The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.234 W Hallam St.A063-99234 W. Hallam DRAC 1 1 O - I S 40 R '7 tb/6. h010 PARCEL ID:~2735-124-22004 ~ DATE RCVD: ]7/20/99 #COPIES:~ 1 CASE NO~A063-99 CASE NAME:~234 W. Hallam DRAC PLNR:| PROJ ADDR:~234 W. Hallam CASE TYP:~DRAC STEPS~ OWN/APP: West End Partnershi, ADR ~520 E. Cooper, Ste. 20 C/S/Z: ~Aspen, CO 81611 PHN 1425-7806 REP:~Colombo ADR ~same ~ c/s/zÂ·pan-le PHN-~same FEES DUE:~460 (d) FEES RCVD~460 STAT E-- REFERRAL.S~ REF:| ' BY| DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 08> ' S Â·911 DEA-C. , 9- -< 0= DATE OF FINAL ACTION:~ 1283..196,-9f1- CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:1 BY: | DRAC: ..e- I -I PLAT SUBMITD: | PLAT (BK,PG):~ ADMIN: ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT December 7, 1999 West End Partnership 520 E. Cooper, ste 205 Aspen CO 81611 Re: A063-99 234 W. Hallam DRAC Amount Previous balance $280.00 Balance due $280.00 130 South Galena Street - Aspen, Colorado 81611 - (970) 920-5090 , A063 /M 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 shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. West End Partnership, 520 East Cooper Avenue, ste. 205, Aspen, CO 81611;925-7806 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 234 West Hallam Street Lots K, L, M, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Design Review Appeals Committee Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan DRAC Resolution 99-5, August 12, 1999 Land Use Approvaks) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) October 22,1999 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) October 13,2002 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 22nd day of October, 1999, by the City of Aspen Community Dev-1 --- --ent Director. 4 2< ZE,u~Jz> Juli~(nn Woods, Community Development Director G.Planning.Aspen.forms.DevOrder 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: 234 West LIallam Street of the City and Townsite of Aspen, by Resolution No. 5, Series 1999 of the Design Review Appeals Committee. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk, City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on October 22,1999. To ke- p alifikeJ 10 U.At,- DESIGN REVIEW ArrEALS COMMISSION - Min] August 5. 1999 Roger Moyer, Vice-Chairperson, called the Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with members Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich and Mary Hirsch. Tim Mooney arrived at 5:15 p.m. Steve Buettow was excused; Jeffrey Halferty was absent. Staff members present were Chris Bendon, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER. STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Roger Moyer asked about the home being built at Park & Cooper (second from the right) with a 214 story addition with huge window openings. The commission noted this was another example of the rules not working; the variance was denied on this building and the results were still bad. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow recused himself. DRAFT MINUTES - June 3, 1999 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the June 3, 1999 minutes. Mary Hirsch second. APPROVED 3-0. REVIEW CRITERIA: 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 necessaryfor reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints PUBLIC HEARING: WESTEND PARTNERSHIP, 234 WEST HALLAM - WINDOW STANDARD & ONE STORY ELEMENT Sworn In: Jim Colombo, applicant. The Affidavit ofNotice was presented at the public hearing and David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notice met the jurisdictional requirements for the commission to proceed. He noted there were four members present and asked if the applicant wanted to continue this hearing. Colombo replied that it was a difficult position and stated that he waited two months to make this presentation. Bob Blaich noted there was only one member missing, since Steve had a conflict. Chris Bendon commented that the house was currently under construction and if the windows were not approved tonight, these windows would have to be modified. Colombo distributed new drawings and provided a model. 1 DESIGN REVIEW PEALS COMMISSION - Minuies August 5. 1999 Bendon stated that there were 2 variance requests Â©Window standard, relating to windows between 9 and 12 feet. There was a penalty associated with it would be counted twice towards floor area. There were two houses on the lot and this was the East House. There was a series of windows that exceeded the 9 feet. Roger Moyer asked for clarification on the drawings. DRAFT Colombo intent o f the ordinance was clearly to define the window separation between a lower level and an upper level. He said so there was not a huge mass; it continued to step-back. He said there was a distinct separation o f the massing of the windows on the first and second level and 3-dimensional separation by the balcony. Colombo distributed 2 additional drawings Â® One story element, requiring at least 20Â°/0 of the front fagade to be one story. Bendon said that the porch structure was a second floor element. Staff recommends denial o f the one story element request waiver. Colombo said that the element exceed 20% it was 32%. He said they subtly stepped back the mass. He felt that they architecturally exceeded the element. Colombo illustrated with photo storyboard o f the surrounding neighborhood noting all the 2 story facades. He felt this house fulfilled the spirit o f the ordinance. Bob Blaich noted the references with 1880 vintage houses do not compare to other houses. Blaich asked if it was a spec project. Colombo answered it was spec and asked what bearing it had for the review. Colombo said the house was Neo- Victorian. Tim Mooney said that for this design to become in compliance, the part o f the deck that runs behind the copula, could be brought deck around so that it comes into the roof element, then it would be in compliance. Roger asked which was correct, the drawing or model with the elevation and with the porch ceiling at 8' or the porch ceiling at 10'. Colombo replied that the transom windows were at 9'. No public comments. 