Parks has approved a detailed landscape plan. These plans have not been impacted by the current proposal to move the home on the site. Figure E: 2013 approved structure (in red) does not meet the progressive height limitation criteria. The newly proposed location of the structure (grey) stays meets the criterion for the progressive height limitation. P9 VI.A. 5 REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer and Parks department have reviewed the proposed application, and provided comments that are attached as Exhibit C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the current application to change the location of the home on the site, as depicted in the application (Exhibit D), maintaining generally the same form as was approved with the 2013 remodel. Proposed Motion (all motions are worded in the affirmative): “I move to approve Resolution #__, Series of 2015, approving Hallam Lake Bluff Review for the project located at 360 Lake Avenue. Attachments: Exhibit A – Hallam Lake Bluff Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit B – P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013 Exhibit C – Parks and Engineering Departments Referral Comments Exhibit D – Application P10 VI.A. 1 RESOLUTION N0. __, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT ORDER REGARDING HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360 LAKE AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-24-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Bell 26, LLC, represented by Steev Wilson of Forum Phi, Inc. requesting approval of Hallam Lake Bluff Review to remodel the existing residence; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for an Amendment to a Development Order for a Hallam Lake Bluff Review; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant received prior Hallam Lake Bluff Review approval via Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May l4, 2013, continued to May 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013, by a six to zero ( 6 – 0) vote, approving Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the request is limited to an amendment to Section 1, and removes Section 5 - a request for a floor area amendment, of P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, P11 VI.A. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the requested Amendment to an approved development plan as it relates to Hallam Lake Bluff Review. The request allows the relocation of the structure approximately 24 feet to the west, as measured from the location approved by Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013, and as depicted in Resolution Exhibit A. This approval amends Section 1 of Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013. This approval also removes Section 5 from Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013 as the applicant is no longer pursuing a floor area amendment to the Erdman Partnership Lot Split with Aspen City Council. All remaining sections of that approval remain in effect. As the current approval is an amendment to the site specific development plan approved via Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013, the current approval is subject to the established vesting period and shall sunset on May 22, 2016. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 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. P12 VI.A. 3 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15th day of December, 2015. __________________________ Keith Goode, Vice Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan P13 VI.A. Re s o l u t i o n E x h i b i t A Ap p r o v e d S i t e P l a n P14 VI.A. 1 Exhibit A Review Criteria 26.435.060C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the following requirements: 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing no new development, excavation or fill below the designated top of slope. P&Z Resolution 12, Series of 2013 is still a vested approval. For the 2013 approval the applicant had worked with the Engineering Dept. to establish the top of slope, and with Parks and Engineering on a reconstruction and drainage plan for the bluff. The applicant is proposing no changes to the area between the established top of slope and the bluff itself outside of what was approved by Resolution 12, Series of 2013. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen-foot setback shall not be approved unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the following conditions can be met: Staff Response: The applicant has proposed an at-grade patio which extends within the 15’ setback from top of slope. There is no other development proposed for this area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. a) A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top-of-slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. Staff Response: There is no development other than the at-grade patio proposed for the area within the top of slope setback. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) Any intrusion into the top-of-slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Staff Response: There is no intrusion into the top of slope setback, and all proposed development meets the progressive height limitation for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top-of- slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. Staff Response: There is no intrusion into the top of slope setback, and all proposed development meets the progressive height limitation for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P15 VI.A. 2 d) Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. Staff Response: A landscape improvement plan has been previously approved via Resolution 12, 2013 for the bluff area that includes revegetation. Parks will require an updated landscape plan to be submitted with the application for building permit. Adequate landscape screening has been proposed between this property and the adjoining properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.104.100 and the method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020. Staff Response: The development proposed outside of the 15’ setback from the top of slope is at-grade patio. No portion of this development exceeds the progressive height restriction delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Staff Response: A landscape plan for this project has been approved by the Parks Dept. in relation to the 2013 approval. Parks has examined the current application and finds no changes to the approved plan. If any changes do occur the applicant will be required to show these as part of the application for building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. Staff Response: The applicant has indicated all exterior lighting will be low, downcast, with no light directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. Staff will ensure the applicant submits a detailed lighting plan that is in compliance with Section 26.575.150 (Outdoor lighting) of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. Staff Response: The applicant is not proposing any changes to the face of the slope outside what was approved via Resolution 12, Series of 2013. The on-site hot tub will not be drained down the slope. The applicant has worked with the City’s storm water engineer to create an appropriate drainage plan for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P16 VI.A. 3 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Staff Response: The applicant will submit all required supplemental plans reflecting the proposed changes associated with the current application upon time of building permit submission. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P17 VI.A. RECEPTION#: 599796, 05/24/2013 at 10:54:28 AM, 1 OF 5, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION N0. 129 SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360 LAKE AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-24-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Bell 26, LLC, represented by Steev Wilson of Forum Phi, Inc. requesting approval of Hallam Lake Bluff Review to remodel the existing residence; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Hallam Lake Bluff Review; and, WHEREAS,the property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2013, continued to May 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013, by a six to zero ( 6 — 0) vote, approving Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 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: Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Pagel of 4 P18 VI.A. 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 Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions, as shown in Exhibit A. Section 2: Hallam Bluff Reconstruction A site plan detailing areas of impact on Hallam Bluff, specifically the location of excavation, depth of excavation, type of machinery, storage of materials, location of utility connections and other items shall be submitted with the building permit. Parks shall approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit approval process. Hallam Bluff Stabilization: Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for protection of the Hallam Lake Bluff. The detailed plan shall identify the location of erosion control measures. The project is subject to Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) standards. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for construction staging. This plan shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles so that any trees remaining on site will not be impacted and to prevent unnecessary impacts to the Hallam Lake Bluff. The Parks and Engineering Department shall approve the final slope stabilization plan. The work should be designed and completed by a company that has experience in this specific line of work. The company of choice shall provide examples and an understanding of the history working with this type of stabilization. Site Protection: The applicant should detail how the existing structure and other improvements will be accessed, removed and restored without creating additional impacts to the undisturbed portions of the property along the Bluff. Section 3: Parks Department: Re-vegetation/Restoration: Parks requires approval of a full re-vegetation or restoration plan that should include seed mix, plant species, irrigation and a noxious weed control plan. Approval of the landscape plan and building permit is contingent on an approved re-vegetation plan. Noxious Weed: The contractor shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds during a one year warranty period. The City of Aspen shall perform monthly inspections of the area during construction. Inspection of materials: The contractor will be required to provide a fax, hand deliver or participate in a on-site inspection of the specifications for the seed mix, certified weed free straw and top soil. Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Page 2 of 4 P19 VI.A. Irrigation: Restoration areas require supplemental above ground irrigation system. Irrigation shall be installed in a manner that provides full coverage of the disturbed area for a period of two years. Section 4: Engineering Slope Reconstruction: The slope reconstruction is subject to Engineering and Parks Departments approval. The location and degree of the slope shall be verified in the field. Significant changes to the slope shall require a substantial amendment by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Section 5: The proposed project is subject to a floor area amendment to the Erdman Partnership Lot Split by Aspen City Council, Section 6• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7• 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 8• 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 21s' day of May, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNI AND ZONING Debbie Quinn,Asst. City Attorney L E pamer, ChAir Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Page 3 of 4 P20 VI.A. ATTEST: f07 othian, putt' City Clerk Exhibit A: approved site plan Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Page 4 of 4 P21 VI.A. i t fWUC/ I/ j.FORUM PHI i T] o N salmi BI p 360 LAKE i 26 SSII LLC 360, kv AV. I ASPen C001611 31] W l I I CONSULTANTS i male LLera SURVEYORc081S, 10ww r/ CIVIL 1 1 \ TBD 1 1 rl GEOTECHSTRUCTURALCONTRACTOR IS i M TO AREAOF fi% STING E$ TOR O I REVf. in HARD CO' _.._ SOPROJECTNO. 1207SNW COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI, ULC SHEET TITLEB 1 . 2 PROPOSED SITE WITH NEW FILL COVERAGE VERAGE FILL IHI. TOM P22 VI.A. Exhibit C Referral Comments 1) Engineering Dept. a. Civil Engineer comment: The changes seem to increase the distance from the top of slope for the most part; therefore, we are ok with the changes and have no comments. b. Storm Water Engineer comment: They will be replacing an existing drainage swale with a pipe and then re-establishing a large outfall from the pipe over the bluff. We are paying for a portion of the work and working with them to get an easement for the pipe and outfall. I believe they will be able to have a portion/all of their driveway within the easement, but no structures. There will be extensive work on the outfall, but we are coordinating on that design and construction management. 2) Parks Dept. Ben (City Forester) permitted removal of several trees on this lot back in August and September of 2014 but these permits have since expired (they are only good for 1 year). The applicant will need to submit a new tree removal permit with a landscape plan showing the trees that they want to now remove and a new landscape plan showing any plantings that they are proposing. As you are aware, the city forester has a list of allowed plants and shrubs that the applicant will need to plant in the 15 foot setback area. I have attached the list for your consideration. P23 VI.A. ASLU ESA Amendment 360 Lake Ave. 273512132001 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.420.2797 DATE: 3/24/15 PROJECT: 360 Lake Ave. JSB UPDATED: 5/13/15 REPRESENTATIVE: Kara Thompson, 970.615.0878 REQUEST: Amendment of an ESA development order DESCRIPTION: The applicant has an approved Hallam Lake Bluff Review from P&Z (Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013) and Development Order. The applicant has since decided that they would like to locate the house further west, away from the bluff. The applicant has indicated that the building design will change minimally on the east façade, but does not significantly affect the massing, and would still meet the progressive height limit. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an ESA may be authorized by the Community Development Director. If the proposed amendment is found to not meet the criteria for an Insubstantial Amendment, a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission will be required. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.pdf Below is Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.435.060 Hallam Lake Bluff Review 26.435.100 Amendment of an ESA development order Review by: Staff for complete application Planning & Zoning Commission, if deemed necessary Public Hearing: None, unless P&Z review is deemed necessary Planning Fees: Planning Deposit – Administrative ($1,300 for 4 hours) Referral Fees: None. Total Deposit: $1,300 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $325/hour) To apply, submit the following information: ¨ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. ¨ Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). P24 VI.A. 2 ¨ 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. ¨ 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. ¨ Written responses to all review criteria. ¨ An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ¨ 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: ¨ 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. ¨ Total deposit for review of the application. ¨ A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. 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. P25 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other: Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. P26 VI.A. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):__________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Access. bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined F/R: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance Between Buildings Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____ Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: ______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ P27 VI.A. P28 VI.A. P29 VI.A. P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. Customer Distribution Our Order Number: QPR62006812 Date: 07-01-2015 Property Address: 360 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Title Assistance KIM SHULTZ 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-927-0405 (phone) 970-925-6243 (fax) kshultz@ltgc.com FORUM PHI Attention: WILLIAM LEWIS 715 W MAIN ST #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-319-7399 (work) wlewis@forumphi.com,kthompson@forumphi.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail P32 VI.A. Land Title Guarantee Company Property Report Order Number: 62006812 This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report. Prepared For: A LENDER TO BE DETERMINED This Report is dated: 06-26-2015 at 5:00 P.M. Address: 360 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description: LOT 1, ERDMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 1990 IN PLAT BOOK 25 AT PAGE 42. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Record Owner: BELL 26 LLC We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: 1. GENERAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 25, 2000 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 440881. ***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION ********************** PARCEL NO.: 273512132001 2015 LAND ASSESSED VALUE $403,570.00 2015 IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE $155,720.00 2014 REAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,759.72. **************************************************************** P33 VI.A. Customer Distribution Our Order Number: QPR62006813 Date: 07-01-2015 Property Address: 360 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Title Assistance KIM SHULTZ 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-927-0405 (phone) 970-925-6243 (fax) kshultz@ltgc.com Lender - New Loan FORUM PHI Attention: WILLIAM LEWIS 715 W MAIN ST #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-319-7399 (work) wlewis@forumphi.com,kthompson@fourmphi.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail P34 VI.A. Land Title Guarantee Company Property Report Order Number: 62006813 This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report. Prepared For: FORUM PHI This Report is dated: 06-26-2015 at 5:00 P.M. Address: 360 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description: LOT 2, ERDMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 1990 IN PLAT BOOK 25 AT PAGE 42, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Record Owner: BELL 26 LLC We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: 1. GENERAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 25, 2000 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 440884. ***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION ********************** PARCEL NO.: 273512132002 2015 LAND ASSESSED VALUE $1,113,600.00 2015 IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE $0.00 2014 REAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,352.36. **************************************************************** P35 VI.A.       Vicinity Map – 360 Lake Ave P36 VI.A.       Amendment of an ESA Development Order: Hallam Lake Bluff Review 360 Lake Avenue, Lot 1 October 27, 2015 RE: Bluff Review Response | Amendment to Resolution No 12, Series of 2013. The proposed amendment relocates the development 24’ further away from the top of bluff than the originally approved location, with minor changes to the exterior of the home. PROJECT OVERVIEW Bell 26, LLC [the “Applicant”] submits this response for an ESA Development Order as an amendment to the prior approval [Resolution No 12, series of 2013] that includes the restoration and reconstruction of the Hallam Lake Bluff along the East portion of Lot 1 of 360 Lake Ave. as well as the addition to the existing single family residence on the Lot. The subject site is a 23,964.4 SF parcel located on the Hallam Lake Bluff at Lot 1 of 360 Lake Ave. (the “Property”). The Property lies within the Residential (R-6) zone district and has an existing home footprint at 2,128.25 SF and an existing garage footprint at 697.5 SF. These existing conditions make up a gross square footage of 7,142.5. The existing house is located within the 15’ top of bluff setback. This proposal is requesting to demolish the existing house and move the proposed design out of the 15’ top of bluff setback, respecting the 45° view plane extension from the new top of bluff. The proposed design meets all requirements for design listed in section 26.435.060.C Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards of Title 26. The amendment proposed to the existing resolution does not request any adjustments to the bluff restoration requirements set forth in Resolution No 12, Series of 2013. The proposed Bluff Reconstruction will be completed in the manner specified in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Resolution No 12, Series of 2013 and as approved by the City of Aspen Engineering Department under Permit No 0065.2014.ARBK. The Applicant has received an ordinance to remove the Accessory Dwelling Unit [Ordinance No 5, Series of 2014]. By shifting the proposed design westward by twenty-four (24) feet, the new residence will beentirely recessed behind the 45° extension from Top of Bluff view plane, making it much less visable from Hallam Lake. The proposed residence represents 5,236 SF of above grade gross area and will be fully compliant with Aspen Pitkin County Land Use Code. The proposed site coverage for the new design is 13.1%. Additional improvements include the installation of a City drainage pipe along P37 VI.A.       2   the South edge of both Lots 1 and 2 of 360 Lake Ave. There is an existing drainage issue in the West End where a significant amount of the City water runoff drains through the Applicants driveway. We have worked with April Long at the Stormwater Dept at the City to design this new drainage pipe and outfall structure to resolve this issue for the City and the Applicant. The Applicant has worked to design a project that meets City goals with respect to Residential Development and Development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The Applicant looks forward to working with the City of Aspen staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council in the review of this coordinated residential design and bluff reconstruction project. P38 VI.A.       3   LAND USE CODE RESPONSES Sec. 