The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.264321304005DOCUMENT 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(s) CASE NAME: Hardy Scenic Overlay Review for Ridgeline PROJ ADDR, 0067 Red Tail Ln Lot 5 Elk 6 Flg 1 Brush Creek Villa OWNIAPP:Hardy,Howerd B Jo 'ADRF- REP: ADRT Email Addr: FEES DUE: REFERRALS F ' OPIES:r CASE NO P119 -94 Planners �— C /SIZ:F PHN:F— CIS /Z:7— PHN:F-- ALLOCATED HOURST — FEES RCVD:F- °/ OVER: REF:— BY F— DUE:r MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: 21711995 2/711995 P8Z No BOCC Reso: F — 'r � � Nn BOCC Ord: REMARKS no vesting PZ: 95 -02 #379495 HRG OFF: CLOSED: T HOINDEX: ADMIN: PLAT RECORD PLAT (BK,PG): nla ADMIN INDEX: VR APPROVAL DATE: F— VR EXPIRES: ,I - CASE TYP: I Scenic Overlay Review for Ridgeline CASE TYPS: CASE TYP2: CASE TYP6: CASE TYP3: CASE TYP7: CASE TYP4: Date Scanned: 2/20/2012 File Location: FF Box #214 W DATE RECEIVED: 10/5/94 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF MEMBER: ES CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET PITKIN COUNTY CASE # P119 -94 PARCEL ID# 2643- 213 -04 -005 PROJECT NAME: Hardy Scenic Overlav xeview for xiageline Project Address: Lot 5 Block 6 Brush Creek Village Subdivision APPLICANT: Howard and Joyce Hardy PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO Applicant Address: P. O. Box 783 Attorney Aspen CO 81612 923 -6559 _Rocky Mtn Nat Gas REPRESENTATIVE: Rod Dyer Dyer & Associates _ USFS (Aspen) Representative Address _Holy _Aspen Fire /Phone: 209 Ventnor Avenue Apt. S _ BLM Zoning Aspen CO 81611 925 -7149 ------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 978.00 # APPS RECEIVED 10 ENGINEER $ 60.00 # PLATS RECEIVED 10 HOUSING $ _Clean Air Board Other: ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $1,038.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: x 2 STEP: DRC MEETING DATE NO P &Z MEETING DATE i 7 PUBLIC HEARING YE BOCC MEETING DATE PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO HEARING OFFICER MEETING DATE: REFERRALS: Attorney _Aspen Consol S.D. _ School District Engineer _Rocky Mtn Nat Gas _ USFS (Carbondale) Housing Cross _ USFS (Aspen) Aspen Water _Holy _Aspen Fire _ Div. of Wildlife Envir.Hlth. _Basalt Fire _ BLM Zoning _Carbondale Fire _ Snowmass Village Land Mgmt. _Div. Water Res. — Risk Manager Airport Mgr. Forest Ser. Caucus Sheriff _State CO Geo.Survey HomeownerstY - -_� City P & Z CDOT Open Space Board Building Dept _Clean Air Board Other: Brush Ck Metro Dist_ Other: I DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: eD14/ DATE DUE: I RESOLUTION #: PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT BOOK FINAL ROUTING: County Attorney Housing Open Space Bd. Other: FILED: oUouGI d4� aq DATE ROUTED: DATE: ) -Q-9I ) _County Engineer Envir. Health PAGES) INITIAL: Zoning Applicant Revised 05/16/94 �_ o ,37949 La -:: %75 P _ .1 0*;/06/95 01:01P 1 ='G 1 .F 3 REC DOC ` i�ILVIR DAVIS a✓ PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECL,4ZDER 0.00 foreground overlay area. 0uGiO2 RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING SCENIC FOREGROUND OVERLAY APPROVAL OF THE it L) HARDY RESIDENCE Resolution No. PZ -95 -_qjL RECITALS u !.1 1. Howard and Joyce Hardy, hereinafter "Applicants ", have applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Commission ", for Scenic a Foreground Overlay Review and approval pursuant to Section 3- 604 of the Land Use Code. 2. The applicant proposes to construct a three -level single 0 r, family residence containing approximately 3,100 square feet wi � u of living space and 900 square feet of garage space. The l building site is located within a mapped ridgeline area in the - m LI public viewplane along the Highway 82 /Brush Creek Road corridors. As designed, the residence will break "skyline" when viewed from the Brush Creek corridor only. The building site is clearly visible from the Highway in the context of other residences, but does not break skyline. x 3. The parcel is known as Lot 5, Block 6, Brush Creek W � Village Subdivision. 'y Cy 4. The lot is zoned AFR -10 and contains 2.5 acres. � Z> 5. The Commission considered the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 7, 1995. 6. The Commission determined that the applicant has complied with review criteria for development within the scenic foreground overlay area. 0uGiO2 ; 79495 B -775 P -5 l[ • -5 01.01P PG Resolution No. PZ -95- b� Page 2 It LL C L .�J 6 n T m F r� "1 i a s m i m uajG3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant scenic foreground overlay approval to the Applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. The color of exterior materials (including roofing) shall blend with natural surrounding earthtones. Metal roofing shall be non - reflective. 2. During construction, fencing shall be placed to limit the area of construction, in order to protect existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. The area to be disturbed during construction (fenced area) shall be delineated on a site plan which shall be attached to the resolution as Exhibit A. 3. The applicant shall plant a cluster of three to five 10- 12 foot conifers along the south /southeast facade of the house to lessen the visual impact of the house from the public viewplane along Brush Creek Road. Trees shall be planted within one growing season of construction. 4. All lighting shall comply with County lighting regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Landscape lighting shall be eliminated, except where required to light pedestrian access to the house. 5. The applicant shall obtain a driveway access permit from the County Engineer prior to commencement of construction of the driveway and prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan and a plan to minimize mud and debris carryout from the site. Both plans shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on February 7, 1995. � �i +�S R -775 P- .`x:-35 3/06 5'3 01:01P' PG Resolution No. PZ -95- boZ Page 3 ATTEST: L\. ^u bb r LL Planning Office Manager w APPROVED AS TO FORM: UJ G� Timothy Whi , co st County ney reso_hardy_so LL S w 6 r m ro Uiil�Jv� PITRIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION osep E. Edwards, III Ch irp rson Date 2/28 55 AS TO CONTENT: County Planning Director u ,t 0 Si •L T ry �7 5 �1 n w m M �i Im p D U 1 I� w 11 II1 � ' 11 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 � I 1 I i� /i 1I i II; I 1 \ �m 1 li I I I iT 5F 7 DK WO�,/PKP4jOYCE OAKDYKSSIDEH CE L,cT Z, PIV K L, *RI W IMKK v?4 M P p� PIT Kin county � 1 nsPEH, GOIp RPVO t C \ i i N Y R z d, i j S l yyp yyyl �df ' fA \ �m 1 li I I I iT 5F 7 DK WO�,/PKP4jOYCE OAKDYKSSIDEH CE L,cT Z, PIV K L, *RI W IMKK v?4 M P p� PIT Kin county � 1 nsPEH, GOIp RPVO t C JI MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planner RE: Hardy Ridgeline Review DATE: February 7, 1995 REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 3 -604 of the Land Use Code, the applicant is requesting Scenic overlay approval for the construction of a three -level single family residence containing approximately 3,100 square feet of living space and 900 square feet of garage space. The building site is located within a mapped ridgeline area in the public viewplane along the Highway 82 /Brush Creek Road corridors. As designed, the residence will break "skyline" when viewed from the Brush Creek corridor only. The building site is clearly visible from the Highway in the context of other residences, but does not break skyline. APPLICANT: Howard and Joyce Hardy APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Rod Dyer, Dyer and Associates LOCATION: Lot 5, Block 6, Brush Creek Village Subdivision ZONING: The lot is zoned AFR -10 and contains 2.5 acres. The AFR- 10 zone District allows a maximum floor area of 15,000 square feet, inclusive of accessory structures. ACCESS: Access to the site is via Juniper Hill /Medicine Bow Roads and Selma Circle. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. County Engineer: Bud Eylar comments that the applicant will be required to obtain a driveway access permit from the County Engineer prior to commencement of construction of the driveway and prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Eylar recommends that the applicant mitigate erosion during construction and minimize mud and debris carryout from the site. Mr. Eylar concludes that access to a building site at the top of the lot (as proposed) will result in less degradation and scarring than construction of an access to a lower site on the north side of the property. 2. Zoning: Joanna Schaffner notes that the proposed structure is in compliance with all setback requirements, and that sufficient information has not been submitted to determine compliance with County height regulations. (Height compliance is typically reviewed as part of the building permit bubjUJ application. The applicant's architect is familiar with County height regulations. No variations from the maximum allowed height are requested or volunteered as a part of this application). STAFF COMMENTS: The Land Use Code establishes the following review criteria for development within scenic overlay areas: (1) Whether the development has utilized existing topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges and hills to screen buildings to the maximum extent possible. Response: There is little in the way of existing topography on this site which may be used to screen the residence. A knoll on the south side of the property will be reconfigured to accommodate the house, and will continue to provide minimal screening from the Brush Creek viewplane. Existing shrubs and trees will be retained outside of the building area and will provide limited natural buffering of the residence. Staff recommends that construction fencing be placed to