HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.240 Lake Ave.A085-98
~
,-;
, '
-----
. 3)
S)
.>
-
1.)
2)
~!.
r-., DlllD USE APPr:T'l"'ll.'I'lTW FC.a!
Green.,.:rg Residence
!~
Pmjec!: N'alDe
. 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
PmjECt. L:x:aticn
Lot 15, Block 103
(imi""- ".t,..d.. ~ r l.clt; C h1<xx ....j ""'X, 1s;al.-desc::d.pticn~.
"tN'-~)
a
. I . Zl::l1i.n:r
R6
4) rot: Size
Ronald Gr~enberg
14,220 SF
l\{:pH.....-.SName, .l!l:kh. r. ~ "
44 Maryland Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63108 (314) 361-7600
6)
Charles Cunniffe Architects
~ .1_":ve'S Name, ~\1. c ~ J
520 East Hyman, Suite 301, Aspen,CO 81611 (970) 925-5590
7) Typeof~ (Pl
dleck.all that ag;lly) :
_ O:mil:icull Use
_ r1... '1. .L.ual SPA
_ O::rx:eptual lii.stor'..c Dav".
. _ F'...na.l Hist:cI::ic r.ev_
_ Ki.= H:i.stcric Dav".
_ ~"l l1E!vi.6oT
F:inal SPA.
8040 G.l:eml..i.na
_ 0..... 'l.'LJa,l RlD
_ SL.<=lI 1m:gin
F:inal ~
_ l:Ii.s'-..cr.ic: ~ 1 i:t::ic:n
_ lI....uL..in yiai !'lane _ ~iv::isicn-
_ Hi.stcric: 1'=c:i~tT1
_ G...,.1. ...:"';l'WM~ _ 'l'ex't;'Hap :&'11-.1.._4,.
_ ~ AJ.:lct:mem:
_ I.ct SplitjI.ct:r.in! X ft _ c:x;;:; ~
Adjustment - ld-...t.l_l .,.. '"""- IlI..1T
e.~~
. .
8) ~ of To'Yi..rl"""J USes (,..~ ani type of ".".;c:HD:J st:::uc:l:m:l!s,
~ sq. :ft.., ..- of ~.........,., any pI:I!VicaJS "tN'-,.v.ols ~- to tile
prcperty) .
2,894.0 SF, 4-bedroom, single story steel and concrete block .construction
single-family residence.
. . 1 I ~~'i~_
9) Desc::::::ipt:i of Ile'.- . L -. _---
Rehabilitation of existing structure including exterior restoration and interior
modifications, hew construction of a two-story addition, two car garage and connecting
.breezeWay
1.0) Have ya1 ~ the follcwing?
l' L' ...sa to A' I .....:, - ,{ 2, v1n;,..WIt $I.....;~;,...., n-.rl-~
r _" ,a:e to ]11! -, .1.3, ~.pqt"! 9.......ncocM,;....~~~
- . .JSe to All _1.._.1,. 4, BeYieror Sl~..1..1"1'js fer Ycur ~~H"""".;_..
. ~~~
". ._- .". '0 '" _,'_, +,__., _'M'~.~___. _'_',_._.. __~_.....'_''-.
" ~. ~
ASPEN HISTORICPRESERV A TION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
April 8. 1998
240 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PH -
Gilbert stepped down.
Three exhibits
The following individuals were sworn in:
Charles Cunniffe
Gray Ringsby
Jennifer Cohen
Herb Klein
Charles Cunniffe presented. The main issue is some objection by the
neighbor because of the blockage of the potential effect on some windows
2
~ . .1"'\.
ASPEN HISTORIC rRESERV A TION COMMISSI()l ~. MINUTES OF
April 8, 1998
next door. There was a site visit today and the HPC needs to decide if this
design is a reasonable in order to preserve the integrity of the historic
resource and how we added onto the historic resource in a sensitive way.
Amy Guthrie, planner relayed that there is a protection for Hallam Lake in
that no construction can move too close to the top of the banle It states
nothing can be built within 15 feet from the top of the slope. From the top
of slope point there is a 445 degree angle that is proj ected up and you need
to stay under that height. There are constraints as to where the addition is
placed.
Amy also indicated that she did research the adjacent building to see if a
variance was ever granted and it was not. The house was built in 1980 and
at that time only a five foot variance was required on each side and no
combined setback. Now this property has more restringent requirements
that are being asked to meet.
Charles relayed that the only issue is the windows~ There is no other way
on this property to reasonably build an area of the house that allows them
to have the view of Aspen Mountain. The proposal minimizes the damages
to trees.
Susan inquired about a letter from Donna Thompson who states that the
house will be demolished and it was confirmed by Cunniffe & Associates.
Charles relayed that the only portion of the house being taken off is the
shed. There is no demolition anticipated.
Jennifer restudied the setback issue which was requested at the last meeting
and the impacts are minimal.
Charles addressed the height of the clerestory windows and they were
lowered once. Herbert Bayer more often than not did clerestory windows.
A banding has been incorporated on the drawings. The roof will be rebuilt.
Amy asked about the divisions of the windows on the stairwell.
3
~ .,-.,
ASPEN HISTORIC eRESERVATION COMMISSI<Jl~ MINUTES OF
April 8. 1998
Jennifer relayed that three different options were given for the HPC to
review, (included in packet). The owner is comfortable with any ofthe
diagrams. The most important issue is that it is a glass grid.
Herb Klein, attorney represented the Koatsen family stated there are in fact
windows that the two story addition on the east side would be right across.
It was determined at the site-visit that half the windows are across and half
aren't from the large bedroom and there is also a spa right across from the
two story element. When a variance is requested several standards have to
be met. You have to find that the variation will result in a building that is
more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the
neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional
requirements. He doesn't see how HPC could possibly find that it is more
compatible with the neighborhood but granting the setback. You are going
with a two story element within five feet from the property line. If the two
story element were slid toward Hallam Lake and cleared the windows we
would have less of a problem and it would not impact the neighbor as much.
Another standard which says the proposed development reflects and is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood and at the last hearing it
was pointed out that there aren't any other houses that would be separated
by what is proposed here. This proposal is putting the burden on his clients.
About retaining the integrity of the historic resource, the historic resource
doesn't have a two story element so the' integrity of the historic resource
doesn't require that they put a two story element anywhere on the building
and especially on the east side. There is room on the west side to move the
square footage over. If they want to deviate from the code requirements
they need to do it in a way that doesn't adversely impact us.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing.
Commissioners stated that the scheme presented is favorable. Possibly to
address the neighbors concerns a portion of the two story could shift toward
Hall~m Lake. The simplified glazing and clear story element are
appropriate.
