HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.253 Silverlode Dr.A061-03DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Of the
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070,
"Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code. This Order allows development of asite-specific development plan pursuairt to
the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall
also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building
permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension,
reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After
Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding
any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to
any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site-specific
development plan as described below:
John Elmore, PO Box 318, Wriehtsville Beach, NC, 28480, 910-256-4780
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
Lot 11 Silverlode Subdivision , 253 Silverlode Street, Asnen. Co.
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
Variances to the Residential Desien Standards to allow more than one non-orthoeonal
window on three of the. four facades of the structure
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
Resolution No. 25-2003, Approved on 11/4/03
Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Rinal Ordinances or Resolutions)
November 29.2003
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
November 29.2006
Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration
and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.)
Issued this 21St day of November 2003, by the City of Aspen Community
Development Director.
:Ann Woods, Community
Director
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City
of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property: Elmore Residence, 253 Silverlode Street, Aspen, Co., Lot 11
Silverlode Subdivision, by resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
numbered 25.
For further information contact Scott Woodford at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Dept. located at 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5102.
s/City of Aspen Account
Publish in The Aspen Times on November 29, 2003
ATTACHMENT?
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
~~~ ~
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~1 ~~~ Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: O , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, ~~ l~A ~' ~~~~~ ~ (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
/~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of azi official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen 15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hero.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public Bearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, wlvch contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (IS) days ~irior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class posta
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal governmerl't,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heazing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as pazt of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived: However, the proposed zonng map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (I S) days
prior to the public heazing on such amendments.
~ GL '
gnature
IThe forego ng Affidavit of Notice" wa-s a-c~°owledged bef re me this i day
of C 7~~7-e-,~ , 2~0~, by I ice.--~~-~ l
~~~ay, ]VOVemhv~ S; mos at
~'~ at 4'.90 P.m. bgorcthe Aspen
ypwing Commisaloa, $b[er Citks
gpgy, ~ Ha4++A3P.S .Caleha 54. Aape,4 m coo-
yQs.an jgpYwtlwn~inbmltted M' Johw FJn)me
foi`:a v1ilsMe to Ne RyfdentlMt7g18n 9tatid'..
arde to allow more than oM-don orthwQOnN `.Hn'
dow on flwx facades-of the. under conspucflon
MBldencbvddcM b ~~ at 253 911ver I:oAe
D11v4 ~IIyF Ae~Crlbed as Ldl 11. Sliver Lode
9utldhdsbn. ForfinNer IMomutWn, conha
scotr Nbodfortl at Me Chy of AsPai Community
Uevelopmewt peParhneM, 130.9. felere SL;-As-
pen, CO (9'1~ .926u1~. "(or ,by enudi.. ac
s~.~~.
s/J4smhre Tygre~CJwh
Aspea ,_ dng and ZpMdB COmmieabn
PWdlsnea •e Pen 7Ymes, ou Octobor le...
WITNESS MY HAND AND O/FFICIAL SEAL
My commissioq expires: ~/ ~~~
PU,B~,tp
0( ~ ~t~
Z; c~POP!G9 O
:~
~t
~S~' ............. ~ oV
`~l~ TE OF G~
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
„.~, ~i y rt r. vvvivr.xS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
MEMORANDUM
~. A.
TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgate , uty Director 'of Community Development
FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plann re ~~
RE: 253 SILVERLODE~ VARIANCE TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
RESOLUTION NO. ~ SERIES 2003
DATE: November 4, 2003
Photo of the under
construction house
at 253 Silverlode
Drive. On the street
facing facade, the
applicant is
proposing to include
fournon-orthogonal
windows to go along
with the one non-
or[hogonal window
that the Residential
Design Standards
allow on each
facade. In addition,
the north and south
facades are
proposed to have
more than one non-
orthogonal window.
PROJECT: ELMORE.RESIDENCE/253 SILVER LODE
REQUEST SUMMARY: Variance to the Residential Design Standards to allow more than
one non-orthogonal window on three of the four facades of the
residence.
ADDRESS: 253 Silver Lode, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision
APPLICANT: John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS
253 SILVERLODE/ELMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT
PAGH 1
-r
REQUEST SUMMARY'
The applicant currently has the subject residence under construction and has the house
framed with some of the walls up with the azea for the windows cut out and is awaiting
the outcome of this variance request prior to putting in the windows. The Residential
Design Standard from which the applicant is requesting a variance is from Section
2.410.040 (3) (b), specifically described below:
b. No more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each fagade of the
building. A single, non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with
mullions and still be considered one non-orthogonal window.
The specific variance request is to have the following:
a.) Four (4) additional non-orthogonal windows on the west elevation (the street-
facing elevation), for a total of Snon-orthogonal windows on this facade; and,
b.) Two (2) additional non-orthogonal windows on the north elevation, for a total of
3 non-orthogonal windows on this fapade; and,
c.) Two (2) additional non-orthogonal windows on the south elevation, for a total of
3 non-orthogonal windows on this facade.
REVIEW PROCESS'
The applicant requests the following land use approval for the proposal described above:
Residential Design Standards Variance; According to Section 26.410.020,
variances to the Residential Design Standazds may be granted by the Design Review
Appeal Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic
Preservation Commission; In this case, the staff believes that the Planning and Zoning
Commission is best suited to review the variance requests of this nature. Final
Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission.
BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Silverlode Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council (Ordinance No. 52,
Series of 1994) as par[ of the Williams Ranch Affordable Housing project. The approval
granted the subdivision vested rights status for a period of three yeazs following the 1994
approval. This status allowed structures built during that timeframe to be exempt from
the requirements of the Residential Design Standazds.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS LOT:
On April 2, 2002, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved
(Resolution No. 14, Series of 2002) an 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the
Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Driveway Slope, Secondary Mass
for this lot and approved additional variances to the Design Standazds on April 3, 2001
for Secondary Mass and Build-to-Lines (see Exhibit D for P&Z Minutes from those
hearings).
253 S[LVERLADE/ELMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2
VARIANCES GRANTED ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES:
There are four other houses in the immediate vicinity that have non-orthogonal windows
on their facades (see Exhibit C for map of those houses and proximity to the subject lot).
The house located at 355 Silverlode Drive and the residence next door at 337 Silverlode
Drive each have one non-orthogonal window on their facades. Although the current
Residential Design Standazds allow one non-orthogonal window per facade without a
variance, the standards in effect at the time these houses were constructed in 1997 did not
allow any non-orthogonal windows without a variance. However, because lots within the
subdivision were still within its three yeaz vested rights status at the time and so even
though the Residential Design Standards were approved during that fime, homes built in
the subdivision between 1994 and 1997 were exempt from complying with the design
standards.
The structures built at 295 and 313 Silverlode Drive were constructed in 1998, one yeaz
after the vested right status expired, so they were subject to the Residential Design
Standazds. The house at 295 Silverlode Drive has one and the 313 Silverlode Drive
residence has three non-orthogonal windows on their front facades. Each owner sought,
but was denied variances to the Residential Design Standards in 1998 to avoid an FAR
penalty for having these windows between 9 and 15 feet above the floor level. Instead of
redesigning the structures, though, the owners accepted the FAR penalty so,
consequently, were able to have the non-orthogonal windows.
STAFF COMII~NTS'
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; According to Section 26.222.010 of the Land Use
Code, any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards must idenfify
why, if granted, the exception would comply with the following criteria (followed by
staff findings -See Exhibit A for full findings):
(1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP), and,
STAFF FINDING: Based on the above review criteria, staff is unable to make a finding
that the proposal meets this criteria. The only applicable policy of the AACP is the
Design Quality section, which has a policy that encourages the community to "retain and
encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character
of our community." Staff believes that the proposed design for this residence is able to
meet the AACP policy of adding different styles of architecture to the community without
the need for additional non-orthogonal windows. Therefore, the mere addition of such
windows does nothing to "yield greater compliance" with this goal of the AACP.
