HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.501 W Hopkins Ave.0004.2013.ASLU •
y
• lam. � _ �h,�s��& � ,, ��,
Is
aww
4.
501 W. HOPKINS SETBACK V,-' 'ANCE EXHIBIT
DIAGRAM OF SPACE BELOW GARAGE A I" REAR YARD
s
w Z w
'U z lQ�
v W v
oot U
a m a- Q
OdL 1 � p[ 1 m
oc I in o[ I ►n
1 1
1 1
5-7" 5-7"
1 1
1 GARAGE t GARAGE
I I
1 1
1 1
I I
-
t ,III��II(II 1 IIII"��II(i
GARAGE GARAGE
FOUNDATION �_-_ I FOUNDATI ON
I--
t WALL 'I BASEMENT t WALL I L VOID BASEMENT
1 �I LIVING 1 I LIVING
ISPACE 10'-D" SPACE
BASEMENT
t t LIVING SPACE
1 t
WALL
I L I
1 1
1 1
CRAWL CRAWL
SPACE I SPACE
O O
WITH VARIANCE APPROVAL WITHOUT VARIANCE APPROVAL
-� V,
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
15D I W • D t v)S ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
2013
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that T have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20 , to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the om,ner-s and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signatur
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this L+ day
Of 2012, by �
PUBLIC i.
CONSOL DATED REVO EW FOR SETBACK AND " ,
RESID�NTIALDESIGNSTANDARDS :fir WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
VARIANCES •,/�
pub hearing�`M.- `•
,` (
NOTICE YB HEREBY GIVEN that a p 'v w�_ 1 V 2
will be held on Tuesday,March 19,2013,at a ert' `l J
m.before the As ; My commission expires:
meeting to begin at 4:30 p in the Sister
Zonin Commissio130 S.Galena t' '�`ER s
PlanniY�g and g City Hall, e
Cities meeting room, Y ro osal submit- •_
Street,Aspen,Co,to review the p P V,(,) Y�Y1 i �. r"-
Huckabee,represented by '�, _ G•'l1`
led by Christopher 715 W.Main Street,
Menendez Arcehil CO ih. ro ert commonly for
Suite 104,Asp kms Avenue,and legally i n.'n Notary Public
known as 501 W.go p Ins g Lot Split Subdivision. -
scribed as Lot 1, _ {11II'n +
Applicant proposes to construct a single-fame Y �"s,tir i1{F�.t.r FS I.ff301�13
home on the currently vacant lot. ment ro
In order to gain approval p roval from Ithe Planning
posal,applicants.eeks app
setback oing Coremlenit and two of the Residential
Design Standards regarding garage placement
(26.410.040.C.2.b) and window height
fact 410.04 Barker a For further information,Commum
tact Justin Barker at the City Aspen Galena B,.,As- ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
pene1Co(9�o e429 2,9,,�ustin.Barker@cilyo THE PUBLICATION
faspen.com.
S/LJ Erspamer,Chair RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Aspen Planning and Zoning ng Commissio „HE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED
28,2013. [8941913� 'is Aspen Times Weekly on FRS b~u irT AIL
* APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
506 W. "OP►L44--t- AVE"06, ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
1A A.0. L9 ,20k":S
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, LV b 5 (name,please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
ty�A Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the IT day of qM�r,4 , 20AI) , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
_ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
►S )�. Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signatu e
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this W1--day
Of 1�1 r rt-` , 201 , by l_ti,- liene,.�Ie
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
RICHARD J. MENDOZA
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO _
MY Commission Expires 08/08/2013
Notary uWic
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BYC.R.S §24-65.5-103.3
�� � '-t$' v .� e��r�-n����,r'fiw�+° ,� t '•ice°'
s S++
�'" � sit' � _c •�
_ 41
'Y °
Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along ine to i ® R
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper '� expose Pop-up EdgeT "^ AV'ERY8
j 5160
01037H TRUST 501 WEST MAIN LLC ALPINE BANK
715 N SIERRA DR 532 E HOPKINS AVE ATTN ERIN WIENCEK
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 PO BOX 10000
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81602
AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ANGELOV DIMTAR S&DANIEL D ASPEN FSP ABR LLC
ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE#209 11921 FREEDOM DR#950
605 W HOPKINS AVE#103 ASPEN,CO 81611 RESTON,VA 20190
ASPEN, CO 81611
BLACK BENJAMIN F&ALICE M BROOKS NORMAN A&LESLEE S CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN
605 W HOPKINS AVE#208 16311 VENTURA BLVD#690 CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ENCINO,CA 91436 605 W HOPKINS AVE#210
ASPEN,CO 81611
CARTER RICHARD P CHRISTIANA ASPEN CONDOMINIUM CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC
PO BOX 2932 OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 795 LAKEVIEW DR
TELLURIDE, CO 81435 201 N MILL ST#203 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33140
ASPEN,CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN COCHENER CAROLINE A TRUST#5 CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ
ATTN FINANCE DEPT 7309 EAST 21ST ST#120 PO BOX 3670
130 S GALENA ST WICHITA, KS 67206 ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN,CO 81611
CORTALE ITA DILLON RAY IV EMERICK SHELLEY W
205 S MILL ST#112 PO BOX 10543 2449 5TH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 BOULDER,CO 80304
ERICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FINE FREDRIC N&SONDRA
605 W HOPKINS AVE#211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 412 MARINER DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 CAPITOLA,CA 95010 JUPITER, FL 33477
FRANSEN ERIN M&GREGORY H GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R&CHERYL J GOLDMAN DIANNE L
605 W HOPKINS UNIT 206 430 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 518
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 FAIRFIELD,CT 06824
H&H PROPERTIES LLLP HAYMAN JULES ALAN JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD
807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR OF ASPEN
WINTER PARK, FL 32789-3725 POTOMAC, MD 20854 435 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81612
JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST
2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE#202 PO BOX 518
COSTA MESA,CA 92626 ASPEN,CO 81611 LINDSTROM, MN 55045
f=tiquettes faciles A peter ® Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 Sens de
.►,,..,.,,.„,,,,. reveler le rebord Poo-uoMc ! 1-800-GO-AVERY !
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i a A\/ERY® 5160® I
Use Avert®Template 51600 Feed Paper ■® expose Pop-up EdgeTM 1
KONIG DEBORAH KURKULIS PATSY&PAUL R LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC
HANSON KIM 605 W HOPKINS AVE#201 605 W HOPKINS#006
605 W HOPKINS AVE#203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J&JOSHUA W
PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE#212
533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
MOLLER DIANE T MURPHY JULIANNE RUTH&WILLIAM NAVIAS CRAIG&ESTHER TRUST
1710 MIRA VISTA AVE REES PO BOX 4390
SANTA BARBARA,CA 93103 9833 SHORELINE ASPEN,CO 81612
LONGMONT,CO 80504
NELSON TREVOR T&ROSE MARIE NIX ROBERT JR PERRY EMILY V
605 W HOPKINS#207 PO BOX 3694 700 12TH AVE S UNIT 807
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 NASHVILLE,TN 372033372
RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES ROLAND DANIEL P&LEAH S SAND CANYON CORP
LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE#102 501 W MAIN ST
4475 NORTH OCEAN BLVD#43A ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP
3841 HAYVENHURST DR RUSSELL SCOTT III&CO LLC C/O GENARO GARMENDIA
ENCINO, CA 91436 5420 S QUEBEC ST#200 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400
GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134
SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC SMITH ANDREW C&DONNA G STASPEN LLP
C/O JENNIFER SHERWIN 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE
1714 VISTA ST DALLAS,TX 75205 ATLANTA, GA 303093521
DURHAM, NC 27701
STUART DANIEL S&TAMARA B THE PRIDE LLC TODD SHANE
PO BOX 3274 739 25 RD PO BOX 2654
ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 80505 ASPEN,CO 81612
TOMS CONDO LLC TUCKER LUCY LEA VERNER DANIEL A&MERYLE
C/O BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC PO BOX 1480 2577 NW 59TH ST
132 MIDLAND AVE#4 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496
BASALT, CO 81621
VOSS NATALIE SUSAN REV TRUST WASHBURN LYNN S WENDT ROBERT E II
605 W HOPKINS AVE#204 TERRELL SERENE-MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 605 W HOPKINS AVE#205 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
ASPEN, CO 81611-1607
Etiquettes faciles a peter Repliez h la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 1 r�5en�s d�e^t reveler le rebord Pop-uoml I 1-800-GO-AVERY !
Easy Peel®Labels i A i Bend along ine to i
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper '� expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVERY® 5160®
WERLIN LAURA B TRUST WHIPPLE JOHN TAGGART YLP WEST LLC
2279 PINE ST 121 S GALENA ST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94115 ASPEN,CO 81611 YARDLEY, PA 19067
YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST
413 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN,CO 816111603
Etiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com
Sens de
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® rdv6ler le rebord Pon-un M' 1-ROe-GO-AVERY
A Tsg` 1118113
City of Aspen & &VOICE# 20225
Pitkin County GIS
130 S Galena St BILL TO. Luis Menendez
Aspen,CO 81611 Menendez Architects
Phone:970-920-5453 715 W Main St Ste 104
Fax:970-544-5378 Aspen,CO 81611
970-544-4851
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY HRS I EXTR SHEETS AMOUNT
Mailing Labels 300ft 501 W Hopkins Ave 1 $145.00
Make all checks payable to City of Aspen and Sales Tax-9.3% $13.49
reference GIS&the invoice number in the note.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice,
contact GIS at 970-920-5453,GIS @cityofaspen.com. Total $158.49
The Aspen/Pitkm GIS Department presents information as a service to the public.Every effort has been
made to ensure that the information is accurate.The AspenAtkin GIS Department makes no warranty
or guarantee concerning the completeness,accuracy or reliability of the information
contained in any reap or data layer. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the sole
responsibility of the user and data shall be used and relied upon only at the risk of user.
The Aspen/F itkin GIS Department does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination of Completeness
Date: January 28, 2012
Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant,
We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number
and name assigned to this property is 0004.2013.ASLU/0004.2013.ASLU -501 W. Hopkins,
Residential Design Standards variances. The planner assigned to this case is Justin Barker.
❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete:
Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing
your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed
above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the
land use application.
Your Land Use Application is complete:
If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process.
Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by
the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any
questions.
Th You,
ennifer P el , Deputy Director
City of Aspen, Community Development Department - - - -
For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications:
Mineral Rights Notice Required New SPA New PUD
Yes No � Subdivision, SPA, or PUD(creating more than 1 additional
lot)
GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing
Yes No Commercial E.P.F.
Huckabee
ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I MANAGEMENT
March 14, 2013
Gary A. Wright, Esq.
Wright & LaSalle, LLP
715 West Main Street, Suite 2014
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 501 West Hopkins Avenue
Dear Gary,
This letter shall serve as authorization for you to act on my behalf regarding any
legal or land use matters regarding my property located at 501 West Hopkins
Avenue.
I appreciate your help with this process. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher M Huckabee, AIA
CEO
Huckabee
4521 South Hulen, Suite 220
Fort Worth,Texas 76109
ph 817.377.2969
fx 817.377.2303
www.huckabee-inc.com
• e J
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS Pc.
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
January 24, 2013
Ms. Amy Guthrie
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3`d Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Guthrie;
Per previous meetings and in accordance with the Pre-Application Conference Summary
dated July 20, 2012 and updated January 23, 2013, we hereby submit the following variance
request:
Project Location:
Address - 501 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen.
Legal Description- Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat
Existing Conditions:
The subject property consists of a vacant 7,500 square foot L-shape corner lot in the
Medium-Density Residential R-6 Zone District. It is bounded by West Hopkins Avenue
along the north property line, a stub of South Fourth Street along the east property line, a
recently constructed single family home to the west of the property and Shadow Mountain
along the south side. The section of Fourth Street that is south of Hopkins is a dead-end
street, with limited improvements (gravel surface), that only serves two lots. The City of
Aspen has no plans to extend or improve this section of Fourth Street.
Council Ordinance#6, Series of 2006 mandates that"Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be taken
from the South Fourth Street stub located directly to the east of the property."
Project Description:
The proposed project consists of single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. A
second floor is located above the west end of the house and there is basement living space
below the entire footprint of the ground floor, including the garage. The entrance and main
orientation of the house faces Hopkins Avenue.
715 W.Main Street,Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice:970.544.4851 fax:970.544.1915 email:LMA @sopris.net
Variance Request:
Due to site constraints and conditions, the proposed design does not meet two requirements
of the Residential Design Standards. We kindly request that the front fagade of the garage be
allowed to be forward of the front-most wall of the house along South Fourth Street and that
a 6-foot wide section of living room window, that is mostly located behind the garage, be
allowed to be placed up to a maximum height of 10'-6" above finish floor on the Fourth
Street facing wall.
Conditions Prompting Variance Request:
As mandated by a previous land-use approval, access to the garage is taken from South
Fourth Street, which fronts the narrowest (50-feet wide) part of the lot. The 50-foot width
minus the minimum required setbacks, and a minimal garage width, leaves 9-feet for living
space alongside the garage. If the front wall of the garage were to be located 10-feet back
from the front most wall of the house facing Fourth Street, it would result in a living space
that is 9' x 38' which is a very impractical size for any type of functional living space.
Additionally, it locates the garage further west into the property severely impacting the
amount of usable building and yard areas (see attached diagram).
The proposed garage has been designed as a one-story element with two separate 9-foot wide
doors and acts as a secondary mass to the rest of the house via a linking element. The north
side of the garage, which fronts West Hopkins is recessed 10'-9" from the front-most wall of
the house along Hopkins and is mostly concealed by living space. The Residential Design
Standards encourage garages to be accessed from alleys, when alleys exist, and in those
conditions the garage need not be located back from the wall of the house facing the alley.
The portion of South Fourth Street fronting the property, while classified as a street on paper,
in reality is much more like an alley than a street. It is not continuous across Hopkins because
it is interrupted by a sidewalk; it is only partially improved (with gravel); it is only one lot
deep and dead ends just south of the property; and does not posses the sense of streetscape
that the Residential Design Standards address.
Given the condition and character of South Fourth Street, and the severe impact that locating
the garage as required by the Design Standards would have on the practical development and
use of the lot, the proposed solution offers a reasonable alternative that is in character with
the intent of the Residential Design Standards and appropriate to South Fourth Street. The
only other property served by this section of Fourth Street also has the garage forward of the
front most wall of the house and is the most visible element of the house from the street.
