HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990706 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1999, 4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
n:4s-~:50 A. Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD (continued to July 20, 1999), Joyce Ohlson
4:so-4:5~ B. Sign Code, Code Amendment (continued to August 3, 1999), .Sarah Oates
4:ss-s:oo C. Djuna Conditional Use Review (continued to date to be ~
Joyce Ohlson f_~ O ~tT~.~ ~ c.~ "Z,O7 bq~
~:00-~:0~ D. Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment (continued to August 3, 1999),
Chris Bendon ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~:o~.~:~o E. Modification of Conse~ation (C) Zone District Related to ~ ~ ~-~
F~ (cont~ued from June 15, 1999), Joyce Ohlson
~:~0-~:oo F. 308 No~h First, Addition to Historic Invento~ (continued from June 1,
~:o0.~:~0 G. 488 Castle Creek Road Rezoning, Chris Bendon ~ ~ ~ -~
~:~0.7:o0 H. Mi~d Europa Conditional Use Review, Chris Bendon ~~ ~-~
V. ~JOU~
~mes are approximate~ We recommend applicants arr~e at ie~t~ hour prior to the scheduied time.
CITY AGENDAS
7/6 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/16
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB)
Mittel Europa Conditional Use Review, Public Hearing (CB)
488 Castle Creek Road, Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Renotice
LUC Definitions, Public Hearing (con't to 8/3) (SO)
308 N. V Inventory, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1) (AG)
Djuna Conditional Use Review, Public Hearing (JO)
Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1-con't to 7/20) (JO)
Code Amendment: Modification of Conservation (C) Zone District Related to FAR, Public
Hearing (con't from 6/15) (JAW)
7/12 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 6/23
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB)
Code Amendment, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area G. Accessory Unit or Linked
Pavilion," 2nd Reading Public Hearing
121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Public Hearing 2nd Reading (AG)
7/13 City Planning and Zoning
Special Meeting
Aspen Mtn. PUD (con't from 6/29), Joyce Ohlson
7/14 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 6/23
400 W. Smuggler, Minor
302 E. Hopkins (con't from 6/9)
135 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing (con't from 6/23)
121 N. Fifth, Conceptual and Partial Demo (cont' from 6/23)
332 W. Main, Minor and Variances (con't from 6/23-con't to 7/28)
332 W. Main, Site Visit
7/20 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/29
Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 7/6) (JO)
Lodge Preservation Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 6/8) (CB)
Minor PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 6/8) (CB)
7/26 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 7/7
308 N. 1 S`, Inventory, 1 S` Reading, (AG)
Aspen Club Traffic Impact Report (JO)
Re -adoption of 1998 Annexation Plan (SM)
7/27 City Planning and Zoning (5:00)
Special Meeting with County P&Z
Buttermilk Master Plan
7/28 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 7/7
City Hall, Work Session
Mesa Store, Minor
Norwest Bank, Sidewalk.Canopy
332 W. Main (con't from 7/14)
121 N. Fifth, Variances, Public Hearing
8/3 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 7/13
ADU Program, Public Hearing (JAW)
Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road, Public Hearing (CB)
LUC Definitions, Public Hearing (con't from 7/6) (SO)
8/9 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 7/20
LUC Definitions, 1'Reading (SO)
ADU Program, 1 S` Reading (JAW)
8/11 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 7/20
214 E. Bleeker, Extend
920 W. Hallam, Extend
8/17 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 7/27
Joint Meeting with County P&Z: Aspen Area Community Plan, Public Hearing (SM)
8/23 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 8/3
ADU Program, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (JAW) Prenotice
308 N. First, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (AG)
8/25 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 8/3
Election of Officers
cc: P&Z Packet
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
7/1 /99
g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
RE: Code Amendment --- Section 26.28.220, Conservation, D. Dimensional
Requirements, 11. External Floor Area Ratio (Public Hearing)
DATE: July 6, 1999
SUMMARY: In the course of simplifying the Land Use code, staff has identified several
sections of the code which require some amendments in order to address size and scale
issues in our various zone districts. Currently, the "C" Conservation Zone District,
requires a minimum lot size of ten acres, but does not establish a cap on the size of a
residence that may be built on such a parcel. Currently, there are some parcels of land
zoned Conservation, but are non -conforming in lot size. This becomes further
complicated because a single family residence can be built on such a parcel, but the zone
district does not restrict the allowable FAR for such a parcel. Staff is proposing a code
amendment which establishes generally the same FAR used in the Low Density
Residential District (R-30) to properties zoned C. The one difference is that staff is
proposing a maximum FAR of 6,600 square feet in the Conservation Zone.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a development
application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and
recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning
Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then
approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.28.220, Conservation Zone District establishes
Dimensional requirements, but item D. 11 reads as follows:
11. External floor area ratio: No requirement.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the above -cited definition to read
as follows, with text to be eliminated suicl--- A -ems and text to be added as underlined:
11. External floor area ratio: No requirement. (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of
record):
Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet*
Dwelling's (Square Feet)
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot
area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of
floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of
floor area.
9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of
floor area.
15,000--50,000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet of
floor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area maximum.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And
Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the
text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of the potential
amendment relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the
staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable
portions of the Aspen Municipal Code. It is intended to clean up a section of the code to be
consistent with other zone districts which do set a cap on allowable FAR.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of the
AACP, and is very much consistent with the "Policies" of the Housing Action Plan (page 31
of the AACP) which recommends "Develop small scale residential housing which fits the
character of the community..:".
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would effect only the Conservation Zone District
which tend to be located in areas of the City intended to be preserved for open space
purposes or have steep slopes. By proposing a cap on the FAR allowed on these parcels, it
2
will ensure that, should a development right exist, it would be allowed to develop similarly
to our lowest density residential district (R-30). This would ensure that the scale of the
project would be compatible with the natural environment as. well as other low density
developments.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic
generation or road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have a negative effect on
the natural environment. In fact, staff believes that by establishing a cap on the allowable
FAR, there should be less visual impact on the surrounding natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes that by limiting the development size of a residential unit, it will
ensure that the scale is more in keeping with the community's desire to minimize the
"monster homes" that have developed. Using the same proportions allowed in the R-30 zone
district, the maximum size home on a lot greater than 50,000 square feet would be 6,600
square feet.under this proposed cap. Currently, there is no restriction to the FAR in the zone
district.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character. The
concern is that there is no limit to a house size in this zone district. Not all C zoned lands are
public, and staff believes it is time to bring this zone district's development criteria into
conformity with other low density properties, and on sensitive lands. This is one of many
land use code amendments staff will be bringing before the commission throughout the year.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is
in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public
interest by ensuring a limit to the size of a residence in the Conservation Zone District.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the amendments to Section 26.28.
220, Conservation, D. Dimensional Requirements, 11. External Floor Area Ratio, as
proposed herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
amendments to Section 26.28. 220, Conservation, D. Dimensional Requirements, 11.
External Floor Area Ratio, as proposed in the Community Development Department
memorandum dated June 15, 1999."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A — Existing C Zone District language
G:/planning/aspen/cases/text/conservation.doc
P&Z Resolution 99--0
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION
26.28.220, CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT, D. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
11. EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
Resolution #99 - 15
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92, applications to amend the text of Title 26
of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning
and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after
reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the recommended
revisions as outlined herein and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a meeting on June 15, 1999, the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to (_-� vote, the City
Council approve the amendments to 26.28.220, Conservation Zone District, D.
Dimensional requirements, 11. External floor area ratio as proposed by the Community
Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council is advised to adopt amendments to 26.28.220, Conservation Zone
District, D. Dimensional requirements, 11. External floor area ratio of the Municipal
Code, making said Section read as follows:
11. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet*
Dwellings (Square Feet)
0--3,000. 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot
area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of
floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of
floor area.
P&Z Resolution 99-�✓
Page 2 of 2
9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of
floor area.
15,000--50,000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet of
floor area.
50,000 + 6,600 square feet of floor area maximum_
APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on June 15, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
G:/pl arming/aspen/reso.doc/p&z/conservation.doc
Bob Blaich, Chair
offm a Iro
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
308 N. First Street- Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures
DATE:
July 6, 1999 (Public Hearing continued from June 1, 199)
SUMMARY: This property was recently the subject of a lot split review before City
Council: At the Council's request, staff has prepared an application to list 308 N. First
Street on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures."
Listing on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures requires a recommendation by
the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and a final
decision by City Council. At their regular meeting on May 26, the Historic Preservation
Commission recommended approval of adding this property to the inventory by a 6-1
vote.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen.
OWNER: William C. Nolan. Represented by Stan Clauson Associates.
LOCATION: 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, City and Townsite of Aspen.
PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code to be
utilized by the P&Z in evaluating additions of resources to the Inventory. Staff has
prepared responses to these standards to assist the P&Z in its findings regarding 308 N.
First Street.
INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
Section 26.76.090. Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures.
Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may begin to be
considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include
insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are
unique or have some special value to the community.
Response: City records indicate that this house was built in approximately 1887-8.
Originally identified as 124 West Hallam Street, the house was occupied by H. A. Brown.
According to the Aspen Historical Society, Harry Brown, the brother of D.R.C. Brown,
moved here in the 1880's and became the timekeeper for the Aspen Water District.
The property was included on the City's first "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures,"
which was completed in 19.80. Prior to and subsequent to the 1980 listing, a series of
alterations were made to the building which HPC did not have review authority over. In
1991 the City hired a consultant to review the Inventory and to make recommendations as
to whether any properties should be added or deleted. The 1991 Inventory form on 308
N. First Street (then 124 W. Hallam Street) describes the architectural integrity,
modifications, and importance of the building. As the form reports, the house is
illustrative of Aspen's modest family .lifestyle during the mining era but had been
substantially compromised with the renovations and additions. The consultant
recommended that the house remain on the Inventory, but acknowledged that its integrity
had been damaged by the renovations.
Following the consultant's report, the HPC held public hearings to receive input from all
affected property owners. Attached is a letter from the then owner of the subject
property, Katherine Levitz Lee, and a copy of the HPC minutes from March of 1992.
The owner requested that the house be de -listed from the Inventory in consideration of
the alterations. The minutes reflect the Board's discussion and acknowledgment of the
changes to an already low rated house. The minutes from the following public hearing do
not include a discussion about the Hallam property although Roxanne Eflin, then Historic
Preservation Officer, recommended the house be de -listed. The HPC Resolution passed
and City Council Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, which officially de -listed the
property, was adopted.
The 1893 "Bird's Eye View of Aspen"and the 1904 Sanborne Map show the original
footprint and appearance of the building. (Notice that houses to the east and west of the
subject building have been demolished.) The form of the house is still essentially intact,
but it has had numerous appendages added, including a corner tower, a masonry chimney
stack, decks, and other additions. The original front porch has been enclosed and the
entry to the house has been moved from the Hallam Street side to the First Street side. A
current front elevation of the building shows the original cross gable roof form and some
historic detailing still remain. This drawing also demonstrates the obvious alterations
that have been made.
The effect of the alterations are significant and have changed the architectural character
of the building. Some of the alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost
prohibitive to remove.
It is staff s understanding that the owners do not wish to have the property re -listed on the
Inventory or to have HPC oversight, but have stated that it is not their intention to tear the
house down. Staff finds that while the house has been altered, its form is sufficiently
2
intact to warrant continued monitoring by HPC -to preserve what 'remains, avoid
additional inappropriate additions, and to guide any restoration that might be undertaken.
There are relatively few examples left in Aspen of the larger Victorian era homes, and the
property should be preserved for the future.
Although the property has been subdivided, staff recommends that the entire original
parcel, Lots K, L, M, and N, be listed on the Inventory. The house that once existed on
Lots K and L has been demolished, but the property is adjacent to several other historic
sites, and the new construction on it should be in character with the historic resources.
Section 26.76.090(c). Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or
not they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with respect to historic
landmarks. All structures which are not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the
HPC as to their current architectural integrity, historic significance and community and
neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly, as follows:
A. Significant. All those resources which are considered Exceptional, -Excellent, or
those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed
on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be
reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and
26.72.020.
Response: The structure does not meet this standard.
B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not
meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have
maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design.
Response: The structure does not meet this standard.
C. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity,
however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sites). These structures have
received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort
could be considered Contributing once again.
Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the
house has been significantly altered, the structure still retains original historic fabric.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that Council list 308 N. First
Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures finding that
the criteria for a Supporting resource have been met."
K3
Exhibits:
Resolution No.�l Series of 1999
A. 1893 Bird's Eye View of 308 N. First Street.
B. Vicinity map
C. 1991 Inventory map, notes by Roxanne Eflin.
D. Letter from Katherine Levitz Lee and inventory form with her own notes.
E. HPC minutes from March 1992.
F. 1904 Sanborne map.
G. Front elevation of house.
4
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS K, L, M, AND N,
BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO
THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
RESOLUTION NO. jj� SERIES OF 1999
WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Municipal Code states that the inventory of
historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which are at
least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other
structures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern
architecture; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has identified 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N,
Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 6, 1999, provided a history of
the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that the property be added
to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was opened at a regular
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 1999, and continued to a
regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 6, 1999, at which the
Commission considered and recommended that the property be added to the "Inventory
of Historic Sites and Structures" by a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
addition of 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 56, City and Townsite of
Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic -Sites and Structures."
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 6" day
of July, 1999.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Robert Blaich, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
...........
....... . ... ............
............................................
....................... .......................
........... j;--
Fa I
.........
.............
E
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM
hate Site -Number: Local Site Number: 124.WH
Photo Information: ASP- M -2 6 27 & 28
Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12
USGS Quad Name Asxoen Year 1950 X 7.5' 15'
Building or Structure Name: 124 W.%Hallam House / M.V. Chamberlin House
Full Street Address: 124 West Hallam
Legal Description: Lots E1/3, L. M
City Asigen
Historic District or Neighborhood
Owner: P=ivate/State/ Federal
Owner's Mailing Address:
County Pitkin
Name: Hallam Lake Historic District
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type: Residential
A=ch.4 tectura1 Style:
Dimensions: L: x W : = Square Feet:
Number of Stories: 2-Store
it
Building Plan (Footprint., Shape) : I= r ec�ular w:l southeast corner
turret fe.2)
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and
Function (map number / name): Northeast single-aabled aarace: clan -
board. with cabled end vergeboard; center north: sinale-csabeled
clapboard out building same as other; northwest aaracre: sinale-aabled
with side dorner, clacboard wood scalloped shjnal es at -aable ends and
cutout verge board
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: Cross -cabled with hieced turret with brackets and ainaerbread
trim at eaveline; wood shingles
Walls: Clapboard with fishs.cale at aable ends
Foundation / Basement: Unknown
Chimney (s) : New: south center, corbelled brick
Windows: 1st story: vertical fixed light; 2nd story west 2 hipped
cable dormers• 2nd story typical one -over -one double hung with shutters
and decorative lintel; turret: decorative panels brackets and dentils
Doors: South (old front?) 4 eanei
_ West (new front ?); rair 1/2 light cut glass with large
transom and side lights
Porches: Shed roof, west side with square posts with brackets on
sandstone wall base
General Architectural Description: Retains oricrinal character but
porch has been enclosed fireplace re_oca,_ea with new masonry steeti
pitched roofs of front cable and cross cable with long farrow wows
verge board decorating the cable is simple but has detail standard
horizontal clacboard of 1890's; large 1987 turret dramatically alters
mass ire
Page 2 of 2
FUNCTION
Current Use:
Original Use:
Intermediate Use:
Residential
Residential
MODIFICATIONS AND/O
Minor Moderate
Describe M dificatio
49001 19 8 0 t
Additions and (pate:
State Site Number
Local Site Number 124.WH
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Architect: Unknown
Builder: Unknown
Construction Date: 1887-88
_ Actilal _ Estimate _ Assessor
Based On:
R
ADDITIONS
Major X Moved Date
and Dae: Completely renovated in 1967 on to
anti`, 9 Lot
-
Turret. 1987; west carport
NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
Is listed on National Register; State Register
Is eligible for National Register; State Register
Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E
Map
Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation
_ Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register
Contributing: Resource has maintained historic oz
architectural integrity.