limit the area of construction, in order to protect existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. (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. Response: In order to completely avoid breaking the ridgeline, the house would have to be stepped down the north hillside at a very steep angle, creating significant scarring and more visual bulk. While no particularly "innovative" architectural techniques have been used, the proposed site design balances ridgeline exposure with scarring of the hillside. The applicant proposes to use stucco, metal roofing, wood and glass on the exterior of the residence. The stucco will be reddish brown in color to blend with natural surrounding earthtones and the roof will be a dull, medium dark green to blend with surrounding vegetation. other residences in the neighborhood have used this color scheme with some success in limiting the visual impact of development from a distance. Staff recommends that the metal roof be non - reflective. (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. 3 OUGUGI Response: The residence contains three levels; a basement, or "lower" level, a main level and a second story. The second story is limited to the northwest quarter of the floor plan. The applicant reduced the bulk of the second floor element by placing approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of habitable space in the lower level which will be built into the hillside on the north side of the residence. While the applicant considered design of a larger "lower" level to further limit the bulk on upper levels, it was determined that extensive excavation would be required to accomplish the goal. As additional excavation would result in significant scarring of the hillside visible from Highway 82 to the north and east, it was not pursued. Given setback requirements and the proximity of existing residences to the east and west, it would be difficult to expand the footprint laterally in these directions to lessen height. The residence will be similar in square footage to the residences on either side of the lot. The bulk of the residence to the east of the lot may appear to be larger because of its light color, design and placement along the ridge. (4) The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a ridgeline, unless there are no alternate building sites on the lot. Response: It is possible to avoid breaking the ridgeline on this lot by building on the north side, which contains slopes in excess of 30% in grade. However, to access a lower building site, a switch -back drive would have to be constructed down the north face. Given the extent to which the ridgeline will be broken in the context of existing development, Staff finds it preferable to break the ridgeline than to disturb and scar the lower north slope. The Land Use Code also states a preference for allowing visual impacts over development within a known environmental hazard area (see criteria #11). (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). (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. Response: Existing access to the relatively flat building area in the southwest corner of the lot is located at the high point of the lot. When Brush Creek Village was subdivided, views were no doubt taken into consideration as a part of the placement of access 3 1%r -s roads, and ridgeline development was not considered to be an issue. Based on existing access and steep slopes, the applicant's design is fairly sensitive to the visual aspects of the lot from the public viewplane. (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. Response: The State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines do not apply to the applicant's lot. A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared by the applicant's architect. The plan is primarily designed to screen the private viewplane. Due to the presence of a residence downslope to the south of the applicant's lot, the most visible portion of the roofline from the Brush Creek viewplane will be the southeast corner of the house. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the landscape plan to show a cluster of three to five 10 -12 foot conifers to soften the southeast corner /portion of the house. (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. Response: The applicant indicates that light sources will not be directly visible from Brush Creek Road or Highway 82. Landscape lighting is proposed to be "close to the ground with vegetation or structures (used) to block the light source from the roads." The applicant indicates that exterior building light sources (where "required for nighttime movement around the residence ") will be concealed behind exterior columns, or supplied with directional reflectors to block the light source from the public viewplane. Staff recommends that at a minimum, all lighting comply with County lighting regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Staff recommends that landscape lighting be eliminated, except where necessary to light pedestrian access to the house. (9) Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable as the sole measure of compliance with these regulations. These methods may be acceptable when utilized as one of several methods to complement and 0 UJCJV9 0 enhance development, rather than as the single device for screening development from view from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped. Response: There is an existing knoll on the south side of the building site which will be slightly modified to accommodate construction of the residence and to help break up the structure as viewed from Brush Creek Road. As the knoll already exists, the applicant is simply working with natural grade to break up the potential visual impact of the residence. (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. Response: The site is not located within scenic viewplanes identified in the Highway 82 Corridor Plan or the Down Valley Plan. (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. Response: Lots within the Brush Creek Village are not subject to 1041 Hazard Review. However, Staff has made recommendations on siting of the residence based in part, on the acknowledgement of steep slopes on the north side of the lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The color of exterior materials (including roofing) shall blend with natural surrounding earthtones. Metal roofing shall be non - reflective. 2. During construction, fencing shall be placed to limit the area of construction, in order to protect existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. The area to be disturbed during construction (fenced area) shall be delineated on a site plan which shall be attached to the resolution as Exhibit A. 3. The applicant shall plant a cluster of three to five 10- 12 foot conifers along the south /southeast facade of the house to lessen the visual impact of the house from the public viewplane along Brush Creek Road. Trees shall be planted within one growing season of construction. 4. All lighting shall comply with County lighting regulations in effect at the time of building permit 5 UUUJ10 issuance. Landscape lighting shall be eliminated, except where required to light pedestrian access to the house. 5. The applicant shall obtain a driveway access permit from the County Engineer prior to commencement of construction of the driveway and prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan and a plan to minimize mud and debris carryout from the site. Both plans shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. els memo hardy ridge 3 u�U�i1 EXHIBITS A SITE PLAN /ELEVATIONS B ZONING COMMENTS C COUNTY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS D APPLICATION 0 ULJUj12 1,. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ellen Sassano, Planner FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer DATE: November 29, 1994 p> RE: Hardy Scenic Overlay Review Parcel ID# 2643- 213 -04 -005 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments. ZONE: AFR -10, ten acre minimum lot size This parcel contains approximately 2.5 acres and is non - conforming in size. 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. FLOOR AREA: This parcel is allowed a total of 15,000 square feet of floor area. All structures are included in the calculation of floor area. HEIGHT: Sufficient information has not been submitted to determine compliance with County height regulations. UUUUi3 XA IFS rrCi MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Ellen Sassano CC Bud CC PCSKB From: Bud Eylar Postmark: Jan 19,95 3:29 PM Subject: Hardy Scenic ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: Ellen, I have reviewed the application and have the following comments: The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the county before the issuance of aboulding permit. The applicant shall exercise care during the construction period to mitigate erosion and to minimize mud and debris carryout from the site. Bud UUUJ 1 "� I DYER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS 209 VENTNOR AVE., APF. S, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925 -7149 800/372 -7149 303/920- 9546(FAX) November 4. 