HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20120314 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 14, 2012 — 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNICL MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT- 4:30 -NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes — January 25 Feb. 8th and
Feb. 2?' 2012 minutes
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5 )
IX. Submit public notice for agenda items
I. OLD BUSINESS
A. 217 E. BLEEKER — Conceptual, Major Development, On-
Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances, continued
Public Hearing (lhr.)
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. 202/208 E. Main Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split and
Variances, Public Hearing (45 min.)
III. WORK SESSIONS
A. None
IV. Adjourn 7:00 p.m.
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
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
•
PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction.
Ann Mullins Boomerang
604 W. Main
Lift One
316 E. Hopkins
610 W. Hallam- light
Jamie Brewster McLeod 630 E. Hyman
518 W. Main
1102 Waters
Jay Maytin 920 W. Hallam
518 W. Main
28 Smuggler Grove
Red Butte Cemetery
Lift One
205 S. Spring
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove
1102 Waters
Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper
Need to re- assign:
332 W. Main
Fox Crossing
205 S. Spring
M: \city \planning \hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
3/9/2012
P 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 217 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, On -site relocation,
Demolition, FAR Bonus, Variances, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: March 12, 2012
SUMMARY: 217 E. Bleeker is a 4,513 square foot lot that was created through a Historic
t tree at the
Landmark Lot Split. It is vacant except for two accessory buildings and a significant rr riate by
front rt the i eligible for setback variances and a 250 square foot AR bonus if found appropriate The
e
property is el g
HPC.
The applicant requests approval to demolish a very small shed structure towards the center of the
site, to remove a lean-to addition on the large alley building, and to relocate that building on the lot
in order to create a building envelope for a new home.
Cs Varian design approval is requested
and the FAX bonus.
along with setback variances, a Residential Design
project at 217 E. Bleeker Street (Oct. 12 and
Oct.
HPC 26
has h held two ) and d three public on the proposed ic hearings (Nov. 16 2011, Feb. 8 2012 and February 22"
2012..) ) Development ment of the property involves challenges due to the size and location of the historic
structure, and a large tree on the site. Property owners on both sides of the lot have expressed
opposition to sideyard setback variances.
The applicant e attached packet includes four ptionseforua restudies of th
the estoo° resource address
and
concerns. Th
required on -site parking along the rear of the lot. One option is not actually being offered for IIPC
plan, a
t o l ine . Tw options includes setback plan a larger a request for a 2'6" east sideyard setback arian variances In one p west
t ot h
tight d the ot
her space is h outs del The frnal option needs no sideyard variances, but greatly affects
car and spaces. the usability of one of the required on -site parking sp •
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve any of the proposed Options 2 -4,
with a pr for Option Preservation allows
of outbuildings is a visibility and
due to the fact that ecause it
p
room of any of the ohonr.
HPC prefers to see them remain as detached structures. It can be hard to adapt them to new uses
i
without altering their characte
too parking Staff finds that the applicant has found a
often conflict that flict with other uses that zoning
encourages along the alley, particularly
reasonable balance.
1
P2 .
APPLICANT: Karen Kribs, owner. The project architect has changed to BHH Partners,
Breckenridge.
PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -013.
ADDRESS: 217 E. Bleeker Street, Lot 1, East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot Split, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R -6, Medium'Density Residential, Historic Landmark
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, 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.
Major Development is a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Much of the conversation at the previous HPC discussions has been focused on
the structure along the alley, and the best way to preserve it given the
plan to build a new house on the site. Demolished
(date unknown) Moved to alley
HPC has been informed that the alley structure appears to
have been a small house that was located close along the west side c f the Victo ian at 227 E.
Bleeker.
This is the opinion of long -time neighbors, and it is supported IN
by the Sanbome map, which shows a building of comparable ',A 7 227 E. Bleekei
21 size alongside 227 E. Bleeker as of 1904. Furthermore, the r L__l
building along the alley has original doors and windows that 4_ � '
suggest it was once a home rather than just a barn.
The applicant wishes to remove a lean-to addition on the 1 I 6
historic structure and to rotate it to create access for a two car
garage. There has been concern that its presence on the alley
a
2 '73
P3
will be diminished, and that the alley structure would be surrounded by fences and new
construction. Because of this concern, the site plan was changed to show the alley building in
the southeast, instead of the southwest corner of the lot. The result is that the building is moved
in almost a direct Line back from where it was located in the Victorian era. It will continue to
' have some visibility from the street, and has significant visibility along the alley. From a site
plan perspective, staff believes the positioning of the alley building is appropriate.
With regard to the design of the new house, there has been criticism from staff and HPC that the
forms were too complex and out of character with the adjacent buildings. Staff finds that the
attached design meets the design guidelines. There are proportions and forms that relate to the
Victorian and the new structure does not overwhelm the adjacent buildings in scale. The
footprint of the new house is designed to avoid any setback variances other than for the alley
building and basement area.
Fenestration and materials are discussed at Final review.
ON - SITE RELOCATION
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations
as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their
surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site.
However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it
provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that
make it significant.
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any
one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character df the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated.
properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3
P4
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Response: Based on the history of the accessory building as discussed above, staff does
find that the proposed relocation is an acceptable preservation method. It has been stated that the
building has been in its current location for as much as the Last 90 years. Some board members
may take the position that it should be preserved as is. This would make it difficult or
impossible for the applicant to achieve the on -site parking they desire. Staff does find the
relocation acceptable in that the building remains small and free - standing, highly visible, and
similar to its Victorian era orientation.
If relocation is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it can be done safely
to preserve the structure.
DEMOLITION
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in
which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Response: The applicant plans to totally demolish a small shed that is clearly non - historic
based on appearance and comments from the 'owner of 227 E. Bleeker Avenue. Staff finds that
the review criteria are met.
4
P5
FAR BONUS
In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for
the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
Staff Response: Restoration of the accessory structure will be a substantial undertaking. There
are relatively few alley buildings left in town, especially of this size. This 350 square foot
building does count completely in FAR. The justification for granting a bonus would seem to
hang entirely on the success of the preservation strategy for this building. The applicant has
changed the proposal so that nothing will be added to the outbuilding, and original features will
be restored. Staff finds that all of the criteria above are met and deserving of a 250 square foot
FAR bonus as requested.
SETBACK VARIANCES
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: All options presented need a 9' rear yard setback variance. Two options
require a 2'6" east sideyard setback variance.
Staff finds that the variance criteria are met. The structure has always been placed at the very
rear of the property, albeit on the opposite side. The variances facilitate the historic structure's
preservation as a free - standing building with very good visibility to the public. The project
otherwise conforms to setback requirements. The structure that is benefitting from the variances
is relatively small, which should mitigate impacts on the adjacent Victorian property. In
addition, the primary house is one story along the east property line.
5
P6
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The project does not comply with Residential Design Standards related to the setback of the
house from the street.
Build -to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at
least sixty percent (60 %) of the front facade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum
front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with
the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60 %)
standard.
All Residential Design Standard Variances, Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.410.020(D)(2) must:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting,
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or,
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the property has a hardship related to this standard due to the
location of the tree at the front of the lot. A variance is recommended.
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 HPC grant Conceptual Major Development, On-
site relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, Setback Variances and a Residential Design Standard
Variance for the Build -to -Line standard. A resolution will be prepared to reflect the
development Option supported by HPC.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Guidelines
B. Application
C. Previous minutes
D. Letters from neighbor
6
P7
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Conceptual Review
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character - defining features. These
include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details.
❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged.
❑ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases.
❑ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary
structure, while accommodating new uses.
8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure.
❑ Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern
should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case -
by -case basis.
8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic
integrity.
See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case -by - case basis.
❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
❑ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
❑ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
7
P8
o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
❑ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
9.6. When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
❑ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
❑ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattem of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
❑ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
❑ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
❑ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to
the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
❑ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
❑ The front should include a one -story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
❑ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
o . Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
❑ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A- frames.
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
o These include windows, doors and porches.
8
P9
❑ Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
❑ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
❑ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
9
P10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011
Vice - chair, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Willis Pember, Brian McNellis
and Jamie McLeod. Excused was Nora Berko.
Staff present:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Disclosure of conflict: Jay Maytin said he will step down on 316 E. Hopkins
due to a financial conflict.
217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site relocation,
Demolition and Variances — Public Hearing— Cont'd from Oct. 26"'
Amy said this is a 4,500 sq ft. lot in the West End and is a product of a lot
split that was approved in 2005. At the time of the lot split 2,280 square
feet is allowed and they have the option to receive a 250 square foot bonus
plus variances from HPC. There is a large historic structure on the alley and
a smaller shed in the center of the property. The building along the alley
used to be a house in the front of the lot. There was a brief discussion about
pulling the house back to the center of the lot but that is not possible because
of the large tree on the site. Staff has suggested the house be in the south
east comer. There would be complete visibility from the east across the
neighboring property and there would be exposure from the alley and you
would be able to see the building from all four sides. It also moves it
directly back from where it was originally located. You are also being asked
to approve the proposal for a new house. Having more patio area and
pushing the mass to the second floor is out of character with the adjacent
buildings. Staff feels there are ways to maneuver the plan and bring down
the scale and be more sensitive to the surrounding structures. Also the roof
forms seem complicated. Staff is recommending a restudy and at this time
there are design issue and we are not sure the FAR bonus is appropriate.
There are setback variances requested only for the shed but a new public
notice needs to occur before HPC can authorize those setbacks. There is
also a request for a residential design standard variance.
Karen Kribs, owner
Gretchen Greenwood , architect
1
_._._._ ...__ P11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011
Karen said the barn has a lean -too which we are requesting to remove and
rotate the barn to where there is no fencing and it is well in back of the
existing building next door. We have pushed the garage 17 '/2 feet off the
alley. We are asking for a side setback variance so it will stick out a little so
that you can see the front portion from the street. The form of the house has
changed some and there was some concern from staff about the massing of
the house. The patio is 340 square feet. Staff had asked about putting more
mass on the ground level. There is significant mass on the ground level. We
will be using 1,960 square feet of FAR above ground because we will have
some deductions because of the barn and deductions for the second stall in
the garage and deductions for the exposed light wells in the lower level.
