Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20181218 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING December 18, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 909 Waters Ave Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard Variation B. 813 W Smuggler - Residential Design Standard Variation - Articulation of Building Mass VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 2018 Council member Walterscheid called the meeting to order at 4:31 pm. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, Ryan Walterscheid, James Marcus Absent: Skippy Mesirow, Spencer McKnight Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that she has submitted her resignation and her last meeting will be 12/18. She has enjoyed her time on the Planning and Zoning Commission and enjoyed working with everyone. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the minutes from the meetings on November 13th and 20th. Mr. Marcus seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING 331-338 Midland Ave - Aspen Hills Redevelopment - Growth Management and Associated Reviews Mr. Larimer introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that he sent an exhibit including public comment to the commissioners via email and provided them with physical copies in a packet that includes an additional public comment letter. The staff recommendation is to continue the hearing to a further date. The applicant has been working with City departments to finalize details relating to life safety and TIA requirements. However, the applicant was interested in bringing the application forward to present to the Commission to get feedback on their proposal. They would like to continue the hearing to January 22nd, 2019. P1 IV. Mr. Larimer stated that the application for the redevelopment of the Aspen Hills Condominiums was submitted by Aspen Hills Inventors LLC represented by BendonAdams LLC. Aspen Hills Condominiums are located at 331 through 338 Midland Ave in a multi-family residential district and is outside the Aspen infill area. Currently on the site is an eight-unit multi-family residence, a free-market residential unit that’s a mix of one and two-bedroom units on a 15,160 square foot lot. In 2017, the applicant submitted and received approval for a certificate of affordable housing project where they converted the eight free-market units to deed-restricted affordable housing units to generate certificates of affordable housing credits. As part of that approval process, the applicant worked with the Building department and APCHA and outlined a list of renovations that would be required to meet building code requirements and the APCHA marketability standards and provide quality units to be added to the inventory. If the current proposal is approved, the previous approval would be nullified but the development agreement between APCHA, the Building department, and the applicant that outlined the list of renovations would be carried forward and the development agreement would be a required condition of approval for the current proposal. Mr. Larimer stated that the current proposal includes the redevelopment of the property to include 14 units with a mix of market residential and affordable housing units. The list of renovations that were agreed upon by APCHA, the Building department, and the applicant would be done to the existing structure, the extent of the renovations to the existing structure with triggered demolition as measured by the land use code. In addition to the redevelopment of the existing eight-unit structure, the applicant proposes six free-market residential units on the remaining site to the north and to the west of the existing structure. There are number of land use reviews that are triggered, and the application fulfills the requirements of some of them. Mr. Larimer stated that the three main reviews to be discussed at the meeting include special review for the replacement of the nonconforming structure, the below-grade condition of the affordable housing units, and a request to allow for four compact parking spaces. Mr. Larimer showed on a picture on the slide that there would be six parking spaces and three private unassigned spaces. He showed on the slide that, on each of the elevations, there are dashed lines both at the bottom of the proposal, near grade and at the top. He stated that the applicant requested an interpolated grade determination be conducted by the Engineering department and the applicant team to determine the pre-developed topography, which will be used to measure height when natural grade is most restrictive. The applicant has shown the 32-foot height limit, which is the zone district maximum height required for this density development in the multi-family residential zone district. Mr. Larimer stated that the application was referred to Zoning, Building, Parks, Environmental Health and the APCHA board. The APCHA board considered a reduction in unit sizes below what the guidelines require and the 50% below-grade condition as well. They recommended in favor of the project with conditions. They asked that the applicant provide additional storage for the affordable housing units, which the applicant has added to their proposal. Staff have determined that the added storage space measures about 70 square feet and have concerns about how useable that storage space is and if it meets the APCHA board’s intent. The Building department is still working through life safety concerns with existing paths and Transportation and Engineering are still waiting on some outstanding TIA provisions to meet the requirements of that section of the code. Mr. Larimer showed a section of the proposal on the slide that shows the affordable housing units. He showed that the finished grade puts the lower level almost entirely below-grade and stated that the land use code provides for relief from this standard if certain amenities are provided as part of the P2 IV. proposal. Those amenities include adequate storage, natural light, larger than minimum required unit size, and unit amenities such as outdoor living spaces or private patios. The code also talks about the below-grade condition being a response to natural topography. He stated that it’s staff’s position that the amenities the land use code lays out to allow for relief from this standard have not been met and that it’s not a response to natural topography, but also a result of the proposed development that creates this condition. Staff does not recommend approval of the special review request to allow for 50% of the unit to be below-grade. Mr. Larimer stated that the next item is a replacement of the nonconforming structure within the setback and over the property line. He showed on an image on the slide where the property line and setback are located and the areas where the property is and would continue to be beyond the property line. Staff feels that, because of the extensive scope of work and the extensive redevelopment of the property, the property should be required to comply with the land use code and nonconformity should not be carried forward. Mr. Larimer turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Seeing no questions, Mr. Waltersheid turned the meeting over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Bendon from BendonAdams introduced himself as the representative of the applicant, Aspen Hills Investors. He introduced Bill Barringer as the manager of the company that provided the application, Michael Edinger as the architect for the project, and Jonathan Rice with Woody Creek Engineering. Mr. Bendon stated that staff and the applicants are looking to get direction on some of the major pieces of the application and aren’t looking for a decision at this meeting. Mr. Bendon has provided a revised transportation impact analysis to Engineering that mitigates all of their trips. He stated that those elements have been satisfied. Mr. Bendon stated that the previous application was for a credits project. The applicants went through an extensive review with APCHA to specify the upgrades. He stated that, when the developer initially drew the lines on the Aspen Hills and Aspen View properties, he drew them right around the deck, stairs, and up against the building. Because there were no subdivision review standards, he essentially assumed a zero-foot setback. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants originally pursued the affordable housing credits program. Two things moved the applicants towards a more extensive remodeling and, technically, demolition of the building. One is the status of the credits market, which makes the applicants concerned about the absorption rate of current credits. Also, they realized that the easiest thing to do from a construction standpoint is to take the roof off and put an entirely new one back on, though that does trigger demolition and a need to look at the replacement program. There’s a requirement that, when you demolish, you have to replace onsite with affordable housing. The remaining development on the site can be free-market, but you can’t exceed the original number of units. The roof and other upgrades that need to be done push the project over that demolition threshold. The applicant’s requirement is to replace those as resident-occupied or lower. They would be multi-family and new construction with covered parking. He stated that the large berm on the northern side of the property influenced the grade measurement and the desire to measure from interpolated grade. P3 IV. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants held a neighborhood meeting as a part of their public noticing and several neighbors attended. The neighbors brought up concerns about parking, lighting, roof decks and the noise and lighting that comes with those, soil and the water table, and comments about shading. He stated that he had a conversation with Barbara Lee, who submitted a letter of public comment to the Commission. She is concerned about parking and has been involved in a conversation with the City about converting that neighborhood into zoned parking. The applicants also support zoned parking in this neighborhood. Mr. Bendon stated that the project is not a planned development, so this is not a review where the applicants need to negotiate the zoning dimensions. The applicants meet the height for the zone district, which is 32 feet. They need to meet the floor area, amount of deck area, the unit size limitation, and trash requirements. There are requirements around parking, which requires 26 units with a minimum of 60% to be provided onsite with actual parking spaces. The applicants meet the parking requirements. There are three reviews in growth management and staff has requested that the applicants meet the multi-family replacement requirements and the affordable housing requirements as part of growth management. There are some general standards that relate to the 50% above-grade requirement and the nonconforming structures issue is dealing with the setback conditions that exist onsite. Staff have suggested that the applicants meet the parking and transportation section, and lastly there’s a residential design review. Mr. Bendon stated that the units were originally designed to be basically all the same. He stated that the entrance is on the top floor with the bedrooms down below, with the two areas being the same size. He stated that the calculation of net-livable area only counts the stairs on the bottom level, not the top level, throwing off the 50/50 ratio. He stated that that is an existing condition that the applicants are asking the Commission to accept. Mr. Bendon stated that the units are individually owned, so they all look a little different, but all have the same layout. Because of their excellent location, these are the type of units that slowly slide into second home territory, which has already happened to a few of the units. The property line is right on the edge of the deck. He stated that more small storage units could be built to enhance the amenities of the units since the applicants had committed to Housing that they would explore opportunities for additional storage. If the applicants are in a position where they have to get back to the 50%, they would reduce the downstairs square-footage in the one-bedroom units, which the applicants do not want to do. There are also opportunities to increase square-footage upstairs. Mr. Bendon stated that the next special review is regarding the setback conditions. The applicants would like to be able keep the deck which is, for the most part, above the 30-inch limitation of what you can have in the setback area. The applicants can minimize the deck, though they would prefer not to. If the Commission does not approve the special review, the deck will have to be removed. Mr. Bendon stated that there’s some area on the far eastern side of the property that, due to that property line being drawn up against the building, doesn’t meet the current setback. It has been there for 50 years and hasn’t been an issue. However, if the commissioners ask the applicants to remove parts of the building to meet the setbacks, it could be done, though it would be difficult. Mr. Bendon stated that, in summary, the project is a demolition, due to the roof replacement and the selective demolition that needs to be done with the building. The replacement requirements are 1:1 for the units that are demolished. The project includes eight units of affordable housing, six two-bedrooms, P4 IV. two one-bedrooms, a mix of for-sale and rentals, resident-occupied is the requirement. The redevelopment credits would be used onsite for the six free-market units, leaving two on the table. There is more than one parking space for each unit. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants had a good meeting with APCHA staff and the board. All affordable housing is good, but they prefer category units rather than resident-occupied units. Their preference was for rental and for a category designation. The applicants prefer to fix the units up, convert them to resident-occupied, and sell them. He stated that the applicants put in a proposal to APCHA to designate the units as category five, which lowers the value of the units meaning that Mr. Barringer is internally-subsidizing that offer. Mr. Barringer would offer those to APCHA to purchase with a transferrable purchase rate. The units would be a transferrable right that APCHA could hand over and Mr. Barringer would honor them. There would be a time limit on that option so that, once that expires, they would revert back to resident-occupied. If the employer buys the other category units, they would be an opportunity to assemble the ownership of the whole eight units down the road if one of the legacy owners wants to go sell instead of going through the APCHA lottery. The applicants thought it might be of interest for Aspen Skiing Company to end up owning the whole building as opposed to bits and pieces of it. Mr. Barringer stated that he would like the commissioners’ input on the special review requirements and stated that it’s really an outcome of how the buildings was subdivided in the first place. He stated that the applicants are not razing the building but taking the roof off, so it’s not an opportunity for them to pick up the whole building and push it over five feet. Though there are ways for the applicants to get there, the applicants see that as the unique circumstances that should allow the Commission to support the special review. Mr. Bendon turned the meeting over to Mr. Edinger. Mr. Edinger stated that the applicants focused on making sure that the new construction they were designing and planning meets the underlying codes. The new portion of the building meets all of those. The proposal is below the allowable FAR by the density, so the applicants are trying to minimize the overall number of units because that’s a better impact on that community and will result in a better project. It’s just the existing building that has funny circumstances that the applicants inherited because of the way things are calculated and the lines on paper. They don’t think that taking away square footage from future affordable housing is the right way to plainly read the language in the zoning criteria; a more nuanced approach would be relevant. He stated that preserving and improving the existing building is preferable to a full demolition and rebuild. Mr. Waltersheid asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. Carver stated that the applicants are asking the commissioners for their opinions on the existing building when she believes the project should be examined as a whole. Mr. Edinger stated that comments on the overall project are welcome but would especially like feedback on those specific items so that the applicants can strategize how to meet those criteria either through special review or through bringing it into true compliance. Mr. Bendon stated that the commissioners are needed to review the grade, the parking spaces, and the setback conditions on this project. The remainder of the project is prescribed by what’s allowed on the property according to the zoning code. It’s not a planned development, so it’s not a negotiated thing. Ms. McGovern asked which of the four parking spaces are the compact spaces. P5 IV. Mr. Bendon stated that the compact parking spaces are supported by staff. He pointed out the compact parking spaces on a picture on the slide. The difference in dimension is six inches on the width and two feet on the depth, so that they can be eight by 16 instead of eight and a half by 18. Ms. McNichols Kury asked who the property owner is directly to the south. Mr. Bendon replied that it is Aspen View condominiums. Mr. Edinger stated that their parking wraps around the back to the east. Mr. Dupps asked if there is a way to keep the roof on the eight-unit building and if that would put the project under the demolition threshold. Mr. Edinger stated that he has not done a study to analyze the different means and methods of construction, but the applicants and APCHA decided as a collective to make sure that the livability and life safety of the units are coming up. He stated that there are other elements that would probably get the project to the demolition threshold. Mr. Dupps asked if the applicants presented the affordable housing offer to Mike Kosdrosky and if he okayed that idea. Mr. Bendon replied yes. He stated that the applicants made that commitment with Mr. Kosdrosky and it was also part of their conversation with the housing board. Ms. McGovern asked for the south elevation. Mr. Edinger showed her where that it in the packet. Mr. Marcoux stated that he is concerned about the parking, which is already difficult in that neighborhood. Mr. Bendon stated that this project is not about redoing the road situation. The applicants’ challenge is to meet the City’s expectations regarding onsite parking, which they have done. He stated that he is aware that parking in this neighborhood is a problem and a zoned parking system in this neighborhood is a good solution, but not in the purview of this project. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any other questions from the commissioners. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to public comment. He explained the procedures for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Frank Macdonald introduced himself as the president of the homeowners’ association of Aspen View. He expressed concerns about the adverse easements and the encroachments. He also expressed concern about increased population density, increase in employee housing which would affect the property values of the free-market units, the loss of light on the north side of the Aspen View building, parking, the noise and disturbance caused by construction, as well as concerns about hazardous materials and pollution generated by the construction project. He stated that there are 18 units in the P6 IV. Aspen View, with 16 owners. He stated that he speaks for the majority of the owners who are not here today. Steve Hawk introduced himself as a neighbor to the south. He expressed agreement with Mr. Macdonald’s concerns about parking. He stated that the cause of the issue was employee housing that was approved with inadequate parking. He stated that people typically have multiple cars. He also stated that he thinks that the 5-feet setback is too small. Katherine Cook introduced herself as the president of the Midland Park homeowners’ association. She agreed with previously expressed concerns about parking. She also stated that she is concerned about the small size of the affordable housing units and the lack of storage. She requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider this proposal very carefully. David Halverson introduced himself as the property manager for John and Barbara Lee at 327 Midland, which is exactly across the street on the south side. He stated that he is in agreement with previously expressed concerns about parking. Mr. Walterscheid stated that the commissioners received letters from Alain Sunier, Barney Oldfield, Barbara Lee, and Frank McDonald. Cindy Huban introduced herself as a resident at Midland Park. She stated that she is also concerned with parking in the neighborhood. She stated that people participating in special events are beginning to park in the neighborhood as well as valet. She stated that the street is private, so police say that they cannot help when neighbors call them about parking issues. She stated that homeless people also sleep in their cars that they park on the street. She stated that this project will exasperate the parking problem. Mr. Edinger asked Ms. Huban about the source of the valet parking. Ms. Huban replied that the valet parking is from special parties in the neighborhood. She stated that, when the neighbors try to stop them, the police say that they can’t do anything about it because it’s a civil matter. Tom Griffiths introduced himself as a Midland Park resident. He stated that their primary ingress road goes right along the berm where the new construction of the units is proposed. He expressed concern that the shadows from the new building are going to make the uphill ingress icy. He also expressed concerns about the rooftop deck units because of noise and light pollution. He also expressed concern about the impacts that the new construction will have on Midland Park, stating that the residents are not happy with it. Mr. Waltersheid asked for additional public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner discussion. He stated that the commissioners will converse first and then give their recommendations to the applicants. Mr. Marcoux stated that he suspects APCHA approved this project in order to increase their employee housing numbers. He stated that there should be more emphasis on the existing units. Adding storage does not do enough to improve the project. P7 IV. Mr. Walterscheid stated that there are specific areas where the applicants are looking for feedback and guidance. Ms. Bryan stated that the guidance should be focused on following the criteria that’s outlined in the packet and comments should be limited to that. Mr. Marcoux stated that he would like to see more light downstairs. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Larimer if he can put the slide with the special review criteria up on the screen. Ms. Phelan stated that there’s a basis for granting variations based on upgrades and amenities when a certain percentage of the building below-grade more than what is permitted. These might include significant storage associated with the units, an above average amount of natural light being provided, net livable unit sizes being exceeded, or unit amenities such as access to outdoor space and private patios. Mr. Larimer stated that the criteria for replacing a nonconforming structure is: special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variants that will make possible the reasonable use of the property and literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship on the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Mr. Marcus asked if Mr. Larimer has the criteria specific to the parking issue. Ms. Phelan stated that parking standards have been overhauled a couple of times. There’s no maximum, there’s a sliding scale that you can provide. She asked Mr. Larimer what the numbers are for minimum parking. Mr. Larimer stated that the development requires that 26 parking spaces be mitigated. The land use code allows for development in the residential multifamily zone district outside the Aspen infill area can provide 60% onsite and 40% of their requirement can be provided through cash-in-lieu. Ms. McGovern stated that the applicants are providing 60% on site and the additional through cash-in- lieu, so they comply with the land use code regarding the number of parking spaces. What the commissioners are being asked to approve is the dimensional requirements for the four compact spaces. Mr. Marcus stated that he was asking if there are any criteria around that. Mr. Larimer replied that the special review criteria to allow compact parking says that the transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demand, the project’s projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests, and employees. The second criteria is an onsite mitigation solution meeting the P8 IV. requirements and guidelines is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The third is existing or planned onsite or offsite facilities adequately serve the needs of the parking development including the availability of street parking. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that the commissioners could reject the four compact spaces, which would put them at fewer than their 15 required to meet the 60%, and then, following that to its natural conclusion, the commission could say they didn’t meet their transportation obligation. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants would then make the spaces 6-inches wider. They would not change their parking counts. Mr. Marcus asked Mr. Bendon why the applicants didn’t make larger spaces in the first place. Mr. Bendon replied that the engineering code allows for compact spaces. The compact spaces make it easier to get to the trash storage area. He stated that there was a concern from Environmental Health that the project has a sufficient trash area, so that area would need to be made longer and skinnier. Mr. Marucs asked if the trash area would then be noncompliant. Mr. Edinger replied that it would be a half day drafting exercise to change the dimensions of the trash enclosure. The end result would be the same in terms of the trash service and the number of spots provided. He stated that, when laying those out, he would always try to get some compact spaces in there because it eases the burden of the traffic patterns in and out of the parking spots. That combined with the allowable code provisions were the reasons for the compact spaces. Mr. Dupps stated that it seems that zoned parking needs to happen in that neighborhood. He asked if it’s within Planning and Zoning’s power to say that engineering needs to implement zoned parking for this area. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the process is in terms of what Planning and Zoning has the power to do, regarding Mr. Dupps’s question. Ms. Phelan stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is working within the parameters of the land use code. As citizens, they would be welcome to go to City Council and say that they would like to see zoned parking in that neighborhood. Mr. Marcus stated that the parking condition has existed for quite a long time and this proposal should not become the target of that just because it happens to be the most recent thing to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Marcoux expressed agreement with Mr. Marcus’s comments. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the commissioners can make a recommendation to City Council as a board that the City provide zoned parking in that neighborhood. Ms. Bryan stated that that is a possibility. P9 IV. Mr. Walterscheid stated that the Commission is in a strange situation where almost every public comment is regarding parking, which is something that they can’t address. He stated that, as a commission, they are tied to discussing certain things. If they extend beyond that, they have completely overreached. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that that is why she wanted to see if there was something they can do outside of the scope of this hearing. Mr. Walterscheid stated that Planning and Zoning has, in the past, sent City Council a list of concerns. Ms. McGovern stated that Mr. Mesirow started a list like this at a previous Planning and Zoning meeting and this parking issue could be added to that. Ms. Phelan stated that the commissioners could send an email signed by the chair to all of Council. Ms. Bryan stated that she attended a City Council meeting where this issue was raised by members of the public, so it is on their radar as well as the Parking department’s radar. Planning and Zoning can absolutely make those recommendations to City Council. Ms. Carver asked Mr. Bendon to remind the commissioners and the public how much one parking space mitigation costs. Mr. Bendon stated that it costs $38,000. Ms. Carver stated that a parking space at Obermeyer costs almost $200,000 and the developers only need to pay $38,000. She stated that she thinks that amount is inadequate and would like to see the that added to Planning and Zoning’s list of concerns. A man asked from the public seating if it’s discretionary for the Planning and Zoning to approve that mitigation amount or not. Ms. Phelan replied no, that there is a set amount of parking that they need to mitigate. Mr. Walterscheid asked the commissioners what recommendations they would like to make and how they would like to move this forward. Mr. Dupps stated that the two sticking points are the subgrade units, which don’t meet the 50% rule, and the property line not being conforming. However, he stated that he’s convinced that both can be remedied. He stated that, as far as the things they can make a ruling on, he is not seeing anything that is stopping it. Mr. Marcus seconded Mr. Dupps’s opinion. He stated that this is a condition that has existed for quite a long time and that to rectify it doesn’t seem like an appealing option. For the parking, he would like to understand better if there’s a significant reason why the parking spaces would have to be compact. Ms. McGovern stated that she would like to see exploration on how to address the subgrade condition that is being made much worse by this development. Even though it is an existing condition, it has gotten significantly worse, especially on the north and west sides of that existing building. She would P10 IV. like to see some outdoor amenities, unit amenities, or significant storage. As the free-market units are getting roof decks, she wondered if there is an opportunity to give some dedicated outdoor patio space to these units to make them more desirable. She stated that she does not think it’s appropriate to completely raze the building to get it off of the property line. There needs to be some civil action done with the people who actually own the property, which should be done before it goes to building permit. However, that is not the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. There needs to be more work done on the ways to promote livability, especially since they are going into the APCHA rental pot. Ms. McGovern does not feel bothered that the parking spaces are compact. However, if there is a way to make the spaces comply 100%, that would be great. If that makes it so that the trash does not comply with Environmental Health, that’s a domino effect that she is not sure is worth four spaces. Ms. Carver stated that she agrees with the light issue. She stated that it’s impossible to talk about one building without bringing up the new one next to it. She thinks it’s important for the applicants to do whatever they can to make those units more desirable with some of the things that are in the guidelines. Mr. Marcoux asked the height of the existing building. Mr. Edinger stated that the ridge is about 15 feet high. Mr. Marcoux asked if they are removing the roof. Mr. Edinger replied yes and stated that it would be replaced at the same low angle. Mr. Marcoux stated that there could have been more thought put into the design. A lot of money is being spent in different areas that should be spent to avoid these issues. He stated that it’s unfortunate that the parking issue has clouded everyone’s feelings. Being in construction, he thinks of all the vehicles that are going to be in the area. If it rolls into winter and the City of Aspen didn’t really address the parking issue, those are the issues that need to be addressed before giving a decision. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she can make recommendations but will not be on Planning and Zoning when the time comes to vote on the proposal. She feels that the applicants should have to bring their building into compliance. There are possible conversations about re-doing the programming to retain their 100% replacement of the units. She doesn’t know if there is a negotiable outcome with the property owner of the Aspen View that is beneficial to them to gain the five-feet that is needed for the property line setback. She would like to see under-deck storage explored as a possible amenity should the project not be required to come into conformity. She stated that maximizing the skylight to achieve above-average natural lighting is something she would also like to see explored. She wondered if there was the opportunity for loft storage when they raze the roof and replace it. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he is torn. He stated that there are stronger arguments to be made as to how to make the project align more with what the requirements really are. He understands that the applicants can play the math and eliminate the below-grade space to get there, but they will not get a positive response from the rest of the board by going that route. If it’s as simple as adding entry foyers or something to bring the square footage above for those affordable housing units, that would get them much closer to a positive vote. If the entire roof is coming off, he would like to see the applicants take advantage of that in one form or another. He does not have a problem with the compact parking, but he does want the public to understand that he hears the complaints that have been brought forward. P11 IV. He stated that they do have a responsibility to relay that to Council as a commission. He recommended that the applicant come back with something that makes the affordable housing units more attractive to the broader community. He asked Ms. Phelan how she would like them to proceed. Ms. Phelan stated that staff are asking for a motion to continue the meeting to a date certain. Staff is proposing January 22nd. She stated that some materials were submitted to different departments without being submitted to Community Development, so staff want to make sure that they have the time to vet them thoroughly for the board. Mr. Bendon asked if they can summarize the feedback to make sure that applicants and the commissioners are on the same page. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he is fine with that. Mr. Bendon stated that the commissions want the applicants to look at amenities that they can approve on the affordable housing to overcome the sub-50%. He stated that they can look at storage, light, and other amenities. He stated that he heard a mixed opinion on the compact parking spaces. He thinks the commissioners are wondering if there is a design obstacle or downstream effect if they do not do the compact parking. He heard mixed feedback on the setback condition on the south side. They don’t necessarily have the opportunity to move the building, but others said that they ought to look at moving the building. He asked Mr. Edinger if there are other elements he wants to have clarified. Mr. Edinger stated that he thinks there are many different options for improvements that can be made to the units. The building setback is tougher with the date of the building and the existing improvements that they’re already doing. He asked the commissioners if the commission would overlook the setback if they add significant amenities to the units. Mr. Marcus stated that he heard from the code that providing the additional amenities would allow the Commission to give leniency on the 50% requirement. Ms. McGovern stated that the leniency is for the below-grade and has nothing to do with the setback issues. Mr. Watlerschied stated that there are certain things that the applicants are asking for and the Commission needs to have something to justify their approval. He stated that he would like to see improvements made to the existing building that justified why it should remain there. Otherwise, his response will probably be that the building should be razed and replaced with new and improved affordable housing units. Mr. Bendon stated that that was what he was hearing from the discussion. He stated that their task is to bring back a building that has more amenities and is more attractive as an affordable housing structure. Then they can discuss the setback condition again. Ms. Carver stated that she likes the idea of a small atrium. ADJOURN P12 IV. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the meeting to January 22nd, 2019. Mr. Walterscheid seconded. All in favor, motioned carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager P13 IV. TO: Planning & Zoning FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 909 Waters Avenue MEETING DATE: December 18, 2018 APPLICANT: Neal Katyal, 909 Waters LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, Bendon Adams LOCATION: 909 Waters Avenue CURRENT ZONING: Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards for the remodel and addition to a single-family dwelling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard. MEMORANDUM Planning & Zoning Commission Kevin Rayes, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director 909 Waters Avenue- RDS Variation , 2018 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: 909 Waters Ave, Looking South Waters Ave S. W est En d St Page 1 of 6 , Looking South P14 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: · Residential Design Standards Variation (Section 26.410.020.C, Variations): To grant a variation of the Articulation of Building Mass standard to add to the existing sidewall depth of the dwelling. Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential Design section of the code, in which an applicant is applying for a variation, require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. BACKGROUND: 909 Waters Avenue contains a single-family dwelling located within the Aspen Infill Area. Located in the R- 15 Zone District, the lot is 6,000-square feet and is considered non-conforming with regards to lot size. The applicant plans to remodel the existing dwelling and requests a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard to build an addition on the rear of the building (see figures 3-6). The existing dwelling (built in the early 90’s, prior to RDS standards), exceeds the 50-ft. maximum sidewall depth prescribed in the current Residential Design Standards. The eastern sidewall measures 54-feet, 7½- inches in length. The western sidewall measures 50-feet 7½-inchs. The proposed remodel adds 4 feet along the bulk of the south façade but incorporates a chamfered corner along the southwest sidewall to minimize impacts to the west façade. However, by filling in the rear patio and deck areas with a two-story addition, the overall depth of the dwelling will increase, thus increasing to the existing non-conformity. The proposed design requires a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Non-flexible Residential Design Standard. Non-flexible standards are those that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted. The applicant is seeking an RDS variation pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. Additionally, the proposed work may impact some trees located in the rear yard. Prior to issuing a building permit, the applicant will need to coordinate with the Parks Department regarding potential impacts to trees on site. REVIEWS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION: Section 26.410.020.C, Residential Design Standard Variations, require applications that seek a variation from the Residential Design Standards be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission can approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director based on the standards outlined in section 26.410.020.C, Variation Review Standards. Staff Comment: An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The general intent statement of the Residential Design Standard code section specifies that buildings should “provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character” to P15 VI.A. ensure that single-family dwellings respond to neighboring adjacent development. The Articulation of Building Mass standard greater than fifty (50) feet in depth to “reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildin viewed from all sides.” The sidewall lengths and overall depth of the existing dwelling are currently non conforming. While incorporating the chamfered corner along the southwest sidewall does not increase the sidewall depth, the overall perceived mass of the dwellin in the rear yard. Figure 3: 909 Waters Main Level- Existing family dwellings respond to neighboring properties by retaining similar massing and scale to Articulation of Building Mass standard prescribes a maximum sidewall depth of no “reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildin The sidewall lengths and overall depth of the existing dwelling are currently non While incorporating the chamfered corner along the southwest sidewall does not increase the l perceived mass of the dwelling will be increased by filling in the deck and patio space Existing Figure 4: 909 Waters Main Level 54 .7 5- 4- Page 3 of 6 properties by retaining similar massing and scale to prescribes a maximum sidewall depth of no “reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as The sidewall lengths and overall depth of the existing dwelling are currently non- While incorporating the chamfered corner along the southwest sidewall does not increase the will be increased by filling in the deck and patio space 909 Waters Main Level- Proposed 54 .7 5- P16 VI.A. Existing deck/patio Figure 5: Existing Conditions Figure 6: Proposed Conditions Fill in existing deck/patio to add net livable square feet Proposed chamfered corner Conditions Conditions Page 4 of 6 Fill in existing deck/patio to add net livable square feet P17 VI.A. Page 5 of 6 RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard as the proposal increases the existing nonconformity by adding to the perceived mass of the dwelling. PROPOSED MOTION: The resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. If the commission supports staff’s recommendation, a motion to deny, as suggested below should be used. “I move to deny the request for Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard.” Attachments: Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Exhibit B- Application Exhibit C- Public Noticing Affidavit Exhibit D- Letter from Applicant P18 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 P19 VI.A. RESOLUTION NO.___ (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 120, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 909 WATERS AVENUE. Parcel No. 2737-182-81-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 909 Waters LLC, 909 Waters Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 909 Waters Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Residential Design Standard Variation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted to continue review of the application for a future hearing on December 18; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 18, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, P20 VI.A. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution _, Series of 2018, by a X to X (_ - _) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard Variation as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard variation to fill in existing deck and patio space with additional floor area in the rear yard (Chapter 26.410.020.C, Variations), varying from the Articulation of Building Mass standard. All other dimensional standards including height and setbacks shall be met. Section 2: Parks: A tree permit is required prior to removal of trees. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on December 18, 2018. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: _________________________ ______________________________ Jim True, City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeanine Stickle, Records Manager P21 VI.A. Exhibits: Exhibit A: Approved Building Plans Exhibit A: Approved Building Plans P22 VI.A. Exhibit A: Approved Building Plans P23 VI.A. Exhibit A: Approved Building Plans P24 VI.A. Exhibit A: Approved Building Plans P25 VI.A. P26 VI.A. Exhibit A Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: The intent of the Articulation of Building Mass standard is to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. The code indicates that this standard is critical in the Infill Area where “small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent.” 909 Waters Ave is located on an undersized, non-conforming lot within the Aspen Infill Area, with a single-family dwelling that does not comply with current RDS Standards. Granting a variation to increase the mass and bulk of the dwelling will increase the non-conformity of the structure which is inconsistent with the intent and standards of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: Although 909 Waters Ave is non-conforming with regards to lot size, this is not considered an unusual circumstance or site-specific constraint that is unique to the parcel. Many other properties in Aspen are considered non-conforming and are still required to comply with design standards. There are no site-specific constraints or unusual circumstances that would prevent the applicant from complying with this standard. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P27 VI.A. September 24, 2018 Mr. Kevin Rayes Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 909 Waters Avenue Mr. Rayes: Please accept this application for Residential Design Standards, variation to the Articulation of Building Mass standard, for the 909 Waters Avenue project. The existing residence, a Harry Teague design, is a two-story single-family home that sits on a rectangular 6,000 square-foot lot in the East End of Aspen, just off South West End Street. It is zoned R- 15 and was constructed in 1990 prior to the Residential Design Standards. The home is owned by 909 Waters LLC. Neal Katyal is the principal of 909 and has authorized BendonAdams to submit this application. Kim Raymond Architects is the Architect of record and has prepared the attached design set. Mr. Katyal, a Georgetown professor who writes about architecture, was drawn to the Harry Teague design of the house from the moment he saw it three years ago. At the same time, he knew the house was small for his immediate and extended family. The house was built and designed by a couple 25 years ago and had never had more than two occupants. So, he wanted to expand the house to accommodate his larger family, but at the same time insisted that the integrity of the Teague design be 100% unchanged. He therefore rejected out-of-hand easy ways to expand the house, such as increasing some of the front of the house to match the frontmost wall. Instead, he required the house to maintain its simple, elegant look and to have the front and visible sides to be entirely unchanged. Exhibit B- Application P28 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 909 Waters RDS The project will remodel the existing home and therefore only add to the rear of the building, enclosing a portion of the existing deck. A small addition, creating a partial third level, is proposed to serve as a home office. This space uses a split-level approach to minimize height and fit within zoning restrictions. The proposal includes use of a Transferable Development Right. Although non-conforming with respect to lot size, this non-historic property is an eligible “landing” site, as confirmed by the City through issuance of an official interpretation with respect to this specific property (attached). The use of a TDR assists the City’s efforts to protect historic resources, compensating owners of historical properties for relinquishing a portion of their development right. The applicant owns a TDR having purchased it in anticipation of this addition after obtaining the City’s official interpretation. Initial designs were reviewed with City staff for compliance with the Residential Design Standards. The applicant and the architects listened closely to the City staff to take account of staff’s concerns. While not required at the time of the Teague design, a few minor “jogs” in the existing side walls help provide visual relief and architectural interest. The applicant explored making one or more significant sidewall jogs at roughly 35-45 feet into the property. These options caused the project to exceed the 40% demolition threshold. Between the extra scope, increased expense, and the additional regulations applicable upon demolition, incorporation of new, substantial sidewall jogs became impractical. As mentioned, the applicant also briefly considered additions to the front of the home. These concepts were quickly panned for being too impactful on the original design of the home and for not addressing the cramped kitchen and dining areas, which are at the rear of the property. The Residential Design Standards call for a maximum sidewall depth of 50 feet. Section 26.410.030.B1– Articulation of Building Mass states: A principal building shall be no greater than 50 feet in depth, as measured from the front most-wall of the front facade to the rear wall. The existing conditions of the structure measure the eastern sidewall at 54 feet 7½ inches, clearly greater than the standard (adopted after the home was built) mandates. The proposed remodel will not lengthen this eastern sidewall. The western sidewall, measuring at 50 feet 7½ inches in length, also will not be increased. The overall depth of the structure will be greater. This is possible by use of a chamfered corner, mimicking existing interior and exterior 45-degree angles of the current design. This design decision was prompted by the sidewall regulation but also creates an interior and exterior layout strongly preferred by the applicant. In the end, the proposed design does not change the length of any of the sidewalls. The sidewall standard, however, has been interpreted to account for the overall depth of the home, not just the length of the sidewall. So, while neither sidewall is increasing in length, the increase in the overall depth of the home necessitates this variation. The proposed design achieves that without increasing the visible mass of the house while preserving the integrity of the Teague design. Waters Ave. & front of house Exhibit B- Application P29 VI.A. Page 3 of 6 909 Waters RDS Standard of Review The Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize a variation from the Residential Design Standards if one of the two following criteria are met: LUC Section 26.410.020.D.1-2: An application requesting variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statement in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. We believe both criteria are met – there is a clear site-specific constraint and the design approach accomplishes the intent of the sidewall requirement. The Katyal residence is an existing structure within an existing neighborhood. The Katyals are seeking an update to the property and a small addition to the rear to accommodate better living conditions for their larger family. They have never sought to demolish the house. If a full “scrape and replace” were contemplated, adherence to the sidewall regulation would be much easier as the existing site- specific constraint would be removed. The existing home is highly functional and a nice element of Aspen’s architectural inventory. Working with this existing building is unavoidable and represents a site-specific constraint. Applying new codes to existing properties necessitates flexibility and recognition of existing circumstances. The City first initiated residential design controls in 1995 through the adoption of Ordinance 30. This home was built 5 years prior to any residential design criteria. The City’s approach to Residential Design Standards has evolved with three or four versions of the Standards. Various versions of the Standards have layered on various compliance issues over the years, the current layer regarding sidewall length. The Teague-designed home is modest in its character and street presence and has fit-in with its Waters Avenue context for the past 25+ years. The adoption of the most-recent Residential Design Standards created this non-conformity. An acceptable design in this context is now non- compliant; but not by an action of the applicant. To shrink the sidewalls of the home to comply with the new standards does not appear as a fair or reasonable request. The applicant explored these options and quickly determined that it would undermine the integrity of the original Teague design. Doing so has other complications as well, including the level of demolition (exceeding the 40% threshold), the level of additional expense, the increase in project timeframe, the increased construction impacts on surrounding property owners, and the fact that the level of overall project complexity would far surpass normal, reasonable expectation. The applicant has no desire whatsoever to demolish the current home. Exhibit B- Application P30 VI.A. Page 4 of 6 909 Waters RDS Shrinking the sidewalls would have a negligible effect on the public’s view of the home. The parcel is mid-block and does no have an alley. The public has a minimal perception of the sidewall length given the aspect of the property and the view angles. Pictures to the right show the sidewall view along the east side of the property (left) and along the western side of the property (right). From the front of the house and anywhere on the street, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to detect any change whatsoever. This is precisely the look the Katyals were seeking. The home will remain small in comparison to the context of the neighborhood. The Gant to the south, larger single-family and duplex structures, and a few multi-family buildings along Waters Avenue are larger in both footprint and height than the 909 project. The aerial view, to the right makes this clear, as the houses (including both of the neighboring houses) are far larger than the proposed design (and most all of them are more than 50 feet in depth); the home with the proposed design would remain one of the smallest homes on the street. Incorporation of the chamfered corner is a design element preferred by the applicant. This angle relates to existing internal and external ques to the Teague design and allows the addition to related to the current home. The chamfered corner is also a design approach that meets the overall intent of the sidewall length standard. By clipping this rear corner, there is essentially no visual effect of the addition. The public view from Waters Avenue will be unchanged. Three general intent statements are included in the preamble of the Residential Design Standards Chapter. They read as follows: 1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. Exhibit B- Application P31 VI.A. Page 5 of 6 909 Waters RDS 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. 3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen’s historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City’s vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to “human- scale” in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. The current home presents a comfortable connection to the street. Although it has a street- facing garage, counter to a primary tenant of the Residential Design Standards, the garage has a minimal impact of the front façade. Its single-car profile and setback from the façade of the home minimize its appearance. For a property without an alley, this may be the least-intrusive street-facing garage in the community. The home presents a friendly entrance and an overall sympathetic connection to Waters Avenue. The large deck, large principal windows, and overall openness are consistent with the intent of the Residential Design Standards. No changes to the street relationship are proposed. Some expansion capability exists on this northern side of the home. However, the applicant does not want to change the front façade for fear of disrupting the Teague design and increasing the visible mass of the house. A desire to keep the Teague design intact lead to a focus on the rear of the property where improvements to the kitchen / dining room relationship can be easily addressed with no impact on the public’s view of the home. The home will continue to have a relatively small mass and scale compared with neighboring properties. Responding to neighboring properties could argue for a larger building. Multi- Family and hospitality structures in the immediate surroundings, as well as larger single-family and duplex structures, have larger footprints and heights. The existing home will continue to provide continuity in the street setback and a continuous massing along the southern edge of Waters Avenue. Exhibit B- Application P32 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 909 Waters RDS The project will continue the design aesthetic of the home, reflecting traditional building scale. The original Teague design utilized traditional building materials and forms with a contemporary, eclectic skew. This creativity added to the community’s vernacular architectural inventory. The scale of the building, placement and sizing of fenestration, and the clear break between first and second floors provides a human sale to the home and reflects, without duplicating, historic development patterns. The proposal maintains this traditional building scale sought by the Residential Design Standards and is faithful to the original design of the house and its light airy presentation. The proposed addition is as sympathetic to the Residential Design Standards as could be expected. No changes are proposed along the street. The home will continue to have a strong connection to the street, will continue its relationship with surrounding properties, and will continue to reflect the traditional building scale in Aspen. The request complies with the Standard of Review. The chamfered corner is an alternative design approach that enables the addition with no changes to current sidewall lengths. This clipped corner is also a design solution sympathetic to the Teague design and provides continuity of both interior and exterior architectural expression. The existing structure is intended to remain in place. Acknowledging the existing structure and its current dimensions is an unavoidable site-specific constraint. The owner has no desire to demolish this home; becoming mandatory if strict adherence to the sidewall length standard is required. We believe the Planning and Zoning Commission’s issuance of this variation is well within the spirit and intent of the City’s Residential Design Standards. It would be defensible from a Standard of Review standpoint as well as consistent with the desire to maintain enjoyable streetscapes in Aspen’s residential neighborhoods. We look forward to your review and commentary and an opportunity to discuss this request with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please let us know if we can provide additional information, if we can assist with a site visit, or if we can respond to your input in any way. Sincerely, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams Exhibits: 1. Application Form 2. RDS Checklist 3. RDS Interpretation 4. Authorization to Represent 5. Agreement to Pay 6. HOA Form 7. Proof of Ownership 8. Pre-Application Summary 9. Vicinity Map 10. Survey 11. Drawing Set Exhibit B- Application P33 VI.A. November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:____________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ _____________________909 Waters Avenue Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2737-182-81-003 ________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: Email: BendonAdams 300 South Spring Street Suite 202, Aspen CO 81611 970.925.2855 Ext 3 reilly@bendonadams.com Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Single-family residence proposed for remodel and additional along the rear of the property. RDS variation of sidewall length request. Application proposes landing a TDR. RDS Variation xxxx 3,250.00 Exhibit 1 909 Waters LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company / Neal Katyal 909 Waters Avenue, Aspen CO, 81611 202.903.7800 katyaln@law.georgetown.edu na na 1, existing 0 na Exhibit B- Application P34 VI.A. Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 2Exhibit B- Application P35VI.A. Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Exhibit B- Application P36VI.A. Exhibit 3 Exhibit B- Application P37 VI.A. Exhibit B- Application P38 VI.A. Exhibit B- Application P39 VI.A. Exhibit 4Exhibit B- Application P40 VI.A. Exhibit 5Exhibit B- Application P41 VI.A. Exhibit 6Exhibit B- Application P42 VI.A. Exhibit 7 Exhibit B- Application P43 VI.A. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: August 27, 2018 PLANNER: Kevin Rayes, 429.2797 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 909 Waters Avenue- RDS Variation PARCEL ID# 2737-182-81-003 REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects & Interiors DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The potential applicant is interested in requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards for the remodel of a single-family dwelling located at 909 Waters Avenue, zoned R-15. This lot is located inside the Aspen Infill Area. The existing single-family dwelling (built prior to existing RDS) exceeds the 50-ft. maximum sidewall depth prescribed in the current Residential Design Standards. The proposed remodel project would add to the existing sidewall depth and contribute to the non-compliance of the dwelling. The proposed project requires a variation for the following standard: 1.26.410.030.B.1 – Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) Non-flexible standards are those standards that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted. If the application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non-flexible Standards as written, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. A variation requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1.Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2.Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: •Staff for Complete Application •Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): •None Exhibit 8Exhibit B- Application P44 VI.A. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing: GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM: Yes, if there is an addition of floor area related to the remodeling of the single-family dwelling PLANNING FEES: $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) REFERRAL FEES: No. TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application).  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  A written description of the proposed remodel an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  Completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1697/RDS-Application-Packet---SF-DX  Written responses to applicable review criteria. Exhibit B- Application P45 VI.A. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e -mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summar y is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. Exhibit B- Application P46 VI.A. Exhibit 9 909 Waters Avenue – Vicinity Map Exhibit B- Application P47 VI.A. Exhibit 10Exhibit B- ApplicationP48VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. G.0.01 9/24/18 GENERAL INFORMATION DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | G.1.01 GENERAL INFORMATION A.1.01 EXISTING SITE PLAN A.1.02 PROPOSE SITE PLAN A.1.03 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A.2.01 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL A.2.02 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL A.2.03 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL A.2.04 EXISTING ROOF LEVEL A.2.05 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL A.2.06 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL A.2.07 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL A.2.08 PROPOSED OFFICE LEVEL A.2.09 PROPOSED ROOF LEVEL A.3.01 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A.3.02 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A.3.03 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A.3.04 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A.9.01 3D: EXISTING A.9.02 3D: PROPOSED A.9.03 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT KATYAL RESIDENCE SHEET INDEX 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 RDS APPLICATION SET Exhibit 11Exhibit B- Application P49 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.1.01 9/24/18 EXISTING SITE PLAN DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 7910 79 1 1 79 1 2 79137914 7915WATERS AVENUE GRAVEL PARKINGGRAVEL PARKING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO BE REMOVED FLAT ROOF SLOPED ROOFBELOWSLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN Exhibit B- Application P50 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.1.02 9/24/18 PROPOSED SITE PLAN DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 7910 79 1 1 79 1 2 79137914 7915WATERS AVENUE GRAVEL PARKINGGRAVEL PARKING SLOPE3 1/2" : 1'-0"LOWER & MAIN LEVEL FIREPLACE POWER VENTED FLUES RADON PIPE TERMINATION FLAT ROOF 6 SOLAR P A N E L S , 3 5 ° TI L T, 0 ° O F F T R U E S O U T H FLAT ROOF SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE FLAT ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SLOPED ROOF SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Exhibit B- Application P51 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.1.03 9/24/18 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 281 sq ft 283 sq ft 113 sq ft 373 sq ft 406 sq ft 35 sq ft 35 sq ft 175 sq ft 20 sq ft 22 sq ft 22 sq ft 359 sq ft 10'-5 3/8"26'-10 1/2"27'-1 1/2"10'-9 1/2"9'-8 3/4"38'-4"9'-8 3/4"10'-5 3/8"39'-9 3/4"3'-4"3'-4"16'-9 1/2" 35'-0" 1 2 3 5 6 7 4 8 9 22 sq ft FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION SUBGRADE LEVEL WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.) EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ. FT.) 1 281 0 2 283 0 3 113 0 4 359 22 5 373 0 6 406 20 7 35 22 8 35 22 9 175 0 OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)2060 EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)86 % OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL)4.17% SUBGRADE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)2217 SUBGRADE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)92.55436893 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.) 93 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)1527 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)1625 OFFICE LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)79 GARAGE FLOOR AREA 164.5 DECK FLOOR AREA (15% OF 3490 = 523.5) 522 SQ. FT. 0 EXEMPT TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)3488.5 (3490 ALLOWED w/ TDR) TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS PROPOSED SUBGRADE LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS BATHROOM 4 LAUNDRY BEDROOM 4 BUNKROOM BEDROOM 5 FAMILY ROOM BUNK BATH CLOSET 4 POWDER 2 3 78 9 GARAGE ABOVE WC SHOWER BUNKROOM CLOSET QUEEN BUNKQUEEN BUNK QUEEN BUNK STORAGE LINEN EXTRA MECH. STORAGE UNDERSTAIRS IF NEEDED 4 STUDY & STORAGE 6 STORAGE 2,217 sq ft SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE MECHANICAL 1 5SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE 329 sq ft50% COUNTS=164.5 sq ft 80 sq ft UP DN 1,527 sq ft 11 sq ftEXEMPTSTORAGE 109 sq ftOF ADDED NETLIVABLE SQ. FT.SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE 158 sq ft DN MASTER BEDROOM OPEN TO BELOW BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 CLOSET MASTER BATH CLOSET BATH 3 BATH 2 BATH 1 UP DECK 1,625 sq ft 56 sq ftOF ADDED NETLIVABLE SQ. FT. 54 sq ftOF ADDED OPENTO BELOW SQ. FT.SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEDN UP 79 sq ft 284 sq ft SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FAR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"5 PROPOSED ROOF LEVEL FAR Exhibit B- Application P52 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.01 9/24/18 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | D01 D04D03D02 D05 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2" 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"54'-7 1/2"4'-0"50'-7 1/2"STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE FURNACE ROOM MECHANICAL ROOM CRAWLSPACE GARAGE ABOVE 1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL Exhibit B- Application P53 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.02 9/24/18 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | D12 D20W29W11 W12 W13 W14 W15W14W14W14 D11 D13 W16W16W16W17W28W27W26W21W22W23W24W25D16 W19W18D14D17W20W20D15D21D19 D18 D2240'-0"54'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"4'-0"50'-7 1/2"1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 UP GARAGE LAUNDRY DN KITCHEN OFFICE POWDER AV DINING LIVING ENTRY DRIVEWAYENTRY PATIO PATIO DW F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL Exhibit B- Application P54 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.03 9/24/18 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | W41 W42W44 W47 W54W52W48W50W53W51W49W57W61 W60 W59 W58D31 W63W66W65W64 D35D33D36 D34W43W45W46D33 D38D37D41D50 D40D48 D49D47D46D44D45 W55 D39 D32 D43D42 1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 40'-0" 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"54'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"4'-0"50'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2" CLOSET CLOSET MASTER BATHOPEN TO BELOW DN BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 MASTER BEDROOM BATH 3 DECK BATH 2 BATH 1 W62W62W62W62W62W62W62F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL Exhibit B- Application P55 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.04 9/24/18 EXISTING ROOF LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | W56 1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 40'-0" 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"54'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"54'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 ROOF DRAIN ROOF DRAIN EXISTING FIREPLACE FLUE TO BE REMOVED SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ROOF PLAN Exhibit B- Application P56 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.05 9/24/18 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 |DOUBLESTACKEDWASHER/DRYERW01D14W04W03W02D07D03D11D09D12D05D04D01D02 D08 D13D10D0640'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2" 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"8'-0"62'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"8'-0"62'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"15'-11 5/8"4 3/4"15'-2 1/8"9'-11 1/4"12'-11 3/4"6'-6"5'-6 1/4"3'-3 3/8" 14'-7 3/8"10'-10"13'-10 1/4"7'-5 3/4"3'-4"3'-6"8'-11 1/8"5'-6 1/4"13'-11 1/4"8'-8"25'-11 1/2"3'-11"6'-2 1/4"6'-7 7/8" 17'-11 3/8" 4'-4" NEW RADON PIPE WINDOW WELL WINDOW WELL UP BATHROOM 4 LAUNDRY BEDROOM 4 BUNKROOM BEDROOM 5 FAMILY ROOM BUNK BATH CLOSET 4 WET BAR WINDOW WELLORTAL 150 FRONT FACINGCLEAR 200 GAS FIREPLACEPOWDER GARAGE ABOVE WC SHOWER BUNKROOM CLOSET QUEEN BUNKQUEEN BUNK QUEEN BUNK STORAGE LINEN EXTRA MECH. STORAGE UNDER STAIRS IF NEEDED KING BED STUDY & STORAGE STORAGE 1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E G G 14'-5 3/8" 12'-11 1/4" 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE MECHANICAL GLASSWINE CABINETTV ART WALLART WALL ART WALLSETBACK LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL Exhibit B- Application P57 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.06 9/24/18 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | D30 D31D20D29D26D27D28 W25W24W26W28W11 W12 W27W13 W14 W15 D20 D21 W22 D23 W19W21W20W23 D24 W16W17W18D22 40'-0"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"8'-0"54'-7 1/2"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"50'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"14'-0"1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 NEW RADON PIPE LOCATION OF EXISTING CORNER LOCATION OF EXISTING CORNER GARAGE UP DN POWDER ENTRY CLOSET WALL OF CUBBIESBEHIND PANELINGOFFICE STORAGE BUTLER'S PANTRY KITCHEN DINING LIVING OVEN STACK REF./ FRZ.GLASS WALL OR RAILINGART OR SPECIAL WALL FROSTED GLASS WALL BUFFETBENCH BOOTWARMERORTAL 150 FRONT FACINGCLEAR 150 GAS FIREPLACEDRIVEWAYENTRY PATIO NEW WOOD DECKING SUSPENDED ABOVE SLAB (OVER LIVING SPACE) PATIO DINING DW DWTRASHF F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E G G 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.4013'-6"3'-8" 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 109 sq ftOF ADDED NETLIVABLE SQ. FT. TV SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL Exhibit B- Application P58 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.07 9/24/18 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | STACKED WASHER & DRYERD43D44D42D41D46D45 D49D54 D53D48 D55D52W59 W58W62W64W63W61W41 W48 W49W50W51W54W52W53W55W68W67W66W65 W42W44 W45 W43W46W47D47 D40 D51D50 W60D561A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 40'-0" 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"8'-0"54'-7 1/2"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0"50'-7 1/2"8'-0"15'-3 1/4" 6'-6 1/2"4'-0"EXISTING CORNER TONEW REAR FACADENEW RADON PIPE LOCATION OF EXISTING CORNER LOCATION OF EXISTING CORNER DN MASTER BEDROOM STEAM SHOWER BENCHBENCHFULL LENGTH MIRROR OPEN TO BELOW WC ORTAL 150 FRONT FACING GAS FIREPLACE BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 CLOSET MASTER BATH CLOSET BATH 3 BENCH BENCH BENCH BATH 2 BATH 1 UP DECK W57 W56D39F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E G G 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 6'-5 3/4"4'-5 1/4"56 sq ftOF ADDED NETLIVABLE SQ. FT. 54 sq ftOF ADDED OPENTO BELOW SQ. FT. DASHED LINE INDICATES SKYLIGHT ABOVE MAY REQUIRE CURB MAY REQUIRE CURB MAY REQUIRE CURB NO CURB IN MASTER TV SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL Exhibit B- Application P59 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.08 9/24/18 PROPOSED OFFICE LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | W56W73W73 1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 40'-0" 40'-0" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2" 12'-5 1/2"15'-1"12'-5 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"4'-0"12'-0"18'-1 1/2"13'-10 1/2"6'-7 1/2"8'-0"8'-0"54'-7 1/2"8'-0"4'-0"50'-7 1/2"8'-0"FLAT ROOF OFFICE 6 SOLAR P A N E L S, 3 5 ° TI L T, 0° O F F T R U E S O U T H DN UP ROOF DECK W71 W70 D60 F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E G G 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 ROOF DRAIN RADON PIPE VENTS OUT EXISTING ROOF LOWER & MAIN LEVEL FIREPLACE POWER VENTED FLUES ROOF DRAIN SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0"SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED OFFICE PLAN Exhibit B- Application P60 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.2.09 9/24/18 PROPOSED ROOF LEVEL DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.011 A.3.01 FLAT ROOF ROOF DECK FLAT ROOF F F 1 1 4 4 A A B B 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E G G 1A.401 1A.401 2A.401 2A.401 3A.401 3A.401 4A.401 4A.401 1A.4.02 1A.4.02 2A.4.02 2A.4.02 SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0" SLOPE 1'-0" : 1'-0"SLOPE3 1/2" : 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN Exhibit B- Application P61 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.3.01 9/24/18 EXISTING ELEVATIONS DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINED11 W11W12 W13 D12 D13 W45W46W47 W44 W41W42W43 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" F F B B A A E E D D C CSETBACK LINESETBACK LINEW16W17W18 W48W49W50W51W52W53W54 W16W16W19D14 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION Exhibit B- Application P62 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.3.02 9/24/18 EXISTING ELEVATIONS DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 1 1 4 4 2 2 3 3PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEW20W20W21W22W23W24W25 W61 W63 W60 W59 W58 W57 W56 D15D16 D31 W55 D60 T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" FABCDE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEW26 W27W28W29 D15 W62W62W62W62W62W62W62W64W65 W66 TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. SLAB @ BASEMENT 90'-10 1/4" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION Exhibit B- Application P63 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.3.03 9/24/18 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEW11W12 W13 W41W42W43W44W45W46W47W48 D21 D20 NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS, COLOR TBD EXISTING GABLE ROOF TO REMAIN NEW WOOD SIDING SOLAR PANELS BEHIND EXISTING GABLE ROOF LOWER LEVEL & MAIN LEVEL FIREPLACE FLUE TERMINATIONS WOOD SIDING ON ROOF ADDITION NEW WINDOWS, COLOR TBD NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS, COLOR TBD NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED GARAGE DOOR, COLOR TBD NEW FIBER CEMENT SIDING AT ENTRY STEEL COLUMNS TO REPLACE EXISTING WOOD COLUMNS STEEL COLUMNS TO REPLACE EXISTING WOOD COLUMNS NEW FIBER CEMENT SIDING LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE (MOST-RESTRICTIVE)LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" F F B B A A E E D D C CSETBACK LINEW19 W20W21 W49W50W51W52 W53 W54 W55 W18 W17 W16 NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS, COLOR TBD LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) EXISTING GABLE ROOF TO REMAIN LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS, COLOR TBD STEEL COLUMN SUPPORT NEW DECK & SPIRAL STAIR NEW RAILING TO BE STEEL W/ CABLE LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) EXISTING GABLE ROOF TO REMAIN NEW WOOD SIDING ON EAST FACADE, NOTE: NEW SIDING MUST BE SAME THICKNESS OR LESS THAN EXISTING SIDING MIDPOINT OF ROOF ADDITION BELOW EXISTING GABLE, BELOW 25' HEIGHT LIMIT T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" MID SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION Exhibit B- Application P64 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.3.04 9/24/18 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 1 1 4 4 2 2 3 3PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEW56W59 W56 W57 D23 D39 D24 W60 W71 W23W24 W58 W22 D60 NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED CORNER WINDOWS, COLOR TBD NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED CORNER WINDOWS, COLOR TBD LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) NEW ROOF ADDITIONNEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS ON ROOF ADDITION NEW RAILING TO BE STEEL W/ CABLE STEEL COLUMN SUPPORT NEW DECK & SPIRAL STAIR EXISTING GABLE TO REMAIN EXISTING GABLE TO REMAIN NEW WOOD SIDING SOLAR PANELS T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" T.O. BASEMENT SLAB 88'-6" F F A A B B C C D D E E W27 W26W28 W68 W67 W66 W64 W63 W62 W25 W61 W60 W73 W24 NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS, COLOR TBD LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) EXISTING GABLE ROOF TO REMAIN LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) NEW ALUMINUM CLADDED WINDOWS, COLOR TBD STEEL COLUMN SUPPORT NEW DECK & SPIRAL STAIR NEW RAILING TO BE STEEL W/ CABLE LINE INDICATES EXISTING GRADE LINE @ 25' OFFSET (MOST-RESTRICTIVE) EXISTING GABLE ROOF TO REMAIN NEW WOOD SIDING ON EAST FACADE, NOTE: NEW SIDING MUST BE SAME THICKNESS OR LESS THAN EXISTING SIDING SKYLIGHT ON ROOF ADDITIONSOLAR PANELS MIDPOINT OF NEW ROOF TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY 100'-0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY 109'-5" TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS 117'-6" MID SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION Exhibit B- Application P65 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.9.01 9/24/18 3D: EXISTING DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 1 EXISTING FROM SOUTH WEST 2 EXISTING FROM SOUTH EAST Exhibit B- Application P66 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.9.02 9/24/18 3D: PROPOSED DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | 1 PROPOSED FROM SOUTH WEST 2 PROPOSED FROM SOUTH EAST Exhibit B- Application P67 VI.A. Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE RDS VARIANCE SUBMITTALKATYAL RESIDENCE 909 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. A.9.03 9/24/18 NEIHBORHOOD CONTEXT 1 DATE 9/20/18 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. | 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 | | www.kimraymondarchitects.com | | 970-925-2252 | WATERS A V E N U ESOUTH WEST END STREETEAST DUR A N T A V E N U E 909WATERSTHE GANTHOTELNOTE SCALE OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDINGS IN COMPARISON TO 909 WATERSSINGLEFAMILYHOMESINGLEFAMILYHOMESINGLEFAMILYHOMESINGLEFAMILYHOMESINGLEFAMILYHOMETHE GANTHOTELTHE GANTHOTELTHE GANTHOTELTHE GANTHOTELSINGLEFAMILYHOMEMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI-FAMILYCOMPLEXMULTI- FAMILY COMPLEX Exhibit B- Application P68 VI.A. Exhibit CP69VI.A. Exhibit CP70VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: _____________________________________________________, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: _____________________________________________, 20______. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ____________________________________________________ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: _______ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official Paper or paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _______ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof Materials, which was not less than twenty two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) Inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _______ day of ______________________, 20____, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto: _______ Mailing of notice. By mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E) (2) of The Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S mail to all owners of property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ________ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) 909 Waters Avenue November 20 18 Chris Bendon 2 November 18 Exhibit C P71 VI.A. Exhibit CP72VI.A. Exhibit CP73VI.A. Exhibit C P74VI.A. Exhibit C P75VI.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273718281003 on 10/26/2018 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit C P76 VI.A. LORING ROBERT & ISABEL TAMPA, FL 33611 2912 W VILLA ROSA PK ROSEN PHILIP B LINCOLN, MA 01773 41 OLD CONCORD RD ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 2700 G RD #12A LITTLE NELL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 611 S WEST END RICHTER VALERIE A TRUST PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 6214 N 34TH ST ELLIOTT JASON C & KATHERINE BROOKS ASPEN, CO 81611 929 E DURANT AVE #4 LACHER MARC P INVEST TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60611 840 N LAKE SHORE DR #1101 ROTHSCHILD IVETTE SCHNEIDER TRUST ST LOUIS, MO 63105 122 N BEMISTON AVE SILVER GLO CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 930 WATERS AVE UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA ASPEN TOWNHOUSES BY THE RIVER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1050 WATERS AVE WATCHMAKER LINDA L REV TRUST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424 4527 BRUCE AVE NADJAFI MORTEZA & HEIDI ORLANDO, FL 32803 736 N MAGNOLIA AVE GESSNER RICHARD W REV TRUST MASSILLON, OH 44646 1705 11TH ST NE KANNER REAL ESTATE LLC PACIFIC PLSDS, CA 90272-3909 712 GREENTREE RD WILKS DAN H & STACI ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3116 RICE MARGARET A OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221 13912 FLINT SEGUIN JEFF W & MADALYN B ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER AVE #412 UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA GABRICK NORMAN M EDINA, MN 55436-2712 4910 MALIBU DR JJA FAMILY LLC OWENSBORO, KY 42301 2145 FIELDCREST DR AIBEL JONATHAN E & BONNIE L CORAL GABLES , FL 33133 10 EDGEWATER DR #5A 914 WATERS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612-7756 PO BOX 7756 AMERENA ROBIN MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3006, 250 ST KILDA #507 SOUTHBANK POPE AIDAN RICHARD NEW YORK, NY 10013 220 CENTRE ST #4 LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL SCHIRMER LESLIE M TRUST ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 4100 E QUINCY AVE C-L HOLDINGS LLC WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 126 NEWTON BARBARA LOUISE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9410 MEYER WILLIAM J WASHINGTON, DC 20036 1101 17TH ST NW #1000 Exhibit C P77 VI.A. DOHSE J JEFFREY DENVER, CO 80209 2552 E ALAMEDA AVE #23 SIEGEL LOIS H QPRT SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143 6358 MANOR LANE HEMMING GREGORY S TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 311 MIDLAND AVE CLARENDON CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 S WEST END ST KELLY ROSEMARIE NEW YORK, NY 10025 240 W 102ND ST #54 LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD ST MARYS OF ASPEN LLC FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 1532 S.E. 12 STREET PH1 ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PTNSHP LLLP GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 2700 G RD #12A GRAHAM NELL C BASALT, CO 81621 10 PINE RIDGE RD VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNE SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 1738 BERKELEY ST MIKA PATRICK D COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 630 N TEJON ST 2021 INVESTMENTS LLC JANESVILLE, WI 53545 1000 E MILWAUKEE ST CRONIN F CARLETON & TOBY ANN TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 8748 DORRINGTON AVE WA5 LLC MIAMI, FL 33137 4770 BISCAYNE BLVD # 720 MERRILLS DAPHNE SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 217 SCAIFE RD SNOWFLAKE WATERS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 E MAIN STE 2 NOSTOS LLC RESTON, VA 20191 2261 COMPASS PT LN NUTTER GEORGE E & LYNDSAY CANADA M4G 3P3, 223 HANNA RD TORONTO ONTARIO MCFADDEN GREGORY C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9859 VARGAS GERMAN JAVIER NEW YORK, NY 10028 450 E 83RD ST #18D SINNREICH MARK & MILLINDA MIAMI BEACH, FL 33109 2231 FISHER ISLAND DR DE GUZMAN KATHLEEN NEW YORK, NY 10013 220 CENTRE ST #4 MCGUIRE WINTERHAVEN LLC BUFFALO, NY 14202 560 DELAWARE AVE STE 400 RAVENIS JOSEPH V II & M ELIZABETH TRUST SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 6041 RIDGEMOOR DR LATTERMAN EARL M QPRT PITTSBURGH, PA 152322150 5000 5TH AVE APT 306 BECKER BARRY W IRREV TRUST LAS VEGAS, NV 89107 2404 RANCHO BELLAIRE CT AJCBMC LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 W MAIN ST #B CAMPBELL FAMILY TRUST DENVER, CO 80210 1225 S HIGH ST BECNEL DANIEL E JR & MARY HOTARD LAPLACE, LA 70068 425 W AIRLINE HWY #B BAYLDON BARBARA W REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504 647 W BARRY AVE Exhibit C P78 VI.A. BELL MEREDITH W REVOCABLE TRUST ATLANTA, GA 30309 147 17TH ST NE UPCHURCH WILLARD H JR REV TRUST WINSTON SALEM, NC 27104 2128 BUENA VISTA RD OBRIEN MARY JANE SAG HARBOR, NY 11963 BOX 2306 MILL IRON INVESTMENTS LLC CARLISLE, MA 01741 PO BOX 64 CLARENDON CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 S WEST END ST FRY LLOYD EDWARD PIQUA, OH 45356 1335 STRATFORD DR UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA SILVERGLO 304 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 0133 PROSPECTOR RD #4114B ENATAI VACATION HOME LLC HOUSTON, TX 77024 10000 MEMORIAL DR #480 PYRFEKT PROPERTIES LLP SARASOTA, FL 34231 1424 CEDAR BAY LN COHN JOHN R & BARBARA O DALLAS, TX 75225 3533 GREENBRIER DR MEYERS BARBARA A TRUST MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 821 OLD MARCO LN AGUA FRIA PROPERTIES LLC SANTA FE, NM 87505 460 ST MICHAELS DR BLDG 300 QUARKY LLC DALLAS, TX 75225 8200 DOUGLAS AVE #300 ARNETT DAVID & BETTE TUCSON, AZ 85718 5333 N CAMINO REAL MEYERS BARBARA A RES TRUST MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 821 OLD MARCO LN SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 8 PARKWAY DR MCCORMICK ROGER F FAMILY TRUST OWENSBORO, KY 42304 PO BOX 21532 KONIN FAMILY TRUST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 1936 LOMA DR 610 S W END RENTALS E201 LLC NAPERVILLE, IL 60540 608 HENNING CT CRAZY WOMAN INVESTMENTS LLC LIVINGSTON, MT 59047 304 S YELLOWSTONE UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA GOODSIR SUSAN A LAKE BLUFF, IL 600441300 1000 CAMPBELL CT WERNST INC ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111 5141 GLENWOOD POINTE LN NE SHER JOYCE DELRAY BEACH , FL 33446 7936 L'AQUILA WAY WINTER HAVEN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 527 S WEST END ST UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA SANDITEN EDWARD STANLEY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11566 AES INVESTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 500 PARK CIR OGURI JOINT LIVING TRUST PASADENA, CA 91106 1570 ROSE VILLA ST Exhibit C P79 VI.A. SCHWARZ REV TRUST PASADENA, CA 91106 860 ARDEN RD JACK LP ONTARIO CANADA N2M2T8, 10 WESTGATE WALK, KITCHENER KLETTENBERG JULIEN & ANNA LISA KART DARLING POINT NSW 2027 AUSTRALIA , 7-95 DARLING POINT RD TYE MARK M TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8992 FVA REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308 3312 NE 40TH ST SCHRIER DEREK C & CAMERON CECILY H 2000 REV TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 230 SEA CLIFF AVE ROTHSCHILD ANDREW TRUST ST LOUIS, MO 63105 122 N BEMISTON AVE BARDING DOROTHY L TRUST DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 711 SE 3RD ST SEWELL BEVERLY J TRUST GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 884 QUAIL RUN DR G&H INVESTMENT CO LONG BEACH, CA 90815 6471 MANTOVA ST IONTACH LLC CATONSVILLE, MD 21228 PO BOX 21176 FRYKLUND ROBERT HOUSTON, TX 77005 2917 DUKE ST LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP HENDERSON, NV 89052 2836 PATRIOT PARK PLACE SNOWFLAKE WATERS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 E MAIN STE 2 WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST ST LOUIS, MO 63105 236 LINDEN AV ASPEN JEWELRY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1010 E HYMAN AVE HOWELL JOHN D JR & SARA JONESBORO, AR 72401 809 SOMERSET LN TAGLER MELINDA GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1121 WALZ AVE CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 201 39TH ST SIMON JEROME M ASPEN, CO 81611 610 S WEST END ST #C204 COX LESTER B REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 601 S WEST END ST #11 RAMSEY STACIE A MADISON, NJ 07940 39 CANTERBURY RD ZIDELL JAMES D LIVING TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 1015 MORAGA DR SCHNEIDER ROBERT C AMARILLO, TX 79109 3003 S ONG ST LEFKOWITZ BARRY & NORDIN YLVA MONIQUE HONOLULU, HI 96815 3015 KALAKAUA AVE #701 ROSEN KIM E FAIRFAX, CA 94930 100 TOYON DR RAINEY J WALKER & GILLIAN RATHMINES DUBLIN 6 IRELAND, 2 PALMERSTON VILLAS MIDLAND NO 7 LLC BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 3695 LEE JEFFREY S & CLARE BRONOWSKI FAMILY TRUST MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 3701 ESPLANDE KNOWLES JAMES W DENVER, CO 80237 3936 S MAGNOLIA WY Exhibit C P80 VI.A. SEWELL RALPH B TRUST GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 884 QUAIL RUN DR WEINBERG JACK A & SHEILA A GLENCOE, IL 60022 111 RAVINE GLADE BARNHART WILLIAM & CAROL MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409 4344 4TH AVE S HARVEY BRIAN L LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 PO BOX 240011 GANT G304 LLC MEMPHIS, TN 38125 3340 PLAYERS CLUB PKWY # 160 MAX ROSENSTOCK & CO SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258 7839 E SORREL WOOD CT H2O LAND TRUST LUTHERVILLE TIMONIUM, MD 21093 8502 MARBLEHEAD RD FOSSIER MIKE W REV TRUST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 9 OCEAN VISTA MOEN DONNE & ELIZABETH FAM TRUST ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 8 CABALLEROS RD BEEM CORPORATION MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 1201 CURRIE AVE SCHARLIN HOWARD & GLORIA CORAL GABLES, FL 33133 10 EDGEWATER DR #4A HEATZIG BONNIE & ERIC BOCA RATON, FL 33487 5304 BOCA MARINA CIR BITTEL HANNAH FAMILY TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 801 ART GODFREY RD #600 METZGER JOEL R & LAUREL E NORFOLK, VA 23507 936 WESTOVER AVE ASPEN DAY FAMILY PTNRSHP LLLP BOULDER, CO 80304 2475 BROADWAY #305 SANDEAN LLC SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 333 TEXAS ST #2290 WAGNER GANT PROPERTIES LLC WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323 3480 MIDDLEBELT RD GROUP 102 LLC DUBLIN, OH 43017 6400 RIVERSIDE DR BLDG B DENNIS II LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S MILL ST #301A ROSEN DEBORA A LONDON N65NX, ENGLAND 19 HORNSEY LN GARDENS SEIFERT BROTHERS COLORADO TRUST SHOREVIEW, MN 55126 4459 SNAIL LAKE BLVD UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA KWEI THOMAS & AMY CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 75 CAMBRIDGE PKWY PH8 HILDEBRAND MELINDA B HOUSTON, TX 77251 PO BOX 1308 TWFJ INC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 329 FIELDS ANDREW G NEW ORLEANS, LA 70131 175 ENGLISH TURN DR JRB RE HOLDINGS LLC SAN ANTONIO, TX 78231 4114 POND HILL # 203 530 WILLIAM STREET LLC TAMPA, FL 33602 201 N FRANKLIN ST #2000 WEST ROGER G & DONNA A BATON ROUGE, LA 70808 6650 BURDEN LN BAILEY WAYNE P & HARRIET E LONGMONT, CO 80503 6644 CHEROKEE CT Exhibit C P81 VI.A. A SUNSHINE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE # 200 LIEBMANN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST SNOWMASS, CO 81654 1495 GATEWAY RD LEVINSON BONNIE REV TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 2127 BROADWAY #1 GABRIEL ANN ASPEN, CO 81611 611 S WESTEND ST APT 2 LN9 LLC MIAMI , FL 33137 4770 BISCAYNE BLVD #720 LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL WEKSTEIN TRUST BOSTON, MA 02199 100 BELVIDERE ST #9A N & D CRAIR FAM TRUST 7/9/2013 MALIBU, CA 90265 5931 KANAN DUME RD HEMMING HANNAH S TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 311 MIDLAND AVE GIEFER PATRICK DENVER, CO 80209 950 S JOSEPHINE ST WARREN MATTHEW L GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507 2022 BASELINE DR 81611 PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 637 E HYMAN AVE UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA WOLFE KEVIN & LIANA GOLDEN, CO 80403 911 6TH ST YAJKO R DOUGLAS GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1121 WALZ AVE CHRISTMAS HOUSE LLC CHICAGO, IL 606061594 150 N RIVERSIDE PLAZA #3300 BOWERS ANN S TRUST PALO ALTO, CA 94301 1664 WAVERLEY STREET ACR CAPITAL LLC HARTLAND, WI 53029 N57 W30614 STEVENS RD FREEDMAN GARY & DONNA LIVING TRUST SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 533 9TH ST RONCHETTO LYNN A NEW YORK, NY 10017 320 E 42ND ST #101 DEPALMA JOHN R GLENDALE, CA 91206 710 W WILSON AVE ALLAN FAMILY TRUST LA JOLLA, CA 92037 1731 COLGATE CIR BITTEL ARI FAMILY TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 801 ART GODFREY RD #600 GRANT JODI BETHESDA, MD 20816 4525 JAMESTOWN RD 1414 35TH ST LLC SONOMA, CA 95476 946 COUNTRY CLUB LN KAUFMAN MICHAEL A & SHERRYL W E BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816 7 FERNWOOD CT SIMON DONNA L REV TRUST STAMFORD, CT 06903 1294 ROCKRIMMON RD FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2P2E7, 30 CARTIER ST LGL SILVERGLO LLC DALLAS, TX 75230 6522 ORCHID LN AUGUSTUS PROPERTIES LLC HOUSTON, TX 77005 2714 ARBUCKLE ST Exhibit C P82 VI.A. LANDOW NATHAN BETHESDA, MD 20810 4710 BETHESDA AVE RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS SEATTLE , WA 98109 1004 NOB HILL AVE N FAVROT CAFFREY METAIRIE, LA 70005 124 CHARLESTON PK LUND ANSELMO ASPEN PROP EDINA, MN 55436 6301 S KNOLL DR SINAI ALLEN LEXINGTON, MA 02173 16 HOLMES RD YACKER DAN SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 1272 SANTA LUISA DR DURANT MEWS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 923 E DURANT AVE SULLIVAN EDWARD M ASPEN, CO 81612-1324 PO BOX 1324 BESHARAT GERALDINE ELBERTON, GA 30635 9 WOODLAND RD MORRIS TRUST RIVER FOREST, IL 60305 906 FRANKLIN GILBERT S DIXON JR ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3948 LANDOW TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 901 E DURANT AVE DIAMOND NATHAN & LAUREN S MIAMI, FL 33156 5465 BANYAN TRAIL B & J LLC KANSAS CITY, MO 64113 1249 W 58TH PANTER FAMILY TRUST SANTA FE, NM 87506 49 HEARTSTONE DR WOODWARD TERRY TRUST OWENSBORO, KY 42303 3662 BRIDGEPOINTE BOOMERANG LTD INC ASPEN, CO 81611 1104 E WATERS AVE RENE BJARTE & MELISSA RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 PO BOX 2442 MACHADO MONICA M NEW YORK, NY 10028 450 E 83RD ST #18D COMPTON HEATHER G ASPEN, CO 816123948 PO BOX 3948 ROSS DWAYNE A & DUREE M FAMILY REV TRUST FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33324 10740 PEGASUS ST MICHIEF IN THE MOUNTAINS LLC DALLAS, TX 75229 11211 INWOOD RD 323 BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES PITTSBURGH, PA 15217 5860 SOLWAY ST MERRILLS DAPHNE TRUST SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 217 SCAIFE RD LERNER GREGORY S BELLAIRE, TX 774014417 4971 WILLOW ST DAVIS TERRY CONNALLY SHREVEPORT, LA 71106 1046 ONTARIO COLORADO R E PARTNERS LLC CHICAGO, IL 60604 111 W JACKSON BLVD 20TH FL CHUMLEY ANNALIESE TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11630 MCCOY TRUST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 623 E 2100 SOUTH KEENAN DANIEL M TRUST ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 1716 SEVERN FOREST DR Exhibit C P83 VI.A. SHOHET CAROLYN S CARLISLE, MA 01741 PO BOX 64 GLICKMAN HAN SARAH ASPEN, CO 81611 940 WATERS AVE # 106 BRENER DANIEL M & SHARON G BELLAIR, TX 77401 5202 POCAHONTAS OKANE MARGARET TRUST SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 1105 WOODSIDE PKWY KONIN FAMILY TRUST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 1936 LOMA DR GANT CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 610 S WEST END ST KOSOSKI TRENT HOUSTON, TX 77007 4413 ELI ST WATERS 907 INC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10671 ROBINSON MARY ALICE BURKE SYRACUSE , NY 13215 4477 COLE RD SUPERMAN LLC TULSA, OK 74105 3126 S ROCKFORD DR BARTOK PETER & COLLEEN COLUMBIA, MD 65203 321 WEST BURNAM RD RYAN ASPEN LLC JANESVILLE, WI 53545 1000 E MILWAUKEE ST SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE FLOSSMORE, IL 60422 1225 BRAEBURN STEPHENSON JOANN I GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1014 BLAKE AVE SIMPKINS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE TETLOW HOUSTON, TX 77019 2921 AVALON PL LACHER SIMONE C INVEST TRUST CLARENDON HILLS, IL 60514 328 HARRIS AVE RICHARDS SHIRLEY SHERMAN OAKS , CA 91423 4073 MURIETTA AVE SMALL RESTON LLC BETHESDA, MA 20817 7311 ARROWOOD RD GANT 203 LLC BELLA VISTA, AR 72714 311 TOWN CENTER CUMMINS RICHARD ASPEN, CO 816111619 617 W MAIN ST #B GRAHAM MAUREEN & THEODORE L COLUMBUS, OH 43230 477 E JOHNSTOWN RD TATEM SUE BINKLEY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12373 WEDOW JAMIE SANFORD, NC 27330 500 WESTOVER DR #2380 ASPEN VIEW LTD SIDNEY, OH 45365 100 S MAIN AVE #300 BENKENDORF TRUST EVERGREEN, CO 80439 6190 KILIMANJARO DR BURKE ASPEN LLC HARTLAND, WI 53029 W308N6183 SHORE ACRES RD GRIFFITH N MICHELLE & C PERRY JR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 663 FOREST BLVD ELIAS BARBARA A CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0451 STAGECOACH LN KINNEY JANICE ASPEN, CO 81611 914 WATERS AVE #17 FREEDMAN DONNA & GARY SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 1149 3RD ST #200 Exhibit C P84 VI.A. BACKUS DIANA DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 2843 SABLEWOOD CT MEHL HARRIET NEW YORK CITY, NY 10019 350 W 57TH ST #17A HAM PROPERTIES LLC METAIRIE, LA 70005 300 HECTOR AVE HIRSCH MARY H TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 610 S WEST END ST #D203 PROSTIC MARJORIE SUE TRUST SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 2225 STRATFORD RD WEINSTEIN DAVID M & SHAWNA R COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 809063126 24 ELM AVE CALVETTI