Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.ca.108 Maple Ln.0005.2016.ASLU
S Can rid ��/(p e A� 6^-C d '�A 0005.2016.ASLU 108 MAPLE LANE SMUGGLER SUBDIVISION APPEAL i SMiAD f�, ET2-,!,Sfje Ac 0 0 PATH: G/DRIVE / MASTER FILES/PLANNING/ 0 C7i THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0005.2016.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737 074 90 108 PROJECT ADDRESS 108 MAPLE LANE PLANNER JENNIFER PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION APPLICATION FOR LAND USE INTERPRETATION REPRESENTATIVE LESLIE CURLEY DATE OF FINAL ACTION 7.25.2016 CLOSED BY KARLA HENRICHON 8.17.2016 L-�] 9,7 3707 �-,l of o'S d00S-2�D(G-P,rsLU Permits 16 * A o File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help G ����• li ��i jump 0 o 6 Main Custom Fields Routing Status Fee Summary Actions Routing History o Permit type �slu Aspen Land Use Permit t 0005.2016.ASLU c Address 1108 MAPLE LN Apt/Suite 108 °o City ASPEN State CO Zip 81611 is x Permit Information o Master permit Routing queue aslul5 Applied 01l21!2016 n n Project Status pending Approved z 0 m Description APPLICATION FOR LAND USE - INTERPRETATION Issued Closed/Fnal Submitted ILESLIE CURLEY (970) 846-6807 Clock Running Days F-01 Expires 01/15/2017 Submitted via Oviner Last name ICURLEY I First name ILESLIE 108 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611 r'a� 970 846-6807 Phone ( J Address Applicant Z Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant? Last name ICURLEY First name ILESLIE 1108 MAPLE LN ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (970) 846-6807 Cust 930233 Address Email Lender Last name First name Phone O Address AspenGold5 (server: angelas — 1 of 1 Ck�7 32�&-� 4/3ao - o =t RESOLUTION NO.91 (SERIES OF 2016) j RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DENYING VARIANCES FROM THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AT 108 MAPLE LANE, LOT 108, SMUGGLER PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-074-90-108 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Leslie D. Curley requesting Variance approval from the side and rear yard setbacks for the property located at 108 Maple Lane; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B.1, the Aspen City Council may approve a dimensional variance as part of a combined review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with Section 26.314.040, Standards applicable to variances; and, ' WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of variances from the side and rear yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, City Council 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 and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 25, 2016, continued from July 11, 2016 and from June 27, 2016, the Aspen City Council approved Resolution No. 91, Series of 2016, by a five to zero (5 - 0) vote, denying side and rear yard setback variances; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: 108 Maple Lane Resolution No. 91, Series 2016 Page I of 3 i Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby denies variance from the side and rear yard setback requirements of the Smuggler Park Subdivision for the property located at 108 Maple Lane. Section 2• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. I Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council of Attest: Linda Manning, City Cle Approved as to form: J es R. True, City Attorney :h�,Ci"ty o Aspen on this 25`h,day of July, 2016. Steven Skad avor E-vhibit A: Site plan (representing denied variance requests) 108 Maple Lane Resolution No. 91, Series 2016 Page 2 of 3 • 9 EXHIBIT A b I I I I L�•L.�p I 9 108 Maple Lane Resolution No. 91, Series 2016 Page 3 of 3 . Regular Meeting Ashen City Council July 25, 2016 Mayor Skadron said there is concurrence to let HPC approve the bridge. For essential public facility, the 781 square feet is in excess of the 1991 approvals. Ms. Simon replied yes. Mayor Skadron asked do the 1991 approvals take into account sub grade space. Ms. Simon stated they do not. Mayor Skadron asked when the red line ordinance was worked out. Ms. Simon said mid -week last week. Mayor Skadron asked what is the Staff recommendation. Ms. Simon stated to adopt the ordinance. Councilman Myrin said the red line happened mid -week, why. Ms. Simon said there was concern over the increased construction costs and the audit. Councilman Myrin asked how does this provide less costs. Ms. Simon said in Section 4 the 781 square foot could expand up to 1,250. This allows the basement to be smaller. Mayor Skadron opened public comment. 1. Cindy Buniski said on the lower level storage they would like to proceed if at all possible. The goal is to keep the storage. They appreciate consideration on this. It is an important building that has not had a major revamp. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin said it seems odd we have a code with a math problem for parking. We have a housing system in place that eliminates the need for it. Labeling it an essential public facility or by doing an audit we have multiple mechanisms to do away with it. We treat parking so highly. He said it bothers him and he would like to see for the 781 the typical applied for housing. He is not sure there is anything important enough to not have housing at the 60 percent. Councilwoman Mullins said the housing is targeting the employer and the parking is requiring the user. The number of employees is staying the same. I don't see there is something actually wrong with the code. Councilman Frisch said the whole reason we have the number is so we don't get in to the value judgement. Councilman's Myrin point is we put a hierarchy needs over a category of buildings of essential public facilities of measuring a different way. Those have superseded some community values. What benefit does an essential public facility get. Councilwoman Mullins said she understands the need for affordable housing. She does not think we are way off the track by approving this. Councilman Myrin said we may not be way off the track by approving this but we are by approving one after another after another. All I'm asking is just because it is labeled an essential public facility doesn't mean the employees go away. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the ordinance staying as written. Under the moratorium we are looking at double counting and maybe we can look at this. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the redlined version of Ordinance # 17, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. Councilman Myrin said he will vote against this because of his concern of the housing. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #91, SERIES OF 201.6 — 108 Maple Lane, Variance Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this is a variance request submitted by Leslie Curly for her property at 108 Maple Lane. It is a 450 square foot lot part of the Smuggler subdivision and zoned R3 with a PD overlay. There is an existing residence on the lot and the proposal is to replace it with a new development. The request is for a set back variance. Light wells are only permitted if two 8 Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 conditions are met including being required by building code for egress and they are no more than three feet by three feet in dimension. A variance is required to permit anything larger. There are three criteria to grant a variance and all three must be met. It must generally be consistent with the land use code, be as minimal as possible to allow reasonable use of the property and a literal interpretation of the code would deprive rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same zone district and would cause an unnecessary hardship. Staffs comments are a denial would not cause an unnecessary hardship but is more of a mere inconvenience. There are no unique constraints. Overall Staff is recommending denial. Leslie Curly passed out a handout to Council. She stated she wants a larger window well in the setback to provide livability for the basement area. She is asking for an adjacent window to accommodate two windows into one. Councilman Myrin asked if what was behind was a second bedroom would it be allowed. Ms. Curly replied yes. I have a bedroom and a bathroom though and it is not permitted. Mr. Barker said the building code requires what egress is determined. In this case it is a bedroom and a bathroom. The bathroom does not require egress. Councilman Myrin said because what is behind the wall this is not permitted. The criteria make it difficult because this is not unique to this parcel. Councilman Daily said he is sympathetic to the applicant's purpose but he has a tough time with the review standards of the code. There are three and Staff advises that none are met. Councilwoman Mullins asked is egress required just for bedrooms. Stephen Kanipe, chief building official, said there are two conditions in a basement where egress is requires. One is for every bedroom which is also true for above grade. If there was no bedroom, one of these would still need to provide egress. Councilwoman Mullins said that makes sense to provide minimum egress. What is the argument against one continuous window well. Mr. Kanipe said this is a resolution of the land use code requirement and building code requirement. The land use code changed to move to this minimum requirement in the set back. Councilman Frisch said like Councilman Daily I'm sympathetic to the cause but I can't get over the variances. You had two of the most respected land use representatives in the business at the meeting last time here saying if A was approved B did not need heard. That happened and then we were called back in here. Usually we try to make sure the applicant and their representatives are on the same page and take what they say as being valid. Mayor Skadron said his position is consistent with his fellow Council Members. The review criteria are not being met. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #91, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2016 — 400 E Hopkins Creperie Temporary Use Ms. Garrow stated this is for a temporary use for a metal shade structure for the court yard area. She showed an image of the corrugated metal structure on top of wood with an umbrella on top of the metal pieces. They are also asking for the ability to have canvas and fabric walls. Staff has concerns in terms of its relationship to the historic commercial core. It is inconsistent with the materials you would traditionally see downtown and you can't see the front door so well from the street level. The resolution is written to approve the temporary use. She recommends two changes to allow the structure to be up to 9 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: 108 Maple Ln. — Setback Variance, Resolution No. 91 DATE: July 25, 2016 (continued from July 11, 2016) APPLICANT/APPELLANT:MW *� q4A�10 Leslie Curley 4fj LOCATION: � � , , �' oc ��SS� �'� �� 108 Maple Lane rt CURRENT ZONING , �0+1 High Density Residential (R-3)°sy� ► NA�,,w/ Planned Development (PD) overlay�kV . SUMMARY: ' I4 The Applicant is requesting approval from �, ft City Council for a setback variance to allow *� larger light wells in a setback than permitted Locator Map by Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council deny the variance request. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant requests the following review: • Variance — (Chapter 26.314) for larger light wells in a setback than permitted by Code. BACKGROUND: Variance - The Applicant has submitted a request for a setback variance. The Code permits light wells in the setback if two conditions are met: 1. They are required by building code; and, 2. They are the minimum dimensions necessary to accommodate egress (3 feet x 3 feet). Staff Memo — 7.11.16 Pagel of 3 The proposed design includes two light wells within the side yard setback and one areaway within the rear yard setback that exceed these dimensions (see Figure 2 on next page). The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow these features within the setback. IO'SETBACK Figure 2 Setback Lines — blue Requested variances — red VARIANCE CRITERIA' Section 26.314.040.A of the Code provides the review standards for variances. In order to authorize a dimensional variance, City Council must determine that the variance meet basic hardship standards. These include that granting the variance is generally consistent with the Land Use Code, that it is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property, and that literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Staff Comment: Staff finds that the criteria for a variance are not met (Exhibit A). Larger light wells within the setback are not necessary for reasonable use of the property, nor would denying the request cause the Applicant an unnecessary hardship. The subject property is a fairly typical size for properties within the R-3 zone district and should not be considered a special condition unique to this specific parcel. The property is a similar shape to other R-3 lots with the same setbacks as the rest of the subdivision (0 ft. on one side, 10 ft. on the other). The property is approximately 35 ft. wide, which would allow a width of about 25 ft. for development, which staff finds to be reasonable. Staff Memo — 7.25.16 Page 2 of 3 & 0 Granting this variance would allow the applicant to develop structure up to all the setback lines with larger window wells than required by building code, which is not permitted for other R-3 properties without a variance. If larger light wells are desired, the Applicant has the opportunity to develop a smaller footprint and provide larger light wells outside of the setbacks. It is not a requirement to develop the structure setback to setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council deny the variance request. Staff does not find that the request meets the criteria required to grant a variance. PROPOSED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 91, den in a variance for 108 Maple Lane." EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria -Variance B. Variance Application C. Public Notices D. Application Addendum Staff Memo — 7.25.16 Page 3 of 3 Justin Barker From: Jessica Garrow Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:19 PM To: Leslie D. Gamel Cc: Justin Barker Subject: RE: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification Hi Leslie, You can see the case file any time. Just coordinate with Justin, your case planner. He's in tomorrow so it shouldn't be a problem. Best, Jessica Jessica Garrow, AICP -ity of Aspen Zommunity Development Director 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 370.429.2780 (office) )70.319.9799 (cell) Nww.aspenpitkin.com Nww.aspencommunityvoice.com Notice and Disclaimer: phis message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you lave received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in iature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on -urrent zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. The (11% of %%gW11 %%still% %out• reedbac k, We am amending the IA4A Use Code to lluther incorpon c the Asian Arm C:onununity Pt" MACK To do this, we need your flvedb�k on what you think theme revisions might mean for the Allure. It S you r Aspen. Pave yokir -uty' 7- From: Leslie D. Gamel [mailto:leslie.gamel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:50 AM To: Jessica Garrow <jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com> Subject: RE: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification -ii Jessica, :an I look at all the correspondence in my file tomorrow? 