The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.930 S Mill St.A106-02130 4 Al-,ll >f 40â‚¬1 11 lue-,u ... .# & DRAC A-106-01 11 , 01- - ---- 1.1 1 ' 94 -1 9'*ANED 411Â°33 - 4 CASE NUMBER A106-02 PARCEL ID # CASE NAME Parcel 4, Top of Mill DRAC and 8040 Greenline Review PROJECT ADDRESS Parcel 4, Top of Mill PLANNER Scott Woodford CASE TYPE DRAC and 8040 Greenline Review OWNER/APPLICANT Remko Van Lent REPRESENTATIVE John Galambos/Galambos Architects DATE OF FINAL ACTION 03/25/03 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION RESO 07-2003 ADMIN ACTION APPROVED HOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 04/10/03 BY D Driscoll 17' LUUU i c Â· uor M INU,JUJU 7Â· L/1 corporation 1111 lillil lilli lilli lilli 04/22/2003 10:48A 481710 2'Ze Utt732*Jg Page: 6 of 7 SILVIA DAL.S FITKI~ 2'-L. TY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 12 February 2003 MEMORANDUM Re: Planting in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Parce 4 To: John Galambos Galambos Architects 300 D AABC Aspen. CO John' The following is a list ofrecornmended plants that are ap )ropriate in the drainage case,nent west of the Parcel 4 residence. Com mon Name Botanic- lanic Trees: 1) Quaking Aspen Populus reinMoides 2) Narrowicaf Cotionwood Popubs ingustifolia 3) timber Pinc rip.uS fl<: <ili.q 4) Ponderosa Pine Pinus pc )derosa Note: Trees will be limbed up [0 4:- 5 above grade, Shrubs: I) Saskatoon Sen-iceberry Amelan< hier alnifolia 2) Littleleaf Min. Mahogany Ccrcoca pus ledifolius intricalus 3) Tai] Green Rabbitbrush Chrysot! 2 m nUS Iiauseosus 4) Isanti Dogwood Cornus , erices Isanli' 5) Coloneaster sp Cotoriea irer sp 6) Rock Spwca Holodis, us duinosus 7) Dwarf Ninebark Physoca 'pus a. Natius 8) Potentilia Polenril 3 frutiCOSa 9) Alpine Curran[ R ibes A pif-Illm 10) Boulder Raspberry Rubus d:liciousus 11) Blue Stem Willow Salix irr )ram 12) Canyon Blue Arctic Willow Salix pc -purea 'Canyon Blue 13) Silver Buffalo Berry Shephet jia argentea 14) Mountain Snow'berry SymphÂ¢ -icapos oreophilus VST 1 60 â‚¬O-bT-aa-1 dhmdest 1 GuilT' C Uuu IL'171 111 Ill ' .... I 4, & teD,14Â· ZUUJ 12;UVPM No,5535 V . '6/ -3 Perennials; 1) Rocky Mui Columbine Aquilegia cearulea 2) Lavender Blue Aster Aster x.f. Monarch: 3) Moonshine Yarrow Achillea * MoonshinE 4) Blue Avena Grass Helictorri:hon sempen,irens 5) Corcopsis Coreopsi: sp. 6) Purple Coneflower Echinace; purpurea 7) Coral Bells Hucchera sanguinca 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar Lavandul t angustifolia 'Melissal 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy Leucatith mum x.s, 'Alaska' 10) Creeping Mahor,ia Malionia Â·epens 1 1) Rocky Mountain Pensteinon Pensteine i strictus 12) Russian Sage Perovski: atriplicifolia 13) Prairie Concflower Ratihida i olumnifera 14) Rudbeckia f.s. -Goldsturm- Goldsturi 1 Black Eyed Susan 15) May Nighl Salvia Salvia ne norosa May Nighz' Adjustments may be made to the above tist. but char*actcri :ties of substitute planis will mimic listed plants. Regards. Jason Jaynes dhm design 481710 11 11 ~millillill 111 Page: 7 of 7 04/22/2003 10:48A SILL IA DAÂ·&.S PITKI, COL..TY CJ R 36.00 D 0.00 EO-d WO T - /- Â·Â·~ -- low,1 4Â· Cuuo i c. worm I'lu'UUJU T ' 6/ 0 lÂ·, I dhmdesign corporation Site Design Land Planning &Â·Landscape Architecture 12 February 2003 MEMORANDUM Re: Planting in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Parce 4 To: John Galambos 1 Galambos Architects 300 D AABC Aspen, CO John' - The following is 3 lisi of recommended plants that are ag )ropriate in the drainage easement west of rhe Parcel 4 residence. I-%'/ . Common Name Bolame hme , - Trees: 1) Quaking Aspen Populus rein u loides 2) Narrowlcattotronwood Populus inglistifelia 3) Limber Pinc Pinus flailis 4) Ponderosa Pine Pinits pc ideroga Note: Trees will be limbed up [o 4'- 5' above grade, Shrubs: 1) Saskatoon .Serviceberry Amelam hier alltifolia 2) Littlejeaf Mln. Mallogany Ccrcoca pus ledifolius inrricalUs 3) Tall Green Rabbirbrush Chrysot] aninus nauseosus 4) Isanti Dogwood Cornus : ericea IsanIi' 5) Coloileaster Sp Cotenta Ker SID. 6) Rock Spirca Holodis, us dumosus 7) Dwarf Ninebark Physoca 'pus a. Nanus- 8) Potentilla Potemil a frutiCOSa 9) A]pine C urran( Ribes A pinum 10) Boulder Raspberry Rubus d:liciousus I t) Blue Stem W)!low- Salix irr wata k 12) Canyon Blue Arctic Willow Salix pc -purea 'Canyon Blue 13) Silver Buffalo Berry Shephet jia argenlea 14) Mountain Snowberry Syniplic -icapos oreophilus 20-d var :Fâ‚¬ n C n - 4.. 7 - r.7 -=, 1 Section 5: ~ If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or porÂ®n 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 indepencl~provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining i~tions thereof. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND *ONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULJ~MEETINO ON THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: / \ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CiÂ¢ Attorney Yasmine T gre, Chair ATTEST: *L **24 ~ackie Lothian:'Deputy City Clerk /1. ':97::1 -'-TeD'.14 - ZUU3 -12:0 SPM No,0030 y. 6/4 Perennials: 1) Rocky Mtn Coluinbine Aquilegin cearulea 2) Lavender Blue Aster After x.f. Monarch- 3) Moonshine Yarrow Achiliep Woonshine 4) Blue Avena Grass Helictorri:hon sempen,irens 5) Corcopsis Coreopsit sp. 6) Purple Coneflowcr Echinace; purpurea 7) Coral Bclls Hucchera sanguinca 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar Lavandul langlts[ifolia 'Melissa- 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy Leucarith :mum X.S, ' Alaska' 10) Creeping Mahonia Mahonia -epens 1 1) Rocky Mountain Penstemon Pensteinc i stricals [2) Russian Sage PerovskiiÂ· alriplicifolia 13) Prairie Concflower Ratihida Â· olumnifera 14) Rodbeckia fs. -Goldstunn Goldswn i Black Eyed Susan 15) May Nighl Salvia Salvia lic norosa 'May Night' Adjustments may be made to the above tisi. but characteri.tics of substifule planis will nlimic listed plants. Regards. Jason Jaynes dhm design a â‚¬O-d MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy DirectorÂ·3Pe FROM: Scott Woodford, City PlannerÂ£7~-0 RE: PARCEL 4, AsPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL RESOLUTION No. ~71 SERIES 2003 DATE: March 25,2003 ... Â·2~7 -E -5 2*Z 4 1 511 .rÂ· I-T [-T 1 9-1. I[ ' 1 -It I r=-r--- -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-'Â»L Ill -1 1 i rÂ·=2 i . 11 Pth- /M'11 â€¢tin 1 .1 - lilli 4 4 h #1 h *1 h fi:od b m \ / / U I h-Un 1 '., ../ -, -,1 Al 41-92222.9.4 1 93 H ut.~YNA til/h ~ 241 \Arl (El _21=:-122Â·M Pt N el 1: \4 tl~2-12.22.Ill2),! ~ WEST ELEVATION Above is the west elevation for the proposed structure. Since the last meeting when the project was tabled, the applicant has redesigned the home so that it complies with the Secondary Mass requirement with the addition of a one car garage and accessory dwelling unit connected to the main house by hallway (located on the left side ofthe elevation) and with the One-Story, Street Facing Element by widening the porch roof over the front door, so that it comprises 20% ofthe overall width. PROJECT: PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, TOP OF MILL REQUEST SUMMARY: 8040 Greenline Review and a Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation APPLICANT: Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos STAFF APPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DENIAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION: VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTTAT DESIGN STANDARD PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTArN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,200 square foot single-family house on Parcel 4 of the Top of Mill Subdivision. In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must first gain 8040 Greenline Review approval. Concurrent with that action is a request for a variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) 8040 Greenline Review; According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with specific requirements. As Parcel 4 is located within this range of elevation, this review is required; Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission 2) Residential Design Standards Variances; According to Section 26.410.020, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee; however, if there are other land use reviews necessary, the applicant may consolidate the reviews with the requisite review authority for that other land use request. In this case, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is already hearing the 8040 Greenline Review, the applicant has chosen to allow P&Z authority to review the variance requests. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Top of Mill Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on March 11, 2002. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On March 4, 2003, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) tabled this application. At the time, the project consisted of 8040 Greenline Review and variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. The P&Z did not support two of three variances - Secondary Mass and One-Story Street Facing Element - and suggested that the applicant redesign the residence to comply with these requirements. Based on this feedback, the applicant revised the building elevations and incorporated a secondary mass element in the form of a garage and accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the main structure by a linking element of at least 6' feet in width, 10' in length, and 9' in height, in accordance with the Secondary Mass requirements. In addition, they widened the "floating canopy", or porch roof on the front fagade, so that it comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width, which is what the Code requires for a One-Story Street Facing Element. Therefore, the applicant no longer needs variances to these two Residential Design Guidelines. Staff continues to find the TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 S'IAFF REPORT PAGE 2 project in compliance with the 8040 Greenline Review Standards, but not in compliance with the variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; Staff finds the proposed single-family structure to be in compliance with the standards for 8040 Greenline Review (See Exhibit A for Staff Findings). Furthermore, staff believes that the majority of the review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review were more pertinent during design and consideration of the original subdivision. as most of the environmental impact occurs during the construction of roads, utilities and building lots. In this case, Parcel 4 was graded into a relatively level site during the subdivisioii construction. The proposed home on Parcel 4 will not create any significant additional environmental impacts, such as removal of vegetation or new cut o f the hillside. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards must identify why, if granted, the exception would: ( 1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The following is the criteria of the different Residential Design Standard which the applicant is requesting a variance from and staff response: Standard: BuildinE orientation The front facades ofall principal structures Yes. No shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, 1 \ Yes. both streetjacing.thcades must be parallel to the Emr,m \ IN \ intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the frontjacade ofall structures shall be parallel \ \ Â»1 u to the tangent of the midpoint ot the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or j dormer, placed at a.tront corner of the building Â« may be oil a diagonal from the street it desired. Staff Finding: The proposed structure is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoint. Given that the parcel is a flag Iot and that the proposed structure will be setback 83' from the street. a slight variation in building orientation is not a large concern for staff. However, again. staff does not find that the proposal meets the strict criteria as noted above. An argument could be made that there are site constraints involved because of the tlag lot situation and the fact that there really is no designated front setback, but staff believes that the orientation standard could still be met if the structure were slightly smaller in footprint and did not fill almost the entire building envelope. If the size was slightly reduced, the angle of the structure to the TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 m street could be adjusted such that it would be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street and then be in compliance with the provision. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on January 22, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. The City Engineering Department commented that no part of the proposed building. including foundations and eaves, can encroach into the 20' wide drainage and mudflow easement along the southwest edge of the property. Submitted plans showed roof eaves and a patio encroaching into the easement. The applicant stated that they will redesign the home so that there is no encroachment into the easement. ~TAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. C)~. Series of 2003, for a 8040 Greenline Review and the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Top of Mill. Aspen Mountain Subdivision. Parcel 4." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: 8040 Greenline Review - Staff Findings Exhibit B: Variance to Residential Design Standards - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Application TOP OF Mill, PARCEL 4 STAFF REP()RT PAGE 4 RESOLUTION NO. ~,- (SERIES OF 2(MB) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-003(Fathering Parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building. Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application. referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards. the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and the denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety. and welfare; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request via Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a vote of to L - _), to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and the Variance to the Residential Design Standards; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 258 DAY OF MARCH 2003, THAT: TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill. parcel identification of 2737-182- 85-003 (Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass. and One-Story, Street Facing Element. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill. is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap an(For Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The Community Development Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed driveway and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan to the Parks Department and Community Development Department. If applicable. a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the City Parks Department as well as any approval from the Parks Department for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. g. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance in effect at the time of Building Permit Submittal and prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. A soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado, submitted for review by the Community Development Engineer. demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development. then this Resolution shall he rendered mill and void. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 Sl AFF REPORT PAGE 6 c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. Building plans demonstrating an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A detailed erosion control and irrigation plan for review by the Parks Department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas, per the requirements of the PUD Agreement. g. A detailed landscape plan reflecting the species, numbers and locations of platitings and any right-of-way plantings or requirements. The landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. h. Areas outside of the building envelope, but on the applicant's parcel, that have been disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site, shall be restored with native plants and materials. In addition, the construction of the mud and debris wall will require over dig. Per the requirements of the PUD Agreement, the area of said over dig shall be re-vegetated. i. Plans showing a construction fence erected along the entire East, South East South and South West portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. j. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and sliall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip lines. 3. During construction, the contractor shall abide by the following requirements (note: the applicant shall inform the contractor of this and all conditions): a. All construction vehicles materials and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking. including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. TOPC)]2 MILL PARCEL 4 SIAFF REPORT PAGE 7 b. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. c. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes. including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 5. Exterior building colors shall be earth tones to make the building more compatible with the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 6. Within the 20' drainage easement (Valleju Gulch), the following encroachments are allowed: a. Extension of non-occupiable building components (i.e. decks, hand railings. roof overhangs, etc.) shall be breakaway so that they detach from the main structural frame of the building in case of flood passing through the easement. b. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 20' above the bottom of the drainage channel. c. No building walls or retaining walls shall be allowed to encroach in any part of the 20' drainage easement. d. Foundation footers may be permitted inside the drainage easement only if the depth of the footer is twice the depth of the existing or proposed drainage pipe. e. A minimum of a 14' wide horizontal clearance shall be maintained within the easement, including tree trunks (so, plantings may be within a 3' zone on each side of the easement). f. All trees planted within the 3' allowed zone from each side of the easement shall be non-rigid to avoid any damming effect. Any landscaping in the drainage easement shall utilize only plantings listed in the letter from dhm design dated February 12, 2003, which is attached to this resolution. g. Softscape materials, such as grass and gardens may be allowed within the 14' clearance zone. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as i f fully set forth herein. unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: 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 TOP 01: MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PA(iE 8 11/Â·.UU. 1 , 1/l ICU'19Â· Luuo 1 LÂ·UOr 1Â¥1 INUÂ·JUJU r , Ll J Arr-Acil NEWT -[D 90600,1104 dhm design corporation Site Design Land Planning &' Landscape Architecture 12 February 2003 MEMORANDUM Re: Planting in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Parce 4 To: John Galambos Galambos Archilects 300 D AABC Aspen. CO John: The following is a list of recommended plants that are aF )ropriate in the drainage easement west of the Parcel 4 residence. . Common Name 11912!li<L laric Trees: 1) Quaking Aspen Populus remuloides 2) Narrowlcaf Cottonwood Populus Ingllstifolia 3) Limber Pine Pinus llc vilis 4) Ponderosa Pine Pilills pc Iderosa Note. Trees will be limbed lip to di- 5 above grade, Shrubs: 1 ) Saskatoon Sen iceberry Amelan, hier alltifolia 1 2) Littlelea f Mln. Mahogany Ccrcoca piis ledifolius intricatus I 3) Tall Green Rabbirbrush Chrysot! arnnus nauseosus 4) Isanti Dogwood Cornus : ericea -Isanti' 5) Cotoneaster sp Cotonea iter sp 6) Rock Spirca Holodis, us dumosus 7) Dwarf Ninebark Physoca 'pus a. Nanus 8) Potentilia Polenti[ 3 fruticosa 9) A]pine C urran[ Ribes A pinum 10) Boulder Raspberry Rubus d:liciousus 11) Blue Stem WillowÂ· Salix irt )rata 12) Canyon Blue Arctic Willow Salix pu -pi,rea 'Canyon Blue 13) Silver Buffalo Berry Shephet jia argen(ea 14) Mountain Snowberry SymphÂ¢ -icapos oreophilus 20-d V8I:60 â‚¬0-*T-aeu h ,V'.1 ,Â· Lulu 1 Lâ€¢ U JF 1Â¥1 NO,5530 F. 3/3 Perennials: 1) Rocky Mtn Columbine Aquilegia cearuiea 2) Lavender Blue Aster Aster x,f. Monarch 3) Moonshine Yarrow Achilled ' Moonshine 4) Blue Avena Grass Helictorri:hon sempen,irens 5) Corcopsis Coreopsi: sp. 6) Purple Coneflo\vcr Echinace; purpurea 7) Coral Bells liucclicra sanguinca 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar Lavandul i angusti folia 'Melissal 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy Leucalith :mum x.i 'Alaska' 10) Creeping Mahonia Malionia epens 11) Rocky Mountain Penstemon Pensteinc' 7 stric{us 12) Russian Sagc Perovskie alriplicifolia 13) Prairie Concflower Ratihida Â· o}uninifera 14) Rudbeckia f.s. -Goldstunn Goldsturt i Black Eyed Susan 15) May Nighl Salvia Salvia ne norosa May Nigh!' Adjustments mal be made to the above liSI. but characteri :ties of subslirule planis will mimic listed plants. Regards. Jason Jaynes dhm design EO-d V8IZ6O en -4.1 T - n=. 1 EXHIBIT A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF FINDING: The site is suitable for development. It has been graded and a building pad has been flattened out so there are no concerns about slope stability, mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche dangers. To staff s knowledge, there have been no hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the parcel. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. STAFF FINDING: Consideration of the subdivisions impacts on drainage and run-off were considered during the original approval and were either deemed to not be a concern or were properly mitigated. A drainage and mudflow easement exists on the west side of the property to accommodate flows from above the subdivision. With proper construction management and prompt re-vegetation this Spring, there should not be any impacts any o f the watersheds. â€¢ 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF FINDING: Although all single-family residences in the city, collectively, create an impact on the air quality of the city from vehicle trips created and remaining wood burning stoves, staff finds that this single- family residence, by itself, will not have an adverse impact on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. STAFF FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed home and driveway are compatible with the terrain of the parcel, which was largely determined at the time thar the original subdivision was designed and approved. Driveway access to the home appears to be easily accomplished without need for ady further environmental impact. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. STAFF FINDING: TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 The grading and disturbance to the lot was created with the construction of the subdivision's road and lots and the installation of the utilities. The only additional disturbance to this parcel will be the excavation of the foundation for the house and the house itself, which is acceptable as a necessary disturbance. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. STAFF FINDING: The placement of the house on this lot was largely determined with the original subdivision, but the placement of this structure will not need any new roads, will maintain open space outside of the building envelope, will limit new cutting and grading and will not degrade the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF FINDING: The building height and bulk will be minimized to the extent that it does not exceed floor area ratio and height limitations established through the PUD process creating the subdivision. Although the proposed design is more modem in character, staff finds that it will blend into the "open charactef' of the mountain because of its relatively low profile. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: There exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed structure, as determined by the approval ofthe subdivision. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF FINDING: The City approved the roads of the subdivision when it was originally approved. No new roads are proposed with the development although there will be a new driveway, which will be required to comply with design criteria for driveways. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical rrÂ· , '' , STAFF FINDING: Adequate ingress and egress for adequate fire protection and snow removal was designed and approved when the Top of Mill Subdivision requested and received City approval. The recommendations of the AACP were considered during the subdivision process and incorporated into the plan. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.222.010 Purpose. The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall review, at a regular meeting, any appeal of the Residential Design Standards. Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and succinctly identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and STAFF FINDING: One of the policies of the AACP is to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of our community". According to the architect, the proposed design is an "expression of pure Modern design" and something different than the traditional mountain home. Staff believes that the design will add to the mix of architectural styles found in the community. We do find, however, that the proposed variance is not necessarily fundamental to accomplishing the design and, therefore, does not by themselves further the goals of the AACP. (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF FINDING: Staff does not find that the proposed variance would more effectively address an issue the standard responds to, nor be clearly necessary to be fair to any site specific constraints. In our opinion, the variance results from the fact that the applicant has proposed a structure that utilizes the majority of the building envelope, which does not allow building to meet the Building Orientation requirement. If the structure were designed to be a little bit smaller, it would comply with the requirement. In addition, staff does not find a significant enough site specific constraint to warrant the variance as the site is relatively flat, or at least flat enough to be able to comply with the requirement. f . LU 1 TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES At the January 22, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the design of a proposed residence to be built on Top of Mills - Parcel 4. DRC review of the project is required due to 8040 Greenline requirements and variances to the Residential Design Standards. (Design standard variances are needed for building orientation, secondary mass and one-story street facing element.) Next Step for Application: From the DRC meeting, the project will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z will pass a resolution approving or disapproving the proposed project. Comments to Be Included in Resolution or Ordinance: These comments are noted below. Other comments are provided to inform the Applicant of other City requirements and standards. DRC COMMENTS: 1. Engineering Department â€¢ To be included in the P&Z Resolution: Along the southwest edge of the property is a 20-foot wide easement that is designed to accommodate potential drainage and mudflow. No feature of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can enter this easement. 2. Parks Department (submitted via e-mail) â€¢ To be included in the P&Z Resolution: A construction fence shall be erected along the entire east, southeast, south and southwest portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside o f the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. â€¢ Per requirements ofthe PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas. â€¢ Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall cannot be beyond the property boundary, this includes any necessary over digging. If the area beyond is disturbed, notification of the property owner and mitigation for the damage will be required. â€¢ Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 reflect the species, numbers and locations ofplantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. â€¢ To be included in P&Z Resolution: Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. â€¢ To be included in P&Z Resolution: Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. Aspen Sanitation District â€¢ To be included in the P&Z Resolution: Service is contingent on district's rules, regulations and specifications that are on file at the district's office. â€¢ The District has the sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. If constraints exist in the downstream collection system, the constraints will be eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees. A tap permit can be completed for the project as soon as detailed plans are available. Total connection fees for the project will be estimated at this time. All fees must be paid prior to the issuance ofthe building permit. 4. Citv Water Department: â€¢ All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 5. Building Department: â€¢ Based on a cursory review, the basement egress may not conform with the code. . - -1.,4.'. 2., l. 4 1.-1,Â¢11;-,f.l '41 i '.Ojo.li Â£01,>,fi'libiltill :t ..0,1-,4. 4 . d , Â·,/ Â·/L~' Cl f: 1 1 :1 TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 Mar.18 2003 3 :23?M No.5990 P 2/2 March 18, 2003 * Changes to Design in Response to P& Z mee!ing Van Lent Residence Parce14, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 In response to the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18, 2003 the following changes are proposed for the design. 1. The proposed FAR has been reduced from 6,200 SF to 5,689 SF. The allowable FAR is 6,200 SF per the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 2. The exterior entry canopy has bccn widened to 14'-6". This fulfills the requirements of the 'One Story Element' section ofthe Residential Design Standards. 3. A secondary mass containing a garage and ADU has been added to the northeast corner that is Unked by a one story element. The secondary mass meets thc requirements for total square footage to be used in a secondary mass. The linking elemerit r.i c' * " -Quicements of Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Building Form, Secondary Mass. F 15, MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Directok*D FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plannef36 RE: PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL RESOLUTION NO. ( ~-, SERIES 2003 DATE: February 18, 2003 \. 1 - ---- ---- \ - - i \\ \\ \\ \\\ -- i\\ h - \ REQUIRED MUDFLOW DEFLECTION WALL -' M .2,44 \ $ 24*k \ \ 1 >I 45, \\ I. \ \\ \\. \ \\ 1 / 111\ I 1% 2 1 / 2 1 i 4 & 7 ... , 1 12 7 % \ 1/1/ // 1 1 1/fl 5 1 1// i. f / //// , 1 t # 4\ , / PROJECT: 1 a .:: : 07.11 J PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, TOP OF MILL REQUEST SUMMARY: 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story Street Facing Element APPLICANT: Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos STAFF APPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DENIAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION: VARIANCES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 REOUEST SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,200 square foot single-family house on Parcel 4 of the Top of Mill Subdivision. In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must first gain 8040 Greenline Review approval. Concurrent with that action is a request for three different variances to the Residential Design Standards. Those variances are for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) 8040 Greenline Review; According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with specific requirements. As Parcel 4 is located within this range of elevation, this review is required; Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission 2) Residential Design Standards Variances; According to Section 26.410.020, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee; however, if there are other land use reviews necessary, the applicant may consolidate the reviews with the requisite review authority for that other land use request. In this case, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is already hearing the 8040 Greenline Review, the applicant has chosen to allow P&Z authority to review the variance requests. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Top of Mill Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on March 11, 2002. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: There has been no previous land use activity or approval on this particular parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; Staff finds the proposed single-family structure to be in compliance with the standards for 8040 Greenline Review (See Exhibit A for Staff Findings). Furthermore, staffbelieves that the majority ofthe review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review was more pertinent during design and consideration of the original subdivision, as most of the environmental impact occurs during the construction of roads, utilities and building lots. In this case, the Parcel 4 was graded into a relatively level site during the subdivision construction. The proposed home on Parcel 4 will not create any significant additional environmental impacts, such as removal of vegetation or new cut of the hillside. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards must identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or TOP oF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The following are the different Residential Design Standards which the applicant is requesting variance from and staff response: Standard: Secondarv Mass. All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from - the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. - Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. Staff Finding: The applicant proposed no secondary mass, citing the grade changes that exist across the site, the presence of the mudflow deflection wall, the lack of historical context in the neighborhood supporting the standard, and the modernist design of the home as reasons supporting a variance from this provision (See Exhibit D for full applicant explanation for the variances). While staff understands that the requirement of a secondary mass may contrast with the applicant's proposed architectural style, we do not find the site constraints to be so limiting as to not be able to physically incorporate the secondary mass into the design. If the applicant wanted the secondary mass, the site appears to be able to accommodate it. Despite this, the criteria for approving a variance to the standards requires a finding that such variance furthers the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the exception would more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff does not find that the proposed variance meets any o f the above criteria. Standard: Building orientation Thefront facades ofall principal structures Yes. No shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, \ both street facing facades must be parallel to the IrÂ·r- - i -Yes. U 1 1~ ;111~11,1 -h Ah intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the E*@ l E# i . MI v / frontfacade ofall structures shall be parallel m--1 i VJ .1 to the tangent Of the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or ~ dormer, placed at afront corner ofthe building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 Staff Finding: The proposed structure is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoint. Given that the parcel is a flag lot and that the proposed structure will be setback 83' from the street, a slight variation in building orientation is not a large concern for staff. However, again, staff does not find that the proposal meets the strict criteria as noted above. An argument could be made that there are site constraints involved because of the flag lot situation and the fact that there really is no designated front setback, but staff believes that the orientation standard could still be met if the structure were slightly smaller in footprint and did not fill almost the entire building envelope. If the size was slightly reduced, the angle of the structure to the street could be adjusted such that it would be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street and then be in compliance with the provision. Standard: One storv element. All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. One Elementj:Mil Wl/11/1 Staff Finding: In an effort to come closer into compliance with the above provision, the applicant proposes a "floating" canopy which will be about 10' wide and project 3' out from the front fa~ade, comprising 15% of the overall faâ„¢le width. This element, while a nicely designed feature, is very small compared to the two-story fagacle that the canopy projects from and it is the facade that really dominates the front elevation. Staff does not feel that this complies with the spirit of the standard and does not further the AACP goals, nor provide a better solution to the goal that the standard is responding to. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on January 22, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. The City Engineering Department commented that no part of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can encroach into the 20' wide drainage and mudflow easement along the southwest edge of the property. Submitted plans showed roof eaves and a patio encroaching into the easement. The applicant stated that they will redesign the home so that there is no encroachment into the easement. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Top ofMill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 7, RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No. 2 *Series of 2003, for a 8040 Greenline Review and the Variances to the Residential Dedgn Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: 8040 Greenline Review - Staff Findings Exhibit B: Variances to Residential Design Standards - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Application TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 j RESOLUTION NO. (7~-, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND VARIANCES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. (- Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-003(Fathering Parcel) 4 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and the denial of the Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass and One- Story Street Facing Element for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request via Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a vote of to L - _), to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and the Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2003, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, parcel identification of2737-182- TOP oF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 85-003(Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, is subject to the following Kt~ conditions: 1. Prior to issuance ofa building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The Community Development Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed addition, driveway, and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The Applicant shall provide the Community Development Engineer with a soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A construction fence shall be erected along the entire East, South East, South and South West portions of the property. (please see map) There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside ofthe protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. g. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas. r-- h. Per requirements ofthe PUD Agreement, construction ofthe mud and debris wall will require over dig, the area of said over dig will be re-vegetated. 4 Reference # 5. i. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted ~ and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should reflect the species, numbers and locations of plantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. j. Areas outside o f the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. k. Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 4. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. 5. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 7. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 8. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City o f Aspen Lighting ordinance at the time of Building Permit Submittal and/or prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 9. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. 10. Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a Certificate of Occupancy. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 11. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip lines. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby ~~ incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth (3 herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. .1 Section 4: 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 5: 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 18, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 1 1 EXHIBIT A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF FINDING: The site is suitable for development. It has been graded and a building pad has been flattened out so there are no concerns about slope stability, mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche dangers. To staff' s knowledge, there have been no hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the parcel. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. STAFF FINDING: Consideration of the subdivisions impacts on drainage and run-off were considered during the original approval and were either deemed to not be a concern or were properly mitigated. A drainage and mudfiow easement exists on the west side of the property to accommodate flows from above the subdivision. With proper construction management and prompt re-vegetation this Spring, there should not be any impacts any ofthe watersheds. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF FINDING: Although all single-family residences in the city, collectively, create an impact on the air quality of the city from vehicle trips created and remaining wood burning stoves, staff finds that this single- family residence, by itself, will not have an adverse impact on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. STAFF FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed home and driveway are compatible with the terrain of the parcel, which was largely determined at the time that the original subdivision was designed and approved. Driveway access to the home appears to be easily accomplished without need for any further environmental impact. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 STAFF FINDING: The grading and disturbance to the lot was created with the construction of the subdivision's road and lots and the installation of the utilities. The only additional disturbance to this parcel will be the excavation of the foundation for the house and the house itself, which is acceptable as a necessary disturbance. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. STAFF FINDING: The placement of the house on this lot was largely determined with the original subdivision, but the placement of this structure will not need any new roads, will maintain open space outside of the building envelope, will limit new cutting and grading and will not degrade the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF FINDING: The building height and bulk will be minimized to the extent that it does not exceed floor area ratio and height limitations established through the PUD process creating the subdivision. Although the proposed design is more modern in character, staff finds that it will blend into the "open character" of the mountain because of its relatively low profile. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: There exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed structure, as determined by the approval ofthe subdivision. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF FINDING: The City approved the roads of the subdivision when it was originally approved. No new roads are proposed with the development although there will be a new driveway, which will be required to comply with design criteria for driveways. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical STAFF FINDING: Adequate ingress and egress for adequate fire protection and snow removal was designed and approved when the Top of Mill Subdivision requested and received City approval. The recommendations of the AACP were considered during the subdivision process and incorporated into the plan. TOP oF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.222.010 Purpose. The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall review, at a regular meeting, any appeal of the Residential Design Standards. Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and succinctly identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and STAFF FINDING: One of the policies of the AACP is to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of our community". According to the architect, the proposed design is an "expression of pure Modern design" and something different than the traditional mountain home. Staff believes that the design will add to the mix of architectural styles found in the community. We do find, however, that the proposed variances are not necessarily fundamental to accomplishing the design and, therefore, do not by themselves further the goals ofthe AACP. (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF FINDING: Staff does not find that the any of the proposed variances would more effectively address an issue any of the standards respond to, nor be clearly necessary to be fair to any site specific constraints. In our opinion, the variances all result from the fact that the standards in question do not mesh well with the applicant's chosen design style. Unfortunately, that criteria is not among the two that the Code requires be met in order to support a variance. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES At the January 22, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the design of a proposed residence to be built on Top of Mills - Parcel 4. DRC review of the project is required due to 8040 Greenline requirements and variances to the Residential Design Standards. (Design standard variances are needed for building orientation, secondary mass and one-story street facing element.) Next Step for Application: From the DRC meeting, the project will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z will pass a resolution approving or disapproving the proposed project. Comments to Be Included in Resolution or Ordinance: These comments are noted below. Other comments are provided to inform the Applicant of other City requirements and standards. DRC COMMENTS: 1. Engineering Department â€¢ To be included in the P&Z Resolution: Along the southwest edge of the property is a 20-foot wide easement that is designed to accommodate potential drainage and mudflow. No feature of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can enter this easement. 2. Parks Department (submitted via e-mail) â€¢ To be included in the P&Z Resolution: A construction fence shall be erected along the entire east, southeast, south and southwest portions o f the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. â€¢ Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas. â€¢ Per requirements o f the PUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall cannot be beyond the property boundary, this includes any necessary over digging. If the area beyond is disturbed, notification of the property owner and mitigation for the damage will be required. â€¢ Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 reflect the species, numbers and locations ofplantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. â€¢ To be included in P&Z Resolution: Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. â€¢ To be included in P&Z Resolution: Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. Aspen Sanitation District â€¢ To be included in the P&Z Resolution: Service is contingent on district's rules, regulations and specifications that are on file at the district's office. â€¢ The District has the sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. If constraints exist in the downstream collection system, the constraints will be eliminated through a system o f proportionate additional fees. A tap permit can be completed for the project as soon as detailed plans are available. Total connection fees for the project will be estimated at this time. All fees must be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. City Water Department: â€¢ All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 5. Building Department: â€¢ Based on a cursory review, the basement egress may not conform with the code. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 Mar 18. 2003 3.23?M ... No,5990 P. 2/2 March 18,2003 x Changls to Design in Response to P& Z meeting Van Lent Residence Parce14, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD - Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 In response to the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18, 2003 the following changes are proposed for the design. 1. The proposed FAR has bcco reduced from 6,200 SF to 5,689 SF. The allowable FAR is 6,200 SF per the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 2. The exterior entry canopy has been widened to 14'-6". This fulfills the requirements of the 'One Story Element' section of the Residential Design Standards. 3. A secondary mass containing a garage and ADU has been added zo the northeast corner that is linked by a one story element. The secondary mass meets thc requirements for total square footage to be used in a secondary mass. The linking elemer.t rec-2 1 U. '22.2rements of Section 26,410.040(B)(1), Building Form, Secondary Mass. Mar.18. 2003 3:23PM 1 No.5990 P 1/2 G A FAX TRANSMIITAL GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS iNC. TO: Sea Woodford - City of Aspen Planning Department FROM: Rich Pavcek DATE: March 18,2003 FAX #: 920-5439 RE: Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PAGES: 2 (incl. cover sheet) Scott, 2 Attached is the letter vol, 7'11,â€¢Fred addressing the changes made to the proposed design, Please call if you have any further qu#>....6. Thank you, Rich Pavcek Galambos Architects Inc 300 AABC Unit D - Aspen, Colorado 81611 [el 970.429.1286 i fax 970.429.1296 e-mail gainc@galambosarchitectsnet TRANSMITTAL ~ To: Scott Woodford From: Rich Pavcek A Re: Parcel 4 - Aspen Mountain Subdivision GALAMBOS CC: ARCHITECTS INC Date: March 17, 2003 Scott, Attached are 11 copies of the new submittal for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision. If you need any further information please contact myself or John Galambos. Thank you, Rich Pavcek Galambos Architects Inc Bldg 300, Unit D AABC â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970-429-1286 â€¢ F: 970-429-1296 E: gainc@galambosarchitects.net my transmittal.doc ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ~AN t,ovr %0/DENZE Applicant: tove ~Dn,AmDON Location: R=-EL 4 j fu * MivE J h,â„¢'1 M,Â·r,relf '7,1Â¢4,*ts,0,4 Zone District: Unc Lot Size: /1-2 275 52 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: NA Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: I Number ofbedrooms: . Existing: Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: 4,2 00 Proposed: 6,651 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: 22> Proposed: fu, 8 Access. bldg. height: Existing: ~A- Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: 5 Proposed: b % Site coverage: Existing: 44 Required: Proposed: % open Space: Existing: WA Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: â‚¬Â»r Required. Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: / D Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: */4 Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: /0 Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: / O Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: ,(01 Required. Proposed: 96 Ful> Existing non-conformities or encroachments: MONS Variations requested: '5114(E1- DUEATAT-lok . ... 1 .'1.1 111 Ill'VVIV , 1/ L ... .. ... - ... .. ... .. G A FAX TRANSMITTAL GALAMBOS ARCMIYECTS INC. To: A)tdlÂ·-- (9 &*r-- 43t--3 FROM: 72 L AG.-LS -- - DATE: Z ~*le' _ FAX #: 172/ 96 Z RE: PAGES: 3 (incl. cover sheet) -sel,43 *,4/ 4 644*+ 11-4 -1-Rp 'f 1441 1 l 4 7 9 7(/Asc ZA I { 66+ AUC,1 + -95,1 v I YL.~ As-e- ULLZov-- 4- (1'., f.*leoD, W, LI2 ,~404 1 AYÂ© h 300 AABC Unit D - Aspen, Colorado 81611 rel 970.429.1286 I fax 970.429.1296 e-mail gainc@ galambosarchizects.ner reDÂ·14Â· LUUJ-ILÂ·lorM -8062 -RED'D Fluâ€¢UVUV 1 â€¢ 6/ L - HEIGHT ABME GRADE ~ MUD DEFLECTION WALL -Â·8063' - REVD HEIGHT ABCNE GRADE 8060 PATIO AREA ojELSÂ£11@EL ZIÂ« PLANT ER -8050' 01â‚¬ \ \ UP DEFLECTION WALL "r----1 \ 7054Â£0,0 - \ - MEZGâ‚¬- AS@CE GRADE \ Â·8038' \ '80500 ~1 1-\40 8_ - - PATIO AREA / DN \ t in MUD EFLECT-10*WAL 44 \1 1 SPA Â·8053'\MEVO \ ~ HEIGHT *01/E GAOL Â» \ \ <11 '8049 up 0 1 ~ ~0 DEFLECTARN WAL .1 HEÂ«f ABWE @ADE Â·80* Â·RECD J / , I \ \L 1- I. / / \ . I , 1 / \ / \11 / \ / 1 ul 1 / e,/6-5 0 / \ \ 8039 1 \ 1- , \ f- DN â‚¬- DN \ 1 / , . 0/ / \ \ ,/0 \ \ \ 1 - ,-009. \ ' I ' \ \ / ./< 1 \ / O \ \ L/ ' '' / I I / ' \ A , \ \ \\/ \ \ \ \\\ 1 \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ DRIVEWAY \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 t-- f , \ 1 l , 1 1 , Â«f i 1 1 ICUÂ·! 