The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20021023ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 23,2002 \\ REGULAR MEETING, 5:00 p.m. SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA NOON - SITE VISITS - NONE 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes 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 #38) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 334 W. Hallam, Conceptual - Continue Public Hearing to Nov. 13, 2002 iX> NEW BUSINESS A. 533 W. Francis - Conceptual, On-site relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Variances - Public Hearing X. WORKSESSIONS 5:45 A. Infill/TDR 6:15 B. Design Guidelines , Chapter 10-15 Appendix, General issues 6:45 XI. ADJOURN I j r-mmir-11 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD111 122EJ ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 5 3 3 \A) . Fia.N'Lat 3 , Aspen, CO [El)ULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DETJJFT ;0*p ~ , 2001 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Botyc C vrn.2. r (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) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: /Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy Of the publication is attached hereto. 4- Posting of notice: By posting o f notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the~*day of OÂ·jober , 200 2-, to and including the date and time ofthe public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. 1/ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners ofproperty 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 of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) . Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners o f real property in the area o f 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. r4(140/- Signaturt / The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 15 X6Ry of 0 6(, &-6,UL , 200-4 by PA~ e /u_rn. 8 r- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL .....6 W ANN G. My torermssion ex~ires. E I I 4/8-004 1 l'EENEY ) ~ '00 V,X 1* 10Â£79 - K..11-4 I V 1%442*00' Notary Public- / ' ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 4'' r ,& 4 2 PUBLIC NOTICE i DATE /0/%/02 TIME 5; 00 P. H. LACE CITy HALL 4 PURPOSE_BAÂ®R DEVELÂ· 2MENC.16%168961 OU5/TE REL0CA734 . 130 SOUre GALENA. ASPe' CO (9701 /20.-5090- FOR FURTHER NFORMATIOK CO-ACT DE ASM,1/TRIN PLANNNG OFFICE. 4:i <0 , 2 I .U .Ki PUBLIC NOTICE ~c DATE /0/%/02 TIME*25 4 PLACE Crry HALL PURPOSE M#*m ..:7'i~~Â·.*d.. ,. - 1 1Â»IibLVANNCE O*â‚¬ME BELOCAIBAL . r .~.&Â£~18NCEML~[iM 4 'lg[,0,39 2 --- 14 :1~*i<,;,32.- r, -Â·-2 4 3 -11: -7- - ' *144.0.~* .ai ' , .Â·: U - - - A flot..A/#..'/ME - 'WAn,(*,%2411 -.hour,114.,a -acO ~~,--O .Â¥3 t?,26.51 .f-T r = 47 4,40Â·4 1 8 Â·9? .b . -'1 . t .. Page 1 of 3 Mailing List For Public Notice 533 W. Francis October 23,2002 Meeting 318 Fourth Street LTD Aspen GK LLC C/O Buster Feldom P.O. Box 640 P.O. Box 445 Aspen, CO 81612 Houston, TX 77001 Aspen Historical Society Berliner.Arthur S. 620 Bleeker St C/O Walden Aspen, CO 81611 750 Battery St #700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Blaich Robert I. & Janet S. 319 N. Fourth St Aspen, CO Bauer, Walter F. Family Trust 15935 Valley Vista Daly Thomas J. & Judith J. Encino, CA 91436 1590 Homestake Dr Aspen, CO 81611 Crown, Patricia Eggleston, Robert H. Jr. 222 N. Lasalle St 434 W. Hallam Ste 800/JXC Aspen,CO 81611 Chicago, IL 60601 Glenn, Sally Rae Blank, Robert S. & Nancy L. 504 W. Hallam Avenue C/O Whitcomb Partners Aspen, CO 81611 110W.51stRoom4310 New York, NY 10020 Hall, Charles L. P.O. Box 1819 Doremus Family LP Aspen, CO 81612 85 Glen Garry Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Hunt, Roger H. P.O. Box 3944 Dikeou, Lucy Sharp Aspen, CO 81611 25 Polo Club Cir Denver, CO 80209 Joy, William N. P.O. Box 23 Gell-Mann/Murdock Ptns LLP Aspen, CO 81612 500 W. Francis Aspen, CO 81611 Page 2 of 3 Key, R. Brill & Elizabeth R. Emerson Ltd 506 W. Hallam St C/O Sweeney Aspen, CO 81611 2704 15th Avenue Carmel, CA 93923 609 Corporation West Smuggler Lot Split LLC A Colorado Corporation C/O Leonard Weinglass P.O. Box 1819 P.O. Box 11509 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Haisfield, Tracey E. Gold, Richard 434 W. Hallam St 300 St Pierre Rd Aspen, CO 81611 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Henry, Kristen Harman, Andrew J. 525 W. Hallam St 513 W. Smuggler Aspen, CO 81611-1246 Aspen, CO 81611 Israel, Charles B. Iglehart, James P. 522 W. Francis 610 W. Hallam St Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Kafrissen, Arthur & Carol F. Kasch, Jeffery C. 485 City Hall 68 Ronan Rd Philadelphia, PA 19107 Fort Sheridan, IL 60010-2065 Koval, Barbara Trste Koval, Barbara Trust C/O North of Nell 621 W. Francis St Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Martin, James R. QPRT McCausland, Linda Trust Co of Knoxville Trste P.O. Box 1584 620 Market St, #300 Aspen, CO 81612 Knoxville, TN 37902 McGill, Donald R. Oxley, John C. 11800 Old Katy Road Attn: Barbara Walker Houston, TX 77079 1437 S. Boulder Ave., #1475 Tulsa, OK 74119 Shafroth, Diana H. Trust Verleger, Philip K. & Margaret B. 3901 E. Belleview Avenue 15 Torrey Pines Lane Littleton, CO 80121 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Page 3 of 3 Werlin, Laura B. Wilke, John H. & Bonnie K. Trste C/O Walden 626 W. Francis 750 Battery St, #700 Aspen, CO 81611 San Francisco, CA 94705 Ware, Nina Coulter Rosenberg, Phillip I. 34 Clermont Lane 68 Ronan Road St. Louis, MO 63124 Fort Sheridan, IL 60010-2065 Sugar Mountain Trust Oxley, Debby M. C/O Wien & Malkin LLP 1300 Williams Tower I 60 E. 42nd Street Tulsa, OK 74103 New York, NY 10165 Mullen, Michel Pacific Development Group, LLC 8411 Preston Road C/O Christopher Hewett #730 LB 2 P.O. Box 2577 Dallas, TX 75225 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Silverman, Jack E. Vicenzi, George A. Trust 612 W. Francis Street P.O. Box 2238 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 EXHIBIT- Charles B. Israel : 00 -=13-2-2 E-1 522 West Francis Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4266 October 15, 2002 Historic Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Committee: My wife and I are very opposed to any changes made to the zoning of the house of Mrs. Stapleton at 533 West Francis Street, directly across the street from our home. Allowing David Gibson, to alter the lot set backs, to increase the size and mass of the a new home or duplex, is not consistent with the idea of keeping the West End's, Victorian charm. You allowed two gross homes to be constructed at 518/516 West Francis that in no way reflect the charm of the street. Mr. Gibson is an excellent architect and personal friend; but attempting to squeeze additional footage on to an 18,000 sq. ft. lot isn't intended in keeping the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gibson purchased the existing home, knowing full well the restrictions that are imposed on the property. Wanting to change the allocated building area helps no one other than himself. Sandy and I wish you reject his application to modify the zoning; but would welcome a home or duplex that reflects the lovely peaceful serenity of the street and neighborhood. ~espectfully yours, >4/!(4+M'* \44'CL Sand# and Charles Israel ..1 I 5 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 W. FRANCIS STREET- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), VARIANCES, ON-SITE RELOCATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publi8 hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Dave Gibson requesting approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Variances, On-Site Relocation, and a Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is located at 533 W. Francis Street, Lots A-C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen. The existing Victorian house is to be relocated westward, and a new addition is proposed for it. A new lot is to be created on the east side of the property. Its development will be reviewed at a future date. The variances requested are: a west side yard setback of 1 foot where 5 feet are required; an east side yard setback of 2.5 feet (to a lightwell, which will be more than 30" deep) where 5 feet are required; a combined side yard setback of 3.5 feet where 10 feet are required; a combined front (10') and rear (5') yard setbacks of 15 feet, where 30 feet are required; and, a 500 square foot FAR bonus. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096, amyg@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Rally Dupps, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on October 5,2002 City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning DirectordAP FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer t~4- Katie Ertmer, Historic Preservation Intern Wvv RE: 533 W. Francis Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: October 23,2002 SUMMARY: This property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains a Victorian home. The proposal before HPC involves a lot split, major conceptual review, on-site relocation, setback variances, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. APPLICANT: David Gibson, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-001. ADDRESS: 533 W. Francis St., Lots A-C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 9,000 sq. ft. lot, single family residence. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT 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 formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or tile City Council, or the land is described as a metes 1 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 historic townsite 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 26.100.04004)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create one 4,20O square foot lot (Lot A and the west twelve feet of Lot B) to be referred to as Lot 1, and one 4,800 square foot lot (Lot C and the east eighteen feet of Lot B) to be referred to as Lot 2. Each of these parcels 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 Municipal 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 thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the olfice 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 (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. 2 - 3 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 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. 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 currently contains one dwelling unit. A second house will be constructed on the newly created lot at some time in the future. 26.480.030(A)(41 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. Staff Finding: The subject 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: 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. 3 9 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: 2,380 square feet to Lot 1, which contains the historic Victorian house, and 2,200 square feet to Lot 2, which remains vacant for the time being. The existing historic Victorian house on Lot 1 is approximately 1,100 square feet in size leaving an expansion potential of 1,280 square feet. Staff finds that a lot-split is appropriate in general because it results in a smaller addition than would likely occur ifjust one single family house remained on the property, however, the proposed division of FAR puts more square footage on the lot with the historic building than on the vacant lot. The historic house is on a corner and has high visibility on two sides. Allocating the larger portion of the FAR to this side may create the possibility of an addition that does not conform with the design guidelines because it overwhelms the historic structure. The proposed addition will be discussed in detail below. Although the application states that Lot 2 is burdened by the need to avoid excavating too close to the encroaching building on the east, it would seem that more square footage is still preferable there given that almost half of Lot 1 is occupied by the preserved one story house and required one story connecting element. Constraints on Lot 2's development, such as the "inflection" standard in the Residential Design Standards can be waived in order to best preserve the historic resource. It should also be noted that the encroachment of the house on the east only affects a portion of the lot. The applicant should consider distributing the FAR in a different manner in order to lessen the impact o f the proposed addition on Lot 1. 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: Variances are being requested for Lot 1, which contains the historic structure. There are no variances being requested for Lot 2. The proposed setback variances will be discussed in detail below. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC wiN review the application, the stajf analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 4 5 Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss only those which staff finds are not met by the proposal. The proposal is to demolish some portions of the existing house, move it onto a new basement, and construct an addition at the rear of the historic structure. There are no other proposed alterations to the features of the designated structure, with the exception of the relocation. Because the applicant is requesting an FAR bonus, there was a work session held with the applicant and the HPC in September to discuss the proposal. The applicant has provided a history of the building's construction. There was an addition built on the south west corner of the house in 1965, and a carport added on the east. There is no clear information about the age of the area between these two added elements. If it is from 1904 or earlier, it is unknown what the original roof and windows of this section looked like. An earlier site visit with the Historic Preservation Commission determined there is little value in preserving this section of the structure. The fact that there are no proposed significant changes to the historic building adds merit to this proposal. However, there are concerns regarding the scale and massing of the addition. The addition is double the size of the historic structure and has high visibility. Staff finds the proposed addition has too much prominence in relationship to the west faGade of the historic house. 