1J Leslie D. Curley Eco-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Jessica Garrow [ma iIto: essica.ciarrow(acityofaspen.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:30 AM To: Leslie D. Gamel; Adam Frisch; Steve Skadron; Bert Myrin; Ann Mullins; Art Daily Cc: Justin Barker; Jim True Subject: RE: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification Hi Leslie, As Adam mentioned in his last email we will include these in the planning file for the public record. Council is not able to comment on the merits of the case outside of Monday's public hearing. If you have any questions in advance of the meeting please contact Justin. Best, Jessica Jessica Garrow, AICP City of Aspen Community Development Director 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2780 (office) 970.319.9799 (cell) www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Leslie D. Gamel [mailto:leslie.gamel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:00 AM To: Adam Frisch <adam.frisch@citvofaspen.com>; Steve Skadron<steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>; Bert Myrin <bert.myrin@citvofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@citvofaspen.com>; Art Daily <art.daily@cityofaspen.com> Cc: Justin Barker<Justin.Barker@cityofaspen.com>; Jessica Garrow <jessica.garrow@citvofaspen.com>; Jim True <jim.true@cityofaspen.com> Subject: RE: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification Hi Adam, I appreciate the response and have not heard from the Mayor in any capacity. I will copy the same as you have on this response for administrative expediency. My comment at the end of the night•ing if you and the Mayor would be unbia!Pd to my hearing was not related to ,your or the Mayor's character or reputation for being unfair by any means, and quite the contrary. It only related to the ateness of the evening, as it was approaching 11:00pm after you all had started at 5:30pm and deliberated 2 arduous ssues: Boomerang and Smuggler Park. Very thoughtfully, I would add. My comment also came from Mayor Skadron rolling his eyes at me upon Jessica Garrow informing you all that my -)earing hadn't taken place and Council would need to reconvene. You, yourself also didn't look happy and reiterated /our comment that you weren't interested in hearing "one -offs" which I now know to mean Variance items from specific iomeowners. I felt your and the Mayors frustration was misplaced as it is not my fault that I am being required to have Zouncil hear my Variance and I would be just as happy going in front of the Board of Adjustment as the process dictated n the current Land Use Code. Thankfully, Mayor Skadron, feeling all of our pain, including mine, of having to sit down again and deliberate another tem, continued the items. have vacated the Appeal that is a moot point per the decision of Council to allow adjacent items in the setback that was -isked for by the Smuggler Park HOA. I will be there Monday to present my Variance and I think it can be very short and Dispensed with quickly as you all have been fully briefed on the Smuggler Park building scenario and know what is -iapping there moving forward. Thanks, -eslie D. Curley -co-ARCH, LLC 10 Box 8783 aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 )70-846-6807 From: Adam Frisch[maiIto: adam.frisch(dcityofaspen.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 8:11 AM To: Leslie D. Gamel Cc: Jim True; Justin Barker; Jessica Garrow Subject: Re: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification Leslie - Happy Summer. I know the Mayor has responded and/or forwarded your email. Apologies for my own delay. To your specific land use application, you are right, we at Council are very limited in commenting to an applicant and/or supports of a land use application outside of a public meeting, so this part of my response needs to be brief, and I think you understand that. I am copying Jim True, as well as Justin and Jessica who are working on this at Comm Dev, as it needs to go into the public record. I also understand you are not trying to manipulate the process either. Related, you made some comments at the end of the night about the Mayor and my ability to offer you a fair hearing. Personally, I strongly believe I can, but if you would like to raise the issue more formally about having the Mayor and/or I removed from your application process, please reach out to Jim for that discussion. I will not be personally offended. Regards, From: "Leslie D. Gamel" <leslie.gamel@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM To: Steven Skadron <steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>, "adam b. frisch" <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com> Subject: FW: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification Dear Councilman Frisch and Mayor Skadron, Follow up to the below message: Please change the word "Council" to "Staff' in the sentence in the 3" to last paragraph so the sentence reads. "I have followed all the procedures and recommendations by STAFF for asking for this item." For the record, I have not been advised by Council on these matters at all. Thanks, Leslie D. Curley Eco-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Leslie D. Gamel [mailto:Leslie.Gamel@Gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:54 AM To: 'Steve.Skadron@cityofaspen.com'; 'Adam Frisch' Subject: 108 Maple Lane Appeal and Variance clarification Dear Councilman Frisch and Mayor Skadron, I feel I received my personal welcome to aspen from you two last night. Mayor Skadron admonished Troy and the neighbors there several times that newcomers were going to ruin the neighborhood. It was clear that I was the newcomer in the room. Responding to the tone of that, it very important to clarify some administrative items concerning my Appeal and Variance that were continued last night to July 25t" At the end of the Smuggler Park Minor PUD Minor Adjustment portion and the abrupt adjournment of the meeting, I asked Jessica Garrow, Justin Barker about why my Variance had been dispenced with. When they determined that it shouldn't have been, even after a very long evening, I was met with an eye roll specifically to me by Mayor Skadron, and a statement to me by Councilman Frisch that he wasn't intestered in "one-off's ....... ?. I didn't even know what that meant when Councilman Frisch had used that term several times over the course of the evening in the hearing of the Smuggler Park PUD Minor Adjustment presentation. I would like you to know, as was explained by Justin Barker and Chris Bendon at the commencement of the Smuggler Park PUD Minor Adjustment presentation, that although my Appeal and Variance were separate items, there was some overlap so Stan Claussen, the Planner I hired for my items above would present to Council on the overlapping item, the subject of my Appeal only. Chris Bendon and the HOA actually asked us to do that. It seemed that Adam Frisch in particular took that as a tactic for my items personally to be heard, and that was not the case. We were a united front on wanting that item on behalf of the HOA as was articulated by several of the public comments and there was no public comment not in support of that item. Council's decision to approve that item basically made my Appeal item moot and• why it seemed that both of the subsequent items on the agenda, both mine, had also been dispensed with. What was misunderstood and was caught oy Jessica, Justin and myself, was that my Variance Item hadn't been heard and is outside of any of the items that were ,jrought to the table by the HOA for the Smuggler Park PUD Minor Adjustment. Jpon sitting down to address the Variance at least, as per the process I was following per staff recommendation and to the T as per notifications, ect., I was asked directly by Mayor Skadron if my HOA supported my actions and purpose for oeing there. I told him it was, in fact, but it was something that the HOA took off the list because they thought it would nuddy the waters of the core items the HOA decided to be put in front of Council. know it was a very long night and very thoughtful discussion and I appreciate all the Council and Mayor's efforts to isten and understand, which I feel satisfied that they did concerning the Smuggler Park PUD Minor Adjustment. I appreciate the resolve. I would appreciate the same consideration to my Variance item that still hasn't been heard and s not just a reiteration of one of the items that was denied last night. t is something that hasn't been heard or presented to you and is my right as a citizen to have due process for hearing. I -iave followed all the proceedures and recemmendations by Council for asking for this item. No one in my HOA opposes ,ny Variance item that I have heard of, and if they do, Public Notice has been duely delivered and they can voice their Dpinion at my Variance hearing. I don't think staff is even opposed to my ask, just that they are not permitted to grant it oer their discretion. I hope it is fair to ask you to have an open mind to just hearing the ask in the Variance? n alternative, I can just go to the Board of Adjustent for this and is what I initially expected to do since that is usually the arocess. I was told by the Planning Department that my Variance would need to go in front of Council because the 3oard of Adjustment is defunct at the moment, and you all were hearing all these other Smuggler Park issues anyway. I im doing what I was directed and told to do by the Planning Department by having you all have to hear this. I am going o ask Jennifer Phelan today if I can just drop my Appeal now and pursue my Variance normally, and go in front of the 3oard of Adjustment as to not encoumber Council as I know there are bigger fish in the sea for you in this town. I appreciate that also. know you can't respond to me as this is an ongoing item so I don't expect a reply. I just wanted you to have understanding that I wasn't trying to interceded my personal project items in any manipulative manner. I have only -espectfully followed the process that I was given and it is my right to hire my own Planner. My Planner was asked my -IOA to participate, not the reverse. Sincerely, -eslie Curley �co-ARCH, LLC a0 Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612 370-846-6807 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.av .com Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4627/12599 - Release Date: 07/11/16 No virus found in this message. • 0 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7688 / Virus Database: 4627/12645 - Release Date: 07/19/16 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7688 / Virus Database: 4627/12645 - Release Date: 07/19/16 • Justin Barker From: Jennifer Phelan Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:45 AM To: Leslie D. Gamel Cc: Justin Barker Subject: RE: Hi Leslie: I'll interpret your email below as withdrawing the appeal request. Have a good weekend, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning. which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Leslie D. Gamel [mailto:leslie.gamel@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:49 PM To: Jennifer Phelan <jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com> Subject: RE: Thanks that is helpful. Can I vacate the Appeal? Leslie D. Curley Eco-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Jennifer Phelan [ma iIto: Jennifer.pheIan Cabcityofaspen.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:48 PM To: Leslie D. Gamel Subject: RE: 1] • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016 Seconded by Councilman Frisch. Councilman Myrin said he support the ordinance as written by staff. Combining setbacks in staffs view will encourage large excavated spaces in the side yard and rear yard and will have a negative effect on the usability of the space as well as have the effect on large amounts of development in the only side yard setbacks. Staff was not supportive of that request and i will support staff and will not support the change. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Mr. Clauson stated on behalf of the applicant we vacate the last issues related to the variance and the appeal of the land use code interpretation. Ms. Garrow stated that means the City's interpretation of combined features stands. At 10:20 p.m. Councilman Myrin moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. At 11:23 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to reconvene the meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #91 & 91, SERIES OF 2016 — 108 Maple Lane, Variance and Land Use Code Interpretation Appeal Councilman Frisch moved to continue Resolutions 91 and 92 to July 25, 2016; Seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 10:26 p.m. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor. Motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk 13 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: 108 Maple Ln. — Setback Variance & Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretation Resolution Nos. 91 and 92 DATE: July 11, 2016 (continued from June 27, 201 o ) APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Leslie Curley LOCATION: 108 Maple Lane CURRENT ZONING High Density Residential (R-3) w/ Planned Development (PD) overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant is requests approval from City Council for a setback variance to allow larger light wells in a setback than permitted by Code. Additionally, the Applicant is seeking an appeal of a Land Use Code Interpretation issued by the Community Development Director pertaining to landscape walls and light wells within a setback. 401'�O� !710 ♦4# s► !4#, I► W4, �'`40f WA goo , 9 • �. ♦V#4 Locator Map STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council deny the variance request and affirm the Land Use Code Interpretation. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant requests the following reviews: • Variance — (Chapter 26.314) for larger light wells in a setback than permitted by Code. • Appeal — (26.316) of a Land Use Code Interpretation issued by the Community Development Director pertaining to landscape walls and light wells within a setback. Staff Memo — 7.11.16 Page 1 of 5 • 0 Since both of the requests are from the same applicant for the same property, these requests are being reviewed concurrently, but shall require separate actions from Council. BACKGROUND: Appeal - The Applicant provided Community Development staff with a proposed design for the subject property. The proposed design included several window wells surrounded by a landscape wall, all within the setback (see Figure 1). The Applicant was informed that this did not comply with Code Section 26.575.020(B), which states "the prescribed allowances and limitations, such as height, setbacks, etc. of distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual component." 1O'SETBACK / LINE PROPERTY 1 5SETBACK t LINE 5V GRADE / CHANGE PLA / 9T-W JCHANrE ORE MINIMUM INDOW WELL"GRADE PLANTER u r EDGE OF ROOF OVERHANG Figure I Setback Lines — blue Features in question — red 2,45 1 . 1 2 5q ft LOT AREA 50'GRADE CHANGE PLANTER I 1 I CODE MINIMUM WINDOW WELL I I I I I CODE MINIMUM-/ WINDOW WELL r L� r f Ir f r I l f 2 PARKI SPACE S f fr f r i The Applicant disagreed that the proposed design combined features and requested a formal Land Use Code Interpretation. An interpretation was issued on December 24 (Exhibit B) and the Applicant subsequently filed an appeal. Variance - The Applicant has also submitted a request for a setback variance. The Code permits light wells in the setback if two conditions are met: 1. They are required by building code; and, 2. They are the minimum dimensions necessary to accommodate egress (3 feet x 3 feet). The proposed design includes two light wells within the side yard setback and one areaway within the rear yard setback that exceed these dimensions (see Figure 2 on next page). The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow these features within the setback. Staff Memo — 7.11.16 Page 2 of 5 1 O'SETBACK / LINE PROPERTY LINE 2,45 1.12 Sq ft LOT AREA !Lla 5' SETBACK -- _- t- Wd E OF R LINE 30" GRADE 30" GRADE OV RHAN CHANbE PLA TE NI DOYN WELL CHANGE PLANTER / 100,_0„ 9T� r ar-9" 82 9. gr gp 0^ N/ NINDON NELL INDOH HELL H/ 97, / i EGRESS STAIR � i r n r � i" i O" GRADE rr Z PARKI u HANGE PLANTER ; SPACE S 8 `-------i i r r EDGE OF ROOF OVERHANG / Figure 2 Setback Lines — blue Requested variances — red VARIANCE CRITERIA: Section 26.314.040.A of the Code provides the review standards for variances. In order to authorize a dimensional variance, City Council must determine that the variance meet basic hardship standards. These include that granting the variance is generally consistent with the Land Use Code, that it is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property, and that literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Staff Comment: Staff finds that the criteria for a variance are not met (Exhibit A). Larger light wells within the setback are not necessary for reasonable use of the property, nor would denying the request cause the Applicant an unnecessary hardship. The subject property is a fairly typical size for properties within the R-3 zone district and should not be considered a special condition unique to this specific parcel. The property is a similar shape to other R-3 lots with the same setbacks as the rest of the subdivision (0 ft. on one side, 10 ft. on the other). The property is approximately 35 ft. wide, which would allow a width of about 25 ft. for development, which staff finds to be reasonable. Granting this variance would allow the applicant to develop structure up to all the setback lines with larger window wells than required by building code, which is not permitted for other R-3 properties without a variance. If larger light wells are desired, the Applicant has the opportunity to develop a Staff Memo — 7.11.16 Page 3 of 5 smaller footprint and provide larger light wells outside of the setbacks. It is not a requirement to develop the structure setback to setback. APPEAL CRITERIA' Section 26.316.030.E of the Code provides the review standards for appeals. "Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Title, the decision -making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion." [emphasis added] The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body otherwise acted in violation of the appellant's constitutional or statutory rights. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision being appealed from "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed from was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). Staff Comment: 1. The Record — In this instance, the record consists of the Land Use Code Interpretation attached as Exhibit B, the letter'of appeal attached as Exhibit C, and Exhibit D which contains proof of notice. 2. Due Process — The applicant has corresponded with staff regarding the proposed design. The applicant then requested a formal interpretation regarding landscape walls and light wells within a setback. An interpretation was issued and an appeal was requested. It does not appear that the appellant is claiming a failure of due process. Staff believes due process was provided to the applicant. With regard to the appeal, notice has been provided as required. As required by the Land Use Code, the appellant was provided notice of the scheduled hearing via registered mail and all other affected parties were noticed by publication in the newspaper, as required. (see Exhibit D). Staff Memo — 7.11.16 Page 4 of 5 3. Discretion — With respect to abuse of the Director's (or his designee's) discretion, the Director did need to use discretion in rendering the determination. The question is whether the Director abused that discretion. The Director relied on graphic information provided by the applicant and standards for allowed projections within setbacks codified in the City's Land Use Code. The Code allows for both landscape walls and light wells to be individually located within the required setback with certain size and height requirements, but prohibits combination of these features in a way that would exceed these dimensional requirements. The proposed design incorporates both elements in the setback. The interpretation finds that the area between the landscape wall, which retains natural grade, and the light wells is used as part of the circulation path for egress and therefore increases the size of the light well beyond the dimensional limitations (see Exhibit B). Staff tends to approach these sorts of tasks with a very pragmatic and realistic administration of development limitations. The Land Use Code does not predict every type of circumstance. City staff believes the decision was based on applicable and reasonable evidence and the Community Development Director applied reasonable discretion. 4. Jurisdiction — The jurisdiction, authorities and duties of the Community Development Department the Community Development Director are codified in Chapter 26.210 of the Land Use Code. Administration and enforcement of the Land Use Code (Title 26) and the administration and enforcement of building permits is assigned. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council deny the variance request. Staff does not find that the request meets the criteria required to grant a variance. Staff also recommends City Council affirm the Land Use Code Interpretation. It is the position of the Community Development Director that staff acted within their jurisdiction, used reasonable discretion, and respected the due process rights of the applicant, and that the appeal request does not meet the standards to grant an appeal. PROPOSED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 91, denying a variance for 108 Maple Lane, and to approve Resolution No. 92, affirming the Land Use Code Interpretation." EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria - Variance B. Land Use Code Interpretation C. Variance Application & Appeal of Interpretation D. Appeal Public Notice E. Variance Public Notices F. Application Addendum Staff Memo — 7.11.16 Page 5 of 5 Regular Meetine Aspen City Council June 27, 2016 Board Appointments Mayor Skadron thanked and welcomed Jeff Halferty back to the Historic Preservation Commission, Chip Fuller is returning to the Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors, Patricia Weber is joining us on the Housing Board, Ryan Walterscheid is reupping for another term on Planning & Zoning. • Resolution #87, Series of 2016 — Appointments to NMPP Members' Council, to MEAN Management Committee and to MEAN Board of Directors • Resolution #88, Series of 2016 — Maroon Creek Micro -Hydro Partnership • Resolution #93, Series of 2016 — Pavement Improvement Program Contract • Resolution #85, Series of 2016 — Contract for Purchase of Fleet Vehicles • Resolution #89, Series of 2016 — Voting System, licenses and related services contract • Board Appointments • Minutes — June 6, 2016 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #12, RESOLUTION #91 and RESOLUTION #92, SERIES OF 2016 Smuggler Park Subdivision — Planned Development Amendment, 108 Maple Lane, Variance and Land Use Code Interpretation Appeal Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #12, Resolution #91 and Resolution #92 to July 11, 2016; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2016 — Little Nell Hotel, Planned Development Minor Amendment and Commercial Design Approval Amendment Hillary Seminick, community development, told the Council this is a minor amendment to a planned development approval. This project proposes a 243 square foot solarium addition to the existing ski concierge space. Since first reading the applicant has revised the design to better match the existing exterior. Staff is still supportive and thinks the design is almost there but want a better design that is consistent with the exterior of the hotel. Staff has provided a recommendation that if approved a condition is placed in the ordinance that requires the roof materials be changed to shingles and the size of the new windows match those on the second floor. Councilman Myrin asked if Staff has the language for the ordinance for the modifications. Ms. Seminick replied it is not in the ordinance but the recommendation section of the memo could be modified to add a section 4 to add language stating the roof material be changed to shingles and the windows match the size of the windows on the upper floor. Dana Ellis, Don Shuster and Jodi Surface representing Aspen Skiing Company. Ms. Ellis said since first reading they looked at Staff comments and amended the design. Originally they proposed a design in line with Staff recommendations but in 2014 when the soil studies were completed it was obvious there would be complications and that is where the design from the last meeting came from. There is a precedent for sky lights. There is considerable glazing. The existing roof pitch will be matched to the overhead element. The product is a glazing that tints as the sun hits it so it will greatly reduce the sun issue. Mr. Shuster said the primary reason to move forward is from a guest standpoint. Councilwoman Mullins said it is difficult to add on to a building and have it blend in. This is an improvement from what you showed us originally but I don't think it is there yet. The massing is fine but Ll AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED 1 HEARING 1 DATE: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitlin ) I,��,� (name, please print) being or represent' g an Applicant to the City ot Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: I/ Publication of notice By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general, circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 . , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) -of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and. attached, was conducted - prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26:304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 0 • Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. _A� Signature The fpiregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledge before me this "'-_� day Of , 20Va , by- �&3�1 v� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 108 Maple Lane Public Hearing: June 27, 2016, 5:00 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 108 Maple Lane Legal Description: Parcel ID 2737-074.90-108, Lot 108, Smuggler Park Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Description: The Applicant is requesting Council approval for setback variances to allow larger light wells than permitted by Code within the side and rear yard setbacks. Land Use Reviews Req: Variance Decision Making Body: City Council Applicant: Leslie D. Curley, PO Box 8783, Aspen, CO 81612 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797. justin.barker O cityofaspen.com. My commission expires: I Gfu Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Published in the Aspen Times on June 9, 2018 (12159378) EPUBLICATION KA�REED PATTERSON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID #19964002767 My Commission Expires Febnmry 15, 2020 rti vl uuffzl PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPER 4a (& , Aspen, CO SC DU D P BLW HE . G DATE: 20� STA OF C LORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant toQhe City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time /of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A cy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. V Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) �I F,v,erai Lstate (honer Notice. By the certified mailing of notice. return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as hart of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise. the reauirement of an accurate survev map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zonine map shall be available for public inspection in the planr_;n-- agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. on such amendments. Signature The r oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day of v�k_ , 20* by KENNETH SCOTT ROBISON NOTARY PUBLIC STATF OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20124066934 MY C0MMISS1.0N EXPIRES OCTOw 12, 2016 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ary Public - A 11ACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIRS NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C R S. $24-65. 