HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Multi Family Zone 303 S Cleveland St.A40-97
.f-)
v
'~
'.'.
October7,1997
, '
I
Dear Glenn;
ASPEN . PITKIN
C?MMUNlrY DEVELO~MENT DEPARTMENT
Here is a brief explanation of our idea fOr Chuck Tower's property,
., " I' .
In orderto build the new units, you need two growth management "credits." We propose
that one of those credits comes, fr, om, a ,GM, QS exemption that allow, s historic landmarks
to 'add one ~ulti-family unit wlthout2ompetitiori. The other Unit would come from a
credit v6uwould receive by turning one of the log bUiidings from two studios into a one
,. . oJ '._ _ ^ '.
bedroom (leaving you with one unit that may be' reconstructed in the form ,of the new
building,)
,
You still have, toproyide deed restricted bedroo!I).s 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 apartmentk still free market.
It is possible that some assistance could'be received from the Housing Authority for
upgrad,es to the deed restricted units so that Chuck doesn't hav~ to pay for it. That might
be an incentive the I;Iousing .Authority could offer since, 11) the alternative, Chuck might
pursue an approval for qemolition and the City wpuld get nothing out cif the project. ,
, We want to find away to work this out and are happy to offer any p.dpyou need. Please'
'let me know if you wish,to pursue this further.' I think that it is not possible to' do the
pteject withput some deed restrictions to the existing units, which Chuck seemed
uncomfortable With at our last meeting. ,
"
, Si
e.
Preservation Officer
130 SOUTH GA'LENA'STREET . ASPEN; ~OLORADO 81611-1975 ' PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439
PrinledonRe'YCle~Paper ~
~
MEMORANDUM
, ,,',
"" c-.
TO:
Mayor and Council 1\\1 )
Amy Margerum, City Manager \J"'
Stan Clauson, Community Development Dh;ecto /.r /
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~' r--u
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation 0~6er
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi-family," Second Reading of
Ordinance #31, Series of 1997
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
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-1,0,
and L TR. 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.
I"""\,
("\.
. J
\lIe..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directof~./
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director ~
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer r
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation, First Reading of
Ordinance #;f}., 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 builtin 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.
1
.....
r-,
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 0003 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance #2-9, Series of 1997."
"I move to approve Ordinance #-4, Series of 1997."
Exhibits:
Ordinance # Jil, Series of 1997.
A. Current photograph of 303 S. Cleveland Street.
2
'-
'"
..
~
Exhibit A
r\
f")
ORDINANCE NO. 23
(Series of1997)
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 of303 S. Cleveland Street, has filed an
application for Historic Landmark Designation of his property, pursuant to Section
26.76.040 ofthe 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
1
~
r)
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 Sectiori 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 5
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
r'\
("\.
'..7
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6
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
,1997.
day of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
Exhibit A
f";
~
,
"-'__~fr<,'
, .
MEMORANDUM
()\I' A
f'"',
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager (\
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo/~
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~.
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Of;fer
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi-family," First Reading of Ordinance
#.31.. Series of 1997
July 28, 1997
RE:
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-1,0,
and L TR. 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
r">;
n
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.Jamily dwelling
For historic landmarks only. where multi-famiZv dwellings are vermitted. a multi-familv dwellinf{
mqy consist of three (.:V 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.
this title.
Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
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
f""1
n
y
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:
services.
The proposed amendment will have no greater impact on public facilities or
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:
properties.
The amendment applies to all multi-family development on historic landmark
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 #31, Series of 1997." "I move
to approve Ordinance #]2L, Series of 1997 on First Reading."-
3
r'\
~
',...,.,;AI
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
(""\,
n
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-familv dwellings are vermitted a multi-familv
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 ofthe same shall be
A
r--..
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 ofthe 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
',-
"""'j
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~ .
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation
THRU:
DATE:
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi-family," Public hearing continued
from July 1, 1997 '
July 15, 1997
RE:
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 freestandjng, on historic landmark properties only, in order to
create smaller buildings more in scale: with older d<:yelopment in Aspen's residential
neighborhoods. Development under this scenario wouldbe 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 are~ 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 curr~nt condition. Another one or two units will be
constructed (wi~ mitigation) freestanding from the historic buildings.
