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~(