The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.501 W Hopkins Ave.0004.2013.ASLU--- 2735 12 4 66 001 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE -e\S Pealt,4- 55 j /3 0 7 2-135 54 Ft k 4 - 1 External Media Located Here ~ IV'--006936 ~ NE 2~ M-006937 RMMI 6.3 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0004 2013.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2735.124.66.002 PROJECTS ADDRESS 501 W HOPKINS AVE PLANNER SARA NADOLNY CASE DESCRIPTION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE LUIS MENENDEZ DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3.28.13 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 5/3/13 RECEIVED 0-04 ' 2ol5 -As LAA JAN 2 5 7013 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION CITY Ot ASPEN PROJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Name: Huckabee Residence Location: 501 W. Hopkins. Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat. (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2735-124-66-002 APPLICANT: Name: Christopher Huckabee Address: 4521 South Hulen, Suite 3220 Fort Worth, TX 76109 817-377-2969 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Menendez Architects (Luis Menendez) Address: 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104. Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-544-4851 Extension 114 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption O Conceptual PUD El Temporary Use GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review ~ Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream g) Subdivision Exemption (includes ~1 Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review U Lot Split C Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion 1Â® Residential Design Variance C Lot Line Adjustment U Other: El Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Vacant lot. Previously obtained a permit to construct a single-family home of a very similar design, including location of garage, but the project was not built and the permit expired. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Two-story plus basement single-family house with attached garage. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ U Pre-Application Conference Summary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement U Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards U 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. m El El El . 4. ..9 RECEIVED JAN 2 5 7 01 7 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 970.429.2758 DATE: 7/20/2012 PROJECT: 501 W. Hopkins REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez TYPE OF APPLICATION: Dimensional Variance DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a setback variance to allow below grade development of a new home at 501 W. Hopkins Avenue to extend into the rear yard setback requirement. The home will be located on Lot 1 of the Boomerang Lot Split, which is a 7,500 square foot lot, zoned R-6. The zone district requires all residential space to be 10' from the rear lot line, except that garage area only may be within 5' of the rear lot line. The applicant wishes to construct basement living space under the entire footprint of the garage, which would require approval of a 5' rear yard setback variance. This variance requires an approval from the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Below is a link to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20andÂ°/020Fees/2011%20landÂ°/620use %20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variance from dimensional requirements http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title- 26-Land-Use-Code/ Review by: 1) Community Development Staff for complete application and recommendation 2) Board of Adjustment for Dimensional Variance Public Hearing: Required Planning Fees: $1,890 Board of Adjustment Review. This includes six (6) hours of staff review time. Additional time over six (6) hours will be billed at $315 per hour Referral Fees: None. Total Deposit: $1,890 Total Number of Application Copies: 10 Copies Includes appropriate drawing for board review (HPC = 12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 2) ..1 -- To apply, submit the following information 1-1 Total Deposit for review of application. [-1 Pre-application Conference Summary. 0 Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 0 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. 0 A site plan, floor plans and elevations depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. m Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement. E-1 An 8 1/2" x 11 " vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. El A written description of the variance being requested. 2 Ten copies of the Land Use Application and all additional materials. 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. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Huckabee Residence - 501 W. Hopkins Applicant: Christopher Huckabee Location: 501 W. Hopkins Zone District: R-6 Medium-Density Residential Lot Size: Irregular Lot Area: 7,500 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 definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__N.A. Proposed: N.A. Number of residential units: Existing: _0 Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 0 Proposed: 4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N.A. DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 0 Allowable: 3,450 Proposed: 3,450 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 0 Allowable: 25 Proposed: 25' Access. bldg. height: Existing: 0 Allowable: 25' Proposed: NA. On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required: 2 Proposed: 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 0 Required: 45% max. Proposed: 38% % Open Space: Existing: N.A. Required: 0 Proposed: NA. Front Setback: Existing: O Required: 10' Proposed: 10 10'(house) 10'(house) Rear Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 9 (garage) Proposed: 9 (garage) Combined F/R: Existing: N.A. Required: N.A. Proposed: N.A. Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 5 Proposed: T Side Setback: Existing. Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: 0 Required: 22.5' Proposed: 22.9 Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: NA. Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments:- None Variations requested: Allow the front of the garage to be forward of the front-most wall of the house along fourth Street. RECtlv tu JAN 2 5 26.- JOCk| COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .1 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen CCity") and Property cs,4 Phone No 22(7. 3-VT. 2-96 1 Owner (' 1' ): . MJE51729$4Â£1 4**JC,XLABEE Email: CA<;.SCE.,hUCU~Off :%44 + Com Address of 6 CD\ k.j \Â·'Ajzpures; 41'â‚¬ Billing i45>21 60. F.~UL,eJ Property: (subject of blyfrN < Ct Address: 6.,rrâ‚¬ 220 o (send bills here) 74:2=r Wca,24. 71% 7Glt:Fl 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 1 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. $ 0 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. 1 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 1 15-0 $ -4,96@ deposit for 6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $-0 deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour City of Aspen: Property Owner: 1.Â· Ls i . C- Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name- CA.22=ibfy...2831&%19%6_- Title: City Use: Fees Due: $ Received: $ November. 2011 City of Aspen ! 130 S. Galena St. I (970)920-5090 .T. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIWEDEIVED Agreement to Pay Application Fees JAN 2 5 2013 An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and CITY OF ASPEN Phone No.: 0'(7. 31-1.21&1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Property (AV, -- Â· Owner (':1"): -- AL' C-Â¥--Aaer< Email: -.*,Â·,r~ ,. al'Â©,: ,Â© 4.Â£4*~ 1.<.. . . ., Address of Billing Â·451\ 6 , +AULE,~ Property: â‚¬=CA 92 #Â©PAUL Aut Address: tu eft lt. (subject of As"/kv, CO (send bills here) 1,29:r wig.m' , -ni 1 0, 09 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. 1\Â«s $-Â»0 flat fee for _Administrative Residential Design Standards Review 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. $-0 deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $-0 deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: dZE2-Â» Vr- --=. Chris Bendon Community Development Director Narne: -Op.r,-w.. u r Y * 0 VIâ€¢- Title: City Use: Fees Due: $ Received: $ November. 2011 Cit> of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920-5090 Huckabee ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I MANAGEMENT July 20, 2012 Mr. Luis Menendez Menendez Architects P.C. 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 501 W Hopkins Ave, Aspen, Colorado Dear Luis, This letter shall serve as authorization for you to act on my behalf in the variance application process related to my property at 501 W Hopkins Avenue. I appreciate your help with this process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Christopher M Huckabee, AIA CEO Huckabee 4521 South Hulen, Suite 220 Fort Worth, Texas 76109 ph 817.377.2969 fx 817.377.2303 www.huckabee-inc.com -4 . Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC 715 West Main Street, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT This report is based on a search made of documents affecting the record title to the property described hereinafter, searched by legal description and by the names of the grantor or grantee. Consequently, the information as to record owner is taken from the most recent recorded Vesting Deed, and the information as to existing encumbrances reflects those documents of record which specifically described the subject property by legal description or which refer to the owner of the property which are filed by name only and do not include the legal description of the property. No information is furnished relative to easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions. This report does include the results of a search under the names of the property owner(s) in the general index. Liability of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC under this Ownership and Encumbrance Report is limited to the fee received. Effective Date: July 24,2012 Property Address: 501 West Hopkins Avenue. Lot 1, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Schedule No: R020010 Parcel No: 273512466002 Taxes: Taxes for the year 2011, due in 2012, have been paid in full in the amount of: $22,214.08. Taxes for the year 2012 are not yet due or payable. Legal Description: Lot 1, BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT, a Planned Community, according to the Plat recorded June 16,2006, in Plat Book 79 at Page 70. as Reception No. 525370, Pitkin County, Colorado. Record Owner: Christopher M. Huckabee The following liens were found affecting the subject property: Deed of Trust from Christopher M. Huckabee, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of First Financial Bank, NA., to secure the sum of $1.000.000.00. dated February 9,2012, and recorded November 4, 2011, as Reception No. 584113. t: Attdrneys Title Il(sliratice Agency of Aspen. LLC <J (/4 ,\ 2 1 i '. 1 ,1.- A By: Authorized Officer br Agent 0 Telephone (970) 925-7328 A AA A Facsimile (970) 925-7348 VICINITY MAP Address 501 West Hopkins, Aspen Legal Description Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat A.1-1 Cell Â·Â· r Z F .., Pty*. 8 i 1 W GilleÂ»e St Gittesp,e A.Â·c e p-1 0 4494 0 * Norrh Sr 63 T & 2- 0 - '.1044 St C 2 C . E al ..rk.4 23 4 2 2 * Sr,14191", St ~ 4 Me#m Sr Vi F anc,$ St W Francis St 2 0 Â£ C G W HuÂ»*q, St , 2 2 2 6 61 2 22 a B},4.*er S' W Bleeâ€¢ef ST 2 ~ 4 .1, 2. k P, H' 2 ...9 St CO + 17 W Ma,n Sl @ 5-149 M' 4#J%4.2 G * 40 ....1 W Hyman Ave .4 VÂ· 9 C.*14. Cree* 40,1 Rd 61 ? "c'41'. 279 5- - 12. 9.-66 -00\ 605*20[S Â·46Â£-lA 1 . 4,- -0 1 9Â¥4Â¥-011~ 1,01.1 -6... 1 Permt 7'.--Iii ?i~e f~I i-:0'Â¢ 13,1:8te ti REpi coN. TA * jij 4 - t.i ;i . 14*St Feei FEFS,me ~*s Aadmk Rol#g H*' 4411*0 Nd?Ii Cutklb 5 1** Faub :Ferint# F ArimdUSe K i AddreE loul h MJÂ·'1'JNOK,z *51.1 uq .9 - 1 3.#-1 , 0%T' 1 Fetmknoon Mker DE'mi ... 351: *1â‚¬ 01-152013 ~ I -"4 1 *d 1--1-1 D95*a -3..1:4:40.31 NJ):4E REDBICE -ESDELTA. DESI? bâ‚¬ 1 12112 1 1 *Find --3 -------1 i Su:med BENEARD:Â·fECTS .4-4.1 | ood frAT D~F Q Ep:es 01*:20il &,3 LE 7-4 H'Juk.4. Â· Re=- OdiliTPQ i 11 30.IH HILEN 1 i : 1 31% i A /,7 7" 'DAC 1 -%00 W . W. 1/. Ateg fORill ACEN DiE'B I *Ownerisapplicent? (Cor#=reapp~~i Enme HUCKE Mane M.$"CoHER ~1611 SOOTEHULD, ~ ~3220 Rme io ~ ]RE OA? 2333 AaÂ« EFIR V.:DEH U /!, 40! lender Liname - Friname I Mone ' ! Addre~ ' 77/4792 I <100%,(9.'E' 1':Er-~ ce# 7 1 70 4 4 30 -00 7224,6,-9 F * 5-3 1 G 14 60 0 314.2 $ 20 -00- 1 50-00 415115 *g. L /1 ~ ""VÂ·'h, 91-""C,~ / .*"r.,icâ€¢C.LI L .anonD q.lu..1 11.-: 1 fly DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order" , is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Christopher Huckabee, 4521 South Hulen, Suite 3220 Fort Worth, TX 76109 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lots 1, Boomerang Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 501 W. Hopkins Ave, Parcel ID 2735-124-66-002 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Residential Design Standard Variances for garage placement and window height to construct a single-family home at 501 W. Hopkins Ave. Written Description ofthe Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 8 (series of 2013) Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) March 28,2013 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) March 29,2016 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 28111 day of J#arkh, 2013, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Il I t MA.0 Chris Bendon, Community Development Director JUS-13 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3/) 1 VO H 09416 , Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, jJAZONELYJ A KA<AE>Ag (4 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: j 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 fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 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 no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. < A#f* ULA,3 A i */,A,Ui-zuk--0> < Signabbe 1 L <-- t7tm The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this A day of 1{/1 NÂ»1 , 202; by JUG UEL>/0 A. 12.A-<AEÂ·*44 . PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan. and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title My commission expires: 1[lâ‚¬5119 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain- ing to the following described property: Boomer- ang Lot Split Subdivision, Lot 1 and more com- monly known as 501 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, 81611, by Resolution of the Planning 48-4. *-4 420/E#-9Â» and Zoning Commission numbered 8 (Series of 2013). The Applicant, Chris Huckabee, received Notary Public approval for the construction of a single family home with variances from two Residential Design Standards. For further information contact Justin Barker, at the City of Aspen Community Develop- ment Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-2797. ATTACHMENTS: s/City of Aspen Published in the Aspen Times on March 28, 2013. ~ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION [9030487] PAUL YOUNG 111 Acvt=IVCU MAD? 5 2013 CITY OF ASPEN 90&4&41 IwITY ng:wri onUFNT March 22, 2013 - LCÂ£Â»ED AME 2- Mr. Justin Baker RUEL, c, HEAAING, City ofAspen Community Development :~ 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 501 W Hopkins, Aspen CO 81611 I am not in favor of granting window height variance for a single family home to be constructed at 501 W Hopkins. And as a member of the Friends of Shadow Mountain and a user of the Midland Trail, I urge P&Zas well as City Council also to deny a variance for the rear setback requirement since it would negatively impact our neighborhood, community, and most especially the Midland Trail experience. Sincerely, -- -~aul Voung 413 W Hopkins 413 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611 RECEPTION#: 598071, 03/28/2013 at 09:21:17 AM, 1 OF 5, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Resolution No. 8 (SERIES OF 2013) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND APPROVING VARIANCES FROM THE GARAGE PLACEMENT AND WINDOW HEIGHT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 501 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273512466002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christopher Huckabee, represented by Menendez Architects, PC, requesting Variance approval from the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standards for garage placement and window height for the construction of a single-family residence and attached garage located at 501 West Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.D, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314.020, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a dimensional variance as part of a consolidated application process authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. 1; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of variances from the rear yard setback (Land Use Code Section 26.710.040.D.3) and the Residential Design Standards - Parking, garages and carports (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.C.2.b); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variance from Residential Design Standards -- Building Elements, Windows (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.D.3.a); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2013, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 8, Series of 2013, by a 5 to 1 vote, denying a rear yard setback variance and approving Residential Design Standard Variances for garage placement and window height; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies a variance from: â€¢ Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district rear yard setback Section 26.710.040.D.3 Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances from the following Residential Design Standards: â€¢ L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b., Parking, garages and carports (requiring the front favade of a garage to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house) as depicted in Exhibit A â€¢ L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D.3.a., Building Elements, Windows (prohibiting street-facing windows from spanning between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor) as depicted in Exhibit B Section 3: This resolution shal] not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: 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. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on March 19,2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING Am) ZONING COMMIS~39%: A 1 /|' Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Iâ‚¬E,kpamer, Chai~ ATTEST: ~ckie Lothfan, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Site plan (representing approved garage location) Exhibit B: East elevations (representing approved window height variance) - F.LL 1 / --2.-Ill -*--4. - 0 )1 1 1 5 1 Â»1 /:\ / 1 \1-:V..U.'~~\~--r --r-/K- / 2 54,"24. ItilÂ·.11~Â·1.-: '.'1"4~WILJ a- -_--- ,-...264 1 1 'k ,/ f 0 1 1. 7.~ 2.-t tr--111Â·-'~Â·f#J~ 9 -flÂ»-1 1 1/ 1; 1\ C fif ~ fil\. , .i1 /1 / A .T.- f, 4 ! . i i /1 1 4 - 9.- 2 - ki 8 1 â‚¬ . 7.-,- / â‚¬ : ..3 1 j--f--1-1---: Ir:-r-i i. Â·i : i i i 1 4,4.2.- 0, :. 0.---4 - if 1 3 f 1 * *-*-2:ir..9.- 14 l ~i ~ f I . 2, f RA - - - -,-2 i /\ : 1 Il / r 1 i - U 1 h V,-/ . Jis S.li<-7126 1 Of i j i Â» i 7 J.1 i. 1 1 , 1 ~ '- i l i 0 FOURTH STREET ' 4/ t i . WE HOPKtNS AVENUE EXHIBIT A i 61 3 p 39 2~1 433 % i 4 4 W rt ely 7 6 A it Ze 162 4 Â£ r :p:K.: / 1-7 .:..:4-4Â·....2. ..,Nri:8.24:-rK -Â· r=~'-~ ~UE-~1/iÂ·.- .i 1/1 ? 1:, . 1 a .1. rÂ·.Â· i t 1. Ill 2' H 1.-1 1 1 1 .liu ... Â°Â·f I - 4.1 22Â» :-2. 1 H:.Z:,E;tl:.:4-7CC:.53;:L:..:fl â€¢ Â· ''' 'R- . 1 lai -2.1 , -211 - ' 14 ri Lâ‚¬Â·7..' ..1Â·-iNÂ· ' t. I , L----1441 $ 77~~F~71.... ' 1 I -1- I I :,21-1 223_ - 1 7.' â€¢4 r.03 (/MIA 16 HibnO:d) NOLLVAE-!3 16*3 EXHIBIT B Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19,2013 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 501 W Hopkins, Residential Design and Dimensional Variances 2 Code Amendments - Check-in 9 1 Regular CitÂ¥ Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19,2013 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission for March 19,2013 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, LJ Erspamer, Ryan Walterscheid and Cliff Weiss. Jim DeFrancia and Keith Goode were not in attendance. Staff present were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City Community Development Director, Jessica Garrow, Justin Barker, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jennifer Phelan said this will be in your next packet that the May 7th regular meeting is cancelled because ofthe election and we do have May 14th meeting in Council Chambers. Minutes MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes from February 19, 2013, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes of March 5th with the corrections made, Jasmine Tygre seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest LJ Erspamer disclosed that he and his wife have a house with no alley but it doesn't have anything to do with his judgment. LJ did look at this property today. Public Hearing: 501 W Hopkins, Residential Design and Dimensional Variances LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 501 W Hopkins, residential design and dimensional variances. LJ asked for proo f o f legal notice. Debbie Quinn reviewed the affidavits that were submitted and it was properly provided. Justin Barker introduced himself as the new planner for the city. Justin stated at 501 West Hopkins the applicant is proposing the construction ofa new single family home that is going to require 3 variances. The first one is a dimensional setback variance; the second and third ones are residential design variances. Justin provided history on the property and the subject property was created with a lot split and rezoning in 2006; it was a 7500 square foot lot zoned in the R-6 District. Justin said the Ordinance that includes vehicle access for this lot is to be taken from the South 4111 Street stub located directly to the East o f the property. In 2009 there was a single family home that was approved for the lot and that project was abandoned and the excavation was filled. 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19,2013 Justin said the dimensional variance for the R-6 zone district there is a rear yard setback requirement of 10 feet for the principal building; the portion used as a garage is reduced to a 5 foot setback because there is a subgrade space below that garage that is going to be using the same foundation wall so it will be encroaching on that 10 foot setback, which they need the dimensional variance for that. There are 3 requirements 1. The granting of the variance will be consistent with land use code; 2. Granting the variance will be a minimum variance in order to make possible use ofthe property; 3. The literal interpretation ofthe land use code won't deny the applicant their rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and wouldn't cause an unnecessary hardship. Justin stated the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of the parcel. The setback may be considered an inconvenience but in the case ofnew construction it is not an unnecessary hardship for that; the applicant has expressed that the previous project had used uncertified backfill which create some additional construction costs but in staffs opinion it doesn't create a circumstance that is unique for the parcel. Justin said they can still construct a new residence and have reasonable use o f the property without their requested dimensional variance; staff is recommending denial for that request. Justin said the next variance request is for the garage and the standard requires residential uses can only have access from a public street; provide a garage that is setback from the front fagade of the house by at least 10 feet. The intent of this is to minimize the presence o f garages and carports as a li feless part o f the streetscape where alleys do not exist so the applicant has proposed is a garage that is almost 8 feet in front o f the front most wall that is facing 4th Street. So the review standard that would apply to a residential design standard and are at least one of these must be shown and the first one has to provide an appropriate design and the other one has to be clearly necessary to unusual site specific constraints. The South 4th Street stub is not an improved road but it is a public right of way and has to be considered a public street for the purposes of the standards and doesn't meet the intent to minimize garages. Justin said that since the garage has to access from 4th street it doesn't have to be as close to the access point and could be moved back. Staff said this does not meet the variance criteria and should be denied. Justin said the other residential design standard was for the windows and the requirements states that street facing windows shall not span through the area where the 2nd floor level would typically exist between 9 and 12 feet above the finished 1St floor; the proposed window is 10 foot 6 inch maximum height located on the wall that is just south of the and behind the garage facing 4th street. The 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19, 2013 window is going only 1 foot 6 inches taller than what was allowed; the impact of this will be generally minimal. Staff did find that it met the first standard and staff is recommending approval for this one. Justin reiterated that staff is recommending denial of the rear yard setback and garage variances and approval for the window height. Cliff said that the garages are facing east along the Midland Trail. Justin replied yes. Jennifer noted it was an improved right-of-way; it is considered a street. Jennifer said that City Council required that access for this vacant lot that we are talking about not from Hopkins but from the 4th Street stub. Ryan asked i f there was vehicular traffic beyond this house onto the trail; he asked if it was pedestrian beyond this house. Jennifer said yes. LJ asked ifthis was the final review. Debbie replied yes; all these decisions are made by P&Z. LJ said it could be called up by Council. Jennifer replied no, not residential design standards. Gary Wright, attorney for the applicant, introduced Luis Menendez, architect, for the applicant Christopher Huckabee. Gary passed around a smaller drawing, which was already in the packet. Gary explained the history of the lot and it was an unusual shaped lot with the square out of it and no alley; 4th Street is not maintained by the City. Luis said that they will focus on the garage variance and made the 2006 plans and building permit Exhibit E; the garage placement is almost identical from the current plan and the 2006 plan. Luis said from the Residential Design Standards the garage setback at least 10 feet further than the street and the front most wall of the house. Luis said ifthe garage doors are side loaded and both refer to the front faÂ¢ade. Luis had a copy of the residential design standards with the drawings. Luis said the design standards say on lots less than 15000 square feet at least 60% of the front fagade shall be within 5 feet of a minimum setback line; on corner sites this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length which for this property is Hopkins. Luis said the garage is more than 10 feet back from front fa~ade of the building therefore we are in compliance. Gary said the reason we need this variance is the staffs interpretation of the code does not treat the front of the building the way we do and would require the garage to be set further back from South 4th Street. Luis said for one the variance has to provide an appropriate design or pattern of development that is consistent with the development that is proposed or we can meet one or the other to be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Luis said he believed that they met both of those criteria. Luis said if they moved the 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19, 2013 garage back in doing so would create a hazardous condition. Exhibit B in the packets was from the 2006 Ordinance. Luis said the neighbor at 431 Hopkins plows 4th Street because the City does not maintain it. Luis said the residential design standards deal with scale and character and massing and shape and believe that they are in compliance more than the multifamily buildings in the neighborhood. Luis said that they were using the garage as the secondary mass for the property. Luis said the other variance has to do with the windows and appreciate that staff concurs with them on the window and does not compromise the residential design standards. Luis said the third variance was the basement space underneath the garage; the garage is allowed a5 foot setback but living space has to have a 10 foot setback; the garage is going down the same depth as the basement. From above grade nobody would ever know whether there is any space below the garage Exhibit D. Gary said the 8 14 x11 photos need to be Exhibits F and G. Cliff asked i f Luis said that this was the only single family home on the block. Luis utilized a drawing o f the block to show that there were other single family homes on the block and also multifamily, duplex and a proposed lodge. Cliff asked i f this lot was going to have a total of 3 homes on it. Luis replied no, this is Lot 1 and Lot 2 already has 2 homes and a duplex. Cliff asked what their landscape plan was for the East side of the property. Luis replied they haven't gotten that far in having a landscape architect on board yet. Cliff asked i f the City still had a pedestrian right-of-way to this Midland Trail. Jennifer replied that it was a public right-o f-way, it is 4th Street. Gary said i f the garage faced West Hopkins then they would be in compliance and wouldn't have to cross the trail but the Ordinance says we have to have the garage entrance on 4th Street. Bert said in the beginning you said if the garage vari ance isn't approved you would have to start over; what would you do differently. Luis said i f the client continues with the property the only way to comply is to maybe build part of the house wall all the way and move the garage back to the west and it would impact this neighbor to the West more. Bert asked what the hardship was from page 4 ofthe memo. Gary replied the hardship is a severely constrained site and the property doesn't go all the way to the alley, the square taken out of the properly corner and the way that the Ordinance requires access off of South 4th Street. Luis said the 3 points only apply to the dimensional variance, which is the living space below the garage; 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19.2013 it does not apply to the garage placement or the window. Luis said the garage placement criteria are different. Bert asked if that was on page 12. Justin responded it was on page 6 ofthe staff memo and you only have to meet one. Jasmine said it says there are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet. Justin said that was incorrect it should be one. Jasmine asked where the correct language was. Jennifer replied right on page 6 at the end of "a" or. Bert asked i f this were an alley or a street. Luis replied by definition it was a street but as far as the character as far as the Residential Design Standards address as a streetscape it is just void of those characters. Gary said by definition this is a street and that was why we were here for a variance. Ryan asked i f the 10 foot setback along Hopkins was the front yard setback. Luis replied by the land use code you can only have one front yard setback and by definition it is a side yard setback at 17.5 feet. Jasmine asked the square footage o f the house. Luis replied including the garage it is approximately 6500 square feet. Gary said that includes the basement as well. Jasmine asked what the above grade square footage was. Luis replied that it was about half of that. LJ asked i f the neighbor to the East was sharing the snow plowing. Gary replied yes Luis spoke to them, unless the City will plow. Public Comments: 1. Craig Navias (his letter is in the packet) said he doesn't see the issues with the garage from an impact point of view and is probably better than what we see up and down the street. Craig said there was a trail that runs behind here and staff wants to reject the garage because it is visually dominating the trail. Craig didn't see why this big mass (on the west) had to be there and it wasn't there in the house that was designed before and it was larger in square footage than this and he believed that things can be done to move this mass back. Than would be pleasing to him and if it could be pushed back. 2. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lives in the duplex that is caddy corner to this property; she looks out on this property and the trail. Cheryl said that the trail in 1985 was incredible, it was a great trail and it has been ruined with all the encroachments on the trail. Cheryl said this house is nothing compared to what has already ruined it with houses up against the trail. Cheryl said their garage should access from the 4th Street stub. 6 Regular Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19, 2013 LJ closed the public comment section ofthe public hearing. Commissioner Comments: LJ said we were looking for these 3 variances. Cliff said he uses this trail to get to these meeting in the spring, summer and fall; the trail does rise up right after 4th Street but when you came up the Midland Trail through Koch Lumber but this is the only safe access. Cliff said a lot of people use this trail and voiced concern for anybody using that trail. LJ said the garage can stay there P&Z is deciding a basement wall. Ryan said he understands exactly that City Council is directing them to come out on that street; regardless of where the garage is put on that site they are going to cross the trail. Stan asked staff i f there were any requirements from Engineering or Parks and Trails. Jennifer replied that there weren't any plans on improving the right-of-way. LJ asked if they want to bring that basement wall to match the side of the garage; is that an increase in FAR and asked if it is does exceed. Cliff said it was subgrade. Jennifer said it doesn't calculate as much as above grade but if you are going to increase the basement you will have an increase in floor area. Jennifer said the biggest issue is that our code doesn't allow front setbacks for a primary habitable space verses a garage property line and we don't have that allowance for the primary residence. Jennifer said what the applicant is asking for is to take advantage of the setback permitted for a garage when it is solely used as a garage so that they have more area to put habitable space. Bert agrees with staff's interpretation with pretty much everything in the memo but he would support a code amendment at some point to allow below grade space to match the footprint of the above grade setback. Ryan said that what they are doing with the garage meets the intent of the code, the primary street as the frontage is along Hopkins; Ryan feel they have met the intent by having the garage on the side. Ryan said he would be in support of the primary variance request and whether or not you allow them to take advantage of the space below becomes semantics and then the City is imposing an undue hardship on an owner requiring that they reconfigure the construction of their underground space. There was a structural and a soils engineer that told them the foundation has to be that low so whether or not you allow him to take advantage of 414 feet is making a 7 Regular Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19, 2013 point that he thinks is arbitrary at this point. Ryan said he doesn't have a problem giving him the below grade space when this garage goes over it. Ryan said he would be in favor ofgranting all 3 variances. Jasmine said if you pulled the garage back you wouldn't have the problem of the below grade space but that is not the proposal that is before us. Jasmine said the viewpoint of a spectator that subgrade space is not going to make any difference. Jasmine said she didn't see where P&Z should be encouraging people to build support walls that go down that far. Jasmine said that she didn't like the windows but would go along with it. Cliff asked to hear more about this code that i f the garage were attached rather than connected, what does the code say. Jennifer said the secondary mass does not need to be connected. Cliff asked i f the garage can be attached directly to the house. Jennifer replied there doesn't need to be a connection period; they can have 2 separate buildings and the requirement between buildings is 5 feet. Jennifer said what is required in the code is a secondary mass not necessarily need to be the garage it could be something else for the secondary mass; this is what the architect put before you. Jennifer said a certain amount of square footage required in a secondary mass that has a linking element but it is not dictated that the garage need to be the secondary mass. Cliff asked the length o f this connection structure that links the house to the garage. Luis replied 10 feet. Stan said he agrees that the dimensional variance doesn't make any sense unfortunately the applicant doesn't meet any of the requirements for a variance because this is a 7500 square foot lot with 6500 square foot house he thought there was plenty of fair use and it will complicate construction he said that he agrees with Jasmine that it isn't a good way to approach this. Stan said in the future he would have a hard time saying "no you can't do it" because this is new construction and the have to meet the rules as they are currently written and he agrees with Bert that we should change the rules. Stan said i f you had the ability to go to 5 feet with the garage what is the problem with the subgrade space; he said he can't go with the variance in this particular situation. Stan said the garage setback meets the intent of the design; like many others situations we have seen it puts the garage on the side. Stan said we have had other applications on corner lots that people have to choose one to be your front and the other is the side; so this is not the front so it shouldn't have to be setback from the edge of the house. Stan said he didn't think we needed to grant a variance but he will support granting a variance. Stan said the windows were not an issue for him. 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19, 2013 LJ said to Mr. Navias P&Z does not have the criteria to judge that corner of the building that you are concerned about. LJ said he agreed with Stan, Jasmine, and Bert. LJ asked i f they can bring the corner of garage back to the current wall and make up that space somewhere else. Gary said the way this works before is share the existing driveway with the trail parallel to the driveway and cross it as we have to get to the garage. Jennifer said she wanted to be clear we that are talking about a city right-of-way so they really can't do anything to the right-of-way; they can just drive along it as vehicular access. Cliff asked if all 3 variances were under one resolution. Jennifer responded section one notes which ones are denied and section two which are approved. So i f you make a different motion we can change which were denied and which were approved. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution 008-13 denying variance requests from the rear yard setback and approving a variance request from the garage placement from the residential design standards and the window height residential design standards to construct a single family residence at 501 West Hopkins; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call: Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; U Erspamer, yes. APPROVED 5-1. Discussion prior to vote: Bert said he supported the original motion with staff. Stan stated this was now modified to read is the setback for the subgrade space must be maintained at 10 feet and the wall of the garage can go to 5 feet; the setback from the front of the building is so they can build the garage where they want to build it and the window variance as proposed is approved. LJ said the subgrade space goes in a little bit and the garage goes out a little bit. Continued Other Business: - - Code Amendments - Check-in LJ opened the Continued Code Amendments - check-in. Jessica Garrow said the memo in the packet was a summary of the discussion that we had at the last P&Z Meeting. Jessica wanted to check if she missed anything and get those comments because they will be forwarding this to City Council as we move forward with some ofthese code amendments. LJ asked about the 4 step process. Jessica said that sentence is referring to an option where it would not be a 4 step process anymore; the conceptual review 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting - Minutes March 19,2013 would lock someone into their approval; essentially a 3 step review which is P&Z, then Council for conceptual and Final review would just be with P&Z with the option for Council to call-up. Jessica said in the PUD and SPA process you get an Ordinance at conceptual and final review is just about materials, exactly where the utilities are going to go, potentially where a lot line is going to go, and Council can call it up if they have a concern about it. Jessica said mass, scale, building location and program is locked in at conceptual. LJ asked what an intermediate SPA amendment is. Jessica replied we talked about it with PUD amendments there is another amendment that comes to P&Z and does not go to City Council. Jessica said that SPA does not have that same intermediate step in administrative change or a caseload change so it would create parody between the SPA process and the PUD process. Cliff asked about Stream Margin Review and one o f his concerns is that there is not a lot of guidance when it comes to non-conforming lots; there needs to be a limit as to how far they can push that being close to the river. Jessica responded the code does not allow anyone to build any closer than the top of slope or the high water line even i f they are sort of encroaching in that area, they can't build any closer than they already are. Jessica said to replace like with like; it something she has talked to Engineering about; they and we have concerns they will be working with the City Attorney's office if there is something that is existing and they are tearing it down they should come into conformance. Cliff said he agrees that they should come into conforming but he is concerned about new development killing the river. Cliff asked i f the line would be set hard. Jessica replied yes and that was why we have to work with the City Attorney's Office. Bert said on page 1 of the staff memo o f avoiding surprises at final concerns him on big projects and the community gets involved at the last minute and will it be too late at that time. Jessica said creating some clarity of what conceptual means and helping create that expectation that we are actually locking the building in. Bert said we are not only locking in the applicant but also the city and the community. Bert said there was a concern about doing PUDs on lot sizes less than 27,000 square feet. Jessica said that she lumped it into setting different thresholds and didn't specifically reference the 27,000 but she can do that. The Community Development Director can approve or deny because of community benefit having smaller sized parcels. Stan asked i f there were 2 or 3 scenarios given in this process from what we have today. Stan said you are going to build this building and what decisions are we 10 64:b;-6 -1 3/19/03 a+c..J fy appre,2- u , 1-4-,fl@ .- ' ~ * 1**th. ..........% A - ........../iWal# till.'ll 4 I. *I,?*1 t th@Â§.*#442 0: ' All':I ly///d~KIM/' / m 1 . At,f .V --I'll- U r t a4 ~"' #Ii it Â· -~ Â· 1, ft f r 'i: 6 4. 4.11 >il ' Ii'Aft f 9 .... 11 .1,1 1 ':1 3 ....i:gal/mu~.bdill. 2 12 . 2 -I . 4% v 4> 4 03*tt , 2 -Illf 15 L Â¥ 1- - I.-' I ~-t -~- ill . m - : :3 111,1 I- -3 . * f :,%:I Â« ; p.44Â» W441 4 1 / NEST HOPKINS AVENUE 4 -1 aol ,f' ..~ ~ 40. - se.... W &=" 40 f + eâ€¢â€¢<rES C. -.. 1 + # /Â» I I I . 4-1 Â» r., 4/ ./ f.f.j-\4- '71 . =~2"-0-4 7 .1---acta.* IN i l.ir k..r- 0 a j 0,44.......""E I -U.---All 2=*S f 1 , 6, 1 .*'v.-...=.-9.-Al \ t:?/ . 1141 30 6' i : 7 0~ k E ..:it'.- t= -' 2 . , h .~ 1 R i '1 PKN 1 U.-llier<)#21.J*~-~7#f .~~:1 re -Â«_ t Â·.. ,// I: :I. .* 'i ,;, Z.52.i; 9 \ 1 I * li Il P:.:~. -Â·'10.4 *. 4\ . ,/1 ..0 LIC- - f 4 1cii,r:)3 +0:.I~illkdrÂ· 7' i, * 3/1 1 - BrT N 1 9 .& ~.1.-2.~ Â·~:~~,.Â· ~)4741#<51 f / '( .1/ Z..:f . 7-,744-'741....fl f, , 4 t. 9 4%#11. 3 U 34Â«~ 1 1 - 1 71 \ f h -' E "CM'Â£ N*AVE @801@0 0 . -4 /h 6 -li a....x 11/ A-1 SE-= . 133~iynod 3 Sr/erd Exi,1+JZE 3/14163 E*Ae,~& 6, â€¢pplte,.k b. The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a catport shall be set back at least 1 ten (10) feet further from the street than tlie A-ont-most wall of the house. c. On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in *1 size, the garage or carport may beforward of the fron t facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-joaded). -p. ./ 9 2*>A f U.* 7 ' tiA . "The standard requires that all residential uses that only have access from a public street provide a garage that is set back i from the front fa~?ade of the house by at least ten ( 10) feet." On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front faqade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. @801@#2@vs r IA. P1 MEMORANDUM To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Justin Barker, Planner RE: 501 W. Hopkins Avenue- Consolidated Variance Review: Dimensional and Residential Design Standards, Public Hearing DATE: March 19, 2013 Photo of Subject Property: APPLICANT /OWNER: Christopher Huckabee 2/ REPRESENTATIVE: - t. . Luis Menendez, Menendez Architects, P.C. LOCATION: 501 W. Hopkins Avenue 0 1 ,1 * 4 U a ?9 -â‚¬ /14 ittÂ· f ~,â€¢E< A -'i. CURRENT ZONING: 5'0*r- i R-6, Medium-Density Residential -/64,Â· SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting . -~- -~1+14.,9-/lilimil//,-fillil//Ill'll'llimill'llill one setback variance and two aÂ£6;#..I./dd.i......I...F al variances from certain Residential Design 501 W. Hopkins Ave lot, Looking southwest from intersection of Hopkins Ave. and Fourth St. Standards in order to construct a new single-family residence and attached garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny variances from the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standard for garage placement and approve a variance from the Residential Design Standard for window height. LAND USE REQUESTS: Applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family residence and attached garage at 501 W. Hopkins Avenue and is requesting the following land use approvals: 1 P2 â€¢ Variance approval from the 10 feet rear setback for principal buildings in the R-6 zone district. â€¢ Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2, Requiring the front fa~ade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house â€¢ Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 D.3, Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP 73#98/YAE ./Wqf~i#4 .~ U,~, .4rb ' -~~"~ : ri;713.1~..1.=1'., 4/0* 7 4 Eyp-,5710, 7501"fe/5,29/,1/litgrr/7..r 0 47/4/31'lli I 4jll r Iiti-4 ,/ *t# 1 -0 ---- ... jft.-. ./9 1~"47'. 1* I ./E~r :/3 .//Ah .â€¢is'L . . */11 I ./pÂ· 1. . .. f --4 I ~ I 17:?, i:.*4 . ~ ) .1/Ii. 12 . Â·,Ir , 24,er-7 W r -i â€¢,-4* 3 1 4 .~~~'lla V REVIEW PROCEDURE: A variance from the Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Sections: 26.410.020 D. Variances. If the application for a dimensional variance is part of a consolidated application process, the Planning and Zoning Commission may review the application using the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 26.314, Variances. PROJECT SUMMARY: The current parcel was created under Ordinance #6, Series of 2006, rezoning the "Boomerang Vacant Parcel" from the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential with a PUD and Lodge Preservation 2 r . P3 Overlay to R-6 Medium-Density Residential. The lot was also split into two parcels: Lot 1 of 7,500 square feet and Lot 2 of 12,237 square feet. Lot 1 is the parcel of discussion. According to the ordinance, "Lot 1 is limited to one (1) single family residence and Lot two is limited to two (2) detached free market residences, plus two ADU/CH units attached to one- another." Both lots are required to provide affordable housing mitigation by developing one (1) "for sale"accessory dwelling unit or carriage house. These units are located on Lot 2 in a duplex configuration as a requirement of the ordinance. The ordinance also requires, "Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be taken from the South Fourth Street stub located directly to the east of the property." The applicant is proposing construction of a new single-family home that requires variances from one setback and two Residential Design Standards. In 2009, a single-family home was previously approved on the lot and excavation began. The project was abandoned and excavation was filled. STAFF ANALYSIS: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE: The R-6 zone district requires principal buildings to be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the rear setback line, but allows for the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage to be reduced to five (5) feet. The applicant has the proposed garage within its allowable setback of five (5) feet, but also proposes a sub-grade living space that shares the same foundation wall as the garage. The figure below shows the location ofthe proposed wall and allowable setbacks. FIGURE 2 10 ...<I -1 Ofd Lit_11 El FEW D I h A 'Aâ„¢ 3 \ VIA =4.5, . -: $8%=414 18=594. ~ W.tai BED*OOM 3 -- u Ed ~ k I L .411.< C |1 , 1 BEDROOM 4 1 0 .S 1 1 ------ 1 ~8~~6.3â€¢ 6-Ces' 7.7.1,4- _ dE-ir I 31_ p' W.L.1 4 1"E. ..â„¢1 4 1Ila I 1 1 Required 10' setback ..rl-- 11 - . ,10-â‚¬ A-- 1 . . Â·Â·TrÂ·..:....in'Â·Tull.Â·rr:Â·,-v-"i"'"-,-it..' ~ 4 i ~ F /i B .All&.Â»LAA-).~: .1 1~11,11, Litikktki*6&453* Â·1:'10' t.;iL*1.1 t~. Proposed construction below garage (5' setback) 1 3PSO 1 3 MSÂ¥OS# S WVW 7 P4 In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Board shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant ofvariance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions o f 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 ofthe 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 ofthe applicant; or 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 Staff Finding: Stajffinds that the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of the parcel. The setback standard may be considered as an inconvenience, but not an unnecessary hardship, particularly in the case of new construction. The applicant has expressed that the previous project used uncertified backfill for the excavation. Though this might create additional construction costs, it does not create a circumstance unique to the parcel that deprives the applicant any right commonly enjoyed by other parcels. Applicant can still construct a new residence, and have reasonable use of the property without the requested dimensional variance. Staff recommends denial of the request. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES: Under Land Use Code Section 26.410.010.A. of the Residential Design Standards, "The purpose...is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking...that each home...contribute to the streetscape." The proposal has been designed to meet the majority of the design standards. The two (2) design standards that are not met by the proposal are: 1. Parking, garages and carports: The front faga(le of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house 2. Windows: Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor 4 . P5 Parking, garages and carl?orts The standard requires that all residential uses that only have access from a public street provide a garage that is set back from the front facade of the house by at least ten (10) feet. The intent of the requirement is to "minimize the presence of garages and carI)orts as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." The applicant has proposed the garage almost eight (8) feet in front of the front-most wall facing Fourth Street as shown in the figures below. FIGURE 3 . 1/ , 1 r--0- - - 1 1 1 - 14 4 % I r--J I . - A.9 1 11 ~ PROPOSED ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE OVER ij ' BASEMENT .Â·Â·r 1. .1 . , f.0 1,) -. flo' , / r . L r . TO~p G ~ 5 57â‚¬XZÂ«XAGES- - /iNG Â· a 1 .. L ~2252~~ N~5Â°0~'iiÂ·LQ ~ 1.,41.- 2.- ..1 /- - 29 1- 4 L> 30.0~9~ - - ~ 0. 1 FIGURE 4 ~C>~ ImE~LÂ·~,~ =Â»-%E~ 1 r Â¥ 1 - :33:-3 - -13 03 ' f - .'CICD 6,1NGL6 ' I AL --11 UÂ»C~Ou' /*C. 8 EHEE Ar -H-1 - 1 J 1-0 11 6 Elm EB EBEEB EE & p...ap-=c= o crl - - 99.-71â€¢C>, Â·Â· L_J u.-14 . 17 E*Il ...~2; ..+.: 20 -9- e \ L P,Nrc.....Â«LEOGECT<>,4< G.4~Acis PX~ wâ„¢ -<=04 ,-) EAST ELEVATON (FOURTH ST. VIEW) 5 4,6.090.1 '00 09 2 SETBA.CK P6 There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. Though the garage faces Fourth Street, it would still be easily seen from Hopkins ifit was the furthest out element, which would not be typical for the development of the neighborhood. Though Fourth Street does not service much vehicular traffic, it functions as an access point for pedestrian tra#ic to the Midland Trail and Little Cloud Trail. The proposal places the garage right along this access point where it is visually dominating, and does not meet the intent of the guideline to minimize the presence of garages where alleys do not exist. The proposal is required to access the garage along Fourth Street, but has the opportunity to move the location further from the street. The lot has the space to meet the intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constrain. Staff believes that the requested variance does not meet the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial of the request. Windows The standard requires that street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor. The applicant has proposed windows that extend 10.5 feet above grade on the living room wall behind the garage and to the south as shown in the figure below. FIGURE 5 18%24=Bftr: ritÂ·:L~7F~TFEE'79 1/Im:"WRIM"/2,/PMME*Finrg?1&*En 0*~**tE:-51 322212'it LLUIPÂ·1Â» 82Â·i"Al --' 19.