Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.515 W. Gillespie Ave. HPC027-00515 W. Gillespie Historic Lot Split — 2735-121-11-007 HP CO27-00 ^� 412-00 Z E CI CASE NUMBER HPCO27-00 PARCEL ID # 2735-121-11007 CASE NAME 515 W. Gillespie Historic Lot Split PROJECT ADDRESS 515 W. Gillespie PLANNER Fred Jarman CASE TYPE Conditional Use, Lot Split, Subdivision, Histori OWNER/APPLICANT Neil and Pamela Beck REPRESENTATIVE Randall Bone DATE OF FINAL ACTION 6/25/01 CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ord #20-2001 PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 4/3/02 BY J. Lindt iv. PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11007 DATE RCVD ; 8/31/00 COPIES: HPCO27-00 CASE NAME: 515 W. Gillespie Historic Lot Split , , PLNR:j,, PROD ADDRA 515 W. Gillespie ASE TYP: Conditional Use, Lot Split, Subdivisio STEPS?--� OWN/APP: Neil and Pamela�Bec ADR 515 W�. Gillespie C/S/Z: Aspen/CO/81�61 PHN: REP: Randall Bone ADR: 117 Aspen Business C CIS/Z: Aspen/CO/81611 PHN: 920-9911 . FEES DUE: 2480 D FEES RCVD 2480 (enter in timeslips) STAT: REF MTG DATE REV BODY PH W DATE OF FINAL ACTION: REMARKS CITY COUNCIL: - I PZ: BOA: CLOSED: 2/�; ; BY: L ! i DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN �n ✓b j��Jr ►II► 457449 Page: I of 4 08/ 13/2001 02 : 43F DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 D 0.00 ORDINANCE NO.20, (SERIES OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2 735-121-11-00 7 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested land use approvals for a Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for the Aspen City Council to -grant approval; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for a Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split meet the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of four to zero (4 to 0); and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and the applicable referral agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this request for historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split meets or exceeds all applicable development 457449 Page: 2 of 4 DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 $/13001 D20 00 2.43E standards and that the approval of the application, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has taken and considered public comment at a regular public hearing on July 23, 2001, and continued the hearing for further testimony, and approved this Ordinance for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, by a vote of five to zero (5 - 0); 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 IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado is hereby approved with the following conditions: That the Applicant shall submit a Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement . that shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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. 2. That the submitted Subdivision Plat shall contain a note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. 3. That the submitted Subdivision Plat shall contain a note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC. 4. That future development on Lot B shall require compliance with the City of Aspen's Affordable Housing Guidelines and Land Use Code regarding mitigation for providing affordable housing. 5. That Lots "A" and `B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive Historic Preservation Commission approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards." 457449 Pa94 DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 8/13D 00. 02:43F .00 6. That the Applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a building permit on either lot. 7. That the City Council herein and pursuant to this Ordinance, grants the Applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The Applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot `B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 8. That the Applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this Ordinance as they have been represented to the City Council. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as Lot A of the Beck Lot Split (Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen), has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution. 9. That the Applicant shall be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. That the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width and said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. This agreement shall also be recorded on the Subdivision Plat and referenced in the Subdivision Exemption Agreement. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 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 conducted 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. A public hearing will be held the 9th day of July 2001 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado. INTR`Q DUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City �� ouncil the City of Aspen on this 25 h day of June, 2001. V G y d tMt %. ch, City Clerk He a Kalin d a , Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 23d day of July, 2001. ,�ttre t:�l s,o a�nj. 0�11, City Clerk to form: 2LN��� ell'91,9, Jon orcestor, City Attorney Hel`eKalin1k'(v110&iVd, Mayor 457449 Page: 4 of 4 08/13/2001 02:43P DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 D 0.00 Final 07-27-01 • III�IAIIIIPIII!Illf�llll''�If,lllllDAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO 457473 Page: 1 of 6 i II I 08/13/2001 04:27P R 30.00 D 0.00 CITY OF ASPEN DITCH RELOCATION AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Ditch Relocation Agreement is entered into this J 3 day of g, 2001, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN ("City"), a Colorado municipal corporation anWhome rule city, and Neil H. Beck and Pamela L. Beck, whose address is 515 West Gillespie, Aspen, CO 81611 ("Landowner") Recitals WHEREAS, the City owns an interest in the Si Johnson Ditch and the water rights decreed to it; and WHEREAS, the Si Johnson Ditch traverses land owned by Landowner, described as follows: Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 99 of the Hallams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and also known as 515 West Gillespie, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and herein referred to as the "Subject Property," and WHEREAS, Landowner owns no interest in the Si Johnson Ditch, or the water rights decreed to it; and WHEREAS, Landowner is seeking approval from the City for an historic lot split of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City has required Landowner to enter into a ditch relocation agreement prior to approval of the lot split; and WHEREAS, Landowner has agreed to enter into a ditch relocation agreement as herein provided, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and agreements set forth below, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Ditch Relocation. At Landowner's sole expense, Landowner will relocate the portion of the Si Johnson Ditch crossing the Subject Property to the approximate location shown on Exhibit A hereto, consistent with design drawings and specifications reviewed and approved by the City Water Department prior to relocation of the ditch. The final design drawings and specifications shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer, who shall certify that the design, construction and operation of the relocated portion of the Si Johnson Ditch will permit water to be carried at the rate of flow (up to a maximum of 2.0 cfs) and at the times of year that the Si Johnson Ditch has • 457473 Page: 2 of 6 08/13/2001 04:27P DAVIS SILVIR PITKIN COUNTY CO R 30.00 D 0.00 Fina107-27-0I historically carried water prior to the relocation. Landowner hereby guarantees to the City that the design and construction of the relocation are such that the relocated portion of the ditch will have sufficient capacity and proper grade and alignment to permit water to be carried through it at flow rates not to exceed 2.0 cfs, at the same times of year as the Si Johnson Ditch has historically been permitted to divert. Landowner shall be solely responsible for design and construction of the relocation and for any and for all expenses associated with any faulty construction or installation and the correction thereof. Notwithstanding. its review of the preliminary design shown on Exhibit A, and of the final plans and specifications, the City shall have no liability arising out of or in connection with construction of the ditch relocation on the Subject Property. 2. Acknowledgment of Other Owners. Landowner acknowledges that one or more persons or entities in addition to the City may have ownership interests in the Si Johnson Ditch or the water rights decreed thereto, that such persons or entities are not parties to this Agreement, and that the City, in entering into this Agreement, is not acting on behalf of such persons or entities. The identity and extent of ownership interests held by all such persons is not known to the City. Landowner is therefore advised to identify and contact such persons, and to verify that the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the proposed plans for relocating Si Johnson Ditch across the Subject Property are acceptable to such persons. 3. Maintenance. The City will continue to perform such maintenance of the Si Johnson Ditch, including the relocated portion on the Subject Property, as is reasonable and prudent in its discretion. 4. Future Relocation. Landowner agrees that the City or other owner(s) of the Si Johnson Ditch may, at their own cost, relocate the ditch to a location that is not on or contiguous to the Subject Property, and that neither the City nor other owner(s) of the Si Johnson Ditch will have any liability or obligation of any sort to Landowner as a result of such future relocation. Upon such relocation, this Agreement shall terminate, and the easement granted on, over and through the Subject Property for the Si Johnson Ditch shall terminate. The City agrees to execute appropriate documentation to effect the release of said easement. 5. Raw Water Use. Landowner acknowledges that he owns no interest in the water rights decreed to the Si Johnson Ditch or carried in the Si Johnson Ditch, and has no right to use the Si Johnson Ditch for any purpose, or to withdraw water therefrom. Landowner agrees that he will not pump or otherwise divert or withdraw any water from the Si Johnson Ditch, or use the Si Johnson Ditch in any manner without the City's prior written agreement. Landowner further acknowledges that the City Code requires that the City be the sole provider of raw and treated water within the City limits, and that Landowner may not use raw water from any source other than the City. If Landowner wishes to use water from the Si Johnson Ditch for irrigation of the Subject 2 07473 Page: 3 of 6 08/13/2001 04.27P DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 30,00 D 0.00 Final 07-27-01 Property, he may request a raw water license from the City, and the City may, in its discretion, grant such a raw water license. The City makes no promises or representations that it will grant such a raw water license. 6. Indemnification. Landowner shall be solely responsible for, and shall indemnify the City, its officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, losses, liabilities, or expenses of whatever sort, including attorney fees, that are incurred by such persons and entities, arising out of or in connection with the Si Johnson Ditch on the Subject Property, including but not limited to, claims for personal injury or property damage, claims by other owners or users of the Si Johnson Ditch, claims resulting from loss or diminishment of quantity or rate of flow of water in the Si Johnson Ditch, water quality degradations, and the consequences of flooding or other adverse effects from the relocated ditch, unless such claims, actions, losses, liabilities or expenses are due to negligent or willful conduct of the City, provided, however, that this indemnification provision shall not be deemed a waiver, abrogation, or diminishment of any governmental immunity available to the City. 7. No Liability of Ditch Owners. Neither the City nor other owners of the Si Johnson Ditch shall have any liability to Landowner or other parties for any damages or injuries which result from the use and operation of the Si Johnson Ditch on the Subject Property. Landowner assumes all risk associated with the Landowner's decisions regarding the location of buildings and structures to be constructed on the Subject Property. 8. Grant of Easement. Landowner will provide a survey of the Si Johnson Ditch on the Subject Property (showing the ditch relocation) and easement for the City's approval prior to relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch on the Subject Property. The easement will grant and convey to the City and the other owners and users of the Si Johnson Ditch a surveyed, perpetual non-exclusive easement and right of way (the "Easement") extending five feet in width from the center line of the Si Johnson Ditch on the Subject Property for access by personnel and equipment as needed for the purposes of exercising their rights as owners and users of the Si Johnson Ditch and the water rights carried therein. The Easement shall contain a permitted exception for light wells of the residence to be constructed on the Subject Property, so long as the Easement is no less than seven feet in width at the location of such light wells, and contains Landowner's agreement to assume all risk of damage or destruction of such light wells as a result of the use and occupation of the Easement by the City and other owner(s) of the Si Johnson Ditch, and to assume all risk associated with the location of buildings and other structures on the Subject Property. This Easement shall run with the land for the benefit of the owners and users of the Si Johnson Ditch and water rights carried therein, shall burden the Subject Property, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement, the other owners and users of the Si Johnson Ditch and the water rights carried therein, and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 9. Notices. All notices required to be given shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, properly addressed to the person or entity to whom directed as follows: 3 • Final 07-27-01 To Landowner: Neil H. Beck Pamela L. Beck 515 West Gillespie Aspen, CO 81611 AVISINILlulllllliIN OUNTY CO R 30. Ilillillllll9lftllllllilll with copy to: Leonard M. Oates, Esq. 533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 To City: Water Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 457473 Page: 4 of 6 08/13/2001 04:27P 00 0 0.00 or at such other address as shall be given by notice pursuant to this paragraph. Copies of such notices shall also be sent in the same manner to the City Attorney, City of Aspen,130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 10. Force Maj_eure. No party shall be held liable for a failure to perform or delay in performance hereunder due to wars, strikes, acts of God, natural disasters, drought or other similar occurrences outside of the control of that party, provided, however, that to the extent the relocated Si Johnson Ditch crossing the Subject Property is damaged or destroyed by force majeure, Landowner shall repair or replace such damaged or destroyed portions, at Landowner's expense, within a reasonable time, to the condition in which such damaged or destroyed portions existed prior to the force majeure event. If Landowner is unwilling or unable to commence or complete such repairs or replacement within a reasonable time, the City may elect to perform such repairs or replacement, and shall bill Landowner for all reasonable costs thereof. If any such bill from the City is not paid within thirty (30) days of the billing date, the unpaid balance shall accrue interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and the City shall have available to it all rights and remedies at law or equity, as well as the right to place a lien against the Subject Property. 11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be or become invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall not be affected thereby, and each and every provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 12. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended in writing by the parties hereto or their successors in interest. 13. Interpretation. Paragraph headings shall not be used to alter the meaning of this Agreement. n IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIINIVIIIN�IBII 4511073 Page: 5 of 6 08/13/2001 04:27P R 30.00 D 0.00 Final 07-27-01 - --- References herein to the masculine shall include the feminine and neutral, and references in the singular shall include plural, and vice versa, as appropriate. 14. Binding Agreement - Recording. This Agreement is binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns, and any sale of the Subject Property, or any portion thereof shall be subject to this Agreement as provided herein. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall impose an easement and covenants running with the land upon the Subject Property. Deeds to subsequent owners of the Subject Property shall provide notice of this Agreement and the obligations contained herein. 15. Governing Law. Venue. Attorney Fees. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for all actions arising under this Agreement shall be Pitkin County, Colorado. In the event legal remedies must be pursued to resolve any dispute or conflict regarding the terms of this Agreement or the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs incurred in pursuing such remedies, including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney fees. 16. Authorization of Signatures. The parties acknowledge and represent to each other that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized to do so. 17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed using counterpart signature pages, with the same force and effect as if all parties signed on the same signature page. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation and Home Rule City By Phil Overeynd52ker Director 46 Pamela L. Beck, Landowner STATE OF ) )SS COUNTY OF ) Approved as to form: Aspen City Attorney Neil H. Beck, Landowner • 0 Final 07-27-01 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day oA��- 200 ` by �LAE \X- W NES` �m (hand and official seal <{seal� ��. � • . �', � cam✓ (' .r 1,ari5RJ'�bn expires:k My•com\ �► 3 Notary Public C:\TEMP\dirch relocation 515 gillespiempd 457473 Page: 6 of 6 DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 30.00 8/13001 DZ0 00 4.27P J 457474 . Page: 1 of 5 08/13/2001 04:28P DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE BECK HISTORIC SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this / ?day of August, 2001 by and between a) PAMELA L. BECK and NEIL H. BECK (hereinafter collectively "Owners") and, b) THE CITY OF ASPEN, A HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (hereinafter "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property (the "Property") located at 515 West Gillespie, Aspen, Colorado and more particularly described as Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 99, Hallam's Addition to City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2001, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval for subdivision exemption for a lot split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code with a Subdivision Exemption Plat for an Historic Landmark Lot Split (hereinafter "Plat"), wherein said Plat indicates two (2) lots, Lot A and Lot B, Lot A resulting in a 4,639 square foot parcel with a floor area ratio of 1,753 square feet for Lot A and 4,572 square foot parcel with a floor area ratio of 2,840 square feet for Lot B. WHEREAS, the approval of the historic landmark lot split was conditioned upon Owners complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2001), including entering into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Property; and WHEREAS, Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a final Plat of Beck Historic Subdivision (the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its' approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owners are prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Acceptance of Plat~ Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the Plat by the Engineering Department and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the Plat for subdivision exemption for the historic landmark lot split submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter Page 1 457474Page: 2 of 5 DAVIS is SILVIR PITKIN COUNTY CO 08/13/2001 04:28P . R 25.00 D 0.00 26.480 and all other applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. Said Plat and this Agreement shall be recorded (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of July 23, 2001 (the day Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2001) was approved). 2. Ditch Relocation Agreement for Si Johnson Ditch. The Owners and the City of Aspen have entered into a Ditch Relocation Agreement relative to the Si Johnson Ditch contemporaneously herewith, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein. The Ditch Relocation Agreement shall be recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. 3. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property shall be permitted and Lots A and B will comply with the applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code ("Code") in effect at the time of application for development thereof. These restrictions shall be noted on the Plat. 4. Development Potential. The subdivision exemption lot split results in two (2) lots, one of 4,639 square feet (Lot A) and another of 4,572 square feet (Lot B). The maximum combined development potential shall not exceed two (2) principal dwelling units, one on each lot. 5. Floor .Area Ratio. With regard to floor area (FAR), the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot A is 1,753 square feet and the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot B is 2,840 square feet (which includes a 500 square foot bonus that has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission). All of the restrictions and limitations described in this section (7) shall be noted on the Plat. 6. Future Development. Any future development on or redevelopment of the lots created through the subdivision exemption lot split as shown on the Plat, shall be required to mitigate for its impacts pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as may be required. Any new development or redevelopment of the Property will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district unless a variance(s) have been approved by an entity having the authority to do so. The Property (Lots A and B) is designated as an historic landmark and must receive Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approval for all future development (except development limited to the interior of a building(s)) in accordance with Chapter 26.415 of the Code. All of the restrictions and limitations described in this paragraph (8) shall be noted on the Plat. 7. Affordable Housing. All future development on Lot B shall require compliance with the City of Aspen's Affordable Housing guidelines and the Code regarding mitigation for providing affordable housing. 8. Improvement Districts. Owners agree to a sidewalk, curb and gutter sign construction agreement and to pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a building permit on either lot. Page 2 457474Page: 3 of 5 08/13/2001 04:28P DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 9. Fees and Reimbursements. Owners agree to reimburse the City for their respective and proportionate share of the cost associated with any improvements which directly benefit the Property should the City of Aspen elect to construct such improvements without the formation of a special assessment district. In addition, Owners agree to pay any applicable fees required by the Code if and when such fees are due. 10. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owners on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council, shall be binding upon the Owners. 11. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of forty- five (45) days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. 12. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent in writing by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mailing of the same. To the Owners: Pamela Beck & Neil H. Beck 515 West Gillespie St. Aspen, CO 81611 With a copy to:: Randall A. Bone 735 West Bleeker St. Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 13. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 14. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. Page 3 15. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption Agreement the day and year first written above. OWNERS: 457474 089/13/2001 04:28P DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ATTEST: a municipal corp rayon By: 7 By: za&— Hefer(Kalin Kla erud, ayor Kathryn Koch, ity Clerk APPROVED: John Worcester, City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged to before me this 3 day of , 2001, by Pamela L. Beck and Neil H. Beck. Witness my hand and offic'aI sell. My commission expires Page 4 t 1v i t ado 1-0 Notary Public �`� ;, . ; �;'7" STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing was acknov 2001, by Kelen Kalin Klanderud the City of Aspen, a Municipal Cc day of O, i City Clerk, r pectively, of Witness my hand and official s al. My commission expires d'o-tA'aryPublic c:My Documents\City Applications\Corbin-Burrows SEA 457474 Page: 5 of 5 08/13/2001 04:28P DAVIS SILVIA PITKIN COUNTY CO R 25.00 D 0.00 Page 5 t 0 • �V��"Ak�D PSUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE BECK HISTORIC SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND HISTORIC O LANDMARK LOT SPLIT THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this day of August, 2001 by and between a) PAMELA L. BECK and NEIL H. BECK (hereinafter collectively "Owners") and, b) THE CITY OF ASPEN, A HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (hereinafter "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property (the "Property") located at 515 West Gillespie, Aspen, Colorado and more particularly described as Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 99, Hallam's Addition to City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2001, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval for subdivision exemption for a lot split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code with a Subdivision Exemption Plat for an Historic Landmark Lot Split (hereinafter "Plat"), wherein said Plat indicates two (2) lots, Lot A and Lot B, Lot A resulting in a 4,639 square foot parcel with a floor area ratio of 1,753 square feet for Lot A and 4,572 square foot parcel with a floor area ratio of 2,840 square feet for Lot B. WHEREAS, the approval of the historic landmark lot split was conditioned upon Owners complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2001), including entering into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Property; and WHEREAS, Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a final Plat of Beck Historic Subdivision (the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owners are prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the Plat by the Engineering Department and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the Plat for subdivision exemption for the historic landmark lot split submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter Page 1 26.480 and all other applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. Said Plat and this Agreement shall be recorded (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of July 23, 2001 (the day Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2001) was approved). 2. Ditch Relocation Agreement for Si Johnson Ditch. The Owners and the City of Aspen have entered into a Ditch Relocation Agreement relative to the Si Johnson Ditch contemporaneously herewith, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein. The Ditch Relocation Agreement shall be recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. 3. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property shall be permitted and Lots A and B will comply with the applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code ("Code") in effect at the time of application for development thereof. These restrictions shall be noted on the Plat. 4. Development Potential. The subdivision exemption lot split results in two (2) lots, one of 4,639 square feet (Lot A) and another of 4,572 square feet (Lot B). The maximum combined development potential shall not exceed two (2) principal dwelling units, one on each lot. 5. Floor Area Ratio. With regard to floor area (FAR), the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot A is 1,753 square feet and the maximum allowable FAR floor area that can be developed on Lot B is 2,840 square feet (which includes a 500 square foot bonus that has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission). All of the restrictions and limitations described in this section (7) shall be noted on the Plat. 6. Future Development. Any future development on or redevelopment of the lots created through the subdivision exemption lot split as shown on the Plat, shall be required to mitigate for its impacts pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as may be required. Any new development or redevelopment of the Property will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district unless a variance(s) have been approved by an entity having the authority to do so. The Property (Lots A and B) is designated as an historic landmark and must receive Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approval for all future development (except development limited to the interior of a building(s)) in accordance with Chapter 26.415 of the Code. All of the restrictions and limitations described in this paragraph (8) shall be noted on the Plat. 7. Affordable Housing. All future development on Lot B shall require compliance with the City of Aspen's Affordable Housing guidelines and the Code regarding mitigation for providing affordable housing. 8. Improvement Districts. Owners agree to a sidewalk, curb and gutter sign construction agreement and to pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a building permit on either lot. Page 2 9. Fees and Reimbursements. Owners agree to reimburse the City for their respective and proportionate share of the cost associated with any improvements which directly benefit the Property should the City of Aspen elect to construct such improvements without the formation of a special assessment district. In addition, Owners agree to pay any applicable fees required by the Code if and when such fees are due. 10. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owners on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council, shall be binding upon the Owners. 11. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period of forty- five (45) days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. 12. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent in writing by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mailing of the same. To the Owners: Pamela Beck & Neil H. Beck 515 West Gillespie St. Aspen, CO 81611 With a copy to:: Randall A. Bone 735 West Bleeker St. Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 13. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 14. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. Page 3 15. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption Agreement the day and year first written above. OWNERS: Pamela L. Beck Neil H. Beck THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO a municipal corporation By: Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED: John Worcester, City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ATTEST: By: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk The foregoing was acknowledged to before me this 2001, by Pamela L. Beck and Neil H. Beck. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Page 4 day of , Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged to before me this day of , 2001, by Kelen Kalin Klanderud and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires c:My Documents\City Applications\Corbin-Burrows SEA Page 5 Notary Public RESOLUTION NO.2, SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A 500 SQ. FT. FAR BONUS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for HPC to grant approval; WHEREAS, in a staff report dated June 13th, 2001, the Community Development Department determined the application for a historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split met the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13th, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved the Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: • Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Conceptual Approval specifically including a 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation, and 3) 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and a recommendation to City Council to approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and `B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot `B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot `B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot `B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 0 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); and 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). Section 2• This Resolution 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 conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk CAMy Documents\Current Cases\HPC\515 W Gillespie\515WGillespie Conceptual Memo.doc _xb wD. rASCIA BOARD T_O�_0 GAR. vERT. WD. SIDING METAL (SUARORAIL METAL FLASHINGG T.O. GONG- to GAR. 12 2 r I F//M METAL S�ROO ING WD. ROOF STRUT VERT. WD. SIDING PETAL GUARDRAIL METAL FLASHING _ I T.C. GONG. @ GA �7 ELEV. 100'-O" GRADE GCNG. RETAINING WALL JEYOND MECH. S-0 O. FOCTER I I I T.O. FOOTER ELEV. GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = I'-O" --- -LT -------- ----L- GARAGE EAST ELEVA-ION 1/ 11 _ I ,_O,, N0I1IV1\TI:] 159M tjo-11 = ; I NCIJ-IVA2-12 H-LncG H'D-LVH i �9 19NI.LH-DI I�, ! i i ONO.-kGG 7-lVM 19NlN1V-L2N 1001 `VIIDGVA "am 9xz: I M ♦ r WALLS BELOW ROOF STRUTS BELOW STAND I N SEAM META ROOF I N RCCF CVERHAN GZ7 NORTH (I I ) CGARAC�E ROOF PLAN 1/41I = 1'-O" 4'-8" x 15' FARGING SFAGE ARAGE 302 T.O. F.F. ® GA ELEV. 100'-O" CGARAGE PLAN �4� _ 1�_011 7 METAL HANDRAIL ®� METAL v m I RAILING STAIR MEGH. 03 t 301 (BELOW) J ROOF ABV. J 4p a LTERATI ONS )SED FOR TION UPPER I" UPPER 1„ �RDRA I L LOWER -O" SUBGRADE WALL BEYOND I 4 1 NORTH ELEVATION r • � =mo, 3ATH EXHAUST VENT 45PHAL7 SHINGLE ROOF I NG IND. TRIM =XI STI NG 4SPHALT SHINGLE ZOOF I NG T.O. F.F. O UPPER ELEV. 110'-7" -I ISTORIG 751-. HUNG WINDOW HISTORIC BAY WINDOW 4 TRIM MECH. VENT T.O. F.F. 4@ LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" EGRESS WINDOW HETAL EGRESS -ADDER �UBGRADE =OUNDATI ON VALL ELEV. 81,1'-10" EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = I' or • 7� of INEW DORMER W/ STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING NEW DOOR a TRAN50M NEW DORMER W/ VERT. WD. SIDING LINE OF HANDRAIL NEW VERT. WD. SIDING F-X15TI NG yNo. SIDING YET AL FLOWER BOX METAL BIDING -� VC. 0ECtiING -� HISTORIC BAY y4DIN. BEYOND METAL - ,GUAR: RAIL II &RAPE METAL FLASHING Sue BADE LIGHT HELL — BEYOND I I I i I 2 SOUTH ELEVATION EXITING BRICK CHIMNEY NEW WINDOW HISTORIC DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW EXISTING HORIZ. VV. SIDING T.O. PLATE s UPPER ELEV. 115-11 " -------METAL FLASHING METAL CHIMNEY ---'FLUE $ GAP T.O. F.F_® UPPER ELEV. STANDING SEAM ^� METAL ROOFING METAL F.P. ACCESS DOOR METAL GUARDRAIL / \ / —� $EYOND METAL s II SIDING — II T.O. F.F. ® LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" 5UBGRADE WALL LIGHT WELL WALL BEYOND i i T.O. GONG. — ELEV/. 8G'-10" 1 /411 = 1'-0I' EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING EXITING H15TORIC _ DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS EXISTING WV - CLAPBOARD SIDING TYPICAL FOR NTIBUILDRE EXI5TING ASPHALTROOFING H15TORIG ►^ID.. DETAILING EXISTING H15TORIG WD• TRIM EXI5TING Yqu. D[GKING EXISTING GONG. 5TEP GRADE I EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY FLUE HORIZ. YVD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING NOTE: NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSE ] FOR NORTH ELEV. ILJ4-- METAL FLASHING NEW DORMER W/ VERT. ND. SIDING METAL GUARDRAIL B.O. BEAM @ DORMER ELEV. I111'-4 5/4" EXI5TING HORIZ. iND SIDING oL T.O. PLATE @ UPPER ELEV. EXHAUST VENT 12 3� Ilk T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ELEV. 110'--l" I I i T.O. PLAT�@ROOF ELEV. 109I5TING) NEW WINDOW VERT. WD. 51DING i I I METAL FLOWER BOX METAL SIDING T.O. F.F. ® LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" EXISTING HORIZ. V`o. 51DING METAL GUARDRAIL LIGHTWELL E!5RE55 %NINI70W T.O. GONG. ELEV. WEST ELEVA i !ON 1/4" = 1'-0II EXISTING ASPHALT 5HIN6LE ROOFING DORMER WALL BELOW STANDING 5EAP METAL ROOFING UPPER LEVE BELOI BALGON' BELOV ROOF PLAN 1/411 1 I-O 11 1 s 49 RESTORE ORIGINAL PORCH ROOF BUILT-INS HISTORIC WINDOW (/ SEALED GA5 LOG - APPLIANCE DIRECT VENT T MAIN LEVEL BELOW METAL GUTTER EDGE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING GUARDRA I L NEW ND. DECKING M. BEDROOM 204 ROOF TUB DECK - ABOVE -HISTORIC WDW. - - -T BENCH I. ° TUB NHC DASHED LINE OF ROOF ABOVE M. BATH 202 \ I 203 0 r ROOF ABOVE ON, 1 b HALL 9 10` 205 I ST IR "' 1 CLOTHES ROD Vil VING ri M. CLOSET I ABOVE 206 I �� N OL T.O. IN. FLOOR i ELEV.110'-l" I I I EXISTING HI5TORIG z I WINDOW __ --- - �- - NEW WINDOW I � METAL FLASHING METAL CRICKET NORTH UPPER LEVEL PLAN r STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING ft • is 5:12 SLOPE YV . METAL ROOFING 1/4" = 1'-0" HISTORIC NON.-, HIST RIG METAL BAY NON. GUARDRAIL T.O. FIN. FLOOR ELE,/. IOo'-O" DES OFFICE o 102 LIGHT WELL BELOW CERTIFIED NO. BURNING F.P. HISTORIC EXISTING UP BAY WDW. DINING FLUE ABV. --- _ `� I04 HISTORIC In -- F----- WINDOW5 L��----- BUILT-IN PANTRY GABS. ABV. pN I I R. 1 /9" UP ' 9 I STAIR in T I R --------- I o .2 los LIGHT WELL WINE RACK STAIRS BELOW ��" ABV. =F[7 NEW WINDOW PANTRY TILe LOW POWDER 2l" F TILE WALL l05 WOOD I DRAWER GABS. FREEZER - -- NEW WINDOW ABV. BELOW KITCHEN loi Icn o LINE OF ADDITION METAL I I GABS. CLG. CHANGE GUARDRAIL Dew I BELOW BUILT-IN ABOVE GUBBIES NEW WINDOW-- - — -- POP-UP TV SINK I — — -- - -- -- — --- VENTILATION �— HOOD ABOVE - -- - LIVING l06 NEW WINDOW FLOWER BOX ELK MUD RM. 108 DECK - - - - 109 I DN 1 BENCH 2 RISERS e a'• NEW WINDOWS J FOR SOUTH ELEVATION GAS LOG APPLIANCE NORTH OUTDOOR �g3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATGH c PORCH 1o_ s 11411 — I I—OII WINDOW PROJECTION ABOVE NORTH WINDOW PROJECTION ABOVE L- O in — ARMOIRE VENT LOCATION FOR MECH. 8" GONG. WALL W/ 2 RIGID I NSUL. LEVEL ABOVE �i Is LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" _ 1'_0„ �3ILLESFIE ST. NOTE: SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED A/ NEW SITE IMPROVEMENT 51JRVEY 30° COTTONWOOD 10'-0" FRONT YARD _ 14L' GOTTGhYK'OD —i 5ETBAGK • NEW LOCATION FOR 14"54' -- — -- -- -� -- -- -- -- -- -- COTTONWOGDjo I 5'-0" Ib" COTTONWOOD T o I GOLLIN'5 I 00 O LOT LINE D15PUTE /, I EXISTING DITCH LOCATION 5'-0" 51DE YARD 5ETBAGK I I I I II I REVISED I I I DITCH LOCATION 14" COTTONWOOD (MOVED) I i �t I I I / i h � EXISTIN6 5UB6RADE I I I I III FOUNDATION TO I I I BE DEMOLISHED Ic r_- 14" SPRUCE I I I I I (MOVED) I I I EXISTING SUBGRADE I _ I III EXTERIOR 5TAIR5 I I 10" ASPEN I - �- — — — — — - - I I/ TO BE DEMOLISHED I I I 11 I II I PREVIOUS HOU5E� LOCATION I I 10" I L —� / I DEMOLISH NON -HISTORIC 'r- I SHED ADDITION PRIOR I TO MOVING H15TORIG HOUSE I � I r t r 01 I REVISED PATIO j DITCH LOCATION 5'-0" 51PE YARD EXISTIN6 I 1SETBACK DITCH LOCATION I I I I PATHWAY I I I I I 1 I -- — — — — — — —-- I I LOT 'A' I I I HISTORIC, LOT I I I LOT B Is° GorroNWoov I I I ! NEW LOT I q 46�q S.F. I i I 45-71 S.F. 1 I I I I I m 10 APPLE TREE I I I I I I l o l I I REMOVE 5M. I —— — — — — — — _--- --� ASPEN TREES LINE OF FOUNDATION I I I I BELOW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROOF ABOVE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I— C) II I I I I I I DEMOLISH EXI5TIN6 NON-1-115TORIG GARA6E OO - J 5'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK pRIVE PARKING SPACE ALLEY NORTH A SITE PLAN • 0 4 9 8 RENOVATION F.A.R. CALCULATIONS F.A.R. CALCULATIONS GARAGE FAR: 351 S.F. LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS: WALL HEIGHT = TOTAL WALL LENGTH = 80'-2" ORIGINAL LOT SIZE = g53q S.F. TOTAL 5UBGRADE WAL- AREA= 80'-2" x 8'-O" = 641 S.F. GOLLIN5' LOT LINE DISPUTE _ - 329 S.F. EXPOSED WALL AREA = 151 S.F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = g210 S.F. (REMAINING AFTER LOT LINE DISPUTE) % OF GXP05ED TO TOTAL AREA = 1501 S.F. / 65q S.F. (100) = 24 % LOT A SIZE = 463q S.F. g210 S.F. 5UBGRAOE F.A.R. = 24 % (351 S.F.) = qI S.F. LOT B SIZE = 4571 S.F. GARAGE 5•1'. 351 S.F. GARAGE EXEMPTION = 551 S.F. - 250 S.F. = 151 5.F. / 2 = 66 S.F. LOT SPLIT F.A.R. CALCULATIONS: GARAGE FAR = q I S.F. + 66 S.F. = 15-7 S.F. REMAINING LOT SIDE = g210 S.F. SUBGRADE FAR: BASE ALLOWED FAR = 4080 S.F. g21 S.F. LOT SIZE OVER g000 S.F. = g210 S.F. - 9000 S.F. = 210 S.F. GROSS 5.F. = q,-O„ = OTHER ALLOWED FAR = 210 S.F. / 100 ' 6 = 13 S.F. WALL HCIGHT TOTAL WALL L -NGT!- = 122'-2" TOTAL ALLOWED FAR = 4080 S.F. + 13 S.F. TOTAL 5UBGRAEJE WALL AREA= 122'-2(2) 9 10 S.F. 1100 S.F. ABV GRADE WALL = rkP05ED WALL = 10'-O" " 6-a" = 60 S.F. FAR TOTALS FOR EACH LOT: % OF EXFCSC✓ TC 7%TAL AREA = 60 5.F. / 1100 S.F. (100) = 5.5% LOT B FAR = 2840 S.F. 5UBGRACE F A-R. = 5.5% (q21 S.F.) = 51 S.F. LOT A FAR = 40g5 S.F. - 2540 S.F. = 1253 S.F. LOT A HPG BONUS = 500 S.F. ABOVE GRAC_ E FAR: LOT A FAR W/ 80NU5 = 1253 5.F. + 500 S.F. MAIN LEVEL Dnt EC FAR= 12-7 S.F. NCW MAIN LE'EL �At = 14� S.F. - 121 S.F. = 20 S.F. TOTAL NE MAIN LEFAR = 885 S.F. + 20 S.F. = g05 S.F. LOT A = LOT W/ HISTORIC HOUSE W A.=L NEW UFPER LEVEL FAR = I -I S.F. LOT B =NEW LOT TOTAL NEW '.'FPER LEVEL FAR = 606 S.F. + 17 S.F. = 623 S.F. A5 BUILT PCRGNE5 1 ;.EGKS EXEMPT PCRGHE5 = 60 S.F. (LOWER) +'70 5.F (NEW UPPER) = 130 S.F. - CEG�S = DCGt� EXEMF`1�N = 15% (4112 S.F.) = 617 S.F. > 130 S.F. (EXEMPT) TCTALS: 6AR. &E SUBG-R.ACE _-VF'- = 51 S.F. = q05 S.F. rtAiN LrVFL 623 S.F. UPFER LEVE- PORCHES � y Eve= O S.F. TCTA� A t = 51 S.F. + 15-7 S.F. + q05 S.F. + 623 S.F. UNUS^ 1-T36 S.F. < 1-755 S.F. ALLOWABLE �, :�_ .;,,L-GULATI ONS 4-Fat 2T MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: 515 West Gillespie Avenue: Public Hearing (2nd Reading) Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split Ordinance No. 20, Series 2001 (Continued from July 9", 2001) DATE: July 23, 2001 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Pamela and Neil Beck (the Applicant), represented by Randall Bone, is requesting approval for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) LOT SIZE: 9,210 square feet ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS HEARING ...__ _________.__�___-_''' 1Y:1�""` ' At the last public hearing held on July 9`h, there was some confusion as to how the FAR bonus (awarded by the HPC) is applied and has been applied in the past in the case of a historic landmark lot split. City Council continued the public hearing requesting Staff to further clarify this issue. In doing this, Staff has attached a Code Interpretation, which determines that, due to the vague language in the Land Use Code, that the HPC bonus of 500 square feet of FAR, may be permitted on the "fathering" or "original" parcel containing the historic structure in the case of a historic landmark lot split. More simply, in the case of historic landmark lot splits, the term parcel is meant to be "fathering" or "original" parcel. Staff also included sets of drawings with the packet submitted for City Council's review at the last public hearing. Staff requests that Council bring those drawings to the hearing, as they are not being duplicated for this packet. BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured above) that is currently listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling. The lot also contains a non-contributing garage. PRIOR APPROVALS & RECOMMENDATIONS The Applicant recently received a recommendation of approval for the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split from the Historic Preservation Commission and a recommendation of approval for the Historic Landmark Designation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. STAFF COMMENTS The Applicant is seeking approval from City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue. The 9,210 square foot lot, once split, would result in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. The Applicant subsequently allocates specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering or original parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. FAR Bonus Allocation While the Land Use Code states that Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) variances and bonuses are only permitted on the "parcel that contains a historic structure," a Code Interpretation has been drafted that clarifies that the HPC bonus of 500 square feet in FAR (or floor area), may be permitted on the "fathering" parcel containing the historic structure in the case of a historic landmark lot split. In the past, Staff, the HPC, and City Council have allowed applicants to allocate FAR (including the bonus) to each newly created lot as desired as the result of a historic landmark lot split. In effect, an applicant should not be "penalized" by requiring that the 500 sq. ft. bonus must be incorporated onto the lot containing a historic structure. This action is contrary to what the historic preservation program is intending to accomplish. That is to say, historic preservation projects / efforts are rewarded with incentives so that the City of Aspen may continue to maintain, as close as possible, real and tangible examples of its past. By allowing a project to "add on" or further compromise a historic structure as a reward is not what the preservation program intends to accomplish. Therefore, in this case, the Applicant simply wishes to apply the bonus to the newly created lot, which does not exceed the zoning requirements regarding FAR for that lot. For a detailed explanation of how this has been interpreted, see the Code Interpretation attached as Exhibit A. BOUNDARY DISPUTE It should be noted, that an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the Beck's property (the subject property), a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION The Applicant is requesting approval from the City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation. Staff finds this structure meets three of the five standards used to review structures in the City of Aspen to be considered for historic landmark designation including 1) Architectural Importance, 2) Neighborhood Importance, and 3) Community Importance. Historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of the town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices of time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This house is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. (The house is pictured below.) View showing the south fagade of the View showing the North and West fagades house with the non -historic single -story of the house. gable roofed form extending off the house. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in the Aspen residential townsite, can achieve positive results such as providing more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, the AACP states: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site, allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allowfor infill development." - page 40 and 49, 2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: " a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." - Page 56, 2000 AACP Finally, the AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate." (page 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. Staff finds the Applicant meets the required standards of the Land Use Code and recommends City Council approve this request. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the neighboring Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant has requested the ability to relocate the ditch in order to relocate the Beck house on that portion of the lot. The proposed relocation will redirect the ditch to the south behind the relocated house then northward to Gillespie Avenue where it currently flows. The Applicant received approval from the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks Department. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution approving this Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff has attached a Memo from the Parks and Water Departments regarding the ditch relocation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the requests for 1) Historic Landmark Designation and 2) Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions listed in the Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2001, approving the requests for the 1) Historic Landmark Designation and 2) Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." 4 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community De elopment Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner _65 RE: 515 West Gillespie Avenue: Public Hearing (2nd Reading) Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split Ordinance No. 20, Series 2001 DATE: July 9, 2001 / SUMMARY OF REQUEST Pamela and Neil Beck (the Applicant), represented by Randall Bone, is requesting approval for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) LOT SIZE: 9,210 square feet BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured above) that is currently listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling. The lot also contains a non-contributing garage. STAFF COMMENTS The Applicant is seeking approval from City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue. The 9,210 square foot lot, once split, would result in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot `B" having 4,571 square feet. The Applicant subsequently allocates specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. 0 i 9 k S✓ It should be noted, that the Applicant recently received a recommendation of approval for the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split from the Historic Preservation Commission and a recommendation of approval for the Historic Landmark Designation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. 515 West Gillespie Avenue W E Lot Split & Landmarking Request 5 Collin's Property — —� GILLESME AVE ( 1 -- b PEAR! CT _N ■ Beck Property sr j, ci c- Z cn fopN SST Co BOUNDARY DISPUTE .BOUNDARY should be noted, that an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the Beck's property (the subject property), a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided i favor of the Collins. 2 HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION The Applicant is requesting approval from the City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation. Staff finds this structure meets three of the five standards used to review structures in the City of Aspen to be considered for historic landmark designation including 1) Architectural Importance, 2) Neighborhood Importance, and 3) Community Importance. Historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of the town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices of time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This house is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. (The house is pictured below.) View showing the south fagade of the View showing the North and West fagades house with the non -historic single -story of the house. gable roofed form extending off the house. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in the Aspen residential townsite, can achieve positive results such as providing more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, the AACP states: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for infill development. " - page 40 and 49, 2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: " a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." - Page 56, 2000 AACP Finally, the AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate." (page 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. Staff finds the Applicant meets the required standards of the Land Use Code and recommends City Council approve this request. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the neighboring Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant has requested the ability to relocate the ditch in order to relocate the Beck house on that portion of the lot. The proposed relocation will redirect the ditch to the south behind the relocated house then northward to Gillespie Avenue where it currently flows. The Applicant received approval from the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks Department. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution approving this Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff has attached a Memo from the Parks and Water Departments regarding the ditch relocation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the requests for 1) Historic Landmark Designation and 2) Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions listed in the Ordinance RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series 2001, approving the requests for the 1) Historic Landmark Designation and 2) Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT C — MEMO FROM CITY OF ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT D — MEMO FROM CITY OF ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT E — APPLICANT'S PLANS 4 ORDINANCE NO.20, (SERIES OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2 735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested land use approvals for a Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for the Aspen City Council to grant approval; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department determined the application for a Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split meet the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of three to one (3 to 1); and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5, 2001, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation, with conditions, by a unanimous vote of four to zero (4 to 0); and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has approved this Ordinance for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions on first reading on June 25', 2001; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has 5 reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a regular public hearing on July 9, 2001, and approved this Ordinance for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of -� to d L - -); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this request for historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the application, with conditions, 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 IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Applicant shall submit a Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement that shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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; 2. That the submitted Subdivision Plat shall contain a note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 3. That the submitted Subdivision Plat shall contain a note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 4. That future development on Lot B shall require compliance with the City of Aspen's Affordable Housing Guidelines and Land Use Code regarding mitigation for providing affordable housing; 5. That Lots "A" and `B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive Historic Preservation Commission approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the Applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot; 7. That the City Council herein and pursuant to this Ordinance, grants the Applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The Applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot `B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; 8. That the Applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this Ordinance as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as Lot A of the Beck Lot Split (Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen), has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 9. That the Applicant shall be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. That the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width and said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. This agreement shall also be recorded on the Subdivision Plat and referenced in the Subdivision Exemption Agreement; Cection 2- All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 7 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 conducted 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 25`" day of June, 2001. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9"' Day of July, 2001. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcestor, City Attorney Helen Klanderud, Mayor 8 EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the late 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. It should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. There are not too many unique situations such as this in Aspen, although this does not qualify as meeting the standard. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding Staff finds that the 515 West Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114-year-old example of Aspen's traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable - end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to shelter the porch. View of front porch and turned posts. 9 In Aspen, many of these porches have been closed in and incorporated the space in the interior of the house that compromises the architectural integrity and the original form. This house has not enclosed the porch element that continues to be one of its defining features along with classic turned posts. Most houses of this era specific to Aspen also tend to be wood sided and are 1 to 1 %2 stories; however this is an example of one which has 2 stories which is uncommon. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or "clipped gable" element on the gable roof ends as shown in the photo below. After examining other houses in the neighborhood and throughout the west end, there were virtually no other examples of this interesting architectural treatment. It is because of the aforementioned defining architectural elements, that this structure, which is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the late 1800's silver mining era, is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period, and Staff finds this criterion to be met. Photo showing "clipped gable" roof forms as well as bay window details C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 West Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. (See photos on the following page.) 10 • E Residence to the east. Residence to the west. In the blocks that surround 515 West Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional West End neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 West Gillespie Ave. is clearly a neighborhood - defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Moreover, it is one of the better examples of Aspen's historic past due to its uncompromised form and detailing which is an asset to Aspen's historic West End. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 West Gillespie single-family home is a very appropriate site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic West End neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the late 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. WV This structure and site is- important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable -end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen's 19`h century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "ci wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Essentially, there are a few homes in Aspen that have remained fairly true to original form with little modification to them. This house is one of the few that has maintained a true original form and design in its architectural elements defining its period of origination. This house is considered among the handful of very strong examples of Aspen's historic past. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 12 EXHIBIT B HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The Applicant is requesting approval from the City Council for the ability to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split. In order to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split, (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), the Applicant shall meet the following requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code: 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 Staff Finding: The parcel, Lots 4, 5, and 6, has not been previously subdivided since March 24, 1969. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100.040(A) (1) (c). Staff Finding: Two lots are created as a result of the lot split — Lots A and B. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), cash -in -lieu payment, or deed restriction on any new residence will be required for a proposed house on Lot B. An ADU or cash -in -lieu payment will be required on Lot A if more than 50% of the existing single-family house is demolished. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: Staff finds that the lot in question was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or "lot split" exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100. 13 Staff Finding: The Applicant agrees to file a Subdivision Plat, that meets the terms of this chapter, conforms to the requirements of this title, and responds precisely to the conditions in the Ordinance drafted herein. This Subdivision Plat shall be 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 Chapter and growth management allocations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin 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 Applicant agrees that the plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall meet the timing requirements for recordation. 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 finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: The existing dwelling will not be demolished and will be preserved as a landmark. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: The Applicant agrees that the maximum potential build -out for the two (2) parcels created by this lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff finds this criterion to be met. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), Section 26.72.010(G) of the Land Use Code, and the following standards: 14 a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-1 SA zone district. Staff Finding: The fathering / original parcel is 9,210 sq. ft in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 uare feet (not including the 500 square feet FAR bonus.) The applicant has fa requested the FAR bonus award from the Historic Preservation Commission to allocate appropriate FAR to Lot A which would contain the relocated historic structure. The FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) is 4,593 sq. ft. in total. The applicant wishes to appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the plat as a condition of approval once requested. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The newly created Lot A will contain the historic structure moved from Lot B. The applicant is requesting a historic landmark designation for the entire fathering parcel. Any future development shall meet all dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this exemption for the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established Dursuant to Section 26.470.050 or 15 from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. Any development of Lot `B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code and shall be reflected in a plat note. 16 MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Phil Overynder Date: June 22, 2001 Fred, EXHIBIT C This memo is to acknowledge that the Water Department has received the proposal for relocation of a lateral of the Si Johnson Ditch at 515 Gillespie. The proposed ditch location shown on the drawing is acceptable to the Aspen Water Department. I recommend that the lot split approval be conditioned on the execution of a ditch relocation agreement between the City and the lot owner. The City's water counsel, Cindy Covell, is drafting the terms of a proposed ditch relocation agreement, which will incorporate the proposed ditch location and specify the width of the easement area. I believe that it would be acceptable for the ditch agreement to be finalized following City Council approval but prior to recordation the plat. The ditch relocation agreement should be a recorded document running with the land. Please feel free to contact me at x5111 if you have any questions. Phil Overeynder Water Director 17 MEMORANDUM TO: ROW FROM: Tom Rubel Parks Field Supervisor DATE: 11/27/00 RE: 515 Gillespie ditch modification The applicant's representative stated that the ditch running through 515 Gillespie will be moved when the house is remodeled. They are going to move the ditch per the attached plan and add no landscaping or rocks to the ditch. This is acceptable to the Parks Department. Sincerely, cyL"�'r`_ ,,z�w Thomas A. Rubel City of Aspen Parks Dept. Field Supervisor 5—_ a— _ _— � __ __ u �< °s��_ LA I d I I I I p I � I i I �o I I I O I I a$ ti riot yn >N OnU N �N I �•.••� I I I ' 3°� 3 ~ r ��• 4 rn r 1 Hi I I Oam 082fl O I 1 n L-------------------J I � I I I I .97LZI €9 0 . 1 *0 0 0* 460 RENOVATION F.A.R. CALCULATIONS F.A.R. CALCULATIONS GARAGE FAR: GR055 5.F. WALL HEIGHT TOTAL WALL LENGTH TOTAL 5UBGRADE WALL AREA= 50'-2" x 8'-O" = 641 S.F. EXPOSED WALL AREA = 1501 S.F. OF CXP05ED TO TOTAL AREA = 15q S.F. / 65q S.F. (100) = 24 % % SUBGRAOE F.A.R. = 24 % (351 S.F.) = ql 5_F. GARAGE 5.F. = 381 S.F. GARAGE EXEMPTION = 551 S.F. - 250 S.F. = 151 S.F. / 2 = 66 S.F. GARAGE FAR = q l S.F. + 66 S.F. = 15-7 S.F. 5UBGRA0E FAR q21 S.F. WALL HEIGHT q -O TOTAL WALL LENGT!- = 122'-2" TOTAL 5U6GRACE WALL AREA= 122'-2" ' q'-O" = 1100 S.F. ABV. GRADE WALL = 5'-0" (2) = 10 S.F. WALL ARE- = 10'-O" ' 6-0" = 60 S.F. [XPOSEI7 EXPOSE:- To -7 TAL AREA = 60 S.F. / 1100 S.F. (100) = 5.5% 95 OF �,�BGRACE F 5.5% (q21 S.F.) = 51 S.F. ABOVE GRACE FAR HAIN LEVEL CEMO F->R = 121 S.F. NEW `'LAIN LEVEL FAF = I4-7 S.F. - 127 S.F. = 20 S.F. TOTAL NEW MAIN LE\ =L FAR = 555 S.F. + 20 S.F. = q05 S.F. NEW UFPER LEVEL FAR = 17 S.F. TOTAL NEW =PER LEVEL FAR = 606 S.F. + li S.F. = 623 S.F. A5 BUILT PCRGHE5 = CECKS PCR'�E = EXEMPT 60 S.F. (LOWER) + -70 S.F (NEW UPPER) = 130 S.F. DFG1� EXEMFTI CN 15% (4112 S.F.) = 61� S.F. > 130 S.F. (EXEMPT) TCTAL5: _ FAR SAR->6E _L,gGR.�,CE LEVEL = 51 S.F. MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVE- PCRCHE= S TCTA, A R = 51 S.F. + 15-7 S.F. + q05 S.F. + 623 5.F UNU4`D R. = 1;36 S.F. < 1-755 S.F. ALLOWABLE �, :C. A GULATI ONS LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS: ORIGINAL LOT 51ZE = g5311 S.F. COLLINS' LOT LINE DISPUTE _ - 32q S.F. REMAINING LOT SIZE = g210 S.F. (REMAINING AFTER LOT LINE DISPUTE) LOT A SIZE = 463q S.F. ::::� g210 S.F. LOT B SIZE = 45-11 S.F. LOT SPLIT F.A.R. CALCULATIONS: REMAINING LOT 51ZE = g210 S.F. BASE ALLOWED FAR = 4080 S.F. LOT SIZE OVER g000 S.F. = g210 S.F. - g000 S.F. = 210 S.F. OTHER ALLOWED FAR = 210 S.F. / 100 " 6 = 13 S.F. TOTAL ALLOWED FAR = 4080 S.F. + 13 S.F. = 40g3 S.F. FAR TOTALS FOR E-AGH LOT: LOT B FAR = 2540 S.F. LGT A FAR = 40°i3 S.F. - 2540 S.F. = 1255 S.F. LOT A HPG BONUS = 500 S.F. LOT A FAR W/ BONUS = 1253 S.F. + 500 S.F. LOT A = LOT W/ HISTORIC HOUSE LOT B = NEW LOT �S7ILLESPIE ST. NOTE: SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED 1^V NEW SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 30" COTTONWOOD rl�f 10'-0" FRONT YARD _ 14" GOTTON^OOD SETBACK NEW LOCATION 36.49' FOR 14"-� COTTONWOOD F�,_ 16" COTTONWOOD 5 _O 0 COLLIN'S I 00 O LOT LINE i DISPUTE - - - - - EXISTING I DITCH LOCATION 1 W II I I F_-� - 5' 0" 51DE YARD SETBACK I I I I I DITCH LOCATION I I I 14" COTTONWOOD I I / /,v-_-- I I I I (MOVED) I I EXISTING SUBGRADE i II I FOUNDATION TO I I I I i II I BE DEMOLISHED I I 14" SPRUCE I I I (MOVED) I 1 I I I 1 i I I I EXISTING 5UBGRADE EXTERIOR STAIRS I I I 10" ASPEN I r - - - - - - - - I I I TO BE DEMOLISHED I I I I i I I L-F-� -----Z-------- I --� I PREVIOUS HOUSE LOCATION I I • I 10" ASPEN / � I DEMOLISH NON-1-115TORIC \ I SHED ADDITION PRIOR 666 / I I TO MOVING HISTORIC HOUSE I I r/ p 1 I REVISED PATIO DITCH LOCATION 5'-0" SIDE YARD EXISTIN(5 i I I I I SETBACK DITCH LOCATION 1 01 I I i I I I I PATHWAY I I I 1 I i i i ——— — — — — —- LOT 'A' HISTORIO LOTNEN LOT 12" COTTONWOOD I 4 6 3 g S. F. I I I- I G ' I I 45-71 5.F. I 1 I I I 10 APPLE TREE I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I REMOVE SM. I I ----------- --� ASPEN TREES 1 I I I I LINE OF I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 FOUNDATION BELOW I I I I� I I I 1 1 I I-- I I I I I 1 -i 1 1 ROOF ABOVE 1 I 1 1 � I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I -- I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I --- I I I I d I 1 1 I DEMOLISH EXISTING 1 NON -HISTORIC GARAGE 5'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK DRIVE PARKING SPACE ALLEY NORTH �51�TP�LAN • • N 0 10 • WINDOW PROJECTION ABOVE TUB WINDOW PROJECTION - ABOVE 4 1 EGRE55 LADDER LT. WELL Fo-017 1 in ° P col+c. BEDROOM AREA= 141 S.F. LIGHT AREA REWIRED- 14.1 S.F. L*HT AREA PROVIDED= 15.0 S.F. a , Cfl ARMO IRE BATH BATH _ ooa ooe-- O - - - uP VENT LOCATION TUB P 0 005 FOR MECH. ° ROIL 5TAIR DOOR o02 IL- WA -- - STAIRS MEGH. o - ABV. OR a 003 LAUND. * 004 — uF AGGE55— LT. WELL EGRESS BEDROOM LADDER LADDER Fol0 3'-2" III EXCAVATE DOWN 4'-0" a. FROM LOWER LEVEL FOR 8" GON, WALL BEDROOM AREA- 151 S.F. LIGHT AREA REQUIRED= 15.1 S.F. AREA PROVIDED- 15.1 S.F. MECH. u d W/ 2" RIGID IN5UL. • • LIGHT PLAYROOM ooI '. T.O. GONG. ELEV. 89'-10" it CLOS. 112 I I 5TRUCTURAL COLUMN e NORTH A LOWER LEVEL PLAN t. 1 1/4" = I'-O" LEVEL ABOVE • Li PORCH HISTORIC WOW. 101 HIST RIG _/ METAL BAY NDN. GUARDRAIL T.O. FIN. FLOOR ELEV. 10o'-O" DES OFFICE o Flo2l LIGHT WELL BELOW CERTIFIED NO. BURNING F.P. f • 0 HISTORIC EXISTING UP FLUE ABV. BAY WDW. DINING f �_ loa I P HISTORIC r - _ - - - I WINDOWS -. o / BUILT-IN PANTRY GABS. ABV. pN I R. i ie UP 1 -1 M. ID I STAIR cn T I R O 2 103 LIGHT WELL WINE RACK STAIRS NEW WINDOW �7° BELOW PANTRY ABV. WOOD PONDER LOW POWDER l05 TIDE WOOD WALL 2"1" F DRAWER _ GABS. FREEZER o NEW WINDOW ABV. _ ----------- BELOW kn FA KITCHEN � � • I o-► � o m \ LINE OF ADDITION METAL GABS. BUILT-IN 4 CLG. CHANGE BELOW ABOVE GUARDRAIL^+ GUBBIES NEW WINDOW -- — POP-UP TV SINK I - _- -- --- ---- --- -- VENTILATION LIVING HOOD ABOVE -- - - - l06 NEW WINDOW FLOWER BOX pD MUD RM. loe I_ I • DECK - -- - 109 - — — • DN I BENCH .