HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Multi Family Zone 303 S Cleveland St.A40-972737-182-31-002 A40-97
Tower -Multi Family Zone Code Amend.
�,�/VEb (f-� I / v 'I
CI
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041
Deposit
-63855-042
Flat Fee
-63860-043
HPC
-63885-268
Public Right-of-Way
-638754046
Zoning & Sign Permit
-MR01 I
Use Tax
10000-67100-383
Park Dedication
15000-63050-480
AH Commercial
15000-63065-182
AH Residential
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033
Deposit
-63805-034
Flat Fee
-63820-037
"Zoning
-63825-038
Board of Adjustment
Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035
County Engineer
00115-63340-163
City Engineer
62023-63340-190
Housing
00125-63340-205
Environmental Health
00113-63815-036
County Clerk
00113-63812-212
Wildlife Officer
Sales:
00113-63830-039 County Code
-69000-145 Copy Fees
6� Other
Name: �
Address: ,.�
Phone:
-3o 3 S
Total
Date:
Project:
Check:
Case No: 14 yo 1 J
No. of Copies
October 7, 1997
ASPEN • PnYIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear Glenn;
Here'is a•brief explanation of our idea for Chuck Tower's property.
In order to build the now units, you need two growth management "credits." We propose
that one of those credits comes from a GMQS exemption that allows historic landmarks
to add one multi -family unit without competition. The other unit would come from a
credit you would receive by turning one of the log buildings from two studios into a one
bedroom (leaving you with one unit that may be reconstructed in the form of the new
building.)
You still have. to provide deed restricted bedrooms as mitigation for the new units, so we
propose that the two remaining studios and one one bedroom apartment be deed
restricted. That would leave one of the one bedroom apartments still free market.
It is possible that some assistance could be received from the Housing Authority for
upgrades to the deed restricted units so that Chuck doesn't have to pay for it. That might
be an incentive the Housing .Authority could offer since, in the alternative; Chuck might
pursue an approval for demolition and the City would get nothing out of the project.
We want to find a way to work this out and are happy to offer any help you need. Please
let me know if you wish, to pursue this further. I think that it is not possible to do the
project without some deed restrictions to the existing units, which Chuck seemed
uncomfortable with at our last meeting.
S'
Amy G e
Histori Preservation Officer
130 SouTH GALENA'STREfi7 • AsPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439
Printed on Recycled Paper
0 1 • VVC..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation O cer
RE: Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi -family," Second Reading of
Ordinance #31, Series of 1997
DATE: August 25, 1997
Summary: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend Council approve an amendment to the Land Use
Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family." The definition currently
describes multi -family development as three or more units, attached to each other. The proposed
amendment will allow multi -family units to be freestanding, on historic landmark properties
only, in order to create smaller buildings more in scale with older development in Aspen's
residential neighborhoods. Development under this scenario would be similar to the pattern
permitted in the AH zone, for example the Juan Street AH project and the Langley project (939
E. Cooper Avenue).
It is likely that some variances for setbacks and distances between buildings will be necessary to
create multiple small structures on a lot. For historic landmarks that make use of this code
provision the HPC can review setback issues.
Multi -family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts: RMF, RMFA, AH, C-1, O,
and LTR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1:1.
Applicant: Chuck Tower, represented by Black Shack Architects.
Background: The applicant owns 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property which is listed on the
historic inventory and under review for landmark designation. The property contains three
separate log buildings constructed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. They currently supply
housing for several full time residents. Although the use of the site is multi -family, the three
detached cabins do not meet the multi -family definition and are non -conforming. The site is
only at about half of its allowed floor area, but the owner cannot add any more units without
either linking the log buildings together, which would significantly impact their character, or
demolishing them.
This code amendment will allow the property owner to reach the allowed density in the RMF
zone district with the cabins left in their current condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed freestanding from the historic buildings. The Growth Management Commission
must approve an exemption for any new units, which is available for expansion of historic
landmarks. Some mitigation, in the form of ADU's or deed restricting the existing free market
units to category units, will be required.
TEXT AMENDMENT:
1. Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family"
Proposed Amendment: The Community Development Department proposes to amend the
Land Use Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family" as follows:
Dwelling, multi family means a dwelling containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units,
not including hotels and lodges, but including town houses, with accessory use facilities limited
to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off street parking used by the occupants. One (1)
or more dwelling units located within an office, retail, or service commercial building shall also
be considered a multi family dwelling.
For historic landmarks only. where multi family dwellings are permitted, a multi -family dwelling
may consist of three (3) or more attached or detached dwelling units.
2. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the city council and the commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Response: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment does not create a new land use or density. Overall
building mass may be reduced.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
2
n
•
Response: The amendment will have no impact on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
Response: The proposed amendment will have no greater impact on public facilities or
services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The amendment encourages housing development which is compatible in scale
and character with Aspen's traditional residential neighborhoods.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: The amendment applies to all multi -family development on historic landmark
properties.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1997."
City Manager Comments:
V
•
MEMORANDUM \$I eauw�
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation, First Reading of
Ordinance #, Series of 1997
DATE: July 28, 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend that Council approve landmark
designation of 303 S. Cleveland Street. The property is currently listed on the historic
inventory and includes three cabins built in the late 1940's and early 1950's.
APPLICANT: Chuck Tower, represented by Glenn Rappaport.
LOCATION: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to
the City of Aspen.
HISTORIC LANDMARK
Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of
the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic
Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites.
HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or
site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to
the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United
States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is
unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the
distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on
building form or use), or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The structures are located in the vicinity of several other historic
resources. Although the cabins are of more recent construction (1948-1952), the
buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood by being similar in scale and
massing to the Victorian historic resources, and by representing a type of housing which
became more common in Aspen in the 1950's.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location
and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of
homes constructed during the early development of the skiing industry in Aspen. There
are a limited number of "kit" log structures from the 1950's remaining in Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend that Council support
landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance #� , Series of 1997."
"I move to approve Ordinance 42$ Series of 1997."
Exhibits:
Ordinance # ? , Series of 1997.
A. Current photograph of 303 S. Cleveland Street.
2
r lJ5 -.✓� .►�
"W
tom• , .
Pit
r • It 30711
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1997)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, DESIGNATING 303 S. CLEVELAND STREET, LOTS H AND I,
BLOCK 35, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, AS "H,"
HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.030 OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, Charles Tower, owner of 303 S. Cleveland Street, has filed an
application for Historic Landmark Designation of his property, pursuant to Section
26.76.040 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended Historic
Designation on May 28, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Historic
Designation for the subject property at a duly noticed public hearing on July 1,
1997; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to affirm those recommendations as
rendered by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning
Commission and complete the Landmark Designation process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, the
City Council has found that the subject property meets standards D (neighborhood
character) and E (community character); and
WHEREAS, the property owner shall receive a landmark
designation grant, for which the property is eligible, pursuant to Section
26.76.040 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.44.060, the park dedication fees
associated with the development of this property as finally approved by the
Historic Preservation Commission shall be waived.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the structure and property at:
303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the City of
Aspen
be granted "H," Historic Landmark Designation.
Section 2
That the property owner shall receive a $2,000 landmark designation grant pursuant to
Section 26.76.040 of the Municipal Code and that the park dedication fees associated
with the development of this property as finally approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission shall be waived pursuant to Section 26.44.060.
Section 3
That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1
and the Community Development Director shall be authorized and directed to amend said
map to reflect said rezoning.
Section 4
That the Community Development Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of
such designation, who shall record among the real estate records of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.