--'255+1-/REmÂ·.-/2.7.Â·.4722 ' n...1.:-4.2.-- lilli ~ 1 .11 ' 3 -1* - :42 - J 41-11--IEVH*Â·-fl iÂ© -- ~ EEBEEDER FBE]-JEB =,t= - Unic - tr=v= 4%~*21 01+ + --pi"" L =71==&/-- ~ PATE:AL EAS- ELEVA-'CON A EAST ELEVATION (FOURTÂ» ST. VIEW) 6 P7 The same variance review standards apply. Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. The intent of the guideline is to prevent windows where a second story floor plate is typically located. Since the windows are located on a one-story mass and are only 1 '6" taller than the limit, the impact will be minimal. The windows are largely hidden from view by the garage, but there are no site-specific constraints that suggest the need for taller windows. Staff finds that the requested variance meets standard "a." of the review criteria by providing an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny variances from the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standard for garage placement and approve a variance from the Residential Design Standard for window height. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL 1MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2013, denying variance requests from the rear yard setback and garage placement Residential Design Standard and approving a variance request from the window height Residential Design Standard to construct a single-family residence located at 501 W. Hopkins." Exhibits: A. Review Criteria - Variances B. Review Criteria - Residential Design Standards C. Public Comment - Craig Navias - March 12,2013 D. Application 7 P8 Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2013) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING VARIANCES FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND GARAGE PLACEMENT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE WINDOW HEIGHT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 501 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273512466002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christopher Huckabee, represented by Menendez Architects, PC, requesting Variance approval fi-om the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standards for garage placement and window height for the construction of a single-family residence and attached garage located at 501 West Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.D, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314.020, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a dimensional variance as part of a consolidated application process authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B.1; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of variances from the rear yard setback (Land Use Code Section 26.710.040.D.3) and the Residential Design Standards - Parking, garages and carports (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.C.2.b); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variance from Residential Design Standards - Building Elements, Windows (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.D.3.a); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 19,2013, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2013, by a _ to _ vote, denying a rear yard setback variance and Residential Design Standard Variance for garage placement, and approving a Residential Design Standard Variance for window height; and, P9 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies variances from: â€¢ Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district rear yard setback Section 26.710.040.D.3 â€¢ Residential Design Standard: L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b., Parking, garages and carports (requiring the front fa~:a(le of a garage to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house) Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance from the following Residential Design Standard: â€¢ L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D.3.a., Building Elements, Windows (prohibiting street-facing windows from spanning between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first floor) Section 3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: 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. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Plo APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on March 19, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List o f Exhibits Exhibit A: East elevations (representing approved window height variance) , 1 --' - U- 11 f it**..Ii-- LIN[JUL ~ 1.1 In ff 1 L-3-- ----- ------------ 1 11 ILII FIrT _6___i__ -=55_ 1 HIN -------111111'11-- - -11 ILL I - ' EF LEI JUIL---13-- # Ift 11 11'ILL W...-t-______-=j Ii' ------- ------- _ - --- ------ -- C.-AE--_-NOE-2 I X 4- 011 1 11[1-C -- f-~1-27-- 1 01 'M W -i_j~/2~3~2- 1--% - ~ 1- 1 I ,_-' r ---==27- 41 11=33===_4=-12~2 2213212313923233JI " 1 1/ T | I L-40/ *Xy Â«UGUIL-----_-_ limlil --' 19 1 +4 ME- Â« *i Fi-3142-/-z-z-~2~22~2142/~5-Zi SE'MÂ«AEF'. 11 1 11111!11'r------- --1-9. H 22 -riu Â·CIQ @-gr.- â€¢uuu,G-25-2-2 21.-to. ....._____-_ ......a + -4 m#111Â»-1------ ---P--L.--, .4 H __11 IlLEE \.49%3ft- W' H /J 5125*#imiki--_. - -6 LY.11.FE/r* I -- 042 r 1 7F - f JUL - E- AL //Elf--------------- 4 Â·- 4-ftiffi - i 1 65 ,)/Ilt 7 -5--1---- t- 1 @ ELE-LFn -3~ ~~ = 24- V'. ------1-111[ [M---- d U Fl 4 91443=41*izi=lirli=1 u IM#mt -1 I ' 1*1 _ ___~_~-L__~-] 4 121 1-- i h> 1 L * I I |I | 1 1 1 FIE-~-1-f-El-[[-2-2-9 7- r~# [El 441~~ff LJ ~271 1 4 1\Ifi---414*J- 4 M litt~ ' " 1-f--=ttt 1; Fi -7-X-X-I-_----- i _r= - ~--ilr---r AL:I b 11 | 1 91,1 11 1 1 11 5- 2 2 K m f 2 26* -:/ 94 4 0~ 0 + 010 -10 68 i T 7 2 1Â§5 88 4 4 - 2 *48 7 2% 0 2 EXHIBIT A 5 HlarIO=I) NOU-VAE-13 -LEVE Pll P12 EXHIBIT A In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Board 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 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement o f 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 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 Staff Finding: Stafffinds that the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of the parcel. The setback standard may be considered as an inconvenience, but not an unnecessary hardship, particularly in the case of new construction. The applicant has expressed that the previous project used uncertifed backfill for the excavation. Though this might create additional construction costs, it does not create a circumstance unique to the parcel that deprives the applicant any right commonly enjoyed by other parcels. Applicant can still construct a new residence, and have reasonable use of the property without the requested dimensional variance. Staff recommends denial of the request. P13 EXHIBIT B There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. Though the garage faces Fourth Street, it would still be easily seen from Hopkins ifit was the furthest out element, which would not be typical for the development of the neighborhood. Though Fourth Street does not service much vehicular traffic, it functions as an access point for pedestrian traffic to the Midland Trail and Little Cloud Trail. The proposal places the garage right along this access point where it is visually dominating, and does not meet the intent of the guideline to minimize the presence ofgarages where alleys do not exist. The proposal is required to access the garage along Fourth Street, but has the opportunity to move the locationfurther from the street. The lot has the space to meet the intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constrain. Staff believes that the requested variance does not meet the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial of the request. Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. The intent of the guideline is to prevent windows where a second story floor plate is typically located. Since the windows are-located on a one-story mass and are only 1 '6" taller than the limit, the impact will be minimal. The windows are largely hidden from view by the garage, but there are no site-specific constraints that suggest the need for taller windows. Stafffinds that the requested variance meets standard .. a. of the review criteria by providing an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. L..2- 4,-Â·rl ,-42 \ / P14 . 12 March 2013 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: 501 West Hopkins Aspen 81611 Dear Commission, My name is Craig Navias, and I am writing to you because I believe that plans submitted for the subject property, which is directly East of my home at 505 West Hopkins, violate the City's Residential Design Standards as well as the original intention of the Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision. I have included for your reference the original Boomerang Lot Split Exemption Plat, which shows how the parcel of land was split into Lot 2, containing three already built structures and Lot 1, on which the subject property is planned. I would hope that the original intention was for all homes to work together, and I do not believe that the proposed home will be harmonious with the existing homes. When I purchased my home in 2010, I understood that the home at 501 West Hopkins would have a single story element adjacent to my single story element, per the original 501 West Hopkins West Elevation (attached for your reference). I frankly thought this was to be in compliance with the inflection clause of the residential design standards. When I pointed out to the Community Development Department that the new design does not have a single story element adjacent to my single story element, I was informed that the inflection standard only applies to street facing elements, I would like to point out that the Midland Trail runs directly behind my home and the lot at 501 West Hopkins, and that the Residential Design Standards define a Street as "A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic" When l pointed out to the Community Development Department that this is exactly what the Midland Trail is and that therefore the rear of my house should be considered street frontage as well, they informed me that while the Midland Trail does indeed fall broadly under the definition of street, it is clearly a trail and is not considered asa street for the purposes of the standards. 1 must respectfully disagree with what the Community Development Department says because the Midland Trail is clearly intended for pedestrian traffic and that is indeed how it is well used. The general purpose of the Residential Design Standards makes it clear that the standards are P15 largely intended to make our neighborhoods conducive to walking, and the Midland Trail is used as much or more than West Hopkins for that very purpose. I have also attached a picture of the East side of my home at 505 West Hopkins (which includes the lot at 501 West Hopkins) as well as a picture of the rear of my home from the Midland Trail for your reference. I ask for your consideration and again submit that the proposed home at 501 West Hopkins violates the inflection clause of the Residential Design Standards and is not harmonious with its neighbors. Respectfully Submitted, 4 At, Craig Navias 505 West Hopkins cinavias@arrowtube.com 214 564 6369 ~- )265<0*T D~E~02 Â· grucco. Â·rrAC:*- -bI-fiatip~ 1, T./2-\\-7 Eil f- .Â· â„¢!04 STONE .2 ST./0/G M.'-1 MEÂ¥+ /00/m.I -in c~ ... 1,-PE#7.5 ' Enz[ 00 .... _1_1 k-1--t i ri iriln 5~ONEI./.GVER:,ve.I 943* 4 r T= I --H~ --Â»~-~_~~~~fti~- iJL- --~~ 411- F F ~~OQIZONTAL.WOOD Â»â‚¬-1 4-Trr-il 4,/ Sill/ S~rA,4 501 W. HOPKINS NOT TO SCALE WEST ELEVATION MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS FC. .~r. 9705~44031 .~1 -F ;~97054~1915 713WM<,InSI.S,~el04 P16 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT SUBDIVI SION EXEMPT}[ON PLAT . OWNERÂ·S CER-IFICITE TIT WT OF LOTS A 8 INO C LI NG NORTHERLY Of LIN? 7-6 02 TNE Cl-7 610 ..Â·TE OF UPEN (AC-i. To THE !976 RE$URB,Â¥ â„¢E BUWAU OF IND . f,1#&647:MWW@42~4~SA m. U. A .aA,AN Lirl TED MANAGEMENT 1. 2â‚¬EPT TH E SCUTHERLY 20 FEET THERECE. AND THE NOR TR 8 3 FEET oF : LJ. Â·.OTS D AND 5. 11!E 40RTS I FEET OF L.0'5 2. 0 AND H ARD 'HE NORTH 5C rECT CF _. #MA.!Nrotti,~A ?Actomi: 9'&"?S;:16,6'7 0 W;3 #'U, i. BLOCK ].. litÂ·r ./ ile# -E o= .sPEN. PITKiN Cot:NTY, COLORACC W... .c~,r neE iw,11Â£Â«Li :0 FaT â„¢Â£*Ge~. Aka, râ€¢,A *attll ,Â§ FeET oF . LIS O .... 1.-' .......r OF ton F 6 ./ H. 'I n' ......T OF LOT ' Cont/:Ilhe C.151 ACRE$ ./- I 1~0~ ..... Al './.trâ‚¬ . ~PEK 'llKIH CO~TY+ COLOUOO. . '. :. ./ ' ......2 04: ./. -IÂ· H 52 - Et'E:27-MA='=194=/- ex~le I.' _% I. " 1'.'.I. I.6/ : Â·. I 32..13. . g . 'i,Oh~ ... tIAN- I... A ....' ./fOUTI., I U ..... 1, 4'.'49./ $.COÂ· . 70-4.8 67*05:704' -.1 e' 44-4 :1 6)â‚¬+ w "c 'Â·Â·Â·~:.0 ///'4~d'7~ ' 1 ,/ %..50.40-E: --Â°Â·' 2 IN :'.00.1'..1 ..40 ./CU_All@D J.,# 'Ill.'.1: m..â€¢ <: 'TATE OF ...hcÂ·/.f. ' 2 I .1. CN .0, ..... 7 4 3, 6 d./. k-* .... p. . .4. .P~=......7/0~ g \\\--- Th!;Â©&P'lo:â€¢9;3 C-TIUMe.j'~ te/,~,~GOED ;E E le rlf, -~~ 04, OF J.1 0 : .6.. './. ...... I.C. I ...... C.......4 'r- ....... ~67 2 W Ar DES,W K m.WNO ANO OFF .1. WL ./.....no.'ll . C.,1.1. 'Â¥4]0.1 :1.-1 -1.l- i =#cla,-r n 4.es7 -\ .5,-,I.. -4 ~â€¢ Ars tf:!0742.'Ws WA. - -Te -4 4Â¥ -*' m -00. p.*Â·.~ flef-6 TIF. Â·.*Â·- RO;KINS IVENUE ...Â· '.0.~-' 0 r.4 4/, '44 ' sia op yÂ»di. , .... F.;i:Â·b.Z 1 ,â€¢ 9 MY Corn,',095 w m: i ,3ji .6 ~%,229.mi:,t .Vy,91Â·?gne,ED*O ~~Re.5 ~ â„¢ m -Ze.DA~Fg~, 1~4,, 4/I Al,;/1 4, r. 1.1>..... 1 24 #. & . /; , *./ .GULIC â€¢ -- \k>- ---->----2-\-\ &12*214Â·2'4~iÂ«Â·t2'-e ---2~tÂ·.eâ€¢AÂ·Â· -F~)~t t# ti>Df:â€ž125*ElitiME,9,95990 u -wile, ,~*suQZ-l.t:/7-/ MORTGAGEEÂ·S CFRTIFICATE H g j. T.... I 94. / iczE--FAM:'65 'Â£Â¢.... I..45 ..T OF lw= Rol i levÂ« - 1. 1 1 0 1 LOT 2 ~ 2 j'' 12< =m,~ - , 1 : m=i.â‚¬./.:Il. re.'S 2004 1 . ial 'Mes-, I ... I ......'1116 46./1.1. AS ./AO:Â£. / ..6 0/ ....O ' LITTLE IJAX~F~t&ABLI HOUSING <'Â·*,</~~~~~=~~~4~~~~~ ~~â€ž;4. ~~ 1 â€¢14 ' 2~342~o - 6.111 'OE-I COUNrr O >Ill,X , A i o 4- *L ...I / d M it* 1 in 1 -14 4 )+: At~= ~CÂ·'tÂ·Wy.4 ,~(,59*tt*< f 1 6 F,92- m(f-,2IIt~~T~ W IC-098-18/44 - M El 6% 14,2 , ../......... I ./044...../ci,~1"//4P./. x 1/.4 5 ' ilÂ»' M#WÂ· 1. thi, al.-lia., O, .1,1 C.U..... 5â€ž.pli....Â· %=, ... 'â€¢~,â€ž.d .7*Â¥ r.~ f d 9- Ir, ioii.c,1 1, â€ž4 I~ Dicard,uci â€¢t.~ Cli, Cc~,~~ 0â€¢tJh~,I t.,~~â€¢ 0 d..~.i d /; 1 +4ELL- f 9 fl 1 -:02.3 :,g- 4- 2 34 /0 0 -- / TI TLE CERTMICATE SM"-9 -*' 4'4.:tt.j':;7:.t:rt:':.,7. 72:.::;(01 2 k:'N.4.: Â©.. 11 $ i r:-Ayr 'i *aili,; :21 Qi:--)El-:~ Â£: -71'J-Â·m or",0.4Â» *id Â«"â€¢1*7 ... 0.1 'hâ€¢ ,~14 ..d -.d:if... ...6. .Â«. J 11 1 S#'ll.+*. 2â€žâ€ž11â€ž *-.. -H ol ./*&.rÂ¢ Vi~ .*9- -/ I. I Clir â€¢f Â·U Â· , ,â€¢,4â€¢ Iâ€¢. .Â£.1,- O, I.Â·. 0.1.,-.. tÂ»k ..0* -~L... ./lily 'log,ox %////F~-9~47.4Â£PI~rc~--4;-~:;~t &1-, 1%71 1 00, ter i ..~.* . a .: ..T â€žr n:LE NON AN --'-' .-T -.E - 1 Ti I i Il.â€¢ I. i. ...â€¢i~ ,-i~.iâ€¢I Fb.'_7 -Z .462#7- 'le f r I ' 154i~'aw= m=' ~T ,&9/:--~/ - 0.. Ilâ€¢ I'-I" " ./. i. fil 1 ./1, I. â€¢â€¢'.el â€¢ 1.- 1,â€¢ In. . I.rill/el / rit.1.'&6 TIT-4- 1!CÂ· , '.... 001 e ..1. AVE. , / ... OF COLOUOO , ..I, Fr,6/ A-4 4~h. .c.-. ,.H :/'00,-;~, U-,4, 4.-, % IN"':Li, Â·m.ry:: imy.=/?chm =.=Â·.0.:11:17 2% WespT.E CEAT'llit~~,:1*~.,j*G#Vi.. 4â€ž1$ 4~3Â«--Â«11 .-:.)2?.173 Cculxtâ€¢ O, iltKIN ~ " I W. Iâ€¢ I. 9.. #*i.I.â€ž11. 01:.Â¢1'. ...Il A,I: 4,~g ,i â€žy ~-,i. â‚¬PI~aY T.I #, i,c 1 LOT- 2 - 4 Â·' i -~5â€¢i,~~n,iff .4 - *r,AL %04 â€¢â€¢1â€¢~eâ€¢ 750 g N. â€¢.Ir~ 4*â€¢ ;( -1 14't6!~ .Â·.â‚¬ 1&4 b.1..it-~ -r * Câ€¢ .A /1, Ills,Â·/-111 ki i.41. i .1 1;0Â·1/, 1,e #. . Â·h, ..,i..,101 '..11:~ 0/8 f \...- f ''â€ž0 7. I. I'OS .-.*i .1 i., I,i,bll .Â·Â« ii' '. I.i.i.4 ..., 2. 19fCÂ».r..5 b. -K.32/7Â·1.4/ r-- L SURVEYOR'5 CERT FICA[E 7,0. ,::4:':Zi~;;7 :Ht:~fi;t;tj."i:l,Mt:P. / M ..:â€¢- -% 9: 2-ir' Câ€¢t ' -,- 00-- Lie. U:IL,lies. 1-0~1- =141512 -2 j.,82:'.,12'61'22='08.WUM :22,9:1:f?. th. '..Â·.,~>,â€¢ râ€¢i!4.i,e.,i .I ' ikill â€¢..*il.'iâ€ž rl,.~ Ar- .is,i,elig U 1 M ii â€¢ - tiI~ I. % 0 Jii,Ic..0,-iâ‚¬,4,11- L~.~ Uie .'* 1.0,;- a ..mA~.71. PRIDE OF ASPEN .TIO: ./ 4 0 2./. ARE ....Tar, ./.' ON 5 All reild,rilll .ill/g './ /Â·.Ili,ki: Iâ€¢i c.1./... 1/ 6./.i.â€ž.Ii.' I. d.* Ii' 41, iATICE 3, Al '/BED nÂ©M T,allo ri,E \14 i LIGEND AND WOTES :: 5&5,11 S:21Â·.'4Â·t:tai:,JT,U'MY#: 66*Â·~Â°.jigAiiâ€¢EN leâ€¢, 1 i.~ 2 ihs i -.Â· ,6. -.ild..,1. 4..1,â€¢' 1.â€¢.4.c4. 1, Iâ€ži .. Â·!â€ž Â·1...f MINING CLAIM 1Â· ; O '020 CR ~ET 2JR~Â¥ MC,i'~t,(T A, CEOCRiDED AOUA,N~,4 ... ellâ€¢i n .0,2/'1Â·,1-,IiÂ·h' .U 0.,i,~ 5.." $10* T 11.- . .OF =1+#'.a ~6.510 056 . m â‚¬o' â€¢,1.1. I., â€¢â€¢' â€¢â€¢%â€¢~â€¢) 'â€¢ ~"y /Â»>LE 36:,aiG3i?Â©>Ti-:z, i Mi........ i. L., 1 .'.1, '.... 4,- i. /wh 4.Â·/ ti...1 ,1. I. I ..41 52/373 i ew&4: ik 0*di'. i .1/}Ill' MA P 0 .'.Â·7/ 80/ 111011111'}111111Â·t'|| '*IM.& t.2' CÂ·TÂ¥' COUNC. L APPROVAL =mu iN-1$ L.:Â».;gi.,id .i, fL,T g, 01, 1Â»:E,n43 LO~ SP~Â·- ~80$6SIC,4 Uel,r,04 11= ~r/,~e I .... 'TUL â€žâ€¢1~of . '. ii..~it, il Â«,=|&/1â€¢,'~ 1, iM,~r~ â€ž â€¢â€¢, [I~. ,{ 4,Â·.1.~~, I.r. 'L: 1//'RM'nON 'INIS// I. 3*Z:Â°,S,jig 5340,;N!'&,5,~11Â§Â§:{Nal&* W *h. .... W.. .i) -". Ch, *'-â€ž: i, #Â·I.iri i.:Â·i, ci .#.31/84%,1.:k:TW.&*ah,eff m/,9/:pe,?41,/4 ....... ill ./ '1'Ki,{ ?Frf.,5fLÂ©~i'~. *. ~Â·Ij>AÂ·.J i ..i. i'll b. i. for,4.. ii.....Lor ....,i .....i, Ici:....i .1 ...i I. 1%5%*4**lat ..'45 FD,CE ..1 ..'0~ I. 48 .3Â·. I '.ra VALVE (!TY ENG'KEER'S APPROVAL. I9]9 UFICitt ;W 0 11~ CIU ON .gfEN WA~ USED foN la ,@flaâ‚¬i. OF 7,â‚¬3%'>-34:.5.05.â„¢E C h OP .rEâ€¢4,,w. â„¢IS nAT OF M ,00â€¢EX~ LOT :,Li~ ,%Â¢1, E*eliTIOM m 4,VIEâ€¢w 9 Dus P.A'. cil,/5 1, : 1 -dE FAO,1 TI;US 'UL MFi~:~ip.*:rti.Ei E. P ur-~ 'jÂ· *- .d::51 WGS . .0 a24Â·0 WY<-Lhet 22 ~Aji E ~~0; WUG Faa +DJO~klho COMMUN: r Y DEVELOPMEN- APPROVAL *E'EMNAMA&%7/17:; =22 und#A ASPEN SURVEY ENG USERS. 