The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.114 Maple Ln.0067.2012.ASLU~-0067.2012.ASLU 114 MAPLE LN 273707490114 RDS 560< A AÂ£ C~ 6/t'(5, -h~ ~ â‚¬AUL,ret< 4 \ PATH: G/DRIVE / Mâ‚¬~iR FILES/ADMINISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LAND USE CASE DOCUMENTS THE CITY OF ASPEN[ City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0067.2012.ALSU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 273707490114 PROJECT ADDRESS 114 MAPLE LANE PLANNER CLAUDE SALTER CASE DESCRIPTION RDS REPRESENTATIVE STAFF DETERMINATION DATEOFFINALACTION 10.9.2012 CLOSED BY ANGIE SCOREY 04.06.2016 0 Permits =1~ *34 s . I./ I. - . . WL/L Recor~ Navigate Fgrm Reports Format Iab Help ~ i.@@0(H,14=Â©1 2*.4 iEÂ®949â€¢~ill 4 > ,]m@Oklumpl ~*~il)IG~ 1 7 0 1 3 9 0 0,13 3 [b a ) :1 00 .Â®IK| Custom Fields ' R*ing Status ' Fee Summall ' Mions I Routing Mistory I ~iÂ£ ......WmMI?.m'.r-' ~Permt Npe ~slu , ~Aspen Land Use Permit# -0067.2012.ASLU ~9:*ft=...1.se" li ~ Address 114 MAPLE LN AptSuite 114 1 Cly ASPEN State Co ~ Zip 81611 Pemlit Information ----...,4-44-.4.1......_.~ p Master pernik tÂ· I.Â·Â§Â·di I 1...'111 91 M ULUL uâ€¢,1,â€¢w, 1,1, 11%=U ' â€¢, 11.A ... w I ... I Project Status final Approved 04 06/2016 , Description RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD (RDS) VARWICE Issued 04*'06/2016 . CIoÂ®Final 0446/2016 v Clock ~61@i-I Days ~274~| Expires 10/'05/2011 v ~ SU~~Il~ CAMILLAAND MONTY EARL - Miner Last name EARL First name CAMILLA & MOaffY 114 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (97013794946 Address ~ ~ Applicant 3 Â® Owner is applicant? Il Contractor is applicant? | 4 last name EARL First nom:e CAMILLA & MONTY 114 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (970) 3794946 Cust # 29382 Address Emajl , Lender It Last name Rrst name Phone () - Address I - ~enGold5 (U;2[angeles ~ 1 of 1 "i "Illillililillib*kt %0 1 [-4*ioN >toi 1 Fxoqioo-1.1 dno.10 461| .p'.46 Â· - 1.=.Ir L.- 4... 41 47 - 1 . 1 1...111. 1-- .- V I ~ 7 #IT' 4.Â«:64~ - :4.1-- . -'11 .....'. +40 -Ila *4~-1# j-1-* 0 + a V . 50*44 4=â€ž3 Ack In. 7 -k . WE y Â» 4 Â·. ~* 1 44 1. *i C 41.W . -:a .*, - - 4 %49, + .* j:'Ill'll'lli e.~ - 141Â¢J 01-- 08-2 =k.- ' 1 1 k W il -4 - 3,4 -- retÂ·! 1[4Â¢'Â¢*fym 901:e....::i~; 'St ..: 11 1 1 Slk' 41.11.;lili U' 1 1 . 11 1,411 4 A.16"11/#.W-i~-~-0~ ,-- I . 1.. I El*f * 22 1.el'#1 00 ..P, 6e- 1 1. 1 ; 1.1.. 4 , .4 *t. .-* f**,i:, f.. mi. ,1 . ...... i . f lu,=ulll--L . JU E..1 2~ ... .....4 j:.. , ...._u,:1,-si,~.i:i.,.21 r - 3 6 . .1,1 4 'M :Â·1'*b:* .,4 '691* 90"'I * - m'Â·C '7 =14 ...... , A - , 9 0/41 4 deff 01.-*fF'.3Â¥,7n 411. 99"--Dit~'I@* 7///////:1 -:1--~ Â» ltd . 2 - 7.% - J 6 I . .1 .1 7/ .â€¢-122=a,:lu~~ te 974/.390 ..&/*AÂ·+ a. /J'2594 / 4. viAL * 296195<AY,- ED 1* #4, .6 tb , ... 79 / 0~ . .0- 218 A n f A + 16 6 0 44** z gon, L 4 e '4, 14 *477 - 1 15 2442745 n r-- :40 4 . 280 7/I $ . 22 44 1 . 24 , 1 m <43 42549 i 24 < 7-tA ~~ "2 4 4 . 1 1 . 4'i, 6. 1.0 :P * G 4 . , 9,9 9*7 to 16 621 - â€¢27$' AFT Â¥ 2.0.t T 30,9 * j g-~ L r 2 11 2. A R ~ 841 .F 1.64 1 10 r 4, .4 + 4,41 * 2 1131 -7 <4 e 1/ 4 6,#'I edjAbil.t#*T: ~ - i . 4 04 ~ 6..3, i t 21* in 1 . 11 1 . 9. Lt 924 . r . / 21 / 21. 1 ~4 ~4Â¢6 Nj:/ &25 1 Blap,44 54 ry\ , i r Acl .gd. *.1 . 143 '96 19'*. i C 3- 1.-, c l,; o ' 22 \, ~ 0 7-,0 232/ci{ 7 9. 0 7 5 44 04 1#A 104~~ 4 1, b. 1 0 '4 1 k 9.- 9. "- Â» 1 / 1 w \26 -2- ..i 9 y 44Â¥.14,1 1 Ch jo. - 1 1 ... 1 \ a/7\ a O , 19 if ..'.6 91,3.r / i 1\12 m.r 4 ...ld . 1 1 N orth ~ak,71 **i 4 + CdiuMwood + Oak 1 , f Â¥,Vt 3 4.=i= . --'- . ju - lai. -25 1,- -7.- .- r>t-Vt .. , AA .. .. . uS-,t. I.<-: - + 1 -Il - 4 3442 0. I F ilii::::::ef/94//a"M.--r- 4* ./I'llic; f 4 A- . -Â·~n-- ~~%42= 61//1/4 -1:~ Northhc/5 M.pi~ 64 + CO"04 WOA "'A,Â»9-.-,1---Â· - 3 , . 1 9 ..*i. I 7-~ 74 ./ 7.6_7:-/t. ' .--=-I.1-~ 1 - 4 h. Mie; A.3 2/022(2013 16 kou-/ 6 . 2.:24 9 -- iN r ' 1 <=4 41.-~ 9 / ' "Ill'.41'ill/1.,' 4. 4~%521/41//3:,/I .3- 1 - 41Â«- P (O Â¥~fi 4 ilate w.-B. D /9 r13>#ft:.& C / -:'% 'h'~trt , $1,CT T 44, 1 1 - 1111 4+12 v r- 4,- /: 1.'.,6..':'. 14 111,- 1 1 1 PJ,C , % % 1,4 1 n' i. . a ((29 1 1 Â¥ 11 Iate-ea It*41.14 , M (j) stual--u f--ck- li 0 1 . ir .'. 4: Â·, 7*4,4.4.11 : 02% 42 24/l '. 11.11'f,11,1.1 , 1-1. 4 , ,-,i-=al,I.8.7~~,i ')r,:'11,11 ;;tt ; it':; Â·i' j,~ br,1 1.1 :t ~.111 ..11; 1 1 Iii . 1 .i., r:,1 '1 11. ' 1, 1% irit-,1*040--0Â»Â·*4,4'3 i 14 91 ?% 9 '~>q-r lot ,-| 73 1 ' Â·Â· I .1 - 1 Â· , Â·â€¢'1 9 Â· 0'Â· : 1 *' i .' i. Â·*11.9,1 / F 0 e, 1.1- 6 2.'' ' 1 d 1 limma ,/06,5,Â·4Â·ip*li,44 *trpwÂ· .i.:, >Â·'L-Â·~, 0-p 43Â· 5 2,~-:i,44,8 ~ Â·A ,Â·'4 42 1 - (9 / 67 93 9 $,9 5.*1,2 tit ft .i.0.444 K,.1* .4 1-1 1-1 1- ' 14 ' ~I*; 1,207~:di?liC~*t': 4::40,31 : ~, 11 14 1 '001 - *Fm 1 I ill iff~tridflihi 1 1.1,4 - . E l,t .: .Mf. ~ * 3LAr /10,-.l p:-< 1.4 4, #*- /7 1 .â€¢ . -1 ' e.- ~ r . . . . ATE' ' 1 ~ 1,-t. 1 . 11.th' f;'Mi;#H.1 itÂ®:Â· 1.. 1 ':., 4,â‚¬ - . , r.,I. I 4 5 .....,1 -RA. .,1 41.,A J .1 -4.-1 1 . 1 1 QN, i.e.AJÂ· 1 0 .1,4...e . :t- 9- : 1 j 1 -1-- 2.-:-'02 1Â£*fi~<-9~:.7~:-1Â«Â£4....p.Â·<frepte-,A~-A ' NK:Â· 1-94.-- 84Â¢ffâ‚¬=e,-27#24}-fid~t~j~ 3.2-jte-:>-442~1~, 4<:%*i-Ff,--K.'I-i#-*f--tij.*'&,,.flfi:Â· Â©.---:i-~-:-3-9948.4~43+KEÂ·--10Rfk--1.;- ~ 1- tj.i.i.:%+F-vi~I~!L-' 47--Lift*~*---ipA,i~'2' I. 4 y.54"r ...U --. > Ll. 4 + ."934,-34 4Â·,3<ki '0.0.>...i- T:#,..Â·:.v.4.af*2.6642- rt-itlâ‚¬ 092;34*:P= .9 ~ 9-7 -5.7*44771*3., 5--~=f#**A;*f;43,15 - 0161.----&Ii.7.-- u-â‚¬-SALÂ©4974%7 2353fi~.~9Â£32. -1.F-t~-A fil> 41*Â£Â·2 - rtf2- 1-54'~iNi~Sic Â· ;2 1.0: *NE ;r:-21-â€¢_ ----4-â€¢-- Â·9: 0-41:: Â·*~4"p 4 - 62-4-0,4 . i 'F .â€¢Ah.42.<Â· , 6%114, Â·-Di: {44Ei:%451-644-f*14fs*Â» A *a. )it.'L;~ rtf- 4 - 1.itirr . d /, . ....... % 7963?Â· 4 ...2 , .-~f'.#,N# I ~ I I I .' ' ..../ F 4 -1 11 4 L , .i'**1 St I 2 -et '- Â£ /4.:,-,-~f#74:~~ L 04 '4&Waill#J *, r 2 6- ic g c '31 ~ <gA_ Ar el /--}1 C)-4, 447 1/ t /9 1 .4.2 10 22.': --le 'u,1 24.ti- j . -...., - I IM 3 r :44 id ~ U i 4%*f -1,7: 4 *fi.-, 1%.t; #.im-:' ''.'46.: ",01 "# . 1,411 '" IM''I .4 Â·, 2 .Â·, 49'.â€ž. '2+441;4 '1''irl,ili~ c': ,; Â·,f t ':1:.111*] 1,112.t,111 1,4 1. + 4 # 4*AN A QI Â·1; irdÂ·Â·,i '11, 9%b' ~ 1, it'-1.j~.-:RE ' + . . , il ""'* 0 ~ 1 4 9-4'3 4 6 " 51KÂ·, 5 f 4 9 7 '* 4,1 7 , , r: Eli '351 7..1 1,1 ,1 .. 'Â· ' I .1,..i.,23:;. 2 0 . f - 14!iÂ« 111 2644Â«- milli .4 f b.* Â·29.Â·iÂ·Â·UÂ·Prti'-..t.'Aâ€¢Â¢Â·% 4.-1'.....''1'.'.,r .....-I..,Ille:oemy'gea,a,M,21~I2E~Z. 414*#,wts.a';â‚¬45:*jiA:iXE,Of Â· .?.ifi;Â·tÂ·'4'96*11,.1 :'*&4'(it<%j%%,#RE<J.---,tf*%.41'~. 6F*~fl~.A~-Â£'~2f~196 *6*1 2% Â·?2... Ft #ar:.9.-ewÂ·har:.Â·' . Â·Â·Â·:-:Â·.'.M;,4;LO..0 ./ C:i...:. -'f:~l-'4:<,4.rlt.i:%;tfR.,Â»4.i ~,54 ~ 5 5~ .5.Â·,4Â·EÂ·'&'46% - ... -i ,Â·# 74Â·,KÂ·:22.4, 4#Â·,12Â·,' 4 -,01Â£1 ~.'j' 74.&.29,5.:~:4:7,1~i.Â·.Â·Â·..:Â· Â·Â· Â·..bs:~36*~;1t~'~I ~~.Â·.4'-'r?.~ ib,ifkitk,~u .%~Â·.i,~Â·Â·f~ Â·.: 4-4 k '- 4 :.Â·/MI~ JT < . 6- # I <9 4.i,1/*'40Â· * - - ~ ~ titkjÂ·>.~ '~f'924Â·4#.i'#~f~. i, t- 0 .:ie&:G'A,&'6 v Ati t/ 4. 1 - %322...., 1,45 - .. 0, ./,4 '. b' fi ~ ' -C-2 OZ'-44Â·fV' - ''d Â·tÂ¢Â·'"4~A4Â· ' 0. '111 4,9.Â¥â‚¬:...., 1 4.71#V.,4 24:.4 -rÂ· . bh: . g*i~2102 -4..Â·26.1~~13!1.j'~ i.......4 .2.=.:..:2~;~14 :'30%.Re,.N.-*-1~,..Er,,Â·,Mt: , -;***>I . r. Â¥:. 6 4., 4*R 7 446- 2 â€¢ 1 '. 2 . t.w'' 00-*t. 44. 9,9 ' 9, 4 1-'.. .=":, fI:,Â·ri':'Â·91.7.1...%.. , ...54: . 35<5 42'04â‚¬ .42 A . .4 #-4,,1.I r â€¢r ' 4,1 - , 34Â¢ 1 , ' "4./. 40Â·f':*tul.:.. 91 Â· . . lilli ... I. " 44*'44*:.,fÂ·*.Â· .. ~Â·Â·. . .. , Â·â€¢ ZO'.7 ait *fi.t~oÂ·~ ~ uNS.*tpiyl.tÂ·P,;{t Â·>;Â·i l:( -,.%5*tiÂ¢2*-2'0.e~.L 4. WN"UE Z ./ W' *./'ILIF9; -Â·Â·Â·Â·-0-- -i . . .....â€¢ U ~*.2*4Â·4. 62; ' A ..1"%9#4 .-r' -1,+1-*fy,i' 5.0.4,44-0 ' -. .. . i M $ A#r '* 0. ' 3<') . pa.'Â·,~ ...~. 0 -1 1 .4 2 - 19 - 5 - ... - 4 101,: ; Â· Â· rig,3.â€¢ 0Â·2 . ... 41 . 1 - ~ ~~~.~.~~.~~~~~Y~~:f 4 ~Â·i< ~ 8Â·kati~ ~ ff~~~~,tf~?~f,%30:f*#**Â·Â·~~71'..te),;44Â»*Â·:ed~~fÂ· ~..~off(fic:~~ - Â·-i.~1 ,(if 94**f*5#'**40%5 . . S<~ al f ~2 gi Z 1 4Â» r.4 4% r =j SITE PLAN 114 Maple lane West 10 foot set back required with parking _ - __ _ _property line 70'-9 P.L. ----Ill---------- GRASS parking I a b GRASS ._- 1 2.-9. 19 1 : 01'- - 13'.10Â· qi-0 7/8. - b â€¢77 . 1 w 1 7 -- 61 setback t , A ~ 7 3-4" 4 ' 9 9 1 7 7.:' A I ~ stairwe// for egress 1 3_ _ li 1 1 4 ~- 8 2Â· 7 M 1.1 1.1 j .1 Â°. - ----- =m c 40-7 3/8 13~-10" 1 / qi 1 ! P. 1 1 44'-40 - IT, -2 . 1 m ./ , I N. - 1 f 'f 0 11 9 11 11 6 4-' f , 1 Q , 1 111 16'-2- 1 1 IIi 1 /5 - 5L0 -2' 4-- 5-81/8" 2 - J-- i! . P 01 i ~ --:1't~ 6-8" - , 1415" ,k f b 1 /4. 1 9 291 1 I / 1 It \ 4,/ 1 111 , 1 1 4 2'-10 5/16" WALL HELD 5 INCHES OFF property iine 1 0- . , 7 - leN Pil. 7 f -- i , 1 FOR OVERHANG - i -2-4-- 1 h& 2.floll / /61 J f :1 J / 4-30- 1 0 set back East property line 50'-11' r _ ___ 71'-1 316'P.L. 11 1 44'-4" y 1 Eve and gutter no more than 6 inches over property line per easement 1/4" = 1 foot footer in prooperty line : -- 8,0- 1 East .... Â¥1 31 dVIN Rear yard setback 5 feet GRAS .Z-,EL - - South Umluill! .... SITE PLAN 114 Maple lane West 10 foot set back required property line 70 9 P.L. GRASS parking 1 GRASS 9 , K 13'- 1 0 A i 0 set back i ~ 3' 4- ~ 9 . 1 2 ' L stairwe// for egress ~ 16 ~ e 4 ~-~ 47" ~ ~ ' 40.-1 fi,h]. --- 4 1 4 ," 1 1. 0-2. .1 ---- 1 ' 11 1 13' 10 44Â·Â·4" 1 4 6 -' parking 3 7 - 4 -4 9 I 1 1 T porch 16'-2. -1 6 7 2 ~5'-00' ~~~ 8- 8 1 8- 11-~ 11 --1 - 4 f f 14.-5 4 k 2'- i d'3.16[ WALL HELD 5 /NCHES OFF property line ~ ~ ~ ~ E~ l FOR OVERHANG ./ parkng f 4 0 set back East property /ine 18'11- t---1, - 2 83 44 3 71Â·-1 3'16" P.L 44-4 Eve and gutter no more than 6 inches over property line per easement, 1/4" = 1 foot footer in prooperty line ~a-- -- BO" '' East RECEIVED ACT 9 2012 CITY Or ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRASS-- \-9 3 NÂ¥1 31 dVIN North~ Rear yard setback 5 feet e# O MOeq les INE _6Â£'*ffÂ»~ze 41nos 24'-10 lilil Ill 1 111 ~-111 11'111'111'11'11'11. 1 1 I 1 lili lilli 1 1 1 I lilli l Il 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -4 1 1 1 1 lili 1 lili 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 0.0.Â·Â·Â·S-2-Â·Â·~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1El|1|1|1|,|"|1111 7...<11'111'1111Â£11 - ~,~ - 121 lial lilil r75 Mi - M -m- r k-- -im --2- 1 K --- 1 y. i 1 %1 K -K - r 0 -1 9 - - Z --1 >11 - 75 - \ / FRONT ELEVATION 4 1 li. j \ i. \ 21 . ' -j It' / 74:60, :71// , RO JGM I PEIV J E ' - L--91 RIGHT 5/DE ELEVATION SERIES REVISIONS 99 DATE GENERAL NO'T E S INING TITLE MOL 4 50. FT. ~ SCHUL T 5028 90(003461 11 EXTER/OR ELEVATION PLANT DISO? IPTION POIL NO. 951 28X44 IBR-2BA HTG-284O3A CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. FRONT & RiGHT SIDE m-el, BY 01?16. IiTE 1]81[ PRINTED MET Ne. DBG 09/06/201 1 01/18/2012 20-[ m 0 m D-c E f# 2*Ey - 6 100 .. ' 1 1.iL 1 9 > f 1 0 : Al. BBL i*30* . ..Â«%r~ . VUL -1 1 ... -1 lili - Â· T=41 . A ...aN +4= f'. 44/Atjt- . -. \\.9 RECEIVED OCT 9 2012 CITY Ur AbPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rim .... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili lili l l lilli l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili lili lilli t lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .lilli l l l lilli l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1lllllllllllllilllll1!1 /Flf---HEFIII-01 03' -03 -liti EL.Vt lEi I ZI ,Â»,5- 2 Z 111 11 11, 1 '1 111 1 ,1 - 1 1 FRONT ELEyATION I , : F 1-VR I RIGHT 5/DE ELEVATION BRAND SERIES REVISIONS BY DATE GENERAL NOTES DRAWING TITLE MODEL NAME SO. FT, SCHULT 5028 BUC00346I 1173 EXTER/OR ELEVAT/ON PLANT DESCRIPTION MODEL NO. 951 28X44 !BR-2 BA HTG-28403A CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. FRONT & RIGHT 5/PE DRAWN BY ORIG. DATE DATE PRINTED SHEET NO. DBG 09/06/2011 09/27/2011 20-1 OCT 9 2012 CITY Or Mer=N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI . 4 4---,"~ 1 44 SO OATH'.4VE U){ 1 7.NL/r.< 2-44 \ .- 6.0 4.1//A e ,01'llizirill#*i#*P 1705...4 . Â¥ tr- 1. Vi ,/\L -- 0 .4 1 47 7LL\Â« hx ..~ -6- 0 -h . V 46 - 1 ..4 4 p W N .4, f:~CL 7,6 0 (*J -*C>.1 V it . ... 4 S r 11 //6/4 N:5/ y N< Â£ 4 â€ž24- 3: r . rÂ»e X 4 i 0 Ref EIVED 9 2012 I I @,f AicMMUN'l i. ASPEN DEVELOPMENT , 722594 -1 r t. 2, -- 164. 7 296;>sL-4 .qi -- 0. -- - A yo 6 a 6 eo / 1. 0 0.-M.2 4 FI 37 0 1 '~42â€ž/27~ . ~ 7 44 4 60 - yoes, * . 4.44 4 - 54 ,)GÂ©30 277 S.Q.FlaP L_ .00 49 24, 74 - 611 01 + lili e 15 . 2 + J 0, t. , / 2 ~'4\>g:~ â‚¬ A 2745 .FT. . ~. tb .7 L / . d e 5 42 0 2808 Se.FltÂ¢ .iDO \ C i {be 0 32549 .. L-/ 0 4, â‚¬' / cr) *f:Ii 2 ~0 ust - 2 2841 .Ff. -4 4/,4 0 :fe 224 6 hy O 0 20 â‚¬627 6 SO. . , 04, 2- G. * 0 'r> J : 30 SO.F. eâ‚¬ 16 -- 6 -B . ...3, .. IRSQ.fl.. 09 & 04 42 y, 04> 4 22â‚¬ 121 0, rt. - 41. *Â· ~273 SO.FT. 92 + 30!9 SA t ge 9 4 2971 S~FT./ 3 0 2252 S-- 4 1 Jd 90 -.if'? 64, 4 -6 ' c/Xr 2776 SQ.F . .4-B / i 125 6 â‚¬2560 so.F e 3> 5% 914 - 2 - 57. 0/ I 0 2 ' 22 ~~ .b r i 'rb /0.63 SQ.FI 12\,6 :S 40 -4 . 47 - 2928 9 r J ap> Crb I *.V - 0 fi--- 5;: 44 .4#:2 ISQI 4 / 121 .. 6 - - - / 6 126: Â·r 4 &- I ,~2 24.-SO.-FI/61,/ 2-1 .*i .9 3.i- 24#66.e-.64-..::..~.*--.- v.-- Â· - i.:Â·-9. I.Â·-C~ Â«49:.-128Â·14*-Â·.. . .1 0,6..: :7-:: f.t-;mi ,:>.Sr. ..: ,...: ... ....Â· . -4.- : 4 - 74 -'.060 42*6?At >/ /A// Fwa,43ME! , (a) HEREBY -:41 PARK C]RCE NORTH 0. 0 - 13Â¥~/98.88 EASEMEÂ» r 100 1?0 mraug~Bel <23 AVENUE J, 1 ' i : </2223,8888~BvS/ (t) HEREBY; 4 1 1 ~24'E 77Â·68 N#9*5Â«E 0/20 ,Â·* SCALE ' 1"â€¢SO' 9 14164. / Â®/ .e~,3 / 0 .Sts O.BEARING: THE SEARING AS TAKEN FROM U.S. Caâ€¢ST ANO < HERE- 2:i ~ 6%&*94 ' #0 1. , / GEODETIC SURVEY TRIANGULA-nON STATION "ASPEN", QUAD 301043, 39#'(61 HETQE/fr- 4.4 ~ 1 . , sTATION 1001,1-0 'AN,EN AZIMUTH MARK "OF 8 08*11'08' E WAS ; Â« '~~~~ ~ ~ 'Â· hAT W.04. i /~ ~4 /5 r~~ 4h /, USED ASTHE 6â€¢SIS OFBEAkNG ONTHIS MAP. 0- J \188//fiumma 38,0 ' 2 11~ 3058 SQ.FI ' 4, 4 EXECUTED ':40 / 3161 SQ. FT + 41 vil.V-' 34 4 / Pfolâ„¢ 4 24* 36.45 .2... S ASPEN4 foges 8 M.. 303 a ..2 2892 90 FT ' ' 460"035 8 ~ 0 \ ' i/ SMUGGLER'. 44â‚¬ 2/ 1 . \ 4% 0/ / / ---- 1 1 --- ' 4/ J e .414 -5 .6 954<23, , / ~ A*<fitfep , / , A r- 31 4 + -Wok,1 4 4. 4/ , , â‚¬ A 4 / 4 / 0 . I /1 302 2284, 307 e & 2 , , N / \ I 4, - z C 2744 90. FT .# 1 32.. D,Â·04 / I $ I ENLARGEMENT ..Â® +00 t 04' *p 2956 SQ.Fr '<, 465â€¢ 200 ~ 0 k 4 882021,22',E / / /0----------------3/ / i t" = 201 1/ \ I %1 . 1.3 + - ' / , \ 'N 9000 -- fl'* 4. 320631.F'It , 309 4% e .3216 SOFT , 1 322\ sna/ 3 .1/ , /--1/4 Vt 1 5TATE OF'CL>. 01 \ 4> 'Af ...6 / % 306 L44,33 SMOGGLWK RUN \ 4. 0. 0 9 ..7,42 '*2, 202 2 ,~_205 .P R 3CALE IN .11Â£5 COUNTY OF 47 ./ .) ..0/ + i e ./.. 332990.F'Â§57 ~4~ 41/ Â·AP '* 31! fe 3362 SQ.FT / .O TME 'DRIGOÂ».4 C ' 4 3119 % 2 3448 SO.,i ,, 0 ." * Qe . SCI.Flt ~4 308 < 00 9 VICINITY MAP ' op '114 04 :MOB[ILE,"HOME PAkt<v....---.... " 4' 4, ~,64 40~/' 0, 1 207 /% 3020 SaFT. 4-4 4.42 4.* <.4 4 3113 Â°4' ., /0 / .Â· ' ~ WITNESS b~'Â¥ 1 SEKAROS . AS i i \ \ 4. 40 , :4, 7$ 0 2011 SQ.Fl; .4p 1 4~ Ar 3070 SO.FT. / '' / MY' COMâ€¢18#0'}MOâ€¢ \ I 154 , , U . 4 9 310 696- Va, <14 , b I i \ 209 f f ~e> 44 % Et> ~~~ :.~ ts &~~1 it:* 206~4 ' 6, 0 / \ I I / I ,---- TITLE STATEMENT 3,5 6 4 ' I ./ % 1 + 2567 SQ.FT * 4* 3492 50.FT. , , :4 00 THE UNDERSIGNED, A OULLI - AUTWORIWO REFRE'Â»4 TATIVE ~ ~ 42091Â«Ip 312 . / k 41 lee .1 <0,1,/ 1,Â· ~ 2629 90,Fr,0, 9 4 0 (6% 4. '' / ' i \ P. wejÂ·,e. * At:0 Lf e '4 f # 208 le.. 01\\ 84 2769 SQ.FT. ' ~ <li 6 - '# 49 - 4 'tz , , ' , \ OF A COIEFOR./KIE TITL. E 1191Â·5(JREFC FiEC:,19,TEKE[P TE) CXO 43>0 4.4 2762 SQ. FI .4 , 0-, 4 4 314 4 4 \ i .4/ 2 .2/73 2 1, f34. 4 4 ~ 2903 SO FT je J.'4: 1 2 N 317 02 + f 4051#25,5, IN FITION COUNTY, COLORADO, EXPEE, HEP.CE;Y / 0 4 4 3218 SO..FT 'yo / ,/ ' > CERTIFY FUR5UANT TO SECTION 20-16(J) OF THE.ASFEN Â»TUNICIFAL COPE THAT THE PERSON LISTED A5 OWNER 33. SOFT. ,40- 42 * 4Â·4 4444 213 ~f 4 e 27,3 SO.FI &* < , A * . Lt 2473 901:V<' 4 .4 # 210 '1 4 / ' 4 .4 e / . ON TkÂ·41* PLAT 618LDo FEE 61!VIPLE TITLE TO ALL UENS 4 1, 2 1~66 * 2781 50.F'[ ,~ 2 COTY F 101 49, .0 4, 3' P 316 - > AND E, 10.Jh/IE~RANCES EXCEPT 11*392 UeTED ON THE .==:- 9/ *' 0 5 11 319 004' / TITLE IN'bURANCE COMMITKIENTD !90, S'M>465-0~â€¢1*M -rw le FIR,T ,â€¢Â· AlÂ¥-1 % 70 9 0 A. 4, 2824 SO.FT.cÂ¥ 16 * ; % &4 ~4 2 / 4 1 cÂ© . 4 43438 se.FT , EFFECTIVE Ai,&11 -9,11'e7 ...1â‚¬5913<:TIVELY, 165UED BY PITIERI' APPROVED i: 34 1 t . 4 40 4 04 212 215 y 44 3010 SO. FT, 0 + < '6 e. / 4-1 / \ /*40 \ / '6.-3602"W k- . 2827,0/T,64 ,~ Cl:*~J'~1-'f' 1 I TUE CCÂ»/IF;ANY ALTHOUGH WE ESELIEVE THE 1 ... / 107 't'Â¥42;496$(FT. F. + 62 ' / / / BE CONSTRUED AS AN Aeâ€¢51Â»CT OF TiTLE NOR AN 9 2 318 14~ 04 , 4 '6 , FACTD *TATE[7 ARE 1-ledE, TWIS CERTIFICATE 19 Nor lt) 4 * 44, " 2903 50.FCÂ© 4> 94 217 ~~ 4 321 / OPINION oF TITLE NOR A GUAIZANTY OFfITLE AND IT 4 ' ' 00 214 0 4 0' 4 , ' 15 UNOERSTâ‚¬IMP AND ,AGREED T,LAJ PITI<114 COUArrY TITLE 3293 SaFT. , 1 1 2) Ar 3037 SQ.Fi , / /3 Pe 44 .0 0 *2857 3,1,1:,64 â€¢ e il ~ 109 4 02708 saFT. i + 44 f (b % 9 . 320 4 le .43 1,- / / COMPANY NEITHER AMUMEÂ« NOR MLL BE CHAR<SCO * e dii JOCIA 2- saFT.2 1. 0,04 -te .0 . 323 .57 4 0 / WITH ANÂ¥ FINANCIAL OIDLI*ATION OX LIAmILITY WHAP coâ€¢.24 4 1 5 8,8. " D 219 +Pr EATA. I - . ' . ~â€¢ e .4 0 216 '0 9'&6+ 32~! SaFY* 59 64;% rat 3402 SO FT ' EVER ON ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN. PLANNL 106 |Ii (4,/4 e. 3081 SQ Fl:.4 4 t 4 u 3. .1 4 .* 2594 SQ. FI , * 2962;0,Fl:~64 42 + â€¢04' - 04" 00 322 COMAK 9 i /. 4 f PITKIN COUNTY T TLE COkiANY UW- UÂ·...... 221 4 0 â„¢ts f 'Ir,r :<Â»0 , 325 ,Â® 4% , 70. 2,58 -,1. ' 4 loâ€¢ 6 4, 21. 4, 14 + , a 4 449, 1 , f< 4 'b 2' 4 4& 44 43* â„¢5 54.,1~ j, .. 5 3,15 SQ.Fr. /2 324 . 4 :ft,wto tz=L ff# . f 4 245% 34FT 113 0~ 024*SaFT <4 %. 1. 0 - 44. VIINCE. HI6*~IS FREDIDENT A % 4 - 4 4 144 27759@ft,P 93 4 223.ft ' i I to + 02 220 .4 , 4 .4 j 1 \/ i I I :\ Â£ 64 1. 00 e .4 4 4 3042 50.'I . 0 2# f '~.5 SOS ~ a * _7~ 22~ 04 84 326 : MATE OF COODICADO ~ 55. , 4 0 i~..-d.An.JETÂ·-5Â»3~- - .'*. * - - A 74 < i< * T'733___- 9 .CAL Â¥ I /424- -. _ ../2 -LI .4..., .... , A 225 2 & ''. . -6 06.47 -!12 . 4 - -C -41-2 --7 12,01.:m Y -r 7.rr;41t-4 1 Â» /2429 90 FL .2 . 3-7 Se.F'**4' 328 :JET'ITLE 51*TEMENT HEREON W>45 ACk:NOWLE[)620 n.lis FIR,r .Met - u \ - ~i~ * ~ 43 2641 SCIFT ~ C~ "7 -0'p~PZ!;4"0 Fl: 2 PARKS j 6. 3% FOF.E WEE TWIe PATE, A pyÂ· i -:20 1 1 _43 NY ~ 4 - 2 6 84 0 4% 2- SQ. FT 4- 04 - \ % *sv 4 0 114 CF 224 ~~ 4227 7 2 4 .6/ S 2755 SQFT. d'.6 O. \ 4 0, 4 119 /2,236 sOFT , + 4 % 0 0 0 2799 SQ.FT * ..1 43 VÂ»CE Ule*249 *5 FRESICâ‚¬INT OF FI TKIN TITLE COMPANY. or1*21- ~ , ' 3.- Fr *re 47 0 0,4 4 4,2 MY COM &115â€¢bION EXPIFKES _ ._*11~81.-4-~ 0 W Plb e 9 3058 SO.FI .Â·,/ 279 , 4 % 4% 4 1 . 112) C 43 116 4 '4 41 *, -*40 226 WITNESS HY HANC' AND SCAL i *. â‚¬ mot SO.FI 121 3 e S?/2 91 e. 40 4 V 1% . SAAU<..9~:CA UJUd:-i_i (- , i 4 t + 4464 saFT. 4-, -9 02739 SQ.FT. .,e v/D P * 118 . 30 8 228 x. t. 231 RACQUET NOD\/Tr :'UDLIC ~ 30,9 Se Fl: Â·~ v~ = - f m . P.rlt,u. ASPEN i e i. UZ,f f 'k, 3 49,1 so. FT. ' . , 123 r 0,9 ... I % 4 ' 2528 SQ FT , 4.4, 7.2. 9 1, .CLILI)6 GRANT OF Eâ€¢42 Ve 4 THIS FIR,T /49â€¢e -4 q '4, 4 27 â„¢SOFT,p ; 86.0 6 , I. t:,tr, 42/1 5 C}TY COUNC 11- 1 125 06,6560 SQ.FT 2 0 120 8 * 2776 SQFT Â·4 F ,9 44 I 4 / m /0 5 3 ptÂ· 142 / ' 40-, ,4 4% :2 122 e 4 - 6 ..4, e. * A... 3202 SO. 1'7 ~ KATIRÂ».1 6â€¢'14 # <21â€¢3, ~. â€ž G & 1 60 4 2663 SQ.Ft 127 2 4 0 6 / -\42;4,1 4 v 14 0 292930*FT Y g' /2, 3 h \ ve, $ , 0 0 04 + 0, /4 140 ~Â» \ 16>,th \ \/ ~21 . 4 -NJ.(P CLERK j ..al 4\ -: 24 Z 77 -*46.- N 8500 TUE F1/**T A-11 1, r.4 Ai2271 90.,7./ 1 : 4 3099 SQ. FT. %14 9/ 0 , I 7â€¢ t .... Â·Â·/ 46\. 9, 195 x , 9.1-..0% .0 'f.:D ACCEPTED rof SPR'UCE STREET EASEMENT N. .9 .fk- 22243(JFL,/ \ /2 ':. \ /2 \ cr>uwrr oF arl *41 47 ~4 3449 k.,Â· - 0,.. A, EASEMENT FOK ROADWAY PURPOSES DESC.21SED AS BOLLOVÂ·/5 PLAS 800*f. 9 /2 * \4, \U f B .v & BEGINNWG KT A POINT ON Â·Â·E NORTHERLY- mUNOARY' OF HEREIN kilf i \\ CESCRIBED TRACT, Â·61& 4 6 Â°7' 128 /~~240 9' 0 0 714EINCE. 52-1*38 44'W ZÂ£) p.8 WEE-T, ~ 2924 90. FT ~ 27*46 i j 91Â· 5OFEET AND A CENT~.1. ALGLE OF 47'04'165 1 1Â»/ 4Â£\ 1 0 IMENCE ALONG TME ARC OF .2 1.RYE 10 THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OP' rim /O SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ' ~p/ t\ * I 36 t -HENCE ALONG THE ALL OF A -non./S M 1-ME RIGWr HAVING A RAOUS OF 044* 130 :187Â· SO FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14.-40'40', *14ENCE N 374<*"E 56Â·453 FEET, 1, JAMES F. RESER, A REGISTERED LANC> SURVEYOR, HEREBY CERTIFY â„¢AT 11115 ~ 2/0 2864 SQ.FT 3~ Â·4 91?T. 'D 4 - U-MENCE N78'15'IS*E -77Â·448 FE:ET' ronâ‚¬ INDINT OF BEGINNING. , PROPE 31 â‚¬-9-7 AMENI>te Â· SUBDIVISION PLAT OF 5MUGGLER MOBILE HOWE PARK WAS + 430% i FREPAKED UNDER MY SUPERVISION, THAr RE LOCATION OF THE OUTSIDE BOUNO- 32 132 Â° 3 if N evs, ,04 0 8,Â¢/941 AVENUE EASEMENTS A TRACT OF R tr< ARIES, AND THE SUSC)1Â¥15tON LINES AREÂ·ACCUATELY AND CORRECTLy SHOWN 0 f U D)44.bul M All OF â„¢ e Â·E HEREON AND â„¢AT 'RE SAME AKE BASED ON FIELD SURVEYS. i \ 'r*, 6/* 2879 3FT,4 2 â‚¬ 223... IN 7'HE EAST *11 140104/4* 134 Al.P~INE Â· RANGE 86 8â‚¬. 19â€¢SEMENTS FOR FCOADWAY PURPOSES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.Â· FULLY DES. fc: 1 -1 01*/.0 347)SaFT... EASEMENT LK" BEGINNING 4 1 THENCE N Â·uÂ»' N\,9 >el ACRES el J JAMES F RESER 4 -- 0 \9 (7 /9 ~ SUBDMSWON 'BEGINMING AT E.A.T A. 24.,THE MOST-WESTE,Ker FtINT ON THE. SITE Acon ... N BOUNDARY OF HEREIN DESCRIBED T9.6.Cr; T'HENCE N L .Â» 4 THENCE N 24~06''W E l5ZÂ· OO FEET. THENCE Nit-:3 L 5.3184 / Vr ge< THENCE S it' 57'00" E 135Â·85 FEET; TWENCE S ' Â·Â·Â·<- : i le THENCE N (2'Z' 55' W 67Â·56 FEET TE) THE ROWT OF aEGINMNG. SITE ADOIT : Â·>4 I + 42 / Ar#g / I. I. THENCE N, - / eu / ~.(2 000 / SITE ADOB . C ~ 10.SEMEN-r "8' .-- ... - THENCE N Â» 4 131Â£.GIN WING Ar E.ATA.It A POINT ON TME SOUTHWESTERLY SITE AC>On Â· 7 15,3UNDARY OF HEREIN DESCAISED TRACT THENCE- N // 65) / 1 -HENCE N 45* zzÂ· 35 FEET , , 0 .12 43 37%% 2 09 \ 00'00" E THENCE N *4. ~ , -- 4.2, 84,%g z ~ , f \ --3HENCE- S Ar 54'41" E 54Â·58 FEET , THENCE 5.7. U 1 LAENCE 21 347 55' 16' W 30Â·28 FEET; TMENCE N " U.,0 6. 2,/ 4 n.Â«NILE N54'52'17" W 58Â· 10 FEET TO THE POINT OF INEGINâ„¢lNG . RENCE 5 9 1 1 THENCE N 1 - THENCE N 4 '.2Â¥4 ' I THENCE N Â·11 --\ i -- - THENCE 1 , THENCE S.' / Â·23 THENCE S Â· ...' - \ /.3?/ \ THENCE 5 ....... HEERY design Heery International Inc. 82016th Street Mall, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80202-3219 720.946.0276 + project number 1121900 1 _ASPEN VALLEY *9Â«91 3===- lilli 1 11 1 - . 2 1 .Tivwlrincmvit'4" 0.--=9-r*j~'11.9-27 t HOSPITAL //f_ j Il'; Ill Il] I!'1IlllIll]-Ill}Ill~~' '.i~I I fl-I -'.!211 I.Kzz] I Let='11221 ri-- ..rr -/ 4-. -.. ---- ' N'~I~RTIA 1 1 1,/ 1 1 â€¢11,â€¢ , -â€¢ 14 13â€¢.-. â€¢.1[.... h'.'.râ€ž.Â· - Ci'/ 1 PHASE 3 AND 4 TIJ{i sr z--A:#,~z# IE *f- i- Itime _~~,~tl~Yt['*~~~Fl~*;~*1*2!**E*lj-r--i- .20~ ~i#t*JI~Enlt~~8{4= 7 Irr-4 ADDITION/EXPANSION - - 1111-==111-t-- 1---7-1 I , 1 1 - - L -1.- Ill 0401 Castle Creek Road 1 1 Aspen, Co 81611 L SOUTH ELEVATION consultants/construction managers - Suuctu/1 Consul~ants Im DHM Design 3400 East Bayaud Ave. 4300 311 Main St Suite 102 Denver, CO 80209 Carbondale, CO 81623 3033995154 / 1303.3339501 970963.6520 / f 970.963 6522 BCER Engineering Gallon.Sne~v 5420 Ward Road, Suile 200 1920 Market St. Suite 201 Ar.Â·ada, CO 80002 Denver, CO 80202 303.422.7400 /1303422.7900 303 433.9500 A 303.4335624 Sopris Engineenng 502 Main St, Su le A3 Ca~bondaTe, CO 80623 970.7CM.0311 N 970 704.0 31 3 seal/signature issued for date .. PHASE 3/4 FINAL PUD AUGUST 10, 2012 item date 9 -- 1--- ---1 k 1.- '-r I 3.1 'U H""'i'1""I"ll""11'11'11"11!lili. IllÂ·Ill.... L i. ..m. E 1 ----' !119=-=5---- 1 11 m I m =111 ~ 1 2* 1.11 In i, -4|E, 416=-2--7F l--lluiLII -IN. ~I, f -''ll, .,i~- ~ '1 1, JIZIJIJ;RIIEIIFI]El'$121*Ii [~Il*Ill~ .....Mi-Â· 2.-~2Â·.2.-~t- ~13%2~Emyl-17.3.727 L ilr z: 1-Zf.5/fl~~-,i tp~I Â·U;~'L.IEZ~|â„¢~~~ 7- Â·,1 1 Â¢ r' 17 -Â®89'67 --lit/1-,-Â· n . -7 1 .... :-:1- Â®'ihejl,Ilillii,tlif.....-lf."IR? 2.--IT--1--I- ~ - - ' - -' Â·1932~ c'd~- 4~,411-/164..7 Â· Â·:Â·Â¥ 1 0 10 2. . ~~~&----87 SCALE: 1'=20 WEST ELEVATION key plan sheet title SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS 4 sheet number A-202 =*ue":~i,tup,upe.4 'Hco~lrle.Â·-~I~r~LI: *Hcâ‚¬r, I-â€¢~,4~n' n: ic,~iy *:Irefc. In:k,dingcool# lirna, oN, hcusc:~0-0~=%Bec~ drawn by checked by Il=mal..1 Ina... I.;: H.:fy.%1.4* ...././.::.17% ./.pro,za Co,03~22011 D~-:~~le,u- k :** I .=.....=ple..,1130.-me/Â·01.:wilm'pon.r~nie. Hâ€¢Er, 1.,rn:,~or'll ~En,Wof,of#'Â·0,0,0.no~de.Gien,Ir,rea '-/WÂ·.6,Edfof~y-'-M W,1EW ~OrTED A, All ~ZE TIÂ·,5 91[Er U[ASCnES W..t,Â· I E-lhes A- 0 ~ design ~ Heery International Inc, 820 16[h Street Mall Suite 200, Denver, CO 80202-3219 720.946.0276 project number 1121900 0 -ASP_11_-liti_I_J HOSPITAL riI.--1 m, n, 1-,fr-lrmfinfiftifitr-flirlÂ·Tnmlit-; -1- 1 -i-T i: " Iil 11' 1, 1,11 ' 1 1 1 1 1911111#111 b , ~ rek Â· --*Â· *. . r 4' E~' 4Â·~2 ' i 1 - ~ ~1 +I k : 1 W i I 1 Vi t : /1.L / 1 ' ~ t . I I . ,= , 0401 Castle Creek Road - -f ki-*. '- -' / 6. 3- t.r -I .. '-1---4 1 111111111 . ..- . .-1 -11 111'111~ lili - 11~ 'i~11 'll'~111!lit.MUDI"r~Â§ 4 .. ...- l Aspen, Co 81611 =_ ~ ~~~~ - , . NOTE.Â· OXYGEN PAD STRUCTURE NOTSHOWN FOR CLAR/Ty consultants/construction managers ' 19./.. . - * Structurl Consullanls Inc. DHI,1 Design 3400 East Bayaud Ave, #300 31 1 Mair St, Suite 102 Denver, CO 80209 Cafbondale, CO 61623 r .=3 303399.5154/ 1303.333.9301 9709636520 / 1970.9636522 BCER Engineering GaunÂ·Snew 5120 Wad Road, Suile 200 1920 Market St Suite 201 Arvada, CO 80002 Denver, CO 80202 303.4227400 /1303 422.7900 303 433.9500 / f 303 433 5624 NORTH ELEVATION 502 Main 9. Suite A3 Sopris Engineering Carbondale. CO 80623 970.704.0311 ; [970704.0313 seal/signature issued for date PHASE 3/4 FINAL PUD AUGUST 10, 2012 I item date lA |- - ) lili'11 111111 ~* 11 lilili 11 '1111-1--__-2 - . 17=- 1 Â· 11, 1 A : I I - -1 1 .~fFU -9-.--2 - -4'31 9 w Â·Â· ~-I---7------*-?~ . -- Er- --=E1--1-Ii-- r -4-.4,.6 :r.-- =4-4-4 --1-4- -' ~ | r---2- fl~. M. IM 1, , , r ---- ..r.. Ill-Ii-' Illi~-I- - n . 1 _.+. - -1 91 1,-J .. -- f~ n -:-1~ r z _ .~4622.- r 1 - tri- :t . .01' 1- . C - ... . '. 4Â·T '1- t.-=LIFE ~.3,-=f I , -E -313 - --1 '" 1-EL-1 r -==7 - 4 V -R - T -1- 0 10 N . $ SCALE: 1-=20 EAST ELEVATION ~ - ' - - r kepâ€ž7 sheet title NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS sheet number A-201 .s jocurna I.:cpcloâ€¢}~,2/ '1-te:1 1,~or.Â¢/*71.2 -.114 icur=/ ....M.411..COP.I. I..,on..Im.'-rn.,Or'll./.-ry drawn by checked by /*:cr~.k.k# .hle!*c'/Mux. Ll:.~pi~v.#Ce .*speakp.* Com....' Iâ€¢u*1-Wm~bcâ€¢M IMI /1rg-1Â§rv,G.ve =00Â·iÂ©'crâ€ždiol~urâ€ž,exw~** Mma,~tbaciadbÂ·J-yoecÂ·.ixse VAâ‚¬4 fLOTTED Ar nAL SIZE TAm SPEE- incs inw â‚¬lceptn--ue,1.ir,n*ognscment/' 2~curpens,)/3e&Â·arr~o-Â·~tre e. e. LEGEND HEERY design CIRCULATION: PUBLIC CIRCULATIONÂ· STAFF/PATIENT NEW BUILDINGFOOTPRINT/EXPANSION CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINT/RENOVATION Heery International Inc. 820 16th Street Mall, ~ ELEVATOR: PUBLIC Suite 200, ~ ELEVATOR: STAFF/PATIENT 720.946.0276 . ~DOO'bo~40 OU[Jor Denver, CO 80202-3219 rl EXTENT OF PHASE 1 project number 6:3 APPROVEDAND COMPLETED V OCK' CIKEn gamal 1121900 ~ EXTENT OF PHASE 2 ~I~*~~T r~Ill- APPROVEDANDCURRENTLYUNDERCONSTRUCTION /\3 ~ APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 9% UUM El m 4 1,15-1-*' 11 EXTENT OF PHASE 3 " VALLEY ROOF Hi*EdI K24 ASPEN ~ EXTENT OF PHASE 4 *1121 ~H OSPIT A L APPROVEDAND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION CEI '*04_ 0 3 PHASE 3 AND 4 m a 11 - ---w- , ADDITION/EXPANSION 1milk[[1., ~ N Q ~ ROOFQ ~ | g* ~ ~ 2 . *0 Â¢10N@ *7Â¥Â®ttljf 43 *AB. ~| 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, Co 81611 nÂ·, r, i ..#n. 1-, i in in m.'..;;. ER aff 5/#. =3 Â«0 1.â‚¬Â§ Em ' EU:,22\ **r Jh,airvaiI consultants/construction managers - =1 Slruau:al Ccnsu lar,!5 lic DHM Design 1400 Eas!BayaulA' 200 311 Main St. Sude 102 . Denver. CO 80209 Calbondale. CO 81523 BCEREÂ»enng Gantr,+Snow i 303.399519/1303.333930 970.963.6520 1 f 970 963 6522 I COURTi Â· 1 5420Ward Read. Me 200 1920 Malkel SL Stille 201 Ariadia. CO 80002 Denver, CO 80202 COURTYARD 303.422.7400 i 1 303 422.7900 301â€¢33.9500/ 1301433 5624 111 111111 , 48 1/ 1 1.1.'lili 111 502 Main St Svile Al Scpns Ec.gineering - ~A Carbondale, CO 80623 970704 0311 / 5970704 0313 - IC seal/signature -1 MEDICAL ' < * M OFFICE U - ~*3*94[. 4 SPACE u. 1 - ROOF -iH~.i~[[8 -1 - 1,161.A .*9Â°7' IN = ~ 01â€¢ ./J 1 - date 1 . ==r -Wei issued for PHASE 3/4 - 1 2EE FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012 / I lii t item date OPEN TO BELOW rÂ·8*ht 4Xitft-7 [9,8 4-2 -At' \,1/~ - 4=025=646â€ž 7. 4721 PLAN NORTH / 11111'll V--11 / \li SCALE: 1'=30 \ f key plan r sheet title LEVEL TWO e sheet number AF-102 lu ##. - -V#mu-UB**#*ID: I checked by **Q#- 11â€¢**mi~a-1;*--/* drawn by U,-1.-+C, ~h:, -Iâ€¢ ~-ry Weâ€¢-Uc-, -#I.t- 9 - coc~. *= coayÂ¥~I." .7.....,C... I.......,â€¢.410 -/imdorre cn.10--9,0.~n,~Illicta ilruy.~t/'God.Al,tu.-- W,Â·EN.Om. I FLU 5-. SI,E[ f I.'LAS LRtS 74-rW #-Ii.' ..â€¢Itâ€ž -*.1-- I... =m--fln .....In~-I 'r. 1Jifiltermm 0 . 0 /,ijaffs#,8 LEGEND ~- - CIRCULATION: PUBLIC = - 3 8-- 3 n (-- 1 HEERY design f Â© CIRCULATION: STAFF/PATIENT NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT/EXPANSION \,imi/,i,/.-W Heery International Inc. ,-- 5 - IJ'"1,111.11 CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINT/RENOVATION ~~ 820 16th Street Mall, ~ ELEVATOR PUBLIC . n*..M..' /21& 720.946.0276 Suite 200, ~ ELEVATOR- STAFF/PATIENT ri EXTENT OF PHASE 1 LOADING'K~h . . P.@51 n. Denver, CO 80202-3219 ~ APPROVEDAND COMPLETED DOCK Â» - project number ~ EXTENT OF PHASE 2 Cr-0 -0 APPROVEDAND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION i HEALING 1 0. ASPEN VALLEY o Â¤ =EXTENT OF PHASE 3 O - ~HOSPITAL APPROVEDAND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1 FL 1 ' GARDEN * - &Â£-4'1 ~ EXTENT OF PHASE 4 , '...4 4 .4,- .â€ž9 .-I i APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION J r PHASE 3 AND 4 8 -- PPO Â· r'- - I ADDITION/EXPANSION 1 1 RVIC . ~211: : 0 004'#N BIKE -1 r 0401 Castle Creek Road *662 - ~ TRAIL * Aspen, Co 81611 J =239*42 1 -, 0 127 712%11 . -1 D 0. .. LtSÂ° 0 7 0 ENS CA KI 3 - consultants/construction managers ..r 1 - SUUCUrBI COMU'tan/|nC OHM Design 1 11 - 1, Der,ver, CO 80209 C,mond@le, CO 81623 C MOO Est Boyaud Ave. #300 31 1 Main St, Sule 102 303399.5154/ 1 301333950 970 963.6520 1 f 970.963 5522 . a / b~~_ r BCER Engineeling GaOLnÂ·Snow 111.1 I OAU.LÂ·Â·-U-4- - , P737365. COURT ARD 9.- â‚¬""i .....â€¢Il 1 Ift. P 5420 Ward Road. Suite 200 1920 Market St Suite 20 A.Â·ada. CO 80002 Denver, CO 80202 f' 8 502Mainstsm.Al 1 11 Scts Engines,ing u .r--.1-Â»' U 30342274D0J13034227900 303.433.9500,13]3433 5624 -4 -1 LOBBY ,/ 44\-\30-,~46 0 E Carbondale,0080623 970704031 !lf970 7040313 - -4 + ED. O 1 / C 1, shvg A ~ seaFsignattlfe J / 1-1 J-/I â„¢11 -1 0 ' 6 0" 922 . PCU ENTRANCE ''.%1/ ,< ~ ~ABO~WE~~ 0 0 -7 OF 1 , < DROP-o~/23 3-- L.-1 2 8. -li V# P VICK : - - ___ issued for date T , TTL_ir i =-p=-1[7 1 1--2 -Iq N!- A~ , - -1 - -- PHASE 3/4 i . -: FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012 i LUJ |*p r-1-=U 1 - - -- Â· L 02- Lil/(in. -I + - - . item date 44111 â€¢ - - .. MBULANCE Â°LOBBY . DINING AREA - - WCAP ' f= | ARAGE & l~~~ ' . . : OUTDOOR" -- ROP OFF r-=-h~ <2 WE c 80 - - NCI] -9.- - -. ,MK~ENTRANG-f r= =7 Â©El- PLAN NORTH 6 - ' lh- \ , ~Ch .%089psâ€žGFEff-- j -1 -=-- SCALE: 1'=30 ~ 1111-1- 11-11111/F EME'iGENCY %*$* li \- M#%* key plan sheet tile Af_11_11--~ - LEVEL ONE --)A---- - 5= - 7==AA -52===- lilli CE'i- Â·1 R sheet number - AF-101 T~dreurlen~ iM ptoe**1*lincil 1. r:Meerâ€že0~:gr~la: furl. "m'Nedâ€¢."14â€¢GCW# ***r@v~cc,=c-,-h Hac4 drawn by checked by In-mld/-* -Â·~.4-,1"I.-De#'%/7~44.cr-#bl -*I.:â€¢4â€¢â‚¬ Co'/V'll/'1 =,Mern â€¢70,~On#/ IÂ·1Â·:94, f,Â·,e,d k.Â·IM**.#Wornâ„¢,~r.*= 'rr,ynÂ»t.Ix,ky.~ryolry.--% 'M../.CIAT 'll SlE IL+IS Slia./.&....Â·â€¢36- 0.% .I~Di~ -,c~.rm,n .,Irâ„¢n: W. 2.~ uwrI.*/ F~fl PI~.u~ I-~ 1- 1~1914~1447% 0 . 0 LEGEND HEERY design CIRCULATION PUBLIC CIRCULATION: STAFF/PATIENT NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT/EXPANSION LOADING Ii@18 - U . Heery International Inc. CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINT/RENOVATION DOCK 1- 82016th Street Mall, ~1 ELEVATOR: PUBLIC . PARKING GARAGE Suite 200, ~ ELEVATOR. STAFF/PATIENT rilitw 720.946.0276 '. Denver, CO 80202-3219 F.1 EXTENT OF PHASE 1 - 0. 0 0 project number U APPROVED AND COMPLETED Â· - ~ EXTENT OF PHASE 2 4----- - --I 1121900 APPROVEDAND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ APPROVEDAND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION . Â·Â·i ~HOSPITAL EXTENT OF PHASE 3 . ~1 Lj . - g -; VIN i i -- - | #0239, ASPEN VALLEY 1 - -0 - ~ EXTENT OF PHASE 4 r _- - V APPROVEDANDCURRENTLYUNDERCONSTRUCTION ' -''t 4- X, - -- PHASE 3 AND 4 -*L1 ADDITION/EXPANSION 1 4 ------------- l-3 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, Co 81611 ----- Sh,ckimi Consullants Inc. DHM Design consultantsPconstruction managers 2 1 -; ~.~ 3400EaIBityaudAve.#300 31 1 Main St. Suite 102 4 Denver.CO 80209 Ca,bondate. CO 81623 i k 303399 5154/t 303.3339501 970.963 6520 4 f 970 963 6522 0 1 SCER Engineering Ga~u/Snow 5420 Ward Road, Su le Zoo 1920 '95/ SL Sul 201 1 7 L n A, Co 80002 Den'el. CO 80202 303 â€¢22.7400 1 f 303 422.7900 303433.95001 # 30] 433 5624 . 11 Sepos Errgiee,ing 5021.'in St Suil .0,3 0 ' LOBBY -_Il Calondali, CO 80623 970704 031! / 1970704.0313 /161 Il Ili/5 ' seal/signature I. 1 M IMECHA@At. ~ 1 1 cr, 000[-v-lf,0 issued for date b /MEE-ING " PHASE 3/4 thuN[rRY-4 1 puLT ROOMS OBBY-// FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012 L- 1 .