The Living Room of the proposed house has been sited to take advantage of the views of
Shadow Mountain to the south and Aspen Mountain to the southeast. To capture as much
view of the mountains as the Owner desires, the head height of the windows is set at
approximately 10'-6" above finish floor. The windows that offer views of Aspen Mountain
wrap around the southeast corner of the Living Room onto the east wall, which is a street
facing wall onto South Fourth Street. However, the distance from the window to the edge of
paving of Fourth Street is over 73-feet. Furthermore, the window is mostly concealed from
view from the street by the garage. Given the distance and location of the window to the
street we feel that the F-6" that the east wall window projects above the 9-foot Residential
Design Standard height limit does not compromise the pedestrian scale of structures that the
Design Standards strive to achieve. Reducing the height of the windows on the east wall,thus
making them shorter than the windows on the south wall of the same space, would have a
detrimental effect on the feel of the room.
There are two developments on the same block as the proposed house that do not conform to
the single-family Residential Design Standards requirements because they are multi-family
projects. The Little Ajax Employee Housing project located on the same side of the street as
the subject lot and the proposed redevelopment of the old Boomerang Lodge, directly across
the street from the subject property. Even with the two proposed non-conformities, the
project accomplishes the objective of the Residential Design Standards, particularly in
context with the multi-family buildings on the same block.
Please contact me with any questions and thank you for considering our request.
Sincerely,]
CU, is.l'Ylenendez, A.I.A.
N 75°09'11"W 105.00'
IMPRACTICAL 9 x 38'SPACE
1 RESULTS IN MUCH WASTED 1
1 FLOOR AREA AND LOT/YARD 1
I I
109ETBACK AREA
1
1
1
I 1
I I
LINKING
ELEMENT �p 1
N �
� 1 �
1
1 GARAGE � 1
°o, I
c I
1
11J 1 1
� I°v 1
Z 1 5'SETBACK(GARAGE) 1
IT N 75°0911 W 30.00
1 I
1 1
' 1
� Y I
m
1 Ul N 1
1
0
o M
1 r
1
1 c 1
I10'SETBACK I
1
1
1
2523 Sq ft 1
N 75°09'11'W 75.00'
a I 17 19` j 507 { 0 25 50E
C501 Feet
This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation
1 II of the features depicted and is not a legal
t t I 1 j representation. The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
....� {
Copyright 2013 AspenlPitkin GIS
1/22/2013 11.58.55 AM C 1GiSVempwan 13%'01 WHOpk,nsAw—d
VACANT BUILDING,PENDING p..
REDEVELOPMENT U)
430
j 432
t
4'
h
W HOPKINS AVE
7 0' 10.5'
. ..._..- ..
_ ENTRY t ENTRY
•--� _ c0� t; i –
t{ a ENTRY
ENTRY
523
1 rl` 521 509 505
GARAGE i GARAGE SITE
k _
4231,
PARKING
!,GARAGE
_ 1
t '
t PARKING UNDER y.
r BUILDINGS,TYP.
,
� t ,
� � 1
BLOCK PLAN
RECEIVED
CITY OF ASPEN JAN 2 5 2013
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 DATE: 7/20/2012
PROJECT: 501 W. Hopkins Avenue Updated 1/23/2012—S. Nadolny
REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez
OWNER:
REQUEST: Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variance
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests two administrative residential design variances for a new home to be built at
501 W. Hopkins Avenue. The home will be located on Lot 1 of the Boomerang Lot Split, which is a
7,500 square foot lot, zoned R-6.
The first variance request relates to garage placement and Section 26.410.040.C.2.b, which requires
that garages accessed from a public road must be recessed at least 10' behind the front most portion
of living area along that facade. The subject property is a corner lot and Council Ordinance #6,
Series of 2006 mandated that the garage access come from the S. Fourth Street side of the property.
A second variance is being requested related to street-facing windows and Section 26.410.040.D.3.a,
which prohibits windows from spanning through the area where a second floor level would typically
exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. The section of the new
development requiring this variance review is the portion of the living room which is partially obscured
by the garage, and faces Fourth Street.
Staff will accept an application for administrative review. Staff may approve up to three (3) variances
administratively, so long as the criteria is found to be successfully met. The following two criteria are
used in determining the appropriateness of a variance:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context
as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity
as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
If staff cannot support administrative approval, application can be made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/41/landuseappform.pdf
Land Use Code:
h_ttp://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-
Land-Use-Code/
501 West Hopkins
Residential Design Standards Variance
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.306 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
Review by: Community Development for determination.
Public Hearing: Not required R;
D
Planning Fees: $650.00 yi;:. 4
To apply, submit the following information: CITY CI` ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
❑ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
❑ Pre-application Conference Summary.
❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant.
❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
❑ Total deposit for review of the application.
❑ 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.
❑ 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
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.
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
Much of the context of the immediate neighborhood is comprised of multi-family
buildings, including the Little Ajax Affordable Housing project located on the same side of the
street as the Property. The proposed redevelopment of the old Boomerang Lodge is directly
across the street from the Property. Both of these developments, as well as several other nearby
multi-family buildings do not conform to the single-family Residential Design Standards
requirements because they are multi-family projects and thus lack the same smaller scale and
character that the proposed design achieves.
D. Project Description:
The proposed project consists of a single-family residence with an attached two-car
garage to the east side of the house. A second floor is located above the west end of the house
and there is basement living space below the entire footprint of the ground floor, including the
garage. The entrance and the front fagade of the building, as required by Section 26.410.030.A.2
(Build-to Lines), are along the longest block length which is West Hopkins Avenue.
E. Code Interpretation:
The Applicant submits that the proposed project has only one front fagade and it faces
West Hopkins Avenue.
The clear and unambiguous language of the Code allows the location of the garage and
access from the South 4" Street stub as is being requested. Alternatively, the Applicant requests
a variance to allow the location of the garage as is being proposed here and as was allowed by the
building permit issued in 2009 as File No. 01892006. The Applicant reserves the right to
challenge the code interpretation if the variance for the garage location is not approved.
Page 3 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
F. Variance Requests:
The proposed design does not meet the requirement of the RDS pertaining to street facing
windows and it also does not comply with the rear yard setback for below grade living space
underneath the garage. In the opinion of Planning Department staff, the proposed design does
not comply with the RDS section regarding garage placement.
There are several relevant hardships applicable which burden the Property to support the
granting of variances. A variance for the garage location(assuming that Staff's interpretation of
this residence having two front facades is proper) is appropriate as is the requested variance to
construct the portion of the basement directly below the footprint of the garage and to install
windows on the east facing side of the residence the top of which are 10-'6" high.
The need to request variances is based on the RDS having been created to provide for a
"traditional lot" meaning a lot with alley access to a rear garage, and rectangular lot shape (e.g.,
multiples of 30' x 100'). Also, a typical corner lot has set-back considerations based on the need
to provide visibility for traffic on both streets. Here, the Property does not have alley access and
is treated as a corner lot notwithstanding that the only vehicle traffic on the South 4th Street stub
will be the cars accessing the Property or the neighboring residence across the South 4th Street
stub to the east, and pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Midland Trail.
There is no greater justification for granting a variance than compliance with code
requirements as explained above for the garage. In addition, the proposed design also meets the
criteria required for a variance as mandated in the RDS because it:
Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering
the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard; or
Page 4 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-
specific constraints.'
F-1. Variance No. 1 — Garage Location:
The Residential Design Standards (RDS) as the same pertain to Parking, Garages and
Carports: require:'
The front faVade of the garage or the front-most supporting
column of a carport shall be set back at least ten(10) feet further
from the street than the front-most wall of the house. [Emphasis
added].
Although the standard is clear and does not require interpretation, Planning Department staff is
interpreting the standard to mean:'
The Hopkins lot faces two streets, and therefore there are two
front-most walls that the garage is required to be set back from
a minimum distance. [Emphasis added]
1. Section 26.410.020 D 2a&b(Variances, page 10)
2. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b (page 12).
3. Email dated February 6, 2013, from Jennifer Phelan.
Page 5 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
The proposed garage design and location comply with the RDS as follows:
1. By definition, and as established by the RDS, there is only one front fagade,just as there
is only one front yard setback even on corner lots and double loaded lots. Since the standard
requires the front faVade of the garage, and no other fagades, the standard does not apply to
multiple streets but only to the street along the front fagade of the garage/building.
2. The RDS explicitly state when a requirement applies to more than one street as evidenced
by the following sections:
On corner lots, both street-facing fagades must be parallel to the
intersection streets.' [Emphasis added].
Street-facing windows shall not span through . . . 5
[Emphasis added].
All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing
faVade(s) of a building shall . . . ' [Emphasis added].
The absence of any language in the subject provisions citing multiple street frontages is
strong evidence that it only applies to one street, the street along the front fagade of the
garage/building which in this case is West Hopkins Avenue.
4. RDS Section 26.410.040.A.1 (Building Orientation,page 10).
5. RDS Section 26.410.040.D.3.a(Windows, page 14).
6. RDA Section 26.410.040.D.4 (Lightwells, page 15).
Page 6 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
3. The front facade of a building is established by the following factors:
The front yard setback. All lots only have one front yard setback and the front facade of
the building is the facade along the front yard.
On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet,
at least sixty percent(60%)of the front facade shall be within five(5)
feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this
standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block
length.' [Emphasis added].
A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a
minimum depth of six (6) feet, shall be part of the front facade.'
Since Planning Department staff treats West Hopkins Avenue as the front facade, it is
impossible to understand any conceivable rational basis for there being additional front fagades
in addition to West Hopkins Avenue.
4. Planning Department staff contends that:
There are two front-most walls that the garage is required to be set
back from a minimum distance.'
This contention is incorrect not only because the RDS clearly does not make any such
statement. It is also further clarified as follows:
7. RDS Section 26.410.040.A.2 (Build-to Lines, page 10).
8. RDS Section 26.410.040.D.Lb(Building Elements, page 14).
9. Email dated February 6, 2013, from Jennifer Phelan.
Page 7 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the
garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house
only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street
(side-loaded)."
This section further identifies that it is only the front facade of the house that the garage
placement relates to and not all front most walls or street-facing fagades as staff contends.
Furthermore, this section and the corresponding diagram clarify that the entry to the garage does
not constitute the front facade of the garage as it is referred to as side-loaded and the front facade
is not the entrance.
5. Since the garage is attached to the home and due to the absence of a different definition
for"front facade of the garage,"the garage, by the clear and unambiguous language of the RDS,
shares and is charged with having the same front facade as the rest of the building — West
Hopkins Avenue.
The Property is a corner lot, it has an irregular shape and it does not have an alley. The
2006 Ordinance" for 501 West Hopkins Avenue required vehicular access to Lot 1 be taken from
the South 4th Street stub located directly to the east of the Property.
The property has site-specific constraints that would unfairly, and adversely, impact the
development of the lot if the placement of the garage were to be required as required by the
Planning Department staff interpretation of the RDS. But for the Ordinance, access could be
taken from West Hopkins Avenue.
10. RDS Section 26.410.040.C.2.c(8arking, Garages and Carports, page 12).
11. Ordinance No. 6, (Series of 2006), recorded June 16, 2006 as Reception No. 525368.
Page 8 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
As required by the 2006 Ordinance, access to the garage is to be taken from the South 4th
Street stub, which fronts the narrowest (50-foot wide) part of the Lot 1 Property. The 50-foot lot
width minus the minimum required setbacks, and a minimal garage width, leave 9-feet or less,
for living space alongside the garage. If the South 41h Street facing wall of the garage is located
10-feet back from the front most wall of the house facing South 4th Street (as Planning
Department Staff requires), it will result in a living space that is approximately 8.5' x 38'.
Additionally, locating the garage further west into the Property severely impacts the
amount of usable building and yards (see Exhibit B) in the form of wasted valuable Floor Area
(approximately 342 square feet) and reduced usable outdoor space. Finally, locating the garage
as required by staff's code interpretation will create an unsafe condition because the portion of
the house forward of the garage will partially obstruct the view of bicyclists and pedestrians
using the trail along South 4th Street.
The foregoing safety concern was anticipated in the 2006 Ordinance as evidenced by the
following condition:
There shall not be any vegetation taller than thirty (30) inches from
existing grade planted within the area fifteen(15)feet south or north
of the driveway, at the property line or in the public right-of-way, in
order to maintain a sufficient view corridor for trail users to see
vehicles crossing the trail.12
The proposed garage has been designed as a one-story element with two separate 9-feet
wide doors and acts as a secondary mass to the rest of the house via a linking element. The north
side of the garage (the front fagade), which fronts West Hopkins Avenue is recessed more than
the required 10'-0" from the front-most wall of the house along West Hopkins Avenue and is
mostly concealed by living space.
12. See the Ordinance at page3, section 9, Vehicular Access.
Page 9 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
The RDS encourage garages to be accessed from alleys, when alleys exist, and in those
conditions the garage need not be located back from the wall of the house facing the alley. The
portion of South 4" Street, while classified as a street on paper, in reality is much more like a
shared driveway or an alley than a traditional street. Additionally, South 4th Street is not
continuous from West Hopkins Avenue, but rather it is interrupted by a sidewalk. It is only
partially improved (with gravel); it is only one lot deep; and it dead ends just south of the
Property. Undeniably, the South 4" Street stub does not possess the sense of streetscape that the
RDS addresses.
The only other property served by the South 4th Street stub is the house across the street
which also has the garage forward of its frontmost wall along West Hopkins Avenue and which
is the most visible element of the house from the street. (See Exhibit C).
Given the condition and character of South 4th Street, combined with safety concerns and
the severe impact that complying with Planning Department staff s code interpretation would
have on the practical development and use of the lot, the proposed solution offers a reasonable
and appropriate alternative that is in character with the intent of the RDS and appropriate to
South 4th Street.
F-2 Variance No. 2 — Rear Yard Setback:
The R-6 Zone District requires a minimum rear yard setback of 10-feet for principal
buildings, 5-feet for the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage, and 5-feet for
accessory buildings. While the garage complies with the 5-foot rear yard setback requirement, a
small portion of the basement living space below the garage encroaches approximately 4'-9 t/2"
into the 10-foot setback requirement. A variance is requested granting approval for the portion
of the basement that is immediately below the footprint of the garage to encroach into the 10-foot
rear yard setback up to a maximum of 5-feet.
