Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.311 W North St.A79-92Block Conditional Use Review 2735-124-16-002 A79-92 311 West North Street ME t U� .� SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Id, (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: 5- 2 -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -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 Signif. 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 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: Check #: Date: No of Copies: CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 10 2 92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 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 ENGINEER $ 90 HOUSING $ 5� ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 1057 # APPS RECEIVED 1 # PLATS RECEIVED 3 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: City Attorney w' City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water y•' �^ �,-� City Electric D Envir.Hlth. Zoning PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Parks Bldg Fire Holy Mtn. ACSD ------------------------------- ------------------------------- Dept. School District Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Marshal CDOT Cross Bell Energy Center DATE REFERRED: 6D i Z INITIALS: �J ------------------------------------ -- Clean Air Board Open Space Board Other Other DUE: n Z d FINAL ROUTING: �`� N /� DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty CityEngineer Housing Open Space FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Zoning Env. Health Other: #354165 022/93 10: 40 Rec sl.o. (jci BF 04 G Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Cler•::, Doc-.C)(-) ' 114 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this �/_� da of , 19 3by and between acaz,ir j� lacy ��� ik r �t tzr (hereinafter ' eferred to a l�c��aJ{c �/��_") and the TV OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"). RECITALS 1.e�fct is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and referred to herein as the "Property". 2. By virtue of a 4 m a 1VA w l/t 3 V. c O i required to pay an affordable housing impact fee ("Impact Fee") to the City. 3. --Q�2,�Jbz.(r_ has submitted evidence to the AspVi ith County Housing Office sufficient to establish that he/is a qualified "working resident" as that term is defined incle 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: acknowledges hisqe��obligation to pay to the City anaffordable housing impact fee ie 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 , or a subsequent owner who was a qualified working resident 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 Gtrwc 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 $ Sba)OL-O The value on resale shall be the value of the total consideration paid by the buyer. In no #3541 )2/22/93 10: 40 Fec i.ci, tii�0 704 PG 115 Silvia avis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 case shall the fee be adjusted downward to an amount less than 25%, or upward to an amount greater than 50%, of the Impact Fee ($ 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. OWNERS)CA Dmm � C1 ;�AMq N . Mailing Address: STATE OF COUNTY OF ) The for r d` day of (Owner's Name(s)) SS. instrument was acknowled'd b�foreme is fe 1714f - , 19 , b y \.� IA. C4- 's y nes nd and official seal. NAB -on- expires: My Commission expires 9/27/96 (Date) �1 N . - P�tl i F cc CITY OF ASPEN ASPrEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING OFFICE �A l'u) C1 Planning Director Housing Director planning:wp:deferral.agreement PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BLOCK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED DUPLEXING 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 s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission t 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. 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 Sincerely, Jait. Vickery Consultant Architect JL es R. Weaver Architect 1 West North Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-7631 blochd02.wps r►.i�s....:xsi:crl' 1 Q5E AEI=C TICJN FURI , 1) Project name �LOGK ,��5 (DELUGE 2) Project II>caticaz TNT 5 �6GQcrG �Fo) N�u�4ti1'S /-�DDiT�aC1 rD Tz{ (indicate street address, l �� rear. • legal desk Nd z aPP�iate) c ry o AS�E , ,e r�/aJ e U., V re, Gl1LO��-tom. 3) Presetrt ZoCni g 4) lot Size 75' ?