The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.501 W Hallam St.0030.2016.ASLU0030.2016.ASLU 501 W HALLAM ALTERNATIVE COMPLEINCE 2735 124 32 004 & â‚¬ 41~â‚¬A--LO~ RI , PATH: G/DRIVE /ADMINISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LANDUSE CASE DOCS THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER (0030. 2016.ASLU~ 0053. 2016.ASLU 1 OF 2 FOLDERS PROJECT ADDRESS 501 W. HALAM PARCELID 2735 124 32 004 PLANNER BEN ANDERSON CASE DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVE COMPLIENCE/RDS CASE DESCRIPTION RDS / REFER TO 0053. 2016.ASLU REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOFFMAN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 07/1/2017 CLOSED BY ANGIE SCOREY 6.29.18 1-7 3 5-1 2*32-004 00 80 . 2-2) f6 . 4-s Lt/1 â‚¬ 49Â§ .. - i E lij!?~1 2 Permits file Edit Record Navigate Fgrm Reporis Format Iab Help a 1* 4% 0< hy -1 7 0. 99 AA i GiÂ® 3 <28. 11 14 4 , 4 0 *11 lump l ~20~iO|6:~ I ' %*#@fkk~k@ 3 21 Lail @ 0 Â©Ii.@iÂ©LI~ .adi, 42.1 .[MIIA| Custom Fields Routing Status Fee Summar~ Actions Routing History I ~ Permit type ~slu Aspen Land Use ~ Permit# 0030.2016 ASLU 0 I a Address 501 W HALL-AM ST ApVSuite f city ASPEN State ~Â«IZJ Zip 81611 Permit Information Master permit Routing queue aslu15 Applied 04/07/2016 Projed Status pending Approved Description APPLICATION FORALTERNATIVE COMPLIENCE Issued Closed/Final I - 2 Submitted SCOTT HOFFMAN 376 0292 Clock *Ii~] Days ~ apires 04/02/2017 i~ Submitted via 41 Owner ~ last name HOFFMAN First name SCOTT 501 W HALLAM ST ASPEN CO 81611 4 ~ Phone (970) 376-0292 Address *' Applicant 43 Â® owner is applicant? j Contractor is applicant? 501 W HALLAM ST Last name HOFFMAN First name SCOTT ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (970) 376-0292 Cust # 30320 ~ Address Email 1 03% i Lender Last name First name Phone t) - Address 'Â·AspetiGol* Cip:MrLang,lajj~ 1 oLL :i 44 Eb. 16dl.gllts@ ..1.r 06* joi Â°1 Uf H 40+ 5.0 -12- 73 Uy SÂ·P"Â·â€¢xp~*>~*7***aÂ«*0-'~ U 44*93T' ~ se~*Â©Pino~~ xoqioo_L~ dno,E)qiÂ£Â£[1 ~~ R~ Note from Planner: After receiving administrative approval for the request in this application, the Applicant decided to later pursue a more extensive variance request for the same property. ASLU 0053.2016 is the application for this RDS Variance. The project eventually received approval in Resolution 10, Series of 2016. The RDS checklist and signed drawings are attached to that land use case. Ben Anderson 7/2017 NOTICE OF APPROVAL ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR LOTS H & I, BLOCK 29, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 501 W. HALLAM ST., CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO. Parcel ID No. 2735-124-32-004 APPLICANT: Scott Hoffman SUBJECT & SITE OF APPROVAL: The applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance approval related to two Residential Design Standards for the property at 501 W. Hallam St. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject site is located at the corner of W. Hallam and N. 4th Streets, within the Aspen Infill Area. This lot is currently improved with a duplex, is located in the R-6 zone district, and measures 6,000 sq. ft. The lot has two street-facing facades and an alley at the rear of the site. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing duplex and to construct a single-family residence on the site. The proposed design incorporates a front porch element that slopes upwards, measuring from 10' to approximately 12.5' at its highest point, as well as two non-orthogonal windows on the Hallam Street fagade ofthe building. The applicant has requested Alternative Compliance review in regards to the following two Residential Design Standards: 1. 26.410.030.D.3 Entry Porch Height (Flexible). 4 Applicability. This standard shall apply to alllots except: i. Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human-scale that are compatible with historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. 4 Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front fagade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as defined by this chapter. 2. 26.410.030.E.3 Non-orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) 4 Applicability. This standard shall apply to alllots except: i. Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. ii. Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. ] b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage rectilinear windows shapes seen in Aspen' s historic residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal-oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non-orthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the historic character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many of Aspen' s historic residential buildings are located. 4 Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non-orthogonal window on each faqade of the building that faces the street. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. STAFF EVALUATION: Alternative Compliance may be granted administratively by Staff for Flexible Standards, which are those Residential Design Standards for which flexibility around the specific requirements may be granted administratively. Staff must find that the design meets the overall intent of the standard, as well as the general intent statements (as found in Section 26.410.010.A. 1-3). Staffs response to the specific Residential Design Standards and General Intent Statements may be found as Exhibit B to this approval. 