0 Supporting: original integrity lost due to alterations,
however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort.
Locally Designated Landmark
Justify Assessment:
Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of
this residential structure historically is not of those who owned it
or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is
representative of Asipen's early mining era. This modest structure is
of historical imrortance by illustrating the family/home environment
and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated by
the silver mining industry. r
Other Recording Information
Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court-
house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Mates
Archaeological Potential: (Y or N) Justify:
Recorded By: Date: March 1991
Affiliation: Asoen Historic Preservation Committee - City -of Aspen
Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner _
a-iA—s� a- 7T�.S�aR�'ca� Oes� �ta.7i c� iI
W- I�AI1Rm`' �wnu- erli�e_
4�
CAcLrt�e1X .�'I'oM �iti1 ii /79 7.l�l�ce1o�'�tils `1
h�
a. :If? ql aand
/ Y !
�xC�l''i o(` �fama�'icARou�vd�s � on��
is no loAAer 1-�lljqt,�,i SFrz�'. �e
`�ra i f's'�'
11�/iC-fp('ict� �Q.t'd.�i(sii � i�2 `�Ou52. ai'e�
.r eL, �,,.�. h�� � een rese� 6c� firn
-+{� eI 5 ee.rs �. ,moo e-�fg-&
s �: a.�� i n.-i�.e.. �c�"u.re, .
u1eJ2(' are..- n e.�-I aA--d(
h
art e�f' "ha � C�.11
��.��e—See ���� Le
i1;04
� si oh , /�s
Q "�i �UOI�i cLl7 � y� 2.. CJOdel •�-�-
lee
4k
e
a it viC7�A a/1
/rI?cL�iit �17".2 -Ono
Lqs ,d r— ST�iP��C�
O
�h
J //'OiL �Ce-�iS �0�%'t
ve., 2�c�ri s�/.�� .�e��-�' -f�� Tit
/Iv use. CLtiA � .
OXT
,
e/ iat L /l o o d . �lcJe� �t /1 er,J GG
Q CZ�so%7��! nQ /lislC{�ica.� �ni�CallCe. CZ,�f i�
Ut'��/'U � Tz � '1 %s7d�,G•c-Y /�tfz�f/'i7� 4��-e�
/� U
/i J
o
RISTOR_TC ARCHyTpCTURA.L BUILDMAG/STRucTURB OM
State Site Number:
Photo Information;
_ A)L1
Lccal Sita Number:
ASP-v'- 2 5 27 & 28
Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12
USGS Quad Name Asren Year 1960 x 7.5' 15'
Building or Structure Name: 124 W. Hallam House ! M.V. Chamberlin House
Full Street Address: 124 West Hallam
Legal Description: _ Lcts G113 , L, M
City _ Aspern
Historic District or Neighborhood
Owner: Private/State/ Federal
Owner's Mailing Address-,
County Pitk? in
Name: Hallam Lake Historic District
ARC:iITSCTVRAL DBSCRI2TION
Building Type: Res'_dent a.I
Architectur ay Style: *
Ditensions : L: _ x W: = Square Feet:
Number of Stories: 2-St'crIV
Building Plan (Fcotp imt, Shap ) : Irreaular vit:h southeast dorne
turret e.2 10 r`?'-5 AT 0CLnAda n
Landscaping or Special atting Featuras: Ncn.e
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material .and
Function
(map number / namte) : Northeast sincz e-gabled garace : clan-
1�g d
: t-h gabled end verge board; center north: single-(
gabe-1 ed
-c-lapbcard out bLilding, same as other; north-west garace: sj nc1 cabled E
With side dormer, cla boa d w cd scalloped shingles at crable ends and
cutout vey as board
For the following categories inclUr1e naaria3 ech piques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Rcof: _ Cross -stabled with hizzed turret, with brackets and g4 ngerbread
tr, m at eave L ine ; wood sh i nal es
Walls: _Clanboard wj.th fishscale at gable ends
Foundation / Basement: C,nkncw-n
Chimney(s): New: south centert corbelled brick
Windows: Est story: vertical fixed light; 2nd story, west 2 h; coed
sable dormers; 2nd story typical one -over -one double hung with shuttedormers;and decorative lintel • turret: decorat' a �oanels b ackzts and dentils
Doors: South old front? • 4 tanel
West new front ? air 1 2 light cut class with large 1
S transom and side lights Q
qorches: Shed roof, west side with square -costs with brackets on
sandstone wall f base _ „.,-. ^
General Architectural DescriAtion: F
porch has been enclosed, fireplace ref
pitched roofs of front aable and cross
verg2 board decora,_i nq the cable is s
horizontal clapboard of 1890 t s : large
ins- orlainal character but
ted with new �tasonry steep
ble with long harrow ;dogs
e but has detail sl_-a.rWard?Y7
7 turret dramatically lters
n
ktJ
Page 2 of 2 State Site Number
Local site Number 12 4 . WH _
7WCTION ARCHI'T '3'taRAL HISTORY
Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown
original Use: _Residential Builder: U]3known
Intermediate USQ: Construction Date: 1887-88
Actual _ Estimate _ Assessor
Based On:
MOD171CATIONS M/OR ADDITI z Date
Minor ,._, Moderate Major oved
Descri Mc cations an o e v re=vated in 1967 on to
Additions nd D Turret, 1987 ; west carport
laTIONAL/STATE RZGISTBR ELIGIHI2,ITY+AND CRITMUI to Register -
is listed on -- National
Register _._. State Register.
is eligible for _,_,_ Nation 'Register; D
Meets National Register Criteria : A _.... B _._. C _...
Map
- Local Rating and Landmark Designation
gignif icant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register
Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or
-- architectural integrity.
O Supporting' original integrity lost due to alterations. -
however, is "retrievable" with substan+.iaz effort.
Locally Designated Landmark
justify Assessment: a
Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The sicmdf canoe of
thisresidential structure hi -St
ricall is not of those who o edict
or lived n itc nor of its architecture although this s ctu
representative of Asrents, early
mining era This modest structures_
f historical im o anc8 b illustrat na t e family name environment
r ce cit zen in Asaen which -was ch was dominated b
and li est les of the ave.. f
the s 1 er -gin in iW
St=
.� '° S5 a. .'.0 1 4i,-Ifs�' n of 1 ^er s� -
Oth RS ecific Referencest e/Building: Pitkin Cou t Court
house Records; Sanborn an Sons Insurance Mans
Archaeological. POten -ia-l; -,_._, (Y or N) Justify:
�Recorded B Date; March
f illation: Asaen Historic , Preservation o mittee --City
• of AS Qner
project Manager: Roxanne Eflin , Hi storic Preservation 0�'f zcer 1Plan
• Historic Preservation Committee
v r V
Minutes of March 18, 1992
the neighborhood character there are two new huge structures near
by and then you have the Holiday House and across the street from
the Holiday House is the Molly Gibson Lodge and those are virtually
next door to Mrs. Day 's house. I don't think there is a community
character left and do not feel the house is old enough to qualify.
It has no architbctural significance At all. y
Roxanne: Our form indicates that the property was built in the
1830's or early 1900 hundreds. Age is not the limiting factor for
being on the inventory. There are buildings built as late as 1952
that are on the inventory.
Tam Scott: The house is non-descript and basically falling apart.
It has leaks etc.
Bill: Do you know of any work that has been done since the last
time we evaluated this house?
Tam Scott: I don't think any work has been done.
Roxanne: This inventory has never been re-evaluated as you are
doing right now. In 1986 numbers were applied to the existing
inventory, they were not re-evaluated structures. I agree that
the context in that area has eroded over time but there are
numerous little houses in that vicinity that are important. Its
overall contribution is to the character of the town. It is an
example of a residential structure representative of a working
class family of the mining era.
Bill: We will take the information given to us and the members of
the Board should drive by and look at the house taking everything
that was presented here into account.
12 4 W . HALLXx
Catherine Lee, owner: In 1987. I came to the meeting when they were
numbering the properties asyou -can see by the letter in your
packet. Since then there has been more extensive work done. I
also have the blue prints. I am opposed -being on this list. The
-house has no significance in 'american history, architecture,
archeology, engineering or culture. The integirty of the location,
the design, setting and materials are new. The feeling that you
are looking at was created by me. I added all the trim and all the
details. Everything on that house that you see that looks
Victorian has been added by yours truly. There are no events
associated with my property that has made it a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of the history of Aspen. No one
of historical significance has lived in this home. I created a
Victorian look with my artistic bays and these are my creations.
. 1
2
/00 Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of March 13., 1992
I would not be eligible to the historic register as the house has
been changed 360 degrees. If you notice the Sanborn map shows the
foot print of the present house. All private property owners have
the right to object to be listed. The, qualities have ceased. to
meet the criteria of the list. I have petitioned you in writing
to be removed from this list and I do not wish to become legally
responsible by being on the fraudulent list which my property
causes due to lack of integrity. I went through the structure form
and it is incorrect.
Bill: Do you have pictures of what the house looked like before
it was redone.
Roger: I- think the StrohhIs added the glassed in porch and moved
the fire place.
Catherine: The Taylor's did the kitchen and added a wing. There
is not a corner on that house that has not been changed.
Jake: What is this house on the inventory.
Roxanne: It is the lowest rating.
Jake: Is it retrievable?
Roxanne: Barely, and it was given a 2 in the 1986 rating. In the
1980 rating it was the lowest which was notable.
Bill: I feel all the committee members should site visit this
property.
Roxanne: Your final action takes place by a resolution the 25th
of March. Between now and then you have to be thinking what action
you want to take. It then goes to -Council in an ordinance form.
The public hearing for Council is scheduled for May 13th.
Bill: Do you know the square footage of- your floor area?
Catherine: The main house has 3750 sq. ft. and there are two
separate garages.
Bill: Thank you Catherine for your input and we will take
everything into.consideration when evaluating. We will add your
photographs to the file.
7 0 7 N . THIRD
Carol Craig: In my way of thinking, I didn't realize that you
could just designate something an historical structure without the
3
ML Va. .ML -M mm
IL
rlk4 i
LLOO
1�0
(9D`r t S��'arh
dr
OZ/
'93 0 N V�1-4 M
P,7/
AV
-
IL
4�7i I .
LJ
'44
�
ZI
e}A
IAN
CO/
C:x
aim qm IM== I= im
Ts"'m
P*4
A
IT
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC
Planning • Urban Design
Transportation Studies
Project Management
200 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323
FAx: 970.920.1628
E-MAIL:Memo dauson@csi.com
To: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA 4�1/
CC: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Date: 1 July 1999
Re: 308 N. First Street, Nolan Property —Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures
Summary
The Nolan property received a lot split from City Council under Ordinance 9, Series of 1999. At the
time the lot split application was discussed by Council, a question arose as to whether the house
located on Lots M and N had historic value. The record was presented showing that the original house
did indeed date to before the turn of the century and had, at one point, been listed on the Aspen
Historic Inventory. However, as a result of construction and architectural changes effected principally
during the 1980's, the house had been significantly altered and was recommended for de -listing from
the Historic Inventory. Accordingly, Ordinance 34, Series of 1992, an ordinance to update the Historic
inventory, proposed de -listing the property along with five others "by reason of their loss of historic
integrity or value." This ordinance was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, the
Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council on 22 June 1992. Although no change had occurred
to the house to improve its historic integrity since it was reconstructed in 1984 and de -listed in 1992, the
City Council, in approving the lot split this year, felt that its historic qualities should be re-evaluated.
They requested staff to initiate activities to determine if it would be appropriate to list the house on the
Historic Inventory.
The owners of the property, William and Elaine Nolan, had purchased the house in 1995, aware that it
was not listed on the Historic Inventory. While they generally support the goals of historic preservation,
they did not want to have a property which was encumbered by the regulation which is attached to an
Inventory or Landmark property. They specifically chose this property because it was not so
encumbered. At the time of purchase, moreover, design regulation of historic properties by the Historic
Preservation Commission was exclusively directed toward voluntarily landmarked properties. A house
on the Inventory, but not landmarked, was subject only to regulations regarding demolition.
Subsequently, the City has passed an ordinance that provides for HPC review of both inventoried and
voluntarily landmarked properties alike. This makes the level of regulatory encumbrance significantly
greater than the Nolans ever expected in purchasing the property. Moreover, with the pending
requirement that work only be done by certified historic preservation contractors, there is a
considerable level of expense attached to this regulation.
All of this might be justified if the house had sufficient integrity that listing on the Historic Register would
be appropriate. However, the house was changed in form so substantially by prior owners that very
little remains of its original character. Moreover, the changes were of a false historical nature, so that
• Page 1
PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS
inventorying would actually result in confusion as to whether recent additions were actually historical
elements. Fundamentally, not every old house needs to be on the inventory. Only those which qualify
and add to the historic resources should be placed on the inventory. Other structures and sites are
intended to be protected by Ordinance 30, which provides more generalized assurance that new
construction and remodeling will continue to contribute to neighborhood character.
Finally, at the meeting of 26 May 1999 where the HPC reviewed the question of whether the house
should be on the Inventory, considerable confusion resulted with respect to the newly created lot, which
consists of Townsite Lots K and L. Believing that a garage, located on this lot at the comer of First
Street and the alley, was an historic resource, Amy Guthrie had recommended that the lot also be
placed on the Inventory. When we presented evidence that the garage was actually constructed in
1984, Amy publicly withdrew her recommendation to the HPC that the lot be placed on the Inventory.
Nonetheless, the HPC felt that since it was adjacent to a property which they were disposed to place on
the inventory, the lot should be placed on the Inventory as well. It needs to be clearly stated that there
is absolutely no basis in the Land Use Code for this action. The lot does not contain any historic
resources nor does it meet the listing criteria for an Historic Site, which is:
Historic Sites are parcels which may or may not have structures on them, but primarily
have significance as parks, cemeteries, archeological resources or similar types of
landscapes.
Clearly, there is no relationship between this newly created lot and the definition of an Historic Site. In a
subsequent conversation with Roger Moyer of the HPC, Roger indicated that it had long been a desire
of the HPC to list any vacant properties adjacent to historic resources. He felt the HPC
recommendation was based on this intent. However, it should be understood that there is no present
provision in the code for so designating adjacent properties simply because of their adjacency. For this
to occur, a change in the Land Use Code will be required.
Should the House be on the inventory?
Several factors need to be considered in responding to the question of whether the house should be
placed on the Historic Inventory.
• The house is admittedly of an age which would allow for its being on the Inventory.
• The house has been totally altered in form and materials, such that no aspect of its original
shape remains, except for the cross gable roof.
• Materials and forms appear to be historical but are not, which would result in confusion with
respect to the authenticity of this resource.
• The house was specifically delisted by city ordinance. Nothing has changed with respect to
the house since that de -listing.
• The Historic Preservation Officer has identified that: "The effect of the altemations are
significant and have changed the architectural character of the building. Some of the
alterations, such as the tower and chimney, are likely cost prohibitive to remove."
• The present owners purchased the property with the expectation that it was not encumbered
with HPC reviews or requirements. They will suffer financial hardship as a result.
• The property is fully developed on the lot. No significant additions can be undertaken, and any
changes would be govemed by Ordinance 30 Design Standards.
0 Page 2
Attached is a letter from Architect Richard Klein to Suzannah Reid of the HPC, dated 26 May 1999,
discussing his evaluation as an architect that the house does not qualify for listing on the Inventory. On
balance, we believe that this house no longer presents characteristics which merit its listing on
the inventory, and recommend that it not be listed.
Should the Adjacent Lot be listed on the Inventory?
While there may be some merit in considering the house for listing on the Inventory, there is simply no
justification in the Land Use Code for including the lot as well. There is no historic resource on the lot.
