The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19950208AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 8, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Commission and Staff Comments Approval of Oct 12, 1994 minutes. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair, appointment to expire on the first meeting in August per Code II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 420 E. Main - Extension of conceptual Â£21,. /0~2'-Â· 64.00<3 6 et'u 5:15 B. Maroon Creek Bridge- Conceptual, PUBLIC HEARING ttyl, Xtu 5 /f 6:15 C. 520 Walnut Street- Conceptual, Partial Demolition,\ 2 On-site Relocation, Special Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- PUBLIC HEARING IV. OLD BUSINESS A. none 7:15 V. PROJECT MONITORING 7:25 VI.ADJOURN .... -) 1 HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect/Committee Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) 617 W. Main 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) Highway Entrance Design Committee Donnelley Erdman The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley Wheeler-Stallard House 624 E. Hopkins 304 E. Hopkins 234 W. Francis 204 S. Mill - Collins Block 220 W. Main - European Flower 930 King Street Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 824 E. Cooper 210 S. Mill 303 E. .Main Alt 312 S. Galena - MD (Planet Hollywood) City Shop - 1080 Power Plant Road 506 E. Main - elevator 930 King Street Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 205 S. Mill Larry Yaw 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) 232 E. Hallam ACES City Shop '1080 Power Plant Road St. Mary's Church windows Roger Moyer CCLC Liaison 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 409 E. Hopkins 303 E. Main 311 W. North Farfalla lights outside 210 Lake Avenue (alternate) Marolt Museum Karen Day Cottage Infill Program 134 E. Bleeker 435 W. Main Swiss Chalet 311 W. North 304 E. Hopkins 121 S. Galena Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 132 W. Main 520 E. Cooper Unit 406 715 W. Smuggler Linda Smisek 134 E. Bleeker 210 Lake Avenue 305 Mill St. Su Casa Tom Williams 130 S. Galena - City Hall 300 W. Main - fence McDonalds 323 W. Main St. Aspen Medical Center Pending Issues - Meadows site visit for inventory 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 520 WALNUT STREET .......... 1 RESO 94-2 RE-EVALUATION OF INVENTORY - ROUND II .. 2 409 E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ..... 7 I. j 8 . A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Les Holst, Roger Moyer, Tom Williams Linda Smisek, Martha Madsen and- Jake Vickery present. Donnelley was excused. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of September 1st and the 13th; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 520 WALNUT STREET Amy: Last night council tabled landmark designation due to the neighborhood comments disturbing them. They also wanted to see more information. The applicant has decided to withdraw the application temporary. I also feel this is unfortunate. Angie Griffith, neighbor: Jon Busch was concdrried about the traffic in that area if it was an office use. I am under the impression that if it is designated as historical she does not have to have a setback. Amy: If she needs some variation because of the historic structure the committee can give it to her. Angie Griffith: I am concerned about the setbacks and I was born and raised on that property. Amy: What is to be involved tonight is taking the historic building so that it is in conformance on the one side and moving it forward to Walnut Street somewhat. There were concerns about the trees and I talked with the Parks Department and they feel the trees may collapse. Angie Griffith: I am concerned about having no sun all day long and I do not know how high she is going with that building. It is on the property line right now. Amy: She is moving it off the property line five feet. Angie Griffith: For the past 70 years it has been a shed and you .-/ are claiming that it was a cottage. The rest of the house was flat .2 and was attached to the east side and it collapsed. That is why , the siding is different. Angie Griffit's friend: If anyone knows the history for the past , 70 years its is Angie. It is going to disturb Angie' s quality Â·of - live and she has been in Aspen for over 70 years. The way it was : # put to me was that the green house on the property is going to be _ completely raised and a new 2,700 sqft. home will be built on this property which is already a small property. I know that property and I know if a house that big is built on that property that the wall will come right in front of her kitchen window and that concerns me. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Amy: If landmark designation goes through then there is design review, a public hearing and you continue to be involved. If it doesn't go through none of us are involved. Roger: If the historic structure is moved as proposed is she moving it away from the north property line to the south property line? Amy: Right now it is into the neighbors property to the north. Roger: We could do a site visit and show you where the cabin is to be moved to. When the cabin is moved it will not block your light. The cottonwood trees are a real danger to anyone if someone starts to live there so I think those need to be addressed if they are to be removed or not. Long ago there probably was a ditch. Even if we grant historic designation to the cottage that doesn't effect the house. She has to build the house within the setbacks. MOTION: Roger made the motion to table 520 Walnut Street to a date certain January 11, 1995; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. RESO 94-2 RE-EVALUATION OF INVENTORY - ROUND II Amy: This is the follow-up of the meeting of Sept. 13, 1994. I have deleted the properties that you have agreed on and we might discuss two of them. Amy: 205 W. Bleeker the red and white house did request to be removed from the inventory. I do not recommend removing it and your vote was split. I did not show it removed on the attached resolution. It was a victorian house and has been completely changed but represents a new era, a ski architecture or artistic interpretation. Tom: It is Lou Willie's studio. Amy: The whole property is on the inventory. Roger: We need to decide whether or not we want to maintain some of the earlier ski architecture and if we let it go and someone tears it down they can conceivably build another large house. Les: Everytime we take something off the inventory we damage the neighborhood because everyone suffers on down the line. Our inventory is basically all we have for historic preservation and as far as I am concerned you can't let anything go. Chairman Joe Krabacher did a straw poll and the consensus was that 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 205 W. Bleeker the Tyrolean Lodge stays on the inventory. Amy: 990 E. Hyman has the siding and windows changed. Joan Sparling, home owner in the back of the duplex. I live in half of the duplex that was built in 1978 and it is cute but not historical. For clarification it is my understanding that the HPC is to keep control on the inventory, demolition or relocation of ' historical structures built prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value. They evaluate based on recommendations of the Planning Director and I got this all from the code. The last two directors had advanced educational degrees in historical buildings and in preservation. Roxanne Eflin was very stringent and she recommended that this property be dropped. Amy Amidon is also recommending that the property be dropped as quote "it' s historical integrity has been compromised due to substantial 'modifications" . We have three very strong qualified recommendations that it be dropped and it would have been dropped if it was kept on schedule. The property itself is 4200 sqft. and 3000 sqft. of that was built in 1978 and that is the duplex that is not historical. The 1200 sqft. front house is the one documented. The changes that have occurred include a huge addition with a cathedral ceiling, diamond light at the attic, a east three sided bay window that sticks out that is contemporary and it has new siding not the old and all new modern windows. It has a new roof and there was an old shed that was gone. It had an added two bedroom, master bath and master closet. Barbara Gameroff, owner: The original house consisted of a livingroom, kitchen which is now the livingroom and the laundry and the shed roof which was there when Perry Harvey bought the house in 1975 was off on the north west side of the house was falling down and was located where the back bedroom is located presently. He used that as a garage and it was removed and two bedrooms etc. were added. The house has more than doubled in size. The original house had lap fur and was covered with aluminum siding. When they took off the siding all the original wood was completely rotten and replaced with redwood. Apparently the scale on a victorian is one to four for the siding and this is eight -- inches. It has all new windows and a kitchen addition and is now a condominium with a duplex in the back yard. Why and what are you basing your decisions on. Joan Sparling: Is it retrievable and I maintain it is not. It 9 states with substantial effort could be considered contributing. Substantial effort, like what, tearing down the back duplex. Where do we draw the line ini mdintaining historical integrity and I would like you to consider the expertise of the past historians . and drop it off the list. 3 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Roger: Would you describe your fear and your concerns of being left on the inventory. Joan Sparling: I feel it would add another layer and I have done some remodeling and went through the Planning Dept. in three days. I feel the laws and rules should apply where it is deserved and where it is a benefit. I feel my home doesn't benefit and I should not have to go through another layer of government. Roger: Do you have any FAR left? Joan Sparling: We aren't maxed but as far as the back duplex where we both live we are. Les: You mentioned Roxanne Eflin and do you have something in writing which states that it should be taken off the inventory. . Joan Sparling: I have the report that was done by the independent consultants that were hired by the City to go over every house on the inventory in 1991 and she recommended taking it off. 0 Roger: The reason we left it on was that the house was some type of historic resource and it could be retrievable, you could take out the windows. If it isn't on the inventory then someone can tear the entire thing down. I had a thought on the newer condominium portion; if they want to do anything just go to Staff and tell them you are going to do it. Barbara Gameroff: If you don't do the clapboards and roof and don't take down the new additions you are not retrieving the property by putting a few old windows in the new building. I would like to know why it is on the inventory. Les: In our attempt the maintain scale and massing in the neighborhood we have left buildings like this deviate from their historic clarity. We let windows come out and siding change as long as they can go back and what we have done is save the historic scale for the neighborhood. Joan Sparling: There are three separate owners living there on one property. We have condominium restrictions which we all have to approve. Roger: If that is the case why take it off as it is an historic f resource. It is the only defense we have to save the scale of the _. neighborhood. Joan Sparling: You couldn't build anything bigger than that anyway even if you tore it down. 4 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Tom: Yes you could because there would be no review. Joan Sparling: We have very restrict covenants and why would I ever approve a home in front of me to block out all the views. Amy: What if only condo A which has the historic house was designated. Barbara Gameroff: I feel that is not fair. Jake: What has changed on the historic house? Barbara: It has new siding, all new windows, new roof and a bay window and french doors added. It has an extension on the back of the building for the addition to the kitchen. The porch has been enclosed on the north. I went to the historical 'society to look for a pictures but nothing was found. Barbara Gameroff: What does retrievable mean? Jake: That the integrity of the historical character can be restored. Linda: You can bring the little cabin back to what it was. Jake: The overall shape and elements are there even though they are covered. Roger: Amy, do you feel that the historic resource is retrievable? Amy: Retrievable means that it would be possible to bring the building back to its original character. Joe: I feel the property contributes by scale in the grain of the neighborhood and just because you change the roof or siding the form and scale still retains the old mining scale. If the property burns down my concern would be that a second story could be built on top of the two structures or that the entire structure gets torn down and then we would have no control over that. Covenants among the owners can always be changed. I feel being on the inventory and going through the process is something that you contribute to the community. Joan Sparling: Why should I have to do that? - Joe: Your duplex has to be in character and compatible with-the historic resource that is on the property which is the house in front. Whatever you do to your building it has a relationship to the historic building and that is where our concerns come in. We have review over new additions to historic buildings. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Jake: No one is saying that the duplex is historical. Joan Sparling: But you are making me go through the same process ' as though it were. Joe: If you had a lot and an historic building on it and we had no control over what else was built on that property we would have , no way .to control the impact of a new structure on the historic building so we look not only at what happens to the historic buildings themselves we also look at the context of the neighborhood and how can a building next to an historic building be non-historic by virtue of the impact it has, because it is too big or overpowering. Under the city code we have the right and obligation to review additions. Joan Sparling: Lets talk about Amy's recommendation of listing only the historic building and Roger's comments about Staff review only and Barbara would not have to pay the fees and go through the bureaucracy unless it is a massive change to the property. , What if I had to sell my place and a buyer finds out it is listed historic then it hurts the market value. We are asking that you be fair about that and if it takes rewriting or some adjusting then lets be fair. Joe: That is fine if you want to rewrite the code but currently it is one ownership even though it is condominiumized. Under our existing code we cannot say part of the property will not be subject to review. Amy: Your review process is only with a degree of demolition. This does not cover your interiors. Barbara: What about a window well. Amy: I do not think digging a hole requires a review. We will be reworking the demolition review and possibly it can be a Staff signoff. Les: We will work with you to make it easier and leaving it on the inventory you will be better off. I feel it will work for you in the long run. Martha: Personally if you sold your unit possibly a new owner would want it to match the back section and then we would loose the architectural features. , Barbara: In terms of a two story I doubt that it would happen because the back people would not allow it. 6 - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1994 Roger: To specifically address your concerns I kept it on because it is an historic structure and it is retrievable. The next concern about the realestate community perception will change .- because much of the town is historic. Had their not been controls in the 70's people would have bulldozed down all the houses. When Paepcke came he wanted an intercept lot and to restore houses. Joan Sparling: Is there anything you can suggest to make the process, easier for us. I can understand a buyer taking B over A regarding a duplex because there are less loop holes to go through. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve Resolution 94-2 Re- evaluation of the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, Round II as presented; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. Joe: 205 W. Bleeker and 990 E. Hyman Tyfoledn ' stay on the inventory. 409 E. HYMAN AVE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Joe: This is an application for an awning and a fixed glass area into a door. Amy: This is a building that has the T-shirt shop on the first floor and a shared entranceway up to New York Pizza. They would like to define their store better and put an awning up and door so that there is a direct entrance to the mall. I recommended approval with the condition that the new door match the existing and that the new awning should align with the adjacent awning. It does need to be a retractable awning. Manager: The color would match. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC approve the minor development application for 409 E. Hyman with the conditions that the new door match the one existing on the building and that the new awning align with the adjacent awnings and that the intensity of the color be minimal; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Tom. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7;00 p.m. - - Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 i; . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 420 E. Main Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: February 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests that the conceptual approval granted for this project on August 24, 1994 and extended for six months to February 25, 1995, be extended for an additional six months. Under Section 7-601-F3 (c) , an "application for a f'inal development plan must be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan prevdously granted by the HPC." At this time, the applicants for the proposed development at 420 E. Main Street request an additional six months to prepare final drawings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC extend conceptual approval for 420 E. Main Street until August 24, 1995. and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 January 26, 1995 Ms. Amy Amidon Director of Historic Preservation City of Aspen , 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Galena Plaza HPC Conceptual Approval Extension Dear Ms. Amidon: Please consider this letter a formal request for a second six month extension of the HPC conceptual approval for Galena Plaza. The original conceptual approval was set to expire on August 24, 1994. However, a six month extension was granted until February 25,1995. The owners of the project have given us authorization to proceed with the drawings but it will not be possible for us to complete them prior to February 25. Therefore, we request that a six month extension be granted. The effect of this extension will be a new expiration date for the conceptual approval of August 24,1995. Please review this letter and schedule time before the committee at their earliest convenience. Do not hesitate to cal! if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kim Weil Project Manager TIE sj MEMORANDUM I To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Maroon Creek Bridge Pedestrian/Bike Path- Conceptual, PUBLIC HEARING Date: February 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The Maroon Creek Bridge is the "weak link" in the upper valley's pedestrian/bike path network, due to safety issues. For some time, the City and County have been interested in constructing a dedicated pedestrian path across Maroon Creek. In 1993, Meheen Engineering in Denver was contracted to design the path, and proposed two options; a path on the bridge, beloW the road deck, and a new, separate bridge. The Maroon Creek Bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination form describes the history.of the bridge as follows: In 1887 the Colorado Midland Railroad raced with the Denver and Rio Grande to be the first to extend rail lines into the mining town of Aspen. The latter reached the town in mid-October, and the former reached the Maroon Creek crossing just to the west of town in December. There the Midland hit a snag, as steel for the superstructure of the immense Maroon Creek trestle was delayed from the fabricator in the east. When it did arrive later that month, the railroad bridge crew began construction, completing it early in February 1888. The bridge remained in use by the railroad until it quit operations in (1919). In 1929, after ten years Of improvised use by motorists, the State Highway Department contracted with the Phelps Brothers and the Morrison- Knutsen Company to widen and pave the roadway. The Maroon Creek Bridge has functioned in place as a vehicular bridge since, unaltered and in good condition. Of the five original steel bridges built by the Midland Railroad, in Manitou Springs and near Buena Vista and Aspen, only the Maroon Creek Bridge remains. The older and longer of the two railroad trestles converted in place to railway use (the other: Bridge No. 10 of the Florence and Cripple Creek Railroad, FR48) in the survey, it is a significant resource- one of the last remaining iron/steel multiple span high trestles erected in the 19th century for Colorado's narrow gauge mountain railroads. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, requires that all federally assisted undertakings evaluate the effects of the undertaking on properties listed on, or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and must allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment. In early 1994, the "Decision Makers" (Board of County Commissioners/City Council/Town of Snowmass Village) reviewed the alternatives provided by Meheen Engineering and voted to support the pathway on the bridge. This recommendation was submitted to the Colorado Historical Society, coordinators -of the Section 106 review. Their opinion was that the City and County must consider all alternatives, including the separate bridge, and give greater consideration to mitigation of impacts to the historic resource. The Society requested through CDOT that several pieces of information be provided to them, including a referral comment from the nearest CLG, which is Aspen (see attached letter from Bob Moston, CDOT Regional Director, August 23, 1994). The opinion which has been forwarded from CDOT, owners of the' bridge, is that they do not support alterations to the Maroon Creek Bridge (see attached letters from Bob Moston, January 5, 1994 and January 31, 1995). In Fall 1994, the Maroon Creek Bridge was annexed into the City of Aspen as part of the Zoline Annexation. This means that the Aspen HPC comment is no longer a referral, but a full Significant Development review. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen and Pitkin County. The bridge is owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. LOCATION: Maroon Creek Bridge, State Highway 82 right-of-way in the NE 1/4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: Both Of the proposed alternatives have positive and negative aspects, however, Staff finds that the separate bridge solution is preferable for a number of reasons. As described above, Maroon Creek Bridge is a unique resource which has significance at the local, State and National levels. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation specifically state that "The removal or alteration Of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible." In addition, "Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired." The on-bridge pathway would require the temporary removal of cross bracing materials in the truss system and would result in some permanent damage to materials where the path attached to the bridge. In addition, construction of switchback approaches to the path would result in a visual intrusion which would require revegetation in the future. From a safety standpoint, the on-bridge solution presents a number of problems. The long switchback approaches may be difficult to negotiate and a ninety degree turn would be required to get onto the bridge. In adilition, the pathway would not be easily visible and could present problems in terms of crime and emergency response. A pedestrian might be deterred from using the on bridge path due to a perceived lack of personal safety. Perhaps, most importantly, the Colorado Historical Society and CDOT have indicated that they will not support an on-bridge path. Further pursuance of that option will be lengthy and meanwhile there is the constant possibility that someone could be injured while crossing the bridge. The City and County must consider what solution is "do-able" in the quickest time period. The BOCC has suggested that the path could be constructed using Pitkin County Use Tax money and avoiding the Section 106 process altogether, but this may still result in delays, because of CDOT's (and possibly Aspen HPC's) opposition. Also, where grant funding is available, it seems more appropriate to make use of it. If, with the recommendation of the Aspen HPC, the separate bridge is accepted by the Decision Makers, there will be at least three more months of approval processes between CDOT and Pitkin County, and possibly a requirement for an Army Corp of Engineers permit for constructing bridge pylons. Staff believes in order for a path to be constructed for use this summer, the separate bridge is the only feasible alternative. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of,the parcel proposed for development. Response: This pedestrian/bike path is expected to be a temporary solution (about a ten year life span) until a permanent solution is found through the future alterations to Highway 82. A number of concerns have been raised regarding possible visual impacts of a new additional bridge. This bridge is a custom design, so no pictures of a similar structure are available. Discussions of the project within the Community Development Department led to the suggestion that the superstructure (the cross brace structure shown above the deck) could be moved below the deck so that only a handrail would be visible as one drives along Maroon Creek Bridge. Staff has contacted the engineer and has been told that this will not result in a cost increase. Lighting for the path could be placed under the handrail, directed onto the path itself. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The on-bridge path will detract from the cultural value of the resource by altering it. The separate path will not alter the bridge. In either case, the superstructure of the Maroon Creek Bridge may at least temporarily be more visible to pedestrians and may increase awareness of its historic significance and our local history. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The on-bridge path will detract from the architectural integrity of the resource as it will appear as a 650' long wire cage through the trusses. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC table the Conceptual Review, after forwarding a recommendation to the Decision Makers that a separate bridge for the path is the most appropriate solution in terms of accessibility, safety, cost and preservation concerns. A joint Elected Officials meeting will be held on February 16th, when this recommendation would be presented to them. Additional Comments: r 1 4 X 4 X 3/16 STRUTS @ 15'-0' . 6 X 6 X 1/4 TYP, 0 4 0 CU -5 X 5 X 1/4 TYP, 12'-0' 5 2 1 1 1 1-- 5, CONCRETE SLAB '. 1 -46; ~ W 10X19 FLR. BMS, 2 15' 4 - 6 X 6 X 1/4 LEGS 5 X 5 X 1/4 12'-10' - SECTIEN SCALE : 1/4' = 1' f V 15' X 12'-0' TOWER 4 -li Ck, Â©4'~ CRISSONS 15'-0' 1- -1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE i 1/4' = 1' /0-,GI 1V0Idil -=~,CL .4 7850 Jr/ : / fbi 9 - 7825 - /7800 / - --- - /47775- --27. - -- MLI ~ 7 . 4 1 --- 33 .- 3 J MAROON ~/- - CREEK -- ------ . m - \-3Â¢\\ 7780 N \ --1 >4 ---..J~ 7800 I --* --/ /- --- M U- 0-Â«b - O --2-N n n - ,-7 jo/ re, ( F. td v. 70 L 1 16 Â·:4%}Rx- 1-litil[38*21% 'Elll, Ii]L+,1.911;1;filiELSS:iutiti=Rists:Suritwib=RS:$882;tfMHOXR;%%)fR~I~~~~ -'veâ€¢~'-:V- -r- Â·Â·'- .... -4....t,2-9.-.1:. f 1 i ; vv [6*-111 V v v v v v V v W W v V---V V V W V W W V W -~~-7-0- 75'-0,-N 165'-0' - 1 1/' /1f . 202'-6' 240'-0' 202'-6' .... -- ..I % ELEVATION SCALE i 1' = 50' 1 1 i i i 0 Â«/ 1 L.J 1 1 k â„¢ & I., 1 P 1/1 \ /1 1 1 / /IT \\. 1 1 1 1 \ 9/ ) 1 ID /k~\3 \ \\\ 44 t' / .,1 1 ill V / \/ I i , . 1+ 1 A/flit 1 3 M 1 1* / /-3-ffÂ»+ 95 + 1 -. 1 -----2-3=Tior-1-0, #Li~E -4L,~-t,414~-Â»55,/ ~5/ I 5/5-0/ /3 355/' ./ // // f,/3Â«55* :~ 1 - - 3Â·02./,592' r- ~3-*<*Ii.5-5 OEdL -- 1 --028Â£ 1/- / 1 1 . 1 111 1 1--1 1 0 A /~44\ i i 1 1 1- -1 1 111 l l 0 1--1 1 - MAROON 1 ~ | CREEK r -1 L -1 l l 1 1 1 1 PLI - 1 tlfiEJEL#Â£-fil-*tif%,- 7830 tif t-~-71--2 --1--2-=-570 -r--_ --~ -6... Â®tit*Ele ==21 23 -1- -- - 1 - I - .---- - - . -- -.-. -- -- 4--Stz--/-/ -/0- -.0 ./.- -*-I.I.- j*gF$--i-i-. -i- #-,3 /~ iftns-1-- _2_.r----- -, -I----*/I--- - - 3 - I - - ---- 7 1 --1 n \ 7 --------- .-I 1-.te=12>. // 0 1/ --1, b .....# 1 4 ------1 --m= =- -Â«- - - -- -- 1 4 51% i 1 If / // lEi 41 \ L \ 4 \ \ / -- t / / - -- 7----2-- - - - - -- --- - - 1 1 23 7 - 1 0 1 i L ~ PLAN 01 28 HS SEPARATE CONTRACT RAMPS UNDER ',325 - 7 39GIN - re L. i., 1111/ -. 1 &. 1 L. 1 91 1 -1 tl UJ , IN U, , Â·1 1L1... 1 NO. ...___1 REVISED J VOID 1 1 V III COLO. 5 ' Â£ 1 rk / pl . 1 -2 -. Fl 1 EL 7880/- 0/' Il . - Pli \/ 1 1 1, 4 3 -0 tr- u. [ ---19~ -7X .-' ,-. , i r# 1 \/ 1 \/ 1 /\ 1 // : 19 1 Iii 1 1-Â¥-It- - C. -- D A j r' I 1 9-6 N i i \ \ i // ~1 N & A e '1 . , 1 , I 'j.J 1 BRACING \3 N 1â€¢J .2.- - i' 1 1.'- to 44 to - = = U 0/ iGr \ r- 11 4 4'- 8" - CUL 1 1-3- I r_ 1 3 -11 1-i 1 t. _ 1. 1 - i., T I Ii. . 1, A 1 f,Â·l ' 1/ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ?f-' L .i- ..1 y , /1 1 1 1 ~ ~ r.'~ j i L : !14 i j -4 1 Cr) 1 4*r- r U Vi trill) r-Ir, T r .-- -Â«2 \ \ ..1 5 ia I E 1 1.- J It Ji.Jr- J. 131-1 1 J 11 b~, L.I.; 11 1 0 I // /,1 rl 1,1, 1 \ WE - =1 1 , c..44 1. I D-- F L Al:11 \ 1 Tt' - 4.1. til'lÂ·.,~ Â·N, 4Â·, Â·â€¢4 f,3=1 ' . 4*1,1 , :' eir..t A L::I '#fy?.l Lâ‚¬Gi')2Â£Mk@ Ui82:jinfifil I -1 1 '1, t ,q Lkw STiv! 1 1 -- -' i // * rh % 7 1/\~ \ \ 1/1 H 2/7 14 3 - V Â¥ : ill 1/ 1/_OV 1 0 tri 1 ; El N :1 1 . :I'l , â€¢ 1 I + :.2. I 1 4 I I I; 1 1 <7 11 9 V SHACING :1 14 t I i.4 3 1 2- 4/7 0 71 4,7 0 T 0-731-7 / lit .4 .-/\13 111\1.-J > i flÂ· | ---' It 'th 20 L_ _\ 9 no" / 14 lt# 1. *t 1 14 0/ \ / \1 - 4 644 9.91 \ / -9 1 i al :VE li \ / Ill I 4121 A / \\ 1.62 1 1 1 1 la , *R i Al'.3 ING. / C BPREING ''Â· , 1/ >/1 \ li + y..1 - / \\ ./ 1 9 \ _Ll COLORADO /~ DEPARTMFAIT rio Tn A kionr-In-r- A -r- 9-r--1., ~ Â· ~ 1 tÂ· : # 20! 'lli"'1Â·':!:,ijtn'.{h.'U-â€ž,i 36% O MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 520 Walnut Street, Conceptual Development, including demolition and on-site relocation, special review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.- Public Hearing Date: February 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish an existing structure on the site and to construct a new residence in its place, to relocate the existing miner's cabin to the west, to change existing windows and doors on the historic miner's cabin and to repair existing materials. The project is intended to restore the historic structure to it's previous appearance while adapting it for a new use. The new residence will be compdetely detached from the historic structure. The miner's cabin is in a fairly pristine condition and may be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Landmark Designation for this site was tabled at City Council in October 1994. Neighbors expressed concern over potential variances and Council requested that the proposed redevelopment be presented before they vote on the designation. APPLICANT: Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, owners. LOCATION: 520 Walnut Street, Lot 8 and the north half of Lot 9, Block 3, William's Addition to the City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: New Residence: The proposed new residence is to replace an existing house which has not been identified as having historic significance. The house will be 2,854 sq.ft. and the miner's cabin is 281 sq.ft. Staff finds that the new residence has been broken down somewhat into the appearance of a group of small masses through varied roof forms and some projecting elements such as decks and the entry vestibule. The west facade is compatible with and sympathetic to the historic resource, in that it is approximately the same width and only about five feet higher than the miner's cabin where they are closest to each other. Similarly, the east facade steps down to a one story height at the alley. On the south, the wall plane is broken up at the second level with a recessed deck, and a variety of windows and material textures. The 5'x5' windows on the second floor might be divided with an additional mullion, although the dimension does play off that of the paired double hung windows on the south elevation of the miner's cabin. The north elevation seems to have the least amount of variation, as the wall plane is essentially unbroken for it's entire length. Staff recommends this elevation or , the building form in general be restudied in order to provide actual breaks in the modules which are created through the roof forms and materials. Finally, Staff recommends the architect consider detaching the garage to reduce the overall bulk of the house. The laundry area which is in the connector between house and garage could possibly be relocated to the basement. (No basement plan was provided in the application. The architect should supply one, and show any proposed lightwells.) Miner's cabin: The estimated construction date for the miner's cabin is 1890, based on style. From the Willit's map of 1896, the miner's cabin does not appear to be original to the site, but was probably relocated there from another lot in the Walnut Street neighborhood. The minor development review involves changes to the existing structure which are intended to restore some elements Of its former appearance and add some new elements to increase its usability. On the west facade, the applicant proposes to replace an existing non- historic double hung window to match others on the building and to replace an existing non-historic picture window with a double hung. The front door is to be replaced with a new door. Staff is in support of the window changes, (all replacement windows on the cabin , should be wood) but finds that the existing door is; historic and should be retained if possible. The existing door could be upgraded to improve security and insulation if these are concerns of the applicant. On the east elevation, the applicant proposes to replace the existing vertical siding with 4" lapped clapboards to match the rest of the building, to add two double hung windows (which a neighbor has suggested existed previously) and to change the existing door. Through the Staff/monitor process, staff would like to examine the structure with the applicant as construction begins and any sheathing or joists that are exposed to see if there is any evidence that the windows or horizontal siding previously existed. This is a less public facade of the building, so minor changes are acceptable. However, given the excellent condition of the building, all efforts should be made to be accurate in any changes. No changes are proposed on the north elevation. On the south elevation, the applicant proposes to replace the existing double hung windows with new windows to match and to raise their height slightly. 'The windows appear to be historic and staff is not in support of this change. The applicant should examine the possibility of ' restoring the windows and upgrading them with insulated glass or an exterior storm window if desired. â€¢ The applicant proposes to retain all existing siding which is salvageable. The non-historic metal roof is to be replace with a rusted corrugated metal roof, and the metal flue is to be removed. Staff suggests that the applicant should consider retaining the flue as it is visually important and may be a historic element. Through the on-site relocation, evaluated below, the applicant intends to place the structure on a concrete foundation, faced with sandstone and to construct sandstone steps. Staff suggests that the applicant may consider simply placing clapboards over the foundation. A sandstone foundation was used on some miner' s cottages, but usually the more ornate ones. Most simple cottages sat on rubble or basically on the ground. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This proposal, especially the restoration of the miner's cabin, will have a positive effect on the character of the Walnut Street neighborhood, which has just one other miner's cottage to represent the previous nature of housing in this 'area. Attached is a 50'=1" scale map of Walnut Street. Most houses in the area are fairly low in height, although they have a fairly large footprint. The proposed new residence has a maximum height of 26'1". 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposed development, if undertaken as described under standard 1, with as much accuracy as possible, will increase the cultural value of this resource and its importance as a representation of a simple, typical miner's cottage. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposed development will enhance the architectural integrity of the historic structure by preserving the structure and original materihls. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ON-SITE RELOCATION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Under Section 7-602 of the Aspen Land Use Code, no relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of section 7-602(D). Section 7-602(D): Standards for Review of Relocation 1. Standard: The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: The applicant proposes to relocate the structure in order to set the structure as far apart from new development as possible. The relocation corrects an existing encroachment onto the neighbor's property by creating a conforming side yard setback of five feet. A variance of three feet is requested for the front yard setback. There are large cottonwood trees near the west lot line of the property. George Robinson of the Parks Department made a site visit to the property and believes that the trees are somewhat healthy and have about another ten year life span. The trees are beginning to lean. The Parks Department recommendation is that the relocated house be at least 6 feet from the dripline of the trees. The architect has represented that the foundation for the cabin will only be excavated at the corners, causing less impact on the tree's stability, nonetheless, the cabin is proposed to be only two feet away from the tree dripline. In this case, Staff finds that the front yard setback variance may not be appropriate. At the most, perhaps a one foot variance should be granted to maintain 10' between the historic resource and new structure. 2. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant proposes to move the historic structure to a prominent location along Walnut Street and to place new construction a reasonable distance behind it. 3. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: A report from a licensed architect has been submitted, including a plan for stabilizing the building. HPC usually requires this information from a licensed engineer. This is a small structure and the committee should consider whether the information submitted is sufficient. 4. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) Of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: HPC must set a value for the relocation bond. Staff suggests approximately $10,000-20,000 as this is comparable to bonds requested for similar structures. 5. Standard: The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity Of the structure, and the 1dcation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Response: Generally, Staff is not in favor of relocating historic structures, however, this building is not on its original site. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: No partial demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, or any structure within an l'HI' Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the partial demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602(C). The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence on the site (to the east of the historic resource). HPC's role is to determine whether or not the building proposed fdr demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: Demolition will be limited to the structure which is not considered historically significant. Staff does not have any information about this structure. It does appear that a miner's cottage exists at the east end of the building, but it is not original to the site and has been enveloped by the rest of the structure. 2. Standard: The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Impacts to the historic structure are very limited as it is completely detached from the new residence. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The proposed new residence will not affect the architectural integrity of the historic structure. SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SUMMARY: This project is located in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood, therefore both the general guidelines (Chapter 1 of the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines") and the specific guidelines for Smuggler Neighborhood (Chapter 4) will be applied. The special review process is mandatory, as is compliance with the Committee's findings, because the lot is less than 9,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is 3,135 sq. ft. above grade. This is the maximum allowable F.A.R. for the site. STAFF COMMENTS: Please refer to the application for the complete representation of the proposal. Planning staff finds that this project is substantially in compliance with the general and specific neighborhood guidelines. Rather thdn discuss each guideline (including those which are met), only the elements of the proposal which significantly warrant further discussion are highlighted below. The applicable general and specific guidelines have been grouped together by subject. Garages General Guidelines- 12. Minimize the visual impact of garages. Response: As described above, Staff recommends that the garage be completely detached from the house. Mass and Scale Specific Guidelines-36. New buildings should be similar in scale to traditional residential buildings of Aspen. Response: As described above, Staff recommends restudy to provide more physical breaks into smaller massing modules, especially in the wall surface on the north facade. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval as proposed, finding that the' Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval with conditions, to be met at final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Special Review approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that in general this is an excellent and well designed project. However, in order to address some important aspects of the project that should be studied, Staff recommends HPC table the application, giving the applicant the following direction: 1) Restudy the north elevation, or the building form, to create more breaks on the north facade and to further break up the mass of the building in general. 2) Detach the garage from the house. 3) All new windows on the miner's cabin shall be wood windows. . 42 Retain the existing door on the west side of the miner ' s cabin. 5) Work with Staff and monitor to determine appropriate alterations to east facade of the miner's cabin, using physical evidence of previous appearance. 6) Retain and restore existing windows on south side of miner's cabin. 7) Consider covering new foundation of miner's cabin with clapboards. 8) No more than a l' front yard setback variance will be granted. 9) The applicant must submit a bond of $10,000 prior to application for a building permit. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Attachment 2 1. Applicant's Name and Address: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz and Michael Ortiz 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 Representative/Owner: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz 2. Street and Legal Description: 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 8 and the North one-half of Lot 9, Block 3 William's Addition to the City ofAspen 3. Attached to the application is a copy of the disclosure of owner ship ofthe parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. A neighborhood vicinity map showing the relationship ofthis parcel to the neighborhood will be presented at the hearing. 5. Attached is the written description ofthe Conceptual Development Plan proposal and an explanation ofthe development. The graphic representation ofthe proposed development is attached with Attachment 38. The compliance with the Review Standards is attached as Attachment 4. 1 page 1 . - AlIACBMENr 1 LAND USE APPIXCNIZION NEM 1,- p=Ojed,rese GREENWODC>-CEN/Z RES/De-NCE - 2, 'emjef= locaki~ 59_D WALNUI 47/-- LOT 8, -AND -PME NORTH _oNE-UftiF oF 667 9 8Â£-006 5 (indicate street address; lot & block rimher approgriate) 9*1 %?EDN?241 0 ny of- ASPEN 3) Present Zoning /~-12 44 .w; sua 5, (e aS $9.-ft. 5) DepliCares Nale, Mdress 6 87072 t /7) /C#)96Â£ / COKIETCOSV Or772- 52-0 Wal nud-4 ~ 41/>06, CO . 8/le 11 925 - 9-502 6) Representativels Nan,2, Address & Iticin # /)72;Â¢27 47Â£62fA/tâ‚¬'OOD adz;2 930 Ula,lrild- 9{. 11*ge.00 6149 -45 ok 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Concept:ual SPA 1/"L~ual I[istocic Dev. Special Revia.r Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ,-. Conoept,al RJD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD - - Historic Demoliticn . Mountain View Plane . Subdivisirn Historic Designaticn - . Â·Â· Condc,ninilmization Tect,/Map Amendment Gf[6 Allat=ent Iat Spl.i-VIot line - GMOS E=ption Â· Adjustnerrt 8) Descziption of Existing Uses (number and type of existingÂ· Structur- - approori=,te sq. ft.; nuaber of bedrocxns; any previous approvals granted to the property). -Two Ell5-TINa ST-flic71-141-Li . SUED = 4181 59Â· ff Ell AN u mhlk) 00615 6 u_f 3 brot/o,nt) 1,1 0,4 5 f. 17- 7% 9, â„¢scnÂ»,n of De:el~c AB61~ca~(,n -7-btul Etl fTINol ala Lt-7 99.- , beÂ£ Clii|~ 61-LAAâ‚¬12 2.paj Â£ cj.au 10) ItlY#'Â»1 attached the following? |/ ~Response to Attadlment 2, Mininum Submission 00[-Itents C,- onse to Attactment 3, Specific Subnission Oorrtents 1/ Response to Attadmart 4, Review Standards for Your Application lllllll SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11â„¢17, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11â„¢17- format. APPLICANT: mIC#fALL OCT}11 (oCEJUIEN (~0-EEULODD-OVIT}1. ADDRESS: 5* WAL.NICE E. t\*Enli CO. 81(~ li ZONE DISmICT: E- le LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 5,08 5 64. 4Â·* EXISTING FAR: a, &9-7 6,1. ft ALLOWABLE FAR: -3,)35 99. 6, PROPOSED FAR:' - '~ 3,. /9-5 05 2. 79- EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): N /A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): N j A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 4aolo EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): NiA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): NIA EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: p#rju&â„¢a:. a l '-D" 1.9213$,9,98& / 8 Lot PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Pradodat/M.165 73 60!. INxessory 8*. /6 40 PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 9090 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: A subtabÂ· + 9-6- diliked OUctwl * -fiN littsÂ¢}AL f /2/*stdÂ· EXISTING: aqi D " ALLOWABLE: , PROPOSED: Front: Front: /0 Front: Rear: 1*40,4 Rear: /0/5 ' Rear. Side: Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: 90 9 Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character Comoatibility findina must be made by HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Pamng Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtlRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 1.0 61.1, Attachment 2 Written Description of the Proposed Development The entire proposed development includes the relocation and restoration of a Victorian miner's cabin, the demolition of an existing two story detached, two family building and the construction of a two story, single family residence with an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The relocation ofthe miner's cabin with a requested front yard setback variance has been submitted under a separate application. In addition, the property has applied for Historic Landmark Designation, which is currently in the process ofbeing completed through the HPC process. This conceptual application is for the development review of a' new single family residence on the property. The following are the zoning requirements on the property: ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R-6 ZONE Zoning: R.-6 Existing Lot Size: 45 Feet X 125 Feet = 5,625 Square feet Allowable FAR: 3,135 Sq. ft. Front and Rear Yard Setbacks: Minimum of 10 feet/No less than 30 feet 5 feet for the Garage at the Rear Yard ~ Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet with a total of 15 feet Maximum Site Coverage: 42.5% of2,390 Sq.ft. Maximum Height: 25 feet Off Street Parking Requirement: 1 per Bedroom. 520 Walnut Street lies between Walnut Street to the west and the alley to the east. The main entry and front yard will be off Walnut Street and the access to the garage will be from the alley. In a separate application, we have asked to move the old miner's cabin into the front yard setback, by eight feet, so that this new house development does not physically touch the old building. This variance will allow the miner's building to sit apart from any new construction, as it has for the past 100 years. The proposed development will build a three bedroom house, with an accessory dwelling unit, for a total square footage of 2,854 square feet. The redevelopment ofthe miner's cabin will use 281 square feet ofthe available floor area. The total new constructed square footage including the miner's cabin will be 3,135 square feet. A two car garage and two off street parking areas will be provided on the property, in order to meet the parking requirement. As indicated on the proposed site plan and architectural drawings, the allowable floor area, the front and rear yard setbacks, the side yard setbacks, the site coverage, and the parking requirements, all comply with the Zoning Regulations. No variance requests are being asked from the HPC for this development application. page 2 The proposed architectural design ofthe new residence has been developed to be sensitive in form, mass and scale to the detached Victorian miner's cabin on the property. The existing miner's cabin is a simple rectangular building with a gable roof and a steep 12/12 roofpitch. This rectangular form and gabled roof, unadomed with complicated dormers has determined the design direction for the new building. Tile architectural concept is to utilize the simple forms ofAspen miner's cabin architecture, yet modernize it for contemporary use. The building has been designed to create a building that is visually broken into four building masses (not including the miner's cabin) with rooflinks that serve to create a concept of a compound of smaller buildings on the property. The buildings are simple and rectangular in form, without typical Victorian detailing or accessories such as turrets, dormers, gazebo porches and bay windows. The roofline ofthe building is varied, utilizing simple miner's cabin architectural features such as a 12/12 gabled roof a sheh roof, and a flat roof. The use of different rooflines in this design allow the building to appear as separate entities. The eave depth will be detailed to match the depth of a Victorian building of approximately 8" and the profile will be narrow to match the typical eave profile ofthe old miner's building. Like the varied rooflines on the proposed building, the building materials will also vary. The garage structure will have antique barn siding. The main building will have a 1 x 4 horizontal lap si(ling. The different roof lines will also have a variety of materials. The garage structure will have a rusted corrugated metal material, while the main building will have an asphalt roofing tile. Tile variety ofmaterials will further delineate the building as separate forms, thus giving the appearance that the building was constructed at different times. page 3 Attachment 3a Specific Submission Contents: Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development to Historic Landmark 1. A sketch plan ofthe proposed development is attached as the following exhibits: Exhibit C: Existing Site Improvement Survey (This survey shows existing buildings, setbacks and encroachments.) Exhibit D: Site Plan ofthe Proposed Development (This site plan shows the proposed new building, the relocated miner' s cabin and proposed setbacks and no encroachments.) Exhibit E: Main Floor Plan Exhibit F: Upper Floor Plan Exhibit G Roof Plan Exhibit H: South Elevation Exhibit I: East and West Elevations Exhibit J: North Elevation 2. The conceptual selection ofmajor building materials for the development will include the following: Victorian Miner's Cabin: The existing si(ling will be reused(where applicable) . On three sides, the siding is lx4 wood bevel siding, on one side, the siding is a varied width ofvertical wood siding. The old doors will remain including the old window ( ifpossible) and new double hung windows will be added to match the old windows . New Main House: The main house is broken into 4 building masses that are attached by varying rooflinks. They are as follows: 1. Entry form: The siding will be rusted metal panels with rusted metal rooÂ£ The windows will be metal clad on the exterior. 2. Main house with two gables: The siding will be lx4 wood bevel siding and the roofwill have asphalt siding. The windows on the main house will be metal clad on the exterior. 3. The link between the Main house and the garage form will be rusted metal siding. The roofis flat and will be constrncted out of a built up membrane with gravel. 4. Tlie garage will have antique barn wood siding with the roof a corrugated rusted metal. The windows in the garage will be wood on the exterior.. page 4 3. The proposed development has been designed to be sensitive to the Victorian miner's cabin that is being restored on the property. The Main house and the old miner's building will be separated by 12 feet-6 inches. The form ofthe old building, the steep roof line and natural materials have established the direction for the design ofthe new structure. 4. This development application falls under category 'e', which reads: The development ofthe site of an Historic development which has received approval for demolition, when a development plan has been required by the HPC pursuant to Section 7-602(B). l page 5 Attachment 4 Review Standards: Development in H District and all Development Involving Historic Landmarks a. The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel. The new structure has been designed to follow the same building form, steep rooflines and simplicity that is so unique about the old miner's building that shares this property. b. The proposed development is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood. The character ofthe immediate neighborhood is new construction as ofthe 1960's and 1970's, including large apartment and condominium developments. Tile two bordering properties, to the north and south are potential large sites for redevelopment. The . miner's cabin at 520 Walnut Street is the only old building in the neighborhood that defines a sense ofhistory in the neighborhood. The development that is being proposed here, is to restore the miner's cabin and use these design parameters ofthe old building for the new structure, thus further enhancing the importance ofthe old miner's cabin, and establishing a neighborhood character. c. This proposed development enhances the historic and cultural value of the designated historic structure on the parcel. The new development does not physically touch the historic building that is on the same property, therefore the historic value ofthe old building is maintained through this development plan. d. The proposed development does not detract from the architectural integritv of the historic structure. The new structure will obviously be a newer contemporary version of a miner's era building. Thus the developinent restores and delineates the real old building from the newer construction on the site. page 6 . GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Carl D. Reich, whose address is P. O.-2,0# 1401 77AL, SADE - 2/0 31 Sala , for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), in hand pid, hereby sells and conveys to Michael Ortiz and Gretchen Greenwood, as Joint Tenants, whoseaddressis 5,Do LC>AiouT 57, ASÂ·Fa.,0 0 0 816=,1 1 , the following described real propeMy in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to Wit: PARCEL 1: A part of the NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point from which Corner No. 22 of Tract 40 in said Section, according to the Independent Resurvey thereof, bears South 03Â°04'26".West 234.Net; thence South 45 feet; - thence East 125 feet; thence North 45 feet; thence West 125 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO KNOWN AS: LOT 8 AND THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WILLIAMS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF - ASPEN. with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: 1. General taxes for 1994 and thereafter; 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent record- ed December 24, 1901 in Book 55 at Page 116; 3. Right of way for pipes and mains across the Smuggler Ranch by Dead recorded March 18, 1885 in Book 24 at Page 59; and 4. Right of way for Pole lines and wires across the NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. as ,iet forth in Deed recorded January 20, 1887 in Book 29 at Page 582. Eit-t 1 8/7 * HZ Pe--r 30*11 all reference being to the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records. SIGNED this 29' day of rÂ¥\ Ali , 1994. A__/ A I >+Cl Carl D. Reich STATE OF j.C,Le CA Do) ) SS. COUNTY OF RT 161 0 ) rid The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 41 - day of |71 At..~ , 1941, by Carl D. Reich. WITNESS my hand and official' seal. My commission expires: (SEAU 04 3. 416 /557----Z\ Notary Publi~ 0 ZE < S. H.~32â‚¬\ <i f *S]NARÂ¥ mich\:wd * Ln l <1.7.\PURL/c 10 F My Comm:ssion Expires April 22,1 998 2 451 ./ _j._1_ij; 1986 UP[),t L I #L- --- ~--Â· ~ ~. U~ZI~.*On, Dt, COL- .â€ž19'.- . , . 1 - -d.0-1.4. 14 % p I ..0 d..1*.1 0 \ 233 CalMbu-0. 0 i--- 0 EÂ¥Sâ„¢licmBDIÂ¤n*:ID 1 0 -\ (.My . 10.9 -\F.. rEAEWl=.Ill.W-Wn 0-- 1 1 . 969 /4,* . L =- 2 . i I]Il,TED ja ~ I.I.Im n,u:~~11.61 1. U . - -- , ..0. .... ;, rro n Inani#:hfwin mwITI} Gi.9~'6142.J Â·Â·1 1....F I 1Â·31 B r--Â¥1]w CaLLE:Ill*Â· _4111 lwILÂ® Niil]El.@FI} 12,~LJ litRCI# 1 ' " - C -TO WÂ¢111Â£ @218 9#*Thmadjill Ink .r~.-1, ...... 1 i . jimlite Blitilll WIÂ®].miWID. 040 1%11*011'I@.6. . m 1[[WED QI~'0@31Â·MEDÂ·EUm [NlmimIMIfigBMDIUIW@ImpilimmI[D . . 520 L &110 -WilÂ® 11!Ga:wl.1016!lidittlg INglÂ·y:il.J-lballillÂ· litictÂ¥ WkIlli UÂ¢LlÂ»W LL -- o C -=.- - * 1IWIm immÂ·Qlmim [Imn:Gm!!0 [i]28 um. IP 61~lltlitilll:Ullim.lu211!uti:21,0. 11:*4Â·IN!111(11 IL:Jlld#lii EE] fi Â«**!81*111.. Em fE IN:E; EE El m : er,T Â· *3 --i -~92111ER!11@1.El@ 9 ~MIEE FEEI"EE.m=iiÂ· F ihmir , Injury - 1-4 "' 2 Li'-El IllE .... VÂ»<-7 .b .N. ... . r> 1/ 19 .P 11 .....I ..: .M,/-: . -1> , . /EXH / 8 /7- B 34-1-11 4*/ 424 UNP dy 1- . 0 0 0 ' . A 0 #3 4% 11.9. 4,91 I- Â¢4 1Â·'76 .3,/1 1% C .. ....i~-'.i~&72(Â·:1; iji ' ' ~ vt,.,P.: 7: '' 4 ' Â·Â·-' 4. 4 ., - p; r::N.,63/*..9, ~ . Â¥*%23. I , irÂ·'91 ' .if. 1'â‚¬(illl'itt:,'te:Â·- 1 4~ 2,Fv jl~ili~,htÂ»?7>Â·C* 4. .' I :: 6. :t,~'zi'j. t- 4Â·04*466*/I#6<.. r s:0 . milt Â· .. .. 6,30?17'd.1 0.3*..24.â‚¬ 1-= f . Â·# Â· r=i3.Â·-1 ' *- ~-1 â‚¬ .... .1 i f. .' 4.<ir:tâ€¢ t...'. # 1 E-91.11: i .: 0. 1 â€¢ . ~11Â·'.2.1 .:1.4 .. Â·tÂ·-Â· Z~L--32:t ~.I IÂ· urittEÂ· b,;.- 'r. i.iÂ·i},<. .....' . b41:,ltk/4'y.-4.,t*4#1/ ..0/ 4 . . .-- 0 . iti &23%-49.m*i ' 2.igr:Â· Â·94,%73Â¥rtflf<v % -f~.uÂ·<.Â·2--t ..9.E== - 1- '12Â·AU <: : i ,- I ".. 0 1,j.~ :f:1144.4 3774,3Nk ,Â¥8//1,4 6. - : '.. 9 44. Â·'â€¢, Â·1'i,t~'41 h':%19:ti~ t.:Â·+:.i<-97,1.,Â£ 0. dol . ..1.7 4747%70.45't 44. 3 .2 - .,. .. .,1Â·741{4 i 27*42 2.2.~ '.,, f.,1 ~ 1- Â· .- 0 ' 2 ' Â·7â€¢ 'Â·Â·.9 '-:Â·i:242â€ž13iiP-MVEZZ:f-kt)~a -- >Mf #41*114-:IA I -- - - _ 0 *711.---- 1 1\50 i.-2.4.'1 IiA ... ~Â£El % - - k>/3--49- \ -4 1. 1_j 79\4.3 - ~ * \ *\2 \ \ - i i-/ E \ Mi + LI-- 1 - V O CV 0) -AL- 2 1 \\1 \ \U ---- u i i i , \\ % t--1 I-I , \ 1 23--- , A , // 1 1 1 // / I /, j --*-I .- -- I 1 \ ' I & 4 1 r--Â·A /\ , r \ / --*j / ,/ %*.- 1 f, I 1 % t-*-' 1 / 1/ 1- , t--- \ , I ' I ----- 1 \ r \ - .ON \ ' E ' 1 t 1 / 1 10 . \ i 1\ \ 1 \ 3 : - I \\ t 'I /. \ / I I AVENUE SOUTH I I O i \\ / Â¢1 \\0 I I \\ 0 \\ \\ 6-' 1 \ f I I I I J \ I :\ 0 lip O 52* 4- 1 it S i I I \ h \ I \ /,//,/,/ Â«\-~1~311~f~Itit~\\17 ~\- \ \ '. I ./ \ \ \ 7. r I + ALNUT . - III ' 1 1 1 . / 1 . 1 1. I 1 . 1 - r 1 1 . . 1 / 1 1 // / : HOUSE ~ CONC. 1, , DRIVE I / 1 2 - - e 1 Cm <C, - $ 04 -4 //1 0 0 3 0 03 , 4 7-.1 O 1 ~/ - f , ;f- ENCROACHMENT ---- / 1 1 / -- -- N 9900- 00 - W 125.00'--, ' 9184 .r~Â§11' 12.5 20.3 / , _*.El KE - 1 r 1 10 i - EAVE !15.4 , i \ M 21 3 22.1 0 1 1, 1 - m/1 I \/ O 1 2.0 / . 1/ I e HAL.-weÂ·nobl - OLD HOUSE * , 2.- *UoTLI g-* -0-9- 00> t;001*21,100 047 2 PARKING / 5 r , ~ ~ 1 STORY M ~ . , . < ' 2.0 / 10 1 1/2 STORY HOUSE 0 1 0.1 < 14.4 >g 0 I $.m 4 8 / i 64:UNXS' 1 / - 1 12.6 -WA -. 1 0 2 e ,-PEAK It 4.70 0.<n / t_ _ _ _94--- ------ -- - - 03. 1 , 10.2 ~ r EAVE 107.9 \ 1 15.2 f 1 1 =22, | DECK Â£4-- I I.I.--1..-. N ZW- ,-4 / + WA 1 . T 91 8 L .. I 9. 1, 1 ENTRY TBM 100 4 WooD WALk-'3 f .-I , .., 1 2@01 7 \ le 6 ':' 24.0 . IL , , ' I \ 8 PARKING '*f f 1to . '1 ALUM~79 CA) ..m h h ---- 1 . 4 l~Â® : r 00 Q 0 9-, . n ..... 0 - 6 O 9184 \ 9184 -* . N 9900'00-E 125.00' ~~ < - i.... I * . 1 41 .. 19 i ? Â· 1 Mr Mivviffluet-1 RveÂ¥- -- 'Lr .J .1 '11, 0<lt Lpti 6 r LL,11 J. a. . . :'I(../.: A.. jil.'-Â·' â€¢ 2.3.J..,f , ...ki.'.. I.1 ..:-'.f :. i.~.IÂ·~ ~ ~ Â·rÂ·:[114~/2/â€ž,J.,f," 4~ ~~~~ ''* ''L~ '. ~',.',..f -.~2' .','Â·.:,Â·.:- c.1.Â·'32 y >ID 078 s 3200 00 E 3.00.00.00 , 01 , 114 11-4 >M 0 01 1 5 4W rm=al 0Â«31*9/14 411 1-4 0'z b 14412 411 e %~57 460\4 UDÂ¥)â€¢04*f , -90Â·44*9 4*VA, 1*MA, '21 95<8413 , 2 ,L' Â· >107-#%11:M 41 30 441014 -*7 Hol.1.0Â£:,1 '31Â·44 I >0*| 14 r.h , a zi..>l J.Ho44 , 64 . 7 NI,1 A.Lk]'800;U Hit-lof:' 11"1/ 1 1 Q , I I 4 /f-tu 04 2 93 - '4 r ''4/3 Hi . AM tc h * l. 9/=DU i-* k f 1 - 9> 1 X i Â£0920 #4#* -- -- . VE ?0.br1Fy Al,+ET,\ r .. 1111 1 T-1 oF- r I t_AL,- w L-'~,0,/v L-1, 1 r 95â‚¬92* - 1 F -Â·Â· 4Ml:*WA j..dle 330 0 /M DDr- C '39 133Â£$' 1=21/h p' 11419 . 14-*144 ' 47 94Â£114,031 H W H QU \ 11 07 -9 044 0M1-- MÂ·aH EL-_144495 N'445421HIIN ICJP71 7\ .. , 144121414 I Ai ~ ... 443490'Mzl 1 .... LFU .. .. . 1 0 . //9----=-J----===.-2~- . .0 .. .. . i, 1 t L gh 0- 0 O . 1 471 *ZI -1Nll 0.~1-01'adoU - H.1510 14 . , ' t . Ic , ~0*\0\\ 30 No\1490'\<4.MA\~k-ill-i j'~~ Lj 11 I '1 L-gr. trv-- WHLNUU - - 4 . 4 4 1 4 H vE+ 1 r ,7 1 - -- Flo A 0 -1 4 Â· 12 77 cOW ] Â· 27 6 57 (erÂ·9+-cA, 0 llVIED-FOFIrH'* -L,> 1%13_7 7 t-t MINFF'* 7 6/1>1 H CFÂ«- 0 [37 r Mferp,F Â»Â»1 O APÂ»c'MI .Z E>B-PF=*1 p 1 /4 -i/ AÂ©991 E 11 70-~11_1_1-1 12' Cr U. 1 IMTi-2 i i li9- .=4 3 OPOO QuiN 4-4 b *===~--4 1,=- - 1 |'26 L O u F~PprspTY L liN E- 2'th 19/1/Â»- 1 H FL my[:R Fl~/6.- hi 41"1-+1 j fe'.1 47! EXHINT ' 0' 4 4 , r 2 M rroH 9+4 ~ El 11 PE,H . 1~ :1 j , b Â»ING FM j 1 571 HI NG FM h - 3 1 1 4 H EN -1 - -1- L- --_ _L ~79:4 u F'FER' LfvBL FL Â£701= FLÂ» N (He tar +1 7 fb "= 1 0" 00<HI Frf 'F' PT 11 lili:111 ill ; EÂ·Â·,Â·'Â·.,Â· ....1.-r:--11: 1111'41 1 191 11:j)~10111! lilli; 91 11 ;i , 1 0 1/1,11 11 1 2 12 1 , L # ' Hi~ PI:111 19,F[,g Iwerx r~ ~ 11!til ~ 1 1,1 1 1, :. 2 1 1.. '11:1 G , 1 ~111 1 1.1 1%, 1. L 1,~ : it ip . 1 ---- ~ i I ' 1, 1 li $ 1 - 1 11 . 1 1 1 li .::... 1 -1 . : 11 j' A-- -1 - 21 - P :It, .. lilli.: 1 . 1 1 I i 'tz,Of 1 1 11 1 1 : 'i + , ' 1 .1 ---- C #t ~ ~ ~c' I ~< F , ,~ ~j ~~i :! , ~ Â·~ : 1~ - 1 1-- -I= -- 7.1-~i~- bnbz|| Aw 1 --~~---- -_13 --- 1 1 11% 41:1 4 '" i .11;:1 - Â· ...-- 1 4 ' 11 ill 111 70!ip . I | Ifi &. -WI.ZI- -VI .. 1 .. 1 111 Iii 111 1 ' 11 1, 11,1 11 'i ~1!1~ : 1 Ii:*,11 --1 1 ..i---. -1 -#-. 11 1 i Â£ 1 P Â»fi~e--2 Iii 1 11 111 111 lili 1 i 'llili It r 111 1 1 -- - 11 1 1~-1.1 I 111 1111:-, lili li 11 1 E i '~t I :l i li f- Fz-OOM -EL' /67 0 '0<H I &11- 'e' tEN 1/k " = i '-,0;, u 14+ bNLII ~z==*pzzâ‚¬- 32 04Â«-7-2--=4~ -FF~-i i ] 1 1 ill I M 5,14-- r 44=== - --1--7/,TE:lill'i.4 'U - Â£,~ k-- .... ... r.. - Â·..,-refi~ 4 . 1 , '. 1 ~ 11,1;lillil.'lirl[111111111 11 1-*l 'i==! 74' r Â¢==1 , .. i:. .I JIll lit . ..J ' --r =1 . -- Bil-- - 17--9 1 - - 1 Oil. 1 ; -- r= 1 1 1 1- i 11 1 - 4-'- i - 1 -i , 41 :m ---4--7--IM Xee:air------- Trri 1 %111 -111-1 09 0 LI -r H E- 4- E.~v/--T- 1 04 09 ' 1/2"; 15 011 0% HIRT ' M F f ------- - -- g.r;,"1"y *1..#.b 1<3%5/U/,=#ImialliEWEIEEE& - - * * .~1."Hind- \25-Ir-acz:,W_.~! 1 1- -_p,n ~ PAN. r 1,--r- - -# 3 3 72.-1,~/ 311 1 1 11. \2% 1 - i r -~ ,.. ..J 74 i /Em' 4 1- =, $ jIm--3 i =~1:â€ž,1*. - : 4 4= . 1 . b -111. Â·r---r-=-7, Uu,~w~~~Uâ€¢~24*6 lu.*54,4405/444Mt,946 *04â€¢144 WAE . - 1 04.Â·141â€¢1â€¢-U R EÂ«1- 04 EÂ»Â»-F 104 0Â»Â»r E-1-~ 8-tkil O 4 0: ]411 =111- 2 1 43 1 1/27 = 1 L '5711 04<H I Prf- 'S' 1 1 - lili 1 - - I lilli!. 11 , 111 - !,i '1 : 1 1 0 1 1 ..-7-. ------ 3 li ' 11 1 1 1 1 . 1 '1 11 1 6 4 1 i ---- 1 i 1 111 ;Ii 1 i J 1 --- - - 8- 2 F-r H 9,1, 8,V/--T- 1 0 NO EÂ· K H 1 Drr 'J' Partial Demolition Application Attachment 2 1. Applicant's Name and Address: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz and Michael Ortiz 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 Representative: Gretchen Greenwood-Ortiz 2. Street and Legal Description 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 8 and the North one-half of Lot 9, Block 3 William's Addition to the City ofAspen 3. Attached to the application is a copy ofthe disclosure of ownership ofthe parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject - parcel within the City of Aspen. A neighborhood vicinity map showing the relationship ofthis parcel to the neighborhood will be presented at the hearing. 5. Attached is the written description of the demolition proposal. The proposed development plan for this property is being submitted with this application as the Conceptual Development Plan. The specific submission contents is submitted here as Attachment 3. The review standards for demolition applications is submitted here as Attachment 4a. j page 1 Attachment 3 Specific Submission Contents: Application for Partial Demolition 1. The name of the structure proposed for demolition is the Principal building of 520 Walnut Street. 2. The principal building proposed for demolition was built in the 1960's. 3. This building is not suitable for rehabilitation based on the following report: This report is prepared by Gretchen Greenwood, who is a licensed architect and the applicant. The existing building that is proposed for demolition cannot physically be rehabilitated to accommodate the changes that are needed for the development. The physical limitations include, the structural constraints ofthe building, the zoning encroachments ofthe building that would prevent any new construction, the existing building code violations that are extensive throughout the building and the lack ofthe building to be able to accommodate the required programmatic needs of our family, the design of those functional needs, and the structural requirements ofthose needs. The development proposal calls for building a two car garage off the alley on the east side ofthe property. Currently, the building encroaches into the side yard setback by 1 foot. The construction of a garage would require conforming to the 5 foot required setback, and a new concrete slab foundation is required for the garage. The existing building on the alley is a wood frame building, that encroaches into the sideyard setback and the rear yard setback, and the floor is not structurally sound in order to accommodate the weight of automobiles. It is also to small to house two vehicles. Throughout the house, there are building code violations, including egress requirements, low ceilings of 7'-0", and general run down conditions including the heating and domestic hot water system. The building currently has two bedrooms and one studio apartment. These existing functions do not accommodate our needs. page 2 4. a. The estimated market value ofthe property is $480,000.00 Dollars. This is based on an appraisal that was completed on the property in May of 1994. The principal structure that is on the building was appraised at 130,000.00 Dollars. The value ofthe land is more than double the value ofthe principal structure. The structure proposed for demolition has been recognized by the appraisals as a tear down, because ofthe extensive zoning, and building code violations as well as the general run down condition ofthe building. b. There is no economic feasibility to rehabilitating or reusing this structure. c. An appraisal ofthe property is attached as Exhibit C. 5. A development plan is submitted as part of this application. See Significant Development of Historic Resources Application Conceptual Review. page 3 Attachment 4 Review Standards: Development in Historic Landmarks Â· For the Review Standards ofthe proposed development, please see Page 6 ofthe attached application, Significant Development of Historic Resources Application Conceptual Review. page 4 Attachment 4b Review Standards for Partial Demolition 1. The partial demolition is required for the redevelopment and rehabilitation ofthe old miner's structure. It is proposed in the development plan to relocate the old miner's building in the front yard setback, in order that the proposed development does not physically link to this old building. The proposed location ofthe new building and the garage is located as far to the east side ofthe property, in order to mitigate any impact this new development has on the old structure. Ifthe existing principal building was required to be kept, the garage would have to be linked on to the old miner's building, which is not desired by the applicant or is the best preservation ofthis unique two room miner's cabin. Through the development of the new plan for the property, the old miner's building can be saved and remain intact, and new will remain separate and apart from the historic building. 2. a. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent the impact ofthe new construction on the historic miner's cabin. By demolishing the non historic principal building on the property, and developing all the new construction to the east side ofthe property, the miner's building will stand apart from the new construction and be preserved iii its original condition. ----- -- ----b. Again, through the development proposal that calls for demolishing the principal building and relocating the miner's cabin, this plan preserves the architectural integrity ofthe parcel. page 5 ATmCHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FE[[24 , 1, pro~eet 1#3me DfU?2 RES/DENCE. 