( (OD s) ,,j_j �r,'s Name, Address & Ptxxre �W t5 51" ny ki,Pe77-r sT ASPS e-J 8/4 // �2 S - 7741 6 Representative's Name, Address & pa"M # 3/( ,UOP77t sT.� AsP6U 6o sal'/l 425-7�3 7) Type Of APPlicatian (Please cbec k all that apply) : "w ✓ CcnditiomI Use SPA Ca�ceptuai HastCric Dev' Special Review Final SPA Final.. Hi st r i c Dev. 8040 Qaenline 0axmptual POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final POD Historic Demolition Mocmtain View Plane Subdivision historic Designation Candc.-in i t an i ration Text/Yap Am arxInent al:J S Allotment lot: split/lot lane. Emmpti`n Adjustment g) Desc:riTt-i on of �Ci cri r,Q Uses (nL=ber and type of existing- - ; ap�momate sq_ ft.; rx=ber of bedrooms: any pr`eva0czs apQrOvals � to the PLAY) - ��5/OFIJUS 3 6ED Q/G.t�f 5 PDR 7 . v tJ / Qlo2 9) Descm ij rt-_ion of Development Application l �2 STD Q v f1-OD/ 77z,17j� 54 FT GGz15/5nv /a DF ,� G/U/.u� ✓O/,ui�� ,Qoo�r�J /</TGu� 3 6ED,�ou5 , 3 8Q-7z-f eooyl 5 774 LowE72 F�co-2 /5 ,GlDSTL� BED-1Ju� �v2:�G , 10) Have you attached the followings X zse to Atta(--� 2, Mi n i m rm i Ssicn Lxxt+rerzts X _ e to Attadmc--nt 3, Specific a,h,,,ic,ian �7- s X Rye to Amnent 4, Review Standards for Your Application 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 y (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 6 s ,4 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and BEATS 4Mo ►271►.1 15L.42444, (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for �7�.OGlG l��l p� 1.1G)r (hereinafter, 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 $ os7,Db 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: Di a Moore City Planning Director For Planning Office Use Case Number Case Name Deposit or Flat Fee Amount: APPLICANT By: — Date. GAT 2, /992 Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health: 2 ASPENTITKIN 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 BILL DRUEDING From: Bill Drueding Postmark: Oct 20,92 1:39 PM CC DIANE MOORE 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. CI 0 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 Since ly� Jake ickery, Consultant Architect ame R. Weaver 3 West North 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 forour 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, Beate and Martin Block Li1J.l illYlt1V 1' 1 USE APPI2CATIC" FUI;M 1) Project Name 2) Project Iocats cn l I /(/OK TN 5 ! LA 5 ,4KpT �J G D . LS 3. 4 4� N / T ZW- T 5 Lac cc 4o N u-Q� �5 491 no4J D Tom( (indicate street eet address, 1 odc nn�r, . legal description use appropriate) r r/ o �5/E , Di r�icJ GOU.c1 ram, �1Lo,e�-�. 3) Preserrt Zoning /4z l0 4) Iot size 75� X (ODD S) Applicant's Name, Address & Ptxxle _�EA7� tl lilF�Qn�1 6CDGK 31/ ,u�eTN srr Aso�zJ � fs1�II q2S- 77�3 6) Representative's Name. Address & Femme # L�AVLS 2 1 wl!! 4 UE.o 31/ bOrVY sT, �SPEZJ Go �s/�! l 425- 76 3 / 7) Type of APQlication (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use 0mceptual. SPA `� ConceptUal Hiztjor:ic Dev Special Peview 8040 Graenline Mountain View Plane Iut Split/7-0t. Line ne Adjustment Final SPA Conceptual PUD Final PM aibdivision Text/Map AmerxIment. Minor H.istor`3-c Dev. Historic Demolitaan %,� Historic Designati_nn Of ex±st-ing- s us 8) Description of Existing Uses (r..dr and t�'� to the apprcodmata sq- ft- ; rxrj�r- of bedroom-; anY P��s �� granted Pam''-rtY) - 3 L ED ,QOO.t�t 5 Z Qi�'TLI � �o� 5 /�-,u/? l=1-ri,1�UG-� G•� •2 PDR T . g) Description of Development Application GGzJS/Sn�J/v 3 BUJ-iL1 QOo�ti15 Tl'1C GOT,�JE%2 FGGG2 /5 �d'iTL�! fj�Z�J (�lZ,4L� , 10) Eiave you attac.. tied the following? zse to Attactu3ent 2, M i n i m an Submission :bn*-e-rrts x _ Pe�e to Attad-'-)ant 3, Specific submission Contents- _ X to AttactuDent 4, RL--view Starxiards for Your Application 2 311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611-1350 (303) 925-7743 4jes S�5,1--���T�-, 9-°8) '66q-Bella 60ROI 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, The Beate S. Block Civing Trust, Beate S. Block, as Trustee 0 % 3 APPLICATION FOR BLOCK RESIDENCE OCTOBER 1, 1992 HISTORICAL DESIGNATION (CONT) 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 0 % 4 APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION (CONT) BLOCK RESIDENCE OCTOBER 1, 1992 (attachment #, Item #) (2-2) Street Address 311 West North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (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 1 `d004L t� ` 1 S37 Cali orna.a SlrecnLe D�!