The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.CU.216 E Hallam St.A051-02 1"\ n ,... ~,:,;, "....,.,. ".., .. '."'0..,' ,... ,'f ".., ,... APPLICATION '" Frost Property ~ "" "" Conditional Use Approval for a Duplex ,... ,." ".., 22 May 2002 ,... ,... ,... ".., ,... ,... ".., ,..., ".., ,." ".., f"", "" "" f!'" ?,,'''' f!'" ..., f1"') ,... i/.. f!'" ~ "" , "..., ".., ~ ".., ~ "" ~._' .. -., ,... / ".., "'" ,... A/it Applicant: Camilla Auger The Frost Property LLC 7()9North SprUce street Aspen, CO 81611 Location: 216 E. Hallam Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Zone District: R-6 An application for conditional use approval for a duplex on the front parcel of the Frost Property, 216 E. Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-925..2323 "'" "..., () () STAN ClAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning. Urban Design Transportation Studies Project Management ",.., ,...... "" ,... 22 May 2002 200 EAST MAIN STREET AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970,920.1628 E-MAIL: c1auson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com ,...... Ms. Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ,..., - "'" 1""\ 1""\, 1""\ Re: Rezoning, Alley Vacation, and Access Approval for 216 E. Hallam, Aspen 1""\ 1""\ ,..., Dear Joyce: i!"'\ Ii"', ,..., On behalf of the Camilla Auger, Managing Partner for the Frost Property, LLC, I am submitting this supplementary application requesting that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide Conditional Use Approval to allow for a duplex for the historic property known as the "Frost Property," located at 216 East Hallam Street in Aspen. '^, ,..., ,... This historic property, consisting of a barn and house, is located on two lots in the R-6 residential zone. The property is separated by an unused but unvacated alley into parcels, one containing an historic house, the other containing the historic barn. The front parcel containing the historic house is the subject of a Conceptual Historic Development application, currently before the Historic Preservation Commission. The proposed redevelopment ofthis front property will contain a duplex. As you have determined, a duplex is a Conditional Use in the R-6 zone for properties with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, containing an historic landmark. The purpose of this application is to request Conditional Use Approval to construct a duplex on the front parcel. The rear parcel, by way of information, is proposed to be developed as a single-family residence. The applicants, including Studio B Architects, meet with the Historic Preservation Commission in a preliminary work session on 8 May 2002. The Historic Preservation Commission reacted favorably to plans presented for redevelopment of the historic resources on both the front and rear. parcels. The Conceptual Major HPC Review Public Hearing is scheduled for 12 June 2002. It is our understanding that Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, will provide the Planning & Zoning Commission with a recommendation regarding this conditional use application, based on historic preservation considerations. . I"" """', i!"'\ I""', ,." ,..., - ,..., ,... ,.., ~ ""'. ,...., 1""" I""', ,..., 1""\ i!"'\ i!"'\ The overall property was previously the subject of a request placed before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a favorable recommendation on the rezoning of a portion of the rear parcel to R-6, consistent with the rest <lfthe neighborhood. The Planning Commission approved that request at their meeting of 5 March 2002. 1""\ PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS ,..., "" ....., () n ~ City of Aspen Community Development Department 19 April 2002 Page 2 i!"'\ '*", ,... ,..." The request for a duplex on this 6,000 s.f. parcel is consistent with historic preservation goals for the property. The conditional use can be granted without any adverse effects to the neighborhood and will accomplish the revitalization of an historical property that his been in disrepair for some time under its prior ownership. The historic landscape and forms will be preserved to the greatest extent possible, and the resulting structure will provide an appropriate streetscape transition from adjacent residential properties to the Red Brick Arts and Recreation Center. Attached are our responses to Section 26.425.040, conditional use standards, which show thlft our request is consistent with the applicable standards. . ,..., "" -. ,.,. '"" Ii"', ,..., We look forward to an opportunity to present our application for a duplex on the front parcel, which is essential to the historic restoration of the Frost Property, and remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have regarding the application. "'" - ,...... Ii"', ,...., ,..., Very truly yours, "" }-- Ii"', "" J""\ "'" Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC (^ "" Attachments 1-9: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Applicant's name and address, and letter of authorization for representation 3. Response to Land Use Code Standards applicable to Conditional Uses 4. Vicinity Map 5. Disclosure of Ownership 6. Quit Claim Deed from Puppy Smith LLC to Mona J. Frost Trust 7. Landscape Plan 8. Architectural Drawings 9. Survey 10. Red Brick School Plat '""" '""" -. ,.., Ii"', 1""\ ~ "'" ,.., Enclosures: 1. 10 copies of application, 2 full size copies of drawings in Items 7 and 8. Ii"', '""" ,... i!"'\ J"",. ,..., ,.., i!"'\ """ '" i!"'\ """ Ii"', ,... """ f"") n City of Aspen Community Development Department 19 April 2002 Page 3 "..., Previously provided: 1. Signed fee agreement 2. Deposit for review of the application in the amount of $2,405 for Planning and $345 for Referral Agencies. ,..., Cc: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Camilla Auger, Managing Partner, The Frost Property, LLC ,..., '" Ii"', 1""\ "" i!"'\ i!"'\ """ ,...... 1""\ "... ,""'" Ii"', tI"", ,.., ,""'" ,,,,,,," "'" ,..., "'" '^ """ Ii"', ;""""" """ ,..., """ - ,..., i!"'\ ,...... """ ""'\ ,.,. ",.., "" I"" ^ r'"' ,..., !"", PROJECT: f"\ "} LAND USE ApPLICATION--- c.'...':.'..,.......,\<::,...-'...<.:.::.;.;A'".,...,...:.:.>.:'.c'.'.,"':",".':"':',.'':.:):',',':'':''.:/'":'''\.<::<.:..,.,.:"4.....,.....::<.,l ,..., ,... Ii"', Name: Location: ApPUCANT: Name: Camilla Auger, Managing Partner Address: Frost Property, LLC, 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970544-0745 ~ ,...... "'" "'" "" REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stao Clauson Associates, LLC Address: 200 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970925-2323 ,..., ",.., 1""\ ~, ~ "'" ,-, ^ "'" ~ ,.., "'" Ii"', ,,,,", "..., i!"'\ "'" ("'. ^ "'" i!"'\ ,... "'" i!"'\ r-, i!"'\ ,r,,- TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ~ Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD D Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA D GMQSAllotment 0 FinaISPA(&SPAAmendment) D GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision D ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condomininmization) Mountain View Plane D Lot Split D Lot Line Adjustment o TemporaryUse o TextlMap Amendment o Conceptual Historic Devt. o Final Historic Development o Minor Historic Devt o Historic Demolition o Historic Designation o Small Lodge Conversion! Expansion [gI Other: Alley Vacation Access Agreement rovaIs, etc. Two parcels ofland separated by a remaining portion of Alley Block 71; parcel consisting of Lots N and 0 (aIkIa H and I contains a residence; 1 D and E contains historic ham Parcel D and E had encroachments. Provide Conditional Use Approval for a duplex on a property of 6,000 s.f., containing an historic structure. Have you attached the following? D Pre-Application Conference Summary D Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ~ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form ~ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #5, Review Staodards for Your Application FEES DUE: $ 2.750.00 (Daid) ^ ^ ,.., f'""1 r). ,..., . i!"'\ ,... ,... 19 April 2002 "', Joyce Ohlson City Of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen, Co 81611 ,...... i!"'\ ....... ,... " To Whom it May Concern: "...., This letter is to cert:i1Y that I, Camilla Auger, Managing Partner of the FROST PROPERlY, LLC, 709 North Spruce Street,. Aspen, Co, authorize, Stan Clauson Associates to represent us in the hearing process for rezomng, alley vacation, and utilization ofSl1eeley Blvd. for access, for the Frost Property, 216 E. Halliun Street, Aspen, Colorado. Their contact information is as follows: " ......., ,... "...., ,... ,..., Stan Clauson Associates, LLC . 200 E. Main Street Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 (970)920-1628 Fax ^ ^ ,..., ^ ,..., -, ^ v cry Truly Yours, 1""\ ^ ^ (' "-f~ ,~ Camilla Auger Mm..vJie Partner FROST PROPERlY LLC ,...... ^ "'" ^ Ii"', ,..., 1""\ ^ i!"'\, ,... ,... 1*";, i!"'\ ^ r-. r1 (""\ i ^ ^ Ii"', Land Use Code Standards Report Frost Property Rezoning, Alley Vacatio!), and Access Page 2 ,..., "'" of similar conditional use approvals for a duplex have been granted by the Planning Commission for properties of similar size containing historic resources. f'"'\ "'" C. The locatio!), size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on vehicular and pedestrian circulatio!), parking, trash,sernce delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding property; ,..., '" ^ '" Response: This proposal for a duplex resident will not create any adverse effects inconsistent with surrounding residential uses. Three off-street parking spaces will be provided for the duplex, consistent with the permitted waiver of some off-street parkingfor an historic property. Trash storage will be provided internal to the structure. Plans and elevations Jor the proposed structure have been provided with this application. It is believed th(lt the duplex addition to the existing structure will complement the historic resource in a manner consistent with historic preservation review. Pedestrian circulation will be enhanced owing to the proposed improvements to Sheeley Blvd, which functions as a ped/bike connector to the Post Office Trail. """ """ ,..., '" ,... 1""\ "'" Ii"', D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waster, parks, police, fIre protectio!), emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; 1""\ """ ,..., ,...... Response: As part of the built-up area of the original Aspen Townsite, all of the facilities and services referred to above are in place and adequate to meet the needs of the proposed duplex. ~I ,... ,..." ,..., E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. ,-., Response: The applicant commits to supply affordable housing in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, either as a cash-in-lieu payment and/or provision of accessory dwelling unit(s). "'" ^ Ii"', ,..., ^ i"""> ^ ,...... i!"'\ i""" f". 1""', ."""" "'" n ,...... !"'J ,..., s , .z:! f1"') 0; =-- ::c: "..., ~ ~ ~ ,.., , ~ '" - ,...... E-- M f""\ ~ ~ 8 """ u tiJ !"'J .... > ~ ,.., ~ e;, ,.., 0 j u ,..., ~ of '" f""\ ~ .... ,.., E-- E-- r:J'1 ; - ~ t" I!"'J ..>d =: u f") U 0 E-- - 00 ~ E-- - ,.., ~ . ~ r:J'1 r:J'1 = . "Cl "'" 0 E-- ~ J ~ . ~ ~ Cl ,..., ~ '" .... ,...... ~ 0 ~ ....:1 ,..., ~ ] - !"'J ~ t" 0 ..>d ,..., .... u E-- 0 ,...... ; al ,.., 0" "Cl '} U ~ r:J'1 Z ,..., ~ '" - , = "0 - """ ....:1 '" ~ - ~ 00 """ 0 i!"'\ ~ E=1 ~ .~ - !"'J 0 u U <I:l ;f ,...... 0 ~ "J == ~ ~ ,...... !" f1"') ~ <I:l ry f") """ ,.." """ . . I , .... .. ... () '~<,..";;;;' ATTACHMENT 4 .. . ..... . . :1 -II ~. -- _R II. '+S 6u!..JdS 'S I. .. .- .. '+S ..Jil+unH S ......1 .'= ~. \ a -. AI . - .- I . ... I I ~>S "r' ~, .P _ i. .1 '+S l1!N .... · r: ....~. :JI'i11~. . r~ .1 ~ '1 S Y::l..JOUON . as t.. :-.li:~~" I ....JII _ I ,. ......... '..I~.'" , · +'. ~+' -OJ . ,. . OJ .. ~ ~ ... _> . OJ '- <[ ~ +' '+S uildslj U1 ".1 ...aVl lit- Vl .~ .. .. '- .~ -5. E: .. IOJ c. 0 o .::f..2: I C =... ~ j :3 I ..I..."" . . -~ . . '+S l.pS!W..J.Q') .... . . .., .... , ... a.1 .. . "III. .. .....~ ~. Apr,19, 1001 9:19AM ,..., N0.5885 P. 1 n Attachmant 5 n ,...., 1""\ ,.... cm'dF ASPEr. IMlETr PAID . Ilvr1:{ljEP }tfl~~TRUSTEE'S DUD CITY OF ASPEN HRETT PAID DAT!: ? NO ;J-f);- / lit 2y 1>.,,-: 1/) i{) . V'O THIS TRUSTEE'S nEED, (the "Deed") is made by MONA J. FROST TRUST and U,S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (formerly known as Colorado National Bank also formerly knoWIi as First National Bank. in Grand Junction), a national banking association organized. and doing business under the laws of the United States, Trustee oflhe MONA J. FROST TRUST, (collectively, "Grantor"), to FROST PROPERTY LLC, a Colorado limited liability property, Grantee, whose address is 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, - Ii"', ,..., "'" ,...., ""' WITNESSETH that Grantor, for and in consideration of the Sum ofTen Dollars (SI0.00) and other 'good and valuable consideration to Grantor. in h~nd paid by Grantee. the receipt of which is hereby confessed arid acknowledged. does hereby sell. convey, assign, traI?-sfer and set over untoGrant,ee t~e fO"llowing described real ,property situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Col,orado: See Property Description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made ,a part hereof. Also known by street and number as 216.East Hallam Street, Aspen, CO 81611 WITH all appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywis~ thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of Grantor, either in law or in equity, to the use and benefit of Grantee, its successors and. assigns forever; subject to, covenants) easements, reservation, restrictions apd rights-of. way of record including, but not limited to the Exceptions to Title listed on Exhibit "8" attached hereto. ,..., 1""\ "b .~ ~ ,...., ,,,", ,....,. ,...., ,..., v ~ ~ V)' ~ \" ""' -- ,..., ,..., ,..., ""' TO HAVE AND'TO HOLD the premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances untQ Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And Gra!ltor for itself and its Successors covenants and agrees to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND Grantee. its successors and assigns ;n the quiet and peaceable possession of the above.bargained premises against' all and every person claiming the whole or any part thereof by. through or under Grantor, "<l ~ ~ (>) ,.... 1""\ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, U.S. Bank National A$sociation. in its capacity as Trustee of the Monal., Frost Trust, has caused-its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed by its Assistant Vice President, Kenneth D. Roth, and its corporate seal to be hereunto afflXed, attested by its Trust Officer, Lori Hamilton. ""'" rE~l SUi i!"'\ ,..., EXECUTED: January 24, 2002 -- ,... ,... MONA J. FROST TRUST, UTA dated June 18, 1970 By: U.S. Bank National Association. (formerly known as Colorado National Bank and also formerly known as First :,. l , . National Bank in Grand Junction), Trustee '~<'+'~:.{':':~:d ., .. : ,"..Ih~'". " j 'A-U D~.- : ~~~ .~ ."J' Q.rf HamiJton, Trust Officer ::";~~'~:.2:;:.:.,:~~~'. ;7R- ro . ~ ". ,.. : . : Kttth D. Roth, ASSist1 Vie. President U.S. Bank National Association (form.erly known as Colorado National Bank and also formerly known as Fitst National Bank in Grand Junction), Trustee of the MONA J. FROST TRUST, UTA June 18, 1970 ,..., ,.... 1""\ By: ~ -:Z~~Q.1?L K neth D. Roth. Assistant V ice President . ..~::I.J/111 ,-' ,.,,:":-_':'~:~'S.I.......~ V .~ ' '""..' """"'Oo~ ~ . ~/ ~o'-'. - . \._::. By: ~h_ ,*,.I../~4u.s '~0-"~:; ori Hamilton, Trust Officer~~~: () .~,~..:. ;.3 = 111.,lllllp. ~~, R.',;;" ?'li!.1~~";i;:,f;<? $ILyr~ CAlifS PITKIN COlJHTY eo JlDl. 11/29/2tez e3;zeF' f3t,. ) JIl .N D 178,18 ,..." 1""\ ,." ""'" ,...., i!"'\ ,..., 1""". ""' API, II. lUUl 1:11AM ~\ No.5885 p. 4 ,r"" ,.-, ~ r-. EXHIBIT."B" TO TRUSTEE'S DEED ."..-...... MONA J. FROST/FROST PROPERTY LLC /-" List of ExceDtions to Title ,--.... ~ 1. The Hen for 2002 r~al property taXes due and payable in 2003. ~ 2. Exceptions and mineral reservations as contained in patent recorded March I, 1897 under Reception No. 60156. r-. ,.-, 3. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the,authority cf.-the United States.s reserved in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958, in Book 185 at Page 69. ~. r> 4. Easement and right of way for access purposes as granted to Aspen One Company in Deed recorded November 29, 1973 in Book 281 at Page 761. 5. Terms> conditions, and provisions of Subdivider>s Agreement as contained in instrument recorded April 8, 1977, in Book 327 at Page 25. 6. Easements, rights of way and other matters as set forth on the plat of Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project recorded April 8, 1977 in Plat Book 5 at Page 70. ~ r", ,"-'\ 7. Easements, rights of way and all matters- shown on Improvement Survey Plat dated January 23'. 2002 prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. as Job No. 25089C. ,.-, I'~ ,,,", r, '..... ,,,", 2897641S_I.DOC ,.-, ,.-, r, ,,,",, ,.-, ,.-, ,,,", ,.-, " III~ 111111111111 glllllllllll"~1 ~II 1m ~~~A~! :."OP SIL.VIA tlAVI5 PITKIN CO\JNTY eo R lB.ee D 'I.'78.el ~ r', r-, ,.-, ,:-;, ~ ~ 1""\ - ,..., ,..., "". '" ,... " ,..., 1""\ - - 1""\ ""'" 1""\ - ,..., """ """ ,..., ,..., iI"". """ ,..., """ -, - ,... ,..., ,... """ """ """ ,- ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... .~, "'" "rr, '^ Apr.19. 2002 9:29AM No,5885 P. 3 n '....1 t1 , EXHIBiT "A" TO TRUSTEE'S DEED MONA J. 'fROST TRUST/FROST J>ROJ>ERTY LLC Prooertv Descrintion Parcel 1: . Lot' lettered D and E in Block numbered Seventy-One (71) and Lot' lettered Nand 0 (also known as H and I) i. Bloek numbered Seventy-One (71) i. the Townsite and City of Aspen. Parcel 2: A parcel of land being that portion of Lot 4, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project adjacent to Lots D and E, Block 71 City and Townsite of Aspen (according to the 1959 official map of the City of Aspen) described as follows: BeginnIng at the point of intersection of Aspen Townsite Line 4-5 and the West line of Lot K, Block 71, City and Townsite of A'pen, projected northerly (said point of beginning being the Southwest Corner of that parcel ofland described in Book 343 at Page 51S of the Pitkin County records); thence North 14 degrees 50'49" East 37,9S feet along the westerly boundary of said Book 343 at Page 51S; thence North 75 degrees 09'1 J" West 59.S2 feet; thence South 14 degrees 50"49" West 5.35 feet to the Southwesterly boundary of said 'Lot 4; thence south 43 degree, OS'33" West 7054 feet along ,aid southwe'terly boundary of Lot 4 to the westerly boundary of said Book 343 at Page 5 IS; thence North 14 degrees 50'49' East 4,77 feet along the westetly boundary of said Book 343 ilt Page 51 S to the point or beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO' 1I1~ II~ ~ 11111111~lllIllllm ~~=A::! :"20P SILVIA OIlVllii PlnclN COltlTV co It 1'5." D t7e." OCT-02-2001 16' 32 US BANK 303 585 4442 P. 06/06 .L\,l,.-C:QTQClI nt"" ,.~ ,.../,"'.......,...--~A-............_#l.. ....J..~~...~...:=;..:'.20...:rr" -:...............~....~"O~ t.JJ)l...1. PAGt14ti R""PU,, N~::\:~4.191.7._.. ........ ._......~..&llY._E.....lM1!;U~.h....: ,~_..__...Reco<<lu. I I I i I I. II II 11 :\ L " , l! , il ;i " 'I P :1 " '! i " II :i 'I I, I " ~ <I " 'I ;! " MONA J. FROST whose address is Aspen, Cqlorado CountYl1f pitkin STIJ! DIICllOOlI'f III :.)1,JN 2:; 1'JlQ I.- _D- - , State of Colora.do . for the consideration of TEN DOLLJ\RS AND OTHER VJ\LUAIlLE CONSIDERATIONS, lOllllil1;Cin hand paid, hereby Bell(s) and convey(s) to FIRST NATIONAL BJ\NK IN GRAND JUNCTION, TRUSTEE whose address. is Grand Junction, Co19rado County of Hesa ,nnd '1b1te of Colorado Pitkin . , and State of Colorado, to wit: the following real property. in tho Count.y of Lots lettered "0" and "E'; .in Block numbered seventy-one (71) and Lots lettered "N" and ,110" (Also known as IIU" and "r") in Block numbered seventy-one (71) in the Townsite and City of Aspen. ( No money exchange. Documentary fee not Transfer of required. ) legal ,title only. with all its appurtenances, and warrant(s) the title to the same, subject to current taxes. Sib."ed this 18th day of June . 1970 . ..'M?!l.j~F9/f:",id"~........_....._... ....................._._n._..._......................_....................._....... .....-........................-....-.--..-.............................................. STAT); OF COLORADO, }BS. . County of ~1esa l. :~::~~:.~..7:~~; ~~4 '...' uu10v ~.~. ~~. ()~..,......~.... 0.. '. a "7~ . ". ..'" '/ /'7 (,.I. :9-~.'" ...."l. . ~ . Q r-f "0 :l;"J 7 . . 0:. ( . .~.: ... '.no.+ .i:l-'S~ ".-, .....: {: - _U-L-c rl. . '. -'. . '. ..... ...................."""c...I..~~._....__,t~l...,.,.... . .: '" N..~"'.~~ls\ ~t . ./,' :...~.. '~~,J/' SI"I"lm'lI A(lJ/l.Il1Ulltlfgmaal..-It by n"-turnl peraon or peS'JIon" l.erc ","wrt nl\mll or ml-lllell.: If loy per'll''" netlnlf.ln r\(p~UltI\'O l)I' tfJ!nO:inl~ ~r~:i~~~~ro~~~~ico~n\~:~tl~~~ =p~ :t~~~t om~::"\I~ o~~:~D::~~~~~ld1:i~~ro~~r o~~~~f,VO[J~~~'t'C~:'r: I"lr:l.llon DRillIng ll. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of June . 1!fl 0 , by Nona:J. Frost 18th My commission expires Ob;!!~r .Witness my hand and official 56l. _'_M"___'_" ----------..... ..._.~^-_._-_. . _._-_..._._'--~..~...-.- No. M97. WI\"."l,Y u.til-9"..,t F..m.-fIt~. lIB.'.U. C.R.B.I~.-t1nu!fonI )'gbl~Alllol' Co.,l11M. Sf.oUt Stl'(!O!L,~. Cull:lnKl.. , . "'i.:'/tl 0; I'IlD{Jt1JJl;t:- TOTAL P.06 r'\ " ,"", ~, ,,-, ~ .~ r~~ ~ "" /-.\ ~ /:->., '" /----, ,"", ~, [-:-..,. .~. " /~'", " ,"'-,. ~~ "' "' , ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~, /--_.... ~ 11111111111111111111111111I11111111111111I1111111111111 ,..., 455904 0&/27/2001 02:31P QCO DAVIS SILVl 1 of 2 R 10_00 D 0.00 N 0_00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~ 1""\ 1""\ ,...... i!"'\ """ Ii"', """ """ """ "'" """ """ ","" i!"'\ """ "'"' """ """ '" ,..., 1""\ ,..., "'"' '" i!"'\ ,..., """ "'"' '" """ """ - "'" """ ,..., ." ,..., 1""\ ,... """ AUG-23-01 14,45 < FROM,HOLLANO&HART ., -..I \ (f 't. ; ~-'. A) 10,9709259367 PAGE 5/6 QUIT CLAIM DEED . THIS DEED, Made this ~ day of J ~ . 2001; between puppy . SMITH LLC, ("Grantor") Grantor and MONA J. FROST TRUST whose legal address is clo US Bank, 950 Seventeenth Street Cl'roT0615, Denver, Colorado (Attn: Lori J. Haniilton, Trust Officer), ("Grantee"). . WITNESSETH: Grantor, for and in consideration of the Sum ofTen Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, nas remised, released, sol~ and qUITCLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell and QUITCLAtM: unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which Grantor has in and to the . rea!- pro.perty, together:Wi"tIt-improveme:l.tsiif.any; "rtUat~ 1ying1iM"beiiigiifth(: County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, described as follows: See Exhibit " A'" attached hereto and made a part hereof. TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the SiUDe, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto b~longing or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of Grantor, either in law or . equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of Grantee, its successors and assigns ,forever. This conveyance is made s!1bject to all zoning and land use laws, restrictions and regulations and also subject to any and all property taxes, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and rights of way of record. , . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Quit Claim Deed on the date set forth above. ' , . GRANTOR: LLC, a Colorado any ger STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss; ) COUNTY OF PITKIN '. ,.;,1~~~"~ The foregoing instru entw ackn wI ged before me this -:l ?" '::~~!..~!c;t..\. ~ . 2001 by as Manager ~~ Pf.-;Pu'PP.~\ -th LLC, a Colorado limited Iiabili pany..:..Q f ~ .<~ "", o. _"' '~. ~""~:.' ~. .. -- ~ - . :- ':. ' ....::: -~. ~ . .. - ... ~ .~ -> , ~.. ~- Notary Public .. ~., . ~ ;.-. '~. ..,." -............-:,,~. ,~ . ....~ ..o~ ...).'1ao .' ...... . ."':, :Ii ....--.,.. . o""."ft.",' AUG-23-01 14,45 FROM,HOLLAND&HART r-, 1D,9709259387 r";, ,~,' EXHIBIT" A" PUPPYSMITH LLC/MONA J. FROST 'IURST LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel ofland being that portion of Lot 4, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project adjacent to Lots D & E, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen (according to tile 1959 official map of the City of Aspen) described as follows: Beginningatthe pqint ofinterse9TI(l!!..of ~pen Iownsite . Line 4.. 5 and the We"StLiIi~'bft;o'fK, ""Block 71, Citj'and' Townsite of Aspen, projected northerly (said point of beginning being the Southwest Corner of that Parcel of Land described in Book 343 at Page 518 of the Pitkin County r.ecords); Thence NI4050'49" :E. 37.98 feet along the westerly boundary of said Book 343 at Page 518; Thence N75009'Il" W. 59.82 feet; Thence S14050'49" W. 5.35 feet to the southwesterly boundary of said Lot 4; Thence 843008'33" W. 70.54 feet along said southwesterly boundary of Lot 4 to the westerly boundary of Book 343 at Page 518; Thence N. 14050'49" E. 4.77 feet along the westerly boundary of Book 343 at Page 518 to the Point of . Beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO . '"1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 455904 06/27/2001 02:31P oeD DAVIS SILVI 2 or 2 R 10.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ", PAGE ~s/r r--, /~ ~l\ ~ '~., ,~ ,r-\ .~ ,-. (-:\, r--, .~ ,-, /--."", r--, ~ /-~" ,-. .~ r. "'. ~ ;0>. .~ ~ ~ /, /---. r--, r, ~ ~ "-:.,,, .~ r--, ~ ~ 1 :SNOISIA:;rn ZOOZ l!,dV OJ J.3:mS ::;(,Lva >- II '"' w '" W 0 ---1 <[ U (/) I . W r'l z r'1 ('"l n clg ~ ;~ ~as~&3~tit ~~ ~2~ j ... "'--'1;1:1: ,3,)0'\ \.) u,,~,~ "t) "'->'I' ~::~,' ~~II~.~ ~~~~~~~n~~ ~~ ~\~~~ ~ , ! -,,-< ~~ ~~~-~,,~ J]-~]~~.\! ~~i~~~.g ~~~{,,;;~~ 'I;, J'J<::J::",,,, ~ ~ '8 ~ J..,~" ~ ~ _~~~~~ 1~ ]~.L J~*-~ .11 ~ 1:1~ \'1.~ >'(l~'.; - o.:_:~@ ~~~ !~~~jJ~j~~~~!~~J~J ~~ ~ ~~~~",,"N~0"~ ~~ (, :-~"{j::"~ ('()h0&(l)""~;:;q$ ~ ~\~~~n~~1 ~ _ _ . "; 5 ~,Ruc ~S~~~!i~~~8m~~ff~.f~~~~f6~B~c~~~ -,-" -->.'~~-~~:--':-:~~----~", --~- -- - -- ~- -,-~:; -- ~ NV1d 3.dV;)SaNV1 11919 oaV3010;) 'N3.dSV lsnar lS0Hd VNOW I ~3g(LLS JiVV77fIH ~SV3 ~ ~ > ~ wZ 5~ ~}:;! '0 "~ We 58 ~~ :;;B 8", Wt;, )(:' w .,~....~,.,,~ .....;,;.,.,..-,-,. III ~ Q ;t: J o o 1: ~ ". ,~ ~ l::e:'~'~ 't ~ nn1 t 1>'1:.'-,;,'1:.0 ~; ~~~~~ ..... "- "- ..... ''c.~':~~~ '.~,,''''!('.:-'T',.;.,.^p , ',",','- -- -- --- -----~-:-------- --- "'>-"-;;:~~'~~:_-i~':~~~~-- --- --- --- --- lII(lO)'Jcqau~""":q~. BI-<<:B(lII.5):UA 1212-12S{llL6);~oqd:.pJ.' 'l919 .OJ uadsv l~S 0!"JIllS83 ooa J11 'S3.LVIJOSSV NOSfiV1::l NV.1S Ii" e > o % ~ w . -c , . j j -~ 'J \..1\.' \.)~, \.. I) ~ c ' ~~~~~~~~~g -, ~ ~ .s "" ~ -€ ~ ] 1I l:l ~ ~ '" '., ~r~~~ S.~;tt ..e~~~ ~1~.!i 1; "' '<', 1\ " " ~ " i:! &-<;~~'~~.t1"~ ~d\.n~JlI..~~~~ o S>(>\~ ~z.!::!: ~~ J i ~~ l ~ h ,{ s t ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ &: id ~? ~ j lo~ tS <t;:: 3i , , ] '% p.~ ~ ~ :S:::l:.: " ? ~!~ ~ ~ ~.'2 l' ~~ "(l ~ ~ .c ",,,,(>_\1-. ;z. ~ ~ (\ (}~ 1 ~~ i, t:;:.5 ....!:: '- ..... ~ n -l- I " l j 1 ~ \ f'""\ ! h<,,- H 1 I 1 f'-\ r\ '.I''' ~. .. <' '-~J., 1/'" I lfrit " f I;.' i . .' - ./ I r' 'j '. I Jull"'l~tl .1 ". -.1 I. I I.' J ~ ~ j, .' i' -; i j. O:r=Ft! IU-!. ~ ;10 ~bl "'1""$" .-.' .E:",." ';~'".". . :".'., .... ~~'~: ,nt: ! 'c. '..1(.,.. " .. . -~.. ,""::0"',', ;:Ci~j '.~".~.; :,:. "::~'<',' ~, . .,.\ ,.), :\. .' :\ '''', "f)' I Ii: " W:~ . > ' ""'I . ~L :,'i~J.:,'. IJ . ~..i..,I"".".1:.': ~"'\' '. .. 1'. 'l . ~ ' ,j. : , ",l -~-..._- ,''''" \' " I~:,,~" $ '" , 'I.~ "HI ~. :J,.,:IJ~, "i" 'i!--; ., 1. '-:::E.. 1', ;:;,,:~,:'}. . " '. .i.if' ,'" "';-'. '" - I, " I i i " ! I , " ., '. k " " ~ <. j; " I ~ ~l :1:'" '--._J 'I -.---..,-.-,.;..-.--",,-J ~-... -.,.. , , . '"", ~ %~ ts- f 1 " '. ", ", , ~.......... ,f ! ;. j i ~ \ ~ \1 z;'. "'" --; , ! , I : i i t ~ ~i l>..; (]9- IV , , ___;;41;""~""'r ;.....".. I 1 ! , i : i " lJ. ,W~~~~.._~"~_. I , i' 1 i i ~ ! I I i 1 : ;> i I III ! I \ : ! I ~ I I ! , ! -- : i < '" ~ ~ ,.""".",...,..,-,,.~,,~ "'. '., ,,0' .,/ i'/ /' ~"'-, (""', "1, \ \ \ j /' j \ ~ J \/ / \, '(",,~.,-,/ L I~/ 1'\1./1 - ~\ I ' \1 ' 'I" .:r;, l I.. \'" .- I t I \. - ..,: i I . I . I \ . i i Ii '~', \/.~ -,(:\ - I .J t ---- . : :.:/. ~ ." \ . ~ ~., , '. \ 1\ , ".)<11"/.:\ ~/i" ,~/ >7 -\~ 1 - f"""\ " \ \ \ \ .\ \ , ~\ .,' i: ~\,/ ~ eX ~,~;\ , \ '. \ \ \ il ., ;{ !:..~ " f~ .. >= ~ I I f"""', L__ , " / 'j ~ .~ I' \..\ ~ ,~ ~ Ii '! ~" ~ ,,: ~ .. ~ ..~. 'I"f ..,j .1(: It t ~,',. t:: "" :~ '" ~ I ~ I ~ ~ t41.~.~.,...,. i-.4 .' , " . ) q, (tj ,~ ~ ,I " ~ 01 i~ ~'I f ~i . k.>i ""I ';::J -'1 I j I "' ! I 1 i, i: , i I i i i; I' I I !>i 1 i ( r l' : i US f; f j i ~ (J , , . , h' \ i '. , , , i! j: i 1 , ' " ~' l " i.u' I: i; , ' ."'-1 , , . i ......\ : ! bi ; i , ' i I I =-t , , , I , ~,i . I ~ L" r~ "'" :! ! ; , .)1 4J1- i I ,., [ !~ .~ 14). ~; I i I i" 1 J-...... I I I ,., <>is. t::! 1 '" ., ... <-r &1~~ 11' I . I ! ,I I ! i ~. I I I 1 +t, , i , ';'1', ~ i f'- $- . '~" -- /-/ t-l I', ~ I ~ 1 i ~ I I ~ i: ! : '-' ! " Ii I"""" ;) i' ,I Ii ~ ~ ~ i! 1 -, r $ , :"> --' f'""" -----'-- J' ...._".."~. ' ~--~ . .... I,... ........ r, r '" ~~ i~ ,~ !l" ~~ 1,- rl~ i . /""'-' ~. . , I~ '"..-......,.'~-F.. _..~.."...,..." ~. I f..... , r , i , ,<;\', i ; , ,-- ~.:..,.. :,,1 ,w,\ f'd ~ j; i I ! "! , , ; i i I Li ~: f i , ) M H ~I ~ " P' ~ Pi , , ,~ t: , ' , , .' l , t!;' ~' 'f'l ! ~ ilu. <ll. "..,1 I , I , ' , " I i: 'I t< I' ~ " j! .,,; I '~ -4:1 .1.' " , .g] ':'..::;.::=:~ ii ,I 'I ii "I I"" , ! !'t \\ . .. ="" .;. .-l. ; " oc' ,<:. ~ +-i 'i 'lJ ~ ~ i' I i; ! i I , , \. , I I ! i II I II r r ' F ! i' ~: , i' i t- ~i '~ ;y:: I tc .,;.' \' ( : , 1>i , i .~ ~j i I :-I ~ 'I : I , I I , I H \ ! pj : ' ~ i ~ i i .~ ..... r":. f'. +- I 'I"-B? " '. I. ) ! :. i I,; .t; ,i u~ H ~ W !1 "" / , ' /"""'i, , PILJ_.4~: '1:"''''':'~:::;'':''''''''',:'','il-:-'.''1 '., ,!l2 , :l\. <i ,~., '" ii' ... ~ :i , '" , " , ~... ft ~:J. . '" ..,., ~: ~ 'a .~o ? i; ! i i i j I .irJ : i ; ; ~ "".W-"~' , . ~! I;" ~ i i hJ '" : , 4 " j " ! ' ~ ,'\: , ' l"f i.: i ; i "," j IJ I'J, Ii I' ~! j i H ',~ ~ ~ ! ! I I ': i ,- --.It L~ 1'1 i; 'iI; I'i.,h, ' , , '1', II: 1',ll' , iQ.: 'I' l'fA I', Iii,' ~', I' . I k, Ii' I__;i,~" , _.- -;..;..j.., . , ' : .. . . :t;), . , , . ' --IL ! ~ \;\:l. ":t: i~~ I.,~ 11 i. , r 1 i I Ii i'l ~II ~ i ~;W 11.,c, ~ I-il ~,._-,_...- L ~. !;, s '> ~ i j. i ['1t:* 1=ll=iT r1!}t t-=F=.:!i , I kl i 'III I "':sS. l~ I i I -~lt , I \, i Ii-: i I II...! I Ill! i <c , i Ii!! : -,I t>< -', ii, 7'i I' , {.>: U 'I, I; .n I' i Ii W. ~ <L' 1'"-j I!' , ' , ' I: j i !~ .t - iJ r~ Pi i j i! i j it ! , i i II i j ; ; , ! 1 i \ ; i! I: ) ; ; ~ . ~ ~ i: i' ~ ! i 1..: ; I H ! .! , , -k , , i! , : , , H , j ~ ~ i' j! ~ i, ! ' , , k> , , . , Ii i i , , II i ..... '. t"'" 1>- I- Ilia:: I 11.&1 ~III~ I I. a:: iii!o.. (Ii!... · ::(1) I fRO . ia:: I1&. Ie i .I~I 'I I fll ..~ · I'IIWI I 'I I I! .1 !illill !lfl~11 il!iii; III II lil;=I! .li.11 II ill i; i I lill i;!1 ;1 .11',I'lilll ~1!llillllli,I" iJljllll~III'II. ~ ~ill!I' iilllll!llll!i!II!,IIII!II~II!lll!li,I!I!1111 lit I ..~. .il .~I .1. ~ ~ .s I.... . I. Ii ~ r.'~89 ~ II 1.1 I I ..11 01 .. ".. of to: .. tl III .. r,. MO~a:: , _....~... i""" --",,><,~ ~ 1':11 IIdll II~I Illlll flllt .!I!! 1111, I-I lilt: . lit I hi bJ II, III "i" il . {'"', . i : r I. I. .. I i. i~~ -" <>~) 0", ;~~ e~UI - ~~ ~~~ ,%0 o . .J< i~~~ ~ffili; <~'&! .;~i '0 i ..J,,;..'d ~;~ ~ ,- . .~ :l~~ 0"''-''''- . ~~ - g: ~~~~ 5 Z 0... ",U",'f l: 0 ", I ~ s~~>- .. N ~:~ $., \ ='~c1 0 .-. z "''''''I; (,)J::!!l; '" <( .~' 5 ~~ ~ <!) !" . 8. ~I . z .". I ""- "'~u.':<.. ~ Z ~fiI~ .. >- ~""" i z 5;s:!;- >- ....._i' ~ .... -., I- <( .., ~ .... ng " -' ,~~o, ~ <L i;l- i u j:A. 8_ o .. H . . \ ~ lL1 h Z lL1 CJ Z 0 '-; h -q::; lL1 z .~ -<<: CJ -l lL1 ll., ~. Q. C:\ ::J Z .-q::; ll., i I ~ , ..... Z . U '" ... I .... Z;~ i '" '" i a..UJ 0: "'-'-' I ...c<o. ""0 " u. = t Ou:f-Z . ,. '" ~ .... O.A., -1'0)11)- l,)-~ ~ . W;; -' <(. U U) ~ -' ... ... . ... '" W' Z '"', o . ,.. ..... ," ~. ... '0; '" ... h ~~~ ;;.'" !;.... .. ~~~ . ~ . ,l 2~::t ! - -5 - - - - ~i - - j,<- ~ - - ~ " ...,.. t . & = \ .>:. . . ""~"'.'~~ ;;;";:7;~ 'I!~;';'" .''''..'' .: '_,.ht.:/ 'is...r ,'1"'. . ~ :., ,,~, ., .', ,'~~:'-' . I. / ........~~.~ I. ,..lI~ , ~i'\< ,'.",;,',' I I [,', I -<l.~ ~~ ~ I, -< . .' ~I ~~~. ~ '" w .... . 0 ~ z ;, 0 ~ z <( 0 0 ! z w z . ~ <!) <( g '" . -' '" " '" . ~ w " -' . u , ~ w"-,..........'~~.. . o , o . . . ~ .e, ~ ill ~ . . . . " H : i ; ~ i " . II . ~ , ~! ~ h . ~ . . .' -~,..!: ~ . ~ ~. ~ I ~ ~ i ~ E . . ~ t;~.:'" .I)i' <..~ ffi .\, .. ..S t ;.c ~'"" ts!C ~I '..Y..jl,J/ i.'s-s . 