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. 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 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. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 5 4% The new addition is separated from the historic house by a connecting element as is required, but the addition intrudes too far into the west setback ofthe property and is closer to Fifth Street than the historic house. Because ofthe corner lot circumstance the relationship between the addition and the historic resource might be softened if the addition could be moved a little eastward. The applicant has worked hard to bring down the height of the addition, however, the location and massing is not as sympathetic to the historic resource as it could be. The similar roof form and low plate height tie in with the historic resource, but overall the addition has a more bulky appearance. The footprint of the addition is much bigger than the historic house and the mass is not broken up as much as it could be. 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. Staff finds the use of stone on the proposed connector is out of character with the historic materials of the historic structure. Although this is an issue that will be addressed at final review, staff finds it is important to note. FAR BONUS The applicant is requesting a 500 square foot floor area bonus for the front lot. 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: a. The design of the project meets *11 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 f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuil(ling; 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). 6 7 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: Staff finds that the proposed project has not addressed criteria a and b in regards to the FAR bonus. The proposed project does not meet all of the applicable guidelines. Guidelines 10.6 and 11.3 address size, scale and massing. Staff finds the proposed addition is out of scale with the historic structure. Staff finds there may be a more appropriate massing of the structure in order to minimize the visual impacts of the addition in comparison to the historic building. Guideline 10.8 addresses the setbacks and visual impacts of additions. The west side of the proposed addition obscures the fagade ofthe historic structure that faces Fifth Street by intruding into the setback ahead of the historic building. The guidelines state that in order to receive the FAR bonus, 911 of the guidelines must be met. The guidelines discussed here are significant issues that deal with compatibility. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances requested are a 4' west side yard setback variance, a 2.5' east side yard setback variance, a 6.5' combined sideyard setback variance, and a 15' combined front and rear yard seback variance. 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 all of the setback requests, except the 4' west side yard setback request in relation to the addition, are consistent with the historic pattern of properties in this neighborhood. The west side yard setback request allows the addition to sit closer to the street than the historic structure, which competes with the west fagade of the historic structure and staff finds this to be inappropriate. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. 7 16.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; gr 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Finding: The relocation of the historic structure within the original site is appropriate because it protects the small miner's cottage from a potential addition of some 2,500 square feet. The existing historic structure straddles two parcels, therefore, staff finds proposed relocation will allow the lot-split and is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the design guidelines and recommends that HPC continue the matter of Lot-Split, Major Development Review (Conceptual), Variances, and On-site Relocation for 533 W. Francis St., Lots A-C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado to a date certain so that the applicant can address the following issues: a. examine the proposed distribution of FAR to relieve as much of the burden on the historic structure as possible. b. re-study the size and scale of the proposed addition in order to minimize visual impacts on the historic house c. consider a different set back on for the west side of the proposed addition so that the addition does not overshadow the west faGacle of the historic structure RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the matter of 533 West Francis to (date)" Exhibits: A. Staffmemo dated October 23,2002 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Application 8 9 Exhibit B Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review, 533 W. Francis Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of 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 may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the 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. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o 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. Treatment of Existing Doors 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. o Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. o If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can 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. 9 /0 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. 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 in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 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. Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 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. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. o An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. 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. 10 11 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 HPC, 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 on 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 of the mortar joints. 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. o In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. o 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. 11 la Â°02 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. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o Al-story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. o The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back #om the,ftont 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. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 12 00 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. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. o Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 13 f7 000 Â· r 14,Â· MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner L,/VVV. 1 RE: Proposed Transferable Development Rights Program - Work Session DATE: October 23,2002 SUMMARY: Attached is a proposed addition to the Land Use Code creating a transferable development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. Staff has developed this text based on the recommendations in the Infill Report. Suzannah Reid, former HPC chair, helped guide the portions of the Infill Report regarding this TDR idea. Staff will review the program with the HPC and is seeking endorsement of the concept. Time permitting, staff is also interested in the HPC's opinion on the specifics of the proposed text - the proposed process a landowner may go through, how a certificate is created, extinguished, where these TDRs could be used, etc. ATTACHMENTS: A - Infill Report Sections on TDRs B - Proposed TDR Section. 1 9,4 K Â·A HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM (TDR) Imp-ortance to Infill Program Viability: Important effect on the Infill Program's 1 viability and other efforts of the City. Multiple goals can be obtained through such a program with minimal administrative costs. A TDR Program would i provide meaningful incentives to historic property owners. Current Program: None exists. Recommendation: Create a transferable development . rights system allowing A IU~j~~~f~,~ r,~01 development rights to be ~.pfi~ transferred from a historic ,~ ,~ property. Increments of 2~ ~ square feet could 1/ P-'.I-----'.I.W exchanged for a "certificate -' 1 -,1, 1 ' ./.-- 1 of development right." ' Certificates could be - - -~- --- p exchanged on the free *jerillilitizilillkiallkillilialillillili"/diall,#Ill//9,4&#liMMP 1 'su market. Certificates would ;~- a las= py,#11"ji~l la! ..............././...... 1.-Â·Allem*95Â· 1-''P--LA- . 38/11/ permit the development of ~~jâ€¢:~ - W.ls==.P= 1 750 square feet 1 residential development - -~~., ----L==.~ - -,-- within mixed-use buildings -'-Md,â€¢.1 -1 -47â€¢-~ AP Iâ€ž~5 $ P. 71- , m in the Commercial Core, Periphery Commercial, and ~ ~ 4;-~,~~~,~~,~ Main Street districts; 750 a..ri-#Â·*il'llilill...Iib ......................IAI/11/li square feet of residential *i projects; or, 250 square feet ~,~ ) of additional residential for - --/--24'J--RN single-family homes Additional development rights anywhere in the City of transferred to non-historic properties Aspen. ) TDR Program Detai/s - Section Four, page 8. ) Section Two, Page 10 )3 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - TDRS The Historic TDR system would be a newly created system within Aspen and would not utilize the program developed in Pitkin County. The Infill Advisory Group strongly believes that the simpler the program can be at its inception, the more likely it will be to succeed. The concept of affordable housing mitigation credits is also new and would allow a developer to acquire transferable credits in exchange for building more affordable housing than would otherwise be required. Definitions - Sending Site: That site to be preserved by removing some or all of its development potential. Landing Site: That site where the development right can be redeemed Certificate: The document acknowledging a Transferable Development 1 Right. Document can be traded, sold, etc. Proposed Historic Preservation TDR Program Sending Sites - Historic residential properties could be deed restricted to a lower FAR in exchange for transferable development rights. Each 250 square feet of additional development right could be converted to a certificate. Example: â€¢ Historic House of 2000 square feet with 3,240 square feet of development right. ' â€¢ Landowner converts 500 square feet of additional rights to 2 certificates and property is deed restricted to an allowable FAR 500 square feet below that permitted by zoning (ie 2,750 square feet). Process requires consultation with Planning Department and a real estate closing. â€¢ Certificates can be sold to a developer of another parcel to expand the structure on the receiving site. Landing Sites - Additional free-market residential FAR ~ â€¢ Each certificate worth 750 square feet of free-market residential development in mixed-use buildings in Commercial Core, Periphery Commercial, Main Street mixed-use, and Multi-Family zone districts. Depending upon the proposed height of the building, Special Review may be required. â€¢ Certificates worth 250 square feet additional free-market FAR on all single-family and duplex residences. (Only one TDR certificate per residence.) â€¢ Each certificate fully exempts transferred development right from growth- management review. Section Four, Page 8 Proposed Off-Site Affordable Housing Mitigation Credits Sending Sites - Developing more affordable housing than required â€¢ Development of affordable housing in excess of minimum required for Infill Growth Management Exemption. The Housing Authority (or the City of Aspen) D would issue certificates for employees housed beyond the minimum requirement. One certificate for each extra employee housed. â€¢ Buy-down of existing housing stock to affordable housing. Issue certificates in terms of employees housed by buy-down action. â€¢ Units would need to be within Infill area. Units outside the Infill area but within the city limits could be used if approved through a Special Review (either Housing Board or P&Z). Landing Sites - Developing less affordable housing than required â€¢ Commercial development where employees are generated and need to be mitigated. This program would allow a developer a fourth option for mitigating employee generation (on-site units, off-site units, redemption of mitigation credits, or via cash-in-lieu). Redeem one certificate for each mitigation employee j not housed on-site. Historic TDR certificates would not be applicable in this program. 8 H 4 . 1 1 I 1 Section Four, Page 9 19 6441201- 22 Chapter 26.535 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) Sections: 26.535.010 Purpose 26.535.020 Terminology 26.535.030 Applicability and Prohibitions 26.535.040 Authority 26.535.050 Procedure for Establishing a Historic TDR Certificate. 