1994 Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Hardy Residence Scenic Overlay Development Application Lot 5, Block 6, Filing One Brush Creek Village Aspen, Colorado Dear Ellen, NOV ' 3 1994 The following is additional information you requested regarding the above referenced application: 1. The proposed development, while built on the upper portion of the property, incorporates two design elements to reduce the bulk of the structure. The second story element is kept to a minimum by putting only the guest bedrooms and bath on this level and the Master Bedroom, Master Bath, T.V. /Library, Laundry and mechanical elements are placed below the main level to reduce the main level bulk. Natural vegetation is of scrub oak and sage and will be retained except in the actual building site. 2. The main exterior materials for the structure will be stucco, metal roof of medium dark green, wood and glass. The stucco color will be of reddish brown to blend with the natural earth tones and the roof will blend with the natural vegetation. The roof structure is kept to a low pitch so that it will not project into the view plane more than necessary to provide good drainage. 3. The second story element is kept to the west end of the building in order to further shelter it from the highway view. As stated in 1. above, a large portion of the structure is below the first level and is cut into the hillside to the north of the building. This helps reduce the bulk of the first and second floor elements by placing 26% of the development below the ridge. If more of the structure were placed below the first level, this would result in more extensive excavation and scaring of the hillside visible from Highway 82 to the northeast. Our attempt here is to balance Ridge Line exposure against scaring of the hillside. Rod Dyer, ipa Pri l C '_ UUCJi5 Architect, Consulting Architect, Designer .r 1.00 4. In order to keep from breaking any ridgeline, the house would have to be built totally below ground or would have to step down the north hillside at a very steep angle. It is our opinion that to step down the hillside would create a house of considerably more visual bulk than is apparent with the design submitted and would create visual scaring of the hillside and loss of much more natural vegetation than our present design. 5. The residence is placed on the upper portion of the property because there is no access to the lower portion of the property. Also, the topography of the lower portion of the property is steep and does not allow for conventional construction techniques. In order to build on the lower portion of the property, we would need to build a switch -back drive down the north face of the lot. This would cause extensive scaring of the landscape that would be visible to Highway 82 to the north. 6. The configuration of the lot is such that the access to the lot is at the high point of the property with a relatively flat area at the south west corner of the lot. From this small plateau the property drops off to the northeast and north in a relatively steep slope to the northern property lines. This northern slope faces Highway 82 and is visible from the entry road to Brush Creek Village and Cozy Point Ranch. Wile almost all of the property is visible to motorist traveling south on Highway 82, the top, flat portion of the property is less visible and a residence placed on this portion of the lot will not break the skyline beyond. If the house is entirely below the top of the property and steps down the northern slope, the bulk presented to the highway will be considerably larger and the scaring to the north slope and the loss of natural existing vegetation will be far greater. r 7. The proposed development is located outside of the boundary of the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. The development will preserve as much of the natural vegetation as is possible. Only the vegetation necessary to construct the residence will be removed. 8. The proposed development will be designed such that light sources will not be directly visible from either Highway 82 or Brush Creek Road. This will be accomplished by placing all landscape lighting close to the ground with vegetation or structures to block the light source from the roads. Exterior building light sources shall be concealed behind exterior columns where required for nighttime movement around the residence or will be supplied with directional reflectors to block the light source from the highways. Liu JiG 9. There is an existing land form to the south of the proposed living room area which will be slightly modified to reduce the impact of the structure from Brush Creek Road. See the supplied Topographic Site Plan for the location of this landform. 10. The proposed development has been designed, to the maximum extent possible, to avoid visibility from Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road as identified on the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan and the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. 11. The platted subdivision lot does not require 1041 hazard review. Sincerely, Rod Dyer UUUJii DYER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS 209 VENTNOR AVE, APF. 5, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925 -7149 800/372 -7149 303/920-9546(FAX) September 30, 1994 Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Hardy Residence Scenic Overlay Development Application Lot 5, Block 6, Filing One Brush Creek Village Aspen, Colorado Dear Ellen, Please accept this as our Application for Ridge Line Review for the above referenced Single Family Residence Development. This application contains th following information: 1. Commitment for Title Insurance. 