The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.drac.19990401AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE April 1,1999 5:00 p.m. Thursday City Council Chambers, City Hall I. Roll Call II. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) III. Minutes IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. New Business A. 1340 Red Butte Drive, Wildman Residence, Appeal of the "Volume" Standard CoNT D 4 (8 ~ `I 9 B. Unit #15C, 631 South Galena Street, Kribs Residence, Appeal of the "Subgrade Areas" Standard. .A.Q1~~,p~Ep 3-~ VI. Adjourn ._ ~. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Co.'mrmu/nity Development Directo~ { FROM: Mitch Haas, Plannerll,~ from the "Volume" (26.58.040(F)(12)) Provision of the Residential Design Standards RE: 1340 Red Butte Dr~~~i"'v111e~~^(Wildman Residence), Request for a Variance DATE: April 1, 1999 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall f nd the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's frndings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAG] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for an addition to an existing residence at 1340 Red Butte Drive for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Volume" standard. The applicant is requesting variances from this standard (described below) in order to allow the proposed design. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." The staff and DRAG reviews are limited only to those portions of the structure that are proposed for alterations (the addition only). Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request, finding that the proposed design does not meet any of the three aforementioned standards. APPLICANT: Dorothy Wildman, represented by Jennifer Cohen of Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 1340 Red Butte Drive (Lot 1, Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision) is located on the north side of Red Butte Drive (between the street and the Roaring Fork River) across from the intersection of Sage Court. See attached vicinity map, Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed addition contains violations of the "Volume" standard on its east, south, and north elevations. The portion of the "volume" standard relevant to this project reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defrned as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (1 S) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the finished floor. Thus, one might describe the area lying between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor as the "no window zone." Sheet A2.0 depicts the existing conditions at the area of the proposed addition, and the existing windows already violate the volume standard. Nevertheless, all new residential additions, irrespective of "nonconforming" status, are required to comply with the provisions of the Residential Design Standards unless varied by an entity with the authority to do so. Sheet A3.1 of the architectural drawings submitted as part of the application (Exhibit A) shows the elevations of the proposed addition. On the east, south, and north elevations, all windows labeled with a D, E, F, G, H, or J violate the volume standard. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if a variance is not granted, the applicant would. have to redesign to comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria. Staff's review of the application relative to said standards is provided below. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would.• (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; RESPONSE: There is nothing about the subject proposal that would further the goals, standards, or objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or ~ provision responds to; or, J. ,~ -- RESPONSE: According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has """ street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Staff believes the proposed design would have little to no impact on the street-facing architectural detailing, human scale, or pedestrian experience associated with the residence, and staff recognizes that the proposed addition will be set back more than ninety (90) feet from Red Butte Drive (see site plan, Exhibit A). However, based on a strict reading