ANDREW ASPEN, CO 81611 914 WATERS AVE #18 KNOKE ROLF M REV TRUST LA JOLLA, CA 92037 7660 FAY AVE PMB H536 PINE A PHILIP FORT LAUDERDALE , FL 33308 50 S COMPASS DR GANT K302 LLC WICHITA, KS 67207 58 MISSION BERZ FAMILY TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 10100 EMPYREAN WY #103 TETSUYAMA LLC OSPREY, FL 34229 147 EXPLORER DR KLEIMAN SUZANNE E TRUST BENNECIA, CA 94510 446 MILLS DR COULON FIELDS SHELLY NEW ORLEANS, LA 70131 175 ENGLISH TURN DR SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 7404 BROOKVILLE RD POWDER HOLDINGS LLC CHICAGO, IL 60611 415 E NORTH WATER # 3006 MIDLAND CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA S WEST END SMULIN MARIANNE REV TRUST POTOMAC, MD 20854 15 CANDLELIGHT CT LACHER RITA R INVEST TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60611 840 N LAKE SHORE DR #1101 HADDON HAROLD & BEVERLY DENVER, CO 80224 141 S JASMINE ST LUBIN SHAFIGHEH ASPEN, CO 816112131 611 S WEST END ST #5 CARDALL FAMILY TRUST SAN DIEGO , CA 92109 2404 LORING ST #129 KAY REV TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 2127 BROADWAY #1 SCHMIT KIRSTEN ASPEN, CO 81611 400 MCSKIMMING RD BACKUS DIANA DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 2843 SABLEWOOD CT PROPERTY INVESTORS #1 LLC MC LEAN, VA 22120 8407 BROOKEWOOD CT ELIAS BARBARA A CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0451 STAGECOACH LN STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS GEORGIA LLC ATLANTA, GA 30305 3060 PEACHTREE RD #400 GANT 103 LLC BELLA VISTA, AR 72714 311 TOWN CENTER WEHSENER FAMILY TRUST SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 4014 MT TERMINUS DR Exhibit C P85 VI.A. SHIRK JAMES & LINDA TRUST BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702 PO BOX 1549 BITTEL DANIEL FAMILY TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 801 ART GODFREY RD #600 AVID LEISURIST LLC BROOKLYN, NY 11249 56 S 3RD ST #402 WILKERSON WILLIAM REV TRUST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 321 SUNSET DR #3 G3 HOLDINGS LLC WASHINGTON, PA 15301 450 RACETRACK RD SABBATICAL LLC CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 985 MEMORIAL DR #201 UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA BLOCK JOEL A REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504 647 W BARRY AVE FREIS JON BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122705 136 EL CAMINO DR # 412 SCHARLIN GLORIA G CORAL GABLES, FL 33133-6962 10 EDGEWATER DR #4A DEGEORGE GREGORY A & BECKY R HOUSTON, TX 77057 1032 POTOMAC DR UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA HORNBROOK ANGELA J CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 PO BOX 2074 AGER REALTY LLC GOLDEN BEACH , FL 33160 555 GOLDEN BEACH DR LD ENTERPRISES LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 508 WINTER HAVEN 2 LLC CATONSVILLE, MD 21228 PO BOX 21176 RISCOR INC DALLAS, TX 75251 12221 MERIT DR #1400 KOBACKER JEFFREY M SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255 10194 E MOUNTAIN SPRING RD SHIRK JAMES & LINDA TRUST BLOOMINGTON IL , CO 61702 PO BOX 1549 STEWART SAMUEL & JACQUELINE METAIRIE, LA 70005 124 CHARLESTON PK ROSENBAUM THOMAS F TRUST PASADENA, CA 91106 415 S HILL AVE JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E HOUSTON, TX 77019 3682 WILLOWICK RD STEEPLECHASE PARTNERS GEORGIA LLC ATLANTA, GA 30305 3060 PEACHTREE RD #400 MCCORMICK MARY E OWENSBORO, KY 42304 PO BOX 21532 HOCKER DAVID E OWENSBORO, KY 423015483 620 PARK PLAZA DR WEINBERG JUDD A TRUST CHICAGO, IL 606115515 401 N MICHIGAN AVE #3050 679534 ONTARIO LTD TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4N 3R5, 2 CHEDINGTON PLACE 1A EPSTEIN ASPEN TRUST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 1900 RITTENHOUSE SQ #8A RIVER GLEN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA E DURANT AVE ZOLET THERESA & DAVID POTOMAC, MD 20854 17 PADDOCK CT Exhibit C P86 VI.A. DENNIS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S MILL ST #301A JET VIEW LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 S WEST END ST #4 UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 210 AABC #AA 774302 ONTARIO LTD TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4N 3R5, 2 CHEDINGTON PLACE 1A FABER KATHERINE T TRUST PASADENA, CA 91106 415 S HILL AVE CLARENDON LLC BONDI JUNCTION NSW 1355 AUSTRALIA, PO BOX 177 P&G LEVIN FAMILY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262 9716 E PRESERVE WY CHATEAU SNOW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 926 WATERS AVE HEMMING LUKE S TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 311 MIDLAND AVE 1035 DURANT - 4 LLC BOULDER, CO 80303 1010 69TH ST RICHELME CLAIRE ASPEN, CO 81611 940 E WATERS AVE #204 LEVY EDWARD C JR TRUST BIRMINGHAM, MI 480093730 970 SHIRLEY RD ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 2700 G RD #12A BITTEL STEPHEN H MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 801 ART GODFREY RD #600 JANNA INC GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 500 PATTERSON RD CANUTO INC BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 650 GRIER HOLINGS LLC TAMPA, FL 33606 650 RIVIERA DR LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL PARKER WILLIAM A JR ATLANTA, GA 30302 PO BOX 4655 MC252 GANT EXCHANGE LLC MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55436 5704 DEVILLE DR WHITEHURST JOHN S & BILLIE BALTIMORE, MD 212121023 6504 MONTROSE AVE WILLIS ANNIE D ASPEN, CO 81611 601 S WEST END ST #2 HYMAN GARY LONDON UK NW37UT, 3 BEECHWORTH CLOSE MARKUS NEIL & JOLIE BETHESDA, MD 20817 8603 IRVINGTON AVE FREEMAN GREGORY A & KRISTINA M CARBONDALE, CO 81623 490 COUNTY RD 162 COATES TOM & LINDA FAM TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 655 MONTGOMERY ST #1700 Exhibit C P87 VI.A. 1   November 12, 2018 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Garrett Larimer, Planner City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 909 Waters Avenue Dear Members of the Commission: We are the owners of the house at 909 Waters Avenue. Thank you so much for evaluating our proposal. The proposal includes one element that is nonconforming, to extend part of the house past the 50-foot Residential Design Standard (RDS) adopted after the house was built in 1990. We completely understand why questions have been raised about this element. If we were in your shoes, we would ask them as well. In this letter, we wanted to tell you a little bit about our proposal, and to give you a personal sense of the application in case it may help you evaluate it. We fell in love with Aspen 15 years ago. We were lucky to forge strong friendships with wonderful members of the Aspen community. We worked hard to save up every possible minute to buy this house, which we bought 3 years ago. We were attracted to the beautiful, minimal Harry Teague design, and loved the way the house enlivened the street and surrounding structures. We have three teenage children, and my mother lives with us as well, so we knew at the time that we would ultimately want to create separate spaces for everyone. Neal is a professor at Georgetown University and Joanna is an internist at the Veterans Hospital. As we got into our 50s, we have aspired to spend at least half of every year in Aspen. For that reason, as we thought about the house, we asked the City for an Official Interpretation to ensure that we could purchase a Transferable Developmental Right (TDR) and use it on the house. We received a positive letter from the City saying that we could do so. We therefore bought a TDR in 2017 and began plans to reconfigure the house. Exhibit D- Letter from Applicant P88 VI.A.  2   From the outset, it has always been absolutely critical to us that we do nothing to disrupt the current architecture on Waters Avenue. Neal’s academic writing is about architecture, community, and the law, and he has published in places like Yale Law Journal about it. (Indeed, Neal is giving the commencement speech at Aspen High School in June of 2019, where his whole theme will be about the need to consider ourselves part of a community, and live our lives by making such choices.) So when we engaged our architect, Kim Raymond, we gave her strict instructions to do nothing to alter the minimalist impact of the house on the street. We loved the “light touch” that Harry placed on Waters Avenue, and we wanted to do nothing whatsoever to alter it. Because that was also very much Kim’s vision for the house, we selected her as the lead architect. We were drawn to her sense of place and proportion, and her respect for the integrity of the Teague design. We knew from the start that it would have been far easier to push the front of the house out a bit – as there are parts of the front of the house that protrude, and so we could have brought forward the parts that were originally set back without running into the same Residential Design Standards (RDS) issues. But we really didn’t want to do that because it would then make the front of the house look heavier. We instructed our architectural team therefore to make the expansion only in places that could not be seen by others. We wanted to do what the RDS counsels, which is to “[r]educe perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale.” And we very much wanted to ensure that the house’s “look” remained the same, so as not to “visually overwhelm or overshadow streets.” The beauty of the lot of 909 Waters is that we were able to accomplish this quite easily. The back of the house is bordered by a creek and The Gant. There is no way for anyone to see the proposed expansion. And the two houses on either side of 909 Waters are larger and developed before the RDS was implemented, so there is no feeling of being out of proportion to the rest of the neighborhood. Indeed, virtually all of the neighboring houses have sidewalls that are far greater than the current or proposed design of our house (for example 907 Waters is approximately 60 feet, 59 feet 8 inches, in its sidewalls). Under the proposal, the house would still be one of the smallest houses on the entire street. And the expansion in the house is virtually impossible to see from the street, one would have to crane your neck pretty hard to view it. The design Exhibit D- Letter from Applicant P89 VI.A.  3   has functional sidewalls that are far smaller than the neighboring houses, there is no break in the neighborhood’s aesthetic, or even the immediate bubble of houses that surround 909 Waters (particularly since the surrounding buildings are much larger still than the proposed design). Once we assured ourselves that Kim’s ideas were truly in keeping with Teague’s original design, as well as the neighborhood, we asked for plans to be drawn up and presented to the City. Based on interactions and feedback with the City’s officials, we decided to shave off the back corner to minimize the impact even further. The process with them was very helpful, and we hope very much that the new design accommodates them and meets with your approval. As a result, the proposal does not increase the sidewalls at all on either the Eastern or Western sides. Instead, what we have done is leave one of the two sidewalls exactly where it was, and use a chamfered corner on the other wall. Because the way the RDS has been interpreted is to look to the maximum length of the home at any endpoint, this design is out of conformity with the 50 foot RDS limitation. But what we have tried to do is to develop a design that is all about adhering to the “overall intent of the standard.” LUC Section 26.410.020.D.1. The visible area of the home looks identical to what it does now. The Code provides that a variation can be given for this reason alone. But the Code also speaks of a second, separate, reason for a variation to be given, “fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.” We hope you will agree with us that this situation qualifies. We have not wanted to undermine the lightness and beauty of the Teague design, and we are proposing a house that would still be smaller than the properties on all three sides (the fourth side, for the front of the house, also has a much larger condominium complex across the street). We cannot emphasize enough how important it is to live in a house that fits in with the neighborhood. We have endeavored to create a design that really does that. We believe we have hewed very closely to the spirit of the RDS in this design, and have done everything we can to avoid a McMansion or anything of that sort. We will be at the meeting on November 20, and look forward to any and all of your questions. Should you wish to reach us before then, you can call anytime at (202) 903-7800 or email at katyaln@georgetown.edu and joannabrosen@gmail.com. Exhibit D- Letter from Applicant P90 VI.A.  4   Thank you so much for evaluating our proposal, and more generally for your service on the Board. Both of us are grateful for it. Sincerely, Neal Katyal and Joanna Rosen Exhibit D- Letter from Applicant P91 VI.A. RESOLUTION NO.___ (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAT, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 25, 2018, IN PLAT BOOK 122 AT PAGE 22 AS RECEPTION NO. 647625, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 813 W SMUGGLER STREET. Parcel No. 2735-124-28-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Smugg LLC, c/o Curtis B. Sanders, Esq., Sherman & Howard LLC, 813 W Smuggler St., Aspen, CO 81611, requesting approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 813 W Smuggler St.; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Residential Design Standard Variation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 18, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution _, Series of 2018, by a ___ to ____ (_ - _) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard Variation as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: P92 VI.B. Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard variation to construct a single-family residence on the subject site (Chapter 26.410.020.C, Variations), varying from the Articulation of Building Mass standard. All other standards including height and setbacks shall be met. Section 2: Parks: A tree permit is required prior to removal of trees. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on December 18, 2018. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeanine Stickle, Records Manager Exhibits: Exhibit A: Approved Plans P93 VI.B. Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan P94 VI.B. Exhibit A: Approved Floor Plan Exhibit A: Approved Floor Plan P95 VI.B. Exhibit A: Approved Elevation Plans P96 VI.B. P97 VI.B. Exhibit A Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: The intent of the Articulation of Building Mass standard is to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property, as viewed from all sides. The code indicates that this standard is critical in the Infill Area where “small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent.” The proposed structure’s sidewalls measure much larger than the code allows, and the design does not limit the appearance of massing when viewed from the east or west side of the building. Articulation elements are used, but the overall massing still appears and measures longer than what is seen in historic Aspen building forms. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.410.020(D) - Variation Review Standards . See Exhibit C for detailed comments.NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards . An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or NOT MET 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints NOT MET MET Review Criteria for 813 W Smuggler St. The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non-flexible standard. The application must satisfy the intent statement of the Articulation of Building Mass Section 26.410.030 (B)(1), and the review criteria for variations listed in Section 26.410.020(D). P98 VI.B. Staff Response: The subject site is not constrained to a point that limits the use of the property. There are setbacks from an existing ditch in the south east corner of the property and an access easement to the south of the property. The extent these setbacks restrain the property only slightly more restrictive that the zone district setback requirements. Staff does not feel that the increased setbacks are a basis for granting relief from a non-flexible standard on an undeveloped lot. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P99 VI.B. November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION WroũeĐƚ NĂme ĂŶĚ ĚĚreƐƐ:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ emĂŝů͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ emĂŝů͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Description: džŝƐƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ WroƉoƐeĚ oŶĚŝƚŝoŶƐ Review: ĚmŝŶŝƐƚrĂƚŝve or oĂrĚ Zevŝeǁ Have you incůuded the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement ,KA oŵpůiance Ĩorŵ Aůů iteŵs ůisted in cŚecŬůist on WreAppůication onĨerence ^uŵŵarLJ Required Land Use Review(s): 'rowtŚ DanaŐeŵent Yuota ^LJsteŵ ('DY^) required Ĩieůds͗ Eet Leasaďůe square ĨootaŐe ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ LodŐe Wiůůowsͺͺͺͺͺͺ &ree DarŬet dweůůinŐ units ͺͺͺͺͺͺ AĨĨordaďůe ,ousinŐ dweůůinŐ unitsͺͺͺͺͺ ssentiaů Wuďůic &aciůitLJ square ĨootaŐe ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ P100 VI.B. P101 VI.B. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: October 17, 2018 PLANNER: Garrett Larimer, 429.2739 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: Lot 3, Ranger Station Subdivision REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Sinclair, rob@sin-bad.com DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the construction of a new single-family residence located at Lot 3, Ranger Station Subdivision, zoned R-6. This lot is in the Aspen Infill Area. The proposed project requires a variation from the following standard: 1. 26.410.030.B(1) – Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) Non-Flexible standards shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no alternative compliance permitted. If the application is found to be inconsistent with any of the non-flexible standards as written, the applicant may submit a land use application for a variation from that standard. Variations may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning and Zoning commission, with a recommendation from planning staff, will consider whether or not the design meets the intent of the standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3, in making their decision to grant or deny the variation. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variation request. The applicant shall include written responses to the variation review standards and the RDS standard in which they are seeking a variation from. The responses should address how they feel the design meets the intent of the standard and overall intent statements in this section. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410.020.D RDS Variation Review Standards 26.410.030.B.1 Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application • Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): Residential Design Standard Variation Request P102 VI.B. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing. PLANNING FEES: $3,250 Deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional hours will be billed at $325/hr) REFERRAL FEES: No TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy. … Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. … Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). … Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. … Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. … HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application) … A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. … A completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1697/RDS-Application-Packet---SF-DX … Written responses to applicable review criteria. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. 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 representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P103 VI.B. P104 VI.B. P105 VI.B. P106 VI.B. P107 VI.B. 49103127.1 SMUGG LLC. c/o Curtis B. Sanders, Esq. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. (970) 925-6300 Fax (970) 925-1181 Email: csanders@shermanhoward.com October 24, 2018 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Smugg LLC.; T.B.D. Eighth Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611; Lot 3, Ranger Station “Subdivision”, as more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing as Authorized Representative of Smugg LLC., a Colorado limited liability company, record owner of the above referenced Property. Smugg LLC. desires to apply for, pursue, and obtain at its own expense, a variance to certain of the City of Aspen’s Residential Design Standards with respect to the Property, and any other approvals and land use approvals which may be required or requested by Smugg LLC. in connection therewith. This letter shall confirm that Smugg LLC. authorizes attorney Curtis B. Sanders of Sherman & Howard L.L.C. and authorizes Sinclair Building Architecture Development, LLC, and any other personnel of such firms to apply for, pursue and obtain the City of Aspen’s review and approval of such matters in connection with the Property. Contact information for Curtis B. Sanders and Sherman & Howard L.L.C. are as follows: Curtis B. Sanders, Esq. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. (970) 925-6300 Fax (970) 925-1181 Email: csanders@shermanhoward.com Contact information for Sinclair Building Architecture Development, LLC is as follows: Sinclair Building Architecture Development, LLC P.O. Box 8114 P108 VI.B. 49103127.1 Aspen, Colorado 816112 Tel. (970) 925-4269 Email: rob@sin-bad.com; tee@sin-bad.com Please contact the undersigned with any questions. SMUGG LLC., a Colorado limited liability company By: _________________________________ Authorized Representative P109 VI.B. 49103127.1 Exhibit A (Legal Description of Property) LOT 3, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, according to the Amended and Restated Plat, Ranger Station Subdivision, recorded May 25, 2018, in Plat Book 122 at Page 22, as Reception No. 647625, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Block 9 of the Townsite and City of Aspen, monumented with a 3/4 inch dia. Steel pipe with a cap marked "9", thence S 75°05'24" E along the Northerly boundary of said Block 9, a distance of 120 feet to a 1 1/2 inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch dia. rebar, the Point of Beginning; thence S 75°05'24" E, along said northerly line of Block 9, a distance of 60 feet; thence S 14°50'15" W a distance of 110.30 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 4 of this survey monumented with a 1 ½ inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch dia. rebar; thence N 75°07'25" W a distance of 60 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 2 of this Survey, from which a 1 1/2 inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch dia. rebar bears N 14°50;15" E a distance of 10 feet; thence N 14°50'15" E a distance of 110.34 feet to the point of beginning. P110 VI.B. P111 VI.B. 1 813 W. Smuggler St . • Residential Design Standard Variation Request Sinclair Building|Architecture|Development • 24 October 2018 INTRODUCTION Our project at 813 W. Smuggler St. is on Lot 3 of the new Ranger Station Subdivision in Aspen’s West End, approximately one block from the turn onto Power Plant Road. The lot is 6639 SF in area, and is zoned R6. It is currently undeveloped. On our lot, we are proposing a 3080 SF single-family private home (3282 SF is allowed by F.A.R.). We are at 43% Lot Coverage, where 49% is allowed in the R-6. Due to the SI Johnson Ditch, and its 20’ wide easement, as well as an alley utility easement, approximately 28% of the site within the 5’ side-yard and 10’ front & rear setbacks is not buildable. These immutable site constraints result in a trapezoidal- shaped building site that tapers from the full lot width on Smuggler Street to just over ½ of the lot width at the rear. In our study of the City of Aspen’s Residential Design Standards and their intent, the unique site shape suggests an alternative approach to achieving the intent of the “Articulation of Building Mass” provision of the R.D.S., which combines some of each of the prescriptive options listed in Section 26.410.031.B.1, instead of fulfilling a single approach. We are aware that fulfilling at least one of the options is a “Non-Flexible” requirement of the R.D.S. As such, we request a variance to pursue an alternative, and we believe more appropriate and better, path to comply with the intent of the ordinance. DESIGN With our site rapidly diminishing in width as it receded from the street-front, we needed to place most of the building mass of the home in the front 2/3rds of the site. Influenced by historic Aspen vernacular forms, we wanted to keep the individual mass forms appropriately small, thus the 20’ width of both our gabled forms. We placed the gabled forms in a staggered echelon that opens the front porch to the street, conveying a sense of welcome and entry, while deferring to our neighbor to the west. The home moves away from the side setback in three steps, eventually to 25’ from the property line, allowing in light and air, and enhancing privacy. The two primary gabled forms begin to resemble the massing diagram shown in R.D.S.’s Articulation of Building Mass “Option #2”, but without the 10’ single-story gap. Because our site narrows to the back, we had a difficult time creating the 10’ gap without pushing the south-most 2-story form over the garage, where it would then overlook our neighbor’s backyard, losing the aspect of Building Mass “Option #3”, that we most liked and sought to retain. INTENT We believe that the setbacks and staggered massing of the home’s design have the same effect and address the same intent to articulate the building mass as the 10’ gap in Option #2. Further mitigating the impact on our neighbor to the north, no part of the 2-story form of our design is closer than 10-feet to the west property line, where 5-feet is allowed by right. Our single-story forms, i.e. the bedroom at the midpoint of the home and the garage at the rear, modulate and articulate the plane of the 2-story gabled form, specifically “to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building”, as stated in the R.D.S. standards. In sum, we believe that our design addresses the various intents of the Building Mass Articulation standard, in direct response to our unique site configuration, more effectively and successfully than any one of the three prescriptive options for Articulation of Building Mass listed in Section 26.410.031.B.1 of the R.D.S. P112 VI.B. 2 RESPONSES TO CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE STANDARDS: NOTE: Sinclair B|A|D responses are in red italics 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: 1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. With our broad single-story front porch, recessed massing, and street-facing front door (10’ from property line), we have complied with all relevant requirements addressing this R.D.S. standard. 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. Frequent step-backs and changes of plane, along with alternation of single- and double-story building masses reduce the perceived “mass & bulk” of our design. Our front yard setback matches our neighbor’s, while our receding building massing and single-story elements along the west setback line respect our westerly neighbor, and allow light and air to their east-facing elevation. 3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen’s historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City’s vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to “human-scale” in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. While our design is clearly contemporary and “of its time”, its 20-foot wide 2-story 8:12 pitch gable forms are intended to recall Aspen’s 19th Century residential vernacular, its windows display a story-by-story expression, and its 1-story front porch suggests a comfortable human scale. P113 VI.B. 3 26.410.020.D D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or While our design for 813 W. Smuggler St. does not fulfill a complete, literal interpretation of any single prescriptive option listed in the ‘Articulation of Building Mass’ standards of the R.D.S., it incorporates aspects of all three options in meeting the intent of the Standards: the design is highly articulated with no large continuous planar surfaces, it is composed of multiple architectural forms, it steps down to one-story at the rear, it is deferential to its neighbor with its generous setbacks, and allows access to air and light far beyond R.D.S. requirements. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Due to the SI Johnson Ditch and rear alley utility easements, 28% of the site within the setback lines is unbuildable, thus creating a trapezoidal site that diminishes in width toward the rear of the site. This constrained, unique site shape makes the prescriptive “Articulation of Building Mass” options less practicable and appropriate for this specific site, and encourages an alternative solution that nonetheless addresses the intent of the standards. 26.410.031.B.1 B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. Our multiple building forms are relatively small in scale, derived in scale from historic Aspen vernacular residential architecture. The massing forms are staggered in placement, and are generously setback from the side property line to maximize light and air access to our adjacent neighbor. Our garage steps down to a single-story expression to diminish mass and bulk, as well as to preserve our neighbor’s backyard privacy. P114 VI.B. 4 26.410.031 B. Location and Massing 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) (cont.) c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Please see response to Item b) above re: articulation & historic precedent d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5. Our initial design diagram resembled Option 1, as we needed to place most of the building mass forward on the site, due to the site narrowing toward the rear. We then shifted the western half back on the site to create our entry porch and provide a more generous setback to the west in deference to the neighboring property. (2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6. We believe our alternative compliance approach to the Building Mass standard creates a similar effect to Option 2 cited above. Our two 2-story gabled building masses are not dissimilar to the two gabled forms shown in R.D.S. Section 26.410.030.B.1.d) (2) graphic, except that instead of a 10-foot 1-story connector, we have staggered our building masses to create required articulation and allow light and air to the adjacent property. Our unique site shape, with greatly reduced width toward the rear, forced us to keep our 2-story massing components more to the front of the site, making literal compliance with Option 2 difficult. (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7. We also used Option 3 as inspiration for our alternative compliance approach. We were eager to step down to one-story at the rear to allow light and air onto our westerly neighbor’s site, as well as to preserve the privacy of their backyard from overlook. We were able to increase side setback to the east, however, due to the reduced width of our uniquely constrained site at the rear, we could not do an increased setback on the west side without rendering the garage unusable. In conclusion, we believe we have achieved compliance with the intent of the R.D.S.’s Articulation of Building Mass standards, deriving our site-specific approach from the prescriptive options, while making accommodation for our tapering site. The result, we believe, is better for our site, our neighbor to the west, and to the community at large than had we been able to pursue one of the prescriptive options. P115 VI.B. Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist4JOHMF'BNJMZBOE%VQMFY Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2P116 VI.B. Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist4JOHMF'BNJMZBOE%VQMFY P117VI.B. P118VI.B. P119VI.B. a 1 b c d e f g 2 3 4 5 a b c d e f g 1 2 3 4 5 10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"17'-0"19'-4"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"SCALE1lower level floor plan 1/4" = 1'-0" elev. 104 tile mechanical 013 conc. laundry 008 tile ll bath #2 006 tile closet 007 carpet ll Bedroom #2 005 carpet hall 009 carpet yoga / gym 010 carpet ll bedroom #1 003 carpet ll bath #1 004 tile game/media room 001 carpet bar 012 tile bar sink bev. fridg. lightwell ventilation for mech. lightwell unexcavated wine cellar 002 tile washer dryer bath 011 tile lightwellunexcavated 3'-5" open to above 4'-6"elev. 84'-5 1/2" t.o. slab elev. 92'-5" t.o. slab 003 A max size that will fit gas linear fireplace appliance 008 A 002 A 104 A 004 A 005 A 011 A 010 A 013 A 008 A 007 A 006 A 001 A 003 A 004 A 005 A 001 B lightwell Egress Egress 1A-4.1 1A-4.2 1A-4.4 1A-4.3 1a5.2 016 A 015 A 014 A Egress closet #2 016 carpet sump 015 conc. Game storage 014 carpet 1'-6"1'-6" sump s.g.s.g. 1'-6"1'-6" s.g.1'-6"1'-6"recess plumBing 1 hr rated area separation electrical panel 36"36"dry wet sewer ejector 6" step f.d. f.d. co sd co sd co sdco sdco sd up 1a5.1 lower level floor plan A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" sheet number: sheet title: RL3 Scale: SINCLAIR building, Architecture & development PO BOX 8114 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 970-925-4269 p 970-925-5478 F ALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building | architecture | development, AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE without WRITTEN with PERMISSION. © copyright, 2018 all rights reserved plan Check 813 W SMUGGLER STAspen, Colorado 8161110/01/2018 ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:17 AMLast Saved by:Jacobprivate residenceRL3plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:17 AMdate reviewers stamps variance request 10/29/2018 P120VI.B. a1bcdefg2345abcdefg1234510'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"17'-0"19'-4"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"SCALE1main level floor plan1/4" = 1'-0"great room101WOODkitchen112WOODhall111WOODguest master107WOODw/c106tilepowder105tilecoat cl.103WOODelev.104tileentry102WOODstair113WOODgarage114conc.mudroom110WOODguest bath108tilecloset109WOODporch116stone54" gas fireplaceapplianceflue frombelow48" range w/hoodsinkd/wterrace48" fridg.elev. 100'-0"t.o. ply subfloorelev. 102'-3"t.o. ply subfloorplanterretaining wallelev. 102'-3"t.o. slab102C105a107a113b113c106A110A101D101b101a113A101C102a102b107b107C107d108a113a113d112a101A102A103A104A105A107A109A108A114b114ahinged egressgrate112Aopen tobelowlightwellhinged egressgrate1A-4.11A-4.21A-4.41A-4.3mech. chase lightwelllightwelllightwell54" gas fireplaceappliance20 min door1 hr rated areaseparationh.bh.bh.b1'-5 1/4"1'-5 1/4"2'-1"2'-1"co sdco sdco sdco sds.g.s.g.dnup10'-0"1a5.1main levelfloor planA3.21/4" = 1'-0"sheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:19 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:19 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018P121VI.B. SCALE1upper level floor plan1/4" = 1'-0"master sitting202WOODmaster bedroom203WOODmasterwardrobe205woodmasterbath206tileelev. balcony201WOODmaster terrace209paverselev.104tile6'-6 1/2"clerestory int.glassint. glass panelopen tobelowopen tobelow10'-0"19'-6 1/2"2'-5 1/2"9'-6 1/2"10'-5 1/2"17'-6 1/2"8'-2 3/4"9'-2 3/4"19'-4"4'-0"4'-5 1/2"4'-0"5'-7"5'-0"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"9'-1"10'-5 1/2"6'-0"54" gas fireplaceapplianceflue frombelowmastershower207tilehall204woodflue frombelowa1bcdefg2345abcdefg1234510'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"19'-4"17'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"elev. 110'-5"t.o. ply subfloor101I102d206a113h101f113g101e102eaboveabove101g101h202a101j204a102f203a203b203c203d205a209a113e113fabove206b104c203a203bopen tobelowrailing1a5.21a5.11A-4.11A-4.21A-4.41A-4.31'-5 3/4"1'-5 3/4"h.b101kaboveco sdco sds.g.s.g.egressegressdn11"sheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:21 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:21 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018upper levelfloor planA3.31/4" = 1'-0"P122VI.B. SCALE1roof plan 1/4" = 1'-0" a 1 b c d e f g 2 3 4 5 a b c d e f g 1 2 3 4 5 10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"19'-4"17'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"0.25:12 chimney 8:12 8:12 8:128:12 8:12 0.25:12 0.25:12 0.25:12 0.25:120.25:120.25:120.25:12 0.25:120.25:120.25:120.25:12 0.25:120.25:12 8:128:128:128:12chimney flat roof below 0.25:12below 1A-4.1 1A-4.2 1A-4.4 1A-4.3 1a5.2 1a5.1 note:Class A Roof Assembly (per ICC ESR-2053) to be min. 28-gauge (0.016”) steel standing seam system over 1-layerVersaShield on min. 15/31” plywood sheathing roof plan A3.4 1/4" = 1'-0" sheet number: sheet title: RL3 Scale: SINCLAIR building, Architecture & development PO BOX 8114 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 970-925-4269 p 970-925-5478 F ALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building | architecture | development, AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE without WRITTEN with PERMISSION. © copyright, 2018 all rights reserved plan Check 813 W SMUGGLER STAspen, Colorado 8161110/01/2018 ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:23 AMLast Saved by:Jacobprivate residenceRL3plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:23 AMdate reviewers stamps variance request 10/29/2018 P123VI.B. P124VI.B. P125VI.B. P126VI.B. P127VI.B. image 1i,1nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:58:45 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:58:45 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018P128VI.B. nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:58:53 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:58:53 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018image 2i,2P129VI.B. nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:02 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:02 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018image 3.i,3P130VI.B. nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:10 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:10 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018image 4i,4P131VI.B. Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist - Single Family and Duplex Standard Complies Alternative Compliance Does Not Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 Approved: (Approved plans/elevations attached)P132VI.B. Standard Complies Alternative Compliance Doesn’t Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Approved: P133VI.B. Exhibit D Public Comment Public Comment: Robert Schwab, owner of 504 N 8th St. called on 12/6/18 to discuss the project. He said he has no concerns with the proposed design and would like to include his input in the public record. P134 VI.B. TO: Planning & Zoning FROM: Garrett Larimer THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 813 W Smuggler St. MEETING DATE: December 18, 2018 Applicant: Smugg LLC, c/o Curtis Sanders, 730 Durant Ave., Suite 200, Aspen, CO 81621 Representative: Robert Sinclair, Sinclair Building and Architectural Development, LLC, PO Box 8114, Aspen, CO 81611 Location: 813 W Smuggler ST Current Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Summary: The applicant is requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards for the construction of a single-family residence. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard. MEMORANDUM Planning & Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director 813 W Smuggler St.- RDS Variation , 2018 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Proposed Structure Rendering Page 1 of 6 P135 VI.B. Page 2 of 6 Figure 1 Figure 2 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: · Residential Design Standards Variation (Section 26.410.020.C, Variations): To grant a variation of the Articulation of Building Mass, a non-flexible design standard, to construct a single-family residence on a vacant lot that does not meet the depth requirements of the standard. Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential Design section of the code, in which an applicant is applying for a variation, require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision-making body. BACKGROUND: 813 W Smuggler St. is located on Lot 3 of the Ranger Station Subdivision in the Medium Density Residential, (R-6) zone district. The lot is a 6,639 square foot (approximately 60’ by 110’) vacant lot within the Aspen Infill Area. The property had previously been part of the United States Forest Service Property, and the Forest Service recorded a survey creating 5 separate lots, but the subdivision and creation of those lots was not approved and signed by the City. The City represented that it would not object to the subdivision of the property by the federal agency as long as any development on the lots meets city regulations. Development allotments, allowing for residential development on each lot, were granted via three ordinances in 2015. The lot is vacant but there are existing conditions that affect the development of the lot. A 10’ utility and access easement exists on the southern portion of the lot (comprised of the northerly half of a formerly vacated alley). The zone district setback is measured from the edge of the access easement, which creates a 15’ setback for the garage and a 20’ setback for any portion of the primary structure other than a garage. This setback requirement creates a similar condition for any other lot in the West End that has an alley adjacent to its rear property line. The Si Johnson Ditch also runs through the southeast portion of the property with a 10-foot easement on either side of the centerline of the ditch. The 60’ lot width is a standard width for the R-6 zone district, but the lot is larger (6,639 sf.) than a standard 6,000 square foot R-6 lot. The applicant applied for an administrative review and approval of the Residential Design Standards to develop a single-family residence on Lot 3; however, the application does not comply with the Articulation of Building Mass standard and the applicant is requesting a variation from this non-flexible standard to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Articulation of Building Mass standard provides 3 options to satisfy the requirements of this standard: 1. Maximum Sidewall Depth: The building shall be no greater in depth than 50’ as measured from the front most wall to the rear most wall of the building, see Figure 1. 2. Off-set with one story ground level connector: The main building and secondary mass of the structure shall be separated by a one- story connector between the primary and secondary mass of the building. The one-story connector must be 10’ long, and setback a minimum of 5’ from the sidewall of the primary and secondary masses and must occur no more than 45’ from the front most wall, see Figure 2. P136 VI.B. Page 3 of 6 Figure 3 Figure 4 – Rendering showing maximum sidewall depth measurement from Figure 5 3. Increased Side Setbacks at Rear Step Down: If the building is two stories, it has to step down to a one-story element at the rear of the structure. The step down must happen within 45’ of the front most wall, and the one-story element must be setback 5’ feet on each side from the primary mass of the building, see figure 3. Non-flexible standards are those that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted. The applicant is seeking an RDS Variation pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. PROPOSAL: The design proposal does not satisfy any of the three options provided by the code. The maximum sidewall depth measures 84’4” from the front most wall to the rear most wall, see figure 5. A one story stepdown, containing the garage, occurs at the rear of the structure but does not meet the setback requirements from the primary structure and does not occur at 45’, but at 65’ from the front most wall, see figure 6. P137 VI.B. Page 4 of 6 = Roof Overhang = Building Envelope = Setbacks/Easement Figure 6 Figure 5 P138 VI.B. Page 5 of 6 REVIEWS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION: An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant’s position is that the ditch and utility/access easements constrain the site and justify a variation for the Articulation of Building Mass standard. The Si Johnson ditch has been in this location for many years and the property was purchased with this existing condition in place. Properties throughout Aspen often contain existing conditions such as ditches, rivers, or steep slopes which may impact development. The additional setbacks that affect the property are shown in Figure 7. The zone district setbacks are shown in orange and the additional setbacks required for the utility/access and the ditch easements are shown in green. Staff does not feel that the additional constraint prevents reasonable use of the property or prohibits a compliant design. The second consideration for a variation focuses on the intent statements associated with the Design Standards. Staff acknowledges that articulation elements are used to assist in breaking up the façade’s plane; however, the massing of the building “as viewed from all sides” still presents a façade that measures over 84’ in depth and does not break up the mass by limiting the overall depth of the sidewalls to the 50 foot maximum, providing a one story connector to break up the primary and secondary mass of the building, or using a one story stepdown at 45 feet from the front façade to reduce the perceived mass. These three options are provided to satisfy the requirements of the Figure 7 P139 VI.B. Page 6 of 6 code and given that this is new construction on an undeveloped lot, the design should comply with the code. The standard’s intent statement also mentions designs should “limit the overall depth of the structure.” Given the lot length of 110’, with combined front and rear setbacks of 25’, a total building area length of 85’ exists. The design measures 84’4” and maximizes the depth of the structure, which does not meet the intent of the standard to reduce overall depth of the building. The Articulation of Building Mass Standard Intent Statement specifically mentions the importance of this standard within the Infill area where small side yard setbacks exist. The side yard setback on the west side of the property is 5’, and the lot size is typical of west end lots in the R-6 zone district. The current design proposal does not comply with setback requirements. There are elements of the primary structure on the lower level that are within the required rear yard setback and the roof overhang within the ditch easement is not allowed. The applicant will be required to comply with all setback requirements prior to building permit issuance, but these elements do not affect the Articulation of Building Mass measurement or Residential Design Standard review. Staff recommends that new construction comply with the requirements of one of the options to meet the standard. The design does provide articulation elements but does not meet the requirements to qualify for a variation to the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard as the proposal does not satisfy the review criteria for a variation and is a proposal for new construction that should comply with the requirements of the code. The Articulation of Building Mass Standard provides three options to satisfy the requirements and includes alternatives for allowing for additional mass on site beyond the primary mass, and none have been met. The easements on site do not constrain the site unfairly or prevent reasonable use of the property. Design alternatives could be used to meet the code requirements and still provide design flexibility. PROPOSED MOTION: The resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. If the commission supports staff’s recommendation, a motion to deny, as suggested below should be used. “I move to deny the request for Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard.” Attachments: Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Exhibit B- Application Exhibit C – RDS Checklist Exhibit D – Public Comment P140 VI.B. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ,� `�en, COE=1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tim lJ' . @ 1� �o P-y- , 201 ' STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. County of Pitlan ) I, (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the Ci of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. 'A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 'Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at-least fifteen(15)*days prior to the public hearing on the_day of , 20. to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the .mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26:304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300).feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted-prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one. lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and, new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey.map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signa e The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was aclm I d ed before me thisoM day of/�0✓ - ,20(x,by' NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING RE:813 W Smugger St. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Public Hearing: , Tuesday.December 18,2018;4:30 PM Meeting Location:City Hall,Sister Cities Room My commission expires. 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611 W � - Pro Location:813 W Smuggler St.;Leggally De- scribed as LOT 3, RANGER STATION SUBDIVI- SION,according to the visAmended and Restated Plat er Ra 018 Plat Station 122bat Peg;on 22asdReception No. - in 647625. Notary Public Description:The applicant is requesting a Residen- tial Design Standard Variation(Articulation of Build- ing Mass)in order to develop the lot with a single-- family residence. KAREN REED PATTERSON Mand use Reviews Req: Residential Design NOTARY PUBLIC Standard Variation STATE OF COLORADO Decision Making Body: Planning and zoning CTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE Commission NOTARY ID#19964002767 - Esci ant: Smugg LLC. Go Curtis B Sanders,BLICATION Esq.. Sherman & Howard LLC, 730 Durant Ave 17 My Commission Expires February 15,2020 Suite 200,Aspen,CO 81621 More Information: For further information re- laced to the project,contact Garret)Larimer at the[y =POSTED NOTICE (SIGA 9 Depart- ment,0130 Aspen Ga ena Stuni�n CO.9 o 42��39•VERSAND GOVERAMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED garrett,larimer@cityotaspen.com Published in the Aspen Times on November 29, 2018 _�°a00.0 i15 a..n1 Y 1 Ex lIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.RS. §24-65.5-103.3 r �� •rte � _ - �� PUBLIC NOTICE. 1Wk 2018 bate: �w"c"" • 4:1l PFA , Time. „en 150 5 C»imm St S* Place: . �coo.:Goat+ --- . purpose: S t➢D 11G,co curie 8 5W16""- 6 W16 rs.b wmor4 LLG.730 rlunrx I►ve s r,gwsWQ a rO4 ►ar.yW Won to 110 Mwmpn of -i-114 � yn+oye n o►dx a dvvebp a$0401 t&")fw*KWre on INS S." The appu.&W we oe coft4omd br the Fpr f%#Tw+~I,,, .,.', K 44 rM• AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 813 SMUGGLER STREET ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 18, 201 8 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitirin } L CURTIS B. SANDERS, ESQ. (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the 18th day of December, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2)of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred(300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) N/A Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. N/A Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. r-- Sign—afff-e--� tl, The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 3 o day of NoveI.,6etz 20) 9,by NlzQ s 75- Shnders WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SUSAN 1. KNABLE NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 7 1 2� I STATE OF Y COLORAD / NOTARY ID 19974000656 A" MAMISSION EXPIRES 0T01/2019 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 11�► CITYOFASPEN 130 S. Galena Street,Aspen, CO 81611 (970)920.5090 www.cityofaspen.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 813 W Smuggler St. Residential Design Standard Variation Public Hearing: Tuesday, December 18, 2o18, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 813 W Smuggler St. Legal Description: LOT 3, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, according to the Amended and Restated Plat, Ranger Station Subdivision, recorded May 25, 2o18 in Plat Book 122 at Page 22 as Reception No. 647625. PID #2735-124-28-003. Description: The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard Variation (Articulation of Building Mass) in order to develop the lot with a single- family residence. Land Use Reviews: Residential Design Standard Variation Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant: Smugg LLC, c/o Curtis B Sanders, Esq., Sherman & Howard LLC, 730 Durant Ave Suite Zoo, Aspen, CO 83.621 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Garrett Larimer at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 13o S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2739, garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com. 813 W. SMUGGLER ST. • RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION REQUEST SINCLAIR BUILDING I ARCHITECTURE I DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 30, 2018 GREETINGS, NEIGHBORS: WE ARE THE ARCHITECT FOR A NEW HOME TO BE LOCATED AT 813 W.SMUGGLER ST. ON DECEMBER 18,WE WILL MEET WITH THE ASPEN PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION TO REQUEST A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS "ARTICULATION OF BUILDING MASS" REQUIREMENTS. ALONG WITH THE REQUIRED NOTICE, HEREWITH ENCLOSED, WE WANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. INTRODUCTION OUR PROJECT IS IN THE NEW"RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION"ON LOT 3,WHICH IS JUST EAST OF THE FOREST SERVICE BARRACKS. OUR LOT AREA IS 6639 SF AND IS ZONED R6. WE PROPOSE A 3080 SF SINGLE-FAMILY HOME(3282 SF IS ALLOWED BY ZONING F.A.R.'). WE ARE AT 43%LOT COVERAGE,WHILE 49%IS ALLOWED BY CODE. NOTABLY,THE JOHNSON DITCH,WITH ITS 20-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT, CUTS DIAGONALLY ACROSS OUR LOT FROM THE NORTHEAST TOWARD THE SOUTHWEST. SIMILAR TO OUR TWO NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST,WE ARE AFFECTED BY A 1 O-FOOT WIDE ALLEY EASEMENT (PLUS A 5-FOOT SETBACK) ALONG OUR SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. AS A RESULT OF THESE EASEMENTS, 1/4TH OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS NOT AVAILABLE. THE RESULT IS A TRAPEZOIDAL-SHAPED BUILDING SITE THAT TAPERS FROM THE FULL LOT WIDTH ON SMUGGLER TO JUST OVER 1/2 OF THE LOT WIDTH AT THE ALLEY. THE CITY OF ASPENS DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRE FOLLOWING 1 OF 3OPTIONS TO SATISFY THE "ARTICULATION OF BUILDING MASS" PROVISION (SEE DIAGRAMS BELOW). THE INTENT OF THE PROVISION IS TO REDUCE PERCEIVED BULK, PROMOTE LIGHT&AIR BETWEEN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES,USE MULTIPLE FORMS TO BREAK UP LARGE WALLS,AND RELATE IN SCALE TO HISTORIC ASPEN HOMES. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE INTENT OF THE PROVISION, WE FEEL OUR UNIQUE SITE SHAPE SUGGESTS AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH,WHICH COMBINES ASPECTS OF EACH OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE OPTIONS INSTEAD OF FULFILLING A SINGLE APPROACH.AS SUCH,WE HAVE REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO PURSUE AN ALTERNATE,AND WE ARGUE MORE APPROPRIATE PATH TO COMPLY WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. ASPEN R.D.S ARTICULATION OF BUILDING MASS' REQUIRED OPTIONS: OPTION ONE OPTION TWO OPTION THREE DESIGN WITH OUR SITE DIMINISHING IN WIDTH AS IT RECEDES FROM THE STREET-FRONT,WE NEEDED TO PLACE MOST OF THE HOME IN THE FRONT 2/3RDS OF THE SITE. INFLUENCED BY HISTORIC ASPEN VERNACULAR FORMS,WE WANTED TO KEEP THE INDIVIDUAL MASS FORMS APPROPRIATELY SMALL,THUS THE 20' WIDTH OF OUR TWO GABLED FORMS. WE PLACED THOSE FORMS IN A STAGGERED ECHELON THAT OPENS THE FRONT PORCH TO THE STREET,GIVING A SENSE OF WELCOME. THE HOME MOVES AWAY FROM THE SIDE SETBACK IN THREE STEPS,EVENTUALLY TO 25'FROM THE PROPERTY LINE,LETTING IN LIGHT AND AIR,WHILE ENHANCING PRIVACY. DESIGN EVOLUTION OF 81 3 W. SMUGGLER DERIVED FROMI ODD- � �]0 ; SHAPED BUILDING ENVELOPE: INTENT WE BELIEVE THAT THE SETBACKS AND STAGGERED MASSING OF THE HOMES DESIGN (SEE THE SECOND SEQUENCE OF DIAGRAMS ABOVE)ADDRESS THE INTENT OF THE "ARTICULATION OF BUILDING MASS" STANDARD, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO OUR UNIQUE SITE CONFIGURATION, MORE EFFECTIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY THAN ANY ONE OF THE THREE PRESCRIPTIVE OPTIONS REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. ba PERSPECTIVE VIEW OR PROPOSED HOME AT 81 3 W. SMUGGLER AS SEEN FROM THE r '4 NORTHWEST ALONG l I 1 SMUGGLER STREET:I I -- tasy reef, Laoels I A Bend along line to AVERVe C-,SOTM ' Use Avery®Template 5160' Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeT"^ FRANCIS STREET TOWNHOMES CONDO ASE GOLDRICH MELINDA REV TRUST GOLD RUSH LLC COMMON AREA 825 W NORTH ST 204 PARK AVE#1 K 901 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN,CO 81611 BIXBY NINA BECKLEY JOHN&MARY ANN GSS SMUGGLER LLC 4128 RHODES AVE 16818 FALLS RD PO BOX 66 STUDIO CITY,CA 91604 UPPERCO, MD 21155 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 FOREST LOOKOUT 1 LLC LBH CONDO ASSOC GSS SMUGGLER LLC 605 W MAIN ST 92 COMMON AREA PO BOX 66 ASPEN,CO 81611 521 N SEVENTH ST CARBONDALE.CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81611 FRANCIS STREET CONDO ASSOC SMUGGLER LLC SCHWAB ROBERT&LOUISE FAM TRUST COMMON AREA 1044 OLIVE ST 10940 WILSHIRE BLVD#2250 733 W FRANCIS ST DENVER,CO 80220 LOS ANGELES,CA 90024 ASPEN,CO 81611 MCTAMANEY ROBERT A III TRUST NALADHU LLC PARELMAN ALLEN G REV TRUST 2652 CHESTNUT ST 901 W FRANCIS ST 734 W SMUGGLER SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94123 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN POMA MAURICIO ERNESTO REV TRUST BOURKE JANINE L REV TRUST 726 W FRANCIS ST 2121 SW 3RD AVE#800 716 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN,CO 81611 MIAMI,FL 33129 ASPEN,CO 81611 MCBRIDE JOHN P JR&SUNNI S MEADOW WATCH CONDO ASSOC MILLER ANN F 320 N 7TH ST COMMON AREA 715 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 W SMUGGLER ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SCHUHMACHER JOHN W TRUST RATNER DENNIS F TRUST POWELL WILLIAM E TRUST 505 N 8TH ST 1577 SPRING HILL RD#500 11 LYNN BATTS LN#100 ASPEN,CO 81611 VIENNA,VA 22182 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78218 AULD ROBERT H&CAROL C JAMIE ALEXANDER LLC BAIRD STEPHEN W&SUSAN MERRITT 730 W SMUGGLER AVE 720 PARK AVE#4A 120 S LASALLE ST#2000 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10021 CHICAGO,IL 60603 CHASE SARAH C REV TRUST SIMMONS W JUNE TRUST FOREST LOOKOUT II LLC 319 TANO RD 4128 RHODES AVE 605 W MAIN ST#2 SANTA FE,NM 87506 STUDIO CITY,CA 91604 ASPEN.CO 81611 ttiquettes faciles a peler Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY`'51600 j chargement reveler le rebord Pop-UpT"j 1-800-GO-AVERY i Use Avery®Template 5160"' j Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge'"' j 1 SHOOTER 0329 LLC 817 WEST NORTH STREET LLC TREEHOUSE CONDO ASSOC 3201 N 10TH ST 2542 EMMA RD COMMON AREA MCALLEN,TX 78501 BASALT,CO 81621 822 W SMUGGLER ST ASEPN,CO 81611 GOLD RUSH LLC MEADOWS&SEVENTH LLC 949 WEST SMUGGLER ST LLC 204 PARK AVE#1K 875 PARK AVE 3489 W 62 AVE BASALT,CO 81621 NEW YORK.NY 10075 DENVER,CO 80221 POWELL WILLIAM E TRUST FOREST SERVICE ASPEN HEADQUARTERS RUBEY ROBERT 11 LYNN BATTS LN#100 806 HALLAM ST 3465 BELCARO DR SAN ANTONIO,TX 78218 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80209 5 STRING LLC SCHUHMACHER MARIANNE H TRUST MG DUPLEX LLC PO BOX 1709 505 N 8TH ST 825 W NORTH ST GATLINBURG,TN 37738 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 GOLD RUSH CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 729 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ttiquettes faciles a peler ; A Repliez b la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY" 51609j chSens dent reveler le rebord Pop-UpTM 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1