HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20150325
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 25, 2015
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St.
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. Please meet at 834 W. Hallam at 12:00 p.m.
II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
February 25, 2015
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 211 E. Hallam Street- Aspenmodern Negotiation For Voluntary Landmark
Designation, Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, And
Variances, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 8TH
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Wagner Park- Conceptual Major Development, Planned Development Project
Review, Growth Management, Conditional Use, and Mountain View Plane,
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 22ND
B. 834 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Historic Major Development, Relocation,
Variances, Residential Design Standard Review, Establishment of Affordable
Housing Credits, GMQS, PUBLIC HEARING (5:10)
C. Proposed amendments to historic building relocation requirements (6:30)
V. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #12, 2015
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW
BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation ( 5 minutes )
Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes )
Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes )
Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes )
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes )
Applicant Rebuttal
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes )
HPC discussion ( 15 minutes )
Motion ( 5 minutes )
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4)
members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct
any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require
the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of
the members of the commission then present and voting.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were John Whipple, Jim DeFrancia and
Patrick Sagal. Absent were Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Gretchen
Greenwood.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of February 11 th second by
Bob. All in favor, motion carried.
Commissioner Comments
Patrick said the purpose and intent of the historic preservation commission is
to ensure the preservation of Aspen’s character as an historic mining town,
early ski resort and cultural center and retain the historic architectural and
cultural resource attractions that support tourism and economic welfare of
the community.
Recognize and protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the
historic buildings and districts. Promote awareness and appreciation of
Aspen’s unique heritage. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures
and encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction
and access to historic building interiors.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
Debbie said the second agenda item is a negotiation for AspenModern which
involves a property that is in the family of one of the HPC members. The
family will be appearing. Our ethical rules allow for that application to
come before you with the HPC member present. Each member needs to be
free from bias on both sides in connection with judging of the application
and to judge by the criteria of the code. If none of you indicate that your
relationship with the applicant or applicant’s family is such that you can’t be
fair and impartial you would say so.
P1
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
2
Willis asked the members if they feel they can review the application
without conflict and in an unbiased way. All members replied they could
review the application and be fair.
Jim disclosed that he has a business relationship with CCY in Basalt but that
in no way impairs his ability to judge the 229 W. Smuggler or 211 E.
Hallam.
Willis disclosed that he knows Howie and Nora socially but can be unbiased
and fair. Willis also said he teaches students from UCD with Harry Teague
and he has a long standing relationship with Harry but can be unbiased and
impartial in reviewing his work.
John said he know the Mallory’s son Lyndon and he can be fair and
impartial. John also said he worked on a project with bluegreen, Valerie
Yaw and there is no monetary incentive that could persuade him.
Patrick said he only knows Nora from the HPC board and will look at the
project from the guidelines.
229 W. Smuggler / 426 N. Second – Final Major Development, Public
Hearing
Debbie reviewed the public notice affidavits that were provided and it
appears that notice has been appropriately given.
Affidavit of Notice Exhibit C
New elevations Exhibit D
Amy said staff is very happy with the progression of this project and
recommends approval with conditions.
1. Condition has revised setbacks
2. When the building is excavated for the new basement there are certain
insurances that should be provided.
3. There is a stone foundation on the Victorian house on the site and it is
pained. The applicant will use the stone as a veneer for their new
foundation. The discussion is whether they can get the paint off the
stone’s surface. Staff is recommending that it be stripped or flipped.
P2
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
3
Staff and monitor will work with the contractor to determine a
reasonable solution during construction.
4. Images in the memo show the railing around the porch deck not to be
original. Staff would like the plans proposed to be revised to replicate
the original design of the railing on the porch deck.
5. The steps leading up to the front porch are not original. We are
recommending that the re-design show the full width of the stair.
6. Staff is asking that a hand rail not be installed on the stairs to the front
porch because that is a change in look of the front porch.
7. There is an unusual pattern in the gable end where there are striped
fish scale clapboards. We would like the applicant to retain that
original design that is show in the older photographs.
8. Window replacement – The applicant wants to replace all the
windows and that is not in keeping with the HPC guidelines that ask
fist for an effort to improve their efficiencies and reduce air
infiltration and replace glazing and putty. Staff will inspect each
window with the architect and contractor during construction process
and review and approve a treatment approach for each window with
the project monitor. There may be some that are not original and not
repairable.
9. We need to know what the flashing will be. Is it painted or
galvanized. We also need to see gutters and down spouts.
10. We need a new drawing of the chimney as it is drawn larger than it is.
11. On the new additions that are directly on the Victorian; side addition
on the east and a dormer on the back. The applicant showed them
sided with wood but roofed with metal. Staff would like the wood
shingles so that they don’t stick out so much from the historic
architecture.
12. There is a large opening, a door that is proposed on the back of the
Victorian. It is in an area that has already been disturbed and there
will be a hole left when the non-historic duplex unit is taken off but
the opening is to be enlarged for a new door and we need discussion
about what that would be.
13. The historic house and the detached house would have a trellis
connecting them in the back yard with a retractable awning. We
would like to see that deleted as it takes away from the detached
layout of the project that was approved at conceptual.
14. This is a request for a sample of the zinc material. This material has
not be used on a project in Aspen before as a siding and roofing. HPC
needs to be comfortable with the possible reflectivity of it.
P3
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
4
15. A detailed landscape plan includes work in the city right-of-way.
Anything that is un-necessary in the ROW should be removed. No
private pathway lighting should be in the right-of-way. Minimize the
pathways themselves. Be careful with perennial plantings so that they
do not mess with the roots of the cottonwoods. They also do not want
a lot of water going into that area. This can be worked out with the
applicant and the Parks Department.
16. The landscape plan shows a stone curb that follows the property line.
We feel the Victorian landscape was much more informal. We
suggest that be removed from the plan.
17. Along with the architectural restudy of the front steps of the front
porch the landscape plan may need some adjustment.
18. There is path lighting in front of the Victorian and in general HPC has
not wanted that in front of a Victorian because it is the kind of lighting
that wasn’t there originally. We prefer the porch light to provide
adequate lighting.
Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning
John Schenk, CCY architects
Valerie Yaw, bluegreen
John said he feels they have nicely adjusted the drawings for approval. The
house was built in 1888. The new owner desires to invigorate the historic
house. The Victorian is staying in its same spot. The site plan is quite
porous and you can see through to the alley. We will be fixing baseboards,
corner boards and windows. We will roof the immediate addition with
shingles. We are showing a handrail on one side of the widened steps. We
believe code requires a handrail. We want to keep what historic windows
are there but they are in bad shape and we will work with staff and monitor
to make whatever needs to be done happen. The trellis between the garage
and new unit A has been removed. The material MB zinc is a natural
product and weathers nicely and doesn’t become shiny. We are using a solid
version and a perforated version (sample). The addition of the dormer roof
has been changed to shingles so it matches the addition to the east. We
have kept the large glass opening on the south side of the Victorian and we
feel it is in a location that is not seen from the street. The opening gives you
the opportunity to see into the historic building as it currently exists. On the
materials we are using weathered zinc (sample). The material of the large
glass opening is attached outwardly to the clapboard siding and we are not
P4
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
5
proposing the sun shade. We will look at removing stain from the outside
stone but that might be difficult.
Valerie Yaw showed the site plan drawings. This property sits opposite to
Triangle Park. Landscape is art and it is an important piece to our fabric.
There is a strong presence of the cottonwoods. The northeast corner has
extraordinary views. When you are on the front porch you feel like Triangle
Park is part of your experience. Planted joints and pavers will be
incorporated. The curb is from public to private. Perennials come back
every year. A significant portion of the property will remain in sod. The
path to the front porch will be a simple path made of natural stone
historically. The expanded risers are a much better solution. Keeping the
views open is part of our fabric. A low green mass would balance the
objective of preserving the resource. In the front we have proposed a
modest garden, shrub and perennials and low grasses to the street. The
Dowler’s have two dogs as we studied the option of the curb because it
would allow them to keep the dogs contained and provide a visual view
without doing a 42 inch fence. There is a history of a fence on the property.
A low curb would be a welcoming threshold to keep this park like
environment. The breakfast nook is on the east side of the property. You
come out to an elevated landing walk down three risers to a planted joint
stone patio. Stone is an enduring material and is both old and new and if we
can reuse the material on-site that is a possibility.
New construction: The landscape path is simple and straight forward. We
will simplify the right-of-way. The experience of moving to the interior
courtyard is through a small slip off the new construction. There is a low
wall and you move through that. The courtyard is pavers with planted joints
and includes a couch, coffee table and a fire feature. There is a concrete
apron the meets the garage and extends to the east to the trash and recycling.
We have reduced the lighting in the right-of-way that Amy suggested. We
would like to keep one ballard at the property line for a single light along the
length of the path. That area is very dark. Overall we have eliminated 5
light features from the project.
John said condition #3 regarding the stone we would like to work with staff.
We are not sure whether we can strip it or not. #4 is the porch railing.
Amy said we are asking them to replicate the historic railing.
P5
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
6
John said we are ok with #4 condition. John said #5 we are conforming to.
John said regarding #6 the Bldg. Dept. will require a handrail etc. We can
work with staff on condition #7, #8, #9. John said the chimney diagram has
been corrected in the packet. Condition #12 is the opening to the rear and it
is less visible than other parts of the house. With the opening the house
would have a much more livability front to back connection and we would
prefer to keep the same size opening both in detail and in form.
Willis said we can discuss #12.
John said #13 and #14 are complied with.
Valerie said on #15 we struck all the right-of-way lighting but kept a path
light at the front door.
Amy said #15 can say work with the forester on acceptable perennials in the
right-of-way.
Valerie asked that #16 be removed because they would like the curb to be
approved. #18 needs modified.
Willis commented that a dog fence doesn’t require anything that is visible
but is an alternative to doing a 42 inch high fence.
John said they feel the curb is a public to private delineation. The curb
would be a stone product.
Valerie said when we strip the paint off the sandstone and cannot be
reinstalled that would be a great material to use. A stone natural product
could also be used.
John said using the stone foundation from the house would work well.
John Whipple said presently there are no street curbs on Smuggler.
Jim said he agrees with the comments made except for the path lighting. He
has no problem with that lighting as it can get dark in that area.
Bob said he lives in a similar house and if he didn’t have path lighting it
would be a liability issue. The West End is dark and all the Victorians in
P6
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
7
the area have path lighting. Who monitors awnings and lighting five years
down the road?
Amy said if it was a previous approval the city would do some kind of
enforcement.
Debbie said the Building Dept. has specific regulations and HPC cannot
over ride them.
John Whipple said since this is a curb less street this is a nice feature and a
good delineation. I am in favor of all the conditions. On condition #12 the
opening is a good way to express the interior to the exterior and it is in an
appropriate location in the back of the house.
Patrick said the reduced glazing is OK. The historic Victorian goes from
street to grass to building and putting a curb in there will change it
significantly from how it has been historically. I am not in favor of 24 inch
light sticks. The unified roof and siding of the addition creates the
appearance of greater mass. It needs to be broken up either with different
colors or materials.
Willis said since we don’t need to elevate so much to reduce risers at the
porch to make it one riser height six or 7 inches would be preferable as 12
inches is impactful.
Willis said the only disagreements between the board are the path light, curb
and continuous roof and siding.
Straw poll: Path lighting approved. Possibly do in ground flush lights.
Straw poll: Curb, one riser approved.
Straw poll: Roof and siding approved as is.
Amy clarified all the conditions which were agreeable by the board.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #9 with the conditions
delineated by staff, second by Willis.
Willis said on condition #10 the historic photo should be used as a reference
that show the steps without a cap to be approved by staff and monitor.
P7
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
8
Clarification: Valerie said on the perennials it would be good if the board
had a comment on perennials vs Kentucky blue grass as the appropriate
right-of-way solution.
Debbie said the condition is up to the forester because of the roots of the
trees.
John Whipple said he is for the perennials if a watering system can be
worked out. Jim agreed.
Willis said we are approving the landscape plan as part of the vote.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, yes.
Motion carried 4-1.
Jim will be the monitor.
211 E. Hallam – AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Designation,
Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances,
Public Hearing
Debbie said the notice of affidavit is in order and the applicant can proceed,
Exhibit I.
Exhibit II, new elevations
Amy said the review is for an AspenModern negotiation for historic
designation of 211 E. Hallam and a major redevelopment. There was a
subdivision on the 12,000 square foot lot and it was divided in half. The
6,000 square foot lot is under HPC purview and has a studio on the lot.
Nothing has ever been done to say that the studio has historic significance.
If it was proposed to be demolished HPC would review that but it hasn’t
been a contributing resource and so the applicant is voluntarily offering
designation under AspenModern.
The first discussion is whether the studio should be AspenModern
designation worthy. This property has an interesting history. Mr. Berko put
Aspen on the map in 1949. With AspenModern negotiation the applicant
can ask council for things that are needed for the success of the project.
After conceptual it will go to council and then back to HPC for final review.
At council they will discuss waiver of the building permit fees, waiver of
P8
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
9
impact fees. There are a number of large trees on the property. All can be
removed except the one in the south east corner back along the alley. The
applicant will be applying for a tree permit removal for that tree. As a
recommendation HPC should not be discussing the tree as that decision is
involving the Parks Dept. and Council. The applicant will be presenting
without the tree. If they do not get approval to remove the tree they will
come back for conceptual.
This is a 6,000 square foot lot with the studio structure on the alley. The
applicant has the right to do a duplex and that is their plan. They are
proposing to have them touch but they have the option to make them two
detached structure and still conform with zoning. By choosing a duplex
program that allows 360 more floor area than a single family home. It also
allows one additional garage stall of 250 sq.ft. to be exempt from the floor
area. The applicant is also asking for the 500 square foot bonus. The
project as proposed has 1,110 square feet more gross floor area then is
allowed as a standard. At the work session HPC seemed to embrace the idea
that the studio could be lifted up, rotated and put on the front of the site. If
this is done we are losing a substantial amount of original material and it
would be a character change. The family lived in the house and the studio
was an accessory unit. The building would be picked up, turned, making it a
street facing building and demolishing some of the existing materials. Staff
can get behind this but it clearly has to be justifiable. The biggest issues is
how the old and new connect.
Amy did a power point on different connectors throughout town. There are
a number of guidelines that have not been met with this project. Staff
suggested totally detaching the units from each other. Staff said there is a
problem with the two story volume added directly to the studio. Staff
recommends continuation to re-design the addition to either create a
connector or somehow separate the two pieces. Staff does not feel the FAR
bonus is warranted. There are also setback variances being requested. The
RDS’s require a secondary mass and the applicant is requesting a variance as
we feel that should not be granted until there is some improvement with the
connector. The applicant has a new front door into the studio that is too far
back from the street for the RDS’s and we feel that should be restudied.
