HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.311 W North St.A79-92CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 10 2 92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 0 2735- 124 -16 -002 A79 -92
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: Block Conditional Use Review
Project Address: 311 West North St.
Legal Address: Lots 3, 4 & west 1/2 Lot 5, Block 40, Hallam's
Addition to the City of Aspen
APPLICANT: Beate & Martin Block
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: James R. Weaver
Representative Address /Phone: 311
W.
North
Aspen,
CO 81611 5 -7631
------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 912
#
APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER $ 90
#
PLATS RECEIVED 3
HOUSING $ 56'
ENV. HEALTH $�
TOTAL $ 1057
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:_ 1 STEP: X 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date 3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: NO
CC Meeting Date
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
�p� ',(e? DATE
-
4 ,2` FINAL
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
REFERRED:
ROUTING:
�9NG
City Engineer
Open Space
_ City Atty _
Housing _
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
7i INITIALS: 5w
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DUE: 1012 V
DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
_Zoning _Env. Health
other:
#354165 ,� /22/93 10:40 Rec $1O.00 Bf: 704 PG 114
Silvia Davis, Pit4.-An Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.Oo
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE
DEFERRAL AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1 9 day
of Al L4 &r H 19 3by and between l3c�tr Z&,k L, ,.:,
(hereinafter eferred to a " L3cUig B� ") and the TY OF
�ru5�r ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to
as the "City ").
RECITALS
1. Ups is the owner of the real property
described in Exhii itached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, and referred to herein as the "Property ".
2. By virtue of m.:(Q a� 2'kJ Q\.Je11Il. 6 g&'-f
3/1 W. Afe r +L Q.L. Ar ne.. /'n. a i i ., Za_ +-- 7r leis (e-
i6 required to' pay an affordable housing
impact fee ( "Impact Fee") to the City.
3. a 71,A, has submitted evidence to the
Asp Pit in County Housing Office sufficient to establish that
he/ he is a qualified "working resident" as that term is defined
in icle III of the Aspen Land Use Code and has requested that
his /her obligation to pay the Impact Fee be deferred and adjusted
as provided in Section 5 -703 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Aspen /Pitkin Housing Office has authorized deferral of said fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties
agree as follows:
1. �o 10r acknowledges his er )obligation to pay to
the City an affordable housing impact fee in he amount established
by the rules and regulations in effect at the time of payment.
2. In accordance with Section 5 -703 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, the City agrees that the foregoing obligation to pay the
Impact Fee shall be and 's hereby deferred until such time as the
Property is sold by resident ,p , or a subsequent owner who was
a qualified working at the time of acquisition, to a buyer
who is not a qualified working resident ( "non- qualified buyer ").
In the event of such a sale, the fee shall be due and payable on
the date of closing (the date on which the deed conveying title is
recorded) and is payable concurrently with RETT (Real Estate
Transfer Tax). Nothing herein shall prevent or preclude
from paying the Impact Fee at an earlier time.
3. The amount of the Impact Fee which has been deferred
hereby shall be adjusted in proportion to the change in value of
the Property between its value on the date hereof and its value on
the date of resale to a non - qualified buyer. The value on the date
hereof is agreed to be $ NS�oie1'D%Spa�000 The value on resale shall
be the value of the total consideration paid by the buyer. In no
#3541&,.02/22/93 10:40 Rec $10_00`:X 704 PG 115
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
,r
case shall the fee be adjusted downward to an amount less than 25 %,
or upward to an amount greater than 50 %, of the Impact Fee ($_
� 4 J ) which has been deferred hereby.
4. This Agreement shall be recorded by the Aspen / Pitkin
County Housing Office in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of
Pitkin County. Upon payment of the Impact Fee, the City shall
execute and record a release of the provisions hereof.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto
and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, executors, and
personal representatives.
Executed in duplicate originals the day and year above first
written.
OWNER (S)
AME: NAME:5
Mailing Address: ail /li. /Ver-�-u 5�,
c ne.— `Q Of &/I • /3S'to
STATE OF G D )
COUNTY OF _)
The forego n
day of
SS.
instrument was acknowled d b fore me is
* 19C
�/ , by
(Owner's Name(s))
W'?;;tes ��o -nd and official seal.
on? expires: My Comminion "pires 9/27/96
(Date)
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN /PITRIN COUNTY HOUSING OFFICE
City Planning Director Housing Director
planning:wp:deferral.agreement
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED DUPLEKING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 3, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by Beate and Martin Block, 311 W. North St., Aspen, CO
requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for a proposed
duplexing of the Block Residence, located at 311 W. North St.,
Aspen, CO. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920 -5090
9/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
U
j
October 2, 1992
Kim Johnson
Planner
Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Kim,
Please find attached our Application for Conditional Use for
a proposed duplexing of the Block Residence, located at 311
West North Street, Aspen. Y
In that the landmark and conditional use applications are
scheduled to be processed concurrently, this application
supplements information already provided in the HPC Landmark
Designation and Conceptual Review Application, and includes
the following items:
2.1 Completed Land Use Application Form (CU)
4.3 Written continuation of Land Use Application (CU)
Minimum Submission - Attachment #2 (CU)
Specific Submission - Attachment #4 (CU)
10. 1 set of 11 "x17" reduced copies of all drawings
including existing and proposed site plans,
floor plans, and elevations
11. 3 set of full size drawings as above
13.1 Check for $ 1057 for application and review fee
deposit
14. Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development
Application Fees
Sincerer
Jakd Vickery,
Consultant Architect
Jain R. Weaver Architect
�3T1 West North
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925 -7631 blochd02.wps
<LL1tfLiY7C1YL' 1
DSE APPI CA=Ctl Fum
1) Project Name BZ.pGK R�SlDEAJG�
2) Project Zecati«i 3/l A/oKTN 5! �S�tl Gam. TS
3
THE �EiT H/�Gr of GOT 5 �ljLaGK �Fo% NQ/LQ� 3 440177aI% 70 ?z{6
(indicate street ads. 1� rtmiwrc, lecJdl�
- '
appropriate) clr� oFSlSiE O[Ta /cJ GoUUr*�, cULO2�L�.
3) Present 7.Cning e
4) It Size 75/ X 1120
y �
5) Alicant•s Name, Address & Phone # �'�TE d' [ V�l977IJ G{CDGK 3//
(i�e7N sT�H�aEZJ G� /G // 925- 7743
'ep�tive.s dame. Address & Plxxbe $ ILt UF5 2 VE.2
!l Uo2TL( 5T A'5'06-ZJ GO �lloll 425 -7(03!
7) qype Of jPPIlyc ati rn (Please cbeck all that apply) : :,•
✓ tbnditirnal Use omcq3tLml SPA C =X)q l Histadc Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final. His ur-;c Dev.
_ 8040 Qeenline cmoepbml PJD _ Minor Historic Dev.
Steam min Final PCID Historic Demolitial
_ Mountain View Plane Subdivisian Hi stoLic Designatim .
Condminiunization Text/Map Anmxbent GbQS A1Lotme . It
Sat Sp71t4Iat Line. _— Em=pticn
Adjustnent
S/ t/GLF FA N/ L c/ SPL/f GcdEL R�5 /OF(Jz/1 1cl 171l 1576 5f F .
g) Description of Development Application
;a l_ %z sTO.e � A•.00i r�ozJ �f /88 �! sQ FT Gcus /57��J/o
aF A 101,01A)6 eeO10 /< /TU/ez1 3 6EO2oo�rs�
3 B4r7-fe
lo) Eiave you attached the fcLloc+ing'_M;n;mm Sutm;�ion Gbntzcts
,Y Rise to Atta�t 2.