of the standard, staff finds that the proposed design does not satisfy the criterion of more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. Therefore, while staff feels the proposal is rather "benign," staff finds that this criterion is not satisfied with the proposed design. An appeal jor exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (3) be clearly necessary for reasons ojfairness related to unusual site specific constraints. RESPONSE: In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of faimess would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. While existing vegetation and setbacks from the street as well as from the neighboring property would aid in mitigating the impacts of the proposed addition, these are not unusual site specific constraints where reasons of faimess would make the proposed design necessary. In summary, staff recognizes that the proposed addition is relatively modest in scale and benign in impact. Staff further recognizes that the subject location is not within one of the historic, traditional neighborhoods of Aspen or on a grid street system. Nevertheless, since the proposed design does not, in staff's opinion, meet the strict standards of any of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC deny the variance requests, and direct the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the "volume" standard. This recommendation is based on the finding that the project, as proposed, does not satisfy any of the three criteria by which a variance can be granted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the variance requests, directing the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the `volume' standard." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map t~ "` EXdi6rr ..~~. ~O ~ ~,; 'r ~> ,\ n~ • ~'~;~~: ,. ~; . - , ,,, ^~~_ _~: ~~ ~1 U ~~ J~ ,- / iii ~ ~ ~ / Q~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~' '~ _I ~ ~. ~ f -~~_ i b i s ri "LJ ~- ~_ ~ ~~- ~~ l -~ '~ _~ i. it Q '~--~ ~ '` ~ ' ,. ~ P_ I ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~_ ~~, ~C~ i• _ ~5 ~ ' 1 i i ~~~- ~ r ~,: ~ ~ ~ ~ h I' L,- ~ r is ~ -~~ ~ ~, ----~_ -.~ i ~:_~. z ,~, -~~ ~ r ~ ~ _ _ r T ~{ , / ~ / i = ~ ~ r ~. ~ ~ .% ~- ~~~ ~~ I - ~ t ( i - l ~'' rJ~ ~ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 610 E. HYMAN, ASPEN, CO 81611 ° 970/925-5590 970/920-4557 FAX DRAC Committee City of Aspen March 18, 1999 Wildman Addition ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS We are asking a for a variance to the Ordinance 30 code that relates to windows being between 9' - 12'. As you can see from the existing drawings, the windows we are proposing are an existing condition. The following items are reasons that we feel this design solution is appropriate. 1. We are keeping the original intent of the design by keeping the same roof line and window configuration. This house has many different roof lines which give it it's character, we are extending a portion of this roof to keep the uniqueness of the original design. 2. We are keeping the original layout of the windows by moving the same design forward and then finishing off the design. 3. The proposed elevation is not part of the front fagade and will not be seen from the street. EROM L;1VES IN SPRCE 19709633852 03-19-99 11:14AM TO 9204557 P.Z ' .~ i~~lt i.~ p ~2.e t~ ,,~{„~.~ ~-,rive. 1 ` n •_ i.,~.~~co-~e ~ ~owti7~~ ~-~fxi.~r E Ca~ j O-i'~icd~aS 's4'C F.LJ..t... mx1,l^...I.Stt~.. 1_.5~1~-llt~ Legal Description: Lot 1, Block ? Red Dutte Subdivision, Cily of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on Apri] 15, 1988 a survey was conducted by me and under my direct supervislun of the above described parcel oY land. All easements, encroach- ments and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and cor act to that or my knuwledge and belief. Sy Y cicane ..:`1~fTT1-"` Street Address 1411 1340 Red Butte Drive Aspen, Colorado korai ~w~RIIRI~ IIAIRRi ..__ ................ _........ .... ........._......._.A! FROM IINES IN SPACE 19709633952 03-19-99 11:14RM TO 9204557 P.2 ~2ec~~gc.~~-~ ~r~ve e, •.. iJN.arrrrco-~¢S o~' rp~_.Y- l,. ~_ 0.-. 1 ~~ Q ~j ++KC~lcd~a.S'st'CP.L7..1...1^~141'.:'.Xti.Ca~. Legal bescription: Lot 1, Block ?. Red DuttP Subdivision, City <.