Page 10 of 12
•
?JAL ,�. A.iilrGfl�e
lw
will
CL
a
r
501 W. HOPQNS SETBACK W' 'ANCE EXHIBIT
DIAORAM OF SPADE BELOW GARAGE A I REAR YARD
D
a�
'rnn� rrnn
Z V Z V
W W
O U OI U
OC I ~ p[ 1 H
I 1
I 1
5-7" 5-7"
1 1
i GARAGE I GARAGE
I I
1 1
I I
I i
1 ,I II��I I I II 1 ,III"'X11111
GARAGE GARAGE
FOUNDATION -1--Z FOUNDATION 11111=
1 WALL = BASEMENT I WALL VOID BASEMENT
t II LIVING 1 I LIVING
SPACE 10'-O" SPADE
BASEMENT
1 1
LIVING SPACE
1 1 WALL
7
� I
I 1
1 1
I CRAWL I CRAWL
SPACE SPACE
O O
WITH VARIANCE APPROVAL WITHOUT VARIANCE APPROVAL
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
�D �l 0 t✓LS ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
j2 W 2015
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, ,Lv_\C,J'o s� (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado,hereby personally
certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20 , to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice ("sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public '
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signatur
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Lf day
of M y-C4, , 2012, by��" 2S G��
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE'501 W-
CONSOLIDATED REVIEW SETBACK AND
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
RESIDENTIAL DREANCESTANDARDS
NOTICE YS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing ! �y r'` ��f
Iw V i
will be held on Tuesday,March 19,2013 a a a _,
meetinr�to begin at 4:30 P.m.before the Aspen . My commission expires:
Planm?.g and Zoning Commission,m the Sister , �rtI�e,ER f
Cities meeting room,City Hall,130 S.Galena
Street,Aspen,CO,to review the proposal esent d by , ) YX�t� ) � ��C v t� I y.
ted by Christopher t PCabee, P F (_ 1
Menendez Archdects PC,715ro ert acommomy s`
Suite 104,Aspen,CO,for the P P and legally de- L. �^,=jb. P
known as 501 W.Hopkins Avenue,lit Subdivision. Notary Public
scribed as Lot 1,Boomerang Lot Sp '�I �}
homecon thercurrentlytvacanl IoLCt asingle-family r"',';.�-C},-0 1-11300013
In order to gain approval for the development ent P o- I:DJ
pose,,applicant seeks approval
and setback requ�remient andrtwo of the fResidential variances
Design Standards regarding garage Placement
(26.410.040.0.2.b) and window height-
,actjusti nBarker a. For+ity of Aen Corn information, ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
tact Justin Barker)'the Citi30 S.Galena StUAs
Development Coi970)42 tmant, f THE PUBLICATION
42rtme ,,Juslin.Barker @cityo-
faspen.com.
S/LJ Erspamer,Chair . OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Aspen Planning and Zon ion
ng Commission
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on February ^ OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED
28,2013. [8941913] n T MAIL
* APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
501 W. Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
t1NG0.Gj1 L9 ,201-6
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, L.0 16 Mrc*16►.L ReE'Z (name,please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
i � Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the 19�'day of M,p,,q A ' 20A5 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
VMailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
& &_ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
141X Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
_Ujk_ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signs e
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this W1`day
of M0,r-c►ti , 20_a_, by .Jg-L
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
RICHARD J. MENDOZA
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 6. (�
STATE OF COLORADO
My COMMWfon Exp1ru 08/08/2016
Notary u is
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGH)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24--65.5-103.3
�tl } .t;' � r���., y`fip�'j}3d±�'\� Y.c bV ��t_rh� C .. ` ' -"°•"y� ia'_
Y wt �-
1
1
i
C �
T F
Easy Peel®Labels i A i Bend along line to i o AVERYp 51600
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeT11
01037H TRUST 501 WEST MAIN LLC ALPINE BANK
715 N SIERRA DR 532 E HOPKINS AVE ATTN ERIN WIENCEK
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 PO BOX 10000
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81602
AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ANGELOV DIMTAR S&DANIEL D ASPEN FSP ABR LLC
ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE#209 11921 FREEDOM DR#950
605 W HOPKINS AVE#103 ASPEN,CO 81611 RESTON,VA 20190
ASPEN,CO 81611
BLACK BENJAMIN F&ALICE M BROOKS NORMAN A&LESLEE S CARROLL MEREDITH CHARD
605 W HOPKINS AVE#208 16311 VENTURA BLVD#690 605 W HOPKINS L ARTHUR RICHARD
ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCINO,CA 91436 AS W ,CO 81 AVE#210
ASPEN,CO 81611
CARTER RICHARD P CHRISTIANA ASPEN CONDOMINIUM CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC
PO BOX 2932 OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC 795 LAKEVIEW DR
TELLURIDE, CO 81435 201 N MILL ST#203 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33140
ASPEN,CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN COCHENER CAROLINE A TRUST#5 CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ
ATTN FINANCE DEPT 7309 EAST 21 ST ST#120 PO BOX 3670
130 S GALENA ST WICHITA, KS 67206 ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN,CO 81611
CORTALE ITA DILLON RAY IV EMERICK SHELLEY W
205 S MILL ST#112 PO BOX 10543 2449 5TH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 BOULDER,CO 80304
ERICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FINE FREDRIC N&SONDRA
605 W HOPKINS AVE#211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 412 MARINER DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 JUPITER, FL 33477
FRANSEN ERIN M&GREGORY H GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R&CHERYL J GOLDMAN DIANNE L
605 W HOPKINS UNIT 206 430 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 518
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 FAIRFIELD,CT 06824
H&H PROPERTIES LLLP HAYMAN JULES ALAN JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD
807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR OF ASPEN
WINTER PARK, FL 32789-3725 POTOMAC, MD 20854 435 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81612
JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST
2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE#202 PO BOX 518
COSTA MESA,CA 92626 ASPEN,CO 81611 LINDSTROM, MN 55045
ttiquettes faciles h peter - Repliez a la hachure afin de wvuw.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 ^Sens dep� r6v6ler le rebord Pon-uomc ! 1-800-GO-AVERY !
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i AVERY® 5160® i
Yse Avers®Template 51600 Feed Paper "®®"� expose Pop-up EdgeTM i
KONIG DEBORAH KURKULIS PATSY&PAUL R LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC
HANSON KIM 605 W HOPKINS AVE#201 605 W HOPKINS#006
605 W HOPKINS AVE#203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J&JOSHUA W
PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE#212
533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
MOLLER DIANE T MURPHY JULIANNE RUTH&WILLIAM NAVIAS CRAIG&ESTHER TRUST
1710 MIRA VISTA AVE REES PO BOX 4390
SANTA BARBARA,CA 93103 9833 SHORELINE ASPEN,CO 81612
LONGMONT,CO 80504
NELSON TREVOR T&ROSE MARIE NIX ROBERT JR PERRY EMILY V
605 W HOPKINS#207 PO BOX 3694 700 12TH AVE S UNIT 807
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 NASHVILLE,TN 372033372
RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES ROLAND DANIEL P&LEAH S SAND CANYON CORP
LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE#102 501 W MAIN ST
4475 NORTH OCEAN BLVD#43A ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP
3841 HAYVENHURST DR RUSSELL SCOTT III&CO LLC C/O GENARO GARMENDIA
ENCINO,CA 91436 5420 S QUEBEC ST#200 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400
GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134
SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC SMITH ANDREW C&DONNA G STASPEN LLP
C/O JENNIFER SHERWIN 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE
1714 VISTA ST DALLAS,TX 75205 ATLANTA,GA 303093521
DURHAM, NC 27701
STUART DANIEL S&TAMARA B THE PRIDE LLC TODD SHANE
PO BOX 3274 739 25 RD PO BOX 2654
ASPEN,CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 80505 ASPEN,CO 81612
TOMS CONDO LLC TUCKER LUCY LEA VERNER DANIEL A&MERYLE
C/O BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC PO BOX 1480 2577 NW 59TH ST
132 MIDLAND AVE#4 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496
BASALT,CO 81621
VOSS NATALIE SUSAN REV TRUST WASHBURN LYNN S WENDT ROBERT E II
605 W HOPKINS AVE#204 TERRELL SERENE-MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W HOPKINS AVE#205 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
ASPEN, CO 81611-1607
Etiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com
Sens de
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® __....de-, reveler le rebord Pon-unar ! 1-800-GO-AVERY !
Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along ine to
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper "� expose Pop-up EdgeTM f❑ AVERY0 51600
WERLIN LAURA B TRUST WHIPPLE JOHN TAGGART YLP WEST LLC
2279 PINE ST 121 S GALENA ST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94115 ASPEN,CO 81611 YARDLEY, PA 19067
YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST
413 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN,CO 816111603
Etiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 lMSens de^+ r6veler le rebord Poo-uoMC 1-800-GO-AVERY !
DA 7'E 1/18/13
City of Aspen & INVOICE f 202525
Pitkin County GIS
130 S Galena St BILL TO. Luis Menendez
Aspen,CO 81611 Menendez Architects
Phone:970-920-5453 715 W Main St Ste 104
Fax:970-544-5378 Aspen,CO 8161-1
970-544-4851
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY HRS I EXTR SHEETS AMOUNT
Mailing Labels 300ft 501 W Hopkins Ave 1 $145.00
Make all checks payable to City of Aspen and Sales Tax-9.3% $13.49
reference CIS&the invoice number in the note.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice,
contact GIS at 970-920-5453,GIS @cityofaspen.com. Total 6158.49
The Aspen/Pi*in GIS Department presents information as a service to the public.Every effort has been
made to ensure that the information is accurate.The Aspen/Pi#dn GIS Department makes no warranty
or guarantee concerning the completeness,accuracy or reliability of the information
contained in any map or data layer.Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the sole
responsibility of the user and data shall be used and relied upon only at the risk of user.
The Aspen/P'jtkin GIS Department does not maintain a database of rrineral estate owners.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination of Completeness
Date: January 28, 2012
Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant,
We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number
and name assigned to this property is 0004.2013.ASLU/0004.2013.ASLU -501 W. Hopkins,
Residential Design Standards variances. The planner assigned to this case is Justin Barker.
❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete:
Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing
your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed
above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the
land use application.
>�A Your Land Use Application is complete:
If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process.
Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by
the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any
questions.
Th You,
ennifer P el , Deputy Director
City of Aspen, Community Development Department
For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications:
Mineral Rights Notice Required New SPA New PUD
Yes No Subdivision, SPA, or PUD(creating more than 1 additional
lot)
GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing
Yes No�G_ Commercial E.P.F.
Huckabee
ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I MANAGEMENT
March 14, 2013
Gary A. Wright, Esq.
Wright & LaSalle, LLP
715 West Main Street, Suite 2014
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 501 West Hopkins Avenue
Dear Gary,
This letter shall serve as authorization for you to act on my behalf regarding any
legal or land use matters regarding my property located at 501 West Hopkins
Avenue.
appreciate your help with this process. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher M Huckabee, AIA
CEO
Huckabee
4521 South Hulen, Suite 220
Fort Worth,Texas 76109
ph 817.377.2969
fx 817.377.2303
www.huckabee-inc.com
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS Pc.
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
January 24, 2013
Ms. Amy Guthrie
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Guthrie;
Per previous meetings and in accordance with the Pre-Application Conference Summary
dated July 20, 2012 and updated January 23, 2013, we hereby submit the following variance
request:
Project Location:
Address - 501 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen.
Legal Description- Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat
Existing Conditions:
The subject property consists of a vacant 7,500 square foot L-shape corner lot in the
Medium-Density Residential R-6 Zone District. It is bounded by West Hopkins Avenue
along the north property line, a stub of South Fourth Street along the east property line, a
recently constructed single family home to the west of the property and Shadow Mountain
along the south side. The section of Fourth Street that is south of Hopkins is a dead-end
street, with limited improvements (gravel surface), that only serves two lots. The City of
Aspen has no plans to extend or improve this section of Fourth Street.
Council Ordinance #6, Series of 2006 mandates that"Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be taken
from the South Fourth Street stub located directly to the east of the property."
Project Description:
The proposed project consists of single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. A
second floor is located above the west end of the house and there is basement living space
below the entire footprint of the ground floor, including the garage. The entrance and main
orientation of the house faces Hopkins Avenue.
715 W.Main Street,Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice:970.544.4851 fax:970.544.1915 email:LMA @sopris.net
Variance Request:
Due to site constraints and conditions, the proposed design does not meet two requirements
of the Residential Design Standards. We kindly request that the front fagade of the garage be
allowed to be forward of the front-most wall of the house along South Fourth Street and that
a 6-foot wide section of living room window, that is mostly located behind the garage, be
allowed to be placed up to a maximum height of 10'-6" above finish floor on the Fourth
Street facing wall.
Conditions Prompting Variance Request:
As mandated by a previous land-use approval, access to the garage is taken from South
Fourth Street, which fronts the narrowest (50-feet wide) part of the lot. The 50-foot width
minus the minimum required setbacks, and a minimal garage width, leaves 9-feet for living
space alongside the garage. If the front wall of the garage were to be located 10-feet back
from the front most wall of the house facing Fourth Street, it would result in a living space
that is 9' x 38' which is a very impractical size for any type of functional living space.
Additionally, it locates the garage further west into the property severely impacting the
amount of usable building and yard areas (see attached diagram).
The proposed garage has been designed as a one-story element with two separate 9-foot wide
doors and acts as a secondary mass to the rest of the house via a linking element. The north
side of the garage, which fronts West Hopkins is recessed 10'-9" from the front-most wall of
the house along Hopkins and is mostly concealed by living space. The Residential Design
Standards encourage garages to be accessed from alleys, when alleys exist, and in those
conditions the garage need not be located back from the wall of the house facing the alley.
The portion of South Fourth Street fronting the property, while classified as a street on paper,
in reality is much more like an alley than a street. It is not continuous across Hopkins because
it is interrupted by a sidewalk; it is only partially improved (with gravel); it is only one lot
deep and dead ends just south of the property; and does not posses the sense of streetscape
that the Residential Design Standards address.
Given the condition and character of South Fourth Street, and the severe impact that locating
the garage as required by the Design Standards would have on the practical development and
use of the lot, the proposed solution offers a reasonable alternative that is in character with
the intent of the Residential Design Standards and appropriate to South Fourth Street. The
only other property served by this section of Fourth Street also has the garage forward of the
front most wall of the house and is the most visible element of the house from the street.
The Living Room of the proposed house has been sited to take advantage of the views of
Shadow Mountain to the south and Aspen Mountain to the southeast. To capture as much
view of the mountains as the Owner desires, the head height of the windows is set at
approximately 10'-6" above finish floor. The windows that offer views of Aspen Mountain
wrap around the southeast corner of the Living Room onto the east wall, which is a street
facing wall onto South Fourth Street. However, the distance from the window to the edge of
paving of Fourth Street is over 73-feet. Furthermore, the window is mostly concealed from
view from the street by the garage. Given the distance and location of the window to the
street we feel that the F-6" that the east wall window projects above the 9-foot Residential
Design Standard height limit does not compromise the pedestrian scale of structures that the
Design Standards strive to achieve. Reducing the height of the windows on the east wall,thus
making them shorter than the windows on the south wall of the same space, would have a
detrimental effect on the feel of the room.
