Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.drac.19981105AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE November 5, 1998 4:00 p.m. Thursday Special Meeting Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall 4:00 I. Roll Call II. Minutes III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) 4:05 IV.A. Hannan - 601 South Original O Garage Setback 13~PPPw~-p 3'1- O Volume Standard -windows ~i~R.oJ~tic~'-Q IV.B. Galambos -1365 Mayflower Court i :a• `a> >~~"~~ re c~-r ~°'_'~ OO Volume Standard - windows,~~} pp_pVI=~S-v IV.C. Flynn -1203 East Hopkins OO Subgrade Area -~flP~'r~~~~ ~~ L. OO Volume Standard -windows ~.N«p S'o V. Adjourn TEA. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~~~~ FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Hannan Residence, 601 South Original -- Public Hearing Garage Setback Volume (Windows) DATE: November 5, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Kenneth Hannan, 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 garage setback for a redeveloped single-family home at 601 South Original Street. Waiving the window standazd will allow the placement of these windows as proposed without a Floor Area penalty. Waiving the garage standazd will allow the garage to be setback less then the required 10 feet. Staff does not find the variance criteria to be met and does not support the variances. The window standazd allows for lazger windows but requires a floor azea penalty. The purpose of this standazd is to allow either lazge houses or lazge windows -- but not a lazge house with large windows. With respect to the gazage setback requirement, staff again does not believe the criteria for a variance have been met. The applicant has provided a plan which does meet the standazd and, in fact, has been issued a building permit based after being found in conformance. The applicant would like to reduce the extent of the porch projection and, therefore, reduce the gazage setback. Staff believes the porch projection could be reduced and the gazage setback be maintained by doing one of two things: 1) moving the garage back by reducing the amount of space devoted to the gazage bathroom, or 2) reducing the internal gazage length from 22' to 20'. The Committee may waive the Residential Design Standazds upon finding the proposal meets one of the variance criteria for each of the standazds. Staff's response to these criteria aze included in Staff Comments, below. Staff recommends the Design Review Appeal Committee deny the variances. APPLICANT: Kenneth Hannan. Represented by John Wheeler, AIA. LOCATION: 610 South Original Street. ZONING: Lodge Tourist Residential (LTR) (non-conforming). 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 standazd in question; or, c) cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. GARAGE: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: Garage. For single family homes and duplexes with attached garages or carports, the garage must be set back at least ten (!0) feet further from the street than the house. 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. This standazd was written in response to the AACP. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding The applicant has shown the standard can be met. The applicant is seeking to reduce the size of the porch which affects the gazage setback. However, the standazd could still be meet with a reduced porch if the gazage were either smaller (the gazage is 4 feet longer than required) or if the bathroom in the gazage were reduced or eliminated. Applicants and their representatives usually seek a high level of internal design quality in the products they propose. Bulk and mass aze taken to the limits of the zoning. This is reasonable and expected in a mazket with such high land costs. These standazds were written for areason -- to ensure a level of external design quality for the community. Staff does not believe the committee should waive a standard because the applicant wishes to have a bathroom in their gazage. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site speciftc constraints. Staff Findine: There does not appeaz to be any site specific constraints to this property which prescribe the placement of the garage. The lot is flat, buildable, etc. Furthermore, the applicant has shown how the standazd can be achieved. Staff does not believe there exists a hardship. WINDOWS (VOLUME): The applicant's proposed development is subject to a FAR penalty with the following Residential Design standazd: All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10 feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each 1 square foot of floor area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration between 9 and 12 feet above floor level and circular, semi-circular, or non-orthogonal fenestration ,between 9 and 1 S feet above floor level. The subject windows aze the lazge window in the center of the south facade and the small oval window on the east facade. The applicant may have amended the east facing window into compliance. 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 Standazds aze a direct outcome of the AACP. b) amore effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Findine: The standard specifically says no windows in this azea unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty. While this window is not on the street facing facade, staff does not feel this is a superior alternative to the standazd. 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: The site, again, is relatively flat and buildable. Staff does not believe there exists a hazdship which prescribes lazger windows. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DRAG deny the variances for "volume" and "gazage setback" for the Hannan residence, 601 South Original Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the requested vaziances of the Residential Design Standazd for Volume and Garage Setback for the Hannan Residence, 601 South Original Street." ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to grant the requested vaziances of the Residential Design Standard for Volume and Garage Setback for the Hannan Residence, 601 South Original Street, with the following conditions:" 1. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) hereby waives the "garage setback" standard for the proposed Hannan residence, 601 South Original Street. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) hereby waives the "volume" standard for the proposed Hannan residence, 601 South Original Street. All other aspects of the "Residential Design Standazds" shall apply. 2. The variance is 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 standazds shall require review and approval by the DRAG, or any other board from which the project requires 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. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Application 4 JOt1fl C. Wt1fFLfR AIA aecnirc<ruar & r~nnnina October 22, 1998 Pitkin County !City of Aspen Design Review Appeal Committee 130 S. Galena St. Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Board Members: We are requesting a design review to address the following two areas for the proposed Hannan Residence. The property is located at 601 South Original, the South 50' of Lot R&S Block 107 City of Aspen, and is zoned LTR Lodge /Tourist Residential. The property is surrounded by multi story condominiums. We are asking that the glazing indicated on the South elevation be approved as it does not face the street and does not compromise the intent of the "Residential Design Standards". We feel that the surrounding larger scale condominiums allow for this larger window to be acceptable and we would not expect any objections from the. surrounding building Owner's. The second area we would ask the board to review is the covered entry porch. We are requesting that the porch roof projection be as close to the primary facade as possible. The current design indicates a projection so that the 10' garage setback requirement is met. We feel that the projecting 2 story bay window is a dominant enough mass to be considered as part of the primary facade. The garage does meet the requirement of the 10' setback if the bay window is considered. The project has been reviewed and deemed in conformance with all aspects of the "Residential Design Standards". Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~~ 1~~ John Wheeler ..AIA d6 KATYDID LANE -SNOWMASS COLORADO 81654 PHONE: 970 927 9765 - - FAX: 970 927 0718 ATTACIiMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name fi~.4~Nn/.4l/ /~~-4/.yENC ~ 2. Project location Go / s. m.~/ ~,v.¢-C. 50NTJf Sc` oP LaT RCS D3LOGK 10'7 G/T'S' oF/fS~~ (indicate street address; !ot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning GTR 4. Lot size 30 o v =.~ 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number ,~(Eo%v~Tff /f.9HN~~ JSO LExi.vG~yi~! ~l/G QG~k ~Go/R N..<n/y/2k iv,~/ 2/2.3/9-Za7E 5. Representavve's name, address, and phone number Gvv~Eo~-c .be~s~~rEor~+~ef QS ,E,4T1/J/d U/• 5.N>wM.ts s Co . ~l G s 4- y z 7- r 7 6 S 7. Type of application (deck ail that apply): Conditional Use _ Special Review _ 8040 Greeniine _ Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment _ View Plane Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA _ _ Final SPA _ Conceptual PUD _ _ Final PUD _ Texi/Map Amend. GMQS exemption _ _ Condominiumization~ Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark DemolPartial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing stnsctures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) ~y~e~~ r56~,e~c.v/ 5r./G t E r~i9.ylr-/itf 9. Description of development application 2¢0o s, F. Ai3ov~' l~,¢o f Lam..-.s~ /Goo ~, r. B.9-SE~r~.vT. 7-or~9C 10. Have you completed and attached the following? Attachment 1-Land use application form ~ Response to Attachment 2 ~% Response to Attachment 3 ..... .. ~ ~ ~`Z 1 1 y `_ U - 11/_yf~ _ _ > N'3 L"C~OJ ~ < `u a. a O ' ' L p '' V'~ v.C2U<.^. E ff H <CJ f.~ , y g q a c v ~ ~~ 'J 0 ./ ~ ed ~ ~/=:7 Rd Q h _ ~ \er ptur Rd~ Ln ~= Creek Dr ~\ Q ~Ji c G G 7L od Synge Rd LA - W ~~ "~ ~~V~ "'e~~ ~~ .c !` \,~~ P 111Y111 Ra ~~ Aspen A\Q~ 3y`_@--L _ ~~ 1 _m E - -¢ _ _ `~ i w ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ U Y a t O v Y c 0 L G b P 0 \ O C \ 2 _'s e > (~ J yUt~ ~ ~ a C r ~ 9_ c 7 9 _o ~ ~ f V c _ C ~ _ GG N y ~ G C ,` ~ ob ~I I I I c ~ I ~ Dr Ji -. COLONIAL NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC. 750 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 26'$ FLOOR NEW YORK, N.Y.10022 TEL: (212) 319-2828 FAX: (212) 319-2826 TLX: 6790701 / 6790702 CABLE: "CONAVIT" October 23,1998 Pttkta Connty /City of Aspen Design Review Appeal Committee 130 S. Galena St Aspen Colorado 81631 Deu Boud Member: As Owners of the property located at 601 S. Orlghtal located in Aapen Co. we are awue of the review appUcatlon regaest before the board and have no objections to It we ant6orize John Wheeicr of Wheeler Arc6lttctnre and Planning 48 Katydid Lane Snowmass Co. 81654 Phoae:927-9765 to represent onr interest in the application for a design review to the Design Review Appeals Committee. If there are nay gnadoas regarding this letter of aathorizatloa please contut ns. Sincerely Colonial Navigation Co., Inc. As agents to Skegby Holdings Limited ~L~~~~L ~' 7 ~~ I ~ ~ ~® ~I'1HM3415 ,. a W ~ ~ {I - I ~- - ~~ Y N°I ~~I ~ O ~ ..v-s I I` I Q ', ~J r_' ^~ ~ ~ I N' z I L W ~J O I ..b-.5 r ~ V _ -I - - rn Q U ~U w J~~ `~~ a ~wpoz Wm~ H~l 1 133LLL5 Ol 3~IJ3d N3d0 o Q 6.b[ S, U'US O __ ~ ~, S O O ~ o o O} W W a F ON~J~U Q W U Q [p Z ~ Zln -W W ozoooa viE=-o~ Win ~ > ~ W Q ~ U p JZG'C~OZ F J O U~ w~ ~ Z w~CUKm~O ~pZ~ F-F- ~U~ OF-~ J W U~UD' W =WHw~(~/1 U W~ W O Z O ~ W X ~ ~ O W Q fn W H U (n~NM W z O W f Z s ~~ ~ ------~ f _..._ _.,.. _._ ~ I _._~1 o~ ~R"z of dW~W ~ Vop'NV ~N LLO~ ~~ ..~.~ 3 N O N Q O J IL°o O~ ~D i~~on I ~ ~ ~~~ Z oll 3.6b,OS.bi N ~ ~~~ ,00'OS IO I z~ a p. 6r UZ ~ ~ 2w ^^~I \Y i -~} L Q~ ~~ ~- i l~ 4 N Q oa~ucno te~ev ~~ 3~N301S3a NVNNVH .nt m`. v, T ~ o ///~~~~ ~ CSI W ~~ ~~ ~ ^V` a° s ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ P rsmm~ ~c it oomrcorrmr oamov~ t~ev N t ~ ~ m~ e ~ mmam~, ~ ~ a3 HM ,~~~ 3~N301S3» NVNNVH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ Q ! ~ 133 ~ ~ ~ o ,_: n; rm> Zvi ~, ream rou rroaoioowiw p ~, ~ K> N 'N _ Um6~Od %YI ~ 7IIgpXlfgB qY a3133HM ~ 3~N3aIS3ti NdNNVH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ,,,a,o,.o„ „woo~cnooee~,~., yam ~ 0 1~3133HN1 oauaw taaav ~~ ~~N341S3~ N`dNN`dH ~ ~ ~~ Q ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ,~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ n! ;mt (v' ~ ! .^am wr r.cow,cor ~ 1 , N n ~ma~ ~ m s JMIKId+ ~ !~-3"133HM ,~ ~~~~ 3~N3aIS3d N`dNN`dH _ _ cr' r .. s ~~ ~ ~~~ ~y ~~~ iS ~~ ~~ `~ ~ i ~ rsam ~ ~aaMVOOt ~ ~ ° ~ ~~ ! ~~ a3133HM 3~N341S3a NIINNVH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~; ( W (~ 1. _. _..._.. i Q : . ppp~ ~~ p~~ H~ iiO b~ gtyE gbi Sp pJ <~ ~~ 0 _~~ Y p~~~ €~~ iQ ~3@ ~~ ~~ o ------------~r I I I I ~' - ~~ ~ .' 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,O\ ~ I i ~ I I I I I I I _________.L 27F Uyy~ i I i OISO~OS 1aY KI~OOIWCOVF. d XN wf YmO10 ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~~• ~ ti3l33HM OOM71D:1 1fi6V T1N01p WfI0610Y 3~N3aIS3a NVNNVH ~ I I I I I .gl~,~ I I I I I d ~ ! ! ! 4 I I I I I I F ! ! ! ! I I ~ I I I n i i l Q ' _.. I ~{''i1) i (ll'I I ~; III ~ II jl±I l' il~l'IU~~II' II II iilllt{~ iiljll, r+-' I,il I~I'I I~I I l ~ ' i ~ I i I' I ,~ II I, I ~ II ~~~ ~I~I III i j ~~~; I II ~,Ilil~il, ~~ 11 ~ ~ ; , ,111;,1,1 I~IIIIJI~~, III{~~ ~ Ifli ~ III,~~ ~ i I~~ I,I~~ I!~ I II'jlil ~ hill I~llll I~ (I'I I III 11iI1,IIIN' ~il~ = Ill'I 11~~1' III II~~I~ I,~I ,~II~I ~i~l~llll~ I III Iillil'lll~ Ili;; ~-'',lll~~lli f;lliu lillj,lhi III~IIII '_Iflllll n~ ~ IIIIIIIi Ill, III ` .I ~ h~l IhI li ( ~ it ' ,i i ~ ,' III Si ~~III~I ~I Illill' I!~ ~ II ~~I 11 III III II lilll ~ 111„ i~ 114 ~I~, , i 1 1 _- IIII III Iiil ~I~ ~ I~i, ;~!I 1~ I{~I i Ili i fl li I ~~~II~I~I Ilt~ i' ~.Ili~l III i ., ~Il~~jll~illl ,~~~ Il~l~iil ~ Jj 1 f0 r _.._.....~. -, I ~ I ~ ~ i~~~li~~i~l ~I~~II IIII I ~I~I~I~~ nD ~ I I t ~ 1 ~ 1 I I'il ~II~IIIiI ~IIIIII I II'I ~~I ', ~~,u , ;_ ! I ~ IIII ~;Iil I I II, hI I I V ._~ 7 ~ I ~ I ~ I, ~ li . i i I i ~ I,I~ ~II~.II ~I Iii, III III l ~~ _ ;_i I i '~jil1 ~, (11 I I) I1 i +l ('~ Ilii' I ~ I ,1 i ® III I~ I'il I I (I i I II I ICI I,~II _ li I I` I ,.. I I .~~~I l;lil~ I,II III ~ O 1!I I~III~II !II~II~I~ Illi'I I' II~ l~l .j II~; I ..1 I I . 11; I IIII III ~, a~~~l ~~ i __ ! IIII Illi I I I II Illll I~ 1 II 'I a II 1 I Ili' I I Ilil'll i ~ ~~ I~ ~~ ~ I i f , i I, II ~` ~. i ~ I I) ~~('il ~ i! it Irllu ~~ ~ I~~ IIII ~Il~i I I ~ lill ~. ~ I ~ i~lll,~~ ', ._ ~~~,~ I E __ } ;M~ ~ IIII !~'ii) ~ i~~ll ~~~~ ~I I' ~l'il II~ I~i ~I ~ jilll _ I~j~ll ~ I~~ I~~ ~~~ ..___ il(i ~' 1~ l I I i I I II I~ I IIII , ill i II II n I __.._~. ~!II3Iii!i II,; it ! ;!~ ~I~' ~!~ ! ; III;~I III Till Ill''ll !iiI llll ...__.. T ~ I I !II III II II!~!Ill ! ji!{'liillii'il~Ili iii ( •I ii I' illll i ,~!~~ l iil I ~ 11 I I I; i. i l ~ I~~i ~ I ,I I ~, I ,~v l - I I __ _____ I _~ _~ r - I ,~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~I ', l~ i. I~ i- ._. ~__. Ii I~I~ ~' ; ~~II' ~ijil~li I ~ Ili~!~i~ Ili .;I ~ II'I'I' ~'' I'll lihl' III II ~ o ~~ ~~ a~ ~~ t ~ ~~ ~~~ ~g ~ ~ A~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ti ~ ~~ Q ; a~ i~ ~Q i ZB ~ Z~ N ~ ~ C'7 3 ~~ ~~ Q s ~~ ~~~~ ~~L ~ ~4 ~ ~~~ ~~ L o~nam ~ -~oaocowee ' t /~ N ~dm rid ~~ ~ ae+ MggHIf10B IOG ~ ~ ~ `_, FF ~ ~ a3133HM ~ 3~N3aIS3a NtlNNtlH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~~e ~p ~~ c l J ~k FO ~~ ~~ VIuuI ~~ ~ f~C~ O ~o ~ Q H ~~ ~~ :$ ~~ ~ ~~ owa~acw ~woo~ccorr~o" oa~uvu~ teaav {~~~ N ~ ~ ~(Q~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ O' } ~ ~ s Z m ~ ~ ~ W a3133HM 3~N3aiS3ti NNNNdH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q g ~~ M ~~ ~~~~ ~§~~ I rh m ~m (n ~~ 4~ ~b ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ p~ ~~ ~~~ sb ~~ ~ ~ b ~ ~~ +~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ =~Q e + ~. aB : s8 P L a ~~ ~3 c L I, ~ ~o ~ ~ (i(Jff E ~ L c r2 , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice Coanty of Fitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGUL,A'I'IONS State of Cololrado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) •- photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ~a--~~: .S ~ .`` f ;~~~~~ ~• ty, Signature ~, _ `~J Signed before me this ~~day of ~ ' t 99~. by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAf. yI~AY.. My Coa3mission expires: ~ ~ ~ 4 D SUBS~BED ANDS ORN TO BEFORE~I THIS Gz DAY OF /1 ' ~ ~ ~~,/ _ 19 Notary Public 0035~T,DID LANE~SNfJWMASS, CO 81654 My Commiesien Expires 04/16/00 I'OJ PM rcquiremeYrts plusuant to Section 26.52.06Q(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the fallowing msnaer: ~.~,,++..11 . ~N"~ I . By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property withits three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of hearing date of ). Attaclimeat 8 199 (which is -days prior to the public 2. By posting a siga in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could bt seen from ~< the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~ day of nr ~ E,P , 199.P, to the St~day of ~o yE.y,.:S E,P. 194$. (Must be posted for at least ~URPVSt ..~ '.IL t~'+Il.f Nll At, l.~f' i.l.l S7i~NL g2U5 ~~$ MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 1365 Mayflower Court request For a Variances from the "Volume" provision (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) of the Residential Design Standards DATE: November 5, 1998 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff: In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall fnd the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAG] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board. " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to construct asingle- Family residence on the 1365 Mayflower Court site for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staff s review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance from this standard (which is described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. The proposed design is provided in the attached Exhibit A, where Sheet A-3.1 highlights the noncomplying windows. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending approval of a variance from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards for a proposed window on the south elevation and a set of windows on the east elevation based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. APPLICANT: Galambos Architects, Inc. (John Galambos) LOCATION: The site in question is located at 1365 Mayflower Court. Mayflower Court intersects with the north side of Highway 82 east of downtown, between Riverside Drive and Crystal Lake Road. The property is zoned R-15/PUD. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains two violations of the "Volume" standard: one on its south elevation, and one set of two windows on its east elevation (please refer to Exhibit A, Sheet A-3.1). The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot ofJloor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the ftnished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (1 S) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor height of the particular room. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, inc-uding FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memorandum). According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variances are to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual %'""~ site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing 2 architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. The desire and potential to maximize views from every possible location within a given room is not, in staff s opinion, a constraint, and therefore, not a reason for granting an exception to the rule. With regard to the proposed design more effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard, staff feels that the requested variance should be granted on these grounds. Neither of the proposed windows for which a "volume" variance is requested (south and east) would have an impact on the scale of the structure in relation to the street. The east facade would not be visible from the street, and while the south elevation would be, its noncomplying window would be set back some fifty-six (56) feet from the street and nineteen (19) feet further from the street than the frontmost portion of the facade. The significance of these distances is amplified since the south elevation's noncomplying window extends a mere one (1) foot into the so-called "no window zone." Given these considerations and staffs feeling that the noncomplying window of the south elevation augments the overall design of the structure by complementing the complying window groupings and forms of the street-facing elevation, staff recommends that the requested variance be granted on the grounds that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to than would a design without the noncomplying windows. As currently designed, the proposed structure effectively provides architectural details and elements that reinforce local building traditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for both the proposed window on the south elevation and the set of windows on the east elevation as indicated in Exhibit A to the staff memorandum dated November 5, 1998. The variance is granted based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for both the proposed window on the south elevation and the set of windows on the east elevation as indicated in Exhibit A to the staff memorandum dated November 5, 1998. I move to grant this variance based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package 3 _ ~~ ~ j WWV ~~~ r !Y 6 ~ ~ ~6 ~~ ~ ~~ e ~ $ ~ ~~ w o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ w N ~Bi~QQ8ij3~j3 ~ ~~ ~dT ~ ~~ ._ v e i 4 °.,° e 0 e ~~~~~_ ~ tl ~ N ~ g ~~ r,, 0 I b I, 1 \3yi>a f vim) I I 1 So I I 1 g0~ I I I ~,I o, , . ~_-- i ~ I ' I I ;' 1 1 1 , ~- ~~ I ~ ~ n 1 ~ I ~ Q bo ~ , , '' v , ' ~ ~ %~ ~ `' ~ 1 '` ' m, - i ~I O, I , ' 9, O - , I . ~r ' ~ ~, O', I I o' ~', II 6~; -, I ~~ i , 1 ~ i 1: __~; ~ ` _ ~ ~\ l ti ~?~. , ~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~! ~ ., ,~ ,'~~~~ ~ O ~~ z Q 4 J - d o ~w ~~ . U7 E ~ v J _ - -- I W I p OC.~ /~ tp s ttAiA 0;) DI:~dSV L2Inn;) N'~MO'Ir1,tVW 5 A6~ X tl I Fi~ O 1+1 W ~ ~ p g i i r `~~ ~ ~a ~. ~~F N(1T,T,F~A(lf~I~N ?T;TMn'i,~T.~t~W ~ ~ ' I ~ ~I~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~I ~ r) (m) ~ ~ ~n i~ ~ u .~ _ _ ~ ~ ,R/t I I-,RT, ~ ,P/f B-,fl ,r/f r-,l ~ ; 1/1 R-f ~~ y ~~ I ~ yyy ~ y I ®~ ~~ I ~ CY~ ~ { W ~~~~- ,o ~m~ i I {~~k~ ~~ (w~ l ._ _. -. __ ._ . ~, r_- .. ._ ....., ~ i i, i~ ~I ~ I ~I~ I __ -- _ - ;r c z-,IS g ~ k ~ ~ s~ ~~ ~ ~$ ~ ~ ~ tR ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ is z ~~ ~~ ~~~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~~ s~ ~~~ ~ ~~ 11_ ®{ ~. ~' ~, Il Cry / 3 _ __._..._.. oU i ~HU ~Q= k~' x 7 ~v ~,~ 1 Vim) ~ A f IAiA ():) 'N3dSd ',LNf)O:) NNMO'INAdiN 9AB1 ~ ~~ i ~I ~~~ NOLL~AON~N ?I~MO'I,~I~HTK " t' ~ ~ $ I ~~I I ~ ~ ~~~'i ~ c I~~ rm) -- ,1/C E-.IC r.- x. _. _. ___. _ __. _. _._ P/f i R i4-3.•hu, ~ITa _. ~t ap __Tt,'._. >Ti, I6~ I ; ~ i ~ r~ ~f/ `~ ~l ~ C ^-G (~ ~~~~ ~,~~. 1 ~ ,-- ~_-~ 1M1~~~'i ~~ ~1 'ill r i ~ - ~~ ~ d.._ ~~ _ r ~ //\ \91 - ~~ ~~ -_ _- ~_ ~~ ~ ~~, ~ F & ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~g Q ~! ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ~~ryy6E ~~yy^([{aQ ~ ~~ ~~ N3 EiJC i N~ ~w~ -- ~, ----~ •~~~ ~~~ I R ;o ~~-~~ ~ -- -- -- ~I~ I ~~~ }}I __ PA ZA" Q IU ~IL~ i O .~~ ®~ i Qa f~ y ~~ 0 f u_ NI i u ~~ ~~~ I I ~~, ~ ~~, ~A., ~ q t ......._. .. F1 a --~-- - v] W t ,gg ~~ E 5 f E+ `y yy -1 Q R E ~ 1/~\+~~ Y ~ ( IWUrI p -! ~~.. p ._._ ..... rba ~ _~.. r-,:> ~d~~> ~ fAIB n:T 'N3cISd ',L2if10) 21~M0'I3.CdW 99f:T ~ ~ ml n.' ~ NOi,Ti~A01~I~2i N~MOZ,~~t~Y~I ~ ~ ~~ _ ___ .. I. _... PT ell ~_If%~F 1 1 R _ __ I ~! m A ~ s ~ ti X ~ ~ e ~ PPP a e li ~~ N ~ of Cm~ C~ ~~ ~I ~71J'-- ~' I I °' ~. i. _. ~ ~ ~I ~~~ (rnl III -- ~~ -~ ¢~, ~- '~ A ,~~~r 1~~ . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ W~1 -, _ _ ___ ~~ I ---_ ~~I -~ ~ 'I ,, I --~ ~I -- - ww _ ,__ ! ~- _ .~ ~_ ~ -~ z ~ ~~ ~, s ° ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ ® r _ _- _ ~.. i 44 4 II el I Ir I.I ~ LL___.. _ ... ~ ~; ~ n --__..~ ~ __ .~.,,. L ,.~~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~/ ~ /, yC,y^y YI~ ® A T~ ® F iOFC _I. ~ I n i~ _ Ii _ ~ ~ II ~..' -.._- _. --.._ __....- ~1 I ~ i ~ I~ ~ ~~~~ ,- ~~ J 1 _ I} ..._ _.__._ ..-._ __. .__.. _ ,yc >.io ~~) gym) ~~~ ~ ~ ~-~ c ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ a ~ ~~ !~ ~°g ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ O lCJ y~ ~i ®~ U§ 3 .~ V~''I ~) ~h~~ ~(V) ~~~ c g ~ k ~ ~ a~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~R ~ ~~ ~ pg~ k ° QQp~ tii ~~ y ~~ ~a~~p g v~ ~ U ~~~ xz Ch ~ d ~„ ~~,1, IIII ~I °~"1 l I ~ I r;~l, I ~~~ TiAIB 00 'N3dSV ',L2If100 2I;~A10731CVPI 99Ei NOI,L~AON~2I ?I~MOZ~~IAHY1i l ' f •I j ~ I ~ ~ I ,I 7 I _ YI -1 11 II II II 11 1 l 11 ' IL I . 1~_ ___.__~.__,o_d 11 III I II I II 1 1~1 _. . _~~___.~ II. _ ... __._ - ___.7 I l -"" ° I _. .I-_... _1. -- .J. _. _ ~-__~... ___ II I~~ u ~ ~Ey[ I ~i J _. ', i i v ~ ~b$~~y i~ ~ LI/LI LI21 II I (y II I I 7 ~ ~~~~~ I~ JI 'f Imo- ~ _ ,il iq - I_ i ~'~ ~VI_ ii lil I 111 CIS' ~.. r ~ _- I I I°- ~I ry r - {/~/~ '~ II. ~~ ~ Z,_~I ilk 1J~Li.. ~e;W.... ~~ ~~._. ~I n RA li ~ 11 ~ III I'~II 1f II II III ~ T 1IILII -- I I 1 ' I.1I-... C!.111LLL1L III ___ IL_._. T__ ~I I II ___ I Tr. -__ ti ~ II r_ .. _.. _. -_-.__ t~- I I ~ ii .'~ .. q ~ - -_---- H I~ f{ a ~~,- -JI ~ ~9O0 _p~ -> ii i~ ~I Ix H(y J ii ~6Ctx3 II If NF n n ii XQ H, __.. II II.I _.1 1 J r,~ I I III ~ r. Ll_ 'f.. .dill I ~I ~C_~ I 7 FL_. _ L .__JI .. - _- -___ CS__= ______ ~ ___ __ i z~ fin,;, ~;~~ ~~iJ .~ I I ~ g $ ~ I ~`$~~~~_ Cat ~ I ~ " m ~i ~ ~4L1~ ~ ~lL~ I I' I ~I I ~1~ c~~ ~~~ ~ 8~0 ~~ ~~\1I~Y~L 7 ``J z Q J d~ Y _O ®~ .j'?~ C C ~~ ~ U ~~z x -- dV C7 ~ d 9 5~ ~E 1I9IB 0~ 'N3dSV ',L2TI10~ 2I8M013JCVW 59ET I~IOI.L~AOAI~32I 2I~M0'I,~A~L~I O 4 ., 3 u.i a ~~ ~' w..~ '~ T 4 6P ~~ 3 O 0 3 2 r i $ ~ o w ~ r) g "t7 C`") off; ~; I M ~$ d T I C ~- - O \ .. __ O 9 s jw J3 i~~r, O O-_ U] U] f~W ~ Iis~iB ~~:~ '1•I3dSV ',L2IlloJ fl3M0'I,~.lVT4 99ET F U ~~~ ~z ~~ cha.~ 8$~$ N111,Lt~AU~I,~[21 21~t~1U~I~A~hI a-1 II F fi~ ~ GI ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,, ~~ __ __ __-- 1 i _~_-_T l1__1_~- - 1 _~~ `_o -_ I -!~ Q ~' ' I, ~~ ~ ~'~r I~ ' ~~:-~ ~~I t Y `ri~ii~lO ~~~ ~' ~~ ml ~ C O N V ,~ ai ~ d~~~C.. ~ ~ I ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ -- ~---- -__ -_ a _~. -. i - ~ ~ __ ,~~ f s= ~~~ .~-- ~ r . ` ~,. ~- County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 2652.060 (E) ~ 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 Land Use Regulations in the following manner. 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 ). cuous place on the subject property (as it could be way) and that the sayid sign was posted and visible day of ~l ,199 (Must be posted for ore the hearing date). A photograph of the posted before me this 3 U ~ ~ day r~ ~ ~~--J~L .199~y WTINESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires : (' ~ S- o ~- Notary Public Notary Public's ~.C. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Co~m~m/unity Development Director - ,' FROM: Mitch Haas, PlannerAi01 RE: 1203 East HopkinsAvf e^nue (Flynn Residence), Request for Variances from the "Subgrade Areas" (26.58.040(F)(11)), and "Volume" (26.58.040(F)(12)) Provisions of the Residential Design Standards DATE: November 5, 1998 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standazds, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAG] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board " Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to remodel a residence at 1203 E. Hopkins for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (See attached Exhibit A). Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Subgrade Areas" standard and the "Volume" standard. The applicant is requesting variances from these two standards (described below) in order to allow the proposed design of asingle-family dwelling on the southeast corner of East Hopkins Avenue and Pazk Avenue (1203 E. Hopkins). The application is attached as Exhibit "A." Pursuant to Section 26.22.010. of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending denial of both variance requests, finding that the proposed design does not meet any of the three aforementioned standards. APPLICANT: Mr. Brian J. Flynn, represented by Theodore K. Guy Associates, P.C. LOCATION: 1203 E. Hopkins is located on the southeast comer of East Hopkins Avenue and Park Avenue t STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(11), Subgrade Areas The proposed design contains violations of the "subgrade areas" standard on its west elevation. The portion of the "subgrade azeas" standazd relevant to this project reads as follows: All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street. On the proposed west elevation, the two (2) lightwells would extend closer to the street than the vertical plane established by the portion of the facade closest to the street. Since granting a variance to allow the proposed lightwells would not in any way yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if a variance is to be granted it would need to be based on one of the other two standazds. There are, in staff's estimation, no unusual site specific constraints that would justify granting a vaziance for the proposed lightwells, nor do the proposed lightwells more effectively address the issue to which the standazd is a response. The proposed lightwells would serve a "family room" located in the basement directly below the "living room." The lightwells aze not needed for ingress/egress or to otherwise comply with building codes. In fact, the applicant has already received a building permit for a design that complies with the "Subgrade Areas" standard by locating a single lightwell along the south-facing wall of the "family room." Consequently, staff recommends that the DRAC deny the requested variance and direct the applicant to pursue a design which complies with the regulations. Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains a violation of the "Volume" standard on its south and west elevations. The portion of the "volume" standard relevant to this project reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be deftned as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the ftnished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (1 S) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, this standazd requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the floor. Thus, one might describe the azea lying between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor as the "no window zone." The center portion of the proposed south elevation contains a lazge expanse (17' high x 12.5' wide = 212.5 sq. ft.) of glazing that extends through the "no window zone" described in the "Volume" standazd. This window has side light windows that also violate the "volume" standard on the west elevation. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if a variance is not granted, the applicant would have to revert to a design that complies with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memorandum). According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of faimess related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce Ioca1 building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of faimess would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. The desire and potential to maximize views from every possible location within a given room is not, in staff's opinion, a constraint, and therefore, not a reason for granting an exception to the mle. Rather, having the ability to obtain views is an asset, and complying with the "volume" standard would not preclude taking advantage of this asset. Staff finds that the proposed design does not satisfy the criterion of more effectively providing street-Facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. Staff feels