5-I03. 3 0 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 108 Maple Lane - Variance Public Hearing: June 27, 2016, 5:00 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 108 Maple Lane Legal Description: Parcel ID 2737-074-90-108, Lot 108, Smuggler Park Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Description: The Applicant is requesting Council approval for setback variances to allow larger light wells than permitted by Code within the side and rear yard setbacks. Land Use Reviews Req: Variance Decision Making Body: City Council Applicant: Leslie D. Curley, PO Box 8783, Aspen, CO 81612 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. Published in the Aspen Times on June 9, 2016 • 0 [J3 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 108 Maple Lane —Variance Public Hearing: June 27, 2016, 5:00 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 108 Maple Lane, Parcel ID 2737-074-90-108, Legally Described as Lot 108, Smuggler Park Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Description: The Applicant is requesting Council approval for setback variances to allow larger light wells than permitted by Code within the side and rear yard setbacks. Land Use Reviews Requested: Variance Decision Making Body: City Council Applicant: Leslie D. Curley, PO Box 8783, Aspen, CO 81612 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, justin.barker@citvofaspen.com. Ln r- Cl) m Lo C) a rn W Z Z o 00 co Z� Z Z Z Z Z Z r W J J C)** J J J J J J J Un Q O O0 CD ❑❑ 0 OOOOO OOO wwZr- O O� �� J OOOOO 000 ❑ U` Z t` z z Z Z Z O J w Z w w N co m J U Z J J J J Z Z Z Z Z M Z Z Z zzzz ❑ Z — ti O Cl) M Cl) Lo (D Z ti Q0==NN WOW 0Wr-w❑ W M0o0) W=w W W W W OOOOOu)OOO CY)>< n F- 0- 0-��xxwaUaaaa-- - - - -X- - - Z 0 Z O g 0< OU < pU r 0< LO< 2 2 O O W<_<<<<< 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 om oocDmmrn m N m m C:) W M CD CD N N M r- 'I- 'I-C)'q 00 CDr N V IT IT M M O (D t7 C)O C)O r CDr 0 Ln O r Ln r M MC) p C)r N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 r 0 r O w� r M' T a r N r N r a r r r (D (D a a M r r r r r r r N N N N N a N N N () U) w� U J U~n elfw Un z� F- Un � Un W a' ❑ ❑ Q D W W F- D a Q Ur rj� F- w Q ❑ Q -i F- Q v -j w w z p w OJ < } CY J_ �UU)I ZQz O J J�Unz �H0❑F-Q Q = (n -� ❑~ a❑ _U W ZO LL ❑ Q W a J a' W Z Q O W wQJ-wzp L<Lw >F->QUQ>pQQY w} wO<2U W WwZ�J QQQ WZ-ZZ F-❑ p5} YO -wUZ W W ❑ O=Q Qzof W c�Dpaw�zQ-��O�I-I-�= cn� �JZpW ZLu3: zz�� O w-W WOOWWW-- ZOc�=��ww F-W❑ZO W wl❑z❑YZQO� Q�gF-QO oo}OY2LLO m ?zwww wmas ZaQ ZwW Www=aQNZDWOUZ JWZZmZOWQ<>'Ww>Y��❑WF-O a �><UnQJJ§-W0<<wo s?❑❑W Q�Q=QOW ��Q W❑�QgO�q OmQ>mQ0U❑0m2li0❑w��J❑mwF-� W am000n22mLLUUY 0r w m z F- Z r- O O r O N N'IT r N W r-- W r-- M It'IT Lo W M O O r Q) O r r Lo (D ti CO O r N CO M D r� N N N (fl (D N N (D N O O N r N N N N N N N M M of Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo co (D (D (D (D O M (D r- r- '-T Lo (D (D N ti 00 00 r- O O O O O O O O m O M M O O M M M M M M M M O V o0 00 m T V 'T Lo V V V M O (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (_D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (.0 (.D (D (D (D U O C) C) C)r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r U O C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C)O O O 00 O CD CDO O O C)O O C)O O O O C) C)O C)O O CO r CV r �T O (D O O N r N M r r� M Co r- r N V 00 O r N V V V (D 00 O r Iq r- 00 00 Cl) 0 0 0 r N r O r O 0 0 r O r N N O r r r r N N N N N 0 0 0 C) r r r r Co O O O O N r N r N O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N O O (S) (A 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 O Lo 14- 1- O UA O (A D) (A r- r` O O O O O O Q) O O O (A O O O m D) 07 (Y) m (7) () (A O O W rr-r--r-rl- �rl- t`r-r-r-r-r rr�r`rl- r-tir-r`r-r` rr-tir- �r- r-r- r-r- r- U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) (D 0 0(D(D 0 0 0 r- r- r- r- r` r` r` r` r` r- r- r- rl- r- r- r` r- r- r- r- r-- r- r- r` r- r` r- r- r'- rl- r` � r` r` r- r- M M cM M M co co co Cr) M m m co m m M m (M M cM cM cM ('7 Cr) M M Cr) CO Cr) M co co M M co M Q r- r r-- r- r- r- r- r- r I- r r` r` r-- PI- r- r- r� r r` r` rl- ti r` r- r- r- r- r` r- r r- rl- r- r` P- a- N N N N N N N N (N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � 14 ❑ ❑ W W O O z Of Of O O O O z z Z Z O O O O 00 o O r N LO LO N N N N N N ❑ (o (D L J z U Q O zzz0Cz Y Y Y M } > Q Q Q m Q 0 OOOCDmU O O 00 O O O O O O r M LO M M Cl) O I` H Q U U ❑ W J Q U O -i W Z Q J W w W ¢ Z J -J J LL U W Y H Q Q} of w J J Z Y> U< z Z Z z W 0} J Z )w O OOU0,w0 1W -11 Z Z J J J > ==Z�J—>w-ia- O O O w w o o o o m )�>J=2a.J>Q O ti Ln W LO ~ M V) ❑ ❑ Z Z Z Z Z Z J❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑Ocn zU O U zz3: �: �: 3� 3: �:z3:zzzr(�Luw Lu JJZ(D NZZ ZJZF- W Ln0 Y w w 0 0 0 0 z rn O O z O J O J CY) � Z Z W U z J J F- M F- F J r J a. a.H-x-I-`1xHHYl-W �C)<Mxx00 0 220MOOOOOMO00000020UC)>-<mm22zomo� Lo Ln r- O O N N N O'T LO M r CD O I- OOoO rOr Nrrmn Lnr0000,M0 r r N Q N N M m N N M N r N— r r Q Q U U 4. co U Z U O w 0 � � U Q U D Q OU O w m O w ❑ (n U = w J Z U Z H U U 0 U) W z W U W Z p O U Q U cn cn = Z❑w0 �06 .6<< � Q0 U Qoz3 jU— Z � 06 Z o } of Q w J Z� Z H= H ❑ Z U w OW �W2i0 Zw<06WUCn � �0Jm❑ 2 o2 - J= mQots❑ - JHfn 0p 1< w 0- U z w m 0= U Z N U� O Q-j o� Z w Of w = Cn J m � ❑ = _ X � > J } Q z W = LL m co co (n Z Q W W w 0 Q Z O _O O w W W W JQ_¢W�mU JYzx_,2zQ J>x W O QN JQ QN JQ m U w U QU` w w Q O w w x o m m❑ Q w Z= W Z D Z Z 2 (D X-i¢ )- x x�❑= J Z 0 x z 0 w m 0-1 m �OOQZpQQOgwwQp QQf-=Q Qcn c 000YLL0zm0y>QQ �� Lo M r r N W U) LO LO LO (0 I-- M O O W W O (O LO O V LO M N V� N (O I- M (O (O CO (O I` r- r- IT (0 M O N N N N N M I- M co co 00 Iq V LO L- ) (O N r CDr LO LO LO O O a) O 0') 0') 0') (D r r M M co M M Cl) Cl) co IT 'IT IT IT 0 0 0 0 O) (O t!� 00 00 Cl) M M (fl (D (O (O (O (D (O O Cl) M LO LO LO U') Li) Lo Lo Ln Ln fl G7 O (DLo Lo LD Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo (r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r N (O (.0 00 r N r N Ln Ln f- (O O (D (N LO N N O VT LO M LO U) O M N O O LO (O O r N N 0 0 0 0 0 r M O 0 0 0 r r r CDr r r N r r N r r 0 0 0 0 r 0 N N N N M M M O O (D O r r N r N N M N N N M N r N r N r r (DW W O O M O O CD O O (D O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 LO O O L!� U) L.() O O O m m m O O r- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co I- IT M Cl) Cl) Cl) co V' V V V V' It IT IT It It '� V' V IT IT d' M M M Cl) co m O O O O O Co O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tiI-- ti r- r- r- N r- r-t-- ti r- �tl- r- r- r- r-r-- r- r- ti r- r- ti I- ti ti r- r-rl- r- ti ti r- Cl) co C) m M Cl) M Cl) Cl) M co Cl) m M Cl) m m M Cl) Cl) Cl) M Cl) Cl) Cl) M M Cl) Cl) M Cl) M Cl) M co �� r- r- r- r r- r- ti r- r- r- r- r- r-r-- r- r- �PI- r-r-- r- ti r- r- r-rl- r- r- r- r- r- r- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N" N N N N (V N N N N Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z J J J J J J J J J J J J W 0 0 p Q m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U)w wQ O O Oww 000000000 O O O 000000000 LU Q Q O W Z Z Z Z Z Q Q Z Z Z Z Z J Z Z Z J Z Z Z J? Z Z z Z z z Z Z Z p Z 0 ZCD > O w 0 W O z z W W W W W W W W W w w w W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 0 O— Q F- J F- J F- O O .J J J J .J J J J J J J J J J J F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- Qm} OZF-a.F-a.F- ma.a.a_a.a.a.a_a.ma_a_a_a_a.F-F-F-F-F-F-F-F-F- cim m 22clO O< O< O com<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< O O O O O O O O O O LO LO LO m 0 (D O O N Ln — M— I-- M M r N IT O O= N IT 'IT V (D M O �_ V f-- M M W LO N N N O O LO LO c O N N O N N N N N 0 0 0 0 (n M M O O U N N LD (D M O O It c- cM M O M � f- M 'IT LO (D fl- M O — N ('M — N M IT M O O — N M d" U') (O V V N N O N tirl- (D ti Lo LO N Lo M 0 0 (D (D r- r- r-t� m O O m m O O O O O O O O UO N N N V V (D (D CD (D (D (D CD CD (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D CD CD CD CD CD CD W 00 �7 NI r- rn o ti r- rK rn M v W Ln O LO N (V Z M N N c- M r— O c- W W N N E LD N c- r- O = c- c- M N = N N = = O = — c- CD (D V (D (D (D (D (D (D M V= W O W = = (D W O M ti M M M M (D O M (D (D 0 (D W W (D O M (D O W M M M w m m f- w 00 = 00 LOLO OO 00 M 00 Ln 00 00 GD OO OD CO CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 W F- Q F- U) W z 3: O Q O O O O O O O X w O�- O Z Z O O J O F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U —J O D U U U U U O F- Z U z U U U w U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Q U J _ Z Y J J U� Og U O a< O Q w Z Q Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W Q Z� Z Z Z U Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z z w U F- W W W W W W W= W w~~ W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a — z a_ a. a. a_ a_ a a a_ Q a. � a. ? ? 0- a. a a. N a. a. a. a a_ a. a_ a_ w a_ a_ a_ a_ a_ � cn = Q cn cn cn (n cn cn cn � � cn w cn Q Q cn cn Q cn O cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn O Q U 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O O Q Z Q W w Q Q O Q M Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N Cn W ry r) QI w W Z t z z Z Z z z z z z z z z z J J .J J J J J J J J J J J 0 0 0 0 m it 0 cc 000 0 0 0 Q m 4t4t 0000 O 00 000 O O O 0000 w U O OO O O O w w w w w w O O 000 > QQQQQ>� z z� z�� �� � z>Zzz Q zZzz OOOOzzzzF-z JJzJzZzzzzJZJZJJ zzzzzz W WOWOOzOOOzOWOW O W W F JJJO(n JJFJF-F- JF-�-F-JHJ J f- J-j0 O0000 F- F-HF-YYYJ)} W WHmF-F-YF-F- Yc -W F-dF-a-ammmmmm O O O O Q Q Q m Q LL Q Q O Q O O Q O O O Q O Q O Q O Q Q------ 0000000omw ��U�UUODUUOU�U�U��C�C�C�C�C�C� 6) (A T N CD CD M O O LO T r N N O 00 T M M LO LO I- co O (D N LO N N 01- LO m L(j Lf) O O N r LO W O M O O O O T T T O T T T N T r N T T 0 0 LO N O O O N (N N NCO CO CO CD I- I` r r N r N N M N" NM N r N T N r r 00 OD O I- 00 Il- I- W M O Lo (D I-- (D O I-- N M I-LoI- M Lo (D CD I- 00 It LO CDT M CDn O LI- N CO 'T O O O T T r T 00 LO co 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iq 't O O O LO M M� q 't r V* rp LO O O O CF) a) O O O O O 00 M LO I- I- � I` �� ti ti co 00 00 m N N N N N I` 0 M w m M M W W (D 0 (D (D (D r N N M M M M M CO M M M M M M M' I' V V V't LO CD CD I- r- I` T r T T T T r r r T r r T T T T T r T T T T r r r r T T 00 M r r T r O T r r r T r T r T r T r O M r T r r W O T I- rl- W CD (D (D W (D (D T (D CO (D (D W CD (O (D (D (D CD CD (D (D (D Il- N (D (D CD (D (D (D (14 (D Lti Ln r r r T T T T O r T T T r T r T T T r T T I- r T T T T r N L() r w 00 m 00 m M 00 0D 00 (D 00 0D 0D 00 00 00 00 0D 00 0D 00 00 00 00 00 O O 00 00 00 OD 00 6) i` 00 N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W Q O O O O O Q X O J Q Q U W 0 Z m O � F- O Z z z z z z Z 2 z z Z Z z z z z Z Z z Z Z z z>-Q z Z z z z o o z W T W W W W W W W O W W W W w W W W W W W W W W w� O W W w W w U m m m a a a a. 0 m a m m m m a a. m m m a. m m a z D m m a a a J a �- m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q (O =O Q Q Q Q Q Z D Q W Q Q Q Z z O O (n O mm m r LO 00 LO N m 0D Lr Il- PUBLIC NOTICE Dates0 Monday, June 27,2016 Time: 5:00 PM Place: City Hall, Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Purpose: Applicant (Leslie D. Curley, PO Box 8783, Aspen, CO 81612) requests Council approval of setback variances to allow larger light wells than permitted by Code within the side and rear yard setbacks. For further information contact Aspen Planning Dept. at 970-920-5090. VUBLIC NU, Date. Place: ow �► Purpaao ° I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: fA, S-e-, 6-r , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,J o _ 2 Z AP E�' ' i2o e ly) , 2014� STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I /�T ► G7 -�iCyt �G �—'� (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) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official paper or a paper of general, circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 . , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S, mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted- prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text. amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Sfg'natureO The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice was acknowledged before me this day of l,ndp - , 20/(, by_��, NOTICE LAND USE CODE PUBLIC HEARING WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL INTERPRETATION APPEAL Public Hearing: June 27, 2016, 5:00 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 My commission expires: Description: The interpretation being appealed found that a landscape wail that surrounds multiple light wells exceeds the dimensional limitations of these features when located within a setback. �.�--- Decision Making Body: City Council Applicant: Leslie D. Curley, PO Box 8783, Aspen, CO 81612 Notary Public More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of _ Aspen Community Development Department, 130 KAREN REED PATTERSON S Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797. NOTARY PUBLIC juslin.barkerOcityofaspen.com. STATE OF COLORADO Pubin the Aspen Times on June e, 2o,s 59424 (12159424) NOTARY ID #19964002767 ATTACEEN1ENTS AS APPLICABLE: My Commission Expires February 15, 2020 • COPY OFTBEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C k S. §24-65. 5-103. 3 e k % \ k 0 1> CD / Z \ % aW, CD �CO j « 2 n R m D CL co kW$\ CD � \ f N 5 ƒ & » 7' \ B s k� k� §, c z § « ) « -0 \ @ k p 4 2 2 ƒ q £ OCL $ k 0,) CO )k6� / �)\` O❑❑\ / - e r CL-0 fa� «7 m )\CCG 2 \ OO) rq ƒ E 7 2 I I E rZI (s r'- rq 2 (D coto "- _ c O u co 0 0 a § Q U) �� ro p cV m M e— _ ao co 3coo� x O o -o m .j rCL - U) p — Q r� o- Er Ir IF Er a C- M 0 June 3, 2016 Leslie Curley PO Box 8783 Aspen, CO 81612 1 RE: APPEAL OF A LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION To whom it may concern, 0 � THE CITY OF ASPEN As required per Section 26.316.030 D., Notice Requirements, of the land use code notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 27, 2016, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 'l 30 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of a Land Use Code Interpretation submitted by you. The Interpretation being appealed found that a landscape wall that surrounds multiple light wells exceeds the dimensional limitation of these features when located within a setback. The request of the applicant is to reverse the Community Development Director's interpretation. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2797 or by email justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. A memo will be emailed to you in the near future. Regards, Justin Barker Senior Planner 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5000 • FAx 970.920.5197 www.aspenpitkin.com Printed on Recycled Paper i MAY 0 3 2016 • RECEIVED T Y � ., ,P' N ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION jAN 12 2016 PRo'1�(n �1 Name: M Location: ffia Uyl(e_ Svwuqol (Indicate street addreJ�qss, of & bloc number, legal descri i here appropriate) Parcel ID # RE UU;LED' :21 APPLICANT: Name: IPu Address: Phone #: RFPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& Pt JD ,Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, eondominiumi7ation) .Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ I.ot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment Other. ❑ Conditional Use:q�� (� It EXISTTNG CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses previous approvals, ctc. ilon _eM { Ld 2 �C�I 1 \ t 3 ROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildin , uses, Inoditications, etc. ApaJ a ?ve you attached the following? FEFs IIUE: S 136C CCU re -Application Conference Sununary Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8S' X I I" most he folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written teat (]Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pr"pplication conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the Gity of, Property Owner ("I"): Address of Property: (subject of application) and Phone No.: Email. - Billing Address: (send bills here) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the fuN extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that paynient of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, 1 agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $ 0 deposit for 0 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time ahove the deposit amount will be billed at $275 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: 1 City Use: Title: w LFees Due: $ O �� Received: 3 Q a L Q O U c a) CD- U) Q L CL ^L, W 7�� V• I 0 q 61 of J c O m SC VOW Jr/ -1"r �t9• �G � i =� ogling • 'sa s o s�eii �Mow t mall •. • 9lOZ E 0 �dW 4 i s ki qY Improvement Survey 1) LEGAL DESCFbPTNON: LOT 108, SMUGGLER MOBILE HOME PARK SUBOIVISKXI, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 14, 1987 IN PLAT BOOK 19 AT PACE 61 AS RECEPTION NO. 288794 AND THE PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 7. 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 20 AS RECEPTION NO. 352684 AND THE PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 26. 2000 IN PLAT BOOK 54 AT PAGE 71 AS RECEPTION NO. 44d708 AND THE PLAT RECORDED .JANUARY 2. 2001 IN PLAT BOOK 55 AT PAGE 54 AS RECEPTION NO. 4SM66 IN THE COUNTY OF PIIKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 2) BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF S44'29'22`E BETWEEN A FOUND #5 RERAR AT THE N.W PROPERTY CORNER AND A FOUND REBAR AND YPC LS/ 9184 AT THE N.E. PROPERTY CORNER. 3) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR. TILE INFORMATION RELffD UPON FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY FURNISHED BY ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, COMMITMENT NO. 140OM23, DATED 11/5/2014. 4) SETBACKS TAKEN FROM THIRD AMENDMENT TD PRECISE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECEPTION NO. 352683, FRONT YARD SETBACK. MINIMUM SETBACK IS ZERO FEET. THERE SMALL BE AN AVERAGE EIGHT FOOT LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROADSIDE CURB TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR OFF STREET PARKING. SIDE YARD SETBACK: THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET ON ONE SIDE AND A MINIMUM OF ZERO FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE. REAR YARD SETBACK' MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. B.7' Legend /5 REBAR UNITED COMMON ELEMENT NO CAP REC* 352683 0 INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED. INDICATES SET MONUMENT LSI 37972 YPC Yn-LOW PLASTIC CAP UNDERGROUND WATER LINE '� 41 WIr WATER METER SCALED FROM PLAT EIK. 13 PG. 26 �A Ypt� GM CAS METER ACTUAL POSITION NOT LOCATED -� © CABLE RISER FOR THIS SURVEY `Y1� [3--f.3--E3 FENCE LINE 10.0' SETBACK REC/ 352683 LOT 106 HOUSE DECK 6.4' LOT 108 2.1al sQ Fr . TRAILER /ry/ / YPC / LS/ 9184 / / / CONCRETE 0.5' ROOF OVERHANG 5.0' 'G SETBACK L / u REC# 352683 ROCKY MOUNTAIN SURVEYING W3724133 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROADCARBONDAIE CO. 81623 YPC DATE: 970 — 379 —1919 ILLEGIBLE DATE 311RVEYF.IT 11/2014 FUE NO. : 14554 I, MICHAEL P. LAFFERTY. HEREBY CERTIFY TO LESLIE CAMEL (BUYER) THAT NiTTK P. ,� cnrAing to Cok raAn Taw Ycl■ mu t cumLncace mly THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT PERFORMED _ __ _ - __ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _. _ _ 1•uvl �. n.n h...vl ,...n .n ..L:.vy ,n i6.. ..w... n nhn Il+n� MAY o32016 0 eco - ARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council of Aspen SUBJECT: Appeal Interpretation of City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Chapter 26.575— Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements, Measuring Setbacks, B. Limitations Variance to City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Chapter 26.575— Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements, (E)(5)(i.) Allowed Projections into the Setbacks DATE: 5/2/2016 BACKGROUND: My Architect, Brad Elliott, and I have been speaking with the City of Aspen Planning Department since August 2015 about my proposed home. We designed it as to not need any variances. That turned out not to be the case, as from the moment we walked in they wanted us to do a specific Planned Development (PD) amendment for my project at a cost for staff time. We knew that the Smuggler Park HOA (SP HOA) recently had meetings, one with Mayor Skadron specifically, to point out the parts of the Land Use Code that didn't seem applicable or fairly applied to the homes being redeveloped in the Smuggler Park subdivision. The SP HOA was taking stance to address these items that homeowners had experienced frustration with over the years. Not knowing the timing of the SP HOA's plan to address these recurring redevelopment hurdles, I submitted for an official Land Use Interpretation on November 241h 2015 about whether a landscape wall that surrounds multiple light wells is permitted as designed in the setback for my own project. The official response to that was issued on 12/24/15. Per that response, I elected to appeal and had 14 days to do so. I submitted the Appeal on December 29th, 2016. While waiting for the response on the completeness of my submittal, I was made aware of Community Development Code, Chapter 26.316 Appeals, E. Standard of Review that states "A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. " (Emphasis added) Around that time, Bendon Adams was hired by the SP HOA to steward the process for the Residential Design Standards (RDS) amendment. I discussed my appeal with Mr. Bendon and he said per that Standard of Review, he didn't think I would be successful. Further, he saw one lost appeal in 19 years as with the Planning Department and the City was in a poor legal position and the other side had an experienced lawyer. The RDS amendments were to be adopted at the upcoming January 13t", 2016 Council Meeting. Many members of the Smuggler Park were in attendance. Our SP HOA President andexpert resident spokesperson$ addressed the Mayor/Council personally about the concessions that were needed for our neighborhood in the proposed amendment. They pointed out the uniqueness of this neighborhood and the fact that it is the only neighborhood in the R3 zone in the City of Aspen. It was originally developed in the 1970's as a mobile home park for locals that are only now experiencing any significant attrition for re -development. PO BOX 8783 ASPEN, COLORADO • 81612 PHONE: 970.846-6807 EMAIL: LE` LIE GAMELail6MAIL.COM trY MAY 032016 r While a few of the neighborhood's requests were afforded to the Smuggler Park subdivision in the RDS amendment adopted, staff asked that all the issues be addressed through a subdivision Planned Development (PD) amendment, instead of being addressed piecemeal, and specific to the Smuggler Park through the RDS amendment being approved that evening. Mayor/Council encouraged the Smuggler Park subdivision to apply for and present a comprehensive PD amendment. The Mayor/Council was supportive of the expedition and waiver of the fees for an expensive PD amendment as a showing of understanding of the hardships that the residents had experienced over the years. The proposed PD Update for Smuggler Park currently under review by City Staff is asking for, among other things, the following to be granted: "The Park is requesting variation to allow lightwells to be combined with adjacent retained areas within setbacks. Park homes are typically developed with a 0-foot setback along one side and at least 10 feet along the remaining side. This enables the side yard to function as the primary outdoor space but is the only meaningful area to provide daylight and required access to a basement level" "Combining Lightwells, Stairwells and Excavated Areas. The Land Use Code allows yard areas to be excavated to 30" below natural grade. The Code also allows lightwells and stairwells to be located in the side yards as an exemption from the setback requirements. The code does not allow these two exemptions to be combined. Developing these features together can significantly improve the livability of a basement with more natural light. The Park requests allowance for these features to be combined within the required setbacks." Per that development I informed Jennifer Phelan that since Smuggler Park HOA would be submitting a PD amendment application including the combination of elements in the setback. So I wanted to put a hold on my Appeal of the Interpretation. Per my request, Ms. Phelan tolled my application on 1/22/16 and notified me that the application will be abandoned on 1/12/17. 1 appreciated that accommodation by her. I give you all the background to explain why I am resubmitting my Appeal that is not because I am at odds with the PD amendment request under review by the Planning Department, and quite the contrary. I have discovered that I will need to apply for a variance no matter what the Smuggler Park PD Amendment yields because the Smuggler Park HOA doesn't address my proposal for more windows via larger window wells in the setback. Per Ms. Phelan's suggestion, I am requesting a dimensional variance for the larger window wells from City Council and Appeal the land use code interpretation on the aggregation of features in the setback. This is difficult knowing that the Standard of Review for the Appeal has not changed. Even though I don't agree with the official Interpretation, it is not the case that "there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion". . Could this request for a reversal of the official Interpretation become part of the Variance request to Mayor/Council? That would enable the Planning Department's need to enforce this in other neighborhoods. I hope the information herein provides a comprehensive look at these issues in this unique neighborhood and is not taken as criticism. MAY 0 3 2016 INTERPRETATION ITEMS: We contend that the attached proposed design See Attachment 1-Curley Appeal Package, for 108 Maple Lane showing a light well and adjacent planter in the setback, which are both allowed, under the City of Aspen Land Use Code is in keeping with the rule that "distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual structural component.". This doesn't say that both can't be present in the design or adjacent; just that both/either cannot exceed each of their own limitations. Interpretation Letter — "Light wells being next to landscape planter, both meeting their dimensional standards per the land use code." "Individually, both the landscape walls and light wells are permitted to be located within the required setback as long as the landscape wall does not exceed a certain height allowance and a light well is both required by building code and meets the minimum dimensions necessary to accommodate egress." "When the two features are combined, the Limitations subsection of the code in Citation 3 becomes applicable. By combining the landscape wall with the light wells, the two features become combined." "The area between the landscape wall, which retains natural grade, and the light wells is used as part of the circulation path for egress from the basement to access natural grade. The landscape wall provides necessary egress circulation for the light well, essentially (emphasis added) becoming part of the light well design. The use the landscape wall allows for a light well area that supersedes the minimum size limitation permitted per code and is not permitted." Response: The features are still distinct from each other and not physically combined as allowed by code. The word "essentially" is the subjective part of this interpretation. The landscape wall is a separate element and in no way makes my light well bigger. These elements next to each other in no way combines the features in any illegal way even if it part of the egress path that is in compliance with the Fire Department Building Code that allows 44 inch maximum steps as part of the egress path in lieu of stairs or a ladder per IRC-R390.2.1. Also, in trying to achieve light into my basement without any window wells, we have changed the South facade of the design proposed in August thus having eliminated one window well from the building in lieu of clerestory windows. But on the West facade these windows are impossible without a 30" drop in grade with the landscape planter. If I am not allowed to have the 30" deep landscape planter next to the window wells, the only light I will get into the basement is from the minimum sized deep window wells. Further, the combination of the landscape planter with the window well makes the window well wall shorter, creating a window well that is easier to escape from in a fire and easier for the Fire Department to get into. When we spoke with planners about the plans in August, we talked about the undesirability of building a window well as a deep narrow hole. This also provides opportunity for move impervious surface area for storm water retention that is a requirement of the Building code. MAY p 3 201E (, VARIANCE ITEMS: The City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.575 Part 500 — Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements, (E)(5)(i.) Allowed Projections into the Setbacks states: 1. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement stairwells (emphasis added) as required or adopted Building Fire Codes as long as these features are entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building fagade(s) closest to the street. "If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be no larger than the minimum required." "This exemption does not apply to light wells and exterior basement stairwells which are not required by adopted Building or Fire Codes." I am asking for a greater number of windows from the basement accommodated by larger window wells than the minimum required by Fire Code. See Attachment 2-Curley Variance Package 1. Number of windows allowed from basement from larger window wells in setback In our current design, it is possible and desirable to allow windows for the bathrooms as well. This is achieved with a larger window well than the minimum 9 square foot to accommodate 4 windows, instead of 2 windows. They are the minimum sized to accommodate the additional windows into the bathrooms also. 2. Egress stair from the basement meeting its own dimensional standard and allowed to comply with egress requirement by compliance to egress requirement per IRC-R310.2.1. The stair from the basement bedroom as an allowed option for egress by the Fire Code, and allowed in the setback as long as it meets the minimum dimensional requirement for that element. This has been done all over the neighborhood and even recent past. r,.,*-V, + J MAY 0 3 2016 RESPONSE TO REVIEW CRITERIA - DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision -making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and Response: We think that the requests are in keeping with all these and the status quo of the built environment in Smuggler Park. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Response: What is shown in Attachment 2-Curley Variance Package is the minimum variance to provide for objects allowed in the setback next to each other and provide for more windows with larger window wells. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: Response: Not being allowed larger and more window wells in the Smuggler Park Smuggler Park subdivision has big ramifications to what the homeowner can achieve as far as light and ventilation and a livable basement. There are examples of this setback utilization all over the Park. See Attachment 3-Pictures a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: Smuggler Park is in its own Zone District and many of the Parks homes have these items in their setbacks out of necessity. r MAY p 3 2016 r DISCUSSION: We see the combined uses in the Setback that are allowed per their own dimensional standards per the Land Use Code, as benign in the Smuggler Park Subdivision no matter where the finding of this official Interpretation ends up. This is because the Mobile Home Park layout of Smuggler Park is unique to the entire City of Aspen. See Attachment 4-Plat Diagram To reiterate from the proposed Smuggler Park PD Amendment currently under Review by City Staff: "Park homes are typically developed with a 0-foot setback along one side and at least 10 feet along the remaining side. This enables the side yard to function as the primary outdoor space but is the only meaningful area to provide daylight and required access to a basement level" Adjacent homes don't have any combined use or access to each others sideyards. Neighbors don't care what is done in each other's sideyards. That isn't the case in traditional subdivisions that are laid out to have a minimum specified spacing between homes that is "shared". Hence, this isn't an egregious use of the sideyard between neighbors here, and uniquely here. Elements are built in the setback with grade changes all over the Smuggler Park. See Attachment 3-Pictures One of the neighbors in the Subdivision commented this way: "Regarding the combination of features in the setback — I would support your point and believe they should allow it. It might encourage excavated areas in the side setback, however —just because a space is excavated does not make it unusable. The rationale is flawed in my opinion. Generally, if the area is to be excavated, it's to allow features in the excavated area which could be just as useable as a side yard —just a different use. Who are they to tell us that one use is better than another? It's personal choice. The useable space still exists —just at a different grade. Per the Variance items, where are there other cases in the City where properties are constrained to the extent that they have to use the setbacks for these items? Window wells and egress stairs in most/all other subdivisions are not in their setbacks. Generally a basement isn't limited to one egress window from each bedroom because the building footprint isn't adjacent to its setback. This is a case, once again, where the Smuggler Park is uniquely platted as a mobile home park and the building footprint is adjacent to the setback. In a traditional subdivision, it makes sense to try to keep large window well areas to a minimum in a setback because it is adjacent to the neighbor's setback and the intention is to provide a minimum unobstructed space between the buildings as "shared". That is never the case in the Smuggler Park Subdivision. It is the case that the Smuggler Park subdivision is unique and unto itself in the City of Aspen in the R3 Zone, so that the items will cause no hardship to the neighborhood if granted. Conversely, if not granted there will be a hardship to me, as a homeowner, as well as future homeowners looking to redevelop here. Please reconsider the Planning Department's current Interpretation in this case and Smuggler Park cases moving forward, and consider these Variance items for my project and perhaps for the Smuggler Park cases in their PD update as to not have to seek variance after variance on the same items. 10'5ETBAGK / LINE PROPERTY LINE 2,45 1.12 5cl ft LOT AREA 5' SETBACK —I� N3o•,s'3oe . LINE 50" GRADE 30" GRADE E OF R C OVE RHAN CHANGE PLA14TE CHANGE PLANTER r r -7 100'-0" 97 "6 r 92'-9°- -tf '-1 112 r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — • I CODE MINIMUM CODE MINIMUM i CODE M11 - - - --`- m WINDOW WELL WINDOW WELL I WINDOW WELL , r i r r I I r r I Z I r r r r i 30" GRADE I -ON Ge r CHANGE PLANTER rr I r 2 PARKI) rr r 5PACE S $ r r I I I I s r I l 59349'7 t•ry 11.0 ,' I EDGE OF ROOF OVERHANG PO bm 8783 Awn. CcLowo 81612-8783 970-846.6807 LVLIE.GAMI:L@GMAILCC)M 1 /811 = 1 1-011 B R A O gRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC. ELIIOTT Curley Appeal - AS-101 970.927.7620 —Attachment 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2FAY 0 4 2016 BASALT, C081621 Site Plan c -.._ , N 04/25/16 brad�bearchited.com ``� . 14 O N O G LU N LU E u D ° u O N Q O J U Gl W N d J O � C3 N O O Q ep m M O an 1] C�- <O ac � ae u. 30" &RAPE f 4'- 9' ^EL GO bm 8785 given. C.c zwo 81612-8785 nP 970-846-6807 LUUt . CAM F1@GMAIL.CCM B R A D BRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC. E L L I O T T 970.927.7620 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@ bea rch itect.corn Curley Appeal - Attachment 1 a Section Window Well 3/811 = 11-011 A-3 02 MAY 0 4 2(, 04/25/16 30"GRADE f 1'-1 1 / 2 " WIND W/EGRESS STAI PO bm 8783 givrA Canwwo 81612-8783 970-846-6807 L.VL1C.GAMtl®6MAa_.00M E L RI 1 OA 1 DT BRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC. 970.927.7620 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@bearchitect.com Curley Appeal — AttachmentI Section Door Well 3/8" = 1'-0" A-301 MAY 0 4 << 04/25/16 A/Rn C LCRAoo 81612-8783 97Q$d6-6807 LI%Ar.GAMCL@GMAIL GCM e n n o BRAD ELLIOTTRCHITECT, INC. Curley Appeal ELLIOTT 970.927.7620 620 —Attachment 1 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@bearchitect.com Section Landscape Well 3/811 = 11-011 A-303 04/25/16 r- LO r CO (00 al LO N T Y rr C� C_ L cz ai V CD -0 0 O� U ca s CZ cn 'W^ ^^,, V ) W 'A cn 0 Q Q O a- r C E L U (0 i V 2 G LL W N F W C H C 03 N N J" Q W Y O Q 00 L J r, v 01 W N d J Q1 n N O r, fli Q R 00 at C. 00 -0 C � <O ec j m u� n U r-' Ln N O co T co \ CO N T Q O c.o 0 N .Tr O Q Lo Q� L U) u z t - LJ N f- W CC H C � N V N Q iy l0 W p N l0 Y U m n cc wneia 0 rn a 'ACD o Q m nom o m -0 • W K uw x� �A oz < m� M jLq CEO � AO r Q O 0 N O Q C N L U 1 N rj Q I QD CL � ctS U Q C to nz—C O d LU zld- J lu O r�Ulo ulQwDL IL V to < z pQ zz Q� z � C W -0 Cp �6XJ W N F W V A V L OC v1 N �' Q t0 g LLI s o^�o W d N J � Ol Q N ,n m 0n O 00 .n O �- <O • rl— N 11 W T— i El Ce O N O Q c a) E t U m M CL Q Q L V v T L J N \ 0 z G w w N F- uw H v � � N C) r4 0 u J U W rq a J V N D CD p n N Q I 01 O 00 -0 C� r QO ee m �u 10'5ETBACK / LINE PROPERTY LINE 5' 5ETBACK LINE 50" GRADE CHANGE PLA —_ -r - r 97-6 WINDOW WELL ----� r r r n" I Z 50" GRADE �E / CHANGE PLANTER r r r I �EV6EOF OVERHANG PO box 8783 A/RK CaarADo 81612-8783 970-846-6807 LFJLIE.GAMI:L@GMAIL.00I'1 s R A D BRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC E LLI DTT 970.927.7620 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@bearchitect.com 2,45 1.1 2 5q, ft LOT AREA 50" GRADE rz E OF R C rE WINDOW WELL GRANGE PLANTER OV RHAN rr 100'-01, += r I I I WINDOW WELL W/ I I EGRESS STAIR _ r r r r I r f r r r r r r 2 PARKI) I SPACE 5 r r r ry I r I r r h I Curley Variance— Attachment 2 Site Plan MAY 0 4 2016 AS-101 04/25/16 r1 c 0 m 9 LLB -1�—A co W w J a U U O CO T N N 1 \ O T GO O N O Q t N C N E t U � C Q p I � U a) c s CIO > cz a � a L- V 50" GRADE -7'-6" KNDOIN EGRESS 5TA1 PO 0cx 8783 kTTA Cajmwo 81612-8783 13 970-846-6807 LJr/ LIf..GAMEL@GMAIL.00t1 B R A D BRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC. Et II OTT 970.927.7620 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@bearchitect.com 3/811 = 1'-011 Curley Variance - Attachment2 A-301 Section Door Well MAY 0 4 201E 04/25/16 30" 6RADE 4'-9" WEL PO bca 878J A/TrA CarnADO 81612-8783 970-8466807 Lff Jt .GAMEL@GMAIL.CC)t1 a a A D BRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC E LLI OTT 970.927.7620 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@bearchitect.com 3/811 = 1 '-011 Curley Variance- Attachment 2 A-302 Section Window Well MAY 0,t zu; 04/25/16 30" GRADE �- GHANGE PLANTER PO Bca 8783 A/srA C.anwo 81612-8783 970.8466807 a a A D BRAD ELLIOTT ARCHITECT, INC. E LLI OTT 970.927.7620 0204 PARK AVE. SUITE 2F BASALT, CO 81621 brad@bearchitect.com 3/8 11 - 1 1_011 Curley Variance- Attachment2 A-303 Section Landscape Well MAY 0 4 2016 04/25/16 r �O V � 1 I Ce O N 'IRV O Q v C N E L U Em U) o O _0 a) L a) L cd ,� J O a)E �-0/'� VJ Z cn co L a (� O i V T Ln N \ Nt C) LL LO ♦/c/6� \LI T v C N E L U LII Q SAE o^ �UY00 A g N C N E L U (O 0 W tU C m .L \m _cu L. U z•� T LO N \ O Q cu U U) 70 C cu _J s U) U Z G LL N F W E V Q N N t Q LZ �O GoQ�s N 0 V J u N CD N O O Q fs 00 C1 O m Zi TO V • 1 M co 0 N O Q v C N E L V c0 Q W V _m L \m V L . '0 W-M-1 M.j 14 irk � •�� :fir•. '� f. (+ - - f' d.ws i M' r jr I � 1 3 %Yi r• I t t r ^ N r 't• `> 4. ka •1, w 4V )y: Not optimized for high quality printing L . J& FIM 4: MAY 0 3 2016 Proof Copy: Not optimized for high quality printing or digital distribution rim i I 41 44d r Ab. F-j IAN, Owl' MAY 0 3 2016 Proof Copy: Not optimized for high quality printing or digital distribution �!i N Proof Copy: Not optimized for high quality printing or digital distribution s ..4A .4-fir.4t T I i MAY 0 3 2016 r.,_.r.-,.., . ". ., ;. ;_ .a r., I,igh quality printing or dig F� • a ig Proof Copy: Not optimized for high quality printing or digital distribution 10 Proof Copy: Not optimized for high quality printing or digital distribution -14 S. f _ -i.�i. Ir,.s r .i . ..r ' r J �� • r. Proof Copy: Not optimi:zed for high quality printing or digital distribution F:j • Ni AY* 3 dpdm pr- I TA vr �9lI►t;i _ �' -77 Y ''i T i .. ;�•. 