Section
That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
2
•
•
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the day of _, at 5:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15.) days prior to
which hearing notice of the same was published once in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of July, 1997.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed, and approved this day of
1997.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John S. Bennett, Mayor
3
Exhibit A
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
•
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director D� �_ -
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Offi er
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi -family," First Reading of Ordinance
#a, Series of 1997
July 28, 1997
Summary: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend Council approve an amendment to the Land Use
Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family." The definition currently
describes multi -family development as three or more units, attached to each other. The proposed
amendment will allow multi -family units to be freestanding, on historic landmark properties
only, in order to create smaller buildings more in scale with older development in Aspen's
residential neighborhoods. Development under this scenario would be similar to the pattern
permitted in the AH zone, for example the Juan Street project and the Langley project.
It is likely that some variances for setbacks and distances between buildings will be necessary to
create multiple small structures on a lot. For historic landmarks that make use of this code
provision the HPC can review setback issues.
Multi -family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts: RMF, RMFA, AH, C-1, O,
and LTR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1:1.
Applicant: Chuck Tower, represented by Black Shack Architects.
Background: The applicant owns 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property which is listed on the
historic inventory and under review for landmark designation. The property contains three
separate log buildings constructed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. They currently supply
housing for several full time residents. Although the use of the site is multi -family, the three
detached cabins do not meet the multi -family definition and are non -conforming. The site is
only at about half of its allowed floor area, but the owner cannot add any more units without
either linking the log buildings together, which would significantly impact their character, or
demolishing them.
This code amendment will allow the property owner to reach the allowed density in the RMF
zone district with the cabins left in their current condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed (with mitigation) freestanding from the historic buildings. The Growth Management
Commission must approve an exemption for any new units, which is available for expansion of
historic landmarks. Some mitigation, in the form of ADU's or deed restricting existing units to
category units, will be required.
TEXT AMENDMENT:
1. Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family"
Proposed Amendment: The Community Development Department proposes to amend the
Land Use Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family" as follows:
Dwelling, multi family means a dwelling containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units,
not including hotels and lodges, but including town houses, with accessory use facilities limited
to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off street parking used by the occupants. One (1)
or more dwelling units located within an office, retail, or service commercial building shall also
be considered a multi family dwelling.
For historic landmarks only, where multi -family dwellings are permitted, a multi family dwelling
may consist of three Q,) or more attached or detached dwelling units.
2. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the city council and the commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Response: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment does not create a new land use or density. Overall
building mass may be reduced.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Response: The amendment will have no impact on traffic generation and road safety.
2
LJ
•
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
Response: The proposed amendment will have no greater impact on public facilities or
services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The amendment encourages housing development which is compatible in scale
and character with Aspen's traditional residential neighborhoods.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: The amendment applies to all multi -family development on historic landmark
properties.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance # Series of 1997." "I move
to approve Ordinance #_�_72L, Series of 1997 on First Reading."
3
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. _31
(Series of 1997)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 26 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.04.100,
DEFINITION OF "DWELLLING, MULTI -FAMILY," TO ALLOW MULTI-
FAMILY UNITS TO BE FREESTANDING ON HISTORIC LANDMARK
PROPERTIES.
WHEREAS, Section 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 26 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations," shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved,
approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from Charles Tower an
application for an amendment to the land use regulations, and reviewed and
recommended for approval, certain text amendments to Chapter 26 relating to
Section 26.04.100; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed
text amendment on an advisory basis on May 28, 1997 at which time the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 7-
0; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
text amendment on July 15, 1997 at which time the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 6-0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment as proposed
is consistent with the public welfare and purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of
the Municipal Code and does meet the review standards of Section
26.92.010.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family," shall be amended to
read as follows:
Dwelling, multi family means a dwelling containing three (3) or more attached dwelling
units, not including hotels and lodges, but including town houses, with accessory use
facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off street parking used by
the occupants. One (1) or more dwelling units located within an office, retail, or service
commercial building shall also be considered a multi family dwelling.
For historic landmarks only, where multi family dwellings are permitted. a multi family
dwelling may consist of three (3) or more attached or detached dwelling units.
Section 2:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate
as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of
the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be
conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section :
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 the Ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of
August, 1997 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 an newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of July, 1997.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1997.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation
RE: Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi -family," Public hearing continued
from July 1, 1997
DATE: July 15, 1997
Summary: Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Land Use Code, Section
26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family." The definition currently describes multi-
family development as three or more units, attached to each other. The proposed amendment
will allow multi -family units to be freestanding, on historic landmark properties only, in order to
create smaller buildings more in scale with older development in Aspen's residential
neighborhoods. Development under this scenario would be similar to the pattern permitted in the
AH zone, for example the Juan Street project and the Langley project.
It is likely that some variances for setbacks and distances between buildings will be necessary to
create multiple small structures on a lot. For historic landmarks that make use of this code
provision the HPC can review setback issues.
Applicant: Chuck Tower, represented by Black Shack Architects.
Background: The applicant owns 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property which is listed on the
historic inventory and under review for landmark designation. The property contains three
separate log buildings constructed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. They currently supply
housing for several full time residents. Although the use of the site is multi -family, the three
detached cabins do not meet the multi -family definition and are non -conforming. The site is
only at about half of its allowed floor area, but the owner cannot add any more units without
either linking the log buildings together, which would significantly impact their character, or
demolishing them.
This code amendment will allow the property owner to reach the allowed density in the RMF
zone district with the cabins left in their current condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed (with mitigation) freestanding from the historic buildings.
Multi -family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts: RMF, RMFA, AH, C-1, O,
and LTR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1:1.
1. Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family"
Proposed Amendment: The Community Development Department proposes to amend the
Land Use Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family" as follows:
Dwelling, multi family means a dwelling containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units,
not including hotels and lodges, but including town houses, with accessory use facilities limited
to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off street parking used by the occupants. One (1)
or more dwelling units located within an office, retail, or service commercial building shall also
be considered a multi family dwelling.
For historic landmarks only, where multi -family dwellings are permitted amulti-family dwelling
mqv consist Qf three U) or more attached or detached dwelling units.
2. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the city council and the commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Response: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment does not create a new land use or density. Overall
building mass may be reduced.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Response: The amendment will have no impact on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation
2
•
•
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
Response: The proposed amendment will have no greater impact on public facilities or
services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The amendment encourages housing development which is compatible in scale
and character with Aspen's traditional residential neighborhoods.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: The amendment applies to all multi -family development on historic landmark
properties.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council adoption of the
proposed amendment to the Aspen Land Use Code, redefining multi -family dwellings on
historic landmark properties, as described in the staff memorandum dated July 15, 1997."
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development DirecNd
.
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation
DATE: July 1, 1997
SUMMARY: Staff and HPC recommend P&Z approve landmark designation of 303 S.
Cleveland Street.
APPLICANT: Chuck Tower, represented by Glenn Rappaport.
LOCATION: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to
the City of Aspen.
HISTORIC LANDMARK
Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of
the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic
Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites.
HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or
site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to
the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United
States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is
unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the
distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on
building form or use), or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The structures are located in the vicinity of several other historic
resources. Although the cabins are of more recent construction (1948-1952), the
buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood by being similar in scale and
massing as the Victorian historic resources, and by representing a type of housing which
became more common in Aspen in the 1950's.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location
and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of
homes constructed during the early development of the skiing industry in Aspen. There
are a limited number of "kit" log structures from the 1950's remaining in Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that P&Z forward a
recommendation of support for landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding
standards D and E are met.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward a recommendation of support for
landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met."
