The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19941214AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE December 14, 1994 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Committee and Staff Comments II. Public Comments III. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. Inventory Round II- Public Hearing 6:00 B. 202 W. Francis- Partial Demolition and=-Re-location, Public--Hearing 6:30 C. 435 W. Main, L'Auberge- Significant Development, Public Hearing 7:15 BREAK FOR 10 MINUTES I 7:25 D. Maroon Creek Bridge pedestrian path- Worksession (no memo IV. OLD BUSINESS 8:05 A. 316 E. Hopkins Ave., Howling Wolf- Minor 8:20 C. 303 E. Main Street- Discussion (no memo) 8:35 D. Reapprove agenda from Nov, 23rd, due to lack of quorum ~ 8:45 E. 130 S. Galena, City Hall- selection of shingle color (no memo, samples will be provided) 8:55 V. PROJECT MONITORING 9:00 VI.ADJOURN A BREAK HAS BEEN SCHEDULED AT 7:15 DUE TO THE LONG AGENDA. WE WILL HAVE PIZZAS FOR YOU. HPC SHOULD MAKE SITE VISITS TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES FOR THE INVENTORY REVIEW (Do this on your own time or meet in City Hall lobby at 12, Dec.13th): 1101 E. Cooper, 1001 E. Hyman, 209 E. Bleeker, 719 E. Hopkins, The Meadows, Bavarian Lodge. U *L L <*ALE j y] UÂ«.02.,0-<u-:7 3--l/\--(- /1.LL,U/1/ ~247 j.-4./9.-22)0Â«AJV 1 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 1 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 702 W. Main - Stape - Conceptual Development approved Sept 8, 1993 220 W. Main - European FLower Market Final April 20, 1994 J -771- Ul. A) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Evaluation of properties proposed for inclusion on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures", Round II DATE: December 14, 1994 SUMMARY: Once every five years, HPC is required to re-evaluate all non-landmarked resources identified on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," in order to make the following determinations (see Section 7-709 of the Municipal Code, attached) : 1. Amend the classification Of any resource (significant, contributing or supporting) 2. Add any resources to the Inventory, which were previously omitted because of recent annexation, error or through contribution to community character which was not previously recognized. 3. Drop any resources from the Inventory which have lost their historic significance. NOTE: Both the Code and the rules and regulations of the Certified Local Government program, administered by the National Park Service and the Colorado Historical Society require a re-evaluation of the Inventory at least once every five years. PROCESS: The re-evaluation process is as follows: 1. In 1990-91, a consultant team, staff and HPC completed the fieldwork, which involved filling out new Inventory forms and taking new black and white photos of each resource. 305 sites were surveyed. 2. A master list was compiled to record the status of each property during previous evaluations ( 1980, 1986 and 1991). Property owner names, parcel identification numbers and mailing addresses were researched and included on the Inventory forms, which were then entered onto the Database. ' 3. Those properties which had not been designated Landmarks were identified and targeted for evaluation by HPC and Council. Property owners were mailed a public notice and a notice was printed in the weekly Aspen 1 Times. (This occurred in early 1992.) A cover letter was included with the public notice, explaining why the review was necessary and the implications, both positive and "negative" of being listed on the Inventory. Staff held one on one meetings with property owners who protested or wished to have more information. 4. At the time of the 1992 hearings, not all property owners were correctly identified and there were some errors in the public notices. Staff elected to break the process down into "Round I and Round II" in order to make the task a little easier. Round I was completed in May 1992. Roxanne Eflin (HPO) resigned before Round II could be undertaken. After a year and a half delay, the Planning Office is finally prepared to complete evaluation of the Inventory. (It is hoped that future evaluations can be wrapped up much more quickly.) 5. For the properties included in "Round II, " Staff has followed the same noticing procedures described under point #3. Times for public inquiry were set up for December 7th from 2-4p.m. and December 8th from 9:30- 11:30 a.m. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss specific concerns of individual property owners, review the available preservation incentives and to discuss options if the owner wished to pursue removal of their property from the Inventory. 6. Tonight's meeting is a public hearing. HPC is not required to make their final decision on disputed properties at this meeting if they feel that additional information is needed. This is an opportunity to receive public input and the meeting must then be continued to a date certain (staff suggests January 11th) when Staff will present for adoption the Resolution covering the committee's recommendations. 7. The Resolution which results from these meetings will be forwarded to City Council, who will make the final adoption of the re-evaluated Inventory by Ordinance. 8. Following final adoption, any necessary changes will be made to the GIS map of the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" which is on display in the Planning Office. BACKGROUND: In 1980, the Planning Department received a grant to hire two consultants (John Stanford and Vera Kirkpatrick) to survey Aspen' s historic resources and to establish the f irst comprehensive "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." Over 275 sites were included and given a rating of "exceptional, excellent or notable. " No changes in legislation were proposed at that time. 2 Two important actions occurred following the creation of the Inventory: the adoption of the first design guidelines and a concerted effort by City Council and the Planning Department to Landmark designate significant properties. In 1986, as a result of numerous demolitions and a movement to overlay the entire townsite as a "H" Historic Overlay District, a 1-5 (five being the most significant) numerical rating system was established. Non-landmark properties rated 1-3 required no HPC review and approval for demolition. Properties rated 4-5 did have HPC review. The numerical rating system proved to be too subjective and resulted in a number of losses as structures rated 1-3 were quickly demolished. It is also important to note that the establishment of the numerical system was simply a classification of properties already on the Inventory, it was not an in-depth re- evaluation of the town's historic resources. In 1989, the numerical system was retired, to be replaced again with three easily understood categories: significant, contributing and supporting. Also at that time Council expanded HPC's demolition review authority over the entire Inventory, including partial demolition and relocation. More incentives were also created for historic landmarks to offset the strengthened regulations. The existing classifications are defined as: Significant: Applies to all resources listed on, or eligible for listing on the National or State register of Historic Places. HPC must include the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation" in these reviews in addition to the local development review standards. Resources considered "significant" represent the top 15% of the Inventory. Contributing: These resources have maintained their historical or architectural integrity. Approximately 75% of the Inventory is included in this category. Supporting: These resources have maintained some elements of their historic and architectural integrity and in general are "retrievable" with substantial effort. Generally, this applies to structures which have had unsympathetic additions or removal of original features. 