1.1 PrWedo location 5 2 0 WA LN ler ST: LOT 8,AN D-ma NOAH ONE - HALF OF Â£-Â£7 9, 82-ock 3 ( irficate street address, lot & block Inmber, legal description where w//Lk//9/77.5 appropriate) ADD m ON 3) Present Zoning 5- a 4) Int size 4 6,0 5 6.5' . 74 - '54 -DepliÂ£arrs'02=2, baatessuRY,re# Alatilttl- 012712 0- WKE70#GN 6,Â£62*)4toc> -O, 5410) WALNLIE ST- ASPEN , CO . 8/91 1 905Â· 4-90 0 6) Representative's Name, Mdress & Ihone # OÂ¢2723,7391/ 6>/E EN/1/UÂ·2290 930 WAINLII ST- 7%PEN, 00. 81U It 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Oonditional Use Conceptial SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptial ED ---- Minor Historic Dev, Stream Dlargill Final POD __91~toric Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Corâ€¢hniniumization Text7Map Amer/*Reirt GUS Allot:ment Lot Split;/Lot line (NOS Exa~ption Adjustment 8) Description of E:xisting Uses (number and type of existing structures; approorimate sq. ft. ; râ€¢ mher of -+Torins; any P[reviars approvals granted to the property). -710 FAmt EN KEE>LE)â‚¬Â¥VC. 6- 9) Description of Development Application 3>fâ‚¬- Cl.Â£>/3 It CUT} OL 1 , 1 10) HavB you attached the following? 6- r Response to Attadment 2, Minint= Submission aintents 8,1 ,Â·R*perse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents 6*' Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear._fully_labeled drawings must be submitted In a format no larger than 11â„¢17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"x17' format. APPLICANT: mictmil- ocni # OREratEN GfEENWOED-Ofn ADDRESS: 500 WALNUE 9- ZONE DISTRICT: F- (p LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 5,805 6,1. li EXISTING FAR: dha 471 99. 4. ALLOWABLE FAR: 3,/ 35 8,7 4 PROPOSED FAR: - Â· 25, /35,50 Â· 77 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): N j A PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): N#A EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: L Goi act fr ve. 91 VD PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: . 4(1 b/Â© EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commerdal): NIA PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): MIA " EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PAncioal Blda.: rO/- O \ kms#94Â¥. i aL OU PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: 1/46/2170 0* ' /Accessory Bldo: / f LOW PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 10070 + A-Inlipul Blit,j 00% 900/0 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: ~ 4/' PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: / ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: $ A SETBACKS: 1 ito daaud- *Attwitia fri inctimto, 1 pot>rkd . EXISTING: . ALLOWABLE: / PROPOSED: 434-to Front: 10 Front: 11.5 ' Front: Rear: ,+0.0. Reac / 0 1 5/ Reac al: 1 52 Side: 42 1 1â‚¬ 1 Side: 5 ~'/ f S~ Side: Combined Front/Rear: 40' Combined Frl/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ 5(fl> cul, ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibilitv finding must be made bv HPC): FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined Frt./Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): T, GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Carl D. Reich, whose address is P. O -box 1 4 01 -7ALISAD t LO 31 balo , for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), in hand pai hereby sells and conveys to Michael Ortiz and Gretchen Greenwood, as Joint Tenants, whoseaddressis 500 LORiouT ST, At>f>60 0 0 31601 1 - , the following described real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to Wit: PARCEL 1: A part of the NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point from which Corner No. 22 of Tract 40 in said Section, according to the Independent Resurvey thereof, bears South 03Â°04'26" West 234.Net; thence South 45 feet; - thence East 125 feet; thence North 45 feet; thence West 125 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO KNOWN AS: LOT 8 AND THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WILLIAMS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN. with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same, subject to and except for: 1. General taxes for 1994 and thereafter; 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent record- sci December 24, 1901 in Book 55 at Page 116; 3. Right of way for pipes and mains across the Smuggler Ranch by Dead recorded March 18, 1885 in Book 24 at Page 59; and 4. Right of way Mr Pole lines and wires across the NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. as set forth in Deed recorded January 20, 1887 in Book 29 at Page 582. 634 114 8 fT '/\ Pc-r '8301 9 all reference being to the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records. SIGNED this 4>ec' day of 1'Â¥\ A li , 1994. Lj Al >Â·44 \ / Carl D. Reich STATE OF ELLE CA DC, ) ) SS. COUNTY OF -/IT Â£.i <2 ) A d The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 41 - day of 1'Â¥1 IALÂ·~l , 1941, by Carl D. Reich. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: (SEAL) J# 6. 410 - Notary Publ< P Vt rtich\:wd K AloYARA 8 '-ln< -0- jO J] V,~APUBLIC/47 1*OF My Commission Expires April 22, 1998 2 ./ ~1086 UPD kh,//1 - 4 E l- Col . ELMOOD#i.91%*ijal . 1 -4 .4 -9-/4 0 , 1 4 1 ' Cuil/vi.Skigihol ' , - . -- Z=:3: 1-*Lee:L . Atr--7 .. -1 ,â€¢1 -Al-4 0 1 - .-- 0 9 Â£752# 1 El I !1~ , 1 1 3-- 1 0â€¢A-â€¢ 14. - -Â· ''~,Â·~1..$)._a-*ifi&~ABÂ¢%4' ELI 0 A ..-.-. b mim:o mi:Ior-m:El-immo i'=Â·Ai\~62.J 2- d \ C T UN,EJEI) 312 JaIL 1,1;111 475 -EQâ€¢ 1 U m 42 - -- [Hul[Ii}'11IKE 0%[EI] [I[TE, e Â· d Wy/'RE.ilwoR Enll] 81!ga WSII] Ullitlm iv=Ul @imiÂ· J'.1 1112.1, . -U 02[51246Â· JUMI WUW #imil.GO E-YO tl*W , ,~~~C~kÂ·~~_ , A~h 9 - , ETIE , a-WF 3*Fu OR#TE BME mun Imm Emimmlm ., . f .- 1 1 j - 01 - 9-7-111Â£700 ElillUÂ·E[Ill {Eilit!,PE![22 @12% GIUITIi 1*@FiiE'J .-0 9 J \ ~ ELUME GI]IEB![013mpll,le guum t!.[E].miWID.11111~0. *Ilyl.*I@.u, . -1.-dL ~- ' h BFUED GICil]'[Ai31:MigE]NIIÂ®.5 1Â¤1:Jilmagle@!m'jilE[limpilleuilm| 0 4 -0 L i.[ affill] *illy Ultddli.Ullitalk!tliWS 11147.1~.1,0.U.J.lat!11Â· illl,Cli! lykllti U.dI.E llitiwit 113}411'111!11,in -- 0~2 0 immEL.gE.EÂ®12&....fam"".'. - . 1094*6~ 6 -t.QIT[ID i g:118'02Ilie~Em IER '1 1n uiiui[G.uu#AF ,.iu~uÂ·B12ER fiEW* 83339 illiEFESEER HESEM 85EEE.BMEE; BiBE-% LE:&516;filsil/# --9.*11 E$!i'E.E@ 11= EMIE *41*-E i r x-- . '1TWm i *.Â·1 -- - 9/A J .. I. 4: . - 1 1 t 6lk kIFEE]1 24%17 ~Â· P- 4*{V - 4Â·'fF m.1 9 Â· Â· . Fe .... -- EXPL. /7- 8 i * A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, CONFIRMING A FRAMEWORK FOR AN UPPER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY AND FORWARDING INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION C Resolution # 439 6 RECITALS 1. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners (hereinafter the 'Board"), the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado (hereinafter the 'TOSV Council"), and the Aspen City Council have been meeting to develop a transportation strategy for what is known as the Snowmass to Aspen Transportation Plan. 2. The Board. TOSV Council and the Aspen City Council have discussed at length and have reached agreement on several transportation issues through this process. 3. The Colorado Department ofTransportation solicits. on an annual basis, requests for transportation improvements from Colorado counties. 4. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (hereinafter "ISTEA") includes funding categories for varying modes of transportation improvements and allows flexibility in the use of funds for other modes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado, and the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, to agree to the following concerning the development of a transportation strategy for the Upper Rearing Fork valley: 1. The capacity of the transportation system has been exceeded an unacceptable number of times during peak periods. It is therefore determined to continue to work coilectiveiy (the Board. TOSV Council. Aspen City Council, the Aspen Ski Company, ~he Rearing Fork Transit Agency (RFTA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)) to reduce andlor manage the volume of vehicles on the road system for next winier (September, 1993) and develop a comprehensive. long range strategy that will insure a convenient and efficient transportation system for the Rearing Fork Valley. 2. In developing this transportation strategy, the following factors are acknowledged: * In the past, improvements to the transportation system have not kept up with increases in traffic; * CDOT and Federal Highways funding has changed with the new ISTEA legislation: * Current and previous studies accomplished locally have recognized that strategies other than those that are capital intensive must be empioyed to realize substantial reduction or management of traffic congestion; * Although several studies have been conducted in the past regarding transportation in the upper Rearing Fork valley, the community has never determined an underlying strategy that everyone could agree upon; Aspen, and the areas of unincorporated Pitkin County surrounding Aspen, have been cited with - a PM-10 problem by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the community must address the problem. 1 ../ c) It has been determined by the community that a signalized intersection at Brush Creek Road and SH 82 is not acceptable. It is therefore recommended that a creative solution which entails the construction of a grade separated, non-signalized intersection be pursued as soon as reasonably possible. The design process for this intersection will take into account the rural nature of the highway corridor by following agreed upon guidelines: - Variance from perceived design standards is possible; The intersection should be built in a cost-effective manner; - The intersection should be in-scale with the existing road system and should result in a beautiful, appropriate and useful improvement. d) It has been further determined that placement of a well-designed, landscaped and signalized intersection at the Airport Business Center/Airport/SH 82 is appropriate and should be pursued in cooperation with CDOT; e) The Owl Creek Road/Stage Road/SH 82 intersection needs to be evaluated for improvement and/or re-design, especially if the Owl Creek corridor is to be utilized for the conveyance of mass transit between Snowmass and Aspen; f) Work cooperatively with CDOT to place a Pedestrian/Bike path along the Maroon Creek bridge. g) Work cooperatively with CDOT and other governmental entities in the Roaring Fork Valley to purchase the Rio Grande Railroad Right-of-way from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek for intermodal transportation purposes. h) Work cooperatively with CDOT to place a pedestrian/bike path in the State Highway 82 corridor from Snowmass (OId Snowmass) to Basalt. i) Pursue improving Owl Creek Road as a dedicated mass transit corridor for use during peak congestion periods. Any improvements of Owl Creek road for this purpose must strive to maintain the rural nature of the valley and can only be implemented in conjunction with the imposition of mass transit incentives in the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen. 3. FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEM(S). Make every reasonable attempt to develop a fixed guideway system(s) between Snowmass and Aspen within the next two years. Deveiopment of this system(s) shall be initiated as follows: - Immediately form a Technical Resource Group (TRG) as a first step in developing the system; - Retain technical, objective, non-vendor oriented transportation engineering expertise to perform preliminary scoping and feasibility of alternative alignments and technologies; - Set preliminary technical performance criteria to identify potential alignments and technologies that benefit all entities and user groups; - Require funding participation from all jurisdictions that will benefit; - Pursue and secure federal and state grants to subsidize engineering and construction of the system(s); - Conduct a "design competition" where potential fixed guideway system(s) can be described and judged against the established performance criteria. 