Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.277 Silverlode Dr.A052-97 e 0 ,-. .. * Srl✓eri e h" qt? n� t £ , ',,,,t-„' '�, �. ££ J Vim_.�y%,,q ;44 E h9 y k l • PARCEL t7 i77_074-30-010 3 d DATEEERC1fik 06/24/97 #�C'tP1ES 14 ESE Eat ., ' ft4� :31'9106....,t.«.' ` .. NO A052 97 d.r; ,, a» »».». '^' Fuchs 8040 Greenline Chris Bendon R0 X 7Y5R Lot 10, Silverlode Subdivision aP 8040 Greenline T p Fuchs, Ricki &Peter ,.,,� 25 Montain Trail SiZ Stanford, CT 0690 ”PFi (203) 329 9086 lEA e<a�. 3. a€^-ck 1REP'' Richard Klein A® P.O. Box 737 S : A .e o .r... .1 Y'�lu 920-1752 EES�I?UE 1080+1 10=1 190 FEES RCUD;1080+110=1 190 STATE F iVE �3 EE,Eh x _.._,..: h +¢E�,rN..E4� __... . ?:: "`�»�'R E RAS City Eng, Parks EF 06/30/97 RH DE 07/09/97 z a F _-n9 a 07/1 , l . ` -r : '� E e� ,'�['E ,,,E. € eh 5/97 P&Z ., �5 a E€E€r E E E E hE '..�J7 ( w EE:ti,E SE,ynTZEE€ . F E.( _ 1€5€ �� € '.�>3 ax a cY � E€ s €E ��a $. EE EE EEE E( € A3� L,£19#S S hlE. i1 :1- .. .,� St _ TE F� A� :0 :,i1 i F EE E�d .p,k ��i.0,01.E,.�EroE;4 - E h EE,... 3 ,:: u3ux E E€,� ������B©CC�CC REMARKS a���� ro $ E r � t1 �: 10/03/97 'tiY� t� ��E, ' �,�'t� ��� B+D LiBM T® R —Pt' tBK;�PGY ECG ,i An 1 E '`.- a ''''' : v," - a z ,�'` `*Essw=,,,,„,,, � F' at' - .4 �_Faa lac s £.as r � �C S °@'t E3Q1 433 E.� 'e- :`ug .y "'� < _ pia A,_- 4 i � -i„ • •ELOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CIR)F ASPEN DATE RECEIVED: 6/24/97 CASE# A52-97 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Chris Bendon PARCEL ID# 2737-074-30-010 PROJECT NAME: Fuchs 8040 Greenline - Project Address: Lot 10, Silverlode Subdivision APPLICANT: Ricki and Peter Fuchs Address/Phone: 25 Montain Trail, Stanford, CT 06903 (203) 329-9086 OWNER: saa Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Klein, Architect Address/Phone: Box 737, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-1752 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $1080 PLANNING $1080 #APPS RECEIVED 14 ENGINEER $110 ,ENGINEER $110 #PLATS RECEIVED 14 HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF.APPLICATION TOTAL $1190 TOTAL RCVD $1190 One Step Body :, Meeting-Date :z. ;Public Hearing ? P&Z v { ['Yes 'iNo CC ❑Yes ❑No _ CC (2nd reading) EYes ❑No ,'REFERRALS: ❑ City Attorney ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ CDOT City Engineer(DRC) ❑ City Water ❑ ACSD ❑ Zoning ❑ City Electric ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Housing ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑Environmental Health ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Aspen School District 'arks ❑ Other: , L ❑ Other: DATE REFERRED: cI/1170 INITIALS: DATE DUE:-41_ APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution# 1 i Z. (' . (i t Date: •-.0 1.1 IS ITN- Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: Book , Page CLOSED/FILED ATE: t' ��, INITIALS: VY'rYJ ROUTE TO: C���' r' �' • • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW TO INCREASE FROM 80% TO 90% THE PERCENTAGE OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) THAT CAN BE BUILT FOR THE FUCHS RESIDENCE LOCATED AT SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION LOT #10 (NO ADDRESS), ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution #97 - /4- WHEREAS the applicant, Ricki and Peter Fuchs,represented by Richard Klein, Architect, has requested to increase from 80%to 90% the percentage of allowable floor area ratio that can be constructed on Lot#10 of the Silverlode Subdivision (no address); and, WHEREAS the Silverlode Subdivision approval, City Council Ordinance No. 52 , series of 1994, Section 1; states 80% of the allowable floor area ration (FAR) can be built by right and up to 90% of the allowable FAR can be built with an additional 8040 Greenline Review approval from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS The Planning Staff reviewed the development proposal pursuant to all applicable Municipal Code Sections and recommended approval, with conditions; and, WHEREAS during a hearing at a regular meeting held July 15, 1997, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved by a 6-0 vote the application with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Fuchs property, Silverlode Subdivision Lot #10 (no address), is approved with the following conditions: 1. The use of highly reflective materials on the western facade shall be minimized to the extent practical. 2. Exterior lighting shall be downcast. The owner shall limit the use of exterior lighting for ornamental purposes to the extent practical. If the driveway is to be lighted,the owner shall use low,downcast lighting on the west side of the driveway. 3. Before issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,unless otherwise amended by other conditions. • • APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 15, 1997. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: C Attorney Jasminer, Vice-Chair ATTEST: - Jackie Lothian,'Deputy City Clerk • 0 . 