HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20100915SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
5:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS:
I• Roll call
II. Approval of minutes — June 23, and July 14th
III• Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
V1• Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #9)
I OLD BUSINESS
A. 212 N. Monarch, Minor Development— continued from
September 8 (45 min.)
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair (15 min.)
III. WORK SESSIONS/ DISCUSSION
A. Project monitor process (20 min.)
IV. 6 :30 p.m. Adjourn
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
nsisting
No meeting of the HPC shall be calledent order
No me t ng at w hich less than a
of at least four (4) members being present.
other than to continue
quorum shall be present shall conduct any
concurring votes
o aodate bu n no event lesssthanl threel(3)�e concurring
the agenda items t
vote of a simple m resent and voting
of the members of the commission then p
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 212 N. Monarch Street - Minor HPC Review
DATE: August 25, 2010
SUMMARY: The subject property
is a 19` century single family
residence located on an
approximately 5,580 square foot
designated lot in the West End. The
building is in its original location
and is largely unaltered. A few
significant trees are located in the
front and side yards. The property
does not have alley access and there
is currently no onsite parking. An
unopened alley exists to the south of the property. The applicant requests approval to construct a
driveway along the north sideyard to accommodate onsite stacked parking. A garage or carport is
not part of this application.
BACKGROUND: The unopened alley was
discussed by City Council in 2006 during the
subdivision review for the adjacent Blu Vic
property. It was decided by Council that
access for the residential component of the
Blu Vic Subdivision would be off Bleeker
Street and that the alley would remain green
space. Minutes from the Council meeting
are attached as Exhibit C. The subject home
and current condition of the unopened alley
are pictured at the right.
Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval to accommodate the
driveway.
APPLICANT: Phil Hodgson, owner, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services.
ADDRESS: 212 N. Monarch Street, Block 78, the South 62 feet of Lots A, B & C, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado,
P2
PARCEL ID: 2737 -07- 317 -003
ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the
HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The
HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
The HP Design Guidelines state: "Historically, parking was located to the rear of a site. This
tradition should be continued, and in all cases the visual impacts associated with parking should
be m nimiz ed..." While most West End properties have access from an alleyway, there are some
instances along the perimeter or bluff of the
residential neighborhood that do not have an alley
and either park on the street or have driveway access
from the street (for example Lake Avenue). The
applicant proposes to park on the 50' long driveway, y�
rather than create a specific parking area at the rear of
the home. Access from the driveway to the historic
home is via the front walkway and front door.
The proposed driveway is 12' wide and jogs around a
mature Austrian pine tree, which locates part of the
driveway in front of a portion of the historic home.
The City Forester prefers to keep the Austrian pine
tree and is confident that the driveway construction
will not damage the tree, but he defers to the HPC as
to whether its removal is important to preserve the
historic character of the building. The applicant
would be required to pay tree removal fees. City
Engineering standards require a 10' wide driveway.
Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the size
of the driveway to 10' to further pull the width of the d
2 ova
2 16 , 01
,Iola*
riveway away from the historic home,
8
O7
P3
Staff finds that reducing the width of the driveway and maintaining the Austrian pine tree is a
successful compromise for this project. The minor shrubs located at the front of the property are
proposed for removal as well as the trimming of lower limbs of some of the trees. Exhibit B
shows a few driveway conditions in the West End on historic properties.
The applicant proposes grass -crete as the pavement material to soften the impact on the historic
character (2 possible options on previous page) which meets Guideline 14.19. Staff finds that
grass -crete is appropriate, but the 2 different styles proposed are contemporary and are not
compatible with the historic character of the building. Staff recommends that Staff and Monitor
review and approve the style of grass - crete.
Staff finds that the overall application meets the Design Guidelines to the best extent possible
and the onsite parking spaces will correct an existing non- conformity. However, Staff is
concerned that the applicant may park on the portion of the driveway in front of the historic
home which is not in character with the historic home and may partially obstruct the visibility of
the front facade from the street. On the other hand, the proximity of the property to the
Commercial Core results in constant on- street parking that already obscures the historic
landmark. Staff finds that there are 2 different options for HPC to consider:
1. Keep the Austrian pine and construct a curved the driveway around the tree with stacked
parking along the side of the home.
2. Removing the Austrian pine and constructing a straight driveway parallel to the side lot
line with stacked parking along the side of the historic home.
Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval with conditions for option 1 and
requests that the applicant make a good faith effort to park toward the rear of the driveway when
possible.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional mariner, with planting material and
sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
• Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long -term impact
of mature growth.
• Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
❑ Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted.
❑ If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.
• Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway
from the street.
• Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated
with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete.
P4
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the application with the following
conditions:
1. The width of the driveway is reduced to 10'.
2. Staff and monitor review and approve the grass -crete style prior to purchase and installation.
3. If the Austrian pine dies during construction, then the driveway shall be oriented parallel to
the lot line.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Photographs of similar conditions.
C. City Council minutes dated March 13, 2006 and April 24, 2006.
D. Application
E. Letters from the public
rd
P5
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPQ
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 212 NORTH MONARCH STREET, THE SOUTH 62 FEET
OF LOTS A, B AND C, BLOCK 78, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2010
PARCEL ID: 2737 -07- 317 -003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Phil Hodgson, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman
Planning Services, has requested Minor Development approval for the property located at 212
North Monarch Street, South 62 feet of Lots A, B and C, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, the procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the
submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC
with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve,
disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC
reviews the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated September 15, 2010, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 25, 2010 the hearing was opened and continued
to September 8, 2010 for lack of a quorum, and on September 8, 2010 the hearing was opened
and continued to September 15, 2010 for lack of a quorum, finally on September 15, 2010 the
Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application for Minor
Development and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" to be met, and
approved the application by a vote of _ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants approval for Minor Development for the property located at 212 North
Monarch Street, South 62 feet of Lots A, B and C, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. The width of the driveway is reduced to 10'.
Page 1 of 3
W
2. Staff and monitor review and approve the grass -crete style prior to purchase and installation.
3. If the Austrian pine dies during construction, then the driveway shall be oriented parallel to
the lot line.
4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
5. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.\
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site - specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval
shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or
extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as
specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also
result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order
void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the
approved site - specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property
right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 212 North Monarch
Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
[signatures on following page]
Page 2 of 3
P7
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at a special meeting on the 15th day of September,
2010.
Sarah Broughton, Vice -Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
Page 3 of 3
W
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to- private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
• This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi- public" walkway, to a "semi- private" porch or entry feature and ending in
the "private" spaces beyond.
• Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
❑ The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material
and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
❑ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
❑ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long -term
impact of mature growth.
❑ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
❑ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
❑ Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
❑ Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
❑ It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
❑ This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and
sidewalks in the public right -of -way.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
• Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb
cuts are not permitted.
• If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.
❑ Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the
driveway from the street.
❑ Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically
associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete.
Driveway condition at the comer of
Monarch and Hallam Streets - the
section of driveway on the right
accesses a historic home.