X__ Rye to Atta��t 3, Specific SUt mi -ssion Oast e
X Ruse to Attu 4, Review Standards for YO= ApQlication
2.1
4.3
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE - DUPLEX (CONT)
BLOCK RESIDENCE
311 WEST NORTH STREET
OCTOBER 2, 1992
(Attachment #, Item #)
(2 -1) see Owner's Authorization Letter in Landmark
Application
(2 -2) see Legal Description in Landmark Application
4
(2 -4) see Disclosure of Ownership in Landmark
Application
(2 -4) see Vicinity Map in Landmark Application
(2 -5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards:
This proposal is to add a duplex unit, attached in
a minimum way, to an existing residence designed
by Herbert Bayer. The existing residence with
1576 square feet is an historic resource and has
been and will be preserved virtually in tact. The
duplex unit will add about 1884 square feet to the
property to accommodate the needs of the family
which has owned it since 1965. The new unit is
sited to the rear and side of the existing
residence to minimize impact on the historical
resource and the site. The site is 7,500 square
feet.
Please see Items 4A through 4F below for a more detail
explanation of conformance to specific standards.
The proposed work is under review by the Historical
Preservation Commission and additional information is
available in the related Combined HPC Landmark Designation
and Conceptual Review Application.
(4 -A) The Aspen Land use code permits a duplex on Lots
of 7,500 square feet if the property is a
Designated Historical Landmark.
(4 -B) The duplex unit is a residential unit in the R6
Zone and is compatible with the residential
character of the immediate vicinity. The massing
of the units into two attached but distinct forms
is similar to the multiple structures occupying
some of the near by properties.
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE - DUPLEX (CONT)
BLOCK RESIDENCE
OCTOBER 2, 1992
(4 -C) The new unit's location to the rear, relatively
small size, continues architectural character, and
single family use will not create and additional
impact on the neighborhood.
(4 -D) Services will be an extension of the residential
services already in place and are adequate.
(4 -E) This proposal will offset the generation of any
new employees by contributing to the payment -in-
lieu program.
(4 -F) This proposal conforms to the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the
Code.
bloccu05.wps
M
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of CiU of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and 15E--A.TE 41AV=IJ 15L.494ic
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. 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 approval, 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 $ eEZ
which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post, approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
By Q�
DiW 6eMoore
City Planning Director
For Planning Office Use
Case Number
Case
Deposit or Flat Fee Amount:
APPLICANT
By:
Date. GAT 2, /992
Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health:
2
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Housing Director
Zoning Administration
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE:
Block Conditional Use Review
DATE:
October 7, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Beate and Martin Block.
Please return your comments to me no later than October 20, 1992.
Thank you.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON CC DIANE MOORE
CC BILL DRUEDING
From: Bill Drueding
Postmark: Oct 20,92 1:39 PM
Subject: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Message:
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME APPEARS TO BE FINE. THE REAR YARD
SET BACK FOR THE DECK IS O.K. HOWEVER THE STAIRS IN THE REAR YARD
APPEAR TO ENCROACH AND WOULD NEED A VARIANCE. REFERE TO OUR
DEFINITION SECTION UNDER "YARDS ". I WOULD NEED A PARKING PLAN. ONE
SPACE PER BEDROOM IS REQUIRED BY CODE. APPLICANT WHOULD PROVIDE THIS
PLAN OR GET VARIANCES NOW FOR PARKING.
t
i
October 1, 1992
Roxanne Elfin
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Roxanne,
Please find attached our combined Application for HPC
Landmark Designation for the residence designed by Herbert
Bayer at 311 West North, known as the Block Residence, and
HPC Conceptual Review for a proposed duplex unit on the rear
of this same lot. This property will need to be formally
added to the Historical Inventory.
Information provided for the Landmark Designation
Application (unmarked) and added information provided for
Conceptual Review (marked * items) include the following:
1. Introductory Letter by Owner
2. Combined Land Use Application Form
3. Herbert Bayer /Bauhaus summary
4. Compliance with Review Standards for Landmark
Designation
5. Disclosure of Ownership
6. Vicinity Map
7. Boundary Survey
8. Owner's Representative authorization
9. Owner's letter requesting designation grant and
waiving of park dedication fees
10. Historic Architectural Building Form (Inventory)
11. 1 set of 11 "x17" reduced copies of all drawings
including existing and proposed site plans,
floor plans, and elevations
12. 1 set of full size drawings as above
13. Check for $ 500 for HPC Review of Significant
Development fees
4.1 Supplement to Historic Preservation Development
Application
4.2 Compliance with Review Standards for HPC
Conceptual Review of Significant Development
Sinc
Jake�7icke.N?, Consultant Architect
ame �R.Weaver
Weth
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925 -7631
bloccr03.wps
1
311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611 -1350 (303) 925 -7743
August 19, 1992
Ms. Roxanne Eflin
Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
Aspen, CO, 81611
Dear Ms. Eflin:
The purpose of this letter is to request Historical Preservation status for our home at 311
W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611. This house, designed by Herbert Bayer and built in
1962 by George Vagneur, was purchased by us in the Spring of 1965.
We are Beate and Martin Block, who are the first and only owners of our home. Martin
Block is a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Northwestern University, Evanston,
Illinois, and has been professionally associated with the Aspen Center for Physics since
its inception. He is responsible for the creation of the Aspen Winter Physics Conference
Series, now a 3 week winter program, in its 9th year. Beate Block, who is fluent in 4
languages, was a professional language coach to some of the vocalists in the Aspen
summer music program. She now volunteers as a interpreter for the World Cup, and is a
volunteer in various community and music activities. In addition, she is active in the
Sister Cities program. Initially, we spent summers and winter holidays skiing in Aspen.
We now, as retirement approaches, are living in Aspen about 7 months of the year, being
here winter and summer. We anticipate permanent residence here in the very near future.
Our property consists of lots 3, 4 and the western half of lot 5, Block 40, in the Hallam's
addition adjacent to the city of Aspen. The address is 311 W. North St, Aspen, CO,
81611. The area of our lots is 7500 square feet, and there is an unpaved alley at the rear
of our property. When we purchased our home, it was not in the City of Aspen, but
rather, came under the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. Several years later, it was annexed
into the City of Aspen.
The lot was originally owned by Walter and Elizabeth Paepke. They sold it to George
Vagneur for development, under the stipulation that Herbert Bayer, the famous Bauhaus
architect, be the sole architect for the development of the property. The exterior of the
house has remained the original Bayer design. In 1977, we engaged Ted Mularz as the
architect to remodel the kitchen area. In 1989, we added some external storage under the
car port, and a hot tub. Essentially, even now, the house remains the original Bayer
design, and has been kept in mint condition by us. The house has its 3 bedrooms and 2
baths in a semi- basement, whose exterior walls are made of concrete brick. The second
floor, the living and kitchen area, is wood frame, with cedar interior and exterior. The
design is contemporary, and uniquely demonstrates the Bauhaus touches of its architect
We need more space. We have two married children, with families. When the children
and grandchildren come to visit us in Aspen (they love it here), the space problem
becomes more urgent. Further, when we are gone, we would like to leave two houses for
the two families. Hence, we are going to ask permission to build a duplex. This is the
reason why we need historical designation. Our property is 7500 sq. feet. According to
the Aspen code, we would need 8000 sq. feet to be eligible to build a duplex. However,
if the house is declared an historical landmark, we would be eligible to build a duplex
(Land Use Regulations, Aspen Code Sec. 5 -201, D. Dimensions required, 2, page 1609).
This designation would obviate the necessity of our selling this property and having yet
another tear -down, with a new monster house arising skyward in the West End.
The justification for our requesting this historical designation is that Herbert Bayer, the
internationally famous Bauhaus disciple, designed this contemporary home for an
important period in Aspen's history, as a post -war resort area. Not only is Herbert Bayer
famous internationally for his architecture and graphic arts, but, as is well known,. is
famous throughout Colorado for his design of our state flag. The duplex will have as its
architect James Weaver, who proposes to keep the original Bayer concept intact, and
remain faithful to the integrity of the original house. He comes to this task uniquely
equipped, having lived in our house for many years, while we were doing research in
Europe.
We sincerely hope that our request will be granted. It will aid immeasurably in
preserving the character and integrity of Aspen's West End. Aspen is not only Victorian,
but lives today. It's contemporary landmarks are as important to it as its Victorian roots.
Sincerely, n
Beate and Martin Block
M 1ltililCll'1Yl• 1
um USE APPUCMJMCN POEM
1) Project Name P 1,OGK iz�5 / DE tJGE
2) Project Iocation 3/l A1097P 5r ,A5,16� GO LOTS 3_ 4 e
-rk6 QJBr HACE OF GDi 5 LQCIG 40 GLAM I00177,04/ O E
(indicate str. a address, 1 ooic nmiier,.legal description r.*re
appropriate) G!%% OFAyfE Arl:lIJ G0VA1r!"1 GOZO,e� -L'b.
3) Present Zoning R (P 4) Lot Size 751 X 1O0
5) Applicant's Name, Address &Phone 9,57Arg g' 44,4077IJ UCDGK 3//
kJA1077Y :51- A4006) GD f //o// 925-- 7743
6 pep tive's Name, Address & Pbone �Q L fFS 2 u /�fi UE2
3!l .Lyeli( ST ifSPEZJ GO �rlG!l 425-7(03/
7) Type of Application (Please Cher3c all that apply)
Conditional Use omxn3tual SPA � Historic Dew.
Special geview _ _ Final SPA _ F1nal Historic c Dev.
_ 8040 Green line Conceptual P _ Minor historic Dev.
Steam min Final POD _ Historic Demolition
_ Mamrtain View Plane Subdivisicn �--Histozic Designation
pp,domini. i zation Text/Map AmenJment Q'QS Allotment
Tot Split/rot Line.
Adjustment
S /tIGGF F/a N /G� SPG /f GEVEL QES /DEiJ/GS /ri /7�l /57/0 57f��
3 6ED �OLt 5 Z 6 4TL/ eoo Lf5 /LuD 41iA-eWC-22 4�4,"ADRT .
,U U 9GZ
g) Description of Development Application
A l_ %2 sro � A.oDinorJ l�F /SS�i 54 Ft GcuS /5r���
Df A G /U /u6. 1PI /,)G geOAii / < /ru/E�J 3 BED¢DONS
3 BA n-I eooM 5
10) Have you attached the following?
�c Ruse to Att3, m �
2, Minimrm Sub icciCn +.,ents
X _ ResP� to Attadment 3, Specific Sutmi_«ien OaTtents
X Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your APPliccation
2
311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611 -1350 (303) 925 -7743
s
6oaol
August 27, 1992
Ms. Roxanne Eflin
Aspen Historical Preservation Officer
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Eflin:
Attachment 2, 2.
The street address and legal description of my property:
The property consists of lots 3, 4 and the western half of lot 5, Block 40, in the Hallam's
addition adjacent to the city of Aspen. The address is 311 W. North St, Aspen, CO,
81611.
Sincerely,
QC
The Beate S. Block ivmg Trust,
Beate S. Block, as Trustee
K
APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION (CONT)
BLOCK RESIDENCE
OCTOBER 1, 1992
Herbert Bayer Summary
The Block Residence at 311 West North Street was designed by
Herbert Bayer, teaching master of the Bauhaus and one of the
few "total artists" of the twentieth century. Mr. Bayer was
born is Haag, Austria, in 1900 and was accepted in 1921 as a
student at the Bauhaus in Weimer. He immigrated to the
United States in 1938. For over half a century he did
pioneering work in all of the fine and applied arts. He was
one of the major design and advertising consultants to
American Industry. No other designer had as much influence
on design for industry, nor did as much to improve visual
communication in the world at large. Herbert Bayer designed
the Colorado state flag. Bayer's work is the subject of
several books.
In 1945, Herbert Bayer met Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke who
invited him to visit Aspen and give an opinion on its
development. Several months later Bayer moved to Aspen and
became a design consultant for the development of Aspen as a
ski resort and ultimately as a cultural center. From 1946
to 1965 he designed the following Aspen structures:
1946
Sundeck restaurant;
1950
restoration of the Wheeler Opera House;
1953
Seminar Building for the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies;
1954
Meadows lodging development;
1958
Aspen Meadows restaurant;
1961
Walter Paepcke Memorial Building;
1964
Aspen Festival Music Tent and its related
facilities;
1965
Eight Trustee townhomes at the Aspen
Meadows;
During this period he designed several private homes in
Aspen, three of which we know of. The Block Residence is
one which today remains virtually unchanged since it was
constructed. His own studio, built on Aspen Mountain during
this period, has been demolished. One other Bayer designed
residence is close by on Lake Street.
blochdjw.wps
APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION (CONT)
BLOCK RESIDENCE
OCTOBER 1, 1992
(attachment #, Item #)
(2 -2) Street Address
311 West North Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
0
(2 -3) Legal Description
Lots,3, 4 and Westerly 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 40
Hallam Addition, Township 10 'South, Range 84
West, Section 7, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado
(2 -4) See attached Vicinity Map
(2 -5) Compliance with Review'Standards
This property meets review standards C and D
and qualifies to be a local designated
landmark. It is one of three Aspen houses
known to be designed by the famous Bauhaus
architect Herbert Bayer who contributed much
to Aspen. It was built in 1962. Vernacular in
nature, it is a well maintained, unmodified,
and representative element of Aspen's
cultural renaissance and the eclectic
character of the West End. Please see the
Introductory Letter from the Owner and the
Summary letter by the architect for more
detail.
(3 -1) See attached Boundary Survey
(3 -2A) See attached letter authorizing James R. Weaver to
act as Owner's Representative.
(3 -2B) See attached letter requesting designation grant,
and waiver of Application and Park Dedication
Fees.
blochdap.wps
1837 Californza Street Denner, Colorado 80202
(303) 531,-9066
` 4(4W(�_ �otcFS
Transamerica Title Insurance Co
rullc� <, -e )burr) ,
Mr. & Mrs. Martin M. Block
724 Noyes Street
Evanston, Illinois (60201)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Block:
A Service of 5
011il Transamerica Corporation
IIII
March 10, 1971
Re: Land in Hallam's Addition
Pitkin County, Colorado
Your letter of February_20, has just been given to me ;. I.
am sorry for the delay in getting some answers to you aa3
hope that this will reach you before your trip to Aspen
on the 15th.
Regarding the Rea Action, a Quiet Title Decree has been issued
out of the District Court of Pitkin County on February 1, 1971,
quieting the title to the Real Estate owned by Rea, being
sometimes referred to as the EJ of Lot 5, and all of Lots 6 and
7, Block 40, Hallam's Addition. This action has taken care of
any problems REA had as concerns the description of the lands
in question, and also, since you join the Rea lands on the West,
definitely affixes the boundary between Rea and yourselves.
Nothing, to my knowledge, has transpired as of this date, other
than the proposed exchange of Deeds between you and the Lyeths',
which would affect your western boundary. The Deeds as sent to
you, would ascertain the exact boundary lines of your respective
properties, which should be the same as they are at present,
except that the proposed descriptions describe your properties
precisely, whereas reference to Hallams Addition is, at best,
ambigious, in that the Plat of Hallam's Addition has never been
recorded.