Any issues of that has been laid to rest with the memo from Architect Wayne Stryker that he was the
architect who designed and oversaw construction of the garage in 1985. This document is attached to
our memo.
While we can understand that the HPC may be interested in having jurisdiction over properties adjacent
to actual or potential historic resources, it is Gear that this desire is not supported by the City of Aspen
Land Use Code. Reasons for designating an Historic Site are clearly spelled out in the Code. This
property does not meet any of the criteria. We strongly recommend that this parcel not be
identified for the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
Attachments:
A. Letter from Richard Klein, dated 26 May 1999
B. Memo from Wayne Stryker, dated 26 May 1999
0 Page 3
RICHARD KLEIN = .
May 26, 1999
Suzannah Reid, AIA
Chair Person
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall
130 South Galena Street
® Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Historic Inventory Status
Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56
City of Aspen
Dear Suzannah,
Mr. and Mrs. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the preparation of
documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary
Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house.
They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status.
The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed around the turn of the century and the
house appears on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Through the years, quite a number of additions
have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984.
As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified.
The South facing Elevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the entry to the house, the Entry Porch
no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps around to the East. Above,
is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Fireplace with a
"very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property line to Lot L, a new
Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long driveway to the
Garage at the back of the lot.
The West Elevation from First Street is now the entry to the house. An Entry Foyer, mentioned at
the South Elevation, with spiral stair to a large deck on the second floor has been added where
the original Fireplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house
to an Out Building located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. On the 1904 Sanborn
Map, a Carriage House is located in the same corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more
rectangular, and actually sits on the property lines.
The North Elevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out
Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House.
The Shed and Garage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows
there were no structures. One should note that the Garage does not have access from the
Alley. It is accessed by the driveway from Hallam Street.
The East Elevation, adjacent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entire length of the
building. There is the addition where the original Entry Porch was located with the Turret and
Deck above discussed at the South Elevation. There is a Shed built along -side another addition
adjacent the original Kitchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Building
discussed at the West Elevation.
A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line,
blocks the house from Hallam and First streets. There is also new 6-ft. high Iron fences at the
new Entry and Driveway.
have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the
original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything
resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status.
Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992
by ordinance.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Richard Klein, Architect
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Nolan
Stan Clauson
Lane Schiller
€ rMM05/27/99 THt' 13:27 F.AX 970 925 2254 STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS Z001i001
>,..r' S TRYKER/BROWN
''r A R C H I T E C T S
E TRANSMITTAL Total pages: 1
VIA: Fax
TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clauson
FROM:
Wayne Stryker
DATE:
May 26, 1999
RE:
Residence at 308 North First Street
To whom it may concern:
i was the Architect of the addition and renovation for the house at
308 N. First St. in Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the
small garage at the Northeast corner of the property. Due to the state of
degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially
reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's
architectural intent. In my opinion it is not in any way reasonable to
designate the new garacre as a historical structure. Please call me if I can
be of any further assistance.
300 SOUTh SPRING; S'rKEUT, SUITE 300
A S r E ti, C O L O R A D O 9 1 6 1 1
970,923.2254 925,2253 (FAX)
Applicant: City of Aspen
Address: 308 N. First
Action: Addition to Historic Sites and Structures Inventory
Review Criteria:
Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures.
Intent: Fifty (50) years old is generally the age when a property may
begin to be considered historically significant. It is not the intention
of the HPC to include insignificant structures or sites on the inventory.
HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value
to the community.
The HPC evaluation process is as follows:
Structures on the inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not
they are historic landmarks. No further action need be taken with
respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are not historic
landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current
architectural integrity, historic significance, and community and
neighborhood influence and categorized accordingly as follows:
A. Significant. All those resources which are considered
exceptional, excellent, or those resources individually
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen,
which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places shall be reviewed according to
the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation"
in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and
26.72.020.
B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant
resources that do not meet the criteria for significant; provided,
however, these resources have maintained their historic integrity
or represent unique architectural design.
C. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their
original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as historic
structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial
alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could
be considered contributing once again.
HERBERT S. KLEIN
ALLARD J. ZIMET•
OF COUNSEL:
JACQUELINE L. GARDNER
'also admitted in New York
Via Hand Delivery
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
July 2, 1999
Amy Guthrie
Aspen Community Development Dept.
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Historic Sites and Structures
Dear Amy:
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TEL: (970) 925-8700
FAX: (970) 925-3977
Per instruction from Mr. Klein, I am enclosing a letter with
exhibits which should be included in the packet for Tuesday's
meeting agenda.
If you should have any questions, please call our office.
Thank you for your assistance with this request.
Very truly yours,
KLEIN-ZI T PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
By:
Sue Gardner, Secretary
sg\no1an\002.1tr
Enclosures
HERBERT S. KLEIN
MILLARD J. ZIMET*
OF COUNSEL:
JACQUELINE L. GARDNER
*also admitted in New York
Via Hand Delivery
UPA 14:4 1 k' IWA I®
1411
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
July 11 1999
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TEL: (970) 925-8700
FAX: '970) 925-3977
City of Aspen *
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 308 N. First Street (Lots KL,MN Block 56) - City
Application to Designate Property on Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures
Dear Honorable Members of the Commission:
This office represents William Nolan, the owner of the above -
described property. Mr. Nolan recently processed a lot split
application for this property and at the time City Council approved
the lot split, it recommended that the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) investigate whether or not to designate the
property to the City's historic sites and structures. The property
consists of two six -thousand square foot parcels. one parcel (Lot
2) contains a house and the other parcel (Lot 1) a garage.
Mr. Nolan prefers that his property not be listed on the
historic inventory at this time. The house on the* property was
listed on the City's first inventory in 1980. However, in 1992, at
the request of the then -owner of the property and with the support
and recommendation of the then -historic preservation officer,
Roxanne Eflin, the HPC found that the house, having had substantial
modifications made to it over the years, had little value as a
historic resource and deleted the property from the historic
inventory.
In response to Councils referral, on May 26, 1999, the HPC
recommended that both the lot containing the house and the lot
containing the garage be listed on the historic inventory.
Although Mr. Nolan does not believe the house should be re -listed
due to its very low historic value, he understands that this issue
is debatable, however, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever, for
listing the lot containing the garage (Lot 1). Mr. Nolan objects
in the strongest possible terms to the listing of Lot 1.
In its memo to the HPC for their meeting in May, the City
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11 1999
Page 2
staff took a position through its historic preservation officer,
Amy Guthrie, that the entire parcel be designated. The
recommendation to list Lot 1 was due primarily to the thought that
the garage on the property had some historic background. However,
after Ms. Guthrie visited the property, inspected this outbuilding
and learned more about its history, she withdrew that staff
recommendation and recommended only that the house on Lot 2 be
added to the inventory. Attached as Exhibit A to this letter are
the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting of May
26, 1999. The withdrawal of the staff s original recommendation is
found on the first page of Exhibit A (marked Page 2 at the
bottom) . Notwithstanding staff ' s revised recommendation that Lot 1
not be listed, the HPC voted in favor of its designation.
The HPC does not have unfettered discretion to designate sites
for inclusion on the historic inventory and its recommendation is
contrary to the City land use code standards for designating sites.
The City Land Use Code at Section 26.76,090 titled "Establishment
of Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" provides the
standard for sites which are considered for designation. It states
at sub -paragraph A.....
"Historic sites are parcels which may or may
not have structures on them, but primarily
have significance as parks, cemeteries,
archeological resources or similar types of
landscapes"
It is undisputed that Lot 1 is not a park or cemetery, nor
does it have archeological resources or similar types of
landscapes. Therefore, under the code, the HPC's recommendation is
completely erroneous.
There is no historic structure on Lot 1. It is undisputed
that the outbuilding on Lot 1 was formerly a garage that was
completely demolished and rebuilt in 1984 in approximately the same
footprint and shape that had previously existed. This was
discussed at the HPC hearing and the minutes reflect Ms. Guthrie's
determination on this point where they state:
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11 1999
Page 3
"Amy felt because there is nothing historic on
the one lot, it would be difficult to justify
the entire site on the inventory." (see
minutes attached - Exhibit A, at page 4)
Attached as Exhibit B to this letter is a letter dated May 26,
1999 from Wayne Stryker, an architect who previously worked on this
property. This letter was submitted to the HPC at its hearing.
Mr. Stryker states that the small garage on Lot 1 was reconstructed
in recent years. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for
designating Lot 1. Lot 1 neither has an historical building nor the
attributes of a site which qualifies for designation.
With respect to the listing of the house, as can be gleaned
from the attached minutes of the HPC meeting, several members of
the HPC expressed reservations about its historic value. Although
the Board ultimately voted in favor of the designation, they rated
it as "supporting", the lowest available designation to any
historic resource. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter from Mr.
Nolan's architect, Mr. Richard Klein. His letter describes the
substantial changes that have been made to the original house over
the years, all of which substantially diminish its historic value.
Mr. Klein will be available at our hearing on this matter to
discuss this in more detail.
There is another aspect of this process which is of great
concern to Mr. Nolan and raises further legal challenges to the
proposed designation. This issue concerns the fairness of re -
listing the house. Mr. Nolan acquired this property in 1996. He
did his due diligence and learned that the house had been listed
and then de -listed on the City's historic inventory. He acquired
the property based upon that record of the City's review, analysis
and decision making with respect to this property and the degree of
regulatory control to which it would he subject. The house has not
become more historic since it was de -listed in 1992. There has
been no work done to restore whatever original historic value it
may once have had. The only thing that may have changed since 1992
is that the politics of historic preservation at the City Council
level have caused tears to be shed and hands to be wrung over the
lawful demolition of the Paepcke house. Regardless of the position
you make take on that situation, this is not a good reason to
imnose historic regulations on Mr. Nolan's house when the Citv has
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 1, 1999
Page 4
previously reviewed it in detail and correctly determined that its
value was not sufficient to warrant the imposition of historic
control regulations. Mr. Nolan relied on the City's previous
actions and should not be subject to arbitrary changes in the
political winds when his very important property rights are at
stake.
We respectfully request that your commission review the record
in this matter and make its own independent recommendation to City
council that neither the house nor the lot be designated on the
City's historic inventory. Again, while the designation of the
house may be debatable, the issue of fundamental fairness and
reliance of Mr. Nolan should tip the scales in favor of its not
being listed as that was its status, after having been extensively
reviewed by the City, at the time of his purchase of the property.
With respect to the lot, there is no basis whatsoever in the City
Land Use Code or in the record before you for its designation as a
historic site. That designation is clearly beyond the authority
of the HPC and should not be supported by your commission.
Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look
forward to discussing this with you further at your hearing on July
6th .
Very truly yours,
KLEIN-ZIMET PROFES IONAL CORPORATION
J
By:
Hd'rbert S. Klein, Esq.
sg\no1an\001.1tr
Attachments
cc: Bill Nolan
Stan Clauson
JUN. le. isss 1:4EFM • CITY OF ASPEN NO.S74 P.1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COACT HSSION IVIL?�TL�TES OF
MAY 26.1999
308 N. FIRST STREET — L +WENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND
STRUCTURES
Amy relayed that a site visit
occurred today. This house went in front of
city council recently for a lot split application end was granted, while
council was looking at the project they said they had concerns that tale
building on the site was historic and they initiated an application to have it
listed on the historic inventory, It was listed on the 1980 original city
inventory and it was then removed in 199 2 when h2C held a public he-arina
and the owner at that time came to the board and presented e�7dence that
there were many changes made to the house that compromised its integ:-ity,
It was built around 18 87-18 8 8 and was owned by the brother of D.R.C.
Brown. Exhibits were provided from historic maps and city files and
testimony from the previous owner about the changes made. The siding and
roofing has been replaced in addition to towers, additions and decks being
added. Staff feels that the original form of the house, the cross gabled roof
and some of the wall areas are intact enough and should be monitored by
HPC to preserve what remains and avoid any additional inappropriate
changes and guide any restoration that might be taken in the future. Staff is
recommending that the entire original property that has been split in two be
listed on the inventory. This is due to the outbuilding on the new open land
that is historic, but upon inspection today it doesn't appear that is the case.
That recommendation has been withdrawn. Lot 2 that has the old house on
it is being recommended on the inventory.
Sworn in were Stan Clauson and Richard Klein.
Stan read into the records a letter from Mr, Nolan (exhibit III). Also a letter
has been entered into the record from Wayne Stryker who was the architect
for the reconstruction of the out building (exhibit V) which is of no
consequence since Staff has withdrawn that recommendation.'
Plans will be presented to the board so that the Board can see what the
owners intent is and what has been accomplished with the lot split and
where they would like to go.
EXHIBIT
Era
JUN. 18.1999 1:46FM CITY OF ASFSN NO.674 P.2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COABESSION 1 TES OE
MAY 26,1999
Richard Klein stated that he was asked by the Nolan's to address the
Historic Inventory status of the house, A letter was read and entered into
the records (exhibit IV).
Stan informed the Board that the.owners clearly feel it is an encumbrance,
from the standpoint of the approvals and reviews that are required. The
owners also feel it has financial disadvantages. He also reminded the HPC
that the code has been charged recently so the listing on the inventory
CcIZieS 1TUCh more significant resulC`tloii lIl tellies of the use and re-vie"x. It
carries restrictions that used to be for landmark status, The problem with
this particular house is that it would be a stretch to put it on the inventory
and a huge stretch to put it on landmark status. It is only with landmark
status that the compensatory things that we have been able to offer over the
years for historic houses become available to a property owner.
This is a new era with substantially increased body of restriction for
inventory properties and no advantages for them until they achieve
landmark status,
Stan also felt that City Council in their response to the individuals who
spoke at the lot split public hearing really wanted to be responsive and to
show that they were concerned about a house that may or may not merit
being on the inventory. He is not sure that the instruction from council was
to go and put this on the inventory. He feels the instruction was to go and
investigate whether it should be on the inventory. He also felt that they
were operating out of a manddte to do this.
Stan presented a site survey, which extends over two lots, which have been
split. The lot split extends over a significant addition from 1984, which
entrance.
does change the All the additions are pseudo -historical. As a
condition of a lot split a section would have to be removed and made
conforming to setbacks. He has been investigating what the original
footprint.of the foundation was. The side porch would have to be removed.
With respect to the side yard setback, the lot split was granted conditioned
to conformance with setbacks and FAR and lot coverage. They have a
program for removing some of the very small outbuildings and the porch
that will be sufficient to meet that requirement. There is an historical
extension of the house that goes closer to .e newly established historic
-JUN.19.1999 1:46PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.674 P.3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COIN USSION MINUTES OF,
MAY 26,1999
townsite lot line than the required five feet required setback. It actually sets
2.5 feet into the setback.
Stan will go to the Board, of Adjustment for a variance to allow this
extension to be retained and at the same time allow the original historical
townsite lot line to be retained as well. As part of the HPC deliberation if
the Commission could see it as possible to offer a resolution of support in
this particular matter, it would be a great benefit to the restoration of the
West elevation of the house.
QUESTIONS
Atny relayed that the next process is to proceed to Planning and Zoning and
then City Council who will make the final decision.
Roger asked if the property is on the inventory and a structure is on the
adjacent lot would the HPC have review over the new structure?
Amy said if the entire property is listed HPC would have review over what
is built next to the historic house.
Amy felt because there is nothing historic on the one lot it would be
difficult to justify the entire site on the inventory.
Roger informed the HPC that the garage existed when he came to town in
1965.
Stan said it is used as an office and he conversed with Wayne Stryker who
did the plans for renovation and it was effectively completely demolished
and rebuilt essentially in the same footprint and shape that existed. That
occurred around 1984,
Roger said there is also a little building that comes off to the left and
exisited in 1965.
,Stan said that building does not appear on the Sanborn Map, 1904.
11
'JUN.18.1S9S 1:47PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.674 P.4
E
F _ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COWNUSSION ��S OF.
e
MAY 26,1999
Roger confirmed with Staff that if the house is not on the inventory to could
be demolished.
