HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.981 King.A071-00
~
!
-.
CASE NUMBER A071-00
PARCEL ID # 2737-074-53004
CASE NAME 981 King DRAC
PROJECT ADDRESS 981 King St.
PLANNER Nick Lelack
CASE TYPE DRAC
OWNER/APPLICANT Jeffrey Shoaf
REPRESENTATIVE Mark Hesselshwerdt
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 7/13/00
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED 7/18/00
BY J. Lindt
..-
.:----
,-\
"
',""",,,
." ",'"",, ..,',",'"
'". ,'." "," '>::,:';,~":'::,i',,:),::,:,:;';'\:::',:i<"~:',, ::.".',',','.' ;,:", . :. ". .'.'.'
-.. . . .'.< ,",. "'",
..,.,..:.'.,..,'.,.,..,'.,:;,,',',,~,'>.",'~,.~,',.,:"'.'-,...'.',;,':,...,.E,.',.,",:,',";,;.",.,'..,,...,..",.,',.<.,:.'",:,.,.,:;,2', .7;::3',;.'7'._:0'.';7.,.,'4i~5;i3:;,O:'O',','4',., ;,...,. ""',',:i:, '...:":...''':','~',.,.,^;-.';".,,,t"es~:..l:<,: :':'~.',,",'.,,', :,;.-,',','".',;.,;~,.2ES...,~k,I:A;.;'O.;7\ 1""'0" '0
~~,,~ ~1"J .j:~.~~~t~y~~~1i21~~ ,,-~ '"~<< "wl
:\.?i\';::"";:;'~~1Ki~9'~;;'~'''' ',' ,:",',.,l" "'..;'.P.P~;l.:..""i.,."'" , "..,..
'" . ... i,.':',:,:;;: ..:,~~.:;.::::',:...::;;',... '".' ." '. . "...,.,,, ".,., ," ' "':';", ,,:'" , ' . . , ..'. , , ." ..::"::. ~..\, /""..", ',~"i:,\ ,:: .,' .
':6~$~j&xP,'~D~C ' ',"".'".,"'.';.'."".'.'"..'"',',",,.,'.",','""""'",'.,.".',.,.,:.,....,5".,.,.;.117,.,.',,.,.,EP;..:,.'."'",',,',',,.,,:,.s,',...,..,.,~,;,','...
~i;!!;'" ;1l~;;.!;;';:!~;;~;!::~If;;~:~;~',.... ~400'
';REP' Mark Hesselshwerdli..A:tiR;, 225 Cottonwood (PO ",:.'CiSIZ: Aspen/CO/81611 .,.,.::~'ii~ 9~.~.90~4""
:{).;~~~~(,riG~:~~~~;: , ' ,", .,;..:....">;;.~~:~)';~~,.;. ,., ",',',' ',' ",','" ,,',', ", ,..""'.'S~~TIC
:!~($i',:1
","." (".',..','.,
':" .....,': (~;"" ;.;" ."-..: ,.', <:.,', .' i ".,', ,"
il . ..;,];c,~Lr'~\:~;l~{!~!~~..,;,~,',.,'.','.,',.,.,..',,.,',.,....',',',."...,.,'...,;,I,:,O,.~,...,',,',',.,',",:,',',:....',...,',',..'~,:..,,':.:,'.~.',.,'..,o,..,.,',;,',...,.,.,W..:...',.,A.',..',.,...,',',N,'~,','.:.',.,...,."'.,:.',..','.,.,.,.l,:"..,:..,,,.:,!,cx,..,:,.'...,':..',~:: . .....'
V~~~~%r ',.,;,"";;""."" . ....
~::;:j?i~~~~y;'~(eK.,PGjr "'. "U~~I
",: :..":i:"?.". ""'~<:::" ;"..';.., i',." ,i,i\,:.,. '.... .'c,..." "' ,,\ ",
":)"..':>;,:'.' . :".'" "/i ':".!"':'~",'.:' ...;"..< .", , ", :.f" .,
....:.::;.. .:::.....; ".:.:....:~ .,:..-::~..~,,; :~L.:,:~i;~,.:,.\:;ij..~~:~:::,_..:.:':::.:.::.:..:., ..:..l_....,,_.....~.:.... ...~_. :::............::.~:. ....;.... ,.....:., : ~'- .'..::.::.:...~':~.~..::._.::~ '.._~...::....:. ':.:::.....': .