Melanie indicated that she would be more concerned with the one story
solid element that is going to be in front ofthe neighbors window rather
than the two story. The placement of the one story is appropriate and you
4
-$ . .., ."
~ r--\
ASPEN HISTORIC r'RESERV A TION COMMISSh,8 MINUTES OF
April 8, 1998
cannot see it from the street but it does impact the neighbor. Right now
they look at trees and when this is built they will look at the wall.
Mary stated that she went to the site twice and she feels the design is
sympathetic toward the historic property and enhances it and makes the
house livable. The horizontal banding which was requested by HPC
enhances the addition. Variances should be granted.
Roger and the majority ofthe board liked option C on the stairway which is
a simpler design. It is recommended that the applicant look at sliding the
addition slightly to Hallam Lake.
Suzannah stated that concentrating the addition into one area for the most
part on this house is to the benefit of the historic house. In terms ofthe
neighborhood that house is five feet from the property line and this proposal
is five feet from the property line and it is consistent with the neighborhood.
Moving the volume back on the two story element might benefit both
parties and an incremental amount might do the trick.
Charles Cunniffe relayed that the stairs are located in the center of the
courtyard in order to maximums the openness of the court yard. There is a
room on either side ofthe stair. If you shift the volume you loose one
room.
Suzannah relayed that the HPC is only talking about one foot.
Jennifer relayed to the HPC that even moving it one foot will effect the
window placements.
Charles stated he will restudy that elevation and tweak the plans and then
show HPC the best solution at the next meeting.
MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval at 240 Lake Avenue
with the following conditions:
.1) Grant the following variances: 2feet on the west yard, 10 feet on the east
yard, 27 feet on the required combined side-yard setback, an FAR bonus of
250 sq. ft., a site coverage variance of up to 5% to accommodate the design
5
, .., '. .f""'\ f""'\.
ASPEN HISTORIC i'RESERV A nON COMMISSl(JN MINUTES OF
April 8, 1998
as proposed, and variances from the "Residential Design Standards"
related to volume and garages.
2) Recommend landmark designation to the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council.
3) HPC willloo'k at stairway options for final.
4) Restudy tweaking the east side two story back toward Hallam Lake.
5) HPC finds that in granting the variqmces firstly it is a new mass in which
the HPC does not want A CES affected and the proposal of the new addition
is compatible with the neighborhood and historic resource.
Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 6-0.
514 N. THIRD ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT
Gilbert seated.
Amy Guthrie, planner relayed to the HPC that this project involves making
an addition between an existing historic house and an historic carriage
house. It basically provides a living room and they are still wel1 under the
allowed FAR. Staff has concerns with the treatment of the paving that .'
walks up to the entry of the house and the applicant needs to work with
Engineering on the right-of-way. The site coverage has been granted and
the volume penalty waived on the windows in the carriage house and partial
demolition has been granted. Staff is also concerned about the proportions
of the windows and door in the new addition.
Gray Ringsby, architect for the project relayed that on the west elevation
the windows proposed are similar to the existing windows. On the east
there are large windows that look onto a brick fireplace. The windows
would not effect the neighbors as they have no windows on the facade
facing the proposed elevation. The same siding and color is proposed to
blend. in with the existing houses. Changing the siding would draw too
much attention to the new element. The idea of the design is to blend in and
let the details of the existing structure stand on its own.
6
1"""'.
.i-~(}-j ,\I<C,\(': II \'.\;
.' . L() \/\00 v's.
. ASPENiPlTKIN COJ\lIMUNII'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEl'IT
"~.....nenrfor P:ty1JIIlnt:of Cii:1 of Aspen D~eiopmeutAppJiCttioD. F~
(p!ease Prim; Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinairerClTI) and.10l1ttkU J(JIA1 Greer. .~
(h=iml:fte:' APPUc..-\J."\f1) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ' '
L APPUC~Tffl~';"~ to crrrau~licationfor Jh{(rLJ1j
J .klk ~Vl e.w (h~.nafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLIC.-\J.'-l"T 1lIlCie:stlmds and agrees that City or Aspen Ordinance No. J.3 (Series or 1996)
establishes aree so:ue= ror iand use a:ooiications and the navmern: or ail uroC::lSsinr.!: ~ is a
- - . . . - -
condition prec~=::o a del:.....,.,;n"Tion or :J;lpiic:n:ion compie=ess.
, APPLIC.-\J.'\i'T md \..;.1 [J.gree thaI :=e orme size.::artl.""e or scope Jr':t!e ;::roposed
uroiec:. it is not Dossiele at chis time to asc::r:ain ::he full ex-..e::r orthe cos-.s invoived'in m'ocessing
~e'aD!lli.ca:tion. "APPLICA,XT and CITY 5.lI'".b.e:am"ee tha:t ir is in rhe inre= or::!:e ::dtes:o ail~w
. . -. -
.--\P?LIC..~~l :0 make ?ayme=r of m. initiai de;osi!::me. :0 dle:e:mer ;e...~t "1r.rii~onai '::~S"t.S ~o ae
bill..1....;'O \ nlJT TC:,:\fT ou' J. ....0,.".;,;'1 has'..s ~ PlJT TC c'0J' o"'"""s :'e ....;il :'e :'-e':;-,,,..; 'Jv -~'";n;~O'
..._~ ~~...:...-... ...-.:. ........ ~_ '-' . ._.......... .._ _ ""'=""....._ .u: ,.v~ ~ ""...............__ _ ~"'_~__'_
~"!=Io'" cnsh liquidiry and ':viiI =mke <:1cfciirional ~aY!!1e::!S upon ::otiiici:ti.on "oy :he C:r:~ ~N.b.e:l mey
are necessarr JS cosrs are Ul~ Lll ':,w,J.2rees L! -::vill :e ce=.e:ir:ed. :b:rollO'M :he ~e::' ~:e:rain17t of
~ - - - .
. . full ' ...,.; !mf 'C "'"'"I:: . .. .
recover.ng lrs , costs ,0 process . ~ "~. .-u, 1 _ <lppll=On.
J. \..11 { and APPLlC-\.,,"-i'L' furthe: = thaI ir is irnr:ractic:iliie ror \...11 '1.- srnrrm comniere
-. .
proc:::ssing or .-'..esem sm'f'c!.e:n: lnrormmion ,0 the Planning Commission and/or Cry COUIlcil co
enabie the PJ"nn;ncr Commission and/or Cirv Cound ;0 make le:zallv reauirei ifuri;nO'< fur uroi=
- . - . ~ -.. ...
J.pprovai, unlessclm"',.:l!b;i1in~ = paid in fail prior:o decision.