Parking in front of a historic land-
mark located on Lake Avenue that
does not have alley access.
F
T^ a
A driveway located along the side yard of
a historic landmark house on Lake
Avenue that does not have alley access.
Current condition of Monarch Street
looking North from the subject prop-
erty.
P10
��t�t Vyl'I
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council March 13, 2006
PROCLAMATION — Shining Stars .................................................... ............................... 2
COMMUTER ALL STAR AWARDS ................................................ ............................... 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ...................................................................... ............................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS... ............................................................................... 3
CONSENTCALENDAR .................................................................... ............................... 3
RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 2006 — Contract to Purchase Open Space, Smuggler
Mountain .............................................................................................. ............................... 4
RESOLUTION #14, SERIES OF 2006 — Amendment Wind Generated Energy
AgreementMEAN ............................................................................... ............................... 4
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2006 — Holiday House Conceptual PUD ........................ 4
RDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2006 — 202 N. Monarch, Blue Vic Subdivision ............... 5
IF ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 2006 — 522 West Francis De- listing from Historic
Inventory............................................................................................ ............................... 15
RESOLUTION #15, SERIES OF 2006 — Endorsement of Fire Station COWOP........... 17
RESOLUTION #16, SERIES OF 2006 — Fire Station Lease Extension .......................... 20
c.
P11
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13.2005
this site. Councilman Johnson said his concerns were directed at architectural
representations in the plan.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2006 — 202 N. Monarch, Blue Vic Subdivision
James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council this is a subdivision
request on property with two different zone categories. At the last public hearing,
Council requested the applicant study the possibility of TDRs for lot 1 and approaching
the neighbors to buy down the excess development rights on lot 1.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, told Council the applicants explored TDRs as
well as an open space purchase involving the neighbors. The results are summarized in a
letter to Council dated March 3. Clauson said nothing works from a financial feasibility
standpoint to either acknowledge the value of the property or to cover the cost of
rehabilitating the existing house. Clauson said Council requested the alley and
driveway locations be staked. The edge of the alley was staked, both at 16' and 20'. 20'
is the width of the right -of -way. The concept is to open the alley from Monarch to where
the slope falls away and have it be 16' wide. The proposed driveway off Bleeker street
was also staked. The existing curb cut would be closed and a new 12' curb cut would be
installed at the east end of lot 1 on to Bleeker street. Clauson noted having the curb cut
on Bleeker moved to the west is at a flatter spot.
Clauson reminded Council the original application requested an alley off Monarch be
opened to provide access to lots 1 and 2 and the curb cut on Bleeker would be closed and
a sidewalk installed. After P &Z meetings, the applicants developed a split access
between residential and mixed use. The residential access would be off Monarch and the
mixed -use access would be off Mill street. The applicants met with HPC in a work
session, which supported that concept. Clauson noted the applicants presented another
plan with no access off Monarch and a paved access to the residential off Bleeker street
and the mixed -use access from Mill street. The existing house would have to be moved
forward to accommodate a driveway off Bleeker street. Clauson said opening the alley
off Monarch street would allow for access to neighboring parcels without having a curb
cut for a driveway. Clauson said any of the access alternatives is acceptable to the
applicant.
Clauson said this subdivision application meets the appropriateness of subdivision
regarding the review standards. Clauson said the review standards are direct and
straightforward and state the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan. This subdivision does not contravene that plan. The proposed
subdivision will be consistent with the existing land uses. The subdivision proposed a
mixed -use lot adjacent to existing mixed uses and a residential lot adjacent to residential
uses. The plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses. Clauson said
regarding future development of surrounding areas, there is no adverse affect; there is
nothing that will prohibit additional residential development or rehabilitation of
P12
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13,200
residential properties; nothing that will prevent rehabilitation of adjacent mixed -use
properties. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable provisions of
the subdivision title of the code.
Tim Semrau, applicant, stated regarding using TDRs, there have been no TDRs sold in
the city. There are some under contract and the current value is about $75,000/TDR.
There is a possibility of 7 TDRs on this property. Semrau said all neighbors except
Hodgson declined to participant in purchasing this to preserve it as open space. Semrau
noted there are 4 access points to the property, upper and lower alleys, Monarch and
Bleeker. Semrau said the Mill street alley is the best option to serve the commercial
property and has many benefits. This access would open up the c for the KSNO
building and puts cars underground, out of sight. This will lead to one alley in the future.
Semrau agreed the Monarch street is a wonderful corridor. The Bleeker access
diminishes the historic asset, with which HPC agreed, and it makes on site parking a little
more difficult but it is an acceptable alternative. Semrau said if Council decides to close
the Monarch alley, he would like some assurances made that it will remain closed.
David Eisenstein, representing Tim Semrau, noted any encroachments or agreements
with the neighbor to the north should be cleared up. Eisenstein said Tom Smith stated the
subdivision should be denied because architectural drawings have not been submitted.
Eisenstein stated there is no requirement for plans to be submitted for subdivision
approval. Staff certified this application complete. Eisenstein said Council made no
decision about the access or whether to close Monarch alley. Eisenstein reiterated this is
property with split zoning, which zoning is adopted after site planning. This property has
been zoned the way it is for some time and it is appropriate that part of it should be used
as mixed use'and part of it for residential. To north and west are residential uses and to
the south and east are commercial uses. A mixed -use designation is a buffer between
residential and commercial and a transition to the historic structures.
Councilwoman Richards asked the maximum height in the mixed -use zone. Lindt said it
is 32'. Councilwoman Richards asked the rear setback. Lindt said it is 5'.
Councilwoman Richards pointed out there will be a building to the east of the historic
building within 5' of the property line that is 32' high. This will change the perception of
the historic building from Monarch. Semrau noted HPC has review over the mixed -use
building and a building cannot be 5' away and 32' by right; it is up to HPC.
Councilwoman Richards agreed with Tom Smith about presentation of new materials at
the beginning of the second public hearing. The materials were not available for the
public to review and analyze.
Councilman Johnson asked if the alley on the west side of Monarch is paved. Staff said it
is dirt. Councilman Johnson asked the city's policy for paving alleys in the west end.
Amy Guthrie, community development department, said the preference is to leave alleys
unpaved unless the neighbors get together and request this. Councilman Torre asked if
access off Bleeker could work for both parcels. Semrau said it would take two curb cuts,
one lower for the mixed -use building and a driveway curb cut for the residential.
P13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13, 2006
Mayor Klanderud said she would like to have a public hearing limited to the new
information presented at the last meeting. Mayor Klanderud said Council had consensus
on the Monarch alley at the first meeting but did not take formal action. Councilwoman
Richards noted her motion at the first meeting that the Monarch street access was no
longer part of the discussion and the applicants were to bring back opening up a Mill
street access. Councilwoman Richards said she feels this public hearing should be open
to all discussion. Council agreed this should be a complete public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Ruth Harrison said opening up Monarch and making it a driveway makes no sense. The
access should be through places that are more commercial. Ms. Harrison said it is
premature to judge an alley opening with new owners of the Hodgson house as they will
probably own it for years and years. Ms. Harrison said it does not make sense to open an
alley for the good of one or two people when hundreds of people walk by and appreciate
the beauty of the open space.
