The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sr.Fleck.A068-002737-181-32-012 Fleck DRAC Lot 12 Callahan Sub U� a 0 CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A068-00 2737-181-32012 Fleck Residence Lot 12, Callahan Subdivision Nick Lelack DRAC Barbara Fleck Jeffrey Hancox, Robert Trown 9/19/00 Reso. #41-2000 Denied 10/20/00 J. Lindt PARCEL ID: 2737-181-32012 DATE RCVD: 6/7/00 # COPIES:— CASE NO A068-00 CASE NAME: Fleck Residence PLNR: PROJ ADDR: Lot 12, Callahan Subdivision CASE TYP: DRAC STEPS: OWNIAPP:j Barbara Fleck ADR Drawer 5 C/S/Z: Sarasota/FU34230 PHN: REP Jeffrey Hancox, Robert Trow ADR: 25 Lower Woodbridge C/S/Z: Snowmass Village/C PHN: 923-6131 FEES DUE: J480 FEES RCVD: Need Deposit STAT: REFERRALS REF: I— BYJ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED, REMARKS DUE: DATE OF FINAL ACTION: / C( CITY COUNCIL: 1 PZ: < CLOSED:J, BY: BOA: DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN:) JUN. 1.2000 2:31PN MM F I[] ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC NO.941 P. 1 0 ROBERT TROWN & ASSOCIATES, INC- FAX C O'VERLETTER DATE: 6/7/00 ATTN: Nis -Lei k COMPANY: v e FAX NO: PROJECT: flock es' e e FROM: Je x PAGES: CONBdENTS: SIGNED: Nick, Here is the dimensional requirements sheet for the Fleck J application. Project'Architect 25 LOWER WOODBRIDGE ROAD - SU'TF-104-B - P.O. BOX Wzu - "q TEL. (970) 923-6131 FAX (970) 923-2599 - 81615 JUN.16.2000 4:23PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC NO.536 F. ME 0 0 ■® ROBERT TROWN & ASSOCIA.TES, INC. FAX COVER LETTER DATE: 6/16/00 ATTN: Nick Lelack COMPANY: Commmity Development FAX NO: .920-5439 PROJECT: El?,Pk Residence FROM: TPffrQy R. Hancox PAGES: 2 COMMENTS: SIGNED: Nick: Attached is the variance request for the secondary mass issue. Please give me a call if we need to give you anything further. Thank You! Q iect Architect 25 LOWER WOODBRIDGE ROAD -- SUITE 104-B - P.O. BOX 6920 - SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO - 81615 TEL. (970) 923-6131 FAX (970) 923-2599 JUN•16.2000 4:23PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC VJ.;36 2 In "111711 P0Df,PT*tQ0-WN & 1i88CIATE& arc. June 1, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack City Planner Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision variance for secondary mass. Dear Nick: Regarding the residence mentioned above, please review the submittal seeking a variance for the secondary mass element: Attachment 5 Review Standards: Design Review Appeal Committee C) The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. The secondary mass element requirement appears to be an issue designed specifically for a compact neighborhood such as the West side of Aspen. Because this site was annexed by the City and is in a more rural setting, we don't feel that the innate design characteristics of the West side are justifiable for this particular site. The site is very private, dense with shrubs and trees. The nearest house with the exception of Lot 6 is more than 200 yards away in any direction. Precedence set by the surrounding residences also suggests that the need for a secondary mass is mute. The site is located in close proximity to the flood plane of the Roaring Fork River. Because the water table is so high we will not be able to go a full story below grade. The building envelope is very small in relation to the amount of FAR allowed for the site. As a result we are left with a building site where height and envelope size play a major role in the design of the structure. The proposed design works within these design constraints without utilizing a secondary mass element. To do so would be impossible without leaving our client with a house that neither functions correctly, or that is in context with the surrounding residences. Sincere , Jeffrey R. Hanco Project Architect 25 Lower Woodbridge Rd. - Suite 104-B • P.O. Box 6820 • Snowmass Village, CO 81615 • (970) 923-2644 - FAX (970) 923-2599 rJUN.- 7._2000F 2:31 PM8 PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC FAX N0, 0 N0.947 P. 2P, 12/1? County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss, TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26304.060(F.) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen; personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirenicuts pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the -following mawicr: M*'Inailiag of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicatcrl on the attached list, on the day of , 200_ (which is _,_, days prior to tho public hearing date of, - 2, By posting a sign is a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the ne mst public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible conthiuously from the L�1y of 200,o, to the Why of 31), 200a - (Must be posted for at least t 11 days be!"ore the hearing date). A photograph of the hosted sign is attached hereto, Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this day of 200_, by WITNESS MY 14AND AND OFFICTAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 26.304.060 E.3.b. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations) State of Colorado) SS. City of Aspen ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Jeffery Hancox being or representing an applicant before City of Aspen, personally, certify that Public Notice of the application for the Fleck Property Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A was given by posting notice containing the information required in Section 6-205 E, which posting occurred on September 8, 2000, in a conspicuous place (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that said sign was posted. Applicant: Barbara Fleck By J ff H nco The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and signed before me this 19 day of September, 2000, by Jeffery Hancox on behalf of Barbara Fleck. WITNESS my hand and offic My commission expires: 7f Affidavi.fle • � S ' f 4Br' aft l' }. �, r +":r''•i bar pj k .>R ' r - .' r r i � MAY-12-2000 FRI 04:17 PM • FAX N0, 10 P. 03/12 ATTACHMENT 1 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Development Application Fee Policy The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 45 (Series of 1999), has established a fee structure I,or the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the Aspera/Piticin Community Development Department. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for Administrative Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The tee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Several different staff members may charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Staff time is logged to the case and staff can provide a summary report of hours spent at the applicant's request. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours. Applicants may accrue and be billed additional expenses for a planner's time spent on the case following any hearing or approvals, up until the applicant applies for a building permit. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing ofthe application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees arc paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. When the ease planner determines that the case is completed (whether approved or not approved), the case is considered closed and any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of Development Application Pecs. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application and fee in order for a land use case to be opened. fhe current complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the reverse side. MAY-12-2000 FRI 04:17 PM • FAX Nr • P. 04/12 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2000 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CATEGORY HOURS DEPOSIT FLAT FEE Major 12 2,310.00 Minor 6 1,155.00 Staff Approvals 480.00 Flat Fee 265.00 Exempt HPC 65.00 Minor HPC 480.00 Significant HPC <1000 sq. ft. 1155.00 Significant HPC >1000 sq. ft. 2310.00 Demolition, Partial Demolition, Relocation 2310.00 Referral Fees - Environmental Health Major 330.00 Minor 170.00 Referral Fees - Housing Major 330.00 Minor 170.00 Referral Fees - City Engineer Major 330.00 Minor 170.00 Hourly Rate 195.00 MAY-12-2000 FRI 04:17 PM • FAX NC P. 05/12 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for llayA Ant of City of Aspen Development Application lees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and r (hereinafter API'LICAN'T) AGREE AS FOLLO S: I, APPLICANThas submitted to CITY an application for (liereinaftor, THE PROJECT), 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may ncrue following their hearings and/or approvals- APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incun•ed• CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its