1 14(. \ e./. --2 VWÂ»Â·. R-S 0.Â¥. IÂ· nE /1.FctoK . pG 0,10.. on,Gioi-/ DE;%... OF .0 TH~ PLAT OF T-E ~CCHER~ ;fUT *920 '~IS~DN IXE#ON e-.li~~ NID M ICUâ„¢ CP,LEHA 51!IEET SITE'~ ~'<â‚¬490? mU?KÂ·'- f Â·4Â·,Â·.'.,+., Â· f #-4, t.Â·,â€¢Â·~9- .... ASPBkt:.1.- DA~,OF -UÂ·Â·1>,4 ---- :00â€¢ 4'. CCI CRâ€¢60 ..' ....... {9701..Â·.16 \ 442 .. .*a PARKS DEP.#R-MENT *PROVAL ./. 0... ..25-2 * - CLERK RÂ·C RECORDER' S ACCEPTACE ate~Eks:te'~~,~~76'~. ~4~.gr=%*mY=2<L":.' mle Â·-n C~ 142 eea~,IÂ«J ,;câ‚¬Â¥ 11*o,visio,Â£ ie~,Ic'i /â€¢i ~Â£~â€¢,0 ,- 1.}Mi?JERâ‚¬],23%56- 'fi.-6. -Â·va.*â€ž, ta.A . \141- ,~ ., Mi/*penyMAK=VEYmm . o,21.3.1 1~11- ..1 Ay:â€¢.â€¢ A ~ Iâ€¢ ~Cl - 11 ~4; ~Lbl M * 4 - ..IN *Il 'w /0./Im' 4 .JOD NO. 29 I.G 1, /1*nol /Â£aov P17 'F .//I v///// -6 --' 42. 0,. C. . , t. '. .,F. . ...4 4/ ..1 - ..WA 6.*. 9.-*9* j 7' 4 19<46. I IF url. - 59.44 5/24 6 E $-P-. W â‚¬ .--4 .34 lfâ‚¬bt.1.~ 'Pr .4. ' 4 ./Ill///6 ..,k.91.. . I.Z .. OX,. - ~ 414,~~4 1 5 73Â·' - .. 14:219 Jililli,*-2,; .!mA , 315@* I- - 3.t. - 2~/Fl'7~~4~ f .......&-/1,git.=718/11- . 0 1 - i==2.1 1 .ate - ..=2- ,-4---, .=6....C . 1 I - 1.: a - t I ........... ./."/P.........................P. -7. ...19. 4 4 J 8 0 3- 1 ./: ,/ 03.4ai 4% . ./ 1 - .-0 t / i -â€¢ 1 . a titi~iÂ·*i*42(,~4>Fr>4~1~079'~~ .4 4 41% :415*leg k 49'-1,3 '' ~10. - v %|MEd-/~ah-*n-,-~.2â‚¬.1, ... r t...1.Aili.)ClIINESM,PER 845*M=./1=/< . . I- 44 'YA-/29'5*> .. 1,4 4. A. ./ 4 &0 I , 41 f., T 1/+ i " 1,343(1~ 417.1 -U'.- $122 . . 282 EF , 4 :11. ;bill-- 10 r , F '17 . 5. 0 . r :1191 L I.... I 4. '-0-12.l Â®1 .,-..,-R -- ..Ah .' . fl/4#6:(12 2 . . T - k. V A> 41- . --1 ./ , 4Â© 1. 14 4.4/ - ..ti el * 2 1Â·'3*~tit . . --i~ ,.. ' 2'@ 4,1 :' Ii' 1 1 h .4 . e. 4 4 7 . 1 + Iâ„¢y ..3 44 . ty -4 / n r 22:'Â·' 5-Â·1/45- .2.-f -. ..7.1-'..76t~ ~. 1-* + .~ .gh.1.0 4.. I.FFs :i.01:d, . D.. 7 :- -4 . 3 Â· . ~;*7.12' -- ....R>h IC .. 1 , :. 1.-blb , : . 411 .t #All 4 , , ' 1 e J ' Â·Â¥'-?}F ./ V .- 11 i, 4 Lt t.~. -- 2 kn> l. '/ .4 -- 9. , t 1 ...1 4 M . 1 * : t. - Â·7,4.0' 1 - , >04Â§-, .04 C -- t - 4 1 i.,n . 4.6 %.t 1 . 9 . 1 4 1 -, I t,0 - 4'* ' p:| ~~~~a + Id''HW 2.9 1.- $1 1, t./. ... I ... ' - ..1 ~ I ' 1.... . X . . '. I. - 1 4 7 - 1 , t./Â¥ 41' 1~.i/ 4% 4 '4- Y , v Â·Â· Â· Â· P Ty..1.1 1/ 2 - 63 L .1 '. 1% . I 4.i:*; . . .'432Â· ':.2 r -Â·Ob' u 11 I -* ' 1I. - *li,L_ *- f 'i , '41 - 4* 0 5 '42 2,1 -6 .- a -4 1 1- t. 1*.8 .#,4 , p . t4... 1 . 49. 24/'. ./. )Afl.- 1 & L .A, 4.34 1.. .t k , , I-V P19 E.Â«18 FU ) VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK TO: Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2013 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 FROM: Menendez Architects P.C. 715 West Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ima@sopris.net 970-544-1915 VARIANCE APPLICATION: The following is submitted after previous meetings with Planning Department staff and in accordance with Pre-Application Conference Summaries dated July 20,2012 and January 23, 2013. A: Project Location: Address: 501 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. Legal Description: Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat B. Requests: The Applicant seeks the approvals necessary to: 1) Allow the east wall of the garage to be forward of the easterly most wall of the residence, which is needed due to the Staff Code Interpretation that there are two front favades to the residence. 2) Construct the portion of the basement directly below the footprint of the garage. 3) Install windows on the east facing side of the residence (facing South 4th Street) that have a top height of 10'-6". VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue C. Existing Conditions: The Property is a vacant 7,500 square foot L-shape corner lot, without a rear alley, in the Medium-Density Residential R-6 Zone District. It is bounded by West Hopkins Avenue along the north property line, a short dead-end stub of South 4th Street along the east property line, and a recently constructed single-family home to the west. To the south is a small area of unimproved land belonging to the City between the Property and the Townsite Line 7 - 8. [See Exhibit A] Also to the south, located outside the City limits, is the Pride of Aspen Mining Claim and Lot 2, Mary B Subdivision. A widely used "banclit trail" (aka the Shadow Mountain Trail) which traverses the private property to the west and then continues east approximately along the Alley for Block 32 to Little Cloud Park. The Midland Trail is an existing gravel trail along the South 4th Street stub which legally allows for access to Little Cloud Park. Notwithstanding that the vested rights for Ordinance #6, Series of 2006, expired in 2009, this Ordinance mandates that "Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be taken from the South 4th Street stub located directly to the east of the property." Otherwise, access from West Hopkins Avenue would be possible. The lot was excavated in 2009 for the construction of a two-story, over basement, single- family home very similar in layout to the currently proposed house. The previously permitted design located the garage, with basement living space below the entire garage footprint, in the same location as the current proposal. The 2009 project was not built and the building permit has expired. At the time of the abandonment of the previous project, the excavation was backfilled. Page 2 of 12 - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue Much of the context of the immediate neighborhood is comprised of multi-family buildings, including the Little Ajax Affordable LIousing project located on the same side of the street as the Property. The proposed redevelopment of the old Boomerang Lodge is directly across the street from the Property. Both o f these developments, as well as several other nearby multi-family buildings do not conform to the single-family Residential Design Standards requirements because they are multi-family projects and thus lack the same smaller scale and character that the proposed design achieves. D. Project Description: The proposed project consists of a single-family residence with an attached two-car garage to the east side of the house. A second floor is located above the west end of the house and there is basement living space below the entire footprint of the ground floor, including the garage. The entrance and the front faGade of the building, as required by Section 26.410.030.A.2 (Build-to Lines), are along the longest block length which is West Hopkins Avenue. E. Code Interpretation: The Applicant submits that the proposed project has only one front faQade and it faces West Hopkins Avenue. The clear and unambiguous language of the Code allows the location of the garage and access from the South 4th Street stub as is being requested. Alternatively. the Applicant requests a variance to allow the location o f the garage as is being proposed here and as was allowed by the building permit issued in 2009 as File No. 01892006. The Applicant reserves the right to challenge the code interpretation i f the variance for the garage location is not approved. Page 3 of 12 r r VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue F. Variance Requests: The proposed design does not meet the requirement of the RDS pertaining to street facing windows and it also does not comply with the rear yard setback for below grade living space underneath the garage. In the opinion of Planning Department staff, the proposed design does not comply with the RDS section regarding garage placement. There are several relevant hardships applicable which burden the Property to support the granting of variances. A variance for the garage location (assuming that Staff' s interpretation of this residence having two front facades is proper) is appropriate as is the requested variance to construct the portion of the basement directly below the footprint of the garage and to install windows on the east facing side of the residence the top of which are 10-'6" high. The need to request variances is based on the RDS having been created to provide for a "traditional lot" meaning a lot with alley access to a rear garage, and rectangular lot shape (e.g., multiples of 30' x 100'). Also, a typical corner lot has set-back considerations based on the need to provide visibility for traffic on both streets. Here, the Property does not have alley access and is treated as a corner lot notwithstanding that the only vehicle traffic on the South 4th Street stub will be the cars accessing the Property or the neighboring residence across the South 4th Street stub to the east, and pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Midland Trail. There is no greater justification for granting a variance than compliance with code requirements as explained above for the garage. In addition, the proposed design also meets the criteria required for a variance as mandated in the RDS because it: Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard; or Page 4 0 f 12 VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints: F-1. Variance No. 1 - Garage Location: The Residential Design Standards (RDS) as the same pertain to Parking, Garages and . 1 Carports: require:- The front faGade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. [Emphasis added]. Although the standard is clear and does not require interpretation, Planning Department staff is interpreting the standard to mean:3 The Hopkins lot faces two streets, and therefore there are two front-most walls that the garage is required to be set back from a minimum distance. [Emphasis added] 1. Section 26.410.020 D 2a&b (Variances, page 10) 2. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b (page 12). 3. Email dated February 6,2013, from Jennifer Phelan. Page 5 0 f 12 i 1 VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue The proposed garage design and location comply with the RDS as follows: 1. By definition, and as established by the RDS, there is only one front 1*ade, just as there is only one front yard setback even on corner lots and double loaded lots. Since the standard requires the front fafade of the garage, and no other fagdes, the standard does not apply to multiple streets but only to the street along the front fagacle of the garage/building. 2. The RDS explicitly state when a requirement applies to more than one street as evidenced by the following sections: On corner lots, both street-facing *ades must be parallel to the intersection streets.4 [Emphasis added]. 5 Street-facing windows shall not span through...- [Emphasis added]. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing fafade(s) of a building shall ... 6 [Emphasis added]. The absence of any language in the subject provisions citing multiple street frontages is strong evidence that it only applies to one street, the street along the front fagade of the garage/building which in this case is West Hopkins Avenue. 4. RDS Section 26.410.040.A.1 (Building Orientation, page 10). 5. RDS Section 26.410.040.D.3.a (Windows, page 14). 6. RDA Section 26.410.040.D.4 (Lightwells, page 15). Page 6 of 12 f VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue 3. The front fagade of a building is established by the following factors: The front yard setback. All lots only have one front yard setback and the front fa,?ade of the building is the fagade along the front yard. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) ofthe front faQade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length.7 [Emphasis added]. 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 faGade.8 Since Planning Department staff treats West Hopkins Avenue as the front faGade, it is impossible to understand any conceivable rational basis for there being additional front faGades in addition to West Hopkins Avenue. 4. Planning Department staff contends that: There are two front-most walls that the garage is required to be set back from a minimum distance.9 This contention is incorrect not only because the RDS clearly does not make any such statement. It is also further clarified as follows: 7. RDS Section 26.410.040.A.2 (Build-to Lines, page 10). 8. RDS Section 26.410.040.D. 1.b (Building Elements, page 14). 9. Email dated February 6,2013, from Jennifer Phelan. Page 7 of 12 VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size. the garage or carport may be forward of the front faga(le of the house only ifthe garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded).10 This section further identifies that it is only the front *ade of the house that the garage placement relates to and not all front most walls or street-facing fa~ades as staff contends. Furthermore, this section and the corresponding diagram clarify that the entry to the garage does not constitute the front faga(le of the garage as it is referred to as side-loaded and the front faGade is not the entrance. 5. Since the garage is attached to the home and due to the absence of a different definition for "front fagade of the garage." the garage, by the clear and unambiguous language of the RDS, shares and is charged with having the same front fagade as the rest of the building - West Hopkins Avenue. The Property is a corner lot, it has an irregular shape and it does not have an alley. The 2006 Ordinancel l for 501 West Hopkins Avenue required vehicular access to Lot 1 be taken from the South 4th Street stub located directly to the east of the Property. The property has site-specific constraints that would unfairly, and adversely, impact the development of the lot i f the placement of the garage were to be required as required by the Planning Department staff interpretation of the RDS. But for the Ordinance, access could be taken from West Hopkins Avenue. 10. RDS Section 26.410.040.C.2.c (8arking, Garages and Carports, page 12). 11. Ordinance No. 6, (Series of 2006), recorded June 16,2006 as Reception No. 525368. Page 8 of 12 VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue As required by the 2006 Ordinance, access to the garage is to be taken from the South 4th Street stub, which fronts the narrowest (50-foot wide) part ofthe Lot 1 Property. The 50-foot lot width minus the minimum required setbacks, and a minimal garage width, leave 9-feet or less, for living space alongside the garage. If the South 4th Street facing wall of the garage is located 10-feet back from the front most wall of the house facing South 4111 Street (as Planning Department Staff requires), it will result in a living space that is approximately 8.5' x 38'. Additionally, locating the garage further west into the Property severely impacts the amount of usable building and yards (see Exhibit B) in the form of wasted valuable Floor Area (approximately 342 square feet) and reduced usable outdoor space. Finally, locating the garage as required by staffs code interpretation will create an unsafe condition because the portion of the house forward of the garage will partially obstruct the view of bicyclists and pedestrians using the trail along South 4th Street. The foregoing safety concern was anticipated in the 2006 Ordinance as evidenced by the following condition: There shall not be any vegetation taller than thirty (30) inches from existing grade planted within the area fifteen (15) feet south or north of the driveway, at the property line or in the public right-of-way, in order to maintain a sufficient view corridor for trail users to see vehicles crossing the trail. 12 The proposed garage has been designed as a one-story element with two separate 9-feet wide doors and acts as a secondary mass to the rest of the house via a linking element. The north side of the garage (the front fagade), which fronts West Hopkins Avenue is recessed more than the required 10'-0" from the front-most wall of the house along West Hopkins Avenue and is mostly concealed by living space. 