The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.309 N 3rd St.A 109-00a gallant Residence DRAC 309 N. Third St. "ptf �- �14 If 0 CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A 109-00 2735-124-24007 Gallant Residence DRAC 309 N. Third Sarah Oates DRAC Mel and Marylin Gallant Earl Anderson 10/3/00 Reso. #45-2000 Approved- Secondary 11 /7/00 J. Lindt • • PARCEL ID: 2735-124-24007 DATE RCVD: 9/1/00 # COPIES:— CASE NO A109-00 CASE NAME: Gallant Residence DRAC PLNR: Sarah Oates PROJ ADDR: 309 N Third CASE TYP: DRAC STEPS:F OWN/APP: Mel and Marylin Gall ADR 309 N Thrid CIS/Z: Aspen/CO/81611 PHN: 920-6869 REPFarl Anderson ADR: 33 Sagewood Ct CIS/Z: BasaIVCO/81621 PHN: 927-0332 FEES DUE: 480 D FEES RCVD 480(enter in Timeslips) STAT: F REFERRALS REF:— BYF— DUE:�— MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED F— DATE OF FINAL ACTION: REMARKS CLOSED: Vf/"; BY: PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG):� CITY COUNCIL) PZ: BOA: DRAC: f (^ WMIN. 1 �l i, A �l'�O� d� c,�S DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the 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. Mel and Marylin Gallant, 309 N. Third St., Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number North '/2 of Lots R & S, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Secondary Mass Variance Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #45-2000, 10/3/00 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) October 14, 2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) October 15, 2003 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 14'' day of October, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Julie thin Woods, Community Development Director 0 0 PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 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 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: North '/2, of Lots R & S, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen, by resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission numbered 45, series of 2000. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on October 14, 2000 Resolution No.46 (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR "SECONDARY MASS" AND A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH %: OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 35,309 N. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-24007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Mel and Mary Gallant, owners, represented by Earl Anderson of Anderson Design, for a variance from the Residential Design Standards and Variances from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code for the north % of Lots R and S, Block 35, 309 N. Third; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 309 N. Third is a 3,000 square foot, located in the R-6 Zone District, and currently contains a single-family dwelling; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Aspen Municipal Code and the dimensional requirements of Section 26.710.040; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to secondary mass and the dimensional requirements of Section 26.710.040; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: • a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, Section 26.314 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that an application for a variance from the dimensional requirements of the code can be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if it is part of a consolidated process; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 3. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. 3. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain 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. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on October 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the Design Review Appeal Board, approved a variance from the Secondary Mass standard of Section 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to secondary mass for 309 N. Third by a vote of 5 to 0 and denied variances from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code by a vote of 3 to 2, without conditions, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, also serving as the Design Review Appeals Committee and Board of Adjustment: Section 1 That a proposed variance for a single-family residence at 309 N. Third Street, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Residential Design Standards finding that a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints. Section 2 That the proposed five (5) foot rear yard setback variance, and ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a single-family residence at 309 N. Third, Aspen, Colorado, is denied pursuant to Section 26.710.040(D)(4), Minimum Front and Rear Yard, finding that none of the review standards have been met. Section 3 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, 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. Section 4 This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 3, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk g:\home\saraho\planning\drac\309nthird Robert Blaich, Chair 3 • • 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax To: Paul Taddune From: Sarah Oates Fax: 925-9199 Pages: 3 Phone: Date: October 23, 2000 Re: 2 Cases CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Paul —Attached please find information on 2 different cases. I wrote a letter to the Burrows on July 27, 2000 re. their BOA case. Apparently they never received a copy so here is one for the file. Also, attached is a notice for the Nov. 2, 2000 BOA meeting for 309 N. Third. There is nothing in the code that prohibits the owners for reapplying to the BOA for the variance, and that is how they plan to precede. •NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • CASE #00-12 Before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the BASEMENT MEETING ROOM, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: November 2, 2000 Time: 4:00 P.M. Owner for Variance: Name: Mel and Marilyn Gallant Address: 309 N. Third Street Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: 309 N. Third Street, Lots R & S, Block 35 Variances Requested: Applicant for Variance: Earl Anderson Anderson Design Studio 33 Sagewood Court Basalt, CO 81621 The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for the construction of a single-family home and Accessory Dwelling Unit. Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: X NO: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Charles Paterson, Chairman • LAW OFI-TCES OF , PAUL J. TADDI_TNE, P.C. PAUL J. TADDUNE 323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190 TELEFAX (970) 925-9199 INTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com WILLIAM GUEST, OF COUNSEL ANDREW H. BUSCHER, OF COUNSEL Ms. Kathryn Koch Aspen City Clerk 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Ms. Jackie Lothian Secretary of the Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 AFFILIATED OFFICE FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C. 1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603 TELEFAX (303) 298-8748 October 16, 2000 Ms. Sarah Oaths Zoning Enforcement Officer 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Gallant Variance - 309 North Third Street Dear Kathryn, Jackie and Sarah: I have been contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Alan Sirkin, the owners of 426 West Hallam Street, to monitor any further action and oppose, if necessary, any appeal or reconsideration of the request for a variance by their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Gallant, at 309 North Third Street. I assume that this matter was concluded v,,hen the Board of Adjustment did not grant the variance at its October 3, 2000 meeting. However, if there is any further activity on this matter by way of appeal or reconsideration, please advise me immediately. Mr. and Mrs. Sirkin have returned to Miami and, therefore, need the assistance of someone local to oversee this matter for them in their absencE Thank you in advance for your assistance. Very truly yours, PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. Paul J. Taddune PJT:kc pc: Alan & Alicia Sirkin 3500 S. Bayhomes Drive Miami, FL 33133 CAWP\PJr\W\Koch. 10 W•;d C. O� 1 J U L O Q� 0 V 7j- A low - —.,A y'' 4 SEP-07-2000 THU 09:00 AM FAX NO. County of Pitlrin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, _ jg�i I V • 19Ja6 4W%,*7 , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: P. 03 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within tluee hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 0 day of C , 200 i7 (which is days prior to the public hearing date of -Oct. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was osted and visible continuously from the 20 day of 6XA- , 200p, to the l day of , 2000 . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) Signature Signed before me this 4M day of inn %) L__ My Commission expires: Notary Public JOHN A. FORSTER ARY PUBLIC STATETOF COLORADO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 02/25/2003 318 FOURTH STREET LTD �/O BUSTER FELDOM ?O BOX 445 -10USTON, TX 77001 BLAICH ROBERT I BLAICH JANET S 319 N FOURTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CONNOR F HAYDEN 444 GRAPE ST DENVER, CO 80220 EPPLER KLAUS TRUSTEE PROSKAUER ROSE GOETZ & MENDELSHON C/O 2255 GLADES ROAD #340 W BOCA RATON, FL 33431 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REALTY C/O EDWARDS JOSEPH III 502 MAIN ST STE 201 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 GLENN SALLY RAE 504 W HALLAM AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUGH JENNINE 265 BRIGHTON RD NE ATLANTA, GA 30309 KOHNER ELLEN P HUNT ELLEN C/O PO BOX 8770 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEISSER JUDITH E REVOCABLE TRUST 132 E DELAWARE APT 6201 CHICAGO, IL 60611 • ALLEN ROBERT H & JUDY LEY 4545 POST OAK PL STE 101 HOUSTON, TX 77027 BUDINGER WILLIAM & PEYTON 134 W HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 CUNDILL JOAN REED 432 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FIRESTEIN CHESTER & BEVERLY 9777 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 501 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 FRIEDBERG BARRY S 555 PARK AVE 7W NEW YORK, NY 10021 HALLAM LLC 5850 SAN FELIPE SUITE 205 HOUSTON, TX 77057 JANSS MARY 1992 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1667 FAIRMONT BLVD EUGENE, OR 97403 KOUTSOUBOS TED A 415 E HYMAN AVE #206 ASPEN, CO 81611 PATRICK JAMES K 417 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ORKER JACK 1/2 INT BARKER CARRYN ADRIANNA TRUST 1/2 INT PO BOX 7943 ASPEN, CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DIIANNI DONNA 323 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FISCHER SISTIE 442 W BLEEKER ASPEN, CO 81611 GALLANT MARILYN 617 VINE ST STE 1430 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 HALPERIN ELLEN & BARRY 420 W FRANCIS STREET ASPEN, CO 81611-1233 KINNEY STEPHEN J & SUSAN M 3323 1/2 S FLAGLER DR WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33405 NATHAN REVOCABLE TRUST 718 N LINDEN DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 POTVIN SALLY ALLEN 320 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RH ASPEN LLC SAX JOEL D REED CAROL 303 W FRANCIS ST 317 N FOURTH ST 323 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 3CHLOFFER BRUNHILDE P °O BOX 941 ASPEN, CO 81612 u SIRKIN ALICIA 3500 S BAYHOMES DR MIAMI, FL 33133 0 TEAGUE LEWIS TRUST 862 NORTH BEVERLY GLEN BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 TITUS JOHN W & JOAN E UHL MARGARETE A WALNUT CREEK RANCH LLC 3025 BRYN MAWR PO BOX 122 4520 MAIN ST STE 1050 DALLAS, TX 75225 ASPEN, CO 81612 KANSAS CITY, MO 64111-1816 I GILLESPIE AVE — c~n PEARL CT — -- Q _� -- w i z = z z ,tom NORTH ST Ll Z Co W F1-41VC/SST co 2 c co - c y (a _ - a W MAJIV Sr - ti AZ AMIA, Sr • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 0 CASE #00-12 Before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the BASEMENT MEETING ROOM, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: November 2, 2000 Time: 4:00 P.M. Owner for Variance: Name: Mel and Marilyn Gallant Address: 309 N. Third Street Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: 309 N. Third Street, Lots R & S, Block 35 Variances Requested: Applicant for Variance: Earl Anderson Anderson Design Studio 33 Sagewood Court Basalt, CO 81621 The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for the construction of a single-family home and Accessory Dwelling Unit. Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Charles Paterson, Chairman 0 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax To: Earl Anderson From: Sarah Oates Fax: 927-0333 Pages: Phone: Date: October 4, 2000 Re: BOA Case CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Earl —the following is based on the attorney's comments Appeal of P and Zs decision: The Board of Adjustment has the authority to hear an appeal of a denial of a variance from P and Z pursuant to Section 26.316.020. The notice of appeal has to be filed with the Community Development Director within 14 days of the P and Z decision. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the Appellant and by publication to all other affected parties (although I would mail notice to the neighbors as well). The BOA shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. The decision shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process (meaning in general that a party did not receive notice or was not allowed to participate in the original hearing) or that the administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction (for example, made a condition beyond their power) or abused its discretion (the courts have basically construed this to mean that there is no evidence in support of their finding). Procedurally, the BOA would review the record (read the transcript of the meeting) and review exhibits. The BOA could allow the appellant to briefly address the legal issues and permit the neighbor to briefly respond), but this is not a hearing de novo (a new hearing). • • New Hearing by the BOA October 4, 2000 The applicants have the choice to submit a new application to the Board of Adjustment. There will be a new fee, noticing requirements and memo. The noticing requirements will be posting the property and mailing to the neighbors. The BOA would address the same criteria that was addressed by the P and Z in this case. It would be wise to try to work something out with the neighbor so that there is not opposition during the a public hearing. Again, at BOA, to get approval for the variance 4 of 5 members must vote in the affirmative (BOA only has 5 voting members). Either case would not be heard until the November BOA meeting as the October meeting is tomorrow and they only meet once per month. 