Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160802 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING August 02, 2016 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Draft Minutes for July 19th, 2016. V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 100 Puppy Smith St - ACES - Stream Margin Review and Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review B. 300 Lake Ave - Hallam Lake Bluff Review VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 6, Series 2016 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Ryan Walterscheid, and Jesse Morris. Skippy Mesirow and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Toni Kronberg wanted to make P&Z aware of the Elected Official’s Transportation Committee (EOTC) is reopening the entrance to Aspen discussion to identify an alternative to rubber tire solution at a meeting this Thursday. The proposals to be discussed in include light rail and the Aspen| Snowmass aerial connection. The intent of the meeting is to approve funding to kick start feasibility studies. She hopes the aerial connection will become a reality and described the proposed connection points including Snowmass Base Village, Town Center, Rodeo grounds, Brush Creek Intercept Lot, airport, Buttermilk, Burlingame Affordable Housing, Rubey Park. It will be accessible to the Silver Queen Gondola, Lift 1 and Highlands. Ms. Kronberg wanted to comment on Michael Brown’s application. Mr. Goode asked MINUTES July 5, 2016 draft minutes – No changes were requested. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve and Mr. Morris seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development Mr. Goode re-opened the hearing continued from July 7, 2016. He announced there was a sign in sheet available for those wanting to make public comment. The sign in sheet is Exhibit M. While names were collected, Ms. Phelan explained the public hearing process to the audience. She added that she had sent an email out to the commission of letters received after the packet deadline. These will be included as part of Exhibit L. She described the two letters. The clerk noted the following poster boards brought in by the applicant (Exhibit N). P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 2 1. Illustrated site plan 2. Illustrated neighborhood plan 3. Rendered views of the Skier Plaza and Public Walkway 4. Rendered view of the ski approach 5. Application process and stakeholder engagement timeline Mr. Goode then continued the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Bob Starodoj wanted to remind P&Z of the history starting with the gondola. It was an absolute battle with City Council to get it approved because someone developed a rendering which made it appear you could not see the mountain while standing on street below. It finally passed 3-2 after many meetings. The next battle was the hotel because it was assumed the hotel would dominate the landscape and block the view of Lift 1A. It’s obvious now the naysayers went crazy over what they felt was too much development. The last issue was the hotel at the bottom of 1A. They were told if they could get the six or seven surrounding groups together on a consensus, the City said they would approve it. Eighteen months later it was brought to the City and it was turned down. He asked P&Z to think about it deeply and make something good happen. Ms. Toni Kronberg feels it is a complex application. In her opinion, the community wants to see lift 1A brought further down the mountain. She feels the zoning discussion including height and mass needs to after the alignment for lift 1A. She is passionate about this because it is a transportation solution. She feels there is an opportunity to make S Aspen St one of the premier transportation systems within the skiing industry. When she came forward to discuss the platter lift during the discussion of Michael Brown’s application, she was shuttled off because she had been informed it was not within the purview of P&Z. She stated Mr. Jim True, City Attorney, asked her to speak with all the developers. She stated she spoke with Mr. Michael Brown, Gorsuch and the Aspen Historical Society. She complimented Staff’s memo as it pertains to the lift. She feels everyone, including the Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo), wants the lift to come further down. She has not been able to pull everyone in the same room. Mr. Andrew Gerber lives at 701 S Monarch St. He submitted a site plan the Gorsuch group provided last summer indicating the lift terminal in line with Summit St (included within Exhibit L). He doesn’t know why this plan was scratched, but this plan brings the lift closer to town and closer in connectivity to the Lift One Lodge. He noted the size and scale of the Gorsuch building is much larger in size than the neighboring buildings. He feels the Ski Lift Zoning (SKI) is scary and doesn’t protect the neighbors. Per the current design there will be an eight ft retaining wall blocking their access to the hill they have had for 45 years. He noted within the application, the trees shown in the photo of the Wheeler view plane which they say block the view will be cut down so they can move the summer road over towards the Mountain Queen Condos. He feels the SKI zoning is inappropriate for this area because of its impacts to the neighboring properties. He stated they have communicated their concerns to the applicant several times, but nothing has been done to address their concerns. Mr. Mark Cole stated he participated in COOP group and was crossed when the proposal was not approved by City Council. He feels this is an opportunity to get behind. He feels the applicant understands the community, ski racing history and honors the past while meeting a current community need. He doesn’t look at the Jerome, Nell, St. Regis as blights, but as community resources. He anticipates something similar with the Gorsuch Haus. He feels we will look back and be glad this was done at this time. Mr. Ryan Smalls, an Aspen native and former ski racer, cares very deeply about P&Z decisions, but has been guilty of staying on the sidelines. He is challenged with preserving small town character, funk and charm while evolving it as a ski community. He has seen many great ski resorts around the world. He P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 3 believes Aspen needs to remain competitive internationally as a resort and a town. He feels we need to continue to make the most of this golden opportunity to secure the vitality of the base of Aspen Mountain. He feels this development team has integrity and a strong commitment to the community and will deliver a project we will all be proud to have and he hopes they have the opportunity. Ms. Ruth Carver lives on Aspen St and is not averse to the development at all and feels it is the one opportunity to do it right to have access to the mountain similar to the gondola. She does feel there is a big bottleneck between the two new developments and it should be wider. She also feels the lift should come all the way down and busing people from Rubey Park is not a good idea. Mr. Corey McLernon has worked for Jeff Gorsuch for many years and it has only been a positive experience. He feels have more open beds would be a great. Norway and Henrys are his favorite runs and he doesn’t feel they will be impeded at all. He supports the project and would love to see a new lift. Mr. Jeff Halferty has served as a former Historic Planning Commission Chairman and is currently a HPC member. He feels the proposal enhances this area. This area is excellent lodge base and feels they are trying to revitalize it. Jeff Gorsuch is a family friend. He feels the project and the lifts will enhance that side of the mountain. He feels everyone’s values in the area will be protected and enhanced. He feels the proposed transportation option is great. The public amenity spaces will be used. The architecture is sensitive to Aspen’s history. He encouraged P&Z to support the project. Mr. Peter Fornell feels there are a lot of good minds involved regarding the size of the building and the location of the lift. He wanted to let P&Z know he has worked closely with the group regarding affordable housing and they have a direct plan. Mr. Jim Cardamone knows the applicants and knows they care a lot about the ski area and ski racing. He trusts them to listen to constructive criticism and open to adjusting the proposal. He feels they are the team to develop this side of the mountain. Mr. Hughes Okor feels it is a difficult site to develop and getting a team that is invested in the community is huge. He is behind the team. Ms. Ruth Krueger wanted to amend her comments in the previous hearing. She noted she spoke passionately about the platter lift at the last meeting. She has since walked the property with Mr. Peterson to observe where things will be situated and she now thinks the shuttle will be a better option. She believes it will provide more people access to the location and it will reduce traffic because people won’t be trying to drive up and drop off people. She would prefer the shuttle over the platter. Mr. Goode then closed public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then asked the applicant to respond to the public comment. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to respond the comments discussing the platter lift. He stated the origins trace back to the COOP efforts some time ago and a number of things have happened since then including the approvals of the Lift One Lodge and South Aspen Street Townhouses. He stated the canvas is different now in particular to accessing the lift. Under the platter lift, the lift was actually higher. They have also raised the issues of a platter lift including the inability to allow skiers down the hill while operating due to the dimensions. He noted this is also only a seasonal solution for skiing only. This is why they are advocating the shuttle program which will take people from Rubey Park about every eight minutes. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 4 Mr. DeFrancia then wanted to note the previously mentioned skittle lift also provokes dimensional and operational questions. He questions its viability and the applicant continues to favor a committed, dedicated shuttle operating from Rubey Park. Mr. DeFrancia responded to the question regarding when the lift would actually be built. The contractual obligations between the applicant and SkiCo are such that they need to secure a land use approval, then move to final designs and building permits including an excavation permit. Once an excavation permit has been secured, they will give notice to SkiCo to proceed with building the lift to be completed within 18 months. Mr. DeFrancia then responded to Mr. Brown’s comment regarding the applicant checking a box for their meetings. He stated this is not true and they met with the Lift One Lodge team on several occasions, including a meeting predating their acquisition of the property and subsequent meetings. He stated they made adjustments to their building placement as a result of their meetings last summer. Mr. Shaw then commented on the following: Wheeler View Plane – He described the view plane and showed pictures of the view plane from the east before the development and after the building was built. He noted most of the building scurries the base of the view plane as do other structures located between the Wheeler and development site. He then showed similar pictures from the west. He noted P&Z must understand how the building impacts the view plane. Additional pictures provided a view from the west looking down to the Wheeler from the development. 8040 Green line review standards - He discussed what is included in a Green line review per the code, noting it is a heightened review in order to address the impacts that may occur at the base of the mountain including suitability to the land, stability, natural hazards such as mud flows, erosion, natural drainage and run off. It also includes water quality and utility provisions. He noted the proposed new water line is on the property. The review also considers roads, access, clustering of the buildings as well as the mass and distribution on the site. They believe application contains all the information necessary for P&Z to conduct the review. He noted the higher on the slope you are on the property, the lower the building. At the 8040 line, the building height is a two story above grade structure. In total, the project has an average of 37 ft of height across the area. The topography has been thoroughly considered including the placement of the lift and the return skiing. The proposed grading fits with the functionality of a ski base to allow skiers to return to the lift or the ski corridor below. Property Easements – He stated the Mountain Queen to the east was granted a 20 ft wide drainage and fire access easement by SkiCo to the original developer of the project. This property had no other access available. At the time in which it was granted, it was to retain its ski-ability, not to be cleared of snow. Today, this type of easement would presume the clearing of snow for vehicle access. Any activity of this project does not inherently change the language or purpose of the granting of the original easement. The Aspen Fire Protection District has indicated by today’s standards; they would prefer another method of fire protection to the Mountain Queen. One suggestion involved installing a dry standpipe along the edge near the access. The Gorsuch Haus has suggested the possibility of jointly covering the cost of installing the dry standpipe which has not been finalized. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 5 Other utility easement – He noted the utility easement on the northern side looks like a sailing course going back forth and around features including the existing Lift 1A building. The proposal grants to the City of Aspen an easement in this general area which straightens out the utilities, avoids the existing feature and provides for a new 16 in water main. This would be a wider easement than what is currently granted, more direct and includes all the rights and responsibilities for the City of Aspen to construct and maintain the water right. Other utilities exist along the border of the property. Scale of building – He described the additional renderings of the building brought to the hearing (Exhibit N). a) From Dean St including the constructed Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus and the lift. He noted the existence of the green towers from the original lift. b) A view from further up the ski corridor looking up towards the lift canopy showing access to the slope. c) A view looking up S Aspen St from below the Lift One project looking at Shadow Mountain and the proposed right-of-way, the Gorsuch Haus is aligned north and south. d) A view of the turnaround transit drop-off, arrival to hotel, and part of the pedestrian corridor. e) A view showing how to access skier services from the drop-off location. The 30 ft wide pedestrian corridor was also included. f) A view of the skier plaza including the milling, mazing and loading areas. The mazing capacity shown is for a 10 min line moving about 200 people upslope. g) A skier’s view of the return including the slow-down, loading zones on the eastern side of the project. h) A night time plaza view of the Gorsuch Haus including the outside stairway, hotel rooms and restaurant. i) View of the sketch-up model from a very large database. He stated they have multiple sketch-ups available if P&Z requested a particular view of the project. Dimensional characteristics as appropriate to neighborhood and other lodges – He then displayed a comparison matrix including the Lift One Lodge, The Little Nell, Residences of the Little Nell, Sky Hotel, and North of Nell (included in exhibit N). The matrix compared zoning, gross lot area, floor area in sf, height, room size and number of lodge units. He noted their average height is made up of two, three and four story building heights. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to underscore the lift is public, not private. He stated it is clear as you exit the drop-off area that you are entering a lift plaza. After walking approximately 30 paces, you can see the lift. As compared to the Silver Queen Gondola, as you get off the drop in front of the Little Nell, you do not see the lift until you walk back to the plaza. He stated it is public in its appearance and use. Technically, the positioning of the proposed lift is lower than the existing lift, but it is essentially at the same location. Grading will drop the lift down to provide room for entering the lift from the rear. Mr. Shaw described the change in loading location from the existing lift to the replacement lift as two time the width of the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Mr. Shaw then displayed a rendering from top of Norway ski run and described skiing down the eastern and western sides of the run based on the proposed changes. On the eastern side, the skier return is under the lift. From the western side, the skier ends up in front of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 6 and the turnaround at which point the skier becomes a pedestrian and enters the plaza to become a repeat skier. Mr. Goode then opened the commissioner discussion portion of the hearing. Mr. Morris stated there are five things he wanted to comment on from Staff’s memo and the past two hearings: 1. The sheer volume of character references is great, but P&Z needs facts and evidence 2. The full time equivalent (FTE) calculation discrepancy needs to be resolved 3. He feels he has the evidence to evaluate the view plane to determine if it has minimal effect. He asked Staff if P&Z is only concerned with the Wheeler View Plane at which Ms. Phelan replied it is the only one. 4. He doesn’t feel they can resolve the discussion of the platter or aerial lift connectivity to this property alone. This needs to be a community effort. From what he has seen of the shuttle as proposed, it is the least capital intense solution and the highest likelihood of success as providing more skiers. 5. He feels there is no justification for the requested 10 year vesting period. 6. He is still stuck on the mass, scale and SKI zoning. He asked Staff if they have vetted the dimensional comparisons provided by the applicant earlier. Ms. Phelan stated they have not yet had an opportunity. She added Staff will come back to provide direction and discuss the dimensions. She wanted to point out in memo it states Staff’s is concerned the 49 ft is not the actual height. There is a reference in the application to an exemption to height that the property is not subject to because it is in the SKI zone base. She feels there are some bigger fundamental questions to be addressed in application. Ms. McNicholas Kury thanked the applicant for the additional information regarding the community process. She feels P&Z is limited on what they can learn until they are in the review process. She is struggling with things presented in the memo that P&Z has not received a response from the applicant in order to evaluate. She would like to see further direction from the applicant regarding the zoning request and re-platting since there is no underlying zoning dimensions for their request. She feels P&Z emphasized direction to the former community development director to generate a positive outcome for this neighborhood. She stated they were told at that time that one plus one can equal three. She is still committed to that and feels the neighbors have valid concerns to be addressed. She also feels during the Lift One Lodge application, the board emphasized retaining the historical character of this side of the mountain regarding its legacy and ski history. She feels this is missing from the application. Some things emphasized for the Lift One Lodge application review included retaining the line of sight from the mountain down to the original lift lines existed. She feels this may be a lost opportunity if this project is approved as presented. Specifically, for her it is how the building curves around and blocks the line of sight. In regards to the technical feedback from the applicant, she would like to see the following: a) Response to the subdivision criteria b) Response to the engineering comments c) Opportunity