� a° NEW WINDOWS 2 RISERS o J FOR SOUTH ELEVATION GAS LOG APPLIANCE NORTH OUTDOOR MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH RESTORE ORIGINAL PORCH ROOF BUILT-INS HISTORIC WINDOW �I (/ SEALED GAS LOG APPLIANCE DIRECT VENT T MAIN LEVEL BELOW METAL GUTTER EDGE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING GUARDRAIL NEW WD. DECKING M. BEDROOM 204 TT i'-0. METAL FLASHING METAL CRICKET Him ROOF TUB DECK - ABOVE � -HISTORIC WOW. - - BENCH ° TUB j } I DASHED LINE OF /5HFO R 201 \ M. BATH 202 \ I 203 HALL DN I • l I' b' m 205 / 13 r .� I-- M. CLOSET 206 I I IJOE - � I r N T.O. FIN. FLOOR , ELEV. I10'-�" I I z' NEW WINDOW I �, II UFFER LEVEL PLAN 5 ROOF ABOVE CLOTHES ROD - W/ SHELVING ABOVE I EXISTING HISTORIC, WINDOW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING 5:12 SLOPE W/ METAL ROOFING EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING DORMER WALL BELOW STANDING SEAT METAL ROOFING UPPER LEVE BELO. BALGON' BELOP NORTH (1) ROOF PLAN /4II = I1--01I • EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING EXITING H15TORIC . DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS EXI57ING WD. CLAPBOARD SIDING TYPICAL FOBUENTI RE EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE - ROOFING H15TORIC WC.. CETAILING EXI5TING HISTORIC WD. TR!M EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY FLUE 0-1 Wig EXISTING -\ ; ! WD. DECKING EXITING CONC. STEP GRACE I � HORIZ. WD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED R D FOR NORTH ELEV. METAL FLASHING EXHAUST VENT 12 i 7w � ill NEW DORMER W/ VERT. Y40. SIDING METAL GUARDRAIL B.O. BEAM @ DORMER ELEV. IIq'-4 5/4" EXISTING HORIZ. WD SIDING T.O. PLATE @ UPPER ELEV. 115-11 " T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ELEV. T.O. PLATE @ ROOF ELEV. 10q'-8 5/8" (EXISTING) NEW WINDOW VERT. WD, SIDING METAL FLOWER BOX METAL SIDING T.O. F.F. ® LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" EXI5TING HORIZ. WD, 51DING METAL GUARDRAIL LIGHTWELL EGRESS WINDOW T.O. GONG. ELEV. 8q'-10" WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" ►.MEIN DORMER W/ STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING E,K15TI NG ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING NEW DOOR 8 _ TRANSOM NEW DORMER W/ VERT. vVD. 510ING LINE OF HANDRAIL NEW VERT. WD. SIDING FX15TING yNg. SIDING �­_TAL FLOWER BOX METAL SIDING —� WC. DEC►:IN& —� H15TCRIC BAY NDW. BEYOND Y1ETAL J/ . GUARLRAIL II ;,BADE II • • •� EXITING METAL FLASHING BRICK CHIMNEY NEW WINDOW i HISTORIC DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW jil I EXISTING HORIZ. ND. SIDING i T.O.LATE ® UPPER I _ METAL FLASHING METAL CHIMNEY FLUE & CAP I�I � i i I T.O. F.F_@ UPPER j I I i ELEV. I STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING METAL F.P. I ACCESS DOOR I METAL GUARDRAIL BEYOND METAL i i I I io II SIDING II T.O. F.F. ® LOWER SUB& RADE LIGHT HELL ' I I I I I � I rj 2 1 SOUTH ELEV,4TION Y ELEV. 100'-0" I SUBGRADE WALL LIGHT WELL WALL BEYOND I T.O. GONG. — ELEV. 8G'-10" 1/4" = 1'-O" •* SATH EXHAUST VENT ASPHALT SHINGLE ZOO F I NG 140. TRIM =XI5TI NG kSPHALT SHINGLE GOOF I NG T.O. F.F. 4@ UPPER ELEV. - ISTORIC, :;�BL. HUNG WINDOW HISTORIC, BAY WINDOW 8 TRIM MEC,H. VENT T.O. F.F. o LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" EGRESS W I NDO W METAL EGRESS LADDER 3UBGRADE =OUNDATION WALL 1 T.O. GONG. ELEV. 8q'-I0" EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = I'-o" 0* 60 . 00 0* -TERATI ONS SED FOR LION UPPER I" UPPER ,, ,RDRA I L LOWER -O" SUBGRADE WALL BEYOND 4 NORTH ELEVATION /411 _ 1 1_O 1, 8'-6" x 15' FARKIN& SFAGE 302 T.O. F.F. ® GA ELEV. 100'-0' L NORTH / A CGAFA6E PLAN 2.3 1/4" = 1'-O" METAL HANDRAIL ®� METAL v m I RAILING I 4AIR t 1EGH. O3 30 � I (BELOW) I ROOF ABA/. J I** WALL5 BELOW ROOF STRUTS BELOW STANDIN SEAM META ROOFIN ROOF OVERRAN =--A NORTH GARAGE ROOF PLAN 4'-8" 1/4" = 1'-O" loo •. 12 MECH. FRO G-\RAGE SOUTH ELEVATION 2xb ND. FA5GIA BOARD EXT. L PLATE `V. IOq'— :RT. WD FETAL F GONG. =V. 100' IGHTING 51DING -A5HIN6 ® GARAGE I 1 I I I�� I 1 I � ILI it I l I I�I�,III�I i I I I II I III I �0 i GONG. RETAINING WALL BEYOND OIL T.O. FOOTER ELEV. q0'-8" HATCH ACCESS- MECH. 301 .0 GARAGE WEST ELEVATION I .Yn � I1-On 1/4" = 1'-O" :xb WD. FASCIA BOARD �Q--T.O�_0 GAR. 7 CLCV. IOQ'-G VERT. WD. SIDING METAL \ &UARDRAIL METAL FLA'---HIN6 I TA. GONG_p GAR. I �II�II�O ND. ROOF 5TRUT 5TANDI' 5EAM MET, ROOFI' VERT. VW. 5101 METAL 6UARDRi METAL FLA5H1 T.D. GONG. ELEV. 100'-o' GRADE GCNG. RETAINING WALL 5EYOND I MEGH. II 9oI II OFOCTER � II JILJI Tub II T.O. FOOTEf< ELE. G" -8�eo'-4. GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION 1141, _ 11_01, GARAGE EAST ELEVA T ION MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Phil Overynder Date: June 22, 2001 Fred, EXHIBIT C This memo is to acknowledge that the Water Department has received the proposal for relocation of a lateral of the Si Johnson Ditch at 515 Gillespie. The proposed ditch location shown on the drawing is acceptable to the Aspen Water Department. I recommend that the lot split approval be conditioned on the execution of a ditch relocation agreement between the City and the lot owner. The City's water counsel, Cindy Covell, is drafting the terms of a proposed ditch relocation agreement, which will incorporate the proposed ditch location and specify the width of the easement area. I believe that it would be acceptable for the ditch agreement to be finalized following City Council approval but prior to recordation the plat. The ditch relocation agreement should be a recorded document running with the land. Please feel free to contact me at x5111 if you have any questions. Phil Overeynder Water Director 17 r MEMORANDUM TO: ROW FROM: Tom Rubel Parks Field .Supervisor DATE: 11/27/00 RE: 515 Gillespie ditch modification The applicant's representative stated that the ditch running through 515 Gillespie will be moved when the house is remodeled. They are going to move the ditch per the attached plan and add no landscaping or rocks to the ditch. This is acceptable to the Parks Department. Sincerely, ,fz, aij Thomas A. Rubel City of Aspen Parks Dept. Field Supervisor I�1.66' 1 1 I I I Ion 'sl I I I xt dt� i O "I 0 �O uIn0 It. " 00 y�j W JS >� >F W u ~ OY Iy I t = I I " s —�00 O " i J �r--------------� � II = r v� II ICI I d Q LD .9 I z I I L____ _________JI OW o= L— -- — — -- -- -- L — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — -- — -- — —I cr_ 13 99 �� „�O o0o WWIW g r� W Ln °Jl H < < WO JI ° 1`I • r i 6 RENOVATION F.A R. CALCULATIONS GARAFARR GROSS S.F. WALL HEIGHT TOTAL WALL LENGTH = 80'-2" TOTAL SUBGRADE WALL AREA- 80'-2" x 8'-0' = 641 S.F. EXPOSED WALL AREA = 159 S.F. CXP09ED TO TOTAL AREA = I" S . / 5qS.FS.F. - 24 % Ai OF 5,BGRAOE FAA = II00) % GARAGE S.F. _ 381 S.F. EXEMPTION = 581 S.F. — 250 S.F. - 151 S.F. / 2 66 S.F. GARAGE GARAGE FAR 91 S.F. • 66 S.F. - 157 S.F. e5UBGRADE FAR: :m — -121 S.F. HEIGHT = WALL LENGTH = 122'-2' L SUBGRADE WALL AREA= 122'-2" ' 9'—O' = 1100 SF. ABV. GRADE WALL = 5'-0" (2) = 10 S.F. CxpOSED WALL ARC- = 10'-0" ' 6'-0" - 60 S.F. % OF EXP05EC TO T,^.TAL AREA = 60 1100 S.F. (100) • 5.5% 5UBGRACE F I.A. S (921 ABOVE GRACE FAR' LEVEL DEMO FAR = 127 S.F. MAIN NU'W MAIN LEVEL FAR = 147 S.F. — 127 S.F. = 20 S.F. NEW MAIN LEV EL FAR a 885 S.F. • 20 S.F. 1105 5.F. TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL FAR = 1-7 S.F. TOTAL NEW UPPER LEVEL FAR 606 S.F. • 17 S.F. = 623 S.F. A5 BUILT PCRCHE5 s CECKS: pORCHES - EXEMPT CCCI.5 - 60 S.F. (LOWER) • 70 S.F (NE)N UPPER) 130 S.F. DECK EXCMFTICN 15% (4112 S.F) - 617 S.F. > 150 S.F. (EXEMPT) TCTAL5:. GARAGE FAST = 157 S.F. RACE L-VE' 51 S.F. IN LEVEL 405 S.F. UPPER LCVEL = 623 S.F. PCRCHES t :EC<5 a TCTAL P.A.K., UNU.EED F..A i. _ 51 S.F.. 151 S.F.. 905 5F. • 623 5.F = 1736 S.F. 1736 S.F. < 1755 S.F. ALLOWABLE ALGULATION5 A2. ii FAR. CALCULATIONS LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS: ORIGINAL LOT SIZE = COLLINS' LOT LINE DISPUTE REMAINING LOT SIZE _ LOT A SIZE LOT B SIZE _ 4534 S.F. — 329 S.F. 4210 S.F. (REMAINING AFTER LOT LINE DISPUTE) 4639 S.F. 9210 S.F. 45-71 S.F. LOT SPLIT F.A.R. CALCULATION5: REMAINING LOT 51ZE = 9210 S.F. BASE ALLOYED FAR 4050 5.F. LOT SIZE OVER 9000 S.F. • 9210 S.F. — 9000 S.F. = 210 S.F. OTHER ALLOWED FAR - 210 S.F. / 100 a 6 - 13 S.F. TOTAL ALLOYED FAR = 4080 S.F. • 13 S.F. - 4093 S.F. FAR TOTALS FOR :ACH LOT: LOT B FAR = LOT A FAR = LOT A HPC BONUS = LOT A FAR W/ BONUS = 2840 S.F. 4093 S.F. — 2840 S.F. - 1255 S.F. 500 S.F. 1255 S.F. • 500 S.F. LOT A - LOT W/ HISTORIC HOUSE LOT B = NEW LOT -'ILLE5FIE Sip NOTE. SITE PLAN TO BE /ER,FIFD YV NErI 517E 1MPR0/EHENT SURVEY J O' co-, Toh^ooD 10'-O• FRONT YARD _ W COTTONY,00D , SETBACK NEW LOCATION FOR 14• - 3G.54' COTTFORW -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - --b.4 --i - - - - -,.... � - - - - - - - �Z�ZJJ tj:qL,,I°• COTTONWOOD COLLIN'S I 1 O O LOT LINE DISPUTE 6 S' I I O ,'• O I � 1 ', EXISTING DITCH LOCATION I -- - - -I 5'-o' SIDE YARDREVED SETBACK J II I I I DITCH LOCATION 14• COTTONWOOD (MOVED)y\L I I EXI5TIN6 5L66RADE I I 1 I I °I I I EXISTING I I I DITCH LOCATION I 1 I I I I [I d I I I I 17• cO ONWOOD I I I i 1 I ° i I APPLE TREE I I I I I I I 1 LINE OF I I I I ATION I I ' I FOUNDATION TO BE DEMOLISHED � III I I I 14• SPRIIGE I I MOVED) I ' ICI I I EXISTING 5U66RACIE Y I III EXTERIOR STAIRS J I r-' - - - - - _ - - - I I I TO BE DEMOL15HED I I REVISED DITCH LOCATION PATHWAY LOT 'A' HISTORIC 463q 5.F IL_f- 1 7- I I I - J I 1 I� _ _ HOUSE I LOCATION L -� I I/ I DEMOLISH NON -HISTORIC SHED ADDITION PRIOR /I I TO MOVING HISTORIC I HOUSE I PATIO I I I I I I I S'-O' SIDE YARD I SETBACK I I I I I LOT 13 LOT I NEW LOT I I 1 457I S.F. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REMOVE SM. I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ASPEN TREE5 1 FOUND I I BELOW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A I I j I I I I I I I I I I I 1 d I I �W J S'-O' REAR YARD ` SETBACK ( D'-b•' V PARKING SPACE r 0 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ROOF ABOVE 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I DEMOLISH EXISTIN& I I I NON-H15TORIC GARAGE J L I I I I I J ALLEY A 51TE PLAN I.O 1/5" = I'-O' • • le WA WINDOW PROJECTION _ ABOVE ❑ O 6 WINDOW BEDROOM EGRESS PROJECTION o06 LADDER LT. WELL ABOVE O0 flQ /—�''Ij�jl BEDROOM AREA. 14T 5F. U L16MT AREA REQU(RED- 14� SF , LIbHT AREA PROVIDED• 15.0 5F. ARMOIRE BATH BATH u__-) f- TUBa� M VENT LOCATION o ® FOR MECH. g ROt�L TAIR d DOOR KA 00� Il— o STAIRS o B'-O• MECH. ABV. DR ® • 3 LAUND. n O04 ACCESS LT. WELL EGRE55 BEDROOM LADDER LADDER O10 EXCAVATE Q DOWN 4'-O" �- „ FROM LOWER • BEDROOM AREA• 151 sF. LEVEL FOR 5" GONG, WALL LIbHT AREA REQUIRED• 15.1 SF. MECH. W/ RIGID • LIbNT AREA rROVIDED• Is.l s.P. INSUL. PLAYROOM 001 r.0. c0140. ELEV. e-W-10' I I GLOS.II © II 5TRUGTURAL COLUMN LEVEL ABOVE . NORTH A LOWER LEVEL PLAN (p A2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" HI5T RIG METAL • BAY DYN, GUARDRAIL PORCH TO. FIN. FLOOR HISTORIC WOW. lol ELEV 100'-O' DES OFFICE P-0-21 LIGHT WELL BELOW CERTIFIED WD. P!�F=:::l F=� BURNING F.P. EXISTING M HISTORIC FLUE ABV. BAY WOW. DINING Y r1041 H15TORIC r WINDOWS BUILT-IN LAPPAN T IRTRY GABS. ABV. in oN I I a. m STAIR O 103 LIGHT WELL WINE RACK STAIRS NEW WINDOW BELOW 21' ABV. PANTRY LOW POWDER I WALL 105 rT 7'1' REF I DRAWER GABS. FREEZER NEW WINDOW ABV. BELOW � I N • KITCHEN I Y IOl I O LINE OF ADDITION I GABS. t GLG. CHANGE METAL BUILT-IN ABOVE GUARDRAIL obw J BELOW CUBBIE5 POP-UP TV NEW WINDOW j SINK — VENTILATION —1—_ LIVING HOOD ABOVE 10 I NEW WINDOW FLOWER BOX MUD RM. lOb I • DECK = ON 1 J NEW BENCH -� 2 R13ERs • W W WINDOWS FOR SOUTH L ELEVATION GA5 LOG APPLIANCE NORTH OUTDOOR g MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH • RESTORE ORIGINAL PORCH ROOF I BUILT-IN5 --( HISTORIC WINDOW I SEALED GAS LOG -� APPLIANCE DIRECT {� VENT I MAIN LEVEL BELOW METAL &UTTER E06E EXISTING ASPHALT 5HIN6LE ROOFING GUARDRAIL NEW HIP. DECKIN6 NORTH g UPPER LEVEL PLAN ROOF ABOVE HISTORIC INDW. []I ROOF ABOVE CLOTHES ROD W/ SHELVING ABOVE I EXI5TIN& HISTORIC WINDOW J 5TANDIN6 SEAM METAL ROOFING 5:12 SLOPE Yi/ METAL ROOFING . EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING DORMER WALL BELOW STANDING SEA' METAL ROOFIN UPPER LEVE BELO BALGOt BELO NORTH P, ROOF PLAN • w EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING EXITING HISTORIC. DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS EXISTING NO CLAPBOARD SIDING _TYPICAL FO1�ENDT1� EXISTING �SPHAL ROOFING H15TORIC WD. DETAILING EXISTING H15TCRIC WD. TRIM EXISTING. WD. DECKING E;(15TING GONG.5TEP GRADE • EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY FLUE I I HORIZ. ND 510IN6 TO MATCH EXISTING I I NOTE: NO CHANGES ARE PROP05ED FOR NORTH ELEV. METAL FLASHING I I L------------ I WEST ELEVATION NEW DORMER VI/ VERT. ND. SIDING METAL GUARDRAIL B.O. BEAM a DORMER ELEV. 119'-4 3/4" EXISTING HORIZ. WC SIDING T.O. PLATE 9 UPPER ELEV. 115'-1I" EXHAUST VENT I� T.O. F.F. a UPPER ELEV. T.O. PLATE a ROOF ELEV. 109'-8 3/5" (EXISTING) NEW WINDOW VERT. M. SIDING METAL FLOWER BOX METAL 510ING _T.O. F.F. a LONER ELEV. 100'-0" EXISTING HORIZ. ND. SIDING � IMETAL GUARDRAIL LIGHTNELL EGRESS WINDOW T.O. CONC. ELEV. 89'-10" METAL FLASHING NEW DORMER W/ STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING EXI5TING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING ���� II I =�00\ wETAL FLOWER BOX - METAL SIDING - VD. DECKING - HISTORIC BAY y4cW. BEYOND METAL &UARDRAIL II II ;GRADE II SUL1GRADE LIGHT WELL BEYOND I I I II I I II 2 SOUTH ELEVATION �3.1 1/4" = I'-O" EXITING BRICK CHIMNEY NEW WINDOW HISTORIC DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW EXISTING HORIZ. WD. SIDING T.O. PLATE* UPPER ELEV. 115'-I I' METAL FLASHING METAL CHIMNEY / FLUE & CAP T.O. F.F_0 UPPER ELEV. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING METAL F.P. ACCESS DOOR METAL GUARDRAIL BEYOND � �METAL / II SIDING II T.O. F.F. O LOY'IER ELEV. 100'-0' 5UBGRADE I WALL 5 LIGHT WELL WALL BEYOND I T.O. GONG. ELEV. 89'-10" 0 W-1 m E - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 EAST ELEVATION A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" SATH EXHAU5T VENT k5PHALT SHINGLE 200FING ND. TRIM :XI5TING 45PHALT 5HINGLE 200FING T_O. F.F_0 UPPER ELEV. 1415TORIC DEL. HUNG WINDOW H15TORIG BAY NINDON t TRIM MEGH. VENT T.O. F.F. • LONER ELEV. 100'-0" EGRESS NINDON METAL EGRE55 LADDER 5UBGRADE 'OUNDATION NALL T.O. GONG. - - � ELEV. 89'-10" • • 5UBGRADE WALL BEYOND 4 NORTH ELEVATION A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" -TERATIONS SED FOR LION s UPPER 1. UPPER -7' ADRAIL LOWER -O" m u • E 90. T.O. F.F. • 6A ELEV, 100'-0' I - L- - - - - - NORTH A GARAGE PLAN (1) 2.3 1/4" = 1'-0" I I mlMETAL HANDRAIL METAL v_ I RAILING STAIR I MECH. O3 301 I (BELOW) I _J I- RODF ABV. II • • • 4'-8" 9 YI(ALL5 BELOW ROOF STRUTS BELOW STAND I t SEAM METE ROOF I P ROOF OVERHAP 4.-6., NORTH B GARAGE ROOF PLAN Z.5 1/4" = 1'-0" i • yam. ROOF STRUT • 12 EXT. LIGHTING 2xb YID. FASCIA BOARD EXT. LI&HTIN6 _ T.O.. rLATE ELEV. 109'-0' j VERT. YID. 510IN6 METAL - - - GUARDRAIL METAL FLASHING I I ' T.O. GONG.. 6ARA&E ELEV. 100'-0' smill I ail I I - , - - GRADE I HATCH I AGGE55 I MECH. I I I I GONG. RETAINING ® I I I I VIALL BEYOND I MESH, II II II II II o I I �I I�.Ij�I _ III III GARAGE 50UTH ELEVATION I GARAGE WEST ELEVATION pof-ASGIA BOARD T.O. GONG. � GAR. r�T. yam. SIDIN6 METAL GUARDRAIL - - METAL FLASHING I ONG_a GAR• _��.ly�--f-A—. G 7 CLC�/� IOO'-O" - :2 5TAND1 SEAM MET ROOFI YVD. ROOF STRUT VERT. AD. 5112I METAL GUARDR, METAL FLASH T.O. GONG. • GRADE GONG RETAINING WALL BEYOND I I W .CEM I II II II II II II _T.O_FOOTER OTE T.O. ppR � 4 — � — — — — — — �ILJLI Y ELCV. 40'_g• 4 GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION 2. 1/4" = I'-O" — — — -r T — — — — — — — _ _ —' n 3 GARAGE EAST ELEVATION • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Arm Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: 515 West Gillespie Avenue: Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split (First Reading) DATE: June 25, 2001 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Pamela and Neil Beck (the Applicant), represented by Randall Bone, is requesting approval for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) LOT SIZE: 9,210 square feet BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured above) that is currently listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling. The lot also contains a non-contributing garage. STAFF COMMENTS The Applicant is seeking approval from City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue. The 9,210 square foot lot, once split, would result in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot `B" having 4,571 square feet. The Applicant subsequently allocates specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. It should be noted, that the Applicant recently received a recommendation of approval for the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split from the Historic Preservation Commission and a recommendation of approval for the Historic Landmark Designation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. N 515 West Gillespie Avenue W + E Lot Split & Landmarking Request s Collin's Property GILLES?IE AV r WnRL cr N � ■ Beck 'Nsr ZIdi —MEL Property ' U3 Z mapm N�4)}IgT BOUNDARY DISPUTE It should be noted, that an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the Beck's property (the subject property), a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION The Applicant is requesting approval from the City Council for a Historic Landmark Designation. Staff finds this structure meets three of the five standards used to review structures in the City of Aspen to be considered for historic landmark designation including 1) Architectural Importance, 2) Neighborhood Importance, and 3) Community Importance. Historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of the town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices of time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This house is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. (The house is pictured below.) View showing the south fagade of the View showing the North and West fagades house with the non -historic single -story of the house. gable roofed form extending off the house. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in the Aspen residential townsite, can achieve positive results such as providing more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, the AACP states: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for infill development." - page 40 and 49, 2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: "a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." - Page 56, 2000 AACP Finally, the AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate." (page 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. Staff finds the Applicant meets the required standards of the Land Use Code and recommends City Council approve this request. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the neighboring Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant has requested the ability to relocate the ditch in order to relocate the Beck house on that portion of the lot. The proposed relocation will redirect the ditch to the south behind the relocated house then northward to Gillespie Avenue where it currently flows. The Applicant received approval from the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks Department. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution approving this Historic Landmark Lot Split. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the requests for 1) Historic Landmark Designation and 2) Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. That the Applicant shall submit a Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement that shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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; 2. That the submitted Subdivision Plat shall contain a note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 3. That the submitted Subdivision Plat shall contain a note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 4. That future development on Lot B shall require compliance with the City of Aspen's Affordable Housing Guidelines and Land Use Code regarding mitigation for providing affordable housing; 5. That Lots "A" and `B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive Historic Preservation Commission approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the Applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot; 7. That the City Council herein and pursuant to this Ordinance, grants the Applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The Applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; 8. That the Applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as Lot A of the Beck Lot Split (Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen), has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 9. That the Applicant shall be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. That the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width and said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. This agreement shall also be recorded on the Subdivision Plat and referenced in the Subdivision Exemption Agreement; 5 • 10. That the Community Development Department shall adjust Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to include the subject property at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Hallam Addition to be designated as a historic landmark. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Ordinance No V Series 2001, approving the requests for the 1) Historic Landmark Designation and 2) Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT C — APPLICATION 6 EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the late 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. It should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. There are not too many unique situations such as this in Aspen, although this does not qualify as meeting the standard. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding Staff finds that the 515 West Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114-year-old example of Aspen's traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable - end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to shelter the porch. View of front porch and turned posts. In Aspen, many of these porches have been closed in and incorporated the space in the interior of the house that compromises the architectural integrity and the original form. This house has not enclosed the porch element that continues to be one of its defining features along with classic turned posts. Most houses of this era specific to Aspen also tend to be wood sided and are 1 to 1 % stories; however this is an example of one which has 2 stories which is uncommon. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or "clipped gable" element on the gable roof ends as shown in the photo below. After examining other houses in the neighborhood and throughout the west end, there were virtually no other examples of this interesting architectural treatment. It is because of the aforementioned defining architectural elements, that this structure, which is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the late 1800's silver mining era, is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period, and Staff finds this criterion to be met. Photo showing "clipped gable" roof forms as well as bay window details C. Desikner. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Staff Finding Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. D. Neizhborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 West Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. (See photos on the following page.) 12 L�l Residence to the east. Residence to the west. In the blocks that surround 515 West Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional West End neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 West Gillespie Ave. is clearly a neighborhood - defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Moreover, it is one of the better examples of Aspen's historic past due to its uncompromised form and detailing which is an asset to Aspen's historic West End. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 West Gillespie single-family home is a very appropriate site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic West End neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the late 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. This structure and site is important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable -end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen's 19`h century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "city wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Essentially, there are a few homes in Aspen that have remained fairly 13 • • true to original form with little modification to them. This house is one of the few that has maintained a true original form and design in its architectural elements defining its period of origination. This house is considered among the handful of very strong examples of Aspen's historic past. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14 EXHIBIT B HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The Applicant is requesting approval from the City Council for the ability to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split. In order to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split, (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), the Applicant shall meet the following requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code: 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 Staff Finding: The parcel, Lots 4, 5, and 6, has not been previously subdivided since March 24, 1969. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: Two lots are created as a result of the lot split — Lots A and B. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), cash -in -lieu payment, or deed restriction on any new residence will be required for a proposed house on Lot B. An ADU or cash -in -lieu payment will be required on Lot A if more than 50% of the existing single-family house is demolished. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100.040(C) (1) (a); and Staff Finding: Staff finds that the lot in question was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or "lot split" exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100. 15 Staff Finding: The Applicant agrees to file a Subdivision Plat, that meets the terms of this chapter, conforms to the requirements of this title, and responds precisely to the conditions in the Ordinance drafted herein. This Subdivision Plat shall be 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 Chapter and growth management allocations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin 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 Applicant agrees that the plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall meet the timing requirements for recordation. 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 finds this criterion to be met. _0 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. Staff Finding: The existing dwelling will not be demolished and will be preserved as a landmark. Staff finds this criterion to be met. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created bl' a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The Applicant agrees that the maximum potential build -out for the two (2) parcels created by this lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff finds this criterion to be met. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), Section 26.72.010(G) of the Land Use Code, and the following standards: 16 • a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-1 SA zone district. Staff Finding: The fathering / original parcel is 9,210 sq. ft in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parceb The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet (not including the 500 square feet FAR bonus.) The applicant has formally requested the FAR bonus award from the Historic Preservation Commission to allocate appropriate FAR to Lot A which would contain the relocated historic structure. The FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) is 4,593 sq. ft. in total. The applicant wishes to appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot `B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the plat as a condition of approval once requested. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The newly created Lot A will contain the historic structure moved from Lot B. The applicant is requesting a historic landmark designation for the entire fathering parcel. Any future development shall meet all dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this exemption for the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or 17 from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. Any development of Lot `B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code and shall be reflected in a plat note. 18 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: 515 West Gillespie Street — Significant Conceptual Review / PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from May 23rd, 2001) DATE: June 13, 2001 N CALLESPIE AVE S PEARL CT #d oil ST N J�r N0f?ni, SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting Conceptual Review for the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen. 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus BACKGROUND The subject property currently contains a two-story residence (pictured on front) that is listed on the City's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures and is situated on a 9,210 square foot lot. The house was built in approximately 1887 and was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue. It is approximately 1,681 square feet in size and is used as a single-family dwelling located in the R-6 Zone District. The lot also contains a non- contributing garage that is not listed on the inventory. 1 STAFF COMMENTS The applicant requests a historic landmark lot split that would rest4t in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot `B" having 4,571 square feet. F er, the applicant allocates specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allows le duplex FAR for the fathering parcel. The duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel 's 4,093 square feet which is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1, 93 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. The applicant has also formally requested for the FAR bonus of 500 sq. ft., which may be awarded by the HPC if a project is considered as having significant merit. PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS The development proposal currently before the Historic Preservation Commission has included several changes from the last continued public hearing held on May 23rd, 2001 as a result of a necessary correction to the floor area calculation allocated to each lot. Specifically, these changes include the following: 1) A straight lot split resulting in two lots; Lot "A" having 4,639 square feet and Lot "B" having 4,571 square feet. The FAR is subsequently split between the two newly created lots: 1,753 sq. ft. to Lot A (which includes a 500 FAR sq. ft. bonus) and 2,840 sq. ft. to Lot B. 2) The Applicant has moved and redesigned the garage on the rear of Lot A off the alley to the east side of the lot away from the Collins' property and provided an additional parking space. The garage redesign includes a stairway on the east fagade of the garage providing access down to the mechanical room. 3) No changes have been made to the historic resource since the last set of drawings. The current proposal in attached to this memorandum. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT To date, the applicant has worked with the HPC in the form of a site visit, a Worksession, and four previous public hearings related to this request for conceptual approval. The applicant has adjusted the lot sizes so that they have become smaller than 6,000 square feet, thereby eliminating the ability to request the Conditional Use request to place two single-family dwellings on a 6,000 sq. ft. However, both Lot A and Lot B will remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission for any future development proposals. LOT SPLITS PURSUANT TO THE AACP Lot splits were originally designed as a mechanism to control sprawling growth and place residential development where residential development should go. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) specifically supports the notion of the lot split. Lot splits are one of the many density incentives and prescribed in the action plan of the AACP as a practice of infill and redevelopment. Increasing density in appropriate places, especially in a residential townsite such as Aspen, can achieve positive results such as providing 2 more incentives to build in town rather than sprawl down valley, make more efficient use of existing City infrastructure / utilities, and foster a disincentive to use the automobile due to the close proximity to the downtown core and free mass transit just to name a few. Specifically, this action plan calls for possible amendments to the Code: "to allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for infill development. " - page 40 and 49, 2000 AACP Also, as listed as Action Plan number 52, the AACP calls for: it a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." - Page 56, 2000 AACP Finally, the AACP "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate." (page 39) Staff finds that this site and project promotes this appropriate type of increased density. FAR BONUS REQUEST The Applicant is requesting a 500 sq. ft. Floor Area Bonus to be placed on Lot A with the relocated historic structure. According to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced, making them precious commodities and defining elements of a town's evolution. Historic resources are, in fact, slices in time, preserved to be appreciated and to help a community understand its past. This project is a strong example of how a valuable resource can be maintained and preserved with the evolution of a community. The recently adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines discuss specific examples / reasons that the HPC would award a project with a FAR Bonus. These include, but are not limited to: ➢ When the parcel is larger than 9,000 square feet. ➢ When it is used to create a historic landmark lot split. ➢ When the project shows an outstanding effort to preserve or restore the historic structure. -Page 2,Historic Preservation Design Guidelines In addressing the examples stated above, Staff finds that the subject lot is larger than 9,000 square feet and the applicant is proposing a historic landmark designation in order to conduct a historic landmark lot split. Moreover, Staff strongly believes that this project demonstrates an outstanding preservation effort for several important reasons. 