". I
"',;/
f"""'\ LAND USE ApPLICATION
,.-.,
PROJECT:
Name: '1 ~ I JLl,..l <E. "=:"'ftZ~
Location: LOT =*1 - Asw~ SuB,\:) IIJ\S ,oN
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
ApPLICANT:
Name: '32s:PP~:s. 5~~F-
Address: H ~ N /f,~ Sf:' ( -\,.~. e:.ox g J z.3 J A~ -.eN
Phone#: 9'?-S'. t?'S'OI ,,::'X"2 SO 4'S/3
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: M~ ? . ~s.s ~ -Sc:.~lE.lt..~
Address: 2,.7.S"" G::.~(AOOO (J).O.~ 2S"2:2. \ A-Slt>~
Phone#: 'lZS- ?o.3r' ''f'7'?'''8"l/~r P-K 92"S /?Ol
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
0 Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD 0 Conceptual Historic Devt,
0 Special Review 0 Pinal PUD (& PUD Amendment) 0 Final Historic Development
0 Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA 0 Minor Historic Devt.
0 GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) 0 Historic Demolition
0 GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision 0 Historic Designation
0 ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes 0 SmaIl Lodge Conversion!
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
0 Lot Split 0 Temporary Use ~ Other: b~ (:... C-
O Lot Line Adjustment 0 Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
I _'buf?1 sy _ wi CA-~n\Gro~'1.::n: eM.'f~~~ ~~~
UN T\ +2-
As
1"-' ::;of;::=' ;;~:;_"'ow,ct')
Have you attached the following?
o Pre-Application Conference Summary
o Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Iitt-O Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
o Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
o Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
o Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
/~~
FEES DUE: $ 70'-'
06/09/2000 13:40 FAX 970
" 9~~~5 CRW ASPIlN
, _. 4:5~61_275B ",<FiKES LANDING ASSOC
~
445 P02
@OOI
JUN 09 '130 01:42
"
I
June 9, 2000
To: Delsign Review Appeal Committee, Aspen CO
[ John Fullerton, the owner of 981 King Street, Aspen, CO hereby acknowledge
and approve of Jeffery Shoaf acting on my behaJfregarding the variance request for
secondary massing on his potential development of my property, :
/
,
All cOsts for same and responsibility for the content thereof shall be Mr. Shoaf's
full responsibility.
SiDcei:ely,
U;~?~
robn FI.illerton
1"""\
r--,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Design Review Appeal Committee
FROM:
Jeffrey S, Shoaf, Applicant
DATE:
June 9, 2000
SUBJECT:
Response to Attachment 3, Minimum Submission Contents
Paragraphs I and 2
Please be advised that I, Jeffrey S, Shoaf, do hereby request your cooperation with
regard to my appointment of Mark P. Hesselschwerdt as my representative with
respect to the development of 98 I King Street, Aspen, Colorado (Legal
Description: Lot #4, Astor Subdivision), in all matters relating to the project.
Thank you. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
lYe-
,
Jeffrey S. Shoaf, Applicant
119 Neale Avenue
Post Office Box 3123
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970/925-4501
970/925-45 I3 (fax)
Mark P. Hesselschwerdt, Representative
225 Cottonwood Lane
Post Office Box 2522
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970/925-9034
970/925-1401 (fax)
970/948-8444 (cell)
JJS:a2z
r--
~,
MEMO to Design Review Appeal Committee
June 9, 2000
Page Two
4. The future development is designed to meet the specific AACP goals to positively impact the
neighborhood with a clear, quality and compact design.
In summary, Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Hesselschwerdt feel our proposed development meets the intent of
the Aspen Area Community Plan in light of the fact that we have designed a quality project that is
historically correct for the immediate neighborhood by being consistent with existing architecture
and the natural environments. In deference to the goals of AACP, we believe what we are proposing
is consistent with as well as enriches and enlivens the context of the neighborhood.