2. Letter of Authorization for Agent 3. List of Adjacent Property Owners. 4. Photographs of Subject Property from Highway 82 and from Brush Creek Road. 5. Preliminary Design Drawings. 6. Pre - Application conference summary form. 7. Agreement to pay fees form. The proposed development is a single family residence of frame construction consisting of approximately 3,100 square feet of living space and 900 square feet of garage on three levels. This space will consist of 700 s.f. on the second floor, 2,100 s.f. on the first floor with the remaining 1,000 s.f. in the basement level. The exterior materials will be stucco and wood with a green, standing seam metal roof. In designing the residence, we have kept the area of the second floor to a minimum in order to reduce the impact of the structure on the ridge and have placed the master suite and T.V. /Library in the lower, basement level to reduce the first floor impact. Additionally, we will use a low sloped roof (4/12 pitch) in order to further reduce the structure height and visual impact. iJ(JC Ji8 Rod Dyer, Principal Architect, Consulting Architect, Designer "ry If you have questions regarding this application or any aspect of this project, please call me at your earliest convenience. Sin , Zc Rod Dyer UUf Ji% 1 - -1 ....,... KM ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE hereinafter COUNTY) and I 0 (hereinafter County (hereinafter AS FOLLOWS: (hereinafter APPLICANT) I. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for 144 Y lzEv /t1E�iC ,..�.= Ar-_uS�vG,�� 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Board of County No. 93 -1 established a Commissioners Resolution No. 91 -08 and Ordinance ) as part of ee structure for Planning Office app lications (including consultant costs tees application condition precedents to a determination of application completeness. fees APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is impossible to ascertain the full extent roc ssi ge costs involved in processing the application upon initiation of case p parties APPLICANT and COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the p to permit payment of an initial deposit and to permit additional costs to betai led on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by the greater when liquidity e make costslare incurred. sCOUNTYIagrees it will County wee y rester certainty of recovering its full costs to process be benefited through li htion. APPLICANT'S app 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT fut r that COUNTY staff to complete processing oe sufficient information to the Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and /or Board of County Comm to make legally Planning Commission and /or Board o al�unl unless current billings are paid in full prior required findings for project app to decision. uuCJ20 5• Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount -� which is for - 6 hours of PI recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall time, and if actual additional monthly billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic Payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such .accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of Processing. PITKIN COUNTY APPLICANT By: Suza a I onch County Planning Director 00CJ2;1 2 By: Mail' AddVs: TRW 1 2 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A Effective Date: 04/06/94 at 08:30 A.M. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B -1970 (Rev. 10/90) Proposed Insured: HOWARD HARDY III and JOYCE HARDY (b) ALTA Loan Policy, (Rev. 10 -90) Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED Case No. PCT -8955 Amount$ 255,000.00 Premium$ 817.00 Amount$ 127,500.00 Premium$ 50.00 Tax Certificate $20.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: 0 0M0i}il��l 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOT 5, BLOCK 6, BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 1, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A -PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 303 - 925 -1766 Provisions and Schedules Fax 303 - 925 -6527 A and B are attached. U u luj L"- Joyce /Howard H A R D Y PO BOY 1783 ASPEN, CO 8 1 6 1 2 303/923 -6559 uuu�"3 September 20, 1994 Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Scenic Overlay Development Application Hardy Residence Lot 5, Block 6, Filing One Brush Creek Village Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Sassano, Rod Dyer (of Dyer & Associates, Architects, 209 Ventnor Avenue, Unit S, Aspen, Colorado 81611, phone 303/925- 7149), is hereby authorized to act as our representative for the above