26.535.060 Procedure for Extinguishing a Historic TDR Certificate. 26.535.070 Review Criteria for Establishment of a Historic TDR. 26.535.080 Review Criteria for Extinguishment of a Historic TDR. 26.535.090 Application Materials. 26.535.100 Appeals 26.535.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, within the City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and non-historic property within the City of Aspen. The program enables standard market forces, and the demand for residential Floor Area, to accomplish a community goal ofpreserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. 26.535.020 Terminology. Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate. (Historic TDR Certificate) An irrevocable assignable property right which allows a certain amount of development, which may be conveyed separate from the property in which it has historically been associated (the Sending Site), and which may be used to increase development rights on another property (the Receiver Site). TDR Certificates shall be considered bearer instruments upon execution by the Mayor of the City of Aspen, pursuant to a validly adopted Ordinance. "Sending Site" The designated Historic Landmark property being preserved by reducing its allowable Floor Area in exchange for the City establishing and issuing a Historic TDR Certificate. Receiver Site" A property on which developments rights are increased in exchange for the City extinguishing a Historic TDR Certificate held by the developer of the property. Establishment of a TDR: The process of creating a Historic TDR Certificate in exchange for a property owner lessening the allowable development on a historic property (the Sending Site) through a permanent deed restriction. TDR Page 1 18 Extinguishment of a TDR: The process of increasing the allowable development on a property (the receiver site), as permitted in the zone district, through the redemption of a Historic TDR Certificate. 26.535.030 Applicability and Prohibitions. This Chapter shall apply to properties eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Sending Sites, and properties eligible for the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Receiving Sites. City of Aspen Historic TDR Certificates may only be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen, as hereinafter indicated, or in unincorporated Pitkin County, if and as may be permitted by the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Pitkin County TDRs are not eligible for extinguishment within the City of Aspen. Sending Sites shall include all properties within the City of Aspen designated as a Historic Landmark, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, in which the development of a single-family or duplex home is a permitted use, according to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Sending Sites may also be established through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional development rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR in Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, not including any property designated as a Historic Landmark. A property may also be designated as a Receiving Site through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. The allowable development for extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending upon the zone district of the Receiving Site and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, describes the development allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate extinguished. A Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Â· Transfer of Title shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re-issue the certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re-issuance shall not require re-adoption of an ordinance. The market for Historic TDR Certificates is unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Historic TDR Certificate. The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe-keeping, distribution, recordation, control, and extinguishments. 26.535.040 Authority. The City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve or disapprove, TDR Page 2 pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, a land use application for the establishment of Historic Transferable Development Rights. The Mayor of the City of Aspen, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall validate and issue Historic TDR Certificates, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve or disapprove a land use application for the extinguishment of Historic Transferable Development Rights. 26.535.050 Procedure for Establishing a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate. The following steps are necessary for the issuance of a City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate Pre-application Conference. Property owners interested in the City's Historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits, and limitations of the program. Owner confirmation. An application for the issuance of a Historic TDR Certificate shall only be accepted by the City upon submission of a notarized affidavit from the Sending Site property owner signifying understanding ofthe following concepts: â€¢ A deed restriction will permanently encumber the Sending Site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of Historic TDR Certificate established from that Sending Site. â€¢ For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular Sending Site, that property shall be allowed two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of Floor Area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. â€¢ The Sending Site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the Historic TDR Certificate. Application for Issuance of Historic TDR Certificate. An applicant shall supply the necessary application materials, identified in Section 26.535.080, Application Materials, along with applicable review fees. City Review and Approval of Application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according the review standards identified in Section 26.535.060, Review Standards for Establishment of a Historic TDR Certificate and shall forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall approve or disapprove the establishment of a Historic TDR Certificate by adoption of an Ordinance, according to the review standards TDR Page 3 identified in Section 26.535.060, Review Standards for Establishment of a Historic TDR Certificate. Scheduling of Closing Date. Upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City and the applicant shall establish a date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Closing. On the mutually agreed upon closing date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending Site together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 26.535.060 Procedure for Extinguishing a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate. The following steps are necessary for the extinguishment of a City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate Pre-application Conference. Property owners interested in the City's Historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits, and limitations of the program. Applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Zoning Officer and review potential development plans to ensure the additional development right can be properly incorporated onto the Receiver Site. Associated Planning Reviews. An applicant must gain all other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as established by this Title. Application for Building Permit. An applicant shall submit the necessary materials for a building permit, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit. Confirmation of Historic TDR Certificate. The applicant shall submit the requisite Historic TDR Certificate(s) and the City shall confirm its, or their, authenticity. City Review of Application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review Standards for Extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate. Extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificate. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development on a Receiver Site requiring the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate, the applicant shall assign the requisite Historic TDR Certificate(s) to the City of Aspen whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." The property owner and the Community Development Director shall execute a deed restriction acknowledging the extinguishment of the TDR(s) and increasing in the available development right of the subject TDR Page 4 j3 property. The property owner shall provide the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 26.535.070 Review Criteria for Establishment of a Historic Transferable Development Right. A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: 1. The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. 2. It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. 3. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 4. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development and any approved development order and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. 5. Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining appurtenant to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. 6. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized and as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 7. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. TDR Page 5 14 26.535.080 Review Criteria for Extinguishment of a Historic Transferable Development Right. Historic TDR Certificates may be extinguished to accommodate additional development of a non-Historic Landmark property, a property not listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, if the Community Development Director finds the following standards have been met: 1. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the restricting document pennits the extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificates for additional development rights. 2. The Receiving Site is not listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and is eligible to receive an increase in development rights as specified in Chapter 26.710, according to the zone district and the land use, or as otherwise specified in a Final PUD Plan for the property. 3. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. 4. The applicant has submitted the requisite original Historic TDR Certificate(s) for redemption. 5. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the Receiver Site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional development can be accommodated on the Receiver Site in conformance with all other relevant requirements. 6. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development requiring the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate(s), the applicant shall assign and deliver the original certificate(s) to the City of Aspen whereupon the certificate(s) shall be marked "extinguished." 7. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development requiring the extinguishment of a TDR Certificate(s), the property owner shall deliver an executable, for acceptance by the Community Development Director, deed restriction acknowledging the extinguishment of TDR Certificate(s) and increasing the available development rights of the Receiver Site together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute total Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable Floor Area, according to the zone district and land use of the Receiver Site at the time of building permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable Floor Area and eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized and as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 8. The development allowed on the Receiver Site by extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificate(s) shall be that allowed in Chapter 26.710, according to the zone district and the land use, or as otherwise specified in a Final PUD Plan for the receiver Site and shall not permit the creation of a non-conforming use or structure. TDR Page 6 4 26.535.090 Application Materials. c A. The contents of a development application to establish a Historic TDR Certificate shall be as follows: 1. The general application information required in Common Procedures, Section 26.304. 2. A notarized affidavit from the Sending Site property owner signifying acknowledgment of the following: â€¢ A deed restriction will permanently encumber the Sending Site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of Historic TDR Certificate established from that Sending Site. â€¢ For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular Sending Site, that property shall be allowed two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of Floor Area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. â€¢ The Sending Site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the Historic TDR Certificate. 3. A Site Improvement Survey ofthe Sending Site depicting: a) Existing natural and man-made site features. b) All legal easements and restrictions. 4. Dimensioned, scaled drawings of the existing development on the Sending Site and a Floor Area analysis of all structures thereon. 5. A proposed deed restriction for the Receiver Site. 6. Written response to each of the review criteria. B. The contents of a development application to extinguish a Historic TDR Certificate shall be as follows: 1. The necessary application materials for a complete building permit submission, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, 2. A proposed deed restriction for the property. 3. Written response to each o f the review criteria. 26.535.100 Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Section 26.316, Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the City Council, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. TDR Page 7 14 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC September 26,2002 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Gibson Historic Landmark Lot Split and Conceptual 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 4,200 square foot lot and a 4,800 square foot lot from the existing 9,000 square foot lot. In association with the lot split, the applicant requests approval of a conceptual development an on-site relocation, a few setback variances, and a five-hundred square foot floor area bonus. The subject properties are Lots A, B, and C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 533 West Francis Street. A vicinity map (not to scale) showing the location of the subject property is provided below. A4&*f/Gp 77 ~< , -4~~~6GitiÂ»p~4â‚¬Ff< 944 i /46~*22:*=wÂ£.J/-~9hkA3#1.@Francis st,41,<gÂ«x 4 /41 2-1 kif-et=145"El?Asp@HACO 81611 -,~ # 1 U 4Â£84# fj- 1- r f -4>Â»4Â»47=,4Â» 44 1 I By, , Him~157%#Lic=@met-â€ž, tÂ«yll 1 72. f. / /10' White River 4.L=.10*14 r*=Â»44 The 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 â€¢ 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO Â·81611 â€¢ â€¢ PHONE: (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX: (970) 925-7395 â€¢ 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 4,200 square feet (Lot A and the westerly twelve feet of Lot B) and the other of 4,800 square feet (Lot C and the easterly eighteen feet of Lot B). The 4,200 square foot lot will hereinafter be referred to as Lot 1, while the other will be referred to herein as Lot 2. The historic residence will be relocated onto Lot 1 and an addition will be made to its rear, subject to Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review and approval. Lot 2 will remain vacant, but subsequent development thereon will be subject to HPC review and approval. As part of the lot split approval, Lot 1 will be given a development potential not to exceed 2,380 square feet of floor area, inclusive of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Lot 2 will be designated a development potential of no more than 2,200 square feet of floor area. While it may at first seem counterintuitive to assign the larger development potential to the smaller lot, there are sound and logical reasons for this decision. The main reason for this decision is the existing house on the adjacent property to the east. That is, the adjacent residence encroaches more than one foot onto Lot 2, thus, the entire separation distance between a new residence built on Lot 2 and the existing residence to the east must be accommodated on Lot 2 itself. Under Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements, the new home on Lot 2 will need to provide a minimum separation distance of six feet from the existing structure to the east in order to allow windows or other openings on its east elevation. These six feet combined with the 1.3 foot encroachment of the adjacent house, render at least the easterly seven-plus feet of Lot 2 more or less undevelopable. In addition, an adequate setback from the lot line common to Lot 1 will need to be provided. Given these site-specific constraints, Lot 2 is actually rendered effectively smaller with respect to developable area than is Lot 1. Furthermore, by relocating the existing residence to Lot 1 and in respect to the adjacent residence to the east any new residence built on Lot 2 will be required to provide a one-story element along the entire front portion of the property in response to the "Inflection" criterion of the City's Residential Design Standards. This, the requirement for HPC review and approval, and the site constraints described in the previous paragraph will have the practical effect of making it exceedingly difficult to develop more than 2,200 square feet of floor area on Lot 2 anyway. For these reasons, the proposal to split the FAR as GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 2 described in the foregoing is not only rational and appropriate but also virtually imperative. The subject property is currently owned by the Stapleton Family Trust but Mr. David Gibson is under contract to purchase it. Mr. Gibson is also the architect on the project. A pre-application conference was held with Amy Guthrie of the Aspen Community Development Department on September 9, 2002 (see Pre-Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1). The completed application form and dimensional requirements form are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 contains proof of the Stapleton Family Trust's ownership along with their authorization for Mr. Gibson to pursue this application. The application is submitted by Haas Land Planning, LLC, on behalf of Mr. Gibson (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 property, 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, 26.415.070(D), 26.415.090, 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. Existing Conditions The subject property is described as Lots A, B, and C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen. The County Assessor has assigned the property a Parcel Identification Number of 2735-124-25-001. The site is in Aspen's West End neighborhood on the south side of West Francis Street at the corner of Fifth Street. It is zoned R-6, Medium-Density Residential (R-6). The existing vernacular wood frame, one-story miner's cottage (533 West Francis Street) is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (hereinafter "the Inventory"), thus, providing the potential for a historic landmark lot split. All existing improvements on the subject site are accurately depicted on the accompanying Improvement and Topographic Survey (prepared by Louis GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 3 Buettner, and dated May 18, 2002). Also, those existing improvements of significance are described in detail on the Architectural Inventory Forms attached hereto as Exhibit 5. As shown on the accompanying Survey, Lot A and part of Lot B contain the existing structure described in the Inventory. It is a one-story dwelling with approximately 1,100 square feet of floor area. The pedestrian entrance to the cottage is under a covered porch accessed from West Francis Street. Automobile access come from the alley and terminates under a single-vehicle carport. The remainder of the property (Lot C and part of Lot B) is undeveloped with the exception of a small (approximately 214 square feet) and dilapidated shed located off the alley. The existing residence was built over several stages. First, the 1896 Willits Map shows a narrow 14' by 39' structure on Lot B. Next, the 1904 Aspen Townsite Map indicates an expansion onto Lot A that roughly doubled the size of the house. In the 1950s, the rear was expanded with shed additions toward Fifth Street. Finally, in the 1960s, a covered patio/carport was added at the southeast corner of the property. The interior of the dwelling has been extensively remodeled over the years, including the conversion of the shed additions to living space and division of spaces into small bedrooms. The interior floor surface shows signs of foundation movement, with the floor sloping in several areas. The existing foundation is marginal for support with stones laid on dirt about twelve inches below adjacent grade. Several large, mature trees exist along the North Fifth Street property boundary. That is, a pair of twenty-inch cottonwoods stand some six feet outside the property line in the Fifth Street right-of-way, and a thirty-inch spruce resides inside the northwest corner of the site, about eight feet into Lot A from the corner. All of these trees will be preserved. Lot D of Block 28 (523 West Francis Street) resides directly to the east of the subject property. Lot D is landmark designated due to the presence of a Victorian style residence. The residence encroaches from 1 to 1.3 feet onto the subject property at Lot C, and the encroachment runs some fifty-one feet in length along the easterly portion of Lot C. The encroachment maintains an easement of record. Due to the shallow foundations upon which the encroaching structure is built some accommodation in the form of sufficient separation distance will be necessary when placing a new structure on the Lot C property. The subject property backs up to an unpaved alley, and gable-roofed, Victorian residences are located directly across the alley. The residence across the street from the subject site, at the southwest corner of Francis and Fifth, GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 4 includes elements of Victorian style (lap siding, gables, dormers, etc.), materials of a rural nature (drystack stone-work, naturalistic landscaping, etc.), and an entrance oriented toward the Fifth Street side. Across the street from the subject site and to the north, there are three large homes of distinctly different architectural styles. The corner lot (530 West Francis Street) features a contemporary residence with curved metal roofs, flush vertical siding, and steel railings. The second house (522 West Francis Street) is a large home in the historic vernacular style with extensive porches and a compatible addition to the original 19th century gable-roofed house. The third house (518 West Francis Street) is a large "mountain style" random moss rock and heavy timber residence with a matching secondary residence to the rear. All three structures are two-story homes of 3,300 square feet or greater. Both sides of West Francis Street are graced with a mix of mature coniferous and deciduous trees which help to moderate both the mass of the houses and the eclectic mix of architectural styles. Revieze 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 of the Land Use Code: 1) Section 26.415.110(A), Historic Landmark Lot Split Benefit; 2) Section 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemption for Historic Landmark Lot Splits; 3) Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions for Lot Splits; 4) Section 26.470.070(C), GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmark Lot Splits; 5) Section 26.415.070(D), Major Development Review; 6) Section 26.415.110(B), Variances; and, 7) Section 26.415.110(E), Floor Area Bonus. 1. Section 26.415.110(Al This provision of the Code provides an exemption from the Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System, pursuant to 26.480.030 and 26.470.070, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision of the property. The subject property is included in the Inventory and is, therefore, a designated historic property. The standard application submittal requirements of Section 26.304 have been provided herein, including the exhibits and attachments. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.415.110(A), this application GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 5 will be subject to a two-step review procedure, with duly noticed public hearings before the HPC and City Council. 2. Section 26.480.030(A)(4) 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 six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF of O 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 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 Ojfice 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: 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/ofice use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowedfor all uses other than residentialin the zone district. If theadjacentparcel 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 ofits 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. The property is in the R-6 zone district and all uses will remain and be restricted to residential. 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 2,380 square feet of FAR floor GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 6 area to Lot 1 (1,880 square feet plus a 500 square foot bonus), and 2,200 square feet to Lot 2. These allocations are contingent on the HPC granting a 500 square foot bonus to Lot 1; otherwise, the applicant will need to propose a different split of the total allowable floor area between the two lots. 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. 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 applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Variance requests for the parcel (Lot 1) that will contain the historic structure are made later herein. With the exception of the variance requests described below, the proposed development will conform to all dimensional requirements of the R-6 zoning. The FAR bonus will be applied as described in response to the previous standard. Since no development is currently proposed on Lot 2, no variances thereon are needed at this time. 3. Section 26.480.030(A)(2) 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 A, B, and C of Block 28 in the original Aspen Townsite. The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lots predate the City's 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 affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(13)]. As explained above, the proposal involves the creation of two lots where only one currently exists. The resulting lots will contain 4,200 square feet and 4,800 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 GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 7 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 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(I)]. 