Right now we have 340 feet of bam on the ground and 500 feet of garage
and 890 feet of house for a total of 1,730 square feet and we have 1,070 to
go up stairs. We feel this is a good balance. The house has a front porch
that sits well behind the neighboring house. The front porch is almost
recessed 19 feet from the street. If we push the porch back anymore we are
continuing to push the mass to the middle of the lot. The main .level is the
master bedroom, bath, entry and the garage and upstairs is the living portion
with a deck. We have now put peaks on the roofs. There will be a gable end
on the front porch and two gables at the top. The front porch is ten feet wide
and six feet deep with a simple gable.
Gretchen form of the building has gone from a larger mass to a smaller
mass. The concept is to have two similar miner cabin gabled forms that read
on the building. The concept is to break up the form and have a flat form in
between. One of our concepts was to be able to take the entry part of the
building and start stepping it down from there. A third of the floor area will
be above grade. It is our desire to take the gabled ends and break them up.
Comments and questions:
Jay inquired about the height. Gretchen said it is 27 feet to the peak.
We are keeping the barn in the same relationship to the alley as it is now.
Ann asked if the design includes the bonus and what is the justification for
that bonus? Gretchen said it is included in the design. We are completely
doing a restoration of the barn and we are adding a few windows which can
be up for discussion. We will continue to work with the HPC to make this
acceptable. The site has constraints such as the trees. We are designing a
building that is compatible with the Victorian. We are condensing our
2
P12 —
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011
building in order to make the barn visible. We are keeping the patio open
because it separates the building at a street/pedestrian level so you look back
into the site. We are being sensitive to the form of the building next door by
using flat roofs and having roof lines that match that building next door.
Karen said we have 1,730 square feet of buildings on the ground level and
the upstairs of the house is 1,070 square feet. The basement is not calculated
because it is underground.
Amy said she is concerned because part of the FAR is calculated in the
basement.
Karen said we have 890 for the house, 125 for the garage and 240 for the
barn. We are under the allowable FAR.
Willis said they are within the 2280 and the bonus of 250 which comes to
around 2,530 square feet.
Willis asked about the inflection which is in the residential design standards.
Amy explained that they are exempt because the lot is smaller than 6,000
square feet.
Brian asked about the 17 feet for parking in the back because that seems
awfully shallow. Gretchen said our parking requirements are for the garage
only. There are no requirements for using the 17 feet.
Brian said if you have someone parking there with a big truck the back end
will be sticking out into the alleyway. Gretchen said if the police come by
and the vehicle is hanging out you can get a ticket but there are no
requirements.
Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing.
Mary Hayes said she lives on the west side. It looks to me like we are going
to be looking at a huge big wall with no break in the wall.
Ann closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Issues:
3
P13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011
250 square foot bonus; shed orientation; building form itself; building site
and whether or not it should align up with the house next door; residential
design variances.
Brian said he is much more comfortable with iteration. I also feel it is
slightly top heavy and maybe that can be twiddled down a little and fill in
the ground floor space. Maybe setback the front entryway. The gable entry
is an improvement. Possibly introduce some more fenestration above the
entry way. At this point I cannot support the bonus. Bonuses are granted if
the building is brought back to the way it was originally. The side yard
variance is appropriate because it gives an opportunity to see around what
you are building. With regard to the west elevation we are complying with
the setback on that side.
Jamie said she is having a hard time reading the drawings. One concern is a
two story structure right next to the historic resource next door which is the
original historic resource. Are we too close and are we stepping down away
from the historic resource. The roof form changes, with the gable roofs
really help with the form especially the entryway. I am in support of the
shed being moved. Regarding the front yard setback I am not in favor of
pushing the wall back to align with the yellow historic building because of
how much the tree takes up of the front yard. Coming forward might give
you more of a front yard presence so I disagree with staff on that issue. The
models will be very helpful to see the context. Regarding the 250 square
foot bonus I am having a hard time with that. We need to look at what
changes are being made to the barn if any.
Ann said she agrees with the comments from Jamie and Brian. You aren't at
the 250 square foot bonus yet. If you read through the criteria none of them
apply. On the shed I wish it could be in the same orientation of the alley but
it can't. We can't prove where it was originally or what orientation. What
you have done now is an improvement over the previous plan. I agree with
Jamie that it doesn't matter where the front of the house is with that massive
tree. Regarding the building foim guidelines 11.4.5.6 the roof forms seem
complicated compared with the adjacent houses and the historic resource.
The design of the building seems reverse as to what is going on the street
with the other Victorians, more living space upstairs. There needs to be less
mass on the second floor and simpler lines on the roof.
4
P14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES NOVEMBER 16,2011
Jay thanked the applicant for doing a super job with the cabin and being
sensitive to its view. This is the new house on the lot split next to the
historic resource. The front entry works well and you are challenged by the
tree. I also agree that there could be more mass moved lower. Hike that the
second floor is complicated because it is a product of its own time. I am
concerned about heated patios and the waste of energy. In order to get the
bonus the restoration has to be exemplary of the barn and punching new
holes isn't going to get you there. The garage only counts for 125 square
feet of FAR but a two car garage in town when we can move mass
downstairs. I would hate to see that my 250 square foot bonus might of
gone to parking a car in the house when we can have the scale smaller and
we could live with one car in the house. I would rather see in my town less
mass. The orientation of the barn works well.
Willis said he likes what is happening to the historic resource. The
representation is hard to read because of the shadow. The model for the next
meeting will help a lot. It is truly a top heavy structure. I am looking for a
concept of related scale not replicating historic forms. You could come in
with a modern structure. It gets overly fussy quickly and you have three
roof shapes when the neighbors have much simpler bigger scale roofs.
Maybe restudy the building to make it simpler. At this time I cannot support
the bonus until the mass and scale is more comfortable on the street level
and it is really in making it simpler.
Ann commented that the board is OK with the residential design variance
and not in favor of the bonus. We all are in support of studying reallocation
of the space within the different stories and restudying the roof form.
MOTION: Brian moved to continue 217 E. Bleeker until Dec. 14 second
by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0.
518 W. Main — Final Major Development, Demolition — Public Hearing
Exhibit I — public notice
Exhibit II — recommendations
Exhibit III — fence drawing
Amy said this is an 11 unit affordable housing project with two units in the
Victorian and a new structure behind the Victorian and a larger structure
adjacent to the Ullr Lodge. The Victorian had a fire in the building and it
will go through a full restoration. This will be one of the few miner cottages
5
P15
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Chairperson, Aim Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Jay Maytin and Jamie
McLeod. Nora Berko and Willis Pember were excused.
Staff present:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Brian announced that he is resigning from HPC. His expertise on the board
will be greatly missed, especially landscaping!
Disclosure:
Jamie said her office is next door to 302 E. Hopkins and she will explain that
to the applicant.
217 E.Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site Relocation,
Demolition, Variances, cont'd public hearing.
Amy said this property was created through a lot split and it is a 4,500
square foot lot with an historic structure on the site and a large tree on the
property. There is a maximum floor area of 2,280 square feet that has been
allocated to the property and the applicant is proposing to develop a house
and they are asking for a 250 square foot bonus because of the historic out
building and they are asking for some setback variances for the placement of
that building. They are not asking for any variances for the house, only the
historic structure. The design is different and staff finds that it is more in
keeping with the design guidelines. It is a very simple cross gable design
structure. They are proposing to move the historic out building and keep it
as an out building along the alley and reorient it and pull all the new
construction away from it so that it has high visibility on all sides. Staff is in
support of the location. They are proposing to demolish a small non - historic
shed that is in the middle of the property. They are asking for a 250 FAR
bonus and staff feels the request is appropriate. We don't have very many
out buildings left in town. Staff has concerns about some of the window and
door changes proposed in the out building. They are asking for two setback
variances. The shed is to be located one foot from the alley where ten feet is
required and one foot from the east property line where five is required.
They need a residential design variance due to the large tree. Staff
recommends approval.
1
P16
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Karen Kribs, owner
Mark Hogan, architect
Steve Walbeck, builder
Karen said Mark has done work for her in Summit County. Karen said we
want to make this project right for the HPC and one of the comments was
that you wanted a model and we have one. The major concern from the last
meeting was the massing and that the design was too big upstairs, to close to
the historic resource next door and that there was too much patio. The bump
out was removed and square footage was added to the basement and the
patio was made smaller. The front entry was moved back. The porch has
been raised to coincide with the historic house and the house across the
street also has a raised porch. The front of the front porch is 19 feet behind
the property line and the front of the house is about 27 feet behind the
property line.
Jamie said she is excited to see a client so involved.
Karen said the house has become a lot more compact than before. The
roofs have also been simplified and with the cross gable we will be able to
install solar panels. We have lost about 75% of the original patio. There is a
little bit of living space under the driveway and with the solar panels that
will help with the snow melt. Karen said we are proposing masonry
wainscoting along the bottom of the house about 18 inches and brown
horizontal siding and some stucco for accents to give variety to the design.
Jamie inquired about the trees.
Karen said there are a couple of aspen trees we think we can save and the
spruce. Jamie said she counted 7 trees that would be removed.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing.
Lee Gettman said he owns the property at 227E. Bleeker that enabled the lot
split and we are happy to have Karen as a neighbor. The new design is
great. The one thing we have an issue with is the side yard setback on the
east side of the house. We have talked about doing something on the east
side. If the setback is granted it would limit our expansion in the future and
that is not acceptable. Regardless what we do that would devalue our
property on a resale and would limit anyone in the future from doing
2
P17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
anything. We are already constrained on the east side by a transformer box.