(2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision
responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff fmds that the variance request also does not comply with
criteria 2 above because we do not believe that providing additional orthogonal
windows on each facade more effectively addresses the intent of this standard of the
253 SILVERLODE/ELMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3
design guidelines, which is to minimize the use of these of non-orthogonal windows. In
addition, staff does not fmd any unusual site constraints on the subject lot that would
preclude the installation of non-orthogonal windows.
STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standazds to allow for
more than one non-orthogonal window on each fapade for the residence at 253 Silverlode
Drive, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE) Resolution No. ~~
Series of 2003, for a Variance to the Residential Design Standazds to allow for more than
one non-orthogonal window on each fapade for the residence at 253 Silverlode Drive, Lot
11, Silverlode Subdivision."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Residential Design Standards -Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Building Elevations and Site Plan
Exhibit C: Map of Neighboring Properties with Non-Orthogonal Windows
Exhibit D: P&Z Minutes from previous approval
Exhibit E: Letter from Applicant
253 SILVERLODE/ELMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
OMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR MORE THAN ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOW ON EACH FACADE OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 253
SILVERLODE DRIVE, LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-074-30-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the applicant, John Elmore, requesting a Variance to the Residential Design
standazds to allow for four (4) additional non-orthogonal windows on the west elevation,
two (2) additional non-orthogonal windows on the north elevation, and two (2) additional
non-orthogonal windows on the south elevation; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code
standazds in Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Community
Development Department recommended denial of the Variance to the Residential Design
standazds to allow more than one Non-Orthogonal Windows on each fagade because staff
finds that the request does not comply with Criteria 1 or 2 of Section 26.222.010 of the
Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; 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 welfaze;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public
meeting on November 4, 2003, approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a vote of
_ to _ L - ~, to approve the Variance to the Residential Design standazds to
allow for more than one non-orthogonal window; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 4'" DAY OF
NOVEMBER 2003, THAT:
Section 1•
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision, Pazcel Identification of 2737-074-30-001, is approved for a
Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Non-Orthogonal Windows.
253 SILVERLODE~ELMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5
Section 2•
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this
application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and
Zoning Commission aze hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3•
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 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 sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 4, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND
COMMISSION:
ZONING
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
253 SILVERLODEBLMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6
EXHIBIT A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
26.222.010 Purpose.
The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall
review, at a regular meeting, any appeal of the Residential Design Standazds. An appeal for
exemption from the Residential Design Standazds should simply and succinctly identify why, if
granted, the exception would:
(1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? J NO
The only applicable policy of the AACP is the Design Quality section, which has a policy that
encourages the community to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain
and enhance the special chazacter of our community." Staff believes that the proposed design for
this residence is able to meet the AACP policy of adding different styles of azchitecture to the
community without the need for additional non-orthogonal windows. Therefore, the mere addition
of such windows does nothing to "yield greater compliance" with the goals of the AACP.
(2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or
be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? (NO
Staff finds that the variance request also does not comply with above criteria because staff does
not believe that providing additional orthogonal windows on each facade more effectively
addresses the intent of this part of the design guidelines, which is to minimise the use of these
types of windows. In addition, staff fmds that there are no unusual site constraints that would
preclude the installation of non-orthogonal windows.
253 $ILVERLODEIELMORE RESIDENCE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7
oa ~
~a
~~
z
d
a
W
~~
L~
t/"~
V
~ ~ ~
z z z
O O O_
~ ~ ~
x J U 0 0
I~ W o w (n W W W
~ Z > W ~I Z Z ~ V7 (n
Q w> ~ 0 0 0 0 0
Z ~ >-JUQQ~OC~
CO w ~Z >> JJ~
z F- zQ~~~~00
~ O w~ow~~mmm
Q O ~c~Ir~1~N~Nr'~ ~
~ NN~~~ ~
o QQQQQQQQQ ~ o '~
V \ U
F ^`
Q \ ~M \ ~~ ~ a9ry \ U~
~ \ ~M O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ m~
~ J 4
~\ ~ h" b~ ~ O~ ~ ~ } 0 v
' ~s~ 0.~ V I a. ~oF
~ ii \?~r ~QO~ 102.52' ~ 'tea ~- -
~ `g ~ ~ a
~ L ~ I bo w ~ ~ -
I ~~ r3~ ~ ~ 3~~
I
/ \ I\ 3wW ~~c S00'~~5 W
\ \ a _ v
~ ~ - l
~T~I i .o iQ O
/ ~ IJ w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ o
~~~ ~e ~ ~ ~~ ~~ o
~ , a
~ ~ -~ "
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~8 ~ a ~~
I 0 Q ~ a~ ~a
- \ I~~ ~ p w3 Ww o
Y III
a z~ ~ w
d ~' m ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 1
\ w,, ~ o
~~ \ .°\aa~l ~~~ ~ \ r mom ~x _a ~~ ~ LL
~ ~ o ~
w 3 ~ I~ n m m ~.' m W
\ d N~ ~ wl N O r ~
-~~f.¢a G ~ I r m \Z
\ K 6 2 ~~ - N1 V1 '~ w
_ o I W\ U
~~_ N w II ~~ wd / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
`N Z
~L I _ ~ ___- e~ .- ~ ~ ) ~ II
~U m m l_______ --_ fi~p' ~
Q o ~ ~ ~ - -~ ~~I
\\ \ cw Ii '~ ~ ~ a ` V
--: = _
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ m
~ ~ ~~~ y 3 ~ ~ m ~
,~~++ a
~. 1_ ~ I ,~~800 ~ N~`~621 ~ ~°~
a Ji i ~ c ~ ~, /_
1 _ i I ~ ~ ~ II
I a=ww a ,
ma== e ~ ~ O
~~_= iU ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~o~o ~r
u g
° °
~eh,c
Woy
,
sl
''
!vim
~
L
e a
a of
n.
t ~ J
~ € 8 ~ 8 ~ edesV;t Fi~9r
P
gG Y ~ - ~/
~ ~ ~~ ~
ad
~ -' ra ~1 ~1 '
~.:8~ Wa S ,
~
~ ®~oo-~~oo+r ~ ,,' ,
~
~ ,
_¢
a ~
~¢
=~ o¢ _
_~_ -
70V
m0
~
3w6 3i ~
a3~
zi-n i~ wQ~
¢¢z
err
!""~
~~
--~
-,, i ~ a
O
Tr----,
4~. ;~
~~
i ~, ~~~
~~
- ~, , ,
~, -~
~ ~,
~o
~ ow a'
_,
~ 3 3y 3
rt-
~-o
T
I ~
li
x~ •~+~
4
~9
~ '~ t~
13
~ '
r~ # ~"-
~ ~ _,
i ~ ~ tj~,'~~i
~~
,_31
~ ~~
~~ ~~
1 ' ~~~~ ~
III F
~~I N
J ~~~
_ 1
I~
h i,t
i-
` I~ ~I
~ ~
1 i
f I ~J
,~ !II'
4 *~~ ~ 4
;i
~~ r
~~~= ~~~ a~ ~~
-- T ,-
® I~,
~__ ~~~
r--,~i
s~ _ {~ g
~~
~6
~,~
ti
~~ ! V C
~t-~N t
Z
0
L
~l
I
_> '``v°
4 /
1
-~~~
~~
~~g
EXHIBIT C:
PHOTOS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS
295 Silverlode Drive
313 Silverlode Drive
337 Silverlode Drive
4i'
ASPEN PLANNII~U & ZONING COMMISSION ~ Minutes Apri12, 2002
the street, which was not accomplished Myrin agreed with Ron on the garag Exms[r D
doors, but he suggested the grass since there was not another selection for the p&Z Mnvv'rEs
garage doors tonight, so that there could be a vote tonight. Buettow said Bert
idea of the grass was good and the primary look for the garage doors not looking
like garage doors. Tygre said that she might go along with the re-design of the
garage doors but since she didn't know if the parks department would provide
enough screening from the street for her to support it, but she was willing to look at
the garage doors. Erickson suggested the garage doors looked like the side of the
garage did when the sides faced the street, so it looks like the side of the house.