~f Aspen, ~ S (~i'I _- Pltkin Cnunty, Colorado. I hereby certify that on April 15, 1988 a survey was conducted by me and under my direct superv[slun of the above described parcel of land. All easements, encroach- ments and rights-of-way in evidence or known to me are shown, This survey is true and cor act to the b st of my knuwledye and belief. Dy; o ti- --~wti.-_ - Y Y • ±' Coma .. ~ f~fl-il-' " Street Address: 1340 Red Butte Drive Aspen, Colorado 141 ~'@ v i oed all Rarai ~~ ' MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community~~De~~v~~elopment Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner I AAA ~ , RE: Kribs Residence, Alpenblick Unit #15 C, 631 South Galena Street Lightwell/Stairwell Setback - Public Hearing DATE: April 1, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant, Kazen Kribs, is requesting a waiver of the lightwell and stairwell setback standards of the City's Residential Design Standards for an existing multi-family residence located in the Alpenblick Condominiums, 631 South Galena Street. The lightwell/stairwell setback standard requires these building elements to be entirely recessed behind the front-most fapade of the building. In this case, the building's Galena Street fapade initiates this requirement and waiving the standazd will allow for a lightwell and a stairway accessing the lower level to be constructed as shown in the application. The applicant wishes to redevelop the basement level to accommodate living space in what now exists as a crawlspace. The Building Code requires natural light and egress be provided for this new space. Furthermore, the applicant cannot develop a window well on the north wall of the unit due to the placement of several utility boxes serving the complex. Because the lightwell being proposed completely satisfies the building code for the proposed basement space and there does not appear to be another reasonable location to accommodate the building code, staff believes this variance request meets criteria C - necessary for site specific constraints. The stair well, however, is not a building code requirement. Therefore, staff does not support the variance for this feature. Staff recommends granting the variance requested for the window well, with conditions. APPLICANT: Kazen Kribs, owner. Represented by Kim Raymond. LOCATION: Alpenblick Condominiums Unit 15 C, 631 South Galena Street. ZONING: LTR. Lodge Tourist Residential. REVIEW PROCEDURE: DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the ~~ variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) amore effective method of addressing the standad in question; or, , c) cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. LIGHTWELLS/STAIRWELLS The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standazd: All areaways, lightwells, and/or stairways on the street facing side of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the buildingfa~ade which is closest to the street. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC vaziance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals ojthe AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) amore effective method of addressing the standard in question; or, *~w, Staff Finding: The standad specifically protects the street appearance of residential buildings by restricting significant grade changes between the street and the fagade. The applicant intends to replace some existing trees between the stairwell and the street and intends to develop the improvements in a similar style as the complex. Although there are several mitigating factors in this proposal, staff does not believe this is a more effective method of addressing the standard in question. c) clearly necessary for reasons ojjairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Creating the proposed basement space from the existing crawl space requires conformance with the building code. In this case, the window well satisfies the requirements for light and egress and there does not appear to be another feasible location for the feature. To not grant this variance would effectively not allow the proposed development to occur. Staff believes this represents a site specific constraint and recommends the standard be waived. The stairwell is an amenity not a requirement. In other words, the proposed development may occur without the stairwell feature regazdless of its location and the Ordinance 30 provisions. Staff does not believe the stairwell meets this standard. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAG grant a variance of the "lightwell setback" Residential Design Standard for the proposed lightwell for the I4ibs residence, Alpenblick Unit I S C, with the following conditions: 1. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) hereby waives the "lightwell setback" standard for the proposed lightwell for the Kribs residence, Alpenblick Unit I SC. The stairwell setback requirement is not waived. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standazds" shall apply. 2. This vaziance is granted for the specific proposal presented to the DRAG. Any substantial change to the proposed residence which necessitates an additional or different variance from the design standazds shall require review and approval by the DRAG, or any other board from which the project requires land use approval. 3. The building permit application shall include an approved tree removal/relocation permit from the City Parks Department. 4. The building permit application shall include approval from the Alpenblick Homeowners Association for any development proposed within common areas of the Alpenblick Condominiums. 5. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the "lightwell setback" Residential Design Standard, finding the waiver request meets criteria C, with the conditions listed in the Staff memo dated April 1, 1999, for the proposed lightwell for the Kribs residence, Alpenblick Condominiums Unit 15 C." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application 3 RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING A VARIANCE OF THE LIGHTWELL SETBACK STANDARD FOR THE KRIBS RESIDENCE, ALPENBLICK UNIT 15 C, 631 SOUTH GALENA STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-182-79-010 Resolution #99 - ~~- WHEREAS the applicant, Kazen Kribs, requested a variance of "Residential Design Standard" 26.58.040(F)(11), lightwell and stairwell setback, for an existing multi-family residential unit, Alpenblick Unit 15 C, located in the Alpenblick Condominiums, 631 South Galena Street, City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standazds must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff in a report dated April 1, 1999, recommended the DRAG approve the variance request for the lightwell only, finding criteria C has been met, and recommended the stairwell setback provision not be varied; and, WHEREAS during a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regulaz meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on April 1, 1999, the Committee approved, by a _ to _ vote, the lightwell setback variance, finding criteria C was met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the variance of standazd 26.58.040(F)(11), lightwell setback, for the multi-family residence, Alpenblick Unit 15 C, located at 631 South Galena Street, is hereby approved, with the following conditions: ]. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) hereby waives the "lightwell setback" standard for the proposed lightwell for the Kribs residence, Alpenblick Unit 15C. The stairwell setback requirement is not waived. All other aspects of the "Residential Design ^""°~ Standazds" shall apply. 2. This variance is granted for the specific proposal presented to the DRAC. Any substantial change to the proposed residence which necessitates an additional or different variance from the design standards shall require review and approval by the DRAC, or any other board from which the project requires land use approval. 3. The building permit application shall include an approved tree removal/relocation permit from the City Parks Department. 4. The building permit application shall include approval from the Alpenblick Homeowners Association for any development proposed within common areas of the Alpenblick Condominiums. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the ls` day of April, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMTTTEE: City Attorney ATTEST: Steve Buettow, Chair Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DESCRIPTION: Chris Bendan, 920.5072 DATE 3.9.99 ~( ~F~.1'~C.