5. :111::... .=rore.. ~.;.pPLl C..~"" 1 ~ d1a:t :n ~onsid.e.wmion or:he C:TY' 5 ~;v""ai."le:- of ILS right :0
~o.llect full f~ prior to a <:Jt" ~'_ '1' '~.2n of app~~~ com;le=ess. .~PLI~..I.J.'\i'T <h~ 11 pay ~'. _
initial deoOSlt m the amo= or. S .kt2 () wbicn 1S ror ~ hours or PJ"nmnO' staIr tIme, ana II
acmai re;orded costs exc=! the initial deposit. APPLICAJ."-IT shall pay arlditio~ memhiy billings
co CITY to reimburse the CITYror the processing of the applic:mou memioned above, including
paS! approvai review. Sucb. periodic payme:l!S shall be made 'Nithin 30 days of the billing dare.
APPLICAJ.'IT further agrees dw: fuilure to pay such ac:::ueu costs shall be grounds tor suspension
of processing.
CITY OF ASPE.;.'f
s4D
APPLIC.~'rr
Signa:turll:
Date:
Printed Name:
f}
e:N~FL CotteN
(C (0 ..e. H-'( W\A:~
~) co. elbll
6L
Co=uoi.ty Development Dire:'"..or
Cit'j of A...<:pe:l
M"mng Address:
PROJECT:
,~ LAND USE ApPLICATION ~
Name:
Location: IS e, l03
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
ApPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
. GoutS V\
&~lO
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
o Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD
o Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
o Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA
o GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision
Ji( ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane
o Lot Split
o Lot Line Adjustment
o Temporary Use
o Text/Map Amendment
,(...6.81 ~tI
o Conceptual Historic Devt.
o Final Historic Development
o Minor Historic Devt.
o Historic Demolition
o Historic Designation
o Small Lodge Conversion!
Expansion
o Other:
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
I ~~~~~~~~~Iit~~ {ffi1~bll41
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
h&\.~ i .
. ftviov i
0\~0g". ~ c;,OVl ~ V\o.
Hiive yQb attached the following. . -)
o Pre-Application Conference Summary
o Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
o Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
o Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
o Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
o Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
~~.
FEes DUE: $
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
1"'"'\
1"'"'\
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
CO. 'dl
~,2.20 ~
l2, 1q0 ~F
(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
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Existing:----!/! _Proposed:
Existing:___~..I " Proposed:
Existing:~Proposed:
If
l-
f
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): Z4-!
Existin non-conformities or encroachments.
W\~ ~
VariationSrequ~~~: ~~Jard c;ctIJ~~~nRI1
9r~ 5t "111"". .30~ .
'lot ~yd". "" "
DIMENSIONS:
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:
Existing:~~llowable:A-. ?:RJ7,7 Proposed: 4; z,~S. 2
Vffc;..." /Jr::...I 2A'-(~ II
Existing: ""J Allowable: ?-V Proposed:~
Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Existing: 1- Required:~Proposed: 4
Existing '2J). ~% Required: 2- PJ .1 S/. Proposed: 2 B I
Existing:. Required: Proposed:
Existing: foo' Required:~O' Proposed:~/~'h~$&
Existing: '? I' Required: I D I Proposed: 3 (' v
t::1I(' . -:2.........' L1.Cf I
Existing: - I ReqUired: rJLI Proposed:-=+-+-
Existing: I &' Required:_l IS I Proposed: l'?J I
Existing: 0' Required:~Proposed: t? I
Existing:~Required:~Proposed: IfJ'
...
r..
~
ATTACHMENT 3
MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS
1. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the
applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative
authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed
to occur.
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel,
and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
4. An 8 112" x II" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
5. A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current
status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of
Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community
Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
,-,..
.-,
February 25, 1998
To whom it may concern:
As OWner of 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, I authorize
Charles Cunniffe Architects, 520 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen,
colorado, 925-5590, to represent my interests in the matter
of the "Significant Development Review" and "Historic
Landmark Designation" for the above mentioned property.
Sincerely,
11
Ronald Greenberg
44 Maryland Plaza
st. Louis, MO 63108
314-361-7600
t;)
.~IIl"
-
'-'\
,"""'"
Owner's Policy of Title Insurance
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
A Stock Company
Policy Number
1312-
80106
OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE. THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE
B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporalion.
herein cal!ed (he Company, insures, as of Dale of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, nOl exceeding [he Amount
of Insurance staled in Schedule A. sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of'
1. TItle to the estate or imeres! described in Schedule A being vested orher than as slated herein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
], UnmarketabiliTV of Ihe lil!e;
4, Lack of a righl of access 10 and from Ihe land,
The COmpatTY will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the titie, as insured, bur only to
the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO/vIPAN}' has caused Ihis poli~l' 10 be signed and
sealed by ilS duly aUlhori::.ed offkers as of Dale of Policy shown in Schedule A.
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
SY d:J!!J7 (
ATTEST
~'ez~ ~~=\\~""~~
President
~ ^ ~\qjI r.
Countersigned: ~ '-<-""-
Authorized Signature
ALTA Owner's Policy (10-17-92)
FNTIC Form No, 1312 (6/93)
i""""'.
,~.
SCHEDULE B-OWNERS
CASE NUMBER
PCT11l96C4
DATE OF POLICY
12/05/96 @ 2:15 P.M.
POLICY NUMBER
1312-80106
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING:
~. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments,
any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose
and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Water rights, claims or title to water.
6. Taxes for the year 1996 not yet due or payable.
7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his
ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the
premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded
June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at Page 2.
8. Terms, conditions, obligations and all matters as set forth in
Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process recorded
January 7, 1987 in Book 527 at Page 710.
9. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of
subject property recorded December 14, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page
69.
10. Deed of Trust from: RONALD K. GREENBERG AND JAN C. GREENBERG, AS TO
AN UNDIVIDED ONE HALF, JEANNE BETH GREENBERG, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE
THIRD OF THE REMAINING ONE HALF, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, AS TO AN
UNDIVIDED ONE THIRD OF THE REMAINING ONE HALF, AND LYNNE ANNE
GREENBERG, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE THIRD OF THE REMAINING ONE HALF.
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
For the use of ALPINE BANK - ASPEN BRANCH
Original Amount $1,000,000.00
Dated 12/05/96
Recorded 12/05/96
Reception No. 399713
Modification Agreement changing various terms of the Deed of Trust
above was recorded December 5, 1996 as Reception No. 399714.
EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY OMITTED.
,~
.,.-..,
FNT
SCHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY
CASE NUMBER
PCT~U96C4
DATE Of POLICY
~2/05/96 @ 2:~5 P.M.
AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
$ ~,650.000.00
POLICY NUMBER
1312-80~06
1 . NAME OF INSURED:
RONALD GREENBERG AND JAN GREENBERG, AS JOINT TENANTS EACH TO THE
OTHER, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST AND JEANNE
BETH GREENBERG, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, AND LYNNE ANNE
GREENBERG, AS TO THE OTHER UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST.
2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS:
IN FEE SIMPLE
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN:
RONALD GREENBERG AND JAN GREENBERG, AS JOINT TENANTS EACH TO THE
OTHER, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST AND JEANNE
BETH GREENBERG, JACQUELINE KAY GREENBERG, AND LYNNE ANNE
GREENBERG, AS TO THE OTHER UNDIVIDED FIFTY PERCENT (50%) INTEREST.
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AMENDED LOT 15, FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE WOGAN LOT SPLIT, as shown
on the Plat recorded December 14, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 69.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(970) 925-1766/(970)-925-6527 FAX
THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET.
;'
,
c:-
'--"-'.
A. Set~ent Statement
--J.!.. .5. D~p~ltn'~nt of 1I11lulllf
r~UrbJIID,vtlopnltn(
OM" No. 2502.026,5 (1~'11. l2.31.M)
B. Type of LOJn
I. 0 FilA 2.0 l'rnllA J,D Cony, Un;n..
4. 0 VA S.O Cony. hu.
7. Lo.nNumbcr
8. M"TII~eC hlSllU"~C CAO<: Number
6. file Nup,ber
;;:2tI~~ IJ;~I~~J~:::~: ;~,~~'~:~'~~~J\:c~t;~,ljnl1,~,~~::~~:~,:~~ ~~t~::t~~'::C~i~ c,~sil1~I~~n:::'\~, ~j~~dl~I'.r~ by the aelllCrnCnl _cclll arc shown. Items rii..kw "(".M)" WC10
U.NlI.....lIIl":"""'...xlJ.cw'O..., II. N.....rolAdoJr...ofS<Il<:. F. N.m..... "...k...ofl....Jo'
RONALO ,. GREENBERG REFINANCE COMMUNITY STATE SM"I( OF 80\.lLING GREEN
JAN C. GREENBERG
JEANNE BETH GREENBERG
JAQUELlIlE KAY GREENBERG
LYNNE MINE GREENBERG
O.r.'"i"""yLnc.c.... 1I.S."I.....Ill^~fIl File# PCT'1449
PITKIN COUNTY T lTlE INC. T1N# 84-0971691
2/.0 LAKE ST. N>c.ofS."I.....,~ I. S.'ll,,,,,,,ll...
^SPEN, CO 81611 601 E. nOPKINS 01/27/96
ASPEN, CO 81611 Disbursement
01/2lj96
]. Summary of Borrowllr'l Tnnucdon K. Summ~ry of Stllllr's Tnnsacdon
100, Glon Amount DUll f.o,," BonowtT '100. Grou Amount Due to StileT
lUl. C""lneIS~les P,ke 401. Coml~cIS~lcsPrlce
102. l'.tlo"~II"l}pcrlY ~01.l'cuI>>131 PlOpcny
103. S'llle!I\.". Ch~.&.s 10 bOllowe. (Iille l~llO) 997,509.61 4113.
104, 404.
10S. 40S.
AoJtu$tn,enufor llemsp31d byJcllcrln~dv3ntt AdlusuntU!s for Items p~ld by Jtller]n adnncc
106. C;lyIT"wnTues ,,, 406. Cilyrruwnl"es '"
107. C"","yT1,'CS ,,, 407. CouI\lylue3 ,,,
WH. ^.S<::!.,,"'''''' '" 408. AUCSllllCtlCS '"
10'1. 409.
11Il. 410,
Ill. 411.
112. 412.
120. Gross Amount Dllll rrom Borrower 997,509.61 '120. Gross AtI'Ollllt Ou. To Seller
200. Amounu P,ld By Or ]n Behalr Of Bonowcr SOO. Rwuctlons In Amount Due To Seller
201. DepusilufCo'"cscmtlncy SOl. E1CCSSdel'osic {lee lns,rucl;ons)
202. rli"c;r=]:unouncn(llcwlo31l(1) 500,000.00 S02.ScIClcmentch3Igestoscl1cr(lll\C 141lO)
203. 1:115CI,,& 10111(') C~k.n lllbj<<t In sm. Ex;scl"gloan(.)lokellsubjcctto
20.1. SO~. r~yofr of fir.. IIIOnta,C "'all
20$. $OS. r~yofr of second ,,,o'tg~ge l""n
206. "".
''''. S07.
208. S08.
209. "',.
AtliUJlnl~nU lor hems unp~ld by ,eller Adlu,UllellU rorlltm,Ullp,dtl by ,tiler
211l.CitylTownI31cs '" SIO. CicyiTown C~XCS '"
211. Cl>l>my T~.'cs '" SIl.CoumYlnes '"
212.^lsessnlcnts '" SI2.Asscsx.1I.nll '"
213. $1).
214. $14.
2". SI$.
216. S16.
217. S17.
218. 518.
219. S19.
HO. Toul Paid ByHor Borrower 500,000.00 520. TObl Redu(do,* Amolrllt Dut Stller .~
300. C.uh At StultmflU han,/To Borrower 600. C.ull At hUltmtnt To/from Stller
3Ul, (J,uss/llltuulIlduefrnmb",,,,wCf(l1ne IIO) 997,509.61 6tll. Gnt5s/l'unll!lC Ift'e tu selle, (IIno 420)
Jlll,l.r<I"'''''',,''p)i,lhy1fnrh'''TnWer(lin0220) 500,000.00 (,Irl. L""IS'edu~t;"'l$ill.m'. ,JII. ",,11., (1'"0 S20)
30l.Cuh (}]frotll OT080rrowtr 497 509.61 60l. C"h IJiI T. OholllStller
T1!c IIUO.llclClcll\ell' which I hue P":P31C1J is. "lie "k! ~ecllf.l" .".OUllt "t'bb tfall!l3cdt>n. 11r.v. c."sed or will caUft lhe {""dlto I>c d;$bul$e,J ill 'l<<1I,,1."ee w;,h
IImslOlC"'c'".
Oote
SClll.IltCIIIAg.l"
I',cvi"..., [;.Ji.i""i,()lu"lct.
1l1J1).IRl:Sl'^,llU4)1l1,2
!-----.
'\
- - -'--.. ''-.
-
L.SClll';mcnf' 'I
700. TOI~I s.._.. .Jroku's Comnllulon b~I" on priuS
lliy;sionnfCo",,,,ission(llno 101ll~s run",,,,:
-
"
@
.