the complying designs for which a building permit has already been granted were far more 3 effective in providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade. Since the proposed design does not, in staffs opinion, satisfy any of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff recommends denial of the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC deny both variance requests, and direct the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standards, including the "subgrade azeas" and "volume" standazds. This recommendation is based on the finding that the project, as proposed, does not satisfy any of the three criteria by which a variance can be granted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the variance requests, directing the applicant to redesign the residence to comply with all of the residential design standazds, including the `subgrade areas' and `volume' standazds." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" -Submitted application package 4 ~~ v~i 4,Q~ ~~ ~~3§$ C. I I I '~I~ ~ ~4!~!~I~I ~ ~ Im, Jl ~~~ ~ z F cc is F ~ iGSeE-cii ioO1bis~ eafiooiei~rac! 9MIG O')'Npy'rN'GHYy9 MOI100G 9pNlll OGV'JIMJ 11JII N'JbV 3H1 HGftlYH14y'Tlyl03i 'JN1'6YWJOGGV /VYY991Y9 GiLV1l71Y'~JW 'GLpYiLW Vy9%9YXItl8 521 i m ~~~ g` ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~g~ ~~ ~~~~ F ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~R~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~d~ ~~~~ ~~ u~ ~ ~ b~b~9b~~~ ~~ ~~~ 9f~ ~b~~ ~~ ~ _ o~~g-rvm,an LL 'a `d~'1$~2n2~ `2°d ZI Yg'$g d~~ N~N~ ~N - LL f ~`~ ~ ~ B ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ t @ `1 _. ~_ ~' r ' ~ a+a~Y~IV~ ,~ ,~,." a+ 5~~~ ~~~ Ny. ' S{ ul N ~P~ 8~~ h fN Q ~~ maLL ~{ df Ji Si ~ s g~n ~ ds . m r~ N ri ~ ~ y1 p9 O. ~~ a ~ LL ~~ F (~ ~T Jq 6@~i Ll Y~ o' ~,a m o_ n ® U.~~OODD 8 m ~~ fi p N~ Qn4 ~~~ ~}} ne o-ryN gg~ Z a ~ N ~a o~ om, ~~ W"'4 0 ~g ~~ g~~~~ Sp2 ~~4~ ~ +~~ ~ ~ I[: O s j S fi ~I i N ~ zQ I IS!~~~ I I pX J I n r- ~' '~j . dF ~a ~ d ~g~ i g 5 qq ~~F'I~&~ ' - -- . _ 4 - - \~ ~/~ \~ YY Y ~ ,I,/ , " ~~ ~ + 4 I I I I ~II I ~ I I ~~ SS I E 1 ~ I I I aZ~ \~~ ~ .A °,,uFe 1 I ~~ I r , --~ ~,~,-~ ~ 1 n II --------- ~~ mss' .~} I 1 ~~4 ~ ~~____ ~ I .. ~ X60 I 1 a • I /J,-n J ,B ~ I 1 I rrrr~~ I ey ~\ I r- -i~ 1 ~~ II r I ~ - ~I ii ~vA vv I ~r____________t _Ir_________ II[____gl !! ~--------- ~~ \ \ I 11 II I II I I I ~ 1 I ~ Y it yt ~ i ~ I ii I I I~ ~dJ~Y II ~ h it~\\ II II I~ I II r 4 II ~ ~~~ \\~ II ~ \ ' I VVV L_____ _ __ \ Ir _ I i ~ / I II 1 i I I ..1.: ~. i (' I 1 II 1.1 P \\\ i % ' h i. ~ / i ~ ~~° ~ ~ l1 I ei~ ~pte 9 ii ~ k3 I~ 1 ~ I ~I,~ ~ . I L- a 5 ~: __... ~~ I \\ I \~ I I - ---------`I _.. - ..~~-~ tt ~I ==-L=====-- - -- ------~- ~~~ ~~ ;; ~ ,~.. ~ r b \ I I ,I ,~' ~ .... ~gWt \ II ~___________ ..•~ .• I I a I~ i ~~ it ~-~--'_ •t, S Q ~~ \\ ^~ y y~ h_ ~ p a !! ~ ~U pY Qo [[ I i p g a "~ Y <~ $n4 1 ~ ~i 1Yi tyi i ~ ~ ~ ~ y w ~i ~ ~ ~ ' ~! is r'; i 11"CCSS 7 ~ @ U. of a ~ ~ dw~ ~ ;a, e: , ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~i~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Y \ ~ ~~ LL d 4 a I ~ I \ Q x I I I ~ is ~ ~.111_r~ ~ ~ Z~~~ I I I I ~ I I I Wa ' I I I I I , I I I _I __ __~_ ___ _ I __ - ___ o ~-___ I -- ~ I I I I r he $$ ___ h _ I I 3 ~~~ I I I 11~ ~ o~ I ~ n O O I I~ I I I O // / O 4 // ® ~ ~ °. I~ I / I I /-;- J / ,~// I ` 1 I I ~ ~ ~\ d I I~ ,I ® I I ~ 1 0 11 ® 7~ ~ ~~ l~gM.~yvW-J !I I \\ \ I ~ 1 \ II ~ it I ~ I ~ I \ II 1 I ® ~ ~ ~ // I I I II \ ~ I I I Oi I ~ / 6' G \ I I e ~ O i m m I O O .~ i _ _ _ __ _ __ -_- ® € 1 o-_______ I I 1 tF O c _ I ~ 6 1 _~ \ F P I I _~ _ _ _ -- ' T ~ ~n R 1 -~_ ~ © I I I -;-~ x I ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ n g r ~ ags ~ F I w«~ 2u ~~~ g!~;pK V~F has ~ ~~,~~ ~ e mg ~~ X21 ~i . ~I ~~ Zw~g ~.a ~ . ~I~I~~ I I ~~ ~ ~ ` ~F ~~ ~~ Q W. ~. ~. ~lyhh ~zo3 E ~w1N5 AFFIDAVIT' OF NOTICE PURSiJANT County of ~~ } TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION } ss. State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (E) ~ Jack Palomino 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 Land Use Regulations in the following manner. ,. t _) ~ 1 _ _ .. ,}emu All }1~1 5 ~- ~_ 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 27th ~ of October ,199 8. (Must be posted for continuously from the y at least ten ~} ~ days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. f~-C. ~ ~ . C;~ 4S}gria~ e Signed before me this ~ ~ ~ ~~ day s~~r ~~-e f .199 ~ by. ~l~ ~ < a ~ ~ ~ ~c t r ~~ ` ~-c- ~ ~ ~,L~-z WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires : ~ Wires 1 ~~~ r' iJ(t..~~t ~~C ~lu~-Z Notary Public ~~C~L~ Notary Public's Signature