HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246734305007 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P &Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
PARCEL
CASE NAME:IShoaf Ridgeline Review Plillann
*�PROJ ADDR: 1630 Gateway Rd Lot 1 Blk 3 Fig 2 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa
OWN /APP: Shoaf, Jeffrey ADRF CIS /Z: PHN:
P: ADR:r C /SIZ:� PHN:F
mail Addr: ALLOCATED HOURS:F
FEES DUE: F— FEES RCVD:F % OVER: 7---j
REF: BYF DUE:
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:
5/16/1995 P &Z No F
F F— No
NO
REMARKS Ino vesting
CLOSED: BY
PLAT RECORDEDF
VR APPROVAL DATE: �—
BOCC Reso:
SOCC Ord:
PZ:
HRG OFF:
HO INDEX:
ADMIN:
PLAT (BK,PG): n/ ADMIN INDEX:
VR EXPIRES:7
CASE TYP: I Ridgeline Review
CASE TYP2:
CASE TYP3:
CASE TYP4:
e
Ile Location:
CASE TYPS:
CASE TYPE:
CASE TYP7:
Date Scanned:
Box #211
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET` -�
PITKIN COUNTY
DATE RECEIVED: 04/07195 CASE # P52 -95
DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID# 2467- 343 -05 -007
STAFF MEMBER: FK
PROJECT NAME: Shoaf Ridgeline Review
Project Address: Lot 1 Block 3 Filing 2 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Shoaf
Applicant Address: Box 3123
an___ nn o,c,o 09 ri_d �. ..
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative
Address /Phone:
----------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 1020 # APPS RECEIVED 12
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 12
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
CLERK $
TOTAL $ 1020
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
STAFF APPROVAL:
1 STEP: X 2 STEP:
DRC MEETING DATE
P &Z MEETING DATE
PUBLIC HEARING: ES NO
D
BOCC MEETING DATE
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
HEARING OFFICER MEETING DATE:
REFFR
Attorney Attorney
Aspen Consol S.D.
School District
Engineer
_Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
_ USFS (Carbondale)
Housing
_Holy Cross
_ USFS (Aspen)
Aspen Water
_Aspen Fire
_ Div. of Wildlife
J � Envir.Hlth.
Fire
_ BLM
Zoning
_Basalt
_Carbondale Fire
_ Snowmass Village
Land Mgmt.
Water Res.
Risk Manager
Airport Mgr.
_Div.
_State Forest Ser. Caucus o[./i
Sheriff
CO Geo. Survey
Homeowners ( ade A -
City P & Z
CDOT
Open Space Board
Building Dept
Clean Air Board
Other:
L I
_Brush Ck Metro Dist_
� %,
Other:
3
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
--------- ---------------------
DATE DUE: 15
____
RESOLUTION #:
DATE
PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT BOOK PAGE(S)
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: O 2 INITIAL: 1/
County Attorney
Housing
Open Space Bd.
Other:
FILED:
Revised 02/08/95
_County Engineer _ Zoning
Envir. Health _ Applicant
000001 C lob
390018 02/15/96 03:56[ 'G 1 OF
SIL)IA DAVIS PITr`. -_A COUNTY CLERK d RECORDER
EC DOC
Ir 0.00
UCC
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR RIDGELINE REVIEW
FOR THE SHOAF PROPERTY IN THE GATEWAY TO SNOWMASS
MESA SUBDIVISION
Resolution No. PZ -95 -L
RECITALS
1. Jeffrey Shoaf (hereinafter "Applicant "), has applied to the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado,
(hereinafter "Commission "), for Ridgeline Review approval in
order to allow the construction of a single - family home on
Lot 1, Block 3, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision. This
request is made pursuant to Section 3 -60.40 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Applicant's
request at regularly scheduled meetings on May 16, August 15,
and December 5, 1995 and found it to be consistent with the
criteria in the Pitkin County Code, provided that development
is done in accordance with the conditions outlined in this
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby approve the Shoaf Ridgeline review subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to building permit application the Applicant shall
record a 24" by 36" survey /landscape plan showing the
000002
39001$ 0-/1-,'96 O3a56P PU °c OF 3
Resolution No. PZ -95 -;C 2
location and exact footprint of the residence, and all other
improvements associated with the project including driveways
and landscaping. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Office for review and approval.
2. No excavation shall be permitted within 5 feet of the edge of
the ridgeline (contour elevation 118 as depicted on the
Topographic and Improvement Survey provided with the
application) on the northeast side of the structure.
3. Excavation on the south side of the building (knoll side)
shall be limited to the minimum necessary to construct the
foundation walls. In no case shall excavation extend further
than 10 feet from the outside edge of the foundation wall.
This area shall be backfilled up to the building to the
natural grade (approximately elevation 123 at the center of
the structure as depicted on the survey).
4. Excavation on the southwest side of the structure shall not
extend beyond (further from the house footprint) elevation
115, as depicted on the Topographic Survey provided with the
application. Excavation inside (between contour 115 and the
house) can be done to whatever elevation is required for
construction of the home. All grading shall be depicted on
the landscape plan /survey.
5. Exterior lighting shall be limited to low (30 inches or less)
bollard -style downlighting and shall be restricted to the
area of the main entries and the lower level entry. All other
exterior lighting shall be prohibited.
6. The applicant shall be required to post a performance bond to
ensure that the landscaping plan is implemented as approved.
The amount of the bond shall equal the estimated cost of the
landscaping. The bond shall be in a form acceptable to the
County Attorney's office.
7. All other applicable requirements of the Pitkin County Land
Use Code shall be adhered to.
8. The color and texture of exterior building materials shall
blend in with the surrounding natural landscape. Metal roofs
shall be prohibited.
uOGOU3
Resolution No. PZ -95 -1c
3
9. All material representations made in the application and in
public meetings shall be adhered to. Any significant
deviation from these representations shall require further
review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 5th DAY OF DECEMBER, 1995.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF PITR COUNTY, COLORADO
By
George Krawzzofff, C r
Date � '6' k
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO C,QNTENT:
C
John E y�, �. Tim Malloy, V
Co Attorney Acting Com. Dev. Director
c: \cases \ridge \shoafipzreso. doc
390018 02/15/96 03:56P PO 3 OF 3
Ui00 04
EM
1 i ur - E1
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tim Malloy, Planning Office
RE: Shoaf Ridgeline Review
DATE: December 5, 1995
n
3 - D
04e5 from ��Z vxt.
AisUAS5 �i -S - 0
reso .
BACKGROUND: The Planing and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at meetings on
May 16th and August 15th , 1995. The Planning Commission approved the application at the
August 15th meeting. However, the motion of approval was vague in terms of what conditions
should be applied to the approval. This was in part due to the fact that Staff was recommending
continuing final decision on this application (at the August 15th meeting) and had not prepared
conditions of approval. The applicant is now objecting to condition number 2 in the attached
resolution. This is the condition which restricts excavation within 10 feet of the edge of the ridge
(contour elevation 118). This condition was intended to prevent the applicant from cutting out the
ridgeline and to protect an area at the top of the ridge so as to allow room for additional landscaping
to help screen the proposed residence from Snowmass Creek Road. The applicant has indicated that
all of the other conditions in the resolution are acceptable.
In the process of preparing the resolution of approval, Staff relied on the minutes of the P &Z
meetings and the staff memo. The motion of approval (see page 8 of the August 15th minutes,
attached) states "motion to approve the Shoaf Ridgeline Review with mitigation recommended by
Staff according to the lighting, with the landscaping plan to go back to Staff." Staff interpreted this
to mean that the Staff recommendations as contained in the memo were to be made conditions of
approval. Further, in the paragraph following the motion, Staff points out that the Staff
recommendation includes the restriction against disturbing the area 10 feet back of the edge of the
ridgeline. Staff would point out that Shelly Harper, the maker of the motion, did not amend her
motion to include Staffs comments before it was approved.
The purpose of today's discussion is to clarify the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission
with respect to the conditions of approval and to address the applicant's concern regarding
condition number 2 in particular.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission considered the
attached documents and provide direction to Staff regarding the conditions of approval particularly
condition number two.
ATTACHMENTS: q
Q0,0005
C�
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. August 15, 1995 Staff Memo
3. August 15, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4. May 16, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
10
.<_ 2
0000 - A
I
d
IM
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIISSION OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR RIDGELIKE REVIEW
FOR THE SHOAF PROPERTY IN THE GATEWAY TO SNOpMASS
MESA SUBDIVISION
Resolution No. PZ -95-
RECITALS
1. Jeffrey Shoaf (hereinafter "Applicant "), has applied to the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado,
(hereinafter "Commission "), for Ridgeline Review approval in
order to allow the construction of a single- family home on
Lot 1, Block 3, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision. This
request is made pursuant to Section 3 -60.40 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Applicant's
request at regularly scheduled meetings on May 16, and August
15, 1995 and found it to be consistent with the criteria in
the Pitkin County Code, provided that development is done in
accordance with the conditions outlined in this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby approve the Shoaf Ridgeline review subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to building permit application the Applicant shall
record a 24" by 36" survey /landscape plan showing the
location and exact footprint of the residence, and all other
improvements associated with the project including driveways
00,000s
C
Resolution No. PZ -95-
2,
and landscaping. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning
office for review and approval.
2. No excavation shall be permitted within feet of the edge
of the ridgeline (contour elevation 118 as depicted on the
I Topographic and Improvement Survey provided with the
IIJ 6% application) on t e northeast side of th structure.
l mi)v cavat o i � W a t � hi e of e building (knoll side)
shall be limited to the minimum necessary to construct the
foundation walls. In no case shall excavation extend further
than 10 feet from the outside edge of the foundation wall.
This area shall be backfilled up to the building to the
natural grade (approximately elevation 123 at the center of
the structure as depicted on the survey).
4. Excavation on the south side of the structure shall not
go below elevation 115, as depicted on the Topographic Survey
propovided with the application. All grading shall be
depicted on the landscape plan /survey.
5. Exterior lighting shall be limited to low (30 inches or less)
bollard -style downlighting and shall be restricted to the
area of the main entry and the lower level entry. All other
exterior lighting shall be prohibited.
6. The applicant shall be required to post a performance bond to
ensure that the landscaping plan is implemented as approved.
The amount of the bond shall equal the estimated cost of the
landscaping. The bond shall be in a form acceptable to the
County Attorney's office.
7. All other applicable requirements of the Pitkin County Land
Use Code shall be adhered to.
8. The color and texture of exterior building materials shall
blend in with the surrounding natural landscape. Metal roofs
shall be prohibited.
9. All material representations made in the application and in
public meetings shall be adhered to. Any significant
deviation from these representations shall require further
review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
9
Y
U00007
� ".
Resolution No. PZ -95-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 15th DAY OF AUGUST, 1995.
3
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
George Krawzo£f, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely,
County Attorney
c: \cases \ridge \shoaflpzreso.doc
m
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Tim Malloy,
Acting Com. Dev. Director
U-00009
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis Krizmanich /Tim Malloy
RE: Shoaf Scenic Overlay / Ridgeline Review
DATE: August 15, 1995
ISSUE: On May 16, 1995, the Planning Commission heard an
application for Scenic Overlay approval on a site which contains
a mapped ridgeline. At the May 16th meeting the applicant
presented plans for an approximately 30 foot high residence. The
Planning Commission found that the proposal did not meet the
ridgeline criteria and continued the application to this date to
allow the applicant to develop revised plans which address scenic
concerns. The staff review in this memo will address the Scenic
Review.
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Shoaf
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa
Subdivision
ZONING: R- 30 /RS -30
LOT SIZE: 1.01 acres
SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW, RIDGELINE (Section 3 -604): The following
discussion includes the ridgeline criteria and staff comments:
1. Whether the development has utilized existing topography and
natural vegetation, such as ridges and hills to screen
buildings to the maximum extent possible.
Staff Comment: The subject site consists of a narrow, flat bench
with steeply sloping hillsides to the east and west. The site is
highly visible from numerous locations on Snowmass and Capitol
Creek Roads. The proposed residence is located near the center of
the flat bench. This location is the best area on the site to
build and minimize visual impacts. Natural vegetation does not
screen the site to any great extent. The staff notes that a knoll
exists to the southwest of the structure and will screen the
building from the junction of Snowmass and Capitol Creek Roads.
2. Whether the development has been designed to complement the
natural topography of the land, including, whenever possible
and appropriate, the utilization of innovative architectural
techniques such as earth sheltered design, natural materials
and coloring, non-ref lectability and clustering of structures
on the least visible portions of the site.
UU00-9
W _V/
Staff Comment: The applicant's commitment to utilize textured
masonry and natural earthtone colors will help to mitigate visual
impacts. Roof materials have been identified as natural color,
non - reflective, "probably" asphalt shingles. A condition of
approval will require the applicant to adhere to these commitments.
The revised architectural plan includes an attached garage. This
clustering of structures will also help to minimize visual impacts.
3. Whether the development's height and bulk has been designed
to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the visibility of
buildings from the highway and public viewplanes.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that the height and bulk of
the revised structure does not minimize visual impacts as discussed
at the last Planning commission meeting. The applicant indicates
an 18 foot height from elevation 120. The elevation in the center
of the structures is 118, based on the topographic survey;
therefore, this structure will be 20 feet above existing grade.
The staff had recommended 16 feet at the last meeting. The
applicant also indicated that the structure would be "sunk" into
the existing grade and would utilize a "basement." The revised
plan indicates a two - story, 27 foot high structure with the
hillside cut away to expose the lower level. The staff opinion is
that the present plan is practically identical to the last proposal
with a building height of 27 feet and two exposed stories. The
staff recommends that a maximum height of 16 feet be permitted as
measured from elevation 118 on the survey. In addition, the staff
recommends that no excavation be permitted within 10 feet (top of
bank width) of the edge of the ridgeline.
4. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break
a ridgeline, unless there are no alternate building sites on
the lot.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that the proposed site is the
best location on the lot. However, the structure should avoid any
excavation of the knoll on the south side of the building other
than as necessary for foundation or structure walls.
5. Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of
uses on the highest ground or most visible portion of the site
as viewed from State Highway 82 and public right -of -ways,
identified in Section (B)(1).
Staff Comment: In the original proposal, the applicant avoided
the edge of the steep hillsides to either side of the residence.
In this application, it appears that portions of the hillside are
proposed to be removed to expose the lower story of the house. The
staff recommends against allowing the applicant to regrade the
ridge. The staff also recommends that the structure be pulled away
from the knoll on the southwest side of the building to retain the
screening effect of this natural feature.
UUCOIC
6. Whether the development has been located outside of the
designated Scenic Overlay, or on a suitable site at the
greatest distance possible from State Highway 82 and
identified ridgelines.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that this is the most suitable
portion of the lot for development.
Whether the development has been landscaped in accordance with
the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and
has preserved natural vegetation, to the maximum extent
possible, including the avoidance of development within
irrigated meadows. Existing vegetation shall be maintained
to the maximum extent possible, while using existing
vegetation to screen development. A landscaping plan shall
be submitted by the Applicant and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan
as requested. A detailed landscaping plan is a necessity to screen
this development as proposed on this exposed ridge. The
landscaping plan must be placed on the site plan and must show
location, species, size and quantity.
The staff recommends a fairly continuous "hedge" along each side
of the ridge to screen the structure. Plant species should include
pinon, juniper, serviceberry and mountain oak. The "ornamental"
plant species listed in the text of the application may be used to
enhance the site plan; however, their value as screening materials
is minimal. The applicant should be required to post a performance
guarantee to insure the success on any required landscaping.
Whether the development's exterior lighting has been designed
in such a manner that light sources, such as facade and
landscape lighting, will not be seen from public right -of-
ways as identified in Section (B)(1). In addition, an
application shall be consistent with the lighting regulations
identified in the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Staff Comment: The applicant has committed to no exterior lighting
on the south or southwest sides of the building. The staff
recommends that all outside lighting, including security spot
lights, landscape and building accent lighting be prohibited. Only
low, down -lit, bollard style lighting for pedestrian use should be
permitted on this visually sensitive site. The applicant appears
to agree with this recommendation.
Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable
as the sole measure of compliance with these regulations.
However, they may be utilized in conjunction with other site
techniques designed into the development plan. These methods
may be acceptable when utilized as one of several methods to
0 100011
FM
complement and enhance development, rather than as the single
device for screening development from view from the State
Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Staff Comment: It is likely that the use of landforms in
conjunction with a landscaping plan for this site would aid in
mitigating visual impacts; however, the proposed plan does not
achieve this goal. The proposed grading plan indicates that the
ridge will be excavated on both sides of the house to expose the
lower level of the house. As discussed at the previous Planning
Commission meeting, the applicant was directed to utilize the
existing ridgeline to shield the home by "sinking" the home into
the existing grade thereby leaving natural berms to hide the
structure.
10. Whether the development has been designed so as to avoid, to
the maximum extent possible, any Scenic Viewplane identified
on the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: There are no scenic viewplanes affecting this
project.
11. In the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may be in conflict with
preservation of scenic areas, the Board acknowledges that 1041
issues take precedence over scenic concerns. These issues
shall be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Staff Comment: The proposed building site avoids 1041 hazard
areas.
SUMMARY: The staff agrees with the applicant that the flat bench
is the appropriate building site. The staff does not support the
applicant's proposed two story design. The large size of the
structure - 3,800 square feet, plus an undetermined garage size -
will visually dominate the ridge line. The applicant has not
chosen to utilize architectural techniques or landscaping to
mitigate visual impacts. The staff opinion is that this
application requires significant redesign and a detailed
landscaping plan in order to comply with the Scenic Overlay
criteria.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue this application to provide the applicant time
to develop architectural and landscaping plans that comply with the
ridgeline criteria.
UUC0i2
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 2
III. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Shoaf Ridoeline Review
Krawzoff: The public hearing is now open.
Malloy: Francis is not here today and we felt that he could have a conflict of interest since
he lives in Gateway, therefore, I will be representing staff. First of all, on May 16 the
discussion revolved around the concern on height, location, and the separate garage
structure. This drawing was one that we looked at last time where the garage was
separated from the home. The applicant went away and came back with additional
information. The landscape plan on the second page came in after the memo was
submitted. The site consists of a narrow flat bench, with a steeply sloping bench an all
sides. This is visible from Snowmass Creek Road and Capitol Creek Road.
(Jeff Shoaf showed the Board the location and site on a model he provided.)
Malloy: We are talking about a sparsely vegetated site. Staffs comments are
summarized on pages 2 and 3 of the memo and basically are a, response for the scenic
overlay. I will review the key points.
With respect to the first criteria on utilizing existing topography, it is the best location on
the site. The second criteria, whether the development has been designed to complement
the natural topography of the land, staff points out that the applicant is committed to using
natural textures and earthtones, whatever is appropriate. I also pointed out that in the first
drawing, the garage was separated, now it is one structure. With regard to item 3, height
and bulk, here is where there is a significant concern. The revised structure does not
minimize visual impacts. The applicant indicates an 18 foot height from elevation 120. It
is staffs opinion that the height limitation should be 16 feet and be measured from the 118
elevation. The revised plan also shows a two -story structure. Flip to the sketch in your
packet. The applicant is proposing to excavate down on the site. There is still a
significant problem in the design. They are excavating down from 118 to 111 to have a
below -grade story. Staff r ends that no excavation be germitted within ten feet of
the edge of the ridgeline. Jnstead of having a whole site expos have the elevat
The only comment staff had on item 4 is that we know it breaks the ridgeline, but the
structure should avoid any excavation of the knoll on the south side of the building other
than as necessary. We would like to see a design that avoids the knolls.
Item #5, whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses on the
highest ground, we feel that locating the structure on the flat piece is appropriate.
Item 7, which relates to landscaping, Francis mentioned that the applicant has not
presented a landscaping plan. The applicant did so after the memo was written.
Fundamentally, the elements of the landscape plan is to hide what has been done, but we
would like to see it significantly improved. The applicant shows a row of alternating
U OU013
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 3
pinions or austrian pines. We can't get a feel for spacing because the scale of the
drawing is difficult to read. We are talking about 15 foot spacing with fairly small
materials. The applicant has the right idea, but we are talking about a continuous hedge.
The drawing needs some work to make sure what we are getting is what everyone has
in mind. Austrian pine has a tendency to be good deer food and this may not be the best
to use.
Item 8, regarding lighting, the applicant has committed to no exterior lighting on the south
or southwest side. Staff is suggesting no exterior lighting. Only low, down lit, bollard style
lighting for pedestrian use should be permitted.
With respect to the criteria of landforms and earth moving, in this particular case, we
suggest the applicant not end up with a big berm. Some landform would probably help
to screen the house. If some portion of the existing terrain is left for the berm, this could
be a good solution and should be considered.
The criteria of items 10 and 11 are met.
The flat bench is a good site, but staff does not support the two -story design. Staff feels
the large size of the structure, almost 4,000 square feet, will create a visual impact on the
ridgeline and feel there could be some significant improvements to this application. Staff
is recommending that this application be continued until the applicant can work out all the
details.
Krawzoff: Any questions for staff?
Harper: The effect of the cutaway, is that considered in the ridgeline where the cutaway
does not affect the ridgeline?
Malloy: I heard the argument used that if you alter the ridgeline you are not creating an
impact. Lowering the ridgeline and exposing more house is not conducive of the ridgeline
review.
Krawzoff: Let's hear from the applicant
Jeff Shoaf: What I wanted to do first is that we have two different sides to this — one side
faces Sncwmass Creek Road and the other that deals with Capitol Creek. The Capitol
Creek exposure is a very small impact on the ridgeline review and how it appears from
the road once it breaks the skyline. (Shoaf showed a computer enhancement picture and
explained this to the P&Z.) When on Capitol Creek you literally cannot see the site from
the intersection from Sopris Creek Road. There is only about a quarter of a mile where
it breaks the skyline. (Shoaf showed photos to the P &Z of how it breaks the skyline.) It
is visible but it does not break the skyline. We are looking at a short section of the road
where it breaks the skyline. Even then it is screened by big pine trees. (Shoaf explained
pictures showing the house with the walkout basement.) If the road were running right
here you would be seeing an additional eight or nine feet from the walkout basement, but
from down the road, it seems to cut in so you are basically seeing the upper story. I
understand Tim's point there, but you really have to look closely to see where the house
UUCL4
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 4
is. The color will be as close to matching the natural grade and landscaping that is there.
It will literally blend in.
Harper: Does your computer rendition show it being cut in?
Shoaf: Yes. I used the same plans for everything. It shows the walkout basement and
what is exactly on the model. One architect did the model and one architect did the
computer enhancement and they match up. The lot is relatively flat, but over a span of
75 to 80 feet it does drop down a couple of feet. As per the survey, the elevation is 119.9
1 fudged 1.2 inches and set it to 120.
The grade at this side of the house, I am going up 18 feet above the existing grade. I
wanted to give an accurate representation on this side of the house relative to the
Snowmass Creek side of the house. The finished upper story floor will be at 120
elevation, so if you went and stood on the lot you would be standing on the first floor, then
you go down from there. We are real sensitive to the ridgeline. What we are willing to
do on this side is to do the same thing on the stream margin review. We plan on putting
a line of hay so that the integrity of the ridgeline is maintained. We will be digging behind
it for lightwells for egress and ingress. By sinking the house into the hillside it does bury
it and makes it less of an impact. You don't even see where it goes into the hillside. We
thought we were going in the right direction by sinking the two ends. The point I wanted
to make is that this is 18 feet; rounded up to 120, the peak of the roof is at 118 elevation.
The highest point is just this peak in the east/west axis.
We are proposing 18 feet. We have done our best to mitigate this by sinking it into the
site. How long does this process have to go on before this gets satisfied. Everybody I
explained it to sees no problem. A naked concrete wall half way up has more of an
impact. We are trying to minimize the impact and still produce a product here with a
positive impact on the neighborhood.
Krawzoff: Any questions?
Hatfield: How did you arrive at the size of the home?
Shoaf: We wanted to have four bedrooms and three baths, a two -car garage slightly
oversized to around 700 to 720 feet, we wanted to have the master bedroom suite at the
most private end of the house. The lower floor is more square footage then the upper
floor. The upper deck is above the lower story. It buries that much more of the structure.
We are not thinking about doing a 10,000 or 15,000 square foot home. I have pictures
of other homes in the subdivision that I took from the road going up there. A lot of these
houses have a far greater impact on the subdivision then mine because mine is on a cut
de sac. I don't think it is out of scale for the neighborhood. Staff is recommending a flat
roof, but this is not appropriate for the snow. From my neighbors' perspective, my opinion
is that a peaked roof is far more attractive to look down on then a flat, warehouse -type
roof. We are talking about a 16 -foot cathedral ceiling. We are not trying to go to a huge,
grand scale. We want to make it look good and take advantage of the site. We want to
design something that is sensitive to the neighborhood and I thought staff and I were on
the same track.
UUCJ5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 5
Hatfield: To finish my question, it seems like this project was designed from the inside
out and not for the site.
Shoat Initially, but this is a difficult site to design for. This is the third or fourth idea. We
got about an 8,000 square foot pad to work with. It takes up a limited amount of space
for the driveway. We wanted to keep in the middle of the ridge. I think staff is in
agreement that we have it sighted well, the problem is with the height. Capitol Creek and
Snowmass Creek impacts are minimal.
Susan Hasall (neighborhood): Wejust found out about this hearing a couple of hours ago.
Most of the neighbors did not know that this meeting was going on. The original meeting
was in May to discuss this and was rescheduled for July 8. Nobody was notified until
Jeffs calls last night.
Krawzoff . Were the public notice requirements satisfied?
Malloy: I believe that when the July 18 meeting occurred, it was tabled to this date.
Francis would know better.
Hasall: None of us knew because no one showed up July 18.
Malloy: We don't have to officially notify everyone of a date change. We have to do it at
a meeting to schedule to a date specific.
Hasall: We still have concerns about the height and bulk. The pictures that Jeff
distributed are all the newest houses and all were built as spec houses. Initially, it was
all owner homes. The trend is changing to spec homes. The height and bulk issues are
still there. I think staff has come up with some pretty reasonable requests. I would like
to see the home come down eight feet. I think staff came up with some good
recommendations. A 12 foot ceiling is still a good height for a ceiling. If the garage is
oversized, it could come in a little and reduce the impact. We appreciate you taking
comments.
Richard Heedy: I agree with Susan that the basic bulk and height issues have not been
addressed. It is still 18 feet and still quite high. It has to come down to 10 or 12 feet.
This seems to be a 4,700 square foot house and is big for the Gateway Subdivision. The
further up Snowmass Creek Road you go, you will see more of this house. This is still
too bulky for this very small lot. It is well situated on the lot, but it is too large. The visual
impact from Capitol Creek Road is probably minimal. The biggest concern is from
Snowmass Creek Road. I would also like some clarification on the lighting. We heard
staff say no lighting, but then staff says down lighting. It is also not clear from the
drawings whether the comer of the garage is going to be on the driveway easement.
Shoaf: I did physically phone up everyone and tell them there was going to be a
continuation of this meeting and told them that I would meet with them if they wanted to.
I got a hold of everyone except one person. Judy, who spoke before on landscaping, was
the one who helped me with the landscaping plans.
