Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030218 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES (January 21, 2003 and February 4, 2003) III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. OLD BUSINESS A. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD RESOLUTION REVIEW, Scott Woodford V. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DANCING BEAR (411 S. MONARCH) LODGE PRESERVATION PUD, REZONING, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, SUBDIVISION, TIMESHARE, James Lindt, continued from 2/4 (please bring staff memo and application materials from 2/4 meeting) B. PARCEL 4, TOP OF MILL 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DRAC VARIANCES, Scott Woodford C. TIPPLE LODGE GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION. AND TIMESHARE EXEMPTION, Scott Woodford- continue to 3/4 if needed ~_.O~'r~ ~ ~-~* VI. BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN Tr4-V'--A G RESOLUTION NO. 049 (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE, AND A CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273 7-182-96033 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Land Fund, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment for the Residences at Little Nell Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Timeshare approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affordable housing mitigation and replacement units for the Residences at Little Nell; and WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD, Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on December 3, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to January 7, 2003, by a five to zero (5-0) vote. At the January 7, 2003 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and voted six to zero (6-0) to continue the project to January 21, 2003. At the January 21, 2003 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and voted five to zero (5-0) to continue the project to February 4, 2003. At the February 4, 2003 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development by a four to zero (4-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD, Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Special Planned Area Amendment approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD, Timeshare, and Special Planned Area Amendment Application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Rezoning, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota System, Special Review, Specially Planned Area, Condominiumization, 8040 Greenline and Timeshare, approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, The Commission finds that the development review standards for a Conceptual PUD plan have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development, Conceptual Timeshare, and Conceptual Specially Planned Area Amendment for the Residences at Little Nell allowing a 109,500 square foot, multi -story structure to consist of 30 timeshare units, l condominium unit, 4 affordable housing units, approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial and ancillary space and a 72 space sub -grade parking garage. Section l: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Conunission, as described above. 2. The Final PUD application shall include: a. An application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for parking, Growth Management Quota System, Specially Planned Area Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, Timeshare, Condominiumization. A pre -application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application; b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. c. A proposed subdivision plat and PUD plans. d. A construction plan describing tinning of construction components, areas of disturbance, contractor parking, and a physical plan for maintaining adequate access, including emergency access, to land uses remaining active during construction shall be provided with the Final PUD application. e. A detailed phasing plan that describes overall timing of specific project phases, including the off -site improvements to Dean Avenue and the moving of the Little Nell chairlift, and describing construction affects on the neighboring properties. 3. Based on comments from the DRC meeting on November 13, 2002, the applicant shall: a. Consult with the City Engineer in order to comply with all required permits and standards. b. Consult with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District in order to comply with all required permits and standards. 4. Prior to submitting an application for a Final PUD, the applicant shall make the following revisions to the plan: a.. Building Height: Lower the heights of the lodge building, specifically the portions of the building on the southern side of the site as the site begins to climb up the hillside and the portion that reaches the height of 53' as shown on the east elevation. The goal is to have the structure better conform to the heights of the surrounding structures and not be so prominent on the hillside. In addition, the height of the restaurant is a concern on the part of the neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Commission, so the applicant shall work with the North of Nell Condominium Association to find consensus regarding the location and height of the restaurant. b. Building Mass: The mass of the building shall be additionally broken up with more "teeth", or visual variety, of the roofline. Reduce mass in the southwest corner of the building to provide buffer to neighbors and to reduce construction concern of large excavation being conducted so close to neighboring properties. c. Setbacks: Shift the southern portion of the lodge building to the east, to create a larger buffer space between it and the residences to the west of the property. Additional landscaping could then be added to further bolster the buffer area. d. Aff-ar-dable Housing. Either- move the figuf en site, affordable housing U+-�ts to > exhaust, the i s rr leeatio of the n �� ran using t.-, +vvmvWerra livability_ t1Y�P�XTS CLLG�iL�NCiTITI�GQ-IITIFJ livability-. u.vii� �� . (Above removed by P&Z at the 2/4- meeting) J-IA. PI rMIMMONIMMUT (Above removed by P&Z at the 214 meeting and replaced with below shaded language) (Language below aims to clarify P&Z's direction with regard to a desire for direct access f lom poste cochere to parking garage) g. Site Planning: Mitigate the vehicular and pedestrian conflicts in the area where the poste cochere is proposed ;(the corner of Dean Avenue and Galena Street} ,underground garage.: Change the traffic flow into the porte cochere from counter clockwise to clockwise to mitigate headlights shining into the North of Nell Condominium units. (Language below clarifies that the grading plan to be submitted is public information and any interested party may have access to it) 5. Grading Plan: The applicant shall submit a final grading plan (including drainage and erosion control) and a construction management plan as part of the Final PUD plan application and shall make the plan available to the North of Nell Condominium Association and other interested parties. Fumish n eepy of the f r ngfading plan to the NE)Ah ef Nell Condominium Asseeiation (of any other- iftter-ested paftdl for their- r-ey ew at least flYl!�_7 ei:,f-�, ,-�,-i�r 4� *��o �Inv„^�i,^�rr n,-�d %or,i,-err r - -� --- ----�- +� . wv avwv., vile 111V114.11 L111V1 l.V the 1 Gemmissi.,,-, moo+i,-err for the Finn PT D 1 6 (Above shaded/strikeout language as recommended by the North of Nell Condominium Association) (Above shaded language as recommended by the North of Nell Condominium Association) (Above shaded language is direction from P&Z at the 214 meeting) Section 2• This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 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. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 4, 2003. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 4, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair a -j8-a0o3 DANCING BEAR PROPOSAL WILL: • Completely dominate, overshadow and overpower all of the neighboring buildings. • Be inconsistent, in terms of style and size, with all of the new construction on this part of Durant Avenue. • Completely obliterate the view of Aspen Mt. for the Limelight Lodge, and the view of Smuggler Mt. for Southpoint Condominium. • Because of the size of the excavation relative to the setback, cause unacceptable interference with pedestrian and vehicle traffic during construction. • Because of the downward slope of Durant as it goes westward from the Durant/Monarch intersection, greatly exaggerate its overwhelming 4/5-story height as compared with the quite new 2-story Durant townhouses. (The developer/architect did not show a rendering of this aspect nor disclose the height above grade at the southwest corner.) Substantially reduce property values for the owners of Southpoint Condominiums, the new Durant Townhouses, and the Limelight Lodge. Southpoint Condominium Association February 18, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Directo$ FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plannez-'k RE: PARCEL 41 ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2003 DATE: February 18, 2003 REQUIRED AIUDFLOW DEFLECTION WALL \ 1 1 i REQUEST SUMMARY: 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One -Story Street Facing Element APPLICANT: Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos STAFF APPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DENIAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION: VARIANCES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,200 square foot single-family house on Parcel 4 of the Top of Mill Subdivision. In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must first gain 8040 Greenline Review approval. Concurrent with that action is a request for three different variances to the Residential Design Standards. Those variances are for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One -Story, Street Facing Element. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) 8040 Greenline Review; According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with specific requirements. As Parcel 4 is located within this range of elevation, this review is required; Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission 2) Residential Design Standards Variances; According to Section 26.410.020, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee; however, if there are other land use reviews necessary, the applicant may consolidate the reviews with the requisite review authority for that other land use request. In this case, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is already hearing the 8040 Greenline Review, the applicant has chosen to allow P&Z authority to review the variance requests. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Top of Mill Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on March 11, 2002. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: There has been no previous land use activity or approval on this particular parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; Staff finds the proposed single-family structure to be in compliance with the standards for 8040 Greenline Review (See Exhibit A for Staff Findings). Furthermore, staff believes that the majority of the review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review was more pertinent during design and consideration of the original subdivision, as most of the environmental impact occurs during the construction of roads, utilities and building lots. In this case, the Parcel 4 was graded into a relatively level site during the subdivision construction. The proposed home on Parcel 4 will not create any significant additional environmental impacts, such as removal of vegetation or new cut of the hillside. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards must identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The following are the different Residential Design Standards which the applicant is requesting variance from and staff response: Standard: Secondary ass. All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached f rom the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. Staff Finding: The applicant proposed no secondary mass, citing the grade changes that exist across the site, the presence of the mudflow deflection wall, the lack of historical context in the neighborhood supporting the standard, and the modernist design of the home as reasons supporting a variance from this provision (See Exhibit D for full applicant explanation for the variances). While staff understands that the requirement of a secondary mass may contrast with the applicant's proposed architectural style, we do not find the site constraints to be so limiting as to not be able to physically incorporate the secondary mass into the design. If the applicant wanted the secondary mass, the site appears to be able to accommodate it. Despite this, the criteria for approving a variance to the standards requires a finding that such variance furthers the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the exception would more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff does not find that the proposed variance meets any of the above criteria. Standard: Building orientation The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the f -ont facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 Staff Finding: The proposed structure is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoint. Given that the parcel is a flag lot and that the proposed structure will be setback 83' from the street, a slight variation in building orientation is not a large concern for staff. However, again, staff does not find that the proposal meets the strict criteria as noted above. An argument could be made that there are site constraints involved because of the flag lot situation and the fact that there really is no designated front setback, but staff believes that the orientation standard could still be met if the structure were slightly smaller in footprint and did not fill almost the entire building envelope. If the size was slightly reduced, the angle of the structure to the street could be adjusted such that it would be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the, arc of the street and then be in compliance with the provision. Standard: One story element. All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. Staff Finding: In an effort to come closer into compliance with the above provision, the applicant proposes a "floating" canopy which will be about 10' wide and project 3' out from the front facade, comprising 15% of the overall facade width. This element, while a nicely designed feature, is very small compared to the two-story facade that the canopy projects from and it is the facade that really dominates the front elevation. Staff does not feel that this complies with the spirit of the standard and does not further the AACP goals, nor provide a better solution to the goal that the standard is responding to. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on January 22, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. The City Engineering Department commented that no part of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can encroach into the 20' wide drainage and mudflow easement along the southwest edge of the property. Submitted plans showed roof eaves and a patio encroaching into the easement. The applicant stated that they will redesign the home so that there is no encroachment into the easement. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, for a 8040 Greenline Review and the Variances to the Residential De gn Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: 8040 Greenline Review — Staff Findings Exhibit B: Variances to Residential Design Standards — Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Application TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT -PAGE 5 RESOLUTION N0. Q� (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . APPROVE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND VARIANCES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-003(Fatlzering Parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to'the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and the denial of the Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass and One - Story Street Facing Element for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request via Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a vote of to (- — __), to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and the Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 18" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2003, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, parcel identification of 2737-182- TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 8 5-003 (Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One -Story, Street Facing Element. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The Community Development Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed addition, driveway, and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department for off -site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The Applicant shall provide the Community Development Engineer with a soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal.. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A. construction fence shall be erected along the entire East, South East, South and South West portions of the property. (please see map) There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. g. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas. h. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall will require over dig, the area of said over dig will be re -vegetated. Reference # 5. i. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should reflect the species, numbers and locations of plantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. j. Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. k. Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 4. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. 5. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 7. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 8. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance at the time of Building Permit Submittal and/or prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 9. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. 10. Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a Certificate of Occupancy. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 11. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip lines. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under_ such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 18, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 EXHIBIT A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF FINDING: The site is suitable for development. It has been graded and a building pad has been flattened out so there are no concerns about slope stability, mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche dangers. To staff s knowledge, there have been no hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the parcel. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. STAFF FINDING: Consideration of the subdivisions impacts on drainage and run-off were considered during the original approval and were either deemed to not be a concern or were properly mitigated. A drainage and mudflow easement exists on the west side of the property to accommodate flows from above the subdivision. With proper construction management and prompt re -vegetation this Spring, there should not be any impacts any of the watersheds. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF FINDING: Although all single-family residences in the city, collectively, create an impact on the air quality of the city from vehicle trips created and remaining wood burning stoves, staff finds that this single- family residence, by itself, will not have an adverse impact on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. STAFF FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed home and driveway are compatible with the terrain of the parcel, which was largely determined at the time that the original subdivision was designed and approved. Driveway access to the home appears to be easily accomplished without need for any further environmental impact. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. rOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 STAFF FINDING: The grading and disturbance to the lot was created with the construction of the subdivision's road and lots and the installation of the utilities. The only additional disturbance to this parcel will be the excavation of the foundation for the house and the house itself, which is acceptable as a necessary disturbance. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. STAFF FINDING: The placement of the house on this lot was largely determined with the original subdivision, but the placement of this structure will not need any new roads, will maintain open space outside of the building envelope, will limit new cutting and grading and will not degrade the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF FINDING: The building height and bulk will be minimized to the extent that it does not exceed floor area ratio and height limitations established through the PUD process creating the subdivision. Although the proposed design is more modern in character, staff finds that it will blend into the "open character" of the mountain because of its relatively low profile. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: There exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed structure, as determined by the approval of the subdivision. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF FINDING: The City approved the roads of the subdivision when it was originally approved. No new roads are proposed with the development although there will be a new driveway, which will be required to comply with design criteria for driveways. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical STAFF FINDING: Adequate ingress and egress for adequate fire protection and snow removal was designed and approved when the Top of Mill Subdivision requested and received City approval. The recommendations of the AACP were considered during the subdivision process and incorporated into the plan. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.222.010 Purpose. The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall review, at a regular meeting, any appeal of the Residential Design Standards. Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and succinctly identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and STAFF FINDING: One of the policies of the AACP is to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of our community". According to the architect, the proposed design is an "expression of pure Modern design" and something different than the traditional mountain home. Staff believes that the design will add to the mix of architectural styles found in the community. We do find, however, that the proposed variances are not necessarily fundamental to accomplishing the design and, therefore, do not by themselves further the goals of the AACP . (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF FINDING: Staff does not find that the any of the proposed variances would more effectively address an issue any of the standards respond to, nor be clearly necessary to be fair to any site specific constraints. In our opinion, the variances all result from the fact that the standards in question do not mesh well with the applicant's chosen design style. Unfortunately, that criteria is not among the two that the Code requires be met in order to support a variance. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES At the January 22, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the design of a proposed residence to be built on Top of Mills — Parcel 4. DRC review of the project is required due to 8040 Greenline requirements and variances to the Residential Design Standards. (Design standard variances are needed for building orientation, secondary mass and one-story street facing element.) Next Step for Application: From the DRC meeting, the project will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z will pass a resolution approving or disapproving the proposed project. Comments to Be Included in Resolution or Ordinance: These comments are noted below. Other comments are provided to inform the Applicant of other City requirements and standards. DRC COMMENTS: l . Engineering Department • To be included in the P&Z Resolution: Along the southwest edge of the property is a 20-foot wide easement that is designed to accommodate potential drainage and mudflow. No feature of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can enter this easement. 2. Parks Department (submitted via e-mail) To be included in the P&Z Resolution: A construction fence shall be erected along the entire east, southeast, south and southwest portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction. traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site: There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. • Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas. • Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall cannot be beyond the property boundary, this includes any necessary over digging. If the area beyond is disturbed, notification of the property owner and mitigation for the damage will be required. • Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 reflect the species, numbers and locations of plantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. • To be included in P&Z Resolution: Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. • To be included in P&Z Resolution: Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. Aspen Sanitation District • To be included in the P&Z Resolution: Service is contingent on district's rules, regulations and specifications that are on file at the district's office. . The District has the sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. If constraints exist in the downstream collection system, the constraints will be eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees. A tap permit can be completed for the project as soon as detailed plans are available. Total connection fees for the project will be estimated at this time. All fees must be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. City Water Department: All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 5. Building Department: • Based on a cursory review, the basement egress may not conform with the code. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 14