Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.930 S Mill St.A106-02 -- ~ " CASE NUMBER PARCEL ill # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY ~o ij A106-02 Parcel 4, Top of Mill DRAC and 8040 Greenline Review Parcel 4, Top of Mill Scott Woodford DRAC and 8040 Greenline Review Remko Van Lent John Galambos/Galambos Architects 03/25/03 RESO 07-2003 APPROVED 04/10/03 D Driscoll 'bj 1111111111111111111 fllr;:~;:~~;! ;0:48A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36,00 00,00 RESOLUTION NO. 07, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2737-182-85-003(Fathering Parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Secondary Mass, One~Story Street Facing Element, and Building Orientation; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, the applicant redesigned the project so that variances to the Residential Design Standards were no longer necessary for Secondary Mass and One- Story Street Facing Element; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision POO, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request via Resolution No, 07, Series of2003, by a vote of five to zero (5 - 0), to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and a Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation; and 5~ I ~llIIlllIlIlllIU ~~;{~E._ SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO' R 36,00 D 0,00 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2003, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision POO, Top of Mill, parcel identification of2737-182- 85-003 (Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forthin Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision POO, Top of Mill, is subject to the following conditions: I, Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is fmalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The Community Development Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed driveway and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan to the Parks Department and Community Development Department. If applicable, a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the City Parks Department as well as any approval from the Parks Department for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. g. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance in effect at the time of Building Permit Submittal and prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. A soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado, submitted for review by the Community Development Engineer, demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. Building plans demonstrating an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A detailed erosion control and irrigation plan for review by the Parks Department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROWand native areas, per the requirements ofthe POD Agreement. g. A detailed landscape plan reflecting the species, numbers and locations of plantings and any right-of-way plantings or requirements. The landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. h. Areas outside of the building envelope, but On the applicant's parcel, that have been disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site, shall be restored with native plants and materials. In addition, the construction of the mud and debris wall will require over dig. Per the requirements of the POD Agreement, the area of said over dig shall be re-vegetated. 1. Plans showing a construction fence erected along the entire East, South East, South and South West portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. J. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip lines. 3. During construction, the contractor shall abide by the following requirements (note: the applicant shall inform the contractor of this and all conditions): a. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director ofthe Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~~~;! ;0:48A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO . R 36'.00 D 0.00 b. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. ConstructIOn activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. c. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 5. Exterior building colors shall be earth tones to make the building more cornpatible witli the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 6. Within the 20' drainage easement (Valleju Gulch), the following encroachments are allowed: a. Extension of non-occupiable building components (i.e. decks, hand railings, roof overhangs, etc.) shall be breakaway so that they detach from the main structural frame of the building in case of flood passing through the easement. b. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 20' above the bottom of the drainage channel. c. No building walls or retaining walls shall be allowed to encroach in any part of the 2Q' drainage easement. d. Foundation footers may be permitted inside the drainage easement only if the depth of the footer is twice the depth of the existing or proposed drainage pipe. e. A minimum of a 14' wide horizontal clearance shall be maintained within the easement, including tree trunks (so, plantings may be within a 3' zone on each side of the easement). f. All trees planted within the 3' allowed zone from each side of the easement shall be non-rigid to avoid any damming effect. Any landscaping in the drainage easement shall utilize only plantings listed in the letter from dhm design dated February 12, 2003, which is attached to this resolution. g. Softscape materials, such as grass and gardens may be allowed within the 14' clearance zone. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby inCOrPorated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 911 BDlID fllf r ~ n 1ft~;;:~E.... SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CD R 36.00 D 0.00 APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON TmS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2003. Q~ Cr Attorney )~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ..~~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: I \J 0' 1."1" L V V V 1'-' V or IVI I~ U . iJ iJ :1 iJ r, L/ J n ( 0 r p () r :\ lit) n Site Design Land Planning &: Landscape ~rc;hitecture JlJlJlUJt JJIJJllllt U}~~;:~;~:0:48A 12 February 1003 MEMORANDUM Re: Planting in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Parco. 4 To: John Galambos Gal.mbos ArchiLecls 300 D AABC Aspen, CO John: The following is a list of recommended plants that arc a~ )ropri:ile in the drainage casemenI west of the Parcel 4 residence, Trees: Common Name B0l8nic: ~aI11c I) Quaking Aspen 2) Narrowleaf Cottonwood 3) Limbo., Pine 4) Ponde""a Pine Populus remuioides POPUILlS mgU$lifolia Pinus n(~ilis Pinus pc ,den,sa Note: Trees wili be limbed up to 4'. 5' above grode. Shrubs: I) Saskatoon Serviceberry 2) Lillleleat' MIn. Mahogany 3) Tall Green Rabbitbrush 4) Isanti Dogwood 5) COloneaster sp. 6) Rock Spirea 7) Dwarf Ninebark 8) POlentillD 9) Alpine Currant 10) Boulder Raspberry I J} Blue Stem \Villow 12} Canyon Blue Arctic Willow 13} Siiver BulTa!o Berry 14} Mountain Sno,\'berry Amelall< hier alnifolia Ccrcoca pus ledifolills intricarus ChrysotJamntls nauseosus Camus, ericea '{santi' Cotonea 'ter sp. Holodis. us dumosus Physoca 'pus a. 'Nanus' Potentil ,frutieosa Ribes ^ pinum Rubus d :Iiciousus Sali;x it! )rata Salix pc 'p'ICea 'Canyon Blue Shepbe, J;a .rgenle. SYlllp!1( -ic.pos oreophilus 20-d ~8t:60 ~O-~T-ad~ " _,I _v.V, ,. I ,.. (,. v v v I L. ' I VI If< c r8D,14, ZUUJ IZ:U~~M nV'vviJU r, II L No,oo~o ~. J/J Perennials: I) Rocky Mln Columbine 2) Lavender Blue Aster 3) Moonshine Yarrow 4) Bluc Avena Grass 5) Corcopsis 6) Purple Conetlower 7) Coral Bclls . 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy 10) Creeping Mahonia J I) Rocky ~()unlain "enstemon 12) Russian Sage 13) Prairie Conetlower 14} RlIdbeckia fs. 'Goldstunn' 15) May Night Salvia Aqllilegia cearulea Aster x.f. Monarch' Achille. . Y100nshine Hel'ictotri :hon sernpervirens Coreopsi! sp. Echinacc;purpurea l'illcchcra sanguinca Lavandul L angllstifolia 'Mdissa' Leucal1th ,mum x.s, 'Alaska' Mahonia 'cpens PensIcm<: \ striclus Pero\'ski~ alriplieifolia Ratihida . o]lInmifers GoldslUn 1 Black Eyed Susan S31via Ile norosa 'May Night' Adjustments may be made to the above tist, hut eh"raelcri ;tics of subSTitute plants ",.ill mimie listed plants. Regards, Jason Jaynes dhm design EO-d '""0,..-,........ _..... I ~ lJ ' I 't., L VV V I L" V OrlYI n ('0 r p () r :\' I i () n SIte Design Land Planning &, Landsc;ape~r<::hi1ecture 12 Februar:' 2003 MEMORANDUM I1U,vvoo ,w ~ ~ ~ ~ '.r '" r. 11 J Re; Planting in Drainage Easementj Top of Mill Parco, 4 To: John Galambos Galambos Architects 300 D AABC Aspen. CO . John: , The following is a lisl ofrecOOlmended plan!., that are a" lropri:'le in the drainage easemenI west of the Parcel 4residence. Common Name Trees: I) Quaking Asper> 2) Narrowleai' Cottonwood 3) Limber Pine 4) Ponderosa Pine . B0l8nic-~a.I11c , ) Populus rCll111Joides Populus mgU$1ifolia Pinus Ik,ilis Pinus pc lderosa 1';ote: Trees wili be limbed up to 4'- 5' above grade. Shrubs: I) Saskatoon Serviceberry 2) Linleleaf Mln.Mahogall)' 3) Tall Geccn Rabbi[bru~h 4) Isanll Dogwood 5) COloneaster sp. 6) Rock Spirca 7) Dwarf Ninebark 8) Potentiila 9) Alpine Currant 10) Boulder Raspberry 11) Blue Srem Willow 12) Canyon Blue Arctic Willow 13) Siiver Buffalo Berry 14) Mountain Sno'''berry 20-d Amelanl hier alnifolia (crcoca pus ledifolius inrricalus Chrystlti .mnus nauseosus ("-:>mus : ericea ~Isanrt' Cotonea ;ter sp. Holodis, us dumasu, Physoca 'pus a. . Nanus' POlenr; I l frut icosa R ibes ^ pinum Rubus d ~liciou$uS Sati:--.: in )rata Salix pu 'purea 'Canyon Blue' Sbepbel jia argentea S)'l11phr 'icapos oreophilus I VSY:F,() C/"'"\_......T_......=. --'Teo.'14,-iuuJ -1/:-0~PM r\ Perellni~ls: i) Rocky Mill (:olumbine 2) Lavender B Jue Aster 3) Moonshine Yarrow 4) Bluc Avena Grass 5) Coreopsis 6) Purple Coneflower 7) Coral Bells . 8) Melissa.Pink Lavendar 9) Alaska Shasta Daisy '0) Creeping Mahonia II) Rocky !