UU0016
R
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 6
IF
Krawzoff: We need to get the Commissioners to talk about this.
Guthrie: You can't build on their easement.
Malloy: They could, but they are not the legal holder.
Harper: Can they use that same easement for their driveway?
Malloy: Yes, in most cases.
Krawzoff. We know that we have the facts of the case before us, let us move toward a
resolution.
Hatfield: I share staffs concerns about the cutouts of the ridge. This doesn't seem to be
consistent with the intent of the ridgeline review, that we can eliminate a piece of the
ridge. Jeff, did you indicate that this was in between both sides of the ridge?
Shoaf: We pretty much have it centered. We are trying to get a little more of a side yard.
Hatfield: You indicated that you had designed this four times. Did you ever have a one -
story project at any time?
Shoaf: No.
Hatfield: I would certainly be more comfortable if one story and you didn't have to do so
much excavation. It would be spread out. How much platform do you have?
Shoaf: Approximately 8,000 square feet.
Hatfield: What is the square footage of the footprint?
Shoaf: I don't know that. The footprint of the lower floor is 15 to 20% greater than above
grade.
Harper: Is it 2,200?
Shoaf: 1 can't tell you what the square footage is of the decks.
Hatfield: My concern is with the excavation and that the home is to big for the site. We
have heard some testimony as to less impacts up Capitol. As you admitted, you designed
the home from what you wanted and then sited it. I wish you could have sited from
outside in.
Guthrie: What's too big?
Hatfield: When you have to excavate so far down to get X amount of square footage,
bedrooms and baths, that is what too big means. My impression is that this should be a
one -story home.
UUUU.L7
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 7
Shoat: I see this as a one -story home. The above grade footage on my house is half of
what is above grade footage on other homes in the area.
Hatfield: 1 don't have a concern on spreading this out. It would be more in tune with the
neighborhood. You wouldn't have to excavate so much.
Guthrie: Are you saying the square footage is too big? I don't see a problem.
Hatfield: This is improved since the last time, but the applicant is still having to excavate
so much.
Harper: This is my first ridgeline. I thought we were to avoid what happened next door.
We were to minimize the ridgeline and public view point. I'm not happy with digging out.
Maybe a smaller house might be better, but this is the modern age of where people have
things. People don't want 2,000 square foot houses. I looked at this and it looked like
I got two of the same pictures. I could not see the difference with the house on it. If this
is a true representation, then the applicant has done a good job of sinking this into the
hillside where it is almost invisible. I would like to hear from the other architects on this
board.
Krawzoff . I'm not thrilled with a 3,800 square foot house, but looking at the context of the
neighborhood and given the site they are working with, I can think of lots of things I might
like better but can't find what specific thing to use to deny this project. I would like to see
an improved landscaping plan. Submit this to staff for approval rather than bring back
here. I don't want to go through another three months to approve a landscape plan. I'm
concerned with the public notice process, but technically they have been satisfied. I'm
inclined to approve.
Vickery: I don't have a problem with the Snowmass Creek side. The model represents
accurately what is being purposed, but if you turn the model around.
Whipple: I agree.
Vickery: I listen to the argument that because it is down below and carved in, you won't
be able to see the lower level. However, looking at it, my feeling is there probably are
other landscaping and architectural techniques to further mitigate that.
Whipple: I think there is a way in which, if you have a line, you have a full 8 foot cut, you
could have 3 1/2, maybe 4 feet, and still have a view from the front and it won't look like
it is chopped off. You could create landscaping that is actually a building. If you leave
the natural contour, it will help a lot. You could still have some yard and you shouldn't
berm anything. You could line on the inside with railroad ties or rocks. In fairness, if you
want a walkout, use half of the elevation. That would eliminate the cut and you would still
have something to walk out. You could save on the other side with light wells.
Shoat The picture shows that it has such little impact on Capitol Creek.
L;uC018
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 8
Whipple: I'm dealing with a mass issue here. I'm not as prone to go as far as staff does.
Once at 16 feet, 18 feet, it is hard to get restrictive of the roof plane, but it does break up
that wall effect. What is the building material?
Shoaf: Probably asphalt shingles, nonreflective, natural colors. Not a metal roof.
Whipple: You have supplied a lot more information now then in the past.
Hatfield: I wish Francis was here. What is the average home size in Gateway? I think
Francis represented a considerately smaller home than 3,800 feet. We are talking about
the character of the neighborhood. I'm going to vote clearly against this. This is too large
a home and out of character.
Harper: .1 wo � Id like to make a motion to aoorove the Shoat Ridaeline Review v
miti on recomm staff according to the lighting, with the landsca in Ian to
back to sta ., I would ask the app scan o nng up the front at least two of the cont
lines, and try to build an area behind as Steve suggested.
Malloy: Staffs recommendation committed with faet_ of the too of bank at the edge
of the ridoeline. If I understand what Francis is talkinq about. There is a similar area over
here oT feet. Francis is talking about length.
Harper: From the pictures I saw, there does not seem to be an impact from the road.
agree with Steve that it would somewhat reduce the size. You need a grass yard for kids
Malloy: We are talking about 111 which is base plane for this level. We are looking at
about another 7 feet, but we are pretty close to staffs recommendation up 4 feet to
elevation 115. This would be considerably less restrictive then staffs recommendation.
Whipple: That is what I am saying is that it is 4 feet lower then staffs recommendation.
Malloy: My concern about this is this is a precise detail. The grading plan does not show
it. We would like to commit to a drawing.
Whipple: The 115 grade level is established; 4 feet from that base level.
Malloy: Only in the limited area shown on the drawing.
Shoaf: We are not talking about an expansive yard area. There are two ways to do this.
Four feet of vegetation is not that complicated to come up. Nothing grows there.
Whipple: I'm thinking 4 feet and landscaping above that.
Malloy: If you draw the line right across here.
Guthrie: It is irrelevant where it is crossed out. The elevation is important. He cannot
excavate on the outside edge. If he wants more lawn, then he will have a steeper wall.
You come across the front from a certain elevation and what you do inside is up to you.
u000:i9
W
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1995
Page 9
Harper: The intent is to have two contour lines maintained.
Hatfield: What about the garage?
Shoaf: It is a two -car garage.
I#
Harper: This is a modest garage and I have no problem with it.
Vickery: I second the motion.
Krawzoff been moved and seconded Those in fa
Guthrie, Harper, Krawzoff and Vickery voted yes; Hatfield opposed. Motion passed.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Pfanenstiel (Lot 9) 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission
Magill: The subject property is located on Lot 9. The applicant is proposing two
envelopes. The main envelope is 1/2 acre in size. The applicant is also proposing an
accessory agricultural envelope. The portion of the driveway from Highway 133 to the
proposed agricultural building envelope is existing. This continues through the property.
The applicant wants to abandon and revegetate the road. The cemetery is located here.
There is no access in terms of a trail or road to the site. Coal Creek comprises the
southern boundary. The 1041 issues are as follows:
The wildfire issue has been documented by the Forest Service as being low. Kelly Rogers
recommends the standard mitigation. Geologically, the property contains slopes in excess
of 30 %, which are located in the northern portion of the parcel. The Land Use Code
prohibits the envelope to be on slopes in excess of 15 %, unless a specific development
site is comprised exclusively of slopes which exceed 15 %. From staffs site visit, there
are some sites on this property that contain buildable areas that are on slopes less than
15 %. Staff recommends that the primary building envelope be located in the general
vicinity of the proposed accessory envelope, where slopes are known to be less than 15 %.
In regards to the wildlife issues, Kevin Wright confirmed that the entire lot contains winter
range and is in a critical wildlife area. The building envelopes for the main and accessory
use lie within winter range, but are located below the more important winter range habitats
to the north. Kevin Wright's comments are not definitive with respect to the prohibition of
dogs, but staff is recommending that dogs be prohibited. It is staffs opinion that there is
a reasonable correlation between house size and the potential for increased impacts on
wildlife. A 15,000 square foot house would cause impacts greater than a house half that
size. Staff recommends the size of all structures be limited to 7500 square feet.
With regards to wetlands, the applicant submitted a report from a wetland scientist that
depicts two relatively large areas of wetlands on the property. Staff is concerned about
the close proximity of both envelopes and access roads to these sensitive areas. The
existing access driveway appears to be setback from the wetlands a sufficient distance.
0 CO2O
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 16, 1995
Page 4
Seconded by Jack Hatfield. No further discussion was offered. The question was called.
All were in favor.
B. Shoaf Ridgeline Review: Francis Krizmanich stated that this application is in the same
area as the previous application. Krizmanich recommended continuing the application
because this application does not substantially comply with the ridgeline review.
Krizmanich stated that this is the most prominent ridgeline site in the subdivision, and as
this application is proposed, it is visible from all directions. The applicant is requesting a
two -story residence of approximately 3,800 square feet, with the total height being 28 -1/2
feet above existing grade.
Krizmanich reviewed the criteria:
Whetherthe development utilizing the existing topography, the site is highly visible
from numerous locations, and the applicant has tried to put it on the least visible
and flattest part, therefore, staff feels that this is the best location for the home.
2. Whether the development has been designed to complement the natural
topography, the applicant has centrally located the development on the site, but
the applicant is recommending two separate buildings. Krizmanich recommended
one structure. The applicant has made some commitments to the exterior
material and will utilize colors to blend into the area, but the applicant needs to
state what materials will be used for the roofing.
3. Krizmanich stated that the biggest problem is the height. The applicant is
proposing a two -story structure, 3,800 square feet in size, which does not include
the detached garage. The residence is proposed to be 28 -1/2 feet in height. The
height and size of the building is out of sync with the regulations. Krizmanich
believes a one -story structure would be better for this site.
4. Krizmanich also recommends the natural hillside be left in tact. Krizmanich stated
that part of the integrity is to keep the ridge in place. Krizmanich recommends to
leave the hillside in its natural state. The applicant is also lacking a detailed
landscaping plan. Krizmanich suggested that by doing some berming and
landscaping, this could hide and bring the natural ridge up on either side.
Krizmanich stated that the proposal that stands before the Commission, being a two -story
configuration as proposed, creates significant glare and impacts. The main concern is the
proposed height structure.
Jeffrey Shoaf, the applicant, stated that he has taken everything that Krizmanich
commented on to heart. Mark Hesselswartz, Shoafs associate, presented to the Board
a set of new plans. The applicant is proposing to dig down and place the residence lower.
As presented, the residence is proposed to go down two feet; the applicant is requesting
to dig down an addition three feet. This would be dropping the tallest ridge by 3 feet.
Steve Whipple stated that this would mean that the height, at its highest point, would be
22 -112 feet. Krizmanich stated that the original total height was 30 feet, be sinking 2 feet,
UOC -021
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 16, 1995
Page 5
would make it 28 feet and by going an additional 3 feet, would make it 25 feet. Shoaf
stated that this would make it approximately a story and a half above the existing grade.
Shoaf stated on the new plans, they have attached the garage to the house.
Shellie Harper asked Shoaf what he was going to do with the dirt, make berm with the
dirt? Tim Malloy stated that the applicant has elected not to do that.
Shoaf also stated that any exterior lighting would be downlighting on a motion switch, the
windows will all be glazed to prevent glaring, and the roofing is to be an asphalt shingle,
non - reflective. The exterior is to be of earthtones to blend in with the surrounding area.
Shoaf stated that he grouped the mass rather than spreading it out, that he located the
structure on a flat spot which is approximately 6,000 square feet and the primary
residence that would see the most impact is the Heady residence. Shoaf stated that the
structure proposed would add to the value of the neighbors. Hatfield asked how he comes
to that conclusion. Shoaf stated that if it is a nice structure that is worth a certain amount,
then it could raise the value of the homes in the area. Hatfield asked Shoaf that if he is
taking the feedback from Knzmanich to heart, why not go all the way. Shoaf stated that
he has compromised, and by building the same size out on one level, would spread the
house out. Shoaf stated that by keeping the house a story and a half,, but sinking it, is
compromising. Shoaf stated that one out of every six houses in Gateway is a single -story
house; one out of every six has flat roofs, but that pitched roofs are better.
Shellie Harper asked what the average house size is in Gateway. Knzmanich stated
probably around 2,000 square feet. Hatfield asked if the whole structure was being
dropped. Shoaf stated just the part in the middle.
Shellie Harper stated that what is being proposed is a 3,800 square foot home, a 1,800
square foot garage and a half basement. Harper asked how much of the bulk is to stick
up. Shoaf stated that it depends on where you are on the site. Krizmanich stated that
the applicant is lowering the house, but not lowering the visible portion of the house.
Krizmanich is asking the Commission to continue this so that he can meet with the
applicant to see what the actual height is to be. Hatfield stated that he got a decent idea
of the adjusted plans, but feels at a disadvantage because of the new plans. Hatfield
asked if the rest of the Commissioners feel the same way. David Guthrie stated that he
would like to here public comment on this issue. Steve Whipple understands what is
going on but he has an educated eye. Steve Whipple stated that he would like to see the
topos to actually see and understand the height, and Whipple does not understand the
berm /site line concept.
Guthrie asked for public comment.
Don Heckler, who owns a home on Lot 1, stated that he thought they were
present strictly for a ndgeline review, and that if they allowed only 13 -1/2 feet
above the existing grade for a lot that is 60% of size of this lot, and that this
proposed house and garage is 4,000 to 5,000 square feet on one of the smallest
UUCC22
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 16, 1995
Page 6
lots in Gateway, and on one of the most prominent knolls in Gateway, then he
can't see how the Commission could support anything that is not any taller then
what was agreed to by him earlier. Heckler stated that you could berm, but it
does not change the height of the house. Steve Whipple stated that Hecklers
perception of what he is doing is not 13 -112. Cathy Tripodi stated that she is
growing uncomfortable comparing the two issues.