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures The applicant has followed the common procedures for review of this development application. A pre-application conference occurred on March 24th of 2015 with planner Justin Barker and representative Kara Thompson. Sec. 26.435.060. Hallam Lake Bluff Review The following design standards, in addition to the R-6 residential district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to residential development and bluff reconstruction: C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. No development will take place below the existing Top of Bluff. The bluff new portion of the bluff will be reconstructed per Resolution 12 Series of 2013 and Building Permit No. 0065.2014.ARBK. 2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. The proposed development that is within the fifteen-foot setback from the Top of Bluff is at grade. The applicable area consists of an outdoor patio and landscaped yard. 3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. The height does not exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from the ground level at the restored top of the slope. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. A landscape plan has been submitted with this application. The existing vegetation screens more than 50% of the development as viewd from the rear slope and is to remain. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. P39 VI.A.       4   The proposed lighting will be low and downcast with no light directed toward the nature preserve or down the slope, as specified in Section 26.575.150. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. There will be no fill material or debris placed on the face of the slope, with the exception of the approved materials used to restore the bluff. The proposed reconstruction of the bluff occurs at the top of the existing slope. The proposed design also does not include drainage down the slope from a pool or hot tub. A new drainage pipe for the city will be constructed on the lot along with an outfall structure that has been approved for design and construction by the Engineering and Stormwater Departments as well as the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. No changes are proposed to the approvals set forth in Resolution 12 Series of 2013 and Building Permit NO 0065.2014.ARBK with regard to the Top of Slope and all elements between that and Hallam Lake Bluff. Sections are attached in the drawing package as well as details from the Hendrikus Group who will be completing the Bluff Restoration effort, as approved by the Engineering Dept. Sec. 26.435.100 Amendment of an ESA development order. B. Other amendments. All other amendments to an approved development order for development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section. The Building Permit Application for development of a single family residence, reconstruction of the Hallam Lake Bluff and installation of the City drainage pipe for Lot 1 of 360 Lake Avenue has been approved and Building Permit 0065.2014.ARBK has been issued per Resolution No 12 Series of 2013. The amendment consists of the shifting the location of the home 24’ West to create more separation from the Top of Bluff to the development. The revised design is similar in massing to the previously approved design, with minor differences in fenestration and roof elements. P40 VI.A. ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, 66,APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS 6 AND 7 OF ORDINANCESERIES1990, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT,LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOTS 1 & 2, ERDMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDI NGTHEPLATTHEREOFRECORDEDNOVEMBER26, 1990 IN PLAT BOOK 25 TOPAGE42, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 25 AT PARCEL IDs: 2735-121-32-001, 2735-121-32-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from BLLC, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, requesting a ell to Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 which established the Erdman Partnership Lot Split; and, amendment to WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, theCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentrecommendedinfavoroftheproposedamendment; and,WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480.080, the City Council may approveAmendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from Sthe die neon ralpublic, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendationsfromrelevantreferralagencies; and, recommendations WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the developmenttheapplicableprovisionsoftheMunicipalCodeasidentifiedherein, has eiewedandpconsider undertherecommendationoftheCommunityDevelopmentDirector, the applicable referral agencies, tieredhastakenandconsideredpubliccommentatapublichearing; and, g and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 10, 2014, the City Council a r Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2014, by a three to one (3 — 1) vote a pP ovedOrdinance66, Series of 1990 through a Subdivision Amendment; and, pproving an amendment to WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicabledevelopmentstandards; and, pp able WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotionofpublichealth, safety, and welfare. p ohon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYASPENASFOLLOWS:OF Ordinance No 5, Series 2014 Page 1 of 3P41 VI.A. Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, CityCouncilherbyamendsConditions6and7ofOrdinance66, Series of 1990 to state: 6. Condition 6 is hereby stricken in its entirety. 