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMISSION - Minu... August 5. I999 Hirsch said they were to decide upon two variance requests, everything shown was acceptable because of"B" and the one story element was better looking. Mooney said that he didn't find a problem with the windows and that would make the house more livable. He said that ifthey wanted to comply with the ordinance, it could be re-designed. DRA" Blaich said the point in construction today is assuming the variances will be granted and to build to this point was an arrogant position. He said that Colombo should have come in long before this but to build and then come in for appeals. Blaich said that this was a manner o f principal to sell the commission; he stated that he was not in favor of approval based upon that position. Colombo stated that Moyer said what ifthis was an historic element, this is a story and 1/3 or 1/4 and HPC would say that this is too grand, it could be dropped down and made to human scale. He said the entry was not to human scale at 12'. Colombo replied that it was 10'. Moyer said this would look like a restaurant at night (a huge wall of light) and that was not the intent o f the ordinance. The intent was a friendly residential feel when you are walking down the street. Moyer said that he would say no on this unless itwas 8'high. Moyer said ifit were dropped, then okay. He agreed with Blaich' s comments but that even 3 months ago it was framed as it is now. The commission took the model apart and placed the cap lower. They all agreed that the 2nd floor deck could be waived but the second story should be lowered. Blaich said it was the spirit that was in comments Roger figure out a way to make the entrance a little less imposing. Hoefer noted that technically there was no approval and the project could be red-tagged. Colombo stated that he should have the right to respond to the comments. He said that the idea of lowering to human scale was acceptable. He said the comment of the windows being over-bearing was something that he couldn't see. He said that they were in scale of neighborhood and the community. He said that the intent of the ordinance was not just to limit 9' as the highest point a window could be because is says thresholds. He said these are technically thresholds. Colombo 3 DRAFT DESIGN REVIEW PEALS COMMISSION - Minuies August 5, 1999 said this board exists for the spirit of compliance and interpretation with common sense and judgement. He said the board exists for instances like this. Colombo stated that he was willing to make entry level and agree with staff that in compliance windows. He said the board had the right to approve these windows. Mooney requested positive feedback from the commission for conditions so applicant does not have to come back. Bendon suggested a condition that Jim get a change order to the building permit before he does it. He said there was concern about the structural aspects. Blaich asked if the house in the present condition could have been it red-tagged; why wasn't it re-tagged. Bendon replied that because he was in for review there was no red-tag issued. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to grant a variance for the Westend partnership, 234 West Hallam, for the windows as represented in the application included in conditions 1,2,3 & 4; a change order and a building permit be issued to re-design the front window design to be in compliance meeting the recommended the cantilevered bay of front fa~ade to 12" - 18" as acceptable. Mary Hirsch second. Moyer, no; Blaich, no; Hirsch, yes; Mooney, yes. DENIED 2-2. Hirsch asked who would be watching over the project to say this is the intent. Bendon said that he would be the monitor. Mooney stated that he was making the motion in the spirit of compromise; he said the motion was a better alternative. Moyer said the applicant had to come in with real plans and HPC got into trouble by trying to help out someone. Moyer said just follow the plans. Mooney agreed that the applicant was behind the spirit issue and attitude for application and approval process should change. Hirsch said she loved to go by the spirit of the law but was sympathetic to the time of 60 days out and shew felt that they had to be reasonable. Hoefer commented that the waiting period for building permits in Laguna Beach was 21/2 years; so we are pretty quick here. Blaich said that he gambled to get it through and if he doesn't win, then he gets to wait. Bendon stated for the record that this case came in about 2 weeks ago, the 60 days was maybe when Jim was thinking about coming in. Colombo responded that he was ready to submit 60 days ago and Sara Thomas said that there was not a full board. Hoefer noted that the 60 days was not an issue one way or the other. Moyer stated 4 DRAFT DESIGN REVIEW ArPEALS COMMISSION - Min August 5. 