Susan Hassle, adjoining neighbor, stated that she is uncomfortable with what is
being proposed, and that it is still a two -story house, with a huge garage. She
stated that this does not go with what the ordinance states. Shoaf stated that a
sloping roof would look better from here viewpoint. Susan Hassle stated that this
is not the case, and that a flat roof would be more appropriate.
Richard Heady stated that he is concerned about having two proposals to
address. He feels that the bulk and size is oversized for the lot. The new
proposal still presents a too big of a house.
Judy Burns, neighbor who lives directly below, agrees that the Commission needs
more time, and that the berms are not the answer. She stated that it looked like
the applicant Is trying to maximize their profit. She stated that it would be nice to
see a schematic.
David Guthrie closed the public hearing.
Jack Hatfield moved to continue the meeting to July 18, with the request that the applicant
give the information needed to Francis Krizmanich by June 18. Seconded by Shellie
Harper. All in favor.
David Guthrie stated that the applicant needs to give Francis Krizmanich not only the stuff
that staff is working for but what could make the application work. The Commissioners
will give specific parameters to get the applicant where he should.
Krizmanich stated that a specific recommendation would be to make the home one story
at 16 feet.
Cathy Tripodi stated that the applicant did compromise, but that there is still a two -story
structure there. Tripodi also recommended he talk with Judy Bums on landscaping.
Shoaf stated that he would, and that he is trying to work with everyone.
Shellie Harper stated that the effect on the ridgeline needs to be minimal and is looking
for that proof.
Steve Whipple stated that there is a general assumption that the applicant has done the
best thing with the lot, but he is not sure of that. If coming off that flat shelf, won't go any
higher then 18 feet, could still do two stories with a flat roof. Whipple stated that he does
not think he has done a good job. Staff is hostile, neighbors are hostile. The applicant
needs to address the scale and height.
003323
NOW 1.1W
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 16, 1995
Page 7
Jack Hatfield stated that he is uncomfortable with what is being proposed, but feels the
applicant is headed in the right direction with less height, not necessarily certain that the
answer is to dig it down. Would rather see it spread out and lower. Would like to see it
about 16 feet. The ridgeline view is important and the neighbors viewpoint is important
also.
Shellie Harper suggested putting up poles and taking pictures of those poles from different
angles. Steve Whipple suggested the applicant attend other meetings and see how other
applicants put their applications together.
David Guthrie suggested that the applicant needs to change the size and change the
configuration. like to see house cascading down toward Sopris; pick a view and go for
that. unless reposition house, run into same problem. not sure of proportion is the way
to go. Small Lot and huge home. change size and change configuration.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Pfanensteil (Lot 2) 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission. Tim Malloy was the
staff member representing this item as Rick Magill was out ill. Malloy stated that this lot
is on Coal Basin Road and is the last one on the south side. Jeff Bier was present
representing the applicant. Bier stated that there are some existing old ruins on the
property, but they plan to stay away from them.
Malloy reviewed the hazards:
With regards to the geologic concern, there are greater than 30% slopes on the
back, so there is no other logical place for the building envelope. The geologist
did discover that there is a debris flow, therefore, he suggested a four to five foot
berm.
With regards to the wildlife hazard, staff recommends the development be below
the 7,400 elevation mark, which the envelope is. Kevin Wright suggested that the
envelope be limited to the area east of the TS Hammer field stake. Jeff Bier
stated that he just located that stake and it is in the middle of the envelope.
Wright is also recommending prohibition of dogs; this is a similar recommendation
on the smaller properties.
The Board has, in past applications, come to the conclusion that increased house
size means increased activity. Therefore, the Board had determined that it was
reasonable to limit house size. The Board has in recent decisions decided to limit
structures from 2,400 to 7,500 square feet.
With regards to the historic ruins, Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer,
would like to work with the applicant on preserving what is left of these ruins.
Amy Amidon would like the applicant to allow public access on that road to the
ruins and beyond. If access is granted on Stage Road, staff is recommending
that the applicant work with the Historic Preservation Committee to create some
language on a sign so that the public will know what they are observing.
uuCO24
I
V I
Zap
ai
t
rw
m /
bb
H o a °
N
p -t 0 CL 00
w O M
EbY
p oo
;
+� O
N m + G
W al
r
a, u �, .n oo d
r
v �✓
August 10, 1995
V, DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN.......... continued
As per my conversation with Francis and as per his requests, I
submit the following additional information for clarification regarding
the attached application.
First, the area shaded in orange is to be a light gathering and egress
depression running along the East side of the residence below existing and
finished grade facing Snowmass and Gateway Roads. At completion, it is to
be four to nine feet below existing and finish grade. We will never excavate
out to the existing hillside for foundation excavation or the creation of this
feature. We propose placing bales of straw along this East facing existing
hilltop prior to construction to assure that no dirt or construction
material will be allowed over the existing ridgeline to the East further
assuring it's current natural integrity. This same technique is, used for
Stream Margin Review to keep materials out of a stream or river.
As per the attached LANDSCAPING PLANVISUAL, we would propose 4 either
native Pinion pine or Austrian pine 8 -10 feet high on the East and 3 more
on West where indicated by the red stars.
We would plant 7 Mugo pines where indicated by yellow solid of at d height
of 2 - 4 feet.
We would plant spreading Junipers numbering at least 15 at a height of
1 - 3 feet where indicated by the yellow hatch marks.
Lawn on the West would be where indicated in green.
If I can be of any further assistance for clarification, please let me
know.
Sincere
UUCO26
Jr F
r I
I V
N a ?�
I
I
I_
I-.
I
I
� o
m
s
1
L
Z
P
U
V
UUCC27
N
I -_
I
I
I
I
I_
I-.
I
I
� o
m
s
1
L
Z
P
U
V
UUCC27
V
I
µ. e lrc �i4 t. 'J, rt..IYrSNq . .r.r♦ ,i }a• ..+I r ..• m. ✓�. -�N �N ..t� r. i:. 1. is
OU0028
�\ i
J-
M;
I
uU'CO29
0 0
lid
Al
8 A4 7
cp
, -
U00030
\ 4'' a`°`
1/\ �: X0 tar
L z
111 �
co l
l 1 /
I
I CJ
� r 8
7 '
I. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
TO: Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning Office
FROM: Jeffrey Shoaf
DATE: June 13, 1995
RE: Scenic Review - Ridgeline Lot 1, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa
Subdivision - Second Meeting with P &Z, July 1995
After having reviewed your Scenic Overlav information package, I would like to again request an
exemption for my above - referenced property as per C. Exemptions #3, which reads in total:
"Lots within platted subdivisions approved by the Board of County Commissioners
which have designated building envelopes."
This is the case with my above - referenced property.
As per our previous discussions and agreements and as a courtesy to you and the planning
department and because, philosophically, I agree with the intent and purpose of Scenic Overlav , I
have submitted what I believe to be a complete application for your information, reference, and
general comfort level. However, I do this as a courtesy only as I believe I am clearly exempted
from being compelled to do so.
I am forwarding herewith a second Application for Scenic Review - Ridgeline for my Gateway Road
property, which was prepared by Mr. Mark Hesselschwerdt and me (telephone 925- 4501).
As you know, the property is a part of the Board of County Commissioner's approved and platted
Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, Filing No. 2. Access to the property is obtained along
Gateway Drive. Authorization for the Planning Department to have access to the property for
purposes of inspection is hereby granted.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. As always, please feel free to call if you
have any questions.
truly yours,
i
i
Jeffre S. Sh af, 5 -4501
JSS:a2z
Enclosure
XI
The Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision is a residential community which, because
of its existence prior to Ordinance #90 -07, has extensive instances of development that
interposes themselves very negatively along the ridge.
The proposed residence can be seen as a minor protrusion from only a very short
distance along Capitol Creek Road as the improvements only break the skyline for about
one - quarter mile from Capitol Creek Road (see photos below). As far as
Snowmass Creek Road is concerned, the design from inception has been to meld the
structure into the natural surroundings, thereby further reducing any negative visual
impact.
The height of the residence has been reduced to 18 feet above existing grade, well below
the height limit, so as to mitigate to the extent possible negative impacts (see
landscaping plan for additional mitigation and Number VII, 8h" x 10" computer -
0 0 0 0 3 2enbanced photographs from both roads).
J\ `. II .I, I I� I� ] I� L�.�UI ' 11 /� v JI;, I ' 2J �IIIII,d(V I �_
- , �)�111(I�I I \ 'I I II I � � r �� , S I 1 I n ��
"56 L
20
Ce jr BM
0 6q,)g
wia Exi
-
E
7,
"55
26 2
X ,I 1 L - `)p �I, II` 1� -�.. .�.` -. I�I- \-_ \lll- �� - / ` \ D, I "54
Wti 33 50—
eQ � rl•I `' U\ ' (� 14
"53
410 � ;1� I•� :;,v � i1� I .. � \ \ � - 1 \� ` � k � � ��� �\ /(_ \ � �� .
Little
It
{tot ",j
Gap-
7271
OJ
"
lo,
1600-__
400
Ail
V.
A discussion of the eleven review criteria as they pertain to the site and as stipulated in
3 -604 "Scenic Overlay" of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, with comments by staff
from the May 16, 1995, meeting:
1. Staff comments, "This location is the best area on the site to build and minimize
visual impacts."
2. We again commit to utilize textured masonry and wood siding of natural earth
tone colors that best blend in with the existing colors of the ridge to mitigate
visual impacts.
Roof materials will be matching, naturally occurring earth tone colors of non -
reflective roofing material, probably asphalt shingles.
As per staff comments, we have incorporated the garage into the existing structure
to cluster development and help mitigate visual impacts and have lowered the
structure to a ridge highpoint of only eighteen feet above existing grade 120' as
per our topo on the most sensitive eastern exposure as seen from Snowmass
Creek Road and Gateway Road.
3. I am proposing here a one -story residence to be eighteen feet in height above
existing grade with an incorporated attached garage as per staff comment to
minimize visual impact on this site.
4. The staff opinion is that the proposed site is the best location on the lot.
5. As per staff comment, we have avoided the edge of the steep hillsides to either
side of the residence. By 'burying" the lower basement floor below grade and
both the north and south ends of the structure into the existing topography, we
have effectively made the improvements less visible from the public right -of -ways,
identified in Section (B)(1).
6. The staff opinion is that this is the most suitable portion of the lot for
development.
7. Detailed landscaping plan (see attached).
8. Our commitment to exterior lighting is as follows: as per staff comments, only low,
down -lit lighting for pedestrian use will be used.
9. Please see #7, Landscaping Plan, for mitigation. also, we are not visible from the
State Highway 82 corridor.
u00034
10. Staff comment: There are no scenic view- planes affecting this project.
11. Staff comment: The proposed building site avoids 1041 hazard areas.
In summary, the staff agreed with the applicant that the flat bench is the appropriate
building site. In light of staff's previous comments against a two -story, 28k feet above
grade structure, we have significantly lowered and modified our plans to be proposing
herein a one -story structure (with basement) that is only eighteen feet above existing
grade. We believe that proper siting combined with architectural techniques and
landscaping has substantially mitigated visual impacts. Our attached redesign and
detailed landscaping plan fully complies with the Scenic Overlay criteria.
We have gone to considerable lengths and expense to provide digitized, 3 -D computer
models for visual simulation, placing the proposed structure on actual photographs taken
from Snowmass Creek Road and Capitol Creek Road.
We are also having a model professionally constructed to better illustrate our proposed
development and we will erect a semi- permanent eighteen foot ridgeline pole on the
subject site for everyone's clarification by July 1, 1995.
If there is anything else we can do to better communicate or clarify our intentions,
please let me know.
925 -4501
JSS:a2z
Enclosures
U000
Sincerely,
R -•
V. REVIEW CRITERIA
#7, DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN
Regarding the landscaping plan on our subject property
and as per our on -site consultations with a landscaping architect, we
are comitted to the following landscaping details:
EASTERN EXPOSURE: Along the most sensitive Eastern exposure
that overlooks Snowmass Creek Road and the Gateway Mesa main road
we have been advised and hereby agree to planting numerous 3 to 5 foot
minium and up to 10 foot high coniferous trees for year around screening
along the entire exposed ridge line edge to further hide the residence
and garage. We've been advised that the appropriate species would be
a mixture of native Pinion Pines, Austrian Pines, Mugo Pines and
spreading Junipers combined with natural boulders to create a rock
garden like barrior complete with native flowers.
SOUTHERN EXPOSURE: On the hillside going up to the knoll to the
South of our building we would propose planting spreading Junipers,
Mugo pines and lower various native bushes like sagebrush and native
flowers.
WESTERN EXPOSURE: To the West of our building looking toward
Capitol Creek we'd put in a minimal lawn with decorative native schrubs
and flowers as needed,
NORTHERN EXPOSURE: Along the Northern edge of our property
bordering the Heedys' we'd use boulders, pines and perhaps spreading
Junipers with native flowers and schrubs as needed for driveway definition
and appearance and privacy.
In summary, our overall emphasis is on low maintenance and low
water consumption native species whereever possible combined with other
species proven hardy enough to survive in the somewhat hostile soil and
general conditions that exist on our site. We'd use drip watering
for low water usage where necessary.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Thankyou.
mXel
Jef of
925 4501
UUCU_ C
• t _ .
r te;'
V
`".
kN�'<
�r
���.: _-
� '• •L
� . '�� � Y
.��-
.� � �,
i �!� � �
�� ;': :�.
�' yr't
7_ , ,
�i,., ��.
_.;:
_ '" •r ..
� -
�.
r
t: '^ �
`. r ,' -'
'.S ?, 4 '�
rf� �.