Applicant:
Nora Berko
Harry Teague
P9
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
10
Philip Jeffries
Mirte Malory
Howie Malory
Stan Clauson
Nora said she grew up in this property and her father, Ferenc Berco had the
studio built in 1964 by Ted Mylarz. The structure had to be beautiful,
simple and affordable. Those are the same values that lead us on our
journey. The studio was a gathering place for participants in the design
conference, music festival and institute. They came here to talk and get
photographed and all the images were developed and printed here. We have
engaged in the AspenModern by choice. When the lot split was done I
chose the studio because it was unprotected. The studio would be a great
example of AspenModern and giving our family the opportunity for multi-
generational living. It would be a Senior center for us and a home for our
children. I have seen this neighborhood empty out into second homes. We
want to keep life in the West End year round. We have lived on the property
for almost 60 years. We have several thresholds in conflict with the HPC
guidelines and we recognize that. One is livability. Livability and
marketability are two different measures. Our standards align with the
Aspen Community Plan and with the housing we want to create a place for
two families to live year round and be active participants in the community.
We want to reuse the existing structure, build green and generate energy.
Regarding transportation we want to be able to walk, bike and have access to
RFTA. We also want the town to have a healthy mix of ages. We are
attached to the studio and hope to see it celebrated on Hallam St. as an
AspenModern.
Mirte said Ferenc Berko’s photographs and his life career as a photographer
were international. It was the dedication to form, line and shape that lead
him to be recognized as one of the pioneers of black and white photography.
His work is collected in major museums and at international exhibitions.
Architecture has always been a part of his vision and photography. It has
been my honor to keep the collection alive. We have maintained a dark
room in the studio today. The studio is different than other projects that
HPC has seen because it has a public interface.
Howie said they had family discussions about what is the right thing to do
with the property. We came up with two straight forward objectives. First
the creation of a multi-generation primary residence duplex which would
P10
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
11
consist of the renovated studio and a new duplex residence connected to the
studio in the rear, the senior housing. The second objective was to
landmark the studio and keep the Berko archive here in Aspen. We are here
to talk about the livability of the project not the marketability. The studio
and the two units should have an abundant access to natural daylight. We
don’t want to live in shadows. We want to have above grade living. We
also want to have affordable construction with basic non-custom materials in
the Bauhaus style that are energy efficient. We want to take advantage of
the lots natural southern exposure. The senior center would have minimal
level changes. We believe this is a proper and successful AspenModern
project.
Philip Jeffries said the project lines up nicely with the Victorian. The bay
window has always faced the interior of the site. We tried to come up with a
scenario that balances the preservation and livability. The spirit of the studio
is driven by its form and that form needs space around it. The inside of the
studio comes to life with the display of light. We need to keep light coming
into the studio from both sides. The further we moved the studio forward
the more breathing room it had. Philip went over some of the designs they
worked on. One unit is in the studio and the other duplex behind.
Harry said the studio is key to the history of Aspen which needs preserved
and celebrated in an appropriate way. The family is also key. The guidelines
were created for a different era and a different style of architecture. The
resource would move to the front of the property and spin 180 degrees and
what that does is make the resource visible so that it is seen. There is public
activity associated with this building. The entrance and the way it addresses
the street is very important. We want to create an addition to the studio that
creates an entrance from the street. We would build a new foundation out of
cinder block and would have exactly the same appearance as it has now. On
the back side we would have a slight modification of extending the porch for
a deck and changing fenestration in the kitchen with the addition of a little
window. You basically look right throw this building and making a glass
enclosure connector in the center would prevent you from seeing through the
building. We are creating a new entrance from a non-functional part of the
building. The building in the back is a two story structure. Regarding the
parking two are connected to the senior housing (duplex) in back and the
other on the side.
P11
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
12
On the secondary building the master bedroom is on the second floor. It is
our intent to create a setback of forms and we gradually increase the
program and mass as you step further back. The south elevation is on the
alley and we are providing a space for two cars attached to the senior
housing and there is a back entrance from the alley side. There is also a
single car garage that serves the studio on the alley. The front door of the
senior housing faces the street. There is an upper element over the front
door. There are two front doors for the duplex from the street. The mass
of the building is on the west side and it is opened up to the south east so
that gardens, vegetables can be grown in this area. We are utilizing the
building collage concept with a dark element over a light element in color.
Harry said they have done several projects not by connector additions. The
new architecture was attached directly to the old buildings.
Mirte said we hope that you will look at this project in the spirit of
Modernism and not Victorianism. We have also talked with Ted Mularz, the
original architect for the studio and he is in support of this project. Our
neighbors are also in support of our project.
Willis said this is an exciting project for our community. It is clear that the
studio is a living archive with its own front door and the senior housing is a
separate residence.
Mirte said the studio is a separate family residence for our siblings.
Bob asked about the traffic to the archive.
Mirte said it depends on what is happening with publications. Requests
weekly. It is not a heavy traffic area but I work there daily.
Willis said with the archive facing the street one would think you would
have more exposure and more traffic.
Patrick said in trying not to have the two story over the historic resource
taking the bedroom and putting it on the east side and moving the garage up
and putting the double garage west so you have a U. That way you would
have a view through the building all the way back to the alley.
P12
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
13
Harry said they explored numerous options. Eventually you are going to
have a two story structure behind the resource and that would block the view
to Aspen Mountain. Moving this to one side and having a two story element
to one side fit the idea of the collage.
Mirte said moving it over would impact the studio twice and our goal is to
have as little impact as possible. That would also require a driveway.
John said the structure is intertwined with the use of it and the public
amenity of being able to visit. Are there any kind of guarantees down the
road that this will be maintained as the archive and public amenity?
Mirte said the indication is that we want to keep it here. There is a large
amount of material that needs preserved. It is our intent to preserve the
archive and keep it here as much as possible.
Jim complimented the applicant on their thoroughness and evaluation of
alternatives. It is an asset for our community. I agree with continuance and
studying the separation and clarifying the setbacks.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Bill Stirling said all of the AspenModern presentations have been unique.
With the structure being moved Aspenites will see this structure. Bringing it
forward makes a lot of sense. By shifting it over to the left they have
eliminated the bustle look. Mixed uses have been going on in the West End.
If you designate it, it stays there.
Scott Ride said he and his partner bought the original Berko home. We are
looking forward to restoring the Victorian. This will be a unique property
with the Victorian and AspenModern studio right beside it. What makes
Aspen great is that we embrace many styles. We applaud what is trying to
be accomplished here and we are working together. Shortly we will be in
front of the HPC.
Phyllis Bronson, said the building is aesthetically beautiful. It captures the
simplicity of Ferenc Berko’s photography. Having a multi-generational
project and seeing lights on in the West End permanently is compelling.
P13
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
14
David Hyman said this is a beautiful presentation. The project will be such
an amenity to the community as it draws the 40, 50, 60’s into the present
day. I have heard no negative comments and it preserves the old studio and
enhances it with the view to the mountain. I am total support and hope the
HPC passes it.
Exhibit III - Amy said e-mails or letters were sent to the HPC from Ted
Mularz, Aspen Institute, David Floria, Aspen Community Church, Linda
Bump, Jess Bates and Phil Hodgson.
Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing.
Applicant rebuttal:
Stan said the required site coverage is 50% and this meets that requirement
at 44%. In the packet there were extensive alternatives that have been
discussed. Staff did not provide a resolution because additional study is
being recommended. If the HPC feels there is enough presented staff could
prepare a resolution based on the application presented.
Willis identified the issues:
Designation of an AspenModern resource
Re-siting of the historic resource
Setback variances
RDS’s – secondary mass
Willis agreed with everything that the public commented on. It is clear that
the massing has to go to one side or the other. What we are asked to review
is a one dimensional requirement, a one-story ten foot connector to separate
the old from the new. The project is beautifully done and it is good
architecture but it doesn’t meet the narrow guideline for a connector. I can
get behind everything else but the connector.
Patrick also said he has concerns with the connector.
Bob said the concern is the connector entry. I have no problem with the
design. The family wants to keep the usage on this property. How you
solve the access is the issue. With the double entry they both face the street
and they both have different functions and the solution is acceptable.
P14
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
15
Jim said he agrees with staff to restudy the connector and clarify the
setbacks. The basic design is good.
John said he understands the uses of the West End and hopes that they
continue in the future. He also understand staff’s position and the family’s
needs. This is a tremendous resource and possibly we can re-interpret the
guideline for AspenModern architecture. The project is well thought out.
MOTION: Jim moved to continue 211 E. Hallam to March 25 th ; second by
Patrick.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, no; Patrick, yes; Bob, no; Willis, yes. Motion
carried 3-2.
Jim said the design is terrific and the continuation is to allow staff to study
the separation connector issue and clarify the setbacks.
Amy said staff is not suggestion the project start over and they are not
suggesting it has to be a one story ten foot long connector. It could be just a
little more in alignment as to how it is connected. We are open to some
flexability and it is not identical to every other case.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P15
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\6506.doc
3/19/2015
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 332 W. Main
1102 Waters
1006 E. Cooper
100 E. Main
417/421 W. Hallam
602 E. Hyman
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC
420 E. Cooper
420 E. Hyman
407 E. Hyman
Rubey Park
Sallie Golden 206 Lake
114 Neale
514 E . Hyman
212 Lake
400 E. Hyman
517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s)
Hotel Aspen
Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Willis Pember 204 S. Galena
Aspen Core
514 E. Hyman
120 Red Mountain
233 W. Hallam
101 E. Hallam
407 E. Hyman
Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena
623 E. Hopkins
701 N. Third
612 W. Main
206 Lake
212 Lake
Holden Marolt derrick
John Whipple Aspen Core
201 E. Hyman
549 Race
208 E. Main
420 E. Cooper
602 E. Hyman
Hotel Aspen
610 E. Hyman
301 Lake
P16
II.F.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 834 West Hallam Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition,
Relocation, Residential Design Standard Variances, Parking Waivers, Setback
Variances, Growth Management, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits,
Public Hearing
DATE: March 25, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY : 834 West Hallam Street is a designated landmark located on a 6,000 square foot
parcel. The landmark is in its original location and has been altered over time. It is not located
in the Main Street Historic District. The surrounding neighborhood is mostly a mix of single
family and multi-family residential with the United States Forest Service office located to the
east. The property is zoned Mixed Use with a floor area restriction of 4,000 sf. The property
was rezoned in the 1994 from residential zoning to Mixed Use in order to legalize the existing
restaurant use with the condition that the floor area be restricted to 4,000 sf (the Mixed Use Zone
district has a maximum 2:1 FAR or 12,000 sf). The applicant proposes about 7,180 sf of floor
area in three detached buildings.
The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a 100% affordable housing project in order to
create affordable housing credits. The applicant requests the following reviews:
1. Major Development Conceptual review
2. Demolition of non-historic additions to the landmark
3. Relocation of the historic home forward on the site toward Hallam Street and Eighth
Street
4. Parking Reduction/Waiver for 3 parking spaces (8 are provided and 11 are required)
5. Setback variances for the new construction
6. Special review for Affordable Housing Units
7. Growth Management review for Affordable Housing
8. Residential Design Standard variances for multi-family buildings
9. Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits
Staff recommends a continuation to restudy the mass and scale to better meet the Design
Guidelines and the Residential Design Standards, to meet setback requirements in the front
yard and the distance between buildings, and to improve the livability of the affordable
housing units to meet the Housing Guidelines.
P17
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
2
APPLICANT : 834 W. Hallam Associates, LLC. c/o Matthew Brown, 625 E. Main Street, Suite
204, Aspen, CO 81621
PARCEL ID : 2735-123-04-002.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : 834 West Hallam Street, Lots K and L Block 10, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado
ZONE DISTRICT : MU, Mixed Use
Proposal:
The applicant proposes three detached buildings on the 6,000 sf lot. 8 parking spaces are
proposed along the alley. The project is entirely affordable housing. Unit breakdown is as
follows:
unit # bedroom
#
net livable
area
minimum size
requirement category location in building percent
reduction
1 3
1,007
1,000 1/2
basement + first
floor
2 1
601
600 1/2
basement + first
floor
3 1
603
600 1/2
basement + first
floor
4 4
1,125
no size
requirement 1/2
basement + first
floor
5 3
1,051
1,000 1/2
basement + first
floor
6 2
851
850 1/2 second floor
7 4
1,082
no size
requirement 1/2 second floor
8 1
563
600 1/2 second floor 6%
9 1
563
600 1/2 second floor 6%
10 2
786
850 1/2 third floor 7%
11 3
977
1,000 1/2 third floor 2%
P18
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
3
834 W. Hallam in 1893 834 W. Hallam in 1904. The rear addition
to the original house and the outbuildings
along the alley have since been demolished.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT – CONCEPTUAL (E XHIBIT A – DESIGN GUIDELINES ):
Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list
of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.”
Following are historic maps and images that will assist in the review of this project.
P19
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
4
Photo above, date unknown. Note original inset porch.
Photo below, current condition. Note that the original porch was enclosed and a new porch
was added to the front of the house. Additions were made to the side and rear of the
Victorian. The building was converted from residential to restaurant use in 1972.
P20
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
5
The applicant proposes to demolish all non-historic construction, to move the Victorian onto a
basement at the southwest corner of the site, and to add two new detached buildings, one to the
east of the Victorian and one along the alley. Eleven affordable housing units are to be
accommodated in the structures.
The Victorian will be restored, including reconstruction of the original inset porch. No other
additions or alterations are proposed for the historic structure. (Staff assumes that the original
dormer design will be preserved and the proposed drawings are in error in this regard.) The
building will be prominently sited, and will avoid impacts to the historic cottonwood trees along
Main Street and 8 th Street. The merits of the proposed relocation will be addressed later in the
memo. The Victorian will house two residences.
A detached structure containing two residences is proposed to be built 10’ east of the historic
resource. This structure is very similar to the Victorian in footprint; only very slightly narrower
and slightly longer. Roof form and height also match the historic building. The “1893 Bird’s
Eye View” of the property shown on the previous page indicates that there were historically
several gable roofed homes closely placed along this blockface. Staff’s only concern with the
design of this structure, at the Conceptual level, is the proposed front porch, which projects
approximately 6’ into the front yard setback and forward of the historic resource. Because the
entry to the building is shared by two units, the porch is not likely to be used as an outdoor living
area. The more utilitarian nature of this feature, to briefly shelter people entering and existing the
building, suggests that the porch should be smaller, no greater than the porch on the historic
resource, which is about 5’ x 8’. The projection into the setback and towards the Victorian
should be reduced.