referenced Scenic Overlay Development Application. Sincerely, J Howard and Joyce J%ardy Joyce /Howard September 21, 1994 H A R D Y PO BOX 1783 ASPEN, CO 8 1 6 1 2 Dyer and Associates, Architects 303/921-0559 209 Ventnor Avenue, Apt. S Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Rod, The following is a list of all the property owners that border our lot line. "'Ribk'Janulewicz Cheryl 6 Dave PeLrooco 3935 Kalispell Street Aurora, CO 80013 (304003) Lee L. Miller Julie M. Coyle 4909 South Albion Street Littleton, CO 80121 (084 Selma Circle) Alan Lauer Post Office Box 8557 Aspen, CO 81612 (1560 Medicine Bow Road) Pamela Carroll Kane c/o Tom Norris Post Office Box 8514 Aspen, CO 81612 (1684 Medicine Bow Road) Nancy Marcella Post Office Box 11615 Aspen, CO 81612 (00106 Turtle Cove) Douglas S. Tomkins 1235 Snowbunny Lane ,Aspen„ Colorado 81611 Let me know if you need any more information. Sincerely, uu0j24 Joyce and Howard Hardy PITRIN COUNTY PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE. 9 A PLANNER: B.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: 1. Type of Application 2. Describe act of SUMMARY being requested:_ '3.1 Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 4. Review is before: Admin ""�" "�7 tive (BOCC Only (P &Z & BOCC) S. Public Hearing: (Yes / At: (BOCC) (SeTP &Z ) 6. The applicant needs to post a sign_,, f 4L�each public hearing pursuant to Section 6 -3.4 of the Code.✓(YES) (1401 7. Did yo ell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: YES (NO) e. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: Flo 9. What S6 was applicant requested to submit: 32 ]r5:06�1� �k �0 e ✓e�.w. ✓fit . 10. Anticipated date of submission: 11. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS: J' j25 c CERTIFICATE OF NAILING RE: ;' /mil(�tl _ GCcw t I hereby certify that on this V t�_ day of JCUI- ,-" 199 a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of PublicJ1earing 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 UUCJ�-G ru PUBLIC NOTICE RE: HARDY SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 1995 at a regular meeting to begin at 4:00 pm before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioners Meeting Room, 506 E. Main St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Howard and Joyce Hardy requesting Scenic Overlay Review approval for a single family residence in a mapped ridgeline area. The property is located on Lot 5, Block 6, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village Subdivision. For further information contact Ellen Sassano at the Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office, 920- 5098. J Jody Edwards, Chair Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 6, 1995 Pitkin County Account 00113 O11U` - a w ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -$090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES a�O73 —��3 _Q SUd CITY: - 63250 -134 GMP /Conceptual - 63270 -136 GMP /Final - 63280 -137 SUB /Conceptual - 63300 -139 SUB /Final - 63310 -140 - 63320 -141 All -2 Stop Applications - 63330 -150 All 1 Step Applications -63432 -157 Staff Approval - 63432 -157 Zoning Plan Check -MR011 Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: - 63335 -151 Exemption - 63336 -152 Minor - 63337 -153 Major Devel. - 63338 -154 Signif. Devel. - 63339 -155 Demolition COUNTY: - 63160 -126 GMP /General - 63170 -127 GMP /Detailed - 63180 -128 GMP /Final - 63190 -129 SUB /General - 63200 -130 SUB /Detailed - 63210 -131 SUB /Final - 63220 -132 All 2 Step Applications - 63230 -133 All 1 Step P Applications -63450 -146 Staff Approval - 63235 -148 Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: - 63360 -143 00115 - 63340 -163 Engineering - County 00123 -63340 -190 Engineering - City 00125 - 63340 -205 Housing Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: - 63080 -122 County Code -69000 -145 oth uUi,JCi er(Copy Fees) / Name: (-3 -'!Z. /% ///�///�///777 --- �-, Phone: A z y Project Check �d / TOTAL #. ;- _Date: No of Copies: .... . ..... . .. ....... . ?J9T q q COYER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 209-1c15 Ventnor Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-7149 Va " y ...... .. J ?J9T q q COYER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 209-1c15 Ventnor Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-7149 Va " y Y. ?J9T q q COYER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 209-1c15 Ventnor Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-7149 " y Y. J 0, ....... . .... .. ?J9T q q COYER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 209-1c15 Ventnor Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-7149 " y Y. J ti 21 Af a m t tm- � ',)� � , q l% t A 'Z -,-. 76 'JQ Gj(-t nv Af a m t tm- � ',)� � , q l% t A 'Z -,-. 76 'JQ Gj(-t c+ m le dt it I, A h� .... .... ZI CI u. A, 14� 10 m le dt it I, A h� .... .... ZI �t .c o c� ) C fjq ous qp? t (vz , ) .