2
ATU22lr 1
I' LJS'E APPLICATION FU1 •
1) Project Name C A A. IL L C S 'fo w e fz
2) Project Icxmtion 303 S CIF-YFI.a,4r> Lots H -4-,cR ;:J� 131.,-k 3S
�. As PF>a
( indicate street address, lot & block rnmber, legal descri pti-on wj�
appropriate) pO
3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size 00 v S
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Pt Km # C- � 4 Q L E S
�o IS 3014 Ar,> Ca `d161z � 70� 9zS�
6) Representative's Name, Address & phone
276 A< 9Nr Co rs1612 (570) 9Z 7'.. 06 3
7) Type of Application (please dieck all that apply):
Conditional Use t�l SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 aline Conceptual PUD Mirror Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic De=llt -cn
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
C ond®i n i t nn = tion
(31,�S Allotment
Lot Split T-ot Line QM:�S cin
Adjustment
8) Desc--i.pticn of Existing Uses (number and type of ec�n7 stx11cs;
approxi-mate sq. ft- ; rakes of bedincros; any previous approvals granted to tip
l PR66 0 / gEDgoo" -o/ S rr
CFS) FT' �2 7Z sy Fi Eo«t 1
L� DN1PL�x S1"UAIa SSl Sy FT (24ru sq FT EACH
9) Description of D`velopomt Application / l
1�PC Lallor-fA2k ,2rvi6w 4 N D 1ZEFE2R4L oNAGnMEngohir- NT-
fo
G2A M0L-ri FG-r-TIL D15r(ZiLr f.4.tT /3,LLows (JGrACHC/J
STP �cTf, ee 5 . V
LO) Have you attad-bed the follo.rin,3?
Response to Attachment 2, Mi n i m an Submi -ResponseG1CSI S
to Attacizmerrt 3, Specif is Submission Content s
Re:spOrtse to Attad meat 4, Review Stair for your Application
lIJ Fred
�y aar . ve
'r'► CIA
S �cc t �S 'vcrsidc I
v
.1c�
�+ r,
S r
P �f u la��
� �1 u no yN � •� � 1� S ` spcn A
0 1S fr1W � �S
UO
J �S
S
o ave_CID
N13
� a
lcadows Rd^�S •S F-- o
JA
c Creek Dr C. ��� ^
Hyman ave.
5.16Cabin A
1948
1 B.Rm. 501 s f.
Co bin B
1950
S t Ildio
St dio
544sf
Cabin C
1952
Studio Studio
559sf.
Alley
C ICveIand st.
T 0 W E R
north
1 20'
Lot Area 6000sf.
Zone R M F
ATTACHMENT 4
This proposal seeks landmark designation for the three cabins located at 303 S.
Cleveland Street, Aspen, Colorado. Response to attachment 4 (Standards for
Designation) .
A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an' event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of
Colorado, or the United States.
It could be argued that these cabins at the time they were built were a direct
response to a significant cultural and social change in the history of Aspen. Small
dwelling units built during this period 1948 - 1952 were specifically intended to
acknowledge the beginnings of the tourist industry created by the establishment of
skiing in Aspen in 1946.
B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects and architectural style
that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant of unique architectural
type, (based on building form), or specimen.
Although not magnificent examples of more glorious architectural styles. These cabins
do clearly represent an architectural type that was both practical and easy to construct.
The "stacked log" style was extremely cost effective and become the predominant
architectural style during the post war beginnings of Aspen as an international resort.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Does not apply.
D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
The small scale of these cabins was very much like the other small miners cabins that
once dotted Aspen's East end. This character has changed dramatically over the past
years as lodges, condominiums and large homes have been developed. Even though
these smaller structures are no longer part of a larger context they help to retain a
sense of the past and point out differences even in Aspen between the kind of
development that occurred on the West end verses that on the East side of town.
E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of
the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Aspen continues to fight to retain some of its small scale character. Smaller structures
can still be valuable as housing for Aspen's work force as well as insuring a diversity of
population within neighborhoods. As well as preserving examples of an important
series of
social changes in Aspen, these structures can allow a few members of the local work
force to live close in to the downtown area, an opportunity that where it still exists
should be protected.
0 0 .-M (210
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct r
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi -family, " worksession
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE TABLED TO JULY 15
July 1, 1997
Summary: Staff would like to present a proposed code amendment to Section 26.04.100,
Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family" in a worksession format to address any potential
concerns that the Planning and Zoning Commission may have.
The definition currently describes multi -family development as three or more units, attached to
each other. The proposed amendment will allow multi -family units to be freestanding in order to
create smaller buildings more in scale with older development in Aspen's residential
neighborhoods. Development under this scenario would be similar to the pattern permitted in the
AH zone, for example the Juan Street project and the Langley project. A massing study which
represents the desired outcome of the code amendment is attached. (This is a massing study for
the Town of Breckenridge).
It is likely that some variances for setbacks and distances between buildings will be necessary to
create multiple small structures on a lot. For historic landmarks that make use of this code
provision the HPC can review setback issues. In other cases, the project could be reviewed as a
P.U.D. or the Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to adopt standards to grant variances
as was done for the cottage infill program.
Applicant: Chuck Tower, represented by Black Shack Architects.
Background: The applicant owns 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property which is listed on the
historic inventory and under review for landmark designation. The property contains three
separate log buildings constructed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. They currently supply
housing for several full time residents. Although the use of the site is multi -family, the three
detached cabins do not meet the multi -family definition and are non -conforming. The site is
only at about half of its allowed floor area, but the owner cannot add any more units without
either linking the log buildings together, which would significantly impact their character, or
demolishing them.
•
0
This code amendment will allow the property owner to reach the allowed density in the RMF
zone district with the cabins left in their current condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed (with mitigation) freestanding from the historic buildings.
Staff is interested in making this massing option available in all zones where multi -family
development is permitted. Multi -family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts:
RMF, RMFA, AH, C-1, O, and LTR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1:1. P&Z should
discuss whether the FAR should be adjusted for detached units.
RECOMMENDATION: "I move to continue the "Multi -Family" code amendment to July 15,
1997."
PA
WINTER & CO
is
Pi13
Scenan*o C-1
Description:
This illustrates the effect of building out to 12 UPA on two narrow, deep lots. Each of the
building modules are less than or equal to the historic average in floor area, This is a corner
lot condition. A historic building is preserved at the corner,
Observation:
Locating some mass to the rear helps to reduce the visual impact on the street. The full two-
story module on the main street appears more massive when seen adjacent to the smaller
historic structure. A one-story element, in addition to the porch, would help reduce the
appearance of a larger mass.
360 SF
10
[bE=,l
12 SF
i
I
1
400 SF 1200 F
1 2
Statistics:
Lot Size
Building Mass=
Building Footprint=
FAR=
UPA=
Lots 18t2
7500 SF
3280 SF
2080 SF
43% or 1:2.8
11.9
lit!
34'
tp--- 7,i
NON -LANDMARK (current status), OPTIONS
I. Maintain status -quo (no additional units may be added)
II. Demolition
A. Process
1. HPC Demolition application (Fee: $1,395 , + 2 months)
a. Approval
(1) Redevelop site as a single-family, duplex, or multi -family
residence.
(a) Employee mitigation (ADU or cash -in -lieu)
(b) Ordinance #30
(c) Planning and Zoning Commission, ADU
b. Denial
(1) Remain at status -quo
(2) Pursue code amendment to allow detached multi -family units
(a) Process (Fee: +$3,255, +3months)
1. Planning and Zoning Commission
2. City Council
3. Compete for Growth Management allocation by Growth
Management Commission for any new units
4. Ordinance #30
5. Apply to Board of Adjustment for any variances
needed
LANDMARK, OPTIONS
I. Add new unit for owner (Fees: $2,915, +4 months)
A. Process
1. HPC- landmark designation
2. P&Z- landmark designation, code amendment to allow detached
multi -family units
3. CC- landmark designation, code amendment (2 readings)
4. HPC- conceptual review, ordinance #30
5. P&Z- ADU, Growth Management Commission GMQS Exemption
for new unit
6. HPC- final review
* Fees are estimates only. Most Planning and Zoning review fees are a deposit;
money will be refunded if less hours than the basic billing rate are taken, and there will be
additional billings if more hours are taken. The estimates do not include appeals of
Ordinance #30 if needed, referral fees, cash -in -lieu payments, or permit fees. The time
frames given are thought to be reasonable for processing by staff, but would be affected
by tablings of any meetings or the time needed by the applicant to prepare drawings, etc.
•
•
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
REGULATIONS - HISTORIC LANDMARK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 1, 1997 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an amendment to Section
26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family".
For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 14, 1997
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 303 S. CLEVELAND - LANDMARK DESIGNATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 1,
1997 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Charles Tower of 303 S. Cleveland, Aspen, CO,
requesting Landmark Designation approval. The property is located at 303 S. Cleveland,
and is described as Lot H and Lot 1, Block 35, East Aspen Addition. For further
information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton hair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 14, 1997
City of Aspen Account
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation
Residential multi -family Code amendment referral comment
DATE: May 28, 1997
SUMMARY: The application has two components; a request for landmark designation
and a referral comment on a proposed code amendment which would be applied to future
redevelopment of the site. HPC previously discussed this project in a worksession
format.
APPLICANT: Chuck Tower, represented by Glenn Rappaport.
LOCATION: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Lots H and I, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to
the City of Aspen.
HISTORIC LANDMARK
Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of
the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic
Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites.
HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or
site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to
the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United
States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is
unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the
distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on
building form or use), or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The structures are located in the vicinity of several other historic
resources. Although the cabins are of more recent construction (1948-1952), the
buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood by being similar in scale and
massing as the Victorian historic resources, and by representing a type of housing which
became more common in Aspen in the 1950's.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location
and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of
homes constructed during the early development of the skiing industry in Aspen. There
are a limited number of "kit" log structures from the 1950's remaining in Aspen.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
STAFF REVIEW: Currently, the land use code defines "multi -family" buildings as a
group of three or more attached units. Multi -family housing is generally allowed a floor
area ratio of 1:1, meaning that the building may be one square foot for every one square
foot of lot area.
Recently, there has been a growing interest in breaking large building masses into smaller
components which are more pedestrian friendly and more compatible with historic
resources where applicable. The definition of multi -family as stated above does not allow
the units to be detached from each other, but the general affect has been created in the
Langley project which made use of a complex group of subdivisions and rezonings. This
applicant, who owns three cabins and wishes to retain them with minor improvements,
proposes an amendment to the definition of multi -family to allow detached units.
Multi -family housing is allowed in the following zone districts: RMF (residential multi-
family), RMF-A, AH (affordable housing), C-1 (commercial), O (office), and LTR
(lodge/tourist residential). A hotel or lodge building is not considered multi -family.
2
P-j
•
Staff is in support of the .proposed amendment because it offers a massing alternative
which supports HPC policies and Ordinance 30. Some discussion must be had on how to
establish an appropriate FAR, since 1:1 will not be possible within established height
limits and setbacks if the buildings are detached.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC forward a recommendation of
support for landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met.
Staff also recommends HPC support the proposed code amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward a recommendation of support for
landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met. In
addition, HPC supports the proposed code amendment."
Attachment:
Ordinance # , Series of 1997
2
J,5wl o)t„oe-s:�- .
( C4,1 :;;Iv Lz�
3
APPISC�OUFLRi1) Project Name C I�ARLA,=
�o,w-T R.
2) Project Location 303 S CI EYELA>Ip Lats -4,.,,q x 13 I.,-k 3S
(indicate street address, lot & block comber, legal description where
appropriate) .
3) Present zoning IZ M 'r
4) Iat Size 6 00 o s I,. Pi.
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ptak-- $ C ��. 2 L E S - w E 1Z
3o r4 AsReH CO • 45�6 i2 �q 70 9 z� �y��
6) Representative's Name, Adder & nxx)e G ��� N �A� �„�vRfi A (�c U 1 r,, cr
�a.,3ou 276 <Ic�EN� Co SflblZ �g�°� 9l7` 06 3S' '
7) Type of Application
(please die k all that apply) :
Conditional Use
Conceptual SPA
Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review
Final SPA
Final Historic Dev-
8040 Creen7 i rya
teal PM
Minor Historic Dev.
- Stream Margin
Final POD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane
Subdivision
Historic Designation
Condcmi n i t m i za tion
y TexVMm Amendment
GIQ$ Alloi t
I�1ne
C,St1o1
Adjustment
8) Desc ripticn
of Existing
Uses (Tuber
and type of ems'. i st=tures;
appmximate
sq_ ft- ; ram3ber
of bedro=s;
any previous approvals granted to the
ProperY) -
rPR6E
LtxtSTJNC,
(A) / Seag...,. So/ S �T
(f3� DHpLEx
SIIA
SNti 5 rr
`27Z Sy Fr EAC-N�
D N ►p
LEx S11101 o
SS9 Sr FT
(2 �� S9 Fr Eecu
9) Description of Development Application
NPL (-&NOr-•fa/zk KEV)Ew AA)o IZEFE2RGL oNACoi�B 4MENOrlGNf 1�p
GttE.-% A MyLTl FGMI�y Zo�JE Di51'Ricr fN•CT ALewS IJG'rAr-A47
STzuLTUfES .
10) Have you attad)ed the following?
Response to Attachment 2, Mi n i m m, Submission Contents
RcsPatse to Atta&=esrt 3, Specific Subs�ion Contents
Response to Attacinnent 4, Review Stan ds for your Application
05
19
97
is
Amy Amidon, HPO
Historic Preservation Committee
130 South Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
•
G L E N N H R A P P A P 0 R T
A R C H I T E C T
P 0 S T 0 F F I C E B 0 X 2 7 6
ASPEN C 0 L 0 R A D 0 81612
T 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 3 5
A I A F 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 5 4
RE Charles Tower
Landmark Designation and Multi -Family Code Amendment
303 South Cleveland Street, Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Amy and Committee Members:
We are seeking Landmark Designation and referral on a code amendment to create a detached
multifamily option for the three cabins located on lots H and I, Block 35 of the East Aspen Addition.
We intend to leave these cabins in their original locations on the parcel and eventually build a new
duplex (detached from the cabins) on the site.
Our response to the standards (Attachment 4) defines the importance of saving the cabins and the
role of their character in the community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Glenn H. Rappaport AIA
Architect
frJ IqTFred
cy or -vc /
S N,cc t cam`• =� S Rivcrside I
vc 'No ID I
� '� •�' �S S Ut r
P
df urpt unoIN .� hf S spcn A
.D
1S o�uo
QJG G Ave r : _
� CID 1
V �
lcadows Rd W^� •S ,F--
taus � v
P� d �
c Crcck Dr C.
0
Hyman ave.
5.16
Cabin A
1948
1 B.Rm. 501 s f.
Cabin 8
1950
S t ydio
C leveland st.
SI dio
544sf.
Cabin C
1952
Studio Studio
559sf. T O W E R
n o r t h
1 20'
Alley
Lot Area 6000sf.
Zone R M F
ATTACHMENT 4
This proposal seeks landmark designation for the three cabins located at 303 S.
Cleveland Street, Aspen, Colorado. Response to attachment 4 (Standards for
Designation) .
A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an' event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of
Colorado, or the United States.
It could be argued that these cabins at the time they were built were a direct
response to a significant cultural and social change in the history of Aspen. Small
dwelling units built during this period 1948 - 1952 were specifically intended to
acknowledge the beginnings of the tourist industry created by the establishment of
skiing in Aspen in 1946.
B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects and architectural style
that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant of unique architectural
type, (based on building form), or specimen.
Although not magnificent examples of more glorious architectural styles. These cabins
do clearly represent an architectural type that was both practical and easy to construct.
The "stacked log" style was extremely cost effective and become the predominant
architectural style during the post war beginnings of Aspen as an international resort.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Does not apply.
•
•
D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
The small scale of these cabins was very much like the other small miners cabins that
once dotted Aspen's East end. This character has changed dramatically over the past
years as lodges, condominiums and large homes have been developed. Even though
these smaller structures are no longer part of a larger context they help to retain a
sense of the past and point out differences even in Aspen between the kind of
development that occurred on the West end verses that on the East side of town.
E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of
the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Aspen continues to fight to retain some of its small scale character. Smaller structures
can still be valuable as housing for Aspen's work force as well as insuring a diversity of
population within neighborhoods. As well as preserving examples of an important
series of
social changes in Aspen, these structures can allow a few members of the local work
force to live close in to the downtown area, an opportunity that where it still exists
should be protected.
k
ALOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITW ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 5/20/97 CASE # A40-97
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Amy Amidon
PARCEL ID # 2737-182-31-002
PROJECT NAME: (Tower) Multi -Family Zone District Code Amendment
Project Address: 303 S. Cleveland
APPLICANT: Charles Tower
Address/Phone: P.O. Box 3014 Aspen, Co. 81612 925-8488
OWNER: same
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Rappaport
Address/Phone: P.O. Box 3014, Aspen 927-0635
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING
$1080
PLANNING
$1080.
# APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER
$0
ENGINEER
$
# PLATS RECEIVED 1
HOUSING
$0
HOUSING
$
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
CLERK
$
CLERK
$
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL
$1080
TOTAL RCVD $1080.
Staff Approval
REFERRALS:
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer (DRC)
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
DATE REFERRED:
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
i. r
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
Date:
Date:
Book
, Page
•
•
05
19
97
Amy Amidon, HPO
Historic Preservation Committee
130 South Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
G L E N N H R A P P A P 0 R T
A R C H I T E C T
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 2 7 6
A S P E N C 0 L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 2
T 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 3 5
A I A F 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 5 4
RE Charles Tower
Landmark Designation and Multi -Family Code Amendment
303 South Cleveland Street, Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Amy and Committee Members:
We are seeking Landmark Designation and referral on a code amendment to create a detached
multifamily option for the three cabins located on lots H and I, Block 35 of the East Aspen Addition.
We intend to leave these cabins in their original locations on the parcel and eventually build a new
duplex (detached from the cabins) on the site.
Our response to the standards (Attachment 4) defines the importance of saving the cabins and the
role of their character in the community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Glenn H. Rappaport AIA
Architect
ASPEN/PITI[N
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
000�
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITy) and 10 W4.-,
(hereinafter APPLIC,A� AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an ap lication for
(hereinafter, THE PR(9JECT).
APPLIKAN- I' understands and agrees that Citv of Aspen Ordinance
�o. a; (Seres of 1996) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and
the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of
..pplication completeness.
• APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
further- her agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make
payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed
to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by
retaini.ng seater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon
notification by the CITY when thev are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs
to process APPLICANT's application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT fiirther agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning
Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision. .
t
Therefore, APPLICA-NL T agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver, of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completeness, APPLIC.A2N'T shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S
which is for (o - hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, A.PPLIC.kNT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse tile CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 0 days of the billing date. APPLICANT' further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF :ASPEN APPLICAYT
I�
By \
Stan Clauson
Community Development Director
g:'supportlforms\agrpayas.doc
1116197
Date: s' Z " ' 9 7
Mailing Address:
/?o, '9 . Z 76
REGci'PED 0
MAY 2 1 1yy�
t0 ASPEN / PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
q�
T R A N S M I T T A L
is
G L E N N H R A P P A P 0 R T
A R C H I T E C T
P 0 S T 0 F F I C E B O X 2 7 6
A S P E N C 0 L O R A D 0 8 1 6 1 2
T 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 3 5
A I A F 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 5 4
T O A �O0^ /F A X
AT ❑ F E D E X
FROM A'� ❑ COURIER
PAGES 3 ' ❑ PICK UP
R E 1�LV�/` G.+�►�/q'l/�r!'t /�►'+<(�yt �Q7�
� d
05/13/97 TlF 15:39 FAX 970 925 9534
Account Owner Na Address Twn7 Blk/Lot con Moblle? sales?
R001336 N 32.,08
TOWER CHARLES D Legal Description
Year District PO BOX 3014 ; 'SUB:EAST ASPEN ADDITION BLK:35 LOTH & LOT:I
1997 001 ASPEN CO 81612 1
Apr Dist St i
A
Parcel Number MH Space
273718231002
Street No I IDir I lo# Street Name
303 CLEVELAND
Location City 1 ILocationzip Acct Type
ASPEN 81611 11000
Sequence
ITrpe
BACode 18usiness Name I Map No
Adminlstratia
L— Appraisal
1
Names
2
Situs Addi ess
3
Mobile He me
4
Tract/Sec ion
5
Condomii Mums
6
Block & Lc -t
7
Book & P[ go/Sales
8
Miscellan )ous
9
Tax Items
10
Pre/Succ( .ed
MASTER
2
3
_- ..
irr�i..
Version jV..I)afe
V. Time
ID
Appl1997041500015APR-97
05:31 PM
SAL
RWAM
Land Actual
Land Assessed -
Land'AC/SF
892500
92460
0.000
Impry Actual
Imp Assessed
Square Feet
8100
640
1472
Exempt Actual
Exempt Assess
New Version
0
0
99970,513000
Total Actual
Total Asms
900600
. 93300
ki
Current Year Prior Version Go To Imaging
Prior Year Next Version View Images�q,
Next Year Clerk's Doc's . Print Images R'
Update I Clear - Exit'
WJ u
05/13/97 TUE 15:39 FAX 970 9Z5 9534
Account Owner Nan&ddress = Twn? I Blk/Lot I Conda2l Mo 1107 Sales? ❑
N
R001336 :..., I — 'Wrp
[TOWER CHARLES D LAalition
Year Dtcl PO BOX 3014
FSUB.EAST ASPEN ADDITION BLK:35 LOTH & LOTJ
1997 001 ASPEN CO 81612
Apr Dist St
1A
Parcel Number MH Space Sequence
273718231002
1.
o 'IDir 6# Street Nam
303 CLEVELAND;,;
Location City I LocclionZip Acct Type Lagf
ASPEN 8161,1 1000
FACode Business Name IMap No
Adminisimho-i
Appraisal
I
Names
2
Situs Addf 9ss
3
Mobile Herne
I
Tract/Sec Ion
5
Condomii iiums
6
Block & Lot
7
Book & Pc go/Sales
8
Miscollan )ous
9
Tax Items
10
Pro/Succ4 red
MASTER
2
3 1
T
,on,
Version
V Date ' �!
.1 1.1.-1
.61. M 0.
1 ;."