Concerning your question regarding whether the
encroach over the line of the survey onto your
is nothing of record, and I have nothing in ou
give this information. I believe the only way
would be to have an improvement survey made on
the location of all impro� vemenUs ereon. You
determine this yourselves if markers have been
of your lands.
Lyeth improvements
property; there
r files that would
to ascertain this
your lots, to show
may be able to
set at the corners
Since you are going to be in Aspen from the 15th to the 28th,
I would suggest that you meet with Mr. Jess Smith, our County
Manager for Pitkin County at 415 East Cooper Ave in Aspen;
It may be possible to have Mr. Albert Kern, Attorney in Aspen
meet with you also, and that this can be completed at that time?
Thank you very much.
Very truly yours,
cc: Jeas Smith
Albert Kern TANSAM CA /Z T E SURANCE COMPANY
s
]Y YY y € 5
9 x
W W
J 3
s W�
1
o'
nFZP-jr--4�r
C.OGaT 10 ►.j
3 I l W. pogT H ST,
(Be-r\n /MF-Q ZNO 439D SiS,�
VICI o ITY AAvAP
C2 -4)
Z
v
Ld
Ile
c-
"LIV f xA I �dQ -
cc
doo
/
IR
10 20 3c
= 10'
NAONIUKAENT75 AS -OWN.
7--T
5UKYEY0EF�"5 GEK-rIF1CA-Tff- -
C=-rI F`( i�-^T l5 f.�.P ACC V�iT�L1!
°ICi ,� SVZVc`f PE(ZF01�McD L) r E MI
-/I �(ON bN ALX UST 10, I `t °12 Or LETS 3, 4 T t�
W:5-1 OF LOT � , B�c�ct< ) t CAMS
?,pDj -71C) t TO E CITE CF /ASPEN, F'J-F N COUN7-6f;
FLF' I N� SUr -,VE V5, INC
. �FI /.ii 46ty i
I
VI1 -C71t� PERM(T Job Poo P
Title Client r�=
�CSI'S 3, 4 � Wiz S
H^{ -LAM`7 r�t7DfT(oN
311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611 -1350 (303) 925 -7743
August 27, 1992
Ms. Roxanne Eflin
Aspen Historical Preservation Officer
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Eflin:
This purpose of this letter is to designate James Weaver, 311 W. North St, Aspen, CO,
81611, (tel: 925- 7631), as my representative to act on my behalf, concerning the addition
of a duplex, and/or the designation of my home as an "historical monument ". My
address in Aspen is 311 W. North St, Aspen, CO, 81611, (tel: 925- 7743), and in Illinois
is 724 Noyes St., Evanston, IL, 60201 (tel: (708) 869 - 8880).
Sin erely,
The Beate S. Bloc ivmg Trust,
Beate S. Block, as Trustee
E
311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611 -1350 (303) 925 -7743
September 30, 1992
City Council
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO, 81611
Re: 311 W. North St.
Dear Sirs:
We hereby request award of the $2000 grant for having our property at 311 W. North St,
Aspen, CO, 81611, designated as an Historical Landmark.
We further request that Park Dedication fees be waived.
Sincerely,
Beate Block ICiving Trust
Beate Block, Trustee
10
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING /STRUCTURE FORM
State Site Number:
Photo Information:
Local Site Number:
Township 10 South Range * West Section _
USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960
Building or Structure Name:
Full Street Address:
Legal Description:
City Aspen C
Historic District /Neighborhood Name:
Owner: Private /State /Federal
Owner's Mailing Address:
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type:
X 7.5'
I DEti)aE
Architectural Style: * E,AUHA(J5 /��AYGK !`!6@245 VCKNJAC.yu�
Dimensions: L: V.6' x —��� = Square Feet: 1536
Number of Stories: * I%a
Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): * TAW&JLAR
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: * MAtUeB TREfe5 ol.l 1WE5T
15'
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and
Function (map number / name):
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: SHt =DS MoDJLAtZ c:�RAV6l. IVz112 s 3�z
Walls: * VERTICAL GEDAR i;<4
2E�lERSE LfG74iZD [34TTE
Foundation / Basement: * 4l/JTE17 (niJ AS
Chimney(s) : * SAME 'A5 WALLS �PAIIJTED METAL FFLUE ABOVE FZ04Z)F
windows: * L.4P.GE PICTURE IeVWPOWS AJD NLt:PD CA5EME'A)TS
Doors: PL), H �SCAI� -lED
Porches: * WmD Da::�K W 11KTF-EaKAL tL iN
General Architectural Description:
Page 2 of 2
State Site Number _
Local Site Number
FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Current Use: * iZES. Architect: HF- KeE'RT' FAVEX
Original Use: * iZES. Builder: VAGQr-upR
Intermediate Use: RES. Construction Date: 1462
Actual * Estimate * Assessor
Based On:
MODIFICATIONS AND /OR ADDITIONS
Minor _YS._ Moderate * Major * Moved * Date
Describe Modifications and Date: * KITGHE. 3 T DECK MaAA= -L . 14'77
Additions and Date:
NATIONAL /STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
Is listed on National Register; _ State Register
_ Is eligible for National Register; _ State Register
Meets National Register Criteria: A _ B _ C _ D _ E
Map
Kew_ Local Rating and Landmark Designation
— Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register
Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or
architectural integrity.
O _ Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations,
however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort.
Locally Designated Landmark
Justify Assessment:
AssoclaLea uonLeXLS ana n
Other Recording Information
Specific References to the Structure /Building: Pitkin County Court-
house Records e-:)WIJER5' KRr-OP,25 TICS 1W F717K10 gZa LISRAR
Archaeological Potential: * (Y or® Justify:
Recorded By:
Affiliation: A
Project Manager:
Date: *
4.1
SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
IMPORTANT
Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than
11 "x17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17" format.
APPLICANT: jF64 E AAA OZT71) BLGIG/G
ADDRESS: 3// t),og7W .57_,A5PC�, GD if /G /1
ZONE DISTRICT: R lO
LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 750D SQ FT
EXISTING FAR: 1914 54 FT
ALLOWABLE FAR: 345,0 SQ: FT.
PROPOSED FAR: zi $4 " 50' r-T
EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial):
PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial):
EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE:
PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE:
EXISTING %OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial):
PROPOSED % OPEN SPACE (Commer.):
NJUS��C�2n N OEUC9 d o a = 11453
2 50 54 <T �S3 4 `l l
U
EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pnnacat eioa.: tom[•
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: P"nr nab Rld'' I Y. O'
PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION:
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 3
PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES:
ON -SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
SETBACKS:
EXISTING:
ALLOWABLE:
PROPOSED:
D o
Front:
10.0
Front: 2D.o
Front:
—
Rear:
4R.0'
Rear: 10.0'
•
Rear:
11.01
22.5
Side:
Combined Front/Rear:
�'
4;.2
Side: 22.5
Combined Frt/Rr: ao'
Side:
Combined Front/Rear:
EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES1
NO1JE
ENCROACHMENTS:
VARIATIONS REQUESTED
(elieible for Landmarks Only, character compatibility finning
must be made by HPC):
FAR:
Minimum Distance Between Buildings:
SETBACKS:
Front:
Parking Spaces:
2
Rear:
Open Space (Commercial):
Side:
Height (Cottage Infill Only):
Combined FrtJRr:
Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only):
4.2
APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONT)
BLOCK RESIDENCE
OCTOBER 1, 1992
(attachment #, Item #)
(2 -1) see attached Owner's Authorization Letter
(2 -2) see attached Legal Description
y
(2 -3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership
(2 -4) see attached Vicinity Map
(2 -5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards:
This proposal would add a duplex unit to the
rear of the site currently occupied by a
Herbert Bayer designed residence. The new
unit would be very similar in style, design,
and treatment and would adapt a relatively
small house to the current needs of the
family that has occupied it since 1965.