0'.,( S' 0&0 . . ;//"'?o'S'/7 o.:/~..;).." . //.,( <YO;j/ L '. r I ( '~ \- , . ( ii <.) :- - J, , . \>-. "A ,J{J'. I ~ . 'd,1... tn \()O '" is' ~Ol /!! ~(jl 4.J.~. "I ~L.. t , w C> <( n. I '" a o CD '" o w o 0:. a u w '" .... z w :; '" w 0: C> .. J{.,::':,::..:.:.. ~~~~:;:':: ,. , . i t,'~"~;'~( ':,~::;;':~~:~i~~;~;:J;4+;~;;' . r~I5!!-"'~"" ,..;.t.;.1olt\............-~,......,.~,,-,. ..~,Hl::..;;2'i~;;;.'+, "",'" '",,,:, cO :) 0: 0: W a. j,lIi.1 .:'''''''' .~ ,~ .. . (;J ~ r'" ~ ~ 10 . t. ~ I I L.. J33l/JS II ...,. :JS ....", IlYl/VO 'N I I----....-.---.~...._~.._.. I "1' - ..., I ! I -, ( - '" '.... ~ ~ ~ - - ;....h...., ~)':. . Ii.: *,1 !;~:'" " io !Iit ~ h.' I:.".' lJ I,. '., J t~.~< a iP 1 · Ii ~ i ~ I" i: H~ ',' >-->,,'-, '''''''' ~.-'7:;". '1 Z e>"''' ....... 4'':; 8:8'1 . "z-l CI)' " ,> 'j ""..1 ~ , ~~;r.':', ~ .'j,~j; ;,~!,: ~ ~ z It:., ::'.',~. I ............ Ill' I CI ~.~ ;ot~, ~ z ....... '''' :, e~!~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ffi ; , >~..~~ ~ E3W ~ ~i OJ z w ... OJ "" II .:1 :~I .i ~ . . ~ffi . .~~ .S "< "" "!l lIil HI! 'Pi' h!!~ ll', ~ nil" ;l ~ ~ ~ ~, ! l; ~ ~ i"', I': .. !' .!-,,, '-,i; 3,,;. ~h~ i~e~ ~,~. i~~' fid_: ~ .. .------ l'liv' ~~'~~,\(.t~._ , ''''<f<- . 'I."..., _ ~~ ",:._~,,,,,,..,,,~,\_, ",~.> ~,:~]_...., . -~.~,.~:."i..~::'::.""":..,, ..~. .'j" ..~.,~L~;':'~~"'!i~I'::'~::.'::1 e:' . . 1."."...,UJi. ,.ilt: ;,:.;.-,;"--,,.~-~;~ ~Jti .~. I!' ,'"~-\' ~~o.,~ r-:::: ~ ~'~h~~!~~s """t: 11-- '_:'1:'$ .~2 ffi': w .!tnji~i~ti <J> ~~I'...Il!!3~a~ ;): .11 .;"'~...~.. o mm.1 ~;~ z ..!S~....~iz... <( iil'II'.,i"i'.i=..i*' ...J, ...,';.........';':'-iri - ~. !i "" Ii u .'ii g !~ ~ .. ~h ~~~ . .- " ". . ~ iil~ . I.- . mi . ~ 0- J <t ,::; >- f- --~-, - z r u > .. ." ,,' ........" ~'.,~'. .-., ",,,,' ._..';.... '.' ~ ~----'" }-., Ordinance No. 19 (Series of 2002) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING THE REZONING FROM SCI (SERVICE/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) TO R-6 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESEIDENTlAL) OF A TRIANGULAR PORTION OF LOT 4, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LOTS D AND E OF BLOCK 71, ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, LOCATED AT 216 E. HALLAM STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Frost Property LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC, requesting rezoning approval pursuant to Section 26.310.10 of the Land Use Code for a property located at 216 East Hallam Street in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the Application for compliance with the Rezoning Review Standards and has reviewed the subject property and finds it to be that property described by Pitkin County, Colorado District Court, Decree Quieting Title, Case No. 02 CV 40; and WHEREAS, the City Zoning Officer, the City Engineer, the Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the City Fire Department reviewed the rezoning and development proposal for 216 East Hallam Street and provided written referral comments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Rezoning with conditions stated herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, and conducted a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 2002 and by a vote of six to zero recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning from SCI to R-6; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, have reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the appjicable referral agencies, and has taken public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the rezoning request meets or exceeds all applicable review standards and that the approval of the rezoning is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. .... r\ (") '-' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set .forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the Rezoning from S/CII to R-6 a property located at 216 East Hallam for property described as: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART ()F LOT 4, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGES 70 THROUGH . 75 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, SAID PARCEL BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4, WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN BEARS NORTH 17" 47' 34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1348.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 430 08' 33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 70.76 FEET MORE OR LESS ALONG THE SOUTHWESTER~ Y BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4 TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH TH;E WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT "J", BLOCK 71 ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE PROJ;ECTED NORTHERLY, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 4, . NORTH 430 08' 33" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 70-76 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT "D", BLOCK 71 THENCE NORTH 14" 50' 49" EAST, ADISTANCE OF 29.62 FEET ALONG SAID LOT "D" WESTERLY BOUNDARY PROJECTED NORTHERLY; THENCE SOUTH 750 48' 37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 15.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 780 26' 25" EAST, ADIST ANCE OF 26.16 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 630 52' 32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 18.70 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT "J", BLOCK 71 ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROJECTION SOUTH 14" 50'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE PROPERTY DESCRIP:rION CALCULATES TO CONTAIN AN AREA OF 2925.506 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. r1 o l I!:; ~. '" Section 2 This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or 1:>Y virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be condu~ted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3 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 4 A public hearing on this Ordinance was set for July 8, 2002 at a meeting to commence at 5:00 p.m. 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 with the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of June, 2002. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of July, 2002. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ~ 1"""\ A , ! AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 216 E. HaUam Street Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 18 ,2002 STATEOFCOLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, F.L. Stan Clauson (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. -4_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 31 day of Mav , 200 L to aild including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. . ~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of th,e public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ,--., ,/,..-,\ Rezoning or text amendment, Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision ofthis Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of; and the notice to and listing of names and \ addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall 'be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prio< '" "" publio h=illg '" 'UC';U'7Sll . \ k-- -- Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this3L day of M~ ,200Z-,by F \_ CAr, A~'~"""" WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL .~--~-~_w~ ,-,', My commission expires: V\ J '2-\ / oS:' __" ....::::;.:::;.: , , ,.~ ~ - ".~ . : N~'p~~lir 6~ Q;:) 'V-''-"r I I ,;rENTS:, irUBLICATION . rOSTED NOTICE (SIGN) '~::ENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED ,I i ,II Ii il II II ,I l -' - "'~.'''"~ ._~,:'~.' _::-:,~., ".-. ,~ /""\ or", ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: "2-( <0 ~, Hr.) ( 0 (0 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~\ l A \A \0 ~ Z-C;f:J'---Z- , Aspen, CO ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) 55. County of Pitkin ) I, ~ ') C<. luL~S ~\tAj t (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certtfy that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~ PlIhliculion ofnoliceoo By the publication in the legal notice section of an ofticial paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the publichearirigo A copy oflhe publicalion is auached hereloo _ PoSling of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtain~ed from the Community Development Department, which was made of suit . Ie, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) 'nches wide and twenty-~ix (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of .,_ ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public he~ring. Aphotograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a ~otice obtainecl frifrIJ: ~ Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ~~ (continued on next page) ,~ -, ~ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (I5) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~~J/ ~MA tJ}..... . nature "/""<f The fO,regOing"Affidavit Of, Notice" was acknowledged b~r~,l day of Y'I~ . 200~ by ----::S-o~S 1 ~..,-~ ~uS~FORp..D\J' ';":;'>"""~."""F"''''''::;", PD_ NOlTlONp.,L t\A.LtAM co " 'cnearinS ,RE:2\f;t." " ' tbata pub\\" meet- : p\..v\. '15 HEREB'l' G\\I [Ie \'0, 2002, a\~r\an. NOTlC'E. on 'tuesday, {ore the ~~ Meet-.. : wm beheld, t 4:30 p.m. . 'sister CIties n to >. ." "tobeg\n ~ Corni1\iSS\ ' a St., Aspe , :4 ,1Il:g, ' d Zoning '1'30 s. leu frost prop- 'L ,[I!r;S an ' CIty, \-\a\\,. submitted by nditiona\ ing, Itoom, a,ppl\catIOn _ fovlll of a co j)econ. .c()n5Ide~an requesting apiot a "duP\e:\-tOtaining a ;~~itYl..\.. li::atiOn to a\\o:are foot lot ti~6 (Medi- use apP, a 6:000 Sq, cated in tee" proP- structedon nUl.r\<;that 15\0 ne District, TO.. -and hiSto:.iC\~ndResidentia\) Zo & 'f" B\ock 71, CIW ">J'ri.DenSIW 'L~A as Lots D 'at u. descn~, 'e Ohlson erty IS , {Aspen,. contact Joyc ent De- ToWnSite 0 . {OrmatlOn"W oeve\opm 70) 920- v-,'''f,,'sr"hlrther \~'tk.in commun'Aspen,CO (9 ,';c'-'ASpenl " \ na St., , tne" 1'3(1 S. (;ae " ',",' Chair ITACHMENTS ~-p"a',',tm~nt, o@ci.aspe~n.co.usS/Jas ine,-ywerriission ,l : ~(l62, jOyce, ,', "".,:' , ~~. oning Com '2(102. \ ~?"?-::':?;71f~iP\a "'""" eS on June \, \ 'r;I~~lff~J Th' ",p,n .n"'_i THE PUBLICATION '~trM(8S(}~?, __~ ~- PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) WITNESS MYHAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: c:;-dv Notary Public LV.;;;L.?/::2C:o ? LIST OF THE O\VNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL t i; , 1"'"'\. 225 N MILL ST LLC A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO 225 N MILL ST ASPEN CO 8161 I ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 114 N ASPEN ST ASPEN CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA SoT ASPEN CO 81611 FROST PROPERTY LLC 709 N SPRUCE ST ASPEN CO 81611 LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP 733 13TH ST BOULDER CO 80302 PARZYBOK WILLIAM G JR TRUSTEE 14023 220TH AVE NE WOODINVILLE WA 98072 SADLER PRISCILLA ANNE mUSTEE FOR SADLER PRISCILLA A REVOC TRUST PO BOX 2989 ASPEN CO 81612 SUTTON KERMIT S & JENNY W 801 12TH A VB S STE 200 NAPLES FL 34102 AMATO JOSEPH A PO BOX 503 HlGHLAND'MILLS NY 10930 BERKO FERENC F AMIL Y TRUST 28.835% PO BOX 360 ASPEN CO 81612 ELDER NELS REINHARD ESTATE OF ELDER JANET C 202 N MONARCH ST ASPEN CO 81611 GNEN INSTITUTE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER CO 80304 MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 37.5% PMB 101 300 puppy SMITH #203 ASPEN CO 81611 PENN PAUL E & SUSAN W 3830 E 79TH ST . INDIANAPOLIS IN 46260-3457 SEGUIN WILLIAM L PO BOX 4274 ASPEN CO 81612 US POSTAL SERVICE WESTERN REGION SAN BRUNO CA 94099 n , ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 100 PUPPy SMITH ST ASPEN CO 81611 BRUMDER WILLIAM G FLORIDA LAND mUST 2054 FJRST WISCONSIN TRUST CO MILWAUKEE WI 53201 FROST MONA J mUST C/O US BANK ATTN: LORI J HAMILTON 950 17THSTCNDT0615 DENVER CO 80256 HODGSON PHILIP R , HODGSON PATRICIA H 212 N MONARCH ST ASPEN CO 81611 . PACE LINDA MARIE 445 N MAIN A VB SAN ANTONIO TX 78205 PUPPY SMITH LLC 205 S MILL ST SUITE 301A ASPEN CO 81611 SUTTON JENNY W 4101 CUTLASS"LN NAPLES FL 34102 r.\ n PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 216 E. HALLAM CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.rn. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Frost Property LLC., requesting approval of a conditional use application to allow for a duplex to be constructed on a 6,000 square foot lot containing a historic landmark that is located in the R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone District. The property is described as Lots D & E, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Joyce Ohlson at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5062, ioyceo@ci.aspen.co.us s/Jasmine TVl!:re. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission PublishedJn the Aspen Times on June 1, 2002. City of Aspen Account ~ I'"'\, N .! t"""I t"""I ASPEN PLANNINl.- &: ZvN1NGCbMMrSSroN\1~i1nJ~Z~roM;t8:;'i/)6f' . PUBLIC HEARING: MARQUSEE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Marqusee Rezoning. provided to the Clerks. <".."..,.,..,.~"""".",;."."".,",;';,;:, Notice was MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the Marqusee Rezoning Public Hearing to August 6, 2002; seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing lor the property 216 East Hallam. Stan Clauson, representative for the applicant, provided the public notice. Joyce Ohlson stated that this was an application for a conditional use to allow for a duplex in the R-6 medium density residential zone district. The property was 6,000 square feet in size and designated as a historic landmark. Ohlspn noted that in March of 2002 P&Z recommended the rezoning of a portion of the property; the property was also known as the Mona Frost property or trust. Stan Clauson and Camilla Auger represented the Frost Property LLC. Ohlson stated that the front parcel was the subject of tonight's discussion. The additional survey data showed the property at 6,000 square feet, which falls under a legally conforming lot with the opportunity to request a duplex on this size lot. The rezoning did not affect the front property. Ohlson said that there was a proposed alley vacation that bisected the center of the properties; the alley went nowhere, which was set for first reading at City Council next week. The use of the driveway/trail was not meant for vehicular use but was part of the proposal to remain with the historic use of the driveway/trail as a driveway. Ohlson said that there would be no parking on that driveway but rather parking in the vacated alley. Ohlson said that the applicants would pave the driveway/trail to a standard, which had been desired by other city agencies to make it a 14 foot paved surface with shoulders connecting with the parking lot behind the Red Brick. Ohlson said that the Fire Department wanted better circulation behind the Red Brick. Ohlson stated that staff felt the criteria for conditional use had been met with the Red Brick use across the street, the Methodist Church and other duplexes in the neighborhood. Ohlson said there were no other adverse impacts because of the conversion from a single family to a duplex; trip generation was between 4 to 6 trips a day because of the proximity to town it would probably be lower. 3 ~, (:) Q ASPEN PLANNIt"", & LJoNING COMMISSION lVIinmes JUNE 18. 2002 Ohlson said that the duplex development of this site attained conceptual approval by HPC; HPC supported the use ofthe historic driveway so that there would not be another curb cut on Hallam. There was no accessory dwelling unit proposed on site; they would be required to pay cash-in-lieu. Ohlson said there were conditions in the resolution addressing the public right-of-way and other city agencies requirements. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use. Amy Guthrie said that these were 2 legally separate properties and each by right could have a single-family house; the conditional use added one more dwelling. Guthrie said that 2 residences on this site were pretty much a given at this point; no more FAR was gained by virtue of doing a duplex. The 6,000 square foot lot could have a 3,240 square foot house; the same as a duplex. A duplex would not gain any more floor area. Guthrie mentioned that the City received an award for the new benefits package for historic preservation. HPC has been concerned for this barn for many years and now someone came forward to rescue the building and HPC felt it important to help them out with that by affording a second unit. HPC felt that this was a great design and project. Ohlson said that there were 5 types of actions happening all at once on this site: rezoning, alley vacation, conditional use, license agreement for the easement and improvements requirements. Ohlson noted that there were many processes for this applicant; HPC looked at the architectural compatibility and P&Z looked at the conditional use. Bert Myrin asked if it were a single-family home relating to the FAR, could there still be 8 bedrooms in the front half as a possibility. Amy Guthrie replied that the number of bedrooms were not limited, only the square footage was limited. Stan Clauson, planner for the applicant, stated that the property was in a unique transitional neighborhood with residential and public uses; he said that this property redevelopment was a difficult and sensitive issue. Clauson said that the redevelopment could be done consistent with the code with a conditional use as a historic resource. There were 5 standards to consider a conditional use: 1.) consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district and complies with all other applicable requirements; 2.) 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 the complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 3.) 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; 4.) adequate public facilities' 4 / , Clauson stated that the applicant because of improvements to what was known as Sheeley Boulevard and the enhanced trail met the 5 standards and the applicant committed to supply affordable housing. Clauson restated that the code allows the same square footage for a duplex as a single-family residence, 3240 square feet. Clauson said that a single-family residence probably wouldIl't look any different than the duplex. Bill Stirling, realtor, provided a map With color-coding for duplexes and photographs of town (not provided for exhibits). Stirling described each lot with the history. Stirling said that the intent and purpose of this buyer was to protect this property and utilize the property under what the city allows. Scott Lindenau;architect, explained the elevation draWings to show the mass and scale of the property. LiMenau provided a model of the area shoWing the adjacent properties as well as the proposed. Clauson stated that this would meet the standards for the proximity to downtoWn and the residents would be permanent residents not part-time ones. Camilla Auger, representative of the Frost Trust LLC, stated that the design of this project was to meet historic preservation as a priority. Auger said the new elements were to be secondary to the historic elements, which were emphasized. Auger said that improving the trail should provide a good view of the historic elements. Bert Myrin questioned some of the duplexes in Bill Stirling's photographs. Stirling replied that they were not all duplexes but some were multiple uses. Hal DishIer, public and attorney for the Amato's, stated that they were not anti- development or anti-progress or anti-HPC; the Amato's lived next door and have obvious concerns. DishIer said that the density ofthis development, although well designed and attractive had substantial changes to what existed when the Amato's went through their process. DishIer said the development depended upon the use of a public trail to create two driveways to maximize the property. DishIer suggested the driveway cross the front property to the back property for access. DishIer said that every rule was bent to achieve SOmething on this property that was inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern; the neighborhood pattern was not on Main Street but this street. DishIer said that they were not here to question the 5 ,,~ ,~ ASPEN PLANNIh...i & DONING COMMISSION Minules JUNE 18.2002 integrity of any process but this was a conditional use for a single-family house to a duplex project. DishIer said that it was important to preserve historic development but this was a private developer for the purpose of providing economic return, which was a laudable goal but without public benefit. Joseph Amato, public, stated that he and his wife Deborah owned 222 East Hallam Street. Amato said that he had no problem with the restoration but had concern with the mass and density. Amato said that there was no grass left anywhere except in the front of this property, which created several issues of concern with 12 bedrooms in the mass that would generate many cars. Amato cited the adjacent area properties not as duplexes but single-family residences some with one- bedroom apartments. Amato referred to the Historic Preservation Guidelines pages 2, 35, 88 and 135 regarding special relationships, parking variances, landscaping, mass and scale compatible for the rehabilitationofa historic property. Amato said that the 75-year old lilac bushes and large tree would be removed from the property and the new structure would over-power the historic structure. Charles Cunniffe, public, stated that preserving Mona's house was an excellent project and there were many ways to do a project well; this approach may not be the best. Cunniffe said that they were trying not to have the driveway on their own property so you would think that there would be more open space on their property but wasn't the case, they required more setbacks on the property to build this mass. Cunniffe said that there were a lot of design assumptions but there would be another way to go back and rethink the setback variances so the application could conform with the code rather than ask for more variances. Mitch Haas, public, said that the questions on the process for the appropriateness of the building and consistency of the HPC Guidelines were for HPC. Haas said that what was before P&Z was the conditional use if a duplex was appropriate here; the question was were 2 units appropriate here. Charles Knight, public, provided background on the Amatos and himself being on HPC in 1987. Knight said there were no visible signs of duplexes from the back of the Jerome to Mona's house; this was a historic asset and should be treated as such. Knight said if an addition was necessary it should not destroy the streetscape. Knight spoke about the moratorium placed on historic houses in th~ 1980's, which he agreed with and this was an inappropriate redevelopment of a historic resource. Phil Hodgson, public, said that he lived on North Monarch and questioned the discrepancy on the surveys. Hodgson noted the Red Brick generated lots of kids in the street and to add those 12 bedrooms would not be appropriate. Hodgson said that he was against high density and in-fill. 6 > J " I"'"'\n.. n n ASPEN PLANNINt. &.ZOMNGCO~SSm~t' ."1vJ.lnJi.~t JtfNE18~2(j02 Wiley Hodgson, public, said that the integrity of the barn was stressed by the design and changing the direction of the barn. Wiley Hodgson said that the structure was not very stable. Garret Brandt, attorney for the applicant, stated.that there has been research done on the street issue and provided the background of State vacation laws when the city deeded the property to the school district in 1953. Stan Clauson noted that a map Was included in the packet. Brandt said that in 1953 the alley behind the Mona Frost property was not vacated because it would have landlocked the triangular portion of private property; state law reaffirmed in 1976 or 1978 that a municipality may not vacate a street if will totally land lock a parcel. Brandt said that the city reserved a 30-foot strip known as Lot G as public right-of-way, which was the intent and as a matter of state law have access to this property regardless of anything else said or done. Jasmine Tygre stated that without the city attorney she did not feel qualified to ask questions. Brandt stated that there was a letter from John Worcester on the right- of-way. Joyce Ohlson reiterated that the application was before the planning commission for review and evaluation as a conditional use. Ohlson said that one of the request being made to the City Council next week was the use of that public right-of-way; should you approve the conditional use as a use of that property, that approval would be null and void ifin fact there was no legal approval of that right- of-way by City Council. Tygre stated that the members of this commission were not comfortable with the two different representations from the applicant and the neighbors concerning this vacation, which was critical in the commission's evaluation of the conditional use. Bill Stirling, public, stated that duplex tlseWas technically and legally different than multiple use; the effect was the same. Stirling said that multiple use meant more than one use on a property, two families were using one property instead of just one, which means two plus cars and more than two plus people. Stirling eXplained his response when he was mayor in 1987 to the radical loss of duplexes, four and five-plexes of free-market affordable housing; the moratorium stopped the loss of all of those from the townsite with Ordinance #1 for mandatory contribution to affordable housing and the RETT. Stan Clauson said that the setback conformed to the neighbors but the overall setback received a variance. Amy Guthrie said that they met the five-foot side yard setbacks but were short on the combined setback requirement. Clauson read the R-6 medium residential zone purpose statement, which was to contain relatively dense settlements of predominately detached duplex residences within walking distance of the center of the city. 7 ,~,/-'\ C'\ ASPEN PLANNI~-.J & LJ0NING COMMISSION lVIinu(es JUNE 18. 2002 Camilla Auger said that they have tried to meet the infill objectives and the HPC objectives. Auger stated that the historic structure was tom down on the lot next door and replaced with a new structure; if this was done on the Frost property any reconfiguration could occur without objections from the neighbors and one solution to that would be for the neighbor to buy the Frost property and do what they want to their satisfaction.. Auger said that they have changed the design as far back from the sidewalk so that the streetscape would be softened and the new part would be as subservient as possible to the historic structure. Auger said that due to the HPC commitment, if they were denied the flexibility within the same square footage of a duplex, the design would not change. Jasmine reiterated the role of the P&Z was for the conditional use application but that did not mean that tl:1ere wasn't concern for the parts of the application since they were a land use planning board. Design, parking, density and HPC findings were of concern. Ron Erickson stated that it was laudable that everyone wanted to meet infill but infill was not passed into legislature; he said that those objectives could not be considered at this time. Erickson stated that there was access for this lot from the street since they were not discussing the back lot. Erickson voiced concern for the children in the neighborhood with the proposed density; he said that it did not meet the criteria for a conditional use. Eric Cohen asked ifthere was a current curb cut for the trail now. Ohlson replied that there was a curb cut for the .trail now and it would be widened and signed with a goal to improve this trail. Cohen said that there was an impact with the increased pedestrian circulation and added parking spaces. Amy Guthrie replied that there were 2 spaces on the back parcel and 3 on the front parcel. Cohen stated concern for increased pedestrian traffic with the traffic flow in the same area. Joyce Ohlson said that there were many goals to be achieved here and the trail paving was requested for greater usage by Parks and Recreation and allowed for fire trucks and emergency vehicles to circulate around the Red Brick. Ruth Kruger stated concern for the operation characteristics for the use of the property. Clauson replied residential. Auger said that an ADD was required under the city rules, so the front property included an ADD. Kruger voiced concern for the parking. Guthrie explained that there 5 on-site parking spaces. Roger Haneman asked if the number of bedrooms were reduced would that help the commissioners' concerns. Kruger replied that she hadconcem for the density concerning the number of bedrooms. Erickson said the use of the road by cars would multiply exponentially because the original Mona Frost property was one 8 (">, (')j< ........ .. .... ..... .0....(" ASPEN Pl,ANNING&ZONIN(iEOMMIS'SldNM'''ltlinutd ". .JUNE}8~2002 car with a single-family residence. Erickson voiced concern for the dual use of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on that trail. Haneman asked if this were denied would the LLC be able to sell fractions of the property. Ohlson said that would be allowed. Clauson said that if the access were decided by council, which was scheduled for July 8th then P&Z could make a decision regarding the duplex. Camilla Auger stated that there was cltrrently a lot of vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic on the trail and found no objection to limiting the number of bedrooms to 3, ifthat was an issue. Auger said that with regard to the selling of units in the LLC, they had no intention of doing that. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing to July 16,2002 for the conditional use for the Mona Frost property located 216 East Hallam. Ruth Kruger seCOnded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Myrin, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruge"r, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-2. .. ... .. Myrin expressed concern for criteria A, B & C not meeting the AACP, the increased density, community goal for an ADU, making the trail more public use friendly, preserving the streetscape, the number of bedrooms, and how to keep it as local housing. Cohen asked if this were a single-family dwelling would a driveway be placed on the other side of the property. Guthrie relied that HPC Guidelines would not allow another curb cut so there would not be another driveway possibility on the property. Erickson said that he wanted to know What HPC granted this applicant. Tygre agree with Ron and said that information would have been helpful for the commission in decision-making. Tygre requested that information for the continued hearing. Tygre stated that she shared concerns for the interaction with pedestrians and access for parking and landscaping. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend tIie P&Z meeting until 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ron Erickson. ASPPROVED4-2. PUBLIC HEARING: INNSBRUCK INN MINOR Pun, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR LODGE PRESERVATION and AFFORDABLE HOUSING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Innsbruck Inn. Proof of notice was provided. James Lindt explained that the application was submitted by 9 ~ .~. rC', ASPEN PLANNIJ'I."" & boNING COMMISSION l\1inutes JUNE 18.2002 Innsbruck Holdings LLC to expand the Innsbruck Inn at 233 West Main Street. The applicant requested a minor PUD approval as well as GMQS exemptions for Lodge Preservation and Affordable Housing; to expand the lodge by 4 lodge rooms and 1 employee dwelling unit. Lindt said that the Innsbruck was on a 15,000 square foot site on the comer of Second and Main Street, which contained 33 lodge rooms in the office zone with lodge preservation overlay. Lindt provided elevation drawings. The employee unit was 530 square feet of net livable space deed restricted as a category 2 unit with the income and asset restrictions to be waived to accommodate seasonal employees in the unit. The new lodge rooms were about 282 square feet each. There were currently 18 off-street parking spaces off of Main Street and 12 additional head-in ones on the alley, which encroach about 6 feet into the public right-of-way there fore staff won't allow all 12 to count toward the off-street parking requirements. Staff felt that the proxi~ity of the lodge to the RFT A bus and town would mitigate some concerns as well as the other parking mitigation possibilities were a bicycle fleet, promoting the transit system at the time of room bookings and providing free bus passes for employees. Staff felt that the application met standards for a minor PUD as well as GMQS exemptions for Lodge Preservation and affordable housing with the conditions set forth in P&Z Resolution #02-:20. Mitch Haas, representative for the owners, stated that he worked closely with James over the last few weeks to meet all of the criteria. Haas said it spoke volumes that no neighbors were present; this application has been granted conceptual approval from HPC. This was not a designated historic property but was in the historic district. No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #20, series 2002, approving a GMQS Exemption for Lodge Preservation for four Lodge Preservation Allotments to construct a.Jl additional four lodge units, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions the Minor Planned Unit Development, and a GMQS exemption for the development on an Employee Housing Unit for the Innsbruck Inn property located at 233 West Main Street (#2735-124-54-001). Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0. Erickson stated that the employee unit was subterranean and he recommended cash-in-lieu instead ofthat unit below grade. Haas said that the employee 10 1'""'\('") W Sl~:lAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning. Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 6 September 2002 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: WW\V.scaplanning.com Ms. Julie Ann Woods, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Withdrawal of Appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission Decision Dear Ms. Woods: On behalf of the Frost Property, LLC, owners of the property located on Townsite Lots H and I, Block 71, in the City of Aspen, commonly known as 216. E. Hallam Street, I am writing to withdraw the appeal of the decision of the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission denying the request for a duplex use of this property. Notice of appeal was tendered to you dated 18 July 2002, with a copy to Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer. Please consider our Notice of Appeal in this regard to be null and void. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Cc: David Hoefer, Esq., Assistant City Attorney Christopher J. LaCroix, Esq. Camilla Auger, Managing Partner, Frost Property, LLC PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS 1""'\ f""\ , 1i.~. P3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Direct~ FROM: James Lindt, Planner cfL-- RE: 216 E. Hallam Conditional Use for a Duplex on a 6,000 SF Lot that Contains a Historic Struc"lre- Public Hearing DATE: June 18,2002 ApPLICANT: Frost Property, LLC. REPRESENTATIVES: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC. LOCATION: 216 E. Hallam St. ZONING: R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) PROPOSED LAND USE: Duplex REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional Use: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application for a conditional use, after recommendation by the Community Develo ment Director. Location of Proposed Duplex Unit SUMMARY: A duplex on a 6,000 SF lot that contains a structure listed on the Inventory of Historic Structures is a conditional use in the R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone District. The Applicant is requesting conditional use approval to convert the existing inventoried single-family residence at 216 E. Hallam Street to a duplex. The Applicant is also requesting HPC Major Development approval that will include proposed variances from the combined front and side yard setback requirements. r--." ~ P4 STAFF COMMENTS: The immediate vicinity consists of mainly single-family residences with a couple of duplexes interspersed. Additionally, the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center is located directly to the west of the subject site. Staff believes that the proposed duplex use is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding structures and uses. The added density is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it provides for increased density in an area that is near the Commercial Core and is in walking distance to . public transportation. Staff also believes that the proposal supports the goals of the Historic Preservation Program. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the Conceptual Design for the proposed conversion to a duplex. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed conditional use will create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the traffic generation and on-street parking impacts as a result of the added density will be minimal in comparison to that generated by the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center and the Methodist Church that are located in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to maintain trash storage internal to the structure and make improvements to the driveway area between the Red Brick and the subject property. The improvements that are made to the driveway area to the west of the subject property will improve pedestrian access to the Post Office Pedestrian Trail to the north of the subject site. Furthermore, the Growth Management Quota System requires that the Applicant mitigate for the additional unit proposed for the property by either constructing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or by paying a cash-in-lieu fee for the additional square footage being added as part of the second unit. The Applicant has not included an ADU in their floor plans. Therefore, the Applicant is required to pay a cash-in-lieu fee for the additional unit. Staff feels that the proposal meets the review standards for granting a conditional use and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposal to convert the single-family residence to a duplex. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions, the proposed conditional use request to allow for the construction of a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot that contains a historically designated structure at 216 E. Hallam Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: . "I move to approve Resolution No.1.!1, Series of2002, approving the conditional use for a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot in the R-6 Zone District with the conditions as contained within the resolution." 1""'\ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C '1 P5 Review Criteria and Staff Findings Application . Referral Comme,nts P6 "'-"', .~ RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2002) . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR. A DUPLEX ON A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THAT CONTAINS A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURE IN THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT, AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 EAST HALLAM STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Identification # 2735-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Frost Property, LLC., represented by Stan Clauson Associates LLC., requesting conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot in the R-6 Zone District at 216 E. Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.710.040(C)(7) of the Land Use Code, the R-6 Zone District allows for a duplex to be constructed as a conditional use on a 6,000 square foot lot that contains a historically designated structure; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425 of the Land Use Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a conditional use during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ L---.J vote, a conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot at 216 E. Hallam Street, with the conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal tmder the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMlVUSSION as follows: . ,...." ~ P7 Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot at 216 E. Hallam Street is approved subject to the conditions described hereinafter. Conditions of Approval: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a GMQS Exemption by either constructing and Accessory Dwelling Unit, deed restricting an off-site unit pursuant to the Housing Guidelines, or paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee. 2. The Applicant shall obtain Final Major HPC Approval prior to applying for building permit. 3. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan for review by the Community Development Engineer at the time of building permit submittal. 4. The Applicant shall not park vehicles in the public right-of- way that borders the west side of the parcel. 5. The Applicant shall not plant vegetation that will encroach into the public right-of-way. 6. Vegetation shall not be planted that blocks the site distance of cars using the driveway and the adjacent public right-of-way as determined by the Commlmity Development Engineer. 7. The Applicant shall obtain an encroaclunent license from the City Engineering Department if there is a need to relocate a water or sewer service line in the public right-of-way along the east side of the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center. 8. Conditional Use Approval shall be contingent upon City Council approving the use of the public right-of-way for vehicular access to the rear of the parcel. Conditional Use Approval shall also be contingent upon City Council vacating the alley to the north of the parcel. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. , ~ r-, P8 Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMl"VIISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk /"""';, , () P9 EXHIBIT A MONA FROST PROPERTY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area'Community plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed tobe located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed conditipnal use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP states as one of it's goals in managing growth; that additional development density should be concentrated in an area that is "supportive of transit and pedestrian accessibility". Staff believes that relative location of the parcel is such that it is in walking distance of the Commercial Core and is conducive. to utilizing public transportation. Staff also feels that proposal meets the goals of the Historic Preservation Program. HPC has already approved the Conceptual design of the duplex. Staff finds tJiis criterion to be met. 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; and Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed use of a duplex is compatible with the character of the land uses and development in the immediate vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood consists of mainly single-family residences with some duplex dwelling units interspersed. Staff believes that a duplex is an appropriate use for the subject parcel. The increased massing of the structure will allowfor it to be a transition structure between the large Red Brick Recreation and Arts structure and the slightly smaller single-family residences to the east. Additionally, the HPC believes that the proposed addition is compatible in scale to the existing historic structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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; and /'--... r, P10 Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed conditional use for a duplex will have a significant . adverse effect on the surrounding properties. Staff feels that the traffic generation and on-street parking impacts will be very minimal in relation to that of the Red Brick and the Methodist Church that are located in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the trash storage for both units is proposed intemal to the structure. Pedestrian circulation will also be improved by the improvements that are to be made to the pedestrian trail located to the west of the property that links the Post Office Trail with the West End of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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; and Staff Finding Staff believes that there are adequate public facilities in the vicinity to serve the proposed conditional use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and StaffFinding The proposed conditional use may obtain an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System by either constructing an ADU, deed restricting an off- site unit that meets the Housing Guideline requirements, or by pay a cash-in-lieu fee for the additional duplex unit to be constructed on-site. The Applicant has consented to either constructing an ADU or paying the required cash-in-lieu fee. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ^ MEMORANDUM ("'\ ;) To: Development Review Committee. P11 From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer Reference DRC Case/oad Coordinator Date: April 15, 2002 Re: 216 E. Hallam Street, Mona Frost Property - - Rezoning, Alley Vacation, and Use of Public Property for Access Attendees: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Tom Bracewell, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Richard Goulding, Engineering Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department Ed Van Walraven, Fire Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Camilla Auger Stan Clauson The Development Review Committee reviewed the 216 E. Hallam St., Mona Frost Property at their April 16, 2002 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC COmments are based on the factthatwe assume the submitted site plan is accurate, thai it shows all site features, and that proposed development is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems and delays related to approvals tied to "issuance. of building permit." 2. R.O.W./mpacts: /fthere are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Enqineering Department: . It is required that there will be no encroachments into the 20 foot wide ROW between 216 Hallam and theRedBric~buiiding. . Within the 20 foot ROW, there shot.lldbe a 14-foot width of pavement with 3 foot wide gravel shoulders on each side. . The paving of the ROW should be performed by the applicant prior to the City issuing a CO. ' . The utilities serving the property should not be located in the 20-foot ROW unless there is no other option. . The vacation of the alley that bisects the property should not occur until the City is satisfied with the proposed plans. . 2. Community Development Enqineer: . If the re-development of the site results in an increase in impervious area, a drainage plan will need to be developed that provides storm water retention. 3. Zoninq: , P12 Page 2 of3 April 15, 2002 216 E. Hallam No comments at this time. /, 4. Housinq Department: No comments at this time. 5. Fire Protection District: . No compromise possible for the width of the alley - - it must be 20 foot wide. . No landscaping along the Red Brick Building unless the 20-foot width is preserved. . A fire truck must be able to pull into the 20-foot ROWand then leave without backing into Hallam. One alternative is to keep the area between the house and the barn empty so that a fire truck can turn around. The other alternative is for the project to make it possible for a fire truck to drive around the Red Brick building thus eliminating the need for a place to turn around on the property. 6. Parks Department: . If the sewer line is moved on the north side of the building, the Parks Department should be involved in the re-Iandscaping of the area. . The project must maintain the access to the public ROW through providing signs for the trail. The applicant should work with the Parks Department on signage. . No parking allowed in the public ROW. . The applicant should be encouraged to continue the pavement around the Red Brick building to join with the existing trail. . Do not plant vegetation such as lilacs that will .encroach into the ROW. As an alternative, the Parks Department suggests that Columnar Buckthorn trees be planted between the ROWand the Red Brick building. . The driveway for 216 Hallam will be shared with bicyclists and other trail users. Vegetation should not be planted that will block the site distance for cars using the driveway. .' . . When the 14' wide pavement is placed in the ROW, a paved walkway should be provided to the Red Brick door. . 7. Buildinq Department: No comments at this time. 8. City Water Department . Easements for Water and Sewer: Locating the water and sewer services on the property may be constrained by the available space. A 20-foot wide utility easement is needed to accommodate the required 10-foot separation between water and sewer lines and the additional space needed for excavation.' This constraint may result in the need to place water and/or sewer services lines in the ROW along the Red Brick Building. 9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District . A main sewer line runs along the north side of the barn. An easement either needs to be provided for this sewer line or the sewer line will need to be moved further onto the Puppy Smith property to the north. . Plans should show the manholes and sewer line to the north of the property. . Landscaping on north end of property should not restrict access to sewer manholes. . An easement will be needed for the service line. f", " Page 3 of3 April 15, 2002 216 E. Hallam 10. Environmental Health P13 No comments at this time. 11. City Community Development - Planninq No comments at this time. 12. Electric Department (provided by Phil Overeynder) . The Electric Company needs to be able access their equipment including the switch gear. Additional research needs to be performed by the applicant and the Electric Company regarding access to the switch gear. 13. Holy Cross Electric No comments at this time 14. City Attorney No comments at this time 15. Streets Department No comments at this time 16. Historic Preservation Officer No comments at this time 17. Pitkin County Planninq No comments at this time 16. County and City Disaster Coordinator No comments at this time Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 3. Streets: 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department . D:\DRCMona Frost.doc /~ P14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY_16, 2002 P3 ('., COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 MINUTES ..........................................................................................................,......2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...............................................2 216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE........................................................ 2 LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUALIFINAL PUD.......................12 Board Reports..... ....:.... .................... ................ ......................... ............. ..... ..... ........ 12 /-', r-, , ~.: 1 P4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.rn. in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Ron Erickson and Eric /----, Cohen. Roger Haneman was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked if the bookstore on Hopkins (Quandrant Books) was a demolition; he said that it was a change of use to a residence. Amy Guthrie replied that she had not gone past to look at it; she said that the definition for demolition was 50%. Erickson stated that it was more than 50%. Joyce Ohlson responded that the zoning officer Sarah Oates would look into the building pel11?-it. Joyce Ohlson stated that the Harley Baldwin zoning violation was reported through Sarah Oates, components of the structure were removed that were not in compliance and a new application was submitted to HPC. Amy Guthrie replied that she has not reviewed the new application. Guthrie said that they were in compliance with the open space requirements with proposed minor modifications to the building. MINUTES MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from June 18, 2002 and July 2, 2002. Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 5-0. . DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Bert Myrin disclosed that he lived 2-3 houses east of 216 Hallam but did not have any preconceived ideas about the project. David Hoefer stated that as long as the case was not prejudged. /-"', CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARlNG (06/18/02): 216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing. Tygre stated that there were areas that P&Z had criteria on to evaluate the conditional use portion of the project. Letters from Richard Johnson, Allergy Associates, Richard E Bump, William C. and Joan E Light, Mr. Sutton and Mr. Amato were placed into the public record. Joyce Ohlson provided the updated overview from the HPC and City Council decisions. Council reviewed and approved the rezoning of the back parcel of the Mona Frost parcels, which was currently SCI to be rezoned R-6; vacation of the old historic remnant alley and use of 20 feet of city property for access to the r, 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 P5 houses and backstructu:res. Theeasement was not to be paved but rather a weight bearing capacity gravel to handle fire and emergency access was to be used. r"\ Jasmine Tygre asked how the vacated land from the alley was allocated. Ohlson replied that Colorado Statute divided the land equally but the accrued land did not count for density or floor area. r"\ Ohlson stated that the HPC granted final approval for the development of the historic landmark. Amy Guthrie stated that the entire property was considered a historic landmark; HPC reviewed the outside architecture of the structures and were not concerned if the building were a duplex or not other than the incentive to help people with historic structures. G)lthrie stated HPC granted variances for combined side yard setbacks and a small variance on the other side yard on the to the back lot where the barn was located, which was being rotated and restored with a connecting piece and a new addition.. Guthrie stated that on the front lot no demolition on the old structure would be done, only new construction to the rear and side of the building setback from the historic portion with variances from 1 required parking space (2 in the garage and 1 in back), a combined front and rear yard setback waiver of 5 feet and 500 i'\quare foot floor area bonus for an exceptional historic preservation project. A Mary Hays 1950's photo was provided. of the property for a true restoration with trill andwindows. Scott Lindenau explained the redevelopment and provided a model of the property and the neighboring properties. The materials used would be all natural. Tygre asked the FAR of the duplex. Guthrie replied that it was 3,740 square feet for the duplex. Stan Clauson replied that the barn parcel was 2,509 square feet. f"""., Ohlson reiterated the criteria for P&Z was a review ofthe proposed duplex on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot with 5 criteria: 1.) Conditional use was consistent with the purposes goals, standards and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent of the zone district in which it was proposed. 2.) Consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 3). The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse affects; impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, delivery service, noise, vibrations and odor on surromiding properties. 4). Adequate public facilities to service the conditional use such as roads, water, sewer, parks, police, emergency medical service, drainage systems and schools. 5). Affordable Housing will be provided to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Staff made positive findings provided with the conditions in the resolution. 3 P6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 Erickson asked if all 5 standards had to be applicable and met. Ohlson responded that they were all applicable; some were more applicable than others. ~, , Camilla Auger explained that she selected this project because it was a historic preservation project with one of the highest preservation goals and for the opportunity to enhance the trail and create a pocket park in the back to enhance the neighborhood. Auger said that the design was in contrast to the existing structure; if the duplex were granted the duplex will have no effect on the square footage, the square footage will be the same wither way. Auger said it will not change the design in any way but gives more flexibility and more likely to have someone live in the house as a resident of Aspen, which would be a benefit. Clauson said that there were discrepancies in the Amato letter; there was only one duplex requested on the front lot. There were 2 separate lots with 4 bedrooms proposed for the single-family house in the rear lot, which was not under this purview; on the front lot there were 3 bedrooms proposed for each side of the duplex. . Clauson said that the scale drawings show the landscaping and existing trees being preserved along with green areas and trail enhancement with a gravel surface for public use. Clauson said that the variances related more to the historic preservation rather than the duplex. Clauson noted that some additional traffic may result from two households rather than one, but that would not be inconsistent , with the neighborhood, which contained many duplex occupancies (map illustrated yellow highlighting not included). Clauson said that there was only one duplex proposed and the Frost family historically used the driveway. Clauson went through the findings being consistent with the character of the neighborhood and enhanced the character of the neighborhood in conjunction with the Red Brick. The applicant committed to supply affordable housing in a manner consistent with the code. i~' Paul Penn, public, stated that it was an exaggeration because all the yellow highlighted sites were not duplexes on that map. Penn asked for clarification of the duplexes or houses with ADDs. Ohlson responded that a residential structure that contained a residence as well as an ADD does not a duplex according to the land use code. Ohlson noted that an ADD was not considered a unit of density. Bert Myrin said that the maps differed greatly. Ron Erickson asked the HPC vote. Guthrie replied that it was unanimous in favor ofthe project. Erickson asked who would be responsible for the park. Auger said that they would landscape their portion of the property and connect the path with a .r'>.. set of stone stairs and signage with a gift to the city. Ohlson noted that this park was not part of this application but the applicant worked with parks on the 4 t""'"\ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 P7 landscaping. Erickson asked what the parking requirements were if this were a single-family dwelling. Guthrie respollded that 2 spaces would be required for a single-family residence. Erickson asked how the residents would be more permanent than part-time if this were a duplex. Auger responded that she said that it would be more likely to be inhabited by someone who was a full-time resident ifit were a duplex, since it would be more affordable. Erickson n()ted that whatever happened today could only be guaranteed for this point in time but not for 2 years down the line. Auger agreed. Clauson responded that they all agreed that more affordable housing tends to be more generally occupied by people that are local, whereas the very expensive single-family large houses are occupied by a population that spends time here and elsewhere. Eric Cohen asked where the responsibility for payment for the path was held. Ohlson replied that Council placed a condition that the applicant's would be required to maintain, plow and built the path. t"""'-, Erickson asked about signage for the easement. Ohlson answered that the applicant would enter into a license agreement with the City of Aspen and the condition regarding signage from City Council for the use of the driveway by the applicant. . Myrin inquired about the yellow on the map across the street from the applicant. Ohlson stated that the map from last week reflected that assessor's records with multi-family but not necessarily duplexes or legal apartments. Guthrie said that there may be errors where there were ADDs or multifamily units. Guthrie said that there have been 3 other projects approved by P&Z on 3,000 square foot lots; she noted that 3,000 square foot were common in the West End neighborhood. Ruth Krueger asked where the trash was located in the structures. Clauson responded that it was in the garage. Myrin asked the distance between the house and the trail. Guthrie replied that it was 3 feet from the property line. Myrin asked if the planting would be in that 3 feet area or will it encroach into the easement. Auger responded that all of the lilacs may not be preserved in that one spot but the planting will not encroach. r"\ Tygre reiterated that the process was for P&Z to simply rule on whether a duplex was acceptable rather than a single-family house. The dimensional requirements, parking variances and setback variances were established through the HPC review, which were not options for P&Z review. 5 P8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 Ruth Kruger said that the only difference in the structure built would be an extra kitchen and an extra parking spot if this were granted to be a duplex, all else would remain the same the size, FAR and architectural design no matter what the zoning was. Clauson said that the external structure would appear the same but the interior would be an extra household. , Dr. Richard Johnson, public, stated that he and his wife have lived at 123 East Hallam for over 20 summers; they bought their Aspen home because of the historical nature. Johnson said that there were many original single-family dwellings such as the Mona Frost house, which maintained the character of their street with single-family dwellings. (Johnson distributed photos of the neighborhood, not kept in the record). Montage Johnson, public, stated appreciation for the commission's time and said that she accepted the fact that the colored map may not be accurate (many of the yellow sites were ADDs and not duplexes). Mrs. Johnson stated that she and her husband have done historic restoration in 3 sites and that they were interested in maintaining the National Registry for Historic Preservation and they were concerned in this case. Paul Penn, public, stated that he and his wife Susan lived at 134 East Bleeker Street at the comer of Bleeker and Aspen. Penn said that they bought their house in 1992, which was in about the same condition as the Frost house was today. Penn said that with the help ofHPC they remodeled and enlarged it in 1992-93 but they investigated the zoning, historical guidelines, FAR and codes so they were well prepared with very few surprises. Penn asked if a duplex was appropriate in the neighborhood; he said the neighbors felt that it was an exception to the norm for a duplex, there were some duplexes but there was an easy way to find out which were duplexes and which were not by tax records. Penn stated that they were encouraged to build the ADD and a qualified local worker continuously from the day the occupancy permit was received has occupied it. Penn stated that they were concerned about Aspen and did not mean to be contrary. Penn said that when a property owner comes for a zoning change (as in a duplex) there was no benefit to the society at large but the applicant had much to gain in property value by rezoning. Penn said that in his experience the property value increases with up- zoning and decrease the neighboring properties; he said that difference of increased property value should be distributed to the neighboring property owners in cash. Penn said that this method would remove the financial incentives of asking for a rezomng. Hal DishIer, public, stated that he represented Mr. Amato and appreciated the comments from the homeowners. Dishier said that he counted 12 bedrooms and .~ r->. 6 fI""""\ ('""". ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16. 