HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.drac.011-98DRAC Resolution No. 11-98
Page 1
RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 26.58.040(F)(11), SUBGRADE
AREAS, AND DENYING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 26.58.040(F)(12),
VOLUME, OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1203 EAST HOPHINS AVENUE,
ASPEN,COLORADO
Resolution No. 11, Series of 1998
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr. Brian J. Flynn (owner), represented by Theodore
K. Guy Associates, P.C., has requested approval of a proposed design for asingle-family
residence on the property located at 1203 East Hopkins Avenue; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.58.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Community Development Departrnent staff reviewed the applicant's application for
compliance with the Residential Design Standazds of Section 26.58.040 of the Aspen
Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with
Standards 26.58.040(F)(11), Subgrade Areas, and 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the
Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.58.020(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides
that if an application is found by staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential
Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's
findings to the Design Review Appeal Boazd pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review
Appeal Boazd; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.58.020(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the applicant submitted a request for variances from Standazds 26.58.040(F)(11) and
26.58.040(F)(12) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board; and
WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of
Section 26.58.040 must meet one of the following statements 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 standazd or provision
responds to; or
c) be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints; and
WHEREAS, a public heazing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular
meeting of the Design Review Appeal Board on November 5, 1998, at which the Boazd
considered the applicant's proposal and associated vaziance requests; and
WHEREAS, a Design Review Appeal Board motion to deny the "Volume"
variance was approved by a vote of five (5) to zero (0); and
IIIIIIIIIIII"III'III'III'IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII'll
429003 03/22/1999 12:39P RESOLUTI DpVIS 9ILVI
1 of 2 R 11.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
DRAC Resolution No. 11-98
Page 2
WHEREAS, another Design Review Appeal Boazd motion to approve the
"Subgrade Areas" variance with a condition, based on vaziance criterion "b," was passed
by a vote of three (3) to two (2).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section One:
That, based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or
problem that the given standazd or provision responds to, the proposed variance request
from Section 26.58.040(F)(11), Subgrade Areas, is hereby approved with the condition
that the applicant shall not use guard rails azound the lightwells to meet UBC
requirements.
Section Two:
That the proposed vaziance request from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, is hereby
denied based on a finding that the proposal-does not satisfy any of the three criteria under
which a vaziance may be granted.
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 5th day of
November, 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
A istant City ttorney,
David Hoefer
APPEAL COMMITTEE
ATTEST:
'~~
eputy City Cler
Jackie Loth _~ .~ {~ ~~~
~ ; 9 r°S . ~• ~ ~1
I IIIIII lllll llllll I'll Iill Illllll llilll III lllll Illl IIII
429003 03/22/1999 12[59P RESOLUTI DRVIS SILVI
2 of 2 R 11.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO