Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19980813AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE August 13,1998 4:00 p.m. Thursday Special Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall I. Roll Call II. Minutes III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) IV. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Williams Ranch Joint venture, SilverLode Subdivision Lot #3 O Garages b. Simpson Residence, 940 East Hyman Avenue OO Volume Standard, inflection -~p,~~~ 6 - D c. Denholm Residence Lot #4 Callahan Subdivision OO Volume Standard OO Building Orientation Standard/ APP2aa E,~ 4 ~ VI. Adjourn APPLICANT: WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE, REPRESENTED BY DAVID PANICO, ARCHITECT LOCATION: SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION LOT #3 ACTION: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PLACEMENT OF GARAGE DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. All portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ~, TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.2.060 (E) ~~1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of properly within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of .199_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ) ?. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~~' day of -~r~,~ y , 199 (Must be posted for at least t x X10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ., ~ DI~~~~ ~;, . ~,_, ~~~ t (f ~ ,being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally cerafy that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section ?6.52.Ob0 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner. (Attach photograph here) S' ature ~. Si ed before me this j.~ day 19 y My AND OFFICIAL SEAL 4 f ~ ~~. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Dev(e~lo~pment Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner I',~n (n/~ RE: Residence, Silverlode Subdivision Lot #3 -- Public Hearing Garage Placement DATE: August 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Williams Ranch Joint Venture, owner, is requesting a waiver of the Residential Design Standard concerning garages for Lot #3 of the Silverlode Subdivision. Waiving this garage standard will allow the garage, as designed, to be in front of the main facade. Staff recommends granting the variance for the placement of the garage, with conditions. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture. Represented by David Panico, Architect. LOCATION: Silverlode Subdivision Lot #3. ZONING: AH1-PUD. Free-Market Residential portion of subdivision. REVIEW PROCEDURE: DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. BACKGROUND: This lot is one of the free-market lots created by the Silverlode Subdivision, a private sector affordable housing project. The three-year period of vested rights, exempting these lots from the floor area penalties of Residential Design, has expired. The property must conform to all aspects of Residential Design unless specifically exempted by the DRAC. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the Residential Design Standard for placement of the garage as proposed, with the conditions listed in the Staff memo dated August 13, 1998, for Lot #3 of the Silverlode Subdivision,." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application 3 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLlCAT1ON FARM 1. Project name C-OT-~ ;.~ l LVi=JZL1~DF 2. Project location ?~1 ~ ~ji L~/.1=~t.DCE D2r~lE (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning fi?u•~- 4. Latsize 18,105 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number G„'.GWI~~~S'RA~tGf-•I .l Ot~IT_ ~f~'t+ITUR.~, 3zl,d CLCN1PdAi.ll~t~2. ~N1"7~ ~eQ.3DV~A-.G4• ~o5'C,B~•8255 ' 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number D/ VI D ~NIC-O I ~i h~'i l i lit ~ ~ ~ ~V-~ I Lt. R~ LY%t~ N ~i5 . ~G1 ~i. F~ZiI d 7. Type of application (check ail that apply): _ Conditional Use _ _ Special Review _ _ 8040 Greeniine _ Stream Margin _ Subdivision _ _ GMQS allotment _ Vew Plane - Lot SpIit/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA _ Final SPA _ Conceptual P'JD _ Final PUD _ Text/Map Amend. _ GMQS exemption _ Condominiumization~ Conceptual HPC Final HFC Minor HFC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) ~G~,CAN~ AND. ~31~ 9. Description of development application N.t;~GtiN~e-E-EOGD ~fGN. ~~~l1Etr#G11'A.N17.A~rLi7-~-~ Z~S~U7~ii~l~ ~142aln~iCE 10. Have you completed and attached the following? _ Attachment 1-Land use application form Response to Attachment 2 _ Response to Attachment 3 ___ - 03/OJ%93 11:15 '$9i0 9:5 lOli dSPE_< S9L_aRE f]!001 Williams iianchJoir+.tventure 3294 Campani! Drive Santa Barbara CA 939x9 Office:8o5-687-8255 Fax:805-687-9745 Sr'3i98 Mr. David Panico Desi~rts by David Panico tnc. Aspen CO r'ae r: 970-~23-1260 Sub]ect: ALLkO[tzatl0n t0 Repr seat Owner Rt SllVeiLOd~ ='3 Dear ]avid, T~re propose of *.his letter is to authorize you as the o«ner's representa~ ve or, any and all desi~ , architecttrrai and buifdir.8 permit related issues or: the home desi~l for Silveri..vde r ot; 3. the Cite- is most certainly aware that the W2JV is the devcioper of Williams Ranch and SiiverT.ode Subdivisions. However, if you would line some indication that in fact the ~'nN is still the owner or"rzcord of SilverLode Lot.'-`3, here is a cepy o: the latest Billing tiom Aspen Consolidated shovii.RB `Jle Lot 3 billinv to the WK1 V that I happen w 'nave cvjth me in As7cn this week. Sincerely Yours John D. Markel President, Mark 1V, Irc. General Partner, R~'illiams Ranch Joint Ventrae Qavz ?.JUCO ~L~ Auiiwniation.dor • 08%OW'98 - 9:25 APd v y .p t" i T ~ii D i L I I~ b L~ b i T ' {(~ ~ ~I ~ i C7 1{ i C jv O ~ ~ ~~ `- ~7 ~ i. ;; ~, f ° ,E v o 1 ~ it . m zZ ' ~ G i--v 1 S li µ z j f^ ; N af'i ~' ' s b z ;, ; a r . i I ~ .'1i G ~ ~ -r. 9 II '7 Q Nb !; (~ ~ j! li a ~ y ~ ~~ ... I, c r.. / r• Ii aF i , If ~ ~ ~ . r, . i I + _° ~ m ~~ : I .. 1 ar I , ; ~ ~ {4 ~ ~ ~ ~ : f f~ ~1 , ,.. f: u ii ! li ~i i' Cv :+ ~ m n ~{ - I r f' , ; ~: u }+ i I ;! I i I ~ F i 9 p ~ ~ w i C 2 :I u (1 I ~ V' , { y n iI S I i~ v ~ ' ~ `` l { L ] ~ ~' m } i v^ ~ ~ 9t I! i am 1 1' ~ y j -" v~rnN 1~ ~ 'u 'i # „ W I C v D u Nm P>' ...Cr C ; I { 4 ~t ~ I C Ii ;~,~, ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~, , 2n,p ~r ~ ~~ ;~ _ ~; i5T t° ~ . n ~J 4~ eM; ~ x , I ~ ~ ~ /, ~, a ,~ _ ! ~ r r ,w>r m m ~ ~ I~~.Jl (D~~ ~ y 1~~ a (~ G ,; ~~ r m u, .~ ~! ~ -~ r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~~ n r; ,%~ ;; ;.~ ~I lI////~// ~.~ m O ~' '~ p j ~~ // ~~ 9 ~ ~y~te,~s j~C ~ ~~ ~~~ U• ~' ~~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ 1 D,~/ y I ~ 1 m 19 ~ ; ,/,c~ i~ ~,,~~ ~i 1 ~~ b~ %1 %n ~~ ! P ~ / L ~ /` / (n'~ rn ~ ;~ ~ r i~ rn ~ / z i ` ° ' ~` i~, '~ w ~ ~ ~ ~~ s 0 ~ ^' r ~\ 3 ~~ anI'i~ m r 0 v to li33 JL'NIPL-R HiLi. Ronn, ASPEN, COLORAnC) 81Gll Pi3oivR 970?i23-5394 Fn%970-923-LGO August 4,1998 Mr. Chris Berrdon, City Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena St Aspen, Co. Re: Ordinance 30 Review, Lot 30 S~lverlode Dear Chris: Accompanying this lett« is the completed application for revieav by the Design Review Appeal Committt;e. A letter of summation follows and addresses the Crdinance 30 review standard that the applicant is seeking a variance for. 'Ihe residence being presented deviates from die Ordinance 30 guideline concerning Garages and Driveways in drat the entire garage, as proposed, will be located in front of the structure's street ~. Eaartg facade. tt F This project is dte 8i° or 9'" residence in the Silverlode subdivisi~ d~a2 tlvs Cc~mivee has reviewed. I believe that the Committee has come >p recognize that this, and many other sections of Ordinance 30 were «eated with Aspen's West End in mind and don't apply, for practical reasons, in this sub-division. As has been stated tD you previously, the topography of the building sites and routing of die streets acrd access points tp those building sites are not conducive to locating garages in any location but the front These facNrs have been recognized by the Committee in the past and dte desired variances have been granted. sincerely, n ~IIavid E. K. Panico I.ot 3, Silverlode i ; i ~\ ~ ~ ~ a 1 \ "F o 'i ~~ -~- ~ ~ ~~ ° ~\~,~ o ~~ ~ V \ l ,l ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ -, \ _ ~~~- ' ~ I \ ~ ~ \ \` e o _ - _\ ` ~\ \ ~. ~ \. :- ,_ ~ ~ ,~\ / ~ Est ~ ~ '~ /a ,~ ~ ~ ~\ '~ ~\ o ~ a __~BUnri .~~ ~~~j 'mn- ~~. ~. i~ ~~ ~ i o\ ~ ~ _ ~ s~. T J ~ i~~ ~ 1~ f .. S ! _-- ~ ._._L_ ~ = i ~a:~ ~~ L o ;O ~._ ~~ ~ D R ~ V ~(''~~~° ar~J-~~-- - ao - ae - ~o ,.._. 0 C C~ ~ ~. ~' Z r ~~~ ~lI 1 C~ + S ~, r ~ ~ Q ---- r ; ~ff I~ -----_ -- --- . ~ ,~ 0 -.~ r rn d n 1--- ~I ~' S fi, r; rn { ~ q ® ~ ~ 0 ~ Z~ ~ _ ~' ~; - ~ o it .~-dill ~ ,~ .~ { ,+ I ~_ t i r [.-- '~ -- .- _ ,, ~; r ;~' ~~ BATH „~.V,. GLGS Vii, ~~ WINE ~I ~I LIBRARY end MAST BED T GLGS ~ O /~\~~`a / ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ MEGH. ~ ~~. ENTi2Y ~ 1 j~ ~g 11.d®~ ~9 ~~~~1~e11d~®~~ MUD LAUND ~ ~ z BATH EL 8010 GLOS POWDER MAST BED EL 8009 ., i, J ~.,.,~ > , ,~ EL 8015 6ED EL 8015 ~ N,. ~~ ' d\ LIV EL E3010 , j// // ,'i~ ~ ~/ r ~ '~~,~rt.~r cant ~\ , i \\\ ~ ~ , ~\ ~ L- ~ V, 1. t.( C1 L ~ V ~ L ~~9n=~'-a" ~¶''+ ~j y - --- ~ KITGHE \~~ DINING EL 8010 acre n o.~w -`~ DECK DN J r__--_______ .-_-__~ I I r---~ ~------------- I I ., ~ ~~ I I i~ I i I I ~~ I BED~~ I EL 8015 I ~ i I i I ~ I S-3~~ i I ' ~ / ! ~ I ; ~: ~, ~' ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ i. OPEN TO LIV)I H~ 'i i,• ~i, ~ ~`~ : i,• ~i. ~`~ : i; ~~~ ~ i. ::i.. tT~ ~\ \~ .\ 7 DEGK DEGK l_i P_ P ~. R . L -E V ~ L ~~~~- ~~-o BED EL 8020 APPLICANT: Sunni Simpson LOCATION: 940 E. Hyman ACTION: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR INFLECTION, VOLUME (WINDOWS) DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. INFLECTION: If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one story in height for a distance more than twelve feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one story in height for a distance of twelve feet. If the adjacent structures on both sides of a proposed building are one story in height, the required one story volume of the proposed building may be on one side only. If a proposed building occupies a corner lot, and faces an adjacent one story structure, the required one story element may be reversed to face the corner. WINDOWS (VOLUME): Al[ areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten feet shall be counted as two square feet for each one square foot of floor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between nine and twelve feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, ornon-orthogonal fenestration between nine and fifteen feet above floor level. ~. b. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clawson, Community Develo ment Directq~ C FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE; Simpson Residence, 940 East Hyman Avenue -- Public Hearing Inflection Volume (Windows) DATE: August 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Sunni Simpson, is requesting a waiver of two Residential Design Standards concerning the volume standard, for windows within 9 to 12 feet of floor height, and for the inflection standard for a proposed single-family home located at 940 East Hyman Avenue. Waiving the window standard will allow the placement of these windows as proposed without a Floor Area penalty. Waiving the inflection standard will allow the proposed structure to not step down in height to the adjacent one-story residence. Both of the standazds in question are proposed to be amended with the revised guidelines to be considered by City Council. The inflection standard is proposed for lots of 6,000 square feet or larger. The window standard is proposed for windows between the first and second floors, not affecting windows above the second level. The Committee should note that the Residential Design Standards may not be in front of City Council soon, and may be amended from their present proposal. City Council is not interested in reviewing changes to Ordinance 30 without reviewing Floor Area and possibly a volume calculation. The Committee should also note the primary mass standazd has been proposed to require a secondary mass in the revised ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recently reviewed, and denied, this project for the proposed ADU in the basement and variances from the design standazds. The applicant has amended the design to eliminate the primary mass, by reducing the amount of the structure which qualifies as a primary mass, has amended the roof plan to provide more of an inflection to the adjacent property, while still two stories in height, and may still seek approval for the ADU at a later date. The Committee may waive the Residential Design Standards upon finding the proposal meets one of the variance criteria. Staff's response to these criteria are included in Staff Comments, below. Staff recommends granting the variances requested, with conditions. ~ _... APPLICANT: Sunni Simpson of Hyman Street L.L.C. Represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: A 940 East Hyman Avenue. ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) REVIEW PROCEDURE: ' DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. INFLECTION The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: Inflection. If the street frontage of an adjacent structure is one (I) story in height for a distance more than twelve (12) feet on the side facing a proposed building, then the adjacent portion of the proposed building must also be one (I) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. Ifthe adjacent structures on both sides of a proposed building are one (I) story in height, the required one (I) story volume of the proposed building may be on one (I) side only. If a proposed building occupies a corner lot, and faces an adjacent one (I) story ~~ structure, the required one (I) story element may be reversed to face the corner. , Staff has consistently applied this the mean a 12 wide element for the distance along the lot line where the adjacent on- story element exists. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Findin~e. The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findi~e. The standazd specifically protects the residential scale and massing of the towns neighborhoods and protects one story houses from being "buried" by adjacent development. Especially when those adjacencies are historic. However, the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards do restrict the inflection standard to lots of 6,000 square feet or larger. [n other words, this standard would not apply to this lot with the current proposed ordinance. In concert with all requirements of the proposed revisions, staff felt properties of this size could still meet ~~ the intent of the ordinance without meeting this standard. -~ These revisions, however, are not in effect and may not be in effect for some time. Council is not interested in considering these amendments until Floor Area and possibly overall volume are addressed. Because the revisions were staff recommendation for the new ordinance, staff recommends the inflection standard be waived for this project. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Rtaff Findine: There is nothing drastically unusual about this site other than it's size - 3,000 square feet. The adjacent properly is one-story in height for a substantial portion of the common lot line. With a 20 foot wide building envelope, inflecting correctly would require any second story element to be within 8 feet of the eastern property line for that portion of the building where the adjacent structure is one-story. While this may in deed represent a design challenge, it may also represent a fairness issue. However, the applicant is proposing an inflection of 0 feet. This may also represent a fairness issue with the adjacent property. The Residential Design Standards encourage compatible massing and scale for residential development. They aze for the benefit of the community in general, including neighboring property owners. Staff believes there is a site constraint present, but is not sure that constraint necessitates zero inflection. WINDOWS (VOLUME): The applicant's proposed development is subject to a FAR penalty with the following Residential Design Standard: All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ] 0 feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each 1 square foot of floor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between 9 and 12 feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, or non-orthogonal fenestration between 9 and I S feet above floor level. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Findine: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. The Residential Design Standards are a direct outcome of the AACP. b) n more effective method of addressing standard in question; o-, 4taff Findine: The standard specifically says no windows in this area unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty. The proposed revision to the guidelines, however, aze more restrictive between the first and second levels of the home and less restrictive above the second level. The windows in the proposed development would not be in conflict with this proposed ordinance. Again, this proposed ordinance is not in effect and may be altered in the process. 3 Staff believes, however, that the proposed windows are relatively harmless. The two- story window expanse which Ordinance 30 addressed is not presented here with these specific windows. The windows are relatively small and contribute to the overall design of the project. The window standard promotes a neighborhood scale and character. Staff believes these windows do support this neighborhood character and are a more effective method of addressing the standard. c) clearly necessary for reasons ojfairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding; There are no site specific constraints for this property which predetermine larger windows, or windows above 9 feet. The site is flat, buildable, within the grid, and within a developed neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAG grant a variance of the Residential Design Standards "inflection" and "volume" for the proposed Simpson residence, 940 East Hyman Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) hereby waives the "volume" standard and the "inflection" standard for the proposed Simpson residence, 940 East Hyman Avenue. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standards" shall apply. 2. These variances are granted for the specific proposal presented to the DRAG. Any substantial change to the proposed residence which necessitates an "~'"'' additional or different variance from the design standards shall require review and approval by the DRAG, or any other board from which the project requires 4 land use approval. 3. This approval shall not represent approval for any other required land use action. 4. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the Residential Design Standard for volume and inflection with the conditions listed in the Staff memo dated August l3, 1998, for The proposed Simpson residence, 940 East Hyman Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application »~ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 E. HYMAN SUITE 301 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-5590 FAX (970) 925-5076 TO: FROM: DATE: PROJECT: JOB NO.: REGARDING: ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Design Review Appeals Committee Ryan Hoffner 6-3 -98 Simpson Residence 9759 Variance to Volume & Inflection Standard PLANNING INTERIORS The Applicant, Hyman St. L.L.C., hereby request a variance to the volume standard and the side yard inflection as stated in section 26.58.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The Simpson Residence, located at 940 E. Hyman, now to be referred to as The Project, requests a variance to the Residential Design Standards concerning the use of fat;ade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. The fenestration's in violation are small 2'-0" x 2'-0" square windows. We feel that the presence of these small windows do not compromise the intended goals of the Residential Design Standards. They do not increase the scale or volume of the building but rather provide natural light into the interior vaulted spaces without compromising privacy. In addition, the standard in question would be exempt under the Proposed Residential Design Standards. We also request a variance to the side yard inflection due to standard c) "be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." This lot is a 30' x 100'city lot containing a "easement for yard purposes" that additionally constrains the setbacks of the lot. A 12' wide side inflection would be impractical for a dwelling that is only 20' wide. This standard would also be exempt under the Proposed Residential Design Standards because this lot is under 6,000 sf. The Project appropriately addresses and/or exceeds the majority of the Residential Design Standards as well as zone requirements. The covered entry porch is 188 square feet as opposed to the required minimum of 50 square feet. The one story roof element, which is 100% of the width of the street fapade exceeds the required 20%. These standards clearly exceed and/or add to the pedestrian scale of the neighborhood, a primary goal of the Residential Design Standards. I ' '~~ ~ ', ~ , i ¢ .. ~ 5' i i ~ i -' i _____ ~ ~ F _ _____~ ~ ~.___________ _____ 1. ~ . ----- . ~ ~----------- --- ___i HOPKINS AVE ,, ,, --- ~ i ~I I ; EA TWU STOtLY ~~ ~ _ ~~ PAaKU1G WU 57aRN ~ - , T}IREE orJ[ STORY tro2Y i, !f .-~ Nti p i______ ____________~". E HYMAN AVE F- N o Z o ii ' h ~- p _ _______ 11 ______ W ~_ ~ ; ; ~__t i __ 3 ~ IoM. ~ ~ u i i grrwr. ~o~l~ -- ___ - ,~ -~ ~,---- - n ,,. ~ ~ /I \` A ~- v~ 0 z J\ ' / W \71I/ 7 W J U 1111PROIl~'~11~NT .~ URII~'Y Rebor & Lap L.S. M 157!0 LEGAL DESCRIPT/ON.~ *96 LOT O, BLOCK 32, EAST ASPEN ADD/T/ONAL TOWNS/TE ENTRY ~0 ASPEN, COLORADO ,~ / Gas Ne to 940 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, ASPEN, COL02400 ; ; ,~ EASEMENTS FROM TITLE O '~`/ rl,,o ^~' COMMITMENT PCT-12092 0 ' f'R,o [FI'[2 BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE ~~ SyAKF ROp/- DATED 7 AUG., 1997 ;' ~1 / Lp Q Nauee on odjocen Cot ~ ~ ~. ._ Temporary easement _ for }raid purposes, Book J56, Poge 716 _ and easement agreement Beak 786, Poge 618 /0 Gape hos4d ~ s 2 !4 / \ .OLj' t y 6. q0 ShZA "1~ Asr 5' Aspe~ / 6 Aspen 8 ~pes Rebar L.S. N BR/CK PAIERS--~I Ja! yY~~ ~~~ _ ~V Surveyor's Certificate: S Coble S 75'09'11' E stars~~ /~ 30.00' ~ vRepa,- b Cop ~_ n c. N 9184 10" spruce ro a i ~ Z' ,spruce t le Meters y m~ /' O 'T ~ oose on odjonr ("-~ Lof 'Aspen Aspen //°pO, F (TyPi~-o/J ce r BCaP p 9184 ....,,. s. ' Sh26 ~'S ~9- ~`'~. 3p~~,11 ~ ---~ c~„b ~~~ // , ~ ~ ~`' /, Kenneth R. Wilson, being a Reg/'sfered Lond Surveyor, in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this improvement survey ~"'" was mode under my supervision and is true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. l further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on the date, 8 Sept., 1997, except utility connections are entirely within the boundaries of the porce% except os shown, that there are no encroachments upon t/~e described premises by improvements on any adjoining premisses except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easernent cross,•'ng or bardeningJany p d-~ porce% except os noted / SH (,, Kenneth R! Wi/sari i.3'¢!S 1 ~'~,S !9 ~~~yG Co- ~ ~URtlEi . (a •~NH..~~., ~OF COt-~E: TUL'SL'R GORDON MEYER, INC. tee`/ !,h h / ~' r p ~ 1 r / ; ~~ ~~ ~ ~~. i ~ xo, m ~~ ll I~ a y ~ ~ rti ~ vJ ~ O V _._ - SURVTI'ORS _-_ ~ ENC/NE£RS SCNMUESER ~~ '-..-._.. GOROON Mfl£R - - _- ~° z W ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~A ~ a M Q .,.. ~.. ^n~ ~1 r r ~ W V ~ ~ ~' Z \ 1 ~ ~/ ~ ~~ ~ Q N N W ,' ~ N ~ ,~ ~^'~ ~ ~ ~ r:~~ ~,' ~.~. ~ _ ,: {~s ~ ~~, '" ~;. ! r v, `` ,~ - r ~. - -~_ 1~~ 'j 1i',~ < . W U } Z 0 Q L ~ ~:. ~R~~ ~. r 1956-BZ(UL6 ~%Vf BELEi74016 ~31~1.. ff6LB O]'3(IMf1T131 .'iAV OUVMOl07'3 OZZ 9C95iZ69L6 ~%Vf . 0555iZ6916 ~lr3L . U918 OJ'N3d5V' . IOE 3LIf6 .3AV MM1VAU 15Yf OZS S1J311H~?Jb' 33~1NN/7~ S3R/VHJ e ~ ~n ~~~~ '88h ~~ ~66~~yy~ ~ ~ t9 ~. S ~ ~°~ ~~ ~~~6 ~ ~ 4S ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ SY~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~yy 5~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~q¢¢~~ ~~ ~pp~ ~ ~~ g~g~~ ~~ t~t •~ ~B~E ~~ 6s aa~ g~~ ~b Bw~ N .t ~i H W tl ~{~. i M N~ .~. W~ H~ i ~q ~W~ G N O O O i - - ~o s3m~a inL lm 3 - ~p ~ LL 9 ~ V O R ~ O O ~~ 2 ~W 6, y~ a Fb ~N~ g ~ U~ C ~~ ~--, ~3~~ Oj ~ O % _~ ~g ~V\ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O i OaVNOIOJ 'N3dS'd '3nV NVWAH '3 Ob6 3JN3O1S3?/ NOSdW1S P S ~ rc w ~ o ~ ~ NO11J(7?11SN0~ ~10~ 13~ O • : ry a i ~•/ N ~/ i; _~ % ~~ WWNW hp LL t III _ O J J J L9S6-8Z(OL6 ~IIVl BfLE~i,WL6 ~313L . SE6w OJ'3a1tlftt13L .'3AV OOYtlQ10J'3 OZZ UUb'NU IV:J N~dStl uos~z6o~s aroa . osssswoes inn . Iww m M~esv . we nms .'va uwu+ ava oa '3AV NVWAH '3 Ob6 .S17~I1N72AF/ ~~~INN~]7 S37?Ib'HJ 3~N3alS3d NOSdWlS ~ m U Z ~ O O j m S ~ NUl1;J/l2/1SNUJ 21V l~ € yy ~ 9 ~ W O 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~6 ~~ ~9~~ ~~ ~~~ W >W $~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~a~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ ~~ ~€ ~ ~~s ~~~ ~~ ~g~ e ~ a -t ~ k w d „ N I L ~ O '+ , ~ /... I I~ I \ I ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I O ~ ~~ !~¢~ a3Naao /M ~ /: g~~~ d S~ 9~ ~ a3nam /M NWNIM a3Ll3J tJ ~ MWN/M a31M3J a 3W O /~ ~ m j m~ / Y2 / R• V ~ I \ w a O a ~ _ ^~ W- 0 ~\ ~ ~~ -~ ~ ~ g~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~..~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ > v ry ~~ p~p ® ~~ ~ ~W a ~ © ~~\ ~~ d __ ~ 8~ M ~ ~ ¢~ ~ h QW W Q 4 m N~ •~• ~ O ~~ • •~ N~ a ~u ~ w a Q _ \~ c~ _ , rn _ ~ - ~ rn I+T • ~ setae a3anu • ~ • 1 Ia/ ~Y - Q ~Y w O ~ ~ ~~ -_-__ _ -__~-___.- _ _- 0 _- ____- _. - m Z ii ~_-~ ~ ~ ii -{~ ~ ii cif Z ~ JC---~~~__C_- Q; `--i i ~~ ~- I 4 L956-9ZLpL6 IXV3 BELt-9ZG9L6 ~I13L . EE618 ti] 3(IRIfRl31 .'3AV t%]VtlOICYJ 3 OZZ 9L05-EZb0L6 ]lVf . 06E5-SZbOL6 3131.11919 OJ ~N3d5Y . WE 311!15 .'3~V NVWIJI ISYi OZS S17311H~21V 3~3INNfl~ S372/t~HJ OOtl21U10~ 'N3dSb' 3Atl NVWAH '3 066 3~N3O1S321 NOSdWIS a d. ~ ~ U ~ O ~ p @Z fJ 6 p N011.~~]211SN0~ __ 0 --__ 0 -- 0 rZ 210= 13 LBS6-BZLOl6 ~1(V3 . BfLE~UAL6 39L . Sf418 07 ~30180TI3L .'iAV OOV801(YJ'3 022 9LOfiSZ50L6 lYi .0655-SZ60[fi 391.11918 OJ ~N3dSV . IOE 31H15 . 3AV NbWAII 1N3 OZS S1J31IHJ~Id 3ddINNl1~ S37?Ib'H~ I 4 4 dim ~„ ~~~ (/ ~I a ~~ pl ~~~ . ~~. sw ,I ~ ~i ~ l ~~ ~~~ rw ~~ s ~'~¢ °~ ~S d~& ® I I I ® I I I I rl ~ I ~lJ I ~ I ~ I r ~ I / ~~~ I I ~ I •1 ~ I I ~J I I ~' I J J I ~ I I~ l I i I i I I I I I I I I ~r~=~=; 1 ~~ I rr ~ ~ ~_ _ = J rS`1 I ~5~1 OOb'NOIOJ 'N3dSV 3AV NNWAH '3 046 3~N3Q1S3?/ NOSdWIS ~' ~~ ~i ~~. g 2/G 1. o ~~~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w O a~ag ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~r(( ~ Z ? £ 2 N ~ ~ i C W l ~ ti ¢ Zi ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ N ~ Yooaoooooooo~ ~iod oawl of a-,bz 0 ~a.. 0 r ui 0 v rn w U Z W W O W O a O a Z Q 2 u.i 0 N m W U Z W W C7 Z H N X W Z Q 2 w 0 0 rn >- J_ Q LL J C7 Z W -~ ~1.~~1/HJ~Ib' 3~~1/NNn~ S37?Ib'HJ u~' Nosdwis z Q r ui 0 w U Z W O W C7 Z F-- W •~~.. r Z Q } W O m } _J I J Z X ~~ II Noc_c~narl. I~ i~l~ ~ dod l~ 13S c r APPLICANT: David Denholm, Represented by Baker Fallin Architects LOCATION: Lot #4 Callahan Subdivision ACTION: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR BUILDING ORIENTATION, VOLUME (WINDOWS) DRAC may grant relief From the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. ORIENTATION: The orientation of the principal mass of all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face. On corner lots, both street facing facades of the principal mass must be parallel to the road. On curvilinear streets, the principal mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the arc. WINDOWS (VOLUME): All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height . greater than ten feet shall be counted as two square feet for each one square foot of floor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between nine and twelve feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, ornon-orthogonal fenestration between nine and fifteen feet above floor level. HUU-X15-1`J+Jc~ 1+`~~ ;Jt~ I-I::LII'1 Fiat-'tfJ: F-' I I I~~. 1 fJ ~ UI'7 llt~.' AEtachment $ County of Pitlin State of Colorado photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. I, J~5 ~ WE4VFrR. ~i2 84KE~ lac-u~l k`~., ~~ ar representing an ,hed hereto, by fast-class postage prepaid CJ. S. ~Q4) feet of the subject property, as indicated l99_ (which is -days prior to the public ice on the sztbject property {as it cquld be seen from was posted and visible contuiuously from the ~v ~" day (Must be posted for at least 1 L~ ~..,2~ Signed before me this day of 199.x. by WITNESS M~" HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAI. IVIy Conunission expires: ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 --r----- TOTAL P . 81 AFFTI~,A.'VX'X' OF NOTICE PURSUANT ss. TO ASPEN L,t~NA USE REGUI,ATYONS SECT ION 26.52.Q~{I(E) Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section Z6.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code xn the following __ ~G MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Deve opment Director LC~ FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Denholm Residence, Lot #4 Callahan Subdivision -- Public Hearing Building Orientation Volume (Windows) DATE: August 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, David Denholm, owner, is requesting a waiver of two Residential Design Standazds concerning the volume standard, for windows within 9 to 12 feet of floor height, and for the orientation standard for a proposed single-family home to be constructed on a vacant lot neaz the Aspen Club. Waiving the window standazd will allow the placement of these windows as proposed without a Floor Area penalty. Waiving the orientation standard will allow the building to be constructed as shown, not pazallel to the street. The proposed ordinance revising the design standazds may not be reviewed by City Council until Floor Area and possibly volume is addressed. Nonetheless, the proposed window standard affects more strictly windows on the front facade between the first and second levels. The orientation standard would remain essentially the same with the revisions. The Committee may waive the Residential Design Standazds upon finding the proposal meets one of the variance criteria. Staff s response to these criteria aze included in Staff Comments, below. Staff recommends granting the variance for orientation, with conditions, and denying the variance for volume. APPLICANT: David Denholm. Represented by Baker Fallin Architects. LOCATION: Lot #4 Callahan Subdivision (neaz the Aspen Club). ,, _ ZONING: Moderate Density Residential -Planned Unit Development (R-15-PUD) REVIEW PROCEDURE: DRAC may grantxelief from the Residential Design Standards at a public heazing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) amore effective method of addressing standazd in question; or, c) cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. INFLECTION The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: Orientation. The orientation of the principal mass of all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face. On corner lots, both street facing facades of the principal mass must be parallel to the road. On curvilinear streets, the principal mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the RPC. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding; The proposed vaziance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findine: The subject street, Crystal Lake Road, is curvilinear. The proposed development is roughly parallel to the street and has a significantly street oriented facade. As proposed, the slight offset from pazallel actually provides more of a setback for the garage than would a strict adherence to the orientation standazd. Staff believes this standazd should be waived for this project. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Findine: The building site is flat, buildable, and has no significant natural features which would prevent one from meeting the design standards. WINDOWS (VOLUME): The applicant's proposed development is subject to a FAR penalty with the following Residential Design Standard: All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10 feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each 1 square foot offloor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between 9 and 2 12 feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, or non-orthogonal fenestration between 9 and I S feet above floor level. In response to the review criteria for a DRAG vaziance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Findine: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. The Residential Design Standazds are a direct outcome of the AACP. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding; The standard specifically says no windows in this area unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty. One 12 foot by 12 foot window is on the street facade and does not represent a residential scale. The second window is on the West facade and is roughly 14 feet by 14. While this window is not on the street facing facade, staff does not feel this is a superior alternative to the standad. Staff recommends the windows be allowed only to the extent that the Floor Area for that interior space is counted twice towards the Allowable Floor Area for the property. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Findine: Many of the houses in the subdivision were built prior to the adoption of Ordinance 30, Residential Design. However, this Ordinance applies City-wide, not only those traditional neighborhood like the West End. There aze no site specific constraints for this property which predetermine larger windows, or windows above 9 feet. The site is flat, buildable, within a developed neighborhood, and does not have any natural features dictating window heights. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAG grant a variance of the Residential Design Standazd "orientation" for the proposed Denholm residence, Lot #4 of the Callahan Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the gazage with two separate entry doors as proposed on the submitted drawings. 2. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) hereby waives the "orientation" standazd for the proposed Denholm residence, Lot #4 of the Callahan Subdivision. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standards" shall apply. ,.+u„ 3. The variance is granted for the specific proposal presented to the DRAC. Any substantial change to the proposed residence which necessitates an additional or different variance from the design standazds shall require review and approval by the DRAC, or any other boazd from which the project requires land use approval. 4. This approval shall not represent approval for any other required land use action. 5. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Design Review Appeal Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a waiver of the Residential Design Standazd for Orientation with the conditions listed in the Staff memo dated August 13, 1998, for the proposed .~, Denholm residence, Lot #4 of the Callahan Subdivision." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application RUCr05-1998 16~~0 F'rOM BRKER FAI.LIN RSSOC i5&]OAStL I!lCUMPObTF,'ll .~.~rrrnenrw,.wn e+caxieaw: Chtistopher Bendon Coitura~r-ity Development Dement 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. $4641 Dear Chns, TO 9265'139 ?.02 August 5, 1998 This afternoon t received your memorandum to the Design Review Appeal Committee regarding the Denholm Residence. You have stated in the first paragraph of your Summary on page one that the applicant is requesting a waiver of tvuo of the Residential Design Standards. This is not the applicant's intsrltion. During my two interviews at City Hall you explained the proce~rres and several options to me and as a result wE presented to you the request attached to and in compliance with atta#lment 3, tJo. 6, of the application. In that request, dated Juty 30, 4998, our intention, stated in the last paragraph, was to he exempt from all of ttie dent Residential Design Standards fw reasons explained in the pn'ceding paragraphs of that request. Please mend your memorandum to the committee to reflect our request east ds, R. Weaver ^ ]oxn K Buie, AIA. Pardwi • Kluux„ i P.uur, V:. P •' 128p,! Ure Avdaue, 5una 10 • Aaeex, Coinenuo 8161! •31x31925.4252 • Fne 303f9ik-2639 1081 cevuuAvENUC, svm 211 • c~.oau sue, c:xnwnn 8x6ox •30.3/928-9704 • P.xx3031928•'11t19 ^ lC'71F8_ ~.. August 6, 1998 Jim Weaver Baker Fallin Architecture 1280 Ute Avenue #10 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot #4 Callahan Subdivision Dear ivlr. Weaver: AseF.N • Pnxlu COMMU4ITY DEVELOPMENT C)EPgkfhlENT Thank you for your letter clarifying your request. I wrongly assumed your request was _ for a waiver of the two standazds for which your project was not in compliance. I will forwazd your clarification to the Design Review Appeal Committee and make a note during my presentation. I, however, am still recommending only the orientation standazd be waived for the reasons I have stated in my memorandum. ,iwA, Very tnily yours, Christopher Bendon, AICP City of Aspen cc. DRAC members 130 Sourx GgLENq SixEar ~ ASPEI, GOLORA00 81611-1975 ~ PHONE 970.920.5090 ~ Fnx 970.920.5439 ~~~o- DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE Application Package Contents Fallowing is an application ror the Design Review Appeal Committee. Included in this package are: 1. Attachment 1-Application form 2. Attachment 2- Description of general requirements for a complete development application 3. Attachment 3- Description of specific requirements for a complete development application 4. Attachment 4 Applicable review standards on which DRAC will base its decision To submit a complete application, nll out Attachment ' and include all items listed on Attachments 2 and 3. along with any other information necessary to clarity the project. EIGHT COPIES OF ALL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEEDED. A pre-application conference is strongly recommended so that the appropriate -=view process and submission requirements can be discussed. In addition. other reviews. such as those before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which may be required by the Aspen Municipal Code can be identined at this time. A consultation ~,vith the Z~ning Officer and 3uilding Department is also recommended early in the application process. DRAC meets on the second Thursday of every month at 4:00 p.m., as needed. Applicants are required to post a sign (available at the Community Development Department) on the property notifying neighbors at least five (5) days in advance of the meeting date. A photograph of the sign as posted must be presented at the meeting. ATTACHMENTI LANG USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Denholm Residence 2. Project location Lot 4 Callahan Subdivision (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds descnpnon) 3. Present zoning R 15 PUD 4. LOtSIZe 17,453 Sq. Ft. 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Davia M. Denholm 500 Newport Center *:r.ve, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 6. (Repr~serst~aU~i~'~S7name, address, and phone number Baker Fa11 in Assoc. 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, Co. 81611 _(970) 925-4252 r. Type of application (check all that apply): _ Conditional Use _ Special Review _ _ 8040 Greenline _ _ Stream Margin _ _ Subdivision _ GMQS allotment _ View Plane _ _ Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA _ Final SP,4 _ Conceptual PUD Final PUD _ TexUMap Amend. _ GMQS exemption Condominiumization x Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) A.) Vacant Lot B.) Unaware of any previous approvals 9. Description of development application New single family residence, Approx. 