►,er, Colorado 80Q09 I (303) 534 90664 TransamerlcaTitle insurance co I )� ra n e �e.-- / V it -le )bn r n ) IFA Service of 5 Transamerica Corporation March 10, 1971 Mr. & Mrs. Martin M. Block 724 Noyes Street Evanston, Illinois (60201) Re: Land in Hallam's Addition Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Mr. & Mrs. Block: Your letter of February_20, has just been given to me; I. am sorry for the delay in getting some answers to you and 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 Lyeth improvements encroach over the line of the survey onto your property; there is nothing of record, and I have nothing in our files that would give this information. I believe the only way to ascertain this would be to have an improvement survey made on your lots, to show the location of all improvements ereon. You may be able to determine this yourselves if markers have been set at the corners of your lands. 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 yoursrSAM cc: JeEs Smith = Albert Kern TR�`ANCA TffURANCE COMPANY 2 I 2'7' C011"TONyJUJI7 .r Etc 75° ai' I �' E t� 74 `l 2' 7_ 51, 1 I J I J1 � 1 V U \ A CC 75. 07' too r l M.- 11 �2 • >`cx-m[vI F1=r3�6-r -I • t 0 0 7 1-1 15UKVIr`(OK5 GEK-FIFLCATE 1 F `1 i ^T t SIC T A\ S4j(�Z-VG41 E-rr, Ef 7:� 7(ON �>N AL,�UST (O� �12 Oi' L?i 5 �. 4 i uL OF !C < S I✓oc K w) rDDI`ifOjN TO i�I� ClT`'1 Oi= /�S17C�1, ; ��TK(N COUNT -f; �V�VS T IaT`i, �9�i2 ,•Fr.IL s:. Jot, W Title�v(Lr��� = - !5 3, Q- W, r7 client GlT`l OF • 0 8 311 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, ..�01- The Beate S. Bloc iving Trust, Beate S. Block, as Trustee 0 0 9 311 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, �� oP -e- - - Beate Block Civing Trust Beate Block, Trustee 0 • 10 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Photo Information: Local Site Number: Township 10 South Range * West Section * F USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: * �LOG!< KI:SI D�1.1GE Full Street Address: * 3►► WEST ►..IORTH STREET Legal Description: * LOTS 5, 4 AOP I�JE57 HALF OF- , 1'5LcbG,K Ail' D(T70Q G e TO76F City Aspen ounty Pit --kin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: *WEfT END Owner: Private/State/Federal *MR5, 5EA7E: 6LOGK Owner's Mailing Address: 31I W. A,L i NST.1,ASPE , CO BI(oII ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: * RESIDE.►J7-1AL Architectural Style: * P3AUHQUS ZSA G;Z q VE-R Q L)L,AFZ Dimensions: L : V . 5' x W : :�Z' = Square Feet: 15:761 Number of Stories: * I% Building Plan (Footprint, Shape) : * EGTjI►J�UL}�FL Landscaping or Special Setting Features: * :,%AA7U2!✓ TRESS okJ VNEST SST 51DE5 Associated Buildings, Features Function (map number / name): _ 9 or Objects - Describe Material and For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: * �nPOSIi.JCo SHE%�S, MODUli:2 GRAVEL I�Z�2 s 3�2 Wa1is • * VERT►CAL GE1JAR, I X tZeve sSF ['-,,A;,,D Ca47iE Foundation / Basement: * F'A11,J7El7 EME-Q7 Chimney(s) : 34MC 'A5 WAL-LS PAINTED METAL FLUE AOCIIE 912�1 windows: PlCTIJFE WWPOW5 AJO VUd�02 C-Al5tMILQ15 Doors: * WOAD FL.�H STAlti1Ed� Porches • * (N=2 DECK W7iQTa&PA L SEAT 1JOT Otz GIr.�AL General Architectural Description: E(►J5 Vr--971,--A L GGDAR SiDI►J� '1d-151DE Ak-32 c:2071 Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: * r2E5. Architect: HCRBERT E?�YEdz Original Use: * 9E5. Builder: Intermediate Use: RI✓5. Construction Date: Actual * Estimate * Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor -,X,- Moderate * Major * Moved * Date Describe Modifications and Date: * KTTcKE0 LEGS RFAU'OUGL . 1977 Additions and Date: * IJDIJE 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 Key_ Local Rating and Landmark Designation — i 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: Ptzoro-r YQe Associated Contexts and Historical I��f u Z.: * -rHC,. 