7ST fir. . }� GJ�Ii. •. t. f.. �A ti���`^• a 00 AW Proof Copy: Not optimized for high quality printing or digital distribution ILI r. - 41 4f* IL N4 " v7- NO, a a move 13S .0-.OL ..0-.SZ MOtre 13S .0-.OL .0-.4Z Now 13S .0-.OL .0-.45 .0-.4Z i LL I m I 'X ca VLL 2 H H O } N gY ZV Om _SF- ZU) �o c� wZ O� w m O m movs .0-•w Now Now .0-•21P move movs .0-.s. mmm 13S 13S 13S 13S 13S 13S .0-.OL .0-.4Z .0-.0L .0-.OL .0-.SZ .0-.OL .0-.OL .0-.4Z .0-.OL I r••+ I I I p I I LL I I I I I I I Xi i I I i I I I I i x ym Jennifer Phelan From: Jennifer Phelan Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:34 PM To: 'Leslie D. Gamel' Subject: RE: land use application HI Leslie: I'm not going to write another pre-app. I would just amend your application with any updated drawings that you feel are important and submit a supplemental letter responding to the variance criteria I included in the email. Also ask for a combined review. We will process the two requests together and bill against the deposit you have already submitted. Just make sure the application is set up the way you want both written and graphically. Best regards, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained n this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or jested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Leslie D. Gamel [mailto:leslie.gamel@gmail.comj Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:13 PM To: Jennifer Phelan <jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com> Subject: RE: land use application Hi Jennifer, Ok I will go with your advice. I will completely resubmit the material for the appeal (and variance as we have incorporated a suggestion from Chris Bendon for clerestory windows in the basement rooms so the design has changed. And we will show the window wells differently that I have previously. And we will change the written material also. Do I have to respond to a pre-app provided by you for a variance also, separately from the appeal that I have already completed and paid for but am changing the content for? Thanks for your help, Leslie D. Curley -co-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 • • Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Jennifer Phelan [ma iIto: Jennifer.phelan(abcityofaspen.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:05 PM To: Leslie D. Gamel Subject: land use application HI Leslie: My suggestion at this point is to request dimensional variance for the additional window wells from City Council and Appeal the land use code interpretation on the aggregation of features. Since council reviews dimensional variances you can request to combine both reviews so that they are heard solely by City Council. Part of the request needs to be for the additional egress wells that are not required by building code. Please respond to the following criteria with regard to variances: Dimensional Variances A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision - making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) "f here are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels. structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. or b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms oI this "Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels.. buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Since we already received a deposit from you, we will just bill against the deposit. However, I would suggest that you review the material you submitted and ensure that it shows what you want with regard to your request and the number of window wells that you would like. Your application is in my office, feel free to drop by and review the material on file. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Jennifer Phelan 5� V' From: Jennifer Phelan Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 12:03 PM To: 'Leslie D. Gamel' Subject: RE: pre -application summary Hi Leslie: Any unused deposit is always returned to the applicant. Best regards, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Leslie D. Gamel [mailto:leslie.gamel@gmail.comj Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:38 AM To: Jennifer Phelan <jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com> Subject: RE: pre -application summary Hi Jennifer, Yes you can keep the deposit for that. Can you let me know if that is refundable if I don't ever pursue the Appeal and the rules for the toll. Thanks, Leslie D. Curley Eco-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Jennifer Phelan [mailto:Jennifer.phelan(a)cityofaspen.com] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:05 AM To: Leslie D. Gamel Subject: RE: pre -application summary Hi Leslie: I'm willing to toll the application but you will need to maintain the $1,300.00 application deposit with the city. Please let me know today how you want to proceed. Thank you, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable. the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Leslie D. Gamel[rnailto:leslie.gamel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:38 PM To: 'Leslie D. Gamel' <Leslie.Gamel@Gmail.com>; Jennifer Phelan <Jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com> Subject: RE: pre -application summary Also, I would like to put a "toll" on the appeal. Can you let me know the steps to do that? Thanks, Leslie D. Curley Eco-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Leslie D. Gamel[ma iIto: Leslie. GamelCd)Gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:19 PM To: 'Jennifer Phelan' Subject: RE: pre -application summary Hi Jennifer, Thanks for the quick response. From what I know today I would like to withdraw my Appeal. Can you just tear up the check? And I will not be submitting for a variance at this time. Thanks again, Leslie D. Curley Eco-ARCH, LLC PO Box 8783 Aspen, Colorado 81612-8783 970-846-6807 From: Jennifer Phelan [ma iIto: Jennifer.phelanCcbcityofaspen.com] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:16 PM To: Leslie D. Gamel Subject: pre -application summary HI Leslie: We cannot release pre -application summaries except to the owner or owner's representative. In this case it is your HOA (president) that is considered the owner. I don't believe the pre -application summary has been written yet. Best regards, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. 0 0 !RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION JAN 12 2016 rROJEC7: PEN a Name: J 1 '� n'�p marmff ladLocation: U &- U lliv 0 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, le al descri i here appropriate) Parcel ID #(REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Address: © D E R r. �, 0 M6 Phone #: +c) tGC, i i y 0 A6HEN DEVELOPMENT tEPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: TvPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment' Other: ❑ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existin buildin s, uses previous approvals, etc. fAnn -evj��ry\trv\ 6or If— L>'�Idpnex rim ROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, triodifications, etc. J t LIU, a rve you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 66), CC) re -Application Conference Summary Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 85" X 11" must he folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your prc-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 92r-ire I w l:f%12 Agreement to Pay Application Fees Anagreement between the City of Aspen("City") and , Property /-e54 G Cur Phone No.: Owner ("1"): 27 3 7 'C O !U g Email: Address of Q I„ / __ r D� M�k L*va- Billing �� 4j0X 9 TO Property: / Address: r (subject of n (�j ���j� (send bills here) application) I I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 16�JT) deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. $ 0 deposit for 0 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $275 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: �!J City Use: 0 Title: t 4NIL g Fees Due: $ Received: $ January 2015. 1 1 1• 0 • CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429.2759 DATE: 12.29.15 PROJECT: 108 Maple Lane REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie Curley DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted a request for an Interpretation with regard to the location of certain light wells and a landscape (or retaining wall) within a required yard setbacks. An Interpretation has been issued and the applicant is asking for an appeal pursuant to Section 26.575.020.1. The applicant must provide a basis for the appeal within the application. The City Council is the authority on appeals from Interpretations. As noted in the code, `a decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its iudsdiction or abused its discretion." The applicant has 14 days from the date of the Interpretation to submit an appeal. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.316 Appeals 26.575.020 Calculations & Measurements 26.104.100 Definitions Link to the Land Use Code: httn://www.asi)enDitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanninq-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use Code/ Land Use App: http://www aspenpitkin.comiPortalsi0idocs/businessnav/ApprovaltoDevelop/Land%20Use% 20App%20Form.pdf Review by: Staff for complete application City Council for Appeal Public Hearing: Yes, at City Council Planning Fees: $1,300 Deposit for 4 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are billed at a rate of $325/hour) Total Deposit: $1,300.00 To apply, submit the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre -application Conference Summary (this document). RECEIVED JAIL P. t 4+ C11 V 01 COMMUNITY DFI/EL���Nq' ppea`li • 9 1 Wes naw,ambamsa nbt iwnemw*liariin,-Bl rskjpadi*the aqOiIinv4tttfMtAMtMsttlUe name, address and'telephone number of -the representative authorized'to act on behalf"of'the applicant. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. An 8112" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: ❑ 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. ❑ A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 82 A, January 12, 2016 Smuggler Park, Aspen Colorado A& 4�t�• tpht. Aspen Mountain e River Nc; li onol Forest Address Radius - I ►''-' ' L'�- • Address Point .1 ( ID� iY)N�L Q14, (� �� rn�� PPH P PV `z l Ajenu smuggie., 0 C. x CL 1:39,521 0 0.325 0$5�.;.,......L3 mi .e� � 11 . d 0 0.5 f°` m C 2010 NAVTEO CAND © 2016 Miro.� R Gprpora on 201 U5 EPA ++/""111) Generated from. Cleanups in My Comr a l' 1*1ea��printed.�Ti COMMUNITY DEVELOrdy Map Improvement Survey 1) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 108, SMUGGLER MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 14, 1987 IN PLAT BOOK 19 AT PAGE 61 AS RECEPTION NO. 288794 AND THE PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 20 AS RECEPTION NO. 352684 AND THE PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 26, 2000 IN PLAT BOOK 54 AT PACE 71 AS RECEPTION NO. 448MB AND THE PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 2, 2001 IN PLAT BOOK 55 AT PAGE 54 AS RECEPTION NO. 450166 IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 2) BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF S44'29'22'E BETWEEN A FOUND fS REBAR AT THE N.W. PROPERTY CORNER AND A FOUND REBAR AND YPC LS/ 9184 AT THE N.E. PROPERTY CORNER. 3) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR. TITLE INFORMATION RELIED UPON FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY FURNISHED BY ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, COMMITMENT NO, 14003323, DATED 11/5/2014. 4) SETBACKS TAKEN FROM THIRD AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECEPTION NO. 352683. FRONT YARD SETBACK: MINIMUM SETBACK IS ZERO FEET. THERE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE EIGHT FOOT LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROADSIDE CURB TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR OFF STREET PARKING. SIDE YARD SETBACK: THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET ON ONE SIDE AND A MINIMUM OF ZERO FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE. REAR YARD SETBACK: MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. Legend #5 REBAR Q NO CAP INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED. Q INDICATES SET MONUMENT LS/ 37972 YPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP UNDERGROUND WATER LINJE 1M.1 WATER METER SCALED FROM PLAT BK_ 1GM GAS METER ACTUAL POSITION NOT LO CABLE RISER FOR THIS SURVEY' C3--B El FENCE LINE LOT 106 HOUSE 10.0' SETBACK REC/ 352683 DECK 6.4' 5.0' Irv. 5.0' SETBACK REC# 352683 l� 9 8.7' LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT REC/ 352683 �B F h hh. CARPORT / o \ / LOT 108 3,151 SQ.FT.+ TRAILER / / / / A AI LOT 110 YPC / LS# 9184 / / / / / CONCRETE _ 0.5' ROOF OVERHANG ROCKY MOUNTAIN SURVEYING 37972 4133 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD CARBONDALE CO. 81623 YPC DA TB: 12-8- 970-379-1919 ILLEGIBLE // DATE SURVEYED: 11/2014 FUE NO. 14554 AL LAB I, MICHAEL P. LAFFERTY, HEREBY CERTIFY TO LESLIE GAMEL (BUYER) THAT i �l Ttry' THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT PERFORMED NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must Zon-irn- i» ___ _ ___ _. _.. _ .. .__. __ —._ __ _ _____.___ ____. __ I•uvl v,-N..n hvv,vl un.m vndrf�-im�h.<u w-ihm �h� COMMUNITY DEVELOPME NT R is r— — a — STATEMENT O� �J UBDIVISION NOTE AND GRANT OFEASEMENTS p� r _--_— no .w w ne+Yso ra ne yas � imc eo. w, .o• s..as n•ona m.., r�rtw.n..rvw r+w� n I AR 2 'c`< "� "r« a.' :na�On>a ""`i"•` ocav�""'�. n no c w Krm. lb nn,>noew eu. rveair ..o n.a,> N01.57'O'C 9of t7 ec.wo- r Kos �e.ommo�.ao.wa„c Je, .WIpK Kyle rOt> o11K'a 1 MOQD•t nMnM M1!� MNi K®Y YORM[OLNtD R 15 5%aga4 m"`eaw�w woo K"«�"em ND Y' 70 71 m rc f. « 72 73 y 8 ,� �b'�'t ies.@ aen'25'•sst coo � �m+�.o.�.,.«,V. �,e.�.�w�.x,.d...w;,r•, _---, 44 �� %�` - _ _ M un K�a.•.aa.>s mee<T n r poor •.we --- '' - { v.� C 4a Sj rw ..v � .•rr�•,o ..w> ro o +c r+oien rem: e---_-- noun, 4m �� � �� � !• mm�ro w.>'i_��1,.rs.�ynl. .nee \\\ g 74 42 75 D -1 N PARCEL D _ 43 s7 76 E P EL o moo ° ,� � � ' � . LPG, 77 F i2 `,i r��de n.�e�\ z emoll►�et ` 56 58 K 78 G P ��ooL*r wMCH 3 �. r r� a�u t��p mOF to 59 0 43 60 ` H 79 Q in 9 J•' . 61 -\ `• w awzc.+ o�.,re>��aA� _ C.Q.r..� 28 2 15 0 ` ` CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL.- s>AGu 62 30 cam* 47 \ 1 81 16 c^i 63 �. \ 81 K 31 17 33 48 B3 1 ` 19 ` PLANNING AND ZONING 51 66 PARKS APPROVAL COMMISSION APPROM4L h- 2 20 34+ x •>.. x.eo..eor n+eeu.. x .:r.. >+w. aa..,... o. �.ana .oa: wus nw...n> bT 3 21 40 52 67 R 30 y� 4 22 36 53 1.� 1 5 Z3 37 y \\ RECORDING CERTIFICATE ASPEN CITY CCKRJCII APPROVAL /� (] \ N �M ]R'rv«,rav M r w. 'vet."Y�.<>tP,• •IN S Y�aMu •ss[r¢c ®'er+e w V D 6 24 31ti 38 Ss PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 7-� 25 39 �� i�S 15 R .6u 3>: Y`�� ilYa 6111idOLC 8 sty O 3-2r-e'A. 1 Ew 26 `\ g 41 ° cnur...o « a «nr a x om ror . meww. i nunnnry c�w«m b .wa.e- f eer.....r woe. w a o.,.n wTrort,�,wne .Donor. 