1. Entrv Porch Height. The intent of this flexible standard is to promote one-story porches that are of a human scale and compatible with Aspen's historic residential buildings. The applicant has proposed a design that incorporates a front porch element above the front entry door on a one-story element of the structure's Hallam St. fa~ade. The roof of the porch slopes upward such that the lowest point of the roof as measured to grade reaches a height of approximately 10', while the highest point of the roof reaches approximately 12' 6". SE 1 -1 .17- -7- -- 1 - L R Â· 1, 10, r mr . le' c= -/ 7. 1 ....2=32.-42- 1 -1-6. Z-- k=:===6--- .-27-- r The standard for this review criterion limits the height of an entry porch to one-story, defined as "A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for the purposes of the Residential Design Standards." 2 Staff finds the intent of this standard to be met by the proposed design. The porch element begins at a height of 10' and does not significantly intrude into what would be perceived as the second story of the building. The porch element is clearly part of the building's one-story structure; it maintains a pedestrian scale and does not increase the building's mass as viewed from the street. Staff finds the intent of this standard to be met with the proposed design. 2. Non-orthogonal Window Limit. The intent of this flexible standard is to discourage the overuse of round or diagonal-oriented windows in favor of in favor of rectilinear shapes that are seen historically in Aspen' s residential architecture. The applicant is proposing two non-orthogonal windows on the Hallam St. faGade, as indicated below. r m " 11 ~224Â¥E~Elp- --1 - -- Eul .1 2 .--.. 33.1=- r=Ezg i :...Â·..:. I - -J- - : 1 -.-./.*--1:./.2,3,-I- -- L -- Both of the proposed windows are rectilinear on all sides except for at the top, where the design changes to follow the curve of the building's roof form. The small window proposed for the one-story element is largely obscured beneath the roof form. All other windows proposed for the building are rectilinear in shape. Staff does not find the use of non-orthogonal windows on this fagade to be a proliferation of this window style, or to detract from the historic character of Aspen' s residential structures. The General Intent criteria (Exhibit B) encourages creative and contemporary architecture that is at a scale which respects historic design traditions. This building is two stories at its highest point and therefore maintains that historic scale, while the sloped roof forms speaks to a more contemporary design. The non-orthogonal windows follow the more modern curved roof forms. Staff finds the design to meet the intent of the criterion. DECISION: Staff finds the application for Alternative Compliance related to two Residential Design Standards at 501 W. Hallam St. to meet the intent of the standards, and hereby APPROVES the applicant's request for Alternative Compliance as 3 related to standards 26.410.030.D.3 Entry Porch Height and 26.410.030.E.3 Non- orthogonal Window Limit. APPROVED BY: Jessica Garrow Date Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A - Elevations (recorded) Exhibit B - Review Criteria & Staff Findings (in file) Exhibit C - Application (in file) 4 DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, pursuant to Section 26.304.090, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Scott Hoffman, 501 W. Hallam St, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Lots H & I. Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen. commonly known as 501 W. Hallam St, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The applicant has received Alternative Compliance approval related to subsection 26.410.030.E.3 of the Code to allow two non-orthogonal windows on the front fagade of the residence. the first to be located on the second story of the structure's faÂ©ade and the second to be located on the beneath the porch roof of the building's one-story element. The applicant has also received Alternative Compliance approval related to subsection 26.410.030.D.3 of the Code to allow the entry porch of the structure to measure at its lowest point at 10' and curve to its highest point at approximately 12' 6", Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Alternative Compliance via Administrative approval, July 19.2016 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) July 28.2016 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) July 29,2019 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 19th day of July, 2016, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Exhibit B-1 RDS - General Intent 26.410.010. General Intent. The City's Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: o Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples o f elements that connect to the street. Staff Response: The proposed design connects the public street with the private property by providing a walkway from the street to the residence with an easily defined front entryway. The structure is also proposed with a prominent upper story and at least two prominent lower story windows along its front faÂ¢ade. This is a corner lot, and the applicant is also proposing a walkway from Fourth St. to the building with a prominent side entryway as well as significant glazing along the Fourth St. faÂ¢ade. These elements serve to connect the proposed structure to the street. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. o Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. Staff Response: The proposed design steps down along the front Hallam St. faÂ¢ade to reduce the massing to the neighboring property to the south. The neighboring property sits within its side yard setback and is very close to the building's property line. With this step down the proposed design minimizes the proposed building's mass and scale. This is a corner lot, and there is no building to the north of this site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. o Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen's historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City' s vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. 1 Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to "human-scale" in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story o f a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. Stajf Response: The proposed residence is two-stories at its highest point, and steps down to one story at the northern end of the structure. While in scale with the traditional architecture of the area, a more contemporary design is created with the rounded roof forms at the building's Hallam St. fa<ade. The front porch is limited to the building's one-story element. The building maintains a "human-scale" in its design. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2 Exhibit B-2 Residential Design Standards 26.410.030.D.3 Entry Porch Height (Flexible). 4 Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: i. Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human-scale that are compatible with historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard prevents porches that are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood. Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area. c) Standard An entry porch or canopy on the front fagade of a principal building shall not be more than one-story in height as defined by this chapter. Staff Response: The applicant has proposed a design that incorporates a front porch overhang area above thefront entry door on the Hallam St.fagade. The roofof the porch slopes upward such that the lowest point Of the roof as measured to grade reaches a height of approximately 10', while the highest point of the roof reaches approximately 12' 6". The standard for this review criterion states the height of an entry porch is limited to one- story, as defined by this chapter. One story is defined as "A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story shall not exceed 10 feet for the purposes of the Residential Design Standards." Due to the height of the porch roof exceeding 10% the applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance. Staff finds the intent of this standard to be met by the proposed design. The feature is clearly part of a one-story structure that is not intended to appear as two-stories. The porch element maintains a pedestrian scale and does not increase the mass as viewed from the street. Stajffinds the intent Of this criterion to be met. 26.410.030.E.3 Non-orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) 03 Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: i. Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. ii. Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade. b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage rectilinear windows shapes seen in Aspen' s historic residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round 3 or diagonal-oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non-orthogonal windows that face the street in order to help preserve the historic character of Aspen. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where many o f Aspen' s historic residential buildings are located. 4 Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non-orthogonal window on each fagade of the building that faces the street. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non- orthogonal window. Stajf Response: The applicant is proposing two non-orthogonal windows on the front fa,ade of the residence that faces Hallam St. The first non-orthogonal window is located on the first story of the structure, under the roof line. The second non- orthogonal window is located under the upper story roof. Both proposed windows follow the roofform of the building. The intent of the standard is to discourage the overuse of round or diagonal oriented windows in favor of rectilinear shapes that are seen historically in Aspen's residential architecture. Both windows are rectilinear on all sides except for at the top, which follows the curve of the building's roof form. The small window proposed for the one- story element is largely obscured beneath the roof form. AH other windows proposed for the building are rectilinear in shape. Stafffinds the intent of the criterion to be met. 4 Residential Design Standards M M Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist DIE CfT'g_841) Disclaimer: This application is only validfor the attached design. lf any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. ~omplia ILy/'MUL'TjJ/me// --'-FAIternativ'I d~ Il- , -jLComplianc~ 11~F i:--1/'llill"I'll",1/MI. j Sheets 3,6: This design satisfies the Standard with two separate garage doors. Consistent with a desire C.4.Garage Door Design ~ ; ~ to promote massing similar to traditional Aspen residential architecture, the garages were split and (Flexible) 1 , articulated such that one garage exists as a secondary mass stepping down from the principal building. Sheets 1,3,5: This design satisfies the Standard with both street oriented entrance and an open front D.1.Entry Connection I , porch. The Hallam entry provides a street facing front door on the front facade via a demarcated pathway (Non-flexible) 1 to a street facing open front porch, That covered porch is open on 2 sides and approximately 200sqft. Sheet 5: The Hallam Entry anticipates a 7ft-6in street facing door. D.2.Door Height (Flexible) G.