HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20160906
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
September 06, 2016
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. August 16, 2016 Draft Meeting Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 501 W Hallam St - Residential Design Standards - Variation
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 7, 2016
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
1
Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Spencer McNight and Keith
Goode.
Jason Elliott and Ryan Walterscheid were not present for the meeting.
Brian McNellis and Jesse Morris arrived late to the meeting.
Also present from City staff; James True and Jennifer Phelan.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. Tygre feels over the past couple of months there has been sketchy attendance by P&Z
commissioners especially for continued hearings. She feels this is a disservice to the other
commissioners, the applicants as well as the public.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan noted staff is looking into scheduling a special meeting on September 27 to discuss
commercial design guidelines. She will follow up with an email to the commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ms. Toni Kronberg wanted to speak in regards to the Lift One Lodge application. She noted the top
landing area is missing from the platter lift plan because it goes into the property being discussed at
tonight’s hearing. She asked for P&Z to make a recommendation to bring the lift further down to
connect to the platter lift. She wants to ensure Michael Brown can complete his approved application to
install the platter lift.
MINUTES
June 21, 2016 – Mr. Goode requested his name be changed to Mr. McKnight on page four since he was
not in attendance. Mr. Mesirow motioned to approve the minutes with the stated correction. Mr.
McKnight seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved.
Aug 2, 2016 – Mr. Mesirow motioned to approved the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in
favor, motion approved.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development – Continued Hearing
Mr. Goode re-opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff.
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
2
Ms. Phelan explained since the last hearing, the applicant has proposed changes to the site. Due to the
level of information provided to staff prior to the publication of staff’s memo and agenda packet, staff is
recommending continuing the hearing to September 20th to allow staff time to review the changes and
provided a detailed memo.
She noted she received updated drawings for the project on August 15th and shared them with P&Z as
exhibits Q and R. She stated it included a summary memo and additional graphics. She also provided an
email today including additional letters received since the agenda packet had been provided. She
summarized the letters received and noted they will be included as exhibit S.
She then provided a brief overview. Since July 19th, the applicant’s modified application including the
following.
• Site plan with a redesigned building
• Redesigned cul-de-sac that has been enlarged
• Fewer terraces
• Lift has been moved a bit to a lower location
She noted at the last meeting, P&Z’s key concerns included the following:
• Mass, scale and dimensions of the building
• Closed off views
• Location of the lift
She felt tonight was an opportunity for P&Z to determine if the changes address their concerns. Any
future changes or questions they feel need to be answered. Staff plans to provide a detail analysis at the
next meeting.
Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for staff.
Mr. Morris and Mr. McNellis then joined the meeting at 4:40 pm.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there was any plan to create dimensional requirements for the Ski Base
(SKI) zoned district for the future. Ms. Phelan replied there are no plans to address SKI based zone in the
current work plan. If the property is rezoned to SKI, it will have site specific dimensions defined. If
something were to be changed in the future, it would be some type of Planned Development (PD)
amendment potentially requiring board review. Mr. True added this is an overlay on the zone which
sets the dimensions of the project. Ms. Phelan noted the Lodge zone district has dimensions associated
with it and if the property was rezoned to Lodge, the applicant would need to meet those requirements
of the underlying zone district or ask for a variation beyond the underlying zone district. With the SKI
zone district, it has to be through a PD to establish the dimensions.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Jim DeFrancia, representing Norway Island LLC, stated they are responding to the issues raised by
P&Z at the last meeting including:
• Lift placement and semi-public access
• Views up the historic ski corridor from Dean St
• Traffic circle
• Mass, scale and height
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
3
Mr. Richard Shaw, Design Workshop, stated he wanted to provide rationale for each of the proposed
changes and how they address P&Z’s previously stated concerns.
He provided a new site plan and noted the eastern wing of the project which had been described as
hugging the lift and blocking the arrival from the cul-de-sac has been removed. He also noted significant
changes to the view planes upon arrival to the portal and he will provide illustrations to further describe
the changes. The overall square footage of the building has been reduced by about 7% and the uses
inside the building have been reorganized with the intention of reducing sf and finding efficiencies. The
position and accessibility of the lift has also been modified.
He provided several highlighted views of the site plan to demonstrate the outline of the previous
building design and the latest proposed building outline as well as the new locations of the patio,
hardscapes, stairs and retaining walls.
The new plan removes the eastern wing, includes a porte-cochere on the cul-de-sac providing a covered
entrance. The cul-de-ac is now much larger in response to questions pertaining to the functionality,
congestion and purpose of the previous design.
He then provided previous and current designs of the site plan to demonstrate the positions of the lift
and the changes to the accessibility. The position of the lift in the latest proposal is 20 ft closer to the
existing lift; placing it further down the slope and making it more accessible from the portal as well as
more visible and direct from the turnaround on S Aspen St.
He then described the elevation of the loading areas of the current and proposed lift locations. He also
identified the distance of about 66 ft between the two features.
He then described changes to the design of the building which improved the accessibility to the lift as
well as the views of the historic Lift One Park corridor, the lift and mountain views.
He also provided illustrations of the March proposal and current proposal of the view looking up the
mountain from below the lift. An illustrative viewpoint from a higher vantage showed the lift canopy as
well as the mass of the building which has been moved back to maintain historic corridor.
He then provided illustrations of the turnaround and public arrival and the stairs up to the lift.
Next, he discussed the changes made to the ski return site showing the March submission and the
revised version. The revised plan retains the area around the mazing, preserves existing trees near the
Caribou Condominiums, and reduces the need for retaining walls on the eastern side of the corridor. The
pedestrian access to skiing is now direct.
The turnaround site has been enlarged by 5 ft to address staff’s concerns to accommodate larger
vehicles. A loading/unloading lane and shuttle space have been added. The porte-cochere is a two story
space above the cul-de-sac which is open both visually and functionally.
Mr. Shaw then provided a map showing a shuttle route from Rubey Park to the site. He noted Rubey is a
logical connection point to accommodate people arriving from outside Aspen. The route places the
traffic on Dean St so it will not conflict with other transportation services on Durant Ave. He estimated
the trip to take 2.5 minutes or eight trips per hour and could allow for stops along the route. He stated
the shuttle would be a 4 wheel-drive van accommodating 12 people, which is more than what has be
projected to ride the transit. He stated similar vehicles have been proven for similar use and are
currently operated in Park City.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
4
Mr. Shaw then provided elevations of the March and current proposal to discuss the scale, height and
mass of the building. Both proposals include two, three and four story buildings. He pointed to areas of
the March proposal that have been removed. He stated the redesigned building is much more efficient
with the repositioning uses. The restaurant has been moved down the slope and now adjoins the rest of
the public space. The upper sloped roof from previous proposal which accounted for a full story has
been eliminated. Additional reductions in the building include the roof tops, occupied space and
individual unit size.