4600 Sq. Ft., 4 Br.. 4 1/2 bath, 2 car garage 10. Have you completed and attached the following? x Attachment 1-Land use application form x Response to Attachment 2 x Response to Attachment 3 ATTACNMENT2 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information: 1. "The applicants name, address, and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. `The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owners right to apply for the development review. 4. An 8 1/2" x11" vicinity map locating the subject parce! within the City of Aspen. _ __ _ _ __ navicJ M. D~nholm July 44, 1998 Tp UJhom IC Mpy Concern: I, David M. Denhalrn owner aF Lot 4, Callphan Subdivision do hzreby outhori~e BakerJFoilin fissaciates to represent me to the Ciry pf Rspen wrch regord to issues of my proposed pMl7/tw ti0U Nawpat Center give, Sui02 540, Newport 8aoth, CR 94660 (949) 740-9797 ex[. 444 ((949) 741.1154 fRX '.0 • d 'cS t t PL 646 04 : t t 8661-bZ-lflf P. 2 7-23-is9A ~ 1 :38PM ~ pfu. 9344 P. 1/4 May. fie.1998 8;DOA![ Pifi><lb ~~84iTY S15L5 ~ Fits y~~ ~'V~S ~~ ~U~2l.L\4.D. 1. Effective Date: 02/i9/98 atL a8:3a A.M- Case Iva. PGT12668 2. paiiey Dz .8oiici~s to he issued: ta) ALTA Q~Fne='s Poliey-Ferm 1992 gx+pgesed Lured: DAVID M. DESFFOLirI and PIOOa.E FS~~ (bl RL,TA Lean P'oiicy-Form 1992 Progvssd It~e.zrcd: Aaaptuit$ 1,300,000.00 Premiums 1,405.00 Rate:RE-ISSUE 1ZA2E , Amount$ ''~$#~ Premium$ '~ la ~ Qp4.~e Rate: Q...C.t,., .t., 3. z,eferred to iaEthiommiGmene 3s attthe9effecLiveldatedhareofed or vested in: PIARVIN O_ BIIRTO~t, INC.. !POPSY PURCIiA+56 PLAN 4. ofePl Rltira5tate~o£ecoxiLPR7~D0 and is des lcribedt BCfalloarshe County LOT q, CALI.AH3fBT SiTBD2VI5I0N. ACCORDIEIG To TxE RfiCOROffi PLATS T!i£R$OF _ PZTICIN COQN`Pl` TITLE. IISC. Schedule A-PG.1 501 E- HOPxIlgB 'fk3iF Cetnmittsent is invalid p~,gp~, ~, eI621 ualesa the Insuriag 970-925-1765 Pz'pvi8l4ne and 3chedulea 970_928-6527 E'A7L A sad •E are attached. A1ISPLORI~ID AG[~T 70'd 25TT S'cL 6he OV:TI 8bbti-b'c-lflf p, 6 '1a9. 2.1998 8:01.4D4 QI1~iN COtrNTT TiTIE ~ ~ r-a sc~vr.~ a - ssc~rzor z Tha following are the requirements to be complied with: STEM (d) Payment to or for the aceaunt oP the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ~~a ~~erececute~d andsduly Eiied fo record o-witere6= to be 1. DCed From n~AVYC rl. DG1~lQLM, sad NICOLE ffi3f{OL[7 E PLADT Ta 2. 6vieenca satis£actaYy to the Company Clot MARQIS} ~' HL1RTflN, IIYC.. MGb1EY p'URG'EF3W5& ALAN is a duly existing sad valid eorparation muBL esistiag pursuant to the lays of the SLSke o£ be delivered Ca and appro+red by ~+e CompanY- 3. poly aGkasavladged certificate o£ the authorised }Qaaagiag Agent aY Board Of nisectprs of CAI+I+ASAN 8Qt4E4 A550CIATIaID certifyiAJ Lhat there are av assessments foz tomman exgenpes rhich remain unpaid or otherwise constitute a lien an the sub7ett property. Evidence gdtibYacLOry to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax a6 established by orainaace No• Za (series of 7.47s} and or8iaance No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been gain or exet~ted. 5. Certificate of nonforeign aCaCus executed by the transFemr(s). SThis iitetsumsnt is nos required LO be recorded) 6. Completion of Fvzm DR 1079 regarding the withalding of co}.~orado Tax on the sale by certain persons. COrpv~t1Oae and firms selling Real Property in the State of Colorado. (This in9trument is not required to be recorded) ' T. Evidence satisfactory to the Comgaay that rise veclarativa v£ Ss1Q, ponce to County P.ssassas as rnquizeo by x.s. 1286 has been complied w7.th• (Itais iustsvment is not required to be recorded, but must be delivered to sad reeaiaed by the Assessors pffice in the County in rh#Cb the prapesty is Situated} 7 23-1998 11 :38F~M rWX~ NC. ?T~~ ?, 3/Q l1ay.2II.199E B:OI~~I 4ITS1Ii COQPITY YIiIE ~ nrt ' scams a s$cT=o1a 2 szcsrxxoms The policy er policies tv be issued Trill oontain exceptions co tKe fvllv*~iz~y anises the same are disposed of to the satisfactivu of the Company= ' 1, 8i~hta of claims of parties in poesessiazt mat ihGNII Ly Lh0 Putdic reeoY6s. a. gaaee~ente, or olaims o! esaewmts, not 6EDrtf by the public reeotds• 3. DiacZCpaaci65, aoati3eta in e~rY lions. shortage is area, eaerweJm~essta, arty lacto xnscA s eorsaet snx+~ey aaa ~~~'Oa' °! the prexieea .rould disclose aaQ +rhicb are not ahem by the publle reCVZda. q. Any lies, yr riejht to a lien, iss St1viCes, labor. OY material hesetofoYe Or bereasccr f+sratshed. iapcutad by laW amd not ahv.at by L'ha public rappzds. 5. DsleCta, Hams. ancup..L(t~ra~mtes, ada!=§s °~°'a ~ CL~ser aintters, if nay, rxeaCed, iirat appas.++•, 1.m tine puhllc rs~'8s or aaesehsa3 sabgeQneat to eha e22ecyive date beraa! but D=~ W Cie ddtC the Pz'aDaC9 islYrBd aC9uizRG v£ saeerd For °a7.ve the e7tata yr dxisvZa7C or mo'~4o44 yhas'aPa ee+~eYae by this Coemnitmsnt. cha a or lien i sed C. TsiCae due cad yayayle; and nay tax, spacial seaesamer+z. ry Q1P° YoY wtar or sever ner+'ite or for any otter apaesal taxing diatriet. ~• Pateatarecordedd3urieel71 9A9pi gpok~175atiPagela48-iced States B, Sagements snd restrictions as shower on P1aCS 7! a~ndlasaammended bye re:cordiad taay 19, 1476 in Plat Soak 5 at pe9e Plat recerdad August 17, 1877 in Plat $ook 6 at Page 15. 9. Terar4, conditions, obligations and Ye9LCi~z ee mep recvx'ded lday 19r Subdivision cad Planned pbit be el°E"°=a 1975 in Book 31Z at Sage 110, cad as modified hY liatice recorded April 29, 1977 i.n $avk 3Z8 aL Page 74. lo, Terms, conditions, pravisfa¢ss and abligatioria as net faith in Reciprocal easement GYaS1t retarded Wray 14. 1976 in Eook 312 at pare 196- 11. Z'Uase terms. cvn~ditivns, pla'visions, obligations, easement. Yyatrictiptfs, asstasns:ncs and all matters as Set foD ~e1236rand rive CoYes-ants recorded October 17. 1984 in Bock 475 at e9 Apq~pn *~*it thereto recorded Navem'hes lfi, 1988 ix1 Bank 578 at Page 73x. ~ _ 12_ Serms, oondl¢m~t•forocalla da Subdivision Roads sand Pond recerded~ ExDease ~ 365 and modification thereof August 28, 1492 in Hoek fi97 az Page recorded August as, 1492 in Hook 667 at Page aa5. schedule 8•Sectics+ 2 2'hi.e cotmnitment is ir'valad~u5ehedules Commitment k~- p~-"L'1Z608 skis Inavrins p~rovisioae A and B aYe attached. zciT i.'.L Rb6A 94 ~OT 98: fiZ: LO ~-2s-t99a t t :amt ~ r tic. 7344 P. 4i4 flay. 20.1998 8:a2AJ1 P1TxIN COUNTY il'fL., ^ rt . ApIIITIC3ILI. INFO?iaDl Al~i3 DI6CLOSOABS The gvae~'s 8olicy to be is6u¢d, if any shall contain the fallowing its~as is addition to the ones set forth above: (1} The Deed of Trust, 3f aAy~ required under Schedule a-section 1_ (Z} Mater rights, claims or tstle~te wMORTGA~faE POLICY TOIg$EIS~SUED~ WILL APPF.ATt Q13 TFIE OY7NSR HLREVNDEx) pursuant Lo Insurance RegµlatiCn 89-2; NOTE: Each title Qntity shall notify iu writing every prospective insured iri ari owner's title insurance policy for h single family residence tincludiag a condami^'~ or tQ''rnhO1us unit) ti) of thaC title entiry'e 4eAeral regyiremezits for the deletion of an exeeptiou or exclusion to coverage z'elatiag to unfiled mechanScs or materialmeua liens. except when said coverage or insuraACe is extended to tha insured under the terms o£ the policy. A satisfactory affidavit end agreement irld¢mnifying the Cotvgany against uYifiled maehes'ics' and/or Materialmen'oPisaid ffidav~it by the persons indicated in t~ attachedreopY t of these Stems must be furnished to the Comp Y• 'gPo. and any others requirements to be specified by the ComgaztY upon request. Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the ppner•s policy xhen ia9ued. Plea6e contact the company for futiher information. Nestrithstandiag the foregasAg, nothing contained in this Baragragh shall be deetm~d to impose any requirement upon ~Y title insurer eo provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts th¢ owners or loan closing under cireumstaneea where it ie responsible for the recording or filing of legal do~~trov,'ded$aGaptCOVerage~nr ibe Comparzy +uill be deemed to have p Pursuant to Sea$te 8i11 91-14 (~S 20-11-1223: ta) The Subject zeal Property may be located in s Special Taxing District: 1b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction taay be obtained farm the County treasurer of the County Treasusar's qut]barized Agent; {ci Information regarding Special Districts and she boundaries of such districts may ba ehtaiaed from the Board of Coussty Corumi.393oriera, the County Clerk and Reoerd~er, or the County jygSiQS80Z pfOTEe A tax Certificate will be ordered from tha County Tressed insured the Com~panY and the coats thereof charged to ibe gsvPa unles9 written instruction to the eoatsazy arm received by the company prier LO the i8ouance of Lhe Title Policy anticipated by skis Commitment. Schedule B-Section z 'This comatitment is invalid unless the insuring Pravisioas and Schedules Cbmmitmaat 140. P(,-I'126es A and H are attached. ~(f ~ _ ___ 63 ~ ~ ~i . /l _ - ~~ //~~§~ i~ 7, ROAD % ~"~ ~ ~ +~-~ _ ~ /' = ~ .a" I Q ' i ~~ r II . ~ j ~°' - ~~ '~ ~ r ~~ j o 00 \'~ C~ ' ' h . ~ 8 ~~ C ~ e ~, M ~ ...y 1 - Y ~ L, °/~ ~ ' - ~~ ° '~' --- _ ~ ~ lJ°°°~j° ~_ ; 1 ~i1~ ~ .d°~o° ~ D°1 Jn / it ~I oanH/gvH . l ~lq •°° h Jy~ ~ 'l a° F a~ ~ , ,.. _. ~oo~oo ~ ago°o ,~ ~~ , _,- a ~ u - -- °~° ° ~~~ao~°ooa~ ~°~~°°a°v~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ 33y1~U l lJ l ~~ _~ oa ~ ~~ • o~ ~ --~ ~. 1 0 , -~ ~ ~_-- _~ ~_~ ~~~ A~ ~18V~~ -~- _ ~ ~ ~~ I I L~ ~~ ~~ ~~19VJ ~ ~~ Qr <_ ~ ~ '-~ ~~ >~~ ~ ~~ I 1- ATTACHMENT 3 S?ECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All applications for DRAC review must include the following information: 1. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available in the City Engineering Department). Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one I'Ning level). 2. Site plan at 1"=10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed. and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. 3. All building elevations, roof and floor plans at 1/8"= 1'0. 4. A graphic verincation that the project meets or does not meet the 'Primary Mass' standard. 5. Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block. including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. 6 A written explanation or the requested variance and a discussion of why a variance would be appropriate and would not compromise the intended goals of the "Residential Design Standards." The applicant may provide any offsetting design features that may mitigate impacts of the variance requested. \~ ~ ' ~~~~ ~ _.~ ~ , \eeoann:: I scoerce:m: o ,\ Ai l l ll'L~TI BL .\ Y Il I'LU \' 6a Community Development Department July 30, 1998 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Subject: Variance for a proposed single family residence to be located on lot 4, Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado 81611, consisting of four bedrooms, four and one half baths and a two car garage with a total FAR of approximately 4,600 sq. ft. The lot is the last undeveloped lot in the Callahan Subdivision. The lot is covered with aspen trees. According to the recorded plat document, the historic topography is less than 20%. (See attached document) All of the houses in the Callahan Subdivision were constructed and completed prior to the two existing zoning changes which include the Residential Design Standards portion. The subdivision is essentially a rural setting within the city: It is a PUD subdivision and does not include blocks, public streets, nor alleys. As can be seen in the photo panorama the houses vary considerably in their location on the lots and do not conform to the Residential Design Standards presently enforced regarding facade alignment to the street. We feel that the plans which are being submitted would be unnecessarily penalized by being made to comply with the existing Residential Design Standards for FAR regarding the garage and the living room height. In section 26.58.010 of the Residential Design Standards it is stated that "The purpose of the following design standards are to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking." Please note that lot 4, Callahan Subdivision, is on Crystal Lake Road which is private, has no sidewalks and on street parking is not allowed. We request, therefore, that the residence proposed for lot 4, Callahan Subdivision, be exempt from current Residential Design Standards as set forth in chapter 26.58 and should be submitted for approval under the former regulations. ^ Jolly ti. B.\nl.a, :\L\. Pa~ad.,\t • h'Iili.\I:U ,\. 1-:\LLI\ l9ce Prcs~c~ent 1280 V1r- Ave~re cure t0 • A: Nes, Q`LJR,vDJ 8161 l • 303/925-4252 • Pnx 303/925-2639 u70t Gran~u Arwre, ~rlTe 311 • Gua~mccu Srervce, ICLJRADJ 41601 • 303/928-970-} • F.vs 303/925-9ZU9 ATTACNMENT4 DRAG STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE The following standards will be used by the Design Review Appeal Board when granting variances from the "Residential Design Standards." The project as proposed must be found to meet one of the following: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Pian; or b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Attachment 8 County of Pitkin State of Colorado ss. AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, 2'~,~y.~ }-~ UF~ Ft~l ~~ ,being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 199_ (which is -days prior to the public hearing date of )• 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~ day of ~~~ , 199 ~, to the (~ day of ay~h~tr , 199 S . (Must be posted for at least ten ). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ~S BULL ~Y_5 ~'oZ D.Q..~.C.~ Sig e Signed before me this ~ 3 day of ~ ~'' ~~ 199. by S NN ~ ~ ~ U N...J _ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: r a ° ~ ~ L ~ ---~ -_ Notary Public `~;;,,~,~~~~~",,,,,, ,~ ~ ,,. MY COMMISuION EXPIFiEB: JANUARY 20, 2002