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. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the omce 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 ojfice 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 foralots plit,thedwellingneed notbed emolished prior to application for a lot split. GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 8 No existing dwelling units will be demolished. The applicant is requesting HPC approval to relocate the existing house so as not to conflict with the proposed lot line. 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 only one residence and one vacant lot for the future development of another single-family residence (subject to HPC review and approval). Since neither resulting lot will contain 6,000 or more square feet of lot area, the zoning provisions will prohibit developing a third unit. 4. Section 26.470.070(C) Section 26.470.070(C) 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 " Accessory 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 effect will be included in the S.E.A. and on the Plat prior to recordation. 5. Section 26.415.070(D) The review and decision on the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a Major Development. This decision has been made with respect to the subject proposal (see Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference Summary). The procedures for the review of Major Development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. If a Major Development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LoT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 9 Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (B). This application includes a request for a historic landmark lot split, requiring City Council review and approval. Thus, the review process will be as outlined in the Pre-Application Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit 1. All required application materials are provided herein. The procedures for the review of Conceptual Development Plans for Major Development projects are as follows: 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for Conceptual or Final Development Plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c). 2. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the sta# analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City ofAspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Based on the foregoing language, it appears the only applicable review standard for Conceptual Review of a Major Development project is a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines"). Accordingly, the following portion of this application demonstrates adequate consistency with a sufficient number of relevant guidelines, as called for in italicized print on the very first page of the Guidelines. Specifically, the Guidelines state that ...not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a su#icient number of relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve aproject proposal. The Guidelines include fourteen chapters of standards for: Streetscape and Lot Features (Chapter 1); Rehabilitation of Historic Structures (Chapters 2- 10), including historic building materials, windows, doors, porches, architectural details, roofs, secondary structures, building relocation and foundations, and building additions; New Construction (Chapters 11-13); and, General Guidelines (Chapter 14). GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 10 Chapter 1 of the Guidelines addresses the Streetscape and Lot Features of historic properties. The "Policy" of this chapter states that "Historic landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to the landscape should be compatible with the historic context Of the district or landmark 11 property. As mentioned earlier herein, there are several large, mature trees along the North Fifth Street property boundary. That is, a pair of twenty-inch cottonwoods stand some six feet outside the property line in the Fifth Street right-of-way, and a thirty-inch spruce resides inside the northwest corner of the site, about eight feet into Lot A from the corner. All of these trees will be preserved. Chapter 2 of the Guidelines addresses Historic Building Materials. The "Policy" of this chapter maintains that, "Historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement that matches the original in appearance should be considered. Primary historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. The applicant intends to restore and rehabilitate the historic structure. All historic building materials will be preserved in place, where feasible. The specific recommendations of this chapter will be followed to the extent practicable. Chapter 3, Windows, has a "Policy" statement explaining that, "77te character-defining jeatures of historic windows and their distinctive arrangement on a wall should be preserved. This is especially important on primary jilcades. In addition, new windows should be in character with the historic building." All historic windows on the miner's cottage will be preserved and their arrangement on the walls will not be affected on either street-facing facade. While new windows should be In character with the historic building," when dealing with new additions subsequent guidelines (10.4, specifically) clearly call for maintaining one's ability to recognize new additions as products of their own time. This is to be done by making the new addition distinguishable from the historic building while maintaining compatibility. The proposal satisfies the goals of these guidelines by maintaining all historic windows while making the windows of the new addition compatible with those of the historic structure but different in design. Chapter 4 of the Guidelines is concerned with the preservation of historic doors, their materials and their placement. The proposal involves preservation of the existing/historic front door and its orientation. The door will not be changed. The Policy of Chapter 5, Porches, states that, "Where a porch has been a primary character-dejining Bature of a Font facade, it should be maintained." The GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 1 1 historic porch and its orientation as a character-defining feature of the front facade will be maintained. The Chapter 6 policy provides that "Architectural details help establish a historic building's distinct visual character; thus, they should be preserved whenever flasible." The subject house is not particularly ornate in its architectural detailing. However, those details that lend distinct visual character to the residence, such as the window trim, the stacked brick chimney at the peak of the roof, and the posts and brackets of the front porch, will be preserved. Chapter 7 provides that, " The character ofa historical roof should be preserved, including its jbrm and materials." Ordinary and needed repairs of the existing roof will be undertaken but will in no way alter its historic character. For instance, the pitch of the historic roof will be maintained, as will the perceived line and orientation of the roof from and to the street, respectively. The historic depth of overhang of the eaves will be preserved as well. Finally, as mentioned above, the stacked brick chimney at the peak of the roof will be maintained and restored. Chapter 8 (Secondary Structures) in not applicable in the current case as there are no such structures on the property. Chapter 9 addresses the relocation of historic buildings and the affect on foundations. This chapter recognizes that "there may be cases when relocation will not substantially aj~ect the integrity ofa property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result." This proposal provides exactly such a case. The chapter goes on to explain that, "In some cases, it may be possible to reposition a structure on its original site if doing so will accommodate other compatible improvements that will assure preservation. For example, if a house straddles two parcels, sh(fting it to one side may accommodate construction Ofa new, detached structure." The proposal involves repositioning of the historic structure on its original site to accommodate a compatible addition which provides the motivation for historic restoration work on the cottage. The existing location of the house straddles two parcels and the proposed relocation will move it to one side so as to accommodate construction of a new, detached structure. The new structure will consume a large portion of the floor area (2,200 square feet) that could otherwise be proposed as an addition to the historic miner's cottage. Along with the on-site relocation, construction of a basement with new foundation walls is proposed. The interior floor surface of the cottage shows signs of foundation movement with the floor sloping in several areas. The existing foundation is marginal for support with stones laid on dirt about twelve inches below adjacent grade. As the attached photographs demonstrate, the GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 12 existing foundation is barely if at all visible from the surrounding streets. Nevertheless, the new foundation will use similar materials to those of the historic foundation and it will be designed to maintain a comparable appearance. Lightwells will be confined to the interior (east) side of the relocated structure and will not be particularly visible from the surrounding public streets. Chapter 10, Building Additions, is the portion of the Guidelines that is perhaps most directly applicable to the subject proposal. The "Policy" statement of Chapter 10 provides that â€žIf a new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, it should be designed such that the early character Of the original structure is maintained. It should also be subordinate in appearance to the main building. Older additions that have taken on signijicance also should be consideredjbr preservation." The applicant has worked with the Aspen Historic Preservation Planner to determine which sections of the existing structure can be removed without compromising its historic integrity. Consistent with Guidelines 10.1 and 10.2, all historically significant portions of the structure will be preserved and restored while more insignificant additions will be removed. Consistent with Guidelines 10.3 and 10.4, the proposed design ensures the ability of casual observers to interpret the historic character of the primary building while allowing the new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Historic alignments and street orientations will be maintained on the addition in a manner consistent with Guideline 10.5. The proposed design uses a connector element to link the historic structure with the larger but compatible mass presented in the addition, and this method is fully consistent with "Scenario C" of the Case Studies for Larger Additions as well as Guidelines 10.7 and 10.8. Consistency with Guidelines 10.9 through 10.11 is also ensured in the proposed design. The proposal does not contemplate a rooftop addition, rendering Guidelines 10.12 through 10.14 inapplicable. Chapter 11 of the Guidelines encourages the use of the historic landmark lot split provisions, as proposed herein. Specifically, the first paragraph of Chapter 11 in the Guidelines 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 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. GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 13 Chapter 11 also addresses issues of mass and scale when designing additions to historic structures. In a manner consistent with Guideline 11.3, the design of the addition is broken into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic building. For instance, the proposed design uses a remodeled interpretation of an historic shed addition as a connecting element between the historic house and the main part of the new addition. The connecting element is one story in height, has a pitched roof, reveals and allows for preservation of the historic house's original rear corner, and provides separation between the miner's cottage and the addition. The addition is fairly simple in its form and uses dormers, a recessed entryway, and a rear balcony to break its mass into modules that decrease its overall perceived mass. The proposed building forms are similar to (but do not mimic) those of the historic structure, in a manner consistent with Guideline 11.5. Chapters 12 and 13 address design in the Main Street Historic District and the Commercial Core Historic District, respectively. As the subject property is not located in either of these districts, these Chapters are not applicable. The project will provide continued consistency with the general guidelines of Chapter 14. For instance: color schemes will maintain simplicity; accessibility will be ensured without compromising historic integrity; lighting will be minimized in a manner consistent with City regulations; ongoing maintenance will be addressed; mechanical equipment and service areas will be screened and located toward the rear of the property to the extent practicable; driveways and parking will utilize alley access; and, there will be no signage other than properly places and sized address numbering. In summary, the foregoing has amply demonstrated an exceedingly high level of consistency with a more than sufficient number of relevant guidelines. To the degree that any inconsistency with the Guidelines exists at all, such inconsistency is only the result of conflicting goals and guidelines. The proposal maximizes the potential for consistency with the Guidelines. 