Tom Smith, representing the Hodgsons, said he submitted a letter dated March 3. Smith
reiterated this alley is not like most alleys because the alley runs perpendicular to the
street and the alley is a dead end and will not serve a public purpose. This would be a
driveway, not an alley. Smith noted the parking pad will be removed; the Hodgsons are
not asserting any permanent rights. Smith said statements have been made that alleys are
a requirement and his letter refutes that stating alleys are not required if there are other
provision for access. Council has the discretion to decide among the options for the
access. Smith noted the grade is non - existent in the area in which the curb cut is
proposed on Bleeker street. Smith agreed the subdivision regulations do not require a
detailed plan; however, there are circumstance in which these plans are not critical for
Council's decision. Smith stated it is their position that a mixed use commercial building
and with a potential for a further subdivision of lot 1, Council does not have enough
information to determine whether the alley should be open or whether the subdivision
application is appropriate because one cannot tell the ultimate use of the property. Smith
said it is common in development applications for access to be undetermined until there
is an approval.
Phil Hodgson said he submitted a letter to Council. He also submitted a bird's eye view
map showing the Blue Vic and the alley running all the way down and stopping at
Monarch street where it is closed now. Hodgson said there was an 1890 photo, and 1892,
a deed about the alley. Hodgson said the alley should remain closed as it would be open
space and breaking up the mass of construction. There is an HPC guidelines, revisions or
additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site, which
is it should stay the same. Hodgson told Council he went through the 9 examples of
alleys brought up at an earlier meeting and submitted pictures in the packet. Hodgson
said he and his family intend on staying in this property; this is a home. Hodgson
reiterated he will remove the parking pad off Monarch. Hodgson noted moving a historic
house is discouraged unless it is the only viable option. The only viable option for
moving 202 North Monarch would be to accommodate the driveway off Bleeker street.
7
P14
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13, 2006
Hodgson said he sent pictures of the tree, which protrudes 5' into the alley. The Hodgson
house is 11' feet from the alley. Hodgson told Council he did make a cash offer to
Semrau for the open space.
Bob Limacher said if the city uses this alley as a driveway to this property, the applicant
will drive in and make a right turn and park. Limacher asked if there is a buildable
parcel. Semrau said there is. Limacher said the guidelines state the goal is to have the
parking behind the structures but another primary concerns is where it states "to
minimize the impacts of that parking ". Limacher said he cannot see how that plan would
minimize the parking. It would minimize the parking to use Bleeker and pull in behind
the houses.
Joe Krabacher, Jerome Professional Building east of the new lot, said his preference
would be not to develop the mixed -use lot; however, it is zoned mixed use and is
developable. Krabacher said the issue is whether to approve subdivision of this lot; some
of the comments pertain to HPC on the residential lots. Krabacher said from personal
observation is that Bleeker does not get much sun; it is a slick street; traffic backs up
trying to get onto Mill street. Krabacher said trucks have run into and hit the Jerome
Professional Building. Krabacher said his concern is putting too much access off
Bleeker. Residential access may be acceptable with one access point.
Sara Kuhn told Council she attended school at the Red and Yellow Brick schools and has
worked at ACES. Ms. Kuhn said this is a beautiful area and she would not like to see an
alley there. Ms. Kuhn said she hopes Council chooses not to open it up. Junee Kirk said
Council needs to look at preserving this area of the west end which serves as a gateway to
the Victorians and is one of the most beautiful areas of the west end. It would rain the
integrity of the west end by developing this lot. It there is a development allowed, it
should be small Victorians to fit in with the size and scale of the west end. Ms. Kirk said
this is the last place that can be considering as saving the town.
David Hyman said most compelling issue is that both interested parties prefer not to open
the alley. Hyman noted there are various alternatives for access and both neighbors
would prefer not to open the alley. Helen Palmer said she has not found on any historic
maps or photographs of Aspen that show this alley has ever been open. Ms. Palmer said
the platted end of the alley has never been used as an alley and there is no need to open it
now because there are alternatives. Hayley Pace said she is concerned about safety of
children using this area and Monarch street. Children going from the Red and Yellow
brick buildings to ACES and to the library use this street. Opening the alley will
introduce more traffic onto Monarch street and will compromise safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Dennis Cyrus, caretaker of house on northwest comer of Bleeker and Monarch, said if the
access is behind the house off Bleeker, it could be used to access the lots to the north
without interrupting the historic aspects of Monarch street. It makes more sense to have
the alley between the residential and commercial lots. Walt Madden said if the alley is
opened, it becomes the responsibility of the taxpayers' to maintain for a private driveway.
P15
Reuular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13, 2006
Madden said it makes more sense that the driveway come off Bleeker and that is be the
responsibility of the property owner. Bert Myrin said there were discussions over the last
two weeks that the alley owned by the city be turned into a public park, a 20' wide
pocket park not using any of the private property. Myrin said the community can
continue to pursue TDRs or raising money to see if more can be preserved as green
space. Myrin said there are a lot of development rights for the mixed -use parcel. If the
land is subdivided it can no longer be used as a tool to preserve the house and the open
space. Myrin requested Council not foreclose the possibility of making this a pocket
park.
Matt Pace said it would be great to leave the alley green. The city could purchase a
portion of the property and leave this area open. The city prides itself on leaving the
environment open and green and this should be left green not asphalt. Lisa Markahmas
said the access off Bleeker street is far superior to the rear of the historic buildings. It is
less impacting and gives more of an alley access. Toni Kronberg said the subdivision
being requested involves a historic landmark. Ms. Kronberg said there is contradiction in
the zoning, the Aspen Area Community Plan and HPC. Council has looked at an
ordinance regarding which set of rules a developer follows; subdivision, HPC, design
review standards. Ms. Kronberg said subdivision approval is premature when Council is
looking at access and the driveway and creating a development right. Ms. Kronberg said
the historical significance of this property has to be reviewed by HPC before subdivision.
Ms. Kronberg said streetscapes, landscapes and community character should be
addressed. Ms, Kronberg submitted a Sanborn map and read from the HPC guidelines
about moving historic structures.
Wyley Hodgson told Council before Nick Adeh left the city, he stated his concerns about
the driveway off Bleeker were its location, not the proposed location to the west.
Hodgson noted the Sandborn map submitted at the last meeting was a 1904 map and he
submitted a Sandborn map of a different year. Hodgson presented photographs of
pictures taken in the west end of unopened alleys, which are shown as open on the
Sanborn map. These photos also show the value of this land as open space. Hodgson
said this alley has value for turning this area into a park. Hodgson said he has concerns
about the tree, which has a large root system, and if the alley is opened it may kill the
tree. The tree has been in this location since the turn of the century.