10% of the Inventory falls into this category. PUBLIC INQUIRY: Staff received nine inquiries related to "Round , II." Requests for removal from the Inventory were received from j Albert Anderson of 1101 E. Cooper Avenue (recommended by the consultants as a new addition to the Inventory), Chester Firestein of 407 W. Hallam, and Pat Card of 1018 E. Hopkins. Other callers 3 wished to have more information about what results from inventory listing. TALLY: At this time, the historic resources which are under some degree of protection break down as follows: Designated Landmarks: 126 Non-landmarks listed on the Inventory: 147 Total: 273 historic resources EVALUATION: The following sites included in "Round II" of the Inventory evaluation were recommended to be added to the Inventory by the consultant team: 1101.Er Cooper Age. 557 Walnut 106 Park Maroon Creek Bridge Aspen Grove Cemetery Aspen Brewery Ruins 101 Puppy Smith The following sites were recommended to be added to the Inventory by previous Preservation Planning staff due to research conducted by Staff and HPC on the 20th century architectural history of Aspen. Meadows- Trustee Housing, Chalet Housing and Riding Ring 801 W. Bleeker (Bavarian Lodge) vo 720 S. Aspen (Holland House) 403 S. Galena (Guido's) Colorado Midland Right-of-Way -- Staff supports addition of all of these resources, however further discussion must be given to 1101 E. Cooper. There is a log building on the site and a number of small cabins which have apparently been moved there. The owner requests that the property not be included on the Inventory. The following sites included in "Round II" of the Inventory evaluation were recommended to be deleted from the Inventory by the consultant team due to demolition of the resource: 915 S. Mill 1 1018 E. Hopkins 701 W. Smuggler 113 W. Bleeker 4 114' h Â« LUA~.0 325 -W.-Francis "726 W. Bleeker 517 North ~~'~*ZLw_~Smuggler 300 W. Hopkins 220 Puppy Smith 855 Gibson Staff supports removal of all of these structures, because they have been demolished. The following sites were recommended to be deleted from the Inventory by the consultant team due to loss of integrity: 16/Wilfi-Effillyqma4'2*t' L--su*z=/ >'ibyar:â€¢kH alaam 719 E. Hopkins 00,Â«F 209 E. Bleeker 'UyÂ° 3 Staff supports removal Of 407 W. Hallam, however, further discussion should be had regarding 1001 E. Hyman, 209 E. Bleeker and 719 E. Hopkins. HPC should site visit each of the properties where further discussion is warranted. Staff has scheduled a group site visit from RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation is to adopt those properties indicated as additions above and delete those properties indicated as deletions as their integrity has been completely lost. Although they may have some elements of their original scale, these structures have been greatly altered. The Inventory must be an accurate reflection of the resources in Aspen which ought to be subject to historic preservation regulations. Recommended classifications for the sites are shown on the attached pages. Additional Comments: , 0 1% ' A,Â»6,/92 31. j 5 Non-Designated Properties for re-evaluation December, 1994 Key: Significant: -~--~~- Contributing:.21 supporting: 0 Drop from Inventory: d~ Address/Name Area Status per year 80 86 94 - --*#.--'--- 0 403 S. Galena Commercial Core 304-308 S. Galena Commercial Core .Il =2 -2- 1018 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. --qu 7 1001 E. Hyman East Aspen Twnst. ' 625 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. / ~ ~ 7 719 E. Hopkins East Aspen Twnst. ' 7 1101 E. Cooper East Aspen Twnst. 720 S. Aspen Shadow Mountain dED .54 ' 915 Mill Shadow Mountain 300 W. Hopkins Shadow Mountain 209 E. Bleeker West End (Church) 437 W. Smuggler West End 801 W. Bleeker West End j 517 North West End 407 W. Hallam West End 325 W. Francis West End 233 W. Hallam West End Ill 41 -11 0 1 71--0 1--61 41 113 W. Bleeker West End 223 E. Hallam West End 101 Puppy Smith West End 220 Puppy Smith West End 701 W. Smuggler West End All of Block 17 West End t-:1 / M -- EL A. I.,Trustee HousingWest End A.I.,Chalet Housing West End A.I., Riding Ring West End Maroon Creek Bridge Colorado Midland Right-of-Way 855 Gibson Smuggler Mtn. 101 Park Smuggler Mtn. 106 Park Smuggler Mtn. 935 King Smuggler Mtn. AspenGrove Cemetery Smuggler Mtn. Aspen Brewery Ruins Smuggler Mtn. 557 Walnut Smuggler Mtn. M li 1 1 1 lilli 11}1 101 1101)Ill'I -11 81 4 1-11-91-9 1 1 4-01 0141 4 01 0191 1310101 11 il 1011101 1111 H .!LL W MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 202 W. Francis Street, Partial Demolition DATE: December 14, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval for partial demolition of the historic house at 202 W. Francis, the Edwin Frost house. This parcel has been included on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" since 1986. It is classified as a "supporting" resource. NOTE: The Board of Adjustments will hear the applicant's request for a site coverage variance, for rear and sideyard setback variances and for waiver of one parking space on December 15th. HPC must make a recommendation to Board of Adjustments regarding that request. The applicant could achieve all but the site coverage variance through HPC if the property were Landmark Designated. Staff finds that the variances do help in achieving a fairly low impact addition (in terms of massing) to the historic structure, but recognizes that some board members are cautious about awarding setback variances. APPLICANT: Tom and Noel Congdon, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 202 W. Francis, Lots R and S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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 "H" 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 60% of the existing structure. This exceeds the Land Use Code's definition of partial demolition. It is the finding of Staff and the Planning Director that this project may be reviewed as a partial demolition, because the additions to the original house are not historic and the intention of the demolition standards were specifically meant to protect historic structures and address negative impacts to them. It is not appropriate to consider this a total demolition, as the proposal is to remove additions and expose the original building. HPC's role is to determine whether or not the portions of the building proposed for demolition can be sacrificed without compromising the character of the resource and to insure that all negative impacts on a historic resource which result from partial demolition are minimized. It is not within the Board's power to review design elements of the new construction which do not relate directly to the demolition. Standards for Review of Partial Demolition 1. Standard: The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Response: The Inventory form describes the house as having had major alterations, including changes in materials and a number of additions which have been constructed to the east and rear of the original house. The characteristic mass and scale of the original house is still visible along West Francis Street. (See attached Sanborne map of the site in 1904.) The applicant proposes to demolish the 1970's additions and to retain and add on to the historic house and stable. The new construction is set in the same area of the existing additions and will not result in further demolition of the historic house. 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: The applicant intends to replace the non- original windows in the south gable with double hungs of a more authentic scale. All the windows on the west elevation are proposed to be removed, due to the building code's requirements for a structure near the property line. A double hung window is to be added on the east and the applicant proposes to wrap the existing front porch around the house. On the stable, the proposal is to add windows on the east and north and replace the skylights on the south. Staff supports these changes, but recommends the applicant further discuss the removal of the windows on the west with Building. Some exceptions can be made for historic structures. Staff does not agree that there is much evidence to support wrapping the front porch around the structure. Unfortunately, the house is on a cut-line on the 1904 Sanborne maps and is somewhat difficult to read. The architect has taken a contemporary approach to the addition, partly to help distinguish the new from the old. The height of this addition is 20', which is very compatible with the historic structure. Staff's main concern with any negative impact created as a result of the partial demolition is the size of the large array of windows immediately behind the original structure on the east elevation. The sudden change in solid-to-void relationship is somewhat incompatible with historic structure. B. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: Any additional demolition to the historic structure is very limited in this proposal, therefore this standard is met. ALTERNATIVES: HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the application for Partial Demolition as submitted. 2) Approve the application for Partial Demolition with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations to be offered). 4) Deny Partial Demolition approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the following conditions: 1) Do not construct a wrap-around porch 2) Restudy the window array on the east in terms of its impacts on the historic structure. Additional Comments: Le u f L# 3 el---1 ......- UL I - O (44&022-4 0* k k k .1 k CO - IT-KI. . 2 -1, -1 ly r .1 y.; - 1 11.% - 0 -1 2 41 e Ul â‚¬1 11 4 21 [2-1 U] M k :~3 1-1 i Â»1 I 0.4 b.rh 0 0 0 4 4 0 ri STS 1 2106 - --1 9311 9 16}Fla 1 - I W 1 -- --- - 2- . ..' tz! m-31-2 1 1 1 0 -1 - 123 129 135 215 217 227 cr W. FRANCES i ST. 43 W. Pipe - -- 0 20 1 .k 4 1 r . , 1,Â£0 84 . --t -. v.= 4 202 64 el 9% 212 .,f G. 3 -5 5 .' 3222 -- 2...' -- ~ 234 1 - \ 1 --- . --1 L. . -1 - - ..1 = N - 1 .- ng-[-3 . %9 2 4 M W 1 01 11* CD - - 0.-L- . 3 2\l -1 J 1-'- Lo r--- % Â· -i~ - r- 2.21 2 %#AdO*kk & 2><41 n.1 F--3 F-=1 . E--2 ~ 1Â»Â« - 1% ~11 1 azzl_ i ) 00 24 1 75' G L-JOI $ 1 ====== --t=== ========== =====41= 9======== 43' 0 W. pipe ====#= W.=FRANOES= == = 420 t 14 510 516 522 526 434 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 eN Nrt--4/ 99 DH. . ~~ GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOC/ATES, /NC ARCHITECTURE Â· INTERIOR DESIGN Â· PLANNING November 15,1994 Ms. Amy Amidon Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department Dear Amy: I am submitting an application on behalf of Tom and Noel Congdon, for Historic Partial Demolition at 202 W. Francis St. In addition to this hearing, we would like the HPC to review the entire development proposal. This proposal requires a public hearing before the Board of Adjustments for zoning variations. I have also enclosed the copy of our variance application for the review of the HPC. We would like the endorsement from the HPC of our requested variances prior to our hearing with the Board of Adjustments. We would like to request a meeting date of Wednesday, December 14, for our review. Enclosed are 10 copies of the application. Please contact me with any comments and/or questions you may have. Sincerely yours, 40. Gyâ‚¬tchen Gr#dnwood, Architect j 520 WALNUT STREET â€¢ ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 â€¢ TEL: 303/925-4502 Â· FAX: 303/925-7490 Â£11 1/ 11.-6 14//4 0 ./- -- IAND USE APPLEATION FORM / 7)~ prdlediNaria C-D#* 4 6014 FJES FDENVC-EE 2) Project Incation %222 00'. ,*96'9902/r bolh 12-19 ALOCK <lt GCN Â¥ -TD We > 078 0 F Ate@W (indicate street addreqq, lot & block number, legal description where appmpriate) 3) Present Z<xhing ~ - ~7 4) Lot Size ~Ghts.96 /00 51 ApAicales N=e, Maress & 26:,ce # 7hm 0 NO â‚¬L CON Â¢*DoN 8,00 EAST -t-TH AVE. DENVEA, Co 80118 841Â· 81+0 6) Representative' s Name, Address & Ricne # 22~EdÂ¥72:Ze*' 9'Â£d@BjVC*,2;CU) 520 WALNUT- 1-n /ZABEN 9M Â· *501 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 Conoeotual PUD Minor IIistoric Dev. 1 Stream Margin Final RJD ~ Hi-storic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivisicn IIistoric Designation Condominitmlization Texti,/Map Anwarxinrnt CMOS Allotment Ict Split/Ict line (NOS Eboeuption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rimber arxl type of existing structures- approocimate sq. ft. ; Illmber of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). 9 ce ce#t**cd 9) Description of Develcpnent Applicaticn $ te- *ctokt.l 10) Have you attached the following? 1- Response to Attachment 2, Minin= Sulmission Oontents -7~ Response to Attadmrant 3, Specific Suhnission Contents V- Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application NOV-11-94 FRI 12:08 ST, MARY PARISH LAND CO. FAX NO, 3038610934 P. 01 November 10, 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department City of Aspen To whom it may concern: This letter authorizes Gretchen Greenwood to represent Tom and Noel Congdon in the approval process for our residence located at 202 West Francis. Thank you for your help. S i~~rely, DA.-4 Â£ 4 Tom and Noel Congdo|~ - .-*to. CONGDON RESIDENCE ZONING ANALYSIS EXISTING,PROPOSED AND ALLOWABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS (Per Aspen Land Use Regulations) ADDRESS: 202 W. FRANCIS LOT SIZE: 6000 SQ.FT. ZONE DISTRICT: R-6 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE BEDROOMS 4 3 N/A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 0 1 1 PARKING 1 2 3 FLOOR AREA SOÂ·FT. 3,478 3,240 3,240 PERCENT OF SITE COVERAGE 56% 49% 40% SITE COVERAGE SOâ€¢FT. 3,350 2,950 2,400 SIDE YARD SETBACK MINIMUM FT. VARIES SEE VARIANCE 6.66 TOTAL FT. VARIES REQUEST 15 FRONT & REAR YARD SETBACK MINIMUM FT. 10 SEE VARIANCE 10 TOTAL FT. VARIES REQUEST 30 HEIGHT FT. ABOVE GRADE VARIES TO 20 FT. VARIES TO 20 FT. 25 FT. SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11-*17-. OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11~17" format. APPLICANT: Trm , NOEL CoN& 00 N ADDRESS: 415& W. FRANGI S ZONE DISmICT: 1 /0.4 LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): @,000 69,7,Â·. EXISTING FAR:, 3,478 94.#. ALLOWABLE FAR: Â¢ 540 Â¥. 19. PROPOSED FARY - .. 4,290 59 . 79 Â· EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 50.8 5/0 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 4-4. (. 0/0 EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (Commercial): PROPOSED %OFOPENSPACE(Commer.): EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PMncioal BiÂ®.: 2 0 ~ / Accessory Bldc: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal BlÂ®.: 0/3 192 / Accessory Bldo: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 645'6 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 3 , EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: J SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: f Front: 10 Front: Front: Rear: Reac Rear: i.t tÂ· Side: Side: Side: i i Combined Front/Rear: v,4445 Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: 4 EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ PAct- DF $200& Mr nÂ£mt s /7,9 ENCROACHMENTS: ove*. Â£*r Â£,NE t E VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elioible for Landmarks Onlv: character comoatibility finding must be made bv HPCE FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: 41 SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: Rear: Open Space (Commercial): Side: Height (Cottage Inlill Only): 39,> P Combined FrtlRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): - -/4.9 h 1977 T HISTORIC PARTIAL DEMOLITION APPLICATION ATTACHMENT 2 1. Attached please find a letter from the applicants, Tom and Noel Congdon, stating that Gretchen Greenwood is authorized to act on their behalf. 2. The street and legal address of the proposed development is as follows: 202 W. Francis St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots R and S, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 3. A Certificate of Title will be submitted under separate cover. 4. Attached please find the Vicinity map locating the subject parcel. 