One foot isn't enough to maintain the building and it is far less than what the
fire code requires. The location is arbitrary. We would like to see the five
foot setback maintained and it is in line with the historical integrity. What
really is being accommodated there is a second driveway.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing portion of the agenda
item.
Commissioner member comments:
Jamie thanked the applicant and the fact that the concept has come a long
way since we first looked at it. You definitely have heard what the
commission said about their concerns. I am in favor of the demolition of the
little shed. In regards to the setback variances I am concerned about the one
foot off the neighboring property especially when the neighbor next door is
opposed to that variance. There needs to be a little more planning in
looking at the driveway location and where the historic resource is. Jamie
asked about the windows on the historic out building.
Amy said they are proposing some window changes and they are larger in
proportion than the double hung's that were originally in the building. There
are also a couple opportunities to restore openings that are not represented.
With the FAR bonus typically we like to keep the historic house in the same
location. Maybe it can be flipped. Keeping the doors and windows close to
original as possible is important for the FAR bonus. The site relocation and
setback variances need to be restudied.
Jay said his issue is the setback and the shed. This project is so close. I
have an issue with the five foot setback and the 250 FAR bonus. The
restoration of the shed itself should not include any new openings and it
should back to the original. There is an opportunity to move the historic out
building to the west. The south side variance is OK and the residential
design variance. It is on the alley where it should be. One foot away from
the neighbor's property is difficult to approve. To offer the bonus we need
to see the east side variance changed. Everything else is stellar.
Ann said the design is much better and the one story relates to the historic
shed. At final we should discuss the fenestration and whether or not stucco
3
P18
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
is appropriate. The shed needs to be restored to the historic forms.
Restudy the idea of moving it to the other side of the property. The east side
setback needs looked at again.
Brian said the design is much better and we appreciate the applicant bringing
this forward. I echo the one foot setback concern from my fellow
commissioners. There is also the issue of snow shedding which will shed
into the neighbor's yard. I don't find that to be a very fair situation.
Karen said she is trying hard to listen to what the board wants and you all
said visibility. If we take the building and move it back in we lose the
visibility from Bleeker Street.
Brian said the commission needs to take into consideration by moving the
side building out for visibility sake we are also doing it to accommodate
more vehicle storage which is a tough sell for me. The bonus is reserved for
exemplary project where we are actually preserving an outbuilding in its
original location and not modifying it. In this case we aren't doing either of
those to the greatest extent possible.
Ann clarified that visibility meant from the alley not Bleeker but both are
important. We have never verified where the original location was.
Amy said we have verification where it was when it was up on the street
front and then it was only moved once to where it is today.
Ann said on the alley where it is currently is not the original location.
Jay said it has been in its current location for 90 years but that wasn't the
original site.
Jay asked if there was a parking requirement on the site.
Amy said they have to provide two parking spaces on -site. The applicant
has indicated that the two parking spaces on -site are important.
Jay said we can waive those. Amy said it wasn't noticed for the parking
spaces.
4
P19
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Jamie said if you move the shed how does that effect the house and the
forms of the house, mass and scale.
Mark said a compromise might be to have the setback from one foot to three
feet. If we go with the five foot it complete removes the ability to do the
garage.
Brian said 9 feet is the standard width of a parking space.
Jamie suggested looking at a tandem approach for the cars. I would really
like the applicant to look at bringing that in five feet. If the neighbor would
come in and say they want to build one foot you would have two feet
between two buildings and snow piling up between them.
Karen thought historic projects were entitled to some setback variances.
Jamie said you are getting the design yard variance and rear yard setback.
Jamie said if you were to leave the historic shed where it is current and not
rotate it, I personally would look at granting the side and rear yard setback
because you aren't moving it.
Karen said regardless it has to be moved because it is encroaching at the
moment. It can't stay exactly where it is. Amy agreed.
Mark said they can work with the neighbors to increase slightly a side yard
setback in exchange we would support a side yard setback for them in the
future. Is that appropriate to work out something like that?
Amy said you can't bind the commission.
Jay said that doesn't necessarily work with our program.
Amy asked the board if there is a side yard setback dimension that the board
is comfortable with if it were two feet or three feet instead of the one
proposed and that you would not have to see a restudy.
Ann said she feels three feet would be acceptable, basically moving the shed
up to the edge of the garage. That would be a four feet setback.
5
P20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Mark said there are inches here and there and we can probably live with a
three foot setback and still make the current concept.
Jay said by moving the building three feet is accomplishing one goal but
then I'm further away from a 250 square foot bonus if that building is going
to be hooked to the other building. Basically you are fighting for a garage.
You are asking me to compromise my historic preservation guidelines for a
bonus that you haven't achieved yet and on top of it use that bonus for a
garage in your home. Moving it over one way will take away the bonus.
There is not enough room around the house. This one thing is the hardest to
figure out.
MOTION: Ann moved to continue 217 E. Bleeker until Feb. 22 " in order to
look at the location of the shed and the improvements to the restoration of
the shed. Motion second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried.
Jay said at the next meeting to also address the solar issue whether they are
shingles or panels.
Karen said it would be good to know what I need to accomplish. There is no
point coming back with three feet if you are dead set against it.
Ann said she heard from the board that five feet would be acceptable and
anything else would be up for discussion again.
302 E. Hopkins Ave. — Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, On -Site Relocation, Special Review and
Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing
Jamie disclosed that her office is across the street and if you don't feel it is a
conflict of interest I will stay.
Sunny Vann stated that he feels there is no conflict of interest.
Public notice - ExhibitI
Amy stated that this is a 3,000 square foot lot in the very edge of the
commercial core historic district. There is an existing house on the site
which is probably one of the oldest buildings still standing in Aspen around
1883. It is in a carpenter gothic style. There are no other examples like this
6
P21
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
David said the owners are a little older and they are concerned when their
friends walk over an icy sidewalk. I am sure they will be willing to work
with staff on the design.
Willis said he would support more than one post on the walkway if it was
felt necessary.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve 610 W. Hallam outdoor lighting with no
more than a three foot tall post and a down lighting fixture to be approved by
staff and monitor. Motion second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 5 -0.
Ann will be the monitor.
217 E. Bleeker — Conceptual, Major Development, On -Site Relocation,
•
Demolition and Variances, continued public hearing
Amy said we are at conceptual and there was a specific FAR assigned and
there is a large tree and an historic structure in the back. At the last meeting
the house design had improved and was in character with the guidelines but
the focus turned back to the shed because of the adjacent family having
concerns that it was too close to their common property line. I am focusing
on the shed tonight. Staff finds that the new house meets the conceptual
guidelines and at final we will talk about materials and lighting. Karen has
proposed two alternatives that she feels are workable for the shed to provide
relief off the common property line. One version pulls it another foot further
so it is two feet from the east lot line. The alternative comes three feet from
the property line and requires the garage to be pushed into the west side yard
setback which would require a variance. Staff feels the first alternative is
the best compromise. There has been a lot of commentary about not
wanting to give side yard setback variances with the new house itself.
Hopefully we can work out something with this complicated project.
Karen Kribs, owner
•
Karen went over the elevations where square footage was taken out of the
top floor and moved to the bottom. The patio was also reduced in size. The
site has a lot of constraints including the Victorian next door, a large tree and
an accessory dwelling. Karen did a power point of the overview of the
project including the solar panels that will be installed in the roof. Mostly
we have heard positive comments about the house. The focus is on the
3
P22
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
accessory dwelling tonight. We have as is elevations and proposed
elevations of the restoration. This building was a barn and at one time it was
a house and we intend to turn the structure back into a dwelling structure but
it won't be livable. It will be my office. On the east elevation it will face
the neighbor at 227, the Gettman property. Right now there is a door and
window which will stay the same. We are going to ask for a small window
on the west elevation of the shed. The siding on the lean to is OK. The door
will also remain. We are trying to keep this as close to the original as we
can and it needs to be functional and light enough. We have examined the
inside and the existing door cannot be saved. On the north elevation we
would like a door with a light panel on top and we would restore the window
that existed before.
Staff and some of the members have suggested that the 250 square foot
bonus rests on the restoration of the building. The guidelines were
addressed and how the project complies with them. The bonus can be
granted when restoring an out building which is happening. The accessory
building actually chews up more than the 250 square foot bonus that we are
asking for. It is over 340 square feet. On the location, the site plan that was
submitted in November shows the building a foot off the property line and
we didn't have negative comments from the panel and I hadn't heard
anything from anyone in the neighborhood until a couple of weeks ago so I
really thought this was settled. I did go back and tried to figure out a
compromise without drastically changing the proposal. In the proposal the
barn would be moved over one more foot and we would maintain the three
foot separation between the accessory building and the garage. This is the
proposal that we would like to do in order to not ask for an additional
setback on the other side. The second proposal would require a one foot
variance for a west side yard setback and this would move the barn over two
more feet rather than one foot. I understand that Lee Gettman has concerns
about snow falling onto his property and this would give a little more space
for the snow to fall. It is a compromise. I am struggling for a garage and
this is a retirement home for my husband and I. The garage is important to
us. We have pushed the garage up to give visibility to the barn. We have
given up a lot and we gave up the covered patio off the bedroom. We have
also given up an open stairwell and we have given up 60 to 70% of the side
patio. We are really trying to compromise and be flexible. There are a
number of historic lot splits where two car garages have been approved. I
feel we have compromised a lot of things and I hope you will find a way to
compromise on this one.
4
P23
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
Jay asked about the procedures regarding noticing for the setbacks.
Amy said option one does not require any different noticing and option two
would require noticing at final and we certainly have done that before. If
you don't award it at final she will have to redesign to not require the
variance. You can't award a variance that has not been noticed for but you
can give direction.
Willis explained that he is a little disappointed in the change of vocabulary
from the first meeting. There was nothing at that meeting to direct a change
in the vocabulary that was presented. Why the change from the initial to the
one here now.