6. 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; GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 14 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 conceptual development plan for resulting Lot 1: â€¢ 4 foot west side yard setback variance to allow a 1 foot setback where 5 feet are otherwise required; â€¢ 2.5 foot east side yard setback variance to allow a setback of just 2.5 feet to the portion of a light well more than thirty inches below grade where 5 feet are otherwise required; â€¢ A combined side yard setback variance of 6.5 feet to allow combined side yards of 3.5 feet where 10 feet are otherwise required; and, â€¢ A combined front and rear yard setback variance of 15 feet to allow combined front and rear yards of 15 feet where 30 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 one foot west side yard setback request is consistent with the patterns, features, and character of the historic property and the West End neighborhood as there is some eighteen feet of open area between the property line and the edge of pavement on Fifth Street. This setback will still allow for preservation of all significant trees while providing a perceived setback of nearly twenty feet from the road. In addition, allowing the one foot west side yard setback will enhance the prominence and, thus, the historic significance of the miner's cottage by better allowing it to be viewed from the public ways. The east side yard setback pertains only to the light well as the structure itself will maintain a five foot setback. This variance is more of a technicality than anything else and will have no impact whatsoever on the pattern, features, or character of the historic property, adjoining properties or the neighborhood. GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 15 The combined side yards will read from the surrounding streets like five feet on the east (as only a single, below grade light well will encroach into the setback) and nearly twenty feet on the west (as the street pavement is some eighteen feet from the property line). The effect will be a perception of far greater than the minimum requirement of ten feet for combined side yard setbacks. As such, the requested variance from the combined side yard setback requirements will not impact the pattern, features, or character of the historic property, adjoining properties or the neighborhood. With regard to the combined front and rear yard setback requirement it is nearly impossible to take advantage of the zone district's allowance for a five foot rear yard setback for that portion of a primary structure used as a garage while still meeting the minimum combined front and rear yard setback requirement. With the need to preserve the large spruce tree on the front of the property, the development cannot be pushed further toward West Francis Street. With the need to use a one-story connecting element between the miner's cottage and the addition, the addition gets pushed back toward the rear of the lot. These forces necessitate a variance from the thirty foot combined front and rear yard setback requirement. Both the proposed front yard setback and the five foot rear yard setback for the garage are highly consistent with typical West End neighborhood conditions. As such, granting this variance will have no impact whatsoever on the pattern, features, or character of the historic property, adjoining properties or the neighborhood. In fact, it will ensure consistency and compatibility with typical West End development patterns. 7. Section 26.415.110(E) This application requests that the HPC grant a five-hundred square foot floor area bonus as part of the conceptual development approval. 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. The design oftheproject meets allapplicable design guidelines; and Consistency with all applicable design guidelines has been demonstrated above and should be referenced in response to this standard. GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 16 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 lot split. In the current case, there are no historic outbuildings to be retained on the site. The fathering parcel of the lot split request is 9,000 square feet and the FAR bonus will ensure not only preservation but also restoration of the historic structure. The requested FAR bonus is being used in the current case as one of the primary incentives to create a historic landmark lot split. 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 and the restoration work on the historic structure is lost. The lot split will also forever ensure that the total allowable floor area on the property will be broken up between at least two structures, both of which will be subject to HPC design review and approval. Perhaps more importantly, the proposed development involves a truly outstanding effort to preserve AND restore the historic structure. The applicant intends to restore and rehabilitate the historic structure, while preserving all important features such as landscape elements, windows, doors, the front porch, architectural details, the roofing and roof form, and the foundation design. As mentioned earlier herein, there are several large, mature trees along the North Fifth Street property boundary. That is, a pair of twenty-inch cottonwoods stand some six feet outside the property line in the Fifth Street right-of-way, and a thirty-inch spruce resides inside the northwest corner of the site, about eight feet into Lot A from the corner. All of these trees will be preserved. All historic building materials will be preserved in place, where feasible. The specific recommendations of Chapter 2 of the Guidelines will be followed to the extent practicable. All historic windows on the miner's cottage will be preserved and their arrangement on the walls will not be affected on either street-facing facade. The proposal maintains all historic windows while making the windows of the new addition compatible with those of the historic structure but different in design. The proposal involves preservation of the historic front GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 17 door and its orientation. The historic porch and its orientation as a character- defining feature of the front facade will also be maintained. The subject house is not particularly ornate in its architectural detailing. However, those details that lend distinct visual character to the residence, such as the window trim, the stacked brick chimney at the peak of the root and the posts and brackets of the front porch, will be preserved. Ordinary and needed repairs of the existing roof will be undertaken but will in no way alter its historic character. For instance, the pitch of the historic roof will be maintained, as will the perceived line and orientation of the roof from and to the street respectively. The historic depth of overhang of the eaves will be preserved as well. Also, as mentioned above, the stacked brick chimney at the peak of the roof will be maintained and restored. The interior floor surface of the cottage shows signs of foundation movement, with the floor sloping in several areas. The existing foundation is marginal for support with stones laid on dirt about twelve inches below adjacent grade. As the attached photographs demonstrate, the existing foundation is barely if at all visible from the surrounding streets. Nevertheless, the new foundation will use similar materials to those of the historic foundation and it will be designed to maintain a comparable appearance. Finally, extensive efforts have been made and redesigns have taken place to ensure that the historic one-story shed addition to the rear of the cottage is maintained and reused as the connecting element between the cottage and the new addition. Doing so not only ensured preservation of the historic addition, but also provides for a one-story connecting element that is narrower than the cottage. Moreover, reuse of the shed addition ensures that the original rear (southwest) corner of the miner's cottage is preserved, restored, and revealed. In summary, the proposal provides for an outstanding preservation effort that is fully consistent with the Guidelines and warrants the award of a 500 square foot FAR bonus. 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 Responses demonstrating that the addition is proposed in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building are provided throughout the foregoing portions of this application. c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 18 The proposal involves an outstanding preservation and restoration effort as explained above. d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or The applicant has worked with the Aspen Historic Preservation Planner to determine which sections of the existing structure can be removed without compromising its historic integrity. The proposed design ensures the ability of casual observers to interpret the historic character of the primary building while allowing the new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Historic alignments and street orientations will be maintained on the addition. The proposed design uses a connector element to link the historic structure with the larger but compatible mass presented in the addition. The design of the addition is broken into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic building. For instance, the proposed design uses a remodeled interpretation of an historic shed addition as a connecting element between the historic house and the main part of the new addition. The connecting element is one story in height has a pitched roof, reveals and allows for preservation of the historic house's original rear corner, and provides separation between the miner's cottage and the addition. The addition is fairly simple in its form and uses dormers, a recessed entryway, and a rear balcony to break its mass into modules that decrease its overall perceived mass. The proposed building forms are similar to (but do not mimic) those of the historic structure. e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or All construction materials will be of high quality. f An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or Again, the proposed design uses a remodeled interpretation of an historic shed addition as a connecting element between the historic house and the Inain part of the new addition. The connecting element is one story in height, has a pitched roof, reveals and allows for preservation of the historic house's original rear corner, and provides separation between the miner's cottage and the addition. This will provide an appropriate transition between the old and the new. g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or GIBSON HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 19 No historic outbuildings exist on the subject property. h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and/or Again, all significant trees will be preserved. In summary, to be eligible for a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a project must meet standard 11 a:, above and one or more of standards b-h. The Code provides at Section 26.415.110(E)(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, e, f and h has been assured as a result of this application. Standard g is not applicable. 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. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Â«D Mitch Haas, AICP Owner/Principal Attch./ c: My Documents/City Applications/Gibson Application GIBSON HISTORIC 1.ANDMARK LOTSPLIT & CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 20 EXHIBITS Exhibit #1: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit #2: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit #3: Proof of Ownership & Authorization for Applicant Exhibit #4: Letter of authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the 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 EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY ANNER: Amy Guthrie DATE: 09.09.02 OJECT: 533 W. Smuggler Street REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas OWNER: Dave Gibson TYPE OF APPLICATION: Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Variances DESCRIPTION: The lot, which is 9,000 square feet in size, is to be split into two parcels. The existing 1901 century house will be moved onto the western 4,200 square feet of the property, and a new 4,800 square foot lot will be created on the east. The amount of floor area that will be allocated to each new property will be established in the lot split. The maximum FAR is be based on what would be allowed for a duplex on the fathering parcel, 4,080 square feet The applicant may determine how that square footage is to be divided between the lots, bearing in mind that one of HPC's goals is to have the project result in a limited, appropriately scaled amount of addition to the historic structure, and to transfer most of the development into a structure to be built on the new parcel. The applicant may not place more FAR on either new parcel than would typically be allowed in the zone district (not including an HPC FAR bonus). A 4,200 square foot lot may have no more than 2,736 square feet, and a 4,800 square foot lot no more than 2,904 square feet. A 500 square foot FAR bonus can be requested from the HPC and is applied to the total allowable FAR to be allocated between the new parcels. In order to meet the standards for a floor area bonus the owner must prove that some outstanding preservation action is being taken. The owner must hold a worksession with HPC prior to a formal hearing in order to discuss the merits of the bonus. If any setback variances are needed as a result of the new lot line, those can be reviewed and approved by HPC at the Conceptual review. 