to retain the lift at its current location and feels the concerns of the lift being privatized are valid – look at revising the design to eliminate the concerns d) Discussion of provision of public amenity space based on what the code requires Mr. Walterscheid stated he appreciates the effort put forth and the supporters coming forward. He feels everyone prefers to see a hotel at this location. He stated P&Z must look at the applicant in the same P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 7 manner they would anyone else submitting an application. He applauds the effort to upgrade this portion of the mountain. He does not feel the proposed application is the right answer for the property. His reasons include: a) It appears there is a concerted effort between SkiCo and the applicant to “hug” the lift. He feels there were opportunities lost to maintain the view plane up the corridor while still allowing for the traffic circle. b) The neighbors realize a hotel will be built at some point and it will be sizable. Regardless if P&Z agrees with the SKI or Lodge (L) zone base, a PD review provides flexibility with the heights. Because there is no clear direction, he feels it will be important to compare the heights to the properties directly adjacent to applicant property. As the review moves forward, he would like to see a lot more graphic representation of the specific heights around the property. c) In regards to the rezoning, he feels the SKI zone may apply, but the limits to be defined are more closely related to the surrounding neighborhood. d) In terms of the commercial design standards and the architecture, he has no complaints. He feels the applicant needs to demonstrate the heights are necessary where proposed as the building steps up the slope and how it relates to grading on the site. e) The 8040 green line review should be handle mostly with the Engineering department. He understands the needs for fighting fires has changed over the years. He does not have anything specific to be addressed. f) He does not feel the Wheeler view plane is blocked significantly and does not feel it is an issue. g) In regards to the GMQS reviews, he does not agree with how they are subdividing the lot. It is taking advantage of the building footprint in a manner to allow them to configure it for a higher density. He would rather see the entire portion in the city limits as the lot. He understands this will raise the affordable housing requirements, parking and a few other areas, but will more accurately present what they are doing. h) He understands the major subdivision and feels it can be dealt with condominium documents and home owner agreements. He feels there may be a bit of creative subdivision of the lots. i) He does not agree with a ten-year extension of vesting rights and would prefer a shorter time. Mr. Elliott then reviewed his comments: a) He does like the Rubey Park connection, but he is concerned if S Aspen St can handle the volume of skiers, employees, guests in a town that is trying to reduce congestion. He wanted to know the raw number of trips during peak times. He needs to see more detail on this proposed solution. b) In regards to Norway, if you come down the western side you will have to take your skis off and come all the way around the new curve and get back on the lift. This distance seems substantially longer than the current distance to return to the lift. He is concerned if this would turn skiers off because they will have to navigate pedestrian traffic within the round-about. c) He feels the ten year vesting period is too long. d) In regards to the size of the building, typically he feels the applicant has the right to build whatever they want to build. In an earlier presentation it was discussed at a portal, but from views above, the building cuts off the rest of the west of Aspen. All you see is the building. He is not sure it is welcoming, like a portal to a ski area. It does not seem like a portal to him. It is not a deal breaker, but it does invite conversation. e) He takes the applicant at their word regarding moving the ski lift. If it has to be moved back to be gradual, he does not have a problem. He feels like pulling it in makes it feel like they are pulling it into the building. f) He feels 49 ft in height is pretty high. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 8 g) Because the zoning change is unique, it will be a more meticulous process and require more time for evaluation. h) Overall, he thinks it’s a great project and he gets that it’s going to be a hotel. The neighbors will have to get used to having a building in their visual plane. i) He does understand the support behind the Gorsuch family, but this building will be here for a very long time, and properties get sold and new management comes in. j) He is fine with the stairs to the skier plaza as presented. Mr. McNellis presented his comments: a) He was very elated to learn this development team was coming forward with a project on this side of mountain and feels it is far overdue. He respects and understands the quality of team. b) He does agree with many of Staff points in their memo. c) He agrees with Ms. McNicholas regarding the historical integrity. He feels it should be retained and made better than it is. He feels this is the birthplace of western skiing which intrigues him. He noted the original lift is on the National Register. He would like to see what could be done to preserve the cultural and historical identity to the best extent possible. When he sits at the bottom of historical Lift 1A, he wants to be able to look up the corridor and see where people skied down the mountain in the 1930’s. He would like skiers to retain the ability to use the original corridor. Right now, he was dismayed the northern wing of the Gorsuch Haus blocks the corridor. d) He is also concerned about the bulk and mass of the project. He feels it is significantly bigger than other structures in the area. He would like to see the mass broken down and had hoped the applicant would come forward with a proposal breaking it down into multiple structures. Looking up from the bottom, you will see seven stories creeping up the mountain and he feels that is significant and will be overwhelming. e) He is concerned about the lift being hugged by the building. He feels this will be a bit of a turn off regarding accessibility to the area. Along with this is the bottlenecking of the ski hill below and accessibility for people to come around and ski the historic hill. He would like to see what the applicant can do to open it up for accessibility. Ms. Tygre commented the following: a) She complimented Staff on a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the issues appropriate for P&Z to consider and she agrees with their findings. b) She is concerned with the mass and size of the project and the privatization of the lift. c) The relocation of the lift and how it will be accessed is an eye roller. She feels it is a huge drawback for any project on this side of the mountain. She feels there is a better solution than the one proposed. d) The shuttle is a terrible idea. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to see more exploration of the transportation options and does not feel it has to be one or another. She feels there could be multiple transportation solutions. There will not be any opportunity retained for any type of lift to Dean St if there is not through way. A shuttle may be appropriate for high volume time and a platter lift is appropriate for certain hours. Ms. Tygre feels unless there is significant access from Dean St in some manner, then all the lift improvements are meaningless. A lift must be accessible and desirable for people to reach from Dean St. She reiterated she would like to see a real lift solution. The ones proposed so far seem to be patchwork. Mr. Goode provided the following comments: a) Thanked the applicant for the amazing project but he thinks it has a long way to go. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 9 b) He feels the biggest issue is determining the zoning. The community sees it as a lodge and to pretend those requirements don’t exist in this area is misleading. He noted the applicant’s discussion of the other large projects in town and found it eye opening. He feels code has set down what the community wants. He does not find it appropriate to find this project not abide by a Lodge zoning. c) In regards to history, he feels P&Z has a passion for it and it needs more definition. d) He feels the commissioners have provided a lot of direction and feels Staff did a great job of breaking down the project. e) He thinks asking why the COOP wasn’t approved may be a good place to start with this project. He believes it would be beneficial to address issues now, before going to Council. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to continue the hearing to August 16, 2016 and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passed. Ms. Quinn asked Mr. DeFrancia for an electronic copy of presentation for tonight that was not part of the packet. This was entered as exhibit N. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. 