5. The proposed development includes a new addition and the restoration of an existing miner's cabin and stable on the property. Currently, the historic miner's cabin is not recognizable due to additions that were added to the residence in the 1970's. At that time of construction, there was no review process that encouraged the restoration and delineation of an historic building to a newer addition. In this proposal, the miner's cabin, that sits at the south west of the lot, and the stable, that sits at the very northeast part of the property, will be restored and exposed to its historic roots. The proposed addition will replace the construction that was built between the two historic buildings. This new addition will be a distinct architectural difference from the architecture of the Victorian miner's cabin and stable. Our goal in this proposed design, is to expose the original miner's cabin, both inside and outside of the building. The miner's cabin will remain in its original location. The 52 foot length of the old building makes it impossible to be moved for the addition of a new foundation. Therefore, the old wood foundation will be removed, while the building is underpinned and a new foundation will be added, by hand digging the excavation, underpinning the existing building and pouring a new foundation. The roof of the original cabin will be restored, and there are no new structures being added to this roof. The only attachment will be at the eave line of the east side roof eave, where a new roof from the adjacent structure will meet the eave line and a new drainage system will be added, to allow these two roof planes to drain water. This detail will not be seen from the street. Two double hung windows will be added to the south elevation of the miner's cabin, replacing a newer out of scale window. The windows that exist on the west elevation will be removed, and there will be no windows added to this west side. Due to the close proximity of the property line to the west wall, windows along that side are not allowed per Uniform Building Codes. Skylights will be added to the west roof toward the rear of the roof structure. The structure to the east of the miner's cabin that resembles the old miner's cabin, with the same size footprint and roof line will be removed, to further expose the true old building. There is evidence that the existing porch used to wrap around the side of the building to the east of the cabin. The porch will be restored around the side along with an old double hung window that existed on the east side of the building. The old stable at the rear of the property will remain in its original location. A slab on grade foundation system was added to the structure at some point in its history. The east elevation will remain as it exists now, with the old barn doors restored and new windows added for the new use of the building. New windows on the east and north side of the building will be added. Existing bubble skylights along the south roof will be removed and flat skylights that follow the slope of the building will be added. The new addition will attach to the stable at one corner of the building, not affecting the original form of the stable building. Drawings illustrating the proposed development and the proposed partial demolition and relocation are as follows: 1. Existing Survey of Site: Including Areas to be demolished 2. Existing South and East Elevation 3. Existing North and West Elevation 4. Existing Main Level Floor Plan 5. Proposed Site Plan: Illustrating the requested Setback variances 6. Proposed South Elevation 7. Proposed East Elevation 8. Proposed North Elevation 9. Proposed West Elevation 10. Proposed Main Level Floor Plan 11. Proposed Upper Level Floor Plan 12. Proposed 1/4" Scale Studio Accessory Dwelling Unit 13. An 1/8" architectural model will be presented at the HPC meeting. Specific Submission Contents for the Partial Demolition is attached as Attachment 3. The compliance with Partial Demolition Review Standards of this proposal is attached to this Development application as Attachment 4b. In addition, to the HPC application, the Board of Adjustment Variance request application is enclosed for the review and endorsement of the HPC for this development plan. The drawings that will be submitted to the Board of Adjustments are the same as drawings that are enclosed in the HPC application. ATTACHMENT 3 Specific Submission Contents: Application for Partial Demolition 1. The name of the structure proposed for partial demolition the Congdon residence. 2. The structure that is proposed for partial demolition was built in the 1960's and 70's. The old miner's cabin that will be restored was built in the 1890's and the stable that will be restored was also built in the 1890's. 3. A report from the licensed engineer regarding the construction plan will be submitted under separate cover. 4. An economic feasibility report that provides: A. The estimated market value of the property is $800,000.00. B. There is no economic feasibility to reuse the part of the structure that was built in the 1960's. It is feasible to reuse the old Miner's Cabin and The old Stable. C. There have not been any appraisals made on the property in many years. D. There is no information available that determines whether the property does yield a reasonable return on investment. 5. A development plan is being submitted as part of this application. ATTACHMENT 4b Review Standards: Application for Partial Demolition 1. This development plan minimizes the amount of demolition to the old buildings. The demolition of the newer part of the building that is currently between the old buildings, does not distinguish the old buildings. Through the demolition and redevelopment of the old buildings, the miner's cabin and stable will be historically visual, while the addition between these two old buildings will be of more modern design, thus further delineating the old from the new. 2. The development plan mitigates the following: a. The major part of the demolition to this parcel will be the structure that was built in the 1970's, between the two old buildings. b. The architectural integrity of the structures are maintained due to this development. j PROPOSED VARIANCES FOR 202 W. FRANCIS ST Description of Development Proposal The development at 202 W. Francis includes a new addition and the restoration of a Victorian miner's cabin and stable that was built on the property in the late 1800's. Currently, the historic miner's cabin and stable buildings are not recognizable due to additions that were added to the old buildings in the early 1970's. At that time of construction, there was no review process that encouraged the restoration and delineation of an historic building to a newer addition. In this development, we propose to expose the old miner's cabin and stable to its historic roots, both inside and outside the buildings. This will be accomplished by removing the non historic additions from the original historic buildings and by rebuilding a new addition between these two old structures, that does not compete or swallow up the old buildings. The proposed new addition will be a distinctly different architectural style from the Victorian style of the miner's cabin and stable. The result will be a strong distinction between what is old and what is new. The miner's cabin, which sits at the western side of the property will remain in its historical location. It will also retain its historic height. The stable which sits at the north east corner of the property currently sits outside the property line. The stable will also remain in that existing historical location and retain its historical height. A concrete slab on the existing grade is the current foundation system for the stable. Therefore, it is impossible to relocate the building. The building will be remodelled in its existing location. It is the intention of our overall design to accomplish two goals. The first is not to allow the addition that is added on to the rear, to swallow up the miner's cabin. We have purposely designed the addition to the north of the miner's cabin, to prevent any construction from being built on top of the old roof. The second goal is not to create a tall house, that would be considered a "monster house" â€ž We have purposely kept the new roof height to the same roof height as the stable, in order to maintain a small scale presence from the street. cont. Page 2 The result of this development plan will be a 3 bedroom house, one car garage, carport and 1 studio accessory dwelling unit (A.D.U.). The following drawings are attached for your review: 1. Existing Survey of Site: Including Areas to be demolished. ' 2. Existing South and East Elevation 3. Existing North and West Elevation 4. Existing Main Level Floor Plan 5. Proposed Site Plan: Illustrating the requested Setback variances. 