�
I Y9 7C,41 50C 3 154PR-97
i
land Acfu cil
Lbrid As s6siA
k
892500
Impry Actual
Imp
8100
ov
ExemDt Actwal
Exempt
Total U
Current Year Prior Version Go To Imaging
Prior Year Next Version View Images_
Next Year Clerk's Doc's Print Images
L Update Clear Exit
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 303 S. CLEVELAND - LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 17,
1997 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Charles Tower of 303 S. Cleveland, Aspen, CO,
requesting Landmark Designation approval. The property is located at 303 S. Cleveland,
and is described as Lot H and Lot 1, Block 35, East Aspen Addition. For further
information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 31, 1997
City of Aspen Account
May 1, 1997
I, Charles Tower ( 303 S. Cleveland, Aspen, .Colorado, telephone number (970)
925-8488 ) authorize Glenn Rappaport ( post office box 276, Aspen, Colorado,
telephone number (970) 927-0635 ) to act as my representative regarding all
aspects of the development application for 303 S. Cleveland.
Thank you,
JZT-
"4
Charles Tower
NON -LANDMARK (current status), OPTIONS
I. Maintain status -quo (no additional units may be added)
H. Demolition
A. Process
1. HPC Demolition application (Fee: $1,395 , + 2 months)
a. Approval
(1) Redevelop site as a single-family, duplex, or multi -family
residence.
(a) Employee mitigation (ADU or cash -in -lieu)
(b) Ordinance #30
(c) Planning and Zoning Commission, ADU
b. Denial
(1) Remain at status -quo
(2) Pursue code amendment to allow detached multi -family units
(a) Process (Fee: +$3,255, +3months)
1. Planning and Zoning Commission
2. City Council
3. Compete for Growth Management allocation by Growth
Management Commission for any new units
4. Ordinance #30
5. Apply to Board of Adjustment for any variances
needed
LANDMARK, OPTIONS
I. Add new unit for owner (Fees: $2,915, +4 months)
A. Process
1. HPC- landmark designation
2. P&Z- landmark designation, code amendment to allow detached
multi -family units
3. CC- landmark designation, code amendment (2 readings)
4. HPC- conceptual review, ordinance #30
5. P&Z- ADU, Growth Management Commission GMQS Exemption
for new unit
6. HPC- final review
* Fees are estimates only. Most Planning and Zoning review fees are a deposit;
money will be refunded if less hours than the basic billing rate are taken, and there will be
additional billings if more hours are taken. The estimates do not include appeals of
Ordinance #30 if needed, referral fees, cash -in -lieu payments, or permit fees. The time
frames given are thought to be reasonable for processing by staff, but would be affected
by tablings of any meetings or the time needed by the applicant to prepare drawings, etc.
•
•
January 17, 1997
Glenn Rappaport
P.O. Box 276
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Glenn:
As a follow-up to our meeting on January 14, I am sending this letter to summarize the
review process for 303 S. Cleveland.
According to your client's wishes, the review may occur in two parts. First, the property
will be simultaneously reviewed for landmark designation and the proposed code
amendment. The steps will be: HPC for landmark review and a referral on the code
amendment, Planning and Zoning Commission for landmark review and code amendment
review (public hearing), and City Council for review of the code amendment (public
hearing) and first reading of the landmark review. Second reading of landmark
designation will take place after HPC's reviews are complete so that your client does not
feel "locked into" landmark designation until he is comfortable with the project.
Once these reviews are successfully completed, an application must be made for
"Significant Development" review at HPC. This is a two step review process involving a
conceptual review, which is a public hearing, and final review. All variances must be
requested at conceptual review. Between conceptual and final, the applicant will apply to
the Growth Management Commission to award a GMQS exemption for the new free
market dwelling units.
Once these reviews are finished, second reading of the landmark designation (a public
hearing) will go before City Council.
Please let me know if I can answer any further questions. Remember that the code
amendment should include giving HPC and P&Z the ability to vary the open space
requirement.
Sincerely,
Amy Amidon
Historic Preservation Officer
•
e-,
November 27, 1996
Glen Rappaport
Black Shack Architects
P.O. Box 276
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: 303 S. Cleveland .
Dear Glen:
ASPEN • PnYdN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
I have created a basic outline of redevelopment options and review. processes for 303 S.
Cleveland.
It is my opinion that the likelihood of HPC approving a total demolition of the buildings
on the site is low. That being the case, pursuing the addition of a new unit through a code
amendment has a similar cost and timeline whether the property is landmarked or not,
however there are several important differences. Notice that non -landmarks must
compete for a -growth management allocation while landmarks are exempt. There are
only approximately two free market unit allocations available per year in the City at this
time, so it is possible that the project would be delayed until an allocation is awarded.
Additionally, the Board of Adjustment would have to grant any setback variances,
distance between building variances, or other dimensional variations that you may need,
based on a finding of hardship. In the case of historic landmarks, HPC may grant such
variances based on neighborhood compatibility concerns. Additionally, financial
incentives, including a $2,000 grant, and the possible waiver of park dedication fees may
help to offset the cost of the review process.
Please contact me with any further questions.
Si r ly, �f "
Amy idon
Histori Preservation Officer
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439
Printed on Recycled Paper
November 11, 1996
Glen Rappaport
Black Shack Architects
P.O. Box 276
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: 303 S. Cleveland
Dear Glenn:
Following up on our recent discussion regarding multi -family development of this parcel,
the Planning Office recommends that your client pursue a text amendment which would
create a new term, "multi -family, detached," allowing three or more detached dwelling
units where "multi -family" development, defined as three or more attached units is
currently allowed. "Multi -family, detached" units would be restricted to the maximum
FAR allowed for a duplex (not including a potential FAR bonus from the Historic
Preservation Commission of 500 square feet or garage exclusions). To this end, your
client may choose to pursue a number of scenarios which retain all or some of the
existing cabins on the site, and may be able to construct additional units as dimensional
requirements allow.
The text amendment, which requires a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning
Commission and two readings at City Council should be brought forward first. If it is
approved, site specific development review will be needed by the Historic Preservation
Commission. The HPC has purview over alterations to the existing cabins, but cannot
review any new detached structures on the site which cause no demolition to the historic
resources. In addition to HPC, you may need to apply to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for any accessory dwelling units created.
In order for the property owner to eligible for variances in setback requirements, parking
requirements, or an FAR bonus, the property must be designated a historic landmark.
Landmark designation applications are taken to the HPC, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and City Council. Landmarks receive full design review by HPC, meaning
that there would be a conceptual and final review of the site specific development plan.
In the alternative, variances which qualify as a "hardship" may be granted by the Board
of Adjustments.
Finally, an encroachment license is needed from the Engineering Department if
expansion of the unit which sits in the right-of-way is intended.
Once your client makes some initial decisions on the approach to this project, such as
whether or not to pursue landmarking, I would be happy to create a more specific review
timeline and list of application fees.
Sincerely,
Amy Amidon, HPO
September 30, 1996
Charles Hightower
Dear Charles:
I am writing to follow up on our conversation regarding development rights for your
property at 303 S. Cleveland Street.
In a subsequent conversation with the City Planning staff, I reconginized an error in my
representation to you. We discussed that elimination of any kitchens would require
construction of an "accessory dwelling unit," which may be rented on a voluntary basis.
In fact, elimination of a kitchen requires construction of a deed restricted affordable
dwelling unit, which must be rented according to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority. The applicable regulation, Ordinance 1,
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU : Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo 1
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi -family." Second Reading of
Ordinance #31, Series of 1997
DATE: August 25, 1997
Summary: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend Council approve an amendment to the Land Use
Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family." The definition currently
describes multi -family development as three or more units, attached to each other. The proposed
amendment will allow multi -family units to be freestanding, on historic landmark properties
only, in order to create smaller buildings more in scale with older development in Aspen's
residential neighborhoods. Development under this scenario would be similar to the pattern
permitted in the AH zone, for example the Juan Street AH project and the Langley project (939
E. Cooper Avenue).
It is likely that some variances for setbacks and distances between buildings will be necessary to
create multiple small structures on a lot. For historic landmarks that make use of this code
provision the HPC can review setback issues.
Multi -family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts: RMF. RMFA, AH, C-1, O,
and LTR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1:1.
Applicant: Chuck Tower, represented by Black Shack Architects.
Background: The applicant owns 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property which is listed on the
historic inventory and under review for landmark designation. The property contains three
separate log buildings constructed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. They currently supply
housing for several full time residents. Although the use of the site is multi -family, the three
detached cabins do not meet the multi -family definition and are non -conforming. The site is
only at about half of its allowed floor area, but the owner cannot add any more units without
either linking the log buildings together, which would significantly impact their character, or
demolishing them.
This code amendment will allow the property owner to reach the allowed density in the RMF
zone district with the cabins left in their current condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed freestanding from the historic buildings. The Growth Management Commission
must approve an exemption for any new units, which is available for expansion of historic
landmarks. Some mitigation, in the form of ADU's or deed restricting the existing free market
units to category units, will be required.
TEXT AMENDMENT:
1. Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family"
Proposed Amendment: The Community Development Department proposes to amend the
Land Use Code, Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family" as follows:
Dwelling, multi family means a dwelling containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units,
not including hotels and lodges, but including town houses, with accessory use facilities limited
to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off street parking used by the occupants. One (1)
or more dwelling units located within an office, retail, or service commercial building shall also
be considered a multi family dwelling.
For historic landmarks only, where multi family dwellings are permitted. a multi family dwelling
may consist of three (i) or more attached or detached dwelling units.
2. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the city council and the commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Response: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment does not create a new land use or density. Overall
building mass may be reduced.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
N
Response: The amendment will have no impact on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
Response: The proposed amendment will have no greater impact on public facilities or
services.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The amendment encourages housing development which is compatible in scale
and character with Aspen's traditional residential neighborhoods.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: The amendment applies to all multi -family development on historic landmark
properties.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1997."
City Manager Comments:
3
ORDINANCE NO.31
(Series of 1997)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 26 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.04.100,
DEFINITION OF "DWELLING, MULTI -FAMILY," TO ALLOW MULTI-
FAMILY UNITS TO BE DETACHED ON HISTORIC LANDMARK
PROPERTIES.
WHEREAS, Section 26.92.030 of the :Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 26 of the Code. to wit, "Land Use Regulations," shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved,
approved with conditions. or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing:
we
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from Charles Tower an
application for an amendment to the land use regulations. and reviewed and
recommended for approval, certain text amendments to Chapter 26 relating to
Section 26.04.100. and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed
text amendment on an advisory basis on May 28, 1997 at which time the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 7-
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
text amendment on July 15, 1997 at which time the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 6-0. and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment as proposed
is consistent with the public welfare and purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of
the Municipal Code and does meet the review standards of Section
26.92.010.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family," shall be amended to
read as follows:
Dwelling, multi family means a dwelling containing three (3) or more attached dwelling
units, not including hotels and lodges, but including town houses, with accessory use
facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off street parking used by
the occupants. One (1) or more dwelling units located within an office, retail, or service
commercial building shall also be considered a multi family dwelling.
For historic landmarks only, where multi family dwellings are permitted, a multi -family
dwelling may consist of three (3) or more attached or detached dwelling units.
Section 2:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate
as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of
the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be
conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 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 the Ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of
August, 1997 in the City Council chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado,
fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of July, 1997.
John Bennett. Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved this day of , 1997.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
•
n
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1997, 4:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 601 E. Hopkins Conditional Use, Chris Bendon (cont. from 6/17)
B. 303 S. Cleveland - Landmark, Amy Amidon
C. Historic Landmark Multi -family Code Amendment, Amy Amidon
D. Marten Conditional Use for ADU & Residential Design Waiver, Chris Bendon
NEW BUSINESS
A. Rowars 8040 Greenline Review, Mitch Haas
ADJOURN \��
�O\ O
v `U 1n� wW Y
. \ .
1�e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission j
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direc
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director ,
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation
DATE: July 1, 1997
SUMMARY: Staff and HPC recommend P&Z approve landmark designation of 303 S.
Cleveland Street.
APPLIC 201 T: Chuck Tower, represented by Glenn Rappaport.
LOCATION: 303 S. Cleveland Street. Lots H and I, Block 35. East Aspen Addition to
the City of Aspen.
HISTORIC LANDMARK
Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of
the following standards may be designated "H." Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic
Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites.
HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or
site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to
the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United
States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is
unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the
distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on
building form or use), or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The structures are located in the vicinity of several other historic
resources. Although the cabins are of more recent construction (1948-1952), the
buildings contribute to the character of the neighborhood by being similar in scale and
massing as the Victorian historic resources, and by representing a type of housing which
became more common in Aspen in the 1950's.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location
and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style. and character of
homes constructed during the early development of the skiing industry in Aspen. There
are a limited number of "kit" log structures from the 1950's remaining in Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that P&Z forward a
recommendation of support for landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding
standards D and E are met.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward a recommendation of support for
landmark designation of 303 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met."
N
A=amvr i •
L*USE APPLIcA=CN FORK
1) . Project Name C N A LF S 'fO.w a Iz
2) Project I-Ocation 3a3 S C/EYE�a.N►� Lots N A Jj ;:t: ►31..k 3S
1E. As d01: f)
( indicate street address, lot & block mm ber, legal descipticn where
appropriate)
3)
Present Zoning K M - �
4) Ict Size 00c, S ►..fir'
5)
Applicant`s Name, Address
& Pbcm $
� k& P L E s 'fv w E IZ
3014
Asp6H C.
�5�6�z �q?o 92S• 'irl ye
6y
Representative's Name, Address &Pipe
G � �` e,,poat A Kc It�,r
,3Ou Z-7 as�EM,
CO Ss'IbiZ C
�7o) lZ 7` 06 1 '
7)
Type of Application
(please cheek all that apply):
Corditional Use
dual SPA
Jal Historic Dev.
Special riew
Final SPA
Final Hi.stor�c Dev-
3040 Grea'liim
Conceptual POD
Mahar Historic: Dev_
Steam `'resin
Final PUD
a stor c De=liticn
Mzuntain Vie<a Plane
Subdivision
Historic Designation
C-��i n i t m iatiai
V Te-xt=/Yzp -Amaidment QQS Allotment
Iat Sp.Lt/Iat Lane
Examgtim
Adjustment
s)
Dec- -ptic� of DC--'. ; m Uses (m=oer
and type of
apor..xinate sq- ft- ;
rx=be`- of
; any previous approvals granted to th-
Pz�-'
/r�2EE �x�srlKc, s'r�u`ru�Qcs � / BEoRoor,.. Sol 5� Fi
HAL6X ,17iW/o Sys sY F'-r �2 7z sq Fr EoC-u
DNpLGx S1.a,a 5"s9 Sf FT (2Sro sy Fr deACA
9) Description of Development Application
LdNOMAek, �EJ1EW aN D REFErLRGL ON Ar- C 4MtN0MCNr f)
G¢E-J-e A MyLrI f:Ar-1Lti Z:—JE 0,51'2ic7- tiLL&t-S IJCrsCNCt/>
10) Have ycu attar the following?