The alley building, which will contain seven residential units, is a three story flat roofed
structure. Two of the units are accessed from the west (Hallam Street side) and five are accessed
from the south (Main Street side). Required egress stairs and an elevator are located on the south
façade. The shape of the building reflects the applicant’s desire to maximize the number of units,
design an efficient floor plan, provide accessibility, accommodate storm water management
needs with a green roof, and to provide some on-site parking. Because this building is
completely detached from the Victorian, staff is open to the flat roof form. A gable roof would
be more visually related to the historic structure, however the ridge of the new building would
likely be significantly taller than the Victorian. It would be difficult to meet the height
limitations without reducing the plate height in the third floor units below 8’, affecting livability.
The surrounding context is mixed in terms of roof shape.
This said, the rear building does not relate well to the Victorian. Parking and circulation
functions are externalized in a way that does not occur on the resource. Particularly on the south
and west facades, the proposed location of the stairs and elevator interferes with the ability to
express the entry to units and to provide individual outdoor space such as porches. Fenestration
opportunities on the south are greatly impacted.
Staff recommends a fundamental restudy of the rear building including relocation of the stairs
and elevator, ideally enclosing them within the building form, screening of the parking area from
the 8 th Street perspective, and provision of porches and outdoor living space that relate to the
P21
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
6
traditions expressed by the historic resource and the proposed new building at the southeast
corner of the site. Staff also recommends a first story element for the rear building to meet
Residential Design Standards and to break up the mass. The flat roof may be supportable if
concerns about scale, residential character, and the relationship between the south and west
facades of the new building and the Victorian are successfully addressed.
Staff finds that the following guidelines for new structures on a historic landmark lot are not
currently met by the rear building design.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
• The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
• The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
• A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
• In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients
to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
• The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
• They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
• Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
• Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
• On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
• Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
P22
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
7
DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION (E XHIBIT B) : Staff finds that the review criteria (Exhibit B) are
met to demolish non-historic additions and to relocate the historic home on the site. Conditions
for the relocation, temporary storage of the building and a letter of credit shall be included in the
draft resolution.
SETBACK VARIANCES , PARKING WAIVERS , AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AHU S (E XHIBIT C):
Staff finds that the review criteria for the distance between buildings variance (4’ provided and
10’ required) and the front yard setback variance (4’ provided and 10’ required) are both a
product of having too much mass on the site. Staff does not support these variances as proposed.
Staff is supportive of the east side yard setback variances (3’ provided and 5’ required) as it
preserves the large cottonwood trees along the west property line.
A parking reduction from 11 spaces to 8 spaces is requested. Many of the proposed units are
high occupancy: two 4-bedrooms; three 3-bedrooms; two 2-bedrooms; and four 1-bedrooms.
This means that the demand for parking will be much higher for this property than for other
affordable housing projects that comprise 1-bedrooms and studios. The applicant cannot fit any
more parking along the rear of the property – 8 parking spaces is the maximum that will fit and a
trash area (required to be 10’ tall x 10’ deep x 13.5’ wide and accessed along the alley) has not
been shown on the site plan. Consistent with the affordable housing development at 518 W.
Main Street, Staff recommends a reduction in the parking requirement with the condition that the
applicant pay the cash in lieu fee of $30,000 per space.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance for affordable housing units that are more than
50% below natural grade. Staff is concerned that voluntary units, created for affordable housing
credits, cannot meet minimum standards for location and size. The purpose of special review for
affordable housing units is provide some flexibility for projects that are providing quality units
that do not meet the 50% above grade requirement. Staff finds that the review criteria are not
met and recommends that the units are restudied
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (E XHIBIT D): The Housing Board of
Directors met on March 18, 2015. The Housing Office has some concerns about the livability of
the units, the lack of storage within the units, reduction of parking, outdoor space and the
proposed number of bedrooms for category 2. Staff will forward the Housing Board
recommendation prior to the HPC hearing on March 25th .
Staff also has some concerns about the livability of the units. 4 of the 11 units are substandard in
size. There is no minimum size requirement for a 4-bedroom unit. The applicant proposes 2 4-
bedroom units that are just over 1,000 sf in size which is the minimum size for a 3-bedroom unit.
Staff is concerned that the applicant is putting too much density on the site and therefore is
compromising livability by not providing adequate storage, outdoor space, or interior living
space. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the project configuration to provide better
livability that meets the Housing Guidelines.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES (E XHIBIT E) : Staff recommends that the
applicant meet the Residential Design Standards by using the Eighth Street façade as the primary
P23
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Staff memo
8
street facing façade for the rear building. Staff is supportive of the requested lightwells along
Eighth Street considering the context and topography of the property.
ESTABLISHMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS (E XHIBIT F):
Staff finds that the review criteria are not met for the establishment of affordable housing credits.
NEXT STEPS : After HPC review, City Council is asked to amend the ordinance to allow more
floor area – an increase from 4,000 sf to about 7,182 sf. After City Council review, the project
will proceed back to HPC for final reviews.
RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends a restudy to reduce the mass and scale of the new
construction, to meet minimum size requirements for the units, to meet the residential design
standards for the rear building, to meet the front yard setback and the distance between building
requirements, and to increase the livability of the units.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Demolition/Relocation Review Criteria
C. Variances and Special Review Review Criteria
D. Growth Management Review Criteria
E. Residential Design Standard Variances Review Criteria
F. Affordable Housing Credits Review Criteria
G. Development Review Committee comments
H. Application
P24
IV.B.
Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines
834 W. Hallam St.
1
EXHIBIT A - HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES :
Site Design
1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features.
• This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in
the public right-of-way.
1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape.
The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained.
• It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another
material.
• Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert
must be approved by the Parks Department.
Front porch
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly
encouraged.
• This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary
entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
Relocation
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
• If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
• It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
• Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
• Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
• Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
• In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
P25
IV.B.
Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines
834 W. Hallam St.
2
• The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
• A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by
a simple fence or rail.
Additions
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
Building Orientation
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
• The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
• The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
• A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
• In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to
the street.
Mass and Scale
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
• The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
Building & Roof Forms
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
• They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
• Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
• Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
• On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
• Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally.
• Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
Materials
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
P26
IV.B.
Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines
834 W. Hallam St.
3
• Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are
encouraged.
• Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
Architectural Details
11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic
property.
• These include windows, doors and porches.
• Overall, details should be modest in character.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
P27
IV.B.
Exhibit B – Demolition/Relocation
834 W. Hallam St.
EXHIBIT B – DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION
DEMOLITION
Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner’s efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to remove non-historic additions to the landmark and to
restore the landmark using historic photographs (below). Staff finds that criterion d and criteria
a-c are met and recommends demolition approval for non-historic additions.
P28
IV.B.
Exhibit B – Demolition/Relocation
834 W. Hallam St.
RELOCATION
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.C of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Response: The historic home is located in its original location. The applicant proposes
relocation to site the landmark in a prominent location on the lot. Relocation also allows room
on the property for redevelopment that is detached from the landmark. A letter from Bill Bailey
House Movers demonstrating the ability to move the home is included in the application. The
landmark is proposed to remain onsite during construction and temporary relocation. Staff is
supportive of relocation and finds that review criterion 4 and criteria 1 -3 are met.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
• It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
• Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
• A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
P29
IV.B.
Exhibit B – Demolition/Relocation
834 W. Hallam St.
• Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
• The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
• In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
• The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
• In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects
patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to
other historic structures in the area.
P30
IV.B.
Exhibit C – Variances and Special Review
834 W. Hallam Street
EXHIBIT C- VARIANCES AND SPECIAL REVIEW
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
26.415.110.B.2 In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
The following setback variances are requested:
Front: 4’ provided and 10’ is required.
East Setback: 3’ provided and 5’ is required.
Distance between buildings: 4’ provided and 10’ is required.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to shift the entire development to the east to provide
relief to the cottonwood trees that line Eighth Street. Staff is supportive of the east sideyard
setback as it mitigates adverse impacts to the cottonwood trees.
Staff is concerned that the requested front yard setback and distance between buildings variances
are the result of too much mass on the site. Staff recommends that these setbacks be revisited
during the restudy of the mass, scale and livability of the project.
PARKING WAIVERS :
Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the
number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated
historic properties may receive waivers of payment in lieu fees for parking reductions.
The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding
by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance
of architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated
property or a historic district.
Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the
Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application.
P31
IV.B.
Exhibit C – Variances and Special Review
834 W. Hallam Street
A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the
following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the
project have been met, taking into account the potential uses of the parcel, the
projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities,
expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on to the on-street
parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents,
guests and employees.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or
results in an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs
of the development, including the availability of street parking.
Staff Response : The project is required to provide 11 spaces onsite. The applicant proposes
parking along the entire rear of the parcel, which equals 8 spaces. Trash/utility has not been
shown on the site plan, however it can be assumed that the trash area will be accessed off the
alley. Residents are able to apply for residential parking passes, and the neighborhood seems
able to support additional on-street parking.
Consistent with the affordable housing development at 518 W. Main Street, Staff recommends a
reduction in the parking requirement with the condition that the applicant pay the cash in lieu fee
of $30,000 per space.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT STANDARDS :
Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished
floor level of the unit’s net livable are is at or above natural grade, whichever is higher, a
recommendation from the Housing Board shall be obtained and all of the following criteria shall
be met. The criteria below address only the affordable housing units that require a variation
from the standard.
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the
character of the neighborhood.
2. The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade,
whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as
topography.
3. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in such a manner which exceeds the
expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the unit’s
general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as
possible:
a) Significant storage, such as additional storage outside a unit.
b) Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code
requires.
c) Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement
d) Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios.
P32
IV.B.
Exhibit C – Variances and Special Review
834 W. Hallam Street
Staff Response: 2 of the 11 units (units 1 and 3) do not meet the requirement that 50% of the
unit be above grade. Additional storage is provided in the units however above average natural
light has not been demonstrated as being met. The net livable unit sizes are each 3 square feet
above the minimum size requirement. There are no unit amenities proposed.
Staff is concerned that voluntary units, created for affordable housing credits, cannot meet
minimum standards for location and size. The purpose of special review for affordable housing
units is provide some flexibility for projects that are providing quality units that do not meet the
50% above grade requirement. Staff finds that the review criteria are not met and recommends
that the units are restudied.
P33
IV.B.
Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances
834 W. Hallam Street
EXHIBIT E - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES :
26.410.020.D Variances
2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet
this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of
Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the
requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite
land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the
Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by
the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who
desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the
deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine
if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1)
Section 26.410.040.D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element
standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and
elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and
reinforce local building traditions.
1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes,
except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4
shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street
facing principal window . Multi-family units shall
have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for
every four (4) units and front units must have a
street facing a principal window .
Staff Response: The primary façade for this project is
Hallam Street. The proposal includes 2 street facing
entrances along Hallam Street (one for each building fronting Hallam., and 2 street
facing entrances along Eighth Street (rear building). A variance is required for the rear
building because the entrances do not face Hallam Street. Staff is supportive of the
variance request and finds that the intent of the standard is met by providing entrances
along Eighth Street.
On corner lots, entries and principal windows
should face whichever street has a greater block
P34
IV.B.
length. This standard shall be satisfied
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
Staff Response: All entry doors located at grade meet this standard.
b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six
(6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be
more than one (1) story in
Staff Response: Entry porches are proposed for the
two buildings that front Hallam Street. The front porch
on the historic building does not meet the minimum size
requirement (it is 36 sf) and requires a variance. The
front porch of the new building meets the size
requ irements. The third building along the alley does
not have a front porch element and requires a
variance.
Staff does not support a variance for the rear building and recommends that the applicant
provide front porches facing Eighth Street. Staff is su
historic landmark.
c. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
windows face street.
Staff Response: The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing wi
The building along the alley meets this standard facing Eighth Street.
variance for the rear building because it meets the intent of the standard.
2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first stor
the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall
width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is
projecting from. Assuming that the first story elem
height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate
height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether
it is a deck, porch or enclosed are
however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade
shall not be precluded.
Staff Response: The new building proposed along Hallam meets the first story element
requirement with the proposed front porch. The historic landmark does not meet the first story
element and requires a variance. The building along the alley does not have a first story element
and requires a variance. Staff is not supportive of a varian
Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances
834 W. Hallam Street
length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met:
The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
All entry doors located at grade meet this standard.
A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six
(6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be
more than one (1) story in height.
Entry porches are proposed for the
two buildings that front Hallam Street. The front porch
on the historic building does not meet the minimum size
requirement (it is 36 sf) and requires a variance. The
front porch of the new building meets the size
irements. The third building along the alley does
not have a front porch element and requires a
Staff does not support a variance for the rear building and recommends that the applicant
provide front porches facing Eighth Street. Staff is su pportive of the variance request for the
facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing wi
The building along the alley meets this standard facing Eighth Street. Staff is supportive of a
variance for the rear building because it meets the intent of the standard.
All residential buildings shall have a first stor y street
the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall
width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is
projecting from. Assuming that the first story elem ent includes interior living space, the
height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate
height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether
it is a deck, porch or enclosed are a) shall not be allowed over the first story element;
however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade
Staff Response: The new building proposed along Hallam meets the first story element
requirement with the proposed front porch. The historic landmark does not meet the first story
element and requires a variance. The building along the alley does not have a first story element
Staff is not supportive of a varian ce for the rear building and
One Story
Element
Residential Design Standard Variances
834 W. Hallam Street
if all of the following conditions are met:
The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six
(6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be
Staff does not support a variance for the rear building and recommends that the applicant
pportive of the variance request for the
facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing wi ndows.
Staff is supportive of a
y street -facing element
the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall
width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is
ent includes interior living space, the
height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate
height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether
a) shall not be allowed over the first story element;
however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade
Staff Response: The new building proposed along Hallam meets the first story element
requirement with the proposed front porch. The historic landmark does not meet the first story
element and requires a variance. The building along the alley does not have a first story element
ce for the rear building and
Principal
Window
P35
IV.B.
recommends a restudy to provide a first story element either facing Eighth Street or Hallam
Street.
4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or
stairwells on the street
building shall be entirely
front-most wall of the building.
Staff Response: The project requests a variance from
this standard to allow lightwells facing Eighth Street on
both the historic landmark and the new building along
the alley. The lightwells are the minimum size required
by building code for egress from the basement bedrooms.
Staff understands the need for lightwellls along a street
facing façade, and considering the context and the topography is supportive of the requested
variance.