Jamie said the style represented by Gretchen was unique vs. the style
presented by the new architect.
Karen said the first presentation wasn't succeeding so we tried another
design. I am continually trying to improve the design and make the house a
more attractive house. This house is much more attractive than the house
that was submitted in November.
Jamie clarified on the historic shed you are looking at adding two windows.
Karen said we are restoring a window that was formally there on the north
elevation and the one on the west is added.
Jamie said the north elevation faces the house and the west elevation faces
the garage. Karen clarified the setbacks.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing.
Lee Gettman, neighbor at 227 E. Bleeker which is east of 217 E. Bleeker.
Lee said they recognize the applicant's right to build and we appreciate the
efforts of staff, architects and Karen to address our concerns. After
discussing this with our family we will be disappointed with anything less
than five feet. It seems like it is a standard guideline and is there for a
reason. By maintaining the five foot setback is the only way that we can
keep all of our options open for the future. The safety concerns of the snow
sliding and fire would be compromised. The maintenance of the building
5
P24
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
will not be possible with the two foot option. We do understand that there
are constraints on the lot and everything that is there was there before the
purchase. Everything that is being asked for is arbitrary. We appreciate
everything that you have done to address the concerns that we have.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing portion of the agenda
item. Ann asked for comments on the house and restoration of the shed and
variances.
Jamie commented that she appreciates Karen's efforts and the fact that she
has been through a lot with the board.. In regards to the shed because you are
completely restoring it I would be in favor of adding the additional window
and restoring the other window. Because of the extent of restoration I would
look at the 250 square foot bonus. My biggest concern is the location and it
always has been. I look at these property lines and setbacks to help protect
you from your neighbor and your neighbor from you. If your neighbor
didn't come in and have concerns about it we would have most likely
granted at least something that was three feet off the property line or two
feet off the property line although two feet would be difficult. I wouldn't
want someone building two feet from my property line. I also have
difficulty granting an easement on the other side of the building without
having proper noticing. Amy is absolutely right that this board does not
typically grant variances for a new house. My biggest hang up is the
location of the shed. I still don't feel the two proposals are a big enough
compromise and there are other design alternatives that you can look at with
your architect. With conceptual I would not be able to approve this with the
location of the shed.
Ann said in terms of the 250 square foot bonus I would grant that if the only
windows added to the shed were windows that had been there previously.
On the alley all the sheds are out of compliance. I would support the two
foot variance on the east side and consider the one foot on the west so that
the shed becomes very visible from the alley (option two). It's a
compromise and the public noticing is a risk.
Jay said the neighbor's concerns are important. I believe the barn should be
on the setback line. Regarding the 250 square foot bonus I would support
that by restoring the barn to its original punched openings. We would have
to go with what we find when it is opened up. I wouldn't support the new
window on the west. The restoration of the building back to its original is
6
P25
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
worth the 250 square foot bonus. The public notice for the other side is a big
gamble but I would give you that gamble. The barn has to come to the
setback line on the east side.
Willis said the framed enlarged windows have been blocked in overtime and
then replaced with smaller windows. Have you explored going back to the
original window frames and enlarging the frames with new larger windows
instead of having a blocked in approach to the windows particularly in light
of adding a new window where there wasn't one.
Amy said all of the windows and doors can be reopened and we should
probably spend some time on the site to make sure we are doing something
accurate.
Willis said to make a workable office that would be the obvious thing to
look at.
Karen asked if Willis is suggesting we put in windows in bigger than the .
prior windows.
Willis said just fill up the existing frame. Windows over time in the barn got
smaller in the existing openings.
Karen said she expects that a large window existed at one time and she can
restore that window.
Willis commented that it would make for a better working environment.
With regard to the site the constraints are enormous. I would favor option
one with the FAR bonus. I am fine with the site of option one and the public
benefit and the reading of the historic resource out weights the concems of
the neighbors in this case given that sheds that remain in the alleys are off
and on property lines and have not been re -sited as a result of going through
any kind of land use approvals. In terms of mass and scale I feel I have been
left out of the loop not being at the Last hearing and it sounds like there was a
lot of discussion. In terms of mass and scale it is fine.
MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #5 as written with the
condition that the 250 square foot FAR bonus is approved on the condition
that the barn is restored to its original condition including fenestration. The
7
P26
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
second condition would be that the site plan approve option #1. Motion
second by Willis.
Discussion:
Ann commented that the applicant is restoring the barn and the pattern of the
outbuildings throughout town is that they are inside and outside setbacks. It
maybe that the neighbors on either side will have to ask for variances when
they want to do some improvements on their houses.
Jay said he feels it is not appropriate to burden the neighbors with her
request. Lee has come here twice and now this motion is for two feet off
and it will create a burden on the neighbor's property. This is not saving this
house or structure, it is restoring it and it is already protected. What I would
like to protect is the whole alley scape. Option two would give it another
foot away but creates other problems. The property was bought as is and
there were no secrets. I don't want to pick up the barn and move it around
and create an ability to strangle it again and I think that is what we are doing
by putting it over the setback. I would support moving it over to the five
foot setback. You are "paving a road" to crowd the house on the east side.
Jamie said she is also having a hard time supporting option #1. Why not
leave the shed in its existing location or rotating it in its existing location.
You have to move it no matter what because it is over your property line. If
you moved it a foot and rotated it I would be more amenable than moving it
across the lot affecting a neighbor that was never affected by the shed •
before.
Vote: Jamie, no; Willis, yes; Jay, no; Ann, yes. A two -two vote is a failed
action.
MOTION: Jay made the motion to deny the application. Motion died for
lack of a second.
MOTION: Ann moved to continue the application of 217 E. Bleeker and
restudy the setback. There are two commissioners adamant about the five
foot setback and the applicant should take that seriously. Ann withdrew her
motion.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve the conceptual application for 217 E.
Bleeker, resolution #5 with the preference of a three foot setback (site plan
8
P27
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012
#2) on the east side. To restore the resource to the original openings.. Motion
second by Ann.
Discussion: Jamie said if we ignore the concerns of the neighbor I think it is
setting a precedence for neighbors not coming in to speak. I feel the shed
should be in the area that it is in now. I would ask the applicant to restudy
this and possibly look at a variance of one foot on each side that was
properly noticed vs. not noticed at all. I have a hard time granting a two foot
variance on the barn in a new location.
Jay said if the applicant was forced to bring it into conformity in some way
on the south east corner of the lot it would alleviate some pressure from the
neighbor because it is over the property line; This project is completely
doable within the setbacks. We need to protect this resource and let the
project grow around it.
Vote: Willis, yes; Jay, no; Jamie, no; Ann, no Motion failed 3 -1.
MOTION: Ann made the motion to continue 217 E. Bleeker until March
14` second by Jamie. Vote: Willis, yes; Jay, no; Ann, yes; Jamie, yes;
Motion carried 3 -1
Work sessions — 325 Park and 204 S. Galena — no minutes - recording
Jim True, City Attorney said work sessions are design to get guidance from
the HPC. The applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the
commission as a whole or by an individual commissioner. There is nothing
that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. You are trying to
get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are
not for making final determinations.
MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 pm.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
9
P28
ite
c Cst 2
February 26, 2012 G 0 3 '0A Al o �
F,ly
To: Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Committee
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Hi Amy...
1 just want to make my position clear on the house proposal at 217
East Bleeker Street in Aspen.
• I feel it is too much structure on too small a lot. And it impacts
neighbors on both the East and. West sides.
Thank you `' k Si,,,trcust..# l
Mary Eshbaugh Hayes
209 East Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P29
C F I Lif
FE e 2 ' 2012
CITY 0F! , .
Zoom p N
February 26, 2012
An update on February 28
To: Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Committee
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Hi Amy... •
1 just want to make my position clear on the house proposal at 217
East Bleeker Street in Aspen.
I feel it is too much structure on too small a lot. And it impacts
neighbors on both the East and West sides.
Yesterday, Feb 27, Karen asked me to approve a smaller setback.1
did not like it but felt pressured to agree on a 2 �/2 foot setback from
our yard.
I then talked to my daughter, Jess Bates in Hawaii where she will be
for two months...and she objected to that reduced setback.
After thinking about it, I too object. We want the 5 foot setback which
is required. Why have setbacks if you then ask for variances to get
what you want.
Snow is a fact of fife in Aspen. The 2 Y2 setback would allow the snow
from the barn to come crashing down on our wood fence and break it.
It would also allow a chasm between our shed and the barn to fill with
snow.
So we want the 5 foot setback.
realize this is hard on Karen...but she should have thought about
the restrictions of the property when she bought it. There is just too
much structure on too little land.
Thank you C •. .
Mary Eshbaugh Hayes
209 East Bleeker Street
A -citt
'Aa .i .: L2ti 1
P30
March 1, 2012 `
To: Amy Guthrie L ^ v0'leo r
HPC oe Sp
City of Aspen ° 'w t e
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado
From: Mary Eshbaugh Hayes
209 East Bleeker
Aspen, Colorado
Hello again Amy:
Karen came by yesterday and pressured me to grant the west side
variance. I am totally against it.
There has been so much consideration of the east side of 217 E.
Bleeker and no consideration of the west side.
The plans show and there is a written explanation that the design of
the proposed house steps back from the east side, putting the mass
of the building on the west side. That means that we would have to
look at a massive wall that would be ugly and block our morning sun.
It will tower over us and now Karen wants to move it even closer to
our property with the request for a variance.
Our 5 children will inherit this property...I have already set up a family
partnership so they already own it. They do not want to have a
variance for the setback. They want the legal 5 foot setback. They do
not know at this time what they will do with the property when they
inherit. So they do not want that house any closer than the 5 feet
setback.
•
Also, I do not want the earthmovers cutting into our property in order
to dig Karen's basements. There is a hedge of yellow roses that have
P31
stood over 100 years inside the fence. I do not want them killed.
