The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20020828P1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 28,2002 REGULAR 1MEETING, 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOON - SITE VISITS - 5: 00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - July 10, 2002 - Aug. 14, 2002 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued - (Next resolution will be #32) 1- VII[.OLD BUSINESS 5:10 A. 334 W. Hallam, Conceptual Review, On-site Relocation, Variances - continued Public Hearing from August i.4th (*0 F -f, % - AL) IX. NEW BUSINESS 6:10 A. 34320 W. Hallam Street, Historic Lot Split, Variances -Public Hearing X. WORKSESSION 6:50 A. Holland House 7:20 XI. ADJOURN P2 PROJECT MONITORING Suzannah Reid 414 N. First- POLE 7a and Main 330 Lake Avenue 620 W. Bleeker Historical Society 328 Park Ave. 515 Gillespie 205 S. Third 935 E. Cooper Jeffrey Halferty 414 N. First- POLE 918 W. Hallam/920 W. Hallam 620 W. Bleeker - Historical Society 213 W. Bleeker 200 E. Bleeker 328 Park Ave. - Lane 209 S. Galena 332 W. Main 101 E. Hallam 735 W. Bleeker Gilbert Sanchez 333 W. Bleeker Street ~ 501 W. Main Christiania Lodge 330 Lake Ave. 110 W. Main 200 E. Bleeker 214 E. Hopkins Wagner Park 428 E. Hyman Rally Dupps 501 W. Main Street - Cbristiania Lodge 129 W. Francis 104 S. Galena- St. Mary's Church 302 E. Hopkins 610 W. Smuggler 232 W. Main - Christmas Inn 434 E. Main Melanie Roschko P3 Teresa Melville 513 W. Bleeker 515 Gillespie 232 W. Min - Christmas Inn 735 W. Bleeker 323 W. Hallam Neill Hirst 450 S. Galena 101 E. Hallam 205 S. Third 419 E. Cooper 409 E. Hyman Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive Paul D'Amato 118 E. Cooper - Little Red Ski Haus P4 CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 640 N. Third- expires November 23,2002 135 W. Hopkins- expires September 26,2002 HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staffpresentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion 1L1-LA. p5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director EROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 334 W. Hallam Street- Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances - Public Hearing (continued from March 12, 2002) DATE: August 28,2002 C 014 ;cl -1.= 3â‚¬ p-+ 25 SIJMMARY: This property is a designated landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The site contains a 19th century house and an outbuilding that was reconstructed in 1990. The proposal before HPC involves demolishing a non-historic addition on the house, adding a basement, and building a new addition with an attached garage. The applicant requests an FAR. bonus for.an exemplary historic preservation project and an FAR waiver 0 to the restrictions on the calculation of garages. HPC reviewed this project on December 12, 2001 and continued it for restudy of areas that were not in compliance with the design guidelines. At.that time, one of the problematic items was the proposal to move the house towards the west property line in order to accommodate an addition on the east and preserve a cottonwood tree that the Parks Department did not want to see removed. HPC indicated that the relocation was not acceptable. The applicant subsequently received Parks approval to remove the tree, and because this change affected some of the development constraints on the site, HPC was asked to revisit the same plans on March 13, 2002, at which time they repeated their opposition to moving the house. Other concerns expressed by staff and HPC at both of the earlier meetings were the inappropriateness of granting the approvals (including variances) needed to construct a garage in the proposed location, issues with the location and design characteristics of the addition, and an inability to find that the FAR bonus should be granted under the circumstances. Minutes from both of these meetings are provided as exhibits to this memo, along with the original application and drawings. The proposal that has been submitted for the August 28,2002 hearing, which will be evaluated in detail below, is, in staff s opinion, revised in only minor ways and does not resolve the issues noted above. Appropriate actions for HPC to take when reviewing a development action are to either (1) approve as submitted, (2) approve with conditions, (3) disapprove, or (4) continue the application to obtain additional infonnation necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Over the course of three hearings, the only new 1 P6 information that has been brought to the application is that the tree in the middle of the site can be removed (a fact that did not change the majority ofthe board's findings at the last meeting) and some design modifications that do not comprehensively address the direction for restudy given by the board. Because significant progress has not been made in bringing the proposal into compliance with the review criteria, staff finds that the HPC should deny the application. Staff would like to point out that although this case has been open for some months (submitted 4/17/01), the length of time that elapsed between each hearing has been at the applicant's request, due to their schedule and their representatives' schedules and does not represent a delay in action on HPC's part. The HPC will also note that the applicant has mentioned an old approval granted for the redevelopment of the property by the HPC in 1988. For the board's reference, all development approvals granted by the City have a "vested rights" period of 3 years, which means that the approval is protected for a three year period from any new regulations that the City may adopt. After that time, the approval itself does not expire, but any new criteria apply. In this case, the 1988 approval is only valid to the extent that it meets our current regulations, which include the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the new historic preservation ordinance adopted in March 2002. The applicant may resubmit those plans for review if desired, but, unless the plans are approved accordingly, does not have the right to pull a building permit to construct them. Please note that this memo is written using the format and criteria in place at the date this application was originally submitted. APPLICANT: Hayden and Louise Connor, owners. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-005. ADDRESS: 334 W. Hallam Street Lot K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: lit-6 (Medium Density Residential) SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds that all of the following standards (Section 26.415.010.C.5) are met, and finds that the development is in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines": a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing and volume with designated historic structures tocated on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between 2 ?l buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to jive (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making afinding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(21 for detached accessory dwelling units, and Staff Finding: The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing addition to the house, to add a basement, and to build a garage. The applicant proposes no alterations to the two story portion of the historic residence. As shown in the attached checklist of relevant guidelines, staff agrees that all of the review standards in Chapters 2-7 which deal with rehabilitation issues, are being met at this time, or the applicant has suggested no activites that would be contrary to these guidelines. It is important that the historic structure itself is to be properly preserved without alteration, which is commendable. Staff does find however, that numerous guidelines that relate to the design of the new addition and proposed garage (from Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 14) are not being met at this time, as will be discussed below. Proposed new addition The addition that currently exists on the back of this house appears to have been done in two or three phases. There is a one story gable roofed piece with a porch at the northwest comer that appears on the 1904 Sanborne map and the 1893 Bird's Eye view of the City. (There are no historic photographs ofthis property available.) G 1 1 81/ -- l T/Â¥7,.t. 1,Â£.6~ 21 W \, ra----71 01 10 1 211 7 1-7- ~ f l. I 18*0 rl 1 .1 ~~ /1 1 '03/ 2\1 - - 0!E 00Â£ The dimensions of the one story addition shown on the Sanbome map are very close to that area of the existing house that currently functions as a mudroom and west entry porch. This piece has been modified to include a storage closet and mudroom extension, and a second story addition was made on top of it, presumably some time in the 1960's. The only aspect of the historic construction in this area that can easily be preserved now is the west facing porch and the wall under the porch, which the application states will be done. It would be ideal for this project to pull the second story construction off of the historic addition and reconstruct it's original form. That is not something that HPC could 3 3Z6 P8 require, but is the sort of restoration activity that has justified an HPC floor area bonus on other sites in town. The proposed new addition at the back of the house maintains the same basic footprint of what exists now, except for a two story extension towards the east. Previously, the Commission has stated that (if one were removing and replacing the existing addition) it would be important to reveal the northeast comer of the original house. It was stated that there should at least be a jog in the wall plane to expose the corner before the construction extended eastward. Several members stated a preference that a more significant effort be made to direct the addition towards the north, behind the historic house. The important guideline to note is: 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Nothing has changed in the revised application with regard to the location or size of the proposed east addition. The requested jog in wall planes has not been provided. The roof form has been changed to a gable, in order to address the previous concern about a flat roof proposed in this location, however, because the plan form is unaltered, the addition and the roof of the addition are "crashing" into the historic house more than ever. Its fascia even cuts off that of the original east facing gable end, which is in conflict with the following guidelines: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, corices and eavelines should be avoided. 4 P9 In comments at a previous hearing, the project architect stated that his goal was to avoid "compromising the independence of the single (east) gable," which staff finds is precisely what has happened in the new design. The architect also stated that the desire is to keep the new addition "tight to the house," which seems to define the conflict between the owner's goals and the City's preservation policies. Staff finds the addition as proposed on the east side of the structure does not preserve the character of the original house and that the roof, while similar in pitch, is now overly complex and therefore dissimilar from the character ofthe 19th century design. At the previous meetings, discussion about the new addition also addressed the detailing of the new construction and how it replicates too many of the features of the original house. 'This is problematic because it creates confusion as to what is new and what is old construction (Guideline 10.3). The applicant has attempted to resolve this by making the windows casement style, which is not typical o f the historic house, but leaving the crown moulding, which was the most troubling element. Proposed new garage In regard to the proposed new garage, which is to be attached to the north side of the house, the guidelines emphasize that a separate garage structure is preferable and that garages are to be located along alleys. The following guidelines are at issue: 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. o Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. HPC members previously expressed a concern about the diminishment of the existing separation between the main house and existing alley house. The applicant has increased that separation by 3" in the new design, by moving the historic house towards Hallam Street, which staff finds does not meaningfully address the issue. A gable has been added to the garage, and the doors have been redesigned, but these actions do not bring the addition into greater compliance with the guidelines noted above. At the December 12, 2001 meeting, one of the applicant's representatives summarized the feedback he had heard from HPC regarding the placement of the garage, stating that "if development could move to the north then it sounded like there could be support for the 500 square foot bonus." HPC has been clear from the first meeting about their concerns and desire to move the new construction away from Third Street. 5 P10 HPC FAR Bonus The applicant is requesting a 364 square foot floor area bonus. The 1988 approval for the redevelopment of this site included a 500 square foot bonus. Only a portion of that bonus (136 square feet) was used in the reconstruction of the carriage house. The balance, 364 square feet, is not available without the authorization of this body because new standards in regard to the bonus have been adopted. The applicable standard is: "A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make an "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus." This may be an appropriate site for the extra square footage, given the size of the lot and the large, detached "carriage house" structure on the alley, which serves to take some of the bulk away from the historic building, however the project as proposed does not currently meet a number of the design guidelines, and therefore, at this time would not rise to a level that staff or HPC considers "exemplary" work. The condition of the historic portion of the building is to be improved, which is very important, but too many aspects of the proposed new construction detract from the overall success of the project. Staff finds that review standard "a" is not met and that the criteria for an FAR bonus is not met. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel propesed for development, and Staff Finding: The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of old and new homes, and a wide variety of architectural styles. 19th century structures throughout the West End have been restored and expanded and an acceptable solution could be found for this project so that this standard would be met. In the proposed form, however, staff finds that review standard "b" is not met. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels, and Staff Finding: The project as proposed would detract from the historic significance of this home if the building were relocated on the site. This house, the Eugene Wilder House, was built c. 1885. From the National Register nomination, "The Wilder house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber and may have been built by the Aspen Lumber Company. Wilder was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, along with R. F. Roberts from the mid-1880s to the early 1890s. This business was one of the pioneer Aspen lumber companies established ca. 1880-1882." As discussed below, one 6 . Pll of the components of significance is related to original location, and in this case, an inappropriate change to that quality is being proposed. Staff finds that review standard "c" is not met. i The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract front the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Staff Finding: The historic house is to be preserved with no alterations made directly to it, except for the demolition of part of the eaveline on the east gable end. Part of the applicant's proposal includes reconstruction of the north roof slope of this gable, which was demolished by the 1960's remodel. Limiting the alterations to the historic house itself goes far to preserve its architectural character and integrity, however, the proposed addition does have negative impacts to the original house, and a finding on this standard must be tempered with the impact of the proposal to relocate the house, which, as noted below is one of the aspects ofintegrity. Because that action is without merit, as evaluated below, compliance with review standard "d" is affected and staff finds that it is not met. PARTIAL DEMOLITION No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all ofthe following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic signifcance of the parcel Staff Finding: Staff agrees that the partial demolition of the existing 1960's addition is necessary for the proposed remodel. This standard is met. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions, and b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity Of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. e 7 P12 Staff Finding: The applicant could mitigate the negative impacts on the existing historical structure caused by the addition if the concerns described above were resolved. 0 Staff finds that this standard is not met. ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for oIl-site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: A. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Staff Finding: The Parks Department is issuing a permit to remove the tree that was an obstacle in the middle of the site.. As a result, there is no justification that has been presented to allow. the house to be moved. The guidelines state that "A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important." Guideline 9.1 is: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefulIy rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o 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. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. The degree to which the house is being relocated is also a factor to weigh. In this case, the house's distance ftom Third Street is cut in half (reduced by 10'), which is substantial. The guideline is: 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission's policies and philosophies are based on the standards established by National Park Service, including the moving of historic 8 P13 properties. Location is one of the seven measures used to evaluate the historic integrity of a property and therefore should be taken as a serious component of a property's characteristics. According to National Register criteria, "significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as. loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits." As a result, HPC has detennined that proposals to relocate a building will be considered each on their own merits, and heavily weighing the reasons why, in each case, the move may provide a tool to better preserve a building. Most often, relocation has been found to be appropriate when a small structure, usually the 19th century miner's cottages, is located on a large lot where the potential for redevelopment is so large that the "best preservation alternative" is a lot split, which results in the physical separation of the resource from a large amount of the new construction. Even in the case of a lot split, though, it is not a given that moving a house will be approved. There is adequate room on this property to site new construction in an appropriate manner. No case has been made that there is a need to move the house in order to better preserve it and protect it from an overwhelming addition or other threat. The desire to maximize private yard space does not meet the criteria above and is not a justification for this element of the proposal. The relocation of the house in this case is not the "best preservation alternative." Staff finds that this standard is not met. B. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstan(ling the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Staff Finding: Said report would be a condition of approval. C. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Staff Finding: The relocation plan and letter of credit would be conditions of approval. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF FARRELATED TO GARAGES Garages are exempt from FAR if they are accessed from an alley when one is avilable. Because this applicant is choosing to use an existing, old driveway off of Third Street,Â·the garage will count in FAR. A variance from this policy, based on hardship, is requested. 9 P14 In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP does not specifically address this issue. The Land Use Code clearly intends to remove garages from the streetscape and to minimize pedestriani automobile conflicts created by backing out into a street. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Finding: A garage is not necessary for reasonable use of a parcel. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical dificulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Finding: There is room available on the site to place a garage along the alley. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area. Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and Staff Finding: The applicant has other options to create a garage that complies with the requirements. In discussion at a previous meeting, the applicant's representative noted that there are "at least a hundred historic houses that have parking access from the street rather than the alley." Reviewing the "Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Landmark Sites and Structures" map, there are approximately 17 historic properties that have a street facing garage. Half of these are housed in historic structures, where adaptive use as a garage is a historic preservation action, and half are new structures, none of which were approved under current regulations. The City has developed clear policies over the past several years that 10 P15 discourage street facing garages and aim to eliminate curb cuts whenever possible. In all cases where a garage faces a side street despite the existence of an alley the garage counts in FAR. Staff' is not aware of any instance when a floor area waiver has been granted for a new garage like the one proposed at 334 W. Hallam based on hardship. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS All residential development must comply with the following review standard or receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 0 Standard: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The \ment of the following parking, garages, and carport standard is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential Alley. r uses, parking, garages, and I . Yes. carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one exists. 1 [ Street. Response: As noted above, staff does not find that the garage placement complies with any specific goals of the AACP. It does not comply with the intent of this guideline and there are no unusual site constraints on this property that prevent location of the garage offthe alley. Staff finds that this review standard is not met. 11 P16 RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards for Significant Development (ConceptuaD, Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, FAR. variances, a "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage, and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines" 8.3,9.1, 9.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.9, 10.10, 14.18 and 14.20 are not met and recommends that the application for 334 W. Hallam Street be denied by the HPC. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to adopt Resolution #- Series of2002. Exhibits: A. Staff' memo dated August 28,2002 - B. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines C. Minutes ofDecember 12,2001 D. Minutes ofMarch, 13,2002 E. Application and drawings from March 13, 2002 F. "Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Landmark Sites and Structures" site form G. "National Register ofHistoric Places" nomination form H. Revised application 12 P17 Exhibit B 334 W. Hallam, Historic Design Guidelines Checklist, Conceptual Review (Note that the guidelines that are not me, in staffs opinion, are underlined. Guidelines on new landscaping, fencing, and lighting have not been included because they are details that are more properly addressed at Final.) Treatment of Materials .1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. o Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. o Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot. o Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. o Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible. o Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints without a primer coat. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted. o Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements. Repair Of Materials 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epo?des and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. o Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. 13 000N P18 o Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortar is missing. o Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. o Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick. o Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially harder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. See Chapter 14: General Guidelines for masonry cleaning. Replacement Materials 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. o If the original material is wood. clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be Wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. o In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic model. o Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. o Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick. o EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco. Covering Materials 2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. o Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on historic buildings. Other imitation materials that are designed to look like wood or masonry siding, but that are fabricated from other materials, are also inappropriate. o If a property already has a non-historic building material covering the original, it is not appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original. o Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers. This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed. 14 P19 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. o Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Treatment Of Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is i character-defining feature. o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio o f window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. o Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material mdy be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those ofthe original in. dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 15 00 P20 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. Â¤ A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Energy Conservation 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. o Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. o If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. Treatment of Existing Doors These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply primarily to front doors, although they do include secondary entrance doors and screen doors. Greater flexibility can be applied when replacing side and rear doors when they are not visible from the public right-of- way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes,.-paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door call be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. o If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. o For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance ofHistoric Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. o Match the franie design and color of the primary door. 16 0O P21 o If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. Replacement Doors 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. o Simple paneled doors were typical. o Very omate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Energy Conservation 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. Treatment of Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged inthe 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. o Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. o Keeping an open porch is preferred. o Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. o Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. 0 â€¢The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. o Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. o 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. 17 P22 Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. o When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. o The scale ofporch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Treatment of Architectural Features 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. o Repair only those features that are deteriorated. o Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise Upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. o Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. o If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. o The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. 