\o1ounlain l'enstemol1 12) Russian Sage 13) Prairie Coneflower 14) Rudbeekia f.s_ 'GOJdsIunn' 15) May Night Salvia nil''''""", .oo~o Aquilcgia eearuIea Aster x.f. Monarch' Achille. . l-1oonshine' Hdictotr; :hon seJnpcrvirens Coreops;! sp. F..chin.acc: purpurea HuC'chera sangui~ca Lavandu' LangllsIifoJia 'Melissa' Leucanlh ,mum x.s. . Alaska' Mahonia 'cpens Penstcmc \ striccus Ptrovski~ alriplicifolia Ral ibida . oJllmnifers GoldsLun '. Black Eyed Susan S,llyia ile norasa 'May Nigh" Adjustments may be made to the above tiS!. but characttr; :tics ofsubslilule planlS "".ill mill,;. listed plants. Regards, Jason Jaynes dhm design 20"d ~-- --- . III. ~. J!J " 11 I I i .1 :1 It:"I , -.".". MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Directo~ THRU: FROM: Scott Woodford, City PlannerV(( PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, Top OF MILL RESOLUTION No. fJt. SERIES 2003 March 25,2003 RE: DATE: l!ciJ EJ ------ , _______g<'~k~ , , CD ~~.:ELEVAnON Above is the west elevation for the proposed stmctnre. Since the last meeting when the project was tabled, the applicant has redesigned the home so that it complies with the Secondary Mass requirement with the addition of a one car garage and accessory dwelling unit connected to the main house by hallway (located on the left side ofthe elevation) and with the One-Story, Street Facing Element by widening the porch roof over the front door, so that it comprises 20% of the overall width. REQUEST SUMMARY: 8040 Greenline Review and a Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation APPLICANT: Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, Top OF MILL STAFF REpORT PAGEl ~ , ,1;;; (~ "",""<">' REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,200 square foot single-family house on Parcel 4 of the Top of Mill Subdivision. In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must first gain 8040 Greenline Review approval. Concurrent with that action is a request for a variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) 8040 Greenline Review; According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with specific requirements. As Parcel 4 is located within this range of elevation, this review is required; Final Review Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission 2) Residential Design Standards Variances; According to Section 26.410.020, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee; however, if there are other land use reviews necessary, the applicant may consolidate the reviews with the requisite review authority for that other land use request. In this case, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is already hearing the 8040 Greenline Review, the applicant has chosen to allow P&Z authority to review the variance requests. Pinal Review Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Top of Mill Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on March II, 2002. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On March 4, 2003, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) tabled this application. At the time, the project consisted of 8040 Greenline Review and variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. The P&Z did not support two of three variances _ Secondary Mass and One-Story Street Facing Element - and suggested that the applicant redesign the residence to comply with these requirements. Based on this feedback, the applicant revised the building elevations and inCOrPorated a secondary mass element in the form of a garage and accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the main structure by a linking element of at least 6' feet in width, 10' in length, and 9' in height, in accordance with the Secondary Mass requirements. In addition, they widened the "floating canopy", or porch roof on the front fa9ade, so that it comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width, which is what the Code requires for a One-Story Street Facing Element. Therefore, the applicant no longer needs variances to these two Residential Design Guidelines. Staff continues to find the TOp OF MILL, PARCEL4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 t) project in compliance with the 8040 Greenline Review Standards, but not in compliance with the variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; Staff finds the proposed single-family structure to be in compliance with the standards for 8040 Greenline Review (See Exhibit A for Staff Findings). Furthermore, staff believes that the majority of the review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review were more pertinent during design and consideration of the original subdivision, as most of the environmental impact occurs during the construction of roads, utilities and building lots. In this case, Parcel 4 was graded into a relatively level site during the subdivision construction. The proposed home on Parcel 4 will not create any significant additional environmental impacts, such as removal of vegetation or new cut of the hillside. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards must identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The following is the criteria of the different Residential Design Standard which the applicant is requesting a variance from and staff response: Standard: Buildinll orientation The frontfacades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element; such as a bay window or dormer, placed at afront corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. Yes. No 1 ! '~I I ' [ I /J'.,' Yes. ,/p>"" ,~1j / / / ~ Staff Findine:: The proposed structure is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoint. Given that the parcel is a flag lot and that the proposed structure will be setback 83' from the street, a slight variation in building orientation is not a large concern for staff. However, again, staff does not find that the proposal meets the strict criteria as noted above. An argument could be made that there are site constraints involved because of the flag lot situation and the fact that there really is no designated front setback, but staff believes that the orientation standard could still be met if the structure were slightly smaller in footprint and did not fill almost the entire building envelope. If the size was slightly reduced, the angle of the structure to the TOp OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 3 r". ~ ,i.,..'" street could be adjusted such that it would be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street and then be in compliance with the provision. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on January 22, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. The City Engineering Department commented that no part of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can encroach into the 20' wide drainage and mudflow easement along the southwest edge of the property. Submitted plans showed roof eaves and a patio encroaching into the easement. The applicant stated that they will redesign the home so that there is no encroachment into the easement. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. rJ.I-;Series of2003, for a 8040 Greenline Review and the Variance to the Residential D~n Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: 8040 Greenline Review - Staff Findings Exhibit B: Variance to Residential Design Standards - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minntes Exhibit D: Application Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 4 ''J RESOLUTION NO. 1ft (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, TOP OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-003(Fathering Parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and the denial of the Variance to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request via Resolution No. _, Series of 2003, by a vote of _ to _ L - ->, to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and the Variance to the Residential Design Standards; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2003, THAT: Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 n Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, parcel identification of2737-182- 85-003 (Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, is subject to the following conditions: I. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The Community Development Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed driveway and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan to the Parks Department and Community Development Department. If applicable, a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the City Parks Department as well as any approval from the Parks Department for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. g. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance in effect at the time of Building Permit Submittal and prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. A soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado, submitted for review by the Community Development Engineer, demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. TOp OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 f""'+I c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. Building plans demonstrating an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A detailed erosion control and irrigation plan for review by the Parks Department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROWand native areas, per the requirements of the PUD Agreement. g. A detailed landscape plan reflecting the species, numbers and locations of plantings and any right-of-way plantings or requirements. The landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. h. Areas outside of the building envelope, but on the applicant's parcel, that have been disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site, shall be restored with native plants and materials. In addition, the construction of the mud and debris wall will require over dig. Per the requirements of the PUD Agreement, the area of said over dig shall be re-vegetated. 1. Plans showing a construction fence erected along the entire East, South East, South and South West portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. J. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip lines. 3. During construction, the contractor shall abide by the following requirements (note: the applicant shall inform the contractor of this and all conditions): a. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 n b. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. c. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 5. Exterior building colors shall be earth tones to make the building more compatible with the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 6. Within the 20' drainage easement (Valleju Gulch), the following encroachments are allowed: a. Extension of non-occupiable building components (i.e. decks, hand railings, roof overhangs , etc.) shall be breakaway so that they detach from the main structural frame of the building in case of flood passing through the easement. b. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 20' above the bottom of the drainage channel. c. No building walls or retaining walls shall be allowed to encroach in any part of the 20' drainage easement. d. Foundation footers may be permitted inside the drainage easement only if the depth of the footer is twice the depth of the existing or proposed drainage pipe. e. A minimum of a 14' wide horizontal clearance shall be maintained within the easement, including tree trunks (so, plantings may be within a 3' zone on each side of the easement). f. All trees planted within the 3' allowed zone from each side of the easement shall be non-rigid to avoid any damming effect. Any landscaping in the drainage easement shall utilize only plantings listed in the letter from dhm design dated February 12, 2003, which is attached to this resolution. g. Softscape materials, such as grass and gardens may be allowed within the 14' clearance zone. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 I 'C 1I ' I 't, L V V V I L ' U 0 rlVl ~ ;,ii;;/' (orp()r~li()n' Site Design Land Planning &'landscape A,rchitecture 12 February 2003 MEMORANDUM ~ L1 v . V V" v I' .1/ L I~V.JJ"J r. L/0 ^1\AC.~~NT1D ~VT\~ Re: Planting in Drainage Easement; Top of Mill Paree, 4 To: John Galambos Galambos Architecls 300 D AAElC Aspen. CO John: The following is a lisl of recommended plants Il1at arc al' )ropriale in the drainage casemellI west of the Parccl 4 residence, Trees: Common Name I) Quaking Aspen 2) Narrowleaf Cottonwood 3) Limbe.r Pine 4) POnder(lSa Pine BOlan;,,-- 'anle Populus rcmllJoides Populus mguSlifolia Pinlls nc~ili.~ Pinus pc lderusa Note: Trees wlli be limhed lip 10 4'. S' above grade, Shrubs: I) Saskatoon Serviceberry 2) Little/eaf MIn. Mahogany 3) Tall Green Rabbitbrllsh 4) Is anti Dogwood 5) Cotoneaster sp. 6) Rock Spirea 7) Dwarf Ninebark 8) Parentilla 9) Alpine Currant 10) Bouider Raspberry / 11) Blue Stem Willow 12) Canyon Blue ArClic Willow 13) Silver Buffalo Berr{ 14) Mountain Snowberry 20-d Amelan, hier alnifolia Cercoca PllS ledifolills inrricatus Chrys(\ri amnus nauseOSllS Comus ,ericea "ls3mi' Cotonea ;rer sp. Holodi~, us dumoslls Physoca 'pus a. 'Nanlls' Potemil ,frulicosa Ribes ^ pioum Rubus d :Iiciousu.s Salh: in )rata Salix P" -pllfea 'Canyon Bille' Shepbel Jia argentea Syl\lph( 'icapns oreophilu$ VSt=60 ~O-~T-aa~ i I I I I I I f I 1 j J i ;1 1- EO-d I ",W', ,. '- v v V I I.. ' V Jf III Perennia.ls; I) Rocky Mm Columbine 2) Lavender Blue Aster 3) Moonshine Yarrow 4) Bluc Ave.na Grass 5) Coreopsis 6) Purple Conetlower 7) Coral 8ells . 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar 9) Alaska Shasta Dais)' 10) Creeping Mahonia 11) Rocky !\1ountain l'enstemol1 (2) Russian Sage 13) Prairie Concflower 14) Rudbeckia fs. 'GoldsIurm' 15) May Nighl Salvia ~ . Aquilegia eearulea Aster x.l: Monarch' Achillea' \I1oonshine' Helielolri :hon sempen'irens Coreop$i! sp. Echinace: purpurea HuC'chera sanguinca Lavandul, 8ngllsrifoJia 'Melissa' Leucanlh ,mum x.s, . Alaska' Mahonia 'cpcns Pensrcm<: l strict us Perovski, 81riplicifolia Ralihida, olumnifera GOJdsllln 1 Black Eyed Susan Salvia nc norosa 'May Night' NO'~~~b Adjustments may be made 10 the above lisl, bUI charaelcri :tics of substitule plan!s will min)ic lisled plants. Regards, Jason Jaynes dhm design ._-~. ~. on I II ji rI " j , I I i I I i II I I , .~ V8t:60 EO-~T-qa~ (i EXHIBIT A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is snitable for development considering its slope, gronnd stability characteristics, inclnding mine subsidence and the possibility of mnd flow, rock falls and avall\nche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardons or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, canse them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF FINDING: The site is suitable for development. It has been graded and a building pad has been flattened out so there are no concerns about slope stability, mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche dangers. To staff's knowledge, there have been no hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the parcel. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natnral watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. STAFF FINDING: Consideration of the subdivisions impacts on drainage and run-off were considered during the original approval and were either deemed to not be a concern or were properly mitigated. A drainage and mudflow easement exists on the west side of the property to accommodate flows from above the subdivision. With proper cOnstruction management and prompt re-vegetation this Spring, there should not be any impacts any of the watersheds. . 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air qnality in the city. STAFF FINDING: Although all single-family residences in the city, collectively, create an impact on the air quality of the city from vehicle trips created and remaining wood burning stoves, staff finds that this single- family residence, by itself, will not have an adverse impact on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. STAFF FINDING: Staff fiIlds that the pr?posed hOil1eand driveway are compatible with the terrainofthe parcel, which was Iargery d'etlirmihed" at' tfili time' tliaf'th'e"'orig'iliaf sul5<fiVfsloh was aeslgned' anaapproveO. Driveway access to the home appears to be easily accomplished without need for ariy further environmental impact. . . 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, distnrbance to the terrain, vegetation and natnralland featnres. STAFF FINDING: Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 9 .,....,. i\ The grading and disturbance to the lot was created with the construction of the subdivision's road and lots and the installation of the utilities. The only additional disturbance to this parcel will be the excavation of the foundation for the house and the house itself, which is acceptable as a necessary disturbance. 6. The placement and clnstering of strnctnres will minimize the need for roads, limit cntting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resonrce. STAFF FINDING: The placement of the house on this lot was largely determined with the original subdivision, but the placement of this structure will not need any new roads, will maintain open space outside of the building envelope, will limit new cutting and grading and will not degrade the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bnlk will be minimized and the structnre will be designed to blend into the open character of the monntain. STAFF FINDING: The building height and bulk will be minimized to the extent that it does not exceed floor area ratio and height limitations established through the PUD process creating the subdivision. Although the proposed design is more modern in character, staff finds that it will blend into the "open character" of the mountain because of its relatively low profile. 8. Snfficient water pressnre and other ntilities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: There exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed structure, as determined by the approval of the subdivision. 9. Adeqnate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF FINDING: The City approved the roads of the subdivision when it was originally approved. No new roads are proposed with the development although there will be a new driveway, which will be required to comply with design criteria for driveways. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: ParksIRecreationlTrails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical n':':;n{,~ 'l"r, STAFF FINDING: Adequate ingress and egress for adequate fire protection and snow removal was designed and approved when the Top of Mill Subdivision requested and received City approval. The recommendations of the AACP were considered during the subdivision process and inCOrPorated into the plan. TOp OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 10 t"j ""J EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.222.010 Pnrpose. The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall review, at a regnlar 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 Commnnity Plan, and STAFF FINDING: One of the policies of the AACP is to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of our community". According to the architect, the proposed design is an "expression of pure Modem design" and something different than the traditional mountain home. Staff believes that the design will add to the mix of architectural styles found in the community. We do find, however, that the proposed variance is not necessarily fundamental to accomplishing the design and, therefore, does not by themselves further the goals of the AACP. (2) more effectively address the issne or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to nnnsual site specific constraints. STAFF FINDING: Staff does not find that the proposed variance would more effectively address an issue the standard responds to, nor be clearly necessary to be fair to any site specific constraints. In our opinion, the variance results from the fact that the applicant has proposed a structure that utilizes the majority of the building envelope, which does not allow building to meet the Building Orientation requirement. If the structure were designed to be a little bit smaller, it would comply with the requirement. In addition, staff does not find a significant enough site specific constraint to warrant the variance as the site is relatively flat, or at least flat enough to be able to comply with the requirement. ..... Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 12 ~ t) ;;,w,- EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES At the January 22, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the design ofa proposed residence to be built on Top of Mills - Parcel 4. DRC review of the project is required due to 8040 Greenline requirements and variances to the Residential Design Standards. (Design standard variances are needed for building orientation, secondary mass and one-story street facing element.) Next SteD for ADDlication: From the DRC meeting, the project will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z will pass a resolution approving or disapproving the proposed proj ect. Comments to Be Inclnded in Resolntion or Ordinance: These comments are noted below. Other comments are provided to inform the Applicant of other City requirements and standards. DRC COMMENTS: 1. Enweerinl! DeDartment . To be inclnded in the P&Z Resolntion: Along the southwest edge of the property is a 20- foot wide easement that is designed to accommodate potential drainage and mudflow. No feature of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can enter this easement. 2. Parks DeDartment (submitted via e-mail) . To be included in the P&Z Resolntion: A construction fence shall be erected along the entire east, southeast, south and southwest portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. . Per requirements of the POD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifYing the irrigation along any Public ROWand native areas. . Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall cannot be beyond the property boundary, this includes any necessary over digging. If the area beyond is disturbed, notification of the property owner and mitigation for the damage will be required. . Per requirements of the POD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 13 reflect the species, numbers and locations of plantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. . To be included in P&Z Resolution: Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. . To be included in P&Z Resolntion: Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. Aspen Sanitation District . To be inclnded in the P&Z Resolution: Service is contingent on district's rules, regnlations and specifications that are on file at the district's office. . The District has the sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. If constraints exist in the downstream collection system, the constraints will be eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees. A tap permit can be completed for the project as soon as detailed plans are available. Total connection fees for the project will be estimated at this time. All fees must be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. City Water Department: . All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 5. Bnilding Department: . Based on a cursory review, the basement egress may not conform with the code. ,,1 ':-''':''')iA""-,;"";.',,,-.n,,,<,..,,';. '. ,~ iJlrC';-'i:,;liL"'. _\,,1 :11(' , ; ,;:: ~ 'I' . ;;,.;:1 ~ Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 14 Mar.18.2003 3:23PM q N0.5990 p. 2/2 March 18, 2003 . Chanp:es to Desi~n in ResDonse to P& Z meetinl! Van Lent Residence Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PlID Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 In response to the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18, 2003 t~following changes are proposed for the design. 1. The proposed FAR has been reduced from 6,200 SF to 5,689 SF.T~ allowable FARis 6,200 SF per the Aspen Mountain Subdivision Pun. 2. The exterior entry canopy has been widened to 14' -6". This fulfills t~ requirements of the 'One Story Element' section of the Residential Design Standards. 3. A secondary mass containing a garage and ADU has been added to the northeast comer that is linked by a one story element. The secondary mass meets the requirements for total square footage to be used in a secondary mass. The linking element mee~'''[Bouirements of Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Building Form, Secondary Mass. r . ~ r, YJ5. MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Direct~ Scott Woodford, City Plann~ THRU: FROM: RE: PARCEL 4, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PUD, Top OF MILL RESOLUTION NO...tiP SERIES 2003 February 18,2003 DATE: - -- _:::: =-=----------------------------==::.-=----=.~:---~',::') ~ --- --- -------..... " ',).( \ ___ --__ .... ---....;.----...."" I \ \ \ ------- " \. \ \. '\ --------------- ))" " " " --- --- \ \ , ------ --- '\ " "- , , , " "- --- . '\ , -, ~ "\. ReQUIRED MUDFLON DEFI.B;TION wALL , --. , , \ I I I I I I I I I I "- , / / / / / / ' // , , , , , . \ \ ,/) ) ,,// / " / / " / - , / - / . , , \ \ ' , , , , \ - \ ',\ \ " \ \ \ '. \ \ \ l , \ I I \ ) ) I II ) I / / / / I / /' I / I I / / / / // // I '......... / / I .... / / < ) REQUEST SUMMARY: 8040 Green!ine Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story Street Facing Element APPLICANT: Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos STAFF RECOMMENDATIOK: ApPROVAL OF THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND J)ENIAL OF THE VARIANCES TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS TIPPLE LoDGE STAfF REpORT PAGEl f:) r) REOUEST SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,200 square foot single-family house on Parcel 4 of the Top of Mill Subdivision. In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must first gain 8040 Greenline Review approval. Concurrent with that action is a request for three different variances to the Residential Design Standards. Those variances are for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. REVIEW PROCESS: The applicant requests the following land use approvals for the project described above: 1) 8040 Greenline Review; According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above,or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with specific requirements. As Parcel 4 is located within this range of elevation, this review is required; Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission 2) Residential Design Standards Variances; According to Section 26.410.020, variances to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Committee; however, if there are other land use reviews necessary, the applicant may consolidate the reviews with the requisite review authority for that other land use request. In this case, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is already hearing the 8040 Greenline Review, the applicant has chosen to allow P&Z authority to review the variance requests. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Top of Mill Subdivision was approved by the Aspen City Council on March 11, 2002. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: There has been no previous land use activity or approval on this particular parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; Staff finds the proposed single-family structure to be in compliance with the standards for 8040 Greenline Review (See Exhibit A for Staff Findings). Furthermore, staff believes that the majority of the review criteria for 8040 Greenline Review was more pertinent during design and consideration of the original subdivision, as most of the environmental impact occurs during the construction of roads, utilities and building lots. In this case, the Parcel 4 was graded into a relatively level site during the subdivision construction. The proposed home on Parcel 4 will not create any significant additional environmental impacts, such as removal of vegetation or new cut of the hillside. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards must identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or TOp OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 2 r') f'lt " be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The following are the different Residential Design Standards which the applicant is r~uesting variance from and staff response: Standard: Secondarv Mass. All new strnctures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. ...... -. ........-. ',,>-- . ..-' Staff Findinl!:: The applicant proposed no secondary mass, citing the grade changes that exist across the site, the presence of the mudflow deflection wall, the lack of historical context in the neighborhood supporting the standard, and the modernist design of the home as reasons supporting a variance from this provision (See Exhibit D for full applicant explanation for the variances). While staff understands that the requirement of a secondary mass may contrast with the applicant's proposed architectural style, we do not find the site constraints to be so limiting as to not be able to physically inCOrPorate the secondary mass into the design. If the applicant wanted the secondary mass, the site appears to be able to accommodate it. Despite this, the criteria for approving a variance to the standards requires a finding that such variance furthers the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the exception would more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff does not find that the proposed variance meets any of the above criteria. Standard: Bui/dinE! orientation The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. Yes. /j'Iilr--' , ! f,j,ff/ . ....., / / .... / Yes. ~ Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 ~ ~ Staff Findin~: The proposed structure is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoirit. Given that the parcel is a flag lot and that the proposed structure will be setback 83' from the street, a slight variation in building orientation is not a large concern for staff. However, again, staff does not find that the proposal meets the strict criteria as noted above. An argument could be made that there are site constraints involved because of the flag lot situation and the fact that there really is no designated front setback, but staff believes that the orientation standard could still be met if the structure were slightly smaller in footprint and did not fill almost the entire building envelope. If the size was slightly reduced, the angle of the structure to the street could be adjusted such that it would be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the, arc of the street and then be in compliance with the provision. Standard: One story element. All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. One Story Element . .' S' '8 '. . , . , .' . .ro. . . . . , . . . .....,.,.". . Staff Findinl!: In an effort to come closer into compliance with the above provision, the applicant proposes a "floating" canopy which will be about 10' wide and project 3' out from the front fayade, comprising 15% of the overall fayade width. This element, while a nicely designed feature, is very small compared to the two-story fayade that the canopy projects from and it is the facade that really dominates the front elevation. Staff does not feel that this complies with the spirit of the standard and does not further the AACP goals, nor provide a better solution to the goal that the standard is responding to. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS; The DRC meeting was held on January 22, 2002. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Exhibit C. The City Engineering Department commented that no part of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can encroach into the 20' wide drainage and mudflow easement along the southwest edge of the property. Submitted plans showed roof eaves and a patio encroaching into the e~sement.The applicant stated that they will redesign the home so that there is no encroachment into the easement. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a 8040 Greenline Review and denial of the Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4. Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 ("") ;J RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No. C:;'Series of2003, for a 8040 Greenline Review and the Variances to the Residential D~gn Standards for Top of Mill, Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Parcel 4." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: 8040 Greenline Review - Staff Findings Exhibit B: Variances to Residential Design Standards - Staff Findings Exhibit C: Development Review Committee (ORe) Minntes Exhibit D: Application Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGES ,...., ~", RESOLUTION NO. at; (SERIES OF 2003) I S~~S~:;4;;;;;;;:;!~!