12. See the Ordinance at page3, section 9, Vehicular Access. Page 9 of 12 . VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue The RDS encourage garages to be accessed from alleys, when alleys exist, and in those conditions the garage need not be located back from the wall o f the house facing the alley. The portion of South 4th Street, while classified as a street on paper, in reality is much more like a shared driveway or an alley than a traditional street. Additionally, South 4th Street is not continuous from West Hopkins Avenue, but rather it is interrupted by a sidewalk. It is only partially improved (with gravel); it is only one lot deep; and it dead ends just south ofthe Property. Undeniably, the South 4th Street stub does not possess the sense of streetscape that the RDS addresses. The only other property served by the South 4th Street stub is the house across the street which also has the garage forward of its frontmost wall along West Hopkins Avenue and which is the most visible element of the house from the street. (See Exhibit C). Given the condition and character of South 4th Street, combined with safety concerns and the severe impact that complying with Planning Department staffs code interpretation would have on the practical development and use of the lot, the proposed solution offers a reasonable and appropriate alternative that is in character with the intent of the RDS and appropriate to South 4th Street. F-2 Variance No. 2 - Rear Yard Setback: The R-6 Zone District requires a minimum rear yard setback of 10-feet for principal buildings, 5-feet for the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage, and 5-feet for accessory buildings. While the garage complies with the 5-foot rear yard setback requirement, a small portion of the basement living space below the garage encroaches approximately 4'-9 92" into the 10-foot setback requirement. A variance is requested granting approval for the portion of the basement that is immediately below the footprint o f the garage to encroach into the 10-foot rear yard setback up to a maximum of 5-feet. Page 10 of 12 VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue Due to the existing fill-soil condition resulting from the excavation and subsequent backfill of the previously-approved project, the foundation of the south wall of the garage, regardless of whether there is basement underneath it or not, will need to extend to the same depth as the basement level foundation in order to bear on suitable soils. The basement area below the footprint of the garage is fully below grade and imperceptible from anywhere above ground. If the variance request is declined, the basement space will be reconfigured to observe the 10-foot setback with its south wall located five-feet north of the south foundation wall of the garage thus leaving a void o f unusable space between the two walls that extends to the bottom of the basement level. (See Exhibit D). This will be a more expensive solution than a single foundation wall that is in line with the south wall of the garage and it stillleaves below grade space, although unusable, within the 10-foot setback. Given that the basement space below the garage does not extend beyond the garage footprint and that any area below the garage is imperceptible above grade, the variance request is appropriate. F-3 Variance No. 3 - Street-Facing Windows Top Height: The Living Room of the proposed home has been sited to take advantage of the views of Shadow Mountain to the south and Aspen Mountain to the southeast. To capture as much view and maintain continuity with the overall design theme, the head height of the windows is set at approximately 10'-6" above finish floor level where only 9-feet is allowed. The windows on the south wall of the Living Room are exempt from the RDS standard because they are not street facing windows. However, treating the South 4th Street stub as a "street" even though it is in reality little more than a driveway serving two homes and a pedestrian trail over 73-feet away creates the need for this variance request. Furthermore, the window is mostly concealed from view by the garage. Page 11 of 12 VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK 501 West Hopkins Avenue Given the distance and location of the window to the street, the 1 ' -6" that it projects above the 9-foot RDS height limit does not compromise the pedestrian scale of structures that the RDS strive to achieve. G. Summary: The context of the immediate neighborhood, the pattern of development of nearby, multi- family buildings and the very limited visibility of the windows in question, the proposed design preserves the scale and neighborhood character the RDS strive to preserve. There are numerous considerations including the Property' s characteristics which differentiate it from a typical City of Aspen Lot and which justify granting the Applicants requests. Even with the two proposed non-conformities and the proposed garage placement the project accomplishes the objectives ofthe Residential Design Standards, particularly in context with the immediate neighborhood. Thus, the approval of the requests for 1) the same as the prior-approved garage placement, 2) the rear yard setback variance of five feet, and 3) the window height variance of one and one-half feet; should be approved for this project at the location. Page 12 of 12 CKE Plir-~ - 0- SEWER EAS~MENT /--RECEPT I ON NO 481 651 A 4 F05.00.-- 21 j.6-74,~ GO 1 RED. 24363 2# -..4- I --- 0 1 40=1 al :Ch 0.7 1 1 23Â¥ . r 2926 2 6414241424~0;,-I *r <6'1 0.:<P b 7.58.0 52 -/- 2 ACRES +/- 0---J 41 1 0 / --- -- f C l ~ ~ 3- (4 -75$09-19*3 APPROXIMATE (30 DR 1 VEWAY LOCAT ION Â· 00' j YELLOW FOR LOT I 1 7.. 13\ts ~ ~ 7440* A / TS.-iz i bi.P , Vol Q m 0.) r YELLOW -# 2376 > ASE 4 303 r 4229 - It LEGEND AND NOTES O FOUND OR SET SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED @ MANHOLE 9 HYDRANT Filli lilli 1111 '~; 111 11'"1 lilli iii [114 1,fl IIii 326970 O UTILITY BOX . A~i ..Mi -1, E.-3 :9.2 +U?[:E -i.ki :ji Em.Â£l -Zi :k.. â€¢6 4. 6 SURVEY CONTROL N 75Â°09'11"W 105.00' 1 7 IMPRACTICAL 9 x 38 BPACE REBULTS IN MUCH WASTED FLOOR AREA AND LOT/YARD 1 1 AREA 10' SETBACK 0 0 0 1 ~ ~ la'-01 1 1 1 i LINKING 10.0 ELE]MENT 7/ - i) 7 1 0 0 0 râ‚¬:ZE]10)\ 1 1 1 GARAGE ' 1 -2= /Dj/L_//LI~_..41\ I 1 1 1 -I==ZI UnÂ«Â«421120 f ~ 1 1 ' 5' SETBACK (GARAGE) 1 1 N 75Â°09'11"W 30.00' R' I - a r I U) 10' SETBACK 2,523 Sq ft ' N 75Â°09'11"W 75.00' >oveles ELL ~ M.,617,090t4 S N 14Â°50'49"E 80.00' 5' SETBACK NOVELES,ILL To see all the details that are visible on the GO gite screen, use the "Print" link next to the map. . 4 . 46 I - .0 2 ' 4 - GE&32 - I I 9 . /02. %42 t: ... ..r al . prie .4 . - I . . 1 1 . tr .. '4 2/2 . 0 ... 1 4 . 1 L 2. I 1 - .'. ... Si . 4 ..0 m I . 4 I . . .9 ..1 4 ..@ , , - I . : I, , 4 . ....... I -- I . : .,r . . 9 44 4 49 4 . a , i. -râ€¢ 4 . re 4 : I. , E 18IT 01 W. HOPKINS SETBACK V ANCE 1 EXHIBIT DIAC=KAMI OF SPACE BELOW GAIRAGE A i REAR YARD 1 b D- fid 4 1 4 1 9 12 1 / 1 W P GAIRAGE 1 GARAGE 1 1 '.-FU-1./-7..r-1=1 rn_-r-L._r-ur-\_7-u_/n_/n_, -r-JFUNF~ ' ''11*1111*1 L 1 -'Illa'~~2 111*11(Ii - -11'6511{1 - - 1,[EL -[J E , GARAGE -%Â·21~ GARAGE ~#IS FOUNDATION i|* FOUNDATION -~* WALL E[ BASEMENT 1 WALL 91 VOID BASEMENT CCE LIVING I E LIVING aPACE L 10'-01' EPACE 1 BABEMENT ' LIVING SPACE \\\9 ' WALL 1 1 CRAWL CRAWL BPACE BPACE O 0 WITH VARIANCE APPROVAL WITHOUT VARIANCE APPROVAL 5' SETBACK (GAIRAGE) REAR PROPERTY LINE f*Â¢46 --J 251-72v1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: SDI K. tb f Ki n s 40-e_ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: -[-u# Nbrok (01 je 4 : ED f~ , 2015 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) L (name, please print) Ulâ‚¬lfl 63#-1 being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 , (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: U'' 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 o f 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 o f this Title, or whenever the text o f 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. Signaturt The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 4 day of P[oÂ«Ok_ , 2011 by An-9 44. S c-~ RE: 501 W. HOPKINS AVENUE, CONSOLIDATED REVIEW FOR SETBACK AND 4.~ ~ J~~~ RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ' " VA WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing. wilt be h.,Id on.Tuesday. March 19. 2013, at a ~ r:'....:NIE L. '~ meetiry, .0 begjn at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Plannii,g and zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities meeting room, City Hall. 130 S. Gatena I *.4 -7 CHTLER i My commission expires: to ~30~ /3, Street, Aspen, CO. to review the proposal submit- â€¢ , ted by Christopher Huckabee. represented by k'â€¢ Menendez Architects PC, 715 W. Main Street, -1.-Â· , ....2 LÂ» Ante_ L L Jexc c t<-1 I â‚¬ r-- Suite 104, Aspen, CO, for the properly commonly 2* .,-D. known as 501 W. Hopkins Avenue, and legally de- Â·~ cy m~ dP' scribed as Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision. 17.Â· t.,LA- Applicant proposes to construct a single-family 1Kill Notary Public m ..1 Enkes 10/30/2013 home on the currently vacant lot In order to gain approval for the development pro- posal, applicant seeks approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for variances from the rear setback requirement and two of the Residential Design Standards regarding garage placement (26.410.040.C.2.b) and window height (26.410.040.D.3.a). For further information. con- tact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community I Development Department, 130 S. Gatena St., As- ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: pen, CO, (970) 429.2797, Justin.Barker @cityo faspen.com. ~7 THE PUBLICATION ~RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 1 S/LJ Erspamer, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 1 Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on February ~HE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED 28.2013.[8941913] n Y MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 . 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: SCH (00Â· HOP,-1 4 5 AVEWLE , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: M AP.AN L 9 , 2013- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, LL> 15 MENEUDE.Z (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: *lk 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. 4 Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the Lqaday of t1 ~54Â·+ , 2013, to and including the date and time of thepublic hearing. Aphotograph ofthe posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. J Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. 41 k Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy Of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) MIA Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. U A Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text ofthis 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. signat~ The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 4-'k-day of //1/IC,~rrb~_ , 20 13 , by L. u 1/MeM evu-le-> , WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RICHARD J. MENDOZA NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 4 9 + 14> STATE OF COLORADO My Commission Explre, 06/08/2015 ' Â»2\,.{A- NotarRPutic ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: ~ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ~ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 'R. -3-49Â· PUBLIC Date: TuesT. h'.1 -:---=2~ Ilma: 4:y .Elacm: Sts. - . Cily,H. 1 /urpose: Â·11 3 ~.Â£61.Ct'Pag, . ache#.gar Â· ti ~ *prova s ' ~Ard i ~Gant.Â·, ~ther.InforÂ· a Planniag 09 0 :. . 1 :41â€¢hil 37 M.. er J . I Pe A --- . ' , I 2.4 =i---1-0, $1.~=,A d.... 4 0 '--1-li# Easy PeelÂ® Labels 1 A I Bend along line to 1 ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 9 Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® Keed Paper - expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ ~ 1 ALPINE BANK 01037H TRUST 501 WEST MAIN LLC ATTN ERIN WIENCEK 715 N SIERRA DR 532 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 10000 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D ASPEN FSP ABR LLC ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 11921 FREEDOM DR #950 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 ASPEN, CO 81611 RESTON, VA 20190 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN BLACK BENJAMIN F & ALICE M BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 605 W HOPKINS AVE #210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCINO, CA 91436 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTIANA ASPEN CONDOMINIUM CARTER RICHARD P CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC PO BOX 2932 795 LAKEVIEW DR 201 N MILL ST #203 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN COCHENER CAROLINE A TRUST #5 CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ ATTN FINANCE DEPT 7309 EAST 21 ST ST #120 PO BOX 3670 130 S GALENA ST WICHITA, KS 67206 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORTALE ITA DILLON RAY IV EMERICK SHELLEY W 205 S MILL ST #112 PO BOX 10543 2449 5TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOULDER, CO 80304 ERICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 412 MARINER DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 JUPITER, FL 33477 FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J GOLDMAN DIANNE L 605 W HOPKINS UNIT 206 430 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 518 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD H & H PROPERTIES LLLP HAYMAN JULES ALAN OF ASPEN 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 435 W MAIN ST WINTER PARK, FL 32789-3725 POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST 2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 PO BOX 518 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81611 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 ttiquettes faciles & peler 3 A Repliez h la hachure afin de 1 www. avery. com 1 Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i ..6........-/..Iâ€¢ rdv*ler le rebord POD-UDMC 1 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy PeelÂ® Labels | A =2=0 Bend along line to J ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 2 Use Averk,Â® Template 5160Â® ; Feed Paper -:=6"- expose Pop-up Edgeâ„¢ i A KONIG DEBORAH KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC HANSON KIM 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 605 W HOPKINS #006 605 W HOPKINS AVE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MURPHY JULIANNE RUTH & WILLIAM MOLLER DIANE T NAVIAS CRAIG & ESTHER TRUST REES 1710 MIRA VISTA AVE PO BOX 4390 9833 SHORELINE SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ASPEN, CO 81612 LONGMONT, CO 80504 NELSON TREVOR T & ROSE MARIE NIX ROBERT JR PERRY EMILY V 605 W HOPKINS #207 PO BOX 3694 700 12TH AVE S UNIT 807 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NASHVILLE, TN 372033372 RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S SAND CANYON CORP LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 501 W MAIN ST 4475 NORTH OCEAN BLVD #43A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 RUSSELL SCOTT 111 & CO LLC C/O GENARO GARMENDIA 3841 HAYVENHURST DR 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400 ENCINO, CA 91436 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G STASPEN LLP C/O JENNIFER SHERWIN 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE 1714 VISTA ST DALLAS, TX 75205 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 DURHAM, NC 27701 STUART DANIEL S & TAMARA B THE PRIDE LLC TODD SHANE PO BOX 3274 739 25 RD PO BOX 2654 ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 80505 ASPEN, CO 81612 TOMS CONDO LLC TUCKER LUCY LEA VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE C/O BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC PO BOX 1480 2577 NW 59TH ST 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 BASALT, CO 81621 WASHBURN LYNN S VOSS NATALIE SUSAN REV TRUST WENDT ROBERT E 11 TERRELL SERENE-MARIE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 ASPEN, CO 81611 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 ASPEN, CO 81611-1607 ttiquettes faciles A peler Repliez h la hachure afin de I www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i Sens de 1-800-GO-AVERY ! J rh <pnoman# ravaler le rebord POD-UDMI ! Easy PeelÂ® Labels i Bend along line to 1 ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® 1 A kâ‚¬ktia' , Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ~ Feed Paper = expose Pop-up EdgerM ~ A WERLIN LAURA B TRUST WHIPPLE JOHN TAGGART YLP WEST LLC 2279 PINE ST 121 S GALENA ST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 ASPEN, CO 81611 YARDLEY, PA 19067 YOUNG PAUL 111 FAMILY TRUST 413 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 816111603 Etiquettes faciles & peler ' A Repliez & la hachure afin de ~ www.avery.com 1 Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® i Sens de 1 rhs,Â·,9,1,non* r6v*ler le rebord POD-UDMC ! 1-800-GO-AVERY 3 IJI ''Â·,t .4/ ,/Tpl-9 C DATE: 1/18/13 City of Aspen & INVOICE # 202525 Pitkin County GIS 130 S Galena St BILL TO: Luis Menendez Aspen, CO 81611 Menendez Architects Phone: 970-920-5453 7'15 W Main St Ste 104 Fax: 970-544-5378 Aspen, CO 81611 970-544-4851 DESCRIPTION QUANnTY HRS / EXTR SHEETS AMOUNT Mailing Labels 300ft 501 W Hopkins Ave 1 $145.00 Make ala checks payable to City of Aspen and Sa/es Tax- 9.3% $13.49 reference GIS & the invoice number in the note. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, Total $158.49 contact GIS at 970-920-5453, GIS@cityofaspen.com. The Aspen/Pitkin GIS Department presents information as a service to the public. Every effort has beer, made to ensure that the information is accurate. The Aspen/Pitkin GIS Department makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy or reliability of the information contained in any map or data layer. Assessing accuracy and reliabilityof information is the sole responsibility of the user and data shall be used and relied upon only at the risk of user. The Aspen/Pitkin GIS Department does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! THE CITY OF AspEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: January 28, 2012 Dear City o f 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 0004.2013.ASLU/0004.2013.ASLU -501 W. Hopkins. Residential Design Standards variances. The planner assigned to this case is Justin Barker. O Your Land Use Application is incomplete: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all o f the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ~Et~Your Land Use Application is complete: 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. rhgpk You, 4Â»KtÂ»t_.0~ Jennifer PlE#, Deputy Director City o f Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Onlv: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New SPA New PUD Yes- No_*_ Subdivision, SPA, or PUD (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes - NO_;XL Commercial E.P.F. Huckabee ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I MANAGEMENT March 14, 2013 Gary A. Wright, Esq. Wright & LaSalle, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 2014 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 501 West Hopkins Avenue Dear Gary, This letter shall serve as authorization for you to act on my behalf regarding any legal or land use matters regarding my property located at 501 West Hopkins Avenue. I appreciate your help with this process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, P--90 Christopher M Huckabee, AIA CEO Huckabee 4521 South Hulen, Suite 220 Fort Worth, Texas 76109 ph 817.377.2969 fx 817.377.2303 www.huckabee-inc.com m MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS ?C VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS January 24,2013 Ms. Amy Guthrie Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Guthrie; Per previous meetings and in accordance with the Pre-Application Conference Summary dated July 20,2012 and updated January 23,2013, we hereby submit the following variance request: Project Location: Address - 501 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. Legal Description - Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat Existing Conditions: The subject property consists of a vacant 7,500 square foot L-shape corner lot in the Medium-Density Residential R-6 Zone District. It is bounded by West Hopkins Avenue along the north property line, a stub of South Fourth Street along the east property line, a recently constructed single family home to the west of the property and Shadow Mountain along the south side. The section of Fourth Street that is south of Hopkins is a dead-end street, with limited improvements (gravel surface), that only serves two lots. The City of Aspen has no plans to extend or improve this section of Fourth Street. Council Ordinance #6, Series of 2006 mandates that "Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be taken from the South Fourth Street stub located directly to the east of the property." Project Description: The proposed project consists of single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. A second floor is located above the west end of the house and there is basement living space below the entire footprint of the ground floor, including the garage. The entrance and main orientation of the house faces Hopkins Avenue. 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 fax: 970.544.1915 email:LMA@sopris.net Variance Request: Due to site constraints and conditions, the proposed design does not meet two requirements of the Residential Design Standards. We kindly request that the front fa~ade of the garage be allowed to be forward of the front-most wall of the house along South Fourth Street and that a 6-foot wide section of living room window, that is mostly located behind the garage, be allowed to be placed up to a maximum height of 10'-6" above finish floor on the Fourth Street facing wall. Conditions Prompting Variance Request: As mandated by a previous land-use approval, access to the garage is taken from South Fourth Street, which fronts the narrowest (50-feet wide) part of the lot. The 50-foot width minus the minimum required setbacks, and a minimal garage width, leaves 9-feet for living space alongside the garage. If the front wall of the garage were to be located 10-feet back from the front most wall of the house facing Fourth Street, it would result in a living space that is 9' x 38' which is a very impractical size for any type of functional living space. Additionally, it locates the garage further west into the property severely impacting the amount of usable building and yard areas (see attached diagram). The proposed garage has been designed as a one-story element with two separate 9-foot wide doors and acts as a secondary mass to the rest of the house via a linking element. The north side of the garage, which fronts West Hopkins is recessed 10'-9" from the front-most wall of the house along Hopkins and is mostly concealed by living space. The Residential Design Standards encourage garages to be accessed from alleys, when alleys exist, and in those conditions the garage need not be located back from the wall of the house facing the alley. The portion of South Fourth Street fronting the property, while classified as a street on paper, in reality is much more like an alley than a street. It is not continuous across Hopkins because it is interrupted by a sidewalk; it is only partially improved (with gravel); it is only one lot deep and dead ends just south of the property; and does not posses the sense of streetscape that the Residential Design Standards address. Given the condition and character of South Fourth Street, and the severe impact that locating the garage as required by the Design Standards would have on the practical development and use of the lot, the proposed solution offers a reasonable alternative that is in character with the intent of the Residential Design Standards and appropriate to South Fourth Street. The only other property served by this section of Fourth Street also has the garage forward of the front most wall of the house and is the most visible element of the house from the street. The Living Room of the proposed house has been sited to take advantage of the views of Shadow Mountain to the south and Aspen Mountain to the southeast. To capture as much view of the mountains as the Owner desires, the head height of the windows is set at approximately 10'-6" above finish floor. The windows that offer views of Aspen Mountain wrap around the southeast corner of the Living Room onto the east wall, which is a street facing wall onto South Fourth Street. However, the distance from the window to the edge of paving of Fourth Street is over 73-feet. Furthermore, the window is mostly concealed from view from the street by the garage. Given the distance and location of the window to the street we feel that the 1'-6" that the east wall window projects above the 9-foot Residential Design Standard height limit does not compromise the pedestrian scale of structures that the Design Standards strive to achieve. Reducing the height of the windows on the east wall, thus making them shorter than the windows on the south wall of the same space, would have a detrimental effect on the feel of the room. There are two developments on the same block as the proposed house that do not conform to the single-family Residential Design Standards requirements because they are multi-family projects. The Little Ajax Employee Housing project located on the same side of the street as the subject lot and the proposed redevelopment of the old Boomerang Lodge, directly across the street from the subject property. Even with the two proposed non-conformities, the project accomplishes the objective of the Residential Design Standards, particularly in context with the multi-family buildings on the same block. Please contact me with any questions and thank you for considering our request. Sincerely,i / it, , â‚¬614.Menendez, A.I.A. N 75Â°09'11"W 105.00' I-------------- ---- ---i-------- -=- ----- - IMPRACTICAL 9' x 38' SPACE RESULTE IN MUCH WASTED FLOOR AREA AND LOT/YARD AREA la' SETBACK 0 Â¤ Â¤ 10'-0" -ill///i//////f///f Â»\ 10'-O LINKING (-421)L__WL_.__*1 -0 ELEMENT GARAGE C (f~=A=3\CZE])/ - â‚¬1=*e=ir==91' 5' BETBACK (GARAGE) 1 --- ---- -- --- -- - - N 75Â°09'11"W 30.00' M I 1 P NI 1 -1 co 1 10 SETBACK ~ 2,523 Sq ft N 75Â°09'11"W 75.00' 313Â¥9.LES.GLL 3 3 r - 1- - Â·#~.. ,-_ .....: I-# 1 . 1- N 507 0 25 50 A E 501 --~ ' ' I 1 S Feet 11 rrepresental:on - The accuracy may chang . This map/drawing/image is a graphical i cpresentati of the features depicted and is not a legal Lk<J'l Â§9~ iut ~ r . 1 depending on the enlargement or reduction. '-_21 i Copyright 2013 Aspen/Pitkin GIS 1 /22/2013 11 58.55 A M C <G ISitempWan 131501 WHopkins,Ave mid M' -rÂ· . 1/ VACANT BUILDING, PENDING REDEVELOPMENT 6 22 500 0 ~ hÂ©~ 430) 0 â‚¬ ~ 4>4 1 - 41* W HOPKINS AVE 10' T Â£21 10.5' 11' 11' '*/ V--2605711 ENTRY ~-, ENTRY 7 7 - 5 ENTRY ~ =1 ENTRY 1 LU 11 1 523 521 509 505 4 , 501 501 .1 'dk v.. GARAGE GARAGE G SITE 431 f-3 PARKING C. 4 0: 25' 1 ! GARAGE 1 . ~~LIEr, 1 1 , , PARKING UNDER BUILDINGS, TYP 1 - BLOCK PLAN S 5T H ST RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2013 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 DATE: 7/20/2012 PROJECT: 501 W Hopkins Avenue Updated 1/23/2012 - S. Nadolny REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez OWNER: REQUEST: Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variance DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests two administrative residential design variances for a new home to be built at 501 W. Hopkins Avenue. The home will be located on Lot 1 of the Boomerang Lot Split, which is a 7,500 square foot lot, zoned R-6. The first variance request relates to garage placement and Section 26.410.040.C.2.b, which requires that garages accessed from a public road must be recessed at least 10' behind the front most portion of living area along that facade. The subject property is a corner lot and Council Ordinance #6, Series of 2006 mandated that the garage access come from the S. Fourth Street side of the property. A second variance is being requested related to street-facing windows and Section 26.410.040.D.3.a, which prohibits windows from spanning through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. The section of the new development requiring this variance review is the portion of the living room which is partially obscured by the garage, and faces Fourth Street. Staff will accept an application for administrative review. Staff may approve up to three (3) variances administratively, so long as the criteria is found to be successfully met. The following two criteria are used in determining the appropriateness of a variance: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. If staff cannot support administrative approval, application can be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/41/landuseappform.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ 501 West Hopkins Residential Design Standards Variance .. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.306 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards Review by: Community Development for determination. Public Hearing: Not required RECEIVED Planning Fees: $650.00 JA it *,- â€¢ 4 7013 To apply, submit the following information: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY Ol- ASPEN D Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. O Pre-application Conference Summary. Â¤ 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. 0 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. 0 Total deposit for review of the application. 0 A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 0 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. Il An 8 1/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 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. .. HOPKINS + 7500'4,0* 4 VE/VOE MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS pc voice: 970.544.4851 email: Ima@sopris.net fax: 970.544.1915 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 + KEYNOTES + 3 1 PROPERTY LINE. 11 -P 2 SETBACK LNE f 15 3 EDGE OF EXISTING STREET PAVINIG. 1- 4 EXISTING SIDEWALK. W 105.00 4 ~97 5 ONE LOT DEEP, DEAD-END GRAVEL STREET. + 6 EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE, OVER BASEIMENT, 8 ON ADJOINING PROPERTY, -0* 143 7 DASHED LINE INDICATES ROOF OVERHANG 91 2 + ABOVE, TYPICAL. 1915 g Di 8 CROSS-HATCHING INDICATES ADDITIONAL 0 r - FOOTPRINT OF BASEMENT BELOW GRADE. N 75Â°09' 11" h 9 NIEW CONICRETE DRIVEWAY PER CITY 7-r I 42 STANDARDS. 1 - , TO ENS '9/ -7 -N 10 DASHED LINE INDICATES SECOND FLOOR 6 4 . - OVERIANIS ABOVE, TES LOCATION OINLY. - - 7 61/ 'I 8 0 11 EXISTING STREET TREE TO REMAIN, PROTECT AS 10' SETB" Top - - -CK 0 N - 4 2 NECEBSARY, TYPICAL. , ~ - ENTRY PORCH ' . 12 NEW CONICRETE PAVING. k ~ ~~;~~/ - 3 - EXISTING CONTOUR, SEE SURVEY, TYPICAL. 7 0 7 / k 0 13 / - 1 if - - 14 NEW WIN'DOW WELL, SEE FLOOR PLANS, TYPICAL. c --/ 1 - - / , 15 NEW STONE PAVING OVER CONCRETE SLAB , r- ~ ~ 76 NEW GAS F\RE PEr. 1 1 1 1 *- 22 . 1 14 - P- I I .... 1 11 ."I 14 2 PaspOSED TWO-STORY /5 9 OVERBASEMENT , 19/12 , SINGLE-FEAM'17 HOUSE i .2.- I - I 14 7 / PROPOSED .Al-.ACHED ' -0 / / 2-CAR GARAGE OVER . 7-Â¢f .. . BASEMEN*r r / 'A g. ~ . - 5 - 1 , -- 0 /01) ./0 -- ,-1 --- / // ./.S. 1 - /-/ 1 L . 16 01/2 W / ..b 5 SETBACK - .*.- - .~.,4~ 7 (444- - .... . - %/1\/4 - 3-7 ~r, + Â· . 5 0 %- - - u 9 1 1 TO VENEER / 1 //0 3 2 ' PAT\O - 2 N 7500-7 - - C 2.-1- 1 011"VIV- - 4 1 -- / - - 300Â» ..4 - 1 \ --- P &4 - - 0 kz " 2 4 + 1 2920 040 - bo 7 - 73 SarsACK 7 -1 F 2 , 2 - 16 .3 '- 7 N 75009 3- * 2 0 15 7978 \\\ Â«10\1 , 1 1 - -516 7917 Issue: Date: Revision: Date: VARANICE 01/24/13 Project: HUCKABEE HOUSE 501 W. HOPKINS AVE. Sheet title: BITE PLAN Drawn By: LM ri BITE PLAN Print Date: . MALE: 1/8 .1-CD 1/24/13 Sheet number: 0 A-1 -\_. STOR~ 7918 - - 14 5 7916 133W1S Hll=IAO=I VENEER M'013.99'91 30.00' GRAVEL TRAIL .. LEGEND AND NOTES 6 O SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED I UTILITY BOX. FOUND UTILITIES IN R.O.W. A SURVEY CONTROL Â® WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT EDGE OF P MANHOLE TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. 1.-.10 ORDER NO. PCT20448L2 DATED: APRIL 17. 2006 ~ TREE WITH CALIPER (D-DECIDUOUS.F-CONIFER.DL-DRIPLI IE) 0 10 20 ~ CITY OF ASPEN GPS MONUMENT 7913.0 SPOT ELEVATIONS THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN ZONE -X- (AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR 7915.5 FLOOD PLAIN) AS SHOWN ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY F.E.M.A.. FOR PEST PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO, COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 08097C0203 C. EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 4. 1987 HOPKINS AVENUE AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT G. BLOCK 25 (ALUMINIUM DISK LS 25947 IN (75.00 THIS PROPERTY LIES ENTIRELY INSIDE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUDFLOW HAZARD R,0.*,i FIGURE ES-15. AREA AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN MASTER ORAINAGE PLAN. PROJECT NUMBER 1963. 7915.5 BEARINGS BASED ON THE CITY MONUMENT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 38 4'DL FENCE POST) N 75'09'11-W 481.95 ZONED: R-6 7914.8 ~ 3-D SIDE 5 SETBACKS FRONT IO 4'DL REAR 10' FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS. 5' FOR ACCESSORY 7916.5 BUILDINGS AND THAT PORTION OF A PRINCIPAL 7914.2 .D BUILDING USED ONLY AS A GARAGE VICINITY MAP 7916.0 SETBACKS AS PLATTED CONS *33 WALK 3- DIAMETER DECIDUOUS TREE WITH 4' DRIPLrNE IN R.O.W. 4'DL 7915.6 7913.5 AVEMENT RED */79~4 7--rE?i?7-- ff<<**9<41 13 7915.2 3"D 123.-'*:7.--4/Cl~%11 97 7914,9 4'DL CONC 7913.0 CITY OF WALK GPS MONUMENT 7914.5 ** 3-D 1%19> 'tli '929 4. DL 75.09' 0 .1 1 - 1/-2 7914.1 Â® Â® - /05.00 -3(19 -6 Â® 7913.6 * %\\ CONC Â® - - WALK 0- - -,0 -3â‚¬TBACK Â® - RED 24303 LOT 2 1 LOT i RECEPT 1 011-NQ 48 1 65 7913.5 -0- SEWER- EASEMENT TBM 2 /~ 0. I 72 ACRES + 1- - ~ N 15 AREA - 7.500 SO FT +/- 6 VACANT LOT / OD 28 '/ /Tw.-- /43f-0. v. /7 -- 30,00Â· --la CITY OF ASPEN 2 1 GPS MONUMENT g) , NO. 6 f P 4 4 6 ,CAGE .-A U, - F-- CP' 41 1 61 33 P 64 --/ 3 ' 02 4 D- - 4 CERT\FICAT\ON THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS FIELD SURVEYED 1 0 DURING h) A /22 . 211- AND IS ACCURATE BASED ON THE F I ELD EV I DENCE AS SHOWN. AND THAT THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES OF RECORD. BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS. - \--4 ENCROACHMENTS. EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN FIELD EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME EXCEPT AS HEREON SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH NO ABOVEGROUND APPURTENANCES. . tzy 'F AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT SUPPLIED TO THE SURVEYOR ARE EXCEPTED. THIS SURVEY / % ho IS 1:15.Â·Â®0..ch. IS VOID UNLGSâ‚¬VWET STAMPED WI TH THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR BELOW. ERROR OF CLOSURE / 33638 1.W .!.7,< . : /6 DATEDÂ·;'P 'IffSUBL :'i,4-112....,., 3-p L ~ ~ RED 5. . 4'DL %*SEPELL#, 1 : - RED i JOHN? IR:~110Â¥0RFCHÂ·.Â·:1. E'. S . 25947 U) - - 0 33638 - ~fa / \33638 ---- - b --- -\/ .2 60 -%- 112â‚¬7.412 - , 0 4 4,6 . 46.,+4'4 1&03..92#.1 -Â· 8 /Â·, Â·Â¤,t,7'1Â·Â·~ N PS .09 1 0 - 0 6 D 75 -- 6'DL - 7917-- YELLO 2376 .Â« (/9.90. R.O.W.) LOT I ALLEY BLOCK TOPOGRAPHIC/IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 3 2 OF BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT EXEMPTION PLAT. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 16. 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 79 AT PAGE 70 AS RECEPTION NO. 525370. CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816 AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION DATE JOB BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN 29 I 97F YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE CERTIFICATION IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE 6/12 SURVEYOR. gr On & efeoS -- rel &, 60 -- â‚¬ 402/Ze,40 -- P:<6 :d,Â£6~62\Pxepxe\{* cxjvc ie.,eueolo .. 82-2 15-8 Â« . N 75Â°09'11'W 105.00' MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS pc voice: 970.544.4851 email: Ima@sopris.net fax: 970.544.1915 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 4 0 1 9 10' SETBACK n 1 1 1 V .. 4 1 I ifil 9 -___9 0~21-40 11 - - BATH 3 ELEC./PANEL /\/i 10'-6" x 5-6" --- - Wine wne '- 4 , IMECHANICAL ROOM 180.5 Sq ft / ~ FLA > ROOM r ~~ ~ @ 8% I 14.44 13'-0" x 7-10 WET ~ WIC. 3 ~ BEDROOM 3 1 ~ 5-3" x 7-5 L-----J , E-33 POU'DER 12-10'*1412-0 ~1~] i 1--1 1 -1 , 2 i 1 ===== RM. 2 0 up r--------- iT-DA - -tu-1-1-1- -- ---4 1 1 1 STAIR 3 ' 4 I MEDIA/GAME ROOM , 29'-5" x 24'-0 DN.--e__q HALLWAY 1 1 690 64 e i @896 =55.2 m 1 ' 1 1 _ BEDROOMI 4 i BUNK 13-8Â· x 13'.11 1 4 208 Sq ff A @ 8% le.64 STORAGE i 7-2- x 14'-4 ~~ F\TNESS OR ROOM - 210 a 13'-8" x 13'-4 oao @8%= 1 1 1 1 LA C=J ~ W.I.C. 4 BATH 4 Â° r C=3 -- r 2-5- X 5' - H j F Aji'< 7-0'-xE--8~ -A e 0-0 ..1- ------- (0) 8 11 IA==F 4 1 . .. 5 1 1-0 11 A l' 1 III W.I.C. 2 ' 5' SETBACK (GARAGE) 7-1" x 5'-0' ~ , 1 I l \ /'/S--<Jeigff~~Trrfsa, (r---- ------------- 0------6 N 75Â°09'11"W 30.DO' 0 1 BEDROOM 2 13'-9" x 14'-2 216 Sq 9 1 @ 8% I 17.2 - f. , issue: Date: Revision: Date: VARIANICE 01/24/13 ,3 0 0 BATH 2 0 10-111 x 5'-0 2 M 1 0 , 1 Project: HUCKABEE HOUSE 10' SETBACK 501 W. HOPKINS Sheet title: BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Drawn By: LM ri BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Print Date: - - -1 LD 1/24/13 SCALE: 1/4' = 1-0 N 75Â°0911"W 75.00' Sheet number: A-2 >IOÂ¥â‚¬135 5 EL A\â€ž6*,06091. E 0005 2/L E-6 17.5' SETBACK . 7-6 1/2 57-9 16.6 7'-2' 16-01/2 . 6 ./ , 15'-0 12'-3" 20'-6 10-0 2'-10 3/8 10'-91/4' 2-10 3/8 4-. 7 . f N 75Â°09'11"W 105.00 MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS Pc voice: 970.544.4851 email: Ima@sopris.net fax: 970.544.1915 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 1 1 1 F------n ~ 10' SETBACK N I / I.-----------------I.-1=.-.Ill.