Exhibit E – Residential Design Standard Variances
834 W. Hallam Street
recommends a restudy to provide a first story element either facing Eighth Street or Hallam
All areaways, lightwells and/or
stairwells on the street -facing facade(s) of a
building shall be entirely recessed behind the
most wall of the building.
The project requests a variance from
this standard to allow lightwells facing Eighth Street on
both the historic landmark and the new building along
are the minimum size required
by building code for egress from the basement bedrooms.
Staff understands the need for lightwellls along a street
facing façade, and considering the context and the topography is supportive of the requested
Residential Design Standard Variances
834 W. Hallam Street
recommends a restudy to provide a first story element either facing Eighth Street or Hallam
facing façade, and considering the context and the topography is supportive of the requested
P36
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Exhibit B – GMQS Review
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit B
GMQS Review for Affordable Housing
Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements.
A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and
redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and
redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the
necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may
fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and
meet.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review
shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the
following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type
of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for
multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be
required to meet this standard.
Staff Response: The project is 100% affordable housing, which does not have an annual limit
for growth management allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as
well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed multi-family residential use is compatible with
surrounding residential uses in the neighborhood. A large multi-family building is located across
8th Street and numerous multi-family buildings, free market and affordable housing, are located
across Hallam Street (aka Highway 82).
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The development conforms to the requirements of the Mixed Use Zone
District, with the exception of setback variances and a reduction of the required parking spaces
onsite. HPC is asked to grant variances as part of conceptual design reviews. Staff finds this
criterion is met with the condition that HPC grant the necessary variances.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable .
Staff Response: The proposed growth management review is concurrent with the Conceptual
design reviews. Staff finds this criterion is met.
P37
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Exhibit B – GMQS Review
Page 2 of 4
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to
Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be
approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4
rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be
extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate .
Staff Response: Not applicable.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal
to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable
area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,
Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable
housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may
be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an
applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,
pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to
Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate,
utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage
Conversion .
Staff Response: Not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the
project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage
treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police
protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Response: The applicant represents that any additional demand on the public
infrastructure shall be mitigated as part of the project. The proposal for the ditch to be
culverted and relocated is a condition of approval that is subject to approval by the Water
Department. Specific conditions of approval are included in the draft resolution. Any
changes to the design of the project that result from compliance with other departmental
P38
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Exhibit B – GMQS Review
Page 3 of 4
standards may require an amendment to the approvals, depending on the scope of the
changes.
Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review,
and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively.
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the
following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Response: The Housing Board of Directors met on March 18, 2015. The Housing Office
has some concerns about the livability of the units, the lack of storage within the units, reduction
of parking, outdoor space and the proposed number of bedrooms for category 2. Staff will
forward the Housing Board recommendation prior to the HPC hearing on March 25 th .
Staff also has some concerns about the livability of the units. 4 of the 11 units are substandard in
size. There is no minimum size requirement for a 4-bedroom unit. The applicant proposes 2 4-
bedroom units that are just over 1,000 sf in size which is the minimum size for a 3-bedroom unit.
Staff is concerned that the applicant is putting too much density on the site and therefore is
compromising livability by not providing adequate storage, outdoor space, or interior living
space. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the project configuration to provide better
livability that meet the Housing Guidelines.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City
limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City
Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less
than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-
in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy
mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department
P39
IV.B.
834 W. Hallam St.
Exhibit B – GMQS Review
Page 4 of 4
Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Response: The proposed affordable housing units are not for mitigation purposes.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty
percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher.
Staff Response: All of the proposed units satisfy this requirement with the exception of Units 1
and 3. Please refer to Exhibit C for discussion on a variance request.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as
defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units
owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The
City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be
rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term
viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be
subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Response: The 11 units are proposed to deed restricted for sale units. The applicant
requests approval to select qualified purchasers for the proposed units as specified in the APCHA
guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required
for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of
such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Response: All 11 of the proposed units are for non-mitigation purposes with the intent of
creating affordable housing credits for 27.5 FTEs at category 2.
P40
IV.B.
Exhibit F – Housing Credits
834 W. Hallam St.
EXHIBIT F- AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT ESTABLISHMENT
26.540.040 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning
Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The units do not need to be constructed prior
to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing units comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d).
Staff Response: Staff finds that the review criteria related to livability are not met and
recommends a restudy.
B. The affordable housing units are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
Staff Response: The proposed housing units are not for the purpose of mitigation or to satisfy a
requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P41
IV.B.
Exhibit G – DRC comments
834 W. Hallam St.
EXHIBIT G - DRC COMMENTS
ENGINEERING
Transportation Impact Analysis:
Provide a transportation impact analysis. – condition of approval for Final
Drainage:
Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. A green
roof would help mitigate drainage impacts.
Snow Storage:
A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the
paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be
reduced to 10%.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the
Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29.
The Engineering Design Standards call for a 6 foot sidewalk property when located in a multi-
family area. However, the Hallam Ave frontage is proposed to be a trail and should meet an 8 foot
minimum cross section. The project manager for the trail connection is Tyler Christoff with the
Engineering Department. Please coordinate with Tyler (544-3143). The minimum width of the
planting strip is 5 ft. Since there are many trees on-site and adjacent to the property, the applicant
should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions.
Curb and gutter will likely need to be replaced.
Alley:
Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property
boundary.
Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary.
Locate trash enclosure within the property boundary.- condition of approval for Final
Parking must be located within the property boundary.
The entrance to the alley needs to be improved in order to meet ADA and City standards.
Parking
Parking along ROW shall remain parallel.
Site Access
Alley access shall remain. No new curb cuts will be approved.
Construction Management
Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction
management plan prior to Council review. The plan must include a planned sequence of
construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
Excavation Stabilization
The proposed foundation is slab on grade. No excavation stabilization plan will be required.
P42
IV.B.
Exhibit G – DRC comments
834 W. Hallam St.
Survey Requirements
A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this
requirement at building permit submittal.
WE-Cycle Station
The municipal code does not allow for bikes on sidewalks. The WE-Cycle station should be
located elsewhere, perhaps on 8 th St. in a new bump-out. Please work with Josh Rice and Tyler
Christoff to find a suitable location.
ACSD
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
New sanitary sewer services lines will be required to serve this project. These services must be
connected to the District’s main sanitary sewer line in Eighth Street.
Oil and grease interceptors are required for establishments that install commercial grade kitchens.
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will
require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to
be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop
an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity
of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee
will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint.
Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of
concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have
approved containment facilities.
P43
IV.B.
Exhibit G – DRC comments
834 W. Hallam St.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available.
PARKS
A 15’ setback for the cottonwood trees along 8 th Street
Ditch protection fencing
Tree protection fencing
Tree permit submitted for the removal of specific conifers and fruit tree on site
A plan for the ditch going under the parking area close to the alley
A plan for the sidewalk along 8 th Street as well as one along Hwy 82
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
UTILITIES
No alteration to the Ditch without written authorization, full review by City Raw Water Dept. and Water
Dept. Engineer as needed.
A transformer on site may be required so give consideration for transformer easement and access.
Water services will need to meet all 2013 Water Distribution System Standards.
All Tap Fees musty be paid prior to scheduling taps.
A full review will be done at building permit (and ROW permit) and signed off by water and/or electric
prior to commencement of construction.
Coordinate all proposed Electrical work through City electric including providing Load Calculation
forms.
P44
IV.B.
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total
demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
P45
IV.B.
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone
District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(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:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Proposed % of demolition:__________
DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P47
IV.B.
P
4
8
I
V
.
B
.
P
4
9
I
V
.
B
.
P
5
0
I
V
.
B
.
P
5
1
I
V
.
B
.
P
5
2
I
V
.
B
.
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Forum Phi
RE: 834 W Hallam Street
DATE: March 10, 2015
Dear Director,
Forum Phi requests your approval of an HPC Land Use Application based on the “temporary
relocation” standards for a historic structure located at 834 W Hallam Street. The subject property
is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The existing building
is located at 834 W Hallam Street, which is legally described as Lots K and L of Block 10. The
structure was previously remodeled with a non-historic addition in 1980, was used as a
restaurant, and is currently unoccupied.
This proposal focuses on restoring the historic Victorian house located on the property, removing
the non-historic addition, and converting it into two (2) affordable housing units. There will also be
a new basement constructed underneath the historic structure. Additionally, we are proposing
two (2) detached buildings to be developed on the same lot, both of which would contain
affordable housing. The total number of affordable units we are proposing is eleven (11), with a
total of twenty-five (25) bedrooms. This proposal also relocates the historic Victorian closer to the
street on both Hallam Street and 8th Street, giving it prominence on the site and visibility to those
driving into Aspen.
The Land Use Application for Major Development Review is complete per the City of Aspen
Community Development Department's Historic Preservation Application Package.
Sincerely,
Steev Wilson, AIA
P53
IV.B.
City of Aspen Review Standards Compliance
26.410.040. Residential Design Standards
A. Site Design.
1. Building orientation.
This is a corner lot and all proposed building locations are parallel to Hallam Street and 8th
Street.
C. Parking, garages and carports.
1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the [listed] standards
shall apply:
a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.
All parking spaces for all proposed development are access via the alley.
D. Building elements.
1. Street oriented entrance and principal window.
The existing historic house has a street-facing principal window to remain. We are proposing to
restore the historic front entrance which is street oriented. The proposed buildings each have
street oriented entrances and principal windows.
a) The proposed entry doors on the proposed and historic buildings are no more than ten
(10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building and are not taller than eight (8) feet.
b) The restored front porch on the historic building is 36sq ft and we are requesting a
variance to be under the required 50 sqft. The front porch at the proposed Hallam Street
building is 54 sqft with a depth of 6ft. We are requesting a variance to allow this porch to
extend into the setback. We are requesting a variance from the requirement to consider
both facades of the corner lot as the street-facing facades, and requesting that only the
Hallam Street facade is considered the street-facing facade. This would eliminate the
requirement for a front porch on the 8th street facades thus maintaining the integrity of
the historic structure and reinforcing its prominence on the site.
c) The existing and proposed buildings have significant groups of windows.
2. First story element.
The historic building will have a restored recessed front porch which does not qualify as a first
story element. This is an existing, historic, non-conformity to remain. We are proposing a
covered front porch on the new Hallam Street building that is 30.6% of the width of the proposed
building and 6'ft deep. We are requesting a variance from the requirement to consider both
facades of the corner lot as the street-facing facades, and requesting that only the Hallam Street
facade is considered the street-facing facade for the whole development. This would eliminate
the requirement for a first story element on the 8th Street facade, maintaining the historic
structure and mitigating any competition between the historic structure and the proposed
affordable housing units facing 8th Street.
P54
IV.B.
3. Windows.
a) The proposed street-facing windows do not span between nine and twelve feet above
the finished floor. The existing windows are historic to remain.
b) There are no non-orthogonal windows proposed.
4. Lightwells.
The proposed lightwells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the buildings on the
Hallam Street side. We are requesting a variance from the requirement to consider both
facades of the corner lot as the street-facing facades, and requesting that only the Hallam
Street facade to be considered the street-facing facade. This would allow us to have
lightwells along 8th Street throughout the development.
P55
IV.B.
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Introduction
The property at 834 W Hallam Street is listed in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures. This lot is legally described as Lots K and L of Block 10. As required for
submittal, this letter of compliance is for HPC Conceptual Review.
Chapter 1 - Streetscape and Lot Features
1.1-1.6 The existing non-historic wrought-iron fence will be removed and no fencing is proposed
at this time.
1.7-1.8 There are no existing or proposed retaining walls
1.9-1.13 The property has 1 existing wood walk with a ramp up to the front entrance. There is 1
proposed walkway at the front of the house that will lead through the historic fence to the restored
historic front porch and the proposed front porch on the new Hallam Street building. This walk
will extend past the two front buildings to the units at the rear of the lot. We are proposing the
walk to the historic structure to be a brick paver walkway. The rest of the proposed walkways
are a broom finish concrete. The covered parking area adjacent to the alley will be a paved with
a concrete pad.
1.15 All proposed site lighting will be shielded and located around the walkways and entrances to
the home. All site lighting will be approved by HPC.
1.16-1.17 The existing irrigation ditch will be preserved and re-routed so that it passes through
the property more orthogonally as opposed to at an angle.
Chapter 2 - Historic Building Materials
2.1-2.6 The primary historic building material is painted cedar shingle; the lower level of the
home has horizontal cedar siding while the upper portion on the front facade is sided with round
sawn cedar shingle siding. The historic materials are to remain and any necessary repairs will be
made. The existing roof is composed of asphalt shingles.
2.9-2.10 No historic building materials will be covered.
Chapter 3 - Windows
3.1-3.8 All historic windows are to remain, and those that have been previously removed will be
replaced with windows that match the existing historic windows. These windows are double-hung
type with wood trim and sills. All historic windows will receive repairs where required, with no
changes to character-defining features.
Chapter 4 - Doors
4.1-4.6 The historic entrance doors at the front and rear of the structure were removed with the
1980's addition. The replacement doors will match the images of the historic home that we have
found at Aspen Historical Society.
Chapter 5 - Porches
5.1-5.4 The historic front porch will be restored based on the images of the building that we have
obtained from the Aspen Historical Society.
5.5 The porch at the front of the structure was previously enclosed and will be restored to its
original design visible in the attached historic image. The materials will be consistent with those
on the rest of the historic structure.
Chapter 6 - Architectural Details
6.1-6.6 Distinct architectural details exist on the historic structure, specifically the windows, wood
siding and trim. These details represent those typical of the late 1800s Victorian Era and will be
P56
IV.B.
maintained and repaired only where required. Any repairs and/or replacements to historic
features will be documented prior to submission of a building permit and construction.
Chapter 7 - Roofs
7.1-7.11The existing roof structure and chimney will be maintained in its current condition over
the portion of the existing home that is historic, with repairs where required.
Chapter 8 - Secondary Structures
8.1-5 The property does not currently contain a secondary structure. We are proposing two (2)
detatched affordable housing buildings to be constructed on the lot.
Chapter 9 - Building Relocation & Foundations
9.1 Relocating the structure accommodates other improvements to the Lot and will assure
preservation to the historic portion. The proposed design includes the addition of a lower level
beneath the historic building. The original foundation for the historic building was previously
removed with the construction of the existing basement. The visible portions of the proposed
foundation will appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
Chapter 10 - Building Additions
10.1-10.2 In 1980, additions were constructed on the North, East, and South side of the building,
enclosing the historic recessed front porch. The existing non-historic addition will be removed
and the recessed porch restored in order to assure preservation of the historic.
10.3-10.11 The proposed development will be located in two buildings that are detached from the
historic structure. These buildings will be differentiated from the historic home through separate
materials, colors, and styles.