â€ž . ......4-+1 :.... - -1 item date RGE EETING La- lilli 1 m 1 1 1 OOM A-4UUÂ·V I 1/da ft=E . J !M!1:!q 2~ ' SHELL SPACE 0 PLAN NORTH 1 eg SCALE: 1"=30' key plan sheet title BASEMENT LEVEL sheet number AF=100 Tiv~ doalmoct ., 09 .pary of Meeâ€ž l,1,Â·rut,nol ~r.c a. Hee, Ine~krul Irc rUN I -*.*.'mll #*.*m-M=-* drawn by checked by I~u~I' l l .* ..6 N,y u .#./. I f.1 f. *... I. I./. /flt Coprl......H-V-/9........11 -9â€¢1,-al. -Wor,~.col-.ciÂ»,-#~~u,a ~-y,d.t,u,dÂ»r-yohv.* W,â€¢El PlOTTEZ) AT FUL=: 1,45 Slt/ET 1.'CASURE5 2â€¢Â·~06 =..#-9-~ -Â·-. *#/*rp~fr-~!0Akl-, Ir.W#.. â€¢ 1--: - '-7-y...I:*Irt'- '-IT....I-r~ 0 . 0 .Ft# E>rr- 4- 1"11(rd design .j - I Al'* Heery International Inc. J,V .44 820 16th Street Mall, A. Suite 200, Denver, CO 80202-3219 512.-=-/1/IÂ· - 720.946.0276 *_ft CASTLE CREEK ROAD -- --1.- / , project number / 1 ----- , 1121900 ----- ---- -*-I %-22292=0*. - -----0// --- A BUS STOP .u 1 ASPEr VALLEJ --- PEDESTRIAN TRAIL DOOLITTLE DRIVE g i \ HOSPITAL - Mo SURFACE PHASE 3 AND 4 PARKING :Ill:"1 PARKING -- STRUCTURE 11 ADDITION/EXPANSION STORM WATER j A, , MANAGEMENT 6 1 : 1 ' i i-TI i i i i , i . . ,HOSPITAL aullpINE | EL./ Z BASIN j - 0401 Castle Creek Road 0 % ==0 - (SHOWN AT FULL BUILD-OUT) \ 1 j Allm 1 13.-a_ _ 1 ---- L..1-- 1 4 / i 1 ~1~9~\ EMPLOYEE MA+1Â·,1 1, r 4 - 1 1 11 JA\ HOUSING \ I ' / ' Em>2L - ,~c:t~. i n i , \ Aspen,0081611 4, lit. 1 . 0 11 1 / DHM Design . consultants/construction managers b L I - LOADING + Â·, i = / .5 , Slructwal Consullants 1/c - DOCK .7 0 i 1 1 1- -,1.4 .1 : \ 34C0 Easteayaud Ave.#300 311 Main St. Suite 102 - Den,Â·er. CO 80209 Catondale, CO 0 6623 303 39&5154 /1303 333 9501 970963 6520 /19709636522 L n - Hm .3 1 .5 f / It . 1 G k 74 1 BIER Engineenng Ganun-Snow 5420 Wwd Road. Suite 200 1920 Market SL Suite 201 Arvada. CO 80002 Denver. CO 80202 r WHITCOMB , 1 -. I .4,â€žâ€ž . / '- 1 .'SURFACE 303 422 7400/ f 303 422 7900 3034339500 / f ]034335624 CEO I *0/~#~0) . ' 2 1 502 M ain St Suite A3 RESIDENCE i ' TERRACE a 1 +ARKING Soplis Engineering Carbondale, CO 80623 Ch,l L' 0 970.704 0311 if 970.704.0313 1 , -1,1 I / seal/signature 1, 7 0 % 0 1 1 , 11 , , Wt f / NORDIC TRAIL I , , 1 ...1.6 ~r' 1 . 1 1.1 ~... El '1 /4 .----- --*.---*+*+.I".~1 / 'f ~ :1. 1 '#2~TS.:1 1 1 . l / .1 / Il 1, 1 11 1 1 ' 0, 10 1 1 1, P 1 #, 1 1 3 , ' \Cl it / l k N kal i. I ' 1 1 , issued for date ' PHASE 3/4 DOCK \ LOADING ' 0 ~AMBULANCE , : FINAL PUD AUGUST 10, 2012 ...4 / 0 1 RAMP-\ / 1 i. ' item date - - 1Â« ,-11 11 1 / 1 / - 1- 1 --' 3 11_ 1.- 1 'J/-3,1 ' 4 - 4 ' ' AVH LOOP ROAD , EXISTING - AMBULANCE -- <-1 - -'Â»/ 1 BARN 1 // i- DOOLITTLE#RIVA ~, /f-_r ----.s~*1~.111'PARKINGMI'l JI=f SURFACE' - U.1\*im Llt ( ~ PLAN NORTH 7#r--7 - 11 - 1-21 4 19-RUC~THM, lel p P.ARISING. illÂ©~ El \ ~- ..1. Blittill!1111111111tteÂ¥1 . 111'~ 1.13 2 LEGEND SCALE: 1"=60' --Clx PHASE 1 ~ --~ BUILDING littlitij * I. 3 4 60\ NOTE: THIS SHEET IS PROVIDED TO \. .\11\\*Illd fy- I 0 ILLUSTRATE THE VARIOUS PHASES OF EMPLOYE W L CEO PHASE 2 PHASE 2 THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF RESIDENCE -~~~ ~~ ~ .. ~~~ BUILDING ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL AND IS INTENDED AS A DIAGRAMATIC HOUSING O (%%**y PHASE 3 REFERENCE ONLY. sheet title WHITCOMB HOSPITAL BUILDING PHASE 3 44.7.El BUILDING 411//nint i ; m,k.. MASTER SITE TERRACE | ..0,-' (SHOWN AT FULL SITE DIAGRAM -- BUILD-OUT) PHASING DIAGRAM PHASE 4 NOT TO SCALE -~~~ fÂ»*Â§2*1 PHASE 4 Â»6*/4.04 BUjLDING 29 6 EXISTING - - - - HOSPITAL _____ PHASE LIMITS/ AVH LOOP ROAD BUILDING " LIMITS OF sheet number (PRE-PUD) DISTURBANCE P-101 AMBULANCE --.-- &docwÂ£,dis/:p,MIDMMI/:I- -014.'Dcs/lk 'CW~S.r~blle- ~cU~~p,Â®hts 1,~,~tbcuscd~~r~~cfcon~c#*+V' drawn by checked by BARN -----224 ........c ...i. e~.cs.lhe,pcc.p....0/clencd.bc-0 -01! .07:.1-0-,! InC an flghuresa~ed Ce~Orm~efeÂ© R,1,1,adbcu.edf*cc.cei~.1,*csâ€¢â€¢â€¢.4~'I Wil.OrTED /7 FULL Sle TIS S.EET ./SuRES 24-le --*WidÂ¢Oinpe,kn. O14610cs,0~I MEADOWOOD DRIVE .. .. *eâ€¢*60&* ~ EL ~ ~snow stops applied North side 114 j Maple i . 2 4 11 5/ - I ...: ..+3# 1 4-4!'21 Â· Â·*;- ..Â·';::,Â·~:iN*AAÂ·21.Â·3RS**Â·IdÂ·~Â·râ‚¬y**U :-3.1Â·4.Â·Â·.**Ar *ki*/*'#/)11*4*16 . 1 . 1 % =4 f t... ' - I ... 1.1 Â£ ' 1 *9 ~ I bottom of widows 7 I ~foot off finish floor I -r-.0Â».~M,WI.=-rÂ¥* Â·Â·Aâ€¢L,~Â»:r. 1.1 1 â€¢ . ~ ' 11:*96 .-Ill 4.? ' 4 ./ I. f.1/....$127%. 49" 44'r: .4, 6 1 -3 ~ -I'~~/'I <.1-'.- . ,-~ .... Main level Floor plan 114 Maple revised from factory p. ext. stair fIS s -1JLC Â¥vindqw well window well t- C & 4-1Â» 1.-6 1--c,~ .2 4. .F........ - A- g ~ 12'-0" b* - 17f5' 1 0 68 5 1 0 1.21 - 1.DS,AL8" 'SOL..â€¢ 11Â£lb I f yaÂ»;,618Â· gil- ' .-14:9â€¢Aâ€¢ ..rn- ./4 ./f ..I-- Â«Â« 4- 1/ 18" \Ad- 1 2 h - 4'-4 11/16" A 8'-015/16" 11 7'0 5'-10" ' A' 101/2" -4- 3'-81/2" 4 2'-3"Â» 2'-6" 49 \43/16" -113/1 " -I ~ Â« 1 10-10" 1 21 1 th f i â€¢ 051 l living room 13'-0" Â§ I 16Lgâ€ž . /1 714 - 20 to EA .\ (4:;tb, Ce 10-10" Â¤11 2 - G 4'1 Al, ~ CO -- -' -L porc ~7 24 3 n - 9 I I 4'-1" '4 252" 1 UP 1 k + -1 + 3'-091/ 11Rx 10"11 I -1/ ' 60-9'~ v - :1-7 / A ~- 3'-31/2" 8Â¢ 1'-9 7/16(' - 5'-10 9/16" - 1~. ,Â£ 3'-3 7/8" '--A/r 3'-4" ~(,-10 5/8'~- 3'-2 3/8" 14 ~ . z'-00 VA..1.1. .11 204- 1*AÂ· 4 ,~Â·0Â· ~ 6'Â·fr ~ 0- 3'-41/2" ~ 3'-6 r-Â«r-ti ~-~Tr 0/1 -4. V 4 L___ /4 window well rp- s 6'-9" non factory added . 1 3'-1 3/8~" ~ ~I w 4] I . 3. -600 h 19 0 Office 6 4 Z windows and doors .32 u-value Gr--3 ~40-6 1/8"-1 0 4 4 9 4 430 -3 -- bottom of windows ~- i. 7 feet off shower floor 21'-10" 4 516" -1- 1 9~ . 44 -0 9/:6' 4 . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=e~~~~-6â€¢__. 2 07- .- -31 1 ~~~~ 3'-81/2" -f-- 4'-71/2" --f- 4Â»- 11;16" -9Â¢- 4'-0 7,'8" ~ 1'Â·0- x 4'-0 ;Â·0 16'.S luoÂ·XSÂ·-S 1'-0- 4-8 1'.0- *6'.8- 3Â·V x Itr 1Â·0Â·./Â·f 3.-0.* 10 0 1 ~Â·:16'-8- mech chase ia .9 L/9 t E-,E 80-9 3/1 ' | 13'-31/4" .01-,8 2-0. X 6~ 8- \%,7 6. .En O-,t .... 1 1 - es 7 - - - - -- - -- --- ... ~~ --_ 1 - --r 1 + 1 -9" P. 4 -4 2 _ prki 11 1 47 748Â· - - Ch - 6 4 s airw H forte r 1 - + - - - 3- - - "19 34- 174 â€¢ 39'-10" - - - 8, x - 1 1 - -- forF --1-4.-4-2- ~- - I- 41'-5. - - - 4'-r -r-32-7-t-----7-+4--r-t-4.-d'-Fr49-1-1.-+4-1-Lt-"2-F-42--rl- -4-1 6/4. 44'-4" 4-prf--1--1-4--7++4-m42__ _-r-~-_f _ -4--1--~-1~4-1-~-4-4--4- b l -4 1 1- 4 1 1-4-~--=TET-Jf ~--~-r--1-1_1-2-_1-1-3 -1- t-+ ,--t- f ,-I-1 1 : 4-4-1- 1-1-1-4-1-i-4-1--1 1 1 t-1--1 --Iff , -1 -1- 1 4 Ikt--9-1---r---r-+ 1 1 -2- 11 F t.4 9.- 6'-2' po c 1 1 Â»Â»Â»Â»6Â»Â»+71Â«klÂ»LÂ»tu_f-1 -~ 1 -f 1 +Ai-- -3 - 4-3 l I 1 -n-" 1 . 1 1 _--~4__r--2-r-42-rr+4-~9+43 F-4---r-j-P-+4--r 1-,r---94-4- _t ~ - - 1 5'-0Â« 4-2-Lk__[-1 1 4-_Ft-L '-81/8" +42-r-4---t----fÂ·Â·-t.4--r-t- 1-rt-~ --{ -1-rf-4-*Pt--1-9-7- -1-'-pt-2- -4--FL~J -Ft42-rt-&--r----F+4--Ft--1 1 07-liT-1 1 - 6'-8" ' -Et â€ž 2- - -1- - - 14'5. , Lv-4--' t-1 1 -+ 1 - -ff'fiff-Â«flf-- Aff~-0204Â»FOOf- ~---F 4---[-4~ 1-3----]--0-~---4---j - ~ Â»-r-AWAtl?kiEM)-4-[ACHE33)EF #90*ttiliff<2 -_t-gt~--rt--ff-i-if-ff 4 q,_ 1- ~ -1-~-j-P~ gÂ»HAA)6_j_~___-1~_Lt-t_ -1-1+-I_'-4- 4-1-~-543-4-rÂ«-4-]-1-+ 1 rki ~ ' 5 1 1 S- f 1 1 1 4 74-1--T+--~- r--- 1 2-rÂ«4-1-rrt--Pr-4 ' 7 '-1--F--ff-fi_t-tffr-'-~-Ir-~~54-j-~-- r-+-~ -~-1-4.-1 -rtt--1-I-tt---Ft--1 1 Jr. - - ---~ +4Â»ft-4-n at 1 '-11" 1 ! 1- 1, 1-3-rt-4-4-F-M-Â·-wrâ€¢- bacK E#*tppark irientrittioft 2 -- f--1-]-1L-Â·rf--t --~-F-4--- 5-t-f 3-r f -1- -1-'--r-1-*-'-rt ta-~-1- 4.--t-T-r-1.- -4-~-r--4 44 t " 8'-6" 44'-4" 4 4 " 1 / III foote in 00 e yl ~ - as - No h 41Â·-2~ P.L 1 d.9 1/9 2-.66 .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer RE: 114 Maple Lane - Residential Design Standards Variance - Public Hearing DATE: January 08,2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: Subject Property: 114 Maple Lane Monty and Camilla Earl LOCATION: Subdivision: Smuggler Park, Lot: 1. 114, commonly known as 114 Maple Lane. - 4-4 9.m. Current Zoning: ...16 9 (W a . ...4 R-3 / SPA , High Density 1/ 4\ Residential (R-3) Residential / Specially Planned --J Area q f Â· '.4, Yan 4. Summary: ... ..1 11*"./0.Rill.VI . The Applicant requests a variance from a Building Elements Residential Design Standard. --â€¢,41:MENI-,fri, 1,7.! a 66 6.dc# 8.,11 J~ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested Residential Design Standard Variance. Page 1 of 7 .. REOUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: Residential Design Standard Variance for the front entry door, porch, and street facing principal window standards (Building Elements), pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D, Variances. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) The variance is for 26.410.040(D)(1) Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Windows (D)(1) requires that: (a): The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. (b): A covered porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front fa~ade. Entry porches and canopies shall noi be more than one (1) story in height. (c): A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. Proiect Summarv: The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction. The residence is known as 114 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the Residential Design Standards (RDS). Staffs worked diligently with the homeowner to meet the Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building permit. The building permit was submitted on May 22, 2012 to demolish the existing structure and place a new modular home on a site built full basement. The permit was submitted without RDS compliance. The plans were amended by the owner to meet the standards. The building permit was issued on September 9,2012. The owner did not request a variance at the time of building permit issuance. as the plans met the Residential Design Standards. The owners are now requesting a variance from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard, which is the location of the front entry door, the requirement for a porch (or canopy) and a street facing principal window or group of windows. Staff analvsis: Residential Design Standard Variances: All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the Residential Design Standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home... contribute to the streetscape." Specifically the intent of the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard is to. "ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the fa~ade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions". Page 2 of 7 .. The Applicant's approved plan has a street facing door, a porch, and principal windows, all of which have yet to be built. They are requesting a RDS variance so they do not have to build to the approved plan set. This would mean the street facing fagade of the house would have no door, porch or principal window or group of windows as shown below in Figure 1. Figure: 1 Front Fa~ade, subject property. .. f. 41&4 ./ ' ./=/' 4 14.... , -.9}~=m *. .. .. f.-21,4 .1 . 91'r%:119.4 *. iz#*0#EMS The plan set was approved with a compliant design. Below, see Figure 2 the compliant elevation of the street-facing fagde as approved via the building permit. Figure: 2 compliant elevation '# .Â·Â·â€ži~>78*"WI"miMiV T -==-1_f-EI~~~~-- 1asnow- stops applied k ..j~ 41 -' |North side 114 - ... ., ..;per'jil~#2 21-' -_cl~app- _ ~ _~ kÂ» ...~~Â·f- 2 -,41111:Al' 1 1-10'0.- ' ..1,121 T~ r.wdr i --9.9,-*334:zzÂ»*Â£ *2 =1'-91[*1-,- -1 @SM i 4 +*- --Valsi:?Â·='"~p,â€¢c-tr~,*:erÂ»=asenÂ·ir =acqÂ·n>Â·mueÂ·Â·pÂ»f-REAR**= - 3.13 - 111 -1-1 1 1 11 -1 I' :fi:Â·-Xv'EP,~AM.Â£6....'.e. 0 1,4-rÂ· 6. ,7 â‚¬ ..2. j -.-Q ~ 4.4 ./,94-+*1Â»-=EEM..et 1 & ,.li4r 99//Skiffin ;014.-72.1Ift- -%. Â·Â· :-.iÂ· 1 :Â·Â· *29: F ....1 - 9-/ 15/AF- - 1 5 Â£ 82 ft 49Â» 17* 4 - 7 - imER bottom of widows 7 - -='TI~- 7-.4 .1.- 322- A foot off finish floor Ir,g .f~~,17*73 -e .RI -. AF: &=4 -7 11 '1 -1 - 9-ffll Page 3 of 7 IT-.-31.Tillill.n, 1 .. In general the purpose of the standards is to, "... preserve established neighborhood scale and character... and... contribute to the streetscape." A front porch provides outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape. The required elements help create homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood is enhanced by the standards. Without the standards. the streetscape and neighborhood suffer. Garages and solid walls facing the street do not meet the standard nor do they contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood. Below, see images in Figure: 3 which do not meet the standard nor contribution the streetscape within the neighborhood. Figure: 3 Structures which do not contribute to the streetscape ... 1 P34. *-,7.-4-~ 21'/80 00 1.313#31Â· 11 1 B & 1 - ,.k . ale .* 5 Pe -* I.*1illir. 1//666:trir- ..ret#Â£1/04 42 ~ ~/0/; .44&/. 2. ...1. d 4 *m~.4 -Ill#. A.."<,Milli t + 34.l ICI~ _L.~_ _1 ,~ M ~ 14 934 Q* ...1, A =40 - E: a 0 4 1 11 09 . . - Â£//-'ll =, 'allirl '* - Lum-' 1 ., -- . . 1 -1- 11.1 1.11'J-- 1 -A JE 1 1 =1, L. Tiff Page 4 of 7 .. The neighborhood does not have a consistent pattern of development. The neighborhood is mixed with structures of varying ages; some homes have street-facing doors, some have front porches and some have street-facing principal windows and some have all three. The homes which comply with the three elements of the standard clearly benefit the neighborhood. Below, see Figure: 4 representations of structures which meet the standard and enhance the neighborhood. Figure: 4 structures which enhance the neighborhood L. ..% -9.6-fâ€¢ â€¢â€¢ 4 h - - . -1 tE. lilt i Â»--23 1 - -Il-- E '3 -77 11 1 '/1. 4.li~" 0 + ' Azz~f -9 -ip 'i. p &:1*6 ='* 1 1,7. 1% -44- t - 'att 6? 2.4- -- : *11 3*/ ....a- ... r .- i . .ai - - 1. â„¢ ".<.91 8 1 4 'f.* .214;h lf.1 1 lilil,~ 1.1. : V I. "Â· 20 i, I ' -* - 4 -4 22 .1.1 ~,0 1 1 11 -1 - F--1 ..1... .1. - ID ~.IP--- 1 11,1 1..,1 11 LAmÂ» + + .,ru t>- 7* - -0 - 93,1 I . 1 '/ 4 ' i b'*0 - 1.1 1 11 -- -; 4 Al ..'-1#1 ,2 1,[ 1 11 , r, -s 'â€¢ ..I. 1 i i 1- '. 1 11 1 , 1./E IAO . i .. L 96 4 'T '.1~ 1 11 '11 â€¢*br 11,1 *' . 1 -- *110* 9./11 10,1 - r 1 1, ...01 1 1 1 -14-1 . - 1-0,~/ 3 - 47Â¥,4 J 'iâ‚¬L Page 5 of 7 7wl .. There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2): 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. Staff Finding: Stafffinds that the request does not meet either of the two variance standards. With regard to review standard 'a', the context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if granted; the structure would not contribute to the streetscape of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some modern site-built homes. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-facing entry doors, porches and street-facing windows. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk, complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a d-welling. The architectural elements are the structure which enhance streetscape and help create the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood. The proposed variance with the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not create any visual interest in the neighborhood. The variance request does not meet the review standard 'b' as the site does not have a site- specific constraint. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards as part of their approved building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances. Staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDED 14OTION (ALL 1MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to adopt Resolution No. , Series of 2013, denying a variance requests from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard. Page 6 of 7 .. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Plans for Permit Page 7 of 7 ~C (Alle (4 47- p p 0 e-2*1 -1- 1 '2 < 1 Lt /2, 0 1 2 1 /CD " 1 CE Al 6,1 Opening/Closing a Case ....Lk. \- C : Ul-< *=1 tPA nc, + 1 A< 1. case assigned to planner by Deputy Director terv~.Â«. c l +-2 loc,: c)~- A. Billing Worksheet is located by case number in G drive G:\NEW G DRIVE ('CÂ»â‚¬Â·r+-1 /416- 42 - '0*\ 4~ FOLDERS CITY\PLANNING\Billing 1 ('2Â· C 1 3Â·-6, 2. ,"~ B. Case is entered into data tracking spreadsheet for planner to update G:\NEW G DRIVE FOLDERS CITY\PLANNING\Data Tracking\LAND USE PROJECTTRACKING.xls 2. Public hearing Date scheduled, if applicable 3. Development Review Committee is scheduled as applicable 4. Public Notice is provided ' fwhi & AG-(-Ic,f-. -n-='t, - 6- ut- 110.44â‚¬L 2 - 9..F li / 2,2> < 901 2 ~1,.,L |17ic Â«LÂ« cl.=a. 4.10 t 30 . 6: ~>c.â€ža' r- 3 a.> )\, 42-#*-. -t orn la /12-< 12 ' - 111 41,6 1. i "14,6 122Â«~ a.~. < ,< il ,/c..., 4- Â· 4 .. 4 1. '14/ JMve , , A , 4.-4-4 <=1 colÂ«-40 f 2-/ 2 CO b 1--Yl :S- f / 2 tor -1- -3 0 11/24 - 1 , it w k <O - 07*.iÂ» t:~ACT , 1 ... " t B \ 1/ * 1 1 -7Â· <i $ 1: , 1 j u,Z- ,-7 j C> - < -C < <. e~ . LOVÂ«.â€ž6=7â€ž Â£_ c Â·' ~*hâ‚¬~ urt-'v,+E_ A ef ft â‚¬13 1- e. '02 -En I : 4... . 0 1/3 /- e-) CP Â£ 6, r 4 2 09, upe-A n~ .. . I. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer RE: 114 Maple Lane - Residential Design Standards Variancei - Public Hearing DATE: January 08, 2013 Subject Property: 114 Maple Lane APPLICANT /OWNER: Monty and Camilla Earl REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. and Mrs. Earl, Aff./." Owner â‚¬*, LOCATION: *e; A. Subdivision: Smuggler Park Lot: 114 41 ~- Â· ,% 2. -4 1 21!1 - - -1 1 ~1 I - The property is located at the base Â· - -- Â· .~~- 74 r of Smuggler Mountain Road 1 -2 - CURRENT ZONING: .1 GIl' R-3 / SPA , High Density Residential (R-3) Residential / Specially Planned .- . 12#*#2012 Area 10 SUMMARY: The Applicant requests a variance from the Building Elements Residential Design Standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested Residential Design Standard Variance. Page 1 of 6 .. . REOUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: â€¢ Residential Design Standard Variances for the front entry door, porch, and street facing principal window standards (Building Elements), pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020. D, Vctriances. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority ) The sDecific standards the applicant requests variances from include: â€¢ 26.410.040.(D)(11(a): The entrv 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 (81 feet. â€¢ 26.410.040.(D)(1)(b): A covered porch of fiftv (50) or more square feet. with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. â€¢ 26.410.040.(D)(1)(c): A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. L.ed) Us[ Rtiouu,i's: The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction. The residence is known as 111 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the RDS. Staffs w'orked diligently with the home owner to meet the Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building permit. The owners are now seeking a variance from the Building Elements requirement, as outlined below: Variances approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.110.020.D, Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from L.U.C. Section 26.110.010.D; Building Element:o (requiring . ..the entry door to face the street, a porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, and a street facing principal window or group of windows.) Ihe Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction. The residence is known as 114 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the RDS. Staffs worked diligently with the homeowner to meet the Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Applicant is requesting variances from the Building Elements, entry door requirement for a new single family home, specifically: section 26.110.010.(D)(1)(a) requires, "The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front most v.rail of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than elÂ·gt///**tieet: Page 2 of 6 .. 26.110.010. (D)(1)(b) A covered porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') fect. shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopics shall not be more than one (1) story in height. 26.110.010.(D)(1)(c) A street facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. The building permit was submitted on May 22, 2012 to demolish the existing structure and place a new modular hone on a site built full basement. The permit was submitted without RDS (Residential Design Standard) compliance. The plans were amended by the owner to meet the standards. The building permit was issued on September 9, 2012. The owner did not request a variance at the time of building permit issuance. as the plans met the Residential Design Standards. The pre application for the RDS variance was sent August 9, 2013. The application was submitted on October 10, 2012. The project is complete with a Conditional Certificate of Geettraney:- The owners are now_requesting variances from the Building Elements requirements. which specifries the location of the front entry door, the requirement for a porch (or canopy) and a street facing principal window or group of windows. STAFF ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: ~ All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the i=Residential d.Design Sstandards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places. .that each home... contribute to the streetscape." | Specifically the intent of the Building Elements standardi A-are_to, "ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the faâ„¢le, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions" The Applicant's approved plan had:+ a street facing door, a-porch. and principal windowsall_ofs Whhich have yet to be built. They are requesting a RDS variance in-efflep-thatig they do not have to build to the approved plan set. This would mean the street facing fagde of the house would have no door, porch or principal window or group of windows. Below, see Efigure 1: Front Fagade subject property. Page 3 of 6 .. . I. -~ ~'51Â· ~7 Â· -- 11-1 . . Â¥ Â· ..1 z # EN E ) 1 z , Figure 1: Front faqade (current) In gGeneral the purpose of the standards is to, "... preserve established neighborhood scale and character and.. . contribute to the streetscape." A front porch provides outdoor living space < and animation to the streetscape. The required elements help create homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood is enhanced by the standards. Without the standards, the streetscape and neighborhood suffer. Garages and solid walls facing the street do not meet the standard nor do they contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood. Below, see Figure 2: structures which do not contribution the streetscape. W- -4 12/21/2012 tÂ¢ /,/"P --el/"Pl' 12/EVE:~ili~ :~00.~~ Page 4 of 6 92( r .. --2*4 F.... L. 12#.5.-1 2 l' I ' . ' lk:. -1 1 Figure 2. structures which do not contribution the streetscape. The neighborhood does not have a consistent pattern of development. The neighborhood is mixed; some homes have street-facing doors, some have front porches and some have street- facing principal windows and some have all three. The homes which comply with the three elements of the standard clearly benefit the neighborhood and meet the standard. Below, see ffigure 3: photographic representation of adjacent structures in the neighborhood. - 74 0 ~44 1*Pfr-iltrILI tA'I#RI~ ~ 1;*52..1.'-.UEÂ·62=ija,~ i;!11- L- Figure 3. Structures in the neighborhood which meet the standard. There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2): 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. Page 5 of 6 .. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request does not meet either ofthe two variance standards. With regard r believes the requested variance does not meet review standard 'a'c_ffhe context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if granted; the structure woidd not contribute to the appropriate design of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers: some modern site-built homes and a fair number of square boxes with lifeless facadesfacing the street. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-jacing entry doors, porches and street-facing windows. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhances the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to M'alk, coniplete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character wÂ·hich is established by the \ relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they facen The front door establishes the entry to the home. It divides the public and private realm and provides interest to the streetscape. The proposed variance, the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows is not appropriate given the purpose of the standards and the mixed context of development in this neighborhood. In summary it is valuable to maintaining the standards in the Smuggler Park neighborhood where the mixed nature of the neighborhood uÂ·ill benefit substantially. The variance request does not meet the review standard 'b' as the site does not have a site- specitic constraint. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards as part ~ of their approved building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances. Staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "1 move to disapprove the application for variances Resolution No. --, Series of 2013, disapprove variance requests from the Building Elements requirement of the Residential Design Standards, to not have an entry door facing the street, nor covered entry porch or street-facing principal windows." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: 114 Maple Lane, Aspen CO Exhibit D: Site Plan Page 6 of 6 .. MEMORANDUM ~ To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer RE: 114 Maple Lane - Residential Design Standards Variance, - Public Hearing DATE: January 08,2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: Subject Property: i Il-,1 ,/Icipll LXX'v,-C_ Monty and Camilla Earl REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. and Mrs. Earl, -- I e--2.,b-~ Owner . LOCATION: -56. k 4.fÂ· ., Subdivision: Smuggler Park Lot: ~ 0 h 114 ..-....'.3. I 4....10. 4. Â¥ *14 A It The property is located at the IBHIP *11 I . base of Smuggler Mountain -.,=. -t , Road ~~;Â¥.... . t. ... + CURRENT ZONING: .* R-3 / SPA. High Density i EZ#DEI#m-_52 Residential (R-3) Residential / Specially Planned ' Â·Â·, 40*-- Area Â· SUMMARY: The Applicant requests a variance from the Building Elements Residential Design Standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested Residential Design Standard Variance. Page 1 of 5 .. LAND USE REQUESTS: r- The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction, Ther-residence- iÂ·s . Ill),\ 60Â¥ 41 , 4 491 known as 114 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the N~. Et-7,Â£2Â£ Staffs worked diligently with the home owner to meet the Residential Design Standards prior to /1 the issuance of the building permit. The owners are now seeking a variance from the Building ~ L.glements requirement,-ag.-eutlined_belowe of- 144 1.22-'houÂ¥ Ttici--[ ike-9.,\ 41-0, ICLO,Ct 4 + ~N apek,K-:arl + ref,Uâ‚¬AtA Â«- \Rt #1 U '3 '1 4 Wibbraval-__from--the Residential Design Standar* pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.410.020.D, Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D; Building Elements (requiring ...the entry door to face the street, a porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, and a street-facing principal window or group of windows.) The \ X.Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. Vy PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting variances from the Building Elements, entry door requirement for a new single-family home, specifically: - ~AEE-fion 26.410.040.(D)(1*)(a) requires, "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. ~ 26.410.040. (D)(1)(b) A covered porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. 26.410.040.(D)(1)(c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. The building permit was submitted on May 22, 2012 to demolish the existing structure and place a new modular hone on a site built full basement. The permit was submitted without RDS (Resident0 Design Standard) compliance. The plans were amended by the owner to meet the . standards, Fhe permit was issued on September 9,2012. The owner did not request a variance at the time of issuance as the plans met the Residential Design Standards. The pre-application for the RDS variance was sent August 9, 2013. The application was submitted on October 10,2012. The project is complete with a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy. ~- The owners are requesting variances from the requirements which specifies the location of the ] front entry door. the requirement for a porch (or canopy) and a street facing principal window or ~roup of windows. STAFF ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410. Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home... contribute to the streetscape." Specifically the intent of the Building Elements standard is to, "ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the faGade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions". Page 2 of 5 .. ~he Applicant* s approved plan has a street facing door, porch and principal windows. Which - have yet to be built. They are requesting a RDS variance in order that they do not have to build to the approved plan set. This would mean the street facing fagade of the house would have no ~ door, porch or principal window or group of windows. Below. see figure 1: Front Fagade subject property. 44'. + -0 ic ... - --41.........&9"1 - ./- ........ 44 4*:r~,9 b ...kag . - 4 .*Â¥3 . e 4 U........./.2 .t-Il a t., 3.-20~6 ...;.. t :49 I + â€¢ â€¢..* 1/# 42 ... --I .. ly'lli"..da 0 * m~ 1 ~~ *- 7$4FÂ·'24 Â· Â· , *.* ... t. 51 ..~ JIT ig#0392@12 :. Figure 1: Front fagade In General the purpose of the standards is to, t.. preserve established neighborhood scale and character ... and... contribute to the streetscape." A front porch provides outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape. The required elements help create homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood is enhanced by the standards. Without the standards the streetscape and neighborhood suffer. Garages and solid walls facing the street do not meet the standard nor do they contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood. Below, see figure 2: structures which do not contribution the streetscape. Page 3 of 5 1.--.r.wj~f~~~ . - Le -*/-- . r.-+4 4 - . i ~-â‚¬ 4. I -Ii"/ ~. ..... 4 -m///1///Im- # 7 .: ..... . ~ -SP, 1 . I /*-* . * 1- + I . 1 -I#*t- 4****A1.-I- . e 41. 12#28/2012 *f IC;Zill/St,Ld le.. . . - IN- 1. t.~ :--=n:. â‚¬ ..hfiP.Jl il .1- - 1..'*./. 11 ... .... 1 ..JV-92/ I . m.= 393.'Ble XIII -* 1..11 Figure 2. structures which do not contribution the streetscape. The neighborhood does not have a consistent pattern of development. The neighborhood is mixed; some homes have street-facing doors. some have front porches and some have street- facing principal windows and some have all three. The homes which comply with the three elements of the standard clearly benefit the neighborhood and meet the standard. Below, see figure 3: photographic representation of adj acent structures in the neighborhood. L %2** . :Lt~ 1+WÂ· 117* , .+ '4"- 3Â¢ ./.1: .....ra -4.-al p.4lf #-i e-47.1 - w ~ + ~ ///i""m,;; i.... . ...1. Ull 7 - h.--- -, J. v.*q ~ 12#297Â®IM -m,~Â·â€ž~vÂ»~,Â·W4P~:. a ~~ ~42 Figure 3. Structures in the neighborhood which meet the standard. There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to . grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2): Page 4 of 5 . I. a. Provide an appropriate desi~r pattern of development considering~ context in which the ~develofment M 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. Staff Finding: Staff believes the requested variance does not meet review standard 'a'. The context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if granted; the structure would not contribute to the appropriate design of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some modern site-built homes and a fair number of square boxes with lifeless facadesfacing the street. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject pr operty have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-facing entry doors, porches and street-facing windows. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhances the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk, complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face . The front door establishes the entry to the home. It divides the public and private realm and provides interest to the streetscape. The proposed variance, the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows is not appropriate given the purpose of the standards and the mixed context of development in this neighborhood. In summary it is valuable to maintaining the standards in the Smuggler Park ~ neighborhood where the mixed nature of the neighborhood will benefit substantially. The variance request does not meet the review standard 'b' as the site does not have a site- specific constraint. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D. Variances. Staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to disapprove the application for variances Resolution No. , Series of 2013, disapprove variance requests from the Building Elements requirement of the Residential Design Standards, to not have an entry door facing the street, nor covered entry porch or street-facing principal windows." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application - J[ Exhibit C: 144 Mapletanes Aspen (30 ,Â£{fn.5 Â·-Â·(~r ~07N Â·k- ~ Exhibit D: Site Plan-=24*J 0541 1-Â« A 1 Page 5 0 f 5 .. Â¥ 1 Resolution No. X (SERIES oF 200 5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM THE BUILDING ELEMENTS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD AT 114 MAPLE LANE, LOT: 114 SMUGGLER PARK (2Â¢20- SUBDIVISION, CITY ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707490114 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Camilla and Monty Earl, represented by Mr. and Mrs. Earl, requesting Variance approvals from the Building Elements Residential Design Standard, at 114 Maple Lane; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. Variances, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve Residential Design Standard Variances, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application. the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Variances from Residential Design Standard - Building Elements (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(1)(a); Section 26.410.040(D)(1)(b) and, Section 26.410.040(D)(1)(c); 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 the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 8. 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No X, (Series of 2013). by a _ to _ bra-five to-zero (4 - -49 vote, aFP,e~?Wtne Residential Design Standard Variances; and. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds applicable development standard 26.410.020.D.2.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:) and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. . .. Â¥ 4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby .appeejteâ‚¬ variances from the following Residential Design Standardj 010 "60 â€¢1=IN:e.Section 26.410.040(D)(1)(a), Building Elements - 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 door shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. , Section 26.410.040(D)(1)(b). Building Elements - A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. 0 Section 26.410.040(D)(1)(c). Building Elements - A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. Variances are granted to permit these (street oriented entrance, covered porch and street-facing principal ~~,~ window) elements to be absent from the street-facing facade as outlined in exhibit A of this resolution. 94%1 The*lanning and Zonin-4FommissiÂ® has detdhnined~thEDariance feihestj me*the re*3- criter~outlind<01':U.C. Sktion. 26.41~~20(D)(14(a)/ -/. Section 2: 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 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on January 8.2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONNING COMNIISSION: Jim-Truel~ecial Counsel U Erspanner, Chair ~ Le#bie (16,1 n .. ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A: North Elevation Af/nk 41- 0 Airn- in: si-oct-, ve:- 13<~Fir hic/uâ‚¬6 6 4 wl 11Â£: 41 R'#4 . Â¥5uild,rli Crier,-A-75 1.--- KISS lk, 2 \1 4-. le n Â£ s 2.<ft. 415</-,Â»t ~ntroduce: yourself ' 7-c S .- Hello I'm Claude Salter. I am one of the Zoning Officers for the City of Aspen~ 0._SAA,â€¢/U: \10 I am here to day to represent the City in a RDS variance request. 1/ . 1 112Â¢114 1 925 The applicants are: â€¢ Camilla and Monty Earl, Owners of 114 Maple Lane, the subject property. 1-53.' )/ks 4-jÂ»: 4 fice.f- Topic: The applicants are requesting a variance from a Residential Design Standards known as Building Elements fortheir property at 114 Maple Lane, Smuggler Park. See page 2 of memo fo r d eta i Is. a-47': yâ‚¬ D The Standard is achieved when three components are present. They are: 1- Â· â€¢ front entry door â€¢ porch 9 -to 2 â€¢ street facing principal window All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the Residential Design ~tandards or obtain a variance. How we_got_here: Building permit was submitted The initial plan set did not meet standards The applicant amended the design to meet the standards and the permit was issued. See page 3 Figure 2. They now want a variance from the approved plan set to keep the structure as seen on page 3 figure 1. gurrently; â€¢ As noted in the Memo the Smuggler Park is comprised of a mixture of structures. â€¢ Many of the structure were there prior to the adoption of the RDS. â€¢ Important to note the structures which do ngt meet the standards see page 4 images A- F. ~ â€¢ And structures which meet the RDS, see page 5 images A-F. .. â€¢ Even though the typical modular ortrailer has a side entrance some add-ons have occurred which enhance the streetscape. For example see, image B on page 5. â€¢ In addition to home-grown solutions, another concurrent development was able to modifythe design and meet the standard. See page 5 images A. Variance Review Standards: See page 6 of the memo, they area as follows: There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2): 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 necessaryto determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. -5taffs recommendation: Staff's recommendation is for denial of the variance request. The proposed configuration does not benefit the streetscape, The applicant has demonstrated thatthe project is capable of meetingthe standards Approving the variance does not enhance the neighborhood character .. ~'d like to take a moment to have a respectful yet brief review of the origins and intent of the RDS: â€¢ 1994 a set of "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" adopted and implemented, through (Ordinance 35 (Series of 1994) as a temporary means of reviewing all residential structures. â€¢ City Council and the community were concerned with development which was too large and suburban in nature, it did not fit with traditional character of Aspen. â€¢ The development pressure and rate of demolition was alarming. â€¢ Historic designation of properties was not addressingthe rate of demolition northe replacement architecture. â€¢ City Council established policies which encouraged development to" fit within the context of that neighborhood's character" â€¢ Thus all development forthe next 6 months was reviewed to The Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines, a 42 page document â€¢ 1995 Adoption of the RDS were adopted as a , COrdinance No. 30 (Series of 1995)) â€¢ In summary the purpose of the RDS is to: â€¢ Preserve established neighborhood scale and character â€¢ Ensure that neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking, â€¢ That each home...contribute to the streetscape What are the options/consequences: What has been done to date: This question is for the subject site and the neighborhood in general. Specifically the 114 Maple Lane: Some of the development in the park proceeds the residential design standards. Much of the development in the park happened in the 80s. The park has success meeting the standards given that the RDS were adopted in 1995. The structures which meet the standard ~nefit the neighborhood by contributing to the streetscape. .. ~~resentations: What do you need to accomplish Consequences Have a finish: Purpose: to provide information and recommendation .. Presentations 5.26.10 Agenda - 1. Introductions. And, why are you here? 12:10 2. Presentation basics 12:10 - 12:40 a. Know what you need to accomplish - Chris b. Introduce yourself, the topic, explain the problem, what are the options/consequences, what are you asking/recommending, have a finish - Chris c. What's the problem? - Ben d. Who's your audience, remember the public - Ben e. Speaking in English - Ben f. Preparation - Chris, Jessica, Sara. g. Reducing white room effect and ways out - Chris, Jessica, Sara h. Encourage listening - Structure, telegraph where you're going, pausing, not filling the space, shorter is better - Chris, Jessica 1 3. Our past learning moments - throughout 4. An example 12:40 - 12:50 a. Ways to improve? - Group 5. Advanced topics 12:50-1:10 f a. Body language, appearance, room set-up - Amy and Sara b. How topower point- Drew ---- 9/&*-c -1,jÂ·-1%-Se-f-,4 Ant -7 01- ilpts,10 24--6 --- J I c. Know what you own - Chris d. Explain all sides - Chris e. Answering questions and when to stop talking - Ben 6. Real Scenarios 1:10-2:00 a. Your wicked tale and ideas from the group b. Give us your short and to the point presentation ~ Ok.3-4 Â«E- 4110 t)â‚¬â‚¬,la 47<1 .. Who are you? And. what are you talking about? Simple stuff, but it sometimes get's lost. This is especially important to the general public or anyone not familiar with your topic. Think about someone watching at home - do they know what their government is doing? Maybe not, so tell them. Have a beginning to your presentation where you introduce yourself and the topic. Describe the problem, the consequences, and what' s been done to date. Say what type of decision or direction you are looking for. What are the options? Have a finish. Define the Problem: Ifthe Audience Isn't Buying It. Thev Won't Care About Your Solution Think about any good movie or TV show you've seen - they almost always start out by showing you a dangerous threat or a challenge of some kind. You need to do the same. Don't gloss over it - talk about the problem in detail. Ideally, people in the audience are 1 1 , saying to themselves: i iii glaa I-m not that guy. You want people to sympathize with your situation, and be ready to listen to your solution. Once you've established the problem, then start laying out the tools available to reach a solution. Take the time necessary to describe the tools that can be used to overcome the challenge. Who is your Audience? Speaking in English to the General Public It's helpful to put yourself in the following mindset: Your audience is not so much the board or committee you're sitting in front of- it's the general public. By remembering that, ultimately, it is the general public you are working for and talking to - you can accomplish several important things: 1) Make sure that you aren't speaking in bureaucratic language. As bureaucrats, we can easily fall into the trap of using alphabet soup and technical terms that the public doesn't understand. If we speak in this "insider" language, we run the very real risk of disengaging the public and even losing their trust. When you're putting your presentation together, make it plain enough that your grandma will understand. Have you ever actually used the word "utilized" when talking to your grandma? 2) The Board you are presenting to wants to hear the explanation that they can use when someone stops them in the produce section of the local grocery store and asks them: "What on earth did you do that for?" At a basic level, the story behind your presentation has to make sense to people. Encourage Listening: There' s nothing worse that an audience that drifts away. Or, when the Mayor asks you if there's an end in sight. In general, shorter is better - get your presentation down to what really needs to be said. Telegraph the structure of your presentation - "I have four points .. I need direction on." Explain what the audience is in for -"I have a 15 minute â€¢5 presentation. Slow-down or pause before an important piece of information. If it a long presentation, create places to stop and check-in. Know what you own: Ever get caught-up in the decision? It: s helpful to look at your role in the decision process. You own the analysis, the memo, and the way you represent yourself, your department, and the City. You own the professionalism of your presentation and the clarity of options. And, you own your professional recommendation. You don't make the decision; you facilitate the making of a decision. Explain all Sides: Have detractors? You get to speak first (typically) so use that to set the tone of the discussion. Explain their points - give their position just due. This tends to deflate some of the passion and takes away the element of surprise. It lets someone know that they've been heard. This also describes the entirety of opinion out there and helps a decision- maker understand the context of their decision. e Eâ‚¬Â¢bpitt ---4 97 <i O f P 09 < *i 61 a LY DLL< '6 1.Â£_~LD After your Presentation: Answering questions and when to stop talking After you are finished with your presentation, at some point the board is likely to ask you questions. There are a few helpful hints to remember for this phase of the meeting. 1) If you have the slightest doubt about what the question means, go ahead and paraphrase the question back to the board member: "Just so I understand, you are asking ..." 2) If you don't know the answer, don't try to paper it over. Just say you will find out and get back to the board via e-mail or a follow-up memo. 3) Sometimes, a board member will make a comment about the presentation, without asking a question. If they have not asked you a question, do not feel obligated to comment about their comment. You aren't there to get into an argument about their opinion; you're there to provide information and your recommendation. After a board member has simply made a comment or a statement, I have been guilty more than once of feeling obliged to converse with them, as you would on the street corner. It' s important to remember that this is a different kind of venue: The board member may just want to make a statement and not hear from you. If it seems like they are looking for a response without having asked a question, it is perfectly polite to say, "I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking me." 4) There will be times when a member of the public will be allowed to ask you questions, or the board will ask you to respond to a question from the public. Items 1, 2 and 3 above still apply. Some public speakers will be intentionally dramatic and/or aggressive and/or irritating. That's their job. Always stay calm, and keep your voice calm. Again, it' s not your job to debate them; just to provide information and/QI_ explain your recommendation. However, if they have stated information that is -- uttrue, illizourjob to politely correct the information. Presentations - â€¢ Preparation - be in the right mindset to be effective â€¢ Know what you need to accomplish â€¢ Know what you own â€¢ Who's your audience, remember the public â€¢ Introduce yourself and the topic â€¢ Remember body language, your appearance, room set-up â€¢ Spend time on the problem, history, options, consequences â€¢ Speak in English â€¢ Shorter is better â€¢ Power points that assist presentations â€¢ Create listening, telegraph where you're going â€¢ Explain all sides ~ â€¢ Say what you are recommending â€¢ Have a finish â€¢ Answer, clarify - don't argue All Phases of Development Phase 111 Phase IV Proposed in Current Proposed in Conceptual Phase I Phase 11 Phase 11 Application Difference Phase 11 Application Difference Sub-basement 0 0 1,489 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basement 24,558 0 10,094 10,671 19,385 8,714 3,813 1,854 -1,959 Level One 63,194 5,721 18,856 32,715 33,280 565 6,128 6,721 593 Level Two 32,927 0 20,977 4,724 8,152 3,428 0 0 0 Medical Office Space 17,716 0 12,000 15,000 10,187 -4,813 0 0 0 Ambulance Garage 0 0 0 0 3,436 3,436 0 0 0 Subtotal 138,395 5,721 63,416 63,110 74,440 11,330 9,941 8,575 -1,366 Existing Hospital 75,700 75,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking Garage 76,000 0 76,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 290,095 81,421 139,416 63,110 74,440 9,941 8,575 Phase 11 Approved Additions to Master Facilities Plan Currently Approved Proposed Difference Above and Below Grade Comparison Proposed Affordable Housing 15,500 13,593 -1,907 Level Conceptual Build-out Difference Whitcomb Terrace Sub- Expansion 8,000 0 -8,000 basement 0 1,489 8,264 Below Grade Basement 24,558 31,333 Gross Sq. Ft. Totals Level One 63,194 64,578 Conceptual Approval 290,095 Level Two 32,927 29,129 Sum of Phase I 81,421 MOS 17,716 22,187 5,493 Ambulance Sum of Phase I & 11 220,837 Above Grade Garage 0 3,436 Proposed sum of Phases 1,11, & 111 295,277 Totals 138,395 152,152 13,757 Proposed sum of Phases 1,11,111 & IV 303,852 Note: Housing and Whitcomb not included 6>9123 .. P23 - EXHIBIT H Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (1/5/1Â© 26.470.080 (1), Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. Staff Finding: In Phase III, the applicant is requesting to develop 10,187 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial office space in the form of medical offices. This is less than what was anticipated in the conceptual approval. As part of Resolution No 3 (Series 2009 - Conceptual PUD approval), the Applicant is permitted to use the Mixed Use zone district employee generation rate. As such 3.7 employees are generated for every 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area (NLA); however, the employee generation rate is reduced by 25% or 2.775 when located on a second story. Section 26.470.050 requires that "60% of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development" be mitigated. Following is the employee generation calculation: 10,187 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft =10.187 10.187 X 2.775 = 28.26 employees generated 28.26 *.6 -16.95 employees required to be mitigated The hospital district has an existing affordable housing inventory in the form of the Beaumont, Mountain Oaks, and the CEO house. The Conceptual PUD approval memorialized the employees housed by these developments as 57 Full Time Equivalents and is permitted to be used as credit towards additional employee generation associated with each phase of development. Additionally, the redevelopment of the property is approved for new on-site and off-site affordable housing. The on-site affordable housing, with its mix of studio and one- bedroom units will house 28.5 employees. Considering both numbers, the total employee credit is 85.5 FTEs. As part of the Conceptual PUD approval the Applicant estimated the number of new employees generated during each phase of development for hospital operations. A total of 48.4 employees are expected to be generated with the hospital expansion with a certain amount expected to come online -with each phase Of development. It was determined that with the approval of Phase II that 19.98 FTEs will be generated by the medical office space and as noted above, the Phase III medical office space will generate 16.95 FTEs. With the development of Phase III, both the medical office space and the hospital function will generate employees and it is estimated that 20.16 employees will be generated by the hospitalfunction. With on-site affordable housing, only the greater of the two generation rates is required to be mitigated. For Phase III that is the hospital function. Phase IV's expansion solely involves the expansion of the hospital and the employees anticipated to be generated equals 8.46 FTEs. Page 1 of 4 .. - P24 FTE Credit Phase II Phase III Phase IV mitigation mitigation mitigation requirement requirement requirement Employees 19.98 20.16 8.46 Generated FTE Credit 85.5 65.52 45.36 36.9 26.470.090 (4), Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Finding: In Phases III and IV, the applicant is requesting 72,828 gross square feet (including the ambulance garage) to develop and expand the hospital function of the parcel. The director has found the hospital function of the property to be considered an Essential Public Facility and Council has determined that the employee generation rate for the hospital be based on actual audits that should be completed after each phase of development is complete. 26.470.050. General requirements. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: Sufficient growth management allotments are available for both the Essential Public Facility and the Commercial uses on the property for Phases III and IV. There is no annual cap on the amount of square footage that can granted in the calendar year for an Page 2 of 4 .. P25 - Essential Public Facility and the allotments for the medical office space were granted from the 2010 calendar year. Stafffinds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services building. The property is close to open space and some dense residential neighborhoods. The development is an expansion of an existing use with the addition of affordable housing. The site is adjacent to other residential and affordable housing developments as well as institutional uses. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The development is being reviewed as a site specific development plan and each phase of development will conform to the dimensional standards granted. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: Conceptual PUD approval was granted in 2009 and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the approval. Stafffinds this criterion met. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Finding: Detailed mitigation requirement are detailed under the heading of 26.470.080 (1), Expansion or new commercial development. The applicant is developing on-site affordable housing mitigation and has an available credit to usefor any mitigation requirements. Stafffinds this criterion met. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty Page 3 of 4 .. P26 percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Finding: There is no free-market residential development proposed in this application and the criterion is not applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Finding: The Applicant has been working with a number of city departments to ensure that adequate utilities/facilities are provided on-site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Page 4 of 4 .. P27 Exhibit I C \ 1 9~43 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus implements goals and policies of the AACP. â€¢ By providing affordable housing, it contributes towards a critical mass of permanent local residents with the Aspen Community Boundary - Managing Growth, Goal B, pg 18. â€¢ The redevelopment of the campus contains development within the urban growth boundary to contain and limit sprawl- Managing Gro-wth, Goal D, pg 19. â€¢ The site has multi modal transportation options through the trail system and bus service, promoting transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles - Managing Gro-wth, Goal E, pg 19. â€¢ The Applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce the impacts of automobiles and promote alternative modes of transportation - Transportation, Goals E and G, pg 23. â€¢ By making improvements to the trail and bus stop the Applicant is able to " Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate..." (Goal C, pg 22) â€¢ By using a palette of materials and range of building forms the design " Makes every public project a model of good development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the community fabric." (Goal B, pg 43) â€¢ The provision of affordable housing on the site helps "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods..." (Intent, pg 25) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services building. The property is close to open space and some dense residential neighborhoods. The development is an expansion of an existing use with the addition of affordable housing. The site is adjacent to other residential and affordable housing developments as well as institutional uses. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. Page 1 of 11 .. - P28 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development Of the area, as improvements to utilities and intersections may make future development easier with the upgrades that are occurring. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Under the current proposal, the application will be reviewed as an essential public facility (for the hospital operation) which has no cap on the square footage granted in a calendar year, require growth management approval for the development of just over 10,000 sq. ft. of new commercial space/medical clinics (net leasable) for phase III. During Phase II approvals, 27,000 sq. ft. was requested and granted for all phases of development from the 2010 growth management year by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Allotments are available for this phase of development. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The site contains a mix of uses including institutional (hospital/ambulance barn), medical office space and multi-family residential (senior and affordable housing units). The property is close to other residential and affordable housing developments as -well as institutional uses (county health and human services). No known natural hazards exist on the lot. The relocation of the heli-pad -will reduce a potential man-made hazard. Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already been impacted by Page 2 of 11 .. P29 development. The applicant is proposing to maintain a large percentage of open space and natural -vegetation on the site which is characteristic of other developments in the neighborhood, such as the Marolt housing, which tends to cluster development allowing for open space. The proposed development is compatible with the campus style developments within the vicinity of the parcel such as Highlands, the Aspen public school campus and community recreation center with ball fields and tennis courts. These developments are projects that have areas of concentrated development surrounded by some form of open space. Additionally, they serve important community and resort functions. Improvements to the site include safer pedestrian routes and an improved transit stop which improves circulation within the site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the redevelopment to an area that is already developed with both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace, minimizing the impact of the new development and maintaining a large amount of undeveloped land on the site. -As noted earlier, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and the proposal will maintain that feeling of openness. The dimensional requirements allow for the expansion of the hospital -white minimizing the footprint of the hospital on the ground and maintaining open space. Other examples of development, such as the Marolt seasonal housing, are clustered and maintain an area of open space in close proximity to the hospital. Staifinds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The Applicant provided a summary of the parking needs analysis in the Conceptual PUD application. The analysis considered alternative modes of transportation that can be used to get to the hospital and reduced the estimated number of off-street parking spaces needed for the redevelopment by approximately 20% from the originally estimated need of 350-400 for Whitcomb Terrace, the hospital and the medical office space. The conceptual PUD application approved 339 spaces without considering the impacts of an expansion of Whitcomb terrace or new affordable housing units on-site. Currently, at the Page 3 of 11 .. P30 completion of Phase IF a total of 356 parking spaces are proposed and broken down as follows: â€¢ Parking structure: 219 (with 10 spaces proposedfor the affordable housing units) â€¢ Hospital surface parking: 98 â€¢ Whitcomb Terrace surface parking: 31 . Affordable Housing surface parking:2 â€¢ Affordable housing tuck-under parking: 6 An updated trip generation plan, recognizing the changes being proposed recommends that the hospital and medical office space, with a Transpiration Demand Management Plan in place will need 315 spaces. This is slighly greater than what is being proposed. By adding the parking for Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing, 356 is a reasonable number of parking spaces. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4, The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development although some upgrading is required and those upgrades are currently occurring; however, as density relates to the number of dwelling units on a site and the last two phases of development do not include residential development, this standard is not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: As noted previously, the last tivo phases of development do not include residential development; therefore this standard is not applicable. Page 4 of 11 .. P31 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing housing as part of Phases III or IV; therefore this standard is not applicable. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD en-hances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: In general, the northerly portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state which is being maintained to handle storm water and continue the use of the area with Nordic trails. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 18.5 acre site towards the southern end where the hospital currently exists. Staff finds this criterion to be met, 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, the northerly portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state which is being maintained to handle storm water and continue the use of Page 5 of 11 .. P32 the area -with Nordic trails. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 18.5 acre site towards the southern end where the hospital currently exists. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed building is generally oriented towards the public street but is set back from the street, which contributes to the more open feel of Castle Creek Road. Existing vegetation currently screens the hospital and additional landscaping is proposed. Staffinds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has commented on the project during Phase II development. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: According to the application, the project will comply with all applicable requirements. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Site drainage was extensively reviewed and approved for the entire site by the City Engineer as part of Phase II of the redevelopment. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: The Applicant has developed the master plan to accommodate the multiple functions at the site: helicopter access, ambulance and service access, as well as patient access. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Page 6 of 11 .. P33 Staff Finding: The landscaping is planned to correspond with the two development zones of the project: developed and natural. A number of new plantings are proposed with a more intensive/traditional landscaping near the hospital and natural grasses, serviceberry and gambel oak in the natural areas. As part of Phase II's approval, landscape screening for the affordable housing is required and will be required to be field located with the approval of the parks department. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The undeveloped area of the site (generally described as the northerly meadow) provides a natural open setting. Enhancements in this area preserve these features. Statifinds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The Applicant provided a landscape plan with the Final PUD application for phases III and IF. Parks has reviewed the plan and has some minor comments with regard to standard vegetation protection that is required with any development and is requesting the opportunity to work with the applicant with field locating plantings to ensure that areas are ; not overplanted which could jeopardize the health of existing vegetation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: A variety of materials are being proposed for the redevelopment of the hospital: glass and different types of masonry. As an institutional type of use, the architectural design reflects the use of the building with a palette of materials that fit well on the site. The current designprovidesappropriatemassing andarchitectureforthe 18.5 acre site and the use of it as a hospital campus. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The Applicant has noted that Phase II of the building is expected to be designed to achieve LEED certification and that Phases III and IF will be designed and constructed in an environmentally sustainable way equivalent with LEED certified construction. Staff.Ands this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Page 7 of 11 .. P34 Staff Finding: Snow storage is anticipated to be handled by removal and relocation in the drainage basin. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, the Applicant has noted that the building is expected to be designed to achieve LEED certification and that it is anticipated that the building is designed and constructed in an environmentally sustainable way as noted previously. Snow storage will occur with drainage basins. Sta#Jinds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. Alllighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: As noted in the application, the site lighting that has been developed is intended to " be limited to fixtures required by code or as needed to provide a safe environment and clear wayfinding on the Hospital grounds. As part of Phase II outdoor lighting was submitted that met the city's foot-candles allowances and full cut-off fixture requirement; however, it has become clear that neighbors are concerned about the site's lighting. The hospital is currently reviewing options to lessen the impact of lighting.Work is on going with this criterion. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Page 8 of 11 .. P35 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development; however, two trails on the site are for the benefit of the public. Minor changes to the Nordic trail have been approved by the Parks department and the relocation of the pedestrian trail along Castle Creek has been reviewed to improve safety at intersection crossings. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The Water, Sanitation, Fire and Electric Departments reviewed this application and determined there is adequate service for this development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: At this time no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure are anticipated. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: The Applicant has been working with a number of city departments to ensure that adequate utilities/facilities are provided on-site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the Pt-ID has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: Staff believes that all structures and uses have appropriate access to a public street, with the majority of improvement constructed in Phase II and nearing completion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Page 9 of 11 .. P36 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Staff believes that adding a service access road minimizes potential congestion with general hospital traffic. Improvements to the access drives for both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace will improve circulation on the site inclusive of a deceleration/turn lane and improved RETA bus queuing area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: Two trails on the site are for the benefit of the public and will be provided appropriate easements. Minor changes to the Nordic trail have been approved by the Parks department and the relocation of the pedestrian trail along Castle Creek has been reviewed to improve safety at intersection crossings. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and ernergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Sta#Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing Page 10 of i 1 .. P37 and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding: The hospital master facilities plan has been developed so each completed phase can function as a complete development and permits the continued operations of the hospital as construction occurs. Sta#finds this criterion to be met. Pagellofll 0 4 EAT- K ' Pa8 ~~WN & ASS~|MM O l 75 i\Â©3 LIGHTING DESIGN AND ENGINEERING Aspen Valley Hospital Light Trespass Mitigation Options The purpose of the Light Trespass Mitigation is to reduce the brightness of the lights for neighbors. There are five different areas of concern: Whitcomb Terrace traffic circle area and parking, hospital parking lot, hospital parking garage, wall mounted sconces and loop road. Options to mitigate undesirable brightness and light trespass and AVH's intended resolution for each area include: 1. Replacing the LED light bars with built-in shielding bars to reduce brightness of the luminaire when viewed from off the site; RESOLUTION: AVH will replace light bars at exterior pole and wall lights as recommended. 2. Reduce LED light bar quantities in order to lower average lighting levels; RESOLUTION: AVH will reduce the light bars from 3 to 2 at all remaining pole and wall lights, pending new and final photometrics using the recommended light bars. 3. Change color temperature of the LED light bar to a warmer 2700K color; RESOLUTION: AVH will change aillight bars in pole-mounted lights to the recommended 2700K color. 4. Install LED light bars in the wall sconces with backlight shielding to reduce the amount of brightness on the wall; RESOLUTION: AVH will replace the light bars as recommended. 5. Selectively identify and remove some poles and replace with lower height bollards; RESOLTUION: AVH will selectively remove poles and replace with bollards, pending new and final photometrics using recommended light bars. 6. Turn off lights that are not needed after a designated curfew ; RESOLUTION: AVH has already implemented lighting controls including motion sensors, dimmers, and timers for the parking garage, the top level parking deck, and the entry lobby. 4, .-TI 0..7 I 7 .7.5 I 1..7 7 .7, . :.7! ./ .j r V - 4 .2/ /,7 -6 '97: Â· , 47 y .., 47+ 4 W .4 :40 fl, .1 ..7 ..7 rÂ¢' 1% '-7 '97 1: 7 .1 Figure 1 - Black cover plate Figure 2 - Spill light shielding on reduces apparent bottom LEDs 4r .. P39 Aspen Valley Hospital - Lighting Design Ideas December 28, 2012 Heery International Page 1 2 0 0 2700K 3000K 4500K 6500K -1 - 1 High Pressure Sodium Metal Halide [Quartz, Ceramic] Cold LED 90001(1 [6000-6500K] Cooper LED LighIBAR' [4000K] . . ~144:1%* /-- Figure 3 - The color appearance of various light sources can be defined in terms of color temperature, measured in "degrees" Kelvin (K). The Cooper Light Bar is the current specification. Recommend 2700K. AccuLED,i VA L.'ptiCS- ,.9Â£,71 5 Asymmetric Distribulions . fl Ama Typâ€¢ 2 ItoadwaY Ty, 3 Typ" *tangular Area Type 3 W.10 \ 5 Spill Light Eliminator Distributions SL2 s13 SL4 SLR Sll h O 3 Symmetric Distributions 11 4,05*plain rype S Square 4,05SquÂ·â€¢ro El. Wrt,3 W,10 IAnt lum 0 0.2-0 Figure 4 - The picture above compares the various light distributions and spill light control options. .. P40 Aspen Valley Hospital - Lighting Design Ideas December 28, 2012 Heery International Page 1 3 Specific Mitigation Ideas and AVH's Intended Resolution 1. Whitcomb Terrace The pole mounted luminaires on this property have the greatest visibility to properties and street below. So, loweringthe height of the luminaires will make the greatest impact by reducing visual line of site from the property to the offending luminaire. Mitigation options and AVH's intended resolution, pending new and final photometrics include: â€¢ Remove some orall luminaires, poles and bases at the traffic circle; â€¢ Replace some orall light poles with round bollards with fully shielded bollard without louvers; â€¢ Review additional landscape and exterior architectural lighting; - J,Â·t . L f, Fully shielded bollard alternate Current exterior lighting 2. Hospital Parking Lot The hospital parking lot has 12-foot high poles with LED luminaires. Mitigation options and AVH's intended resolution include: â€¢ Replace LED light bars in parking lot luminaire with 2700K LED bars with Type 111 distribution and spill light control; â€¢ Use black finish light bar cover; â€¢ Reduce the number of light bars from 3 to 2, pending new and final photometrics. .. P41 Aspen Valley Hospital - Lighting Design Ideas December 28, 2012 Heery International Page 1 4 2700K LED color temperature with spill light shielding on right pole 3. Hospital Parking Garage The parking garage LED lighting is currently controlled with motion sensors that switch from a low light level to high as people walk or drive near. Since some of the lighting is visible off site, below are mitigation ideas and AVH's intended resolution: â€¢ Turn off upper deck pole mounted luminaires at a designated curfew as an additional control step beyond the motion sensors already installed;. Use black finish light bar coverto control luminaire brightness where light bars are being replaced as recommended on the top deck only; â€¢ Shield perimeter mounted interior garage lighting with permanent shields at fixture locations which are fully visible to the exterior; ..... '. ''.li 11-,~~ Shielding demo for garage light â€¢ Install a permanent mesh fabric at openings at the perimeter to reduce garage luminaire brightness. .. P42 Aspen Valley Hospital - Lighting Design Ideas December 28, 2012 Heery International Page 1 5 4. Rear Loop Drive Navigation on the service loop road can easily be accomplished with lower height bollards. Mitigation options and AVH's intended resolution include: â€¢ Install non-louvered bollards at each location previously planned to receive vertical light poles. 5. Hospital Wall Sconces The wall sconces have similar issues as the parking lot lighting, such as color and brightness and should be included in the overall mitigation effort. Options for mitigation and AVH's intended resolution include: â€¢ Replace light bars with 2700K LED and spill light control bars; â€¢ Use black finish light bar cover; â€¢ Sconces on the east wall have been disconnected. Sconces at the stair wells will be retrofitted. .. P43 Aspen Valley Hospital - Lighting Design Ideas December 28, 2012 Heery International Page 1 6 Future Lighting Design Strategies for Phases 111 and IV There are many human factors related to lighting in the built environment. These factors will be the primary drivers of the lighting design for the Hospital in order to deliver a high quality visual environment, increased occupant comfort, and foster wellness and productivity. A successful electric lighting design will provide a system of lighting layers (ambient, task, and accent) which respond to the needs of the occupants. This strategy is particularly effective in energy-aggressive, high performance buildings. Separating lighting into layers will increase visual comfort, provide additional flexibility, and create visual interest. Additionally, exterior and lobby interior lighting design will be designed consistent with the principles of minimizing light trespass and brightness to the neighborhood. Exterior â€¢ Specify 2700K light sources; â€¢ Specify Type 111 distribution with spill light control for pole-mounted luminaires; ; â€¢ Use retaining walls and other hardscape features as lighted elements (face towards building); â€¢ Use fullyshielded bollards without louvers; â€¢ Minimize use of poles in general. When used, specify 2700K LED light bars with built-in shielding as recommended above; â€¢ Specify wall sconces with deeply regressed light sources; and â€¢ Provide dimming forall lighting and establish a nighttime schedule with automated controls. â€¢ Use low lumen (light) output luminaires for reduced brightness and minimum acceptable safe light levels (footcandles). The success of most lighting designs lies in the selection of the correct equipment. Luminaires are built differently in order to optimize specific performance characteristics for which they are applied. Selecting luminaires cannot be done on aesthetics alone, but must also consider photometric performance, energy use, and project goals. Interior Lobby â€¢ Specify 2700K light sources; â€¢ Specify only non-luminous or non "glowing" luminaires; â€¢ Use luminaires with fully shielded light sources; â€¢ Do not allow direct illumination through exterior windows; â€¢ Provide a low mounting height layer of light such as step lights, and wall washing (below 8'); â€¢ Light between windows such that lighted surfaces are not reflected out the windows; and â€¢ Provide dimming for all lighting and establish a nighttime schedule with automated controls. Tune (set) minimum acceptable lighting (footcandle) levels. â€¢ If ceiling is lighted, aim lights towards interior and eitherturn off or dim the lights to a low level at night. .. ONE REPORT To: . Date Ordered: 09-21 -2012 Land Title GUARANTEE COMPANY Attn: CAMILLA EARL Order Number 446832 WWW.LTGC COM Fax: Phone: 970-379-2389 Address: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 County: PITKIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 114, SUBDIVISION SMUGGLER PARK, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCES Certification Date: 09-11-2012 OWNERSHIP: MONTY B. EARL,CAMILLA EARL Doc Type Doc Fee Date Reference# WARRANTY DEED $57.50 06-21-2011 580669 ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS Item Payable To Amount Date Reference# DEED OF TRUST $220,000.00 08-12-11 581849 DEED OF TRUST $350,000.00 06-21-11 580671 MODIFICATION 06-25-12 590054 MODIFICATION 06-25-12 590056 Cust Ref# This ONE REPORT is based on a limited search of the county real property By: STEPHEN STRICKLAND does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title records and is intended for informational purposes only. The ONE REPORT Land Title insurance, and should not be used by the recipient of the ONE REPORT Property Resource Specialist as the basis for making any legal, investment or business decisions. The recipient of the ONE REPORT should consult legal, tax and other advisors Email: sstrickland@Itgc.com before making any such decisions. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Phone: Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the ONE REPORT, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the ONE REPORT. Fax: Form OE.WEB 06/06 .. /. ' - 1 Prepared For: LELIE CAMILLA EARL WWW.LT GC.COM Reference: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 Attached are the additional documents you requested: Doc Type Recorded Reception#/BookPage STEPHEN STRICKLAND Land Title Property Resource Specialist Email: sstrickland@Itgc.com Phone: Fax: ADD.DOCS 446832 01 \P )-14 ANNX 94 * - SdoIHIAVE.~~ No >/ 0 91.4 --14 O 2.4 0 0, +4 -9- V. I .4 / +' 4 V <. 4 0 ~ 9 2112 ~ :' c c ASPEN 00: .1,124 02'ELOCUSNT -- 17 NING:8 72:m::==0~ 1 1 H /7-k , '/ 4 /1 1 11 j%., 14 11111111 , 1 1.11 '111,11'll , i,i' I ~I@~!1~ Il!~Ill,~I ~ 1 1 f i- . C t i Z. Â·:,--li 5-~~ 4 - i 2. 1.. ?1:1?':-*3. "11:1 . .. SITE PLAN 114 Maple lane West 10 foot set back required - - - - Emperty line LLJ 2 GRASS parking -.4 Y i GRASS 29Â· 9 4/ --Im_z--z=-~- i setback 47 m__73 , stairwe// foregr~ill- 7 * ------ 9 1 1 P -- .. parkin~ m - - Porch U 1 , i WALL HELD 5 INCHES OFF property line \ f rm:- FOR OVERHANG parkng \ i L 1- 0 set back East property line 1 -7-1 1611 - -41 72 ' 6-PL Eve and gutter no more than 6 inches over properly line per easement, 1/4" = 1 foot footer in prooperty line .. East 3 76 "- .9' - 1-11-14,31 1242 0 OrT 9 2012 :5 . Â·Â· - -2 IcÂ·(ck,Â· Rear yard setback 5 feet leaj o Hoeq Javff Juoff Ulnwiul q;/OS [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 n ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 1 Il 11I1I11I111II11I11I111I lilli l lili Ill 1 1 1 1 lilli l ]1 1 1- -WZI- - === - = 2-0=-0=-agmtial-- m ELS .1 12!1- 1 //1 -114 11 ili~72 - LEZ~~Z~ZnJ 11 11 11 1 1 1, 11 11 1) lili . FRONT ELEVATION -0 W F -i'El RIGHT 5/DE ELEVAT/ON BRAND 5ERI[5 REVISIONS BY DATE GENERAL NOTES DRAWING TITLE MODEL ~2AME SO ft 0 5CHULT 5028 BUC00346I 1173 EXTERIOR ELEVATION PLANT DESCRIPTION MODEL NO. 951 28*44 IBR-2BA HTG-28403A CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. FRONT & 2/GHT 5/DE ... BY .]c. OA,E DATE PRINTED SHÂ£[T NO. DBG 09/06/20ll 09/27/2011 20-1 1.<t*,r 'rliff lit L, OCT 9 2012 COM~JN : 7 22 - r,1. D: 1 [1 1'I'1'1'1'I'1'I 'l'I'I'1'1'1'I'I'1 11 lilli 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lilli 1 1 1 1 1 lilli 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1111!11 lilli I11llll1ll11lll/ 1 N I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, -121-2---2-=1204--0 - 111.7111 - 11[2' 751 . FRONT ELEVATION - 15 7 -lAi 2/GHT 5/PE ELEVATION BRAND GRIES REVISIONS By DITE GENERAL NOTE5 DRAWING TITLE MODEL h.. . SCHULT 5028 BUCD0346I MODEL NO. 1173 EXTERIOK ELEVATION PLI~NT DESCRIPTION 951 28X44 IBR-2BA HTG-28403A CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. FRONT & 2/GHT 5/PE DRAWN 87 ORIG. DATE DATE PRINT[0 9â‚¬0 Nor DBG 09/06/2011 09/27/2011 20-1 9 :21: r ;3 Vrt:- L OCT 9 2012 f.'te~ : v COMMIJAIri DI,Ell-:Â·'EN, .. . Fee Waiver Request Form City of Aspen RECFIVED ~ LiE CITY OF Â«P~.N Community Development Department 0 init This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notified when a?decision hds liddthL made to waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form. riTV .1.SPEN For what fees are you requesting waiver? U BUILDING 0 %~8('|41(11NG~EVEL0PMENT Applicant Name: M Oyl ClÂ·'910 C (anti ill Contact Ph.# 3-19 - 4 990 â‚¬- 53-Cir ~ Mailing address: Cit-i A./cJple lati 42-_ Ac>-ixi,i CO â‚¬>26 U E-mail address: CAMITN'1-7 Â¢0 M.969 , CA/1,1 - 5< CAMCA-n-y(C'CÂ»teel/- (cvy Project name & address: [14 Majoll- lowâ‚¬- Fee Breakdown: 00 61 Â· 2-0 1 0- Pd> U! hUILDING & PLANNING FEES ~ Original Fee Requested Original Fee Requested Fee Description Fee Description Amount Waiver Amount Waiver Energy Code Fee REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee (96(3 (%60 Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee Permit Fee HPC Application Fee Plan Check Other: TOTAL OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST $ i AG (2 Â· De Reason for Waiver: U General Fund Department C] Waived or decreased by City Council (specify ordina ce or other decision dogum,nt) N other_please explain: 00-â‚¬_ ze#;*A#Dmak 8,40< .-t-E. 9?34:lot Â¢ 06â‚¬-te +30 (190 Duu Â·pe rtirifi 4â‚¬15 1 Sve Â«- 014 E ((TH-%(-r Ll ff-) h G.)3>t- . \14- 61 <'t-- Al.47.- A- 41- CFP~ ~j Ovt.t -ti kâ€žC (14 Â«llÂ©4- . to l -3- I -2-011 Applicant Signature Date For office use only: Type of fees waived: Total fees waived: $ --- /'APPROVED. 2 DISAPPROVED t** &72> Community Development Director Date CITY OFASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEE WAIVER POLICY PURPOSE ~ Fee waivers to eligible individuals and organizations submitting for building permit or land use application may be considered upon filing a fee waiver request form to the Community Development Department. Approval of fee waiver requests may be made by the Community Development Director, according to the adopted fee policy of the City of Aspen. Costs for all building permit and land use applications, otherthan those waived bythe Community Development Director, shall be paid as specified by the fee policy; prior to the issuance of building permits and at the time of submittal of land use applications. PROCESS Fees administered by the Community Development Department can only be waived by submitting a completed fee waiver form to the Community Development Director. The request shall contain a description of the project along with a statement expressing eligibility for fee waiver. The Community Development Director will review the request and give approval or disapproval in accordance with provisions set forth in this policy. The Community Development Director does not have the ability to waive fees administered by other City Departments or other organizations. All organizations and individuals seeking fee waiver MUST submit their written request to the City of Aspen Community Development Director priorto submittingthe building permit or land use application. The approved fee waiver must then be presented at the time the building permit or land use application is submitted to the building or planning departments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA General Fund Departments do not pay fees to the Community Development Department for building permits or planning applications, with the exception of Capital Projects. The fees waived for these projects will be tracked by the Community Development Department (journal entries are therefore unnecessary). In effort to keep paperwork and applications consistent, General Fund Departments shall still be required to submit the approved fee waiver with all applications for building and planning applications. General Fund Departments include: . 1-1. - ... 1- . 1. .....11 1 ... Non-Departmental 001.00 Streets Department 001.41 City Council 001.03 Parks Department 001.55 City Manager 001.05 GIS Department 001.60 Personnel 001.06 IT Department 001.61 City Clerk 001.07 Special Events 001.70 City Attorney 001.09 Recreation Activities 001.71 Risk Management 001.10 Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) 001.72 City Finance Department 001.11 Ice Garden Operations 001.74 Community Development 001.13 Cons. Trust FD/Lottery 001.75 Engineering Department 001.15 *Capital Projects 001.90 Building Department 001.21 Asset Management Plan (AMP) 001.91 Environmental Health 001.25 *Tabor Capital Projects 001.94 Police Department 001.31 Outgoing Transfers 001.95 Records 001.33 Communications 001.39 NOTE* Capital Projects are not exempt from fees ~ .. THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: October 12.2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0067.2012.ASLU -114 Maple Lane. The planner assigned to this case is Claude Salter. 61 Your Land Use Application is incomplete: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all o f the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City o f Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ~J-Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. /ZÂ» c L - A 11.eY{nifer fhe~an, Deputy Director City of Aspdn, Community Development Department For Office Use Only Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD COWOP Yes- No.~*.. Subdivision (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes - No_~Â§:. Commercial , E.P.F. O . RECE'\/ED OCT 9 ' 32 Variance requested for: CITY OF A .:N 114 Maple Lane COMMUNITY DEW Â·:PMENT Aspen CO Owners: Monty and Camilla Earl This request is for a variance to the zoning rules as they relate to Smuggler trailer park. We request a variance to the Residential Design Standard section 26.410.040(D) a. An entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry door shall not be more than 8 feet. b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet, shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. c. A Street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. As we tried to explain, and never received a response, our house does not face a "street" per the definition of a street in the design standards. Per that definition a "Street" is: A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic, Our house faces a "Street Private" per the definitions, that is: A street designated to comply with City engineering standards which is retained in private ownership, maintained by the private owners, but dedicated for the use of the public. That being the case this may just be a matter of interpretation; our interpretation is the only .~ interpretation that has been applied in the past. Or perhaps there exists something else that excludes the park from these design standards. If there are any homes in the park that meet all of the design standards they are very few. Some of the standards, not mentioned, would require all of the property lines in the park to be re done and every home would have to be moved so the front fagade is parallel to the street. That isn't going to happen, but trying to force every new project in the park to comply with this is a little like slowly switching from driving on the left side of A the road to the right. There have been numerous projects done since the design standards were adopted that don't even come close to complying. There was a project done as recent as 2005 on Cottonwood that doesn't meet any of the above standards except for maybe the windows. There is no porch, there is no entry door facing the street, there are only garage doors with windows. The owners of that home didn't recall having to try to comply with these standards. Everyone we have spoken to in the park is shocked that we are being forced to do this. We were told that we would need to post what we are doing if we apply for a variance so our neighbors could protest. Contrary to that notion, everyone in the park (including our immediate neighbors) that we have spoken to, is apposed to what the standards are forcing us to do. We, like every house in Smuggler, have oriented the main common areas of the home towards Aspen Mountain. We have limited space, and like many of the homes in the park, but not all, we do not want a hallway running from the back of the home to the front, as it will eat dramatically into what little space we have etc. In our opinion, hall space is wasted space if you can orientate the home without it, or limit it as we have. Therefore, if we do this entrance door facing the "street private", we will have to put it in the master bedroom closet, or the bathroom, as that is the only place we can put it. If we re-orientate the house so the common areas face away from Aspen .. Mountain, we will face straight into our neighbors common area since they are on the other side of the "street private" and there home is orientated towards Aspen Mountain. They don't really want us facing them, that is why they are as apposed to this as we are, maybe more. Therefore, we and our neighbors, ask that this variance be granted. Thanks Monty and Camilla Earl 114 Maple Lane 0 0 IA. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer RE: 114 Maple Lane - Residential Design Standards Variance - Public Hearing DATE: January 08,2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: Subject Property: 114 Maple Lane Monty and Camilla Earl LOCATION: Subdivision: Smuggler Park, Lot: 114, commonly known as 114 Maple Lane. tor: Current Zoning: 7,4...<&- 9 R-3 / SPA , High Density " i r~,Â·P r Â¥ Residential (R-3) Residential / Specially Planned Area Â» i 16:. Summary: 41 Nt The Applicant requests a variance , 4 from a Building Elements *4 Residential Design Standard. 12#20#2012 I 4 1 .2 Staff Recommendation: . **~ - /*fÂ¥/5 ; Staff recommends denial of the requested Residential Design Standard Variance. Page 1 of 7 4 I -: .. REOUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: Residential Design Standard Variance for the front entry door, porch, and street facing principal window standards (Building Elements), pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D, Variances. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) The variance is for 26.410.040(D)(1) Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Windows (D)(1) requires that: (a): The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. (b): A covered porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part o f the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. (c): A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. Proiect Summarv: The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction. The residence is known as 114 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the Residential Design Standards (RDS). Staffs worked diligently with the homeowner to meet the Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building permit. The building permit was submitted on May 22,2012 to demolish the existing structure and place a new modular home on a site built full basement. The permit was submitted without RDS compliance. The plans were amended by the owner to meet the standards. The building permit was issued on September 9,2012. The owner did not request a variance at the time of building permit issuance, as the plans met the Residential Design Standards. The owners are now requesting a variance from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard, which is the location o f the front entry door, the requirement for a porch (or canopy) and a street facing principal window or group of windows. Staff analysis: Residential Design Standard Variances: All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the Residential Design Standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." Specifically the intent of the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard is to, "ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the faGade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions". Page 2 0 f 7 .. The Applicant's approved plan has a street facing door, a porch, and principal windows, all of which have yet to be built. They are requesting a RDS variance so they do not have to build to the approved plan set. This would mean the street facing faâ„¢le of the house would have no door, porch or principal window or group of windows as shown below in Figure 1. Figure: 1 Front Fag(le, subject property. M#* ---*2. I. ...i .r 3 . i * _ PU#9#EME 216.. . The plan set was approved with a compliant design. Below, see Figure 2 the compliant elevation of the street-facing fagade as approved via the building permit. Figure: 2 compliant elevation 3 9/I'=IG-=~L-f.23. .-1 i - ~'12*2 i. ,Â§*~~ : , Snow stops applied 6, 5%2 , IL ..2.7Â· Â·i_ .INorth side 114 h 12? 1 I :P'.I 'late,K*Maple -.q=.- +. . .W -- Â· ' :1 . '.-.-r. .Â·L.-18#2yt~ -1-yl. p. 6,2:. 4*t...0 f. .... . I- - 44>ES*. .: . f*:9%%.fÂ·,BUB ...~ 7-4009.i - Ut' %4:ka-'. : Â·, ...6 Ew-4#raviA Dir/~DiÂ»j.1 Ok; I ./71:1*33* 24- tif RE 58 MmiL ~ 3Â«Â» N . .t - 1.1-,..,RECI â‚¬ 7-7--'ti i z. Â·:-3 â‚¬ Â·1 i.-7.5,f.- Â·t : ~ i : ' *'4 --9.71,- I ..un. - WA'*1'- ~ -*0*4 -. 7*4 ' 41.4*9+Zek h bottom of widows 7 foot off finish floor . r..1 *~--i.......v.. ., _ -1 Page 3 0 f 7 r ow VF ir .. In general the purpose of the standards is to, "... preserve established neighborhood scale and character ... and... contribute to the streetscape." A front porch provides outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape. The required elements help create homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood is enhanced by the standards. Without the standards, the streetscape and neighborhood suffer. Garages and solid walls facing the street do not meet the standard nor do they contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood. Below, see images in Figure: 3 which do not meet the standard nor contribution the streetscape within the neighborhood. Figure: 3 Structures which do not contribute to the streetscape 12/21/2012 Y .te#.I 12'm,mit. 'Â·'./ tl ... J 1 A. 40.- 4 -r imunAM"'ll//9./-44//.Impij'. lt. 1..=lil.. . J./,11., :1'. '19.1 - --- --- IIIIkL .-L 55. #A~*: 12,123-,<2~ 1 11 1 1 9.....=--7 - . I 110 12/2/zalÂ£J *. 4 /~7/~~1 *~ I.- Page 4 of 7 .. The neighborhood does not have a consistent pattern of development. The neighborhood is mixed with structures of varying ages; some homes have street-facing doors, some have front porches and some have street-facing principal windows and some have all three. The homes which comply with the three elements of the standard clearly benefit the neighborhood. Below, see Figure: 4 representations of structures which meet the standard and enhance the neighborhood. Figure: 4 structures which enhance the neighborhood 1~ 44 4 4 -4..1 Imm"/m/3..../ 46- 9/". n -4 + It.A 'r - .' i //1-â€¢44*/IMNA' w- M""4 3/3/ --- - - 141' 1,1 ./Millit - . 1111- 4.1 im- 1-3// 9,/ *.t itf : A. ...er /V#/ill,imitip**% ,. . . 044 - e 12/~im12 ~ T ~ R 13* A Â¢ 4,-3.: , ..4. . .% .L/---A~ ~ 1.*.54 3 ... C ..,7..3 - -2- 1 P-Ii: 6. 'Fl-li 1 - 4.. A . ?9Â¥ L â€ž -:. i-ale ./r , -g Ir.. 1'|-/ ..... 4-77 ... 3 18/.11 C ~ "~ i.. D - I le'l Vi ~gl-1 4.1*/9/d//I a //1,1/22;fbm9/"/BA Ill lijo~9/mi#41/8/99//I'lll .a-1 r . 1 - : j 9, .4.66 * Page 5 0 f 7 .. There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine i f the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: Stafffinds that the request does not meet either of the two variance standards. With regard to review standard 'al the context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if granted; the structure would not contribute to the streetscape of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some modern site-built homes. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity Of the subject property have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-facing entry doors, porches and street-facing windows. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk, complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. The architectural elements are the structure which enhance streetscape and help create the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood. The proposed variance with the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not create any visual interest in the neighborhood. The variance request does not meet the review standard 'b' as the site does not have a site- specific constraint. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards as part of their approved building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances. Staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to adopt Resolution No. , Series of 2013, denying a variance requests from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard. Page 6 0 f 7 .. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Plans for Permit Page 7 0 f 7 .. Exhibit A: Staff Findings Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): Residential Design Standard Variances 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 Staff Finding: Stafffinds the requested variance does not meet revie-w standard 'a'. The context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if the variance request is supported; the structure would not contribute to the appropriate design of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some modern site-built homes and a fair number of square boxes with lifeless facades facing the street. There are examples of newer development meeting the standards. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject pr operty have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-facing entry doors, porches and street-facing windows. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk, complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face. The front door establishes the entry to the home. It divides the public and private realm and provides interest to the streetscape. The proposed variance with the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not create any visual interest in the neighborhood. b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: Stajf finds the proposal does not meet this standard. There are no site specific constraints necessitating a variance. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards in their building permit. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit: B Application ~ ~ ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION 0067.20 (2 Â· Asaul f -\JECT: 0 f->- Name: MOn--3/\ 441 rx 4Â£041 j blet_ 73x rl Location: I l Li fulkâ‚¬{02_ l ouvtâ‚¬-, Ao~pat (--69 %1 Wl (Indicate stredt address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID #(REQUIRED) 1-71.3 -1 07 49 D 9 APPLICANT: . Name: 9~ UY+\ A/luf (Avt+I-l/01 Ch. Y Address: C 14 -4% fle- lowl â‚¬ Ar:*7)381,1 0.0 24 6 V Phone #: 514 - 4 9 4 0 0 F- 39-9 Â·- 2-5 99 REPRESENTATIVE: IName: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): C GMQS Exemption U Conceptual PUD Â£ Temporary Use E GMQS Allotment U Final PUT) (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Nlap Amendment O Special Review ~ Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ~1 ESA - 8040 Greentine, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Blutt condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U . Commercial Design Review D Lot Split E Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion U Residential Design Variance E Lot Line Adjustment Â£ Other: C] Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) l\ke Avo- 65, ful. 40\0(oble_ 04- (Dl,lstri<(.1-fth ffÂ«vitu..b bukliÂ»j tuo-0 0,4 9 0 l< 1Â¥ Cilu r. UJ}~7Â¢YY 01 8'Y' 61/(f-J ~6-DÂ» gtÂ¥â‚¬2-1- . PROPOSAL: (deseription of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, *.) C.1 4 1 /1 1 1 A &0Uitvvv#461 4*id Mt$61 F ODÂ¢vt @-0-7~ <~41 KLCU,1 , Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ O Pre-Application Conference Suminary [3 Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement U Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form [3 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards [3 3-ID 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. 3~3ef*71% fer>j VÂ¥ 9 ' oCT 9 2012 CITY OP AtiFEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN I .. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: C 1 0-1 191 89 le LOwl UL Applicant: ft/\ OV\,4;-ti (*l of Cowtn, i Lla- 126'L rÂ·~ Location: C 4 0 APLE L (ivi â‚¬-- 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: ReqiÂ¢ired: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Eristing. 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: E.risti,ig Required: Proposed: , Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance Between Eristing Required: PiÂ·oposed: Buildings Eisting non-conformities or encroachments: k) 0 1> D r / 11 . 11 D Oloor Â« Bvi 57 ttit \ ) 1Â·-C W- j n Variatiens requÂ¥ Â§ted: i,; 0 90 Ft bl , 1/l 0 0'~ 00 "- 'tff- (911 Â«U,T \Hi ekr. 1 .. Variance requested for: 114 Maple Lane Aspen CO Owners: Monty and Camilla Earl This request is for a variance to the zoning rules as they relate to Smuggler trailer park. We request a variance to the Residential Design Standard section 26.410.040(D) a. An entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry door shall not me more than 8 feet. b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet, shall be part of the front fa~ade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height, c. A Street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. We are seeking this variance in relation to section 20.410.020 (-D) (2) (a) where it states "An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard, In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development within adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted: The requirement of an entry porch in section (b) mentioned above is virtually non- existent in Smuggler. As far as section (a) requiring an entry door is sporadic, there are some that do have this and many that do not. Section (e) is like section (a) some do some do not, These rules have been in effect during the course of many projects in Smuggler, and if you walk through the park you can see they were never applied. A project was done on Cottonwood in 2005. The only doors facing the street are garage doors, there is not a porch on the front faoade, the only windows facing the street are in the garage doors, l don't think you would consider those principal windows. The house next to this has no doors facing the street, no principal windows and no porch, it was also done recently. The owners didn't mention having to go through this when they did there project, all of our neighbors, that we have talked to, are shocked that the city is imposing these standards now when it is quite obvious they never have in the past. We, like every house in Smuggler, have oriented the main group areas of the home towards Aspen Mountain. This Is probably the most consistent design feature in the park, it is why houses on the other side of the street do have windows and doors, and in a few cases decks and porches, facing the street, because that happens to be on the same side of their house as Aspen Mountain, If we orientate these areas of our home towards the Smuggler Trailer park private .. street, we will face straight into our neighbors living space. Naturally they are strongly opposed to us doing this; they don't want to view us any more than we want to view them. Like most of the homes in Smuggler we want our door on the side, We do not want windows on that side of the house and we do not want a porch on that side of the house, the porch would be absolutely inconsistent with the neighborhood, almost all porches and decks face Aspen Mountain. Our neighbors are as opposed to this as we are, for their sake and ours we ask that you please grant this variance. Thank you, Monty and Camilla Earl .. ONE REPORT To: Date Ordered: 09-21-2012 Land Title GUARANTEE COMPANY Attn: CAMILLA EARL Order Number 446832 wwW.'TGC â‚¬ 0/ Fax: Phone: 970-379-2389 Address: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 County: PITKIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 114, SUBDIVISION SMUGGLER PARK, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCES Certification Date: 09-11-2012 OWNERSHIP: MONTY B. EARL,CAMILLA EARL Doc Type 06-21-2011 580669 Doc Fee Date Reference# WARRANTY DEED $57.50 ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS Item Payable To Amount Date Reference# DEED OF TRUST $220,000.00 08Â·12Â·11 581849 DEED OF TRUST $350,000,00 06-21-11 580671 MODIFICATION 06-25Â·12 590054 MODIFICATION 06-25-12 590056 Cust Ref# This ONE REPORT is based on a limited search of the county real property records and is intended for informational purposes only. The ONE REPORT By: STEPHEN STRICKLAND does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title Land Title insurance, and should not be used by the recipient of the ONE REPORT Property Resource Specialist as the basis for making any legal, investment or business decisions. The recipient of the ONE REPORT sliould consult legal, tax and other advisors Email: sstrickland@Itgc.com be fore making any such decisions. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Phone: Company is strictly limiled to (]) the recipient oftlie ONE REPORT, and no olher person, and (2) the amount paid for the ONE REPORT. Fax: Form OE.WES 06/06 ':19Â·r>i,rÂ« + .. ~ - 7 Prepared For: Land Tttle bAMILLA EARL GUARANTEE COMPANY ....1;4Â¢.COW Reference: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 Attached are the additional documents you requested: Doc Type Recorded Reception#/BookPage STEPHEN STRICKLAND Land Title Property Resource Specialist Email: sstrickland@Itgc.com Phone: Fax: ADD.DOCS 446032 7.,+ \ 11 f- \ 4./'41/ *' ,\1,\ 22~ 30>4.~~ - ,- 3 A ',Â· 4 : J -/ 57 '-S ' 7 9 L -v - <-' It A , \ 0 ' h ./ '- f I.441...., '' , /, /1 22*j-j 4\ 1 1 ' 1 4 1 .... 1 i rvd..~. .l J 1 4 44 3 6.J : 1 b ....9 'i Z j t j \, 11 -. 7 3 $ ,>; 21~t:4~i Â·if 'Z; " #1-4 .24--0 '. *:-I-Il' 441\ ... j v <A, -4 i i Â· i i O 11 11 4.. - '.4 7 3 r.~ '...3, f. 1.,4.-1 '..f~4 11 .... . j < J. ? 1.2.,A,, 1 4 15 - .7 4 4 . 4 0 1 9 - 11 1 ./ 1. N . ... . 3 .# t f .1 1 7 ../ ., f -4 i O.*6j ED ~ 9 10\1 ~ * 0 t. 1 , # t .... , ,\ .f . 3 ' 1 9,~ f , 4 1, / ..... i. 1 f L \ i j - L .? W ...~S;LS ...#4%Â·Â·/ 1 i .. 3.-mo. f - H .Â·4,ty; i,~ .yl P , ....,...=....:;3'f.90*41ft*,j 11 .1,19 9 .'I'*.lwl fil 1 ---L'..B.f:Ir),, .tifiTÂ·i: C*.1*~0.' qU& 0804 L 1:. '~ ..Â®.9.:4/* '3%1$11 'b Y. f~,1-32 1 - 0 1- 71Â»1 0*1; i ,~ :L 'i'â€¢., f H 42 Â·Â·-4 ..inÂ·4 -til .MI ;:11.1~ Â·Â· 1. PAdea 1 1 '0 = 1-1.3.-ijaill.~10:313% 1.1 '1.1.1 , * - :~ Â·, iÂ¢-li',63*j/5 .. SITE PLAN 114 Maple lane We5~ 10 foot set back required Â£Â£ggerty line l.lj GRASS ~ parking 1 2 ff 1 : Q 1 2 1 GRASS --~62*aA:~E~G==â€¢.-MI~' set back A 41'rli-LL]fol-_.1 .1 --- J. ~unfi;4Â¢14 1 J g '/ 3 3 ~ Il , parking 44 i- 193 - i 21 I ~ porch e '- E--4 ..12] E-El ~- 1 .i G- I% B WALL HELD 5 tNCHES OFF properÂ·ty Une ' ~Â¤ FOR OVERHANG parkng i R 1 .. 0 set back East property line Eve and gutter no more than 6 inches over property fine per easement, 1/4" = 1 foot footer in prOOpefty Nfle East NUCEIVED ACT 9 2012 CJTY Or M.SPEN CON:A'??n i._ ic:v. 41 â€¢ ./ ' Act{.... eet Rear yard setback 5 f GRASS 11 11'111 1 111'11111'111'111 11 I lilli 111'11111 1 lilli 1 111111111111111!11111111'11111111111 Il== Â·==1 r 1 IA ._11.4ll Ig Wil ..LLâ€¢11 '*- ---3---[*i- _ -il ~- P;31 ~ E73711 i f,41 1 FRONT ELEVAT/ON r .. KIGHT 51DE ELEVATION ..0 f~*1E5 R[ v istoNS ~ |af OFTE - GINCIRL VOIES ORRWING ill Inot[-'.Â£ 50. Ir SCHULT . - ~ 1173 EXTERJOR ELEVATION Imp 01[IC)1[PTION Moo[L }10. 28X44 1 BR-289 HTG-28403A ' FRONT & KIGHT 5/DE~Z: CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. Z. OATC ORT[ P"INrto ,... '10 DBG 09/CG/2011 09/27/2011 1 20-1 9.94 75, 4% FJ~ % f"r '49 1 U.1 .,r 9 %1% 1.J .. . a '- : U .... I OCT 9 2012 A L fv ' L â€¢ ul, 1 V. 6, ; CN COMNIJNA-Y DEVELOPEN-, ;.11.. 111 lilli 111 ~1111 111'111 111 111 111 1 Illlllllllllil1llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1, I1111I11111111I 1II1l111Ii1I11i1 1)11'111'111!111'111'111'111 , 1 , 1 11 -=m-=1--4/1--Dz;ql FF=t r=i LLU 1-7274 -7571 7-5 1 1 1 1 FRONT ELEVATION -34 W , 1. RIGHT 9/PE ELEVATJON ~RANO 5Â£Rt[5 ".1,10.51 . .T[ I[NCRAL ./TCS IlliAING TME .0[L ./C I. M. SCHULT 5028 BUCM]451 [173 EXTERIOR ELEVATION PLSIT 0[5Â¤NFTIOH :106[1 NO, 95t 28x14 IBR-2BA HTG-28403A CMH MANUFACTURING. INC. FRONT & RIGHT 5/PE .... 1 0..... ou[ pwillito Dtcrt .O. DBG 09/06/2011 09/27/2011 201 DEAD"5075'.0 h "611 - i...... - :. 1 3 reLy OCT 9 2012 PIT.' 62 .Â· ..4 2, 1 . v, 94Â£ , =lo COWIUNfrt DEVROPE Exhibit: C Building Permit Plans ~ - _ snow stops applied IÂ»--IL _, 1-_J--4_ - - . Â·~ th side 114 / I " -i- Â·'~'it-/:::I:-1> ' Die 1 i 1 11 1 11 4-~72-6-9%4-u,& 1 1 -1- .11 -112 14#.le=-L . - e 111 lili 2-11|'E ~51,1 .11 -r-?. i'-4-1- 1 -1 1 noy 11 1-1- 1 DT-, 27LWL-24-A.~~ , ~4 ,Â· i ~1Â·'I?144tl A L,,1 1 41-1-3 11 1 -1 1 !1 - 1.- 1 - -1.2-1.-~ Ilf-1~~~=413'tâ‚¬-i'~TPrFM-*,fi~Ir~LI bi t 1 1 LF ' '| , I -i--,1 â‚¬ - -=1 - Ptltr- *Irmt'elmliI22.*33#59 0, , ' 1 IllÂ· . ~ -- .6..2, Lrui;1~ l==aill'jaill/'P.r ll 6 ' ' Ar.2, S.-+4 3-Â·,Â·Â·Â·Â· . 1 11 'milli,Im""trw / -- 1 i A-*1123. 14: 1-- 1 'J , 1- r / i. . -w, 153-33-4414.2%111 1 - 1 , 1 1 - Le - 1 WR-ti 1.....>4 - %51-1 A - L ' Pa744 $- -- - 141/ 1 I- t- i - -'-la:*47- 1-2 â€¢ 1 -- -1 1 =lit-ZJ- torri of widows 7 i' -'- - ..~.LL -CE--Â·Â·Â·Â·. .. li---1 - .1 ' ' 3- 1=Z--= R2/' 11 -1 t off finish floor - -2- f i Â·Â· -- .1 1 . 111 1- 11 --LU 2 ' 7 -' a -in, .1 7- i. -i- 1 - - I -- 1 11- mil -L I i , I I -34. 1- 1 -1. - '11'1 .97. . I _ - 1 - - -- . -111'-Ii- =Â· I -- - ~ ' - - --T=L-- i_ '_--r-, i, -1-W'19 J-I -1 - - - -~ - - ~ - - - ~- ~ --=- -1.Ej=1-4.-1 ~L -tz- - - 7 -9 ' J---4.L,-3-' E,J-f -1-1- 3 - L.1- 1 ..4.2--7-------- 1-2 - - - .. Main level Floor plan 114 Maple revised from factory ext. stair Â¥4\FAW Well window well 41-4 % 12,0. 1 1 9 1 -/9 -----7~=F 7-*036Â¤77--71.4.7Â¥= ~~J=777Â«=mmEF- 1 I hc h .0 M= ' 4 ~ . ./ #ving room k /19- , 411 : '3 1 4 7 -5-10 M , . 0,0-h, c - m ...,.... 000/1 . b 141 1 1 -' I b - i '-- 4'i- -f ' . Â· '13.,07 - 1 %.5-7 11 ~ 17 IR.01 1.27 11 i l JÂ·.4 j,2 - 0'5 :'-j 7 I 75,-tr -* j"Ji,6- 1 .,7. 1 4 window we// rr-1 9 5 1. 11 -4.--6 9.-r~i~ non factory added . e j..,s,Â·41 0 H - 1 1 r. 1 5. 12 - .C - i l y.O14 x. ; i Q - windows and doors .32 u-value Â·n :|*; _~,8,~-_ ~ 9, office -ILL= - 4 1 e ~ 41~: bottom of windows 41 llc. 1 1 11== ==1= 1 4; i 7 feet off shower floor L__-1, -'i 5.0-= 11 1 .... 0=2 1 4 2-1)c;~ fpw-zzl- f.22,%~--Â·=1 21!EA-i- Â·j:-4-#,6*I-f-71/2---~41*111211 mech chase .. : 1 1 1, 1 / 11 i,ii, il 11 Illillit 1 1 7 1 1 ~A; CY;~eWUy' Cy pUN,WdÂ» ; , 1 1 1 11 , 111 1 1'* ~ ' Â·9< 1 62 4.-AN i 1414444-Â·---'-A +1--1---tÂ·--Â·-1-- --Â·4-1-# 6 3 3;: 1 4L 11 1 11,!11 , 11 IIi N# ' i| 1 14 i 11 elilli 1 1 11 /1 1 / 1, 11 1 1 2 I l', $ 1~ '~ ~'. A ton~ <Arti~pgam, -1--b--+9--'-~-4-H+-4-1-9- ~ 4 .-1 1~ i 1 11 1 I i ; Vy,Â£,4pgu#4-2 L.L...2 L -L_ p'upt;14 h,le 11 2 1 9,1.1.1 :[ 11 111 11 11 4 .11 11 1 1 11&/ 1 1 1/1 1 1 11 1 1 4 --m L. -7 - - -1 - 1 I. 1.1 ..1 1, i : 1 .1 # I 1 i 1 1 111 1 1 lili ~ GAASS 1 i pariumg i- Â· 4 1 ; Â·- râ€¢- A r~ru, 1 1 i N 1k 1 j . 17HA,7,1, ,1 I 1 1 1 i .i I,i::t. L I I 1 11,M : 1 1 ;:,'1:~Ii- 4-0,4-f--4 ~f.~B~, 1 11! 1/4-&..; 'Â·Â·_1 41/// ~ 1 1 . t 9-1 ,-9 . 11, :Ap.i hai.k : 1 41 149 P. 2.+ 1 1 1 11 ' ~ ~A ~ ~12 ~- ~+Azozrn 1 --:--steectfremls:-14--~il----T-t-0-ir--k--r-Â«4__ i parflht / IS_ i I i 1 J, 1 1 [i :; :.= lili ./ i 1 -1 1 i Â·-1 , i ' :1 ' 1 1|,1 ; c i , 11 1 11 11 1 111 , .... 1 1 0 Ill iv, i il '1-1 - a___,1----_-___1_j_;--12--~_-4--1--4--12--kL--iÂ« 11- 7 --111 1/ n 1 11:'17-1 --- 1 11!Ill 0! i! 1 1 , Â·i n : 1 1,: ' ,'',:, 4 1 1 I ''li 1 &Â· , Â· 1 1 I. ; / 1 ' 1 â€¢ 1 1' "I i A Il l i w i ,; di i i...421 -_1-19144-6/GiÂ·M_4.(lvurit:*320â‚¬pfonâ‚¬yj'Y?e __L_.1___L_-_'__---_11 ~'1 1 '1 1 1 1 1/ 1/1 11 11 6 1 1, 4: 1 : 1 1 1 1 02 -mr-4---r-1-0-57-hnok-PR#nAnwrtyfh-nk-7 -01--rb .i..â€ži,~ N.-r~-5 . ----1 -~-1.---4-# I Â·Â· LI -1 i I! 1, 1 : d Â·CÂ·Â· 1, . 1 ' /1 421 ' u, '' - 11' ~ ' 5 _4.N- L_: 2_1'21 1 1 ': 1 - 1 1 11 lili:! U: 1 1 1: 1 i I . I j Fl' 1 1 il Il li Â· 1 |i kie.LA 1Â£,4...mr" ,"ang,la:. n.:r nin.41,|~in: npilge*mon; | I 21,4"O'60t | 1 2 i : i ' ~footek,4*#enyÂ·.49,e-. 1 '1 11 i ' 1 1 *4 1 11 31 & i ~ 1 11 ' 1 1 1 1 11 111-711- 1 lili 1 ,~~ ~ ~ ~ i.: l i .. Resolution No. X (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT: 114, SMUGGLER PARK SUBDIVISON, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 114 MAPLE LANE, CITY ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707490114 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Camilla and Monty Earl, represented by Mr. and Mrs. Earl, requesting Variance approval from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Residential Design Standard, at 114 Maple Lane; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. Variances, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve Residential Design Standard Variances, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Variance from Residential Design Standard - Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D) 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 the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 8, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied Resolution No X, (Series of 2013), by a _ to _ (---) vote and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution does not furthers and is not necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies the variance from the following Residential Design Standard: Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and 1 .. a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street- oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. Section 2: 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 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereoÂ£ Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. DENIED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on January 8, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONNING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn, Special Counsel , Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 2 .. List o f Exhibits Exhibit A: required front fag(le. 3 E ' Â· Â·e'Â· Â· . 4 . 'h 1 .f ..41 ,2.-* j. - j '' 1:)14,1 -:-1.,, -- i.<.,4 00 ,*Li' 1 2 3 4 D. 41::1 fi'Â·99* 1?2 V A / *6 ' 0 41'11Â· 111 5 0 Â¥t#-irl =s o i J-2-02 ' Â§ 5 80-F':12:4 r 11.64#, -4 ..4 1 1 114,1 T E 4 1 1-" & IiI 41 -1 1 1 11 1 !1%-/ 11*:1111,1-. ~ ,?,1'. 1 9 114.11- lit 'Lir!111+141, l'' f-, 1- .i k -'' 49, ' 4744 0 8, ic! ~I,6- , '*LI" 1, 4 : i ....= 2 U.7 '1-~0 =- 1,- lk,t 814 I *,1....1.. , ~ Dia . b. 11. Â« 1 0. . 4 1.~ . Irt#/BA'l,Â·432;'~I,Â·pÂ·#6*.1,4, , 1 -0 21 4 ?/ 9 ; 1544: - .1 - $.91Â¥76â€žU.rÂ», 1 -,!,r 'La Â» 1 . 5. a l 01%.1-' 4 Ir L 1 4<iF#%3*.1 4, . - North side 114 L Exhibit A: required front fagade 0 11 r TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Appointment of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson MEETING DATE: January 8, 2013 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to appoint , as chairperson and as vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2013." .. RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2012 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies ofthe land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 8, 2012; and WHEREAS, was elected chairperson and -was elected vice- chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 9,2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that be appointed as chairperson and be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: January 8, 2013 , Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 0 0 . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 f 4- A-1,<fle- l.an_L , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 10-Â£02=7,' Bain 8 â‚¬ 42Â·.30 f /vl ,2013 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 14-4194 ~ 660,4-â‚¬Â» 4 (name, please print) being or repredenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 , (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~~Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the o-wners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. '* .14% (Continued on next page) L U Rezoning or text amendment.- Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. -51, fbc~c,Â·-~-__1 J Signature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this Zodal of Dot. '2013, by '4Â·v\,1.61,2. SCG-â‚¬..u~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My ~ommission expires: 04 -/7 -210/55- 9,4;#06,2 ~otary Public , ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: * COPY OF THE PUBLICATION * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 44........ .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: \Lk /11 * fl â‚¬ L d h 12 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1,1-1-5&*+3. 7471 3 , 207 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I At- c~ 6 6 9, ll d J-g / I (name, please print) being or repregenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: i~ i Ur Publication of-notter.-ey the publication in the legal notice section of an official ~â€ž,4 paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) 4 days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Pl C ~ Posting of notice. By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on thell- day of ~/c 1 2 4-- , 20/ 2-1 to and including the date and time ~_ of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. 41* \ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A f of ~ 1 copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. 9 Al ,~ 4~ 4,Â»W Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method Of public notification and a copy Of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. 1- N 4/4- Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are ~~A- Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any subject to this notice requirement. way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thisarday of 7) c.% w LAC , 201-L,by AMÂ© Alba â‚¬Â«r l 0 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 1 1 - RICHARD J. MENDOZA NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 6 -6 - 1 6 STATE OF COLORADO ' My Commission Expires 06/08/2015'- Notarylhlblie---~ ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 .. INVOICE DATE: 12/18/12 City of Aspen & INVOICE # 202492 Pitkin County GIS 130 S Galena St BILL TO: Camilla Earl Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-920-5453 114 Maple Ln Fax: 970-544-5378 Aspen, CO 81611 970-379-2389 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY HRS / EXTR SHEETS AMOUNT Mailing Labels 300ft 114 Maple Ln 1 $120.00 Make all checks payable to City of Aspen and reference GIS & the invoice number in the note. Sales Tax- 9.0% $10.80 If you have any questions concerning this invoice, contact GIS at Total $130.80 970-920-5453, GIS@ci.aspen.co.us. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Easy PeelÂ® Labels i Bend along line to I ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® | Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ; ~ed Paper expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ J ~ A JOHNSON ELIZABETH ANNE HYDER GENE JACOBS JIM CYNTHIA ELLEN JOHN 209 COTTONWOOD LN PO BOX 466 115 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 GREAT BARRINGTON, MA 01230 ASPEN, CO 81611 KING CHRISTOPHER & DONNA JUNG DENNIS PAUL & LISA KANE KAY PATRICIA C CLOUATE PO BOX 8351 218 COTTONWOOD LN PO BOX 3065 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 - KUSCHEL KAY LAWRENCE TERRY LAWRENCE THEODORE W 50% FLOCKHARTJEANNE PO BOX 942 314 OAK LN 115 MAPLE LN PINE VALLEY, CA 91962 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LEBBY SARAH LEBBY NICK LEMLEY EVA C/O LA COCINA INC PO BOX 1352 222 COTTONWOOD LN PO BOX 4010 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOEWENSTERN CAROL TRUST MAGILL REBECCA N MAPLE CHARLES A & BRYCE M 910 GIBSON AVE 227 COTTONWOOD LN 927 GIBSON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARZIALE ANTONIO MAYER NATALIE P MILLER THOMAS F 40% 5134 TANGLE LN 219 COTTONWOOD LN 227 COTTONWOOD LN HOUSTON, TX 77056 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILLER TROY C & CHRISTINA L MORRIS JAMES/BYARD ANNE TRUST MORSE JAMES A TRUST 213 COTTONWOOD LN 860 GIBSON AVE 800 E ELLIS RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NORTON SHORES, MI 49441-5622 MURRAY TERRY NAKAGAWA HEITOR H & JUDITH E OAKES KEN 208 COTTONWOOD LN 312 OAK LN 204 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PADDEN KEVIN J & NINA K PATTERSON KAREN & CHARLES PERKINS WENDY 224 COTTONWOOD LN 129 MAPLE LN PO BOX 9825 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 POWELL MARY FRANCES RATHBUN W DON REYNOLDS THOMAS S THORNE MICHAEL JEFFREY PO BOX 1573 / 228 COTTONWOOD LN 308 OAK LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ttiquettes faciles & peler J A Repliez & la hachure afin de i www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 -6................ r*v*ler le rebord POD-uDMC Â£ 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Sens de i casy Peer Labels i A I Bend along line to i use AveryÂ® remplate 5160Â® j ~Paper expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ ~ ~ ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ A ALLEN DOUGLAS P ANDERSON BRETT & ALLISON ANDERSON TIMOTHY J 403 LACET LN 226 COTTONWOOD LN 316 OAK LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2183 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNEY DESIREE H & SAMUEL T BASS ASPEN LLC BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST 211 COTTONWOOD LN PO BOX 9096 32 TULIP ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SUMMIT, NJ 07901 BREBNER RICHARD BOYLE JOHN R BOYLES BARBARA LIV TRUST CRAVEN ELLYN KATHLEEN I21 MAPLE LN PO BOX 192 124 MAPLE LN \SPEN, CO 816112176 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CAIN JOHN J TRUST 3ROOKS LAURIA J CAMPBELL BEVERLY ANNE C/O JOHN J CAIN 3009 SE 19TH PL 207 COTTONWOOD LN 18160 COTTONWOOD RD #375 JAPE CORAL, FL 33904 ASPEN, CO 81611 SUNRIVER, OR 97707 :HRISTOPHER MICHAEL CLAPPER THOMAS C CORBIN SUYDAM 30 MAPLE LN 218 COTTONWOOD LN 217 COTTONWOOD LN 4SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 )&L GORDON FAMILY LLC DANFORTH DAVID N DRISKELL DOUGLAS ,920 GRAND AVE #800 PO BOX 1863 200 COTTONWOOD LN )ES MOINES, IA 50312 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 .LLIOTT PAMELA C . FINESILVER JEFF FISHER MORGAN 06 COTTONWOOD LN 117 MAPLE LN 228 COTTONWOOD LN ,SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ORDE CANDICE MARIE GALL STEPHEN & DESIREE GARDNER TODD & KATHARINE 10 COTTONWOOD LN 216 COTTONWOOD LN 118 MAPLE LN ,SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAHAM GERALDINE HARPER REV ;ONZALES ANNE GONZALES STEVE TRUST 19 MAPLE LN 105 MAPLE LN PO BOX 9277 SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 iUPTA BENJAMIN K REV LIV TRST 2010 HAUER MINEKO HESSELSCHWERDT MARK P 017 GREENSBORO LN 202 COTTONWOOD LN PO BOX 2522 AS VEGAS, NV 89134 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 iquettes faciles & peler Repliez & la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com Sens de 1.Ann-,=n-Aâ€žCov tilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 -6-4.............. ravaler le rehorrl Pon-,inâ€¢c Easy PeelÂ® Labels 1 A I Bend along line to 1 ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 2 Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ; ~ed Paper expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ ~ ~ A RICKENBAUGH ANNE RYAN MARTHA SIMPSON PATRICIA A & CHARLES W PO BOX 2342 127 MAPLE LN 116 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SMALLS RAY SOSNA DOMINIKA STONE PHYLLIS & WORRELL JAMES PO BOX 3197 113 MAPLE LN 108 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 STROBL MARIO J STRONACH CAROLYNDA C 50% TEUSCHER JONATHAN W & ANNETTE L 110 MAPLE LN 314 OAK LN 126 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 VETROMILE RICHARD & VARE DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST VON RENKL KALLEN VETROMILE DENISE BENHAM 1024 19TH ST #7 221 COTTONWOOD LN 310 OAK LN SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES WARMING SOLVEIG CORP 120 MAPLE LN 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT MILL, SC 29715 Etiquettes faciles & peler Repliez & la hachure afin de ~ www.avery.com C Utilisez le qabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 46.'r,"3-4,1"* r*v*ler le rebord Pot}-UPIC 1 Sens de 1-800-GO-AVERY I .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 114 MAPLE LANE, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANADRD VARIANCE LAND USE REQUEST NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 8,2013, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Camilla and Monty Earl, 114 Maple Lane, Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Mr. and Mrs. Earl. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances from residential design standards: an entry door shall face the street, a covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet and a street-facing principal window or group of windows face the street. The property is legally described as: Subdivision: Smuggler Park Lot: 114, City Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Claude Salter at the City ofAspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2752, claude.salter@cityofaspen.com s/ LJ Erspamer Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on December 20,2012 City of Aspen Account .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 114 MAPLE LANE, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANADRD VARIANCE LAND USE REQUEST NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 8,2013, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Meeting Room. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Camilla and Monty Earl, 114 Maple Lane, Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Mr. and Mrs. Earl. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances from residential design standards: an entry door shall face the street, a covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet and a street-facing principal window or group of windows face the street. The property is legally described as: Subdivision: Smuggler Park Lot: 114, City Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Claude Salter at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2752, claude.salter@cityofaspen.com s/ LJ Erspamer Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on December 20, 2012 City o f Aspen Account 4 - 1 '11,1 j ..IL y 1-111 . - PUBLIC NOTICE ~~' PI;â€¢Cor 'Ir'.,â€¢,Ul r~*â€¢4â€¢* -.. 9 1 .41. ' 31Â· 4 ' â€žre. E 1 Purpoâ€¢â€¢ 4 9 -* i. I + 04; ./M 4"Â·-/,1/Â·hÂ·h, Â¢ .... b, .... C 'p A . .1 1, , ; 1, 1 -1 '40 .. ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION 0067 -20(2, Â· ASL(/1 ~JECT: Name: M Ovit-6 Atvt (441Â·n Ll 4 -12Â« r/ Location: I 1 4 Mâ‚¬le- I avt â‚¬3- A=,jlt,ut_ Co %1611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 1.-1 3 7 1-4- 4 Â£ 1 D L APPLICANT: Name: 'k) 0,14--1 0lt-4~ Ca~VUL N.ici fflic r. Address: 11 4 .Wefli lau â‚¬ Arujai 7-161) Phone #: 534 - 49 4 0 0 y- 3-99 - 1599 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): U GMOS Exemption E Conceptual PtlD U Temporary Use U GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment E Special Review E Subdivision 1 Conceptual SPA E ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes E Final SPA (& SPA ~ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review D Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion E~ Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment 1 Other: E Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) to-1 0~Vt l., ft a... Vllikillt el-- (MASfrl<( 11-bc ,/frâ‚¬ Cltz(% butitith/j U,~0Â£0 a 1164 -froiller. LktÂ¢Â¥0 4 8-< 26,1-t~ fi- ov~ q\Â¥Â«t- . PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, *.) 411 - 21 H~1Â£ 6,6/VAL,19 11&,+LL- 66*lac ZO'01'wl ~-0 T' ,~itiÂ¥'LI"l~ Â· Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ U Pre-Application Conference Summary D Attachment #1, Signed FÂ«Agreement 2 Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards U 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part 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. rtner",en ACT 9 2012 CITY 01- Mori=N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: C 1 4 tvt-OVP Le lciv-i Â·Â·.<1 Applicant: [\/\EklqT) rivic< Couvvittlet. 12-C: r'1 Location: ill MAFU. LA,kle- 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 Exis ting Required: Proposed. Buildings E*isting non-cpnformities or qncroachments: k' O '~>1) r-/ 4 1 n c 01[DE tr tÂ» 931- -a t \.5 'Pâ‚¬ ler Variatiutls requeted: U 0 f.~7 C r. L 1,1 1 91 0 (~< CO {0.- ':~1 6-hl (7fTE LT i,~4eur. .. Variance requested for: 114 Maple Lane Aspen CO Owners: Monty and Camilla Earl This request is for a variance to the zoning rules as they relate to Smuggler trailer park. We request a variance to the Residential Design Standard section 26.410.040(D) a. An entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the front-most wall ofthe building. Entry door shall not me more than 8 feet. b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet, shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. c. A Street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. We are seeking this variance in relation to section 20.410.020 (D) (2) (a) where it states "An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development within adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine i f the exception is warranted: The requirement of an entry porch in section (b) mentioned above is virtually non- existent in Smuggler. As far as section (a) requiring an entry door is sporadic, there are some that do have this and many that do not. Section (c) is like section (a) some do some do not. These rules have been in effect during the course of many projects in Smuggler, and if you walk through the park you can see they were never applied. A project was done on Cottonwood in 2005. The only doors facing the street are garage doors, there is not a porch on the front fagade, the only windows facing the street are in the garage doors, I don't think you would consider those principal windows. The house next to this has no doors facing the street, no principal windows and no porch, it was also done recently. The owners didn't mention having to go through this when they did there project, all of our neighbors, that we have talked to, are shocked that the city is imposing these standards now when it is quite obvious they never have in the past We, like every house in Smuggler, have oriented the main group areas of the home towards Aspen Mountain. This is probably the most consistent design feature in the park, it is why houses on the other side of the street do have windows and doors, and in a few cases decks and porches, facing the street, because that happens to be on the same side of their house as Aspen Mountain. If we orientate these areas of our home towards the Smuggler Trailer park private .. street, we will face straight into our neighbors living space. Naturally they are strongly opposed to us doing this; they don't want to view us any more than we want to view them. Like most of the homes in Smuggler we want our door on the side, We do not want windows on that side of the house and we do not want a porch on that side of the house, the porch would be absolutely inconsistent with the neighborhood, almost all porches and decks face Aspen Mountain. Our neighbors are as opposed to this as we are, for their sake and ours we ask that you please grant this variance. Thank you, Monty and Camilla Earl .. AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, January 8, 2013 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. 114 Maple Lane, Residential Design Standards Variance B. Aspen Valley Hospital, Phases III and IV, PUD VI. OTHER BUSINESS C. Chair and Vice-chair appointment VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: .. For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change** - CITY AGENDAS - City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z-1 St and 34 Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of January 7, 2013 1/8 P&Z @ 4:30 Special meeting (ED Rio Grande Notice:12/17 114 Maple Lane, RDS, PH - CS AVH - Final PUD - Phases 3 & 4, PH - JP Commission elections 1/15 P&Z @ 4:30 Regular meeting - Current planning Notice: 12/24 Gant - JG AVH - Final PUD - Phases 3 & 4, PH - JP 2/5 P&Z @ 4:30 Regular meeting - Current planning Notice: 1/14 2/19 P&Z @ 4:30 Regular meeting - Current planning Notice: 1/28 Moses Lot Split, 8040 Greenline - JP 3/5 P&Z @ 4:30 Regular meeting - Current planning 3/19 P&Z @) 4:30 Regular meeting - Current planning .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes December 18, 2012 Comments 2 Minutes (12/04/12) 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Jewish Community Center, 435 W Main St - Growth Management 2 Aspen Club Living, 1450 Crystal Lake Rd - Commercial Design Amendment 6 1 Regular City Plan~~g & Zoning Meeting - Minutes~ecember 18,-~20 1 2 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission for December 18th , 2012 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Keith Goode, Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Commissioner not present was Ryan Walterscheid and Cliff Weiss. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City Community Development Director, Sara Adams, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin asked for staff to follow-up with regards to the APCHA Board recommendation from the last meeting that LJ voted against because he was concerned about the sequence o f Board approval. Bert said the question was what did the APCHA Board decide to do. Jennifer Phelan replied that APCHA approved the certificate of affordable housing credits. Bert asked about the request to City Council and we can change things and LJ said that he would take it to Council to present it. Jennifer said that this would be more appropriate at the end of the meeting. LJ Erspamer said that he talked to Debbie about where it should go. Debbie said that if it is more than a comment it should be official business and probably other business. Jasmine Tygre corrected the spelling of our from out in Section F and the only thing was to include a summary on the first page but the second paragraph should be in bold and that is the request. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to make the questions in bold and spelling correction to move for LJ to take to City Council seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All infavor, APPROVED. Minutes MOTION: Jim De-Francia moved to approve the minutes from December 04th with a change to page 11 for the spelling of Graeme Means name seconded by Stan Gibbs. All infavor, APPROVED. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest None stated. Public Hearing: Jewish Community Center - 435 W-Main.2 - Growth_Management Review LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on the Jewish Community Center, 435 West Main Street for Growth Management Review. Sara Adams presented the proof of public notice and the public outreach was completed before HPC. Debbie Quinn said the notice was appropriate. 2 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes December 18, 2012 Sara said the there was an amendment to the Jewish Community Center located at 435 West Main Street for recommendation o f Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility to City Council. Sara said in 2007 a development order was granted for the entire Jewish Center Community Parcel. Sara said it was one whole block including a sanctuary, a pre-school, administrative building, 6 cabins along the alley and a social hall. Sara said the proposal tonight was to amend the approved social hall and to replace it with a parsonage. The social hall was a little over 4500 square feet and the proposed parsonage is about 4000 square feet; the parsonage would house the Rabbi and his family, receive the congregation, guest speakers and host special events. Community Development determined that the parsonage was part of the arts, cultural and civic use and have instructed the applicant to process this as an Essential Public Facility. HPC reviewed it for conceptual review and now it is going to P&Z for Growth Management for recommendation to City Council for Growth Management Final and Subdivision and then goes back to HPC for final review. Sara said the Planning & Zoning Commission determines the number of employees generated by the project or in this case the amendment and then you make a recommendation to City Council and City Council decides how many o f those employees are mitigated for; what percentage needs to be mitigated for. In 2007 P&Z determined that 9.63 were generated by the whole project which was about 19,655 square feet in floor area. City Council decided ofthose 9.63 FTEs 44% needed to be mitigated for on site. Sara stated the applicant has deed restricted 3 of the 6 cabins as deed restricted cabins and will be the affordable housing. They are required to do an audit 2 years after they receive a Certificate of Occupancy just to make sure the 9.63 is what actually was generated. Sara said the proposal today with the reduced size of a couple of the buildings and the parsonage is now 16,525 square feet. The housing board recommendation was attached as Exhibit B and agrees that fewer FTEs are generated by this change and are supportive of the audit still being in place. Sara said since subdivision was only under City Council's purview and staff was concerned of a possible change in use for the parsonage becoming a single family home. Jasmine Tygre asked i f that was why the parsonage was being turned into a single family residence and was not in their resolution. Sara replied yes. Jennifer replied it was outside o f the scope of the Planning & Zoning Commission to be making recommendations outside o f how many employees were generated. Jennifer suggested that P&Z supports not having a change in use for the parsonage, Alan Richman said that the applicant made the representation in the memo on the parsonage not being replaced. Sara noted in Section 4 of the Resolution says 1 Regular Citv Plan=le & Zoning Meeting - Minutes-December 18, 2012 representations made by the applicant or in the application are basically approved by the resolution. Debbie Quinn said the fact that the applicant has committed to it we have representation already and if they wanted to subdivide and selloffthat parcel they would have to go through a new approval process. Debbie said you are protected in a lot of different ways. Bert and LJ had the same question. Bert said the Com Dev Director determines it is an Essential Facility so P&Z doesn't do any ofthat. Sara said it was in the Community Development Department's decision. Bert asked ifthe FTE mitigation could go down. Sara restated that they have deed restricted 3 of the cabins for affordable housing on site. Sara said it was up to City Council to decide on the percent of mitigation. Alan Richman said that he was representing the Jewish Resource Community Center and introduced Rabbi Mintz and they were pleased with the staff direction and recommendation. Rabbi Mintz stated that they feel they have gotten to a place where the long term health of the organization and the health of the project is the right approach and the right thing to do. Alan said much of what he was going to point out was pointed out by staff and as Sara said that P&Z found that there were 9.63 employees generated, the project is smaller today from when you made that review of 9.63. The square footage has gone down but the program is really where the employee generation is established; it is really the same program that we represented in 2006-2007. Alan said the only thing that has changed is that the Rabbi and his family will be housed on the property and the Rabbi will not own the parsonage but will be owned as part of the overall Jewish Community Center and will have housing for all rabbis in this community over time. Alan said it was a real plus to have the Rabbi on site at all times. Alan said that the Rabbi has lived in affordable housing for many years so bringing the Rabbi onto the site is going to free up an existing deed restricted unit. LJ asked how this was going to be divided inside or is it just going to be an open home. Alan replied it is a private home but the kitchen and living room area, the downstairs area has been sized so congregation events can occur there; Friday night dinners after. Alan said that would be for a dozen or dozen and hal f people. Alan said this was not a major social facility; it is a small congregation. Public Comments: 1. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she was a neighbor and having the parsonage there was really nice and the family will be a nice addition and they were already in the neighborhood. Cheryl was surprised that there 4 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes -December 189 2012 was only a one car garage and for all of the projects in the neighborhood she has always wanted garages. 2. Steve Goldenberg said there was a map on the WEB but it was not in the handout and it doesn't look like you can get out of that garage because there is another unrelated parking space blocking it. 3. Sara Adams presented a letter from Meta Barton who was opposed to the conversion from the social hall to the parsonage. Alan stated the main reason they were showing a one car garage was to keep as much open space as they can; to the west o f the parsonage is the playground space for the preschool. The yard to the east of the parsonage is for the Rabbi's family as their only yard. Alan said that HPC has encouraged them to keep the space open so that the public can view those cabins. Sara said the Historic Preservation Commission did perform the special review for parking on the historical property when they did conceptual. Commissioner Comments: LJ said the P&Z review was Growth Management basic. Jim DeFrancia said that he agreed with retaining the open space. Jim said that he strongly supported this application with the freeing up of an affordable unit. Stan asked the applicant from the letter that we received the concern seems to be the frequency and duration of events. Stan asked ifthey saw a difference between the social hall and the parsonage implementations; do you see a reduction or increase in frequency and duration of events. Rabbi Mintz said instead ofhaving 100 to 300 people 25 times a year there will be 1 to 20 people a couple times a month; certainly a reduction. Alan said that they will make contact with the neighbor and give her the sense that it is a better situation. Bert asked on page 7 0 f the packet Section 2 talks about employee mitigation is valid at 44% and asked if P&Z was reinforcing that on the previous approval. Sara said that was to mitigate the for the 9.63 employees which is 4.25 FTEs and not change the additional employees generated it would just say 0 employees. Bert said we were just determining the 9.63 and Council was deciding. Sara stated that P&Z was recommending to Council the 44%. Stan said that second section should not be there because it was not P&Z's function to do that 44%; so we should determine that it is valid. Everyone agreed to that change. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved approval of Resolution 23, series of 2012 approving growth management for an Essential Public Facility with the determination that no additional employees are generated by the re placement of 5 Regular City Plain~gz -& _Zoning Meeting. - Minutes7ecember 18,2012 the social hall with the parsonage and recommending that City Council grant Growth Management approval for the mitigation of 0 employees and took the last sentence ofthe recommended motion out. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert wanted to discuss the concern Jasmine, LJ and he raised earlier about the parsonage ever changing use to a single family home is very important to him as not part of our review but is in the memo and wanted Council to be aware that was a concern. Public Hearing: Aspen Club Living - 1450 Crystal Lake Rd - Commercial Design Amendment LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Aspen Club Living - Commercial Design Amendment. Jessica Garrow stated that public notice was given to the Assistant City Attorney. Debbie Quinn approved it. Jessica said this was a public hearing for an amendment for the Aspen Club project. The applicant is Aspen Club and Spa LLC represented by Michael Fox, Sunny Vann and Chris Ridings from Poss and Associates. Jessica said the project was at the end of Ute Avenue between the Benedict Office Building and the Silver Lining Ranch property; the project amendments are to the Club, townhome time share unit as well as the affordable housing portion. Page 4 of the memo showed the previous approved North and West E]evations and the proposed Elevations. There is an updated Club entrance and some time share units that are located in this building that will be added first floor decks as well as changes to windows and fenestration. Staff is supportive of these changes in particular the material pallet is something that we approved with the elimination of stucco and as well as support from the shingle to a vertical wood siding. Jessica said the most significant change is the decrease in mass for the pool enclosure and the bottom image shows the half pool enclosure and the architecture and materials blend much more cohesively into the architecture of the Club. Jessica said the second major change was related to the roof deck which was much larger and a trellis element that was added. Staff feels that trellis adds to the livability o f the roo f but staff was concerned about the possible desire to enclose that area and it was not what staff supported. There was a condition in the resolution that this area cannot be enclosed in the future. Jessica said the roof material on the townhomes has been changed from shake shingle to standing seam and staffprefers the shake shingle but will agree to the 6 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -December 18, 2012 standing seam as long as it is not reflective. Jessica said balconies are larger on the corner units on the time share units. Jessica noted on the affordable housing units there were some changes on roof forms from a butterfly to a flipper and getting rid o f the stucco but have a concern- related to balconies. The original approval included some balconies and the applicant is proposing to change the affordable housing balconies to Juliette balconies for all the units so that staff thinks that the balconies are important for the livability ofthose units. The applicant looked at a way to make more usable space in the courtyard area which is just south of the affordable housing units. Jessica said that it is not in the Resolution and staff is supportive o f the affordable housing units balconies and the trellis on the roof not be enclosed and limit the shingle on the roof to not be reflective. Bert asked how the notice process works for an amendment like this; is there a mailing to all the neighbors. Jessica replied there was a mailing and a posting. Bert asked about page 3 of the memo from stucco to wood change for affordable housing; is there any concern about the cost of maintenance over the years. Jessica replied no and that wasn't one of the review criteria; what we focus on is durability and make sure it is a high quality material. Bert said with the elimination of balconies was not included it in the resolution. Jessica said staff felt strongly about it but we feel that P&Z should look at it and could be added as a condition and staff would support that. Sunny Vann commented that this project was moving forward in the design development stage and when we submit for approval it is basically conceptual architecture. The architect has been working with Bill Poss's office and the proposed operator ofthe project of the fractional component, which is the Abjure Group. Sunny said the conditions of approval are okay with us; there were some decisions behind the idea of eliminating or replacing the balconies with the Juliette balconies and Chris Ridings from Poss felt that there was an upside to doing these. Chris added clarification on the balconies that with the PUD submittal of the 12 units there were only 6 that had balconies; of those 6 two o f them had extensions over setbacks so we struggling how far we could extend them out. Chris said we would have wanted to have balconies but because o f property lines being an issue we made a decision to provide all the units with a Juliette balcony. Chris said the sliding doors with the Juliette balcony and railing would be a benefit to all the units. Chris handed out a graphic of the courtyard area (Applicant Exhibit #1). 7 Reguiar City Plan=ig & Zoning Meeting - Minutes-mecember 18, 2012 Sunny said these are rental units that will be owned and rented by the Aspen Club and maintained by the Club. Jasmine asked how deep was the Juliette balcony. Chris replied there was no depth to the Juliette balcony, about 9 inches off the wall would be the railing. Jasmine asked why do you have to have a sliding glass door. Chris answered the sliding door provides a larger opening rather than a window with a sill and the sliding door gives you more of an opening to the outdoors. Sunny said an example would be at Centennial (the bluish-gray ones) all have a living area and a double slider and what amounts to a Juliette balcony; the homeowners have amended their covenants to allow the addition o f a deck on some o f those units have in fact added an outdoor deck. Bert asked if there is a page to point this out. Chris replied that was on the drawings 1, 2,3 and 4. Bert asked what the square was. Sunny replied it was temporary parking and affordable housing was provided in the garage. Sunny said there were 5 temporary spaces for mail, deliveries and the like but it wasn't permanent parking. Stan asked ifmoving the balconies actually allow you to move the buildings; is that something that you did as part of that. Chris replied that they haven't moved the buildings. Michael Fox stated that 2 ofthe balconies were in the setback area. Stan said it appears to him that the Main Club building is either shorter in the new or the buildings around it have gone up. Jessica said what she understands from the applicant was that there was an incorrect measurement in the original application and that what was shown there was actually taller than what is there now so the updated proposal is the correct height. Stan said that didn't answer his question. Jessica said the main building hasn't gone down in terms ofthe allowed height it was just in the drawing. Jim asked about the staff' s concern about the recommendation about the trellis on the deck and your concern is that it becomes enclosed. Jim said that seems restrictive; could they cover it. Jessica replied no and that is staffs point; they see a lot of these things come in where people will be wanting to use their roofs and second floor deck and years go by and say wouldn't it be great if it were a year round space and bring space heaters in and cover it with a tarp and we think that doesn't fit in with the mass and scale that was approved. It is something that they want to very explicitly say is not allowed and if the Club wants to come in they would have to come back through and do another Commercial Design Review. Jim asked ifthe applicant has any problem with that. Sunny replied that was the 8 .. Regular City Planning & Zoning_Meeting - Minutes December 18, 2012 reason it was acceptable but anything can be asked to be changed and i f we have a specific proposal we would come in and pitch it and see if it fly's. LJ said thai we talked about balconies before but these are rentals and these balconies are open to the outside courtyard. Sunny responded the original ones or the new Juliette. Chris replied the balconies were on the perimeter of the affordable housing units; the entrance doors are on the inside. Stan asked i f the units on the ground floor have sliding doors already and just egress that way; did they have that capability. Stan asked i f the ground floor units were to get a Juliette balcony at grade. Chris replied that they all have access on grade; they are not balconies. Michael said the site slopes a little bit and so they will still have views kind of back over the Club over the swimming pool area. Stan asked i f the units on the center of the building had balconies currently. Michael replied they do not. Chris said that was what they were adding. Michael said there current configuration there were 4 balconies and it was originally 6 with 2 in the setbacks so there was really only 4 that we could put in and with Poss they are giving everyone these Juliette balconies at 12 versus 4 of the larger balconies. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Jim said he was supportive of it and appreciate the trellis and the applicant accepted it; the balconies are fine with changing what they are proposing. Jasmine said she didn't like the Juliette balconies but she didn't like the big balconies either especially since there are only 4 of them. Jasmine thought that there was a fairness issue; some people get balconies and some don't and she didn't think it promotes good neighborliness. Jasmine said the ratios will tend not to be used and would rather see the sliding doors replaced with regular windows. Jasmine said she would rather see the employee units treated the same even if it means Juliette balconies rather than 4 people having big balconies. Jim asked if they were rental units. Sunny replied yes. Jim appreciated Jasmine's logic and comments but they can address it economically by making the units with balconies rents for more. Sunny said they have rates based upon the income level and the size of the unit, the balcony doesn't count. Jasmine said there was a benefit to having them all consistent. Keith said you would have a lot of those issues with the pool and the hot mb and asked if the common area had a little grill. 9 Regular City.Plan-MIL & Zoning Meeting - Minutes=)ecember 18, 20112 Bert supported the staff recommendation to have the private space that the balconies provide for some of the units; he would retain the 4 balconies that were there and Juliette balconies for the rest and the common area as proposed makes sense. LJ said that he was with Bert and it wasn't a deal breaker; he said that he liked balconies. Jim asked ifthe 2 points from staff will they be in the motion and resolution. Jessica replied they were in the resolution. MOTION: Jim Defrancia moved to approve Resolution #24, series of 2012 approving the Commercial Design Amendment for the Aspen Club project with the original approvals if they can change the 2 balconies by the building department; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call: Stan Gibbs, no; Keith Goode no; Bert Myrin. yes; Jim DeFrancia, no; Jasmine Tygre, no; U Erspamer, yes. DENIED 4- 2. Discussion prior to the first vote: Bert proposed all amendment under Section 1 #3. Jessica said it would be the balconies as approved under the Commercial Design Review approval incorporated into it. Michael said if they were forced to keep the balconies he wasn't sure that they could add the Juliettes to every other unit; the money we are saving on the external balconies we are redistributing to every unit in putting in Juliettes. Debbie asked if he was asking for an amendment. Jim agreed to the amendment. Stan asked if it was the proposal to do the Juliettes as well as the other balconies. Jasmine did not agree; she said you either do the balconies or you do the Juliettes but she did not see the combination. Bert said he would then request a motion as the original one that Jessica said with either 4 balconies and no Juliette balconies. Jasmine said she would like to see this move along and that the applicant revisit the whole balconies issue and Juliettes with windows and see if they can come up with a better design. Chris said as a point of clarity there are some areas of the building because of setbacks that they would be limited to Juliette balconies and wouldn't be able to do anything that came off of the building very far. Sunny said they have an approval for 6 balconies and have a problem with 2 balconies and whether it could be resolved at the building department he didn't know. Sunny said they have an approval to build 4; there was a decision made that the money be re-allocated and provide Juliette balconies for everyone. Sunny said if there is not a majority that would favor that proposal then I think that we would simply remove our proposal and ask that you eliminate the 4 then we are back where we were to start with and it is done. Bert said that 10 .. Reguflar City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes December 18, 2012 would be said the language is that the balconies they should go with what staff originally proposed. Jessica said the language is the balconies approved in the final commercial design approval are required to remain. Jim said he was fine with that and the applicant was fine with that. Jasmine said okay. Sunny said with the understanding that we might have to lose 2 because of building code requirements. Jasmine said you can do 4. Bert said that he liked the common area as opposed to just grass. LJ said that he would like to leave that up to the applicant. Jim agreed. Michael said that they think everybody having a Juliette balcony was a better solution and the coureard, which is why they proposed it. Michael said that he thought Jasmine was more democratic for everyone to have a balcony. Sunny said the current motion as amended is that the original 6 balconies remain, the courtyard is not there and the Juliette balconies are not there. Bert said if down the road they want to do this then they can without coming back to us. Stan said the applicant's proposal makes sense and he didn't understand why we were having so much trouble with these balconies and as Jasmine said balconies for just a few units are any advantage and the courtyard was an advantage and the sliding doors give a little more open space feel that they have the outside coming in makes sense. Stan said that we should stop nit-picking at this either we go with what the applicant would like to do or just say no. Jim said what the applicant wants to do is all Juliette balconies and the courtyard. Jim withdrew the motion for the amendment and Jasmine withdrew he second. LJ wanted the motion voted on. So they voted on it. Second MOTION: Jim DeFrancia move to approve Resolution 24, series of 2012 approving a Commercial Design Amendment for the Aspen Club project adding the Juliette balcony for each unit and the courtyard as proposed by the applicant. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll Call: Bert Myrin, no; Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim Def'rancia, yes; LJ Erspamer. yes. APPROVED 5-1. Bert said the reason he voted no was that he supported the staff recommendation. Adjourned at 5:55 pm. l./ 4 *k447 4 1 tu~ fackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 m .. Community Development Update December 2012 meÂ·Â«Â«<.Ne5:*552*M6$:eâ„¢,â€¢~*U5%<:<M~Â«<*â„¢â‚¬i.Â«Â«.<<~.Â«e~~~*Â«8â‚¬~.re.w~Â·.â„¢~,9Â«~Â«-*MM,6.'~Â·ea~>Â·<I ~Â« Â«~Â»~~*M~*,N,*~e~<Â«4 Â·~v~AÂ»4*90w<a,~~--*0:4â‚¬~~MZÂ«,Â«ge~- Project: Aspen Valley Hospital Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The Hospital has applied for approval of Phases 3 and 4. These include the addition of new medical office space, new hospital space, and a new entry. Update: P&Z reviewed the project on October 30, November 20, and December 4. Next Steps: Continued P&Z review on January 8. Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the property from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units, add on-site affordable housing, and create an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less than 300 square feet. Update: Staff is still reviewing the initial application. The project's conceptual commercial design review will be conducted by HPC. Next Steps: Review by HPC on January 9th. ,Â·: e.Â«.Â·â€žIMâ€ž.ede.Mea.Ill-**xÂ«Â·xÂ«ze./Il.....*.*'.ly:*."Z.Â«4'IM.&/*RM+U'.'â‚¬5/...mil~I. yly-/0/<Â«00Â«.Â·..555/Â«IÂ»xep-Â·:iÂ©:vi.-6,-Â«. I.I.,Gl**Â¢I.W.....*el~eâ€¢... Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12,2012. Next Steps: City Council review for a determination o f call-up. *.*. I,#*,4Â£*04Â«<owÂ«&/*'*.>XelÂ»Â»Â»-I~-$--#IÂ».~RIVI/.5:eÂ»:Â·:Â» ~;.*#*.â€¢Nwax:<.4Â·.Â»Â»~e~tÂ·..<. ~:44: /AÂ»yOÂ»Â·*<.1/-Â»&~*>42*~62*.IÂ»Â·=wi.~y M.B :/&4'NÂ»Â·/+ - ...%.-I-WI-*m--Ig-~~eeea:a>Â»*IÂ«â€žÂ«<Â«ehÂ»Â»i~,***a,>4* -*Â»-...:I.IM*~ Project: 610 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to designate and expand an existing free-market residential unit and add two-story commercial addition to the property. The building houses the Charles Cunniffe offices. Page 1 of 7 .. Update: Review by Staff. HPC is reviewed the project on May 23,2012 and recommended a continuance. The was approved, with conditions regarding work required to in order to qualify for designation, by HPC on October 1 0th. City Council approved first reading on November 12 and continued the December 10th Second Reading to January 14th. Next Steps: Continued Second Reading on January 14th. Project: 601 E Hyman Ave (Victorian Square) Contact: Sara Nadolny, 429-2739 Status: Completed review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes demolishing and replacing the existing building with a mix of commercial space and one free-market residential unit. The applicant proposes to use an affordable housing credit for their affordable housing mitigation. The building is commonly known as the Garfield and Hecht office building. Update: Review by Staff. P&Z reviewed the project at their June 19th and July 3 rd meetings, and approved the project by 4:2. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to P&Z for further review of the public amenity space. P&Z reviewed and approved a slightly revised design. P&Z approved a Growth Management Review for commercial space and free-market residential space on December 4tll. Next Steps: Applicant is determining i f they will apply for subdivision approval. Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for their final design review with HPC. Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27. Project: 602 E Hyman Ave Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant had proposed to remodel the existing building and add a new third story. The development would have include updated commercial space, a new affordable housing unit, and an updated free-market residential unit. The applicant has since withdrawn their application and submitted a request to designate the property under AspenModern. The Page 2 of 7 .. new application includes an updated free-market residential unit and updated commercial space. A small addition in the rear is proposed. Update: Staff is reviewing the application, and is scheduled for HPC review on February 27. Next Steps: HPC and City Council reviews. Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 Status: Pending review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 420 E Hyman with a new three-story mixed-use building. Update: HPC approved the project on July 25,2012 by a 3:2 vote. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to HPC for further review of the mass and scale. HPC approved the massing on November 14th Next Steps: The applicant will apply for growth management and subdivision reviews. Project: 204 S Galena (Gap) Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Stafus: Completed review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property with a new one to two story building comprised of commercial space and a roof-top deck. The building is commonly referred to as the Gap building. Update: HPC voted to approve the conceptual design of the project on August 8,2012. Next Steps: Final HPC Review was granted on December 12. This application came. in prior to the new call-up procedure, so Council call-up takes place following final review, and will not occur at a public meeting, but will be provided in Council boxes. Project: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 Status: Pending Review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to add a third story free-market residential unit, and convert a second floor deck to commercial space. The building is commonly referred to as the Boogies Building. Update: LIPC approved the project on July 11, 2012 by a 4:0 vote. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and accepted HPC's decision. Page 3 0 f 7 .. Next Steps: The applicant will submit a land use application for growth management and subdivision reviews. Project: 616 E IIyman Ave Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 616 E Hyman, with a new commercial building. Residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: P&Z approved the project. City Council has exercised their call-up authority, and the n rd project will be reviewed at a call up hearing on December j . Next Steps: City Council reviewed the call-up on December 3rd and accepted P&Z's decision. The applicant will make a growth management and subdivision application. Project: 420 E Cooper Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story commercial building, commonly known as the Red Onion Annex (currently houses the poster shop). The applicant proposes to replace it with a new two - three story mixed use building including commercial space and one free-market unit. Update: HPC reviewed the project on September 12,2012 and approved it on October 24. City Council has exercised their call-up authority, and remanded the project back to HPC for view plane review. Next Steps: HPC reviewed the remanded project, and approved it with no changes. The applicant will apply for growth management and final design reviews. Project: Jewish Community Center Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The Jewish Community Center has applied for an Essential Public Facility growth management review for their project. They propose to amend the site plan to replace the social hall with a parsonage for the Rabbi. Update: P&Z recommended approval of the Essential Public Facility growth management review on December 18th. Next Steps: City Council Essential Public Facility Review. First reading is scheduled for th th January 28 , and second reading is scheduled for February 11 . Page 4 of 7 .. Project: 233 E Hallam Lot Split Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes a lot split for the property at 233 E Hallam. They are requesting removal of a non-historic addition to the historic home. Update: HPC approved the request for removal of a non-historic addition on the property on November 14. Next Steps: City Council Lot Split Review is required and has not been scheduled. Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for their final design review with HPC. Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27. I....gQ~,Â»ek}}Rh *N.9. 22 e.#m:Wel.Â»./9,â€ž ~1*>>~.-.2~n~m.9:geÂ«*%././~Â®~Â«â€žu/+Aâ€ž,Â£9~e=Ra~Â»*7= >>'~#f #/W~Â»,7/~,â€¢'â€¢.W.v,49/.*P./lk/,4Â»~kÂ«w Y- *mx-**,-~*.#44.i~A.W.XeA InÂ»â‚¬-Lk},.>.>>'AÂ»>*~, Project: CC and C-1 Zones Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Jan 2013 Description: City Council amended the allowed height and free-market residential floor area in the CC and C-1 zones in April 2012. The allowed height is 28 feet for 2-story buildings, and a .5:1 FAR for free-market residential in non-historic buildings, only if equal amounts of affordable housing are provided on-site. Historic properties have a.5:1 free-market residential FAR by right. At the time, City Council indicated an interest in allowing three-story buildings, but that the exact height and uses deserved more discussion. Update: Over 200 individuals participated in the public outreach process on the project. City Council approved a "Policy Resolution" that provided staff with direction for specific code amendments. That direction included a ban on free-market residential uses downtown, and the ability to have 3 story buildings through some kind of review process with City Council. Staff is working on the amendments and will bring those forward later this fall. Council passed a Policy Resolution on August 27th, providing general direction to staff for code amendments. Next Steps: Staff will present proposed code language to City Council at 1 st reading on November 12 and 2nd reading on Nov 26, Dec 10 and Jan 14. Page 5 of 7 .. Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring/Summer 2013 Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "examine the desirability and sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As part of this effort, staff is conducting a lodging study to examine our existing inventory and to understand the current state of the lodging market. Staff is utilizing a two-phase approach to Council's Lodging Goal. The first stage includes an overview of the City's role in the lodging sector, interviews with key players in the lodging industry, and an inventory of lodging in Aspen. Phase two would begin with a series of facilitated roundtable discussions between lodging owners, planners, developers, general businesses, ACRA, the Aspen Skiing Company, Stay Aspen Snowmass, and outside lodging experts. The discussion would focus on three topics: 1) Is there a problem in the lodging sector as it relates to product diversity? 2) Should the City have a role is addressing any problems? 3) If so, what can the City do? Update: The Phase 1 Report is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/ Phase 2 consisted of a charrette with Aspen's lodging stakeholders to discuss the issues, challenges and opportunities in the lodging sector. The group also discussed what rles the City could or should have in the lodging sector. The charrette was held on October 23rd and included representatives from Aspen's lodges, ACRA, SS, SkiCo, and the lodging development community. Two lodging consultants from Denver also attended and are writing a report on their conclusions from that meeting. Staff with present the findings and a summary of the meeting at a December work session. Next Steps: Staff is moving forward on the next steps presented to Council at their December 11th work session. Project: ADUs Code Amendment Contact: Chris Bendon 429-2765 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Jan/Feb 2013 Description: Council, P&Z, and APHCA have alI expressed interest in eliminating ADUs as an option when mitigating for housing impacts in single-family and duplex development. This code amendment eliminates the ADU mitigation option, creates a system to remove existing ADUs, and changes the mitigation trigger to any time new floor area is created in a single-family or duplex development. th Update: City Council approved policy direction on November 12 , and approved code th language at first reading on November 26 . Second reading on December 10 was continued to January 28th. Next Steps: Continued second reading on January 28. Page 6 of 7 . .. Project: Employee Generation Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Feb 2013 Description: As part of the implementation of the AACP, City Council asked staff to update the employee generation study completed 10 years ago. This study has been completed, and there were a few changes in the employee generation numbers within different zone districts. This code amendment will update the figures in the code. In addition, Council has previously given staff Policy Direction to eliminate the provision in the growth management code that allows multiple mitigation requirements to be satisfied by mitigating for the largest requirement when on-site housing is provided (also referred to as the "double dip" provision). These two item will be address in the same code amendment. Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on January 28% with 1St and 2nd readings in February. Next Steps: Policy Direction on January 28. Project: Sign Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Feb/Mar 2013 Description: City Council has asked staff to simplify the sign code. Update: City Council provided Policy Direction at their December 101!i meeting. First and second readings are now scheduled in 2013. Next Steps: Council first reading on January 28, and second reading on February 11. Project: Business Obstacles Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Feb/Mar 2013 Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is related to improving City Codes to eliminate barriers to businesses. As part of this effort, Community Development has identified some obstacles in the Land Use Code that could be eliminated, including size caps on business types. th st and 2nd Update: Staffrequests Policy Direction from City Council on January 28 , with 1 readings in February. Next Steps: Policy Direction on January 28. Page 7 0 f 7 .. A. pl MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer RE: 114 Maple Lane - Residential Design Standards Variance - Public Hearing DATE: January 08, 2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: Subject Property: 114 Maple Lane Monty and Camilla Earl LOCATION: Subdivision: Smuggler Park, Lot: 2. ..Jpl. ~42 114, commonly known as 114 Maple Lane. ././W I 2 -01/12.--%4 + Current Zoning: ~'-li./-1----1-71-' â€¢,Â·Â· ~ ~ /, , 19* R-3 / SPA, High Density - ~ , .:. Residential (R-3) --9.-aÂ·~ t ' Â¥7*Â»S..: Residential / Specially Planned Area 4 y. , 'â€¢1 I. Summary: . Â». . ,% :1.~ .44 3.- 24 :37:1 ... 7-: .44 . The Applicant requests a variance Ill,LIi.. from a Building Elements Residential Design Standard. -=U-6.=--.=-,----=.UY~ & - Staff Recommendation: ul-E--- Staff recommends denial of the requested Residential Design Standard Variance. Page 1 of 7 P2 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: Residential Design Standard Variance for the front entry door, porch, and street facing principal window standards (Building Elements), pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D, Fariances. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.) The variance is for 26.410.040(D)(1) Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Windows (D)(1) requires that: (a): The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall o f the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. (b): A covered porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front fag(le. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. (c): A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. Proiect Summarv: The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction. The residence is known as 114 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the Residential Design Standards (RDS). Staffs worked diligently with the homeowner to meet the Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building pennit. The building permit was submitted on May 22, 2012 to demolish the existing structure and place a new modular home on a site built full basement. The permit was submitted without RDS "-2 compliance. The plans were amended by the owner to meet the standards. The building permit m was issued on September 9,2012. The owner did not request a variance at the time ofbuilding permit issuance, as the plans met the Residential Design Standards. The owners are now requesting a variance from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard, which is the location of the front entry door, the requirement for a porch (or canopy) and a street facing principal window or group of windows. Staff analysis: Residential Design Standard Variances: All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the Residential Design Standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." Specifically the intent of the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard is to, "ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the fagade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions". Page 2 of 7 0 0 . The Applicant's approved plan has a street facing door, a porch, and principal windows, all of which have yet to be built. They are requesting a RDS variance so they do not have to build to the approved plan set. This would mean the street facing fagade of the house would have no door, porch or principal window or group of windows as shown below in Figure 1. Figure: 1 Front Faga(le, subject property. -rrl 1 42- 1 . 7 .1 .. r : A Ju=~Â·: 'fi~' . .1 J .,.94 . /14/ 12@#28 2 . ~ _, . - il The plan set was approved with a compliant design. Below, see Figure 2 the compliant elevation of the street-facing fagade as approved via the building permit. Figure: 2 compliant elevation t=- ~- 2%.NilÂ·*r--r.=.0Â·r--u 2-* -~ - ---- 4.0 3-3-*"9#.1 snow stops applied Isi.tf.- .6242 Fit '-,--F. INorth side 114 Fivdg#,"DiA- .E Â· :sr Â· ...gigRL 4-~2Â·6~1;*' r. i Â· CUTil Maple 4-iM .4 :Â· --:Â·A#f;.2 :Si"F"M 7-i 4 . ..J#'- 26%9Â«. ~13'Â· ./X/3.--:A/#I 0.-9.I.11 - - Ii'Â·SUA.-1 - *.- . . ; . .. ..443 PM.....34: 2 - ~ -Â· ' : 2 9.2 f..rs 1 f.Â«1 34 . 7'4: *sK *44 . _ --lt*:Bre- - - 4~- =rt r3(/1,29 52.4 -- 4.. Â· Â· - ceit.ati .... r /1 -:- Â·Â·- .mel 53 .3 - WMI ImI; E I ~ Â·".1: ~zÂ· I' 051 aMM :i #' m-.3Â·:= :r-~Â·- Â· 14 1 1 -i:~%?44 - & If- 9+J._Â·S Â·4 7,1 - f. DIE'y:- 3; ft 3 1.tif=:L:,4 bottom of widows 7 4 j.-Â·- 4'-Â·:, 0.:C. a: foot off finish floor .....1 11 -- 4 -- Page 3 of 7 7 , 4 i, P4 In general the purpose of the standards is to, "... preserve established neighborhood scale and character... and... contribute to the streetscape." A front porch provides outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape. The required elements help create homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood is enhanced by the standards. Without the standards, the streetscape and neighborhood suffer. Garages and solid walls facing the street do not meet the standard nor do they contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood. Below, see images in Figure: 3 which do not meet the standard nor contribution the streetscape within the neighborhood. Figure: 3 Structures which do not contribute to the streetscape Wi Â· ~ai~ Ii.---- :,#it. 7/ 3 IBI- .*- -b Â· itai@#2@et-~1 12/28/2012 4 r--r - f- '244:,bb - 0 .*1Â£Â¥,V: . .... :=m .=â‚¬kk N Irc' 0 #.&.11 #Al A/ ~Ilik-"01<~~~~ ~9.1/,t,V...,. - z El D I ~ 1. 1*13@# 1 9 " r 6,4. 2 -461 - 12/2@12012 ge; Page 4 0 f 7 .. P5 The neighborhood does not have a consistent pattern of development. The neighborhood is mixed with structures of varying ages; some homes have street-facing doors, some have front porches and some have street-facing principal windows and some have all three. The homes which comply with the three elements of the standard clearly benefit the neighborhood. Below, see Figure: 4 representations of structures which meet the standard and enhance the neighborhood. Figure: 4 structures which enhance the neighborhood I k ;.Â·t Â·t .'k# 99, 5 4., 7.' 06 9 *, A :'13 fâ„¢44,(ri 1 -C.<31~~ I . 1 1. - '0 '' ~Â·191% 1$. fe 4. 9 . ..69*,1~ 0 1-~ Ed/". 4 + - 'i ../.,8.MMFF.YMM.......el - 9 ' 4 .tt'Â·Â·:. Â· A ...illu4t ..1 * + 42/b .* 4 #f -- e... A 2.., J , 1:1. 3 + L ~ r.0 . -1 4 -0. , 12/Mi~@12 -I- 44 0114 ...EL 4 -4.t. i r , B.= . 7-=m â€¢ J.2.4 - 1 4 . . ".4 - ' -2."S'.4, 2:6-' * 4 12#2@#migr:g D -V---Il....1- Vi -b~- ~ 1â€¢33Â£81 1 #m-i'm"m --t_ _IDE. 4 -' b' 1 12#28#2@~2 2 :D 1 E 1 42. Page 5 0 f 7 .. P6 There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2): 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 o f fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: Sta#finds that the request does not meet either of the two variance standards. With regard to review standard 'a', the context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if granted; the structure would not contribute to the streetscape of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some modern site-built homes. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity Of the subject property have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-facing entry doors, porches and street-facing windo-ws. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk, complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the relationship between front facades Of buildings and the street they face. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. The architectural elements are the structure which enhance streetscape and help create the pedestrian nature ofa neighborhood. The proposed variance -with the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not create any visual interest in the neighborhood. The variance request does not meet the review standard 'b' as the site does not have a site- specific constraint. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards as part of their approved building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances. Staff recommends denial ofthe request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL 1MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to adopt Resolution No. , Series of 2013, denying a variance requests from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard. Page 6 0 f 7 .. P7 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Plans for Permit Page 7 0 f 7 .. P8 Exhibit A: Staff Findings Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): Residential Design Standard Variances a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose o f 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 Staff Finding: Stajf finds the requested variance does not meet review standard 'a: The context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if the variance request is supported; the structure would not contribute to the appropriate design of the neighborhood. The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some modern site-built homes and a fair number of square boxes with lifeless facades facing the street. There are examples of newer development meeting the standards. The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have had mixed success meeting the standard of street-facing entry doors, porches and street-facing windows. In the cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk, complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face. The front door establishes the entry to the home. It divides the public and private realm and provides interest to the su*eetscape. The proposed variance -with the absence of the street-facing door, porch and street-facing windows -will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not create any visual interest in the neighborhood. b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal does not meet this standard. There are no site specific constraints necessitating a variance. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards in their building permit. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit: B Application ~ ~ P9 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION 0067 -<20(2 Â· A-5601 i- -,JECT: Name: M ovrbi AM g (lowi , bl 4- ~12Â£1 rl Location: 11 9 M#Fle_ l.covuÂ« A.>,pout- 60 %}GH (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) _parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 1-1 3 -4 04 4 9 D 1 L APPLICANT: Name: M VY\-1+\ A/Uld (Avuvil/01 0(-Y Address: M 4 Wq'j>U_ la#Nt â‚¬ Arb)32{,i Ok E 6 // Phone #: 534 - 49 4 0 0 y- 39-9 -- 2-6 99 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check ali that apply): C GMQS Exemption U Conceptual PUD Â£ Temporary Use ~ D GMQS Allotment U Final PUT) (& PUD AmendmenO U Text/Map Amendment Â¤ Special Review ~ Subdivision E Conceptual SPA O ESA - 8040 Greentine, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condomiluumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane O, Commercial Design Review Â¤ Lot Split E Small Lodge Conversion/ i F.xpansion E~ Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustnient E Other: Â¤ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) a 19 04 -fteulle r. BotovÂ·-0 4 ov* ti.4{1 40Â» qixÂ«i . PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, *.) â€¢1 1 ~-lib~)14_-r'~ vvlÂ·Â·~t/Â¢ {/1 l/1*LÂ·-L bujlt.< F-01)091 +0-7-- gil\'''IC)'1'11 , 47 \~7/ Have you attached the following? -FEES DUE: $ E] Pre-Application Conference Suminary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement U Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Wiitten Responses to Review Standards [2 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 3.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an eleetric eopy ofall written text (Microsoft Word Format) niust 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 inoâ‚¬lel. 9 F'= ~p~ 27 1% fen OCT 9 2012 CITY OF AtivEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. Plo ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: 11 (-1 191 a F LL loutt <~--- ' Applicant: R/\ ovlt:.9 6.1/1 4 00*M i ll-<:4- 12_a r~ Location: ill k ctÂ¢1-1 lA,Vie- 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, easenients, 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 % o f demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Â· 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: Eristing: 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 Eating Required: Proposed: Buildings EFisting non-c~formitig orqncroachments: U b 2>l) r./. 9 1 11 D tol~OOr Â« 15Â¥Vt 1Â«,or V ke lu- Variatins requgted: U o 90 FY 4 1 M D Cleo r <f ch/1 St-Â«LT \/4,EV . 1 .. Pll Variance requested for: 114 Maple Lane Aspen CO Owners: Monty and Camilla Earl This request is for a variance to the zoning rules as they relate to Smuggler trailer park. We request a variance to the Residential Design Standard section 26.410.040(D) a. An entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry door shall not me more than 8 feet. b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet, shall be part of the front fa~ade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. c. A Street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face the street. We are seeking this variance in relation to section 20.410.020 (D) (2) (a) where it states "An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose ofthe particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development within adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine ifthe exception is warranted: The requirement of an entry porch in section (b) mentioned above is virtually lion- existent in Smuggler. As far as section (a) requiring an entry door is sporadic, there are some that do have this and many that do not. Section (c) is like section (a) some do some do not. These rules have been in effect during the course of many projects in Smuggler, and if you walk through the park you can see they were never applied. A project was done on Cottonwood in 2005. The only doors facing the street are garage doors, there is not a porch on the front fagade, the only windows facing the street are in the garage doors, I don't think you would consider those principal windows. The house next to this has no doors facing the street, no principal windows and no porch, it was also done recently. The owners didn't mention having to go through this when they did there project, all of our neighbors, that we have talked to, are shocked that the city is imposing these standards now when it is quite obvious they never have in the past. We, like every house in Smuggler, have oriented the main group areas of the home towards Aspen Mountain. This is probably the most consistent design feature in the park, it is why houses on the other side of the street do have windows and doors, and in a few cases decks and porches, facing the street, because that happens to be on the same side of their house as Aspen Mountain. If we orientate these areas of our home towards the Smuggler Trailer park private .. Pl 2 street, we will face straight into our neighbors living space. Naturally they are strongly opposed to us doing this; they don't want to view us any more than we want to view them. Like most of the homes in Smuggler we want our door on the side, We do not want windows on that side of the house and we do not want a porch on that side of the house, the porch would be absolutely inconsistent with the neighborhood, almost all porches and decks face Aspen Mountain. Our neighbors are as opposed to this as we are, for their sake and ours we ask that you please grant this variance. Thank you, Monty and Camilla Earl .. ONE REPORT To: . Date Ordered: 09.21 -2012 Land Tit]e GUARANTEE COMPANY Attn: CAMILLA EARL Order Number 446832 WWW.'10 C.(0/ Fax: Phone: 970-379-2389 Address: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 County: PITKIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 114, SUBDIVISION SMUGGLER PARK, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCES Certification Date: 09-11-2012 OWNERSHIP: MONTY B. EARL,CAMILLA EARL Doc Type - Doc Fee Date Reference# WARRANTY DEED $57.50 06-21-2011 580669 ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS Item Payable To Amount Date Reference# DEED OF TRUST $220,000.00 08-12Â·11 581849 DEED OF TRUST $350,000.00 06-21-11 580671 MODIFICATION 06-25-12 590054 MODIFICATION 06Â·25-12 590056 Cust Ref# This ONE REPORT is based on a lintited search of the county real property By: STEPHEN STRICKLAND records and is intended for informalional purposes only. The ONE REPORT does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title Land Title insurance, and should not be used by the recipient of the ONE REPORT Property Resource Specialist as the basis for making any legal, investment or business decisions. The recipient of the ONE REPORT should consult legal, tax and other advisors Email: sstrickland@ltgc.com be fore making any sitch decisions. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Phone: Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of die ONE REPORT, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the ONE REPORT. Fax: Form OE.WEB 06/06 ' 21/. Â·3 iJA. .. P14 ~ - 1 Prepared For: Land Title kAMILLA EARL GUARANTEE COMPANY ....t~0Â¢.COW Reference: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 Attached are the additional documents you requested: Doc Type Recorded Reception#/BookPage STEPHEN STRICKLAND Land Title Property Resource Specialist Email: sstrickland@ltgc.com Phone: Fax: ADD.DOCS 446032 71. I-'\ 1 IT----15- 'll{ mu-= tj ~* P15 1 1 . 11(ht .'tr~- rl-1 41 .0\ 0230. /' 13 4-24, -- 0 1 -f., --'/~ 11 i P > 1 2\77 ".4 9294 ~0~4 4 sobIAVE- . ..J , -' ..,1 I. -Â· -lili i j . / , 1- *- C-~ 5\0 ti . .71 *fil=-6-â‚¬,A . 9 1 \ L~7 j~~ ~.,~Â·Â·. j ,lpvjÂ·Â·< ,.1' '. ~~ . -~ L'X\.<r---~-'175~ 7 A: , ;~. i j : MÂ©,61,4. h K 2 lim 1 1 - h i 0<\ 32'. 1/m â€¢r ju:- - .r ...11 0-..1. m 1 V .1 ..U ... / : .: '... 1.:/ ... . 1 ' 7 1/7 h 1 1 .. b A h ... 0/ Â¢ >th) 7.-1 1 1 I . .81 7 i A. Â·i. 51 1.1'PJA :-4 ," 1 2 11 4...9 1 14.. i / j. d.&< 4 -1/,~,~~ 1, j q 1 -Ii I I /1 -/4 j .1/ 1 L. 7 ) 1 , 4 l . , ~\,. 'l ' Â·Â· ' 2 7 2> -/ 1 - 1 N i ///1 4 - h'' -1 11 1 1 3 1! 3/\ . 1 1 2. / / 7 ../ - " =â€¢ Â£ oÂ·'6 Â·Â· 4 / . 11 4 / 9 2012 , 0 7 -Â· K f 'l im F.W<04%i@~:--->r--g --, ~. ~ / ... *'M:&1 9;3.21?en .. Pl 6 â‚¬05:ZÂ» .42*LU ; ~' " lit_Injl:-a<~ .2~ ir.: .'- ry. 's'UL.1 h'O; ;-U 4 ..u :-1 1.Or.re. il W.., 2,9 9.9,5.:Â·. f}~2-34 ILâ€žT *,Â· :Â·= ;&,i#%,412 -~~:-Â·--=' ---------- 6344...1~~:34 '.--uÂ·.u-i. MÂ· 7231 14*Â·,140 -44 Â·Â·1 - 9615*Prow'/36*/4/ket. -L.i *%*. '..9- - r=N ci â€¢'~i.-2.Â·V _LU * =a Â»-9.â€¢Â· r 2 33 ?12%4S . 54*3: -IT- f.*2421199,"/1/1//ill#mai~tiz/**a *- 1 1 1 --- ist&*fi =Pa=am \ 14 ill Â£*WN:I.,4.5242'-'Â· '- SITE PLAN 114 Maple lane W,95( 10 foot set back required r-- - - __ 02Â£.erty Hne 11 --- - 1 - G+SS ~ parking ~ ~1 ~ Â£-0 ..J f GRASS 0-==Â·=-29 i setback & iÂ· 3 IIi n 10 Aol t[Gillijfgi=-Â·Â·~Â· ---- 0~~[-124#Gegrefi Iii_[ I re-_~-Fl 11 21 -- - parkin~ ~ 44 11 *WH ~ f,1--1 4 2--- -=LIli l 1444(.LHELDS/NCHESOFFPRPETYAG f ~~ | FOR OVERHANG ' L parkng EP 1.. -11 1 0 set back East properly line & 4 94_1 1 1 Eve and outter no mors than 6 inches over property line pef easemente 1/4" = 1 foot _3 footer in prooperty fine East RECEIVED nET 9 2012 CJTY Or va.EN 9.11:.':Nly 0.920;VENT Rear yard setback 5 feet lili 11 11'111'11 111'111'111'111!111'1111 111'1111 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Iii I lili I'll I lilli 1il~liZZL~Intil~)~IT!<1~Jit~)~I~I~i~I~I~;~LMI~i - --- Im~1 '1 -4,-FM-An/314+R-97- I-'//>51 41@~11 ] 1 // A 1/ 11 11 .....1.....1 -- U FRONT ELEVATION Â»Â«L 1: r .. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ./0 fl[.!En REVISIONS . DATC S[NCRRL NOTCS UNKWING TIRC 110~LhAM[ 50Â· n ~ SCHULT 5028 ' - BUC003461 1173 EXTERIOK ELEVATION a.r 030!IP!1011 1,00[L K. 951 28X44 IBR-2BA HTG-28403A CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. FRONT & 2/GHT 5/DE CRA.4 Or MIC. OBIC Dall PRINI[O .ET MO. DBG 09/06/201 1 09/27/2011 20-1 1-- --- - 9*,- -Â¥4 K.V. /3 4 0 C T 9 2012 CITY OF ..en=N COMMUNFAÂ¢ DEVELOP)95 P18 n HI 11~111,111,1111111111111'11111'111,111,111,11111 1-1 1 43-*4*=040-[E] -Ly, , 1-7/71/ - } r---lili t~/ 11 11 1 L /,/liu 1 ====11 11 11. 11 FRONT ELEVATION --2--% ~3=:a 1 1 -1 j. .1 RIGHT 91PE ELEVATION ./0 5011[5 .C.1510.5 . 0.[ .ENCRAL NDTC5 Ug/*11TlE MOD[' 142 50. n. 8023461 tl73 SCHULT EXTERIOK ELEVATZON PLANT sCRWrION 110001 *0. 95t 28x44 1 BR-ZBA HTG-28403A CME MANUFACTURING. INC. FRONT & RiGHT SIDE .AN. I 011/. CAIC R P./11/0 gat .1 DBG 09/06/2011 09/27/201 1 20-1 00 9 2012 CJTY Ob,Â·4202!4 CoheUNITY DEVE-OPMENI Pl 9 .. Exhibit: C Building Permit Plans ~ji snow stops applied 1 . side 114 1 -- - -ar. : 1 Nlp 1 1 1.-tu- ams*5=FE- !.- L. .. 1 1 -1111 1 ...1Â§4---de-=35 - -- 111 1,1 f 1 -11 - 1 -4- 1-32=~ . - 111 1 1 1 1-* 1 -1 1 111 . .11+111- 1- -2 .r- 1 - el-&1.x- Â· A iii __- 5-Ii|-,Ill --3-==4=r ' I - 1-=-111 -1 - lili 1 2 1 1 1 - 1114 C .9!1311 'p 1- 1 / 1 12=1 +-612-fli-5 UP. i J2 ...ir~..0. 1-4 11'ful-11 - 1 1 1 ~, 1 1 it*. UJUT.Feeâ€žZ: FIR~%11 ' -:- : , -â€ž- *flit* -9 - - * Il 'IT f ,-17 ... . ~ 15Â» F' lip}11+ I 1- T./ , *.*1 - j.Â·..Â· A '5:zi, G IE* --1 - - -- 1 1 14 1 -,--d- 1---+11.-t:1 L ,-C=1.-=1-41,-=21 ~11,6,2~.*~ .....li w,E2+s:22*1 -5~~â€¢"A tal n Â·Â».:.U-/a....1.-:.â€ž2 i_ . . 1 ...44_f*il~-2.*cr.~5al~r~fiwimaira HN r. Ull 1 1 1 !.91 -,1.71 1 Ir'i 2%1 . - Â· , 5-*B - =- ,-9!F=.UF -141 .1=â€¢â€¢em, -r-- 1Â·i, e.. :- 1 1 1--7=91 -1/ .// 6%131?f: -'Â©AÂ·,-i?. ' ' 10!110Â·i 1.Ill Â£ 3 71 ~S-lf- , ~21 1 - -1. 1 IN 1 - -1.' ....... I . rn- r'L ;/ Marj*]2364 ~..I, *M;W~~**~-- -' - 4Â«'lel:---J-/ -Â· -1 1 , r 'In .' 7--1.. r -1 - 1 -- 1 -E ... Vt 1 . L--6-22.' 2,~baats=2=-5 -1-/2-1.--1--1--IN-Y : E '3.-191,1.-1 145-t-F â‚¬== G 16-/ m of widows 7' 4:-'Â· ----' --i viy,5~zi--4,4.,.=Â·-2 i zin-,+- _,_,I-t . 42-'a + ~J-, Â·1 _Fl - -3- A--f u f.. 0..*27%7- 7 -- . A - -- .Â«.act.Â¥Â»et-rze , )ff finish floor t ~4-2- --2-_f_--yÂ·-2-_f- 2--==.I.Â·~-i --=. . me- -'Â»- -Ill-Ld,K; -- - - . 1 21.3.'rn-:2 aztk 1 -1 ' I -57:27<28 1.3349,1f-*919 E--:--:-2-1-1 4-4, 7--4-j< 9<43#:ET-,---52-- ---- -23**14â‚¬ -- -1 7- . 1- - 6-4 1---42~Â©I I - .'Â·le'LI.*it)~+:44â‚¬k--- - - -- - - - I.I. ..=% ....6.-I/*Il.-=- 4â‚¬63~â‚¬-tef-- i-~2 -1.-1- E--- -7-9-7-7-_--41zajE_-9_ic,-9- --j_-r- ~~-- 5--.-1-k-*566WTPV24-4 -- - - - F -1114' I I -7 i, .. P21 Main level Floor plan 114 Maple revised from factory ext. stair window weil window well 4 B *t /Â·A 2 9 ~n~â€¢===== 8-4 E R a =-4 C = 14 : *-1 hs 7.9- i Pli #ving room 1 ~ 1 2: IS'.0 1.405Â· 40 - @i . 2 6 2 i Â»PÂ·.Â· 1 1 64-).1 & , 5 f E. FI f I i i 1 9 2 4 /0-- 5Â·Â·li~-" N 1-3 1 1 IIi , 3.316?'19 Mmr- F.forsÂ»,/2 Â» 3%17,0-'00' 3'-4--i,~g,-' 3%23),~UE j.-17!,1-5~1Â·0--Â·Â·-~ : i rry=m W- 7 I Â« I +U 4 . i window well - 6.1 5 1 ~ E--11 i -p- "-4,1 non factory added 11 10 2 4 4 1 % windows and doors .32 u-value b 9 9 1 1 1 1 bottom of windows 04=&1 - 7 Ieet off shower floor . F . %T 1 ar i Â·2Â·4 VSÂ» 3Â·63,6Â· + 4;, 112- Â·Â·+-~ 4'4~Eltf--Ik zl~438~th 3i -~--Â·PH '2' -Â·-F- 4'-7,/2- -7{~- 4'- 1~~Â·16~ -a- 4'J~3 -- J = , rill--1-*i- I-1 â€¢'651,e-g~KZÂ»Â·-â€¢LJ Lc== .== mech chase .. P22 2 i I i ji f i I *1 -U,--9, 11 11 1 2 : ~' 11 ! 1 ; 1 11 11 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 :I i 11 1 '1 11 1 --7.--1-1-1 T-1--1--F/Th-fLAN-#1-4-A;10#R-Â«~- 2 ii J. e/AVeky{,ys <,4 pally'F' ; : , 1 , 11 ~- Ii p, flit' 1 1*054 1.:1 1 5 1,11,1 11 11!111 .1 lilli 1 1 11 11 1 !1 1 11 j' 1 1:1111 ! 1:Ii:, 11 1,1!11 1 111111 1 11 1: 1 1 /1 1 *: 1: 1 1 12 ~1 1 ~ ' f5 Wh 6001 Ret 6441 44' drpd 1 1, 112 111 11 1 1~.1 ~-4 1 : 11 '' 1 H N,Â·,Â·?dp<id'idig_!_ LL-j ~ ~ iu,up=,ty )7,je :i ~ i ' ' ' ' Â· I ' 1 1 ''1 I . 1 , Â·77 ,-- 4--7Â« 412 1 : '2 41._i I , . 11 1 Li 1 1 1/ 1 !1 11 1 1 1 1 :,1 1 1 1 . 1 11 li 1 1 h i., i E ' , 1!1 Iii 11 : i I 1 11 1 1 ; Air 1 1: 1 1 '' 1 1 1 .Il ! 1 ~' :; 1 1 :lilli 1 ./ 11 li ~1 1 i .'1,; GRASS! 2 1 1 I : Â·, 1 11 ,1 ' il i: ,~ 1 11 :i i , '~ '1 1 11 , '~ d 'll |3 1, i : 11 il li 11 I it ':1 1 : f '1 '1 , ;1 I ~Â·3 1, gilli 1 lili 1 :1 -,1 -, $ 111 1: SH/ bal,LK' 2 , 4,W h I.JI 11 1/ 11.1 : â€¢ . , 6 Â·11 bidli ~vtu/.A., 'tu, 44 1 1 11 i i i , i i I i'- l.~0 :b ,99.- t 1 1 :i 11'FA 1 .1.3 .re)- + 1,1 5 .1 1 / 1 1;act,../_- 11__,i-/121=1_2=-~''L,--~ - 1.-,L - ----'-Q-A 1 1 : 1 / 1,1 2,2 H *Wfy / 2,h---#-4-4<FA4-6---ttz#4-m_En il ' 15.,1 :1 | 1 1.1 il:; 'Ii:il N 1 1 :, 1! i 2 4,-'-9-1,1..1 4 Vi . -2--g . '-, -FT-JgffirrfIFFâ‚¬Ffff--~%2222+47=F---1 --41 (~ 117 -ri ' , . a , i , ; '! IL VI : :11 KI 1/ 1 1 1:11:1 2 1 - | i 1 (Fil,Â· 411 Â· ilÂ·.1. 1 J 11 Ir,1 411 Â· 1! i Igz_@j**EE}1%?; ~22 --FOR-OVERMANG--2-Â·-1--t]Â·-Â·-*12"trtz-Offf-~-~--1--- f Hz i r>/rkinst , 1 It lili: 1 1 f I .1 1 1 1 1 ! 11 1 1 11 j $--' , J ' . :; 0.11 1 11 j 1 1 :1 7-vs=R----EZZIFZÂ¥=ZE'--i 1 11 ; 11 1 14'11 : , h kit Unk-Fk,4 en-A-6149/~4 1 , 11 .-N .i 1 : ' 1: 1 1 1: :Ii I , 11 It i i! 4 ./. 1 1 . 1 e .' ; 1 :/' 1 H L_ --1-3 L-3-J 2-_ .L_-1 -11.-Ll_.l 1,__.4 1_1 .=-u, LI 1 1 1 1 1 . :i , i , i i ' i , i 'D i i: iÂ· 1 : 4 i'-3 iii i I i ;: I i M 1 1 11 [1 1 1 1 i ': 1 1 1 :i PER'.'-2 I i, Â·Â· ' ' ti ., 1 I i L' :1 1 1 1 1 Il I! 11 1 1 11 21 1 1 ! 1 :iÂ· 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 11 :rve .'r,r# hi IH~r'nr, mr'Im Ihir R Lehimij.EVA**App'0cm-' | 2 64' 14 700> 3 i 1 1 11 d i i ,--4 ~-4-4 il ' i |1-molef~~~0.,69f. | :2 1 i 1 1 1 1 ~ 44 1 I 11 li i i I I l. 1 1 , 11 1 11 11 1 L. '1 111 1 : i 1 1 1 .. P23 Resolution No. X (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT: 114, SMUGGLER PARK SUBDIVISON, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 114 MAPLE LANE, CITY ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273707490114 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from -- Camilla and Monty Earl, represented by Mr. and Mrs. Earl, requesting Variance approval from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Residential Design Standard, at 114 Maple Lane; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. Variances, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve Residential Design Standard Variances, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Variance from Residential Design Standard - Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D) 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 the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 8, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied Resolution No X, (Series of 2013), by a _ to _ 6--) vote and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution does not furthers and is not necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies the variance from the following Residential Design Standard: Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and 1 .. P24 a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street- oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. Section 2: 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 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. DENIED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on January 8,2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONNING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn, Special Counsel , Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 2 .. P25 List of Exhibits Exhibit A: required front fai:ade. 3 *449,#'4*4#$9*5201<2~,~ r'-Â·Â·'447.