230 E Hopkins Ave (Mountain Forge Building) – Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews Mr. Goode opened the continued hearing. Ms. Quinn stated the applicant was required to re-notice the hearing because of a change in the application. She reviewed the affidavits of notice and found it is appropriate to proceed on all aspects of the application. Ms. Sara Nadolny introduced Mr. Stan Clauson, Clauson and Associates and Ms. Dana Ellis, Broughton and Broughton, as the applicant representatives. She stated this hearing was a continuation from the June 7th and June 21st public hearings. Two new topics, a special review and a variance request, are part of the application. The notice for the hearing will be entered as Exhibit L. The public hearing covers the conceptual design review, growth management, special review and dimensional variance. She then provided a recap of the prior hearings. P&Z previously provided a favorable opinion of the proposed exterior changes to the building through the commercial design review. This included the roof forms, a slight decrease of nonconforming height on the south, southeast end, the completion of a gable to extend a to 32 ft, an addition of the garage along the alley way as well as pedestrian entrances along Monarch St. The applicant has continued to propose two free market residential units on the second floor level and commercial on the basement, ground and second floor levels. At the June 7th hearing, the direction to the applicant was to maintain the existing two-bedroom affordable housing unit onsite. P&Z reviewed a version of the unit at the June 21st hearing and provided direction to make the unit more livable. In particular, increase the floor area while not departing P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 10 significantly from the 50% above and 50% below grade requirement, include storage for the unit and greater access to natural light. The applicant has responded with a plan for the unit. The Aspen | Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) requires a two-bedroom unit to be a minimum of 900 sf and the applicant is proposing a 908 sf unit with 40% on the ground level and 60% below grade. The code requires 50% of the net livable floor area to be located at or above grade so the proposed ratio requires a special review by P&Z. She then reviewed the criteria for a special review. She stated the unit is compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has not identified any site specific constraints that would require placing more of the unit below grade. Any hardship would be self-created in this aspect in regards to the use mix on the site. APCHA has reviewed the proposed design and they have provided a favorable recommendation for the unit. Both Staff and APCHA appreciate the increase in the net livable space as well as onsite storage and enhanced natural light. However, the applicant is not providing a significant increase of storage space from the 10% required per the code. The amount provided is 91 sf, which is just over the minimum. The unit also lacks access to any privatized outdoor space, patio or other amenities on the site. Staff does not feel the application adequately meets the criteria for allowing less than 50% of the floor area to be subgrade and therefore recommending denial of the special review. She then discussed the dimensional variance. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance for the window well along Monarch St façade. The current window well is nonconforming as it is within the site’s five ft side yard setback. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the window well, but it will still extend past the side yard setback, decreasing its nonconformity. They also need to deepen the window well by approximately 11 in to meet the interior level necessary for the required egress from the subgrade bedrooms per the building code. The deepening of the window well triggers the dimensional variance review. She then reviewed the criteria. Upon review, Staff has determined the applicant can avoid the review by reducing the size of the window well to the minimum required for an egress which is three ft by three ft for an individual well. A lesser size window well will not reduce the reasonable use of the structure. Staff understands the applicant is proposing the window well size in response to P&Z’s direction from the previous hearing to allow more natural light into the subgrade bedrooms and make it more it livable. Staff appreciates the enhance livability aspect provided by the natural light, but the code does not speak to livability to be considered for a variance. Staff cannot support the request for a dimensional variance at this time. The proposed changes to the affordable housing unit does impact other site factors including the amount of net leasable floor area. This is increasing by about 500 sf but is still less than what is currently on the site so not mitigation is required. There are also changes to the free market residential units. Ten sf has been removed from the larger of the two units. The larger unit is changed from 1,845 sf to 1,835 sf. The smaller unit remains at 414 sf. The applicant is responsible for providing 1.69 FTEs for mitigating the free market units. They are proposing mitigation through the purchase of certificates of affordable housing credit. This is supported by Staff as well as APCHA. Staff has asked the applicant to restudy the public amenity maintained onsite. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 10% of the net lot area as public amenity and has responded with a plan similar to what had been previously proposed. They are proposing 9.7% onsite as a landscaped offer between the building and the sidewalk and wraps slightly around the affordable housing unit along the alley as well as the paved walkways along both facades. The applicant is also proposing 8.4% public amenity adjacent to the site along Hopkins Ave between the street and the walkway as improved landscape possibly incorporating bench seating and public art. Any plans would have to be approved by the parks and engineering departments prior to the final design. The total public amenity proposed is 1,086 sf or 18.10% and is supported by Staff. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 11 Ms. Nadolny then discussed parking. The increase in commercial floor area triggers a new calculation of parking requirements. There are three spaces required for the proposed residential units and one for every 1,000 sf of net livable floor area for a calculated amount of 4.82 spaces. The total number of spaces is 7.82 or 8 physical parking spaces. The applicant proposes to provide two spaces onsite in the garage along the alley for a remainder of 5.82. There has been some disagreement between Staff and the applicant regarding what is currently on site. To date, Staff has not received clear documentation to ensure the calculations are accurate. Staff is basing their measurements and calculations on a survey and how the property is currently being used. The applicant and Staff can further discuss this. The applicant is proposing a fee-in-lieu of payment for the spaces not onsite which is allowed per the code and acceptable to Staff. She stated with addition of the residential unit, the environmental health department requires an increase of trash/recycling provided for onsite. The department has approved a decrease in the size that would normally be required through their own administrative special review. They are requiring an increase of 75 sf instead of an additional 125 sf. The applicant has added unenclosed trash area along the alley meeting the minimal requirements to be used by the affordable housing unit. This requirement has been met per the environmental health department. She then summarized the approvals being sought tonight. 1. Commercial Design Review. 2. Growth management including two allotments for two residential units. 3. Certificates of affordable housing for the free market units. 4. Dimensional variance for the window well along Monarch St. 5. Special review to vary the amount of net livable floor area at or above grade for the affordable housing unit. Staff is recommending continuation to study the affordable housing unit in order to provide at least 50% of the unit’s net livable floor area at or above grade. Staff is recommending denial of the request for the dimensional variance and would prefer the minimum size. Staff is supportive of the topics associated with the commercial design review and growth management. Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Elliott asked for the proposed percentages of the above and below grade for the affordable housing unit. Ms. Nadolny replied they were at 366 sf above and 366 sf below with the previous hearing. Now they are proposing 366 sf above and 542 sf below grade. Mr. McNellis asked if 91 sf was storage. Ms. Nadolny noted there is storage both above and below grade. It also includes the closets in the bedrooms. Ms. Tygre asked if the bedrooms had changed size. Ms. Nadolny responded they have, but she did not have the exact dimensions. She added they have both increased in size to accommodate a king size bed. Mr. Goode asked for a visual example of the rear yard setback. Ms. Nadolny stated it was discussed at the previous hearing and Staff was on board with P&Z. With the increase in trash, some of the area ended up in the location. Mr. McNellis asked what they propose for the public amenity along the alley. Ms. Nadolny stated the last iteration was a landscaped area and it was assumed it remained the same. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 12 Mr. Clauson introduced the applicant team. He reviewed the direction they heard from P&Z at the previous hearing. • Expand the subgrade windows • Expansion of affordable housing unit even if it was subgrade or busted the 50/50 ratio. Mr. Clauson displayed and provided an overview of the existing development, proposed dev and proposed floor area including the following: • 2,249 sf of free market unchanged • 720 sf affordable housing unit was a reduction, but allowed under the code. It has been increased to 907 sf two bedroom onsite affordable housing unit per direction from P&Z. P&Z also indicated the expansion would be acceptable in the subgrade area. • Proposed total floor area is 6,240 sf which is slightly more than the prior plan, but considerably less than what is allowed on the site. He noted it is a constrained site and much of what they have done is reflective of the constraints. He then displayed and discussed the project objectives and noted two additions. One is providing a fully compliant and exceptional onsite affordable housing unit. The other was to meet the environmental health requirements for trash and recycling which he noted jumped considerably with the addition of the affordable housing unit. He then displayed and discussed the modified site plan. • 907 sf replacement affordable housing unit • Monarch areaway partially filled for egress window with the request for a larger window to enhance livability of the unit as indicated by P&Z at the last meeting. • Addition of the trash/recycling areas per environmental health. He then displayed and Ms. Ellis