The removal of the existing non-historic addition and the proposed detached development will
preserve and enhance the character of the historic structure. The historic resource will be
relocated to the South-West corner of the lot which has frontage on both 8th Street and Hallam
Street, giving it prominence over the new buildings.
The proposed floor area is approximately 7,735 square feet. This is below the maximum
allowable FAR for the parcel that is 12,020 square feet.
Chapter 11 - New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits
11.1-11.2 The primary entrance for Pod 2, which is adjacent to the historic building [Pod 1] is
oriented to Hallam Street, and has a street oriented entry porch that is similar in scale to the
historic entry porch.
11.3-11.4 The new buildings are similar in scale to the historic building. The elevation of
proposed Building 2 is similar in scale to the historic building. Pod 3 and Pod 1 are not visible
from the primary street [Hallam Street] in the same plane. They are visible in the same elevation
on the 8th Street side of the lot, however many large trees obscure this view. Pod 3 is of a
slightly larger scale and different style than the historic structure. We are requesting a variance
from the requirement that Pod 3 have a front porch.
11.5-11.6 Pod 2, whose facade is in the same plane as the primary facade of the historic
structure [Pod 1], has a gable roof that is similar to the gable roof on the historic structure and to
structures in the surrounding area. Pod 3, located at the rear of the lot and set back significantly
from Hallam Street, the primary street, has a flat roof form to contrast with the gable roofs of Pods
1 and 2.
11.8 The proposed roof materials for Pod 2 will be asphalt shingle, similar to the shingle used on
the historic structure. The proposed roof material on Pod 3 is a membrane roof with planted
baskets to form a green roof.
P57
IV.B.
Chapter 14 - General Guidelines
14.1-14.2 The proposed development will be in compliance with the applicable ADA
requirements.
14.3 The historic structure is of wood frame construction, with the existing siding painted shades
of purple. Any new color schemes chosen for the historic structure will be simple, coordinated,
and consistent with the character of a Victorian built in the late 1800s. The proposed buildings will
also be differentiated from the historic scheme so as to remain distinguishable in color and
material.
14.6-14.8 Exterior lighting will be simple in form and detail. Existing lights on the historic structure
will remain. Any proposed site lighting will be shielded and/or low intensity. Visual impacts from
interior lighting will be subdued.
14.9-14.12 The surface of the historic structure will be maintained, repaired, and cleaned where
necessary. The methods used will be low impact and follow the recommendations of the
preservation design guidelines. Any repainting methods will be planned carefully.
14.14-14.16 Mechanical and service areas will be located within the proposed buildings. All
service areas will be visually blocked from the primary street facade. All facades of the historic
structure will remain free of mechanical and service equipment.
14.17-14.24 The proposed parking spaces will be accessed from the existing alleyway. The
driveway will not be visible from the primary building facade.
14.25-14.29 The project is for affordable housing and will not utilize any signage.
P58
IV.B.
26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within an historic
district
The proposed areas to be demolished are non-historic additions to the original Victorian structure
completed in 1980. It is clear that this addition did not exist when the house was originally built
as seen on the Sanborn map shown below. The other structures shown on lots K and L no
longer exist on the site.
P59
IV.B.
Summary of Requested Variances
26.410.040. Residential Design Standards
The following variance requests are to consider Hallam Street as the street-facing facade
for all development on the site, which would exempt us from having the following Building
Elements on Pod 3, allowing for the development of more affordable housing units and
maintenance of the historic structure.
D. Building elements.
1. Street oriented entrance and principal window.
b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6')
feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porch and canopies shall not be more than
one (1) story in height.
We are requesting a variance from this requirement for Pod 3, which has frontage on 8th
Street. This building does not have frontage along Hallam Street, which we would
establish as the primary facade for the development as a whole.
2. First story element.
All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises
at lease twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at lease six
(6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story
element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten
(10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space.
Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first
story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front
facade shall not be precluded.
We are providing a first story element, a front porch, on Pod 2, which has frontage on
Hallam Street, that is 30.6% of the width of the building. Pod 1 is historic and is being
restored to its historic extents with this proposal. Including a recessed front porch which
does not conform to this requirement. We are requesting a variance for this requirement
for Pod 3 because it only has frontage along 8th street and not along Hallam Street,
which we posit as the primary street-facing facade for the development.
4. Lightwells.
All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be
entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.
We are considering Hallam Street as the front-most wall of the proposed development.
We are requesting a variance to recess the lightwells behind the Hallam Street facade for
all development on the site. The 8th Street facades of the historic structure and Pod 3
would have lightwells. By considering Hallam Street as the street-facing facade we will
better maintain the historic integrity of the Victorian Structure as well as its prominence
on the site.
P60
IV.B.
26.430 Special Review
A. The general application information required under Section 26.304.030.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved,
approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met,
taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any
shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-
street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and
any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees
The parking needs of the residents have been met with ample access to public transportation and 7 provided
parking spaces. We would also like to provide a sidewalk to give residents direct access to the city of aspen
sidewalk infrastructure. Bike racks will be provided on site to allow residents to forego the need for a car.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable
development scenario.
With our existing curb cut for the alley and the lot size, we are taking up the entire width of the lot to
provide 7 spaces. In order to provide more parking spaces would require the removal of several employee-
housing units just to provide access to said parking spaces. When the access we would need to remove 3
parking spaces to create space for the road and then replace those 3 parking spaces again further into the lot
on top of any additional spaces we would need.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development,
including the availability of street parking.
There is ample street parking in this neighbor hood being on the less busy side of town. We feel residents
would not have problems finding a space within 1 block of their home.
B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of
the site which are relevant to the special review application.
Site plan is on the next page
C. There are no similar properties with the same Zone district within the neighborhood.
P61
IV.B.
1,837.75 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8910111213
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
101112131415161718
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
12345678
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
10
'
-
0
"
5'-0"5'-0"
5'-
0
"
2'-2"1'-65/64"
4'-
0
"
FRONT PATIO
SITE EGRESS
ACCESS TO
UPPER FLOORS
ACCESS TO
UPPER FLOORS
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EXISTING
IRRIGATION DITCH
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
BUS STOP
SIDE WALK
SIDE
WALK
HALLAM / HIGHWAY 82
PROPERTY LINE
ALLEY
PROPOSED PARKING LOCATED
UNDER BUILDING OVERHANG
OUTDOOR DECK OUTDOOR DECK
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
EGRESS LIGHT WELL
SET BACK
POD #1 POD #2
POD #3
PARKING
1
PARKING
2
PARKING
3
PARKING
4
PARKING
5
PARKING
6
PARKING
7
P62
IV.B.
26.540 Affordable Housing Credits
26.540.070 Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be
established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The
proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d). City of Aspen Land
Proposed units meet the requirements of section 26.470.070 (a-d). Shown in attached
plans.
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
Proposed units are not required to mitigate development impacts.
P63
IV.B.
26.470.070.4 Growth Management/Affordable Housing
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
Accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,
Approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the
Following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold
a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
All units comply With the Aspen/pitkin county housing authority. If APCHA and any
issues, units will be revised per their request for final review.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built
units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units
outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in lieu
payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is
one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy
mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director,
pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing
may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Not Applicable, no mitigation is required.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or
more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter
All units are 50% or more above most restrictive grade.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualifed
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may
be entitled to select the frst purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifcations, with approval
from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualifed renters as
defned in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an
employer or nonproft organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney
ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units
required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and
contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-
municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Owner will deed restrict the unit's as for sale units.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation,
but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such nonmitigation
affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certifcate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to
Chapter 26.540.
Proposed units meet the requirements of section 26.470.070 (a-d).
P64
IV.B.
26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU)
The following variance requests are to consider the projection of the new front porch into
the existing 10' front yard setback and establishment of the East side yard setback at 3'
instead of 5'.
D. Dimensional requirements
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review,
Chapter 26.430.
In order to comply with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) 26.410.040.D.2
regarding first story elements and maintain continuity with the surrounding structures
Pod 2 located on the Southeast corner of the lot includes a front porch. This front porch
encroaches on the 10' front yard setback 6' as per the minimum depth established in the
RDS leaving a 4' front yard setback.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 5
The Castle Creek Bridge Corridor improvement plan set forth by the City of Aspen
Engineering Department encourages the preservation of mature trees along the entrance
to Aspen. There are several mature trees on the 8th Street (West) side of the lot. In
order to preserve these trees and have minimal impact on their root structure we propose
reducing the side yard setback on the East side of the lot from 5' to 3'. Thus shifting the
area impacted by construction away from the trees and their root systems.
P65
IV.B.
Status of Alley
The existing alley is accessed via 8th street. It extends from 8th street to the East edge of Lots K
& L of Block 10. The driving surface of the alley is currently gravel and will remain unchanged.
Any improvements to the alley will be coordinated with the Engineering Department at the City of
Aspen.
P66
IV.B.
P67
IV.B.
P68
IV.B.
P69
IV.B.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
X LOWER
LEVEL
U
P
S
T
A
I
R
S
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
L
L
EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN
834 W. HALLAM
5-30-14 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
0
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5
'
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE 100'
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
6
0
'
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
6
0
'
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
SI JOHNSON DITCH
8TH STREET
W
E
S
T
H
A
L
L
A
M
/
H
W
Y
.
8
2
EXISTING
GRAVEL
PARKING
AREA
GRASS LAWN
GRASS LAWN
CONIFER
TREE
CONIFER
TREE
CONIFER
TREE
PEDESTALS
METAL FENCE
CONIFER
TREE
DECIDUOUS
TREE CLUMPS
24"CULVERT
INFLOW
DITCH EASEMET
COTTONWOOD
CURB
COTTONWOOD
STUMP COTTONWOOD COTTONWOODCOTTONWOOD
COTTONWOOD
COTTONWOOD
METAL FENCE
LAMP
POST
LAMP
POST
2,284.25 sq ft
EXISTING BASEMENT LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
7
0
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
X MAIN LEVEL
R
A
I
S
E
D
6
"
O
F
F
F
L
O
O
R
R
A
I
S
E
D
6
"
O
F
F
F
L
O
O
R
R
A
I
S
E
D
6
"
O
F
F
F
L
O
O
R
G
A
S
M
A
I
N
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
S
L
A
B
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
H
O
S
E
B
I
B
H
O
S
E
B
I
B
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
U
P
S
T
A
I
R
S
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
W
A
L
L
3
5
"
o
f
f
4
4
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
0
"
o
f
f
6
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
0
"
o
f
f
8
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
1
8
.
5
"
o
f
f
7
7
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
8
'
1
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
9
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
7
"
d
r
o
p
7
'
1
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
6
8
"
o
f
f
1
7
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
1
8
.
5
"
o
f
f
7
7
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
8
'
1
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
1
5
"
d
r
o
p
1
8
.
5
"
o
f
f
7
7
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
1
8
.
5
"
o
f
f
7
7
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
1
5
"
d
r
o
p
8
'
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
7
'
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
1
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
1
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
2
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
6
'
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
7
'
1
1
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
7
'
7
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
8
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
8
'
1
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
1
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
1
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
1
0
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
5
3
"
o
f
f
3
4
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
7
'
9
"
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
4
3
"
o
f
f
3
8
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
4
3
"
o
f
f
3
8
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
6
"
o
f
f
4
4
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
6
"
o
f
f
4
4
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
3
6
"
o
f
f
4
4
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
8
0
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
5
2
"
o
f
f
3
6
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
s
l
o
p
e
s
e
a
s
t
EXISTING GROUND FLOOR
834 W. HALLAM
5-30-14 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
0
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5
'
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE 100'
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
6
0
'
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
6
0
'
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
SI JOHNSON DITCH
8TH STREET
W
E
S
T
H
A
L
L
A
M
/
H
W
Y
.
8
2
EXISTING
GRAVEL
PARKING
AREA
GRASS LAWN
GRASS LAWN
CONIFER
TREE
CONIFER
TREE
CONIFER
TREE
PEDESTALS
METAL FENCE
CONIFER
TREE
DECIDUOUS
TREE CLUMPS
24"CULVERT
INFLOW
DITCH EASEMET
COTTONWOOD
CURB
COTTONWOOD
STUMP COTTONWOOD COTTONWOODCOTTONWOOD
COTTONWOOD
COTTONWOOD
METAL FENCE
LAMP
POST
LAMP
POST
2,293.50 sq ft
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
7
1
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
X UPPER
LEVEL
7
-
3
/
4
"
5
7
"
o
f
f
2
3
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
2
4
"
o
f
f
1
3
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
2
3
"
o
f
f
6
9
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
5
7
"
o
f
f
2
3
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
2
3
"
o
f
f
6
9
"
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
f
l
a
t
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
8
'
7
"
t
o
p
o
f
w
a
l
l
4
'
3
"
EXISTING SECOND FLOOR
834 W. HALLAM
5-30-14 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
0
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5
'
R
E
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE 100'
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
6
0
'
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
6
0
'
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
C.O.A.
SIDEWALK
SI JOHNSON DITCH
8TH STREET
W
E
S
T
H
A
L
L
A
M
/
H
W
Y
.
8
2
EXISTING
GRAVEL
PARKING
AREA
GRASS LAWN
GRASS LAWN
CONIFER
TREE
CONIFER
TREE
CONIFER
TREE
PEDESTALS
METAL FENCE
CONIFER
TREE
DECIDUOUS
TREE CLUMPS
24"CULVERT
INFLOW
DITCH EASEMET
COTTONWOOD
CURB
COTTONWOOD
STUMP COTTONWOOD COTTONWOODCOTTONWOOD
COTTONWOOD
COTTONWOOD
METAL FENCE
LAMP
POST
LAMP
POST
606.75 sq ft
EXISTING SECOND LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
7
2
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
LOWER LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8910111213
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
3'-6"19'-67/8"2'-6"
4'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
15
'
-
1
1
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
3
5/
8
"
31
'
-
1
"
24
'
-
9
3/
8
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
3
5/
8
"
20'-2"
20'-2"
5'
-
8
3/
4
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
15
'
-
5
1/
4
"
1'
-
1
1
5/
8
"
2'
-
0
3/
8
"
11
"
30
'
-
1
"
8'
-
6
1/
2
"
18
'
-
4
1/
2
"
53'-2"
3'-6"49'-8"
3'-6"49'-8"
9'
-
7
3/
4
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
3
3/
4
"
2'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
6'
-
1
1
1/
2
"
25'-67/8"
UNIT 1
3 BED
1,006.5 SF
UNIT 4
4 BED
1,125.5 SF
UNIT 5
3 BED
1,051 SF
UNIT 3
1 BED
602.5 SF
UNIT 2
1 BED
600.5 SF
L.C.E FOR
UNIT 5
BEDROOM
BATH
BEDROOM
CLOSET
BEDROOM
BATH
CLOSET
BATH
BEDROOM
BATH
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
CLOSET
BEDROOM
BATH
BEDROOM
CLOSET
BEDROOM
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
CL.