4' . . . �..... �G" i IN" '" . - ._ etzi cooif..., .. • . cor, . _. -1 K. • .. . ‘ ' WAWA . Mfilrbi . . .. (*kir . . . . , . :. • . . __. ... . . .. . . • . . , / , . eitilgvvt. 19 . ca.t. in ■ 11 ig5i-- t cs +fhflii— $1064/40t .(120166. iV I JJ .. _ ., . 1 .. . • 141. . .._.. . .. _. - _-. . . . . . . . . . . . .i I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1997 Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chair, opened the Regular Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting at 4:30 with Steve Buettow, Bob Blaich, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, and Dave Johnston present. Sara Garton and Marta Chaikovska were excused. Other Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Amy Amidon, Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Department, Rebecca Schickling, Parks and Steve Aiken, Golf. LOT 10 SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION, FUCHS RESIDENCE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Chris Bendon, staff, explained that applicants, Ricki and Peter Fuchs, requested 8040 Greenline Review. He noted the character and resource of the mountain side was the criteria that applied. Bendon stated the use of the flashy or reflective exterior materials would affect the scenic resource as would the use of exterior lighting. The conditions of approval restate the reflective material concerns and that exterior lighting shall be low downcast. Richard Klein, Architect, presented a model and discussed materials to be used such as stucco, a non reflective metal roof, anodized flashing and specific lighting (non-reflective) relocation from the DRAC hearing. Roger Hunt asked if the addition of the garage increased any bulk or raised the height of the house. Bendon stated a DRAC variance was granted from Ordinance 30 with a defined building envelope. Tim Mooney questioned the additional 430 square footage being pertinent to the quality of living in that space. Klein said the Ordinance did not specifically state that 80% was maximum but allowed 90% FAR with 8040 Greenline Review. He said the lot was narrow and the client wanted to maximize the tight space of that lot. If square footage was decreased, it would be in the back of the house and not have a visual impact on the community. Dave Johnston questioned the 90% FAR option. Bendon said the lighting and materials addressed the issues,but did not change the footprint of the structure. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the 8040 Greenline Review for SilverLode Lot#10 with conditions 1-4 outlined in Community Development Memo date July 15, 1997. Dave Johnston second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 6-0. • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ' Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Silverlode Lot#10. 8040 Greenline Review DATE: July 15, 1997 SUMMARY: Ricki and Peter Fuchs, applicants,are requesting an 8040 Greenline approval to increase their allowable squarefootage from 80% FAR to 90% FAR for a single- family home to be built on Lot jo,of theSilverlode Subdivision. The original subdivision agreement allowed 80% FAR to be built by right and 90% FAR to be built with an 8040 Greenline approval. This extra 10% results in approximately 430 square feet of FAR. The applicant is not changing the approved building envelope or any other aspect of the original approval. The applicant was granted a DRAC waiver for the placement of the garage May 22,;1..997. Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review,with conditions. APPLICANT: Ricki and Peter Fuchs. Represented by Richard Klein, Architect. LOCATION: . ._t,. Silverlode Subdivision Lot#10. The property is above elevation 8040 and is subject to the 8040 Greenline Review if:more than 80%FAR is proposed. ZONING: ;`��� '� ,.•�.�� .•.ft AH 1-PUD. Free-Market Residential'portion of subdivision. LOT AREA(FOR PURPOSES OF FAR)':.< { !t .418 acres= 18,1.86 Square feet. FAR: • 80% of FAR= 3,442 square'feet,pursuant to subdivision approvals. Applicant is requesting an increase to 90%__FAR(3,872 square feet)through 8040 Greenline Review. • • CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE: Single Family Free-Market Residence. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not prey ously,eonsidered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 8040 Greenline. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application at a hearing.'_ BACKGROUND: The Silverlode Subdivision was approved in Pitkin County, vested, and subsequently annexed into Aspen during a period of City Code revisions. Therefore, the subdivision has a mixed set of development standards. The subdivision approval specified a floor area for each site. This approval also stated the applicant could build up to;80%o of that FAR by right, and to 90% with an 8040 Greenline Approval. The project is subject to "Residential Design Standards" except those which affect the calculation of floor area. he pplicant was granted a variance for the placement of the garage by the Design Review Appeals Committee. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit"A." Agency referral comments have been included'as Exhibit `B." The application has been included as Exhibit"C." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 8040`Greenline Review with the following conditions: " 1. The use of highly reflective materials on the western facade shall be minimized to the extent practical. 2. Exterior lighting shall be downcasThe owner shall limit the use of exterior lighting for ornamental purposes",to:the;extent practical. If the driveway is to be lighted,the owner shall use low,_downcast lighting on the west side of the driveway. 3. Before issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. • 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenlirie Review for Silverlode Lot#10 with the (0'0 conditions outlined in the Staff memo dated July 15, 1997." ATTACHMENTS:Exhibit "A" -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit"B" -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit"C" -- Application • • • .. 3 • • Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings: 26.68.030 8040 greenline review. A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.68.030 (B). Staff finding: The property is within this area and is not eligible for an exemption. C. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located,is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of:mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils;-or.; wherehecessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable<to:the city. Staff finding: The parcel is approved for development at 80% of the FAR. Increasing this FAR to 90% without changing the approved building envelope will not change the site's characteristics or development potential. No known toxic soils exist on the site. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff;drainage soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff finding: The applicant is not proposing to alter"the-°building envelope. Staff believes the development of 90%FAR would have essentially_the same affects as the development of 80%FAR. ., .. 3. The proposed development does not-:have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff finding: The increase form 80% to 90% FAR would'not affect air quality. •. . it ,. • :1 • r, 4. The design and location of'any'proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff finding: The road for the subdivision is already,=.in,placeR;The applicant has modified the proposed driveway access to minimize the extent of retaining walls necessary. • 5. Any grading will minimize;to tfie extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features:. Staff finding: The subdivision approval specified a building envelope for this property. No disturbance is allowed outside of this envelope with the exception being for driveway access. The applicant is modifying the approved access to minimize the amount of disturbance required. ; 6. The placement and cluster irig=of'st'ructures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff finding: The subdivision is approved. Clustering, rodds, and open space are mute points. The extent of cutting and grading was'determned.when the subdivision was approved. The establishment of building envelopes,designated the area for on-site disturbance. Increasing the FAR for the site would,not.change the building envelope and would therefore not affect the extent of cutting and grading on-site. Staff believes the cutting grading issue is also a mute point. • • • Because the development is already approved,;much of the scenic resource has been affected. It is true that a larger house`could further erode this resource, but it's extent may be insignificant considering the subdivision is approved. Staff believes that the view from town and the view from Aspen Mountain,should be the primary concern. Considering these views, it is not necessari',thelbulk of the structure but the exterior treatments that the Commission should consider.. Some of the most noticeable exterior:materials,are those that are highly reflective, like polished copper. The Commission sliOnld consider limiting the applicant's use of highly reflective materials on the western facade'(town side) of the house. Some of the most noticeable exterior lighting'treatments are those of the driveways and ornamental lighting of architectural and l'an`dscape features. The Commission should consider limiting the applicant's use ofliglit for ornamental purposes and encouraging the applicant to light the driveway with low; downcast fixtures located on the west side of the driveway. • • 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to ' blend into the open chaf. 6it6i.Jc3fAtiO Mountain. Staff finding: The development has approval for 3;442-sqUare,feet