HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20170404
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
April 04, 2017
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 54 Shady Ln - Stream Margin Review and Dimensional Variance Request
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 8, 2017
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Reilly Thimons, Planning Technician
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 54 Shady Lane: Stream Margin Review, Dimensional Variance
MEETING
DATE: April 4, 2017
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Leila LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services; David Johnston, David
Johnston Architects
LOCATION:
54 Shady Lane
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Low Density Residential
(R-30) zone district
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant are requesting a Stream
Margin Review and Dimensional
Variance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the application meets the criteria for
Stream Margin Review. However, staff finds that
the application does not meet the criteria for the
dimensional variance as requested.
Vicinity/zone district map of the site
Red Mountain Road view
P1
VI.A.
Page 2 of 9
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant have requested the following land use approvals from the City Council:
· Stream Margin Review (Chapter 26.435.040) for the demolition and replacement of the
existing residence. (Planning and Zoning is the final review authority.)
· Dimensional Variance (Chapter 26.314) with regard to a front yard setback requirement.
(Planning and Zoning is the final review authority).
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is zoned R-30, a low -density zone district with a minimum lot size of
30,000 square feet, making the property a lot of conforming record. The lot is approximately
34,768 square feet (0.798 acres) in size, not taking slope reductions into account. The parcel is
along Red Mountain Road and abuts Shady Lane to its southern border, however there is no
access available from Shady Lane. The entirety of the property along this border belongs to a
neighboring property owner, and no access easement from Shady Lane has been granted.
The Applicant currently access their property off of Red Mountain Road via a carport located in
the northeast corner of the property adjacent to the bridge over Hunter Creek (see Figures 1 and
2 below). From the carport, the Applicant access the existing house through a flight of stairs
from Red Mountain Road. In 1987, prior owners of the parcel granted Pitkin County
approximately 4,000 square feet, or .09 acres of land, to widen and elevate Red Mountain Road
(Reception # 296212). In exchange for the forfeited land, the County agreed to construct a two-
car parking platform that is still used today, and the stairs down to the current residence. The
previous owners turned the parking platform into a carport in accordance with the agreement
with the County.
Figure 1: View from Red Mountain Road Figure 2: Existing car port
The existing residence partially sits within the top of slope setback from Hunter Creek, and
consists of a two-story compound with three linked structures built in 1971, with subsequent
remodels. The property has undergone a stream margin review and received approval in 2004
prior to its latest remodel (Resolution No. 26, Series of 2004).
P2
VI.A.
Page 3 of 9
A prominent feature of the parcel is the existing tree-scape providing significant canopy
coverage with 255 deciduous and 13 coniferous trees located within the property boundaries.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant initially requested three reviews from the Planning and Zoning Commission. One
request is for Stream Margin Review for the demolition of the existing structure and construction
of a new residence. Secondly, the Applicant requested a variation from a Residential Design
Standard, which upon further review was deemed non-applicable. Finally, the Applicant would
like a variance for exceeding the allowable driveway height within a front yard setback. Since
the Residential Design Variation is not necessary only two requests are under consideration.
Land use reviews:
Stream Margin Review:
As noted previously, the property underwent a stream margin review and received approval in
2004 for a remodel of the existing structure which currently sits within the Hunter Creek top of
slope setback. The proposed structure will be centered on the property moving further away from
the top of slope and top of slope setback and towards the southern property line. The Applicant
has not proposed any grading, plantings, or development within the top of slope or top of slope
setback, and has stated there will be no development outside of the setbacks illustrated on the
improvement survey, Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Site Plan
P3
VI.A.
Page 4 of 9
The Parks Department has expressed concern over the demolition of the current structure due to
its proximity to the top of slope, and has outlined conditions for construction management which
can be found in the Referral Agency Comments below. The proposed development will not alter,
pollute, or interfere with the natural course of the waterway and relevant water features will be
drained within the building envelope. The proposed structure will not exceed the height limit
delineated by a 45-degree line drawn from the top of slope, Figure 2 below. A lighting plan will
be submitted with building permit.
Figure 4: 45-degree angle from top of slope
Staff finds that the application meets the Stream Margin Review criteria, and has included
referral agency conditions for demolition and construction mitigation plans in the Resolution.
The placement of the proposed structure further away from the top of slope and top of slope
setback will work to preserve the Hunter Creek riparian area and will bring the parcel into
conformance with current Stream Margin Review standards.
Dimensional Variance:
The Applicant has requested a variance to allow for their driveway to project above 24 inches
within the front yard setback. Section 26.575.020.E.5.q of the Land Use Code allows for
driveways too project into a setback under the following conditions:
Driveways not exceeding twenty-four (24) inches above or below natural grade within any
setback of a yard facing a Street. Within all other required setbacks, finished grade of a
driveway shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below natural grade.
The application proposes an elevated driveway (Figure 1) that would connect to the second story
of the proposed residence.
P4
VI.A.
Page 5 of 9
Figure 5: Proposed auto-court and elevated driveway
The Applicant feels that this design would address the steep slope from Red Mountain Road,
which exceeds 30% within the front yard setback, and would limit the overall impact to the lot
by negating the need to create a sloping driveway that would necessitate the removal of a
significant number of trees.
This option was explored by the Applicant and is labeled Alternative A (Figure 2). An additional
option, labeled Alternative B consists of another version of the proposed elevated driveway and
auto-court but would significantly regrade the site to create a new finished grade (Figure 3). The
regrading and tiered lawn would span approximately 76 feet wide and infringe upon the southern
property setback and the top of slope setback to the north.
P5
VI.A.
Page 6 of 9
Figure 6: Alternative A, Sloped Driveway
P6
VI.A.
Figure 7
Staff Comment: The criteria for
granted under the following conditions:
The appropriate decision-making body shall make
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives
and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district
and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as dis
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board
shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel
structure which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the
district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privi
terms of this this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
same zone district.
Page 7 of 9
Figure 7: Alternative B, Tiered Elevated Drive
criteria for a variance in the Land Use Code state that a variance can be
granted under the following conditions:
making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives
and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
or structure; and
Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district
and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board
shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel
structure which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the
district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
terms of this this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the
a variance in the Land Use Code state that a variance can be
finding that the following three (3)
The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives
The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district
tinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or
structure which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone
lege denied by the
structures, in the
P7
VI.A.
Page 8 of 9
Staff finds that the proposed auto-court and elevated driveway address many of the site
constraints and provide a valid design response minimizing the impacts to the topography and
removal of vegetation on the lot. Parks and Engineering similarly supported this option over
Alternatives A and B, as they felt that it focused development away from the Hunter Creek top of
slope and created less of an impact on the existing tree inventory and site canopy coverage.
While Staff acknowledges that this lot is subject to steep slopes and certain site constraints that
will affect its site planning, Staff finds this to be an inconvenience rather than a condition that
would preclude the ability to successfully develop the site, due to the existing carport providing
access, and cannot find that the request requires a Variance due to these inconveniences.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
Both Engineering and Parks Departments have reviewed and provided comment on the subject
application. Their referral agency comments are listed below:
Engineering
Engineering was concerned with the slope of the site and proximity to Hunter Creek riparian
area, and provided the following comments:
· No plantings other than native riparian plantings are permitted within the 15’ top of slope setback.
One sheet calls out “Wild Grass Mix” another sheet calls out “New on Grade Manicured Lawn.”
Lawn is permitted only outside the setback.
· Existing utilities run through the top of slope and TOS setback. These utilities shall be abandoned
and any new utilities must be installed outside of the top of slope and top of slope setback.
· The driveway entrance must be a minimum of 25’ from the Shady Lane turn off.
· The Engineering Department supports the elevated auto court and bridged option as this is the least
impactful to the topography and limits tree removal.
· Vehicles must be able to turn around in the auto court to prevent backing out onto Red Mountain
Rd.
Parks
Parks also acknowledged the site-specific constraints that are present, and while in support of the
proposed bridge option as the least impactful to the existing tree inventory, outlined conditions to
be met through the permitting and construction process to preserve the Cottonwood resources
that are currently on the site.
· A tree permit will be required and mitigation fees will be assigned by the City Forester.