CL.
PROPERTY LINE
LIVING
1
A-203
2
A-203
4
A-204
5
A-205 6A-205
7
A-205
8
A-205
3
A-204
SET BACK
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
7
3
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
MAIN LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8910111213
RG
RG
RG
F
RG
F
RG
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
101112131415161718
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
12345678
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
5'
-
2
1/
4
"
3'
-
9
"
13
'
-
2
1/
2
"
3'
-
2
7/
8
"
5'
-
8
3/
8
"
31
'
-
1
"
2'-3"8'-41/2"8'-111/4"
19'-67/8"
8'
-
1
1
1/
4
"
10
'
-
2
1/
2
"
3'
-
4
3/
4
"
8'
-
6
1/
2
"
9'-77/8"9'-107/8"13'-17/8"7'-01/8"
5'
-
5
"
25
'
-
1
1/
2
"
30
'
-
6
1/
2
"
3'-27/8"2'-67/8"2'-67/8"3'-91/4"3'-7"
4'
-
7
1/
2
"
2'
-
6
7/
8
"
2'
-
6
7/
8
"
9'
-
8
"
2'
-
6
7/
8
"
2'
-
6
7/
8
"
5'
-
5
3/
4
"
3'-63/8"8'-107/8"9'-81/8"5'-5"22'-11/2"
15
'
-
6
3/
4
"
9'
-
3
1/
8
"
6'
-
2
1/
8
"
6'-41/2"5'-113/4"16'-63/4"5'-113/4"14'-93/8"
31
'
-
0
"
49'-8"
6'
-
5
3/
4
"
6'
-
6
1/
8
"
10
'
-
6
7/
8
"
7'
-
5
1/
4
"
1
A-203
2
A-203
4
A-204
5
A-205 6A-205
7
A-205
8
A-205
3
A-204
EXISTING
IRRIGATION DITCH
BUS STOP
SIDE WALK
SIDE
WALK
HALLAM / HIGHWAY 82
8TH STREET
PROPERTY LINE
UNIT 1
3 BED
1,006.5 SF
UNIT 4
4 BED
1,125.5 SF
UNIT 5
3 BED
1,051 SF
UNIT 3
1 BED
602.5 SF
UNIT 2
1 BED
600.5 SF
BATH
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
BATH
BEDROOM
LIVING
LIVING
LIVING
LIVING
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
LIVING
BATH
HISTORIC
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
BEDROOM
F
F
F
SET BACK
PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
7
4
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
SECOND
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
101112131415161718
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
12345678
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
101112131415161718
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
12345678
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
RG
F
RG
F
FRG
1A-203
2
A-203
4
A-204
5
A-205 6
A-205
7A-205 8A-205
3
A-204
4'-41/2"13'-41/4"12'-93/8"3'-111/8"15'-23/4"
11
'
-
5
3/
4
"
3'
-
1
5/
8
"
6'
-
1
1/
2
"
3'
-
1
5/
8
"
9'
-
5
5/
8
"
10
'
-
6
7/
8
"
43
'
-
1
1
"
3'-53/8"3'-71/2"15'-05/8"20'-55/8"7'-07/8"
10
'
-
6
1/
4
"
3'
-
1
5/
8
"
8'
-
8
5/
8
"
10
'
-
0
7/
8
"
11
'
-
5
5/
8
"
3'
-
1
"
49'-8"
19'-67/8"
31
'
-
1
"
7'-21/2"5'-15/8"7'-25/8"
10'-1"10'-1"
12
'
-
1
1/
4
"
5 1/
2
"
8'-81/2"2'-61/2"8'-11"
17
'
-
6
1/
4
"
12
'
-
6
3/
4
"
5 1/
2
"
19'-67/8"
20'-2"
KITCHEN
KITCHEN
BATH BATH
BATH
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
UNIT 6
2 BED
851.25 SF
LIVING
LIVING
UNIT 7
4 BED
1,082.25 SF
UNIT 8
1 BED
562.75 SF
UNIT 9
1 BED
562.75 SF
BATH
BEDROOM
KITCHEN LIVING
BEDROOM
BATH
KITCHEN
LIVING
CLOSET
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
PROPERTY LINE
SET BACK
PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
P
7
5
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
UPPER LEVEL
977.00 sq ft
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
101112131415161718
1
8
x
6
"
=
9
'
-
0
"
12345678
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
RG
F
F RG
1
A-203
2
A-203
4
A-204
5
A-205 6A-205
7
A-205
8
A-205
3
A-204
3'-63/8"10'-71/2"7'-1"7'-1"14'-2"7'-2"
49'-8"
4'
-
1
0
3/
4
"
3'
-
1
5/
8
"
6'
-
1
1/
2
"
3'
-
1
5/
8
"
9'
-
5
7/
8
"
10
'
-
6
1/
2
"
37
'
-
4
"
4'-41/2"13'-4"12'-95/8"3'-111/8"15'-23/4"
49'-8"
3'
-
1
1
3/
4
"
3'
-
1
5/
8
"
8'
-
8
1/
8
"
10
'
-
0
7/
8
"
11
'
-
5
5/
8
"
6'
-
7
"
KITCHEN
BATH
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
BATH
BATH
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
LIVING
LIVING
UNIT 11
3 BED
977 SF
UNIT 10
2 BED
785.5 SF
DECKDECK
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
CL.
PROPERTY LINE
POD #1 POD #2
SET BACK
PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
BUS
STOP
SIDE
WALK
HALLAM / HIGHWAY 82
8TH
STREET
PROPERTY LINE
SET BACK
SIDE WALK
P
7
6
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
X-ELEVATIONS
SOUTH ELEVATIONS
28'-0"
8th Street Elevation - EXISTING
28'-0"
SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
7
7
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
X ELEVATIONS
28'-0"
28'-0"
Forest Service Elevation - EXISTING
NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
7
8
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
ELEVATIONS
1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
7
9
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
ELEVATIONS
4 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
8
0
I
V
.
B
.
8
3
4
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTUREINTERIORSPLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FORUM PHI
ELEVATIONS
6 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - PODS 1 & 2 1/4" = 1'-0"5 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - POD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION - POD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"7 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION - POD 1 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
8
1
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
2
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
3
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
4
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
5
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
6
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
7
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
8
I
V
.
B
.
P
8
9
I
V
.
B
.
P
9
0
I
V
.
B
.
P
9
1
I
V
.
B
.
P
9
2
I
V
.
B
.
P
9
3
I
V
.
B
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Proposed amendments to historic building relocation requirements
DATE: March 25, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: As HPC is aware, most development projects that involve historic homes in
Aspen include lifting the house to construct a basement below it. For the most part the house
stays within the boundaries of the property during excavation, then is moved onto the new
foundation.
Occasionally an applicant requests to store the building partly into the public right of way (i.e.
displacing on street parking). Recently there have been more requests to temporarily move the
property to a different site in town, or out of Aspen, to remove the historic structure from
potential harm and speed up the excavation process.
HPC has design guidelines which are informative when determining whether building
relocations are appropriate or not. The design guidelines allow the board to make findings on the
mandatory land use criteria. The relevant guidelines and the code language are attached to this
memo for reference.
Staff is considering whether the guidelines or land use criteria should be updated, and/or whether
additional conditions of approval for historic building relocation should be created.
Questions that staff would like HPC to comment on include:
• Should temporary off-site relocations be allowed on a case by case basis, or prohibited?
Does the structure have to stay within Aspen City Limits?
• If a structure is moved off-site, what sort of special security or safeguards are needed to
ensure that the historic resource is supervised and not subject to vandalism? During one
off-site relocation approximately 10 years ago, all the historic windows in the house were
destroyed.
• If a structure is moved off-site, what level of detail regarding the moving plan should
staff require? Date and time of move? A relocation route and assessment of any
obstacles along the way? Proof of permission from CDOT or the Aspen Police
Department if needed? Posted weight limits for any bridges that will be crossed and
confirmation that the project will comply? The overall width of the building as it sits on
the trailer bed or moving dollies?
P94
IV.C.
• Are there special considerations when a building is left in place and excavated through
underpinning?
• Are there special considerations when a building is suspended directly above the
excavation area, with equipment and construction personnel maneuvering below the
structure?
• Most recent building relocations involve separating the historic resource from the original
floor joists. Support beams are inserted into the wall and the house is ultimately placed
on a new floor structure. This involves some loss of historic fabric. Does HPC have an
opinion about this technique?
• Basic protection measures which are always required for building relocations include
installation of plywood over all windows and doors, covering any temporary openings in
the exterior wall with plywood or tarps, and stabilizing projecting elements such as
porches. Should anything else be a standard requirement?
• The contractor is routinely required to salvage and re-use materials including any historic
siding that has to be removed for relocation beams, foundation stone/brick, chimney
brick, and sometimes windows and doors. During a past HPC project, the contractor lost
the original front door. What special requirements for storing and protecting these
elements should be required?
• What level of building documentation should be required? Should the contractor provide
before and after photos of all building elevations, and the foundation and chimney if
applicable? What else?
• Should there be code language or a design guideline allowing or disallowing the
possibility of disassembling a building for relocation?
• All but a handful of building relocations have occurred using hydraulic jacks to lift the
building onto support beams, which allow the structure to be pulled on rollers to the new
location. What is HPC’s opinion about relocation using a crane? This technique has
been used successfully on at least two projects.
• Should some or all building relocation projects be required to include a story board along
the street explaining the process? Staff is particularly concerned that temporary off-site
relocations may cause concern or confusion about HPC policies and approvals while the
historic building is “missing.”
• Do we need to plan ahead for possible requests to relocate masonry buildings? All
relocations to date have been frame structures.
Staff has consulted with other City Departments that might have concerns with temporary off-
site building relocations, such as Police, City Attorney, Engineering and Streets. We are
awaiting their feedback and will update HPC. It does appear that temporary off-site relocations
P95
IV.C.
should include the provision of fees to cover possible police escort or supervision and money to
repair any damage to public property such as streetlights, curbs, etc.
We have also reached out to some architects and planners who have worked on relocations
recently to ask for their opinions. Again, we will update the board at the meeting.
CURRENT HPC GUIDELINES REGARDING BUILDING RELOCATION
Preserving Building Locations and Foundations
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and
materials.
Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new
foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new
construction.
In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district
should be avoided.
The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered.
In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than
moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns
of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other
historic structures in the area.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should
be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
P96
IV.C.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances
the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by
a simple fence or rail.
CURRENT CODE LANGUAGE REGARDING BUILDING RELOCATION
26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties.
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations
as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their
surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site.
However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it
provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that
make it significant.
A. Application. An application for relocation shall include:
1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object
proposed for relocation.
3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site)
and justification for the need for relocation.
4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the
building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its
rehabilitation needs, once relocated.
5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the
property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated
planned improvements.
6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site's property owner of
the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object.
P97
IV.C.
7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building
on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the
building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction
or a preservation easement.
8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair
of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary
infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed
appropriate.
9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the
relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape.
B. Procedures for the review of relocation request.
1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted
for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be
notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled.
2. Notice for the review of the relocation request shall include publication, posting and
mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
3. If the relocation request is part of a major development project, the Community
Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly
pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.
4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the standards for relocation approval set forth below, the City Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This
report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project
and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and
the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and
the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the standards for relocation have
been met.
5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with
Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up"
period of the City Council has expired.
C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure
or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
P98
IV.C.
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it
is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish
the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
D. Procedures for considering request for relocation of properties under consideration
for designation. While it is the intent of this Chapter to preserve properties of demonstrated
significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general
welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented
and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially
qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed.
1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures unless relocation approval is
issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council.
2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary
stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official.
Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under
consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at
that time to verify accuracy.
3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary
application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is
taken on the application by the City Council.
4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City
Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An
additional six-month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a
resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cause.
P99
IV.C.
EXHIBIT �
ATTACHMENT 6
".. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED 13Y SECTION 26.304.060(.E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS.OF PROPERTY: �. � � � ,Aspen,CO
SC14EDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 6 E < '20.0
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin ).
(name,,please print) being or
representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen; Colorado;hereby personally certify that 1 have complied
with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060(C)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the
following manner:
Publication of notice By:the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper
of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing. A
copy of the publication i.s atiached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the.Community
Development Department, which was made of suitable,waterproof materials, which was;not less
than twenty-two(22) inches.wide and twenty-six.(26) inches high,.and which was composed of
letters not less than one inch in height. Said'notice'was posted at least fifteen(IS)days,prior to the
t
public hearing and was continuously visible from the_IL day of. � ; 20 lr"_,to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (.sign) is
attached hereto.
Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development
Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2)of the
Aspen Land Use Code: At least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing, notice was 3
hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property
within three hundred (300)feet of the property subject to the development application. The
names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current-tax records of Pitkin
County as they appeared no more than sixty(60)days prior to the date of the public hearing
A copy of'the owners and governmental agencies so.noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Aspen I listoric Preservation
Land Use-Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007
Rezoning;or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be
changed or amended incidental to or as.part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text
of this Title is to he amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment
of new land use regulation,or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and.addresses of owners of real
property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However,the proposed zoning map
shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen
(15.)days prior to the public hearing on such amendments:
Signature
The foreizoin "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
of 200 5 b
JENNIFER M.WRIGHT FITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC. --
STATE OF COLORADO My commissinirexpires: - , , ;`
NOTARY ID#20134043266 ` 9
My Cattm}ss�m Ex
ATTACHMENTS':
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY AL4IL
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007
EXHIBIT t
ATTACHMENT 6
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: a� _ M STeE ,Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: hA H-RCh '2010 l '
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, 5 Sy \P4 iuW4 (name,please print)being or
representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen,Colorado,hereby personally certify that 1 have complied
with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060(E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the
following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper
of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing. A
copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community
Development Department,which was made of suitable,waterproof materials,which was not less
than twenty-two(22) inches wide and twenty-six(26) inches high, and which was composed of
letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the
public hearing and was continuously visible from the_�L day of M ftr r,it , 20g ,to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is
attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development
Department,which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2)of the
Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing, notice was
hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property
within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The
names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin
County as they appeared no more than sixty(60)days prior to the date of the public hearing.