When they built the monstrosity on our west side, they dug right up to
our basement wall and killed three of our trees. That monster already
has taken our afternoon sun and we are going to lose our morning
sun even with the 5 foot setback.
Jim and I use our yard as an extension of our home in spring,
summer and fall. This huge house will take our sun and our privacy. I
think you have to start considering us.
I hope this ends the pressure to give a variance on our side.
Thank you. 11 L—Put-cL44ct
Mary Eshbaugh Hayes
RFGE1Ift,t)
P32 MAR 5 2012
CITY OF ASPEFi
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
house only by means of an interior stairway from the barn to the basement of the new
home. We propose to remove the lean-to addition to the barn, rotate it approximately ninety
degrees and move it to the southeast comer of the property in order to vacate the
encroachments into the alley and the neighbor's yard and to position the structure next to the
1 Victorian home with which it is associated. As an added benefit, . moving the structure to
1
the other side of the property moves it away from an existing fence, thereby increasing its'
1 exposure. Our latest design pushes the garage almost 19 feet off of the alley so that very
little of the historic building is hidden from view. At the suggestion of some members of
I the UPC, we plan to keep the structure as close to the alley as is practical, where it will add
i to the life and ambiance in this block where the alley is home to several other outbuildings.
1
We will be asking fora 4' 0" variance for the side setback and a 9' 0" variance for the rear
j setback for the historic structure and the basement supporting it. No variance is required
1 for the new home, other than that portion of the basement which supports the historic
structure.
1
We shall also seek the permission of the UPC to use a small portion of the historic structure
i as a Wildlife- Resistant Trash Enclosure, as provided for in the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, Part 500, 26575 D (13), paragraph 2. This space would be located in the southwest
1 corner of the building along the alley, and would use an existing door for access.
The development on the flout side of the property is dictated by the large tree. There is
only about nine feet between the east edge of the tree and the east edge of the building
envelope. This forces us to ask for variance from the. Residential Design Standard
26.410.040 A (2), which requires sixty percent of the front facade of the house to be within .
five feet of the minimum front yard set back line.
We will have to depend on the front porch to provide "street presence" of the house. The
entire front portion of the forward element of the building will be a single story structure, to ,...?)
ante with the Victorian to the east. The height of the house gradually rises as it moves
from east to west, and most of the two story portion of the main house will be massed on
the some
e west side of the lot, somewhat idhid •m street • street view, as it will be behind it e tree. � ��
T he only two story portion on the east side will be located to the rear of the building site, b" ' f
�
beyond the peak of the neighboring cottage. �„9 - u ( I�
The proposed design meets the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines as follows: d�,p)
,� tic
,q 1: • The original portion of the historic resource will remain as an apparent stand -alone �
building. It will be repositioned near the Victorian home with which it is nfrAlliu i\z-R"
y-
associated. ./N
•
The historic building would be converted back to living space, as it was used A
originally. a.-
• We will work closely with the UPC to develop a strategy for restoration. The
building is in fragile condition and has been greatly altered from original at different..
periods, so we anticipate that the restoration will be complicated. ��.%
• The architecture of the new home is compatible with the neighboring Victorians, r U ?fi;
featuring cross -gable forms, with traditional gables on the front and east sides of
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
q i `9- Op4-/- /2 Ge &e--- St . ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
WI ii/te,-ey I y ,2(1. Z.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, f</�! 0 WR I ES (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
/
✓ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fift en(15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the,2J'day of rak u.11•R-t ,20.1J-, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
j notice (sign) is attached hereto.
�// Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred(300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
e°I
r r Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
fv Ib Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However,the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen(15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
XdK/14 *
Signature
The foregoing ,,/
"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this Zd ay
of Th' , iti ,204?,by .
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
;... Pr.1Rai h
�: .. rr commission expires: 04/I j/at 0I S
cam. �t
i �i JP,,,, i i
r
rr, •'c: .'o,4 Public
r1%tliE OF s.__c •
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICAHON
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICAHON OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 217 E.SLEEKER STREET CON MAJOR
ENT,ON-SITE ITE BELO CATION,DEMOLITION AND g
NOTImeeting Hat 1311 S. at 5:00 ore the public Aspen IistoriP be held Commis Commission,March cil 2012,at a / '
to begin at5:00
9994,Aspen, S. 8 Galena owner A Aspen,ZjjE consider dedereLr an t I,East submitted by re Colt, Chambers,
9994,City and 81612,of Meeker isren Kris,P.O.r Box
applicant and To to remove o Aspen,nu County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,oBPI Hi 2737-073-20-013.73 Landmark Lot
applicant
it on the sit historic stied from the property, -p� c barn The
relocate:it on e,and to construct a new home The application to remodel a historic barn and.
the
Residential l Standards..As part of an on-going fro th t of the appr the opriate requirement o�f r
tue on the site,the assessment of the
setback reduction of 1'for a new age and may basement area the following w approp°ate setback.for
reduction of 2'for the historic structure annd basement Basement area it,and re variances:a west scorn d.
of 9'for the historic'structure and ow i, below it,and a seat sideyard
setback setback
the historic basement below it,or a j setback setback reduction
structure and structure and basement below it and a �ackredd ction o 9' onion is o 3'for
basement below it. rearYard setback reduction of 9'for.the historic
. For further information,3contactAmy Guthrie at y of Aspen Community Development De-
partment,
Galena St.,As (970)429-2758,amr.guthrie@ciaspea.coua
WA hni,Aspen Historic PresereatkCouraiu Published is the Aspen T na February18,2012
_____________1
i y .
A
Ilk
1.7 +:'-.1 p
c+ i aP "; a
/tea `.
:f
.w
y 1
i F„ii i .y . .. .
k
', r �F k �r� �
a 4x 'r s Y� S N a °..t xT f' x
. ,ii-„,:-_,...„rn.,„„,„„„.. ....„....,-,
ii
.4„.-4,:„.„4 ..„:„. . „. , .. ,: ---- a n,.. -"_ .„.-,- ",_. , - -,-it.
., h ,_., -,_. ,,,,„,
: s
_ . ,„... :".„.„ ,;-„..-„, - , if 9R,OTtp44,siktete. -- '21,g;711c.,10-rirn't'!".”- ... ..,:',ZiP
ttlit1 " .:.-' n a
P
ua
} -..:4 „
s f '
i , ,07#a
a . ..„.„ . . ,..,.,,.. . _ .
, .
.
a
Y k t x 0 ,,t.
tt
ah, ........„..... „,„,
-___ , , ,_., .. ..._.
..,
:H ....4. .
, -
1 A glingel Band aloistfine to f , rot, AWRY.5140. i
cy Pee Labels 1 ties Paw =g=g° megrim Pop-t~* 1. A
-ose Ante TOmpbats SAGO. is ". .---
-
2M E MAIN LLC 202 ASPEN LLC : 303 EAST MAIN W.P
PO BOX 345 2950 E BROAD ST 2ND FL : PO BOX 8016
ASPEN,CO 81612 COWMBUS,OH 43209 ! ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED •
BERKO GM
ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC i METHODIST CHURCH
435 E MAIN ST i - ; 722 GLEN EAGLES DR
200 E BLE13031 ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81811
: /wpm CO 81611
CARLS REAL ESTATE LW •
.! CHALAL JOSEPH B i col'OF ASPEN
. ATTN FINANCE DEPT
PO BOX 1365 : 31 Arita sr : 130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN,CO 81612 ! OCEAN RIDGE,FL 33435 - ASPEN,CO 81811
COLORADO MOUNTAIN PEWS a
CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC EIM 22311C
CO
• 6544 WENONGA UR . 1230 SNOWEILN4NY DI
PO BOX1927
MISSION NUS_KS 66208 - ASPEN,CO 81611
CARSON CITY,NV 89702
EXPLORE BOOKSS.LERS&BISTIr RE ' FUSSIER DAVID M - GARRETT GLN_CH EQUITY VENTURE LLC
LW BERKO GINA
- 2950 E BROAD ST
300 CRESCENT CT 81000 ! 292 GLEN EAGLE ' C;OWPABUS,OH 43209
DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN,CO 81611 .
,._
GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST GLOFtDANO MICHAEL ; HAYES MARY E&JAMES L FAM12 LISP
325 S FOREST ' 1411 GREEN MEADOW RD ! 209 E SLEEKER ST
DENVER,CO 80246 1 CARESONDALE,CO 81823-9801 1 ASPEN,CO 81811
HODGSON PHIUP R 50%
HODES ALAN&DEBORAH ! HOGUET CONSTANCE M
HODGSON PATRICIA H TRUST 5011
114 N ASPEN ST. N MONARCH ST 333 E 88TH ST
: 212
SPEN,CO 81611 , NEW YORK,NY 10021
ASPEN,CO) 81611
- •
JEROME PROPERTY LLC LIGHT HOLDINGS WP • MATTINGL't,MARK&AWE
540W MADISON ST ; 80113ASELPE RD i 929 CAMINO VIEJO
CHICAGO,IL 60661 J BOULDER.,CO 80302 • SANTA BARBARA,CA 93108
_______ . _ __
MONARCH BUILDING LW - PARZYBOK WILLIAM G JR TRUSTEE . PEARCE FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 126 ' 38624 N 104TH ST ; 218 E MAIN ST
WOODY CREEK,CO 81658 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 852623711 ! ASPEN,CO 81611
PGOLOTT1 DELLA
ASPEN HOME CONSIGNMENT : PENN PAUL E&SUSAN W . ROCKING LAZY J PROPERTIES LW
202 E MAIN i 3830 E 79TH ST : PO BOX 12360
81611 . It4DIANAPOUS,IN 462604451 ! ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN,CO
......_ ..... - ... .. . _______
` - --—--- •
Etiquette,iTadles A peter 1 • A
1 seas de Repliez a b Indium afin de j : wWW.awrizom e
Jew le.gabarit AMY*51600 1
, I 4,,,,„,,„„,,,,,„ cdvalerle rebood Popiget 1 , 140samanv 1
i
, - .