Response to Attachment 2, Mi n i m m, Submi ss j or, Cmterrts
Res=-kse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission C rterrts
ReSPOrItSe to Attach s 4, Review Standan for Your Application
a
J ,D = Fred
moo, ar 'vc
Sic { cam`• S • vcrsi do
Ao
SJ
IS r M
S
'� is Jal S P
UunoW c�1•� ` I� S sicn
o
17.T �S
ci JS J�UO
b
1 V
L•. �� c V r � is
v C.
U ,
V y
lcadows Rd W,��S •S �—
�S �
Y��us YA d �
c Creek Dr C.
Hyman ave.
1
5.16' Cabin A
o-- . - 1048
I
1 B.Rm. 501st.
Cabin B
1950
S t dio
St Idio
5js
Cabin C
1952
Studio Studio
559st.
L . - -
.. - - --- (
Alley
C IeveIand s.
T O W E R
north
1' = 20'
Lot Area 6000sf.
Zone RMF
ATTACHMENT 4
This proposal seeks landmark designation for the three cabins located at 303 S.
Cleveland Street, Aspen, Colorado. Response to attachment 4 (Standards for
Designation) .
A. Historical importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an' event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of
Colorado, or the United States.
It could be argued that these cabins at the time they were built were a direct
response to a significant cultural and social change in the history of Aspen. Small
dwelling units built during this period 1948 - 1952 were specifically intended to
acknowledge the beginnings of the tourist industry created by the establishment of
skiing in Aspen in 1946.
B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects and architectural style
that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant of unique architectural
type, (based on building form), or specimen.
Although not magnificent examples of more glorious architectural styles. These cabins
do clearly represent an architectural type that was both practical and easy to construct.
The 'stacked log" style was extremely cost effective and become the predominant
architectural style during the post war beginnings of Aspen as an international resort.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Does not apply.
•
•
D. Neighborhood character. The structure or site is a significant component of a
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
The small scale of these cabins was very much like the other small miners cabins that
once dotted Aspen's East end. This character has changed dramatically over the past
years as lodges, condominiums and large homes have been developed. Even though
these smaller structures are no longer part of a larger context they help to retain a
sense of the past and point out differences even in Aspen between the kind of
development that occurred on the West end verses that on the East side of town.
E. Community_ character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of
the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Aspen continues to fight to retain some of its small scale character. Smaller structures
can still be valuable as housing for Aspen's workforce cs well as insuring a diversity of
population within neighborhoods. As well as preserving examples of an important
series of
social changes in Aspen, these structures can allow clew members of the local work
force to live close in to the downtown area, an opportunity that where it still exists
should be protected.
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1997, 4:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 601 E. Hopkins Conditional Use, Chris Bendon (cont. from 6/17)
B. 303 S. Cleveland - Landmark, Amy Amidon
C. Historic Landmark Multi -family Code Amendment, Amy Amidon
D. Marten Conditional Use for ADU & Residential Design Waiver, Chris Bendon
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Rowars 8040 Greenline Review, Mitch Haas
V. ADJOURN
0
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Arm Woods, Deputy Director
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi -family, " worksession
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE TABLED TO JULY 15
July 1, 1997
Summary: Staff would like to present a proposed code amendment to Section 26.04.100,
Definition of "Dwelling, Multi -Family" in a worksession format to address any potential
concerns that the Planning and Zoning Commission may have.
The definition currently describes multi -family development as three or more units. attached to
each other. The proposed amendment will allow multi -family units to be freestanding in order to
create smaller buildings more in scale with older development in Aspen's residential
neighborhoods. Development under this scenario would be similar to the pattern permitted in the
AH zone, for example the Juan Street project and the Langley project. A massing study which
represents the desired outcome of the code amendment is attached. (This is a massing study for
the Town of Breckenridge).
It is likely that some variances for setbacks and distances between buildings will be necessary to
create multiple small structures on a lot. For historic landmarks that make use of this code
provision the HPC can review setback issues. In other cases, the project could be reviewed as a
P.U.D. or the Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to adopt standards to grant variances
as was done for the cottage infill program.
Applicant: Chuck Tower, represented by Black Shack Architects.
Background: The applicant owns 303 S. Cleveland Street, a property which is listed on the
historic inventory and under review for landmark designation. The property contains three
separate log buildings constructed in the late 1940's and early 1950's. They currently supply
housing for several full time residents. Although the use of the site is multi -family, the three
detached cabins do not meet the multi -family definition and are non -conforming. The site is
only at about half of its allowed floor area, but the owner cannot add any more units without
either linking the log buildings together, which would significantly impact their character, or
demolishing them.
This code amendment will allow the property owner to reach the allowed density in the RMF
zone district with the cabins left in their current condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed (with mitigation) freestanding from the historic buildings.
Staff is interested in making this massing option available in all zones where multi -family
development is permitted. Multi -family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts:
RMF, RMFA, AH, C-1, O, and LTR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1:1. P&Z should
discuss whether the FAR should be adjusted for detached units.
RECOMMENDATION: "I move to continue the "Multi -Family" code amendment to July 15,
1997."
2
WINTER s CO
0 0
PU
Scenario C-1
Description:
This illustrates the effect of building out to 12 UFA an two naaow, deep lots. Each of the
building modules are less than or equal to the historic avaegr in floor area. This is a corner
lot condition. A historic building i5 preserved at the comer.
Obeemdon:
Locating some mass to the rear :helps to reduce the visual impact on the street. The full two-
story module on the main street appears more massive when seen adjacent to the smaller
:historic structure. A one-story element, in addition to the porch, would help reduce the
appearance of a larger mass.
360 SF 11
10
I� f
► � S
f
1206 SF
1 400 SF
1
$tatiShCS:
Lot Sty
1200
1)
Building ;Mass=
Btuldiag FooVdnt
FAR=
UPA=
Lots 1&2 7500 SF
32W SF
2080 SF
43% or 1:2.8
11.9
Man
+ 50
EAST
HYMAN
fO INO' St'1 KE SOUND ;
ivw cn> ' /-OrO �Ea�e cam
575 Oy'// ° /20.20 ---—O �'
v
I
0
FFJ
H
13.7
0
AVENUE
— — - — -` � /�/75�09'll " IN �O•oo
ALLEY BLOCK 3.5 E A T
I I
I I �
I I I
I
+ 5;
+ 52
Q
44
v
1
0 5 10 2D AFT
ALE° 1i1= IOI
g iS OF 6EA ING ` 575'0I 11 I "E POE T WEEN
��11�1D 1✓IUNUMENTS P� SNOWN .
5UKYEiOK f) CERT I FIC�TE —
I, JAME5 F. KESEK, HffF-E�Y C DE�TI FY TH AT T4 ?
1vJA' ACCUF-ATE.LY A FIEL.r�'SVKVEY
PFr,f0 MED 13Y }✓lE ON SEPTF-V1nffK 27, 11-161
(�F LDT,�-, I -I AND I, 15LO0K 35, EAST ASPEI-I
TOWNDITE, GITYOF ASPEN, COLOf?-AGb,
AD -IN>= 1KVEY5, INC.
OATf Dr, ----------------
J W ES F izE5Ei�L,
---------- ----- L.S. 9 1�)4
rtkid.
job No ico-44
NOTICE. According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based Alpine Surveys, Inc.
upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect, Drafted • 2 I�p �-1 f--Il�
In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced
more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970 925 2688
ff)(JILJ3ING LOCATION SUt�V�Y
LOTS I ---I + 1, I�tcc-< 35
EAST n�P I TOW1-1S TE
CI T -C OF ASPEN, CO LOr-ADO
Ulent 1 UW �-