1999 that there wasn't a board member that wouldn't meet even next Thursday to help facilitate your proj ect. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to grant a variance for the Westend partnership, East House, located at 234 West Hallam, for the waiver of the one story element story to create a more functional space and complies with the design standards. Mary Hirsch second. Blaich, no; Moyer, no; Hirsch, no; Mooney, yes. DENIED 3-1. to come into human element to 8'6". Tim said there was a solution to re-design and eliminate then flat deck space to comply with the roof or one-story element. Moyer and Blaich wanted to see drawings. Blaich said that he understood why Tim wanted to do, but it made the house less livable. Blaich said that he agreed with what Roger proposed, to see drawings. Hirsch said that she wanted to withdraw the motion. Mooney said that if they denied both motions then he could come back in with new drawings. Hoefer said then the meeting could be continued to a date certain. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the public hearing for the Westend Partnership, East House located 234 West Hallam to Noon on Thursday, August 12, 1999. Mary Hirsch second. APPROVED 4-0. Lothian asked Jim Colombo if the drawings could be provided prior to the meeting for staff and the board to review. Colombo replied that he would have the drawings in on Tuesday and the model adjusted for the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 DESIGN REVIEW A.LEALS COMMISSION - Mini August 12.1999 Roger Moyer, Vice-Chairperson, called the Special Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at Noon in City Council Chambers with members Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Tim Mooney and Mary Hirsch present. Steve Buettow and Jeffrey Halferty were excused. Staff members present were Chris Bendon, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. REVIEW CRITERIA: 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 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow was excused. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: WESTEND PARTNERSHIP, 234 WEST HALLAM - WINDOW STANDARD & ONE STORY ELEMENT Sworn-in at the prior meeting (08/05/99): Jim Colombo, applicant. The Affidavit ofNotice was presented at the public hearing on August 5, 1999. Chris Bendon stated that this was a continued public hearing for appeals from the windows standard and one story element for 234 West Hallam, the East Residence. At the prior meeting the committee requested amendments to the plan for (D entry canopy and Â® horizontal element above the first story windows, the cantilevered-out. It was now 12 inches and provided some relie f from that front fagade. The Staff recommendation remained the same with amended conditions specific to the window variance represented in the drawings dated August 10, 1999. The applicant was required to seek a change order to the building permit. Bendon said i f the committee members chose to approve the one story element, then condition #1 would have to be amended to include that standard. Jim Colombo said that they had taken lead that majority o f the board had asked for cantilevered the element above the decks 12". He said that they felt that it did accommodated what the interest was in separation and any further expansion in that area would become a structural problem as well a shade problem with an inhospitable condition. It would have too much over-hang from the roofline from 1 DESIGN REVIEW A_ _ EALS COMMISSION - Mini August 11 1999 the inside looking out. Colombo said it would cause shading with the southern exposure. A patina-copper element was added at 8-foot 6-inches as the board suggested and seemed to work just fine. It distinctively shows the first floor element and there was a distinct separation with the addition of the cantilevered element. Colombo noted the area was heavily treed. Mary Hirsch noted the changes were the door with the copper-entry lowered would and made window treatment friendlier with the cantilever. Colombo said there was a 6-foot wall not shown that fills in area separating the 2 homes. Tim Mooney stated that it was certainly an improvement and was now in compliance. Bob Blaich said it was a real improvement on the window but he said that there was still a problem with the 2 story. Hirsch said the window was an improvement and balcony was a directive for the step-back from the front door. Moyer said that he was comfortable with a motion and the balcony over the front door created more of a life. He said that with the cantilever it broke up the front. MOTION: Mary Hirsch moved to approve the waiver of window standard, condition #1. for the East Residence located at 324 West Hallam, as demonstrated in the drawings dated August 10 and the staff report, meeting Standard B. Tim Mooney second. Roll call vote: Blaich, no; Mooney, yes; Hirsch, yes; Moyer, yes. APPROVED 3-1 MOTION: Mary Hirsch moved to approve the request to waive the one story element for the East Residence located at 324 West Hallam as demonstrated in the August 10th drawings, finding the design just as an effective method. Tim Mooney second. Blaich, no; Mooney, yes; Hirsch, yes; Moyer, yes. APPROVED 3-1. Mooney said he wondered if the back o f the canopy was going to be solid or was it just the height of the canopy that was the re-design. Colombo replied that there would probably be bric-a-brac filled-in. Colombo thanked the board for the second meeting and the recommendations. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 2 .... _._.__1.-, ! -------1 3 r-ZEITI 11 - 24 i 67 '45 1 t *TEFF-5*. lv'â‚¬~3~~Â·~~B-~ ki:=2XI~ |~ \ 1 Ave, 10,99 , -Ii---.I --.%:-=.*-L.-- :--14P il 2:91, 'P,F- 41.IA'Â» -=i#*=...:.:=---*I'.~=Lf.~..~=*--*~*$+ffir=---$-'-'/. 11 --Sk=*Q RINT , --.-----f /0 2314119* 1,12-4 ---*I--- N.+....+ -4- -- AT1144 - /<>/\ CtorÂ¥(2- Her t -- -- - .C -- .--- ..1. Vi,k I 4-9 11 ' 4 -,3 , 4 RECEIVED 1 Fl . AUG 10 1999 1 F 1 9 IE711-- - w 1~., ti-- - [| ~ 1 r - 1 ... irT=il i Ut'A O'M41- 'LE>/Ek * 1 .R 1 , . I 1 1413/A# F - i~ kF'vi#<"cyÂ¢,9104 1,-fl: 1 Â«+ **1 --*4 - '=.... - - .4 - --'= I"#t 1 34< Hult ,/ 0-v b ~ !~ ~ r 3, I j -4 *r=k- 0.49 4-*17 -1 u 4 7 , + /' 11 11 ;;1 1 1 ' 1 1 , I f UÂ« O-fÂ¢ , 44,1 j â€¢ . 11 1 'f' op * g f r*-n u,K E K . . 3 1 -11- 1 Ut' 4.-0 f 1 1 \-1 h . ir ic' Â«GHSÂ·*r=- ' T -1 ;V . 1 -.: t 894+02 ~ 4>4-*IN-.+4-9 . A * t 1 3 4 -9 1/1 . 2-WÂ¥ 4444*- -1 4 611 1,1 1 /4 1 1 I 4 ' U 1 Ii'.1/ 424[1 ~ ~i 1-' â‚¬ 4 .;-1.- i i C 1 2- 109** A-r 1 4% ~flt'q 1 ,-7 - 1%42. . 1 1 f 1 LA b 41 1 - 19 r \ . r SCALE:1 /4"----------------------------1 '0" 9 -40 .... 1 77 .u==t -1------ :.2)--*K-' 1-1--2 .L....1.25.-1-I...7.3-1--"7.. .-..........LIJ.-23 -ZZ'T J. m/-7.7 -41127:-7:*$**#*.-I----:.~I.. 1ZII,75=/Jl,I.*--itÂ£/.LE.U -371*.5,---*/~42=27-:2-2-22''-1- A.6 10.99 '.-yi770.-r -:-1--tmtt-_7Â·71: 22ZMJ~' ' ---7Â·--Â·"---1.==2---12-- ---Â·-7.Â·Â·--tr-:.-M:t~~,Crm:7'.~5~Urs-J.-I=Z-7.--1-17. -1--.---- 1.. - Â· rÂ·32 ---- SEL Â£:52( 71- 20Â»~Kâ‚¬>7--4[11 k'61[/6, 4 -- 11-- a- - -. \19 . /6,6. it % --**i----1 - * AA - - Mo.517 il 1/ 11, 101. ....\~\\ -1 E? *, riÂ«,~D- --- 1 111 -1.- .-. Iii !a 1| e 1 N J r..21 k 11 ~~nA.2 - 11,4 j t-21 ~ .\IN b --JUE=-372 -7 li AS/AC ~1 AUG 1 0 1999 --_- - It - 1 111 -41 z~-~~ --- - I~ 0 - 91 ---- ...~ Ii==to .... - .-4 -. A .- .. 7 %14Â¢ 4'Â·Â· Ot E- 11 <11[ly -31_4 - 11 - i L-/ 1 1 4-1 ! - 4444 0 1131-/2; F 1 1- ~--d~ -li~ .11 r. - .............. . '11 ~11 -- -I * - - 0\4/-018Â£4 -F-AO A N . 1~ 1~ .117/7.1 I 2,"limit . -- ] i [12.ifK ID il '39$16 12 -- -r 1 t 1 T - "~.-... -----------.- . 1 1 : ._1 I VE, N 927-- -- , 4 , . - - 11=41=lk- -. ILLL Il F79 il 1- ...- 5.--_1--_. - 0 41 I ! 11 8 2 .---- --- - -- 77 K -- - -'-1[M==llH --"--- cyl LED' , 1 1...U L --1-- - 1.- i - .9./. Ito. 0 1 EAST_ELÂ£MAIION SCALE:1/4"------------------------1 '0" Â£23+ ikil 41Lt PMO -IM, ED, AM, rl#_ Bl~ 4& 4 0 kimpt 01 Y#f 14-0C 607 +VId fulÂ¢*ir 11[ --raa---lic).4/z l 409 40*ACK Jwk 4*4 go#k Â· 6104s ' t151 bak vad#Mas, 68- 4 1 i 121. 44Mlut 4. 9 ou %11)~1 20 le R. 444 )4* 6 64 77 14 Acur 4 46. rat le 1 .. OM sp)1 Wl 81121*\ Mybe. &0\411)5 W,(3 17--Â£66 -1 4 *4 obtj UW- -NU~15- 345 tn** U-EFE â‚¬aw [Â« -0Â«4 4 4 VA I wt *wolwK - w l44- 14 Orlina~a. - jul-470 gefud#,1 44 clay- 044 6 issvid 1, Wes,L _ C./ 9 6).A#Al,ew- bal glect fE- CE n f N fÂ·-rl- w* 6 <ck' Frwi (# 11 - tr NeÂ· 444 E 1 1 74. Ovz 9% 8620 41 aw s A;7 e<"0*6 Â· 4 041' RAd cup oufped w + 44- 6~ 1 44- At flooJ 7Â·~ . T N C - Flf e- 1 ~02 '/loovt 4-0 ctrAW*s 6 . 6â‚¬Way, E I tz, 0,4 'Mved twav-45, 0,1/1. i A waect 04+Xle 51.*ad 4, Glad 0 0 CA/- Nu)~U fâ‚¬44* CU Wips . I~ CAQ#1,9 4 64 1)4rd'~ 0144 - 09 4 ff ~144@ O 147- + PM 0& w< 141 1 1107 0< w'401 L<*4 =prirm b + 4 0111*- - M{ 1 94 OfÂ« 44_ - cy, ub i 11 - 1 3 - 1 Â«flact MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeals Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner~ ~ ~ ~~0~ RE: 234 West Hallam Street Appeal -- Public Hearing (Continued from Aug. 5th) Window Standard One Story Element Standard DATE: August 12, 1999 Noon SUMMARY: The applicant, the Westend Partnership represented by Jim Colombo, has applied for an appeal of the Residential Design Standard relating to windows within 9 and 12 feet above finished floor levels and for the One Story Element requirement for the "east residence" located at 234 West Hallam Street. The property is currently being developed with two single-family residences. On August 5,1999, the Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) denied a motion to approve the window variance and denied a motion to approve the one-story element variance. The DRAC then requested specific amendments to be demonstrated with drawings and continued the hearing until noon August 12,1999. The applicant has provided details for a entry canopy to be placed on the front fagade, above the entryway. The bottom of this canopy approximates the top of the first floor windows. The applicant has also provided details for a 12 inch cantilever overhang above the first floor windows. Staff' s recommendation remains the same. The appurtenance above the entryway does not qualify as a first floor element and staff does not believe it represents a more effective method of addressing the standard. The cantilever above the windows does help mitigate the effect of the larger windows by providing relief on the front fagade. The conditions have been slightly amended to require the approval of a building permit change order and referencing the plans submitted to the Planning Office on August 10, 1999. If the DRAC wishes to approve both variance requests, condition #1 should be amended to state the two standards. Staff recommends DRAC grant a variance for the window standard, with conditions, and deny the request to waive the one story element requirement for the "east house" at 234 West Hallam Street. 