ri=ht to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for ,-_ hours of Conununity Development staff time, and i f actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payrncnts shall be made within 30 days of the billing date- APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processinp1 and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CiTY OF ASPEN By: -- - - Julic Ann Woods Community Development Director g:\support\forms\a grpnyas.doc 12/27/99 APPLICANT MP -- Mailing Address; w Imuamaw— �a Lj May 23, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Planner Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Fleck Residence Lot 12 &12A Callahan Subdivision Dear Mr. Lelack: I hereby authorize Jeffrey R. Hancox of Robert Trown and Associates at 25 Lower Woodbridge Road in Snowmass Village (970) 923-6131 to act as my representative in processing my application for an Ordinance 29 variance on the above said property. Signed. Barbara Fleck Drawer 5 Sarasota, FL 34230 STATEMENT OF SETrLEMENT` Buyer's Property Address: 1452 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN, CO 81611 Seller: MARIE-FABIENNE BENEDICT' GORDON Purchaser: BARBARA FLECK Settlement Date: 06/18/99 Date of Proration: 06/18/99 Legal Description: LOTS 12 AMID 12A, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, according to the Map thereof recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and Amended Plat thereof recorded August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16. File No: PCI'14118 Description Debit Credit Contract Sales Price ....................................... SEWER 4/1-6/30 $83.54...................................... Deposit or earnest money ................................... CURRENT TAXES 01/01/99 to 06/18/99 ........................ Settlement Fee to PITKIN CUUNT'Y TITLE, INC. ............... DELETE PREPRINTED EXCEPTIONS ............................... TAX CERTIFICATE ............................................ Recording Fees .............................................. State Tax/Stamps........................................... ASPEN TRANSFER TAX - WREIT................................ ASPEN TRANSFER TAX - HREIT................................. S ib-Totals Balance due from Buyer ECTAT S BARBARA FLECK .... �ra ... w« M Vwara PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC 4,250,000.00 11.93 150,000.00 1,741.32 175.00 10.00 16.00 425.00 21,250.00 41,500.00 4,313,387.93 151,741.32 4,161,646.61 4,313,387.93 4,313,387.93 0, STATEMENT OF SET LEMENT Buyer's Property Address: 1452 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN, CO 81611 Seller: MARIE-FABIENNE BENEDICT GORDON Purchaser: BARBARA FLECK Settlement Date: 06/18/99 Date of Proration: 06/18/99 Legal Description: LOTS 12 AMID 12A, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, according to the Map thereof recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and Amended Plat thereof recorded August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16. File No: PCT14118 F Description Debit Credit Contract Sales Price ....................................... SEWER 4/1-6/30 $83.54...................................... Deposit or earnest money ................................... CURRENT TAXES 01/01/99 to 06/18/99 ........................ Settlement Fee to PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. ............... DELETE PREPRIINTI D EXCEPTIONS ............................... TAX CERTIFICATE ............................................ Recording Fees .............................................. State Tax/Stamps........................................... ASPEN TRANSFER TAX - WRETT .................................. ASPEN TRANSFER TAX - HREIT................................. Sub -Totals Balance due from Buyer IC IAT S BARBARA FLECK Broker: BY: _ PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 4,250,000.00 11.93 150,000.00 1,741.32 175.00 10.00 16.00 425.00 21,250.00 41,500.00 4,313,387.93 151,741.32 4,161,646.61 4,313,387.93 4,313,387.93 of �-3 C� r z F❑ FLECK RESIDENCE U CALIAHAN fB®N B DPIMI IROBERT TROWN & ASSOCIATESI 25 Lower Woodbridge Road • Suite 104-B Snowmaaa Village • Colorado 81015 T:(970)923-0131 (970)923-26. FAX:(970)923-2503 ❑oo MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director J AO FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A - Residential Design Standard Variances for Non -orthogonal Windows and a Driveway Cut Exceeding 2-feet in the Front Yard Setback DATE: September 14, 2000 APPLICANT: Barbara Fleck REPRESENTATIVE: Jeffrey Hancox LOCATION: Callahan Subdivision EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant ZONING: R-15 LOT SIZE: 92,316 sq. ft. ( L FAR: Allowed: 6,731 sq. ft. Proposed: 6,658 sq. ft. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Residential Design Standards variances for non -orthogonal windows, and for a driveway cut in excess of two (2) feet within the front yard setback. REVIEW PROCEDURE The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: A) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, B) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. • STAFF COMMENTS: Barbara Fleck ("Applicant"), represented by Jeffrey Hancock of Robert Trawn & Associates, is requesting approval for two Residential Design Standard variances — one from the Windows standard and the other from the Parking, Garages, and Carports standard. The property is located in the Callahan Subdivision near Highway 82. The lot is surround by the City of Aspen boundary, Crystal Lake Road (private), and the Roaring Fork River. The house will be barely visible from any roads or streets, and only the immediate neighbor to the north, located in the County, will clearly see the house. 1. Windows — Non -Orthogonal Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) Windows states that "No more than one non -orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. " The Applicant has proposed between two (2) and seven (7) non -orthogonal windows on each facade of the house. The illustration to the right Orthogonal —3 Non -Orthogonal 0* shows examples of non -orthogonal windows. The non -orthogonal window at the far right is the best example of the type of windows proposed for this house. Although the proposed house will be barely visible, Staff does not believe any of the variance criteria have been met to warrant the granting of a variance. Staff believes the house can be designed to meet this standard because the lot is vacant. 2. Parking, Garages and Carports Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) states, "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. pd�IC��II��IIIIIVIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVi iy Currently, one curb cut exists from Crystal Lake Road to Lot 12; this curb cut is used for an access easement to the neighboring lot in Pitkin County. Nevertheless, this access can and should be used to access Lot 12 rather than creating a second curb cut to access the lot, particularly, because developing a second access requires removing dense vegetation and filling significantly more than two feet. The photographs on the next page show the existing driveway to neighboring lot and the location of the proposed new driveway. If this variance is approved, both driveways will remain. Staff recommends denial of this request finding that the proposed variance does not meet any of the review criteria and needlessly destroys dense vegetation near the Roaring Fork River. Staff strongly believes this is the perfect opportunity for shared access. r RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the Residential Design Standard variances, finding that the review criteria are not met for either request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE: "I move to approve Resolution No. 2Series of 2000, approving the Residential Design Standard variances for a single family residence at Lots 12 and 12A, Callahan Subdivision." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application EXHIBIT A 981 KING STREET REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Variances are requested from the two (2) standards: Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) Windows. "No more than one non -orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building." 2. Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Parking, Garages, and Carports. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe this standard has been met. This is a vacant parcel and the house can be designed to meet the standard, including the windows. In addition, one curb cut already exists to serve the property; the proposed second driveway cut that would require fill in excess of two (2) feet is not in greater compliance with any goal of the AACP. Staff does not believe this standard has been met for either variance request. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed non -orthogonal windows or additional driveway requiring in excess of two (2) feet of fill more effectively address either standard in question. Staff does not believe this criteria is met for either variance. • 0 c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any unusual site specific constraints exist on this lot that would warrant granting the requested variances. No site characteristics impact window designs. And, one driveway already serves the property, so unusual site specific constraints do not exist to justify a second driveway, particularly because the new driveway would cause the removal of dense vegetation and unnecessary fill on the environmentally sensitive site. 0 • A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING VARIANCES OF THE WINDOW AND PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT LOTS 12 AND 12A, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-181-32-012 Resolution No. , Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Barbara Fleck, represented by Jeffrey Hancox, Robert Trawn & Associates, has requested variances from the Window Residential Design Standard for more than one (1) non -orthogonal window per facade, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b); and from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard to fill more than two (2) feet in the front yard setback for a second driveway Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d), for the property located at Lots 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS the Planning Staff, in a report dated September 14, 2000, recommended denial of both variances finding that none of the above criteria have been met; and, WHEREAS during a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on September 14, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved a variance from the Window Residential Design Standard, by a vote of to_ (_-_); and, WHEREAS during a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on September 14, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard, by a vote of _to_ L-J. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance from the Window standard for more than one (1) non -orthogonal window per facade; and for a variance from the Parking, Garages and u Carports Residential Design Standard for a second driveway for a property located at Lots 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision, with the following condition: 1. All prior City of Aspen land use decisions for this property and subdivision shall remain in full force and effect. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 14th day of September, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk CAhome\nickl\Active Cases\Fleck.doc Chair MAY-12-2000 FRI 04:17 PM • PROJECT: APPLICANT: FAX NO, 0 LAND USE APPLICATION P. 02/12 Name: 66l ly 'C-r:' Location: al�k-?6Tav I.AK-C F-AD 1'1 a N 1 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Name: Address: Z Phone #.: Ci c> KTA REPRESENTATIVE: Address- I • TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Special Rcvicw AA I Design Review Appeal GMQS Allotment ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ FSA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Lot Line Adjustment [] Conceptual PUD ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes condom iniumization) ❑ "Temporary Use [] Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous EAM?rmic PROPOSAL: (description ofpmposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc. Have you attached the following? Pre -Application Conference Summary Attachment #1. Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment # 2, Dimensional Requirements form ❑ Response to Attaclunent 43, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment 44, Specific Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment 45, Review Standards for Your Application ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Final I Iistoric Development [� Minor I Iistoric Dcvt. ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ Historic Designation ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Other: approvals, etc.) FEES DUE: S JUN. 7. 