�: _
f 4 � ` � .
M
.� r w
�' �.
� ,
.�. .. . . �
. � .. � L
.. r. ..
.�
,,;. .
Y
y N
C J
-I
w �
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis Krizmanich
RE: Shoaf Scenic Overlay / Ridgeline Review
DATE: May 16, 1995
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Scenic Overlay approval to
construct a single family residence on Lot 1, Block 3, Filing 2 of
the Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision. The proposed homesite
is located within a mapped ridgeline.
APPLICANTS: Jeffrey Shoaf
ZONING: R -30
LOT SIZE: 1.01 acres
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
Environmental Health Department - The following conditions are
recommended:
1. Written verification of water service must be provided before
a septic system permit can be issued.
2. The septic system permit must be approved prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. Permits for fireplaces and woodstoves are required prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
Zoning - The Zoning Office comments are attached. Joanna Schaffner
noted a zoning discrepancy in the Gateway Subdivision. The zoning
map indicates RS -30 (30 acre) zoning whereas BOCC Resolution No.
75 -28 indicates that the subdivision is zoned R -30 (30,000 square
feet). The staff notes that we intend to correct this problem;
however, this application is not affected. The staff notes that
the list of adjacent owners for this application appears to be
defective, in that the adjoining metes and bounds property owner
was not listed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Letters from neighbors have been submitted and are
attached.
SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW - RIDGELINE
The following discussion includes the ridgeline criteria and staff
comment:
ua,Ul
..r
1. Whether the development has utilized existing topography and
natural vegetation, such as ridges and hills to screen
buildings to the maximum extent possible.
Staff Comment: The subject site consists of a narrow, flat bench
with steeply sloping hillsides to the east and west. The site is
highly visible from numerous locations on Snowmass and Capitol
Creek Roads. The proposed residence is located near the center of
the flat bench. This location is the best area on the site to
build and minimize visual impacts. Natural vegetation does not
screen the site to any great extent. The staff notes that a knoll
exists to the southwest of the structure and will screen the
building from the junction of Snowmass and Capitol Creek Roads.
2. Whether the development has been designed to complement the
natural topography of the land, including, whenever possible
and appropriate, the utilization of innovative architectural
techniques such as earth sheltered design natural materials
and coloring, non - reflectability and clustering of structures
on the least visible portions of the site.
Staff Comment: The applicant's commitment to utilize textured
masonry and natural earthtone colors will help to mitigate visual
impacts. Roof materials have not been identified; a requirement
of approval should be that non - reflective roofing materials be
utilized. A second structure shown on the site plan appears to be
a detached garage; incorporating the garage into the existing
structure would "cluster" development on this site and would help
to mitigate visual impacts. The two story design of this structure
includes large expanses of glass that will likely be a significant
source of glare from the ridge top. Lowering the structure and /or
removing the upper glass areas will mitigate visual impacts from
glare.
3. Whether the development's height and bulk has been designed
to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the visibility of
buildings from the highway and public viewplanes.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a two story residence of
approximately 3,800 square feet and an accessory structure of
unknown dimension. The residence is proposed to be 28.5 feet in
height above existing grade. The proposed two story design does
not minimize visual impacts to the greatest extent possible. The
staff opinion is that a one story structure with an incorporated
garage is the best technique to minimize visual impacts on this
site.
4. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break
a ridgeline, unless there are no alternate building sites on
the lot.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that the proposed site is the
best location on the lot.
uU;.�42
5. Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of
uses on the highest ground or most visible portion of the site
as viewed from State Highway 82 and public right -of -ways,
identified in Section (B)(1).
Staff Comment: The applicant has avoided the edge of the steep
hillsides to either side of the residence. The staff recommends
that the structure be pulled away from the knoll on the southwest
side of the building to retain the screening effect of this natural
feature.
6. Whether the development has been located outside of the
designated Scenic overlay, or on a suitable site at the
greatest distance possible from State Highway 82 and
identified ridgelines.
Staff Comment: The staff opinion is that this is the most suitable
portion of the lot for development.
7. Whether the development has been landscaped in accordance with
the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and
has preserved natural vegetation, to the maximum extent
possible, including the avoidance of development within
irrigated meadows. Existing vegetation shall be maintained
to the maximum extent possible, while using existing
vegetation to screen development. A landscaping plan shall
be submitted by the Applicant and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Staff Comment: This project could benefit from landscaping
provided along both sides of the building site. The applicant has
not committed to provide any landscaping for this project. Before
this project can be approved, the staff recommends that a detailed
landscaping plan be provided.
8. Whether the development's exterior lighting has been designed
in such a manner that light sources, such as facade and
landscape lighting, will not be seen from public right -of-
ways as identified in Section (B)(1). In addition, an
application shall be consistent with the lighting regulations
identified in the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Staff Comment: The applicant has committed to no exterior lighting
on the south or southwest sides of the building. The staff
recommends that all outside lighting, including security spot
lights, landscape and building accent lighting be prohibited. only
low, down -lit, bollard style lighting for pedestrian use should be
permitted on this visually sensitive site.
9. Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable
as the sole measure of compliance with these regulations.
However, they may be utilized in conjunction with other site
techniques designed into the development plan. These methods
ulju343
0
may be acceptable when utilized as one of several methods to
complement and enhance development, rather than as the single
device for screening development from view from the State
Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Staff Comment: It is likely
conjunction with a landscaping
mitigating visual impacts.
that the use of landforms in
plan for this site would aid in
10. Whether the development has been designed so as to avoid, to
the maximum extent possible, any Scenic Viewplane identified
on the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: There are no scenic viewplanes affecting this
project.
11. In the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may be in conflict with
preservation of scenic areas, the Board acknowledges that 1041
issues take precedence over scenic concerns. These issues
shall be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Staff Comment: The proposed building site avoids 1041 hazard
areas.
SUMMARY: The staff agrees with the applicant that the flat bench
is the appropriate building site. The staff does not support the
applicant's proposed two story design. The large size of the
structure - 3,800 square feet, plus an undetermined garage size -
will visually dominate the ridge line. The applicant has not
chosen to utilize architectural techniques or landscaping to
mitigate visual impacts. The staff opinion is that this
application requires significant redesign and a detailed
landscaping plan in order to comply with the Scenic Overlay
criteria.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue this application to provide the applicant time
to develop architectural and landscaping plans that comply with the
ridgeline criteria. In addition, the applicant shall provide the
names and addresses of adjacent property owners who were not
notified of this hearing.
000044
s
C 0 M A Y %1995
MEMORANDIIM
T /
To: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
From: Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health Department . tl., m , 5 K
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director XtC_
Date: May 1, 1995
Re: Shoaf Ridgeline Review
Parcel ID # 2467- 343 -05 -007
----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The Aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
details of the Shoaf Ridgeline Review application under the
authority of the Pitkin County Code Land Use Code and has the
following comments.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2 -17 and 3 -1104:
"It is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a water supply of adequate quality, quantity,
pressure and dependability for fire protection and support of a proposed land use prior to approval of the
use. The County shall require Lend uses to hook up to existing public systems if service is available."
Water for Lot 1, Block 3 in Gateway of Snowmass Mesa should be
provided by the subdivision's water system. The applicants will
be required to provide this Department with written verification
from the homeowner's association of intent to service this
property.
A condition of approval will be written verification of
water service for this property before a septic permit
can be issued.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2 -18 and 3 -1105:
"It is the policy of the County to insure that adequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve
existing and new developments. Public and private sewage disposal systems and connections to such systems
shall comply with the sewage disposal guidelines of Pitkin County Code Title X."
Lots in the Gateway of Snowmass Mesa area are served by
individual septic systems. All such systems installed within
Pitkin County require permits issued by the Environmental Health
Department, and must comply with the County regulations. To
receive a septic permit, the applicant will need to submit a
Septic Permit Application and appropriate fee with a completed
Soil Data Form including perc test results and profile hole
information. These results must be stamped by a registered
engineer. It must be possible to design an adequate wastewater
1
uu X045
IN
disposal system before a building permit can be issued.
The Aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Department will design the
system for the applicant as part of the permit fee, unless an
engineered system is needed, which we determine based on soil
test results. Should any one of the following conditions occur,
an engineer- designed system will be required: a percolation rate
faster than 5 mpi or slower than 60 mpi; maximum seasonal level
of the groundwater table or bedrock less than four feet below the
bottom of the proposed absorption system; or a slope in excess of
30%. It is likely that an engineer- designed system will be
required due to the steepness of the slope and the possibility of
slow percolation rates in the area.
All setback requirements between pertinent physical features must
be maintained. The applicant should refer to the Pitkin County
Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations for detailed -.
information, and call our office to discuss this site.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
and approval of the septic permit by the Environmental
Health Department before a building permit can be issued.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2 -14 and 3 -705 and 3 -710:
"It is the policy of the County to preserve and protect its present water resources. To this end it is the
policy of the County that no Land use be initiated which would adversely affect the quantity, quality, or
accessibility of the County's water resources; or which would occur at the expense of established water -
dependent agricultural activities; or which would result in increased salinization of water resources, loss
of minimum stream flows, further destruction of wildlife habitat, or major expenditures to reacquire or
redistribute major water resources. It is also the policy of the County to maintain a natural vegetative
buffer along its surface waters such that the surface and groundwaters of the area are not encroached upon
by land uses or other human activities which could cause deterioration of water quality or impair the
natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands."
The Environmental Health Department will be addressing impacts on
down stream water quality. This application is not expected to
impact down stream water quality if the minimum horizontal
distances between components of the system and physical features
are in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulations
There is no condition of approval related to water quality.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2 -13 and 3 -602:
"DnLy that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in
Pitkin County. Developments may not constitute an indirect or direct air pollution source under Federal,
State or County regulations."
This project is not expected to contribute significantly to
degradation of air quality in Pitkin County.
2
QUi,:146
The less densely populated parts of Pitkin County like Gateway of
Snowmass Mesa may have one wood burning fireplace and one
department certified device or two department certified devices
per building. In addition, unlimited numbers of decorative gas
appliances are allowed. Coal may not be burned in any device. No
wood burning device may be installed in barns or agricultural
buildings.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt
and approval of the fireplace /woodstove permit by the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit
can be issued.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2=7
"It is the policy of the County to ensure that no use or development of Land is permitted which is in
violation of the laws of the County, the State of Colorado, or the United States of America.-'
This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding
other environmental health laws.
... ENV:UP:LAND USE:SHOAF.RIDGELINE
3
ULj
CM
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer
DATE: April 25, 1995
.ns
RE: Shoaf Ridgeline Review
Parcel ID# 2467- 343 -05 -007
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following comments.
ZONE: Current zoning maps indicate that the Gateway to Snowmass
Subdivision is zoned RS -30.
BOCC Resolution 75 -28 indicates that the Gateway to Snowmass
Subdivision was zoned R -30. It is believed that an error was -,made
in the mapping. Historically, staff has considered the subdivision
to be RS -30, pursuant to the zoning maps. The discrepancy between
the resolution and the map was not discovered until recently.
RS -30, thirty acre minimum lot size
R -30, thirty thousand square foot minimum lot size
This parcel contains approximately 1.01 acres and is non - conforming
in size in the RS -30 zone but is conforming in size in the R -30
zone district.
SETBACKS: The required setbacks for this parcel are:
30 foot front yard setback
20 foot side yard setback
30 foot rear yard setback
The proposed residence lies outside of all required setbacks. The
proposed detached garage appears to encroach slightly into the
required 20 foot side yard setback.
FLOOR AREA: Pursuant to RS -30 zoning, this parcel is allowed a
total of 15,000 square feet of floor area. All structures are
included in the calculation of floor area.
Pursuant to R -30 zoning, the FAR is thirteen percent of the lot
area (lot size minus the road easement) . The lot size is
approximately 43,996 square feet. The amount of area contained
within the road easement is not known at this time. Under R -30
zoning, the maximum floor area allowed for this lot would be less
than 5,719, (43,996 x .13 = 5,719) as this amount does not include
the deduction of the road easement from the lot size.
The applicant does not represent how much floor area is proposed
in this residence.
HEIGHT: Sufficient information has not been submitted to
determine compliance with County height regulations.
ut -J48
Pitkin County Planning Department
Att: Francis Krizmanich
May 1, 1995
Dear Mr. Krizmanich,
I have just learned of your solicitation for comments
from Gateway residents on the proposed construction on top of
Gateway Road by Mr.shoaf. I would like to voice my objection to
the proposed building of a structure that would compromise the
look of our most prominent knoll, and infringe on my view of the
ridge. I understand that the proposed construction is subject to
your review, and as a homeowner that views the site directly,I am
very concerned.
I ask you
and only approve
others that view
homes in gateway
surroundings and
seen because of i
process will kee
p
Sincerely yours,
u to please review Mr. Shoaf's plans as submitted
that which is the least damaging to my view and
the ridge an Knoll throughout the area. Other
have been designed to minimize damage to the
view plane, including mine which can hardly be
is low profile. I am hopeful that the review
the damage of the ridge to a very minimum.
Marcia Carman
0555 Light
Snowmass,
927 -3709
Hill Road
CO 81654
iJt1,J4`
MAY -05 -1995 12 :48 p,02
V �
Francs Km%manich
Pitkur County Planning
Aspen, CO
Re: the Sheaf property, Gateway
From Rick Heede, Gateway
Dear Mr. Krismanich= 5 May 1995
Thank you for inviting comments on Mr. Shoafs proposed house in Gateway_ I am a
neighbor of his, and therefore very interested in Mr. Shoafs plans. As Mr. Sheaf states in
his comments to the Pitkin County Planning Office, several homes on Gateway have al-
ready broken the ridgeline, among them my home (lot 14A) adjacent to and immediately
north of his lot. Susan Hassel's and my home was built before Scenic Review became
law, but even so we made every effort to minimi its height, and it stands at 19 feet
above original grade_ Our finished grade is somewhat lower, since we backfilled against
the east and north sides. We excavated, at moderate ex to place our garage com-
pletely below original grade. We chose eight foot ceilings and a flat roof to lower the
profile of our home. Numerous similar options arc available to Mr. Sheaf.