Winchester said that the side of the house was stone, so the garage doors would
never look like the side of the house.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the meeting to Apri116`h
for the applicant to come back with new garage doors designs providing
less impacts. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
~,OT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION - 8040 GREENLINE and
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Lot 11 SilverLode Subdivision.
David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was provided. James Lindt stated that
John Elmore represented by Stan Mathis submitted the application. The proposed
8040 Greenline review was to increase the allowable FAR on site by 317 square
feet; the requested variances were from the secondary mass, building orientation
and driveway cut from the residential design standards.
Lindt said that the lot was 13,329 square feet and 3,172 square feet FAR was
allowed by right; the Ordinance that created the SilverLode Subdivision allowed an
increase of FAR with 8040 Greenline approval. Lindt said the 317 square feet
would not have a negative impact on the visual appearance from the street; there
was a geological report noting no impacts from the addition of the 317 square feet.
Lindt noted that the applicant proposed the front facade of the house be located
parallel to the front edge of the building envelope, which was slightly cocked from
the street. Staff felt the applicant made an effort to meet the standard because the
building envelope had constraints with a 20-foot easement on the property.
Lindt said that the proposed driveway cut would exceed the 2-feet in depth
standard from the property line to the front setback; there was a 19% grade on the
property slope and engineering only allowed a 15% maximum for a driveway,
therefore it was necessary that the driveway cut be more than 2-feet in depth.
8
ASPEN PLANNING` & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes Apri12, 2002
Lindt said that there was an approval for a separate design that more effectively
broke up the mass and distinctively broke up the mass, which was attached as
exhibit "D" to provide 2 distinct masses with a 2-story element in the background.
Staff recommended the secondary mass be denied. Stan Mathis said that
secondary mass was created for the West End and a pedestrian experience from the
street. Mathis stated that the slope was very steep here and the pedestrian
experience was looking directly up in all cases and not at the eye level. John
Elmore stated that this was the last lot to be built upon and what they have done
was more in keeping with the Design Standards rather than the other houses built
in this subdivision. Elmore said that the lot backed up to BLM land so there was
no way to get behind the house without an alley.
No public comments.
Buettow stated that the first few houses that went up in the SilverLode Subdivision
were not required to comply with the Residential Design Standards or the 8040
Greenline Review. Cohen stated that the variance was reasonable and suited the
neighborhood better.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve The P&Z Resolution #14
for the 8040 Greenline Review for the Elmore Residence approving
Variances From Building Orientation and Driveway Slope Residential
Design Standards, approving a variance from the Secondary Mass
Residential Design Standard For Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision (Parcel
#2737-074-30-004) with conditions A & B met, and the conditions as
fOl10WS: (1) The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the City of Aspen Parks
Department at the time of building permit submittal. (2) The applicant shall obtain a tree removal
permit for any trees to be removed. (3) Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the
building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a
Certificate of Occupancy. (4) The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the
driplines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing
prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of
construction equipment, construction backiill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the
driplines. (5)The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over
5,000 SF. (6) The building permit application shall include: (a) A copy of the 5nal P&Z Resolution.
(b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. (c) A completed
tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. (d) A tree removal permit as
required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for
off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees, if applicable. (e) The building plans shall
demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall. (7) All
construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-
of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking,
including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation
of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. (8) The applicant shall
abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m,
Monday through Saturday. (9) All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water
System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and
Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. (10) The
Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not
9
ASPEN PLANNII~ & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2002
limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. (11) The applicant shall snowmelt the
driveway. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the March 19, 2002
minutes; Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 7-0.
Meeting adjourned 6:45 p.m.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001
Jasmine Tygre, vice-chairman, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Council
Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Eric Cohen, Roger
Haneman, Ron Erickson and Jasmine Tygre. Steven Buettow arrived at 4:45 p.m.
and Bob Blaich was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant
City Attorney; Fred Jarman, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER & STAFF COMMENTS
Ron Erickson asked staff if they had heard from Ben Dodge. Joyce Ohlson replied
that Dodge was left the city. Ohlson distributed the in-fill project progress report.
Roger Haneman asked for an update on the Caribou Alley. Ohlson responded that
staff felt that there were violations that were being researched.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of February 20,
2001 and March 6, 2001 with changes as follows: page 5 ¶2 replace
applying to fit the community with extrapolated to fit the local
community and page 6 the last ¶ replace meant with it was by type of
ownership. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission
acting as DRAG on Lot 11, SilverLode Subdivision. Proof of notice was provided.
Fred Jarman explained that there were two variance requests and provided the
review criteria. The first variance was for the build-to lines on lots under I5, 000
square feet had to have at least 60% of the front facade within S feet of the
minimum front yard setback, porches may be used to meet the standard. This lot
was 13,339 square feet but the site had a significant slope to it with an existing
boulder retaining wall and the driveway cut.
Jarman stated that the secondary mass standard required that all new structures
have at least 10% of the total square footage above grade in mass, which is
completely detached (garages, sheds, ADUs) from the principal building or linked
by a subordinate connecting element. He said that secondary mass was meant to
break up the mass and the connecting or linking element was 2 story in this case on
ASPEN PLANNIN~& ZONING COMMISSION Auril 3, 2001
the front side of the lot but one story in the back because of the slope of the lot. He
said that staff felt that this design met the intent of the standard. He said that the
site contained unusual constraints.
Ron Erickson asked that if the house were moved to the front of the lot would it
conform to DRAG standards. Roger Haneman asked if the rest of the SilverLode
building envelopes complied with the setback standard. Jarman responded that the
setbacks were determined by the subdivision. Jarman said that some of the
properties met the requirements and some did not. Haneman asked if other lots
had to go through DRAC as well. Jarman replied that yes, there were other lots
that went before DRAG.
Gregory Register, architect and applicant, stated that this was a tough design
challenge with all of the restraints of the retaining wall on the front to prevent the
front setback. He said that the original PUD did not have to abide by the DRAC
standards but that original SilverLode PUD expired and the city standards now
applied. Register stated that he made an effort to come close to meeting these two
standards.
Gary Wright, public, stated that he lived across the street from this lot; this was one
of the last un-built lots, so there would not be any precedents set. Wright said that
the methods that the architect designed were the best that could be done. He noted
that he was surprised about the retaining wall placement because of the problems it
may cause with building on lot 11. He requested that the commission to grant the
variances. Erickson asked Gary if the retaining wall from Lot 12 encroached on
Lot 11. Wright responded that was what it appeared like to him but that he was not
involved in the development of Lot 12.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #13,
series 2001, approving the variances from the Residential Design
Standards for the build to lines and secondary mass finding that the
proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem with the given
standard or provision responds to and is clearly necessary for the
specific site. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Cohen,
yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
Discussion of motion: Erickson discussed the retaining wall and asked Steven for
input. Steven Buettow stated that he did not have a problem with the secondary
mass or the build to line especially with the topography. Haneman agreed that the
area was a tough one to work with on the topography. Tygre stated that this was a
site-specific situation.