Mr. Shaw then discussed the neighborhood compatibility as defined by S Aspen St, Monarch St, and The
St Regis which accommodate lodging and residential since the beginning of Aspen. It is a combination of
three and four story buildings with different roofline configurations. He provided a site plan of the
neighborhood and described the neighboring projects and buildings.
He noted the project will maintain 49 ft above grade in some sections of the building. The proposed
building continues to step up the slope. He stated hotels do not operate well if they are spread out and
the central circulation of the hotel needs to serve the majority of the hotel rooms. The highest portions
of the proposed building serve the central circulation space.
Mr. Shaw then provided a pictures demonstrating the proposed building in the Wheeler view plane as
viewed from the Wheeler Opera House. The highest portion from the previous proposal has been
reduced by one story.
He noted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access is now outside the hotel and is more direct
with the revised plan. The ski run is now contiguous all the way to Dean St.
Mr. DeFrancia asked Mr. David Corbin, Vice President of Planning and Development for the Aspen Skiing
Company (SkiCo), for a few comments to address the public portal accessibility. Mr. Corbin stated he has
worked on plans for S Aspen St since 2008 when the initial convenience and welfare of the public
(COWOP) met. He feels the opportunity for a comprehensive master plan has been lost since the
COWOP stalled in Council. He stated each area has been challenged by site constraints and
infrastructure. SkiCo strongly supports the uses of the project including lodging at the base of the hill
and also wants to ensure the functionality of skiing and summer access. They worked with the project
team on the alignment and dimensions of the road, the skier return, and lift configuration to ensure
skier circulation, lift equipment, public arrival all work. He agrees there is greater visibility from the cul-
de-sac with the latest proposed design. He also feels the 16.5 ft up to the lift from the cul-de-sac is not
appreciably different from the conditions of the Silver Queen Gondola. They feel the ADA needs have
been adequately met and the direct approach to the mazing area is suitable. The skier services will be
immediately available upon arrival.
Mr. Corbin noted they worked with the design team on the plan modifications regarding mazing,
circulation around the lift, returning skiers, arriving skiers, initial scans and returning visitors and feels all
functions are sufficiently accommodated and manageable with this design. He stated the shuttle service
as described should work for the property as well as the property below, surrounding properties and the
public.
Mr. DeFrancia then asked Mr. Tom Todd, a Partner of Holland & Hart, to discuss the SKI zone district.
Mr. Todd stated he had looked into the history of the area of the South Annexation in 1967 which
included a number of lodges and commercial uses on edge of the city limits. This annexation to created
a new tax base for city at the time.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
5
He stated the conservation zoning in existence now has evolved over the years and noted a couple of
examples of properties previously zoned Conservation.
• The Little Nell was zoned as a Special Planned Area (SPA) to accommodate the development
• The Aspen Alps evolved from Conservation zoning
He stated another context to consider was the evolution between ski area operations and the town
itself. It is not defined by lots and blocks; it includes the whole southern boundary.
He stated the proposed site includes 17-18 of the permitted uses for a SKI zone district per the code so it
is suits the site well. It is a six-acre site including ski operations, ski lift, and skier entry.
He noted there a four sites within the city limits zoned with the SKI zone district. He added these sites
are all different in size and topography.
1. Silver Queen
2. Aspen Highlands
3. Tiehack
4. Lift one A
Mr. Todd stated in regards to the lotting and subdivision, he stated it is based on the challenges of
having two separate owners providing two separate uses. The lots are stitched together with easements
and will be reflected in the final land use approvals.
Mr. DeFrancia then provided a summary of the applicant’s presentation. He wanted to note they are
now comfortable with a five-year vesting plan instead of the ten-year plan previously requested. He
added there is a great deal planning that occurs after the land use approvals are in place.
Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant.
Ms. McNicholas Kury acknowledged the comments provided earlier by Ms. Kronberg and wondered if
the applicant would consider accommodating the neighbors down the slope. She asked if parking was
available for the general public to use on the site. Mr. Shaw responded there are 57 spaces identified
per code based on the uses of the project. The spaces may be utilized by hotel guests and the public
using the hotel space. It does not include public parking for those not using the Gorsuch Haus program
uses.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. Corbin for SkiCo’s opinion of the platter lift. He responded the platter is
not viable. The COWOP’s master plan back in 2008 – 2009 required coordination with the City’s parcels
with the site’s lot. In this case, the platter was adopted as the best compromise available among weak
choices with those building masses and property divisions. Even then, questions were raised if the snow
and surface could be maintained, particularly within the 44-45 ft between the two parcels on Mr.
Brown’s property. He stated it would be very difficult, if not impossible to maintain snow above and
push it down Dean St. If they attempted to make snow in the lower area, the would bury Mr. Brown’s
buildings because you cannot control it and the noise would be unacceptable. He also stated there is not
enough width to operate and return. The lift would have to be shut down to enable return skiing. He
also noted the area is off their property and outside their permit boundary. Legally, there would be a
variety of questions to address operating below the Gorsuch Haus.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Engineering has had an opportunity to view the latest proposal. Ms.
Phelan replied she provided the site plan to Engineering. Engineering responded with some initial
comments but Ms. Phelan wanted to wait till next meeting to allow for a more substantive review.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
6
Mr. Mesirow asked if another ground based transport solution from Dean St had been considered that is
now off the table. Mr. DeFrancia replied they looked into a horizontal elevator from Dean St and
incorporated into a lift complex. This idea was vetoed by Lift One Lodge so it was abandoned.
Mr. Mesirow informed the applicant he appreciated the changes to the lift which makes it more of a
public amenity. He noticed in the process of changing the building envelope, a lot of the outdoor patio
space had been eliminated and wondered if the elimination of so much outdoor space reflected a
change in the intent of the project in regards to preserving space for ski racing in the future. Mr.
DeFrancia replied no and Mr. Shaw stated the allocation of outdoor space has nothing to do with the
history and heritage of ski history with the Gorsuch family or this portion of the mountain. They have
ensured the space is useful and made available to the public. By remassing portions of the hotel, there
were able to eliminate a great deal of grading and space required for circulation as required by the
restaurant when it was located at the top of the slope.
Mr. DeFrancia wanted to add the Lift One Lodge had very sound reasons for not wanting the horizontal
elevator traversing their property. He did not want to make it sound as though they were not
neighborly.
Mr. Morris asked if the area below area J on the site plan would be groomed. Mr. DeFrancia replied it
would not be groomed and remain natural terrain as it is currently.
Mr. Morris then asked where the restaurant is located on the building plan. Mr. Shaw pointed to its
location in the porte-cochere and in the space near the lift.
Mr. McNellis asked if the drop off area was planned as a dedicated right-of-way (ROW) to the city. Ms.
Phelan stated in the original submission, most of it is located in the City and a portion of it would be
dedicated. There may be a different approach with this design. Mr. McNellis wondered if there would be
issues with the private space over hanging pubic ROW. Ms. Phelan stated like the St Regis, Engineering
would expect it to stay in the ROW with appropriate easements.
Mr. McNellis asked if this plan had been run by FIS in regards to future race events. Mr. Corbin replied
the site slope and grade modifications would not impact the race finish area. Mr. McNellis asked if this
was a response from FIS and Mr. Corbin replied they have not yet reviewed it with FIS, but did not
foresee it being an issue.
Mr. Goode asked for the tallest height of the redesigned building. Mr. Shaw stated a segment of the
building reaches 49 ft above grade.
Mr. Goode asked how much further the building goes up the hill. Mr. Shaw stated it doesn’t go up the
hill further. The original design included a covered cantilevered roof which has been removed. The
patios, cantilevered roof, and retaining walls have been removed from the upper end.
Mr. Mesirow noted everyone’s agreement that activating this section of town is good and wondered if
the significant free market portions of the building would lessen the activation. Mr. DeFrancia replied
there are only six free market units of the 81 keys in the building and he does not feel this is a significant
portion of the building. Some of the condominiums are restricted and will be available for rent. The six
free market units are required for economic viability as evident in the study produced by the City.
Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing.
Mr. Goode then opened public comment portion of the hearing.
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
7
Mr. Don Gilbert visits Aspen in the winter and summer. He knows it is difficult to shoehorn a building
into the available space but doesn’t understand why it is so difficult for townspeople to access the lift.
He has seen skiers trying to climb the hill and sees people leave their cars at the bottom of the hill. He
feels this is a very dangerous hill and does not feel jitneys will work. He has witnessed garbage trucks
slide backwards down the hill. He feels there will be a lot of traffic in the area with trucks serving the
hotel and guests. He doesn’t see why the lift can’t be lower. He also feels the building is too large. He
counts 8 stories and you will see this from town. He also feels the hotel will block off part of the egress
from Norway which is very active. The plan has narrowed the exit area.
Mr. Jeff Harvey asked how the proposed shuttle service compares to the new lift capacity. He suspects
the lift will transport many more people than the shuttle can transport.
Mr. Clark Smyth lived in Aspen for 20 years. He feels the project is driven by the lift and FIS and asked if
a new lift is really necessary. He feels a tourist arriving at Rubey Park will most likely walk across the
street to the gondola instead of waiting for the jitney to take him to Lift 1A and taking numerous lifts to
the top of the ski area.
Mr. Michael Brown reviewed Staff’s memo and found many of the issues unaddressed. He noted a letter
addressed to Mr. Mike Kaplan of SkiCo. The letter, Exhibit D of their development agreement states the
lift corridor shall be closed to skiing traffic while the lift is in operation which he does not define as the
corridor between the two buildings. They have reached out to a lift consultant. The lift corridor is 15 ft
wide and the distance between the two buildings is 50 ft at its widest point. He stated there has always
been and remains to be adequate space for a platter lift between the buildings on city property that was
asked for and to which they are contributing $600,000 towards as part of their approval. The only thing
missing is a landing site which was envisioned as part of the new lift area. He suspects they are choosing
not to do it because they don’t want to give up a building site for a terminus of the lift. He also asked
P&Z to ask why the applicant is requesting a SKI zone district and urged them to look at Staff’s table
previously provided which highlights the variances in affordable housing, floor area, and height they are
seeking. He feels the applicant needs to be transparent about it as they are regarding moving the lift 65
ft up the slope.
Ms. Toni Kronberg asked how they can connect the platter lift to the landing site since it falls on the
Gorsuch property. She stated the original easement granted by Howard Avery to SkiCo, then to the City,
then Michael Brown and then back again specifically states the ski corridor is to remain open. The
platter lift is not a viable solution for the intent of the original easement. It is a complicated issue with all
the property owners. She previously worked in an ambulance and noted it was downright scary to drive
down S. Aspen St and they ran into several cars. She feels S Aspen St should have a snow melt system.
She also feels perhaps other technologies should be looked at to transport people down and noted the
gondola project website which describes projects all over the world and noted the skittles lift in
Snowmass. She would like to see Michael Brown’s project and the Gorsuch project come together with a
solution. She also feels the City is a partner in this as well.
Ms. Nora Berko asked fundamentally why we are building more lodging and not holding it to a Lodge
zoning.
Mr. Bart Johnson is at the meeting on behalf of the Lift One Lodge. He stated Ms. Kronberg’s comment
regarding the easement is incorrect. All the old easements were vacated and a new easement was
granted. The Lift One Lodge approval states they will contribute $600,000 to the City to go toward a
platter lift on public property. Their approval states there will be a platter lift and associated
improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Way to a point south of Lot one or the
Gorsuch project such that a skier can access lift 1A or a relocated lift 1A that is approved. They want to
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
8
do this, but need a landing area. At the last meeting he took notes on P&Zs comments and wanted to
remind them of their concerns with lift moving uphill the hill at all and it still is moving 65 ft up the hill.
Several raised concerns about any vacations of ROWs. With the larger cul-de-sac and cantilevered
building, he feels more vacations will be necessary. Several voiced concerns regarding the Norway ski
run. If Ms. Phelan’s plotting of the building is correct, the entire building actually shifts up the hill a bit to
become a bigger barrier to the ski run. He feels P&Z needs to consider the Lodge zoned district as a
baseline for what is being requested. He stated several commissioners asked for a detailed response,
which he does not feel has been provided.
Ms. Shelly Emerick wanted to ask SkiCo why this fast lift is necessary for this little section.
Mr. Goode then closed public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Goode then asked the applicant to respond to the public comment.
Mr. DeFrancia agrees S Aspen St is steep. It is his understanding the Lift One Lodge approval calls for a
boiler manifold system in their building to accommodate a snow melt system and they would be
supportive of this. He also noted the building may have the appearance of eight stories and this is
equally true of the Shadow Mountain building which has the appearance of seven stories while only
being 29 ft. His response to the need for a new lift was that when a lift is 45 years old, it needs to be
replaced. A lift is essential for the racing and other components. He added the issue with the platter lift
is a bit of a red herring and Mr. Corbin has spoken to why it won’t work. In response to Ms. Berko’s
statement, he feels Mr. Todd has spoken thoroughly regarding the SKI zone and it is not just a hotel
which is what the SKI zone was designed for. In response to Mr. Johnson’s statement regarding the
$600,000 condition of their approval, Mr. DeFrancia stated they have an obligation to contribute the
money for uphill transportation or for the facilitation of uphill transportation. This will be triggered by
their certificate of occupancy for a term of five years.