Lindt entered letters from Bill Stirling, James and Hensely Peterson, John Markahmas
and Julie and Marshall Hall for the record.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Semrau read from the AACP, item 5 in the action plan, allow easier subdivision of
properties in the historic townsite and allow for infill development. Clauson reiterated
the applicant is happy to use the alternate access off Bleeker street. The staking on site
shows that access to be possible. Clauson said any movement of the historic house would
be subject to HPC review; any lot split would be subject to HPC and Council review.
The development of the mixed -use site would require a growth management approval,
P16
Regular Meednu Asuen City Council March 13, 2006
subject to P&Z and Council review. Clauson stated for the subdivision, the requirements
of the code have been met. Eisenstein stated this application is for a subdivision to
subdivide the 5 lots into two lots, lot 1 with 3 lots zoned residential and lot 2 with 2 lots
that is zoned mixed use. Council has to make a decision on where they think the access
for this subdivision is appropriate. Eisenstein said there has been no evidence presented
to Council showing that the subdivision should not be approved. Staff as well as P&Z
have indicated the subdivision meets all the criteria.
Mayor Klanderud asked if the city attorney agreed the subdivision could be approved
without a decision on the access. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the alleys
are intertwined with the subdivision regulations. One cannot subdivide property and
create new lots if there is no access to the lots. The applicant is requesting subdivision of
land into 2 lots. The city's regulations require before the property is subdivided, the
remaining parcels have access. If Council subdivides the properties, the applicant is
entitled to legal access to the properties.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2006, on second
reading changing Section 7 to eliminate the sentence regarding the Monarch street access
inserting a sentence stating "vehicular access to lot 1 shall be provided by a new
driveway off of Bleeker street as submitted by Stan Clauson and associates "; seconded by
Councilman DeVilbiss.
Councilman Torre said he prefers a shared access for both lots off Bleeker. Councilman
Torre said a hardship for access does not seem justification to open an alley that is not
currently in use. Councilman Torre stated he would not support vacation of the Monarch
alley. Councilman Torre stated he supports maintaining that alley as green space.
Councilman Torre said opening this alley is a long length for the city to provide a more
desirable access when sufficient access can come off Bleeker. Councilwoman Richards
said her support of the Mill street access for the mixed use is because of the level of
activity. Councilwoman Richards said she is familiar with Bleeker street and she would
support residential access off Mill street because of the proximity to all locations in town.
Councilman DeVilbiss said if Council does not approve access off Monarch, the
applicant has requested some guarantee that the alley will remain closed. Councilman
DeVilbiss said he does not think Council can make that guarantee. Councilman
DeVilbiss stated the alley has been used by the Hodgson with a parking pad. The sign on
Monarch says "no parking in driveway" and that is not a driveway. Councilman
DeVilbiss said both the alley off Monarch and the alley off Mill street are being used by
adjacent property owners and these are city property. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the
city should reclaim public property.
Mayor Klanderud agreed those are public property and any existing encroachments on
either of these alleys should be removed. Mayor Klanderud said a 20' green space does
not make a pocket park and does enhance the neighborhood for residents. Mayor
Klanderud said she does not support using city open space money for this green space.
10
P17
Regular Meetint=_ Aspen City Council March 1 3, 2006
Mayor Klanderud pointed out there are garages, curved parking areas and curb cuts
across the street for these properties so it is not completely pedestrian friendly.
Councilwoman Richards said she would support the city retaining the alley easement and
not opening the alley. In the future both parties may agree they want the alley opened for
access to each property. Councilwoman Richards agreed the parking pad should be
removed; however, that is not a determination for the best access. Councilwoman
Richards said she does not see the alley opened as a public benefit. Opening up this alley
will make a funny view plane from the east. Leaving it closed makes it a green buffer.
Councilwoman Richards stated this discussion shows how important small places are to
residents. Mill street is a mixed -use corridor and access off there for the commercial
building is reasonable. Councilwoman Richards said without more information, she
cannot tell whether this is in keeping with the residential character or not.
Mayor Klanderud asked if the house is moved to accommodate the access from Bleeker,
will there be a problem with the setback requirements. Clauson said there will not be.
Lindt told Council on a comer lot, one has a front yard setback and the applicant gets to
choose which side is the front yard setback of 10' and an alternative front yard setback
which is 2/3 of the required front yard setback. Clauson noted the renderings show the
blue Victorian moved to the west to line up with the house to the north. Clauson said it is
possible not to move the house as far to the west. None of this would happen without
HPC approval.
Mayor Klanderud asked about the condition in Section 13 and deed restriction against
fiuther subdivision. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer not to have the lot be less
than 6,000 square feet because someone may argue in the future that the lot can still be
subdivided. Clauson said the applicants are amenable to a deed restriction against finther
subdivision with the addition of "except for condominiumization ", which is a subdivision
process. Mayor Klanderud noted the entire parcel could have been condominiumzed
without this process. Lindt said condominiumization would not have allowed
development of parcel 2. Mayor Klanderud said she would have liked the applicant to
come forward with the entire development outlined, showing what ultimately could have
occurred. Mayor Klanderud said she is a proponent of keeping the historic building
where it is located.
Councilman Johnson asked if there is a minimum width for an access. Lindt said the fire
marshal has concerns about a minimum width for access to the rear of lot 2. The fire
marshal said he feels he cannot serve a larger mixed -use building from the Mill Street
alley because of the grade change. The minimum width is 12'. The preference of the fire
marshal would have been access to both parcels from North Monarch.
Councilman Johnson said his preference is to preserve as much as possible what exists on
the site right now, including the alley remain closed and the open space remain
undeveloped and that the house not be moved. Councilman Johnson said purchasing
portions of this property would be the most expensive open space in the city.
Councilman Johnson said he would work with the neighbors and the city if there were to
11
WM
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13 2006
be an effort to purchase the property. Councilman Johnson said Council has to follow the
land use code. Councilman Johnson said through letters and public testimony, Council is
being asked to preserve the prerogatives of one landowner by denying the prerogatives
and rights of another landowner. Councilman Johnson stated the issue is not whether the
alley has ever been opened but whether it should be. Councilman Johnson said he has
looked at 3 pieces of evidence, one of which is the 1890 to 1904 Sandbome maps which
may not show an opened alley but do show a pattern of development on the Elder
property which indicates the expectation an alley would be opened. Another is the letters
from Smith and Hodgson stating in the 1990's there was a request for parking on the
Hodgson property and the city giving approval of parking on that alley, which seems to
be recognition if there is to be a curb cut it should happen on the alley. Councilman
Johnson said this seems to be a recognition the alley could be open. The photo of a sign
"Do Not Park in Driveway" seems to acknowledge the parking pad is a driveway and the
alley is in some use.
Councilman Johnson said the purpose of alleys is to decrease the number of curb cuts,
which is a public benefit. Councilman Johnson stated alleys provide access, not open
space, which is why alleys were platted. Councilman Johnson said not opening the alley
may have been a result of the economic devastation of the failure of silver. Councilman
Johnson said if Council approves opening this alley, it should remain dirt or not paved,
which may eliminate the tree issue as the surface will be pervious to water.