*2 Sheets 1,5: This design satisfies the Standard with a one-story entry porch on the front facade. The D.3.Entry Porch i entry canopy is expressed as a one-story element engaging the "One-Story Stepdown" option noted (Flexible) , above to help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street and respond to the adjoining property. 1 1 E.1.Principle Window ~ Sheets 1,5: This design satisfies the Standard by a front facade window group that measures (Flexible) I greater than 4ft by 4ft. Satisfying window groups exist both at Level 1 to the right of the entry . and at Level 2 above and to the left of the entry. , ' Sheets 1,5,6: This design satisfies the Standard where vertical lines of street facing windows are broken by E.2.Window Placement , i gaps. At the 4th Street Court, a street facing wall is tilted forward to promote a more pedestrian scale to the (Flexible) 1 1 physical and visual relationship between the public realm of the street and the private realm of the dwelling. Sheet 5: This design incorporates 2 non-orthogonal windows on the facade of the building that faces Hallam Street and no E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit non-orthogonal windows on the facade of the building facing 4th Street. A non-orthogonal transom window is shown a the (Flexible) , front facade above the front porch window group where the top of that transom window follows the curve of the roof form r above. A similar non-orthogonal transom window is shown at the front facade above the master bedroom window group. ----2 Sheets 2,3: Lightwells are located away from the front most wall of the building and at the east E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location , i and west sides. Lightwells are provided as required by code to provide egress for proposed (Flexible) subgrade bedrooms. ' Sheets 1,5,6: This design uses a number of materials including stone, metal, glass and wood that are similar in profile, E.5.Materials ~ texture and durability to those seen throughout city and specifically throughout the neighborhood. The quality of the exterior (Flexible) I. i , materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the building and used in ways that are true to their characteristics. c .4<:20 1 4,41 Page 2 of 2 r. ..41 - 4-9 55009 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED ROGER H. HUNT ("Grantor"), whose address is P.O. Box 4450, Aspen, Colorado 81612 for Ten Dollars and no/100 ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to 501 WEST HALLAM, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Grantee"), whose address is 2665 Bald Mountain Road, Vail, Colorado 81657, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to wit: Lots H and I, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, and familiarly known as 501 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611, which currently has the address of 501 West Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all rights and appurtenances to the same belonging, unto Grantee, his heirs successors and assigns forever. Grantor does hereby covenant that it will WARRANT AND DEFEND all right, title and interest in and to the premises unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever against alllawful claims whatsoever except (i) taxes for the year 2010 due and payable in 2011 and all subsequent years not yet due or payable and (ii) those matters set forth on Exhibit A hereto incorporated herein by this reference. Signed effective this 04 th day of #Jw,u.L , 2010. 4-4 RECEPTION#: 571772, 07/01/2010 at R*er H. Hunt 02:28:22 PM, 1 OF 2, R $16.00 DF $350.00 Doc Code WD STATE OF ~0107 4 43 ) Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO SS. COUNTY OF 2,4\L~ ) The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this 24~ day of ~arâ‚¬_ 2010 by Roger H. Hunt. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: CITY OfÂ· Â· Â·Â·Â·.@PEN -12-1 â‚¬4eluA a-\D h 16 0- HRET-f AWD Notary Public - cartrie, 06 IDA.7.7. iREP NO. 1 VVD UÂ»V 3131-7 STEPHANIE C. MATTHEWS ~ NOTARY PUBLIC ./ 1 7.1 9Â» CITY OF ASPEN . STATE OF COLORADO 1 WRE-Of FPRO t.- 01 '9**â€¢%* *00#99 08/20/2011 DATE REP NO , , 8,9 J 21 i rn %1 7(///2 11,Â»1 693-7-7 . ''I~ Â·. '. d & iNS BUS_RE\3409139.2 .4.