18 P23 o When reconstruction of an blement is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly omate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. o Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. o Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. o Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. o A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a rooÂ£ o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. o Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. o A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. o A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original rooÂ£ 19 P24 o An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. o A new donner should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. o The mass and scale of a donner addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. Materials 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. o Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. o Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. o Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. o A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. o A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative. o Seams should be of a low profile. o A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. o Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. Secondary Structures 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. 20 00 0 P25 o Traditionally, a garage was Â§ited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. o A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. o If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. o If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o 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. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HI?C, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely oIl one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 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. o On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. o 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 ofthe mortar joints. 21 00: P26 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 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. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 22 00 0 P27 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Â¤ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. o Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. o Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 23 P28 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. o Using minimally paved tracks will reduce the driveway's visual impact. o Consider using a porous paving material to reduce the driveways visual impact. o Also consider using modular paving materials for these tracks to provide visual interest along the street. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 24 P29 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HI'C) DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES FOR THE, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 334 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID#: 2735-124-23-005 RESOLUTION NO. - SERIES OF 2002 WHEREAS, the applicants, Hayden and Louise Connor, represented by Pat Cashen, architect, have requested Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On- Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.Â· The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010.C.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code and be in accordance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines in order for HPC to grant approval. The review standards are below and the guidelines are on file in the Planning Office: 1.Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, messing and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to an historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet, or exceed the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant necessary variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this Section exceed those variations allowed under Section 26.520.040(B)(2), for detached accessory dwelling units. A floor area bonus will only be awarded to projects which in the opinion of the HPC make a:n "outstanding preservation effort." Examples to be considered would include the retention of historic outbuildings or the creation of breezeway or connector elements between the historic resource and new construction. Lots which are larger than 9,000 square feet and properties which receive approval for a "historic landmark lot split" may also be considered for the bonus. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. P30 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof; and WHEREAS, all applications for partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures ofthe City ofAspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the Development Review Standards of Section 26.415.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel; and 2.Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a.Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. b.Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure; and WHEREAS, all applications for on-site relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay district, must meet all of the following Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.020(D)(2),(31 and (4) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval, namely: 1.Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 2.Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure propdsed for relocation; and P31 3.Standard: A relocatioh plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grantof variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district; and WIIEREAS, in order for HPC to grant a variance from the "Residential Design Standards," according to Section 26.410 of the Muncipal Code, the HPC must find that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals ofthe Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and P32 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 28,2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that it be denied on the finding that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, FAR variances, a "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage, and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines" 8.3,9.1, 9.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.9, 10.10, 14.18 and 14.20 are notmet; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 28,2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that the review standards for Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-site relocation, FAR variances, a "Residential Design Standards" variance for the garage, and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines" 8.3, 9.1, 9.4, 10.3, 10.4, 10.9, 10.10, 14.18 and 14.20 are not met, for the reasons stated in the staff memorandum, and denied the application by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Significant Development (Conceptual), Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 334 W. Hallam Street, Lots K, L and M, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado is not approved. DENIED BY THE CO1Â¥IMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of August, 2002. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Vice Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF P33 DECEMBER 12, 2001 MOTION: Gilbert moved to continue the application for 110 E. Bleeker Street to January 13r d, second by Rally. Motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jeffrey, Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah 334 W. Hallam - Conceptual, Partial Demolition, Variances, Public Hearing Sworn in were: Patrick Cashen, Hayden Connor, Louise Connor, Bill Poss, Smiddy The affidavit ofposting was entered into the record as Exhibit I. Amy said the proposal is to demolish a 1960 era addition on the back of the house to replace it and expand it to the east. There is a conflict between that idea and a large cottonwood tree that is very close on the east side of the house. The Parks Dept. has taken the position that they do not want to see , that tree removed. The owner would like to move the house away from the tree to accommodate their addition but staff feels that is not supported by the guidelines which say that relocating a house should only be done because it is the only solution and it does something to preserve the building. This house is on the National Register and them are other places on the lot where an addition could be located more appropriately. At the ' back of the house there is a porch on the west side and that addition is historic and needs to be retained. Another part of the proposal is to add an garage that fills in the space between the existing house and the separate building that sits on the alley. That is also not supported by the guidelines as it destroys the relationship of having two detached buildings and the garage should not be facing the street. The applicant is also requesting the 500 FAR. bonus and because we don't find that this project meets the. guidelines, and we haven't seen anything to represent what is exemplary in the project. The bonus is usually reserved for someone making an outstanding restoration effort which they might be doing but it need to go beyond that in order to give a 500 square foot bonus which is a large benefit. The other variance is related to the garage, they are actually asking for around 750 square feet ofbonuses. The last 250 square feet is because if 15 *U i 6 i Jr 0 P34 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 you have access to an alley you could place your garage in an alley and if you don't do it you don't get any exemption from the city so their garage will count, and they are asking for that to be waived based on the argument of hardship. Staff does not find that the hardship standards have been met. There are other alternatives and a garage is not an absolute necessary feature for the property. Staff is very pleased that the house is being addressed but the standards have not been met and we need to come to some agreement. Mr. Conner relayed that they are appreciative of the work that HPC has done and they have tried hard to cooperate and understand exactly what is asked for and comply with it. They want the house to be authentic. They would like this to be collaborative effort to make the house spectacular. Patrick Cashen said his comments fall into three areas; the character of the addition; the tree; the garage. He is trying to expose all three of the gables and disconnect the previous addition from the north chininey and straighten out the floor levels and make sure the windows are done correctly. Regarding the demolition on the north, the porch is an historic feature and could be kept but the north part of the house is also the area where the floor levels are uneven and we almost have to take down everything around the ~ porch to strighten out the floor levels and get the windows right. We have to replace the foundation of the entire house but we can certainly replace the porch. Regarding alternate locations for the addition, we are trying to keep the addition tight to the main body of the house on the back side. This is sensible because it makes the rest of the property useful and we are hemmed in on the one side by the tree. The tree is right in the middle of the lot and typically that is not a normal placement for a tree like that. The foundation is nonexistent on the house and the tree is only two feet from the house. Even saving the tree and replacing the foundation we see as a tough dilemma. Showing the board a few site plans and getting input may help in the decision. Regarding the garage the 1977 survey shows that there was a two-story structure on the northwest corner of the lot that was a*garage. On that survey was a carport that was attached to the west side of the two-story 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF P35 DECEMBER 12, 2001 - structure that existed at the time ofthe survey. In 1988 the two-story structure was remodeled into one of the units that exists as this time and the carport was removed at that time. The normal placement of the garage on the alley side compromises the private space of the lot and puts the garage next to the two-story carriage house and disrupts the pattern. Bill Poss said there are at least 100 historic houses that have access off the street rather than the alley. There is a history of coming in off the street. Commissioner questions: Michael asked the applicants what they are tying to accomplish with the house? Mr. Connor said the kitchen is a meeting spot and they want to extend the room to the east. Better insulation wiring,. heating needs done. Over the kitchen they plan on making a larger room as the existing bedroom is too small. Right now people park their cars in the driveway and the garage would make visually more pleasing but that is not the end of the world. Regarding the tree, they are happy to do either suggestion. , Louise Conner said keeping the tree and the basement are challenging as the root structure go under the house. Amy said Stephen Elsperman from the Parks Dept. is allowing the basement but he also realizes that the tree might die after excavating. RalIy said part of the FAR bonus is granted with a strong preservation effort and staff s position is this is not quite there yet and this is more of a rehabilitation plan. Are the owners willing to consider part of the FAR - request to restore that rear part of the house to its original condition. Patrick sid the map only shows a footprint and what could have been there? They do not know if it was a one-story or two-story. Rally asked once the garage is built what will be the separation between the existing two-story dwelling and the new garage? Patrick relayed 7.1 feet. Neill asked Amy if we had any original photographs or data to relate to on this particular house. The National Register does not have photographs as 17 P36 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 attachments but our Historical Society might have something since this is a prorninent house: Amy said regarding the back there is more ofthe original piece than just the porch. The form is there and the 60's addition landed on top of it. It was a one-story gabled roofpiece but the entire issue needs more study. Suzannah opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner conlments: Gilbert sid the notion of the garage accessing off of Third Street as a concept on a comer lot in the West End he would be fine with it in most situations. The problem here is locating the garage where you are suggesting, will causes a series of other problems that Amy pointed out in her memo. It pushes all the new elements out toward the east and the guidelines do not support that point of view. It is more beneficial to the property owner to do the kind of addition that minimizes or have as little impact on as many phases of the historic property as possible. Adding on to the back of the building has a negative impact. Gilbert said he feels it is important to see that gable as a freestanding comer. He would look at something that pulled away from the comer, that is stepped back and then possibly extended toward the east. If the garage was on the alley it would free you up to get the space that you want to get. Jeffrey said he supports staffs recommendation on the garage placement. It would help simplify the Third Street elevation. The addition extended to the east at that junction complicates and confuses the historic resource. On the north side is the logical area for the addition. If you had the garage off the alley it would help privatize your lot. Michael said he would support the relocation of the building to save the tree and to preserve the house to the greatest extent possible. This is a very important building. and a good example of 1880's architecture. Neill said he would have difficulty approving the relocation of the building. A building of considerable importance to the City of Aspen needs to be held to the highest standards ofrestoration, rehabilitation,-preservation, 18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF P37 DECEMBER 12, 2001 conservation etc. and especially when we are asked to approve a FAR. bonus. Neill agreed with all of Staff's observations and recommendations. The north side of the house is the most logical space to do something. The garage on the alley is a good suggestion. Neill also said he would need research data in order to approve the project. He is not in favor of relocating the house. The site is as important as the house itself. Melanie said she does not support picking up the house and moving it as it is in its historical location. She is not opposed to putting in the basement. Research needs to be done in order to determine what that oiginal part of the back of that house was. Look at the addition in regard to the form of the house. She is in favor of the garage offthe alley in some form. She also stated that she couldn't support the bonus. Rally said his comments come down to the garage and the FAR being requested. He also dittoed Neill and Gilbert's comments. The garage drives ' the application. If we added a garage on the Third Street suddenly we have a west elevation that looks heavy and detracts from the historic resource. Rally also said he could support relocation of the house. Suzannah said we have a very difficult standard to meet to give the variance from the garage FAR and the site the way it is now doed -not meet those standards. She agreed with the other commissioners that the garage is driving other issues that are not so great for the historic resource. The separation between the house and carriage house even if it is not a carriage house anymore is good. There are a lot of opportunities to do additions on the north side that might connect to the garage or be separate from the garage and give you some of that openness that you are looking for on the ground floor. Suzannah also stated that she doesn't want the applicant to feel that she is being negative. She could support the bonus looking at whatever variances they might need in order to make the garage work in the back alley. The porch needs to be looked at and determined what part of that is historic. Regarding relocating the structur6, further architectural opportunities should be looked at on the site before the relocation can be approved. The plan may transform into something that allows both that tree to remain and the house to remain in its location. The site is part of the elegance of the lot. 19 P38 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 . . Bill Poss said he heard that if the garage could be relocated o ff the alley it i seemed like more support than less support that a bonus FAR could be justified because it was helping the redesign of the house. Melanie said if the garage is offthe alley you don't have that 250 square foot bonus. Now we are back to the 500 square foot FAR and that is determined by what goes on with the restoration and the addition to that part of the house. Bill said if development could move to the north then it sounded like there could be support for the 500 square foot bonus that would go to the house. The board agreed. Bill said when you put a garage back there, having a comer house when most of the land is given to the street you get less private space. By putting the garage in the back to increase the use of their yard they may relocate the house a few feet away from the tree to retain the tree but also it might increase the use of the yard. Suzannah said that would be based on the proposal that would be presented. 0 Patrick said the garage is not driving the plan and it is not.critical. We can eliminate the garage and look at the design without the garage. Doing more research on the 60's addition is a valiant idea but to date we have not come up for anything. We checked with the Historic Museum and they do not have anything. Ideas of direction are welcome. Melanie said some sort of a jog to the back call give you a more private area, and it would be more useful to the owner. MOTION: Jegrey moved to continue 334 W. Hallam to March 138; second by Melanie, all in favor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: jeffrey. Gilbert, Rally, Melanie, Neill, Michael, Suzannah 20 P39 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 Chairperson, Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m Commissioners present: Jeffrey Hhlferty, Mdlanie Rosdhko, Michael Hoffman, Teresa Melville, Neill Hirst and Paul D'Amato. Gilbert Sanchez and Rally Dupps were excused- Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer Chief Deputy Clerk, Kathy Strickland MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the minutes of Januaiy 234 and Februmy 131 2002, second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Disclosures: Michael relayed that he was approached by a neighbor of 118 E. Cooper to represent them but declined. 334 W. Hallam - Conceptual, Public.Hearing (cont'd from Ded. 129 The Chief Deputy Clerk swore in Hayden Connor, Shane Harvey and Mitch Haas. Amy relayed that the proposal is to put An addition on the.Victorian era house and to construct a garage behind it. Since the last meeting, the Parks Dept. has signed off on a tree removal permit. All of the significant development review standards in chapter 2-7 of the design guidelines have been met. Amy focused on the addition tothe histotic house. At the last meeting there were concerns about an existing addition on the back* of the ~ house and how much more ofthat is to be demolished and what HPC really felt needed to be preserved. Amy said the only thing that she can determine is historic is the porch itself and the wall underneath it. Staff' feels thaf rio new construction should take away more of that porch and wall. That addition is not original to the house but it is historic to thai time period. In the guidelines the addition should be clearly distinct from the historic building by providing some.kind ofjog or change in wall planes or materials. It also discusses that roof forms should be similar to those on the historic house. Staff finds that there is conflict with both of those guidelines. There is no jog in the wall that really distinguishes that back 1 94 4, 4- 0 P40 ASPEN InSTORIC PRESERVATION COMM[SSION NONUTES OF. MARCH 13. 2002 comer of the historic house. The flat-pitched roof lowers the profile ofthe addition and it is not compatible with gable roofpitches that are on the historic building. . Amy sid the new proposed garage is in conflict with a number of the design guidelines. There was an approval granted by HPC in 1988 on this property and some aspects ofthat approval were built, the out building. They did receive a bonus at the time and a portion was applied to the outbuilding and the rest of it needs to meet today's review standards. They will be asking for a 360 square foot FAR bonus. Staff feels the project is not meeting an exemplary preservation effort. Regarding the partial demolition standard there is concern about an historic west addition on the building and we can work out what is appropriate to preserve on that addition. The applicant still wishes to have a determination on the on-site relocation even though there is no tree to be forcing the house to move to the west. The guidelines say that proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case by case basis and it is only meant to be when that is the best preservation method. Moving the house deteriorates its integrity. Another variance is being requested with regard to placing a garage on the street based on the finding of hardship. Staff finds that there is no hardship 1. . that would warrant a FAR bonus. Also, there is a residential design 1 standard that discourages placing the garage where it is proposed to be located. Mitch said the historic part of the building is being left intact and not touched by any work being proposed and the Connor's have committed to rehabilitation and restoring the structure which is an outstanding preservation effort. . Regarding the addition to the east side, Mitch said it is clear that the roof farm should be more closely or consistent with the gable and pitched roofs on the rest ofthe structure. The addition wozild extend another ten feet out from behind the historic part of the structure and ten feet is more than sufficient for a jog showing differentiation. 2 - P41 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Nt[NITTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 Amy relayed that the next issue is the on-site relocation proposal. The guidelines state there may be case& when the location will not substantially affect the integrity of the property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. The carriage house was relocated in 1963 by five feet ahd the property was not compromised. It is the owner's belief that there is lack of a true relation between where the house sits and thesite features. The site is flat and there are no features that are ofhistoric significance. Moving the house over ten feet to the west will not effect this sites historic integrity *and the historic house will still be intact. The relationship to the streets will be unchanged. Mitch sid he would like to know Â«why" moving the house effects the historic integrity. Mitch also said the request to relocate the house on-site is consistent with ~ the guidelines. They feel that the ability to relocate the building ien feet is an integral part and major indentive for Hayden's koing to the time and expense and effort in doing the restoration and rehabilitation efforts on the historic portion of the structure, which desperately needs work. The house is already going to be picked up from where it sits in order to put a . basement underneath it. : Regarding the project not being exemplaa work in Amy' s memo, that is ~ ~ not the standard for a FAR bdnus. The standard is an outstanding preservation effort. Not touching the historic building but committing to restoration and rehabilitation is exemplary. Consistency with every guideline is not a requirement for a FAR bonus. The one car garage will replace a driveway open to the street. Mitch said the owner would retain the west wall and west porch. Some balancing of the guidelines must occur. Mitch pointed out that there are 63 guidelines in which they are consistent and 8 that are perhaps pointed out as being inconsistent. Questions and clarifications. Melanie indicated that she was unclear why the owner wants the house relocated.Â· Mitch said it was the desire to have yard space.. Shane added that 3 P42 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 the house is in the middle of the lot and the*Connors would like the ability to utilize more of the lot. Amy said the main issues are the overall massing and design of the addition. The character and placement ofthe addition and the question ofrelocating the house are also important issues. The offset and roof design are other issues that need to be discussed by the board. Michael said the key issues are: 1. relocation 2. design ofthe offset 3. roof design 4. garage and FAR Neill said the house "site" is an historic integral part to this application. Mitch said moving the house ten feetis not going to negatively impact the landmark building or site. Neill asked why the flatter roofpitch was chosen for the addition? Mitch said it differentiates the addition from the historic structure but it can be restudied. Melanie said at the last meeting it was suggested that the appHcant look at relocating the garage offthe alley and also looking at the-addition and P perhaps jogging it offthe backofthe house idste:id Of ofT 28 68 east *kide 62 i the house. Mitch said the owners are not wifling to take up the yard space : with a garage. Doing a jog interrupts the floor plan functionally. Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing. Hayden Conner explained the original footprint of the housefor the board members. Coniments: The relocation, as presented is too extreme and guideline 9.1 has not been met. The relocation is not the best preservation alternative. Neill said ifyou are going to allow lot splits you can hardly oppose the relocation of this house. Amy explained when you do a lot split you are 4 P43 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OIN . - - MARCH 13. 2002 taking the square footage away from the historic building and putting it in a separate structure which is a good preservation alternative. There is no* removal of the impact to the historic building by moving this house sideways, and the location is important to. its historic integrity. Paul agreed with Neill's comments. Melanie relayed that the relocation of the house is not justified. Suzannah concurred, the key element it has not been demonstrated that the relocation is the best preservation alternative. The location, centered on the lot is part of the importance of the house. Regarding Mitch's comment that the relocatiori is not touching the historic house, relocating it is certainly touching it and changing its position on the site and interfering with its integrity. Teresa relayed that it is important to look at the relationship of this house to other houses in the neighborhood. Jeffrey supported staffs comments on the relocation. Relocation is to give better prominence and some relationship or new view corridor to the historic resource and he is not finding what he sees as a good case for relocation. Melanie said architecturally guideline 10.4 states that the addition should be distinguishable from the historic building and she feels that a jog or something to set the addition off or separite it from the historic building would be appropriate. Off the east side is not the most creative way of solving the problem and meeting the guidelines. The board agreed with Melanie's comments. , Roof forms: Jeffrey said the flat roof is not consistent with the historic patterns in the. neighborhood. The board agreed with staffs memo regarding the roof form and architecture of the addition. 