Multi-family dwellings are allowed in the following zone districts: RMF, RMFA, AH, C-1,0,
and L TR. The allowed floor area ratio is generally 1: 1.
-.
r'\
~
\;j
-
TEXT AMENDMENT:
1. Section 26.04.100, Definition Qf"Dw!llling, Multi-Family"
Proposed Amendm!lllt: Tl1e(;9}1)IImnity 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 dwellil1g containiltg 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 ana ofistreet 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 onlv. where multi-familv dwellings are nermitted a multi-fami{v dwelling
mav consist (1/ three W or more attached or 1etached dwelling units.,
2. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an arnendrnenttotheofficial z(me
district map, the city council and the commission sl1a!1 cOllsider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with ilIlY applicable portions of
this title.
Response:' The amendment is J:lpt in,c()J:lfl,i(:t~th ilIlY 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 c.onsistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use imd 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 arid 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:
services.
The proposed amendment will have no greater impact on public facilities or
F. Whether and the extent to whichthe proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural, t;l).vir()llIll(:l1t.
Response: The proposed amendment wiUl10t ca1;lse, significant adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistentand, cOxnpatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen. '
Response: The amendment encourages housing development which is cornpatible in scale
and character with Aspen's traditional resid~ntial neighborhoods.
H. Whether there have been ch~ged conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. ,
Response:
properties.
.
The amendment applies to all multi-family development on historic landmark
~.,,.-
I. Whether the proposed amenflment would be in ,confli9t with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and inteilt 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
........,1..,,,.,.'..,...,.,.,,,...,..,...,,,..,.,,.,.,,,,,_c"_.""o.",,,,;<',_','...'-"_""'_:_'_'''''','X.''-,:,.. .. ",. _:_,_,
proposed amendment to the Aspen Land Use Code, redefining multi~famny dwellings on
historic landmark properties, as describe.d in the staff xneQloranduQl dated July 15, 1997."
'3
r"l
r":I
,
TIl"B.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
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.
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.
A
()
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:
recommendation of support
standards D and E are met.
Staff and HPC recommend that P&Z forward a
for landmark designation of 303 S, Cleveland, finding
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward a recommendation of support for
landmark designation 0003 S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met."
2
1)
2)
, ,,'^,,'" " _I',,,, "", >;;~;;i;;";,;i~'Yk\,::,':~'~;;t,,';,,;:~., .', "";:;;"""",~<,(,^,,,,:,,.
",':. ":M;<i~'~~~~.,,;\;:;; ^ ,
PrOject ~: ,.....C/.1:..i.T2.Ln. :r.;~~.J2.' ,..; ,;~;~""",;";,;,, '." ,., '
Project IDca~on -;o~ ~. i:../r=.VliLANt:> L"ts,J\~.g;:r 13/0<-/:.. 'SS'"'
~. A~ ?/?H AoIof.t,o:>-. " ,. "'::':;:;..~"
(indicate Street address, lot & blocJc I1lIIliler, le;Jal ~~an whet:e
appropriate) , .
Present ~ J ~'F", 4) 'idl:'Slze .,~) 000 ' ~T,J:"
Applicant's N'ane, M:h:eSs & F!1one if C f.JA t2. LI< ~ /f;; WI< lG.
fo. ISo"" ~Olt.j ASpl!H e:." "is/biz.. . (~7'~>)'1Zs'.'ir<{~'6'
~tive's N'ane, 'l\ddress & Blane if G /€''''N R""ffA'f"t>.t' ARq! 1f'!':c.T
f.cl. ~O\l Z7{, A(p&N, Co "ir'/bl'Z- (170) 12 7~ 06 H-
,
~~\..'~'
.,', '\
f
!
3)
5)
6)'
7) Type of A[r'i<'ation (please dlec:k all that apply):
Conditional Use
_ Cooceptual SPA
"
- Cooceptua1. Historic l)av.
