Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20180703
AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING July 03, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 627 W Smuggler St - RDS Variation VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting June 19, 2018 Chairperson Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 Commissioners in attendance: Scott Marcoux, James Marcus, Skippy Mesirow, Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern Absent: Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Kelly McNicholas Kury Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phalen, Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Planner Amy Simon, Senior Planner Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Manager As Ms. McNicholas Kury and Ms. Carver were expected but not present at the start of the meeting, Mr. Mesirow commented that, if those commissioners enter the meeting late, he will state that for the record. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McKnight moved to approve the minutes from May 15, 2018. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow asked if anyone has a conflict of interest. None were declared. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OTHER BUSINESS Work Session - Lift One Corridor Project Mr. Anderson stated that the purpose of the evening’s meeting was to give P&Z an introduction to this process. He gave background on the project, stating that the City engaged with SE Group to examine the possibility of bringing a lift closer to Dean Street. In that process, several options were explored and P1 IV. City Council ultimately landed on this option, labeled Option Seven, that brought the lift within 150 feet of Dean Street. As a consequence of that, the project required some changes to the Lift One Lodge project, which has established vested rights from an approval that was originally granted in 2011. And because of the changes in the ski corridor and the design as related to the relocation of the lift, there are some changes that would be necessary to Lift One Lodge project, Willoughby Park, and the Gorsuch Haus Project. Ms. McNicholas Kury entered the meeting at 4:33. Mr. Anderson stated that P&Z reviewed the Gorsuch Haus Project, which then moved on to City Council and that project is now tabled. Lift One Lodge, as its currently approved, would require changes to the Gorsuch Haus project. That would be handled through a major amendment to a planned development. Community Development has not received an application for that yet. P&Z would give a formal review to that project in August and then provide a recommendation to City Council, which would review P&Z’s recommendation in September or October. Staff doesn’t have a lot of comment this evening other than providing some opportunity to the Lift One Lodge representatives and other stakeholders who are here this evening from the Gorsuch Haus, Aspen Ski Co, and the Aspen Historical Society. The latter is related to the project with a proposed museum that is scheduled to be located in Willoughby Park under the current approvals. Community Development wanted to give the commission a chance to see the initial proposal for some proposed site plan changes to Lift One Lodge Project and Willoughby Park, have a chance to ask questions, and make some comments that can give some direction as a formal application’s being proposed. This project will potentially move forward to a public vote, tentatively scheduled for the first week of February. Mr. Anderson introduced Amy Simon, the Historic Preservation Officer. He stated that there would be time for the commissioners to make formal comments, then representatives from Lift One Lodge and the Gorsuch Haus would talk a little bit about the status of their project. Ms. Carver entered the meeting at 4:36. Mr. Mesirow stated for the record that both Ruth Carver and Kelly McNicholas Kury are now with us. Ms. Simon introduced herself as the Historic Preservation Officer. She gave some information about the current status of the project and stated that she can answer questions about the historic aspects of the properties in question. She noted that there were some related approvals granted ten years ago and many aspects of those are not changing. Willoughby Park and Lift One Park are designated historical landmarks, which means that HPC has decision-making authority over any alterations to those. The P&Z packet includes a white paper with the history of the lift. This project, with the installation of a new lift coming all the way down towards Dean St, is going to have a major impact on the historic lift and that was not considered ten years ago. This is a big new change and will be the focus of HPC’s discussion and recommendations to Council. Also, there are two historic buildings that are going to be potentially located on Willoughby Park: Skier Chalet Steakhouse and Skier Chalet Lodge. Both those structures are proposed to be relocated, which was contemplated ten years ago. The lodge is to come downhill and be a site for a ski museum. She believes the current concept for the is to become affordable housing. It is shifting somewhat down Aspen Street. P2 IV. Ms. Carver announced that her daughter is the Director of Development with Aspen Historical Society and she is unsure if that is a conflict of interest. Ms. Phalen asked if Ms. Carver would get financial gain from this project. Ms. Bryan asked if Ms. Carver could be fair, impartial, and unbiased. Ms. Carver responded that she is not getting financial gain and that she could be fair, impartial, and unbiased. Mr. Anderson introduced Kevin Dunnett from the Parks Department. Mr. Dunnett introduced himself. He stated that the Parks Department is working in step with the development stakeholders and today’s Lift One Lodge project. This project effects the Dolinsek property, which has a conservation easement on it, which will be kept as a botanical garden park amenity for the community. The Dolensek family is also amenable to sharing some of that property for the lift operations. The Parks department is working in step with Joesphine and their family with developing a park. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if both staff comments are relevant for all the options. For Willoughby Park and also the Dolensek Gardens. Mr. Anderson replied that, as the project moves forward, staff are going to be parsing out the things that are under the jurisdictions of different boards and commissions and the recommendations that they are all making. Until we have a hard application to respond to, any comments would be helpful, but in terms of the formal recommendation to City Council, that will be outlined a little more once the City gets a formal application. Mr. Mesirow asked if the purpose of today’s work session is for the Commissioners to share opinions with the stakeholders so that they have the best chance of success when they come back. Ms. Phalen confirmed that yes, the purpose is to provide initial feedback. Mr. Mesirow asked how P&Z should be thinking about the relation of each of these elements to each other versus individually. Ms. Phalen replied that, at this point, the Commissioners should be thinking about the corridor as a whole. Mr. Mesirow asked if a public vote at end of this process is a certainty. Ms. Phalen replied that it is. Mr. Mesirow asked how P&Z’s recommendations will translate to ballot questions. Ms. Phalen replied that City Council will be the Board that approves the project and whatever they approve will be what’s on the ballot. P3 IV. Mr. Mesirow asked if the City is planning for just one question on the ballot related to this project. Ms. Phalen responded that she does not want to get into details about how the vote will be set up. It could go different ways; the attorneys are hashing that out right now. Mr. Mesirow thanked Ms. Phalen and asked if the Commissioners had any other questions. There were no further questions. Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to the Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects. Mr. Glass introduced himself and gave his co-presenters the opportunity to introduce themselves. They were Michael Brown with Lift One Lodge and Stan Clauson. Mr. Glass showed a photograph of Lift One Lodge from the 1960’s. He explained that, when thinking about moving the lift, they want to preserve the vibrancy and public access to Lift One Lodge that is shown in that photograph. He stated that this has been a collaborative effort with the stakeholders present, the Parks department, the Historical Society, and Planning and Zoning in order to come up with something that would create a big impact. Mr. Brown provided some additional history on the project. He stated that, after receiving feedback in work sessions with P&Z, the Historic Preservation Commission, and Open Space and Trails, the next step in the collaborative process will be to meet with neighbors in early July and receive feedback. He reiterated that their main concern is creating vitality around Lift One. Mr. Glass stated that they are just as concerned with the summer experience as with the winter experience as well as integrating the buildings into the alpine topography. He stated that they are trying to walk the fine line between the new and historic architecture and concerned about creating an environment that suits the needs of different people and constituencies. He showed slides of different building materials that will potentially be used, which will remain consistent with what was previously approved. He showed slides of the plans for the project. He showed that the corridor and the setbacks from the lift caused them to modify their building plans to accommodate that. Mr. Brown clarified that the ski corridor that Aspen Ski Co wants is 60 feet between buildings, to allow for adequate ski return. He also stated that Aspen Ski Co. is working towards Telemix technology, which accommodates both chairs and gondolas. Mr. Glass showed slides of the basic site plan. He showed that the Gorsuch Haus had to modify the shape and organization of their building to accommodate the lift. They’ve also created a large open ski corridor between the buildings. The buildings were elongated to absorb the extra width. The steakhouse maintains its prime visual location. The chalet has been moved closer to the street, which creates the opportunity for a little bit of commercial space to support the museum and functions in this area. In this configuration, the historic lift is slid down the hill about 40 feet or so, with one of the old towers connected to it and the others relocated. Mr. Glass stated that this will create opportunities for vitality, access, and open space. This creates a main entrance to the mountain off of Dean St. and another entrance off the cul de sac between the two properties. There’s a secondary drop off zone that comes off of Juan Street, for direct accessibility off of South Aspen to the lift. Also a minor drop off off of Gilbert Street. The Dolensek Park could have an P4 IV. access point there. He stated that their hope is to create many ways to access this portal to the mountain. Mr. Brown stated that the public access aspect is very important to people. Also that the buildings coming down anchors the preservation at the base of this project. Mr. Glass stated that they’ve realized through the course of this project so far that these two buildings frame the lift, frame access to the mountain, and create a big open space that can be occupied in all seasons. All the ingresses offer reduced pressure on different traffic points. After looking at the traffic, they have proposed a one-way street for this section of Dean Street, with secondary and tertiary drop offs available. Their plan adds back a service ingress to the east of the museum building. That will also access the public parking areas and public lockers in a clean way that will keep the traffic to a minimum. Mr. Brown stated that, currently, a lot of guests from nearby lodges are likely loading onto the mountain from the Gondola, pushing a lot of traffic there. Moving the lift down keeps those skiers out of cars because they can walk directly onto the lift. Mr. Glass showed a slide with an enlarged version of the plan. The garbage will still be contained within the structure. Pushing the museum structure down the hill aligns the façade of it with its neighboring building and helps create a little more space behind it both for skier function and public gathering. Skier services for the lift are planned to be on the upper level, so there’s an elevator. The ski patrol function that used to be in the Gorsuch Haus property is now located down on street level. There’s also an opportunity for a small commercial venue for refreshments or event rental. Along Dean street, there’s a big apron sidewalk for loading and unloading. The lift is brought down the hill a little bit. It’s at its same elevation and orientation, just located a little farther North. They’ve proposed terracing the edge so that the mountain comes down in a gentle way down to Dean Street. The steakhouse is located so that, when you come up South Aspen Street, the lodge and other buildings will be a little bit secondary in terms of the view. The area by the drop off off of South Aspen Street is thought of as a plaza so that people can sit in the sun and use the steakhouse. In the original proposal, it was affordable housing, but they believe it should be a public, vibrant space with potential for people to be gathering during the day and at night all year round. The secondary drop off by the lodge is meant to support the building piece of the design and creates a convenient drop off for public use. Mr. Glass showed an overlay with the old project and the new project to give a sense of where the changes are. It shows how much the shape of the buildings have changed. They’ve been contracted and one has gotten longer and skinnier. Mr. Glass stated that that concludes their presentation, and they would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Marcus asked for clarification on which example, from the packet, was being presented. Is this example seven? Mr. Glass responded that it is. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that it looks a little different in their packet than it did in their presentation. P5 IV. Ms. Phalen stated that the examples in the packet are the original approvals in the SE Group rendering. Mr. Glass explained that the SE Group proposed around the old buildings and expected the new design to react to that. Mr. Marcus asked Mr. Glass to give more details about what he’d mentioned about parking. Mr. Glass stated that, in the previous approval, there was parking for all different functions of the project. There were also 50 public spaces that came from the shrinking of South Aspen Street. This parking still exists in the current project, with improvement to the relationship between when you park and how you get out onto the mountain. In general there has been an improvement in the way things flow. Mr. Mesirow asked how the proposed one-way corridor at the base compares in size, scale, and capacity to the current Little Nell cutout right by the Gondola. Mr. Glass answered that he wasn’t sure. Mr. Clauson stated that the width of the right of way would allow for a one way that’s considerably more generous. There was also interest in making that a pedestrian corridor, which is an option they explored. However, a one-way street can be narrowed to allow pedestrian access on both sides of the street and allow for vehicle drop off there. If it were to be a pedestrian corridor, it just puts a little too much strain on Durant, particularly, and other parts of the street system. Mr. McKnight asked where they see the pedestrian access coming from Monarch and Aspen. How are people from town or the bus stop getting to the lift? Mr. Glass asked Mr. McKnight to clarify if he meant from ground level up to ski level. Mr. McKnight replied that he’s wondering about that and beyond that. How are they coming through if they’re coming from Dean Street? Mr. Glass showed on the map on the slide that pedestrians could come up Monarch, enter through the recessed plaza, and take an elevator up to the lift. There are also stairs built into the amphitheater terracing that can get pedestrians up in at least one location, possibly more. Mr. Brown asked how many steps that is. Mr. Glass responded that it’s nine feet of elevation change and 18 steps. Mr. Brown pointed out that this is less than at Gondola Plaza. Mr. Marcus asked where the closest drop off to public transportation is from there. Mr. Brown answered that it would be Rubey Park. Mr. Marcus asked if there’s a stop on Durant. P6 IV. Mr. Clausson responded that there isn’t a stop on Durant, though could be a routing of some busses into the Dean Street loop. Mr. Glass stated that they had talked about sizing the loop so that it could accommodate a bus, either a circulator route or the ski busses could go through there on their way to Rubey Park, which is a detail they haven’t worked out yet. Mr. Brown stated that it’s a couple hundred feet more distance from Rubey Park to this lift versus the Gondola. Ms. McGovern asked if the historic lift tower is getting moved, which isn’t reflected in the packet but is reflected in the presentation. Mr. Clauson replied that that’s a proposal. He explained that there was an option that moved the new lift all the way down to Dean Street, which involved relocating or removing the historic lift gantry. Council decided that’s not where they wanted to go. Getting close to Dean Street was desirable, but they wanted to retain the existing lift gantry. SE Group’s proposal was to retain the lift gantry behind Lift One, in its actual historic location. Ms. McGovern asked if that’s not feasible. Mr. Clauson replied that that plan has some drawbacks, and it’s more beneficial to maintain the same alignment, but to move it down toward Dean Street, which allows the interposition of one lift tower. The gantry by itself doesn’t convey the same meaning as it does in the context of other equipment, which can show how it worked in a fuller sense. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be possible to have the historic lift towers underneath the new lift, so they would be removed. By moving the lift gantry down by Dean Street. Mr. Messirow stated that he prefers the option of moving the lift further down is appealing to him. He asked where it moves in that instance and how the applicants feel about it generally as opposed to the option being presented. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants feel that this option works and that City Council clearly expressed a preference for this. There was some interest in getting the lift even closer to Dean street, but that was balanced against the historic lift alignment. On balance this gets it close enough to have it readily accessible and usable for people without disrupting the historic gantry. Ms. Phalen stated that this option has reasonable access for skiers to get to this proposed location. The loading area for this lift would be essentially where the original loading area of Lift One. Mr. Mesirow asked where the historic lift be moved to in Option B. Mr. Clauson stated that it wasn’t clarified. Mr. Messirow asked if it would be possible if it was along the side of the new lift. Mr. Clauson stated that it would be possible, but it wouldn’t replicate the original alignment. P7 IV. Ms. Phalen stated that, if you brought the lift further down to the North, you start cramping the queueing and the radiuses and turns that Ski Co will need for snow plowing, grooming, etc. Mr. Glass stated that there is width space at the Northern end of the new lift that Ski Co needs for access if they ever need to remove the bull wheel. The plan takes into account Ski Co’s needs as well. Mr. Clauson showed on the slide some lines that indicate the queueing area. If that were to be pushed down, it would get very tight. Ms. The lift right now is the bull wheel and three towers. It’s not possible to shift it to the left since skiers are coming through there. It would have to be a scenario similar to this one, total demolition, or offsite relocation, which would be difficult since it’s an alpine chairlift and doesn’t belong on a flat site somewhere else in town. Ms. Carver asked if the applicants had a plan for where to put the additional two lift towers. Ms. Phalen answered that that’s up for discussion. It would be that they are not kept, which would give a more realistic representation of the alignment of the historic Lift One and the towers. Ms. Carver stated that the drop off to the East of the Lodge would be probably heavily used. She asked if there is parking there also. Mr. Glass stated that that location was intended as a convenient drop off. Ms. Carver clarified the location she was talking about. Mr. Glass stated that the location in question is connected underground. Ms. Carver asked about the small building pictured in the slide. Mr. Glass replied that the slide is a ground-level view, so the object that Ms. Carver was referencing has a building on top of it. Ms. Carver commented that the new location of the museum building might be too close to the street based on her familiarity with that area of Aspen. She would like to see that building moved back to allow more space for pedestrians. She asked if the little red building that the ski patron uses now is the shed the applicants were talking about. Mr. Brown responded that it is not. The shed they are referencing is the pool shed behind the chalet lodge. It sits right now on Gilbert Street, behind the lodge. It was probably mechanicals for the pool house, but its future use is not defined at the moment. It is part of the historical asset, so it will be moved. Ms. Carver asked about the red building that ski patrol uses. Is that going to be moved? Mr. Glass replied that they are not moving that building. Ms. Carver asked what will happen to that building. P8 IV. Mr. Glass replied that it is going away. Ms. Carver asked if it is historic. Mr. Glass replied that it is not. Ms. Phalen added that Community Development staff are looking at the feasibility of co-locating ski patrol with ticketing and operations in the skier chalet building. Ski Co would have back of house and front of house operations with the museum space. Mr. Brown added that the envisioned uses for that building are: the historical society museum taking the bulk of the space, ticketing, and potentially some snacks in the shed area. Ms. Carver stated that she is envisioning traffic being stopped on Dean Street while people load and unload. She also commented that she would love to see heated sidewalks. Mr. Brown noted her comments regarding heated sidewalks. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this is the opportunity to give opinions about the project or only to ask questions. Ms. Carver apologized. Mr. Marcoux asked about hours of operation for the amenities. He commented that, if the steakhouse is open late, that could potentially attract other amenities. It could also affect parking in that area. This could potentially be a second hub in town where people gather. Mr. Brown stated that there are 50 parking spots under the building and the building itself is not very big. Mr. Marcoux reiterated his concern about patrons taking up neighborhood and ice garden parking spots. Mr. Clauson stated that there is already parking control in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The 50 parking spots are intended to replace the parking spots that were moved when South Aspen Street was narrowed and the belief is that this will engender a lot of people into walking to the lifts and walking to the various functions, and even to the restaurant if it’s open in the evening. So the applicants don’t believe that this will have a big impact. The City may be in a better position to answer that. Mr. Anderson stated that he believe that’s a fair assessment. Mr. Mesirow asked if there are any questions from the applicants. The applicants responded that they have no questions. Mr. Mesirow asked if they are doing public comment. P9 IV. Ms. Phalen responded that they are not required to, since it’s a work session, but that the commissioners can if they wish. She also asked the applicants if they had images related to the planning around World Cup. Mr. Glass responded that they do not have those images yet, but it does not directly affect the buildings covered in the presentation. Mr. Mesirow stated that he would welcome public comment. Mr. Galen Bright introduced himself as the president of the Southpoint Condominiums, just north of Dean Street. He sat on the coop in 2007 so is very familiar with the initial application. He likes the design and called it very well thought out. He agrees with having a steakhouse there instead of affordable housing. He thanked the applicants for retaining the 5o parking spaces. His biggest concern for home owners concern will be the additional traffic. He would like to know if there is an estimate on the amount of additional traffic this plan will bring. Also, the HOA has an issue with moving the non- historic skier chalet building closer to Dean Street. Mr. Mesirow thanked Mr. Bright for keeping his comments short. He asked for any other comments from the public. There were none. He then turned to the commissioners for discussion. He stated that he would love if the commissioners could give the applicants some good concrete feedback to leave them with a strong roadmap for moving forward. Mr. McKnight stated that this presented was head and shoulders above what was last brought to P&Z on this project. He praised the look of the project and the positive impact it will have on Aspen. He stated that he does understand the concerns about traffic and about where some of the buildings are moving. He does not think it’s possible to not affect those things on this project. He does agree with the applicants that this lift will draw pedestrians from the nearby hotels. He agrees that it does not make sense to add a bus stop due to the proximity to Rubey Park. He praised the parking spaces, cut outs, and on-way street ideas. He apologized that he needed to leave for a previous engagement and excused himself. Mr. McKnight left the meeting at 5:30 PM. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they generally feel the same way about the project as Mr. McKnight. He asked if there are any areas where there could be improvement. Mr. Marcoux stated that, in all the messaging to the public about the lift, he has not heard much emphasis on the historic value of the lift. He suggested that the city better inform the public about the importance of the lift. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Carver for her thoughts on areas for improvement. Ms. Carver stated that this plan is as good as it’s going to get. She emphasized hat it is extremely important that the applicants get this right because it is going to last a long time. She feels, in general, that it looks pretty good. She is concerned about the traffic and the ice. Ms. McGovern stated that she likes the proposal. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants are envisioning this as a summer asset as well. It may have a water feature. Parks is envisioning weddings in Dolensek Gardens. P10 IV. Ms. McGovern stated that it seemed like a good vision, as long as HPC approves moving the lift. Ms. Carver asked to see the Gorsuch Haus portion of the picture being shown on the slide. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she has seen the project come a long way in her time on P&Z. She said that this is a real achievement for the applicants and for the town. This will be a real rebirth for that side of town and will be a positive development for the community. She commented that she thinks it would be fantastic to be able to look from the bottom of the old lift and have a view straight up the mountain through the historic ski corridor. She liked the creation of the larger public space in the middle. She commented that we would want to maintain a consistent sidewalk in front of the museum building. She liked the idea of gradual terracing as an entrance. Mr. Marcus stated that he thinks the applicants have done a very good job in being thoughtful about the flow. He liked the comment about how the entrance is framed by the historical aspects. He cautioned the applicants to be thoughtful of the residences in the area and balancing access and flow. He commented that it would be nice to have some bus routing through that area, but that needs to be balanced with that as a residential area. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that, originally, vehicle shuttles would provide transportation to the site, but she would prefer incentivizing pedestrian activity. Also she liked Ms. Carver’s suggestion that, if the two other towers are moved, they be placed somewhere else along the mountain. Mr. Mesirow asked if the top terminus of the lift is set in the proposal. Mr. Brown replied that it is not and that is at Ski Co’s digression. Mr. Mesirow stated that he likes the proposal. He feels that the applicants should be aiming for the same realignment of the town that the Gondola provided in the early ‘90’s. He mentioned to areas where he sees room for improvement. He would like to see the lift terminate even further down. He feels that this will help eliminate a lot of car traffic. Though he does understand that the issue is the historic lift basin and feels like that is for HPC to determine. He also thinks that this is an opportunity to reclaim some of the local vibrancy. This could live up near the lift or as a pedestrian friendly version of Dean Street. He encourages the applicants to think about that as a place where people want to linger. Ms. Carver stated that something like Venga Venga at Snowmass would be perfect for a restaurant here. She’d like to see something that’s not super formal. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants if there is anything that they didn’t hear from the commissioners. Mr. Brown replied that he appreciated Mr. Mesirow asking, but no, he feels that the commissioners covered the project. He was appreciative for the feedback before submitting a formal application so that they take the comments and address them. Mr. Mesirow thanked the applicants for coming. Ms. Carver asked about the width of the cul-de-sac by the Gorsuch Haus where the ski return is located. P11 IV. Mr. Glass stated that that space is more than 75 feet. Mr. Clauson stated that Ski Co stated that it needed to be a certain width in order to be safe and accommodate their snow equipment. Mr. Brown stated that Ski Co is keen to maintain that it’s the premiere ski resort, and we’re happy to help with that. Mr. Mesirow asked if there’s anything else the commission needs to address. Mr. Anderson responded no. Mr. Mesirow thanked everyone for coming and closed the work session at 5:45 pm. Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager P12 IV. TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner Technician THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning MEETING DATE: July 3, 2018 RE: 627 W Smuggler St. APPLICANT/OWNER: TMT Ventures LLC, c/o Janice Levine, 787 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019 REPRESENTATIVE: Patrick Rawley, AICP. ASLA Stan Clausen Associates Inc. 412 N Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: Street Address: 627 W Smuggler St. Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description: Lot 1, Oxley Lot Split Subdivision, According to the Plat Thereof Recorded May 19, 1994 in Plat Book 34 at Page 50. Parcel ID: 273512409013 Current Zoning & Use: R-6, Medium Density Residential. Single Family Residence with Sub- grade ADU Proposed Land Use: The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard Variation for the Articulation of Building Mass Standard, Section 26.410.030.B.1. SUMMARY: o current house Volume Standard ADU glass connector floor connector building element that currently contains an office on t floor, and garage on the first. The proposal does not satisfy any of the three options provided Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Commission Residential Design Standards Articulation of Building Mass Standard. MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Technician Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director 627 W Smuggler St. - Residential Design Standard Variation Request SUMMARY: The existing single-family residence received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1998, as part of the approvals current house, variations from the Residential Design Standard Volume Standard and a conditional use approval fo ADU were granted. The applicant proposes a new glass connector to be constructed on top of the existing ground floor connector between the main building and the rear two story building element that currently contains an office on t floor, and garage on the first. The proposal does not satisfy any of the three options provided by the code for compliance with Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Residential Design Standards Articulation of Building Mass Standard. Figure 1. Site Locator Map Page 1 of 6 Residential Design Standard Variation Request family residence received a Certificate to construct the the Residential Design Standard’s and a conditional use approval for a subgrade new second story to be constructed on top of the existing ground between the main building and the rear two story building element that currently contains an office on the second floor, and garage on the first. The proposal does not satisfy any of compliance with the Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non-flexible Staff is recommending the Planning and request for a variation from the Residential Design Standards Articulation of Building Mass Standard. P13 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: · Residential Design Standard Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Standard (Section 26.410.020.C) Applications that do not comply with the Residential Design Standards section of the code, must apply for a variation which requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant is requesting a variation of the Articulation of Building Mass standard for a second story glass connector between the main building and rear building element. The Articulation of Building Mass standard is a non-flexible standard meaning all properties that are subject to the Residential Design Standards are required to meet this standard, and no administrative alternative compliance is provided. This proposal does not satisfy any of the three options provided by the code for compliance with this standard. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. BACKGROUND: The property, 627 W Smuggler Street, Lot 1 of the Oxley Lot Split, is zoned R-6 – Medium Density Residential. The lot size is 7,500-sq. ft. and contains a single-family residence. The property was granted approval via Resolution #23, Series of 1997 for a subgrade ADU and a variation to the Residential Design Standards Volume standard for glazing on all facades of the structure. The structure would have been subject to the 1997 Residential Design Standards. The volume standard addressed scale and massing, the specific standard that required a variation prohibited fenestration between 9 and 12 feet above the height of the floor plate. Windows on all four sides of the structure were not in compliance with the standard and many were approved through the variation. The application for the development of the existing structure would have been subject to the primary mass standard. At that time the code did not have the Articulation of Building Mass standard. The one-story connector element would have provided a break in the wall plane from the main structure to the rear building element. If the one-story connector that breaks up the wall plane and ridge line of the roof did not exist, the floor area for the structure would have been calculated differently and the structure may have exceeded the allowable floor area. The structure received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1998. The City has had design standards in place since 1995 and with subsequent amendments since adoption. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing an extensive remodel and addition to the existing structure. Elements of the remodel which are not part of the request before the commission include: · the enclosure of a portion of the front porch, · the removal of the subgrade ADU, · the removal of an exterior stair that provides access the basement, · interior renovations, · a small addition above the front porch on the second story, · the enclosure of existing second story deck above the garage, · the relocation of existing deck to the southernmost façade above the garage doors, · the alteration to the roof pitch of the rear building element to match the primary structure roof pitch, · and a French balcony has been added on the western façade of the garage. Additional square footage for the addition will need to be provided through the acquisition of a TDR as the proposal would increase the Floor Area above what is allowed based on the lot size. P14 VI.A. Page 3 of 6 The request for an RDS Variation stems from the applicant’s proposal for a second story connector between the main structure and the rear building element containing the garage and office. The applicant proposes to convert the office to a master bedroom, and the proposed second story glass connector would allow for direct access from the second story main portion of the building to the rear element without having to go outside. Existing interior access to the second-floor office in the rear building element is provided through the first story connector via stairs in the garage. The office also has access from the deck that connects the front and rear second story building elements. The proposed remodel would remove the interior stairs from the garage, leaving the second story connector as the only access to the proposed second story bedroom above the garage. The distance between the second story building elements, and therefore the length of the proposed second story connector, would be six feet. The proposed connector would be set back eight feet from the east and west facades of the building (see figures 2, 3 & 5). No changes to the size of the existing first floor connector are proposed. Figure 1 - Existing Elevation Figure 2- Proposed West Elevation P15 VI.A. Figure 3 - Proposed East Elevation Figure 4 – Existing Roof Plan STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting a variation Residential Design Standards. Detailed staff responses can be found in Exhibit There are two review standards that the application is variation, only one of those standards need to be met. the intent statement. The intent statement for the Articulation of Building Mass standards states Figure 5 – Proposed Roof Plan The applicant is requesting a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass standard in the Residential Design Standards. Detailed staff responses can be found in Exhibit There are two review standards that the application is reviewed against f those standards need to be met. The first is that the application satisfies the intent statement. The intent statement for the Articulation of Building Mass standards states Page 4 of 6 from the Articulation of Building Mass standard in the Residential Design Standards. Detailed staff responses can be found in Exhibits A & B. when requesting a is that the application satisfies the intent statement. The intent statement for the Articulation of Building Mass standards states P16 VI.A. Page 5 of 6 that the standard “seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of building on a property as viewed from all sides… Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes.” The second standard that may be met in order to satisfy the review criteria for a RDS Variation is that there must be an unusual site-specific constraint or hardship on the property. The general intent of the Residential Design Standards is to encourage development that connects to the street, responds to neighborhood character, and reflects traditional building scales in Aspen. As stated before, the Articulation of Building Mass standard seeks to “reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk” of a building to reduce the impact of the structure as viewed from the street and adjacent properties. The proposed alterations create a large building mass that has limited articulation between building elements which gives a perception of one large building mass on the lot. There are three options provided by the code to satisfy this standard, and the proposed remodel does not satisfy any of the options provided. The existing structure is non-conforming in terms of this standard but the proposed remodel increases the level of non- conformity when reviewed against the three options. The proposed remodel and addition increases the overall sidewall depth of the building (option 1, see figure 6), eliminates the one- story connector that currently doesn’t meet the dimensional requirements of option 2 (See figure 7), and increases the width of the rear building element which is currently a similar width to the main building element (Option 3 – see figure 8). Figure 6 – Articulation of Building Mass - Option 1 Figure 7 – Articulation of Building Mass – Option 2 Figure 8 – Articulation of Building Mass – Option 3 P17 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 This property is in the West End, in the Aspen Infill Area where this standard is stated to be critical by the code. This standard is important in the Infill Area because of the prevalence of small lots, with small setbacks, where historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Staff is recommending denial of the application because the proposal does not meet the intent statement. The proposed remodel and addition increases the massing and the perceived mass as viewed from the street and adjacent properties. Staff also finds no hardship or site-specific constraint that would prevent the applicant from maintaining the current massing. Rather, with the extensive remodel the condition is self-created due to convenience. Consideration of Review Standards for P&Z: 1. Does the property have a site-specific constraint or hardship that prevents the applicant from complying with the requirements of the Code? 2. Does the proposal satisfy the intent of the code? RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for Residential Design Standard Variation. The City has had design standards in place since 1995, and secondary mass standards have been included in the code for some time. There are no site-specific hardships and the proposal does not meet the intent statement. PROPOSED MOTION: The Resolution is written in the affirmative, so the request is approved in the Resolution. If the Planning and Zoning Commission supports the denial of the variation request, Proposed Motion #1 should be read. If the Commission decides to approve the request for RDS Variation, Proposed Motion #2 should be read. If approved, the Resolution includes a condition in the approval that the RDS Variation does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning regulations Proposed Motion #1: “I move to deny the request for Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 627 W Smuggler St.” Proposed Motion #2: “I move to approve Resolution #___, Series of 2018 with conditions, granting approval for the request for Residential Design Standard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass standard for the property at 627 W Smuggler St.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Residential Design Standard Variation Review Criteria Exhibit B – Residential Design Standard Review Criteria Exhibit C – Application Exhibit D – Residential Design Standard Staff Checklist Exhibit E – Public Comment Exhibit G – Revised Elevations P18 VI.A. 1 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 627 W SMUGGLER ST., LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 1, OXLEY LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 19, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 34 AT PAGE 50. Parcel ID: 273512409013 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from TMT Ventures LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a Residential Design Standard Variation at 627 W. Smuggler Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C of the Land Use Code approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #___, Series of 2018, by a _____ to _____ (__-__) vote, granting approval of a Residential Design Standard Variation as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass standard, as depicted in Exhibit 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission has found the proposed design to meet the requirements of the review criteria for a Residential Design Standard Variation. A. Conditions of Approval. This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning regulations of the City of Aspen’s Land Use Code, including, but not limited to Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements. Section 2: P19 VI.A. 2 All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded 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 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd day of July, 2018. __________________________________ Skippy Mesirow, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit 1: Approved plans for RDS Variation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«E««D[«'+)'.$'4)'4«#4%*+6'%674'« «&'5+)06&$/( 2NQV«&CVG&TCYP«$[%JGEMGF«$[2TQLGEV«0Q&CVG+UUWG $+/« §«9«5OWIINGT§«§««9«5OWIINGT«§«%GPVTCN«§«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«E««D[«'+)'.$'4)'4«#4%*+6'%674'« «&'5+)06&$/( 2NQV«&CVG&TCYP«$[%JGEMGF«$[2TQLGEV«0Q&CVG+UUWG $+/« §«9«5OWIINGT§«§««9«5OWIINGT«§«%GPVTCN«§«XTXV 30$(/(9$7,216352326(':608**/(5:608**/(5$63(1&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU6&$/( $:(67(/(9$7,21 352326('237,21%6&$/( $($67(/(9$7,21 352326(' &LW\=RQLQJ6XE P31 VI.A. Exhibit A Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A, Staff Findings Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.410.020(D) - Variation Review Standards . See Exhibit C for detailed comments.NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or NOT MET 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints NOT MET MET Review Criteria for 627 W Smuggler St. The applicant is requesting a Residential Design St andard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non-flexible standard. The application must satisfy the intent statement of the Articulation of Building Mass Section 26.410.030 (B)(1), and the review criteria for variations listed in Section 26.410.020(D). D. Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: The proposed design does not meet the intent of the standard. The applicant proposes a second story connector, an increase in the width of the rear building element, and the enclosure of a portion of the front porch. All of these proposed alterations increase the building mass as perceived from neighboring properties and the street. The building articulation standards intent is to reduce perceived building mass from neighboring properties, and to maintain some design consistency with historical development in Aspen. This property is located in the Aspen P32 VI.A. Infill area, where this standard is most important. provide a design alternative that satisfies the intent statement. this criterion to not be met. 2. Be clearly necessary for constraints Staff Response: There are not site circumstances that would prevent the applicant from complying with this standard. Staff finds this criterion to not be me Exhibit C this standard is most important. The proposal does not provide a design alternative that satisfies the intent statement. this criterion to not be met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site There are not site-specific constraints or unusual circumstances that would prevent the applicant from complying with this Staff finds this criterion to not be met. Exhibit C, Staff Findings Page 2 of 2 The proposal does not provide a design alternative that satisfies the intent statement. Staff finds reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific specific constraints or unusual circumstances that would prevent the applicant from complying with this P33 VI.A. Exhibit B Articulation of Building Mass Review Criteria Page 1 of 5 Exhibit B, Staff Findings Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.410.030(B)(1) - Articulation of Building Mass (Non-Flexible). See Exhibit B for detailed comments.NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY a. Applicability: The standard applies to all lots in the Aspen Infill Area. b.Intent:This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Desi gns should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing t o historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in t he Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. NOT MET c.Standard:A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings.NOT MET d. Options: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth.NOT MET (2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. NOT MET (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. NOT MET YES MET Review Criteria for 627 W Smuggler St. The applicant is requesting a Residential Design St andard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non-flexible standard. The application must satisfy the intent statement of the Articulation of Building Mass Section 26.410.030 (B)(1), and the review criteria for variations listed in Section A. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. P34 VI.A. Page 2 of 5 Exhibit B, Staff Findings b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. Staff Response: The existing one-story connector currently serves to break up the large building forms of the main building, and the rear building element that contains the garage. The depth of the one-story element does not comply with current code requirements, and only provides a minimal breakup of the two building masses. Two story building elements that run the majority of the lot length are not consistent with historic building forms in Aspen. The proposed second story connector would increase the perceived mass of the structure for the properties to the east and west of the lot. The applicant also proposes to enclose the existing second story deck to the west of the rear building element. This addition would further increase the perceived mass of the structure, and would provide very little building façade articulation for the entire length of the structure. Staff finds the proposed remodel does not satisfy the intent statement of this standard. c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Staff Response: The proposed remodel does not articulate the building mass to reduce the perceived bulk and mass, and increases the non-conforming nature of the existing structure. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5. P35 VI.A. Page 3 of 5 Exhibit B, Staff Findings Figure 5 Staff Response: The structure exceeds the fifty (50) foot depth maximum needed to satisfy this standard. The current structure measures approximately 70.4 feet from the front most façade to the rear façade of the structure. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. (2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6. P36 VI.A. Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B, Staff Findings Figure 6 Staff Response: The structure currently contains a non-conforming one-story step down to break up the two building forms. This standards requires the dimensions of the one story step down to be a minimum of ten (10) feet in length, the existing step down measrues approximatly 5.7’. The existing and proposed design would satisfy setback minimums required by this section of the code. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the one story connector completely, which would increase the non-conformity for the structure. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to not be met. (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7. P37 VI.A. Page 5 of 5 Exhibit B, Staff Findings Figure 7 Staff Response: The current stucture contains a two story rear building mass so it wouldn’t be able to satisfy this standard, and the application proposes to increase the overall width of the second story of the rear building element. The addtition of enclosed space on the rear building element contributes to an increase in the perceived mass of the structure for the westerly neighbor and the property to the south across the alley. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P38 VI.A. Exhibit CP39VI.A. P40VI.A. P41VI.A. P42VI.A. P43VI.A. P44VI.A. P45VI.A. P46VI.A. P47VI.A. P48VI.A. P49VI.A. P50VI.A. P51VI.A. P52VI.A. P53VI.A. P54VI.A. P55VI.A. P56VI.A. P57VI.A. P58VI.A. P59VI.A. P60VI.A. P61VI.A. P62VI.A. P63VI.A. P64VI.A. P65VI.A. P66VI.A. P67VI.A. P68VI.A. P69VI.A. P70VI.A. P71VI.A. P72VI.A. P73VI.A. P74VI.A. P75VI.A. P76VI.A. P77VI.A. P78VI.A. P79VI.A. P80VI.A. P81VI.A. P82VI.A. P83VI.A. P84VI.A. P85VI.A. P86VI.A. P87VI.A. P88VI.A. P89VI.A. P90VI.A. P91VI.A. P92VI.A. P93VI.A. P94VI.A. P95VI.A. P96VI.A. P97VI.A. P98VI.A. P99VI.A. P100VI.A. P101VI.A. P102VI.A. P103VI.A. P104VI.A. P105VI.A. P106VI.A. P107 VI.A. P108 VI.A. P109 VI.A. P110 VI.A. P111 VI.A. P112 VI.A. P113 VI.A. P114 VI.A. P115 VI.A. P116 VI.A. P117 VI.A. P118 VI.A. P119 VI.A. P120 VI.A. P121 VI.A. P122 VI.A. P123 VI.A. P124 VI.A. P125 VI.A. P126 VI.A. P127 VI.A. P128 VI.A. P129 VI.A. P130 VI.A. P131 VI.A. P132 VI.A. P133 VI.A. P134 VI.A. P135 VI.A. P136 VI.A. P137 VI.A. P138 VI.A. Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist - Single Family and Duplex Standard Complies Alternative Compliance Does Not Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 Approved: (Approved plans/elevations attached)P139VI.A. Standard Complies Alternative Compliance Doesn’t Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Approved: P140VI.A. Nicolas and Jeanne Rohatyn 12 E. 94th Street New York, NY 10128 12 June 2018 Mr. Garrett Larimer Planning Tech City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Requested RDS Variation / 627 W. Smuggler Street, Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Larimer: This letter is submitted in connection with the Residential Design Standards Variation application to provide a glass connector on the east façade of the existing residence located at the above referenced address which neighbors our house at 615 West Smuggler. We have been in contact with representatives of the applicant and we support the proposed modifications to the house. The modifications to the house will not be overly impactful to us and the house will still be in character with the neighborhood. Please feel free to read this letter of support into the public record at the 3 July 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where the application will be considered. Very Truly Yours, Nicolas and Jeanne Rohatyn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«E««D[«'+)'.$'4)'4«#4%*+6'%674'« «&'5+)06&$/( 2NQV«&CVG&TCYP«$[%JGEMGF«$[2TQLGEV«0Q&CVG+UUWG $+/« §«9«5OWIINGT§«§««9«5OWIINGT«§«%GPVTCN«§«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«E««D[«'+)'.$'4)'4«#4%*+6'%674'« «&'5+)06&$/( 2NQV«&CVG&TCYP«$[%JGEMGF«$[2TQLGEV«0Q&CVG+UUWG $+/« §«9«5OWIINGT§«§««9«5OWIINGT«§«%GPVTCN«§«XTXV 30$(/(9$7,216352326(':608**/(5:608**/(5$63(1&2/25$'2$XWKRU&KHFNHU6&$/( $:(67(/(9$7,21 352326('237,21%6&$/( $($67(/(9$7,21 352326(' &LW\=RQLQJ6XE P145 VI.A. N 75°09'11"W 75.00' S 75°09'11"E 270.00' (269.97' FIELD) N 75°09'11"W 75.00'N 14°50'49"E 100.00'N 14°50'49"E 100.00'S H ED A/CWW #5 R EB A R W I T H 1 .2 5 " Y E L L O W C A P P L S 1 3 1 6 6 1 ' W .C . #5 R EB A R W I T H 1 .2 5 " Y E L L O W C A P P L S 1 3 1 6 6 1 ' W .C . S E T 1 6 " #5 R EB AR W I T H 1 .2 5 " R ED C A P P L S 2 5 9 4 7 S E T 1 6 " #5 R EB AR W I T H 1 .2 5 " R ED C A P P L S 2 5 9 4 7 0 .5 " C AP PE D I R O N P I P E N E C O R . B L K 2 1 0 .5 " C AP PE D I R O N P I P E N W C O R . BL K 2 1 H O R I Z . C O N T R O L U T I L I T Y P E D E S T A L E A S E M E N T P L A T B K 3 4 , P G 5 0 W O O D F E N C E 0 .6 5 ' W I D E +/- UPUP LOT 1, OXLEY LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 19, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 34 AT PAGE 50. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. CONTAINING: 7,500 SQ. FT. OR 0.172 ACRES +/- APPROVED ACTIVITY ENVELOPE BUILDING FOOTPRINT 627 W. SMUGGLER SITE PLAN AND ACTIVITY ENVELOPES Owner’s Acknowledgement The owner acknowledges being informed by the City of Aspen of the existence of “environmental hazard areas”that might affect the property, any improvements, and the use thereof. The provisions of the City of Aspen regulations do not in any way assure or imply that the areas outside of designated hazard areas will be free from hazards or that approved mitigation measures will guarantee the safety of the property. _____________________________________________ Community Development Director’s Approval This 627 W. Smuggler Site Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director of the City of Aspen this ____ day of ___________, 2018 and is subject to Administrative Determination No. ____-2016, recorded as Reception No.___________. _____________________________________ The City of Aspen Community Development Director Clerk and Recorder’s Certificate This 627 W. Smuggler Site Plan has been accepted for recording in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of the City of Aspen, Colorado this _______ day of ___________, 1994 in Plat Book 34 at Page 50 as Reception . _________________ Clerk and Recorder PARCEL ID: 15' - 0"8' - 10 3/4"9' - 9 5/8"10' - 0"ALLEYWAY WEST SMUGGLER FIREPIT SPA RELOCATED HERE, NO MORE THAN 30" ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND PLANTER PLANTER These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.8'16'32'0 N Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/8" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:05 PM A0-02 SITE PLAN627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-02 1 SITE PLAN 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. UP UP B B 8 8 1 1 2a 2 4 73 5 5 6 6 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A CLOSET MEDIA ROOM CLOSET LAUNDRY SAUNA EXCERCISE ROOM A.D.U. CLOSET WINE ROOM MECHANICAL ROOM3"6' - 8"1' - 8"2' - 10"6"6"3' - 0"3' - 2"4' - 0"8' - 11 1/2"6' - 0"3' - 6" 11' - 11 1/2"24' - 0"38' - 5"10' - 6"6' - 7 1/2"7' - 4"8' - 5 1/2" 8' - 5 1/2" EXISTING ADU TO BE REMOVED EXTERIOR STAIR TO BE REMOVED STAIR TO BE REMOVED These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.4'8'16'0 N Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:06 PM A103 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A103 1 FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT F.F. 