The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.861 Ute Ave.0029.2012.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0029.2012.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2737-18-2-95-019 PROJECTS ADDRESS 861 UTE AVE PLANNER 141**BRM-s C.-Â»AE* ~06 CASE DESCRIPTION RESIDENTAL DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE BOB BOWDEN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 5.14.12 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 3.21.13 External Media Located Here i * Li~*#:A!*|1#*th, - . I x '. 1 E le,=1 I M-007767 W i i 1 RMMI 2737 - 18 -2 - 9 1 -01 9 0029 Â· 201 2.Â· Al L 4 , % 2 58[ord NaÂ¢* Fgm *ort Format * 4 ~ i#@Ix) e-MBilt]0323,1 111 4 Â¢ 40@|Wift :1~101#~ __,1 3 332 ) 38 ~ RD#*6 |Feei |FeeSummai ~~~*fls Attdmers Routt*tory Â¥t8006 Ikdtrq Gell* ilb?emb |P8rce' 99Â¢54--4.82**fi=~<41*i-t~kÂ«tiejit LY.~.: i Â®.:.;Â·26.* 8 :permutype |aslu ~Aspen.land Use ~ Nmt#10029.2092.ASLU - Adkh~ ~861 UTEAVE ADV5lie 1 -1 01* 1 2ate~ Ip p1611 ~ I}-7 . 1 Al leo/\ 1 Pent bformath 9 Mater Mmt Routing qUU El*d I'305012 Â·1 19 Ft #**L . *Â¥84 1 524-98*9 J DeK@tion APPLICATION FORVARIANCE / Igs, 1 1 AC ded/1 1 li Bmtted DAVID DORR 544 2000 M Fi] DaA pi~ Expires |425~013 ~ Submttedia Â· Owner Ldnale LAGINASERRALLC Frst nmle 200 EMANST APEN CO 81611 j Ami) Address , 4*mt 0 OWnet k Wlicant? 0 Contrada is apdical? 1 E name |BOADEN DEVELOPMENT 0 Fr*nae PO80X 1410 ASPEN CO 81612 Aone @*2000-(152# 1508 Addre$5 Lende lat Rale Fist Nme ~ Phone<) - Address D*&,mile#986833 - i-:. *.:. , ...:~:i,u,â€ž:Â·*..e ,-,u Aa.w<=4 , . ...4**,b-6>; .wi,i-~ ,&29.-,~.-- -,- 4*:-Â· AspenGol51:ewer) i~as ~lfil--- Ck =# O 0 218 7 1 C Co p_UL-p ,Â«,Â»9 3\, ago -00 -f k 3\ 9 6 C 94\4\0 - Public hearing for a height variance for a property known as 861 Ute Avenue. Public hearing notice pursuant to the land use code. Affidavit in planning file. The 861 Ute project is a new single-family home being built at the corner of Ute Ave and Aspen Alps road. Construction is ongoing and the home is nearly complete. The application seeks a height variance along the rear portion of the property. The City measures height to the lowest point around a building and their sunken patio areas are lower than were permitted causing a height problem. There's a decision on where to focus our energy tonight. I did spend some time in the memo on how we got here. My position requires I account for what anyone in my department does - good or bad. And, I do and will continue to put my name on anything that comes out of ComDev. Reviewing what happened here, I have no problem accounting for how staff handled this. They reviewed this very thoroughly and I'm proud of the professionalism and integrity they brought to bear. I can but I hope I don't need to spend much more energy on the how we got here question that but rather allow the applicant to talk about how to move forward. The City's variance criteria are strict and we don't think the application meets the criteria. It really needs to be a situation where there's truly no other option - their permit demonstrates how to comply. It also can't be a self-created situation - I think they were either aware or certainly could have been aware of the situation. We are recommending denial. To their benefit, I will say it's not a highly impactful variance. Much of the building is below the height limit. The increase in height is a patio that's lower, not a roof that's higher. And, it's on the back side of the property. Lastly I want to repeat something I heard when I very first started working here that stuck with me. Someone told me that Aspen is tough on issues but easy on people. That has some applicability here. I've know John Olson for some time, we're in Rotary together, he's done a lot of great things for the community, he's a good guy. I've also know David Johnston for some time, he used to be on the City's Planning and Zoning Commission and I have a lot of respect for him. I've only just recently met David Dorr, unfortunately under unpleasant circumstances, but I do think he's a stand up guy. Our recommendation is nothing personal, purely business, and regardless of the outcome, I'm sure we'll all continue to be able to work together. Questions. Letter from the Alps. Hardship - taking â€¢ It has to be a situation where the effect of the regulation deprives all practical utility of the property. â€¢ The regulation must deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. â€¢ And, it can't be self-created. 4 ,/A r/ Aspen Alps May 11,2012 Mr. Chris Bendon City of Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 ELECTRONIC DELIVERY Dear Chris, Thanks for taking the time to bring me up to speed on the 861 Ute Avenue Height Variance Land Use Request. Since I will be unable to attend the meeting personally, I wanted to give you my comments to forward to the City Council. While a lower patio might appear not to have any influence on the Aspen Alps, upon further reflection, a few observations come to mind. Since the property is adj acent to the Aspen Alps, and other construction activities have impacted the Aspen Alps, it stands to reason that this decision may, in the future, affect the Alps as well. First, the City of Aspen' s engineering requirements were accepted by the owners and builders ofthe property. My assumption is that those requirements have some element of life safety features built into them. The owners at the Alps want no harm to come to anyone at the residence due to any unauthorized building changes or shortcuts taken by the contractor. Second, it is well documented that water and mud have flowed to and through that property in some past years. If a lower patio makes the property any more susceptible to flooding, damage that might occur to that property may impact the Aspen Alps in a variety of ways. As an example, if heavy equipment is necessary to restore tile property after damage, the property owners may seek to use Aspen Alps Road for such work, which may have a negative effect on our owners and guests. Third, the owners ofthe 861 Ute property sent a letter to the Aspen Alps in February of 2011. In that letter, the owners implied that past flood and mud events were somehow the responsibility of the Aspen Alps, and they inquired as to what the Alps intended to do about this issue. While the Aspen Alps believes their assertions incorrect (and we have educated them as such), the letter demonstrated a lack of understanding and a propensity to blame others for their own inconveniences. I have included the correspondence and our 700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (800) 228-7820 Fax (970) 920-2528 Info@aspenalps.com www.aspenalps.com Recipient of the 2005 and 2006 Greentree Awardfor Environmental Stewardship, Aspen ZGREEN Business 4 ' response for your review. If the granting of a variance in any way increases the likelihood of flooding on that patio, then I believe that will increase the likelihood of the owners erroneously blaming the Aspen Alps for that condition. For that reason alone, the Alps must obj eet to the variance request, In closing, as neighbor to the 861 Ute Avenue address, the Aspen Alps expects the building, as constructed, to accurately reflect the plans that have been approved. If you have any questions for rhe regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. *10%1*j , A /9 \ I u t# / 1 f i // / 1 it f 'tj / 4n J,jo orcoran >dene* Manager r --V Laguna Bay, Capital Laguna Sierra LLC To: Aspen Atps Board of,Directors and Management Team From: Tim Blggs/Slerra Laguna Cc: Bob Bowden Development, John Olson Bullder, Peter Thomas Attorney Date: Feb 9, 2011 Re: Adjacent Property at Ute Ave and Aspen Alps Rd. Dear Gentlemen, I am writing today to introduce myself as the new owner of the vacant parcel on the corner of Ute Ave and Aspen Alps Rd., just to the north of the Aspen Alps open space. SinceÂ· our properties run adjacent to each other, and lam basically downhill of you, I wanted to advise you of my plans to build and also share a concern I have had for a while related to the drainage thal runs from your property onto my property. To bring you current with my project, 1 closed the properly at the end of 20.10 and have since pulled a building permit through John Olson Bullders with the C}ty,of Aspen, Olson is preparing to break ground very shortly, and in as much, has expressed a concern about the surface dfalnage that historically has run from your property on and around my properly, John Olson has shared numeroua photos depicting significant spring run off and advised thal thl; water cook! damage my new homelf not addressed prior to this yeats sprIng run off. This has in all likelihood riot been o concern while my parcel was vacant. However, now that we are about to begin constmellon, Olson Insists this dralnage be addressed. I wish to bring to your attention your responsibility. I am therefore writing to simply ask how the Alps plans to address this dralnage. John OIson offered (o hand deliver this request and suggested he could have some conversation about possible ideas with you. Time Is of the essence, so I would appreciate a response as soon as possible, either to me or John Olson as my ~ agent. 0---9 I appreciate your consideration on'this matter and look forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, /-31 ct- .C 42 7% ~ l MANAGER LAGUNASIERRALLC Laguna Bay Caplial Ply Ltd I PO Box 2718Â·Forlitude Valley QLD 4006 1 Ti +6173123 0860 1 F: +6173319 0955 Laguna Slerra LLC I 215 S Monsroh Aspen Co 81611 USA I T:+1 970 987 3062 I ' rlii r rer,V FILE burl Thomas J. Todd HOLLAND&HART ~ F,u 970-925-9367 Phone 970-925-3476 ttodd@hollandhart.corn March 2.2011 Stephen Timothy Biggs, Mandger Laguna Sierra LLC 215 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Drainage Easements Burdening 861 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Biggs ' Holland & Hart LLP represents the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, Your letter of February 9.2011 has been forwarded tomefor response. As you know. the Durant Mine Dilch flows through the Laguna Sierra LLC property. We Linderstand that Laguna Sierra LLC has undertaken toÂ·relocate the Durant Mine Ditch during its new home construction activities and has entered into a City of Aspen. Ditch Relocation, Operation and Easement Agreement dated as of January 31,2011 and recorded under Reception No. 577196 of the Pitkin County real property records (the "City.Agreement"). Under the terms of the City Agreement, Laguna Sierra LLC assumed certain duties and obligations which included but are not limited to accommodating historic surface drainage patterns through, over and across the Laguna Sierra LLCÂ·properth These historic drainage patterns include the Durant Mine Ditch irrigation water as.well as storm water and other surface runoff that periodically follow the historic alignment ofthe Durant Mine Ditch. These storm water and other surface runoff events typically oi-iginate in the Spar Gulch area, on lands owned by .third parties. Aspen Alps Condominium Association has no responsibility for predicting, managing Or otherwise directing these storm water or surface runoff events. Similarly, Aspen Alps Condominium Association liasÂ·no obligation or responsibility to take any action to change or improve the historic surface drainage on the Laguna Sierra LLC property. P|eaSe Colitact the undersigned if you have any questions. Singerely, Thomas J. Todd,/ ' of Holland & Hart LLP TJT:AEE Enclosures ec: John Corcoran, General Manager of Aspen Alps Condominium Association Moses Lebovits, President of Aspen Alps Condominium Association Holland & Hat'ti.p Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 925Â·3476.Fox (970) 925-9357 www.hollandhart:com 600 East Main Street, Suite 101 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 Aspe, Uilli,95 80,5â‚¬ 80;44, CarÂ®n City Chcyci,r.e ColoriÂ¢Â© Sp,ng; l>eave, Cer,ier Teich Cente, 0%50â€ž Hale les Veves Ree Salt '.zke City SaIia fe Wat:note>7. D.c. 1 6 ~ 4 4 ,-Tit.- pl / 1-V â€¢Â¥61' 6-1- f -biÂ· *\ 47 - .1 0404/1 4 . STAIRWEU i Â· -01 4 . STRUCTURE -q-v- 63 Id*:.2-3--.-+* St . 14...dpi=.7.--.k -0--.-r WALKWAY 14- --I--, ----1/,Im,L13.-'..... ./ = -~-< j, A--7-13949 --Â· _<ti 1st-2nd-3rc FLOORS i , TO Lh * 3.- ... 1 } A \ 46 I .. . : ,/--r.- . ~-3/35*4kjfÂ»,~0~55,64/7 .//./ ' Â·83 .6 fit ... ... . , -: 0. . ' ~1 113 -43.4 :1. Sig . 4 0 0 -- ' 1 6 Â£3J:_ I.>41<-j?AQÂ¢KERsfin~fl i~ i k.. 1 1 4.11-=1 i , 1 -i ,' -y : L tu., :L---'.1 i : -i ..*..J- tIi,3-tz..1.Jh.~ ~4-Â·P.~- ~ ~ p-'-'-.... ki.,A :; 1 9~F :~ 7 A 1. 1 L. , 3,1,--tÂ· Â»A- 1 ELECTRIC -4.. 1 -1114Â·Â»Â·524 ' TRANSFORMER ~ 1 838*3 . < :4 WALKWAY 1st-2nd-1 , FLOORS .4 . // .,1 4 El %2 -- r / FIRE HOSE 1 m CONNECTION -a vi I.R. llc - i ~. - ----,Â·1,.. i -1 STEPS , , 4 2 '. 6 141 E,T IN4 . ' 9&4~Vi,Â· cs 84.770rplit ,;, sag\Peg 1- Â£9'CANCON ...hi -. 4/NG 'VALL 4///,ull.DING l Â£, -ff CAPPED PVC Rn 13.0' ,/' 18.6.7 5 1 BACKWATER Â¥8!zv 44-78' i 7940.9 4 1 4-0. 29 % 40 5~C FIRST FLOOR 'RE - 4 0 ...... WALKWAY 91 V tv SH<' 1I ..1 -* . P . + -*<71 -f, fifOCKERS> t '1:k . 1 1.1 j .5, 46Â·.> ./ 1. 1 .... CAP ..-' CONC. 1:11.. // . YÂ» 9 - 7'35 i .4 20.26 v :. ET) 1 Â· i WALK : 1 . . . 32.1 if f:t 4 .-6 1 .9, r /0 mi 2 - 2 140014649 ~ i{,964 The Dirrofils!]en Cir, litiorner's olfice May 19,2012 VIA EMAIL David Dorr John Olson Builder, Inc. 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application Memorandum - Corrections and Clarifications Memorandum Dear Mr. Dorr: Chris Bendon received the above-referenced document and forwarded it to me for review. Given various requests and statements contained therein, I thought it would be appropriate for me to respond. Your email and the document itsel f requests that the document be placed in the "permanent file for this land use case" and that it be distributed to staff. Since you have submitted this document to the City, it will be placed in the files regarding this property. Chris Bendon as the supervisor of all of the staff involved in this matter has decided not to distribute it to staff. 1 support that position. As to the *permanency" of this document or the file itself, both are subject to retention policies of the City that are outlined in City codes and policies. Further, it should be noted that although this will be maintained with the file, this will not be considered as part of the *'record" of the proceedings before Council on May 14.2012. The -record" in any matter has specific considerations that are applicable in court contests. It includes what was presented at a council meeting. The "record" cannot be supplemented after the hearing. In this light, we would note that we disagree with many, if not most, of the characterizations and statements made in this document. It is not my intention here to address these items. Nonetheless, I did not want this to be placed in the file without noting the City's position. Finally, although this will not be part of the official record in this case, since you have requested that Council members be made aware ofthis document, 1 will advise Council of the existence of the document. Thank you. Sincerely, [Electronic Copy: Original Signed bv James R. Truel James R. True City Attorney 920-5108 cc: Chris Bendon 2 May 15% 2012 CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE MEMORANDUM REGARDING RESOLUTION NO. 51, SERIES 2012, PUBLIC HEARING, AS SUBMITTED BY CHRIS BENDON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, DATED MAY 14, 2012 ("The Bendon Memo") Introduction: Whereas aspects of the public's and city council's perception regarding the height matter at 861 Ute Avenue were based on The Bendon Memo, and whereas that same memo is viewed by the applicant to have only partially portrayed or portrayed in a misleading manner some facts and some circumstances surrounding the matter, this document has been prepared by the applicants representative as a response, to be included in the permanent file for this case. It is the intent of this document to memorialize clarifications and corrections to The Bendon Memo, from the view of the applicant. This document is not intended to correct every aspect of the Bendon Memo which the applicant views as a factual inaccuracy, misrepresentation, or skewed implication, but rather to provide specific clarifications to the erroneous representations and inaccurate implied meanings from the Bendon Memo which are viewed as most grossly incorrect or misleading. It is hereby requested that a copy of this document be provided to all city staff members who participated in the May 14th public hearing, or who were involved in the preparation of the staff memo, or the meetings leading up to the preparation of that memo. It is likewise requested that members of City Council be made aware that this document has been submitted to city staff for inclusion in the permanent file. The contents below reference specific sections of the Bendon Memo by page number and paragraph number. Page 2, First Paragraph: The Bendon Memo reads: "In reviewing the Johnston design, Zoning Office Claude Salter requested clarifications ofheights along the rearfagade ofthe building. New plan sheets were submitted with the rearfaqade showing a dimensioned height Of twenty.four fee eleven and one half inches, 24 ' - 11 V. The height limit in this zone district is 25 .feet. The plans demonstrated compliance and the permit was issued in June, 2011. Response: The plans only demonstrated compliance via one erroneous dimension, on one elevation drawing one plan sheet. The plate height on that elevation, the scaled dimension of that elevation, all other elevations, and the rest o f the approved plan set show the building as it was constructed - with an exterior wail dimension exceeding 25'. This dimension in question is obviously erroneous, Page 1 of 5 as indicated by the plate height elevation and the scaled dimension of the very same faÂ©ade of the building. An educated, but cursory review of the subject elevation would conclude that the 24' - 11 14" dimension was erroneous and not a possible outcome of the construction of the building. Furthermore, other drawing sheets in the plan set (each of which was marked 'approved' or 'reviewed' by the Zoning Officer) show the building which was built. It is therefore the view of the applicant that the plans - as they were reviewed and approved - did not with any continuity or cohesiveness demonstrate compliance as stated in the Bendon Memo. The project was then constructed in accordance with those approved drawings, in full reliance on the City's approval of the plans and in reliance on the accuracy and continuity of the design information in those approved plans. The permit was, in fact, issued in early August 2011. (The zoning department have approved the plans in the month of June.) Page 2, Second-to-Last Paragraph: The Bendon Memo reads: "On April 11th, Deputy Director Jennifer Phelan responded to Olson's email. "The permit was issued based on the height measurements provided by the architect in the plan set, which showed compliance with the City's height regulations. Your.field set should have the same pages that we used to approved Mr. Johnston's height representations. The