The existing structure would remain virtually
in tact, except for the south west corner
behind the existing carport where the
two units would join. The new unit is to the
side and rear of the existing historic
resource. There would be only minor
demolition of some overhangs and decks to
make way for the new unit.
5A. The roof forms, general massing, modular
layout, and large glass areas are derived
from and similar to the historical resource
but, due to changes in code requirements and
current building technology, the construction
will be clearly distinguishable from the old.
It is compatible in character to the historic
resource.
The requested parking variation of 2 cars
allows existing mature trees and vegetation
to remain and keeps too many cars from
obscuring the foreground of the historical
resource. Four parking spaces are more than
adequate for this location and the needs of
these two units.
APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (CONT)
BLOCK RESIDENCE
OCTOBER 1, 1992
(con't)
5B. Although the neighborhood is mostly
Victorian, there are a number of houses that
are more contemporary or vernacular in
character. The one and a half story heights
of the existing structure and the addition
maintain a low profile relative to its
neighbors. The massing of the new square
footage in a secondary structure is
consistent with HPC directives and compatible
with other multiple structures occupying many
of the lots in this neighborhood.
5C. The proposed addition is to the rear and
side of the existing structure. In addition,
its placement preserves and utilizes the
existing rear yard and rear yard vegetation.
Preservation of the structure in tact is far
preferable to adding on or corrupting the
historical resource by adding an upper level
or attaching a large, new addition to the
old. In this manner, the cultural value is
maintained.
5D. The architectural integrity of the
existing structure is kept in tact with the
second unit clearly separate and it's own
architectural element. Only minor demolition
is required of one eave and some non - historic
deck structure.
(3A -1) see attached survey and site plan
(3A -2) Materials will match existing
(3A -3) see statements above - paragraphs 5 A thru D
(3A -4) This project falls into Category C: erection of a
structure greater then 250 gsf.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Block Conditional Use for a Duplex on an Historic
Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. - Continued Public Hearing
DATE: January 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this
item on November 3, 1992. The Commission decided to continue to
hearing to January 5, 1993 in order to allow City Council to
consider the request for Landmark Designation prior to the
Commission's final determination of the conditional use request.
Another Commission concern was the parking reduction on the parcel.
On December 8, 1992, Roxanne Eflin reported to the Commission that
the Council approved Landmark Designation on first reading, and
requested that the Commission leave the conditional use
continuation set for the January 5, 1993 date. The Commission
consented to this schedule.
On December 23, 1992, the Historic Preservation Committee approved
a Final Development Plan for 311 North Street. The applicant had
altered his plan to include on -site all parking required by the
land use regulations (1 space per bedroom) . Attached is the staff
memo from Roxanne Eflin to the HPC, including the revised site plan
showing six parking spaces. Also attached is the Planning staff
memo from the November 3, 1992 meeting. Another concern voiced
by the Commission was that the proposed addition is 6.5' from the
site lot line. Staff must re- iterate that this setback meets the
code requirements.
Based on the revised parking plan, and the compliance with the
review criteria for Conditional Uses, staff continues to recommend
approval of the Block duplex at 311 North Street with the following
conditions first listed in the November 3, 1992 Planning memo:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parcel must be
designated as an historic landmark by the Aspen City Council.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run -off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
3) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R -6 zone shall be
met unless the parcel obtains landmark designation and a
parking reduction by the Historic Preservation Committee.
4) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall
pay the applicable cash -in -lieu amount as calculated at the
time of issuance of building permit for the amount of FAR
increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment shall be made to
the City Finance Department for deposit in the Ordinance 1
account. A copy of the payment receipt must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
5) The stairway in the rear must conform to setback requirements
or receive a variance.
6) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a duplex
at the Block property at 311 North Street, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 1/5/93."
9
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer K;)
Re:
311 W. North
St.,
Final Development
Date:
December 23,
1992
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Final Development approval
for a duplex addition to the 1962 Bayer -Block House at 311 W. North
St. (which requires P &Z's Conditional Use approval.) On October
28, 1992, the HPC endorsed the parcel for inclusion on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and for Landmark
Designation, and granted Conceptual Development approval. The
application has been revised to eliminate the original request for
an HPC variation for a 2 -space parking reduction - all required
parking spaces are now being designed to fit on site.
APPLICANT: Beate and Martin Block, represented by James Weaver,
assisted by Jake Vickery, Architect
LOCATION: 311 W. North St., Lots 3 and 4 and the West one half of
Lot 5, Block 40, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen
P &Z AND COUNCIL ACTION: On November 3, 1992, the P &Z recommended
Landmark Designation for the parcel, however, continued the
Conditional Use public hearing until their first meeting in January
in order to allow Council to take final action on the Landmark
Designation. At the applicant's request, staff appeared before the
P &Z on November 24 to request that they consider the Conditional
Use approval prior to Council's second reading of the Landmark
Designation, as originally scheduled. The P &Z agreed. Conditional
Use approval prior to 2nd reading would be conditional upon the
ordinance adoption.
Council read and unanimously adopted the Landmark Designation on
first reading on November 23, 1992. 2nd reading is scheduled for
January 18, 1993.
DISCUSSION: The Review Standards for Significant Development
applications are found in Section 7 -601 (D) . No approval for
development involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless
the HPC finds that all of the standards are met. The applicable
Guidelines are found in both Sections VI and VII of the Design
Guidelines.
1. STANDARD: The proposed development is compatible in character
with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with
development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a H,
Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark.
3
For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into
front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, extend into the
minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed
floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible
in character with the historic landmark, than would be development
in accord with dimensional requirements.
RESPONSE: The existing structure is a Bayer designed 1962 single
family split level residence of 1,576 sq. ft. (FAR - 1,314 sq. ft.):
3 bedrooms, 2 baths and an attached carport. A duplex addition
(free- market dwelling unit) is proposed of 1,486 FAR sq. ft.,
bringing the total FAR to 2,800. 3,450 sq. ft. is allowed for this
size parcel. The original structure remains virtually intact, with
the exception of the SW corner behind the existing carport where
the two units would join. Only minor demolition would occur.
The Final Development proposal does not reflect any significant
changes as proposed at the Conceptual stage. The conditions of the
Conceptual approval were:
1) The HPC members shall conduct individual site visits
2) Distinguish between old in new
Staff finds that the applicant's response to the goal of being able
to clearly distinguish between old and new occurs through the use
of materials and subtle detailing, which is discussed in more
detail below in staff's response to Standard #4.
The new addition remains well under maximum allowable height, FAR,
and within the setbacks. We find that Standard #1 is met, and that
no variations are being requested.
2. STANDARD: The proposed development reflects and is consistent
with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for
development.
RESPONSE: We find that the proposal meets this standard. The
proposed development reflects the eclectic and small scale
character of the West End.
3. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not
detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures
located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels
RESPONSE: The argument can be made that large additions to
historic resources do not enhance their cultural value, however,
the HPC may find in this case that the compatible addition design
and minor connecting point to the existing resource do not detract
from the cultural value. Staff finds that the existing resource
will read through, and retains most of its original identity.
4. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not
diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a
designated historic structure or part thereof.
I
RESPONSE: We find that due to the sensitive treatment of attaching
the new addition to the existing resource, the structure's
architectural integrity is not diminished. The applicant states
that due to placement and subtle architectural and material
detailing, the new addition will clearly be read as a separate yet
compatible element of the original Bayer structure. We find that
this standard has been met. We ask the HPC to clearly review the
level of detailing proposed for the new addition, and seek
clarification and revisions if necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant
Final Development approval for the proposal at 311 W. North,
subject to Council's final reading and adoption of the Landmark
Designation Ordinance.