ESPethe Lab* I ; A SI Bend Sit/M0110 tO i i
ic@t AVERY.no. t
oulise loserve TOMplille Slee A ;Feta raper=slat' expose Pop-Op Edge 1 ki
•
SADLER QUAL PERS RES TRUST IMO c SANDY HOUSE NEW LLc i SEGUIN Wiliam L it MARILYN
•50% .i WO LflTED REAL ESTATE VENTURES ;PO BOX 4274
8536 N GOLFER I INC i ASPENX0 81612
-
PARADISE in%AZ 85253 I.240 CELAN:ION BLVE/9167
.1 ICEY BISCAYNE.FL 33149 .
SE3ARAU FAIMLY ILO !SUTTON KERMIT S&JENNY W I WHEELER SQUARE ASSOCIATES 80%
300 S SPROIG ST 0203 1 715 TEt4TH ST SOUTH 200 E MAIN ST
ASPEN.CO 816112806 i NAPLES.FL 34102 ASPEN,CO 816111956
_. .
WHITMAN RANDALL A . .
4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR
. .
CORAL GABLES,FL 33156 •
--
. .
.. . __
._ -- - -- ----- - • --- — -
. .
...._ • __ ._.....___ .
s,
----- -
-- --- - - • --. -
etiquette:stags a paler I A
1 Replier&b hadatafin dm I wilwamayain
I
titan le gabarit AVERY°5180. 1 : Sensde
1 Asnantant reveler lerebaal Porupic I -
, 140040,AVERY
EXHIBIT 1-f-
the identified defects. In the written notification the Chief Building Official sh.
the nature of the specific defects and the corrective action ordered.
3. After receiving agreement from the owner, his representatives or other such persons having
legal possession, custody and control of the property for an inspection, the Chief Building
Official and the HPC Officer shall within ten (10)working days conduct an investigation and
prepare a written report determining whether the property requires work to address conditions
set,forth in Subsection 26.415.100.A1.
4. If the property is found to contain conditions needing correction,the owner,his representative
or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property will be
served within fourteen (14) days with a complaint identifying the property deficiencies and
providing notice that a hearing will be held before a Hearing Officer of the City within forty-
five(45)days. The purpose of the hearing is to:
a. Receive evidence concerning the charge of deterioration and
b. Develop a plan and schedule for making the needed repairs in a timely fashion, such that
the building is stabilized and the deterioration is arrested and
c. Ascertain whether the owner or other parties intend to make application for financial
assistance from the City to correct the building defects.
5. Following such notice and hearing, the Hearing Officer will make a determination if there are
any corrections required pursuant to Subsection 26.415.110.A.1 and shall state in writing the
findings of fact in support of that determination. If it is determined that the building or
structure is undergoing deterioration or if its condition'is contributing to deterioration, the
owner or other parties of interest will be served an order to repair those defective elements of
the structure within a reasonable specified time frame.
6. If the owner fails to make the necessary repairs within the identified time frame, the City may
undertake the work to correct the deficiencies that create any hazardous and unsafe conditions
to life, health and property. The expense of this work will be recorded as a lien on the
property.
C. Appeal. Within thirty(30)days,the owner may appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the
Board of Appeals and Examiners pursuant to the process established in Chapter 8.08 of this
Municipal Code.
(Ord.No. 1-2002 § 7 [part]; Ord.No. 28 -2010, §1) -
26.415.110. Benefits.
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain,
preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable
community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs
for designated historic properties and districts.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400,Page 52
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an
important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable
community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an
innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been
legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and
maintaining their property.
Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere
else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and
cherished by many.
All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be eligible
for the following benefits.
A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth management
quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of designated historic
properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the
subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.7101 for
further information: All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain
designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
B. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on a
smaller sized lot than is required for a non-designated property. Refer to specific zone district
information in Chapter 26.710 for further information.
C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to
create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than
what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a. Development in the side,rear and front setbacks;
b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
c. Up to five percent(5%)additional site coverage;
d. Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties. ,
2. In granting a variance,the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400,Page 53
EXHIB
ORDINANCE NO.34
(SERIES OF 2005) •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT
227 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS E, F, AND G, BLOCK 73, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO
Parcel ID#: 2737-073-20-003
WHEREAS, the applicants, Rosa Gettman and EHC Management Trust (John M.
Crosby and Carolynn Crosby Burnett Co-Trustees), represented by Mitch Haas, Haas
Land Planning, LLC, have requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split,and Variances for the
property located at 227 E. Bleeker Street, Lots E, F, and G, Block 73, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS,in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split,the applicant shall meet
the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4),
Section 26.470.040(A)(4),and Section 26.415.110(A),which are as follows:
26.480.030(A)(2),-Subdivisiou Exemptions,Lot Split
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family
dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977,where
all of the following conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin
County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land
is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided
after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on
March 24, 1969; and
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split,both lots conform to
the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which
development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to
Section 26.470.070(B).
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the
subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or
a"lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a);and
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter,and conforms to
the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no
further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units
be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter
and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
e) 'Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on of 5
I IIIII1 1illl IIII II1III III IIIII1 IIII III IIII IIII IIII 01/17/2006 10:231 1
the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty
(180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat
invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause.
f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which
is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to
application for a lot split.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split
shall not exceed three(3) units,which may be composed of a duplex and a
single-family home; and
26.480.030(A)(4),Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split
The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a
- subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: -
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000)
square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or MU zone
district.
b. ' The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the
size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR
for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements
of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section
26.415.110(B)(1)(a),(b),and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a
historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on
the original parcel; and
26.470.040(A)(4), CMOS Exempt Development, Single-Family and Duplex
Development on Historic Landmark Properties. The development of one or multiple
single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land designated as a Historic
Landmark shall be exempt from growth management. This exemption applies to the
rehabilitation of existing structures,reconstruction after demolition of existing structures,
and the development of new structures on Historic Landmark properties, provided all
necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development involving the
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Additional units shall not be
deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling -
Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030;and
26.415.110(A) Benefits, Historic Landmark Lot Split. This section establishes the
procedure for review of a Historic Landmark Lot Split; and
111111011111111111 l ll 11li illl11111 5 X9806 10:231
JANICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 2
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed and recommended
approval of the application, finding that the applicable review standards have been met;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 13, 2005, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, that City Council
approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 227 East Bleeker Street; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.415.110 and Section 26.480, of the
Municipal Code, the City Council may approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering
comments from the general public,and recommendations from the Historic Preservation
Commission and Community Development Director; and
-- WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health,safety,and welfare.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE 1TORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT:-
Section I I
Pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section
26.415.110(A) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as
specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption:
1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and
evaluation for approval; and
2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as
outlined in Section 26.480 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: to
assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper
distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by
establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and
survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the
construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the
interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the
purchaser; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks,
provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important
and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or
indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features, or edges of
rivers and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen.
LItItIIIi/iffl!&IILIJLllllllllilllllllllllill 5�,9$p610:231 3
CO R 26.00 D0.00
Section 2
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant
a Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 227 East Bleeker Street, Lots
E, F, and G. Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following
conditions:
1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred
eighty(180)days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and
subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the
plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a
showing of good cause. As a minimum,the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
— - b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for
these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable
approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the
time of application; -
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will
conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except
the variances approved by the HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create Lot 1 of 4,500 square
feet in size with 2,280 square feet of floor area, and a Lot 2 of 4,500
square feet in size with 1,800 square feet of floor area. Each lot may apply
for up to %2 of the available HPC FAR bonus.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 22nd day of August, 2005, iH■the
City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall,Aspen, Colorado.
Section 7:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty(30)days following final passage.
I0521:8200056 Page: 4 10:231 4
JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 0 0.00
eples• �. P33
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 202/208 E. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances, Public
Hearing
DATE: March 14, 2012
SUMMARY: 202/208 E . , Y x f
Main Street is a 6,000 square ` 6 ' ` ' Mxx t 41s S ' 34 J4 'r'*
foot lot that contains two °� s FG' �- `� ; ` ; r a � 04
Victorian era homes. The y ' r- `2 _ :
LE 4'.
structures were condominium „ , � ' <
ized in 1999 and are separately "
owned. 202 E. Main is Aspen
Home Consignment and 208
E. Main is Salon Tulio.
A
The owners are co- applicants `
in a request to split the
property into two 3,000 square
foot lots, restoring them to the _ - —
original townsite lot sizes No «w ;: x
expansions to the existing t F , ea ..- - . m 1
structures are proposed for
review at this time. The lot
•?a s:k:.4PS�r.+z^5 v ry �F z, r R3�*' z.s u r s '..,s„� hY'F3 .+4 .a� . resr` .h' ,s fi sf fit
split necessitates some building/fire code upgrades, including removal of' a small non - historic
addition that currently links the two houses together near the front facades.
Even with the removal of the link, the structures will still be as little as 3'6" apart from wall to
wall, with roof overhangs that are only about 1' apart. Both buildings currently encroach into the
side and rear yard setbacks, and new sideyard setback encroachments will be created as a result
of drawing a new lot line between the houses. HPC setback variances are requested to legalize
the conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC support the historic landmark lot
split and setback variances. The result is a more simple form of ownership for the property owners.
1
P34
APPLICANTS: Rocking Lazy J Properties, LLC, owner of the property located at 202 E. Main
Street, Unit A of the Main Street Victorians Condominiums and Michael Giordano, owner of the
property located at 208 E. Main Street, Unit B of the Main Street Victorians Condominiums.