Councilwoman Richards noted no one has spoken in favor of opening the alley; the
applicant stated they would be satisfied with the Bleeker street access. Councilwoman
Richards said she would not want to vote for a situation that created conflict in the
neighborhood. Councilwoman Richards said the best way to preserve the open space is
to leave the alley undeveloped and leave the neighborhood time to work on a solution.
Councilwoman Richards said this is a significant piece of property with moving pieces,
historic structures, possible lot split, that Council should see the entire plan to determine
whether the access decision would negatively impact future development potential and
negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.
Councilman DeVilbiss stated he supports Councilman Johnson's logic as well thought
out and well stated. Mayor Klanderud agreed Council does not know if this is consistent
with the neighborhood because they do not know the entire development. Mayor
Klander id stated she supports access for the mixed -use parcel from Mill street. Mayor
Klanderud said keeping the Monarch street a public alley protects property on both sides
because of the setbacks to either side. Mayor Klandemd said she does not feel this
property would be used by the public as a park. It does not make sense for the city to
purchase TDRs and hold them for the benefit of private property owners.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not support the ordinance as written because she
does not support the Monarch street access. Councilwoman Richards said the
subdivision will be approved or not based on the motion on the floor.
12
P19
Ret=_ular Meetine Aspen City Council Marc613,200 6
Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion and moved to amend the ordinance to have
a Monarch street access to the residential lots if they go forward.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, no; Richards, no; Johnson, no; DeVilbiss, no;
Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Klanderud asked if the applicant is willing to come back with a more
comprehensive application. Semrau said he would like Council to be specific because
everything has to go through several layers of review. Semrau said he has done
everything required by the code. Mayor Klanderud asked if the applicant were willing to
deed restrict lot 1 to further lot split. Semrau said there is 4,080 FAR allowed on the
residential lot and one can expand the historic house or make two houses. Semrau said
one large house would diminish the historic resource and two houses of 2,040 square feet
would be preferable. Semrau outlined on the rendering where access, driveway, garage
and houses could be located using the Monarch access or the Bleeker access.
Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about granting the subdivision without a
master plan for the site and without moving the historic house, the open space aspect
from the back will be gone because it will have a mixed use building on it.
Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see how far to the west the historic house
would move to retain the open space. The garages could block some of the negative
aspect of the mixed -use building. Councilwoman Richards stated she supports the
Bleeker street access and the applicants have stated they would be comfortable with that
access. Councilwoman Richards said she does not want to see the historic building
pushed back on the site. Looking at all the pieces on a complex parcel makes sense not
to foreclose better planning.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he does not feel there is a fair basis to deny a subdivision
application. Councilwoman Richards said criteria numbers 2 and 3, the proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with existing land uses in the area, Council does not know
this will be consistent with the historic west end neighborhood. #3 states the proposed
subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding area and
Council does not know that. Councilman Johnson said he is willing to look at changing
the subdivision code in the future.
Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2006, amended to delete
the paving aspect in Section 7 of the alley portion from Monarch so that it is pervious and
access to lot 2 off Mill street should be paved; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss.
Mayor Klanderud asked if this requires a sidewalk on Monarch. Lindt said the ordinance
requires the applicant to sign a curb and gutter agreement to put a sidewalk in the future.
Councilwoman Richards amended the motion to eliminate the access on Monarch street
alley and have the curb cut on Bleeker street only for the residential units; seconded by
Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson; no; Torre, yes; Richards,
yes; DeVilbiss, no; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried.
13
P20
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 13, 2006
Councilwoman Richards said this motion would open an alley, eliminate green space and
gardens. The applicant has not asked for this and the public does not support it.
Councilwoman Richards said this is going forward with an incremental subdivision and
determining accesses that will make the automobile access cover %: the site rather than
less than %<. This will determine where future historic lot split will end up and the
movement of the historic house. Councilman Johnson reiterated he would prefer nothing
happen on this site but if something is to happen, it should follow the way the town was
developed, for access to come off alleys, not increasing curb cuts. Councilman Torre
brought up alleys not being on the side of historic properties and this block does not nun
according to the traditional development pattern; the houses are west facing, which
makes the alley different. Councilman Torre said this may be an opportunity to make
better decisions than the code outlines, then change the code rather than adopting them
backwards. Councilman Torre said it is Council's charge to make a better decision.
Mayor Klanderud stated an applicant has the right to rely on the code and not have the
rules changed in the process. Councilman Tone stated Council can exercise the option
they see fit.
Councilwoman Richards said this alley runs to the side of the houses, not behind them,
which is different. The access off Bleeker street behind all the houses would fit the
pattern. Councilwoman Richards said she would grant a driveway access off Bleeker
street for the residential units. Councilwoman Richards said opening the alley would
require city plowing to the end of a bluff. This would be following a set pattern that is
not appropriate for today. Councilman DeVilbiss said the motion on the floor follows
the law.
Mayor Klanderud said this has been a difficult process and the real issue is bigger than
the alley, which is a preference to do nothing on this property. A property owner does
have certain property rights. Mayor Klanderud agreed there are unknowns about the
future development. Mayor Klanderud said at the first hearing it was stated that any
future development will have to go through HPC and Council. Councilwoman Richards
said this is a mistake; no one in the room has argued for opening the alley. Councilman
Torre agreed this is a bad decision from all sides. Councilwoman Richards stated she is
not interested in denying this applicant the right to proceed. Councilwoman Richards
said she has reservations about not seeing the entire plan but would approve
the applicant not using the Monarch street access. Councilwoman Richards urged
Council to vote against this motion and to keep Monarch street alley green with trees and
not to have an access for %z of the property for automobiles.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, no; Johnson, yes; Richards, no; DeVilbiss, yes;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
14
P21
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 24, 2006
PROCLAMATION — Aspen Crime Victims Rights Week ................. ............................... 2
CITIZENPARTICIPATION ............................................................... ............................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERCOMMENTS ................................................. ............................... 2
RESOLUTION #29, SERIES OF 2006 — Support Fire District Ballot Question ............... 4
RESOLUTION #25, SERIES OF 2006 — Contract CDOT Maroon Creek bridge Utility
Crossing.......................................... ............................... 4
RESOLUTION #27, SERIES OF 2006 — ARC/Durrant Settlement Agreement ............... 4
RESOLUTION #30, SERIES OF 2006 — Contract Wheeler Interior Marquee ................ 4
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES ............................................... .........................I..... 5
• Ordinance #15, 2006 — Mother Lode Subdivision Amendment — 314 E. Hyman.. 5
• Ordinance #16, 2006 —Hannah Dustin Subdivision — 300 S. Spring ..................... 5
• Ordinance # 17, 2006 — Parking Fee Ordinance ....................... ............................... 5
• Ordinance #18, 2006 — Code Amendment — Political activities of City Employees
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2006 — 202 N. Monarch Bin Vic Reconsideration...........