2
ExaIBIT E
LETTER FROM APPLICANT
SEPTEMBER 29,2003
APPLICANT: REPRESENTATNE:
JOHN ELMORE STAN MATHIS
P.O. BOX 318 7515 COAL CREEK CIRCLE
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480 WIDEFIELD, CO. 80911
910.256.4780 970.618.6636 CELL
719.390.6065
JAMES LINDT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF,ASPEN
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDMSION
DEAR JAMES,
MY CLIENT, JOHN ELMORE, THE OWNER OF A RESIDENCE BEING CONSTRUCTED ON
LOT 11, SH.VERLODE SUBDNISION REQUESTS A VARL~NCE (PER 26.222 OF THE ASPEN
ZONING CODE) FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (26.410.040 OF THE ASPEN
ZONING CODE).
THE RESIDENCE, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WILL HAVE 5 BEDROOMS,
ASSOCIATED LIVING SPACES, A SMALL OFFICE, AND ATWO-CAR GARAGE. THE ENTRY LEVEL
AND GARAGE ARE BUILT WELL INTO THE HILL SIDE, THE LIVING LEVEL IS OFF SET BACK
FROM THE FACE OF THE ENTRY LEVEL AND THE UPPER LEVEL OFFICE IS LOCATED BEHIND
THE MAIN ROOF STRUCTURE AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE RESIDENCE WILL
HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT WELL BELOW THE
ALLOWABLE LIMIT.
ON APRIL 2, 2002, THIS PROJECT RECENED APPROVAL FROM THE ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND CERTAIN VARIANCES
FROM CERTAIN RESIDENTL~1, DESIGN STANDARDS. A COPY OF THE AMENDED RESOLUTION
#14, SERIES OF 2002, IS ATTACHED HERETO. ALSO ATTACHED ARE THE ELEVATIONS
APPROVED ON APRIL 2, 2002 (WEST ELEVATION- ATTACHMENT C; NORTH ELEVATION-
ATTACHMENT D; EAST ELEVATION-ATTACHMENT E; SOUTH ELEVATION-ATTACHMENT F).
_ __ THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS IS:
~~ ~ - ~ ~ WINDOWS. (bj NO MO12E HAN ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOW SHALL BEALLOQ~ED ON
EACH FACADE OF THE BUILDING. A SINGLE NON- ORTHOGONAL WINDOW INA CABLE END
MAY BE DIVIDED WITH MULLIONS AND STILL BE CONSIDERED ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOW.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW: 1.) 4 ADDITIONAL NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOWS ON THE WEST (STREET) ELEVATION (ATTACHMENT B); 2.) 2 ADDITIONAL NON-
ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION (ATTACHMENT B); AND
3.) 2ADDITIONAL NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION
(ATTACHMENT B). THE SUBJECT SITE PLAN IS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT A FOR
REFERENCE.
THE FOLLOWING EXPLAINS HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH
CHAPTER 26.222 OF THE A5PEN ZONING CODE; DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE.
ELMORE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST SEPT.29, 2003
26.222.010. PURPOSE.
THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE SHALL REVIEW, AT A REGULAR MEETING,
ANY APPEAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. ANY APPEAL FOR EXEMPTION
FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHOULD SIMPLY AND SUCCINCTLY IDENTIFY
WHY, IF GRANTED, THE EXCEPTION WOULD: (1) YIELD GREATER COMPLIANCE WITH THE
GOALS OF THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN.
RESPONSE: THIS REQUEST WOULD ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO HAVE SIMILAR WINDOW
SHAPES AS OTHER NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES THAT WHERE ALLOWED EITHER BY
VARL~NCE OR VESTING, THEREBY REINFORCING A DESIGN FEATURE THAT IS PART
OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
(2) MORE EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OR PROBLEM A GIVEN STANDARD OR
PROVISION RESPONDS TO, OR BE CLEARLY NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS
RELATED TO UNUSUAL SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS.
RESPONSE: 1.) UNLIKE THE WEST END OF ASPEN THIS PROJECT IS ELEVATED WELL
ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL MAKING THE WINDOWS NOT AS IMPORTANT AN
ELEMENT OF THE FACADE AS IF THE PROJECT WERE VIEWED ON A LEVEL SITE. 2J
THE ADDiTIONALNON-ORTHOGONAL WINDS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION CANNOT
BE SEEN FROM THE STREET AS THEY ARE IN A LOCATION HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC
VIEW. 3.) THREE OF THE NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS ON THE EAST ELEVATION
ARE LOCATED IN A WALL THAT IS RECESSED 18 FEET BACK FROM THE LOWER
FLOOR ELEVATION AND UNDER A DEEP PATIO ROOF. IT WILL BE ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE FROM THE STREET. 4.) THERE ARE RESIDENCES ON THE SAME
SIDE OF SILVERLODE DRIVE THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOW ON TWO OR MORE BUILDING FACADES.
THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND PLEASE CALL IF YOU
HAVEANY QUESTIONS.
THA KYOU,
ST MATHIS
,~ -°~ ExaIBIT E
~.., ~ LETTER FROM APPLICANT
SEPTEMBER 29,2003
APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE:
JOHN ELMORE STAN MATHIS
P.O. BOX 318 7515 COAL CREEK CIRCLE
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480 WIDEFIELD, CO.80911
910.256.4780 970.618.6636 CELL
719.390.6065
JAMES LINDT ~;~ ~. -~ ICS `~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE: LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDNISION
DEAR JAMES,
MY CLIENT, JOHN ELMORE, THE OWNER OF A RESIDENCE BEING CONSTRUCTED ON
LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDNISION REQUESTS A VARIANCE (PER 26.222 OF THE ASPEN
ZONING CODE) FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (26.410.040 OF THE ASPEN
ZONING CODE).
THE RESIDENCE, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WILL HAVE 5 BEDROOMS,
ASSOCIATED LIVING SPACES, A SMALL OFFICE, AND ATWO-CAR GARAGE. THE ENTRY LEVEL
AND GARAGE ARE BUILT WELL INTO THE HILL SIDE, THE LIVING LEVEL IS OFF SET BACK
FROM THE FACE OF THE ENTRY LEVEL AND THE UPPER LEVEL OFFICE IS LOCATED BEHIND
THE MAIN ROOF STRUCTURE AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE RESIDENCE WILL
HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT WELL BELOW THE
ALLOWABLE LIMIT.
ON APRIL 2, 2002, THIS PROJECT RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND CERTAIN VARIANCES
FROM CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. A COPY OF THE AMENDED RESOLUTION
#14, SERIES OF 2002, IS ATTACHED HERETO. ALSO ATTACHED ARE THE ELEVATIONS
APPROVED ON APRIL 2, 2002 (WEST ELEVATION- ATTACHMENT C; NORTH ELEVATION-
ATTACHMENT D; EAST ELEVATION-ATTACHMENT E; SOUTH ELEVATION-ATTACHMENT F).
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS IS:
WINDOWS. (b) NO MORE THAN ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOW SHALL BE ALLOWED ON
EACH FACADE OF THE BUILDING. A SINGLE NON- ORTHOGONAL WINDOW IN A GABLE END
MAY BE DIVIDED WITH MULLIONSAND STILL BE CONSIDERED ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOW.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW: 1.) 4 ADDITIONAL NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOWS ON THE WEST (STREET) ELEVATION (ATTACHMENT B); 2.) 2 ADDITIONAL NON-
OR'I'HOGONALWINDOWS ONTHE NORTH ELEVA'T'ION (ATTACHMENT B); AND
3.) 2ADDITIONALNQN-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION
(A7TACHMENT B). THE SUBJECT SITE PLAN IS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT A FOR
REFERENCE.
THE FOLLOWING EXPLAINS HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WI'PH
CHAPTER 26.222 OF THE ASPEN ZONING CODE; llES1GN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE.
~ -~,
... ,~~
ELMORE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST SEPT.29, 2003
26.222.010. PURPOSE.
THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE SHALL REVIEW, AT A REGULAR MEETING,
ANY APPEAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. ANY APPEAL FOR EXEMPTION
FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHOULD SIMPLY AND SUCCINCTLY IDENTIFY
WHY, IF GRANTED, THE EXCEPTION WOULD: (1) YIELD GREATER COMPLIANCE W[TH THE
GOALS OF THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN.