_ Special Review Final SPA
8040 Greenline _ Cooceptual IUD
_ stream i-mgin Final FOD
_ Final Historic l)av.
I
Minor Historic Cev'.
z.puntain yiew Plane SUlxlivisian
Corrlcminiumizatian vi TextJMap AmeOOment
_ rot Split;Iot Line
MjustJxent
8) Cescriptian of Existing Uses (n.miJer arrl type of ex:istin:; structures;
approximate sq. ft.; rwnrh>..r of ~'^=>; any pl:eVious approvals granted to the
property) .
7f./RIU 1!)(IS-r"N", <;-r~!.l~-r"RI:~ @ /I3EoJ<co"" '5"0/ So rr
(f3)D"fLt..Sfi1c1lo ~4q Sb Fi (2 n $6 ~111"<'J'J
(Z) D,,~L,,1(. Sfi"=>lo 5'''7 SG Fr ('[YO sb F.... "',"<OJ<)
9) Cescription of Develcpnerrt: Application
1-1 Pc L-ANCH,&I2.k. j!?tf;Viltw AN 0 r<.e Fe..."'-,,-... oN A cooe 4Mr;NO~1"-N'- 10
_ Historic: lJenplitian
...i.. Historic resignation
_ GQS Allotment
_GQS Exel!ption
C- IZ. E'A.
A MOL1"'1 I='AM'IL
Zo>.JE D.s-rI2."''- r/.i..-r "L"'.w5 f:>eIAC!J.G'~
s1"e u"-r,, 1t8 S ,
10) Have you attache:! the folloori.n::J'?
Response to Attachment 2, Minin:um Sllnni<:<;;ion Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sllnni<:<;;ion Contents
- Response to Attachment 4, Revie<i standards for Your Application
t"i
~
-
~
'u
\-=--
-
V'
ieadows Rd
~
-.L
\-
'"
-.:!
Q
f"""'\
r'\
i
H Y man 0 lie.
r'
S,16 .
--t-
Co bin A
1948
,-
--1
lB.Rm. 5015f.
I
Cabin B
19S0
S t rJ i 0
C l~velond st.
S t d i 0
54451.
Cabin C
1952
S t u cJ j 0
SS95!.
5 t u d i 0
L
TOW E R
. J
EJ
no r t h
1", 20',
A I ley
BLACK SHACK ARCHITECTS
SOXH6
ASPENCOLORADOS1612
I
I
I
I
lotAreo 6000sf.
Zone RMF
.'
r
I""")
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 imDortance. The strl!cture' or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associate'll 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 atthe 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 specificaliy 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. Desioner. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Does not apply,
D. Nei9hll()r~00d. character. Thl! st~u~ti.ire Or sitlilis aslgni~iciinrliomponentofa
historically significant neighborhood andthe preservation o~ the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
The small scale of these cabins was very much iike 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 thouQh
these smaller structures are no longer part of a larger context they help tG> retain a
sense of the past and pOint out differences even in Aspen belween the kind of
development that ocpurred on the West end verses that on the East side of town.
E. Community character. The struc,ture 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 ot~er structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Aspen continues to fight to retain some or its small scale character. Smellier structures
can stili 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,
*
,
f"";,
t""\
.m Co.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directqr 5C ({V"'-'
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director~......J I~I
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation V
FROM:
RE:
Code/Text Amendments, definition of "multi-family, "worksession
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE TABLED TO JULY 15
July 1, 1997
DATE:
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.
t"",
('")
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 o~ 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, 0, 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
~
"
P(I3
Scenario C-l
Description:
This illustrates the effect of building out to 12 UfA on two narrow' deep lobi. Eilch of the
building modules are Ie5s than or equal to the historic Il.verllgli in floor area. This is II COtnef
lot condition, A historic building is pre!lerV~ at the <:orner.
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 II larger mllSl'i.
360 SF
.