5 . P44 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, MARCH 13, 2002 Garage: Michael felt that there was not a compelling need to grant the variance for the garage. There is no unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. Melanie said the garage should access off the alley. There are ways of using this wonderful property and jogging the house to the back. Jeffrey said the garage, by right of the carport does not help the historic resource's elevation from Third Street. The alley access would certainly help that elevation. Suzannah sid her concern would bd how much the garage extends the rear addition of the historic house and closes down that space between the house and carriage house, which is a problematic issue in maintaining the character ofthe two buildings. FAR Melanie indicated she could support the FAR for the preservation of the house as long as the rest of the issues discussed have been addressed. Jeffrey said because this is a landmark propetty if the massing issues could be modified he could support the bonus. Suzannah said the threshold issue is the relocation for support of the bonus. Rebuttal Mitch said if they had come in and applied for a lot split without any changes to the house other than moving it over odds are that would have been approved and then they could come back in and ask for the addition. Because,we are asking for the addition first we are not being allowed to move the house. He also pointed out that this lot even with moving the house does have two structures, one which is 1300 square feet which is a good percentage of the allowable FAR on this site and they feel it achieves the same thing that you might have on a lot split by breaking the FAR into two ma~ses. Mitch sid he ham't heard "why" where it sits on the property is integral to its historic significance. He would like some tangible reasons. 6 P45 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF. MARCH 13. 2002 Mitch said regarding the architecture on the east side they have gotten some direction but the jog doesn't work as it makes an oddly shaped room that functionally doesn't make any sense. The addition will go out ten feet from the comer and the change in materials and window designs are agreeable. Shane askedthe board about the addition to the east. Suzannah said the board concurred with staffrecommendation that it needed to be studied in terms of its separation from the building, also that the roof shapes and details needed restudied. Shane sid one ofthe prime reasons for the restoration of this project is to make useful space while preserving the integrity of the property. Suzannah said the position of the house on the lot is integral to the significance of the house in its time. The house is a prominent Victorian as opposed to a miner's cottage and the position in the center of the lot is integral. Mr. Connor said the house was not on a large lot, there was a house right next too it which is no longer there. ~ Amy said it is still at least two lots and the house on Lot M is a smaller building on 3,000 s4uare foot lot, so Suzannah's comments are still valid. . MOTION: Jefrey moved to continue-334 W. Hallam until April 10,2002; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried 7-0. Yes vote: Jâ‚¬rey, Melanie, Neill, Teresa, Michael, Paul Suzannah 118 E. Cooper - Final - Public Hearing David Fiore and Carl Darr were sworn in. Amy informed the board that the proposal addresses *all of the conditions from conceptual and they were to look more at the restoration aspects of the :front porch and address the bathroom addition. Staffrecommends approval of the project. Â·Planning & Zoning approved the project and it now goes to council. 7 . 9 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name HAYDâ‚¬'2 00}*1Â£92 PBOAE'*1-61 HISTDAL G #3067â‚¬Loprlâ‚¬NJT 2. Project location 1334- WS.-C -HALLAÂ·K 51*â‚¬ET-i Agferl, co 00 7-r KI In /4 I g l.,)44 * 2.1 r. 1-1-h Â£;F As f â‚¬61 (indicate street address,. lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning F-- G 4. Lot size 1,092. SF 5. Applicant's name,Â· address and phone number HAToej cok| A]DA 4-4-4- 4841â‚¬ STREf-iri*EA,Vet, U) i 80 220 503 -6 llÂ· 2.119 7 - 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number PMr04a:- 6/WHEW, 4-l'55 Â·EnST JEW E.Lu A.VE -*ILS& Delvez ce 80'2,2.2.- 4416 - 15\U- POS,3 *05 Â· ahs-r ./nalÂ» , 85 #ew 14) 9 16 - +195 7. Type of application (check al[*that apply): Conditional Use .AConceptual SPA X Conceptual HPC Special Review * Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin -- - -Â· Final PUD X Relocation HPC Subdivision .1 Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment Â· GMQS exemption X Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot SpliULot Line :* -: Appeal Committee Adjustment 4-4 2 I 1 ' . 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft, number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 2 DEMOÂ·(6,3*2'76JIIAL 1)wai,IN43 (JNIT #- 1 - OR,6#w/ru4,;BTAUG~JAE -1- ADP 1 nOWS j l iE pzsoL - ]646 SP Se COAD fi LOON. =1.91,~1~1 I.F: 1 4 81 UNIT * 2 - 4.r !:*.810252%4;~go CF) 240 fu>ch& 0 4,20 5Fj Baseme,rr.---114*ai.z. 2---Â·86. 9. Description of develop'inifit'0Â®plication AENOVATE UNIT *-1 W ITW New Fou 'JM11004 W.Il*(.384SEmeUT j PEÂ£.0,/tfrfz.Ucil,h) FAeULOD.1 /re 0 1 1-1OW w 1 7101 - Â· Fdol- r Ikj~Jr CH A'A 4,6 i A-3,2 6/1-RAGE No (ADA K Al- UkkrJA:*--2- 10. Have you completed anclattached the following? Attachment 12 l*iB?tiEPS~lichtion form Attachment 22-Dimeosional-requirements form . EYA, 0 -#1,*19*.66Â£Â»r-. Items requiredÂ·in Attachment-3 Response tdAttdthhiEnts-4 and 5 E'>cba (+ 5 1\N4\ APR-12-01 THU 08:15 AM PATRICK CASHEN FAX:3037590852 PAGE 2 P47 0 . 0 ATTACHMENT 2 ~ . DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Arn LD-3->h~ Address: 3 3 9 (Â»7 - /*-, ' 0-7-77 Zone district: A - 6 Lot size: 900= M Existing FAR: 9/9 5 -5 14 Allowable FAR: 4-580 8 C l~/ 500 ~CA bor,7,5 ) Proposed FAR: 450 9 <Sk Existing net leasable (commercial): Proposed net leasable (commercial): - Existing % of site coverage: 14 -590 -. Proposed % of site coverage: Cle. 690 Existing % of open space: Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg:-15 ' Accesory bldg: n /4 Proposed max. height: Principal bldg:,25 1 Accessory bldg:.' .. Proposed % of demolition: 39 0 I Existing number of bedrooms: 4 (634-1-71(4/(, 4) Proposed number of bedrcoms: 5 Existing on-site parking spaces: / On-site parking spaces required: 1 - be-F r",U-rfra-G,4 non -clyrM. J Setbacks Existing: , Minimum required: Proposed: , Front: 1 <D Front JO' Front: 1 0 Rear. b Rear: -"1'/0' Rear: 3 1 Combined . 3 Combined ,- - 1 Combined *1 Front/rear:/ 3 Fron#real::--- Front/rear: j -3 Side: 12' 41 Side: 49 - Sider #5' Side:- 4.-1 ' Combined Combined Combined , Sides: -5- Sides: 'Â· .. ~ 2 50 Sides: 98 Existing nonconformities or encroachments: rÂ£*Â·r 6-774 * -s ' A-e.... .,7' 432.,I.:a11' #i",5.321 bg/.0,20:; ') 02-.f')4 , ne 0 . Variations requested: 11% R j-72]-31 6,6 1 A-egleÂ¢,Q,1/1~61 <:ie:*14-n 3/65Yn,9*rÂ»<~ A 144-n<, 6Â»01 rcd?LA rwÂ·--* *20 26 4.9- 64*7- -- 44 ( HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setback distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infili program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R.6, R-15, RMF, CC. and O zone districts) - 1 1 P48 334 WEST HALLAA STREET 1 71,9 1/ 7.- 2,40' :-- v -g#'i ?474 Noel -S'S' IE ,76 - 424- 1 -h . // 99 '223, ( U ..::.4,4 1 2 * 1. a 1 wc w.ims Rinch Ct 2 5 Â« m.â€¢* st .1 Alâ€¢4 4% 2 H. r $2~ f ~, ; ~ Come - -Â·4*.M ~, ~44 0 '4 '-- M'te" 0 0. 444 34 ......20* \\ 4. dr :.Â·w,B, Rba .. . 1). m - :Tr' 4 % 1."01 . .4 .0 : *1'#11:~ 4â€¢ ~ 4 4 - 4 4 44 c. â€¢0 ~\ '0~ au,,. st _. - 4 1 Dne. Sirer $ Coe 4 M.scm 1- . ;,I,jrkf.Â·f -i ,~ f f *:.4. 1 Gre. Re.. Whit. Rirer Natonal fircit 4 04â€ž . 0 2 i tt i & .Ct 4 1 & 4 6 4 4 900, Downtown , N *tr?*45\1 C! - U 1 4*- Aspen F + 3 i ': S: Si li 4. m.4,0 Wur.40. m I I ~t lit. M ' '93 \1. Folk 1 3. f ....... 2 Y r-Â«i, - 0 1/4 : 1/2 : . Scalâ€¢ in m#e: t .::f . 34*fy:â‚¬. 1%:...,2-1... . i ':.Â· iÂ·:, 8 . Â· a S iii Motmtalâ€¢ Rd P49 t. i ,Â»,h <4 2 1 too /14 HAYDEN CONNOR PROPERTY HISTORIC REDEVELOPMENT 334 WEST HALLAM STREET Patrick Cashen Architect 4155 East Jewell Avenue, #1106 Denver, CO 80222-4516 303-759-0650 303-759-0852 FAX \ Pagel P50 ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All development applications must include the following information. (Section 26.304.030): 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicanfs name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on the behalf of the applicant Owner's Letter - Table of Contents item 3. 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. Owner's Letter - Table of Contents item 3. 3. A disdosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the narnes of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts, and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right for the Development Application. Current Certificate from Title Insurance Company - Table of Contents item 5. 4. An 8 1/2 x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. Vicinity Map - Table of Contents item 8. 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the projects physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 11 x17 drawings 7 & 8; 24x36 drawing 21 - Table of Contents items 7.d. & 7.e. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showings the current status of the parcel including the topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) Draft Plat - Table of Contents item 9. 7. A written description of the proposal and a explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Written Description & Responses to Requirements - Table of Contents item 10. 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. None requested thus far. Page 2 P51 ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW All applications for conceptual review must include the following information: 1. A site plan and survey showing property boundaries and predominant existing site characteristics. 11 x17 drawing 1 & Draft Plat - Table of Contents items 7.d. & 9. 2. The conceptual selection of major building matedals to be used in the proposed development. Project Overview - Table of Contents item 10.a. 3. if applicable, a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and/or the character of the neighborhood. Project Overview - Table of Contents item 10.a. 4. Scale drawings of all elevations of any proposed structures, including a roof plan. 11x17 drawings 12,13 & 14; 24x36 drawing 23 - Table of Contents items 7.d. & 7.e. 5. Without adding excessive costs to the applicant,a visual description of the neighborhood context through at least one of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models, or streetscape elevations. Photographs - Table of Contents item 7.c. Page 3 P52 PROJECT OVERVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS This property is at the northeast comer of 3rd and Hallam Streets with a site area of 9,002 sf. There are large cottonwoods on the site and more along the street frontages. Constructed in 1890, the Eugene Wilder Residence is a classic example of early Aspen architecture with a two story front polygonal bay accented with colored glass transom windows on both floors. Lap siding, fish scale shingles in the gables, finely detailed brackets with pendants, and small scale dentils complete the exterior trim. The roof is wood shingles with brick chimneys. A two story addition was constructed prior to 1961 to the north. It varies substantially from the original character with a large low slope roof and an assortment of window sizes and shapes. It is also compromised by having portions of the addition second floor lower by 24" from the original, making the window alignment and wall heights even more disparate. A separate two story dwelling with basement was built in 1990 on the northwest corner of the site. Interior remodeling of the house and addition has occurred over the years. The street elevations of the original structure are essentially intact, and the extent of the east wall is clearly visible even though the addition wall is in the same line. Settlement of the foundation coupled with decay in the wood members close to the ground has left the structure with uneven floors, wall bulges, and other signs of distress. Heating is uneven with a combination of electric baseboard, electric ceiling units, and limited hot water baseboard. An inspection report from August 1998, table of contents item 11, details the condition of the structure. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A complete renovation of the main structure is planned; no work is contemplated on the second dwelling. A. Replace the foundation entirely with a full basement and structural repairs to the framing. B. Preserve and repair the original exterior materials and elements. C. Replace the addition, with a slightly modified footprint, and align the floor levels; provide a sympathetic exterior character with matching materials. D. All new interior systems and finishes. E. Add an attached single car garage. Two sites plans are presented recognizing the existence of a cottonwood tree in the middle of the east yard. Site plan (A) proposes to move the structure to the west ten feet to allow an addition to be built and maintain the tree. Site plan (B) portrays keeping the structure in its present location with the addition encompassing the tree; removal of the tree would be necessary in this scheme. Page 4 P53 ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS No approval for any development in the "H" Historic Overlay District, or invoMng historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all the following standards are met: 1. The proposed development is compatible in general design, scale, site plan, massing, and volume with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Histodc Overlay District, or is adjacent to a Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, exceed the allowable floor area by up to 500 sq. ft., or exceed the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such vadation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. The proposed project respects the character and massing of the original structure by designing the replacement addition to be secondary in these areas: -lower roof line (within height limitations) -maintain existing principal roof pitch on the addition but with smaller gables Additionally, these aspects of the parcel are maintained: -no change in front or rear setbacks; side yard setback increased with Osage relocation -preserve the original exterior materials and extend them onto the addition, as well as keeping the new window proportions the same as the original -preserve in their entirety the street frontage elevations of the original structure as well as the east side gable -allow the three dominant gable ends of the original structure to be easily distinguished from the addition Combining all these attributes on the site results in a very sensitive design which qualifies for the 500 sq. ft bonus. 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; The scale and massing of the project maintains the street experience of the neighborhood while repladng the previous addition with a compatible structure. All four sides of the development have received specific design attention to complement the original architecture. Page 5 P54 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from tile historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels, By addressing the west, east, and north sides of the parcel with a sensitive replacement addition, the adjacent parcels are actually enhanced. The extent of the original residence can readily be understood and is supported by the replacement addition. 4. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. The proposed project removes the previous addition which is perceived to be non contributory to the parcel. Careful offsets in the plan and roof design has created a much more livable structure while respecting the original personality of the residence. Page 6 P55 ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on site relocation shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: b. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocaOon On site relocation preserves the large cottonwood in the east yard while permitting a significant improvement in the functionality of the first floor plan. Moving the structure closer to 3rd Street will generate a more substantial corner presence and a solid architectural anchor for the block. c. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation To be provided. d. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security approved by the HPC with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, Aite preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. This bond will be posted should the relocation be approved. Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the Historic Preservation Commission finds all of the following standards are met: a. The partial demoli~on is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historical significance of the parcel The previous addition intended to be removed degrades the original architecture and was constructed without regard for the quality of the original design. Floor level alignments, window proportions, and roof slopes were ignored. These elements have been given careful consideration in the replacement addition. b. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: Page 7 P56 (1) Impacts on the historical significance of the structure of stuctures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions The original street frontages are maintained and highlighted by the replacement addition. No significant features are removed and the east wall gable, currently compromised, is set apart from the replacement addition. 2) Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions that are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. The replacement addition acknowledges the integrity and charm of the original structure. Page 8 P57 VARIANCES The variances requested are as follows: a. Variance from Residential Design Standards: 26.410.040 (C)(1) and Alley Access: 26.410.040(C)(2)(b) - garage must be set back 10' from front facade of house. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE: Standards shou/dsimp/yand succinc#yidenÂ®/ why, # granted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or to be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. A garage placement on this comer lot was made difficult by the construction of the second dwelling unit in 1990. Placed on the northwest comer, this structure takes the space where a garage would normally be placed on this parcel. The only available non street position for a garage is the northeast comer where a 500 sq. ft. building would present an atypical arrangement of two large secondary structures on the alley. By attaching the one story garage to the house on the 3rd Street side, the open space normally associated with the alley is preserved. The attached garage could be viewed as a subordinate strudure to the main house and inflects as a one story element between the two-story dwellings. The driveway is placed on the short dimension of the block on this comer lot mitjgating jts impact away from the predominant street frontage. b. Variance from the dimensional requirements of the code: Section 26.575.020 states: For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling unit, the garage shall only be excluded from floor area calculations up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is located on said alley or road. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE (Section 26.314.040) in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following (3) circumstances exist 1. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure The proposed location for the garage is on the short dimension of the block, away from the predominant frontage of Hallam Street. It is only 308 sq. ft. 2. Uteral enforcement and interpretation of the terms and provisions of this Tile would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the apphcant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. in determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: Page 9 P58 a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant The second dwelling unit construction in 1990 preceded the applicant"s ownership of the property. Its location has created a unique situation for this corner parcel. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Note that there are other off street garages across 3rd Street and in the immediate neighborhood. 0 Page 10 P59 STATEMENT OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The efforts of this project will replace the addition with a structure in keeping with the original character of the residence, but respecting Its integrity in time. Particularly, roof lines of the addition have been designed to maintain views to the original gable end walls and to be lower than the original ridge line. Window proportions have been affirmed and matching wall materials are specified. Structural repairs, foundation replacement, and interior amenities will assure that the strudure will be stable and easily maintained for continued use, enjoyment, and contribution to the historic streetscape. This street comer receives a high volume of pedestrian traffic in the summer and this project will be a noticeable asset to the streetscape. Page 11 P60 0 RESPONSE TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed work respects the original site orientation and setbacks. An existing 6' fence along Hallam Street will be removed opening up views to the backyard from the street. A low open iron fence will be placed along the street frontages at the property line. The form of the replacement additjon has been carefully considered to permit the recognition of the original house form. This has been accomplished with wall offsets and roof design. A variance is requested for the garage access from 3rd Street and a dimensional variance if site plan (A) is approved. No windows exist in the exterior walls between nine and twelve feet. One basement window light well is proposed on the 3rd Street frontage. This location is unavoidable due to a corner lot and the separation required between the two basement egress windows required by the building code. The other light well is on the southeast side but well back from the street. Exterior wall materials are the same on all exposures with exposed concrete foundation and painted wood siding, wood windows and wood trim. Page 12 P61 RESPONSE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Chapter 6 - Architectural Details Nearly all of the original exterior materials are present in a sound or repairable condition. The two story south bay was restored in 1965 and remains in very good condition. The west porch will need to be dismantled but the material will be reinstalled in a similar arrangement. The use of replacement materials is expected to be minimal. At some point in time, a cold roof was was placed over the original roof surface. This setup will be maintained on the replacement addition and gutters added. Chapter 9 - Building Relocation & Foundations Replacement of the foundation is essential to stabilize the structure and allow a thorough renovation. As the site currently has negative drainage toward the structure, the new floor level will be raised slightly, to be determined by a detailed topographic survey of the historic drainage patterns. The original foundation is concrete so the exposed portion of the replacement will be the same. The proposal to relocate the structure ten feet to the.west is solely to preserve the cottonwood tree in the middle of the east yard. The Hallam Street setback and building orientation are unchanged. Two basement window light wells are proposed; the historic grade relationship to the first floor level puts the actual windows completely below grade. Chapter 10 - Building Additions The recent previous addition is perceived to be non-contributing to the historical character and is intended to be removed. The design of the replacement structure will use similar exterior materials and matching roof slopes as the original. Being lower than the original ridge, the addition roof is not competing with the strong line of the original ridge. Eave height is maintained on the addition. A Uflat" roof over the east addition will isolate the original east gable from the addition roof. Any other roof over this portion of the addition would compromise the independence of this shingled gable. The replacement addition will preserve the historic alignment of the Hallam Street frontage. OTHER ITEMS The concrete driveway strips leading to the proposed garage are intended to be heated. If the garage construction is denied, these heated driveway strips would lead to a heated concrete pad for parking two vehicles. Page 13 1 -r BET OF 11X17 DRAWINGS I /: 1 EXISTING BITE FLAN - 1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR FLAN - 2 EXETING SECOND FLOOR FLAN - 3 EXISTING SOUTH & WEET ELEVATIONS - 4 EXISTING NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 5 EXISTING ROOF FLAN - 6 FKOFOSED GTE FLAN A WITH ON-BITE RELOCATION - 7 FKOFOSED STE FLAN B WITH TREE REMOVAL - 8 FKOFOSED FIKET FLOOR FLAN - 9 FKOFOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAN - 10 :i FROFOSED BASEMENT FLOOR FLAN - 11 FKOFOSED SOUTH & WEET ELEVATIONS - 12 FKOFOSED NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 13 FKOFOSED ROOF FL.AN - 14 FROFOSED LIGHT WELLS - 15 FROFOSED NORTH ELEVATION WITHOUT GARAGE - 16 SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST EXTEKIOK EKETCHES - 17 ..9 NORTHEAST & NORTHWEST EXTERIOK SKETCHES - 13 4 -- Twa 4 BET OF 24X36 DRAWINGS '1?r. 9 EXISTING FLOOK FLANS - 19 EXISTING EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 20 FROFOSED BITE FLAN A & SITE FLAN 5 - 21 Â·Â·riÂ¢ FKOFOSED FLOOR FLANS - 22 t FROFOSED EXTERIOK ELEVATIONS - 23 FATKICK CASHEN ARCHITECT 4155 EAST JEWELL AVENUE, #1106 DENVER, COLORADO 30222-4516 1 303.759.0650 303.759.0852 FAX .7 pcaehen@pcaco.corn 4 P63 HAYDEN CONNOR FROFERTY HISTORICAL KEDEVELOFMENT 334 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO tlo (- C P\721 9~45Â» P64 SET OF 11X17 DRAWINGS EXISTING ETE FLAN - 1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR FLAN -2 EXISTING SECOND FLOOK FLAN - 3 EXISTING SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS - 4 EXISTING NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 5 EXISTING ROOF FLAN - 6 FKOFOSED BITE FLAN A WITH ON-BITE KELOCATION - 7 FKOFOSED BITE FLAN B WITH TKEE REMOVAL - 8 FKOFOSED FIKET FLOOR PLAN - 9 FKOFOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAN - 10 FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLOOR FLAN - 11 FKOFOSED SOUTH & WEET ELEVATIONS - 12 FROFOSED NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS - 13 FKOFOSED ROOF FLAN - 14 FROFOSED LIGHT WELLS - 15 HAYDEN CONNOR FROFEKTY FROFOSED NORTH ELEVATION WITHOUT GAKAGE - 16 HISTORICAL KEDEVELOFMENT SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST EXTEKIOK EKETCHES - 17 NORTHEAST & NORTHWEST EXTEKIOR SKETCHES - 18 334 WEST HALLAM STREET . 2 ASFEN, COLOKADO BET OF 24X3@ DRAWINGS 0 Of i EXISTING FLOOK FLANS - 19 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - 20 FROFOSED GTE PLAN A & STE FLAN 5 - 21 FKOFOBED FLOOK PLANS - 22 FROFOSED EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 23 PATRICK CASHEN ARCHITECT A 4155 EAST JEWELL AVENUE, #1106 , DENVER, COLORADO 30222-4516 Â·fi 303.759.0650 303.759.0852 FAX pcaehen@pcaco.corn j ~\gy> ~1 â‚¬ZE)-U - = -. -.-- - r -'.,1Â·~Â·:0:4- 17*4"i,$~i_.,4054~,~'rjf-k .ikr., P65 20' ALLEY ,1*5.7j 31.a FROFEKTY LINE 900 b. . 1 (/0,lo) 1 1. MICA | EXISTI.NG TWO LU| WALK ~ STORY-DWELLING 2 CRABAFFLE i =il -4 Ij 1 CO 1 - 37.0' 32.25' . GRAVEL DRIVE C< % 0 0 - L Aol 1 2 V z I i )) 1U .0 7 Â»12 It 01 h 1 11 - EXISTING TWO <~ ii~ h iE STORY DWELLING 8'I 8 i *112 1 FEIS---1 ! i 1 1 20.2' FORCH 0- f -----1 9 liE ~ 2 CRASAFFLA\//' 1 Al .2%4 O 9729#E O v..-9(~ - < ~ ~ COTTONWOOD \ 1 TREE -TYPICAL EDGE OF STREET FAyING HALLAM BTREET < ~ EXISTING SITE PLAN 1"=16' 1, 20.3' THIRD STREET ONIAVd 133119 30 3903 P66 t==1 031 -PX J Â£ L)<= -L__ -1 3 I ~ MUDROOM - KITCHEN U - 0 1 -1 31 L ,* * 11 I I ln--7 DINING KOOM J 0 -5 â‚¬ LIVING ROOM - ~~4444\ 11 1 1 FORCH n r 'UF ' FOKCH r NORTH 0 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR FLAN < 1/8 =1'-0" P67 -- 1.0, C Jij a BEDROOM r 21 EEDKOOM,--2~ JAI /1 0 _01 I - L. 14 103=- 4 i r-C &=1 1 STUDY hah o - -BEDROOM DEDKOOM T - L44 n NORTH 0 1/3"=1'-0" EXISTING SECOND FLOOR FLAN PAINTED FISH SCALE SHINGLES f- BKICK CHIMNEYS 1-Â»- PAINTED LAF SIDING rÂ· Â·4w,-T49444r' ~rtx:~r' WOOD SHINGLES â€ž v. ULT r w t-YfT1-T~X:IX;:t.- ~.,7 Te, T 7 T r X,;z~242*:24 WOOD SHINGLES ./*3â‚¬'T *rÂ· Â·r' Y - + COLORED - - - B B B--El ~1 GLASS LITES BE]L B B B 140.2. L.E E -,- DRACKET@, OEB O0 DENTILS, ' - - E --@ Irl FENDANTE L.1 = --- -- 0 0 40 El Â¤Â¤ 00 LJ FLOOR LINE ORIGINALSTRUCTEE EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION ---- 1/8 =1'-0" 1/8 =1'-0 ..m P69 WOOD SHINGLES -r . T <. ;94 . T . 7-1,7 T . CZE Â·r -r Â·Â·Â·rÂ·Â·PE'*924Â«.Â· .WOOD BHINGLES T ZE 7- 7- T T''r"-:12 7-'~72 -r -11 1. H- Ino U B B PAINTED LAF BIDING FKEVIOUS ADDITION - -~ EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONI 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0 00000 7 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 1. U- 1 4-12 | | SLOPE 1 1 1 1 EXISTING | CHIMNEYB RIDGE 9-12 D 1 0 LU 9-12 9-12 1 1 SLOFE SLOPE I 71 1 1 1 ___1 1- L j - LOW SLOFE FORCH ROOFS ./\ EXISTING FIRST EXISTING SECOND FLOOR ROOF FLAN FLOOR ROOF FLAN 1/8'=1'-0 1/5"=1'-0" KIP( P71 t ---1 -.-/-/-.-.-/---Il- IJF0-.-/---/-7Â¥ C o )( Â° 7 'i 1. ONE ' EXISTING TWO 11 STORY 1 STORY DWELLING 11 GARAGE I il ADDITION i '1 C--2 HEATED 2 *~5 7,~ Â¢ 4.3' --22.00 2 15'01 '19 951 '1, 33.5 1 D 1 DRIYEWAY \-j ' 1- STRIFE TWO STORY .. ) <<. LU / 1 ADDITION /~ OK 9 OIl:1 j . I REFLACE a ' E 2 10 PREVIOUS 0,)1 - li 'L ... .:'./ ' I TREE M -- j ADDITION !iiI5 WREMAINS Â·:4555 1 ! 11 LLI WINDOW-J Sail - WELL 7----> 6 2 2 ,Â· i KE MODELED TWO \ 4 8 6 11 STORY DWELLING WI N DOW i k WELL | FORTION OF EAST j ~- ~p FENCE REMOVED FORCH . BACK TO HERE REMOVE 10.01,/ % 'e 00 1 FENCE : 41,3 4 0 21.0' , 10.0' k. tri I 4 ' ' - 1 0 .-'-I .-.- -.-.-.- .-Â·----4 lo O ADD LOW IRON ~ FENCE ALONG STREET FRONTAGES - . EDGE OF STREET F/WING HALLAM STKEET FROFOSED SITE PLAN - A RELOCATE STRUCTURE ~ TO REEF TREE BY ADDITIONI ~ 1"=16' 14.9' ONIAVA 133319 30 3903 P72 t- 1 0 ( 0 1. ONE ~ EXISTING TWO i I STORY 1 STORY DWELLING il GAKAGE 1 1 ~ ADDITIOI>1 1 11 HEATED . 4 *9 7~ 10 02 < 22.0' <~4 19.4' 9 9.51 , 23.3' 11, 8 * 1 DBVEWAY '*1 4 -- TWO STORY ~ i STRIFS -3 .,g_ Â·:Â·/:.4,Â·Â·/i-:.6//f,<:/1-6~/-'jÂ·- ADDITIO - / \11 / L.LI I TUB 01 1 1 02 V O )-N & . I j. lu KEFLACE 544<42 Â£2 U 10 FREVIOUS IL pg77-7 --- i ADDITION 1,#lit REMOVE ~~ . L ____-__ -- ff-9Â¢44 TREE 1/1- - 11 1 11 e:-- i I KEMODELED TWO d I i REMOVE 1 2 7-1 STOKY DWELLING WINDOW - 11 SHED 04 WELL ~ i WINDOW 0 1 | WELL L FORCH REMOY 1 99 4 - l 202 1 j. Â·Â«1 f- FENCE \/41 1 ctzi-' , 21.0, , 16.01 A I . r 1 1 0 410.-3 - ._._.--- _._._._._._,E7-02<_ /6 0 ) ADD LOW IRON FENCE ALONG < STKEET FKONTAGES- EDGE OF STREET FAVING HALLAM STREET FROFOSED STE FLAN - 5 ~ TREE REMOVAL AT EAST ADDITION ~ 1"=16' ONIÂ»/2 133319 30 3903 LINE OF DUFLEX UNIT 1 1 P73 22'-0' 15'-0" , 91-011 . a I h tr- \ E NOTE WITH BITE FLAW 8 GARAGE GARAGE 16 MOVED 4'WEST SADIE FOOTPRINT - id 1 W -- -- 911 -4 ADD 0 lad KITCHEN CERTIFIED L]j10 = WOODSTOVE ,_jl 0 5 ts) ~ MUDROOM ~ SUNKOOM 1 WINDOW , C -- -1____ WELL BELOW --F r-- 1 0 91â‚¬ IÂ· 1 1 ---2 1 -2 1 1- WINDOW L-- DINING ROOM [~ WELL BELOW LIVING ROOM - fn EXISTING FIREFLACE ' * L KEFAIR FLUE FOKCH n r I FOKCH n r gognA ~ FROFOSED FIRET FLOOK FLAN 1/8 =1'-0 "0-,trl FORCH P74 LINE OF ONE STORY GARAGE BELOW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 2 - - w -1><1 &*1C~LE-J H-1.--1 DECOKATIVE ..<~ DECORATIVE GAS APPLIANCE n I 'Â°0 7 4 GAS APPLIANCE *TUDY. ~ l-7 Jl /1.110 0 4 BEDROOM 3 DUO O; DIE -J ~ 21A 0-J 1 ECORATIVE GAS APPLIANCE SKYLIGHT -*/ BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 J DECORATIVE 16= -4 GAS AFFLIANCE E-2-1 ~=== 21 NOK11-1 0 FROFOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAW < 1/8 -1'-0 P75 UNEXCAVATED Towl i HATCH WITH : EQU I FMENT ~1~ ACCESS FROM L.... BEDROOM ~ ..r r... SAUNA U FORCH DECK I .. IU h /3.Ju 1.1/1U F-J ..1 R WINDOW o WELL 03 ID E U.1 - 2 2 2 O /- BEDROOM 3 KEC ROOM Â£~- *~ -. .- - . , B1. NORTH FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLAN ~ 1/8"=1'-0" 10*% P76 EXISTING BRICK 7Â»4Â· - CHIMNEYS 4Â·-trN~4ry*rxgL WOOD SHINGLES -24T.r-'V'4Xlfb-I-T-ri-'-rÂ·Â·7Â·Â· WOOD SHINGLES ..~..''T'&5FT#~*Miqi&15~-07 PAINTED LAF - -- - -A- 50* B El~ B B Il 0141 (13 b IOUL B B B BEI ik) FLE-CRILNE-~~-I 04 WOOD SHINGLES 0 000.00 0 col LILI 00 FLOOK LINE Â¤Â¤ 8 1 0 ---I-Jr- 0-0 6- i PAINTED WOOD i i DOORS & WINDOWS GAKAGE KEFLACEMENT ;_- ADDITION~--ADDITION 4 ORIGIN-Al--SIE-Ng]JEE- - -~ L-------------EEâ‚¬ELETRUCTEE*ADDiTIOL,~ FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION FROFOSED SOUTH ELEVATION --- 1/85"=1'-0 1/81'=1'-0" 2 ~ - FAINTED FIEH SCALE SHINGLES SKYLIGHTS WOOD SHINGLES -J / ./r Â· - *04Â·r/~'c'Â· 44*4244-A. 464 Â·-Â» 'T~T''T T'. r/*TH./-/.r.I T 1.1 - PAINTED LAP 1 - - 8 EIBBB BIDING - NEB B '-r7* * TT. WOOD SHINGLES . Â·74999 364 Â» - 8 Ei yhf <Â¥r h. fÂ».r -17 .. 7 7 -r 72 -er 7-41- 7-' *r /7 -r r W *r ~T' -lf :gr T , Â·Zur T . - B BB E BB 0 - 00 m m FAINTED WOOD NOTE THAT SITE FLAN B DOORS & WINDOWS GARAGE MOVEE 4 WEST REPLACEMENT GARAGE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ,~, ADDITION ,~, ADDITION KEFLACEMENT ADDITION GARAGE ADDITION PROFOSED EAST ELEVATION FROFOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/8 =1'-0" 1/8 =1'-0" P78 1 1 1 1 w DECORATIVE GAS 1 6-12 5 0-12 1 1 ELOFE 2 ELOPE 1 AFFLIANCE FLUE 1 1 ' 1 -41 1 -------7 E------- ----- 1 1 9-12 ~-~ 9-12 | SLOFE SKYLIGHT ~ 1-12 \ SLOPE | / SLOFE ~ LU Ill O 0 1 1-12 a a 1 -000 - 0Â£ Dz I SLOPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 r--1 111 l 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXISTING RIDGE I r,6 j ~ CHIMNEYS 9-12 1 1 \ b SLOPE | /1/ 1 1 . Â« 1 F- 1 1 1 ----- - -1 3 69-12 9-12 EXISTING KOOFS - - 1 SLOPE w SLOPE TO REMAIN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 L U L f 9/24 \ -* j J 1 94 EXISTING KOOFS TO REMAIN FROFOSED FIKET NORTH NOR.TH FROFOSED SECOND ~ FLOOR KOOF FLAN FLOOR ROOF FLAN ~ 1/3 =1'-0 1/8 =11 -OIl R P79 -- 8 - --- r.ri- ------- 7/ - --- 93 --.- ---- ----- -ip-------- -- --- 7.- WINDOW WELL <1 WINDOW 5-0 WIDE 10-0 5-0 WIDE X 7-0 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT HIGH L__-1 HEIGHT CEILING FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL 1/8' '=1'-0" WITH EXFOSURE TO SOUTH WALL ALSO - SEE BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN WINDOW WELL LOCATED AT INSIDE CORNER OF FOUNDATION -T--71 - -- -- 1 1 11 11 H 0 lilli-'01 -- , IL -1__ m - 1 WINDOW WELL < 1 WINDOW 7-0 WIDE 10-0 7-6 WIDE X 7-0 --4 X 6-0 HIGH SABEMENT HIGH - HEIGHT CEILING FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL . ~ 1/8"=1'-0" 1)11 1\11 In[[1 Ill I li lli 1 11 ~ IC] EN 0 IN 11 1 11 111'illil W 1 1\ 11 1 Ill 11 1 11 P80 .-1.. 73*14 '1:4 Af -r T T -r -..ILIT'.irÂ·Â· . -r X*. /791%617T7TTXPEr 1.Fri<149974-r . ~'lls-1 BE -El - 8 EM-00 - _ 00 - 0 FKOFOSED NORTH ELEVATION WITHOUT (GARAGE 1/8"=1'-0" 3- -C==Z. C= Cirri := - C=1 11 1 *==4, 1 C==a 11 - - ik -= lil - ll,1 -- 1 Ca sketch frorn eouthweet - 1 --~ - I./-- 1 ---Ii- -.--- 1 r-- -- lÂ»-4~~Â»61 0- r-- 09 +d 11 -- -01[}Â· [1_L-_dI = *- m eketch frorn eoutheast 9% P82 - f - 3, L lili 1 . LI eketch from northweet t ' I ' - 0/ h \ f[ 11 -1 -ift- n E- -- 7 7 3 C 3 -- 2 00 Â© eketch from northeaet 11 1 N il I li li I Il i ill BET OF 11X17 DRAWINGS EXISTING BITE FLAN - 1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOK FLAN - 2 EXISTING BECOND FLOOK FLAN - 3 EXISTING SOUTH & NORTH ELEVATIONS - 4 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - 5 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION - 6 EXISTING ROOF FLAN - 7 FKOFOSED GTE FLAN STRUCTURE RELOCATION - 8 FKOFOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN - 9 FKOFOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAN - 10 FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLOOK FLAN - 11 FKOFOSED SOUTH & NORTH ELEVATIONS - 12 FROFOSED WEST ELEVATION - 13 FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION - 14 FKOFOSED KOOF PLAN - 15 FKOFOSED LIGHT WELLS - 16 SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST EXTEKIOK SKETCHES - 17 NOKTHEAST & NOKTHWEST EXTEKIOK SKETCHEB - 18 SET OF 24X36 DRAWINGS EXISTING FLOOK FLAWS - 19 EXISTING EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 20 FKOFOSED SITE FLAN - 21 FKOFOSED FLOOK FLANS - 22 FKOFOBED NORTH & SOUTH EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 23 FKOFOSED EAST & WEST EXTEKIOK ELEVATIONS - 24 PATRICK CASHEN ARCHITECT 4155 EAST JEWELL AVENUE, #1106 DENVEK, COLORADO 80222-4516 303.759.0650 303.759.0852 FAX pcaehen@pcaco.com HAYDEN CONNOR FROFERTY HISTOKICAL KEDEVELOFMENT 334 WEST HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO AUGUST 9,2002 >4. k. li . 1 \1 20' ALLEY /37 , 31.0' 0, 0 -.- FEDFEETL.LINE.2(1022 ._~_,_~_~,~Â·:-~~-- ~-~-~-~-0-~-~ FENCE i (35114//) 1 ~ EXIBTING BRICK | 2 STORY I ! WALK ~ CARRIAGE 2 CKABAFFLE 1 HOUSE 11 11 --L---------7~ 1 to 0 1 - 37.0' . 32.81 1 L 0 . GRAVEL DRIVE , 1. - Ilir M . 0 oli N r- C 41--9 - . Oil A I lcD 1 02 .0 1 0- 0 1 EXISTING TWO ~~ t-- 4% i 8 STORY DWELLING 5 811% 01 jili~ FENCHE---~ ~ ~ 1 1 . 20.2' FORCH 0 ---.--1 ~ 2 CRABAFFLA\ //1 1 1 0. - 1_~iNH ,~25~Â·j N tO O 9Ffl~(~E 7 < O ~ ~ ~ COTTONWOOD ~ TREE - TYPICAL EDGE OF STREET FAyING HALLAM STREET ~ ~ EXISTING SITE FLAN 1 =16 |, 20.3' 2.0~, 33N33 ONIAÂ¥Â£1133>I19 40 3903 t=/ - -2/1 EX 1 f'.mr-"~ ~-er- Ij L -% 4 KITCHEN ~ MUDKOOM - 8 2 -1 111 [ f .r 1 f L -7 DINING KOOM ~ 0 =r LIVING KOOM - ~ 11 11 FORCH t ---r--- 7 n r 'UF "CEL FOKCH 0 0 NORTH EXISTING FIRST FLOOR FLAN ~ 1/5'=1'-0,1 F JN a BEDROOM 11 ( BEDKOOM_2~ J.3~ ri ~ =L414 4 STUDY J-han Â¤ d. i 4 1 ~~BEDKOOM ~ J . BEDROOM - =L_j n NORTH EXISTING SECOND FLOOR FLAN 3 U V 1/B'=1~-0" PAINTED FISH SCALE HINGLES WOOD SHINGLES WOOD SHINGLES 7 0 COLOKE GLASS O LjTES 411 4 Rbi 63 N FLOQR 1.161E .o BRACKETS, Â¤ B -Le, & PAINTED 0 FENDANTS 9| LAF O LI~ B 6 SIDING 0 Â¤Â¤ _FLOOR g-NE J 00 DES - EXISTINGADDITION~ -252INALSTRUCTURE EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8"=1'-0" 0 BRICK CHIMNEYS FAINTED LAF BIDING WOOD SHINGLES COLORED BBEB GLASS LITES BRACKETS, 00 E EE B~ FENDANTS DENTILS. & 0 |<___CARRIAGE HOUSE ~ EXISTINGADE1TION-252*LSTRUCTUEL~ EXISTING WEST ELEVATION - 1/8"=1'-0" WOOD SHINGLES 7- . T W Â·AV. 7 ~ ~ VÂ·r 0 8 FANTED mem LAF SIDING ORIGINAL STRUCTURE EXISTING ADDITION ~ ~ CARRIAGE HOUSE ~ EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 1/8'1=1'-0" 0 - Ii-- ..Il--- -7 -1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 If 1 1 E- 1 4-12 | SLOPE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXIETING | CHIMNEYS KIDGE | 1 1 1 1 1 g 91 1 1 SLOPE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ---- -_J 1 9-12 9-12 1 1 | SLOFE SLOPE I 1 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 L ___~ 1 1 1 510- LOW GLOFE -10 91 FORCH KOOFS EXISTING FIKET EXISTING SECOND ~ FLOOR KOOF FLAN FLOOR ROOF FLAN 1/8"=1'-0" 1/8'=11-011 KIDGE 1. | EXIDTING 1 1. ONE 1 2 STORY - 11 STORY | CARRIAGE 11 GARAGE I HOUSE * 11 ADDITION 1 06 11 HEATED <00~ \ Â¢15 7,1, f 4.3' 22.0' < 15.0' % 9.5' , 33.5' DRIVEWAY \,1 1. STKIFS Villill!11Â·11 TWO STORY A /-11 !11 / i ,~~//343#31 HOT ADDITION ~ LU 1 i~ 5'LSikiLPC:,fi~/,Â· Tue 0_2 6% 0' 1 71 A 1 53Â«25: .I MODIFY 0 ip EXISTING iÂ» 0 52 TREE 1 . 3 i ADDITION REMAINS ~ ~ . 1 /4 W 11 WINDOW 1 00 WELL --2-4 REMODELED TWO 4 LL) DZ LD i 2 STORY DWELLING WINDOW WELL i | PORTION OF EAST . 00 - 3-~ ~- FENCE REMOVED FOKCH KEMOVE BACK TO HERE 10.0 i , - - - FENCE (0) 60 / 1 . 00 4/,-1 1 _t--- r-~ / L~OK(|1 7(41 . 0) a //\I. 21 ' 21.0' ,1, 16.01 0 N 1 0 0 .0.-.pl.-I-.Il.-Ill - -.-07=\ -4 ob o ADD LOW IRON FENCE ALONG < d*) STREET FRONTAGES - EDGE OF STREET FAVING HALLAM 6TKEET FROFOSED BITE FLAW WITH STRUCTUKE RELOCATION 1 j '=16' ONIAVA 133319 dO 3903 LINE OF GARBAGE HOUSE ; 1 1 22'-0" . 1560'1 0 91-611 ... ib A =,59 - N U E GARAGE 9 1 U -* 1>4 j ADO Oil a ~_3 1/Ul KITCHE CERTIFIE 1 WOODSTOVE - ' I 0 - /1 % 2 MUDKOOM I SUNKOOM WINDOW ' â€¢ ct- WELL BELOW .=-15-f--1 --4 r-- , ,4 . I 1 ---2 I '- WINDOW L- _ DINING ROOM ~1 WELL BELOW LIVING ROOM ~~ - 11 lt, 1 6 EXISTING FREFLACE 6 REPAIR FLUE FORCH n r â€ž]Ilt FOKCH O C NORTH 0 FKOFOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN 1/5"=1'-0" LINE OF ONE STORY GARAGE BELOW r- ---1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L_ Â£/1/1 - mil-'ll- DECORATIVE -< DECORATIVE GAS APPLIANCE -- " 7 GAG AFFLIANCE ~ 0 0-,r~ u Ir- STUDY .71 BEDROOM 3 3:/Ho it=C I(JUO O~ GAS APPLIANCE r AL=3 A A OJ V DECORATIVE -1 SKYLIGHT / l .~ uc. DEDROOM 2 === ~ BEDROOM 1 DECOKATIVE 1&= GAS APPLIANCE 1-71 =Mil-- 70 y 80* PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR FLAN ~ 1/811=1'-0 " . UNEXCAVATED 701 C~ Â¥ AiR t. -r HATCH WITH :- EQUIPMENT ~ 1 -,7 5 ACCESS FROM tÂ·. 16.- BEDKOOM .... .% SAUNA K FORCH DEC; ~1 1 1 U h i FÂ·AÂ·ZÂ·4Â·1 U /11 ~Â· ID><lu 2 O WELL D 0 ~ WINDO Z LU 22 O~ - 4, BEDROOM i. ...1 , . 4 1 IL7 4 . KEC ROOM t~. .~ ...1. ..1 L.i d E Â·'t - U .. 4- 1 f---------------- - NOKTH 0 FKOFOSED BASEMENT FLAW ~ 1/8"=1'-0" EKYLIGHTS ti .r wl-3.9 't**ry WOOD SHINGLES T . tv. . . 1 . 7. T .7- y Â» .T -7- Â» Â»AIL mÂ£Â£ V --- T Bno B B B m 23 '-r- tr' T . * E.I.Q.Qg-,LlN %2~ZE '73- 74 <t. Â· Â·Â·r , Â·24- ,-Â· -TÂ· ~ . 0 CO Â¤Â¤ FLOOR LINE O-0 Â¤Â¤ 00 i i i FAINTED WOOD i i PAINTED WOOD 1 1 DOORS & WINDOWB DOORS & WINDOWS MODIFY FROFOSED EXISTING FKOFOSED ~ ADDITION ~ ADDITION GARAGE ADDITION ~ ~ ORIGINAL STRUCTUKE ~ ADDITIO_t--~ FROFOSED NOKTH ELEVATION FKOFOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 12'=11-011 1/8"=11-01, Â© EXISTING BKICK CHIMNEYS WOOD SHINGLES FAINTED LAF EDNG B B B B 0 EC) O.1 /094~ ,[.05:kexxxX32%. EI0101111 00 88 EE]* m El 7-5" ORIGINAL FOKCH GARAGE & EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUBE ADDITION ADDITION ORIGINAL STRUCTURE 1-Â«L-1-L--1 FROFOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/8"=1'-0" mooDD PAINTED FISH SCALE SHINGLES WOOD EHINGLES . ~T ~x' 2Â§3*Â¢4x 4., 9*56:y *447/6%*3#91*k 2O2XX163Â©L._1.-Â·J-JU'-_JUk FA\NTED LAF BIbi BIDING C\1 WOOD SHINGLES ~ 8 00 Â®BO u m m m Â¤ Â¤ 00 7-5' MODIFY EXISTING GAKAGE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ADDITION ADDITION CAKKIAGE HOUSE FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/8 =1'-0" 6-12 1 BLOFE L,1.1 0 6-12 1 DECORATIVE GAS 2 SLOPE 1 APPLIANCE FLUE 1 -3 ----1--- - -1 r 1 1 9-12 \ 9-12 9-12 | SLOPE SKYLIGHT / 1-12 BLOFE | GLOFE | r-1 0 / ELOFE 1 | ~ ~-1 ~ 1 KIDGE Q 1 1 E /= I 1 1 1 LU 1 1 0 1 f E I 1 F 1 1 0 Elf 1 1 1 i ' in] I 1 1 EXISTING KIDGE | 1 1 CH[MNEYS 9-12 1 11~ SLOPE 1 1 1 \ 1 % 9-12 - 9-12 EXISTING KOOFS -~ I SLOPE w SLOFE 1 TO REMAIN I 1 bt k - 1 1 1 1 0 L EXISTING KOOFS TO KEMAIN 909,38 FROFOSED FIRST FROFOSED SECOND NORTH FLOOK ROOF FLAN ~;~ FLOOR ROOF FLAN ~ 1/8"=1'-0" F<-"imle'll~ -1- -1- . F - 1----------- --- WINDOW WELL < 1 WINDOW 5-0 WIDE 10-0 5-6 WIDE X 7-0 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT 1 HIGH L__--1 HEIGHT CEILING --Il--Il--Il--------ill---I- - -9- FKOFOSED EAST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL EP 1/8"=1'-0" WINDOW WELL LOCATED AT INSIDE CORNER OF FOUNDATION WITH EXPOSURE TO SOUTH WALL ALSO - SEE BASEMENT FLOOK FLAN -~I- =d -1 1 -I- - - - - 00 - 1 1 = 3 -9 WIN DOW WELL â‚¬ i WINDOW 7-0 WIDE 10-0 7-6 WIDE X 7-0 ---0 X 6-0 HIGH BASEMENT HIGH L_ .lill 1 HEIGHT CEILING FKOFOSED WEST ELEVATION WITH LIGHT WELL < 1/8"=1'-0" ) Ii' 13 110 M [1] Il 1 11 Il 1 11 i OOD[[0 /7 j Â£ 1 f I c H__t_ - - 9 - 3135[LE eketch from eouthweet t'ZZ. 1 IJ - =I'll - IC 1 III Cl- F--- / . 40.... ../.- '-2 1 I Â£LJ W = 1-p==-t~ - E- J ILI mp.4r 111 IiI _DI r==I I i .-.nnr--- -=ZE====-1 eketch from eoutheaet 1__0 1 1-=33 11 1 eketch from northweet III r. L L IiI I -- Il 1E -- -- 0[ -- eketch from northeaet . I P83 0AHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 COAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR Determined Eligible- SR (page 1 of 4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.528.15 2. Temporary resource number: 334.WHA (334.WH) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: Eugene Wilder House 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 334 West Hallam Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: F. Hayden Conner 444 Grape St. Denver, CO 80220 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE G of SW G of NE G of SE G of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 4 2 4 1 OmE 4 3.39 6 7 5 mN 11, USGS quad name: Aspen Quadranqle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): K, L, M Block: 42 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lots K, L, M; Block 42 of the Citv and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number 2735-124-23-005 This description was chosen as the most specific and customarv description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irreqular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: Two Storv 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Sidinq 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material Center no more than one): Asphalt Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch, Chimnev GALL,4 9 I '. P84~esource Number: 5PT.528.15 emporary Resource Number: 334.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) 21. General architectural description: A two storv wood frame high style Victorian. A qable end facing the street with an asvmmetrical arrangement of a two story bav, small proiecting entry Darcil, and a single double hung window. The bav sits on grade and has fixed arched glass panel, made up of a rectangular Dane with an arched stained glass top. Either side of the bay contains a similar configuration with a narrower dimension. A cornice line runs across at the first floor plate height, the cornice has small scroll brackets, a line of dentils, and other decorative details. The same pattern is repeated above on the continuation of the bav on the second level. The proiectinq porch has a flat roof with a cornice detail similar to the bav. It has square posts and an arched frieze board. A plain double hung window sits above the porch roof, scalloped shingles infill the qable end. Another porch sits to the right set back from the face of the structure, with similar details, in front of the two storv cross qable. Double hung windows appear above and below the Dorch roof. A corbelled brick chimnev rises out of the north west corner. A one and 1 /2 storv shed addition is attached to the second floor rear with a single story shed at the back of the structure. A shed Dorch extends to the west with turned posts. The east side has an extended cross aable, with a shed roof off the peak sloginq to the rear. Larae metal windows in the new construction. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Mature spruce on east side yard. Four mature cottonwood in typical street tree locations alonq Hallam. Historic lilac shrubs at south west corner and south elevation of house. Oriainal hitchinq post on 40 St. Historic cottonwood in typical street tree location on 4th St. Open irrigation ditch becoming covered at larqe stone at north west corner of property. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A two story carriage house sits ant the back corner. It has a side qable with two large dormers facing the alley. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1885 Actual Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Eugene Wilder Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Alterations to the main structure are at the rear and moderate, dates unknown. Second level added to the carriage house, date unknown 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): 1 7 Resource Number: 5PT.528.15 P85 Temporary Resource Number: 334.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (p-age 3 of 4) V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. The building represents an upper class residence of the time. It is indicative of the evolution of Aspen from a mining camp into a substantial communitv. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes X No ~ Date of designation: 1988 Designating authority: Aspen City Council 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, 82- method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National X State X Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques,-materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The structure has some alterations. Additions are to rear and do not impact the general massing. pattern and detail of the structure. Carriage house is significantly altered r 't p8,Resource Number: 5PT.528.15 femporary Resource Number: 334.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not Eligible Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R2, F25,26 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. * Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 NPS Form 10Â·900 OMB No. 1024-0018~ 2 (>82) Explres 10-31-87 - United States Department of the interior National Park Service For NPS use only. National Register of Historic Places received J inventory-Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete Nationa/ Register Forms j Type ail entries-complete applicable sections 1 ..; 1 1. Name 1 . . historic Eugene W.ilder Hous e CHistoric Resources of Aspen - MRA) 3 anciÂ·or common Eugene Wilder House 2. Location ' street & number 334 West Hallam Street r.,Lu_ not for publication 7 city, town Aspen n/2- vicinity of J state Co code 08 county Pitkin code 097 1 3. Classification :ategory Ownership Status Present Use - 2@district nia_ public X occupied Illdagricuiture nZA- museum X. building(s) I_ private Elaunoccupied ntacommercial -Illapark - Illastructure ruk_ both n,lawork in progress Illaeducational 11 private residence n/asite Public Acquisition Accessible .n,Zaentertainment _Blareligious - n/aobject n/a in process Illayes: restricted Illagovernrhent .Illascientific Illa_ being considered nlayes: unrestricted .alaindustrial AZatransportation X multiple resource _2L-no n/amilitary .Illaother: 4. Owner of Property name Marvin Getz ' street & number P. 0. BOX 4737 city, town Aspen n/1- vicinity of state CO 81612 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Pitkin County Court House - street & number 506 East Main Street city, town Aspen state CO - 6. Representation in Existing Surveys uoloraao inventory ot title Historic Sites has this property been determined eligible? n/- yes _*_ q.2 date Ongoing n/2- federal X state n /2 county n/- local -- -1 depository for survey records Colorado H.istorical Society - OAHP 4--7 i i 1 48. Description 180 1 Condition Check one Check one X_ excellent nla deteriorated Illa. unaltered X_ original site Ua good nla. ruins X altered n/a moved date AZa fair . Oll unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance The two story Wilder House, constructed ca. 1885, is wood frame with clapboard fating. It has an L plan with a broad front gable. The front elevation is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The cornices of the bay, between the first and second stories and at the top of the second story, have such delicate ornamentation it is easily overlooked. There are small sawn brackets at the angles and the wall junctures. Below the frieze, which has a row of very small dentils, are delicate attached pendents. There is a small front porch next to the bay with a low hipped roof supported by reatangular wood posts and denticulated frieze. There is a second hipped Foof porch in the L with similar elements and a secondary entrance. . The roof is woodÂ· shingle with a tall brick chimney in the middle of the west side. The one-over-one, double hung, wood sash have molded cornices at the top. The gable is faced with fish scale shingles. Prior to 1961, an addition, two stories high faced in clapboard, was constructed on the rear which changed the angle of the original roof slope. The demarcation between the old gable with fish scale shingles and- the new construction is visable on the east elev:aption. (photo #1, 143 I .. 7 The building department-:records beginning in 1961 indicate several renovations,:up to 1979. TheseÂ· include* the remodeling of the original .-. building an4 Ipartitions. for, three rooms and.,a, bath with no .change in exterior dimensions. In 1963, the two stor-y carriage house,..in,;the..Â· -.. rear was moved about five feet to the southeast and remodeled* for use : as a studio and garage.* In 1970, a bath was added to the carriage ; house. The front bay windows and porches were restored in 1965. The ; house is painted beige with white trim and brown highlighting the : ornament. : There are still some of the old street trees remaining on this : corner site. : *The carriagehouse is non-contributing. *t 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance-Check and justify below nla prehistoric Illa archeology-prehistoric Ii/.d community planning Blglandscape architecture~Blareligion Illa 1400-1499 nla archeology-historic nla conservation Illa law Il/ascience 4Za 1500-1599 Illa agriculture Flga economics n,Za literature I.Zasculpture Illa 1 600-1699 X architecture 112 education n,Za military Illa social/ ~2 1700-1799 424 art 82% engineering Illa music humanitarian 1_ 1800-1899 Illa commerce Illa exploration/settlement nlaphilosophy n/atheater 1 Illa 1900_ 4/2 communications n/a industry I]Zapolitics/government Illatransportation n/a , ' Shl invention - other ispecify) . Specific dates 1885 Builder/Architect possibly Aspen Lumber Company J Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The Wilder House has architectural significance in its unique vernacular design incorporating a one-of-a-kind and highly decorative bay window. The .house displays the high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen as the town grew from a rough mining camp into a sophisticated mining city of the late 1880s. The house has retained much of its original integrity through careful restoration of the original elements. Additionil significance is seen in the association with ownet' Eugene .Wilddrs 'who came to Aspen in the 1880 s and was associated with the Aspen Lum ber Company, *one of Aspen's oldest establishments. BACKGROUND Â·The Wilder House was undoubtedly constbribted from lokal lumber and may have been built by The ,Aspen Lumber Company. WildE was ! issociate-d -with the Aspdn LWbor Company, afdhg with R. F.1 R-oberts from the mid-1880s to the early 189Ds. Thi.WÂ· Â·-business was Â·one of the pioneerÂ· Aspen lumber coinpanies established ca. -1880-18.8.3. It is not knewn Â·how:.-long Wilder lived in the hbuse"or who subsequ.unt owners were sifÂ·ce there are no Aspen City Directories after 1893 up to the 1950s. - Footnotes 1. Aspen Daily Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2. Colorado Business Directory, 1880-1885. Aspen City Directory, 1889, 1892, 1893. 1 L_.A 1# 1 . .. .. .~1:9'IMM##1#1911,{914;99*wf':; . .'. I Memo TO: Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservation Planner FROM: Louise and Hayden Connor, Owners/Applicants ce. Pat Cashen, Architect, Denver RECEIVED Mitch Haas, Land Planner, Aspen AUB 1 0 LUUL Shane Harvey, Esq. Holland & Hart, Aspen Bill Poss. Architect, Aspen ASPGN / fi 1 KiN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: 334 WeSI Hallam Street-Conceptual Development DATE: August 10, 2002 The Owners/applicants request permission for the following: 1. A two-story addition to the east of the existing kitchen. Design revisions include: A gabled roof. Casement windows. A 12" square post delineating the new addition from the historic building. The west facing porch and wall to remain intact after the demolition of the 1960 add-on. 2. A single-car, off-street garage. Design revisions include: A gabled roof A barn-like garage door An enlarged breezeway of 7.5 feet between carriage house and garage. It takes parking off the street. It is more visually pleasing. A two car off-street parking area exists replacing a 1960's car-port. Off-street garages are common in the West End on corner lots. 3. To position the house 10 feet to the west of its current site Moving the house is allowed if a lot split were requested. 10 feet is not a great amount on a 9,002 square foot lot. The orientation of the house stays the same. It saves the tree per the Park Department's wishes and complies with Amy Gutherie's August 2000 guidelines. Historical significance of the relationship of the house to the back yard is incorrect per 1904 Sanborn map. Although the owners prefer the changes applied for in the current application, if these changes are not permitted by the Historic Preservation Committee, the owners/applicants will default to the plans which were approved by the Committee in 1988. These plans call for: A two-car, off-street garage; garage is connected to the carriage house and to the main house 1 9>46,61 4- H - A first-floor sunroom extension which continued along the entire east side of the house, affecting a significant portion of the original, historic structure. The question of whether the approval ofthe 1988 plan is still authorized revolves around the vested rights issue. The owner submits that the law allows the plans to be reactivated, subject to changes in the Code. As the HPC guidelines are only just that, guidelines, the owner submits that there have been no applicable Code changes which alter the approval ofthe 1988 plans. Without the authority to make these changes which will greatly enhance the comfort, the safety and the appearance of the house, the owner feels no motivation to invest an additional one- million dollars in the property. In our negotiations with the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee during the past 24 months (8/8/00-8/10/02), we have spent many hours and a considerable amount of money working to understand the perspective o f the Committee members and staff to accommodate our plans for the rehabilitation, restoration and preservation of the 334 West Hallam Street property to that perspective. We have consulted with Bill Poss, an Aspen architect who served for several years as the Chairman of the HPC; Pat Cashen, a Denver architect familiar with many Colorado restorations; Mitch Haas, a land planning consultant and former city planner for the City of Aspen; Shane Harvey, an Aspen attorney whose specialty is vested rights and property law, Sarah Otis, a staff member at the Aspen Historical Society , and many Aspen residents who have worked with the Committee regarding similar projects. Minutes of the HPC meetings (December 12,2001 and March 13,2002) reflect the content and tome of these negotiations, but, when all is said and done, three observations remain crystal clear. 1. The house requires an investment of well over a million dollars to rehabilitate, restore and preserve it. The foundation is crumbling, the plumbing, heating and wiring are defective. The roo f must be replaced, and it is badly in need of paint. Our intent is to make the investment so that our house is a City of Aspen asset. The former owners sold the property, in part, because of frustration over differences with the HPC; the house deserves better than a constant turnover of ownership. 