Additional comments:
memo.hpc.311WN.fd
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Block Conditional Use for a Duplex on an Historic
Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. - Public Hearing
DATE: November 3, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Block
Conditional Use for a-1,884 s.f. second dwelling unit to be
attached to the existing dwelling, creating a duplex on a lot of
7,500 s.f. with conditions. The structure is being concurrently
considered as an historic landmark. Official designation must be
obtained in order for this conditional use to become effective.
APPLICANT: Beate and Martin Block, represented by Jim Weaver
LOCATION: 311 North St., Lots 3,4 and 1/2 of 5, Block 40 of
Hallam's Addition
ZONING: R -6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for
the construction of an additional 1,884 s.f.r3..,.bedroa* dwelling
unit to create a duplex. metal FAR, including the existing 3
bedroom residence, will be $pp ximately 3,300 s,f. d WleXes Ore
allowed on lots as small as 6,000 s.f .if the parcel, is a
.designated historic landmark: Landmark designation is being
requested concurrently with this conditional use. The applicant
has submitted floor plans and elevation drawings. See Attachment
"An.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"Bn
Housing: The creation of '„he new dwelling unit requires compliance
with Ordinance 1, "'the housing replacement ordinance. In order for
a cash -in -lieu payment to be deferred, the resident must qualify
as a working resident or as a senior citizen who is a former
working resident.
Engineering:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run -off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
2) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R -6 zone is one
space per bedroom, or six on -site parking spaces. If the
7
parcel obtains landmark designation and subsequent parking
reductions, pit« is recommended that the maximum number of
-speces be included in the existing parking area.
3) The second unit will require a separate water meter. Other
utilities may require separate metering also.
Zoning: The rear deck appears to conform to the setback, but the
stairs appear to encroach and need a variance.
STAFF COMMENTS: This proposed unit will create a duplex, which is
allowed on this 7,500 s.f. lot only if the property is designated
as an historic landmark. A non - designated parcel in the R -6 zone
must contain at least 8,000 s.f. in order to develop a duplex. The
landmark hearings are being held concurrently with the conditional
use hearing. The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7 -304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: If this property receives landmark designation, the
duplex allowance provides incentive to retain structures which
contribute to Aspen's heritage.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The duplex use is compatible with the other residential
uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The design of the new unit
must be in harmony with the original Herbert Bayer house, and must
receive approval from the Historic Preservation Committee.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the owners to live in the
new unit and their family (children and grand children) to occupy
the original unit when visiting. A total of six bedrooms will
result from the proposal. Parking spaces were not shown on the
site plan, but staff calculates that 5 spaces would fit on the
gravel driveway within the property boundaries. The Applicant must
locate one more on -site space or reduce the bedrooms on the
2
0 2.
property. The HPC may grant a variance for one space based on
historical compatibility. There are no other adverse impacts
anticipated by this proposal.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
existing home and neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: As a current out -of -state resident, the applicant
apparently does not meet the residency requirements for deferral
of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu payment for the new dwelling
unit. The dollar amount for the new 1,884 s.f. unit is $15,693.72
and must be paid prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Block
Conditional Use for a duplex on a lot of 7,500 s.f. in the R -6 zone
with the following conditions:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parcel must be
designated as an historic landmark by the Aspen City Council.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run -off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
3) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R -6 zone shall be
met unless the parcel obtains landmark designation and a
parking reduction by the Historic Preservation Committee.
4) Prior to the issuance of any building ppe�r�mits, the owner shall
pay the applicable cash -in -lieu amount°'f:alculated at $@3,1_�
yfW of FAR increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment
T -Yu � 7h' C o--t f 3
� 3
shall be made to the City Finance Department for deposit in
the Ordinance 1 account. A copy of the payment receipt must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
5) The stairway in the rear must conform to setback requirements
or receive a variance.
6) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a duplex
at the Block property at 311 North Street, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 11/3/92."
-r2 -Z
Exhibits:
"A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
4
l0 1
,
,
h 1'
0�
��N m
till
dl n
ZR
N
G
� U
S
1�I
1
Z
1
m
It
!�t- 6
f 319�0
o
do
13
�n
o.
III
�� -
�
I
o4
�I
Ui
III
}
14
Z
0
T.
u
R�
Y
i
d.0
iE
5!
�d
rt$
,o
6
u
8 � �
I�
1,
a
n
0
rs
i�
1
J
�
-ill
I
mil
r
c
a
L�
�I
O
f0f
1
I
e
F
ti
d
a —
a_
4
7
s �
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: October 19, 1992
RE: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
OCT i 9 199
Regarding the deferment of the cash -in -lieu payment, according to
Section 5 -703, Deferral of affordable housing impact fee:
If the owner of a single - family or duplex unit for which an affordable housing impact fee
is due is a qualified working resident, as that term is defined herein, the obligation to pay
the impact fee may be deferred, at the owners request, until such time as the dwelling
unit is sold to a buyer who is not a qualified working resident.
According to Section 3 -101, a "working resident" is defined as:
... a person who works in Pitkin County a minimum of thirty (30) hours per week, nine
(9) months per year, or who is handicapped based upon the Housing Authority
Guidelines, or who is a former working resident who is a senior (sixty [60) years or older)
or retired and for the purpose of deferral of housing impacts, must be utilizing the
dwelling in question as a primary residence.
Therefore, if the senior citizen is a former working resident sixty
(60) years or older, and this same senior citizen will be utilizing
this unit as a primary residence, then they would qualify for a
cash -in -lieu deferral.
\word \work \block.ref
17 io
s ^�
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer F'S't
Date: October 20, 1992
Re: Block Conditional Use Review
` ou 2 01992
Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the
engineering department has the following comments:
1. Site drainage - one of the considerations of a development application for
conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One
public facility that is inadequate is the drainage system. The new development plan
must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic
storm run -off must be maintained on site.
2. Right -of -way, R.O.W. - it appears the proposed development is not disturbing the
existing R.O.W.. If development within public right -of -way is considered in the future,
approval must be given by either the streets department (920 - 5080), the engineering
(920 -5080) department or the parks department (920 - 5120).
3. Parking - parking for residential uses in the R -6 zone is 1 space per bedroom or
may be reduced by special review. The applicant is proposing to have six bedrooms on
site, consequently is required to furnish six off street parking spaces. Should the
property attain landmark designation then the parking requirements are determined by
special review. In the event that there is special review for the parking it is staff's
recommendation that the applicant be required to provide the maximum spaces in it s
existing parking area. In either case the parking spaces must be identified on the site
plan.
4. Utilities - according to Judy McKenzie of the City of Aspen Utilities Department,
the applicant will be required to meter water separately. It is quite possible that this
will be a requirement of the other utilities.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The construction drawings submitted for permit must have provisions for
maintaining all but historical storm run -off on site, i.e. drywells.
2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant must submit a revised site plan
indicating the parking configuration with the approved number of parking spaces.
cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer
..1.01028
I� I
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON CC DIANE MOORE
CC BILL DRUEDING
From: Bill Drueding
Postmark: Oct 20,92 1:39 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME APPEARS TO BE FINE. THE REAR YARD
SET BACK FOR THE DECK IS O.K. HOWEVER THE STAIRS IN THE REAR YARD
APPEAR TO ENCROACH AND WOULD NEED A VARIANCE. REFERE TO OUR
DEFINITION SECTION UNDER "YARDS ". I WOULD NEED A PARKING PLAN. ONE
SPACE PER BEDROOM IS REQUIRED BY CODE. APPLICANT WHOULD PROVIDE THIS
PLAN OR GET VARIANCES NOW FOR PARKING.
a0 13
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
� -o
Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson, Planner
Block Conditional Use for a Duplex on an Historic
Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. - Continued Public Hearing
January 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this
item on November 3, 1992. The Commission decided to continue to
hearing to January 5, 1993 in order to allow City Council to
consider the request for Landmark Designation prior to the
Commission's final determination of the conditional use request.