of FAR. The applicant is asking to increase this floor area to 3,872 with,the 8040 Green line Review. The maximum . . building height for the property would not be affected by this approval so essentially the extra floor area would increase the bulk dfilie'ri6use. As expressed in response to criteria#6,;the Coriinrission should be less concerned with the exact square footage of the houserind,rnoreconcerned with what the applicant intends to do with the square footage. More specifically,,how the increased FAR influences views from town and from Aspen Mountain.,,In Staffs estimation, the applicant's exterior treatments allows the house to,blend,with it's surroundings as much as it would with less FAR. The proposed conditions;;Outlined in criteria#6 may actually reduce the house's impact on the mountain as seen.from-toNVn. 8. Sufficient water pressure56ncliithet.itilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff finding: The development can be serviced adequately:.): 9. Adequate roads are available tri sery e the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained :, Staff finding: Roads for the subdivision are already'iriiSlke.','''"" 10. Adequate ingress and egres.:is-ail'able to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access,f0fire;Pittebtion and snow removal equipment. Staff finding: The applicant already has adequate access. The modified driveway design will not limit the ability of service or emergency vehicles:tciaccess the property. 11. Any trail on the parcel de§ignOtedOnqhe Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open,SpaeeiTrails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resource.s.and areas of special interest to the community. Staff finding: The increased floor area request doesInot affect:access to public resources. .; • • b&- MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, City Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer Q From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer July 2, 1997 Re: Fuchs 8040 Greenline Review& Minor Plat Amendment Physical Address: 277 Silverlode Drive, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lot 10, Silverlode Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO Discussion: There are no proposed changes or additional site impacts outside the established building envelope so the city Engineering Dept. has no comments. The proposed changes to the building and previous approvals should be explained in notes added to the revised plat for this lot. The revised plat should be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 1 OF 1 • DRCM1597.DOC • • . • •�- MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, City Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer g From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: July 2, 1997 Re: Fuchs 8040 Greenline Review& Minor Plat Amendment Physical Address: 277 Silverlode Drive, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lot 10, Silverlode Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO Discussion: There are no proposed changes or additional site impacts outside the established building envelope so the city Engineering Dept. has no comments. The proposed changes to the building and previous approvals should be explained in notes added to the revised plat for this lot. The revised plat should be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 40004;l 444 florvi 1 OF 1 DRCM1597.DOC • • DRC, 09:29 AM 30/6/97 DRC - Fuchs 8040 To: DRC From: Christopher Bendon <chrisb @aspen.co.us> Subject: DRC-Fuchs 8040 Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: Hi Everyone, I am referring a project out for an 8040 Greenline review. It is only an amendment to their original approval, so I am only sending it to Engineering and Parks. The single family house has approval for 80% FAR and they want to increase it to 90% FAR. No changes to the building envelope are proposed. The house will be sprinkled. It is a Silverlode lot, so Housing has been mitigated. If you have any further questions, you can raise them at DRC, or reach me at 920.5072. • Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb @aspen.co.us> 1 • ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and IG 141 1 t' P U Ctsk�, (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: l. . APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for t .W 12,t Dtwce, 1 s T la'C 10 S1t- I EILLb V . Aug Di uIS10N ' Ay Lim . (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2, • 40 Kt V i E. VN 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for Planning 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 that 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 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 it 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 findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. n , • 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application • completeness,APPLICANT shs11 pay an initial deposit in the amount of$ t I 1 '' which is for I hours of Planning 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. 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. CITY OF ASPEN , APPLICANT , Z E r R e S N"'TNT I V L • By: \ By y r� Stan Clauson Community Development Director Date: CS ' 1-'27 ' °1 -1 Mailing Address: i3406 1 la-1 P g-N , c-c' fall1•2-• • g:\support\forms\agrpayasdoc 1/16/97 _ L 0J PIIII s- R CJ ° � v 415. MI 01 al .. 03 01^ .-,L CL co. R � N C R - O •_ R _ R a1 _ a' .A C V G R O > ..+ Q. O a 0 c O CU ° O 01 CJ C L R O c R a J ;71 E J, > a c 3 < - v " v N a ° ° C p C > o ' ON V in '' }Y O FS Cie CU O �.T 7 V v V a j L C ° v R C O v CCl • 0J 7 L R }' R In va f N 0•- C_ — u a. C > a. s 0 41 N_ • O YI W E N i. .N 0 N W 'Tt a1 YI N 3', E O OL q cz .� .c O 0f 7 y . G1 V u. 111 OM Crs O - Cr. CO :• - P•• t". `.G' CV d- -0 ,_ CI 4., ? @r CV M r C 1 -S .— O O �1 O a0+ ,�N d al ° a M M M M M c M c M M CM ct' L J y • L t C O VI „M, _ I. i C 0 0 v. O t!1 y > N 1 a`1 E « 16 GI ° q _ . w G N O O a 0 O a G' U C Z > N u a0 v E d • o '.o O ". •O "- o• c .O C. ' Lei .:1-V • q • y O N « O� .O O 'Cr r� M CT OCR C+^3 M O .O M V LL 0 0 w 'c > w r YI O M 00 .O M r . M .— M 'Ct1 cr 1.o .O 0 E a .e • ..• .; 9 t CC>. °cis It Le Cr4 C." Lei co- M CT O tZ 7 Z 4. N , > E E C O e " d 3 N G1 W q q O N 0' C N 9 • E « ON N I. V N .v 0 0 4 «1 CA r-.. v1 r• M v1. n c+t ars r. C w ' .5 ." Q• co 1d1 M Cr. es. Let -- r .--0 X61 V O 01 N C .a -,:r M M.. M. M' :.M N CV CV C`•t�. ,, VI L e 1 0 0 0 Q 3> ; q O r a0 A w ▪ o. m C .I ji L .. 0 > > d N GI e.. 0 c t N 0 0. N y q ,Q .. O 4y 10 +'I 0 L N y C O E - CV M. C .O- r. OD CT `.�. I- L,. Y +' Q O al q r .. 3 G' ' y o U. .0 a N o N R C S+ Q q 0 . W 0 V .0 .0 `� t- --:,,1 -__ - �- lc r �,_.��"� F - Fes,,,_ _ ��..,��: ��. `'':�;-..,. 1 r' - -- i C -0 0 0 7 L ` 1 Is.a-- ! a 1J a' a t0 0 0 y N >, O q O yet -p=_ G7 0 i vl > q 61 3 a1 0 w N y E' _0='' `�3,•`. F:.a. S N > y .'' 0 O <Cg 2 L C N 'j i �•..1.r + t. I q C o a •+ a v m c tom""` I. .. , a`' I. Q 0 6. w 3 V a a .ti--n'i _ 15:::: C --�' 'i, EA of d V = of O A g q .: - _ �% --.-r a `s. a 11'� N O E C y a N T. a •t+ �'.r w ,C�• .r L E v. c ? C T. .00 a. 0 C y y 0 q q d -0 --- L i Q it 4.ti.q C Q y L• y r 0 S 40 Z q L N , 'il f I�rjy9 Z d L q > 3 r H a q Q .c f itJ �� � 11 c ��_L. 1 ,pi ,.-_- ,,,..;_:4-t.„.!_, 4,443.-.,ec,,,,J5,------4:or.:.;,.. ,' '•:,-r-.--;•,•• ... :'.•• -, ---..--..,,y-,.s,-c--,.t.4„.(Ar.,-;.„;,,,,--..,,,,,-- .. ` Y / � _ f• • _ . < ,,,,,:,..„:„ .\\\\,.\\".:,:.:-/ . . ,,g..._..„1:4„,rt4e,_. . . • cw\ r p • Nf �,\ cO— m ft :::117;'f't/U': am • ." i J • '. ,.` • ris / 'e :d j \ � �, d LAA, -= r ! ' ' Ii i / \ -V.. rRilki ,le:\, , ,7f Ai I • i \ x ;Y , ca>T __ • _& Y.') Itt (� • L-,- r:_ to z \ .,,,,,) . aa_' `gib ( �' _ o . it, r .. i :. , ., _ . : ..-. . . 1 tt* ,- efr 4'07-..4:. 4 4 t �. ao • ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION Flit Project Name PUc REStQENc E Project Location LOT to St1.vEPt.c°DE SU6Dt'J1S► hN MI)LN CO . 7)1 t9 lt (Indicate street address, lot& block number, legal description where appropriate) Present Zoning fr Lot Size .4117 AC %I 9,(o s$b.TrT. APPLICANT R is K► Attt PTE tz l V Gt}C Phone # Zo • 4,tat • q O% Address /2A tiOtiOITAtN 11`41L • cr FQRC c-1° Qc014'7 REPRESENTATIVE ttC•i"4A 12.1 K LEIN , Ag C}4k-TECr Phone# X11011,0 115+2,,._ Address 30>< "Ign tk-‘11.0 Co • b l(f1 �. Type of Application(please check all that apply): • Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. • Condominiumization ❑ Final PUD(& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal LI Conceptual SPA [] Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) L Historic Demolition • GMQS Exemption Li Special Review El Historic Designation Lot Line Adjustment LI Subdivision Itr4Afeildiirlent El Lot Split ❑ . Temporary Use Li Other: O ESA- 8040 Greenline, Stream Li Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Expansion Mountain View Plane Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate square feet;number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property): E.ytS-nt4 igEStt6E.N'tAt_ LAT • 1RoPocE.t) RS.StDENc... AF 4 13E1711.c C • r?Roc 171Doa st\.FT. rAg. • 1 *Ac au LL. a • AFE. VAttMNct • Description of Development Application: %o4o YAW) SINCE Q •'E • t.LSIDENCE. IS h.Ll%r)S-1 414 l of AL.LoU ID FiL Have you attached the following? • Response to Attachment 3,Minimum Submission Contents • Response to Attachment 4, Specific Submission Contents • Response to Attachment 5,Review Standards for Your Application • AgC$4T c1u .AL gEvIEW GOM EL LE.nCig. r • • ATTAC MENT Minimum Submission Contents for All Development Applications All Development Applications shall include, at a minimum, the following information and materials. 1. The applicant 's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2 . The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 3 . A disclosure of ownership of the parcel- on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner' s right to apply for the Development Application. 