7
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2006 — 920/930 Matchless Drive u ivisto ....
8
ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2006 — Supplemental Appropriation ............................13
RESOLUTION #26, SERIES OF 2006 — Pay Station Purchase Contract .......................14
616 WEST MAIN HISTORIC PRESERVATION LOAN ................. .............................
RESOLUTION #28, SERIES OF 2006 — Purchase of Aspen Mass .... .............................16
RESOLUTION #32, SERIES OF 2006 — In Support of Roadless Arm .........................16
MINUTES April 10, 2006 ................................................................ .............................
ORDINANCE # 19, SERIES OF 2006 — Enacting a Temporary Moratorium .................17
P22
Regular Meetine Aspen City Council April 24, 2006
where there is a conflict between a second job and the employee's responsibility.
Councilwoman Richards said research shows no other municipality in the valley have a
requirement that employees would have to take a leave of absence without pay to run for
elective office. The issue is a fundamental right to public service. Councilwoman
Richards noted the city manager is able to make a judgment if an employee were using
their position for advantage in a campaign.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Richards, yes;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carved.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2006, on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Councilman DeVilbiss stated the parking department will have to make a case for this
ordinance at the public hearing to get his support.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, no; DeVilbiss, yes; Johnson, yes; Richards, no;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2006 — 202 N. Monarch Blu Vic Reconsideration
Councilman DeVilbiss said a motion on the floor during the approval process would have
provided access to the commercial project off Mill street and to the residential portion off
Bleeker street. Councilman DeVilbiss said that was his preference. Councilman
DeVilbiss agreed that the arguments for opening the alley off Monarch were correct.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he has re- examined the site and feels the most appropriate
resolution is for access for commercial from Mill street and a driveway off Bleeker for
the residential. Councilman DeVilbiss said the applicants stated they would accept
whatever access Council approved.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #2 with the access off Mill street for
the commercial and access off Bleeker for the residential; seconded by Councilman
Torre.
Mayor Klanderud stated the alley off Monarch is the preferred access. This is not open
space; it is an unopened alley. Mayor Klanderud said any encroachments in this alley
should be removed. Mayor Klandemd noted using Bleeker would require moving the
Blu Vic. Councilman Johnson agreed the house must be moved if the Sleeker access is
approved Councilman Johnson noted this proposal would not decrease the number of
curb cuts in the area. Councilman Johnson said there is no mechanism to insure that any
future owner of either property not request the opening of this alley for access to the
properties.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, reminded Council during the presentation they
were told a driveway off Bleeker would be 12'. Since then the fire marshal has indicated
this driveway needs to be 16' and 55' into the property. Clauson said this will require
P23
Reeular Meeting Aspen City Council Apri 24, 2006
some relocation of the house. As part of the reconstruction, the house will have to be
lifted and a foundation provided. Tim Semrau, applicant, noted in the future Council
may have to grant access off the alley to the house on the north. Semrau said he would
like Council to address how to insure the alley off Monarch stays closed. Mayor
Klanderud agreed it is short sighted not to open the alley off Monarch for future access.
Councilwoman Richards said Council does not know the future holds in terms of historic
lots splits, the design of the mixed use building and what else may occur. Councilwoman
Richards said she feels Bleeker street is the best access.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, no; DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes;
Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2006 — 920/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision/PUD
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this is a request for
subdivision and a PUD amendment by Christine and Peter Dodaro, 930 Matchless and
Shirley Peterson, 920 Matchless. Ms. Phelan said this is also known as lot 5 of the
Alpine Acres subdivision and is one lot with two single family historic landmark
residences. Ms. Phelan said this property was annexed into the city in 1976 with 5 lots.
Two of these lots were undeveloped and three lots had miner's cottages turned into
duplexes by a shared common garage.
Ms. Phelan said in 1986, lot 4 adjacent to this property, requested subdivision into 2
separate lots. The shared garages had been removed between the two houses on lot 4 and
they requested fee simple ownership rather than condominiumization. During review,
staff discovered an error, which showed Alpine Acres zoned medium density residential
(R -6) rather than moderate density residential (R -15). Ms. Phelan noted R -6 allows a
smaller minimum lot size, which would allow subdivision into two lots and R -15 zoning
would not allow that subdivision. Ms. Phelan said in 1986, the owner of lot 4 had all
other owners of the Alpine Acres subdivision come in as an application to rezone from R-
15 to R -6. The owners of lot 4 applied for a subdivision to allow two lots, 4-A and 4 -B.
Ms. Phelan said at that time the property owners offered a voluntary cap on floor area of
the entire subdivision of 2,500 square feet/dwelling unit. During the public hearing at
P&Z, the cap was negotiated to 2,486 square feet/dwelling unit. Ordinance #35,1987,
rezoned the entire subdivision to R -6, added a PUD overlay to lots 4 and 5, which affects
the minimum front yard setback for lot 5 and the minimum lot width for lots 4 -A and 4 -13
and caps the allowable floor area for any dwelling unit in the subdivision to 2,486 square
feet.
Ms. Phelan noted in 2002, the owners of lot 4-A received approval for a PUD amendment
for an addition. The floor area was capped at 2,486 square feet; the proposed design was
2,986 square feet and the PUD amendment allowed an HPC 500 square foot floor area
bonus because of the excellent design.
P24
BILL PARZYBOK
July 14, 2010
To whom it may concern:
lkly name is Bill Parzybok and my home is at 232 East Bleeker. (At the corner of
Sleeker Street and Monarch). I live across the street from my neighbor Phil Hodgson
at 212 N. Monarch. I am in complete support of his putting in a curb cut and
driveway on the north side of his home. Parking is a real problem and residents like
Phil who don't have a driveway are often highly inconvenienced. Thank you for
considering Phil's request
Sincerely,
Bill Parzybok
P25
219 N. Monarch
Aspen, Colorado
July 22, 2010
To: Members of the Historical Preservation Commission
Aspen, Colorado
We have owned our house at 219 N. Monarch for approximately 55 years. Phil Hodgson
showed us where his proposed driveway would be placed at 212 N. Monarch, which is across the
street from our property.
We feel that the location is appropriate and necessary, considering the parking situation
on Monarch Street. Phil has our full approval for this project.
Sin e ee r / ely, _ _-
tA
William C. Light
P26
August 2, 2010
Aspen Historical i)om,ilssion .
Sall, and 1 own the victorian at 202 N. r!onarcn mot., and stave
discussed the plan with Phil tjodgson to install a driveway on t.tie
north side of Iris property at 212 N. vionarch. Residential parking
is difficult, witti the proximity to downtown, and 'believe tna,t this
is a sensible solution to trte situation. ,roe heartily endorse the
idea.