Amy said there is to reliance on the owners representation that they do not
want to demolish it, it will also be put up for sale at some point. There is no
protection.
Amy said unless the entire property is on the inventory there is no review
over the empty lot.
Roger said that should have been part of the consideration by council on the
lot split to have review over the entire site,
Amy said there is a process for a building to be placed on the inventory and
it was her direction to initiate an application.
Heidi inquired about the fascia trim and the trim above the window as to
whether it was historic.
David Hoefer, attorney stated at the NOON site -visit it was determined that
those fabrics were not historic.
Stan said there is no question that the trim does look historic as the entire
house has historical elements about it.
Heidi asked about the roof being original,
Richard said there is a primary gable form that still exists and it is a cross
gable form. It is hidden by one of the chimneys and the other side gable it
is disguised by the turret and deck area.
Heidi said it is the original roof form behind all the additions. She also
inquired about the modification plans.
Richard said at the present time the door will be restored to the Hallam side,
At this time they are only planning on removing the foyer area. It would be
extensive remodeling to get involved with restoration of the front of this
5
•JUN.19.1999 1:47PM - CITY OF ASPEN - NO.674 P.5
ASPEN BUSTORIC PRESERVATION COWNUSSION ES OF
MAY 26.1999
house. If the front is restored, there is an issue with the turret that sits over
the front of the house and doesn't relate to the old former house.
Heidi asked what the intent of the owner is on the adjacent lot.
Stan said it is the intent of the owner to build on the newly created lot next
door for themselves and put the existing house on the market.
Christie stated that the house was quite beautiful when Kathryn Lee bought
it
Lisa said the house was on the inventory when the remodel was done from
1984 to 1992.
Amy informed the board that the HPC had minimum regulations at that
time.
Chairperson Suzannah Reid opened and closed the public hearing.
CONQv ENTS
Mary said her initial feeling is that it was not fair to put this house on the
inventory.
Susan said it is discouraging that new owners do not want their houses to be
recognized as historic. It is an admiral quality to have an historic house,
She is in favor of the house being on the inventory.
Heidi stated that historic houses do not effect property values that much and
she would like to see the research if that isn't the case. Regarding the
criteria there is something old about the house but when you stand in front
of the house it has been modified significantly. She is concerned about the
confusion factor if the house is put on the inventory, will too many people
then think all the additions are historic. She doesn't want to see the house
torn down.
Lisa stated she is in support of putting it on the inventory as a supporting
structure. Since 1992 there has been a big shift in our sensitivity to historic
C�
•JUN.le. 1559 1:47PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.E74 P.E
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CON MI SSION NiZ TI�TfiES OP,
MAY 26,1999
structures and what those mean to the community and the loss of those
structures. We area charged with preserving historic resource and we
should do everything we can do preserve our history.
Maureen agreed with Lisa and she is also in favor of the 2.5 variance.
Christie also supported putting the house on the inventory. There is not a
house in town that has not been added to considerably. If the house is not
on the inventory we will loose more and more of them.
Roger stated if the house was demolished in a month from now the human
cry would be outrageous. He was on the HPC when the house was taken off
the inventory and at that time the board was different. Underneath all of
the additions is a wonderful little structure. He recommends that it be on
the inventory. He also recommends that the entire parcel be on the
inventory, HPC has always fought to have review over parcels around
historic properties. In 1991 there were not lot splits and if they existed then
the entire parcel would have been listed. He also recommended working
with the owners representatives on the variances.
Jeffrey felt that the impact on the neighborhood is important. Although the
house has been remodeled and altered the footprint and the essence of the
foundation once represented is very important. He is in favor of the house
being a supporting structure.
Suzannah stated that she doesn't see this as being any different than the
Williams Way project in terms of its alternations, They are pretty equal and
this house has the form of the historic house. She supports the listing on the
inventory. She is less inclined to attach the other lot. She is also in support
of the variances for the historic house.
Stan said the concern of the Nolan's is becoming involved in another layer
of bureaucracy which is a real concern for many people, They perceive that
other people will have an influence over their hearth and home in a way that
maybe uncongenial to them.
Stan also relayed that our code is much more draconian at the inventory
level in terms of the arnount of review.
7
•jUN.1S.19519 1:48PM CITY OF ASPEN - - s NO.674 P.7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONMISSION MILNTTES OF,
Nay 26,1999
That might not be a bad thing but it certainly effects the way people react.
It is certainly a catch 22 for those house that maybe inventoried but not
landmarked. Those houses have all the review but none of the benefits of
landmarkincy.
Stan relayed as far as the adjoining property goes, you have people that are
sympathetic to the historic resource even though they do not want it to be
regarded as an historic resource. The way they ,have worked with Richard
and himself is indicative of that in the way they have moved forward to seek
a variance to allow the original historic footprint to be maintained. He feels
they will be equally sympathetic and fall strongly on Ordinance i4'30 for
review for the corner property. He doesn't feel the HPC has an historic basic
for putting the corner property under review. He also requested a general
resolution in support of the variance be addressed in the motion. It is
basically a 2.5 foot encroachment for 7.9 feet of length into the setback,
Richard relayed that the corner lot that will be available for new
construction will probably be contracted with a contractor that is more
costly because he is working on historic properties. If that is the case he
feels it would be unfair as it is new construction,
Heidi relayed that the entire block is historic.
M0770N.- Roger moved to (1) adopt Resolution r29, 1999 recommending
that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L,.�I, and .tV Block 56
City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures.
(2) HPC approves the variances that are required when part of the non -
historic portion of the house is removed. Some of the historic structure will
be within the property'line and HPC encourages that all other boards to
grant this variance,
Motion second by Susan.
Yes Dote; Roger, Jeffrey, Mary, Susan, Heidi, Lisa
No Vote: Suzannah,
M
JUN.16.1999 1:48PM CITY OF ASPEN NO.674 P.8 -
F
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONMI SSION
RECON NTL'�TG THAT 308 N. FIRST STREET, LOTS IC, L, tit, AN :�,
1 M
BLOCK 56, CITY A1» TOW SITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BE ADDED TO
THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES :A'VD STRL CTLMS
RESOLUTION NO.a_,1 SERIES OF 1999
WHEREAS, Section 26.76.090.A of the Municipal Code states that the inventory- of
historic sites and structures shall include all structures in the City of Aspen which ar- at
least fifty (50) years old and which continue to have historic value, and such other
sn-uctures identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern
architecture; and
WIiEREAS, the City of Aspen has idendfed 308 N. First Street, Lou K, L, M. and N,
Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, as eligible for inclusion on the "Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures: and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 26,1999, provided a history of
the house and supporting evidence of its age and recommended that the property be added
iv
to the `.`Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting
of the Historic Preservation Commission on May 26, 1999, at which the Commission
considered and recommended that the property be added to the `'Inventory of Historic
Sites and Structures" by a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the HPC recommends that City Council adopt 308 N. First Street, Lots K, L, M, and
N, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen to the "Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures."
APPROVED BY THE CON. DIISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day
of May,1999.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
_ � t� • rA-s u i u 925 225.3 STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
STRYKER/BROWN
A R C H I T E C T S
TRANSMITTAL
VIA: Fax
TO: Aspen Historical Preservation Committee c/o Stan Clauson
FROM: Wayne Stryker
DATE: May 26,1999
RE: Residence at 308 North First Street
To whom it may concern:
Z 001 /001
Total pages: 1
I was the Architect of the addition and renovation for the house at
308 N. First St. in Aspen. This work included the reconstruction of the
small garage at the Northeast corner of the property. Due to the state of
degradation of the original structure this garage was essentially
reconstructed of entirely new materials replicating the original's
architectural intent. In my opinion it is not in any way reasonable to
designate the new garage as a historical structure. Please call me if I can
be of any further assistance.
EXHIBIT
d
z 13
0
300 S0UTri SPRING 5,rKLLT, SU1T.E 300
A s r e N, C o L o R n r) o 8 1 6 1 1
970.923.2254 925.2258 (FAX)
RICHARD KLEIN '
May 26, 1999
Suzcnnch Reid, AIA
Chair Person
�— Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
7 City Hall
�& 79 130 South Galen Street
Aspen, CC 81611
Re: Historic Inventory Status
Residence at Lots K,L,M,N, Block 56
City of Aspen
Dear Suzonnah,
Mr. and Mrs. Nolan have retained the services of my firm to assist with the preparation of
documents required for the Lot Split of their property and to produce the necessary
Architectural Drawings for the remodel of their house.
They have also asked me to assess their house relative to H.P.C. Inventory Status.
The original residence on Lots M and N was constructed around the turn of the century and the
house appears on the 1904 Sanborn Map. Through the years, quite a number of additions
have occurred, with the latest major renovation in 1984.
As the house now sits, every elevation has been significantly modified.
The South facing Elevation, on Hallam Street is no longer the entry to the house, the Entry Porch
no longer exists having been replaced by an addition which wraps around to the East. Above,
is an awkward looking Turret and Deck, which hides the existing roof. A new Freplcce with a
"very red" brick has been added to the front gable. Across the property 6ne to Lot L, a new
Entry Foyer has been built. There is also a new Curb Cut to access a long &veway to the
Garage at the back of the lot.
The West Elevation from First Street is now,the entry to the house. An Entry Foyer, mentioned at
the South Elevation, with spiral stair to a large deck on the second floor has been added where
the original Fireplace was demolished. There is also an addition connecting the original house
to an Out Buildrng located in the vicinity of the original Carriage House. Can the 1904 Sanborn
Map, a Carriage House is located in the some corner of Lot M, but is a different size, more
,.. �.
rectangular, and actually sits on the property lines.
The North Elevation from the Alley is totally changed. Even though the current former Out
Building is probably the oldest addition, it does not seem to be the original Carriage House.
The Shed and Garage have also been added in locations where the 1904 Sanborn Map shows
there were no structures. One should note that the Garage does not have access from the
Alley. it is accessed by the driveway from Hallam Street.
EXHIBIT
z
C3
l
3
The East Elevation, adacent the neighbor, has additions along almost the entire length of the
building. There is the addition where the original Entry Porch was located with the Turret and
Deck above discussed at the South Elevation. There is a Shed built along -side another addition
adjacent the original Ktchen. And there is the infill addition connecting to the Out Building
discussed at the West Elevation.
A new solid wood fence about 6-ft. high with sandstone piers, running along the property line,
blocks the house from Hallam and First streets. There is also new 6-ft. high Von fences at the
new Entry and Driveway.
I have tried to illustrate to you the amount of modifications, which have been made to the
original residence. It is my professional opinion that this residence is no longer anything
resembling a once historic house and should not be required to have H.P.C. Inventory status.
Also, it should be pointed out that this residence was removed from the H.P.C. Inventory in 1992
by ordinance.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
't2
Richard Klein, Architect
cc: ivy. and Mrs. Nolan
Stan Clauson
Lane Schiller
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
IZ7,0 Gi *
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: 488 Castle Creek Rezoning -- Public Hearing
DATE: July 6, 1999
SUMMARY:
The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre
parcel of land currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's PUD
overlay is intended to provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep
slope and reduces the allowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is
unique to parcels with a PUD overlay and does not apply to other single-family
properties. The slope reduction for this parcel eliminates the possibility of applying
for a lot split, limiting the current development opportunities to a single-family
residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to affordable housing. Removing
the PUD designation would allow the property owner to apply for a Lot Split.
In 1980, the already developed parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and
rezoned to the R15-A zone district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property,
according to the Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot
and to ensure the existence of an employee unit on -site if the property were
redeveloped as a duplex. It is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the
community benefit of the parcel either remaining a single-family home or adding one
affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots after a lot split.
There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density
zone district. However, staff believes changing the zoning to allow more
development should only be considered when there is a favorable and significant
benefit to the community — such as affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the
land use code, such as requiring ADU's with lot split applications, have made
progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community.
There is general support in the pending AACP update for requiring growth
management exemption ADU's to be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy.
However, the current ADU provisions do not require these units to be occupied. Staff
believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher
degree of community benefit, as required by growth management review or as
provided for in the AH 1-PUD Zone District.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a
recommendation of denial to City Council for removing the PUD overlay from
this parcel.
APPLICANT:
Paul Anderson. Represented by Paul Perea and Stan Clauson.
LOCATION:
488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.)
ZONING:
Current: R15-A-PUD. (Moderate Density Residential.)
Proposed: RI 5-A.
LOT SIZE:
35,895 square feet. .82 acres.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single -Family. (A duplex with one side as an RO is also allowed and provides an
exemption from GMQS.)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single -Family. Possibly a future Lot Split to allow two single-family homes or a
single-family and a duplex. (No development is proposed in this application.)
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a
public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City
Council.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1980 and rezoned
according to Ordinance 11, Series of 1980. The minutes from the rezoning are
attached.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. An analysis of
the zoning is provided as Exhibit B. City Council minutes from the initial zoning in
W
1980 have been attached as Exhibit C. A copy of the R15-A Zone District provisions
have been included as Exhibit D. The application is attached as Exhibit E.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a
recommendation of denial to remove the PUD designation for this parcel.
The City Attorney may instruct the Commission to pose the motion in the positive
(recommend approval), even if the desired outcome is to deny the application.
Motion makers need not vote consistent with their motion.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council deny this rezoning request to rezone this
property, 488 Castle Creek Road, from R15-A-PUD to R15-A."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A
-- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B
-- Zoning Analysis and Summary
Exhibit C
-- 1980 Rezoning Minutes
Exhibit D
-- R15-A Zone District provisions
Exhibit E
-- Application
3
EXHIBIT A
488 CASTLE CREEK
STAFF COMMENTS: 488 Castle Creek Rezoning
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions' of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential
conflicts. The removal of the PUD designation removes the slope reduction for density. This
allows the lot to be split, if so desired. Under the Lot Split scenario, two single-family residences
or one single-family and one duplex could be constructed. The development would be required
to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to the GMQS exemption provisions.
The parcel was annexed into the City in 1980 and provided with the current zoning including the
PUD overlay. The minutes from the zoning hearing include discussion about the PUD overlay.
This overlay was specifically included to prohibit a Lot Split while still allowing for a duplex
with one side deed restricted to affordable housing as provided for in R15-A.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The 1993 AACP does not identify this parcel in any specific way, nor does the 1998 AACP
(draft). The update of the AACP, now being considered, is contemplating several urban growth
area designations generalizing areas where more or less density of development is appropriate.
For example: the downtown core is most appropriate for density while outlying properties with
little or no infrastructure are not appropriate for this same level of development.
Generally, the subject property is within the proposed growth areas being considered designating
this property suitable for moderate density development.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
Surrounding the site is the public hospital, high -density residential, and seasonal dormitory
housing. The parcel could conceivably be appropriate for a higher density zone district than is
being proposed although there are several site constraints which could complicate the site
planning of a high density residential project. The level of development allowed with this zoning
is consistent with the availability of services in the area and with the development patterns of the
surrounding area. The removal of the PUD designation does not change the parcel's consistency
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Comments 1
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The difference in trip generation capacity between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning is
insignificant. If this parcel does redevelop, there may be a preference for combining the
driveways to provide one curb cut instead of two. The consideration for combined drives is more
appropriate to review with an actual development application and not during this rezoning
process. The parcel is on the outside of the road curve and does not have any potential for blind
driveways.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The current zoning allows for a duplex to be constructed on the parcel. The possibility of two
single family homes being constructed, therefore, does not represent an increase in the parcel's
demands on public services over its current ability to demand those services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The PUD designation itself does not prohibit the development on the steep slopes. It merely
reduces the development potential by virtue of the existence of the steep slopes. The
development of a single-family or duplex residence is not required to go through a PUD review
and it is unlikely an applicant would voluntarily submit to such a review. If the property were
reviewed through the PUD provisions, development located on the steep slopes would probably
be discouraged to the extent possible.
Considering the above, staff does not consider the removal of the PUD designation a significant
potential for adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Significant development of the steep
slopes is unlikely in either scenario. Also, the uses allowed remain the same with the removal of
the PUD.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The update of the AACP is considering a multi -layered approach in defining the appropriate
concentrations of development in Aspen and its environs. The uses and density allowed in the
zone district without the PUD designation is consistent with the classifications this parcel is being
considered under.
The slope reduction for the parcel eliminates the possibility of a Lot Split and reduces the
allowable development to either a single-family residence or a duplex with one side as affordable
Staff Comments 2
housing. The removal of the PUD overlay will remove this slope reduction and provide the
ability to split the lot and construct two single-family homes.
The community benefit associated with a lot split is typically an ADU for each single-family
home constructed. This is similar to the community benefit associated with demolition and
reconstruction of the single-family residence — one ADU. On the other hand, the development of
a duplex would result in one deed restricted affordable housing unit. This unit could be a
Category unit or an RO unit. In a more aggressive development scenario, rezoning this parcel to
a higher density classification, such as AH1-PUD, and proposing several units of affordable
housing in association with free-market units could be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and represent a significant benefit to the community.
The PUD review process is most effective for considering significant developments of several
units, or mixed use types of projects. The PUD process is excessive, and hence not required, for
the development of a single-family home or a duplex.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding area is much more developed than it was when the property was first annexed
into the City of Aspen. There are high -density developments surrounding the parcel, a seasonal
housing project, and the Hospital. There have also been changes to the land use code.
The 1980 discussion surrounding the original zoning concentrated on the community benefit
associated with two development scenarios: 1) The development of a duplex with one side being
deed restricted to affordable housing; and, 2) the development of two detached single-family
homes after a lot split. Because it would be inappropriate for the applicant to enter into an
agreement to not seek a lot split (contractual zoning), the PUD overlay was applied to reduce the
lot area to less than allowed for two lots prohibiting a split. Staff assumes the 1980 City Council
preferred the benefits of the parcel either remaining a single family home or adding one
affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots.
The majority of the above conditions remain the same today. The City has amended the land use
code in a few ways germane to this application: 1) the affordable side of a duplex on the site
could be an RO unit — a recent program not available in 1980; and, 2) new development on lot
split parcels are required to mitigate for affordable housing — typically with one ADU per free-
market dwelling.
The changes in the neighborhood, one could easily argue, do support a rezoning to a higher
density zone district. However, changing the zoning to allow more development should only be
considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community — such as
affordable housing. The changes in the land use code, such as requiring ADU's, have made
progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community. And, it
would be inappropriate for the applicant to agree (contractual rezoning) to provide mandatory
occupancy ADU's in association with this rezoning.
Therefore, because there is no significant community benefit to lifting the PUD overlay staff does
not support this rezoning request.
Staff Comments 3
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
This removal of the PUD designation does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. The
AACP, while not specifically addressing this parcel, supports the level of development allowed
with this zoning. Staff believes this zone district promotes the purpose and intent of this Title and
is in harmony with the public interest.
Staff Comments 4
EXHIBIT B
488 CASTLE CREEK
Zoning Analysis:
R15-A-PUD
R15-A
Gross Lot Size:
351895
3505
Slopes: 0-20%
23,200
231200
Slopes: 20-30%
Lill
1,111
Slopes: 30 - 40% *
55584
55584
Slopes: > 40% *
65000
65000
Lot Area for
density
255150
355895
Lot Area for FAR
261651
26,651
* estimated by planning staff
The PUD designation considers site slopes for the purpose of calculating both density and
FAR while slopes on non-PUD parcels only reduce FAR. The density reduction of the
PUD provisions prohibits this parcel from being subdivided into two parcels without
rezoning to a higher density zone district or removing the PUD designation. Development
of a single family home or a duplex does not require adoption of a PUD plan.
Development Scenarios:
R15-A-PUD: The lot can not be split into two parcels. The single-family house can be
redeveloped with approximately 5,200 square feet of FAR or with a duplex of
approximately 5,620 square feet of FAR provided that one unit of the duplex is deed
restricted to affordable housing. This second unit can be an RO unit.
R15-A: The developer retains the above development options with the same FAR (FAR
is reduced for slope regardless of the PUD overlay.) In addition, the developer can split
the lot and develop two houses (each with an ADU) of approximately 4,675 square feet
of FAR, or develop one house with an ADU of 4,150 and one duplex of 5,220 square feet
of FAR. The duplex is required to contain one affordable housing unit deed restricted to
the Housing Authority's Guidelines. A duplex with one side deed restricted to RO
provides an exemption from GMQS.
from Hi Klan Counc' man Be rendt asked if here wer
theicilman
servic� to ghlands. ngel said ghlands fN
Co Be1�� i ask>Fe
f e city we d d'scontin
rthe ski a son. el sa d h would 1" e ke
to Highland
otia4-: -.-
�t '
they c
he da�st
th.el se
Counci an Behrendt 'd he had'talke to t ski xfp and as, ur
ru g buses to ighla ds ring the season time beca e
se viceKiieSki
ouncilma ehrendt po' d out is uld b om
the i because h are pu ing t lot of o y for
stem to Co,r area Fe Re sai hey had no ut a sk
to High n nor d they us a small us the i co p r
said at is of he issue; too cilm Behren s d peopl ill
sk' at Highla and Highl nds i t putting money i the
C rp is. J' ntzel, ghland oncurred er may dupl'ca•
Hi hlands s run ing buses d th skie shoul r' e the Hi
he 1 strongly out a c' y bus in night ti Counci a
ther are skier in tow going to As mountai that rid city 1
do n pay or the ' -town buse . Ma r E sugges the c'
a d disc this p i ular pro em. Fen agreed t y would i
service o Highl ds an com ack in 0 o r. In ie meant' e I
the s corp.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1980 - Celia Marolt Annexation
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11
(Series of 1980 )
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISIiED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF
1965 was read by the city clerk
Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the or
-�. planning office recommendation was to zone it R-15A. There was some concern that
5A without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elim
ng possible employee units on the site. R-15A as a single lot, a duplex would be
permitted with the second unit deed restricted; however, on a 36,000 square foot parc
the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to creat
two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event
lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which i
being annexed, is recommended R-15A mandatory PUD, and the mandatory PUD designation
should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduction formul
this formula recognizes that steeply sloped'sites are less developable and should.hav
less density potential. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20,000
feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office feels the PUD designa
should be added.
Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there might be a bandit unit in the bu
ing at this time and asked if staff had checked this out. Wells answered this has no
been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the
applicant, told Council this has never been used as a duplex; it is not set up like t
Wells told Council the PUD designation has been applied to the adjacent site for the
reasons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Counci
the P & Z had recommended R-15A with restriction against subdivision of the lot, so tP
the effect is basically the same. Oates said the applicant felt there were some advar
of coming into the city at the R-15 designation. Their zoning request was R-15A withc
the PUD. P & Z recommended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that
there was not a lot split. Oates said he would like to have the right to come back an
go through the subdivision process; however, he agreed not to avail Ordinance #3, whic
automatic lot split. Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unanne
if the city does not get the benefit of the employee unit. .
City Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a zone s
thing which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the zone.
restrict R-15A would be subject to challenge. Stock recommended R-15A/PUD. Councilma
Isaac said he felt the Council should go with planning office and attorneys recomnienda
;cilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1980, as amended with PUD add
Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins
nay; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion
carried.
U... 09 DE
488 CASTLE CREEK
26.28.060 Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district is to
provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational
and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district are
similarly situated to those in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district and are
lands annexed from Pitkin County from zone districts in which duplexes are a prohibited use.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15A) zone district.
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex, provided fifty (50) percent of the duplex units are restricted to affordable
housing;
3. Farm buildings and use, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at
least 100 feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots;
4. Home occupations;
5. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. For properties which contain a historic landmark: two detached residential dwellings on a
lot within a minimum lot size of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established
in Chapter 26.60.
1. Open use recreation site;
2. Public and private academic school;
3. Church;
4. Group home;
5. Day care center;
6. Museum; and
7. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 15,000. For lots created by section 28.66.030(A)(5) of
this Code, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Detached residential dwelling: 15,000
Duplex: A duplex may be developed on a lot of 15,000 square feet that was subdivided as
of April 28, 1975. Otherwise the duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area
of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit, unless the property contains a historic
landmark, in which case two detached residential dwellings may be developed with a
minimum of 6,500 square feet per unit.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 75. For lots created by section 26.88.030(A)(5) of this Code,
Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30.
4. A minimum front yard (feet):
Residential dwelling: 25
Accessory buildings and all other buildings: 30
5. Minimum side yard (feet): 10
6. Minimum rear yard (feet):
All buildings except residential dwellings and accessory buildings: 20
Residential dwellings: 10
Accessory buildings: 5
7. Maximum height (feet): 25
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): 10
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet*
Dwellings (Square Feet)
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot area, up to a maximum of
2,400 square feet of floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet
of floor area.
900--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet
of floor area.
15,000--50,000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet
of floor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area.
Lot Size Duplex (Square Feet) Allowable Square Feet
0--3,000 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
maximum of 2,700 square feet of floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet
of floor area. .
9,000--15,000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet
of floor area.
15,000--50,000 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet
of floor area.
50,000+ 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area.
11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided
for each use in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 26.32.
1. For single-family and duplex residential use and multi -family use: two (2)
spaces/dwelling unit. Fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to
Chapter 25.64 for historic landmarks only, and fewer spaces may be provided pursuant to
Chapter 26.60 for accessory dwelling units only. One (1) space/dwelling unit is required
if the unit is either a studio or one -bedroom unit.
2. Lodge uses: N/A
3. All other uses: Requires special review pursuant to Chapter 26.64.
�C ►.) i�c312—��TT� � Z91�1 � N�
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin
SS.
State of Colorado
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I ::EF being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the day of -:IU ►V 199 Q�l (which is l5days prior to the public
hearing date of1aArL(M_)
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ,day
of �y K) L , 199 , to the day of I� L� , 199 `1 . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
Signed before me this \c�' day of
199 CA . by
1� a.r, G r,
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: � \ - a -A -- 20 d
Notary Public
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 6,
1999, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, to consider an application submitted
by Paul Anderson, 309 M AABC, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting rezoning of the property
from R-15A PUD to R-15A. The property is legally described as a tract of land located
in Sections 12 and 13, TS 1 OS, R85W of the 6tn PM. For further information, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena
St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 19, 1999.
City of Aspen Account
ANDERSEN PAUL EGON
309 AABC UNIT M
ASPEN CO
WACHS EDWARD H JR
PO BOX 405
ASPEN CO 81612
Mountain Oaks Employee Housing
Aspen Valley Hospital
200 Castle Creek Rd.
Aspen CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY
130 S GALENA ST 530 E MAIN ST STE 302
ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611
Castle Ridge Assoc. Ltd,
C/O Hill Management Co.
10449 St Charles Rock Rd. Ste 509
St. Louis MO 63074
APPLICANT: Paul Anderson
LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road
ACTION: Rezoning
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Mittel Europa Conditional Use - Public Hearing
516 East Bleeker Street
DATE: July 6, 1999
SUMMARY:
Corene McGovern of Mittel Europa, representing BCS Properties, owner, has
applied for a conditional use approval for a consignment retail establishment and
sales of consumer goods (primarily furniture) with more than 25% of the floor
area devoted to retail sales at 516 East Bleeker Street, located in the
Service/Commercial/Retail (SCI) Zone District. The business also will include
several uses which are permitted in the SCI district including fabric and sewing
supply, repair and alteration of furniture, some basic manufacturing, production of
handmade artistic carvings, and some warehousing and storage.
The SCI Zone District recently underwent a lengthy review to determine the
appropriate permitted and conditional uses, level of retail and customer service
area, affordable housing densities, dimensional requirements, and parking.
Several uses were determined to be appropriate with no review, even with 100%
of the floor area devoted to retail and customer service use. Other uses were
determined to be conditional uses based on their potential impacts. As a general
rule, more than 25% of the floor area for retail and customer service space
requires a conditional use for any uses not specifically
As the first application to be reviewed under this new zoning, this application
proposes several uses, including uses which are permitted, conditional, and which
may contain varying amounts of retail and customer service area. The business
will contain second hand consignment, furniture repair and upholstering, sales of
reconditioned antique furniture, fabric sales, manufacturing of pillows, curtains,
and other interior decoration items, sales of those interior decoration items, and
some warehousing and storage areas incidental to the shop. The repairs,
upholstering, etc. are proposed on -site in approximately half of the space while
the other approximately 50% of the store will be accessible to customers and
function as a showroom and retail area.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant. The previous uses were a paint store and an electric repair shop.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Furniture repair, upholstery, and sales, consignment sales, sales of fabric and
upholstery items, manufacturing of interior decorating items, and storage.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission has not previously considered this
application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Conditional Use. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the
Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a conditional use
application at a public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The SCI Zone District provision recently underwent a re -write. The final
Ordinance for this zone district is attached.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and staff findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments are included as Exhibit `B." SCI Zone District provisions are
attached as Exhibit "C." Letters received by the Planning Department have been
included as Exhibit "D." The application is attached as Exhibit "E."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Conditional
Use for Mittel Europa with the following conditions:
1. The store operator shall maintain the loading area free and clear of obstructions. No
parking shall be allowed in this loading area.
2. Prior to issuance of a business license, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Housing Office that the proposed use does not generate more
employees than the previous businesses.
3. Any expansion or other significant change in the operation of this use will be subject
to all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code which may include conditional
use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page
recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who
will record the resolution.
3
EXHIBIT A
STAFF COMMENTS
Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to all Conditional Uses
(A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of
the zone district in which it is proposed to be located.
Staff Finding:
The SCI Zone District was recently subject to a complete review. This process
recognized the appropriateness of a limited amount of retail and customer service area for
any type of use and larger percentages for specific uses, based on their typical operational
characteristics. In addition, certain uses were included as conditional uses in order for
here to be a review to determine the appropriateness of the use on an individual basis.
The repair of furniture, making of artistic wood carvings, and the sale of fabric and
upholstery supplies are permitted uses in this zone district. The fabric sales use can have
an unlimited percentage of space for retail use. The furniture repair use may have up to
25% of the space devoted to retail activity. The rationale behind the larger retail
allowance for a fabric shop discussed during the re -write of the zoning was that the
operational characteristics of a fabric shop are that customers generally have access to the
entire store, similar to a hardware store.
The two conditional uses proposed are the consignment retail of second-hand furniture
and the increase to approximately 50% for retail and showroom area. The proposed store
operator is expecting to primarily sell furniture on consignment. This is a use allowed an
unlimited amount of customer service area if approved as a conditional use. The store
operator does expect to also sell furniture outright (not on consignment).
The differing percentages of retail and showroom space depending upon use is confusing
at best. The range of uses proposed can all have this baseline 25% for retail space. The
fabrics sales and consignment retail may have up to 100%. Staff believes it to be
important to establish the percentage of retail and showroom space for this business as a
total in the conditional use review.
The stated purpose of the SCI Zone District is as follows:
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district is to allow for the
use of land for the preservation or development of limited commercial and industrial uses
which: may not be appropriate in other zone districts; do not require or generate high
customer traffic volumes; are primarily oriented to the manufacturing, repair, storage,
and servicing of consumer goods and have a limited office, showroom, retail, or
customer reception area; and, to permit artist's studios as well as customary accessory
uses, including affordable residential dwelling units accessory to permitted uses.
Staff Finding:
Staff requested the applicant provide the Housing Authority with the employment
generation figures based on the previous use and the proposed use. The former
uses for this space were Main Street Printing and Summit Paint. According to the
land owner, BCS Properties, those two businesses employed approximately seven
people full time. The applicant has indicated her store will employ approximately
3 full time employees.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the conditional use does not unduly
burden the community in terms of employment generation. Staff s understanding
of this proposed use is that it is not expected to employ more people than the
previous use. Staffs general understanding, however, should be viewed
secondary to the recommendation of the Housing Office. Their expertise in
employment generation is more precise than the Planning Department's.