2002 asked about the ADU, housing goals, density and parking. DishIer said that density would be increased with this redevelopment and that there was a compatibility issue with responses from the people in the audience tonight regarding a duplex. DishIer said that the duplex would create greater density and use with a negative effect on this immediate community. DishIer said this would create an additional burden on the public services and create an additional safety hazard. DishIer asked how this project would make this occupancy a local or partly full time and asked to review the economic plan for this project. P9 Bob Viera, public, stated he was representing Aspen Carriage Company and read the letter from the Company, which did not support the redevelopmen~ because it did not fit into the historical character of the neighborhood. Denise Diers, public, stated that she represented herself and lived in one of the ADUs that was called a duplex; she also was the caretaker for the Kermit and Jenny Sutton property at the west comer of Hallam and Aspen. The Sutton's letter was placed into the record earlier. There was concern for the additional traffic that the duplex would generate because of the amount of children across the street, there was concern for the carriages at the slow speed and the traffic from the walking tours with the addition ofthis duplex. There was concern for the density in the neighborhood with the properties built lot line to lot lines. Diers pointed out her residence, an ADU on the map and the neighbonng properties, which were not duplexes. Diers stated that she was not anti-development and provided her background as a real estate agent, political consultant with projects in town that she helped develop. Diers stated that she loved the ambiance of the neighborhood and asked P&Z to take a visual from the trail on to the carriage houses, which will be obliterated by the new development. Diers stated that there was no neighborhood benefit from the redevelopment of the path to Clark's and the additional density. Suzannah Reid, public, stated that she was the chair of the HPC; she said that they have worked very hard to develop incentives that help balance the benefit to the community from the property owner doing the restoration. Reid stated that there was an important balance to achieve and in this case she believed the community was getting a benefit from the work that was being done by this developer. Reid said there were impacts on the neighbors but any project had a benefit to the broader overall community for an appropriate as well preserved project as in this case. Jamie V. Hall, public, stated that she was a lifetime resident of Aspen and grew up A. with Mrs. Frost as her Aspen grandmother. Hall stated that she was impressed with what was presented for the renovation and restoration of this truly historic building. Hall said that impacts to the neighbors were inevitable and cannot be 7 P10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 diminished; she was please about the stairs down to Clark's. Hall said that the whole project was preserving the overall integrity of the historical aspect of the lot. Bill Stirling, public, stated that he was the real estate broker that sold the property and he said that he was an old friend of Mona Frost that managed the property for many years from 1995-2000 when Mona moved to Colorado Springs. Stirling said that he did the best he could with what the trust allowed with a lack ofresources for restoration; it was the last true Victorian without any restoration. Stirling stated that the barn was about to fall down; he commented that the Amato's house was a Victorian-style house not a restored one. Stirling stressed the HPC incentives were hoped to be balanced decisions to benefit the purchaser and the biggest to the town; he said that the photos from Mary Hays show how the house will look in the restored state with the addition of a garage in back. Stirling said that if the duplex were approved it would add to the diversity of the neighborhood, which provided a greater chance for the long-term best interest of Aspen. Helen Palmer, public, stated that she has known the Frost family and a little creative zoning might be a good thing for Aspen and not a bad thing for the immediate neighbors that have changed and have been sold. Palmer commented that the West End was dark because the homes were not lived in very much of the time and not loved like when you live in a house all the time.. Palmer said that thisr-, was a chance for the neighborhood to be a little lively than it tends to be in most of the West End at the moment. Palmer said that they see what happens when the little miner's cottages were changed and bear no resemblance to what they used to be with a bustle effect looming over them. Palmer said that saving the 100-year- old lilacs and the Mary Hays photo showed the eyebrow treatment, which was very special with a chance to regain some of the past. Palmer stated that this was a very good project for Aspen. Clauson said that he had to clarify some things that ownership did not define a duplex if it was a multifamily nature. Clauson said that if they erred in the mapping they apologized but tried to consistently show where multifamily uses existed. Clauson said that the purpose of the zone district was quite clear with single-family and duplex uses. David Hoefer noted that in this zone district a single-family house was a permitted use and a duplex was a conditional use but the zoning did not change. Clauson said that the number of bedrooms show the final form with 3 bedrooms. Scott Lindenau stated that the average number of bedrooms in the West End was just under 5 per house. Auger said that the references to the quaint little red brick school was really 31,000 ,--, square feet of mixed industrial use; she said that there was a gymnasium, TV and radio stations with a large antenna and storage. Auger said that they were trying to 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 P11 make their project as nice as they can by adding greenery and a little park in 1""'. addition to preserving as much of the lilacs as they possibly can. Auger said that they do believe that a duplex would contribute to the likelihood oflocal people living there. Erickson asked if they did not get approval for a duplex was the implication that the properties would not be restored. Auger replied no that was not what they said; she said there was no such comment. Guthrie noted that there were 2 historic buildings that they were significantly aHered Or deteriorated; benefits were created to try to assist with an incentive to have someone willing to take the step. Auger said that the package incentives make it possible to finance these historic preservation projects otherwise they would be impossible; she said that by not granting a duplex it would be a sever disadvantage. Auger stated that had she had not anticipated this request to be a problem. Eric Cohen said that it was the commission's purview to consider the 5 standards; he said that standard "c" minimizes the impacts on vehicular and pedestrian circulation was not met by this project with the duplex and the pedestrian path as conflicting and competing uses. Cohen said that it would have a negative impact by encouraging the pedestrian use and increasing the vehicular use. Cohen said r. that he agreed with HPC on some of th~ other things. Bert Myrin said that the criteria was not met because it did not fit the historical character of the neighborhood, another duplex may take away from the Victorian feel. Myrin said that the historic nature of the street did not appear more dense than 100 years ago; he said unless this were an RO or ADD then he said the price per square foot would not have a big difference. Myrin noted that this was the immediate vicinity or neighborhood and it did not extend to Nick De Wolfe's house. Myrin said that he agreed with Eric on the vehicular and pedestrian use; he said that the driveway use would be mOre intensive use for a duplex than it would be for a single-family home if the structure would be the same on the outside regardless if it were a duplex or not. Ruth Kruger said that she was tom with mixed feelings for the project. Kruger applauded the HPC preservation program but she stated concern for the school and traffic that maybe added to the path and driveway by a duplex. Kruger stated that she supported anything that encouraged local people to live in Aspen and not move down valley. I"!"'\. Ron Erickson stated that he agreed with what Ruth said but wasn't having trouble with a decision. Erickson stated concern for the density with the children; he said the review criteria met #1 but he did not feel that it met points "B" and "e", which 9 P12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 were compatible to the immediate vicinity, location, design and operating characteristics of the conditional use for adverse effects. Erickson said that this building will be built the same size as a single-family, it puts P&Z in a box; he said that he would be more inclined to approve a duplex if setbacks were adhered to and the building were smaller. Jasmine Tygre stated that the problems for her had to do with the size, dimensions and setbacks, which were not the P&Z purview. Tygre said that generally speaking additional density would be preferable, two 1800 square foot units. Tygre stated concern for the waiver of parking and the impact on the neighborhood was going to be severe. Tygre stated that if the FAR bonus wasn't gained and there were fewer bedrooms there would be less impact on the neighborhood in terms of density. Myrin said that the parking may not be under the P&Z purview but it did come under the neighborhood impacts. Cohen said that it was ironic that by denying an application for a duplex you increase the chance that it was a seldom used trophy home and loose out on some sort of mitigation for employee housing to maintain the exact same size structure and massing. Cohen said the neighbors would probably be disappointed because ~ this was the same outer box as a duplex or single-family home. Cohen said that he did not think that there would be much difference in the traffic generated but he wanted to find a way to separate the increased traffic with the pedestrian needs. Cohen said that the project did not meet criteria "c" but he said that for every other reason wanted to approve the application. Auger said that there was a lot of discussion about a duplex resulting in more traffic and she said that there were currently between 1 and 4 trucks and hour that go to the Red Brick based upon her observation while working on the property. Auger said with people living in the houses there would likely be less traffic. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.m. Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 4-1. Lindenau explained the design solution as compatible with the scale. Auger said that the footage between the houses was dictated. Clauson said that if this were to be a single-family house it would lend itself to having the housing mitigation requirement met on site with an ADD. Clauson said even though an ADD would not be considered a unit of density, there would be that additional family as part of .~ the ADD. Tygre noted that the ADD rules have changed to be a detached unit above ground. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16,2002 P13 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve Resolution #19, series of ('""'.. 2002, approving the conditional use for a duplex on a 6,000 square foot ~. lot in the R-6 Zone District with the conditions as contained in the resolution. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Kruger, yes; Cohen, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1. Discussion: Cohen asked the allowed yehicular use on the pedestrian path. Ohlson stated said that there were very few limitations today, there were no signs posted so it was seen as a way. Cohen said with the City Council decision and proposal on the table there would be gravel; he asked if there would be any change in that allowable use. Ohlson replied that the driveway would be signed for pedestrian use and could be used as it was used today. Auger stated that it was a throughway called Sheeley Boulevard. Cohen said that if the driveway were only used for this project and Red Brick use, then he would have a different view of the traffic problems. Clauson and Auger stated that they could sign the driveway Authorized Vehicles only. Myrin asked if this was a P&Z purview to change the use. Hoefer said that it could be a condition of approval. Clauson commented that he originally brought this project forward prior to this applicant and at that time the Parks Department thought a paved roadway was the best solution; clearly City Council spoke in another direction and Parks was amenable to the new approach. Clauson r said that if this commission wanted to make a condition for signage that the Park Department would find a solution to go forward with it. Auger said that having worked with the Parks Department she thought that they would welcome it because they were looking for a concept to limit traffic in amore appropriate manner, which no one has thought of this and she though that everyone would be pleased by such a suggestion. Erickson said that the problem with that condition was that it was not enforceable; he said that they were asking to restrict the use of public land as a condition for a change in use and he did not feel that they were compatible. Erickson said that this was a public right-of-way used by the Red Brick. Erickson stated that he would change his motion if the applicant could build a duplex that was under 3,000 square feet and only housed 8 people maximum, but this house was too bug for the lot. Cohen said that wasn't what the issue was because that had already been decided. Tygre asked who chose the form of mitigation for the employee-housing requirement. Ohlson replied that it was up to the housing authority. Cohen stated that he couldn't vote for the motion as it stood unless the applicant could get a change in use forthat path so that it was restricted to pedestrian and ,". emergency vehicles with a special permit. Ohlson responded that the applicants already had a license agreement to use the driveway. Cohen said ifthere were a restriction on the motorized vehicular use on the now increased pedestrian byway, II P14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 he would be in favor of it. Clauson said that they would welcome that condition and would work to try to implement it. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to include that the licensed area be signed such that only emergency vehicles or authorized vehicles were permitted use of the roadway with approval from the Parks Department. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 3-2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/02/02): LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing and continued it to August 6th. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the Little Ajax Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD to August 6, 2002; seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 5-0. The commission adjourned into a discussion of the Board Reports at 7:30 p.rn. Board Reports Ruth Kruger and Bert Myrin reported on the COWOP. ~ u.v ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ~ 12 ~ ~ .l\[.A . P21 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: . Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directo~ FROM: James Lindt, Planner '-.\ \..- RE: 216 E. Hallam Conditional Use for a Duplex on a 6,000 SF Lot that Contains a Historic Structure- Public Hearing- Continued from JUne 18th DATE: July 16,2002 ApPLICANT: Frost Property, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC. LOCATION: 216 E. Hallam St. ZONING: R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) . PROPOSED LAND USE: Duplex REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional Use: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application for a conditional use, after recommendation by the Community Develo ment Director. Location of Proposed Duplex Unit . . SUMMARY: A duplex on a 6,000 SF lot that contains a structure listed on the Inventory of Historic Structures is a conditional use in the R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone District. The Applicant is requesting conditional use approval to convert the existing inventoried single-family residence at 216 E. Hallam Street to a duplex. The Applicant is also requesting HPC Maj or Development approval that will include proposed variances from the combined front and side yard setback requirements. ," f\ P22 COUNCIL ACTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the review of the review of the Conditional Use application on June 18th in order to find out the results of City Council's review of the associated rezoning and use of the public property as vehicular access to the rear of the lot. City Council approved the proposed rezoning of a portion of the rear lot from SICII to R-6. Additionally, City Council approved the use of public 'property to the west of the subject parcel as vehicular access to both the front and rear lots. Therefore, the Applicant may utilize the vehicular driveway between the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center and the subject parcel as access to the rear of the subject parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: The immediate vicinity consists of mainly single-family residences with a couple of duplexes interspersed. Additionally, the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center is located directly to the west of the subject site. Staff believes that the proposed duplex use is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding structures and uses. The added density is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it provides for increased density in an area that is near the Commercial Core and is in walking distance to public transportation. Staff also believes that the proposal supports the goals of the Historic . Preservation Program. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the Conceptual Design for the proposed conversion to a duplex. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed conditional use will create significant adverse impacts on. the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the traffic generation and on-street parking impacts as a result of the added density will be minimal in comparison to that generated by the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center and the Methodist Church that are located in the immediate neighborhood. City Council has approved a means of access to the rear of the subject parcel which will allow for the parking to be hidden from the street as is consistent with the residential design standards. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to maintain trash storage internal to the structure and make improvements to the driveway area: between the Red Brick and the subject property. The improvements that are made to the driveway area to the west of the subject property will improve pedestrian access to the Post Office Pedestrian Trail to the north of the subject site. Furthermore, the Growth Management Quota System requires that the Applicant mitigate for the additional unit proposed for the property by either constructing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) or by paying a cash-in-lieu fee for the additional square footage being added as part of the second unit. The Applicant has not included an ADU in their floor plans. Therefore, the Applicant would be required to pay a cash-in-lieu fee for the additional unit. Staff feels that the proposal meets the review standards for granting a conditional use and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposal to convert the single-family residence to a duplex. 1"""\ 'r, I""') P23 RECOMMENDATION:' Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions, the proposed conditional use request to allow for the construction of a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot that contains a historically designated structure at 216 E. Hallam Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. fL Series of2002, approving the conditional use for a duplex on a (;,000 square foot lot in the R-(; Zone District with the con~itionsascontained Within the resolution." . . ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A . Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Findings Historic Preservation Commission Resolution Approving Conceptual Review and Variances /'\ /'\ P24 RESOLUTION NO. l!f (SERIES OF 2002) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX ON A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THAT CONTAINS A mSTORICALL Y DESIGNATED STRUCTURE IN THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT, AT THE-PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 EAST HALLAM STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Identification # 2735-073-14-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Frost Property, LLC., represented by Stan Clauson Associates LLC., requesting conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot in the R-6 Zone District at 216 E. Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.710.040(C)(7) of the Land Use Code, the R-6 Zone District allows for a duplex to be constructed as a conditional use on a 6,000 square foot lot that contains a historically designated structure; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.425 of the Land Use Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a conditional use during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, a recori:Jm.endation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Departmentreviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 18,2002 and tabled the application; m;d, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 16, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ L---.J vote, a conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot at 216 E. Hallam Street, with the conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, . WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. I"', .~ ~ P25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the conditional use approval to construct a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot at 216 E. Hallam Street is approved subject to the conditi?ns described hereinafter. ConmtionsofApproval: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a GMQS Exemption by either constructing and Accessory Dwelling Unit, deed restricting an off-site unit pursuant to the Housing Guidelines, or paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee. 2. The Applicant shall obtain Final Major HPC Approval prior to applying for building permit. 3. The Applicant shall submit a drainage plan for review by the Community Development Engineer at the time of building permit submittal. 4. The Applicant shall not park vehicles in the public right-of- way that borders the west side of the parcel. ^ 5. The Applicant shall not plant vegetation that will encroach into the public right-of-way. 6. Vegetation shall not be planted that blocks the site .distance of cars using the driveway and the adjacent public right-of-way as determined by the Community Development Engineer. 7. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment license from the City Engineering Department if there is a need to relocate a water or sewer service line in the public right-of-way along the east side of the Red Brick Recreation and Arts Center. 8. Conditional Use Approval shall be contingent upon City Council approving the use of the public right-of-way for vehicular access to the rear of the parceL Conditional Use Approval shall also be contingent upon City Council vacating the alley to the north of the parcel. ~ P26 (~ < Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof 'A public hearing on this resolution was held and tabled by the Commission on the 18th day of June, 2002. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 16, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jasmine Tygre, Chair I"'"\, tj P27 , EXHIBIT A MONA FROST PROPERTY CONDITIONAL USE ' REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFFFINI>INGS' 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and 'Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed conditional use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP states as one of it's goals in managing growth; that additional development density should be concentrated in an area that is "supportive of transit and pedestrian accessibility". Staff believes that relative location of the parcel is such that it is in walking distance of the Commercial Core and is conducive to utilizing public transportation. Staff also feels that proposal meets the goals of the Historic Preservation Program. HPC has already approved the Conceptual design of the duplex. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. The conditional use is consistent and coIllpatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uS,es and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and .staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed use of a duplex is compatible with the character of the land uses and development in the immediate vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood consists of mainly single-family residences with some duplex dwelling units interspersed. Staff believes that a duplex is an appropriate use for the subject PaJ:cel. The increased massing of the structure will allow for it to be a transition structure between the large Red Brick Recreation and Arts structure and the slightly smaller single-family residences to the east. Additionally, the HPC believes that the proposed addition is compatible in scale to the existing historic structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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; and " P28 /,""", Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed conditional use for a duplex will have a significant adverse effect on the surrounding properties. Staff feels that the traffic generation and on-street parking impacts will be very minimal in relation to that of the Red Brick and the Methodist Church that are located in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the trash. storage for both units is proposed internal to the structure. Pedestrian circulation will also be improved by the improvements that are to be made to the pedestrian trail located to the west of the property that links the Post Office Trail with the West End of Aspen. City Council has also approved the use of the public property to the west of the. subject parcel for a driveway to the rear of the property. As a result, the Applicant will be able to hide the on-site parking from East Hallam Street as is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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; and ' Staff Finding Staff believes that there are adequate public facilities in the vicinity to serve the proposed conditional use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. . E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to me.et the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Staff Finding The proposed conditional use may obtain an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System by either constructing an"AbU, deed ,estricting an off- site unit that meets the Housing Guideline requirements, or by pay a cash-in-lieu fee for the additional duplex unit to be constructed on-site. The Applicant has consented to either constructing an ADU or paying the required cash-in-lieu fee. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1"""\ t""'I. ,) P29 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (lIPe) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), VARIANCES, AND ON-SITE RELOCATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216E. HALLAM STREET, LOTS D,E,H, AND I, AKA LOTS D, E, N, AND 0, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 24, SERIES OF 2002 . PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-001 . WHEREAS, the applicants, The Frost Property LLC, represented by Camilla Auger .and Studio B Architects, have requested Major Development Review (Conceptual), On-site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots D, E, H; and I, aka Lots D, E, N, and 0, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;"aI1d . WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director' and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to. determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.1 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application ,to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny;' and WHEREAS, the application included requests for variances. In order to grant setback variances, according to Section 26.415.110.C of the Muncipal Code, the HPC must find that the variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and .character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district;. and WHEREAS, in order for HPC to grant an FAR bonus, per Section 26.415.110.E, HPC must find thm: ' 1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving. designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and' 111111111111I1111 11111111 ~~~~~~~ ~0:19~ SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 00.00 r'. ,-----. P30 b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity ofthe historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site ,and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a parking reduction, per Section 26.415.110.C, the following standard must be met: 1. The parking reduction and waiver ofpayment-in~lieufees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district; and WHEREAS, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the historic house and barn. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure, per Section 26.415.090.C, the HPC must find that the proposal meets anyone of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the his'toric district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property;.Q.!: . , 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2, An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and 11111111111111111 11III11 ;;~~~~;~ ~0: 19A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 D 0.00 ,f"""', f' P31 I WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated June 12,2002, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the project be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 12 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable .sections of the Municipal Code and approved the application ~ith conditions by a vote of 4 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED: HPC approves Major Development Review (Conceptual), Variances, and On-site Relocation for 216 E. Hallam Street, Lots D, E, H, and I, aka Lots D, E, N, and 0, Block 71, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the conditions listed below. 1. The HPC hereby approves a waiver of one parking space, as' combined front and rear yard setback variance, a 2' west sideyard setback variance, a 7' combined sideyard setback variance, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus on the front lot. A 2' west sideyard setback variance and a 2' combinedsideyard setback variance are approved for the rear lot. 2. The HPC recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the . "Conditional Use" application for a duplex because the plan as proposed meets preservation concerns and is compatible with the historic resource. 3. Finalization of window and door locations and other detailing will have to be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the asphalt and the interior plaster to expose framing evidence and through photographic evidence' 'if any becomes available.' This issue may wait until the time is appropriate to conduct the demolition work (which may be after HPC has granted Final approval for the project), artd then will require a site inspection by the HPC and submittal and approval of drawings before a building permit application may be submitted. Any information discovered through historic photographs must be used to faithfully restore the house. 4. The current proposal must be restudied in regard to the entry. Neither entry porch or door may be removed or changed unless they can be documented to be recent alterations. 5. A complete east elevation of the Frost house must be provided at the June 12th hearing. 6. The Frost House may be moved as proposed. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of June, 2002. APk::.r"m; +t . Da ld Hoefer, Assistant ty Attorney liW!ll~~l~ll{JII~llWJlIJll1lllll11l11lllll11 ~~;~~~! ~0; 19R R 20.00 D 0.00 c~ , ~~-\ P32 Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERV AT! ISSION ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ~ II II 11111111I1111111111 t;;:~~~~~; 0: 19A SILV!~ D~VIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 20.00 0 0.00 I