Another Commission concern was the parking reduction on the parcel.
On December 8, 1992, Roxanne Eflin reported to the Commission that
the Council approved Landmark Designation on first reading, and
requested that the Commission leave the conditional use
continuation set for the January 5, 1993 date. The Commission
consented to this schedule.
On December 23, 1992, the Historic Preservation Committee approved
a Final Development Plan for 311 North Street. The applicant had
altered his plan to include on -site all parking required by the
land use regulations (1 space per bedroom). Attached is the staff
memo from Roxanne Eflin to the HPC, including the revised site plan
showing six parking spaces. Also attached is the Planning staff
memo from the November 3, 1992 meeting. Another concern voiced
by the Commission was that the proposed addition is 6.5' from the
site lot line. Staff must re- iterate that this setback meets the
code requirements.
Based on the revised parking plan, and the compliance with the
review criteria for Conditional Uses, staff continues to recommend
approval of the Block duplex at 311 North Street with the following
conditions first listed in the November 3, 1992 Planning memo:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parcel must be
designated as an historic landmark by the Aspen City Council.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run -off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
3) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R -6 zone shall be v
met unless the parcel obtains landmark designation and a
parking reduction by the Historic Preservation Committee.
4) Prior to the issuance of any building ermits, the owner shall
pay the applicable cash -in -lieu am unt as calculated at the
time of issuance of building per it for the amount of FAR
increase of the new dwelling uniW Payment shall be made to
the City Finance Department for deposit in the Ordinance 1
account. A copy of the payment receipt must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
5) The stairway in the rear must conform setba requirements
or receive a variance. O �-
6) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a duplex
at the Block property at 311 North Street, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 1/5/93."
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: 311 W. North St., Final Development
Date: December 23, 1992
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Final Development approval
for a duplex addition to the 1962 Bayer -Block House at 311 W. North
St. (which requires P &Z's Conditional Use approval.) On October
28, 1992, the HPC endorsed the parcel for inclusion on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and for Landmark
Designation, and granted Conceptual Development approval. The
application has been revised to eliminate the original request for
an HPC variation for a 2 -space parking reduction - all required
parking spaces are now being designed to fit on site.
APPLICANT: Beate and Martin Block, represented by James Weaver,
assisted by Jake Vickery, Architect
LOCATION: 311 W. North St., Lots 3 and 4 and the West one half of
Lot 5, Block 40, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen
P &Z AND COUNCIL ACTION: On November 3, 1992, the P &Z recommended
Landmark Designation for the parcel, however, continued the
Conditional Use public hearing until their first meeting in January
in order to allow Council to take final action on the Landmark
Designation. At the applicant's request, staff appeared before the
P &Z on November 24 to request that they consider the Conditional
Use approval prior to Council's second reading of the Landmark
Designation, as originally scheduled. The P &Z agreed. Conditional
Use approval prior to 2nd reading would be conditional upon the
ordinance adoption.
Council read and unanimously adopted the Landmark Designation on
first reading on November 23, 1992. 2nd reading is scheduled for
January 18, 1993.
DISCUSSION: The Review Standards for Significant Development
applications are found in Section 7 -601 (D) . No approval for
development involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless
the HPC finds that all of the standards are met. The applicable
Guidelines are found in both Sections VI and VII of the Design
Guidelines.
1. STANDARD: The proposed development is compatible in character
with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with
development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a H,
d k
Historic overlay District or is adjacent to a historic Ian mar .
For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into
front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, extend into the
minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed
floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible
in character with the historic landmark, than would be development
in accord with dimensional requirements.
RESPONSE: The existing structure is a Bayer designed 1962 single
family split level residence of 1,576 sq. ft. (FAR - 1,314 sq. ft.):
3 bedrooms, 2 baths and an attached carport. A duplex addition
(free- market dwelling unit) is proposed of 1,486 FAR sq. ft.,
bringing the total FAR to 2,800. 3,450 sq. ft. is allowed for this
size parcel. The original structure remains virtually intact, with
the exception of the SW corner behind the existing carport where
the two units would join. only minor demolition would occur.
The Final Development proposal does not reflect any significant
changes as proposed at the Conceptual stage. The conditions of the
Conceptual approval were:
1) The HPC members shall conduct individual site visits
2) Distinguish between old in new
Staff finds that the applicant's response to the goal of being able
to clearly distinguish between old and new occurs through the use
of materials and subtle detailing, which is discussed in more
detail below in staff's response to Standard #4.
The new addition remains well under maximum allowable height, FAR,
and within the setbacks. We find that Standard #1 is met, and that
no variations are being requested.
2. STANDARD: The proposed development reflects and is consistent
with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for
development.
RESPONSE: We find that the proposal meets this standard. The
proposed development reflects the eclectic and small scale
character of the West End.
3. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not
detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures
located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels
RESPONSE: The argument can be made that large additions to
historic resources do not enhance their cultural value, however,
the HPC may find in this case that the compatible addition design
and minor connecting point to the existing resource do not detract
from the cultural value. Staff finds that the existing resource
will read through, and retains most of its original identity.
4. STANDARD: The proposed development enhances or does not
diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a
designated historic structure or part thereof.
RESPONSE: We find that due to the sensitive treatment of attaching
the new addition to the existing resource, the structure's
architectural integrity is not diminished. The applicant states
that due to placement and subtle architectural and material
detailing, the new addition will clearly be read as a separate yet
compatible element of the original Bayer structure. We find that
this standard has been met. We ask the HPC to clearly review the
level of detailing proposed for the new addition, and seek
clarification and revisions if necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant
Final Development approval for the proposal at 311 W. North,
subject to Council's final reading and adoption of the Landmark
Designation Ordinance.
Additional comments:
memo.hpc.311WN.fd
J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Block Conditional Use for a Duplex on an Historic
Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. - Public Hearing
DATE: November 3, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Block
Conditional Use for a 1,884 s.f. second dwelling unit to be
attached to the existing dwelling, creating a duplex on a lot of
7,500 s.f. with conditions. The structure is being concurrently
considered as an historic landmark. Official designation must be
obtained in order for this conditional use to become effective.
APPLICANT: Beate and Martin Block, represented by Jim Weaver
LOCATION: 311 North St., Lots 3,4 and 1/2 of 5, Block 40 of
Hallam's Addition
ZONING: R -6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for
the construction of an additional 1,884 s.f. 3 bedroom dwelling
unit to create a duplex. Total FAR, including the existing 3
bedroom residence, will be approximately 3,300 s.f. Duplexes are
allowed on lots as small as 6,000 s.f. if the parcel is a
designated historic landmark. Landmark designation is being
requested concurrently with this conditional use. The applicant
has submitted floor plans and elevation drawings. See Attachment
"An
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"Bit
Housing: The creation of the new dwelling unit requires compliance
with Ordinance 1, the housing replacement ordinance. In order for
a cash -in -lieu payment to be deferred, the resident must qualify
as a working resident or as a senior citizen who is a former
working resident.
Engineering:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run -off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
2) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R -6 zone is one
space per bedroom, or six on -site parking spaces. If the
parcel obtains landmark designation and subsequent parking
reductions, it is recommended that the maximum number of
spaces be included in the existing parking area.
3) The second unit will require a separate water meter. Other
utilities may require separate metering also.