There are two developments on the same block as the proposed house that do not conform to
the single-family Residential Design Standards requirements because they are multi-family
projects. The Little Ajax Employee Housing project located on the same side of the street as
the subject lot and the proposed redevelopment of the old Boomerang Lodge, directly across
the street from the subject property. Even with the two proposed non-conformities, the
project accomplishes the objective of the Residential Design Standards, particularly in
context with the multi-family buildings on the same block.
Please contact me with any questions and thank you for considering our request.
Sincerer,
Buis 'Ienendez, A.I.A.
N 75'09'11V 105.00'
IMPRACTICAL 9'x B8'SPACE
1 RESULTS IN MUCH WASTED /
1 FLOOR AREA AND LOT/(ARD /
I10'SETBAGK AREA
1
1
1 1
1
LINKING
ELEMENT r
N m
� o
1
1 GARAGE 1
o I00
1
w 1 1
v 1 �
v I
Z / 5'SETBACK(GARAGE) /
IN 75°09'11 W 30.00'
/ I
1 1
I /
Y Y I
Q
Fm 1D
1 (ij W
I rn 0
� o
0 0
1 M
1
1 � 1
' 10'SETBACK
1
1 /
2,523 Sq ft
N 75009'1 VW 75.00'
507 i 0 25 50
[ 1 501 Feet
j This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation
i of the features depicted and is not a legal
j € representation. The accuracy may change
4I5� I i depending on the enlargement or reduction.
~ � Copyright 2013 Aspen/Pitkin GIS
1222013 11.58.55 AMC 1GISltempUan 131501 WMOpkmsAve.—d
VACANT BUILDING,PENDING
REDEVELOPMENT U)
0
50 +'`
/'� U) r �� 430
�; s\ `• 432��
to
W HOPKINS AVE
... " "..rte `ENTRY
10.5'
10,f-��j=j1 ENTRY t1 ENTRY
x
i
rr '•
ENTRY
523
f 521 509 1 505
I � t
/ { GARAGE E GARAGE SITE �--,
Lj t r
t
—I PARKING- I ; ____j
25 !GARAGE
i
t
r
I PARKING UNDER r �t
` BUILDINGS,TYP.
-.i I Iv
'; i BLOCK PLAN
RECEIVED
' CITY OF ASPEN JAN 2 5 701
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 DATE: 7/20/2012
PROJECT: 501 W. Hopkins Avenue Updated 1/23/2012 —S. Nadolny
REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez
OWNER:
REQUEST: Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variance
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests two administrative residential design variances for a new home to be built at
501 W. Hopkins Avenue. The home will be located on Lot 1 of the Boomerang Lot Split, which is a
7,500 square foot lot, zoned R-6.
The first variance request relates to garage placement and Section 26.410.040.C.2.b, which requires
that garages accessed from a public road must be recessed at least 10' behind the front most portion
of living area along that facade. The subject property is a corner lot and Council Ordinance #6,
Series of 2006 mandated that the garage access come from the S. Fourth Street side of the property.
A second variance is being requested related to street-facing windows and Section 26.410.040.D.3.a,
which prohibits windows from spanning through the area where a second floor level would typically
exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. The section of the new
development requiring this variance review is the portion of the living room which is partially obscured
by the garage, and faces Fourth Street.
Staff will accept an application for administrative review. Staff may approve up to three (3) variances
administratively, so long as the criteria is found to be successfully met. The following two criteria are
used in determining the appropriateness of a variance:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context
as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity
as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
If staff cannot support administrative approval, application can be made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
hftp://www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/41/landuseappform.pd f
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenVPlanning-and-Zoning/Title-26-
Land-Use-Code/
501 West Hopkins
Residential Design Standards Variance
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.306 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
Review by: Community Development for determination.
Public Hearing: Not required ; ' / D
Planning Fees: $650.00 ,� ;._ ma +W„
To apply, submit the following information: CITY U�- ,g6PEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOFMENT
❑ Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
❑ Pre-application Conference Summary.
❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant.
❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
❑ Total deposit for review of the application.
❑ 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.
❑ 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings.
❑ An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
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.
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
F. Variance Requests:
The proposed design does not meet the requirement of the RDS pertaining to street facing
windows and it also does not comply with the rear yard setback for below grade living space
underneath the garage. In the opinion of Planning Department staff, the proposed design does
not comply with the RDS section regarding garage placement.
There are several relevant hardships applicable which burden the Property to support the
granting of variances. A variance for the garage location (assuming that Staff's interpretation of
this residence having two front facades is proper) is appropriate as is the requested variance to
construct the portion of the basement directly below the footprint of the garage and to install
windows on the east facing side of the residence the top of which are 10-'6" high.
The need to request variances is based on the RDS having been created to provide for a
"traditional lot" meaning a lot with alley access to a rear garage, and rectangular lot shape (e.g.,
multiples of 30' x 100'). Also, a typical corner lot has set-back considerations based on the need
to provide visibility for traffic on both streets. Here, the Property does not have alley access and
is treated as a corner lot notwithstanding that the only vehicle traffic on the South 4th Street stub
will be the cars accessing the Property or the neighboring residence across the South 4th Street
stub to the east, and pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Midland Trail.
There is no greater justification for granting a variance than compliance with code
requirements as explained above for the garage. In addition, the proposed design also meets the
criteria required for a variance as mandated in the RDS because it:
Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering
the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard; or
Page 4 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-
specific constraints.'
F-1. Variance No. 1 — Garage Location:
The Residential Design Standards (RDS) as the same pertain to Parking, Garages and
Carports: require:2
The front fagade of the garage or the front-most supporting
column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further
from the street than the front-most wall of the house. [Emphasis
added].
Although the standard is clear and does not require interpretation, Planning Department staff is
interpreting the standard to mean:'
The Hopkins lot faces two streets, and therefore there are two
front-most walls that the garage is required to be set back from
a minimum distance. [Emphasis added]
1. Section 26.410.020 D 2a&b(Variances, page 10)
2. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b(page 12).
3. Email dated February 6, 2013, from Jennifer Phelan.
Page 5 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
The proposed garage design and location comply with the RDS as follows:
1. By definition, and as established by the RDS, there is only one front facade,just as there
is only one front yard setback even on corner lots and double loaded lots. Since the standard
requires the front facade of the garage, and no other facades, the standard does not apply to
multiple streets but only to the street along the front facade of the garage/building.
2. The RDS explicitly state when a requirement applies to more than one street as evidenced
by the following sections:
On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the
intersection streets.' [Emphasis added].
Street-facing windows shall not span through . . . 5
[Emphasis added].
All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing
faVade(s) of a building shall . . . ' [Emphasis added].
The absence of any language in the subject provisions citing multiple street frontages is
strong evidence that it only applies to one street, the street along the front facade of the
garage/building which in this case is West Hopkins Avenue.
4. RDS Section 26.410.040.A.1 (Building Orientation, page 10).
5. RDS Section 26.410.040.D.3.a(Windows, page 14).
6. RDA Section 26.410.040.D.4 (Lightwells, page 15).
Page 6 of 12
M
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
3. The front facade of a building is established by the following factors:
The front yard setback. All lots only have one front yard setback and the front facade of
the building is the facade along the front yard.
On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand(15,000) square feet,
at least sixty percent(60%)of the front facade shall be within five(5)
feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this
standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block
length.' [Emphasis added].
A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a
minimum depth of six (6) feet, shall be part of the front facade.'
Since Planning Department staff treats West Hopkins Avenue as the front facade, it is
impossible to understand any conceivable rational basis for there being additional front facades
in addition to West Hopkins Avenue.
4. Planning Department staff contends that:
There are two front-most walls that the garage is required to be set
back from a minimum distance.'
This contention is incorrect not only because the RDS clearly does not make any such
statement. It is also further clarified as follows:
7. RDS Section 26.410.040.A.2 (Build-to Lines, page 10).
8. RDS Section 26.410.040.D.1.b (Building Elements, page 14).
9. Email dated February 6, 2013, from Jennifer Phelan.
Page 7 of 12
$W,C*
p�
��� uate fey o�Elie�s eet
�a��au�aYv°��
��5S p1�E�es�t��o�l`,mss p p vael z'�e e°z actl e a st fdiae y be e t fad des ev�ttay f tt�°a�o te e
�tV°us °ftbea �e4
N t n���a sa az a�e e d
oas
�° obe fi �°
Or, tb e
° d °°zs gz°o faqa d
e
e fto�t�a�
�s�� zt ze°rst ea dlr�°o tzez eat�fetacce't'�t�atatb�,°
e,° � as St
V6 0 atze t0 a d
eda�dtb
s Secti�°''0u aduot a�lf e co'�esv°�e as"It zs ze ffece�ti ae
Tr'
le, a °n aadtb e gaza� a dt the
zrert z �s Se It de°f tb e absence°� a�gUa�e°� Sti
Coe,
e,tv fa�sa tb 5 e
ztl'e� °� the�1°r� nd die t° a ld�n�
co 4011
tzance do the V°me he cheat aV hest of the bit
is n°ttbe a e is attache�e�aza�eby�t fa�a�e as the
Since tre?a ti e gaza$e� t the same
aU
5• «fzont fa�aae of ed,Nithhavin� .t d°eg n°thane an t
"d to of be
f°r d is chazg e a 1 1
sbazes an venue s an regular Shag �CU1aT a0CeS5 L
Yxopkins A a c°fez lot,It B Avenue required Ve o erty
16 .
the Pzopezt oz 5p1 w est xapectly to the east of the Pr p
f and adversely,
20�6 pzdna�Street stub located dints that would unfairly, uirec
outh 4 tic colStr be required as req
the S ezty Vas site S lac�en�of the garage But for the Ordinance,access
Abe pz°f the xok if tie V ation of the RDS
t o intezf
o men t Staff
d la�iz�g�epa�mxopk"'S Aver
P fz°��es
taken
c(barking,Garages and Carports,page 12).
26�tp C tion No. 525
D5 5ectlo r, !006),recorded June 16,2006 as Recep
t°• R 06 �c
>> Orai°duce� page 8 of 12
vs I��,
t
vy, $0 5�
v°be 4z°�e�ve 9 feet ov�°ca�e�
� s
ti°�,
k°
ce�acces�iae��a� a�gazage �a1,0�tas41a,��og
gds
)NOV � 06 pza� fac�z'�r svee�<a"em$5
5�1 by the 2�jazz°fie setbacks' °�tY'A`
AN 10
�zoXt �actS tre
�xzed istb zed is e e�a that' INN loo,
s zeA zeA° e 1� �0 ace e�C, \e
t
tre gazav4aU°f tY'e a�,�t,�g s'P 4to�e�y s tea`�a1�ab•����e
Stzedtb�;'o�s to e z't °s�>>>�es�lt'� esti���° has a>>y,1pca�,
� t�e 't ��re��' �>>�ti�e� ace• �'� eca�Se� e�
f���eetbacrt5ta�f�eA tie�a�age e�grzb�� e o�tdo0'�S'Q o�d�ti�o'�b
e Uy 1°ca���� a�atds use �cedxO, e a�)nsa.�,c b,Cy��1Stis
f
p dd t'°'' ebut�d'�g a feet aad ze o��'U czeat zuctt1�e N4VC o
oust sAuaae irtezQzet e U pa 'a1,y °bst ance as e�
a�` ox�tz'ate f�s c° a v�� prdi�
<appz u�zedby stag°ftbe gaze 5 eet• ed intbe20�6
cr tt
Z3 zed°use S°utb z��as aati�cipat O ,vy cvs
tb the tza co ace tb 07
i�g fety tb °u
s
us e fpzeg°i�g sa tati�°,a ta1�e ��ee<15,be JXi; ,,oeY
�h ad�t�°z' ary NC, e. the aze pz iz�t�e foz tza>>v
f°11°��n$c° shall °tb a�ted`Nitb ezty�zne c°��aoz
,�veze zade p t the �z°p ent viev''
eX�sti�ng gve�ay�a a suf�'c� e�t
of the az1 ma�z�tal" e tza>>• Stozy elem
der to osS�rgtb ed as a°re" b use via a
016c,
ei`�c1es cz sheer design zest of tb °�ki�s pvf
a e o
° osea gazage o da(J massi°�fz°nts�eoase
the pazaacts as az �tfa�sade�, ost�a11 of then
v11 de d°°zs azage<the f tie fz°ntzz�
the g fz00 e
side oeq�,zed l� "dby living spac Access.
tm°stly c° a,C ecti�On 9'v e�,c�1aC
ediaance at page3�s age 9 °f �2
See the O P
�2•
40
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER 0004 2013.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2735.124.66.002
PROJECTS ADDRESS 501 W HOPKINS AVE
PLANNER SARA NADOLNY
CASE DESCRIPTION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW
REPRESENTATIVE LUIS MENENDEZ
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3.28.13
CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 5/3/13
JAN `l, 5 '?(10 a
ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATIONI-Ii
PROJECT:
,O MMUNI� ! 'JELO PMENT
Name: Huckabee Residence
Location: 501 W. Hopkins. Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat.
Indicate street address,lot&block number,legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) 2735-124-66-002
APPLICANT:
Name: Christopher Huckabee
Address: 4521 South Hulen, Suite 3220 Fort Worth, TX 76109
Phone#: 817-377-2969
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Menendez Architects (Luis Menendez)
Address: 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104. Aspen, CO 81611
Phone#: 970-544-4851 Extension 114
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
(] Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.
Vacant lot. Previously obtained a permit to construct a single-family home of a very similar design, including location of
garage, but the project was not built and the permit expire .
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.
Two-story plus basement single-family house with attached garage.
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 94,Submittal Requirements-Including 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.
; RECEIVED
CITY OF ASPEN JAN 2 ` ?('1 1
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUtV1TY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 970.429.2758 DATE: 7/20/2012
PROJECT: 501 W. Hopkins
REPRESENTATIVE: Luis Menendez
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Dimensional Variance
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests a setback variance to allow below grade development of a new home at 501
W. Hopkins Avenue to extend into the rear yard setback requirement.
The home will be located on Lot 1 of the Boomerang Lot Split, which is a 7,500 square foot lot, zoned
R-6. The zone district requires all residential space to be 10' from the rear lot line, except that
garage area only may be within 5' of the rear lot line. The applicant wishes to construct basement
living space under the entire footprint of the garage, which would require approval of a 5' rear yard
setback variance.
This variance requires an approval from the Board of Adjustment (BOA).
Below is a link to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience:
http://www.aspenpitkin.cam/Portals/O/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20 land%2Ouse
%20app%20form.pdf
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.314 Variance from dimensional requirements
http:/twww.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-DevelopmenvPlanning-and-Zoning/Title-
26-Land-Use-Code/
Review by: 1) Community Development Staff for complete application and
recommendation
2) Board of Adjustment for Dimensional Variance
Public Hearing: Required
Planning Fees: $1,890 Board of Adjustment Review. This includes six (6) hours of staff
review time. Additional time over six (6) hours will be billed at $315 per
hour
Referral Fees: None.
Total Deposit: $1,890
Total Number of Application Copies: 10 Copies
Includes appropriate drawing for board review (HPC = 12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies =
1/ea.; Planning Staff= 2)
To apply, submit the following information
F-1 Total Deposit for review of application.
EJ Pre-application Conference Summary.
EJ Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the
applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to
act on behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
A site plan, floor plans and elevations depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical
relationship to the land and its surroundings.
Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement.
D An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen.
Q A written description of the variance being requested.
Ten copies of the Land Use Application and all additional materials.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: Huckabee Residence- 501 W. Hopkins
Applicant: —Christopher Huckabee
Location: _501 W. Hopkins
Zone District: _R-6 Medium-Density Residential
Lot Size: _Irregular
Lot Area: 7,500 square feet
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark,casements,and steep slopes.Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: N-A. __Proposed.• N.A.
Number of residential units: Existing:_0 Proposed. 1
Number of bedrooms: Existing: 0 Proposed. 4
Proposed% of demolition(Historic properties only): N.A.
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: 0 Allowable: 3,450 Proposed.• 3,450
Principal bldg. height: Existing: 0 Allowable: 25' Proposed.. 25'
Access. bldg. height: Existing: 0 Allowable: 25' Proposed.• N.A.
On-Site parking: Existing: 0 Required: 2 Proposed: 2
% Site coverage: Existing: 0 Required.- 45%max. proposed. 38%
% Open Space: Existing: N.A. Required: 0 Proposed.• N.A.
Front Setback: Existing: 0 Required.•_ 10' Proposed:_ 10'
1 Ouse 10'(house)
Rear Setback: Existing: 0 Required:_5'(garage) Proposed' 5'(garage)
Combined F/R: Existing: N.A. Required: N.A. Proposed.. N.A.
Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 5' Proposed: 7'
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: 0 Required: 22.5' Proposed.• 22.5'
Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: N.A.
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: None
Variations requested: _Allow the front of the garage to be forward of the front-most wall of the
house along fourth Street.
RECEIVEU
DEVELOPMENT . .
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
Ana reement between the City of Aspen (-City")and
Property Phone No.: !
Owner("I'),
Email:
Address of r a Billie
Property'. �' g
p rty s Address: �a
(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 the 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.
$ 0 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. I 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 non-payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
t Y`fro
deposit for_6 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour.
0 deposit for hours of Engineering [department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Name; # �_
City Use: Title
Fees Due:$ Received: $
No�ember. 2011 Cit� of Aspen 11 3)0 S.Cialena St. 1 (970)920-5090
__�4tXU%
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
ED
JAN 2 5 2013
Anagreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and ASPEN
Property .. a` Phone No : �` `��`� COMMUNITY ELOPMENT
Owner(..l„): Email: , - � _
Address of Billing
Property: �'` `� 'F°Ia � ' Address: .►e�c, �
(subject of . ��,, t ^�z +tea rw ---rte_ —T toe 0
application) (send bills here)
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications
and the 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.2��S
$� flat fee for_Administrative Residential Design Standards Review
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. I 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 non-payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
$ 0 deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour.
$ 0 deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Name:
City Use: Title:
Fees Due: $ Received: $
tiuckabee
ARCHITECTURE 1 ENGINEERING I MANAGEMENT
July 20, 2012
Mr. Luis Menendez
Menendez Architects P.C.
715 W. Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 501 W Hopkins Ave, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Luis,
This letter shall serve as authorization for you to act on my behalf in the
variance application process related to my property at 501 W Hopkins Avenue.
I appreciate your help with this process. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher M Huckabee, AIA
CEO
Huckabee
4521 South Hulen,Suite 220
Fort Worth,Texas 76109
ph 817.377.2969
5c 817.377.2303
www.huckabee4nc.cam
AAA,
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
715 West Main Street, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611
OWNERSHIP& ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
This report is based on a search made of documents affecting the record title to the property described
hereinafter, searched by legal description and by the names of the grantor or grantee. Consequently, the
information as to record owner is taken from the most recent recorded Vesting Deed, and the information
as to existing encumbrances reflects those documents of record which specifically described the subject
property by legal description or which refer to the owner of the property which are filed by name only and
do not include the legal description of the property. No information is furnished relative to easements,
covenants, conditions and restrictions. This report does include the results of a search under the names of
the property owner(s) in the general index. Liability of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
under this Ownership and Encumbrance Report is limited to the fee received.
Effective Date: July 24, 2012
Property Address: 501 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot 1,Aspen, Colorado 81611
Schedule No: R020010
Parcel No: 273512466002
Taxes: Taxes for the year 2011, due in 2012, have been paid in full in the amount of: $22,214.08. Taxes
for the year 2012 are not yet due or payable.
Legal Description:
Lot 1, BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT, a Planned Community,according to the Plat recorded June 16,2006,
in Plat Book 79 at Page 70, as Reception No. 525370, Pitkin County,Colorado.
Record Owner: Christopher M. Huckabee
The following liens were found affecting the subject property:
Deed of Trust from Christopher M. Huckabee,to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of First
Financial Bank,NA.,to secure the sum of$1,000,000.00, dated February 9, 2012, and recorded
November 4, 2011,as Reception No. 584113.
Attorneys Title sdranice Agency of Aspen,LLC
LIP
By: Authorized 0#1c6r Wi Agent
y.
Telephone (970) 925-7328 A A A Facsimile(970) 925-7348
VICINITY MAP
Address
501 West Hopkins, Aspen
Legal Description
Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat
3. i
r.
jai Sr
4 ii
sr v
Ala-nsl
rp
Eli Eat kod Nai& fvn, kpt foml, Tab NO
Op' ,
)l ".Irz fps RE Su her tad w Nip y Nd1� .F sd° fcr td
u
Fmatpe flu ALeplakUsz :U;d.V1:nECl
( NFEF1 ;to C .31U'
a
% "Fw4rcca6sn
f
zFajbi; c�c�aanr
o-
[k 7a 'BPiD AT16°,a:06HUCIiA5yREKEhCE-PETE TX a!G4 luG
KNEFa
6 m33ed;hk�h} h(fECi3i -s3§1 Clod luln" Cap; U VUC lo-,
LE V.:HLI ICEE Hr o-F AMFNER -a21 3IRN HUD
j k1
7' MGreg Cfih YC1,P iz;.?S
rp�iaa;
'Qmerisaoizo. Coatadoiisapplic�l?
lad ume:Hlk NBEE Fmame'C `a'CPHER all EC.TI Nli�1;
F,,,io„3 cyU: Cus<e X33 ern I IF N Mp A7os"9
tear
adoaa FMm,
F 1 4r:ss
r
I
i
1
Gl�.� 7120
-7- J ,70 0 0 N IT 9
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
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 is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, 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.
Christopher Huckabee, 4521 South Hulen, Suite 3220 Fort Worth, TX 76109
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
Lots 1, Boomerang Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 501 W.
Hopkins Ave, Parcel ID 2735-124-66-002
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
The applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Residential
Design Standard Variances for garage placement and window height to construct a single-family
home at 501 W. Hopkins Ave.
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 8 (series of 2013)
Land Use Approval(s)Received and Dates(Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
March 28, 2013
Effective Date of Development Order(Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
March 29 2016
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 281h day of ar h, 2013, by the City of Aspen Community
Development Director.
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
-n
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306
ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: VU
Aspen, CO
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fourteen (14)
days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the
publication is attached hereto.
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
Paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen
(15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is
attached hereto.
Si at e
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day
Of �W W,6+i , 201'x, by_\JA & U ESA) A, V-A---,, �
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the
approval of a site specific development plan,and
the creation of a vested property right pursuant to M commission expires:
�.
the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title Y p
24,Article 68,Colorado Revised Statutes,pertain-
ing to the following described property:Boomer-
ang Lot Split Subdivision,Lot 1 and more com-
monly known as 501 W.Hopkins Avenue,Aspen,
Colorado,81611,by Resolution of the Planning
and Zoning Commission numbered 8(Series of
2013).The Applicant,Chris Huckabee,received Notary Public
approval for the construction of a single family
home with variances from two Residential Design
Standards.For further information contact Justin
Barker,at the Cityy of Aspen Community Develop-
ment Dept.130 S.Galena St,Aspen,Colorado
(970)920-2797. ATTACHMENTS:
s/City of Aspen
Published in the Aspen Times on March 26,2013. COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
[9030487]
PAUL YOUNG III
VA r, -j4
9 3
iii 1-Y OF ASPEN
'"r'1AF&AEt�1iTY �l�tJ�'tF�,^ ,y��iY
March 22, 2013
Mr. Justin Baker
City of Aspen Community Development
130 S Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 501 W Hopkins, Aspen CO 81611
1 am not in favor of granting window height variance for a single
family home to be constructed at 501 W Hopkins.
And as a member of the Friends of Shadow Mountain and a user of
the Midland Trail, I urge P & Z as well as City Council also to deny a
variance for the rear setback requirement since it would negatively
impact our neighborhood, community, and most especially the
Midland Trail experience.
Sincerely,
aul oung
413 W Hopkins
413 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611
RECEPTION#: 598071, 03/28/2013 at
09:21:17 AM,
1 of 5, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County,CO
Resolution No. 8
(SERIES OF 2013)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING
A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND APPROVING VARIANCES
FROM THE GARAGE PLACEMENT AND WINDOW HEIGHT RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 501
WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273512466002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Christopher Huckabee, represented by Menendez Architects, PC, requesting Variance approval
from the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standards for garage placement and window
height for the construction of a single-family residence and attached garage located at 501 West
Hopkins Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.1), the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public hearing after
considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314.020, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve a dimensional variance as part of a consolidated application process
authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B.1;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of variances from the rear yard
setback (Land Use Code Section 26.710.040.D.3) and the Residential Design Standards —
Parking, garages and carports (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.C.2.b); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variance from Residential
Design Standards -- Building Elements, Windows (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.D.3.a);
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2013, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 8, Series of 2013, by a 5 to 1 vote,
denying a rear yard setback variance and approving Residential Design Standard Variances for
garage placement and window height; 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 the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; 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 Commission:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies a variance from:
• Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district rear yard setback Section 26.710.040.D.3
Section 2•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances from the following Residential
Design Standards:
• L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b., Parking, garages and carports (requiring the front
fayade of a garage to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the
front-most wall of the house) as depicted in Exhibit A
• L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D.3.a., Building Elements, Windows (prohibiting street-facing
windows from spanning between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first
floor) as depicted in Exhibit B
Section 3:
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 4:
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.
Section 5•
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.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on March 19, 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING D ZONING
COMMISSIO :
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney Eyspamer, Chai
ATTEST:
Ak
fck�ieWlLothran, Deputy City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Site plan (representing approved garage location)
Exhibit B: East elevations (representing approved window height variance)
EXHIBIT A
�S?hOpK�NS n
SNUB
r•' Sd ^' 9Z t" � 7
r
r
EXHIBIT B
loot
t %
1 - C
.� J � 4 4 5 C• C � S .1
2 a
� `a
own all T77777777
3 Y 7 I
} a
P Q>Q EAST E:.EVATON
mailJ A
r
unnuff
1 L - 1 i T 1 C 1Y c
6
x
r
1 7
r
Y
A
Ell
,
..j.f i�:j i
/1 EAST cLEVATON(FOURTH ST.V1EVJ
r.
Ree2ular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
501 W Hopkins, Residential Design and Dimensional Variances 2
Code Amendments— Check-in 9
1
,,, >� 1 .
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
for March 19, 2013 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present
were Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, LJ Erspamer, Ryan Walterscheid and
Cliff Weiss. Jim DeFrancia and Keith Goode were not in attendance. Staff present
were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City
Community Development Director, Jessica Garrow, Justin Barker, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jennifer Phelan said this will be in your next packet that the May 7th regular
meeting is cancelled because of the election and we do have May 14th meeting in
Council Chambers.
Minutes
MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes from February 19, 2013,
seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes of March 5rh with the
corrections made, Jasmine Tygre seconded. All in favor, APPROVED.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
LJ Erspamer disclosed that he and his wife have a house with no alley but it
doesn't have anything to do with his judgment. LJ did look at this property today.
Public Hearing:
501 W Hopkins, Residential Design and Dimensional Variances
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 501 W Hopkins, residential design and
dimensional variances. LJ asked for proof of legal notice. Debbie Quinn reviewed
the affidavits that were submitted and it was properly provided.
Justin Barker introduced himself as the new planner for the city. Justin stated at
501 West Hopkins the applicant is proposing the construction of a new single
family home that is going to require 3 variances. The first one is a dimensional
setback variance; the second and third ones are residential design variances. Justin
provided history on the property and the subject property was created with a lot
split and rezoning in 2006; it was a 7500 square foot lot zoned in the R-6 District.
Justin said the Ordinance that includes vehicle access for this lot is to be taken
from the South 4th Street stub located directly to the East of the property. In 2009
there was a single family home that was approved for the lot and that project was
abandoned and the excavation was filled.
2
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
Justin said the dimensional variance for the R-6 zone district there is a rear yard
setback requirement of 10 feet for the principal building; the portion used as a
garage is reduced to a 5 foot setback because there is a subgrade space below that
garage that is going to be using the same foundation wall so it will be encroaching
on that 10 foot setback, which they need the dimensional variance for that. There
are 3 requirements 1. The granting of the variance will be consistent with land use
code; 2. Granting the variance will be a minimum variance in order to make
possible use of the property; 3. The literal interpretation of the land use code won't
deny the applicant their rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same
zone district and wouldn't cause an unnecessary hardship.