120 SF
D
~-
?I lJ"
-
400 SF 1200
--
F
1 2
Statistics:
Lot Size=< Lots 1&2 7500 SF
Building MlIss= 3280 SF
Building Footprint: 2080 SF
FAR.. 43% or 1:2.8
10 UPA= 11.9
~
WINTER & CO
C)
P04
Scenario C-l
~
,r,,:i'%;':;,~c"" ,tl1!1J~;t",
,""J:.;.,}PJfiiY,'f!tV~::",~,*~~1'
r"~~~ 'f"",="[!3 '~_,"" .,.w""",_,,
",:".,':;iI''<!:'''-''-''''''< ",", ",~1"i''''''
..,,,,, _,,,,.,,,, -il!;' " %'''' ,...._,,..,,-.,!
,,_..-~-'='ii"""'~ 1i '.,,','"
~i~):t~~ .~~
f1f ~" '" _ j '....( ,.~ ~ ::11"----" "..,
, ""F ::I'\; ;,;1 "'.'l:',t~':5i;d '}';;(;"d'
""~~ .,",,"..,I:l1,,. -~ JS~'~l"";~
-....- ~ ~,~,..~:.;,
Front View
Birds.eye View
11
"......,.
,~'
)
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
(I) 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-Iandmark 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. Mqst Planning and Zoning review fees are a deposit;
money will be refunded ifless 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 tab lings 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 - mSTORIC 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
n
n
, :,)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 303 S. CLEVELAND - LANDl\1ARK 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 theAspen/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
6ile-rl&'t !&.f fai&;.J"d
f
("'"
n
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director
RE:
303 S. Cleveland Street, Landmark Designation
Residential multi-family Code amendment referral comment
DATE:
May 28, 1997
SUMMARY: The application has two c;omponents; 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 speciaJ value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or
, site commonly identified or associated witha 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 stnlcture 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.
A
r"\
'''..,,:Y
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 relatjonship 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 ofmulti~family as stated above does not allow
the units to be detached from each othyr, 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), 0 (office), and LTR
(lodge/tourist residential). A hotel or lodge building is not considered multi-family.
2
,
t""\
..-.
'. 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 recomtnends that HPC forward a rec()mtnendation of
support for landmark designation of303S. Cleveland, finding standards D and E are met.
Staff also recommends HPC support the proposed code amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I m()ve to forward a recomntendation 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
~~. \--\-;SVlQ/\
7
t)'S,Q.../ .
1/lC:"'\- ~ V ( 2:>'L--1=\ GV\ cS>V ~
, ?
Uo>v\ av'\~ .
~~
3
~)
Project Name
'.~.,~ ,
~ USE APPUC1lX1:CN FORM
j;; l'
, ,.:':1
C ~Al1-L(;~ :ro,"''''la.. '
f""'\
2)
Project L=ation ~'O~ '5. CleVlH.ANt:> Ltlts J.l 4,,~;:C T3/0c./c.. 3!:'"
~. As pl<>-lAJ.d; t,;... .
(indicate Street address, ~ot & block l1UIltJer, ~egal n-r-r;ption ~
appropriate) ,
Present Zoni.ri:1 ~ Mr:" 4)IOtSue C) 000 SO.FI.
Applicant.s Name, Address & B1cne f. C tjA l2.. L '" ~ -f,; WE' i2-
fo.iSo"- 1;01<1 .A~peH c.,. <i5lbl2. . (~70)qZ~"id~'i(
~tive's Name,.Mdress & EOOne f. .G (ttNN R"'ffAr~P-T A RL U tf"cc.T
f.cl. ~o" 'l7€' A~pli'r.J1 Cc ylbi~ (170) 12 7~ 06 ~~
.
3)
5)
6}
7) Type of Application (please d1ec:k all that apply):
Corrlitional Use ',_ 0:>rx::ePtua1 SPA
_ 0:l0::ept1Jal. Historic rev.
Final Historic rev_
'.
_ $p'>r;" 1 Revie;.T Final SPA
8040 Greenline _ Corx::ept1lal roo
~,
_ stream Ma.t:gin Final roo
,
Minor Historic rev.