2000t1 2 _ :35PM.Phi ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC FAX N0, NO. 948 P. ... . ATTACHMENT Z DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location:— Gono District: Lot Size: Lill- � 5 Lot Area: e 4or— (tor ie purposes of ca cuFilxting or Area, of Aron may tie xduead for areas within the high water mark, easements, vtd steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: A%4 Proposed: —"A Number of residential units: DrIstin�:,� Proposed:_•, ,�— Number of bedrooms: Exislirg: Proposed:_.._,.,.. Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Q Allowable:_ (off �I Proposed: �� Principal blclg, height: Fadlsting: AlloN�able: �(�_Prvposad;� t� t• Access. Bldg. height: Exisling,__.. Allowable: Prupased:_- _ oil -Site pzrking: Eiixting: r _1i er�uirrd; P, opo,rad: . _ °e Site coverage: Existing: .,,Required: _ Proposed, °/a Open Space: Existing: ,Kequired. Proposed:,._,_ front Setback: F_xisting: .__ R¢quirec{: _ Proposed: „-- Rear Setback: -&%I5rin9: Required: 1'roposed.- Combiried F/R: Existing-'- Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing; Requirecl: _ _ Proposed.,_ Side Setback: Existing:-,, _,Required: ,__Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing:.Required: Proposed:_ Existing noel -conformities or encroachments:_ Variations requested: X, 4 1 Ville � Q0bEQT &OWN C4 A88 )CIATUS, INC. June 1, 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack City Planner Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision Dear Nick: Regarding the residence mentioned above, please review the submittal seeking a variance for more than one non -orthogonal window per elevation. Attachment 5 Review Standards: Design Review Appeal Committee B) The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem. The site is very private by nature of its location in Callahan Subdivision. The surrounding area is dense w/ trees and shrubbery. We believe that there is no historic precedence in the immediate vicinity as the adjacent residence on Lot 6 was built in 1970's. Lot 12 also backs up to the County, which has no restrictions concerning non - orthogonal windows. We therefore designed the house focusing on massing and it's relationship to the site. The non -orthogonal windows are in keeping with the stylistic aspects of the house, and we feel that without them the particular old world mountain chalet characteristics that we are seeking to obtain would be lost. We also plan to plant vegetation in keeping with the existing conditions directly adjacent to the building envelope, which will further shield the proposed structure from any neighboring views. Please give me a call with any questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Hancox Project Architect 25 Lower Woodbridge Rd. • Suite 104-B • P.O. Box 6820 • Snowmass Village, CO 81615 • (970) 923-2644 • FAX (970) 923-2599 MAP "- r dean � �u,a�� b aye O� c3ief8 Ave '?Q S!xk G e *S Aspen, CO m � m 01999 MapQuest.com, Inc.; 01999 Naviqation Technobqies Y oo!n'j .00h 1 p As en %roue Cemetery Asp e Grove Cen7e�ery 6 C� Westview Dr Eastwood Rd s s ,,W Wr Amy Ciuthne, U1:45 FM 7/24/UU -06UU, driveway cuts Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: amyg@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMKh,Windows Eactorsa-Pro, Versied ,4;2.2 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:45:25 -0600 To: juliew@ci.aspen.co.us, joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, nickl@ci.aspen.co.us, fredj@ci.aspen.co.us, saraho@ci.aspen.co.us, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us From: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: driveway cuts Here's the language in the code that came up recently... Section 21.16.060 In residential districts R-6, R-15, R-30, R-40 and RR and in Conservation (C) District there shall be allowed one (1) curb cut of ten (10) feet in width for each building site with sixty (60) feet or less frontage. For building sites with over sixty (60) feet of frontage, the curb cut shall be either ten (10) feet in width for a single driveway or eighteen (18) feet in width for a double driveway. ' Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 9/14/00 FOUND E5 REBAR MARKED "LS 9184" 26.65 'WITNESS CORNER OARING FORK R)VER FOUND £5 REBAR MARKED _-'�� R S00°14'00"W 140.00' jrNNOT SEOUND "LS 9184" 8.52' WITNESS CORNER TOP BAN RIVER I / PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT j REC- NO. 425356 1 IL � 1\ 1 J(, \ _ i 100 YEAR FLOODP.. ,IN \1 IZONE AEA \ ti_—"�--------- \ BUILDING ENVELOPE �3 --- 0 0 \\\\ \ 1 m` 1 `�'� /\O � � r �: Dozr to InD• \\ �\ �� __ _ =may 0P 11 \ III /I II ) I7 i/ 0 I "1 O 1 f 1 �. I:jA. ORGWRT q '' a O cl>Y to I` to00 O _� - - / -// \\ J/ �O / / z 41 i' vt ✓i� / / FOUND £5 EBAR %'y l / MARKED "LS 9184" 1 UND I./ / 80 I ROPONit OR SETI, // --- -- -----=S00°14'00"W 231. RO L=50.24' R=375.00' .