HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Burlingame.A097-99
PARCEL 10:12"35,::31,0"00: DATE RCVD: IE: 7." [.g
CASE NAME~l3u!"..n')a""c VJ~s. BII":.:;.... ~ L:::.: '0." H.:.za~::: ~:'.IC.\I'
PROJ ADD,R:JBu.hn;:.::me\V'a~: Bllterrrll!oI, L:: ' CASE TYP:JC,j~II1:~' ~::t~!".~l!
# COPIES:r- CASE Nolr\:;f)~,S;;
PLNR:j
OWN/APp:1
REP:1
FEES DUE:l
REFERRALSl
ADRj
.. ADR:j
STAT: I
STEPS1
PHN:!
PHN1
REF:I
BYl
DATE OF FINAL AC~
CITY COUNCil:
PZ:1
BOA:
DRAC:I
ADMIN:I
DUE:]
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED
r===\ Cl
j----J J I
Rj;MARKSI,:.... -u, ;", " ,;
... ......... r,.~ " ., ':. ~.~
~... . . ,.~ " .. .,
CLOSED'j ,'x '""
. "/r~!. I
PLAT SUBMITD: 1
.
By'l -,". "...,..,
. ',.. t,....,.. .
PLAT (BK,PG):j
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ASPENIPITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
Attorney
Zoning
Engineer
Wildlife Officer
Aspen Fire District
West Buttermilk HOA
Aspen Water '
~!iU.if!!l,>><g
Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
BurlingamelWest Buttermilk 1041 Hazard Review
PID# 2735-031-00-005
P143-99
October 26, 1999
Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application by City of Aspen. 1bis
application will be reviewed by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer on December 21, 1999.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 30, 1999.
Thank you.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Suzanne Wolff, County Planner
FROM:
James Lindt, City Planning Technician
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directo~
THRU:
RE:
BurlingamefWest Buttermilk 104U{azard Review, City Planning Staff
Comments
DATE:
November 8,1999
The City Planning Staff reviewed the BurlingamefWest Buttermilk 1041 Hazard Review
proposal and had the following concerns:
I. Staff thought it extremely important that the parcel outside
of the building envelope be either placed under a permanent
conservation easement or that, as a condition of approval, the rest
of the parcel not be allowed to be subdivided in the future.
2. Staff also indicated that it is important that the applicant be held to
their proposal to utilize non-reflective materials and use natural
colors for the buildings and the roofs, given the potential visibility
from Highway 82 and the proximity to the airport.
3, Staff had a clarification question on page 6 of the proposal. It
states that the EDU would be a I-bedroom unit containing a
minimum of 600 square feet, and in parenthesis it states the County
allows 700-15,000 square foot EDU's, Is700 square feet the
minimum that the County allows for EDU's? If the applicant
proposes an EDU between 600 square feet and 699 square feet,
then are they outside of the County restrictions in this aspect of
their proposal?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this County application.