A copy of'the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be
changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text
of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment
of a new land use regulation,or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of,and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real
property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However,the proposed zoning map
shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen
(15)days prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoin "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
of12045
by
JENNIFER WRIGHT WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC , �
STATE OF COLORADO My commissio�xpires:
NOTARY ID#20134043266 ,
.-
ubl
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements,Updated:May 29,2007
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 834 W. HALLAM STREET— CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,
RELOCATION, VARIANCES, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW,
ESTABLISHMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS,GMQS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2015,
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council
Chambers,City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by 834
W. Hallam Associates,(200 E. Main Street,Aspen; CO 81611),represented by Form Phi LLC, for
a redevelopment of the property located at 834 W. Hallam Street, legally described as Lots K & L,
Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Parcel 1D #2735-
123-04-002.
The applicant requests HPC approvals to demolish the non-historic additions on the existing
building, to relocate the historic structure toward Hallam Street, and to construct 2 new detached
buildings on the north portion of the property. The entire project is proposed to be affordable
housing units. The applicant requests conceptual Historic Preservation design reviews, Growth
Management review, Residential Design Standard variances, parking waivers, setback variances,
and the establishment of affordable housing credits for the project. For further information,
contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Conununity Development Depail megt430 S. Galena St.,
Aspen,CO,(970.)429-2778,sara.adains@cityofaspen.com.
cityofaspen.com.
1
s/Willis Peinber
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 5,2015
City of Aspen Account
i
`max � r .�: -•
ALLEY r
E �
� pr
MA 3
d#
V mdi "j
�.: 8
P
3'Y P q
} wl
�
PROPOSED NEW BUILDING
g
—
I All;
t -
, � •r L
} lT� '
3
REIOCITEC?��HIgS (RI BUILDINGk
r
m MM
t '
i — PROPOSED qEW BUILDING
r ,
e xS
STOP
5:�1;p-....:„x., :;p.+.:xFA3�k'�'' �.�iii..a:' _,,,5�2 rb5E; •lfk u!`i�'"�,.k.��,rr,r„k r:Y- � .._. _.„ ,_a �at
+,
ARCHITECTUREFORUMPHII.COM 'PLANNING 834
HALLAM
A
y.e
— p p�jF99 adv
P.
:n
H
s4
1
� � Z
l
a
� 3 •�t9�B3 11
.
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING � �L�A Y� �
FORLIMPHI'com
31 ASPEN VILLAS LLC 5 STRING LLC AARONS MARTHA REV TRUST
4 JACKSON DR PO BOX 1709 100 N 8TH ST#26
ACTON,MA 01720 GATLINBURG,TN 37738. ASPEN, CO 81611
ANDERSON ANGUS A ARETZ REALTY INC ASPEN COLORADO LLC
277 WILLITS LN 4725 S MONACO ST#330 100 N 8TH ST#5
BASALT,CO 81621 DENVER,CO 80237 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN DRAGONFLY PARTNERS III LLC ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC ASPEN TOWNHOME LLC
601 E HYMAN AVE 617 E COOPER 2151 ROCKCRESS WY
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 GOLDEN, CO 80401
ASPEN VILLAS CONDO ASSOC INC ATKINSON SUZANNE E BECKER RACHEL 25%
SHERMAN&HOWARD LLC 100 N EIGHTH ST#19 1000 PARK AVE
201 N MILL ST#201 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10021
ASPEN, CO 81611
BELL MOUNTAIN TRUST BENDON CHRISTOPHER J BLAIR ALISON&WINFORD R
PO BOX 2792 920 W HALLAM ST 941 W HALLAM
ASPEN, GO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
BLANZ JAMES M BLAU SYLVIA BORDERICK MARK
6344 NW 50TH ST 1 GROVE ISLE DR#410 939 W HALLAM
CORAL SPRINGS,FL 33067 MIAMI,FL 33133 ASPEN,CO 81611-1163
BOSKO DANIEL A BOYE CAROL BRADY KAREN KAY
PO BOX 9171 7 TEPEE ST 15 CASTLE HARBOR IS
ASPEN,CO 81612 HAMPTON BAYS,NY 119461736 FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 333086011
BRITTINGHAM JOHN SHELBY BRUFF SHERLYNNE GUEST&HAROLD H BRUNT FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
100 N 8TH ST#22 1245 OLD TALE RD 3814 CROWN BAY
ASPEN,CO 81611 BOULDER,CO 80303 ST THOMAS VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802,
BUDD MARTIN 50% CITY OF ASPEN CKS ASPEN LLC
215 OCEAN DR WEST 130 S GALENA ST 1767 E MCMILLIAN ST j
STAMFORD, CT 06902 ASPEN,CO 81611 CINCINNATI, OH 45206 {
COHEN SANDRA REV TRUST COX BRANDON& FERTIG DALE CRITERION HOLDING CO LLC
901 W FRANCIS ST 1009 S E 2ND ST 790 W HALLAM ST #10
ASPEN,CO 81611 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 ASPEN, CO 816111157
I
CROSSETT JENNIFER A DITTMAR KRISTIN ECKART CHARLES F
MURRY SHAWN P 945 W HALLAM AVE 910 W HALLAM ST APT 5
1333 E 3RD AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
DENVER, CO 80218-3906
EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST FARRELL EMILY FELDMAN CHESTER
100 N STH ST#9 790 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 8193
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
FOREST SERVICE ASPEN FRANCIS STREET LLC FRASER KRISTINA 8&GOLDSTEIN
HEADQUARTERS PO BOX 1365 JEFFREY S
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE ASPEN,CO 81612 1025 S RACE ST
DENVER,CO 80209
GABEL PAMELA SUE GATEWAY ASPEN LLC GELLER SCOTT
943 W HALLAM 605 W MAIN ST#2 4755 SUMMERLIN RD#1
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 61611 FORT MYERS, FL 33919
I
GIBANS JONATHAN GILES NATHAN R GOLDSTEIN LYNDA M TRUST I
100 N 8TH ST UNIT 1 NOURIAN NASIM 2400 E CHERRY CREEK DR S
ASPEN,CO 81611-3145 1380 W AUTO DR DENVER,CO 80209
TEMPE,AZ 85284
R
GORTAN TIZIANO&ENRICA U GRUTA LIVING TRUST H&M REALTY LLC
260 COLUMBINE CT 2353 BROOKSHIRE LN 814 W BLEEKER ST#C2 I
BASALT,CO 81621 LOS ANGELES,CA 90077-1340 ASPEN,CO 81611
HARPER DONNA M REV TRUST HATCH DEBORAH SMITH REV TRUST 50% HEATH SHANTA K
27 PELICAN PL PO BOX 12366 790 W HALLAM ST#9
BELLEAIR,FL 33756 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
HEISLEY AGNES M 2004 TRUST HENDERSON CHRISTOPHER JOHN& HERMAN LLOYD
70 W MADISON ST#5600 CHANTAL NICOLE 320 N 7TH ST
CHICAGO, IL 60602 5342 HWY 133 ASPEN, CO 81611
CARBONDALE,CO 81623
KENNER SAMUEL KLUG WARREN E&KATHLEEN M KOSFIELD ASPEN LC
1 GROVE ISLE DR#410 100 N 8TH ST#3 100 SE SECOND ST#2800
MIAMI,FL 33133 ASPEN,CO 81611 MIAMI,FL 33131
KURTZ KAREN L APRT LARNER JACQUELINE L LENK MEREDITH
17358 S MCKENNA DR 376 DAHLIA PO BOX 4415
PLAINFIELD, IL 60586 DENVER,CO 8.0220 ASPEN,CO 81612
LEVINE MICHAEL A LUU TONG KHON MADSEN GEORGE W JR&CORNELIA G
3500 MYSTIC POINTE DR#1408 814 W BLEEKER ST#134 931 W FRANCIS ST
AVENTURA,FL 331802581 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ;
MANDERSON NANCY R 50% MANGONE PARTNERSHIP LP MANIE MYCHAL B
2212 RICE BLVD 12687 W CEDAR DR#1;100 4589 SILVER DALE CT
HOUSTON,TX 770052628 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 CASTLE ROCK,CO 80108
MARKEY PETER&CHRISTINE MATKIN SALOISE MATTHEWS DEE R
922 W HALLAM PO BOX 8644 5121 52ND ST NW
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-8644 WASHINGTON,DC 20016-4379
MCNAIR STEPHEN&STACY MCNUTT LEXI&RAY MCTAMANEY ROBERT A 1112012 FAMILY
2 STILLFOREST PO BOX 9667 TRUST
HOUSTON,TX 77024 ASPEN,CO 81612 KUKIO 72 124 LAE KIKAUA MAUKA ST
KAILUA KONA,HI 96740
MENDELSON CLIFFORD MICROPLAS MGMT CO MINNESOTA MATERNAL
4807 CUMBERLAND AVE 790 W HALLAM#10 FETEL MEDICINE
CHEVY CHASE,MD 20815 ASPEN,CO 81611 2115 DWIGHT LN
MINNETONKA,MN 55305
I
NAFTALIS RICHARD C&ELIZABETH Z NEUMAN JONAH 25% OTT JOHN&CAROL M
5315 ROYAL LN 333 CENTRAL PARK WEST 129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE
DALLAS,TX 75229 NEW YORK, NY 10021 SNOWMASS, CO 816549318
OTTEN DOUGLAS&GLENDA OVERTON PATRICIA J PAFFENDORF PAUL JEFFREY
5103 SEA PINES DR 100 N 8TH ST#24 604 E 13T ST#B
DALLAS,TX 75287 ASPEN,CO 81611 DURANGO,CO 813015704 f
1
I
PITCHFORD BARBARA PLATERO ERIC P PLOTKE ELIZABETH
PO BOX 8812 969 TROPIC BLVD 100 N EIGHTH ST#10
ASPEN,CO 81612 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 ASPEN,CO 81611
REALUS TRUST REED BRENT H ROTHMAN MARK S&SANDRA C
814 W BLEEKER B1 100 N 8TH ST#6 100 N 8TH ST#12
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-1124 ASPEN, CO 81611
RUECKERT WILLIAM SANCHEZ ANDY L&MICHELLE MAINS SANZONE SHERI A
850 HULLS FARM RD PO BOX 1801 920 W HALLAM ST
SOUTHPORT, CT 06890 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 i
1
SAXON FAMILY DELTA TRUST SHANE STEVEN DAVID&CLARE EVERT SHAPIRO MARK
6677 S EVANSTON CIR 117 S MONARCH ST 4554 ROCK RIDGE LN
TULSA,OK 74136 ASPEN,CO 81611 AKRON,OH 44333
SHERIDAN DAVID R 11 SHURMAN JOHN&CAROLYN SIEGEL ELIZABETH N&NEIL B
4539 SILVER DALE CT 104 N 8TH ST#29 100 N 8TH ST UNIT 8
CASTLE ROCK,CO 801089039 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113145
SIMMONS W JUNE TRUST 55% STEINBERG EDWARD M&TOMI A STRASSBURGER SARAH E
BIXBY NEENA B 45% 814 W BLEEKER ST#A1 910 W HALLAM ST
4128 RHODES AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 APT 3
STUDIO CITY,CA 91604 ASPEN,CO 81611-1158
TALENFELD ELIZABETH G TOPELSON ALEJ.ANDRO TORREANO MARGARET ANN
915 W FRANCIS ST 4725 S MONACO ST#330 814 W BLEEKER ST#E6
ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80237-3468 ASPEN,CO 81611
TORREANO MARIE HELEN TRAN HONG HUONG TRAN TUYET LE
PO BOX 3615 814 W BLEEKER ST#C1 814 W BLEEKER ST#B4
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
VALLEY MIA C VILLA 15 LLC 50% WAGAR RICHARD H
100 N 8TH ST#20 PO BOX 1307 PO BOX 9063
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612
WATERS SOMERSET WEINGART JAMES B&PATRICIA L WEST END PROPERTY LLC
131 MILLBROOK SCHOOL RD 55 GREENTREE 814 WEST BLEEKER ST#B6
MILLBROOK, NY 12545 CHAGRIN FALLS,OH 44022 ASPEN,CO 81611
WEST HALLAM STREET LLC WEST SOREN P&KAREN C WICKERT JILL A TRUST
210 AABC STE MM 853 PLEASURE RD 16255 VENTURA BLVD#800
ASPEN, CO 816113513 LANCASTER,PA 17601 ENCINO,CA 91436
WILLIAMS DAVID A&BONNIE JO WYLY CHERYL R MARITAL TRST
100 N EIGHTH ST#18 3905 BEVERLY DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75205
i
»�� z�,aK S ��'a�x��� � �1 •��,t tau x•� . . .g far®�,�
i � ota° J4
- � E
31,
yy s
-
E
s A•
®� zv • ,i ,a .� ,
t
'! ut1 4E aEl iii x
E
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
hk�t A'la rch 21g S,'OO,pm , 20Ly-
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
15 � �� (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of. notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen-Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
,f, s Ttiprepaid TJ S` mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
U '.---.property, subject-. to the development application. The names and addresses of
'property owners;shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
t. at r,,rj
` T , t ..appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy bf"th o*ners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summafy, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued 017 next page)
r
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning snap shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
� ,OIL
Signature
The foregoin r"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 5 day
of.KCIL, '" 4 , 20L_57 , by^AvE3clA
IPUBLIC NOTICE *,tom r 7 T T
RE:834 W.HALLAM STREET-CONCEPTUAL WITNESS M 17 HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
HISTORIC MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,RELOCA-
TION,VARIANCES,RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARD REVIEW,ESTABLISHMENT.OFAF-
FORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS,GMOS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publicOheari a My COn1T111SSlOn eXplreS'
will be held on Wednesday,March 25,
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen.1
Historic Preservation.Commission,�in Council
Chambers;City Hall,130,S Galena St,,:Aspen.
HPC will consider an'application submitted,by 834,
W.Hallam Associates,(200 E.Main Street;.As en, Notaryr a Public
resened bbm Phi LL
redevelopmerep nt of of thetpropertyrloca ed at 834�W.
Hallam Street,legally described as Lots
Block 10,City and Tewnsiteof Aspen,County of KAREN REED=PATTERSONPitkin, State of Colorado, Paicel ID NOTARYu2735_,23-04 002.11 - STATE OF The applicant requests HPC approvals to demolish.the non-hlstOrlo additi°ns°n the a towar a!lam ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE' NOTARY 1D#to relocate the historic structure toward Hallam p�„ +�mml E jStreet,and to construct 2 new detached buildings MYThe entirePUBLICATION
on the north portion of the property.using
Project is I cant requests conceptual Hosed to be affordable istoric Preser-I
The reser-
vation applicant
reviews,Growth Management re r OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
view,Real enlist Design Standard variances,
parking waivers,setback variancesand the estate- OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
Ilshment of affordable housinggcredits for the
project.For further information,contact Sara Ad-
ams at the Ci- of A, n Commurnty Development
429 rt ensaraadamS�ctyofal..a StaspenpcomCO,(970)
'RTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
eir
Chair,
spenHi ;13Y C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission.