Zoning: The rear deck appears to conform to the setback, but the
stairs appear to encroach and need a variance.
STAFF COMMENTS: This proposed unit will create a duplex, which is
allowed on this 7,500 s.f. lot only if the property is designated
as an historic landmark. A non - designated parcel in the R -6 zone
must contain at least 8,000 s.f. in order to develop a duplex. The
landmark hearings are being held concurrently with the conditional
use hearing. The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7 -304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: If this property receives landmark designation, the
duplex allowance provides incentive to retain structures which
contribute to Aspen's heritage.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The duplex use is compatible with the other residential
uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The design of the new unit
must be in harmony with the original Herbert Bayer house, and must
receive approval from the Historic Preservation Committee.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the owners to live in the
new unit and their family (children and grand children) to occupy
the original unit when visiting. A total of six bedrooms will
result from the proposal. Parking spaces were not shown on the
site plan, but staff calculates that 5 spaces would fit on the
gravel driveway within the property boundaries. The Applicant must
locate one more on -site space or reduce the bedrooms on the
2
Z
property. The HPC may grant a variance for one space based on
historical compatibility. There are no other adverse impacts
anticipated by this proposal.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
existing home and neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: As a current out -of -state resident, the applicant
apparently does not meet the residency requirements for deferral
of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu payment for the new dwelling
unit. The dollar amount for the new 1,884 s.f. unit is $15,693.72
and must be paid prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
----------------------------
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Block
Conditional Use for a duplex on a lot of 7,500 s.f. in the R -6 zone
with the following conditions:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parcel must be
designated as an historic landmark by the Aspen City Council.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Engineering
Department must have approved a drainage plan maintaining all
but historic storm run -off on -site. This shall be included
within the building permit set.
3) All on -site parking must be indicated on site plan for
building permit. Required parking in the R -6 zone shall be
met unless the parcel obtains landmark designation and a
parking reduction by the Historic Preservation Committee.
4) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall
pay the applicable cash -in -lieu amountH5alculated at WS,3- Z'Vei'
.gag4re l'jf�f/of FAR increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment
r e -�VV 3
shall be made to the City Finance Department for deposit in
the Ordinance 1 account. A copy of the payment receipt must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
5) The stairway in the rear must conform to setback requirements
or receive a variance.
6) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a duplex
at the Block property at 311 North Street, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning office memo dated 11/3/92."
Exhibits:
"A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
4
�.
�.
1
I
i
I� LJI
z
Z i0
R
� l
H
_
If
n
1
Z
.0
D
i
ai
,u' f
o; :I
11� �
4;d1 n
��.
IL
- -�
I /,
. Al. a
)�
0k
,? «
� ( \
$
/;
ƒ\
\ �
o ®
)(
/
me
mod.
/r
IL
j
\
q)
\ �
o ®
)(
/
�9
l _
0
F
to
Q
I
J
I7
a.0
I �F
+ I>
J
dl
I
F
1
0
7
1
F
�4
I
7 '
e�
I
0
1—
J
F
of
I
I
.h
I
0,
L�
ft'
°o
i
6
i
i
C
y
MEMORANDUM 1t
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: October 19, 1992
RE: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Regarding the deferment of the cash -in -lieu payment, according to
Section 5 -703, Deferral of affordable housing impact fee:
If the owner of a single - family or duplex unit for which an affordable housing impact fee
is due is a qualified working resident, as that term is defined herein, the obligation to pay
the impact fee may be deferred, at the owners request, until such time as the dwelling
unit is sold to a buyer who is not a qualified working resident.
According to Section 3 -101, a "working resident" is defined as:
... a person who works in Pitkin County a minimum of thirty (30) hours per week, nine
(9) months per year, or who is handicapped based upon the Housing Authority
Guidelines, or who is a former working resident who is a senior (sixty [60] years or older)
or retired and for the purpose of deferral of housing impacts, must be utilizing the
dwelling in question as a primary residence.
Therefore, if the senior citizen is a former working resident sixty
(60) years or older, and this same senior citizen will be utilizing
this unit as a primary residence, then they would qualify for a
cash -in -lieu deferral.
\word \work \btock.ref
10
ti� I
OCT 01992
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer fs'1
Date: October 20, 1992
Re: Block Conditional Use Review
Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the
engineering department has the following comments:
1. Site drainage - one of the considerations of a development application for
conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One
public facility that is inadequate is the drainage system. The new development plan
must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic
storm run -off must be maintained on site.
2. Right -of -way, R.O.W. - it appears the proposed development is not disturbing the
existing R.O.W.. If development within public right -of -way is considered in the future,
approval must be given by either the streets department (920 - 5080), the engineering
(920 -5080) department or the parks department (920 - 5120).
3. Parking - parking for residential uses in the R -6 zone is 1 space per bedroom or
may be reduced by special review. The applicant is proposing to have six bedrooms on
site, consequently is required to furnish six off street parking spaces. Should the
property attain landmark designation then the parking requirements are determined by
special review. In the event that there is special review for the parking it is staffs
recommendation that the applicant be required to provide the maximum spaces in it s
existing parking area. In either case the parking spaces must be identified on the site
plan.
4. Utilities - according to Judy McKenzie of the City of Aspen Utilities Department,
the applicant will be required to meter water separately. It is quite possible that this
will be a requirement of the other utilities.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The construction drawings submitted for permit must have provisions for
maintaining all but historical storm run -off on site, i.e. drywells.
2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant must submit a revised site plan
indicating the parking configuration with the approved number of parking spaces.
cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer
�ioadMM
1Z
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON CC DIANE MOORE
CC BILL DRUEDING
From: Bill Drueding
Postmark: Oct 20,92 1:39 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Message:
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME APPEARS TO BE FINE. THE REAR YARD
SET BACK FOR THE DECK IS O.K. HOWEVER THE STAIRS IN THE REAR YARD
APPEAR TO ENCROACH AND WOULD NEED A VARIANCE. REFERE TO OUR
DEFINITION SECTION UNDER "YARDS ". I WOULD NEED A PARKING PLAN. ONE
SPACE PER BEDROOM IS REQUIRED BY CODE. APPLICANT WHOULD PROVIDE THIS
PLAN OR GET VARIANCES NOW FOR PARKING.
l3
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE —r
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
CITY: pc+° --Ov4 t� b
- 63250 -134 GMP /Conte tual
- 63270 -136 GMP /Final
- 63280 -137 SUB /Conceptual
- 63300 -139 SUB /Final
- 63310 -140 All -2 Step Applications
- 63320 -141 All 1 Step Applications (.
- 63330 -150 Staff Approval
-63432 -157 Zoning Plan Check
-63432 -157 Sign Permit
-00100 - 00000 -31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
- 63335 -151 Exemption
- 63336 -152 Minor
- 63337 -153 Major Devel.
-63338 -154 Signit. Devel.
- 63339 -155 Demolition
COUNTY:
- 63160 -126 GMP /General
- 63170 -127 GMP /Detailed
- 63180 -128 GMP /Final
- 63190 -129 SUB /General
- 63200 -130 SUB /Detailed
-63210 -131 SUB /Final
- 63220 -132 All 2 Step Applications
- 63230 -133 All 1 Step Applications
-63240 -149 Staff Approval
-63450 -146 Board of Adjustment
- 63235 -148 Zoning Plan Check
REFERRAL FEES:
- 63360 -143 Engineering - County
00115 - 63340 -163 Engineering - City (C
00123 - 63340 -190 Housing
00125 - 63340 -205 Environmental Health
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
- 63080 -122 County Code
- 69000 -145 Other (Copy Fees)
TOTAL
Name:
Phone:
Address: Project: i
Check #: Date: No of Copies: