The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1005 Waters Ave.0025.2008.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0025.2008.ASLU 273718 3 82 001 1005 WATERS AVE JASONLASSER REMODEL AND ADDITIONS GRETCHEN 10.8.08 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 4.2.10 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY' 1 DOS- 1/42â‚¬-45 A.-Uâ‚¬_ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: fiw 1 -Re,b 1-7/ 6 4~ 3Â£~ frn , 2006- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, ~1/\,4 0//1 Soof.â‚¬/L/1 (name, please print) being or representjng 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: 6/'0~Publication ofnotice: 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 ofnotice: Dy 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 , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of anotice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in. Section 26.304.060(IE)(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 ofthe owilers and goverrunental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By ike 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 that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs 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 o f owners of real property in the area o f 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 2-day of 'Fbelb , 20*L by A-yÂ».1-e-la S c-Arâ‚¬Â£1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My comm.*sion ex*es: ~ 5 /9 ~ 001 2 Notary Publib \ MMEÂ·./.4. < i CORY j. L& ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: ~.......e:&979 â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION 'q**4=@#7 â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) My Commission Expires 05/09/2012 â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 r PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LOT A, B, AND C, SLOCK 41, EAST ASPEN ADDITION, ASPEN, C 6LORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1005 WATERS AVENUE, VARIANC- ES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STAN- DARDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to re- view an application submitted by Nancy Bryant, Chris Leverich, and Andrew Dolan, 1005 Waters Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 and represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchenl Greenwood & Associates, Inc. for Variances from the Residential Design Standards. The applicant is requesting ap- provals for Variances from the Residential Design Standards to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence, The purpose of the design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character. Variances from the Site Ori- entation, Secondary Mass, Garage Setback, and Non-orthogonal window standards have been re- quested. The subject property is legally described as Lot A, B, and C. Block 41, East Aspen Addition, Aspen, Colorado 81611, commonly known as 1005 Waters Avenue. For turther information, contact Jason Lasser at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept., 130 3. Galena St. Aspen, CO (970) 429-2763,(or jas )n.lasser@ci.aspen.co.us). 's/LJ Erspamer, Chair â€¢spen Planning and Zoning Commission )ublished in the Aspen Times Weekly on February 1,2009. (2918981) THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0025.2008.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 273718 3 82 001 PROJECTS ADDRESS 1005 WATERS AVE PLANNER JASON LASSER CASE DESCRIPTION REMODEL AND ADDITIONS REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10.8.08 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 4.2.10 Lof CD 2737-/g' ~-92-00, 4 74 * 0025Â· ZOOS Â· ASLU Eile Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help 1 @40 I v 4 :8 41 j a. j.1 1 I. .1 0 11 1. 010 4,Â£311~211 + ..3 /200 J 9*-23 Jm~| Yaluation | Custom Fields lactions |Fees |Parcels |Fee 5ummarx |Sub termits |Attachments |Routing Status ~ Routing 1 i Permit Type ..~ Permit # ~0025.2008.ASLU Address ~1005 WATER5 AVE -3 Apt/Suite | City |A5PEN state CO.| Zip |81611 j| Permit Information 1 Master Permit ~ Routing Queue ~aslu07 Applied ~05/19/2008 -~ Project | 5tatus |pending Approved | ~[..J Description ~ REMODEL AND ADDITION OF 4 BEDROOMS SECOND STORY ADDITION W/TOTAL Issued | BENDROOM5 6 Fin4 1 5ubmitted | GRETCHEN 925 4502 Clock ~Linind- Days ~--6- Expires ~05/14/2009 .~I Owner - Last Name ~BRYANT -2~ First Name ~NANCY 1005 WATER5 AVE ASPEN CO 81611 phone 1(970) 925-8559 P Owner Is Applicant? Applicant Last Name ~BRYANT .~ First Name ~NANCY 1005 WATERS AVE | ASPEN CO 81611 Phone ~970) 925-8559 Cust# ~25461 Lender - Last Name ~ â‚¬~ First Name ~ Phone ~ _Erter the permit type code ~ F AspenGold[.b) ~, , Record: 1 of 1 _~]. 0 4 607// /3 ~ xoqlool~ ~ sdno,9 qel~ Page 1 of 2 Jason Lasser From: Gretchen Greenwood [ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:03 AM To: Jason Lasser CC: nlbaspen@comcast.net; CLeverich@aol.com Subject: RE: Notice Yes. Thank you, Gretchen Greenwood From: Jason Lasser [mailto:Jason.Lasser@ci.aspen.co.usl Sent: Wednesday, January 21,2009 10:58 AM To: Gretchen Greenwood Subject: RE: Notice Gretchen, This email is to confirm that the 1005 Waters application for Planning and Zoning review for variances from the Residential Design Standards has been withdrawn. The item will be removed from the agenda, and the case will be closed. Thanks, Jason Lasser City of Aspen I Special Projects Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. I Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2763 1 www.aspenpitkin.coin From: Gretchen Greenwood [mailto:ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com-] Sent: Wednesday, January 21,2009 10:36 AM To: Jason Lasser Cc: nlbaspen@comcast.net; CLeverich@aol.com Subject: RE: Notice Hi Jason, I just received a call from my clients. They are not going to go forward with the variance hearing at all, due to the economic situation. If they decide in the future to move forward, I will reapply for the variances and or land use application if necessary. You may bill me with any costs associated to date. Thank you, Gretchen Greenwood From: Jason Lasser [mailto:Jason.Lasser@ci.aspen.co.us-] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:46 AM To: Gretchen Greenwood Subject: Notice Gretchen, I'm leaving town Thursday - I'll be submitting the notice early (Weds.) to be published on Feb 1. 3/25/2009 Page 2 of 2 Have you heard anything from your clients about the hearing? I'm assuming we're still on for Feb 17trh. Thanks, Jason Lasser City of Aspen I Special Projects Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. I Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.27631 www.aspenpitkin.corn 3/25/2009 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 22,2008 k 13 Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Councilman Romero said he has read the settlement and declaration of covenants and his concerns from first reading have been addressed. Councilman Skadron said he supports this and his intention in pushing this settlement is to maintain some vitality to this area and to try and retain locally serving commercial business. Councilman Johnson said this settlement is an attempt to preserve the Cooper Street Pier in a way that it exists today, give the applicants what is valuable to them - residential FAR, in exchange for a locally serving business. Councilman Johnson said he feels the city is giving away too much in exchange for too little. Councilman Johnson said if the Cooper Street Pier closed, it would be a huge loss to the community. Councilman Johnson said he would like the applicants to honor the existing Cooper Street lease until the project is started. Mayor Ireland said this solution is a compromise and both sides would have liked something more for them. Mayor Ireland said he appreciates the applicant working with the city on a settlement. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 2008, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Skadron. 4 1,6 Dave Lenyo, representing the applicants, told Council they cannot commit at this point to the continued viability of the Cooper Street Pier operation. Mayor Ireland said it would be appreciated if this business can operate as long as possible. Lenyo noted the current owners have kept the business there throughout this process, in large part to the landlord's willingness to keep this space operating. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Romero, yes; Ska(iron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. 1005 WATERS AVENUE ORDINANCE #48 NEGOTATION Councilman Johnson recused himself as he lives within 300 feet of the property. Jim True, special counsel, said the issue is whether Council wants to continue to try to negotiate historic designation. Mayor Ireland said if the applicants do not want to negotiate, he is not interested. True said the city has not come up with anything that is of interest to the applicant, HPC was split on whether the negotiations should be continued. Mayor Ireland moved to terminate under Ordinance #48; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 10:30;jeconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. ~r~.2 t Kath~lS. Koch, City Clerk 14 ,Â£:,1 IXA 4 - MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation PlannerSA- Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: September 15,2008 MEETING DATE: September 22,2008 RE: 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation process REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is asked to use the information provided to determine the significance of 1005 Waters Avenue and subsequently what benefits they are willing to offer the property owner in exchange for landmark designation. FORMAT OF MEETING: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2008, Council may negotiate directly with the property owners or chose to direct Community Development staff to negotiate with the property owners to reach a mutual agreement. The meeting(s) may occur during the regularly scheduled Council meeting as an Action Item, or Council may chose to provide direction to staff in an Executive Session. These meetings are not public hearings. Council review is scheduled for September 22nd and October 14th. The th 90 day period ends on October 14 . Council may choose to extend the negotiation for an additional 30 days. BACKGROUND: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage: not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect o f the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 1 of 10 Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the LIP Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects ifthey: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. The owners of 1005 Waters Avenue have prepared plans to. remodel their home. The plans as proposed require Residential Design Standard variances. The owners are not willing to work with Staff and HPC towards a design that preserves character defining features of the building, and therefore Option C, the negotiation process must be undertaken. (The Residential Design Standards variances are scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission next month.) During the 90 day negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the HPC and the City Council. HPC discussed this issue on July 234,2008 and on September lott 2008 in th addition to a site visit on September 10 . After an extensive discussion of the property' s merits, HPC voted 3-3 to recommend that Council negotiate for landmark designation of the property. A tie vote constitutes a failed motion and no other motion was introduced. The three members voting against the recommendation for further negotiation were primarily concerned that 1005 Waters Avenue is not an exemplary example of the modern chalet style. They recognized that the architect is important to Aspen, but found that other works that she contributed to are more significant, for example the old Pitkin County library on Main Street. Minutes from the meeting are attached. SUGGESTED APPROACH: Staff recommends that Council first answer the question: How important is this resource to Aspen' s heritage? After Council determines the degree of significance, preservation tools and incentives that apply to this property may be presented and discussed to decide which benefits will be offered to the property owners in exchange for preservation. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 2 0 f 10 APPLICANT: Nancy Bryant, 1005 Waters Avenue, represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street, Aspen, CO 81611. Additional owners Chris Leverich and Andrew Dolan have consented to the application. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-82-001. ADDRESS: 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A - C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential 11- d , f Â· 2 'r 741.- -+-/ ~ ~~ ~'~''E ~~ I' fly.- tor..4 41/4 3.7 g o ti I. -*2 - fRL L f -----4 2 1 --1 -4,1 00 f - -72- 1~ , -4 r ~1, - - - I .1 - 'Abc .77:~11.-- . fA:=Â· 'ANy/5 1,6 .% VII iL- 1 1.1 k 1005 Waters Avenue ' i. -1 1.> ,- 1 ./ . ../ 0 r h U.1 1 1 ---4- i A %- DISCUSSION: Council is asked to decide whether this property's significance warrants negotiations with the property owner for its preservation. The criteria for designation are listed below and staff' s analysis follows. 26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of properties will be evaluated according to the following criteria. When designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet the criteria described below: 1. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age; or 2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 3 of 10 U>4 workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. 3. A property that was constructed less than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made may be considered under Paragraph 2 above, if the application has been filed by the owner of the property at the time of designation or, when designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district meet the thirty-year age criterion described above. Staff Finding: 1005 Waters Avenue was built starting in 1958, according to the architect, Ellen Harland. (Staff interviewed Ms. Harland by telephone.) It is located on Waters Avenue. Refer to the map, above. This house combines Chalet architecture with the modernist approach employed by trained architects practicing in Aspen during the 1950's and 1960's. Similar to other Chalet buildings, this residence is sited toward the mountain on an angle. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, and simple form are characteristic of this era as is more glazing on the primary faGade, typically carrying all the way up to the roof. 1005 Waters Avenue is pictured below. ..6/9. 1 .. 'r IÂ·it 4 r -4 â€¢, -6 n. I --- /: 9/Fh ....1~~~12, ' ~.1.1.,- 149-29 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 4 of 10 The simple low pitched roof form is evident in both chalet architecture and "Modern Chalet" architecture that combines modern technology and chalet style elements. Similar low pitched roof forms: 11/'*BA- -, kilifts/Wih Chalet Lisl, 100 East i,6-:#:':./ Hyman, built in 1948. -Willin.-~ jv 'll-W ki 9, 7, = al MI 949 Smuggler Street, built in 1946. ~/1-/AVYIET' - "84 4 4-* 1-1 -404 ' 99{7~i:~.'~01-evt:*1 Prospector Lodge, built in 1947. Demolished. *-31Ed,E-*<mirwr: .11~4 6 2% 4 6 0 9.- VA- Extending the glazing into the gable end refers to advancing construction technology and a modern aesthetic. 1005 Waters Avenue was built when Aspen was establishing itself as a vacation destination, and also during a time of exciting philosophical changes in architectural design. The structures illustrated below depict the character of buildings 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 5 0 f 10 commonly being constructed in Aspen during the decades immediately after World War II. Similar glazing into the gable roof: 1-91.Ge 626 West Francis Street, built r J#qg*/tr~/S* 1 ~/54 %..431. fy.tÂ¢~ in 1961/2. ...2- - ,t :M W 3* ''Â·2:.4Ufr / A , I ft. . 1 Flf-*2 4 fOG ~ 1 . 12 , ... k 118 East Bleeker Street, built in 1965. . 4 '4 Â· v , .''t - ... 809 South Aspen Street, Shadow Mountain : Condomiums, built in 1965. m . lim.L: TA- 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 6 0 f 10 7Ilm*.~* 2 Â·.9 ,:91&:r , 6 15 Gillespie Street, built in ..TI=~*r,iti.<~ . I.,t... -4 ' 1957 by Fritz Benedict. e. 7. 2 4.1 27, T .9 44 1 0 1,6 Demolished in 2005. Â· ./6 & 4 -07 1 III 1 i / 7 I . 5 I. f râ€¢ e-,w.-17- .ft:< 4.2, 2.'Â·2~94'4.Â·- .- - 219 South Third Street 219 South Third Street, 1965 built in 1965. ,~ , 1 -*h I - .79./ -..... :.l As noted above, the house was the residence of Ellen Harland and her family from approximately 1958-1968. Ms. Harland graduated from MIT's School of Architecture in 1956, at a time when the school was very influential in Modern design. She moved to Denver seeking a new environment, then visited and fell in love with Aspen. Ms. Harland was hired by Fritz Benedict in 1958, and she and Robin Molny served as his draftsmen. She worked for Fritz Benedict for 20 years and took an active design role in many projects, including the Pitkin County Library. In addition she designed a number of homes such as the one pictured below. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 7 0 f 10 f . 1....-2-41,1 /94 r-L- W.'-I-- I - 0/ 1 -b 1411 Crystal Lake Road, by Ellen Ms. LIarland stated that the house on Waters Harland. 1976 Avenue was originally the 900 square foot structure that is in the center of the lot. In 1964, she built the front piece (which faces Waters Avenue.) She said that it was like a separate unit in form only and was used primarily for her children. In approximately 1968, the house was sold to Ki -I'"i.'g'"p---':.- -/6/~.3 and John Davis. Several locals contacted about -? this property strongly associated the home with ~,4,~ + '@IF-~J ~ that family. Ki Davis was an artist and poet. She ~ ~ a.,....- - . 1Â£-1 designed the sculpture that is in the fountain at -ile-*mi ~.,t,- the east end of the Hyman Avenue Mall. Local i*;Â·IJ~~~~B a.---.~. author Bruce Berger wrote of Ki in his book -- . ~" "Notes of a Half-Aspenite," excerpt attached. Staff has attached records from the Assessor' s ,1~ Office to this memo. The Assessor's office lists 4-0,0.~~ the 'actual date of construction" for this house as 4 or,- 'Fl'* , 1964. During the last meeting, the property .P 4 owner raised the topic of "actual date of ,L. ~ â€ž161*E ~ :F construction" vs. "effective date of construction." --/-1 . The Assessor' s Office puts the "effective date of W ; 1. construction" for 1005 Waters Avenue at 1979. 0 . ./ Staff has confirmed that the latter term represents -Interplay," by Ki Davis, 1979. the condition of the property (meaning its current condition is similar to a property built in 1979.) This does not infer that earlier portions of the building were demolished. The last page of the Assessor's records provided in HPC's packet contains a plan view of the house, labeling the year each piece was built. This record does use the date 1960 for the rear piece. The element that faces Waters Avenue is identified as 1964, and there is an expansion towards the east in 1974. The building permit file for this property contains no permits from earlier than the 1990's, so documentation is difficult. Staff typically completes an integrity score sheet to determine the amount of original features and material that exists. Unfortunately, we are unable to do so because the 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 8 0 f 10 =.4 Modern Chalet style is one that has become recognized as potentially significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48 discussions. At this point no context papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use. The house has been built in phases, in 1960, 1964 and 1974. We are not aware of any other significant work that has taken place on the exterior of the structure. Ms. Harland viewed the home in 2004 and did not indicate that it looked significantly different. In terms of the proposed work that initiated the negotiation, the applicant would like to add a second floor to the residence and completely alter the street-facing (north) fagade, which Staff views as destructive to the integrity of the architecture and design. The two images below illustrate the existing street elevation (top) and the proposed street elevation with the added second story (bottom). It is Staffs opinion that the proposed alteration will destroy any important characteristics of the potential historic resource. The one story low gable roo f and glazing style and placement convey a 1960s era Aspen home. These features are permanently destroyed with the proposed changes and render this building ineligible for landmark designation. 1 1 -1- Im"173 1 L n npll FL-1 EXISTING STREET VIEW/NORTA ELEVATION 1./8.. !'.0' SOUTH WING REW, IDELED AND 2ND RTORY ADDED NORTH ~ING OC-SUING TO REMAIN NO CHANGE 1 --20- 73 - 11- U T 'ME.-*00..., Ir--1 1. ..:- Ffs=CSED NCâ‚¬TA E-E'/AT CN SCALE 1/8' = 1 -CP' STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that 1005 Waters Avenue is a good example of the Modern Chalet style, although it lacks some of the features important to others in the category, such as balconies, open carports, etc. We feel that Ellen LIarland can be 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 9 of 10 illustrated as a notable, trained modernist architect with a significant body of work in Aspen. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A - Existing and proposed drawings and information. B - HPC review and recommendation to City Council. C - HPC minutes dated September 10,2008. D - Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2008. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 10 0 f 10 ..P.W. I * + 40 1-"14.4.,4...1.6 RESIDENHAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL RECORD ARÂ·101 1/601/M AA) CITY OR TOWN (ABA) SCHEDULE NO....ls 2 ,< 8 (DAI) MAP NO. COAF) TAX AREA (AAA) PARCEL NO.2.23 7- Re- 82 -00/ SUB~~ON A 12& A31-<--- 2123,( TWP RANGE &&6 . Â· 4- . ... * 1,Â» - eAÂ£#SM/596% \*1 AC) CITY NO. ~(PAJ) NEIGHBORHOOD ~ ~ ~ ~DAK) SCHOOL BIST. F) PROPERTY ADDRESS /de, 5-- ___.Mku..Zi-- - (BAN ADDRESS (HAC) MAE) & <HAF) (HAU (HAB} (CAC) (CAD) (CAE) BOOK 0, PAGE TYPE OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY/ STATE ZIP SALES DATE (HAH} Clun No. DEED DOC. FEE PAUY-le Gru... r . t~ LAW.Auonfiw ARVANT~ WAkev ANÂ¢* LEVER,CH; O,211 '7%54.7.81.Eate.R,Ase:04-Lo 2/6â€ž /1-199& 494-62~ Plk 5/.6 (VAE) LEGAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS ~ (HZ Â·Â· CH V. (HAK) ON SALE VeriNd 10!â€¢â€¢ "IN 364 2731-102-82-001 1 1-AFS .4.91- qmdihel nalL . f'h 9>Njlb, JOU\.46- DMAN, A.2 8<tYAA,5 M. -, +er*--4/Abtk 40 Â£6Â«\91, 6 - 1 b.1,4:#M. hoRs -r.46-0 4<:.Cl 1-> - S Â· â€¢4*ft#r CCI-(D?ADO 3 1 0 1- (JFA) ON LAND<20 MA * r -/4 , ~~'r ; k / ti. 3 91 v 17 11, -1 1 ..4 - 9" - 2737 182 82 001 93 ALL OF LOTS A, 8 AND C IN BLOCK 4 1112AL 12124 3 ..2 - EAST ASPEN 560,000 35,690 595,690 C. ,",fil-"'.' ---=Â¥:~27 + 1 -2-- LAND . ' Â· 1 Tr RIBUTES | . -%*tria*lap/6,~ IL' --41 1 - 1 PAÂ¥"11$ (/. JO- 1,-t L.0, - -1- - . t.,0 VNUE19~nE~; .4 , , Â·Â· 9,Â·Â·Â¢2. -4 DATE (* 9:iuMâ€ž SIZE ~ TOCATION OTHER Compoilt. UNIT VALUE LAND VALUE COST APPROACH $ 7 8- 1. nru G.*9 11 ID. 5â€¢ZES Al QU~MENLIACIML ADA BASE TOTAL 1~'4'M.*W : :"I, 0,725 ,-1-0 0 MARKET APPROACH . 0 â‚¬ C . r 6,3 2 4 4 i ) C, e â€¢, r CZ ; 4 I ..... .PO . 0161. ESTIMATE Cl.,05 1 4,0 Of VALUE ; * * 4- C rÂ· '<4-:%2&,s'~~Ae:'ZiAL. VAL#:~,7/-Â·Â·6Â· I., 1 ..6 ASIMSm VALUE 'j 1... .2. A,ic. YEAR ~~~~ ~aCI LAND IN,PL TOTAL IMPS. TOTAL . :â€¢Al M.*. ,, ,~4 .Fly:UN Â·. 0Â·/. --(HAM) l.___BER~163]Qi (HAN) * ..,i ..'I.6 .4 LN,!Wl,~A. - REPLACEMENT ~ 2,â€¢Al DATE COST NEW dct6 Aol EN -%6Â¤CD nrfs. FUNC. -!C~r *CNLO MNP VALUE TOTAL VALUE ?CÂ» 7 663, 031 9.'671 706 6Â® C ru'*El /-* cuintsâ€¢r _ pr,4, /2Â£,r,TrÂ· I. A /<40,â‚¬1 1 4'r' 1 15,7, COR,Ffi, 1 ,-7~ctr, 49 i: '24 0.- P t - I /0.54/ -â€¢.UN.k<P t NA! CAS --9, .1,'* , '.,Ci..â‚¬/1 4-1" DAH) ZONING 4~,Â· sl W.* 2'V.K~u INDIC. VALUE ; 5PW,- SALES R.ERENCE NAME/NO. P., SQ. Fr ' 1 0 0,09 I \ o Finn f>63/F'â€¢/1 00*~20' s >46435/-21454 <i .142 nc &â‚¬ -3 ACCESSIMITY . - I 4 4 0 1 + 1,4 ,Â» r GOOD [3, PUBUC '7_ 47.-d. 94 *LE,tr '66<7*ni; Â©,2 5z Vir,ou< AÂ·rz:-ih't' - ~.c J.C.Â·p k (2<v 19*..} Â·Â· 4 ,1 3,flr: (-Idi fl,Â·,Â·0*Â¥ 2/j ~1*~ f jk,AS.r Â£,i.,r. .t,Â·tr,Â·1:4 - FAIR Â¤ PRIVATE â€¢ SEASONAL 6. 60 90 ".0 M ,/r , La >b):06 te t ~~ L.J Â¥EAR-ROUND 4 . 19 37Â· 1 f 2 * 2 2 Â· 0349/ - 1 SO~~T~10~ 1/64.1/79 â€¢ RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY APPRAISAL RECORD 4 . AA j CITY OR TOWN ' * (ABA) SCHEDULE NO. -1 ~*' ___ (DAI) MAP NO.-(DAF) TAX' AREA ~1~CAA,u PARCEL Noâ‚¬.Z..9-212.~.-*2=...2.â‚¬t' ~ ./ .VAL, 1 . A. IDAB! TWP RANGE 42*th 7-:I .WISION 1 Hi.~r K , ODD .Sti: 1. S.FC 14/ 1 AÂ·RÂ·C 1 1 }AO CIT . NO ~11,2,01 5/8 NO ~DAJ, NEIGHBORHOOD] ~tDAK) SCHOOL DIST. EAA)DES,nABILITY r :AP,PHOP'H'YAUDIESS W ATE 41 AVE \ 18 AA} ADDRESS IHAC} IHAFI . (HAP} It,AIt (HAB] ICAC, (CADJ (CAE) BOOK OAPAGE TYPE OWNERS NAME IMAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIP SALES DATE (HAH, CLEHes ND DEEP DOC FEE ; 68 2737-182-tip-001 1 1-AFS S 92. 4/235.9,/9 "/D AVIS, JOHN C. Ox 4950 SPEN, COLURADu 61Â¢)12 PHOTOGRAPH '~ :REMARKS 39 4. :I CHIBII, 0411*) vGA LL OF l.01 b A , B AND L lb, BLUCK 41 :.AK,ONSA,E Fled- STub,6 ilriwole:loy, VERIFIED SALES PRICE CODE , AST AbPEN TO 41\AljÂ«Tjj:-u~Â¥ + COk:2 0.,me,F-,': /FA, O'41 LAND S LAND tÂ·AND VALUE CALCULATIONST" ' f. 4 EARNING OR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY Â·INCOME APPROACH SA[ FS Ari.!liSTMINT FACTORK ;f353 /34,7 - 90'jo~ ~- ibithr ~.022.,---fi*f--_i-- ~-~MI--_ 11)CATIA'.r lyf,irfr-mogir,mr .:U:Mfi: <6~8 DATE SALLS.H ENTAL/LE EHENCE/LE- }41.....Elt 'Â·Ill -':' Â· -/11,- STai 1 1 , Cons,delation of tle amooril of r/.f re.!In.4 to recoqnt,iÂ· Pr>teniial Value --- .... YrA. Est. Pote:,1 u i Value S APPLICATIONDOF FACTORS POSI TIVE LY OR Â· . '~ Â· ri, 1 / OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS NEGATIVELY AND CORRELATION Â· /:A. :CÂ· ACRFS .Er:2182'i~ ball,HE, EHENCES 19 tÂ·,1, Mt' 7.. 4*,-. '4-. ,/~4'*:-5. LAFINZ'Lei LOCATION & DES#RABILITY I 97 1 . FUNCTIONAL US[ 4 ..eff:.1-9< i. -7 â€¢% 11 1 0...0 0 jill 1 0 COST APPROACH COMPAH GUN #, ....,T-...+ , --- HAM ijA r b 8,1,/LO LAND VALUE TOTAL VALUE MARKET APPROACH 5 2/9.FO, 1/11100 V. 1-31 40:260 //:*.47,43(.:-1_4 6,(/or) Â·450, 5 ////7'f) tti,1.OrÂ·,â€¢,E Aâ€¢PROACIN S ' ....... V Ii - 3-7 .1 LevabM.,4.h t.- 70/74 /.1/=A 6/752> 46-200 //g'21"0 APPR VALUE FORIGAN S FINAL ESTIMATE t /12,6(>r) 4 11(oro FMARKET VALUE IN THE OR{Â» ARY COURSE OF TRADE {1-OTAL PROPERTY) , OF VALUE '/E V'â€¢LIC A ft .111 M U E NT 5 Al l VA L U. ' rl triÂ· Â· ... 4 It 1 : ACTUAL VALUE ASSESSED VALUE EA i F. AFFFQP,r f Â·. AÂ·.1{ it.i er bu 1- 1 LF'.1 -- 1 $ SO k t IN,il#/Ault Â·O - 4 -2-1.2-..AI:-50 Cala [sic* 96 -1 \ 5-3 2 144 //3,90* Â¥EAn ;59.%' / IOTAL ,// .ANO I,~/ IMPS 1Â·~fi,TAL , ' ~ f .c/ 3-3- - 0.- 1 -23. _2101_ Ill 070 9.-6 4500, 67,SOo 112,500 1,91-00 \#41Â¢ 0 \326'>' 6 i ACCESS!81111 Y 1 ' csr No !00,1 -3,} Â· nool PUBtlc 7.9-3--Frao,t 7/00d' tlÂ«.cioiLifCh V.flt.(0~-f~4242_ +-AIR PRIVATE 4851 9, (Oil. â€¢TUA' 1 POOR 3 YFAR ROUND X : SEASONAL ABST NO '0[14' +HAJ #*~ t. -- AAA; PARCEL NO. - (AA>TYPE IANI DESIGN (AO}ROOIVISCAP]BORNS (ACI) BATHS Â·.4#PL]ANCE# -S~Â¥44 NO.Â·'l)'Nif; Â·COST " . PLLIi,BING - rm NO. 4Â·UNIT COST' ' ./ I 2- cooK TOP KA BASECOMP Â· LA / 1 Â¥Â¢4'L'tOONSTRUCT.ION :F':. d'-- Â· Â·k.- L rirr|Tr~'M.,X:'* SOFT AREA UNIT COST TOTALCOST FOUNDATION WALLOVEN KB 3 FIXTUREBArI In ~ FIRST FLOOR i |AB (F) M AA.~ i<Â°'Â·,~, HA /M;7 ID S DROP-IN RGE,Â·OV KC 3,44 BATH LE 1 ABOVE FIRST FLOOR |AD F M AO -Â· ' 'I.,Â· s BB O S 570'M .... HOOD{5TD? K t. 2 f IXTURE BATH LL 1:2 STORY. FINISH. ATTIC |AID F M AJ BC il S .,lr. 3.-0 11000 (CUS-STA) KE LAVATORY LE ntls I IPARTIALÂ·UNFINISHED) AK BO O S EXTFRIOR WALLS (HOOD CUSÂ·CON) KF TOILET LF BASEMENTSTATUS FE] F P N TOTAL BASE COST $ M .8 5. F m Ally Fi TAN OVFN <C BATH TUE; ICL QUALITY ADJ DES. (CA EXT. (CA} INT. (CCI NET ICD) X 96 rn Â·'ri.,CCO ell .6 ELECTRIC 0[10 11 R:JUAN TUD L} ADJUSTED BASE COST S ai, bure 'IL'. Z ... DOU8 Lt OVEN KI STALL SHOINEH U APPLIANCES AND MECHANICAL : 81â€¢, O% 11,â„¢ aa n,i, â€¢ UNTRAL. VAC KJ ST.SHINR W,DR LJ FINISHED BASEMENT AL BE 0 $ s im. P.,1 1.i INTER fAM IMI KK KITCHEN SINK LK CARPORT AF p F AF Br O $ S WINDOWS INIEHCOM IMAI KL WATER HEATER E.1 - ~ ~ ~ INTER IRIM STA)KA LAUNDAYTAAÂ¥ IN' ROOF & ROOFING SMOOTH CK TOP KI. DISPOSAL LN >5 GARAGE AH FMAt ADBAG ' "47 )-ED SELF CEN OVEN KC 015~iwASHEH LO PORCHES 4 HIP TRASHCOMP. KP 81 3 FIX LOAT'11 LP COVERED {OPENIPORCHES AM - NA R] S S LAOUME~ ...H St' KZ SEP STACK LO WOOD BALCONIES 4-382 AM NA INIERIO 4 FINISH : HEATING SO, FT. UNIT Sl ID TUR ENCL IH ENCLOSED POACHES ~~.Z~ AM NC U'.1 1/ 3 11 11 . AN F 8 FORCED A IH â€¢.IA X /337 WATER SOFT 1.5 .Â·mt : HOArl/ GRAVITY SAUNA TERRACE (PAT 10 1 Â¢ T 3 AM ND Â·de L T - i.- CONC.STAIRS OR STA IRWELL (353 AM NE PL 'woco ,â€¢Dâ€¢Y,> PANh HOT WTH,STM .,11C BIO[T L. DOLLAR ADJUSTMENTS FLOONSAND F LOORING B5MT IloT WTA ME NAT.STONE MCSS,ROCK (FJI FRAMING ADJ 11-{f) [D S S ..7..1.-. â€¢Â·.1'1. 51,1, 0 1 00â€¢ ELECTRIC ME WOOD SHK SHGS (HHI CONC. BARTIL[ lili) :,U# 'Wool; ...0'..000 Wt "F[ R FljAN M, X 485 ECTAN AIR C L 91 J SPANISH TILE (HJI SLATE'MSN TILE (HK) f.f...'C ..i AE,lL.EN, ~ A.C (IN #ft.OCT!,1 MC HUMIDIFIER. UK *DI,C/Â·M CODE A C.lIN OUN DCTS ;ME El WALL HI *Ar, -ilt 710 .â€¢ GUILTÂ·UP (HL) ASBFSTOSSHGS IHM) EL.WALL WT '500 â€¢1" CON.SLAB (AB.GDE,) trJI) -CARPET C ) SO FT CALCULATIONS EVAP COOLER Mi WA,7 - BUILDING PERMiTS OTHER ITEMS EST RCN 01 *37 - 3 f ff M. AT FAN W/TIM Â·Â·Ar. FIREPLACEQ- FA'%31/,4.f:9 ZA $ 2-/O 6 Â»4 - 74 97 THAWÂ·WALL Afc VIC S YARD IMPS ZA 1.33 '0.3 U Â·4% 1, 2 0 At'PLIANCES & MEGHAN C; L TOTâ€žL S STORAW - ry : ic 10 6 ...4 x .20.6 - 497 1-' 11 4 im. 0.6 . 37 S ZD 210 r 'ExÂ· A 2 1 1 9% = A Â» 1. X S /2 ...... .. REMARKS> (FAE) ON IMPS: AREA FACTOR.L... 96U~,DAE.'~;~N. S 33. . 4 - 8 1 I. 24 X Opr.0 P:r, 1,-*.1 t'-ft'-41)#44. â€¢ DEPREC ATION X 41 it 'f.1.4 r HA<. t.1141.1, r,-496%< f ' t, YEAâ€¢tuu,uT ... [) A / 973 01 x 1 Â¥[An ADD REM U. 41 219 x /4 /2-0,Â« r. CPV 3 7 ' â€žf - : 6. lit . R â‚¬ M â€¢ r n DC f x , Â·IÂ· b .... Ali YHILJUL' 08 X AORM . GOOD 1 X 21 . (3.. . 26 (71., Pr,FICF DE .1 0 . â€¢ â€¢ FUNCT OBS OF 4, W Â£ CON O 23:i !06 w X 34 APPROUAV} DATE,â€žÂ·i, LANb VALUE ADJUSTED PERCENT GOOD X 94 X - /777 # . . F . 4 ! r '. - K:.~,.3 '1-1 jo 46 rr .... X REVÂ·O BY (AY, DAT L IAX' S 'TOTAI. R.C:N,E.D. srn, . 0- . 6~4. I -PFâ€¢,-1001'114.inl' Â·'1- "'" ~ - -- " "- . - - ' ' .' HEMI.nlly , tate ~MMUrtâ„¢ 1, Ar!â€¢W*1'NAU'ht:butÂ¢u /- 343 J . 1 (VAA) CITY OR TOWN (AA) PARCEL NO, (AB) SCHEDULE NA . . IDAPWTAX AREA .K..ft , 4.t. . . .. 1 .-1 (VAB) ' (VAC) (VAD) (DAA) (DAB} (DAt) SUBDIVIStON BLOCK LOT (S) TWP Q RANGE SEC.*SEC. MAP NO. A-p: 68 ' (DAC) CITY NO. (DAD) SUB NO (DAE) CENSUS NO. (DAG) PLAN DIST. (CAA> PROPERTY ADDRESS (CAB)ZIP CODE ~< (' (BAA} (CAC) (CAO) (CAE) 6*Ti&4 CHAE} (HAF) OWNERS NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY a STATE ZIPCODE: MO YR 1 BOOK PAGE FA (0 Â·tilillillillillkillillililillillillilillizziuiill'IllililimMEP' ~ 3 *? 1023 749 98 i ...1 . 1/Afl, 3hh 27 3/-182- 6/-001 1 D A Vtb, 0'-44 0. ' . *30* 493(j WARKS 'eWER. COLOWADD dlble 41 i. OF LUIS /t , 1. 41.1> 1 1 '9 "14':Ch 4 1 A tabl OVEN ~ 00*~tÂ·li u~.ELLÂ·,4.18,}1_13-' ~ I. ..7 ,..479 lekid : ! LAND ATTRteUTES APPRAISER'S tNTERVIEW AND VALUE ESTIMATE INCOME APPROACH SUBJECT PROPERTY 6%#i (WA8) (tAA) (I AM) 1 '{tAg (WAE) INDICATED CONFIRMED OCCUPANCY MONTHLY I FURNkSHED EST E~NOMIC EST. PROPERTY DATE GROSS RENT1 ECONOMIC DATA REFERENCE APPRAISER ~ SALE PRICE OWNER/TEHANT RENT 0HFURNISHED RENT{UNFUAL) VALUE ~ MULTIPLIER! RENT VALUE (DAH)ZONING Ird.E-_ WAA) USE -FÂ». *5- 'REEr - Ad, , ' :Â· 1 1 1 IMPROVEMENTS : ~ JBA Poled Street >< JAH Groveted St,eet JaC Unimprowed JBD Sidewalk Wle} LAND Â¢.ASS LAND VALUE CALCULATION APPROACH USED (CORRELATION) JBE Curb & Gutter FOR ACTUAL VALUE DETERMINATION JBF Street Lights - DATE 6,2 (GAD} BASE i _ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ~rÂ·o,pos rÂ£~ BASE UNIT TOTAL LAND SIZE UNIT r SIZF SHAPF LOCATION OT'[fi VALUE VALUE (WBA) IWBB) IWBF) LAND/IMPS. (WBC) .810 Alley USED VALUE RATIO APPROACH ACTUAL DETERMINED UTILITIES C ..,4/. Â¥ I ' I BY , r r.. #j 2 -A r. 4 JCA Public Water T\- s - 0 6 i , r 'I '1 - 1 1 45~,:'6' , : 974 # A kA JCB Well Water \ M 3,00 \ no Yor 3 01% 2 9 JCC Public Sewer '\ -1-ll-,ed 0 I - -4 - ~.,- ~. il' Is JCD Seplic Syslm LE Natural Gas COST APPROACH JCF Eliciricity 4 TOTAL ~ COST FACTORS | ADJUSTED ADO INDICATED DATE VALUE ACTUAL VALUE ASSESSED VALUE TOPOGRAPHY R.C.N.L.O ; AREA TIME R. C.N. L.O. LAND JOA Livil 5/ (FAC) CldAANB~ 1 1'122 i TOTAL LAND IMPS. TOTAL Â£'~**Y- /76 33 1130 1 130 "| 140 " /5,51.564.1 VC,goe .~ t''lt YEAR JOB High 10 76 490 4,4'go /61.<F~;., 3 12 15 0 20 550 3 7 700 JDC Steep 7: qÂ«f ' < ~ aw '< - i %1% 077 6070 /02%0 /63.5 0 - JOD Low %1 % _ 92445 /6136 24~2; 92 JOG Rock MARKET APPRCACH (COMPARABLE SALES) 19 ne, 3%-31/7 -449Ar> till.UN'I /fÂ©Ign \T'Câ‚¬f') \tr.-AR,~ â‚¬' Viv. i JDH Retaining Wall SALES DATE PRICE PAIO TIME LOCATION PHYSICAL CHARACTER~TICS INDICATED 0 SHAPE,ETC. REFERENCE OF SALE {RE ONLY) ADJ. ADJ. (OTHER ADJUSTMENN) VALUE JEA Repulntalivi l>< 19 2 <, JED Irregulor 03 JEC Cut-De--Soc I le 24:48-4-r>Q i Reviewed bv: 1 1 1 lili I .' 6.- ' I -4 SCALE (AAA) PARCEL NO. (AA) TYPE (AN) DESIGN (AO) ROOMS (~P) BDPI,5 (AQ) BATHS 12- j Sl-Oft CARD _ _ __ OF CARDS - -=FC m. SQ. FT. AREA UNIT COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COM It 1, t. X FIRST FLOOR/MAIN AREA AB M AA .re'FIA, v BA 2 0 6 0 2,2.4/ S .... X ABOVE FIRST FLOOR AD F M AD m**46.88 , $ X % STORY/FINISH ATTIC AD F M AJ BC $ $ x BASEMENT- UNFINISHED ACF P N AK BD $ $ X BASEMENT - FINISH AL BE $ $ $ X 81-LEVEL/TRIÂ·LEVEL UNFINISHED ' AL BE $ U ) $( TOTAL BASE COST $ $ X QUALITY ADJ. _ DES. (CA)_ EXT. (CB)_INT. (CC) -NET {CD) X_% X .6 .. .. X ADJUSTED BASE COST $ $ X APPLIANCES AND MECHANICAL , $241â‚¬/D $ X DC}UAR ADJUSTMENT . ' ' X NAT. STONE/MOSS ROCK (FJ) FRAMING ADJ. (HF} 11$ $ $ X WOOD SHK/SHGS (HH) X BRICK TRIM (FK) CONC. BAR TILE (HI) SPANISH TILE (HJ) MISSION (HK) X 81 HIT-UP (INSUL) 7- (Hl) ASBESTOS SHGS. CHM) X BUILT-UP (3 PLY) (HN) SLATE TILE (HO) .. x CON SLAB (AM G.DE) 1-11) CAPPET A- 1-1-0 ) ) 11 ... PORCHE5 1... 4%:IMPROVIMENTS: Â· APPUANCES â€¢â€¢, UNIT COST PIUMBING .1 -No. UNIT COSTÂ® COVERED (OPEN) PORCHES OP AM NA $ $ 3 1~~#1Â¥ORY#?4'~ COOK TOP KA BASE COMP LA - 2_ WOOD BALCONIES W AM =- AB- FOUNDATION 5140OTH CK, TOP KN 3 FIXTURE BATH La ENCLOSED PORCHES EP AM NC , .Lce, DROP-IN RGE/OV. KC 14 BATH LE TERRACE (PATIO) T AM ND IN. ..,CÂ£ WALL OVEN Kit 2 FDXTURE BATH L~ CONC. STAIRS OR STAIRWELL AM 1 NE DOUBLE OVEN KI LAVATORY l E WOOD DFCK WD AM NF , m. S SELECLN OVEN KO ~ TOILE[ LF EXTERIOR WALLS CARPORT AF P P AE $ $ $ 3 MICROWAVE KG BATH TUB LG *0 - k F. A.- ELECTRIC 880 KH ROMAN TUB W . .....0 HOOD (STD) KD ' STALL SHOWER LI 1.K STUrto AHF M AIADBA , HOOD (CUSÂ·STR} KE St SHWR]W/DR u GARAGE OTHER'ITEMS B.Ka" .1 K IHOOD CUSÂ·CON) KF KITCHEN SINK LK BUILDING PERMITS . CENTRAL VAC KJ WATER HEATER il FIREPLACE 7 AN, .,4 ZA 10 WINDOWS INTER (AM.FM) KK LAUNDRY TRAY LM $ YARD IMPS. ZB INTERCOM (AM) KL DISPOSAL tN A.AWL 1 Ze 1 0 2- O ROOF & ROOFING INTER (REM STA) KM - DISHWASHER LO ZD Ar 5 â€¢Eg TRASH C:W KP Rl. 3 F~X B.~TH lP VREMARKS FA ON , i I ZZ ; HEATING 2% Â· 60, pi. UNIT SEP STACK LQ j... 1,1...AN .41 ..4... 'c.TOTA ".RIC. , ~ $ 6 $ FORCED AIR PAA 2~6* 0 *5761 kID TUM ENCL I LR 'AREA FACT Â·. % HAM) ADJ. R.C.N. $ $ GRAVITY MB 1 WATER SOFT LS INTERIOR FINISH - DEPRECIATION HAT WTR STM A.C LAUNA LT F'.1.HED ,/,Ttâ€¢ BSMT HOT WTR MD BIDEr LU YEAR BUILY DA CRM % GOOD 6 AL. .Aa SOARD ELECTRIC ME w ET BAR LV YEAR ADD/REM OND. FOR AGE DE 44 lilli MO.. ...,l WL/FLR FURN MF ECTRN AIR CL AU % REM ADD DC % UNCT. 065 DF 9 LOORS & FLOORING AC (IN HT DUCTS MG HUMIDIFIER MK CON. OBS DG % 4 ADJ. YR.BUILT DD AC (In own ducii) MH El WALLHT iso â€¢Art All ADJUSTED PERCENT GOOD X OVI X % EV P LER All ELWALLHT,â€¢00-7 WAt n..00 HA.O.gao MN APPR. BY (AV) DATE (AW) LAND VALUE Â· ~ Â·- HEAT PUMP Al/ AT FAN W/TUA TOTAI.:fle.N'.LD. $-22/d.* $- ...1. .1 1.IRT MO 000 REV'D BY (AY) DATE (AX) $ APPLIANCES & MECHANICAL TOTAL $ 2 Â·+ 2/0 ---4,/- ,1.--4--*..= 'A * .ng.,*.tiÂ·> jtit?Â¢'ft *c,Â·t'Â·6*4$#ESUWANNB-DES:GRI P,3;10N AND REPLACEMENT COST RECORD-RESIDENT1AL {AZ)~ARD CARDS ~ "-'0.9: . -r . fAA)Â¥Â¥PE NO'117'Itur IBN}bes#GN-Â·--11,/J~ C. (AVIAPPRAISED BY {AW) DATE: (AX) Dele: C: Â·COST TABLE REFEREKILS. Â· ~ - 'Â£EARPUIL,~ 7..; â€ž , , .7,42Â·-t Â·, :' , 621.-"':-39-2, Computed by: -1 >1 k . ..-1.... 0.1 n.non' 1/Litif:#Iluaidwaa<RFJF,116/1/1--f./Itc.~55~66:it' I 37~ ' ' ' - (AY) Reviewed by: . , 6, *4 , . <AC}IASEMENT Full[El;*1~jf,-LJ '(AP) BEDROOMS . .... t . I I , . . . . . . , . Â· Ji r FIR8) FLOOR 60 19 g . lea#.D (AD) ABOVE FIRST FACd â€¢.FO (Ad) BATHS, 1. r __37__.,_0.-fE--Â·-Â·' _18 9. 20694 (AE} CARPORT ED-ilifl -FIRST FLOgR_FIN.AREA , r . . Â· -i~1 Â·; 6 1t **~~ = 94 * [AF} CARPORT ROOF Plch[3 Floc] Al;OVE FIRST FIN.ANEA W J..4 f *-1 BASEMINT FI N. AREA 1 41 0 Â·Â· - i' =) 11. . ~ 0 ,a'li i 1 'Â° L .mo,~ 1 .* 1 4 laG) GARAGE Ejail --- . j /5 1, 3 2. : 4 6/0 TOTAL FINISHED AREA *erâ€¢79 Â® '1222 1|" , (AH) GARAGE WALL ME] FE ---R.C.NAâ‚¬iFT. FIN. AREA $ ' ~(BA) TOTAL [4447 9,2209 $363910 $ 2/000 (A I 9 AltÂ·|- 7 Det.[~ 18,rr,1._1. RE.N.LD/SQ.FI FIN.AREA $ ' SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE )76(, (E) FOUNbATION APPLIANCES AND MECHANICAL .19 19 93 - 1 A Conerete ~x' (K) APPLIANCES trYPINO UNIT COST COST . . I --. . M - B Block A l.Cooking Top i , i - /1- Â· Â· D - Â· f X - C Stole 8 >011 0-I A I /7 1-/Â¢22 (BB) TOTAL | 9 1 4- 2-2**fÂ°ver, 1 1-1__ 1 3, ,t 2* 1 (AJ] [1+21,3.]HALF STORY/FIN. ATTIC fL Mid_S,il. ! E EHood,Custom SIr. Â· , , F 172 14 4 Â· b ~ F IHood,Cuitam Con ' i I (F) EXTERIOR W. 6 PE,ecrronic Oven i litr to_ of Sh IX H |Eli- 8.8 0. i i i _9 9 A.M os 1 -1 100.Ible Ovin . ~-: 4_..1- L ... - / 4) â€¢ . . .. (BC} TOTAL | 4~$ C 'f Slice J 'Cent,rli Vacuum i ! i : --)974. .196 A. . lot , (AK)[LLD?j'.3~ PARTIAL BSMT. (UNFIN.) D le.â€¢ck venier I ~ ~~~~c,(~~: 2 F. Â¥ 7 1 I .34, At* - - MIÂ· I I E 181# Pilmed 1 f F Â·Blk , lu: c. i 4 11â€¢tercom..Remol. 5,0, I ..[ . i , . . . I - 648.4 Y.EM,/81% Z - Hi !Log I (ll PLUMBING i , (80) TOTAL ~----I-9- I 'Me'll 2 A ~R#e i t| /37' ~Y 34 -* TOTAL BASE COST $ $ ..Â£.]tit'BOUVMR~ - 8,3 Fi~ure Bath , it I : -~St-â‚¬ 2.-0 lAy.â€ž 0 , QUALITY ADJUSTMENT -%./. R W C 13/4 Bath - '1.4 t: 2 9%,aurs Acfh Â· ADJUSTED BASE COST $36<ar,$21006 (G) WINDOWS E IL-tory ' CAL)~1*2~!3] FINISHED BASEMENT I G Both Tub i ' F Water Closet 1 ......... Â£21 OTHER ITEMS ESTA.C.N. g : (H)ROOF a RFNG. H Romon rub A Fireploce '2 - Flat.j,<ld/- - -- 1 *444 ..'. 15-00 (BE) TOTAL i A Flot | 1 51011 Showel 1 - I |~ ' Â· ' 8 Yoid Improvements 8 Shed J Stoll.Shower, w/Doof ~ APPEIANCES & MECHANICAL. 252722'.. 3*.tf C Gable X K Kitchen Sink I i C DOLLAR ADJUSTMENTS 1 11 D HIP L Woler Heam._...~.. .1.-~...-..... i. __..._- _ ___ - D 1 / '01 n -1 R -. . 4 JJ J : Areal Unil E Gambrel - IE N,:SIA./Mols Rock /91 $ , j. , F 'imning Ad]. N Di.posal Z V : 14~ng Ad, -- 4?- 147 1, 4 G Asphalt St,gs. O Dishwo,her_ c 'P R. 143 Fliture 66th -I ~~ .1.. - - - - TOTAL OTHER ITEMS - 0 1~ !4 r . 15 3 42 3/- 1 Roof,4 . I .- I Co/500,1110 0 5*Forni.-Stock I REMARKS Conersle Slob J Spont,11 T.!tt- --3. R Sliding Tub. Enct 4,5 .,to< :'1L1)( 2-46>) R St/Mmn.Nle S Water Sollene, I , 0 p k.,. Ja a,.v, r f corpe, C )< 3 LBuilt-Up X T Souni Boib #44 . 11., '4 .' f : p: t / : 'Â· ' 7 w Aibistâ€¢â€¢*1* ,Â·- U Bidel 2 <AM)[.~~22[1! PORCHES, ETC. U)_fNTERIOR FIN. {M)HEATING & COOLING SO. F T. IONIT ArÂ®o uni~ 1 _UrifÂ®shed_ - A Forced Atr - X Me\ 7 "- 119-D //0., 44 B Plistered 8 Gravity <*. 4,fj :, ~2 .r 7 X C Dfy.011 C Hot WIT. or Stiom j X 0 Wollbolrd D 8,mt. Hol Wtr. Heal i E Plywood E Elcuile i * F Hordwood Poni F Wittor FtÂ©or Furnicâ€¢ 0>Â¢ 41>65 1.2,9 7 4 QUALITY ADJUSTMENT DEPRECIATION CARPORT O Air Col',4. lin HI. Duc!11 , (At Time of Con,!ruction) - + Yeqi of Appret,al 119,70 19 (BF) R w}FLOORS a FLRd H Air Cond.fw/Own oucis) {CA) De"gn 2 By (EF) x A Wood Jotils I Evaporotive Cooler, 1*10*,rum 2%3 (DA) Y.or Built GARAGE 8 Subloor Eme'lor Â·__ (De, Yao, Remode'el_/245-9 -'t~'74 (cal , //7:./. C Son.ood Firg IMet,mum 3%} - -Â·Â·Â· Â·Â· - Â· -Â· --:- .--Â» CBG) 1 2-43*am;*.-- NO. limT COC) % Remodeled D Hordwood Flig (ccl (DO) Adjusled Yect Bum Inter,O, 2 I E H.,Hien#Fl,9. A L Elect. Wall Ht.-730W ~Maâ€¢imum 11%) OTHER ITEMS 9/0 9/0 F Coromic Tile M Elect Wan HI-1500* (CO) NET VARIANCE - Normol % Good 1,001 T,pe) (DE) Condlilon For Agl .2, 0*1~f#kij EL N .Allie Eg, Fan (tw'Timirl REPLACEMENT COST NEW 436'>So %3586 \ -Â» 4 #1 kjj,Â« dC/,74 I . i:,1. 1 1- 77, Â·T Â§677. . 1.. f . ..11 ' I -1 1 - - 4 1... ~ . 4.Â»- r , i 1 A '7 J v; . b . 1.-1 1.ev'*. 1.,1 1, if 1, Â· IL, , *-'. 0 ,-r .'&- '' '"''il.&' 0 '- '1 5 , 4 : 14 : ~ ,# . .44'fi-~,t,ftti*tt'j' '~'Â·"~'ri .'. . . . A , 04. 0 *+4Â»hi, I â€ž , 1464,44 17:.14:rt.ril 11 ' 1 1 ' 1â€¢ '~ *404â‚¬9 2:i-i. 4 ,-, . '4,~'Â·~~,Â·'1Â·.Irt' 1 ' I '7. I. 't - 4* ..~F.' 14 2" JO 2 5 '2 '1'SLy "- ' .i- '. 2-1 .>:','24&:' #%1 1 4 J " 1' ' ~24 .,4.4 W di,l 1 -, wrâ€¢, 1 1 14 . e r I , 'r. 1 .4, -' , -? 121 . 640:71.- ''5 m~' ' r ' 'AF :, b.: ' 1.'' ,Â·c ..-/ S. . "11 '13 . 3. f, .-i' 4 /'i,111Â·2.'-4â€¢, 1 . I ../.I ' ./ el...14â€¢,4,i. 1,11 1. 1 . '' 'V ' I. ' .' ., â€¢ 0727# .5. j);:Â·:/r';'~'" Ptiu ./, 11.-11 4 ' ' . -1 I 't I Â· , . 0- i.. â€¢ 1,. 1 - 1 3 * 'E I , ....A --' , L'.1 1 .., 1 0.1' -' I :.'46., ./ 41' 11 1 .1: 4.-f . r,1 ., Â·iti.;: t,4~5,~'â‚¬):Afff.,8 4.240-â‚¬:, #ttibl:1.,0 r Â·';4 4;ti;': , ~ A 4 1/ ~i'85<43%if YH-*'R* )32 L'.. 4' 0.:,Â·9" . f,'.iÂ·3 -%104146 *40%Â¥â‚¬ff:,4,, 144~f ''"ff,Â·," riV*Â·11 1 91,943.Ul'rÂ·:-'t"-~'.'~'.Â· "- , , '1 , , .4 1% '0 1 . IF 1 ... jf , , 9. 13 .. t Â¢f>., ~, 02 I_ _ ./ 7'.1 11,1 1 fÂ»wlin-1~"ll ,Â», ,/' PÂ¢160...% I. b. 41% ~70.A- "", , ""S, :r,35,7 .2 .31, 0'z" ,140'f,V,%b,9.-i .1 rerr,Vel N'lei ' 4 7 .- ,â€¢4< p '441"F>Ay,~ 35'2* ,/,;eilt'4'. .. Â«?ir 9," *,-'. 12 .... -. -5 !,2,:4#Â£5~~M.~* 'Ir* 4,Â·: #,itr,52:r4IQE),4~. 'If~. ,~9.2,1.1 ., , 14) , 144,4 1 1 Jp' :RAM,41 1 1.01 f A 1 1. 41 . 11 12 1 ' 3:%.,Â· Â·, 4;7 Vt'~:â€žil-~~-,0 )0,42% .,(Â·,7,7 ..7 1 .' . I' v>AE#<ityll '' ' I. . . 4 611 ' f : P<M*.9~8'- ". '-'. <.. I >.4 I - L ., 1 . 11 I ' 'I 1' )7 ;!, 0 /t ,, 1- 7.4 .. 01. 9351;41'. A , 4 -,4 . , 1 ..%. ' !6~1/0 1 1111 A 441 N r < ~ti,;If;;ifit~~.~ft>fijf.T..5:z~C .'~ -4 l:~.9.~:~*f;z: F,â€žLgfp3 .7.-11. , '11 01 - 9 Â·;4%, I'. I '$.A - 541 ., ..,All .15 g': 74 16,1.4.12 ..41 9 "24>~ :211 4, -7 â€¢2~ 4 1 '.A.,1 :"F , 44,Â· .1, i 1 If 7.1 , 1,/ fit,\r,%'El ,- Â¥, - * 7 'â€ž 4 ,-~,ri..,;URS( 3Â§473, . i.,p,F,~* . 4 ' a #, ~~i~,~ |13,1 Â©e, 4,4 1-, 41"or,I , 7. 1% a, ,~MT .'CA. ''' " '41" - 4 ; Â·"yed/'â‚¬, Sp' .r'/.fjt:, 2 i~:' '('.ff.~r:l 4&.Att*gâ€ž,y, :s. i. . 4.,111,2,19% 11~ 4 + Mr .. 4'~:,1 i . 'Â· " :=1 A.t . 1 I A /7* , rf 1./ 2.. ; I Â· ' ./ F &â€¢Â· ' 1, /4 :N. , ' â€ž r,#' ',f ~~%'~ ' f, 94*2 9' , #42 2- 11 â€¢ ;.- f,ar, 4 % -2' :4~49 V i '1 ' ./.'' .../-'' 4 , r , i.r.. J' ir,.' A, 1. ' Â¥13'3 1 -" --" ' 'i' 1.61' 3 C,X,N :.'A~ ~i~- yÂ· i.~ ...~ i: 4 , i. 4 -1, 2~1:,1 .... 1 ...31:5,4hy. ' : '. -Â· r , 10,~ ge 'f . 2 . ; 14 12,#/*5/ j, Â£, - ~Ati"*44?~,Â·*wo, ...41,3%3416'~'Â¤2 .u '/, v',? .-12,4. ,- 2. .,9 1 i ..40 Â·t t - 1.9-4 , 1%.4.,1 '64 ' .4-.r/ 94 ," 2 1. 0>Â·t" 5/4,11'4 Â· 4 A, .'-'Â·'4~>, 144 ' A. 1,1 . ..."I St,>1'40, , P.P 1 -51.;. ,. - 1 1, .fl~. t... . 'bi,#f . Â· 14% ' . -1 rÂ·Â·rÂ·. i q '71,+ â€¢4 9: 1 4, , $ F 4 , #250:.2 th #% '. e. 4 I */ 1 */& .k p ' 4: i 'f Â¢'iry, 4,h)â€¢VIÂ·,Â·.44 442Â£&44~4*8 ~UP-~&4$ ''~'(Â· I. ' 49~ /1. W.'' '.'V' 1. J. I J..lu.. , . 1 .---,â€žr. 1/''i,%4 *Api,)2.4, r,,Â· ,Adi I li:Â·,i.-'g:,1'M#Â·t.f 4.':,<A/(043/'' 1 " '1'' 3., ..1 ' ': Lf ,1,Â·< Dua , '- .aL,22~431 im' s. â€¢ â€¢ &,2YV<64 '9 '4 t; ''. :.~17" ~,dF.y~ Â·'M '8:*V VWOTHIV: AA+|L V '- ~S,1 6,: " 4 .M ./ 4>,4%bfig,lizi.2+4/"Q,4.'Â· V".9,4 r'. rr.-1 7 , a. Vu' f , ~~ Â· ~ V' 'J,1~ aw'.e...':te 'Ir. AL ' 4 ,; f 7 444:YOE:,29'iÂ¢ 74>:'6,~2."If~~ ''V' E . V 2. .1,4 Â· r 7 4 ...... ..r *, I. , , -1; , 16...' L .14' .1 /,1 1 . 1.VI' 9 + .ry'. b t' t "7:...4.'LtdivgYM.5571*...,4..3 Â· 79:,(,rk &0. 5 ex -, , i, F i~ g;c .-#,2ti 4,V -.R 1- Al~ . 'y ' 1 . i Â¥, .... .44 4' 5,1 *, 1 .'7' .' ' . i . 1 â€ž 1 -- ~1 ~90/,~ . ...1 I. C t.11., - 1 "; ..'/ ~Ii;li; ~I>~?,~~< ~~~'tl~:,'f;f:~,~ ~-~1?~1~>~~~',l't<,-A iÂ°k"r, , . U i <1 4 Y 41> -' 7,Â·4' P,4<3;Â· Â· '66 j.- e 4% p~. .'. .:e ..5 -04f' i 1 '144'.p - ' ...4. 0 I ., 1- ..2. thA t.. , 1, E..."f- '11'...,C'U.....''t ''-1.-1 111( ' 1 1 â‚¬ I, A. 4' ' 9 4.Â· 2'4, r 6-1 -Â·45~- D.% C JO&5*52Â· 35 1'39 il W . 2 .- .1 6: 1 'PA,,ri %:4'..''ll.-4*. --%'.ld>.- , .1 1, 4..Llf ,- ' .4 1 19 ' 1 4, 'f '.Â£ ,' d, 1 4, '4.' 1 $ u .Â· sa . 4/1.-1 , '1 U'. ., , 1 .. i I , U.'91'.It .ff;'4â‚¬e , '-.4, .t..g ' .7 I. er. Â· 6 ' r, 9 .1 1 0 ... A . 1.Att â€¢.i-Â«4 17..240-,4 : }./.4 ...% I Â¥ .41 1. 44: 1 .4,/' 1' - I 4 + 1 79 , 4 Mr- '' 9. - .4' '; -'21909'Â©1 - , ". 1.9 '' ., .1 1'' 1.,9 'f'.1 , 1} 1 4 1 . Â¢ Phra- *<6[1.1 . ..e "24 2 Eff ,>Il,~1=9. ,i ''. 14 1 , I 1. .- â€¢ 1- ' . 1 139'42Â«*.Â·.0. Â·Â·=-.~. -': '* ..: , : -:..f:%31;16'311. *i t. 11.Â» â€žÂ¥, 4,33-8,4 i?j~.'kij492*Cti **1.911,~44Â·ki~.41.9,~:,- ;'-,I,2?2 -c-2 '1 :1 1 n." 0 J ..4 V. -444*full?,1'l / ...7.471Â¢ .. r J, ..:' -I ' ' I'' & 1; .._r: 14?Â¥-14;l & 944 Â·4,4, Â· r , 1 . ./65: 4 ; 1 J~~7,;'' 4.61,#5'.*f' 1 Bi' 'i'/00.~1 '' 4 ' r2 4,'21 .1 , '._2/'i ./1,& 4 :F , -9<~qb~:'2/,4:',t~~ i,~ - '4 -b',J.1 1 111 , . 1 r 1 . Â·r ;' I. 1 - ' 1 24 +2.' 1 , RI, 'JA "F" 1. 1 , , - ' ;; .:p'*o"""7~,rt-Â·4 'A .'- /11 ;.,0,9 *.0 - . k Â·le ': ''a'PulÂ·,4-' ' 4'.E 1, # 11:1.t.. A.1, in *W,,44 Uer' Â·'. i /44 C f i r -* * a f.,27 6.1/4/4 . Z ': ..k3:k.494'7 5. 014 12~6Â·.<3 â€žÂ· ' e~(1'..4,6.j.b.f'%*.-80Â«.-6,3.-.M , : ," c I '6#,-I 1 , 11 **Â·4 1, '*: -i. '1'",~Sr, "".'~" ... ,/ %,11(411:Jiltic:' r.'-lit *114?Lir'~79 2 11.1-1.{}fl,45#i'93Â·4.9.3.141*lt@ifti,WgÂ¤ 1 r. . , -1-lf 2.:f,:11,1 '.41.,~1Â£1',,lili: ayk 711 ' 'Â· 0 .1., 0, d , grj,J,#1,&~01,5,-1,w~,,9,~, ~4,,4-11Â£,ryli,k)#21':L,)6;'1' , t , 1. Â£â€¢ '. 1-' I'. - 7, . - ac. . i ,-, 4'Â·'. 41 ' Â·Â·'v,N,~ ," 1,-14 Lj*t''dÂ·''no.~'~l ' R :4, - i .. ..~ 1, '. 1.1 ,Â·,ff'4'' .'4 r'>III>4 .1 ' ' 44; 1, .1 1 , :411-1'...1{2.2; 1 . It I 4) .,1 : ' 1~ptr---22 ' ''*~~'~~)11'J?1,11 -,1.- .11 2:11,2 U -;., '' , ~fâ€¢ ' I,~Â·.' u,t ~ i. ,Â·'i .~~~* f,",5 't Â·~. J..~ A'. ,;-Â·â€ž 'i. ,~~ '~t I .,11.S .?j,fi,7'j'.114244#,f . ' ' 4 J 1. W '11, .1*11'.'-: r.- Flk 41124.'.:Â·' ' I i .7Â·~(3 -:*74*44-341<1~-' f-itÂ¢42-J,CÂ¢710 44Â·4*4â‚¬414:~1.'vg.-~.3,I~.19.2*4*34-::p,*.1.~~:.%~&~ ~~I~,B~',Â·Â¢:~;j.,I~L i 13Â¢)%.-:. 2,a, 4/:';4~E26~1~~~~~~~'~:'~i'~~~~~~46I , ' , 4. 1 23Â· Iii Davis: The Mysteries Remain 45,24*05*4005~~4 2Â·I .2 ,/, }9Â£24 /Uff##.,1./.-1 123~ 41 1 1 44 #11. 0 / 1...1 1,1 f.D i*&44,1, 1 FiN '11119 i 1 IMI- 1 Â·Â·1,0 21#,1,1.45 '' \ .Ch \ \\11 / I 'r The passing of Ki Davis in January, 1983, not only deprived Aspen of one of its most vibrant personalities, but cut offa deepening vision in no less than three of the arts. Ki's collage, always striking, increasingly gathered its harmonies around a powerful central mass. The poetry, begun later and doubtless farther from its eventual destination, was expanding in range. A career in sculpture, begun in the last few years, was triumphant from the beginning. Beyond the personal loss, a terrible sense of incompleteness hovered about the death by cancer of this 57-year-old woman - a sense strong in my own life when I arrived at the apartment of an ex-Aspenite in New York ten' months later. My friend had moved back to the city after several years in Aspen, and the work ofAspen artists hung on her walls. "There's more," she said, after I toured the rooms. "There's a collage by Ki Davis, probably . i the strongest piece in her last show, and I bought it when there was a rage to buy Ki's *uff. But it seems death-obsessed, and I really don't Avant to hang it. I'm not sure what to do with it." "May I see it?" It was certainly large and dark, composed primarily of two kinds of black paper, one glistening and one dull, with bits of other colors grouped around the central shape that characterized her last phase. Yes, my friend would sell it, for the price she paid for it. Removed u 1 . 11 -1....1.:- f.':::4:.9.13.~h- Â·Â· Â· Â·Â· r. Â·Â· sr,:Â·i: 0,c )f.;~1.(i*K,QJ f d~'C 1 1.1.bb'?tr.:.? . Â· i Â·fi.%.I ' i. from its gallery frame and swaddled in packing material, it was the . I:.,i#it most cumbersome hand luggage I ever wrestled onto a plane. But what, actually, had I bought? The ragged horizontal figure that dominates the picture is of a strange material indeed - a pulpy black paper shiny as anthracite and cross-hatched with reinforcing i threads that continue, beyond the paper's torn borders, in loose 1, hairs. Bleached randomly into greys and buffs, it looms from a rectangle of matte black paper, spilling over its borders as if bloom- ing from a night sky. Scattered upon it and fixed to its sides are scraps of paper the color of sandstone, bits of indigo, a lorie fleck of red. ' Because of the proliferation of dark texture and detail, the collage is : best seen with your nose right up to it, at a distance less than the ~ le work's own width. There is no deciphering what in particular was meant, but I have asked Ki's husband, John Davis, what he knows about the piece, He told tIle that Ki found the paper in a field outside Boulder while he ~ was there on business, and that the paper was already black and apparently made for packaging. Ki peeled it open, found the strange texture inside, and got very excited. She built two collages around it, the other of which is iiI the collection of a corporation in Illinois. The deep blue is placed so as to suggest sky, yet I feel I am looking down Â·on something: this is a species of map-making, the folds and fault blocks of a mythical country. Black is more than the color of death; it 2 can suggest power, elegance, even a kind of glamor. There are no . ~ ~ shades of black, insists a purist friend. Here is proof to the contrary. : il Before I saw Ki's work, collage struck me as a hobbyist's art, 1 4 paste-up for those without the discipline or the vision to wield a 2/ chisel or a brush. Most of it still strikes me that way. But from the first ; glance, Ki's work seemed possessed of a single voice, elusive but ~ personal, That voice, it turns out, was well trained. A native of 1 Tacoma, Washington, Ki majored in art at Scripps College, and be- i , : came the first person to earn a masters in painting at the University of i h .1 i el Illinois. She had one-person gallery shows in Aspen and Chicago, and . i 1J ; was included in group exhibitions at the Art Institute of Chicago, the , i .1 b n Santa Fe Museum, and numerous colleges and universities, She , ' ~. i,:'1 1, 11'..i considered drawing the basis of the visual arts, taught drawing in the ,.- , I. Chicago area, and held life drawing classes after her move to Aspen in F ,f! 1973. Her career as artist and teacher continued unabated through .. :It;I the raising offive children. When she turned to collage-or whenit . : b~ .a ran away with her - she wound up making much of her own paper, i i. 1.1 / and didn't hesitate to apply effects with ink, charcoal, watercolor, or 1 1 6,5~| ~ even spray paint if the piece called for it. 4<,9,0 , r 110,-1,/4,1,1,411 I ' / --rf--r- 91. 1,1 il- rl H; For Ki, then, collage represented no lack of discipline, but like her other two arts, it was fired by intuition. Showing a poem, she 1 11 would say, "Isn't it wild? - I have no idea where it came from," her voice both proud and a little frightened. Her character embraced q- ! -1. such contradictions. Slender, delicate of feature. with a quiet and oddly transparent manner of speech, she seemed at once earthy and. 11 not quite attached to the earth. Her art grew from the same paradox, 11. i and she trusted the work to have meaning even when it resisted explanation. Our century has specialized in creation from the uncon- scious, ever since we decided we had one; the psychic core has become the credited source of our best recent art, as well as the alibi 10 1 for most of our worst. It takes an artist like Iii to remind us that, - 11 - beyond all fashion,to create awork ofart one does not understand - ki . Â· or to be the agent of its creation - takes a kind of bravery. To sense where Ki's art was headed, one has only to compare a U.. ~ late collage with previous work. By happy chance I also came by an earlier piece. Ki had asked to borrow some records and I offered her KIt - . till:Â·i a stack of favorites. A year later she confessed, with embarrassment, 9 4 .1 that my records had gotten mixed up with hers and she no longer knew which was which: would I accept a collage in their place? I could easily have pulled my own records, but I leapt at the exchange. The piece she brought was a bright arrangement of browns and yellows, semi-representational, suggesting four oddly-shaped f]11 . ceramics on a tabletop. It is harmonious, decorative, and particularly clever in suggesting the glazes of ceramics by the placement of stains inherent in the paper. And a stranger, seeing it next to the night ~ vision, could sense immediately the chasms of experience that fell between. Ki is perhaps best known in Aspen for her sculpture "Interplay, .Â·rt'Â·,. ~.i. at the east end of the Hyman Street Mall, created from the small wax model with which she won the mall sculpture contest only a year after taking up sculpture itself. Another sculpture and several col- - Â· lages are on permanent display at Aspen Valley Hospital. That is only the public fraction of what she has left the town, and it is with a pang of recognition that a Ki Davis collage will suddenly leap out from a previously unseen wall- a pang, because the pleasure in the work is 1 -... -2-,ai: /3 -6: v so mingled with the sense of someone extraordinary who slipped beyond us before she was fully revealed. It is characteristic of her that 1 .Â·Â·t~ L t.e ? iÂ·, Â· v . 45Â·1- i-4-Â¢Â·'~bi.$9 : I, ; when I unwrapped the collage I brought back from New York, nearly *tÂ·ilÂ·3:24Â·,-4-r~LIÂ·Â·' i l.' i a year after her death, I found a gummed label on the inside of the cardboard backing on which she had, in fact, given the work a title. It L 1 1 26*43:* tul " is called "The Mysteries Remain. ..1.'2.1 >-:.frs= 5- 122 I... -2,-C irÂ·.N -R<---R 'Â·.a-9.t.<.i Â·- -Â·, Â·Ud r:'! ~ Â·Â·.--;.3-Â·:Â·,51:3illÂ·*4 --Â·ffivi--Â·82 1 .3 313.7-'2Â·42*.*.- -244%5$7Â·, 3-*L. Â·: -....iÂ·'03Â· *A+RE' I .: ~' 6- 'Â·96.-iÂ·-â‚¬U, 7-r"-Â·Â·li I.- I - .... . .= '-/ i./* B .I /*.- ./. - *.-1-I. ...9 .' I "-I-.~*.VI-: I~-. Y ./. 21,-2332Â»..:.222:fiL#Afwf###~WA#~idev-73=.mt-- -- -' *9- -5.--42-3-{jitilir---3*%1ii*41.fliÂ«&%3.-*.--.-siatticy-'-f~k.:*Ap,4~*i--92-TEMJF~-13i*~,~I--- -9-uff-i_- ~ 7mT7~ZZ ~Â·Tr{;I~~C:32-7~ ~2-1--/X 7 ~1-~- ~4@RLAr- L..t-" Geâ€¢.2â‚¬kL41;12irl,2.-,Swh,Eget~lu~aL-,Â·~,L.~,M--ww~ ... --.ek~~~---:eL- - -__ _--..--~Â· - - L; ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM pÂ«*. b rul onÂ¢ Ltv~ ch /Ztmod, j kÂ»i~. Nd,1 8>n, ant Â· Chna Uk/,ch Location: /Ods WaÂ·,6.1 Â»-. Zone District: R. /5 4 Lot Size: 4000-57. fl: Lot Area: 7892. 60 se. A. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area mafbe reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLot Area in tbe Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: FÂ£aing: N/A Proposed. N /A Number of residential units: Existing: / Proposed: / Number ofbedrooms: Existing: .8 Proposed: 49 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): Fb* DIMENSIONS: Floor Arew. Existing:2,287 Allowable: 8,75~ Proposed: 5 59/ Principal bldg.height: Existing:/2 i 8"AffowabIâ‚¬:,95 t/* Proposed:.25 f D ' Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: N/A proposed: N/A On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 1 Proposed: 2 No cHANG& % Site coverage: Existing: /1444 -Required.- B/4 Proposed: A<,64 ~ % Open Space: Existing: /Vb4 Required: /1//4 Proposed N lA ProntSÂ©tback-. Existing: / 4 (Â·8" Required: 25 to" Proposed: /4 Â£ 6- NO (,1#94~Â£ RearSetback. Existing:/S L/" Required: /0 LO. Proposed: /3 1/"No CWMIGE Corr*AnedÂ¥ lk. Existing: N ~ A Required: N/A Proposed: A// A EAEsT Side Seback. Existing: G LO * Required: /O t O . Proposed: 4 10# No e t#940Â£ 'NE970- Siae Setback.. Existing: 5 L / Required: /0 L D " Proposed: 51-/ " NO C #MINGâ‚¬ ComimeASidei Foasting: N~ A Required: N/A proposed: N jA Distance Between Existing 4!A Ragoared-- NlA propose&- NjA Buildings / * NIA= Nor APPUCABLE Existing non-conformities or encroachments: FAFT 7 MD 427#Ack > Ehyr yARD SETBACK ) WENT DIDE fuRB hÂ« vanalons=8eet. PE>/GN REYLEW &UU>ELLNES *ic- 4 /%24/. 8 7 -1 1 i . i LEGEND AND NOTES â‚¬ c: 14Â¥Â¢ SLOPE LEGEND 0 .-IW-7 - - ..UU-mu,0 0,6 ur.....= C..0 2 21 5 CZE I 'Tr ./ ".Ileâ€¢ Lrla - RCPIC ,-,--~.-4 00 . 0 2 t; 2 ../../. = EX]UCT- I ~52.50 m. .g=.-r.. '-Â«U O Ull ./ .CLAÂ©~ rROW LOr al g.... m,E '...'.'= R./.0 I /1 =. > Â« (11~Â·-1--1Â¢) TOTk SOU,AE ~r, 705 m.. Â£Zmor mer= 1223 EXCL1**m .= LI /*ALCUATICÂ»i lak / 1.e M %. i.,0,0 z. #-11=-:U--55: - ./. C.rl-I./ =/ --el ,=r,* â€¢ mâ€¢[â€¢Â·11Â·â€¢ .m LOT AREA - 9 oDD son .-- - I.'../MI'.#i m ..i'.0-9 ~TU [*CLUDED LOr,Ra. i.,S,.SD soIT 94 72167* + cul .{) -Â»r n. 0.-- - cm.-1 LuÂ£>~IAE ./. 17. gil F./ Snal Fâ€¢~til IES . 4:* 4 Velf.~, S - --- =61 8 4- = - C.Im '-Cm,ul,1 F.I.-6 ..C-~0 LMI . .=.Ult .... d 0 Â·' A = I VICINITY MAP - = RECEIVED . 'a-4 JUN 1 8 201]6 / 1 .In-~al ... I. Ilt-E4Â¤ ... CITY OF ASPEN Â©01*1117 DEVELOPMENT 1 - . -- B 2 ADJOINERS 16002 C RECORD PLAT ROW OR LOT TO THE WEST P D ZONNING n I .... BRIDGE LOCATION, DITCH Â»r .Ta NOTE DITCH ESMT , ADDRESS Ir = ..., i, 7,- L ENCROACHMENT ...... 1,12. PLAT OF THE GANT AU---- -Di~ N -=9#9:=-- 2 - *11.116 11Â¢ FIELD 1.5 JH AM 8 4 .,1 FIELD 5.5 DM, AM E~=Â»rn/-â€¢'/2 1-0,1 Â¢â€¢4//5 i Co DRAFT 6 JH BE'.19%"MIM"104 ~ MEAS HSE 1 HR JH,DM,AU - SET CORS 1 HR DM,AM ~~Â·~m--~Â·,rr=u~ SLOPE DRAFT 3.5 '0.0 . 11 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY g . :5/k~= gl,16%Ng.lt--16=.::.r THE GANT CONt)OMINIUM~L/ W.el CCÂ»m-- I#Il. I .-4 {Il ==.Â·) PFe,Â¥ED B. ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. WC. 1 1.1 ASÂ·~1 ./~aDO ..Il FloE/Fu (iÂ© ...10 ~267...... a. a LJ. 33NVIBVA M3 IA3M NDIS30 NOLIVIOIddV 360 (INY-1 80OZ/9~ -011133(0. 3AN3AV SE!31Â¥M GOOT *3AHnS 1N3IAI3AOHdWI 30N30IS38 H0IH3A3-l 1NVAB8 OCV80103 NldSÂ¥ 5 14050'49*W 100.00' */*$- --...;Il=/'= 8 4 2 1 1 -- UN Fi 1_ U iS t m mT. 1 i -ulÂ®lul 11 i 8% C ~Â©~ 2 M J r \fl_ Fr 11 1 4 - 8 0 irc-- - 3 I M 1 8 Il-= .1 - 1 i \11 1 W MI i I 1 -Â«/9 I.V.% 4 *0100 N 14050 49 E 93 5 9 IZ IT 4 970 ./ BRYANT Le,~ERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS Greenwood 1005 WATERS AVENUE .. PRO~e:TNQ_ & Assoc:ates,Inc. 