-a Statement of Authority (Section 38-30-172, C.R.S.) 1. This Statement of Authority relates to an entity named : 501 WEST HALLAM, LLC 2. The type of Entity is a: corporation registered limited liability partnership nonprofit corporation registered limited liability limited partnership _X_ limited liability company limited partnership association general partnership government or governmental subdivision or agency limited partnership trust 3. The entity is formed under the laws of COLORADO 4. The mailing address for the entity is: 626 66 3Â£< 01 FÂ¥lowd-cu- 1201 \40 a ea bl (06-1 5 The _X_ name position of each person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity is: SCOTT E. HOFFMAN 6. The authority of the foregoing person(s) to bind the entity is _X_ not limited limited as follows: 7. Other matters concerning the manner in which the entity deals with interests in real property: 8. This Statement of Authority is executed on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of Section 38-30-172, C.R.S. 9. This Statement of Authority amends and supersedes in all respects any prior Statement of Authority executed on behalf of the entity. Executed this 21~3ay of JUNE, 2010. Name:501 WEST HALI_AM) LLC L Ot. IM-z BY: FCOTT E. HOFF#Ar~ STATE OF COLORADO ) PITKIN ) -, 4-k The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this DO day of JUNE, 2010 By: SCOTT E. HOFFMAN Witness my hand and official seal g My commission expires: -=.il-,W'ilili~l- PCT22822 Notary PubA 40% 1 + 5. NOTARY PUBLIC ~ |~ STATE OF COLORADO 1 My Commission Expires 05/02/2010 RECEPTION#: 571771. 07/01/2010 at 02:28:21 PM. 1 Of- 1. R $11.00 DF SO.00 Doc Code AUTH Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 0 9 SY 04 e 45 0/4 4 1 W North St North St t U. W Notth St k Z 4 Smuggler St 05 6 W Smuggler St W Still Iggler St 32. Crossroads Chu,ch Aspen M e : 0 $ S 2 2 2 -9 14 FranCis St W Frarris St W Fiancts St W Franos St g. W Hallam St M.li W Hallam St 401110(71 St W Hallan, St W Hallam St 9 u.nam St KN Y 501,0 â€ž- Aspen s* 8Â£4. a AEPen H,stor,cal Society S 01 Bleeker St W Bleeker St W Bleeker St W Bioek er St W BleekeÂ¢ 3 E Neeke, S ./: a Â· iii 0; .C G - i Hou'Â£ a 0 0 0 007 5 Â£ F. / 0 3 2 ' 2 Z Z "Z W Main St WMainSt -"w:-9,~. -*.44-~ W Main St *E. -T!~ li~ W Main St f E Main St J ......./../../..A - 05 a /73 9& 14 G I M (4 0 .- .C .C to .,5 G â€ž00 luxury ~ 4> 4 0 0 0 0 0 W Hopkins Ave WHopkins Ave \A" Vacation Rentals Sap, Mill Ct %5 G Put N /tarboof 1.;~ ISPlC N 6 40Siwee S 7th St ,â‚¬' .~ N 7th St . . N 7th St 44 F.*m & 9 7th St Afm3 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTJ 24.<: Agreement to Pay Application Fees 14 C 0030Â· 1016Â·AbLU lii An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and * Property Scott Hoffman Phone No,: 970 376-0292 Owner ("1"): :21,7 Email: scott@crestonebuilding.com Z Address of 501 West Hallam Street Billing 501 West Hallam Street S Property: Address: Aspen, CO 81611 (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $, & SO f'ME for? [annt-f %24b{L $Â· flat fee for S. flat fee for . $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. 1 agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of stafftime. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, 1 agree to pay additional monthly billingsto the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application atthe hourly rates hereinafter stated. .1 $ 45-D \<Cosit for f-&,t Â·Fed;4 f Community Development Department staff time. Additional-*ima ab.oyeÂ·the--r'Apn=it m mn, Int ,â€¢,ill hA.hillorl mt <77;,9911erÂ·heer. PÂ« deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. A*litional time above the P r Nt Pmount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: \ . Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director Name: Scott Hoffman City Use: Title: Fees Due: $~5~ Received $ 6 1CD â‚¬Â© March, 2016 Citv of Aoen I 130 S. Galena St. 1(970) 920 5050 Residential Design Standards * Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist THE OryF_ANU Address: 501 u Aill.*t Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Approved: Representative: (Approved plans/elevations attached) Email: Phone: Disclaimer: Utis application is only validjor the attached design, {fany element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during buildingpermit review, the applicant shall be required to applyfor a new Administrative Compliance Review. .--9.-u~ernan,-152;Rall ~2- 9//8/WREEMglf Ifomplilt -iTINE:imi,A.m,51-5.4 Ill1ll/2,omplianc~k.Com]?1~ ~ ~~~1--twtAAAAWA ~A~~~â€žâ€žwwÂ¥ B. 1.Articulation of Building Mass ./ D-6 44 opL, 1,2,.r 3 (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) Ovu. 643 cue,' a#*ext-4 411 65#L .f 6,41,85 r B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) 2 V C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement r 'I (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions ~ , (Flexible) 9/ Page 1 of 2 Approved: Residential Design Standards 1 M Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist TiitÂ·_OÂ·n oF AMIN Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to applyfor a new Administrative Compliance Review. Complie ~Rernativel Ill,im"flielirzzl 1.1=.0.=0? I.ppl~~luiqg/ -'llfill. C.4.Garage Door Design i (Flexible) D. 1.Entry Connection 00Â¥- i (Non-flexible) j D.2.Door Height 4 1 (Flexible) 1 f#K râ€¢Ad&â€¢:- 4 5 Aâ€¢t -5/:3 D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) V/ E. 1.Principle Window (Flexible) 1/ E.2.Window Placement I 4 u*=.4.ah~ quited (Flexible) br-CAU) LAY -41Â· lk) 48Â» Efbd es_ - i vir.