Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030325 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS oF iNTERESTS III. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TIPPLE LODGE GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, AND TIMESHARE EXEMPTION, Scott Woodford-continued from 3/4 B. PARCEL 4, TOP OF MILL 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DRAC VARIANCES, Scott Woodford~ continued from 2/18 V. BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson,. Deputy Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: TIPPLE LODGE; PUBLIC HEARING: GMQS EXEMPTIONS, SPECIAL REVIEW, INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, SUBDIVISION AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS; RESOLUTION No. SERIES 2003 DATE: March 25, 2003 View of the existing Tippler Nightclub and Italian Caviar Restaurant from the Silver Queen Gondola. The Tipple Lodge Condominiums and the Tippler Nightclub are proposed to be demolished and redeveloped with the proposed Tipple Lodge and the approved Tippler Townhomes C11hd1Viginn TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 P3 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Tipple Lodge development proposes demolition of the existing Tipple Lodge Condominiums (a 10 unit lodge and 2 dwelling unit structure) and replacement with two free market town homes and one affordable housing (AH) unit with sub -grade parking structure. The applicant intends to develop the Tipple Lodge in conjunction with the previously approved, but as yet undeveloped Tippler Townhomes Subdivision, which is immediately adjacent to the subject property. With the four free market and four affordable housing units of that approved project, there will be a total of 6 free market units and 5 affordable housing units developed. Both projects will be constructed simultaneously and will share access and management of the timeshare regime.. (For more information about the history of the Tippler Townhomes Subdivision, see Appendix B of the Application). The 'two free market units for the Tipple Lodge will each consist of three bedrooms with one being 2,410 square feet and the other being 2,500 square feet in size. The affordable housing unit will be one bedroom and 640 square feet. Each free market unit will have two dedicated parking spaces in the parking garage located directly below their units and the AH unit will have one dedicated parking space in the garage. Direct elevator access from the parking garage into each of the free market units is proposed, while another elevator will provide access from the garage to the courtyard for the occupant of the affordable housing unit and the owners of homes on Lots 3-6 Tipple Woods Subdivision. Four additional parking spaces will be provided in the garage for the owners of the single- family homes located on the hillside to the south of the subject site (Lots 3-6 Tipple Woods Subdivision). These spaces will replace the required surface parking spaces for those residences that will be lost with the redevelopment of the property. Vehicular access to the proposed development will be from a driveway off of Galena Street, across the southwest corner of the Tipple Inn Condominiums and the Tipple Townhomes Subdivision then down a ramp into a shared parking garage entrance with the Tipple Townhomes. The rights of access across these properties is provided by a 20' wide, vehicular access easement. After proceeding down the common ramp, residents of Tipple Townhomes will turn left into .their garage while the residents of Tipple Lodge will turn right into their garage. An Insubstantial Amendment of the approved plans for Tipple Townhomes is necessary in order to remove a section of the garage wall that will facilitate access to the garage for the Tipple Lodge. The proposal also includes plans to condominiumize the units and sell timeshare interests in the two free market units of Tipple Lodge and the four free market units in the Tippler Townhomes. To that end, the applicant is requesting to be reviewed as an Exempt Timeshare, which is possible if the project involves 6 units or less and proposes no more than 1/7t.' interests. Each purchaser of a unit will acquire an undivided 1/6"' interest in a specific unit, which will allow owners the right to use the unit for two fixed weeks in the winter season, two fixed weeks in the summer season, and an additional three floating weeks in one of the 6 condominium units during the remainder of the year. The five affordable housing units will be condominiumized and owned, deed restricted, and rented TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 P4 by the Tippler Townhome Condominium Association pursuant to applicable Aspen- Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines. At such time the projects have been substantially constructed, the applicant will submit a condominium plat to the Community Development Director for review, approval, and recordation. The applicant currently has an application in for a different proposal for the same site, known as the Residences at Little Nell. According to the applicant, the Residences at Little Nell is the preferred project for the site and the Tipple Lodge is a back up project should the Residences application not be approved. If the Tipple Lodge project receives approval and then the Residences project later gains approval, then the applicant would prefer that the Residences at Little Nell supplant the Tipple Lodge as the active approval for the property. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) Growtb Management Quota System Exemptions: GMQS Exemptions are requested in order to construct the two free market townhomes and the affordable housing unit. Per Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code, exemptions may be granted provided the project complies with the requirements of the Residential Multi Family Replacement Program and with provision of a deed restricted unit meeting the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's affordable housing guidelines. Final Review Authority for the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program: Community Development Director; Final Review Authority for the Affordable Housing: City Council based on P&Z recommendation. 2) Special Review: Pursuant to Section 26.515.010.13. of the Code, off-street parking requirements for affordable housing units are established through special review. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission 3) Insubstantial Amendment: Modifications to the approved Tippler Townhomes Subdivision plans are necessary in order to remove a portion of the south wall of the sub -grade parking facility to provide an opening for access to the proposed. parking garage for the Tipple Lodge. According to Section 26.480.080.B. of the Code, an amendment to the Subdivision development order shall be heard by City council, provided that the change is consistent with the approved plat. Final Review Authority: City Council with a P&Z recommendation 4) Subdivision: The process, act, or result of dividing land into two or more separate legal interests for the purpose of transfer of ownership constitutes a subdivision. As condominiumized, multi -family units are being proposed, subdivision review is required. According to Section 26.480.090, a condominium plat must be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval as a subdivision. The applicant is requesting subdivision approval for the condominiumization at this stage so that they do not have to seek -subdivision approval again in the future at the time they submit the condominium plat. Note: Subdivision review is also required for TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 P5 Timeshare approval, although because the project is requesting Exempt Timeshare status, it is eligible to be processed as a Subdivision Exemption, which does not require P&Z approval (see Timeshare discussion below). Final Review Authority: City Council based on P&Z recommendation. 5) Vested Property Rights: The applicant is requesting vested property right status in order to preserve the land us approvals that may be obtained as a result of this request. Since vested property rights status is automatic with a development order, no specific approval is necessary. 6) Exempt Timeshare: The applicant has requested an exemption from the ,timeshare requirements. According to Section 26.590.030, to qualify for an exemption, a timeshare project must involve less than six (6) units in any one condominium project, be located in the L/TR zone district, and create no more than six (6) estates in any dwelling unit. An Exempt Timeshare project shall be processed as a Subdivision Exemption, which is exempt from the terms of the Subdivision Chapter, including review standards. Final Review Authority: City Council provides final review - no Planning and Zoning_ Commission review is required. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposal would require demolition of the existing Tipple Lodge Condominiums located on Lot 2 of the Tipple Woods subdivision, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1959 and annexed into the City in 1967. Constructed in 1967 or 1968 as a three-story duplex, the structure was converted into a lodge by Mary I. and John L. Faulkner in 1971. In' 1979, the lodge units were approved to be condominiumized. The condominium structure currently contains 10 lodge units that were historically rented on a short term basis and two studio units that were occupied long term.. An eight space, surface parking lot directly adjacent to the condominium provides parking for the owners of homes on Lots 3-6 of Tipple Wood Subdivision, located to the south and tip the hillside from this site. An agreement between the properties assures this parking arrangement and requires that the parking be addressed with redevelopment. Pedestrian access to those homes is currently provided via a covered, wooden stairway and adjacent tram. Zoning of the property is L/TR Lodge/Tourist Residential. The site is generally flat, although the perimeter of the property contains small areas of slope that exceed 20% which reduces the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) slightly. Surrounding the project site is the Aspen Ski Area to the east, the approved Tippler Townhomes Subdivision to the north, Lot 3 Tipple Wood Subdivision to the south, and the Galena Place Townhome Condominiums to the west. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The Housing Authority Board reviewed the application on October 16, 2002 and approved the application with the following conditions: TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 2 l . The applicant shall provide a one -bedroom deed -restricted affordable housing unit sized at 640 square feet as proposed. 2. The applicant shall provide a Category 2 rental unit on -site as proposed. 3. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall propose a construction schedule for the deed -restricted unit that will coincide with the issuance of building permits on the free market lots. 4. The employee to be housed in the deed -restricted unit shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. 5. The applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that 1/10"' of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or the applicant may propose any other means that the City Attorney determines acceptable. 6. The applicant shall provide a rental pricing structure not to exceed the maximum monthly rental rate for a Category 2 unit. 7. The deed restriction shall be filed concurrently with the submission of the condominium map to the City of Aspen and shall .state the following three conditions for the rental unit: a. The deed restrictions on the affordable housing unit shall be in perpetuity to the rental price terms as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines in affect at the time of Final Plan approval of.. this proposed application. b. The unit rental prices shall be no greater than allowed under the Affordable Housing Guidelines that are in affect at the time Of Final Plan Approval. c. The Housing Office shall qualify all tenants under the Affordable Housing Guidelines. STAFF COMMENTS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS: The free market units are exempt from the City's GMQS, subject to compliance with the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program -(RMFRP) and the affordable housing units are exempt from GMQS provided they comply with the adopted housing guidelines. Staff finds the development to be in compliance with both criteria (Staff Findings are found in Exhibit A). A review of both follows: RESIDENT MULTI -FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (RMFRP): To comply with the RMFRP, the development must replace 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the floor area of residential units demolished, place at least 50% of the replacement units above natural grade and deed restrict the replacement housing as affordable. The Tipple Lodge Condominium contains two studio dwelling units (units local residents have lived in previously) proposed to be demolished, which contain a total of two bedrooms and 915 square feet of livable area. So, the applicant is required to replace one bedroom and 458 square feet and is proposing a one bedroom, 640 square foot unit to satisfy that requirement. The unit is completely above grade and is proposing TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 IM to deed restrict the knit to the APCHA's Category 2 Guidelines. In doing so, compliance with the RIVIFRP is achieved. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In order for the affordable housing unit to be exempt, it must be deed restricted to APCHA's affordable housing guidelines. The review of such request includes the need for the affordable housing, compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan's housing section, the proposed location, number, type, size, rental/sale mix, and price/income restrictions, and the phasing of the affordable housing units in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. Staff believes that the proposed affordable housing mitigation is consistent with the AACP and the APCHA has approved the applicant's compliance with the other criteria listed above. SPECIAL REVIEW: A Special Review is required in order to establish the parlcing requirements for the affordable housing unit (Staff Findings for Special Review are found in Exhibit B). The criteria used to determine whether the parking proposed meets the needs of the residents, include accounting for the potential uses of the property, projected traffic generation, impacts on the on -street parking, proximity to transit routes and the downtown area,. and any special services such as vans provided for residents. Staff finds that the one parking space proposed for the affordable housing unit is sufficient and consistent with similar situations of the past. INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT: An Insubstantial Amendment to the approved subdivision development order of the Tippler Townhomes Subdivision is requested in order to modify its parking garage to provide garage access for the Tipple Lodge (Staff Findings are found in Exhibit C). Specifically, the applicant is requesting to remove a portion of the parking garage's south wall to provide a direct vehicular link into the sub -grade parking garage to be built directly beneath the new development. According to Section 26.480.080, amendments may be made to a subdivision development order by the Community Development Director if there are "technical or engineering" reasons discovered during actual development that were not contemplated during the approval process. Other amendments shall be approved by City Council, provided that the change is consistent with the approved plat. Staff believes that the proposed amendment falls into the latter category and should be heard by Council. Regardless, staff feels that the amendment to the subdivision order is warranted because it will result in an improvement to the proposed Tipple Lodge and to the neighborhood in general because it will result in all of the required parking spaces being located underground and will necessitate the need for only one parking ramp and entrance for two projects rather than two, individual entrances. _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on November 13, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit D. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Special Review, Insubstantial Amendment, and Subdivision for the Tipple Lodge. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No. �, Series of 2003, for a Growth Management Quota System Exemption, Special Review, Insubstantial Amendment, and Subdivision for the Tipple Lodge." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Growth Management Quota System — Staff Findings Exhibit B: Special Review — Staff Findings Exhibit C: Insubstantial Amendment — Staff Findings Exhibit D: Subdivision — Staff Findings Exhibit E: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit F: Letter from Neighboring Property Owner Exhibit G: Application TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 ce RESOLUTION N0. _a (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS, INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, AND SUBDIVISION AND OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE TIPPLE LODGE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182- 73- 0 79 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Land Fund, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, requesting Growth Management Quota System Exemptions, Special Review, Insubstantial Amendment, Condominiumization, Subdivision and Vested Property Rights for construction of two free market units and one affordable housing unit; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Streets, Parks, Housing, 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 recommended approval for the proposed land use requests for the Tipple Lodge; and WHEREAS, the applicant desires to grant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority an interest in the affordable housing units subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has consented to accepting an interest in the affordable housing units on conditions that it be indemnified and held harmless from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership of an interest in the property; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affdrd'att�eh'ous7rrgs�it a�r1d:', - ., WHEREAS, the Applicant amended their application proposal during the review process to comply with Timeshare Exemption pursuant to Section 26.590.030 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval via Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a vote of to (- — -), to TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 City Council to approve Growth Management Quota System Exemptions, Subdivision and Insubstantial Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 25" DAY OF MARCH 2O03, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in.Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning _Commission grants approval of Special Review pursuant to Section 26.430 of the Land Use Code. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the GMQS Exemptions, Subdivision, Insubstantial Amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the -Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. f. A traffic management plan that addresses issues such as construction worker parking and hauling routes. g. The building permit plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system for the new buildings, in the event required -by the Aspen Fire Marshal. h. Outdoor lighting plan. i. All uses and construction shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation Districts rules and regulations. j. Subdivision plans shall - show water service line easement and a common- service age.ement shall, be. submitted... k.' :Four Peaks/Grand. Aspen has been requested to abandon the two water services in. Galena St. If the Tipple Woods development occurs first, the 'abandonment of the services will be required as part of the Tipple Woods construction. 1. The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water Systems Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 U 2. 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. c. A detailed landscape plan indicating all plantings, species, numbers and locations shall be submitted to and approved by, the Parks Department. d. Any tree to remain on site shall be protected by a construction fence installed at the drip line of any tree to be saved. The city forester or designee shall inspect this fence before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree to be saved. e. The applicant shall pay the appropriate school land dedication fee. 3. Per the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board approval of the application on October 16, 2002, the following conditions shall apply: a. The applicant shall provide a one -bedroom deed -restricted affordable housing unit sized at 640 square feet as proposed. b. The applicant shall provide a Category 2 rental unit on -site as proposed. c. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall propose a construction schedule for the deed -restricted unit that will coincide with the issuance of building permits on the free market residences. d. The employee to be housed in the deed -restricted unit shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. e. The applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit such that 1/101h of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or the applicant may propose any other means that the legislature determines acceptable. f. The applicant shall provide a rental pricing structure not to exceed the maximum monthly rental rate for a Category 2 unit. g. The deed restriction shall be filed concurrently with the submission of the condominium map to the City of Aspen and shall state the following three conditions for the rental unit: • The deed restrictions on the affordable housing unit shall be in perpetuity to the rental price terms as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines in affect at the time of Final Plan approval of this proposed application. The unit rental prices shall be no greater than allowed under the Affordable Housing Guidelines that are in affect at the time of Final Plan Approval. The. Housin Office shall uali - ,,..al tenant..undex.,.the;,Aff6rdahla,,HQusin Guidelines. - Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the 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. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 M 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 March 25, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 P13 EXHIBIT A GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM Section 26.530.050 of the Land Use Code regarding reconstruction of demolished units requires that the following criteria be met: A. Replacement housing containing a minimum of 50% of the net residential area of the demolished multi -family units must be provided; STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The two existing studio dwelling units in the Tipple Lodge Condominium contain a total of 915 square feet of net livable area, which results in 458 square feet of net residential area to be replaced (50% of 915 = 458). The development proposes one 640 square foot (one bedroom) affordable housing unit to meet this requirement. B. The replacement housing must be configured in such a manner as to replace 50% of the multi -family bedrooms which are lost to demolition; STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two units to be demolished contain a total of two bedrooms. The development proposes a one bedroom (640 sq. ft.) affordable housing unit to meet this requirement. C. A minimum of 50% of the replacement housing must be located above grade; STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The replacement housing will be located entirely above grade.' D. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner demonstrates that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints; STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The replacement housing will be located on the same site on which the demolition has occurred. E. Replacement units shall be deed restricted in a form and substance acceptable to the qualifications in -effect at the time of sale -or rental, and at sale prices or rental rates which are also in compliance with the city's current regulations. The owner shall be entitled to select tenants or purchasers subject to the aforementioned qualifications. The mix of affordable housing units, as between category affordable housing and resident occupied may be determined by the owner provided that no less than twenty (20) percent of the bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 units and no more than twenty (20) percent of the units are available as resident occupied units. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 me STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant proposes to deed restrict the proposed replacement housing unit on Lot 2 to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Category 2 Guidelines. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 P15 EXHIBIT B SPECIAL REVIEW A special review is being considered to establish off-street parking requirements for the proposed affordable housing units. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions, set forth in Chapter 26.515, are met: A. All Zone districts. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the. residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, .provided for residents, guests and employees. In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that the parking be provided on -site, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on -site, whether the parking needs of the development have been adequately met on -site and whether the city has plans for a parking .facility which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the parking on -site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposal to provide one parking space for the one bedroom affordable housing unit is appropriate and consistent with past approvals for similar type units. The units close proximity to the downtown transit station and to downtown in general, staff finds, obviates the need for additional parking spaces. B. Multi family dwelling units. Off-street parking provided for multi -family dwelling units which do not share a common parking area is not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of garage area, parking strip or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that adequate landscaping will be installed to reduce the parking's visual impact. Developments consisting of three or more dwelling units shall install one (1) planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet long by two and one- half (2-1/2) feet wide by two (2) feet high unless otherwise varied by the Commission. The location and dimensions of the planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific circumstances provided that no fewer than one (1) planter buffer is provided per three (3) off-street parking spaces. Multi -family projects using this provision shall access parking from the alley, if available. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 P16 . EXHIBIT C INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT 26.480.080 Amendment to subdivision development order. A. Insubstantial amendment An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat or between adjacent subdivision plats may be authorized by the Community Development Director. A.n insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat which the Community Development Director finds has no effect on. the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NO Staff finds that the change is more than just a technical or engineering consideration not anticipated .during the --original approval process and should be reviewed by City Council. B. Other amendment Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed . change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds the proposed change to be consistent with the approved plat. The sharing of garage entrances will improve the neighborhood by only having one entrance instead of two. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 a EXHIBIT D SUBDIVISION — STAFF FINDINGS The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred, as will be the case with the Tipple Lodge. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposal complies with several aspects of the AACP, specifically with regard to providing quality, infill development that is located within the growth boundary and that incorporates on -site, affordable housing resulting in a mix of people from different socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, the development is located in close proximity to the Rubey Park transit station, which provides residents the option of alternative transportation. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Nearly all of the surrounding land uses are similar in nature to this proposal, in that they are primarily multi -family residential dwellings and lodge units geared towards tourists and second homeowners. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES This proposal will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas as all surrounding areas have already been developed. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, iricfuding with the zoning requirements of the L/TR zone district, are being met or exceeded and no variations are being proposed. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No significant natural hazards are believed to adversely affect the project site. The Aspen Mountain Storm Drainage Master Plan identifies minimal impacts to the property from potential storm runoff and debris flows form the Aspen Mountain sub -basins. Specific drainage recommendations contained in the engineering reportwill be incorporated in the grading and drainage plan to be submitted with the b,uilding permit. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No.. inefficiencies, duplication, or premature extension of public facilities is contemplated. All costs associated with the installation of public facilities will be borne by the applicant. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE No variations are proposed to the standards 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: f DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant intends to provide all improvements set forth in Chapter 26.580, as applicable. The improvements will comply with the design standards also containQd:.in..that..Cha tez_.. D. Affordable `Housing. }(A 'subdivision which is comprised' of replacement dwelling----` units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 P19 STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicable standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, have been adequately addressed. For details, refer to the section on GMQS exemptions. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication .of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. As the property in question is relatively small, almost all of which is proposed to be developed, , the dedication of land would not be appropriate and the payment of cash -in -lieu represents a more fitting option. These payments shall be made to the City prior to the issuance- of any building permits for the residential dwelling units based on calculations to be performed by staff of the Community Development Department in accordance with the formula provided in the Code. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant will be required to pay the school land dedication fee at time of issuance of a building permit. ' � �.(Lr—.•�'. `�� �y"1: S'j. �1 ��t f:'/ '.9•1?�J� i �i�' 1(•tl�t��47�1�1�� itl�i.�l� ��L, ^'�_�a t1 !'� t/,1'. �Y,'t r'./\J.��-�f.�� CI �. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 18 ME EXHIBIT E DRC MINUTES DRC COMMENTS 1. Engineering Department: • Street Impact Fee: There is no frontage on the public ROW and access to the Tipple Woods will be gained from the Tippler Town Homes to the south. At this time, no additional street impact fees will be required for the new Tipple Woods Subdivision Lot 2. • Plat Language: The labeling of properties on the plat is confusing with reference to Parcels A. B, etc., Lots 1, 2, etc. (Applicant's response: We are currently stuck with these legal descriptions of lots. When the lots are re - platted, everything will be cleaned up through vacation and re -parceling.) • Traffic Management Plan: As part of the building permit, a traffic management plan will need to be submitted that addresses worker parking and hauling routes. • Public Improvements: At this time, no public improvements are required as part of re -developing Tipple Woods Subdivision Lot 2. These improvements are already required as part of the adjacent Tippler Town Homes project. • Dean Avenue: Applicant question: `Can Dean Avenue be vacated if the large project happensT Answer: Dependent on the comments of other City agencies, Dean Avenue might be vacated. However, an easement would need to replace the ROW to keep access open and restrict structures. 2. Community Development Engineer: • Garage Parking A back-up (turn around) space is required.for parking spots 7, 8, and 9. • Drainage: Drainage will need to be addressed as part of the building permit. This may require revising the Tippler Town Homes drainage plan to accommodate drainage from the Tipple Woods Subdivision Lot 2. 3 Zoning: (comments submitted by e-mail) • Li htin Plan: The. applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan at the time of building permit submittal. Further, the applicant must comply with the = residential design standards or request variances from the standards as necessary. • Employee Housin2 Mitigation: As . outlined in the application, mitigation is required�`or tie units fiat' haveieen occupiedBy working residents' under tle' multi -family replacement'program. • Dimensional Requirements: The existing Tipple Lodge is located in the L/TR zone district. The development data outlined on page 26 of the application is accurate in terms of dimensional requirements. The property is subject to slope reduction due to the existence of slopes greater than 20% on the lot. All' setbacks, height and FAR will be verified when working drawings are submitted for building permit review. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 19 W 4. Housing Department: No comments at this time. 5. Fire Protection District: • Sprinklers and Alarm: Sprinklers are required. In addition, a fire alarm system is needed that notifies the Fire Department when the sprinklers activate. 6. Parks Department: • Views: Caution against planting in .front of windows and views since future residents may want to remove vegetation. • Detailed Landscape Plan: A more detailed landscape plan is required to obtain building permit approval from the Parks Department. (Please indicate all plantings, species, numbers and locations.) • Tree Permit: A tree permit is required prior to the Park Department approval of the demolition permit. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5120. • Tree Protection During Construction: (a) Any tree to remain on site shall be protected by a construction fence installed at the drip line of any tree to be saved. The city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) must inspect this fence before any construction activities are to commence. (b) No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 7. Building Department: No comments at this time. 8. City Water Department: • City Standards Compliance: 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. • Meters: Each unit must have a water meter. • Sprinklers: The service line must be sized to accommodate the sprinkler system. • Service to Lot 3 to South: Plans will need to show service line easement. In addition, a common service agreement will be needed. • Galena Street Service Lines: Four Peaks/Grand Aspen has been requested to abandon the two services in Galena St. If the Tipple Woods development occurs first, the abandonment of the services will be required as part of. the > Tipple d c v cio s onstrucfrorr. •.Soil Nails: If used, a large financial security will be required. 