Moreover, the Housing Office has requested additional information from the
applicant to document the previous and proposed employment generation figures.
The applicant is continuing to work with the Housing Office in documenting the
previous employment generation figures. At the time this memorandum was
completed, a follow-up response from the housing Office had not been provided.
If staff receives a recommendation from the Housing Office regarding this
standards, it will be presented during the hearing to provide the Commission with
adequate information to rule of this standard. If a Housing Office
recommendation is not received and cannot be presented by staff, staff
recommends the hearing be tabled until the Commission has the information
necessary to make a finding on this criteria.
(F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it
by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of
this title.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes this proposed conditional use is consistent with the AACP. The
Commercial Section of this document encourages the preservation and expansion of the
S/C/I Zone District as a place for local serving businesses. Encouraging the inclusion of
local service and light industrial businesses is a goal of the greater community, as
identified in the AACP, and one in which the discussion during the SCI code
amendments encompassed. These types of light industrial and service uses that benefit
the community reduce the necessity to drive downvalley for similar services.
During the review of the SCI District, the retail component of the zoning was specifically
incorporated to provide businesses with an appropriate level of retail use to accommodate
their business. As a permitted use, any business can have up to 25% of it's floor area, in
combination, devoted to retail sales, office, showroom, or customer service. This
provision assumes that the types of businesses intended for the zone customarily address
the customer, have an office, and sell items as an accessory use. The conclusions in the
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM �
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer
Date: June 18, 1999
Re: Mittel Europa Conditional Use
General - (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is
accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward
exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt
complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any
encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject
to current encroachment license requirements.
1. Trash & Utilities — Trash containers must be stored on private property and not in the public
right-of-way. Any new utility meters, pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's
property and not in the public right-of-way. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and
may not be obstructed by trash storage.
2. Parking — There appears to be sufficient on -site parking for the use.
3. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks
department (920-5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and
streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping; within public rights -
of -way from the city community development department.
99M85
r
ORDINANCE NO.2
(SERIES OF 1999) 70m VIP
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
TO AMEND SECTION 26.28.160, THE SERVICE/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
(S/C/I) ZONE DISTRICT, AND SECTION 26.04.100, DEFINITIONS, OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns about current and
potential future land uses in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) Zone District which may
be in conflict with the spirit and intent of the zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department (staff) realized there could
potentially be several business and land owners affected by enforcement measures and suggested
a thorough review of the S/C/I Zone District by the Commission be done first to allow City
Council the opportunity to confirm or amend the zoning before considering the most appropriate
enforcement procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated an amendment to the text of
Title 26 of the Municipal Code, pursuant to Section 26.92, and staff brought forward to the
Commission an analysis of the S/C/I Zone district and suggested modifications to said zoning;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City
Council at a public hearing after recommendations from the Planning Director and the Planning
and Zoning Commission are considered; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a work session on the topic
October 21, 1997, opened a duly noticed public hearing on November 18, 1997, continued to
January 6, 1998, continued to January 20, 1998, continued to February 17, 1998, continued to
March 10, 1998, and then continued to March 31, 1998, to consider the existing zoning
requirements for the S/C/I Zone District along with the recommended amendments brought
forward by staff; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, during the public hearing,
considered the overall importance of the S/C/l Zone District's function within a traditional town
setting and within the entire inventory of zoning classifications in Aspen, considered actual land
uses within the zone district, evaluated the intent of the zone district through the "purpose"
statement, amended said "purpose" statement to clarify and reflect the goals of the zone district,
evaluated the permitted and conditional uses and dimensional requirements of the zone district,
amended said uses and dimensional requirements of the zone district to support the "purpose"
statement, and finally reviewed the proposed S/C/I Zone District amendments in summation
before making a recommendation to the Council; and,
Ordinance No. 2, Series 1999
Page 1
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district. Except as noted below, each of the
permitted uses may have, in combination, no more than 25% of its floor area devoted to retail
sales, office, showroom, or customer reception. This floor area percentage may be increased
through conditional use review by the Commission.
l . Building materials, components, and equipment, fabrication, sales, rental, repair, and
servicing with up to 100% of the floor area devoted to office, showroom, retail, or
customer reception use.
2. Automobile and motorcycle repair, servicing, and detailing.
3. Automobile and motorcycle parts sales with up to 100% of the floor area devoted to
office, showroom, retail, or customer reception use.
4. Fabric and sewing supply with up to 100% of the floor area devoted to office, showroom,
retail, or customer reception use.
5. Manufacturing, repair, alteration, tailoring, and servicing of consumer goods such as
household appliances, electronic equipment, furniture, clothing, or sporting goods.
6. Building maintenance facility.
.7. Typesetting and printing.
8. Commercial kitchen.
9. Design Studio.
10. Artist's Studio.
11. Rehearsal or teaching studio for the creative, performing, arid/or martial arts with no
public performances.
12. Locksmith.
13. Post office.
14. Animal grooming establishment.
e 15. Warehousing and storage.
16. Service yard accessory to a permitted use.
17. Home occupations.
18. Accessory buildings and uses.
19. Other similar uses considered appropriate as a permitted use by the Community
Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.112 Interpretations, as amended.
20. Any use established prior to adoption of Ordinance 2, Series 1999, subject to the non-
conforming use provisions of Section 26.104, as amended.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Service/Commercial/ Industrial (S/C/I) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures
established in Chapter 26.60. Except as noted below, each of the conditional uses may have, in
combination, no more than 25% of its floor area devoted to retail sales, office, showroom, or
customer reception unless otherwise approved by the Commission.
1. Gas station.
2. Automobile and motorcycle sales, rental, or washing facility.
3. Sales and rental of consumer goods such as household appliances, electronic equipment,
furniture, clothing, or sporting goods.
Ordinance No. 2, Series 1999
Page 3
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be
provided for each use in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 26.32.
1. Residential uses: Two (2) spaces/dwelling unit. One (1) space/dwelling unit is required if
the unit is either a studio or one -bedroom unit. Fewer spaces may be provided pursuant
to Chapter 26.60, Conditional Use Review.
2. All other uses: 1.5 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area unless otherwise
established through Special Review pursuant to Chapter 25.64.
Section 2:
Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which section contains definitions of terms used
in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, is hereby amended by the addition of the following terms and
their definitions:
Design Studio: A workshop primarily devoted to the design or representation of built
form, landscapes, consumer products, or graphic arts.
Consignment Retail Establishment: A retail establishment in which the operator sells
second-hand goods as a third party agent between the buyer and seller.
Animal Boarding Facility: An establishment which houses animals overnight or over an
extended period of time.
Animal Grooming Establishment: An establishment principally engaged in grooming
animals in which overnight boarding is prohibited.
Veterinary Clinic: A facility maintained by or for the use of a licensed veterinarian in
the care and treatment of animals wherein overnight care is prohibited except when
necessary for medical purposes.
Recycling Center: A building or facility used for the collection and preparation of
recyclable material for efficient shipment.
Brewery: A facility for the production and packaging of alcoholic malt beverages for
distribution which does not generally receive the public or engage in retail sales.
Coffee Roasting Facility: A facility for the processing and packaging of coffee beans for
distribution which does not generally receive the public or engage in retail sales.
Commercial Kitchen: A commercial establishment producing or wholesaling prepared
food items in which retail dispensing is prohibited.
Ordinance No. 2, Series 1999
Page 5
d) Design Studios are permitted but the use may not exceed 9,090 total square footage
within the SCI Zone District. Architectural Offices shall not be considered "Artist
Studios."
Attached as Attachment A of this Ordinance is a summary of the land uses in existence on
the adoption date of this Ordinance.
Section 6:
The Community Development Director is hereby directed to provide each property owner in the
S/C/I Zone District with a copy of this Ordinance.
The Community Development Director is hereby directed to provide a yearly analysis on the
annual anniversary of the adoption of this Ordinance, of the SCI Zone District to the Planing and
Zoning Commission and the City Council as an information item for a period of three years, or as
otherwise extended by the City Council.
Section 7:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this
Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 8:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 9:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 10:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of March, 1999 at 5:00 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
Ordinance No. 2, Series 1999
Page 7
t; - V t L-- D
GRACY* S
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
June 30, 1999
Mr. Chris Bendon .
c/o City Planning and Zoning
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Chris,
Following up on our conversation of this afternoon, I would like to voice my objections
to the proposed grant of a conditional use at the building located at 516 East Bleeker. I
believe quite strongly that the proposed use as a retail consignment store be denied for
the following reasons:
(1) Lack of Parking: This area is already one of the most congested areas of
town; I have children in the karate classes there and have not — in two years — found a
legal parking spot available within 100 feet of the door!. In fact, the space previously
occupied by the paint store is empty, yet at 2:30 p.m. this afternoon all of the parking
spaces in that lot were full and people had parked illegally - as usual - in the recycling
area. As a consignment store owner, I can tell you that we create a steady stream of
people bringing in things to consign, which means (i) they need to park as close as
possible to the store, because they are carrying heavy object (especially furniture ! ), and
(ii) they are only parking for 5 minutes. As a result, they will not pay and park at the
town parking garage, but will create a mess of double and illegal parking in the area.
(2) Safety: As a result of (1) above, an area that is already very unsafe (the Building is
surrounded by blind curves, hills, and a single lane road), will become the most
dangerous area of town. Add to the mix an enormous number of children because of the
Karate Studio and the Youth Center, and I believe you invite tragic accidents.
(3) Zoning: I was forced to move my consignment store - Gracy*s — out of a
relatively inexpensive area (Main Street) into the more expensive commercial core,
because of the City's zoning policies. I will consider it very unfair if someone else is
permitted to avoid the expensive consequences of operating a retail store outside of the
commercial core. This would certainly be contrary to the spirit of the City's commercial
core zoning, if not strictly the letter of such laws.
(4) Fairness: As a direct result of its increasingly restrictive zoning and building
regulations, the City has confined retail operations to a very small "commercial core"
area of the City. Although these policies have created many good things for the City, a
decidedly bad result has been the spiraling cost to rent space in the commercial core, and
the consequent "driving out" of local stores. Gracy*s has been in town since 1979 — one
Jul 01 99 07:30a JAY ABRAHAMOWICH 970-927-0861 p.2
J U L 0 1 1999
Mr. Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Chris,
iu3y 01, 1999
Please insert this letter in the agenda for the upcoming planning and zoning meeting
scheduled for July 6, 1.999. Also, please provide a copy for each commissioner.
We are wrung to protest a proposed conditional use permit for a proposed retail business
located "AAW the core business district. The space in question is located at Sl 6 East
Bleeper. tt is currently mimed SCI, As you are well aware, zo-ning laws are in. place for
specific and well-defined objectives. As fiunily-run business owners, the existing zoning
laws were instrumental in our decision to locate our business in the core business district.
The retail spaces wee clearly defined. Basically, the existing zoning laws determined the
rent which our landlords charge. If you allow this permit, our business as well as every
other care business, will be competing with a non -core business paynig
SUTBSTANT AILLY ($48/R vs $19/ft sprox.) lower rent but existing as 8 retail space!
We call that, the ultimate unlevel playing field!
601 c gv-rnu, , cam' ��Fn, Cato,,aefo S16n -, 970-544-3369 ° � lox: q7o-q?%-096
Jul 01 99 07»30a JAY ABRAHAMOWICH 970-927-0861 p.4
Remember, the city initiative, which took one (1) year of hard work to complete, zoned
this very property SCI just six (6) months ago This very commission was park of that
initiative. You wrote the laws that you are now, Just six (6) months after writing them,
about to ignore! 'I urge you to respect the efforts and findings of the city initiative. While
a limp to conditional permit seems mint 1, it is not! The changes have far-reaching
effects. Please do not change the zoning landscape. I urge you to enforce the very zoning
laws you wrote and deny the proposed change_
Sincerely,
J
Kimberly & Jay rah vich
Chvners
Olde Towne Antiques, Inc.
,Apr-16-99 09:4SA Bass & Co.
LAND USE APPLICATION
P.06
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
C
Name: /^
/V/
Ad
dress: �0•
Phone #:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Conditional
Use
[]
Conceptual PUD
Q
Special Review
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
De:;ign Review Appeal
Conceptual SPA
Q
GMQS Allotment
[]
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
GMQS Exemption
[]
Subdivision
ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
[]
Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane
Lot Split
Temporary Use
(-1
Lot Line Adjustment
Text/Map Amendment
Conceptual Historic Devt.
[]
Final Historic Development
[�
Minor Historic Devt.
[]
Historic Demolition
(�
Historic Designation
[�
Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Other:
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
Ji
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
PZ15,172
attached the following?
FEES DUE: S f �OCI
7Ha a you 9
Pre -Application Conference Summary
Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment 42, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
[Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 95, Review Standards for Your Application
April6-99 09:45A Bass & Co.
P.07
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: /v/lf tc JC: 9C0-9 a. GON
Applicant:
& R�9L Als", t �-J --
Location: / �''
Zone District: / d-
Lot Size: , , �9 Ir salyze"l "
Lot Area: 14 . , 3 ��- C.
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reducea for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the -Municipal Code.)
g96 D S/'
Commercial net leasable: Existin tS,- osed:
!��� P
Number of residential units: Existing: A11,4 Proposed.'
Number of bedrooms:
Existing: _Proposed. A-IM
Proposed % of demolition
(Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area:
Existing: Z SFAlloivable: Proposed:
Principal bldg. . height:
p g
Existing: Allotiti�able:�G�Propvsed: .�
Access. . bldg height: 7ht:
Existing: Allowable. 12roposed.-70
On -Site parking:
Existing: Required.-_ 3 Proposed:
% Site coverage:
Existing: Required. Proposed.
% Open Space:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
XlS�O�
Rear Setback:
Existing. Required Proposed:
�GC//�//�
Combined F/R:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback:
Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides:
Existing Required: Proposed:
Existing non -conformities or encroachments: 0
Variations requested:
f�v6trra/�u°ass Sa�s �DroXimaf%/ /T��ijin S��eS 0 �OQO
6t
a the ra�oe-17 ifsc/f- fof�cT/�� 3 s a e Cs .
,SSG ST Bt EE f- S 7- EE-7-
Asp'en Street Map
Map 0 US Wes- p7, !n7 13�
.dun-06-99 11;31A Bass &
P.01
a
V —
%-Z,l
HOWARD BASS
p() BOX 5073
PASDEN, CO 3161; 1999
9110 - 9 2 0 -22 oly 7
970-920-4787-FAX
TO. C-b'Qr/1e
COMPANY:
Z'kLL-6PHONE:
FAX,_;/,,-"
DATE. --
PAGES INCLUDTNIG COVER,
MESSAGE: *AI S r s � �ov,� �i �Q�kr�L�—
�i4
7 4
L4P SLc out r
r�-��r1, %i e C4je
- M.EAl�lll rn�mp-�-A
Wr,
vt W a CO
�,�1P off' �r�
f � C. OAJ
f4 I �E
)Vece,55
3
%% r
• ,.
j; Mar-31-99 03:57P Bass & Co.
Ul
rn
11 .
I
Response Regarding:
"Notes: Application is a conditional use, which includes an evaluation of the net
employee generation impacts. The application should include an analysis of the
prior use's employees and the proposed use employee generation."
The prior tenants and their employees consisted of Main Street Printing with four
employees and Summit Paint with three employees. The net employee generation
impact would be a total of seven people. I plan on employing a total of three. people
including the upholsterer, a part-time assistant and myself.
Response Regarding:
1.) "A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or
model form of how the proposed development complies with the review
standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed."
2.) Attachment 5/Review Standards: Development of Conditional Use
A. "The conditional use is consistent with the purpose, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the
Zone District in which it is proposed to be located."