· Hand-work only in top of slope
· No machinery in top of slope
· Wild grass mix must be Aspen native seed mix
· New utilities, when located, may not be within the dripline of any trees unless approved by the
City Forester. The new utilities will likely have to go through auto-court access area.
· No compaction of any soils, addition of fill, or cutting of roots within the dripline of any trees
without a permit from the City Forester.
· Excavation of the E-W berm will not be permitted where large diameter cottonwoods must be
preserved.
P8
VI.A.
Page 9 of 9
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review and denial of the
Dimensional Variance request.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. XX (Series of 2017) approving the
Stream Margin Review and denying the Dimensional Variance request.”
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. XX (Series of 2017)
approving both the Stream Margin Review and the Dimensional Variance request.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Stream Margin Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Variance Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Referral Comments
EXHIBIT D – Application
P9
VI.A.
1
Resolution No.
(SERIES OF 2017)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND DENYING A SETBACK
VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH AND REPLACE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
BUILD A DRIVEWAY AT 54 SHADY LANE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273707200026
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting Stream Margin Review Exemption approval, a
Residential Design Standard Variation, and a Setback Variance for the demolition of the existing
residence and construction of a new residence at 54 Shady Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s property is zoned R-30, Low Density Residential in an
Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Stream Margin Review Standards, Residential Design Review
Standards, and Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff found that a Residential
Design Variation was not needed due to the parcel being outside of the Infill Area with a slope
greater than ten feet; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, site visits, and the applicable Land Use
Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Stream
Margin Review, and a denial of a Setback Variance finding that the review standards for the
requests have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,
and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; 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 approval
of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves with conditions, the request
for a Stream Margin Review and the request for a Setback Variance to demolish the existing
residence and construct a new residence in the Stream Margin of Hunter Creek as shown in
Exhibit A, by a vote of X to X (X – X), and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
P10
VI.A.
2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section 1: General Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Stream Margin Review request and
denies the Setback Variance request to build a driveway that exceeds the height limitations
outlined in the Land Use Code.
These approvals, with conditions, will allow the Applicant to replace the existing residence at 54
Shady Lane with a new design and footprint further away from the Hunter Creek Stream Margin.
Section 2: Conditions of Approval
A. Parks Department Conditions
1. An approved tree permit is required before approval of the building permit. An
approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal
and means and schedule for mitigation.
2. A construction fence must be erected along the entire dripline of all trees on site and
any tree canopy from neighboring property. This will serve as the tree protection zone
(TPZ). This fence is to be constructed in such a manner that the area inside the
dripline is protected. An inspection of this fence must be performed before any
construction or demolition activities begin. please arrange this inspection with Ben
Carlsen at 429-2034.
3. No materials may be stored in the TPZ, including but not limited to, construction
backfill, construction traffic, or any other construction materials.
4. No excavation, grading or trenching may occur within the TPZ without the consent of
the City of Aspen Forester or his designee.
5. No parking of vehicles or equipment may occur in the TPZ.
6. No dumping of any waste products may occur in the TPZ.
7. Any roots cut during excavation shall be pruned with sharp loppers/pruners back to
the soil line. The roots will further be protected by burlap draped over the side of the
excavation covering the exposed roots. This burlap shall be kept moist until the
excavation is backfilled.
8. Pruning to provide clearance for construction activities shall only be done under the
direction of an arborist.
P11
VI.A.
3
9. Site inspections shall be performed on a weekly basis, to ensure the above listed
conditions are met.
10. Any unapproved improvements or activities outside of those approved within this
permit will be subject to mitigation in the form of restoration.
11. This permit must be posted on site during the construction process.
12. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for erosion control. Plans should detail
location of fencing and type of fencing. This fencing, at a minimum, shall consist of
barrier fencing at the top of slope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing
installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be
necessary depending upon the site. Silt fencing shall be installed along the top of
slope.
13. Demolition of the existing carport will require a permit from the City Forester,
14. Excavation for proposed garage must be 15 feet away from Tree 172 and 12 feet
away from tree 102 with no fill permitted in this area.
15. Footers for car bridge must be 12 feet away from tree 102.
16. Special root excavation techniques will be required in along the southern perimeter of
the proposed residence.
B. Engineering Department Conditions
1. No plantings other than native riparian plantings are permitted within the 15’ top of
slope setback.
2. Existing utilities run through the top of slope and top of slope setback. These utilities
shall be abandoned and any new utilities must be installed outside of the top
of slope and top of slope setback.
3. The driveway entrance must be a minimum of 25’ from the Shady Lane turn off.
4. Vehicles must be able to turn around in the auto court to prevent backing out onto
Red Mountain Rd.
5. The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by
the Engineering Department. Additionally, the following items are required:
a) A no rise certificate.
P12
VI.A.
4
b) Any federal and state permits associated with development in the floodplain shall
be submitted, as necessary.
C. Planning Department Conditions
1. The applicant shall submit a Site Improvement Survey/Plat for City of Aspen review
and approval depicting the building envelope and top of slope within 180 days of this
approval. This survey will be recorded prior to the submission of a building permit.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on April 4, 2017.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
____________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A Application Drawings
P13
VI.A.
1
Resolution No.
(SERIES OF 2017)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND A SETBACK VARIANCE TO
DEMOLISH AND REPLACE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND BUILD A
DRIVEWAY AT 54 SHADY LANE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273707200026
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting Stream Margin Review Exemption approval, a
Residential Design Standard Variation, and a Setback Variance for the demolition of the existing
residence and construction of a new residence at 54 Shady Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s property is zoned R-30, Low Density Residential in an
Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Stream Margin Review Standards, Residential Design Review
Standards, and Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff found that a Residential
Design Variation was not needed due to the parcel being outside of the Infill Area with a slope
greater than ten feet; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, site visits, and the applicable Land Use
Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Stream
Margin Review, and a denial of a Setback Variance finding that the review standards for the
requests have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,
and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; 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 approval
of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves with conditions, the request
for a Stream Margin Review and the request for a Setback Variance to demolish the existing
residence and construct a new residence in the Stream Margin of Hunter Creek as shown in
Exhibit A, by a vote of X to X (X – X), and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
P14
VI.A.
2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section 1: General Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Stream Margin Review request and
approves the Setback Variance request to allow for the development of a single-family residence
and a driveway that exceeds the height limitations outlined in the Land Use Code. The driveway
variance is specifically for the elevated driveway represented to the Commission both in
materials and form.
These approvals, with conditions, will allow the Applicant to replace the existing residence at 54
Shady Lane with a new design and footprint further away from the Hunter Creek Stream Margin.
Section 2: Conditions of Approval
A. Parks Department Conditions
1. An approved tree permit is required before approval of the building permit. An
approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal
and means and schedule for mitigation.
2. A construction fence must be erected along the entire dripline of all trees on site and
any tree canopy from neighboring property. This will serve as the tree protection zone
(TPZ). This fence is to be constructed in such a manner that the area inside the
dripline is protected. An inspection of this fence must be performed before any
construction or demolition activities begin. please arrange this inspection with Ben
Carlsen at 429-2034.
3. No materials may be stored in the TPZ, including but not limited to, construction
backfill, construction traffic, or any other construction materials.
4. No excavation, grading or trenching may occur within the TPZ without the consent of
the City of Aspen Forester or his designee.
5. No parking of vehicles or equipment may occur in the TPZ.
6. No dumping of any waste products may occur in the TPZ.
7. Any roots cut during excavation shall be pruned with sharp loppers/pruners back to
the soil line. The roots will further be protected by burlap draped over the side of the
excavation covering the exposed roots. This burlap shall be kept moist until the
excavation is backfilled.
8. Pruning to provide clearance for construction activities shall only be done under the
direction of an arborist.
P15
VI.A.
3
9. Site inspections shall be performed on a weekly basis, to ensure the above listed
conditions are met.
10. Any unapproved improvements or activities outside of those approved within this
permit will be subject to mitigation in the form of restoration.
11. This permit must be posted on site during the construction process.
12. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for erosion control. Plans should detail
location of fencing and type of fencing. This fencing, at a minimum, shall consist of
barrier fencing at the top of slope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing
installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be
necessary depending upon the site. Silt fencing shall be installed along the top of
slope.
13. Demolition of the existing carport will require a permit from the City Forester,
14. Excavation for proposed garage must be 15 feet away from Tree 172 and 12 feet
away from tree 102 with no fill permitted in this area.
15. Footers for car bridge must be 12 feet away from tree 102.
16. Special root excavation techniques will be required in along the southern perimeter of
the proposed residence.
B. Engineering Department Conditions
1. No plantings other than native riparian plantings are permitted within the 15’ top of
slope setback.
2. Existing utilities run through the top of slope and top of slope setback. These utilities
shall be abandoned and any new utilities must be installed outside of the top
of slope and top of slope setback.
3. The driveway entrance must be a minimum of 25’ from the Shady Lane turn off.
4. Vehicles must be able to turn around in the auto court to prevent backing out onto
Red Mountain Rd.
5. The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by
the Engineering Department. Additionally, the following items are required:
a) A no rise certificate.
P16
VI.A.
4
b) Any federal and state permits associated with development in the floodplain shall
be submitted, as necessary.
C. Planning Department Conditions
1. The applicant shall submit a Site Improvement Survey/Plat for City of Aspen review
and approval depicting the building envelope and top of slope within 180 days of this
approval. This survey will be recorded prior to the submission of a building permit.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on April 4, 2017.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
____________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A Application Drawings
P17
VI.A.
Exhibit A Stream Margin Review 54 Shady Lane
Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques
on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development; and
Staff finding: The existing residence sits adjacent to the 100-year flood plain and
portions along the northwest edge of the lot are within the 100-year flood plain. City
Engineering performed a survey in June 2016 to confirm the top of bank and have
confirmed that the new proposed residence, placed further to the south on the lot and
outside of the top of bank, is less impactful to both Hunter Creek and the FEMA
floodplain. The proposed development will not have an impact on the base flood
elevation of Hunter Creek. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic
public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A
fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of
the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Staff finding: There are no recommendations for trails or open space that affect this
property, nor is there any historic public use on this property. The development does
not propose filling in or grading any banks and additionally proposes native plant
species be incorporated in the landscaping plan. The applicant proposes that through
moving the new structure to the south of the lot that they will be able to maintain trees
along the river and tree removal will be limited to the interior of the lot. The applicant
is also proposing to plant approximately two dozen trees to replace those that are
removed through the construction process. Staff finds this criterion met.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
Staff finding: The applicant has not proposed to remove any native vegetation or trees
outside of their building envelope, nor will there be any regrading along the stream
bank. Staff finds this criterion met.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
P18
VI.A.
Exhibit A Stream Margin Review 54 Shady Lane
construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside
of the designated building envelope; and
Staff finding: The applicant states the proposal will not alter natural changes in the
river through erosion or sedimentation during construction. Construction is proposed
to take place inside of the designated building envelope and is designed to comply with
the City’s adopted stormwater management standards. On-site drainage will not cause
pollution or otherwise impact Hunter Creek. Any pool or hot tub installed on site will
be designed to drain within the building envelope and not to the Creek. Staff finds this
criterion met.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
Staff finding: No alternation of the water course is proposed; therefore written notice
to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and copies to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency are not required. Staff finds this not applicable.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
Staff finding: There will be no alteration to the water course, therefore this
requirement is not applicable. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain; and
Staff finding: The applicant has not proposed any work within the 100-year floodplain,
however they have proposed a spa adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. If the proposed
development does not infringe upon the floodplain, then no permits will be required.
However, the applicant will need to detail their installation process in their
construction plan to not disturb the 100-year floodplain. If construction infringes on
the floodplain then permits will be required time of building permit. Staff finds this
criterion met.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork
P19
VI.A.
Exhibit A Stream Margin Review 54 Shady Lane
River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community
Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
Staff finding: The applicant has reviewed the Stream Margin map and prepared a
survey that has been confirmed by the City Engineering Department. The applicant is
not proposing to remove any vegetation below the top of slope or the high-water line,
and will be replanting the area that was previously occupied by the existing structure
with native species plantings. The applicant has included a proposed landscape plan
which has been received by the Parks Department and XX.
The Engineering Department has identified utilities running through the top of slope
and top of slope setback which need to be abandoned. Engineering staff has directed
that any new utilities must be installed outside of the top of slope and top of slope
setback.
Staff finds this criterion met.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and
method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
Staff finding: Thee applicant has provided a site section illustrating the height of the
proposed structure and the 45-degree angle from top of bank. The proposed structure
does not infringe into the 45-degree angle. Staff finds this criterion met.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting
plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
Staff finding: The applicant is proposing to submit a City code compliant lighting plan
at time of building permit, which has been included as a condition in the Resolution.
Staff finds this criterion met.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
P20
VI.A.
Exhibit A Stream Margin Review 54 Shady Lane
Staff finding: The applicant worked with the Engineering Department to confirm the
wetland and riparian areas of the parcel. The applicant has stated that there will be no
disturbance in these areas as part of their redevelopment. Staff finds this criterion met.
P21
VI.A.
Exhibit B Setback Variance 54 Shady Lane
26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances.
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate
decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies
of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the
parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether
an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following
conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or
structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district
and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms
of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone
district.
Staff finding: The applicant has requested a setback variance for the height of their driveway, which
exceeds the 24” requirement found in Section 26.575.020.E.5.q:
Driveways not exceeding twenty-four inches above or below natural grade within any setback
of a yard facing a Street. Within all other required setbacks, finished grade of a driveway shall
not exceed thirty inches above or below natural grade.
The applicant has proposed to construct an elevate auto-court and driveway exceeding 24” above
finished grade from Red Mountain Road connecting into the second story of the proposed residence.
Due to the steep slope of the site from Red Mountain Road down into the parcel, the applicant feels
that this particular design is the least impactful to the site and would remove the least amount of trees.
By staff’s approximation, around twenty trees will be impacted by the construction of this driveway
option as compared to either of the alternatives put forward which would each affect upward of about
fifty trees. The applicant has shown two alternatives: a driveway cutting down off Red Mountain Road
near the existing carport passing across the front of the proposed house and curving around to the
southern end of the lot (see Figure A), and another elevated driveway where the finished grade has
been brought up through a series of tiered lawn strips (see Figure B).
Alternative A was discussed with the Engineering Department, where the expressed preference was not
to have a driveway intruding towards the top of slope and top of slope setback. Additionally, due to the
maximum requirement of a 12% slope for driveways, and the minimum distance between curb cuts
being 25 feet, Engineering expressed that the preferred bridge option was the most feasible and least
P22
VI.A.
Exhibit B Setback Variance 54 Shady Lane
impactful to the topography, vegetation, and reconfiguration of development on the parcel.
Engineering was not supportive of this option.
Figure A: Alternative A Sloped Driveway
Alternative B was also discussed with the Engineering Department. The width of the tiered platforms
would total approximately 76 feet wide and, while creating a new finished grade to address issues of
floor area calculations that would exclude the auto-court and bridge from allowance totals, would
require significant regrading of the site and intensive disturbance near the floodplain and top of slope.
Engineering was not in support of this option.
P23
VI.A.
Figure
The Parks Department did not support either Alternative A or Alternative B due to their increased site
impact to tree canopy and driplines.
in reference to specific cottonwood resources (Trees 102 and 171 on the Tree Inventory).
Both Departments acknowledged the unique site constraints and felt it important to preserve the
northern corridor along Hunter Creek and to preserve the current tree canopy to the most reasonable
extent possible. For these reasons, Engineering and Parks supported the elevated driveway and auto
court as the least impactful solution for an accessway to the pa
While Staff agrees that there are site constraints that limit the Applicant’s options for an accessway
onto the site, the granting of this variance is not consistent with the purposes, goals, or objectives of the
Land Use Code, nor does it inhibit r
Staff finds these criteria not met.
Exhibit B Setback Variance 54 Shady Lane
Figure B: Alternative B Tiered Driveway
did not support either Alternative A or Alternative B due to their increased site
impact to tree canopy and driplines. Additionally, Parks had concerns over placement of the driveway
in reference to specific cottonwood resources (Trees 102 and 171 on the Tree Inventory).
Both Departments acknowledged the unique site constraints and felt it important to preserve the
n corridor along Hunter Creek and to preserve the current tree canopy to the most reasonable
For these reasons, Engineering and Parks supported the elevated driveway and auto
court as the least impactful solution for an accessway to the parcel.