PARCEL ID UNIT A: #2737 - 073 -20 -011
PARCEL ID UNIT B: #2737 - 073 -20 -012
ADDRESS: 202 and 208 E. Main Street, Units A and B, Main Street Victorians Condominiums,
Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4) and Chapter 26.470. Growth
Management where applicable.
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
All of the following conditions must be met:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County
Commissioners or the City Council or the land is described as a metes and bounds
parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by
the City on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Staff Finding: The property is in the original townsite.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying Zone District. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The application proposes two lots, both of which conform to the MU zone
district. No expansion is currently planned, therefore Growth Management is not applicable.
c. The lot under consideration or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption.
d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter and conforms to the
requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk
and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further, subdivision may be granted for
these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
2
-P35
pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter
26.470.
Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall must be provided to the Community Development
Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat
within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall
render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement must be provided to the Community
Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
f. In the case where an existing building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split,
the building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split.
Staff Finding: A small (20 square feet) enclosed area between the two structures must be
demolished. Staff will seek direction from the Building Department on a timeframe for the
demolition to be completed.
g. Maximum potential residential build -out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split
shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-
family home.
Staff Finding: The are developed with commercial uses. Following the lot split, each
property will be eligible for a one time Growth Management exemption for a residential dwelling
unit.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
All of the following conditions must be met:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and
be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF, C -1 or MU Zone District.
Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 6,000 square feet and is located in the MU Zone District.
b. The total FAR for each lot shall be established by dividing the allowable floor area for
a duplex or two detached residences on the fathering parcel according to the Zone
District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on
the subdivision exemption plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed
uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the Zone District for
allowable FAR on each lot.
3
P36
Staff Finding: FAR for each parcel shall be according to the MU zone district regulations in
effect at the time of development, according to the uses proposed for each lot individually.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying
Zone District. The variances provided in Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic
preservation are only permitted on the parcels that contain a historic structure. Only
one (1) FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet may be granted to each historic landmark
lot split subdivision exemption.
Staff Finding: The development is expected to meet the dimensional requirements of the zone
district except for variances to setbacks, addressed below. Each lot contains a historic resource
and is eligible for variances.
•
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are
as follows.
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district
and/or
Staff Response: The buildings are in their historic locations. Their relationship to the property
lines, and their close proximity to each other is the historic development pattern for the
neighborhood.
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The lot split restores the original condition of these two houses as separate
structures on individually owned lots. Even if the buildings were shifted on their sites they
would not be able to meet modern setback requirements.
The fire safety upgrades that may be needed due to proximity of the buildings should be finalized
by Staff and a project monitor, in conjunction with the Building Department and applicant. The
Building Department has preliminarily suggested sprinkler heads be installed along the west eave
of the 208 E. Main building, since the eave will actually overhang onto the 202 E. Main property.
The sprinklers would create a sheet of water along the wall in the event of a fire. The sprinkler
heads could be visible from the street, so alternatives need to be discussed.
Staff recommends HPC grant the following variances to recognize existing setback
encroachments:
4
P37
202 E. Main/Lot 1: Up to a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building and a
5'rear yard setback reduction for an existing roof over a rear entry path.
208 E. Main/Lot 2: a 3'2" east sideyard setback reduction for an existing side entry into the main
building and a 5' east sideyard reduction and 5' rear yard reduction for an existing shed.
Staff recommends HPC grant the following variances to legalize new setback encroachments that
are created as a result of re- drawing the lot line between the houses:
202 E. Main/Lot 1: A 2' east sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building.
208 E. Main/Lot 2: a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building.
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 support the Historic Landmark Lot Split
and grant the Setback variances with the following conditions:
1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City
Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified
time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the
dimensional requirements of the MU, Mixed Use zone district, except for variances
approved by the HPC.
2. HPC hereby grants the following setback variances:
202 E. Main/Lot 1: Up to a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building, a
2' east sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building, and a 5'rear yard setback
reduction for an existing roof over a rear entry path.
5
P38
208 E. Main/Lot 2: a 3'2" east sideyard setback reduction for an existing side entry into the
main building, a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building, and a 5'
east sideyard reduction and 5' rear yard reduction for an existing shed.
3. Staff and monitor must review and approve any alterations that must be made to 202 E. Main
or 208 E. Main in response to Fire or Building Codes.
Exhibits:
Resolution # , Series of 2012
A. Application
6
P39
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT
SPLIT, AND GRANTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202
AND 208 E. MAIN STREET, UNITS A AND B, MAIN STREET VICTORIANS
CONDOMINIUMS, BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: #2737 - 073 -20 -011 and #2737 - 073 -20 -012
WHEREAS, the property owners, Rocking Lazy J Properties, LLC, owner of the property located
at 202 E. Main Street, Unit A of the Main Street Victorians Condominiums and Michael Giordano,
owner of the property located at 208 E. Main Street, Unit B of the Main Street Victorians
Condominiums, have requested a historic landmark lot split and variances; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.480.030, Subdivision and Chapter 26.470,
Growth Management Quota System; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C,
Variances; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated March 14, 2012, performed an
analysis of the application and recommended that HPC support a Historic Landmark Lot Split
and grant setback variance approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 14, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
granted approval by a vote of _ to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Lot Split, and HPC grants
approval for variances with the following conditions:
1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement - shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City
Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified
time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application;
202/208 E. Main Street
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012
Page 1 of 2
P40
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the Lots will conform to the
dimensional requirements of the MU, Mixed Use zone district, except for variances
approved by the HPC.
2. HPC hereby grants the following setback variances:
202 E. Main/Lot 1: Up to a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the existing main
building, a 2' east sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building, and a 5'rear
yard setback reduction for an existing roof over a rear entry path.
208 E. Main/Lot 2: a 3'2" east sideyard setback reduction for an existing side entry into the
main building, a 5' west sideyard setback reduction for the existing main building, and a 5'
east sideyard reduction and 5' rear yard reduction for an existing shed.
3. Staff and monitor must review and approve any alterations that must be made to 202 E. Main
or 208 E. Main in response to Fire or Building Codes.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14 day of March,
2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
202/208 E. Main Street
HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2012
Page 2 of 2 •
P41
C
®C
t
D •
02/13/2012
Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
On Behalf Of:
Michael and Shelley Tullio (Giordano)
Salon Tullio
208 E. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Parcel ID: 273707320012
Lot L and Lot M, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
And
Jake Vickery
Aspen Home Consignment
202 E. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Parcel ID: 273707320011
Lot L and Lot M, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Michael and Shelley Tullio and Jake Vickery are seeking a Historic Landmark Lot Split, which would
allow each lot owner the right to construct a single family unit with 1,500 square feet FAR. The new
property line which is shown in the draft plat that accompanies this memo will follow the historic lot line.
Each lot would therefore be returned to its original 30' wide by 100' length.
An easement is being requested for the Lot M roofline that extends onto Lot L. Once the Lot M addition
takes place, all overhanging roofline will be removed except for what exists on the historic resource.
We appreciate your time and consideration.
Sara Boulet Upton, Architect
p.o. box 2324 basalt, co 81621 c 970 948 9667 f 970 927 3727 e sara(Wupion- design.com w upton- design.com
P42
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
—
e
PROJECT: .... ........... 0 F s r
Name: j, .164,1 i c� ' u s` e ° 9 3 C
Location: 2, , Vk 1 '-f Age t%' f511mfl q, ,
1t1a,L, St V \rbria..,S, I,It,ti A- `'dP
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Z - 7 3'7 r, 3 z 0,1
APPLICANT:
Name: .1 a-V-e, i rAC -act1
Address: F. o . lxi o 12?,(vo
Phone f: C1 3oi -17 2z Fax #: E- mail: j ; lr. .. r ...r -1 et
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:. Fax#: E -mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on
❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site)
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total
❑ -Minor Historic Development demolition)
❑ -Major Historic Development Historic Landmark Lot Split
❑ - Conceptual Historic Development
❑ -Final Historic Development
- Substantial Amendment
EXISTING CONDTIIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
*wo1dt5 22zE. tAlL ` 1aa
4-44 Wou! c1 die IA (Ti's SaUi'
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
• ! P43
PROJECT: me,/ 5{ V /Wezat � i s
Name: _
Location: ,2-p g C. 5/ 1 a-002—
Coo f L a , / /0cJC �3
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) t.r 7 0 7 0 0 1 ) 7,7 /)-
APPLICANT:
Name: /✓/ /G /qQ 7 6 / b
Address: e- 5 �? n
Phone �O) 9 y�.13 Fax #: E -mail: /r /rZlit T✓ /// & Q me.. Cann
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax #: E -mail:
TYPE OP APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on
❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site)
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total
❑ -Minor Historic Development demolition)
❑ -Major Historic Development
Historic Landmark Lot Split
❑ - Conceptual Historic Development
❑ -Final Historic Development
- Substantial Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
c V(f o t2/ -S zo,'ece art 4711C K VSO
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
LlLi L0 51 / O7/ze1 aJ 2 C
6 / / a Oo< lit •
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
JAN -31 -2012 16:22 FROM: TO: 919705445292 P.1 /1
P44
Jake Vickery Architect
• Architecture & Planning
202 East Main Street
, Aspen, Colorado 81612
970 309 -7722
jakevickery@co mcast,net
January 30, 2012
TO: Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
RE: IIIISTORIC LOT SPLTT OF MAIN STREET VICTORIANS, UNIT A
This letter is to document that we, the undersigned owners of Unit A, Main Street Victorians, 202 East
Main Street, grant our permission and joint participation in the submission of an application for tbtO
Historic Lot Split of Main Street Victorians, Aspen Colorado.
This letter is also to authorize both Jake Vickery and Della Pegolotti to act as mutual representatives for
each other on all matters pertaining to this historic lot split.
Sincerely,
�.• I I I I / Ir/ -
J ¶ Vickery (Jake)
Manager, Rocking Lazy J Properties
Co-owner, Unit A, Main Street Victorians
202 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970 309.7732
Della J. Pegolotti
Co- owner, Unit A, Maln Street Victorians
202 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970 309 -7711
P45
•
February 6, 2012
TO: Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
RE: HISTORIC LOT SPLIT OF MAIN STREET VICTORIANS, UNIT B
This letter is to document that we, the undersigned owners of Unit B, Main Street
Victorians, 20$ East Main Street, grant our permission and joint participation in the
submission of an application for the Historic Lot Split of Main Street Victorians, Aspen,
Colorado.
This letter is also to authorize Sara Upton to act as Michael and Shelley Giordano's
representatives on all matters pertaining to this historic lot split.
Sincerely,
Michael and Shelley Giordano
208 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7357
------ 1------ \
A LLEY B LO CK j \
REAR SETBACK Lee
\ Of p AV 3 \
\ \
30 00 / \
WOOD FENCE -----____
SIDE SETBACK r \ S7So II \ \
GRAVEL ` / GRA ^ 1 F \
PARKING 100 PARKING JJ 015 REAR SETBACK
/ / 1---
/ / ` / / • , \ 7
/ 6" A SPEN --- -- ' / IVES 1
/ / ALLEY SHED/
' • P / 2 / / ,� / t FOOTPRINT/
Q t /
/ / ( /f/ / / 0( /
/ SA-- ---, / 7
ti / / / / EASEMENT REQUESTED
t; c° / / / / FOR ROOF OVERHANG
O oM / � / / / 5 - ONTO NEIGHBORING
m / PM, / / LOT
ti ■ /
. gyp
Q 1u / / l / / s-0
/ /
Q CT) / o / / / / /
/ LOT 1 / / / o / / SIDE SETBACK
Jo / LOT L / / / �.OT Z / � 4 102
I / / / / i / / *-4 / LOT M , / / CONNECTOR BETWEEN / / / 3000 SQ. FT. S 1..9 7/1?
/ / H OUSES TO BE / / - / / � 1 '�
V / REM d / / o
// / �° / o
/ / // ° •
z Itel l / / i o .1 / PORCH / / / m
7 / / ,
/ 2
cps / / / / g / ,.sue Q
/ L t-- _W / NCLOSED Q v . Q
ENTRY
^ o f / / 0 8" p7 r r / 0 t� J/ VARIANCES REQUESTED
FOR ALL EXISTING
�� in ` 11111%. / / / CONSTRUCTION THAT
\ L q / J ENCROACHES INTO
\ S7 `O 1 / b j SETBACKS, TYP. OF EACH LOT
7 \ \ V / SIDE SETBACK
FRONT SETBACK K CONC \ 3 0� FRONT SETBACK
c� \ �� \
\ R B Q \ ^I) ��
COTTONWOOD \ G \ \
CO \ SITE PLAN
f
EAST \ 6 "ASPE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
O
\
qIN ST 1" = 10I -0°
R EST \ 02 -13 -2012
u •ton b satoco 81621
• esign 970 9469667
EXHIBIT1-
13-/Z-Ei
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CO'
ADDRESS OF F PROPERTY:PERTY: RE: 208 E.MAIN BUC NOTICE oRlc LAND-
ao� �^D . , Aspen, CO MARK LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCEEFEEFSSSSSS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Wednesday.March 14,2012,al a
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission,in Council
Chambers,City Hell,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen.
'ash, HPC will consider an application submitted by
owner_ ` 20* 1 Rocking Lazy J Properties,LIC,owner of the
property located at 202 E.Main Street,Unit A of
the Main Street Victorians Condominiums,Block
73, City and Townsite of Asp an,
12360,Aspen, mailing address P.O.Box
12360,Aspen,CO.81612.a 970-309-7722 and
STATE OF COLORADO 208llE. sin Sane,owner of the property located at
206 E.Main min iut.Un6o kf 73, Main nd Townsite
.of s Condominiums.o73- 73.City and Towig
SS. of dr Aspen,o 208 E.Main Street,Aspen,with a mailing
970-948.7 208 T Main Street,ntsp ro,CO.se to 81611,
divdet-eexi The ,000slquareproposetosub-
ounty of Pitkin ) divide the existing wo se square foot co arefoo-
iumixed pars a into two separate commequate foot
City Council.asked to mote n recommendation e-
City n the ex. The new lot seed will lie requires the is-
, tonic the rviti n structures and consider the His-
' tonic Preservation Commission to consider the fol-
I t�G`� ' %x3'r ' 3\% (name, pie lowing variances:
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby per= 202 E.Main/Lot 1:a 2'east sideyard setback re-
aamea ad cexonkfo ouildi s iu9 has a s`:aro
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.: sideyard setback reduction for the existing building
208 E.Main/Lot 2:a 3'2'east sideyard setback re-
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: duction for an existing side entry into the salon,up
to a 5'east sideyard reduction and a 5'rear set-
back reduction for an existing shed,and a 5'west
sideyard setback reduction for the existing struc-
Nre.
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of
For further information,contact Amy Guthrie at the
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least lift City of Aspen Communityy Development Depart-
ment, 130 S.Galena SL,Aspen, CO.(970)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached: 429-2758,amy.gu"de @ci.aepen °.at.
s/Ann Mullins
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservstlon Commission
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from 23 b20120(]5]945I1 en Times Weekly on February
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, w.
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and tw
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
Z
ur� e
The fo egoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled$ed before me thisa4day
of c, r , 201 , bytI lta�llis
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: cf l C1 1(e
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
"1O Cr
CI +YU
C)F1LUtTY lEvEiPMElf
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
i i(0 3 i77 F , f CC4 1 3 L , , Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
m 77 /� , 20f 7—
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, jY9
� °h at CycorolooD (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
/116--Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two(22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the 18 day of1€44/Arty , 20# )—, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photogr ph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Arit Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred(300)feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
1, Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
Mt Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However,the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen(15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was ac owled ed before me this)-gday
of F/ i�G$� , 2011),by
//// WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My co * p 1 I'119-2013
NOTARY PUBUC '
f • ' ♦• ! • •lC a.ALi /L4l
�.�..,,1%• ,.•.. Expires i• :4
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
Easy Peel®Labels i • MIIIIM Bend along line toTM I S AVERY® 5160®
Use Avery®Template 5160® 1 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge I A
120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC 201 E MAIN LLC 303 EAST MAIN LLLP
120E MAIN ST PO BOX 345 PO BOX 8016
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612
ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
435E MAIN ST METHODIST CHURCH PO BOX 1365
ASPEN,CO 81611 200 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN,CO 81611
CARVER RUTH A& MARTIN G CHALAL JOSEPH B CITY OF ASPEN
10 BYRON LN 31 ANNA ST S GALENA ST
130 FINANCE DEPT
MUSCATINE, IA 52761 OCEAN RIDGE, FL 33435 130E
ASPEN,CO 81611
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS&BISTRO R E GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST
CO LLC 325 S FOREST
PO BOX 1927 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 DENVER, CO 80246
CARSON CITY, NV 89702 DALLAS,TX 75201
HAYES MARY E&JAMES L FAM LP LLLP HODES ALAN&DEBORAH HOFFMAN JOHN&SHARON
209 E BLEEKER ST 114 N ASPEN ST. 210 W 5TH ST APT 211
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166
HOGUET CONSTANCE M JEROME PROPERTY LLC KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST
333 E 68TH ST 540 W MADISON ST PO BOX 9994
NEW YORK, NY 10021 CHICAGO, IL 60661 ASPEN, CO 81612
MATTINGLY MARK&ALIXE MONARCH& HOPKINS LLC 50% MONARCH BUILDING LLC
929 CAMINO VIEJO PO BOX 1247 PO BOX 126
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 ASPEN,CO 81612 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
NUNN RONALD E&SHIRLEY A PARZYBOK WILLIAM G JR TRUSTEE PEARCE FAMILY TRUST
741 SUNSET RD 38624 N 104TH ST 216 E MAIN ST
BRENTWOOD,CA 94513 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 852623711 ASPEN,CO 81611
PENN PAUL E&SUSAN W SADLER QUAL PERS RES TRUST#10 SARDY HOUSE NEW LLC
50% C/O UNITED REAL ESTATE VENTURES
3830 E 79TH ST 8536 N GOLF DR INC
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-3457 PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253 240 CRANDON BLVD#167
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149
SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC WHEELER SQUARE ASSOCIATES 80% WHITMAN RANDALL A
2121 KIRBY DR#99 200 E MAIN ST 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR
HOUSTON,TX 77019 ASPEN,CO 816111956 CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
Etiquettes faciles fi peter 5e•de Repliez a la hachure an de www.avery.com
.._„--_'- _._.__.. ........ao..e,.® 1 _ Senile.Is.vi,n.d Den-I InTM I 1-ROf-fn_AVFRV
M
pi fI.
i Piz
t
!.
_i s �BLId NOTICE
9 . e" Wed Mar.14 2012
Ilr.•ill
k IaN l I
e i.-°rc•a s_--d,
Cduicil chambers, City _
' : " ', 1;10 5_ Galena Aspen ,
(iC i
1 alrli I 1`� ` i�•�VS� M ' .
laN l•
a . i..) I con ider an application __,
r i m J c
1E
1.14414.4T;j? eS Luiowner of 202 E
4
;;--d; .C:•' tc(i el{Giordanc o 0;$
fir: - x' .� ,..2.-, ,
Y .
1911A15101- their coftdornin1przi - • r-
4, , Aar p tn!Vtofs. HPC4s ' `sty • to u4 W
.. *s , -Er •r9n_tinp setback abb 'Ces -T.. ;
f '::::iota 1stin• st ctures �
° FSt 4(ciO t v `4
.. 2x" lltiler informatbbnco act Aspen
'r i{ h:{e ,�. pier q� . "�� i 67 y - 1 ';�
r °ri1fr e t. bt'' o- S L090.
. : 'y
•
7d, . -