9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; • Service Line Replacement: The service lines from the gondola building and the house on the top of Mills St. may need to be replaced or re -tapped if adequate cover over these lines is not maintained. TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 20 P22 • Galena Service Line Inspection.. There are seven service taps in Galena St. that serve the existing structures that are apparently involved in the proposal. The lines will need to be dyed and televised to determine which services will need to be excavated and disconnected from the main sanitary sewer line. • Oil/Grease: A district approved oil and grease separator for garage drainage will be required before service is provided. • Potential Main Extension: If a main line extension is required to serve this project, the applicant will be required to enter into a "Collection System Agreement" with the District. • Review and Approval: The proposed plan to serve the project must be reviewed and approved by the District's consulting engineer. • ASCD Standards: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has , sufficient treatment system capacity to serve this project. Any downstream collection system capacity problems will be eliminated through a system of additional proportionate impact fees. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications that are on file at the District office. 10. Environmental Health: • Fugitive Dust: A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove -mud that has been carried out, speed .limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. • Asbestos: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. Underground Parking The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about the design of the underground parking structure ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high levels inside the facility or in the nearby areas outside it. An engineer who specializes in design of heating and ventilation systems must certify that the proposed design wwill prevent excessive. levels of carbon monoxide: from concentrating inside the structure and in nearby areas and buildings. • Trip Mitigation: Not required - - no additional trips. QzttOgs: C7 fy two alTowe&for whole project. • -.) a Noise Abatement: During construction, . noise cannot ,exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannotr be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will.have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. 1 IPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 21 P23 11. City Community Development — Planning: • Please provide a site plan depicting both the garage for the Tipple Lodge and at least a portion of the approved Tippler Townhomes showing how the proposed new opening in the garage to access Tipple Lodge will affect the Tippler Townhomes garage. Specifically, we would like to ensure that parking garage for the Tippler Townhomes is not adversely affected by this change, such as with reduced aisle width, lost parking spaces, etc. 12. City Electric Department: • Future Service Availability: Area currently served by Holy Cross but their, franchise expires in two years. At that time the Applicant can opt to receive power from the Electric Department. 13. Holy Cross Electric: No comments received. (Note: There has been difficulty in getting plans to Holy Cross — you should make sure that you contact them directly to ascertain any comments they may have) 14. City Attorney: No comments at this time. 14. 'Streets Department: • See the Engineering Department's comments regarding street impact fees and hauling routes. .w �t. si aa:... i' 4C' )t ":��il 1 _ it !"t...._ _ :'i .lL �� .'.':�11;i! l{!'.;1 a;i }i .� l!_.. _. �,.iI ". TIPPLE LODGE STAFF REPORT PAGE 22 P24 EXHIBIT F LETTER FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER Steve and Debbi Falender 712 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-1816 February 17, 2003 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Residences at Little Nell Resolution and Tipple Lodge Application We have reviewed the P & Z proposed resolution for the Conceptual Plan for the Residences at Little Nell, which we picked up from Scott Woodford on Friday. We appreciate the plan revisions you have required. Specifically, we believe that item 7 regarding the Geo-technical report, and item 9 regarding rezoning, address the issues discussed in the last P & Z meeting. We assume you will adopt this resolution in tonight's meeting, and we look forward to seeing modified plans from the developer that address our mutual concerns as the project advances to City Council. We are, of course, also neighbors of the Tipple Lodge Application, that proposes 2 timeshare condos and an employee housing unit replacing the Tipple Lodge. This new application is added to the previously approved Tippler Townhomes. We have not seen staff comments, but the developer's application states.that the new building will meet all dimensional requirements of the existing LTR zoning. We can support this proposal, with two requests: 1) We would like a geo-technical provision similar to item 7 in the P & Z resolution for The Residences at Little Nell, because of the problems our area has experienced with building movement with other projects. 2) Because access by emergency vehicles to the houses on the" hill above us will be limited even more than today with the new plan, we ask that the final plan be reviewed by the fire department in particular, and also that the existing fire protection system be tested. Although we can support the Tipple Lodge proposal, we very strongly object to the city codes or regulations which, according to Mr. Woodford and Mr. Vann, allow a developer to process multiple applications for the same property at the same time. The Residences at Little Nell plan and the combined Tipple_ Lodge -Tippler Townhomes plan propose very different projects for the same site. It would seem that the developer in this case is looking. for a backup to -The Residences at -Little Nell plan, which requires variances of practically everything. As the developer has reminded us on various occasions, the developer has the right to submit any proposal it desires, no matter how inconsistent the plan is with our codes, to present it to P & Z, and then if necessary appeal any changes to the City Council. If our regulations allow the developer to present and negotiate multiple proposals and then pick the "best" result for the developer, the public and the boards could well be faced with an unreasonable amount of work and a totally confusing process. Before the next project uses this example to present multiple proposals, we request that you and the City Council put an emergency stop to this procedure, and then draft new regulations that allow one application at a time for any given site. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Steve and Debbi Falender 970-920-1816 P25 Steve and Debbi Falender 712 S. Galena Street. Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-1816 February 17, 2003 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Residences at Little Nell. Resolution and Tipple Lodge Application We have reviewed the P & Z proposed resolution for the Conceptual Plan for the Residences at Little Nell, which we picked up from Scott Woodford on Friday. We appreciate the plan revisions you have required. Specifically, we believe that item 7 regarding the Geo-technical report, and item 9 regarding rezoning, address the issues discussed in the last P. & Z meeting. We assume you will adopt this resolution in tonight's meeting, and we look forward to seeing modified plans from the developer that address our mutual concerns as the project advances to City Council. We are, of course, also neighbors of the Tipple Lodge Application, that proposes 2 timeshare condos and an employee housing unit replacing the Tipple Lodge. This new application is added to the previously approved Tippler Townhomes. We have not seen staff comments, but the developer's application states that the new building will meet all dimensional requirements of the existing LTR zoning. We can support this proposal, with two requests: 1) We would like a geo-technical provision similar to item 7 in the P & Z resolution for The Residences at Little Nell, because of the problems our area has experienced with building movement with other projects. 2) Because access by emergency vehicles to the houses on the hill above us will be limited even more than today with the new plan, we ask that the final plan be reviewed by the fire department in particular, and also that the existing fire protection system be tested. Although we can support the Tipple Lodge proposal, we very strongly object to the city codes or regulations which, according to Mr. Woodford and Mr. Vann, allow a developer to process multiple applications for the same property at the same time. The Residences at Little Nell plan and the combined Tipple Lodge -Tippler Townhomes plan propose very different projects for the same site. It would seem that the developer in this case is looking for a backup to The Residences at Little Nell plan, which requires variances of practically everything. As the developer has reminded us on various occasions, the developer has the right to submit any proposal it desires, no matter how inconsistent the plan is with our codes, to present it to P & Z, and then if necessary appeal any changes to the City Council. If our regulations allow the developer to present and negotiate multiple proposals and then pick the "best" result for the developer, the public and the boards could well be faced with an unreasonable amount of work and a totally confusing process. Before the next project uses this example to present multiple proposals, we request that you and the City Council put an emergency stop to this procedure, and then draft new regulations that allow one application at a time for any given site. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Steve and ebbi Falender 970-920-1816 P26 MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES 2003 DATE: March 25, 2003 (D WESTroELEVATION w•, Above is the west elevation for the proposed structure. Since the last meeting when the project was tabled, the applicant has redesigned the home so that it complies with the Secondary Mass requirement with the addition of a one car garage and accessory dwelling unit connected to the main house by hallway (located on the left side of the elevation) and with the One -Story, Street Facing Element by widening the porch roof over the front door, so that it comprises 20% of the overall width. REQUEST SUMMARY: 8040 Greenline Review and a Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation APPLICANT: Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos STAFF APPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DENIAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION: VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 P27 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,200 square foot single-family house on Parcel 4 of the Top of Mill Subdivision. In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must first gain 8040 Greenline Review approval. Concurrent with that action is a request for a variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) 8040 Greenline Review; According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with specific requirements. As Parcel 4 is located within this range of elevation, this review is required; Final Review Authority Planning and Zoning Commission 2) Residential Design Standards Variances; According to Section 26.410.020, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee; however, if there are other land use reviews necessary, the applicant may consolidate the reviews with the requisite review authority for that other land use request. In this case, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is already hearing the 8040 Greenline Review, the applicant has chosen to allow P&Z authority to review the variance requests. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zonine Commission BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Top of Mill Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on March 11, 2002. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On March 4, 20031 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) tabled this application. At the time, the project consisted of 8040 Greenline Review and variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One -Story, Street Facing Element. The P&Z did not support two of three variances - Secondary Mass and One -Story Street Facing Element - and - suggested that the applicant redesign the residence to comply with these requirements. Based on this feedback, the applicant revised the building elevations and incorporated a secondary mass element in the form of a garage and accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the main structure by a linking element of at least 6' feet in width, 10' in length, and 9' in height, in accordance with the Secondary Mass requirements. In addition, they widened the "floating canopy", or porch roof on the front fagade, so that it comprises at least 20 % of the building's overall width, which is what the Code requires for a One -Story Street Facing Element. Therefore, the applicant no longer needs variances to these two Residential Design Guidelines. Staff continues to find the TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 project in compliance with the 8040 Greenline Review Standards, but not in compliance with the variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; Staff finds the proposed single-family structure to be in compliance with the standards for 8040 Greenline Review (See Exhibit A for Staff Findings). Furthermore, staff believes that the majority of the review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review were more pertinent during design and consideration of the original subdivision., as most of the environmental impact occurs during the construction of roads, utilities and building lots. In this case, Parcel 4 was graded into a relatively level site during the 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 be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The following is the criteria of the different Residential Design Standard which the applicant is requesting a variance from and staff response: Standard: 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 front 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. Yes. No t( j Yes. I I `` •;•. / c` y f. 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 TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 No street could be adjusted such that it would be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street and then be in compliance with the provision. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on January 22, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. The City Engineering Department commented that no part of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can encroach into the 20' wide drainage and mudflow easement along the southwest edge of the property. Submitted plans showed roof eaves and a patio encroaching into the easement. The applicant stated that they will redesign the home so that there is no encroachment into the easement. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, for a 8040 Greenline Review and the Variance to the Residential Des gn Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: 8040 Greenline Review — Staff Findings Exhibit B: Variance to Residential Design Standards — Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit D: Application TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-003(Fathering Parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and the denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution fiirthers 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 Variance to the Residential Design Standards; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 25"' DAY OF MARCH 2003, THAT: TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE S P31 Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 45 Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, parcel identification of 2737-182- 85-003 (Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One -Story, Street Facing Element. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap 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 driveway and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan to the Parks Department and Community Development Department. If applicable, a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the City Parks Department as well as any approval from the Parks Department for off -site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. g. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance in effect at the time of Building Permit Submittal and prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. A soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado, submitted for review by the Community Development Engineer, demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 P32 C. The conditions, of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. Building plans demonstrating an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A detailed erosion control and irrigation plan for review by the Parks Department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROW and native areas, per the requirements of the PUD Agreement. g. A detailed landscape plan reflecting the species, numbers and locations of plantings and any right-of-way plantings or requirements. The landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. h. Areas outside of the building envelope, but on the applicant's parcel, that have been disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site, shall be restored with native plants and materials. In addition, the construction of the mud and debris wall will require over dig. Per the requirements of the PUD Agreement, the area of said over dig shall be re -vegetated. i. Plans showing a construction fence erected along the entire East, South East, South and South West portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools ' or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. j . The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and 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. 3. During construction, the contractor shall abide by the following requirements (note: the applicant shall inform the contractor of this and all conditions): a. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 P33 b. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. c. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. . 4. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 5. Exterior building colors shall be earth tones to make the building more compatible with the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 6. Within the 20' drainage easement (Valleju Gulch), the following encroachments are allowed: a. Extension of non -occupiable building components (i.e. decks, hand railings, roof overhangs , etc.) shall be breakaway so that they detach from the main structural fame of the building in case of flood passing through the easement. b. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 20' above the bottom of the drainage channel. c. No building walls or retaining walls shall be allowed to encroach in any part of the 20' drainage easement. d. Foundation footers may be permitted inside the drainage easement only if the depth of the footer is twice the depth of the existing or proposed drainage pipe. e. A minimum of a 14' wide horizontal clearance shall be maintained within the easement, including tree trunks (so, plantings may be within a 3' zone on each side of the easement). f. All trees planted within the 3' allowed zone from each side of the easement shall be non -rigid to avoid any damming effect. Any landscaping in the drainage easement shall utilize only plantings listed in the letter from dhm design dated February 12, 2003, which is attached to this resolution. g. Softscape materials, such as grass and gardens may be allowed within the 14' clearance zone. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as 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 Colder or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 P34 1 cu, 1't- cuuu rc-uoriyl it V- v v v v I . I/ L 14U 1 UUZIJ r ci o cor1)or;►tit>n' Site Design Land Planning &• Landscape Architecture 12 February 2003 MEMORANDUM Al�AcqmF,Nii--i-o Re: Planting in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Parce. 4 To: John Galambos Galarnbos Architects 300 D AASC Aspen. CO John' The following is a list of rccon�n�ctlded plants (hat are aF )rppriate in the drainage of'the Parccl 4.residence. easement g west Common Name .Trees; Botanic Jame 1) Quaking Aspen 2) Narrow lea f Cottortw'ood Populus remuloides I'Upttltts . 3) Limber Pinc Illgustlf011a Pines Il(-"'ais 4) Ponderosa Pine Pines pc iderosa Vote: Trees will be limbed up to 4'- j' above grade. Shrubs: I) Saskatoon Servicebern, Amelam liter alnifo(ia 2) Liltle►eaF NI(n. Mahogany 3) Tall Green Rabbirbrush Ccrcoca pus ledifolius intricatus 4) Isanti Dogwood C'hrysod arlinus nauseasus 5) Coton easier sp. C'ornus ! ericea `lsaliti' 6) Rock Spirea Cotonea ;ter sp. 7) Dwarf Ninebark Holodis. us dumosus $) Porentilla Physocapus a. 'Nallus- 9) Alpine Currant Potenril 3 fruticosa Ribes A pinum 10) Boulder RaspberD, Rebus d,liciousus i 1) Blue Stern W;Ilow Salix irr >rata 12) Canyon Blue Arctic Willo«' Salix pt: TM -ea `Canyon Blue' 13) Silver Buffalo Berry'l Shephe► jia rargen(ea 14) Mountain Snowberry Symphc -icapos oreophilus ZO'd P35 dgi = 60 v v v if- V v I 111 Perennials; 1) Rocky Mtn Columbine . Ayuilegia cearulea 2) Lavender Blue Aster Aster x.1: Monarch' 3) Moonshine Yarrow Achillea • Aoonshine' 4) Blue Ave ,na Grass Helictotri :hon sempen-irens 5) Corcopsis 6) PUrpte Coneflower C oreopso sp. Echinace; 7) Coral 6clls purpurea litieclicra sanguinca 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar Lavandul L an�ustifolia 'Melissa' 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy Leucanth :mu►ti x.s, 'Alaska' 1.0) Cr6eping Mahonia Mahonia -epens 1 1) Rocky Mountain Penstemon Penstc►nc i stric(us 12) Russian Sagc 13) Prairie Concflower PcrovskU atriplicifolia 14) Rudbeckia fps. 'Goldsturn)' Ratibida ' olumnifers Goldstun t Black Eved Susan 1 3) May Night Salvia Salvia ne norosa 'May Night' Adjustments may be made to the above tist, listed plants. but chtiractcrl aics of substitute plants will mimic ft.egards, Jason Jaynes dhm design !ED 'R46 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 th e 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 defermihecr.* at` the, time, twas designed and`' approved: Driveway access to the home appears to be easily accomplished without need for ariy further environmental impact. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. STAFF FINDING: TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 P37 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 10 P38 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.222.010 Purpose. The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall review, at a regular meeting, any appeal of the Residential Design Standards. Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design .Standards should simply and succinctly identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and STAFF FINDING: One of the policies of. the .AACP is to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of our community". According to the architect, the. proposed design is an "expression of pure Modern design" and something different than the traditional mountain home. Staff believes that the design will add to the mix of architectural styles found in the community. We. do find, however, that the proposed variance is not necessarily fundamental to accomplishing the design and, therefore, does not by themselves further the goals of the AACP . (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF FINDING: Staff does not find that the proposed variance would more effectively address an issue the standard responds to, nor be clearly necessary to be fair to any site specific constraints: In our opinion, the variance results from the fact that the applicant has proposed a structure that utilizes the majority of the building envelope, which does not allow building to meet the Building Orientation requirement. If the structure were designed to be a little bit smaller, it would comply with the requirement. In addition, staff does not find a significant enough site specific constraint to warrant the variance as the site is relatively flat, or at least flat enough to be able to comply with the requirement. TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 EXMBIT 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 Ste for or Application: From the DRC meeting, the project will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z will pass a resolution approving or disapproving the proposed project. Comments to Be Included in Resolution or Ordinance: These comments are noted below. Other comments are provided to inform the Applicant of other City requirements and standards. DRC COMMENTS: 1. Engineering Department 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 XN 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. ,. 'z-t.� 'ti.:� is 1 . t. � _ ... .—:.; , ?�; } �l-� ,—...:ii• ,. ,,�,, 1 ... i . TOP OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 P41 IYIQI I V I LVVJ �_QFIYI I U, V J J V I, L/ L March 18, 2003 Changes to Design in.Response to P& Z meeting Van bent Residence v Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision P UD Gralambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 In response to the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18, 2003 the following changes are proposed for the design. I. The proposed FAR has been reduced from 6,200 SF to 5,689 SF. The allowable FAR is 6,200 SF per the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 2. The exterior entry canopy has been widened to 14'-6". This fulfills the requirements of the `One Story Element' section of the Residential Design Standards, 3. A secondary mass containing a garage and ADU has been added to the northeast corner that is lamed by a one. story element. The secondary mass meets the requirements for total square footage to be used in a secondary mass, The liming element m&�,_ i.'_' y~; �_uirements of Section .26,410.040(B)(1), wilding Porm, Secondary Mass. P42 AS N MOUN*TAIN SU D�IVISIO,N PARCEL �4 ASPEN, COLORADO GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, COLORADO 8 16 1 1 I TELE: (970) 429- 1286 1 FAX: (970) 429- 1296 z O W r) m D W z Q z D O 2: �- ZW� WW - O "O AWN Q— �W� ao — �Z W Z U�U < UX 0-122: 805-0 HUD DEFLECTION WALL -806Z - REO'D HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE MUD DEFLECTION WALL •e063' - REaD HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE I I f PATIO AREA PLANTER L — BUILDINGS ACK - TYP, L I I I I I ECONDARY MASS •620 SF I ADU . 3/0 SF i i rm- GENERAL SITE PUN NOTES: L STTE PLAN INFORUATR]N IS BASED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY DATED >.rArAx ARCNITEC7 ASSUMES N FORMATOY PRWIDED BY SURVEYOR IS ACLINUV£ AND ARCHITECT n AOT RESPONSftE FOR MWALUIMIMERRORS OR LriNSANS BY SVRVEYM Z SITE COWTOUR ELEVATION aWF ECUALS W&DAG ELEVATAW W-a. I MJDFLOW DEFLECTAW WAIL hr0AMa/ON BASED ON MUD`'LOW PLAN D/AGRAM PREPARED BT TETRATECH DAFED SITE PLAN IltUSTRATES WNNAAV DEFLECTOR WALL NEOffS AS REQUIRED PER TETRATECH PLAN. 80 - REO D i \ HEIG ABOVE l ADE loll .01 \ ADU PARKING ol \ i /.gip• � \ \ ilool OVERALL 517-E PLAN L� NORTH GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, CO 8 1 C 1 1 (970) 429-1 Z86 Z _0 V/ m 0 0 v I r}' X z OJ w0 Q 0(.) Z a- w IL 0 `� Q Z W CL U) Q FOR DATE jz m L- � i "'Ma olm- III 1 Emmuss- d...b momom ...