While Staff agrees that there are site constraints that limit the Applicant’s options for an accessway
onto the site, the granting of this variance is not consistent with the purposes, goals, or objectives of the
Land Use Code, nor does it inhibit reasonable use of the site.
Setback Variance 54 Shady Lane
did not support either Alternative A or Alternative B due to their increased site
Additionally, Parks had concerns over placement of the driveway
in reference to specific cottonwood resources (Trees 102 and 171 on the Tree Inventory).
Both Departments acknowledged the unique site constraints and felt it important to preserve the
n corridor along Hunter Creek and to preserve the current tree canopy to the most reasonable
For these reasons, Engineering and Parks supported the elevated driveway and auto-
While Staff agrees that there are site constraints that limit the Applicant’s options for an accessway
onto the site, the granting of this variance is not consistent with the purposes, goals, or objectives of the
P24
VI.A.
Exhibit C Referral Comments 54 Shady Lane
Memorandum
From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT
Civil Engineer I
City of Aspen Engineering Department
To: Reilly Thimons
COA Planning Technician
429-2754
reilly.thimons@cityofaspen.com
Date: March 24, 2017
RE: 54 Shady Lane Stream Margin Review Engineering Comments
The following are Engineering Department comments in regard to the stream margin review for 54
Shady Lane.
1. No plantings other than native riparian plantings are permitted within the 15’ top of slope setback.
One sheet calls out “Wild Grass Mix” another sheet calls out “New on Grade Manicured Lawn.”
Lawn is permitted only outside the setback.
2. Existing utilities run through the top of slope and TOS setback. These utilities shall be abandoned
and any new utilities must be installed outside of the top of slope and top of slope setback.
3. The driveway entrance must be a minimum of 25’ from the Shady Lane turn off.
4. The Engineering Department supports the elevated auto court and bridged option as this is the least
impactful to the topography and limits tree removal.
5. Vehicles must be able to turn around in the auto court to prevent backing out onto Red Mountain
Rd.
P25
VI.A.
Exhibit C Referral Comments 54 Shady Lane
Memorandum
From: Ben Carlsen
City Forester
City of Aspen Parks Department
To: Reilly Thimons
COA Planning Technician
429-2754
reilly.thimons@cityofaspen.com
Date: March 24, 2017
RE: 54 Shady Lane Stream Margin Review Engineering Comments
The following are Parks Department comments in regard to the stream margin review for 54 Shady
Lane.
1. An approved tree permit is required before approval of the building permit. An approved tree
permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and means and
schedule for mitigation.
2. A construction fence must be erected along the entire dripline of all trees on site and any tree
canopy from neighboring property. This will serve as the tree protection zone (TPZ). This
fence is to be constructed in such a manner that the area inside the dripline is protected. An
inspection of this fence must be performed before any construction or demolition activities
begin. please arrange this inspection with Ben Carlsen at 429-2034.
3. No materials may be stored in the TPZ, including but not limited to, construction backfill,
construction traffic, or any other construction materials.
4. No excavation, grading or trenching may occur within the TPZ without the consent of the
City of Aspen Forester or his designee.
5. No parking of vehicles or equipment may occur in the TPZ.
6. No dumping of any waste products may occur in the TPZ.
7. Any roots cut during excavation shall be pruned with sharp loppers/pruners back to the soil
line. The roots will further be protected by burlap draped over the side of the excavation
covering the exposed roots. This burlap shall be kept moist until the excavation is backfilled.
P26
VI.A.
Exhibit C Referral Comments 54 Shady Lane
8. Pruning to provide clearance for construction activities shall only be done under the direction
of an arborist.
9. Site inspections shall be performed on a weekly basis, to ensure the above listed conditions
are met.
10. Any unapproved improvements or activities outside of those approved within this permit will
be subject to mitigation in the form of restoration.
11. This permit must be posted on site during the construction process.
12. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for erosion control. Plans should detail location of
fencing and type of fencing. This fencing, at a minimum, shall consist of barrier fencing at
the top of slope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to the City of
Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the
site. Silt fencing shall be installed along the top of slope.
13. Demolition of the existing carport will require a permit from the City Forester,
14. Excavation for proposed garage must be 15 feet away from Tree 172 and 12 feet away from
tree 102 with no fill permitted in this area.
15. Footers for car bridge must be 12 feet away from tree 102.
16. Special root excavation techniques will be required in along the southern perimeter of the
proposed residence.
P27
VI.A.
P28
VI.A.
P29
VI.A.
P30
VI.A.
P31
VI.A.
P32
VI.A.
P33
VI.A.
P34
VI.A.
P35
VI.A.
P36
VI.A.
P37
VI.A.
P38
VI.A.
P39
VI.A.
P40
VI.A.
P41
VI.A.
P42
VI.A.
P43
VI.A.
P44
VI.A.
P45
VI.A.
P46
VI.A.
P47
VI.A.
P48
VI.A.
P49
VI.A.
P50
VI.A.
P51
VI.A.
P52
VI.A.
P53
VI.A.
P54
VI.A.
P55
VI.A.
P56
VI.A.
P57
VI.A.
P58
VI.A.
P59
VI.A.
P60
VI.A.
P61
VI.A.
P62
VI.A.
P63
VI.A.
P64
VI.A.
P65
VI.A.
P66
VI.A.
P67
VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:CANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LN | ASPEN, COPROJECT No:
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL
1609
CPF
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.TEL
FAX
1
VICINITY MAP
2/28/17
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_C_P&Z.pln | 12:54 PM | Tuesday, February 28, 2017
SHEET No.
!"#$%&'("!%)%*+,-+!
!"#$"!
0 500 1,000 1,500 feet
SCALE: 1:0.671VICINITY MAP
54 SHADY LN
P68VI.A.
P69VI.A.
25.3'11.9'3.3'10.0'3.3'25.3'25.3'18.0'13.3'18.0'13.3'23.3'23.3'23.4'
23.4'5.0'4.9'18.8'TREE DISCLAIMERSOPRIS ENGINEERING PERSONNEL ARE NOT TRAINED ARBORISTS OR LANDSCAPEPROFESSIONALS. THE TREE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS FIELD SURVEYED BY SOPRISENGINEERING TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY AS PART OF THE PROJECT'S SCOPE. DATA WASACQUIRED PER PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THE CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'SSUBMITTAL CHECKLIST.NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/23/2016 - 14237 RJ - G:\2014\14237\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\TREE INVENTORY 2016\14237-TREE INVENTORY-2016.dwg1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0202040208010NOTES:1) Date of Survey--August 15 & 16, 20162) Date of Preparation--August 19-20.3) Refer to the Improvement Survey & Stream Margin review for this property for more information on boundary and flood plain information.TREE INVENTORY54 SHADY LANEWZ >K&>E /E'^/dhd /E^tЬEtЬK&^ d/KEϳ͕TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.SHEET 1 OF 1DECIDUOUS TREESPT No.DIAMETER (in.) DRIPLINE (Ft.)NOTES10011.42510114.63010224.5401036.91510411.51510512.8151085.7810914.2301108.5121116.2101127.4101135.561149.11011524.7201164.371176.5121188.5151199.7151206.081218.5121226.5101236.2101246.081259.1201266.3101276.41212811.3151298.4151306.61013110.1151326.1101334.381346.0101355.281365.0813714.8251388.7121396.8101406.1101414.581428.7201435.1101446.9151456.9151469.81514711.0251484.31014912.7251508.9151516.8151527.51215310.32015412.83015513.1251564.5815724.35015818.5501598.32016012.12516116.5151629.8251639.32016411.22516516.03016611.32516729.2401688.5151695.8101705.81217132.2751724.81017314.8251745.71017511.33017617.43417711.8241789.01817913.32718010.62118117.23418213.82718315.5311846.71318522.44418614.42818713.0261888.7171897.9161908.5171917.21419213.2261938.41719418.93819510.8221964.5919713.0261987.71519915.43120016.3322019.5302 TREES2026.7132036.71320410.9222055.81220615.6402 TREES2079.51920822.3442097.8152108.1162114.5153 TREES21217.6352136.51321414.12821515.5312167.01421719.13821811.72321920.24022010.32022110.72222213.82822324.04822414.1282257.21422615.1302276.0122286.9142296.61323014.2402 TREES2314.992325.6112336.6132347.71523516.6332365.51123711.5232387.5152395.492404.8102414.082427.1142437.2142449.51924515.23024613.82824723.4482488.6172495.11025010.82225111.72425220.84225317.53525418.13625519.840CONIFEROUS TREESPt. No.DIAMETER (In.) DRIPLINE (Ft.)2566.6102574.262584.5102596.4122608.4152614.1152627.01426310.3202648.4152658.5172665.1102674.082684.18SURVEYOR'S STATEMENTI, Mark S. Beckler, do hereby state that this survey was prepared by SoprisEngineering, LLC for Leila, LLC, A Colorado Limited Liability Company, and thatit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.__________________________Mark S. Beckler L.S. No. 28643TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY-2016DECIDUOUS TREES--155CONIFEROUS TREES--13LEGENDDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREESP70VI.A.