~ CA I~I~OS Kim Raymond Il,~~i_t~_ YD~KS . DRAG Request to waive the following standards: 9,~ (VI atc~ Cam. ~iU Wi wtibw W ~l.(~ ~'(~C. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.58 Residential Design Standards Review by: Staff, Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) Public Hearing: Yes, Applicant must post property at least 5 days prior to hearing. Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearing. Referral Agencies: None. Planning Fees: Planning Deposit 1(~tinor ($460) Referral Agency Fees: None Total Deposit: $460 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $185/hour) To apply, submit the following information: Refer to attached packet. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representationsthat may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. PROJECT: APPLICANT: LAND USE APPLICATION Name: I C ~Z+F ~~~5 Address: ~aYN, ¢~ At, ~~/¢ Phone #: C.l'j O ~ ZS - 2~ ZS REPRESENTATIVE: Name: ~~~ y/t ~~-~ A /I L7 Address: 4 (2 /~ [/{~ i ~ ~ ~ d avt --~--~ Phone #: cj "10 R ZS = 7 2 ~2- YPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all trial apply) ^ Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. ^ Special Review ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Development ^ Design Review Appeal ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Minor Historic Devt. ^ GMQS Allotment ^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Historic Demolition ^ GMQS Exemption ^ Subdivision ^ Historic Designation ^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ~ Other: j ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ TexUMap Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ~~Ud6~~Y~-Smlrw.rV1 Cam r~ 1~-~r PROPOSAL: uses, modifications, etc.) ,(}(/PLi ri4rl,~ rA+,~vt~ ?,a ,4n7 ~n a'v~c~ lmA ~ i c.,s,<~, - j i~15 v~ ~iG(~ `rS a,f.~?' stpB'' of 0x>;~~-/~~rLC~ . '- H ve you attached the following? FEES DuE: S ~] Pre-Application Conference Summary [Attachment #l, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ^ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Ci[v of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN 1 hereinafter CITY) and /'j A/Zf~'J ~~ JP~ 5 (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for OPPn.eM _ .Q/ OGvrl~i/ L'. Av,v~i (hereinafter. THE PROJECT). _. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. d9 (Series of 1998) establishes a tee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, narure or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the cosu involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafrer permit additional cosu to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs aze incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Ciry Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior a determination of ap atigbcompleteness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S~Q_which is for ~~_ hours of Community Development staff time, and if acrual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY 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, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT sy: WW sy:-~ ie Ann Woods ommunity Development Director Date: Mailing Address: ~'~.~~ ~o. ~/~ / z D ATTACNMENT2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: Commercial net leasable: Existing: ~ Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed.• Proposed % of demolit ion (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: 5~ A'` 1 ~}~7 Floor Area: Existing.• Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing.• Allowable: Proposed: On-Site pazking: Existing: Required: Proposed: Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required.• Proposed: Reaz Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed.• Combined F/R: Ezisting.• Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing.• Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Vaziations requested: ~~A,IJ G~ ~i0 ~ W ~ /1,~1~.) t .S (r ~_ within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) ZONING ADDRESS: Alpenblick Condominiums 474 S Galena, Unit 15C ' Aspen, CO OWNER: Karen Kribs 970-925-2525 ZONING: L/TR LOT SIZE: 23860 SQUARE FEET ALLOWABLE F.A.R. 1:1 or 23880 SQ. FT. ABOVE GRADE BELOW GRADE ADIUSTED BUILDING A 4773.0 1 193.25 220.75 BUILDING B 4773.0 2366.50 358.00 BUILDING C 4773.0 1789.80 511.00 BUILDING D 4773.0 596.60 60.50 TOTAL SQ.FT. 19092.0 5966.15 1 170.25 TOTAL F.A.R. (Includes the proposed addition) 20262.25 SQ. FT. '~TBACKS: Minimum side yard: 5 feet, front/rear yard 10' .iGHT LIMIT: 28 FEET OPEN SPACE: 2596, not affected Applicant Information: Kazen Kribs 631 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 phone/fax 970-925-2525 N.B. No mail service at physical address. Mail to: P.O.Box 9994 Aspen, Co 81612 Authorized Representative: The Owner/Applicant and/or Kim Raymond, azchitect 412 No. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 phone/fax 970-925-2252 Subject Property: Alpenblick Condominiums #15 631 So. Galena Street Aspen, CO 61611 Legal Description: Condo: Alpenblick Townhouses Unit: 15-C Bk:0509 Pg.0887 Parcel: 273718279010 Ownership: The subject property is owned by the Karen Kribs Revocable Living Trust, of which the applicant is the sole Trustee. Information above There is no mortgage on the property. The owner is not aware of any judgment, lien, easement, contract or agreement which may affect the parcel. A copy of the Title Insurance Policy is attached. All of the above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. -~ Karen Kribs, Tru ee for the Karen Kribs Date Revocable Living Trust dated 5/1/97 /-~~ -Q ~ 5~YV6T„e 18 Aspen Street Map PaM ~d r~ 4 ~C (°~ z 'W ~~ fit- ~~ i4 ~4 ~"~~_ ~ 'wc""""*~ ~ A'"M mweN.ww~ ''d,po 9 Rtl `. u. ~~ '9~~wmYp _~~ ~~ pLV o,~ ~ 51MA~ - - -~4y Y1~~J~ ~ tSy DAir ore. 8awle - ~~~-~"~~~~ ~ P 4 AsOen ~~ t~ ~ r //1 / 8 ~'~ 5 4 -~l i.~m wewtl cyektn~tn t° ~~ !x `- ~ ~~ G sr~llnm 't ~ ~¢ ,g ~~ ~ i ~ t v..n w e L.ile ,~ ~, _ a l'9d1 COylse ~ ~°o ~~ 1 ~~ ~ ci.~ r ~ ~< ~`,~ lj.~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ 1~~ `~.` Div ... g: ~mdy J bi~ '4.. ~~ ~ G`."S/w,Wq { Sy r i-. q_ 1 ~riry $$f~ e O .' -r ~rl J~ i~ a ~~ J~ r ~~ f~ f r (r !Aaroon Lake Fr ~ 4 ~; rM . V~m~F~ ~ , pp~ ~ 1 4 ~~,,.r ~ Aspen ~~~~ ~,~, , , ~~ West ` s~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3i S. yAC~/~ To AsN[rak m u s w[sra.. m~. rase 4`- ze.~ PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. P.O. BOX 1417 23286 HIGHWAY 82, SUITE 22 BASALT, COLORADO 81621-1417 970-927-4993 ~ 970-927-4096 FAX OCTOBER 29, 1998 KAREN KRIBSREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 2170 MCKELVEY ROAD MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO 63043 RE: UNIT 15, BUILDING C, ALPENBLICK CONDOS PCT12616 Pitkin County Title, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the owners policy relative to the above mentioned file. Please review the policy in its entirety. We at Pitkin County Title, Inc. believe in providing you, our customer, with a quality product which will serve your needs. we event you do find a discrepancy, or if you have any questions or comments regazding your final policy, please contact us we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible. We have assigned the above number to your rewrds to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving the property. If you sell or obtain a loan on this property within 5 years, ask your broker or agent [o contact our office to ensure re-issue rates which may be available to you. Thank you very much for giving Pitkin County Title, Inc. the opportunity to serve you Sincerely, ~~°~~ Denise L. Lange Office Manager ENCS: COPY OF TAX CERTIFICATE FOR QUESTIONS ON YOUR FINAL TITLE POLICY, PLEASE CONTACT DENISE LANGE AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. -~ T-ACE NEW ORDERS FOR A SALE OR RE-FINANCE, PLEASE CONTACT KIM SHULTZ AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. March 15, 1999 Chris Bendon Design Review Appeal Committee City of Aspen APPLICANT: KAREN KRIBS ALPENBLICK CONDOMINIUMS Attachment 5-Review Standards The applicant needs more floor area in her condominium and therefore is expanding her basement into the existing crawlspace. The only place on her unit to provide the necessary egress in the form of a window well and stairwell is on the East side of the building. This is in conflict with ordinance 30 which states that all lightwells etc. have to be "recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street". The way in which the condominiums are laid