~5 2,2,,teâ€¢.Ci*Al &1(â€¢-, fÂ·(4~ 44 -CA~- E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit i ' (Flexible) Â· i tÂ» U. 1 u.,2- E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location | i I !01#uell- 02 4*1. ct A,Â·Ar 444 4*60.04 0,/l (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Page 2 of 2 March 31,2016 Please accept this document as the required Administrative Compliance Review Representative authorization letter. Owner Scott Hoffman, and Architect Jack Snow, Principal of RKD Architects represent the project. Project Information: The project address is 501 West Hallam (City and Townsite of Aspen Block 29, Lots H&1) - the southwest corner lot at the intersection of 4th and Hallam Streets. The to-be demolished residence currently located at the project address was constructed as a single story duplex in 1961. A second story over the north duplex side was added in 1976. In total, the duplex measures 4531 sgt as 3673sqft living and 858sqft garages by Pitkin County Assessor records. For context, that measurement translates today to 4156sqft FAR equivalent. Existing site coverage is 3612sqft. The north unit garage is accessed from Hallam Street and the south unit garage is accessed from 4th Street. Although comprised of 2 city lots, the home appears particularly close to the west neighbor (511 West Hallam). For nearly the entire west elevation, the separation is approximately 10ft. That closeness is exacerbated as the neighboring home (carport + dwelling + trash enclosure) was built to the 501/511 property line - no setback. The proposed residence measures 3237sqft FAR; site coverage measures 2620sqft. Regulations allow 3240sqft FAR and 3000sqft site coverage. Submittal Information: B.1 Articulation of Building Mass - sheets 1,3,4 This design promotes light and air access to the adjacent property - particularly challenging given that the adjacent property was constructed to the adjoining lot line. The rectilinear orientation of the neighborhood informed a rectilinear design. The overall perceived mass of the home was reduced via significant articulation utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Attention to massing and articulation is present at all elevations where the longest unarticulated sidewall depth is 26ft 1 in (west elevation kitchen wall). 8.2 Building Orientation - sheet 1 This design demonstrates "Strong Orientation" where both street-facing facades of the home are parallel to each street. 8.3 Build-to Requirement - sheets 1,3,4,5 This design satisfies the Standard requiring at least 60% of the front fagade of the principal building to be within 5ft of the minimum front yard setback line using a front porch to meet this requirement. 8.4 One Story E/ement -sheets 1,4,5,6 This design engages the "One-Story Stepdown" option to satisfy the Standard. The width of the one-story portion at the front fagade is 49% of the building overall width (17ft-5in / 35ft-7in) C.1 Garage Access - sheets 1,3 This design indicates alley access to parking and garages. C.2 Garage Placement- sheets 1,3 This design directs vehicular access from an alley C.3 Garage Dimensions - sheets 1,3,6 This design seeks to minimize the presence of a wide garage as perceived from the street and ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building by incorporating (2) separate alley accessed one-car garages. The total width of all vehicular entrances to garages is approximately 18ft. C.4 Garage Door Design - sheets 3,6 This design satisfies the Standard with two separate garage doors. Consistent with a desire to promote massing similar to traditional Aspen residential architecture, the garages were split and articulated such that one garage exists as a secondary mass stepping down from the principal building. D.1 Entry Connection - sheets 1,3,5 This design satisfies the Standard with both a street oriented entrance and an open front porch. The Hallam Entry provides a street facing front door on the front fagade via a demarcated pathway to a street facing open front porch. That covered porch is open on 2 sides and approximately 200sqft. D.2. Door Height - sheet 5 The Hallam Entry anticipates a 7ft 6in street facing door D.3 Entry Porch Height - sheets 1,5 This design satisfies the Standard with a one-story entry porch on the front fagade. The entry canopy is expressed as a one-story element engaging the "One-Story Stepdown" option noted above to help reduce perceived mass as viewed from the street and respond to the adjoining property E.1 Principle Window - sheets 1,5 This design satisfies the Standard by a front fagade window group that measures greater than 4ft by 4ft. Satisfying window groups exists both at Level 1 to the right of the entry and at Level 2 above and to the left of the entry. E.2 Window Placement - sheets 1,5,6 This design satisfies the Standard where vertical lines of street facing windows are broken by gaps. At the 4th Street Court, a street facing wall is tilted forward to promote a more pedestrian scale to the physical and visual relationship between the public realm of the street and the private realm of the dwelling. E.3 Non-orthogonal Window Limit - sheet 5 This design incorporates 2 non-orthogonal windows on the fagade of the building that faces Hallam Street and no non-orthogonal windows on the fagade of the building facing 4th Street. A non-orthogonal transom window is shown at the front fagade above the front porch window group where the top of that transom window follows the curve of the roof form above. A similar non-orthogonal transom window is shown at the front fagade above the master bedroom window group where the top of that transom window follows the curve of the roof form above. E.4 Lightwell/Stairwell Location - sheets 2,3 Lightwells are located away from the front most wall of the building and at the east and