2. To invest significant time, energy and money in this restoration which will not "alter the historic building in any way" must be construed as an "outstanding preservation effort", an "exemplary effort", worthy of support from the Committee. Yet we are confused by the differences of an "outstanding restoration effort" and a "substantial financial commitment" (p.5 of Amy's March 13,2002 Staff Recommendation) and "The bonus is usually reserved for someone making an outstanding restoration effort which they might be doing but it need to go beyond that in order to give a 500 square foot bonus which is a large benefit." (Amy's quote on p. 15 of the December 12,2001 minutes). 3. Page 1 ofthe 2000 HPC Guidelines state: "Note that not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. ...We emphasize that these are only guidelines, are not applicable in all cases, and need to be weighed with the practicality of the measure." 2 I - Recent alterations to the design of the proposed addition and garage bring the application into compliance with 70 ofthe 71 guidelines referenced above, as described in Mitch Haas' memo to the Amy of February 22,2002. It appears that the staff and Committee, for whatever reasons, are overly critical of this application, holding it to a higher standard than the Guidelines require, or have been applied in other situations. The recordings of the HPC work sessions in which this application is reviewed reflect no consideration of the call to "balance the guidelines on a case- by-case basis" or to "weigh the practicality of the measure." In conclusion, the owners maintain that the following additions and changes are crucial to their investment: 1. A single-car, off-street garage. 2. Permission to move the house 10 feet to the west. 3. A two-story addition to the east of the existing kitchen. Respectfully submitted, HPC memo-8-10-02 3 P91 â€¢l MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Â·Commission THRU: Joyce Ohison, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Katie Ertmer, Historic Preservation Intern RE: 320 W. Hallam- Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Variances- Public Hearing HPC Resolution No. 80, Series of 2002. DATE: August 28,2002 SUMMARY: This property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains a Victorian home and a Pan Abode home. The proposal before HPC involves a lot. split, setback variances to accommodate the buildings in their present locations, and an FAR bonus. APPLICANT: Anton Uhl, owner, bepresented by Haas Land Planning, LLC.. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-006 .ADDRESS: 320 W. Hallam, Lots N-P, Block 42, City and Townsite -of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CIJRRENT LAND USE: 9,000 sq. ft. lot containing a Victorian Home, a Pan Abode home, and three non historic sheds. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order td complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (41 Section 26.470.070(CD, and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by.a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: - 1 . P92 a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the CiD Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24,1969; and Staff Finding: The property is part of the historictownsite and has not been previously subdivided. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). StaffFinding: This proposal will create one 6,000 square foot lot, and one 3,000 square foot lot, each ofÂ·which will meet or exceed the 3,000 square foot minimum set for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Mu:nicipal Code, which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for. properties created through a historic landmark lot split. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereoL was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C) (1)(a); and StaffFinding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the termsÂ· of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the ollice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the ojfice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (18Â·0) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. 2 P93 StaffFinding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. ~f). In the case where an existing singlefamily dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to applicationfor a Iot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling unit is located in a manner that necessitates its demolition in order to split the lot. The Victorian will be preserved as part of this plan in accordance with the land use code. The Pan Abode is only guaranteed to be presdrved voluntarily by the applicant if an FAR bonus is granted or an ordinance requiring the preservation of Pan Abodes is adopted by Council before a demolition pennit is applied for. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The parcel cumently contains two detached dwelling units. The proposal does not include any additional units on the site, however the maximum potential build out for this site. is three 0 detached uniti..The 3,000 square foot parcel is permitted to .contain one detached dwelling unit. The 6,000 square foot parcel may be permitted to contain two detached dwelling units, with further reviews. 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORICLANDMARKLOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subj ect parcel is 9,000 square feet and is located in the R-6 Zone District. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: 3 P94 If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then.the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. Staff Finding: The two lots will be used wholly for residential purposes. The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a, historical landmark in an R-6 zone, is 4,080 square feet. The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus, discussed below. Should the FAR bonus be granted, the total FAR of 4,580 square feet is to be allocated as follows: 3,080 square feet to Lot N and O, which contins the historic Victorian house, and 1,500 square feet to Lot P, which contains the Pan Abode house. The existing historic Victorian house on Lot N and O is approximately 1,858 square feet in size leaving an expansion potential of 1,222 square feet. The Pan Abode structure on Lot P is approximately 600 square feet in size, leaving an expansion potential of 900 square feet. There are currently no specific plans for expansion of either structure. c. The proposed . development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: Setback variances are requested in part so that the Victorian and outbuildings on the parcel will come into compliance. In addition, a vabance is needed to accommodate the Pan Abode in its current location. Note that the HPC must accept the owner's offer of designation in order to grant it a setback variance. The FAR bonus will be discussed in detail below. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot Eoor area bonus. The following standards apply to an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: 4 P95 0 - a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or L An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Staff Response: Because no redevelopment is propos.ed at this time, application of the design guidelines is not possible, however, staff finds numerous merits in thb proposal that speak to the FAR bonus criteria "b" and "h". The proposed division of FAR allows only a small addition on * the Victorian and a modestly sized building on Lot P. The proposal ensures that Lot P will contain a single story structure at the front of the lots preserving views of the Victorian. Pan Abodes haxe been discussed as potentially significant within the category of Rustic Architecture* for several years. The attached draft context paper, Exhibit C, discusses the significance of this type of architecture in Aspen. While the Pan Abode has not yet been declared significant, this is a pristine example of the type of architecture, and there is nothing currently in place to prevent the owner from pulling a demolition pennit tomorrow. Staff' feels it is important to take the opportunity to preserve this Pan Abode example, which, depending on the course of future meetings regarding preservation of "recent past" properties could end up being the only example of rustic architecture designated in Aspen. A decision that will be in City Council's,+not HPC's hands. If HPC will not approve the 500 square foot FAR bonus now, as part of this application, it call be requested later as part of a redevelopment proposal for the site. In the meantime, the, Pan Abode will be transferred and staff feels that there is a high probability that it will be demolished if that option is left open. The willingness of the applicant to volunteer the designation of this building creates what staff views as an outstanding proposal. Therefore, staff recommends HPC grant the 500 square foot FAR bonus at this time and "lock in" the preservation ofthis excellent example ofRustic architecture. 5 P96 SETBACK VARIANCES. The setback variances needed in order to maintain the historic Victorian structure and the Pan Abode structure in their existing locations are: â€¢ l'west sideyard setback variance for the Victorian, â€¢ 3' west sideyard setback variance for a shed that is along the alley, â€¢ 4' rear yard setback variance for a shed that is along the alley, â€¢ 5' rear yard setback variances for two other sheds that are located along the alley, â€¢ 4' east sideyard setback variance for the easternmost of the sheds along the alley, â€¢ 2' west sideyard setback variance for the Pan Abode, and â€¢ 2 foot combined sideyard setback variance for the Pan Abode. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the setback variances are appropriate because they maintain the historic location of the Victorian structure and the existing-locations of.the other structures on the property. This standard is met and the setback variances should be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve Resolution No. , Series of 2002, recommending Council.approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split application for 320 W. Hallam Street, Lots N-P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, and that the IDC approve the requested Variances with the conditions listed below. 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances: a l'west sideyard setback variance for the Victorian, a 3' west sideyard setback variance and a 4' rear yard setback variance for a shed that is along the alley, 5' rear yard setback variances for two other sheds that are located along the alley and Â·a 4' east sideyard setback variance for the eastemmost of these sheds, a 2' west sideyard setback variance for the Pan Abode, and a 2 foot combined sideyard setback variance for the Pan Abode. 3. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the 6 P97 specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Code in effect at the time ofapplication; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will confonn to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the vanances approved by the HPC. d. Contain a plat note stating that neither the current owner, or any future owner of any of the Lots N,O, or P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, will oppose,an application for designation of the Pan Abode structure at. any time in the future, or apply for any building pennit to demolish the structure. e. The FAR on the two lots created by.this lot split shall be allocated as follows: Lot N and O shall receive 3,080 square feet and Lot P 1,500 square feet, which shall be noted on the plat. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No.~OSeries of 2002." Exhibits: Resolution No,~E) Series of2002 A. Staff' memo dated August 28,2002 B. Application C. Draft Rustic Architecture Context Paper D. Architectural Guide: Rustic/Log Kit 7 . P98 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CH]?C) RECOMMENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A HISTORIC LANDMARKLOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES FOR TILE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS N-P, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.~Â£2, SERIES OF 2002 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-23-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Anton Uhl, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC., has requested approval for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Variances for the property located at 320 W. Hallam Street, Lots N-P, Block 42, City and .Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.) 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose *of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot fo~:med by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24,1969; and b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereoL was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of thisÂ· chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built withaut receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. - P99 e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the ofrice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required,for a showing of good cause. D In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a. lot split. g) Maximum potential buildoutfor the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home; and 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R.-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum 00 or area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commerciaFoffice use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for allÂ· uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. P100 c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(13)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will C0ntain6 a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel; and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E, HPC must find that: 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets 811 applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or L An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WIIEREAS, in order for HPC to grant setback variances per Section 26.415.110.C, HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character- of the hisforic property or .district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architecturaJ character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie and Katie Ertmer, in- their staff report dated August 28,2002, perfonned an analysis of the application based on the standards, developed findings based on the applicable review criteria, and recommended that the project be approved; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 28,2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable sections of the Municipal Code, by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC recommends Council approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split application for 320 W. Hallam Street, Lots N-P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, and HPC approves Variances with the conditions listed below: P101 1. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 2. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variances: a l'west sideyard setback variance for the Victorian, a 3' west sideyard setback variance and a 4' rear yard setback variance for a shed that is along the alley, 5' rear yard setback variances for two other sheds that are located along the alley and a 4' east sideyard setback variance for the eastemmost of these sheets, a 2' west ideyard setback variance for the Pan Abode, and a 2 foot combined sideyard setback vaIia:nce for the Pan Abode. 3. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; .b. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from further subdivision and any development of thE lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the Â·dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. Contain a plat note stating that neither the current owner, or any future owner of ~ any of the Lots NA or P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, will oppose an application for designation of the Pan Abode structure at any time in the future, or apply for.any building pennit to demolish the structure. e. The FAR on the No lots created by this lot split shall Be allocated as follows: Lot N and O shall receive 3,080 square feet and Lot P 1,500 square feet, which shall be noted on the plat. APPROVED BY THE CONIMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of August, 2002. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Rally Dupps, Chair . P102 ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, ChiefDeputy Clerk ' Tb ' 1 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC July 29,2002 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Uhl Historic Landmark Lot Split Application Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plan sets to constitute a formal request for approval of a subdivision exemption for an historic landmark lot split to create a 6,000 square foot lot and a 3,000 square foot lot from the existing 9,000 square foot lot. In association with the lot split the applicant requests approval of setback variances and a five-hundred square foot floor area bonus. The subject property is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential, and is permitted a duplex FAR of 4,080 square feet plus the potential for a floor area bonus of up to 500 square feet. Thus, the total potential allowable floor area on the subject property is 4,580 square feet (4,080 + 500). The Land Use Code allows the property owner discretion in determining how to split this square footage between the two resulting lots. With approval of the requests made herein, there will be two fee simple landmark designated lots, one of 3,000 square feet (Lot P) and the other of 6,000 square feet (Lots N and CD. The 3,000 square foot lot will have the existing Pan Abode residence, will be entitled to 1,500 square feet of FAR floor area (includes a 500 square foot bonus), and will be subject to HPC review and approval for any proposed exterior changes. The 6,000 square foot lot will continue to have the existing Victorian residence, will be permitted 3,080 square feet of FAR floor area, and will also be subject to HPC review and approval for any proposed exterior changes. As an inducement to the City to approve the requests made herein, the applicant will voluntarily accept designation of the existing Pan Abode structure on the property as an historic landmark. The applicant however, does not want â€¢201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADOâ€¢81611 â€¢ Â· PHONE: (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX: (970) 925-7395 â€¢ r'.- 4 to assume the time or costs of the landmark designation process (i.e., hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council and the associated notice requirements), but will agree, upon approval of the requests made herein (i.e., as part of the Subdivision Exemption Agreement), not to oppose the City's historic designation of the Pan Abode structure. The subject Pan Abode structure ordered and built by Gretl Uhl, and is currently on the City's list of buildings/properties for which historic designation is desired. The result of the approvals requested herein will be a 6,000 square foot lot with a landmark designated Victorian house, and a 3,000 square foot lot with a landmark designated Pan Abode residence. While not requested at this time, the applicant reserves the right to later request a conditional use approval to place two detached dwelling units on the resulting 6,000 square foot lot and/ or a readjustment of the new lot line to provide two 4,500 square foot lots. These requests are not being made at this time, but the applicant would like it recognized that he has a right and has not in any way forfeited any right to submit such requests to the City for approval at a future time. The subject properties are Lots N, 0, and P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 304 and 320 West Hallam Street. 304 West Hallam Street corresponds with Lot P, Block 42 and includes an existing Pan Abode residence with approximately 600 square feet of fIoor area. 320 West Hallam Street is the landmark designated Victorian residence that resides on Lots N and O of Block 42, which lots also include three non-historic shed structures along and/ or encroaching on the alley. A vicinity map (not to scale) showing the location of the subject property is provided below. 91,9941 5 1, ft.-".-..,At~ 20,A -4 ifiC , 4 /e.Â« Ur N G .~~.2-27~20 W-Hallam-St/~ .. ~ =E===**b';z0g~~6*7,P=823*N;Aspun. CO 8161>14 0 44% 1 0 *AUL- w , .--- 4*,04~ likjA~BA. ~~13:fÂ»Â£*~ *94~51 r a,A>-Gl efi~~ A 1. .... Pt:900)'GU~ jm h:.-11*hâ„¢- 4441#i'â„¢aÂ» JC en Valley =,15,2 6H..ospital -7~ Â®200:MionÂ»RCo, Â®2000 NWrech,GOT,t~*4304/*rAND DansÂ£32;X Â£ 4 rp.,21 ,k ./ T r DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE DEPOSITED THIS DAY OF ,2000 IN /OK OF THE COUNTY'S LAND SURVEY PLATs Ar PAGE AS RECEPTION No .15 LAW SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WI TH 5ECTION ..51 -[02 COLORADO REVISED STATUES tâ‚¬'TioN /2 COUNTY CLERK TOWNSHIP /0 SOUTH, RANGE 85 *ST Ith Pi A A SCALE GR~YEL = ALLEY 1400*Â» 42 J INCH - tO FEET $ O 5 10 1520 CONTOUR INTERVAL IS SHED . 89.9 LOT 90 40 -2 0 -, 22 SHED 1 i .. /2 RED CAP < 22 90~8 ELEC & COMM. . 0 EASEMENT 6 1 LOT i / 524 PG 828 A /7 1 1 4/ - PATIO Â£07 0 - - . ~~ ~ LEGEND & NOTES O FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT REBAR WITH CAP AS NOTED 8 SPIKE OR P-K NAIL SURVEY CONTROL 2 STORY Wolo FRINE N l OT p 4 i Po%TED *RESS \5 - 304 AND 329 WEST HALLAM ST - jeth-436- I ~ -8- 1000 FENCE 20 -21, 4488 :L -*- W I RE FENCE HOUSE i*/1 6. 0 0 O UTILITY BOX Na? , Â® ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER *-- C ITY MONUMENT i 0-1/ i lOT 0 3,3.09'/ 7 , ~ COWITIENT NO PCT - 17 C 86L TITLE INFORMAT ON WAS FURNISHED BY PITKI N COUNTY TITLE, iNC 89.99 90 0 I 1 , 6/ 41 DATED JUNE 27, 2002 3 ss . 1 - -~* CONI FER TREE CAL I PER SIZE AS NOTED 1 STORÂ¥ .00. . .1 % lai . ' I â€¢ â€¢ ~ ~ DEC IOUOUS TREE CAL I PER SIZE AS NOTED PANABODE 0 1. Ya CA' ~ - 9184 7 PINE I 1.304- 2-20- CERTIFICATION Â· ~ 5. â€¢ N /5.09 1/3 1 99Â· (90 CERTIFIED TO: MARGARETE ANNA UHL 1.: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 12,0.00 j 1 11 f -7 1. DAVID W MIERIDE. A REGISTERED LAND SUAVEYOR IN THE STATE 0/ / WArES COLORADO DO HERE@Y CERTIFY THIT THE SURVEY WAS FiELD SURVEYED VALVE #SFA: 28Â· RED CAP DURING JUNE 2002 ON THE GROUND OF THE PROPERTY .'4&4#: r&& WALL- LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREON. AND IS CORRECT BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE SHOWN AS FOUND HEREIN. AND THMT THERE ARIE NO DEISCREPANCIES 4 CONC COR' 4 7 CONFLICTS. SHORTAGES IN AREA. BOUNDARY LINE CONFLICTS. ENCROACHMENTS surrcip - IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OVERLAPPING OF IMPROVEMENTS EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY IN F[ELD gilf:*2- â‚¬22 30 EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME. EXCEPT AS HEREIN SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WIST - WITH NO VISIBLE APPURTENANCES AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD NOT FURNISHED TO THE SURVIVOR ARE EXCEPTED THIS CERTIFICATION IS VOID UNLESS LOTS N, 0, & P, BLOCK 42, WET STAMPED BY THE SEAL OF THE SURVEY,Rt~ "Â»p . CITY & TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, -fÂ£1 L -44 ~1- SIGNED â„¢IS-~~DAY OF ~--~~Â«f~M~," '~li DAVID *5&5941~rp<L*~ 27 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO STREET PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC ACCORD I NG TO COLORADO LA~ YOU 1*IST .0-ENCE ANY LEGAL ACTI ON 210 S. GALENA STREET 8*SED UPON ANY DEFECT / â„¢{9 PLAT WITH'N THRES YEARS AFTER you ASPEN, COLO 81611 F JIIST DISCOVERED SOCW DEFECT IN NO EVENT, MAY IN. ACTION 8ASED PHONE/FAx {970, 925-3816 UPON ANY DEFECT ,N -1 S PLAT 3, Ce-ENCED> 1,ORE â„¢AN TEN YEARS E-MAll do..â€¢cip.ninfo coK FROU THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION 'MOWN HEREON. job w 32155 JUNE 7, 2002 TITLE COMM 6-28-02 '00.00,9 4 14'50' . r T UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVI[SION EXEMPTION PLAT OWNER*S CERTIFICATE LOTS N, 0, & P, BLOCK 42, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT BEING THE RECORD OWNER OF LOTS N C AND P BLOCK 42 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY ' CITY & TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO bOE4 HEREBF SUBDIVIDÂ¢ AND REPLAT TH IS REAL PROPEATY UNDER THE NAME All STYLE OF LOTS - UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT EXEMPTION SUBDi VISION, CITY oF ASPEN, PITKIN COUN+Y, COLORADO. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO EXECUTED THIS _ DAY oF -, 2002. AS OWNER STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF ITKIN ) THE FOREGOING OWNER Â· S CERT IF ICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS - DAY OF VICINITY MAP 2002 BY AS OWNER. WITNESS ,WY HAND AND OFF]CIAL SEAL WÂ¥ CBMI SS M ON EXPIRES. ~~;~ NOTARY PUBLIC A ORAVEL 71-ff-OP b, PLAT.NOTES TITLE CERTIFICATE 9 SCALE 1. Thi 0 -a/diork Lo, Spl i, Ploi hai b#,a pr,perâ€¢d p.fiuall, To cid i. occordonc, â€¢ith TRA H ut O CAP l THE UNDERSIGNED A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. City Comi OroinGAG, Nuâ€¢b.r (Ser,*i of 200-3. Hi:,oric Pr.*riotio, - 1 INCH 10 FEET Com.i.lion R..01.r..en N..b.r , ed th. Subdi .iâ€¢,oâ€¢ E.â€¢â€¢el aâ€¢ REGISTERED TO 06 BUSINESS i N PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Agrâ€¢,â€¢â€¢1,1 1/cordia â€ž,6 th. Pitki. Cou/ty Clork alld R.cordâ€¢r ai kâ€¢cop,ion . s isÂ· DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR oF ALL L i ENS AND ENCRUNBRANCES EXCEPT Â·Numb" Th, lind, Sfect,d by thi, Plot /re i .bject ie W w. c.d 42 THE PERSONS LISTED AS OWNERS ON THI S PLAT 60 HOLD FEE S ,â€¢PLE TITLE TO THE WITHIN condition. M .cid approwl. and hy all appl,cabl. Lo.d U.0 Râ€¢2â€¢10'10Â·Â· of th= Cily 40.. // 0 5 10 15 20 THOSE LISTED ON THE OWN<RÂ·S CERTIFICATE ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED 89,g 09711. . of Aâ€¢pâ€¢'. Th' r.rm. o.d c..ditic.. of .aid appreval' ..1 of $ i. Pla' â€¢hall ,â€¢11 Ii'h ON THIS PLAT ARE ME THIS CERT ACATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTIUED AS AN ABSTRACT tte Land a, cov~*ant, burcl.~ig /um. . , AND AGREE<D THAT LAND TITLE GUARANtEE COMPANY. NE I THER ASSUM5S NOR W ILL BE CHARGED OF TI TLE NOR AN OP IN~ON OF T TE NORA GUARANTEE OF TI TLE AND IT 15 UNDERSTOOD 2. Thâ€¢ 3,000 ic,wor. foof lo, i, ..Ii,led 10 I,340 .quer, f./ of FAR floor or.0 (840 LOT U / 1 WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER ON ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN SHED 2 22 0.â€¢I. 4.... 94./r'I. th. right le r090*ir o c.ditional uâ€¢â€¢ c,proval ie d.v.1.,p aa OATFf'I 2002 3. Th. 6,000 iquar. foo, 10, i. ..,i,10,1 1,0 an oggi.qaf, of 3,240 ,quor, f..1 of FAR floor VINCE HIGENS, PRESIDENT add.tÂ·/N/1 4*lached r.:,cl/Ii,el d"Il"g "" oM 'h, 6,000 'q"" foot I". a a 1 1 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC 22 9018 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 r..co,â€¢Dzâ€¢,1 11,4, HPC opprovet of ihi Iii. plan a.1 d.,ign *o,ild b. requir.d e, i.11 RED CAP 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. '0 4 No furth/r .obeli. t.i/. of ihe 2/di depic~,4 hurm ihall 6, p,rmil~ed, inlâ€ž$ 2 STATE oF COLORADO) oppliEÂ¢61. app,-6,01. or. 0610,4,wriwi,d 'c ih. A.p.n Loâ€¢d Uâ€¢. Code. 0...r r : COUNTY OF PIKTIN ) 4"/Ically rosâ€¢râ€¢*0 ihe righ, 10 14/.t o r'adjuiti't of The 101 11" to previl :,0 ELEC & COMI 4.500 *gpor* foo, 10,â€¢. i bje, 10 ,Iy and all rquirid C.ly riv.â€ž 04 opprowil, EASEMENT g. 1.- 13 1 8% 924 M 828 THE FOREGOING TILE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THUS - 5 if ony of iho ,hod i,rucivro, or bo, i N end 0 or, ev,r approÂ¥,d for end i,61*qu..tly LOT dâ€¢â€¢ol,Ihed. co.plicic. iliÂ·h S.cr,'0â€ž 26 470.070(811!) of th. A.p.. Lond U.. Cad., COUNTY TITLE INC. N DAY OF ,2002 BY VINCE HIGENS AS PRESIDENT OF PITKIN 0, aay bi I...d./ fro/ :iI* to 11Â»0,,ill 6, achioved -1-1 :pocific varignc- gr 0 ; WITNESS WY HAND AND OFFC 1AL SEAL MY COMAISSION EXPIRES: gr,Mt,d hy /8 â€žiii, / th iho au,her,iy to do ,0. 6. 0â€ž,r 9019/orily /0/0/, /9, ace,pi, i,iholl oppoi,i:on, gay efferl i Ih~ Ci~y ocke, ~ . 10â€¢//d offâ€¢=./Ily <1,/,gR,Tiag the Pe, Abod, i ir/cruri 01, LoÂ¢ P a, Ihi. torie 1.Indiark. NOTARY PUBLIC .' Â· 7 4,1 app.oÂ¥,d â€žria.c., for ,h, propir f i.. d,pict.d hifion or, ipic, f i,d i, Hi.ker,g Pâ€¢â€¢:~râ€¢,~ion Ce-~im# R.9 1.lion Numbe Â· 5 Al' â€¢â€¢1â€¢1,â€¢.g Â·â€¢croochâ€¢..1. i-0 Â·,1. p.blic rithiref -ia, ar, 1.6.j,c, ic ihe iera"u -, 21-2 / .f/: L 01' P 290â€¢â€¢â€¢liaâ€¢ of ihi Tâ€¢â€¢porary R.vocMW, EncroochÂ»..t ..... recorded .irk ih. PATIO /,Ikia Couity Clirk ind Recordor 31 Ricepfion Numb*r LOT 0 9. P.â€¢....i. iI S.cti.. 26.420.020,....fiii of .6. A.p.. L.â€¢d U.. C./., ace...0,/ 2 il>~ 3.000 Sa./T .i- SURVEYOR ' S CERT 1Â°F I CATE - 1 Edâ€¢â€¢IlÂ·â€¢g .â€¢,i. (ADU.1 or ..h in Ii.. f... .h.11 ..1 b. r.q.,red ..<or th. .ub j.ci Â¢ , DAVID W McIR IDE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 N JUNE 2002 AND JULY 2002 A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER WY 0( RECTION AND SUPERV 15'ON OF THE WEAEON DESCR,aE . LOT NA O P ROPER TY THE LOCAT I ON AND D INEN S 1 ONS OF THE BOUNDARY L I NE S BUILDING ENVELOPES, C.bly Doc/mint,/Adminioirot.i,/UhlÂ· Plot Noloi 2/2 UTILITIES, IMPROVEMENTS AND EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 6,000 SO FT Â·/ TI TLE COMMITMENT ORDER â€¢ PCT- 2 7086L, DATED MAY 20, 2002 ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN ON THI S MAP. Flg THE CONTROL SURVEY PRECISION IS GREATER THAN I:10,000 W{TH AN ACCURACY TO 0.001 l OF AN ACRE AND THAT THE SURVEY WAS DONE i N ACCORDANCE ITH CRS 1973 TITLE 38, ARTICLE 51 AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. 2 STORY . 