~p f ~ OF MILL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2737-182-85-003(Fathering Parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Remko Van Lent, represented by John Galambos (Applicant), requesting 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review and the denial of the Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass and One- Story Street Facing Element for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision POO, Top of Mill; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals of the development proposal are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning CommissioIl finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request via Resolution No. _' Series of 2003, by a vote of _ to ~ L - ..,), to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and the Variances to the Residential Design Standards; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF' THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2003, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, parcel identification of2737-l82- Top OF MlLL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 6 A, .1..."" 85-003(Fathering Parcel identification number), is approved for 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story, Street Facing Element. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, Top of Mill, is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an altemative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The Community Development Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed addition, driveway, and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the Community Development Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The Applicant shall provide the Community Development Engineer with a soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. f. A construction fence shall be erected along the entire East, South East, South and South West portions of the property. (please see map) There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT t J LJ. PAGE 7 ~ ~y depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. g. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROWand native areas. h. Per requirements ofthePUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall will require over dig, the area of said over dig will be re-vegetated. Reference # 5. Q 1. Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan . should reflect the species, numbers and locations of plantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. j. Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. k. Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 4. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday. 5. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 7. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. No reflective materials shall be used. 8. The Applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting cuts sheets that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance at the time of Building Permit Submittal and/or prior to purchasing the lighting fixtures. 9. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system throughout the residence if it is over 5,000 SF. 10. Barrier and Construction fencing shall be placed around the building envelope during construction and shall not be removed until the applicant obtains a Certificate of Occupancy. Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 8 ~ \>."j 11. The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the drip lines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip lines. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby inCOrPorated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on Febrnary 18, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND COMMISSION: ZONING City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk TOp OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 q ^ .;.;,.,;:""~ -----".,.. ("'\ ,;J>>! fJ EXHIBIT A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is snitable for development considering its slope, gronnd stability characteristics, including mine snbsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is fonnd to contain hazardons or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF FINDING: The site is suitable for development. It has been graded and a building pad has been flattened out so there are no concerns about slope stability, mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche dangers. To staff's knowledge, there have been no hazardous or toxic soils encountered 0!1 the parcel. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollntion. STAFF FINDING: Consideration of the subdivisions impacts on drainage and run-off were considered during the original approval and were either deemed to not be a concern or were properly mitigated. A drainage and mudflow easement exists on the west side of the property to accommodate flows from above the subdivision. With proper construction management and prompt re-vegetation this Spring, there should not be any impacts any of the watersheds. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air qnality in the city. STAFF FINDING: Although all single-family residences in the city, collectively, create an impact on the air quality of the city from vehicle trips created and remaining wood burning stoves, staff finds that this single- family residence, by itself, will not have an adverse impact on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. STAFF FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed home and driveway are compatible with the terrain of the parcel, which was largely determined at the time that the original subdivision was designed and approved. Driveway access to the home appears to be easily accomplished without need for any further environmental impact. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. TOp OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 10 I!'"\ J t""\ , j/ STAFF FINDING: The grading and disturbance to the lot was created with the construction of the subdivision's road and lots and the installation of the utilities. The only additional disturbance to this parcel will be the' excavation of the foundation for the house and the house itself, which is acceptable as a necessary disturbance. . 6. The placement and clnstering of strnctnres will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the monntain as a scenic resource. STAFF FINDING: The placement of the house on this lot was largely determined with the original subdivision, but the placement of this structure will not need any new roads, will maintain open space outside of the building envelope, will limit new cutting and grading and will not degrade the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Bnilding height and bnlk will be minimized and the strnctnre will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF FINDING: The building height and bulk will be minimized to the extent that it does not exceed floor area ratio and height limitations established through the PUD process creating the subdivision. Although the proposed design is more modem in character, staff finds that it will blend into the "open character" of the mountain because of its relatively low profile. 8. Snfficient water pressure and other ntiIities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: There exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed structure, as determined by the approval of the subdivision. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF FINDING: The City approved the roads of the subdivision when it was originally approved. No new roads are proposed with the development although there will be a new driveway, which will be required to comply with design criteria for driveways. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/RecreationlTrails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical STAFF FINDING: Adequate ingress and egress for adequate fire protection and snow removal was designed and approved when the Top of Mill Subdivision requested and received City approval. The recommendations of the AACP were considered during the subdivision process and incorporated into the plan. Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 ^ ~;~:. '.; -".; (") EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.222.010 Pnrpose. The Design Review Appeal Committee (or Planning and Zoning Commission, in this case) shall review, at a regular meeting, any appeal of the Residential Design Standards. Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and succinctly identify why, if granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Commnnity Plan, and STAFF FINDING: One of the policies of the AACP is to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of our community". According to the architect, the proposed design is an "expression of pure Modem design" and something different than the traditional mountain home. Staff believes that the design will add to the mix of architectural styles found in the community. We do find, however, that the proposed variances are not necessarily fundamental to accomplishing the design and, therefore,do not by themselves further the goals of the AACP. (2) more effectively address the issne or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to nnnsnal site specific constraints. STAFF FINDING: Staff does not find that the any of the proposed variances would more effectively address an issue any of the standards respond to, nor be clearly necessary to be fair to any site specific constraints. In our opinion, the variances all result from the fact that the standards in question do not mesh well with the applicant's chosen design style. Unfortunately, that criteria is not among the two that the Code requires be met in order to support a variance. TOp OF MILL, P ARCEL4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 12 r'1 1""\ , j EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES At the January 22, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the design of a proposed residence to be built on Top of Mills - Parcel 4. DRC review of the project is required due to 8040 Greenline requirements and variances to the Residential Design Standards. (Design standard variances are needed for building orientation, secondary mass and one-story street facing element.) Next Steo for Aoolication: From the DRC meeting, the project will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z will pass a resolution approving or disapproving the proposed project. Comments to Be Inclnded in Resolution or Ordinance: These comments are noted below. Other comments are provided to inform the Applicant of other City requirements and standards. DRC COMMENTS: 1. En!!ineerinl!: Deoartment · To be inclnded in the P&Z Resolntion: Along the southwest edge of the property is a 20-foot wide easement that is designed to accommodate potential drainage and mudflow. No feature of the proposed building, including foundations and eaves, can enter this easement. 