1 APPLICANT: Westend Partnership. Represented by Colombo International, Inc. LOCATION: 234 West Hallam Street. ZONING: Medium Density Residential (R-6). REVIEW PROCEDURE: DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. BACKGROUND: The property is currently being developed as two single-family residences under an active building permit. The "east house" is the subject ofthis application. No modifications to the "west house" are proposed. The application is subject to the previous Residential Design Standards, as it was submitted prior to the effective date of the revised standards - Ordinance 20. WINDOWS: The applicant's proposed development is subject to a FAR penalty with the following Residential Design Standard: All areas with an exterior expression Of a plate height greater than 10 feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each 1 square foot of floor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between 9 and 12 feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, or non-orthogonalfenestration between 9 and 15 feet above floor level. 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 proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. The AACP specifically rejects two-story window expanses in both the current and proposed versions ofthe document. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The standard specifically says no windows in this area unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty. However, the windows do not span through to the second floor and do provide interest to the faGade and differentiation from the closely adjacent west house. in addition, the cantilevered deck provides relief and differentiation in the front fagade. Staff supports the waiver. 2 c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specijic constraints. Staff Finding: There are no site specific constraints for this property which necessitate larger windows. The site is relatively flat and developable. ONE-STORY ELEMENT: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: One-Story Element. All residential buildings must have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the buildings overall width. 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 proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. The one-story element criteria was to encourage pedestrian scaled facades and to break-up the overall massing of buildings. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The applicant has not provided a more effective method for this standard. The addition of a canopy does not reflect the spirit of the standard which requires the provision of an actual first floor element. The second floor deck, however, is very similar in its method of addressing the standard and provides relief to the faÂ©ade while still acting as the porch covering. This being said, staff does not believe this is a more effective method than the standard. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specijic constraints. Staff Finding: There are no site specific constraints for this property which make difficult the provision of a one story element. The site is relatively flat and developable. In fact, the applicant has demonstrated the ability to provide the one-story element on-site prior to the un- approved modifications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAC grant a variance for the window, as represented in the application drawing submitted to the Community Development Department on August 10,1999, with conditions, and deny the request to waive the one story element requirement for the "east house" at 234 West Hallam Street. 1. This window variance shall be limited to the development proposed on the "east house" as represented in the application drawing submitted to the Community Development Department on August 10, 1999. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standards," as amended, shall apply. 3 2. The applicant shall apply, and receive approval, for a change order to the building permit reflecting the built and proposed amendments to the original building permit. 3. The applicant shall record this Design Review Appeal Committee Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the Resolution. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the Residential Design Standard for windows within nine and twelve feet above the finished floor levels according to the application drawings submitted to the Community Development Department on August 10,1999, and with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum dated August 12,1999, for the "east house" at 234 West Hallam Street." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Application 4,â€¢e,UwleÂ·44. 4 t N.SECOND STREET 36- HIGH ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCNG ..?.tbul,;i/ .0.i'11149,4111*i 1 Â¢ t-rÂ·.. ,' :4y/%'%g&/a. drumpl#IMI#4 I-'ll.....~latÂ·' ><5'ye!