City's Building Department stqff confirmed that the field set repre se nts a he ight of 24 ' - 11 V . Response: To say that the field set of drawings (the drawings which were issued to the general contractor for construction by the Building Department) -represents a height of 24' - 11 14" " is misleading, and conveys an inappropriately narrow view of the entire plan set which was reviewed, approved, and issued for construction. It is baseless for city staff to retroactively require compliance with one dimension on one elevation of one plan sheet, while the entirety ofthe approved plans show a different condition. City staff cannot rely on one erroneous dimension while ignoring the accuracy and continuity of the numerous other dimensions, elevations, and conditions shown elsewhere in the plan set. Page 2. Final Paragraph (continuing to Page 3): The Bendon Memo reads: "Mr. Olson met with the City Manager and City Attorney, both ofwhom visited the site with Claude Salter and Senior Planner Sara Adams. The City Attorney agreed with Planner Adams that a height variance could not be &sued administratively. The height variance request was submitted April 30th. Response: It is important to note that the City Manager and the City Attorney encouraged the height variance request and provided their opinions that City Page 2 of 5 Council would likely view the request favorably. Those recommendations by these individuals were the basis of the application being submitted. Page 3. First Paragraph: The Bendon Memo reads: "On May 3% Community Development Director Chris Bendon met with the project architect David Johnston, and project contractor David Dorr. It was confirmed by architect Johnston that the June 2011 plans provided construction details thatmadeachievingthedimensioned height of 24' 11 4" impossible. Johnston stated "the construction detail did not work". It was also confirmed by contractor Dorr that the structure was not built according to the construction detail; the joist dimension was increased and additional wood was added under the roof membrane. Response: The implications of this paragraph are grossly inaccurate. The General Contractor built the building in strict accordance to the structural drawings. to the architectural plate heights, and to the architectural details. Those drawings are from a construction perspective the sole indicator of structural dimensions (including joist dimensions) were prepared by the architect and structural engineer of record. Those dimensions and only those dimensions result in the size and height of the completed building. Neither the General Contractor nor Dorr were involved in the sizing ofthe joist. The joist was also never increased nor re-sized in any manner, and does not conflict with the corresponding detail in the architectural drawings (reference sheet A7.3 and its scale). Also noteworthy is that during the May 3rd meeting, Dorr never implied nor confirmed whether additional wood was added under the roof membrane. In fact, such terminology or phrasing was never used in any respect. The statement made in the Bendon Report is thus false. By extension, the Aspen Times' quote of this statement in an article published on May 14th is also false. Comments made by Dorr in this regard have been portrayed inaccurately, and well outside any reasonably-assumed context in which any comment may or may not have been made. As a matter of fact, the detail in the architectural pages is exactly what was built in the field, and no changes were ever made to the joist thickness. Inaccurate and/or out-of-context portrayals of Dorr's comments are damaging to Dorr, to the applicant, and to the General Contractor. It is hereby requested that any reference to any confirmation or statement by Dorr in this paragraph be retracted by City of Aspen staff, and that City Council be made aware of such retraction. The constructed building, in its current condition, sits exactly the same dimension as the indicated plate heights - as indicated on the structural and architectural Page 3 of 5 drawings - plus the thickness of the detail provided in the architectural drawings on sheet A7.3, which is accurately coordinated with the structural drawings. The comment reportedly made by Johnston (6'the construction detail did not work' ) should be interpreted to mean that the construction detail, as provided, reviewed and approved, wouldn't "work" in sense that the resulting elevation of the structure would be higher than 25'. Any other interpretation, including any meaning implied by the wording in the Bendon Report is inaccurate. Page 3. Second Paragraph: The Bendon Memo reads: "... When asked why the building was built to a height above that represented on the plans, contractor Dorr responded, "we built to the structural plans, we didn't see or care about the 24'- 1116" ontheplanset." Response: The premise of the question is incorrect: The height represented by the entirety of the plan set is the same height of building in its present condition. This question - which was not asked or worded in the way it reads in the Bendon Memo - is highly flawed. To provide Dorr's response in the context of a flawed question effectively takes Dorr's response out of the context in which it was stated, thus promoting an incorrect meaning. Furthermore, Dorr's response as it is included in the Bendon Memo is not an exact quote. Other qualifying remarks - which are the basis of any point Dorr was attempting to make - were disregarded by the author of the Bendon Memo. To characterize the position, sentiment. or stance of the General Contractor by taking Dorr's comments out of context is negligent and deceitful. Comments made by Dorr in this regard have been portrayed inaccurately, and well outside any reasonably-assumed context in which comment may or may not have been made. Inaccurate and/or out-of-context portrayals of Dorr's comments are damaging to Dorr, to the applicant, and to the General Contractor. It is hereby requested that any reference to any confirmation or statement by Dorr in this paragraph be retracted by City of Aspen staff, and that City Council be made aware of such retraction. Page 3. Fourth Paragraph: The Bendon Memo reads: "The Director asked the architect and contractor who should have known that the 24' - 11 14" represented in the plans would not work. Architect Johnston replied "we should have provided a construction detail that met the 24' - 11 14". "We should have caught it prior to submission. We missed." Contractor Dorr responded "We should have caught it. We just didn't pick up on it." Page 4 of 5 Response: Speaking for the General Contractor and Dorr, this is not an exact quote of Dorr's response, and if these words are in fact representative of anything Dorr may have said, those same words have been taken out o f context by the author of the Bendon Memo to the extent the intended meaning has not been conveyed, but rather the opposite of the conveyed meaning is implied. Such distortions and mis-contextualization of Dorr's comments constitute negligence and deceit on behalf of the author of the Bendon Memo. Comments made by Dorr in this regard have been portrayed inaccurately, and well outside any reasonably-assumÂ¢d context in which comment may or may not have been made. Inaccurate and/or out-of-context portrayals of Dorr's comments are damaging to Dorr, to the applicant, and to the General Contractor. It is hereby requested that any reference to any confirmation or statement by Dorr in this paragraph be retracted by City of Aspen staff, and that City Council be made aware of such retraction. Other critically important statements made by Dorr regarding the same topic were disregarded by the author of the Bendon Memo, but actually contain the intended meaning and spirit of all the comments made by Dorr. Some of those statements are: (1) That the General Contractor's customary practice is to build a structure in strict compliance with the Engineered Structural Drawings. This building was built in exact compliance with the Engineered Structural Drawings which were a part of the plan set approved and issued by the Building Department. (2) That the General Contractor is contractually obligated to build according to the plans, including the structural drawings. Any departure from that - even a departure to build according to an obviously erroneous dimension - would violate the General Contractor's obligations under its contract. (3) The General Contractor's licensure is not granted or maintained relative to its understanding or compliance with municipal zoning codes, but rather to applicable building codes (i.e. the International Residential Code). Zoning and building elevation heights are municipal code issues and do not relate in any direct way to building codes. (4) That the City of Aspen Community Development Department inappropriately and retroactively is focusing on one dimension on one elevation on one page of the approved plan set, and that a reasonable review of that dimension would indicate that it is practically erroneous and not reflective in any way of the subject building. Page 5 of 5 MEMORANDUM 4111 a. TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~~~AAA A UNVVY; RE: 861 Ute Avenue Height Variance Resolution No.91 , Series 2012, Public Hearing DATE: May 14,2012 NOTE: This property is currently under development. The rear portion of the property is under a stop work order until the :r . 2 1 matter is resolved. . 41-jil APPLICANT /OWNER: Laguna Sierra, LLC. ~1 1 -m..Al!,ilill"im- REPRESENTATIVE: David Dorr, Vice President. John Olson Builder, Inc. #--3Â¥1 - 4/ - LOCATION: 861 Ute Avenue. 86] Ute Avenue, Front REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to height limitations. Building height in this zone is limited to 25 feet. The height ---.---,---1....r - of the building along the rear of the property is 26'-2" in one Ak 2--ill-I===-=.~~ . 1 location and 28'-3" in another location. The heights are non- L. ir-f aâ€žâ€žâ€ž~~Fi f~'FIN== 1 compliant due to the depth of sunken patio areas. , WIN: /10/4 1~1: ~-r~~/*..,1 BACKGROUND: -16*hTÂ·Ii Iterations of this project have been underway since 2005 when 24*~ 0/:li---4:A-..4~M I I the previous home was demolished. A permit for a new home 16137 =I*-,prix - f~44?,FE, ija was reviewed by the Community Development Department in -24, r~;itÂ·.31-:Â·; i h |AiN "7 -11 67 11 late 2007. Gretchen Greenwood was the architect and this -,WI LI u*,04-f*Iimlti/91 in# 111 version of the project is referred to as the Greenwood design. The plans demonstrated compliance with all zoning limitations 861 Ute Avenue, Rear and the permit was approved for issuance. Economic conditions changed and the permit for the Greenwood design was not drawn. The Chief Building Official granted two one-year "group extensions" to several active and valid permits, this being one, temporarily waiving the expiration procedures of the building code. The permit for 861 Ute was issued in late 2010. John Olson Builders initiated construction ofthe Greenwood design in early 2011 at the same time the owner retained a new architect, David Johnston. In April, 2011, a change order was submitted to Community Development for a new design using the same foundation as was under construction. Page 1 of 4 In reviewing the Johnston design, Zoning Officer Claude Salter requested clarification of heights along the rear fagade of the building. New plans sheets were submitted with the rear favade showing a dimensioned height of twenty four feet eleven and one half inches, 24'-11 14". The height limit in this zone district is 25 feet. The plans demonstrated compliance and the permit was issued in June, 2011. In January of 2012, another change order was submitted to alter the placement of the garage. A complete set of plans were submitted. The rear fagade was again not dimensioned. Claude Salter twice requested clarification of the height. In her second correspondence, she repeated her request and highlighted her need to understand the height of the rear facade '~from the ground to the top-most portion of the structure." Her email contained a section of the land use code describing height measurement. Two weeks later, Community Development issued a pre-application conference summary for a potential height variance on this property. (A pre-application conference summary is a written document describing the potential application, review standards, process, fees, and other relevant information.) The pre-app stated that the pending change order would not be approved until the height issue was resolved. The pre-app provided two options - apply for a variance or bring the building into compliance with height limits. The pre-app was prepared by Jessica Garrow of Community Development and provided to David Johnston. Three days after the pre-app, February 201 email correspondence from David Johnston to Jessica Garrow addressed the height issue and the options. Johnston: -We are going to try to bring the project into compliance; I will be submitting new plans later this week to Claude." New drawings were submitted with a dimensioned height along the rear fagade of 24' -11 14'. The change order was issued on March 12m On April 4th Zoning Officer Claude Salter realized during a site visit that the height issue along the rear faGade was not being addressed. In an email to the contractor, architect, and City field inspection staff, she noted that the height issue was not being addressed and that final inspections would not be conducted until the issue was resolved. She provided the same two options the department provided before - apply for a variance or bring the property into compliance. On April lott John Olson responded to the email. "..we have built exactly what is drawn and signed-off on by the various departments, including zoning, and there are no supplemental notes on our prints stating that we should have any reason to assume that there could be any issues with the south elevation...we have built exactly what we have on our approved prints, but I guess they were incorrectly approved, which is not my fault or my owner' s fault." th On April 11 , Deputy Director Jennifer Phelan responded to Olson's email. "The permit was issued based on the height measurements provided by the architect in the plan set, which showed compliance with the City's height regulations. Your field set should have the same pages that we used to approve Mr. Johnston's height representations." The City's Building Department staff confirmed that the field set represents a height of 24' - 11 14". Mr. Olson met with the City Manager and City Attorney, both of whom visited the site with Claude Salter and Senior Planner Sara Adams. The City Attorney agreed with Planner Adams Page 2 of 4 that a height variance could not be issued administratively. The height variance request was submitted on April 30m On May 3rd, Community Development Director Chris Bendon met with the project architect David Johnston, and project contractor David Dorr. It was confirmed by architect Johnston that the June 2011 plans provided construction details that made achieving the dimensioned height of 24' - 11 14" impossible. Johnston stated 'the construction detail did not work." It was also confirmed by contractor Dorr that the structure was not built according to the construction detail; the joist dimension was increased and additional wood was added under the roof membrane. Architect Johnston stated he realized the discrepancy prior to submitting the change order in January, 2012. When asked why the January plans continued to represent 24' - 11 96" in height, architect Johnston responded "there's 1/I.X.VE =1.......... 1 a mistake on our plans." When asked why the building was built to a 112*781~ 1~~ .0 height above that represented on the plans, contractor Dorr responded, 0 ., Ifulilii~~,------- - "we built to the structural plans, we didn't see or care about the 24' - 11 14" on the plan set." igrkl - -*-*#-i ~ 49 One open patio along the back is represented in the approved plans as being filled with earth to within 2 inches of the surrounding wall. The r.9..1, patio has been constructed to be approximately 3.5 feet deep. *: t.7 \41, ,~S~ .0.2:21 Measuring height from the constructed grade places the roof at 28' -- :,V~ ' 44 v, 2,-1,1 'Ap<~R4I 3". When asked aboutasunken patio area that appears inthe plan set '1 27' 46 - 1 Â¥ - as filled-in, architect Johnston stated that the difference in rendering ~4'' 42~6..6*!: 4%~ detail was "simply a computer thing" and he considered the space to Ir =,440-.2, 02~%4#43- 4 1% be an "areaway." When asked why the drawing contained no notes or citation of an areaway, he replied that he made an assumption that it would be treated as an areaway. Rear Patio The Director asked the architect and the contractor who should have known that the 24' - 11 14" represented in the plans would not work. Architect Johnston replied "we should have provided a construction detail that met the 24' - 11 14". "We should have caught it prior to submission. We missed it." Contractor Dorr responded "we should have caught it. We just didn't pick up on it." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The record reflects that the height of the building has been a staff concern for approximately the past year. Correspondence with the applicant has stressed the need for compliance and the applicant has responded with the intent to comply and representations of compliance. It is not clear to staff if all parties within the applicant team have maintained internal communication. Architect Johnston stated that he was not retained for construction oversight. It is the position of the Director that the current height condition of this property is not the fault of City staff. The criteria for receiving a variance are strict. Only City Council may grant a height variance. A property owner must demonstrate that reasonable use of the property has been withheld by the City and can only be achieved by the City providing a variance. In situations where all, or practically all, reasonable use of a property is made impossible by development regulations the City has the ability to grant a variance to avoid a "regulatory taking". City staff believes this property has reasonable use. Page 3 0 f 4 The property owner must demonstrate that his rights, as compared with owners of similar properties, have been deprived. In considering this criterion, the Council must consider unique conditions inherent to the property but which are not the result of the applicant's actions. There are unique conditions, but staff considers those conditions to be the direct result of the applicant. Furthermore, staff believes the applicant was or could have been aware of the conditions as they were being created. Staff acknowledges the limited affect of this variance request. The building sits lower than it could and lower than adjacent structures. The variance would not increase this relative height. Rather, the depth of the sun-ken patio would be lowered. And, the location of the affected area is not highly visible, being on the back side of the building. Staff does not believe this application meets the City' s strict standards for a variance. The condition is unfortunate, but could have been avoided. The record seems to reflect some applicant knowledge and potentially an attempt to cover-up the situation. Staff is concerned about the precedent this could create - demonstrate compliance on paper, build the desired condition, and then obtain a variance. Staff recommends denial of the variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. A resolution approving the variance has been provided. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series 2012." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIB[T B - Application EXHIBIT C - May 4, 2012, letter from David Johnston ExHIBIT D - Public Comment Page 4 0 f 4 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 861 UTE AVENUE, LOT 11 UTE ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PARCEL ID - 2737-182-95-019 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a request for a height variance from Laguna Sierra, LLC, owner of real property located at 861 Ute Avenue, Lot 11 Ute Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.314, may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from the City of Aspen Community Development Director, David Dorr, Vice President of John Olson Builder, Inc. representing the owner, and the general public, and has found that the application for a height variance meets the standards of review; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a variance to height limitations for the single-family residence located at 861 Ute Avenue. The variance is limited to the extent demonstrated in Exhibit A of this resolution. The variance shall expire upon the demolition ofthe structure. 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. 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 Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on ,2012. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2012. 94,66,4 -52 Eea,-0-,12 *:1*48 4~14 â‚¬150*n 40Â· 33'-3, 44 + Mik -lorde Emk, fle@ 0 + 94 11 -3 ;3Â· 2- 1 lai.1 0% i '' / ]7 ; I __ .~ ~ ~~__.__~ I j I i Ur' â€¢70 PLATE Fl~ , 4 :. < -1, 6 Â·1 '1 .Â· , i 1 f ! , 111 11 4! .1 r'.'AI--V .10'40. '-\F 1 -- 21 1 : :1, m t.2 ' ' 1 1 1 1 Â»t----- b It I }P i L i !4 2 :S. Â· - i '1 r, I ' - '-' ~ I 11-w , - --, I , , , $3-41 --I # < . -4 L .' -4 i ,, ~ '.-.Q.A.W I ~-/V.V. ' .~/.*. r 11 FINAL GRAI)â€¢ m 'V . 2|'1 H L ; E EF-(A.5' -4 ~'''2 F NL_.__- M_4-41 -i--4Â· fil:~ 3 7 00, 2 0,9 -vÂ· , , 11 1 1, 11 ; 111 "1 1 \ '- .'NA GRAN Ill fi 41 : il ; HI f i[.f....,126 ' -2,--'.Al."ALÂ·i. r T 3 PA-13 7-ON; -x.. ! --------- ---iffETILL- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~6 - 11{1 lit Il l ff' : ----- ------- ~~~~~ f------= 1 E-1 7 ' 1 11 .-- ------ -0 K" fÂ® vi a ', Â·~t> - EXHIBITA REVIEW CRITERIA 26.314.040.A - Variances, Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and Staff Response - The purpose of the City's land use code is very general. It does, however, speak to the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of property owners. Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and entbreed as uniformly as practical. Given the background of this project, staff does not believe receipt of a variance is a reasonable expectation. Staff does not believe this criterion is met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Stqff Response - Staj.1 believes reasonable use of the property already exists and thal no variance is necessary to achieve reasonable use. Amendments to the structure to accomplish compliance will be complicated, but possible, Staff does not believe this criterion is met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Response - The site is sloped, vegetated, and within the mudflow area - but not in a manner different from many other properties in this zone district. The current situation of the property is unique in that it is nearly complete and correcting the height issue would likely be complex. However, staff believes this is a circumstance created by the applicant. Sta#does not believe this criterion is met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Stall Response - Receipt of a height variance for new construction when City staff has made the applicant aware of the issue would represent a special privilege not granted to others in the same zone district, or circumstance. Staff does not believe this criterion is met. Exhibit A - 861 Ute 4.*14 (16,40 6 Kil DAVI D JOH NSTON ARCHITECTSpc 4 111 luts[ CoopiÂ·r AveniuÂ· Suite /.() (' AspiÂ·11(0 81(,11 Trt '17(}-')25-3444 Mx 970-920-2186 May 4,2012 RECEIVED Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director MAY O 7 2012 City of Aspen CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Via email: Chris.Bendon@ci.aspen.co.us Re: 861 Ute Avenue Chris, Attached is a drawn perspective representation of the site conditions that exist for the subject property and building as viewed from the south, and the indications of the original and proposed designs relative to the variance application for the required vertical height of a single wall plane. As stated in our meeting, the design intent of the construction documents was not met nor achieved to secure the required vertical height for the south elevation. The enclosed drawing is intended to clearly show that the intent of the site height restriction for the property was met, and, in fact, substantially lower than the limitation of 25'-0" from existing grade. During construction, from what we now know, the designed roof(s) were actually lowered bv 4" from where thev were originally designed. The building was built lower on the site. The variance therefore is a request to grant an increase in the vertical dimension for the subject southern walls, but in the downwa rd direction. No additional impacts occur as viewed from any adjacent properties or public circulation corridors, as the roof and building are basically where they were designed ahd approved. The patio is simply deeper by 1'-2", relative to the grade and site design. It is our hope that this is a reasonable request, while still meeting and exceeding the intent and requirements for the height of the building on the site. Regards, 111 0 .. . I. ' '334 .1 1 David Jolinston David Johnston Arthitects, pc 1 i j 1! 1 :i i 1 i .1 wr.'w 41:11-chit(Â·cti.Coin i ' 1. ! j ; ' 4043.2..A)*AMe623rbh ~f2111>41Â·Â·*Brj'a 24>6~Ild--: i.k<PeR##A i~'1 ~Ell:.i'ktkg;>Â·*r,*v~ta,~.~ 6 1Â¤, , A~*2140144~2ge!44,V i -t f , 4-4.:11.r 1.101?3411'' 2/4..Yf %:4~'|~ ~4 4~/ -~1,44*Ak Wyawmr,â€ž- --- -- -- 0:. - - Ii.- _~-rÂ«A 1 0---~-,41 1Â«32\-.7 1,./1 Â· ' - Â·â‚¬WT'F~- Â· --- - 'n, #.1 1 11 .,j 21--~- - .Â· I. 4 >16' .ip :Â·~:tgn F <t ' 2 kl~ <'-Â»eh>:f + :- ' , --- HZ- , -- - - Ill. .---- ./--- -- K Jf.):i -11~Â·7 . T- 8%14Â® FogF Uwat[. - - *t Â· Â· +- kAI .* 1,.'. f=1,-- - 'Vi I '424, :2\P . / 1 f--222- 1 1 __ ~,,, J t.-1 - : i~f'll -V- 11'i.~P-J -14-' ~i~JT...1-1-1,Â·: -Ii'~~'-11 4; i /4 Â· ---/.1 j 1 ---9- 1 0 1 ..2 1., ,~~1 11, pJ,16;~l 'If- , , Lk /~1 f.' fr . 5' ~.Â·'j.4. Â«Â» 24)0 Â·'A Ed=d 1 1 -1 -4 1 *Pli77[if- '-----,- ..7--.U.i i, 611 44& Fay l.'4~Fal . 1& 'U i . , 11 1 =4- 1.11 I 11,11 /l illi , 71'M.-f- - 5 /7- 'i >â‚¬ ~./3 . Af V / i 6,(A' ~C#4 4#j A 9 1 & ,. DJÂ·A'AA <,i' ' 104Â«Foil< 'Lz'.1 -/Ekj~' d @iMÂ¢Ni,j-Ul ,~' ~~~ 441.11 ~ti.jÂ·Â·~20+ ;Jffv<#i-*Hp#411 1 011'214 1-1 3, 11 l -3./AQ.fl~J~-..f<ff ~C 9AG'ut. plib 'm,WATik:1.1 4 I - 41 1 1 4 --- "F~ I, 1!11*4:I'Tirtli . ift~.- '.., m f-r--~--iz.Jll , 71- Â· ' 17 ,3," 1,Â· .9Ljf Ill :11,1~ ---.2 JI . i J.., D, : ' 1 d.- ' Fi ''Ppll' 1 . '' 41 1 14,4 L j 40 .1, 1 Jâ€¢r,Â·mÂ·<. Â·Â·Â· TFZ-- Brfur* YAR= te/Mlod 4/2 9 1, Fi 1111,1 -\/' i le - r - 11 - 1,-11 11 9, , Â·Â· 11 1, - ... 1, 1 i. - ( i r, Lf M'I,'41'Ff Il'i#'1 r ' 1 I - Â»h 1 4 /1 2 Mei*llud WALLÂ· C/7' i .102 11 1,11 13-7 r c . 1, 1, ' 8, <f j Joi, , (17 , I '6 7 r - -I 1Â» #, ,,4 L* ':.-*,--- l Url 1 , - . , 1 1-4". 11 -irl 21- 1-2 22:1.1 , 11 ,/ 1 lip / --- Â·4 ' I f Il -4 -lfi i 19. ,Ii., t' l 1~4' wzi,yÂ·, fit{.:. D/Fl'.,1,1 -2. ,/;.1,3 1 l' 1 1 ltÂ· 1 M v-~- 4, 4 Â· . i bÂ· Filit~Â·]. \40 -0.-1>31 , 2,1 :, lf.>Â¢P - 1 1-1 -- r 1- -1:'llh ' ~44 ., -#' 1, fVN< , 1.. **VAAE,/~4' ."~'f'0, 'Â·' 1 ''f,D..1. 1 - t . 1 1 - c. 1 , -1 ., i.' *+ c**#.v- ~ ~ rÂ£4 'H * r # 4|| 71|| ~ FW~iLi'~~ 1,6*kqi#1>< i-p--f?Â» % .....ath- 1 .. 1 ftÂ» 'f i or' 4â€¢16L- lud'12 tlkik Â»tipÂ¢ 1 1 - - â‚¬272,~ . / . @MEVE* =6112%7 t----~ 1*~,1 , - -:.&19. I _-_'.iÂ© tfjl/.1.1 + + - 4 -Â· \Ovt , , ht@-;C - ~ - Femuiu<. w*It - 1, . ' 1 . 3* , rl: '248 DOYLE HARTMAN Oil and Natural Gas Operator 500 NORTH MAIN ,. P.O. BOX 10426 MIDLAND, TEXAS 79702 An, 6Â£ D (432) 684-4011 4.9*ma (432) 682-7616 FAX May 3,2012 Â£7 r clet Ule Aa Via Email (sara.adams@ci.aspen.co.us) and FedEx City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Sara Adams Re: Public Notice regarding 861 Ute Avenue Height Variance Land Use Request Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Adams: Reference is made to the Public Notice, received by us on April 30, 2012, regarding 861 Ute Avenue Height Variance Land Use Request which is set for public hearing on Monday, May 14, 2012 before the Aspen City Council (copy enclosed). When our home, located at 820 Chance Court, Aspen Chance Subdivision, was constructed over 20 years ago, we were restricted from raising the height of our roof which caused a height problem for the ceiling in our master bathroom. In light of the Height Variance Land Use Request which has been made by Laguna Sierra LLC corresponding to 861 Ute Avenue, in the even such request is approved, by the City of Aspen, we likewise may decide to submit an application to raise the height of our house in order to raise the height of our master bathroom and would expect the same treatment for our Height Variance Land Use Request as well. Therefore, we respectfully request that we be kept informed as to the outcome of this pending application. Sincerely, 13+Ud=- Doyle and Margaret Hartman ec: Via Email and FedEx Aspen Real Estate Company 620 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Carol Ann Jacobson, Realtor (Email: CarolAnn@AspenExperts.com) Via Email and FedEx City of Aspen - Plannin~ and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street, 3r Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Director (Email : web_pitkin 1 @ci.aspen.co.us) PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 861 UTE AVENUE HEIGHT VARIANCE LAND USE REQUEST NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 14, 2012, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Laguna Sierra LLC, represented by John Olson Builders for 861 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. The applicant is requesting a height variance for the rear (south) elevation. The property is legally described as: Lot 11, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2778, sara.adams@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael C. Ireland, Mavor Aspen City Council OIL OPERATOR APR 3 0 26i2 SUBMITTALS: DATE: April 23, 2012 TO: Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department FROM: John Olson Builder (JOB) PROJECT: Residence at 861 Ute Avenue RE: EXHIBIT TO LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE AT 861 UTE AVENUE Addressing Land Use Code Section 26.314.040.A, "Standards Applicable to Variances" (as amended under City Council Ordinance #3 of 2012 Per the Pre-Application Conference Summary dated 02.17.2012 which references the project, "861 Ute Avenue, Height Variance", and per the General Land Use Application Packet, the following Submittals and information are required for the application (numbered items refer to Attachment 4 of the General Land Use Application Packet): â€¢ Deposit â€¢ Signed Fee Agreement 1) Land Use Application Form & Authorization Letter 2) Street Address & Legal Description 3) Disclosure of Ownership 4) Vicinity Map 5) Site Improvement Survey 6) Existing & Proposed Site Plan 7) Written Description of the Proposed Variance 9) Proposed Elevations & Sections â€¢ Photographs [Submittals begin on page following...] 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 5 of 23 A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, lier'Is, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Existing and proposed site plan A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. A written description of the requested variance and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide a written response to all applicable criteria. 12.Copies of the complete application packet. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 4 of 23 . CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 429.2780 & Claude Salter, 429.2752 DATE: 02.17.2012 PROJECT: 861 Ute Ave, Height Variance REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston, david@diarchitects.com LAND USE REQUEST: Height Variance DESCRIPTION: The property at 861 Ute Ave received a building permit in 2011 for a new single family home. As part of her review of a change order, the Zoning Officer found that the height of a portion of the structure was over the 25 foot allowed height limit. The applicant is interested in receiving a variance for height, as the area in question has already been built. A height variance is under the purview of City Council and shall be reviewed during a noticed public hearing. The application shall address the criteria listed in Land Use Code Section 26.314 Variances. The other option is for the applicant to bring the building into compliance with the allowable height. The city is not able to issue the change order, do a final inspection, or issue a CO until the issue is resolved. Application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20land%20 use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Developmen#Planninq-and-Zoning/Title- 26-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.575.020.F Building Height 26.710.040 R-6 zone district Review by: Staff, City Council Public Notice: Required at City Council. Planning Fees: $1,890 deposit for 6 hours (additional staff time billed hourly at $315/hr.) Referral Fees: None Total Deposit: $1,890 To apply, submit the following information: Total deposit for review of the application. Proof of ownership. Completed Land Use Application Form. A signed fee agreement. A Pre-Application Conference Summary. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 3 of 23 - 4 4 â€¢ April 24, 2012 4 Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sara: Pursuant to our meetings and discussions over the past week, John Olson Builder has prepared this Land Use Application regarding the present height condition and surrounding issues at 861 Ute Avenue. The purpose of this application is to seek of Aspen City Council the granting of a variance of the City of Aspen's Residential Design Standards as those standards specifically relate to allowable building heights in the R-6 Zone District. As we have discussed, the height of the South (rear) Elevation of the newly constructed home at 861 Ute Avenue is higher than the 25-foot limit prescribed by the code, when measured from the finished grade at the sunken rear (South) terrace. Despite the fact that the house was built in accordance with the plans designed by David Johnston Architects and issued in conjunction with a Building Permit by the City of Aspen Building Department, the present condition is such that the dimension of the height of the South Elevation, when measured from finished grade, exceeds the 25-foot limit by 14 inches along one plane (the kitchen wall), and by 39 inches along another plane (the living room wall). This application requests a variance for the heights of this South Elevation, thus allowing the vertical dimension of the wall plane - from finished grade to the top of the roof curb - to measure 28 feet, 3 inches. We believe it critical to note that neither the structure nor the roof of the building is or will be situated any higher than was approved. This variance will simply allow for the patio at the rear of the house to sit lower than is allowed under the code, despite the fact that the permitted drawings reflect such condition. Also noteworthy is that the house sits four feet below the overall height limit as measured from natural grades. Likewise, the entire building sits many feet lower than the roof of the adjacent "Black Swan" parcel. The rear of the home (where the elevation in question is situated) is sunken approximately 8 feet below natural grades, and is not visible from any public right-of-way. Thank you for your time in reviewing this application and in affording the applicant prompt access to the Aspen City Council for the review of this Application. Please contact me with any questions. Regards, A.A David Dorr Vice President John Olson Builder, Inc. ddorr@johnolsonbuilder.com (970) 379-7110 mobile 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 923-4233 phone (970) 923-2977fax 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 2 of 23 a sa.9* h 9- \48 Table of Contents Letter of Introduction 2 Pre-Application Conference Summary 3 Application Submittals 5 Exhibit A: Land Use Application Form & Authorization Letter.........................XX Exhibit B: Disclosure of Ownership XX Exhibit C: Site Vicinity Map ......XX Exhibit D: Site Improvement Survey..... XX Exhibit E: Site Plan XX Exhibit F: Proposed Elevations & Sections XX Exhibit G: Photographs XX Please note: Exhibits include 8.5"xl 1 " materials; 24x36 copies of applicable items are included in the application submittal package, as indicated by the transmittal sheet. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 1 of 23 ,=t 1/ 12; 6 -861 Ote IOHN OLSON 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 923-4233 phone (970) 923-2977fax Land Use Application [ Application for a Dimensional Requirements Variance: To Allow a Lower Finished Grade in a Sunken Rear Terrace, resulting in an Increase to the Allowable Vertical Dimension of an Exterior Wall Plane Project: Single-Family Residence 861 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Applicant: Laguna Sierra, LLC c/o Bowden Development 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared for Submittal to: Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 24, 2012 Requirement #1: Land Use Application Form & Authorization Letter: Completed Application Form and Signed Authorization Letter with signed Fee Agreement are attached, under cover sheet, "Exhibit A: Requirement #1: Land Use Application Form & Authorization Letter". Requirement #2: Street Address & Legal Description: Street Address: 861 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description: Lot 11 of the Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen Requirement #3: Disclosure of Ownership: A Proforma Title Report consisting of Schedule A and Schedule B as performed by Pitkin County Title, Inc. on March 21, 2011, as well as a current copy of the Pitkin County Assessor's Office property search records are attached, under cover sheet, "Exhibit B: Requirement #3: Disclosure of Ownership". Requirement #4: Vicinity Map: 1 -it , ... . 9 . 3 r . re A ' t . 1,1,6 0 I. 1 11: 0 I * 4'W, . . . .4 e. * : 1 14.J.,s'.0-- I . - .VI'lhallb'/.if r////6Â£/0/~ 1 : ' ,/ I-I 6311- ~11 4 , e ... -i~~ .*1~77/1 m. 4 4. 