Response:
Mittel Europa will be a consignment, antique and second-hand furniture shop -
where we specialize in refurbishing and reupholstering furniture in addition to
selling fabrics. The location 516 East Bleeker Street consists of two distinct 1500
square foot areas. We would like to have the back half of the building as our
workshop for refurbishing and upholstering furniture, in addition to malting
pillows, curtains and other decorating accessories. We would also like to use this
space for our warehouse and storage. In the front section, we would like to sell and
display the furniture and fabrics.
516 East Bleeker is in the ServicelCommerciaMdustrial Zone District. We believe
that Mittel EuropaIsconcept is not in conflict with the spirit and intent of the zone
district. We do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes. We expect to
be a locals destination -type business rather than relying on tourist generated walk -
by sales. We have three employees while the former tenants Summit Paint and Main
Street Printing had a total of seven employees.
Under Section 1 B. Permitted uses of the Aspen S/C/1 Zone District, we comply with:
4.) Fabric and sewing supply with up to 100% of the floor area devoted to office,
show room, retail, or customer reception use.
5.) Manufacturing, repair alteration, tailoring, and servicing of consumer goods
such as household appliances, electronic equipment, furniture, clothing, or sporting
goods.
15.) Warehousing and storage
Under Section 1 C. Conditional Uses:
3.) Sales and rental of consumer goods such as household appliances, electronic
equipment, furniture, clothing or sporting goods.
4.) Consignment retail establishment for the second-hand sale of consumer goods
such as household appliances, electronic equipment, furniture, clothing, or sporting
goods with up to 100% of the floor area devoted to showroom, retail, reception area.
15.) A permitted or conditional use which demonstrates the need for, and
appropriateness of, having, in combination, more than 25% of the floor area
devoted to retail sale, office, showroom, or customer reception.
Response Regarding;
Attachment 5/Review Standards: Development of Conditional Use
B. "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
Response:
There are four businesses in the building located at 516 East Bleeker Street. Aspen
Branch is a florist. Aspen Paint is a painting contractor's office. Aspen Electric is
an electrical contractor's office. Coates, Reid and Waldron have their property
management offices and storage facility there. We believe that the shop will be
compatible with the home improvement orientated services that these businesses are
providing working with architects, contractors, designers and decorators.
Response Regarding:
Attachment 5IReview Standards: Development of Conditional Use
C. "The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on
pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
Response:
516 East Bleeker Street is approximately 3000 square feet designed to have half the
space used as a workshop for reupholstering and refurbishing furniture acquired
through selective consignment in Aspen, surrounding areas and Central Europe.
There will be only three employees producing a minimum amount of trash, noise,
vibrations and odor on the surrounding properties. We will be picking up and
delivering items in a small truck during business hours once a week. We do not
expect more than twice a year a delivery from a large cargo truck of fabrics, leather,
suede and furniture which would unload into our warehouse taking less than one
hour to accomplish. There are thirty-four parking spaces on the property so we do
not expect any parking problems. The owners of the building are installing curbs
incase of pedestrian traffic, but we are not located in the wanting downtown area
where traffic is considerably more heavy. I do not think that there will be any
adverse visual impact and we intend to repaint and improve the building.
Response Regarding:
Attachment 5/Review Standards: Development of Conditional Use
D. "There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police,
fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage
systems and schools." ,
Response: r
There are adequate public facilities and services as this is an existing building.
Response Regarding:
Attachment 5lReview Standards: Development of Conditional Use
E. "The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental
need for increased employees generated by the conditional use."
Response:
516 East Bleeker Street is an existing building which consisted of the prior tenants
Main Street Printing with four employees and Summit Paint with three employees.
We employ a total of three people including the upholsterer, a part-time assistant
and myself.
Response Regarding:
Attachment 5/Review Standards: Development of Conditional Use
F. "The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on
it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements
of this chapter.
a
Response:
It is my understanding from my pre -application conference with Chris that this
building permit was an intended use in the re -write of the ordinances of the S/CII
Zone District.
May-25-99 O4:02P Bass & Co. P.
BCS PROPERTIES, LLP
PO BOX 5078
ASPEN, CO 81612
0
May 2 5, 1999
Telephone 970-920-2277
Fax 970-9204787
I hereby authorize Corene A. McGovern, 322 Park Avenue, #2, Aspen,
Colorado 81611, to apply as the applicant to use approximately 31,000 sq. ft.
at 530 East Bleeker Street for consignment retail,
BCS Properties, LLP
By:
Howar"ass, ging Partner
Po�c��9%Go�u-r��s fe�rf��c�(Y7o)�533-S000
Apr716-99 09:42A Bass & CO_
P-03
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 4.2.99
PROJECT: *Bass/CahnA
C
REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:' Conditional Use
DESCRIPTION: consignment retail (mostly furniture)
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.28.160 SCI Zone [district as Amended by Ordinance 2, Series of 1999
26.60 Conditional Uses
Review by: Staff, referral agencies, Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing: Yes, P&Z. Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at
least 15 days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal
government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency owns
property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application .
Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with u affldm,it at the public hearing.
Referral Agencies: Engineering, Housing, hire Marshall.
Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor ($1 110)
Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($160); Housing, Minor ($160)
Total Deposit: $1,430 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $185thour)
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Proof of ownership.
2. Signed fee agreement.
3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant (owner .
4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application,
5. Total deposit for review of the application
6. 15 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 2
7. An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements
and vacated rights of way, ofthe parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
(This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project
is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
9. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific
submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above.
Apr-16-99 09:44A Bass & Co. P.O4
10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed.
11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing.
Notes: Application is a conditional use which includes an evaluation of the net employee generation impacts. The
application should include an analysis of the prior use's employees and the proposed use employee generation.
Disclaimer:
nl
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature oy and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.
May-25-99 04:OOP Bass & Co.
P.02
un F i vilm
This Deed of Trust is given as of the 1 st day of November, 1994 by BC S Properties, a
Colorado General Partnership whose address is P.O. Box 5078, Aspen, Colorado 81012
("Grantor") to the PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ("Trustee") for the
benefit of: Park Avenue Investors (47.34%); David M. Sweetwood (12,54%); Julie L.
Sweetwood Trust (6,2701/0); Harris A. Cahn (7.52%); Harris Silver, Trustee for Nicole Silver
(3,76010); Harris Silver, Trustee for Alexis Silver (3,76%); Ida Bass (6,27%), Howard Bass,
Trustee FBO Raifiel Bass (6.27%); Rose Mallen (3.45%); and Herman Mallen (2.82%) whose
address is c/o Howard Bass, P.O. Box 5078, Aspen, Colorado 81612 ("Beneficiary").
WITNE SSETH
THAT WHEREAS, the Grantor has executed its Promissory Note of even date herewith,
for the principal sum of Seven Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and no cents
($767,600,00) dollars payable to the order of the Beneficiary.
AND WHEREAS, Grantor is desirous to securing repayment of said Promissory Note;
NOW THEREFORE, Grantor for the purposes aforesaid does hereby grant, sell, and quit
claim unto the said Trustee the following described property, situated in the County of Pitkin and
State of Colorado, to wit:
Sgg Exln'bit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same together with all privileges and appurtenances
thereunto belonging in trust nevertheless, that in case of default in the payment of the Promissory
Note then upon the Beneficiary hereunder filing notice and demand, it shall be lawful for said
Trustee to sell said property in the manner provided bylaw for cash at public auction at the South
front door of the Court House in the County of Pitkin in the State of Colorado, upon advertising
notice of sale weekly, for not less than four weeks, in some newspaper of general circulation, and
after the expiration of the time of redemption, to make and deliver to the purchaser or purchasers
or his, her or their assigns, a deed or deeds of conveyance to the property sold, and out of the
proceeds of such sale, after first paying and retaining afl fees, charges and costs, and all money
advanced for taxes, insurance and assessments, or on any prior encumbrance, with interest
thereon, to pay the principal and interest due on said Promissory note, rendering the overpius (if
any) unto the said Grantors, its legal representatives or assigns and at such sale, the said
Beneficiary may purchase said property or any part thereof. The Beneficiary shall be entitled to
bring any legal or equitable actions or proceedings to recover this security if the debt is not paid in
accordance with the promissory Note and these actions may include foreclosure proceedings. In
May-25-99 04:OOP Bass & Co.
P.03
the event of foreclosure, Beneficiary hereof shall also be entitled to recover from the security its
reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Grantor covenants that it will keep all buildings insured with a company reasonably
approved by the Beneficiary for fire and extended coverage in an amount equal to the unpaid
balance of said Promissory Mote with loss payable to the Beneficiary, will deliver a copy of the
policy to the Beneficiary and wdl pay all taxes and assessments against 'said property when due. If
Grantor shall fail to pay said insurance premiums, taxes or assessments, Beneficiary may pay the
same and all such amounts shall become additional indebtedness secured hereunder. If all or any
part of the property is sold or transferred by Grantor without Beneficiary's prior written consent,
Beneficiary may, at Beneficiary's option, declare all the sums secured by this Reed of Trust to be
immediately due and payable,
IN WITNESS WBEREO , The Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and
year first above written.
B C S PROPERTIES, a Colorado
General Partnership
B '
Y'
How ass, g General Partner
ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO
DEED OF TR S'I'
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY Of PITKIN
The foregoing Deed of Trust was acknowledged before me this/1-lay of
1995 by Howard Bass, Managing General Partner of BCS Properties, a Colorado
—..- ,
Cev Partnership.
WMgESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
MY COMMON BORES: qtwy Public
May-25-99 04.01P Bass & Co.
P.04
EXHIBIT "A"
A tract or pare:l of land within the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 04 West -of the Sixth Principal
meridian, described as follows;
COssOn4ing at at point of Intersection with the North line of the
South half of the Southwest one -quarter and the Southweesturly line of
Eaet Aspen Toewnwlte, void point bearing South 19 04148" East a
distance of 1417.404 feet frog the Weet one -quarter corner of said
Section 7 and said point bearing South 43 1003e11 East a distance of
12.266 feet from Brass Cap Monument No. 38;
thence South 43 10134" Last and along the Southwesterly 11no.of the
East Aspen Townslts a distance of 816.884 Peet to Drags Cap Monument
theanct North 14 291261 East a distance of 73.829 feet to Brass Cep
monument M614"C-7"
thence South 8T 30134" East as distance of 88,957 toot to Brass Cip
Monument NSM "C-3"
thence Korth 84 20a2611 East -a dietanc* of 164.743 feet to Brass Cap
Monument MSM "C-4";
thence South 67 38134" Last a distance of 10,54 feet to Draw* Cap
Monument MSM "0-56" ;
and the Southwesterly corner or Quit Claim Deed No. C-5796, said
corner being the true point of the beginning;
thence South 67 38134f1 Seat and along the Southerly 11net of said
Qult Claim bead a distance of 88.623 feet;
thence south 67 20134" last and along said Southerly line: of Quit
Claim Deed No. C-a798 a distance of 36.98 feet to the Southeasterly
corner of said Quit Claim D&od;
thence North 16 38142" Last and along the Easterly line of said
Quit Clalma Deed a dletanes of 118.58 feet to the Northeasterly corner
of exld Quit Claim Deed, said Northeasterly corner bears North
7.3 21018" West a distance of 160.00 feet from MSM Braes Cap Monument
00-664; thence continuing along the aforasald course ra dlstance of
8.42 foot;
thence Morth 76 03118" Went a distance of 429.012 reset;
thence South 14 30142" Wert a distance, 94.346 feet to a point, said
bears North 57 38134" West a distance of 4.377 feet from the
southwesterly corner of said twit Claim Deed marked by Bratst Cap
Monument MSM 00-550;
thence South 67 39134" Feast a distance of 4.377 Port to the true point
of the beginning.
E.XCEPTiNQ 'THEREYROMe That portion de6cr2bed its Deeds 'to Sport
Obermeyer, Ltd., a Colorado Corporation and Klaua F. Obe*rmeyer recorded
June 16, 1970 in book 248 at page 971, and recorded July 10, 1970 in
boost 249 at Page 378.
`•��isit
4
May-25-99 04:02P Bass & Co.
r
•
�Kecorded at o'clock
Reception No,
WARRANTY DEED
I
THIS DEED, Made this 23rd day of (larch , )9 88 ,
between S. JAMES MARINO
I�
i
jof tree r�1 •
[aunt of State DfX7lt A11 f o rn i
y , grantoi(a and
B C S PROPERTIES, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
i whose legal address is C f 0 Howard Bass, P.O. Box 50781, Aspen
Colorado 81612
of the County of
Recorder.
, State of Colorado, grantee(s):
WITNESSETH, That the grantor(o, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10. 00) and other
good and valuable consideration----------------------------------------.aoa,t„«s,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, soli andcom+eyed, and by these presents do es grant,
bargain, sell, cony and confirm, unto the rantec(s),
8 convey. � their heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with lmprtriements,
if any, situate, tying and being in the County of Pi tki n , State of Colorado,
described as follows;
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
!l
i
alw known by street and number as:
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto beln ing, or in anywise appertaining, And
the reversion and
reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and till the mare, right, title. imerest, claim and demand whatsoever of the
! : grantor(s), either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and describers with the appurtenances, unto the grantee(s), their heirs and
assigns former. And the grantcx' * for h i m sct f h i S heirs and peru,nal rcprescntatives, do e S covenant, grant, bargain, and
agree to and with the grantee(s), the i theirs and assigns, that at the time of the annealing and delivery of these presenis, he is well
I ( seized of the premises above conveyed, ha 5 good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple. and
iha S good right, full power and authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and fort as aforesaid, and that the same are fret
and clear frurn all flamer and other grants, bargains, sales, liens. taxes, assessments, encumbrances, and restrictions of whatever kind or nature saever,
stoop EXCEPT FOR: taxes for the year 1988 payable in 1989; reservations as contained
' in United States Patent of record; SUBJECT TO: right of way as reserved in
United States Patent of record; right of way and easement as set forth in
! instrument recorded in Book 216 at Page 396; terms, conditions, obligations and
provisions of party Wall Agreement as contained in instrument recorded in Book
242 at Page 220; terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in *see bel(
The grantor(s) shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the Quiet and peaceable possession of the
gramee(s), their his heirs and assigns, against al) and every person or persons lawfully cla' g the whole or any part thc=f.
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the grantor IA ha S executed this dead o' the Ante set for
0111,U
i
I�
/'7
STATE OF COLORADO
County of P i t k i n
.— ,,.4..—f.A-1 I—f-- — ,i.;. 1)1"A M,.wn.1, M6
My a)rnrnistiaiun ezpires_ Witacaa my ha grid flciat uaL '
Notary t'ublre � .
* agreement recorded 1n Book 504 at Page 61; assignment of lease recorded in
Book 555 at Page 202.
•H in Denver, insect "City and", !'