RESPONSE: THIS REQUEST WOULD ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO HAVE SIMILAR WINDOW
SHAPES AS OTHER NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES THAT WHERE ALLOWED EITHER BY
VARIANCE OR VESTING, THEREBY REINFORCING A DESIGN FEATURE THAT IS PART
OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
(2) MORE EFFECTNELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OR PROBLEM A GNEN STANDARD OR
PROVISION RESPONDS TO, OR BE CLEARLY NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS
RELATED TO UNUSUAL SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS.
RESPONSE: 1.) UNLIKE THE WEST END OF ASPEN THIS PROJECT IS ELEVATED WELL
ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL MAKING THE WINDOWS NOT AS IMPORTANT AN
ELEMENT OF THE FACADE AS IF THE PROJECT WERE VIEWED ON A LEVEL SITE. 2.)
THE ADDITIONAL NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION CANNOT
BE SEEN FROM THE STREET AS THEY ARE IN A LOCATION HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC
VIEW. 3.) THREE OF THE NON-ORTHOGONAL WINDOWS ON THE EAST ELEVATION
ARE LOCATED IN A WALL THAT IS RECESSED 1S FEET BACK FROM THE LOWER
FLOOR ELEVATION AND UNDER A DEEP PATIO ROOF. IT WILL BE ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE FROM THE STREET. 4.) THERE ARE RESIDENCES ON THE SAME
SIDE OF SILVERLODE DRNE THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE NON-ORTHOGONAL
WINDOW ON TWO OR MORE BUILDING FACADES.
THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND PLEASE CALL IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
'fHA KYOU, ~~
~,c~ ,
STA MATHIS
J[r. Ju. [UUJ Y:4lHIVI L1It yr HJrCIV IV V. LUI I r. I
_ .,
~- I~~I~III~N~I~~~~52~6;.:=~
SILVSO DaVIS PSTKIN CWN{Y CO R 21.00 a O.N
AMENDED
~" RESOLUTION N0. 14
~~ (SERIES OF 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING AN 1) 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE
ELMORE RESIDENCE, AND 2) APPROVING VARIANCES FROM BUH.DING
ORIENTATION AND DRIVEWAY SLOPE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS, AND 3) APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY
MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT 11, SII.VERLODE
SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No.2737-074-30-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from John Elmore, represented by Stan Mathis, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally
Sensitive Area Review to increase the allowable FAR on the site to 3,489 square feet and
an application for variances from the Building Orientation, Driveway Slope, and
Secondazy Mass Residential Design Standards; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 13,329 square feet and is
located in the Affordable Housing-Planned Unit Development Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994 granted final review
approval for Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Quota
~/ System Exemption, and Vested Rights for the Williams Ranch Project, including the
Silverlode subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of
approximately 8070 feet above sea level and within the review authority of the Planning
and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.435.020 Environmentally Sensitive
Areas; and>
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at
or 1S0 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria set forth in
Section 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve variances from
the Residential Design Standazds when the variance request is consolidated with another
land use request in which the Commission has the review authority; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended that the
Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review
and variance requests from the Building Orientation and Driveway Slope Residential
Design Standazds; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended that the
Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed Secondary Mass Variance; and,
~i9 - ~~~-
81~j4
~r~tj -.'rtes t 5
., n
J[r. )V• 1UV) 741HIV1 bl It Ur nJrrly I, V. 1V 11 r, 1
.~+ -"'^.
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2, 2~2, the Plamring
~- ~ ~ and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, the 8040 Grreenline
'" Review for the Elmore residence with conditions; and,
\/d ^ m
tp ~ N a WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Apri12, 2f102, the Planning
00
N N ~ and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, a variance from the
d ;; m Building Orientation Residential Design Standard; and,
9~
v 4 -' m WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2, 2002, the Planning
~N and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, a variance from the
~ Driveway Cut Residential Design Standard; and,
~~ WHEREAS, doting a duly noticed public hearing on April 2, 2002, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, a variance from the
~ Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard; and,
~~8
~~~ WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
3 development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
~Y approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
~~ o elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
~= WHEREAS, Ute Aspen Planning and Zoning Cormission finds that this Resolution
a furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare.
~`~
" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section I
u That the 8040 Ctteenline Review for the Elmore residence, Lot 11, Silverlode Subdivision,
allowing for an increase in allowable FAR of 317 square feet to construct the proposed
single-family residence is approved with the fo]lowing conditions:
1. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the City of Aspen Pazks
Department at the time of building permit submittal.
2. The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for any trees to be removed.
3. Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed azound the building envelope
doting construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a
Certificate of Occupancy.
4. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence azound the driplines of any
trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing
prior to commencing construction activities. 'No excavation, storage of materials,
storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehiculaz traffic shall
be allowed within the driplines.
5. -The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is
over 5,000 SF.
6. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution.
~~
JCr. )U• LUU) Y:41NIY1 VI I t yr HJr CIV Iv v. [u I I ~• ]
,,.,. /'~
'~ ~ <,./
b. The conditions o£ approval printed on the cover page of the building permit
set.
U a ~ e. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
s District.
e .~~
N o m : d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any
to ^ ~ o approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or
~ g ~ mitigation of removed trees, if applicable.
~ ° ~ a e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system
N approved by the Aspen Pire Mazahall.
7. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and
~.~ not within public rights-of--way unless specifically approved by the Director of
the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their
~~ employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area.
i The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition.
~'~ 8. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited
to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday.
0
9. Al] uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
a Standazds and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
> Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as
~~~ they pertain to utilities.
] 0. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
u including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
11. The applicant shall snowmelt the driveway.
Section 2:
That the requested variances from the Building Orientation, Driveway Cut, and Secondary
Mass Residential Design Standards are approved.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authori2ed entity.
Section 4:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and wncluded under such
prior ordinances.
Jtr. SU. LUUS Y:4tlHIVl
~- m
n
~o
r
~ oav
N m
tD ° '~. o
d "m
~ ae
a s=P
~~N
^~r
~~
.~.~,
~~~
.~.
~°
V
Y
F
~`
~~ p
~~
Tg
+s
~~ J
w
~tlr ur Hartly
s^
~..;
"'~
.,~%
IV V. LU I r• 4
echo S:
ff any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinffircc is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Asprn on the 2nd
day of April, 2002. (previously recorded 466650, amended due to error on approval date).
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cily Attorney
ATTEST:
,-
~..
J kie Lothtan, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
~lL,~ c~c-c ~~-
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
,..
379604 B-77t,w, p-a%' 03/09/95. O2:03P F'C ~'~ OF 11 REC DOC
SILVIR DRVIS F'ITKIN COUNTY CLERK R`°''Sr.ECGRDER X5.00
ORDINANCE NO.jeZ
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW
FOR SUBDIVISION, PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION,
AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT
35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND
15 FREE MARKET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
WHEREAS, the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation
("Applicant"), represented by Tom S*_evens and Gary Wright,
submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting approval
of the Williams Ranch development which consists of 35 deed
restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned
Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and
WHEREAS, the. Williams Ranch property is located immediately
adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin
County; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with-the
City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex
the subject property to the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt
Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance
with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of
1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and
determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation
to be in substantial compliance with _31-12-104 and 31-12-105,
C.R.S, and
y..~ fit
.;79604 R-T.~.~ G-823 03/09/95 02:03P Fart ~ OF 11
% WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City of Aspen have consented
to that certain Annexation Agreement dated , 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at
which time the Commission recommended approval to City Council for
the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Annexation.