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, Conceptual Review, On-site Relocation, 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. Step 5: Public hearing at HPC for Final Review Land Use Code Section(s) Historic Landmark Lot Split*V Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.110(A) Major Development* 26.415.070(D) On-Site Relocation* 26.415.090 Variances* Section 26.415.110(B) and (E) Review by: *Historic Preservation Commission, *Planning and Zoning Commission, v City Council Public Hearing: Yes, for Steps 2,4, and 5, the 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 will need toprovideproofof posting and mailing with a alfidavit at the public hearing. ferral Agencies: none tal Fees: $1,205.00 deposit fee , o 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 Land Use Application THE CITY OF ASPEN PROJECT: Name: ~{85Â£4 loT SFI.rr ~ 1kerruAL &48.oPMeâ€¢-r Location: Lars A,*C, 8LocK 78.CrrYÂ£-1&4*rri opA;re.1 532> W. FUcts Sr. (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) APPLICANT: Name: DAgto 61*04 Address: 201 M. M,u. Sr, 1-râ‚¬ 101 Aspe*. CD 816(1 Phone #: (110)120Â·*01- Fax#: (170)920 3lD3 E-mail: davidejibgoo-grchHot. - COm REPRESENTATIVE: Name: 1-AAs LA,Â» RiA,JA,}Ja LLC - Mt-rott #Aas;AICf Address: 201 A. MILdk&(t **; (0 8Iwl Phone #: (910) 925Â·78(9 Fax#: Mb) 025 - 739.5- E-mail: Mhab 25orrie - nâ‚¬t YPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): J Historic Designation [P~ Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) U Certificate of No Negative Effect ~ Demolition (total demolition) Certificate of Appropriateness |~ Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development . -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 24, 6:ict.a rendebbns an:, defloirl M 'te ectÂ»'Y>21Â¥11 sure *A described J k ditat' l ia 'Ue, Â®P |t'c*(DA. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) lot split, on-titâ‚¬ relocatioA & 3A ?~AA,'troA FEES DUE: $ 12059 oesrr 00Â©pm Dimensional Requirement Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 186od Ikoeto l,NloM* 6(Spu-rf AL:EP-DJA7. QvaoRMO,31- Applicant: ~w,i> 63,95,Â»1 Proj ect A Location: le A-4 90Â« 28,0-[14 to,4475 Â£â‚¬ 4,~ (536 lil. R#cts St) Zone District: R.6 Lot Size: 9DoO se Lot Area: 9,000 SE (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: AS ~ Proposed: Â¥1 ~k Number ofresidential units: Existing: \ Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Proposed % of demolition: DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: 4,0&0 Proposed. 4580 Height Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: 35' Proposed: 25 2 I 'Meâ€¢.-ry Accessory Bldg.: Existing: A ~A Allowabi" 8.' Re#'/~Proposed: 41â€¢r On-Site parking: Existing: Required: 2- Proposed: L % Site coverage: Existing: Required: MI R Proposed: MAC I I % Open Space: Existing: Required: A | A Proposed: A I A Front Setback: Existing: Required: | D' Proposed: \0 , I Rear Setback: Existing: Required: 5 Proposed: 5 Combined .9 , Front/Rear: Proposed: 15 Existing: Required: 50 Indicate N, S, E, W - 4 Side Setback: E Existing: Required: 5 ' Proposed: 2.5 Side Setback: \A Existing: Required: 9 Proposed: \ Combined Sides: Existing: Required: \D' Proposed: 1.5' Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: *05Â·â‚¬ 0.1 *93*casT fRopeR:er -18 en,r e,lcA,*cÂ«eâ€¢ (Â·3' o,rro suteer PGkMY & M*t,Ir*f,15 4.1 06Â¢Mâ‚¬Irr Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): 4' blÂ· 619â‚¬ 4?Agi) VAR.Ip.JaiÂ· 21' E. SNE YARO VAe,~Acâ‚¬; 676' Â£0/49*eD Stoâ‚¬'Â¢40 VAR+A.ke; 5'COMa,1 F#arr/RENLHARD VAR,NiC'. EXHIBIT 3 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED THIS DEED, made this fllf day of (76A1lur , 19~,between David E. Stapleton, Don N. Stapleton, Darrell L. Stapleton, and Billed lou Speer of Pitkin County, State of Colorado, grantor, and The Stapleton Family LLLP, whose legal address is 1350 Mountain View Drive, Aspen, CO, grantee, For and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, grantor sells and conveys unto the grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the grantor has in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, in the County of P, +Ic,14 and State of Colorado, described as follows: BLOCK 28, LOTS A, B, C, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, AKA 533 WEST FRANCIS (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRANCIS STREET AND 5TH AVENUE) ASPEN, PITKIN, COLORADO Also known as : 533 W. Francis St., Aspen, Colorado (CONVENIENCE DEED ONLY - NO DOCUMENTARY FEE REQUIRED) TO HAVE AND TO HOLD together with any and all appurtenances and privileges, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the grantor, either in law or equity, to the only proper use and benefit of the grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. Uhn J. __- A GCU Daud E. Stapleton - ;4 \1 M Don N. Stapleion Ld# A. Darrell L. Stapleton 6-0 L iOL- *eÂ·+- Billee Lou Speer STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) 1,1 .The foregoing inwument was acknowledged before me this /6 day of '1|0 14-rd WA . , 19 4 g , by David E., Don N., Darrell L. Stapleton and Billee lai Spker. il E A . 14,4, Witness my hand and official seal. 4 ~~134*~(6~ My commission expires: /0-1 R' qq cl .-f'.0. c Anktup- A to~#0/4 Notary Pulfic O Addre~ (IR' Polual ouit Ula-R )ciykAA 10 l_'A w}(08:b 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 lilli lili lili 424786 11/23/1998 01:51P BASDE DAVIS SILVI 1 of 1 R 8.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO r. r. a , 4. 1.4, A -'4 4. I ; v' *tÂ· 0 9 i....A . - . 2 ' .. - *f ''tit., 9 9,4Â» 4 : 4,>~ PropertviRrofile * 141 24 â€ž 1. ' .. , : ",6 .,., t,â‚¬r.,Put . te,..;fit.4 ,,4,, 1 ::t n ~ ~ ~â€¢ r.Â¢, 4â€¢. 1 i .2 L w. Account: R001265 Account Type: 1000 Tax Year: 2002 Version: 20020611000 Parcel: 273512425001 Area ID: 001 Mill Levy: 29.738000 APR District: Estimated Tax: 6,699.97 Status: A * This Mill Levy is from the most recent tax roll " -i - 1 Nam#?ind *ddressilnfounationÂ® 4 :tegaliD.escription. 'I, -id:>. _-p =4123â‚¬L-ii~-2,-. ~:LutÂ¢:A -1 -&=.0Â¢N~=..0 ..,Â·yeÂ«Z =7.1-<P,U..J,#Â· 2 ... , 1~Â»i.*1-Â·Â·Â·â€¢ Ng.'I .I' 't -v STAPLETON FAMILY LLLP SUB:CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN BLK:28 LOT:A, B & 1350 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR LOT:C ASPEN, CO 81611 r ..,Â· r Pro.Pe/Â¥3291~lopj_2'i f 533 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Assessment Intormation i., Aff; .-0 'u. 9 , *ctual& 9 :5 :4449*sedi i T p..SgUABE*ET ; ' AgresÂ¢ tit#*Ablet . 4. M , .~ k , pil'.T' py 15.1 -2, I ... Ia**bar-:120.02?9Â·Â·Â·. . . 4 ~e 4. . r li- Land? f 2,457,000 224,820 9,000 0 'Impmvements, 5,300 480 1,172 : . REAblfnlfit~,f 'r , d. '-/dial? ' .- 2,462,300 225,300 225,300 I '9Â· 5 : ;.. i Â¥4*.?Aar:,2001. r. -' '4~ '*/.1 / ~1 ' 6 JAÂ·, K 4,~ â€¢~ ~ ~ .... I.'.- &. .*4 Â· c Yeand- - 2,457,000 224,820 9,000 0 rilmptoyjimerits 5,300 480 1,172 1, DE**hip,t, ei 2 C v *cr~tol; ' Â·r . 2,462,300 225,300 225,300 . f 6Â·. D I - 4 , N Â·Â· 447 . ley..31: PITKIN COUNTY ALAUG. 27,2002 10:34AM M&8 J ADAMS AND COMPANY ~NO. 1006 ' P. 2 August 26,2002 To Whom It May Concern: As the cument owner of Lots A, B, & C, Block 28 (533 W. Francis Street), we are hereby submitting this "letter of agency" authorizing David Gibson to submit his lot split application, to apply for historical committee review, and submit plans for a building permit. Dave is under contract to buy the property from us. Stapleton Family LLP 1 2 024*/ l RECEIVED TIME AUG. 27. 9:42AM PRINT TIME AUG. 27. 9:42AM EXHIBIT 4 September 26,2002 Mr. David Gibson 201 N. Mill Street Suite 101 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Re: Gibson Historic Landmark Lot Split & Conceptual Development 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 the property located at 533 West Francis Street (Lots A, B, and C, Block 28, City and Townsite ofAspen). 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, AA-/a L David Gibson, Authorized Agent EXHIBIT 5 OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible- SR (page 1 of 5) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT. 115.9 (also 5PT.270) 2. Temporary resource number: 533.WFR (533.WF) 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: 7. Building address: 533 West Francis Street Aspen Colorado 81611 8. Owner name and address: Stapleton Familv LLP 1350 Mountain View Drive Aspen, CO 81611 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West NE G of SE G of NW G of SE G of Section 12 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 4 2 2 2 0_mE _21-_ -1.- _1_ -_EL_ _1_ -9-_ -31_mN 11. USGS quad name: . Aspen Quadranale Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): A, B&C Block: 28 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of Lots A, B & C, Block 28 of the Citv and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number: 2735-124-25-001 This description was chosen as the most specific and customarv description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): L-Shaped 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: One story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Siding 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable on Hip Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Resource Number: 5PT. 115.19 Temporary Resource Number: 533.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 5) 21. General architectural description: A variant of the single storv wood frame Miner's Cottaqe. A hip roo with a short ridge on a rectangular plan. A small front clable proiects from the left side of the hipped roof section, adiacent to it is a shallow Ditch shed roof porch. The porch has a single turned post, and a similar pilaster at the wall. The door sits 90Â° to the street on the gable form. The qable has one larqe double hung to the left and a smaller fixed window to the right. The volume extends to the back of the site, and creates a similar aeometrv on the rear. The east side has a large double hung similar to the main facade, and two other shorter double hunqs toward the back with a square casement at the back corner. A single storv 'L' addition to the rear attaches to the hipped form and extends across the back of the house. The addition has a series of easement windows and an entry door facing the cross street, with aluminum sidinq. A verv short chimney sits on the peak of the hip facing north. 22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Larqe spruce at west corner. Two lilac shrubs in front. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A flat roof two car garaae structure sits to the rear of the site. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1 880's Actual Source of information: Pitkin County 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): Flat roof addition to the rear 1890 to 1915. Carport to the rear, renovations, 1965 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 35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. The building represents a variant of the type known locally as the "Miner's Cottage". This tvpe is normallv a simple hipped roof structure with minimal detail. Resource Number: 5PT. 115.19 Temporary Resource Number: 533.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 5) 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps; 1990 and 1980 Citv of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 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 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Mining Era 41. Level of significance: National State 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: Alterations have disrupted the oriainal character of the structure, no details remain. Onlv the basic form remains 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: 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: R6; F30, 31 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 Resource Number: 5PT. 115.19 Temporary Resource Number: 533.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 5) Resource Number: 5PT. 115.19 Temporary Resource Number: 533.WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 5 of 5) 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 . O.H. /'00'~ Y 1904 ~ ==== : == == =1~ =4#ap/U = === = =========== W. FRANCES 8 Un JFEl< COLO. 11 MIS 433) 335- diff.FF 627 337 55~ 52 ,33' J~ 377.29.f<3 97 .50 3877 685-JU.9 30/ 11 48/ 429 4%7 425 42 431 419 417 415 413 41/ 409 75' % | 1-11 4 U 9 0 -iT ~ 77 -71 4 5-2%727-: I'V 17211Â· '0":;; x f-tr/.0 7177 1 3 IN / <T 8 3-7 11 ,-- 3 8 11 49 Ek' 1 '~ C1 I Tr ID 4 -~ T-7 4 7 -1 LT' 1 /1 / 01 1 / do 4 11 9 -7.11 . 4 U r -7- ~T~~ I 1 5 uj 9-11 - - O -1 E. .u %9 -ma. 1-2 t? 11 94 2 1 9 8. 1 R. 0,1 ET F, / E L c I t. E 17-71 /9 01 66-1 6-1-%...1 101 0* 43 R 2.11 f ,/ 1 11-73 17;TIS-;1 .<'1 L-1-2.11 1/ Â¥ 1/,1, /lix] 28 411 35 Ov / X) 1Â£04 \,/1 --1 /Â£>< X Al K. L. M. 1 EZIP I y2-2113><3% 11 0 K ~ 2. / X / , 6-~ 0 - d S. M. \ LE! p Q 5 0 - 8 L %11 4 9 7-T 3 LL -- J - . 1 01/ y r>Â·-2 1 L 3 -4 . 40,7. . 'Jv 3 0 â‚¬ ID 14 g Z i 11 9.20 !1 JU Fil j 1/ ,xI / 534 53% 530 528 526 524 52% 580 6/8 376 514 570 508 500 504 508 306 % 434 432 434 4%8 486 424 422 420 418 4/6 4/64/0 4/0 408 1 (5721 (506) (430) 4/ ===== === 11 W.HALLAM Â© 4 mIll 535 533 531 5%9 587 525 523 52/ 519 59 5/5 513 511 509 507 505 50350/ ,435 433 431 419 0%7 0%5 4%3 42,/ 419 4/7 415 413 407 009 1 1 8 M 17 2 07 Er -,x-1-Tr-r j M -61 XI' 01 G. te J -1 m lic 77; ,1 7-2.