west sides. Lightwells are provided as required by code to provide egress for proposed subgrade bedrooms. E.5 Materials - sheets 1,5,6 This design uses a number of materials including stone, metal, glass and wood that are similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen throughout city and specifically throughout the neighborhood. The quality of the exterior materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the building and used in ways that are true to their characteristics. Best Regards, t Scott HoffmÂ© k j m ' 'I. APR 1 8 20,6 CITY Ut p.:,FEN April 17, 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for meeting with me on Friday and taking an additional look at the RDS Administrative Compliance Review submittal for 501 West Hallam. At the meeting we discussed two outstanding Standards not believed to have been satisfied by the current design. This letter with the additionally suggested plan page attempts to provide some clarity regarding interpretation and intent. Here are those issues: Standard B.4 One-Story Element (Flexible Standard) We (myself and Architect Jack Snow) believed we satisfied this provision by the following: â€¢ Intent: utilizing "street-facing architectural elements, such as porches" and providing "visual evidence of or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians". â€¢ Standard: incorporating "a one-story element on the front fagade". â€¢ Option: (3) One-Story Stepdown We understand now that the minimum 20% stepdown width is to continue to the rear wall, not just at the front fagade. Specifically you noted: "The width that is being proposed as one-story must be a minimum of 20% of the building's overall width the entire length of the building to comply with this option." While we have expressed a one-story element from the front fagade to the rear wall, our desire to articulate the related upper level wall motivates areas along that wall where the Standard is not met. To provide further clarity, we looked at the articulated sections individually, generating one-story ratios at each - essentially providing section snapshots from front to back of the building. We then looked at the overall ratio and related that overall ratio to the overall building length to generate an "average" one-story element ratio for the project. See Detail 1 of the attached Page A where outside wall dimensions are identified. So for example, the one story element continues from the front fagade to the first articulation of the upper level wall for 18ft-1/2in and prompts a 35% one-story ratio over this distance. At that articulation and continuing south to the next (7ft), the one-story ratio is 15%. A compilation of ratios results in an "average" one-story ratio of 35% for the project. While not specifically required as a precedent for this Standard, articulation was applied to break up a large and expansive upper level wall plane - an intent of Standard B.1. For these reasons, I ask that you consider granting Alternative Compliance. Standard B.1 Articulation of Building Mass (Non-Flexible) We believed we satisfied this provision by the following: â€¢ intent: reducing "the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building on a property as viewed from all sides" and promoting "light and air access between adjacent properties" â€¢ Standard: "articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass" â€¢ Option: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth We understand now that the maximum 50ft sidewall depth relates to the entire building and not individual forms of the building. Specifically you noted: "The sidewall depth here refers to the building as measured from front to rear of the property, along the side. The current design, while well articulated j measures over 50' in length. Therefore Option 1 is not met." .,1 While the design can be made more compact to comply with the 50ft maximum sidewall depth requirement, or 45ft maximum sidewall depth of Options 2&3, I believe there are consequences that move the project away from the intent of the Standard. For example, an option to achieve compliance is to remove the 4th Street Court and shrink the width of the stair feature. But eliminating the mid-depth articulation seems to visually increase the overall perceived mass of the building. And reallocating depth square footage to width square footage certainly diminishes the light and air access between adjacent properties. In fact, nearly any tactic that reduces overall building length would most likely result in increased building width promoting a condition we've intentionally tried to address where the adjacent property is built to the property line. Although I understand Alternative Compliance cannot be granted for a Non-Flexible Standard, I ask that you provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation to approve an application seeking a variation. Best Regards, 1411/ Scott Hoff~-3 cÂ©30Â·20(6'ASLU t .49*..r ADD A '7 2016 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , -,r- k N L UN ATTACHMENT 2 - LAND USE APPLICATION r :94 LWAST- - IN11 PROJECT: J 4 Name: Hoffman Residence 501 West Hallam Street Parcel ID# 273512432004 Location: 2 BE c#* 92 Parcel ID# (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: 1*1>01 Scott Hoffman Name: \1> 2<=n 9==2 501 West Hallam Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Address: Phone #: 970 376-0292 REPRESENTIVATIVE: Scott Hoffman Name: 