6. Proposed South Elevation 7. Proposed East Elevation 8. Proposed North Elevation 9. Proposed West Elevation 10. Proposed Main Level Floor Plan 11. Proposed Upper Level Floor Plan 12. Proposed 1/4" Scale Studio Accessory Dwelling Unit 13. An 1/8" architectural model will be presented at the HPC meeting. In order to develop this property without losing the historical identity and importance of the miner's cabin and stable, the following variances are requested. VARIANCES REQUESTED 1. VARIANCE OF 9% ON ALLOWABLE SITE COVERAGE TO 49% TOTAL Percent of Allowable Site Coverage: 40% or 2,400 sq.ft. Percent of Existing Site Coverage: 56% or 3,350 sq.ft. Percent of Proposed Site Coverage: 49% or 2,950 sq.ft. cont. Page 3 The hardship justification for granting this variance is due to the existing historic buildings on the property. This proposal specifically preserves the buildings in their entirety, including the roofs and overhangs of the old miner's cabin and stable. There is no construction proposed for the top of these existing buildings. The roof of the old miner's cabin is only 15 feet above grade, which could allow for a significant addition on top of this structure. The proliferation of huge additions on top of these modest miner's cabins in the West End, are not only out of scale, but the history and architectural significance of the miner's buildings are removed forever. By allowing a 10% variance on the allowable site coverage, the miner's cabin can be preserved as well as the stable, and the architectural heritage of this West End property can be maintained. In addition, this property as existing, has a total site coverage of 3,350 square feet. This development proposal will reduce that number by 400 square feet. Because this property sits on a corner, the site coverage impact is minimal. There is another 19 feet of lawn from the property line to both the paved areas of First Street and Francis Street. The preservation methods supported by the Historic Preservation Commission and this application, supports minimal demolition to old buildings, when new additions are built on to these structures. By allowing the site coverage variance, there is no need to have to add on top of these old buildings and they will be able to be preserved. This proposal improves the existing site coverage condition and the historic integrity of the miner's cabin and stable, as well as the architectural heritage of the West End. cont. Page 4 2. VARIATION ON THE TOTAL FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT Allowable Total Front and Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet with a minimum requirement of 10 feet. Existing Total Front and Rear Yard Setback: The existing total front and rear yard setbacks are non conforming. The dimensions vary from a total of 24 feet to 11' -6". Proposed Total Front and Rear Yard Setback: The proposed variance request is the following: A variation of 8'-6" on the total front and rear yard requirement for a distance of 10 feet; a variation of 4' -0" on the total front and rear yard requirement for a distance of 18'- 6" for the rear property line. These dimensions are illustrated on the drawing labelled Site Plan, Exhibit B. The hardship justification for granting this variance is due to the fact that the old miner's cabin has always been historically located in its present position on the property. This location will be preserved as part of the historic restoration of this proposal. The miner's cabin has always been located from 11'-6" to 16'-0" from the south property line. The 52'-0" length of the cabin makes it impossible to move the building on top of a new foundation, therefore the building will remain where it is, and a new foundation will be built underneath it. As has been outlined in this proposal, the new addition will be built to the north of the miner's cabin and will not encroach on the old miner's cabin. The new addition meets the rear yard minimum requirement of 10 feet. The stable will not be relocated within the property line, as the building sits on a concrete structural slab foundation. This proposal calls for the demolition of a building that is presently attached to the stable. This non historic building will be removed, thus reducing the non conformity and 'encroachment of part of the building. No setback variances are * requested for this part of the building, as the building will be remodelled in its existing location. cont. Page 5 3. VARIATION ON THE TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT Allowable Side Yard requirement: Minimum side yard requirement is 5'-0" and 6.66"(for a corner lot at the side yard). Total requirement of both side yards is 15 feet. Existing Side Yard requirement: Side yard along west property line is 9" to 4'-0". Side yard at the stable is 0'-0". Proposed Side Yard Variation: The variation is as follows: A Total Side Yard setback variation of 10'-0" on the total Side Yard setback requirement, for a distance of 7'-0" at the east property line at the stable building. These dimensions are on the drawings labelled Site Plan, Exhibit B. The hardship justification for granting this variance is due to the historical location of the stable on the property. The stable has maintained its position on the northeast corner of the property since it was built. No side yard setback is being requested for the west setback at the miner's cabin, because the building is not being moved or changed from its original location. In addition, no side yard setback is being requested for the portion of the stable that sits on the east property line for a distance of 10 feet, because the building is remaining in an existing location. cont. Page 6 4. VARIATION ON THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Allowable Off Street Parking requirement: 1 per bedroom Existing Off Street Parking: Total number of existing bedrooms are 4. Total existing parking spaces is 1. Proposed Off Street Parking: Total number of proposed bedrooms is 3. Total proposed parking spaces is 2. A variation of 1 space is requested. The hardship justification for granting this variation on the parking requirement is again due to the preservation of the historic quality of the property. The property originally had an east lawn. Through the removal of the non historic additions on the old structures, the historic lawn will be restored. It is encouraged by the Aspen zplanning Department that garages and carports be accessed off the alley. This proposal concentrates the parking to alley at the rear of the property, where the garage and carport are being developed. In order to meet the parking requirement, parking would have to be developed on the east historic lawn, and this would destroy the historical integrity of a corner lawn for the historic residence as well as for the West End neighborhood. The off street parking provided in this proposal is increased from the present number of one parking space to a total of two spaces. In addition, the need for more parking at this property is less because it is a corner lot. SUMMARY OF VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 202 W. FRANCIS 1. A VARIATION ON THE SITE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF 40% BY 7% TO A TOTAL SITE COVERAGE OF 50% OR 3,000 SQUARE FEET. 2. A VARIATION ON THE TOTAL FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS: A. 8'-6" FOR A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND 4'-0" FOR A DISTANCE OF 19 FEET AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. 3. A VARIATION ON THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AT THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT THE STABLE, FOR THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION: A. 10'-0" FOR A DISTANCE OF 7' -0" ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT THE STABLE. 4. A VARIATION OF ONE (1) PARKING SPACE ON THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 1 1 1. t//\ -1 - 1- 1. 