0 2-7~ 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 6 of 23 The subject property is indicated by the 'A', on the above Vicinity Map. A full-size copy of this map is also attached under cover sheet, "Exhibit C: Requirement #4: Vicinity Map". Requirement #5: Site Improvement Survey: A Site Improvement Survey is attached, under cover sheet, "Exhibit D: Requirement #5: Site Improvement Survey". Requirement #6: Site Plan: A Site Plan is attached, under cover sheet, "Exhibit E: Requirement #6: Site Plan". Requirement #7: Written Description of the Proposed Variance: A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance willbe generally consistent withthe purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and [Applicant Response: Being as the applicant is not seeking to elevate or increase the overall elevation of the building or the roof of the building, and being as the increased dimension of the South Elevation is the result of lowering a sub-grade terrace, the Applicant firmly believes that the request being macie hereof is indeed generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Land Use Code.] 2. The grant of the variance is the minimum that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and [Applicant Response: The granting of this variance, as it is described herein, is the minimum variance required to allow for the reasonable use of the parcel. A variance of a lesser form or dimension would reduce the utility of a portion of the improvements on the parcel in a material fashion.] 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 7 of 23 a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or [Applicant Response: Special condilions and circumstances which relate directly to this Application are twofold: (1) The building is built iii accordance with the architectural plans, as they have been designed cmcl prepared by David Johnston Architects, alid as they were approved and stamped by the City of Aspen in the capacity of a Building Permit Application review and approval; and (2) that in constructing the building iii accordance with such plans, a reasonable sense of reliance is engaged on the part of those involved iii tile development and construction Of the improvements, and such reliance is entered into as a matter of course upon the City of Aspen regarding its review, staniping, and issuance of the architectural plans as they are submitted for the purpose Of obtaining a building permit.] b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied [by] the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. [Applicant Response: Being as the overall height of tile structure will not be affected, and being as there is in the Applicant's view nO appreciable impact to any neighboring parcel, public Right-of-Way, or any other property owner, individual, or entity, it is the stance of the Applicant that the variance requested hereof does not confer any such special privilege.] Requirement #9: Proposed Elevations & Sections: Proposed Elevations are attached, under the cover sheet, "Exhibit F: Requirement #9: Proposed Elevations & Sections". Requirement #30: Photographic Panorama: A series of photographs are attached, under cover sheet, "Exhibit G: Requirement #30: Photographs". 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 8 of 23 Exhibit A: Copv of Land Use Application Form & Authorization Letter COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property Laguna Sierra, LLC Phone No.: 970-544-2000 Owner ("11: (authorized agent: Bowden Development) Email: bob@bobbowden.com Address of 861 Ute Avenue Billing c/o Bowden Development Property: Address: 200 East Main St. (subject of (send bills here) Aspen, CO 81611 application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ flat fee for $ flat fee for $ flat fee for . $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. 1 understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $_1,890 deposit for _6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. Cityof Aspen: Property Owner: Laguna Sierra, LLC (Bowden Properties, Agent) Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: Bob Bowden Title: Representative City Use: Fees Due: $ Received: $ Noseniber. 2011 Cit> o f Aspcn . 130 S. Cia lena St. 1 (970) 920-5090 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 9 of 23 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Residence at 861 Ute Avenue Location: 861 Ute Avenue (Lot 11 ofthe Ute Addition Subdivision) (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273718295019 APPLICANT: Name: Laguna Sierra, LLC Address: c/o Bowden Development Company, 200 East Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: (970)544-2000 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Bob Bowden, Bowden Development / David Dom JOB / David Johnston, DJA Address: 200 East Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: (970) 544-2000 (or 970-379-7110, David Dorr's mobile number) TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check alithat apply): GMQS Exemption Il Conceptual PUD O Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Â¤ I''inal PUD (& PUD Amendment) Il Text/A/lap Amendment Special Review Il Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Â£ Subdivision Exemption (includes El Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff. condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane D Commercial Design Review U Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion 0 Residential Design Variance El Lot Line Adjustment U Other: Il Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) A nearly completed single-family residence exists; the same being built under a City of Aspen Building Permit issued by the Building Department, as designed by David Johnston Architects. The height of the South Elevation is in ques*on. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) The applicant is seeking a variance to increase the allowed height of a vertical wall plane as measured from finished grade. The height will be increased by lowering the rear terrace, not by raising the structure or the rooÂ£ IIave you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_1,890 0 Pre-Application Conference Summaty Â® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement D Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form D Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Rekiew Standards El 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 10 of 23 0000 ATTACHMENT3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Residence at 861 Ute Avenue Applicant: Laguna Sierra, LLC Location: 861 Ute Avenue (Int 11 ofthe Ute Addition) Zone District: R-6 Lot Size: 5,153 square feet Lot Area: 5,153 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definiti on of Lot Are a in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: n/a _Proposed:_Wa Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed:_1 (no change proposed) Number of bedrooms: Existing: 5 Proposed:_5 (no change proposed) Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed. Principal bldg. height: Existing:26'2' Allowable: 25' Proposed:_36'2_ (one wall plane) bldg. height (cont.): Existing:_28'3" Allowable: 25' Proposed: 28'3" (one wall plane) Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: 9% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed. % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed. Side Setback: Existing: Required: P roposed.Â· Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed. Distance Between Existing Required: P roposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: The roof height of the building is slightly lower than shown in the original approved permit. The elevation of the sunken patio is lower. however. Variations requested: The application requests that the lower. sunken rear-facing (non-street facing) be allowed at each of the two wall planes at the South Elevation. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 11 of 23 April 26, 2012 To Whom This May Concern: Please note that David Dorr of John Olson Builder, Inc. is authorized to act on behalf of Laguna Sierra, LLC, the owner of the property at 861 Ute Avenue. David Dorr may be contacted at ddorr@lohnolsonbuilder.com or at (970) 379-7110, or at 200 East Main Street, Suite 205, Aspen, CO 81611. Thankyou, 1 Bob Bowdbn ~ Repres~tative, Laguna Sierra, LLC Bowden Development Company 200 East Main St, STE 103 Aspen, CO 81611 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 12 of 23 Exhibit B: Disclosure of Ownership: EXHIBIT 2 PROFORMA TITLE REPORT SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: March 21 2011 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT23133P 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Proposed Insured: PROFORMA 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: LAGUNA SIERRA, LLC 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: Lotll, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO. 81611 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax 877-217-3158 Toll Free AUTHORIZED AGENT Countersigned: .1 CE.122:12> /-h<7777/-4,00/~,;,vV 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 13 of 23 EXHIBIT 2 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 14 of 23 )'ll,33),3,/'3â€¢*IJA.JA,JIJAIJ ......... Parcel Detail Page 1 of 2 Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search I Ashessor Subset Ouen' I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer Tax Search Search Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summarv Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I laoillglail I Illviegranhs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number 2011 Mill Leg 056 R004791 273718295019 32.048 Primary Owner Name and Address LAGUNA SIERRA LLC PO BOX 1470 ASPEN, CO 81612 Additional Owner Detail Lkgal Description Subdivision: UTE ADDITION Lot: 11 Location Physical Address: 861 UTE AVE ASPEN Subdivision: UTE ADDITION Land Acres: 0.000 Land Sq Ft: 5,153 2011 Property Value Summag Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 4,230,000 1,226,700 Improvements: 1 0| 0 Total: I 4,230,000 1,226,700 http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R004791 4/26/2012 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 15 of 23 0 & I - I * 4 4 . ,/ ... I 3341 -Â¥' #, , <, 44 ?t 0- 0 9 747 4 0 a f 44 % 0 - - k:%,> :,f t, *Â»0 A* -4 ' 44 - .1 f# 3% - 3, t * ..43:â‚¬ / *?Ill. , Â¤*.2., .:'. C ,% I . - Ch*amn,ight ~ *39 Rel'E,Gte -* Â· "?R~41~~~79~#18;44-'~itk~~ J~11Â·act / 20 -*- -' 171&/'/b'.- .9,li'Ze,1. li 4 4 4 6414ng -1.- all *. -. r. -*â‚¬â€ž,Ud,WAad I r Eve , Â· . 09>er,five 1-600 0 -1 9 1,9 .14 M*%*dAY. f~ : P A - ANd J,vnINIA 44.lill'll.lit.IC 'll'll'll'll'll./.IL 1 4'U /,Â¥ J X 52'44'4. 0. 2 *42 . r,#2941/ ~* - -101* 4/'647- 6.-Sk Alpenblick By ~~~~'~plu C.:ils.,1.,1:*clo~ - -Â£- Fies' P;MMFS;s 4 7 , ALi NUS=er.- t,* . - I. 1,1.9.6â‚¬65* 492 4 ' P 4 14,4 ~%siN) A .6 4 f.#gitands 4 0 # ~C- ~ * e ..0, M WA~/Ip w '~frant*43**i 9 > +1:*Â¥ 2 + 0% ">6 0 4, --- C-Qm*461./W 44&~84/41*Â¢ 2 2 .: EL .700 /"<9*Zum,41:::. a/f 800 /4,4/- 7.:v- : 4 .4., 9314;Â»*e.1=12~7~~Ill 4, - 3 4 . 45At -A# 4. 4 49 4*~~ i 'b : 1 .~r4-4 Â« .:ITS' '49 4 O. ' - le :e*Ju ... A \ , Â» U **AU X 4, 4, A . 6 , f $ h lat , 4 . -4 . .0 . .. . - 0 .... . 41 - Parcel Detail Page 2 of 2 Sale Date: 10/4/2010 Sale Price: 2,500,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 0 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind Q Buildings: No Building Records Found Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin Countv Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any ofthe information herein contained. Copyright Â© 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.pitkinassessor,org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R004791 4/26/2012 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 16 of 23 1 -212<Ly.'362:-i~~).3-5..4 9 9 â‚¬ 2. ". *â€¢:Â·BNOHc ' , Ce..1.. *.- 11.......05 0, /~ N'~N*,51,~~ft 'C '1~' '922jc,~21~V,~2- 1 DN: 8839"IN. 44'rc, 434(. 1 Ae (14,1 1 .. Al 2 5 U.,Â¥,06/0 Â·'â€¢ .. + I. Â· ij 0; tÂ¥, i / *3 La N. .~iv .., I 03.13'll ~ hh,V.~.- D EH. 21+,lil,Â¥ ~r I., A ...3 $ *-/ 1 ' f<X'EKiMT, C '.1191/ 1 ~ / / .0 .91, 2,7 1-..Z2.1 ./ I / / j K. 5 i< 4 'l /:% A 0/ ''.1 'Fr .2.4- .\ \ X / / ./..y. I - / . y / ,- '<*c- 9>a . & / 7 1 1 7, 7 1 .4.- .6 \ .1 2 f -<2 1 - -- N ' Vii 41%%. . 71 2,-0 2-902 4401 DUO 6.Cbm'. n. 0. e 6 1:E T .{P - 85Â·Â· Â£ un . 1/ 0,8 AD e.Â· '.': .. I 14t-s *5Â£25 .91 11/H NVIS )!S>Â¥1~ 54 77 9%1,9~-, 3 8 .2 t\ 48.-: Â»P.fla'16(?46.)0,' 1%'r' 259 4 Y. A114IOIA ..0, b ... . ;' . A-J /4 \ V. -P:. 29,1....i -r.''AMPM 1 \ I. 5 'lOGs Wle wolk, 1 , Il S~1,0 -A JO= A --./= - 04,*re . r... -.â€ž3.1 U U.'*19'. ZOOZZ'10 S.10: CNI ./.991 Exhib t D Site Improvement Survev: EZ Jo 8[ at>ed :Prl,O ZIOZ - aouel.leA 140?214 doj uolle)!iddÂ¥ asn pue-1 - alluE>AV alfl I98 Exhibit E: Site Plan (Showing Proposed Condition of Sunken Terrace - Non-Street Facing): \ I - /2<rl_ \ i 7,962'-0' 19.0. CAP, TYP. ~ rl L Ot C 4 7,955- 1 ~ , /11 4 - EDGE OF CAP 7..4 -73 @ STONE VENEER: -AÂ·LT-- 11 SEE M.L PLAN 3.2 , ..L 7.95710> ~ -~. 0. CAP, TYP. I r - 1\ 1 0 0 /\ -38~+PATIO---:49.-- Â©'' 1 1 .1 1 :1 , Lâ‚¬0 - < < ~ Â» f~ 93-dicxi \ 1' -6 .?r U .. 1 1 1, 4 1 11 Ik AD-4.- f If -1-1 1 1 - 1 \ , r -74-1 4 1-2 UGHTâ€¢YEli. r. o. BOULDER 11 d \ WALL / 1 | 7,g58'-0- 4 8) ' YA_1 1 h 1 1 - L - 2 4 ty -,2-' 1, N 1 \ SEE MI PLAN 3.2 D L FOR RET. WALL DIMS. 1 Â·it 1 U -Â·-9 43- . rizâ€¢92 -~ 43 14 ),1 1 1 , 1-4 1 4 4 Vt I Miler-lk'/ir -- 67.965-0. Ti.o. CAP TYP. / f 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 19 of 23 x.>CDâ‚¬~y-M..5Â»tSÂ£Z-22Â· Exhibit F: Proposed Elevations & Sections: L u 1 1 . -~1 'j - - -4 7.6 5 1 ,/ I. 111-1% 1.-_ - _<E Et 1 / 1 ... Ea] IIi- - Â·Â· co1l ~ ~ - k~%4. K| 1- Â·Â·V' 211-71 11â‚¬ .12 1 1 /1.- 13] . , f : " , 16. c-JA= Â· ~ Er in -_lin-T-=-i--- 1159 -1111. 1 [-1-1 -1 1 L JL '1. ' 1 ' Elli ~ El] --4-_ lili F 1 11 1- 211 1 1 10 - - r-F-7 - 1=- -- -r=11Â· -4- - 1--t - -1-Â» ..l_.2 i-Jit Irro-, 9- c 1| --- -- -- - t / - - -4- - - 291- 11 L : - 22 4 ~ 4 1 \~ /-~ le] 1 3 4 1 + P I HI- -1{3 9.41 111 e. 1 4 R -r- - Â«3) . 31# il - I 'll 'I l- --7 --t--ld-6 I :9 . 11 F 9 .9 3- 14 2: 2- .3 Â§ 29~9Â§1 t' E .Â» 40. 1 32 N Â£00 i 861 Ute Ave. â€¢ 01 -2 'B ..6.- 10 5 861 Ute Ave. I Abpen, CO 0 0 /0 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 20 of 23 114 1/ . /1 .1 VAT!3 7-E~LEVE NOIJV/\3 H LS'Â¢3 -0 61324 NOUVA313 HinOS L%Â¥@rÂ¥ O 10 1./.STON 1 1 1 1 1 11 . 1 Luu I u lit U iii U U 1!1 u ; 51/2. MATE IN~ ~ U U U U U -- ' 1 frly[I [ 1: 7--- - -- t--r ri : 0 1 - 4.- 1 1 1: h' I E Er LI 111 1.-I A 'IL Â· 1 1. 1 i : 1!I: 41 1 11 1,1 ,; '.!' A , 7)Â·ru ,-->%19 1 1+ 4* M- ' 1 1-34*j ~ 1 19 1 , / 1 , / f 1 ,~'4~4-<3 -- ly.. > *. a==1...Â«7 FIXED 1 1 r..:: 44Â» 11 <h-____ ___ ___ #. r I N / 11111 0 ./ $ ; i~-4 y . --,- _L_-1-LL!'11 4/1 - >El , Ill 11 1 1 26'-6' , 1-4 Â»- Lru 1111111[l' d.joi 11 il l J FILI 61+ IÂ© 111 129-~441 1 I -1 L.4 -I 1 1 '~~I! iii t @ 11134â‚¬0% 9 1 //<E>: 7=~ 1 1 /11Â·49 % ft. I. 1 / . . I ' 1-,61 \ I / I . I / / Â® I. I I 1 2_]41949[13 1 - f PlifY'j-Il'--N PIJ;~110>-Il < 9 7-Â£-3-t-Â· Â· ro Â£ Ar# 1 ./Ar.t-\ '444 \ Cal , \.ravh I A- /4 1 \ 1 0 F.'' 7 - - - 1-494+-/~ 4%1 -dR{<4-34311, rE---; -1 c Lt /1 4 ' i <7"11 1-0 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 21 of 23 Exhibit G: Photographs: N. , CE 4 24:J A.Â«. . .-/ AN.,1 2 .......... '71 fl t...1:4/"POFF....81./4/'F #-11/ EI~/111.1-1/0m.3/146&%.~ - .St N - ~<711 .6-allfilillill'll'llrier'/flij/1///Ilil//tilill '1 ~_1~*tijill. int"/i- -- 4-4 lili 1, i A...b 11'+1/79/I" 2//Imijilillilil . 7>=MILTA -Mal'll""41/41,/Plg"gli'EE' u...ill'/11././111/XMJ-T-li/6 *4 -1 .5,7 ' I ' . , ' 19 --...,'I-".i.li=.W.,9,= gibriourt -W+211Â¥ I lil.. I~ ; 3./.0//W. ' f . - 7 .'f..43 .AE, F z ..1-" v. 347.9"â€¢W.1 14 f , -7 VE -Â· . 41- ... ':1, 1,4#Ar#1 x. , - 4 1 ~~ . 7.,< -# 1, - -mm- Kia .,W.- 1:J- Â· 11. 1. 44, 1 -- --..Â£Â»-/v--~ f WUÂ¢. 4- . limm 1 6 11 . -21 .... L 1 + I -91 r = h,294 . ./ ---/.......4..W':T/1 -Illill ./ mi-~ 45~ .' ~ NA ..LOX 1 ..t-...... 1141,0 *511 K , I.P.2.Il 5 V . P '.:13Â¢ a 6 1/diti t~ V :, >1/ ': L . r.2 ' :'plirl Â£ 1- 4 -=0.1. ay<. 9t *1Â£,fl l~llliillllitilll:mfllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiii: -zilÂ¥â€¢- 4=A.1- Z-W-Â§7~ I 1 i./1-=6 :a,f:-â€ž4/"d 1*41 1- Ir u./ .r. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 22 of 23 Li.<.f ~'/ '- SLAPE ~ /[~ ~ \ 51/2-71 1. 1 ~ ih |UU-25 ~ ~ .Â·...1.- ....... Â·Â·Â· ' | *F T.O. STONE | E.Q. , E.(1 : |,.2'-51/2. .1...41..' lili \ cn ~ / if /1 1 /0 1 / I / /, 1 .1- 1 76- j ~~- t'' t 8 V / \ \ bO / 1 1 :-9 - I 9/ uP T.O: STONE Â· _(.99'-8" - - 1 -- -Â«- 1 ,/ 1.27 \9 I I <18) 9 1 ~ 9 4.0. CONC. I 1-czz - ~ + ~</- p-z..Hz :=-:- -I AT ~tr 1 6 9, 1 i. 1 1 1 0/ ~--1 / 1 1 90 1 109'-01 /8" 21-10" R.0. 1 ; / J /1 Iil-4 - ~----I -J,PIE- -17....1..;* 1 1 -j)~ 1~/l__,~~f[i6112Â·-- - *t~ii;Â·â€ž~~i- c-,if= f ' .2 ~ 1,-61/2- -~ ..r . f -- - 2 I 4 31/1/5/ 21-0,1 //l /9, , ./ : RAILING --~ I ro Jr 1/ ARCH I--+----i- -*h- EOP--~<-~~~~~UDROOM ---4--*y-Â£~a_. _::~gw-ir ~ ~ |. -~ 103'-0" / -: 1 - 'F' T.O.'STONE ' . 1: LIGHTWELL ~ LINE OF WINDOW - 33-- , 1 XY -N '* Â£~ - 4 4 ~ -| --BELOW -: Â·= 1 4 ; ABOVE .-- . i 1- _-- SLOPE e 1 =~=- . I - ft= . .1 = : 4 - _ _BENCH WALL MOUNTED V.n IÂ· fil 1 101'-n" L z , I Â»f@1 hae.up 493 -L.C. GRIP RAIL ~ n ' ~~' 9, T (1 CAP 43111.1/*5010505Â« CP - 43*f 1 =n / r B 9 . 4 N i 11-2- 1 I . 3 04:; :~:er A .: 3. 1. 1-:i i iii' / m Â£ 1 1 1 ./ /1, . 9 111'' . 11 1 . LO b DN 15 HISEfS * 7 42" ,| <!- golh 141-REAIDS B 11" 1 ] OPEN TO ABOVE l i K . :4 26 49 0 1 I~- 1 3/,<~-,~( /..21-f i *--1 J.*vic 70# 4 4 T O' EARTH 0 -,L 11 . F.17 / p/ DINING ROOM 6 x 6 1-53/8. 5'-5318~ 5'-53/8. I ...1163>0'>< : VAÂ» I ,t HALL ~Â· ~ 3 *Kph/ 40,1,1 X y 0 /(' LIVING ROOM %* SEE SHEET 7.4 FOR ~ i 1 1 1 1 1 : ./ / 1 1 ~ 3'-3,1 _ ~ 31K RO~,rk,~~/21 - 6'-0" RAILING DETAILS ~1 ' 1 1 0 ' Ill : 1 1.~EEEX/// U y V ./ : \ 1 1~iÂ«>/ /,n % 41A) | ' - 0 7 , 1 lf//0/f,1/7. .9/f..1,~ 1 %2=:::/ ..wÂ·Â·Â· 14,172>~i FLJO 1 1 1 'li i.. 'i .<t ///6//A\.i / 91-911 f-4"lf/9//fofft//f li OF* 1 i ~- --5 -POW DA 4- PÂ» r- RAILING * --iÂ®it- --i -- 34 --1 6[- 1 / ,,<p~L, I, LEFT SWI1\ h . ~AL* f h , . - 1 ImmIl <f LIGHTWEL .n WINDOW Nx F.P. ~-- BELOW -~6*'ER ON / , 1 \/ . . 106'-6" / f C. I 1 444 4 4 3 1 c wf T.O. CAP * ~- ~, , 4 4 4 4 4 '-Â·-Â· I ., , 4 >'r--- --- I N - -_- -3--a- 'IZI11111171111111(1/11117,1, .3jil//lill///j/lili/lit)/ ~ F**/UMM/'21 1 19 4 - ---222 ./ ./ 4 /1- --- '11 1/Nill /11/il_lL?ILLI/lillitiltl, \ 3 1 - -- Llbl 11 E C 10'-4' , 9'-5" 1 1 I ' 4'-8" , 16'-0" 1 , 8'-10" , , 4'-8" 3'-31/2. 14'-0Ur ~1 * , , 1 1 I 66'-0" 1 6 2 m ft> 4 Â©Â©c ~/1 Ok Wimut 40 3,2, *5 99 HAâ€¢* m. Mi #110*1 ri<wk M, M 18'-0" ABCD EFG 37'-0" GA thz* 4.1. A-'Wec. 19-0 18'- " A# 4RY *47 6 i i i 4 1 p 2. 126'-6 1 1. 1 1 i i { --- lip-ra-FEAT Ill 11 1 Ibl Ell '11 9.' 4 *r 96,~ 01'to 124'-51/2" 1 11 1 11 1 LO. PLATE i ; 1 Iii 1 1 3 1 11 4. 1 I r--r--71 r---ar----~ i . li i' .1 1 0/11 1 1 1 iii' \ 1 1 5--Tr----1 1 1 L_-Â£-G -2 LL=~g!*Ul li~ L 11 2,3 / \ 2 11 -ll 11 i I 1/ 1 /\ \1 4 .2..../\ V. SIDING, TYP. * 01 / . ar=IL__1 4~b=:2=1 11 / j 1 1 / i \ 62 / 1 lili 1 ,1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 ..,2 1!lili il :1 1, I I ilit 11 !.1 .1 1 i i! 1 11 1 1.13 I i 1 k 1 11 1 1111 lili 111 1 1 7% /4 lili 111 lili 11 i ,â‚¬13 1;4 115'-0"1 ; :111 11 .1 31 , i et 1 1 1 I ill I 1 1.11 i 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 11 I l il i 'ii i I m i I I I I A / j 1 Ii;ilill UPPER LEVEL10' 1, -'+ Ll k .9,4 :h % C tim j Il 1.1 1 t. .f... ~ 24..~1 1 7...12/.-U.thor...~1.1 1 "**11- . mp i Â·Â·--+- ,- f t .0+~ /4,411,/...~.j j \Â©~,2~1.i < - - - - - - - **Il- *'.:*---- f JÂ·. F '-4 NA ., 1 1 , 14.44 / 1.:i i.,.i~Â©: / i-Â·; .12<. :/ ir>~i 143#. / 1.i>>i..46. f ~0 / I I ; 1 :1 1 ) ! i { 1 1 } irj% f - h i 1 1 .f...=-Â»--A i/, 15 i El i fl \ 1 11 , / ,----9. 1 1 lE EELIi 1-f:-:-i -i IEEEI3FEEEI1 IEEEEE3EEEEEEO T-4 1 11 1 1 .1 hy- I El 11 1 f 1 ;427. / t 1 11 1 i >6 , f \2/.'.- lilli .1 /2 I. y 1 11 1 . r.--*' Â£ 1 11 1 1 1 q X 11 /11\ 11 / \ -1 1 1' ' lili P 1 61.{L~.-~Â» 44,1 11 1 11 \ 11 / \ , PL 1 1 - 18 , ,1 -*-\ lA 1,1 1 Â· 14 11/ ..2 OVAf i 1 FINAL GRADE 7.3 :-1 A f fl~. , ~_ur -Â·,t j 1 w b: 1 a i 7 '\ / f-. f .;7' 1 5/4 '; 1 % f i h p.; ' / /f J ; f 14 -4.1 1 k ~ FIXE 1 i /'. /3*.j 4 3" STONE CAP, TYP. 1./ 1 . 2 . y*Â·~. T 1 6 ' ~ ~ FINAL GRADE 2 I **47/.. \ 1 4 / i hu f P . STONE VENEER, TYP. 1 1-Y ' T.O. PATIO STONE \ 1 & i 0 :*. 1 100'-0"1 MAIN LEVELÂ¥ -Il--I-----I----Il- 1- -Il.--- Gi) (13 (13 (63 03 8 - -Ill - 6'-6" 1---~ - - . .n' r. I i UNMUNI FT I N:Vtll-ted' I 111.1 , , 0,4 4AN;* 1 ''" DRAWING ISSUE 1. 1 ! 1:411~11,1 ~1 1,1 :11 116#41â‚¬*1 DESION DE-VELOPME NT 01/12/201 1 I NGI NI [RING %) 1 03/09/2011 CONSIRUCTION %IT 03/09/201 1 CONS[RUCTION %1 1 03810(11 1 Â· 0, :'' ~ ~..2 '~i ,~ '' .: Igit''FÂ¢.g.I'."i':~'1 , HIV VARIANCI APP ' ~~' ~~ ~ i '' 48*41 CON<,1 Rl ll 11 (i N ()4/01/201 1 CHANG[ ORIN H VARIANCI 12%.1,92811 ~ MAIN LEVEL PLAN LEVEL PLAN C--Â£ PROJECI kiÂ·, lf,1.1 [ 1 R,1 6'VN BY Mit SCALE. 1/4' - 1 -0' '14. 1 4-8- - .,9 241Â·10" _._1 - 70 14' - 1Qy. _1411922---- 4 11.11,/ 0 r r--31=~ â‚¬*,1 - -I- ~ \ 4 r r , ./ f 11 , --j 106-6- ..1 i ; ./.4, 4.-3 \ 1 103 T 0 '.~r )Nf .,--11 V 209 ABOVE Fa ' dj , KITCHEN 1 li A - 1 -rn Â·7- W- 4 bl LE 1 . loo e ~ Â¥- 4 J . 1 0 5101#I : ~r 6 f 9 ..1 10 1 + C. ' f I -- 4 feji '-.-'-- ' T O ''1~;Nl â„¢Af L U, m ..: 22 fir_ i - - , 1 9 ,1-Â£ 1 Â·I#,r ill' RAIUM ~ , ARCH - h k j W 10 VONE C ' .;, r T,VE#.1- i 1 i r \ 3 .4 1 4 a 1. - - --- 1 Â· W 4 1 1; /34 44- ft - - -- - - - - I k - - - - - 61 ) 11 . 4 I / ,;,2,-.L- - ~95n4~1~11 2 I,~I 1 1 :'2 1 i LIVING ROOM C' 4 1 1 /9, 1, i Iii ,; 204 1 1 1 - 1 91 - 11 'w ..1. -2 - 1 - 0 1 57" 1 k l . UNE 04 24, I n 4 1 , ~7 t'VIA,~04 ' J .L-4 Â· f 1~1.,144.1~19-11.11 lilli' . HE.*6*41 4,Mit , 1-11,14W.1,111 8 11,1 "1*11 4 1.12 .IC i r- 0 L - "*4411'14- Â· 1166 1111 ' " 104.i ill, 141"1 Ill ' 1 0 P~Alt *34&59<iNEL 1 lili 1 1 '*9'rhll, 1,1~~"d~'16,41 ' . .: ill '604 449 #11,111 1,4 f #IP All' 1 < hi,tÂ·%' I.31? ' ' i.~4 j "1~ + 1,!i ilith .i ''44 I i 4;,6, f Li #i,01# 11111*t# 41 01'11111'1; 1151!1 Ill /l% AÂ·*11%41 1,1 - ,)4Ttim= L' 111]i~Ir 111,21, 1.4 11~A1'41'111.11 1; 15' 11 'rt~pel AMi ; i 1,p I, < 1 I i-b 't'711 -Â¢1; 1 #- 111 -11 u i : ' ~,i ,: ''',i,>1~,2~ ~317%9' r, ''1' '~ .~1 !1 1 I ' 1 f j M Y i itft 41 MAâ€¢,11 11 1 DRAWING ISSUE 6 er k DE'>IGN DEVELOPMENT 01112/2111 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' "1"41"i1 11 1 11 1 -11! 16 , Ill ENGINEERING SET 03/09/201 1 i IM + Â· '-11 0 . rn BIAM CONS1 RUCTION SET 03K}9/201 1 ,-, ' ' , :14> .lt'\â€¢'' Hufs.2,?CI L Â· 1,10+41 el NU R IYP CON'STRUCTION SEI 03/3*01 1 REV,VARIANCE APP 1 1111.1,1,11 1 1, LI-iviÂ·, ,'Â·I'n,!14#,Li' 4 C 4 - HOR// WINNG. I YP CONT,TRUCTION 04/01 ;201 '1 ' i I ' ~, "f 14~ 11 l ili 11 lt,ht?7-~ ~~~~t&.1;-~1'A 4 Ii,1 CHANGE ORDER i ' ':,: :41' ':24;h,Jtl't I~ <' 10/' (1# 6(#P RAP ~ 1 1 i ' WAI 1 VARIANCE 12/30/201 1 1 - 1 11'L - -1 lit 1. t.1 1 11 Â·1 Â· 11 1Ll/' i 1 15*I,Wj~ ' 111111. lillil .11 1 2'j 1114111 1 1,4 ' 1/ r '11 r. % 11 - 1 -4 24 Jilk).O- ~ L SOUTH Et EAST 0 74.uit.1 1 r VI I ELEVATIONS 6 1014 ':/2. Er MTE tiN! 0/ D(#51 GRADE UNI OF NAV GRADi -;lilililill'LIA'llinlill EAST ELEVATIONE Ema @5#*#281[2.-04 P .. 1. . 41".11 1,1 9/) (19 ~ ~ ~-111- ~~41#1:1 Â·1,~06:i.M, __ (74) 0 .''.."iL h f .1 2, .....,1. 1411 \u ' 'FT -41â€žâ€ž 1 92'/ I / / 1-- 1.1 9 4.,9 41 0,1 . 124 ..5 1/7 Â¥,:rpar i , 1 .$ ' ~~~-lri ~~~ -----~-~1 - ,#- r-Tr 1 - -,14â€ž1-1 2 0.6. i L 9 KE -'~4=3# 1 Er ~ 1 1 11.-'*.lf ' f 26 3 ; Ai j 11.... 1 ' 4 .4 411 , 11 *! .1 it 1 L .1 1 1 1,1. r - 4 5)0144 - 4.11,1~41{.it.;.0 4 3--1 r -I.J.--.Â·.-~ lt=,7"JL:L d 1 4 1 1 ' 1 -' 1 /1 ~ i --i ~-F~ ---11 jLL_2_j 1 ~i Lv -2~ ., 1~# 4-+ -1 'rÂ·f.Â·2:4 '03% ~ 4ftÂ¥}: ' 1.- f RE=- 1 1 1 , ;j U-) /n 71 1 1 ,- 1 * -- ir 4 ii .,i ~ :~ l! r , " A 11, ; 11 1 , T , I ANAL GRADE - 4 :4.-- 11 18 ~~; f/~~{,11 i i L--. : 1 1#l 40 P 1 -4117-7,- .ET---1 rtÂ·.r--1 i 1 2,4 *1Â»41 31.K--- ~i - L -j j 1 J tinx-1,:. 2 . & i ,;d .14 h 11 7 -~; A - 4 4 lit ilf~ 77 11 i / ff 4 . 11 f , ?,1,141 9. 41 ' J ..f I'L 4 f~-~--=fi~_ 3 ~ J- r=,=ikr ~~- 1 1 ' ,â€ž 3. 11* C 1.0 PADO SIONE - 1*4 2.- p & Ill I .:ii Â· Ill 41 10 / ~ 41' ~ ijlf=.4.1 ~~2- -iii 1 Â·~f,n ir < -- 2Â» \. a 1 Y :. f j 11 6 4 -1}: 4 !/ f. - - - 3.i it . --,L .41 1 11 Â¥ '~5 .MwaNg ~ 19_ b ff #f '- 56.-*.--_il i I 'dil if? * 1 1, . i 1 -4. /W.../........-*t-~ -*ull 1 1 1 11 314 \4 - STON[ W.~* Â· N 1 --- lit - 1 1 l A 89 - u Uo Â·0 3 ' CY) t~# CA 11:. ... .. ~ gft-~.LiÂ·5~4.*.7:. .K 3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: %6 C l~te. A-1-IL , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: HOAct 619 14 â‚¬ 51,60/*1 , 20_12- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, ~71-~ 44 5 69-1 (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 (13) o~jspen 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 and was continuously visible from 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 o f the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) 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. 3 1 -I Signature N The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 27day of A-f W ( , 201&; by -4- *7%EL.. Â·S C &*-..-c PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 861 UTE A\AENUE HEIGHT VARIANCE LAND USE REQUEST WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HER; BY GIVEN that a public hearing willbeheldonâ€¢'orday, May 14,2012, alameet- ing to begin a' 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City My commission expires: clliES-tile Council, Council Chambers Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, to consider an application sub- mitted by Laguna Sierra LLC, represented by John *11 Ul 8.13 --A#1/9101 Olson Builders for 861 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. The applicant is requesting a height van- 1 ance for the rear (south) elevation. The properÂ·ty is I legally described as: Lot 11, Ute Addition to the Notary Public City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colo- ~ rado, 81611. For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Depart- ment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429,2778, sara.adams@ci.aspen.co,us. s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times Week/y on April 26, ~ ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: 2012. [7825509] [BLICATION * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2 6 / Uft A v Un U ej , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: M ae_ 1 4 +4 , 200.6 U STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) D 0 (K. R._ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City ofAspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section ofan official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City ofAspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. (3) Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made ofsuitable, 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 and was continuously visible from the2?hlay of A f Al u , 20#11, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. (3( Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe 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 ofthe 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. (continued on next page) 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 rev ision ofthis Title, or whenever the text ofthis Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment ofa 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 ofthe 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. S ignature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this /5 day of ,/1/ry , 2092-, by 6,(VIA PONL ERIC KULBERG ; WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC 1 STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: 9.24 . C 4- My Commission Expires 5.Ot 6. Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Easy PeelÂ® Labels * A I Bend along line to 1 ~~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edgeâ„¢ A 679534 ONTARIO LTD 247 ENTERPRISE LLC 6020 OSBORN PROPERTIES LTD 130 ADELAIDE ST W #3302 49 BELLEVUE PL 3706 SUNSET TORONTO ONTARIO SEA BRIGHT, NJ 07760 HOUSTON, TX 77005 CANADA M5H3P5, 774302 ONTARIO LTD AGER REALTY LLC AGUA FRIA PROPERTIES LLC 7 SONATA CRESCENT 2800 ISLAND BLVD #2305 460 ST MICHAELS DR BLDG 300 TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M3B2C3, ADVENTURA, FL 33160 SANTA FE, NM 87505 AJAX SLOPESIDE LLC ALDEN REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC APPELQUIST THOMAS W TRUSTEE 50% 240 RAMSAY RD PO BOX 2129 400 LIVINGSTON ST DEERFIELD, IL 60015-3438 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94126 NEW HAVEN, CT 06511 ARNETT DAVID & BETTE ASPEN ALPS 123 LLC ASPEN ALPS CONDO ASSOC 5333 N CAMINO REAL 22 ALICE LN PO BOX 1128 TUCSON, AZ 85718 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN VIEW LTD AUHLL 2010 TRUST AYRES & BEACHLE & TBB FAM TRST 100 S MAI N AVE #300 546 MIRAMONTE DR 117 E 72ND ST 8TH FL SIDNEY, OH 45365 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 NEW YORK, NY 10021 BAYLDON BARBARA W TRUSTEE 50% BECK CYNTHIA BECNEL DANIEL E JR & MARY HOTARD 647 W BARRY AVE 728 N BUNKER HILL AVE PO DRAWER H CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 RESERVE, LA 70084 BEEM CORPORATION BESHARAT GERALDINE BILLINGS PRENTICE BOYD 1201 CURRIE AVE PO BOX 7 20 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 ELBERTON, GA 30635 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLACK SWAN UNIT D LLC BITTEL JUDITH R 50% BITTEL STEPHEN H 50% C/O CARISSA PEREIRA 801 ARTHUR GODFREY RD STE 600 4125 BRAJANZA ST 115 MCARTHUR RIDGE CT MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140-3323 COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 NASHVILLE, TN 37220 BLOCK JOEL A TRUSTEE 50% BORNEFELD BRUCE K 1/3 INT BOTT ALLEN D 647 W BARRY AVE 2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS 1672 POPLAR DR CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595 BOTTCHER KIRSTEN BOWERS ANN S TRUST BRENER DANIEL M & SHARON G 52 HESS AVE 237 COLERIDGE AVE 5202 POCAHONTAS GOLDEN, CO 80401 PALO ALTO, CA 94301-3522 BELLAIR, TX 77401 ttiquettes faciles & peler 1 A Repliez 8 la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® I rharopment revaler le rebord Pop-UPTM 1 1-800-GO-AVERY Sens de Easy PeelÂ® Labels ' A I Bend along line to Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeT. ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ CH INTERESTS LLC CABANISS WILLIAM J QUAL RES TRUST CARMAN PETER C/O JOHN P HAVENS 3812 FOREST GLEN DR 700 UTE AVE #808 11050 CAPITAL PARK DR BIRMINGHAM, AL 35213 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77041 CITY OF ASPEN CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L CLARENDON IV LLC ATTN FINANCE DEPT 201 39TH ST 2034 N CLARK ST 130 S GALENA ST DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 CLARENDON LLC COHEN HOWARD & CAROL TRIFARI COHEN JUSTIN T & MALLORY P PO BOX 177 120 TOPSAIL MALL 4980 SOUTH BEELER ST BONDI JUNCTION NSW 1355 AUSTRALIA, MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 DENVER, CO 80211 COHN JOHN R & BARBARA O COONEY THOMAS E CORCORAN DANIEL 3533 GREENBRIER DR PO BOX 4517 PO BOX 1881 DALLAS, TX 75225 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CRAWFORD JOAN CRAZY WOMAN INVESTMENTS LLC CRONIN CARL & TOBY ANN 12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE 304 S YELLOWSTONE 8748 DORRINGTON AVE POTOMAC, MD 20854 MONTANA, MT 59047 LOS ANGELES, CA 90048-1724 CUTLER SHERRIE STEPHENS TRUST DAVIS FAMILY TRUST DAVIS TERRY CONNALLY 197 EIGHTH ST PO BOX 1909 1046 ONTARIO CHARLESTOWN NAVY YARD RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 SHREVEPORT, LA 71106 BOSTON, MA 02129 DEHNERT G P DENNING & CLAMAN LLC DEPALMA JOHN R 42 DESILVA ISLAND DR 740 WEDGE DR 710 W WILSON AVE MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENDALE, CA 91206 DESTIN CO DEVORE KARINJO DIAMOND NATHAN 217 PALOS VERDES BLVD #239 PO BOX 03 5465 BANYAN TRAIL REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33156 DILLARD WILLIAM T 11 & MARY A ELIAS BARBARA A EPSTEIN ASPEN TRUST C/O DILLARD DEPT STORES INC 0451 STAGECOACH LN 1900 RITTENHOUSE SQ #8A PO BOX 486 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-0486 FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD FABER KATHERINE T FAVROT CAFFREY 50% INT 30 CARTIER ST 928 OAKWOOD AVE 124 CHARLESTON PK OTTAWA ONTARIO WILMETTE, IL 60091 METAIRIE, LA 70005 CANADA K2P2E7, ttiquettes faciles A peler i A Repliez & la hachure afin de I www. avery. com # Sens de Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® L charoement 1 r6v6Ier le rebord Pop-UpTM 1 1-800-GO-AVERY ' Easy PeelÂ® Labels ' A I Bend along line to ~ Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i A FIGI J TODD REV TRUST FORD SIMON JOHN HUBIRD & JULIE FONVIELLE HENRY S & LEE C/O JT FIGI ENTERPRISES DERKS 305 LLOYDS LN PO BOX 1668 700 LYNCOTT ALEXANDRIA, VA 22302 LA JOLLA, CA 92038 NORTH MUSKEGON, MI 49445 FOSSIER MIKE W REV TRUST FRIEDMAN RICHARD L FRY LLOYD EDWARD 7 WAINWRIGHT RD #88 20 UNIVERSITY RD 1335 STRATFORD DR WINCHESTER, MA 01890 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-5756 PIQUA, OH 45356 FRYKLUND ROBERT GABRIEL ANN GANT 103 LLC 2917 DUKE ST 611 S WESTEND ST APT 2 311 TOWN CENTER HOUSTON, TX 77005 ASPEN, CO 81611 BELLA VISTA, AR 72714 GANT LLC GARTEN HERBERT & SUSAN F GELFAND BEVERLY QPRT 50% 58 MISSION 36 S CHARLES ST STE 2300 9431 SUNSET BLVD WICHITA, KS 67207 BALTIMORE, MD 212013177 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 GELFAND MICHAEL D ET AL 50% GESSNER RICHARD W REV TRUST GOODSIR SUSAN A 1/3 JUDIN DEBORAH G & SILVERMAN TEDDI 1705 11TH ST NE 1000 CAMPBELL CT G MASSILLON, OH 44646 LAKE BLUFF, IL 600441300 PO BOX 9262 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 GRIEF IRVIN JR & NANETTE GRAHAM MAUREEN & THEODORE L GRAHAM NELL C 36 S CHARLES ST 7507 PHELPS CLOSE 10 PINE RIDGE RD 2300 CHARLES CENTER S NEW ALBANY, OH 43054 BASALT, CO 81621 BALTIMORE, MD 21201 GRIFFITH N MICHELLE & C PERRY JR GROUP 102 LLC GURTLER ROBERT & JODY 663 FOREST BLVD 6400 RIVERSIDE DR BLDG B 2192 WAGON TRAIL RD INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 DUBLIN, OH 43017 WHITE HEATH, IL 61884 HARRIS JOHN B GST TRUST 50% HALGLENN CORP HAMPLEMAN MARGOT HARRIS LUCY A GST TRUST 50% 4400 BISCAYNE BLVD #950 52 HESS AVE 31 MARJORY LN MIAMI, FL 33137-3212 GOLDEN, CO 80401 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 HARTMAN DOYLE & MARGARET HARVEY BRIAN L HAUGER MICHAEL A & JUDY L PO BOX 10426 PO BOX 240011 13516 QUAKING ASPEN NE MIDLAND, TX 79702 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111 HEIRLOOM PROPERTIES COLORADO HENRY CHARLES V 111 & JEAN D HEVRDEJS CATHY CAMPBELL LLC 937 WILLOWS ST PO BOX 22209 24 WATERWAY AVE #300 LEBANON, PA 17042 HOUSTON, TX 77227 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 ttiquettes faciles & peler j Repliez a la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® , rharapment Sens de ravaler le rebord Pop-UpTM 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Easy PeelÂ® Labels A I Bend along line to i rm AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper - expose Pop-Up EdgeTM HIRSCH FAMILY TRUST HOCKER DAVID E HODGE RON 63 EMERALD DUNES CIR 610 S WEST END ST #C103 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD #10 HENDERSON, NV 89052 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HONIGSBERG JOHN HURT FAMILY LP HYMAN PAUL M & DIANA LIV TRUSTS 12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE 1060 AVONDALE RD 8 WINTHROP DR POTOMAC, MD 20854 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 DIX HILLS, NY 11746 JACK LP ICIE JACKSON LLC ISAAC JENNIFER F REV TRUST 10 WESTGATE WALK 604 W MAI N ST PO BOX 1300 KITCHENER ONTARIO ASPEN, CO 81611 SONOITA, AZ 85637-1300 CANADA N2M2T8, JANNA INC 50% JJA FAMILY LLC JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E 500 PATTERSON RD 2145 FIELDCREST DR 3257 INWOOD DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 OWENSBORO, KY 42301 HOUSTON, TX 77019 KAPLAN JEROME A KAUFMAN MICHAEL A & SHERRYL W KEENAN D MICHAEL 6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403 7 FERNWOOD CT 1716 SEVERN FOREST DR ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 E BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 KLETTENBERG JULIEN & ANNA LISA KELLER KURT E KENNER PATRICIA KART PO BOX 840 720 PARK AVE 7-95 DARLING POINT RD ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10021 DARLING POINT NSW 2027 AUSTRALIA, KURLANDER STUART S LAMBERTI PAULA LANGE JENNIFER WOOD & WILLIAM E 2601 FOX HALL RD NW PO BOX 8685 22 NEW GREENS CT WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN, CO 81612 KINGWOOD, TX 77339 LATTERMAN EARL M QPRT LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP LEPOW DANA S 5000 5TH AVE APT 306 2836 PATRIOT PARK PLACE 6355 SEWANEE PITTSBURGH, PA 152322150 HENDERSON, NV 89052 HOUSTON, TX 77005 LEVINSON BONNIE 50% LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY LERNER GREGORY S LEVINSON BONNIE REV TRUST 50% TRUST 5310 PINE ST 2127 BROADWAY #1 9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD BELLAIRE, TX 77401 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 LINEBERGER WILLIAM CARL LMC ASPEN LLC LN9 LLC 145 GREEN ROCK DR 100 ELK RUN DR #129 4400 BISCAYNE BLVD#550 BOULDER, CO 80302 BASALT, CO 81621 MIAMI, FL 33137 Etiquettes faciles A peler J A Repliez & la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com 1 Sens de i Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® J charaement rdvuler le rebord POP-UpT,1 1 1-800-GO-AVERY A Easy PeelÂ® Labels ' A I Bend along line to ! Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ LUND ANSELMO ASPEN PROP LOWE DEVELOPMENT CORP MARNETT MARTIN J & MARCELA B C/O DARIO ANSELMO 610 S WEST END ST 82 HILLCREST DR 4924 GREEN FARMS ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 EDINA, MN 55436 MAX ROSENSTOCK & CO MARSLAND SUSAN L TRUST MARTIN HARRY M 1/6 BERTEL LEWIS 1310 N RITCHIE CT 2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS 67 CALLE RIVERO CHICAGO, IL 60610 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 MCCORMICK ROGER F FAMILY TRUST MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M MCCOY TRUST 66% TWO COVENTRY CT 3485 S SILVER SPRINGS RD MCCORMICK MARY E 34% PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208 LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 PO BOX 21532 OWENSBORO, KY 42304 MCGOVERN PHILIP C TRUST MEHL HARRIET MERRILLS MRS DAPHNE TRUST 89% 33 PLEASANT ST 350 W 57TH ST #17A 217 SCAIFE RD MANCHESTER BY THE SEA, MA 01944 NEW YORK CITY, NY 10019 SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 MEYER HOWARD W MEYER WILLIAM J 2/3 MIKA PATRICK D 2660 MIDDLEBURY LN 1101 17TH ST NW, STE 1000 630 N TEJON ST BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903 MILL IRON INVESTMENTS LLC 15% MILLER LORRAINE MMR ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST SHOHET CAROLYN S 85% PO BOX 5136 1225 WESTMOOR RD PO BOX 64 ASPEN, CO 81612 WINNETKA, IL 60093 CARLISLE, MA 01741 MORRIS DIANE L TRUST MOEN DONNE & ELIZABETH FAM TRUST MORRIS TRUST CO BROWN SUSAN BOEING 8 CABALLEROS RD 906 FRANKLIN 2550 SCOTT ST ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 RIVER FOREST, IL 60305 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 MORTON JENNY S NAZCA LLC NICHOLS HOLLI 17 PETERSHAM PL 275 TRADEWIND DR 1621 KIPLING LONDON SW7 5 PX UK PALM BEACH, FL 33480 HOUSTON, TX 77006 NUTTER GEORGE ERNEST & LYNDSAY NORTON WESLEY ANN TTEE FAM TRST OGURI HIROSHI & KYOKO 223 HANNA RD 2135 CENTURY WOODS WAY 1570 ROSE VILLA ST TORONTO ONTARIO LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 PASADENA, CA 91106 CANADA M4G 3P3, ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PTNSHP LLLP OTTO GERDAU CO OTTO GERDAU CO 50% C/O ASPEN ALPS 80 WALL ST #314 500 PATTERSON RD 700 S UTE AVE NEW YORK, NY 10005 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ASPEN, CO 81611 ttiquettes faciles 8 peler 1 Repliez & la hachure afin de I www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® rdvaler le rebord Pop-UPTM 1 1-800-GO-AVERY i Sens de A chamement A Easy PeelÂ® Labels ' A I Bend along line to 1 ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM A PAGEAL VENTURES LTD OWEN BILLYE HOWELL PAISLEY ON THE BEAR LLC 55 DELISLE AVE #1003 3535 GILLESPIE #303 191 SPAULDING LN TORONTO ONTARIO DALLAS, TX 75219 EVANSTON, WY 82930 CANADA M4V 3C2, PANTER BARRY M TRUST PARKERWILLIAMAJR PAUL MARC & RENEE M TRUSTS 10100 EMPYREAN WAY APT 103 1900 GARRAUX WOODS RD NW 9661 WENDOVER DR LOS ANGELES, CA 900673815 ATLANTA, GA 30327 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 PECKHAM THOMAS C PHILLIPS STEPHEN & BARBARA PIAZZA APRIL A PO BOX 9766 900 FIFTH AVE 608 HENNINGCT ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10021 NAPERVILLE, IL 60540 PORTER ROBERT A & CHARLYNN PINE A PHILIP PINSKY STEPHEN & ALENE MAXWELL 1600 E ATLANTIC BLVD 9920 BELLAGIO CT 611 PARKWAY STE F-13 POMPANO BEACH, FL 33060-6768 FORT MYERS, FL 33913-7006 GATLINBURG, TN 37738 PRESNALL BETTY 1/3 INT PROPERTY INVESTORS #1 LLC PROSTIC EDWARD & MARJORIE 2752 LA STRANDA GRANDE HTS 8407 BROOKEWOOD CT 2225 STRATFORD RD COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 MC LEAN, VA 22120 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 QD FORECASTLE LLC RAINEY J WALKER & GILLIAN PYRFEKT PROPERTIES LLP QUARTERDECK HOLDING LLC 2 PALMERSTON VILLAS 1424 CEDAR BAY LN ONE NORTHFIELD PLAZA # 530 RATHMINES SARASOTA, FL 34231 NORTHFIELD, IL 600931216 DUBLIN 6 IRELAND, RAMSEY STACIE A RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS LTD REICH DANIEL S TRUST 25% INT 39 CANTERBURY RD PO BOX 127 999 N TUSTIN AVE #216 MADISON, NJ 07940 TIBURON, CA 94920 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 REICH MELVIN L TRUST RICE MARGARET A RICHTER VALERIE A TRUSTEE 4609 SEASHORE DR 13912 FLINT 6214 N 34TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 OVERLAND PARK, KS 66221 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 RIDDELL BRALEY LLC ROBINSON MARY ALICE BURKE ROSE FAMILY TRUST 2900 WESLAYAN RD STE 500 501 S LA POSADA CIR #358 240 S BRISTOL AVE HOUSTON, TX 77027 GREEN VALLEY, AZ 85614 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ROSENBERG HENRY A & DOROTHY ROSS DWAYNE ALLAN & DUREE ROSENBAUM THOMAS F VALUTREE REAL ESTATE SERVICES MELLION 928 OAKWOOD AVE LLC, TAX SERVICE DIVISON 10740 PEGASUS ST WILMETTE, IL 60091 PO BOX 85188 DAVIE, FL 33324 RICHMOND, VA 232855188 ttiquettes faciles & peler A Repliez & la hachure afin de 1 www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i Sens de chargement rdvoler le rebord Pop-UPâ„¢ 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Easy PeelÂ® Labels A I Bend along line to ' Use AvetyÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper ' expose Pop-Up Edgeâ„¢ ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ A ROTH WALTER TRUSTEE RULY HOLDINGS PTY LTD SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE C/O D ANCONA & PFLAUM C/O LANG WALKER 8 PARKWAY DR 111 E WACKER DR STE 2800 PO BOX 2964 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 CHICAGO, IL 60601 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHAFFER REALTY HOLDI NGS 11 LLC SANDITEN EDWARD STANLEY SCHALDACH NANCY C/O LESLIE SCHAFFER PO BOX 11566 799 CRANDON BLVD APT 801 161 E CHICAGO AVE #36E ASPEN, CO 81612 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149-2555 CHICAGO, IL 60611 SCHARLIN HOWARD R & GLORIA G SCHIRMER LESLIE M TRUST SCHNEIDER ROBERT C 10 EDGEWATER DR APT 4A 4100 E QUINCY AVE 3003 S ONG ST CORAL GABLES, FL 33133-6962 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 AMARILLO, TX 79109 SCHWEPPE DAVID P & VALERIE G REV SCHRAMM SCOTT C & DENISE M SCHWARZ REV TRUST TRUST 150 NASSAU ST #20C 860 ARDEN RD 8435 NW 43RD LN NEW YORK, NY 10038 PASADENA, CA 91106 OCALA, FL 34482 SEAMAN SAUNDRA L SEIDMAN DOV LIVING TRUST SEIFERT COLORADO TRUST 8505 ARLINGTON BLVD #210 320 WEST 78TH ST 2421 HAMILTON DR FAIRFAX, VA 22031 NEW YORK, NY 10024 AMES, IA 50014 SEWELL BEVERLY JEAN & RALPH SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R TRUST SHIRK JAMES A & LINDA S BYRON 5704 DEVILLE DR PO BOX 1549 884 QUAIL RUN DR EDINA, MN 55436 BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505-8608 SHODEEN ASPEN-DELAVAN LLC SHULMAN ROBERT A SIEGEL LOIS H QPRT 17 N FIRST ST 132 NASSAU ST #812 3 GROVE ISLE DR #1109 GENEVA, IL 60134 NEW YORK, NY 10038 MIAMI, FL 33133 SILTON MARTIN H & RITA PICKER SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C SIMON DONNA REV TRUST PO BOX 140 7404 BROOKVILLE RD 1294 ROCKRIMMON RD BONDVILLE, VT 05340 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 STAMFORD, CT 06903 SIMPKINS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE SIMUNOVICH JOHN & BRIGID COLETT- SINAI ALLEN TETLOW PO BOX 47 16 HOLMES RD 2921 AVALON PL DROGHEDA IRELAND CO LOUTH, LEXINGTON, MA 02173 HOUSTON, TX 77019 SMALL RESTON LLC SMART EDWIN J SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE 7311 ARROWOOD RD 2009 MARKET ST 1225 BRAEBURN BETHESDA, MA 20817 DENVER, CO 80205-2022 FLOSSMORE, IL 60422 ttiquettes faciles & peler Sens de 1-800-GO-AVERY Repliez & la hachure afin de t www.avery.com I Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® , rharriement ravaler le rebord Pop-Up= 1 1 Easy PeelÂ® Labels A I Bend along line to ' ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® Use AverkÂ® Template 5160Â® Feed Paper = expose Pop-Up Edgeâ„¢ A SOLOMON MARC F & AUDREY B SPALDING SHELLEY SPENCER DAVID B 9313 RAPLEY PRESERVE DR P.O. BOX 9564 1217 ROYAL ST #1 POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116 STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES ST MARYS OF ASPEN LLC STEEL ROBERT & GILLIAN CORP 10241 BLUE PALM ST 71 MAYFAIR LN PO BOX 936 PLANTATION, FL 33324 GREENWICH, CT 06831 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 STEWART SAMUEL & JACQUELINE 50% STOPEK RICHARD E & JULIE TAGUE PETER & CHERYL 124 CHARLESTON PK 6311 VIA VENETIA NORTH 7 PARK AVE TER METAIRIE, LA 70005 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33484 BRONXVILLE, NY 10708 TATEM H RANDOLPH 111 & SUE BINKLEY TAWGIN JOHN S TOBEY ROBERT W PO BOX 12373 129 SEA GIRT AVE 41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR ASPEN, CO 81612 MANASQUAN, NJ 08736 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113 UKENA THOMAS E VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNE WAGNER GANT PROPERTIES LLC 26 CATHERINE DR 1738 BERKELEY ST 3480 MIDDLEBELT RD NORTHBOROUGH, MA 01532 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323 WATCHMAKER LINDA L 95% WATERS MICHAEL A & ADELAIDE ANN WEINBERG JUDD A TRUST 4527 BRUCE AVE PO BOX 8237 401 N MICHIGAN AVE #3050 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424-1122 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 606115515 WEKSTEIN TRUST WERNST INC WHITAKER PATRICIA D TRUST 100 BELVIDERE ST UNIT 9A 5141 GLENWOOD POINTE LN I\IE 236 LINDEN AV BOSTON, MA 02199 . ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87111 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 WILKERSON WILLIAM REV TRUST WILSON MICHAEL WINKLER REV TRST 321 SUNSET DR #3 8 ELM ST 840 LOMA VISTA DR FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ZACHARY MARC WINTER RUTH F TRUSTEE WOODWARD TERRY TRUST STURM MELANIE 175 E DELAWARE PL APT 8404 3662 BRIDGEPOINTE PO BOX 410 CHICAGO, IL 60616 OWENSBORO, KY 42303 ASPEN, CO 81612 ZEFF RICHARD L TRUST ZOLET THERESA & DAVID 14 EVERGREEN WAY 17 PADDOCK CT STRATHAM, NH 03885 POTOMAC, MD 20854 ttiquettes faciles & peter j A Repliez & la hachure afin de ! www.avery. com ~ Utilisez le aabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® , rharrlement rav*ler le rebord Pop-Upâ„¢ 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Sens de 861 Ute Current Issue: height of structure at South elevation. 8/17/2002 Permit: 0137.2005.ARBK Scope: Demo 1, 742 sq ft SFR Plan set: available Zoning approval: SO 8/23/2005 Status: work completed 8/15/2007 Permit: 0142.2007.ARBK Scope: built new 3045 sq ft SFR Plan set: available Zoning approval: TG 12/27/2007 Status: permit canceled, extended, new permit number 0085.2010.ARBK 10/27/2010 permit: 0085.2010.ARBK Scope: new SFR, same material submitted under permit 0142.2007. Plan set: available Zoning approval: TG 12/22/2010 Status: current master permit 3/31/2011 permit: 0021.2011.ASLU Scope: RDS variance application by David Johnston Plan set: Resolution No. 12 (Series of 2011) Land use: coa.lu.sr. 861 Ute Ave. 0021.2011 http://apollo/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=160753 4/08/2011 permit: 0025.2011.ARBK Scope: change order complete re-design of house Plan set: available Zoning approval: CS 06/30/2011 Status: permit has been replaced with 0070.2011.ARBK 01/05/2012 Permit: 0001.2012.ARGR Scope: change order move back location of garage Zoning approval: CS 03/11/2012 Plan set: available Status: change orderissued Page 1 of 1 # 3 __ --Dlel 344.,. 613.11 *25- Pboil,Â¥62,- cwel'r 4 UA*lt 1.AOEer 4 SW 9,5 2# 11 /3 42- 1 govÂ¥~\ -1- 1 .1 7.3 sbte=t .P~OUJ 6.1 - 1 -DCUd ~]249*1 =40 Mt- pkwA 'DAvidi--C* - InÂ· Â·AN,1 !004 15 fl"le, G.@t~ -2 4.2 bud+ vat,f -GÂ» 841 i stuu)., c,n --7 -12 Wa*- 060 12' Jo Mi }Disl, F,76 <3* Wak:L ovwG, f#xkie - -10 34138#*EM |6(220( S_lf" 3% 1/ (7Â· .& *fl 4 1 C/6-f. . Of* Â»-1,64 ,- 4349 -5. iz_ ~16__17 90(Ze_ 018Gg 0486,/ _ & d-QÂ«Â¥1â‚¬4 -- 55 - 21'al 4 civ, plÂ«â€¢s 42946_ 9 _ wuste.ke- c. aw__ plans. --Jbh webul 11* - We dawl-___*Â« C~ ca,E- c,Gcut- 1 ..4 24 _1' _ wi-36- 5 9+. h _alowe _44t _ 44)__ + 44_dcU+ <NA _(6â‚¬4* _0 -61+1 - 12*06. .V- -VC/{4-- 2)021 --_ C*ge- wiv 4,4 2445 __*- Af-- *-- i - i-_rr-Ukrl O.h- 16/4565#2%2 +A 64&-04,40-- /3*r M.WS Z.JA/2. 1, --. l*/64 nce -- -742.1, 14; 45 14 --Â¢214. - . * A-+02 2,4 - R~r~6Â¥749 - -re ,Â»M"l?*AA,17 --m %021 4 Er')9, 4# +90 -1-~44 Â·0â€ž,flath,%-A-,vy!2 0*j> -*791 ---4 . rmi9E_--Pa- a-Â° 4-,50 r:20 1 Â»494' a -93 Â»/ /PMe - ~4297 vy#M&* -Â¥U t,09 -vess 92,274,22, u~- 7'Â¥'~*40/ 4,0 _y*49 '-'490 /3,407 *>9 -9977 ~~"4/2Â£ Prt 72%/ 01\J . "4992 41 pid 74191 91 -/>LICUL ~-*~1 t> - Â·a"le,44,2 *Mdia.â€ž*F 9~1 1 17-447 -6723% ,"4*025 -'7~929 f.4-8499 171 -141 321 -40201 anâ€¢79 'p\(Â» 4% 201 - '1*V y~'~4'*)O p. 2 46_V Yansâ‚¬i -,ty,1 15*01 114114 6-Â«l- -46#v,IC 14 -'99~ 184 yeres 11 4 -m) - 29)Â» 19vl b -1 V,46'ww 4-3 0) p/tinw 1 -}M/1 75~141Â¥i, '11 140 dn .m,4 ---Prm? -Â¥4 -14 1 2 9490 -I )01 /Â¥*19 2[Yl - Al], 41)465" -*y) 14*46 4 14 -13 11169 *,f )OltÂ¥*[S -dtyl 11 16 +3141 +t I?*010 BMJ 7/Â»4 MtÂ»14 6 7(7) -904 21 14 -Mt)*6 01/ry) z 4 Pr444 11/k WV) 41 /9,2 -- 24 noÂ°M J- Al /O -7* r +G- 1 1 9 -/ .F)01-- 9"9-1 ~31 03F--4Â® --2'656:1 9 f - -01-1 x171 - Ilm,4- 'Nic| -44 -1452'1~'1 4Â» ..12 -- 4, I ,gpl/1 GN -14-F74549 1 Â£7}e,"7,9 -41.~0%Â£ - \34 40 - nit- k) 00\A,% 20 - -3 -y~---4,& -" --775 -"0 - 42 31 -3(Yl - ANG D . it 91 )001 /1.95 -09 044 01 0.9 -) pawfo -_ ,*EL 6 192 -'94*7 014 '61.91Â¢1 -â‚¬~431(* - #}Nol~,ee _.jo -1.00-,7%*0 ~*11'14 09- wa- . i 9066 ha)96 0.Â».7 19 tâ‚¬ 1*wl 5Azi,Â£.1 -pki WE, /*VAL- cE'Aâ€¢vrk, L.4 k-kin_-~,o,~~67Â£Â£-i ACT 6*rÂ· Chris Bendon From: David Johnston [david@djarchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 7:01 PM To: Chris Bendon; ddorr@johnolsonbuilder.com Subject: RE: 861 Ute Attachments: image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.gif; image004.gif; image005.gif Chris, See my quick answers below: David Johnston President 0; DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS 418 11.wit (-t,uper Avenue SuitlÂ· 201, AgiÂ·n ('0 81611 TEL 9/0-971>-3444 FAX 970-920-7!86 w w ,Â¥.dia reIiiteets. com 14*F'*1 1-//: ira '1â‚¬2 t.# From: Chris Bendon [mailto:Chris.Bendon@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:34 PM To: David Johnston; ddorr@johnolsonbuilder.com Subject: 861 Ute David and David: I'm trying to get up to speed on this quickly and need some help. I'm looking through the 861 variance application and our permit documents. The variance application has a drawing, exhibit F, of the east and south elevations dated 12/30/2011. It dimensions the height of the south elevation at 26'2" and 26'5". I can't seem to find that drawing in our permit files. Our permit drawings show that same sheet with the same date with the same height dimensioned at 24'11". Can eitherof you point me in the right direction on this. And, I'd like to know the earliest date that a drawing of record dimensioned the height as being over 25' if it was prior to 12/30/2011. Thanks. Exhibit F should be dated 4-26-12, as it is the actual conditions of the construction to-date that we discovered. We failed to change our template date. I have no other drawings that indicate a recorded dimension height of over 25'. Also, exhibit E of the variance application shows a patio on the south fagade which appears to be all at the same grade. Exhibit F seems to show the height of the building along the eastern portion of the south fagade being measured from a point 1' 9" above the patio that is on the western portion of the south fagade. And, our most recent permit drawings seem to indicate the patio area on the eastern portion of the south fagade as filled in. I need some clarification there as well. Thanks. I can show you the details for that space as well tomorrow. The structural slab at the eastern portion of the south fagade is at the same elevation of our desired patio to the east, because it is actually a roof deck condition. Our computer line-type just represented it as patio, and we kept the drainage at the same elevation. We were always treating the area as an elevated planter and minor area well (we have no direct access), and it was below a large deck above at one point. The point we used for determining height limit for that wall therefor was at the retaining wall line, which is roughly 4'-6" out from the building line, again, as this space was an area well, and it is too small for a working patio. 1 p I will be bringing in the sequence levation drawings that can guide us thro _ the process that resulting in the current condition. Thanks. Any direction prior to our meeting tomorrow would be great, or we can start with these at the meeting. Cheers, Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 970-429-2765 www.aspenpitkin.com/ Email secured by Check Point 2 Claude Salter (9)From: Denis Murray > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:08 PM To: Jennifer Phelan; Claude Salter Subject: RE: EDEN Email 861 Ute Ave No changes proposed at this time, they are going to build the set we issue. Denis Murray c Plans Examination Manager City of Aspen 970-429-2761 Office 970-309-6283 Cell Denis.Murray@ci.aspen.co.us -----Original Message----- ~From: Jennifer Phelan 0-4'Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:09 PM To: Denis Murray; Claude Salter Subject: RE: EDEN Email 861 Ute Ave Hi denis: Unless expressly addressed, say in the case of an extension of vested rights before council...we are going to assume the project is vested at the time it submitted for a building permit .... 2007 numbers not when issued 2010 numbers. So I don't think we need to review unless they have currently submitted something that changes their bedroom count. Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 PH: 970.429.2759 FAX: 970.920.5439 www.aspenpitkin.com t~ -----Original Message----- L-00/ From: Denis Murray Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:40 AM To: Jennifer Phelan; Claude Salter Subject: EDEN Email 861 Ute Ave Jen and Claude, 861 Ute is a extended approved permit from 2007. They are going to build it now. Do you want to take a look at the fees before we issue? Thanks Denis Double click attachment. 1 Claude Salter ~ From: Claude Salter Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:08 AM To: 'david@djarchitects.com' Subject: FW: 861 Ute Ave permit 0025.2011.ARBK Please note the following: Survey claims lot size: 5,282 Allowable FA: 3,038.96 Proposed FA: 3,027 1. Verify the private road is not available for garage access. 2. Sheet 4.1 and 4.2: address height should be 25' see section 26.575.020(F)(2)(a) flat roofs or roofs with a pitch of less than 3:12 and section 26.575.020(F)(4)(a)chimneys, flues, and similar venting apparatus. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Porta Is/0/docs/City/clerk/mun icode/coaspent26-500. pdf 3. Sheet 1.6 and sheet 4.1: meet the RDS(Residential Design Standard) 26.410.040(2) Build-to-lines: 60% or building width (38' x .6 = 22.8). plans illustrate 21.6' 4. Sheet 1.6 and sheet 4.1: meet the RDS: 26.410.040(B)(1)Secondary Mass. Provide total square footage number. Garage which is the secondary mass should be 10%. Plans indicate only FA. Provide plate height should not be more than 9' for linking element. 5. Sheet 1.6 and sheet 4.1: meet the RDS: 26.410.040(c)(2)(b) front fagde of the garage shall be 10' further from the street. Plans illustrate 9'6" 6. Sheet 1.6 and sheet 3.3: meet the RDS: 26.410.040(d)(2)First story element. Deck on second level extends too far over first story element. Accessible space shall not be allowed over the first story element. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent26-400.pdf Claude Salter City of Aspen I Zoning Enforcement Officer Community Development Department 970-429-2752 (Office) claude,salter@ci,aspen,co.us 1 . Claude Salter ' From: David Johnston [David@djarchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:59 PM To: Denis Murray Claude Salter; Larry Doble; Stephen Kanipe CC: Hugh Marsh Subject: 861 Ute Avenue Change Order To all, This note is a confirmation that all permit comments for the subject Project from the building department have been responded to in writing, and delivered to the building department office today at 1:00 pm. This includes all revised drawings, letters, specifications, and written responses to comments prepared by Zoning, Building, and Engineering departments. Please let me know if anything else is required - we would appreciate all expedience in reviewing the documents. Thanks to all. Respectfully, David Johnston President itl DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS 418 East Coop:er Avenue Suite 206 Aspen CO 81611 TEÂ£970-925-3444 FAx 970-920-2 1 86 w w W. C.ia re h L t:e C ta. CO til Email secured by Check Point 1 Claude Salter L./From: Claude Salter Sent: Friday, January 20,2012 11:52 AM To: david@djarchitects.com Subject: 861 Ute, change order 0001.2012.ARGR Hello Mr. Johnston, , Below, please find a few concerns with regard to change order 0001.2012.ARGR. Per our telephone conversation today; you will address the challenges. 1. Sheet 4.2 East elevation chimney height give the 25' max height. South elevation at kitchen height. 2. Sheet 3.2, and siteÂ·plan 2.1, elevations 4.1, 4.2: The design shall meet the RDS (residential design standard 26.410.040(D)Building Element. As proposed the entry door is more than 10' back from the front-most wall, the plate height is too tall, and the first story element does not have a depth of 6 feet. 3. Sheet 3.2 Main level: we do not have an up-dated sheet for the upper level. D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street- oriented entrance and a street facing principal IIlf](1i lillill window. Multi-family units shall have at least one fii!lic' (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and jil[Ld-el front units must have a street facing a principal window. ~~t -C- I j ~ l ~ ~ 1 1 On corner lots, entries and principal windows should Li'!lilili face whichever street has a greater block length. This lillii'li standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions - - Block Length f are met: >12 - a. The entry door shall face the street and be no 0 ~kkab more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than 940 (8) feet. - 1"49 i eight 410â€¢ b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more /* square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and RI - 8 canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. *a.:10 1 j' 1 *ifitf.4 :~ . 1Â· 3-:fi G c. A street-facing principal window requires - -- icipal window a significant window or group of windows face street. 1 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front fagade shall not be precluded. Please call or email with questions. Regards, Claude Claude Salter Zoning Enforcement Officer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2752 www.aspenpitkin.com 2 Claude Salter * From: Claude Salter Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:04 PM To: 'david@djarchitects.com' Subject: FW: 861 Ute, change order 0001.2012.ARGR Mr. Johnston, Please note the ongoing zoning issues with this project and change order: L E Sheet 4.2 East elevation chimney height give the 25' max height. South elevation at kitchen height. The measurement of height, "shall be measured from the ground to the top-most portion of the structure". Below, please find the section of code which addresses height for flat roofs. 2. Sheet 3.2, and site plan 2.1, elevations 4.1, 4.2: The design shall meet the RDS (residential design standard 26.410.040(D)Building Element. As proposed the entry door is more than 10' back from the front-most wall, the plate height is too tall, and the first story element does not have a depth of 6 feet. Please propose a design which will meet the standard. 3. Sheet 3.3 Upper level: we do not have an up-dated sheet for the upper level. Email or call with your response to the above listed zoning issues. F. Measuring Building Heights. 1. For properties in the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (Cl), Commercial Lodge (CL), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be the maximum distance between the ground and the highest point of the roof top, roof ridge, parapet, or top-most portion of the structure. See subsection 3, below, for measurement method. 2. For properties in all other Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be measured according to the pitch of the roof as follows. See subsection 3, below, for measurement method. a. Flat roofs or roofs with a pitch of less than 3: 12. The height of a building with a roof pitch of less than 3: 12 shall be measured from the ground to the top-most portion of the structure. / . -*---- 1 1 -1 9 4 1 +11 1 =822-- 1 Roof pitch j Parapet ' ~ 7Â·17 nr 82 11 Height Height of Building P 1.- 39 r t ' 1 I am not able to sign off on the change order until these the issues are addressed. Please call me today. Regards, Claude Claude Salter Zoning Enforcement Officer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2752 www.aspenpitkin.com From: Claude Salter Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:52 AM To: david@djarchitects.com Subject: 861 Ute, change order 0001.2012.ARGR Hello Mr. Johnston, Below, please find a few concerns with regard to change order 0001.2012.ARGR. Per our telephone conversation today; you will address the challenges. 4. Sheet 4.2 East elevation chimney height give the 25' max height. South elevation at kitchen height. 5. Sheet 3.2, and site plan 2.1, elevations 4.1, 4.2: The design shall meet the RDS (residential design standard 26.410.040(D)Building Element. As proposed the entry door is more than 10' back from the front-most wall, the plate height is too tall, and the first story element does not have a depth of 6 feet. 6. Sheet 3.2 Main level: we do not have an up-dated sheet for the upper level. D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street- oriented entrance and a street facing principal 111!jill (1) window. Multi-family units shall have at least one li!!il! street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and -1 iii 1-9 i 1 front units must have a street facing a principal window. Corner Lot I j I [!i1 On corner lots, entries and principal windows should -Vulli~ f 1 1 face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following >14- 68' I conditions are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no ~/ more 24% than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall ~*~IF~~ %>- of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. 2 a b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and rFT77 El 1421 canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. '4"I ,!1'dÂ·I~il,Ill c. A street-facing principal window requires - 1 1- ,cipal window a significant window or group of windows face street. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front fÂ®ade shall not be precluded. Please call or email with questions. Regards, Claude Claude Salter Zoning Enforcement Officer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2752 www.aspenpitkin.com 3 Eal CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 429.2780 & Claude Salter, 429.2752 DATE: 02.17.2012 PROJECT: 861 Ute Ave, Height Variance REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston, david@diarchitects.com LAND USE REQUEST: Height Variance DESCRIPTION: The property at 861 Ute Ave received a building permit in 2011 for a new single family home. As part of her review of a change order, the Zoning Officer found that the height of a portion of the structure was over the 25 foot allowed height limit. The applicant is interested in receiving a variance for height, as the area in question has already been built. A height variance is under the purview of City Council and shall be reviewed during a noticed public hearing. The application shall address the criteria listed in Land Use Code Section 26.314 Variances. The other option is for the applicant to bring the building into compliance with the allowable height. The city is not able to issue the change order, do a final inspection, or issue a CO until the issue is resolved. Application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%201and%20use%20app %20form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planninq-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use- Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26,314 Variances 26.575.020.F Building Height 26.710.040 R-6 zone district Review by: Staff, City Council Public Notice: Required at City Council. Planning Fees: $1,890 deposit for 6 hours (additional staff time billed hourly at $315/hr.) Referral Fees: None Total Deposit: $1,890 To apply, submit the following information: E Total deposit for review of the application. 0 Proof of ownership. n Completed Land Use Application Form. U A signed fee agreement. E A Pre-Application Conference Summary, Pre-application summary - 861 Ute Ave Page 1 of 2 ' El A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3 Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, 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. E An 8 1/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 0 Existing and proposed site plan E A site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado. I A written description of the requested variance and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide a written response to all applicable criteria. 2 12.Copies of the complete application packet. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 0 Claude Salter From: Jessica Garrow Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:29 AM To: David Johnston CC: Claude Salter Subject: Re: 861 Ute Ave Height Variance.docx Hi David, You can continue working with Claude since she's been working on the plans with you. We are off today for President's day, so you can turn in revised plans tomorrow. I am pod tomorrow so if you have any questions when you submit I can help answer. Thanks and have a great day! Jessica Sent from my iPhone Please excuse any typos or mis-spellings. On Feb 20, 2012, at 9:49 AM, "David Johnston" <david@diarchitects.com> wrote: Thanks, Jessica. We are going to try to bring the project into compliance; I will be submitting the new plans later this week to Claude. Should we meet anyway to review, or should I continue to work with Claude? Thanks. David Johnston President <image001.gif> <image002.gif><image003.gif><image004.gif><image003.gif><image005.gif> From: Jessica Garrow [mailto:Jessica.Garrow@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:10 PM To: David Johnston Cc: Claude Salter Subject: 861 Ute Ave Height Variance.docx Hi David, I was POD yesterday and Claude asked me to write up a pre-app for 861 Ute Ave's hiehgt issue. You can apply for a variance or bring the property into compliance in terms of height. Give me a call if you want to go over the process. My suggestion would be to bring the property into compliance rather than requesting the variance, but it is up to you and the owner. Cheers, Jessica Jessica Garrow, AICP Long Range Planner 1 Community Development Depa it City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2780 www.aspencommunityvision.com www.aspenpitkin.com Email secured by Check Point 2 Claude Salter From: Claude Salter Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 5:43 PM To: 'David Johnston'; 'jolson@johnolsonbuilder.com' CC: 'David Dorr'; 'michael@djarchitects.com'; Mike Metheny; Shannon Needell Subject: RE: 861 Ute Ave - Follow Up Mr. Johnston and Mr. Olsen, The two options for addressing the height of the South elevation of 861 Ute Avenue are: apply for a variance or bring the property into compliance in terms of height. A pre-application summary was completed for the height variance on February 17, 2012 . After which the architect made changes to the height at the South elevation to address the height with change order 0001.2012.ARGR. At the request of the builder, a site visit was completed on Wednesday April 4, 2012 after which it became clear that change order 0001.2012.ARGR does not adequately address the height issue. Zoning and building final inspections will not be scheduled until the issue is resolved. It is my expectation that the architect and the contractor will propose a solution for compliance with the maximum height of 25' in the R6. The solution shall be presented in plan view and elevation. The height shall be measured per section 26.575.020(F) Measuring Building Heights. Change order 0025.2011.ARBK was approved with the height of 24'11 1/2" South elevation on June 29, 2011. Change order 0001.2012.ARGR was approved with the height of 24'11 1/2" South elevation on March 12, 2012. Regards, Claude Claude Salter Zoning Enforcement Officer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2752 www.aspenpitkin.com From: David Dorr [mailto:ddorr@johnolsonbuilder.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:51 AM To: Claude Salter Cc: John Olson Subject: 861 Ute Ave - Follow Up Good morning, Claude. I just wanted to follow up and check in regarding the site meeting at 861 Ute and the rear elevation height condition. Is it helpful if I run over to your office to look at your file? Feel free to call my cell if you wish to discuss. Thank you kindly. -Dave 1 David Dorr John Olson Builder, Inc. 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.923.4233 office 970.923.2977 fax 970.379.7110 mobile www.iohnolsonbuilder.com 10HN OLSON Email secured by Check Point 2 @ Claude Salter From: John Olson [john@johnolsonbuilder.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:00 AM To: Claude Salter Subject: FW: 861 Ute Ave - Follow Up Hi Claude. I hope you are well and thank you for visiting the site last week. I must say that I am fairly surprised by the fact that you would like for us to possibly go before council and ask for a variance. After our meeting last week, my team reviewed the stamped and approved permit set onsite and confirmed that we have built exactly what is drawn and signed off on by the various departments, including zoning, (it is on clear on several pages of elevations and sections) and there are no supplemental notes on our prints stating that we should have any reason to assume that there could be any issues with the south elevation and should not be built per our approvals. I know during our site visit that you stated that you had mentioned something to the architect, but please understand that the owner's contract with the architect on this project does not include any "construction administration", so the architects duties and contract were basically fulfilled (with the exception of a few details) at the time of submittal for permit, so we have never had any discussions with the architect regarding the elevation in question. The last thing I want to do is go before council and say "we built exactly what we have on our approved prints, but I guess they were incorrectly approved, which is not my fault or my owners fault"!! 0 don't see how this will make anyone look very good!) Please let me know your thoughts, John. John Olson President John Olson Builder, Inc. 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.923.4233 main 970.923.2977 fax 970.379.0643 mobile www.johnolsonbuilder.com IOHN OLSON 1 e Claude Salter From: Claude Salter Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:46 AM To: john@johnolsonbuilder.com Subject: 861 Ute Ave, 0025.2011.ARBK Mr. Olson, Please note the following: 1. Going to City Council is one of the two options to remedy this situation. The other option is to correct the situation in the field. I have no preference and the decision is not mine to make. 2. The height which was approved per the elevation sheets. The permit was approved with a height of 24'11 1/2". 3. Contracts between the owner architect and builder are not my purview. 4. Zoning Final and Building final will not be scheduled until this issue is resolved. If you would like to see the City Plan set please call or email. Regards, Claude Claude Salter Zoning Enforcement Officer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2752 www.aspenpitkin.com From: John Olson [mailto:john@johnolsonbuilder.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10,2012 11:00 AM To: Claude Salter Subject: FW: 861 Ute Ave - Follow Up Hi Claude. I hope you are well and thank you for visiting the site last week. I must say that I am fairly surprised by the fact that you would like for us to possibly go before council and ask for a variance. After our meeting last week, my team reviewed the stamped and approved permit set onsite and confirmed that we have built exactly what is drawn and signed off on by the various departments, including zoning, (it is on clear on several pages of elevations and sections) and there are no supplemental notes on our prints stating that we should have any reason to assume thatthere could be any issues with the south elevation and should not be built perour approvals. 1 Claude Salter From: John Olson [john@johnolsonbuilder.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:29 AM To: Claude Salter Subject: RE: 861 Ute Ave, 0025.2011.ARBK Hi Claude, thank you for your detailed response. Given the options, I believe we will go forward with the variance request as soon as possible as I assume that the owner would rather do that than hire an attorney to enforce the fact that neither he nor anyone on my team did anything other than build what was approved, but this is with the understanding that it will not affect his move in date of late May, as the home is already rented for the summer and if he loses all that rental income due to something that was due to no fault of his or anyone on his team, he will maybe take a different route. Thank you for offering to see your prints, but I do not need to see yours as I build from the approved/stamped drawings in the field and would have no way of knowing what is in your office or anyone's office. Please let me know the quickest way that this variance may get accomplished and whom I can reach at what number to get this resolved very fast, as the furniture is arriving in 41/2 weeks? Thank you for your time on this and sorry for this misunderstanding. Talk soon, John John Olson President John Olson Builder, Inc. 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.923.4233 main 970.923.2977 fax 970.379.0643 mobile WWW.iohnolsonbuilder.com IOHN OLSON From: Claude Salter [mailto:Claude.Salter@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:46 AM To: John Olson Subject: 861 Ute Ave, 0025.2011.ARBK 1 Claude Salter From: Jennifer Phelan Sent: Wednesday, April 11,2012 4:10 PM To: Claude Salter Subject: FW: 861 Ute Ave, 0025.2011.ARBK Attachments: 861 Ute Ave hiehgt variance.docx Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com From: Jennifer Phelan ~~ Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:50 AM To: 'john@johnolsonbuilder.com' LÂ·00' Subject: RE: 861 Ute Ave, 0025.2011.ARBK Dear John: Feel free to submit a land use application to apply for a variance at your convenience. Once submitted and deemed complete the application will be scheduled before City Council (as a public hearing) based on their availability. Currently the Council is booked into May. Please be aware that Council has the ability to approve or deny the request. A pre-application conference summary has already been provided to the architect, David Johnston, but I have attached a duplicate foryour reference. The permit that was issued was based on the height measurements (in elevation)provided by the architect in the plan set, which showed compliance with the city's height regulations. Your field set should have the same pages that we used to approve Mr. Johnston's height representations. Again, our department will not be able to issue a final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy until this issue is resolved. Kind regards, Jennifer Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2759 www.aspenpitkin.com From: John Olson [mailto:john@johnolsonbuilder.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:29 AM To: Claude Salter Subject: RE: 861 Ute Ave, 0025.2011.ARBK 1 THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: April 30,2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0029.2012.ASLU - 861 Ute Ave. The planner assigned to this case is Chris Bendon. J Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ~~E~ Your Land Use Application is complete: 6 If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. thaak You, Â«Â«t _Â«~ Jennifer ~h*n, Deputy Director City of AspeA, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD COWOP Yes No /<2 Subdivision (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes No %<C . Commercial E.P.F. / CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jessica Garrow, 429.2780 & Claude Salter, 429.2752 DATE: 02.17.2012 PROJECT: 861 Ute Ave, Height Variance REPRESENTATIVE: David Johnston, david@diarchitects.com LAND USE REQUEST: Height Variance DESCRIPTION: The property at 861 Ute Ave received a building permit in 2011 for a new single family home. As part of her review of a change order, the Zoning Officer found that the height of a portion of the structure was over the 25 foot allowed height limit. The applicant is interested in receiving a variance for height, as the area in question has already been built. A height variance is under the purview of City Council and shall be reviewed during a noticed public hearing. The application shall address the criteria listed in Land Use Code Section 26.314 Variances. The other option is for the applicant to bring the building into compliance with the allowable height. The city is not able to issue the change order, do a final inspection, or issue a CO until the issue is resolved. Application: http:Uwww.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20land%20 use%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http:#www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title- 26-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.575.020.F Building Height 26.710.040 R-6 zone district Review by: Staff, City Council Public Notice: Required at City Council. Planning Fees: $1,890 deposit for 6 hours (additional staff time billed hourly at $315/hr.) Referral Fees: None Total Deposit: $1,890 To apply, submit the following information: Total deposit for review of the application. Proof of ownership. Completed Land Use Application Form. A signed fee agreement. A Pre-Application Conference Summary. 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 3 of 23 April 24, 2012 Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sara: Pursuant to our meetings and discussions over the past week, John Olson Builder has prepared this Land Use Application regarding the present height condition and surrounding issues at 861 Ute Avenue. The purpose of this application is to seek of Aspen City Council the granting of a variance of the City of Aspen' s Residential Design Standards as those standards specifically relate to allowable building heights in the R-6 Zone District. As we have discussed, the height of the South (rear) Elevation of the newly constructed home at 861 Ute Avenue is higher than the 25-foot limit prescribed by the code, when measured from the finished grade at the sunken rear (South) terrace. Despite the fact that the house was built in accordance with the plans designed by David Johnston Architects and issued in conjunction with a Building Permit by the City of Aspen Building Department, the present condition is such that the dimension of the height of the South Elevation, when measured from finished grade, exceeds the 25-foot limit by 14 inches along one plane (the kitchen wall), and by 39 inches along another plane (the living room wall). This application requests a variance for the heights of this South Elevation, thus allowing the vertical dimension of the wall plane - from finished grade to the top of the roof curb - to measure 28 feet, 3 inches. We believe it critical to note that neither the structure nor the roof of the building is or will be situated any higher than was approved. This variance will simply allow for the patio at the rear of the house to sit lower than is allowed under the code, despite the fact that the permitted drawings reflect such condition. Also noteworthy is that the house sits four feet below the overall height limit as measured from natural grades. Likewise, the entire building sits many feet lower than the roof of the adjacent "Black Swan" parcel. The rear of the home (where the elevation in question is situated) is sunken approximately 8 feet below natural grades, and is not visible from any public right-of-way. Thank you for your time in reviewing this application and in affording the applicant prompt access to the Aspen City Council for the review of this Application. Please contact me with any questions. Regards, A.A. David Dorr Vice President John Olson Builder, Inc. ddorr@johnolsonbuilder.com (970) 379-7110 mobile 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 923-4233 phone (970) 923-2977fax 861 Ute Avenue - Land Use Application for Height Variance - 2012.04.24; Page 2 of 23 - ' 4 1 r LEGEND AND NOTES 01422 0 07 A O SURVEY M0NUMENT AS DESCRIBED O UTILITY BOX, FOUND UTILITIES IN R.O.W. SURVEY CONTROL A e.---0 FENCE RECEIVED Ti TLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY: â€ž 1. APR 3 0 2012 r STEWART TITLE OF COLORADO, INC. NUMBER: - CITY OF ASPEN 1 DATED: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1--10 C * MANHOLE 0 10 20 , POSTED ADDRESS -861- ONE FOOT CONTOURS ' . CALLS IN C ) FROM PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 21 j -BLACK SWAN HALL'- CALLS IN [ ] PROM ASPEN ALPS TREE WITH CALIPER, D-DECIDUOUS, F-CONIFER, DLÂ·DR I PL I NE % * - ' SURVEY SHOWN PRIOR TO DEMOUTION I 1 U THIS P.ROPERTY IS SITUATED IN ZONE -X- {AREAS i f DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN) AS ' , SHOWN ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.E.M.A. FOR PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO COMMUNITY- I - 1987 , , PANEL NUMBER 08097C0204 C, MFFECTIVE OATE: JUNE 4, 1 /9 2 \ f Â· . AREAS AS SHOWN IN THE -SURFACE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN FOR.' - THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE FOLLOWING GEOLOGIC HAZARD * 1 -- THE CITY OF ASPEN- D,ATED: NOVEMBER 2001, E 100 YEAR WATER FLOW FIGURE ES-6. YELLOW & MUDFLOW, FIGURE ES- f VICINITY MAP / Q., 36508 /20 i % 1 , , 1--400 1 YLEAW /6 4 j 7/43 A 9 + .1 95\E // 0 .0 - Â§ ' % \11 \ fi-Th-J k.,-4. hAbl pâ‚¬: Â· il \ 0 + . 4 - V.44= . ' 1; 0 4876- L ; - . 1 1 :2 D r , i jÂ·AL e.Â· ~ "- pn f 1 V. rÂ·:457... 5-1...1 U. .a - 2 % t' r 1 Â£ e \ GRAVEL * F . A I -- PRIVE 4 , . : BLACK SWAN HALL 69@,0-\ Uk \ M ex k PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 21 9,9. r// , f/â‚¬75~ :1 4 7/ , Â· i 40 93. 04 9~,29647,% -65>/ LA -6 6 \ f 0 f I Â· S 7 2 12{11:.-t>YÂ·~,Tw ! 4 r .1 1 + Â·.'1~ Ulk <04, L 9. t A 2 2 r. AÂ· 1 \2 1, '269145 Trfizf) 4 1 Â© 1 â€¢J 4 03 0 \ /1 99/1 X ./t \// 01\ / 4 CP, 47 17 24 24-D 12 s! 141,11,-29 4-teR,~9 . --.- 2-66 \ . 25iDL~ ' 0 11 \ 7955 /Y â€¢24 N fi *63;...CD 77<71-a . 7'DL 9/4 GRAVEL PARKING ELLOW \ - 36568 1 \ \7956 - NO,5 RE-BAR 4 -1 91, \ 1 1 \.4.- A \ 1 .h 6 - #Â·.1 41, 4, 1 ) e e .// 24Â·D / F- 3 e 4 0-7 ~ ~ .un,. 24 - DL ., 1 x \ h 0, /\P e \ 00 1~\4 k 33 - 5/2 le / x / e 6 I N /441Â« \-1 6 E OK $ \ A. 0 4 YELLOW 6 S. /49 / ' /A 4 \ 4. R 36568 j D TBM 7962,68 9Â·2' 9-0 D I 01 90 ' 1 44 / 46 / HOUPE 4 5' DL n ,/ 4* DEMOLISHED 1 4 -34 0 49 ////// FOOTPRINT / \\ .2 i AREA 1036 SF \,9 \ 4 \ g . /.1.-1 i /,0 0 00 0 .A \ . \63Â· --Â·7962 - 1 -- 4 9 1 + ~4. '4 I 4 42 + O \196/ ---- / h / 1 0 e V 05 0 /<~ 1 7 -- --796 2 0 Â» 0 / 6 AG \ 4 /14 10 CERTIFICATION 4 / 9 YELLOW FIELD SURVEYED DURING -JUNE. 2007 AND IS ACCURATE THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS 36568 BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE AS SHOWN ANd THAT THERE ARE NO D I SCREPANC I ES OF RECORD BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS ENCROACHMENTS, ORANAGE EXCEPT 49 HEPE'01[ SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH NO ABOVEdROUND 9018 A'PPI,KIEHANCEL , -41D DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT SUPPLIED TO THE . C /,964 Reviewed by Engineering ~ EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF #AY IN FIELD EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME LOT 2 A ' 5,-'IRÂ¥E'Â¥,149'AW.***2â‚¬RFED, THIS SURVEY IS VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED W ! TH 7'HEÂ·.3EKQ/**RE SURVEYOR BELOW. SURVEY PRECISION > 1:10,000. /1 67:Ebi*- / . ~*c,1/ik e AUG 11 2008 1 D&244~~I~/ 081 3 (31~ BLANK ALUM. CAP J #*j.' HOWORTH2 1- ES. 25947 le:Wi~:min/'tint t.lf,4.1.-Mof" â‚¬ dtÂ·> - ~ - Â·. ' â‚¬0â‚¬t.-- ~ , - G. <Â»0090*e, %. ..1 Â£ ~944,AL LAA?...~ = 91 IMPROVEMENT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY oF \e LOT ll, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN. RECEIVED i. - + \~6 COUNTY OF P ITKIN JUN 27 2108 i STATE OF COLORADO \<P City of Asoen CONTAINING: 5,282 SQ FT Â·/- 10.121 ACRES ./-) Engineering Dept CITY OF ASPEN ,' / PREPARED BY l ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS INC. ~- 1954 BLM BRASS CAP ' AT F SITE TBM 7971.61 *0-159 ELEVATION 7906.67' (~) ELEVATION.; BASED ON CITY 00 ASPEN GPS MONUMENT 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN COLORADO 81611 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMING ANY LEGAL ~ ~~~~ ~ ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS PHONE/FAX {9701 925-3816 i - Â·AFTER YOU FIRST Di$(OVER SUCH DEFECT. TN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION 8*SED UPON ANY DEFECT 2 N THIS PLAT RE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN 1%2Fict?,INE'.SpulgpiIHNO~E~~rf:5~~FED ~ATHE ~Al- 0~THE DATE JOB SURVEYOR . ~ 37 1 4/08 Â»' *8â‚¬9: f 444** DAVIDJOHNSTON ARCHITECTSpc 418 East Cooper Ave Suite 206 Aspen, CO 81611 TEL 970-925-3444 FAX 970-920-2186 RIP RAP BASIN PER ..7954 ORIGINAL WRC ENGINEERING -- -- - -- b - - -925 GRADING PLAN \ 2958 -- - 2?57 ---7~-- \-1 \ --- \13 - 4 . / N - TRENCH DRAIN PER ; \ / 60" MANHOLE PER ORIGINAL WRC ENGINEERING--\ ~- - - -~ _1 E ,_ Cib Â© (33 -/ (063 + ' _ gÂ¢) GRADING PLAN ~ \~ -- -2961 7 -ORIGINAL WRC ENGINEERING / -- - -962 -- \ t GRADING PLAN -- -- -- - I -- . 1 1 - ---r--/zz-,------ I il -- l a h --- / 1 1 ---/ /11 ---7 / \ , 4 / STORM SEWER; PER ORIGMAL WRC j / pull- \ ENGINEERING GRADING PLAN h -16/ 103\. / 1 1 \ / - 3434 / / 1 -- _ _ . Architects, PCond developed for use und in -------7OTER[rm[ / , , /i . / Alidecs, designs. orrongementsandplans / - -t -4 4.1/ / 1 / / C 0 1 LOCATION FOR GRILL ~ / 1 --- / mdicatedor represented by this drawing ore owned by and ore the pfoperty of David Johnston h 21 - \ 1 / -1/ \ - ' 91 -1- -) 1 /1 1 -- \ 1 \ / " - - conjunction with the specified project. None - - of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans sho#beusedbyordisclosedforonypurpose rL 7,962'-0" ~ - -'n.o. CAP, TYP. ~ LINE OF FOUNDATION :....1 I , - whatsoever without the written authorization 20 - / of David Johnston Architects, PC. 1 1 - 11 1 . i 11\1 /_ - -- \ L -- -61 -- 1 1 01 --- |\1 TREN H DRAIN PER - -1 7,952* ~/ ./c '\ \ SEE WRC ENGINEERING ~ ~ ORIGINAL WRC NGINEERING li ~f ~T.O. (AP,Â». JI-f EDGE OF CAP ~ ~ 10' ,ER,~ \ DWGS. FOR DRYWELL nl 1 ADING PLAN SEE M.L PLAN 3.2 /' ~ ' ~ CONTROL \ DETAILS w 1 '' f ~ 7,955'-0" \ JOINT A | 7,953'-6" V 7/ T.0. CO . 1 / PROPO ED DRIVEWAY - ~ N I I TO EXIST 7,95 |-O"- -Â·3 .~ 7 'D. jai' R A=:2 --, 1\ 1 !/ ~ ~ 3% SLOP - 1 1 ROADWAY -- I ..t=r- 1- T.O. C~AP, TYP. . h . / 1 1 1 / 1/ i i~ZPATIO --up=___-- _ i,~(3 gync~ 1 -9 4 --4-- - l ~ _ ~fl IÂ°OF ~ DECK / 1 60+ . ott C 1 1 \ .11 3,1 .i O 1 - 13-- 4 - A 1, 1 %2\ '4< \\ \ 2 1 - r _.lk k Â¢<L-k'C>Â»m-~Â«408,1, -1 -4---;14~LX~ . 4'l 1 1 ' 10 UTE AVE. /~ 7,955 ATI r' ~1 - STONE i 7962'-0" COLUMN - '--7-;2:Â¤~L954'-5" 1 1 16â‚¬~A~TNE~~hf-- .- + T.O. Fr--iÂ»===b 4 11 EDGE OF PAVEMENT - BOULDER / 1 - --4~.I 17,954-119 / 1\ 11 WALL -I~ 5.4 11*1 1 1 11\\ \ 7,958'-6" 7955 1 YTO.STAM 7--- . 1 1 \ Ill 35 LF 24"x 38"HERCP - //if- 1 - PER ORIGINAL WRC ENGINEERING - 7~&7,955f5" ~ '4 i LU 1 - 1 yl..)11 2 J"F To PORCH LU \1 Z \ 0.-8 Z ./- INY ~--AREA DRAIN 91:,D. /1 IJ 1 *\ c< 1 - 4 1 a= 1 SEE M.L PLAN 3.2 ICL 1 \ L FOR RET. WALL ~ - 1 0 ~ | 7 -EXISTING GRADE~ DIMS. 10-9---9, A tx 1 ar 00 ~ \ LINE OF 10- - 1 if(- 13 1 1 4 01\ ~\ , 2- A =0 +Aa =24 7- 1 j . \ 1 2 0334 -1 i 3 23 , 11 111\ 3 1 - - il \ 1 \P 14 \ 2.0,<03---2 \ 1 1 1 \-4 t--4./30 1 I i I i I _____, 1 16Â® - - \ 1\ : SLOPE GRADEt ~ I 24_ - 1 1 - @l ' r 1 AWAY FROM | 1 ---4 + \ 1\ ' 1,-71 ~ HOUSE " \ 1 W- 4 STONE 1 LIGHTWELL \ - \ .. \ I t. COLUMN \9 / 22Â§4~ \ Â«--uA 1 17,962-0 LINE OF FOUNDATION \.c- i ,/< 49 46 St/-7).<.<-9 934* 1 -VY.O. CAP, 1-YP. t H) A= C 1 0 0 e O 0 01 1 1 1 1 . / / , 2 0 1 1 / / - EDGE OF CAP -#Z 1042Â«-7 /EL#~732721"-f /Ltu/(f //7 ,gr /< 4 f L PLANTER BED J / @ STONE VENEER; 44==~ 4 7959 739% 7957 795Â§--=Â¥fco 0~ / DRAWING ISSUE SEE M.L. PLAN 3.2 , u :10 \ .f>--gifi f- hEPRIC*(---~- 7440--900---frÂ»)-4- 7~?9-),5~~~Â»J-v 1~ff--fÂ«=~~ffÂ«f ~9533{3)#A<IRQRO< - ---~%Â£. ~ . DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 01/12/2011 / \ 24 : f -3.-41 . C 0 . 0 r I. g k ''. ENGINEERING SET 03/09/2011 .- BOULDER LANDSCAPE \ 1 / 60" MANHOLE PER -/ I. 1 /1 CONSTRUCTION SET 03/09/2011 -- , - 1 WALL - - /' ' - / - \ ~ \ | ORIGINAL WRC ENGINEERING -- -- .U- - - ~~~~~'<ZL ~951> \ CONSTRUCTION SET 03/31/2011 -I -- - -- Â« -- - 4 --1,- -1- J GRADING PLAN , - 2 3 0 | , \ 1 CONSTRUCTION 04/01/2011 -- g C. \ ---- .4 \ 1 \ CHANGE ORDER --- -VO - 4 0 -1 4/7/2011 --/ -g \ -- <11 N f .6 r Â· ~ C 1 ) %7Â·q <4- < 2 Uj) Â© ,<0 6 i7 10 i @. \ \ , 4 =2143 4 - \ Â«... .. Jg 1,*4794 4*.1~ Â·f 79 '.t .1 : '-.0 < , 462 \7 'd 7241%%3,2jt2~91.. ;vvil $ \ 1 E '- - - HAND PLACED ROCK LINED CHANNEL \ ..1 4.-0 ' 1. tÂ· > i <'- 9 4.9 <3 .40 \ 5. GRADI NG PLAN PER ORIGINAL WRC ENGINEERING 1 REFERENCE WRC SHEET #2 GRADING GRADING PLAN <1.-9 /1-4 .1 CA â‚¬ \ \ \ PLAN FOR ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS AND /-1 Kg < <44 \ \ ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD GRADING RELATIVE TOSPECIFICSITE PROJECT No: 1014 \ Â·Â· - ENGINEERING COMPONENTS DRAWN BY: MTE \ ... 1 ORIGINAL WATER/DRAINAGE 3 1 4 / 1 1 1 2 1 N fl- 1 1 1 .1 -- L T. \ VÂ»1Â·'' T.O. WALI<VI~AY L 1 0 E 1 1 I| GRADING PLAN ' ~-FRONT E-' 6 1 1 1 i j PORCH \ g , LU ~ 1 ~ -L ir \\ NEW GRADE ~ 1 1 . 4__J <j<-3 ( 4-21 424'C_J< 1 1 / l 4 / REV; VARIANCE APP 0 . 1 \ CHANNEL 4 GRADING PLAN ;' SHEET No. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ~ 2.1 . SITE 7955'-6" = BUILDING 100'-0" , DAV 3 lA L 03 'uadsÂ¥ I ~DAV @lA [98 X:\Projects\Aspen\'10 Projects\1013 - 861 Ute\DWG\861UteAve_,pin I 9:59 AM I Thursday, April 07,2011 .43.-"., . -144..'.41#!til: ..,4, ./ 1. lilli' 11 lilli + Â© 0 370 I~ 19'-0" DAVIDJOHNSTON ARCHITECTSpc 1 1 418 East Cooper Ave 4 1. TEL 970-925-3444 . 126'-6" Suite 206 U b li'l l i l i 11.-1 1 1 1 P 11 T.0. PLATE Aspen, CO 81611 l , 124'-5 1/2" | | Â· ~ Â· ~,l FAX 970-920-2186 ' T.0. PLATE ~ U U U , U U 1.1 - u 1 1 ~ ILL L O.1 -r =-1 111-' -7-1-- 1 1 1. - 11 ~ 1 1-1-- - --:H 1 1 - ' ' - 1. ZA ,%.1Â£- V. SIDING.TYP. 1 / 1 mi -2%> E i ="=â‚¬>== <E>-4 ' =135= 1 1 11 1 , 1- 4, 1 11 .i -ft ir1Ii: 4 lai 11 lili 115'-0",k ~Â·~ ~~ ' 2 1115'-0" ' .-- . ---4---~-1--1---4LF-1-47-rk--------------tti UPPER LEVEL->F TupPER LEVEL rl <4 4 +Illi' 11 r , Allideas designs, orrongements ond plans indicated or represented by thisdrowing ore owned by und ore the property of Dmid Johnston I 1 11 /0 1 1--11 11 1 11 conjunction with the specified proiect None - 1 .l- 1 Architects, PC end developed for use und in 1 1 of the ideos: designs, orrongements or plans Eli- 11= 4 -0 . 1 U P. -71?171 -7 4 * 1 0 shol! be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston A,chilects. PC. 1 1 FINAL GRADE - 1 - 2-.f- 3" STONE CAP, TYP, - FIXEDI -* 1 3' > / Ill 1.- I .1 i , 1 - L FINAL GRADE f L ' #-Â·/1 '1 J # I I - ----1 #to =*=21 i --'- ,-- STONE VENEER, TYP. / P 19 1 ]1 11 ~3/4 ~ 1 T.O. PATIO STONE -- ---L -'/- --il -V 4100'-0 100'-0"4 - - --~~--Â» _~_~~_~_ __I MAIN LEVELT TMAIN LEVEL SOUTH ELEVATION I. 1 11Tip-1311kERJr~Ung ----- SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ 72'-6" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 6'-6" --/ - 29'-6" 26'-6" 10'-0" 11 1 1 - 1 1 1 lill 1 LINEOF 25' 1 Ei_ HEIGHT LIMIT f 126'-6" .-/ . I i T.O. PLATE - 411 1 1 r : Q U.-4 1 U 1 1 7 3 -1 It 11 ' i |i|fri|| 111 lilli /1 b ~ R -11 El 1 ~11 lILI h 13/ 1 1.11 1 Ill ElÂ« 1 1 I I #11 4 1 1 1 \~ th~tf 1~ ~1 j.------fof---4 | 127-5" J ' Lii Ill! U 1.11 L T.0. PLATE 411 11 11Â·!1 1!l / A.1.1 Â» 0 1 'E~ il~ 11 111 i Â©11 1,11 30 111111 1 . Â£ 1 GN i -V. SIDING, TYP. 1 CO ' , ~=i~ J ~ ~ .:4 i CO < N > I -,Â·4 - I 10 / Â· U [1=4~=1 . 1 / .th . . .11 /- 111 - :-4# 9 /k y . 111 1 11 lilli I 11 1 1 CD' 1 1 31 - -1,4.e --- 1-7 -- 1 rk,115'-0' UPPER LEVELT TUPPER LEVEL 9 f .1 4 , ~ \ .1* > i 1 4 1 11 + \. 4,-r - 1 |111 Ir' ' , I , 7 It 1 I ''Q{~4 3" STONE CAP, TYP. 11 '.1 1 1 I. i ./1 I 1 11 1 :... -r # | i !11 I 4 1 _~60 , 1 ')*f<Ti, ' 4 1<ev~/~ 6.-1 C , 'AL'.t Â£ ilv , __1.-____1~-~11:3 .#1 t. 0 1 ./0. i/, 3, i, 47 .- 1 /1 1. T.0. PLY GUEST MASTER : 1 -<6 1 1017 . 4 Â£ $1 2 f,-,>grl 1 6 1 i ,. B:1 1 y '' - i i DRAWING 0 1 1 J.Â· i.U- r\Â°' f ' -4% , 1 3" STONE CAP, TYP. - 7 1 f- .' 1 :i'~''-~~1 1 ' -i~ 3, i , 0 5'-0" A. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 01/12/2011 1 '-7 f.,/9Â« [tâ€ž. i .- 1 CONSTRUCTION SET 03/09/2011 f . 1 1-_-~- F~*Â¥3~-8x 10 BEAM ENGINEERING SET 03/09/2011 BOULDERS BEYOND - 1/ i, i . / -- -71 -1 11 - â‚¬ 1J | fil.- STONE VENEER, TYP. CONSTRUCTION SET 03/31/2011 1 1{J REV; VARIANCE APP 1 -2164-4-- -~ f/f--1~~-- - -] Li{ ' ~ ~ 0.~- , IIORIZ.SIDING,TYP. ,\ \ ./ D 7 CONSTRUCTION 04/01/2011 i -11- 40- 131 1 -11 ~ - - CHANGE ORDER 9'' 1' WALL VARIANCE 12/30/2011 F -- vi r --Vir-~~-#, 7 - /4 1 TOP OF RIP RAP 1 i .1 ..Ah . 14 1 4 4 - 1 m \\ co 1 0 \ 9----A,---I- 1Â«f-_~- .-I : 5 k. ..th 3 1001-Oil P \ .- Y. 1-- \ r 1 SOUTH Et EAST -- - - - -11.--0.----.- MAIN LEVELT ~ Â· --- 94vIA11\11 F\/Fl 1 L 1 L 8 x 10 BEAM ~---8 x 8 COLUMN, TYP. 1 ELEVATIONS -- 1 A / ' -6 x 8 BEAM TYP. PROJECT No: 1014 = BOTTOM OFROCK~-|- --- -- -- ----L 1 / DRAWN BY: MTE LINED CHANNEL LINE OF LIGHT WELL 1 1 -LINE OF - rk..42... 412 LINE OF ' BELOW ~ 1 EXIST. GRADE BUG#:~p;.Im~'Tr.. ' NEW GRADE @31 1 1 1----- EAST ELEVATION Â© :211 Ill ff'.1,~ SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0' 11*1**54.- 9/21-33 IDAV @lA L 98 03 'uadsÂ¥ I ~DAV 21[1 L98