ThanK you for your consideration,
i
,4eaO ,R&&4t" e;�FN Peaousuuy Sezaiced
Sax 3613 ,4a6", eo&=do 91612 ;v4oael'7= (970)920-1125 4T&A 4aCZD¢a/ruv..,w
July 7, 2010 RECEIVED
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer JUL 0 7 2010
City of Aspen Community Development Department CITY OF ASPEN
130 South Galena Street CIA DMOPMEN
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: MINOR HPC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 212 NORTH MONARCH STREET
Dear Amy,
This is an application for HPC review of a driveway that is proposed to be installed at 212
North Monarch Street. The legal description of the property is the South 62' of Lots A,
B and C, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property's Pitkin County Parcel ID#
is 273707317003.
The owner of the property is Phil Hodgson (hereinafter, "the applicant "). Proof of the
ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the warranty deed. A letter from the
applicant authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services to submit this application is
provided as Exhibit #2.
I held a pre - application discussion and site visit with you prior to the submission of this
application and you issued the Pre - Application Conference Summary that is attached as
Exhibit #3. The form states that the proposal constitutes a minor development and
directs the applicant to submit the following type of application request:
HPC Certificateof Appropriatenessfor Minor Development, pursuant to Section
26.415.070C of the Aspen Land Use Code.
The following sections of this application provide responses to the City's Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines that apply to this type of application. First, however,
some background information on the property and a description of the proposed
driveway are provided.
Background Information and Summary of Proposed Development
The subject property consists of three City lots (62' x 90') that comprise approximately
5,580 sq. ft. of land. The property is zoned R -6 and is also a designated historic
landmark (H). As shown on the improvement survey, the property is improved with a
Victorian -era single - family residence that sits in the middle of the three lots.
Ms. Amy Guthrie
July 7, 2010
Page Two
The applicant would like to install a driveway to serve the residence. The property
presently does not have any off - street parking, meaning that it does not comply with the
City's minimum standard of 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant would like to
correct this situation because he has found that in recent years as there has been
increased use of on- street parking in his neighborhood, it has become more difficult for
him to park on the street, particularly when he is carrying packages back from the
grocery store and for other everyday needs. Installation of a driveway would allow him
to remove his vehicles from the street and to park in the driveway in a stacked parking
arrangement.
Previously, with the permission of City officials, the applicant had used the area within the
unimproved alley in Block 78 for off - street parking. However, during the City's review of
the re- development of the adjacent "Blue Vic" property, the City determined that the Block
78 alley would not be opened to traffic, and directed Mr. Hodgson to remove his parking
space from the alley. He has done so, and his neighbor to the south has landscaped the
alley with grass and trees and filled in the curb cut so it is no longer an option for access
to his residence. In fact, there is no option for access other than that proposed herein.
The proposed driveway is illustrated on the site plan that accompanies this application
letter. The applicant proposes a driveway that will have the minimum possible impact on
the site and the neighborhood. The driveway would be limited to 12' in width, which is
the City's minimum standard for a driveway (and is considerably narrower than the 20'
cut that previously existed for the alley). The driveway will be made of a grass -crete type
of paving material that provides a porous surface to allow water to continue to infiltrate
into the ground and will not increase drainage from the site.
We have met with the City Forester to review the configuration of the proposed driveway.
Considering his advice, the driveway has been designed so it will avoid the mature trees
that are growing along the property frontage. It would curve after it enters the property
to bring it along the north side of the house.
The applicant has also discussed the proposed driveway with Bert Myrin, the neighbor
whose property is adjacent to the proposed driveway. Mr. Myrin has provided a letter
endorsing the driveway stating that "The plans are well thought out and sensitively
address surrounding environmental, historical and neighborly impacts ". (see Exhibit #4).
Response to Applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Section 26.415.070C.3 of the Land Use Code establishes the procedures and standards
by which HPC may issue a certificate of appropriateness for minor development. It states
that HPC's review of the application shall require a determination of whether the project
conforms with Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Ms. Amy Guthrie
July 7, 2010
Page Three
The applicant has reviewed the Design Guidelines and has discussed with the staff which
chapters in the Guidelines would apply to the proposed driveway. We have been
informed that Chapter 1 and Chapter 14 of the Guidelines would apply to this proposal.
Following are the applicant's responses to the applicable guidelines in these chapters.
Chapter 1: Streetscape and Lot Features
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for
historic structures.
Response: The yard will be maintained in a traditional form, with the dominant character
being planting material and sod. The driveway will take up just 12' of the 62' of street
frontage and has been placed to the side of the historic house. Because a grass -crete
type of material will be used, the driveway will tend to blend with the grass- covered front
yard. In addition, by swinging the driveway around the large Austrian pine tree in the
northwest corner of the lot, the driveway will be hidden from view under a canopy of trees
once it gets past the front facade of the house.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on -site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
Response: The City Forester met with the applicant prior to the submission of this
application and indicated that the mature trees along the street frontage would not be
harmed by the driveway as it has been proposed. There are some minor shrubs that will
be removed, along with some of the lower limbs on the mature pine tree, but these were
not considered to be significant vegetation on the site.
It was suggested that the grass -crete pavers should be installed in a way that minimizes
any cutting below the existing grade of the yard. This will avoid any possible cutting into
the tree root system below the surface. The applicant shares the Forester's concern
about the root system and agrees to install the pavers as close to the existing grade as
is technically feasible so as to avoid cutting into the tree roots.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs
Response: The existing walkway to the house and the planting beds along the front
facade of the house will not be affected by the driveway. There is an old mining cart that
the applicant put in the front yard that will be displaced and relocated elsewhere along
the property frontage.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the
historic context of the site.
Ms. Amy Guthrie
July 7, 2010
Page Four
Response: No new landscape features are planned with the exception of the driveway.
Installation of grass -crete pavers will minimize the change in the historic character of the
landscape.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
Response: The driveway has been located in the northern corner of the property, so it
will not interfere with or obscure the view of the front facade of the landmark structure.
Chapter 14: General Guidelines
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact
Response: The driveway has been designed to minimize its visual impact by limiting its
width to just 12', which is the minimum width allowed by the City's Engineering Design
Standards. The visual impact will also be minimized by swinging the driveway around
the large Austrian pine tree, to the northern side of the house, where it will be hidden
from view by the tree canopy.
The proposed driveway would not add a new curb cut along this block. There was
previously a curb cut for the unimproved alley, where the applicant had parked his
vehicles with City permission. The City Council directed that this curb cut be closed and
the parking be removed, which has since been accomplished. Therefore, this driveway
represents a replacement for that curb cut, and is not a new curb cut.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street.
Response: The applicant does not propose to have a garage on this property.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.
Response: The applicant proposes to use a grass -crete type of paving material. This
material will distinguish the driveway from Monarch Street, yet will also provide a porous
surface that will allow water to infiltrate into the ground and will blend with the grass -
covered front yard of the property.
14.20 Off - street driveways should be removed, if feasible.
Response: As was demonstrated to you during your site visit, there is no possibility of
obtaining access to this property from the alley.
Ms. Amy Guthrie
July 7, 2010
Page Five
14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking
area rather than paving an entire driveway.
Response: The driveway will not have an impervious surface. Instead, a porous paving
material will be installed to reduce the driveway's visual (and drainage) impact.
14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear
of a primary structure.
Response: The driveway has been purposefully located away from the primary facade
of the landmark structure to maintain its visual importance. The driveway will swing along
the north side of the structure, where it will disappear from view.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
Response: There will not be a parking area in addition to the driveway. The driveway
will permit stacked parking to occur along the north side of the residence. The neighbor
on the north side of the property has provided a letter stating that he feels that the visual
impacts of a driveway next to his property have been addressed in a sensitive manner.
14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi - family uses,
should not be visually obtrusive.
Response: A large parking area is not proposed for this property.
Conclusion
The materials you requested during the pre - application conference have been provided,
along with responses to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code. The
applicant has demonstrated that the proposal is a minor development that complies with
these Code standards. Please let me know if there is any additional information you need
as you complete your review of this application.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
)Yo� gZ�O
Alan Richman, AICP
EXHIBITS
Reeorded at._�.cris - ..__o'elock_A_....M., PACE 38d
EXHIBIT #1 Reception No..158M4_..._.— ....._._ ... F.eggg..E
The South Sixty —Two Feet of Lots A, B and C,
Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado
THIS DEED, Made this �,--t h day ofTeBQgjm%Nj .19 73
between HINES H. BAKER, JR. Executor of the
Estate of Barbara York Baker, of 2214 Tennaco
Building, Houston
of the
Texas
County of Harris and state of 1411E Ede, of the first part, and
PHILIP R. HODGSON and PATRICIA H. HODGSON
z tenant Co unty of Bud state of
Colorado, of the warned part:
SYAH 911COMENlAAY HE
MAR 8 1973
WITNEsSETH, That the said part y of the fiat pare, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN
DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration ----------- sHE'Cplim
to the Bald part y of the first part in hand paid by said part *es of the second part, the receipt whereof is
hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does
grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said part ies of the second part,theirheirs and assigns for-
ever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the
County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise
appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and rmeinders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all
the estate, right, title, Interest, claim Bud demand whatsoever of the said part y of the first part. either in law
or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and apporteea erne.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said promises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto the
mid parties of the second part, theillleirs and assigns forever. And the said party of the first part,
for himsel his heirs, executors, and administrators. does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and
with the said part ies of the second part, theitfiein and assigns, that at the time of the annealing and delivery
of these presents, well seized of the promisee above conveyed, BE of good, sure, perfect, absolute and
indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority
to grant, bargain, Bell and convey the mane in manner std form BE aforesaid, and that the =me are free Bud elect
from all former suit other grants, bargains, sales, liens, toes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or
nature Bearer., except reservations and exceptions contained i n patents
from the United States and any liens by reason of inclusion of said
property in the Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Street
Improvement District and the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said part ies of the second part,
their hens and =signs agaiuet all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole
or any part thereof, the said party of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEPEND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Dart y of the first part has hereunto net his hand
and seal the day and year first above written. /
. ... (SEAL)
HINES
H. B EF., JEI. barn . tor
of .,_ e_ fBar_ ara____(ggAI,)
York Baker
... ......... .— ... ....... ........ _ ........... .._ ....... ......._..__........_._.__..... _..__......_ ....__"___...............(SEAL)
STATE OF COLORADO,
!!. 1, „ County of PITKIN
ed'uiatlff *i curnmt was =knowlediied
rr�73',.ey Hi.liesi H. Baker, Jr.,
HY�commisai�n eipiira -'?-r :' '.- •.�; ""
1.s.
before me this day of E Cwt' A9�1*
Executor of the Estate of Barbara BY2
1
19 LS . Witness my band and official seal.
7
.. ..G- .. ;'. r R. r
Nu,arr PuWie.
No. 933. WARRANTY DEED.—For PNbp•phic R.r.rd. Bdfmd rublWlwe a.. 3824 -41 Stout Bna.,. Dmru.. Oalw. -12.69
EXHIBIT #2
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: MINOR HPC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR 212 NORTH MONARCH STREET
Dear Ms. Guthrie,
I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated
representative with respect to the application being submitted to your office for my
property, located at 212 North Monarch Street. Alan Richman is authorized to submit an
application for installation of a driveway on this property. He is also authorized to
represent me in meetings with City staff and with the Historic Preservation Commission.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this
application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and
telephone number are included in the application.
Sincere,,
r--
Phil Hodgson
212 North Monarch Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925 -7642
EXHIBIT #3
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429 -2758 DATE: June 17, 2010
PROJECT: 212 N. Monarch Street
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman
DESCRIPTION:
The property owner wishes to add on -site parking. Currently there is only street parking available. Since this is the historic
condition, no on -site parking is required by Zoning.
The applicant is interested in pursuing a curb cut from North Monarch Street. The Land Use Code and Historic
Preservation Guidelines indicate that parking areas should be accessed from the alleys. Guidance on this subject found in
both these documents must be addressed in the application.
The subject property is abutted by an unopened (unpaved) alley which may be able to provide parking access to the site.
The application should address the feasibility (or infeasibility) of using the alleyway to create on -site parking at the back of
the house.
Review is by the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public hearing for Minor Development. Other City agencies,
including the Parks Department and City Engineering Departments should be consulted for guidance before submitting a
Land Use Application.
Applicant should be aware of the City's Stormwater Management process and fees that could be triggered by the project.
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.0 Development Involving Landmark Properties, Minor
See Also: City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Review by: Staff for complete application
Historic Preservation Commission for all other determinations
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC.
Planning Fees: $1,470 Deposit for 6 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour)
Referral Fees: None
Total Deposit: $1,470
To apply, submit the following information:
❑ Proof of ownership with payment.
❑ Signed fee agreement.
❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
❑ Total deposit for review of the application.
❑ 12 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC =12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 11ea.; Planning Staff = 1
• An 8112" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
• Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements
and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
(This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is
determined not to warrant a survey document.)
• A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing
❑ Copies of prior approvals.
❑ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of
the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is
preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable.
❑ Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by
the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5112. Please make sure that your application
submittal addresses these building - related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department
at 920 -5090 for additional information.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning,
which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary
does not create a legal or vested right.
EXHIBIT #4
July 6, 2010
218. N. Monarch St
P.O. Box 12365
Aspen, CO 81612
Bert Myrin
bert@myrin.com
(970) 925 -8645
Walter R. Madden
walterross @gmail.com
(970) 925 -7232
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 212 N. Monarch — Letter of Support
To Whom It May Concern:
Our property (218. N. Monarch) is to north of and
adjacent to the Hodgson property (212 N. Monarch). We
support the proposed driveway plans for 212 N. Monarch.
The plans are well thought out and sensitively address
surrounding environmental, historical and neighborly
impacts.
In short, we endorse, and urge you to endorse, the
proposed driveway plans.
With Best Regards,
Bert Myrin & Walt Madden
20100706 Hodgson Letter of Support.doc 1 of 1
r