1 2- 1 FIGURE 111.2 .-. A -1 e}rÂ®Y 0ii *Uhfc S AND STRUCTURES : Â· LEGEND -e- 2986 UPD E Exfvatign/Li/8&*Ell 'SÂ¢,EN, COL . ~F ' d,*ted I ..1 . not yet designated O 0 -- . l ES_Lmo.IER. Pâ€¢-82â€¢0 44=-4*n-- e.Â« not yet des*=ted A I designated A .. 1 . I ., . .00 % 1 ... Slawining.12 not yet designated O designated â€¢ fu ' . t -9 I--- : QK*1~-2!16&!M 0 99muEFEUMInmGIB 1 O . Â£â‚¬93EQmmZI2UmllX-M]Kle .. -< 41-n lake 3.west bleekerkaÂ«am street I . 0-- I I N Â· 500-,unity duch . Cip 6-Nfl 1 I .. .. . . I \ -- .... \*trai 1 01 W. FÂ».N C/S ..... . . r.u - tu;YOM â€¢ - L.20 UZ~ .................._ ..... U.49,- - - 7 ( CORN EA RF 1 ' 11 â€¢EII[1] 7,11 qi P - 1-7115 Â· . Â· LA'a l K mu:ij , : 9/inbvib)- 0 â€¢ di Ul_:31 -111111- 1 & 1 . 8 b 6-6- 17/-* 167 + Aflus) V ~ Ng=p,~rrn,râ€¢ rr,r..nn.r...... - - , ...... ...unuld â€¢.1314*:t UIDEIU [Illilli [WÂ»11!1 , s .i: 0 - . 1 30 - - Â·:j Iliwlm i:rWIi!Ni]OII!1] 1]Â¤1HI'II]W']I Timm ........ ua.u.u .1 ~ 7. 1. fihIEN[:5:11*i .1116'111 IIHIHIN 1;iil]11'.[3Ez| !1~::;icl ' '1 4 - ---. D. .... .. [IllifINÂ·nmiIA; ~~lm#Bi inimiNI -ilili;11 ][AW]ii -1%~ 13:iiii J--I- ....-/- 1- -- - . I. . gli,!Nitti mmre'EWID. mimm,@ti~, *1Â®. .Allrliro . 1........ I .. Â· 1[IU[flil [1IlliI~mIN]imumn:lowliI] EWE]! 1*M'UNED'.ili-illmWIHII - FQK . -O - - _ ~Cili[| WHQ UUM~-ll!11!Wk!ll.*lUS laZ.U. Bltl:J-198Â®1Â· l!11C l*! ly@Ill' 11*121 Ill!llll1i 0-- - c -- -.bc: 0 - I.ITIW[in i=mÂ· mWI!11 mCiEN '..' U1111111]illimul].1111111111!tul:l!111.'id:*11 1 :11 1 , 11 0 11[limh .-- . . 14/ !11*~.-*.ImcI 11%%*11.wmHRi/Â·%111Â· 1 F mTTmn i 4 1]nfiI iI[Em~~pilii;i -L:QiI[im]~mili~~0~ EQ]I[1[[[1 61~16.1 120Â£ ,/mun 1-W Pe . 1 -- - F . I -milmfili . ... . . 1.b-. , 0 . 9 . â‚¬. 0112,r- . 5 1 . dil=Â¥Hi 1 - . - - ' 11/4.U \.:- -- /*<102 J - -â‚¬D- 1 exleÂ·TIHIâ€¢ bl-e erÂ»PI-5 -~L_f7 ItT I 'lte.E_.tl,MEEk.ECRIA - T Â«Â»-- Gretchen 06 12'F ,?f _EN, ..1 !|I lili J 1 1 1-.i . Greenwood & Associates, Inc 201 North Mill Stâ„¢el limmImmi -42 - -- --------.- - - - &~MT) Suite 207 Aspen, Coloradu 81611 303-925-4502 - 11 11 11 ~g 11 11 1 11 1 11 11 lil i 1 1 ~ 11 11 11 11 111 1111111 ~111 I lilli 111111 1111 111'lit - 1*,4-4.# I 99- 1 Â»T- 1 H # 14 0 9- -F H 0 6 t:zr- -r- 1 0 0 4 Exterrible 06 P 1. 0,01*TI Ne MINFIC'Â·9 e'Â»IN | /7-3-' 1 ~-f-~>T~ J 4for gpr-4 --TUT*m?/ _1 ~-1 1-/FÂ« UM'FFÂ»/~12~ D,mi.th SCALE: 1[EEEE31LLUH lazz=dip"" 11-~rEED: ==111 --=11~~11======1 2-ToinÂ¥*r----7- JOB: DATE ISSUED: Ltul INNI Â©001[242[4]lual= 1 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY ~ f-Â·p.r â€¢,rlâ€¢rf'3!~~ --- ---~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ REVISIONS T :*.0 - --.-- ---- ---4 ------- - 1 -1- 1 /6'For eger fi--9 4 - j E I 1, 1 ly) ' -- Allâ€¢Th,4, >P'C'~ ~ ~- ihilLE!22-22=Ell- iL At - to 92 Irl- Â·1*~9" , 47 0 AT 8 - - %9< 1 Â«T 1- H 63' -- j i â€¢ 11' 807< I ef I N 60 0,2 MIN E*A# Crf> IH - - - Gretchen le - - -I - Greenwood & Assocutes, Inc, - - - - 201 North Mill Street Suite 207 - Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-4502 --- 1 1 1 1 11 * - --~ili~~~~~g~~~g*~E~EEZEZEE~ . -81&2111-,EEÂ«- 4 U Bvr--7 0.14 -,U:21!3I1!12 0'~ ~ eT,- 8 p & G I - - - - -- I ~ I- 34/0--PE - _ SCALE -- JOB. DATE ISSUED: 1 DRAWN BY 1 CHECKED BY REVISIONS: 1 - 49/ 3 fl.-23-13iR--Ece.i_k-h-k-Z-z=L-Li-r4 - -07< I Â«I NG - J, 42'-24 14 -2->C . .-/ 1 11 . FÂ»> per-ly 1/In< 7 el; J 11 'ED 1.4 91 - -11 1 r 11 r q - - - + 1.1 -1 . i Malt 2-gge//1/lim-/1</2/"A k 0_ 1 - I Gretchen Greenwood & Abbaciates, InkÂ·. 201 North Mill Street , Suite 207 06-*for F-fl | Aspen. Colorado 81611 9 411'-O' 303-925-4502 '1 ~fule'-26 -r-, 9 p=====.~ ... .1 - Arr,r ..,0 r-K ~r â€ž~ ~0~~ Le, ~12'F'of ~â€¢T-â€¢ M.M 'le -9 21 1 rh . 1 11 US/1Â» 1 n 11 9 0-1 1. M u tr---10 M 4 5 e P - . - 4 -- - SCALE: JOB: ' DATE ISSUED t DRAWN BY CHECKED BY REVISIONS: 22'12. 4 1 15 ,>6. 1 1 2/>< Co-1 Htâ€¢ MITIN 1-6-VE, t- F 6 00% F L~*- hi 1 0 161.17,1, P. ,ME I Â£9 , , - 41 - Al -0 04" 5 / 1 [le 0 1 09<04-1H e ' . Â»F"r'41 -0 . 4 . : - QN YevLM _ 9. . FAÂ·ITÂ¢ Fb'~ 1 -- 11../ yrfuÂ«w* m 191,011 t 1 1 --1- 07<1*TING 1. ., LI//1//12LII- . KE,*AÂ· Hf : / .:1 . V rubey - .. %74 t # 4 1. 1 . 1 11 A-o . 1 2 * 1.,fo'*|Pey/FIP 90T 0Â«1<2 44 -~09-L- F.624 1 A*IMNT ' 4 1 -TE, F L Â» N F-i FÂ»-1-I Â«U 4 9 J/k" ~ 1 LOI Fl"Ng 1,5 *r. 1 1 MIN &129 cr- *IN 44-666 4 . 1 / f I t li 1 1 1 1 1 - - Â· il ~ , 2 .- \ 4% - - i - / .4 -- A---| r - 1 -7 1 21*127 -1 -- 1. -- riwpe==z-riw.1-- - _I . II-13/bid -1NWIWITRI'TWITIa/&,34Iliali-- 101-~ 21: Ui~**~~~*~~U;A*UL.I,UNUU14~Uâ€¢4W1*UZ-~--jzy.t~t.~lu:--998:jj~Â¥14,4.*.0 j 790709-to 47 01\19_9\ _â‚¬Aft,Vr--r\06 % - 0,F MIN *0'9 ,/99 ' 01/ 7 +17-9 b & '- LI , 1 1 i| 8 i Ii .1 1 lili \ 1 1 ~ 111 ~ :~,~~ean .-t ----- - 11 1 1 1 /72 1 i 1 I.- 1 1, , 1 1 .1 11 1 i , ilil'' 1 11 - 1 '1 1 L! 1 -1 ,-11 -fJI T-7,Ef-: ~ 1 1 1 j 70 -4 -0. 01~17 Â«-0- PI,4 4 4 4 1 It It 1 - ilt 1.' 1 1 - --- 1 r L il- 11 p 1 ~ .la - 1 7 0 1 .l .1 ~ 1 I kil Z j i i i - 1 1 1 .====1 1 i 1 1 -- !11 -1 lili. 2 Â»44b.w1 \;,44"Al-?.1 Aut' ,!.- 4- ~' i..~' '~13:'10 -11 --ill :tl' 1 4 11+1'CT' - le:'1 ill 1 lilli 1 1 - 1=1= 1 1 j 2,00 7048, p_--- Ad o te-FM -E>-1,- 0>vr *r lot4 727 - ~ A +r----7-#f-it;!tr-r77-1--+ '4 Il; 1452 1 1 111 lili 111 1 1 --1---t ad; 11 1 11 1 1 :11:ill! 11 ---- LE:]1.,iFFU E---1 Ii- -- 4- - -31.1=11 ---- -----------------=====Z===Z:=~3" 11 .7---1 ---1 ''El-l-Z-2-I--t--------. 1 .'ir/VE.9,//311 - I ---& - - --I +-- 11====49==1 11 1 1 - Fgo Foe 9 7 1,4 0_*-I-- p L e \(tiT ' 0-IN - -197 11 -2 11- O 11 - 1 -1 M I 1 1 1 1 r--- Â¢_L Alz'-1 ft.1 --1-- -IA ur 1-0 0*1 fl, oved u N rr 3 .1 74 1 Jr Â· Ft AiN /2 FFI Â· #fp M 1 In AIF-ha- r -- ' ' F i~-9 . 1 , . t-rl . 1-Lt . c./9.rge I 1 1. AEFY Â· Un - 1 1 1 PH unt 21$N ,"-4 U4 L.lv 1 h!,7 KM I Ilrl 4 43- VIN] - 4.-slok PN rvelâ‚¬#Ivt j C~TfC MVI H LEÂ·~/ 01/ FLooF FL, 14 fl PE 96 4 2 re 0- 'Lot i - - -7 C==4, I - 2~~1 1 N'I Flmie'M' UN rf 1 - 1 1 i I I L Or 6 11 It ~IL_ 119 1 0 U Â©re ' 1 1. trf#*LM - 1 I i n_ 3271 ON -- 1 6 1 U lu~ I 08Â·PpwoM 0 1_ Li FFER- 1.8-v' 8,1, Fl, 466 1'1.0-11 99 11 4 'Lo 11 I PMTF 4:E 1 1 1 ; 4 4 ---3* Â«ilf 1/ 4. ar-'11710 1 -1 1 0 -9 j 00 >- 1/1/ Fy %1Â«1 F L, 0 7 0, 0 UN lÂ« FLoo K. FLF-fl 0 +7 00 AM. 9%71 5//4/ 11 Â¢ 150, Â»Â»,Ly-,>AP 1/ 7 \ Â« 0 131Â®0-hA l 0) -, 6#> , 12 2-09. 4 3r f 1,22 3Â« Lai Â« 67/3 D-n >g >drt +743 - X 127F -,(/ 1/4 7Â¢11 4 / p VÂ¢ 7)- 0--rr_ h Ff 777-5 mg MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 435 W. Main Street, L'Auberge- Significant Development PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 14, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicants request HPC approval for a Conceptual Development plan which includes a 206 sq, /ft. addition to the existing manager's residence (previously approved by HPC), an 84 sq. ft. addition to the laundry, construction of 13 new guest cabins, and a minor reconfiguration of the site plan.1 The existing F.A.R. on the site, which encompasses an entire half-block, is 4,647 sq. ft., and the proposed F.A.R. is 9,755 sq.ft. The allowable F.A.R. is 20,250 sq.ft. The cabins on this site were built in the 1950's. Although they have not been listed on the Historic Inventory, they do contribute to the character of the Main Street Historic District and do represent early lodge/ski chalet development. APPLICANTS: ALH Holding Co., represented by Gibson and Reno. LOCATION: 435 W. Main St., Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: See attached information, provided by the applicants. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: This project will be competing for a tourist accomodation allotment in the Growth Management Quota System process. A formal application must be submitted by January 15th, and the applicant must have received Conceptual approval at that time. The proposal will also be reviewed as a P.U.D., under which the applicant may request the setback and parking variances described in the application. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and 4 with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The applicant wishes to expand the number of lodge rooms available on the site and has used the existing small cabins as a model for their redevelopment proposal. The intention is to create a small "village" with pedestrian paths that wind through the lodge. The parcel is surrounded by historic resources, with the Christiana lodge to the west, a Queen Anne house and Floradora across the street, and another Queen Anne house to the east. The applicant describes the new cabins as having a Victorian character, and also proposes to alter the existing cabins by adding new trim and changing some siding. Staff does not support either of these actions. The existing cabins were built in the 50's, and although they have not been designated historic, they are worthy of preserving in their original character, a chalet style. New development on the site should respect that character and not try to imitate the adjacent Victorian buildings. Main Street is an eclectic neighborhood with other styles besides those from the Victorian period. The manager's house, which was presumably built more recently than the cabins, is compatible with them and with the rest of the historic district without exactly imitating either. The design for the two level cabin seems to be most problematic in its detailing and its relationship to the street. The entrances to these cabins are not visible from the street, and because of below grade space they are elevated and have windows which are about 6' off of the ground. (The below grade space helps to keep the height down to 18'.) Staff recommends that two story cabins only be located at the rear of the property. This will alleviate some of the streetscape concerns and will also allow more of a view into the property. The general concept of this proposal, new development in the form of small cabins, is appropriate, however, the site now appears to be very densely developed. There are arguments to be made for completing the street edge by bringing development forward on this property, but the open space that exists now is also important to Main Street. Staff suggests that the architect study the possibility of combining a few of the units into one building to provide more variety on the site. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The required parking spaces for the site (25) are not appropriate to the historic district and Staff recommends that HPC support the applicant's request to P&Z that a portion of those spaces be waived. In addition, parking spaces should be grasscrete where possible. 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 adjacent parcels. Response: Staff finds that the proposal may detract from the value of adjacent resources if it is styled to imitate Victorian structures. This diminishes the visual prominence and importance of the true historic resources. 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: No designated historic structures are directly affected by this proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the development proposal as submitted. 2) Approve the development with conditions to be satisfied for Final HPC consideration. 3) Table the Conceptual Review with conditions. 4) Deny the Conceptual Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC table the application to January 11th, with the following recommendations. Please note that the applicant has a January 15th deadline for the GMQS application. 1) The detailing of the existing cabins should not be altered. 2) The detailing of the two story cabins should be restudied so that it does not reference Victorian architecture, and there should also be better definition of the entryway and lowering of the window height if possible. 3) The two story cabins should only be located at the rear of the site. 4) HPC should support the applicant's request to P&Z that the number of required parking spaces be reduced. As many parking spaces as possible that can be grasscrete would be preferable. Additional comments: t- 0 1 ASIIACEMENr 1 1 IAND USE APPI:Ial:ION FaRM -) Project Name C AveaRGE Project locati~n 455 W. MA, A 6,7 ,4*SA2,4 - CeÂ· Lart A 7Â» g u I aux:+ 38 Wante street ixldress, lot & block timber, legal descciption Were appropriate) " 3) Present Zoning 0 OFF<E 4) Iot Size 51 ApplicantI s Mame, Dilaress & 1?tâ€¢re i ~4LA,4 ~101.1> 1~46 <;> . , ~5 \Al. H A, N 91*.Eer, ASPEN. Co. 925 8297 61 Pepreser*ative's liane, 12=ess & 2*xe i G# 2~Â»N 1 RENO AEâ€¢*mae, '240 E NÂ¥#AÂ·~) Ate,* 201, ASPEN 4 60. 919Â· 576,9 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Colditional Use Oonoeptual SPA ~ Coneeptial Historic Dev. Special Review - Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual. POD -*--- Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin - Final PUD Historic Demolition MOUIitain View Plane - Subdjvision Historic Desigratian Oondominiumization Text/Map Amendment 00 Allotment Iat Split/Int Line - QCS Exexption Â· Adjust:merft 8) Description of Existing Uses (nunber ani type of eocisting- structures; approodmate sq. ft.; rumber of bedroans; any previous approvals grant-pa to the pmperty). N l NE (GU â‚¬97- CAR t /46 EN 91- C-lD'04{- 9.G ta SF) 1 Pus A . 12- R. MA W AGERS' RES, DENCe WITH CoVEREE> PARKOUG- 0-ror-AL /774- 93, FLUS LAUNPRÂ·/ 4 0#-Ficâ‚¬ 023-rat- /1-7 9-h 1 C Ger,ve 757*- 44 47 9:- ~ 9) Description of Development Application Fko F>oSE TD ADD '296 *F -lb MA,JAGERâ‚¬ 1<KEE>( DE,JaE, 8>4- ip -TO 'LAUM.PRH AND 1 35 NEW QU Efor- CANNI'b <De Il 4818 69 ~Â·~ 6108 9, NEW CÂ©Wirel]C:noN~t W n-W Nlk/OR. O,8-43*396 -70 Ez<./ 93170Â·/G- CAS/,96. ) Have you attached the following? Response to Attachment 2, Minlizzlm Sulxnissim 00[Itents Response to Attachment 3, Specific Subnission antents Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application llllll SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear. fullY=labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11 x17-, OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11-xl T format. APPLICANT: A LA Mo Ln / A/GÂ· . Co. ADDRESS: 495 \N. MA, d 'Err, ASPE= 54 Co . 15) " (DF=F(cE: ZONE DISmICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): 2-1, 00 0 9-F EXISTING FAR: . 17 : 1 ALLOWABLE FAR: . 75 : j PROPOSED FAR: * ' 34 : 1 EXISTING NET LEASABLE (commercial): 25 4-3 OF PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (commercial): 67 7 2 SF EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: 6 70 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 3+ 7 EXISTING % OFOPEN SPACE (Commercial): 44 70t PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (Commer.): .25 7. 1 EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldo.: ll / Accessory Bldo: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Princioal Bldg.: /8 / Accessory Bldc: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: 5 1 EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 11 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 2+ EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 11 ve ae ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 243 r (ser 8Â¥ 5,92,41. 126\.//aJj SETBACKS: EXISTING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: Front: Front: 10' Front: 2, Reac 4, Rear: I5' Rean 02 ' Side: 0, Side: Side: Combined Front/Rear: Combined Frt/Rr: Combined Front/Rear: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ SETE>AC{<36 4ll- 9,1)6: LoDGE US,166 /6.3"0*'204&: ENCROACHMENTS: CAR>/ NI -Â£1- -7' ENIC,2 .OACHeb Ok) CITY PRofeA--r7 VARIATIONS REQUESTED (elicible for Landmarks Only: character comoatibility finding must be made bY HPCE FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildngs: 3.5 Pr, SETBACKS: Front: 2' Parking Spaces: Rear: 2' Open Space (Commercial): 10 70 Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): Combined FrtlRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 12-2-94 DAVID GIBSON, L'AUBERGE AIA Al!Gled Conceptual Development Plan for Significant Development iRE.NO in the Historic Overlay District AIA Discussion of Review Standards and Plan Contents SCOTT The L'Auberge Lodge property occupies the entire North half SMITH. of Block 38, with 270 feet of Main Street frontage, including AIA nine detached cabins and a manager's residence. The proposal is to allow the existing structures to remain, and to add an ... A additional 13 guest cabins to the site. This design would represent a full "build-out" for the property but would constitute a gross floor area of only.36 : 1, or less than half of that allowable. GIBSON Â· RENO The new cabins are designed to extend and repeat the scale, Â·ARCHITECTSÂ· l[l texture, rhythm and spacing of the existing cabins, creating a small scale pedestrian-friendly environment along Main Street, and on the interior of the site. The auto access utilizes the two 210 E. HYMAN existing entrances from Main Street, and becomes a 12' wide "Village Street" through the interior of the site, providing both NÂ° 202 a spacial focus and guest pedestrian concourse at the same ASPEN time. This concourse is punctuated at east and west ends with a COLORADO common whirlpool spa beside a mature evergreen tree. 81611 Individual porches, gardens, and two fountins also complete the "Village Setting". 