5�f��iF;G,�►.L Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; �W�lJE2S I�EGD2DS ELKS I �J pITK I �J C� L I SRAlz Archaeological Potential: * (Y or4M Justify: Recorded By: * Date: Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer/Planner 4.1 SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of dear, 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: ADDRESS: ZONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): EXISTING °a OF SITE COVERAGE. PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING 0% OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON -SITE PARKING SPACES: ON -SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: A147E ,d'kX .t/f�41ZTl,() BLLIG.K uor�T� sT� A151p0i� c� R lv 750D SQ FT ' 13 �� s4 Fr 34 50 sa: FT . L �;Dd 5c1: F 01Q 25705- 54. <T IJ p. nrn,1 Ruin . 1 (0 0 1 Accessory Pldn- cv"� o.;n 4. 1 PIAi . I 1 O' s�.✓1r) I Accessory Oda T—T- 0 SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: , PROPOSED: , ?D.o Front: 2010 4R,o' Front: 20.0 Rear: Io.o' Front: Rear: �Lo� Rear: Side: 19,6 Side: 22.5' Side: 22.5' Combined Front/Rear. 10�.0 Combined Frt/Rr: o o' Combined FronURear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ NO"E ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility finding must be mpde 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): E 0 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. 'y 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." 0� • MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 1 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, 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. 4 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 wY� 5 'iAI.T ee�sTwa � � SIW— C'IG� /-_ �' � � � Tea - • / 1 / — j Mo!rtu0 P.�i►lG� j ~ y�l�1RF16� \ \ \ N • 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 "A". REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "Bn. 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 7 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 �f 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 amounalculated at -f)'401/ofFAR increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment -((n f 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." ,6� - Z Exhibits: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations "B" - Complete Referral Memos 4 I- bt 44 aj- ) 10 -f 's t, Y,..hl I I t M� of 0 lu W All 14 g r t 0 �I O I u OCT 91 �. MEMORANDUM 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\block.ref "' I OCT 01992 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer F-S"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. ly 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 ca Ioaa92 028 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. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: 0 MEMORANDUM l� Planning and Zoning Commission Kim Johnson, Planner Block Conditional Use for a Landmark Parcel, 311 North St. January 5, 1993 Duplex on an Historic - Continued Public Hearing 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 Ef lin 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 buil/unt mits, the owner shall pay the applicable cash -in -lieu as calculated at the time of issuance of building per the amount of FAR increase of the new dwelling unient 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 Ct setrequirements 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." • • MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee 1 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, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to a historic landmark. 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 • • 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 "A" REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "B" 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 r. Z • 0 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 amount�~L`alculated at $5,f0 ipiar of FAR increase of the new dwelling unit. Payment e �. 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." -6� - Z Exhibits: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations "B" - Complete Referral Memos 4 11 . — 0 sl o TF_C � A0 V +, 11jj Q'i 0 of o �r FHA i�l �X� n CUI zl' 0E. III a �I iI I! OS� I N {n ] — 1 1 0 e p 0 1 • • Exh�b��-"t3" MEMORANDUM 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 [601 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 lc> 0 • MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer F-Sr Date: October 20, 1992 Re: Block Conditional Use Review 00I 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 meloanl= IZ� 0 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.