- C I - -.4 ' E------------I--% ' ' I ' ~ -7 1 6~,~ b-----7 1 " 1 r------r bench | | I 11\11 1/1 1 1 ~ kennels (33 : ' 1 1 --1--- ---------------7 i 1-1- -1 Â¢-2-] 1Ii ' ~ -t---1 1 ~ j I I 51-7 X 91-011 -1, 1 -T 1 UTILITY ROOM 1 1 1 1 MEOATS ~ stone 1 9-1- 4 k I M 1 ' I POWDER T.O. CONS. 7916.0 ' I ' ~ RIM. 1 ENTRY PORCH 1 ' *tonek- 1 --4 -4 -9 1 1 'CZEZZI'll=Zzil I window I 1 E-In FOYER i i :,~, 0 ~ w~ - __1--------1 1 1 Im' -p l /1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 -/ 1 1 1 1 1 XE I 0 1 I h ~ wood - 1 1 01 1 1 13- 4- 17 window well IL_--_-IL--___J -7 1 9. . r- | | 0 1 /-Ill 4- 4 1 L 1 1 1 bl - 1 N I TO CONC. I I ' o UP 7218.0 :UPI elec. shade I 1 1 1 1 elec. shade 1 1 - 54 y-ji~ 1 - 1 \ \ \ '-f--19 f - STAIR J ENTRY : r o. coNC. 13'-3.8'-3" i DNI. -e--1 T.O. CONS wood 7916.0 1 1 1 9 1 7917.0 MUDROOM - o DN. 1 1 1 1 0 1 1- 11 1 ' 109-011 x 91-1,1 FA 4 L.~:=& //l/ 1,j~ : 1 -0 Stone li O / 1 lili 1 1 1 L --- - - - r- ---- 1 1 1-il % 0 i LIVING ROOMI Iattacces;734 GARAGE 1 9 3 1 20-0 x 24-7 T.O. SLAB 7915.0 r lim I ' i wood / 1 4 l 7777 clerestory windows 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 window 17-0" x 15'-7 1 ' ~ / DINING ROOM ~ 8'-4 3/4 1 1 1 -1 ' I well I wood '' | ' 1- 1 1 1 31 111 1 1 - 1- - 6 9 1 LE 12 Ld U ' Â»~z~*rjr 10 0- i)\ 1 Â¢ f <<1 211 1 1 1 1 U L--_ 1 1. 1- 1 1 01 Iwindow \ 1 r. 1 elec. shade -J 1 - 1 1 1 well i a 1 41 -- n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 i PANTRY I 5' SETBACK (GARAGE) _ _____-3 42"high peninsula ' '1 L---------------- ------- ---- 1 1 1 4 /11 - elec.\,'shade , elec. shade I 4 i 6--Â£1 1 1 Ill 1 11 1 I m 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 ' ~ I KITCHEN 1 _stone I 15'-7' x 18'-0Â· 1 N 75Â°02'11"W 30.00 | wood ~ ~ _-f 4 --t i-T-T-1 3-13-13 -4 1 0-1-1 p . 1 window I --1 1 ' well I 1 1 1 0=1. |-17751-7 --4--79-1-11 1--- 1 -11--Â»--fli- 1 1 7 -7 1 1 1 1 1 0 5, 27177 -T- 3 , 4- 1 1-~ -H 7 976 1 1 SIC -ti 11- - U COVERED 14 - 1 PATIO i s~one ~ W 1 I stone I l.n 1 F 1 r 1 1 1 i , Asue Date: Revision: Date: - 1-401 - 1 13 VARIANICE 01/24/13 /1 : \ 11 -_.-1- 0 1 -L I 19 U-1- IiI _n h-r0' A 0 2 6 1 , BREAKFAST - -1-4 -4 -/17/ =F -1 -64 - I , 11'-1" x 5'-4" 1 m in 1 I im 1 1. . ~2/- 1 1 .~ ~~,,u,,, ~7~ 7--- . 4 | 1 L.,~-----------------------------J -1 - 1 -1 1 Preject HUCKABEE HOUSE 10 SETBACK 501 W. HOPKINIS 1 1 1 Sheet tit/e: - FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2'-61/2 11'-5" 2'-0 1/2 28'-9' lot-0 23'-8" 0 . I ~ Drawn By: 1 LM 1/24/13 --.--.---.-.-.---.--.-- --j ~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ Print Date: SCALE: 1/4" = 1-0" N 75Â°09'11"W 75.00 Sheet number: A-3 1.0-OL 110-,2 313*9135,2-SL '0'21 .25/L â‚¬-,6 'O'23 5/L â‚¬-6 A\â€ž69,02*L S 00 09 N 14Â°50'49-E 80.00 33'-91/2 7 SETBACK .. ck MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC voice: 970.544.4851 email: Ima@sopris.net Fax: 970.544.1915 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 r-- -L---------------'--- 7 1 1 -1 I I r- 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 i ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.-I. 1 ~\\\ 1 W - - 1 X 1 14-~f----7 -fÂ« | L .. .... _ . . 1 4 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 I 1 1 1 1/ 1 1 1 It 1 1 4-- OFFICE 1, 1 1 1. / 12-4" x 12'4 1 1 1 1 wood 1 1 E 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-- - 1\ A /\ A /\ A / 1 , 1 ROOF BELOW , 1 ~ -hvv 1/7 VÂ« 1 '' 1 1 r - - - - - - - -- - 1 ..1 1 I shoes ~ ~m showgÂ« ' WARDROBE .- TOILET , 1 1 14'-31/2 x 14'-6 1 ' 1 1 ROOF BELOW 1 1 1 1 43 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 hargng h> la 1 1 1 .-1- I 1 1 - milo I wood ~ ' 1 1 1 1 I shoes ~ MASTER ~-- | : -Â«91,/fl BATHROOM ;d, 1 1 1 7-9- x 19'-10 F L - -1- -- - 1 1 1 1 wood .--L | I 1 1 1 0 1 r-- nhnite mqrb6961 ,~ 1 J i 1 --12 gas Areploce appliance ' I , L--------------I Ick la 1 1 L 1 1 E---------- ----2 ' 1- "1---------------------------9 , 1 L-J I o i I i oh r soÂ·.sm , 1- l.--------------- j il lili MASTER ~ 1 BEDROOM 1 1 15'-7 x 17-6 1 1 wood 1 1 904 1 ROOF BELOW 1 1 1 1 1 I issue: Date: Revision: Date: 1 1 VAR,ANCE U 01/24/13 1 . 1 1 r7 L Project: HUCKABEE HOUSE 501 W. HOPKINIS Sheet title: SECOND FLOOR PLANI Drawn By: LM ~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN Print Date. 1/24/13 BCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" Sheet number: A-4 ~ ~ upper-1 (1) 1 j rECTS pc 4 Fax: 970.544.1915 Aspen, Colorado 81611 vision: Date.Â· 1 HUCKABEE HOUSE 501 W. HOPKIINS Sheet title: ROOF PLANI Drawn By: LM <-1 ROOF PLAN Print-Dae: Uf--=-77 0 1/24/13 Sheet number: A-5 ...................1 .....1.1.1.1. ...................1 ..........1... ...............1I1.I ......1 .......... ......... 1 .1...... 1...... ........ 1.:..... ..: :......... 1 ..................................................... 1...... .... ........ ...-al............................................ 1...... .... 1....... ... ....... 1.1.:Ill ....1.ilifilimill,1,11:11:11:1':11:11,1,millill:l::1 ....... 1 I ... ... ...11.- ...014........................... ......m ... ....... ...... â€¢â€¢â€¢.â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢-â€¢-â€¢-â€¢-â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢mil,mil:i,1.i,m,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,il::1:...........I....7,"'10 ........ ....1----i--I----- ...... ...@.........1,141.1.1.1111'11,1.11,1.1.'ll.....il--I'll"I'll"ll. I ........ ...1...........1 ..... ,........I.....".............* ........ .....'I..-.I.... ...m. .................................1-:Bm............................11:, ...1. i .Cial i.lill"Miliall ...11. a.............................1. ................... .................... .......1--I------- ........ 1:11;2.2.............1.1.1.121.1111111,1v-..1=,.=miâ€ž,&:p.IL,ill 1........ ......~.......1 ..... .....~-- .. ..........1.1. 1....7.-...... -1-15...... ...11.1 .--~ --- i. .....38 1 ..A//11 .mmI. .-. ../............ .....1 .mi............... 11 .....lin'. ..... 1.LI~-/.11/1 A....A I....1 A...................... , a//mI///A lilli.lili.lili........1 .................... ........1... V /.......... .... -I........A .....1 .......................... ........11...1 .......... ..... .........-.........=....... 1..........A .....1 ............................ .~..m... 1.71.-- A.......................I.....I 1.......... ..... -- ..... ..=~11; m.~AW"...~ A.........................1/.1. ...l.. ./.....1.11.1--- I.... .....1 lim...1/'ll'll'll'll'll'/A "ilillillillillillillillillililillillillillilill:::i::im ...Â¤..... Al......~I.II...1.r 7- /Yr::ir. .ill. A........ ...........~ ..........1.1/./.Ill'.Il...........1 ...... A..........1 .U........ ..1.1 ........I"...l..1.â€ž...................................'.9.......i'.....I Al..l..l..l..l : ./I'll.'ll./.ill mi- 11.1.......1 -- ....... I..I...... I..... .- ............ill............~i II..I......~ ....... ': 1. 11........i--~- ....... ......1 1/1/""1""""Ill: ............~1..... 11.1...... ..... ..1............................................... ...... ... ..~1 11. ..... /-/- 7 ... ..~ii ...... .... -I....1- .~.1..].1 111 ...:L -~.1..... .... ....... ....../.1 .......... 1.1,1 ... ...'.1... . .....1 1-1 .........................1.1 ..... Ill. 1.1.1.1- -................................ ..... 1..... ...........................................m."m- ..............................1 ..... .......~1.-,1 .1.....1..1..................... ... ..- .....1 1 ... :11...11~. ..... 1... ........- ..... ..... ......1-1--.1..9.1.1 .. .... ....Il ......... ......1.1. I.-1-1..... ... .... . ..............................................11.1 ...1. .... -1 .....~laili-,1................... .1....1................... .... . ...... ........... ...............................................11. ... .:l:!:I:1:-.......I.....=.=...I.-..... .........1.................1.1 ........m.....m...a.m........'.''.'.'............................I.... ..................1.-lilli ... 1,1......1.-- 111 .....~ !11 .... .~ ... 11'illill'.:.1 1.1 ..... .... ....I ...Qi. Illillifillillillillillillilll:.1. ..... ..... .11.1 k Illillillillillillillillilillill/illill ....... ..... .................... .1.1,1 .................... ................A 0 . ..3.................................... 11.-1........ ..1 1.. ....1111-1..11 Loil 1....1 ..1 F...../. ............................. 1.... ilililililililililiâ€¢lillilli -i ~.1 1.......................1.1 lib....1 1.1.1.1.1. lilli.1 W....111111 .......... ..11 I ................ 1 â€¢Mill A ..............1 11.11.1/Ilillill I illillillillizl i!1!1!1!1!1!1!1:111!1!1!1!11, 11 ......................... 111 ~ '..I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I...I.1 |||~ 1 *ill'Imilill'*Willlâ€¢ill Ii. I l i Ill i l l II II F ill/'/I/'/I/"/I/:/IMI/:/I/"/W - I 111'Mâ€¢11111'll'll"1111'Im' .I.I.I.I'I.I.I.I.III.I.I.I.i11 ....................1.1.1.1 11 I .1 ..........1 .....1...ili':M=m ' i'i1i1i1i'i'i'i1i1i1i1i1i1i1i1i1i "7r_____ I illill'llillillillillill'Imill:illillill:i ~ 1 Ihill li|Billilli"lill'll[2 11rillir .I.I.I...I...I.I...I.......1.!.I.!.!.!.I.1 .1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,111.....1." . 1,1.1.0.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1...............1 4 1.1 ~Il Ililli~ 1.41.1.1111'ilililitill.......1.1.0 11111 ~ - Ilill"luili .I.I...............I.I.....I.I. 1111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.14.1.1.1.14.111*111 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1.1.. . 1.1 t~Elifill??ilimillifillfic:*Ii,il p ~1'111'AA '1111.."ilillimmill'Im...0 .........1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.........1.1.1.1 iii F~F-1 F~,2~ LMI lilli.M .I.I...III.I.ItI.III.I.I.I.I.III.I.I.I.I.1 11:.Ii 1 1 .1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 0111Â¥16'k 1.1.1...................1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. wililillâ€¢â€¢â€¢A 0.1.1.'.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1â€¢1â€¢1â€¢1â€¢1â€¢1â€¢1â€¢1 '11111.11111 9 1 FIll ..11 --1 I wliliwili.1......â€ž,:,:,:,:,Il..........101.1,1 1119111.1.~,1............1.1.1.1.41...1 . 11.11.1.1,11'2'.Ill'.1,1,1.1,1...1.411.1. 14'Ii'llilâ€¢'â€¢Illâ€¢'â€¢IA.11!11,1,11'1111,1.111.1.1.1.1.1.11 .AY'A 9.31....1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1/1/1/1///1/1//A=1'/,1//,1,/'/'11'1'/'11,1 lili:,r:I. - 11.116:m.....1.1.. 1...1 .".. 1:11* '94":'C"din.:.al'i"i'$0 1... .. 1.. IMA .............. lilli - ------Il--I . -I-- .. lilli 111 11 1 ................A.7.kid............. 0. ... 1.....1 N.......1111'..1.111.111.111.111.. . 1:1.4.:i:V ..11,Â»111,11111111111111111,1111 - ..r ... ..dil'll.........................1 0 Â® i.111:Ii:,Ii:,In:,Ii,-~~ U~~~*mi,ilililililil,111,1111111111111ii,i,i,0,0 -1 1...1....Z-,1...1.4...1...1.14 Â® . ..7-,1.1.1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. .. 11, lili:Vil.1.1,11.1,1.,1.MI' . I ..1 1 1.1 1 . ~ ~1,Â®1.1 ..111, '........1.1.......1.11.~1, 0 11 ..1111,"Mil.........................1 1 . il V |||il|'lill'll|I'll'llill'll'll'||Ill"ll':I:' i 1/all 'Ill'll!jimilillilil'!01illillillilli~lil 11~411111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1..........1.0.1.1 .............. .........I... .......... F ./ Ii'1111,11111111'llililili lililililililililililililill,1 .....1 4 . .111.111.1.1.1111.1.1111,1.11,1.1.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1 . .1...1/..1/1 ................1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 ..1.1 ' li Â·1' 164,11111'I,ullillili,111!111!11'11!11,!11 * 'm' 111,1ililililililililil,!111!11,11,1,1.11111.11 - . . . /1.....................1/1./.1 ...1 ....",1,1,!01â€¢10!ili:'Imil:'1,1,1,!,1,!'1â€¢1'!i 1,11,11,1,11'ilil,11,11,1111:111,111,1,1,111,111111 111,1111'11'11,111'11,0,10 1 1 1...............1.....1 1. . ... 1 ililillpillimilli .......1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 10'.FL~.-1................ ...Ul|||illilililill'lli ...19.-1 ........1.111111111.11 0 811| 1 2-~=JI~~i #11111114'1111111'01'14'i' I ....i.i.I...I...I... ..1 11.....1.1...1.1.1,1.1.i .1.1.1.1 ........... mil. I.I.. - â€¢111.1.1.1,11.1.111,1.1.111.! ' ilhzill' ..II..!...I..........I..I.I.I 1,!Ell...:0*---- ili,iliâ€¢,Ii,milli,gâ€¢,â€¢ili,imiâ€¢ ......,.......I............ ......Ihill'illillill'll'll'~Ill !11111111121111111111111111111 , 0, I. .. . 4. , 4 ..., . 0. 0 , 0 , 0 .. , . . , . . . 1. .. - . . , . .. . . . 0. ........................................1 .........~.I.--~111111,11111,1111111'111111111'11111111111 1.........0 mm ......I...i.I...I.I...I.I...I.I.I...I...1 . . ...1.1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.11 .I.I.I.I.I...I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.II .........................I.............1. ...lillililll'.3:Elixilib ..I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.III.I1 / . ..1...1.11.1.....1' .......1 .I==C 1*Wilimill'llimilimilill 11111111.............1 l/..........I...........I... I.. 1......1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1." imilillilillillilillillilill rill-pli~-9........M..11/:7.4...1 . limilililililimililimililimilill'll.,â€¢I.lilli.,1 0.1.1.1,1.1,1,1,1.1.1.1.1.1,111,111,1,1,1,1,10 ..1 . ......1 0 1. .111.1,1,44'il,ill'i!"!11"11:'El."."ll' ,!lom .III.I.I.I.I.I.I.lI .1 ......... ... Iâ€¢â€¢â€¢Iâ€¢I'iâ€¢Iâ€¢iâ€¢i1i1i1i1i1i1i1Iâ€¢iâ€¢i i.1 I'llilillillililililillillillillilimillillillillillillill ..I.........I.......I...I...I...!............. . ... I limill,111:Imillin I....................................................... .. ...1 1 1.1 1.. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1 1. 11 1..........1 1 1.1......... 1 ......................1.1 4 1.=i . 1.1.1.1.1......1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1 .1.....I........... ..........I.!iI 111.1.1.1,1,1,1,111.111.1.4..........1.1,11.1.1.1.1 .1 I.. .. ....11.1.11,1,1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1,1.1.1.1.1 19.44"01441*10.ilibillimili allilill.z-l-i.lIiIiIiIi~Il.li-~i~.li.li 11 ~...1 ~1.111.ill 1.III.III.I.I.I.III.i.IIIII.I...I..i.Ii.11 liA'=ppigwil.~i:le!.-8.~.......Elill 1.1 1.1.................1.1.1.1.1.1.......1 --~ 11*'4111'"I"*M~'.......1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1....... 1.11. 1144,1,1444*1*14'....1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.11.'Il Ill, l~Imi"Ii'"2:....." li~iiii.iâ€¢,10,mimii'â€¢Iiâ€¢â€¢ â€¢ I ... 1.1.1.1.1.1 0 Ii,i,1,1,1,11,",0,1,ilill....0, Ilill!,Illililililllilililill'â€¢11â€¢111,1,1,1,1,1,â€¢,ili~~illail:-B Imvil lillilliligillilliwl I '111.-7 .1,I'I.I.I,lII,I.I,I,I,I,l,111... ..1, ..................lili...1 4,â€¢idliwilill.â€¢liwlildâ€¢-â€¢ili.1,1.1.11,111,1 1.1..............................1. 0,1,,,,,,,I,,,III,,,I,i,l,I,I,i1â€¢,', lilililllII'llilill'Illill,"4,1,1â€¢,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,â€¢,I ..I.......IiI......IIII.....I....... '.1 11 111111,1111111111111111111111.1.1.1.1.1.1...1.1.1.1.1.I ~..IMI....lillilll 111 11 11 1 1.111111111 1111111.1 ..1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. i 7/Il 1 111,1.1111,111.1 1 1 Kiral "'"'"'""""""":'""""'"'""" ..11 - Ilillilililililillillilillilll,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,â€¢Illl lim/ ........!.I.I.I.I.!.I.Ii.....i..I.!i .. 11111111,1111111111111,111111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 ..... 1 1.1.1.1.... i.'-Flillillilll'"11111'â€¢mr,1- -~~~~~li~~mmillil~li~l~~limilillillililimilili!ill ... -I.....................12:-1..1.1.1..........1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1,1.1 ... III,'I'i'iIi'i'iliIiIiI,I,'I','I','II,'â€¢', 15.--I-:--=-u ililillilillillilliillilillilililliihqml~!ililili,!i!1i!1!i!114 1,0",0,0.4*,0 .I.I.III.I.I.III.III.I.I.I.I...I.I...I.I. 1.111 .1~ 11111'111* 411*1111111'111'11111,11.1.1.1.1....... 1 .1.1.1 millillillillmillill:'llimill'llill'll:lic ..: ililililililill, "dilili,iiili,iii,â€¢â€¢â€¢1â€¢â€¢1â€¢â€¢1,1,1â€¢,â€¢â€¢ .. .........111"llimililill ;11 11'..1 ;04660 Ill 1,11"11111,1.1'.11,"10,1.1,1.1 1,11111144"irl I'llidtil~l~illill'll'll'll'llillill'll 1111111 lili 1,111,1111.............1.1.........1 ... ........1 ...F 1,111"11,1,11,1,1111â€¢1â€¢11â€¢1111,1111â€¢Il â€¢1 , 4,"ilill:'14â€¢444,1,1,1 ...........1,101.1................... .1 1.111.1.1,1.1.111.1.1.1.1.1.1.111.1.1.1.1.1 11114Â¥1111111. P.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.!.1.I.!.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.!. 11111,1/111*1. 1 1.1...1.1.14........1.11.1...1 'll:, I, i.....11.1.1,11.1 11111111111111111 .I III.I..IIII...1 1.1,111 1..........................i Il"':I~~.....'-- ililililll~,~~. l..I, .I...........I.I.....I.I.I... Ill..............11 lilli 111111,1. 1,12=E 441.11'44411,141,1,1111 11........11 ##*4. ',I.,,'.,',,1 1 11 1,1!11 .illilitila..lilililit m/111114 -1------11/.lk 1/1/11/11 lilli 11':I'll'"I" .I 1 1 1.1 ............1 ...I...1 111.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.411 0 0 lili .141,4411 -VA lilli . 1, 1, 11'" .1 F~~/~1111.1, ...1.1 ........ 1 1.1.1.1.1.................. , 0 1..1. , ~.1.1 ~~B"6'~~ Lâ€ž*11... 1.1 lililij' 1 1 1... ~11.11.1.-1-- 1111-Ir' 111111111111111 . 111111111'lilli ~111/111:11/A :.,111.111.1.1 ~44114411 lilli. ,I.....I.......I............ 1.1.1 MIM*W, ..... I..I. lillillillillillillillilill 11....... ID,Ilililililililililililil lili 1......................1.1.1. 44411111111 1." =Ili~./I"~----- lililililililililill,illi,li,â€ž 111, ./,111111 1...111 ill.lill'llilililihiwilliwillill: 11..16. 4:1-J:I'll"Imillilllilli:1:-, 0 11@011111 Ii,~ 1 1111111111111111111111~ lili ./I....il 1.11~11111 mi 111111111111111 11"r. 1 . .. I . . 0 0 . . . , 0 . , D . . . .. . .. 0 .. .. LO Â£ 9 4 2 9 LO C 2 3 0, 0 ~4 3 i Z WO \1 0 111 I % Q UO LO D In 00 I I 0 0 . --- -------- - irill - ----$ ----------- ----------m _1 ----------------- ----------------f 1 ---Ii : IN 0 11 1 P ..- ~1Li'~] Na=611-tzctiffiLLXIO__2_tjf-313. ic'z J44-~APiFLI _1_' L=zi |~~~_ - - ---23-3-3-3-6-3--1-In<- 0 1 - -7/Z~222-2-2~21~2~2~Zt~Z~L-EL-71 -Tl 7Â»11Â«1421Â»14 1 -7. 1:0 7---- I ELI Un 1== -- ------------------- 11 11 --------- -1/- / 1 14-1.3/ 1 1 904/ 1 - 1 1 . i / 1 1 1 2-94 4 . / /62 + - i.--il 1 1 i-- 30-4 t-- - \ 2 .J, ' '-_fOf U . 1/ ..' . 4 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS pc Wea :UOISIABM :a :anssi ESROH SNOIJ-VAE-IE kdalbal><3 â‚¬L/*C/LO EONVIEVA Project: 31111 laaus SOUTH ELEVATIONI BCALE: 1/41' = 1-0 11 11 '11' I'lili I'lili 4 111' I'lili 11 1111 11 lili I'lili lilli' I'lili 11 11' 11'11' lilli' 11 1 11 lilli' lilli' i Il1il11IIIIll11ll11IIII!I1IIII1II1Illllil'1I1I1III 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 ~1 '11~ li li n k ~~ 4 k n k n ~ ~~ k k n k n ~ 1~ ~1 ~1 4 k n > 1~ ~1 D Â» 2 [1111, lili lili 940Â«Â»-1+j -