2. Parks Deoartment (submitted via e-mail) · To be inclnded in the P&Z Resolution: A construction fence shall be erected along the entire east, southeast, south and southwest portions of the property. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. · Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed erosion control and irrigation plan will be required for review by the parks department, identifying the irrigation along any Public ROWand native areas. · Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, construction of the mud and debris wall cannot be beyond the property boundary, this includes any necessary over digging. If the area beyond is disturbed, notification of the property owner and mitigation for the damage will be required. · Per requirements of the PUD Agreement, a detailed landscape plan submitted and reviewed during the building permit review process. Landscape plan should Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 13 ~ :.;.J' reflect the species, numbers and locations ofplantings. Additionally, included on the detailed plan will be any right-of-way plantings or requirements. · To be inclnded in P&Z Resolntion: Areas outside of the building envelope currently disturbed by the excavation of the entire Top of Mill site shall be restored with native plants and materials. · To be included in P&Z Resolntion: Landscape plan shall take into consideration fire mitigation and use only drought tolerant trees and plants as well as space and group away from the house to prevent future problems with fuels. 3. Aspen Sanitation District · To be inclnded in the P&Z Resolntion: Service is contingent on district's rules, regulations and specifications that are on file at the district's office. · The District has the sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed development. If constraints exist in the downstream collection system, the constraints will be eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees. A tap permit can be completed for the project as soon as detailed plans are available. Total connection fees for the project will be estimated at this time. All fees must be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. City Water Department: · All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 5. BuiIdinl! Department: · Based on a cursory review, the basement egress may not conform with the code. Top OF MILL, PARCEL 4 STAFF REpORT PAGE 14 ,"",....,.'.",,. Mar,IS. 2003 3:23PM i""'~ No.5990 f"! " ...? March 18, 2003 , Chan2es to Dcsign in Resoonse to P& Z meetin,z Van Lent Residence Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 In response to the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Comn:rission on February 18, 2003 the, following changes are proposed for the design. 1. The proposed FAR has becn reduced from 6.200 SF to 5,689 SF. The allowable FAR is 6,200 ~F per the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 2. The exterior entry canopy has bcen widened to 14'-6". This fulfills the requirements of the 'One Story Element' section of the Residential Design Standards. 3. A secondary mass containing a garage and ADU has been added to the northeast comer that is lihked by a one story element. The secondary mass meets the requirements for total square footage to be used in a secondary mass. The linking elelIlCnt me,,:: iT F"uirements of Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Building Form, Secondary Mass. r . P, 2/2 <- , ~a r . 18, 2003 3:23PM N0.5990 P. 1/2 f"'> , , n\ G A FAX TRAl'{SMITI'~L GAL.AMaos .....'tt:HfTEeT$ INC. TO: Scott Woodford - City of Aspen Planning Department FROM: Rich Pavcek DATE: March 18, 2003 RE; Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision FAX #: 920-5439 PAGES: 2 (incl. cover sheet) Scott, Attached is the letter you ',(O'!ested addressing the changes made to the proposed design. Please call if you have any further qUes.,,,,,,, Thank you, Rich Pavcek Galambos Architects Inc " . 300 AABC Uait D- Aspen, Colorado 31611 rei 970.429.12861 fa. 970,429.1296 e.~ aainc@~osarchitects.tlet . C) .- t ,> 1 .'.) TRANSMITTAL To: Scott Woodford From: Rich Pavcek Re: Parcel 4 - Aspen Mountain Subdivision Cc: Date: March 17, 2003 GALAMBOS ARC H IT E C T '$ I N C, Scott, Attached are 11 copies of the new submittal for Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision. If you need any further information please contact myself or John Galambos. Thank you, Rich Pavcek Galambos Architects Inc Bldg 300, Unit D AABC. Aspen, Colorado 81611 p, 970-429-1286. F: 970-429-1296 E: gainc@galambosarchitects.net my transmittal.doc ~ (j ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: -V~ t..crr 'f4:h1f}€:./oite Appli~t: jpff,J qlfVAHliJc$ Locatron: r~L 4- _ 1'8/001" fY/M" I ~ J'!.,4'A-t"J ~"~"'''IS.;'',.I Zone District: L. -r7C-' . Lot Size: /1., 27'5 <5"" Lot Area: ' (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the defrnition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Nit I Existing: Existing: Existing: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing.- Allowable: 1,/ 2 o~ Proposed: 6","'84 Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: 2'b Proposed: (,,",Ie; Access. bldg. height: Existing: ~ Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: 3- Proposed: 3- % Site coverage: Existing: piA Required: Proposed: . % Open Space: Existing: ~A Required: Proposed: , Front Setback: Existing: )///1< Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: 10 Required: Proposed: Combined FIR: Existing: )I /Ir Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: /0 Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: /0 Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: /J/A Required: Proposed: . ~ PuJ> Existing non-conformities or encroachments: tf? "e::: . . Variations requested: ~f DU&lTJl...11.o;J ~,'I' .< ..... I t::1I' I 't. LVUv IL' I "rill .-:... . ... ,.:.:. I~U'vvJU r. I(L (1 G A FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: ~n:.k- c:~ ~ but~ FROM:)o L ~~ -- DATE: t.jl4'[O? RE: GALAMBOS ARCMI-rtCTS 'HC. FAX#: '1z.c,. '7"tb ( PAGES:? (ine!. cover sheet) ~~2) 1\1;t- -1-' j v.. cfC1S~-r k~ -r;; c+ ho.; 1\ A:~S, r ~I l ' 1i~ cP,!( ~f ~ -P ~JlIe- ~ Iss-la:., 1/-J. za~ t 7--- /leo:L:I} ,~--p.... A~ ~- 300 Mac Unit b ~Agpen, Colotado 81611 101970.429.12861 fax 97D.429.1296 e-mail gainc$galarnbosarchiteC[ll.net , \ \ , \ , \ , \ , \ , \ , \ , , \ , \ , , \ \) , , I , f ,I / ---., 0/NG SET8ACK" 'p ._~- ---- '- '8038" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ Feb.14,2003':'12:IJPM PATIO AREA PLMTER -:8050-- c::::::J c::::J 8 8 8 B c::::::J [:=J c::::::J I~ U . oj oJ J U r. L/ (... GR/JDE ~. MUD DEFLLCTION WIJ..1. .Y '80&3" REO'D I HDGHT AEOIe GRADE . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .8050' \ \ \ \ p AT/O AREA \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ rJ ~.:; ...... ..... ....... '. . r80,14, LUUS IL,UOr~1 11 U ' v V J V I' 1/ \J (") G A FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: tl...~ ~ry ~ 8ut~ FROM: JQ L ~~ DATE: $0/ W[q7 RE: GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. FAX#: 1~. ":icb ( PAGES: ? (inet cover sheet) ~t~2:J I~t-~,. i '" C"c.S~{- ~ J;? *~; 1\ , 1lS;. ' 1(~ 0\1( ~f ~ .p ~Jve. ~ ~. .1/-J- Z-~ t t~ !{.,,:~: I,? ,~.-p.. ~ . 300 Mac Unit D - Aspen. ColoradO SHill lel 970.429.12861 fax 970,429.1296 e-mail gainc@ga]ambos.archirec(s.net r t lJ ' I 't. L U V V I L . V or IVI dhm design - <: 0 r p () r ;\ t , {) 11 Site Design Land Planning &, landscape Architecture 12 F ebruar)' 2003 MEMORANDUM Re: Planting in Drainage Eas.menli Top of Mill Paree, 4 To: John Galambos Galambos Architec!~ 300 D AABC Aspen. CO John: l~ U ' i) i) j i) r. LI 0 The following is a list ofreconllnended plants Ihat arc aF ,ropria.c in the drainage easemellt west OfIhc Pared 4 residence. Trees: Common Name I) Quaking Aspen 2) Narrowlcaf Coltollwood 3) Limbe.r Pine 4) Ponderosa Pille Balanic ,ame Populus remuJo;des Populus lI1g:ustifolia Pinus nnilis Pinus r<' lderosa 1\:ote: Trees will be limbed up [0 4'- 5' above grode. Shrubs: I) Saskatoon Serviceberry 2) LiltleleafMtn. Mahogany 3 ) Tall Green Rabbi tbrush 4) Isanti Dogwood 5) COloneaster sp, 6) Rock Spirea 7) Dwarf Ninebark 8) POlemilla 9) Alpine Curram 10) Bouider Raspberry 1 J) Blue Stem Willow 12) Canyon Blue ArcIic Willow 13) Silver Buffalo Berry 14) Mounta;n Snowberr)' 20-d Amelan. hier alnifolia Ccrcoca pus ledifolills illtricatus ChrysOli amnu~ nauseosus Comus : erices 'Isanti' Colonea :tcr sp. Holodis, us dumosus Physoca 'pus a. 'Nanus' POlelllil l fru\icosa R ibes ^ pinum Rubus d ;Iiciousu, Sa t i:-.; in )rata SaJix pu 'purea 'Canyon Biue' Shepbe. jia argcnlea Synlphc -icapos oreophiJus V8l:60 ~O-~T-a~~ r80.14, LUUJ IL:u~pM Perennials; I) Rocky Mln Columbine 2) L.avender Blue ASler 3) Moonshine Yarrow 4) Blue AveM Grass 5) Coreopsis 6) Purple Conellower 7) Coral Bells 8) Melissa Pink Lavendar 9) Alaska Shasta Dais)' 10) Creeping Mahonia 11) Rocky Ylounlain Penslemon 12) Russian Sage 13) Prairie Coneflower 14) Rudbeekia fs_ 'Goldstunn' 15) May Nighl Salvia , Aquilegia eearulea ASler x. f. Monarch' Achillea' \r1oonshine' Helictotri :hon sernpervirens Coreopsi! sp. Echill3ce; purpurea liucchera sanguinc:a Lavandul ,angllslifoJia . Melissa' Leueanth ,mum x.s, 'Alaska' Mahon,a 'epens Penslem<: \ slricrus Perovskir alriplieifolia Ralihida' olumnifers Goldsllln 1 Black Eyed Susan Salvia l1e norosa 'Ma)' Night' NO.bb~b p, 0/0 Adjustments may be made 10 Ihe ahov" list. hUI charaeteri ;Iies of sUbSlitule plants will oni,,\;e listed pla"ts. Regards, Jason Jaynes dhm design l::O-d VBt:60 EO-bT-qe~ . "" ~,";:' <1 ""~"J" ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 130 ),1.1\1+ MilL SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 'f~a,\lA-JL'1 -6rJL~E-T /8 , , , Aspen, co .2002 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) r, :tit'" ~ M.