Our proposed design has created significant spaces between our development and the neighboring
homes. We have also sited our development the maximum distance possible from adjoining Garrish
City Park to the east as per the philosophy of AACP.
Presently, there are no detached secondary masses to be found on-site or on the contiguous
neighbors' properties. In fact, they all share with our proposed design the concept of an attached
garage incorporated into the massing.
We thank you for your review of this matter,
Sincerely,
;tt
Jeffrey S. Shoaf
Mark P. Hesselschwerdt
,1""\
,.-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Design Review Appeal Committee
FROM:
Jeffrey S. Shoaf and Mark p, Hesselschwerdt
DATE:
June 9, 2000
SUBJECT:
Design Review Variance Request for Property located at
981 King Street - Aspen, Colorado (Legal Description: Lot #4, Astor Subdivision)
Response to Attachment 3, Paragraph 7 and Attachment 4, Paragraph 6
The subject property was acquired in 1999 by John Fullerton, the adjoining neighbor to the
northeast. He desires to restrict the redevelopment of the property in such a way as to preserve his
existing view plane. Jeffrey Shoaf has a contractual interest to purchase said property. The
restrictions that Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Fullerton have agreed to are as foIlows:
1. The height of the new development shaIl not exceed that of the existing structure.
2. The development shall be located no further east than the boundary between Lots 2 and 3 of
Astor Subdivision to the north (see survey).
With these restrictions and the City of Aspen's design standards in mind, we have developed what
we feel is the best plan possible for 981 King Street. We have been able to meet or exceed every
standard with the exception of the secondary massing standard. With respect AACP and the design
standards, we are hereby requesting a variance for the following mitigating reasons as per Review
Standard "C":
1. The approximately 43% ofthe lot bordering Garrish City Park is being retained as open space
by concentrating the mass on-site to the western one-half, approximately where the current
house is sited. This concession necessitates the compact massing proposed.
2. The new development will not be visible from King Street, thereby having a minimal impact
on the public right-of-way.
3. The design and topography are such that, in the public realm (i.e., from the neighbor's view
across the Roaring Fork River), the house will appear to be a low lying, unobtrusive, one-story
structure surrounded by trees. Secondary massing would have no impact on these neighbors.
~
~
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Al!reement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and :::r&:.fF<.E:(t.~:::'. S~~?
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Su6bl\llSJON
2, APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No, 45 (Series of 1999)
establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent
to a determination of application completeness,
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope ,of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application,
APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis,
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings andlor approvals, APPLICANT agrees he
will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred, CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty
of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4, CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning
Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision,
5, Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prio.,.. a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ ~ ~hich is for _ ZO hours of Community' Development staff time, and if actual
recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse
the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review, Such periodic
payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date, APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all
costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT
Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
By:
By:
Date:
Mailing Address:
g: Isupport\forms\agrpayas.doc
12/27/99
'?". (SO)(; ~12.. ~
A-s.~~ %1~I2-
qw 12--5 -1c:;q
1"""'\
,-.,
Project: '1a ~ t-< 11\le:, ~
Applicant: :::tlE.FF-~~"ii.. S~/.\..~
Location: A.~f'..E:>-! ~ .
Zone District: R.. - Go
Lot Size: 17, eo.:{ ~ 4t
Lot Area: --17. '&' ~ I:f1
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refe~ to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code,)
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
2!-
.5
2-
..5
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area:
Principal bldg. height:
Access, bldg, height:
On-Site parking:
% Site coverage:
% Open Space:
Front Setback:
Rear Setback:
Combined FIR:
WE~'- Side Setback:
tE. ^' Sf" Side Setback:
Combined Sides:
Existing,~~ 0 ()() Allowable: o/'7~ Proposed: 7'~
Existing:1/:: 2 oS ' Allowable: ZS ~O" Proposed:;5AMc.t:: As €)eJ'$rJ"<;
Existing: IVIA.: Allowable: Proposed:
.