discussed the revised architecture. She noted the window well is larger, but proportional to the bedroom sizes. The front façade of the affordable housing unit is the same which is a private entrance directly off of Monarch St. The windows at the entry are in front of the staircase going to the subgrade space. The stairs lead to a small seating area that may serve as an office or media room which will have access to the light from the windows. Mr. Clauson then displayed and discussed the window well. He noted it is a reduction of the very large well that currently exists. The dimensional variance request is rather minimal; 3 ft 6 in from the building and 8 ft wide to cover both windows. The minimal standard window well that would not require a variance would be 3 ft from the building and 6 ft wide. This would allow for a substantial filling of the existing window well. They believe it is a reduction in the existing areaway with no significant impacts except it enhances the livability of the subgrade portions of the unit. He then discussed the applicable code and displayed the code for review standard for the affordable housing unit identified as Section26.430.040(I)(3) and discussed the following conditions as a basis for a variance of the 50/50 requirement. He feels the proposal exceeds these conditions. • Significant Storage – storage is proposed on both the subgrade and main levels • Above average natural light – there is generous glazing on the main floor and a small upsizing of the subgrade windows. • Net livable size exceeds the minimum requirement – true of this proposal • Unit amenities – direct access to Francis Whitaker Park, transportation facilities and the activities within the core. P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 13 He then displayed and discussed the floor plan of the affordable housing unit. He noted there is 542 sf subgrade and 366 sf on the main level for about a 60/40 split. This varies from the 720 sf unit which was approved by APCHA and split 50/50. Ms. Ellis then displayed and discussed the subgrade portions of affordable housing unit. She noted one bedroom was 11 ft 2 in X 10 ft 9 in. The second bedroom is 14 ft 6 in X 9 ft 9 in. They both have standard sized closets, each over 6 ft in length. They were also able to fit in a washer / dryer location. Storage is available under the stairs with a slight compressed ceiling to access the storage. The bathroom has a double sink. A storage area was added next to the garage and it was decided it would be best to have the access from the inside. At the very last minute, they adjusted the size of the storage unit because the garage was changed slightly to accommodate the increased trash/recycling area required outside. Ms. Ellis then provided an alley elevation demonstrating where the trash would be located. It will be a shielded area because it is open to truck traffic. They have not determined if it will be closed off or if glazing will be used. They had hoped to put it an enclosure but it not allowed per code because it is within setback. She then displayed a Monarch St elevation to demonstrate the glazing of affordable housing unit. Mr. Clauson noted there is 8.2% onsite, 10% required and between the on and off sites, they are proposing 18% along with special features including a monument to Francis Whitaker and a bench. The sidewalk will be straightened, improvement to the crossings and filling a substantial portion of the window well on Monarch St. In regards to trash/recycling, he then noted that by adding one unit the requirement bumped from 75 sf to 200 sf. Environmental health supports 75% of the requirement and they are providing 157 sf. He then displayed and discussed parking. He stated they had provided Staff a stamped survey showing the bollards protecting the egress stairway and making two of the spaces not compliant. He stated this is a similar situation to the Molly Gibson where Staff accepted a noncompliant space. They believe there is a two space deficit. They agree with Staff’s assignment of parking spaces of 7.8 or 8 spaces. They propose two will be provided in the garage, two to be maintained by deficit and cash-in-lieu for four spaces. Or as needed as it might be resolved. He then discussed the affordable housing mitigation. They are proposing 2.25 onsite with a two- bedroom unit and 1.69 through credits. He provided an elevation from the corner of the project and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Goode asked for any questions of the applicant. Ms. McNicholas asked if the affordable housing unit was a for purchase or rental unit. Both Mr. Clauson and Ms. Phelan stated it was a rental. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Ruth Carver lives on S Aspen St. She asked if he parking spaces located on the alley are closer to the other house or the sidewalk. Ms. Phelan stated there are two spaces on the western side. Mr. Clauson pointed out the two garage parking spaces on a site plan. Ms. Phelan stated they are paying a fee-in-lieu for the other spaces as allowable per code. Ms. Carver asked if there was room for the dumpsters to be moved in and out. Ms. Ellis stated five feet of clearance is required for the dumpsters. They are P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 14 providing an additional three feet for circulation and it will remain open. Ms. Carver is concerned because a lot of trucks and cars park there for Grape and Grain. Mr. Rick Head, APCHA board member, believes the board unanimously approved the first iteration and feel it was a better unit. They are very much in favor of the project. Ms. Carver feels it will be nice to have someone living there in an affordable housing unit. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. McNellis stated he has no problem with the project and would like to approve it as presented. Mrs. McNicholas stated she is happy to sign off on what was presented. Mr. Walterscheid appreciated the effort to make the lower level more livable by offering up space. He is fine with maintaining a slightly larger window well. He would have liked to see a larger storage area but understands the space requirement for trash/recycling. Ms. Tygre does not have any problems with the employee housing unit as proposed by the applicant. In general, she likes the project. Parking is a real sticking point and she doesn’t feel this is an area in which cash-in-lieu is appropriate. She passes this area a lot and there are always six or seven cars there. Mr. Morris has nothing to add. Mr. Goode asked for a motion. Ms. Quinn noted there is a resolution in the packet. Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution 5, Series 2016 as drafted by Staff and Mr. Elliott seconded. Roll call to vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; and Mr. Goode, yes for a total of six Yes and one No (6-1) in favor of the motion. Ms. McNicholas Kury noticed the amount of the sf for trash/recycling identified in Section 5: Trash/Recycling Service was 200 sf and should be 157 sf. Mr. McNellis amended his motion to reflect the changes noted by Ms. McNicholas Kury. His motion was seconded by Mr. Elliott. Roll call to vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Elliott, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes for a total of six Yes and one No (6-1) in favor of the motion. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P14 IV.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Reilly Thimons, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) (100 Puppy Smith Street) – Stream Margin Review and Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review—Public Hearing MEETING DATE: August 2, 2016 At this time, requests for additional required land use application information has not been provided. Staff is recommending tabling the application until such time the applicant can provide the required information before being able to be rescheduled. Once rescheduled, public notice will be required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling the application until such time the applicant can provide the requested required land use application information. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to table the ACES application until they have submitted the required information necessary to review their land use application.” P15 VI.A. TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phel DATE OF MEMO: July 27 MEETING DATE: August 2, 2016 RE: 300 Lake Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: 300 Lake, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., Neiley Law Firm, LLC LOCATION: Street Address: 300 Lake Avenue; Legal Description: Parcel II, Marshall Lot Split, Plat Book 20 at Page 54, Block 103, Hallam’s Addition to the City of Aspen, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85, West of the 6th p.m., City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Parcel Identification Number: 2735-124-01-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district containing a single family home and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA overlay. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to redevelop the site with a single family residence. This required land use review is specifically looking at the standards for development along the Hallam Lake Bluff. S Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Hallam Lake Bluff Review S The Applicant residence at 300 Lake Avenue. The property is located within th Hallam Lake Bluff overlay adjacent to the slope above the lake the rear of the property and the relationship of the house and hardscape elements to the Hallam Lake Bluff standards. Figure 1. Location of p MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission Ben Anderson, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director July 27, 2016 August 2, 2016 300 Lake Avenue – Hallam Lake Bluff Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Hallam Lake Bluff Review for 300 Lake Avenue SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing redevelopment of an existing single family residence at 300 Lake Avenue. The property is located within th Hallam Lake Bluff overlay that requires special review of development adjacent to the slope above the lake. The emphasis of the review is on the rear of the property and the relationship of the house and hardscape elements to the Hallam Lake Bluff standards. Figure 1. Location of project and footprint of existing residence. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve for 300 Lake Avenue with conditions. is proposing redevelopment of an existing single family residence at 300 Lake Avenue. The property is located within the that requires special review of development The emphasis of the review is on the rear of the property and the relationship of the house and hardscape roject and footprint of existing residence. P16 VI.B. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing the demolition of an existing si the redevelopment of the property with a new, single family residence. footprint to the existing conditions. envelope. In April, the applicant received new home. In order to comply with the Hallam Lake Bluff s changes to rear elevations of the original design. retaining walls and steps and will renovate an at from top of slope. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and demolish an existing residence, construct a new residence, replace an existing at grade patio with new pavers and maintain existing retaining walls • Hallam Lake Bluff Review as pursuant to Section 26.435.06 Lake Bluff Review shall be considered at a public hearing before the Commission who may approve, approve Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standards and criteria. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Because of the location adjacent to the west slope of Hallam Lake, the project requires a Hallam Lake Bluff Review Figure 2: Proposed site plan with highlighted elements at the rear of the property is proposing the demolition of an existing single family residence the redevelopment of the property with a new, single family residence. The new home will sit on a The subdivision plat that established this lot specifies a building In April, the applicant received administrative Residential Design Standards a new home. In order to comply with the Hallam Lake Bluff standards, the applicant is proposing ions of the original design. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing s and steps and will renovate an at-grade patio at the top of slope and within the setback LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: icant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to construct a new residence, replace an existing at grade patio with new pavers and maintain existing retaining walls and stone steps at the rear of the property. as pursuant to Section 26.435.060 of the Land Use Code. Lake Bluff Review shall be considered at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning who may approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal. Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standards and criteria. Because of the location adjacent to the west slope of Hallam Lake, the project requires a Hallam Lake Bluff Review before a building permit can be issued. with the height limitations established for the Hallam Lake Bluff Area, de changes to the proposed. These changes are minor and are limited to the rear of the stru changes modify the reduce the length of the most rear second story element and adjacent fenestration design. These changes should not cause concerns with regards to the Residential Design Standard but the project will require a second administrative for design approval. ite plan with highlighted elements at the rear of the property ngle family residence and The new home will sit on a similar is lot specifies a building Design Standards approval for the tandards, the applicant is proposing minor The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing at the top of slope and within the setback Zoning Commission to construct a new residence, replace an existing at grade patio with new steps at the rear of the property. 0 of the Land Use Code. The Hallam Planning and Zoning with conditions or deny the proposal. Because of the location adjacent to the west slope of Hallam Lake, the before a building permit can be issued. In order to comply with the height limitations established for the Hallam Lake Bluff Area, design changes to the house are proposed. These changes are minor and are limited to the rear of the structure. These s modify the roofline, reduce the length of the most rear second story element and adjacent deck, and alter fenestration design. These changes should not cause concerns with regards to the Residential Design Standards, e project will require a administrative review for design approval. P17 VI.B. Building Envelope Figure 5. Existing site plan with building envelope. Existing flagstone patio is shown. Redevelopment proposes to replace the existing patio with new pavers. There are two aspects of the project that raise concerns. First, the Plat and Subdivision Exception or Exemption approval (included as Exhibit D) that created this parcel established a building envelope and gave emphasis to a protection of the landscape. The relevant plat note states that, “No decks or similar structures shall be constructed outside the building envelope”. Subsequently, a flagstone patio and other hardscape structures have been established that cover a significant portion of the property outside of the building envelope. The applicant is proposing to replace this flagstone patio with new pavers. Staff can find no evidence that the existing patio was established legally. Consequently, staff recommends that any proposed patio be removed beyond the building envelope. Secondly, the applicant is proposing to retain the existing retaining walls and stone steps that define the top of slope at the rear of the property. A small portion of the stone pathway exists beyond the property line. Staff will support the maintenance of the retaining walls and stone steps subject to conditions. Staff Comments This application meets the requirements of the Land Use Code under Hallam Lake Bluff review. Referral comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments were submitted. Consistent with Community Development opinion, these comments showed concern with the patio and retaining walls. A preference for the removal of the existing features at the rear of the property was noted. In spite of this preference, staff is recommending the maintenance of the retaining walls and stone steps subject to conditions for two reasons. First, demolition and regrading will cause disturbance to the existing conditions in a sensitive area. Second, the maintenance of these features is consistent with previous Environmentally Sensitive Areas reviews in regard to existing features. This application meets the review standards under Section 26.435.060 as required. North Elevation Figure 3. Original rear elevation (North) with approvals for Residential Design Standards North Elevation Figure 4. Proposed rear elevation (North) to comply with height limits in Hallam Lake Bluff Review – 45 degree plane from top of slope P18 VI.B. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL: If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to approve the application, it is recommended to do so with the conditions included in the draft resolution. There are eleven total conditions, eight of which are typical for development in the Hallam Lake Bluff and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). The remaining three conditions are specific to this site: 1. Unless the applicant can provide evidence that the existing flagstone patio was legally established, or allowed by a subsequent approval, the 1988 Plat and Subdivision Exception approvals apply. These documents prohibit deck or deck like structures outside of the building envelope. The flagstone patio and other structures outside of the building envelope shall be removed and no replacement is allowed outside of the building envelope. Minimal access to the front door and garage is permitted. 2. The existing retaining walls and stone steps are allowed to be maintained as long as they remain in their current state. Any modification beyond maintenance shall require the removal of the features and a restoration of the top of slope to specifications established by the City of Aspen’s Engineering Department. 3. Prior to submission of building permit, a new set of plans would need to be submitted for administrative Residential Design Standard Review to address the changes to the rear elevations of the building. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Hallam Lake Bluff Review for 300 Lake Avenue subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ____, Series of 2016, to approve, with conditions, the application for Hallam Lake Bluff Review at 300 Lake Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C – Subdivision Exception Exhibit D – Referral Comments P19 VI.B. Draft Resolution No. XX, Series 2016 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX, (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 LAKE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: PARCEL II, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, PLAT BOOK 20 AT PAGE 54, BLOCK 103, HALLAM’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85, WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-01-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 300 Lake LLC, represented by Richard Neiley of Neiley Law Firm, LLC, requesting approval of Hallam Lake Bluff Review to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Hallam Lake Bluff Review; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 2, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. XX, Series of 2016, by a X-X vote, approving Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. P20 VI.B. Draft Resolution No. XX, Series 2016 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Hallam Lake Bluff Review as represented in the application (Exhibit B). Section 2: The Hallam Lake Bluff Review approval for 300 Lake Avenue is subject to the following conditions: 1. Unless the applicant can provide evidence that the existing flagstone patio was legally established, or allowed by a subsequent approval, the 1988 Plat and Subdivision Exception approvals apply. These documents prohibit deck or deck like structures outside of the building envelope. The flagstone patio and other structures outside of the building envelope shall be removed and no replacement is allowed outside of the building envelope. Minimal access to the front door and garage is permitted. 