_ Historic Demolition
...i. Historic Cesignation
Mountain yie;.T Plane SUb:li.vision
Condaniniumization vi' TextjMap AnErrlIrent
_ IDt Split;Lot Line
Adjustment
8) I::esaipticn of Existirg Uses (nmi:er arrl type of ex:ist.in:r st:rucb.Ires;
approximate sq- ft_; rsmh>.r of I.=:L..,-,,-=>; ,<=:{ previous awrovals granted to the
property) -
7I1R€€ !)(I$'f"'IN(;. ~-r~l.(c.'l""Res 0 I BeoR.co,v.. ')01 So f',
(iD[)~fLt:...SII1c1lo ~l/q sb Fi' (z n sb ':1"" I<.A"M J
o D"fLii:x' sf/Jolo 5'''1 $& F. (.zYOSe F1'" e""Il)
9) D:scription of Develcpnent Applicaticn
1.1.f'c C-ANOM;'t2.1<. il':iJ'CW .AND f<.I!FC:I<.~"L- oNACo,:;;,e 4MGND/0~Nr' r"
_ GM:;\S Allotment
_ GM:;\S El<aDption
C-rz.eA.1"e A MV"1'"II=';>""""'1
<;:1'e v",1"'1J te.€ S ,
z""',, [>,,1'I2.l..1" Oi-cr .o.LL..IYS f:>ej'AC~G'r.,
W) Have ycu attached the follOJing?
Response to Attac:hmerrt 2, MiniJwm Snhnk<:ion O::>ntents
Response to Attac:hmerrt 3, Specific $llhni<:<:ion Contents
_ Response to Attachment: 4, Reviev Standards fol:' YOLU:' Application
.~
,
,
05
19
97
I""'
f'\
, J
GLENN H RAPPAPORT
I
ARC H
TEe T
POST OFFICE BOX 276
ASPEN COLORADO 81612
T 970 927 063 5
;A I A
9 7 0 9 2 1 0 6 5 4
Amy Amidon, HPO
Historic Preservation Committee
130 South Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
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 commuQity,
Thank you for your consideration,
Glenn H, Rappaport A'A
Architect
"
If"',
e_ .-J
.
-
ieadows Rd
~
':I:.
~
et
~
A
\j
_\:~~
~
r')
n
H Y man Q v e.
5,16 . Cab i n A
r' . " 1948 I- "1
1 B.n:m. 5015 f.
Cabin B
1950
S t d i 0
5 t di 0
L
544st
Cabin C ~
1952
Studio Studio
5595 f,
A I t e y
C tevelond st.
TOW E ~
. J
E9
nor t h
1"" 20':
lotArea 6000sf.
ZonE' nMF'
BLACK SHACK ARCHITECTS
eo~ 275
ASPEN CO LOA ADO alS12
"
..
r'I
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 associate8 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 estabiishment of
skiing in Aspen in 1946.
B. Architectural imDortance. 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 extremeiy 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,
r"'\
~
D. Nei9hborhood 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 ather small miners cabins that
.once dotted Aspen',s East end. This chargcter has changed dramatically aver the past
years as lodges, candaminiums and large hames have been develaped. Even thaug,h
these smaller structures are na langer part .of a larger cantext they help tG retain a
sense .of the past and paint aut differences elien in Aspen between the kind .of
develapment that .occurred an the West,end verses that an the East side .of tewn,
E. Community character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation 01'
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 cantinues ta fight ta retain same .of its small scale character. Smaller structures
can still be valuable as hausing fer Aspen's wark farce as well as insuring a diversity .of
papulatian within neighbarhaeds. As well as preserving examples .of an impertant
series .of
secial changes in Aspen, these structures can allew a few members .of the lecal werk
farce ta live clase in ta the dawntawn area, an appartunity that where it still exists
shauld be pratected.