Existing: '-Y'" Required:..3 ' Proposed:
Existing: /2/1 %"Required: 1"0 Proposed:
,Existing: 0 Required: 0 Proposed:
EXisting:10 ';'equired: /0 Proposed:
Existing: 2.0 Required: /0 Proposed:
Existing: 6 O. " Required: '3 c:> Proposed:
Existing: 2~ 6 Required: / S Proposed:
Existing: 7 (;) Required: I S' Proposed:
Existing: 9'..$. ~equired: ;$ S- Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
lv/A--
.
u-V-
/2.77a
'1"$%
zS
/0
So
ZO
7$;""
"$
.
Variations requested: ::Se:; ~ [)~ n..~:::,
/V6 D/~N.s/ON_ JfMil~5?iiQt...s (eAcp\.RES'f7.L:P
- ... .._-.............
J.Jl1'W II !"L~ A~YJ::N
@003
;4TT'AGI.\ll1eJVi.:.f--3 f"NiMVW\ 'Sw lB HI iS5Jor-J'bN~S ; fA,v.r- 41-3
Old Republic Natioual Tille :w.~urance ('.<)tllpal'Y
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule A
Our Order No. Q386954-2
Cust. Ref.:
Property Address:
981 KING STREET ASPEN, CO 81611
J.,lJ;ffective Date:
April 12, 2000 at 5 :00 P.M.
2. Policy to be Issued. add Propo.-ed Insured:
"ALTA. Owner's Policy 10-17-92
Proposed In..mred:
JEFFREY S, SHOAF
$1,800,000,00
3. The esnrte or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and cDvered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or in~ covered herein is at tbe effective date hereof vested in:
JOHN FULLERTON
5. The land refel'red to in this Commltment is described as follows:
LOT 4, ASTOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT THEREOP RECORDED
JUNE 28.1994 IN PLAT BOOl< 34 AT PAGE 86,
COUNTY OF l?I'l'KIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
v~/~VfUU "hV U~;~~ ~AA Y1UYZO~Z43
!.ANV HTW<: A~YJ>N
Ig/UU4
"...\
,'-'"
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-1
(Requirements)
Our Order No. Q380954-2
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Payment l1.> OT for the account of the gIllIlwrs or mo.rtgagors of the full considenltion for the estate or Imeres[ [0 be
in~'U1:'ed.
Proper itlStl'll.lllent(s) creating the e61atc or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit;
NOTE: ITEMS 1-4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF
AN APPROVED SURVEY AND A NOTARIZED FINAL UEN AFFIDAVIT.
1..
CERTlFICATE OF RIGHT OF FiRST REFUSAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS,
CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL RECORDED JULY 26,
1995 IN BOOK 788 AT PAGF- 208 UNDER RECEPTION NO, 383696,
NOTE; THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSOCIATION TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS
ARECURRBNT.
2. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE 1'OWN OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HA VB BEEN SATISFIED.
3. GOOD AND SUFFIQENT DEED FROM JOHN FULLERTON TO JEFFREY S. SHOAF CONVEYING
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
"'...' ...."'..." II.1JV \10. OJU rl1A lS'/U~~o"~4a
LAND TITLE ASPEN
@005
(",
~
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(E:!CceptioIlS)
Our Order No. Q380954-2
The policy or policies to be issued will cont-'lin exceptions to tbe following unless the Sllme are disposed
ot to the satisfaction of the Company:
I, Rights of claims, of parties in possession nol shown by the public records.
2. Ea.ements,. or claims of easemellL~, not shown by the public recOl'd.~,
3. Discrepam;ies, conf1ict.~ in boulIdary lilies, shortage in area, ellGroacbmeIlts, and any facts which a correct SIlIVey and
iD.~pection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public recoTds.
4. Any lien., or right to a lien, faT serviws, .laboT or material theretofore aT hereafter fUIllished, imposed by law alld
not shown by the public records.