Justin stated the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of the
parcel. The setback may be considered an inconvenience but in the case of new
construction it is not an unnecessary hardship for that; the applicant has expressed
that the previous project had used uncertified backfill which create some additional
construction costs but in staff's opinion it doesn't create a circumstance that is
unique for the parcel. Justin said they can still construct a new residence and have
reasonable use of the property without their requested dimensional variance; staff
is recommending denial for that request.
Justin said the next variance request is for the garage and the standard requires
residential uses can only have access from a public street; provide a garage that is
setback from the front facade of the house by at least 10 feet. The intent of this is
to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the
streetscape where alleys do not exist so the applicant has proposed is a garage that
is almost 8 feet in front of the front most wall that is facing 4th Street. So the
review standard that would apply to a residential design standard and are at least
one of these must be shown and the first one has to provide an appropriate design
and the other one has to be clearly necessary to unusual site specific constraints.
The South 41h Street stub is not an improved road but it is a public right of way and
has to be considered a public street for the purposes of the standards and doesn't
meet the intent to minimize garages. Justin said that since the garage has to access
from 4th street it doesn't have to be as close to the access point and could be moved
back. Staff said this does not meet the variance criteria and should be denied.
Justin said the other residential design standard was for the windows and the
requirements states that street facing windows shall not span through the area
where the 2nd floor level would typically exist between 9 and 12 feet above the
finished 1St floor; the proposed window is 10 foot 6 inch maximum height located
on the wall that is just south of the and behind the garage facing 4th street. The
3
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
window is going only 1 foot 6 inches taller than what was allowed; the impact of
this will be generally minimal. Staff did find that it met the first standard and staff
is recommending approval for this one.
Justin reiterated that staff is recommending denial of the rear yard setback and
garage variances and approval for the window height.
Cliff said that the garages are facing east along the Midland Trail. Justin replied
yes. Jennifer noted it was an improved right-of-way; it is considered a street.
Jennifer said that City Council required that access for this vacant lot that we are
talking about not from Hopkins but from the 4th Street stub. Ryan asked if there
was vehicular traffic beyond this house onto the trail; he asked if it was pedestrian
beyond this house. Jennifer said yes.
LJ asked if this was the final review. Debbie replied yes; all these decisions are
made by P&Z. LJ said it could be called up by Council. Jennifer replied no, not
residential design standards.
Gary Wright, attorney for the applicant, introduced Luis Menendez, architect, for
the applicant Christopher Huckabee. Gary passed around a smaller drawing, which
was already in the packet. Gary explained the history of the lot and it was an
unusual shaped lot with the square out of it and no alley; 4th Street is not
maintained by the City. Luis said that they will focus on the garage variance and
made the 2006 plans and building permit Exhibit E; the garage placement is almost
identical from the current plan and the 2006 plan. Luis said from the Residential
Design Standards the garage setback at least 10 feet further than the street and the
front most wall of the house. Luis said if the garage doors are side loaded and both
refer to the front facade. Luis had a copy of the residential design standards with
the drawings. Luis said the design standards say on lots less than 15000 square
feet at least 60% of the front fagade shall be within 5 feet of a minimum setback
line; on corner sites this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest
block length which for this property is Hopkins. Luis said the garage is more than
10 feet back from front fagade of the building therefore we are in compliance.
Gary said the reason we need this variance is the staff's interpretation of the code
does not treat the front of the building the way we do and would require the garage
to be set further back from South 4th Street. Luis said for one the variance has to
provide an appropriate design or pattern of development that is consistent with the
development that is proposed or we can meet one or the other to be clearly
necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Luis
said he believed that they met both of those criteria. Luis said if they moved the
4
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
garage back in doing so would create a hazardous condition. Exhibit B in the
packets was from the 2006 Ordinance. Luis said the neighbor at 431 Hopkins
plows 4th Street because the City does not maintain it.
Luis said the residential design standards deal with scale and character and
massing and shape and believe that they are in compliance more than the
multifamily buildings in the neighborhood. Luis said that they were using the
garage as the secondary mass for the property.
Luis said the other variance has to do with the windows and appreciate that staff
concurs with them on the window and does not compromise the residential design
standards.
Luis said the third variance was the basement space underneath the garage; the
garage is allowed a 5 foot setback but living space has to have a 10 foot setback;
the garage is going down the same depth as the basement. From above grade
nobody would ever know whether there is any space below the garage Exhibit D.
Gary said the 8 1/2 x 11 photos need to be Exhibits F and G.
Cliff asked if Luis said that this was the only single family home on the block.
Luis utilized a drawing of the block to show that there were other single family
homes on the block and also multifamily, duplex and a proposed lodge. Cliff
asked if this lot was going to have a total of 3 homes on it. Luis replied no, this is
Lot 1 and Lot 2 already has 2 homes and a duplex. Cliff asked what their
landscape plan was for the East side of the property. Luis replied they haven't
gotten that far in having a landscape architect on board yet. Cliff asked if the City
still had a pedestrian right-of-way to this Midland Trail. Jennifer replied that it
was a public right-of-way, it is 4th Street. Gary said if the garage faced West
Hopkins then they would be in compliance and wouldn't have to cross the trail but
the Ordinance says we have to have the garage entrance on 4th Street.
Bert said in the beginning you said if the garage variance isn't approved you would
have to start over; what would you do differently. Luis said if the client continues
with the property the only way to comply is to maybe build part of the house wall
all the way and move the garage back to the west and it would impact this neighbor
to the West more. Bert asked what the hardship was from page 4 of the memo.
Gary replied the hardship is a severely constrained site and the property doesn't go
all the way to the alley, the square taken out of the property corner and the way
that the Ordinance requires access off of South 4th Street. Luis said the 3 points
only apply to the dimensional variance, which is the living space below the garage;
5
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 19, 2013
it does not apply to the garage placement or the window. Luis said the garage
placement criteria are different. Bert asked if that was on page 12. Justin
responded it was on page 6 of the staff memo and you only have to meet one.
Jasmine said it says there are two review standards that the applicant is required to
meet. Justin said that was incorrect it should be one. Jasmine asked where the
correct language was. Jennifer replied right on page 6 at the end of"a" or.
Bert asked if this were an alley or a street. Luis replied by definition it was a street
but as far as the character as far as the Residential Design Standards address as a
streetscape it is just void of those characters. Gary said by definition this is a street
and that was why we were here for a variance.
Ryan asked if the 10 foot setback along Hopkins was the front yard setback. Luis
replied by the land use code you can only have one front yard setback and by
definition it is a side yard setback at 17.5 feet.
Jasmine asked the square footage of the house. Luis replied including the garage it
is approximately 6500 square feet. Gary said that includes the basement as well.
Jasmine asked what the above grade square footage was. Luis replied that it was
about half of that.
LJ asked if the neighbor to the East was sharing the snow plowing. Gary replied
yes Luis spoke to them, unless the City will plow.
Public Comments:
1. Craig Navias (his letter is in the packet) said he doesn't see the issues with
the garage from an impact point of view and is probably better than what we
see up and down the street. Craig said there was a trail that runs behind here
and staff wants to reject the garage because it is visually dominating the
trail. Craig didn't see why this big mass (on the west) had to be there and it
wasn't there in the house that was designed before and it was larger in
square footage than this and he believed that things can be done to move this
mass back. Than would be pleasing to him and if it could be pushed back.
2. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lives in the duplex that is caddy corner to
this property; she looks out on this property and the trail. Cheryl said that
the trail in 1985 was incredible, it was a great trail and it has been ruined
with all the encroachments on the trail. Cheryl said this house is nothing
compared to what has already ruined it with houses up against the trail.
Cheryl said their garage should access from the 4th Street stub.
6
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
LJ closed the public comment section of the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments:
LJ said we were looking for these 3 variances.
Cliff said he uses this trail to get to these meeting in the spring, summer and fall;
the trail does rise up right after 4th Street but when you came up the Midland Trail
through Koch Lumber but this is the only safe access. Cliff said a lot of people use
this trail and voiced concern for anybody using that trail. U said the garage can
stay there P&Z is deciding a basement wall.
Ryan said he understands exactly that City Council is directing them to come out
on that street; regardless of where the garage is put on that site they are going to
cross the trail.
Stan asked staff if there were any requirements from Engineering or Parks and
Trails. Jennifer replied that there weren't any plans on improving the right-of-way.
LJ asked if they want to bring that basement wall to match the side of the garage; is
that an increase in FAR and asked if it is does exceed. Cliff said it was subgrade.
Jennifer said it doesn't calculate as much as above grade but if you are going to
increase the basement you will have an increase in floor area. Jennifer said the
biggest issue is that our code doesn't allow front setbacks for a primary habitable
space verses a garage property line and we don't have that allowance for the
primary residence. Jennifer said what the applicant is asking for is to take
advantage of the setback permitted for a garage when it is solely used as a garage
so that they have more area to put habitable space.
Bert agrees with staff's interpretation with pretty much everything in the memo but
he would support a code amendment at some point to allow below grade space to
match the footprint of the above grade setback.
Ryan said that what they are doing with the garage meets-the intent of the code, the
primary street as the frontage is along Hopkins; Ryan feel they have met the intent
by having the garage on the side. Ryan said he would be in support of the primary
variance request and whether or not you allow them to take advantage of the space
below becomes semantics and then the City is imposing an undue hardship on an
owner requiring that they reconfigure the construction of their underground space.
There was a structural and a soils engineer that told them the foundation has to be
that low so whether or not you allow him to take advantage of 4t/z feet is making a
7
Reizular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes March 19, 2013
point that he thinks is arbitrary at this point. Ryan said he doesn't have a problem
giving him the below grade space when this garage goes over it. Ryan said he
would be in favor of granting all 3 variances.
Jasmine said if you pulled the garage back you wouldn't have the problem of the
below grade space but that is not the proposal that is before us. Jasmine said the
viewpoint of a spectator that subgrade space is not going to make any difference.
Jasmine said she didn't see where P&Z should be encouraging people to build
support walls that go down that far. Jasmine said that she didn't like the windows
but would go along with it.
Cliff asked to hear more about this code that if the garage were attached rather than
connected, what does the code say. Jennifer said the secondary mass does not need
to be connected. Cliff asked if the garage can be attached directly to the house.
Jennifer replied there doesn't need to be a connection period; they can have 2
separate buildings and the requirement between buildings is 5 feet. Jennifer said
what is required in the code is a secondary mass not necessarily need to be the
garage it could be something else for the secondary mass; this is what the architect
put before you. Jennifer said a certain amount of square footage required in a
secondary mass that has a linking element but it is not dictated that the garage need
to be the secondary mass. Cliff asked the length of this connection structure that
links the house to the garage. Luis replied 10 feet.
Stan said he agrees that the dimensional variance doesn't make any sense
unfortunately the applicant doesn't meet any of the requirements for a variance
because this is a 7500 square foot lot with 6500 square foot house he thought there
was plenty of fair use and it will complicate construction he said that he agrees
with Jasmine that it isn't a good way to approach this. Stan said in the future he
would have a hard time saying "no you can't do it" because this is new
construction and the have to meet the rules as they are currently written and he
agrees with Bert that we should change the rules. Stan said if you had the ability to
go to 5 feet with the garage what is the problem with the subgrade space; he said
he can't go with the variance in this particular situation. Stan said the garage
setback meets the intent of the design; like many others situations we have seen it
puts the garage on the side. Stan said we have had other applications on corner lots
that people have to choose one to be your front and the other is the side; so this is
not the front so it shouldn't have to be setback from the edge of the house. Stan
said he didn't think we needed to grant a variance but he will support granting a
variance. Stan said the windows were not an issue for him.
8
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting--Minutes March 19, 2013
LJ said to Mr. Navias P&Z does not have the criteria to judge that corner of the
building that you are concerned about. LJ said he agreed with Stan, Jasmine, and
Bert. LJ asked if they can bring the corner of garage back to the current wall and
make up that space somewhere else.
Gary said the way this works before is share the existing driveway with the trail
parallel to the driveway and cross it as we have to get to the garage.
Jennifer said she wanted to be clear we that are talking about a city right-of-way so
they really can't do anything to the right-of-way; they can just drive along it as
vehicular access. Cliff asked if all 3 variances were under one resolution. Jennifer
responded section one notes which ones are denied and section two which are
approved. So if you make a different motion we can change which were denied
and which were approved.
MOTION.- Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution 008-13 denying variance
requests from the rear yard setback and approving a variance request from the
garage placement from the residential design standards and the window height
residential design standards to construct a single family residence at 501 West
Hopkins; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call: Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Bert
Myrin, no; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; LJErspamer,
yes. APPROVED 5-1.
Discussion prior to vote: Bert said he supported the original motion with staff.
Stan stated this was now modified to read is the setback for the subgrade space
must be maintained at 10 feet and the wall of the garage can go to 5 feet; the
setback from the front of the building is so they can build the garage where they
want to build it and the window variance as proposed is approved. LJ said the
subgrade space goes in a little bit and the garage goes out a little bit.
Continued-Other Business:- - - - - - - - - - _ - - -
Code Amendments — Check-in
LJ opened the Continued Code Amendments—check-in. Jessica Garrow said the
memo in the packet was a summary of the discussion that we had at the last P&Z
Meeting. Jessica wanted to check if she missed anything and get those comments
because they will be forwarding this to City Council as we move forward with
some of these code amendments.
LJ asked about the 4 step process. Jessica said that sentence is referring to an
option where it would not be a 4 step process anymore; the conceptual review
9
....
0 0 �
17� ._..... :,.
+�! } ,. ,,
_, �,,,
p:u � ..
M
.., ....
O � ..��,,,�� � � _..:
w s`
,�,r *�r �:: �.,.;s
A rt .
w,.
a �
y,� �
�; �,
:an -
,,
.. Y—�Y
,,
„,� �, �".'��,.,, '—�..L�
--- - ....___..__ E �jI I
_.w _
_- ,'-uoqunagonuan
V sUt:td�H S
�' �..'<.
..
�,
1,� _. � _
`�
r � r
1
If
1
M
Sol
v .
3i)N�^VSN�HdbN15 /
T
- - 311q103 64-, y app�lr�Kf
1
b. The front facade of the ara re ol- the fr -
g g ont most
supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least
ten ( 10)( } further from the street than the front-most
wall of the house.
N
c. On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in
size, the garage or carport may beforward of the front
facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport
entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded).
'The standard requires that all residential uses that o
access from a public street provide a garage that is set back
from the front facade of the house by at least ten (10) feet."
000} y
f>rj parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (1 ,�, scare
f,ect4 at least sixty percent (60(%' ) of the front fagade shall be
� 1t1111� tiv �°!, 5) feet of t}le 11111111TIL1111 firolit yard setback line. On
ith
corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage ;..
the longest block length.