4< g8 a� GB�'V SON ENl1E EASEMENTS +K•<c e.•ecnw een �. �.s 10 iK rror n,rcw Dwa .oc wia�' '� , T,n•.c••,> � moo... n.�or. co.e.�> o �a,a... natc wn,on. , inurna•« i�a. rerf�poaT oae •owv 11 «'/« 87 C/ooKwrAQ.nr.s..<.m.c.on. ion o..e • *oca •n�a•� vt ci . mxcw asw c.,wr �8`� ., � c M«¢ ra�•4N'M '�M RnbNa�t ro Mar u nxa ,arra,e .00r.n.: 12 `j ..."`•.. MKe <Nn� [tt, Ru ? 86 \ W[.MICNTD �f.i. oe.m pArdvnsrtwn[ w•'d'° a da o.aw 13 m:..aro+.m4 »^ _ R 14 ems• `rP �r'Nyo SMUGGLER CEL B ` a°ggMyya ® -MOM HOME PARK x•rc m i .a"°em B: f FAY�EFfTC s..we.o ..i.a..r+.ar.<�r�<ertu. di e6ae 9. R iS tl�q ��fy��.:•e m .�. o.�z ��'1�t�j t1 1�[�¢ "r ...• ..�i �� e. Mice TIeQ,�YMM � GY .[tf •n a �4�1.� / \ Mrn ��Wy/e'v p� � •H e� H�H .00rtrerr. �� Rh F l R(MI ]MY' ' IEo rQlbH•CtiTo A'�',� y �Q.. �N R uA ..,.. MONOOFOGWNs SPRUCE STREET EASEMENT ` a Sl1RVEYM'S CERTIFICATE N'%"# 7e > a a4 •«^ >��roo � r Mw "" "` Z e'*"^�� --�� n� '�o""re•w .> .> Mom' mbr��a�.o m`, .busn r .n.,.. VICNTY MAP .,w..r.x ��yK®r auta•i'•W � \ «� mi<r. n<r ��_ �' wren. Hire a1,ox awn awa...+.�. AIOY»91/rM 0"�+'/ o.e. ++nu """" rc" .�xtt,i eonwc�0un " n:. �� Bl 177 cftw SHEET i OF 2 JAB! 2 0 LL'.b CIi Y cal COMMUNITY DB/F. T -- .AW%. F.3PQ NOTE eAAN TOF FOF �S 1r0 Mt W ncp[iP q[ M ad[ 11irOK O (RAW MM'aS A. P ([�� � P lPID bl rY.ip IQr Ia TK �.aM q0/ aN W+M1Ct ItrpNO w[At A�l[w WMW+ ANi OHPN D[r[IIN DQ.L HOa[ela a M r<<X Illf[RY! 4tpfp7 rfJ![M AR 2 ii°,d Dr +atP.< weae raae> as n.e � .n.w,t ur ���� r� Aw nu�Oi C(��vw��w �mr'e ROn �10[GO4Wm YO :f[�rFrtID a4 rQLY iHbfM. 4W 4re0. AttiL, /.1 M are��m t1K4 U4. ya� mM�o+ a toaf[c� o wo t1e7 N PARCEL D D 10 EC Max[) E F O ioarAat�rrr d _a J W i ur.1 Mw`a� G P .o-iiw�co�� a[�t4 D.hrrx °D 78 w, mwr'qqtar orPffwm l� ••'16. H 79 1 O . PH.r net a �eece'i r +'.i xrel wnwm. wav�°..+[w 1 •A to a ��� Ds+cea/D _ .0..r.<� CITY ENGBiEER[S APPROVAL- ^t*u pp � � ,, 1 -- ,,.�• 61 K ♦ in9 a r nea 82 65 83 P404G AND ZONING 66 PARKS APPROVAL COMMISSION APPRROWLL 67 ue r...>ewen. nAr a 'J[rK:y[_N rrercl jjp� Asty trf - a y^aer, o'ap"�pm.an�rw M �.�'➢er. nx . 1DQ � 3 54 69 55 �* 41 Be a[T R15 DUPJ OF B ARIND . wnsnttw� nw ,e swat �incr maoaw •.wrx• ar +or. m,n RECORDING CERTIFICATE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL R 15 GIBSON NENUE EASEMENTS neAt, oge.[o., q,P.,• WOiCNTA Ir+w.�[wlaw.w rm raaarwN o.re _�� �PTM Mtf [[i Dee w.NtP FA WWC Iwwsalntan•v+.arK s....[yerar H.n wr' t�rPr qo rmb H vrt v wrens. SPRUCE STREET EASEMENT evc ww+A —1 ��w� yls y['br.w�..iawY.n Mra w T1 N[ n� rrt2'[�c>'a �o[.rt a� tlTiu[wN. VICINITY MAP • si...ws .m s. wet Aelris .eu ..ar.n. ra.a tfr 81 177 FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SMUGGLER MOBILE HOME PARK SHEET 1 OF 2 • LESLIE D CURLEY • January 12, 2016 Mayor and City Council of Aspen City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado RE: Interpretation of City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.575 Part 500 — Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements, Measuring Setbacks, 5. Allowed Projections into Setbacks Dear Mayor Scadron and City Council Members, The attached proposed design for 108 Maple Lane in the Smuggler Park Subdivision, shows a light well and adjacent planter in the setback, which are both allowed, under section E. Measuring Setbacks, 5. Allowed Projections into Setbacks in section 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.575 Part 500 — Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations. There are many other examples of this in Smuggler Park, and post 1995 easily. The most current planning Department stance in denying the window wells being adjacent to the planters in our design is that, `the proposed features, landscape wall and light wells, separately, but adjacent to each other' "effectively increase the allowable size of the light well". We disagree. We don't see how the design violates this or "aggregates" these elements at all, and especially to the degree that it "effectively" (a subjective word) increases the size of my light well. We're showing light wells that are 3'x3' with its own wall separated from the landscaping wall by a 3' wide strip of dirt 6' away from the window. The landscape wall is 30" below the walkway, which is allowed. The landscape wall is a separate element and in no way makes my light well bigger. What is wrong with the fact that these being next to each other allow for more light and ventilation?? That is design. The example you all point out in Section B. Limitations. 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.575 Part 500 — Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations that states "distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual structural component.". This doesn't say that both can't be present in the design or adjacent; just that both/either cannot exceed each of their own limitations. So in the example, if a design showed a garage with a deck on top, both the garage and deck would need to be 10' away from the property boundary and putting the deck on top of the garage would make the deck 5' further back from the property line than if were built on its own. Simple.cc e A �� �i�• I — w� If we built light wells and landscape wall separately, like with a walkway in between them, my landscape wall would still be limited to 30" below grade. The light wells would be the size they are shown now except taller because the grade level meeting those window wells would be higher. The current Planning Departments interpretation only makes the window well wall to be taller, hence, making a deeper window well. �.;CEIVECj PO BOX 8783 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81612 AN ( 0 2016 9 7 0. 8 4 6. 6 8 0 7 L E S L I E. G A N1 F 1. (i� G bf A 1 L. C 0 Nf GI Y O A61HEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFNT • LESLIE D CURLEY • The Planners that made the "departments call" on this, and I, specifically spoke about the undesirability of building a window well as a deep narrow hole prior to them making this official call. ?? This is a situation where the Smuggler Park Subdivision configuration should be considered exempt — and have been treated as such until now.? I can't speak to where there are cases in the City where properties are constrained to the extent that they have to use the setbacks for these things. Window wells in most/all other subdivisions are most probably not in their setbacks and/or moving the building envelope is not a hardship. The whole reason we are showing them adjacent to each other as has been done in many other cases in the Park is to allow more light via terracing and planters; and further to provide impervious paving that keeps each lots own storm water on -site as the engineering department is mandating in much more elaborate ways at the end of the day anyway. We are trying to do what is allowed in the code to provide the most functional and livable design that ends up being a good showcase of what the code allows. This interpretation of the current Calculations and measurements section of the City of Aspen Land Use Code ignores the intent of the conglomeration of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code with its Building and Energy Code. Where is the insight into requiring a window in a bedroom (and a bathroom where possible) of having the window solely for the purpose of egress? A window, in addition to accommodating egress, is supposed to allow daylight and ventilation per the International Building Code (IBC). These are big investments people are making to build a home in Aspen. It is many times the biggest investment anyone makes in their whole life besides to their children. And it is for our children in many cases. The people building in Smuggler Park typically have less resources that others that are building more elaborate and most possibly 2nd homes in this valley with more monies to pay for variances and PD amendments. Please reconsider the Planning Departments current interpretation in this case and Smuggler Park cases moving forward. I would also ask that there also be relief under j26.575.020(E)(5)(i.) Allowed Projections into the Setbacks on "The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement stairwells as required or adopted Building Fire Codes as long as these features are entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade(s) closest to the street. If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be no larger than the minimum required." In my current design as shown, it is possible and desirable to allow windows for the bathrooms as well as larger lightwell areas into the bedrooms for living. That would be how I choose to use my 10' setback, with no hardship to the neighbors. ' Sincerely, Leslie D Curley Encl. PO BOX 8783 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81612 9 7 0. 8 4 6. 6 8 0 7 L E S I. 1 E. G :\ n1 E L (w G Ni A I L C c1 M SR kill A t� on N • 0 o� «o �j Muj H!48 AS § . o �2 � #®Q / o _ , u �• � 9) �§ $ LU Ul ■ #en �r ® » Q � a G CV C u - U O U f 0 40 ISO- I•S'6 A 2 0 5 0 uv-T 4A S FT -$ =r L -Pke-. --+p n ks JAN 202016 CII Y Or- P 1, 1--, " rnr,�'Vfl 3EM:jV9 NOVO13S t .o-.DL Y i -- � o Q N030 o w NOd813S U) b 8 ..0 - .Sb Z NOV913S ui y �s CQ 1 LJi- Y �o O U I Q I m w UY Er) () YQ w I 0 m W cn LL o c I O� w CD °o ' w Q Q� Q< LL I w O �O Qz O i J Q w I J I .0 - .sv -f w l 30VINJ ui Ll =-Z ``► MOV913S MOV1313S_ o CV a 0 .0-.0l .0-,5Z .0-.OL �' - - - - - - - - - - ♦�♦ W. ' 61 co A030 W r- � a w cn 1IOb�813S I V o CD I I Q I I m Is Y W I C/)Y L I ire U �— I U 00 W W I ca I 0 (n 0 Q I U 0 I � Q Q I Q V O ( I O I LL V w IL O I I I Q Z �O J I I J I I Q W I I I I J 0 0 Y U m p LLJ W C..) Q m - �I-- o �Wr- W U) D��nC� W O Y W ct Q �... p CD -� LL H Q00 WHO Z m p � N O CP Y U Y LLU M 3JV'ddJ NOV813S Y /� \\l, O Q T J3 Q 0° NOV813S w cn .o -�.,- I I FF m N — — 13S .0AL N I II � 1 0"- cg I w CL o S LLJ Q CQonoz0 W 0 0 b b 0 LU W 0 LU Y � U Q m w U) �f)U Um w I- 0 w LL (n Oo OT--- �w oQ w� a�Qr� fn� V V U- w 0 0n a V O �z �O J J Q w J J CO r t /� v 1 •= w G r C� 0 U 0 0 v U 0 m U W � m Cn wWo W QUA �Uj< J 0 CD JLLL.L < 0 0 w�0 J z Z W C LLJ L- -. _ o J c J O U CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 26.575.020 (B), Limitations EFFECTIVE DATE: WRITTEN BY: APPROVED BY: December 24, 2015 Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director SUMMARY Staff has recently fielded an inquiry requesting clarification as to whether a landscape wall that surrounds multiple light wells is permitted as designed. The Community Development Director has initiated the Interpretation as provided for in Chapter 26.306, Interpretations of Title. PURPOSE The purpose of this Interpretation is to clarify whether the design of the two features can be combined as it relates to the city's Calculations and Measurements section of the Land Use Code. DISCUSSION The Calculation and Measurements section of the Land Use Code outlines the allowances and limitations for measuring such items as height, floor area, and setbacks when development occurs within the city. With regard to setbacks, a "required setback shall be unoccupied and unobstructed within the area extending horizontally, from the parcel boundary to the setback line and vertically above and below grade, excepting allowed projections as described." The landscape wall (that can also be considered a retaining wall) and light wells are located within the required side yard setback. Citation 1. SubSection 26.575.020(E)(5)(i) outlines that "the minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement stairwells as required by dopted Building or Fire Code" (emphasis added) is allowed to project into the setback. This allowance requires the light wells meet two standards: that the light well be the minimum size permitted by code and that the light well is required for egress by code. Citation 2. SubSection 26.575.020(E)(5)(k) outlines that "uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks, landscape walls, earthen berms, retaining walls, steps, and similar structures, which do not exceed thirty inches vertically above or below natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive" are permitted to project into a setback. Page 1 of 3 Citation 3. Subsection 26.575.020(B), Limitations, notes that "the prescribed allowances and limitations, such as height, setbacks, etc. of distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual component." Citation 4. Section 26.104.100, Definitions, defines a Light Well as "an outdoor uncovered space developed below grade of the surrounding ground which provides egress from a basement or lower level of a building as required by adopted building or fire codes." INTERPRETATION Individually, both landscape walls and light wells are permitted to be located within the required setback as long as the landscape wall does not exceed a certain height allowance and a light well is both required by building code and meets the minimum dimensions necessary to accommodate egress (Citation 1). For example, a light well is not permitted to be located within a required setback if the light well is the minimum dimensions permitted by building code but not required for egress by the code (such as a light well for a bathroom) or if required by the code, exceeds the minimum dimensions permitted. When the two features are combined, as shown in the plan view in Figure 1 below, the Limitations subsection of the code in Citation 3 becomes applicable to the proposed features. By combining the landscape wall design with the light wells, the two features become combined. The area between the landscape wall, which retains natural grade, and the light wells is used as part of the circulation path for egress from the basement to access natural grade. The landscape wall provides necessary egress circulation for the light well, essentially becoming part of the light well design. Thus the landscape wall allows for a light well area that supersedes the minimum size limitation permitted per code and is not permitted. Figure 1: Plan view !S aiR..t'SGw.n� `- ,,a I Setback line Page 2 of 3 0 r iuure L: Section view v�v � 111111111 .ate i EE ���i��� :: APPEAL OF DECISION As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda item. 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination. Page 3 of 3