5, Defects, liens encumbr.lIlces. adverse claims or other matters, if any, created. first appearing in the public records or
attaching subsequent to the effective date heTeof but p.riOT to the date the proposed insured acquires of TCCI.>Td f(lr
value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this CommilJIlent,
6. Taxes alld assessmL-nt. not yet due or payable :llld $p""iaJ assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7 . Any Wlpaid taxes or a..<;Sessments against said land.
8, liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSTONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSBRV ANCY,
FIRE PROTECI10N, SOn.. CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY
WATER SERVICE OR S1'R13E1' IMPROVEMENT AREA.
10. WATER RIGHTS OR CLAIMS TO WA1'ER RIGHTS.
11, RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1958
IN BOOK 185 AT PAGE 69,
12, TERMS, AGREEMENTS. PROVlSTONS, CONDITIONS AND OBLlGA'fIONS OF WATER SUPPLY
AND CESSPOOL EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED APRlL. 17. 1967 IN BOOK 226 AT
PAGE 293,
13, COVENANTS AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RBCORDED MAY 14, 1980 IN :1300K 388.A 'f
PAGE 850 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 223\190.
14, TERMS, CONDTTIONS. PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS, AND ALL MATTERS AS SET FORTH
IN ORDINANCE NO, 4. SERIES OF 1994, BY ClTY OF ASPEN RBCORDED APRlL 11.
_.,..,vv "LV U~;b~ YAX 9709256243
LAND TITLE ASPEN
~uu~
/""".,
~
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions)
Our Order No. Q380954-2
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1994 IN BOOK 747 AT PAGE 195.
]5, TERMS. CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AND OBLJGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN AMENDED
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 28, 1994 IN BOOK 754 AT PAGE 397, AND
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECORDED MAY 14, 1980 IN BOOK 388 AT PAGE 852 UNDER
RECEPTION NO, 223991.
16. TERMS. CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AND O!lLlGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SIDEWALK.
CURB, AND GUTTER TMP,ROVEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 28, 1994 IN BOOK 754
AT PAGE 402,
17, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND ALL MATTERS AS DISCLOSED ON PLAT OF SUBJECf
PROPERTY RECORDED MAY 14, 1980 IN PLAT !lOOK 9 AT PAGE 67 AND AMENDED PLAT
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 34 AT PAGE 86.
18, TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN EASEMENT
AGREEMENT RECORDED JULY 6,1994 TN BOOK 754 AT PAGE 878.
19. ACCESS IS LIMITED TO THE TERMS, AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS. CONDITIONS AND
OBLlGA TIONS OF ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 7, 1966 IN BOOT< 223 AT
PAGE 562 AS RECEPTION NO. I2..'j845.
.
.
~,
f""""\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Appeal Committee
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE:
981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision - Residential Design Standard
Variance for Secondary Mass
DATE:
July 13,2000
Lot I
Lot 4
Duplex at
981 King St.
FAR:
Existing: 3,000 square feet
Proposed: 4,780 square feet
Allowed: 4,780 square feet
APPLICANT:
John Fullerton & Jeffrey Shoaf
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mark Hesselshwerdt
LOCATION:
981 King Street
King Street
Lot 3
(Recently
developed)
Garrish Park
REVIEW PROCEDURE
The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant
relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public
hearing if the variance is found to be:(6) in greater
compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
<ID a more effective method of addressing standard in
question; or,gcIearly necessary for reasons offaimess
related to unusual site specific constraints.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Duplex
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Duplex
ZONING:
R-6
LOT SIZE:
17,883
SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the
secondary mass Residential Design Standard.
,-.
~
STAFF COMMENTS:
John Fullerton and Jeffrey Shoaf ("Applicant"), represented by Mark Hesselshwerdt, is
requesting approval for a variance from the secondary mass Residential Design Standard
for a new duplex to be located 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision. A duplex,
including an employee unit deed restricted to Category 2, is currently located on the site
and is proposed for demolition.
Land Use Code Section 26.4 I 0.040(B) Building Form states that "the intent of the
buildingform standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating
new homes which are more
similar in their massing..."