0 u2nom, ,
F •
� P 1
ICA .
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: 501 W. Hopkins Avenue- Consolidated Variance Review: Dimensional and
Residential Design Standards, Public Hearing
DATE: March 19, 2013
APPLICANT/OWNER: Photo of Subject Property:
Christopher Huckabee
REPRESENTATIVE:
Luis Menendez, Menendez Architects, P.C.
LOCATION:
501 W. Hopkins Avenue
CURRENT ZONING:
R-6, Medium-Density Residential
SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting
one setback variance and two
variances from certain Residential Design 501 W.Hopkins Ave lot,Looking southwest from
Standards in order to construct a new intersection of Hopkins Ave. and Fourth St.
single-family residence and attached
garage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny variances from the rear
yard setback and Residential Design Standard
for garage placement and approve a variance
from the Residential Design Standard for
window height.
LAND USE REQUESTS:
Applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family residence and attached garage at 501 W.
Hopkins Avenue and is requesting the following land use approvals:
1
e ?
P2
i
• Variance approval from the 10 feet rear setback for principal buildings in the R-6 zone
district.
• Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2,
Requiring the front fagade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport
to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the
house
• Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 D.3,
Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would
typically exist, which is between nine(9)and twelve(12) feet above the finished floor.
FIGURE 1: VICINITYMAP
i
Y
u
S
REVIEW PROCEDURE'
A variance from the Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with conditions,
or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and
Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Sections: 26.410.020 D. Variances.
If the application for a dimensional variance is part of a consolidated application process, the
Planning and Zoning Commission may review the application using the standards and procedures
set forth in Chapter 26.314, Variances.
PROJECT SUMMARY'
The current parcel was created under Ordinance #6, Series of 2006, rezoning the "Boomerang
Vacant Parcel" from the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential with a PUD and Lodge Preservation
2
P3
Overlay to R-6 Medium-Density Residential. The lot was also split into two parcels: Lot 1 of
7,500 square feet and Lot 2 of 12,237 square feet. Lot 1 is the parcel of discussion.
According to the ordinance, "Lot 1 is limited to one (1) single family residence and Lot two is
limited to two (2) detached free market residences, plus two ADU/CH units attached to one-
another." Both lots are required to provide affordable housing mitigation by developing one (1)
"for sale" accessory dwelling unit or carriage house. These units are located on Lot 2 in a duplex
configuration as a requirement of the ordinance. The ordinance also requires, "Vehicular access
to Lot 1 shall be taken from the South Fourth Street stub located directly to the east of the
property."
The applicant is proposing construction of a new single-family home that requires variances from
one setback and two Residential Design Standards. In 2009, a single-family home was previously
approved on the lot and excavation began. The project was abandoned and excavation was filled.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE:
The R-6 zone district requires principal buildings to be a minimum of ten(10) feet from the rear
setback line, but allows for the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage to be
reduced to five (5) feet. The applicant has the proposed garage within its allowable setback of
five (5) feet, but also proposes a sub-grade living space that shares the same foundation wall as
the garage. The figure below shows the location of the proposed wall and allowable setbacks.
FIGURE 2
I
4
n sBisac � I
a
W.LC3� BEOtYJOn9 bc�
i
DN. N WAY �.
s
BUNK
IK+�06i � I
s*came
u.w ❑ I
I
Required 10'setback
r i q I
�+C Proposed construction below garage
(5'setback)
3
P4
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Board shall make a
finding that the following three(3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel,building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of
the parcel. The setback standard may be considered as an inconvenience, but not an
unnecessary hardship,particularly in the case of new construction. The applicant has expressed
that the previous project used uncertified backf ll for the excavation. Though this might create
additional construction costs, it does not create a circumstance unique to the parcel that
deprives the applicant any right commonly enjoyed by other parcels. Applicant can still
construct a new residence, and have reasonable use of the property without the requested
dimensional variance. Staff recommends denial of the request.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES:
Under Land Use Code Section 26.410.010.A. of the Residential Design Standards, "The
purpose...is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's
streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking...that each home...contribute
to the streetscape."
The proposal has been designed to meet the majority of the design standards. The two (2) design
standards that are not met by the proposal are:
1. Parking, garages and carports: The front fagade of the garage or the front-most supporting
column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the
front-most wall of the house
2. Windows: Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor
level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the
finished floor
4
F P5
Parking, garages and carports The standard requires that all residential uses that only have access
from a public street provide a garage that is set back from the front facade of the house by at least
ten (10) feet. The intent of the requirement is to "minimize the presence of garages and carports
as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." The applicant has proposed the
garage almost eight (8) feet in front of the front-most wall facing Fourth Street as shown in the
figures below.
FIGURE 3
7 14 ti� r'
/J7/y
. i
/ r
1 14
P 12 ♦
_ 7
�+ PROPOSED ATTACHED 7-
+ + 2-GAR OAZA6F OVER .
+ + BASEMENT
/ ti2 7'p t-N
2 �'R
n� ❑ 1 �5'08Y7,�,'�
.� � ♦ 30,0 `'+�
FIGURE 4
I
®®® ®®®
+r1 F15T ELEVATION(FOURTH ST.VIES
5
P6 '
There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to
grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria,the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. Though the garage faces Fourth Street, it would
still be easily seen from Hopkins if it was the furthest out element, which would not be typical for
the development of the neighborhood. Though Fourth Street does not service much vehicular
traffic, it functions as an access point for pedestrian traffic to the Midland Trail and Little Cloud
Trail. The proposal places the garage right along this access point where it is visually
dominating, and does not meet the intent of the guideline to minimize the presence of garages
where alleys do not exist. The proposal is required to access the garage along Fourth Street, but
has the opportunity to move the location further from the street. The lot has the space to meet the
intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constrain. Staff
believes that the requested variance does not meet the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial
of the request.
Windows The standard requires that street-facing windows shall not span through the area where
a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above
the finished first floor. The applicant has proposed windows that extend 10.5 feet above grade on
the living room wall behind the garage and to the south as shown in the figure below.
FIGURE 5
HEM
2 FAZnAL EAST EIJ:V'A ON ' EAST ELEVATON(FOURTH ST.V1EN�
6
P7
The same variance review standards apply.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E The intent of the guideline is to prevent
windows where a second story floor plate is typically located. Since the windows are located on
a one-story mass and are only 1'6" taller than the limit, the impact will be minimal. The
windows are largely hidden from view by the garage, but there are no site-specific constraints
that suggest the need for taller windows. Staff finds that the requested variance meets standard
"a. " of the review criteria by providing an appropriate design or pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular
standard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning'Commission deny variances from the rear yard
setback and Residential Design Standard for garage placement and approve a variance from the
Residential Design Standard for window height.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2013, denying variance requests from the rear
yard setback and garage placement Residential Design Standard and approving a variance request
from the window height Residential Design Standard to construct a single-family residence
located at 501 W. Hopkins."
Exhibits:
A. Review Criteria—Variances
B. Review Criteria—Residential Design Standards
C. Public Comment—Craig Navias—March 12, 2013
D. Application
7
OWN
P8 r
Resolution No._
(SERIES OF 2013)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING
VARIANCES FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND GARAGE PLACEMENT
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE
WINDOW HEIGHT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD TO CONSTRUCT A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 501 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273512466002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Christopher Huckabee, represented by Menendez Architects, PC, requesting Variance approval
from the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standards for garage placement and window
height for the construction of a single-family residence and attached garage located at 501 West
Hopkins Avenue; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.410.13, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public hearing after
considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314.020, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve a dimensional variance as part of a consolidated application process
authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B.1;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of variances from the rear yard
setback (Land Use Code Section 26.710.040.D.3) and the Residential Design Standards —
Parking, garages and carports (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.C.2.b); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variance from Residential
Design Standards — Building Elements, Windows (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.D.3.a);
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2013, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2013, by a _ to _ vote,
denying a rear yard setback variance and Residential Design Standard Variance for garage
placement, and approving a Residential Design Standard Variance for window height; and,
P9
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 the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; 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 Commission:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies variances from:
• Medium Density Residential (R-6)zone district rear yard setback Section 26.710.040.D.3
• Residential Design Standard: L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b., Parking, garages and
carports (requiring the front fagade of a garage to be set back at least ten (10) feet further
from the street than the front-most wall of the house)
Section 2•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance from the following Residential
Design Standard:
• L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D.3.a., Building Elements, Windows (prohibiting street-facing
windows from spanning between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first
floor)
Section 3•
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 4•
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.
Section 5•
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.
P10
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on March 19, 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer,Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: East elevations (representing approved window height variance)
P11
EXHIBIT A �`'!j�ry \✓+.� \
Li Ll-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I r 1 1 I I I I I I
14y 1
MIN o
2 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION
r
i
ri}
IIII FM l l LLLJ®Fl rl
_ -RNTEJW0.'D.L
1L+fiD W'.+LL�5f(
.�I.iED WJOJ?4 0.?:£G1tG"X
EAST ELEVATION(FOURTH ST.MEW)
P12
EXHIBIT A
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Board shall make a
finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code;and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of
the parcel. The setback standard may be considered as an inconvenience, but not an
unnecessary hardship, particularly in the case of new construction. The applicant has expressed
that the previous project used uncertified backfill for the excavation. Though this might create
additional construction costs, it does not create a circumstance unique to the parcel that
deprives the applicant any right commonly enjoyed by other parcels. Applicant can still
construct a new residence, and have reasonable use of the property without the requested
dimensional variance. Staff recommends denial of the request.
- - - - P13
EXHIBIT B
There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to
grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or - - -
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding. The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26 410.040E. Though the garage faces Fourth Street, it would
still be easily seen from Hopkins if it was the furthest out element, which would,not be typical for
the development of the neighborhood. Though Fourth Street does not service much vehicular
traffic, itfunctions as an access point for pedestrian traffic to the Midland Trail and Little Cloud
Trail. The proposal places the garage right along this access point where it is visually
dominating, and does not meet the intent of the guideline to minimize the presence of garages
where alleys do not exist. The proposal is required to access the garage along Fourth Street, but
has the opportunity to move the location further from the street. The lot has the space to meet the
intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constrain. Staff
believes that the requested variance does not meet the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial
of the request.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26410.040E. The intent of the guideline is to prevent
windows where a second story floor plate is typically located. Since the windows are located on
a one-story mass and are only 1 '6" taller than the limit, the impact will be minimal. The
windows are largely hidden from view by the garage, but there are no site-specific constraints
that suggest the need for taller windows. Staff finds that the requested variance meets standard
"a. " of the review criteria by providing an appropriate design or pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular
standard.
P14 i
12 March 2013
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Re:501 West Hopkins Aspen 81611
Dear Commission,
My name is Craig Navias, and I am writing to you because I believe that plans submitted for the
subject property, which is directly East of my home at 505 West Hopkins,violate the City's
Residential Design Standards as well as the original Intention of the Boomerang Lot Split
Subdivision.
I have included for your reference the original Boomerang Lot Split Exemption Plat,which
shows how the parcel of land was split into Lot 2, containing three already built structures and
Lot 1,on which the subject property is planned. I would hope that the original intention was
for all homes to work together,and I do not believe that the proposed home will be
harmonious with the existing homes.
When I purchased my home in 2010, 1 understood that the home at 501 West Hopkins would
have a single story element adjacent to my single story element, per the original 501 West
Hopkins West Elevation (attached for your reference). I frankly thought this was to be in
compliance with the inflection clause of the residential design standards. When I pointed out
to the Community Development Department that the new design does not have a single story
element adjacent to my single story element, I was informed that the inflection standard only
applies to street facing elements. I would like to point out that the Midland Trail runs directly
behind my home and the lot at 501 West Hopkins,and that the Residential Design Standards
define a Street as"A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley,containing a public access
easement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic" When 1 pointed out
to the Community Development Department that this is exactly what the Midland Trail is and
that therefore the rear of my house should be considered street frontage as well,they
informed me that while the Midland Trail does indeed fall broadly under the definition of
street, it is clearly a trail and is not considered as a street for the purposes of the standards. I
must respectfully disagree with what the Community Development Department says because
the Midland Trail is clearly intended for pedestrian traffic and that is indeed how it is well used.
The general purpose of the Residential Design Standards makes it clear that the standards are
i P15
largely intended to make our neighborhoods conducive to walking, and the Midland Trail is
used as much or more than West Hopkins for that very purpose.
I have also attached a picture of the East side of my home at 505 West Hopkins (which includes
the lot at 501 West Hopkins)as well as a picture of the rear of my home from the Midland Trail
for your reference.
I ask for your consideration and again submit that the proposed home at 501 West Hopkins
violates the inflection clause of the Residential Design Standards and is not harmonious with its
neighbors.
Respectfully Submitted,
Craig Navias
505 West Hopkins
cinavias @arrowtube.com
214 564 6369
-v
riasstw*o�woa
$TKLO.T'CGL
WOOD FASCV.Siw,i+v.
en�e�:s+o�cnv
l:
501 W. HOPKINS
WEST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS r.c.
BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT S BBD I V I S iy ®ITT EXEMP T H OAT PLAT
GF -;� :'--7 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
TNAi-APT OF LOTS n.R AK C LY W IIORTNER:r OF I.")-t eP fNe CI1•nxC T'd� �'Y%f7�l iiAd:ISi&1'riai"tssse 4'ixi'it�'n.AOOf a�Ffo"rA,uc."efu nrE unrw
f0'ANf•R OF S?EH IACWPDIW TO iXE w)t REStRVEY•9r:HE iViiAU 4F 4N4
�! MANApp�!�ITI. xC�PT rHE 80 Y';0 FEE'THEREOF."°PIE K4RTN+]16 OF ! "� 7 .� ) c
LOT.D AIIDE 111E YoRTti 0 FEEL OF LO 5=.0 AIO o.AMJ!sE 1A^RTII aC cET OF_OT •� _o tiL
.BiOCR r..clrr Ax4,o+xa.e of.YSV=N. YRIx Go��rir,1,SOPUG Y' t i"&E'd+{"h°."1"" w`��'Lo"S•4`"'Yx 7,
_ GCIRA:MI NO:.1L43 ACRES-/ .'c:r�w v'm.iti v Awl't f{IiAlx Na mr'tieuoex'Io'i7ei m wr
s'tt"�1M.h lo)"aR1 i'�ftilYNifR,viltanlo.tl°o':tt W AlrBl II:IUM
Y..s�J;='
-Vixa
• 1 a� •y-PA
111 Ptexf-W{: nr 4 ti _
u
Ilki�•• «t�'TPRiRYi.ifi .aA.