7. Condition 7 is hereby stricken in its entirety. Section 2: Severabilitv If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reasonheldinvalidorunconstitutionalinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remainingportionsthereof. Section 3: Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of anyactionorproceedingnowpendingunderorbyvirtueoftheordinancesrepealedoramendedas herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearin A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the lot" day of March, 2014, at a meeting of theAspenCityCouncilcommencingat5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City CounciloftheCityofAspenonthe1Ot" day of February, 2014. Attest: 4SkadrKathrynS. ch, City Clerk StevMayor Ordinance No 5, Series 2014 Page 2 of 3P42 VI.A. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this / day of 2014. Attest: r i Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk Stev ' Skadron,Mayor Approved as to form: m True, City Attorney Ordinance No 5, Series 2014 Page 3 of 3P43 VI.A. RECEPTION#: 599796, 05/24/2013 at 10:54:28 AM, 1 OF 5, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION N0. 129 SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360 LAKE AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-24-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Bell 26, LLC, represented by Steev Wilson of Forum Phi, Inc. requesting approval of Hallam Lake Bluff Review to remodel the existing residence; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Hallam Lake Bluff Review; and, WHEREAS,the property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2013, continued to May 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12, Series of 2013, by a six to zero ( 6 — 0) vote, approving Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 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: Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Pagel of 4 P44 VI.A. 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 Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions, as shown in Exhibit A. Section 2: Hallam Bluff Reconstruction A site plan detailing areas of impact on Hallam Bluff, specifically the location of excavation, depth of excavation, type of machinery, storage of materials, location of utility connections and other items shall be submitted with the building permit. Parks shall approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit approval process. Hallam Bluff Stabilization: Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for protection of the Hallam Lake Bluff. The detailed plan shall identify the location of erosion control measures. The project is subject to Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) standards. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for construction staging. This plan shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles so that any trees remaining on site will not be impacted and to prevent unnecessary impacts to the Hallam Lake Bluff. The Parks and Engineering Department shall approve the final slope stabilization plan. The work should be designed and completed by a company that has experience in this specific line of work. The company of choice shall provide examples and an understanding of the history working with this type of stabilization. Site Protection: The applicant should detail how the existing structure and other improvements will be accessed, removed and restored without creating additional impacts to the undisturbed portions of the property along the Bluff. Section 3: Parks Department: Re-vegetation/Restoration: Parks requires approval of a full re-vegetation or restoration plan that should include seed mix, plant species, irrigation and a noxious weed control plan. Approval of the landscape plan and building permit is contingent on an approved re-vegetation plan. Noxious Weed: The contractor shall be responsible for the control of noxious weeds during a one year warranty period. The City of Aspen shall perform monthly inspections of the area during construction. Inspection of materials: The contractor will be required to provide a fax, hand deliver or participate in a on-site inspection of the specifications for the seed mix, certified weed free straw and top soil. Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Page 2 of 4 P45 VI.A. Irrigation: Restoration areas require supplemental above ground irrigation system. Irrigation shall be installed in a manner that provides full coverage of the disturbed area for a period of two years. Section 4: Engineering Slope Reconstruction: The slope reconstruction is subject to Engineering and Parks Departments approval. The location and degree of the slope shall be verified in the field. Significant changes to the slope shall require a substantial amendment by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Section 5: The proposed project is subject to a floor area amendment to the Erdman Partnership Lot Split by Aspen City Council, Section 6• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7• 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 8• 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 21s' day of May, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNI AND ZONING Debbie Quinn,Asst. City Attorney L E pamer, ChAir Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Page 3 of 4 P46 VI.A. ATTEST: f07 othian, putt' City Clerk Exhibit A: approved site plan Resolution No. 12, Series 2013 Page 4 of 4 P47 VI.A. i t fWUC/ I/ j.FORUM PHI i T] o N salmi BI p 360 LAKE i 26 SSII LLC 360, kv AV. I ASPen C001611 31] W l I I CONSULTANTS i male LLera SURVEYORc081S, 10ww r/ CIVIL 1 1 \ TBD 1 1 rl GEOTECHSTRUCTURALCONTRACTOR IS i M TO AREAOF fi% STING E$ TOR O I REVf. in HARD CO' _.._ SOPROJECTNO. 1207SNW COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI, ULC SHEET TITLEB 1 . 2 PROPOSED SITE WITH NEW FILL COVERAGE VERAGE FILL IHI. TOM P48 VI.A. P49 VI.A. P50 VI.A. P51 VI.A. P52 VI.A. P53 VI.A. P54 VI.A. P55 VI.A. P56 VI.A. P57 VI.A. P58 VI.A. P59 VI.A. P60 VI.A. P61 VI.A. P62 VI.A.