4, LUVU 1 L â€¢UUE 1Â¥1 INV â€¢ U U J V 1 â€¢ 1/V ..... .m ... .. ... .. ... .. G A FAX TRANSMITTAL GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS 1 N C. To: Art.4.-- G &7 ,#bre,_ &&24.e#.-x FROM: 72 L AL-1,6 - DEZE: 3 ~l412> - - FAX #: 120 - 56( RE: PAGES: ~ (incl. cover sheet) =:sip&45 11*.1- 4/ 1 k ects -f 1640.en- .-1-27 4 : 1 C 4 f 9 9 YU_- al C Â·56+ LUU + Â»Wve- fLA *42, 16Â£ ~~ 4. 9,6/ fle&, W l'F '&111(k, t 300 AABC Unir D - Aspen, Colorado 81611 el 970.429.1286 I fax 970.429.1296 e-mail gainc@galambosarchileed.net 1 UUâ€¢19Â·â€¢ LUVV IL â€¢ Vul lÂ¥! INU,JUJ J r Â· L/0 d hm design corporation Site Design Land Planning & Landscape Architecture 12 February 2003 MEMORANDUM Re: Plan[ing in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Parce 4 To: John Galambos Galambos Architects 300 D AABC Aspen, CO John' The following is a list of recommended plants Illat are ag )ropriate in the drainage easement west of the Parcel 4 residence. . Common Name flotank- 48-me Trees: 1) Quaking Aspen Populus remoloides 2) Narrowlcaf Cotto!,wood Populus triglistifolia 3) Limber Pine Pillus fIC Kilis 4) Ponderosa Pine Pinus pc Iderosa Note- Trees will be limbed up 10 4 - 5 above grade, Shrubs: 1 ) Saskaloon Serviceberry Amelan< hier alnifolia 2) Littlelea f Min. Mahogally Ccrcoca pils ledifolius intricatus 3) Tail Green Rabbitbrush Chrisot) aninus nauseosus 4) Isanti Dogwood Cornus : ericea -Isanli' 5) Cotoneaster sp Cotonea ;ter sp 6) Rock Spirca Holodis, us dumosus 7) Dwarf Ninebark Physoca 'pus a. *Nanus- 8) Potentilla Polenti| 3 fruticosa 9) Alpine Currant R ibes A pinum 10) Boulder Raspberry Rubus d 'liciousus 11) Blue Stern WillowÂ· Salix irr >rata 12) Canyon Blue Arctic Willow Salix pc -purea 'Canyon Blue 13) Silver Buffalo Berry Shephet jia argentea 14) Mountain Snow'berry Sy],iphe -icapos oreophilus 20-d V8 I-60 â‚¬O-t,T-Cia-1 I-QUÂ·ltâ€¢ Luuo IL. UJrly NOÂ·5595 Y. 6/6 Perennials: 1) Rocky Min Columbine Aquilegia cearutea 2) Lavender Blue Aster Aster x.f. Monarch- 3) Moonshine Yarrow Achillea ' Vloondiine 4) Blue Avena Grass Helictotri:hon sempen,irens 5) Corcopsis Coreopsh sp. 6) Purple Coneflower Echinaec: purpurea 7) Coral Bells Hilechera sanguinca 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar Lavandul Langllstifolia 'Melissa; 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy Leucantli :mum x.s. 'Alaska 10) Creeping Mahonia Malionia Â·epens 11) Rocky Mountain Penstelnon Pensteinc i strictus 12) Russian Sage Perovski: alriplicifolia 13) Prairie Concflower Raiibida, Ollimnifera 14) Rudbeckia f s. -Goldstunn Goldsturr i Black Eyed Susan 15) May Night Salvia Salvia nc norosa May Night' Adjustments may be made to the above liSI. but characteri :rics of substitute planis will mimic listed plants. Regards: Jason Jaynes dhm design ED-d V8 I:6O â‚¬0-1,1--ae-1 , 4 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 73 0 5.urlt pli.6 47*cu-r , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 'fiEE>t,/AÂ»%11 1~ ; , 200 3> STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin - ) - --- -- --- - I, 11+61. (iN,AlÂ» 5 (name, please print) being or representing 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) o f 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. X Posting of notice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproofmaterials, 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 34 day of JANUAN,-1 , 200 3, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. )4 Mailing of notice. By the mailing o f 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty 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 owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ASPEN MOUNTAIN MINING ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BENNETT WOOD INTERESTS LTD CORPORATION PO BOX 1248 PO DRAWER 1011 PO BOX 203 ASPEN, CO 81612 REFUGIO, TX 78377 ASPEN, CO 81612 BLEILER JUDITH A BRIDGE TIM EDGAR ROBERT G PO BOX 10220 300 PUPPY SMITH ST STE 203-225 167 COUNTRY CLUB DR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2901 GARDNER CHARLES L FAECC HOLDINGS 7040 LLC FREEDMAN MICHAEL & NANCI WOLF GARDNER RITA WALSH 3258 FOURTH AVE 32460 EVERGREEN 840 LOCUST AVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 BEVERLY HILLS, MI 48025 WINNETKA, IL 60093 HAGER FRANCES GUEST KELLEY & CATHERINE LEASURE BRIAN J C/O ASPEN LODGING CO MGT PO BOX 5578 410 BOYD DR 747 GALENA ST CARMEL, CA 93921 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-9248 ASPEN, CO 81611 LPRP MILL LLC 50% MACAPA CORP MCVICKER JULIET 7714 FISHER ISLAND DR 9465 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 PO BOX 567 FISHER ISLAND, FL 33109 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 MIDDLEDURY, VT 05753 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE OLSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A 3115 WHITEEAGLEDR 4404 GREENWOOD DR 537 MARKET ST STE 202 NAPERVILLE, IL 60564 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402 WELCH PATRICK T & DEBORAH P REARDON GENE F & DIANA TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING CO C/O V PO BOX>O< 27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850 GARWOOD ASPEN, CO 81612 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 . M..11'P.,9 - .. -- - 'Sadend . 9 . .. -- illl ... 1.,6 3/ f ~t., ' 1. 1., r 1 Â·)41. p ':1 4!1 1 .Lf. 4/ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f 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 o f an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. \LA L- f Signature -2 S 1 The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 3 I day of 2-0+J , 2003, by _10[in (1Â«la,-xbos . WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 913 13Â©03 ChU,zi~ --:3 pÂ»Lft.â‚¬,ell Notary Public (326 8 /464-,26Â« AAE{ 27 C-oÂ· 2,161-0 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Dn vc e ) l) ; 422- A Mlix /ljiln, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 3-1 13*35 , 200- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 4-61- l,1,1 96 l--21(ff- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City ofAspen, 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 ofnotice.- 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 , 200 , to and including the date and time o f the public hearing. Aphotograph oftheposted 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 pljorto the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty 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 owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 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 o f 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 o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description o f, 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 04*12Â«41) 30911ulit The fâ‚¬Egoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 3 ~ day of , 366.-.7 , 200_3, by -733-Â·=L-> 1--a , -nA--. . 2-*A * :t'eb = 4,6 Â·* g= 0 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I - 2 AO 2 =3 -Â·a A . : ~15 15 : E y f u 2 w 4-le~J- : R. 3 aiso 2-@ i Re Â£ 13 2 i# 1= 2-2 1 -28 1*% 1 E I I >-0 - r My commission expires: j:Â»sym***2Â·D~...2-Z> * {0 - 41} =.0/ C. C -: c u I . E Â«9.' r i I % 6 % E ~ . /// A 0.. 2 9 2. 1 0 g & 1 i 4 9 1 . 3 9 0 11%15% tf 9 -5 % 3J U 1 , Notary Public E- 8 2053 5% 1 3 *241' Lf 14:Ee $ - A ti : - L=J ..0 5 11 9 i . 1 . . . -1.-Il . 1 Y -' SE I E â‚¬ 9 -2.Es i .- i 1 2 - .,,2,03 e ut:u :W .a 1'849 a .3, e .i 1 5 21 2 , _ C U . = 00 -O 20 2 : RE 20 14 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that lie hearing Zoning Coin Cuc C ambers, o consider PUBLIC NOTICE ill be held on Tuesda a meet- ig to begin at 4Â· 30 contact 1ca o submi ential Desi Orientation, Street Facin Elem hed n The Asp @ f ///d/Il/2/V Yte. ASPEN MOUNIAIN SUBDIVISION Z Me - LU O PARCEL 4 0-90 - -m.,24. U) LU N *-11 ASPEN, COLORADO <- ---/31:1'/~~'i-----Im 121 -- tE _ _Ir -1 *tifi -LU h - 9. or - dzI 000 GALAMBOS ARCHIIECIS INC. [c U)[r 1- 2 -1--1 0 43Â«--- 3 -- *.6.= - ALL=-r- 4 <1=U<C 0-052 300 D AABC ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELE: (970) 429-1286 ~ FAX: (970) 429- 1 296 NOISIAIa8nS NIVJLNAOIN 84Â¥94 / GENERAL SITE PUM NOTES L SETE PUN INFORWATION G ON THE SUPMEY PREP,RED Br DATED ir,/IA. MEMITECT ~SSUIES NFORWKI ION MUD DEFLECTION WALL PROADEC) er SURÂ¢EYOR IS #CCURAE IND ANCIÂ«TECT 15 #G RESPONSÂ«f FOR INNBAR,CIES.ERPORS OR OWISKONS 01 SU//r,OR. -8062 - RED'D HEIGHT ABO/E GRADE 2. STE CEÂ»rrOUR ELEÂ¥/ION 8039 EOJALS BUILDING ELEVKIEN 1074 MUD DEFLECTION WALL- 1 BOFLON DEFLECTIN INL IFORWWK)* BASED ON â€¢JOF UDâ€¢ PLNâ€¢ 01;GRm PREPMâ‚¬D Or TETRATICI DATED Â·8063' - REGD Sfr E PON IUUSTR,rES WINÂ»,UW DEFLECTO, I,LL HEOIS HEIGHT ABOVE GRADEE Â£ REMRED PER TETRRECH FUN. ....'p.7+ IKE-,1. ...16 - I 8060 I . PAT-IC AREA m.-AFE,/Wqi --- BUILDING SIT-!~K Â·TYP. Ff, i ' PLANTER - ----- ----- :Qw- - r-- -- - - - -- ... _ _ 4 1 7-H 8-7 ---, -- 1 \ 1 ECONDARY MASS Â· 620 SF~ \ \ *053\SEOD ARCHITECTS INC 1 ADU Â· 310 SF ~ DEFLECTION WALL GALAMBOS A \ \ c, , AB~KE GRADE \ % \ \ ASPEN, CO 81611 '' \ (970) 429-1286 i ./ \ ~ \ 300 0 W \ \ \ Â·8038 PAT;O A~EA \ \ 8050 ..S /0 1 1 -OV \ < / - 101 /0/ . \ \ / \ MUD FLEETIONNWALL ~ \ ~ \ 1 SPA Â·80534*2 \ / // 1! ~ .Â« LS Â»-4 HE}GHT E G \ / -, i. \ / 1 \ :. 0 1 10 \ \ .41 111 -11 1 1 94 \ I UP I 97 2 -L __ 1' - _ _-2 1& Â·8062 -REWD \ 0 =+17=. J -4 /2 4-LE L.1. *411,1. / '3\, HE/Glf- ABOVE *ADE / / 1 3 + rf- r - , / / / / 14 - 31 1- fr 4 'F 1 -?Et -4* Ii}--(21 ~ ' ~ // 4.- Tâ€¢- _ _ ~ r_ ' 6 i 1- 141 â‚¬ .,_ - ' ' L 0 / 1 0 1/ / - 1 - 11 -119'A \ \1 1 , ' T \ 1.-1 - 1 4 / \ / . -1 r - _ |-C*%*&-1 --F 4 472-2*511.2,!=1 - -1.*1-1- 1 \ DOU PARKING / / Ld O r t " \ I '' / .. 4-11 -4 1 1 1 / / / /-Â» 4.-36=, 1 +11,- - .- - \ 7 / / 00 cr -tz,-91Â·~ i -0. 1 - A.1 1 %9 1 /' , \ 18 0- m \ L_-1 ~ 1 L-1.... :/ 11 -1 11 Z. **4 r=' 7#q. 1 2-,5 - 1 16 - .17=, j' '~t l, - \ 1 \ 1 /1 I I. I-.4,:pi-*1 it.14-ink .22- i,1 r i :%'"6+41-=4 i i / / \ CL 412 4 t 1 : - 4. - 1 1,111-11-1 1 1 , 0 , 1 U) 0/ \ C 1-1, 48 lim- . 4 1 1-+I I., /_-,4;>324Â¢~ -Pr , ..41 -' 1 \ / L.1 ' 4 -It .6-| 4 1,-1 - J.+71 1 .-fjit-, 1 -1'*k--- -, r.,--P~ 3F \ \ / / \ / - $' e <6~2~44 -uLâ€¢-~EE~21'-4- %4$ 2 - 17*' >trliz n , \~ ' / . \ '6,13 7='.' ' "f *f-ff- 1 / 1 \ / : 4 \ < 1 1-L / \/ . 1 - Â¥ Ill - 42 - 414 - 4 L, 4- 1 \ 1 Iii ' \ 1 I \\ \ 1% 4\ 1 1. % \ \ ,\ 1 , \ \ \\ j ~ DRNEWAY ,\ \ DATE \ 1 i / 1 OESION Rr.- 03 1 7.3 \ , % \ 1 ----- \ \ / 1 ''/ \ \ ill \ , 1 0 '1.<~-*--4114. LEGEND 1 1 \ / 1 1 \ / ; i 1 ill/- - , 1 / - , i MUD DEFLECTION WALL - Cf17 OF ASPEN / -1 11 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREWENT -I \ / -- 1 FOR ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBONISION -' / .242*~4434***2;211 / -- 1 , ' 43*:ZUÂ»%~i22.- 4 ' 6:,1, i FT"fr~3 Â© OVERALL BITE FLAN ./ ~81~4*/685/ TOF OF MILL IRCLE / Ir?*FÂ·*4~ A \ I - / / .1 1 \ \ \ 1"=10' NORrH NOISIAIOBAS NIÂ¥1NAOIN N3dSV oavaoi 0909 - \ \ \ \ / \ / / 1 1 \ 0909 --t +5~141 -6 -, \ - 0/ 1-'htiv~ 1- #4 T.: \ / k */144 & E '' 4 I \ 8 / / / AA' â€¢j'$41*Â·,04-,fu-119Â¢4- \ E 0 + 16. 1.12 -Â·1 - 1 + 4' ti 1, 1~ 4,-4, / *6:*tt Â¢ ; 0 001_ Bal ' 0 t' + 0 #. 41,:% 1-r+4 1 1 -111-41,17 41Â» f. 1 ii,Li-- 11??4111113 1 ~1 11 ~1- ~ 111 -1 11 f l,21 %11 't 14 \\ \ p# Ll!Â£- :<' ' 'f~ 11 21 /t~ -1 ' 2* 1.F-'â‚¬ 3!' ,:,et:1~I p.d~-31-iT i.ytf-' 9, .1. \ ~ 1~Nli -1 Ill ~t '~- -14; F.t.&6 4%-1-35 14 24.2 -4. 1 ,Â·, 2-1* 4 1; 1-12 Ir-9,+P'*- 1 41â‚¬14 \ Â¥ 11> 1114 Ali ..IHWT+F , hz,I~ al' -/ + 2 \ 2- i tr '-p -* I L - 1 - + \ \ \ . 44-ft,jil 52491%62**4 4,1111,~ \\ , \ \ I J,14'/2.' 4 i j /+6'/ / 4 1 -~G'Mt Â£ 0.- T' 444-2 '311 14--Ilt~~h'<~ " :9 -'i 941 -- 2, -' u :tl,-F--itil-r, ti * 11 ' j' '-1 1'47,--4 \ 2't{**7 1+ - 14-ri~ 1 -1 I' -11:1 .i- - ~, 7 j Jir , io- lt' *5 "M \ lk-- ,%-'git. 1 -/.w'Â¥--45, ,4 A!-11 16'aL-1 I " 1*11 1 , M ' 4 i â‚¬ 1 1 . F. 46 1-Pr \ \ Â§ 1411 -1-1*#11 h~|*~07 4- 'ri '*10 - l 11 rt /1 1.11, 2 - 41211 liti ~1 1.4 1 '1 1 "b't,ft,- 1- :-!4>rt / / 1 1~1 + 11 14+17 1-1 -7,~ '. 't #F & P~-707 1 1 --/--/boo Bolt 117 ~ 1124 167- , ' 1 1 / /--- - / / 1 1 - ./..1 ---1- - - i - //2. 1 / -- 1 1 / 1 1/ , la 4, I â€¢1 6 1 1 I I. 4% - , ia I 1 /-- 4- ./ / 7 14 l aÂ· A -1 \ 14 4 ---- 1 -U-, 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I L---- I k 1 1 -1. trA.A - 7-7 7 44--6-M.- - U ~4---11. *-12 1 - - 19 * 1 .....----.- 1 . /1 ! \ % 1 a g 1 1 r- /n Ls::b) , --751--ir-7 6==t - 1. \ / I. I. \ I *--- 0 \ i \. a ~ Ti .~-_JI Â· - 1219 n 21 E- -1 ~@- . \ . LD-1 LQ-1 ! 1 1 \ ./ \ 98 1 C \ r--- 1 1 %\ 1 0 . - \ liz' 1 11 4% 1 1- 1 1 1 \ \ 1 0 \ ,-I / / / / I I \ / / i \ \ I 1% / / / / / / / / %\\ \ \ , / /. / / 8 - .. 4% / 73 t- t- 1.â€¢ I - ~ p*Mt $ -33 :ME= 29 r- Z H i il 1 3 .9 2 2 . 1 8 2 A ~ O RE E 64. lili ip g | I ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION NG 0> . .,.'.14.- 9,440Â»44,9 1 11 *k). . 1 2 1 111 4,4 .4 80 5 . - -4.8. -1,41 61 ): 2 TE == :, 9-- . 3*Kof j 0 9 2Â° 20 - 8 + ASPEN, COLORADO -Â· It - . i. - Vel.,â€¢/*~CAt..'i..~ '/W0 ;i. 4 31311~M 40 201 PATH TO , 8060 GENERA SITE PROACED M SU D PEER TETRAECH PLAN. jul/STRAFES INIU# DEFLECTO, â€¢ll C*JED .*Â·uÂ·u *CHITECT *WIES 4.D- EE,/01 137-7. ON Â·THE SUFWEY P'REPNED 0) 429- 1286 5~44Â»Jhj3474 : f:E=.-i-- GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 0 AABC ASPEN, CO 8 lei l (970) 429-1286 Z 0 / TOWEL STORAGE ~ co O /:, 5 J \J - &2 00 -1 _ (D 1= SAUNA SPA Z BENCH Lt.1 0 U--n 9 -'d [1 0 ----- C W D /- e Z I. L D lilli O EXERCISE LAUNDRY MECH /STORAGE ' ~ 1 1 1 -11 j LU 1 0- 0 4, BEDROOM U) ISSUED Foft DATE n ~D ZI I OESION .EW 0.17-03 0 0 0 . I 0 UGHT WELL 1j i=*1 TO. SLAB i - IA,09 62 i /,-2 â‚¬9--r-N I UP . , 1 111111, kLEVA-B,r-7-44 *.@:224'1~=..l4 - - 4 ~ LOWER LEVEL FLAN - 1/4.= 1'-0" >X24. SITE ELEVATION 8039- PLAN ELEVATION 10-0 NORTH - - - --1 - t ~-9 1-+M- -11+1/7 +11 1 11 , 00VM0100 ' N3dSV 9 2tl E20*Sh:te=-th UGHT WEU ~ ~ UGHT WELL ~ limk*Ii-k ilt# 0 4 1 1 + -../ --0-- 0 1 MUD 1--------9 L-1 -- I t - 1 1 3 4-1 ARCHITECTS INC. GARAGE GALAMBOS 1 1 1 300 0 AABC 1 ASPEN, CO 8 1 611 1 1 4970) 429-1286 1 L________ MASTER CLOSET i &3*-1 .Ph ~~~~~ 11 1 Z 0 71/-27 1 a 1 1 GARAGE 1 11 MASTER BATH ~~ BATH 00 -3 7 .%/7/7/ 4 - ifE-N - W 0 51 lili Vi BATH 1-i < -' 1 Z 0- D n OU ma ' 0 ----J 1 1 -6== MASTER BEDROOM ~ 1 0 TO.PLY ---2 1-LI EL-99-1 .. UOED T 00 BEEDROOM I |~ 04 D/~ ISSUED Foft DATE --- Z 1- 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 %\04f I' Â· 10 0 1*- r - AY O &2 5 0 4. . 445/017 F=223 322 121 - ./23 :, I I --' . 1 &9223 .--777ilT... % 242*: 3 |-____J V .P-0 TO.PU - -. EL-1004 ENIWY '1 - -- - '14,#~056- - ~,#44,6,1,1 2001 1 , uP PX <7 uP. t--9- 4 C Z PLY 1//2 ~W2}1*- i -64 0-J Y Lm 40 53=4 -Illmt'I_ %=9 1.4 & 4 --- 01~h ~Ag LEVEL FLAN *219- SfTE ELEVATION 8039 - PUN ELEVKDON tOOKI NORTH - 4#0"# oavaoloo 'N3dSV ~_N+N - *- 17~~: -: 4- kit'CE ini, 82 ..EO <3~ 0 1 t.%&12-*2.1 12-li: : m o v I'NO :-- 1 90 |31 17 0 M 7 ./ Wmeig 9 41 -- I ADU 1 N 11 1 \ 1. 1. \ -- 1 EU1 3 ARCHITECTS INC. \ 1 GALAMBOS 1 1 KITCHEN 300 D AABC \ ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 429-1286 4//\ / \\ - 1 % r-- 1 1 rn i i F-L fo z t m * 0 N : % 0 1- - - if *pÂ° \ ~ LIBRARY Â« -\ LACA=9 X - POWDER 1 E DINING J O. .O DN -.... *Â· Â·Â·. . f-=sui Flgli~3:~~-:Z li r -KÂ«-rd M Or 40M DI z a /2.... L Al 0/1 um A. ~ EL-#[W ral m =0 Â¢ T D. PU TD.PLY 121033 Elam Wmew - 22=2 EL-IC-G 0 1==1 0 - 0 0/ . . C ID 49-0 ON ON ~ 0 BILL*Ck 0 001 - 1 IUZZL LMNG m to m IUM Râ‚¬4 gg ISSUED FOR DATE 11 DESION NA. 03-1703 mi_i--fÂ«-1 . W Â°M 131 0 EF~T -7Mom . 0 /1 . 11 24=22 1 - ~12~222 | I t=R 1 -- -4 * -I -- 1 -- OPEN TO BELOW 11 11 ~- @Nmt p 3 T im...~+~.465 -1 -0 m Â· m m ...4 .11.1-1 1 rih UFFER LEVEL FLAN -1 < CD kily"2450 SITE ELEVATION 8039 - PLAN ELEVATION 100-3 NOFITH NJOâ‚¬i*:44.: t , ~_u.w ~ 1~.a,44 AIO8AS NIVLNAOIN N3dSV I-*u 00VM0100 'N]dSÂ¥ V 130*IVd 41%14-\ -Â»4 .j 4, 4 7 , I 119 1 I. 4 1 4 1 G % A Be k G) - -47- 634:12,113â‚¬.j:.::5.63 . r'~ '22 ~' Itor~tl~ ~ I ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION -Â» ~ ~~3 23 - 1. Z -1-11 2~=:12=D:214 3, 1 14-1,"K'= 1-,90 0 9 PARCEL 4 ;01 00 00'W .\ 4 -< 2 6 9 :20 *O 1 ; t "2%*A j &*" 51'I 8 + ASPEN, COLORADO .fi: dAL - 1}19{1):AS KOOF FLAN ='91=V=â„¢Pi -- < tr~ -- p -- :W //67/O//f&L 9//='~140~ - -- - 1&,1& I~ = - ~8~ J 1 1 . . ..2. 1 11 '11. - /7Â»kNV-/1 lili f -- - Â·28# ABOVE 1975' GRADE. 1111111111 31 --1 1 1. 1 11 1 n---Â·~~ WAX.ALLONABLE HEIGHT 1 1 r - - 11 - 11 I I Im 111111 11 11 ~1111111 ~ 111111111111111 1111111 :~~ 11111111111111111111111111'im GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC, - 300 0 AABC ASPEN, CO 8 I6Il t970) 429-1 286 i I - \ 1-1/1 Yl 1- 1 #4/ 1 1--4 /1 - 3 1 A-,0 1 A I '1 A Vcttil p \ p \1 ;Hp\11"1.1\ 1/, ,/lfl Â¢11 1 \V l,M i /1" 1 fit/4 il6.ti 'A I M!141 IM 1 1-4 1 '1 Â¢ 7 BHP \11, p\, i E Â®i *i (4 (-4-ly[T i E p Ft H-4--i- Ir-F-(hi t' \10 \3!ti \32*6 il'A ling bi@ r .... 1 1 6. .1 .,1 . ...1. 1 [i}-1 lip-j ~ NORTH ELEVATION q M= re ....1 LU 0 KEYNOTES M < - 1~ STANDING SEAM WETAL ROOFING ~ VERT/CAL WOOD S/DING Il STDNE VENEER 1_LI LOG POST ---- -- \\ --- -- -- Â·28-G N*NE 89 GRADE. MAX.AUDNABLE HEIGHT - ..1 1 1 Â»rho 11111111111111 1--h..h 1. 1 ISSUED FOM DATE 11 1, 1 , 1 1 11 IlillI 111111 1 k*4 11111111111111111111111111-89111111/11~111111111111111 ~~umm~~ DESIGN REVIEW 01> 1 7.- - I / M -64 ~1 -5 / \ 1&1" \ I *f / , \ / .11 2-2Eyoutm M -I It-_1'-'11474,24,2- Lt4 =1=tN,8â€¢~in==4 1.- -- 1 1 - I In F efITTE[ P \El r Ul r'ULWAC-W PAS. -1 41=2 22 -2._.2 3 ~ SOUTH ELEVATION ~- ~~ I Ii 1/4'= 10-0" - - - 1 1 - - NOISIAIQ9AS NIVJLNAOIN N3dSV OaÂ¥230100 'N3dSV ---------- 92-q NDIE r315 GRADE MAX.AUDNABLE HEIGHT - A -1 "4.- 1 1.* 1 1 GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 144 .4\* 300 D AABC ---1-r-L-,T T --L 1 -n-Â»--2 ASPEN, CO 8I6II (970) 429-1286 1, / ' 1 . 1 , ll\\ll\\l1lll 11j11111\\11 61111111 ~111111111111111~1~1111 1 1 2 4--45 f 4- \ . r.1 ---------------0 1 E--- E 1 U H i 6,1 H \ 1-1 ing. / rn-J 0 EAST ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1/4.=1'-9 ~ STANDING SEMI METAL ROOFING ~ VERTICAL WOOD SIDING J STONE VENEER El LOG POST M.....mit _ - 15-9 +BENE 8315 GRADE. -- - - WAX.All[Â»IABLE HEIGHT /1 --- 1 / 1 1 .1/T-- F 73\ <*IF-~ I 71- T---T---T I!l 03\- 1 / / } 1 11 11 1 11 11 fm- 111111111 lili IltllililltlllI~+1 ~\Hlill1111+.1.Â·1JlllilllIlll11111~,~Â·-~lilllIllit \VllilltllilllII 11111111'll'llil 11 ,â€žUED Fr. WTE CESION .... O-1 7-03 $~,ra-'ftel i HM\HH\H U_LWJ D--41 ~-4 b - - W k.-[ i i Wil $41 1 h.-1 / 1-/i r-cr7 6-(il A- i:Â»i.,.:Â·St'.r.):If?t CilE .1, ' w jr=n EI:12=:-c:je-* ilk.U u, (2:./\2.3 ~" ~ b td r 147 tr-*a -~,t! [1 \11141Â·f \,Â¤ li\,11" \HH\HIi\Hti'Hithr \H.}1\H~i\ â€ž7--=54--=-r, i N / 1 h-4/ 1 6 -1-1 / 1 }-4 / --6 .=.A--,.â€ž1,/~J-$1__1=41 - -k- , - _2~12-~ . f 1 - -1- 1 - /@h WEBT ELEVATION -) vg= r-0, 1- -/ -1 - 1-- 2 - NOISIAIDE1AS NIVLNAOIN N3cISV 00Â¥hl0100 'N]dSÂ¥ V 13OUVd @1*121*fRIE{ ) I- < 1 0 V / / / ////0<557 - 1 . 9 71 >F f 1 9 =knk==2~- 1 1 vi - i. //0\\~ Mi li 11 1 l / 111 -14/ 4\ ' f - 4 -li i ~ % I \ i 1 *-1 /1\ 1 .Dec.18. 2002 3:20PM No 5031 P 1/3 G A FAX TRANSMITTAL GALAMBOS ARCMITECTSINC, TO: +. Oks. FROM:/0 Lf K. 4.60> DATE: /25~(* ~t PAX Â£ 120.54,9 REÂ· 47 PAGES:3Â· (incl. cover sheet) ! 4, TDT 4 1.,\ 'f- 0494> 6 442 *PflicA)(C.- 4- ...3Â»0 -J 8,40 . rE 4-,y + 46 ad@ 16*. 'Â»y* I <1,1, /Cf 300 AABC Unit D - Aspen, Colorado 81611 tel 970.429.1286 I fax 970.429.1296 c-mail gaine@galambosarchiteÂ¢ts. net Â·Dec.18, 2002 3:20PM No.5033 P. 2/3 November 25,2002 Mr. Remko Van Lent Wilhelminaweg 1 2042 NN Zandwoort The Netherlands To City of Aspen Planning Director, As the Owner of Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain PUD, I authorize John Galambos of Galambos Archirects Inc., located at 300 D AABC. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970-429-1286), to act on my behalf with regards to City of Aspen's public hearings for 8(MC) Greenline Review and DRAC variances on this project. Sincerely/ / / 4 \ / 26. ReI*ko VanLent c 18, 2002 3:21 PM No.5031 P. 3/3 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: \1- (26 1Ae,fit Applicant: 506 6462 > Locadon: 1641< 4 x -14 4 14:R Zone District: 8.-pe- Lot Size: Mi Â£15 *P Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduged 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: N R Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed:_ 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: proposed: 4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): k' 4 DIMENSIONS: Floor Arcm Existing: Allowable: 6 ilâ€¢of*P Proposed: 64* E 4 PIincipal bldg. height Existing: Allowable: V. Proposed: da.le.% Access.bldg. height: Existing: 2 R Allowable.~ Proposed:- On-Site parking: Existing: Required: 1, Proposed: t % Site coverage: Existing: N k Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: A)14 Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: N M Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Exiwing: 1 0 Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing.Â· Jl A Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 1 1 Required: Proposed: _ Side Setback: Existing: 12 Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: d K Required: Proposed:_ 5â‚¬6109 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: b .6/ Variations requested: 4-. AU,3 Fizil#:*k 4-/ .. r GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS 1 N C. December 13, 2002 Response to requirements for 8040 Greenline Review per section 26.435.0020(C) Van Lent Residence Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. Ifthe parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. This parcel is suitable for the proposed development of a single family home. This was established by the extensive PUD process the developer went through with the city. The slope and ground stability was analyzed and tested by the developer and accepted by the City Engineer. The dangers posed by Mud Flow were mitigated by Debris and Deflection walls as shown on the original PUD application. Extensive soils testing were completed by the developer of the parcel for hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during excavation they will be dealt with per the report submitted with the original PUD. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. This project does not have significant adverse affects on natural watershed. This was again established during the overall PUD process for this subdivision. Refer to the final platt submission, Grading and Drainage plan prepared by Schernuser Gordon Meyer dated 5/31/02. BUILDING 300-D, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN, CO 81611 T:970.429.1286 F:970.429.1296 E:GAINC@GALAMBOSARCHITECTS.NET 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. This project is a single family residence and does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. The driveway will be paved and the Top of Mill Street is paved. 4. The design andlocation of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. The proposed development is compatible with the terrain of the parcel. This was established during the original PUD process. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent possible, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. The grading, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and land features were all dealt with during the Original PUD. The grading and drainage plan by Schemuser Gordon Meyer dated 5/31/02 was accepted with the submission of the final platt. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. The placement and clustering of the structures was established during the original PUD process. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The building height limit was established during the original PUD process. The home is allowed to be 28 feet above 1975 topography as submitted by SGM dated 5/31/02. Only at one point, the proposed design is at that allowable limit. Most of the home especially along the South hillside is well below the allowable height limit. Please refer to the elevations. 8. Sullicient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. The water pressure and other utilities were all established during the extensive PUD process. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be property maintained. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The roads and maintenance of said roads were established during the PUD. They are being installed by the developer. The Fire department reviewed and approved the design of the proposed road during the PUD process. 10. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks /Recreation/ Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. These recommendations were all considered during the Original PUD process. December 4,2002 Response to requirements for DRAC Variances Van Lent Residence Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 Per our pre-submittal meeting o f November 25,2002 we are requesting the following variances from the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards: 1. Building Orientation. The code reads that the front fagade of all principal structures shall be parallel to a tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. The proposed design is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoint. Our design is not parallel to the arc of the street for the following reasons: a. The site is what is typically referred to as a "flag lot". It is located off of a private street that is curving up towards Top of Mill Circle. It is accessed via a 24 foot wide extension of the property line to the street. Parcel 5 has a shared access easement for this section as well. (See the site plan). It is not a typical City of Aspen lot that has any real "street frontage". Because of the setbacks, it is tucked off the street 83 feet, flanked and hidden behind other buildings. This lot creates hardship as it relates to this design standard. b. This standard' s intent is to provide a unified streetscape for the pedestrian experience. When this lot was created during the PUD process it was acknowledge and accepted by the City that there was no Front Yard and thus no Front Yard Setback. All the other multi-family and single family residences have a front yard setback o f 15 feet. The PUD application, page 103, states only the rear yard and side yard setbacks. For front yard setback it states "not applicable". This lot as created does not have a "streetfront" orientation and thus is a hardship as related to this standard. 2. Secondary Mass. The code reads that all new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. A subordinate linking element was further defined as being one story in nature. We are requesting a variance from this aspect of the code for the following reasons: a. There are site specific constraints that make this design standard difficult to achieve. There is no real good place on the site to locate a secondary mass that will truly be perceived as being secondary. The site is steeply sloped. There is a 22 foot difference in grade from Northwest to SouthEast. The mud and debris wall is an additional 6 feet higher, which creates a 28 foot difference between front and back. There is no real flat area on this site that would allow you to design an element as if it were subordinate to the main mass. If, for example, you created a secondary mass with a one story linking element as it is perceived from the South, the linking element would be perceived as being two stories from the North. If you built a secondary mass with a linking element with a 9 foot plate as perceived from the North, the linking element would be swallowed by the grade. The idea of a secondary mass works well in the historical context of Aspen's west end which is fairly flat. The slope of this site makes this ideal difficult to achieve. b. The Mud and Debris wall is another site specific constraints that make this design standard difficult to achieve. At its highest point, this wall is the same height as the fascia line of the Kitchen area. The mass of this home will be different depending on where you are looking at it. At some angles it will look as if it is a two story home. As some angles it will look like a one story home. And at some it will look only as a roof that is buried in the hillside. Almost half this home will be perceived as being one story. In perception the home is subordinate to the site and the Mud and Debris wall. c. The stated intent o f this design standard is to respect the scale o f Aspen' s Historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing. The context where Top of Mill is located is one of large scale multi-family residences. Think Fifth Avenue or the Gant. Parcel 3 is approved for a Duplex with a design that does not need to meet this rather recent addition to the design standards. There is no real context for this home to meet the Secondary Mass requirements d. Finally, and most importantly, this home is an expression of pure modern design. The client is from the Netherlands, which has a strong tradition of modern, cutting edge design. In Amsterdam' s urban expression for example, you have the traditional Dutch row house adjacent to the Reigfelt (SP?) house. The intent of the home from the client's perspective was not to create the typical mountain home with traditional roof forms and massing. He wanted something pure and symmetrical. Especially as expressed in the roof form and how this home will be perceived from the ski slopes above. Another form on the site would throw off the pure balance of the home. All facades needed to have a subdued balance. As a design program this home is about trying to achieve a Modern Jewel box tucked into the hillside. 3. One Story Street Facing Element. The code states that all residential buildings shall have a one story street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. We are asking for a variance from this design standard for the following reasons: a. The current design has a floating canopy (architectural projection in the code's terms) above the entry. This element is 10'-6" wide. The overall building length is 72 feet wide. Thus this element is 15% of the overall elevation. However this elevation is really comprised of three parts. The center portion is 14 feet in front of the two side elevations. The width of the center portion is 26 feet which means that the canopy represents 40% of the foremost elevation of the home. b. The purpose of this requirement is to have buildings present a pedestrian scale towards the street and to enhance the walking experience. This site as stated above has no real street frontage. It is tucked back from the street 83 feet and has no front yard. There is no real public pedestrian experience for this home. The nature of the site makes this design standard essentially moot. MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: ............. City Engineer Community Development Engineer Zoning Officer Housing Director Parks Department Aspen Fire Marshal City Water 1........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ............. Building Department Environmental Health Electric Department Holy Cross Electric City Attorney Streets Department Historic Preservation Officer Pitkin County Planning County & City Disaster Coordinator Transportation FROM: Scott Woodford, (scottw@ci.aspen.co.us) Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5102 Fax-920.5439 RE: Top of Mill. Parcel 4 - 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story Street Facing Element. DATE: January 3,2003 DATE OF DRC MEETING: January 15, 2003 at 1:30PM. â€¢ NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOEHNER (johnn@ci.aspen.co.us) BY NOON ON January 15, 2003. YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. % 5 -O 06 ./:* PARCEL ID:|23- 34-[%1- - DATERCVD ~2/19/02 -#COPIES | EASE NO]A106-02 CASE NAME:]Parcel 4, Top of Mill DRAC and 8040 Greenline Review ~ PLNR |Joyce Ohlson PROJ ADDR:~Parcel 4, Top of Mill CASE TTP ~DRACand 8040 Greenline Review 5TEP5 OWN/APP: Remko Van Lent ADP|I/,#ilhelinui=9 :eg 1 C/S/Z |Zandwoort The Neth PHN | REP:~ John Galambos/Galambos A ADP | 300D AABC OBZ |Aspen/CO/81611 PHN ~970-429-1286 FEES DUE:| FEE5 PCVD ~ STAT ~-- REFERRALS| REF:| BY| DUE:| 'W"V ...;;46..., MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED Â· DATE OF FINAL ACTIONil , CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:~ BY: | DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):~. ADMIN: '~20 *tkI . Â·>,FP*~463*.7.84~*rfeatkiÂ·.*81*4449:.i*i:4' :- ~ Â·Â· / Ul 54:44.53<50&-9/W-*/0