Published in the Aspen Times On March 5,2015
(10998963)
EXHIBIT
March 23, 2015
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Re: Development of 834 W. Hallam (Poppies)
Dear Commission Members:
This submission is on behalf of the Villas of Aspen (the "Villas"). We are a thirty-six unit
townhouse complex located at 100 N. 8th Street.The complex includes a parking lot having an entrance
on W. Hallam,just west of Eighth Street. For convenience a map follows that defines the area of
interest.
VILLAS PARKIN .�
Villas.Perkin Lot Entrance
M 3 13381S H18-N
r f m
vnew
r MT Crossing `
C �
r POP§JS 7 x
1
The Villas generally supports the proposed residential development of the Poppies property. We
share the reservations of staff that the proposed mass is inappropriate for the lot size and location. We
agree with staff that the design of the rear building does not relate to the Victorian and needs to be
redesigned.
The Villas has substantial concerns about parking deficiencies and the potential to grant any
variance for the failure to provide one space per unit.We also point to the potential front yard setback
variance as potential conflict with the proposed Bike/Ped-way project on Hallam Street. ( See: City
Council Work Session Feb. 17, 2015 http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Clerk/City-Web-Cast-
SIRE
PARKING CONCERNS
We provide one space per unit and that parking lot also serves as parking for the neighboring
"Red House" affordable housing, one space per unit.There is no guest parking in that lot. The Sagewood
complex on the NW corner of 8th and Hallam also provides off—street parking for its residents.The same
is true for West Bleeker Street Townhomes located directly across from Poppies(having parking entry
on Bleeker). Thus,all residences in the immediate area provide off-street parking for its owners'
Additionally, in the area between 7th and 8th streets there is no parking on either side of Hallam. .
Thus, any overflow parking from these existing complexes is accommodated on 81h Street. In the winter
local residents use 8th street for temporary parking when they take buses to ski.
As can be appreciated there is already pressure on those existing places and such would
increase if they would be used as permanent parking (as well as accommodating guest)to compensate
for the lack of off-street parking on the Poppies property. We would thus urge that no waiver be
granted for parking.
BIKE/PED—WAY CONFLICT
Finally, we would note that moving the main house closer to the front of the property along
Hallam and 8th streets could have a negative impact on proposed bike/ped-way improvements now in
conceptual study.They include moving the cross walk to the East side of 8th Street as well as widening
the walkway across the Castle Creek bridge. The Villas supports this bike/ped-way project given the
substantial safety concerns at the Hallam and 8th Street intersection.
This issue is not addressed at all in the submission. It potentially represents a major conflict with
the Poppies project.
For example, the proposed 4' setback completely overloads the front and corner of the
property.That portion is already crowded by.the fence (is it also historic?) and the existing bus stop and
walkway on that side of the street would very close to the buildings if the setback is moved forward.
Please note that architectural perspective renderings( 2015-03-17 HPC Submittal) do not
include contiguous existing elements, such as the bus stop, and are thus not representative of-the
2
current(and proposed) state of the property.The existing sidewalk gets heavy use due to the bus stop.
In the winter people are carrying skis and tend to walk as far away from the street as possible, i.e., next
to the fence.The proposal adds an additional walkway to the rear building further loading up that
corner of the lot near the street. Consequently,the required 10' setback should be maintained, i.e., no
variance granted based on existing conditions..
Additionally, any potential movement forward of the setbacks on the Poppies property could
obviously impact elements of the bike/ped way project. Please note the proposed placement of the
cross walk to the East side of 8th Street,which is an important safety improvement for this intersection.
That would also carry with it moving the illuminated yellow crossing signs.The result would be a
crosswalk directly in front of the historic building and only 4' away.
Thus,the setbacks should be carefully studied based on safety studies underway.That is,the
Poppies development effort should be considered in the context of other projects that are in exact
proximity and have already factored in the existing configuration of the property.
We would appreciate having this statement being made a part of the record and that
consideration of these issues be given at the public hearing scheduled for March 25th
,Very truly yours,
Nevi a S(R4e
Neil B. Siegel
President,Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association.
3
EXHIBIT /r
Kath Strickland -c�-�/
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:13 PM
To: bob blaich (bobblaich@gmail.com); DeFrancia,Jim; Gretchen Greenwood;John Whipple;
Nora Berko (norahowie@comcast.net); Patrick Sagal (patricksagal@yahoo.com); Sallie
Golden (salliegolden@hotmail.com);Willis Pember(willispa@comcast.net); Kathy
Strickland; Debbie Quinn
Subject: FW: 834 W Hallam Street: HPC Meeting
Sara Adams,AICP
Senior Planner I City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street,3rd floor
Aspen CO 81611
970/429-2778
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure
pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further,
the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the information and opinions
contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future,and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The
opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
From: Sheri Sanzone fmailto:sheri@bluegreenaspen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: 834 W Hallam Street : HPC Meeting
Hi Sara-
I hope you are doing well! As you know, I am a neighbor of the proposed project and live in a historic miner's cabin at 920 W
Hallam Street. I reviewed the application and staff's memo for tonight's HPC meeting. In concept I support the project. I look
forward to seeing the long vacant and underused historic property be re-purposed for affordable housing. However, I do not support
the project as it is currently designed. I agree with staff's comments on the proposed application and the recommendation to
continue the review. As you state, this will allow the applicant more time to refine the design to address the comments. Thanks and
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions!
sheri sanzone I aicp asla I pla I IeedAP
bluegreen
300 south spring street suite 202
aspen,colorado 81611
t 970 429 7499 1 f 970 429 9499
toll free 877 429 7499
www.bluegreenaspen.com
1
EXHIBIT,
Kathy Strickland
From: Sara Adams
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:02 AM
To: Kathy Strickland; Debbie Quinn
Subject: FW: Poppies Restaurant Site located at 834 W Hallam Street
Sara Adams,AICP
Senior Planner I City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd floor
Aspen CO 81611
970/429-2778
www.aspenpitkin.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure
pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further,
the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable,the information and opinions
contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future,and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The
opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
From: Michael Kosnitzky [mailto:MKosnitzky@BSFLLP.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:39 AM
To: Sara Adams
Cc: Suzanne Kosnitzky
Subject: Poppies Restaurant Site located at 834 W Hallam Street
Dear Ms.Adams,
I am a property owner living 918 W Hallam Street. I want to reiterate and reinforce planning staff's objections to the size
of the proposed project.The plans I have seen show it to be way over-scaled and require general downsizing to be
compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. I am also quite concerned that the project will not have adequate parking
for residents and their guest given the paucity of parking on Eight Street and the further planned reduction of parking on
the street as a result of the planned street improvements to Rt 82. Please feel free to contact me if you wish me to
elaborate on any of my concerns.
Kind regards,
Mike Kosnitzky
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s)and may contain information
that,among other protections,is the subject of attorney-client privilege,attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
electronic message is not the named recipient,or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient,you are hereby notified that any
dissemination,distribution,copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived.If you have received this communication in
error,please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer.[v.1]
1
EXHIBIT ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: March 20, 2015
RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 834 WEST HALLAM (FORMERLY POPPIE'S
RESTAURANT)
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for a 100% affordable housing project, creating units
for use under the Affordable Housing Credit Program.
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Housing Credit Program was developed for two purposes: 1)to
encourage the development of affordable housing; and 2) to establish an option that immediately
offsets the impacts of the development. By establishing this transferable Certificate, it creates a
new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing more economically
viable. It also establishes an option for mitigation that reflects built and occupied affordable
housing,thereby offsetting the impacts of development before those impacts are felt.
834 W. Hallam Associates L.L.C. is requesting the approval for 27.5 FTE's by providing 11 for-
sale units. The property is currently under a mixed use zoning comprising a 6,000 square foot lot
with a 2,800 square foot existing structure that includes a designated historic portion.
The proposal is to create the following:
➢ 4 1-bedroom/1-bath 1.75 X 4 = 7.0
➢ 2 2-bedroom/2-bath 2.25 X 2 = 4.5
➢ 3 3-bedroom/2-bath 3.00 X 3 = 9.0
➢ 2 4-bedroom/2-bath 3.50 X 2 = 7.0
TOTAL 27.5
The applicant is proposing seven parking spots, along with one ADA parking spot on site. Each
unit is designed that the finished floor level of 50% or more of the unit's net livable area is at or
above natural or finished grade.
Each unit is defined as follows:
Redevelopment of 834 West Hallam Page 1
Unit Bedrooms Baths Sq. Ft. # of Levels
1 3 2 1,006.5 2
2 1 1 600.5 2
3 1 1 602.5 2
4 4 2 1,125.5 2
5 3 2 1,051.0 2
6 2 2 851.25 1
7 4 2, 1,082.25 1
8 1 1 562.75 1
9 1 1 562.75 1
10 2 2 785.5 1
11 3 2 977.0 1
Unit 8 and Unit 9 are approximately 6% smaller than the minimum square footage as stated in the
Guidelines. The APCHA Board can grant a waiver of up to 20% reduction under specific criteria
stated below:
The conditions under which reductions may be made are stated below. However, no reduction greater than
20%of the category minimum will be allowed.
• Significant storage—additional storage outside the unit;
• Above average natural light—more windows than the Code requires;
• Efficient and flexible layout—limit to space used for halls and staircases;
• Site amenities—pool,near to park or open space,etc.;
• Location within the project—above ground versus ground level or below ground;
• If the applicant can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with this variance.
DISCUSSION: The development is being brought forward under Section 26.470.070 of the City
Land Use Code. The proposed units meet the requirements of this section. Due to the size of the
units, APCHA suggests that the units be classified as Category 2. The project is proposed as a for-
sale development and is located close to a bus stop. APCHA staff has some concern with the
ability for the project to maintain its,affordability for Category 2 households.
One of the structures on the site is classified under the historic designation. The applicant plans on
relocating the structure on the property. Due to the use of an existing, historic structure, Part VII,
Information for Development of Affordable Housing, Section 14, Deed Restricting Existing
Dwelling Units, of the APCHA Guidelines,the applicant must adhere to the following conditions:
Redevelopment of 834 West Hallam Page 2
I. Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development, under
certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the affordable housing
requirement by deed restricting existing unrestricted housing to comply .with the Guidelines.
Acceptance of existing units shall be at the sole discretion of the respective governing body upon
recommendation of the APCHA.
2. If accepted by the City or County,existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the following
criteria (unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the applicable governing body
upon the recommendation of the APCHA):
a. The interior walls of all units must be freshly painted.
b. The interior Appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in good and
working condition.
c. Carpet must be less than five year old and be in good condition and repair, or be replaced.
d. The exterior walls shall be freshly painted within one year of dedication.
e. A general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided.
f. Windows, heating, plumbing, electrical systems, fixtures and equipment shall be in good and
working order,and brought up to today's standards.
g. The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least ten(10)years.
h. All units shall meet the International Building Code minimum standards, any applicable
housing code or, in the absence of an adequate code, the housing code acceptable to the
APCHA.
i. All units shall be approved by the APCHA and verified by a qualified Building Inspector
accepted and approved by the APCHA.
j. Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the standards
stated in Part VII, Section 14, as well as any structural/engineering reports required by the
APCHA to assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the APCHA standards of
the proposed units.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the APCHA Board approve the application,
allowing the applicant to obtain 27.5 Category 2 FTE credits, for the 11 for-sale units with the
following conditions:
1. Modify the floor plans for the units on Main Street (Units 4, 5, 8 and 9) whereby the living
area is on Main Street side and the bedrooms facing the new building.
2. Each unit should be individually metered for utilities.
Redevelopment of 834 West Hallam Page 3
3. Provide the location of the dumpster and recycle area, along with an addition of a bicycle
rack.
4. Would recommend that additional storage be provided if possible.
5. Although two of the one-bedrooms are approximately 6% below the minimum for a
Category 2 designation, staff would recommend, under the 20% reduction allowable, the
approval of all.the units.
6. The units shall be ownership units and sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority lottery system upon certificate of occupancy.
7. The developer may exercise the option to pick the owners for 30% of the units (3 units), as
stated in the Guidelines, as long as the potential owners are fully qualified employees (i.e.,
at least a four-year work history,minimum occupancy requirement, category requirement).
8. That the language allowing for the use of the 100%privately constructed affordable housing
development be able to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits to sell to future
developers to be approved.
9. The applicant, upon Certificate of Occupancy, shall receive the use of 27.5 mitigation
credits, as specified above, in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
(CAHC). The certificate should specify the Category 2 designation.
10. The developer shall provide a capital reserve study to the HOA prior to last sale through
APCHA.
11. All of the HOA documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA prior to recording.
12. The units shall include the following appliances:
a. Refrigerator with a freezer
b. Stove/Range with recirculation hood
c. Dishwasher
d. Washer and dryer hookups
13. The- historic structure will be brought up to the standards mentioned in Part VII,
Information for Development of Affordable Housing, Section 14, Deed Restricting
Existing Dwelling Units.
Redevelopment of 834 West Hallam Page 4
EXHIBIT
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 834 W. HALLAM STREET — CONCEPTUAL HISTORIC MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,
RELOCATION, VARIANCES, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW,
ESTABLISHMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS,GMQS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2015,
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by 834
W. Hallam Associates, (200 E. Main Street,Aspen, CO 81611), represented by Forum Phi LLC, for
a redevelopment of the property located at 834 W. Hallam Street, legally described as Lots K & L,
Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Parcel ID #2735-
123-04-002.
The applicant requests HPC approvals to demolish the non-historic additions on the existing
building, to relocate the historic structure toward Hallam Street, and to construct 2 new detached
buildings on the north portion of the property. The entire project is proposed to be affordable
housing units. The applicant requests conceptual Historic Preservation design reviews, Growth
Management review, Residential Design Standard variances, parking waivers, setback variances,
and the establishment of affordable housing credits for the project. For further information,
contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO, (970)429-2778, sara.adams@cityofaspen.com.
s/Willis Pember
Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 5, 2015
City of Aspen Account
lNANWITV rpil'(
IZe �
V" 1
I
f
r .
f:
i.
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING RENDERING
FORUMO ; . • •
Edward J.Cawley G RA N Ty I LI N C:TIC)N C:0 81-S
790 W.Hallam St.#10
Aspen,CO 81611 14 MAR 2015 PM I L
pppp UNIIEOSTA
• [D POSTAL SERWE.
FOREVER
5 � PAM r
C � T of