SpecificaIly, the Secondary
Mass standard requires that all
new structures shall locate at
least 10% of their
total square footage above
grade in a mass which is
completely detached from the
principal building, or linked to
it by a subordinate connecting
element. The illustration
demonstrates how a secondary
mass may be connected to a
principal building with a linking element.
,~
'---=-- - ---
---
The existing duplex is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new duplex. The
site is relatively flat, barely visible from King Street, and contains no unusual site specific
constraints due to size, shape
and topography.
However, the owner of Lot 3,
also Mr, FuIlerton, has placed
a restriction on Lot 4 that no
development shall be located
further east than the boundary
between Lots 2 and 3. The
purpose of the restriction is to
protect his views across the
eastern half of Lot 4. The
dotted lines on the map show
the approximate location of
. the "no development area",
and the arrow shows the
direction of the view from Lot 3 across Lot 4. The added benefit is that development wiIl
remain away from Garrish Park. The restriction effectively reduces the development area
to approximately 9,000 square feet on the western side of the lot.
"....."
,~,
Staff agrees that the development restriction imposed by the Lot 3 owner (who is also the
Applicant for the variance) "cinches down" the development a duplex to a more compact
area. Nevertheless, Staff believes the Applicant can meet the secondary mass standard on
this lot through revised architectural design more suited to ,the site. Property owners all
over town satisfy this criteria with duplexes on 9,000 square foot lots.
In sum, Staff does not believe the review criteria are satisfied because the lot will be
vacant after the existing duplex is demolished, therefore allowing for a full opportunity to
design a structure which meets the Residential Design Standards. The design does not
include a linking element to reduce the mass of the proposed residence. Staff believes the
secondary mass standard could be met on this site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the secondary mass Residential Design
Standard variance for a property located 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor
Subdivision.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of2000, approving the secondary mass
Residential Design Standard variance for a duplex at 98 I King Street, Lot 4, Astor
Subdivision, "
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Development Application
~
.--,
EXHIBIT A
981 KING STREET
REvIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the
Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Building Form - Secondary Mass.
"All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a
mass which is completely detachedfrom the building, or linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element. "
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:
Staff does not believe this criteria is met for the variance request. The 2000 AACP
calls for the community to "Promote a standard of design that is of the highest
quality and is compatible with the historic features of the community and
environment." The secondary mass Residential Design Standard implements this
goal and philosophy by requiring the mass of new structures to be broken up, and the
architectural designs to both resemble the character of historic Aspen and to be
harmonious with the existing built environment. Staff feels that an architectural
design can be attained for the site which better implements the AACP.
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question;
or,
Staff Finding:
Staff does not believe the proposed residence provides any element which more effectively
addresses the secondary mass standard. Staff does not believe this criteria is met.
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site specific constraints.
.'-'
t""'\
Staff Finding;
The subject lot is relatively flat, and will have a restriction placed on the property that
prohibits development on most of the eastern half of the lot. The restriction effectively
reduces the development area to approximately half of the lot. Nevertheless, property owners
across town are able to meet this standard on similar lots with duplexes. Meeting this design
criteria is a matter of architectural design and not dictated by constraints posed by the subject
property. Staff visited the site and believes that the standard can be met; for example, the
garage could be detached from the primary structure, or linked to it with a linking pavilion or
similar element. Staff does not believe this standard is met.
-"""-
,-... ,
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLlCA TION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER:
James Lindt, 920-5104
DATE: 6/2/00
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRIPTION:
981 King St.
Mark Hesselschwerdt, Jeff Shoaf
John Fullerton
One Step
DRAC Variance- Secondary Mass
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.222 Design Review Appeals Committee
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
DRAC
Yes
480 Deposit
$480
To apply, submit the following information:
x
X
...a-:
,A.,
-Y
.--oc-
(j)
,..8',
~
J,&-:-
Proof of ownership
Signed fee agreement
Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which 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 owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
Total deposit for review of the application
!Jl Copies of the complete application packet and maps. ,
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 1
An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site map showing placement of improvement
Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific
submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in' written, graphic, or model fonn of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.