25.3'11.9'3.3'10.0'3.3'25.3'25.3'18.0'13.3'18.0'13.3'23.3'
23.3'23.4'23.4'SSSSSSSSSSSSSS5.
0
'4.9'18.8'www
w
w
w
w
w
SS ugugugugugugugugugugugugugugugugugug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug ug ug ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ue
ue ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ueueueueueueueue
ueueueue
ue
ueue ue ue
ututututututut
utut
ut
ut
ut
ut
ut
ut
ut
ut
ut
uc
ucuc
uc
uc
uc
uc
uc
ueueututut fofofofofofofofofoueueueueue ueueueututututututututSSSSSSSSSSSSuguc uc
uc ucuc uc uc
ut
ut utut
ut ut
Slopes Table
Number
1
2
3
Minimum Slope
0.01%
20.00%
30.00%
Maximum Slope
20.00%
30.00%
1000.00%
Area
18859.58
1316.95
3030.18
Color
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION- (Original Description)
ƚƌĂĐƚŽĨůĂŶĚƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^tЬEtЬŽĨ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϳ͕dŽǁŶƐŚŝƉϭϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕
Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more fully described as
follows:
Beginning at a point on the Easterly right-of-way line of the Denver and Rio
Grande Western Railroad (Aspen Branch) whence the West Quarter Corner
of said Section 7 bears West 602.4 feet; thence East 214.6 feet to the
Westerly right-of-way line of Red Mountain Road; thence along the arc of a
ĐƵƌĞƚŽƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚ͕ƚŚĞĐŚŽƌĚŽĨǁŚŝĐŚďĞĂƌƐEϭϮΣϱϲΖ ͕Ϯϭϱ͘ϱĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞ
center of Hunter Creek; thence Southerly along the center of Hunter Creek
ĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĂƌĐŽĨĂĐƵƌǀĞ͕ƚŚĞĐŚŽƌĚŽĨǁŚŝĐŚďĞĂƌƐ^ϲϴΣϬϮΖϬϰ͟t͕Ϯϵϲ͘ϭϵ
ĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞ ĂƐƚĞƌůLJůŝŶĞŽĨƐĂŝĚƌĂŝůƌŽĂĚƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂLJ͕ƚŚĞŶĐĞ^ϬϴΣϱϳΖ ͕ϵϬ͘ϲ
feet along the Easterly line of said railroad right-of-way to the point of
beginning.
dK' d, Zt/d,ĂƉĂƌĐĞůŽĨůĂŶĚƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^tЬŽĨƚŚĞEtЬŽĨ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ
7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more
fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Red Mountain Road whence the
West Quarter Corner of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the
^ŝdžƚŚWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůDĞƌŝĚŝĂŶďĞĂƌƐ^ϴϬΣϮϲΖϭϴ͟t͕ϴϮϵ͘ϲϲĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞϭϳ͘ϬĨĞĞƚ
along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 218.33 feet, the
ĐŚŽƌĚďĞĂƌƐEϮϯΣϭϮΖϬϭ͟ ϭϳ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ^ϲϰΣϯϰΖϬϳ͟ ϭϯ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ͖
thence 15.99 feet along the arc of curve to the left having a radius of 205.33
ĨĞĞƚ͕ƚŚĞĐŚŽƌĚŽĨǁŚŝĐŚďĞĂƌƐEϲϵΣϬϭΖϱϯ͟tϭϱ͘ϵϵĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞϲϵΣϬϭΖϱϯ͟
N 13.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 214.47 square
feet, more or less.
EXCEPT that portion of the above described property as conveyed to The
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County in Deed recorded
December 31, 1987 in Book 554 at Page 159. But excluding from this
EXCEPTION the portion thereof reconveyed to the Friedbergs by Quitclaim
Deed recorded November 2, 1993 in Book 729 at Page 114.
NOTES
1) Dates of Survey: December 23, 2014-January 8, May 13, June 3-4, 2015, June 27, 2016.
2) Date of Preparation: December 2014-January, 2015, June 12, 2015, July 22, 2016.
3) Basis of Bearing: Bearings are based on the 2009 Marcin Engineering City of Aspen Control
DĂƉ͕LJŝĞůĚŝŶŐĂƐŝƚĞďĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĨ^ϴϵΣϬϲΖϬϴΗ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞtЬŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ^ĞĐ͘ϳ͕d͘ϭϬ^͕͘Z͘ϴϰt͕͘ϲƚŚ
P.M., a found U.S. Dept. of Interior-BLM Brass Cap-dated 1954 and a found Rebar and Cap
ŵĂƌŬĞĚ>͘^͘Ϯϯϳϲ͕ĂƐƐŚŽǁŶ͘ZĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶĂĂĐůŽĐŬǁŝƐĞƌŽƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶŐůĞŽĨϬΣϱϯΖϱϮΗĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
original deed bearing calls.
4) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine
ownership or easements of record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way
and/or title of record, SE relied upon the documents shown in the Source Documents below
and a Proforma Title Report prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc. , Case No. PCT24799W,
Effective Date July 15, 2016.
5) The description for the subject property as referenced in Book 384 at Page 494 does not
mathematically close by approximately 10 feet. In addition, the deed and description as
stated, is deficient of curve information to adequately describe and place the northerly extent
of the parcel. The deed references the northerly extent of the parcel to be the centerline of
Hunter Creek. The centerline of Hunter Creek has been defined for this survey utilizing the
center of the floodway as shown in the Proposed Mapping Changes produced by the Pitkin
County-2016 Stormwater Management. The easterly boundary of the property is defined by
the portion of land deeded to Pitkin County as referenced in Book 554 at Page 160. An
additional portion of land was reacquired by Friedberg from Pitkin County through a Quitclaim
Deed referenced in Book 729 at Page 114. This deed has typographical errors and incorrect
information that does not mathematically close, however the intent of this conveyance is
noted in the Exhibit Map as referenced by the deed and is shown hereon.
6) It appears the intent of the southerly boundary of the subject property (Book 384 at Page
494) is to adjoin the northerly boundary of a parcel of land described as Tract 1 in Reception
EŽ͘ϱϬϭϮϯϵ͕ĂƐƚŚĞLJŵĂŬĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞďĞĂƌŝŶŐĐĂůůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞtЬŽƌŶĞƌ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌŝƚŝƐŶŽƚĞĚƚŚĂƚ
the monuments set in the field have slight differences from the common line, as shown. For
this survey, the monument representing an older survey has been held, reflected by the
monument marked as L.S. 2376 at the Southwest corner of the property. This monument also
fits the prescribed 50.0' distance from the existing centerline of the Rio Grande Trail as
determined by utilizing the centerline of the existing bridge, as shown.
7) The flood information shown is derived from the proposed Pitkin County Risk Map
Floodplain changes. The information is derived from GIS information supplied to Sopris
Engineering, by the Pitkin County Stormwater Management. The changes have not been
formally adopted by FEMA at this time.
8) The edge of water for Hunter Creek, as shown is based on survey field shots obtained on
May 13, 2015 and should be used for general reference only as the the creek edge is dynamic
in nature and subject to fluctuations based on seasonal flows.
9) The top of bank shown for the southerly side of Hunter Creek was determined on June 27,
2016 by Sopris Engineering, LLC project engineer and the City Aspen Engineering Dept. Staff.