out, makes this impossible in this case. On the South side of the unit, there is a porch for the front entry and an existing window well, the North side has the utility meters for the entire building along the length of the unit, leaving no room for a window or stair well, and the West side is enclosed by the neighboring unit. The design of the proposed stairwell and window well is in line with the design of the rest of the complex. The other buildings have similar stairwells on the ends of the units, also near the center of the building. The railings proposed will match the decorative railings on the rest of the complex. The addition of a deck on the upper level, which extends beyond the proposed window well, offsets the feeling that the proposed stairwell is the first thing seen on this elevation. There is also an enclosed trash bin and bench for the complex between the building and the street which is seen first and would screen the view of the window/stair wells as people approach the complex. There are a few little aspen trees that will be transplanted to accommodate the stairwell, and these will be placed to further screen the window well. In summary, the window/stairwells are designed to fit in with the design of the rest of the complex, so they will not look like an "add-on". Their location, although on the street side of the unit, is behind the front facade of the building, being less obtrusive. Finally, it is literally the only place they could be put because of the existing conditions. r. _.. ~.,. ;- ~'; ~, :. :~: . ~.. ,; j„ .. a7j', ~,• :x. a~. ~;, r ,';.`:, ~~~ Ti{ ,i j~_. e ~ $ LL In 0 ~ ~ 2 3 ~ I U J Z tU EL J Q a Q z 0 z 0 a~ ~t 1~ i ~7 19~ti18 ~~iw Y..-. i~ D ~ y~ c a 4~'/ i r ~~• _~ i ~~ ' ~ ~3 ~ ~~a~~ ~ ~ 'a~ s ~ u ~ ~~~# ' s ~ ~ is s~v~ " ~:ea°~ a~ ~ ~a " 33__!t F 133II14 VN~1vD 2 ~~ 4 ~~rr JQ as r= o~ n 's =o .;.:t~ Q k ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ml ~a~~~~ g ~ ® z R ~ w ~~r ~ ~ e V DI z peyeE JJ~~DC 0I ~~~ h I ~' _ ~ f iii!!ll ~JJJJ O ~ $ 3 3 o ~ F ~ ~ ~ a m g ~ x~~ N ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ t ~ ® W ~ ~Z o _~ ®~ Ddb _ W <. N ~~ o ~ ~ Z ~ 9 i ., ~ m 3 , ~ 5 ~~~ °~ak WZ_ ~ ~ •~ i o ~ U b • / ~ ~ n. 1 q 8~ ~ ~ 3 R 2 1 4- t µk' P . ,~,, fl ... ~ W 5 \ ~ ~ ~' ~lel '# O N~ ~~ ' ~ ~~ ~~~ ~q ~~ty ~ {yy p4~p~((11 op C} J p ~ ~O -~m w 3 p d .: 22& BFF~~a. N2` `~~ 7 ~~ ~ ~ ~ z ® if~ 3 I i 1 tl O O P Q m ~m A N~ ^ N t py~ j r r - .. ~..~a_ _.. u ~ J ~ / dII F . ,, 1 a. i ~-. :~ O m 3 ~ G ~,. J "'FFF ~~o ~~O ~ ~~ o ,~ o }~ `I ~[. M1 ~ i r ~ ' ® , \ ': L`,~o- - 1 ,09 h 09 '. ~ I - ~ 7~5.. ,. ,00'Odl '3,00. 'N ..~ ~~ / '- 1 ~ __..-~--- e - -I ---- - ----------~----~~--- ~ P r 1 ~~b'1 S dS~7 % ~ S : ~'~~ ` aii` y~ ~~if t ~4~( -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ \ t F +. , ti ~~ , °°~~°''°''r,~, sa,r xn-xa~,v varex f+-3aa:1 ~ -~aao _ _..- ,a_,~E --- .a -~sa L~~ ~~~~~ ----~ --~ ~ °~ ~~ ~~~ . .. ~ ~~~s ~° ~o ~~, e as j~ i _ ~~~~ ~I ~~~~ ,~ =,S - =~1 -~ m .] N ~ N - -\ m\ _~ ~~S I~~~ ~_~ "S ~~ W W ~ ~ ~ z ~_ 32 Y # ~ II ~ ~ II p FY N = 9 1 N~ mod? Y t- „o ~<E t aN y_'0'wy ._. '~' ~y/i.~Z~ t/OI -~~ i ~-k ~ .e-~y A4-~ P ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ -ti- $ e aS T i- V ~ /~- - ~~ . sl t -~nl,s,~+a-I~! ;~~ ~~{ k- ~~~ `r~o sip -x~rra~ny ChM 1'~ald~l ~1 "~G01-ice 'd w ~. a.,s ~~ F~ ~. _; ~ m 3 7 F~ -~I ~x~l~ ~, ~ ~ T p ' S I 1 i I - -` -13Y I - I I I rl ~ I la ~ ;~ I~ I ' ~ r f, _1 i1~-~I ~° 3 ~ ~ ~~$ t s $ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~`~e ---~~ I, ~ >~ ~ s .~8 ~; ~' o~ ____J{t-~~~._r~ ~ I ___I I ~ ~ I I ~ I I -_r I -T I I I I I I I I --~ I 1 ~ ---~ I E 0p1 N+ Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, ~,~~ ~ L ~~ K~~) J.55 ,being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 199 (which is days prior to the public ~2he~aring date of ). ^~ By Posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from ~ ~~ the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the Giy day of ~~ ~ ~~J~ Cl~ , 199 `~, to the ~ day of ,`~~~~' i L , 199. (Must be posted for at least ten full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. -~ Signa e Signed before me this~~ day of ~~~~ 1-~ , 199/ . by IC r~ roc ~~~ !C ~ ~ h S WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: ~~ N ary ~~ ublic ~