Mr. Shaw stated the comment regarding the building is now further uphill on Norway is not correct. He
noted the building footprint had been previously located further into the Norway terrain. That portion
of the building has been smoothed out making it more accessible from the Norway side. He added the
ski under portion of the ski lift establishes the point in which the Norway return takes place.
Mr. Shaw stated the shuttle is valuable in regards to the accessibility of the portal. Today, about five
percent of the total skiers enter on this side of the mountain. It will vary a little bit depending on the
conditions or the availability of the gondola for a particular day. If you look at the number of skiers and
the number of people generated by existing and approved lodging, to total number of skiers on a peak
day will be 350 skiers. If spread across the transit described, a 12-person shuttle will be about half full on
their trips allowing room to pick up people on the route.
Mr. Corbin responded to the comments regarding the lift going nowhere. He stated there are reasons
for replacing the lift including the natural mechanical life coming to an end. He stated the lift 1A is the
oldest or next to oldest in the fleet. They have a capital replacement schedule in place providing a
replacement sequence. FIS has told them they need to clean up this portal and lift to something which
fits what they expect for a FIS event experience. Sooner or later SkiCo would like to have this portal
improved. He stated other reasons include the need for a second portal in case the gondola is not
working and customers expect a high speed lift. He estimated the ride time would be reduced from 8
minutes to about 3.5 to 4 minutes. SkiCo would like to revitalize the old Ruthies Restaurant, but there is
not specific plan at this time. FIS is happy with the alignment and termination of the planned lift. In
regards to capacity, the new lift will be able to move 1,200 people an hour. He stated there were
approximately 346,000 skiers at Aspen Mountain this past season and 315,000 skiers at Aspen Mountain
P8
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
9
the previous season. A study for the COWOP process calculated about 2,000 skiers on the mountain at
one time and about 4,000 skiers on a peak day. Based on the more recent numbers, an average day
would be about 2,600 skiers based on a 130-day season. In the past season, initial scans averaged at 152
skiers and on the peak day of January 31, there were 530 initial scans. Riders thru the portal averaged
799 trips with a peak of 2,332 trips. He feels the proposed lift will be able to handle the volumes. During
the COWOP, this portal was at about six percent. With the contemplated with bed base alone, a peak of
400 initial skiers using the portal would take it to about 20%. He doesn’t feel it will be flooded by skiers
using the transportation to use the portal.
Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing.
Mr. Goode then asked Staff on how to proceed with the hearing. Ms. Phelan responded P&Z should
continue the public comment to the next hearing on September 20th. She asked P&Z if they had initial
comments on what was presented by the applicant.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see the traditional detailed proposal, but he would like to see the uses
described for the SKI zone district included in the packet. He would also like to see an updated side by
side comparison regarding zoning as provided in the initial meeting.
Mr. McNellis stated he would comment once he has a detailed review from staff.
Ms. Tygre is appalled about the lift situation and would like to see a better solution brought forward
that brings it down to Dean St. She feels the proposed solution is unacceptable. Mr. Mesirow agrees and
would like to see other options for solutions. He feels it puts the community into a poor position if the
two biggest projects in the area start their endeavor in conflict and would like to see them work
together.
Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see more information on the options from the City since it is a player.
She is struggling with the approval conditions required from the Lift One Lodge. She doesn’t feel she has
the tools to make a thorough decision to address the interests and would like input from the City
regarding available options.
Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see a thorough response from staff on how the subdivision is
affected by the amended proposal and how it aligns with the initial memo.
Ms. McNicholas Kury feels they have come a long way to preserve view plane and provide a more public
access to the lift.
Mr. McKnight would prefer to see staff’s memo before commenting. His biggest issue is the lift situation
and we are attempting to revitalize this area, then we should be coming up with the best possible plan
and does not feel the proposed solution is good for the town. He feels there has been a disconnect
regarding the platter lift in the past meetings. He would like to have more information on potential
solutions and how P&Z fits in to the decision. He is not sure it is valid to use old numbers to justify the
lift and mobility solution up the hill.
Mr. Morris appreciates the applicant’s direction with the increased efficiencies. He agrees the other
commissioners and wants an updated comparison matrix. He thinks an integrated discussion on the lift
would be great in terms of the vitality for the town and it may be good for city to lead the charge. He
does not feel it is P&Z’s role.
Mr. Mesirow feels the interaction with the community is critical for him since they are asking for the SKI
zone district and would like to see a better picture of the interaction.
P9
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Planning & Zoning August 16 2016
10
Mr. Morris feels this location is unique because instead of being at the base, it is cutting up the hill. He
noted when looking at elevations from the side, he thought if you take off the upper two stories the
building would be the perfect size.
Mr. Goode would like to see the snow melt solutions explored more. He feels there may be issues with
the traffic going down the road in the winter. He would like to see the neighbors getting along better
and understands it is challenging. He also wants to see the details of the plan at the next hearing. He
would love to see a lift that works for everyone and could it come down to the Lift One Lodge.
Mr. McKnight feels everyone keeps punting because it is no one’s responsibility for the solution and to
pay for it. He would like to see the city take the lead.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the hearing to September 20th. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion.
All in favor, motion passed.
Mr. Goode then closed the hearing.
P10
IV.A.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2016
RE: 501 W. Hallam Street – Residential Design Standard Variation
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Scott Hoffman
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon,
BendonAdams, LLC
LOCATION:
Street Address:
501 W. Hallam St.
Legal Description: Lots H & I, Block
29, City and Townsite of Aspen, County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Parcel Identification Number:
2735-124-32-004
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Medium Density
Residential (R-6) zone district containing
a duplex. The property is located at the
corner of W. Hallam and N. 4th Street,
within the Aspen Infill Area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is proposing to demolish
an existing structure and redevelop the
site with a single family residence. As
part of the new development, the
Applicant is requesting a variation to a
Residential Design Standard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
deny the application for a variation to Residential Design
Standards.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing demolition of an existing duplex and
the construction of a single family residence. Previously, the
applicant received administrative approval for alternative
compliance with two other Residential Design Standards. This
application is requesting variation from a standard that is non-
flexible. A variation for a non-flexible standard cannot be granted
through an administrative approval but instead requires review by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Specifically, this
application requests variation to the standard: Articulation of
Building Mass; 26.410.030.B.1.
Figure 1. Location of project and footprint of existing duplex.
P11
VI.A.
BACKGROUND: With adoption of the updated Residential Design Standards, the intent was to provide
increased flexibility for properties to design a building that contributes to the streetscape. While the new
code does not give direction to architectural style, it does demand the adherence to the intent of the
standards. Specifically the standards were crafted to “ensure a strong connection between residences and
the streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic
neighborhood scale and character.”