501 West Hallam Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Address: 970 376-0292 Phone#: Â£ GMQS Exemption Â£ Conceptual PUD E Temporary Use Â£ GMQS Allotment Â£ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review Subdivision O Conceptual SPA ~ ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream ~ Subdivision Exemption (includes l Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization) Â£ Mountain View Plane Â£ Final SPA (&SPA 1 Commercial Design Review ~ Lot Split Amendment) ~J Residential Design Variance Â£ Lot Line Adjustment l Small Lodge Conversion/ AlktreA<vi_-CO{K~ I layll Expansion D Conditional Use Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 4531 sqft (4156 FAR equivalent) duplex constructed in 1961 PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 3237sqft FAR single family residence Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ~ Pre-Application Conference Summary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ~ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ~ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - induding Written Responses to Review Standards ~ 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. March, 2016 Citv of Aoen I 130 S. Galena St. I(970) 920 5050 0 =1==I=M=m=râ€žm 1 .A. 3 j 31 ... ....4 1 Land Use Review Fee Policy f-' i k' jg Li a :Â¥rn r.9 The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit WZ collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. -il A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative - meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduces if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant's request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred bythe City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval, Unless otherwise combined by the Director forsimplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit atthe rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.7% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application forthe property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. March, 2016 Citv of ADen I 130 S. Galena St. ] (970) 920 5050 CITY O f CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT 3 0 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM @9 7, Â»~ >41 Project: Hoffman Residence -1 0 Applicant: Scott Hoffman r.t Location: 501 West Hallam Street ., 4 a 0 .4 1 . Zone District: R-6 5 Lot Size: 60ft X 100ft Lot Area: 6000sqft (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Â°roposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed Access. Bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed Front Setback: Existing: Required Proposed Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed Combined F/F: Existing: Required Proposed Side Setback: Existing: Required-. Proposed Side Setback: Existing: Required Proposed Combined Sides: Existing: Required Proposed Distance between Bldgs. Existing: Required. Â°roposed Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Additional non-orthogonal window. RDS non-orthogonal window limit flexible standard - requires no more than one on each facade of the building that faces the street. Current application proposes 2 non-orthogonal windows at the facade facing Hallam Street (no non-orthogonal windows at facade facing 4th. March, 2016 Citv of Aoen I 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920 5050 Residential Design Standards * Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist DIE ChY OF Agf. Address: 501 West Hallam Street Parcel ID: 273512432004 Applicant: Scott Hoffman Email: scott@crestonebuilding.com Zone District/PD: R-6 Phone: 970 376-0292 Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. IA didgompning~ 4~~<~~ Â£ Sheets 1,3,4: The overall perceived mass of the home was reduced via significant articulation utilizing B.1.Articulation of Building Mass / i i multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Attention to massing and articulation is present at (Non-flexible) i ~ all elevations where the longest unarticulated sidewall depth is 26ft-1 in (west elevation kitchen wall). I i Sheet 1: This design demonstrates "Strong Orientation" where both street-facing facades of B.2.Building Orientation 1 (Flexible) i the home are parallel to each street (note corner lot). (Flexible) ~ i Sheets 1,3,4,5: This design satisfies the Standard requiring at least 60% of the front facade of B.3.Build-to Requirement the principal building to be within 5ft of the minimum front yard setback line using a front porch to meet this requirement. 1 Sheets 1,4,5,6: This design engages the "One-Story Stepdown" option to satisfy the B.4.One Story Element t Standard. The width of the one-story portion of the front facade is 49% of the building overall (Flexible) width (17ft-5in / 35ft-7in) 1 , Sheets 1,3: This design indicates alley access to parking and garages. C.1.Garage Access .t i F (Non-flexible) a ; Sheets 1,3: This design directs vehicular access from an alley. C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) 3 141 i j 4 Sheets 1,3,6: This design seeks to minimize the presence of a wide garage as perceived from the street C.3.Garage Dimensions . rland ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building by incorporating (2) separate alley (Flexible) 4 3 i accessed one-car garages. The total width of all vehicular entrances to garages is approximately 18ft. 4 1,1 Page 1 of 2