Mr. Sheaf and Mr. Hesselschwerdt submitted an Application for Scenic Review that is
faulty in many specific and general respects. First, general comments:
• Since they copied the'Weil /Carp Scenic Review application verbatim (changing only
the height of their building), readers have no way of telling which points truly apply
to the Sheaf proposal and which are simply copied. Such plagiarism is confusing.
• The photos submitted do not give an accurate representation of the building's scenic
impact. Specifically, on the photo titled Snowmass Creek, only part of the home has
been drawn in at the very edge of the photo, and, I submit, his 28 foot house will
stick up far higher than he has drawn it. On the photo titled Capital (sic) Creek, the
photographer has positioned himself behind a tree down by Capitol Creek Road so
as to obscure his lot, and thus his proposed house is not visible. I am upset by such
deceit Accurate representations of the visual impact of his proposed building
should be submitted with his application.
• His proposed house is too large for the lot He bought the smallest lot platted at
Gateway, and wants to, since he is building the house on spec, maximize his finan-
cial return. This much is normal economic behavior on his part, however regrettable.
The fact is that he is a knowledgeable buyer, being a local realtor, and he is certainly
aware of the negative economic impact his large house will have on his immediate
neighbors. He should not be allowed to build a house that is so out of proportion to
his lot. It affects me directly, in that he will be building very close to my house, and
he will not have a yard to speak of to help separate our two homes.
• Another consequence of his oversized plans is that he is planning to build his garage
right up to the mini mum. setback of 20 feet, which to my wife and 1 means, since we
have a right -of -way across a corner of his land for our driveway, that his garage will
protrude several feet into our drive. Incidentally, his submission makes no mention of
a garage, nor is it drawn on the elevation drawings; the only evidence of it is drawn
in on the surveyor's map. Is it planned or not?
U.. 1
MAY -05 -1995 1293 P.03
\w a✓
• If I am not mistaken, county building codes require the top of a chimney be 2 feet
above the roofs ridge_ If this is the case, Mr. Shoafs building will be a total height of
30.5 feet above original grade_
In reference to specific sections of Mr. Shoats application:
• (E.1). He is not excavating into the ridge. In fact, he is not planning to excavate at all,
save for the minimum his soils engineer reportedly recommended. His building can in
fact be sunk several feet into the ground, or he can lower his building platform
(except for a berm on the east side, to hide the house from Snowmass Creek Road)
by removing 2 -3 feet of dirt and sinking the building into the ground.
• (E.2). I can see no evidence of planned earth sheltering in his submitted plans. Mr.
Shoaf must be thinking about the Weil /Carp house.
(E3). It is disengenuous for Mr. Shoaf to claim that his "residence has been designed
to afford the lowest possible height" (my italics). Are we to believe that a 28.5 foot
house shows reasonable mitigation considering the visibility and sensitivity of his
location? I certainly do not consider it adequate, and urge the Planning Commission
to reject his application on this ground alone_ Let me state unequivocally, hcnvever
that whatever he builds will affect my viewplane, and the oversized house he is
planning will look monstrous indeed, due to its proximity, height, and size. I'd be far
more supportive of his plans if his house were substantially mitigated, say to the
height of my own house, namely 19 feet. A single -story house with a larger footprint
would be far preferable to the large two-story model being proposed_
• (E.4). Yes, there is no alternative building site.
•
(F-5). There is no reasonable way to avoid building on the highest ground: ail other
portions of Mr. Shoafs land am quite steep, and would likely result in greater degra-
dation of the scenic resource. It is not true, however, that his "development will be a
smaller protrusion to the ridgeiine," nor that it will be seen from "only a short dis-
tance on Capitol Creek Road." Moreover, neither the Commission nor Mr. Shoaf 's
neighbors (or anyone living in Old Snowmass) have a good idea what the scenic
impact will be because the photos supplied with the application are useless and his
28.5 foot ridgepole was not, as far as I know, photographed, and was left standing
for only a few minutes, thus denying anyone the chance to see it. l concur that my
house and others already built do impact the scenic resource, but these homes were
built prior to the ridgeline review process. Mr. and Mrs. Hecker, who recently com-
pleted a home on the same ridge, mitigated substantially. I believe the other pro-
posed home now before the commission, the Weil/Carp house, will be mitigated
down to a height of 16.5 feet. Mr_ Shoaf should be held to the same standard,
especially since his house will be visible from everywhere in the valley.
• (E.6).Ok
• (E.'n. The site was bulldozed when Gateway was created, and there is very little
vegetation to be saved_ Will trees in fact be planted? Has a landscaping plan been
submitted?
• (H8). Isere again the reader is confused by Mr. Shoat's copying the Weil /Carp
application instead of writing his own. In fact, exterior lighting on the east and north
will be visible from Snowmass Creek Road.
• (E.9). Not proposed, but some earth sheltering or berming may be appropriate.
• (E.10) and (E.11). Ok.
u 0051
MAY -05 -1595 12 :49 P.04
• Summary. Again words are taken verbatim from the Weil /Carp application and
obfuscates the impact of W. Shoafs real plans.
How can Mr. Shoaf mitigate? By building a smaller home really in proportion to his lot,
decreasing the c eiling height designing a flat roof, lowering the building into the ground,
eliminating the separate garage, and planting trees. I hope the Commission will instruct
Mr. Shoal to design a home more in keeping with the spirit of the Scenic Review process_
Respectfully,
G
Richard Heede
TOTPL P.04
Uu ; J52
Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
April 29,1995
Mr. Krizmanich,
I am writing to comment on the ridge line review of the Shoaf residence. I
live below the property under review and the subject ridge is directly in my
view. I strenuously object to such a large house being built on such a
prominent ridge. --
When I was looking for property in this area, I was dissuaded from
purchasing land in Brush Creek because of the mitigation I understood
would be required by the ridge line review ordinance. For this reason, I
chose to purchase my house in Gateway. The Shoaf plan as submitted
does not abide by the ridge line ordinance in any way, and if it is allowed to
be built as proposed, it would make a mockery of the ridge line review
process and be quite unfair to property owners like myself, who will suffer
as a result.
I strongly urge you to require serious mitigation of the height and bulk of
this residence to preserve the ridge line and abide by the County ordinance.
It was my understanding that a house of the size and bulk of the proposed
Shoaf residence was something I never had to worry would appear on the
ridge above my house, due to the ridge line review process. I will be
shocked if the county allows such a building to be constructed.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these remarks.
Sincerely,
Melvin Au
0505 Gateway Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
uUu:,753
.r.
CM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Francis Krizmanich
FROM: Susan Hassol, 1626 Gateway Rd., Snowmass CO, phone 927 -9511
RE: Ridge Line Review for the Shoaf Residence
DATE: April 28, 1995
Mr. Krizmanich:
I have been informed by the homeowners association that you seek comments on the proposed
Shoaf residence for ridge line review. After examining the submittal of Mr. Shoaf, I have a
number of concerns.
• Can building a house 30'6" tall on a ridge really be considered "mitigating" the height?
• Can adding a detached garage (or whatever that other building is) in a very prominent
location on the ridge be considered mitigating the bulk? `
• Can digging down a mere two feet be considered mitigation? (The soils in the area require
digging down at least that far.)
• Why does the submittal mention no exterior lighting on the south and southwest but make
no mention of lighting to the north and east, the sides that will be most apparent from
Snowmass Creek Road?
The proposed house on a building pad the size of this one is completely out of proportion to
anything in Gateway. There is not a smaller building pad in the subdivision. Yet the owner
seeks to build one of the largest houses in Gateway, with over 4,000 square feet of living
space. If he wanted to build a big house, he should have purchased a big lot.
As a real estate agent, the owner was a knowledgeable buyer who was fully aware that this
property would be subject to ridge line review. For him to argue that there is no other way or
no other place to build, is to make his problem your problem. He could remedy the situation by
digging the house down and using a flat roof, like the Hecker residence, built on an adjacent lot
one year ago. Similarly, he could reduce the size of the house, and could reduce the bulk by
incorporating the garage into the house instead of making it an additional building.
With the submittal of Weil/Carp, also up for review at this meeting, we can see an example of a
party taking the ridge line review ordinance seriously. The height and bulk of the Weil/Carp
house are substantially reduced over what they might be. The Shoaf submittal, by contrast, is
an insult to the ordinance.
The Shoaf submittal makes reference to the fact that development prior to ridge line review has
already impacted the ridge. That is irrelevant to the current review. Still, if he is referring to my
house, I can tell you that it is 19 feet at its maximum height, even though there was no
restriction at the time it was built.
I respectfully suggest that some form of mitigation be required for the Shoaf residence. I
appreciate your attention to this matter.
/X /�/ ,
UtJL754
0
May 1, 1995
Mr. Francis Krizmanich,
Pitkin County
Planning ,& Zone
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Krizmanich,
N
The issue of the Shoaf residence in Gateway Mesa has
recently come to our attention. While not being fully apprised
of the details, we understand that the Gateway Association has
voted or will vote to approve the Shoaf residence up on the
ridgeline. We object in principal to such a large residence
being built on the ridge and hope that either a downsizing or
reorientation of the dwelling will be more keeping - with -
current building practices in the Gateway Mesa area.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dubin
305 Gateway Road
Snowmass
(303)927 -9563
1510 Ontario Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91103
(818)577 -2699
b14 0 e 1995
H x-
u.;��755
MY -03 -1935 1504 P.01
Fkx gDo- S�
STARRY C. /
2dl@ Hoow IA E41.
CO IS J
CA7�, rip LIU% 4--tit
I ts Ica.-
0.0 '
tu
tL � Cwv� UlLj-
TOTAL P.01
uu ,:]56
uuu._ -57
MAY- 03 -1St)5 15:04 n P. 01
�. fihngey Hurkn .,
F A X
STARRY PBMq
2m PAQW. Crarek
.. ?a.nwmnoa. CO 91e.',1
_ TQ: Pte.,
Rte; T" S
l - V
t u ,
OL
Q?
�U�;758
TOTAL P.01
a
May 1, 1995
Mr. Francis Krizmanich,
Pitkin County
Planning & Zone
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Krizmanich,
The issue of the Shoaf residence in Gateway Mesa has
recently come to our attention. While not being fully apprised
of the details, we understand that the Gateway Association has
voted or will vote to approve the Shoaf residence up on the
ridgeline. We object in principal to such a large residence
being buil on the ridge and hope that either a downsizing or
reorientation of the dwelling will be more in - keeping
current building practices in the Gateway Mesa area.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Dubin
305 Gateway Road
Snowmass
(303)927 -9563
1510 Ontario Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91103
(818)577 -2699
U� G ]`Jy
MEMORANDUM
TO: Francis Krizmanich
FROM: Susan Hassol, 1626 Gateway Rd., Snowmass CO, phone 927 -9511
RE: Ridge Line Review for the Shoaf Residence
DATE: April 28, 1995
Mr. Krizmanich:
I have been informed by the homeowners association that you seek comments on the proposed
Shoaf residence for ridge line review. After examining the submittal of Mr. Shoaf, I have a
number of concerns.
• Can building a house 30'6" tall on a ridge really be considered "mitigating" the height?
• Can adding a detached garage (or whatever that other building is) in a very prominent
location on the ridge be considered mitigating the bulk?
• Can digging down a mere two feet be considered mitigation? (The soils in the area require
digging down at least that far.)
• Why does the submittal mention no exterior lighting on the south and southwest but make
no mention of lighting to the north and east, the sides that will be most apparent from
Snowmass Creek Road?
The proposed house on a building pad the size of this one is completely out of proportion to
anything in Gateway. There is not a smaller building pad in the subdivision. Yet the owner
seeks to build one of the largest houses in Gateway, with over 4,000 square feet of living
space. If he wanted to build a big house, he should have purchased a big lot.
As a real estate agent, the owner was a knowledgeable buyer who was fully aware that this
property would be subject to ridge line review. For him to argue that there is no other way or
no other place to build, is to make his problem your problem. He could remedy the situation by
digging the house down and using a flat roof, like the Hecker residence, built on an adjacent lot
one year ago. Similarly, he could reduce the size of the house, and could reduce the bulk by
incorporating the garage into the house instead of making it an additional building.
With the submittal of Weil/Carp, also up for review at this meeting, we can see an example of a
party taking the ridge line review ordinance seriously. The height and bulk of the Weil/Carp
house are substantially reduced over what they might be. The Shoaf submittal, by contrast, is
an insult to the ordinance.
The Shoaf submittal makes reference to the fact that development prior to ridge line review has
already impacted the ridge. That is irrelevant to the current review. Still, if he is referring to my
house, I can tell you that it is 19 feet at its maximum height, even though there was no
restriction at the time it was built.
I respectfully suggest that some form of mitigation be required for the Shoaf residence. I
appreciate your attention to this matter.
l;jo9bo
Francis Krismanich
Pitkin County Planning
Aspen, CO
Re: the Shoaf property, Gateway
From Rick Heede, Gateway
Dear Mr. Krismanich:
5 May 1995
Thank you for inviting comments on Mr. Shoaf's proposed house in Gateway. I am a
neighbor of his, and therefore very interested in Mr. Shoafs plans. As Mr. Shoaf states in
his comments to the Pitkin County Planning Office, several homes on Gateway have al-
ready broken the ridgeline, among them my home (lot 14A) adjacent to and immediately
north of his lot. Susan Hassol's and my home was built before Scenic Review became
law, but even so we made every effort to minimize its height, and it stands at 19 feet
above original grade. Our finished grade is somewhat lower, since we backfilled against
the east and north sides. We excavated, at moderate expense, to place our garage com-
pletely below original grade. We chose eight foot ceilings and a flat roof to lower the
profile of our home. Numerous similar options are available to Mr. Sheaf.
Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Hesselschwerdt submitted an Application for Scenic Review that is
faulty in many specific and general respects. First, general comments:
• Since they copied the Weil /Carp Scenic Review application verbatim (changing only
the height of their building), readers have no way of telling which points truly apply
to the Shoaf proposal and which are simply copied. Such plagiarism is confusing.
• The photos submitted do not give an accurate representation of the building's scenic
impact. Specifically, on the photo titled Snowmass Creek, only part of the -home has
been drawn in at the very edge of the photo, and, I submit, his of house will
stick up far higher than he has drawn it. On the photo ti Capital (sic) Creek, the
photographer has positioned himself behind a tree n by Capitol Creek Road so
as to obscure his lot, and thus his proposed house ' not visible. I am upset by such
deceit. Accurate representations of the vis impact of his proposed building
should be submitted with his applicatio .
His proposed house is too large for the lot. He bought the smallest lot platted at
Gateway, and wants to, since he is building the house on spec, maximize his finan-
cial return. This much is normal economic behavior on his part, however regrettable.
The fact is that he is a knowledgeable buyer, being a local realtor, and he is certainly
aware of the negative economic impact his large house will have on his immediate
neighbors. He should not be allowed to build a house that is so out of proportion to
his lot. It affects me directly, in that he will be building very close to my house, and
he will not have a yard to speak of to help separate our two homes.
Another consequence of his oversized plans is that he is planning to build his garage
right up to the minimum setback of 20 feet, which to my wife and I means, since we
have a right -of -way across a corner of his land for our driveway, that his garage will
protrude several feet into our drive. Incidentally, his submission makes no mention of
a garage, nor is it drawn on the elevation drawings; the only evidence of it is drawn
in on the surveyor's map. Is it planned or not?
UU01061
4
• If I am not mistaken, county building codes require the top of a chimney be 2 feet
above the roof's ridge. If this is the case, Mr. Sheaf's building will be a total height of
30.5 feet above original grade.
In reference to specific sections of Mr. Sheaf's application:
• (E.1). He is not excavating into the ridge. In fact, he is not planning to excavate at all,
save for the minimum his soils engineer reportedly recommended. His building can in
fact be sunk severallfeet into the ground, or he can lower his building platform
(except for a berm on the east side, to bide the house from Snowmass Creek Road)
by removing 2 -3 feet of dirt and sinking the building into the ground.
• (E.2). I can see no evidence of planned earth sheltering in his submitted plans. Mr.
Sheaf must be thinking about the Weil /Carp house.
• (E.3). It is disengenuous for Mr. Shoaf to claim that his "residence has been designed
to afford the lowest possible height" (my italics). Are we to believe that a 28.5 foot
house shows reasonable mitigation considering the visibility and sensitivity of his
location? I certainly,do not consider it adequate, and urge the Planning Commission
to reject his application on this ground alone. Let me state unequivocally, however,
that whatever he builds will affect my viewplane, and the oversized house he is
planning will look monstrous indeed, due to its proximity, height, and size. I'd be far
more supportive of ,his plans if his house were substantially mitigated, say to the
height of my own house, namely 19 feet. A single -story house with a larger footprint
would be far preferable to the large two -story model being proposed.
• (E.4). Yes, there is no alternative building site.
• (E.5). There is no reasonable way to avoid building on the highest ground: all other
portions of Mr. Shoaf's land are quite steep, and would likely result in greater degra-
dation of the scenic !resource. It is not true, however, that his "development will be a
smaller protrusion to the ridgeline," nor that it will be seen from "only a short dis-
tance on Capitol Creek Road." Moreover, neither the Commission nor Mr. Shoaf "S
neighbors (or anyone living in Old Snowmass) have a good idea what the scenic
impact will be because the photos supplied with the application are useless and his
28.5 foot ridgepole was not, as far as I know, photographed, and was left standing
for only a few minutes, thus denying anyone the chance to see it. I concur that my
house and others already built do impact the scenic resource, but these homes were
built prior to the ridgeline review process. Mr. and Mrs. Hecker, who recently com-
pleted a home on the same ridge, mitigated substantially. I believe the other pro-
posed home now before the commission, the Weil /Carp house, will be mitigated
down to a height of 16.5 feet. Mr. Shoaf should be held to the same standard,
especially since his house will be visible from everywhere in the valley.
• (E.6).Ok
• (E.7). The site was bulldozed when Gateway was created, and there is very little
vegetation to be saved. Will trees in fact be planted? Has a landscaping plan been
submitted?
• (E.8). Here again the reader is confused by Mr. Sheaf's copying the Weil /Carp
application instead of writing his own. In fact, exterior lighting on the east and north
will be visible from Snowmass Creek Road.
• (E.9). Not proposedl, but some earth sheltering or berming may be appropriate.
• (E.10) and (E.11). Ok.
UUC06
2
T '
CM
• Summary. Again words are taken verbatim from the Weil /Carp application and
obfuscates the impact of Mr. Shoaf's real plans.
How can Mr. Shoaf mitigate? By building a smaller home really in proportion to his lot,
decreasing the ceiling height, designing a flat roof, lowering the building into the ground,
eliminating the separate garage, and planting trees. I hope the Commission will instruct
Mr. Shoaf to design a home more in keeping with the spirit of the Scenic Review process.
Respectfully,
Richard Heede
uOG363
Pitkin County Planning Department
Att: Francis Krizmanich
May 1, 1995
Dear Mr. Krizmanich,
I have just learned of your solicitation for comments
from Gateway residents on the proposed construction on top of
Gateway Road by Mr.shoaf. I would like to voice my objection to
the proposed building of a structure that would compromise the
look of our most prominent knoll, and infringe on my view of the
ridge. I understand that the proposed construction is subject to
your review, and as a homeowner that views the site directly,I am
very concerned.
I ask you to please review Mr. Shoaf's plans as submitted
and only approve that which is the least damaging to my view and
others that view the ridge an Knoll throughout the area. Other
homes in gateway have been designed to minimize damage to the
surroundings and view plane, including mine which can hardly be
seen because of its low profile. I am hopeful that the review
process will keep the damage of the ridge to a very minimum.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Carman
0555 Light
Snowmass,
927 -3709
Hill Road
CO 81654
u00064
Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
April 29,1995
Mr. Krizmanich,
I am writing to comment on the ridge line review of the Shoaf residence. I
live below the property under review and the subject ridge is directly in my
view. I strenuously object to such a large house being built on such a
prominent ridge.
When I was looking for property in this area, I was dissuaded from
purchasing land in Brush Creek because of the mitigation I understood
would be required by the ridge line review ordinance. For this reason, I
chose to purchase my house in Gateway. The Shoaf plan as submitted
does not abide by the ridge line ordinance in any way, and if it is allowed to
be built as proposed, it would make a mockery of the ridge line review
process and be quite unfair to property owners like myself, who will suffer
as a result.
I strongly urge you to require serious mitigation of the height and bulk of
this residence to preserve the ridge line and abide by the County ordinance.
It was my understanding that a house of the size and bulk of the proposed
Shoaf residence was something I never had to worry would appear on the
ridge above my house, due to the ridge line review process. I will be
shocked if the county allows such a building to be constructed.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these remarks.
Sincerely,
Melvin Aug
0505 Gateway Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
UUUIJ65
April 7, 1995
Letter of Introduction
Ms. Ellen Sassano, Planners and Board Members
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Scenic. Review - Ridgeline: Lot 1, Block 3
Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Subdivision
Dear Ellen, Susan and All:
I am forwarding herewith an Application for Scenic Review - Ridgeline for my
Gateway Road property, which was prepared by Mr. Mark Hesselschwerdt and me
(telephone 925 - 4501).
As you know, the property is a part of the Board of County Commissioner's
approved and platted Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, Filing No. 2. Access to
the property is obtained along Gateway Drive. Authorization to the Planning
Department to have access to the property for purposes of inspection is hereby granted.
As we have discussed, Mary Lackner would be an appropriate planner to review
this application since Mary has been involved in similar applications in Gateway of
Snowmass.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. As always, please feel
free to call if you have any questions.
ery 4trully urs, Je raf
JSS:a2z
uUGJ66
April 7, 1995
Planner
Planning and Zoning Department
Pitkin County City Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: SCENIC REVIEW - RIDGELINE
Lot 1, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Subdivision
Dear Planner:
Enclosed is our application for review of a proposed residence containing
approximately 3800 square feet of living space, plus three -car garage.
Please find our submissions in the form of:
I Letter of Introduction.
II A $1,020.00 review deposit.
III Names and addresses of abutting property owners.
IV A statement of residential use by applicant.
V A discussion of 11 review criteria as they pertain to the site and as
stipulated in 3 -604 "SCENIC OVERLAY" of the PITKIN COUNTY
LAND USE CODE.
VI Copy of Deed and Closing Statement showing ownership of the subject
property.
VII Copies of three 8V' X 10" photographs of the pertinent ridge line as seen
from Capital Creek and Snowmass Creek Roads. A statement of prior
development on the ridge.
VIII A surveyor's topographic map of the property showing the proposed
footprint and indicating that the proposed site location is the only
suitable location on the lot so as to avoid hazards due to the steepness of
the subject property.
IX Elevations showing height and mass from all directions.
wGOb7
X A geology report of the subject property from Hepworth - Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc.
XI A summary of the impact and applicant's initiatives of mitigation.
XII A discussion of 1041 Hazards existing on the subject property as
acknowledged under Section 3 -604 of the PITKIN COUNTY LAND
USE CODE.
Sincerely,
J ffrey . Sh f
JSS:a2z
OUC06 3
III
Abutting Property Owners
(names, addresses, and legal)
Don Hecker
1617 Gateway Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Lot 2, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision
Richard Heede
Susan J. Hassol
1626 Gateway Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Lot 14 -A, Block 2, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision
Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Property Owners
Post Office Box 211
Snowmass, CO 81654
Lot 13, Block 1, Filing 1
C.M. Dance and Warren L. Palmer
Post Office Box 6447
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Lot 12, Block 1, Filing 1, Gateway Road
UUCUb9
un
A statement of residential use by the applicant.
The applicant does not intend to occupy the proposed home. I am a twenty -five year
permanent resident of Pitkin County and intend on selling the proposed residence.
Jeffrey S. Shoaf
LjUGJ A
�y
VA
3 -604
(E)
1. The proposed development has incorporated in its design, to maximum
extent possible, the existing topography to screen the height and bulk of the residence, by
excavating into the ridge and building as tightly into the excavation as possible, thereby
reducing the maximum height down to 30'6 ". Our plan has also been developed to save
all trees to aid in the screening of the residence.
2. The design of the residence has attempted to mitigate any negative impact
and has incorporated the use of earth sheltering, textured masonry exterior to blend into
and with the natural topography and the use of natural earth tone colors for the exterior
walls and roof, matched as closely to the natural surroundings as possible.
3. The residence has been designed to afford the lowest possible height as
viewed from Snowmass Creek Road and Capitol Creek Road. Whereas the County has
a 33' height limit, we have mitigated the allowable height. Our footprint is as compact
as possible given the topographical and ridgeline restraints.
4. There is only one building site due to the steepness of the property on all
sides of the current building footprint.
5. The best building site suitable is on the flat area on the ridge running
through four lots (16 -A, 14 -A, 15 -A and subject Lot 1) approximately 600' parallel to
Gateway Road and ending at a prominent knoll to the south at the ending Cul -De -Sac of
Gateway Road. Prior construction (before Ridgeline) to the north of the subject (Lots
16 -A and 14 -A) is quite visible when viewed from Capitol Creek or Snowmass Creek
Roads. It is the applicant's view that our development will be a smaller protrusion to
the ridgeline and seen from only a short distance on Capitol Creek Road and is partially
obscured from view by stands of large (40') Cottonwood trees that run along Snowmass
Creek Road.
6. Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision is within a mapped ridgeline area,
and was created prior to the conception of the Scenic Overlay. The residence will not be
located near the Highway 82 corridor, but is visible from Snowmass Creek and Capitol
Creek Roads.
7. The applicants will make every effort possible to avoid the loss of any
natural vegetation to the maximum extent. There are no trees to be eliminated and very
possibly trees added with the final landscaping.
8. No exterior lighting to the south or southwest will be use.
9. These methods are not proposed.
UUCU i "1
's
F
10. The site is within a mapped ridgeline area and not a scenic view plane.
11. Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners in 1968. The subdivision has many geologic concerns which do
not require 1041 hazard review, due to the Board's approval of the Subdivision. Because
of the steepness of the slopes that characterize the subject property, the development site
is the best suitable location available on the lot so as to avoid hazards.
Summary: The applicant has reduced the height and bulk of the development by
excavating into the existing ridge, the total height from existing ridge grade will be so as
to minimize any negative impact as viewed from Snowmass Creek Road or Capitol
Creek Road. The development is of simple design and detailing, proportioned for the
lot size, and will use materials to blend with the natural landscape and earth tone colors
to work with the surroundings. No exterior lighting will be used to the south or
southwest. Native vegetation will be saved and used to screen the residence along with
the planting of new trees in the landscape design Whereas 3 -604 address 1041 hazard
area (conflict with scenic concerns), the applicant has made every effort to mitigate
wherever possible to reduce any negative impact the residence may have on the
rid
uuGJ 12
1..