Each standard provides options in meeting the stated intent. Additionally, the standards are divided into
categories of “flexible” or “non-flexible.” Non-flexible standards are considered core design standards and
are required to be met by complying with one of the provided options. Variations to non-flexible standards
require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
This application is initiating the first variation review by the Planning and Zoning Commission since the
new standards came into effect in February of 2016.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
construct a new, single family residence.
• A Variation to Residential Design Standards as pursuant to Section 26.410.020[C]. of the Land
Use Code. A variation to a Residential Design Standard shall be considered at a public hearing
before the Planning and Zoning Commission who may approve, approve with conditions or deny
the proposal based on the following review standards:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated
in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statement in Section
26.410.010.A.1-3; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standards.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
The subject property is a 6,000 sq. ft. (60’x100’) lot at the southwest corner of West Hallam Street and
North 4th Street. It is located in the R-6 zone district and Aspen Infill Area. Currently, a duplex is located
on the property. The project proposes the replacement of the duplex with a single family residence. In this
zone district a single family residence is allowed a floor area of 3,240 square feet. The new house is
proposed at 3,235 square feet.
The applicant pursued Residential Design Standard approval for the new residence earlier this year. The
project as designed met all of the standards except three. Two of these standards received alternative
compliance approval: 1) Entry Porch Height and 2) Non-orthogonal Window Limit. Staff agreed that the
design met the intent of these flexible standards and granted administrative approval.
The last of the nonconforming design features could not be granted administrative approval. This non-
flexible standard, Articulation of Building Mass (26.410.030.B.1.b), “seeks to reduce the overall perceived
mass and bulk of buildings as viewed from all sides.” This standard provides three (3) options in meeting
its described intent:
P12
VI.A.
1) Maximum Sidewall Depth – “A principle building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth as
measured from the front most wall of the front façade to the rear wall…” OR
2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector – “A principal building shall provide a portion of its
mass as a subordinate one story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least
ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the
building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth as measured
from the front most wall of the front façade to the rear wall…” OR
3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down – “A principal building shall provide increased side
setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principle building is two stories, it shall step down to one story
in the rear…”
Figure 2. Options for satisfying Articulation of Building Mass standard.
Option 1 – Maximum sidewall depth
Option 2 – Off-set with connector
Option 3 – Increased rear setback
and step down
P13
VI.A.
While the proposed design is articulated, the building is approximately eighty (80) feet long from the front
most wall (entry) to the rear most wall (Garage 2).
Figure 4. Two-Dimensional Elevation – 4th Street view.
Figure 3. Ground level floor plan
~ 80 feet – front wall to rear wall
4th Street Hallam Street P14
VI.A.
Figure 5. Elevation – Hallam and 4th Streets
Figure 6. Elevation – 4th Street
Figure 7. Elevation – Hallam Street
P15
VI.A.
Staff Comments
It is clear that the proposed design does not meet any of the three options provided in complying with the
Articulation of Building Mass standard.
The Applicant’s request for a variation is based on a reading of the intent statement that accompanies the
standard. Staff finds that the proposed design meets this portion of the intent statement:
“Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties.
Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large
expansive wall planes.”
The intent statement continues:
“Building should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in
massing to historic residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where
small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are
present.”
Staff finds that the design of the proposed residence does not meet this second portion of the intent
statement. The expectation that residential designs reflect the massing of historic residential buildings is
the origin of the three options provided in meeting the standard. These options were not created arbitrarily.
They give definition not to an architectural style, but to a form that is consistent with historically established
patterns and the community’s desired qualities of residential massing.
While staff concurs that the building is composed of articulated elements, the attachment of the garages at
the rear of the home, amongst other design choices, create a building that is nearly eighty (80) feet long on
a one hundred (100) foot long lot. This is approximately thirty (30) feet longer than Option 1 (described
above) allows. If a house of this length is desired, the standard does not prohibit it, but offers two additional
design options to break up the form. The proposed design chooses not to utilize the provided options offered
by the standard, nor does it fully address the standard’s intent.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny the variation from Residential Design Standards for 501 W. Hallam St.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ____, Series of 2016, to approve the
application for variation from Residential Design Standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Application
P16
VI.A.
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
VARIATION – RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Aspen Land Use Code 26.410.020; provides the Procedures for Review of Residential Design
Standards. If a variation to a non-flexible standard is pursued by an applicant, a public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines whether an application meets the review standards. These
standards are described in 26.410.020.D.1-2:
Variation Review Standards. An application requesting variation from the Residential Design
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as
indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statement in
Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or
Staff Finding
The application acknowledges that the design proposal does not comply with any of the three options
provided by the Building Articulation and Mass standard and is asking for a variance to Option 1 – Sidewall
Depth. Staff’s measurement of the length of the building from front to rear is nearly 80 feet (Option 1 allows
for no more than 50 feet). The applicant believes that the design, while not consistent with Option 1 – meets
the intent of the standard and of the Residential Design Standards in general. Staff agrees that part of the
intent statement is met by the design – the building is well articulated. However, the larger purpose of the
standard – to promote massing and architectural forms that are consistent with Aspen’s historic character
and appropriate to the small lots that define this area – is not met by this design. The three options that
allow compliance with this standard provide a clear path toward residential design that meets the described
intent. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
Staff Finding
The application states that because the property to the west contains a building that was built at the lot line
(and a portion of the roof structure actually encroaches on to this property) – design choices that elongated
this proposed house were necessary. While the adjacent house is non-conforming with regard to side yard
setbacks, Community Development has been consistent in its determination of “unusual site specific
constraints.” Conditions on neighboring properties have generally not been considered when reviewing
variances (or variations) to development rights. In this case, staff determines that there are no unusual
constraints on this property. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
P17
VI.A.
May 16, 2016
Proposal Description:
The proposed design was submitted with a belief of compliance both to the letter and intent of the Articulation
of Building Mass Standard (B.1). Specifically, we believed we met the requirements of Option 1 limiting the
maximum sidewall depth to 50ft where the longest unarticulated sidewall depth of the proposed home measures
26ft 1in. We understand now that the maximum 50ft sidewall depth relates to the entire building and not
individual forms of the building. Responding to the Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance
Review submittal, Planner Sara Nadolny 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, measures over 50’ in
length. Therefore Option 1 is not met.”
Interpreted Compliance:
We believe we have satisfied the Standard provisions by the following:
Articulation and Building Mass Intent
This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building on a
property as viewed from all sides.
Designs should promote light and air access between properties.
Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large
expansive wall planes.
The rectilinear orientation of the neighborhood informs 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.
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.
While the design can be made more compact to comply with the 50ft maximum sidewall depth requirement
of Option 1, or the 45ft maximum sidewall depth of Options 2&3, I believe there are consequences to such
action that moves 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 that
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.
Best Regards,
Scott Hoffman
P18
VI.A.
P19
VI.A.
P20
VI.A.
P21
VI.A.
P22VI.A.
790579047907790679069.79.86.838.584.86.824.3733.80'N48°21'50"W60.00'S75°09'11"E60.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"WD8"DL9'D9"DL7'D9"DL6'P14"DL10'P22"DL14'P20"DL12'P15"DL13'P14"DL9'P15"DL10'P11"DL10'EWSOCTGMXLOT G10.1'5.0'P.O.B.GPNO. 9ASPHALTDRIVEWAY6000 SQ.FT.±LOT ILOT HREBAR AND RPCLS# 9018BENCHMARK=7904.33'REBAR AND RPCLS# 9018ALLEYBLOCK 294TH STREET75.66' R.O.W.HALLAM STREET74.38 R.O.W.O.H.O.H.CONC. PADCURBCURBBRICKPATIODRIVEWAYASPHALTBRICK WALKPADCONC.SHEDxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxUP5166
52212737475767SB5' - 2"max-A29' - 0"5' - 1 1/4"6' - 0"9' - 4"10' - 0"1' - 5"1' - 5 1/2"44' - 6 3/4"20+%See Main Level Plan &Elevations for further setbackinformationSee Main Level Plan &Elevations for further setbackinformation137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Site - Cover1501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/8" = 1'-0"1Site24th St View3Hallem Entry44th& Hallem5Hallem ViewP23
VI.A.
2737475767MechSB17' - 1"5 1/2"11' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"3 1/2"7' - 10 3/4"2' - 2"3 1/2"3' - 10"5 1/2"5' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 8 1/2"11' - 1 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"12' - 1"17' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"3' - 1 1/2"2' - 5"3' - 0"8"8"6' - 2"8"CLBBed 4RecBunkBPow24' - 11 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"1,511 SF234' LF of wall x 10.5' verticalyields 2,457 sf total wall surfaceExposed area = (7.5'x6.25')2= 982 window wells yields98/2,457=.04x 1,522=61 SF Total this level3' - 1"max17CLCL67' - 11 1/4"36' - 0"36' - 0"12' - 10 3/4"12' - 1 3/4"67' - 11 1/4"8"6' - 2"8"Finish this arearemainder- drywall withfire tape onlyUP---------137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Basement2501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1BasementP24
VI.A.
UP51665221WESTHALLAM4th STmin sb10' max sb,if 5' on eastis usedALLEY27371011475767BR 2Bath2CLHallamEntryCL Pow 1BR 3FamilyLaundryGear/MudGarage 1Garage 24thStCourtOutside YardCLBath 3271' - 6"5 1/2"4' - 0"1' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"7 1/2"5 1/2"11' - 5 1/4"5 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 5"5 1/2"11' - 5 1/4"5 1/2"16' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 4"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"5' - 0"SB6' - 10"3' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"20' - 0 1/4"5 1/2"7906' - 4"5 1/2"24' - 0"5 1/2"21' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"5 1/2"13' - 0"2' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"7' - 5"5 1/2"14' - 0"5 1/2"7906' - 0"7906' - 4"5 1/2"11' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"393 SF327 SF1303 SFSquare Footage1,303 general393 gar 1327 gar 289 stairs2,112 (this level inc garages)- 375 garage credit1,737 total this Level 61 Basement1,437 Upper3,235 TOTAL SF3,240 TOTAL SF allowed7' - 3"15' - 4"8"5 1/2"6' - 3 1/2"16' - 1"5' - 0"11' - 11 1/2"11' - 0 1/2"2,415 TOTAL SITE COVERAGE 40%3,000 TOTAL SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED 50%5' - 5 1/2"5' - 4"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"15' - 2"2' - 3"2' - 0"7' - 5 3/4"5 1/2"7' - 3 1/4"5' - 0"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/4"5 1/2"2' - 0"21' - 0"2' - 5 1/2"7' - 5"411221' - 11 3/4"2"offsetmax176' - 1 3/4"5' - 0"60' - 0"100' - 0"7906' - 0"6' - 0"-A26' - 4"Out Storage2' - 0"window wellline of Foundationbelow gradewindow well137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Main Level3501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 1P25
VI.A.
UP51612737475767MasterM BathM ClosKitchen DiningHearthLiving RoomDeckRoof Above GarBBQ14' - 7"5 1/2"9' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"20' - 0"5"19' - 6"5 1/2"12' - 0 1/2"SB5 1/2"3' - 7 1/4"5 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"23' - 7 1/4"Office9' - 10 1/4"5 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 5 1/2"12' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"10' - 0"2' - 10 1/2"9' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 0"5 1/2"8' - 10"5 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 6"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 0"1' - 3 3/4"8 1/2"10' - 4"16' - 0 3/4"1,437 this level4' - 0"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"9 1/4"5 1/2"7' - 11"toiletpow 2laundrypantshwrtub5' - 0"5 1/2"4' - 6"15' - 1 1/4"4' - 0"45' - 11 1/2"7916' - 4"12' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 6 3/4"max1711' - 4"25' - 11"10' - 0"-----11' - 6"19' - 8 1/2"27' - 4 1/4"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Upper Level4501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 2P26
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"2767Roof7926' - 4"STONEMETAL PANELWOOD SIDINGMETAL PANELMETAL PANELWOOD SIDINGSTONESTONESteel Beamsloped steel columnLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37SB7906' - 4"maxRoof7926' - 4"1725' - 0"1' - 8"3"1' - 2 1/4"WOODSIDINGMETALPANELSSTONESTONEMETALPANELSWOODSIDINGWOODSIDINGexisting fenceon property lineexisting roofencroachment 1.3'5' - 0"Property LineProperty LineMinimumSetback10' - 0"SetbackR 86 ' - 0 "
R 8 3' - 10"11 1/2"R 77' - 3"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Elevations5501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1East 1/4" = 1'-0"2NorthP27
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"171' - 2 1/4"GARAGE DOORMATCH WOOD SIDINGWOODMETALPANELSTONELIFT & SLIDEDOOR SYSTEMPATIO DOORDOORGARAGE DOORMATCH WOOD SIDINGLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"275767Roof7926' - 4"WOOD SIDINGMETAL PANELSSTONESTONEBIPARTING DOOR137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Elevations6501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1South 1/4" = 1'-0"2WestP28
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"7916' - 4"7906' - 4"80.00°Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"27Basement7894' - 6 3/4"475767Roof7926' - 4"HALLMECHANICALGEARKITCHEN(STAIR BEY)DINING4TH ST COURTHALLAM ENTRYFAMILYMASTER BATHBBQREC ROOMLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"M BATHM BEDFAMILYPOWBATH 2REC ROOMtrophywifenicLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"KITLIVINGGARAGE 1GEARMECHGARAGE 2Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"OFFICE4TH STCOURTBED 3BED 4HALLsteel beamsloped steel columnLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"27Basement7894' - 6 3/4"475767Roof7926' - 4"DININGKITCHENM BATHGEAR ROOMENTRY HALLMECHANICALHALL137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Sections7501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/8" = 1'-0"22 1/8" = 1'-0"33 1/8" = 1'-0"44 1/8" = 1'-0"55 1/8" = 1'-0"66 1/8" = 1'-0"11P29
VI.A.