The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special
Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-_; and
WHEREAS,. the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of
this project to City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section
24-7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
~~ Exemption, City Council may approve the Applicant's request; and
~ WHEREAS, City Council considered the Applicant's request at
a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time
Council determined that this project complies with the applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City Council has found that a multi-year development
allotment for one freemarket unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103(0)
is appropriate to accommodate this project; and
WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically
conditioned upon City Council approval of said Petition for
Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT ORDAINED HY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ~
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
2
.
?~79E+O4 R-775 F'-8c4. @3/Q~9/95 Oc:03f~ PG „ OF 11
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24-
7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 .GMQS
Exemption, City Council does hereby approve the applicant's request
subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement
and upon adoption by the City Council of an Annexation Ordinance
annexing the subject property to the City of~Aspen; and subject
further to the following conditions:
1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has recommended the following
conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the
applicant:
a. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain
all development and disturbance proposed for those, lots.
Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the
designated building envelopes. This condition shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
b. No development shall be permitted to encroach into any
easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This
condition shall be noted. on the Final Plat.
c. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate
topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments
shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and
submitted with the building permit.
d. The free market units shall provide one parking space
per bedroom.
e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the
lot areas identified on the Final Plat.
f. Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be used for this project.
g. Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front
yard that addresses the requirement of Section 24-3-101
Yard (A)(5), which permits driveways or cut slabs greater
than 30 inches below grade within the required yards.
/' h. All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when
3
3796G~+ R-775 P~,,,,..~5 03/9/95 0c:@3P FG 4 ,,,.UF 11
j' working drawings are submitted to the Building Department
l for building permit review. The drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for
this level of review.
2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions
regarding pedestrian areas:
a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all
lots that are adjacent to roads.
b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on
one side of all roads within the subdivision and along
one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson
park to Smuggler Mountain Road.
c. All hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be
maintained in a suitable walking condition on a year.
round basis.
d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the
Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners
are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these
walkways.
3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System
agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and
''
~
~ Spec ifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental
Heal th Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant:
a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control
plan filed in the Environmental Health Department.
b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for
each structure with the Environmental Health Department,
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
c. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:o0am to 10:00pm
to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as
they relate to the Housing Office:
a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the
affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser
complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines
and each purchaser has been approved by the APCHA.
b. All resale affordable housing units shall come under the
jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines.
4
379604 R-775 P~...t5,`_'6 03/09/95 Oc:03F' F'G 5 °~OF 11
c. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved
by the Housing- office within 180 days of City Council
approval of the project.
d. Ten of the Resident occupied "RO" units shall comply with
the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable
Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall
meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines,
except there will be no-asset or income limitations for
these residents.
6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilver Road and
Williams Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subject to approval
of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the
applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all
residential units.
7. Lots 1 - 15 shall have a residential sprinkler system
installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit
drawings.
8. Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height
(plus five feet to the mid-point), as calculated by Pitkin
County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25
f- foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are
calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height.
9. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate
records of pump maintenance and servicing available for
inspection by the Fire Marshall.
10. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide
and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis.
The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall
specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's
Associations for the emergency access road.
11. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not
exceed 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. If
the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 80%
of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a
complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any
building permits for that lot. In the 8040 Greenline Review
process, particular attention shall be focussed on
requirements 7 and 8, which provide for the preservation of
the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into thei
open character of the mountain.
12. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site
'` 5
379604 B-775 F'`~''.'7 03/09/95 0~:03F' F'G 6 ~iF it
.+
conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building
permit review on each parcel.
13. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the
foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994
from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply
with the following:
a. The free market units shall be required to provide for
on-site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall
be indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Construction
drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a
licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control
measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving
activities.
c. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an
easement for Spruce Street along the north property
boundary on Lots 1 - 4 and provide a seven foot easement
for snow storage along these lots.
d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving
width. This also applies to the "driveway" called
Williams Court.
e. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the
emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed
and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle
loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and
specifications, stamped by a registered engineer; and
obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any
road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage
construction.
g. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the
road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7-
1004(C)(4)(a)(10) and (13).
h. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs
to be installed by the applicant as identified in the
G
i ~,
379E04 R-775 ,~~ 828 03/09/95 0~:03P F'6 7. 1 OF 11
Traffic Report.
i. In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround
for the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams
Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer shall be designed
outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow
storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This
shall be identified on the Final Plat.
j. An easement for the snow storage areas within the
development shall be indicated on the Final Plat.
k. The applicant shall provide three single globe antique
street lights for this project, one at the intersection
of Williams Drive and Teal Court, one at the
intersection/turnaround of Williams Ranch Drive and
Freesilver Road, and one at the intersection of Williams
Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level
.street lighting shall be provided between intersections.
Design, style and location of these lights shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
1. All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out
to the property lines prior to paving the access roads.
m. Any property monuments removed or disturbed during
construction (including landscaping) shall be reset by
a land surveyor.
n. Prior to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments
shall be set on the external boundaries of the
subdivision.
o. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include
a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas
will be located on private property and not within access
and utility easements.
p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-
7-1004(D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also
include certificates of plat approval for utility
location and easement width by all utility companies and
approval by all easement holders on the property.
q. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary,
certificate, site, engineering, and architectural
drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing
engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered
engiineer .
r. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of
7
., c,796~4 P-77~+-8~9 k3/~9/95 O~:kl3p F'6 OF i1
/ constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area
public rights-of-way.
s. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within public
rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-
of-way from the city street department (920-5130).
t. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat
and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to
comply With the requirements of the Municipal Code.
15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed
in any of the Williams Ranch residences.
16. As stated in the Parks Department referral comments dated
_ September 7, 1994, the applicant shall comply .with the
following:
a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch
owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch.
Specific information regarding trail standards and
materials shall be included in the application. The
applicant should dedicate this as a public easement.
b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that
identifies trees six inches in diameter and over.
Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included
on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review
and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with
the Final Plat documents..
c. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance 37 Series of
1991 as it relates to irrigation methods.
17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park development impact
fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the
applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements
as specified Section 24-5-608.
'~,18. The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature
l along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic
', character of this area.
f
19. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney,
Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all
proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council
review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place
8
' ,79604 R-77G°- F'-830 03/09/95 02:03F' F'C-"^c OF 11
/_ before the issuance of any building permits. All public
'') improvements-shall be completed, in-place and accepted by the
~ appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy's.
20. The applicant shall explore restricting residential
development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with
the exception of~a night watchman's quarters, not to exceed
1,500 square feet in floor area.
21. The City Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow
variations of subdivision design standards as set forth in
Section 24-7-1004(C)(4) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
22. Only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street.
23. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on
this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation
and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen.
24. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by
Bruce Collins in his geologic report dated January 19, 1994.
25. All material-representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
-~ by other conditions.
~`- ~26. The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation Easement to the
City of Aspen for the open space parcel adjacent to Salvation
Ditch.
27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot
height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County
regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights
for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development plan as
follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
9
,' .;379604 La-775 G-831 03/09/95 0c:03p FAG 10 OF ii
/., ~
~~ ~
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
-:~ all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the
Municipal Code shall also .result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approval granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which.
are general in nature and are applicable to all properties
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen,. including
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes.. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of .the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice.
Section 9: This .ordinance shall not become effective unless and
until tY~e City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly
enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of
to
37%Q~4 B-775 F'-832 03/Q~9/95 ~2:03F' F'G 11 DF it
.., ~ ~
,.r ,
C _ _ Aspen.
\ Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days
prior to .the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~ day of jcf„~„L
1994.
X ~7
Joh YYYY Bennett, Mayor
• ,,`~ ~ F ~ ~..
,,,
•: `~ .. J,.~.