4. To further promote the development of a comprehensive, long range transportation plan for the entire Roaring Fork Valley, Pitkin County, The Town of Snowmass Village. and the City of Aspen embrace and endorse the improvements proposed to the western end of SH 82 corridor by the City of Glenwood Springs. The endorsement o f these improvements, which are more fully described within Exhibit "B", are conditioned upon the following: 3 < I. 3. In developing alternative solutions to the transportation problem, the Decision Makers (Board, TOSV, Aspen City Council. Aspen Ski Company, RFTA, and CDOT), after considering the overall vision of the community, developed the following criteria that said alternative solutions must lend themselves to: * Improvements to State Highway 82 (SH 82) should be considered in the context of an overall, comprehensive transportation plan and fit into any future, upper-valley or valley-wide transportation improvements contemplated within the Snowmass to Aspen Transportation plan or the Mt. Sopris Transportation Study; * Each alternative must be measured as to the degree in which it encourages, discourages, or has no impact on the use of mass transit. Alternatives which encourage the use of mass transit shall have preference over others; * All transportation alternatives or strategies developed must be sensitive to seasonal changes, thereby recognizing the influxes of congestion that occur as a part of resort community dynamics; * Alternative solutions that provide a balanced program of incentives to individuals to reduce their use of the private automobile should be utilized initially; * The concept of a fixed guideway system or systems between Snowmass and Aspen as an integral part of the overall transportation strategy shall be pursued; * The alternative solutions selected must combine to form a transportation strategy that is enduring and one that the community can be proud of. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado, and the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, to agree to the following transportation improvements, which have been developed as an initial part of a comprehensive transportation plan that consists of three main dements: 1. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT, 2. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS, and 3. FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEM(S). Said improvements are further quantified on Exhibit "A", Estimated Costs of Prniect Recommendations: 1. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT. Implement and extensive, comprehensive Travel Demand Management (TDM) system in the upper Rearing Fork Valley, including: a) A parking and congestion management system in Aspen as contemplated within the Draft Aspen Area Community Plan. This system will be developed and implemented by the City of Aspen over the next 2 years (September, 1994); b) Continuation and enhancement of the existing parking management system in Snowmass Village; c) Improvement of the existing bus system provided by RFTA by expanding the fleet, adding new routes, and increasing the frequency of service; d) The provision of permanent Intercept and Park-and-Ride Lots along SH 82 between Buttermilk and Carbondale. 2. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS. Develop and place Transportation Enhancements that benefit both the local resident and the tourist, attempt to address the upper valley's PM-10 problem, and puts into place strategies that benefit down-valley communities. These enhancements include: a) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes within the SH 82 corridor. It is recognized that improvement to or repiaceme -1 of the Maroon Creek and Castle Creek bridges may be required. However, these potential bridge improvements must be done in the context of furthering the utilization of mass transit and not as a means of increasing the accessibility of private automobiles to the Aspen area. b) Maintain BrÂ·ush Creek Road as a two-lane, rural facility. Make necessary safety improvements such as passing lanes, pull outs and related improvements that do not significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas. 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULARMEETING OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, COLORADO, ON THISSL- DAY OFg #79/59/4.1992. ASPEN CITY COUNCIL -02 Â« /2-_7r~ Katherine 13kh, City Clerk John Bennett, Mayor MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 /49- CmÂ»g . CABiLL Amy Margerum/ j Jed Caswell. ~pen City M~~*r Aspen City Attorney RE,tOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: r 4;ob Maynard, Prdsident, Dwight ShellRiathdirman, Aspen Ski Company Roaring Fork Transit Agency 110162_ **KÂ¢_ 4nd*/ Diane Moore, Co-Director, Suz:*e Konchan1 Co-Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office ~0%33 Lj #A - 136ug #otÂ®84'Directo0 Stan Berryman, lifirector, 4no~,iass Village Pl~ning Pitkin County PUblic Works C\ Â£ I C 4 910 Colorado Dep#tment of Transportation 5 a) Monetary resources for these improvements should come from budgeted CDOT funding which can not be spent on SH 82 between Basalt and Aspen in a timely manner and therefore would be moved to other areas of the state; b) Any future placement of a 'by-pass" or alternative vehicular route through G]enwood Springs will not preclude the placement of a passenger rail system in the Roaring Fork valley which connects directly to the main rail line existing within the I-70 corridor. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON THIS 2-9- DAY OF Ac-*. , 1992. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 3 :/3 l.4/31/4Â«/ 00 - Jea;Gtte jones, - C/ ~~mes R. True, Chairman t,fe'puty County Cle*lt MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROYFD AS TO FORM: 1)1 â‚¬ 9Â»it 0~â‚¬L ld/â‚¬14=- \i'AA LUJV 677 ?h Reid Haughey, Tirnf Whitsitt. M Pitkin County Manager Pitkin County Attorney , \u,j APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO ON THIS 4 DAY OF Januayy 4100[3. 19 93. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN CO*NCIL - 19, 8 - 11.1 j u~-e:L~ LA/) (~Lu.L---U 1~vi Trudy Worline, Town Clerk --Jaaes H. Habxer, Mayer MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORAI: --,AL) LL.1Â·- A IR Gary Suiter. Steve' fghner, Manager, Snowmass Village Town Attorney 4 - Ill . 0 1 1 11[ Ill . 1 , 1 2-1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 11 rt 3#,39 -<20 1 12.--6.- - - 1,1 1 516* 10 FOCNT OP (NTEREST O 1 1 PI .EL - . -' 1 - --1-49-/04 7, , *1*0'~ST ~1~ \ \ ~--MESDED Â£8 60UND ROP --- 11 (143 ~1 15/.0'7*117 0/6N / 1 111 1 1 1 111131 f . - 2 J.GREE-â€¢,O.93fpe-44N-â‚¬Z*Â·4Â¥-=Ar ..:f,PrÂ·.4*,'9<~A;--1 *Â»4Â·,1:7344Â¥6â‚¬K>dâ‚¬f-' V>Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·'0-2.4 6Â· Â· Â·Â·4-4Â»* i T! 1 1- 21 .My ZTÂ¥77( NAME , 111 1 --- a r 1 ,!1 '11- - i klfe - - ----- 1 1,12 il O 76 t ' 1 1, ELEVA-FION GLEVATION j .. - A Date: 1\31\95 To: Aspen H.P.C From: Scott and Caroline McDonald Subject: Preservation of use for commercial historically designated buildings. Dear Members, The past seven years have brought to Aspen three full service corporate hotels and a commercial core predominately comprised of national chain stores, and tee-shirt shops. Corporations buy homes which are tax write offs as are corporate aircraft expenses. To run their Aspen corporate enterprises managers are imported. For many businesses, to make a profit is secondary to the tax write offs. Basically these write offs pay for the vacations of the very rich. Spendthrift tenants and the resulting demand for space and high rents commanded for commercial core property has driven many locally owned and operated businesses elsewhere, mainly out of town. Main Street has become simply a corridor to the city core. Ever-present development within and around the city has increased resident densities to a point of changing Aspen's persona from that of a quaint old mountain town to a congested urban city. Realistically there is no stopping development until the physical limitations for growth have been exhausted. When this occurs, if the current trend continues, the commercial core will be indistinguishable from that of any shopping mall of franchise stores located in any fashionable area of the US. What Aspen does have are significant numbers of historic buildings in areas not conducive for domestic habitation and under utilized for want of revision of our ordinances to keep up with the times. Owning a historical building in Aspen today is a financial trial. Preservation of a historical site mandates under utilization of property and the loss of economy of scale. Maintenance and operational costs are considerably higher than modern structures. Property improvement entails lengthy review and additional costs when compared to non-historical sites. To preserve the historical town atmosphere, which in the near future will be unique for destination resort towns, Aspen could promote owner run businesses in existing historical buildings. Flexibility is key for any business to remain solvent, and if a change of use is deemed necessary for a resident to make ends meet, such use change should not be encumbered by unnecessary governmental intervention. To facilitate such flexibility of use for historical structures the following could be implemented without compromising Aspen's zoning philosophy: 1 - Update city ordinances for conditional uses of historical - structures to reflect the current needs of the city. Currently conditional uses for historical structures in the '0' Zone seem to be quite antiquated, dating back to the late 1960's when Sardy had his Mortuary at the present day Sardy House hotel and restaurant and it was acceptable to have a day care center on Main Street. Clearly defined purpose and scope should accompany such revisions for the concept of having different conditional uses for historic buildings as a impetus for preservation has apparently been lost over the years in our Planning Department. The process by which conditional use is changed for a given property could be streamlined and less arbitrary. - Preservation of use. It is our understanding that the purpose of P&Z deliberation on a development proposal for any given property is to ascertain what if any impact imparted by this development to the neighborhood's environment or standard of living is beyond what has been deemed allowable by zoning. After such deliberation and mitigation resolved, that property's use meets the standards of the community. What then after a few years a property owner wishes to change to a lesser use (one which say requires less parking and employee C-j~*fhousing mitigation) and latter return to the propertie's original u ~ use? Today this requires P&Z deliberation and mitigation double / / jeopardy for the owner, amounting to possibly hundreds of i n 0\01~U a Preservation of use, that is to say a change of use for any 7 thousands of dollars. .~property would not require P&Z deliberation on mitigation i requirements so long as the use change does not impact the ,# 2 neighborhood greater than the original use granted. To increase a &25 properties use above the original use would require P&Z f;b ~ , mitigation deliberation. For record keeping, an original use 0 ,/could be deed recorded and or recorded at the assessor office. Needless to say for such a system to work would require a , hierarchy of uses and a easy method of ascertaining a properties use value. We are asking the HPC to review this concept for implementation. Such a system we feel could help preserve Aspen's historical past and the future of it's permanent business residents. Sincerely, Scott & Caroline McDonald 2