=07 40'33" CH=N85 04'33-E 5.20' Q M i i i I Y i I ROCK FENCE-, ------- ORTSETUND \I i i i / �i I I it N00°14 00"E 457,24 - i NOT FOUND EN OR SET 20' DRIVEWAY EASEMENT I \ \\ \ I PER PLA 1 1 II MARKED "COR N0. I FOUND BRASS CAPMs 39051, \ \ \\ \\ I I 9 ------ \\ \ I --�-__------- -- \ 11 o i / I / r W w W E ca U� cu �o 0 y•� Z u' ° co c. o tcQ F1 " * tx0 mom y bo ca O F9 A � O O T ~ � E it - td C3 (L� o C1 l� 00 C W cQ O 05 94 E LSSUE• " Per soe, : S-00 -co SITE PLAN G a_ 4 II 14 0�) ya U1 W w o, F w 1 � I .vC 4" MEE -__ W d mow _ F COW ry ® A.+o I' F w M HER BATH �cv 014 � v J -��, EeR�55 wlNDow i° LINEN OA5 014 SUNG ROOM EGRESS 0 B LADDER EORE55 ola LIGHT w LADDER 4_ 5'-II� II g'_ Ib�lWELL HIS BATH 2 015 LIGHT m II OS LINE OF FLOOR TE - ABVE TE MP. -- - - - - - - --� LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE _ n 59 55 WINDOW/ 1 '^ MECHANICAL A oll BUILT IN ; 006 DW I �_� REF I F ? n MEDIA g BILLIARD 006 �cr � V—i TA. PLY. m_ WET BAR ry 79ab'-b i/2° PROVIDE 5/b" TYP. X GYP. 50. Oil '^ ON WALLS AND CL65. UNDER STAIR A BUILTINTv I ANTEOM I ROOM 009 I:. .. OB I I 006 5 • IDN T.O. PLY. I I WINE RolJ\ l NUTONE IRON I m L= e4 004 12 • 2� T9b5'-9 I/4" I I \ I� olo CENTER ;p iv OIO I L RY a • • � _ ;• ® 111 DN I 4 • . 9 • 2" °i 5.5. 0 •� � POWDER I `Q O 004 r m I - r e I I ry B KA.,L05ET I •� � llll J 6UES10051 ® 003 I 002 - uilm A OAOY OL77 ry A A5.1 •` I A5.1 n SITTINB e GUEST I !ATH 2 4 • ool ppb T.O. PLY. A -r9ba'-6 In^ J GUEST SUITE I SLIEST SUITE 2 oo� om / ISSUE: oob r / 0 _ PRELIbIINABY: 12/7/99 r BLG. DPT. SUB.: 541-00 � r o I a ool MO O LINE OF FLOOR m 002 TEMP. TEMP ABOVE o NI IN M R4D N u~ O O O 01 TEMP. 4 TEMP. BALCONY TEMP. TEMP. - ola g - N 4 1` F"M LOWER FLOOR PLAN 5,-0, 9'_II'IT'_T• IB'-0I6_II" T_II�" q�. 2'-O�' 3'-5%' q_6, Ib SCALE: WV=1'-0" E0 SEE A5.5 FOR PLAN NOTES NOT 5HOWN HERE A3.1 __ L7J i SEE A3.3 FOR PLAN NOTES NOT SHOWN HERE W W F M r b ti o a U m Elm� d � � I a �w W � W o W F ISSUE: PRELIMINARY: 12/7/99 BLG. DPT. SUB.: 5-01-00 MAIN FLOOR PLAN PLAN N07E5: I. ALL EXTERIOR Y1N15 to 6e 2.6 0 Ib' O.G. stub u.on. ufaeturer's recommondatlans. All HA.t4DRAIL5 to I— na lass than 1 1/4" Insulate ae shown on EuIII Section rotes Shoot A51. and no greator than 2" In cross secoo—I dim- FFM Z U_B.G. 2. 9PRING 0 basement to be 2x4's wrfh 2' aP space U.O.N. 7. ALL EXTERIOR TREADS to be sloped 0 1W/ft. oIf—11.lon to be R-II BAIT, w/ R-10 Wvrm-N-Dry rigid Ireulatlon on exterior side g. ALL DECKS to be sloped 0 I/8°Rt. min. U.O.N. Contractor to care t Architect 3. ALL INTERIOR WALL5 to be 2xb 0 Ib" O.G. stack u.on. For direction If this slope cannot L'. maltdwvd Imlate as shown on Building Section rotes Sheet A5.1. 9. CONCRETE slab 0 gauge to be eloped 0 1/4'IPt. to a 4' dte. dr— in provkte I/2° _trol joint- location per plan. 4. ALL WALLS adjacent to stair to be D' cant. w/ 1/2' In space 10. Provide PILL SPRINKLER 5Y57EM tiroughoh ry P. w/ 2 x 4 0 16' o.c. studs U.O N. 5?ctem to to wet system, u.on. 0 0 1161. A A5.1 ROOFING NOTES I. ROOF PITCH VARI U:S= SEE PLAN FOR PITCH. 2. ALL FLASHING minimum 26 ga. COPPER U.O.N. All flashing to be set against minimum (1) LAyer 15# feat. 5. DASHED LINE INDICATES BUILDING BELOW. 6. ROOFING to be treated wood skakes type W construction. -7. ALL CAP FLASHING SEAMS TO BE SOLDERED FOR CONTINUITY. 8. NO PENETrations allowed in the horizontal surface of ANY FLASHING. G. CRICKETS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. ROOFINS CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY KITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR 5# felt. ItG1\ w rn rn E"1 w v mo Ell, 0 s Z `� Z • M d d N w 0o m b E"1 94 0 F 04 ISSUE: PRELIMINARY: 1217/99 BLG. DPT. SUB.: 5-01-00 ROOF PLAN 12 �� T.2._"RAISkIF.:_rh j i ELI ISSUE; PRELIMINARY; 12/7/99 PROGRESS; 2/18/00 I''FYr .�16 �p C � 9 75 O 6 SAD ARC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE. F-I [A:4]1 . Tx--- 6027'-lotgJ - i • i � 12 $� I I �� v4 i I L/ i 1 F m� ail a 8 C roa �w a i l i 1. l i J i c/ l -'