~ 1 #F/Mar/*A 9 '~ /11F~ -Â·. Â·' 1,Att/Â·Â· ' SDE SETBACK lili' I. 1 1 -1- lk.7 B AL_9=07#C_cl i , i.43*th 1 m w x' 9. 8 2 i 13Fe....i ' 19=-======111 ~ 1 1 - -\ 44114 , / O 9 , I ,--.41==--41, 4 E 9Â»04*41 WAKWAY 1-DI / 1 o 1.GR AÂ», 1 4 A. 1~ 4 11 '' 1 11 14 11 1 .tts' CDC SETBACK - -1 = i . 0 .:t~ 1 36Â· HIGH ORNAMEN TAI METAL FENCING 5.-0- 72*er,NIKIN. 4 : - 0 'hAMEN.' 100'-0 Ir 1 :*3310013> 8 1 i 0 1 an -Ill--Il--Ili- 455 234 W.HALLAM i E iR - 0 EAST & *f@[Ui~iMIDENCES 3 i ... ASPEN .... COLORADO,81611 -< r- > :rÂ· ..1 U 2, T C i r- 6 K - 0 . Z. ./.1 2 + 2 gE i 0 00 U SCALE 1 "--10'-O" ALLEY IN REAR ~ ~EAR SET METAL FENCNG 36- HIGH OANAMENTAL 96/6 1/0 L COMT /A7.l E Â£-1 1 '-0" 1'-0'1 6'-4" 2-1. 1 [,1 1 1-- 99 1 2-CAR GARAGE ~ 1 6!8~'X 18'6 FBI] I EL.=100'-O" 1 HR.FIRERATED DOOR ------------- W/AUTO CLOSER -----------1 1111--3-1 0/ 3'-10" ~ F R ,/ \\01 ON \ 1 12 i 0 '1\ '----*r--__' I i i V / 1 \-3, 1 Mp 11. I Z |LOCKER 1 SKI RACK CLOSET | 1/ /7\ --1-/ 1 _O[lonano.[1_ 42" HIGH P=' P ~ / ~ ~ ~ '< : Â· -d- CABINETS ABOVE > METAL RAILING AROUND & L===ti tri:- m KITCHEN 4 h WINDOW-WELL 9 - ~-1 ~1 1 1 . 1<0 11'0">154â€¢ ---4 I-- - (HARDWOOD FLOOR) ~~ ~ ~ ~Upb DINING ROOM r-I . 10'8"X15'0 (HARDWOOD FLOOR) I Ll.2-I ~=s ~- mEI-651 1 L ]391 1 1001 X - VIKING RANGE W/OVEN 4 (p ~111 2 - - & HOOD ABOVE m Ull - 1 11. c-] 1~ g r roo I.- : 11.- 1 ~ 221 1 L ' 014Â« EI SF[p; : Â· ~ 7 - 1.- 1 ANTIQUE VANITY | COOLEREELOw I ... 0r,' MAIet E T OP . 5Â·5Â· h:,LE VENT I le/'PT â€¢ Â» ~ ~ . â€¢ 1 /2.. t. 1 1 1 1 -Gh c + -Â» po.*DER----L~~:~2.,~2>- COLUMNS 18 RISERS@B 17 TREADS@,11 1 -DN.1- HARDWOOD F-COR, 107 ~ ~ - T - CIRCULAR h U.91]\ 1 - -163 -/ MARBLE FLOOR AA/.ZE HALLWAY A 7.2E --Gr------ --T~-i-- 12~0"~RQ---lp--ir,1 11 >24)(j<- 1----------------- ----Â·O 19 RSERS@8" 18 TREADS@11" :I r.lili jj ~~' 9 <& WET ~ ~~ DN 1 L BAR 3 FOYER' 5 MUDROOM - 1-El ... 1Â·Â·65Â· C. O ~~ 6+0")09'0" ~T. O. FINISH FLOOR L _ (STONE FLOOR) EL=100'Â« 4 111 [TE-1 - 1 r-111 42- HIGH DN ETEPS | 1'-6 1/2" METAL RAILING AROUND 1 ele L WINDOW-WELL \ -Â« EL IN] 1/ 1/ L 5 1 LIVING ROOM (HARD WOOD FLOOR) - 15'6")(21'3 FL ~Â·CABINETS ABOVE 4 - T / RE COVERED PORCH (STONE FLOOR) - - =- 1 E U 1 \6 1 'v,Â·,a~ 5:, 2-812Â· 31/22-81/2Â·31/2 2-81/2 T.O.STONE@PORCH 4'10. /'~x ' /F1/ /1/,4 . - n . - n _ur/\ 4/ 9 0 \1>K T. O.STONE@DECK 6 EL=99'-10" rn b 6'-6 9,-4 91-10' 3'-4" 11-612 ////1 4 16'-6" 2401/2" A \1 C NORTH MAIN I,EVEI Â£ FLOOR PLAN 42303> SCALE:1 /4" 1'0" 51-9 k BENCH J 8'-91/2" 33NWIddV SVS .LN 30INIV1331N3 Â·,2/L OL-,2 â€žt,-,â‚¬ k . 1 A : b c= HOME OFFICE/ i : MASTER BEDROOM SUITE : CL. 16'4â€¢X13'0" I (CARPET FLOOR) i ~E~~| ~ 5 : rn z EL.=89'-0" | 7'-6" , N 1 , 1 . fab 1,2 BATH - N 5-71,7 : ~Fi31 -:'" 0 .1 0 H BATH #3 N (TILE FLOOR) n " UP ' 6'-51/2. ~ [ 1-Ei-1 4 b 42 1 3'0" X 3'0" MIN.CLEARANCE 3 1 , - r ' ENÂ·4 - @ TYPICAL 1 2 + 11 'P 1 . . thif> BEDROOM #3 1 - 10'8"X10'3" - ~r-e ~,zÂ· MECHANICAL o (CARPET FLOOR) A I (VINYL FLQOR) b rE' 1 - [El .. ' 6 1 3-8" ~ 71 t . In 1 .1 CU 1 ll LÂ· ~Â· TU n-LAUNDRY LE le\Al\\/ CLOSET . 04 N / ~ . 1 1 5 4---2-51/2â€ž1: -â€žIr---4--CU OFF -0 Â® 3 j (TILE FLOOR) 1 ~-&--900/KLVES-_-__~_. El â€¢ 4 % APPUANCI 1 9 CABNES BELO'N lit- 1 1 9 1 1 0/I dtp HALF-WALL W' ~ ~ ~~ ..1<1 1 0 , GLASS ABOVE - J /- / 2 01/2 3 4~ ' A 7.2E - 1 ----- 13- -------- - - _ - _ _MEDIA_EQQM_ _ _ _ _ 4--446-rrul--1---- r---------------------- -- 2 0 1 12'69<14'9" ,~7.TEN. b (HARDWOOD FLOOR) i 17 RaSERSe7 3,4, m 16 TREADS@1 1â€¢ 12>7' 1-El -<7 Â·at 4-=4 . Â®Â£ 24â‚¬33. - # ELE Ty $ 9 M 2-3/ 1 ENTERTAINMENT t! Â© P~WDER 13 .=_4. 41203 1 ... 1 . CENTRE /NOOD PANELING (-- - f- 11/ _121 7Â· 5. #1'-61 2' 2 Ill / I I i.mnnn!,11 , 84-' 3'-51/2" - -- BENCH~ ' ~ MASTER BEDROOM #2 J 11 1 14'0"XI 6'0 9-g 1.02Â· 1] STEAM Â© (CARPET FLOOR) Â£ -4'4 SHOWER 9 - 8 1 Â® rEl -l-& &4) 0 2 1 h @ ./ C".7/:4 1 N \ 7/ P 46 BATH #2 1/ m 'm 41 A- [,62-1 11 El (STONE/TILE) I 1 ~ 3,-g" 1- 3 ~ h ..j--]~~Cl -' 0 9 1 0 'r A ld=> rli wd /31 :e %4.-m 7ld Â©mum=gmm~6~na-mm~ ---- M 1 ~ = ~ WALKAN CLOSET 327- -t 112'49(6'0" 0 - io 1 ----- <NORTH ~ 6-2' 13'-8" 1 4'-9" , BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN- 0 1 SCALE:1/4" 1'0" 16'-1 1/2" 15'-1 1/2" 10'-112" ' 9'-4" 4'-4" 2-512" 4'-1112" ' INDOWWELL = -emwmm,om: X::*.Â·j.wÂ·7.9.mmyiuwmwA ~ LARGE SCI.9. ~ 01 Izznovr â€¢ (A7.1Ek . ROOF BELOW4 6-4 1/2â€¢ 6'-4" 2-012" 0Â· 4 1/2â€¢ CLOSET SYSTEM BENCH i CLOSET SYSTEM WALK-IN CLOSET 304 16'69(10'8' (CARPET FLOOR) 1 9 0 - DRESSER r. wl DRESSER W 141REOR 1 22; 11/-27 ]STEAM I EL.=113'-0 HOWER P ~ 0 m 1 L Â·'*56 480'/ MASTER BATHROOM I I 22'0"X 1 5'0" (STONE/TILE FLOOR) | ~--------11 / L 3-6. I 11 1./ 1 Dw [Â§65-1 ~ ~ SKY-LIGHT ABOVE |~1 & F | 1 HA.... 7 = 0 L----777- 4 ~L--1 *e , , A 2.2 -1@1/ 47-(f 429% L * 7 T 0 . 0 B 0 3, 1 rw.. ff 1141 11_4 4:. 't) Â·k .11~ Il.. 2 MIRROR | ~ DN:h.---t~-- SITTING AREA % 6 7'0"X16'6")1 ~ z (CARPET FLOOR)/ U". FOYER ~-- '| N -f 0 -[i671 -- 21=1 - 1368-1 /1/ \ 2 1 jil}l 1 -rd?e 0000 U--17 M. T 1 b r. . 11- MASTER BEDROOM #1 ' ~'51 ~-7 GAS APPLIANCE W/ | 15'6"*15'0" d / // I I -3/TV ABOVE&STONE 6 | (CARPET FLOOR) 3 / CO 4 -1 2- ~ ~ EL.=113'-0" . r A\@ BUILT-IN / M DECKW/STONE 8 22<64 --[4â‚¬9>\401~ ~--nÂ»\3 6 7/44 R 4-6 N 5012 4 le:EE:*S>' A ; f tecK w/STONE tr <*>~~/#:$;Af; e! 9 r 18'6"X6'0 0 CO r li Â£ NORTH 6'-6 1/2" 3-4'1 1 9'-10 3'-4" 2'-0 1/2" UPPER_LEVEL FLOOR_FLAN i SCALE:1 /4" 1 '0" 9 14' 9 inÂ· 8'-9 1/2 ... 