-7 -?I-7 [7-,T,; 'ID TD 1 f ~D 1 2 41 1 4 4 7-12* le //1 3 r' .,..1 1,4 Li LIF ;~ rl-___~i ~! \ ra - ..4 . 1 --0, 1 2/4 3/6 Z/E soO 302 300 306 308 EXHIBIT 6 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® 318 FOURTH STREET LTD 609 CORPORATION ASPEN GK LLC C/O BUSTER FELDOM A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 640 PO BOX 445 PO BOX 1819 ASPEN, CO 81612 HO"STON, TX 77001 ASPEN, CO 81612 BERLINER ARTHUR S ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY BAUER WALTER F FAMILY TRUST C/O WALDEN 620 W BLEEKER ST 15935 VALLEY VISTA 750 BATTERY ST #700 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCINO, CA 91436 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 BLANK ROBERT S & NANCY L BLAICH ROBERT I & JANET S CROWN PATRICIA C/O WHITCOMB PARTNERS 319 N FOURTH ST 222 N LASALLE ST STE 800/JXC 110 W 51STSTROOM 4310 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60601 NEW YORK, NY 10020 DALY THOMAS J & JUDITH J DIKEOU LUCY SHARP DOREMUS FAMILY LP 1590 HOMESTAKE DR 25 POLO CLUB CIR 85 GLEN GARRY DR ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80209 ASPEN, CO 81611 EMERSON LTD EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR GELL-MANN/MURDOCK PTNS LLP C/O SWEENEY 500 W FRANCIS 434 W HALLAM 2704 15TH AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARMEL, CA 93923 4 SALLY RAE GOLD RICHARD HAISFIELD TRACY E 504 W HALLAM AVE 300 ST PIERRE RD 434 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 HALL CHARLES L HARMAN ANDREW J HENRY KRISTEN PO BOX 1819 513 W SMUGGLER ST 525 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1246 HUNT ROGER H IGLEHART JAMES P ISRAEL CHARLES B PO BOX 3944 610 W HALLAM ST 522 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1235 JOY WILLIAM N KAFRISSEN ARTHUR & CAROLE F KASCH JEFFERY C PO BOX 23 485 CITY HALL 68 RONAN RD ASPEN, CO 81612 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 FORT SHERIDAN, IL 60010-2065 KOVAL BARBARA TRSTE ;RILL & ELIZABETH R KOVAL BARBARA TRUST C/O NORTH OF NELL 506 W HALLAM ST 621 W FRANCIS ST 555 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® MARTIN JAMES R QPRT MCGILL DONALD R MCCAUSLAND LINDA TRUST CO OF KNOXVILLE TRSTE PO BOX 1584 11800 OLD KATY RD 620 MARKET ST #300 HOUSTON, TX 77079 ASPEN, CO 81612 KNOXVILLE, TN 37902 OXLEY JOHN C 50% MULLEN MICHEL OXLEY DEBBY M 50% ATTN BARBARA WALKER 8411 PRESTON RD #730 LB 2 1300 WILLIAMS TOWER I 1437 S BOULDER AVE #1475 DALLAS, TX 75225 TULSA, OK 74103 TULSA, OK 74119 PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC ROSENBERG PHILLIP I SHAFROTH DIANA H TRUST C/O CHRISTOPHER HEWETT 3901 E BELLEVIEW AVE 68 RONAN RD PO BOX 2577 FORT SHERIDAN, IL 60010-2065 LITTLETON, CO 80121 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 SUGAR MOUNTAIN TRUST SILVERMAN JACK E VERLEGER PHILIP K & MARGARET B C/O WIEN & MALKIN LLP 612 W FRANCIS ST 15 TORREY PINES LN 60 E 42ND ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEW YORK, NY 10165 WERLIN LAURA B VICENZI GEORGE A TRUST WARE NINA COULTER C/O WALDEN PO BOX 2238 34 CLERMONT LN 750 BATTERY ST #700 ASPEN, CO 81612 ST LOUIS, MO 63124 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94705 WEST SMUGGLER LOT SPLIT LLC WILKE JOHN H & BONNIE K TRSTE C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS 626 W FRANCIS PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 Y ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® EXHIBIT 7 SEP-29-2UUU FRI 09:57 AM FAX NO. P. 03 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVE!,OPMENT DEPARTMENT AM,-cement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fccs - CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~Av ici- 63 tefo,3 (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submiited to CITY,an application foi- +11*roglo l.,1-Rk lo-(Spuil- 4 (Â®11(#To#. 06Â¢â‚¬Lâ€¢*Me.Tr (60;A'C LcY.26) (hereinafter. THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT undeistands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of ] 999) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and ihc payment of all 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 project, it i.5 1101 possible at this [ime to ascertain [bc full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interÂ·est of the parties Illat APPLICANT make paymenr of an initial deposit and to Illereafter pe,mit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT ona monthlyÂ· basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following iheirhearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefired by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make addirional payments upon notification by Ihc CITY when they arc necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater cenminty efrecovering its full costs to process APPI.ICA}IT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that il is impracricable for CI1-Y staff to complete processing or present suftlcient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commicsion and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration. unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of al>Dlicatiop completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposir in the amount of $ l2O5-59which is for hours of- Community Development staff rlme, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPL]CANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY ro rcimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above. including poit approval review. Such periodic paymetits shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure zo pay,uch accrued cosrs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case *ill building permits be issued umil all costs associated with case processing have been paid CITY OFASPEN /APPUCANT j'l U1 I 11 -4 A \/ 7 - By: Bju â‚¬Â»~inunic~~~lopment Di,-ector bate: - -9 ~6 <021 Mailing Address: 201 A. MILLS-r., GuIlt toi 4-, 80 8160 2,\suppor[\forms\ogrpayas.doc 12/27/99 S It . ,?r4 ~11 '4Â¢j, '4 64 Â¢ :64 * I'La... _, 4/ & 1 4 1â‚¬ 3 & :,r, C 3,%'K,~,1,75 I..' 4 t~ **4 nÂ¥*,4 â€ž/ --2 26Â· % 'Â·a p 8 - 4* , .Â¥7â€žÂ¥ I f . I * I , L -% *r , f :2 ; i.,11'.4. Â¥ f , , t t 1 b. , Â¥ I A *'': ' 20 4 1~ 72-* tl .1 - E- 1 AA i â‚¬ ; .r. ... .1 4 46 R. .P- c b-4 i _ p . ) .>. t< bit>4744*E'*'L ~W * Â·' ~'t :~' ~"{7~2.1*1â€ž4 . lu . . 04 : .h,wi.iw04*j> -3.9. Nf ...n N .0 .tw Y~..(IG~, 2 ' . 0 6 1, 4% I ' .i: L . . , ' ... I .- 9%'' ' 1. / 15/2/Ve f " IÂ· "'bf 111 5 P .......-: ..- 5 4 ...1 9 . /911 1. 4**> >Â»Â·~ I Sh Â·4 rTV ~ 4' 4 Vi' ,: i ** i t 480\' 'k, fi-i' "*2. IM r,/*Aâ€¢:.7 :raÂ·Â¢ Not.0 1. 1 1 b.1. 0 4i.Ii,., % 7.1 , . , aeÂ» *TN"*1 .fl//B d: f+-mi' * - 1 .... 'e'l;-2,-" ill.4':*J, .4.. ,~#.,3, 14 7 i#.417--6 '~ 71 -% 'ff:,i:ADAA .. 4 I. 61Bj00 'Ark,UCTF :Ir. 533 W. Francis 7 4 73 ..22. -,/11/firp#q "vr...21. / Â·Â· , A .6 $ i ./ ..~ 1 1. 4 : . ....1 . 4 ...... - 4 - 4 4.'-*4#0/31//a/~ .> t-9/4// â€¢ 1. 44, . ' 1 1 0 *A f #--8 East Elevation 4/9/7 i . * I 2 *F ~-r-r LÂ· ~ 7 3 1 2 96$Â· : ir-i . .22 0\9 21 . Â»i 1 1 d 1 - i - 1-Â·. West Elevation ;1 . * v 15 .141Â·' 4 -' D+304%; 4/0**, 4...1*.1.1.t.4...91 ' /3,' 1* atfi~~fâ‚¬f;*Â·;* 2~**477,/aka:44*,2 4*y,Â·'.r*/ ~ ~~~ ~~ ' ~~2.:14:a~i,Â·~~,;44 .t*><r ~19 9- M #.. Ir ... , t..2.,Ir:.1 ,â‚¬1 4. '*~1â‚¬r ./ I 3- . 10: 2/ - 21.4 p â€¢'V ..21 /,41, I 0"-1. t~ â€¢01 11< y-,i --:- : 4 -,Attl - - 1--pal' r . .,C 4 - 1.4 I : 0 . ...1 R At k . a 1 =, 1 J â‚¬ 1 ...26>4 . --7 .Ajer .Â·A 2 K 140 4 .P .f '': e :620 311 4 -7 .4>11 b.' 4 7{42-0 t, Â¥ ..'' C -F# '4*' - 4%@~~ ' . 0 #1 47.5** I I. ./. ... :.' :4 . I. ..ph- Di .r .. *lil .. 1, 1 4 4 4 Â£ 1Â·,~~* .~~ Hâ‚¬(. ' . .I '' . fr 4, 3 3 7% =9* i.. 1-_ Uk L lt= y * A / M r 4, ./Ill'll//91/1/...........~Ii-Im:MI'-- ,~~, 8 -~~EL ..jh'flt' fri tr - 4.-1 ---6 * 2 . ,--I J. -/6 - 9, f m,>314 . 1 B.gÂ¥*If . , 2 1/ . 0 4' , ~ 0 ... . GIBSOO ..A,Â·Hlf;CI~ Ilr 533 W. Francis '' ..._~_Â·=.-244/El#*ifi=kE ,~9-Â·zeÂ·9 - -E222.--- A-j-EFLIEk&2**Â·---"-- B--EEESEE=Â·-=:2=;5='--T L. =- r ~.r r = ______ r â‚¬ E- -7 21 -vile~ t. u. ---i--'i.&.I- -Â¥.Ealf&%12-ti-: .---9 l~ 1%-m----=Z=- - 3 - 4 / ..n .'.I . Â»G . 6 ./ Lot C (vacant) 1 1 b.i5 2 , . C. U. 0 2Â¥. 62.4,1 -Â· u.,- . - 0,~ 4 -Â¥JÂ¢ 4..0., - 't't j ---94Â· 4 - . Alley, Blk. 28, looking East 4 / 0 liR. 4 FRANCIS STREET 4 RIGHT-OF-WAY 74.72 6556 END OF CONCRETE -%'. 70 EDGE OF STREET PAVING a- 0=2 <2 + <f' /3 STREET S I ON OMAILBOX Z Q Â» 05 , 1- U '-Oe.IZ 4/ (7<34 03 15 0 4 e -002= 4 44 4 STREET SIGN & oz@G /30 S 75Â°09'11- E 90.00 LL 4 -lif, Irio- 5 U W ~92 5.RUCE 100 8. 1 / / 4 --1-46- 3 < &Â· CRAC~ 1/ 0 1 \ - 14.4 PORCH 1: APPROX. 9 (ie. fÂ·) 14.6' Li- [4 <S' CRA5 4 . to el N WIRE FENCE , 91Â£ 19 f *4- - - -% --- ~~~~DER ~ HOUSE 1 1 Z 6.2 2.2' WALK 1 . 1 0 r.- I - N _ COVERED b 11.3 - (10 2,) 21.5Â· -1 1 3 -2 X WATER~ WETER--2 h~TER | HOUSE ENCROACHME' TELEPHONE < ~* 9 AGE #LK EASEMENT BOOK 267. 1 1 Col Â« 11'160 J t /APPROW. 1. Ib m COTTONWO :/ k 1 81 1 5# 31 1 1 1 COTTONW 1 1 N 75' ~9'It- W ~ 90.00 . TELEPHONE Â¥1 RE FENCE SET 5/8- STEEL ROD WITH PEDESTALS YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED SET WITNESS CORNER '11 2.00 BUETTNER [3166 S 14* 50' 49 CORNER OF PROP/ - STEEL ROD WITH CAP 5/8 \3\66 YELLOW PLASTIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 21.07 MARKED BUETTNER ALLEY BLOCK 28 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1, LOUIS H. BUETTNER, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CONFIRM THAT THIS SURVEY PLAT WAS MADE FROM FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY PERFORMED IN 4/20/2000 AND FELD INSPECTED 5/16/2002. THE SURVEY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY WAS MADE BY MYSELF, OR UNDER MY DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY, SUPERVISION, AND CHECKING. THE MONUMENTATION SHOWN HEREON FOR THE PROPERTY CORNERS WAS FOUND OR SET DURING THE 2000 SURVEY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS SH031.~gE/PN/,R9,5,25RECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. /Â»,6==011 J L...,rM 1 ':,[*:R/*&% C / 79 4/ ' VM-rl> . - \0 61- LOUIS H. BUETTNER 94 -19&~L, ''Â·71 DATE , 441 3166 3*11 M 9.41, ' 0 DECK --11 1 i -f- - E 100.00 .00'001 M .64.05.*1 S SS A3A1:Ins 31IS FIFTH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 76.24 00 BACK OF CONCRETE CURB 1 6'Bfoo AR'CHITFCTS 11 C \ ENCROACHMENT 1.3' 533 WEST FRANCIS C 1 , (EXISTING DWELLING) 00 041 B , - - . - -.42 N . 0 . ' i CO 4 If 1 1 1 r -7- -- --' LU -1 : 1 --------- . <t I. A . 1 A I 4 2.- - - ---1 -'-t--__. - _~ + 1 j I 1 L 1il 11 . 1 ~=~#f - *'<~~f 3 FLoof AREA 5 EA A I 1 . 4 0 1 1 UFFEE. LEVEL 7 4.+ 491= 1 1 r-- -Â· A ' 1 MA/N LEVEL 14-12 sp . 1 \ f 1 19 | LE>wag. LEVEL_ 1 G-5 SF l 1 . 1 / A \ 1 / : 72>TAL C 2379 em e, /\1 1 21 1 / 1--- - 7 1 1 432NO /2625/Pewes : 02200 95 3 .../.4.7 1 \ i.%\\ 71 1 \ La~==-~- -- 7 \\\ 1 / - .1 -/ SITE ROOF PLAN AL' 25 1 40 le'. G' G' i f r k 3 9 100 1 co FTÂ· 9 11' 01 FIFTH STREET WEST FRANCIS ST. 90, 4-61 GIBSOM ARCHITECTS LLC 533 WEST FRANCIS 100' Â»1 -9- -EL.Â·R PR IF 1 Ill E- 1 -1 1[ : A- 4 K MASTE~R BATH. 7 t / ~ ,Â·, 1 * sy[199 1 511 i. c_ f 1[4-taÂ«=41 # +--2- V ~(open) ~ f*~1-1 Fir- #-Mi f _ _ __ __ 3Â» - DECK ~ \ - _.2 1 -1 -- / , I -KE 4 -Fr 1 1 - MAST5%~DROOM ~/ rL--1-21 - -4 1 , Y 1 ,/ Try--1 1 1 - 4 1 - 4-- - L--2 a i j f -2-2 1 CLOSET I 21 \ 1--/ 1/ 8 *10' 1 .\ 4 // 1 ..Â·77 - ' 1 L -- 41 1\ UPPER LEVEL t-LIErl I i 0 (O 20 Fts 9- 11 - 0 1- . GINO[1 0 ~ . ~ ARCHITECTS l IC 533 WEST FRANCIS . foo I\ TERRACE : f r lizi 0 - -- M .- -- - -- ---- - Â· GREAT ROOM 1 9- PORCH /G , 1 -7, 9 (L.W.) 5 k 2.1 ' 6. SITTING .~ r,1 0% ls> ' -t V i , 1 4 r -7 2 - . - - T.77=7=It ~=El \ 1 1 # 4 ]TE OF .1 DR PORCH 4 1 r - t Â·Â· KITCHEQ I | 0 4 10 1 DINING GARAGE 3 3 . li puv441 'IE | 1~=42 -4-3 MUDROOM -h 64 go'.n' ' - ~- 7 1 6 Â«t R C._JE LL-]_itÂ·Of]Â·1-1.-Â·.Â·.-_- --t/1 Lb' Ir , r-- ,1 < "~ L- 4. .. L (oper) PORCH 4 // N 5 >~7 ' Le=======* 4 'F \cO ' MAIN FLOOR PLAN [U-U-] -1 O 10 23 Pr 3 FIFTH STREET 9 Â· /-7 . 010 WEST FRANCIS ST. 9 1 -3 18'*311Â¥ 61 BjOn . .. ARCHITECTS l IC - 533 WEST FRANCIS , -1 CL.y,0 ~ 1/-1 1.2 4 7ATH ------4 BEDROOM . BEDROOM 4 - --Â» LEÂ«-nul 10' x J 2' - O! rf (1 1/ fa' (L.W.1 27 ' *4 ..â€ž- -41 2-tATH. 2 *2 1- 9 1 1 M -4/- [.=d 1.3 % 'G.L-------- 1 1 -ri , ~-~h\\ GUEST MA*ER j 1 2--1 1 L . It E--11 FAMILY -~ ' = 11 M kilÂ©41 - -L ' MEDIA ROOM 15'><Co' 1 1Â·{ 1 ~AUNDRY | 43"--17 )47:| Â«11 BATH 1 6-4 1 ' .-.-rIT-4 --11_11--- -L---2-13---:ji,ZE,~ ...Â·-Â·-=p ..i r - I - I-- ' //29..... ., LOWER LEVEL fu~ El Â£ 1 20 FE 4 9 - 17- 01 61Â©08 ' ARCHITECTS 1 <C 533 West Francis Na l Ar-----1 1!1 171-Tt 1-1 r"UTI SOUTH ELEVATION ffil 0*14 1/ / 1 .alÂ¢ 03>Jam mal *.!*4232.,mi 61-=-~2 ----- - -1 7#unt -2 _ap_---1-uÂ» 22--t - i Â· 4=5-- 1 2*= =1 -- -=-7, - 1 - _ - - 4-1-iff am:-- F - -4 - flkil~,Ar-11 --rou i 1 1 . --1 /4/ 1 2*1,4,##61-=4&7 1 1 Ir-1~ 1 1 Il l .1 1 :1 1.1 1 -4 |L_.1 ; 1 - 1- 1 1 EAST ELEVATION PILI~ ~ 16 Fâ€ž 5 9 - il 01 - 1 ,-r-~630 BU 3 9 ---- - --F 1 J .. GIBS 0-fl- laiLIECIi_112__ 533 WEST FRANCIS Â»\ T--- - '- - r----1 . ' Â¥ 1 -94Â« 21 \tur=21 - --- 226 1==UL ~3137Â«~ ...<<Ii-1..~_.i-3 . -~-- 1 - 5. 77 - ./....r 9,<).--Em'gililli,Enil -- 1 r= OUE ng =129 * ----~ ~ ~ r. r 3 E-1 71tl ==== 1 F==2 4 i 9-1. 2 2 ----- - - R*- --fltiL--- -- - ---- - 14 '111!ilil 1- | ~ __f .._________ ~__12~i /QEEL{[1-Â¢- ----~~-E-1-_I INN'l 'll'hili: 91111 1 1 11'' ' H ! III jul] u 1 f NORTH ELEVATION j 4 ; 1 r M 1 --LU . 7~1 -- - 6-4 E : ] 1 43113 - A KIT , - - i ' --'rÂ»-r,-1 1 1.7~179 1 ' -/.1. ... 11 "11 -- 1 f --'I~~----C:n. --1 ..r- 32*40 -.Pag-7.-2-7- 72/31 ,(LILLI U 1 #94 fn I WEST ELEVATION 0 to 10 pr, 9- IN 01 6