1 I cor p SIGNED THIS _ DAY OF -, 2002 wooD FRAâ€¢E b DAVID w. MIBRIDE RLS 16129 ASPEN SURVEY ENG:NEERS, INC. 0 #4 ..2â€ž1 '1440: . 210 S SALENA ST 20'~ - - &: ASPEN, CO 81611 1% 3/Â· /4, Ca - CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL Â«f~ Ct TV hIONUWENT ... -320 LOT 0 THiS PLAT OF THE UHL HI STOR IC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUID ~ VI S ION WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE Ct TY COUNCIL OF THE Cl TY ASPEN ON THIS - DAY OF __ , 2002 AS . OF THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ORDINANCE NO. - SERIES OF 2002 AND RECORDED AS RECEPT1 ON NO. 5.5*09Â· 4 1:j . 11Â·E 1,51 4 SIGNED THIS _ DAY OF -, 2002. BASIS ' *OIl ' 3.65.4 ATTFSTÂ· Co-, 3.63. - HELEN KLANDERUD, MAYOR KATHRYN S. KICK, CITY CLERK & STORy PANARODE YEL CAP CITY ENGINEER S APPROVAL LEGEND & NOTES ..4 7 2-20 PINE . -304 TH E S PLAT OF THE UHL HI STOR IC LANDMARK LOT SPL I T SUDDI VI S ION WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, THIS -DAY OF 2002 FOUND SURVEY KNUMENT REBAR WITH CAP AS NOTED . . ~ CITY ENGINEER, NICK ADEH SPIKE OR P-K NAIL SURVEY CONTROL 1 31 (90 00 0 POSTED ADDRESS 13 -304 AND 320 IWEST HALLAA, ST. 28 'ogÂ·'i-w , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THI S PLAT OF THE UHL I STOR IC LANDMARK LOT SPL I T SUBDIVI ION WAS REV IEWED AND APPROVED BY (270.00 1 4.- L. ar. _*.- WIRE FENCE . THE D 1 RECTOR OF THE COUMUN I TY DEVELOPMENT DEP ARTMEN T OF THE C l TY OF ASPEN ON S THIS ___ DAY OF 2002 O UTILITY BOX Â® _-0 WATER 49*U A I ' ~ ELECTRIC TRANSFORIER VALVE DIRECTOR, Rg 2. STONE 'ALL TITLE INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC. CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE BOOK - AT PAGE - AS RECEPTION Nuu8ER 49'6 COMMITMENT NO, PCT- 17086L ACCEPTED FOR RECORDING i N THE OFF ICE oF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF P I TK IN COUNTY, DATEDÂ· JUNE 27, 2002 iK*2 30 Â· COLORADO AT - O 'CLOCK _.9 ON THI 5 - DAY OF 2002 IN PLAT '~ CONIFER TREE CALIPER SIZE I NOTED Â«57 ~ DECIOUOUS TREE CALIBER SIZE AS NOTED 1-4 L L 41 ~1 CLERK AND RECORDER, SILVIA DAV IS I STREET PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. *XORDING To COLORADOÂ·LAW YOU <ST C-ENCE MY LEGAL ACTION 2$ S GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLO. 81611 USED UPON ANÂ¥ DEFEcT l. THis PUT .TH,M THREE YEARS AFTER row - FIRST DiscovERED su" DEFECT. IN NO EVENT. u' ANÂ¥ AC.4 'ASED PHONE/FAX 19701 925-38!6 UPON AMY DEFECT 1 N THI S PLAT BE Cc-ENCED MoRE THAN TEN YE~RS E-MA[t doveâ€¢oip.niafo.com FRO,1 r!â‚¬ .rE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHO~N HEREON job no 32155 JUNE 7, 2002 REVISED 7-25-02 Â®0 , 1 r.f t Mr. Anton Uhl owns the subject property. Mr. Uhl intends to sell Lot P and the Pan Abode residence located thereon in an effort to help pay off the recently incurred inheritance taxes associated with the 9,000 square foot property. However, the taxes are substantial enough to render a 3,000 square foot lot with a 600 square foot Pan Abode residence of insufficient market value to cover their costs, unless the 500 square foot FAR bonus is granted and adequate floor area potential is allocated thereto. Of course, it is understood that any new construction or designs for additions to or remodels of the Pan Abode and/ or the Victorian (i.e., use of the additional square footage allocation) will require Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review and approval. A pre-application conference was held with Amy Guthrie of the Aspen Community Development Department on July 19, 2002 (see Pre-Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1). The completed application form and dimensional requirements form are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Proof of Mr. Uhl's ownership is provided Exhibit 3, a title insurance commitment. The application is submitted by Haas Land Planning, LLC, on behalf of Mr. Uhl (hereinafter the applicant); authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the applicant is included as Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5 includes the updated Architectural Inventory Forms for the Victorian and the Pan Abode, as well as the 1904 Sanborn Map of the subject property. Finally, a list of property owners located within three-hundred feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 6 and 7, respectively. This application has been prepared pursuant to Sections 26.304, 26.420.010, 26.415.110(A), 26.415.110(B), 26.415.110(E), 26.470.070(C), 26.480.030(A)(2), 26.480.030(A)(4), and 26.710.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter the Code). While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require additional information and/ or clarification. Upon request Haas Land Planning, LLC, will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. ExisNng Conditions The subject property is described as Lots N, O, and P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. The site is in Aspen's West End Neighborhood on the north side of West Hallam Street between North Second and Third Streets. It is zoned R-6, Medium-Density Residential (R-6). The existing Victorian residence (320 West Hallam Street) provided the impetus and justification for the 1982 historic landmark designation of the property. The property located immediately to the UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 3 f , I '.1 $ west (334 West Hallam Street) is also landmark designated. All existing improvements on the subject site are accurately depicted on the accompanying Improvement Survey, and those of significance are described in detail on the Architectural Inventory Forms attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The existing FAR floor area on the property totals to approximately 2,458 square feet broken up as follows: â€¢ The Victorian has an FAR floor area of approximately 1,858 square feet; â€¢ The Pan Abode has an FAR floor area of 600 square feet; and, â€¢ The three storage sheds do not count as FAR fIoor area pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(3), Garages, Carports and Storage Areas, of the Code since they total to less than 500 square feet (up to 250 square feet of storage areas per dwelling unit are exempt and there are two dwelling units on the property); nevertheless, the sheds include, moving from west to east approximately 161 square feet 29 square feet and 49 square feet of non-FAR floor area. As shown on the accompanying Improvement Survey, the Victorian residence on Lots N and O sits only four feet from the westerly property line; a fence encroaches onto the adjacent Iot to the west; a fence, a trash enclosure and two sheds encroach on the alley right-of-way; and, another fence encroaches onto the adjacent lot to the 6ast. Individual side and rear yard setback variance requests are provided below to address all of these situations, and with approval of the requested variances, no nonconformities will exist (i.e., the properties will comply with all dimensional requirements, as varied). Also, application to the City Engineer will be made for a temporary revocable encroachment license for all existing improvements that encroach on the alley right-of-way. All other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district are and will continue to be satisfied. Review Requirements Based on the elements of the proposal outlined in the foregoing, this application has been prepared (in the order addressed below) pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(4), 26.480.030(A)(2), 26.470.070(C), 26.415.110(A), and 26.415.110(B) and (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code. UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 4 ' ,/9 1 1. Section 26.480.030(A)(4)(a-c) Section 26.480.030(A)(4), Historic Landmark Lot Split provides that such requests must meet the requirements of Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Section 26.470.070(C), and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. The subject parcel is 9,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. ~ The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. The allowable FAR floor area will be divided as provided below. The term "FAR floor area" is used herein to acknowledge that many types of floor area are exempt from FAR calculations under the current provisions of the Code, usually making FAR floor area smaller than gross floor area. The original parcel in the current case is 9,000 square feet and the R-6 zone allows 4,080 square feet of FAR floor area for a duplex on such a lot. In addition, a 500 square foot FAR bonus is requested. The applicant desires to divide the resulting 4,580 square feet by allocating 3,080 square feet of FAR floor area to Lots N and O (combined) and 1,000 square feet to Lot P provided the HPC grants a 500 square foot bonus to Lot P, bringing its total allowable FAR floor area to 1,500 square feet. A note explaining these allocations will be included in the Subdivision Exemption Agreement (the S.E.A.) and on the Subdivision Exemption Plat (the Plat) prior to recordation. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. No development, per se, is requested in this application. Both resulting parcels contain historic structures and can, therefore, benefit from HPC variances and bonuses. As shown on the accompanying Improvement Survey, the Victorian residence on Lots N and O sits only four feet from the westerly property line and a five foot side yard setback is required in this location; a fence encroaches onto the adjacent lot to the west; a fence, a trash enclosure and two sheds encroach on the alley right-of-way; and, another fence encroaches onto the adjacent lot to the east. All of these conditions wilI continue for the time being, but with the UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 5 r creation of a new lot line between Lots O and P, some minor setback nonconformities (i.e., an approximately 3.5' side yard setback instead of the required 5') will be created with respect to the Pan Abode residence. However, it is being agreed to herein that this is an historic house situated on its original location, and some inconsistencies with regard to the dimensional requirements are to be expected. Any future changes to the structures on the property will provide greater compliance with respect to the dimensional requirements and, certainly, will not expand or enlarge the degree of nonconformity. At any rate, individual side and rear yard setback variance requests are provided below to address all of these situations, and with approval of the requested variances, no nonconformities will exist (i.e., the properties will comply with all dimensional requirements, as varied). Also, application to the City Engineer will be made for a temporary revocable encroachment license for all existing improvements that encroach on the alley right-of-way. All other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district are and will continue to be satisfied. The minimum lot size in the R-6 zone is 6,000 square feet for most lots, but 3,000 square feet for lots created through the approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split. The lots resulting from approval of this application will meet the minimum lot size requirements. As currently configured, the subject properties comprise one 9,000 square foot lot. Detached residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-6 zone district. However, the dimensional requirement of "minimum lot area per dwelling unit" stipulates that a detached residential dwelling requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet while A duplex may be developed on a lot of 8,000 square feet that was subdivided as of April 25, 1975. A duplex may also be developed on a lot of 7,500 square feet that was subdivided as ofandannexed subsequent to January 1,1 989. O therwise,the duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area of 4,500 square feet per dwelling unit, unless the property contains a historic landmark, in which case a duplex or two (2) detached residential dwellings may be developed with a minimum lot area of 3,000 squarefeet per unit. The existing conditions (two detached dwelling units on a 9,000 square foot property that contains a historic landmark) are conforming with respect to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit provision of the R-6 zone. Approval of the requested lot split will result in one detached residence on a 3,000 square foot lot and another detached residence on a 6,000 square foot lot. The minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet for lots created through the approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split has always been understood and interpreted to allow a UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 6 . ' 1 I minimum Iot area per dwelling unit of just 3,000 square feet in such cases. This will provide the potential for a second detached residence on the 6,000 square foot lot subject to approval from the HPC and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Accordingly and as mentioned earlier, the applicant would like to reserve the right to later request a conditional use approval to place two detached dwelling units on the resulting 6,000 square foot lot and/ or a readjustment of the new Iot line to provide two 4,500 square foot lots. These requests are not being made at this time, but the applicant would like it recognized that he has a right and has not in any way forfeited any right to submit such requests to the City for approval at a future time. 2. Section 26.480.030(A)(2)(a-g) The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, is exempt from full subdivision review provided all of the following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption Of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and The property consists of Lots N, O, and P of Block 42 in the original Aspen Townsite. The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lots predate the Citfs adoption of subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for ajfordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.03061)62)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(B)]. As explained above, the proposal involves the creation of two lots where only one currently exists. The resulting lots will contain 6,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet thereby conforming to the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The minimum lot size in the R-6 zone district is 6,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet for lots created through approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split. No implications for the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split exist with regard to the GMQS provisions. That is, Section 26.420.020, Benefits, of the Code provides that " Accessory Dwelling Units or cash in lieu fees shall not be required on UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 7 . 1-l 1 properties where a 'Historic Landmark Lot Split' is approved after March 31, 2002." A note to this effect will be placed in the S.E.A. and on the Plat. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070*]. The subdivision exemptions provided for in Chapter 26.480 of the Code are: 1) Lot Line Adjustments; 2) Lot Splits; 3) Approved Subdivisions; and 4) Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The subject property has never been the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this (26.480) chapter or a lot split exemption. Note, however, that the applicant seeks to reserve the right to later apply to the City for approval to readjust the new lot line to provide two 4,500 square foot lots, as allowed pursuant to the next standard (d). d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements ofthis title, is submitted and recorded in the ofice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. A Plat will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The Plat will include notes explaining that further subdivision is prohibited unless applicable approvals are obtained, and that any and all additional development must comply with the applicable provisions of the Code. It will also contain a note describing and referring to the approval documents (i.e., ordinances, resolutions, and S.E.A.) pursuant to which the Plat was prepared. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the oBice of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. The language of this criterion is understood and the applicant will comply. f In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not bed emolishedprior to application for a lot split. No existing dwelling units will be demolished, nor do any dwelling units or other structures span both sides of the proposed lot line. The applicant may submit a subsequent application to request HPC approval for demolition of the UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPUT APPUCATION PAGE 8 non-contributing shed structures along the rear of the property, but these requests are not part of the current application. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. The applicant does not propose to add any additional dwelling units to the property at this time, leaving just two residences. The existing conditions will.continue for the foreseeable future. However, as noted earlier, the applicant would like to reserve the right to later request conditional use approval to place two detached dwelIing units on the resulting 6,000 square foot lot. Lot P will always contain one detached residence. In June of 1998, the Community Development Director made a formal code interpretation finding that the word "may," as used in this standard, is permissive and means the same thing as "can" or "might." Thus, even if a second detached residence is added to Lots N and O at some time in the future, such a proposal would comply with the technical requirements of this standard (see 920 West Hallam Street approval, 1998). 3. Section 26.470.070(C) Section 26.470.070(CD is the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemption for Historic Landmark Lot Splits, and states that the construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings. There are no standards against which to review such exemption requests. Section 26.420.020, Benefits, of the Code provides that "Accessoo Dwelling Units or cash in lieu fees shall not be required on properties where a 'Historic Landmark Lot Split' is approved after March 31,2002." A note to this effectwill be included inthe S.E.A. and on the Plat prior to recordation. 4. Section 26.415.110(A) This provision of the Code provides an exemption from the Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System, allowing the applicant to split his 9,000 square foot lot into two lots of 6,000 and 3,000 square feet respectively. The standard application submittal requirements of Section 26.304 have been UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPUT APPUCATION PAGE 9 provided herein, including the exhibits and attachments. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.415.110(A), this application will be subject to a two-step review procedure, with duly noticed public hearings before the HPC and City Council. 5. Section 26.415.110(B) Section 26.415.110(B) states that dimensional variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Specifically, the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five (5) percent additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. The following individual variances are requested to accommodate the proposed historic landmark lot split and future development thereon: â€¢ A one foot side yard setback variance for the Victorian residence (320 West Hallam Street) to legitimize its existing setback from the westerly side Iot line and allow a four foot setback where five feet are otherwise required; â€¢ A three foot side yard setback variance and a four foot rear yard setback variance (to allow for two foot and one foot setbacks, respectively, where five feet are otherwise required for each), both specific to the existing shed structure on Lot N to legitimize its existing side and rear yard setbacks (these variances would be null and void upon demolition of this shed, provided demolition is approved pursuant to the Code); â€¢ A pair of five foot rear yard setback variances, one variance for each shed structure located on Lot O, to legitimize their existing rear yard setbacks and allow for zero rear yard setbacks; these variances are subject to the applicant's obtaining a temporary revocable encroachment license from the City Engineer, and the variances would become null and void upon demolition of the sheds; â€¢ A four foot side yard setback variance (to allow a one foot setback where five feet are otherwise required) for the easternmost shed on Lot O to UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 10 1 1 accommodate its existing location relative to the proposed lot line; and, if a combined side yard setback variance is needed to accommodate this shed and the Victorian house, it is hereby requested; â€¢ A two foot side yard setback variance for the Pan Abode structure to accommodate its existing location relative to the proposed lot line and allow for a three foot side yard setback where five feet are otherwise required; and, â€¢ A two foot combined side yard setback variance for the existing Pan Abode structure to accommodate its existing location relative to the existing and proposed side lot lines and alIow for combined side yard setbacks of eight feet (three feet on the west pius five feet on the east) where ten feet are otherwise required. In granting these variances, the HPC must find that the requested variances: a. Are similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The requested variances will have no affect whatsoever on the existing pattern, features, or character of the subject historic property. Rather, all requested variances are to accommodate the -existing features, patterns and character of the site. The only change will be the abstract/invisible addition of a lot line. Furthermore, and as an inducement to the City to approve these requests, the applicant will voluntarily accept designation of the existing Pan Abode structure on Lot P as an historic landmark. The applicant however, does not want to assume the time or costs of the landmark designation process (i.e., hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council and the associated notice requirements), but will agree, upon approval of the requests made herein (i.e., as part of the Subdivision Exemption Agreement), not to oppose the City's historic designation of the Pan Abode structure and, thereafter, to forever treat it as if such designation has already been accomplished. The subject Pan Abode structure is currently on the City's list of buildings/properties for which historic designation is desired. By agreeing to the historic designation of the Pan Abode structure, the applicant is preemptively UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 11 K L' 1 . and proactively mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to the historic significance and architectural character of the property. A heightened level of HPC review over future changes to the Pan Abode structure is being agreed to before any such changes can be brought forward. 6. Section 26.415.110(E) This application requests that the HPC grant a five-hundred square foot fIoor area bonus as part of the lot split approval. The Pre-Application Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit 1 notes that "In order to meet the standards for a floor area bonus, which are primarily written to address a redevelopment proposal where new construction is taking place, which is not the case in this application, the owner/ applicant will commit to preserving the Pan Abode structure." Section 26.415.110(E) of the Code addresses the requirements for the HPC's granting of floor area bonuses. Specifically, said Section states that in select circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. Thedesign oftheproject meets allapplicable design guidelines; and Since no actual development is proposed or contemplated at this time, the vast majority of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the Guidelines) are not applicable at this time. That is, the Guidelines include standards for Streetscape and Lot Features, Historic Building Materials, Windows, Doors, Porches, Architectural Details, Roofs, Secondary Structures, Building Relocation and Foundations, Building Additions, and New Construction. None of these topics or specific guidelines apply to a request for the creation of a lot line. However, it is noted that any and all future development on the subject property will be subject to review by the HPC for consistency with the Guidelines. The Guidelines do, however, encourage the use of the historic landmark lot split provisions. Specifically, the first paragraph of Chapter 11 in the Guidelines (page 87) explains that, The City provides several incentives for residential property owners to divide the square footage that could be built on a landmark parcel into two Ior three] separate houses in order to reduce the size Of both buildings, to reduce the size of an addition made to a historic house and to reinforce the original character Of many of Aspen's neighborhoods, which had small houses on 3,000 square foot lots. UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 12 f , Furthermore, page 2 of the Guidelines explains that the FAR bonus is an incentive which the HPC feels should only be awarded to projects of significant merit examples of which are described to include the following: â€¢ When it is used as an incentive to retain an historic outbuilding on the site; â€¢ When the parcel is larger than 9,000 square feet; â€¢ When the project shows an outstanding effort to preserve or restore the historic structure; and, â€¢ When it is used to create a historic landmark Iot split. In the current case, the subject lot is 9,000 square feet and will ensure preservation of the Pan Abode structure, which until this application was an outbuilding on the property. Its status will be upgraded from that of an outbuilding to that of a primary structure as a result of this application's approval. The voluntary agreement to accept landmark designation of the Pan Abode structure represents an outstanding preservation effort. That is, by agreeing to the historic designation of the Pan Abode structure, the applicant is preemptively and proactively mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to the historic significance and architectural character of the property. A heightened level of HPC review over future changes to the Pan Abode structure is being agreed to before any such changes can be brought forward. The requested FAR bonus is being used in the current case as one of the primary incentives to create a historic landmark lot split. This lot split will be one of very few, if not the only, historic landmark lot splits that results in two lots that each contain a landmark structure. The FAR bonus is being used to create this historic lot split inasmuch as, without the bonus, a major part of the motivation behind completing a lot split, as opposed to simply condominium- izing the property, is lost. The proposed lot split will ensure the preservation of two historically significant and landmark-worthy structures. It will also theoretically enable the development of up to three detached units with an aggregate floor area of 4,580 square feet inclusive of the 500 square foot bonus requested herein. In summary, by completing the proposed historic landmark lot split, all criteria to qualify as a project of significant merit will be satisfied and an "outstanding preservation effort" will be guaranteed by: â€¢ Ensuring the ability to officially designate the Pan Abode structure as an historic landmark without opposition, thereby preemptively and UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPUCATION PAGE 13 - 1 1 . proactively mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to the historic significance and architectural character of the property. â€¢ Forever elevating the status of the Pan Abode from that of an outbuilding to that of a primary structure, and thereby ensuring the preservation of what is now considered an outbuilding. â€¢ Forever ensuring a heightened level of HPC review over future changes to the Pan Abode structure before any such changes call be brought forward. â€¢ Forever ensuring that any and all future proposals involving either or both of the resulting properties will require HPC review and approval; â€¢ Forever ensuring that the total allowable floor area on the property will be broken up between at least two, if not three, structures; â€¢ Forever ensuring that the total FAR potential of the historic structures will be only 3,240 square feet for the Victorian and 1,340 square feet for the Pan Abode, and thereby largely eliminating the potential for inappropriately sized and scaled additions to these resources. â€¢ Forever ensuring that nobody will be able to apply for additions that would make the currently designated-landmark structure 3,660 square feet as a single-family unit or, worse still, 4,080 square feet as a duplex; â€¢ Forever ensuring that any additions to either residence will be in a form compatible with the historic structures in terms of general scale, site plan, massing and volume; and, â€¢ Enabling the potential for the 9,000 square foot lot to be developed as three (3) relatively small, single-family detached residences in a manner consistent with the historic development pattern of the original Aspen Townsite. b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and/or No additions are proposed at this time, rendering this standard inapplicable. However, any future proposals for additions to either residence on UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LoT SPLIT APPL-ICATON PAGE 14 . . 1 1. the property will be subject to HPC review and approval, including consideration of whether such proposal(s) maintain the visual integrity of the historic buildings. c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or No work, restoration or otherwise, is proposed at this time, rendering this standard inapplicable. d. The new construction is reflective Of the proportional patterns found in the historic building'sform, materials or openings; and/or No new construction is proposed at this time, rendering this standard inapplicable. However, any future proposals for construction on the resulting lots will be subject to HPC review and approval, including consideration of whether such proposal(s) are reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings. e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or Again, this standard is not applicable at this time since no change in building materials is contemplated herein. Any future changes to existing exteriors will be subject to HPC review and approval, including consideration of construction materials. f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or No new portions are proposed to either of the historic structures on the subject property. However, the open space between the historic structures will remain intact and provides a highly appropriate transition between them, especially since they are of different styles and times. g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or The project ensures preservation of the Pan Abode structure which, until this application, was an outbuilding on the property. Its status will be upgraded from that of an outbuilding to that of a primary structure as a result of this application's approval. In this way, a historic outbuilding is being not only retained but also elevated in status. UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 15 I .. * .4 , I h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and/or The Inventory forms (attached hereto as Exhibit 5) describe the following "Landscaping or special setting features:" â€¢ A picket fence runs along the front of the property; this will not be affected by the proposed lot split. â€¢ Historic cottonwoods are at each front corner; this refers to the street trees in the West Hallam Street right-of-way, and these will not be affected by the proposed lot split. â€¢ A mature blue spruce on the west property line; this tree is located at the southwest corner of the property and will not be affected by the proposed lot split. â€¢ There are two honeysuckle shrub masses: two on the south fence line and another hedge on the east fence line; neither of these shrub masses will be affected by the proposed lot split. â€¢ Although not noted on the Inventory forms, the existing walkways to the residences will also be retained. In summary, to be eligible for a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a project must meet standard "a," above and one or more of standards b-h. The Code provides at Section 26.415.110(ID(2) that projects which demonstrate consistency with multiple elements of standards b-h will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. The foregoing has demonstrated complete consistency with standard "a," as required. In addition, consistency with standards b, c, d and e has been assured as a result of this application. Finally, a high level of consistency with standards f, g, and h has been demonstrated. Accordingly, granting of the requested 500 square foot bonus is merited in the current case and should be awarded to this application. We hope the information and responses provided herein prove helpful in your review, and we look forward to working with you toward approving this worthy application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPUT APPLICATION PAGE 16 Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC rK- Mitch Haas, AICP Owner/Principal Attch./ c: My DocumenWCity Applications/UhI Application UHL HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PAGE 17 1 10 * EXHIBITS Exhibit #1: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit #2: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit #3: Proof of Ownership Exhibit #4: Letter of authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the owner/ applicant Exhibit #5: Architectural Inventory Forms and the 1904 Sanborn Map for the subject property Exhibit #6: List of Property Owners Within a 300 Foot Radius Exhibit #7: Executed Fee Agreement 1 4. . EXHIBIT 1 1 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE=APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie DATE: 07.19.02 PROJECT: 320 W. Hallam Street REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas OWNER: Tony Uhl TYPE OF APPLICATION: Historic Landmark Lot Split, Variances DESCRIPTION: The lot, which is 9,000 square feet in size, is to be split into two parcels. The existing 19~ century house will be on a 6,000 square foot lot and the Pan Abode will be on a 3,000 square foot lot. The amount of floor area that will be allocated to each new property will be established in the lot split. The owner plans to request a west sideyard setback variance along the Pan Abode, which will be less than 5 feet away from the new lot line. The owner will also apply for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. In order to meet the standards for a floor area bonus, which are primarily written to address a redevelopment proposal where new construction is taking place, which is not the case in this application, the owner will commit to preserving the Pan Abode structure. The owner must hold a worksession with HPC prior to a formal hearing in order to discuss the merits of the bonus. PROCESS: Step 1: Attend a worksession with the HPC to discuss the FAR bonus request Step 2: Public hearing at HPC for Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances Step 3: First reading of a lot split ordinance at Council Step 4: Public Hearing and second reading of a lot split ordinance at Council. Land Use Code Section(s) Historic Landmark Lot Split*I Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.110(A.) Variances* Section 26.415.110(B) and (ID Review by: *Historic Preservation Commission, â€¢Planning and Zoning Commission, I City Council Public Hearing: Yes, Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 15 days prior to hearing to land owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application . Applicant wit! need to provide proof ofposting and mailing with a ajfidavit at the public hearing. Referral Agencies: none Planning Fees: $1,205.00 deposit fee Referral Agency Fees: none Total Fees: $1,205.00 deposit To apply, submit 12 copies of a complete application on the forms provided by the Community Development Department, an application fee, and a signed fee agreement. '' . EXHIBIT 2 r . LAND USE APPLICATION . r.. , - PROJECT: Name: (111'L 111570Â£10 LpoloMAE,4 |..01'SPLrr Location: 3044 520 W. HAuAM S[ / Lars 11.0, 2 R ?woi< 42'CrrY 4-G ri of Adal (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: Arrod URL Address: 2l\55 EMMA k; &*1 G) 81621 Phone #: (910)927-8636 8*44: 070)?27Â·8636 6,wi: anto,j @lte. net REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 1-_AAS [1010 RAAA,4 LLC Address: 201 A. MILL ST., &<8108Â· AsPEA CO 8!6ll phone#: (910) 995-7817 FA,(4: 6:10)925- 13?5 EMAIL: MMas@sorris.nâ‚¬t TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Â£ Conditional Use U Conceptual PUD U Conceptual Historic Devt. U Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Final Historic Development El Design Review Appeal ~ Conceptual SPA El Minor Historic Devt. |E| GMQS Allotment U Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) U Historic Demolition 3~ GMQS Exemption U Subdivision Â£ Historic Designation ~ ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes ~1 Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane 5-6 Lot split (146[bKIG LNM)MER) m Temporary Use Ij~ Other:WAKIA~kEEÂ» 4 U Lot Line Adjustment El Text/Map Amendment FAR, &41(As EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) To Ma061Ceb: *4190&(00*1)66talÂ«la:NlcroAAd< A Â·R.& *i)â‚¬ Alo,16 olrm 5â‚¬46*L OUTâ‚¬llu-91Â®6 DA A ~Ct)(3~ Lar-Sâ‚¬E AÂ»ucâ‚¬nal l.glER.4 6*0*larrSOR* PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Larglrr To firr * Vic[62,0 00 A G,000* tar * r<% & 48rgE 0,1 A 3,0(00 000 4 500>* f?IR-go,W> g SSBACK VARiblrib - SES APPLI ATo A LERIEK Haye you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 1,2-05. 00 [Z,Pre-Application Conference Summary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement '~esponse to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form DResponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents Lk,Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application .., , I 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, ifnecessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. Â¥ES NO 0 ~ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? 0 X Â· Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? 0 ~ Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? 0 ~ In addition to City ofAspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness on)To Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretao of the Interior's Standard5for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register ofHistoric Places property in order to qualif for state or federal tax credits? 0 0 If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) 0 If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: 0 Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program ~Dimensional Variances 0 Increased Density *Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver ofPark Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses gExemption from Growth Management Quota System 0 Tax Credits - ~*1 Â»7 Â£ 06: 3-.~ t '14 1 - Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 407-00 1 )442- - Al/5-702.'C- LO-T Sful -1- Applicant: A A-rok] U H L- Project Location: 3 10 + 30 4 W Â· UALLAM ST, SLOCK. 42.8 Â£_OTS N , D. f> Zone District: 2. 6 Lot Size: 9, 000 51.-Ak. Lot Area: 9.000 4. 44Â· (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: 11 ~ k Proposed: A ~ oc Number of residential units: Existing.'TWOf.21 Proposed: TWO ( 2.3 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 8% (6) Proposed: Flve- Cs) Proposed % of demolition: A~r DIMENSIONS: (write Wa where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing:Mmil!06Allowable: 4[K) Proposed: 4,550 -Hqight 'rincipal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: 25 Proposed: *b Ch\#*tÂ£ 44 21, O,1 FEÂ©,rr (Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: U eA ReA Proposed: 00 C*totâ‚¬Â£ On-Site parking: Existing: | Required: 3 Proposedi \ % Site coverage: Existing:*RWDÂ£2.Â¢1#equired: â‚¬ 30% Proposed: NO CR#+6Â£ % Open Space: Existing: U ~Di Required: 11 ~ A Proposed: Fl /4 Front Setback: Existing:4(81.\5 Required: 1(3 Proposed: AC> ce**â‚¬Â£ Rear Setback: fill.'AR%': Existing:Affk~4O' Required: 10' Proposed: *) CHA}16â‚¬ Accâ‚¬6â‚¬30*(: 5. Le CHAA@g Combined Front/Rear: #AmetÂ·Â· Existing:RN&%~26 Required: 30' Proposed: *C> CA446â‚¬ Indicate N, S, E, WAccesokÂ¢ft *Pm,16 8â‚¬ 15, NO e.*66 Side Setback: EAsr Existing: 5.4' Required: ~0 Proposed: â€¢-â€¢p ~ . I. Side Setback: \Aesr Existing: 4' Required: ~' Proposed: ~ Combined Sides: Existing: 9~.~ Required: ici Proposed: Cl Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: PlÂ£:ASE ZEFEL-rb PME 4 oF -IHE WErn:33 Af:'PIA c4170.1. Variations requested (identify the exact variarwes needed): Kesâ‚¬ *FEE--lb FAâ‚¬eE.b -11 OF * klttlibl APPLic#effoA; Ale@ A 50) 9' FAL @*13 16 REQUEâ‚¬TED _ [Vi E--7012-C A â€¢372--ZIEI Dimensional Requirement Form ~- - 4 .,1 1 . (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects,) Project: ..UERO-H-6-46-TOR=th._421.-2Â£-61--r Applicant: A U -Tb h) l.,1-01-L- Project Location: 310 Kh NALLAM S-7. 13,0014- 4 2- , AO-7-5 Al , 0, Zone District: 14-6 Lot Size: G.00Â© : Lot Area: 6 4000 69 44. Â· (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 ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: 4 ~A Proposed: Al ~A Number of residential units: Existing: 01#E (1) Proposed: Â©AE C I ) Number of bedrooms: Existing: Fbue. (4) Proposed: Â¥btllf (-4,) Proposed % of demolition: A~r DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requireme~ exists in the zone qistrict) Floor Area: Existing:f*9*.~j~llowable: ~,9~I~ Proposed:32104Alla,*BLE Height Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: ~5 Proposed: 8 CAMEÂ£ 21'Oda.ar 4%6 Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable:rE 0*Kek'A-Proposed: k) CAP*Â£ On-Site parking: Existing: ~ Required: 2- Proposed:-*O OAN*Â£ % Site coverage: Existing:WRksÂ£1%1Required: AL D~> Proposed: *0 C.N*\6E % Open Space: Existing: 6~A Required: 0 /A Proposed: lj~Pr Front Setback: Existing:APM.{5 Required: 10' Proposed: AO OAN*E Rear Setback: PR.\ACk: Existing,~ Required: 16 Proposed:110 CA\NME Aa.680*f : 5' 00 01Â¥,016â‚¬ Combined - - Front/Rear: Â¥R\*PhuÂ· Existing: 54 Required: 30 Proposed: 00 CA*AGE Indicate N, S, E, w ACCE@Â©ef: APFRe< 88' 15' 119 CHAA-66 Side Setback: (bleiÂ©Existing:MfÂ£*20 Required: 5' Proposed: JO CHAAGE -1_ kiric#4 Side Setback. <*595Â¢) Existing:IltklÂ· 4 Required: 5 Proposed: 4 - ELOG. DALY Combined Sides: Existing:%&3(.lK Required: Â· \5 Proposed: *0 C)&}44Â£ _ Existing non-confonnities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: PLGASE KEER- -5 8%66 4 eF -01â‚¬ WAr[A] APPLIC,Fric:Â»1 Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): fle/Eâ‚¬ REFEÂ£. 16 PMES 10 -11OF -TFIE WA* #Flloftiod. 0 - PA'k.1 A gops : 1 1 , Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 2Â£ h]70 W U He- 14/57Â¤23(2 40 -T Sfati Applicant: A 8 -abl U M L Project Location: 309 N. MALLA K 57. Zone District: 2-6 Lot Size: 3, 000 Lot Area: 3,000 6 1 . 4+ Â· (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 ofLot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: ~A Proposed: Al# Number ofresidential units: Existing: 616 (1) Proposed: 006 (1) Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 00â‚¬ (\) Proposed: Odâ‚¬ ( 6 Proposed % of demolition: b~/** DIMENSIONS: (write Wa where no requirement exists in the zone Elistrict) Floor Area: Existing: 600'|' Allowable: 2,400111 Pl - Med: 1,31(-9* Height 'rincipal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: ~5 Proposed: 90 Ck\MMÂ£ Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable:2\' / \1 Proposed:%0 CkNME OIl-Site parking: Existing: ~ Required: ~ proposed: 00 CtiA,16â‚¬ % Site coverage: Existing: 2[yl Required: 11 / A Proposed: 40 CRANJE % Open Space: Existing: Fl~A Required: A ~A Proposed: A ~A Front Setback: Â· Existing:NtkiM Required: 16 Proposed: %0046Â£Â£ Rear Setback: Existing:4&3(. 55' Required: 10 Proposed:%0 041*4 Combined Front/Rear: Existing:t*?t*.~ Required: ~)6 Proposed: *6 0414(1 Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: (956 Existing: 5.4 Required: 5 Proposed: AD CRK*Â£ Side Setback: (*ETO Existing:8&365 Required: 5 Proposed: 5 , Combined Sides: Existing: < C~' Required: 1~ Proposed: ~ Existing non-conformities or encrqachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: A,GNEâ‚¬ ARK 12> PAgE 4 OF litir APPLICâ‚¬[ro,1 1Â£11&12. 'ariations requested (identify the exact variances needed): Pleeâ‚¬ REFER To iNGES 10 -11 oF THE APPLICA-ric>,1 1.61[gk , Itt. 1 EXHIBIT 3 .1, COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: May 20, 2002 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT17086L 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: . (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: Tax Certificate: $0.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: MARGARETE A. UHL AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST, AND MARGARETE ANNA UHL AS TO AN UDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST. 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: LOTS N, O AND P, BLOCK 42, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY TrrLE, INC Schedule A-PG.1 - 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment. is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 970-925-1766 Phone Provisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A and B are attached. 877-217-3158 Toll Free AUTHORIZED AGENT COUNTERSIGNED: ./. 1 . SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIoNAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. . 1 L. 1 SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEMIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. An~ lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in Deeds from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 147 and Book 59 at Page 498 providing as follows: Â»That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing lawsÂ». 8. Easement and right of way for electric system as set forth in Easement Agreement recorded December 11, 1986 in Book 524 at Page 828. /1 1 . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2 NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominium or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general recibirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and,agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Uens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided 'Gap CoverageÂ». Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122) (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. Pursuant to House Bill 01-1088 (CRS 10-11-123) If Schedule B of your commitment for an Owner's Title Policy reflects an exception for mineral interests or leases, pursuant to CRS 10-11-123 (HB 01-1088), this is to advise: (a) There there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals or geothermal energy in the property and (b) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owners' permission. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT17086L A and B are attached. . 1 '1. , EXHIBIT 4 August, 2002 Mr. Anton Uhl 2455 Emma Road Basalt, CO 81621 Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Re: Uhl Historic Lot Split Application To whom it may concern: I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC, to act as my representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for my property located at 304 and 320 West Hallam Street (Lots N, O, and P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen). Haas Land Planning, LLC, or their assigns, are authorized to represent me in meetings with City staff, boards, commissions, and the City Council. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address are provided in the application. Sincerely, 713*24 IÂ»4-04. Anton Uhl, Owner , .1. & EXHIBIT 5 1. 1 . 6 0AHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR Determined Eligible- SR (page 1 of.4) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.255 2. Temporary resource number: 320.WHA (320.WH) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: C.J. Glassbrook House 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 320 West Hallam Street. Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Margarete A. Uhl PO Box 122 Aspen. CO 81612 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE G of SW G of NE G of SE G of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 4 2 4 5 OmE4339665mN 1 l. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): N, 0, & P Block: 42 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lots N. 0. & P; Block 42 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number 2735-124-23-006 This description was chosen as the most specific and customarv description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One storv 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Siding 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shingle Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Porch. Decorative shinales 8 I Resource Number: 5PT.255 Temporary Resource Number: 320.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) 21. General architectural description: A two story wood frame high style Victorian. A qable end facing the street with a pair of large fixed glass panels, in a shallow bav, as the principal window. The bay has a mansard style roof of scalloped shingles. a pair of double hung windows sit at the top of the bay roof, both centered on the front aable. A cross aable runs parallel to the street with a shed roof porch infilling the corner. An oaee cornice runs around the perimeter of the Dorch as well as across the bav roof. The porch is infilled with a low wall and fixed glass panels, a door and window are visible bevond. The entrv door, with transom, sits at the face of the Dorch. A small shed dormer sits on the cross qable roof. Decorative shinales infill the gable end. A single story, hipped roof, irregular plan. additions sits off the rear of the house, with a continuous series of easement windows in a horizontal band. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: A picket fence runs alona the front of the progertv. Historic cottonwoods at each front property corner. Mature blue spruce on west propertv line. Honevsuckle shrub masses: two on south fence, hedge alona east fence. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: a shed roof one story shed sits on the allev, with contemporary windows and doors. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1884 Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: C. J. Glassbrook Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Infill of porch. date unknown. Shed dormer, post 1980 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood -. â€¢ -' ".Resource Number: 5PT.255 Temporary Resource Number: 320.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 4) 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. The bililding represents an upper middle class residence indicative of the evolution of Aspen from a mining camp to a well established community. 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 City of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes X No ~ Date of designation: 1982 Designating authority: Aspen City Council 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 4O. Period of significance: Late 1800' s Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is sianificant for its position in the context of Aspen's mining era. It describes the nature of the life of a middle class familv or individual during that period, as well as the construction techniques, materials available and the fashion of the time. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Alterations are minimal, but do disturb areas of detail that contributed significantlv to the character of the structure. The form and scale of the structure are intact. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X Discuss: Resource Number: 5PT.255 Temporary Resource Numb6r: 320.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is, it: Contributing Noncontributing VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R2, F27,28 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Afchitects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 - JUL-28-2002 FRI 03:56 PM FAX NO. P. 01 4 , ~ ~1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Daâ€¢e Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR 7~ Determined Not Eligible- NR Deteimined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible. SR (page 1 of 4) _ Need Data Contributes to eligible NR Distric! Noncontributing to eligible NR Diseict 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: SPT.995 2. Temporary resource number: 320.WHA 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Asnen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 320 West Hallam Ascen. Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Mamarete A. Uh[ ___________________________32038kÂ§IliallamA3en~olara-48-1611 11. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 84 West SW M of NW 44 of NE 9, of SE 1/4 of Section _ 7 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3:3 4 2 3 -L 1_mE -4 3 3 9 7 0 mN 1 l. USGS quad name: Asnen Quadranale Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5'_ X 15' Amach photo copy of approprlam map section. 12. Lot(s): N. 0. & P Block: 42 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comnrised of Lots N. 0. & P: Block 42 of the Citv and Townsite of Asgen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124- This descrintion was _chosen as the most sgecific and customary descrintion of the site. Ill. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint. shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One Story 17. Primary external wall materia!(s) Center no more than two): Wood: Loc 18. Roof configuration: Center no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): 20. Special features (enter all that apply): JUL-26-2002 FRI 03:57 PM FAX NO. P. 02 2 .,1 . Resource Number: 5PT.995 Temporary Resource Number: 320.WHA_ Architectural Invento,y Form 0 (page 2 of 4) 21. General architectural description: A low-pitched front qable building, fae:ina south. The structure 12 machine made logs with overiagoina corners and the typical expressed interseeting ioterior walls, An arched entry Dorch is cut out of the loa face and the door is located at 90Â° to the streel. -6 sinale lame Eindow with six canes sits on the right side of_the facade. The structure extends back on the site. 22. Architectural style/building type: Kit Buildina - 23. Landscaping or special setting features: A denselv landscaped vard with a varietv of plants- A large cottonwood sits in typical street tree pattern on the east side of the facade. 24. Associated buildings. features. or objects: none IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate _ Actual 1967 Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown -- Source of information: 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): No record of significant alterations exist. None are apparent 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(b): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic 34. Site type(s): Residential Neighborhood 35. Historical background: This structure is reoresenrative of Asnen's eariv Skiina Era character. . Kit structures were offered. throuch local salesmen, as an inexpensive and complete housing solutions, and a variety of styles and levels of comDIexitv were available. The kit aualitv of the structure was also aDDealinc to Deoole who were creatina vacation homes and housing for ski industiv employees. 36. Sources of Information: Asoen's Architectural Context. Post WWII. Dart of The 2000 Survey of Historic Sites and Structures. VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: . c -JUL-26-2002 FRI 03:57 PM FAX NO. P. 03 I . Resource Number: _ 5PT.995 Temporary Resqurce Number: Â· 320.WHA- Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 4) 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our - history: B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a gpe, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master. or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction: or D. Has yielded. or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory, Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Mid 1900's Skiina Develooment 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: This- structure is slanificant for its position in the context of Aspen's earlv skiing development. It describes the nature of the simole structures constructed as vacation homes and employee housina at a period of time when economy and simplicitv were desirable. The log style wa-S particularly appealing for its association with the mountain environment and lifestyle. -.1- 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This structure is in excellent condition and is a aood example of the style. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes _ No _X Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing __ 46. If the building is in existing National Register district. is it Contributing Noncontributing Vill. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R13: F7 Negatives filed ati_Asgen/Pitkin Community DeveloDment Dent. 48. Report title: Ch _of Assen UDdate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures. 2000 49. Date(s): __6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Archjtects JUL-26-2002 FRI 03:57 PM FAX NO. P. 04. Resource Number: 5PT.995 Temporary Resource Number: 320.WHA Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street PO.Box 1303. Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 0. i , 1 1 e m 0 â‚¬ r G : 11.1 r 9 -J 66 L 4 4 1 HO IZE , & 1-4 6 11 1 11 0 1 1 1 1 4 09/6 DIE *52. ... 43 1 â‚¬0 6ZE EZE (ZE 91% esc LZZ LIZ 1 0 1 1 .... .. ... 1- 01 4 1- -7 - - ...Ill [El *- A 4 1~~1 14 ' U : rl ./ - p 2. Co - N O -- 0 . 0 1 - 00 1.--L- ~13: U O b k j k < % U Q 4;, ~ r-El *- * 1 O 01 121 * B 0 4 0 7-1 4. Z 1 LZ_ 1 k k * % 63 k v k k â€¢--1 rrl-1 r 01 1 1 r4p .19 1 14 1 --17- 7*iÂ· ./ . 4. I *I / ir . /m.1 /..4 â„¢' 10.1' I- - *Fi r--0, R=- .SL Â· .1 0 911 -0-07-4---,lr-= 90Â£ Â· 005 ' DEZ 9tz 1- - .. .1 ..3 . .1 -C'. 14,/.: 2/ It> Jifj-Ol- (e) a i e j 1904 1 2/7. 3/8 ~ 6*EN ... I. I-, EXHIBIT 6 -. . 