`~~ ' •. ~
ATTEST: ';
;~~ ~ ,~„
;. ~ _.
nab n•• och, City
~RAD
,,, miflu~~••''•
FINALLY, adopted,
1994.
S,:''%~.
..a~r~y~ ~:...,_ch, City
ond. cc . ah. cyi;~•.,iranch. final
r'••.. '
. ~ o~ b A~AR~rc `.
passed and approved this -~~~~-~ day of
W
John Sennett, Mayor
it
~~r~~
0
Inn
~)
LNNe
~up/~V80lfOY-lYN Xb6GRf~. MM121WV b904b4 N~IpIM1S RSn~OI. M~://M~II.g1111~~•
fnpNiplR®1998 Gm9reMk MIO Tetfipbpy. N~bR%ro1. ®1998 Nmpatbn Te~upb9ka NrgMS ro~ewtl.
Va9e I
I
O
`U1
SS
~~
.-~~
of
N s!] -
o
O ~ ~
~
S- i - ,
~ ~ t~
Cj ' i .
~ ~ ~;
~ ~ ~ - ~' -
~ ~~ '~
_
~
-~ -~ , ~
~ ~ -
< ~,
~ ~
~ ,
~'
O ~ : ~ ~~1 ~ ~
~
~I~ I ` ~ ~
j
, t~- !~~' ~
,
~
i
~
~ i
i r t
I `
~ ~
~ C ~
}
S
F
~~pp~
{' ,L_
' --r
~,
~
l~
.-.~ _
f
G
-~ ~ i ~ ~
_ ~ ~ -~y. ~b l ~
~ -
~,
~;, i
~ ii
~! i ~
~ I~
Ii
i
~'
~'
~'
i
',
i
I
i
i
-z
.Q
V
O
`^`~
,V,``
~i
I~ J
~~,
.~
~.
9
,~~" _\
-~ ' ._ _, .
Q.--_ ~..
~<<~
~'J
1.L+
I
i.
l
~~
`,~
~'
~ ~.
i
i
}
!{ 1
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
(hereinafter, THE PROIECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of
2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the
application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree [hat it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on
a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following thew hearings and/or
approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make
additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the, greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that i[ is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required fmdings for project consideration,
unless current billings aze paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to ~j~rmination of appli ation completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial
deposit in the amount of $ :/ ~~ which is for ~, ~ hours of Community Development staff
time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly
billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments
shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued
until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY ~ PEN
By: -%
Ann Woods
~mmunity Development Director
g: \support\for ms\agrpayas.doc
6iosios RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD
~'~on~r.~ ~kauGs
. ~a~
Billing Address aad Telephone Number:
Required ~ lIS ~ ^ y~~~~
MAR. 5.2002 1:26PM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE N0. 2917 P.2
.-~.
Ji .
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
~_
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in tbe State of Colorado hereby certifies that
JOHN A. ELMORE II is the owner in fee simple of the following described property:
LOT 11,
SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, according to the Subdivision Plat thereof filed for record in Plat Book 37 at Page
3 and Fist Amendment thereof recorded August 20, 1998 in Plat Book 45 at Page 97.
CUUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
Subject to encumbrances, easements, rights of way and recorded matters.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTX TI7,T,E, INC.
BY: ;A,41~.i
authorized
CERTIFIED TO: FE$RYJARY 21, 2002 a 8:00 A.M.
MAR. 5.2002 1:2iPM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,,,,,„r,,,r, „ N0. 2977 P.3
~ '
. ' . cxstr tar a~i>aY ! ~ t1~rQFRO~
)! r'wott tvsarr `r qyt~ ~ ~ yam;
Dna~r R>tas uo. N ~~ coxsacr>wl "~°'Oi `QQ'a5,'`~"
j-~-Ol ~ WARFi/iW7Y DEED
~_
r
v
THIS DEED, roads October 25, 2001,
Between WILUAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNEgSHIP
m the county d
Bmm m CA. oRANiOR,
AND JOHN A. EIJNORE 11, GRANTEE
whose lapel alaress b : 1!N)0 FJISTN/OOp ROAD. SUITE i t. WILMINGTON, NC, 2t1~03
m the County d
filets d NC
WITNESSETN. That for and N COnaldarsaon d the sum d tM dosars and oMgt goad Of W vasreble oonNdaraYon,
ttte reoWp 9M eueklenry d whkh tr hereby eduawledpetl, tl» grantor hpa pra+YSd, tlarpalnsd, sold end
eomraYad. and by dress Weaeds does 9raaL berpsln, seY and oomny otld eoMtrm urdb Hte 9raltee, Tde heNs and
esslgns tasver, ell tM reel property topsthx wah Irrpovunertb, n any, aiaan one Mn0 and ttaing In the County
d PIT%IN. State d COLORADO, deer.Mtled as 1oYOwe:
LOT 1 t,
SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, aoeord"rtg b dls Subdhgspn Plat thsreot 61sd fa revvrd N Ppt BooK 97 M Pape 3
and Fact Amsndlhant ihereot raCOrded August 20. 1 ape In Plat Book ~ w Pepe 9S.
TOGETHER w11f1 iY and sinpttp. the traredpsmenta end appurtanenoee iheret0 bebnpinp, a M arrywlse
appertainMg, end tlta rsvorslsrt and rwetNans, remMrtders, rents, haws and prplhs tharea, end ad the asters.
rlph6 etle, 1r10erest, °pan end demand wMUOaror d dle grantor erorer In luv w squMy. m, (n and to the atww
bef0axrad promeaa, with dle heredkamsnt6 end eppWtarencae, TO NAVE ANO TO HOLD the Sea prampee
atww ixtrgalnsd and tleeni0ed, weh the appurtenenesa, unto the Orerttse, hp hates end asspna toteva. qnd iha
6rerltor,la hlmeeM, his htlY'6 and lraaipns, dvas oDVelrenf, greM, trsrpear, end agree t0 and tegfr eta GrerNea. hls
heirs end uarons, that at the tlme d ttte ensewlnp and dslHery d the Preaenb,. ha ie wee selzw d the Pranaaes
and has peod dphe. h+Y~wsr and lawful a ~~ ~ I~Nbb olds m Inasnlenes. In law. In tae sYnpp.
u .laetyta. and au the Game era Nas erwdear irorep fo ~ o~ the same In nwrsfsr and brm
assessments, sneumbranwe and resplcdons m whatsvaf and a maws sornrer, ~ bef~De' saps, Ysns, toss.
on FxNblt A• attached hereto errd Moorporeted hao:, except those matters as sot rapt
KOREVER OFFEND dte above aergalnad prsml9es M ehsrehrsnvs. The grantor alpY and wiY WARRANT AND
heirs and asslpne, epBlrtst all and qulst acrd VaepOabta posausbn m tl+o grantee, his
every garcon a parsons lewrwry delmNrp the whey a Gay pen tlrersm. Tt+s
a~ntlw,r~m~ shag irrcxrde era pxaal. the pktrel rho slnpuW, and the use et gender sheN As aPtekeble to eY
r ~.
STATE OF
sa
COUNTY OF t
Tea forspolnp Instrument was eCknow190 ore m9 tMs day d OCTOBER, 200t,
by WILUAMS RANCH JOINT V A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERt#tIP BY:
- ITS=
WITNE99 O andend ot1lCial seal
my salvo axplm~ Nerery Pu611c
S-~e.. }~-}~e-h M e rti f
I~ ~ ~ ~~iz4:.a is:sso
IRY)tl IMY[S piTRla fpYTy W w u.ee o •.w
-' MAR. 5.2002 1:21PM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE_.,,,,_..,..
r.