1 - • First, the applicant is proposing to relocate the resource onto a portion of the lot that will continue to promote the prominence of the resource. Second, some of redevelopment proposals for historic resources, which make their way to the HPC, have included rather large additions that obscure and mute the importance of the resource. The most recent of these HPC cases that received Final Approval and a 500 square foot FAR bonus was that of the "513 West Smuggler" project designed by Harry Teague. In that case, a very large and contemporary addition was approved less than a month ago before the HPC and granted a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. In this light regarding the size and style of that addition, the applicant has taken a very sensitive approach to the historic resource and is not requesting to place a large addition onto the resource as typically seen with many other "additions" which have occurred to some of Aspen's historic resources in the past. As a result of this approach, the applicant is proposing a very modest single -story addition to replace a non -historic addition at the very back of the house which meets all of the historic preservation design guidelines regarding additions. Lastly, the applicant is proposing very minor modifications to the rear fagade on the second story, which are consistent with the HPC's direction over the course of the last public hearings and work session. More importantly, these slight modifications to the house will take place on the rear of the fagade thereby unseen from the street. It is for all these reasons that Staff strongly believes this project merits a 500 square foot FAR bonus. DITCH RELOCATION Currently there is an irrigation ditch running from 5th Street, across the Collin's property and onto and across the Beck property running in a northeasterly direction. The Applicant has requested the ability to relocate the ditch in order to relocate the Beck house on that portion of the lot. The proposed relocation will redirect the ditch to the south behind the relocated house then northward to Gillespie Avenue where it currently runs now. The Applicant received approval form the Parks Department to conduct the relocation / removal as requested pursuant to a letter provided by the Parks Department. The Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" as required by the conditions of this resolution approving this Conceptual Development. BOUNDARY DISPUTE During this proposed project, an adjacent neighboring property owner to the west of the Beck's property, a Mr. And Mrs. Collins, questioned the accuracy of the lot line separating the two properties. This has remained an outstanding issue regarding this proposed development. Despite the potential alleged boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. More importantly, upon additional conference with the City Attorneys, the City of Aspen has no legal authority to hold this development proposal from moving forward to any 4 City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot `B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and `B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot `B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot `B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as 5 • 1 • indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots ` (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot "B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and G replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building per application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 7 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated 1 , 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with thh�e/� Citty//of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). 8 x � -27 1-, / RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No, 2, Series 2001, approving the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated herein." REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION EXHIBIT B - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT C - PARTIAL DEMOLITION EXHIBIT D - RELOCATION EXHIBIT E - HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES EXHIBIT F - RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2001 EXHIBIT J — APPLICATION & DRA -- Z S EXHIBIT A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS Any structure or site that meets two (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an historic landmark. It is not the intention of the Historic Preservation Commission to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those, which are unique or have some special value to the community. A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or all event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Staff Finding IF In general, this structure is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era. It is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. Specifically, neither Staff nor the Applicant has any knowledge of any specific significant historical events or persons associated with this structure. In any event, it should not be dismissed that the Beck Family, who are the current owners, are also the same family that originally built the structure in 1887 (by Neil Beck's grandfather) and the family has continuously resided in the house until this time. While the Beck Family may not be considered as "significant persons" in the context of the City of Aspen and would not qualify as meeting this standard, Staff is aware that there are not too many unique situations such as this in Aspen. Staff finds this standard is not met. B. Architectural importance. Based on the building form, use, or specimen, the structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type. Staff Finding Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie structure, built in approximately 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins and subsequently moved in 1971 to its current location, is an excellent 114 year old example of Aspen's traditional Victorian Era architecture from before the turn of the century. Even though the house has been relocated, it has maintained its original form with the exception of a very minor single story shed detail on the rear of the house not seen from the street. A specific defining element of this architecture style includes a distinct roof form called the gable -end. This house style typically has a rectangular "T" shape plan with a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to the street as well as a cross gable form running parallel to the street. Most houses of this architectural type, as this house does, have a porch on the gabled end and a smaller roof is attached to the shelter porch. In Aspen, many of these porches have been closed in and incorporated the space in the interior of the house that compromises the architectural integrity and the original form. This house has not enclosed the porch element that continues to be one of its defining features along with classic turned posts. Most houses of this era specific to Aspen also tend to be wood sided and are 1 to 1 % stories; however this is an example of one which has 2 stories which is uncommon. Another interesting feature includes a small "hip" or more commonly known "clipped gable" element on the north facing (street facing) gable end. It is because of all the aforementioned reasons and defining architectural elements, that this structure, which is indicative of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period, that Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of'Aspen. Staff Finding Neither Staff nor the Applicant has any information regarding the architect who designed this home; therefore, Staff finds that this criterion is not met. D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is importantfor the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Staff Finding The structure is located in and is considered a very important historic element of the historic West End of Aspen that gains its character from the prominence of historic homes such as the subject home at 515 Gillespie Avenue. It is immediately located among other houses on the same half block fronting Gillespie Avenue that are more contemporary in nature that make this structure even more prominent as an important and historically distinct neighborhood structure. In the blocks that surround 515 Gillespie, one finds a wide variety of house styles, ages, sizes, and so on. The preservation effort sought by the Applicant through this application will continue to allow this structure to add considerable value not only to the specific block but also to the traditional west end neighborhood. When viewed in context of the surrounding blocks, there are ten houses currently listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; three of those structures maintain landmark status. This structure at 515 Gillespie Avenue is clearly a neighborhood -defining element that is complementary of the other three landmarked houses. Following this request for landmarking, the applicant intends to split the parent lot as result of a historic landmark lot split request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Staff Finding: In a similar perspective of neighborhood character, Staff finds that the 515 Gillespie single-family home is a critical site for preservation as it is already established as a home on the inventory and is an important and defining historical element in Aspen's Historic west end neighborhood as it relates to and adds to community character. The City of Aspen takes great pride in the fact that it has been able to preserve a great deal of its past so that future generations will be able to actually see the evolution of this small mountain town into what it is today. This structure is an important and original slice of time showcasing an example of an upper middle class lifestyle during the last 1800's silver mining era and is expressive of the materials, methods, and style of the period. 11 This structure and site is important because of its relationship to the existing neighborhood and other similar homes in terms of size, location, and architecture. Given that this unique two-story Victorian Era gable -end home is in excellent condition and remains as an excellent example of Aspen's 19'h century Late Victorian Age homes, it is a "city wide" resource that should not be lost to demolition but rather preserved as a historic structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. EXHIBIT B HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to conduct a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: SUBDIVISION 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 12 the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The lot (encompassing lots 4,5, and 6) has not been previously subdivided since March 24, 1969. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100.040(A) (1) (c). Staff Finding: Two lots are created as a result of the lot split — Lots A and B. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), cash -in -lieu payment, or deed restriction on any new residence will be required for a proposed house on Lot B. An ADU or cash -in -lieu payment will be required on Lot A if more than 50% of the existing single-family house is demolished. The applicant may also choose to voluntarily provide an ADU on Lot A. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: Staff finds that the lot in question was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or "lot split" exemption. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.100. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the filing of the subdivision plat, that meets the terms of this chapter, conforms to the requirements of this title, and responds precisely to the condition in the Resolution drafted herein, shall be 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. This shall be a condition of this approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 13 e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin 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: Staff finds that the applicant agrees that the plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall meet the timing requirements for recordation. 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 finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the existing dwelling will not be demolished; rather, the applicant intends to relocate the historic single-family structure from Lot `B" onto Lot "A" subject to the proper application process and review by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: The applicant intends to move the historic single-family structure from Lot `B" onto Lot "A." As a result of this application, the owner of Lot B only has the ability to construct a single-family house. This scenario results in a total build out of two single-family houses. The total build out shall not exceed three units and therefore Staff finds this criterion to be met. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.88.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), section 26.72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards: a) The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-1 SA zone district. 14 Staff Finding: The fathering / original parcel is 9,210 sq. ft in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet (not including the 500 square feet FAR bonus.) The applicant has formally requested the FAR bonus award from the Historic Preservation Commission to allocate appropriate FAR to Lot A which would contain the relocated historic structure. The FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) is 4,593 sq. ft. in total. The applicant wishes to appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot `B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the plat as a condition of approval once requested. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Finding: The proposed / newly created Lot A will contain the historic structure moved from Lot B. The applicant is requesting a historic landmark designation for that structure. Any future development shall meet all dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Additionally, the applicant understands that HPC bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. The applicant intends to return to the HPC upon submitting an application for any further development on the newly created lots. Staff finds this criterion to be met. GMQS EXEMPTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(1) or (2), as applicable, are met. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this exemption for the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or 15 from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. Any development of Lot `B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060(B)(1) of the Municipal Code and shall be reflected in a plat note. EXHIBIT C PARTIAL DEMOLITION No partial demolition of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter approves the partial demolition. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel, and 16 Staff Finding The applicant has included a partial demolition plan as indicated on the site plan. The applicant is requesting approval to 1) demolish a small non -historic shed addition on the rear of the historic house, 2) demolish the non -historic subgrade level and stairs, and 2) demolish a non -historic separate detached garage currently existing at the rear of the site. This demolition will eliminate non -historic portions /additions of the house. It should be noted that the existing siding on the house is not historic siding original to the structure. Staff finds that the partial demolition of the rear shed addition and subgrade level and stairwell does not detract from the historic structure and the detached garage on the rear of the lot does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: (1) Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and Staff Finding The applicant intends to remove only non -historic elements from the existing structure. In addition, the addition to be demolished is located in the rear of the house and not seen from the street and as a result, The house, in large part, will maintain its historic significance as defined by the Late Victorian Age in which it was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. (2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Finding The three portions of the existing home will not significantly interfere with the architectural character or integrity of the home. The existing non -historic addition to the rear of the house is not easily distinguished from the historic portion of the house. The applicant intends to replace this addition with a new addition that will be somewhat distinct and more easily distinguished from the historic structure. Again, this partial demolition and reconstruction of a new addition will occur in the rear of the historic structure and not viewed from the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 17 EXHIBIT D RELOCATION No on -site relocation of any structure included on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen shall be permitted unless the on -site relocation is approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The applicant shall be required to address the following Standards for review of off -site relocation. No approval for off -site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a) The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property, and Staff Finding As stated earlier, the house was built in 1887, originally located at 100 West Hopkins Street, and moved to its current location in 1971. Currently, the house is usable as a residence in its present location. The applicant intends to move the house as a result of the ability to conduct a historic landmark lot split provided the City Council grants landmark status to the property. b) The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation, and Staff Finding The new location of the historic home to Lot A will continue to maintain the front (or north facing) facade and its relationship to the street. In addition, the location will also promote exposure of the western facade as a result of the angled position of the new adjacent house. There will be no loss of exposure of the east facade of the house as a result of the move. Even though this facade may be considered architecturally insignificant, it may be even more promoted as a result of the new development on Lot B. Staff finds that the move will not diminish the historic integrity of the house. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation, and Staff Finding Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 18 d) A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation, and Staff Finding The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure. Staff finds that this will be included as a condition of approval. e) The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the receiving site's neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the receiving site's neighborhood. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Finding For all practical matters, the historic house will be relocated on the same lot where it currently sits. (The house will move approximately 40 feet to the west.) As a result of the lot split, the house actually changes lot locations; however, the nature and character of the lot does not drastically differ from current conditions. The receiver site is compatible in nature with the sending site and the neighborhood will not suffer from the movement of this structure. Moreover, the Aspen Area Community Plan calls for increased residential density. Staff finds that the lot split continues to be an incentive to promote this density increase while maintaining the historic lot sizes and relationships of dwellings. The receiver site will accommodate the house in accordance with all zoning provisions and the associated dimensional requirements. No letter of acceptance is required because both lots are owned by Mr. Bone. 19 EXHIBIT E HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 1. Lot Splits The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to reduce the size of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. This section of the Historic Preservations Guidelines deal almost entirely with new development on lots that result from an historic landmark lot split. There are no development plans proposed with this current application; Staff will perform an analysis of any new development proposal on the newly created lot with using the elements in these guidelines as major tools. 2. Building Additions Many historic buildings in Aspen experienced additions over time as the need for more space occurred. In some cases, owners added a wing onto a primary structure for use as a new bedroom, or to expand a kitchen. Typically the addition was subordinate in scale and character to the main building. This tradition of adding onto buildings should continue. It is important, however, that a new addition be designed in such a manner that it preserves the historic character of the original structure. It is important, that new additions do not detract from the character of the building or obscure significant features There are a few basic principles for new additions that are prescribed by Aspen's Historic Preservation Guidelines. In general they include minimizing negative effects that may occur to the historic building fabric, the addition should not affect the perceived character of the building, and keep the size of the addition small in relation to the main structure. Specifically, the guidelines indicate: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Staff finds that the proposed new addition does not reflect the exact character of the historic house but is not too inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building. Further, the addition does not attempt to portray an earlier period than that of the primary building or imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. The proposed addition is made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. In addition, the addition maintains changes in setbacks, materials, and architectural style from the historic 20 building, that help define a change from old to new construction. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Staff fords that this addition is lower than the height of the primary building. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. The proposed addition will be located in the rear of the historic resource. Staff maintains that the addition does not interfere with any primary facades allowing the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Staff finds that the two roofs proposed are appropriate because they are shed roofs. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. This addition does not result in the loss or severe alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines. There is some siding that will be replaced with the west portion of the addition; however, this siding is determined not to be historic to the original structure. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. With the exception of the metal roof materials, the new materials are similar to the original materials. Staff fords that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. The new addition does not overhang the lower floors of the historic building in the front or on the side and the dormer on the main roof which covers the proposed doors from the upper bedroom are subordinate to the overall roof mass and remain in scale with historic roof structures and is located below the primary structure's ridgeline. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. The proposed rooftop addition will not be seen from the street so as to help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 21 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. Staff finds that the rooftop shed dormer is subordinate in scale and not seen from the street so that it does not detract from the historic nature of the house as it is seen from the street. However, it appears to be a large cut into the form of the roof and significantly changes the "read" of the south elevation. Yet is not street facing so that the historic appearance is not severely adulterated. Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this guideline. 3. Building Relocation / Foundations Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. In this particular case, the house was originally located at 100 West Hopkins Avenue and was subsequently relocated to its current location in 1971. This application calls for demolishing the non -historic basement which serves as the current basement The Historic Preservation Guidelines contain language referring to protecting the resource prior to and during relocation. Specifically, wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Further, special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. The guidelines specifically indicate: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case -by -case basis. This particular request for relocation is of an individual structure rather than a structure in a historic district. In general, a relocation of this sort has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. In addition, the applicant intends to maintain the historic structure with the exception of placing an addition in the rear. In doing so, this relocated building shall be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. In addition, the applicant, as a condition of approval, shall provide a plan to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. Staff has considered the significance of this house and the character of its setting and found that a relocation on an adjacent lot will not detract from its historic significance given the fact that this house once stood at 100 West Hopkins prior to 1971. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. Staff finds that this house, as proposed, will remain on the parent lot as the result of a historic landmark lot split and both newly created lots will remain in the purview of the 22 Historic Preservation Commission for any further development. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. As proposed, the house will face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback as its current location. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. The applicant intends to relocate the house onto a basement similar to the basement on which it currently sits. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. The elevation heights will not be drastically changed as a result of the newly relocated house on to its new foundation thereby maintaining its current historic significance. Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below -grade living space. The applicant proposes two light wells in order to provide light and ventilation to the subgrade basement. Neither lightwells are on the front fagade of the house (per the Residential Design Standards). Staff finds that the proposed relocation meets this guideline. 23 EXMBIT F RESOLUTION NO.* .z57 SERIES OF 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A 500 SQ. FT. FAR BONUS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 515 WEST GILLESPIE AVENUE, LOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 99, HALLAM ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-121-11-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela and Neil Beck, represented by Randall Bone, requested the following land use approvals for a property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen: 1. Historic Landmark Designation 2. Historic Landmark Lot Split 3. Partial Demolition 4. Relocation 5. 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus WHEREAS, the property is currently listed in the City of Aspen's Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, this application for a Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split meets all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.420.010, Section 26.480.030(A)(2), and Section 26.480.030(A)(4) in order for HPC to grant approval; WHEREAS, in a staff report dated June 13th, 2001, the Community Development Department determined the application for a historic landmark designation and historic landmark lot split met the applicable review standards indicated above, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on June 13th, 2001, at which time the HPC considered and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved the Partial Demolition, Relocation, 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and recommended City Council approve the request for Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions by a vote of --5-- to —+ (-Sto P 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for Conceptual Approval specifically including a 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation, and 3) 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and a recommendation to City Council to approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, is approved by Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot `B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and `B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot `B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,753 s.f. (including a 500 square foot floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot `B." The information specific to exact allocated FAR as 25 indicated above for both lots as verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; 7. That the applicant shall provide the Subdivision Exemption Agreement that includes the elements outlined in Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.480.070(E). (The Community development department can provide an example of this agreement to the applicant); 8. That the applicant agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement (if applicable) and pay the applicable recording fees; 9. That the HPC herein and pursuant to this Resolution, grants the applicant approval to allocate the FAR to be split between the two newly created lots (including the 500 sq. ft. bonus) to be 4,093 sq. ft. in total. The applicant shall appropriate this FAR in the following manner: Lot "A" as having 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot `B" as having 2,840 sq. ft. prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). Further, these lot sizes and floor areas shall be indicated on the final plat that is recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office; 10. All information regarding possible future development on newly created Lot B of this lot split shall be removed from the site plan prior to review of the historic lot split by City Council. Only the existing structures, proposed lot lines, and existing vegetation shall be represented; and 11. That the applicant shall record a final plat indicating the approvals in this resolution as they have been represented to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, if the westerly lot line dispute between the Collins and the owners of the property known as lot a of the Beck Lot Split of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, has not been resolved prior to the recording of said plat, the applicant shall record a plat showing both lines in dispute and a note on the plat indicating the two lot lines in question and that once the dispute is resolved, the applicant shall file a new plat indicating the resulting resolution; 12. That the applicant shall submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as part of the renovation; 13. That the applicant shall submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating how the existing materials, which are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair all original materials and 26 • replicate only those that are determined by HPC staff and monitor to be beyond salvage; 14. That no elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist outside of approval granted by the HPC and no existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor; 15. That the HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures; 16. That there shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor; 17. That the preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction; 18. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC Resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit; 19. That the General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit; 20. That all representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions; 21. That, in the event the chimneys located on the roof of the historic structure, are to be dismantled during the relocation as represented in this application, the applicant agrees that all brick restorations as part of the reassembly shall be reviewed by Staff and Monitor; and 22. That the applicant agrees that any restoration has to comply to the UCBC 1997 version; 23. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction as a requirement of the City of Aspen Streets Department; 27 24. That the HPC grants a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus to be allocated to Lot A with the historic house (for a maximum floor area of 1,753 square feet). Lot B will then maintain the balance of the remaining FAR to be 2,840 square feet; 25. That the applicant shall enter into a common water service agreement with the City Water Department for the newly relocated house; 26. That the applicant, prior to Final Review before the HPC, provide the Community Development Department and HPC with a signed agreement regarding the relocation of the Si Johnson Ditch and any tree relocation / mitigation issues with the City of Aspen Parks Department; 27. That the applicant shall comply with the Universal Conservation Building Code (UCBC); and 28. Bill Baily, a local house mover, originally moved the house to its current location in 1971 from 100 West Hopkins Street. He has recently restudied the house and found that the house can be moved without any damage to the structure. However, The applicant, as a condition of approval, and prior to the application of building permits, shall be required to post a bond of $30,000 or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department to ensure safe relocation of the structure; 29. That the Applicant be required to enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and that said agreement be a recorded document with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder's Office thereby representing a burden running with the land. The Applicant should contact the Phil Overynder at the Water Department for a copy of this agreement. Specifically, the Ditch Relocation Agreement should reference the plans that are approved and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width which shall also be recorded on the Plat and Subdivision Exemption Agreement; and 30. That the Applicant shall enter into a "Ditch Relocation Agreement" with the City of Aspen and said agreement shall indicate that the City of Aspen, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. Said agreement shall specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally, said agreement shall state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water policies including the policy that the City of Aspen is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). 28 Section 2• This Resolution 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 conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2001. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Suzannah Reid, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk CAMy Documents\Current Cases\HPC\515 W Gillespie\515 WGillespie Conceptual Memo.doc Ir 0 H P C CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 06-13-2001 PAC K A G E HISTORIC HOME RENOVATION 515 gillespie st. I aspen, Colorado consortium I arc:hltects I P.O.B. 3662, aspen, colorad0 81 61 2 (970) 925 . 6797 fax (970) 925. 6797 I e-mail rally @aspeninfo. .om ft WINDOW PROJECTION --_-- ABOVE �--� ----- -- ---- — -- [71 WINDOW • BEDROOM EGRESS PROJECTION - - ---- - oob LADDER LT. WELL ABOVE 0o TUB ° Y ° cock. cor+c. BEDROOM AREA= 141 S.F. LIGHT AREA REQUIRED= 14.1 S.F. LIGHT AREA PROVIDED= 15.0 S.F. Cfl BATH BATH (- --- ------ -�- o ---- ------ ARMOIRE O—o L - oob l a 6L05— --_-- L 4 TUB o05 uP VENT LOCATION ° ROIL TAIR FOR MECH. - -- DOOR TAI NA 5TA I R5 ABV. OR MECH. 003 LAUND. _—_ _ in �uf-: 004AGGE55 LT. WELL EGRESS BEDROOM LADDER -— - -- LADDER ol0 LL= 111 EXCAVATE O DOWN 4'-0" A. ;n FROM LOWER BEDROOM AREA= 151 S.F. LEVEL FOR 8" GONG. WALL LIGHT AREA REQUIRED= 15.1 B.F. MECH. � ° W/ 2" RIGID LIGHT AREA PROVIDED- 15.1 B.F. /IN5UL. PLAYROOM ool T.O. GONG ELEV. b9'-10" • I I GL05. I 112 I STRUCTURAL COLUMN LEVEL ABOVE NORTH rA) LOWER LEVEL FLAN �22.1� 1/4" = 1'-0" L�FIC J I . NOTE �O" CO-TONhiOD SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED ✓t/ NEW SITE IMPRO'✓EMENT SURVEY 10'-O" FRONT YARD _ 14" COTTONWOOD O SETBACK ' NEW LOCATION - 36.49' FOR 14" COTTONWOGD (-^cam- --- - - -- -- -- -- - -- -- I-- -�'-- -� 16" COTTONWOOD O COLLIN'5 I O O '�.'