-AI>\~ 5 . . . (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 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: _ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an 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 hereto. -L 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 ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the.2l day of a^,/UAJLj , 200-.l, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. -t- Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal govemment, school, service district or other govemmental 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 appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ~ ASPEN MOUNTAIN MINING CORPORATION PO BOX 203 ASPEN. CO 81612 BLEILER JUDITH A PO BOX 10220 ASPEN. CO 81612 FAECC HOLDINGS 7040 LLC 3258 FOURTH AVE SAN DIEGO.CA 92103 GUEST KELLEY & CATHERINE PO BOX 5578 CARMEL, CA 93921 LPRP MILL LLC 50% 7714 FISHER ISLAND DR FISHER ISLAND, FL 33109 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60564 REARDON GENE F & DIANA PO BOX XX ASPEN, CO 81612 I") '1__ 'Ji' ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PO BOX 1248 ASPEN. CO 81612 BRIDGE TIM 300 PUppy SMITH ST STE 203-225 ASPEN. CO 81611 FREEDMAN MICHAEL & NANCI WOLF 32460 EVERGREEN BEVERLY HILLS. MI 48025 HAGER FRANCES C/O ASPEN LODGING CO MGT 747GALENAST ASPEN, CO 81611 MACAPA CORP 9465 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLYHILLS,CA 90212 OLSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A 4404 GREENWOOD DR BENTON HARBOR. MI 49022 TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC 27777 FRANKL! N RD STE 1850 SOUTH FIELD, MI 48034 BENNETT WOOD INTERESTS L TO PO DRAWER 1011 REFUGIO. TX 78377 EDGAR ROBERT G 167 COUNTRY CLUB DR GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2901 GARDNER CHARLES L GARDNER RITA WALSH 840 LOCUST AVE WINNETKA. IL 60093 LEASURE BRIAN J 410 BOYD DR CARBONDALE. CO 81623-9248 MCVICKER JULIET PO BOX 567 MIDDLEDURY. vr 05753 PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A 537 MARKET ST STE 202 CHATTANOOGA. TN 37402 WELCH PATRICK T & DEBORAH P ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING CO C/O V GARWOOD 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 f'-. ~~~\ " -t., Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part 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 zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. \ ~ L-------- /;Jii!" , <~e s! The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 3/ day of::-.ro.iJ ,2003,by.JoknC,,,,,lo..r>,",--bos- \ -''''11 '. , r" , ~ )./ c, -, :1' 1\ 1"1 1 " 1 1li)((:J!l "(,'~I'ff f ..J". _", J -" '~T-!':',' 1 "J" {>-l",''''I,"',~".!i!ill.l:,itii!!el ~J WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: j /3 .1;:2.0 0'5 ~ -d &~--e-~~ Notary Public 02/:;8' j:.eki~,k" veAf( ~ Co, 8/ ros-tJ ., ~':""~~~{i~4f~ti;;ill,::~~~~;,ii - ..~"'-Jl s: -.... ,,- - "."..~ '>.>. r' ~'.,.. -". ~'ATION .~ ....." ~ (; .""> '"'f" . ~ ,~~ ..... . "" --- , .. ' 0 NOTICE (SIGN) AGENCIES NOTICED '~ -,'....ill. ......~ ,/,\ l:c.('\, ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PR~,~E~TY:P ~V('~ ) tJ 4' !f1!:f) ~fJ1 fJjj1jn, CO SCHEDULED P~}~S~fUNG DATE: > .?;l) ~h5 . .200-,- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~ Q -1M P.. So ~ L"le/-!- (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 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Y-Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official ~ paper or a paper of general5=irculation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached here'rp. _l>;iff!$1lrz~i;~~: I:Wp()iilii~'of~()t;g~, Q:hich form was()bt~~~dfr()~>the'i t~qrrliniinity De<,reiopment Department, which was made of suitable, wa~erProofmaterials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide :~ and tw~nty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not \:liiss than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing 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 Communit:!! Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days pQor to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal govemment, 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 appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. 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 part 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 zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~~~dI!/ ~gnature ..;1' The ~ing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me 'sf,' day of (')6"-". ,2003, by "7')0---"-7 1--" Y'"'1Jt ..1 '. -. ,.;;.;;,.~:"",. _.~-._-,.,- pusuc'NCl'rrCE ~D PARtn:~'C~("!NTAiN SUBDMSION NOTICE'IS .." " . ,GIVEN that a,public hearing_ ~~l ~e'~~~~Zt ~ '6d;.%~~~~:~~:t~~~ 'f~~ fling &. Z,Qnl~g_ ..,omp1issio'll:,GoundIGham~rs' City HaU,130s'. q~X~na'St~: Aspen, to consider a~ appHcatlon su~mitt~:d_by JO~llGatambos . on be.. 'h~I~,~:~,,~~~.~~,X~::h7W' ,!eqU~stingappr~vaJ for, SP,40q~~~I1]l:ne_ ~e:';lew a~1:l Variances to the Resi~ de:~-~~~tP,~'lgn< ~f<l~:d~;ds:specificaIJY to,B\lJlding 9pe9~t~.9.p, $econ,dary. Mass, ," and -One-Story .,~~!.,E~fl?g~l~~e:nt,. The:su,bject pl?perty !s:;'; 'P'~~.t2Uhe: Aspen Mountain Subdivlsion,City' of~pe'n.,:'-_-",.:,,' ,',,' "",":;,~::' :':: ::.":,">: <, _<<:" F6:~ f~ri~~ ;~"0;~';t1~;" ~~;t~~i S~~tt Woodfor~ ~(~~cul of~pen~ C,ommul)ityDeve]opment De- P~ff0~~~,J~)~Gi!;n~:sf.:'Aspen,- CO"(970r9"2a.' , 5102'~~mtw~haspe~;~?:us~ h~i::\~{ _ - slJa'sminerYire:Chair !'a~riing &'Zoning Commission 'penTim~:on FebruaryI, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL "'5, ~" ' :' ~.\ S/'HAH (~~~:n:: s , , ~ ;"':'f;a'~~~: Published iii- The 2003,(llOU3j""-' ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION -"""",",'-'--'-" 1APH OF THE POSTEI>NOTICK(SiGNj LIST OF THE OWNEllil AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCmS NOTICED BY MAIL ~\hci QJ\o~ 8002 'L I H~~ .l3S M31A3C1 NDI~ NOISIAI08nS NI'v'..LNnOlAJ N3dS'v' '17 13~; Z~O ( o ...J 0 - -w<( ~ (f) () rr. - -rr.0 (J ><(...J -0..0 ~ o () ( rn ... 1.J z I- ::J w - (f) 0.. J (J) ( Z <( C - ~ < (J Z ::J ( 0 0 ~ 'lll:: tilt. ~ NOISIAI08ns NI'v'..LNnOlAJ N3dS'v' I I I I Ul" O' m. ,,:; <(~ ..J, <(0 " 0< :. 0.. m_" ~m7 o. ou~ Oz' - owo m" .. <- oa'v'~OlO:::> 'N3dS'v' 1;7 13:::>~'v'd i ~ i .~ ~. ~!i!~ ~~~ 8~~ ,~~ ~~. .~~ ~~~ ~~. riCi:l<J ~~~ ~!I~ .~~ Cl ~ I < ~~ ~~ ~~~ ............... ~ .................. ~ Q.. ! o o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , , \ , \ , \ , \. ,~ ':\' ~. , '? '% ~~ ,~ "- \ , \ ~~- --- -- - -- / / - / -J ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ....,...1'-....-.... ,....." -....- ....~.... ....-.... \ ....- -....- \....... ...... I :~ I' I .1 ~I 'I ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ . c ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ o o I ~ ~ i ~ \ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~- ~~ ~~~ --......... I I I I Ll C CI. C NOISIAlosns NI'v'J..NnOv-J N3dS'v' q I I (/)0 0= In. ~:; <~ -': <0 . ,0< :. 0.. .-" ~.7 o. co~ oi- 000 """ .. <- oav~o.,o:) 'N3dSV V "3:)~Vd ! ! i ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ .........-"........ ~~ ~ ~~ ........................ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ................" ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --I , , ___J c:::::J - --- / / - / -~ 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 ,I ~I 'I ~I ~ ~I ftn1 i: [ v-lJJ 1 b ~ r -, I I , ' I______~' ,fj; - ~ ~ ~ -.... ~ ........- ,...... ....- ,....... --.... ;/ ........... ~~~~~ /-/-- ~~ - ~ / ,;....;# u C l\ C 0>" o~ o~~ ._N CD m ~<<l7 ~::; 001 <~ OU~ .J i g~o <t: 0 l'l~~ << .- O. oaV~OlO~ 'N3dSV ! ! 1;7 l3~~Vd ! Ii NOISIAI08nS NI'v'l.NnOv-.! N3dS'v' II i ~ @ 2 I 0 I . ~ ~ ----------- HJN38 H",3iI ~ a H:JN3fJ H:JII3iI %; ~ ~ w t ~ ~ ~ ~ J./:JN18 m II II ~ ~ H:JN38 Ill'; 0'_ :. 0.. .-" 10 l/) ~<<I7 ~ t; OOl ou~ .( ~ 0";'- ..J;: g~~ .( U fill) . <- 0< . OaV'C:lOlO~ 'N3dSV' 17 l3~C:lV'd ! 1 ! ! I NOISI^I08nS NI'v'..LNnOV\J N3dS'v' i I ~ ~ ~ ~ :------------X ]:::) (--------~ [J -;::::- , I;; 1 ~ 00 LJ II II D ~ , ~ 1 I I! C 1 ~ 0 ~ , D 1 , 1 ! [J , ~ 1 L.':;::. , I f---------' ,-----------i I 0 I I (,)~ c II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ou ~ 1 1 J - - - - - 1 1 c 1 1 ~ ~ C;I')( \ 1 1 ~ \ I________.J !llll - - - - ~cl r !llll ~ ~ I~~ c , '1- ~ "'" - iil ~ 1 ~ m "-" \: L t- 1 ! ~( 1 ~ ~ 1 ~::; ~.f- 1 ~ L ~cl~i 1 ~ ~ '~l ~ II K L/ ~7 }::)\j - - - I!I \ c ~~ I~ (J) u - o~ oo~ '" O_N UI ~(l7 :r ~ og 101 OU'<t <C ~ Ox ~ ...J:t owO <C ~ ~~~ . <- ~< OO'v'C10l0:::> 'N3dS'v' V l3:::>C1'v'd q NOISIAIOSnS NI'v'..LNnOW N3dS'v' II ~ g i tOo - o~ uo ~ t!l 10- ~. ~~ 0 <( ~ Ou ..J i g~ <( ~ <'l~ (,. oa'v'~OlO:::> 'N3dS'v' 17 13:::>H'itd i 1 i ! I NOISIAI08nS NI'v'..LNnOlAJ N3dS'v' i ~ o I ^ D OO'<tClO..,08 'N3dS'<t V "'38Cl'<td III 0 0' ,o. ~:; <~ .J;; <0 z 0< 00 0- ~o o 00 oi o. .. o < ~ ~ i NOISIAI08ns NI\7'..LNnOlAJ N3dS\7' ! I I I ~~ ~ ~ ~Q ~z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ . ~~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C) ~ ~ ~ I i=: ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I l1.J [JGGG] -J I l1.J I ~ I I ~:r I C) ." I Z~ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I \ I , /" '/" Oa'ltClOiO:) 'N3dS'v' V i3:)C!'v'd <1)0 0= Ill. ~~ <~ -'i <u . 0< :. u.. ._N ~~; OO~ oi~ 0_0 0"' .. <- NOISI^IOSnS NI'v'l.NnOv-.! N3dS'v' * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t; '-'-J ~ ; ~ It 5 to 0 to ~ ~ DGGc:J ;z Cl i= :;: UJ --J UJ \-~ <j), "<(.'1 UJ! " . "' ~~ ~~ ~I ~. ~~ i ! i q I ~ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ /'- '-/ \ ~/ .Dec.IB. 2002 3:20PM ~ N0.5031 p. 1/3 G A FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: ~ D-.~"'? FROM:"frI.", 1i'..~I,..;:. DATE: rei/st.!. RE: 1(Y't....l 4,11>f el- /A<,I\ GAI..AMBOS ^A~ HlTECT5 INC, FAX #: 11.0. ?4-'Vr PAGES:? (lncl. covCl'sheet) ~-- Q ~rdrr~ J -t..- "WI~- ~; ~c.-' ....,.l ~40. :r- ';"st ~ d\~a ~ ~ . ~ y~'" 300 AABC Unit D - Aspen, Colorado 81611 tel 970.429.12S6I fax 970,429.1296 e~mai1 p.in.e@.plambosarchiceCl:s.Q~ .Dec.18. 2002 3:20PM ~ " No,5031 p. 2/3 November 25, 2002 Mr. Remko Van Lent Wilhelminaweg 1 2042 NN Zandwoort The Netherlands To City of Aspen Planning Director, As the OWner of Parcel 4. Aspen Mountain PUD, I authoriu John Galambos of Galambos Architects Inc., localed at 300 D AABC. Aspen, Colorado g 1611 (970-429-1286), 10 act on my behalf with regards to City of Aspen's public bearings for 8040 Greenline Review and DRAC variances on this project. '..,.::'1'De c . 18, 200 2 3:21PM / N0.5031 p. 3/3 : A IT ACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM project: \}o.... bt ~~ Applicant: .."Ye>'w... ~~~l>? Location: _':f.."", l 4- t -r.. r J ll-\:l \ Zone District: 6-1"t- Lot Size: -,%/ Z'T <$ _ Lot Area: Conunercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduc;ed for areas within the high water ~ easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLat Mea ill the Municipal Code.) Existing: Existing: existing: Proposed: /II'( Proposed: I Proposed: 4-- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Existing: Allowable: Existing: Allowable: Existing: J k Allowable: Existing: Required: Existing: N lp\ Required: Exi$ting:~ Required: Existing: NIt< Required: Existing: 10 f?equfred: Existing: JJ '" Required: Existing: 1 , {tequtred: Existing: I" ~quired: Existfng:~Required: ~.:?O1? Existing non-comormities or CDaoachments: V'w--L.-- Floor Area: Principal bldg. height Access. bldg. height: On-Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear.Setback: Combined FIR:. Side Setback: Side Setback; Combined Sides: AI~ f, oz.()f^f-- Proposed: t-,~ ~Ir'e- yo, Proposed: V'''''~ Proposed: ~ Proposed: "2.- Proposed: ProjJosed: Pr.oposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Propo:;ed: ' ~ Variations requested: L;". ~k~ .PIIPt~~1 i.