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 10/12/2016 - 14237 RJ - G:\2014\14237\SURVEY\FAR-SLOPE ANALYSIS\14237-SLOPE-ANALYIS.dwg
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 800'
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
x Document-Deed Book 384-Page 494.
x Document-Deed Book 554-Page 159.
x Document-Deed Book 729-Page 114.
x Document-Reception No. 400339.
x Map-Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (Aspen Branch)-1919, Corrected 1927.
Recorded as Rec. 134450 on March 13, 1969.
x Plat-Willoughby Pond Estates-Plat Book 32-Page 36.
x Dept. of Interior-BLM Plat of Section 7, as accepted by Chief Cadastral Survey Feb. 14,
1980.
x Survey-Prepared by Alpine Survey Engineers-Job 0263C-October,2014.
x Survey-Prepared by Alpine Survey Engineers-Job 26092GC-July, 2006.
ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS.
SLOPE ANALYSIS
54 SHADY LANE
WZ >K&>E /E'^/dhd /E^tЬEtЬK&^ d/KEϳ͕
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 1 OF 1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION-(Per this Survey)
ƉĂƌĐĞůŽĨůĂŶĚƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^tЬEtЬŽĨ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϳ͕dŽǁŶƐŚŝƉϭϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕ZĂŶŐĞ
84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado. With all bearings contained herein being relative to the 2009 Marcin
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŝƚLJŽĨƐƉĞŶŽŶƚƌŽůDĂƉ͕LJŝĞůĚŝŶŐĂƐŝƚĞďĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĨEϴϵΣϬϲΖϬϴ͟t
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞtЬŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƐĂŝĚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϳ͕ĂĨŽƵŶĚh͘^͘ĞƉƚ͘ŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌͲ>DƌĂƐƐĂƉ
and a found Rebar with Cap marked L.S. 2376. Said parcel of land being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a found rebar with cap marked L.S. 2376 and being a point on the
Easterly right-of-way line of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (Aspen
Branch) and also being on the southerly line of a parcel described in Book 384 at
Page 494 of the Pitkin County Colorado records; whence the West One-Quarter
;tЬͿŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƐĂŝĚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϳ͕ĂĨŽƵŶĚh͘^͘ĞƉƚŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌͲ>DƌĂƐƐĂƉͲĚĂƚĞĚ
ϭϵϱϰďĞĂƌƐEϴϵΣϬϲΖϬϴ͟tĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϲϬϭ͘ϮϮĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌůLJůŝŶĞ
of said parcel described in Book 384 at Page 494 and also being common to the
parcel described as Tract 1 as recorded in Reception No. 501239 of the Pitkin
ŽƵŶƚLJƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ^ϴϵΣϬϲΖϬϴ͟ ͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϮϬϬ͘ϭϳĨĞĞƚƚŽĂƉŽŝŶƚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌůLJ
right-of-way line of Red Mountain Road as described in document recorded in Book
554 at Page 160; thence along said westerly right-of-way line the following six (6)
courses:
1) thence 94.15 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 213.33
ĨĞĞƚ͕ĂĐĞŶƚƌĂůĂŶŐůĞŽĨϮϱΣϭϳΖϭϰ͕͟ƚŚĞĐŚŽƌĚďĞĂƌƐEϬϮΣϯϭΖϬϳ͟tĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϵϯ͘ϯϵ
feet;
ϮͿƚŚĞŶĐĞ^ϳϵΣϱϮΖϮϳ͟ ͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϴ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ͖
3) thence 58.07 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 205.33
ĨĞĞƚ͖ĂĐĞŶƚƌĂůĂŶŐůĞŽĨϭϲΣϭϮΖϬϵ͕͟ƚŚĞĐŚŽƌĚďĞĂƌƐEϭϴΣϭϯΖϯϴ͟ ͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϱϳ͘ϴϳ
feet to the Northeasterly Corner of a parcel of land described in Book 729 at Page
114;
4) thence along said parcel of land described in Book 729 at Page 114 and common
ůŝŶĞ͕EϲϯΣϰϬΖϭϱ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϯ͘ϬϬĨĞĞƚ͖
5) thence leaving said parcel of land described in Book 729 at Page 114 and
continuing along said parcel described in Book 554 at Page 150, 12.89 feet along
the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 218.33 feet, a central angle of
ϬϯΣϮϮΖϱϳ͕͟ƚŚĞĐŚŽƌĚďĞĂƌƐEϮϴΣϬϭΖϭϰ͟ ͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϮ͘ϴϵĨĞĞƚ͖
ϲͿƚŚĞŶĐĞEϮϵΣϰϮΖϰϯ͟ ͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϰϭ͘ϮϮĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨ,ƵŶƚĞƌƌĞĞŬ͖
thence along the centerline of Hunter Creek the following thirteen (13) courses:
1)^ϴϮΣϬϴΖϰϳ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϯ͘ϵϲĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
2)^ϲϳΣϱϯΖϮϱ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϮϰ͘ϱϯĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
3)^ϲϵΣϮϲΖϯϳ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϯϲ͘ϰϭĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
4)^ϳϴΣϮϭΖϱϴΗt͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϮϰ͘ϲϲĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
5)^ϳϱΣϭϬΖϮϯ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϮϰ͘ϵϴĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
6)^ϴϱΣϭϰΖϭϬ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϮϱ͘ϲϲĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
7)EϴϴΣϱϭΖϭϳ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϯϱ͘ϱϮĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
8)^ϴϮΣϱϮΖϮϵ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϳ͘ϭϴĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
9)^ϳϴΣϰϭΖϮϯ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϳ͘ϮϰĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
10)^ϳϭΣϯϯΖϱϯ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϱ͘ϳϮĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
11)^ϰϵΣϰϱΖϰϴ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϮ͘ϭϬĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
12)^ϱϯΣϮϴΖϭϱ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϮϯ͘ϴϳĨĞĞƚ͖ƚŚĞŶĐĞ
13)^ϱϮΣϬϳΖϮϵ͟t͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϴ͘ϮϴĨĞĞƚƚŽĂƉŽŝŶƚŽĨŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
Easterly right-of-way line of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (Aspen
Branch); thence leaving said centerline of Hunter Creek and along said Easterly
ƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂLJůŝŶĞ^ϬϳΣϭϯΖϱϲ͟ ͕ĂĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϮϬ͘ϱϮĨĞĞƚƚŽƚŚĞƉŽŝŶƚŽĨďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐ͘
Said parcel of land containing 0.798 acres, more or less.
MONUMENT LEGEND
Indicates a found monument, as shown.
Indicates a set monument, L.S. 25950
UTILITY NOTE:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual field
locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field location of
utilities prior to construction.
EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND
GAS METER
SEWER MANHOLE
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC METER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
CATV PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
WATER LINE
SEWER LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
w w
ssss
ue ue
utut
CURB STOP
GAS LINEugug
UNDERGROUND CATV LINEuc uc
HUNTER CREEK FLOOD PLAIN LEGEND
Indicates Zone AE-100 Year Flood
Indicates Zone AE-Floodway
Indicates Base Flood Elevation-NAVD 88P71
VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:37 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
5.0
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
PREFERRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
54 SHADY LANE
S H A D
Y
L
A
N
E R E D M O U N T A I N R O A DBridgeCenterline of Rio Grande TrailEasterly Line D&RGW R.R. ROW LineS
DENVER & RIO GRAN
D
E
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
-
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y Bridge Abutment(Original D
e
s
c.
D
e
e
d
C
all)(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)(Calc.)
Southerly Bdry. of Parcel)
34,768 Sq. Ft. (0.798 Acres±)
E
E
T WS
OE
(Orig. Parcel-Book 384-Page 494)
Pitkin County Parcel No.