� O I LOT LINE DISPUTE I - i I Fr-r I I I I I I 5'-0" SIDE YARD I I SETBACK I I I I 14" COTTONWOOD 1 I (MOVED)��L _ I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ID" ASPEN � I I I I I � 10" ASPEN 1 4 I i I i I EXISTING DITCH LOCATION 12" COTTONWOOD I I I I I APPLE TREE I I I I I I I I LINE OF I I FOUNDATION BELOW --t ___L I 5'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK REVISED DITCH LOCATION PARKING SPACE LOT 'A' HISTORIC, 43q S.F EXI5TIN6 1 DITCH LOCATION II I� REVISED I I DITCH LOCATION J 41 I I I II 1 1 I II EXI5TIN6 5U56RADE I II I FOUNDATION TO -� BE DEMOLISHED I III I I I I 14" SPRUCE I I (MOVED) I I 1 EXISTING SUBGRADE I I it EXTERIOR STAIRS I I - - - I TO BE DEMOLISHED I I l_ --f- ---- I I 111 PREVIOU5 HOUSE LOCATION / I DEMOL15H NON -HISTORIC SHED ADDITION PRIOR / I I TO MOVING HISTORIC I HOUSE PATIO I I I I _ 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK I LOT I I i LOT 'B' NEW LOT i 1 45-71 5.E. I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I REMOVE SM. I I - - - -� ASPEN TREES I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I - } I 1 ROOF ABOVE I I I I I ---J I I I I I I I I I DEMOL15H EXISTING-- I I I I NON-H15TORIC 6ARAGE J I _ J I I I DRIVE ALLEY NORTH SITE PLAN ft 0 Is I • Li HIST RIG METAL BAY eiDN. GUARDRAIL HISTORIC WDW. PORCH J, T.O. FIN. FLOOR 101 - ELEV. 100'-0" DESK OFFICE— , IO2 LIGHT WELL BELOW -- CERTIFIED ND. BURNING F.P. HISTORIC EXISTING UP FLUE A BAY WDW. BV. DINNG -- - w I 10- I - ® HISTORIC W.! NDO WS BUILT-INLz�, 1 PANTRY r GABS. ABV. DN I I R. 1 /B" UP 9 rR. 101. STAIR -- ------ n1 I 0 R 103 LIGHT WELL WINE RACK 5TAIR5 BELOW �-1" ABV. (� NEW WINDOW PANTRY WOOD TILE LOW POWDER TILE WOOD WALL lo5 27" 'REF DRAWER Q - GABS. BELOW FREEZER NEW WINDOW ABV. I N KITCHEN log -- o -- LINE OF ADDITION METAL I GABS. $ GLG. CHANGE . GUARDRAIL Dl/w I BELOW BUILT-IN ABOVE � GUBBIES NEW WINDOW I--- - -- -- — POP-UP TV 1SINK _'_ _ I — -- - VENTILATION V�--- LIVING —7 HOOD ABOVE ----ilk J 106 NEW WINDOW FLOWER BOX p9 MUD RM. loe DECK DN 1 BENCH —� 2 RISERS ®8" _� NEW WINDOWS _ f FOR SOUTH ELEVATION GAS LOG APPLIANCE NORTH OUTDOOR EB_), MAIN LEVEL PLAN HATCH /4 11 1 1 _ O II RESTORE ORIGINAL PORCH ROOF I— BUILT-IN5 HISTORIC WINDOW I l/ SEALED GA5 LOCH APPLIANCE DIRECT VENT T MAIN LEVEL BELOW METAL GUTTER EDGE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING GUARDRA I L NEW WD. DECKING M. BEDROOM 204 METAL FLASHING METAL CRICKET NORTH (I :J ROOF TUB DECK ABOVE WOW. . — - -- -- —HISTORIC — _ BENCH I ° TUB R 1 DASHED LINE OF SHl� ROOF ABOVE 20i M. BATH 202 r� Lq ROOF ABOVE HALL DN I 205 9 lo I5T IR / 13 CLOTHES ROD W/ SHELVING - �— M. CLOSET I I ABOVE 206 I I rn - I GIUOS. T.O. FIN. FLOOR ELEV.110'-l" I I I EXISTING . _ I HISTORIC, WINDOW 1 NEW WINDOW Ll w r- fJ O rn STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING Li - 3:12 SLOPE W/ METAL ROOFING UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING DORMER WALL BELOW STANDING SEAL METAL ROOF I Nc UPPER LEVE BELO BALGON' BELOr NORTH (T ROOF PLAN /4ll_ 1'--011 • • • 0 - , a . . . . 0 .1.1 0 EXISTING ASPHALT 5HINGL E ROOFING EXITING HISTORIC _ DOUBLE HUNG AI NOOW5 EXISTING AD. CLAPBOARD SIDING TYPICAL FOR ENTIIN&RE BUILD EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING HISTORIC NO. DETAILING EXISTING HISTORIC AD. TRIM EXISTING AD. DECKING EXISTING GONG. STEP GRADE I EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY FLUE HORIZ. AD 510ING TO MATCH EXISTING NOTE: NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR NORTH ELEV. METAL FLASHING i i u NEN DORMER N/ VERT. AD. 5IDIN6 METAL GUARDRAIL B.O. BEAM ® DORMER _ ELEV. Ilq'-4 5/4" EXISTING HORIZ. AD SIDING T.O. PLATE @ UPPER ELEV. 115'-I I " EXHAUST VENT 12 3� T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ELEV. 110'--l" I T.O. PLATE�@RO�01:ELEV. II IO�t'STING) II ! NEW WINDOW VERT. AD. SIDING METAL FLOWER BOX METAL SIDING I � I T.O. F.F. ® LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" EXISTING HORIZ. AD. 51 D I NG I- METAL GUARDRAIL -J L I6HTAELL EGRESS WINDOW T.O. GONG. - - - �T ELEV.89'-10" WEST ELEVATION 141, _ ! 1_O1, METAL FLASHING EXITING NEW DORMER W/ BRICK 5TAND I NG CHIMNEY SEAM METAL NEW WINDOW ROOFING i EXISTING HISTORIC ASPHALT SHINGLE DOUBLE HUNG ROOFING WINDOW NEW DOOR d I EXISTING TRANSOM IL I I HORIZ. VV. NEW DORMER Al SIDING VERT. WG D. 51DINI — I \ T.O. PLATE ®UPPER LINE OF i ELEV. 115-11" HANDRAIL NEW VERT. I METAL FLASHING —4 kNo. I METAL CHIMNEY SIDING I / FLUE B GAP i 1 0. F.F. @ UPPER CXISTING 1 i ELEV. WD. SIDING STANDING SEAM u1=TAL FLOWER BOX METAL ROOFING METAL SIDING j METAL F.P. Wp. DECKING � AGGE55 DOOR HISTORIC BAY METAL GUARDRAIL BEYOND NOW. BEYOND — —� y METAL �'� METAL II �� SIDING ---UARCRAI L ° GRADE II II T.D. F.F. ® LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" I ( I SUf35R.ADE I I I ABGRADE LL LIGHT WELL EEYOND LIGHT WELL WALL BEYOND I T.O. GONG. ELEV. 89'-10" 2 5OUTH ELEVATION A3.1 1/4" = I'-O" Mlh =V • 3ATH EXHAUST VENT ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING WD. TRIM EXISTING ASPHALT 5HINGLE ROOFING T.O. F.F. @ UPPER ELEV. 110'--r" -IISTORIG DBL. HUNG WINDOW HISTORIC BAY WINDOW $ TRIM MECH. VENT T.O. F.F. o LOWER ELEV. 100'-0" EGRESS WINDOW METAL EGRESS -ADDER iUBGRADE =OUNDATI ON SALL OL T.O. GONG. ELEV. 5q'-10" EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-O" • • 0 • SUBGRADE WALL $EYOND L_ 4 � NORTH ELEVATION ,LTERATIONS )!BED FOR TION UPPER I" UPPER �RDRA I L LOWER ,_O,l /4" = 1'-0" FlI X IS' PARKING SFAGE ARA&E 302 T.O. F.F. ® GA ELEV. 100'-0* NORTH A GARAC-7E PLAN 2.3 1/4" = 1'-0" METAL HANDRAIL I ®� METAL v m I RAILING STAIR MEGH. 03 1 501 (BELOW) J -ROOF ABV. __j WALL5 BELOW ROOF 5TRUT5 BELOW 5TAND I N SEAM META ROOF I N RCCF OVERMAN izzl-A NORTH (j) (:S7ARAC�E ROOF PLAN /4 11 I I _ O II 4'-8" • C � W 2xb AD. FASGIA BC EXT. LIGHTI '_LATE_ _ . IOq'-O" .T. VND. SIDI rAL FLASH :ONC. ® GA . 100'-O" Af'cD � li II I i li' i I� I I IiII' II i � II i� vG I I II it 'I I� NG RAGE MEGH. GONG. RETAINING 301 I I WALL BEYOND — T.O. POOTER — ELEV. 90'-8" GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION HATCH ACCESS MEGH. RO RO 1I � GARAGE WEST ELEVATION 1.,4" = 1'-0" 1/4'. = 1'-0" MEGH. GONG. RETAINING 301 I I WALL BEYOND — T.O. POOTER — ELEV. 90'-8" GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION HATCH ACCESS MEGH. RO RO 1I � GARAGE WEST ELEVATION 1.,4" = 1'-0" 1/4'. = 1'-0" .xb WD. rA501� BOARI �T.O. Cam_® GLN. IOQ'-O« vERT. WD. 510IN META GUARDRA 'METAL FLA5H1�, — —T.O-. GONG_® G -* STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING VERT. WD. SIDING y?ETAL GUARDRAIL �E-AL =LASHING T.O. GONG. ® GA ELEV. 100'-0" `- GRADE CC)�, RETAINING WALL BEYOND MECH. 301 1 I T.O. FOCTER I —OL T,O. FOCTER ELEV. 9C'-8" GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-O" — — — t - — — — — — — — — — _ I n GARAGE EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = I'-O" ASPEN PLANNINGOONING COMMISSION • June 5, 2001 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS.......................................................................................... 1 MINUTES.................................................................................................................................................................... 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.................................................................................................. 1 413 W. HOPKINS DRAC VARIANCE - SECONDARY MASS........................................................................... 2 515 GILLESPIE - LANDMARK DESIGNATION................................................................................................. 4 640 NORTH THIRD - LANDMARK DESIGNATION.......................................................................................... 4 419 EAST HYMAN - LANDMARK DESIGNATION........................................................................................... 5 629 WEST SMUGGLER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION................................................................................... 5 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT.................................................................................................... 6 `3 ASPEN PLANNING &bNING COMMISSION • June 5, 2001 4 Robert Blaich, Chair, opened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow, Jasmine Tygre and Robert Blaich were present. Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Guthrie, Joyce Ohlson, Fred Jarman, Stephen Clay, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson requested that a copy of the minutes on the Grand Aspen Hotel be provided to Sunny Vann and to include the minutes in the final submission. Jackie Lothian responded that Sunny has already received a copy of the minutes. Erickson noted that the work session on the Aspen Mountain PUD was cancelled and not rescheduled. Bob Blaich noted that an election for the chair should be held in June, since 2 of the regular members were not in attendance tonight, they would hold the P&Z chair election at the next meeting. Lothian said that after the new Council was seated, they would set up interviews for the board appointments. Joyce Ohlson introduced Stephen Clay, the new city planner. Ohlson distributed the Burlingame summary from the Task Force COWOP Team, which were the development guidelines to be presented to Council on June 121n Ohlson stated that there were 2 P&Z scheduled public hearing also for June 12cn Blaich polled the commissioners for attendance of the meeting on the 12tn and only 2 members would be present. Blaich noted that the Burlingame project was too important to be scheduled at the same time that a P&Z special meeting was scheduled. Blaich stated concern for some potential problems with the 2 P&Z members not being able to attend that Burlingame COWOP meeting; he requested that some representation from P&Z be pursued. Ohlson said that there was a Cemetery Lane work session planned for the 14tn of June. Erickson stated that he was the only one who could make the meeting on the 14tn MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from May 15, 2001, May 1, 2001, April 17, 2001 and April 4, 2001. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 4-0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None were disclosed. 1 ASPEN PLANNING•LONING COMMISSION • June 5, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 413 W. HOPKINS DRAC VARIANCE — SECONDARY MASS Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided and the commission could proceed. Fred Jarman stated that this was a Design Appeals Review Hearing, which requested variances for the single family home to be built at 413 West Hopkins. Jarman stated that the variances were for non -orthogonal windows and secondary mass; staff requested denial of the variances. Jarman explained the non -orthogonal windows placements on the drawings. Jarman said that the interpretation of secondary mass was always a subordinate linking element (the west elevation in this case) and indicated the garage separation from the first level and the master bedroom on the second level and the ADU on the sub -grade level. Staff found that this was a flat buldable lot and that all the design standards could be met without the variances. Augie Reno, architect, stated that the variance request for the two non -orthogonal windows was dropped. He illustrated the changes with drawings and needed no variance for the windows. Reno said that the secondary mass key words were linked to by subordinate element. He said that they complied to this standard because the submission related with the connecting link was sitting back from both of the other planes and the building was not one large mass itself. Reno utilized a model and pointed out the west elevation of the building where the dedicated alley would be put in. The front two-story mass was broken up by horizontal differences in planes. The secondary mass was a master bedroom with a terrace off of it. Reno provided photographs of the neighborhood surrounding this building; he noted that this was the second smallest building on the street. Reno said that if the second -story were taken away then that 400 square feet would have to be moved somewhere else on the lot to utilize the FAR. Joyce Ohlson stated that what this means with the intent of the secondary mass for the residential design standard actual is; does the development proposal constitute and create as it stands and looks an actually secondary mass. Ohlson said does it look as if there are two components to the structure and when there is a two-story mass. Reno stated that there was a clear link to the masses, which met the standard. 2 ASPEN PLANNING &bNING COMMISSION 9 June 5, 2001 0 Ron Erickson asked how large the lot was and how large the house was. Reno replied that the lot was 75' x 100' and the FAR was 3400-3500 square feet, below the allotted FAR by 57 square feet. Erickson asked for a name for the style of architecture. Reno replied that it leaned towards the European Tyrolean look. Blaich noted that it was compatible with the neighborhood because it was very eclectic. He said the small cottage neighbors would be overpowered but he asked for how long would they actually would be there or if they were protected. Blaich stated that they would probably become the secondary element of a big house in the future. Blaich asked Reno why he designed projects with elements that would be challenged. Reno replied that he knew why the non -orthogonal window standard was placed in the code but he felt that scale was the important aspect. No public comments. Erickson said that from the roof plan drawing (A24) it appeared that the secondary mass was visible and subordinate from the street view. Buettow said that from the north elevation, the front of the house had the one story elevation to the left, which helped break down the mass of the house. Tygre stated that she disagreed and did not see a secondary mass effectively and that the 10 fait length wasg the same height. Tygre said that she did not feel that it was a more effective way of addressing the standard in question. Tygre stated that she did not always agree with the standards included in Ordinance 30, but also said that she did not see where this application fulfills any of the 3 criteria to allow a variance to be granted. Blaich said that from a practical point of view this house would not have an effect aesthetically or an effect on the environment. Blaich noted that there needed to be clarification on the issues in Ordinance 30. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the requested variances of the Residential Design Standard for secondary mass for the Young Residence, 413 West Hopkins Avenue subject to the conditions listed in P&Z Resolution #01-18 finding the proposed design represents a more effective manner to address the particular design issues in which the standards were intended. Steven Buettow second. Roll call vote: Tygre, no; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 3-1. The commission thanked the applicant for the beautiful model. 3 ASPEN PLANNING•ZONING COMMISSION • June 5, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 515 GILLESPIE — LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing on 515 Gillespie. Fred Jarman provided the public notice on May 1, 2001. Jarman noted that the HPC approved the Historic Landmark Designation and the process was to go through P&Z next and then onto City Council. Jarman explained that this was a 2-story residence situated on a 9,210 square foot lot that was built approximately in 1887. The house was currently on the historic sites and structures inventory; it was originally located on 100 West Hopkins and moved in 1971 to the current location. Staff stated that it met 3 of the 5 criteria: architectural importance, neighborhood importance and community importance. Jarman stated that the house was very interesting and maintained the Tshape plane with the gable roof and classic open front porch with original turned -post detail. No public comments. Randall Bone, representative for the owners, stated that the Becks have owned the property since it was built and that Neil Beck was born in this house. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve P&Z Resolution #19, series 2001 recommending approval to City Council for historic landmark designation for the property located at 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the conditions stated. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The commission agreed that this was a commendable property with the family history and community value. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 640 NORTH THIRD — LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing on 640 North Third. Amy Guthrie provided the public notice at the May 1, 2001 meeting. Guthrie stated that this property had a number of alterations and was fairly unique with a small one-story piece on the front with a taller 1'/z-story section behind it. Janver Derrington, architect, provided photos ofthe neighborhood with the different houses. Jim Daggs, the owner, was present to answer any questions. 2 ASPEN PLANNING B&NING COMMISSION • June 5, 2001 J No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend City Council approve landmark designation for 640 North Third, P&Z Resolution #01-20, finding that conditions B, D and E have been met. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Blacih, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 419 EAST HYMAN — LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued hearing on 419 East Hyman. Amy Guthrie provided the public notice. Guthrie commented that this was the Paragon Building on the Hyman Avenue mall and one of the most significant buildings left in the downtown area. Guthrie said that 4 of the standards must be met for landmark designation. Guthrie noted that the building was associated with two important characters from the silver mining period, Henry P. Cowenhoven and D.R.C. Brown. The building has recently undergone a successful restoration process and the historic billboard on the west side of the building was being restored. No public comments. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve P&Z Resolution #21, series 2001 finding criteria A, B, D and E have been met and to recommend City Council approve landmark designation for the Paragon Building, 419 East Hyman Avenue. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 629 WEST SMUGGLER — LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the continued hearing from April 17, 2001 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing on 629 Smuggler to July 10, 2001. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 4-0. 5 ASPEN PLANNING&ONING COMMISSION 0 June 5, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie explained that the historic lot split program has been successful and it allowed a different form of ownership; it allowed a fee simple lot split and eliminated a condominization. The application was to extend the same program to the office zone district. Bob Starodoj, representative for the applicant, Scott and Caroline MacDonald was present. Guthrie asked for feedback from the commission. Guthrie said that there were no long-term impacts on the community. Erickson stated that there were many discussions underway with the downtown office zone district and some of those included uses and some regarding size. Erickson stated that the feeling was to do away with residential uses on the first floor inthe downtown core area or new single-family residences on Main Street. Erickson stated the area of discussion should extend to the In -fill committee. Erickson asked how many other properties would this code amendment affect. Guthrie answered that there were 4 or 5 properties on Main Street. Guthrie said that the lost split program would allow for split uses. Starodoj stated that the MacDonald's intent was to keep the carriage house and sell off the big house. Erickson said that the Irrfill program was in favor of the lot splits. Jasmine Tygre stated that the way the market was at this moment, the mixed use would not be affected. Tygre said that she was not comfortable with a code amendment for one property because it will affect other properties, even though it may only be 5 or 6 properties. Tygre asked if there was another venue other than a code amendment to process this application. Erickson asked why the applicant couldn't just go through a lot split. Guthrie answered that 12,000 square feet was needed for the lot split and the applicant only had 9,000 square feet. Ohlson noted that there was no site plans for this particular property and staff was looking at the implications for all of those 5 properties. Starodoj asked if Jasmine's concern was a dictation of the usage or what the market determined as the usage. Guthrie stated that the applicant could condominize the lots but they would prefer fee simple. Blaich agreed with Jasmine on a code change for one project, which would affect other properties. Erickson noted that there was a code amendment for one project (Explore Booksellers) that affected other properties. Erickson said that a lot split could go through a lot split on the basis of a hardship for a variance. Ohlson said that the applicantion could be continued but it would have to be re -noticed. Guthrie said that the R-6 zone district across the alley could do a lot split at 9,000 square feet because it was zoned residential. Blaich invited Staradoj to an In -fill Committee meeting. 0 ASPEN PLANNING AbNING COMMISSION • June 5, 2001 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing on the Historic Lot Split Code Amendment to June 19, 2001. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 4-0. Erickson asked about Real Estate signs in the public rightof-way and enforcement. Blaich noted that security signs were being changed to smaller and more appropriate places. Meeting adjourned. d ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 10-30-00; 3:23PM;SUNRISE OLONY ASPEN ;9709204433 # 2/ 4 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 5151 WEST GILLESPIE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 8ffi, at a meeting to begin at 5:00pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Neil and Pamela Beck requesting approval for Historic Designation, a Historic Lot Split including 500 square foot historic lot split FAR bonus, a 3 foot side yard and 3 foot rear yard setback variances. The property is located at 5151 West Gillespie and is described as Lots 4-6, Block 99, Hallam Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jannin at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970 920 5102 fredi(aci.aven.com S/Suzannah Reid, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times City of Aspen Account LCZ r�tCLk C9, kzlzqCoe 10-30-00; 3=23PM;SUNRISLONY ASPEri FRAZER WILLIAM R & JANE Z KAUS PETER & EVA FAMILY TRUST 8401 VISTA LN 433 W GILLESPIE PRESCOTT AZ 86301 ASPEN CO 81611 DURAND LOYAL III DR & BERNICE BLACK 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 UHLFELDER NAOMI PO BOX 1165 ASPEN CO 81612 SALTER JAMES POR^""C BRIDGEHAMPTON NY 11932 KNURR GOLDIE P & WERNER 603 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81611-1242 GOLDSMITH ANDREW LUBIN 1/3 1344 N DOHENY DR LOS ANGELES CA 90000 NORTH FOURTH STREET ASSOCIATES C/O MIKE CONVISOR PO BOX I I ASPEN, CO 81612 COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S PO BOX HH ASPEN CO 81612 BECK NEIL H & PAMELA 515 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81611 HODGES ELAINE C 2020 S MONROE #118 DENVER CO 80210 GOLDSMITH JOHN JOSEPH 1/3 733 25TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90400 ;9709204433 PETERSON JAMES D PETERSON HENSLEY R PO BOX 1714 ASPEN CO 81612 ODOM JOHN A JR ODOM LORRIE FURMAN 11490 W 38TH AVE WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 AARONSON JEFFREY C P O BOX 10131 ASPEN CO 81612 # 3/ 4 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 NORTH ST ASPEN CO 81611 O'SHANA CATHY 108 ROBBINS ST OSTERVILLE MA 02655 ELGART ALICE CLARE GOLDSMITH 1/3 - ' 27 E 62ND ST 6TH FL NEW YORK NY 10001 ELLIOTT ELYSE A LUETKEMEYER JOT-M A JR & MCCARTY DANIEL L 610 NORTH ST SUZANNE F PO BOX 4051 ASPEN CO 81611 SCHREIBER EUGENE H & STANFORD ASPEN CO 81612 17 W PENNSYLVANIA AVE TOWSON MD 21204 MCCARTY DANIEL L POE--_ I _ ASPEN CO 81612 STUNDA STEVEN R 515 5TH ST ANNAPOLIS MD 21403 MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD ASPEN CO 81611-8500 NITZE WILLIAM A 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 ASPEN INSTITUTE INC 1000 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81611 RICHARDS ANN K 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 LEWIS ADAM BELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE SMALL ALBERT H & SHIRLEY S C/O KATHLEEN HONOHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE 7116 GLENBROOK RD @NATIONAL CITY BANK TRUST BETHESDA MD 20814 1900 E 9TH ST LOC 2030 5805 MISSION DR CLEVELAND OH 44114 SHAWNEE MISSION KS 66208 10-30-00; 3:23PM;SUNRIS LONY ASPEN MUSGRAVE MARJORY M FOX SAM 629 W NORTH ST FOX MARILYN ASPEN CO 81611 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 600 CLAYTON MO 63105 GREENWOOD JIM COHEN ROGER L 1035 W 57TH ST 1035 W 57TH ST KANSAS CITY MO 64113 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 9709204433 HOFFMAN JOHN L 1035 W 57TH ST KANSAS CITY MO 64113 # 4/ 4 10-30-00; 3:23PM;SUNRISE OLONY ASPEN ppr SUNRISE COLONY COMPANY Sent To: Fred Jarman ;9709204433 # 1/ 4 TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DATE: 10/30/00 3:31 PM NUMBER OF PAGES: 4 (Including Cover Sheet) Sent By: Kim Marie DiSalvo Company Name: City of Aspen Department: Aspen Office Fax No: (970) 920-5439 Fax No: (970) 920-4433 Telephone No: (970) 920-5102 Telephone No: (970) 920-9911 cc: File Fax Operator: Kim Marie DiSalvo F.,,_, As per our telephone conversation please find attached the mailing list and a copy of the public notice that was mailed to all on the list on October 24, 2000. Thank you, Kim Marie DiSalvo kdisalvo@sunriseco.com 1 ] 7 Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone (970) 920-9911; Fax (970) 920-4433 Builder of America's Finest Country Club Communities L MCW143 GARFMLD COUNTY. FOUR Sm.E CRER AND M ulllll D 1XION tr ev - - CRELIL Enka Iron C mo Diane Dck cy. P.O. Box 2115, Glenwood Sprm64 Colorado 91e02 (910) Ally c Appiauy far F Drkgeeaon Martin Raever. Nana R7e- Aherear Jiw I, Meer Allerva Nw 2 Sdumt No. 3 and Mcrae Fader Death Altrore Ne. 3. Dread: ApN 9, 1966, Case Liuuat Pont d __y of the hip avatar hoc a Incised a. Point whiner the muter . Wet Clatter Cum of S. 37911PL R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M beta S. 89'2745' W. 3.415 27 4. Mee Rtaervem Alarae j - the domed point at drocra s a an the SEi:N W V. of Sin 31. Tp. 7 q, R 89 W. of the 6111 P.M a a pant on We Went adPmrs: - the hi¢ carer 1a4 gad pea bmg l.5W fL Ee d the Wet line ran 1.46o fL Sarah d the Nash Inc d cad S-m 31. AdM Ram. Ahaeaac Nw 2 • a Inald m tic SEV.NW . d Satin 3_. Ty, 7 S- R, 89 W. of do nth P.A, the Pon of lourn"on bit the refer lac of the Data and m Went ab4mea a a pea whsaa the Win"" Canter n the Went Quarter Comer ofcad Secum 31 bean South 65' Well 1730 fL Wo nRevervotr Aberar Nut 3 - a WmA in L41 2 of Seaaen 31, Towahip 7 South, R traw 89 Wet of the 6a P.h< to a punt w the =mate of the han bang man ptrrnlrN described a begiomog a the G t.Qnmes L.wl Office brae .p Warms Cony m me Wom Qtanetr Cam of tad Satin 31. titter m a hearing d Nano 65N)6'43- Eta and a distance of 1295 93 feet to a goad were or less on the ataaloc of Elie doe and valve box for the gala ppc. u••••,, Fader Dina tir.NI vto. 3 - a {lard m Sect 31. Towaahp 7 South. Range 89 West of the 6% PM_ at a point beg®eg at the Gommele Lad Office brew cap Wale. Cum in the Weal Quarter Coma d lad Section 31 thencs on a bearing of North 40'15'14' Feral ad a diaace of1,91M 86 tea in a pan tar a lac a the oserhaw of be badgew moatpac Appoe A structures, April 9, Irrigation.em 966, AoNC 67 of Use: Irrigatidrtd mm ic and bdhml papoem The Application aatams a dew, {ed yettemml d will, done rowrha dbi aaa 0 pages) I& OK-'W147 (phW. Co.". Raahig Fork iher, Water Dlsrid No. 381. Applicants: CSIk Perfeco Bamtat Pat LL,C and evin KWeeds, uo Rhonda J. Bain BOYD & BAM 11P, 631 E Hopleia Awaa, Aspen.Colorado 81611, Telephoac. 970.925.7171. Noe 9f Soocoe: Sulwt River Wert Type of Application, APPLICATION TO MAKE ABSOLUTE A CONDITIONAL WAl- RIQiT AND FOR FT.4DD:G OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE Baer Roca" Farb Rr1c. Locima n i Afib. plMsy (well alma 150 tea f4or the South Section line of Section 9 and 1310 fee from do Wet Section lot of lad section (SW 1/4Sw 114 of Section 91. Township South. Range 85 Wert of the 6' PM. Type ofm Use: dranc. vodEaetamg, fin puwc oaL ad for the tmptm of up up n 10.000 upfat of Lando. Typo of Structure: Strue: Wei QT9uL 0.0446 cl.a (20 gpm) of wbwh 0033 cis (IS g p.m) u abe000e sad 00116 cls. 5 gpm. d which a wedd*-L Appaptaan don: April 22. 1993. The afpiirtkn mmm a o-ine deacr punn d the aai.ruct pert' dmtg the ddigea penod (4 pages) 1L MCWI" PRKIN COUN 'Y • Stem Cask Cheat Ditch Marty Smlamnain ger c/o Se Bok.b. BalmGrin PC A GrP.0 PO Dmwv 790 Glenwood Sprmgn, CO 81602 (9703 9456546. Stare Cattle Creels Dee - Application for Caarip of Point of Di.vaaa Deuced d 92CW112 and 92CW778 (canbiad!) Cane No W-1033. I-od a a point ou the NaNtwenaly Meek If Gale Cm& a a pant whiners the NoN+en Corm of S23, TIOS, R25W at the 6' P M bran North a 30'37• Wert 5,757 fin. Appopokaa Disc Jane 25, 1M. Amount 2.0 CFS, Use: ttngnem Applicator muds In ebmge 0.1 CPS n a ocw Paw Of dnaaoa a follows: A poia m the lath bah Of the RMW Fork River m the NW 'A NE'/1 S36, TES, R26W. 6' P.M, 150 fee hoes the North lint ad 2300 fm (roan the Fat hoc, t3 pol a) 22 o W'ls9 Coa, No. ODCW APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS AND FOR CHANGE OF H-AN POR AUGMENTATION CONCERNING APPLICATION POR WATER RIGHTS OFCOTTONWOODHOLLOW HOMEOWNER'S ASSN and GAI-EN B. SMITH IN GARPIEID COUNTY Nat, adOdar a Poore of AMIiontcCaeauraod Holbw Hneaeowac' s Ante C/O lint TUL. Prctdm 0206 Coma Ho1nw lac Catbonalc CO 81623, Grlm B. Smith 0105 CWm Null- L- Carbondale, CO 81617 L P O. Blae 241 Srowva. CO 81654 GO Bimr G BarmMJd, Aweraey for APpiaa W2 Grad A- Sun 305 Glenwood SpnegL CO 91 60 1 Ns ofSt+nmaer m Bobau* Estaka Wails Not, I through Declined vough 35 d McVey Rvo Ded kpl doo-pina ofputs of dr.vaea and pant of ring: nbyom ode bou nd oted to aof 6. 7 d 8 Sailboat 12 ad a th". of NP/ Sec 12. r. 7 SeaL RMW M W! d6' P_bL McVey Rnarsvlocatedr a located et San68 - 12, L 7 S., R. W. (6' P.M, ere a local ISOD fin has d the went ban and 1800 feel oath of the south lane of wit Snow V. source of the weior fee each _9 and McVey Raw-r tt Can Creak t4ibmtry, m Rearm; Foek Rearappropriation than for nick ­0 to March 26, 1980. appepmm den for k&Vey Rieay. to Aral 10, 1971. Devrpoae at Plan for Augnemnm M be c hageid On April 18, 1991, n Caere No. 30CW759, the Dr,woe 5 Wow Cote awadd Bobcat Ridge Estates Well% `Joe 1 thtatllla 35. 0.033 dt ocL ..dwaaL for to- hones dtmoc oaaa nppr- waning dery horse par doethng war cad -p.- of up n 1000 allure the of lave and grant aW ROBINSON 500 1.21 an Ulm 06flsn* DITCH ROOD45ON 2.50 060 05niting 04115im DITCH ROBINSON i 200 049 asnuing 1111-vit DITCH ROBINSO1 1070 259 t2r2Wt903 04n.9 it DITCH ROBINSON _0 tM 4 85 GVW1936 "n" DITCH (1) ilc BWCD owes 441 shim d CIr 1 soar dund b. the Robtmo the total ata ores and are associated with 9.73 cft of the 4026 c.ft dialect ha th (2) District Court m ad for Garfield Cash I'm plant of divmvw d decreed ., incised -the \kath book of the Roarm e Gad[ in Section 11. T 8 S. R 87 Went, 6th P.M ImAtim of appoix-ehv in the RObraon Dtseh waser rtghla n Case Ne, 91CW319, the Corot decreed �. moor and with and imgatiow In than use, the Can also decreed a age aagmmmm BWCD man the news avatloble ro contact adoom for decree ofColorL Fam Domestic ?itolioe -Santa yb. L Lusted . a lass Range 87 W esL 6th P M. bears Sash 34E26' Era SW 9 feet FM DMOX = E' . came. Section 34. Twmmp' South. Rao 97 War. 64h P_AL bins Smarr TMC URE TMOUN i AW. DATE APP. DATE FAVRE DONL 0,50 %W195% 0311 V1937 PL SP NO 1 FAVRE DOAL 050 i oYXY1958 O41I5/1912 PL SP, 40 2 (1) AM=: Faehpragadecreed Sur050eta,bintheheredbahbar■m (2) fAno-t Chat mad f. Ga find Cate f Th. Faun Domestic Pipeline - Spring Not. 1 a 2 arc ttsb man, m Blue Crack - tor dmeme and Augmaiowp ma B W CD owes the Fevre Domeue Ppd. Out domrmc wan stpptv for El kb.L o o®tnn. of 164 F-QRs oninstamm hum,. mgtim of 12.5 amen of- and laacape ad wourelral devet, 142.82 sae led of lass cm.-p- aabit wear avadaboe . Blue C feet of hi- cona®pt- crreat were a.akhl[ to the Rrnrmg Fmk R Come SLID deuced a change of use of said arab in allude for use p rusat to a app-ed mhmmse sappy plan a decree of Court. PPW to be The ph.acal sauna d dc- of .leer i r : rigaoop ad plods each dwrling unit and fire ptaeem. Said rdb stye loapenmod wah rdesaa from Meamlmr cVey Rdecreed in Cat No. '9CW 59 led total dnaam am cour and toe 0ante fact fact Per fir 10 AF, ab."Ime ad 10 AF, aadmml -9. vob- of McVey R-n wmatd War been determinedby a registered 0 30877 tam m the NW114 N'EU4 Section 12, Towanp 10 Saint Rase ptofemmd engeitQ to be 1.67 AF. Cottonwood Hdlaw presently canna% d 13 Ira With one ,fweilmg untt Per lot and with -poraum amrbtoble to the arthiic Pod sewn a estimated In be appr vnpay a t bass for each Im a run- hem compared on a Blaney-CrdAt hint, ffi ur wank a 75x ecieaS factor. r Tbu I.a No. Hmo S% Pt hngaad 0. 30977 amen weaad be 0.62 of will amsi coweempove use would be 0 46: 1 4 2300 dtvrn in priority, augmeamm -{easel will be rode from Routh Resee, 2 4 1000 Comervtaicy DLcrta Alkmm Comma m repace out d petty deplat. 3 4 30M bated bmweea the con0teencc of the Ruining Fah ad FrAzinan River% 4 4 4 2500 m appaama tv v mile upateam of the -- fk. - of Calk Creek and the 5 0 2OW ad e.k- if n quewd wid mad e ade horn ere Stine S,-nd SyNye 6 0 2000 locetwd. Appraztt(IOwgal 0 1000 _ 8 4 30DO YOU ARE HF-REBY NOTaIED THAT YOC RAVE until the lac do, 9 4 2OW Qaadrnwe o veplicrilfed asrtaeae d appe oioo o arew" forth fain a to w 10 1 1000 way it saeleld be 1pa lid on" in part or m aertaa cewNafma A spy 11 4 2500 up- eke appkh- or the aryloat's atargn it a oTed..ii tic cart 12 0 1000 Cloth, a pr ocnbd by flak S. CRCP. QWag Fee XSM) PZGG-: 13 0 1000 Serea, wise 104 Gkgwaod Spraoa, CO 111NL Teed 29 rm 24500 (0,5624 A) Published in Th, Aa srtd in CaNo 80CWe 359. the molter wdh on be apxmd in be m prmay during the ram-t a-- canon In addtion went can be opened to be m pnorutv ro dram Dom May 15 ehmary nor 30 d inch .mr. 'Im Rayasrd: Applsama req PUBLIC NOTICE that al but 13 "'Its be abandoned and that the idea from the 13 wills as above a described aatgmemd wdh refwa from Mcvy R,a� 1r RE: 515 W. GILLESPIE HISTORIC LOT SPLIT CONSUMPTIVE USE IN ACRE FEET (AF) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public he-aring- Dorncone Irripaea H- .1-poraonn Tow AF will be held on Wednesday. October 11. 2000, at 13 Urm 0.5624 Arm 29 0.28 Acre a meeting to begin at 5-00 p.m. before the Aspen April 0.0429 0.03r 00`4(v 007s4 Historic Preservation Commission, Council May 1.15 0.0214 0.1069 002M 0056o Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena SL. Aspen, to Juan Jury 0.0429 02531 0D4M 0.1456 consider an application submitted by Neil and Alight 0.0429 0.1631 0.04W 0 L232 Pamela Beck requesting approval for a Historic Scpcaear 0.0429 0.1406 0G400 00996 Lot Split. The property is located at 515 W. October 1.13 0,0214 0.uw 00200 0.0290 Gillespie and is described as Lots 4-6, Block 99. Two 0.2145 0.7199 02000 03208 1.6552 Hallam Addition, of the City and Townsite of Didactic 100 galperwwdry wah 3.5 perm/Dweiliog wah lox C.L'. Aspen. Imptdm: 1.99 AF/Aao'Ya u 0.5624 Ace (24500 R B) For further information. contact Fred Jarman at For Horses gaulnnaw. wnh 100%c.0 the Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Elapoaum 2.66 AF/AmdYa ou 029 mono acre McVey Rees. Department, 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen, CO (970) 2S. 99C WOO - CRYSTAL RIVER VANCE - sees sc eamewk stout 5,49 2480 Desrer. CID cOM2 Glenn E. POealt 920-5102. fredjOct.aspen.co.us. P-.k Btoweeg a Bushing U.P. Ammoevil for AppLK-L 9z0 Peal ;pm, Snac W. 9atdda. CO 90302) .AMENDED s/Suzannah Reid, Chair APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS, IN EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO IAmMdMgn d Aom:cibca. ,be dap.- of Un Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ppl-on onpealy 5kei d tine nae and published in the March. t"9 Reiime of the 0-mon 510. 5 Want Can a namy Published in The Aspen Times on September 23, mended to rda t that the dared wont nghis ere loadedm Eagle Coatnty The kgd de4empucmd d doe datmed canter rtpia ad all 2000. (74807] other mfamamon mdeded in the apQlhonm a originallypblisbd rtanaa amuse. 27. 06CWU3 GarAdd Coady: Rorft Fork R11a Weser tllanin Nan A Lac E. Hughes Well No. 2. lad E. li8ia u0 Thoaa L .Amawt Ha Edwards. Edaaa A.AdkL- L.LC. 502 More SUM Some MI, Carbmdtln Coloado $1623, (910) 963- 3900. FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR FINDLNG OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE P pl, for AmmArra n avren die Welling of Applaat's mine. and okc a tafurm tramghom the ore Noe d auxuale: lad E Hugh Well No 2. Tieviw% decree: Da of Onallai Dmae: Isy 26 19811 Case Ntrmbc, 80 CW 24t Cmar Diaaru Gorr, Wage Dr- 5 Location. Per Decree, the well is load in the NEIN NW114 of Same 31. T. 7 S., R 87 W. dthe 6' P_N. at a poor 1050 fin South ddn 4arth ban ad 2,550 ism Fitt Nike West het: dad Saben 31. Somcca well hxvit a depb d 40 feet mbsat n the Row g Fork Rise. Appuponm Dare Ocmber31, 19T AMa M O.I33 09 cadre m angel Decree, 0.363 der midmmL Uac doiiarmc apnacial ad nade pnL What but been dent toward caoopleace of the appapaam. Appkast ooauod Well Peaat No. 24228-F fin :aei E Hugber Well No. 2 on )dy 17. 1979 a Well Cadpleom sd Pmhp Imlanm Report -Cold on Demmer 12. 1980. a Stameear of BeneSaal Us wa fild ou July 15, 1980. In 199R Applioor installed a isw pap an the w cd At a met of S3,000. in L999. Applaant replaced 20W of merged and ddamded 3• water tine N a mat d apprmmoascty $25,OW (3 pyre). 2& MCW@" Flom Cougar - Rest Fork Rh rr. Hdo Saoc C/O Patrick a SID-11 PC. 730 E Durant A- Sbite MO. Apo, CO 81611. Fla Amended App.ram tot Underpuend Wader Right ad Approval of Nan for Aargmeaem -bar amenmm doer oar diner the copeol ppicwoa bled 5411= ce ept in nemde additimsl sagas of ao9m water. 990 IF Caelenutogttd Was RiAt Skye Well 40. 1 Location NW U4 NE 114 Scram 12 Tow." 10'y h Rage 85 Went of the b P_N a a Otago, 513 1 fin ha othe North section Low and 1341.0 fin hero the Pat WK1,02 ape of Section 12. Apppan oa date- 8N1999. Amt. IS GPM moekaoaL Cat ldn¢im dappmnaly 0.30977 acres m the NWI14NEU4 Section 12, TIM R93W, 6' P.M ad filling It mil iso peed Lorton Nsoariou Flag Sm Mni M be Mallo d. Stone Well Nu. I. Applied hall applied for an Almmea Caron f ® the Bang Weer Cmmsny Dimity to Provide direct flow rights and'or coolie of 1 0 amerfm in ear or more of this fallowing: gRgj Rcomym .for the bend& of the Bolt Water Caearvan" DimhG Ruedi Reaavov, a component of the fiyiegpoe-Aikarhna Pro)ra war mgmaBy domed in C.A. No. 4613. Garfield Canty Distdiex Corot, m lean .10. 1959. with a der of appotsatiw of Inly 29. 19571 mbsegemh a Case No. W-789-76 the decreed atungt capacity for this Heaver war reduced to In369 of Rath Rraavarr is a mmpomr of the Frymgpan-Ahaea4 Project origmaily aahoriaed tr maeatoy by the Am of Ampat 16. t962 (76 Seat. 3319) as amended by doe Ant of October 27, 1974 (39 Sett 1486) and tine Act of Noyesbd 3, I97E (92 Sat 2492). in abita®d accordance nth Fkae not, No. 197 83' Cmg., 1' Sm. to tateithhed ley Haar Doc 353, 86' Gag., 2i4 sea. ad u sibjca m the Operating Prtaryla tr the FryregO-Aha,s prym a set forth . Nos Duc 130, DT Cong, I' Sea The finbwu remvur a apaataI by the U.S BmeeaN of Rnclmtedi which his on.amed for an aDmnm of wav in the Bride Worar Coaervacy District 5 „&1U=Lfor the bereelit of the Bacon Want Cyavnsej Dtarim Blue Rn . trbraay of the Caliendo Rise to the race for Green Motmen Raerrorr, mgneiW decreed n Cow Nca: 27E2. 5016. and 5011. Until Sweet District Ceara, Dim a it C.Lordo ou Oadter 1- 1955. with a dare of appropriation of Aupial 1, 1935. The decreed towns capacity for this Resasvr a 154.645 of This kd.W reservoir a upe ..d in aanrdtaz wrth psragdgb 5(a7. (b1, ad O d Eke scram enmld'Ttamer d Opaardm d Ptafmt Fadktam ad AuaUar Facrhna' in Setae Dtmwmt 80. Tlar Dat ad Erik Durk auks a folnws. Sear. I Pewit. I Coin I AdJ- I Apt Decred Use I Amoara Sold Taindle el a' AsnomaY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of County Commissioners, at a regular meeting on September 13. 2000, and after a duly -noticed public hearing published in the Weekend Edition of The Aspen Times on August 19, 2000, adopted the following Emergency Resolution q ISO. AN EMERGENCY RFSOLU'TION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PITKIN COUNTY, THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORI- TY AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Copies of the full text of Resolution No. 180 are available for public inspection from 8:30 to 4:30 in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530 East Main Street, Aspen. Colorado 81611, Phone: 970-920.5180. Jeanette Jones Deputy County Clerk Published in the Weekend Edition of The Aspen Times on September 23, 2000. (74803) PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of County Commissioners, at a regular meeting on September 13, 2000 and after a duly -noticed public hearing published in the Weekend Edition of the Aspen Times on September 2, 2000, adopt- ed the following Ordinance 37-2000 ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY. COM- daeonatrme rte mrrhrrnt I-- r•nt noarsn of C, on S• publ. of T adop A RE COIN! ORA: AN E A Qt TW( lwIT STAI Coll, of it rule stab char Co1C petit ques elec: new State Groh state grio, land safel and arch unfa burl vice, pubi leve unh, hart and ties. ty C start of gr men pro[ and groe the County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on theZ( day of ' 200 1 (which isLO"days prior to the public hearing date of Apwi l 914 ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the Z ( day of�+�-�-� , 200 ( , to the 44' day of n% , 200 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. J It -- Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this day of W=B(Q0L11 / 200 . by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: My Commission Expkes August 28, 2001 Notary Public PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 515 WEST GILLESPIE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, April 9th, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 5:00pm before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Randall Bone requesting Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is located at 515 West Gillespie and is described as Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970 920 5102 fredjLaci.aspen.co.us Rachael Richards, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times City of Aspen Account County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) 1,L 1 Aj1— , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following 1. mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-cl ge prepaid U.S. Mail to all own roperty within three hundred (300) feet of the ject property, as indicated on the attached list, on th day of , 200 ich is days prior to the public hearing date of ). 2. By posting a sign in a cons ' s place subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) an the said sign was posted an continuously from the day of _, to the day of , 200. ( osted for at least ten (10 11 days before the hearing date). A hotograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. 3p s �& c Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this _ day of 200_. by AVA'06AA. a A -.)A- . J/. 47 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: Notary Public PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 515 W. GILLESPIE LANDMARK DESIGNATION / HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT / SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 25th, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Neil and Pamela Beck requesting approval for a Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Relocation, and a four (4) foot east side and rear yard setback variance and a three foot six inch (3'6") west side setback variance. The property is located at 515 W. Gillespie and is described as Lots 4-6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, of the City and Townsiteof Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, fredj@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reid. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Apri13, 2001 City of Aspen Account County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, Ic , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the L I day of , 200 ( (which is days prior to the public hearing date of ) (( ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the � day of , 200�, to the (I day of 200-L. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) Signature Signed before me this 'I day of 200L. by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: My COmmhdon E6 August 28, 2001 Notary Public EMAW DISAWO 40kW RbiCle d C bado PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 515 W. GILLESPIE LANDMARK DESIGNATION / HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 1 lth, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Neil and Pamela Beck requesting approval for a Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is located at 515 W. Gillespie and is described as Lots 4-6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, of the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, fredj@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Rachel E. Richards, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on May 22°d , 2001 City of Aspen Account FRAZER WILLIAM R.& JANE Z . FAMILY TRUST 433 W GILLESPIE ASPEN CO 81611 DURAND LOYAL III DR & BERNICE BLACK 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 UHLFELDER NAOMI PO BOX 1165 ASPEN CO 81612 SALTER JAMES P0BOX 765 BRIDGEHAMPTON NY 11932 KNURR GOLDIE P & WERNER 603 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81611-1242 GOLDSMITH ANDREW LUBIN 1/3 1344 N DOHENY DR LOS ANGELES CA 90000 ELLIOTT ELYSE A 610 NORTH ST ASPEN CO 81611 MCCARTY DANIEL L PO BOX 4051 ASPEN CO 81612 STUNDA STEVEN R 515 5TH ST ANNAPOLIS MD 21403 KAUS PETER & EVA PETERSON JAMES D 8401 VISTA LN it PETERSON HENSLEY R. PRESCOTT AZ 86301 PO BOX 1714 ASPEN CO 81612 NORTH FOURTH STREET ODOM JOHN A JR ASSOCIATES ODOM LORRIE FURMAN C/O MIKE CONVISOR 11490 W 38TH AVE PO BOX I I WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 ASPEN CO 81612 COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S AARONSON JEFFREY C PO BOX HH P 0 BOX 10131 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 BECK NEIL H & PAMELA CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 515 W GILLESPIE ST 536 NORTH ST ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 HODGES ELAINE C O'SHANA CATHY 2020 S MONROE #118 108 ROBBINS ST DENVER CO 80210 OSTERVILLE MA 02655 GOLDSMITH JOHN JOSEPH 1/3 ELGART ALICE CLARE GOLDSMIIn 733 25TH ST 1/3 - SANTA MONICA CA 90400 27 E 62ND ST 6TH FL NEW YORK NY 10001 LUETKEMEYER JOHN A JR & SUZANNE F MCCARTY DANIEL L SCHREI13ER EUGENE H & STANFORD PO BOX4051 17 W PENNSYLVANIA AVE ASPEN CO 81612 TOWSON MD 21204 MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC ASPEN INSTITUTE INC 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 1000 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81611-8500 ASPEN CO 81611 NITZE WILLIAM A 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 RICHARDS ANN K 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 LEWIS ADAM HELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTE SMALL ALBERT H & SHIRLEY S C/O KATHLEEN HONOHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE 7116 GLENBROOK RD @NATIONAL CITY BANK TRUST BETHESDA MD 20814 1900 E 9TH ST LOC 2030 5805 MISSION DR CLEVELAND OH 44114 SHAWNEE MISSION KS 66208 MUSGRAVE MARJORY M FOX MARILYN HOFFMAN JOHN L 629 W NORTH ST 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 600Is 1035 W 57TH ST ASPEN CO 84611 CLAYTON MO 63105 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 GREENWOOD JIM COHEN ROGER L 1035 W 57TH ST 1035 W 57TH ST KANSAS CITY MO 64113 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 January 10, 2001 213 W. BLEEKER - APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAY OF DEMOLITION, PH - CONT'D FROM 12/20/2000.................................................................................. I CORBIN/BURROWS - 610 W. SMUGGLER & 505 N. FIFTH STREET - LANDMARK, LOT SPLIT, PUBLIC HEARING........................................................................................................................ 6 515 W. GILLESPIE - LOT SPLIT - PH.................................................................................................. 11 332 W. MAIN STREET - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING....................................................... 15 22 ASPEN HISTORIPPRESERVATI January 10, 2001 515 W. GILLESPIE — LOT SPLIT — PH Fred Jarman, planner relayed that the hearing is a conceptual review. The plan is to take the 9, 039 square foot lot and conduct a lot split. The request is to move the structure over to lot A and have P&Z do a conditional use for two single family houses or a duplex. The FAR is allocated between the two lots. The total of one lot will be 3,539 square foot and 6,000 square feet for the other. The non-contributing garage is proposed to be demolished and a new garage constructed on the rear portion of Lot A. An easement will be requested for access. Fred displayed existing and proposed diagrams. The house was moved to its current location in 1971 from 100 W. Hopkins. The idea is to pick up the house and do a new foundation/basement and the later addition will be demolished and a new addition added with the extension of an upstairs bedroom. A couple of windows will be replaced on the east facade. The Si -Johnson ditch runs through the portion of the property and the applicant has dealt with the Parks Dept. and essentially has approval to relocate the ditch. He is also working with the Parks Dept. on the relocation of trees. There is a boundary issue with the neighbors which have a lot to do with where the lot line is and where the FAR is allocated. Staff recommends approval of the Lot Split, designation, variances and the addition. The addition is very minor and does not compromise the historic integrity. Swearing in: Randall Bone, Charles Collins, Werner Kmurr, Goldie Kmurr, Shane Harvey Randall relayed at the last meeting the request was to see more of the design work that meets the historic criteria, which shifts development away from the historic cottage. There are no changes to the historic windows and the addition was pulled back. The Collins' are here because of the west boundary dispute. They are still in the process of negotiating that. 11 HISTORM PRESERVA January 10, 2001 Lisa said with the boundary dispute they are within 7 feet of the allowable FAR on lot A which is the historic house. Lisa inquired about the dispute and FAR. Randall said if they were to loose the feet it would have a small impact on the FAR, about 10 square feet and that could easily be taken out in the garage. They would not expect a FAR bonus. Fred reiterated that the conditional use is the ability to do two single-family dwellings or one duplex on one lot. Suzannah opened the public hearing. Charles Collins said # 10 should state that the FAR issue should be resolved before going to the other boards and that condition should be amended. Suzannah said the boundary issues need to be resolved before they go to P&Z. Jan Collins said there is no resolution on the survey yet and does the process go on without the resolution. Randall said before we go to the next step the lot line has to be resolved. Charles relayed that the neighbors would prefer the historic to stay to the east. Staff will redo condition 6, 7 and 10 for clarification. He also had concerns whether a two -car garage would work due to the parking problems. Suzannah informed the public that there are two parking spaces required on the new lot to be off the street. Randall said one car will be in the garage and the other pulled off. Werner Kmurr, neighbor said he does not understand the favorable view of Lot Splits by the board and the 500 square foot bonus when the rest of us remodeled and strictly adhered to the guidelines. With the bonus there over crowding of lots. You will not be able to see this from the street and it is 12 ASPEN HISTORIrPRESERVA January 10, 2001 ridiculous. 735 W. Bleeker is crowded and was built by Randall. He feels this lot split will benefit one family. Suzannah closed the public hearing. Amy tried to clarify to the public that by right they are already allowed to have two single-family houses on this property. There is no greater development on the site than could be allowed. This board is only supporting breaking up the square footage into smaller structures, which is more historic and more appropriate. Werner Kmurr informed the board that they are setting a precedent. Commissioner Comments Lisa has concerns that there are no guarantees that we have separate structures. She also has concerns about the amount of development and number of structures as Mr. Kmurr over powering the site. She also agreed that the Gillespie house facade is compromised by the addition and has major impacts on the historic house. She would rather support a carriage house structure on the south part of the lot but she understands that is not desirable by the owner. She is not in support of the bonus as the architecture is a little too extreme. It was described as being subtle and she does not find that to be the case. She is not in favor of window openings on the historic east facade of the house and the parking waivers are major concerns to that neighborhood because it is heavily impacted by the Music Tent parking. She would not support the approval of this project listed. Susan dittoed Lisa's comments. The new portion should be set back to give the old house prominence as Lisa suggested a carriage style. She supports the lot split but has concerns about not knowing what is going to be there. She would like one structure set back or two smaller ones. She has never liked this from the beginning but appreciates the change in the back of the historic house and made it smaller. The preservation of the front of the house in its entirety is commendable. The addition to the historic house in the back is appropriate. On that street the house is one of the most 13 n January 10, 2001 prominent historic houses. At the work session it was discussed setting it back. She cannot support the project as presented. Jeffrey relayed that he is in support of the Lot Split as it enables designers and architects to mitigate the volume and mass that gets added onto these very important resources. He can support the conceptual as long as the dispute is settled between the two parties. He favors the ditch relocation. Jeffrey also said he has some reservation on the dormer portion as well as the form off the rear of the house. He would suggest going to a gabled dormer possible and not a shed for final. Continue to study that elevation. He feels the FAR should be a performance based bonus for conceptual design. He favors the improvements to the historic house and favors the garage design. There are detailing issues that need to be addressed at final concerning the new dormer into the historic roof. Suzannah supports the lot split and one of the problems is the irregularity of the division of the lots as opposed to rectangular lots. 1587 square feet is a reasonable size for a house. She has concerns about the design of the additions and the window openings in the historic building. In particular the new double hung on the south side on the second floor. The single one has a lot of character in terms of historic and her concern is duplicating that window and make it too generic in that particular case. The light well on the east side need to be checked to see if it has the five foot setback that is required by the residential design review standards. Lisa asked the board if they would rather see venting on the sides or roof. Randall said the siding is new and he could either. The vents are small. Randall said the goal of HPC, council and the town is to pull things into town and end up with smaller units. The density is in response to feedback that he got. He does not want to do a project that in two years people say he did an injustice to town. The increased density does take away but there is no way around that. They looked at the gable and that is something that can be looked at again and worked out. He also said he could change the configuration of the 14 PRE January 10, 2001 window. The two non -historic windows were reconfigured due to the kitchen area, rather than making it a giant blank wall. He said the window can go in the wall if HPC feels it is appropriate. David Hoefer, city attorney said if the vote is 2 x 2 it would be a denial. The applicant may want to request a continuance. Suzannah relayed that the outstanding issues should be resolved before coming back to HPC. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue resolution #2, the public hearing and conceptual development on 515 W. Gillespie until March 14, 2000; second by Susan. Yes Vote: Jeffrey, Suzannah, Susan, Lisa Motion carried 4-0. 332 W. MAIN STREET — CONCEPTUAL — PUBLIC HEARING Sworn in were Harry Teague, David Kelleher, Jason LaPointe Fred Jarman, planner informed the HPC that the request is for a partial demolition to construct a new addition, request the 500 square foot bonus and associated variances with the project. The structure was built in 1880 and is a two-story structure. It is land marked on the inventory and the lot is 4,500 square feet. The current use is office/residence. The proposal is to remove the front porch and reassemble the front porch as it looks today with pieces from the old porch. The house will be lifted and a basement put underneath. The second addition is proposed to be demolished which include a car -port and a newer addition built. The house would return to its exact footprint. Staff supports the proposal. Access too the current car port is off third street and at the rear of the house there is an alley and staff supports accessing off the alley. One parking space is off the alley and they are meeting the parking requirements. The board should pay particular attention to the access issue. 15 Phil Overeynder, 02:32 PM 6/22/01 -0600, 515 W Gillespie --Ditch Relocation Page 1 of 2 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:32:02 -0600 (MDT) X-Sender: philo@water X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 To: fredj@ci.aspen.co.us From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: 515 W Gillespie --Ditch Relocation Cc: rebeccas@ci.aspen.co.us, AandCcfc@aol.com Fred, This memo is to acknowledge that the Water Department has received the proposal for relocation of a lateral of the Si Johnson Ditch at 515 Gillespie. The proposed ditch location shown on the drawing is acceptable to the Aspen Water Department. I recommend that the lot split approval be conditioned on the execution of a ditch relocation agreement between the City and the lot owner. The city's water counsel, Cindy Covell, is drafting the terms of a proposed ditch relocation agreement which will incorporate the proposed ditch location and specify the width of the easement area. I believe that it would be acceptable for the ditch agreement to be finalized following City Council approval but prior to recordation the plat. The ditch relocatiion agreement should be a recorded document running with the land. Please feel free to contact me at x5111 if you have any questions. Phil Overeynder Water Director Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:39:31 >To: Jarman.Fred >From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> >Subject: 515 W Gillespie --Ditch Relocation >Cc: Rubel.Tom, Schickling.Rebecca,randyr,AandCfc@aol.com >Fred, >This will confirm my voice mail message. I received a copy of the ditch relocation plans and concur that it looks like the best solution at this time. However, I think we should do a number of things to limit the liability of the City associated with operation of the ditch and to provide flexibility for future modifications when conditions permit. >First I think we should condition the lot split to require that a ditch relocation agreement be entered into with the City and that this agreement be a recorded document running with the land. We've developed an agreement form that does most of this. The ditch relocation agreement should reference the plans we are approving and provide for an easement a minimum of 10 feet in width. In addition to the standard agreement provisions, it should also indicate that the City, at it's sole discretion, has the option of moving the ditch off the property at a future date and would have no obligation to compensate the landowner(s) in any way. It also should specifically state that the landowners have no water rights in the ditch nor is any license being granted for use of water from the ditch. Finally the ditch relocation Printed for Fred Jarman <fredj@ci.aspen.co.us> 6/22/01 Phil Overeynder, 02:32 PM 6/22/01 -0600, 515 W Gillespie --Ditch Relocation Page 2 of 2 agreement should state that the landowners agree to comply with all City water pohices including the policy that the City is the exclusive water provider for all use of water within the City limits (i.e. no use of ditch water without the issuance of a raw water license agreement from the City). >Please feel free to call me at x5111 if you have any questions. Thanks, >Phil Printed for Fred Jarman <fredj@ci.aspen.co.us> 6/22/01 e .. Mr. Charles Collins 531 West Gillespie Avenue Aspen, Colorado'81611 September 11, 2001 Dear Mr. Collins, ASPF.N /PTTKTN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Please consider this letter a response to your letter dated August 31, 2001, which my office received on September 4, 2001. In your letter, you indicated you participated in several public hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "HPC") and the City Council (hereinafter the "Council") regarding a land use application for a property located at 515 Gillespie Avenue (hereinafter the "Property"), which subsequently received a variety of land use approvals. More specifically, your letter indicated that following the conclusion of the public hearings, you continue to have questions pertaining to process and legal interpretations of the Municipal Code regarding the particulars of the land use application. First, this letter will address the questions you raised with respect to process and legal interpretations of the Municipal Code. The second portion of this letter will address the particulars of the land use application you raised including Floor Area Ratio (hereinafter as "FAR"), variances provided by the HPC, and issues concerning the operation of the HPC. I. Process & Legal Interpretations of the Municipal Code Upon discussion with Staff and a complete review of the land use application file of the Property in question, the correct process was followed as to the requested land use actions, which included a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Landmark Designation, relocation, partial demolition, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Proper notice was provided for all the public hearings, which included HPC, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council and public comment was taken at all of the public hearings. As a result, I conclude that the correct process was followed throughout the entire,life of the land use application. Interpretations of text in the Land Use Code (hereinafter the "Code") are appropriate when text appears to be too vague or not specific enough or is in conflict with other sections of the Code and therefore requires clarification. The Community Development Director has the authority to make interpretations of the text of Code. As the City Attorney, I participated in the preparation of the interpretation you refer to in your letter and am in full agreement with Staff and the analysis they provided. Moreover, the language you refer to is currently being formally adopted in the Code to codify the interpretation through Ordinance 24, Series 2001. 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed m Recycled Paper II. FAR, HPC Variances, and the Operation of the HPC A. FAR You are correct to assert in your letter that in the event of a historic landmark lot split where two new lots are created, "the total FAR for both residences (on each of the newly created lots) shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel." In the specific case you refer to at 515 Gillespie Avenue, the applicant owns a 9,210 square foot parcel containing a historic landmark which was subsequently split into two lots: Lot A which is 4,639 sq. ft. in size and Lot B which is 4,571 sq. ft. in size. The Applicant is required to allocate specific FAR to each newly created lot using the allowable duplex FAR for the fathering or original parcel. In this case, the duplex FAR allowed for the fathering parcel is 4,093 square feet. According to the Code, this FAR is subsequently split between the two newly created lots. When the additional 500 FAR bonus is added, the total FAR results in 4,593 sq. ft. which is what has been allocated to the development in question. As a result, Lot A has 1,753 sq. ft. and Lot B has 2,840 sq. ft. This calculation is correct. You stated in your letter that "Staff has misleadingly stated the allowable FAR on the site by figuring the FAR based on two smaller lots... This misleading calculation has led some members of Council to believe additional FAR is available for the site. " I have reviewed the Staff memorandums, discussed this issue with Staff, and attended both public hearings at City Council when this case (and this very issue) came before Council. To be clear, the Code states that in the case of the Historic Landmark Lot Split, (an applicant may not exceed the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district for the newly created lots; this includes FAR.) In this case, the most FAR that could ever be placed on Lot A is 2,858 sq. ft. and the most FAR that could ever be placed on Lot B is 2,846 sq. ft. When determining how the 4,593 sq. ft. of FAR can be allocated to the two new lots, the applicant must consider what the maximum FAR would normally be on the new lots they've created and cannot exceed that number. (Please see the calculation provided below and reference Section 26.0.040(D)(10) of the Code. For lots between 3,000 and 6,000 sq. ft. in size in the R-6 zone district the following calculation applies: Lot Size Allowable FAR 3,000--6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,240 square feet of floor area. Therefore, the correct calculation is as follows for Lot A for example (all numbers are in square feet): 4,639 — 3,000 = 1,639 = 16.39 x 28 = 458 + 2,400 = 2,858 100 When the same calculation is applied to Lot B, the most FAR that could ever be placed on that newly created lot of their total of 4,593 sq. ft. is only 2,846 sq. ft. In fact, the applicant only applied 2,840 sq. ft. thereby complying with this requirement and leaving him with 1,753 to be placed on Lot A. These numbers divided in the formula above are never added together. Your letter contends these numbers may be added together to mean the total FAR allowed on the lots combined is 5,698 sq. ft. This is incorrect. Again, the total FAR that can be distributed between the two lots is only 4,593 sq. ft. which is noted on the subdivision plat, a recorded document. As this applies to the subject land use application, Staff simply pointed out in the memo and at the numerous public hearings that the applicant met these calculations. Moreover, the applicant was only applying 1,753 sq. ft. of FAR to Lot A which is much less (1,105 sq. ft. less) than it could contain which results in a much smaller structure that could be located there. As a result of this apparent confusion, raised by you at the first public hearing at City Council, the matter was continued so that Staff could take time to further clarify the FAR issue. The explanation provided by Staff at the second public hearing was adequate for council, who subsequently made a unanimous (5 to 0) vote in approval of the project. Staff has completed an accurate FAR calculation for the property and correctly conveyed this information to the Council and HPC. I am confident Council understood that the maximum FAR, as applied to the entire property, is no greater than 4,593 sq. ft. as clearly described in the Staff memorandum submitted to Council which was subsequently approved. B. HPC Variances As mentioned above, the Community Development Director has the authority to write interpretations of the text of the Code. The interpretation you question determined that while the Code states that Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) variances and bonuses are only permitted on the "parcel" that contains a historic structure, it has been determined that the provision may be taken to mean that the HPC bonus of 500 square feet of FAR may be applied to the "fathering" parcel containing either the historic structure or a new structure. Again, I participated in the review of this interpretation you refer to in your letter and am in full agreement with Staff and the merits of the interpretation. C. Operation of the HPC Your letter mentions issues regarding the basic operation of the HPC and how those issues are connected with the subject land use application. All of the City regulatory boards, with the exception of City Council, are volunteer boards, which consist of appointed citizens by the City Council from the City of Aspen. The HPC, in the recent past, has suffered the loss of several of its board members resulting in occasional meetings where only the minimum number of members (4) is present. City Council has recently remedied this problem by appointing new members to the board. Our Commission members are trained to consult with the City Attorney's Office regarding "conflicts of interest." Your letter mentioned that one particular Commissioner, who had not voted at an earlier HPC public hearing, did cast a vote at the Final Review hearing. This was because a much earlier scenario presented by the applicant included the development of Lot B, which was to be handled by the firm that employed that particular Commissioner. At that time, the Commissioner stepped down from the hearing due to a conflict of interest. However, the applicant, in order to address the concerns of the neighbors, later abandoned that scenario and the firm was no longer involved in any way. That Commissioner sought the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer, to ensure that his actions were proper. Therefore, the Commissioner was completely within his rights to cast a vote on the Final Review hearing without any issue of a "conflict of interest." You also mentioned the fact that a new Commissioner, who was not witness to previous hearings, was allowed to vote at the Final Review hearing. Again, prior to the public hearing, Staff conferred with the Assistant City Attorney as to the proper procedure for new Commissioners and their ability to participate in a hearing that had been on going prior to their arrival to the board. It was made clear, in order for the new Commissioner to be able to participate, Staff should make available the prior memorandum, architectural plans, and minutes for the hearing that approved the Conceptual Review for the Property. This was done and the Assistant City Attorney, at the Final Review hearing, asked the new Commissioner whether or not she reviewed those previously submitted materials of the Conceptual Review hearing and was comfortable with participating in the Final Review hearing. The Commissioner responded affirmatively and participated in the hearing. Finally, and consistent with the aforementioned, another Commissioner who stepped down for one of the earlier public hearings mentioned in your letter, did so because she had been out of town and had not reviewed the appropriate materials in order to participate in the hearing. Again, this occurred with the advice of the attending Assistant City Attorney. In Summary I have done a complete review of the land use application file, reviewed the Code as to process, conferred with Staff, and consulted with the Assistant City Attorney regarding all the issues you raised, I have thoroughly evaluated the questions you raised in your letter and hope that the information I have provided you in this letter will alleviate your concerns with regard to the review of 515 Gillespie Avenue. Sincerely, John Worcester City Attorney cc: Helen Klanderud Aspen City Council Suzannah Reid Aspen Historic Preservation Commission JPW-9/ 12/01-G:\John\word\letters\collin.doc • 531 West Gillespie Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 August 31, 2001 Mr. John Worcester City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Landmark & Lot Split (Ord. 20) 515 Gillespie Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Worcester: n , i �, SEP 2001 (:: C�tY A�orney's Recently, my wife and I appeared before City Council and the HPC regarding the above application. The application was subsequently approved but left us with questions on the process and legal interpretations of the Municipal Code. We hope you can help clear up these questions. First, was granting a 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus. The Aspen Land Use Code states " The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel", which in this case, is 4093 sq. ft. versus 4593 sq. ft. approved. The language is explicit and does not allow exceptions unless otherwise amended. Further, in contrast to this limit, Staff has misleadingly stated the allowable FAR on the site by figuring the FAR based on two smaller lots. Staff indicates (attachment A ) a total allowable FAR of 2858 sq. ft. to Lot A. Add the 2840 sq. ft. to Lot B and the TOTAL FAR becomes 5698 sq. ft. or 1605 sq. ft. (39.2%) over that allowed for a duplex on the original site (attachment Q. This misleading calculation has led some members of council to believe additional FAR is available for the site. Secondly, the Code states " HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure". Although Staff first indicated the bonus would be on Lot A (attachment B), this was impossible because the existing historic structure was already 1681 sq. ft. Subsequently, Staff issued a five page `interpretation' of the word `parcel' with a much broader meaning, which, unfortunately, has led to more questionable `interpretations' of the Code. I respectfully request your opinion of the city's action on these issues. The Code is specific and arbitrary interpretations by Staff subvert the intent and undermines confidence in our regulations. This is especially timely as Council considers Ordinance 24 which, it appears, will essentially adopt similar HPC language for the office zone on Main Street. If adopted for Main Street, will there be less opportunity for `interpretation' and abuse than we've been experiencing in some residential neighborhoods? Additionally, there appears to be a lax modus operandi at the HPC. The board has a problem having a quorum and some members have periodic conflicts of interest. At the August 8a' HPC meeting, which was a public hearing to consider Final Review of the above application, the Chair would not consider comment other than `architectural' features of the project. Additionally, one member of the quorum of four had previously stepped down from this application due to a conflict, but now returned to vote because, ostensibly, the conflict no longer applied. Further, a new member who had not attended any of the previous five public hearings, was `brought up to speed' by receiving a Staff memorandum, plans and minutes of one of the previous Conceptual Review meetings, and was allowed to vote. At an earlier meeting, with a like situation, a member was asked to step down to avoid any semblance of partiality or bias. These are important issues. I hope you will address them with both City Council and HPC and help restore the confidence and credibility that the citizens of Aspen have come to expect of their government and elected officials. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, Aa,4-ltl� Charles T. Collins Cc: Mayor Helen Klanderud Councilman Terry Paulson Councilman Tom McCabe Councilman Tony Hershey Councilman Tim Semrau • I'INAL f-�t.\llE\\l• 141'4AU C-1.s3��o1 floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceeds the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent. In fact, the project has been designed such that no variances have been requested except for the 500 square foot FAR bonus. Even with the FAR bonus applied to thi5—pz4 _e the maximum" FAR`alio.vAid-on-Lot A pursuaat to 4,Laud .Use , ,85$ square fwt.-- The Applicant received Conceptual Approval from the HPC on June 13, 2001, which included, among other things, a FAR bonus of 500 square feet. This project is located on a lot larger than 9,000 square feet in the R-6 zone district and has received approval from the City Council for a historic landmark lot split, which are three examples of why the Commission grants the FAR bonus. Staff finds this standard to be met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development, and Staff Finding: The proposed development involves relocating a historic landmark to another location on the same lot as a result of a lot split and making minor additions to the rear of the structure. The house is currently located on a lot that situated between two houses that are not on the City's Inventory. In fact, it is this very house that lends a historic character to this street frontage adding to the character of the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. Neither of the adjacent properties (to the east and west of the subject property are considered by the City as historic properties and are not on the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Moreover, the street's historic fabric was reestablished when the house was originally relocated there in the early 1970s further establishing historic character to this street. 515 Gillespie will continue to considerably enhance this street as well as the west end neighborhood as an outstanding example of homes built during that period of time. Staff finds this standard to be met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels; and Staff Finding: The proposed development does not detract from the historic significance of the structure. Staff finds this standard to be met. d The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 515 Gillespie Final Review 9 14 v� E.0 - �4 u(.e7;�eti • �jTfi'AsCt-1M��..IT P� City Board for land use approvals if the proposal is in no way reliant on the disputed property line. In this case, and as stated above, despite the potential boundary dispute, the applicant has proposed a development plan that would not be affected at all should the questionable lot line be decided in favor of the Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC approve the requests for 1) partial demolition, 2) relocation 3) the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, and 4) recommends City Council approve the Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split for 515 West Gillespie Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments 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; 2. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that any development of Lot "B" shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing; 3. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; 4. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district and residential design standards with the potential exception for variances to be approved by the HPC; 5. That Lots "A" and "B" are designated historic landmarks and must receive HPC approval for all development in accordance with Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as well at Section 26.410, the "Residential Design Standards;" 6. That the applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR for each newly created lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot "A" receiving 4,639 square feet of lot area and Lot "B" receiving 4,571 square feet of lot area. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot "A" will be 1,763 sf. incudina a 500 sclar e foot, floor area bonus) and 2,840 square feet of floor area on Lot `B." The information specs is to exact allocated FAR as 5 • • ATT{jCNMENT G SI S W, Z-1 i LLr7 V t E LCIT =` 2-10 SQ.FT DRIC,IIVAL LoT ALI-O AID LE 7-,kR - 4-013 $Q,FT, T,OTAL-4g3 Sq,Fr, V La FL- f-X LOT 4-093 O ALLo\vA5L_E YF.K LANs U;E CopE 5151V,l,I(-L�Splt= L-OT A La T fS ALI OW, FAR ALLO\V.; AR =2858 SR, IF-T, = 284-05Q.fT 70TAL=5C.98 5Q.FT, �FLI7 1LaT" 5��em ALLD WAl2,L E- P�C� C2rHF F v -m o, c� cc-)L_ Li ��3.1 � ; I a L 0 Zt�5e, Elliott �eretn, 15erwtein 610 W. NcrrtA. St. J 11 eve., GD o p �z o r,� April 5, 2001 RE: 515 W. Gillespie — Beck Application Dear HPC Members: We have been following the progress of our neighbor's application at 515 W. Gillespie. We have not attended any meeting on this because we do not have any complaints or praises about it. While we are not excited about the prospect of having a property that presently has one house on it to be split to allow three houses, we understand that this complies with City codes. We are generally supportive of the idea of allowing more density in urban areas instead of rural areas. We are also very supportive of historic preservation efforts. We are NOT supportive of the plan to allow this property to have the setback variances that have been requested on the east side, west side and rear yard. We believe that the code is accommodating enough as it is. This property will already be "maxed-out" without granting it further reductions in setbacks. We understand and support the rational to allow this project to be granted approval for Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split. There is no sound reason to allow setback reductions other that giving the new developer more profit. Thank -you for considering this, Elyse Elliott & Jeremy Bernstein April l 1, 2001 Fred Jarman Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 515 W. Gillespie — Beck Application Dear Fred: Thanks for taking the time to discuss this application with me today. Enclos&d is my letter to the HPC. I would appreciate it if you would give this to them. I will be out of town for the meeting on April 25. I'll be back in town on May 1. If you get a chance; could you please let me know the outcome of the meeting, especially the setback variances. My phone number is 925-3527. Thank- , Elyse Elli • • Ms. Suzannah Reid, Chairperson Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Neil and Pamela Beck 3366 C '/2 Rd. Palisade, CO 81526 August 3, 2001 RE: 515 W. Gillespie Street —Final Review / PUBLIC HEARING Dear Ms. Reid, This letter is a request to you, as the chair, and to the membership of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to approve the Final Design Approval for the relocation, partial demolition and renovation of our historic home at 515 W. Gillespie Street at your August 8, 2001 meeting. This house was built in the 1880's at 100 West Hopkins Street and moved to its current location in June of 1971. The Beck Family has always lived in the house. Over the years, the family has maintained the house in keeping with its historic value, although it was not always possible to remodel the house and its surrounding property as authentically as would have been liked. A small addition was attached to the rear of the house so the family could have indoor plumbing. The unattached garage was built for utilitarian purposes. Now Mr. Randall Bone would like to perform a quality restoration of our home. The less authentic changes that have been made in the past will no longer exist. Both the addition on the back of the house and the unattached garage will be removed. The scale of the house will remain the same and there will be only a small addition made to the house. The total allowable FAR will not be used. Relocating the house to the western side of the lot will enhance its historic value. Mr. Bone's plans for our home have been carefully and sensitively prepared. He wishes to enhance the historic value of the house and to promote its Victorian value. There are many homes in the West End of Aspen which sit vacant for much of the year. They do not contribute to the neighborly aspect of the area, nor do they portray the friendliness of a house that is lived in full time. Mr. Bone and his wife look forward to making this renovated house their home. They intend to be a part of the neighborhood and to enjoy and to contribute to the community. It is in the best interest of all to allow them to move forward with their plans immediately. • 0 It is for these reasons that we ask you to approve Mr. Bone's application for this restoration at your August 8`f' meeting. Most Sincerely, Pamela and Neil Beck Werner Knurr Goldie Knurr 603 W. Gillespie Street Aspen, CO 81611 970/ 920-4597 Jeff Jarman Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 October 6, 2000 Re: 515 W. Gillespie Historic Lot Split Dear Mr. Jarman: We are adamantly opposed to splitting the property described as Lots 4-6, Block 99, Hallam Addition, of the City and Townsite of Aspen. As neighbors and residents of the West End we oppose this split for the following reason: 1. A lot split will crowd the property changing the character of the block. 2. It would negatively impact the neighbors. 3. Detailed plans for the property should be submitted to the Committee prior to making a determination on whether or not to split the property. 4. We fear that the West Gillespie property may be developed similarly to the property at 735 Bleeker Street, which is crowded, massive, congestion producing, and unsightly. It has destroyed the ambiance of that block. Unfortunately, we will be out of town for the scheduled meeting, else we would have been there to register our complaint. We have written to you because we feel very strongly that this Historic Lot Split should not be granted to Neil and Pamela Beck. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Werner Knurr Goldie Knurr c o n s o r t I u m I pob 3662 Aspen, CO 81612 970 925 6797 I LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Fred Jarman FROM: Rally Dupps ................................................. FAX # PAGES: DATE: April 17, 2001 RE: Enclosed is our submission to HPC for conceptual approval. Please find: - letter detailing changes made to this submission from our previous submission in January - HPC As built package - HPC Conceptual design package - HPC1 — streetscape drawing of 515 Gillespie - HPC2 — potential site build out - HPC3 — proposed build -out w/ new homes on newly created lot 'B' Thanks, Rally s • • c o n s o r t i u m pob 3662 Aspen, CO 81612 970 925 6797 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Jarman ................................................................................................ FROM: Rally Dupps ................................................................................................ DATE: April9,..2001 .............................................................. RE: Changes from .E! vy! u.s..HPC submittal Here is a list that includes the changes made to this conceptual HPC submittal (April 25, 2001) from our previous conceptual HPC submittal: Site Plan: 1. The new Odem parcel is shown 2. A patio has been added to the south of the house 3. Garage side yard variance is requested 4. There are lot line changes — it has moved and is now more straight 5. The historic home is relocated Elevations: 1. The south elevation windows @ the living room are larger 2. The south elevation roof plate height is taller @ the living room 3. The window on the east wall @ the living room is taller Plans: 1. The east side window well moved back to comply w/ residential design standards 2. The west side window well is slightly larger to comply w/ UBC requirements 3. The roof plan shows new drainage crickets for the taller roof @ the living room 4. The garage is smaller F.A.R.: 1. There are new lot size calculations 2. The Collins' lot line dispute is removed from F.A..R. calculations 3. There are new F.A..R. totals allocated for each lot 4. There are new lot split F.A.R. calculations -Rally 515 West Gillespie Historic Project Proposal To: The City Of Aspen cc: Rally Dupps Date: July 23, 2001 Derek Skolko Fred Jarman Subject: Authorized Representative for 515 West Gillespie From: Randall Bone This letter will serve as notice to the City of Aspen that Derek Skalko and Rally Dupps are authorized to represent me (Randall Bone, owner) in the process of obtaining Final Design Approval for the Historic Renovation on Lot A of the property Lots 4,5 and 6, Block 99 of the Hallams additional to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, also know as 515 West Gillespie. Derek and Rally are hereby authorized to pursue Final Design Approval of the home as submitted in the application and plans by Rally Dupps. Changes to the plans necessary to obtain final approval may be authorized by Rally Dupps. I acknowledge that he cannot testify in the hearing, so Derek will have to coordinate with Rally during the meeting as necessary in order to accomplish such approvals for changes. Please accept my apology for not being able to attend in person, I will be on my honeymoon. Thank you in advance for you assistance and cooperation in this matter. Randall Bone Date ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 26.480.030(A)(4)(c) JURISDICTION: APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: APPROVED JUL 17 2001 City of Aspen Section 26.480.030(A)(4)(c): The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains 000UN1TY pEvL_..I a historic structure. EFFECTIVE DATE: CITY of ASPEN July 23, 2001 WRITTEN BY: Fred Jarman, City Planner APPROVED BY: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director COPIES TO: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer John Worcester, City Attorney SUMMARY: While the Land Use Code states that Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) variances and bonuses are only permitted on the "parcel" that contains a historic structure, this Code Interpretation determines that the HPC bonus of 500 square feet in FAR (or floor area), may be applied to the "fathering" parcel containing either the historic structure or a new structure. More simply, in the case of historic landmark lot splits, the term parcel is meant to be "fathering parcel." BACKGROUND: As a result of recent confusion regarding how the FAR (or floor area) bonus, which is awarded by the HPC, is allocated to newly created lots resulting from a historic landmark lot split, this Code Interpretation shall serve to further clarify the intent of the FAR bonus and its allocation to newly created lots as a result of a historic landmark lot split. It was not the intent to preclude a lot split redevelopment from being eligible for the FAR bonus. The HPC has consistently awarded the additional 500 square feet of FAR to the entire project, with the stipulation that "the total Far for each lot shall be noted on the subdivision exemption plat." This interpretation is intended to clarify this common practice. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Land Use Code maintains a process by which applicants may conduct historic landmark lot splits. In order to qualify for a lot split, pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(4), the applicant must meet, in part, the following requirements: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. 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. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. It is requirement "c" above, which is the subject of this Code Interpretation. Specifically, this requirement states ... "HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. " The following analysis shall clarify the intent and allocation of the FAR bonus. A. Intent of the FAR Bonus The intent of the FAR bonus (which can be of any amount up to a maximum of 500 square feet) was to offer property owners an incentive to landmark their property. Even though a property may be maintained on the City's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures (the "Inventory"), the City of Aspen has provided incentives for property owners on the Inventory to further landmark their property. Once "landmarked", the property or project is eligible for certain incentives including the FAR bonus, if deemed so by the HPC as demonstrating an "outstanding preservation effort" or having "significant merit." Pursuant to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (page 2), the HPC has the ability to award zoning bonuses to historic landmarks, including a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The FAR bonus is very valuable to some applicants, but is one that the HPC generally feels should only be awarded to projects of significant merit. Examples of instances when the bonus was granted by the HPC include: ➢ When it is used as an incentive to retain a historic outbuilding on the site ➢ When the parcel is larger than 9,000 square feet ➢ When the project shows an outstanding effort to preserve or restore the historic structure ➢ When it is used to create a historic landmark lot split 0 In addition, the Guidelines also indicate (page 87) that the City provides several incentives (such as the FAR bonus) for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two separate houses in order to 1) reduce the size of both buildings, 2) to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house, and 3) to reinforce the original character of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. B. Consistent Interpretation of FAR Allocation As indicated above, the historic landmark lot split is also an incentive for property owners to landmark their property. To date, the City has consistently maintained the method of FAR bonus allocation to mean that FAR allowed for a duplex on the parent lot / fathering parcel (with the FAR bonus, if awarded) be allocated by the applicant to either lot as desired. As stated above, lot splits are only available to applicants owning landmarked property where the original parcel is a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A zone district. It should be noted, the Land Use Code allows the applicant, by right, to have two single-family houses on a 9,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district without any land use review. Further, and also by right, the total FAR for two detached residential dwellings on a lot of 9,000 square feet or greater (whether or not it contains a historic landmark) shall not exceed the FAR allowed for one duplex. For the following illustrations, assume there is an applicant that owns a landmarked house that is located on a 9,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district. Scenario 1 Historic House Scenario 1 shows a historic house on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-6 zone district. Total FAR allowed for a duplex on this lot is 4,080 sq. ft. The FAR bonus would be used on this lot. 0 0 Scenario 2 New I Historic House I House Scenario 2 shows what the applicant can do outright by the Code; that is creating two single- family houses on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. The FAR bonus could be allocated to either house within the confines of the "fathering" parcel. 0 0 Scenario 3 New Historic House House Lot A I Lot B Scenario 3 is the exact same as scenario 2, except the lot is now split into two fee simple lots. The FAR bonus, according to the Code, must go to the parcel that contains the historic structure Dotted line indicated a condominium arrangement In the scenarios provided above, the applicant could proceed with scenario 2 and apply later for a lot split, regardless if a FAR bonus was allocated to either house because the Code maintains that the bonus goes to the "parcel" containing the historic structure. In both scenario 2 and 3, any development proposal for an additional house is reviewed by the HPC regardless if the house is owned in a condominium arrangement or in fee simple. Further, the total allowable FAR is still allocated to each house in a way that does not exceed what that newly created lot is allowed, thus proving compliance with the underlying zoning. Given all this, the lot split simply offers the applicant a mechanism to sell the other house / lot in fee simple rather than enter into a condominium arrangement. Staff has consistently maintained that the Far bonus could be applied to either house regardless if it is condominiumized or in fee simple ownership. In the past, Staff, the HPC, and City Council have allowed applicants to allocate FAR (including the bonus) to each newly created lot as desired, as the result of a historic landmark lot split. In effect, an applicant should not be "penalized" by requiring that the 500 sq. ft. bonus must be incorporated onto the lot containing a historic structure. This action is contrary to what the historic preservation program is intending to accomplish. That is to say, historic preservation projects / efforts are rewarded with incentives so that the City of Aspen may continue to maintain, as close as possible, real and tangible examples of its past. By allowing a project to "add on" or further compromise a historic structure as a reward is not what the preservation program intends to accomplish. The goal is to preserve as much of the historic house as possible, while allowing adequate FAR to be allocated to the new structure. As stated above, the FAR bonus is given for conducting a historic landmark lot split. In this light, lot splits are valuable because of the following reasons: a. Any and all future proposals involving either or both of the resulting properties will require HPC review and approval; b. The total allowable floor area on the property will be broken up between at least two, if not three, structures; The total FAR potential of the historic structure will be limited to a certain square footage thereby eliminating the potential for inappropriately sized and scaled additions to the historic structure. d. No one will be able to apply for additions that would seriously compromise the historic structure by placing all the additional allowable FAR on that structure; e. That square footage of the site's floor area expansion potential will be on the adjacent lot in a form compatible with the historic structure in terms of general scale, site plan, massing and volume; and, r � • • Further, the program helps to further the community goals as cited in the following language from the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP): a. Lot splits "allow and encourage greater residential densities within the original Aspen town site; allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for infill development." b. " a review of the existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working and to maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the lot split, property tax relief, and to study the impacts of the FAR bonus." c. The lot split "encourages returning to higher density development within the city limits where appropriate." SUMMARY: Again, while the Land Use Code states that the HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure, this interpretation determines that the HPC bonus of 500 square feet in FAR, may be permitted on the "fathering" or "original" parcel containing the historic structure in the case of a historic landmark lot split. Simply, in the case of historic landmark lot splits, the term parcel is meant to be "fathering" or "original" parcel. 0 515 West Gillespie Historic Project Proposal To: The City Of Aspen CC: Rally Dupps Date: July 23, 2001 Derek Skolko Fred Jarman Subject: Authorized Representative for 515 West Gillespie From: Randall Bone This letter will serve as notice to the City of Aspen that Derek Skalko and Rally Dupps are authorized to represent me (Randall Bone, owner) in the process of obtaining Final Design Approval for the Historic Renovation on Lot A of the property Lots 4,5 and 6, Block 99 of the Hallams additional to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, also know as 515 West Gillespie. Derek and Rally are hereby authorized to pursue Final Design Approval of the home as submitted in the application and plans by Rally Dupps. Changes to the plans necessary to obtain final approval may be authorized by Rally Dupps. I acknowledge that he cannot testify in the hearing, so Derek will have to coordinate with Rally during the meeting as necessary in order to accomplish such approvals for changes. Please accept my apology for not being able to attend in person, I will be on my honeymoon. Thank you in advance for you assistance and cooperation in this matter. Randall Bone Date • • 515 West Gillespie FAR Breakdown SUMMARY: Pursuant to a Code Interpretation regarding the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus, the following project, the 515 West Gillespie Ave project may allocate FAR as shown below! Again, the interpretation that the HPC bonus of 500 square feet in FAR (or floor area), may be applied to the "fathering" parcel containing either the historic structure or a new structure. More simply, in the case of historic landmark lot splits, the term parcel is meant to be "fathering parcel." PROJECT SPECIFICS Original parcel is over 9,000 sq. ft.: Yes, Lot Size is 9,210 Original Parcel is located in the R-6 Zone District: Yes, R-6 Meet the dimensional requirements of underlying zone district: Yes Existing Scenario Historic House Existing Scenario Lot Size: 9,210 Allowable FAR (duplex): 4,093 Existing House FAR: 1,856 Proposed Scenario Historic Historic House House Lot A Lot B Proposed Scenario Lot A Size: 4,639 (2,859 in FAR allowed) Lot B Size: 4,571 (2,840 in FAR allowed) FAR Allowed on Fathering Parcel: 4,093 FAR Bonus to Lot B: 500 Total FAR: 4,593 Allocated Far to Lot A: 1,753 (1,106 less than allowed) Allocated Far to Lot B: 2,840 Total FAR Allocated: 4,590 1:XH11i11 H —Letter from 13i11 Bailey Regarding � the Relocation o1*15 Gillespie ,Bill Bailey BAILEY HOUSE MOVERS LICENSED • INSURED - BONDED Wm. 0. BAILEY 3149 B Rd. Grand JUnctio 1, CO 81603 970 434-9763 (S7ILLESFIE ST. NOTE: SITE PLAN TO BE VERIFIED W/ 50" COTTONWOOD NEw SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBAGK 14" COTTONWOOD — NEW LOCATION FOR 14"COTTONAOOD 36.49' 16" COTTONWOOD COLLIN'S I 0 LOT LINE 00 I D15PUTE '' 0 I EXISTING I DITCH LOCATION 5-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK I ' II REVISED I I DITCH LOCATION 14" COTTONWOOD (MOVED) I EXISTING 5U56RADE I I FOUNDATION TO I I BE DEMOLI5HED i I I � I liI I I I I i, I III 14" SPRUCE I I I (MovED) I I EXISTING 5U56RADE 10" ASPEN I r Z i III EXTERIOR STAIRS I I I I L— I TO 8E DEMOLISHED -- -- I ~ I — I PREVIOUS HOUSE I I LOCATION 10" ASPEN --- -----� I DEMOLISH NON -HISTORIC SHED ADDITION PRIOR I TO MOVING HISTORIC (/ I I I I HOUSE of Y I PATIO REVISED i I DITCH LOCATION EXISTING 5'-0" SIDE YARD DITCH LOCATION o f i SETBACK j I PATHWAY LOT � � I I I �I I /� T- -- -- i 12" COTTONWOOD I d I H I STORI G LOT i LO 8 I i I NEW LOT 45T 1 S.F. APPLE TREE I I I I I I I REMOVE 5M. I i I ----------- —� ASPEN TREES LINE OF I I FOUNDATION I I I I I I I BELow I I I I I I I of I I I I I I I I I ROOF ABOVE I ¢ I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I DEMOLISH EXISTING IL _ _ — — — _ _ — _1 I I I NON -HISTORIC GARAGE Qo 5'-0" REAR YARD SETBAGK _ I, I • PARKING SPACE DRIVE ALLEY NORTH A SITE PLAN Sent By: onsortium; 970 925 6797; Jul-30-01 4:48PM; Page 2/2 T G 9E FAF 5 S.F. _ HEIGHT = _ WALL LENGTH = _ SUB64RADE WALL AREA= 5ED WALL AREA = EXP05ED To TOTAL AREA = ZADE F.A.R = ,6E 5.F. = v6E EXEMPTION = k6E FAR = �U GRADE FAR 55 S.F. HE16HT = r AL WALL LENGTH = T , ^L 5U86RADE WALL A1QEA= WALL = E 05ED WALL AREA = Ay F EXPOSeD TO TOTAL A'' A = RAVE 'Z• _ EVE &RAVE FAR, q LEVI=L DEMO FAR = MAIN LEVEL FAR = AL NEA MAIN LEVEL FAR = UPPER LMVEL FAR = 'AL NEW UPPER LE\ML FAR EWILT PORCHES DEGK5: KS =_ ;K EXEMPTION = 7AL5: p-i%&E INAR = 36RAn��,i _EVEL = tiIN LEVEL = PER LEVEL- _ �R ,HES 4 IpEGKS ' PTAL F.A.R. = dlJSej:;� F.A.R. 425 S.I✓, 8,�„ 801-:211 80'-2" X 15°1 S.F. 15q S.F. / b5Q S.F. (100) = 24 96 24 96 (425 5.F) i 102 S.F. 581 5.F. 561 S.F. 250 S.F. = 15! 5.F. / 2 = bb S.F. 102 S.F. + b6 S.F. = 168 S—F. q50 S.F. 141'�l0" 6b 5.r. / 12-m S.F. (100) = 5� 596 (Q30 5.F.) = 41 S.F. 12'1 S.F. 150 5-F. - 121 5.F. = 25 5.F, 855 S.F. 25 5.F. 1-1 S.F. 606 S.F. 1,7 S.F. = 625 S.F. W(EMPT 142 S.F. 172 S.F. (LOWER) + '70 5.F (NEW UPP1=R) _ 15% (4112 S.F) = 617 5.F. > 142 S.F. (EXEMFT) I68 S.F. go13 S.F. 4.7 S.F. + Ib8 S.F. + 4108 5.F. + 623 I-T4b 5.F. < 1-155 S.F. A LLOWA5LE F_A.R, GAl-CULAT IONS Q U Sent By:Uconsortium; 970 925 8797; Jul'30'01 4:48PM; Page 1/2 .0 n So r tku m / y mn,co $1612 I LEEMR�Of MRANSMff-TAL TO' -_.~--.�--'-~. Fred] --_-------'--'-------------~---'--.--'' |FROM: RahY.P.............................................'------'--_--------'-'—'—'---------'--- FAX X ���-��&��~____----__-~~.-~'--------'----'----------~-'----'------- - PAGES: � DATE; . W 0 c o n s o r tI u m I pob 3662 Aspen, CO 81612 970 925 6797 I TO: FROM: FAX # PAGES: DATE: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Fred Jarman, Planner for the city of Aspen ........ .. ....... . Rally Dupps ................................................... July..%..200.�...................... RE: Please find the following documents for the HPC meeting August 8, 2001: -7 copies HPC final approval 11x17 set -A1.0 site plan -A2.1 plans & FAR calculations -A2.2 plans -A2.3 garage plans & elevation -A3.1 house elevations The following are changes for Final HPC from conceptual: -South facing deck is slightly larger w/ BBQ. -South facing elevation entry vestibule is moved west 5" -South new window in upper level is removed -New south elevation materials have been reversed — what was metal is now wood and vice versa -More windows on the south elevation are operable -Garage stairs are moved over to the west side -Garage roof is reversed and cut back -Garage is moved east along east side yard setback -Garage north and west window and door elevations have been changed slightly Thanks, -Rally C • The Mayor and City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: Neil and Pamela Beck 3366 C '/z Rd. Palisade, CO 81526 July 14, 2001 This letter is in reference to our application for an historic lot split of our property at 515 W. Gillespie Ave., Aspen. CO. Our home was built in the late 1880's by Neil's grandparents. Since that time, four generations of our family have lived in the house. Although the house was originally built at 100 West Hopkins St., we moved it to its current address on Gillespie in the spring of 1971. Our goal was to enhance the historic value of the house by placing it in a more residential neighborhood. We personally have lived in the house since 1958. We have raised our four children there and have also enjoyed our grandchildrens' visits there just as our grandparents enjoyed our visits there_., Over the years `we have, been very involved in the community —particularly with children's' groups, including Boy and Girl" Scouting, the Aspen Public Schools and the founding of the Aspen Camp%School For The Deaf. Additionally we have contributed many hours of volunteer time at Aspen Valley Hospital. We love being Aspen residents and have enjoyed living and being apart of the Aspen Community. However, we have decided that it is time to move on and to find a new place to spend our retirement years. With the decision to move, we placed our home up for sale in November 1999. In mid- winter when we were in Mexico, we received a call from Michael Collins, son of Chick and Jan Collins. It was my understanding that Michael called us on behalf of his family. The reason Michael called was to ask if we would consider splitting our lot, and sell a portion of the west side to them so his sister could build a home that would be close to their parents. Then we could list the east side of the lot and sell it ourselves. I suggested to Michael that he call our Realtor, John Thorpe, as we would only consider offers made through him. As a result of this conversation, I felt the Collins family had no objection to us splitting our lot, particularly if they could buy the portion of the property that they wanted. In August of 2000 we were delighted to receive an offer to buy the house from Mr. Randall Bone. Mr. Bone and his fiance seem to truly appreciate the historic value of our home and are very anxious to live there. They want to make our. house their home. They are young and just starting a life together. ;Therefore they would like to be able to split the lot, move the house to the west side.and then sell the east slide as a second lot. Their efforts to do this have been met with resistance from Mr. and Mrs: Collins from the moment they first went to the City HPC for approval of their proposals. Mr. Bone has' been flexible with his plans and has worked very hard with the staff at City Hall to be sure that his proposals meet the rules and guidelines of the City codes. In an effort to make the property more affordable to three families who want to put their roots down in Aspen, Mr. Bone proposed that the property be split into three parcels. This proposal was made at an HPC meeting in May of 2001. The neighbors, particularly Mr. and Mrs. Collins, strongly objected to this plan and it was not carried forward. During the meeting when the three way split was proposed, Mr. Collins said he did object to the three way split but that he would not object any further to a two way split. That comment is recorded in the minutes of that HPC meeting. Mr. Bone's proposals have been before the HPC since September of 2000. Mr. Collins has attended all of the meetings and has managed to get Mr. Bone's proposals tabled until another meeting. Finally the HPC approved Mr. Bones's proposals in June 2001—some 10 months after they were first submitted. With that approval in hand, Mr. Bones's next step was to attain the approval of his historic lot split application from the Aspen City Council. His application went before the council on July 9, 2001. This application is completely within City codes and guidelines and has been approved by the HPC. Mr. Collins attended that meeting and got the application tabled to the July 23, 2001 Council meeting. This is in spite of the fact that Mr. Collins is on record from the May HPC meeting stating that he would not fight a two-way lot split. The application is being presented to you again at this July 23, 2001 meeting. I would urge you to approve the lot -split application at this meeting. As it is drafted, it is legal and complies with the City codes and guidelines. It is not based on the quiet title action now pending. That action is in regard to three feet of the property which is not shown or included in the application. We have been delayed in this effort far too long. Please move forward with your approval of this application so that we may move forward with our plans for our lives. Most sincerely, A r � Pam a 'aZndNell Beck �a i� I i I A 1 t �� County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 6 day of —5ctn-_ , 200 ( (which is 3 3days prior to the public hearing date of c 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 6 day of , 200_L, to the C( day of Tu , 200 ( . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) Signature f Signed before me this day of 2001 . by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission ere mY 80m fton avkvs August 28. 2M, Notary Public Slater 01 L'c:,omdo PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 515 WEST GILLESPIE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 9th, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Randall Bone requesting Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is located at 515 West Gillespie and is described as Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970 920-5102. fredj(a,ci.aspen.co.us Rachael E. Richards, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on June 23, 2001 City of Aspen Account GRAZER WILLIAM R & JANE Z • KAUS PETER & EVA FAMILY TRUST 8401 VISTA LN 433 W GILLESPIE PRESCOTT AZ 86301 ASPEN CO 81611 DURAND LOYAL III DR & BERNICE BLACK 4314 FAWN CT RT 1 CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 UHLFELDER NAOMI PO BOX 1165 ASPEN CO 81612 SALTER JAMES P O BOX 765 BRIDGEHAMPTON NY 11932 KNURR GOLDIE P & WERNER 603 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81611-1242 GOLDSMITH ANDREW LUBIN 1/3 1344 N DOHENY DR LOS ANGELES CA 90000 NORTH FOURTH STREET ASSOCIATES C/O MIKE CONVISOR PO BOX I I ASPEN. CO 81612 COLLINS CHARLES & JANICE S PO BOX HH ASPEN CO 81612 BECK NEIL H & PAMELA 515 W GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81611 HODGES ELAINE C 2020 S MONROE #118 DENVER CO 80210 GOLDSMITH JOHN JOSEPH 1/3 733 25TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90400 •PETERSON JAMES D PETERSON HENSLEY R PO BOX 1714 ASPEN CO 81612 ODOM JOHN A JR ODOM LORRIE FURMAN 11490 W 38TH AVE WHEATRIDGE CO 80033 AARONSON JEFFREY C P O BOX 10131 ASPEN CO 81612 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 536 NORTH ST ASPEN CO 81611 O'SHANA CATHY 108 ROBBINS ST OSTERVILLE MA 02655 ELGART ALICE CLARE GOLDSMITH 1/3 - ' 27 E 62ND ST 6TH FL NEW YORK NY 10001 ELLIOTT ELYSE A LU ER JOHN A JR & ANNMCCARTY DANIEL L 610 NORTH ST - SHREIBE F F PO BOX 4051 SCHREIBER EUGENE H & STANFORD ASPEN CO 81611 17 W PENNSYLVANIA AVE ASPEN CO 81612 TOWSON MD 21204 MCCARTY DANIEL L PO BOX 4051 ASPEN CO 81612 STUNDA STEVEN R 515 5TH ST ANNAPOLIS MD 21403 MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD ASPEN CO 81611-8500 NITZE WILLIANI A 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 ASPEN INSTITUTE INC 1000 N 3RD ST ASPEN CO 81611 RICHARDS ANN K 1537 28TH ST NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 SMALL SHIRLEY S LEWIS ADAM HELZBERG SHIRLEY BUSH TRUSTEE SM ALL GLALBERT & ALBERT H & C/O KATHLEEN HONOHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE 7116 @NATIONAL CITY BANK TRUST BETHESDA MD 20814 1900 E 9TH ST LOC 2030 5805 MISSION DR CLEVELAND OII 44114 SHAWNEE MISSION KS 66208 -NIUSGRAVE MARJORY M FOX SAM FOX MARILYN HOFFMAN JOHN L 629 W NORTH ST 16 7701 FORSYTH BLVD STE 600 1035 W 57TH ST ASPEN CO 81611 CLAYTON MO 63105 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 GREENWOOD JIM COHEN ROGER L 1035 W 57TH ST 1035 W 57TH ST KANSAS CITY MO 64113 KANSAS CITY MO 64113 515 Gillespie Historic Renovation ,�;J��`/ To: Neighbors of 515 Gillespie cc: Fred Jarman Date: Nqq 1117M ASPEiV 1 rl I KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOP PENT Subject: 515 Gillespie Project From: Randall Bone Neighbors, Please excuse the delay in writing this letter to you but I have been working diligently since the last Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting to revise the proposed project to come up with a feasible alternative that addresses your concerns as well as those raised by the HPC. I want to thank you for the time you took to be involved in the design process. It was frustrating to me to hear your concerns after numerous public hearings had been already held and I had already invested a great deal of time, energy and expense in the previous proposal. Frustrations aside, however, it is community involvement that has made Aspen the incredible place that it is, the place that I love to call my home, and I hope that the new proposal will reflect my commitment to this community and its residents. I also hope that I may have the opportunity to meet you all under less confrontational circumstances some day that may change some of the personal comments that were made about me at the hearing. The project revisions are as follows: • The lot will be split into 2 roughly equal size lots. • One lot will contain the historic Beck home which will be renovated and will be reduced slightly for its current size by replacing a recent non -historic addition to the rear of the home (the same plan for the main home that was presented at the last meeting) • The other lot will contain a single residence rather than the two previously proposed. (This appeared to be the main issue of contention with the previous plan) • The garage of the historic lot will be moved to the east side of the lot, away from the existing trees and the Collins home. • The new proposal will not require any variances (This seemed to be the second major issue of contention with the previous plan) I have enclosed a revised site plan of the new proposal which will be reviewed at the next HPC meeting on May 23rd. I sincerely hope that this proposal addresses your concerns and that you will come to the next meeting to support the new proposal or to voice any additional concerns which remain. Randall Bone 117 Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone (970) 920-9911; Fax (970) 920-4433 _,0 • .- • GILLESFIE ST. • . �so* carroNWooD rTe sn.,w To ee veRIPmD w ire I►TROVEbC+T Nm ssuaver 14' GOTTONW00D W-O PROW YARD •.1a34' - •1' fir- -- �1sPure 0O 16• corrowyooD7 � O '' O I I i VMC44 LOCATION i T ; I .,' I I I F- II II� Rev19m I I I DITCH LOCATION 14' COTTONWOOD 640vED) i ✓' ' 1t I I I I /: ExISTINFi _lJo6RADe I I I -------- -/ II POWDATIONTO I I I �• III eeDer�ous►�� I I' IMovm) e)4sTIN6 Olt STAJADe f I 10' ASm — Z TO 9M DEIdOLL&M I I I r PWaATION REVIOUS H011'Y } ! \-� MONN-tPRIO I j ���`�•. i�i i TO MWN&HSTORIC j ��' i '' I i PATIO I I I e l I � �� MasnNs i i i D1TC 4 LOCATION I 5'-0' SUM YARD DITCH LOCATION I I I I I* I j PATHWAY I 1 I •I I ¢ i LOT 'A' i ! LOT B HISTORIC, LOT i i x A LOT 12carrormVOOD I 463a S.F. i i 4571 S.F. � e � I I I �• I I AP" TREE I I 1 ENTRANCE I � I I I I I I I j j I I I Ro4ove SK 1 I I I ASPEN TREES I I I I FOUNDATION ---------I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Roof MOVE I I I I I II I i I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I ! I II I � I - I I I DeaoLlsN ewsnNs NON-►xaTORlc eARA6E I 5'-01 RTfd¢ YARD 9ETEACK a'-ekla'-o• PARKIN& SFACe� ALLEY NORTH A SITE PLAN I.o ve° , I1-0.. I Eris 717 0 )if 06. 0 N 0 t3l' V 14.0 0 14.0 SAL k 1H.0 CX" 05 4 Ocl 6 0(9 Li JKV O'l 41. 70 vV 4L L 000 S-F E 0 5 )15 Gillespie : ProposedHistortcroe .lct v v v 0 2.00, fEF�AK 0 1.5. 1164 (1181) E 78 0 0(5 13-51 t X VYOOO Qsc:x ol b '11143 1-6 ;4 Lr) 141 vj VV 01 of /TWO STOR, 4, 9 HO U sF 6\ 7// /� 0 IA 0 o Ix L _ O.H_ __ _ I 2 / 0 of Wo AREA - 1, 551-55 SQ. FT.! 0.8 O. O'A 09 319 0 0 LO 1115 . IL 0 0 00 oo( ESE >v A L L E r 175,1 W 12 b11 f= DOND: KEF3,, 515 Gillespie: existing Conditions r It • LAND USE APPLICATION I* PROJECT: Name: Neil and Pamela Beck 515 W. Gillespie Historic Lot Split Location:515 W. Gillespie Lots 4,5,6 Blk 99 Hallams addition (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: Neil and Pamela Beck Address: 515 West Gillespie, Aspen CO 81611 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Randall Bone Address: 117 Aspen Business Center Suite 104 Aspen CO 81611 Phone #: 970 920 9911 Yrt UI- AFFLICA I IUN: (please ctieck all that apply): Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption [j] Subdivision E� Historic Designation ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ® Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment R Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existing historic home (inventory) located on the site. Non historic detached garage located on the site. Non previous approvals. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Relocate historic home on site and designate as hostoric. Split lot into one 3,539 sf lot for the historic home and a 6,000 duplex lot. Demolish garage. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S 2 t�Rn Pre -Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application •ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FO 1VI Project: 515 West Gillespie Historic Lot Split and Conditional Use Duplex Applicant: Randall Bone (Representative for Neil and Pamela Beck) Location: 515 West Gillespie Zone District: R-6 Lot Size: 3,540 (515 Gillespie after split) 38xll7 (irregular shape) Lot Area: 1 940 square feat (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 0 Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: S Proposed: I 1 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 0 Percent (Garage is not historic) DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 1, 681 Principal bldg. height: Existing.- 25 Access. bldg. height: Existing: 12 On -Site parking: Existing: 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 % Open Space: Existing: 85 Front Setback: Existing: 13.5 Rear Setback: Existing. 17.5 5 Combined F/R: Existing: 31 Side Setback: Existing: 12.5 Side Setback: Existing. 37 Combined Sides: Existing: 49.5 Allowable: 2,072 Proposed.• 2,072 Allowable: 25 Proposed.• 25 Allowable: 12 Proposed: 12 Required: 2 Proposed: 2 Required: NA Proposed: 44 Required: NA Proposed.• 56 _Required.• 10 Proposed: 10 Required: 5 Proposed: 9 Required: 15 Proposed: 19 Required: 5 Proposed: 5 Required.• 5 Proposed: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Existing non -conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Side yard setback at garage reduced from 5"to 1" Rear Yard Setback at garage reduce from 5-to 1- Garage will be set back 9-from alley with a parking easment across the 6,000 sf lot. (See attched plan) 515 West Gillespie Historic Project Proposal TO: The City Of Aspen CC. Randall Bone Date: August 28, 2000 siejed: Authorized Representative for 515 West Gillespie From: Pamela and Neil Beck This letter will serve as notice to the City of Aspen that Randall Bone is authorized to represent us (Pamela and Neil Beck) in the process of obtaining an Historic Lot Split on our property Lots 4,5 and 6, Block 99 of the Hallams additional to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, also know as 515 West Gillespie. He is hereby authorized to pursue approval to split the property into an approximately 3,540 square foot lot for the historic home and an approximately 6,000 square foot lot with a conditional use for the development of a duplex. The allowable FAR of 4,612 shall be allocated 2,072 to the historic home and 2,540 to the duplex lot. Thank you in advance for you assistance and cooperation in this matter, �l a 36� - CO Pamela Beck Date Neil Beck Date Representative: Randall Bone 117 Aspen Business Center Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970 920 9911 Fax: 970 920 4433 Randall Bone Date Applicant: Pamela and Neil Beck 515 Gillespie Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970 523 0262 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Randall Bone ( Representative for Pamela (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: and Neil Beck) 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 915 West Gillespie Historic Lot Split and Conditional Use Duplex (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2,480 which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 12/27/99 APPPA27V�7 Randall Bone (Representative for Neil and Pamela Beck) By: Date: August 30th, 2000 Mailing Address: 117 Aspen Busines Center Suite 104, Aspen CO 81611 t. Ainetican Land Title Association CommitmQjj&Modified 3/79 Aft LXk 16 1 1 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. Signed under seal for the Company, but this Commitment shall not be valid or binding until it bears an authorized Countersignature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. STEWART 'TITLE GUAPANTY COMPANY too- 17"N I / Chairman of the Boa 3'�k.13W °q�f iy� President —l.eo< :% 1 9 tl a o Count sned: A Authorized Countersignature - Chuck Dorn srEwART TITLE OF ASPEN, LNC. Agent ID #06011A Order No. 00027400 SCHEDULE A Order Number: 00027409 • 1. Effective date: July 12, 2000 at 7.30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's (Extended) $ z,zso,000_oo Proposed Insured: RANDALL BONE (b) A.L. T.A. Mortgagee's $ Proposed Insured: (C) Leasehold $ Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is fee simple 4. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: PAMELA L_ BECK and NEIL H. BECK S. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows.' Lots 4, 3 and 6, Block 99, HALLAMS ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITB OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ST4TEMENT OF CHARGES aese charges are due and payable before a Policy can be issued. Owners Preriium $3, 446.Oo Form 110.1 (Owner) $ 10.00 Tax Certificate $ 10.00 S ART OF ASPEN, INC. opkins, As , Co. 81611 Aurhorized Countersignature - Chuck Dorn Order Number: 00027409 • SCHEDULE B Section 1 , REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration. for the estate or interest ro be insured. Item, (b) Proper insrrum.enr(s) creating the estate or interest record, to wit: to be insured must be execrued and duly filed for 1- Release of Deed of Trust dated September 24, 1999, executed by pameja L. Beck and Neil H. Beck, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin Count indebtedness of $500,000.00y, to secure an , in favor of Alpine Bank, recorded September 30, 1999 as Reception No. 436137. 2- Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office f the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: following taxes have (1) The ^WheeZer Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990), 3. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s). 4. A. Certificate of non -foreign status, duly to Section 1445 executed by the seZZer(s), pursuant of the Internal Revenue code qXD B- Satisfactory evidence of the seZZer(s) Colorado residency (or incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92-1270- NOTE: Section 1445 of the Intern$1 Revenue Code requires withholding of tas from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller) is a foreign Colorado House Bill 92-1270 may require parson or entity.withholding of tax from sales proceeds if the seZler(s) is not a Colorado resident_ Detailed information and Forms are available from Stewart Title, 5. Indemnity and Affidavit as to Debts, Liens and Leases y, duly executed by the buyer and seller and approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 6- Improvement Survey of the subject property, completed in the last six months approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., this survey is to be retained in the files of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. and is the ,right to add further requirementTitle of Aspen, Inc. reserves s and/or exceptions to this commitment upon receipt of said survey, Order Number.• 00027409 • SCHEDULE B Section 2 EXCEMONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the sate are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records, 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by lmv and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage there071 covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof, water rights claims or title to water. 7- Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales, 8- Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at Page 2 as Reception No. 24422. 9. This commitment is contingent upon review and approval by the underwriter., Stewart Title Guaranty Company, which reserves the right to make additional requirements and/or exceptions Upon review. NOTE: A copy of this commitment has been submitted to the underwriter. This exception will be deleted upon receipt of underwriter approval. NOTE: Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records the documents of conveyance in the proposed transaction the time of this commitment to the status of title will be updated from reveals interveninthe time of said recording. If said update g liens or changes in the status of said title appropriate actions) will be taken to disclose or eliminate said change prior to the recording of said documents. If said update reveals no intervening liens or changes in the status of title, Exception No. 5 above will be deleted. NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy form. Copies of the 1992 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclusions, will be made available upon request. DISCLOSURES Pursuant to C.R,S. 10-11-12,), notice is hereby given that: (A) THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT; (B) A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR TILE COUNTY TREASURERS AUTHORIZED AGENT; (C) INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES DISTRICTS MAYBE OBTAINED FROM OF SUCH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, OR THE COUNTY ASSESSOR. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction Which was closed," Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc, conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number S will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No, 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Cominitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this comnutment inust be a single family residence, winch includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of c on the land described in Schedule A of this Cotrunitment within the past 6 monthonstruction s. C• The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materialmen's liens, D. The company must receive payment of the appropriate pre>rii,m. 1;- If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Coirunitment, the requirements to obtaill coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN FULLY SATISFIED. OVE UNLESS THE ABCONDITIONS ARE Order No_ 00027409 Disclosures (YSDD) Rcv, 10/90 17.2000 3:57PN UTE CITY BROKERS 14 -�, V- V / a, paD.iY""'ON "D (3ABIr 21)IFT-Ur VA2I1NT-71—, t THE UNITED STATES HO. 922 P. 7 1 OY AMEAICA, Certificate >T . ....... M To au to WIXOM that& Prove2ft GhnIj Come E=, C, t G V --------_---------- ------ I ................... ---- ------------------ -----------------------in the General L,0---- -----------_----- 1)Eh® VneStates a. of the Refister Rf the Land offle, at ................... hereby ---------- .............. A - ,, c �r_" that /Un PaYmOne &w bee, mad, bY the said A .4 ­w�dfne to J&6 p,-Dvisions of el,, ......... ___­ ................... ... -- ------ vision for the sale 0 f .4ct of C0nffpea& ")p the 24eh j820, entitled ".4n Jet making IUHkep .- pp - 0_ the Public -Lands," and the acts &6PPIern.,entai thereto, " " � W /��2���� iy� {y' � fib iN �Lt� y� � ,, Q according to the Ogeial Plat of h.6 3",ey Of t1w said Lajuls, returned to the General Land offl�v by the -,vai4 haS boon Purchased by t said. Surveyorveyor General, which TraetF he .......... ------ ----------------_--------- -----------­-­--------- - ------- - ---- I .... ..... NOW Unovr Yes That the United States of 147,,rjra, in cowd ------------ ------------­------- ep'at'on o/ the P)Vmisos, and in conformity 70W"he several cts of C"nlft"s in such case made andvrvidcd do eiV6 and .1-pa 'Lave given and 1-y-anted, and by these presents grant unto t" said... and to. .� ------------ the said above described; To Have and to Hold the same p?,ftriZ610.9, im nines and app t , fc!det7wr with all 1�� I of Whatsoever nature, thereunio, boZonjinf, Unto 0,,a said - - ------------- --- I ------ ------ andto. and ass ........ - ----------------------------------------- - ----------------_-_----- - -- I ....... assigns forever; 611Aject to any vested and aezrued watop rj4htqf0p mining, aeri. f using or 0"Wlo purposes, and Yjjhtq to ditches and rwepvo, -doeniz6d and a,�knowze_d ),-A� used in donnedion. Z, water P',drht3 as may be 7e ra 6y the looW customs, jaw'? with such and deziyionj 0/ Courts, and also subject to th`6 r4ht of t" P'-OP-iaor of a vein or lode to ext-act and same remove hS are 0WpefP07�1&, should Jhe found to penetrate O'_ inter"ef the Pr"YT-ises hereby &a-nted, as Provided by law. be f fJ� Xn TesUzaany Whereat, 1,, -0,00's to be ?na4ie patent, and the Seal of the Gre have caused '4,s6 I ------------- I ........ fTdkl of the United states of Amu, nem,l Land 01)jr ,e to he hereunto afflx6d. G1VGU un-dcr my hand, at the City of Washin day Of- ----------- 'et' --------- - --- - - - in the yea), of OU7' Lord one thobesand eigr7it hundred and,,Lt an a of the Indopenden4W of t" Mites Unded t&fm the One lwhd.- and—ea-1—cf- PY A'27E PRESIDENT:__...._ 01� -BY.... ---------- Secretary, !coorded, Vol ........ Y ------- ............ &eco)-d, of the Ge -al Land Office. _----­-------- ------------ 1'iCed for Retard ............ It — I -- ------------- --------- _day of ....... ----- ------------- ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name G_ is G I LLPI 5-r 2. Project location GIG r;ll.1_1::Dp,�F ��'P �\ r n o LOrt� 4 - (o E3 r-- .419 — (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning ?41 4. Lot size 9 C 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number �Nyk_�_ OF C© �ftllI G0717 6. Representative's name, address, and phone numbert,)pp� 7. Type of application (check all that apply). - Conditional Use X Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment View Plane Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA Final SPA Conceptual PUD Final PUD X Text/Mao Amend. X GMQS exemption Condom iniumization Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark Demo/Partial Demo Design Review Appeal Committee 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) r►yo �rfu,csrueFS -tam FPOBEF-T-r. �'3 7 hF) ma) i, sEn ►�+4 "D ,� �5 9,F� lflEa�� lS 9. Description of development application nv� • L �� ► -•' 1 ia� } � cif • ♦ •:� • ' _I_ ��■ • � • � fy � � � � ���• rl 1 J • � � a -� • ►� �1r►i�i �. _ .ems F�^f1 • _ i� • 10. Have you completed and attached the following? X Attachment 1- Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant:1J Address: �35 Ri .� �SPFI�I. Cn 8 u I I Zone district: fiz-Co Lot size: a539 s,F. Existing FAR: ►Vb5G S,F, Allowable FAR: 4 ► I s, *_, w / Soo SE, DUNS u s = 4(o IZ s, IF Proposed FAR: 3a2G —S.F. -t- 1554 S.F, - 45'Tq S, F, Existing net leasable (commercial): N/pt Proposed net leasable (commercial): tJ !"N' Existing % of site coverage: 17, Z "A oy cf Gm s, F, Proposed % of site coverage: 14-j % pF gS3q >, F, (w In t2u Ply Existing % of open space: 'LLB /n of aS3q 'S.F. Proposed % of open space: 96,3 % or- Q53q s , F: (V'1 / oo nu p Existing maximum height: Principal bidq: Accesory bldg: Ins-o" Proposed max. height: Principal bidq: yf ; Accessory bldq: Proposed % of demolition: 'PNmgpnL bLtt, : So % Existing number of bedrooms: t-1Nu., SUB&"DE LQv Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 Existing on -site parking spaces: 2 On -site parking spaces required: 2 Setbacks Existing: Front: Rear: « Combined Front/rear: I3Loa Side: Z =2" Side: ; 1l Combined Sides: 4JTr-f11 Minimum required: Front: 10- 0 Rear: 5' _ o Combined Front/rear: 30l-0't Side: 5'=0& Side: 5 - p p Combined Sides: /o o" Proposed: Front: Rear: I ;oa Combined Front/rear: W-o" Side: 5'-o u Side: V-0 Combined Sides: W-oll Existing nonconformities or encroachments: tip t(O F_ t7iTc* Variations requested: 4=011 5ME YARD , 4' oa' REPS , l pwf4N6 5pAcE (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) rally@aspeninfo.com, 02:20M 12/12/00 -0700, 515 Gillespie Stre ILer C To: rally@aspeninfo.com From: Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: 515 Gillespie Street Cc: Bcc: Attached: Dear Rally, Please allow this letter to serve as an official response to you regarding your question on the applicability of the proposed amendments (re. house size) to the City of Aspen Land Use Code to the property located at 515 West Gillespie Street. Land use applications for 515 Gillespie St. have been filed with the City of Aspen Community Development Department for various land use actions requiring review and decision by the Historic Preservation Commission. The decisions on these land use applications have a direct bearing on the amount of floor area and the ultimate size, location and design of the structures to be built on the subject property. Based upon the fact that you have submitted applications, public hearings have been initiated for review and the decisions will specify the development standards (size, design and location) for the property, the applications will be reviewed under the regulations which are now in effect. These approvals will be in effect for the three year vesting time. If a completed building permit is not filed within that vesting time then those earlier approvals will be null and void and new applications will be reviewed under the regulations in effect at that time. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 920-5062. 1 apologize for my lateness in responding and hope this information is useful to you and your client. Sincerely, Joy A.Ohlson Deputy Director of Community Development Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 • • To: Fred Jarmin HPC cc: Subject: 11/8 HPC Meeting/Notices: 515 Gillespie Fred, Hare: October 12, 2000 From: Randall Bone Below are the things that I would like to accomplish in the November' z th HPC meeting. They should be reflected in the new public notice as well as the agenda. 1. Work session on layout of historic renovation and layout of new homes as proposed by Susan. This should be first since it will preface many of the subsequent decisions. 2. Historic Designation 3. Historic Lots Split 4. 500 SF FAR Bonus 5. FAR Allocation between the lots 6. Duplex conditional use on Lot B ri Please let me know if this is acceptable and how my public notices in the mail and U on the building should read. Thanks, Randall Bone 117 Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone (970) 920-9911; Fax (970) 920-4433 MI'VYN€ IkMT N31i"A 'Er KE W ? L `5. I1a GI LL E 5P I E AV E. A LL E Y Revisions Drafted 7. 11 EK .SCALE : +" ° +O' eA515 GF GEARING FouND HONUM N�TO THE T N.E. COR PL 8( ( IT REb4R? Y CAP, L 5. `1164 ) 5URVEYOR' 5 GEKTIMATE : I HEREDY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP f+C�URATELY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN APRIL, 19b1, OF LOTS 4 5, 1! 6, HALLAM'5 ADDITION TO THE CITY OF f1,51'EN, COLORADO, AND THAT ON JULY 11, 1991, A VISUAL IN51"ECTION N/A5 MADE, I� Cf-IAN(3E5 WERE rGUNID. �0✓99 Mcdoiii.— ALPINE 5URVEY5, INC. ICY JULY , M) L NOTE5 : -I FOUND PEPEAR CAP, L. S. 2376 ' 2.' FOUND Ri=W ? CAP, L.5. 6,868 -SEE ASPEN TITLE CORPCATION OR17ER No. 40{4`I7 G FCCOTHEfz MATTEK5 THAT MAY AFFECT PROPFRTI' At'v oq;0'6�2 P., Z7¢6i' Title UPPATE SURVE r LOT5 4, 5, 1! 6, P5LOCK 11 r��T 1111.1 NOTICE According to Colorado law you must Commence any legal action based upon any detect m this survey within three years after you first discover such detect. In no event may any action based upon any tlefect m this survey be commence0 post Office Box 1730 more than ten years from the date of the certfiCatipn shown hereonAspen,Colorado 81611 CITY OF ASPEN, Gt7LOP 303 925 2688 Job No N -15 -A Client BF6K TELEDVNE POST N39 c.T : RED L.S. 91 (1181) GI LL ESP I E AV E. r-7) 1 ,I Do A L L E i Alpine Surveys, Inc. NOTICE. According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based o.. upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such detect. I�SI �f(ICe Box 1%30 ^ no ore Khan tle may any fromion based the tlateuothencertification fect in thts shovin hyreoo^ be commenced ���� m 303 925 2688 Y � FoLtqD : R SA313 CAP Surveyed Drafted 7 91 ER p,OV WS NOV '99 UPDAT5 AUG '00 TKE05 N — 5o Fr O 5 l0 20 5CAL` 1 ` 0 P�°SIS CF 13EARIN6 tIONUMENFouNo �TOMTHE T N.E. COK 6L . 8S(REb1R(<IT( CAP, L .5. `11 d4 ) SURVEYOR' 5 CERTIFICATE I HEREP�Y CERTIFY THA7 THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS A 5URVEY MADE UNDER MY 5UPERV151ON IN MRIL, 1101, C A V115UAL INSPECTIONT WAS I" IADE- t,0LO� i ALPINE SURVEYS, INC �Y — L.S. NOTE5 : -I FOUND RE DAR { CAP, L . 5 237G 2FOUND KEbAR CAP, L.5. OY0 TITLE MATTE) 5 THATMAr AFFECT PRQPEt TY N< AS = 4's'J2L N AV= APPLC GW : COTrOM11WOOD W = WfLLOW ,SP= SPI�ucE Title UPDATE 5JRVEY IpTS 4, 5, f 6, EiLOCK 11 HALLAM'5 AI»ITION CITT OF ASPEN, 00' '✓ �� VJ 0*1 A v A: '00 9�7 A.1 0 It 'eel 44 J-13ii jot lk- 4C? v/ k<il-I 1 - I' ilk p ,= i� n ��_` __ �� � TELEDYNE POST N35 E 5 P I E A V E. ,1 i } I I ?'OO�5ETREPAK ? CAP, L 5. `11,54 (1981) .T 7 71 � A ' 4 3 . , WOOD DECK oI O. 1_0 o t1 p 1 i 141 � 10 0 TWO SrORr I 4: �j HOU5E i 1 , i } - 140 I 05 off 07 zl o 0t s I I ' 14 of 1 I I 3- L----oe o.H.—__ _ N fie 1 t I Sy I 14.4 I O 1 U) t I I I I ` 1= °� ,n GAKAG la _I I I i I I I I I I I 11 :4 E06 OF T r144 .: I` I 0.8 O.F4' 1 75' 00 ET KEFAft W /' L `a. 91� 32' 10,,yV 78. SO FOUND RE6AR ;CAP L.5. -N32 A L L E Surveyed NOTICE. According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based Alpine SurveysInc. upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. Drafted 7 �11 EI` , In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced y � p� more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. Post Office BOX 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925 2688 Revisions N 40 SCALE : I" ° 10' f°TSIS CE DEARING FOUND HONUMENT5, S.E. COR . OF E5LK.96 (GITY HONUMENT) TO THE N.E E. COR . 6LK. 98 (KffbAK CAP, L .5. `11 S4 ) SURVEYOR'S GEKTIFIGATE : I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP 1ar6U9^TELY DEPICTS A 5UKVEr HADE UNDER MY 5UFEKV15ION IN APRIL, 1161, OF LOT 4, 5, ? G, HALLAH'S ADDITION TO THE GITr OF ASPEN, COLORA301 AND THAT ON JULY I I, I191, A V15UAL IN51"ECTION NA5 MADE. NO cHANOES WERE KxJNID.� weci-a Gi I��C_ S *-�00 P o D N L� l- 0 ✓ 99 ALPINE 5URVEYS, INC. P2Y' JULr , 1111 L NOTE5 : 'I .' FOUND K AK CAP, L 5 2376 2.' Kx1ND 9E13AR C, 1 L.S. &868 -SEE ASPEN TITLE C09PCKATION ORDE'.R No. 401417-C FOR OTHEtz NIATTEI;5 THAT HAY AFFECT PKOPERTr Title UMATE SURVEY LOT5 4, 5, i 6, ELOGK '19 HALLAM'5 ADDITION CITY OF ASPEN, OOLOR D RECEIVED NOV 0 9 2000 ASPEN / PtTKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Job No 81- )5-4 Client MCI" G 1 L L E 5 P I E 2 00"-'ET FEW ? CAP, I -FT , KEW { GAP � L.S. 1164 (I161) A V E. i A L L E �r ,cr )v z4,t� FOUND RE6AR t CAP L 5 3132 _=e NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based Alpine Surveys Inc. Surveyed Revisions NOV99 O P PAT k5 upon any detect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect sa A In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced OA Drafted 7 I EK AUG �O T fZC E 5 more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. �t Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925 2688 0 5 b 20 30 40 50 FT. _ ,-GALE : ["a 10' 2A515 CP UEARING FOUNIDD MONUMENT5, 5.E. CCR . OF 13LK.98 (CITY MONUMENT) TO THE N.E E. COK . 6LK. 98 (KEMK rW, L.5. 1164) 5URVEYM5 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICT5 A 5URVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN APRIL, 115), OF LOTS 4, 5, ? 6 HALLAM'5 ADDI T ION TO THE GI TY OF ASPEN, COLORA0,01 AND THAT ON 15 NOV a 9 A VISUAL INSPECTION N/A5 MADE. NO CHANGES WERE FOUND. ALPINE 5URVEY5, INC P-2Y — L.5 NOTE5 : ' I.' FOUND KEW CAP, L.5. 2376 ' 2.' FOUND REW ! CAP, L.5. (P868 -5EE ASPEN TITLE CORPCKATION ORDER No. 401417- C Fop OTHER MATTEK5 THAT MAY AFFECT PROPERTY AS = ASPL N AP= APPL.0 C W = COTTONWOOD W = W(LLOW SP= SPRUCE Title UPDATE SURVEY LOT5 4, 5, i 6, P51-0GK `11 MLLAM'5 ADDITION CITY OF ASPE> 30LORAM Job No 8I - 6 - 4 Client M-nK