0 Page 2 1 • • .U5. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director -J� FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer-_> 0 DATE: October 3, 2000 RE: Residential Design Standard Variance and Dimensional Requirements Variances for 309 N. Third Street SUMMARY: The subject property is a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district. The applicant requests a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to "secondary mass." The "secondary mass" standard requires that at least 10% of the above grade square footage is in a mass that is detached, or linked by a subordinate element, from the principal residence. This proposal does not include a secondary mass. The applicant is also requesting a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance from the requirements of the R-6 zone district. APPLICANT: Mel and Marylin Gallant, represented by Earl Anderson. The application is included as Exhibit A. LOCATION: 309 N. Third Street, '/2 of Lots R and S, Block 35. ZONING: R-6. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a single-family home on a 3,000 square foot R-6 lot. Unlike most 3,000 square foot lots within the original town site (which are 30' x 100'), the subject property is 50'x 60' with the lot aligned on Third Street and the alley (see the site plan in Exhibit A). The required setbacks are as follows: Front yard setback: 10' Rear yard setback: 10' (principle building)/ 5' (accessory buildings) Combined front/rear yard setback: 25' Side yard setback: 5' Combined side yard setback: 10' With the required setbacks, the applicant has a 42 '/2' x 32 '/2' building envelope for the residence. The applicant is proposing a subgrade ADU and no garage. Three on -site parking spaces must be provided on the lot as well. Per the Land Use Code, the rear yard setback must align with the rest of the lots on the block. For 309 N. Third Street, the rear yard must abut the alley. Further, the front yard must be the portion of the property which is adjacent to Third Street. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a twenty-five (25) foot combined front and rear yard setback (with a minimum of ten (10) feet each) on yards that are perpendicular to each other. I. Residential Design Standards Waiver Requested: The following text and graphic are applicable excerpts from the Residential Design Standards. Secondary Mass. All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. The garage is the secondary mass in this illustration. It is connected to the principal building by a subordinate element (such as a linked pavilion), which demonstrates how this standard can be met. The site plan does not meet the Residential Design Standards because no secondary mass is proposed. The house does not meet this standard, and is instead configured as a single mass. REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.222, in order to authorize a variance from the Residential Design Standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist. The proposed building does not comply with the following design standard: E All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accoessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: 1. Standard: The granting of the variance is in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Response: The granting the variance does not create a development scenario which is in greater compliance with the AACP. Residential buildings with linking elements, as required by code, are more in keeping with the AACP because of the positive, pedestrian scale given to the Aspen streetscape. 2. Standard: The granting of the variance is a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Response: The intent of the requirement is to break up the massing of the house. The applicant has proposed a house which is twenty-five (25) feet tall (the roof is flat and therefore the house can not exceed this limit) and is not a massive house due to the small allowable floor area of 2,400 square feet. The current design meets the intent of the code, although it is not a more effective method of addressing the secondary mass standard. 3. Standard: The granting of the variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Response: Due to the small building envelope and configuration of the lot being on the back one-half of two West End lots there are unusual site specific constraints. H. Variance from the R-6 Dimensional Requirements Requested: The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance. Required setbacks for a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district Side Yard - 5 feet Combined Side Yard- 10 feet Front Yard- 10 feet Rear Yard- 10 feet (principal buildings)/ 5 feet (accessory buildings) Combined Front/Rear- 25 feet The applicants are proposing the following: Side Yard- 5 feet Combined Side Yard- 10 feet Front Yard- 10 feet Rear Yard- 5 feet Combined Front/Rear- 15 feet REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.314.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. Response: The proposal is consistent with this standard. The Residential Design Standards require that new residential construction has a relationship to the street. The code requirement as it relates to the front and rear yard setbacks is contrary to the Residential Design Standards for this parcel because the front and rear yard setbacks are perpendicular to each other, requiring the house be significantly setback from the street. 2. Standard: The granting of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. Response: The applicant is proposing a small house with no garage. The applicant is not asking for an unreasonable variance in light of the configuration of the property and our code requiring the rear yard align with the other properties in the block. 3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's right 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 4 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 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: Property owners are permitted to build to the five (5) foot setback line for accessory buildings in the R-6 zone district, so that alley will not be impacted by this parcel more so than any other property. The code requirement of placing the front and rear yard setback perpendicular to each other is a hardship for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Residential Design Standard variance request for "secondary mass" be approved finding that Review Standard #3 has been met. Staff recommends the variances for the rear yard setback and the combined front and rear yard setback be granted finding that all of the Review Standards have been met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No.'�Series of 2000 granting a variance from Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass finding that Review Standard #3 in Section 26.222.010 has been met, as well as a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance, and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance finding that all Review Criteria in Section.*314.040 has been met for the construction of a single family home at 309 N. Third Street. " ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Application Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR "SECONDARY MASS" AND A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH V2 OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 35,309 N. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-24007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Mel and Mary Gallant, owners, represented by Earl Anderson of Anderson Design, for a variance from the Residential Design Standards and Variances from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code for the north %2 of Lots R and S, Block 35, 309 N. Third; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 309 N. Third is a 3,000 square foot, located in the R-6 Zone District, and currently contains a single-family dwelling; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Aspen Municipal Code and the dimensional requirements of Section 26.710.040; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to secondary mass and the dimensional requirements of Section 26.710.040; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, Section 26.314 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that an application for a variance from the dimensional requirements of the code can be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if it is part of a consolidated process; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 3. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. 3. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain 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. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on October 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the Design Review Appeal Board, approved a variance from the Secondary Mass standard of Section 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to secondary mass for 309 N. Third and variances from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, without conditions, by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, also serving as the Design Review Appeals Committee and Board of Adjustment: Section 1 That a proposed variance for a single-family residence at 309 N. Third Street, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Residential Design Standards finding that a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints. 0 Section 2 That the proposed five (5) foot rear yard setback variance, and ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a single-family residence at 309 N. Third, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.710.040(D)(4), Minimum Front and Rear Yard, finding that all of the review standards have been met. Section 3 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, 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. Section 4 This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 3, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk g:\home\saraho\nllnning\drac\309nthird Robert Blaich, Chair Attachment 4 DRAC Standards for Granting a Variance DRAC Proposed Variance 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO According to the DRAC standards for granting a variance under paragraph (c), it is our understanding that any decision to approve our application would be, as stated, "... clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific contraints". On behalf of the owners, we look forward to any approval that you might grant to us under these circumstances and feel strongly that your approval would reflect the very site specific contraints which exist on this property. • L_J 0 00 r Attachment 5 Criteria for Variances 26.314.030 Authorized Variances 26.314.040 Standards Applicable to Variances Project Address: 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 81611 26.314.030 Authorized Variances The applicant is requesting a variance from dimensional requirements according to paragraph (a) Dimensional Requirements. 26.314.040 Standards Applicable to Variances 1. Considering the site constraints which exist on the subject property the applicant feels a grant of variance for the new proposed residence would be well within the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title. 2. The applicant is requesting the minimum variance to allow for reasonable use of the subject parcel. 3. A literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district due to the following conditions: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the applicant's parcel situated on the N 1/2 of lots of R & S, Block 35. To begin, the dimensions are atypical for the West End. The parcel is 50' wide by 60' deep. In addition, while the parcel is not a usual corner lot, it is on an alley and considered, by zoning regulations, a corner lot with all the same setback criteria. In particular, the front and rear yard setbacks are actually adjacent to each other and not opposite as they would be normally. With this in mind, the traditional rear yard setback is now considered one of the side yard setbacks making it 5' in lieu of 10' to 15'. In an effort to adhere to the Residential Design Standards regarding garage access, the design of the applicant's new residence proposes to relocate the existing parking, which is now accessed from 3rd street, to the rear of the property. This change in location will allow access from the alley in lieu of 3rd street to help minimize conflicts between pedestrians and other automobile traffic as brought forth in the Residential Design Standards. Page 2 Attachment 5, Cont.' However, while locating the parking area at the rear of the property with access from the alley conforms well to the Residential Design Standards, it dramatically reduces the buildable area within the current setbacks. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a variance of 5' for the rear yard setback(i.e., the alley side) and a 10' variance for the front yard setback. An approval of these two setback variances would also improve the Residential Design Standard requirement of "Build -to -Lines" by allowing the applicant's proposed residence to more fully align with the existing homes along 3rd street increasing the effect of a parallel street facade. b. Due to the fact that no other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district share the same special conditions and circumstances found with the applicant's parcel, an approval and granting of these two variances will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege previously denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. • 0 Land Use Application Package DRAC Proposed Variance Subject Property: 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO Submitted By: Anderson Design Studio, Ltd PO Box 3313 Aspen, CO 81621 970-927-0332 • 11 1. Project name_ 2. Project location ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM �� //010 -7 1111(- ;Q� - . �V� (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description 4. Lot size 3. Present zoning 5. Applicant's namWe ddress and phone number _ oG4- : 5 �o S Le -re / resents tive's name, address, and phone number`/ 3 G a y� Go 92 - 033� 91,c 2 / 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Conceptual PUD Final HPC Minor HPC 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment a nccrrintion of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, J 1_ 10, ve you completed and attached the following? /Attachment 1- Land use application form ✓/response to Attachment 2 �/ Response to Attachment 3 • Attachment 2 General Submission Requirements DRAC Proposed Variance 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 1. Letter of Authorization; See Attachment 2. 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 81611 North half of Lots R & S, Block 35, Aspen, Colorado 3. Disclosure of Ownership; See Attachment 4. 8 1/2" x 11" Vicinity Map; See Attachment Mel & Marilyn Gallant 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-6869 August 28, 2000 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, C081611 Re: DRAC ProposedVariance To whom it may concern: We hereby authorize Earl Anderson, of Anderson Design Studio, Ltd. with offices at 33 Sagewood Ct., Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-0332 to be our representative for the 309 N. 3rd St. DRAC Proposed Variance. i cerely, Mel t Marilyn Gall t AI.IG.30.'00B 12,08Pt9 STEWRRT TITLE ASPEN IYV. 77-1 r.c OTEWART TITLE OF ASPEN INC. OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANd REPORT Order No. 0002745J PREPARED FOR: 9999900 S7EWART 7ME OF ASPEN, INC_ HEREBY cERT7FIES from a starch of the books in this oftce that title to: The North Ball of Lot R and the North Halt of Lot 6, B20ck 35, CITY AND 7WH3.rTS Of ASPEN situated in the County of Pitktn, State of Colorado, appears to he vested in the name of.• MARILYN GALLANT and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following liens: A Deed of Trust dated August I2, 1994, executed by Marilyn gallant and Melvin gallant, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $195,000.00, in favor of Norwsst mortgage, Inc., recorded August 75, 1994 in acok 758 at Page 497 as neceptson No. 373181. EXCEPT any and all taxes and assessments. EXCEPT all easements, rights of way, restrictions and reservations of record. This reporr does not reflect any of the following matters. (1) BanbVrcies which, from date of adjudication of the mosr recent bankruptcies, antedate the report by more than jFm • een (14) years. (2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the repon by more than ;even (7) years or until the governtng statue of limitations has- expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Unpaid tax lieu which, from date of payment. antedate the report by more than seven years. Although %+e believe the facts stated are true, this fetter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Titie of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged wick any finoncial obligation or liability whatever on arty statement contained herein. Dated- july 27 2000 at 7:30 A.M. at Aspen, Colorado S719WART 7TIU OF ASPEN, INC. Vicinity Map Aspen, Colorado p 3300m saoft r 01999 Ma pQ uest.00 m, I no.; 01999 Navigatio n Tech no bq ies__ Note: The star in the middle of map above indicates the location of the subject property within in the City of Aspen. Property Address: 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 81611 • • Attachment 3 Specific Submission Requirements DRAC Proposed Variance 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 1. Not required, per Pre Application Conference with Sarah Oates 2. See site plan; attached 3. See Building Elevations, Roof and Floor Plans; attached 4. N/A 5. See Presentation Board 6. While the subject property located at 309 N. 3rd St. is similar in size with most of the lots in the West End, i.e. 3000 s.f., the subject property's actual dimensions(50'w x 60'd) are inconsistent with the majority of the same size lots in the West End which are typically 30'w x 100'd. Currently, the new home which we are proposing to build meets all of the Residential Design Standards for the City of Aspen excluding the Secondary Mass requirement. Unquestionably, the Secondary Mass requirement is well conceived and easy to satisfy on any property where there is room to do so. On the other hand, when the property takes on a more square shape, as does the subject property, the Secondary Mass requirement becomes a uniquely difficult task to achieve. With all of this in mind, the owners are requesting a proposed variance from the current Residential Design Standards in order to waive the Secondary Mass requirement, and subsequently, build a more liveable and well designed contemporary home in the West End. r f Alley Block 35 c c� n _ i O n O N Q r Qj to m � = 7 co Q ^E, \ W T U) Mcz W a----------------�------------d I N! O J F-W I O J HW - - - - I O J h- W - - - - - O f W- I I I I I I ILL I I I I I Ia I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ---------I—TI I I I I I I II I I I I II I W O 00 LLL T • ---- - - - - -- 4-1 oo ----------H iCS I 'Wt W L VL - - - - - - - - - 1 1 PUBLIC NOTICE DATE ' ' TIME L !�! PLACE * LI& PURPOSE Am� AUG-30-2000 WED 09:15 AM • FAX NO, P. 01 County of Pitida } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } �. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26304.060 (E) being or representing au Applicant to the City of Aspea, personally cerd-fy that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the Mowing manner: By mailing of nice, a copy of which is attiched he to, by first-class, posfa9c p epaid U.S. Mail tQ all owme�s of property with three huri(JrM (300) feet of the subject propztt as indicated n the attacI ed list, on the a d# of _ i . 199_ (which 's prior to the public leg date of ), 2, By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seer: from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously /1]�from the day of 10D.+94§ . (-'Yfusz be posted for at lea,,: cea 00) Ball days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign i� attached 'hereto. 0 (Attach photograph here) 0 �l�natllre � � Signed before me this ��/ day fS1 ®oo ,t," by Notary Pub' '-RilmAtIlre L JOHN A. FORSTER NOTARY PUBLIC TATE OF COLORADO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 02/25/2003 3 L' • r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director ,;i'C) FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer-5 D DATE: October 3, 2000 RE: Residential Design Standard Variance and Dimensional Requirements Variances for 309 N. Third Street SUMMARY: The subject property is a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district. The applicant requests a variance from the Residential Design Standards related to "secondary mass." The "secondary mass" standard requires that at least 10% of the above grade square footage is in a mass that is detached, or linked by a subordinate element, from the principal residence. This proposal does not include a secondary mass. The applicant is also requesting a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance from the requirements of the R-6 zone district. APPLICANT: Mel and Marylin Gallant, represented by Earl Anderson. The application is included as Exhibit A. LOCATION: 309 N. Third Street, '/z of Lots R and S, Block 35. ZONING: R-6. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a single-family home on a 3,000 square foot R-6 lot. Unlike most 3,000 square foot lots within the original town site (which are 30' x 100'), the subject property is 50'x 60' with the lot aligned on Third Street and the alley (see the site plan in Exhibit A). The required setbacks are as follows: Front yard setback: 10' Rear yard setback: 10' (principle building)/ 5' (accessory buildings) Combined front/rear yard setback: 25' Side yard setback: 5' Combined side yard setback: 10' r With the required setbacks, the applicant has a 42 %2' x 32 '/2' building envelope for the residence. The applicant is proposing a subgrade ADU and no garage. Three on -site parking spaces must be provided on the lot as well. Per the Land Use Code, the rear yard setback must align with the rest of the lots on the block. For 309 N. Third Street, the rear yard must abut the alley. Further, the front yard must be the portion of the property which is adjacent to Third Street. Theref6re, the applicant is required to provide a twenty-five (25) foot combined front and rear yard setback (with a minimum of ten (10) feet each) on yards that are perpendicular to each other. I. Residential Design Standards Waiver Requested: The following text and graphic are applicable excerpts from the Residential Design Standards. Secondary Mass. All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. The garage is the secondary mass in this illustration. It is connected to the principal building by a subordinate element (such as a linked pavilion), which demonstrates how this standard can be met. The site plan does not meet the Residential Design Standards because no secondary mass is proposed. The house does not meet this standard, and is instead configured as a single mass. REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.222, in order to authorize a variance from the Residential Design Standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist. The proposed building does not comply with the following design standard: 2 All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accoessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: 1. Standard: The granting of the variance is in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Response: The granting the variance does not create a development scenario which is in greater compliance with the AACP. Residential buildings with linking elements, as required by code, are more in keeping with the AACP because of the positive, pedestrian scale given to the Aspen streetscape. 2. Standard: The granting of the variance is a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Response: The intent of the requirement is to break up the massing of the house. The applicant has proposed a house which is twenty-five (25) feet tall (the roof is flat and therefore the house can not exceed this limit) and is not a massive house due to the small allowable floor area of 2,400 square feet. The current design meets the intent of the code, although it is not a more effective method of addressing the secondary mass standard. 3. Standard: The granting of the variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Response: Due to the small building envelope and configuration of the lot being on the back one-half of two West End lots there are unusual site specific constraints. H. Variance from the R-6 Dimensional Requirements Requested: The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance. Required setbacks for a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district Side Yard - 5 feet Combined Side Yard- 10 feet 0 1 • Front Yard- 10 feet Rear Yard- 10 feet (principal buildings)/ 5 feet (accessory buildings) Combined Front/Rear- 25 feet The applicants are proposing the following: Side Yard- 5 feet Combined Side Yard- 10 feet Front Yard- 10 feet Rear Yard- 5 feet Combined Front/Rear- 15 feet REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.314.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. Response: The proposal is consistent with this standard. The Residential Design Standards require that new residential construction has a relationship to the street. The code requirement as it relates to the front and rear yard setbacks is contrary to the Residential Design Standards for this parcel because the front and rear yard setbacks are perpendicular to each other, requiring the house be significantly setback from the street. 2. Standard: The granting of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. Response: The applicant is proposing a small house with no garage. The applicant is not asking for an unreasonable variance in light of the configuration of the property and our code requiring the rear yard align with the other properties in the block. 3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's right 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 4 0 0 r 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 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: Property owners are permitted to build to the five (5) foot setback line for accessory buildings in the R-6 zone district, so that alley will not be impacted by this parcel more so than any other property. The code requirement of placing the front and rear yard setback perpendicular to each other is a hardship for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Residential Design Standard variance request for "secondary mass" be approved finding that Review Standard #3 has been met. Staff recommends the variances for the rear yard setback and the combined front and rear yard setback be granted finding that all of the Review Standards Have been met. RECOM`IENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2000 granting a variance from Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass finding that Review Standard #3 in Section 26.222.010 has been met, as well as a five (5) foot rear yard setback variance, and a ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance finding that all Review Criteria in Section 25.314.040 has been met for the construction of a single family home at 309 N. Third Street. " ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Application r Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR "SECONDARY MASS" AND A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH % OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 35,309 N. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-24007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Mel and Mary Gallant, owners, represented by Earl Anderson of Anderson Design, for a variance from the Residential Design Standards and Variances from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code for the north % of Lots R and S, Block 35, 309 N. Third; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 309 N. Third is a 3,000 square foot, located in the R-6 Zone District, and currently contains a single-family dwelling; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Aspen Municipal Code and the dimensional requirements of Section 26.710.040; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to secondary mass and the dimensional requirements of Section 26.710.040; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or 0 1 0 c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, Section 26.314 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that an application for a variance from the dimensional requirements of the code can be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if it is part of a consolidated process; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. ' The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 3. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. 3. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain 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. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on October 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the Design Review Appeal Board, approved a variance from the Secondary Mass standard of Section 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to secondary mass for 309 N. Third and variances from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, without conditions, by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, also serving as the Design Review Appeals Committee and Board of Adjustment: Section 1 That a proposed variance for a single-family residence at 309 N. Third Street, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Residential Design Standards finding that a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints. 2 0' 0 Section 2 That the proposed five (5) foot rear yard setback variance, and ten (10) foot combined front and rear yard setback variance for a single-family residence at 309 N. Third, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.710.040(D)(4), Minimum Front and Rear Yard, finding that all of the review standards have been met. Section 3 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, 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. Section 4 This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 3, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk g:\home\saran a\planning\drac\309nthird Robert Blaich, Chair r r Attachment 5 Criteria for Variances 26.314.030 Authorized Variances 26.314.040 Standards Applicable to Variances Project Address: 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO 81611 26.314.030 Authorized Variances The applicant is requesting a variance from dimensional requirements according to paragraph (a) Dimensional Requirements. 26.314.040 Standards Applicable to Variances 1. Considering the site constraints which exist on the subject property the applicant feels a grant of variance for the new proposed residence would be well within the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title. 2. The applicant is requesting the minimum variance to allow for reasonable use of the subject parcel. 3. A literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district due to the following conditions: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the applicant's parcel situated on the N 1/2 of lots of R & S, Block 35. To begin, the dimensions are atypical for the West End. The parcel is 50' wide by 60' deep. In addition, while the parcel is not a usual corner lot, it is on an alley and considered, by zoning regulations, a corner lot with all the same setback criteria. In particular, the front and rear yard setbacks are actually adjacent to each other and not opposite as they would be normally. With this in mind, the traditional rear yard setback is now considered one of the side yard setbacks making it 5' in lieu of 10' to 15' . In an effort to adhere to the Residential Design Standards regarding garage access, the design of the applicant's new residence proposes to relocate the existing parking, which is now accessed from 3rd street, to the rear of the property. This change in location will allow access from the alley in lieu of 3rd street to help minimize conflicts between pedestrians and other automobile traffic as brought forth in the Residential Design Standards. • Page 2 Attachment 5, Cont.' However, while locating the parking area at the rear of the property with access from the alley conforms well to the Residential Design Standards, it dramatically reduces the buildable area within the current setbacks. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a variance of 5' for the rear yard setback(i.e., the alley side) and a 10' variance for the front yard setback. An approval of these two setback variances would also improve the Residential Design Standard requirement of "Build -to -Lines" by allowing the applicant's proposed residence to more fully align with the existing homes along 3rd street increasing the effect of a parallel street facade. b. Due to the fact that no other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district share the same special conditions and circumstances found with the applicant's parcel, an approval and granting of these two variances will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege previously denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. 0 ! 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax To: Earl Anderson From: Sarah Oates Fax: 927-0333 Pages: Phone: Date: September 7, 2000 Re: Gallant application CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Earl —yes, just address the BOA criteria and get back to me. The rest of the information I need was included with the DRAC application. Call me with any questions. 0 W September 7, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE (3 pages following) Earl Anderson 33 Sagewood'Court Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Earl: ASPEN • PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT As we had discussed on the phone .yesterday, if the owners of 309 N. Third want to proceed with the house plan as currently conceived, dimensional variances will need to be requested and approved. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission can .hear the variance case in combination with the Design Review Appeals request I have already received. Based on our land use code the required setbacks for 309 N. Third are as follows: Setback Required Proposed Front yard (facing 3`d St.) 10, 10' Rear yard (facing alley) 10, 5' Combined front/rear 25' . 15' Side (south and west sides) 5' 5' The variances the owners need to request are a 5' rear yard setback variance (10' required-5' proposed = 5' variance), and a combined front and rear yard setback variance (25' required — 15' proposed = 10' variance). I have attached they criteria you need to . address regarding the dimensional variances, which is different from the DRAC variance request for which you have already applied. A signed for the dimensional variances will need to be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and you will also need to do a mailing to all the neighbors within 300' of the. property. That mailing list can be obtained at the City's GIS department (920-5453), and I will provide the notice for you to mail once I receive the rest of the packet (answers to the criteria attached). Call me if you have any questions. Regards, Sarah Oates, Zoning O icer City of Aspen 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper is September 6, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE (3 pages following) Earl Anderson 33 Sagewood'Court Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Earl: ASPEN PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT As we had discussed on the phone _yesterday, if the owners of 309 N. Third want to proceed with the house plan as currently conceived, dimensional variances will need to be requested and approved. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission can hear the variance case, in combination with the Design Review. Appeals request I have already received. Based on our land use code the required setbacks for 309 N. Third are as follows: Setback Required Proposed Front yard (facing 3rd St.) 10, 10, Rear yard (facing alley) 10, 5' Combined front/rear 25' • 15' Side (north and west sides) 5' 5' The variances the owners need to request are a 5' rear yard setback variance (10' required-5.' proposed = 5' variance), and a combined front and rear yard setback variance (25' required — 15' proposed = 10' variance). I have attached the criteria you need to address regarding the dimensional variances, which is different from the DRAC variance request for which you have already applied. A signed for the dimensional variances will need to be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and you will also need to do a mailing to all the neighbors. within 300' of the property. That mailing list can be obtained at the City's GIS department (920-5453), and I will provide the notice for you to mail once I receive the rest of the packet (answers to the criteria attached). Call me if you have any questions. Regards, Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer City of Aspen 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on R"Ied Paper • 9 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS A Development Application for a variance from the Board of Adjustment requires mailing of notice and posting of notice pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b) and (c) of the Aspen Municipal Code: b. Posting of notice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the form from the Community Develop :gent Department. The notice shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high,, and shall be composed of letters not less than one inch in height. C. Mailing of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department. The mailing shall contain that information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2). At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail, or hand delivered, to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage pre -paid U.S. mail or hand delivery to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns 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. • 9 CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 26.314.030 Authorized variances. Variances may only be granted from the following requirements of this Title 26: A. Dimensional requirements. B. Permitted uses, but only to allow for the temporary off -site location or storage of materials, structures or equipment pursuant to building construction or construction staging. 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; 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 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 or practical difficulty. 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 Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. • n County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 200_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of , 200, to the day of , 200. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this _ day of 200 . by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: Notary Public MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer DATE: September 14, 2000 RE: 309 N. Third Street SUMMARY: The subject property is a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district. The applicant requests a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to "secondary mass." The "secondary mass" standard requires that at least 10% of the above grade square footage is in a mass that is detached, or linked by a subordinate element, from the principal residence. This proposal does not include a secondary mass. APPLICANT: Mel and Marylin Gallant, represented by Earl Anderson. LOCATION: 309 N. Third Street, '/z of Lots R and S, Block 35. ZONING: R-6. PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION Site Description: The proposed project is a single-family home on a lot of 6,000 square feet on a West End, R-6 lot. Unlike most 3,000 square foot lots in the West End, which are 30' x 100' and original town site lots, 309 N. Third Street is 50'x 60' with the lot aligned on Third Street and the alley (see the site plan in Exhibit B). The required setbacks are as follows: Front yard setback: 10' Rear yard setback: 10' (principle building)/ 5' (accessory buildings) Combined front/rear yard setback: 25' Side yard setback: 5' Combined side yard setback: 10' After meeting the setback requirements, the applicant has a 40' x 35' building envelope for the residence. The applicant is proposing a subgrade ADU and no garage. Three on - site parking spaces must be provided on the lot as well. 0 0 0-3 3 • s Waiver Requested: The following text and graphic are applicable excerpts from the Residential Design Standards. Z Secondary Mass. All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. The garage is the secondary mass in this illustration. It is connected to the principal building by a subordinate element (such as a linked pavilion), which demonstrates how this standard can be met. The site plan does not meet the Residential Design Standards because no secondary mass is proposed. Staff evaluation: The house does not meet this standard, and is instead configured as a single mass. Staff recommendation Staff recommends that the variance request for "secondary mass" be approved finding the review standards have been met. See Exhibit A for the review criteria. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application 0 EXHIBIT A Section 26.575.020, Residential Design Standards The proposed building does not comply with the following design standard: All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accoessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or, Staff Finding: The AACP supports smaller houses on smaller lots. The house, due to its size, is compatible with the neighborhood. This standard is met. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The secondary mass requirement is intended to break up the mass of a house. Because of the amount of allowable floor area, the design and the vegetation surrounding the house, the intent of lowering the mass is met. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Due to the 50' x 60' configuration of the lot, rather than the traditional 30' x 100' of most town site lots, combined with the setback requirements, there is a site specific restraints that warrants a variance for this lot. • Resolution #00 - _ (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR "SECONDARY MASS" FOR THE NORTH V2 OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 35, 309 N. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-124-24007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Mel and Mary Gallant, owners, represented by Earl Anderson of Anderson Design, for a variance from the Residential Design Standards Variance for the north '/2 of Lots R and S, Block 35, 309 N. Third; and, WHEREAS, 309 N. Thirds is a 3,000 square foot, located in the R-6 Zone District, and currently contains a single-family dwelling; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to secondary mass; and WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and 4 ! 0 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on September 14, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the Design Review Appeal Board, approved a variance from the Secondary Mass standard of Section 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to secondary mass for 309 N. Third, without conditions, by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 That a proposed variance for a single-family residence at 115 Robinson Road, Aspen, Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Residential Design Standards because a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 14, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk g:\home\saraho\planning\drac\309nthird Robert Blaich, Chair