V
DfNIBIT'q•
1. Tatuq ter dN yeffi 2001 na yffi due or PYYabl9.
,,., ,, ,;., ~ , N0.2977 P. 4
z. Rlpm a the Proprlator a a vNn a lade ro earerx a rerasvs INS oro dtsraran, shaNa the sane be tamd b
ttanesa a atrorsea ins premlees trrepy as reeerwd m united Stffiss Passrde recorded Dacertrbet zs.
tBOe n Book t 98 ffi Pegs 386. recorded Mey 2D. tps9 to Book 175 ffi Peps tGi end raeaedsp December 24.
19021n Beek 66 at Pape 17&
3. tllpltt a tray br ditGtes a serials oonstructsd by die saa,aky a the Uaibd States r reaetved In UNred Stile:
Pffisma recorded NOVembsr 22, 7910 In Beak 138 ffi Pepe 373, era receldsd Dsoerttbet 24, 190¢ n Book 55 et
Pape 118.
a. Perpsdwl Npht a way.and easeetertts b Wttsttd or drlvs levels or bmneta Nuouph Ste sublet.Y Droparty as set Path
era resenred to deed recorded March 30, 1896 in Book 131 ffi Paps 42b.
6. Raservatbn Dy VVripM 6 Preueclt MrtMtp Lbl., a arty end aN wtt.etafsca era awarffi ri9mr ttttrow 5o teffi ertkw
dra eurfaoa; itovrever, epse8nstty tvMtou! arty eocanpatynp npm b trw or M arty way buMert the rttatms ewes
to oWNn and uae the henslh a Ste ownerahlp a the cams. as set foNt n deed taeoasd Mareh'11' , 7986 in Book
ne st Paps 990.
e. F.,soamags, Netts a way ertd aN m08ere y tlisclose0 On Plan a SNvanode Sut+dhdabn and W8lntne Reatoh
SubOMSlon, reoolded May 9, 1995 n Plat Baok 37 et Pape 3 and Flret ameramartt 8tereof rscsrded qupuyt 20,
t988 nt Plat Hook a5 at Pape 97.
7. U.s. West approval end e9reentem for YIIBIams Raa:h SubdNlslon and SMeNOds SubdMebrr rttcerdad May 8.
1985 M BODk 780 ffi Pepe 388.
8. Tsrms, rxndlaons, prsvlsl0ro and obN9etlDns as set fDrBt In VYNIMrrts Rsnt:h - Cpy W gspert Amwtrstbn
AdeemeM reeerdM May 9, t896 n Book >80 ffi Paps 370.
9. These terms. condNfons, provkbrts, aMpatlons, eaiMnartre, rsstrle8ons, assessments era se maitre es set foNn
n Dadara0sn foY slNerlDde recorded May 12, 1995 M Boe4 78D ffi Pepe 756 Y Reeappan Nw 38t 278, deletlnp
tnsresrom arty rsatrlctions Italutlnp arty Prefennos. Nrnlfatlen or dbptnrlnatlDn bseed en
harakaP. MmNlal stan», or national elan. tape. cobr, reapwn. sac
The above Pnttective' Covenevtb were amended by FNat tNnertdrnent recorded taovember 5. iHBe as Receplbn
No. az422a.
t0. Temw, eondllorta, Prs'vlalone and owlpadona ea tree YDM n Fatement Apreamertt recorded March 15. 1996 n
0ook 778 at Parts 301.
t t. Ennoadtntad Easement recorded Jury 2, t B86 Y ReCepifon No. 38x388.
12. Conesm a Ownere era Mortpapses b Fkat Amendmsra to the Fktal Subdhnsion Plat of BNveNOde SuOWtrlslgl
era vanlems Rana, 8trbdMSwn ncor~d Aupuat 20, lees as Receptkm No. x20842_
13. Terms. fondhlerts. provWCrre, obNpadens and eN matWs M set fordr n Rasosttlen of the Aspen Plannktp and
Zonlnp tbmmisslon rsatrded Fabrusry tt, 2000 as Reoepdon No. aao391 as RawlrrdOn No. 99-27.
14. All metiers se dhC109ed pY Sunrey a Bann~rAesoelaea9, Inc. dated January ~. 2001 es Jeb No. W046.00-Ot
savlw pNrc elntiM Ceuwrr p e ro.N D e.N
-°,,
.,
ABELIA INVESTMENT LTD ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION INC gOSTICK BARBARA OWEN-
PO BOX 8029 PO BOX 4067 340 SILVERLODE DR
ASPEN, CO 81612 C!O GEORGE WIIKINSON ASPEN, CO 81611-2542
ASPEN, CO 81612
CAREY JANE ELIZABETH DALESSIO ROBERT J & JEAN M ERB MARY ANN
110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 8401 GREENWOOD DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LONGMONT, CO 80503
FINGERMAN SHELDON FUCHS PETER H 8 HENRICKA A GLEASON AUSTIN 8 GEORGE ANNA
PO BOX 8692 844 3RD ST #D 3918 SUNSET
ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90403-1104 SHREVEPORT, LA 71109
HAGOPIAN CONSTANCE E TRUSTEE HAGOPIAN SANDY 52% HAMOUZ JAMES B & KERRI L
~°~ 213 S MILL ST
C/O DAVID A NEARON 130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
1212 ROSSMOOR PKWY ASPEN, CO 81611
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94565
HARRIS WAYNE S JR & JUDI M HOFFMAN E MICHAEL & SHARON LIST HOROWITZ MARTHA MEAGHER
715 W MAIN ST#103 80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 115 WILLIAMS RANCH OR
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 51611 ASPEN, CO 81611
JOSEPH MARK C KELLY GARY P KNIGHT DANA ERIC
100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR PO BOX 12356 627 RIO GRANDE PL
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
KOWALICK ROBERT M JR & LAURIE J MORRIS ROBERT P NEW CONSOLIDATED ET AL
27190 LEDGEWOOD CT 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 PO BOX 4067
ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48306 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
NEW CONSOLIDATED ET AL NEW CONSOLIDATED ET AL OWEN KEVIN
PO BOX 4067 PO BOX 4067 PO BOX 1518
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
PARKER ALEC J PARKER JACQUELINE A POPISH KIM & DOMINIC
120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR PO BOX 434
ASPEN, CO 81611 }1SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
REYNOLDS SHEILA B SCHAEFER TERRY SHANDLING MICHAEL A & ANTOINETTE
1279 LAKE WORTH ~N 117 S SPRING ST STE 101 A
NORTH PALM BEACH„FG ASPEN, CO 81611-2068 401 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611-2903
..
SIMMOtaIS GREGORY T
295 SIL1gR1ODE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
SPARKS CYNTHIA S
PO BOX 3056
ASPEN, CO 81612
TIMROTH GRANT
TIMROTH ALBERT G C/O
PO 8OX 89
ASPEN, CO 81612
WAMPLER MIKE & SANDY
465 N MILL ST STE 19
ASPEN, CO 81611-1588
SUTHERLIN-MARTIN LTD
3616 MAPLEWOOD AVE
DALLAS, TX 75205
WENDEL GERALD
201 SILVERLODE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
WILKINSON GEOFYGE MARSH DBA ECHO WRIGHT & PRUESCH MINING LTD WRIGHT GARY A
FIL S WRIGHT GARY -C/O 201 N MILL ST STE 106
PO~ 1~ 4067 201 N MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611
A~ ~, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
SEP'i`. 26, 2003
JOHN ELMORE
P.O. BOX 318
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC. 28480
970.920.1368
910.256.4780
JAMES LIND1'
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMBNI'
130 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RE; LOT 11, SiLVERLODE SUBDIVISION
DEAR JAMES,
I, JOHN ELMORE, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REFERENCED ABOVE,
AUTHORIZE SCAN MATHIS TO ACT IN MY BEHALF FOR A VARIANCE FROM
THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STANDARDS.
'CHANK YOU,
~,.-~
J N ELMORE
~.-_