•9L•.. ,cif nw '•
n0� �..
aatS'f� €r,�,r...ACa.,ppeoso fume x aa�f_;.L,e"un°e
��G� A•1,f . gM'if-tsr4Trf7:rwe w�,e'
' / 'hw '"h-w H09TGA
-Y GEE'$CFRTIFICATE
+n°•"y '\ €' e I r"�xQ-. / w tur. aTS a.ln n�ole::bii?i u"iv'I
+ poy'a auxlx0 wcocln.Im
0 fn w u«. x' —',YCtir�rw'i o�'uiesl tinrlizn`4dSs°�' f enelnr/eOO°ieien e5n lie ivi
'1 uir.'r
e`/ l .iYY�ma Yui. ]nY a. ��.•3.
\ l8"•+ f� \%\ ' o e�.e W-
T `��'��'¢;,:�'sr.'ria-az4�w"�,
\\ ';.\``z� ( •..f.l,»t.'S�1'- / � `a%• °,,�,-';ix�-���� .EO.3.fw
if TTLB AJAX KP ZDA Li NOUSLNG / a ( / () G ''(`.` K !oox°W�Waxoii .d IM AJxn1t 'IHMf.'16 T'If:�wv
•t•a . , )+AtA nfB'+x/ '' LOTI / , ��8„: i l hiF NIi7I'VYvFf'Y:f.f4
al°i •«:«:,�s'•'k`u;i� �� ;get� P °� \ F/ e),\ .+�e�,. l I e. _ �J/
« d::'7,T7` t:7„7 d.. tfa+iir«i•' «1a :IZa:sN..,, `/ c+a et 1 ' r-.1`�,` _ / / e ( TITLE CERTIFICATE
i��.S• :.7'rk.:•�. :: ..,7:" may-
f7% �4 I°
le.T1�'.`Sk °tl.TkrF;e,gf,°;".,:; TL IV—
IS
.R;•ryd.. '::7.7 P:.•t1:':dY wrvp��f.'47tt:�f' .w 6�e-LSr u.w. i�..�� / '%� wf``'o4./w•..,.x •+'"*."rS�.i]. R,4 '"7AT '.i�!'c"sS9.guru fi
KEY �d:d'ri'l:�uoC:l':il,.i.d.::7ilf.n'r...........
«
VU
• TOP 7a�.''wii�r�im'{oKe•.en¢:
"'.4 '1w~'";t::Ix:::,:19i:lS/n:.Td::l«.::}.:r ..,o.l I 't�•a'•\ «I / '"bf.f)�w.w. `¢ j I s I / —3>4d � '�
:I-b-
'�;':
.;i r''�i•:7.�a::u17, 'r der.�:�:zlr`:.d: :t":::ta:: � \ �? �I ':�f� r �,:�; tr
i':7G:wtf«: w [.':. •.1i:rfYr.. .�ew�.:::... \ ALtL
f:.:, »:11'1 f.1�t1«�::.:I.�'«d:'15:�)�:�...w'.d7: •:�.1 W.«r � Ga�� ., w°jocx e � ..'•f€Y 7
L 0 5�1.
t w I i. "iJ in
�i::5':°a� 1 1,',�7��11�!I:'7`�'«�'��'�.N'P::i r'L:•t:" I .IUaY e �' 1 •':"" t`!P•S_!x'x..'"`f�,�'�..f 1�`y •>4�..""I,xt�'�FZ'•cuaa "�'•�I!'
d t A au 7r.a.f.•',:'f i.«..i`: •1 1»Yr.. ••t a ..J / _ Rh. .t ,.�ic.�..
wl::::r •�S i Y•�»I « "S.:"
•id:n '1d11 .... .. « Id'' SURVEYOR'1 CEIT OICAIE
i.''zt:. ~,. :.yi7':: �d"'1P:Gd:i:•°:R.n 1� m �Ij
if.ali?eu:7,:'R.
PRIDE OF ASPEN
ry�fe:z'E.raY
Ii wl la,llt 'r•It" a e•win....l« L.CRND AND NOTLS 'T'�a 4•.xx'i )ate' 'snP'""' n' ' 'Wn
" i 3': 1i«,..L••3.1•.�«.' .. 7 >r ».7
t:; el d:. 1•.m a, 7'A «7d�1».:" M/WING LLAI/A
:G.7w'!•i«,..Tles �b 71 aA. ::Si:.. «..;95.,I.at, .�; o :I4gw:��'.=eAe�av awf
wal![. w ® 1J��p{�ryy II1!j7!I IIp�!p! ;�sS.
`t GY:�:E' .�a �~ 74= :nS«YII ;Y1r:S ,Id Y,Gf NLµSY AN= v\ �O C'' OOIINCIL`APPROVAL
d,-•. ::'� s.'7...�6 =t;•"d'' »r - :YF;k:1,:f ao- .., — � r .... '.F�`dS x`•>�6°ry N`r,°x;:o-';�fE�ZX"�a'o.1=-fE;."'�
s�`;s ,":�:.:di1�r..�r?;„�i:•n�t,�'a:r.;:E:„N s.��' .,,�.::x f.�.lf.w.., °°.E wx�x,.—R�,�,<.,�„�.a r�-��°
..«1:.«d:'at:,::':d.•.w««. ... •ry 'Ob� ��_ -,r.��w�r1r�oof p /SrR 4:."f'l
qP ..qJ
I..A.•"f.::.�M'.::4110. ».:7a:i9x::L r:::'«w.'' ppG Q a� ';'b.'' '6 '&P.fmi-,a c�rr.<;• 'fir'RS;a"9'.w""`i�::l.°oM1::ioy"w �.r n---- Y/tY';'Af"�e.":wacSf_a'orF'xzr.�'
�Pp. �jJT7rp'�i �JS.-. . . nrsY rAly, CITY ENC!NECR'S APPROVAL f l
�.. �R p,+t�-�L"""n�^^^ccLL44L Vx•urye y�� 'TUi',:.'v.'mrlll'R.c'.Qilfi v.Jnr�li"UI,Tof lIr,fefMrrl.Y a i�isni i,�sRra r: P:�rniicft�oR wi�'x�r Y.a !YI•ro
'.` `''!Y^�(/'LS�C;_.y "•..X Kua.� i> A. z�' 6 Aa a:iia .Nael'a•a; "a�ic.15$°.r /ee:.a)
n f r
COMM IT OLVELOPNLN APPROVAL
ASPEN SURVEY eN0 NEERS. INC. ``p°'O1Ria�-,?� aw c0,rw,rt aArn r0.owl.a 0001 f.vrcrl.e a'e. rxll
''rori€aF Au i`—W r'11 S111
T f"uw.' fsy�ye JSIT M ,
m..:n�P_�i' owu t E•s 9"v
--- '
l.af )PAx tafw eas)o.ow 4 1� PARKS DEPAR-MEW APPROVAL
CLERK A1.0 RECORDER'S M^CEP%A\O
�r'.:t.}• j :i:deVa'P°•"nERO�"<�i° -fuyx 'f�nrrwxr xyfw rtra um
14"
-1
AR N0.1910)4 T
V
J
,
SFr
a
r
,y� ^"T°stPSS
c.
�w
r u 6 2
4 � t
I ' �
'
fia�? l � y
r
� a 1
Et
all
144%
i
Al
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
TO: March 4, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
FROM:
Menendez Architects P.C.
715 West Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, Colorado 81611
lma@sopris.net 970-544-1915
I
VARIANCE APPLICATION:
The following is submitted after previous meetings with Planning Department staff and in
I accordance with Pre-Application Conference Summaries dated July 20, 2012 and January 23,
2013.
A: Project Location:
Address: 501 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen.
Legal Description: Lot 1, Boomerang Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat
B. Requests:
The Applicant seeks the approvals necessary to:
1) Allow the east wall of the garage to be forward of the easterly most wall of
the residence, which is needed due to the Staff Code Interpretation that there are
two front facades to the residence.
2) Construct the portion of the basement directly below the footprint of the garage.
3) Install windows on the east facing side of the residence (facing South 4" Street)
that have a top height of 10'-611
.
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
C. Existing Conditions:
The Property is a vacant 7,500 square foot L-shape corner lot, without a rear alley, in the
Medium-Density Residential R-6 Zone District. It is bounded by West Hopkins Avenue along
the north property line, a short dead-end stub of South 4`h Street along the east property line, and
a recently constructed single-family home to the west. To the south is a small area of
unimproved land belonging to the City between the Property and the Townsite Line 7 - 8. [See
Exhibit A]
Also to the south, located outside the City limits, is the Pride of Aspen Mining Claim and
Lot 2, Mary B Subdivision. A widely used "bandit trail" (aka the Shadow Mountain Trail) which
traverses the private property to the west and then continues east approximately along the Alley
for Block 32 to Little Cloud Park. The Midland Trail is an existing gravel trail along the South
4`h Street stub which legally allows for access to Little Cloud Park.
I
Notwithstanding that the vested rights for Ordinance#6, Series of 2006, expired in 2009,
this Ordinance mandates that"Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be taken from the South 4" Street
stub located directly to the east of the property." Otherwise, access from West Hopkins Avenue
would be possible.
The lot was excavated in 2009 for the construction of a two-story, over basement, single-
family home very similar in layout to the currently proposed house. The previously permitted
design located the garage,with basement living space below the entire garage footprint, in the
same location as the current proposal. The 2009 project was not built and the building permit has
expired. At the time of the abandonment of the previous project, the excavation was backfilled.
Page 2 of 12
p-,
k_1
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
Much of the context of the immediate neighborhood is comprised of multi-family
buildings, including the Little Ajax Affordable Housing project located on the same side of the
street as the Property. The proposed redevelopment of the old Boomerang Lodge is directly
across the street from the Property. Both of these developments, as well as several other nearby
multi-family buildings do not conform to the single-family Residential Design Standards
requirements because they are multi-family projects and thus lack the same smaller scale and
character that the proposed design achieves.
D. Project Description:
The proposed project consists of a single-family residence with an attached two-car
garage to the east side of the house. A second floor is located above the west end of the house
and there is basement living space below the entire footprint of the ground floor, including the
garage. The entrance and the front fayade of the building, as required by Section 26.410.030.A.2
(Build-to Lines), are along the longest block length which is West Hopkins Avenue.
E. Code Interpretation:
The Applicant submits that the proposed project has only one front fagade and it faces
West Hopkins Avenue.
The clear and unambiguous language of the Code allows the location of the garage and
access from the South 4t" Street stub as is being requested. Alternatively, the Applicant requests
a variance to allow the location of the garage as is being proposed here and as was allowed by the
building permit issued in 2009 as File No. 01892006. The Applicant reserves the right to
challenge the code interpretation if the variance for the garage location is not approved.
Page 3 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
Due to the existing fill-soil condition resulting from the excavation and subsequent
backfill of the previously-approved project, the foundation of the south wall of the garage,
regardless of whether there is basement underneath it or not, will need to extend to the same
depth as the basement level foundation in order to bear on suitable soils. The basement area
below the footprint of the garage is fully below grade and imperceptible from anywhere above
ground.
If the variance request is declined, the basement space will be reconfigured to observe the
10-foot setback with its south wall located five-feet north of the south foundation wall of the
garage thus leaving a void of unusable space between the two walls that extends to the bottom of
the basement level. (See Exhibit D). This will be a more expensive solution than a single
foundation wall that is in line with the south wall of the garage and it still leaves below grade
space, although unusable, within the 10-foot setback.
Given that the basement space below the garage does not extend beyond the garage
footprint and that any area below the garage is imperceptible above grade, the variance request is
appropriate.
F-3 Variance No. 3 —Street-Facing Windows Top Height:
The Living Room of the proposed home has been sited to take advantage of the views of
Shadow Mountain to the south and Aspen Mountain to the southeast. To capture as much view
and maintain continuity with the overall design theme, the head height of the windows is set at
approximately 10'-6" above finish floor level where only 9-feet is allowed.
The windows on the south wall of the Living Room are exempt from the RDS standard
because they are not street facing windows. However, treating the South 4tn Street stub as a
"street" even though it is in reality little more than a driveway serving two homes and a
pedestrian trail over 73-feet away creates the need for this variance request. Furthermore, the
window is mostly concealed from view by the garage.
Page 11 of 12
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND REAR YARD SETBACK
501 West Hopkins Avenue
Given the distance and location of the window to the street, the F-6" that it projects
above the 9-foot RDS height limit does not compromise the pedestrian scale of structures that the
RDS strive to achieve.
G. Summary:
The context of the immediate neighborhood, the pattern of development of nearby, multi-
family buildings and the very limited visibility of the windows in question, the proposed design
preserves the scale and neighborhood character the RDS strive to preserve.
There are numerous considerations including the Property's characteristics which
differentiate it from a typical City of Aspen Lot and which justify granting the Applicants
requests. Even with the two proposed non-conformities and the proposed garage placement the
project accomplishes the objectives of the Residential Design Standards, particularly in context
with the immediate neighborhood. Thus, the approval of the requests for 1)the same as the
prior-approved garage placement, 2) the rear yard setback variance of five feet, and 3)the
window height variance of one and one-half feet; should be approved for this project at the
location.
Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT
a
a
Std EAS ENT '
RELEPT I CAN NO 4-81651
Do-
coo
RED. 243045- ,
0. f
.,, . . .
g zzyy t �?
2 ACRES mil- :
r i ( �: .!J • fir° xiA
r
13118 FOR LOT !
Q J YELLO-W
2376 a
4229
/ L E CG E D AND NOTES
d
0 PCIUND OR SET SURVEY MONUMENT AS QE—SCR(gE�
MANHOLE
`\
HYDRANT i 11 li i ri 1f i.� t ( - •� 4
UTILFIFY 94
JX
—
: •. —
SURVEY co��--ROj
i
N 75°09'11"W 105.00'
1 IMPRACTICAL S'x 35SPACE
RESULTS IN MUCH WASTED 1
1 FLOOR AREA AND LOT/YARD 1
I AREA I
10'SETBAGK
1 1
1 1
1 1
I I
1 LINKING U
1 ELEMENT 1
?' o
0 0
1 r o u�
1
1 GARAGE t 1
cio I
0
c I L
1
w 1
o> 1 1
o I°v
Z 1
1
5'SETBACK(GARAGE) 1
1 I
N 7709'11"W 30.00'
1
1 I 1
I 1
Y I
Q U
1 W w
N N I 1
1 in
I°o tabbies'
0 0
1
u') M
1 1
U) , m
I I X
10'SETBACK
1
2,5239q k 1
N 75°09'11"W 75.00'