\ r'I i) GALAMBOS ARCHITECTS INC. December 13, 2002 Response to requirements for 8040 Greenline Review per section 26.435.0020(C) Van Lent Residence Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. This parcel is suitable for the proposed development of a single family home. This was established by the extensive PUD process the developer went through with the city. The slope and ground stability was analyzed and tested by the developer and accepted by the City Engineer. The dangers posed by Mud Flow were mitigated by Debris and Deflection walls as shown on the original PUD application. Extensive soils testing were completed by the developer of the parcel for hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during excavation they will be dealt with per the report submitted with the original PUD. 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. This project does not have significant adverse affects on natural watershed. This was again established during the overall PUD process for this subdivision. Refer to the final platt submission, Grading and Drainage plan prepared by Schemuser Gordon Meyer dated 5/31/02. r""l 'j 3. The proposed development does not have asignificant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. This project is a single family residence and does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. The driveway will be paved and the Top of Mill Street is paved. 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. The proposed development is compatible with the terrain ofthe parcel. This was established during the original PUD process. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent possible, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and naturallandfeatures. The grading, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and land features were all dealt with during the Original POO. The grading and drainage plan by Schemuser Gordon Meyer dated 5/31/02 was accepted with the submission of the final platt. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the needfor roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. The pIacement and clustering of the structures was established during the original PUD process. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The building height limit was established during the original PUD process. The home is allowed to be 28 feet above 1975 topography as submitted by SGM dated 5/31/02. Only at one point, the proposed design is at that allowable limit. Most of the home especially along the South hillside is well below the allowable height limit. Please refer to the elevations. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. The water pressure and other utilities were all established during the extensive PUD process. tr") 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. The roads and maintenance of said roads were established during the PUD. They are being installed by the developer. The Fire department reviewed and approved the design of the proposed road during the PUD process. 10. The recommt;ndations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks /Recreation! Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. These recommendations were all considered during the Original PUD process. f') ~ , )' December 4, 2002 Response to requirements for DRAC Variances Van Lent Residence Parcel 4, Aspen Mountain Subdivision POO Galambos Architects Inc 300 D AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 429-1286 Per our pre-submittal meeting of November 25, 2002 we are requesting the following variances from the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards: 1. Building Orientation. The code reads that the front fa~ade of all principal structures shall be parallel to a tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. The proposed design is 31.5 degrees off of the tangent of the midpoint. Our design is not parallel to the arc of the street for the following reasons: a. The site is what is typically referred to as a "flag lot". It is located off of a private street that is curving up towards Top of Mill Circle. It is accessed via a 24 foot wide extension of the property line to the street. Parcel 5 has a shared access easement for this section as well. (See the site plan). It is not a typical City of Aspen lot that has any real "street frontage". Because of the setbacks, it is tucked off the street 83 feet, flanked and hidden behind other buildings. This lot creates hardship as it relates to this design standard. b. This standard's intent is to provide a unified streetscape for the pedestrian experience. When this lot was created during the PUD process it was acknowledge and accepted by the City that there was no Front Yard and thus no Front Yard Setback. All the other multi-family and single family residences have a front yard setback of 15 feet. The PUD application, page 103, states only the rear yard and side yard setbacks. For front yard setback it states "not applicable". This lot as created does not have a "streetfront" orientation and thus is a hardship as related to this standard. 2. Secondary Mass. The code reads that all new structures shall locate at least 1 0% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. A subordinate linking element was further defined as being one story in nature. We are requesting a variance from this aspect of the code for the following reasons: a. There are site specific constraints that make this design standard difficult to achieve. There is no real good place on the site to locate a secondary mass that will truly be perceived as being secondary. The site is steeply f) sloped. There is a 22 foot difference in grade from Northwest to SouthEast. The mud and debris wall is an additional 6 feet higher, which creates a 28 foot difference between front and back. There is no real flat area on this site that would allow you to design an element as if it were subordinate to the main mass. If, for example, you created a secondary mass with a one story linking element as it is perceived from the South, the linking element would be perceived as being two stories from the North. If you built a secondary mass with a linking element with a 9 foot plate as perceived from the North, the linking element would be swallowed by the grade. The idea of a secondary mass works well in the historical context of Aspen's west end which is fairly flat. The slope of this site makes this ideal difficult to achieve. b. The Mud and Debris wall is another site specific constraints that make this design standard difficult to achieve. At its highest point, this wall is the same height as the fascia line of the Kitchen area. The mass of this home will be different depending on where you are looking at it. At some angles it will look as if it is a two story home. As some angles it will look like a one story home. And at some it will look only as a roof that is buried in the hillside. Almost half this home will be perceived as being one story. In perception the home is subordinate to the site and the Mud and Debris wall. c. The stated intent ofthis design standard is to respect the scale of Aspen's Historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing. The context where Top of Mill is located is one of large scale multi-family residences. Think Fifth Avenue or the Gant. Parcel 3 is approved for a Duplex with a design that does not need to meet this rather recent addition to the design standards. There is no real context for this home to meet the Secondary Mass requirements d. Finally, and most importantly, this home is an expression of pure modern design. The client is from the Netherlands, which has a strong tradition of modern, cutting edge design. In Amsterdam's urban expression for example, you have the traditional Dutch row house adjacent to the Reigfelt (SP?) house. The intent of the home from the client's perspective was not to create the typical mountain home with traditional roof forms and massing. He wanted something pure and symmetrical. Especially as expressed in the roof form and how this home will be perceived from the ski slopes above. Another form on the site would throw off the pure balance of the home. All facades needed to have a subdued balance. As a design program this home is about trying to achieve a Modern Jewel box tucked into the hillside. 3. One Story Street Facing Element. The code states that all residential buildings shall have a one story street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20% of the building's overall width. We are asking for a variance from this design standard for the following reasons: . n a. The current design has a floating canopy (architectural projection in the code's terms) above the entry. This element is 10' -6" wide. The overall building length is 72 feet wide. Thus this element is 15% ofihe overall elevation. However this elevation is really comprised of three parts. The center portion is 14 feet in front of the two side elevations. The width of the center portion is 26 feet which means that the canopy represents 40% of the foremost elevation of the home. b. The pUrPose of this requirement is to have buildings present a pedestrian scale towards the street and to enhance the walking experience. This site as stated above has no real street frontage. It is tucked back from the street 83 feet and has no front yard. There is no real public pedestrian experience for this home. The nature of the site makes this design standard essentially moot. ~ f) MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: X ........... City Engineer X ......... Community Development Engineer X ........... Zoning Officer o ........... Honsing Director X ........... Parks Department X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal X ........... City Water X ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District X........... Bnilding Department o ........... Environmental Health o ........... Electric Department o ........... Holy Cross Electric o ........... City Attorney o ........... Streets Department o ........... Historic Preservation Officer o ........... Pitkin Connty Planning o ........... Connty & City Disaster Coordinator o ......... Transportation FROM: Scott Woodford. (scotlw@!cl.asoen.co.us) Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5102 Fax-920.5439 RE: Too of Mill. Parcel 4 - 8040 Greenline Review and Variances to the Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation, Secondary Mass, and One-Story Street Facing Element. DATE: January 3. 2003 DATE OF DRC MEETING: January 15.2003 at 1:30PM. · NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOEHNER Gohnn@cLaspen.co.us) BY NOON ON January 15. 2003. YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. n 7--737- IJ'?- c5-ot}~ ~+h~V(~~g fdcL~(