8'-9 1/2 9'-5 1/2 1 '-0" I 5'-11" ' 1" 23'-7 1/2 112/t 9-,SL - 2/L LIZ p& 16 -o' 1 /-1 . /h ----7 A 77 r j, 11111111-7 11f1f- F~-9 ~ VA, 1.-r. LEr:, 1 11 -1 L .... - O 7, *- ' A ' ' - tx' 44 914 .,brti 1 9 ' ~ I 1 --I r L J_U 1-11 g 1 -REF f 4 331 p -1 . ILL ~ f f- ---414 -14 13 f--11 --I Mi 1 -A - t. - 1-- i E F f fa Eli ~Â© 221-I'JAn m# 4-9 wf--14#411 , -4 12_Il - ' Â¤]7*~ Imtfl- El-Â£~11 71 / 0 7 2 .L__1 1'. . / 1-Lt I Â· 1 1.1 'lz '11Â·'- it ~ .' il,j.2 ~1,1, ?PE-R= 11.-\ r 1 . -77;,Tr ! e..'./. i , 1 Â·' 1 rr, 1 1 N.1.-1 ~ /14 \, - .. 1% 7 ) f Y ., d -1 1 r' r a , 5\ 7, 0<,: < &t 1\ PE .1 9'-O" 4 4 1 + ' dto 4 A - 4-@05 9,4â€¢k-- \\0 , ..Â« 5 1 1 f . l-mr 4 FiNT ..9/ L:31Â¥DS 02@/2 . - . -I , T 1 054 916== 1 -. -- cs~ 1*a:'~-==e==af--1 ' Fur th Il, zt j ~/Ar?/ . 4,4.9,~ r g 4~7// . . lilli 2,1â€ž.9.-1.,Nk=-----=72 .... 1 â‚¬f./3 17 -/7 ~ - /3 - -9- - G .:3~i-- , 125/ _ â‚¬4EFEE-E~fk~ '51-IQI] #- - 1.9 8 h=====â€ž= g:]1 lEsli D=12PF- WIR E==-=-c=r 2.*124 -161 ~ 11 ip- r-:WA<-4:9 e. . 1 affSA - Ip#* 'M' - Â£-,0.:9- I 3- -ti~2-oil 'ffi' . . a . ' .:Â·C+IL - - 1 ..3. -57' - ' Ln i l __~~,p323:EE~ _ NE>~ 5 1,10 f ~231Â»F__ __ r,m [Ell Er? .. . -1 -. 2. fla n-: 2** rEIil ~ till"31 Â· 4-Â¥/b'.fLF- 1 4 '0!: + 1 . NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/8" 1'0. @ Cr1 Â»,5 7-7 9-, .--1 It 1 1 4-Foof --5==1 '44 fo\Mf 1 -33--- ~t -Â»-Â»-Â·5**FATCW/51/5 - ' OA 1- f __ __h . -- ==-7//1-.%- - ---' = f* $ Â«U . Ca 0 - 1 MEr-*JJL-214=77 .3--21 2-... - .- - 948 41 16. - 11 - - ' 10 K 13 '3146 /1- VE. ki 52Â· F.-__- - 1 -----I.-------- =7 .-/ 0 -CE676,9/5/ F>'6- 1 1 . - 1 2421 1 - . 9-f-_2 .LEÂ·-24 -- 424-UUUÂ·.O --+ - ~-.~3-2-~- . --+-- 11 1 -t-- ' - ' r -- EAST ET,EVATION SCALE: 1 //' 1'0" j . ,-~~ 1.111L1.1111! j .. = f F,27 A. *fle m i 12 9 1 DiE c> f- 42.-0pâ‚¬ 4 Â·./- jus.6 - - ~-===/1 -- -- -/430 170\â‚¬3=-S- --- -- -Fa~ p.cr â‚¬ r,1 -['r t==1 . 17---' / -- -1 ~3. 494 - _- ---- -- ~ix -G~=====22611//7 -_. 1- 6 t.'Ort- 6- . . a J 111 , . ~1 - .. 1 Jpl . .- .-=8--wÂ·-itâ‚¬172'~ -' iIi r -- tI-Â·, -Â»- E Lit 1 . &-4..127----12. Z) 11.2~--*-- z:B,p- ki:2 â€¢612:9 6, ' '61 - - - - +~--ttÂ»>91 - ~IRI~ Mi'. /, I, tt.,..1~- 4;2 11494 4.'Â·4 Wwb --Lr Â· f-1,~** 1 - - Â·- {11&11*1.!m li KIE#, tru-4,1.-2 S le'.4 â‚¬ 11 ff â€¢ t R.A ,$ I. 0 â€¢ . 1- 981(11 ''-7+cul.1 le _ __ G.FC'Â·45 vt MAA- 1 M I + 1 - - 1 -7--Lnly,1 11 ..'- - f 1 -- ---- .--- 7.--4,-, 1.-#04 1-7 -- - --~ - 1- -- - - -- 1 0 -- -:1=1 -%-tÂ«14,41 1 R.-41 4Â«h,,>~18: i B vy i - 0%/,0Â·r,qs - r- ==c=tz==201. ! tÂ®i ' - - â€ž--2 1-4 +9-577-1--r.2% 1 -~~~ -- ~ I- -)011210~ll*1000 30011!'313,6 J KN,LI. Aft 1 1. 1 i "r- 7- S , - WEST ET,EVATION SCALE:liB. 1'0. 11 11 11 11 6 li 1 8/12 8/12 il 11 11 1---- --------7 nI 1 11 8/12 8/12 ' ' " 8/12 ' 1 It li 1 1 1, 11 1 1 1 11 . ' 4/12 8/12 8/12 , CHIMNEY:Â· i 11 - 11 6 , ' 1 1 Lf----- 71 8/12 8/12 ' A : 2 1 11\ \ %\\ 'th / 02 1 19 6- i i b' \ Mi /*7 5--U \ 1.. 0, - . /f x ROOF PT.AN c-LÂ· FÂ· 1 /8' ------------------- --1 '0" NORTH 8/12 8/12 5'. 13NWIHI.I. / RECE'VED ATTACHMENT 1 JUL 1 9 1999 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Ar-:N/rn LOM'.0 .-i 2.3. 2 .... MENT 1. Project name 234 0. U ALLAYF 2. Project location (20204-E ow 734 0. F-\Au.â€¢69 0- 4 302.0.SceÂ©c> LoÂ¥ 14, L 1- 47 %>w:,04 AB ; C. r, c. As,Go (indicate street address, lot ~nd block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 4 - G 4. Lot size 9(13 Â£/ 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number L~es f fOD ~RerÂ©GEW/P â‚¬20 E . GoPEE , (Su,1-4 -32 S , 49&,0 , CO - 926-1804 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number ('~u>,v* *lÂ©-7220.yra<-wa 5-Ze> 2. Coo Pi J Q, erc -zos, 075 pgo, 09 - el Z.5 -780 4 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization X Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 9\MLE. FAÂ·0'd vf EES, 57*11(% 5900 5, Pr - 4 13*.Ogird> 9. Description of development application OFÂ·Pi A Mot:- 710 122~ t INOJ - 0 29â‚¬ 1 T Fa L Efte ell W 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 1 Attachment 1- Land use application form V"0' Response to Attachment 2 1,~ Response to Attachment 3 West End Partnership 520 E. Cooper Ave/ Ste/ 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 13, 1999 City-ef Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Authorization for representation To Whom it May Concern: This is a writen authorization for Colombo International, Inc. to represent West End Pa4rtnership, L.L.C. for all issues concerning 234 W.-*lallam Street in Aspen, CO 4-26Â¢1,0->7)36 Jamek P. C*mbo Minagind Partner- West End Partnership.LLC Â· COLONDO INTERNAPONAL INC. 520 E, COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970 925-7806 FAX: 970 925-3972 234 West Hallam DRAC Variance Request Design Review Appeal Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81621 RE: response to attachemt #3 item #6 Dear DRAC members, The property located at 234 E. Hallam respectfully request a variance from the Ordinance 20 Residential Standards. Specifically this request is for s variance from the glazing standard which prohibits windows to occur between 9'0" and 12'0" of what may typically be a second level. The premise for this standard is to eliminate spans where a second level would typically exist above finished first floor. The goal of this standard is to prevent the visual perception of expansive first floor volume which would not be typical of the desired neighborhood architecture. The proposed window exemption occurs from the first floor level rising in a second ~ set of small windows which spans from 9'0" to 11'0" from first floor level. The distinct and intervening element in this case is the street facing balcony which separates and amply designates the first and second level of the structure which convincingly brings this structure into full compliance with the invent of the design standard. The typically higher ceiling of the Victorian style home is maintained in this design and the intent of the ordnance is fulfilled. Therefore it is our respectful request that this board approve the variance for window height at the first level as described in the aforementioned. JOLOMDO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 520 E. COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970 925-7806 FAX: 970 925-3972 234 West Hallam ~- DRAG Variance Request Design Review Appeal Committee City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81621 RE: response to attachemt #4 item A&B Dear DRAC members, 7he property located at 234 E. Hallam respectfully request a variance from the Ordinance 20 Residential Standards. Specifically this request is for s variance from the glazing standard which prohibits windows to occur between 9'0" and 12'0" of what may typically be a second level . Standards for review bv DRAC Standard A: "yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan" Standard B: "more effectively address the issue or proble a given standard or provision responds to:" The premise for both of these standard is to eliminate spans where a second level would typically exist above finished first floor. The goal of this standard is to prevent the visual perception of expansive first floor volume which would not be typical of the desired neighborhood architecture. The proposed window exemption occurs from the first floor level rising in a second set of small windows which spAns from 9'0' to 11'0" from first floor level. The distinct and intervening element in this case is the street facing balcony which separates and amply designates the first and second level of the structure which convincingly brings this structure into full compliance with the invent of the design standard. The typically higher ceiling of the Victorian style home is maintained in this design and the intent of the ordnance is fulfilled. Therefore it is our respectful request that this board approve the variance for window height at the first level as described in the aforementioned. 1 --19 1 U 4,u,02/ A .im~ 47-â„¢ *-- P_Q FLU ~ Ml~:512~ 02&@1 lunzz:l llÂ«1 dE t~ Or* -i LF)651 01 19:RREI li 03> lou 2/'&4 ~dl~~ 0 ~ ~~0-2 -E '4 03---===' fÂ£44*J l fid-#23 - i m,AS-#Madprm-1 - - [--1 l-(1 tfiyfl f%*24Â® 1 [fliÂ»-1 L OC'[5' [34 -1.- Zz i LE' O C..&.1, 1 In-=:**U.-FF 9- 1 \ lib , L Ant 0 Ct]El li p \ f\%%\000 4 00% loodâ‚¬ 3. ff 0 %#Atkf~-Â»- --_yl *? Cb 5%5~ 0[Do tbh*m:*E~ft, 04#]r- --- - J.K tga, -~412 2[L e 49 01[39#4 L._l C ln- [0 1.1 - .....--:91*~Vi~P Mrfr-- .- Â¤ oof/]14 5 \ 00 %\\ l i \\ " 1 i \. 1\ . 4 - \ , \ Â°r> C Â· r . ) 4 // -1 <,r-0 \\ \\ tÂ« . . **Wjxi --Y- R~444 \ i b Â· *-- Â»7 Â» 4---3 O .Â«h- & .::--7 k to\1 4.< 2 X / -%\ \ ' r.Â·1 . 2"4 /-0 \6 , 47*i o. Â»----24*31 ,>i> - -- - / 0 1 94*42 ' 1 luount.in Wew Oil * rn<~- 0 0,2 Â»-9. 6 1%: \ r{:, < C '1/\~~and <Ad 9 - 01 1 Â«1 4 inawfur,ny c, :A . cit Â»,a C 2,47: A N 9-4 - 1 3-6 Ch ~"~-J~4 9 \S : ./46 \'3 : .'' ) '.5!'Itle Â©p ." 5 1 94$4*::--: Â¥ Aseen ./724- T ' t. LA## Der Bi It 1 i.p - 1 , 1\ P /1 12 ~-/~ 1~ 0 t, ' 0 0 \ \9 0 1.1,5,â‚¬; ' & 13% C c 1 3 Â£5Zkood Duck li \~4 K Tent â€¢ = \ 0 \ -1 11 -- Gule,pie s,\~r - 2 il v 1 7 - fhetÂ·For 411.Et - Lh 4 -1 1 20 12-1 ' , 4 2 A.,30/ ,Â·1 - 94 m / - t, VInâ€¢ S, - ' 4~ 41 Er--trnci. St -A p L 1 -1 0/ ---24.4 . - ---\ - f 0 4 41 fe/4 m - i 1 2 B,ce f 9 37 . 64%, (-Irrk !141 - . gr.1 f 4 *be td'Sout AP- \J- 44 9 6 4 C st A . '. \N C, O 97 C .~ 14-,% . M~ St 4 rk N-0\1* ,Â«c> __-flj ~t ~ j ~ / ~ 4 .~ ~po828 ~W ~ '64 0 Ilt.f424 8(2 // i,I,~li-~_-_ t 4 â‚¬ -- 4% 1, 1 2/3 j . Z /1 2/ 404 4 /0, ./ 1 r"ll"O"r,~7 ./4%44) ~42> 0 0. Â¥.- Â® e . -- : Â· f* G,~* ecy r k a MaM e 0 * ./.152, 1-74, ./11* St r 4 4 D.,0. P li- r 07, f P. 2 ' ' 6 2#07 e*~ Al Â£ Arksetâ€žfla f 10 4- ,(952*-am,U Summet St W ~ 4< Aspen Grove j? A fps Pl .. Weitvlew ; um M 12. 4 4 $ 'b -lt< 1 4.Ad W 33- F , c,Z13 \ - C -4 ./.3 0 1 Â· [83 Nu-~~31 , 90\ nh A 13 -7:-"-7-TtrÂ·r,r, b"*..4 4. - LA,- - OF uNNE.th.Â·=-r pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that WEST END PARTNERSHIP, LLC ts the owner in fee simple of the following described property: a . I LOTS K, L AND M, BLOCK 49, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Subject to encumbrances. easements. restrictions and rights of way of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and M 1 /7 is furnished for informational purposes o ..-Z . PITKIN COUNTY ~TITLE, INC. BY: UWOUU,1[7 1 authcNze~ signature CERTIFIED lt: October 28, 1998 @ 8:30 a.m. 3 . t a Attachment Project Information 1. 234 W. Hallam Asoen, Colorado ~ Westend Partnership 520 E. Cooper Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-7806 Applicant's Representative: Jim Colombo 2 234 W. Hallam Lots K, L & M, Block 49 4 City & Township of Aspen ty " 3. Parcel Ownership: Westend Partnership See- -5 .. 4. See Vicinity Map- 5. See Written Description -. l teâ€¢