4 . An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the Development Application.. attach2.applications f • • • City of Aspen May 8, 1997 Aspen Colorado Applicant: Ricki and Peter Fuchs 25 Mountain Trail Stanford CT 06903 (203) 329-9086 Representative: Richard Klein, Architect Anderson Klein Architecture interiors P. O. Box 737 Aspen CO 81612 (970) 920-1752 08 MAY '97 1E:05 AEISEN CONSULTING 071 4385388 P.: City of Aspen May 8, 1997 Aspen Colorado I hereby authorize Richard Klein of Anderson, Klein Architects and Designers to represent me in discussions regarding our property at Silverlode in Aspen PETER S. FUCHS • • June 23, 1997 Attachment 3.2 response Lot 10 Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen CO 81611 Street address has yet to be determined. • • LAW OFFICES • FREILICH MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS • IN COLORADO 106 SOUTH MILL STREET,SUITE 202 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 DAVID J.MYLER.P.C. E.MICHAEL HOFFMAN TELEPHONE (970)920-1018 ALAN IL SCHWART"Z FACSIMILE OF COUNSEL (970) 920-4259 May 8, 1997 Mr. Richard Klein Anderson-Klein Architecture Interiors, Ltd. 465 N. Mill Street, #3 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • Re: Title to Lot 10, SilverLode Subdivision Aspen, Colorado (the"Property") Dear Mr. Klein: I respond to your recent inquiry concerning title to the above-referenced Property as follows. On January 31, 1997,Peter H. Fuchs and Henricka A. Fuchs, as joint tenants, took title to the Property as grantees under that certain General Warranty Deed from Williams Ranch Joint Venture ("WRJV"). The grant from WRJV was subject to "general taxes and assessments for the year 1997 and subsequent years, and subject to easements, reservations, restrictions, covenants and rights of way of record, if any." The title insurance policy issued to Mr. and Mrs. Fuchs described 24 separate exceptions to title, including the standard exceptions included in all such policies. I have attached a copy of that list to this correspondence. - - I am not aware of any additional liens, encumbrances or conveyances which have taken place since January 31, 1997. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information concerning the Property. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER& CARLISLE r* //1// • E. Michael Hoffman • • IN MISSOURI IN TEXAS IN CALIFORNIA FREILICH,LEITNER&CARLISLE FREILICH,MORGAN,LEITNER&CARLISLE FREILICH,KAUFMAN,Fox&SOHAGI KANSAS CITY,MISSOURI DALLAS,TEXAS LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA • • ti A L T A C O M M I T M E N T SCHEDULE B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order # Q371490 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1 . Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet . 6 . Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer' s office . 7 . Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. • 8 . Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. .9 . THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. 10 . RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND .TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES S RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED December 22 , 1909, IN BOOK 136 AT PAGE 365, RECORDED MAY 20, 1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 162, AND RECORDED DECEMBER 24 , 1902 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 116 . 11 . RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED November 22 , / 19 L10 , IN BOOK 136 'AT PAGE 373 , AND RECORDED DECEMBER 24 , 1902 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 116 . 12 . PERPETUAL RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS TO EXTEND OR DRIVE LEVELS OR TUNNELS c/ THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SET FORTH AND RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED MARCH 30 , 1895 IN BOOK 131 AT PAGE 4.25 . 13 . TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS CONTAINED IN AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 30 , 1988 IN BOOK 572 AT PAGE 72 . 14 . TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS CONTAINED IN ,2NSTRUMENTS RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1985 IN BOOK 480 AT PAGE 494 AND RECORDED APRIL 2, 1986 IN BOOK 508 AT PAGE 312 . 15 . TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 94-15 RECORDED JUNE 27, 1994 IN BOOK 754 AT PAGE 194, AND RESOLUTION NO. 94-110 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 IN BOOK. 760 AT PAGE 909 . 16 ./EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET . FORTH ON THE PLAT OF SMUGGLER MINE SUBDIVISION RECORDED MARCH 15, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 36 AT PAGE ' , 77 . PAGE 4 • • A L 1' A C O M M I T M E N T SCHEDULE B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order # Q371490 17 . TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE O. 07, SERIES OF 1994 , RECORDED MARCH 15, 1995 IN BOOK 776 AT PAGE 299 AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED MARCH 15, 1995 IN BOOK 776 AT PAGE 301 . 