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. B B 8 8 1 1 2a 2 4 73 5 5 6 6 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A BUNK ROOM WLAUNDRY BAR A207 2 A208 2 D 16' - 1 1/8" FIREPLACE BUNK BATH BUNK CLOSET SHOWER REMOVAL OF EXISTING ADU 22' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"3' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 2 3/4" EXISTING SUBGRADE, NEW LIGHTWELL EXISTING LIGHTWELL EXISTING LIGHTWELL 26' - 0"25' - 0"6' - 0"20' - 0"14' - 0"3' - 3"2' - 3 7/8"22' - 3 7/8"11' - 9 1/2"6' - 7"4' - 11 3/4"3' - 7 1/4"7' - 4 1/2"2' - 5 7/8"9' - 1 5/8"7' - 10 3/8"29' - 3"3' - 1"3' - 0"2' - 1 1/2"CLOSET EXISTING BATHROOM AND SAUNA TO REMAIN 5' - 6"14' - 9 1/4"2' - 4 3/4"21' - 2 1/4"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:18 PM A104 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A104 1 FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT F.F. PROPOSED 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. UP UP B B 812a 2 4 7356 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A 6' - 0"20' - 0"4' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"9' - 1 1/2"13' - 3" 2' - 0"3' - 6 1/2"8' - 5 1/2" 22' - 0" 29' - 0" LIVING ROOM CLOSET PWDR PANTRY GARAGE FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN4' - 0"EXTERIOR STAIR TO BE REMOVED REMOVE EXISTING BUMP OUT These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.4'8'16'0 N Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:18 PM A105 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A105 1 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL F.F. 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. B B 812a 2 4 7356 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A 6' - 0"20' - 0"4' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"9' - 1 1/2"13' - 3" 8' - 5 1/2" 22' - 0" 29' - 0" A206 1 A208 1 A207 2 A208 2 18' - 0"10' - 5 1/2" SKI STORAGE MUDROOM 16' - 7 3/4"8' - 4 1/4" 34' - 4 1/4" 51' - 0" FRONT PORCH MIN. 20% OF OVERALL FRONT FACADE REF/FREEZ. 3' - 0 1/4"6' - 0"20' - 0"16' - 7 3/4" DW EQEQ6' - 6 1/8"WOOD INLAY STONE STONE GAS APPLIANCE GAS LOG FIREPLACE EQ EQ DRIVEWAY NEW LIGHTWELL GRILL FIREPIT SPA/HOT TUB EQ EQ 17' - 1"2' - 0"14' - 7 3/4"6' - 4 1/8"7/8" 4' - 0 1/8"2' - 3 5/8"5' - 4 1/4"4' - 4"3' - 0 1/4"7' - 1 7/8"1' - 6 3/4"7' - 11 3/4"18' - 11 3/4"5' - 5 1/8"8' - 10 1/4"19' - 7 1/8"19' - 10 1/2"9' - 0" MW TD8' - 9 3/4"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:44 PM A106 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A106 1 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL F.F.PROPOSED KITCHEN FAMILY ROOM DINING POWDER ENTRY LIVING ROOM 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. UP UP UP B B 8 8 1 1 2a 2 4 73 5 5 6 6 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A BATH CLOSET BEDROOM BATH MASTER BEDROOM CLOSET EXISTING DECK EXISTING DECK OFFICE EXISTING DECK BEDROOM These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.4'8'16'0 N Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:47 PM A107 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A107 1 FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL F.F. 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. B B 8 8 1 1 2a 2 4 73 5 5 6 6 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A A206 1 PROPOSED GLASS CONNECTOR EQ EQ A208 1 A207 2 A207 1 A208 2 MASTER BEDROOM MASTER CLOSET 2 OFFICE MASTER BATH CLOSET GUEST BEDROOM 1 GUEST BATH 1 SHOWER GUEST BATH 2 GUEST BEDROOM 2 6' - 0"8' - 2 5/8" 2' - 4 1/8"3' - 6"16' - 6"4' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"WALL DOES NOT EXTEND PAST 6' BACK FROM FRONT FACADE 22' - 0"6' - 0"18' - 0"EQEQ6' - 8 1/8" 2' - 2 7/8" 20' - 11 1/8"3' - 8 1/8"3' - 4"3' - 4"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:55 PM A108 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A108 1 FLOOR PLAN - UPPER LEVEL F.F. PROPOSED 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. B B 8 8 1 1 2a 2 4 73 5 5 6 6 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A 12.0:1212.0:1212.0:1212.0:12 12.0:1212.0:12 12.0:12 12.0:12 12.0:1212.0:1212.0:1212.0:1212.0:1212.0:124.0:1212.0:12 12.0:12 4.0:12 12.0:12 12.0:1212.0:12These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:40:17 PM A109 ROOF PLAN - EXISTING627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A109 1 ROOF PLAN 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. B B 812a 2 4 7356 I I H H G G F F E E D D C C A A A206 1 A208 1 A207 2 A207 1 A208 2 PROPOSED GLASS CONNECTOR 4.0:12 12.0:12 12.0:12 4.0:123.0:123.0:1212.0:1212.0:124.0:1212.0:124.0:12 These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:21:56 PM A110 ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A110 1 ROOF PLAN 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. 10'-15/8"12'-45/8"8'-21/2"2'-0"10'-15/8"10'-45/8"7'-21/2"1'-43/8"8'-21/4"R.O.1'-6"R.O.8'-11/2"R.O.9'-11/2"R.O.3'-0"R.O.8'-0"R.O.8'-11/2"4'-6"R.O.3'-71/2"1'-21/2"1 3 4 5 T.O. SLAB @ LOWERELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. PLY. @ MAINELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY. @ BDRM. #1ELEV. 112'-4 5/8" T.O. P @ BDRM. #1ELEV. 120'-7 1/8" L T.O. P @ DORMERELEV. 122'-7 1/8" L T.O. SLAB @ LOWERELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. CONC. @ GARAGE 100'-0" T.O. PLY. @ UPPERELEV. 110'-4 5/8" T.O. P @ OFFICEELEV. 117'-7 1/8" T.O. P @ DORMERELEV. 118'-11 1/2" L L EXIST. GRADEFINISH GRADE 4'-6"R.O.3'-81/4"8'-21/4"2'-0"R.O.8'-11/2"2'-11/2"6'-0"R.O.These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:23:42 PM A201 EXISTING ELEVATIONS627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A201 1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A201 2 SOUTH ELEVATION @ BRIDGE - EXISTING 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 10'-15/8"12'-45/8"8'-21/2"2'-0"10'-15/8"10'-45/8"8'-21/2"3'-21/4"5'-0"R.O.8'-21/4"6'-10"R.O.8'-21/4"25'-0"MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT TO1/3" POINT BETWEEN RIDGE &EAVE22'-11"1/3" POINT BETWEEN RIDGE &EAVE2'-21/4"6'-0"R.O.6'-0"R.O.2'11/2"9'-11/2"3'-11/2"6'-0"R.O.1'-6"(TYP OVERHANGS)8'-11/2"1/3"1/3"1/3"T.O. SLAB @ LOWERELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. PLY @ MAINELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY @ BDRM. #1ELEV. 112'-4 5/8" T.O. P @ BDRM. #1ELEV. 120'-7 1/8" L T.O. P @ BDRM. #1 DORMERSELEV. 122'-7 1/8" L T.O. SLAB @ LOWERELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. PLY @ MAINELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY. @ UPPERELEV. 110'-4 5/8" T.O. PELEV. 118'-7 1/8" L EXIST. GRADE FINISH GRADE 22' - 11"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:23:44 PM A202 EXISTING ELEVATIONS627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A202 1 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 2018.04.03 2 SD Set 5'-6"RO.3'-0"8'-6"2'-21/4"6'-0"RO.8'-21/4"5'-11/2"4'-0"RO.9'-11/2"1'-6"RO.3'-71/2"5'-11/2"3'-81/4"4'-6"RO.8'-21/4"3'-0"8'-21/2"2'-0"10'-45/8"10'-15/8"8'-11/2"4'-6"RO.3'-71/2"10'-45/8"10'-15/8"EXIST. GRADE FINISH GRADE LINE OF FIREPLACE BEYOND F.PL. VENT (SIZE AS RQD.) POSSIBLE FLUEFROM DEN FIRE- BOX SNOWBREAKS T.O. CONC. @ GARAGEELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY @ UPPERELEV. 110'-4 5/8" T.O. SLAB @ LOWERELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. SLAB @ LOWERELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. PLY @ MAINELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY @ UPPERELEV. 110'-4 5/8" T.O. PELEV. 118'-7 1/8" T.O. P @ DORMERSELEV. 120'-7 1/8" L L5'-0"R.O.3'-21/4"10'-15/8"12'-45/8"8'-21/2"8'-11/2"2'-6"R.O.5'-71/2"2'-6" 6'-0"R.O.3'-11/2"6'-0"R.O.5'-6"R.O.2'-81/4"8'-11/2"R.O.3'-0"10'-15/8"10'-45/8"7'-21/2"2'-0"R.O.H G F E D C B A T.O. P @ OFFICEL ELEV. 117'-7 1/8" T.O. PLY. @ UPPER ELEV. 110'-4 5/8" T.O. CONC. @ GARAGE ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. SLAB @ LOWER ELEV. 89'-10 3/8" FINISH & EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB @ LOWER ELEV. 89'-10 3/8" T.O. PLY. @ MAIN ELEV. 100'-0" T.O. PLY. @ BDRM. #1 ELEV. 112'-4 5/8" T.O. P ELEV. 120'-7 1/8" L These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:23:47 PM A203 EXISTING ELEVATIONS627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A203 1 EAST ELEVATION - WITH GLASS CONNECTOR SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A203 2 WEST ELEVATION - WITH GLASS CONNECTOR LEVEL 1 -MAIN LEVEL F.F. NAVD 8000' -3" T.O. PWD -UPPER LEVEL 8010' -7 5/8" T.O. PLATE 8018' -7 1/8" T.O. CEILING 7998' -10 5/8"8' - 0"16' - 7 3/4"34' - 7 1/4" 51' - 3"FRONT PORCH 20% MIN. OF OVERALL FACADE3' - 0"5' - 10"LEVEL 1 -MAIN LEVEL F.F. NAVD 8000' -3" T.O. PWD -UPPER LEVEL 8010' -7 5/8" T.O. PLATE 8018' -7 1/8" T.O. CEILING 7998' -10 5/8"7' - 11 1/2"10' - 4 5/8"BLACKENED STEEL PICKET AND RAIL NEW WOOD SIDING NEW WOOD GARAGE DOORS EXPOSED WOOD STRUCTURE NEW COPPER SHINGLE 6' - 10"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:25:05 PM A207 ELEVATIONS - PROPOSED627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A207 1 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A207 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED NEW WOOD SIDING NEW WINDOW WOOD HEADER AND SILL NEW COPPER ROOF SHINGLE NEW DOOR AND WINDOWS STEEL FRONT DOOR 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. Nancy L. Blank PO Box 38016 Albany, NY 12203 2 July 2018 Mr. Garrett Larimer Planning Tech City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Reauested RDS Variation / 627 W. Smuaaler Street, Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Larimer: This letter is submitted in connection with the Residential Design Standards Variation application to provide a glass connector on the east facade of the existing residence located at the above referenced address. I own the residence immediately to the southwest of the proposed project located at 634 W. Francis and we have been in contact with representatives of the applicant. I support the proposed modifications to the house. The modifications to the house will not be overly impactful to me and the house will still be in character with the neighborhood. Please read this letter of support into the public record at the 3 July 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where the application will be considered. Very Truly Yours, `f. at� cy c`� n . Blank Owner 634 W. Francis Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: 627 Smuggler -----Original Message ----- From: Tiffany Phipps [mailto:tiffany@aspenstarwood.comj Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:33 PM To: Garrett Larimer<garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 627 Smuggler Hello Garrett, As the owner and neighbor to 627 Smuggler we wanted to send a note to say we don't object to the variance requested by our neighbor. Thank you, Tiffany Sent from my Whone LEVEL 1 -MAIN LEVEL F.F. NAVD 8000' -3" T.O. PWD -UPPER LEVEL 8010' -7 5/8" T.O. PLATE 8018' -7 1/8" T.O. CEILING 7998' -10 5/8" PROPOSED GLASS CONNECTOR 7' - 11 1/2"8' - 6 1/2"10' - 4 5/8"MIN. SET BACK FROM PORCH 6'19' - 9 5/8"NEW STONE SIDING NEW DOORS FRENCH BALCONY REFINISH WITH STONE OR STEEL NEW COPPER SHINGLE ROOF LEVEL 1 -MAIN LEVEL F.F. NAVD 8000' -3" T.O. PWD -UPPER LEVEL 8010' -7 5/8" T.O. PLATE 8018' -7 1/8" T.O. CEILING 7998' -10 5/8" NEW WOOD SIDING NEW COPPER SHINGLE ROOF NEW STONE BLACKENED STEEL PICKET AND RAIL NEW GLASS CONNECTOR These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2016 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://18002-627 W. Smuggler-2018/18002 - 627 W. Smuggler - Central - v2018.rvt6/29/18 1:41:06 PM A208 ELEVATIONS - PROPOSED627 W. SMUGGLER627 W. SMUGGLERASPEN, COLORADO 8161118002 Author Checker SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A208 1 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED OPTION B SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A208 2 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 2018.04.24 3 City Zoning Sub. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 627 W Smuggler St.,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday,Judy 3rd 2018 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, Tawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public(tearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)clays prior to the public hearing on the 11th day of June, 2018, to and including the date and time of the public hearing.. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall.be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, surrunarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach sunnnary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued o»next page) Afineral Eslale Owner Nolice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those oil the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or let? amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) clays prior to the public heating on such amendments. Sign The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this I I'h day of June 2018 by Tawn Hillenbrand. PATRICK S. RAWLEY WITNESS MY'FIAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: 7 �6 �� 1 NOTARY ID f11999,10i2259 tdy Commission Expires July 20,2020 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: o COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION a PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN e LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL o APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 I XPi ���L11OD- ND! ri10E Time:; 4,:0J RM! ' tCity�IH'alf;,"1"3,©S Galen`a,`St �Si`s'ter(Citiest - P�ur,pose TMT Nenfures c"% Jan`ice� 1 , X87 S@n th Avenu -.,._.-.....,� • New eve, er York,NYr 1'.0019;risz�request!�g,the; Crty��of�Aspen Flannm ian`dZoii n � °n?rnissrgnfgrantaa� J.L „ . ,� �� ,�esrdentrall �{ Desi n standartl.�Varration fro ; CAr cula`troiixo g riati �_. m tried f" ` Stanuilpgq�`IVlass} and for,taksecond sto"�`a�- '. : nnecto�relemerit ,(For. furttierr' rte` 'mformat�ion�contact'�gs dept,at 970`' I 2,7x391 ... E • . i `� tri 't;�� � •lt - . I✓ - ' n'�!�' S ` t.,,����C' .'� ° � -'�tr'>,'Jvt ns, i{�;..• � . cy r j�)J -+1: oa �Cx ' - x�� Jti '�° I,t? �• j ri `r\� II 1.• llrr% 'wd � !G y♦�i' �:r r '„. 1 � 1 ��_ I SlQ 1 !` � ,�'•jll : r� P ��1.1[ r ,�- l }'( i ! yrJ. ���rr '!7] ` TJ f�i of 't 5••S..G' ,� /'1 r !`i S• r\, ii� N to ��' t� �`���1 jet•.., '1�1 1"� R�1 rF "f L' "l'JlS e.ti�,-5�t l Ii � •S` 1xT S '`�p4r^yr'i S� a ,t 1•' y >�t%'➢1 A; 1 r�kl� fin t r• A 1 _ )), •z" _ o i7 ti°'1 w �,� l:•� 1 tr 9tA I lT r lit,(l t ' • 1 rp �1JA.p 3' CC l �DaD oeDaaO CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 627 W SMUGGLER ST. Public Hearing: Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018; 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 627 W Smuggler Street; Legally Described as Lot 1, OXLEY LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded May 19, 1994 in Plat Book 34 at Page 50. Description: The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Standard for a second story glass connector element. Land Use Reviews Req: Residential Design Standards, Variations Decision,Making Body: Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant: TMT Ventures LLC, c/o Janice Levine, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Garrett Larimer at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, 970.429.2739, garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com. � . . d, % 7ra lrs >L �.�•1S'�' .�y(� 113 _ 1, �,! Kf fr�{f �• �,-('$rV� F--:�✓ G �'� t � C' ti' •rC _l�' YC , �' t r� p . Y �p J Y 'S ' `.��' r F� �� (''1i��'h Pr Pr �IT{y��'t•�+��r r �� r�i{ r T,if i _:f.. d�E'� J-� �i i. ' e�t� h��a�J �li,i�:.• ����{{{ t r � � f , 1� �. �V..{ , �tn � ' rf�:4Ti� t�. �t..d"��Y Y•S� '04��•�,1 fJ f��, � { f" ���� ri 9 1 .dl _1 , / '-�V'r �p�t? '1.•. J 'N �'. ry «•Ji! 'yf� T.. � ;'lk.` ��1;.r s.'j tl�� ;�! r er�'i a -. rtif��,y 4t.J�✓ �t•`p`tkn 7+,� r ,.t-•3,i � !• , ,r c t •� ' t-�•-r F, r rte; ,f ri Ja.l((�` r 'r�lr P.'j�.i��'�' /�"�""•y� �.- �r -�� _ - i}ry I .. lf( ( "� t � F. to 1 :ffP�[ (' .7i r �`✓ ,•-, u. �'l rt f i(j1 >ti .C(f : J�Y�LYI'/-'ice„ � r1� �� ��.�'1 � - ! , ns�,,,a]•'y T'Y> `�'ll ar� tri^ r �' S `�"^a �: S& .,�LSn i � In f`' � '� r! •.} f,•`114.. r•'dr n�4..'� �J'r �s �,�T" Pr„ �' �� _ �1 • y, .��F� � :: .l S I r 7 �Py; rgl� i rG• t 5 � �, 1111 1��1/r1 � r � 7 a! .• 3ri � t�7,1•i Y - a{ arJf�� cif ' ' \ -p•:j', Jf �,a6 ! ., LGr�, 1 f� d �- 5 'dr IT � �'���f It �� � V�a�4h" i, )�_. � , �� (• A�t�� �o�{ ,r �r}.�.�f �.,I[�r � �"'e _� . 'x � � J1`:�f 5 r -'. , t'd•+U.� �� fy;J�' � 1 rPl���f 1 ti. �'r i1 � I•�t��.1.7 t , ; y,, s �. r, Ji � �• :� r �• � * tJK,r�� ..�Q,..rp�,�... �t71���r � a)11 '�t �i�>:�' .� � I ri � � , �,� j Q f r-t y���Wyi' r r 5 ��,�'I .•> >...t••1 u4 l ' {'�S � ! �2'�a\lj••t l' j• ';+y'.a � ' 4`T.-•c� : � St1.1 T��'•!t 1� (' Vc � � . y;• -J:1 _... • zr'. 2�'1'tt Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512409013 on 06/06/2018 % ' KIN CO U IST 710� C�®C� Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages."This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer.: Pitkin,County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. htto://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com STARRI CONDO ASSOC NOVE 1 DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC PDT PARTNERS LLC COMMON AREA COMMON AREA 209 W 78TH ST 624 W FRANCIS ST 637 W NORTH ST NEW YORK,NY 10024 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BERG AMY MARGERUM NEW WEISMAN FAMILY LP PENINSULA LLC 65 PONTE VEDRA BLVD 1566 RISING GLEN RD 700 W FRANCIS ST PONTA VEDRA BEACH,FL 32082 LOS ANGELES,CA 900691226 ASPEN,CO 81611 KANDAHAR CONDO ASSOC MCCAUSLAND LINDA REV TRUST SHAMBAN AVA T L EXEMPT TRUST COMMON AREA 609 W FRANCIS ST 790 RANCH LN W NORTH ST ASPEN,CO 81611 PACIFIC PALISADES,CA 90272 ASPEN,CO 81611 SCHAEFER WIDO LIVING TRUST ZODIAC ASPEN LLC SUGAR DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC 603 W NORTH ST 91 1917 S SIGNAL RD#101 PMB#187 COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81611 MESA,AZ 85209 707 W SMUGGLER ST ASEPN,CO 81611 SMUGGLER LLC 629 W SMUGGLER LLC POPE CHRISTINE A L REV TRUST 1044 OLIVE ST 370 E MAPLE RD 4TH FL 540 W SMUGGLER ST DENVER,CO 80220 BIRMINGHAM,MI 48009 ASPEN,CO 81611 JEMAL MORRIS MATTHEW WEST FRANCIS CONDO ASSOC 712 WEST FRANCIS LLC 702 H ST NW#400 COMMONAREA 623 E HOPKINS WASHINGTON,OC 20001 717 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOURKE JANINE L REV TRUST GOLDSMITH FAMILY TRUST MILLER ANN F 716 W FRANCIS ST 733 25TH ST 715 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 SANTA MONICA.CA 90402 ASPEN,CO 81611 COOK ROBERT C&MARSHA JEMAL NORMAN COOK ROBERT C&MARSHA N 621 W FRANCIS ST 702 H ST NW#400. 621 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN,CO 81611 WASHINGTON,DC 20001 ASPEN,CO 81611 DE TIERRA LLC URIPIS LLC CHAMBERS BAY LLC PO BOX 7534 600 W FRANCIS 2180 SAND HILL RD#345 SPRECKELS,CA 93962 ASPEN,CO 81611 MENLO PARK,CA 94025 BURROWS ANNE W LIV TRUST ELSENBROOK THOMAS&LESHA AULD ROBERT H&CAROL C 505 N 5TH ST 3 PINE CRESCENT CT 730 WSMUGGLER AVE ASPEN,CO 811611 HOUSTON,TX 77024 ASPEN,CO 81611 K 4FRISSEN ARTHUR&CAROLE 637 W NORTH STREET TRUST STANLEY GAINES B&VICKIE C 310 N 6TH ST 279 JUNE RD 3915 LEMMON AVE #200 b SPEN,CO 81611 STAMFORD.CT 06903 DALLAS,TX 75219 3?3 NORTH 5TH ST LLC BLANK NANCY L OLIVER CARR CONDO ASSOC 2 119 BRENTWOOD DR PO BOX 38016 COMMON AREA I OUSTON,TX 77019 ALBANY,NY 12203 616 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 I.ALKIN DENISE HOOGLAND JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER W JONES STEPHEN M TRUST V 6 14 W FRANCIS ST 834 5TH AVE#11 B 807 LAS CIMAS PKWY#245 i SPEN,CO 816111237 NEW YORK,NY 10065 AUSTIN,TX 78746 IOWEN-STANLEY PAMELA DEVONSHIRE CORPORATION NIEBUR DEWAYNE E.&JO ANN E +)W 96TH ST#1A 6100 N PENNSYLVANIA 721 W FRANCIS I EW YORK.NY 10025 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73112 ASPEN,CO 81611 ANGFROID ADVISORS LLC OXLEY DEBBY M LAWSON MICHELLE R 'i)7 W SMUGGLER ST#W 1437 S BOULDER AVE#1475 205 S MILL ST#301A SPEN,CO 81611 TULSA,OK 74119 ASPEN,CO 81611 I,IUSGRAVE MARJORY M ROHATYN NICOLAS&JEANNE FRANCIS CAPITAL INVESTMENT LLC 29 W NORTH ST 12 E 94TH ST 623 E HOPKINS i SPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10128 ASPEN,CO 81611 I.1TCHIE ROBERT SMALL ALBERT H JR 618 SMUGGLER LLC .01 W FRANCIS ST 7311 ARROWOOD RD 4212 BELCLAIRE SPEN,CO 81611 BETHESDA,MD 20817 DALLAS,TX 75205 1VOGAN WENDY OXLEY JOHN C LIVING TRUST STEVENSON WILLIAM JR&VALERY 33 W FRANCIS ST 1437 S BOULDER AVE#770 1302 MESA AVE I.SPEN,CO 81611 TULSA,OK 74119 COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80906 LEEDS HOUSE CONDO ASSOC BUFFY LLC :OMMON AREA PO BOX 7534 21 W FRANCIS ST SPRECKELS,CA 93962 1,SPEN,CO 81611