JUl, L'~nllnis>i"" r~ioJ ~I SelllC1I1.'"
rsldl'mlll
nnnnwc,',
FlJ'MI~ 5t
Soul.nlelll
ral,ll'tull'
S<'Ilo,',
I',IIMI~ SI
SClllc'ncnt
701.$
71l2.S
"
"
7U.1,
800. hems I'sy~blt In COllnecllon With lOin
8ot. l...,~.. Odcinslion Fcc
W2. L"~,, Di~c"unl
M(lj'^I'rlsissIFcc
80.l. ClcditRcpon
805. L.",k,'.lnsp<.'C.;.""l'ce
8U6. M"I1~'gc !I",,,,,,.o Aprli.,,;Oll Fcc 10
SOl. ^~Iu"'l,'i"" Fcc
SUS.
809, Flood Certificate
810.
~ I!.
H12.
SLl,
8i.l.
815.
816.
817.
900. lcetm Rcquhc<.l \.oy Lender To Be hid In AdvIllCC
.
.
,"
,,,
19.00
'"
6',S
/'I.y
U1"",hSIU
yo.115m
yeats In
mUlllhs@$
11l,)lllhs@.S
'l1umhs@$
",unlhs@$
mumlls@S
ItlOlllhs@S
nl<mlhs@$
pcrmumh
r..lI1omh
pc.moltlh
I'crlllonlh
{>Crllllllllll
pcr.momh
pcrn10mh
150.00 '"
'"
'"
'"
'"
"
'"
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE INC.
150.00
Oates Hu hes Knezevich
900.00
III PITKIN COUNTY TITLE INC.
672.00
500 000.00
tl11.
1112. Exores9 Charqes
1113.
t 100. Govunmenc Recordlnj: )nd Tr~nJfer Chules
nOI. Ree",di"l (ce, Deed. S ; Mllrlz~ze S 31 . 00 ; Rclea:ll:s S
1202. Cilylellllmy la '1~"'PI; Dec;d S ; MO"I~Ze S
120). SI~lela/":Ullr"' DeedS ; MIlII&.ZC$
1204.
nus.
!l00. Addltllln)l hUleme"c Charles
!.Im.S"rvey
l.lUl.Pc:I!I".p...cl'""
50.00
14.00
45.00
'"
'"
DO). Pa of f Al ine Bank
IJo.l.
130$.
995 673.61
IInu 10J', $eulo" 1 )"d 5"02, $<<110" K)
997 509.61
"i.l~~~c~l~/O {If~r~~~ ~~~:f/N:;:~Ji:f:e'::~~~(i ~o~ ~r \[~Ollut,.jc:.,~:I~~::'~'~~:":i:. .11 r<<ciplS ~nd
Pcn.ll;c:lIII'I'" cnllvldlon .'n illdUllcalinc..,,1
"'.":
Q.
<C
:iE
>-
~
-
z
-
()
-
>
....
I
:.
b'O'O
r-..
.r-,
ATTACHMENT 4
Specific Submission Contents
Development Application for ESAs
The Development Application for development in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) shall include
the following:
A. A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following information:
I. The boundary of the property for which development is requested.
2. Existing and proposed improvements.
3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees.
B. In addition, the following ESA applications shall also include:
For development subject to 8040 Greenline Review, the plan shall depict:
I. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over
ten (10) percent.
2. Proposed elevations of the development.
3. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used.
4. Written responces to the review standards (see attachment 5).
For development subject to Stream Margin Review, the plan shall depict:
1. The 1 OO-year floodplain line and the high water line.
2. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades
over ten (10) percent.
3. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in
relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or
substantially improved structures; a verification and recordation of the actual elevation
in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that
all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved; a
demonstration that the structure will have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated
to at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect.
4. A description of proposed construction techniques to be used.
For development subject to Mountain View Plane Review, the plan shall depict:
I. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it
will be screened.
2. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements
which protrude into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall
graphically represent on the photographs how the proposed improvements will appear in
relation to existing improvements and views.
For development subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff Review, the plan shall depict:
I. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall
include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development
as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be
maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material
should it die.
2. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be
submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and
pertinent elevations above sea level.
r'\.
~
Attachment 6
One Step Commission or Council Development Review Procedure
1. Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staffwill determine
the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials
necessary to review your application.
2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should
respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete
application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department.
Depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, Staff may suggest submitting only
one copy. This way any corrections that may be necessary can be accomplished before making
additional copies
3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your
submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application
is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the
completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate
to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval.
4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be
complete, a date for the Commission or Council review will be set. Applications are scheduled for
review on the first available agenda given the requirements for public notice.
During the staff review stage, the applica~on will be referred to other agencies for
comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional
information is needed or if problems are identified. The Planner will prepare a review memo which
addresses the proposal's compliance with the Land Use Code and incorporates the referral
comments. The planner will recommend approval, denial or tabling of the application and
recommend appropriate conditions to this action. You will be called to pick up a copy of the memo
and the agenda at the end of the week before your hearing, or we can mail it to you if you so
request.
During the period of staff review, it is essential that public notice be given, when required
for your development application. The requirements for notice of your application are provided in
Attachment 7.
5. Commission or Council Review of Development Application. Your project will be
presented to the Commission or Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. The typical meeting
includes a presentation by staff, a presentation by you or your representative, questions and
comments by the review body and the public, and an action on the staff recommendation, unless
additional information is requested by the review body.
r"'"'
.,-,
Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such
as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of
that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable
contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded
agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing
these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested
amendment or exemption.
6. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received [mal approval of your development
application, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time, your project will be
examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for
compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in
detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking,
open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if
due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will need
to be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted.
1 stepsumm
(",
r\,
ATTACHMENT 4
Specific Submission Contents
Exemption from ESA Review
By Community Development Director
The request for Community Development Director approval of an Insubstantial Amendment or
Exemption shall contain the following items:
1. A written description of the existing conditions on the property which are requested to
be altered via the amendment or exemption.
2. Such site plan drawings or elevations as may be necessary to adequately evaluate the
proposed amendment or exemption.
3. A listing of all previous development approvals granted to the property, with the
approximate dates of said approvals.
4. A copy of any recorded document which affects the proposed development, including
but not limited to recorded plats, agreements and deed restrictions. If changes are
proposed to said recorded documents, these should be "red-lined" onto a copy of the
original document.
5. A written response to the applicable review criteria (attachment 5).
r~
,~
26.68.050
base line which bear S. 300 41' II" E. and S. 660 08' 59" W. respectively and which is above a plane which
passes through the reference point at an inclination of 20 50' 38" above horizontal.
6. Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating from Main Street
above which plane no land use or building shall project. The reference point bears N. 780 22' 29" W. 92.35
feet from the southeasteriy property comer of Block 79, Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line
bears N. 750 09' II" W. 51.40 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the reference point and reference
base line is 7,906.90 feet above mean sea level. The view plane is more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of two (2) radial lines which bear S. 290 10' 06" E. from the
reference point, and S. 800 29' 29" W. from the westerly terminus of the reference base line, and which is
also above a plane which passes through the reference base line at an angle of inclination of 60 29' 20" above
horizontal.
B. Exemption. Development which shall be exempt from mountain view plane review shall include
the addition of any mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane,
except for the following types of equipment:
1. Satellite dish;
2. Elevator shaft; or
3. Any other piece of equipment whose height and mass are found to be of such significance in their
effect upon the designated view plane that their review pursuant to the standards of Section 26.68.050(C)
is required.
C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be ~rmitted within a mountain view
lane unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements
set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.68.050(C)(2).
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building
height otherwise provided for in this title. development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter
26.84 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special
consideration to bulk and height. open space and' pedestrian space. and similarly to permit variations in lot
area. lot width. yard and building height requirements. view plane height limitations.
The commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is
determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application ofPUD or that the effects
of the view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
2. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the commission shall consider whether
or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment
of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does
not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated,
the commission shall approve the development. (Code 1971, ~ 7-505)
26.68,060 Hallam Lake Bluff review.
A. Applicability. All development in that bluff area running approximately on a north-south axis bordering
and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by
the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally,
up slope and there terminating. and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7 A of the Aspen
Company Subdivision, and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street, shall be subject to the review
standards as set forth in this section.
601
1"""',
.---.
26.68.060
B. Exemption. The exterior expansion. remodeling or reconstrUCtion of an existing sttUClI1re or development,
or the removal of trees or shrubbery, shall be exempt from Hallam Lake B luff review if the following standards
are met.
I. The development tees place more than thirty (30) feet from the top of slope, or the development
is obscured from the rear slope by other structures as determined by a site section provided pursuant to review
standard (C)(7) below.
C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake
BluffESA unless the commission makes a detennination that the proposed development meets all of the following
requirements:
I. No development. excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below
the top of slope.
2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed
development not at grade within the fifteen-foot setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section
26.64.040(D).
3. All development outside the fifteen-foot sethack from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated
by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured
and detennined by the zoning officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include
native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as viewed from the rear (SlOpe)
of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same
or comparable material should it die. .
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no Iight(s) directed toward the nature preserve
or located down the slope.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and
rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs C3IUl0t be drained down the slope.
7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted
showing all existing and proposed site elements. the top' of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level.
(Ord. No. 71-1990. ~ 6: Code 1971, ~ 7-506)
26.68.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA.
A development application for development in environmentally sensitive area (ESA), shall be reviewed
and recommended for approval. approval with conditions. or disapproval by the planning director, and then
approved. approved with conditions. or disapproved by the commission at a hearing held in accordance with
the procedure established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for development
in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) may be consolidated with any other development application
pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. (Ord. No. 71-1990, ~ 7: Code 1971,
~ 7-507)
26.68.080 .. Application.
The development application for development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) shall include
the following:
A. The general application infonnation required in Section 26.52.030.
B. A plan of the proposed development, which shall depict at a minimum the following infonnation:
602
1""',
,-,.
26.68.080
1. The bOWldary of the property for which development is requested.
2. Existing and proposed improvements.
3. Significant natural features, including natural hazards and trees.
C. In addition to these minimum plan contents. the development plan submitted for development in
each type of ESA shall also include the following:
1. For development subject to 8040 greenline review. the plan shall depict:
a. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours. with five-foot intervals for grades overten (10)
percent.
b.
c.
2.
Proposed elevations of the development.
A description of proposed construction teclmiques to be used.
For development subject to stream margin review. the plan shall depict:
The lOO-year floodplain line and the high water line.
Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10)
a.
b.
percent.
c. When development is proposed in a special flood hazard area: Accurate elevations (in relation to
mean sea level) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all neW or substantially improved structures; a
verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure is
constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement of any structure to be constructed or improved: a demonstration that
the structure will have the lowest floor. including basement, elevated to at ~east two (2) feet above the base
flood elevation. all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect.
. d. A description of proposed construction teclmiques to be used.
3. For development subject to mountain view plane, the plan shall depict:
a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened.
b. Photographs shall be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvements which protrude
into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how
the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. (Ord. No. 6-1989.
~ 9; Ord. No. 71-1990, ~ 7: Code 1971, ~ 7-508)
26_68_090 Conditions.
The planning director may recommend and the commission may impose conditions to its approval of
development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA). which includes but is not limited to means for:
A. Minimizing any adverse impact of the proposed development upon lands. inCluding the use and
operation and the type and intensity of activities which may be conducted;
B. Controlling the sequence or timing of proposed development, including when it must be commenced
and completed;
C. Controlling the duration of use of development and the time within which any structures must be
removed;
p. Assuring that development is maintained properly in the future; or
E. Establishing a more detailed record by submission of drawings. maps. plats or specifications. (Ord.
No. 71-1990. ~ 7: Code 1971. ~ 7-509)
603
,;.
~
~
nit " ?'fo L.o.I.-.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Interim Community Development Director Oar; J
,/'
240 Lake Ave., ESA Hallam Lake Bluff
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
October 20, I998
SUMMARY: The applicants recentlylandmarked their home and have received
approval from the HPC to extend the height of the existing rear elevation by 3' (raising
the roof). This development is located within 30' of the top of slope and therefore is
required to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition, the
applicant is proposing to create a raised planter at the base of the existing rear patio and
back from the top of slope. The purpose of the planter is to create a "safe landing place"
if someone accidentally steps of the patio. The owner's pet apparently fell down the
slope and did not recover from its injuries. The owners .do not want the same thing to
happen when children visit. The planter will step down approximately 6" from the top of
the patio, and will be contained by a dry-laid stone walL The planter will then be planted
with native shrubs (see attached landscape plan).
Because the property is within the Hallam Lake overlay, ESA review is required. None
of the proposed development conflicts with the ESA review standards. The owner and
staff feel that the low proposed planter is fairly unobtrusive and this approach is preferred
over adding a railing to the patio edge. The applicant has provided a sketch of what the
railing would look like vs. the low planter for your consideration. Note that a railing
would extend into the 450 angle from the top of slope.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed planter as indicated in the attached
drawings.
APPLICANT: Ronald Greenberg, represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cuniffe
Architects.
LOCATION; 240 Lake Ave.