18 . TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVIDER' S AGREEMENT AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED March 15, 1995, IN BOOK 776 AT PAGE 307 . 19 . RESERVATION BY WRIGHT & PREUSCH MINING, LTD. , OF ANY AND ALL SUB-SURFACE AND MINERAL RIGHTS BELOW 50 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE; HOWEVER, SPECIFICALLY .. WITHOUT ANY ACCOMPANYING RIGHT TO USE OR IN ANY WAY BURDEN THE SURFACE (-/ ESTATE TO OBTAIN AND USE THE BENEFIT. OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SAME, AS SET FORTH IN DEED RECORDED MARCH 22, 1995 IN BOOK 776 AT PAGE 880 . 20 . EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF /SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 9, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 37 AT PAGE 3 , AND v APPROVAL RECORDED MAY 9, 1995 IN BOOK 780 AT PAGE 368, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECORDED MAY 9, 1995 IN BOOK 780 AT PAGE 369 . 21 . ,-TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE AND THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED May 09, 1995 IN BOOK 780 AT PAGE 370 . 22 . STRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED May 12, 1995, IN BOOK 780 AT PAGE 755 . 23 .}MS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED February 22, 1996 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 390141. 24 . TERMS, CONDITIONS,. PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENT AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 12, 1996 AS RECEPTION NO. 395888 . PAGE 5 .:),) v • ,11‘i 4 it . i ,i N\ %, t\, %dolt, 41 1 c ilk \ 1 : t \ V-Vil 4frA \\ A iVii 4,11 . A) 0 I 7 ftfircitv#N.,„,00,4 0 t, A ,01,,,,, 1,, 4\a" 4:64 ii, t Ilikl\\ 04 . r *%f$Oft* .11111 i 40 94 i'..i.'7.1.1° ' I V. it#4 r ,..% . vt tit 1, , „ ,, ves, . 4t . -4 lki , t4 it: 4,g \3;t., X 11,���I 0 ti* 4 -1 0 4s0,,, #, , _ -.6‘, /it r 4 . != it .44.4 ' ( :1711101.0314111111M11 7" 4 IN \is . 4 11511T- 1 ial AL1 .} ik .� i 1 It/,) : 4•Ar0,4 \(‘` 0 II 11.411.• P At. \"19 a ilA k raj.- t) *10 142 b 0 Ns k. P d1-_-. J,1lItII 0:1, z 0) IMF('-', El '4 rr ;or" it !Fr no 0.(111111t l � / 4 AIMom Nri* eon vaillorb/ '\\ \ :7:1i %WWII 3" / i........,' 4/\110:::,t‘,.‘ itg - S V t I N) 'ff P illirpria 0) 0 ir i,ttip I:1 0,,,e lia bi f!1' 11111\.,, .-- ri %(( ., IMMO ill 14110 tit • .r Air t..,� . 114 It:t. -L, i 1.1.1!!::111 �::i1� ff kiri -- I- IIIP III Plkli :gawp' r„ 1 1 90 AINk .•4 ii:/111 \5 tv ---1.7-74 L Lei �i viw.7.-,,,,,,,,ntAA..,4, ;3,42,0, , q4,3-11.,,,1-4,,,,,„,,p.2 4140„ ;,,,ziortTig-,... aves. .:.!--..„--,,,,,,4:73-,,w,„,,,,,-„tg-t,r.-. T-79-7.-. _,.„,., ,-,..„.„.....__ allot ,,,,,,, ,..44-ow... . ,..,.„e;,_. 1. -iN\r, s'.',XV)*iir..„0:17,1Sa"%1G76.0:4,...iNia91.Z-..1,,itti .4.0er,,040,,1;Pr,e ,4.....orqR(8C.,/),Mirry!--‘7„. ,,,,,, .w';: ., „Y.ra,&. r -.»visa- ,.. • June 23, 1997 Attachment 3.5 response Re: Lot 10 Silverlode Subdivision, Aspen CO 81611 The Silverlode Subdivision has already been through 8040 greenline review for projects which do not exceed 80% of max. FAR. The proposed project has an FAR of 3869.6 sq. ft. which is less than the allowed 90%of max. FAR which is 3872.0 sq. ft. This is an increase of only 384.8 sq.ft. Response to section 26.68.030.B 1. na. 2. it does not. 3. it does not. - Response to section 26.68.030.0 1. it does and is a platted subdivision. 2. the platted subdivision does not and the proposed residence does not increase any adverse affect. 3. it does not. 4. it does. 5. the proposed grading minimizes the grading required for driveway and residence. 6. na. 7. design is per ordinance. 8. they are. 9. this is an approved subdivision. 10. there is and the project will have a sprinkler system installed. 11. n a. ATTACffiNENT 744. Specific Submission Contents: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption Approval By Planning Director The request for Planning Director approval of an Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption shall contain the following items: 1. A written description of the existing conditions on the property which are requested to be altered via the amendment or exemption. 2 . Such site plan drawings or elevations as may be necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed amendment or exemption. 3. A listing of all previous development approvals granted to the property, with the approximate dates of said approvals. 4. A copy of any recorded document which affects the proposed development, including but not limited to recorded plats, agreements and deed restrictions. If changes are proposed to said recorded documents, these should be "red-lined" onto a copy of the original document. at3 .insubstantial • June 23,1997 Attachment 4 response Re: Lot 10 Silverlode subdivision, Aspen CO 81611 1. The proposed driveway was reviewed by staff and by DRAC at the time of discussion concerning a garage variance to Ordinance 30. At that time DRAG felt that the proposed driveway reallignment was appropiate. 