No. M. Ro.345. WARRANTY DEED 1rar Pb"rgA1c Anard) Bradford Pwbhhinj, SUS W. 6th Ave., Gkosavd, Co b0214 —t393} 733.M s e�
a
Attachment 8
RECEIVED
JUN 1 5 1999
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT ;A� � r)FVF P�47NI-
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
being or representing an
Applicant to the Cit�ofdpen/,"personallyyhat I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the Zjday of ��"�/j/�' , 199_ (which is days prior to the public
hearing date of � j III ;1111/`
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the/day
of ��i� , 199 9, to the -, day of , 199�_. (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
z
I
Signature
Signed before me this I �%y of
199C1. by C0v--e-r1 e A, (V-L -' (0Ce-(_f-N
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:
Iv,-)tat-y ]Public
k�OTAhy;
a
MY COMMISSION EXEIpEs,
SEPTEMBER 20, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MITTEL EUROPA, 516 EAST BLEEKER STREET CONDITIONAL USE
REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 6,
1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 13O S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an
application submitted by Mittel Europa, 516 East Bleeker, Aspen, CO. The applicant is
requesting Conditional Use approval to locate a consignment retail establishment and
sales of new and antique furniture with more than 25% of the floor area dedicated to retail
space in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district. The property is located
516 East Bleeker Street, and is owned by BCS Properties, P.O. Box 5078, Aspen, CO
81,612. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/Robert Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission -
Published in the Aspen Times on June 19, 1999
City of Aspen Account
CITY OF ASPEN MORSE JAMES A TRUST 1/2 INT VAN DEUSEN EDWARD B & DIANA J
130 S GALENA ST 107 SINCLAIR FAM TRST
ASPEN, CO 81611 MUSKEGAN, MI 49441 VAN DEUSEN EDWARD & DIANA
JEAN/TRUSTEES
233 N SPRING ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
SMITH GAILEN B
PO BOX 241
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
OBERMEYER KLAUS
PO BOX 130
ASPEN, CO 81612
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
ASPEN, CO 81611
KENBERMA PROPERTY CORP
PASEQ ESTATE ROAD TOWN
TORTOLA
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS,
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
OBERMEYER KLAUS F
PO BOX 130
ASPEN, CO 81612
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN-, CO 81611
B C S PROPERTIES
BASS HOWARD - C/O
PO BOX 5078
ASPEN, CO 81612
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN ZUPANCIS LOUIS J 1/2
130 S GALENA ST ZUPANCIS LOUIS J QUAL PERS RES
ASPEN, CO 81611 TRUST 1/2
540 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES
700 E BLEEKER AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
HEYS DONALD R
HEYS MARIE L
2495 ADARE
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
MURPHY GEORGE W
PO BOX 4146
ASPEN, CO 81612
OBERMEYER KLAUS
PO BOX 7848
ASPEN, CO 81612
FOSTER MART14A LEE LIVING TRUST
5000 COAKLEY BAY #N2
CHRISTIANSTED, VI
DORAN RALPH
2600 WOODWARD WAY
ATLANTA, GA 30305
";UTCHIN GENE P SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J
MIDWAY RD 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN 801 JOY ST
..ALAS, TX 75244 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 RED OAK, IA 51566
ARNOLD RICHARD S AND KATHRYN
MAESTRANZI BART
LAMB DON Q JR
J
1101 N WESTERN
GILKERSON LINDA
1405 OAK FOREST DR
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 5640 ELLIS
nR MOND BEACH, FL
AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60637
BAILEY MARCIA U
PRIOR SHARON M
BORCHERTS ROBERT H AND
FOSTER SEIPP GLENNA C
PO BOX 656
BORCHERTS HOLDE H
3215 TARRY HOLLOW DR
ASPEN, CO 81612
1555 WASHTENAW
AUSTIN, TX 78703
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
LESTER DAVID W KIDDER IRENE N TRUST M HOLLAND AND HARTA
PO BOX 513 3928 UNIVERSITY BLVD DAVIDSON J W ATTN
PO BOX 8749
ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75205 DENVER, CO 80201
HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K
SOMMER JOHN L
COPPOCK RICHARD P
3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL
11939 GORHAM AVE #208
PO BOX 44
HONOLULU, HI 96822
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
DEXTER, MI 48130
HENRICKS GRETCHEN AND
WAKEFIELD PATTI
HOLLAND AND ART
H
MICHELE
PO BOX 865049
DAVIDSON J W ATTN
HENRICKS WILLIAM AND DEBORAH
PO BOX 8749
PO BOX 9403
PLANO, TX 75086
DENVER, CO 80201
A 'QpEN, CO 81612
MARCHETTI JOSEPH A TRUSTEEMARCHETTI
FICKE CLARK
MANN KATHLEEN A
FAMILY REVOCABLE
15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3
PO BOX 2057
TRUST
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
ASPEN, CO 81612 .
1526 FOREST DRIVE
GLENVIEW, IL 60025
HOLLAND AND HART R & R COMPANY HOLLAND AND HART
DAVIDSON J W ATTN 653 26 1/2 RD DAVIDSON J W ATTN
PO BOX 8749 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 PO BOX 8749
DENVER, CO 80201 DENVER, CO 80201
KESSLER SEPP H HOLLAND AND HART RYERSON PHOEBE MASSEY
KESSLER JANE JT TENANTS DAVIDSON J W ATTN
600 E MAIN ST #210 PO BOX 8749 AS BOX 4
ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80201 ASPEN, CO 8 81612
LESSING GREGORY J BROUGH STEVE B RKJR. PROPERTIES LTD
13506 TRAVOIS TRAIL BROUGH DEBORAH A C/O ROY J MONK ESQ - ONE
PARKER, CO 80134 599 TROUT LK DR GALLERIA TWR
SANGER, CA 93657 STE# 1880- 13355 NOEL RD- L B 8
DALLAS, TX
MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C HOLLAND AND HART VIDAL C A
TERE D MCGAFFEY DAVIDSON J W ATTN C/O REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES
WISCONSIN AVE STE 3600 PO BOX 8749 117 S MONARCH ST
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 DENVER, CO 80201 ASPEN, CO 81611
VIDAL C A
REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES C/O
117 S MONARCH ST
e c"EN, CO 81611
APPLICANT: Mittel Europa
LOCATION: 516 E. Bleeker
ACTION: CONDITIONAL USE
Standards Applicable to all Conditional Uses
The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the
zone district in which it is proposed to be located.
The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding
land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations, and odor on surrounding properties.
There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional
use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste,
parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and
medical services, drainage systems, and schools.
The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental
need for increased employees generated by the conditional use.
The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed
on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable
requirements of this title.
• .M
r r Y
.s I ) i
Real Estate • Rentals + Property Management
March 22, 1999
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regards to the SCI Zoning question that you will be discussing on second
reading tonight.
I have two points to make in regards to this issue:
1. You cannot underestimate the importance of hometown service businesses in this
zone to the City of Aspen and its citizens. These businesses allow us all to benefit
from nearby, personal service. Hopefully, turning back the zoning to pre-1989 will
help keep some of these small businesses in Aspen proper.
2. Allowing our housekeeping and maintenance office to stay in this zoning district
helps keep my staff off Highway 82, which is critical for cutting down on highway
travel and congestion. Without this opportunity, we would be forced to relocate this
essential office downvalley in order to afford the ever-increasing rent being dictated
by the high -income architects and professionals allowed by the current zoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Spalding
President
MLSlkps
AsM Office: 7,020 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (970) 923.1400 a PAX (970) 920.3765
Snowmass Office: A0, Box 6430 • Suite 115, Snowmass Ceruer • Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 (970) 923-4700 • PAX (970) 923.4198
3 ' d N01JQ1dM '8 G I Md S31d00 Wd6b : bO 66, 22 ddW
FROM :' NAPA AUTO PARTS ASPEN CO PHONE NO. : 970 925 7-52e Mar. 22 1999 05: 43PM P1
YOUR PARTS HAUS
113-B AABC
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-7528
YOUR PARTS HAUS
64 E1 Jebel Road
PO Box 28340
E1 Jebel, Co 81628
970-963-0440
March 22, 1999
Re: SC I Zone Changes
Aspen City Council,
I am writing concerning the proposed SCT zoning changes. The pz oposed
changes will force other businesses, as I have been forced, to move out cal`~the
core of the city, These businesses service the core of'the city. If you introduce
4*4.1 architects into this zoning it will raise already very high rental rates that these
businesses can not compete with. It will be a. very sad day when people will
AA1c-4P'c'r#1
�-.•�� have to drive 35 .miles to replace a fuse for their car or any other service these
companies provide. Remember I service not only retail customers but also the
City of Aspen, .Pitkin County and Ski Co, These customers would suffer down
time to obtain parts and services. Can the city afford to drive 35 miles for repairs
that are often emergency situations?
Sincerely,
v
Ron Frierne
Napa Auto Parts Aspen and E1 Jebel
FRUM SUMMIT PAINT
3PQ-n C.i tf, Counoi l
SC i Hearing
rurn: G �� Taylor, o,,,iner
Surf 1mi t Paint & Decorating,
30 South Gi de Dr.
Basal t, Co. 8 i 6? l
FAX NO. : 927 0444
Mar. 22 1999 01:02PM P1
1
oii L c couplr Y ! , i 1l-7Q. S f or ccd to m o,lt,e m ant S of
�t } ra oilt o1 A=p2n,
o B�r, }al t. Pravj s1, u, the busi nos`wacocated at 516 E. al eek er
I n Aspen. This location s.,r s unc- upi ed by e paint store ci nce the early
and r s It U P ,r'St; sooner. Ho'*'ev e;", steady increas-as in rent, along with the- most re %en# dramatic,
u p in rent, has forced SU{rnmi t Pailint to raiorate. The economic
.� } �, } � .n k'.'. w•. r, r ; r• .'� 4r� t i r• r r i• ;•� fir, � � r� i vti n � J'• ; C }4 �n }+, �+► r� � � rt T / l
i :r l+i�ti {.•CiltliifG�t��i�� �.tiG} t it_# ! ,j``�t_`4i L+�da"�lr:r'J��r��.vr t.�.itt til� otigi �L4E Si i`I n
Mspn n;inu over] ;-inflate' rent pr firesmy. !n tl,e i�t dear, t prss�ious landlord
i n a rnw ;rvnr nub 1 +. ss &r fj� Theo.- g fi f ;nCj' CC?: �;ii ri;- t Zi�',4"V 3 !�$� U E �.._ tl:L E o�,�$ !ri �c`7 Ut �.�:_ ! !!G, G t�1�` �r !ElL.I e$ti,,,1, �i!!!: cf i,1�.t�l+r+� ur r .`c 31:1 !1
s ressrnen out of aspen.
believe that losing buss i nesses like mg wwn can cnl u hurt ,�� �{arc_ Not 0�'?3 g' are you i��;;�� o ����s�
0 f ,e hole corn.enuni tg with n8narbg ayai l -Abi i i to of services, you're
l cs.i ny goad successf til citizen er ntrepreneurz .
In addition, 11 feel that aspen is rct supporting businesses i � r tl'{e czCI zn�te. but instead 110 bowing
down to pressure to gradually moYe towards residential Zoning, further condaminiumizinp
4 i i ,-L i ; v". n f, ✓, r; -
1E1..�. , !!l:2, € m askiliEg �,rtu �ctljn�i I tic take a Ezra; stnnu behind the remaining simiali uufiinpSsus
currently located in the do-wntovion Sri.
zone, before they ire gone
Sincerely,
f
Same Taylor, ovene`r;J
Summit Paint & Decorating
b
o.
wx-
Uft c 4
i
i
Q�
.c
4
c
9/ 08 / 98 1) OF2 )
Y LETTER FROM VINCE GALLUCCIO, OWNER OF ASPEN REPAIR CO. A TV
REPAIR BUSINESS FOR LAST 20
YEARS IN THE SCI ZONE.
TO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS
CONCERNING THE UPCOMING JOINT WORK SESSION ON THE
SERVICE/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (SCI) ZONE
1) ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE SCI ZONE.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE ASPEN ECONOMY IS BASED
PRIMARILY ON TOURISM, AND THAT BUILDING AND MAINTAINING AND
SUPPLYING SERVICE NEEDS FOR THE TOURIST HOUSING IS A VITAL
FACTOR IN THE SUCCESS OF THAT ECONOMY, THE SCI ZONE WAS
CREATED ABOUT 28 YEARS AGO TO ALLOW BUSINESSES THAT PERFORM
ONLY THIS TYPE OF WORK TO COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER FOR THE
AVAILABLE SPACE IN THE ZONED AREA.
IT WAS OBVIOUS THEN, AND IT SHOULD BE NOW, THAT
BLUE COLLAR SERVICE TYPE BUSINESSES SUCH AS PLUMBING,
PAINTING, AUTO REPAIR, VACUUM AND TV REPAIR, CARPENTRY SHOP,
ELECTRICAL , SIGN MAKERS, DOG GROOMERS, AUTO DETAILERS,
PRINTING, AND MANY OTHERS CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY COMPETE FOR
SPACE WITH HIGH INCOME PRODUCING BUSINESSES SUCH AS TOURIST
RETAIL/RESTAURANT/ETC OR PROFESSIONAL WHITE COLLAR/OFFICE
BUSINESSES . IF ALLOWED, THESE HIGH INCOME TYPE BUSINESSES
WOULD SPREAD OUT FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA INTO ANY AND ALL
AVAILABLE SPACE IN THE CITY/TOWN, FORCING THE SERVICE TYPE
BUSINESSES OUT OF TOWN. TODAY, OUT OF TOWN IS THE AIRPORT
BUSINESS CENTER.
28 YEARS AGO, THIS WAS THOUGHT TO BE A BAD IDEA.
TODAY, IT STILL SEEMS LIKE A BAD IDEA TO ME.
2)WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SCI ZONE?
FROM THE EARLY SEVENTIES TO 1988, THE SCI ZONING
ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE MOST PART WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED
FOR THIS AREA OF ASPEN. HOWEVER IN 1988, THE CITY COUNCIL,
AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOTH STAFF AND P&Z, DECLARED
THAT ARCHITECTS WERE ARTISTS AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BE IN
THE SCI ZONE.
DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, MANY OF THE
CONDOMINIUMIZED SPACES AT 412 AND 414 N. MILL WHICH ARE IN
THE SCI ZONE WERE PURCHASED BY OR RENTED BY ARCHITECTS WHO
COULD AFFORD TO PAY FAR MORE FOR SPACE THAN THE FORMER BLUE
COLLAR TYPE SERVICE BUSINESSES. ONE ARCHITECT HAS ABOUT 10 TO
2) OF2)
15 EMPLOYEES.
THE ZONE HAD BEEN "UPZONED" TO THE ADVANTAGE OF
JUST ONE WHITE COLLAR PROFESSIONAL GROUP , ARCHITECTS.
3)WHAT KINDS OF BUSINESSES SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE
COMMUNITY?
IN EFFECT, THE COMMUNITY IS SUBSIDIZING THE SCI
ZONE. IF THE AREA IS NOT ZONED SCI AS -ORIGINALLY INTENDED,
GREATER REVENUES WOULD RESULT FROM SALES TAXES AND PROPERTY
TAXES.
THE COMMUNITY SUBSIDIZES THE FINE ARTS AND ARTISTS,
WITH BOTH DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS AND REDUCED RENTS AS AT THE
RED BRICK SCHOOL. THIS MAKES GOOD SENSE BECAUSE THE ASPEN
ECONOMY NEEDS THE FINE ARTS TO BETTER COMPETE WITH OTHER SKI
AREAS/RESORTS.
THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SUBSIDIZING THE SERVICE
TYPE BUSINESS IN THE SCI ZONE BECAUSE IT NEEDS THE SERVICES
PROVIDED TO KEEP THE TOURIST/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKING.
THE COMMUNITY ALSO, THROUGH TAXING DISTRICTS,
SUBSIDIZES THE HOSPITAL/DOCTORS/SCHOOLS/FIRE/POLICE AND
OTHERS BECAUSE THE TOWN NEEDS THEM TO WORK PROPERLY.
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS WHY THE COMMUNITY IS OR
SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZING ONE AND ONLY ONE PROFESSION
(ARCHITECTS) WHICH IS NOT VITAL OR CENTRAL TO THE ASPEN
ECONOMY, A PROFESSION WHICH CAN BE PRACTICED ANYWHERE IN THE
WORLD THAT GOOD ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS EXIST, ON
STRUCTURES THAT WILL BE BUILT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, A
PROFESSION WHICH IS ZONED FOR IN 90 % OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE
OF ASPEN, AND IS, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, LEGAL TO PERFORM AS A
HOME BUSINESS. MOST ORIGINALLY INTENDED SCI BUSINESSES ARE
NOT LEGAL IN THE COMMERCIAL CORE OR THE HOME.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO
READ THIS, AND PERFORMING THE DIFFICULT AND USUALLY THANKLESS
TASKS OF YOUR OFFICES.
VINCENT GALLUCCIO
ASPEN REPAIR CO.
925-7688