~
,
CCkLOAD SuMMARY SHEET . CIT~ ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 5/20/97
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2737-182-31-002
CASE # A40-97
STAFF: Amy Amidon
(Tower) Multi-Family Zone District Code Amendment
303 S. Cleveland
Charles Tower
P.O. Box 3014 Aspen, Co. 81612 925-8488
same
PROJECT NAME:
Project Address:
APPLICANT:
Address/Phone:
OWNER:
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Rappaport
AddresslPhone: P.O. Box 3014, Aspen 927-0635
RESPONSffiLE PARTY:
Applicant
Other Name! Address:
FEES DUE
PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV HEALTH
CLERK
TOTAL
FEES RECEIVED
$1080 PLANNING $1080.
$0 ENGINEER $
$0 HOUSING $
$0 ENV HEALTH $
$ CLERJC $
$1080 TOTALRCVD$1080.
# APPS RECEIVED I
# PLATS RECEIVED 1
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
TYPE OF APPLICATION
Staff Approval
P&Z
CC
CC (2nd readin )
REFERRALS:
o City Attorney
o City Engineer (DRC)
o Zoning
o Housing
o Environmental Health
o Parks
o Aspen Fire Marshal
o City Water
o City Electric
o Clean Air Board
o Open Space Board
o Other:
o CDOT
o ACSD
o Holy Cross Electric ~
o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
o Aspen School District
o Other:
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DATE DUE:
APPROVAL:
OrdinancelResolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
Date:
Date:
Book
,Page
CLOSEDIFILED
ROUTE TO:
DATE:
INITIALS:
05
19
97
~
'v
n
~'..,.,,,
G LEN N
H
RAP PAP 0 R T
I
ARC H
T
C T
POST OFFICE BOX 276
ASPEN COLORADO 81612
T 970 9 2 7 0 6 3 5
. I .
970 927 0 6 5 4
Amy Amidon, HPO
Historic Preservation Committee
130 South Galena Street
Aspen Colorado 81611
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 .,,
Architect
f")
("\.
ASPENIPITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM:ENfDEPARTMENT
Aueement for P~e~t of City of ;'\~pen 1hnIopment Applieation ~l!t!.<1I
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
~ 1bLW-
(hereinafter APPLICAl'IT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS;
1. APPLICAl'IT has submitted to CITY an ap lication for
L_-'w.._1< '. 01 S. _I)
(hereinafter, THE PR JECT).
2. APPLICAl'\i"T understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and
the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of
lpplication completeness.
3. APPLICAl'IT 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. APPLICAJ.'\l"T and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICAJ.'IT make
payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed
to APPLICAl'IT ona monthly basis. APPLICAl'IT agrees he will be benefited by
,retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon
notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY
agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs
' to process APPLICAl'IT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICMIT further 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 forproject approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.'
;'
,
f
;
t
i
1
i
;
"
i
)
I
!
<
.....
to
,..-
'1
REceIVED
MAY 2 1 I'm
r'\
ASPEN I PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSMITTAL
t'\
8
ARC H
GLE.NN H RAPP.APORT
TEe T
POST OFFICE BOX 276
ASPEN COLORADO 81612
T 970 927 063 5
A I A 9 7 0 9 2 7 0 6 5 4
TO A ~ A~o"", ~.P. o.
'":~ ;;~~~ tlo..-.j/.'f-'
PAGES ~
~~
RE
t.._J-.-k ~r;t;;:. f-"
~. .L
( """Jw1J
G.d """""
~tJ -d.
1f~(}fN
7L... k j vo- .
"A X
o FED EX
o COURIER
OPICKUP
/..111 "A~.
05/13/97
Accoont'
RQ()~~$~:, .: '.,..'