VI
A copy of Deed and Closing Statement showing Jeffrey S. Shoaf as the owner of Lot 1,
Block 3, Filing 2 in Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision.
UuGJ-13
SPATE= OF SET`rLE1v=
�- Buyer's -✓
Property Address: CATESVP.Y ROAD SN�, CD 81654
Seller: DAVID A. SC HULLER
Purchaser: JEFFREY S. SHCAF
Settlement Date: 01/25/95
Date of Proration: 01/25/95
Legal Description:
LOT 1, B= 3, GATEWAY OF RU%MASS MESA, SEC.C)ND FILING, according to
the Plat thereof recorded in Plat E, 4 at Page 90. COUNTY OF PI=,
STATE OF COLORADO.
File No: PCT -9632
Description
Debi
Credit
Contract Sales Price .......... ...............................
185,000.00
LOAN PAYABLE TO SEL .................. .....................
150,000.00
FUNDS FROM PITKIN EXC[AM ..... ...............................
35,233.10
CUR= TAXES 01 /01/95 to 01/25/95 ..........................
129.87
Settlement Fee to PIT= COUNTY TITLE, INC . .................
50.00
Title Insurance to PI= COL:PTY TITLE, INC . ................
50.00
TAX CERTIFICATE ............... ...............................
20.00
EXPRESS CHARGE ................ ...............................
Recording Fees ................ ...............................
35.00
DOCUMENTARY FEE ............... ...............................
18.50
RECORD RELEASE OF LIENS X 2 ... ...............................
2% OLORADO WIT'- :gOLDINS ....... ...............................
PAST DUE ASSES -cZv= .......... ...............................
ASSTS -ST TS 1/1 -3/31 $122 ..... ...............................
89.47
Sub- Totals
185,362.97
185,362.97
Balance due frm Buyer
TLS
185,362.97
185,362.97
Fr
r G. N JY2I�
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
UdI,J I '4
Recorded at _
R.ecentlon No
o'clock ` M.
Recorder V 0 Fly
WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED Made this day of January 19 95
between DAVID A. SCHULLER
-Cvunt,vf -
JEFFREY S. SHOAF
_,- SFatc- ogEolc,rndorgrantor(s) and
whose legal address is Post Office Box 3 Aspen, Colorado
81612
of the County of P itkin , State of Colorado, gramee(s):
\YITNESSETH, That the grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other
_-0ptlAiiS,
good and valuable consideration
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ha S granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do
grant, bargain, sell, convey, and confirm, unto the grantee(s), his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with
improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the - - -- County of Pitkin , State of Colorado,
described as follows:
LOT 1, BLOCK 3, GATEWAY OF SNMiASS MESA,
SECOND FILING, according to the Plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 90.
COUNTY OF PITkIN
STATE OF COLORADO
�Lso kr,<ww.bi.ra r¢wand- mtwtF+erast—
TOGEI HER with all and singular the heredrtaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in znyw ise appertaining, and the reversion and
reversions. remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof. and all the estate, right, title, interest. claim and demand whatsower of
the gramor(s). either in law or equity, of. in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditamcnts and appurtenances.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto the grantce(s), his heirs
and assigns forever. And the gramor(s), for him sel f , his heirs and personal representatives, do es covenant, grant.
bargain, and agree to and with the grantee(s), his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the resealing and delive0y of these presents,
he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, ha g good, sure. perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,
In law, in fee simple, and ha S good tight- full power and authority to grant- bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as
aforesaid. and that the same arc free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens. taxes, assessments, encumbrances, and
restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever ,except for and subject to the Exceptions to Title
listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
The grantors) shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above - bargained p ses the quiet and peaceable possession
of the gramee(s). h1S heirs and assigns, against all and even pe on or person awfully c I ing the whole or any part thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) hag executed this deed on t dale s t for abo e
�1
I chuller
STATE OF¢OI/QVA CALIFORNIA
ss.
County of
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January • 19 95
by David A. Schuller
My commission expires
C 11 i 5
- If to Denver, insert "City and ".
Witness my hand and official seal.
or
Ne. 932. Ref 6 - 92. R iRVAN n' DET" (I a phntnpr.yhh Record)
11
Itrndr ,d N; ` q, 1 xVmI• St , P -m +c rn F ... 2. (11,11 1 t(1(1 139'
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Spnngs, CO 81601
Fax 303 945 -8454
Phone 303 945-7988
SUBSURFACE STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 1, BLOCK 3, FILING 2,
GATEWAY TO SNOWYLASS MESA
PITKIN COUNTY, CO
JOB NO. 195 147
MARCH 22, 1995
PREPARED FOR:
MR. JEFFREY SHOAF
MR. MARK HESS
P. O. BOX 3123
ASPEN, CO 81611
u tic'' i 16
.�
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
-4W
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Spnngs, CO 81601
March 22, 1995
Fax 303945 -8454
Phone 303 945 -7988
Mr. Jeffrey Shoaf
Mr. Mark Hess
P.O. Box 3123
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 195 147
Subject: Subsurface Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 1,
Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Pitkin County, Colorado
Gentlemen:
As requested, we have conducted a subsurface study for design of foundations at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of approximately 7 1/2 feet of colluvium and weathered claystone
overlying claystone shale bedrock. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at
the time of drilling.
The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the claystone shale
bedrock material and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4000 psf. Due to
the low swell potential of the bedrock, the footings should also be designed for a
minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf.
The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation
of the geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
c,--;Ll - e. A4 CL � •, Sc-4Y s,cp
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E.
Rev. By: SLP
JZA /rr
1: 1f' l i7
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsurface study for a proposed residence to
be located on Lot 1, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Pitkin County,
Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to
develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in
accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Mr. Jeffrey
Shoaf, dated February 21, 1995.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine compressibility and swell
characteristics and classification of the on -site soils and bedrock. The results of the
field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation.
This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our
conclusions, recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based
on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of our field work, design plans for the residence were conceptual.
The building is proposed in the area roughly between exploratory boring locations
shown on Fig. 1. A two -story structure with a partially buried lower level is proposed.
An attached garage will be provided at the first floor level. The first level and garage
floors will be slab -on grade. The second floor above the hillside will be structural over
a crawl space with a retaining wall below the floor supporting the hillside. We assume
excavation for the building will have a maximum cut depth of 8 feet below the existing
ground surface. For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure
were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction.
O00018
-2-
If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from
those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations
contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is presently vacant and vegetated with native grasses and weeds.
The building site is located in a relatively flat saddle bordered by very steep slopes.
Between 30 and 50 feet of elevation difference exists on the downward slopes to the
northeast and southwest. The toe of a ridge butts the building envelope on the
southeast. The building site was clear of snow at the time of our field work.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 2, 1995. Two
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous
flight auger powered by a truck- mounted BK -51HD drill rig. The borings were logged
by a representative of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 -inch I.D. spoon sampler. The
sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depth with blows from a 140 -pound
hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described
by ASTM Method D -1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the
relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken
and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings,
Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer
and testing.
H -P GEOTECH
uuCU 1 `7
-3-
SUBSURFACE CONDMONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of stiff to very stiff weathered claystone and colluvium to a
depth of approximately 7 1/2 feet overlying medium hard to hard, gypsiferous claystone
shale bedrock to the maximum depths explored of 21 feet. We expect the upper soils
will vary throughout the building site due to erosion and differential weathering of the
claystone materials.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration
included in -situ moisture content and dry density. Swell- consolidation testing was
performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the claystone materials. The
swell- consolidation test results, presented on Figs. 4 and 5, indicate low compressibility
under light to moderate surcharge loadings and a low expansion potential when wetted
under a constant light surcharge. Swelling pressures were in the range of 3.000 to
5,000 psf. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling. The subsoils
and claystone were described as slightly moist.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings
and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded
with spread footings placed on undisturbed claystone bedrock materials. The expansion
potential of the claystone can probably be mitigated by load concentration to reduce or
prevent swelling in the event of wetting below footing level. Surface runoff and utility
leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting.
H -P GEOTECH
ill If" ,l80
M
,r
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed claystone bedrock should be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 4000 psf. The footings should also be designed
for a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. In order to satisfy the minimum
dead load pressure under lightly loaded areas, it may be necessary to concentrate
loads by using void form beneath the footings and walls.
2) Based on experience, we expect settlement or heave of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch. There could be
some additional movement if the bearing soils were to become wet.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches for continuous footings
and 18 inches for isolated pads.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of analysis
is to design the foundation wall to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist a
lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
5) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 42 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
6) Prior to the footing construction, overburden soils and disturbed bedrock should
be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to competent claystone
materials. The colluvial soils may need to be subexcavated and the bearing level
lowered to competent materials.
7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior
to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
H -P GEOTECH
UUCJ81
4c
in this report, we should be notified at once so reevaluation of the recommendations
may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design
purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field
services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications
of the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a
representative of the soil engineer.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL INC.
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E.
Reviewed By:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E,'
Y ; 3 Z��rS;
JZA /rr 'it
EOTECH
JuG,062
GATEWAY
DRIVE
I
1
f
EXISTING
/
DRIVEWAY
i
/
i
c
0 15 30 60
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
LOT
BOUNDARIES./
/ I
i
i
ROAD
EASEMENT
i
/ BORING 2 \\
y PROPOSED i 110
RESIDENCE
i
i
i
130.
u dct , M
loo
� m° \ BORING I i� �
a
BUILDING
SETBACK \
�U /
/ J LOT I �i� �/
HEPWORTH- P
t 195 147 GEOTECHNICAL Inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I F9 I
X1
The Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision is a residential community which, because
of its existence prior to Ordinance #90 -07, has extensive instances of development that
interposes themselves very negatively along the ridge.
The proposed residence can only be seen as a minor protrusion from only a very short
distance along Capitol Creek Road and is almost obscured from view along Snowmass
Creek Road by the cottonwood trees that parallel the road.
The design from inception has been to meld the structure into the natural surroundings,
thereby further reducing any negative visual impact.
Exterior lighting to the south and southwest has been eliminated entirely. The exterior
texture of the residence will be stuccoed and colored earth tone to blend with the
landscape.
The height of the residence has been reduced to 28h above existing grade, well below
the height limit so as to mitigate to the extent possible any negative impact.
Uu;oU84
g-
XII
The Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in 1968. The Subdivision has many geologic concerns which do not
require 1041 hazard approval by the County, due to the Board's approval of the
Subdivision.
Due to the 1041 hazard conditions that exist, there is only one suitable site available on
the lot. Whereas 3 -604 addresses 1041 hazard areas (conflict with scenic concerns), the
applicant has made every effort to mitigate the relatively minor impact the development
would have on the ridge.
uUC085
_-,
County of Pitk } AFFSDAVIT OF NOTICE BY
} ss. POSTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING
State of Colorado } FOR A PITRIN COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows: ijkg�
I,
being or representing an Applicant for a Pitkin
lopment
Permit, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and
accurately represents the sign posted as notice of the public
hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that
the sign 4as posted and visible co � fro the i day
of _, 191..) to the day of , 19
(Must be posted for at least 15 days before the publ hearing).
(Attach photograph here)
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 1 day of 19�
by iS� Fi , n /l vJ
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
" a L,)
Notary Public's Signa ure
•• �•<••. i•;•,o: is .
UUGJ86
kj.J
r w
�r
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SHOAF RIDGELINE REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at a regular meeting to begin at 4:00 pm
before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission,
Commissioners' Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E. Main
St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Jeffrey Shoaf
requesting Ridgeline Review approval for construction of a single
family residence on a ridgeline visible from Capitol Creek and
Snowmass Creek Roads. The property is located Lot 1, Block 3,
Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision. For further
information contact Francis Krizmanich at the Aspen / Pitkin
Community Development Department 920 -5103.
s /Jody Edwards, Jr, Chair
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
c fi 6 J
'd i /C5
UOGJJ9
L 4
CERTIFICATE OF NAILING
RE: SHOAF RIDGELINE REVIEW
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of April, 1995, a true
and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage prepaid,
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list
of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen /Pitkin
Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the
Public Notice.
By: Suzanne Wolff
Administrative Assistant
frm.mailing
/ n Qc PM miner. P-d$ YoO /_ce
Loto ✓
UUuoyo
I
III
Abutting Property Owners
(names, addresses, and legal)
Don Hecker
1617 Gateway Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Lot 2, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision
Richard Heede
Susan J. Hassol
1626 Gateway Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Lot 14 -A, Block 2, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision
Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Property Owners
Post Office Box 211
Snowmass, CO 81654
Lot 13, Block 1, Filing 1
C.M. Dance and Warren L. Palmer
Post Office Box 6447
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Lot 12, Block 1, Filing 1, Gateway Road
UUG091
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113 - 63850 -041
Deposit
-663855 -042
Flat Fee
- 63860 -043
HPC
- 63875 -046
Zo:ung & Sign Permit
- MROI l
Use Tax
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113 - 63800 -033
Deposit
-63805 -034
Flat Fee
-6 63820 -037
Zoning
-63825 -038
Board of Adjustment
Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035
00115- 63340 -163
00123 -63340 -190
00125 -63340 -205
Sales:
00113- 63830 -039
-09000 -145
Address:
County Engineer
City Engineer
Housing
Enviromental Health
County Code
Copy Fees
107,0—
Other
Total_ Z Q
Date: Check:
2 I I ,�_:__ .
Case No: '
Phone: ' ZI 5 7 p No. of Copies
. a.4�
14
,� f �; ` .
� 1 i=
i
u� /� !„ _ '
_,.
*- �
� ,. ' � � 'fir..
.�i�:�'+ —� r. � � mot. �. �. � — — - -= - -
�_ .. _ .
�, �.
-iit
r
���
.Ow. _sp�
mair
�:��1t
,�
OW
�!