2. Staff has indicated that it is now appropiate to submit an engineering drawing for a minor Plat Amendment. 3. DRAC approval for an Ordinance 30 variance for garage setback. May 15,1997. 4. Plat drawing to be submitted. • 411 ATTACH/KENT" Review Standards: Development Application for Exemption from 8040 Greenline Review The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from 8040 greenline review if the following standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calcuations by more than twenty-five percent (25%) ; and 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. • • June 23,1997 Attachment 5 response Re: Lot 10 Silverlode subdivision, Aspen CO 81611 1. na. 2. no existing trees on site will require a permit for removal pursuant to section 13-76. 3. Lot 10 is located in the Silverlode Subdivision, is a platted lot and development will not increase erosion and or sedimentation. ti ( ,.c ) K I' O K \ 1 ;i :1) May 9, 1997 Christopher Bendon, ASLA Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Street - Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 10, SilverLode Subdivision Dear Mr. Bendon, We would like to inform you that we have reviewed Preliminary Drawings for a new residence at Lot 10, SilverLode Subdivision ( a subdivision developed'by the Williams Ranch Joint Venture and subject to WRJV Architectural Review Committee). We have given preliminary approval to the applicant. 1 We would also like to note that in relocating the driveway and siting the residence, the development minimizes impact to the site and the design is such that no retaining walls will be required. We encourage the Planning staff to give favorable review to this projebt. Thank you for your time and attention, Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens Project Manager, Williams Ranch Joint Venture & WRJV Architectural Review Committee { 312 E,Aspen Airport Business Center,Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-6717 FAX: (303)925-6707 • • 0 • i ' `' BEGA r.,,..:::::. , ., } y i y 1[ j . t r?; I. I' kit e • t: • ;.ei O Single or twin bollards with • A • • A asymmetrical light distribution. 1t1,1•1•1 M..."-;� Impact resistant, heavy pressed I y pr., — glass lens. Internal twin reflector €. optical system. Stainless steel • V 0 socket head screws.Wiring P r, rr access door.Anchorage system • I r with round baseplate allows I I I bollard to be rotated for perfect .; .... alignment. I B Color: Black or white. fi • • B • • k • • is Lamp Lumen A B C 8691S Single 1 50W E"17 HPS 4000 101 10Y4 -fir 8691MH Single 1 100W ED•17 MH 8500 101/4 101 471/4 ( ,. . i) - 8692S Twin 2 50W E"17 HPS 8000 13'/e 10Y4 47Y4 `� 8692MH Twin 2 100W ED"17 MH 17000 131/4 1014 471/4 896A Anchorage for 8691,8692-supplied • • I'''' L'.. 133 wr 2 �as b,v�,'.1.. ,w "�✓'a`t+i..�.,.°..r� ,,., .rr.•,:— � " -.�Y'...�� a> � .�. . v' -.,n,- �. & _u ..b,c,. .�s y_c.. '-��yy :f ;m.� �.5 n ... - . . .m . :a.,. t�2b-.� >-.•§-:0 ... ti • BEGA :: 0 J' te al t r t r L 2 s r ,. . � Ua 1- s� -. ' Sk l x� � s f•.Sk 4 ' Srg3 , q S° �s 'FN4,Q :'f\n' i y3 I r x !! ttry u ^4 r �t��? 15,4: :f " Y ,r n y § • r ti t �t � K t" � :s � iig�h vt� � �t a -4 s ,•y, %~rte-- :# - •sv� 7' ,� �,..4 ' P --,� � ''}'s o ' s .- v 2 .+.3..,;:,:ter £_ate % ta^ 3 r+,,` :yt`.. �i.7i§ "'-.d,+i via, Mr • a Wall mounted quarter sphere ��� r Y B luminaires with die cast ;1 A�`T ' t r , , 0.,,_3;_ aluminum back plate. Barr ;,#° x c' • ' Three ply opal glass diffuser • 't `' .. A C Color: Black or white. '• ', ? � ke' -• �` ▪ 0 � `€ 4< ,";,.,,Y 5 �. L 1' YW - py- t Lamp Lumen A B C xz� fi�z"�y; � ' r 2-F ; 3174 Wall 1 60W A-19 890 10'/a 5Yz 5'/z stir ' t� rk s 3175P Wall 1 13W PLC 860 10'/4 5'/z 5'/z s,k,,:::: . x1� � k ,' -rt# ""1,.> 3176 Wall 1 100W A 19 1750 13314 7'/z 7'/z x � °# � ' 7 °'r 3177P Wall 1 26W PLC 1800 133/4 77.1Y/2 7'/z x .. ,, -. VAI "t „ ,s a- ,n�e 9t t C yy • `-' 5 r tti;» ,4 FI3 n r' 7° ,rs g �J+•11.17" h'- '° rt.'1• `'y 'r / a� , ea { k( iu � R fir a z • lir6, Wall mounted quarter sphere ' t '� v4 B , ) luminaires with die cast aluminum x ,#ls z 'r a t rap shield for direct or Indirect ,ru �`' � 3 "'.,, "�' �z ' •• A 0 • illumination. r>r `, � �a '} 3s*, , Three ply opal glass diffuser. "� ` Color: Black or white. �r� � r Fx a Lamp.,—� Lumen A B C = �� 3069 Wall 1 s e a s - • Y.� F -. • /�° 4, �, 1 60W A•19_1 890 8/a 4/a 5/s f � � �zti j ® 3068P Wall 1�9W PLC + -- 575 43/4 51/8 ! a `°# %- * `x . + t° R f ,. ��` as �' J�' fcry A'#t, yz t, ,Y ;�'''� Y "i' •3071 Wall 1 100W A 19 4 r o- z ° 1750 105/e SYz 6'/4 ,�� ���-� �'� <•-�;����<�S��" f "�r�` �,i, f` 3078P Wall 1 18W PLC 1250 105/e 5Y 6'/a 1,t,-.n_, aw . .. w• ,'.▪a :a �.. w f, a., m - �M