Y~Qr ",i'>ldili:it
TUE 15: 39 FAX 970 925 9534
N Owner Na~ Address ,
TOWER CHARLES 0
PO BOX 3014
ASPEN CO 81612
lft:l u\
1 Names
2 Situs Addless
3 Mabile He ,me
4 Tracl/See ion
5 Condamllllums
6 Block & L< ,t Current Year Prior Version Go TO Imaging
7 Book & Pc ge/Sales Next Version I VIew Images
8 Mlscellan 10US Prior Year
9 Tax Items Next Year Clerk's Doc's Prlnllmages
10 Pre/Suee. ,ed
Update Clear Exit
MASTER
1
2
3
I r-._. ^ I....... AT"
______._________~--~-~~77~
AceiMIl': "
05/13/97 TUE 15:39 'AX 970 925 ~534
Owner Na~~ddress
R9:014~~ii, ,," N
Y~qr i:,~j~iiie:;{ ,
i:
TOWER CHARLES 0
PO BOX3014
ASPEN CO 81612
1 Names
2 Situs Add! 9SS
3 Mobile H( me
4 Trael/See ion
5 Condomh Ilums
6 810ek & L< ,I Current Year Prior Version Go TO Imaging
7 Book & Pc ge/Seles Prior Year Nexl Version View Images
8 MlseellaMous
9 Tax Ilems Nexl Year Clerk's Doc's Print Image.
10 Pre/Sue", oed
Update Clear Exit
MASTER
!
--~-~
1
2
3
I r-..-. ^ I ,....,,. -r"
t"'""\
f)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 303 S. CLEVELAND - LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 17,
1997lrt 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 AspenlPitkin 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 t 1997
t Charles Tower (303 S. Clevelonq, Aspen,.Colorodo, telephone number (970)
925-8488) outhorize Glenn Roppoport ( post office box 276, Aspen, Colorodo,"
. .
telephone number (970) 927-0635) to (let os myrepresentotive regarding 011
ospects of the development opplicotlon for 303 S. Clevelond.
Thonk you,
~J~
,Charles Tower
/
-
t""\
NON-LANDMARK (current status), OPTIONS
L 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-fariiily, duplex, or multi-family
residence.
(a) Employee mitigation (ADU or cash-in-lieu)
(b) Ordinance #30
(c) Planning and Zoning Commission, ADU
b. Denial
(I) Remain at status-quo
(2) Pursue code amendment to allow detached multi-family units
(a) Process (Fee: +$3,255, +3months)
1. Planning and Zqning 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
1. 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-Iandmark 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;
moneywill be refunded ifless 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 tab lings of anymeetings or the time needed by the applicant to prepare drawings, etc.
'-.
f""\
'"
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 Iffitil 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
r\
,
'.
f)
November 27,1996
.",-.,",,',.','
.... .. .......~.....
,.." ",-"--,,
, Glen Rappaport
Black Shack Architects
P.O. Box 276
Aspe~, Color(!do 81.612
ASPEN ' PITKIN
CSlMMUNlrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Re: 303 S. Cleveland
/
Dear Glen:
I have created a basic outline of redevelopment options and review,processes fQr, 303 S.
Cleveland.
- ,
It is my opinion that the likelihood of HPC approving a total demolition of thebuildirtgs
on'the site is low. Tliat being the case, pursuing the addition of a new unit through a code
amendment has a similar cost andtimeline ~hether the property is landmarked or not,
however there are several important differences. Notice that non-landmarks must
compete fora-growth management allocation while landmarks are exempt. Thereare
_ only approximately two free market unit allocations available pet 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 Adjustmentwould have to grant any setback variances,
" distance between building' variances, Qr other dimensional variations that you may need,
based on a finding of hardship. In the case orhistoric landrnarks, HPC may grant such
.variarices 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.
_ ~~1
Sin, r ly, " ,,Y,/ :' ,
" _ I' .'. ,r /'
.4~ /' /""7 'i/ ,..,-
/,! '," >', -'. j ",# ....._, '" ,,-,--- --..
, .,~ ",.. ",/' ,:..."".
, ,1' _.r ..
VAmy 'C[on ' . - " .
Hip Preservation Officer '
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 816n-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX'970.920.5439
, ' ,
Prin[ed Qn Rkyded Paper
r'\
November ll, 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 it potential FAR bonus from the Historic
Preservation Commission of 500 square fyet 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.
~
r'I
/
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
J
I
,
I
"
!
t)
"
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,
t
.;
k.