ZONING: R-6, Historic Landmark.
CURRENT LAND USE: Detached single-family residential.
LOT SIZE: 14,220 s,f.
,
~
l/'
r-,
~
REFERRAL COMMENTS: No City agencies expressed concerns with the proposed
development. The application was forwarded to Tom Cardamone, of A.C.E.S., who
expressed his concern that a planter wall had the potential to be undermined and cause
further damage to the slope. He was most concerned that a footer for the wall may
impact the top of slope. The applicant has indicated on their plans that the dry-laid stone
wall will be placed back from the top of slope, and that there will not be any need for a
footer with this kind of wall. The planter will also step back away from the closest aspen
tree, approximately 4' from the edge of the patio, in order to reduce any potential damage
to the tree. The applicant has also agreed to have all the work done manually without
equipment which could potentially impact the bluff. Staff has included this as a condition
of approval.
REVIEW PROCEDURE: 26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review.
Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted within the
Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed
development meets all of the following requirements:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall
take place below the top of slope.
Response: No land disturbance is proposed below the top of slope.
2. All development within the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope shall be
at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen (15) foot setback
must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D).
Response: The proposed planter is located at grade.
3. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from top of slope shall not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height. shall be measured and determined by the zoning officer
utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100.
Response: No new development exceeds the height of the 45 degree angle from the
top of slope.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan
shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the
development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall
be' maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material
should it die.
Response: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the proposed planter.
The planter itself is considered development. Because the existing vegetation of the slope
will be unaffected, the development should remain screened by 50%. vegetation The plan
2
-'
f",
~
indicates low-growing shrubs with native species within the planter. Staff does not
recommend additional landscaping in front of the planter as it would then be below the
top of slope. Staff believes the existing native vegetation adequately addresses this
standard.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward
the nature preserve or located down the slope.
Response: The applicant represents that all exterior lighting shall be low and
downcast, with no lights directed towards the nature preserve or located down the slope.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic
drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down
the slope.
Response: The applicant represents that no fill material or debris shall be placed on
the face of the slope nor will historic drainage patterns be disturbed.
7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, Or engineer shall
be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and
pertinent elevations above sea level.
Response: Said drawings have been submitted by an architect and reviewed by the
City Engineering Department.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff
finds that the application meets the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards and should be
approved with the following conditions:
1. The dry-laid stone walls are approved as proposed.
2. For the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the Hallam Lake Bluff slope and to
minimize the visual impacts from construction, the applicant shall observe the
following constrUction process for the dry-laid stone planter:
a. Silt fencing shall be erected on the down-slope side of the planter prior
to construction activity and shall remain in place until completion and sign-
off by the Building Inspector.
b. Existingvegetation within the construction area shall be tied back to
prevent damage.
c. All demolition, digging, and construction shall be accomplished
manually, ,not with the aid of mechanical equipment. In the event
mechanical equipment is necessary, the Parks Department shall be notified
and placement of the equipment shall be approved by the Parks Department.
3. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and
Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse
3
~"
1""""
.-,
Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may
pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record !he resolution.
4. All materia! representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered
to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "r move to approve the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA for 240
Lake Ave. with the conditions stipulated in the Planning and Zoning Commission's
Resolution No. 98- dated October 20, 1998."
EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution No. 98-
B. Application with drawings
g/plaMinglaspeWdISCSI'csaf240lak.doc
4
r-. .~
Jackie Lothian, 04.JO PM 10/20/98, 10/20 p&z
X-Sender: jackiel@commons
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:30:29 -0600
To: kathys@ci.aspen.co.us, kathrynk@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us,
chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, davidho@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Jackie Lothian <jackie1@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: 10/20 p&z
Here are the P&Z resos from last night's meeting
~ Ave. with conditions (#2735-124-07004) 3-2.
98-33 Aspen Planning and Zoning approving Stream Margin Review and
Special
Review for the Marcus residence, 610 Riverside Ave. (#2737-181-55-001).
bye-bye
jackiel
IPrinted for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
1
.,
-.,.,
.
To:
Thru:
From:
Date:
Re:
I"""
MEMORANDUM
Julie Woods, Deputy Community Development Director
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
October 16, 1998
Greenberg Hallam Lake Bluff Review
r-'\
DRCM3498.DOC
1 OF 2
.~.
Memo - Greenberg Hallam Lake Bl.:.. .~evjew
..~
Physical Address:
Legal Description:
240 Lake Avenue, City of Aspen, CO
Lot IS Amended, Wogan Lot Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO
Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th P.M.
XXX-XXX-XX-XXX
Parcel ID No.:
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit. I am reporting the combined (.
comments made by the members of the DRC:
1. Survey and Landscape Plan: The survey provided with the application lacks the following: date
and number of the title commitment (issued with last calendar year) used in the survey; and the wet ink
signature and seal of a currently registered Colorado land surveyor.
The plans submitted with the application did not indicate additional landscaping below the top of slope to help
mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed landscaping planter.
The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the
form(s) of development requested in the application.
2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project
change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of
the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and
recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated August 31, 1998)
provid~d for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the
use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking or utility designs.
3. Proposed Landscape Planter: In place of the concrete masonry block wall with concrete footer
proposed in the application, the City Engineer requests that the landscape planter box be constructed of timbers
as a crib wall so as to avoid excavating a foundation into the top of slope and erecting a structural retaining
wall at the top of slope. (It appears the excavation required for a masonry wall may coincide with the top of
slope.) The timber cribbing would fulfill the strength requirements of the planter box while also providing
some aesthetic relief (as viewed from Hallam Lake below) for the encroachment into the top of slope setback.
This will also minimize the need to excavate into the root zone of the existing tree below the patio.
4. Drainage: The proposed planter box will not increase the site generated drainage and will serve
to detain part of the drainage which presently runs off the stone patio and over the face ofthe bluff. No
additional drainage improvements are necessary.
5. Underground Storage Tank: As indicated on the Improvement Survey, there is an underground
storage tank located near the northwesterly property boundary. If this is no longer in service, we recommend
that it be removed and any required mitigation work completed.
1 OF 2
DRCM3498.DOC
r.
i '
r-.,
Memo - Greenberg Hallam Lake 8'.. .-.eview
.~
.
6. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design
of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way;
Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement. and irrigation
systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090).
DRC Meeting Attendees:
Applicant: none
Staff & Referral Agencies:
Lee Cassin
Julie Woods, Rebecca Schickling. Ross Soderstrom, Nick Adeh. Mitch Haas,
2 OF 2
DRCM3498.DOC
'!
,
/
I
)<
. .-.~...
1""\
~.