212 N SECOND ST LLC BARKER JACK 1/2 INT ALLEN ROBERT H & JUDY LEY C/O RICHARD CORBETT BARKER CARRYN ADRIANNA TRUST 1/2 4545 POST OAK PL STE 101 N WEST SHORE BLVD STE 110 INT HOUSTON, TX 77027 A, FL 33607-5749 PO BOX 7943 ASPEN, CO 81612 BENNINGHOFF ESTHER BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS M CITY OF ASPEN 233 W HALLAM AVE 20320 FAIRWAY OAKS DR #353 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 ASPEN, CO 81611 CONNOR F HAYDEN Â· COOPER JOHN T COX CAROLYN M 444 GRAPE ST P O BOX 1747 961 PASEO DEL SUR DENVER, CO 80220 SPRINGFIELD, MO 65802 SANTA FE, NM 87501 EPPLER KLAUS TRUSTEE DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F PROSI<AUER ROSE GOETZ & PO BOX 3238 PO BOX 241750 MENDELSHON C/O ASPEN, CO 81612 MEMPHIS, TN 38124 2255 GLADES RD #340 W BOCA RATON, FL 33431 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REALTY FIRESTEIN CHESTER & BEVERLY FISCHER SISTIE C/O EDWARDS JOSEPH 111 9777 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 501 442 W BLEEKER 502 MAIN ST STE 201 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 JANSS MARY 1992 REVOCABLE LIVING FRIEDBERG BARRY S GALLANT MARILYN TRUST 555 PARK AVE 7W 617 VINE ST STE 1430 403 W HALLAM NEW YORK, NY 10021 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 ASPEN, CO 81611 JONES STEPHEN MARTIN TRUST IV KOHNER ELLEN P KINNEY STEPHEN J & SUSAN M 500 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY N HUNT ELLEN C/O P O BOX 330010 BLD 6 STE 125 PO BOX 8770 MIAMI, FL 33233 AUSTIN, TX 78746 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCANIFF RICHARD J MULLINS DON R KOUTSOUBOS TED A % HARDING & CARBONE C/O KATHY KUNZ 415 E HYMAN AVE #206 777 108TH AVE NE SUITE 2000 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5118 HOUSTON, TX 77025 NEISSER JUDITH E REVOCABLE TRUST MYERS JOSEPH V JR NATHAN REVOCABLE TRUST C/O BERNADETTE REED 421 W HALLAM ST 718 N LINDEN DR 3281 GRAFTON LN ASPEN, CO 81611 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 AURORA, IL 60504 P.....ICI< JAMES K PENINSULA LLC POTVIN SALLY ALLEN 417 W HALL-AM ST PO BOX 6594 320 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 , . .7 RH ASPEN LLC RIGGS ASPEN TRUST RISPOLI PETER 323 W FRANCIS ST 6815 BALTIMORE DR 323 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAX JOEL D SCHLOFFER BRUNHILDE P SIRKIN ALICIA 303 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 941 3500 S BAYHOMES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33133 SMART PAMELA STILWELL REED & CLAIRE TEAGUE LEWIS TRUST 1040 W CONWAY DR 191 UNIVERSITY BLVD #714 862 NORTH BEVERLY GLEN BLVD ATLANTA, GA 30305 DENVER, CO 80206 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 TITUS JOHN & JOAN REVOCABLE UHL MARGARETE A WEISE RICHARD H TRUST 5451 N E RIVER RD #503 PO BOX 122 3025 BRYN MAWR CHICAGO, IL 60656 ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75225 . , -. ... EXHIBIT 7 Stir-28-duuu 1-KI Uti:51 An FAX NU. P. 03 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AM, ecment for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fces CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Artu: UlÂ·IC (hereinafter APPLICAN1) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an applicalion toi A Mero~ l.foloMAAC l=r SR,ro *,1 FAR. &>,lus. f VAPr#mlde5> 4,128#1~S 8%614hiol (hereinafter, THE PROJECT), 2. APPLICANT undenstands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1 999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment ofall processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree thai because of the size. nature or scope of the proposed projeck it is 1101 possible at this [ime to ascertain Ibc full extent of the costs involved in processing rhe application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree tbat it is in the interest of the parties Ihal APPLICANT make paymenr of an initial deposit and to thereafter pennit additional costs to be billed to APPUCANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following iheirhearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make addirional payments Upon notification by Ihe CITY when they arc necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited ihrough the greater certainty efrecovezing its full costs to process APPI.ICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT funher agree (hal il is impracricable for CITY staff to complete processing or present suftlcient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration. unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in considention of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect ful] fees prior to a determination of apolicatiop completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposk in the amount of $ 1,205; 4 which is for hours of Community Development staff Time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the inilial deposit, APPL]CANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY ro rcimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Sueh periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure zo pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. and in no case *ill building permits be issued unul all costs associated with case processing have becn paid CITY OFASPEN APPLICANT 1. By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director bate: 31- 29.01 Mailing Address: 8 20 w. +64.1 4. . c.24.-M. 4 . 1/4 21 g:\support\forms\ogrpayas.doc 12/27/99 . Architectural Guide: Rustic/Log Kit The Rustic Style emerged from the original pioneer structures that were created out of locally available materials, were of straightforward construction, and had housed people since the settlement of the West. The Rustic Style became the preferred style for buildings of the National Parks system and examples range from simple rectilinear log structures to elaborate structures of log and stone, with varied roof forms, dormers and expressed structural details. Whether they were built among rolling hills and lakes, such as the Adirondack camps of the late 19th century, or in the dramatic mountain settings of Yellowstone and Yosemite, these structures came to embody the idea of 'simple' mountain living. While this style continues to be built today, in very elaborate forms, the character defining elements listed below are related to the more modest local structures from the 40's and 50's. These structures were used as simple vacation homes and inexpensive housing for early ski workers. Characteristics of the Rustic Style: â€¢ Buildings are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. â€¢ Buildings are usually single story, with a low pitched gable roof. â€¢ True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way. â€¢ Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. â€¢ Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. â€¢ Roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. â€¢ The emphasis is on hand made materials and the details come out of the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. â€¢ Materials in later buildings are used to simulate log construction and refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. (Specific details of traditional log buildings, and construction techniques are not always carried forward into the newer structures.) Pan Abode is a brand name for a log kit structure commonly found in Aspen beginning in 1952. These packages were available in a number of standard configurations and also seem to have been customized for larger buildings. They were relatively inexpensive, provided basic shelter, and were quick to erect; the mid 2oth century version of a "miner's cottage." These structures also had the log quality that was associated with the idea of rustic mountain living. Pan Abodes appear primarily in residential contexts, however, examples of commercial and multi family also exist. The structures housed ski industry workers and were also used as affordable vacation homes. Examples: Description: .) A: -4 r-Ajup'.P~ 211 W. Hopkins Avenue: This Pan Abode house was built in 1956 and is essentially unaltered on the exterior. 630 W. Main Street (Mountain Rescue): This Pan Abode structure was built in 1965 by Alfred Braun, who founded Mountain Rescue. Mountain Rescue is made - up of 45 local volunteers who are on-call 24 hours a day. They have two primary missions, backcountry search and rescue, and mountain safety education. 10#*4 317/ 320 W. Hal/am Street: This cabin was built in 1967 by Sepp and Gretl Uhl, owners of the adjacent Victorian home. It has a low-pitched roof and an arched entry porch set into the building front f 435 W. Main Street (L'Auberge D'Aspen): Built around the 1940's, the cabins along the alley were i built as a lodge, with parking available right next to each 3 1Â· *mi , Ii= unit. New cabins in front were added in 1995. . 'r 96% ilill... 730 W. Main Street (Hickory House): The original section of the Hickory House (the entry portion) was built in 1950. Restaurants and lodges began to - appear in Aspen to serve the growing tourism industry. A "western motif" was a popular image, reflected in the design of this building. 501 W. Main Street (Christiania): , This property includes two Pan Abode lodge units, built in the 1960's. They are unaltered. 300 W. Main Street: This log house was built in 1944. 99 Northway Drive It:~ This was an excellent example of a Pan Abode home, with Chalet style detailing. It was demolished in 2000. .i.*li F . i r, , P-Â·:70'IW C CE::r . ASPEN'S 20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE: DEAPÂ·r RUSTIC STYLE BUILDINGS The period right after World War II was a time of growth and prosperity for the United States. Americans began to enjoy greater financial freedom, along with increased leisure time. They looked for escape from their urban and suburban lifestyles as well as from the sadness of the war years. Starting in the late 1 940's the country's landscape transformed as vacationing and tourism became a central feature in American lifestyle. The post war economic upturn resulted in an automotive industry producing greater numbers of cars at much more affordable prices. This, combined with falling gasoline costs and the construction of cross-country highway systems "gave greater numbers of people the means to travel, and previously inaccessible places were more easily reached."1 The American West held a distinct interest for people with these new found freedoms and a desire for adventure. "To Americans the West is their refuge, the home of the 'last best place.'52 Remote, unheard of towns began to see the possibilities for an increase in visitors. Vacation homes, hunting lodges, dude ranches, and tourist-related facilities began to increase i.n number after the war, many built in a Rustic style of architecture that reflected the "frontier spirit"3 of the new American tourist. This style "represents an early 20th century movement in American architecture...It was picturesque, romantic architecture that recalled the American past."4 1 Rothman, Hal K., Devil's Bargains - Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West, 202 2 Rothman, 14 3 Carley, Rachel, "Cabin Fever: Rustic Style comes Home" 4 Throop, E. Gail, "Rustic Architecture: Period Design in the Columbia River Gorge" . The Rustic style has its roots in the simple pioneer cabin and the Adirondack Style of the late 1800's, and became the preferred architecture for the National Parks Service, beginning with its founding in 1917. The Parks Service's belief was that "buildings should blend in with their natural surroundings"5 and that "natural settings could influence architecture."6 The majority of entryways, information centers, and guest lodges that were built in National Parks throughout the country in the first decades of the 20tl~ century, and which were viewed by many Americans, were built in the "National Parks Service Rustic" style. This style of architecture became 1 associated with the development of resort '267"./.11/L 1 -4 >r -~ areas throughout the Rocky Mountain - ~â‚¬2.166....Ill/"I/"Im/"Illill"/1/Immim/'imi"/1/Ii:31/39, 1~in:fl:1:1~m~ States and played an integral part in the T '~idiz:*rt: - ji~f~ origins of tourism in Colorado. The - t :--.---1 : majority of rustic style buildings in the - - Â£--:- â€¢It-â‚¬ -~-L:.~â€ž--- -.26; i- -.-t 9.-Â·. 4-.L34&&~2*~ state were constructed after 1905,7 and the Sumers Lodge, Vacation home in Glenwood Springs, CO built in 1935 1,--Â»:rrÂ·râ€¢,0;.0.,*Me,-3. .1. :. .. .- . .-4-:*-.2?, trend continued into the post World War II m. 6.4 / Ls., Ladi, . â€¢ I ' ~ R./4 ....... A......' r.% - ~ ~ era. Examples of log buildings served the 11 , tourism industry can be found throughout Imi V. 4 Colorado in places like Grand Lake, gl.,r - 6 Telluride, Thomasville, Woodland Park, Estes Park, and Aspen. Grand Lake Lodge, built in 1925 5 Rocky Mountain National Park, Home Page, Historic Buildings 6 Kaiser, Harvey H., Landmarks ill the Landscape, 17 7 Colorado Historical Society Home Page I . The rustic style was symbolic of the attitude and imagery surrounding western America. It offered an escape into the mythology of the "hardy outdoor life of American pioneers."8 The appeal of the rugged, back to nature lifestyle was evidenced by the popularity of television shows like "The Lone Ranger" and "Davy Crockett", the proliferation of Western movies, and the popularity of toys like "Lincoln Logs" and games like "Cowboys and Indians." As people ventured out west to vacation after World War II, they were looking for something new, exciting and unique to do. The burgeoning sport of downhill skiing was taking hold as a popular activity in mountain communities. Technological advancements, increased affordability and the desire for adventure made it readily accessible. " Post-war consumer culture and the nation-wide growth of tourism, combined with beginning of the ski industry, meant that people no longer had to belong to an elite club or live in a mountain town in order to ski."~ Aspen was located among some of the most magnificent mountains in the world and held great potential for success. During this same time, entrepreneur and businessman Walter Paepcke came to Aspen with the vision of transforming the small town into a cultural and artistic haven. The Aspen Institute, Music Festival, and other activities combined with skiing to create a resort town that offered "good opportunities for combining work, play, and culture"10 and 8 Carley 9 Gilbert, Anne M. Re-Creation through Recreation: Aspen Skiing from 1870 to 1970, 46 10 Rothman, 213 what became an "archetype for the beginning of tourism in the post-World War II American West. â€ž11 Aspen's amenities also attracted a larger group of second homeowners, or part-time residents, than had existed previously. As the city began to transform itself into a premiere, year round resort, many people "chose to move to or build vacation homes in Aspen. ,012 Between 1940 and 1959, the number of full-time residents had increased by â€ž13 1000, and "by 1959 at least 200 part-time residents joined the year-round crowd. Tourism and increased second home ownership resulted in a new era of construction in the town, and rustic style buildings were a common motif. Although the complete collection that were built in Aspen cannot be documented, it is known that the earliest such buildings were constructed starting in roughly the mid 1930's, and numerous rustic style structures can still be found here today. Up until the early 1950's, most examples are true log structures, built by hand. They included lodges, restaurants, and residences. For example, the Waterman cabins, (since demolished) once located at the corner of 7th and Hallam Streets, were a group of small tourist cottages built in 1937. The "Swiss .... . 1. -/ 4. ''.'I'/ I .-p.......I-./.. ~ .... ....'..../".i) Chalets," (now L'Auberge) at 0.5 435 W. Main Street, which are 4.t:â‚¬ 43\4 1 C . 3 *..~* .:. 7- . . t rustic, not chalet in style, were Â¥ I I ::05'' i 10 built during this period in a motor $ 4 T f .1 Â·Â·114 f~ i' 4 ~~ ~ ~Â· e' 1 1 I. S - 6 --' ~ "*' -cÂ·E ~Â·Â·Â·: 2 court configuration that allowed .. ..0 Â· . -----fid guests to drive right up to the unit. Waterman Cabins c.1937 The Hickory House, originally 11 Rothman , 207 12 Gilbert, 72 13 Rothman 223 t called The Silver Chicken, at 735 W. Main Street, was built in 1950 and was one of the few restaurants operating in town at that time. An original sign on the west side of the building which reads "restaurant" is drawn in lettering whose every component is made to look like a log, completing the theme of the structure down to each detail. 300 West Main Street, a residence, is another prime example from this period. All of these buildings could be built easily from local materials. *'.-r A Typical characteristics of the 0,12 1*4* 4~.14* . * .44*1 rustic style are "log construction, Re '2*. . C Â·-3,00.Â·e, 1271 ' 1 v 443*'V fs. 4 9 e? 91.4 stone foundation, srnall paned 94- t1 r -1- * ~ windows, overhanging roof, stone 1 L.JE .. chimney, and battered walls. â€ž14 A rustic style building should have the I . following general characteristics: 300 W. Main, built in 1944 â€¢ The buildings are constructed out of locally available materials, usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. â€¢ The buildings are usually single story, with a low pitched gable roof. â€¢ True log construction has overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way. â€¢ Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. â€¢ The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. â€¢ The emphasis is on hand made materials and the details come out of the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. 14 Colorado Historical Society Home Page, Guide to Colorado Architecture I - i t As mechanization quickly began to replace the handmade in many aspects of American life, log cabin kits that could be ordered by catalog, delivered by train or truck, and then assembled on site gained popularity. The kits were another version of mail order houses that had become popular during the depression era, due to their affordability, beginning with companies such as Sears, Roebuck, & Co., and Montgomery Ward, who sold hundreds of thousands of homes during that time. Following their lead, others began selling different styles of kit houses, including Pan Abode, a manufacturer that specialized in log cabins starting in 1952. Between the mid 1950's and 1970, rustic style buildings in Aspen were more commonly machine made kit log structures than handbuilt, but they still reflected the same western imagery. Materials in these later buildings simulated log construction and refer to the particular visual details of the original log structures. Examples of kit log structures built as second homes during this period are found at 211 W. Hopkins and 765 Meadows. R.; rayfe>:uÂ»:â€ž0uu:iliÂ¥'t~ The purpose of this paper is to determine a ~ period of significance for this type of architecture in Aspen. Because brands such as Â«39.&'t'. t 4 p . .* -_ _ 4. Pan Abode are still in existence today, a greater 9 - *4â‚¬- _ - ~i-.r-rz-134.-2. challenge is presented in determining the end date for the period of historic significance, 211 West Hopkins, built 1956 however, changes in the type of tourist and style of tourist accommodations and facilities that were desired began to evidence themselves in Aspen in the early 1970's. Aspen adopted a Growth Management plan in 1976, which was indicative of the environment at the time. The plan recognized the need to preserve the quality of life in Aspen. Second homes were becoming more prevalent and beginning I 1 to displace permanent residents. The changes in Aspen's residential character were noted again in 1986, according to the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan, when it was found that the number of second homes had significantly increased and that the size of these second homes was particularly large compared to traditional residences in the city. It was also recognized that the prevalence of these types of homes was driving out long-term resident workers. As a result of these shifts in Aspen's development trends, the end of the period of significance for the simple rustic style buildings is being established as roughly 1970. A lâ€¢. t Sources: Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993, Aspen, Colorado Carley, Rachel, "Cabin Fever: Rustic Style comes Home" September 1998, www.uniquerustique.com/history Colorado Historical Society Home Page, Guide to Colorado Architecture, www.coloraohistory-oahp.org/guides Directory of Colorado State Register Properties, www.coloradohistory- oahp.org/publications Gilbert, Anne M. Re-Creation through Recreation: Aspen Skiing from 1870 to 1970, 1995. Aspen Historical Society, Aspen, Colorado Harrison, Laura Soullitre, Architecture in the Parks: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study, National Park Service, Department ofthe Interior, November 1986 http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online books/harrison Kaiser, Harvey H., Landmarks in the Landscape, California: Chronicle Books, 1997. Rocky Mountain National Park, Home Page, Historic Buildings http://www.nps.gov/romo/resources/history/historic.html Rothman, Hal K., Devil's Bargains - Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1998. Throop, E. Gail, "Rustic Architecture: Period Design in the Columbia River Gorge", 1995. CRM Volume 18, Number 5, http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/18-5/18-5-4.pdf. 08/29/02 THU 08:34 FAX 9709257395 Haas Land Plannlng, LLC f A [1 +jt I 40001 I. r , AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3~~ CD V- &3 z.( U.1 l-\ALL,cle-i~ Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: A UCE, 2 9, , 200 2- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, A 10 70 AJ 04 L (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: 4 Publication ofnotice. By the publication in the legal notice section of an official W-, c paper Ora paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days pdorto the public headng. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ,/ Posting ofnotice: By posting ofnotice, which form was obtained fromthe 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 ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ' / day of k U 6 . 9Â« , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. J Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section .410,2 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the lael. 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, and, 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns 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 ofthe owners and ' governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ,- --3 (continued on next page) 08/29/02 THU 05:34 PAA 9/0923/39:) Haas Lana Flanning, LLC 121 002 - 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 ofthis Title, or whenever the text ofthis 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 has been 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 fppegoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was aqknqwledged before me tilisÂ¢~~ay of Uli.gu,i:f , 20020 by Mor] Uh 1 0 p.--*..,K WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL *3.Yff.34 ~ i JACKIE '; 2 Â·21 Mycommissionexpires: 4~/9-~03 ~ < LOT}iIAN ,~ ~ LJ2A~ Â· ~~~ ed\\ 'b+>Â·*-.....0-*a,-4, ~otary Publle ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL c ~ 42 49Â« * 111 *471;2â‚¬â„¢h*2~:~*1Z~- . a.3 , 6. . -:, ./ 9. - 4. . ' liu. , / 0 1 - 1- . .......~AWN" - tr .. PUBLIC NOTICE ! DATE_- TIME PLACE PURPOSE . A 1....I- . ---- I 1,-- , 4 1/I r e - r '11-1, 4..... ..........4 -ME .....0100.0 0.0.04 6 0 -:--0. .......4..........41 'Alii P, / - 4 3 1 vi 4 PUBLIC NOTICE 0 RE: 320 W. HALIAMHISTORIC IANDMARK LOTSPLIr ANDVARUNCES NOT]CE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public healing will be held on Wednesday, August 28,2002 at ameeting to begin at 5:00p.m. beforetheAspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Anton Uhl requestingapploval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split and variances at 320 W Hallam Street. The property is legplly described as Lots N-P, Block 42, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposal will subdivide the property into one 6,000 square foot lot, which will contain the existing Victorian homq and one 3,000 square foot lot which will contain the existing Pan Abo(le home The estklishment of the new lot line results in the need for variances to accommodate the buildings in their present locations. No new devdopment is proposed at this time Thevariances requested are: a l'west sideyard setback val'ance forthe Victorian, a 3' west sideyard setback vanance and a 4' rearyard setback vanance for a shed that is along the alley, 5' rear yard setback vanances for two other shecb that are located along the alley and a 4' east sidey ard setback variance for the easternmost of these shecb, a 2' west sideyard setback vanance for the Pan Abode, and a 2 foot combined sideyard setback variance for the Pan Abode. A 500 square foot FAR bonus is also requested, which will be allotted to future devdopment andis proposed as a result of the owner's agreement to the designation of the Pan Abo(le as a historic landmark. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at theAspen/Pitkin Community Devdopment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Suzannah Reici Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 10,2002 City ofAspen Account 0 All The Aspen Times â€¢ Monday, August 12, 2002 m* $17 Haircuts The West Capitol Peak Outfitt ers . n lÂ».- %\ ITorseback Rides - This week's special: 9&\(/-*---LU{j ASPEN BARBER SHOP â€¢ 925-2854 Malibu fights . *.4 Vv 44(198% â€¢ 1;uy tllrec -holll ddes with i \A -Â·-Â·-A (down the stairs from Sondy's Office Supply) NYÂ» p 630 East Hyman to keep public z tfi~i-~~ i lunch, get Ilie 4211 one FREE. : LÂ· 1 1 NO WAIT- TWO BARBERS ALWAYS IN! I ilene'lm':thed., ia l;,1 5 0 0}11.1-Cy,ili'.Â· 1.1451.11 18 , 1 ----6- Ross "Buzz" Thompson & introducing off its beaches ~e#00 lunch rides, rides witli trout ftshing EvenÂ·(.Iling froni: 1 liour rides, to spectacular - ~j , Joel Crawford, Wendy Cahill & Gina Robenson wilderness trips - elijoy evening rides, By Laura Wides Y Come in and meet our new barbers! Walk-In only... Mon. - FM., 9 o.m.-5 p.m. Sat. 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. The Associated Press Snowinass Village â€¢ www.cal,itc)11)e:ilcconi â€¢ 923-2Vt()2 N MALIBU, Calif. - lesa stretch of coastline that defines California - set after set of pie- ture-perfect surfing waves, a -- -- 1-*i ~ sweeping backdrop of forested m- a HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 111: j ravines behind a line of beach- E- 1 1 -1 4 1 .%01' le DATE: Wednesday, August 14,2002 front mansions, long stretches of t' 12- I J TIME/PLACE: 5.00PM - City Council Chambers near empty sand. Site Visit: 12:00 Copeland-Twining Pioneer Pk Gazebo, Corner of And much of it is off-limits to D " - iyÂ¢ 4, 4 '. r.r hft,> ' 'Emi. 3rd & W Bleeker the public. .1 1. 2 T. 1.541*7... Nk~ Old Business: 334 W Hallam- Conceptual Review, cont Public California's coast hus become Hearing to Aug. 28,2002 more accessible in recent years as - New Business: None Work sessions: the state has tried to acquire public ,/subtvf""PRM-i% 44 2, 1 , 4 ~ 320 W Hallam Street land. But nowhere has the fight to Miner's cottage integrity assessments keep the public out been so fero- ,~,1112-f,- -Ttiblm.13/*mit.-.--7-7 0- ] Design Guidelines, Introduction ancl Chapter 1 ADJOURN Information contact: 920-5060 cious as in Malibu, home to Holly- wood moguls and the superrich, 4 '0> The city and some of its .~. ~ PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS wealthiest residents are engaged _A- 3 %*F 212 N SECONDST LLC ALLEN ROBERT H & JUDY LEY BARKER CARRYN ADRIANNA TRUST 1/2 BARKER JACK 1/2 INT ~ C/O RICHARDEORBETT 4545 POST OAK PL STE 101 2 N WESTS-HOREBLVD STE 110 HOUSTON, TX 77027 PO BOX 7943 INT PA, FL 33607-5749 ASPEN, CO 81612 BENN/NGHOFF ESTHER ~ BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS M CITY OF ASPEN 233 W HALLAM AVE 20320 FAIRWAY OAKS DR #353 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, Co 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 ASPEN, CO 81611 CONNOR F HAYDEN Â· COOPER JOHN T COX CAROLYN M 444 GRAPE ST P O BOX 1747 961 PASEO DEL SUR DENVER, CO 80220 SPRINGFIELD, MO 65802 SANTA FE, NM 87501 EPPLER KLAUS TRUSTEE DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD DOBBS JOHN C & SARA F PROSKAUER ROSE GOETZ & PO BOX 3238 PO BOX 241750 MENDELSHON C/O ASPEN, CO 81612 MEMPHIS, TN 38124 2255 GLADES RD #340 W BOCA RATON, FL 33431 FIVE CONTINENTS ASPEN REALTY FIRESTEIN CHESTER & BEVERLY FISCHER SISTIE CO EDWARDS JOSEPH 111 9777 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 501 442 W BLEEKER 502 MAIN ST STE 201 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 JANSS MARY 1992 REVOCABLE LIVING FRIEDBERG BARRY S GALLANT MARILYN TRUST 555 PARK AVE 7W 617 VINE ST STE 1430 403 W HALLAM NEW YORK, NY 10021 CINCINNATI, OH 45202 ASPEN, CO 81611 JONES STEPHEN MARTIN TRUST IV KOHNER ELLEN P KINNEY STEPHEN J & SUSAN M 500 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY N HUNT ELLEN C/O P O BOX 330010 BLD 6 STE 125 PO BOX 8770 MIAMI, FL 33233 AUSTIN, TX 78746 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCANIFF RICHARD J MULLINS DON R KOUTSOUBOS TED A % HARDING & CARBONE C/O KATHY KUNZ 415 E HYMAN AVE #206 777 108TH AVE NE SUITE 2000 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5118 HOUSTON, TX 77025 NEISSER JUDITH E REVOCABLE TRUST MYERS JOSEPH V JR NATHAN REVOCABLE TRUST C/O BERNADETTE REED 421 W HALLAM ST 718 N LINDEN DR 3281 GRAFTON LN ASPEN, CO 81611 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 AURORA, IL 60504 PATRICK JAMES K PENINSULA LLC POTVIN SALLY ALLEN 417 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 6594 320 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN: CO 81611 =7â‚¬r- - -1 ASPEN LLC RIGGS ASPEN TRUST RISPOU PETER 23 W FRANCIS ST 6815 BALTIMORE DR 323 W HALLAM ST ~ SPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 AX JOEL D SCHLOFFER BRUNHILDE P SIRKIN ALICIA J3 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 941 3500 S BAYHOMES DR SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33133 MART PAMELA STILWELL REED & CLAIRE TEAGUE LEWIS TRUST 040 W CONWAY DR 191 UNIVERSITY BLVD #714 862 NORTH BEVERLY GLEN BLVD TLANTA, GA 30305 DENVER, CO 80206 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 TUS JOHN & JOAN REVOCABLE UHL MARGARETE A WEISE RICHARD H RUST 5451 N E RIVER RD #503 ' PO BOX 122 025 BRYN MAWR CHICAGO, IL 60656 ASPEN, CO 81612 ALLAS, TX 75225 0