2. The existing retaining walls and stone steps are allowed to be maintained as long as they remain in their current state. Any modification shall require the removal of the features and a restoration of the top of slope to specifications established by the City of Aspen’s Engineering Department. 3. Disturbance of the soil, grade, or native vegetation beyond the top of slope by construction activity will not be permitted. Limits of construction activity should be shown on plans submitted for building permit review. 4. A Construction Management Plan is required and must adhere to requirement 5 in Section 26.435.060.C. 5. A drainage report shall be approved by the City Engineering Department for building permit review. The patio in the rear of the home cannot direct drainage over the bluff. No storm water discharge greater than the historical discharge over the bluff will be allowed. Detention is required unless the conveyance is in a historical manner and at a historical rate. 6. A grading plan that details the grading within the vicinity of setback that complies with the standards set forth in the URMP must be provided. 7. A landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Parks Department. 8. All re-vegetation in the Top of Slope setback area requires approval of the plant material and seed mix by the City Forester. Removal of plant material on the hillside will be at his discretion. 9. Any excavation in the driplines of trees will require approval of the City Forester per City Code 13.020. 10. A lighting plan was submitted and will be required for building permit review. P21 VI.B. Draft Resolution No. XX, Series 2016 Page 3 of 3 11. Prior to submission of building permit, a new set of plans would need to be submitted for Residential Design Standard Review to address the changes to the rear elevations of the building. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 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 of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 2nd day of August, 2016. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: _______________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Asst. City Attorney Keith Goode, Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Approved site plan and elevation P22 VI.B. Exhibit A – Staff Findings HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW The Aspen Land Use Code 26.435.060 (A); provides that all development in the Hallam Lake Bluff review area running on a north-south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850 elevation contour line and extending one hundred feet, measured horizontally up the slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street, shall be subject to the review standards as set forth in this section. Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards - 26.435.060 (C) 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. Staff Finding Other than the existing stone steps and retaining wall, the project as proposed should have no impact below the top of slope. Any possible impacts to the area will be managed through a Construction Management Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All development within the fifteen foot setback shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen foot setback shall not be approved unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the following conditions can be met: a. A unique condition exists on the site where adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. b. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. c. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. d. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. Staff Finding The only portion of the new development that will be within the fifteen foot setback is an existing at- grade patio that is proposed replaced with new pavers. The existing and proposed patios are at grade. While staff finds this criterion to be met, staff is recommending the removal of all structures beyond the building envelope, with the exception of minimal access to the garage and entry, and the retaining walls and stone steps at the rear of the property. 3. All development outside the fifteen foot setback from the top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.104.100 and the method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020. Staff Finding The design changes at the rear of the building bring the project into compliance with this requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P23 VI.B. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetation screening of no less than 50% of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Staff Finding A landscape plan was submitted as part of this plan. The City Forester will have discretion as to the removal of any plant material and will approve any plantings or seed mix in the top of slope area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. Staff Finding A lighting plan was submitted that identifies all exterior lighting on the site. All fixtures are identified as Dark Sky rated sconces or pendants or recessed downlights. Three downlights are proposed for the rear of the house underneath the deck. These are outside of the setback and should not have the effect of directing light down the slope. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. Staff Finding The Construction Management Plan for this project will be essential in avoiding the first part of this standard. No proposed changes to drainage patterns or rates are proposed. No pools or hot tubs are proposed in the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Staff Finding Staff received sufficient drawings to make this finding. Going forward through the permit process, all drawings should include top of slope and setback. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P24 VI.B. P25VI.B. P26VI.B. P27VI.B. P28VI.B. P29VI.B. P30VI.B. P31VI.B. P32VI.B. P33VI.B. P34VI.B. P35VI.B. P36VI.B. P37VI.B. P38VI.B. P39VI.B. P40VI.B. P41VI.B. P42VI.B. P43VI.B. P44VI.B. DRAWING ISSUE300 LAKE AVENUE300 LAKE AVE | ASPEN, COLORADOSHEET No.CONCEPTUAL DESIGNDRAWN BY:PROJECT No: *** PROJECT NUMBER ****** CAD TECHNICIAN ***SCHEMATIC DESIGNDESIGN DEVELOPMENT*** PROJECT STATUS ***RES DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT SUBMITTALCONST DOCS418 East Cooper AveSuite 206Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186All ideas, designs, arrangements and plansindicated or represented by this drawing areTELFAX2.8SITE PLAN (PROPOSED)(1" = 10'-0")NAowned by and are the property of David JohnstonArchitects, PC and developed for use and inconjunction with the specified project. Noneof the ideas, designs, arrangements or plansshall be used by or disclosed for any purposewhatsoever without the written authorizationof David Johnston Architects, PC.X:\Projects\Aspen\'15 Projects\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue\DWG\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue - Design Drawings - CURRENT DESIGN .pln | 4:00 PM | Friday, May 20, 2016NANA5/20/20162/16/2016TBDTBDSHEET No.PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20'-91/2"10'-0"EXISTING WOOD STEPSEXISTING WOOD RETAINING WALLEXISTING 7' HT WD PRIVACEY FENCEEXISTING 3' HT WROUGHT IRONFENCEEXISTING 7' HT WD PRIVACEY FENCEEXISTING RETAINING WALLEXISTING COVERED WINDOW WELLEXTERIOR WALL TOT.O. SLOPEEXISTINGPATIO WITHNEW PAVERSDECKS ONLYEXISTING WALKWAYWITH NEW PAVERSNEW PLANTERNEWPLANTERNEW PLANTERNEW PAVERS ANDGRAVEL - WALKWAYNOTE:LANDSCAPE (NATIVE VEGETATION) TOSCREEN NO LESS THAN 50% OF THEDEVELOPMENT AS VIEWED FROM THEREAR (SLOPE) OF PARCELADJACENT RESIDENCEWINDOWWELLWINDOWWELLREPAVEDDRIVEWAYLAKEAVENUEGRAVEL SHOULDERPARCEL IMARSHALL LOT SPLIT12'-ENVELOPE20' SETBACK12' SETBACK 15'SETBACKADJACENT DRIVEWAY785578607865 7870 7875 7879 7878 78787879 7878 78787877787 7 7879 NORTHSTREETAPPROXIMATEADJACENT RESIDENCEPROPOSED BUILDINGFOOTPRINTPROPERTY L I N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETOP OF SLOPE: 7877'EXISTING FLAGSTONE STEPSEXISTING FLAGSTONE RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONCRETE STEPSWOOD DECKING OVER WINDOW WELLEXISTING FLAGSTONE RETAINING WALLEXISTING GRATEOVER WINDOW WELLEXISTING GRAVEL PARKINGNATIVE VEGETATIONNATIVE VEGETATIONEXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO REMAIN(E)12", 7" Ø(E)36" Ø(E)36" Ø(E)6" Ø(N) 8"/4 1/2"/7"Ø(N)6"Ø(N)7"Ø(N)7"Ø(N)7"Ø(N)12"Ø(E)(E)SCALE: 1" = 10'1SITE PLAN - PROPOSEDSITE 7,878' = ARCH 100'-0"P45 VI.B. P46VI.B. P47 VI.B. P48VI.B. P49VI.B. P50VI.B. P51VI.B. P52VI.B. P53VI.B. P54VI.B. P55VI.B. P56VI.B. P57VI.B. P58VI.B. P59VI.B. P60VI.B. P61 VI.B. P62VI.B. P63VI.B. P64VI.B. P65VI.B. P66VI.B. DRAWING ISSUE300 LAKE AVENUE300 LAKE AVE | ASPEN, COLORADOSHEET No. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:*** PROJECT NUMBER *** *** CAD TECHNICIAN *** SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT *** PROJECT STATUS *** RES DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONST DOCS P&Z 418 East Cooper Ave Suite 206 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are TEL FAX 2.8 SITE PLAN (PROPOSED) (1" = 10'-0") NA owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.X:\Projects\Aspen\'15 Projects\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue\DWG\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue - Design Drawings - CURRENT DESIGN .pln | 1:03 PM | Tuesday, July 5, 2016NA NA 7/5/2016 2/16/2016 TBD TBD 6/30/2016 SHEET No. PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE20'-91/2" 10'-0" 16'-81/4" EXISTING WOOD STEPS EXISTING WOOD RETAINING WALL EXISTING 7' HT WD PRIVACEY FENCE EXISTING 3' HT WROUGHT IRON FENCE EXISTING 7' HT WD PRIVACEY FENCE EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING COVERED WINDOW WELL EXTERIOR WALL TO T.O. SLOPE EXISTING PATIO WITH NEW PAVERS DECKS ONLY EXISTING WALKWAY WITH NEW PAVERS NEW PLANTER NEWPLANTER NEW PLANTER NEW PAVERS AND GRAVEL - WALKWAY NOTE: LANDSCAPE (NATIVE VEGETATION) TO SCREEN NO LESS THAN 50% OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS VIEWED FROM THE REAR (SLOPE) OF PARCEL ADJACENT RESIDENCE WINDOW WELL WINDOW WELL REPAVEDDRIVEWAY LAKE AVENUE GRAVEL SHOULDERPARC E L I MAR S H A L L L O T S P L I T 12'-ENVELOPE20' SETBACK 12'SETBACK15'SETBACK ADJACENT DRIVEWAY 78557860786578707875787978787878 78797878787878777877 7879NO R T H STR E E T APPRO X I M A T E ADJACE N T R E S I D E N C E PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINTPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINETOP OF SLOPE: 7877' EXISTING FLAGSTONE STEPS EXISTING FLAGSTONE RETAINING WALL EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS WOOD DECKING OVER WINDOW WELL EXISTING FLAGSTONE RETAINING WALL EXISTING GRATE OVER WINDOW WELL EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING NATIVE VEGETATION NATIVE VEGETATION EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO REMAIN EDGE OF DECK ABOVE (E)12", 7" Ø (E)36" Ø (E)36" Ø (E)6" Ø (N)8"/4 1/2"/7"Ø (N)6"Ø (N)7"Ø (N)7"Ø(N)7"Ø (N)12"Ø (E)(E) SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED SITE 7,878' = ARCH 100'-0"P67VI.B. DRAWING ISSUE300 LAKE AVENUE300 LAKE AVE | ASPEN, COLORADOSHEET No. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:*** PROJECT NUMBER *** *** CAD TECHNICIAN *** SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT *** PROJECT STATUS *** RES DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONST DOCS P&Z 418 East Cooper Ave Suite 206 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are TEL FAX 3.9 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN NA owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.X:\Projects\Aspen\'15 Projects\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue\DWG\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue - Design Drawings - CURRENT DESIGN .pln | 1:03 PM | Tuesday, July 5, 2016NA NA 7/5/2016 2/16/2016 TBD TBD 6/30/2016 SHEET No. 1 1 2 2 4 4 6 6 7 7 9 9 11 11 12 12 A A B B E E H H J J G G C C 3 3 8 8 F F 5 5 10 10 DINING RM ENTRY GARAGE MUD RM FRONT PORCH/ LOGGIA STORAGE STORAGE LIVING RM PWDR RM AUTO COURT LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOWEXT1 EXT1 EXT1 EXT1 EXT1 EXT1 EXT3 EXT3 EXT1 EXT1 EXT3 EXT3 EXT3 EXT1 EXT2 EXT3 EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND EXTERIOR PENDANT - DARK SKY RATED - DOWNLIGHT EXTERIOR SCONCE - DARK SKY RATED - DOWNLIGHT EXTERIOR RECESSED LED DOWN LIGHTS NOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO BE LOW AND DOWNCAST WITH NO LIGHTING DIRECTED TOWARD THE NATURE PRESERVE OR DOWN THE SLOPE AND MUST COMPLY WITH SECTION 26.575.150 D D K K KITCHEN PANTRY UP FP EXT1 EXT2 EXT2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANP68 VI.B. DRAWING ISSUE300 LAKE AVENUE300 LAKE AVE | ASPEN, COLORADOSHEET No. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:*** PROJECT NUMBER *** *** CAD TECHNICIAN *** SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT *** PROJECT STATUS *** RES DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONST DOCS P&Z 418 East Cooper Ave Suite 206 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are TEL FAX 4.1 NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS NA owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.X:\Projects\Aspen\'15 Projects\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue\DWG\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue - Design Drawings - CURRENT DESIGN .pln | 1:03 PM | Tuesday, July 5, 2016NA NA 7/5/2016 2/16/2016 TBD TBD 6/30/2016 SHEET No. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12510 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 125'-0" ROOF 125'-0" ROOF 5'-0"2'-0"3'-8"13'-11"16'-11"1'-6"11'-8"10'-4"5'-0 15/32"5'-11 17/32"2'-0" 10'-0" min.43'6" 20'-9 1/2" HORIZONTAL WOOD SLAT GUARDRAIL WD SIDING STONE STONE STONE STONE WD SIDING WD SIDING HORIZONTAL WD SLAT GUARDRAIL = 50% TRANSPARENT 107 B08 A31 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B09 B10 A32 A33 B12 B11 B13 OPEN TO BEYOND 1 STORY SUBORDINATE GROUND FLOOR CONNECTING ELEMENT FRONT MOST WALL OF FRONT FACADE TO 1 STORY SUBORDINATE ELEMENT TOP OF SLOPE: 7877'45° J H G F E D C B A 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 125'-0" ROOF 125'-0" ROOF 101'-0" 4'-0"8'-8"3'-2 7/8"6'-5 1/8"6'-4"1'-10"5'-6"3'-10" HORIZONTAL SLAT WOOD GUARDRAIL - BEYOND WD SIDING STONE STONE A29CA29BA29A 202B19D 104 B19E T.O. STONE WALL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSEDP69 VI.B. DRAWING ISSUE300 LAKE AVENUE300 LAKE AVE | ASPEN, COLORADOSHEET No. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:*** PROJECT NUMBER *** *** CAD TECHNICIAN *** SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT *** PROJECT STATUS *** RES DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONST DOCS P&Z 418 East Cooper Ave Suite 206 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are TEL FAX 4.2 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS NA owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.X:\Projects\Aspen\'15 Projects\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue\DWG\1515 - 300 Lake Avenue - Design Drawings - CURRENT DESIGN .pln | 1:03 PM | Tuesday, July 5, 2016NA NA 7/5/2016 2/16/2016 TBD TBD 6/30/2016 SHEET No. 12 11 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 1105 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 125'-0" ROOF 125'-0" ROOF 2'-0"5'-11 17/32"5'-0 15/32"10'-4"11'-8"1'-6"16'-11"13'-11"3'-8"2'-0"5'-0" 113'-7 3/4" 43'-6"10'-0" MIN 10'-0"20'-9 1/2" STONE STONE WD SIDING WD SIDING STONE ENTRY PORCH = 1 STORY WD SIDING HORIZONTAL WD SLAT GUARDRAIL = 50% TRANSPARENT HORIZONTAL WD SLAT GUARDRAIL HORIZONTAL WD SLAT GUARDRAIL WD SIDING 102 103 A30A27A26 B21B19C A07 B03A B19A A16 B03B B03C A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 A23 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A24 A15 B19B B01 OPEN PORCH/ LOGGIA T.O. STONE WALL 1 STORY SUBORDINATE GROUND FLOOR CONNECTING ELEMENT FRONT MOST WALL OF FRONT FACADE TO 1 STORY SUBORDINATE ELEMENT TOP OF SLOPE: 7877'45° A B C D E F G H J 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 111'-6" UPPER LEVEL 125'-0" ROOF 125'-0" ROOF 3'-10"5'-6"1'-10"6'-4"6'-5 1/8"3'-2 7/8"8'-8"4'-0"11'-6"13'-6"10'-0"10'-0"3"6'-0" x 8'-0" PIVOTING GLASS DOOR 2'8" x 9'-0" WINDOWSSTONE WD SIDINGHORIZ WOOD SLAT GUARDRAIL 8'-0" X 16'-0" GARAGE DOOR WITH VISUAL SEPARATION AT CENTER ENTRY PORCH = 1 STORY 106 101 B28B27 A03 A06 B02 A05A01 A04A02 201 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 OPEN PORCH/ LOGGIA OPEN TO BEYOND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSEDP70 VI.B. P71 VI.B. P72 VI.B. P73 VI.B. P74 VI.B. P75 VI.B. P76 VI.B. P77 VI.B. P78 VI.B. P79 VI.B. P80 VI.B. P81 VI.B. P82 VI.B. P83 VI.B. P84 VI.B. P85 VI.B. P86 VI.B. P87 VI.B. P88 VI.B. P89 VI.B. P90 VI.B. P91 VI.B. P92 VI.B. P93 VI.B. P94 VI.B. P95 VI.B. P96 VI.B. P97 VI.B. P98 VI.B. P99 VI.B. P100 VI.B. P101 VI.B. P102 VI.B. P103 VI.B. P104 VI.B. P105 VI.B. P106 VI.B. P107 VI.B. P108 VI.B. P109 VI.B. P110 VI.B. P111 VI.B. P112 VI.B. P113 VI.B. P114 VI.B. P115 VI.B. P116 VI.B. P117 VI.B. P118 VI.B. P119 VI.B. P120 VI.B. P121 VI.B. P122 VI.B. P123 VI.B. Memorandum From: Mike Horvath Civil Engineer II City of Aspen Engineering Department To: Ben Anderson Community Development City of Aspen 970.429.2765 Date: June 29, 2016 RE: 300 Lake, Engineering Hallam Lake Bluff Review Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for the Hallam Lake Bluff review. Top of Slope Comments 1. 15’ Top of Slope (TOS) setback must be depicted on all plans. 2. Existing flagstone steps must be removed beyond TOS and area be re-vegetated with native vegetation as approved by the Parks Department. 3. The retaining wall must be removed as all development within the 15’ TOS setback shall be at grade. 4. The patio in the rear of the home cannot direct drainage over the bluff. No stormwater discharge greater than the historical discharge over the bluff will be allowed. Detention is required unless the conveyance is in a historical manner and at a historical rate. 5. No grading plan was submitted with the application. A grading plan that details the grading within the vicinity of setback that complies with the standards set forth in the URMP must be provided. 6. A Construction Management Plan is required and must adhere to requirement 5 in Section 26.435.060.C. 7. No excavation will be allowed beyond the TOS. Please provide a plan that depicts limits of excavation. Site Plan Comments 1. Driveway must comply with Engineering Design Standards Section 4.1. Maximum curb cut width must be maintained throughout right-of-way. Utility Comments P124 VI.B. 1. Do any utility upgrades need to occur with project? If so, location of service lines/transformers must be coordinated with the Parks and Engineering Departments. Referral Comments from the Parks Department: Hi Ben, Parks comments are: 1. Please check with ComDev with regard to the patio in the 15’ Setback area off the Top of Slope. I was under the impression that if there was any disturbance in this area it reverted back to its native state. 2. All re-vegetation in this area and the Top of Slope area requires approval of the plant material and seed mix by the City Forester. Removal of plant material on the hillside will be at his discretion. 3. Any excavation for the new pavers in the driplines of trees will require approval of the City Forester also. This is covered under City Code 13.020. 4. New driveway will also need approval of City Forester as it is in the driplines of two large cottonwoods in the front yard. Depth of excavation may be limited due to impacts to the trees roots. I think that about covers it…. Except on a site visit, I noticed an electrical junction box attached to the large cottonwood in the front yard that will need removal from the tree and an abandonment of the electric wire that feeds it. More than likely digging that line out would do more damage than just leaving it in place. Thanks! David Radeck Project Technician City of Aspen Parks & Open Space 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970-429-2025 * F: 970-920-5128 Email: david.radeck@cityofaspen.com http://aspenrecreation.com P125 VI.B.