790579047907790679069.79.86.838.584.86.824.3733.80'N48°21'50"W60.00'S75°09'11"E60.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"WD8"DL9'D9"DL7'D9"DL6'P14"DL10'P22"DL14'P20"DL12'P15"DL13'P14"DL9'P15"DL10'P11"DL10'EWSOCTGMXLOT G10.1'5.0'P.O.B.GPS MONUMENTNO. 9ASPHALTDRIVEWAY6000 SQ.FT.±LOT ILOT HREBAR AND RPCLS# 9018BENCHMARK=7904.33'REBAR AND RPCLS# 9018ALLEYBLOCK 294TH STREET75.66' R.O.W.HALLAM STREET74.38 R.O.W.O.H.O.H.CONC. PADCURBCURBBRICKPATIODRIVEWAYASPHALTBRICK WALKPADCONC.SHEDxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxUP5166
52212737475767SB5' - 2"max-A29' - 0"5' - 1 1/4"6' - 0"9' - 4"10' - 0"1' - 5"1' - 5 1/2"44' - 6 3/4"20+%See Main Level Plan &Elevations for further setbackinformationSee Main Level Plan &Elevations for further setbackinformation137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Site - Cover1501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/8" = 1'-0"1Site24th St View3Hallem Entry44th& Hallem5Hallem ViewP30
VI.A.
2737475767MechSB17' - 1"5 1/2"11' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"4' - 2 1/2"3 1/2"7' - 10 3/4"2' - 2"3 1/2"3' - 10"5 1/2"5' - 2 1/2"5 1/2"10' - 8 1/2"11' - 1 3/4"5 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"12' - 1"17' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"3' - 1 1/2"2' - 5"3' - 0"8"8"6' - 2"8"CLBBed 4RecBunkBPow24' - 11 1/4"5 1/2"3' - 3 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"1,511 SF234' LF of wall x 10.5' verticalyields 2,457 sf total wall surfaceExposed area = (7.5'x6.25')2= 982 window wells yields98/2,457=.04x 1,522=61 SF Total this level3' - 1"max17CLCL67' - 11 1/4"36' - 0"36' - 0"12' - 10 3/4"12' - 1 3/4"67' - 11 1/4"8"6' - 2"8"Finish this arearemainder- drywall withfire tape onlyUP---------137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Basement2501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1BasementP31
VI.A.
UP51665221WESTHALLAM4th STmin sb10' max sb,if 5' on eastis usedALLEY27371011475767BR 2Bath2CLHallamEntryCL Pow 1BR 3FamilyLaundryGear/MudGarage 1Garage 24thStCourtOutside YardCLBath 3271' - 6"5 1/2"4' - 0"1' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"7 1/2"5 1/2"11' - 5 1/4"5 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 5"5 1/2"11' - 5 1/4"5 1/2"16' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 4"5 1/2"2' - 0"5 1/2"4' - 0"5 1/2"5' - 0"SB6' - 10"3' - 11 3/4"5 1/2"20' - 0 1/4"5 1/2"7906' - 4"5 1/2"24' - 0"5 1/2"21' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"5 1/2"13' - 0"2' - 5 1/2"5 1/2"7' - 5"5 1/2"14' - 0"5 1/2"7906' - 0"7906' - 4"5 1/2"11' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"5 1/2"393 SF327 SF1303 SFSquare Footage1,303 general393 gar 1327 gar 289 stairs2,112 (this level inc garages)- 375 garage credit1,737 total this Level 61 Basement1,437 Upper3,235 TOTAL SF3,240 TOTAL SF allowed7' - 3"15' - 4"8"5 1/2"6' - 3 1/2"16' - 1"5' - 0"11' - 11 1/2"11' - 0 1/2"2,415 TOTAL SITE COVERAGE 40%3,000 TOTAL SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED 50%5' - 5 1/2"5' - 4"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"15' - 2"2' - 3"2' - 0"7' - 5 3/4"5 1/2"7' - 3 1/4"5' - 0"5 1/2"3' - 6 1/4"5 1/2"2' - 0"21' - 0"2' - 5 1/2"7' - 5"411221' - 11 3/4"2"offsetmax176' - 1 3/4"5' - 0"60' - 0"100' - 0"7906' - 0"6' - 0"-A26' - 4"Out Storage2' - 0"window wellline of Foundationbelow gradewindow well137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Main Level3501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 1P32
VI.A.
UP51612737475767MasterM BathM ClosKitchen DiningHearthLiving RoomDeckRoof Above GarBBQ14' - 7"5 1/2"9' - 11 1/2"5 1/2"20' - 0"5"19' - 6"5 1/2"12' - 0 1/2"SB5 1/2"3' - 7 1/4"5 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"5 1/2"23' - 7 1/4"Office9' - 10 1/4"5 1/2"12' - 4 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 5 1/2"12' - 7 1/2"5 1/2"4' - 6"5 1/2"5' - 0"10' - 0"2' - 10 1/2"9' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 0"5 1/2"8' - 10"5 1/2"5 1/2"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 6"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 0"1' - 3 3/4"8 1/2"10' - 4"16' - 0 3/4"1,437 this level4' - 0"5 1/2"5' - 6"5 1/2"9 1/4"5 1/2"7' - 11"toiletpow 2laundrypantshwrtub5' - 0"5 1/2"4' - 6"15' - 1 1/4"4' - 0"45' - 11 1/2"7916' - 4"12' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 6 3/4"max1711' - 4"25' - 11"10' - 0"-----11' - 6"19' - 8 1/2"27' - 4 1/4"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Upper Level4501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 2P33
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"2767Roof7926' - 4"STONEMETAL PANELWOOD SIDINGMETAL PANELMETAL PANELWOOD SIDINGSTONESTONESteel Beamsloped steel columnLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37SB7906' - 4"maxRoof7926' - 4"1725' - 0"1' - 8"3"1' - 2 1/4"WOODSIDINGMETALPANELSSTONESTONEMETALPANELSWOODSIDINGWOODSIDINGexisting fenceon property lineexisting roofencroachment 1.3'5' - 0"Property LineProperty LineMinimumSetback10' - 0"SetbackR 8 6' - 0 "
R 83' - 10"11 1/2"R 77' - 3"137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Elevations5501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1East 1/4" = 1'-0"2NorthP34
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"171' - 2 1/4"GARAGE DOORMATCH WOOD SIDINGWOODMETALPANELSTONELIFT & SLIDEDOOR SYSTEMPATIO DOORDOORGARAGE DOORMATCH WOOD SIDINGLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"275767Roof7926' - 4"WOOD SIDINGMETAL PANELSSTONESTONEBIPARTING DOOR137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Elevations6501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/4" = 1'-0"1South 1/4" = 1'-0"2WestP35
VI.A.
Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"7916' - 4"7906' - 4"80.00°Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"27Basement7894' - 6 3/4"475767Roof7926' - 4"HALLMECHANICALGEARKITCHEN(STAIR BEY)DINING4TH ST COURTHALLAM ENTRYFAMILYMASTER BATHBBQREC ROOMLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"M BATHM BEDFAMILYPOWBATH 2REC ROOMtrophywifenicLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"KITLIVINGGARAGE 1GEARMECHGARAGE 2Level 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"37Basement7894' - 6 3/4"SBmaxRoof7926' - 4"OFFICE4TH STCOURTBED 3BED 4HALLsteel beamsloped steel columnLevel 17906' - 4"Level 27916' - 4"27Basement7894' - 6 3/4"475767Roof7926' - 4"DININGKITCHENM BATHGEAR ROOMENTRY HALLMECHANICALHALL137 main street, suite G004box 5055edwards, colorado 81632970.926.2622snow@rkdarch.comjob # 12080Hoffman Residence05/16/2016Sections7501 West Hallam St. Aspen COP&ZRevisions 1/8" = 1'-0"22 1/8" = 1'-0"33 1/8" = 1'-0"44 1/8" = 1'-0"55 1/8" = 1'-0"66 1/8" = 1'-0"11P36
VI.A.
P37
VI.A.
P38
VI.A.
P39
VI.A.
P40
VI.A.
P41
VI.A.
P42
VI.A.
ASLU
RDS Variation
501 W. Hallam St.
PID #273512432004
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: April 21, 2016
PROJECT: 501 W. Hallam St.
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Hoffman, 970.376.0292; scott@crestonebuilding.com
REQUEST: Variation for Residential Design Standard
DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a 6,000 sq. ft. lot located in the R-6 zone district, bordered by W Hallam St.
and N. Fourth Ave. The neighboring property (511 W. Hallam) was constructed in the 1960’s and was built on
(or possibly even) over the shared lot line with the subject parcel. The applicant is planning to demolish the
current residence and replace it with a new single-family residence. The applicant has designed the home to be
sensitive to providing space between this and the neighboring residence.
The applicant has met with Staff to discuss meeting the Residential Design Standards. At this time the only RD
Standard that has not been met or granted an administrative variation for is found at subsection 26.410.030.B.1,
Articulation of Building Mass. This is a non-flexible standard, which means Staff has no ability to review the
application for Alternative Compliance, an administrative variation.
The applicant has three options for satisfying this standard, including:
1) Maximum Sidewall Depth;
2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector; or
3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down.
The applicant believes he is meeting the standard in the spirit of the Maximum Sidewall Depth. The applicant
will be required to show how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard for Articulation of Building
Mass, as well as the general intent of the Residential Design Standards. This review will require a public
hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission in a duly noticed public hearing.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20a
pp%20form.pdf
Below is Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-
Code/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410.010 Residential Design Standards: General Intent
26.410.020.C Variations
26.410.030.B.1 Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible)
Review by: Staff for complete application
Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Fees: $3,250 for ten (10) hours of Staff review time, including public hearing
P43
VI.A.
2
Referral Fees: None
Total Deposit: $3,250 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of
$325/hour. Unused portion of the deposit after final billing will be refunded to
the applicant.)
To apply, submit the following information:
¨ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
¨ Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
¨ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, 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.
¨ Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
¨ HOA Compliance form (Attached)
¨ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application
and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
¨ A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation
showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the
State of Colorado.
¨ Written responses to all review criteria.
¨ An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
¨ 1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the
following items will then need to be submitted:
¨ 8 additional copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
¨ Total deposit for review of the application.
¨ A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
¨ A sketch up model will be required for a public hearing.
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 may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P44
VI.A.
City C970
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name:
Email: Phone No.:
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
I certify as follows: (pick one)
□ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the
improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners
association or covenant beneficiary.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the
improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners
association or covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________
Owner printed name: _________________________
or,
Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________
Attorney printed name: _________________________
P45
VI.A.
P46
VI.A.
P47
VI.A.
May 16, 2016
Please accept this document as the required Planning & Zoning Commission Review Representative
Authorization letter. Owner Scott Hoffman, and Architect Jack Snow, Principal of RKD Architects represent
the project.
Scott Hoffman
501 West Hallam Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970 376-0292
Jack Snow
RKD Architects, Inc
137 Main Street, Suite G004
Edwards, CO 81632
970 926-2622
Project Information:
The project address is 501 West Hallam (City and Townsite of Aspen Block 29, Lots H&I) – 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
4531sqft 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 3235sqft FAR; site coverage measures 2415sqft. Regulations allow
3240sqft FAR and 3000sqft site coverage.
Best Regards,
Scott Hoffman
P48
VI.A.
P49
VI.A.
P50VI.A.
RESOLUTION NO. XX
(SERIES OF 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS H & I, BLOCK 29, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 501 WEST HALLAM STREET.
Parcel Identification Number: 2735-124-032-004
WHEREAS, Mr. Scott Hoffman, as owner of 501 W. Hallam St., submitted a request for
a Variation to Residential Design Standards for consideration by the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-6 Medium-Density Residential zone district
and the Aspen Infill Area; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has
provided a recommendation to deny the variation request; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,
and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on September 6,
2016; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the one request
is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Residential Design Standards Variance
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the variation request from the following
Residential Design Standard that is underlined below, as represented in the application presented
before the Commission:
P51
VI.A.
26.410.030.B.1.a-d. Location and Massing; Articulation of Building Mass
B.1.c: Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce
bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in
historic Aspen residential buildings.
The approval permits the construction of a single family house that has a sidewall depth that is
greater than allowed by the standard.
Section 2: Building Permit Application
Other than any variation granted, the building permit application shall be compliant with all other
standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted
regulations.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of
September, 2016.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission
_______________________________ ______________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Keith Goode, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Exhibit A: Site Plan and Elevations
P52
VI.A.