Â·4324}ij~tot.,7~0k 1' 24:,IÂ· i 42Â©Â»i-,Twj#.5~~ 11â€¢2/.Â· . c:4'79*.' I h .t.:I , ' '14.49 4 lf. 11/% 't'*r.4" 1 4 ':'. 1Â£7 3 / : *42* . t iIi 'p* 0~ 49*I.. 11 ' 61~*~--~'24' 2Â¥r"5' . 7 -4. 94%18~: Â§3?,Â·I~? i .'y,2.~>3.1 Â·, a~~ , â‚¬0@9 = ./21Â·Â»>4/4 Â·Â· JA......:. ' '4Â·'"~.0:'',Â» 4112. ~. Â· il 1%*11 Â¢49% 141*3,. * :rt Ees* . 3%-07~ â‚¬ t.ifi.i;jit:~4& ''j2.:' .. ~#'ci '.'-)'.1 - :uÂ·,d:Wt&~:' 't / 4 8+ 1-,WET'-=~.~4:, *JO.; 6:Â·tir'...'2, ~' fir Â· 1% j ya:.. r .Â·~ 4, 4, f f . I I 1 . 6. 4 4Â»'9.41 :1'Â·>. Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· ... . w A' 't :3Â·2'>UftffÂ»f,Â·Â·Â·..:Â· p. t, 2*. ./. & 24..~ ~it*,Mil~g<* . ' 11 1934.-M. - .r #44;'*573.W'~'1.~,~i,~6~')14,1 +.3.,379:(7=2<W~,814 2614'~944, Â£ ri.%04% trÂ»'%*f~' 4.% ...1 4.2 - -Â»10. 7 . 2- I - 34 4 - .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director ~ RE: Aspen Valley Hospital - Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) -Final Planned Unit Development, Phases III & IV - Resolution No. , Series 2013 - Continued Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 8, 2012 APPLICANT /OWNER: 8TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aspen Valley Hospital, David Ressler, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning CEO Commission approve the application with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning SUMMARY: Services The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of a Growth LOCATION: Management review and a recommendation of Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital District approval for a Growth Management review and Subdivision, commonly known as 401 Final PUD. Castle Creek Road CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting Final PUD approval and associated land use approvals for Phases III and IV of the master facilities plan for redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus. SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report contains the following: â€¢ Review Criteria; and â€¢ Staff recommendation & motion; and â€¢ Draft resolution The Applicant's team will discuss mechanical equipment, based upon comments at the last hearing in December. Page 1 of 7 .2 0 0 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to undertake Phase III and IV of the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site: â€¢ Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development with the development of a new medical office space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080 (1) (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). Additionally, the following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council: â€¢ Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility (EPF) with the development of the hospital pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 (4). (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). The Planning and Zoning Commission determines the employee generation rate for RPF function. â€¢ Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the development of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Final PUD review before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the third step in a four step review process. Conceptual PUD review for the entire proposal, steps one and two, was granted via Resolution No. 3 (series of 2009) by City Council. Once this application is heard by the Commission, the City Council will conduct a final review of the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. As noted in the application, the Applicant is proposing redevelopment in four (4) phases to maintain existing operations throughout the redevelopment. So far, Phase I has been constructed (prior to the adoption of a master facilities plan) and Phase II is ongoing. This application is for Phases III and IV. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC has requested Final PUD approval for Phases III and IV of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan to redevelop and expand the existing hospital campus. The focus of the proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living (Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence is located. Parcel C contains approximately 18.5 acres or 805,860 square feet. Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building, Mountain Oaks employee housing, and RFTA bus stop. Conceptual PUD approval The hospital received Conceptual PUD approval o f the Master Facilities Plan via Resolution No. 3 (Series of 2009) for the property in May of 2009 taking into account a twenty year program life cycle. The project is divided into four phases, so that hospital operations can continue throughout construction. Each phase of development allows the hospital to continue day to day operations. Phase I was completed with the expansion and remodel of the obstetrics ward. Page 2 of 7 0 0 Phase II The Applicant received approval for Phase II of the master facilities plan in July of 2010 and it is currently under construction. Phase II includes a two story addition to the existing hospital, development of the 18 on-site affordable housing units, a three level parking garage, partial construction of the loop service road as well as access improvements to the site, drainage and utility improvements, trail realignment, and RFTA bus stop improvements. As mentioned, the hospital project has been developed in phases in order to accommodate the ongoing operation of the hospital during this redevelopment. Phases III and IV Phase III includes a two story addition and a basement, with the greatest amount of expansion (approximately 33,000 sq. ft.) on the ground floor, abutting the west side of the existing building. The upper story addition includes medical office space and circulation (approximately 18,000 sq. ft.), a basement of about 19,000 sq. ft., completion of the loop service road, development of a 3 bay ambulance garage, a new entry and reconfigured parking. Interior remodeling of the existing building is also part ofthis phase. Phase III programming includes: Basement programming - mechanical, laundry services, information systems, morgue, and unfinished shell space. First floor programming - loading dock, operating suite, endocrinology suite, staff and physician support space, imaging suite, breast center, emergency department, lobby and main entry. Second floor programming - medical offices. Phase IV proposes an addition to the ground floor (approximately 6,500 sq. ft.) and basement (approximately 1,800 sq. ft.), as well as a renovation of the existing building. Phase IV programming includes: Basement programming - meeting room, auditorium and public toilets. First floor programming - extension of main lobby, four bay registration, cardiology suite, outpatient services, oncology suite, chapel, expanded cafeteria seating. Table 1 summarizes the proposed gross square footages of both Phases III and IV and compares them to the conceptual numbers provided in Phase II. A comprehensive table, showing all phases of development, is included as Exhibit E. Table 1: Proposed Gross Square Footage of Phases III and IV Phase III Phase IV Included in Current Difference Included in Current Difference Phase II Application Phase II Application Application Application Basement 10,671 19,385 8,714 3,813 1,854 -1,959 Level One 32,715 33,280 565 6,128 6,721 593 Page 3 of 7 P4 Phase III Phase IV Included in Current Difference Included in Current Difference Phase II Application Phase II Application Application Application Level Two 4,724 8,152 3,428 0 0 0 MOS 15,000 10,187 -4,813 0 0 0 Ambulance 0 3,436 3,436 0 0 0 Garage* Total 63,110 74,440 11,330 9,941 8,575 -1,366 Note: * The ambulance garage was shown as a porte corchere during previous reviews but was not calculated as part ofthe gross square footage. As the project has progressed from its conceptual approval to design detail, some aspects of the phases have changed or are proposed to be different such as the medical office and basement design and will need to be memorialized in the PUD approvals for Phases III and IV. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Development within the Public zone district requires approval of a conceptual and final PUD through the PUD process. The Applicant is requesting final PUD approval for Phase III and IV ofthe hospital's master facilities plan. PUD Review covers a broad spectrum of criteria that are used in considering the application including consistency with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, site design, landscape design, architectural character, etcetera. Staff Comment: Overall the massing, expansion and site improvements of the hospital facility proposed for Phase III and IV are similar to the Conceptual PUD approval. The site contains a mix of uses including institutional (hospital), medical office space and multi-family residential (senior and affordable housing units) which are similar to uses in the immediate neighborhood, including other residential affordable housing developments (Marolt seasonal housing Mountain Oaks, Waterplace, and Castle Ridge) as well as institutional uses (county health and human services). With regard to site planning and scale, the proposed development is compatible with the campus style developments within the vicinity of the parcel such as Highlands, the Aspen public school campus and the Aspen recreation center. These projects have areas of concentrated development surrounded by some form of open space. Additionally, they serve important community and resort functions. The hospital facility's site plan focuses the redevelopment on the southerly portion of the parcel. The hospital facility's architecture, including materials, are of a high quality and appropriately reflect the institutional use. The following comments, as they relate site planning and development under the PUD criteria are provided for additional consideration. â€¢ Lighting. After hearing from the Applicant and their lighting specialist at the last meeting, staff recommends the Commission recommend the applicant develop a lighting plan for Council's review and approval that lists implementation measures for addressing current and future lighting on the site. The Applicant has provided an Page 4 of 7 0 0 overview of the direction they intend to take with regard to lighting remediation, Exhibit K; however a final plan should be submitted and approved by the City Council. â€¢ Access and Circulation. If the Commission agrees that the solution the Applicant proposed for pedestrian circulation from the bus stop area to the hospital is a good solution, it should be incorporated into the site plan. â€¢ Some additional field location of plantings to soften the entry area of the parking garage should be considered and incorporated into the site plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS: The Applicant is requesting two (2) separate growth management approvals to obtain sufficient development allotments to construct Phase III and IV of the proposed project. It should be noted that when affordable housing units are provided on-site, the individual mitigation requirements are not required to be added together for a combined sum, as long as the largest amount of required mitigation of any one growth management request is met. The requests and the project' s compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below: 1) Growth Management Approval for Expansion or New Commercial Development. The Applicant has requested approval for development of medical office space as required by Section 26.470.080 (1), Expansion or New Commercial Development. The review requires that the development proposal have sufficient growth management allotments, mitigate for employees generated, and represent minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. During the Final PUD review for Phase II of the master facilities plan, the hospital requested and was allocated 27,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial area for the medical office space to cover all phases of development from the 2010 allotment year. During the Phase II review 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable was mitigated for, leaving a balance of 15,000 sq. ft. for subsequent phases. For Phase III, the Applicant is requesting 10,187 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space, Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial development are required to be mitigated by the provision of affordable housing. Resolution No. 3 (Series of 2009), approving the Conceptual PUD permits the Applicant to use the Mixed Use zone district employee generation rate for calculating employees generated by the medical office space. Within the Mixed-Use zone district, 3.7 full time equivalents (FTEs) are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The basement and upper floor employee generation rate is reduced by twenty-five (25) percent or 2.775 FTEs per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. Phase III will contain an expected total of 10,187 sq. ft. of net leasable area, with all of it on an upper floor. The new net leasable area generates 28.6 FTEs [(10,187 sq. ft./1,000 sq. ft.) x 2.775-]. When mitigated for at sixty (60) percent, as required by the code, the number equals 16.95 FTEs. 2) Growth Management Approval for the Development of Essential Public Facilities. The Applicant has requested approval for development of an Essential Public Facility as Page 5 of 7 I \ - P6 required by Section 26.470.090 (4), Essential Public Facilities. City Council approves this review based upon a recommendation of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director. As proposed, the hospital component of the project represents 72,828 gross sq. ft of new Essential Public Facility for phases III and IV. As noted in the conceptual approval, Phase III of the hospital redevelopment will generate 20.16 employees while Phase IV will generate 8.46 employees. Sta# Comment: Stajf recommends that the employees generated for the Essential Public Facility use be -what is outlined in the conceptual approval and as noted previously. City Council will finalize the percentage of mitigation required. Assuming no decrease in mitigation is permitted, the greater mitigation amount for the hvo uses (hospital and medical office space) for Phase III is the hospital function at 20.16 employees, while Phase IV is anticipated to generate 8.46 employees. The hospital is permitted to use an existing credit for affordable housing mitigation (that reflects existing affordable housing the hospital o-wns and the housing that is being developed on site during Phase II construction) and the credit covers the sum of mitigation required for Phases III and IV; however, the hospital employee generation estimate is required to be confirmed with an actual audit once each phase is finished and operational. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Parks: An approved tree permit is required. Vegetation protection fencing is required on the site. New landscaping shall be approved by the department to ensure proper plant spacing, field locating plantings with the Parks department is requested. This will be included in any ordinance reviewed by Council. APCHA: An audit is required within one year of a C.O. being issued for each phase to verify employee generation for the hospital function. The audit shall be conducted during the hospital's high season of operation (winter). This will be included in any ordinance reviewed by Council. RECOMMENDATION: As noted earlier in the staff memo, the overall massing, expansion and site improvements of the hospital facility proposed for Phase III and IV are similar to the Conceptual PUD approval. The campus style development relates to other campus style developments in the area, all of which serve important community and resort functions. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve a growth management review and recommend approval for Final PUD and a growth management review to permit development of the AVH master facilities plan for Phases III and IV." ATTACHMENTS: (NEW ATTACHMENTS ARE IN BOLD) EXHIBIT A - Application (provided 10/30/12) ExHIBIT B - Affidavits of Public Notice (provided 10/30/12) EXHIBIT C - Application Addendum dated November 13,2012 (provided 11/20/12) EXHIBIT D - Applicant's Industry Standards slides from 10/30/12 PowerPoint presentation (provided 11/20/12) EXHIBIT E - Comparison of Development Phases (provided 11/20/12,12/4/12 and 1/8/2013) ExHIBIT F - Roof Plan (provided 11/20/12) Page 6 of 7 0 0 EXHIBIT G - Commissioner comment via email, Jim DeFrancia, dated 11/16/2012 (provided 11/20/12) , EXHIBIT H - Growth Management Review Criteria (provided 12/4/12 and 1/8/13) EXHIBIT I - PUD Review Criteria (provided 12/4/12 and 1/8/13) EXHIBIT J - Applicant addendum, from Leslie Lamont, dated 11/28/12 (provided 12/4/12) EXHIBIT K - Clanton and Associates, Light Trespass Mitigation Options Page 7 of 7 P8 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE GENERATION FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASES III AND IV OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT MASTER FACILITIES PLAN, LOCATED ON PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Valley Hospital District (Applicant), represented by Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, requesting approval of a Final Development Plan and associated land use reviews for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phases III and IV the Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Facilities Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Conceptual PUD approval (via Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009) conceptually approved a redeveIoped and expanded multi-story hospital building and parking garage, medical office space, affordable housing and site improvements on Parcel C of the Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision, to be developed in four phases; and, WHEREAS, the Conceptual PUD approval outlined the employee generation rate to use in evaluation of the medical office space as well as the anticipated employees generated for the hospital function; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Final PUD and associated land use reviews for Phases III and IV and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on October 30, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to November 20, 2012 for further discussion. At the November 20, 2012 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the hearing until December 4, 2012 for further discussion. At the December 4, 2012 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to January 8, 2013 for further discussion. At the January 8,2013 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and approved a growth management quota system review for Expansion or new commercial development, establishment of the employee generation rate for an essential public facility and recommended City Council approve the Final Planned Unit Development application for Phase III and IV by a to C-_) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2013 Page 1 of 4 . . Pg Section 1: General Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development for the medical office space and recommends City Council approve Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility as well as Final Planned Unit Development for Phases III and IV o f the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan. Specifically, this approval and recommendations of approval permit the Applicant to develop Phases III and IV of a four phase master facilities plan inclusive of 10,187 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space for the development of medical offices and an expansion of the hospital facility by 72,828 gross square feet (excluding the medical office space). Section 2: Growth Management Allotments The Applicant requested 27,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space from the 2010 annual allotment allowance for commercial development. This allotment request represented the total net leasable square feet necessary to construct the entire master facilities plan over the course of the proposed four phases of development. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted 12,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space from the 2010 growth management year for Phase II, leaving a balance of 15,000 sq. ft. to potentially be requested in subsequent phases in later years. With this resolution, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants 10,187 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space for Phase III rather than the 15,000 originally anticipated. The commercial space is determined to generate 16.95 employees. An additional 64,253 gross sq. ft. o f essential public facility for the hospital function of the building is requested for Phase III which generates 20.16 employees. City Council determines the mitigation requirement for the Essential Public Facility Growth Management review, based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's finding herein that 20.16 employees are generated by the hospital function of Phase III. Housing Mitigation is required for the greater of the two mitigation requirements, which will be memorialized in any City Council ordinance for Phase III. Phase IV proposes 8,575 gross sq. ft. of essential public facility for the hospital function of the building which generates 8.46 employees. Housing Mitigation for Phase IV will also be outlined in any City Council ordinance, based on City Council's Essential Public Facility Growth Management review. As memorialized in the conceptual PUD approval for this project (Section 2.C and Exhibit B of Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009), an existing credit shall be applied to the employee generation for each phase of development. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements and Other Recommendations The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to City Council that the redevelopment of the property in Phases III and IV as presented shall meet the dimensional standards as outlined in the exhibits of this resolution. Additionally, the Commission recommends that the following suggestions be incorporated into the Final PUD approval. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2013 Page 2 of4 Plo a. An additional pedestrian access way is incorporated into the site plan as shown in Exhibit 1. b. A lighting plan be developed and adopted that outlines all remediation techniques that will be undertaken for lighting that has been installed on the site as well as the design of any additional outdoor lighting in Phases III and IV to minimize undesirable brightness and light trespass. Additionally, the Commission recommends Council carefully consider requiring light shades on any new two story component and require an interior lighting plan be developed for the interior of the entry proposed for Phase IV as expansive amounts of glass are proposed and light trespass should be minimized. c. Carefully consider additional landscaping to screen the parking garage improvements and minimize visual impacts to neighbors and the community. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: This resolution shall not effect 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 6: 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 8th day of January, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney , Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2013 Page 3 of 4 .. Pll Exhibit 1 - Pedestrian access improvement Exhibit 2 - Height plan Exhibit 3 - Mechanical plan Exhibit 4 - Master phasing plan Exhibit 5 - Floor plans Exhibit 6 - Exterior elevations Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No._, Series 2013 Page 4 of 4 GUARD RAIL /Th OUTDOOR DINING TERRACE ALONG FULL 42:3/ \ | ~ SEE PCU ENTRY 11 LENGTH OF 111 1 ENLARGEMENT PLAN UPPER WALL SHEET ~,,k ~ RETAINING -47-4 1...1 & 11 WALLS SEE , 1 :2 \ . 9 CIVIL SHEET L .1: \ I.2 # , 11~ CG-105 AND A 1 -Â«: 4 %. 1 11,111 STRUCTURAL \ ENGINEER'S \ - , .1.'., Â·. Â· ~ ' DRAWINGS. 1, L.J. i Â¢ O - -7411 1 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING 1 - IMPROVEMENTS ~ (PHASE 2 ,\ j ?t TO REMAIN 77 PARKING IMPROVEMENT) SPACES ' i NOTE: Â·t 1) THIS DIAGRAM IS . I L / d. 1 EXCERPTED FROM SHEET L-1.0 OF THE PHASE 2 - 17//1 f 4 t CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT 24 EXIST]NG - SET. PARKING i- 2) THIS DIAGRAM DEPICTS SPACES TOÂ· ,~ -- ~ ~ ~ PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY REMAIN ~~~~~ CURB RAMP & SIDEWALK 1 1 IMPROVEMENTS AS PROPOSED 4 / , .. FOR COMPLETION WITH PHASE - PAINTED CROSSWALK 2 CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING - 1,4 HEUPAD RAW~~E~1~2 - - ; '2/6 71\ \ ~~ TO REMAIN I ~ 6' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWAL ~/ ~ _ WITH ADA CURB RAMPS # 547 .7 C~22(N AND IRRIGATION PUMP 1 1 / PAINTED .* / WJ (11 ~~ CROSS- 06- SHEET M.2 1-: 9./ \ WALK -1~ TRAIL STOP SIGN, SEE NOTES-3 REALIGNED HOSPITAL\ AVH LOOP ROAD ~~ REALIGNED PEDESTRIAN-1 ENTRY ROAD, SEE CIVIL TRAIL SHEET CS-102 2 -*11 A \ 3- / ~ ---------------------* 1 Â£7 IMPROVED PEDESTRAIN TRAIL CROSSING -/ 1/ \\ / VA ' TRAIL STOP SIGN, SEE NOTES-~ i ) ' /9 P =O -44 fl I \ PO GUARD RAIL AT DOOLITTLE DRIVE ~03~ . / 44 - 18 REQUIRED AT CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS GREATER 48* , 1 28 4 THAN 30" IN HEIGHT AT HHS PARKING LOT AND NEW Â£2. f \ERÂ«69Â«: ~ RFTA STOP. SEE CIVIL GRADING PLAN FOR TOW/BOW. / TO DETERMINE EXTENTS OF GUARD RAIL. COORDINATE /CASTLE CRE Lt,7 21==C~:140 STEEL GUARD RAIL INSTALLATION WITH PREFABRICATED . 1 'r 1 IMPROVEMEN KEY PLAN 4-Â»t SHELTERS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FALL , lit'~ 1 1 SEE Cl' 1 PROTECTION CODES, 1 0,1 i ISHEET CS-1Â· pedestrian access revision exhibit - phase 2 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL M.F.P. 12.2012 1 of 2 ED+err \ A P12 CY) 4.4 1 111':1 ki LEGEND 4 I.1 I. 2 4 f 1 -...771 TUMBLED CONCRETEE PAVERS ~ i il iltt:; LELLi.J (PERVIOUS PAVING) Cial CAFETERIA PATIO -, --91 j L Â·. ~,Al :1 .1 OUTDOOR CHAPEL /-Â· -4 WrN 1 9 i ..1, COLOR CONCRETE) SPECALTY PAVING (INTEGRAL (CHAPEL GARDEN) Â·D.... RI371 CONCRETE ~ CRUSHER ANES PATH EASTERN Â·*t':, :DoÂ· tb dE . it /I 42-: ENTRY , SURFACE PARKING 9 61 Vt.9. (PHASE 2 - ' J IMPROVEMENT) 4, i ~7733~ LANDSCAPE AREA O 0 O . I 11 MAIN 11 / PHASE 3-4 APPROXIMATE ENTRY - .t...: 1 Â· 1 : F / LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE . SEE GRADING PLAN (EXCLUDES LIMITS OF INTERIOR RENOVATION) If t 7 -. 3 l//9Â·zÂ·zÂ·...0;50~ 0,9.4,1 .- 1 NOTE: THIS DIAGRAM IS PUBLIC 11 #NV OM ENTRY Â¢ 3 - A 4 4444& .0~ --Rr WERGENCY ' ENTRY/ = b- CURB RAMP 3 h>~N... . | EXCERPTED FROM SHEET L-2.0 DIRECTIONAL - / 1 1 Â«23=22 | OF THE PHASE 3/4 FINAL PUD ' 0 -2-j 1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND SIGNAGE (T. B.[)~-r PAINTED CROSSWALK 16 SURFACE i. ,/~4 ~jÂ·'~ i PARKING SPACES A~N ) 4,1~2:~7,/ RUN~TERC~~YPf?EZAN ... 1 ~ t..23: ~ 1 BUILD-OUT. - 1 | ~ - 6' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 3(6.'3, / 1 , WITH ADA CURB RAMPS 4.4.7 -4 \ 1 9.,e .1 9.03 . PAINTED CROSSWALK - 1 *f -*---ri'*,f*%.r*/-.-=-p*plÂ· LOOP ROAD - 1 1 ROAD 3 1 1 Il .1 8 1/..0,1 ~ fr, 011 1 12223''Z / 25%,c~"81> n i e Â·, 1.==9 - /,Dl /., 2 = 0 11 4 k " H.H.S. PARKING ' 4 3 i E.%74 1 2%421==5Ltl Upl I 1 1 4 -,- lity, '40 - - , 2 1. 1:Â·>41, 1 103:7 UÂ«45Â«4 1 133 KEY PLAN It< 2:t 1 ..1 \109 ... .2 pedestrian access revision exhibit - phases 3/4 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL M.F.P. 12 . 2012 2 of 2 1 2-43 E Z~ 19,1 1 1-. : Imm prp*:3: . I F A 1 I iii 1.223_- SLOPED OVERFRAMING WI - 1 . . r SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE - ROOF W/ EXTRUDED RIES 8 2 |R k EME-El 04 14 - 1 Â· ,7'Â·D "3037 1.24 ---r-,- ~ : ELEVATION , 2 Â·. Â·312 9 , 4 (28'-8-AEG) . 2 112Â» EN \ k -- .1 rt 1. Â· . \* -__ _ - EXISTINGSLOPEDOVERFRAMINGW/ , i ~.1 + 4 1 SLOPED OVERFRAMING WS - - SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF WI SINGLE-PLY MEMBFUNE ROOF - , ---v -4-- < 4 -. t EXTRUDED RES / O W/ EXTRUDED RIBS i;144Â» 1 - 11 ~ -1 / â€ž-,4 ,/ 44 - y . ELEVATION -1-J 18Â·-0Â· AFG (18'-0 AEG) F====R. /Â¢. ~ r EXIST. ' /Â· r EXIST. ~ ~1~-i~/ 1 , 1 -- - ---} p.-- 1 1 lili --f -1 --' # COURTYARD-1 F COURTYARD -~ /i I / L ELEVATION ...4 jitixÂ« L Pl 32'-0 AFG (32'-0Â· AEG) / 11 4 \ EXISTING SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/ U- : b. u.1 \ SINGLE-FLY MEMBRANE ROOF W/ EXISTING - r FE 2/ 344 \ EXTRUDED RIBS SOLAR PANELS : /-- \ SLOPEDOVERFRAMINGW/SINGLE-PLY 46/1 a \ MEMBRANE ROOF Wl EXTRUDED RIBS , *-22------1ELEVATI0N ELEVATION -.. (32'-O'AEG) (374Â·AEG) SLOPE OVERFRAMING W/ SINGLE-PLY ~ MEMBRANE ROOF W/ EXTRUDED RIBS r ADHERED TPO MEMBRANE ~ 7 ROOFING VUTAPERED ,- SKYLIGHT INSULATION : mat , ~ EEST. RTU EMST. RTU ELEVATION 17'* EG l ' 4 1 (15Â·-0Â·AEG) ...1 ELEVATION - ...# - ELEVATION ----r ELEVATION - ELEVATION - 10Â·-O EG (22'-5Â·AEG) (14'-0Â· AEG) (14'-10Â·AEG) \ (14r-0.4 - ELEVATION--1- 11:.U- 1 F F -0Â· AEG) r~~c-|~ M~yx{L-=J~~ ~ ~ . r ADHEED TPO MEMBRA F ..ROOFING W/TAPERED SCREEN WALL - NEW RTU i/' INSULATION _ ELEVATION 4 1. 16'-6Â· AFG (16'-0Â· AEG) Â· 10 .. 0 ELEVATION 16'4' AFG (16'-6* AEG) Â»Â·ADHERED TPO 1 /7 MEMBRANE $' 1 ELEVATION / ROOFING WJ 2 : +- ELEVATION 7'-6 AFG :, TAPERED 4 ,' 23'â‚¬ AFG (8'4' AEG) | INSULATION/ (24'-0 AEG) -_~ >~-,~~HELIPADR,AMP 1 J \ ELEVATION ELEVATION '1 / / \ 24Â·-0' AFG ' 1 05-0' AE=Q 6'-0' AFG : ' f. - ;-1 HEUPAD '-Â· 1 0<Â·- ".Â·4<'- 41 / L ELEVATION ELEVATION (8'W.bES) / HELIPAD SAFETY NET 15Â·-6Â·AFG 14-10'AFG /: ' </ADHEREDTPO MEMBRANE-~ '~ 16'-0 AEG (15'-6Â«AEG) ELEVATION 5'-0 AFG ELEVATION - '7 P ROOFING W/ TAPERED (8'-0Â· AEG) 15'-6Â· AFG iÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·~ INSULATION ELEVATION 32'-0Â· AFG (*-0 AEG) i'~ 'I V -tn'. f F " f'-<j (33Â·-0Â·AEG) HELIPAD ELEVATION - ~ Â· ELEVATION 17'-0 AFG Â«(21'4Â·AEG) (18'-0 AEG) 244Â· AFG J ,/ L' ELEVATION HEUPAD SAFETY NET 174Â· AFG (13'4 AEG) ELEVATION 13'-6 AFG (7'-0- AEG) ELEVATION 4, 16'-6Â· AFG (6Â·-0 AEG) @= 42 ~S Â»:IN#:4*# design 9 2 11=ymornal- 82016Ih S,reel Mall. Sume 200, Denver, CO 80202Â·3219 19 3. -- ...1-*- 7209460276 E p,ojeet number 1121900 ASPEN VALLEY 9 HOSPITAL i PHASE 3 12 -/ U ADDITION/EXPANSION ...E*RAMNG'r -% 44'-6Â· - 1 1 I 0401 Castle Cresk Road AocfwiÂ£*m~Eomias --1. Aspen.81611 1 N, - /15â„¢JGWEBO~R-S~ 9 consultan~s'conslru'lloilina,~Hoers S....CÂ¢-mus. .Â·. 1 E~Ileâ‚¬DIS #Wa.~Av.'300 70.-m Meâ„¢CS ~ D~1.-CO*90 C,t./.* CO 81421 Ii#.S1NE3.MO~ "/045,1,19,2-â‚¬622 \171\ 1 1 1'.; 1: mg.. Ob f,GO mid ayn 61â€¢ . r Exi/ .:e. co eck. (.1'W .eu= 11 . C --I f=J PLa 1 1 I Colm-DJ 3,14/7400"3034Â»7* .433*/.0~521 SO:.enu.2.9 / L . 41 IN....... - .....OPED(Wg~R~!,el. WOAM,al"/li:m s,=Â£*Â¥$.â‚¬,aw'WI seal/sigi~ature ./ 1 1 Â·Â·Â· )....ROOF./ ./...7.--/- lesiWIR./.En....' ............5 0\\- Sie'PED.E~f-Mlf Sâ€¢*3/M .a./RO, W...... . ISS'/0 10' dale U ant = .......Â·I Â« 4.4 9 CONSTRUCTION 'fall.- DRAWINGS 03...2013 1,4 0Â·m N item date SCREf./4, - EUVATO,1 PUO ADDENDUM /O1 11*aiL Wi~*G \ Â· .~466!Illâ€¢~~ '1 N .' . ... ... ...... .' 1,6*Â«1~ /. -'4[A, \ 'f .'....~15 -... , 1 ----- -12 6 t-21'4 f- 4*â‚¬Rocf i,e ~ PHASE 2 -'..... t '. .: 1 =* 11 E---J PHASE 3 /*75 N F--1 PHASE 4 J sOLE = LEGEND 1ST FLOOR ELEÂ¢ â€¢ 100Â·Â·0- = USGS 8012 5 Ez: ELEVATIN 24'Â·0" AFG =ABOVE FINISH GRADE 121Â·Â·D-AEGI â€¢ ABOVE EX!STING GRUDE Â· ~ keyplan sheel lie OVERALL ROOF PLAN ..eet nul,Def PUD drawll UY Au,no' ctteckedby Checker 69/g#APEE#flEgikiPpT- *.t~~;.:Â·.'UnÂ·--,1-t:= .. 12Â·21'20124 17/PM 01 1 tl I ;I 11 ill SLOPED OVERFRAMING VW - 44'-6" SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF M EXTRUDED R!8S 2 f- HT ABOVE ROOF 12'-0' - Â·Â· - -1 4-,4 - i- EXISTING SLOPED OVERFRAMING Wi SLOPED OVERFRAMING W./ - \ Â· SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF Wl SINGLERLY MEMBRANE ROOF ~ Â·<\\1 X - EXTRUDED RIBS W/ EXTRUDED RI8S il./.---. , 1 1,1 1 111 r EXIST, I r EXIST. P COURTYARD-~ , ~ + COURTYARD- 11 1 \ "325 -1.1=-- 2 1. ... ... - .. ... I. 1 - , 11 L- EXISTING SLOPED OVERFRAMING M 1 1-N SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF Wl EXTRUDED RIBS 34'-0 34'-0' b 4/ Â·Â· U ~~ REPLACEORTU f REPLACED RTU ~~ . HT ABOVE ROOF 10'-6" SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/ SINGLE-PLY HT ABOVE ROOF T-9 - i z MEMBRANE ROOF V# EXTRUDED RIBS ~ . r ADHERED TPO MEMBRANE -~ Â·:~ \ 1 P ROOFING W/TAPERED '% -.- - INSULATION i===== \ SLOPED OVERFRAMING M SINGLE-PLY lb= MEMBRANE ROOF Wl EXTRUDED RIBS 40'.0. *N ...1-= J= HT ABOVE ROOF 10'-9- REPLAZED RTU - SKYLIGHT ELEVATION {14'-0- AEG) /-- 1 l 40-9 1 -/// . A NEWRTU EFLL n\\\ ~ U- 'EGET'TI,E~ ~ Â· -57 1 (16'-0' AEG) F PC DFI' I.6 . 1 1 .94 -3,-C- HT ABOVE ROOF 10'-6 4 1.- 1 1 1 3 -- - - 94 - ...Dnhy,41 qu t . 07 Â·Â·MEOETATII,E/r: -1 1 .- / 0 013 -- - - . /1 . Il Â·4 4 4 HELIPAD / . 7- 23.99 in ' 1