2737-072-00-026 Edge of Asphalt Rd.-Approx.Setback Line(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)
15' Setback L
i
n
e
(From Top of B
a
n
k
)
S
E
10' Setback Line 25' Setback LineSAND BAR (ISLAND)
15' Setback Line
(From Top of Bank)
Edge of
W
at
er
H U N T E
R
C
R
E
E
K
Edge of
W
at
er
Edge of W
at
e
r
Top of Bank
Top of B
a
n
k
ZONE AE (100 YEAR FLOOD)
ZONE AE (100 YEAR FLOOD)
ZONE AE (FLOODWAY)7841' BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONZONE AE
(
1
0
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
)7837' BASE
FLOOD
E
LEVA
T
ION
N68° 55'
5
6"
E
14.43'S89° 06' 08"E 200.17'S9° 08' 25"E380.41'7835
7840784
0
7840
7840
78
4
0 78407840784078407840
784
0
7840
78407845785078457850784578507845 785078457852
78527841783
7
7836
7838
783778367837 783778367837 7838783978397839
78
4
1
78417841
7
8
3
5
7837
78407840 7842783678367837 784178437841S7° 13' 56"E 120.52'7837
ELEVATED AUTOCOURT
POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
NEW WILD GRASS MIX
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
N
PROJECT
NORTH
0 10'20'40'SCALE: 1" = 20'1 PROPOSED SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN: PREFERRED OPTIONP72 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:37 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
5.1
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
PREFERRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
54 SHADY LANE
Easterly Line D&RGW R.R. ROW Line(Original
D
es
c.
D
e
e
d
C
all)(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)(Calc.)
Southerly Bdry. of Parcel)
34,768 Sq. Ft. (0.798 Acres±)
(Orig. Parcel-Book 384-Page 494)
Pitkin County Parcel No.
2737-072-00-026 Edge of Asphalt Rd.-Approx.Setback Line(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)
15' Setback L
i
n
e
(From Top of
B
a
n
k
)
10' Setback Line 25' Setback Line15' Setback Line
(From Top of Bank)
Edge of
W
at
er
H U N T E
R
C
R
E
E
K
Edge of
Water
Edge of
W
at
er
Top of Bank
Top of B
a
n
k
ZONE AE (100 YEAR FLOOD)
ZONE AE (FLOODWAY)
ZONE AE
(
1
0
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
)7837'
BASE
FLOOD
ELEVAT
ION
14.43'S89° 06' 08"E 200.17'
7835
7840784
0
7840
7840
78
4
0 78407840784078407840
78
4
0
7840
78407845785078457850784578507845
78507852
78527841783
7
7836
7838
783778367837 783778367837 7838783978397839
78
41
78417841
7
8
3
5
7837
78407840 7842783678367837 784178437841S7° 13' 56"E 120.52'7837
ELEVATED AUTOCOURT
POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
NEW WILD GRASS MIX
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
N
PROJECT
NORTH
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN: PREFERRED OPTIONP73 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:37 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
5.2
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
PREFERRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
N
PROJECT
NORTH
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
NEW WILD GRASS MIX
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
PTNo. 268
PTNo. 138
PTNo. 153
PTNo. na
PTNo. na
PTNo. 137
PTNo. 131
PTNo. 116
PTNo. 115
PTNo. 114
PTNo. 113
PTNo. 173
PTNo. 174
PTNo. 111
PTNo. 112
PTNo. 110
PTNo. 127
PTNo. 117 PTNo. 123
PTNo. 108
PTNo. 109
PTNo. 105
PTNo. 162
PTNo. 172
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | W/ TREES TO BE REMOVED | 1/8"P74VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_E.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:32 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
6.0
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
ALTERNATIVE A
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"54 SHADY LANE
S H A D
Y
L
A
N
E R E D M O U N T A I N R O A DBridgeCenterline of Rio Grande TrailEasterly Line D&RGW R.R. ROW LineS
DENVER & RIO GRAN
D
E
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
-
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y Bridge Abutment(Original
D
e
s
c.
D
e
e
d
C
all
)(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)(Calc.)
Southerly Bdry. of Parcel)
34,768 Sq. Ft. (0.798 Acres±)
E
E
T WS
OE
(Orig. Parcel-Book 384-Page 494)
Pitkin County Parcel No.
2737-072-00-026 Edge of Asphalt Rd.-Approx.Setback Line(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)
15' Setback Li
n
e
(From Top of B
a
n
k
)
S
E
10' Setback Line 25' Setback LineSAND BAR (ISLAND)
15' Setback Line
(From Top of Bank)
Edge of W
a
t
er
H U N T E
R
C
R
E
E
K
Edge of
W
at
er
Edge of W
at
er
Top of Bank
Top of Ba
n
k
ZONE AE (100 YEAR FLOOD)
ZONE AE (100 YEAR FLOOD)
ZONE AE (FLOODWAY)7841' BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONZONE AE
(
1
0
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
)7837' BASE
FLOOD
ELEVAT
ION
N68° 55'
5
6"
E
14.43'S89° 06' 08"E 200.17'S9° 08' 25"E380.41'7835
7840784
0
7840
7840
78
4
0 78407840784078407840
784
0
7840
78407845785078457850784578507845 785078457852
78527841783
7
7836
7838
783778367837 783778367837 7838783978397839
7
8
4
1
78417841
7
8
3
5
7837
78407840 7842783678367837 784178437841S7° 13' 56"E 120.52'7837
POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
NEW NATIVE GRASSES
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
N
PROJECT
NORTH
0 10'20'40'SCALE: 1" = 20'1 SITE PLAN | CONCEPTUAL RETAINED DRIVE & AUTOCOURTP75 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_E.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:32 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
6.1
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
ALTERNATIVE A (1)
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
N
PROJECT
NORTH
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"54 SHADY LANE
Easterly Line D&RGW R.R. ROW Line(Original
D
es
c.
D
e
e
d
C
all)
(Calc.)
Southerly Bdry. of Parcel)
34,768 Sq. Ft. (0.798 Acres±)
(Orig. Parcel-Book 384-Page 494)
Pitkin County Parcel No.
2737-072-00-026 Edge of Asphalt Rd.-Approx.Setback Line(Original Deed Call-See Notes No. 3, 5 & 6)
15' Setback L
i
n
e
(From Top of
B
a
n
k
)
10' Setback Line 25' Setback Line15' Setback Line
(From Top of Bank)
Edge of
W
at
er
H U N T E
R
C
R
E
E
K
Edge of
Water
Edge of
W
at
er
Top of Bank
Top of B
a
n
k
ZONE AE (100 YEAR FLOOD)
ZONE AE (FLOODWAY)
ZONE AE
(
1
0
0
Y
E
A
R
F
L
O
O
D
)7837'
BASE
FLOOD
ELEVAT
ION
14.43'S89° 06' 08"E 200.17'
7835
7840784
0
7840
7840
78
4
0 78407840784078407840
78
4
0
7840
78407845785078457850784578507845
78507852
78527841783
7
7836
7838
783778367837 783778367837 7838783978397839
78
41
78417841
7
8
3
5
7837
78407840 7842783678367837 784178437841S7° 13' 56"E 120.52'7837
POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
NEW NATIVE GRASSES
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | CONCEPTUAL RETAINED DRIVE & AUTOCOURTP76 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_E.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:32 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
6.2
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
ALTERNATIVE A
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
N
PROJECT
NORTH
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"24"POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
NEW NATIVE GRASSES
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
PTNo. 268
PTNo. 138
PTNo. 153
PTNo. na
PTNo. na
PTNo. 137
PTNo. 131
PTNo. 116
PTNo. 115
PTNo. 114
PTNo. 113
PTNo. 173
PTNo. 174
PTNo. 111
PTNo. 112
PTNo. 110
PTNo. 127
PTNo. 117 PTNo. 123
PTNo. 108
PTNo. 109
PTNo. 105
PTNo. 162
PTNo. 172
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | W/ TREES TO BE REMOVED | 1/8"P77VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_D_P&Z.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:39 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
7.0
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
ALTERNATIVE B
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
PROPOSED FOOTPRINT
0 5'10'20'SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATIONP78 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_D_P&Z.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:39 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
7.2
PROPOSED SITE/
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
ALTERNATIVE B
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
N
PROJECT
NORTH
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
PROPOSED FOOTPRINT
POOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
NEW ON GRADE MANICURED LAWN
EXISTING CAR PORT
10 NEW TREES
3 NEW TREES
5 NEW TREES
4 NEW TREES
PTNo. 268
PTNo. 138
PTNo. 153
PTNo. na
PTNo. na
PTNo. 137
PTNo. 131
PTNo. 116
PTNo. 115
PTNo. 114
PTNo. 113
PTNo. 173
PTNo. 174
PTNo. 111
PTNo. 112
PTNo. 110
PTNo. 127
PTNo. 117 PTNo. 123
PTNo. 108
PTNo. 109
PTNo. 105
PTNo. 162
PTNo. 172
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | W/ TREES TO BE REMOVED | 1/8"P79VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:42 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
8.0
TOP OF BANK SECTION
(45 DEGREE ANGLE)
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
45 DEGREE PLANE FROM 15' TOP BANK SET BACK LINE.
ILLUSTRATED: MOST RESTRICTIVE POINT
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 TOP OF BANK SET BACK | ZONING SECTIONP80 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:44 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
9.0
PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS:
PREFERRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
W/DW/D
ICEREFDWWINEREFWINEREFUP
DN
STAIR
X
ELE.