(ij~
.1""\
MEMORANDUM
CHARLES CUNN\ffE ARCHITECTS
520 E. HYMAN. SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO 81611
910/925-5590
910/925-5016 FAX
ARCHlTECTURli
PlANNING
IN1ERlOIlS
TO: Review committee
FROM: Jennifer Cohen
DATE: October 15,1998
PROJECT: Greenberg
JOB NO.: 9746
REGARDING: Hallam Lake Bluff Review
NOTES:
Under the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards the following items were to be addressed.
1.
No development. excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place
below the top of slope.
_ The proposed planter does not occur below the top of slope, and no excavation will be
required.
2.
All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of s>pe shall be at grade
- The proposed planter is at grade. .
3.
All deveiopment outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of sloe shall not exceed a h . ht
delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle fro/ground level at the to elg f
slope. po.
- Please see the site section. As is shown. all development proJ:Sd for the home is with'
allowed forty-five (45) degree angle. In the
4.
A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development ap,ations.
- The required landscape plan has been submitted.
5.
All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no Iight(s) cted toward the natur
preserve or located down the slope. e
- All proposed lights wnl be low in intensity and not cost dow.. slope or pointed at th
nature preserve. e
6.
No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the /. Historic drainage att
and rates must be maintained. p ems
.
- Our proposed planter does not place any fill material or c on the face of the slo
the drainage patterns will not be disturbed. pe and
7.
Site sections drawn by a registered Architect. Landscape ,act. or Engineer shall b
submitted showing all existing and proposed site elementof slope and pertinent e
elevations. above sea level.
_ Please see both the 24X36 site section sheet and the 11 ~et for these items.
.:2 ,~-_
f""'\
.~
Other issues that have Deen addressed.
1. There is an aspen tree approximately four (4) feet out from the deck on the East side of the
patio.
- We have no intention of removing or damaging this tree. and the owner is willing to do what is
necessary to preserve it.
2. What material will the planter "wall" be made of?
-The material we plan to use to hold in the planter is stacked rock of 0 local or historic nature.
The existing wall of the patio is made of concrete block. We understand that this may seem too
solid and therefore propose the stocked rock. All of the .wall' will stay behind the top ot slope
and there will be no cuffing into the slope.
.
BY:jc
COpy TO:Ronnie and Jan Greenberg. CLC. file
t
I
("""'"
-
~~
;v:," v~
" .'..' ~ ,.; ; ,:', -'.. -, ,.. "',
"'.. . ~\i;;:'.-" """,'
~..~,(:'",::,~i_:.""'>'1': ,<-._rt'-'-"
:~..,.",':"'..' '":-,,,::.:;""'.
'S7". ," ". ' v ">:
V'.
.. ,_..<.'.'~_ __ ',' -'0,..
, '0", ";~, '0'
,;,<", ".:' -:- "
'<''<'; '.;,,:\. ,. ._.,....;.1:. ,"','
~,:....::,....".,.'" '
I
"".'
.....
r",
"
I \'\:~~; -' "
"."",, ,~-
.: .
., .iA/L.'~
>::~~;"T.,~~^"' '.
'''. ~"\"""'" '0'
:~:~'i:~'~'
"~I
-:;" .
......
,
V
, lUll
, IJ/ If
'fLilY
III
/[h~
/f/I
/1
f
r-
.,.
. I
/111
, f
~ /J
i
1""',
,
7 -
'{. Ii
'I
-"bfj
I Ii
",,'-
;<
"
,:~,\-)
. \;J:.~- '-~ -~ '0; .
'......., .~,..,.
\, 'Ito .....,.. 'l.t:s. .:'
.... . ~..)' ;~. ,..~....!
..:l ". ""W/l"" , .
'" . . ~< .:..-~' ~ ~~.' ,
- - .....
~ .
FI=1
-
,;:;::
"',
1
r "
J
J I
::It
I
I
~~
J
~
~
I
-
:;
~;_;o,
jl;:~~j~:.~\7~~?;>:1' : ,',:..
,- (~. .'. :, :"~i*~ 'i;:.i~::'~:;
i:.' ::i:~ . ',' )~S~:.
ve, '.' i:::, ,
'" ,':' ."
'&;
.'11';
t~
~.
,....;'
f~<'.'
\','
I
c.
....."~
g-' ~
,~
.,.;
~
II
~
,/
~~/
,
:;;;
.....;
\,'
.., ..;; " c::::J
-~~~'~;
~ IF~~!J~~~l'
'.
1~'\;'l.~T'
.-- ~~;: I
. ~;3<; >
';<
I
= J
.- ==
~
I.-. ""
/1 '7
.
sl
III
',r
I..
UIL ...\
"I -.
,";r'
:..
"
:
,
1<~~~;~
"""
,;<':;',: ,.
"~;); ':',''':
;;'.~ ';.\~.
;;.~",;;. '
... f';~1;;
" ;;00,
:;t~\.
"
;
+.:<"
~ t}~:.. ::.~' .
" :'.;'
~
~J.
i,(":
.,"~>,:
"~ '
I
. .
\. "
.,'
"
.f';'
"{-;,.<:"
U;"
~....;'
~'.J:
." ....
~:''.;''
-c; ~
Z
.0
~
CL
o
\.D
:2
a
0\.
~
rJ2
~
"
/'"""
~
.... ,',', '-\
~
-;'"~','.
-,
f"""";
-i!
....,
~.;,
'."
'," .
'", ".'..'1
".:.",. ''''
" ' "..:~
_:,~~~" ""..",, . .
, I,. ~
"'~'!
~
r--
r--
~
'2
II\
o
~
o
ct
C-
UJ
~
.-.r.
ill
~
k
t
s
~
ifJ
~
~
r-,
tV
~
s
U\
~
~.. ~
~ .
~
~
~
:z.
-
~
-
~
r-. I . .
/
~
0
/ f
':o() ~
~ / I
- U\
~'Z
"
* / [
x
IJ)
/
/
,-." .
,-."
."'"
,.....,
i
~
~
...
*
("". .
~
/
/
:&
~ ~ ~
~ t &-
E ES...
~ ~
/
cL
~
Z
~
'"
~
-'
~
~~~
7- ~ U1
-!)ZZ
Z ~ ~
~3:
}19<l
.,jU)Ul
.( ~&
~ :r. UJ
~~~
~~~
.. ~
}~
~,IS)
:z
~
(0
"
--
~
~
~
V\
c~
(c
r
.r"
.~ .~
r
c--- o~J 1 !
/"
','
'4 "
. .
". .
o
o
'~,
r
\
."
'.
/
,
\'
.
, .
/
~l I
. .
,
f"'"
, ".
-, ;.~
, .
I"~