��� c c s 13 „ oe TOP OF MILL IKCLE i WE GENERAL S/fE PLAY MOPES, L SITE PLAY OWORMgION 15 BASED ON THE SURVEr PREPARED BY WED ++•RR-x& A'CMIIECT ASSUMES /NF09MATA l PROVIDED BY SURVEYOR IS ACLX/RAT£ AYD ARCH fECT IS AVT RESPCY/SM(E FOR YINAa#VCCS £RRDPS OR OWS)ONS BY SURVrrM Z WE CWIOUR £LEVdgM W-YrEWALS BUNDM ELEVATION )W-P. 3. WD'LOY DiEFLECrOV WALL OWORMATM BASED ON WLL<LOW PLAN DAGRAM PREPARED BY 7'MATECH DATED STE PLAY ALUSTRATES WN#" DEFL£CT,DY WKL HEVfrS AS REWIRED PER TETRATECH PLAN. OVERALL 5/7-E PLAN (D-I'=10' G ALAMB OS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, CO 8161 1 (970) 429-1286 z O W _i 0 m O rZ �/ I Z O W -i O Q UU z W o- O W Q z W C U) Q ISMmFOM DATE G A L A M B 0 5 ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, CO 8 1 01 1 (070) 4 20-1 280 7- 0 O r� v I l}' Z Jo - Q WO U U Z IL W Z) 0- O � Q Z Ld 0- U) Q 1943'Jm FOR DATE DE510H REMEW 03-1 703 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN �m SITE ELEVATION 8039' - PLAN ELEVATION I00'-0' NWH GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN. CO 8 1 01 1 (970) 429- 1 280 MUm FOR DATE DEVON HEAEW 0.3.1 703 Mf�IN LEVEL PLAN SITE ELEVATION 8039, - PLAN ELEVATION /00'-0' NORrH ADU 60A Uli 0 KITCHEN O LIBRARY O O __ _ O POWDER DINING O ON 0 (-com TD.PLY EL-Il0'-a 7 ° ° a ° TD. PLY EL-IlO'-O' 0 O o0 o ° o O ° DN DN O BI Dc i LMNG ❑ ❑ ❑ F ❑ TD.PLY EL-IIYa OPEN TO BELOW ❑ ❑ ° ° UPPER LEVEL PLAN v4• = r-o SITE ELEVATION 8039 - PLAN ELEVATION W-a hKNiTH G ALAMBO S ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, CO 8 161 1 (970) 429-I 286 Z O V I u m p r� Q V O z W J o Q 0(.) Q Z Z nw D (L o Q Z (W Ir. L v I GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, CO 8 1 61 1 (970) 429-1286 Z 0 r�� v n W W Z Q Z ZD 0 Z W 0- W Q rmm Fvft DATE OFSM RL IEW 03.1 7-03 ROOF PLAN v4• = To. E. 7/4'. = 1"-O" KEYNOTES STANDING SEAR! METAL ROOFING aVERTICAL WOOD SIDING aSTONE VENEER QLOG POST row SUU7 H ELEYA710N !/4- = 1-O" - G A L A M B O S ARCHITECTS INC. 300 D AABC ASPEN, CO 6 161 1 4970) 420-1266 Z _O n 0 C// vI z �o Li Q U Q Z z a- W IL 0 `� Q 2: W n U) Q MWm FOR DATE DESIGN REVIEW 03-17-03 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- •2Li-aABOVE 1975 GRADE. MAX.ALLOWABLE HEIGHT �1 EAST ELEVATION KEYNOTES aSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING QVERTICAL WOOD SIDING STONE VENEER MLOG POST GRADE. f E. GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. 300 0 AABC ASPEN, CO 8 1 01 1 (970) 429-I 280 0 Q Q .1° w0 00 Q CL W 'a- W Q Z (W rLnL Q KMED" DATE OE310N FEMLW 03-1 7-03 WEST ELEVATION G 1/4" = Y-O" —h�voR Mill ���- Tkr,,,m�4 sso4o 3/2s/o3 EXHIBIT F LETTER FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER Steve and Debbi Falender 712 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-1816 February 17, 2003 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Residences at Little Nell Resolution and Tipple Lodge Application We have reviewed the P & Z proposed resolution for the Conceptual Plan for the Residences at Little Nell, which we picked up from Scott Woodford on Friday. We appreciate the plan revisions you have required. Specifically, we believe that item 7 regarding the Geo-technical report, and item 9 regarding rezoning, address the issues discussed in the last P & Z meeting. We assume you will adopt this resolution in tonight's meeting, and we look forward to seeing modified plans from the developer that address our mutual concerns as the project advances to City Council. We are, of course, also neighbors of the Tipple Lodge Application, that proposes 2 timeshare condos and an employee housing unit replacing the Tipple Lodge. This new application is added to the previously approved Tippler Townhomes. We have not seen staff comments, but the developer's application states.that the new building will meet all dimensional requirements of the existing LTR zoning. We can support this proposal, with two requests: 1) We would like a geo-technical provision similar to item 7 in the P & Z resolution for The Residences at Little Nell, because of the problems our area has experienced with building movement with other projects. 2) Because access by emergency vehicles to the houses on the hill above us will be limited even more than today with the new plan, we ask that the final plan be reviewed by the fire department in particular, and also that the existing fire protection system be tested. Although we can support the Tipple Lodge proposal, we very strongly object to the city codes or regulations which, according to Mr. Woodford and Mr. Vann, allow a developer to process multiple applications for the same property at the same time. The Residences at Little Nell plan and the combined Tipple Lodge -Tippler Townhomes plan propose very different projects for the same site. It would seem thafthe developer in this case is looking. for a backup to -The Residences at Little Nell plan, which requires variances of practically everything. As the developer has reminded us on various occasions, the developer has the right to submit any proposal it desires, no matter how inconsistent the plan is with our codes, to present it to P & Z, and then if necessary appeal any changes to the City Council. If our regulations allow the developer to present and negotiate multiple proposals and then pick the "best" result for the developer, the public and the boards could well be faced with an unreasonable amount of work and a totally confusing process. Before the next project uses this example to present multiple proposals, we request that you and the City Council put an emergency stop to this procedure, and then draft new regulations that allow one application at a time for any given site. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Steve and D.ebbi Falender 970-920-1816 P25 Steve and Debbi Falender 712 S. Galena Street. Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-1816 February 17, 2003 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Residences at Little Nell. Resolution and Tipple Lodge Application We have reviewed the P & Z proposed resolution for the Conceptual Plan for the Residences at Little Nell, which we picked up from Scott Woodford on Friday. We appreciate the plan revisions you have required. Specifically, we believe that item 7 regarding the Geo-technical report, and item 9 regarding rezoning, address the issues discussed in the last P. & Z meeting. We assume you will adopt this resolution in tonight's meeting, and we look forward to seeing modified plans from the developer that address our mutual concerns as the project advances to City Council. We are, of course, also neighbors of the Tipple Lodge Application, that proposes 2 timeshare condos and an employee housing unit replacing the Tipple Lodge. This new application is added to the previously approved Tippler Townhomes. We have not seen staff comments, but the developer's application states that the new building will meet all dimensional requirements of the existing LTR zoning. We can support this proposal, with two requests: 1) We would like a geo-technical provision similar to item 7 in the P & Z resolution for The Residences at Little Nell, because of the problems our area has experienced with building movement with other projects. 2) Because access by emergency vehicles to the houses on the hill above us will be limited even more than today with the new plan, we ask that the final plan be reviewed by the fire department in particular, and also that the existing fire protection system be tested. Although we can support the Tipple Lodge proposal, we very strongly object to the city codes or regulations which, according to Mr. Woodford and Mr. Vann, allow a developer to process multiple applications for the same property at the, same time. The Residences at Little Nell plan and the . combined Tipple Lodge -Tippler Townhomes plan propose very different projects for the same site. It would seem that the developer in this case is looking for a backup to The Residences at Little Nell plan, which requires variances of practically everything. As the developer has reminded us on various occasions, the developer has the right to submit any proposal it desires, no matter how inconsistent the plan is with our codes, to present it to P & Z, and then if necessary appeal any changes to the City Council. If our regulations allow the developer to present and negotiate multiple proposals and then pick the "best" result for the developer, the public and the boards could well be faced with an unreasonable amount of work and a totally confusing process. Before the next project uses this example to present multiple proposals; we request that you and the City Council put an emergency stop to this procedure, and then draft new regulations that allow one application at a time for any given site. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Steve and CbiFalender 970-920-1816 P26