X
LAUNDRY
X
MECHANICAL
X
POOL MECHANICAL
X
CLS.
X
POWDER
X
THEATER
X
BAR
X
GAME ROOM
X
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
1A9
UPDN
DN
DN
STAIR
X
SUITE 1
X
SUITE 2
X
CLS.
X
CLS.
X
CLS.
X
CLS.
X
CLS.
X
SUITE 3
X
OFFICE
X
GALLERY
X
KITCHENETTE
XSUNKEN DEN
X
POOL
X
ELE.
X
SPA
X
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
DW F
FP
FP
FP FP
FP
BENCHBENCH
CABANA BATH
X
1A9
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVELP81 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:44 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
9.1
PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS:
PREFERRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.FFW/DW/D
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTIONDN
DN DNDN
WC
X
CLS
X
KITCHEN
X
DINING ROOM
X
LIVING ROOM
X
ENTRY
X
PR
X
MUDROOM
X
ELE.
X
GARAGE
X
STAIR
X
DW1A9
FP
POOL BELOW
FP FP
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW
ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
ELEVATED 'BRIDGE'
AUTO COURT ACCESS
ELEVATED 'BRIDGE'
AUTO COURT
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
MASTER SUITE
X
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 ROOF PLANP82 VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_C_P&Z.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:19 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
10.0
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS:
PREFRRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
STAIR
X
ELE.
X
LAUNDRYX
MECHANICAL
X
POOL MECHANICAL
X
CLS.
X
POWDER
X
THEATER
X
BAR
X
GAME ROOM
X
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
1,978.78 sq ft475.93 sq ft
CRAWL SPACE
4'-0"4'-0"1'-71/4"16'-117/8"
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
DECK 3
DECK 4
WC
X
CLS
X
KITCHEN
X
DINING ROOM
X
LIVING ROOM
X
ENTRY
X
PRX
MUDROOM
X
ELE.
X
GARAGE
X
STAIR
X
11'-1"111/4"2,131.31 sq ft
501.36 sq ft
DECK 1214.33 sq ft
DECK 2191.13 sq ftDECK 346.94 sq ft
DECK 446.33 sq ft
61.33 sq ft
136.68 sq ft
OVERHANG 134.22 sq ft
EDGE OF ROOF ABOVE
EDGE OF ROOF ABOVEEDGE OF ROOF ABOVE
EDGE OF ROOF ABOVEEDGE OF ROOF ABOVEPOOL BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
ELEVATED DECK BELOW
SPA BELOW
ON GRADE PATIO BELOW
MAIN LEVEL SHOWN
(=/- 12' FROM GRADE BELOW)
COVERED FRONT PORCH
TRELLIS ABOVE
TWO CAR GARAGE
ELEVATED AUTO COURT-NO COUNT
MASTER SUITE
X
STAIR
X
SUITE 1
X
SUITE 2
X
CLS.
X
CLS.
X CLS.
X
CLS.
X
CLS.X
SUITE 3
X
OFFICE
X
GALLERY
X
KITCHENETTE
XSUNKEN DEN
X
POOL
X
ELE.X
SPA
X
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
2,433.53 sq ft
DECK 5633.66 sq ft
DECK 654.79 sq ft
DECK 7257.57
EDGE OF MAIN FLOOR OVERHANG ABOVE
EDGE OF MAIN FLOOR OVERHANG ABOVE
EDGE OF ELEVATED AUTO COURT ABOVE
EDGE OF ELEVATED DRIVE ABOVE
EDGE OF ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE
EDGE OF ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE
CABANA BATH
X
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"-1 BASEMENT AREA FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN FLOOR AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSEDP83
VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Users/collinfrank/Desktop/SHADY LN_2017-02-20_C_P&Z.pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:20 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
10.1
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS:
PREFRRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
DECK 8457.78 sq ft
Z.5TOP OF BANK SECTION
GREEN ROOFGREEN ROOF
GREEN ROOF
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION
54 SHDAY LN
ZONE: R-30
PARCEL NUMBER: 273707200026
LOT AREA: 19,496 SF
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 4,769
PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS
MAIN LEVEL WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL AREA ( SQ FT)EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT)
1 100
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TOTAL (SQ FT)2,904 100
EXPOSED WALL AREA PERCENTAGE 3%
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS Sq Ft FAR
BASEMENT LEVEL (Sq Ft)1,978.78 68.14
CRAWL SPACE 475.93 0.00
BASEMENT LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)1,978.78 68.14
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL (Sq Ft)2,433.53 2,433.53
LOWER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)2,433.53 2,433.53
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
MAIN LEVEL (Sq Ft)2,131.31 2,131.31
GARAGE (TWO STALL)501.36 125.68
MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)2,632.67 2,256.99
DECK/PATIO ABOVE GRADE FLOOR AREA (Sq Ft)
1 214.33 0
2 191.12 0
3 46.94 0
4 46.33 0
5 633.66 0
6 54.79 0
7 257.57 257.57
8 (ROOF DECK)457.78 457.78
DECK COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ FT)1,902.52 715.35
15% OF ALLOWABLE FAR (715.35)
OVERHANG
COVERED FRONT PORCH 136.68 0
OVERHANG 1 34.22 0
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA (Sq Ft)1,978.78 68.14
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (Sq Ft)2,433.53 2,433.53
1
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (Sq Ft)2,632.67 2,256.99
DECK/PORCH FLOOR AREA (Sq Ft)0.00 0
TOTAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 7,045 4,758.66
2
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 ROOF AREA PLAN PROPOSED
P84VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUECANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LANE | ASPEN, COSHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1609
CPF
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:35 PM119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
11.0
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
PREFERRED OPTION
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
2/28/17
SHEET No.
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-25'-0"
-2 BASEMENT/FOUNDATIONS
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
-12'-0"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
±0"
1 MAIN LEVEL
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
+12'-0"
2 ROOF
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SOUTH ELEVATION
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATIONP85
VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:CANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LN | ASPEN, COPROJECT No:
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL
1609
CPF
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.TEL
FAX
11.1
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
PREFERRED OPTION
2/28/17
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln | 12:35 PM | Tuesday, February 28, 2017
SHEET No.P86VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:CANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LN | ASPEN, COPROJECT No:
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL
1609
CPF
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.TEL
FAX
11.2
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
PREFERRED OPTION
2/28/17
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln | 12:35 PM | Tuesday, February 28, 2017
SHEET No.P87VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:CANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LN | ASPEN, COPROJECT No:
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL
1609
CPF
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.TEL
FAX
11.3
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
PREFERRED OPTION
2/28/17
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln | 12:35 PM | Tuesday, February 28, 2017
SHEET No.P88VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:CANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LN | ASPEN, COPROJECT No:
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL
1609
CPF
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.TEL
FAX
12.0
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
OPTION B
2/28/17
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln | 12:35 PM | Tuesday, February 28, 2017
SHEET No.P89VI.A.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:CANOPY HOUSE54 SHADY LN | ASPEN, COPROJECT No:
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL
1609
CPF
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.TEL
FAX
12.1
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
OPTION B
2/28/17
/Volumes/DJA-COMMON/Projects/Aspen/'16 Projects/1609 - Shady Lane/Plots/2017-02-28 FINAL P&Z/10 SERIES .pln | 12:35 PM | Tuesday, February 28, 2017
SHEET No.P90VI.A.