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION- DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCE 520 Walnut Street ASPEN, COLORADO BCAUL DMAWNer. AspeR Colorado B1611 ~~ Gretchen 970-925-4502 F.x 970-925-7490 09Â·11Â·W 90,00 S 7 4050' 491200.00 Boer,w 20,0. -31 1 /~122:=:~11 1 1-- 4 J t 1 --4 g. a sel,M* N 14050 49 E 100.00 1TTLE r- Gretchen Greenwood BRYANT LEVERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS 1005 WATERS AVENUE DATE L _[ "-*te Inc 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION- DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCE 520 Walnut Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 SCI,12 1 DRAWN. 970-92>4502 ASPEN, COLORADO Fax 970-925-7490 90.00 AlL,6009Â£ S FUILI amb i See 03 02&8 1 '"imffip - Â· - 1 .31011 131'~in' 2 Z FE=3 D Fl 0 111111111 I 1 5 Di g ~~ EXISTING BTREET VIEW/NORTH ELEVATION 1/3. =1'-0. 8 1 , , 1 4 1;2"*, 1-1| W 0 Z 2/ > U) LU U) ill 9 C-- )EXIBTING WEST ELEVATION Q (JUB. 1 1'-0. W EXISTING ELEVATIONS , ng' pOOAAU@01 SNOI1VA313 9NllSIX3 30N3aIS3H HO{H3A31 INVAL!8 80009 livc 3nN3AÂ¥ 983.LVM GOOI 1 9 3 Et d_"Z Up 5â‚¬AE 0. 0 <:. . 9333 E M I 1 -4-+ f.Â·Â· 1 1% 11 0-##-4*.1 80 00 -ltrÂ« - EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION r, 1 .,0 . ..2.. 4.\ , ,~ m 1 14 1 1 1 LLI lu'al 0 Z U.1 0 (-~EXISTING EAST ELEvATION E><61[NG ELEVATIONS 'D-5' U#401@19 MI~,puo 30NVINVA 93Nnalne NDIS30 NOILÂ¥011ddÂ¥ 360 0Â©N~-. Ag Nu'll./ 3 SN0[1VA313 9NllSIX3 31(1193~ HOL-1 3 88 OCVH0100'N3499 009 - 9 mi H RESIDENTAIL DESIGN STANDARD CHECKLIST A. SITE DESIGN i. Bulding Oreintation: Extmting Building i, NOT perpenicular lo Fairr, Avenue : DESIGN QUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED 2. Build-to 11..: Tb~ froni facade . â€¢ith. 5 feet of the minimum front yared setb"k 331 112 ,Ii m v,5, $ eIRUE 2. Fences: ' 42 ' tan fene mea,ured from natur/grade will replace le current knee frowred of the house, 8. BUILDING FORM 42433*' AN 15 1, Secondary Maâ€ž: A second,ry ma,3 23 not propoeed for thi, duple* remo/,1. DESIGN GUIDEL/E VARIANCE REQUIRED C. PARK!NG GARAGES AND CARPOMS 1. Re,idential Acce,1 from a Privale Road: NOIÂ· ApplCABLE EDGE 0Â¥ I. 4, 2. Residential Aceee, from 1 Public Skeet: a. Th' Vidll of .e Uving Are' at ./nt level: 36'-8 The width of th, Garage i. ll'-6" Prop-d Width of Living Area I 5' and gre,ter Ulan the *dth of Garage b. The front faende of the Garage I not located 10 feel back from Lhe ficade of the house. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARLANCE REQUIRED 46 A front yed setback varisnce i, required to maintain Lhe exiating garage. c. Not Applicable go.00 0 d. The noor of the Garag, is equal lo the /trect level. 'WSÂ·,1/ e. The vehicular ./Lh of ..arage . 9-0 f. Re garige door i a e,ngle ptall /60/. D. BUILI}ING ELELMENTS 1. The prop'Ded duple' remodel home ham a St"el oriendd tntrance "d Btreel orienled vindoÂ¥ vimible from Waler. Avenue+ a. Th' fro/L door . the louse / not m.re Lhan 10 '-0- from the trial mel wall of the houal The fruit door 4 0' - 0- -1 1 b. The proposed front porch 8 105 Sq.FL and ie 6 - 0- 1/ depth. ,/d one-/ory m height p c. Street-Fa./z ..dow. race Ute Avenue. 2. F:â€¢it Story 'emelt VI.-. 8UX. The width of the overall building ia 39'4 4 I I Th= -id- 01 the W 'Lory .ement 10 . 14 - it" (or 37% . the building'/ avar/11 â€¢idth.) . -...0.' The Irst Btory *~ement . 6 feel from the wall the firil 'tory is prujeetin, from. Â¥19 The plale height or the int~rier living epace i, JO'--: The fir,lt ~tory ,~ement . the proposed porc' -2 H The propemed peril l parl of the exillting facede and requires a frant yard varial- Â· L.n***3 3. Window. a. Streel ficin' windowa are not 'panning between D' and 12' 'bove the fininhed noor b. -0 NE' non orth/zon' BIll'lared propoled on .....ct facing ./.de of the buildl/g (For a Lolal of 5 ) 4. Ught./1. DESIGN GUIDEUNE VARUNCE REQUIRED S t Â£, CONTEXT No %/t~en' are propo~ed for ./ 1,â€¢li~ding remodel and or addition. 2 4E1*r Ut 6:Â·449- r 1,1 - The propo5ed building material melch 'he exillin, materle' of the duplex located to 'he mouth of the remodel. 1. Material a. All propoied exterior milerial' are consinlent on all Bide' of 'lle building. , a. Al propsed exterior materiale are Lruc ta the characterinUco of the existing building. V 1. 1.flection a The proposed ./.tory home . adjacent to a 2-/tor, building In the east 'de 'f Lhe prop...3. (Sal photograp'B) 4 The propoaed two atory home la g=. * 1- slor' bulldin: on the ~0t cide of the pnperly. W.m-c. * 111.- .1 / | SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2,10 STONY ADDED .1 ~p - NORTH WING EX~STING TO REMA[N NO CHANGE + + ---*-- ~/J'1111111 4 %* 75â€¢09'teE 0 9- . 9- .-'...,â„¢1.... Ill'li Ill PROPOSED STREET ELEvATION FROM WATERS AvENUE SCALE: 1/8" = I'-0 D(1014 1 SUB # FAR CALCULATIONS 4 P. 1 NORTH WING MAIN LE'/EL FAR. 1,90 5QFT SOUTH WING MAN LEVEL FA,3 1.!00 50+T. -F'* *. aRAGE LEVEL FAI 83 5FT. 9 IOTAL MAN LEVEL FAR: 2 133 5071. M NORTW WING UPPER LEEL FAR. 1,108 kam. TOTAL FAR 3.391 5(FT ' FT COND ALLOWABLE FAe 3156 9/. NV-Id 80013 13A31 E!31dn -133 HS AA3lA3H 3NI-13alnE) NDIS3a 30N3(]IS32l H0IhI3A31 1NVAEIG "' Its Inullm 0.9 30NVIMVA 3Ni13GnS NE)1â‚¬30 NOLLÂ¥011ddV 391 CINÂ¥-1 8002 06,2-â‚¬6-oz 00Â¥10-100 N3dSV -ON 10,rOW, 3nN3AV SH31VM 900-C 10./.0 I ,00.00 S..'4. RESIDENTAIL DESIGN STANDARD CHECKLIST A. S]TE DESIGN -â€¢e-Â·Â·Â·- 390' TO WEST KND SIREET ERS AVENUE 1. I.ld'.I 're/nil/0/: Â£/laill. 5.'ding I' NIT perpenicul'r lo Waters Avenue : DESIGN GU{DEUNE VARZANCE REQUIRED 2. Build-lo lines: The front facide I withi ' feet of the mimmuln front yared setback 3. Fencea: a 42 " tati fence measured from natural grade win replace the current fence frowred of Lhe hou,c. DO. M B. BU[LDING FOR' 1. S econdary M-: A Neaon dary m- 15 not proposed for thiâ€¢ duplex rema del. DEBI IN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED C. PARKING GARAGES AND CARPORTS CR I 1. Reside/tial Alle/8 frD' a PrivaL' R.ad NOr APPICABLE 9 4 2. Residen/al Acce- from I Public Street:: a. The 11dth of L" Livin' Are' at street level: 3.~- 8- 45 The width of the Gar.ge 10 15'-6- Propased Width of Living Area . 5' and greater than tbe width 'f Garage eLN40 b. Thc front f*cade of th * Garage im not located 1 0 fect ba:k from U. ficade of Lhe house. DESIGN GU[DEL[NE VARLANCE REQUIRED A front yard netback variance ia required lo mainlain the existing garageÂ· ZONING FRONT AND Â£,Gr SIDE SETBACK VARiANCE REQUIRED e. Not Applicable O0 5.09'te'l d. The floor of ./ Garage i, equal to the slre. Ivel. e. Th' v.hicular .dth of I carage . 9'-0 f. The garage door Ls a 11* 'kall door. 4. - D. B.WING ELELMENTS 1. The propoied duplex remodet home haa / street orieneed entrance and etreet oriented window //ible from Vaters AvenueÂ· a. The front door of the houal 18 not more thal 1/ '-O- from .. tront rn'it ./. Ir the h.use. 1 i. propâ€žed fron, porch i~ 105 Sq.Ft. and i, 8' - 0" In depth. and one-ekory to height 6 fr"l door i, 8' - 0 c. Streel-Facing wind... face Ute Avenul ' .tâ‚¬ 2/ Fir.l Stor' E.mall 1~~101 BLU!Â»e~Â«6'~ The widlh of the overall building is 39'-r 0 The md~ of the first sto. ele:nent li . . - 11" (or 37% of the building's overall widthÂ·) Barr- nhe first ,tor, element is 6 feel from Lhe w~11 the fire~ ,lory iÂ» projecUng from, The plate height of Ula interior living space 11 la'-0- \ The fir=l 'lor' element / the propo,ed porch. TE{ propoaed porch ia part of Lhe exielin, facade and requb 1 front yard Â¥ariance. ZONING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUERED aEI*Â¤11 Clâ€ž- 3. . a. Street facing windon are not apanning between 9' and 12' Bbove the finiahed noor. ~ 431111 1 b. -0 NEW ..1 0.6/gonal ..dull lied pr.lied o. thestreet facing ./ad' of tbe building. (Fell ./. of 5 ) DESIGN GUIELINE VAR[ANCE REQUIRED : \1 No ligh'.e]18 are propoled for ./ bundill remode' and or addiUon. . L.u~Â¢,mr E. CONTEXT 1. Materials Ir, f . \ 111 a. All Proposed exter-lor materili 're con//ten' 0/ all sides of the 'unding. 11 I. All prop'Bed exlerior malcrial .re l.1/ to ./ charallerialle' of th' e.â€¢Ing building. NO,m*MUÂ¢/ *. The proposed bullrting In,Leria], malch the *'Ling ma~rial, of the duplex ~ocnled to the nouth or the rernodel. ..... 1. Inneclon Kilciel The proposed l.0 ator, borne 1. adj/lent to I 2-slor, bundi. on the ea. de of Lhe properly. (See photogrlph/) - The propHed two 'Lory home i"djacent to a 1- Mory building " the west side of 'he property. . 1.1 e |. SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED | - NORTH ING EX~STING TO REMAIN 4,%- * No CHANG' 2 *Â° S ?IC.P >A # 46- .0. 4 ~ --7-1111111111111 74*'t~15 90. -a D Z 44 IMI- 1-_' 'IlliI 82 4 4&/44 <6 2Mm....'.... ~ PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION tf') , 'IrCH O 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-e" SUB : P. , FAR CAI.CULLTIONS NORTH FING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1.118 SQ.FT. 0 ' $ = 04 *A SOUTH IONG MA[N 1.EVEL FAR: 1.toD SQ.FT. SP GARAGE IIVEL FAR: 83 W.FT, .Am. r,0 TOTAL MADI LEVEL FAR 2.301 SQ.FT. , r' NE' NORTH .NO UPPER LEVEL FAR: 1.108 Sq./. Uot[010 NV-ld N00-13 13A31 N rVW 433HS M3M33 3N11301n9 N9830 30N30IS33 HOIB3A31 INVAHe eenwood 70 .Ae NMWI Â·otq *430 -0!Il<af'Wd II9190Pe"0100 1...ts 'nut'j,~ 30NVIHVA 3NI1301(19 N9IS3a NO[1Â¥011ddY 3Sn ONV-1 800Z 1001*f ... Oa~10100'NRdSV = 5 E e -2 & 2 . m â‚¬ En:#En 62 34/ NOR'rH WING EX~STING To REMAIN - I -//8- mmaummi E..m) I/Â£m,mage,aul -)- % % BEW 20 FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 9' - 8' ~Ill 1~~...1 Itlllltll"lllI 4-TT--1#t=H=:M=M=ffi~ Ill~~1~~ t==11,11,1,3,011*'fC'411'0,~t=1 Illf-11111llillilliI mem~a*i i=====~INI-:NIP{tkttil'*411'll" "1 ' 111111'111 ExISTNG FIRST FLOOR LE'vEL â€¢ 2'- 6' | PROPOSED_NORTH-E-LEâ‚¬JON_ SCALE: 1/811 = It-011 EXISTING 4 j GARAGE NORTH WING SOUTH WING EXISTING: NO CHANGE 2 8 REMODEL AND 2ND STORY ADDED Â·.Â¥6 /9 ''.D -10 L : 3 .4 - 'i ~,~39+H-'1' .. ~ 1 Atin'' M I" 2 1 1-L 11 1 1 1 21 111 '.11 11'.1...1 /6 1 :411,1 'T'.all _ L IC]' . 1~rli' f,j I. 1.1,41 11 11;1; 1,1, 971 44 3 1.F F7*2 0,!r'?7IU~! 'hnual d 0 ~ 12_jl , TI 'IJ[TTT-i- 1 ' EEW M) FLOOR LE'~EL â€¢ 7 - 6' Ll I ff ]'-'~11-1r- . . '~nn~~'2[_ -T - 1 1 L 1.-1 AL 4.-Â·r E ar r 0 E)(16TNG MRST FLOOR 12/1 â€¢ 3'- 6' Mil % 1 EXI,TN, 1-1 FLOOR LEE â€¢ 2' - 6, ~ EX!06 GARLE LEVEL: O '- e SCALE: 1/811 = 11-011 mnnED/lairrh tri ir\/Al=1/711/1 301nS N 31A3 M NE)IS3a NOILV011ddV 3Srl aNV-1 80OE SNOLLYA313 036040&{d I INVAHG va 3nN3AV S331 OOVU0100'N3dSV Â·'Cj E NOBTLWINGREMODELED-AND-3NLSTORY_flmED 2 2,1: ifi 00. 0 2 & 1 SOUTH WING EXISTIN TO REMAIN NO CHANGE ~~ -81 p- â€¢L - 4Â·â€¢~,i, 49- 234 -fMF 1 hal' 2,Â£) FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 9 - 6. ----flon@1 // hall 210 M.COR LEMEL â€¢ 1 - 61 1,5 3-U . 1 // 4 1 1- 17,1 4.00.00 E><15TING Fii2ST H.0012 LE'EL â€¢ 54 - 6, SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING SOUTH WING EXISTING: NO CHANGE | NORTH WING GARAGE Ez : REMODEL AND 2ND STORY ADDED .. 0 [Ij 0 J *c:1-9-r~bil*~ ~2 1 1 . 2-di Ial X FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ Q' - 6' ball 2,0 FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ F - 6 'ElinTIÂ·itÂ·- '1-1; EXISTAG FIRST FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 5.6â€¢ EXISTNG FIRST KOURIE'vEL â€¢ 7 - C SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" E><157}G GARAGE LE,El. 0 Â·Â· 0â€¢ PROPORED FI EVATIONIA tr' IHVA 3N[130ln9 AA3IA38 NDIS30 NallVOilddÂ¥ 390 a 800E-9 FION 01638 H0IbI3A31 INVAble ~N3AV 9831VM GOOT 00"u0100 'N3 dSV 4#Im 15 REVIEW BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1005 WATERS AVENUE LOTS A - C, BLOCK 41, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 48, SERIES OF 2007. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-82-001. The applicant, Nancy Bryant, 1005 Waters Avenue, represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc., 520 Walnut Street, Aspen, CO 81611, and additional owners Chris Leverich and Andrew Dolan who have consented to the application, have requested and a ninety day review and negotiation of potential historic significance pursuant to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 for the proposed alterations to the property located at 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A - C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and The property located at 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A - C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, is included on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, as a potential historic resource; and Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code states that "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission;" and The property owners were notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting via certified letter; and Sara Adams and Amy Guthrie, in their staff report dated September 10th, 2008, performed an analysis of the building and the impact of the proposed alterations to the potential historic significance of the building and found that the criteria for landmark designation are met; and At their regular meeting on September 10, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application. A motion to recommend continuation of negotiations for landmark designation was made and seconded. Such motion failed by a vote o f three to three (3 - 3.) No further action was taken. CONSEQUENTLY, The HPC makes no recommendation to City Council regarding negotiations to preserve the potential historic resource located at 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A- C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado [signatures on following page] Page 1 of 2 ..... I . Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel Page 2 of 2 159'ImT C. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian MeNellis, Sarah Broughton and Alison Agley. Nora Berko was excused. Staffpresent: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Amy pointed out that this is the second review of this project under Ordinance #48 and a site visit occurred today. Everyone understands the process that the sites listed under ordinance #48 must go through a delay period before pursuing any kind of application that would potentially diminish the integrity ofthese resources that have been identified. That is the situation we are in right now. The property owners have proposed a remodel which staff believes would threaten the integrity o f this potential historic resource. We have 90 days to be a negotiation process with the owners to determine i f there is any other alternative that the City could offer. HPC need to let council know what they think the quality of the resource is. Staffhas identified it has a potential resource. We do mention in the memo that our hope is to go to City Council Sept. 22nd. At the last meeting the board was not ready to make any kind of decision because we had not provided you with enough information about the history of the building and its integrity. We have provided you with that information in your packets. This property is in the group of modern chalet and it has features that are significant to the chalet style primarily the low long roof line. This style became integrated with some of the architectural trends that where happening on modern structures where glazing was much more dominant on the facades and the original gingerbread details where removed and details are much cleaner. Other structures are pictured in the memo and this pattern was very common in Aspen in the 50's and 60's. In terms of the architectural style that is how we address this building. There is nothing in the building department file for this site except an electric permit pulled in the 90's. Information from the Assessor's office is in the packet and we where able to locate the original architect Ellen Harland. Part of the difficult dealing with post war resources is the varieties and issues like who is the 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT architect become more significant and the records are simply not in place. Even with Fritz Benedict we have not been able to get a handle on his full body o f work. We where already aware o f Ellen Harland who practiced architecture in Aspen. Ellen was contact and told the story of her arrival in Aspen. She was able to attend MIT as an architecture student in the mid 1950's probably in the extreme minority ofwomen. She and Ellie Brickam where the only women architects for some period. She came to Denver for a change of scenery and to Aspen on the weekends and was aware of Fritz Benedict. Fritz interviewed her and hired her and offered to help move her to Aspen. She and Robin Molney where Fritz's draftsman. She worked for him for 20 years and she described a number of buildings that she was involved with; the 1960 public library on Main Street which is Design Workshop now. She produced a lot o f the detailing on buildings that we have given recognition too. Ellen said this building we are reviewing was her personal residence and it was built between 1958 and 1960, the portion that is in the center ofthe lot and to the back ofthe existing house. That is supported by some ofthe records in the assessor's office. In 1964 she designed and built the portion that is right on Waters Avenue. I believe some time after that she sold the residence to the Davis family, Ki and John Davis. Ki Davis was a noted poet and artist and she did the sculpture on the Hyman mall. The Writers foundation has an award named in her honor. It was not the Davis family's original residence. There have been some modifications made to the house over time. On the front portion the building has been extended with an additional enclosed space and there are a number of small bump outs here and there. Gretchen Greenwood mentioned that the original portion of the house has been filled in under an eave line so there are definitely some alternations. How substantial those are is what HPC needs to determine and recommend to council. We did not fill out an integrity assessment form as mentioned in the staff memo. The modern chalet style was really not something that we discussed in 2002 when we wrote the historic context papers and the integrity assessment forms that we have in place now. It is really something that has developed more as several years have progressed and we have done more intensive surveying and have worked more on ordinance 30 and 48 so we don't have a scoring form and we didn't think it was important lo suddenly create one now. We'11 just rely on the records we have on the history o f the building and determine i f you still think it has architectural integrity. In the memo we tried to detail some of the currently existing benefits that would be available to the property for instance the expansion that would meet HPC criteria could be exempted 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT from impact fees. There could be variances granted as needed. The building already has some encroachments into setbacks which is problematic in terms of expanding. We mention that the property size only allows for a single family house and there is possibly a duplex on the site and that is not allowed and there is no evidence that is a legal use but landmarks are allowed to have a duplex and that might be some incentive to work with if a duplex is something they want to have. There is also the floor area bonus and TDR's. Council might come up with other incentives because they have flexibility with ordinance #48. We are hoping some kind of recommendation can be made to Council. We do think this is a good example of modern chalet and the connection to Ellen Harland is important and with even more research we can document other structures of hers in town. We do know that there are some on Waters Ave. Gretchen Greenwood represented the owners Nancy Bryant and Chris Leverich. This is a new process for HPC and the applicants. It is difficult to understand or create a presentation with not knowing what the city or HPC is trying to do here. The house has been added onto a number of times and has been pushed out through the years from 1960 through 1974. In most cases with LIPC that would effect its landmark status. Another thing about this property is that it is no secret that the owners are adamant about not being on an historic resource list both for reasons of not going through the process. Perhaps we can have some discussion as to what this negotiation is about. What are you offering the owners. You have to understand that most people look at their properties in terms o f their best and fullest use. This property has about seven foot plate heights and it rises to about ten to eleven feet and it pretty much sits on the entire property casqued, so it has issues with current designs rules, standards and regulations but it also really in its present form takes up the entire property. In terms of review it would be difficult to create anything but what currently exists. It is not charming on the inside and has no energy. It is a split level and has been added onto in an unprofessional way regardless of what this architect did. She created a 900 square foot house and it has doubled in size and has five different levels in it. It is not worthy of something in terms of preservation. I have known the owners for 30 years and we pretty much want to keep the same form because the house would probably be torn down so we just went up on Waters Ave., the newest addition on the front part and went straight up. The addition that is being proposed we are going in front o f Planning and Zoning only for design rules and regulations is because it has non orthogonal type of Uj ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT windows on it and the new addition doesn't face perpendicular to the street. These are all solvable problems. We are not expanding the non-conforming o f the addition and we are staying within our setbacks. The design regulations are really designed for Victorian west end type house and not created for buildings like this. In my opinion this building is not an expandable building and it would be a difficult process and it would reduce the value o f the property considerably. They are not developers. We should have a discuss what you offer people who really have a building that can't be added onto. You can't do anything with this building. Michael asked the owners ifthey had any interest in the potential benefits listed in the memo. Chris Leverich said he did not recognize them as benefits and may HPC can explain why they are benefits. Amy said HPC role is to recommend to council what they thing the value of the preservation of the building is. HPC is not the board that will be getting into a dialogue about incentives that are existing or new incentives that council could come up with that are relevant. The intention in creating this negotiation period was to allow time for everyone to stop and talk about the value to the community as a whole and how can we come to a solution that works for everyone. Ultimately their permits will be issued assuming they comply with zoning and other regulations. This is a delay period but they ultimately can do the project that they want to do. We are just trying to have a chance to talk before something is lost. HPC is to make a recommendation to council. Jay asked if council could designate this property. Amy explained that designation can't occur without the owners consent. Ann said what we would be doing is recommending or not recommending that council try to negotiate the property. Amy said no matter what we still need to go to council and they can decide what to do. Amy addressed the benefits; anyone that adds bedrooms they are assessed a fee that is used to offset impacts in the community and in this case park. The fee that would be waived would be $14,781 for three 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT bedrooms i f the applicant worked with HPC and come up with a design that conformed to the guidelines. Variances are available. Gretchen said the house sits on the site and has a site reduction in FAR because of slope analysis. That would be at the southeast part of the property. There isn't really a lot of room to move around on this property because it is so large. I only say that from an architect' s standpoint. Ton the older building the windows, floor etc. have been changed. It is a difficult structure to say this is a great pristine building. You can't add onto it and that is my professional opinion. Nancy and Chris aren't developers and are trying to keep the building in the family. Going through the HPC process is almost impossible. Amy went through the rest of the incentives. Part of the negotiation is too possibly find someway to add on that did less damage to the building. Gretchen pointed out about the site and when you have a site that has certain slopes to you certain FAR is taken away from you. Council could give it back to you and you could sell it as TDR's because it can't be carried on the site. Gretchen pointed out that we aren't proposing to go to the total FAR with the slope reduction at this point. Amy pointed out as an historic landmark you have the ability to not just give up and sacrifice that square footage but you might be able to sell it and get cash for it. There is also a 500 square foot bonus for landmarks. The most obvious is the legalization ofthe duplex if in fact that is a zoning violation on the property. Chris Leverich said he finds it ironic because his property has been picked because there are other house on the street and one of them in particular would love to be designated, Georgeann Waggaman' s. We both have lived here for a long time and it was 20 years before I was able to buy a house when we bought this house. I like my house and I would like to do what I can do to make my house comfortable for my wife and myself. It was built cheap when it was built. I talked to Ellen Harland and she said she built the original house for $10,600. and then she added on and had her husband do the work. Ellen also said Fritz would roll over in his grave if he thought this 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT was something that was judged as an architectural monument because it has been added onto. Georgeann's house is the same thing. Nancy Bryant said we barely have three bedrooms, two o f the bedrooms are called the cell. We have twelve of us in the family and it is a hardship for us when everyone comes. Our grandchildren are here to stay and they aren't going away. It is not a duplex. We have one little kitchen upstairs. Jay clarified that the new process allows for different incentives. Jay asked the applicants to look at the property in a different light knowing that some of the rules might be able to be broken i f we recommend this property to be preserved. Gretchen said it is much more complicated than that. Frankly it is a financial burden. Going through an HPC process as we know is very difficult and lengthy and extremely expensive. Ifthis property was a small chalet and you could isolate it that would different. This particular property doesn't follow the standards that HPC has come up with. The burden ofthis particular property, on this particular building and in this location within walking distance to the gondola could never be realized. HPC and City Council have to come to terms with certain properties where it is a real takings of the value of the property. That has to be discussed and brought up. This building may stay forever like this. We are doing an interim solution where they want a bedroom away from their grandkids. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman asked for public comments. Jack Wilkie said he was here at the last meeting and his main issue was that the chair asked staff for an integrity assessment for modern chalets as it might apply to their unit. I have a modern chalet and I wanted to know what the integrity assessment is for modern chalets. Amy said we created the integrity scoring in 2002 when we re-wrote the whole preservation program. Jack said Michael asked for a modern chalet assessment and that is why I am annoyed because I have one and there are only six or eight o f us. They are all different except mine which is a look-a-like to the neighbors. Ifyou look 6 ASPEN nISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT at them all there is no common thread that runs through them. That is the frustration. I am looking for information and I don't get it. Alison said she believe staff is waiting until the task force is finished. Amy said in the memo we did provide information in the memo trying to create that thread o f showing other examples o f buildings and what we think the influences are. We have not written a context paper in the depth that the other three styles have and we have not done an integrity assessment form because in 2002 we where not discussing this style and we didn't think it was appropriate to suddenly write one up now with no other involvement from any other parties. It is something that will come out of the task force. Gretchen said she has been watching the task force on TV and there will be buildings that are worthy of designation and there will be buildings that you will be having problems with and unfortunately this property is on. This is a financial situation with the value of this large property right near the gondola. It has no parking and an inadequate garage. It doesn't serve Aspen needs. I appreciate HPC and I have seen it come a long way. I see these buildings difficult to preserve. Michael said at our last meeting Ann said criteria should be predictable, understandable and defensible. Michael said how can we recommend to council when we don't have criteria. We probably have enough if we strongly feel this should be designated. Amy pointed out that we do have criteria in place, association with people, trends, and historical events. What you maybe feel you are lacking are the tool to judge how well the standards are met. Ann asked i f this goes to council and we recommend negotiation to come up with a design that we felt was more sympathetic to the building what kind of process are we talking about. Amy said with ordinance #48 it opens up a lot of flexibility and possibly council might want to create a quickly simpler process for the design. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT Jay pointed out that the architect is significant and previous owners Ki and John Davis. The house has its history of strong blood lines. That warrants that there might be a great opportunity for the applicant and the City to come to an agreement to designate the structure. Alison said the house is not a good example of a chalet. It has the low slung roof and lacks balconies. I am not sure I would be proud to have this house on our historic list. The applicants need to understand all the incentives. Brian said he agrees with Alison. The most significant thing is its orientation. It is lacking some defining characteristics that we wanted preserved. The house doesn't quite measure up. We need to back up ordinance #48 and it needs to be a good example and this house is not. Sarah said she understands staff's concerns. This property is not a good example of modern chalet and she would not recommend land marking it to city council. Ann said this is a great example of a transition from chalet to a modern style. There are not many of these houses left in town. I feel it ought to be recommended to city council. In twenty years these properties might be like the Victorians. Michael said he feels this property is defensible. MOTION: Ann made the motion to recommend to City Council to continue negotiations for the preservation of this property,~ second by Jay. Roll call vote: Alison, no; Brian, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Sarah, no; Michael, yes. Vote 3-3. Michael pointed out that there is not a majority of members that endorses this. 204 N. Monarch - Final MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 204 N. Monarch until Oct. 8~h; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried. 8 ASPEN InSTORIC PRESERVATION CuiÂ¥[MISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DRAFT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9 ORDINANCE N0.48 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 26.415 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. WHEREAS, in light ofthe on-going demolition of buildings, structures or objects that may have historical significance for the City of Aspen, the City Council adopted an Emergency Ordinance, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007, on July 10,2007. The Ordinance amended Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 26.415 Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H" Historic Overlay District and established a new process for the identification and protection of potential historic resources. The Ordinance was adopted to address the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability and attractiveness as a destination; and WHEREAS, City Council subsequently directed the Community Development De- partment to prepare further amendments to the historic preservation ordinance, including limit- ing the protection of potential historic resources to a list of properties which are at least 30 years old and which, in staff' s opinion are associated with architectural styles and historical trends which represent Aspen's first one hundred years of history, most particularly Aspen's development since World War II. Said list is attached to this Ordinance as "Exhibit A;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of the pro- posed additions and amendments to Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 2,2007, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation ofthe Community Development Di- rector and recommended, by a 3-1 vote, City Council adopt proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the geographical area of the City of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River substantially defines the perceived character of Aspen's built environment and the buildings in this area are visibly accessible and can be appreciated by the general public; and, WHEREAS, multi-family buildings are typically owned by multiple parties and are subject to heightened development exactions upon demolition and are, therefore, less likely than other types o f buildings to be demolished in the near future; and, Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 1 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby de- letes in its entirety Section 26.415.035, Designation ofHistoric Properties. (Note to codifier - this Section has been amended and recodified as Section 26.415.025.) Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby amends Chapter 26.415 by adding Section 26.415.025, Identification of Potential Historic Resources, which section describes the process and criteria for the Identification of Potential Historic Resources to read as follows: 26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section and identifying a List of Potential Historic Re- sources (alternatively, the "List") is to prevent the loss ofbuildings, sites, structures or objects, or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, and to limit the detrimental effect of de- velopment or demolition of these potential resources on the character of the town during the time period that the City is undertaking revisions to the Historic Preservation Program. Pre- serving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more attractive and desirable place in which to live, work, or visit. B. List of Potential Historic Resources. There is hereby identified a List ofPotential His- toric Resources. The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of2007, shall constitute this List. The List shall be maintained and made available to the general pub- lic by the Community Development Department. C. Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources. No properties shall be added to the List ofPotential Historic Resources by the City of Aspen for the effective period ofOr- dinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evaluation of the historic preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making recommendations is in operation. Properties may be removed from the List pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E. Ifthe primary structure(s) on any property identified on the List ofPotential Historic Resources have been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the List. D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources no alterations shall be undertaken by the property owner and no building permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition or other similar development activ- ity that substantially alters the Potential Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community Development Department except as permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.415.025.E. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 2 Exempt from this restriction shall be alterations, land use applications, and building permits limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, or re- pair of window glazing. The Community Development Director may exempt other such exte- rior alterations which are determined by the Community Development Director to be mini- mally intrusive or reversible work that does not diminish the historic character ofthe property. Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section. An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines," an application for building permit shall be issued. Work undertaken in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assum- ing that the repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent prac- ticable, shall be exempt from this Section. E. Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. For those properties identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources, building permits and land use applications for alterations, demolition, re- development, or other similar development activity that substantially alters the Potential His- torie Resource shall be accepted by the Community Development Department. Only complete Land Use applications, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be ac- cepted. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding ofthis ninety-day nego- tiation period shall accompany the building permit or land use application. Upon acceptance, the building permit or land use application may be reviewed, but shall not be issued, for a pe- riod of ninety days to allow for a period of negotiation regarding the preservation of the Re- source. This period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by a majority of the Council. Within the ninety-day negotiation period, the following shall occur: 1. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City' s Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. 2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature ofthe Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided no- tice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission. 3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the ef- fects ofthe building permit upon the Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the City Council. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 3 4. The City Council may negotiate directly with the properly owner or may choose to di- rect the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negoti- ate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preserva- tion ofthe Resource. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Execu- tive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part ofthe mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of His- torie Properties. As part ofthe mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the affected building permit or land use application be withdrawn by the property owner. 5. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected building permits shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building codes. Affected land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Devel- opment Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate ne- gotiations at any time and allow the permit or land use application to be reviewed. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing building permits or land use applications during the ninety-day period, If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after completion of a building per- mit issued pursuant to this Section, the Potential Historic Resource has been demolished or so altered as to render the property no longer a Potential Historic Resource, the Community De- velopment Director shall remove the property from the List of Potential Historic Resources. F. Procedure to Confirm a Property is not included on the List of Potential Historic Resources. To request confirmation that a property is not included on the List ofPotential Historic Resources, a property owner may submit a request to the Community Development Department. The request shall include the name and address of the property owner and any authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner. The confirmation letter shall be in a record- able format and indicate whether the subject property is on the List of Potential Historic Re- sources, shall include a current copy ofthe List of Potential Historic Resources, and shall con- firm that the property is exempt from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for the effective period of Ordinance No. 48, Series of2007, while the City is undertaking an evalua- lion of the historic preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making rec- ommendations is in operation. For structures between thirty (30) and forty (40) old, the con- firmation letter shall also exempt the property from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for a period ofone (1) year after the date of amendments to Chapter 26.415 adopted in response to the Citizen Task Force recommendations. The confirmation letter shall not create or constitute a vested right. Confirmation requests may be assessed an administrative review fee. An owner ofthe subject property aggrieved by the Community Development Director's determination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Ap- peals. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 4 G. Voluntary Designation. The City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director may not initiate an application for designation unless the property owner consents to designation for the effective period of Ordinance 48, Series of 2007. An owner of a property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources who consents to Historic Designation may request the Community Development Director mi- tiate an application for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. An owner o f the subj ect property who consents to designation may concurrently submit any proposed redevelopment plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415. H. Penalties. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property identified on the List ofPotential Historic Resources, including purposeful removal, change or damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26.415.140, Penalties. The Community Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs, that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in order to apply penalties. In addition, properties on the List of Potential Historic Resources are required to receive rea- sonable care, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition byNe- glect. Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.D or completed ac- cording to a Development Order or Building Permit issued by the Community Development Department, as may be required, shall not be subject to penalties. Section 3. Notice to Property Owners. All owners ofproperties identified on the List of Potentially Historic Resources, as provided in Exhibit A to this Ordinance, shall be mailed a copy of this Ordinance by registered mail, within 10 days of the final City Council approval of this Ordinance. Property owners may submit to the Community Development Department alternate or additional addresses for this information to be mailed. (As opposed to or in addition to the address on file with the Pitkin County Assessor's Office.) Section 4. Effect on Existing Ordinance No. 30 Determinations. This Ordinance shall not affect any Determination ofNo Historic Significance approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007. These determinations issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 30 shall continue to be valid for a five-year period from their issuance date. Section 5. Policy Task Force. A Historic Preservation Policy Task Force shall be established in order to provide guidance on additional changes to the City ofAspen Historic Preservation Program. Membership ofthe Task Force shall be by appointment by City Council. Duties ofthe Task Force shall be determined by City Council, but shall include a review ofthe following as a minimum: Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 5 â€¢ The criteria upon which designation applications are judged, including whether additional or different criteria should apply when the property owner objects to the designation and for 20th century properties. â€¢ Changes to the Integrity Scoring System used to evaluate properties, including to the process by which the Scoring System is adopted. â€¢ Existing and additional benefits for owners of historic properties. â€¢ Strategic policy level review ofthe historic preservation program objectives and benefits and congruence with community goals as outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The City shall not proceed with property designations without owner consent until the Policy Task Force has made their recommendations and the City Council has considered proposed code changes. Section 6. Availability of Documents. The Community Development Department shall make available to the public all documents related to the List of Potential Historic Resources, criteria upon which properties shall be evaluated, research papers, scoring sheets, development and other benefits, and copies of this ordinance and shall diligently pursue timely inclusion ofthis information on the City of Aspen website. Section 7. Effect on Existing Applications. This Ordinance shall not affect any active Land Use Application, existing Development Order, or Building Permit, as such terms are used in the Land Use Code, submitted and determined complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Pre-Application Conferences, Pre-Application Conference Summary reports, or formal or informal discussions with Community Development staffor review Boards shall not constitute a complete application or any other official status. Applications submitted after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the terms ofthis ordinance and ofthe Land Use Code, as amended. Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competentjurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 9. Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 10. Notice A public hearing on the ordinance was held on November 12,2007, continued to November 26, 2007, and continued to December 10, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 6 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of October, 2007. /444Â·Iw ik -2- H Z (Â·* Michael C. Ireland, Mafor ATTEST: hkabcÂ«x) /46,0 Kathryn K996, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this t/6:flay of DÂ«,. 2007. 4 0\ / 44/l t)Vivj <1.--a .e Michael C. Ireland, May'or ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Ko~K, City Clerk /'jim True, Special Counsel Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 114 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437010; 273512437009. Legal Description: BLOCK 65, 114 EAST BLEEKER CONDOMINIUMS. 118 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437012; 273512437011. Legal Description: BLOCK 65, HOGUET CONDOMINIUMS. 408 E. Cooper Ave: Aspen Sports Parcel Id: 2737-182-16-009, Legal Description: BLOCK 89, LOT PART OF L&M. Cooper Avenue, Hyman Avenue and Mill Street Pedestrian Malls 333 E. Durant Ave., Mountain Chalet: Parcel Id: 273718245002, Legal Description: BLOCK 84, MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD SUBDIVISION. 100 E. Francis St., Given Institute: Parcel Id: 273512419851, Legal Description: BLOCK 63, LOT A - LOT F, DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL OF BLK 63 PART OF FRANCIS ST PART OF CENTER ST & PART OF THE NW4 OF THE SW4 OF SEC 7-10-84 & PART OF THE NE4 OF THE SE4 OF SEC 12-10-85 SAID PARCELS DESC AS BGNNG AT A PT OF THEN LINE OF FRANCIS ST & 24.00 FT ELY OF THE W LINE OF CENTER ST TH N 14 DEG 50'49" E 121.59 FT TH N 33 DEG 03'19"E 42.21 FT THN 7 DEG19'05"E 112.35 FT TH S 70 DEG 18'15"E 286.57 FT TH S 6 DEG 18'51"W 103.11 FT TH 18 DEG 12'00"W 108.73 FT TH 9 DEG 25'21"E 52.10 FT TH S 23 DEG 21'00"E 83.49 FT TO THE STHLY LINE OF FRANCIS ST EXTENDED ELY TH N 75 DEG 09'11"W 288.99 FT TO THENW COROFBLK 64 TH N 31 DEG 00'50"W 107.29 FT TO THE POB. 210 W. Francis Ave: Parcel Id: 273512417005, Legal Description: BLOCK 48, LOT P & Q. 621 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 2735142426011 ; 2735142426012, Legal Description: BLOCK 22, REEDS HOUSE CONDOMINIUM. 624 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409012, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT B. 626 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409011, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT A. 215 N. Garmisch St., Yellow Brick: Parcel Id: 273512436850, Legal Description: BLOCK57, LOT A - LOT S, PLUS VACATED ALLEY. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 8 233 Gilbert St., Skier Chalet Lodge: Parcel Id: 273513119002, Legal Description: BLOCK 9, LOTS 5 - LOT 10 AND LOTS 4 & 11 LESS THE W 22' EAMES ADDITION SUBDIVISION. 700 W. Gillespie St., Aspen Center for Physics: Parcel Id: 273512129803, Legal Descrip- tion: LOT 3, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. 110 E. Hallam St., Red Brick: Parcel Id: 273707313801, Legal Description: BLOCK 71, LOTS K,L,M & FRACTIONAL LOTS A, B, & C, BLOCK 64, LOTS A-I & LOTS K-S AND A STRIP OF LAND. 327 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512434001, Legal Description: BLOCK 43, LOTS A - C. 928 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512300015, Legal Description: BLOCK 4, LOTS PART K, L & M SECT,TWN,RNG:12-10-85, TRACT OF LAND IN SW4 (ALSO SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 9) SEC 12-10-85 DESC BY M/B BK 385 PG 357 & TRACT FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARCEL C OF HERNDON SUB FIRST AMENDMENT. 122 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512455004, Legal Description: BLOCK 59, LOTS M & N. 129 E. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512458004, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS G - I. 211 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 2735 12463003, Legal Description: BLOCK 53, LOTS F & G. 100 E. Hyman Ave., Chalet Lisl: Parcel Id: 273512458005, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS K - M. 322 W. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273512464005, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOTS N & 0. 334 W. Hyman Ave., St. Moritz: Parcel Id: 273512464004, Legal Description: ST MORITZ LODGE MINOR PUD SUBDIVISION. 606 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212003, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT K & L. 610 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212004, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT M. 630 E. Hyman Ave., Patio Building: Parcel Id: 273718212007, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOTS R & S. 720 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club: Parcel Id: 273718211008 THROUGH 273718211019; 273718211021 THROUGH 273718211031, Legal Description: BLOCK 104, ALL UNITS, ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUMS. 301 Lake Ave., Parcel Id: 273512416003, Legal Description: HALLAM ADDITION SUBDIVISION BLOCK 40, EAST 1/2 OF LOT 5 - LOT 7. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 9 120 E. Main St., Design Workshop: Parcel Id: 273512438002, Legal Description: ELY 20 FT OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N&O BLOCK 66 & SLY 10 FT OF VACATED ALLEY ADJACENT ALSO LOT 2 OF US WEST SUBDIVISION. 200 W. Main St., Tyrolean Lodge: Parcel Id: 273512440010, Legal Description: BLOCK 51, LOTS R & S. 220 E. Main St., Cortina Lodge: Parcel Id: 273707320707, Legal Description: BLOCK 73, LOTS P&Q. 420 E. Main St: Parcel Id: 273707322801; 273707322014; 273707322015, Legal Description: BLOCK 86, ALL UNITS, GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS. 435 East Main St., Gas Station/local's corner: Parcel Id: 273707330005, Legal Description: BLOCK 87, LOTS E - I. 630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue: Parcel Id: 273512444805, Legal Description: BLOCK 24, LOT M. 730 W. Main St., Hickory House: Parcel Id: 273 512445004, Legal Description: BLOCK 18, LOTS M - P. 745 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201003, Legal Description: BLOCK 1, LOT 3, SNOBBI.E SUBDIVISION. 765 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201002, Legal Description: LOT 2, SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION. 119 S. Mill St., Wells Fargo Bank: Parcel Id: 273707329009, Legal Description: BLOCK 80, LOTS P - S. 307 S. Mill St., D-19 Restaurant: Parcel Id: 273718217004, Legal Description: ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, UNIT:B. 536 W. North St., Christ Episcopal Church: Parcel Id: 273512111808, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOTS 11-15 HALLAM ADDITION. 411 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512110002, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 7&8&A STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN BLK 101 HALLAMS ADDITION BEING ONE HALF OF THE ALLEY WIDTH ADJ TO THE SLY BORDER OF LOT 7& 8 HALI,AM ADDITION. 434 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512109002, Legal Description: BLOCK 100, SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 2 AND LOT 3, HALLAM ADDITION. 850 Roaring Fork Rd: Parcel Id: 273512126001, Legal Description: LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 10 f. 500 West Smuggler St: Parcel Id: 273512404006, Legal Description: LOTS Q, R &S, BLOCK 26. 949 W. Smuggler Ave: Parcel Id: 273512212001, Legal Description: BLOCK 3, LOT A - I. 300 S. Spring St., Hannah Dustin: Parcel Id: 273718227800; 273718227101, Legal Descrip- tion: BLOCK 105, LOTS A - D, ALL UNITS, HANNAH DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS. 219 S. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512465005, Legal Description: BLOCK 39, LOTS O - S. 407 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512413006, Legal Description: BLOCK 34, LOTS P - S. 615 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512110001, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 9 & 10. 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area ofTrustee Townhomes, Health Club, DoerrHo- sier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT lA. 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B. 1280 Ute Ave., Benedict Building: Parcel ld: 273718156001 thru -003; 273718156005 thru - 020; 273718156023 thru -034; 273718156036; 273718156129; 273718156131; 273718156804; 273718156821; 273718156822; 273718156835, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, POWDERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS. 1005 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718282001, Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOTS A-C, EAST ASPEN ADDITION. 1102 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718266001, Legal Description: LOT 14, CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION. Ordinance #48, Series 2007 Page 11 .. C LEGEND AND NOTES 4Ei 1 A SLOPE LEGEND 0= Er IE-,ta Im, RU CIP 28047 6- 6-3 0 O F~.Â»Â® amer Â£123 /LO- 0~11 ler CILCULAJED LATeR (300 5LD/53 .-5--R-C 0 arr 94 'taiu'DIT 003 0 k POSTD ADO'm -1005. ~ ZOPES 21-** (131-1-0-400 TOTAL souARE FEETÂ· 705 SO F-r . = 'LNE 50% REDUCION = 352.50 50Â·FT. . 6.râ€¢ar c,ITI= A F771 S ,-lou 1>1><AM 10'0 31-4= 031-1-0-14 TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 100 In. 0 4* 00' /27>1 E*CLUDED IRON Lor AREA [*-CULAION lm.E â€žO-UM RRI,HED Wft ~ 101'EX > a (134-1-0-14) TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 705 50 / 'it=-- 20&==LIC t*CLUDED FROM LOT AREA CALCULATION 0/ED= A.U. 24 2007 0 10 20 TOTAL EXCUJDED LOT AREA = 1.157.50 50.0 Câ€¢â‚¬ FOOT Colrot- lux* 4, EAST Al/8 -Irrit N 7~0'112 GROSS LOT AREEt = 9.Colo 50-FT, -*N lu 2.ICTED 1!ExT UNDTO 110*11 TO Bol~Q*JU 06DNCE TOTAL EXCLUDED LOT AREA - 1.157.50 S.n 6141, *() m]W rE OFFIC,wi -Cm OF /1/01 NET UOT AREA - 142,50 SO. Fl .4 7~A 4 - m.:, i 1 =Ca elmOÂ¢ = NO- 0- -- ALLOWABLE FAR. 3 756 5QFT FCA 5Â»431Â£ FAWILY RESÂ©ENCE 0...,Â· J~ AVENUE 1 lill BlllpEllN UU Il m,E CAS PIE Fllu /li - %1 11â‚¬ art M hipeL =ID .U =mi =*#"%*-M# '" OF=44#SUI-= i R I Ne -4 CAL-t (D-DECE)UOUS. FIC-M 01â€¢â‚¬-LIÂ«O tmER Â¤ M124 71&râ€¢rr co.aâ€žHY /121. Na Clol43 0001 a EFF=IM t.312 =& 8 ....0. 01 Pwal .... 0 = - 1 VICINITY MAP = Ili 1,~SOVE 11.NÂ® nk - RECEIVED JUN 18 2008 / /unillal, Mli g YEW,lne- come OF LOT 0 8LDC* 41 Â£,ST %/1 ADD,nON CITY OF ASPEN OO~NITY DEVELOPMENT 4 / 4 8 / 0 7760Â§2 ck/ ADJOINERS : A RECORD PLAT 4 ROW OR LOT TO THE WEST -3 0 D ZONNING LU ' ....A BRIDGE LOCATION, DITCH Â»12 + .. wa NOTE DITCH ESMT , ~' ADDRESS r -c. . R':J L ENCROACHMENT - 44 4'*/'r PLAT OF THE GANT TE l.,Din,gle> STIan TWa' NE PROMiur 01*1.80 1â‚¬YO,1 .1 mc~,-CE, O/ =IX=1 10(,O- 1â€¢E CO-1:râ€¢ E***~-111 FIELD 5.5 DM, AM rtâ€¢11:,m OR *0101 E* .. â€¢ Mb tâ‚¬Eâ€¢CE CR 1010* 19 i FIELD 1.5 JH AM -ID 011 DE FnD a~- I. -- /. n~r -1 // "O AL 15.5 ggELM IgBE~ DOâ€¢LÂ· I.-=-tnuEI "m"D.M./= DRAFT 6 JH 5Ei1mEÂ£me~./rmk#.W/,646 . MEAS HSE 1 HR JH,DM,AM râ€¢.. ~ M ZB- i SET CORS 1 HR DM,AM SLOPE DRAFT 3.5 . SU 4 4 . Imal 9 2 11 4 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY ~.- ,1,16.Wa#ZE,lh~ -M THE GANT CONDOMINIUMS 80*46 EAP==~- 108453 m DITUM DO(* 2* Al PAGE el 1/ CeÂ»...... (50000.0./ Fr. I/-) (0-207.//3 +/-) PREP,NIED W ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. i ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 PHCIE/FAX (570) 92,-3810 NIE J= 11/07 37290 . =99 0 00VU0103'NldSV 06Â»9â‚¬6-026 xe afBOS ON 30NVIUVA M3IA3H NE)IS3a NOUVI01ddV 3Sn ON 80OZ HnS iN3IN3AOHdWI 30N30IS3B H083A31 1NVAHEI ~ 3nN3AV SH31VM GOOT S 14050'49"W 100.00' sele"c I=-I - 4 -- -4 8 i 11 11 % ##68 1 tESZ, 2 0/ 11 ..1 1 6% i C IER M f \41 1 -0 1 :'\ 1 ly *16 1 i *2*6 N 14050 49 E 100.00 TITLE ..~ Gretchen BRYANT LEVERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS Greenwood 1005 WATERS AVENUE DATE PROJECT NO.: & Associates, inc. 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION- DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCE 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCALE DRAWN BY: 970-925-4502 ASPEN, COLORADO Fax 970-925-7490 1.CON EN,41 09'11.N 90.00 .00'06 3, i t,6009Â£ S FAMILY Roct: *Xâ‚¬133 0/11 Wal NV-61 Nool=! 13A31 NIÂ¥14 'DI41191><El u...~ 1.4 1 0641-926-016 Xed[ OOVU0100'N3dSV 209426-016 -AE NMVUO -31VOS I 1 91 9 Ope.30[00 'uadgv 10@Als inulem 029 30NVIbIVA M3IA3H N9193a -N0119011ddV 3Sn CINV-1 80OZ-9 'jul 'Salepossv 9 7ON 103(0114 -31Â¥0 3nN3AV SB31VM GOOT pOOAAU@019 ENVId 8001=I 9NllSIX3 30N3aIS3H H0IkI3A31 1NVAHE U0431@19 31111 0Â¥L 8 3 6+ 09 00'001 toÂ¢*09 4- 1 ;ip 1 .1 11 -- H M--rE; 130.Oot M.6Â¥,09* L S c#veâ‚¬* ,00'06 ,6009Â£ S N 75009' 1 17N 90.00 1 '..4 " n 11 - 1 X ill- 1203Ewat~ il '1 .:.. TTLE -...,.1 Gretchen BRYANT LEVERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING ELEVATIONS Greenwood 1005 WATERS AVENUE DATE PROJECT NO. & Associates, Inc. 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION DESIGN GUIDLINES VARIANCE 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 SCALE. DRAVVN BY 970-925-4502 ASPEN,COLORADO Fax 970-925-7490 1..0 NOI.WA313 193m SNIEIXE EXISTING 5TREET VIEUJ/NORTN ELEVATI 9%10117/+El 93119 0641â‚¬6-016 121 OOVU0100'N3dâ‚¬V 209-926-016 .Ae NMIC -31â€¢OS CA I 1 918 OPeloloo Madev pang /neEM 0ZG POOMUD@JD ~ 30NVIHVA S3NllalnD NDIS30 NollwOllddV 390 ONÂ¥-1 8002-9 A. Â·ON 103[Obld 11Â¥0 3nN3AV SH31VAA GOOI .. .Jul 'saletoossv 9 SN0I1VA313 9NllSIX3 30N3GIS3hI H0IH3A3-I 1NVAHEI V uot!01010 1 311ll C 7 11~ ED lilli 2 - 1 0 L 11- 111 1 1 1~ * Il - Z - 3'r 0 O 1- <I > t > 111 111 i 1 -1 -1 ill - 111 41- 1 //- 16 O iD 1 1 0 - Z 2 1 - F & iD = , 4 N C [f 32-9 4, , 0/ " X I 1 -, 1 - / 1, . ~11111 - -9,/ 1 ENO 11943 - C U> RESIDENTAIL DESIGN STANDARD CHECKLIST 4 2 Xi A. SITE DESIGN Oci 1. Building Oreintation: Existing Building is NOT perpenicular to Waters Avenue : DESIGN GUIDEUNE VARIANCE REQUIRED w q.4.04 2. Build-to lines: The front facade ia within 5 feet of the minimum front yared setback 2 25 0 /2 TO 4(KEST END - 390' B. BUILDING FORM Nf ATERS ?3%91)16 3. Fences: a 42 ~ tall fence measured from natural grade will replace the current fenee nowred of tbe house. 00 J 02 6, 1. Secondary Mass: A secondary mass is not proposed for this duplex remodel. DESIGN GUIDELLNE VARIANCE REQUIRED (74.92' R.O.W.) C. PARKING GARAGES AND CARPORTS EDGE OF P, 1. Residential Access from a Private Road: NOT APPICABLE 0 2. Residential Access from a Public Street: a. The width of the Living Area at street level: 36'-6" fj The vridth of the Garage ia 15'-6" Proposed Width of Living Area iâ€¢ 5' and greater than the width of Garage b. The front facade of the Garage is not located 10 feet back from the facade of the house. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED A front yard setback variance is required to maintain the existing garage. c. Not Applicable F , j d. The floor of the Garage is equal to the street level. 5009'117 90.00 pr e. The vehicular width of a garage is 9'-00' f. The garage door is a single stall door. D. BUILDING ELEELMENTS 1. The proposed duplex remodel home hai a street oriented entrance and street oriented window visible from Waters Avenue. a. The front door of the house ia not more than 10 '-0" from the front moet wall of the hou". Fo,m,1 0 81-Di TO BE ,EÂ·IMED The front door is 8' - 0" -0 .- im b. The proposed front porch is 105 Sq.FL and is 6' - 0" in depth, and one-story in height c. Street-Facing windows face Ute Avenue. 2. F: 1.: Story Element r.':3 FOOIP=RE OF BL[n The width of the overall building is 39'-6" + The width of the first story element ia is 14' - 11" (or 377 of the building's overall width.) -1 ENIRT /0,/34 The first story element ia 6 feet from the wall the first story is projecUng from. I.. The plate height of the interior living .pace is 10'-0" The first story element is the proposed porch. -1~ Mil= 0111,4 The proposed porch is part of the existing facade and requires a front yard. variance. -31 31 SED,RX:~13 i a. Street facing windows are not spanning between 9' and 12' above the finished floor. 3. Windows BED~01 2 A I -1 <~~ UFFER LEâ‚¬ Fall 008 5.24. â€¢ b. TWO NEW non orthagonal windows ared proposed on the street facing facade of the building. (For a total of 5 ) \ 4. Lightwetls DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED MASTER BEDROM 4 S \1 No lightwells are proposed for the building remodel and or addition. E. CONTEXT 1-4 aE' 5 1. Materials a. All proposed exterior materials are consistent on 211 sides of the building. 8 - a. All proposed exterior materials are true ta the characteristics of the existing building. S The proposed building materials match the existing materials of the duplex located to the Bouth of the remodel. * Â· 1. Innection a. The propo,ed two story home iB adjacent to a 2-story building on the eamt side of the property. (See photographs) es 1 ~ The proposed two story home is adjacent to a 1- story building on the weet side of the pmperty. Roy BELCJ SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED 0 NORTH WING EX STING TO REMAIN NO CHANGE 1-- . 1 1.WI<.-X W - 0 6 .......Â·e. Â· I Â·â€¢Â· ~ LU 60 595 1=00* Le.e ...7 .D ag f* 0 LU fo 4,0 Dd.-Re. Kix*(P.M ....' I CO . O= 9â€¢ a fÂ®- - , , 1 2 le 75.09'Â«E 90 Vil- %! 1 PROPOSED STREET ELEVATION FROM WATERS AVENUE LU > --1 liD D" 1 SCALE: 1/8" = I'-0" 1.- O * PAGE 1 NORTW WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1,100 *FT. H FAR CALCULATIONS ZO < t-1 Â·F . 6 - Fusoc *k, SOUTW WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: i,100 52T. 00 GARLE LEVEL PAR: 53 5QFT. 34 SP #4 TOTAL MAIN LEYEL FAR: 2,283 5a FT. ' C' L~ 3 REID NORTA WING UPPER LEVEL FAR: 1,105 SaFT. TOTAL FAR: 3,391 SQFT. GANT COND ALLOWABLE FAR: 3.!56 SOFT. C- -.117 POO NY-Id 80013 13A31 83ddn -133HS M3IA38 3N113alnD NDIS3 'Jul -ON 103fmdd 1 /9/8 opelo,O Pa-US inuielu 30NVIHVA 3NI13alnE) NDIS3a N011.VOnddV 3Sn aNV-1 800Z 109 'AS NMVIC OGFL-26-016 xed OCIVW0100'N3dSV COUE 0 91&93 RESIDENTAIL DESIGN STANDARD CHECnIST â‚¬01 5%99 A. SITE DESIGN 1. Building Oreintation: Existing Building ia NOT perpenicular to Waters Avenue : DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED = 8 -2 23 U * 2. Build-to lines: The front facade is Wthin 5 feet of the minimum front yared setback 390 10 0 0 ~S.SUE 3. Fences: a 42 ' tall fence measured from natural grade will replace the current fence frowred of the house. 030 . * 9. . WATERS AVL B. BUILDING FORM 1. Secondary Mass: A secondary mage iÂ»not proposed for this duplex remodel. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED (74.92' R.O.W.) C. PARKING GARAGES AND CARPORTS 1. Residential Access from a Private Road: NOT APPICABLE 4 +2 2. Residential Access from a Public Street: pr a. The width of the Living Area at street level: 36'-6- 4 The width of the Garage is 15'-6* ..0 Proposed Width of Living Area is 5' and greater than the width of Garage 9-1 -1 b. -he front facade of the Garage is not located 10 feet back from the facade of the house. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED e A front yard setback variance is required to maintain the exisUng garage. ZONING FRONT AND EAST SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUIRED c. Not Applicable 4 00 5.09'111 d. Che floor of the Garage in equal to the street level. e. The vehicular width of a garage is 9'-0- . 49 f. The garage door is a single stall door. D. BUILDING ELELMENTS ERS 1. The proposed duplex remodel home has a street oriented entrance and street oriented window visible from Waters Avenue. a. The front door of the house is not more than 10 '-0- from the front moit wall of the house. POR"Ovf BUn TO ME Ely,ED The front door ia 8' - 0- ~ 1 b. The proposed front porch is 105 Sq. Ft. and is B' - 0" in depth, and one-story in height c. 1{reet-Facing window, face Ute Avenue. 4 r ING POOT,.Nr OF EL 2. First Story Elernent h. 1-'rvpzl The width of the overall building is 39'-6- . The width of the first story element is is 14' - 11" (or 37% of the building's overall width.) ENTRY PORS' 9--- i - OARWE ~ The first story element is 6 feet from the wall the first story is projecting from. GARAGE FAR 03 8Â¢FT. ~ The plate height of the interior living space is 10'-0- 40 1 .%4.& NA The first story element is the proposed porch. The propoied porch iB part of the existing facade and requires a front yard variance. ZONING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUIRED eED~0111 ENâ„¢r .-Fh. - 3. Windows a. Street facing windows are not spanning between 9' and 12' above the finished floor. NORTW 11]/6 MAN L E'EL FAR: 1,â€¢0 5<,r. / LIlli 4. Light,ells b. TWO NEW non orthagonal windows ared proposed on the street facing facade of the building. (For a total of 5 ) -S== U .....~...1. 7 DESIGN GULDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED ~~ No lightwells are proposed for the building remodel and or addition. *01// t u,il ~ 4.- L.AIND" E. CONTEXT la< wali CIO'.1 --1 ELEÂ¥ 1 1. Materiels \ U a. All proposed exterior materials are consistent on all sides of the building. 8 - a. All propoped exterior materials are true to the characteristics of the existing building. | The proposed building materials match the existing materials of the duplex located to the south of the rernodel. tom; Wla MAN LE AR. 5<PL EXISTNG 1. Inflection KITOâ‚¬* 2~.1 z a. The proposed bro story home is adjacent to a 2-story building on the east side of the properly. (See photographs) ATH I , The proposed two story home i8 adjacent to a 1- story building on the west side of the property. I e SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED 16. NORTH WING EX STING TO REMAIN 10 Ne i E>(16,06 EX16116 NO CHANGE CNING #El em~39 3 Â·MÂ· .1-rb- CL- 6/ 30111,1 1-6 MAN LEIEL BAR: 1102 SOR. 1 105 4= Â»p u= LEâ‚¬ 0 ... 4 4, C. & k -t ..... 4 ~ Em' 1 H ~ TO lili =1 6-- 1......... E"* , i 42 # 1 i E)05â„¢, FleST UC* LE,1- . r Â·.' . = -- - 1 1 - AL 75.09'11*E 90. 1 PROPOSED NORTW ELEVATION Dll'CH SOB 4 pot 1 FAR CALCULATIONS 5CALE: 1/80 = 1'-0" ,R Â· 0 _ po~oc "'b NORTH WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1.118 SQ.FT. SOUTH WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1,100 SQ.FT. SP 40 'r'- 'f'~ GARAGE LEVEL FAR: 83 SQ.FT. TOTAL MAIN LEVEL FAR: 2.301 SQ.FT. NEW NORTH WING UPPER LEVEL FAR: 1.108 SQ.Fr. CONDOM N Mue TOTAL FAR: 3.409 SQ.FT. - a ld T AU,OWABLE FAR: 3.756 SQ.FT. NV-Id }1001:I 13A31 NIVIN -133HS M3IA3H 3NI13aln9 N9193 30N3aIS3H H0IH3A31 1NVAH8 do 81611 06*1- -026 xed 30NVIHVA 3NI13Clln9 N983CI NOLLVOnddÂ¥ 390 800E 48 NMVW] 00Vbl0100'N3dSV 14. 14,1 60 3nN3AV SU31VM 900-E - cgi 0 2 3 -2 63 = m O C: 1-941 SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED -as as i = '82 635 ty*in NORTH WING EX~STING TO REMAIN ~ 192 1 *It 1-1 ' NEW 216) FLOOR LEVEL - D' - 6' NBU 2ht) FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ WY - 60 r '1 lilli - 14 1-4 1 -p -1 11 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ 7 -6' ' EXISTNG GARAGE LEVEL: 0 '- 0' SCALE: 1/8 11 = 11 -011 EXISTING ' GARAGE NORTH WING SOUTH WING EXISTING: NO CHANGE REMODEL AND 2ND STORY ADDED - ti :I,~ 11~ 11 * 1 1 J t - A -111'All' 0 -1 ..r= 111*11 =Int. 1/4111231; LU 0 NEW ZID FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ 2'-6' i EXIBTNS FIRST FLOOR LEYELâ€¢ 3'- 6' EXISTNG RAST FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 2' - V EXISTNG GARAGE LEVEL 0 '- e PROPOSEDWESTELEVATFON 0 , SCALE: 1/811 = 11 -O11 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (.7 I 19Te OPeÂ·10 03 INVA 3NI130In9 M3IA3H NDIS30 N011Â¥OllddV 39n a 800E-9 'Al NMÂ¥lo 00780100 'N3dSV SNOI1Â¥A313 0390dOhId H0I83A 1 VAHG 31Â¥a 3~ SHELLV~ GOOT . "0 Egg 3% G NORTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED -w U u .3 u ;4 â‚¬ 1 2 5 **~ v 0 2 * 6-5 4 6.2 0 94 O O Â©J Sj .2 0, tu SOUTH WING EXISTIN TO REMAIN NO CHANGE ~ 2-333 . PEEÂ¥1 IN#/FA MT,glegga 3-22 -3-932 -it -=-d â‚¬111 2ND R.OOR LEVELâ€¢ 2' - 6" 929=-9 PR~,di., ~' ~'i~*'?VT# m Al ' hEW 2ND R.DOR LEVEL â€¢ 1-6' P?*~ 514-1 = 2/Er,1.4-'*4-1371. 19 &3 ~ 949/1 P ... I 11 1. 5 EXIMINS FIRST FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 9-6' SCALE: 1/811 = 11-011 EXISTING ~ SOUTH WING EXISTING: NO CHANGE NORTH WING GARAGE REMODEL AND 2ND STORY ADDED NEW X) FLOOR LEVEL - 21 -6. %1112'D FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 0, - 6, EXISTING FIRST FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 5' - 6' EXISTNS FIRST UOR LEVEL â€¢ 2' - e SCALE: 1/811 = 11-011 BasT,6GARAGE LEVE-:01.0. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 'g~' INVA 3NI13(Iln9 AA3IA38 NDIS3a N01190IlddV 3Sn C]NVI 800-Z-9 ;~ON 10]fald 31Â¥0 3RN)AV Sh'Elly~ 9Â°Â°T 49 NA,nll SN0I1Â¥A313 03SOdOHd 3ON al 38 HO 83A 1 1NVAH8 OOVH0100'N3dSV ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10.2008 Amy pointed out that this is the second review of this project under Ordinance #48 and a site visit occurred today. Everyone understands the process that the sites listed under ordinance #48 must go through a delay period before pursuing any kind of application that would potentially diminish the integrity of these resources that have been identified. That is the situation we are in right now. The property owners have proposed a remodel which staff believes would threaten the integrity of this potential historic resource. We have 90 days to be a negotiation process with the owners to determine i f there is any other alternative that the City could offer. HPC need to let council know what they think the quality of the resource is. Staffhas identified it has a potential resource, We do mention in the memo that our hope is to go to City Council Sept. 22nd. At the last meeting the board was not ready to make any kind o f decision because we had not provided you with enough information about the history of the building and its integrity. We have provided you with that information in your packets. This property is in the group of modern chalet and it has features that are significant to the chalet style primarily the low long roof line. This style became integrated with some of the architectural trends that where happening on modern structures where glazing was much more dominant on the facades and the original gingerbread details where removed and details are much cleaner. Other structures are pictured in the memo and this pattern was very common in Aspen in the 50's and 60's. In terms of the architectural style that is how we address this building. There is nothing in the building department file for this site except an electric permit pulled in the 90's. Information from the Assessor's office is in the packet and we where able to locate the original architect Ellen Harland. Part of the difficult dealing with post war resources is the varieties and issues like who is the architect become more significant and the records are simply not in place. Even with Fritz Benedict we have not been able to get a handle on his full body of work. We where already aware o f Ellen Harland who practiced architecture in Aspen. Ellen was contact and told the story ofher arrival in Aspen. She was able to attend MIT as an architecture student in the mid 1950's probably in the extreme minority of women, She and Ellie Brickam where the only women architects for some period. She came to Denver for a change of scenery and to Aspen on the weekends and was aware of Fritz Benedict. Fritz interviewed her and hired her and offered to help move her to Aspen. She and Robin Molney where Fritz's draftsman. She worked for him for 20 years and she described a number of buildings that she was involved with; the 1960 public library on Main Street which is Design Workshop now. She produced a lot of the detailing on buildings that we 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10. 2008 have given recognition too. Ellen said this building we are reviewing was her personal residence and it was built between 1958 and 1960, the portion that is in the center of the lot and to the back of the existing house. That is supported by some of the records in the assessor's office. In 1964 she designed and built the portion that is right on Waters Avenue. I believe some time after that she sold the residence to the Davis family, Ki and John Davis. Ki Davis was a noted poet and artist and she did the sculpture on the Hyman mall. The Writers foundation has an award named in her honor. It was not the Davis family's original residence. There have been some modifications made to the house over time. On the front portion the building has been extended with an additional enclosed space and there are a number of small bump outs here and there. Gretchen Greenwood mentioned that the original portion of the house has been filled in under an eave line so there are definitely some alternations. How substantial those are is what HPC needs to determine and recommend to council, We did not fill out an integrity assessment form as mentioned in the staff memo. The modem chalet style was really not something that we discussed in 2002 when we wrote the historic context papers and the integrity assessment forms that we have in place now. It is really something that has developed more as several years have progressed and we have done more intensive surveying and have worked more on ordinance 30 and 48 so we don't have a scoring form and we didn't think it was important to suddenly create one now. We'll just rely on the records we have on the history of the building and determine i f you still think it has architectural integrity. In the memo we tried to detail some of the currently existing benefits that would be available to the property for instance the expansion that would meet HPC criteria could be exempted from impact fees. There could be variances granted as needed. The building already has some encroachments into setbacks which is problematic in terms of expanding. We mention that the property size only allows for a single family house and there is possibly a duplex on the site and that is not allowed and there is no evidence that is a legal use but landmarks are allowed to have a duplex and that might be some incentive to work with i f a duplex is something they want to have. There is also the floor area bonus and TDR's. Council might come up with other incentives because they have flexibility with ordinance #48. We are hoping some kind of recommendation can be made to Council. We do think this is a good example of modem chalet and the connection to Ellen Harland is important and with even more research we can document other structures of hers in town. We do know that there are some oil Waters Ave. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Gretchen Greenwood represented the owners Nancy Bryant and Chris Leverich, This is a new process for HPC and the applicants. It is difficult to understand or create a presentation with not knowing what the city or HPC is trying to do here. The house has been added onto a number of times and has been pushed out through the years from 1960 through 1974. In most cases with HPC that would effect its landmark status. Another thing about this property is that it is no secret that the owners are adamant about not being on an historic resource list both for reasons of not going through the process. Perhaps we can have some discussion as to what this negotiation is about. What are you offering the owners. You have to understand that most people look at their properties in terms of their best and fullest use. This property has about seven foot plate heights and it rises to about ten to eleven feet and it pretty much sits on the entire property casqued, so it has issues with current designs rules, standards and regulations but it also really in its present form takes up the entire property. In terms of review it would be difficult to create anything but what currently exists. It is not charming on the inside and has no energy. It is a split level and has been added onto in an unprofessional way regardless of what this architect did. She created a 900 square foot house and it has doubled in size and has five different levels in it. It is not worthy o f something in terms o f preservation. I have known the owners for 30 years and we pretty much want to keep the same form because the house would probably be torn down so we just went up on Waters Ave., the newest addition on the front part and went straight up. The addition that is being proposed we are going in front of Planning and Zoning only for design rules and regulations is because it has non orthogonal type of windows on it and the new addition doesn't face perpendicular to the street. These are all solvable problems. We are not expanding the non-conforming of the addition and we are staying within our setbacks. The design regulations are really designed for Victorian west end type house and not created for buildings like this. In my opinion this building is not an expandable building and it would be a difficult process and it would reduce the value of the property considerably. They are not developers. We should have a discuss what you offer people who really have a building that can't be added onto. You can't do anything with this building. Michael asked the owners if they had any interest in the potential benefits listed in the memo. Chris Leverich said he did not recognize them as benefits and may HPC can explain why they are benefits. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Amy said HPC role is to recommend to council what they thing the value of the preservation of the building is. HPC is not the board that will be getting into a dialogue about incentives that are exi sting or new incentives that council could come up with that are relevant. The intention in creating this negotiation period was to allow time for everyone to stop and talk about the value to the community as a whole and how can we come to a solution that works for everyone. Ultimately their permits will be issued assuming they comply with zoning and other regulations. This is a delay period but they ultimately can do the project that they want to do. We are just trying to have a chance to talk before something is lost. HPC is to make a recommendation to council. Jay asked i f council could designate this property. Amy explained that designation can't occur without the owners consent. Ann said what we would be doing is recommending or not recommending that council try to negotiate the property. Amy said no matter what we still need to go to council and they can decide what to do. Amy addressed the benefits; anyone that adds bedrooms they are assessed a fee that is used to offset impacts in the community and in this case park. The fee that would be waived would be $14,781 for three bedrooms if the applicant worked with HPC and come up with a design that conformed to the guidelines. Variances are available. Gretchen said the house sits on the site and has a site reduction in FAR because o f slope analysis. That would be at the southeast part o f the property. There isn't really a lot ofroom to move around on this property because it is so large. I only say that from an architect's standpoint. Ton the older building the windows, floor etc. have been changed. It is a difficult structure to say this is a great pristine building. You can't add onto it and that is my professional opinion. Nancy and Chris aren't developers and are trying to keep the building in the family, Going through the HPC process is almost impossible. Amy went through the rest of the incentives. Part of the negotiation is too possibly find someway to add on that did less damage to the building. Gretchen pointed out about the site and when you have a site that has certain slopes to you certain FAR is taken away from you. Council could give it 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10,2008 back to you and you could sell it as TDR's because it can't be carried on the site. Gretchen pointed out that we aren't proposing to go to the total FAR with the slope reduction at this point. Amy pointed out as an historic landmark you have the ability to not just give up and sacrifice that square footage but you might be able to sell it and get cash for it. There is also a 500 square foot bonus for landmarks. The most obvious is the legalization of the duplex if in fact that is a zoning violation on the property. Chris Leverich said he finds it ironic because his property has been picked because there are other house on the street and one of them in particular would love to be designated, Georgeann Waggaman's. We both have lived here for a long time and it was 20 years before I was able to buy a house when we bought this house. I like my house and I would like to do what I can do to make my house comfortable for my wife and myself. It was built cheap when it was built. I talked to Ellen Harland and she said she built the original house for $10,600. and then she added on and had her husband do the work. Ellen also said Fritz would roll over in his grave if he thought this was something that was judged as an architectural monument because it has been added onto. Georgeann's house is the same thing. Nancy Bryant said we barely have three bedrooms, two o f the bedrooms are called the cell. We have twelve of us in the family and it is a hardship for us when everyone comes. Our grandchildren are here to stay and they aren't going away. It is not a duplex. We have one little kitchen upstairs. Jay clarified that the new process allows for different incentives. Jay asked the applicants to look at the property in a different light knowing that some of the rules might be able to be broken if we recommend this property to be preserved. Gretchen said it is much more complicated than that. Frankly it is a financial burden. Going through an HPC process as we know is very difficult and lengthy and extremely expensive. Ifthis property was a small chalet and you could isolate it that would different. This particular property doesn't follow the standards that HPC has come up with. The burden of this particular property, on this particular building and in this location within 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10.2008 walking distance to the gondola could never be realized. HPC and City Council have to come to terms with certain properties where it is a real takings of the value o f the property. That has to be discussed and brought up. This building may stay forever like this. We are doing an interim solution where they want a bedroom away from their grandkids. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman asked for public comments. Jack Wilkie said he was here at the last meeting and his main issue was that the chair asked staff for an integrity assessment for modem chalets as it might apply to their unit. I have a modern chalet and I wanted to know what the integrity assessment is for modern chalets. Amy said we created the integrity scoring in 2002 when we re-wrote the whole preservation program. Jack said Michael asked for a modem chalet assessment and that is why I am annoyed because I have one and there are only six or eight of us. They are all different except mine which is a look-a-like to the neighbors. If you look at them all there is no common thread that runs through them. That is the frustration. I am looking for information and I don't get it. Alison said she believe staff is waiting until the task force is finished. Amy said in the memo we did provide information in the memo trying to create that thread of showing other examples ofbuildings and what we think the influences are. We have not written a context paper in the depth that the other three styles have and we have not done an integrity assessment form because in 2002 we where not discussing this style and we didn't think it was appropriate to suddenly write one up now with no other involvement from any other parties. It is something that will come out of the task force. Gretchen said she has been watching the task force on TV and there will be buildings that are worthy of designation and there will be buildings that you will be having problems with and unfortunately this property is on. This is a financial situation with the value of this large property right near the gondola. It has no parking and an inadequate garage. It doesn't serve Aspen needs. I appreciate HPC and I have seen it come a long way. I see these buildings difficult to preserve. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Michael said at our last meeting Ann said criteria should be predictable, understandable and defensible. Michael said how can we recommend to council when we don't have criteria. We probably have enough if we strongly feel this should be designated. Amy pointed out that we do have criteria in place, association with people, trends, and historical events. What you maybe feel you are lacking are the tool to judge how well the standards are met. Ann asked i f this goes to council and we recommend negotiation to come up with a design that we felt was more sympathetic to the building what kind of process are we talking about. Amy said with ordinance #48 it opens up a lot of flexibility and possibly council might want to create a quickly simpler process for the design. Jay pointed out that the architect is significant and previous owners Ki and John Davis. The house has its history of strong blood lines. That warrants that there might be a great opportunity for the applicant and the City to come to an agreement to designate the structure. Alison said the house is not a good example of a chalet. It has the low slung roof and lacks balconies. I am not sure I would be proud to have this house on our historic list. The applicants need to understand all the incentives. Brian said he agrees with Alison. The most significant thing is its orientation. It is lacking some defining characteristics that we wanted preserved. The house doesn't quite measure up. We need to back up ordinance #48 and it needs to be a good example and this house is not. Sarah said she understands staff's concerns. This property is not a good example of modern chalet and she would not recommend land marking it to city council. Ann said this is a great example of a transition from chalet to a modern style. There are not many of these houses left in town. I feel it ought to be recommended to city council. In twenty years these properties might be like the Victorians. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Michael said he feels this property is defensible. MOTION. Ann made the motion to recommend to City Council to continue negotiations for the preservation oft his property; second by Jay. Roll call vote: Alison, no; Brian, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Sarah, no; Michael, yes. Vote 3-3. Michael pointed out that there is not a majority of members that endorses this. 204 N. Monarch - Final th MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 204 N. Monarch until Oct. 8 ; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried. MOTION: Brian moved to adjourn; second by Alison, All infavor, motion carried. Meeting Adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 10-<,04 641-,6 iew Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation process DATE: September 10,2008 PROCESS: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Vietorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the LIP Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects ifthey: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. 1 The owners of 1005 Waters Avenue have prepared plans to remodel their home. The plans as proposed require Residential Design Standard variances. The owners are not willing to work with Staff and HPC towards a design that preserves character defining features of the building, and therefore Option C, the negotiation process must be undertaken. (The Residential Design Standards variances are scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission next month.) During the 90 day negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council. HPC review is not a public hearing and the acceptance of comments from the public or property owners are at the discretion of the Commission. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council as to the value o f preserving the property without inappropriate alterations. HPC discussed this issue on July 23'~d, 2008 and determined that more information was needed, as well as a group site visit. It is important to try to achieve a recommendation tonight, to give Council enough time to weigh in before the negotiation period ends on October 14th. At this point Council review is scheduled for September 22nd and October 14th. They can choose to extend the negotiation for an additional 30 days. Staff will provide Council with information about the proposed Land Use application, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource. Council will use that information to determine what benefits they are willing to offer the property owner in exchange for landmark designation. APPLICANT: Nancy Bryant, 1005 Waters Avenue, represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street, Aspen, CO 81611. Additional owners Chris Leverich and Andrew Dolan have consented to the application. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-82-001. ADDRESS: 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A - C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential - N 7 .Â»Clj.-12 4 1-h- 5 Â£0<3- :...1=*24 ..H A *,E a , .-1,02 / ..1 14 11 ti ~- , I :r I - Â»24-12-- -17Â« . ., 1 k? , .:,774 I. f .i 40-NÂ» 4. -==*=24 1 â€žA,ERS Ad Â£ l._~ ~1 ; . 1 14 + , 6. 1005 Waters Avenue p 9 .-1 -47. 1 -4- 34--d 4 . A DICUSSION: 1005 Waters Avenue was built starting in 1958, according to the architect, Ellen Harland. (Staff interviewed Ms. Harland by telephone.) It is located on Waters Avenue. Refer to the map, above. This house combines Chalet architecture with the modernist approach employed by trained architects practicing in Aspen during the 1950's and 1960's. Similar to other Chalet buildings, this residence is sited toward the mountain on an angle. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, and simple form are characteristic of this era as is more glazing on the primary fag(le, typically carrying all the way up to the roof. . : 46: . , 4 0 'nt '4 f -- -, ~ - '04. 4.. '4 11#14. 1*.2- 77 1005 Waters Avenue The simple low pitched roof form is evident in both chalet architecture and "Modern Chalet" architecture that combines modern technology and chalet style elements. Similar low pitched roof forms: 7~ 1 93<** Chalet Lisl, 100 East ~ Hyman, built in 1948. l' Ii. . : - , *244 Pa,4 *14*144" - Â·: & I I 4~ 949 Smuggler Street, built in 1946. ~~9.J..,ip.'4 fl li /fli- .., , t.; 41&... Prospector Lodge, built in 1947. r ' /0 Â·' BUk.. ~r'~ 4 Demolished. 6 - , Extending the glazing into the gable end refers to advancing construction technology and a modern aesthetic. 1005 Waters Avenue was built when Aspen was establishing itself as a vacation destination, and also during a time of exciting philosophical changes in architectural design. The structures illustrated below illustrate the character of buildings commonly being constructed in Aspen during the decades immediately after World War II. Similar glazing into the gable roof: - - '~*RN.4-9/~ 626 West Francis Street, built fIE,/-*9*' in 1961/2. ~ ~2 1 4,24 -9 '7 4- fn.SS<42.-: --Â·-=-0-- -~ il-Ill 14 I ' , ..1 d P 11 0 , 1 , <19121 -Â· ' r Cl; Â¢ I 1 I 1 118 East Bleeker Street, built in 1965. 4 1 2 11,4 Â£ -- afl . 809 South Aspen Street, r.. . Shadow Mountain Condomiums, built in 1965. . .1 '4. 615 Gillespie Street, built in 1957 by Fritz Benedict. 4 - Demolished in 2005. u.Â· . 1. Â· :. I . 6 Â·r . 11111 , 219 South Third Str 1 219 South Third Street, built 1965 in 1965. ' 1 '1' f â€¢. â€¢ --i,k .... 5 As noted above, staff has been able to assemble more information about this history of the house at 1005 Waters Avenue since the HPC's last discussion. The house was the residence of Ellen Harland and her family from approximately 1958-1968. Ms. Harland graduated from MIT's School of Architecture in 1956, at a time when the school was very influential in Modern design. She moved to Denver seeking a new environment, then visited and fell in love with Aspen. Ms. Harland was hired by Fritz Benedict in 1958, and she and Robin Molny served as his draftsmen. She worked for Fritz Benedict for 20 years and took an active design role in many projects, including the Pitkin County Library. In addition she designed a number of homes such as the one pictured below. 1 ... , 4..F 1 ' t. f.r , j..Â·A ti.' I ., t'~ '~"- ''1 ~_1~ "~~~ ~*~~~~~~.. 4 I. 4 a -r p - 1411 Crystal Lake Road, by Ellen Ms. Harland stated that the house on Waters Harland. 1976 Avenue was originally the 900 square foot structure that is in the center of the lot. In 1964, she built the front piece (which faces Waters Avenue.) She said that it was like a separate unit in form only and was used primarily for her children. In approximately 1968, the house was sold to Ki and John I~i-#IJi~~~6~2*I -iu,triEW..4 Davis. Several locals contacted about this property strongly ~~ 1kt~ associated the home with that family. Ki Davis was an artist eldi1~ ,~czbPWI and poet. She designed the sculpture that is in the fountain at I ~~ E~ the east end of the Hyman Avenue Mall. Local author Bruce |~ ~~ Berger wrote of Ki in his book "Notes of a Half-Aspenite," ..lfall excerpt attached. liti...1. r--i----47. Staff has attached records from the Assessor' s Office to this ~ menlo. The Assessor' s office lists the "actual date of 1~ construction" for this house as 1964. During the last meeting, AT. the property owner raised the topic of "actual date of .* . construction" vs. "effective date of construction." The ~ .rr Assessor' s Office puts the "effective date of construction" for '::' 1005 Waters Avenue at 1979. Staff has confirmed that the E-*54*.9 r -~ latter term represents the condition of the property (meaning / '- p#iil its current condition is similar to a property built in 1979.) ~ "Interplay," by Ki Davis, 1979. 6 ./ --*4 This does not infer that earlier portions of the building were demolished. The last page of the Assessor's records provided in HPC's packet contains a plan view of the house, labeling the year each piece was built. This record does use the date 1960 for the rear piece. The element that faces Waters Avenue is identified as 1964, and there is an expansion towards the east in 1974. The building permit file for this property contains no permits from earlier than the 1990's, so documentation is difficult. LIPC asked staff to complete an "Integrity Assessment Form," for the property. We are unable to do so because the Modern Chalet style is one that has become recognized as potentially significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48 discussions. At this point no context papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use. The house has been built in phases, in 1960, 1964 and 1974. We are not aware of any other significant work that has taken place on the exterior of the structure. Ms. Harland viewed the home in 2004 and did not indicate that it looked significantly different. In terms of the proposed work that initiated the negotiation, the applicant would like to add a second floor to the residence and completely alter the street-facing (north) fa~ade, which Staff views as destructive to the integrity of the architecture and design. The two images below illustrate the existing street elevation (top) and the proposed street elevation with the added second story (bottom). It is Staffs opinion that the proposed alteration will destroy any important characteristics of the potential historic resource. The one story low gable roof and glazing style and placement convey a 1960s era Aspen home. These features are permanently destroyed with the proposed changes and render this building ineligible for landmark designation. 1 11810/11 1 ~ 1 - Ir 1 11! Id F===1 EXISTING STREET VIEW/NORTH ELEvATION 1/B~ â€¢ "-0â€¢ NOUTH .ING REW,-}DFIED AND Al) STORY ADDED NORTH â€¢ING EISTING TO REMAIN NO CHANGE - 99 -1 7 L -t~ fi kil lild -a *Ili)1;ilizicill- 1,-90!Me.Me.F .L _..~ I PRC=CSED NORT- E-E /AT ON A.-Al; ''a, - A 0 v ' I. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: City Council will discuss whether they should negotiate with the property owners regarding the proposed changes through existing benefits available to historic landmarks and/or other means. Following are some of the benefits available to this property if it is designated: Impact Fee Exemption: The proposed changes include adding 3 bedrooms to the residence (for a total of 6 bedrooms), which require Impact Fees (TDM and Parks). Parks Dedication Fee: approximately $13,287 (3 * $4,429) TDM/AirQuality Fee: approximately $1,494 (3 * $498) A total of $14,781 in impact fees would be waived if the property was designated a historic landmark. Variances: The site currently has existing non-conforming setbacks to the north, east and west. LIPC is authorized to grant setback variances for historic properties in an effort to preserve the historic resource. If the property is not designated, a hardship must be proven to be granted a setback variance. Dimensional Requirements: 1005 Waters Avenue is located in the R-15 zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The subject lot is about 9,000 square feet. It is a non-conforming lot of record and the only allowed use is a single family home. A designated landmark property in R-15 has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet and a minimum of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit. This means that 1005 Waters Avenue, if it is designated historic, could be converted into a duplex and would be allowed approximately 400 more square feet of additional floor area than as a single family use. (3,755.9 sq. ft. of floor area for a single family residence and 4,152.8 sq. ft. of floor area for a duplex residence). The plans submitted to remodel this house indicate that it is already in use as a duplex, which appears to be an illegal situation that must be remedied if designation does not occur. The Assessor' s Office records note that an "apartment" was created in 1983, but that is not a verification that the work was done with proper permits. FAR Bonus: Designated landmark properties are eligible for a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Transferrable Development Rights (TDR): Designated landmark properties are eligible to establish and sell TDR certificates in increments of 250 square feet of unbuilt tloor area from the designated property. These certificates are sold on the free market to non- historic sites within the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 11PC is asked to provide Council with an assessment of the historic value of the property and the benefit o f negotiating to achieve preservation. Staff finds that 1005 Waters Avenue is a good example of the Modern Chalet style, although it lacks some of the features important to others in the category, such as 8 balconies, open carports, etc. We do feel that Ellen Harland can be illustrated as a notable, trained modernist architect with a significant body of work in Aspen. Exhibits: A.) Existing and Proposed Drawings 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 23,2008 Michael said another issue is the landscape plan. Jim Curtis said in the application booklet we propose 14 additional spruce trees. Discussion on color and reflectivity. Jay pointed out that the concern is how this structure impacts the historic resource. That is probably the reason why staff suggested white because there is so much white at the Aspen Institute. Jay said he is open to the color and is sympathetic to the neighbors. Ann said her concern is the reflectivity. A range o f whites could be acceptable. MOTION: Jay made the motion to approve the tent, Greenwald Pavilion and restudy the length and width of the tent and placement on the existing location. The flat concrete pad is approved. The storage tent is not being approved due to lack of information; motion second by Brian. Discussion Amy said one suggestion was to restudy the north side that is visible from the Pitkin Green area. The other issue is the wires that come out from the tent as they might interfere with the trail. Amy Margerum pointed out that the decorative aspects o f the tent change with each event. All infavor, motion carried. 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation Nancy Bryant, owner Gretchen Greenwood, architect Amy said this is our first discussion under Ordinance #48. Any property that is listed can have a 90 day discussion to see what benefits carl be offered regarding designation. The property owner brought in a remodel and staff reviewed it. HPC is to review the project to determine its preservation. The property is on Waters Avenue and built in 1964. The building is an example of a modern chalet. The building has a shallow roof form and extending eaves. If the property where designated the benefits would be a reduction in the impact fees; setback variances; a potential FAR bonus and the possibility of transfer development rights. This property is zoned R-15 and the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and this lot is 9,000 square feet. It is 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 23,2008 legal non-conforming and established when the subdivision was created. Because it is under the minimum lot size it is only allowed to have a single family house on it. As a landmark the option for a duplex would be available and that also increases the FAR about 400 more square feet and with the potential FAR bonus you are talking 900 square feet more as an option. There has been con flicting in formation about the status o f the house. Some of the drawings provided refer to the house as a duplex. We don't know the exact situation but a duplex is not allowed. A single family is only the allowed use. Our records indicate that there is nothing in the files that indicate this is a legal duplex. Michael asked if an integrity assessment was done on the property. Amy said none was performed. Gretchen Greenwood said the tax assessor listed the house as being built in 1964 but it was effectively rebuilt in 1979. That is less than 30 years old and the house has had so many changes. Being built in 1979 it wouldn't even qualify to be on the list. It has been added onto and the garage was put on. The roof lines have also been changed and walls have been pushed out. Since it has been rebuilt in 1979 we feel that should be taken into consideration. The owners do not want this house maintained on the list. This came up last year and Nancy hired me to do a bedroom addition on the front part of the property. I was very aware of the setback standards and the addition would be in the setbacks so I designed the addition by basically taking it down to its foundation and built it right back up. We used recycled materials and whatever we could get to keep the costs down. We are proposing an addition Sept, 16th to the Planning & Zoning commission and we meet all of the current zoning of the two bedroom addition. We are not going to our full FAR; it is not a development project. It is a family owned. The three owners do not want to go through an elaborate Historic Preservation Commission program negotiation approval process. They do not want the property encumbered. They want to just put an addition on and probably sell as is some time down the road. The grandchildren come and they need more space. They have no interest in the additional FAR. The fact that the house got caught on the list last year but my research states that it was built in 1979. We are going for a design variance for the non- orthogonal windows. We hope to go in front of the Planning & Zoning and get a fair hearing. Nancy Bryant, owner 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 23,2008 This house was built in three stages. The back part is the original. The front part was a garage and the third part was built as a studio in 1986. What happened was when the owner remarried he married a woman with more children so they took the part that had been the garage and made it into apartments and set it up for the older girls. We have three sections of the house. You enter the house and go up the stairs and then go down stairs. The house was built on the old Glory Hole dump. The last part of the house that was built in 1986 is below grade. It is almost four feet below grade. Gretchen said there is a FAR reduction on the site because of the slope. We still with this addition are 500 square feet below what we could have with the total development. It does have a kitchen in it and you could use it as a duplex but it really one single family home. It doesn't matter whether it is a duplex on not. There is one kitchen and that kitchen is coming out with the addition of the bedroom. Nancy Bryant said this house keeps being mentioned as a Skier Chalet. This is hardly a skier chalet. lt is a one story house, it is an A frame house. You can buy the plans on the internet. We are trying to keep the look of the house with the addition. We need room for 12 people and this house is already going to our grand children. We have bathrooms that are 3x5 and a kitchen that isn't big enough to put a casserole out on. The existing roof is collapsing and we have a lot of structural issues. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Jack Wilkie said he is a property owner on the list and his house is a chalet. There are around 40 houses on the Ord, #48 list. Of those there are only 7 that are chalets. If you look at those houses they are all different. It is hard to discern a thread that runs through all of those houses. I am on the review task force. One of the criteria of getting on the list is that these are clean houses without modifications. This application has a lot of modifications. This is a confusing issue and I hope HPC doesn't get too onerous with these applicants. Marsha Cook said we need to preserve examples of things that are of high quality and really good. When it comes to the integrity scoring one of the things we are faced with in the task force is, there is really not any criteria for some of the houses that fall into these categories. How do you evaluate something and say it is representative of something really good when you 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 23,2008 don't have the criteria to evaluate it. I personally think if something is designated it should be of high standards. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael said the integrity assessment is a large portion of the decision process as to whether this house should be designated or not. Jim True, city attorney said the application before you is not in the true traditional sense. If you make the determination that this application needs further discussion and negotiation then you would recommend to the council that they continue negotiations and see if they can offer to the applicant such that would allow the applicant to get where they want to get and allow the designation. Amy said Sarah's memo is successful in showing the board pictures of the developing trend for modern chalets. Jay pointed out as this whole era of modern chalets continues to evolve there are things that need to be taken into consideration that might not be assessed. The board should not just use the integrity assessment form. The evolution of a home throughout the last 25 years is historic. Michael also agreed with Jay that it is not must the integrity assessment. We need to define clearly what modern chalet is. Brian said he feels the building has been altered significantly from the streetscape as it blocks the original structure. Sarah suggested a site visit and continuation. Michael said the integrity of this process must be maintained. Staff will provide us with the additional information for the next meeting. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue 1005 Waters Ave. with the condition that an integrity assessment is brought forward and the history of development on the site are provided. A site visit is recommended. Motion second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 23,2008 Jim True, attorney asked Nancy Bryant if the HPC could go onto her property for a site visit. Gretchen said she would agree to the site visit as long as the property owner was present. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Brian. Atl in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Widi.EFL1- Kathleen J. Stricklaiid, Chief Deputy Clerk 15 'XE,x. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 1005 Waters Avenue, Ordinance #48 negotiation process DATE: July 23,2008 PROCESS: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations. land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the HP Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects ifthey: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. 1 The property owners selected Option C and submitted a Land Use application for Residential Design Standard variances to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff determined that the proposed changes trigger an Ordinance #48 review. Within the 90 day negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. HPC review is not a public hearing, the acceptance of comments from the public or property owners are at the discretion of the Commission. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding Council extending benefits to the owner to preserve the property without inappropriate alterations. City Council will meet on August 11,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall. Staff shall confer with City Council regarding the proposed Land Use application, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource. Council may decide to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. APPLICANT: Nancy Bryant, 1005 Waters Avenue, represented by Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street, Aspen, CO 81611. Additional owners Chris Leverich and Andrew Dolan have consented to the application. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-82-001. ADDRESS: 1005 Waters Avenue, Lots A - C, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential .--; - f 22 3 7 ''r- - - 4 4- 0, 4 441% r & f 01â€ž;:/4/ - 7123.-1 . 1 #/ J . 41 f... '4#4 - 11. '4, 4. 1-0-*Kl. '' 'f 1 4E .iATER:Â·Â· A.Â·F 1005 Waters Avenue - 1 -h. 1 11 ' P -69 .7 Â·. 1 , 1 1 -- ..9, 73 A 1, 2 :04/44 SÂ¥ DICUSSION: 1005 Waters Avenue was built circa 1964. It is located on Waters Avenue, refer to the map. This house combines Chalet architecture with the modernist approach employed by trained architects such as Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer. Similar to other Chalet buildings, this residence is sited toward the mountain on an angle. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, and simple form are characteristic of this era as is more glazing on the primary fa~ade, typically carrying all the way up to the roof. t~ i 1. C ... 8 4 - .... ( 'r -6 . \- 1 -- 4.0 .4.:i. Â·,g 92&49 .Ill-*.1Â«- 1005 Waters Avenue The simple low pitched roof form is evident in both chalet architecture and "Modern Chalet" architecture that combines modern technology and chalet style elements. Similar low pitched roof forms: ~ ~~~~~~ ~' ~~ Chalet Lisl, 100 East /*mium/ill"#XM/' Hyman, built in 1948. - - 6.'" Ill .1, d , 7 . 412 949 Smuggler Street, built in 1946. 3 Prospector Lodge, built in 1947. , 4*4~ tki,J. 1~ . " 0 ..N~ Il Demolished. :1'..91' t. ...4/r Auffid. -- Â£ i .i . ~iâ€¢Gtl - 1 , #0 *1 --e â‚¬1, p .Ar, Extending the glazing into the gable end refers to advancing construction technology and a modern aesthetic. 1005 Waters Avenue was built in the early 1960s when Aspen was establishing itself as a vacation destination. The renaissance of Aspen in the Post War era is evident in these modest second homes that reflect both small scale and a certain level of design influence. Similar glazing into the gable roof: .. ------ - ..'Â»Â· S. rÂ¢2 626 West Francis Street, built -,-- 0 1 Â· j, Â·Â¥1:.-Â·9 in 1961/2. , 324 ; f ~. . 1 11 1 t . 118 East Bleeker Street, built in 1965. . t . F â‚¬ 9 ./- 4 809 South Aspen Street, :.:. I v - 1,/ K.....1 1 Shadow Mountain . v... .-- r Condomiums, built in 1965. 4% -A . 1.. 1, ' i 1 . .1 1. -4 615 Gillespie Street, built in 9 . 1957 by Fritz Benedict. ... -4 ' ~.~. Demolished in 2005. -r u,.fâ€¢:A - & I 4 9. ' Ij , ,$dll 219 South Third Street, 1965 3 219 South Third Street, built in 1965. , t, ' . a-*.4 4 . --.21 4-t --- Unfortunately, we have very limited information about this residence and have been unable to locate the architect/builder of 1005 Waters Avenue. The assessor lists the construction date as 1964, which is consistent with the style and type of construction. 5 b The applicant would like to add a second floor to the residence and completely alter the street-facing (north) fa~ade, which Staff views as destructive to the integrity of the architecture and design. The proposed work requires variances from the Residential Design Standards, which the Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss in September. The two images below illustrate the existing street elevation (top) and the proposed street elevation with the added second story (bottom). It is Staff' s opinion that the proposed alteration will destroy any important characteristics of the potential historic resource. The one story low gable roof and glazing style and placement convey a 1960s era vacation home. These features are permanently destroyed with the proposed changes and render this building ineligible for landmark designation. -=-%19.-1 = EXISTiNG STREET VIEW/NORTW ELE /4TIONI SOUTH NING HEM HMELED ,\D UND *rUIC: ADDED NORTH WING EX;5rING TO REMAIN NO CHANGE; I." ***I---- i ME-]B,-Tr-,-L2~----- 1 ====-6==â€žA==.- 1:; r *2llerital L .._~LSÂ»j - PRCPOSED NORTH ELE'/AT ON SCALE 12 . ' -3, 6 POTENTIAL BENEFITS: City Council will discuss whether they should negotiate with the property owners regarding the proposed changes through existing benefits available to historic landmarks and/or other means. Following are some of the benefits available to this property if it is designated: Impact Fee Exemption: The proposed changes include adding 3 bedrooms to the residence (for a total of 6 bedrooms), which require Impact Fees (TDM and Parks). Parks Dedication Fee: approximately $13,287 (3 * $4,429) TDM/AirQuality Fee: approximately $1,494 0 * $498) A total of $14,781 in impact fees would be waived if the property was designated a historic landmark. Variances: The site currently has existing non-conforming setbacks to the north, east and west. HPC is authorized to grant setback variances for historic properties in an effort to preserve the historic resource. If the property is not designated, a hardship must be proven to be granted a setback variance. Dimensional Requirements: 1005 Waters Avenue is located in the R-15 zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The subject lot is about 9,000 square feet. It is a non-conforming lot of record and the only allowed use is a single family home. A designated landmark property in R-15 has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet and a minimum of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit. This means that 1005 Waters Avenue, if it is designated historic, could be converted into a duplex and would be allowed approximately 400 more square feet of additional floor area than as a single family use. (3,755.9 sq. ft. of floor area for a single family residence and 4,152.8 sq. ft. of floor area for a duplex residence) FAR Bonus: Designated landmark properties are eligible for a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Transferrable Development Rights (TDR): Designated landmark properties are eligible to establish and sell TDR certificates in increments of 250 square feet of unbuilt floor area from the designated property. These certificates are sold on the free market to non- historic sites within the City. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: â€¢ The HPC is asked to make recommendations to the Aspen City Council regarding the nature and value of the Potential Historic Resource and the proposed changes. Exhibits: A.) Existing and Proposed Drawings 7 5/2008 i 7.03 9709257490 GRE'CHEN GREE'Â·Â·Â·IWOOD PAGE 01'01 RECEIVED JUL 1 6 2008 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT March 26 i 2008 Ms. Amy Guthrie H mtorIC Preservation Officer 130 5outh Galcna Strset Aspen. Colorado 6 IGIl Dear Mo. Guthrie, I have read the; Ordinance 48 negotiations quidelings Dy the. City Council and 1 cons,ent to the Frocees. 5tncerely, Nancy B,yant /1 Chris Lever,ch ; 1 0 61 U..~ ft)4]91\ ~ridrew Dolan E-- Â«~ OTAR 1 ...01 60 401... fit kin Signed before me on this 1 6*24 da, idd.~ UB LI R.~f ofJoLY ,2008 hvJAc~ivelivic/Mans.(ki d ...... Â·Al,AD 094, OF co\.~,s>i:!P' Notaly Pubaa-UY *A, 44,"â€¢111+04# --- '1?sion Ex00; ' t> I ' 1 **Spost- e 7% 1 ' =~ ~ F~*~r 011E1.41Â£1*1 Al NE b W)'A'I 5 AM-181;* 3 THE CITY OF ASPEN 01;2Elfâ‚¬j~~ 02 14 $ 05.320 . r . in n n 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET 91 7108 2133 3934 3806 2294 NE21*'LE 0004626326 ,) -1 , 0 Z U J O ASPEN, (OLORADO 81611-1975 (1O34#~Â£~3~ MAILED FRONI 7\~.DDE 81611 E--_Nrdre*Ieolan 00 BJ<Â©1~I2if 4881 Khlmia Avenue WACE02~6.(Eo 80304 4/4160 4%346, DU a li . L v\, vv 6 3Nn 031100 14 0103 Â·SS3HOQV NEIn138 3H1 30 1HDIW 3 Hi 01 ad013AN3 30 d01 1Â¥ 93>IOLLS 30Vld C r SENDER: COMPLETE THE SECT/ON COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Â·+ â€¢ Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. O Agent X â€¢ Print your name and address on the reverse C] Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? C Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: C No Ankrew CU\<:un 16% \ \<A ,~Ak~ -Av-2 bavA8431 C.> %304 3. Service Type ,>~ified Mail O Express Mail Â¤ Registered Â¤ Return Receipt for Merchandise Â¤ Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Ext/a Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number 91 7108 2133 3934 3806 2294 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box 0 5 CAZA Â·~~GW\kb \:30 S - 61â‚¬dQÂ« 9-rey 6%>~\ 4 CO %{ 6(l July 16,2008 Andrew Dolan 2681 Kalmia Avenue THE CITY OF AspEN Boulder, CO 80304 Re: 1005 Waters Avenue negotiation period Dear Mr. Dolan, In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program. The Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force was appointed to lead that evaluation and to make recommendations to Council. Ordinance #48 is expected to ultimately be superseded by code amendments that come out of the Historic Preservation Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects ifthey: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. The Land Use application submitted by Gretchen Greenwood on behalf of Nancy Bryant triggers an Ordinance #48 review of 1005 Water Avenue. Your consent to the application has been received via a hand delivered letter by Ms. Greenwood on July 16, 2008. According to the application, Ms. Bryant selected Option C. Within the 90 day negotiation period the City of Aspen Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owners to discuss the Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a historic landmark. Please contact me (970-429-2778) if you would like to discuss benefits for your property; for example, your lot could contain a duplex residence if it is landmarked which is not permitted on a lot of your size in the R-15 zone district if it is not landmarked. Landmarked properties are also eligible to establish Transferrable Development Rights for sale on the free market and Floor Area bonuses among other dimensional benefits. During the negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission is scheduled during their regular public meeting on July 23,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Community Development Staff will present HPC with the proposed changes and the characteristics of the Potential Historic Resource. This is not a public hearing. HPC will make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. City Council will meet on August 11,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall. Staff shall confer with City Council regarding the proposed Land Use application, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource. Council may decide to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Please feel free to contact me (970) 429-2778 or saraa@ci.aspen.co.us or Amy Guthrie (970) 429-2758, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us with any questions, concerns or if you would like to schedule an appointment to discuss benefits for historic properties. Sincerely, t L./ Sara Adams Historic Preservation Planner Ce: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer James R. True, Special Counsel UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Ma? Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 o Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box ' sanx -Adahs 130 , S. Cled'ena sk Aspnc le %{611 SENDERÂ·. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ~ COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY â€¢ Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete 4. Sianature - 1 item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ~~~ Agent â€¢ Print your name and address on the reverse Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Datp of D,livery â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 7/1-1/7 D. Is delivery address diffetent from item 1? g Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: Â¤ No ChAs keve,ida IDO 5 Mate/5 *vet 555 6. DuRAA r *1.A 1%003> CO 7(6// A+A CD 9(6(1 3. Service Type ,>~Certified Mail Â¤ Express Mail O Registered Â¤ Return Receipt for Merchandise O Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service lal . 91 7108 2133 3934 3806 2300 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-154( ~ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class MaN Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box ' <bcuex -AOWAS 13 0- S . (22*~ SCEâ‚¬.2-~ **\ Ce % iG 1 1 â€¢ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. < 3 0'*gent 1 .P Ant your name and address on the reverse 0 Addressee ~ so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery 1 â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 7 LI 1 ~ 5 1 D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ? *! Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: ..O RaacÂ© tefet - 565 6 - Du (M pr # 7.4 1005 8*085 Â¢lvaL AsPEN, CO '/4 1 1 7%90â‚¬A I C.0 % '6l\ 3. Service Type ~~Certified Mail O Express Mail O Registered Â¤ Return Receipt for Merchandise ~ Â¤ Insured Mail O C.O.D. 1 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from ser,lce label) 91 7108 2133 3934 3806 2287 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ATTACHMENT3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: brwant Ltvw, ch ?Ze.moold Apphcait Na,ky 03,0 ant Â· Chn.t Le:,z/,ch Location: i tods WaÂ·61 Â»-/ Zone District: R. /6 Lot Size: 4000-57, ff: Lot Area: 789.2. 60 se. n Â· (for.the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area mal be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: -biding:. Nl A Proposed: N /A Number ofresidential units: Existing: / Proposed: / Number of bedrooms: Existing: .8 Proposed: 40 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 4~~'A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing~2 287 Allowable: 475~ Proposed: 5 59/ Principal Mdg. height: Existing: ~2 ! 8"AllowabIe:,25 20" Proposed:.25 f D " Access. bldg. height: Eristing: U/4 Allowable: /1*>0 proposed: N / A On-Site parking: Existing.- Z Required: 2 proposed: 2 N o c:HANG* VoSite coveraf Elisting: N/A R.equired: N/A Proposed:- NIA % Open Space: Existing: 4//4 Required: N/A Proposed:_N-ta- FrontSelbaâ‚¬Â£*. Existing: / 4 !,8* Required:,25 !-O " Proposed: /4 Â£ 8_ No CJ,94,6Â£ Rear Setback: Existing:/5 L /" Required: /0 10* Proposed: /3 1/ *No CMNGE CombinedÂ¥Â®. Existing: N~A Required: N/A Proposed: N~A gAisr Side Setback: Existing: G LO * Required: /O Â£0* proposed: 6 4:>4 No e #179/VGE Y~297* Side Setback: Existing: SL / Required: /DION Proposed: S L /" Noe MANGâ‚¬ Corraned Sides: Existing: NIA Required: A//A proposed: N/A Distance Between Existing *~Ajequired_ N/ A proposed MLA Buildings * NIA: Nor APPUCABLE Existing non-conformities or encroachments: FRON-T Y Ago 527#*ck Â· ) EA>r YARD SE78,94*2 WEST DIDE 527BhOC Nariations=quested, j>65/GN 02Ey,E W &U/PEL,NES 9,- 9/%*4/. t,D C 0 :E 0 q> U Eb . n' 17 LEGEND AND NOTES â‚¬ C # 9 8 @M A 11 8 1 3 2 6 a SLOPE LEGEND O FOLNE> a,Mr loluar 4 002-ED 1,0 /4.0,09 ofTCH Nor //Illl*rED O= SEr IE-- Irm ZI) C- 28847 0 clly aps 11,Â»ue,T N 023 3 N .E 2 ~ DOPES 21-ZI (131-1-0-â€¢4* TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 705 SCO Fr . = ./11 BDI REDUCION = J52.50 SO.FT . =,1,/r CON'I) - 4 'Em @ -110,1 Ito>il -cpo J,_*1 (,37-1-0-10) TOTAL SOLIARE FEET: 100 SO.FT. O 111,rr Box 1 />>4 EXCLUDED FRON LOT AREA CALCULATION nnE -rÂ»-mol, Amae m 1~-14 ~ 2013 ) 40% (134-1+14) TOTAL SOME FEET: 705 50.Fr, SEF- EXCLUDED FROM LOT AREA CALCULATION 0*Ink 0 10 20 TOTAL EXa.UDED LOT AREA = 1157.50 SO.FT. CIE FOOT 00'ITO/*S ~9ax/~Ma/~/9/4/~:~~/23ip ===51:r CROSS LOT AREA . 9,000 50.F. a TOTAL EXCLUDED LOT AREA = 1.157.50 SQ.FT. N. - 1,NTED TEXT DOâ€¢018 HOCI To lot.-21 Dem#Â«I NET LOT AREA . 7.B,2.5(i 50 FT 9 1 Ine. PENCES OCRUICI JU SÂ«0- Colem- Ulliall .2 'C) .OM W OmCI,1 11, =0./." ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,736 SO.ET. FOR 5Â¢NGLE FAMILY RESÂ©ENCE WATERs AVENUE 0* f. a ... 741 P-JPENTr LO I ZOE C / PEN FORâ€¢ F-1 1- FOR nE CIT' Cl A-04 19 =00 .D.-9 -U cm ICIUE- 9 IE No*T,INM oo,WN DECE// 4. 1- OF LIT 44 UTE Sue[NOON d SEr ~L 0111( 1:& . na - CMPER (D-Demuous. F<01-n. 01-0-LIED LErER 12 011 "~t ND =& 8 Sl-11,011 NIE PlAM H *AOÂ«rECr. 0 = 1 VICINITY MAP = 44. Ill ' ' " w.",C,dE X1* E RECEIVeD .LK ~~/...0 .... I . - 'a-,17 4 JUN 1 8 2008 Ulillill Zjll AT nE 110Rllâ‚¬-r CO-EN OF LOT C BLOC* 4 1 E,ST /-EN /00<RON CITY OF ASPEN OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / 8 1 ADJOINERS TMOME C RECORD PLAT 4 ROW OR LOT TO THE WEST D ZONNING 11& , BRIDGE LOCATION, DITCH Â»r + 0 .9 NOTE DITCH ESMT , /' ADDRESS Ir DECK 11 - ENCROACHMENT 2.10,nol 1. , '-41'16~1*/ PLAT OF THE GANT TIE UNOEmigle man â„¢,r 11 -PE,Crr I,C~ 1â‚¬~00, mi 41.114/1 FIELD 1.5 JH AM m&1~Wfar&~~,~-~-,~I~,12RgE 4.15.6 .11 4 FIELD 5.5 DM, AM =~0.~w==,=-.mt#e- DRAFT 6 JH iMiW zz gc~ voÂ®uu,; u g,a.* MEAS HSE 1 HR JH,DM,AM Cum 2 M & i SET CORS 1 HR DM,AM SLOPE DRAFT 3.5 10" . Â£ a #1 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY ~138*~DifWl=m-=z MU THE GANT CONDOMINIUMS 20;:*10.~"'~o c-,-e: (1.000.0 Sa Fr. â€¢/-) (0.207 021 +/-) t/ PIIEJPNIED 81 ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 sOUTH GAL.DU STIEET PHO~FAX (970) 92,-3810 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 DOE 11/07 37280 wood 30NVIHVA M3IA3H NDIS3a NOI1VmlddÂ¥ 3SA C]NV-1 800Z :ON 10320Ud 3nN3AV S831Â¥M 900-C :334*a elesS ON A3AhlnS 1N3IN3A0HdWI 30N30IS3H H0IH3A31 1NVAMB ,~ 00Â¥80103'N3dSV s 1 4050' 491--100.& SE** i 13*0 i 1, lf_? ./ 14/ m S 1 i r i Ji 1 W i 1% 1 /Â£104 100-00 N 14050 49 E - - - b -. i C ~fl? M f \43 TITLE BRYANT LEVERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS Gretchen Greenwood 1005 WATERS AVENUE DATE PROJECT NO: & Associates, Inc. 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION- DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCE 520 Walnut Street SCALE: DRAWN BY: Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 970-925-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 '.Idtog Wfl gild 7*31 NÂ¥61 9471 Mirlog N 75009'11"W 90.00' 3. 1 1,6009Â£ S ,00' 06 NV'lcl 3!001=I 13031 NIVW 9NliGIXEl: VEWÂ¢ 514Na ...El. 1. S 14050'49~W 100.00') n 111 - 11 - 1 ~-I 1% f SEMN* N 14050 49 E 100.00 TITLE Gretchen BRYANT LEVERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING FLOOR PLANS Greenwood 1005 WATERS AVENUE DATE PROJECT NO. & Associates, tnc. 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION- DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCE 520 Walnut Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 SCâ€¢,LE: DRAWN BY: ASPEN, COLORADO 970-925-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 N 75009'1171 90.00' 3. 1 l.6009L S po' 06 *Â¢9139 <Wll Wal lilli 41:i -80 O C: 2'39 -EME Eli i:E CD 0 . 0 4 03 k LU - 14â‚¬2.-Â·Â·-fÂ«- 7' - C.) - Â· Z .abegleÂ¥,;.dEÂ®e~ 11 i mt g 4 - U) LU Z I D CD Z co 0 Z 0 FZ: 0 - - EXISTING STREET VIEW/INORTH ELEVATION <C 0 us" = 1'-0" 21 CL UJ CO D 0 Z 1 1 1- *y- -u-u NM 82(6 6 E Z ~~~~jEXISTING l.LIEST ELEVATION EXISTING EL=EVATIONS 220' 06)Â·2-926 : ON 103(OhId 3AN3AV SH31VM 9001 AD NMÂ¥80 SN0I1VA313 9NUSI 30N30IS3H H0IH3A31 1NVAHS 800E ODVH0100'N3dSV 4- 4 .- to" - / , GE 1 Z imm i.Â·r- 5 1 4 "Tim@? ~ 4%133 1... - 4 / Mi"Eme"Â§111 -mi*g 1 9 mt< 11,110"1 4.11 11 lili I X CD -1 11 lili li 0 CD TITLE BRYANT LEVERICH RESIDENCE EXISTING ELEVATIONS Gretchen Greenwood 1005 WATERS AVENUE DATE PROJECT NO. & Associates, Inc. 6-2008 LAND USE APPLICATION DESIGN GUIDLINES VARIANCE ~ 520 Walnut Street Ch AsperÂ·4 Colorado 81611 SCALE DRAWN BY: ASPEN,COLORADO 970-925-4502 Fax 970-925-7490 NON.VAE-IE 1943 9Nll@IX34 -Â·0~ L 2 i RESIDENTAIL DESIGN STANDARD CHECKLIST OR A. SITE DESIGN 1. Building Oreintation: Existing Building is NOT perpenicular to Materm Avenue : DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED Su 2 .2 8JZ 390 TO *10 840 CI411Â£ 3. Fences: a 42 ' tall fence measured from natural grade will replace the current fence frowred of the house. 2. Build-to lines: The front facade 18 within 5 feet of the minimum front yared setback 22@ E liz@ B. BUILDING FORM 00 3 92 & 1 4-2[j33., AN r, 1. Secondary Mass: A secondary mass is not proposed for this duplex remodel. DESIGN GUIDELU,IE VARIANCE REQUIRED C. PARKING GARAGES AND CARPORTS EDGE OF 'PA 1. Residential Access from a Private Road: NOT APPICABLE 00 2. Residential Acces8 from a Public Street:: a. The width of the Living Area at street level: 38'-6" 5<5 The width of the Garage is 15'-6" Proposed Width of Living Area is 5' and greater than the width of Garage b. The front facade of the Garage is not located 10 feet back from the facade of the house. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED e.00 40, A front yard setback variance is required to maintain the existing garage. c. Not Applicable d. The floor of the Garage is equal to the street level. e, The vehicular width of a garage is 9'-0" f. The garage door is a single stall door. 47 D. BUILDING ELELMENTS 1. The proposed duplex remodel home haa a street oriented entrance and street oriented window visible from Waters Avenue. a. The front door of the house is not more than 10 '-0" from the front most wall of the house. PORÂ·nON CF 1.De. TO BE *2!CIED - ~ ~ b. The proposed front porch is 105 Sq Ft and ie 6' - O' in depth and one-story in height The front door is 8' - 0" c. Street-Facing windows face Ute Avenue. 2. Fil Story Element ~XISTNG FOOTplaNT op= BLD& The width of the overall building is 39'-6* The width of the first story element is is 14' - 11" (or 377 of the building's overall width.) -1 ENTRT- PORCW The first story element is 6 feet from the wall the first slory is projecting from. The plate height of the interior living space is 10'-0" The first story element is the proposed porch. The proposed porch is part of the existing facade and requires a front yard variance. BED>20,1 3 â€¢ 3. Windows 14 4 3 b. TWO NEW non orthagonal windows ared proposed on the street facing facade of the building. (For a total of 5 ) a. Street facing windows are not spanning between 9' and 12' above the finished floor. \ 4. Lightwells DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED =mr17--TE -i- - MASTER BEDROCM 4 S \1 No lightwells are proposed for the building remodel and or addition. t'! E, CONTEXT m 10 1 C. % ELEÂ¥ u 1. Materials a. All proposed exterior materials are consistent on all sides of the building. ' I a. All proposed exterior materials are true ta- the characteriaties of the existing building. 1. . The proposed building materials match the existing materials of the duplex located to the south of the remodel. 1. Inflection -Â· a. The proposed two story home ia adjacent to a 2-story building on the east side of the property. (See photographs) PAf 1 The proposed two story home is adjacent to a 1- story building on the west side of the property. R RON BELD /4 40 0 - SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED E NORTH WING EX STING TO REMAIN , NO CHANGE N %6 i ./1 1 6 181 lt' Moc~ Uve. â€¢ I . i <0 75 - m.00. E-. 4 .I 1- 2 w -fo- -SÂ·Â·rr'TT lilli D Z 4 LU > 4Â· E)081,Â«,Mer UOR tre â€¢ 7 -" M 1 .",7 1- r <C t, 75009'11.E go. Ek . 9. 1 W PROPOSED STREET ELEVATION FROM WATERS AVENUE 2 o" 1 SCALE: 1/80 = 1'-0" O If') 45 SUB ~ PAR CALCULAT\OUS 0 0 1-1 lit. 0 - -0 1 SOUTA UING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1,100 5QFT. NORTU WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1,100 SQFT ~ GA,RAGE LEVEL FAR: 83 5QFT ~ TOTAL MAIN LEVEL FARÂ· 2,283 SaFT. NEW NORTM UNG UPPER LEVEL FAR IJOBSOFT ~ GANT COND TOTAL FAR; 3,391 5QFT. ALLOWABLE FAR.Â· 3,156 SaFT. -1,17 POOL 0641- I t 9 1 8 opwot NY-Id 80013 13A31 H3ddn -133HS M3IA3H 3N113aln9 N983a 30N30IS3U H)83A31 1NVAH8 33NVIHÂ¥A 3NI-13alnD N9IS3a N01190!lddV 3Sn aNVI 800Z ON IDE] fabld 00Vbl0100'N3dSV 0 U >E RESIDENTAIL DESIGN STANDARD CHECKLIST â‚¬84 A. SITE DESIGN - U .9 -S - 0) 1. Building Oreintation: Existing Building im NOT perpenicular to Waters Avenue : DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED U (10) .54 390 TO WEST END Ni ATERS REITâ‚¬16 2. Build-to lines: The front facale is within 5 feet of the minimum front yared setback 6. 4 2 o & k 3. Fences: a 42 " tall fence measured from natural grade will replace the current fence frowred of the house. O~od < m B. BUILDING FORM 049E R.0*4 1. Secondary Mass: A secondary mass ia not propomed for this duplex remodel. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARLANCE REQUIRED C. PARKING GARAGES AND CARPORTS 4 9*el~ 1. Residential Access from a Private Road: NOT APPICABLE E 4 * 2. Residential Access from & Public Street: a. The width of the Living Area at street level: 36'-6" 56 The width of the Garage is 15'-6" Proposed Width of Living Area is 50 and greater than the width of Garage ..0 .1 b. The front facade of the Garage is not located 10 feet back from the facade of the house. DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED e A front yard setback variance is required to maintain the exisUng garage. ZONING FRONT AND EAST SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUIRED c. Not Applicable 909'11Â¥ 90.00' d. The floor of the Garage is equal to the street level. e. The vehicular width of a garage is 9'-0- f. The garage door is a single stall door. e D. BUILDING ELELMENTS ERS 1. The proposed duplex remodel home has a street oriented entrance and street oriented window visible from Waters Avenue. 0 <53 pORMCNf OLD~ TO EE ~OvED The front door im 81 - 011 a. The front door of the house ia not more than 10 '-0- from the front moet wall of the house. b. The proposed front porch is 105 Sq.Ft. and i, 8' - 0" in depth, and one-story in height c. Street-Facing windon face Ute Avenue. 2. First Story Element F'15'% FOOTF'RIN, OF al 4 in The Â·,idth of the overall building is 39'-6" O The width of the first story element is is 14' - 11" (or 37% of the building's overall width.) EMÂ·IRT FOR=l i Câ€¢AukE 111~ The first story element is 6 feet from the wall the first story b projecting from. 1 BAR*3E FAR 83 8(2. \ The plate height of the interior living space is 10'-0- \ The first story element is the proposed porch. 14 The proposed porch iB part of the existing facade and requires a front yard variance. ZONING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUIRED BEE)~al I C~-t Th- * 3. Windowl a. Street facing windows are not spanning between 9' and 12' above the finished floor. NORTW WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1)00 SaFT Â© lili b. TWO NEW non orthagonal windows ared proposed on the street facing facade of the building. (For a total of 5 ) - 4. Lightwells DESIGN GUIDELINE VARIANCE REQUIRED IF No lightwells are proposed for the building remodel and or addition. ... 1 = L.Â©Rr E. CONTEXT Wall 00'4 n ELE' 1. Materials STORAGE ](U,4.,~ : I 8 0 L./ a. All proposed exterior materials are true to the characteri,tica of the existing building. a. All proposed exlerior materials are consistent on all sides of the building. S 1- The proposed building materials match the existing materials of the duplex localed to tbe south of the remodel. NORTW *a MAM LE AR SQPT. 1. Innection EXISTING a. The proposed two story borne is adjacent to a 2-story building on the east side of the property. (See photographs) . BEP~XM 2 The proposed two story home is adjacent to at- story building on the Mest side of the property. f- ATM I . â€¢n -/1 SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED 1 , PIEXIST~0 ~~~~REA 'f' NO CHANGE 3 2(6 9 1 11/./.0/1 *#....I- NORTH WING EX STING TO REMAIN EZ9 H kul:H UING MAIN LEE FAR: 1102 GOFT. ~ 1 2 1 4 4Â« ~Sat} ~C- Leâ‚¬. .... Z LU + -' :2- Ell iql' = U) > 4 4 ii < 9 , Sg~ililieg 1 = 1> = E E,06â„¢, F,EST U,~ I.24. r..Â· 9 e.51,0 0....Le~ - 1 1 1 - M B 0" 1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ~ a 4 1595 7500<11Â»E 90. ' SUB eCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" 0 4 0 4 MOE 1 PAR CALCULATIONS 1 . NORTH WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1,1 18 SQ.FT. 9,- SOUTH WING MAIN LEVEL FAR: 1.100 SQ.FT. ~~Â· TOTAL MAIN LEVEL FAR: 2,301 SQ.FT. GARAGE LEVEL FAR: 83 SQ.FT. - . ATT CONDOM N }43~ ~ NEW NORTH WING UPPER LEVEL FAR: 1,108 SQ.FT. TOTAL FAR: 3,409 SQ.FT. ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,756 SQ.FT. I I 918 0~~~~n~~ 06*2-926-026 xer[ 29 30NVINVA 3NI13aln9 N983a NOI.LV011ddV 3Sn ONÂ¥-1 800E NVId H0013 13A31 NIVIN -133HS M3IA3H 3NI13aln9 NDIS3a 30N3aIS3H H0IH3A31 1NVAH8 140 .4 1 OCIVE!0100'NldSÂ¥ - ~---~--M-Ill---W--i#----i--U---i---I--i-IM--Il-~ ..0 =8- 8 $ SOUTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED t <1., M~. 0 h 3 4% OZE 633 i fit NORTH WING E STING TO REMAIN ~ NO CHANGE f331 ENÂ»21 14'4 -'41 ILL=. , Ell:j ...... hEW N:) FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ Q' - 6' Mell 2ND FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 10 - 6" I â€¢'iÂ·'t 1 jk *10,1 lidz *11; 40,3 '5411~ '1 4/, 1 1,114,4 1 L.,1 1,1~ '11<lilli 9,4, ill'*119 61#1;,11 EXISTING FIRM FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 2' - 6' 1 1 , 1 1.1 4 EXISTING GARAGE LEVEL: 0 '- 0' SCALE: 1/811 = 11 -eli EXISTING @ GARAGE NORTH WING SOUTH WING EXISTING: NO CHANGE g REMODEL AND 2ND STORY ADDED z U) 0 11 d LIU CO 0 a. 0 2, T' 11~11101*1 + MEE Z~ 1 - 3 ?RI,"1 LU 0 â‚¬ID 2ND FLOOR LEVEL . 12' - 6' LU LU Z Q@ EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 124 . 51. 6. , 2 W EXISTING FIRST FLOOR LEVEL . 2' - 6' EXISTING GARAdE LEVEL: 0 '- 0' PROPOSEDWESTELEvATTON SCALE: 1/811 = 11-011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS U - 1 T I GI 8 ope.10 3 INVA 3NI13G[n9 M3IA3H NDIS3a N011Â¥OllddY 3Sn aNÂ¥1 800 Ae NAAV219] 31Â¥0 VAA 90Â°3 OOVU0103'N3dSV 3A 1 N *88 ro 0 r- NORTH WING REMODELED AND 2ND STORY ADDED 291 13%2 @ i f :igt 2 2% P E.& 005 3 fÂ¢ 8 SOUTH WING EXISTIN TO REMAIN NO CHANGE ~ 4 2.1 -I 93-- 116, 3 -322Â· ' 0 -4 C.--: NEW X) FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ Q' - 6' Bâ‚¬41 thl.:L /*4. ;01 .......-7 hE]112ND FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ 10' - 6' L. - Â·Â·t-=1 2 --~7' â€¢ 3>- -- jl':94*1 3241/6 1,1.*. 1,2.1.,6 Â¢ ~, '*.,521 1~1#114 2 #,111~ 1,91 t.; 00 08 EXISTNG FRN FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ 9 - 6' 14-le- 1111,;r, 1,4 14*.. 80 Bm SCALE: 1/811 = 11-011 EXISTING SOUTH WING EXISTING: NO CHANGE NORTH WING GARAGE REMODEL AND 2ND STORY ADDED NEW 21â‚¬ FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ 9' - 6' hal X> FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 0 - 60 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR LEVEL â€¢ 5' - 6, EX15TING FIRM FLOOR LEVELâ€¢ 2' - 60 SCALE: 1/811 = 11-011 5<16â„¢G GARdGE LEVE-:0'-0' PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 'r' - -I-- INVA 3NI13aln9 M3IA3H NDIS30 NO[1901-IddÂ¥ 3Sn aNVI 800E-9 SNOI1VA313 0390dONd 30~IS38 HO~-11NVAb18 ON 133rold 31VO 49 NMVUO 311!1 OOVU0100'N3dSV July 16,2008 Andrew Dolan 2681 Kalmia Avenue THE CITY OF AspEN Boulder, CO 80304 Re: 1005 Waters Avenue negotiation period Dear Mr. Dolan, In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program. The Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force was appointed to lead that evaluation and to make recommendations to Council. Ordinance #48 is expected to ultimately be superseded by code amendments that come out of the Historic Preservation Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects if they: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. The Land Use application submitted by Gretchen Greenwood on behalf of Nancy Bryant triggers an Ordinance #48 review of 1005 Water Avenue. Your consent to the ' application has been received via a hand delivered letter by Ms. Greenwood on July 16, 2008. According to the application, Ms. Bryant selected Option C. Within the 90 day negotiation period the City of Aspen Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owners to discuss the Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a historic landmark. Please contact me (970-429-2778) if you would like to discuss benefits for your property; for example, your lot could contain a duplex residence if it is landmarked which is not permitted on a lot of your size in the R-15 zone district if it is not landmarked. Landmarked properties are also eligible to establish Transferrable Development Rights for sale on the free market and Floor Area bonuses among other dimensional benefits. During the negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission is scheduled during their regular public meeting on July 23,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Community Development Staff will present HPC with the proposed changes and the characteristics of the Potential Historic Resource. This is not a public hearing. HPC will make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. City Council will meet on August 11, 2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall. Staff shall confer with City Council regarding the proposed Land Use application, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource. Council may decide to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Please feel free to contact me (970) 429-2778 or saraa@ci.aspen.co.us or Amy Guthrie (970) 429-2758, amyg(*ci.aspen.co.us with any questions, concerns or if you would like to schedule an appointment to discuss benefits for historic properties. Sincerely, .Â·7 â‚¬71 /Â«\ t t Â»,> Sara Adams Historic Preservation Planner CC: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer James R. True, Special Counsel July 16,2008 < Nancy Bryant 1005 Waters Avenue THE CIn' oF AsPEN Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1005 Waters Avenue negotiation period Dear Ms. Bryant, In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program. The Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force was appointed to lead that evaluation and to make recommendations to Council. Ordinance #48 is expected to ultimately be superseded by code amendments that come out of the Historic Preservation Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects if they: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. The Land Use application submitted by Gretchen Greenwood on your behalf triggers an Ordinance #48 review of 1005 Water Avenue. Your consent to the application has been received via a hand delivered letter by Ms. Greenwood on July 16, 2008. According to the application you selected Option C. Within the 90 day negotiation period the City of Aspen Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owners to discuss the Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a historic landmark. Please contact me (970-429-2778) if you would like to discuss benefits for your property; for example, your lot could contain a duplex residence if it is landmarked which is not permitted on a lot of your size in the R-15 zone district if it is not landmarked. Landmarked properties are also eligible to establish Transferrable Development Rights for sale on the free market and Floor Area bonuses among other dimensional benefits. During the negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission is scheduled during their regular public meeting on July 23,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Community Development Staff will present HPC with the proposed changes and the characteristics of the Potential Historic Resource. This is not a public hearing. HPC will make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. City Council will meet on August 11,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall. Staff shall confer with City Council regarding the proposed Land Use application, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource. Council may decide to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Please feel free to contact me (970) 429-2778 or saraa(*ci.aspen.co.us or Amy Guthrie (970) 429-2758, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us with any questions, concerns or if you would like to schedule an appointment to discuss benefits for historic properties. Sincerely, 7 ,-7 h ./ CÂ»-/ Sara Adams Historic Preservation Planner Ce: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer James R. True, Special Counsel July 16,2008 < Chris Leverich 1005 Waters Avenue THE CITY oF ASPEN Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1005 Waters Avenue negotiation period Dear Mr. Leverich, In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program. The Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force was appointed to lead that evaluation and to make recommendations to Council. Ordinance #48 is expected to ultimately be superseded by code amendments that come out of the Historic Preservation Task Force. 1005 Waters Avenue is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects if they: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. The Land Use application submitted by Gretchen Greenwood on behalf of Nancy Bryant triggers an Ordinance #48 review of 1005 Water Avenue. Your consent to the application has been received via a hand delivered letter by Ms. Greenwood on July 16, 2008. According to the application, Ms. Bryant selected Option C. Within the 90 day negotiation period the City of Aspen Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owners to discuss the Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a historic landmark. Please contact me (970-429-2778) if you would like to discuss benefits for your property; for example, your lot could contain a duplex residence if it is landmarked which is not permitted on a lot of your size in the R-15 zone district if it is not landmarked. Landmarked properties are also eligible to establish Transferrable Development Rights for sale on the free market and Floor Area bonuses among other dimensional benefits. During the negotiation period, meetings are scheduled with the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission is scheduled during their regular public meeting on July 23,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Community Development Staff will present HPC with the proposed changes and the characteristics of the Potential Historic Resource. This is not a public hearing. HPC will make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed changes and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. City Council will meet on August 11,2008 at 5pm in Aspen City Hall. Staff shall confer with City Council regarding the proposed Land Use application, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission' s assessment of the Resource and the effects of the proposed changes upon the Resource. Council may decide to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Please feel free to contact me (970) 429-2778 or saraa@ci.aspen.co.us or Amy Guthrie (970) 429-2758, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us with any questions, concerns or if you would like to schedule an appointment to discuss benefits for historic properties. Sincerely, 32\ j U> Sara Adams Historic Preservation Planner CC: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer James R. True, Special Counsel THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: May 29,2008 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 0025.2008.ASLU (1025 Waters Ave). -Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. Floor plans for the entire house (existing and proposed) need to be submitted. 2. _Only proposed elevations are provided. Both existing and proposed elevations need to be provided_ 3. The street facing elevation shows two non-orthogonal windows, rather than only one as allowed per code. You may want to redesign or request a variance. 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 satis faction of the City o f Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. O 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. Thank You~ 4nnifetrbelan, Deputy Director City o f Aspen, Community Development Department C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\Desktop\organized\G Drive\Templates\Land Use Cases\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc 7 , RECEIVED CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 6 cotgy op . 2008 Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees NITY D '\SPEN CITY OÂ¥ ASPEN Chereinafler CATY) and N 4 Ncy AR VA At-r EVELOPMENT (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. .9 APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an applihtion for 1Â·le.SiDEN-TiAL be.SteN STAN PARÂ£>s VAÂ·elANCE i (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment ofall processing fees is a condition precedent to a *termination ofapplication completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope ofthe proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional *ests to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentiondÂ¢i above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension ofprocessing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: f) Dlit lt) ftskt' ct,q,U Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: 4333 Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number: NAN<-1 62YANT I006 WATERS AVE ASPEN; ColoR A.Do 8/011 . ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM prdâ€ž. b rw ant Lt.0.1 ch h<no*le) 46=*. Na,4 8>,4 ant Â· Chna Le,*w,ch Location: /0065 JÂ¢6*J 4 Zone District: R. Is Lot Size: -*QQ=,7 71'4 Lot Area: 7892. 60 s. h. ( for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area mafbe reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existin& N/A Proposed. N /A Number of residential units: Existing: / Proposed: / Number of bedrooms: Existing: .3 Proposed: 42 Proposed % ofdemolition (Historic properties only): B/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing2,2~1 Ailowable:5,75(0 Proposed:-5,59/ Principal bldg. hâ‚¬ight. Existing:t208_Allowable:,95 Â£O" Proposed:.25 (O* Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: Af/A proposed: N/A On-Site parking: Eristing: 2 Required: 2 proposed: 2 No cHANC.Â£ % Site coverage: Existing: N/A Required: A//A Proposed.- N /A % Open Space: Existing: N lA Required: N/A Proposed: NIA- Front Setback. Existing: /4 28* Required:25 ~0 * Proposed: /4 Â£ 6 /vo (*94&Â£ Rear Setback: Existing:/5 L / " Required: /0 LO. Proposed: /3 1/ *No C *NGE Combinedf Â®. Existing: N~ A Required: N/A Proposed: A// A gA~97* Side Setback: Existing: O LO * Required: /0 t O . Proposed: 6 10#No e t#VVGE NVE91- Sidesebae*. Existing: SLI Required: /0 LD" Proposed: SL/" No C 8#9NGâ‚¬ CombinedSidew. Existing: A/~A Required: /1/~A proposed: Af/A Distance Between Existing N /A-_-1Kequired: -~LA -Proposedz_N~ A Buildings i * NlA: Nor A,Put#BLE Existing non-conformities or encroachments: p Ro N-T y Ago 'DET#Ack > EA>T YARD SETRACk, WENT DIDE fuRB hÂ« vanehonsreouested. 1>65/GN REy,E 8/ &Ult'ELLA//6 Pic 4/*t'f,6/. ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: Name: NANCI 8,2YANT / Cldlet S LEV de/CH Location: /005 WmE725 *WEÂ· La + 'Bic 846Â« 4/ (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) a737 /806.200/ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Cordthcn *,cut Wood Address: 910 Walnut at: A,p~t, CobcWâ€¢ 8;4/1 Phone #: 170 1725Â· 930& PROJECT: Name: 2424 ANT f UNEKLCH Â£E#log>el- /,409,72WN Address: 100 S WA71925. AVE ABPâ‚¬7V, co . W b O Phone #: 970Â· 91> 855? TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Â£ Conditional Use U Conceptual PUD U Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal Â£ Conceptual SPA C Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment D Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) 2 Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption U Subdivision I Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane D Lot Split D Temporary Use El Other: D Lot Line Adjustment U Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 91 4 4 LE FAmiLY gEl/DENcE 5 bED<20Dm EX#171Nco PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) RE~OPEL MNP M)O 1770N of 4 2Â£P/Zooms t>ECONE) 57bpy Ag)/710/7 w 7&771 2,4400Â®~ * G Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S ,Â® Pre-Application Conference Summary ~~ Attachment #],Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy ofall written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. mmokm ATTACHMENTS ror DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL MARCH 2008 1. Included in this application is a letter by the applicant that Gretchen Greenwood is authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Exhibit A. 2. Street Addr'â‚¬55: 1005 Waters Avenue A5pen, Colorado 8 1 Gi l Legal Description: Lots A, B and C lettered "A" Block C East Aspen Addition City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, 5tate of Colorado Parcel Identification Number: 27371828 2001 3. A disclosure of ownership 15 attached to this application. Exhibit B 4. An 8- 1/2" vicinity map is attached locating the 5Ubject parcel within the City of Aspen. Exhibit C 5. A Bite Improvement Survey is attached depicting the existing 5,te plan and the 51ope analy515 depicting the net lot area. Exhibit D G. A Ste plan depicting the proposed layout is attached as Exhibit E. The Residential Design Standards are listed on this sheet as well as the variances requested are noted here as well. 7. A written description of the proposal is below: The existing residence consists of a single family one-story residence built ill 19G4 with an effective construction and addition in 1979(Assessor's office statistics). The house was listed on the Historic Inventory In 2007. The applicants do not want their house hsted on the Historic Preservation Inventory, and are therefore seeking the variances through the Planning and Zoning Commission. A letter from the property owner consenting to the Ordinance 48 negotiations by Council is attached as Exhibit F. Page 2 The proposed development Consists of a second story addition and remodel on the main level of the north wing of the existing house, for the addition of new bedrooms. The proposed remodel and addition are within the existing building footprint. The existing single family regiclance was constructed to the zoning requirements at the time of the original construction. The existing non- conformities of the north, east and west setbacks were created on this property by the City of Aspen, when the zoning was changed after this building was constructed ill 1964. For this reason, the building is a non conforming structure. The remodel and addition ,5 being built within the footprint and does not increase the non conformity. Tile proposed addition has been able to meet all but 3 of the residential design standards In spite of the non conformity. This application requests three residential design standards for the addition of the second 5tory. The Residential Design Var'iances requested are as follows: Variance # 1 5ection: 26.410.040 A. 1. SITE DESIGN Building Orientation: The front fagade and orientation of the existing building is not parallel to the street. The residential design standards were not in effect at the time of the original construction in 1964 or the addition and remodel of the building in 1979. To meet this requirement would require a complete tear down of over !/2 of the building and it would further increase the non conformity. The proposed project 15 using the foundation and first floor framing and parts of the existing roof for the remodel and addition. Please note on Exhibit E, that the residential design standard5 are listed next to the site layout. Every attempt has been made to meet most of the design standards Var'iance # 2 5ection:26.410.040 5.1. BUILDING FORM 5econdary Mass.: 5ince this is a remodel and 100% of the existing footprint and 65% of the structure Is remaining on the property, it 5 not possible to meet the variance due to the 5mall scope of the proposal and the fact that the adaptation of this residential design standard Is impractical and would create more removal of existing materials that is not necessary for the scope of thi5 project. Fage 3 Variance # 3 Section:26.410.040 C.2.b. PARKING GARAGE AND CARFORTO 2.b. The existing front fagade of the garage Is not I O feet further from the street than the front most wall of the house. The existing garage and fagade is to remain and used in its present location. Only the existing roof overhang and a portion of the garage entry on the east side of the existing garage Is being removed to reduce the non conformity of the garage on the front yard setback as well as the east side yard setback. The foundation wall and roof framing are remaining. This propo5al reduceD the non conformity of the structure. 9. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations of the development are attached as Exhibit G- I and G-2. 28. A neighborhood Block Plan Is attached as Exhibit M. 29. A Roof Plan is attached as Exhibit I. 30. A neighborhood Block plan will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Meeting. March 3,2008 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer 130 5outh Galena 5treet Aspen, Colorado 81Gll Dear Ms. Guthrie, Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Architects ts authorized to act on behalf of the owner, Nancy Bryant. My address Is as follows: Nancy Bryant 1005 Waters Avenue Aspen. Colorado 81Gll 9709254502 The office of the Architect is as follows: Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut 5treet, Aspen Colorado BIGI I 970-925-4502. Sincerely, Nancy Bryant EXHIErT A ,t Il!~~EIS 11Ile Insumnce Grporation V .4..A'%1>â€¢lk'.41:â€¢.,&/Aff ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance American Land Title Association (1966) AUTHORIZED AGENT: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. 3mFLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766-PHONE 970-925-6527-FAX 877-217-3158-TOLL FREE E-MAIL ADDRESS: TITLE MATTERS: CLOSING MATTERS: Vince Higens-vince@sopris.net TJ Davis-tjd@sopris.net Tom Twitchell-tomt@sopris.net Joy Higens-joy@sopris.net Brandi Jepson-brandi@sopris.net (Closing & Title Assistance) Leigh Nokes-leigh@sopris.net (general office assistance) Issued By Igwyenslitle Insurance@poration Home Office. 101 Gateway Centre Parkway, Gateway One Richmond, Vi,yinia 23235-5153 1-800-446-7086 B 1004-268 A(HIBrT 8 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: August 28, 2007 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT-7112PRO 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: (c) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ Premium$ Proposed Insured: Rate: 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: CHRIS LEVERICH and NANCY BRYANT and ANDREW DOLAN 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of State of COLORADO and is described as follows: All of Lots A, B and C in Block 41, East Aspen Addition as shown on the plat of the East Aspen Additional Townsite Entry recorded as Document 108453 in Ditch Book 2A at Page 252. PrrKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG. 1 601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO. 81611 This Commitment is invalid 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax unless the Insuring 877-217-3158 Toll Free Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT Countersigned: IS-SUED BY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Im17ealitle Insumnce @rp,omtion LAWYERS Title Insurance CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or polides committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers, the Commitment to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION fe: f _. 2. 2% 4 1 - (/(S â‚¬ A Â£4 OW 4 f /44 1925 72% Attest: / Secretary 4 / By: President '4,2::11/ Conditions and Stipulations 1. The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires adual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in under taking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or polides committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. ALTA Commitment - 1966 Cover Page Form 1004-268 ORIGINAL Pitkin County Title, Inc. Privacy Policy We collect nonpublic information about you from the following sources: Â· Information we receive from you, such as your name, address, telephone number, or social security number; Â· Information about your transactions with us, our affiliates, or others. We receive this information from your lender, attorney, real estate broker, etc.; and Information from public records We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about our customers or former customers to anyone, except as permitted by law. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information to provide the products or services requested by you or your lender. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that company with appropriate federal and state regulations. SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 185 at Page 69. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Raw Water License Agreement recorded November 19, 2001 as Reception No. 460980. 9. Deed of Trust from : CHRIS LEVERICH and NANCY BRYANT and ANDREW DOLAN To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : WESTSTAR BANK Original Amount : $ 1,600,000.00 Dated : October 24,2005 Recorded : October 28,2005 Reception No. : 516824 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2 NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominium or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122) (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate or other appropriate research will be ordered from the County Treasurer/Assessor by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment, the fee for this service shall be $20.00 for each parcel of real property and an additional $10.00 per parcel of real property if personal property is also involved in the transaction. Pursuant to House Bill 01-1088 (CRS 10-11-123) If Schedule B of your commitment for an Owner's Title Policy reflects an exception for mineral interests or leases, pursuant to CRS 10-11-123 (HB 01-1088), this is to advise: (a) There is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals or geothermal energy in the property and (b) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owners' permission. NOTE: The policy(s) of insurance may contain a clause permitting arbitration of claims at the request of either the Insured or the Company. Upon request, the Company will provide a copy of this clause and the accompanying arbitration rules prior to the closing of the transaction. NOTICE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION FINANCING: If it is not disclosed to the company that the loan to be insured hereunder is in fact a construction loan, any coverage given under the final policy regarding mechanic or materialmen's liens shall be deemed void and of no effect. LANDAMERJCA Dear LandAmerica Customer: The Financial Services Modernization Act recently enacted by Congress has brought many changes to the financial services industry, which includes insurance companies and their agents. One of the changes is that we are now required to explain to our customers the ways in which we collect and use customer information. The statement attached to or on the reverse side of this letter is the privacy policy of the LandAmerica family of companies. The three largest members of the family - Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and Transnation Title Insurance Company - may issue policies and handle real estate closings in virtually every part of the country. A number of other companies in the family provide other real estate services, and some operate more locally. You may review a list of LandAmerica companies on our website (www.landam.com). You may also visit our website for an explanation of our privacy practices relating to electronic communication. Our concern with the protection of your information has been a part of our business since 1876, when the company that is now Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company issued its first policy. We will continue to protect the privacy, accuracy, and security of customer information given to us. No response to this notice is required, but if you have questions, please write to us: LandAmerica Privacy P.O. Box 27567 Richmond, VA 23261-7567. LandAmerica Companies Title Insurance Companies: Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company of New Jersey, Industrial Valley Title Insurance Company, Land Title Insurance Company. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Title Insurance Company of America, Transnation Title Insurance Company, Transnation Title Insurance Company of New York Relocation and Mortgages: Commonwealth Relocation Services, CRS Financial Services, Inc., LandAmerica Account Servicing, Inc. Title Agents: Austin Title Company, ATACO, Inc., Albuquerque Title Company, Atlantic Title & Abstract Company, Brighton Title Services Company, Capitol City Title Services, Inc., CFS Title Insurance Agency, Charleston Title Agency; Charter Title Company of Fort Bend, Galveston, and Sugarland; Commercial Settlements, Inc., Commonwealth Land Title Company; Commonwealth Land Title Company of Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Washington, Congress Abstract Corp., Cornerstone Residential Title, Cumberland Title Company, First Title & Escrow, Inc., Gulf Atlantic, Harbour Title, HL Title Agency, Lawyers Title Company; Lawyers Title of Arizona, El Paso, Galveston, Nevada, Pueblo, San Antonio, Lawyers Title Settlement Company, Lion Abstract, Longworth Insured, Louisville Title Agency of Central Ohio, Lorain County Title Company, M/1 Title Agency, NIA/ Lawyers Title Agency, Oregon Title, Park Title, Partners Title Company, Pikes Peak Title Services, RE/Affirm Title Agency, Rainier Title Company, Residential Abstract, Residential Title, Rio Rancho Title, Texas Title Company, Title Transfer Service, Inc., TransOhio Residential Title Agency, Transnation Title & Escrow, Union Title Agency, University Title Services, Wilson Title Company Appraisa/s and Anc#/ary Services: LandAmerica OneStop, Inc. Form 3391-6 (May 2001) LANDAMERICA PRIVACY POLICY What kinds of information we collect. Most of LandAmerica's business is title insurance, but there are companies in our family that provide other real estate services to consumers. We collect information about you, (for instance, your name, address, telephone number), and information about your transaction, including the identity of the real property that you are buying or financing. We obtain a copy of any deeds, notes, or mortgages that are involved in the transaction. We may get this information from you or from the lender, attorney, or real estate broker that you have chosen. Our title insurance companies then obtain information from the public records about the property so that we can prepare a title insurance policy. When we provide closing, escrow, or settlement services, mortgage lending, or mortgage loan servicing, we may get your social security number, and we may receive additional information from third parties including appraisals, credit reports, land surveys, escrow account balances, and sometimes bank account numbers to facilitate the transaction. If you are concerned about the information we have collected, please write to us. How we use this information. The company giving or specifically adopting this notice does not share your information with marketers outside its own family. There's no need to tell us to keep your information to ourselves because we share your information only to provide the service requested by you or your lender, or in other ways permitted by law. The privacy laws permit some sharing without your approval. We may share internally and with nonaffiliated third parties in order to carry out and service your transaction, to protect against fraud or unauthorized transactions, for institutional risk control, and to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies. Companies within a family may share certain information among themselves in order to identify and market their own products that they think may be useful to you. Credit information about you is shared only to facilitate your transaction or for some other purpose permitted by law. How we protect your information. \Ne restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need the information to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with law to guard your nonpublic personal information. We reinforce the company's privacy policy with our employees. Agents that may be covered by this policy. Often, your transaction goes through a title insurance agent. Agents that are part of the LandAmerica family are covered by this policy. Agents that are not part of the LandAmerica family may specifically, in writing, adopt our policy statement. Form 3391-6 (May 2001) 49 11 6 P Aspen Street Map ,/I~41! r v v 03*26 [*h> Â·: Â·. 4 5 6 N F' WA FÂ©i.Â·i .. ~ 4 WE 46 --C: ~ 3:BÂ·A l.. I Â»th. -44 /4%93 -d, He --~ 4 '*1% 01, f../. 1 /440#04 -' /.-\0 :6<7..Â©1.... P#r .0-1.- 4.-1 , \p, r-~\-0 <44 Niouhawk~ s - NAÂ·lit--, : XÂ»to* A 0%".430%21 -3- Creek . 8/1 4 44 121'gyâ€ž@Â§@8Â« --$4 fal *Tal93-0 / i Rd -L_.Â» EL ul , 58#18* 5 1- t , * %;> Iynti-g~407 2. Francis St wizE:V . 71' ..i Numbered Street List ~ou hb W 3. Midland Ave , *lin 1 4. Rlverilde Ave N 440 - '-- 1.1111 1,0.PS'llzD i 5. 5. Midland Park PI i ' 8. Lacet Ct ,947Tt'! .fÂ·" 6. Mayflower Ct 1'42:<Â·: t-~: 7. McSklmming Rd ; Allw'.Â« 4, Rub 0 1 9. Matchless Dr 10. South Ave \/6[iak Ln / 4 . 11. Brown Ln 4 Gillespie St N 12. Luke Short Ct b .10Â«3.1 f Hallam ~ 13. Harold Ross O + A 'D. e Aspen' 1 4. werhoven CI CO t Ake <%/, A W mu ler % S ruce St m + IV ... - 9. Vin t C~ ~ e amst Pu '4. 2 Se Â·S Faj{Â¥Â£Â« .- 4 (27 2 Â£ 2 2 2 8/Ge. b ~ /5800 ~ * -IN'.:.> 1 GO 448 2 af *02 64# . $ - 6 1 - H . mat Rio o Molly -1 I W 2 , 2 9- G=2e *c Gibson Â·- =IE.-1.'..1 84 2 0 : 69 2 - 2 8 0 0. . u d-Â«- 2 Say 0 00 *2 . .C e Park - + 8 #*La. 4 qu C, 0 9 4544/' f -E*~7 4.- 2 CO Points of interest Legend . T 5 & 0 : 0 4 0 W 4: e en St Koch ' c ~2 22&1%:5Â°Â°' L~** 0 0 ~ #F~: s 0 44>-2--- < ~ < 1 4 0=lei'-.*I 3. Police Department 1 0 e -- i, D fic, 4, i'l. f,Je'irb, 1,1 - t ..:01 1 .- .. 4. Visitor Center J.gm.-'.1 5. Library e ',r 6. Art Museum e. 0 9 AevE a 1 Â§13Â·rÂ· Â·Â· 7. Courthouse 2 41" 1 m . 1 8. City Hall CO 141*72 ..... 9. Transit Center U ; Mate 8 1* i p!578'5 XS :,;v9-1-1 - + I #h...RAPA 8 P Â£ N - ~ Grov0 . 4 ~' 4 <1Westv,ew El ,-/~1 i." 1, Rd M *141 ~. 21':?1'.., 9 11 4,114:11 : 11 , 50' Lk#: . -a , 1- 'U|'*44 4 ~e d 82 ,-42 5 Aspen Mountain Ski Area 4 0:6%9 SCALE 252...ip:' Â· ' 1 - 1 . 1 1- A 4 6 4 444 4/1212, . . , 1Pt-/p/-: ~.2 0 25 .5 .75 Miles ,/ 10 1 WTAL,.: 'diÂ«.e Â·- -. 9,11â€¢*1*.. r " 'All'.tÂ·Â· . ~1 005 Wak--$ Avi- 3fanf Â·baxic z_ ~5/LO/, c.-4 FIHINT C PW~~3 /1- f Snea :unoIN u SW f March 2G, 2008 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer 130 5outh Galena 5treet Apen, Colorado 81 G i l Dear IV15. Guthrie, I have read the Ordinance 48 negotiations quidebnes by the City Council and I consent to the process. Sincerely, \A\(bull /1 luta,"X- Nancy Bryant 2*77 ArcIMS Viewer Page 1 of 2 .ill/-*. * 1//1960/al:MI/:it:ZE;Jrilo-~lifi,0,0,/Rili7<Zili:::illille 'dililliz MI/1. Carbondale 1.~f 2 li> Imilike. 0/LogoÂ· 443 Town of Snowmass Village i.--Â· -Â·,~,~:~ 4#..:7:4&:ille li /1 /4 : - 7, HÂ¥92 r...=Fm~ 42 1015, _ 4~ 9-h 1 '799,~ 39,4~72"g="h<' Eaal Aspim Addilioll : f'<~Ip 1.0 = - i . /.:r â€¢ ~~ 9 4,25-2 'Â· 4 9/79 . -CL , 'fi'I#J.- 92-jc .:2 , f ..2 2%2*., m 2# -- - 9.-A .L Â«,6 .Le /344 \79Â£,mill"-64 4 r Â· #at . i,,Ir-..<4,464 . D..1.immi 6,00:/4/2/*1 1 4"31 ti Rive' Glen _ ' , .li~~4~I 211--7 Pri. -Ili:/1/Will'.-7---2/9/WAbilia,<A:ke,Pe--0/ i 4 4 940. '244./4/~AL - ilit 4 4 /7 , 0 , 1 1,/- -2, :- - r/i: aY //AP"//41* ....Ft.Â·: 4 . I -4 ~ - ; 10&/// 1050 -,W/W/2Â£. .1 -2~_ . '. . .'i , I 41 .6 1/4 7'E.8 4,8 901, C .4 .1050. I/, - Reanng Fork River : it . t f~ 900% 5 -- 0 --- r Â«- ./ 4179 *4.4/ 911~ 0 -2#.1 I ... 1 919 . 4, 1(05, : Kaâ€¢1Glic :1 46 - 41 ' P . 1023, i.' 11CQ - ,.f ~ ~~ ~ 101 S 1 '44 -2 . =. J /6. 31*1 < 7 :' - 124 - 02 11.04 \ f. ~Â£4 < -1 21 4 1 # el 423/i---Â·~ 610, , ./... 1 1-34 1 /> Calderwool -1Â£1 . \ 14.,~'.~---LI f rns. Ll F 1 - r!44:r--i.-*4.71 ~~ 117~~i it; -2/41= I r 4 - 1<4 #i -1+. 5;. ,- *Affi, 4.~~ 1 1109 1*, , -17.- 2 /4 F . . 9 .Â· . pr- 9 1.icÂ· i i. d :Â·IA-,-'11 3 Co.r.-gt ,C; 1992 3)33 2 :-,Â·Ri 1-,c - % Â£~~1215â€ž 't~ -_ , - -m- 't =.Â»~A - 49,~6, Ak/%# http://205.170.51.230/website/parcels/MapFrame.htm 5/13/2008