303.925.5968 FACS IMILE - The integrity and prominence of the original cabins is enhanced 303.925.5993 by providing new cabins of similar scale and spacing which completes the fabric of the block.. Meanwhile, the new cabins exhibit a more "Victorian" character, with clapboard siding and comer board trim on the 1 1/2 story cabins, and vertical board P.O. BOX 278 and batten siding on the new 1-story cabins. Wood windows 117 N. WILLOW NÂ° 2 and entry doors and porch brackets are proposed, along with corrugated metal roofing. TELLURIDE j COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 L'AUBERGE December 2, 1994 Page 2 For the existing cabins, the existing vertical board and batten siding, roofing, and windows and doors are all proposed to remain. New trim is proposed to be added, at the base, head, gable ends, and around windows and doors. The existing "river rock" veneer and cedar fencing used throughout will be matched in the new fencing and stone entry piers. In summary; the cabins of L'Auberge are a unique feature of Aspen's Main Street. The Conceptual Development Plan proposes to retin, extend, and strengthen this concept, and to ,, , integrate the old cabins into a new lodge design which will ensure the use and enjoyment of this unique cultural and architectural asset for Aspen for many years to come. lauber12.doc R F n L,1 . ~-M-U /\ 4 r :)4<>< C. 9 1, - - '. .: r.. 19 \ -Â·- O " r - 5 v l-<44\ - - *41 # Nightha 46\ 4-0 .: Â¢ 8444 ~ 9 . C~ 38 1 1 V\43 23>44. 4,_ /97 ,%,~ i *4 b 9 16! / 4/ \- op. â„¢ #cy ,+0. 1- 0- ~ Homestake Dr Â£ 0 p ~~ Mountain View Dr 1 4 - __ V~%4 XLY â‚¬ Rd SOO'Â¥ 6 14 -I j L \ 069 d 0,7,7 29 / 0 1 m f' 4 Snow unny Ct j ! 9Â«\ 4, - ---92<24\ AN To Basalt 408 Sterrs f 0 - .Â£108 '@5. 43 6 <1 47 Aspen . Â»4. 21 & 29' Institute -- --- -'. it Hunter 0 d? 1 3 1 / i - 3 w 3 ; u..1 /f~#r) i i k 0 b MUSiC g. t O 2 Tent Wood Duck Ln <4 0 0 0 1 9 . Gillespie St 1 2 Pe rl Ct 4 0 Golf Course 4 -o , b 44 91 7 47 47 Smo * Vine St e Â¢ 1 C- F ncts St t , -4 C 1 19 Race f b ls, 9 4 -%42 - C Maroon Creek Rd -~ 1 4 f #/4 - - 4 4,6 42. ...\ 11 out A V Ch 1 I St , 1 Pk '45> 1 46.*424+ Sawmill rancl .//7 st : >03202 41 i i 4 C .8 0 1. 1 4 Lb 4 1 4/3 <i Â¥ 29- 8 c Hosp % 1 ic V- . 'i & 4 e,, 4 444 St â‚¬- 4 4*4 40 uggi#I t fo " 6 0 . 0 2 s 8 ent St pcimrose path / To o ec + 4Â£4 4~~4.15 4 . 55 2 0 4 $ 7 , . 'Grof Maroon Lake et 1, f \ d e,* Â·44, St r e & Q Man C A. po r 4 le %/ 4 De e ', Da/e m p Ae~ Â¢ #f 40 Larkspur Ln b 1, 1 2 Jic'/ 2 Gil na 'c & C e / e 14 o 2 Summt: St ~~ I k &a&**4 <.~ 7~)~ ~.*44* As n Grove 3 As \ Ips M R re 0 4 WestÂ¥/ew 2 2 400 ute pl (.8 Â· i. &> t). /9444~ 2%,s~~:004*Dr lG ----9ys al ke Ad Stllt.. ?0 9. 9<9 2 0 44 0,4 VICINITY MAP ToTwinlakes Independence Pass J '00,1, paw JS Ion.Ids al;5eo Laurel Or er .0,#ne Laurel Mtn I. -. -- ./.- . La 44/N (,00.Do. 1.,DE, l STREET 873~090//.E %- 26$.86 t rel , 7</46 5/ N ~ ~"~ ~UBDivia" lorsi : A.I. foN , BLOCK 38 . 7â‚¬ --27---- :rT- RZ:*c,y, .......... V CO . OC' '/4 1-=L -1 - L 1 r.-Â· I 1-Â·-- 1 9 -- - 7-- hu n o O 0 10 20 40 60 80 0 . SCALE rÂ· 20' $,>i: 0 IL h # 4 r---0 ..Eak ..,t ,Â»64 - EASIS OF IARING FOUND MONuIENTSAS SHOwN -- ..Q*Â£~ - -.-41~re , / 2421 I '13* : , / .~Le*14/LTELL.4.-Il._ ~- Â°lf/'/b F -u~'LE{9&2AR.F<RL<Â£~6...URATECY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON AuGUST 2.1978 / COLORADO -2 -88 .4====a, La len fr--22-27 3 9 % CFLOTS --1,8LOC-38~(3-0.~NAL ASPEN Â·reNÂ·Iti..PtN. ~ li,LEY Â»10â‚¬,- b, JAMES F RESEA ALANE SURVEYS JANUARY 0 , Â¢980 IS 9184 -~nuffi P SURVEYOR"5 CERTIFICATE: I ./Eer ./.TIFY TwiT air i.....Der /, PIll / ER Â¥e/4 INSPECTICN wt QEN' U.Oe' MY' Sure/- Vee, a= LFT L FEKKINS SUEO,V,5,019,61 TY- CF 19;EN, CXDKeD NO (*ANGef WEI:E FOUND //S//T a Erar.N m/O NOTED eeR/04 .ele ce 0157*4CEÂ·5Â· C../BEN Itume , 21Â©F INE, I. J.) 1 84 111' AL-Fire 5Ume/5, eNE eÂ·r - I ec' 5{FrEMete. 05, I,13 LS SITE SURVEY Alpine Surveys S...,- 2 AUG 1978 1'8 A-slor* ntle BOUNDARY SI,RVEY/UFC}*TE JoÂ¢No 78-154Â·4 [*anÂ« 11 AUG !978 DIi REORAW 28 JAN. 1980 Client PERKINS Post Offic, 8,* 1730 1 SHOW ..TIOMAL CABINS I PAOPOSED NEW LOT LI. PERKINO OUDDIVIMON Asp~ Colofâ€¢00 6/11 . '5 13 22 (FD,rE,).(UIT i) ZUTILITY LOCATOS (upt;Kre 7 Il Â£ 303 925 2688 CIr 1 Pe'EN' al.Ce,~00 ~ 1 '.Â©e 4TH STREET 1 -1 1 12 14=i 1 9-3 Omve 1 - L_L__ 0 -----=I 0 / = -' -~ i~ f , E fieUELF*:il 2 -t W n m . m 2-0, - -O - li g L-------1 ~1 rn- 0- =rer.,1 1 . I m .h MA---- 1 0 1 4 20 U e yuMT __ j r- - All 1 1Â»4= -- 1 ''1 1 1 1 100.00 ft. e 380 STREET 0 CLE] 1 11 .0 ~ L'AUBERGE Â£ iii! L .. i , . 1 14 ~ :m 6 ~i : iÂ® ;i 1 it:t I Et 9â‚¬1 ~ ~ &11 435 WEST MAIN STREET 46T, w[&!1 -rr,M ASPEN, COLORADO C m M i i Flee,DEACE BED )liDia Aellv NV-ld t1OO7=I E]NI.1-SIXa t Le-1 4 -Â·-_.nai~_ O-' â€¢câ€¢â€¢LZEIE f=I-+--irl-~-- _ 7-Fri-9 7 . 3/Â®g / 00 -1 1-111111 lilli L EAST NORTH 4 f r------------. 1 , t:~ im EmER 1 0 " fi = SOUTH LIF l.f AICHItiCT; r -_- 7 777-1 + GIBSONÂ·REN â€¢*moo FLOOR PLAN U< w t ImI!111, M Ull 2 I#Il,I i~i~~1~ 1,, W L 10 20 FT. TYPICAL COTTAGE (#21 .1." 4 ..40â€¢V 10â€ž1.-6, WESÂ¥ 3 EXISTING PLAN and El-EVATIONS 3983804,1 13381.S NIVW 1.S3At SEâ€¢ 00Â¥1:10100'NadSV , % - 7~121 -Â°:irÂ» 16-bL~=_ ' _Li.ZaÂ£12~ d * 1 riANMVI"Jorwrd/-1 hz'MNII~'-1!0'111LBillÂ®*MI --- - NOATH ELEVATION -8 E ~71 / cz---cittic 6---- 1 EAST ELEVATION f .--*42 W 5 ii@SL Â©14*' W Ul *// f.fe Lke 0 8 =81/i~ rEr. 1 1 4 = â‚¬ 14 - *0 1 1 11,11:11: 4 11 1 1 1 -1.4 -1 2 *f SOUTH ELEVATION GIBSONÂ·RENO 111 1 -1 10 25 50 FT ... 09 0,1344 tÂ¥ . 4 - CL~ __~ -U4- 41.U 111,12!LI 'Ii,!412i,!lili!!1,1.121IalL&.".".",##a~.~ 1 .41'. 4 WEST ELEVATION EXISTING ELEVATIONS 133H1S NIVM 193* SCY /-'.....G:ni~ "Â· -1132Â£_ CÂ»'l~ C--C--0 MAIN STREET 0 1 ... ...P O 0 L--1 1 gltch ---- --- ---- 9 / L-- I--t -1 [2~*2 1- effie. 1 1-3.4-'% 4. L.21 1. ~ .4 ~ ~ 1~111 11. 11 1 1 |14â€ž 1 11'M 11 r p||~EL Â£1--1-ip-tldwUN ki ]11~li]Li- ./ 1 MANAG~148' 1 , I lili 11 u F.lite . 1Â· i luF~ RESIDEnCE rrl, ~ ~m----1 1- la 1 mÂ· L.-_.: ,MI*M u l, ) 1 1 HT'ir=Fl-C-Â«[1-IEE ---T6---Â«/ ) 9 Ek/= 1 10 1 1\\Â« 1Â®E l]LI' 2 1I1lili 14!4111 -1 '11 1 4 4 1 0 11 1,61 1 11 1 lili : 0/.1 , 12 11111111 111111 -,\ u 'Ip lilli "1 f-EVW:Ef. 1/ :'.'ll-]]Llilli .. '330* \. . +1-'JI i id.]i-L:L -4 / 1 0 v1| . ./ t- I U,Ill ' L==:2.~ Â¤"IVI M 2 b 7 3 -.-- t.,.11 LJ. -+.1 w 5 i .. 11---. 1-=1- .1 flif'~ ~~~!' ~~~11=-1.-411Â· Il :m- ~5-T'li~PTM 'i --=--- lf-rmillht" ~ t:~pi*- 41111111611 il,- 11ll.I -- 1 lim i - mANS' Ji '||?'| 14-.i -JU :1~11.14 F:~4-ddul~l 4GU Â·10 - ImAL-J .ILT.L.O 1:jIL-lth--2,iHU-ll-L. , 110 -=111[1 - 6*019 1 a ~ 1 3 1 4- t' ~ B. SÂ· I 1 71- 1 1 / '=Ly -al . I -. '. I G 1 B S O N~ R I Alley Block 38 ~ - Cl'/,4. 11/ PROPOSED SITE PLAN . I....I<*.a> 1 1 ~~~0 23 SOFT. 5 laawle uy . C. ..t . : 0~~Â·~ _AM.0~ 4 .. Câ€¢-C--0 Y n 66 -, iliill.[l .~*11E1]11* 8... C-' . 14 . IJ =-- NORTH ELEVATION at 93 TA= 6-14--11~ - 1 !11)0011111~:1 [P ' -1 1111'ER'H ' '1 1 I EAST ELEVATION / ~~Â»Chr~. LU U o - ff. -9 9% 1 , -%62 94 U.1 8 J W M !14, -1[1 /*fl~Z/*1 - a..i c[0114 n11 finm~1 -,limft@] --~IlliTiWMI Â¤'~Ti15*fifftiiIE~--1( * _ __Â¥_ 1116 SOUTH ELEVATION GIBSONÂ·R 111 770 1 25 50 FT. â€¢A=câ€¢â€¢Do '9Â¢.2 . 44. 3 -'JU", - -O.0â€¢ 14 1~ : ,Â· s -~ wimii iâ€ž mm,@ilii 111 11 *~Illl'Ii,lilllIillilliliimillitiilill~1@il~~~~~ tid -- 6 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED NEW ELEVATIONS 13381S NIV W LSBM SE' ICÂ»- -â€¢ _112Â£_ - ru 11 4= P IE E-- 00- ---------- 417*==JL-â€ž1% mAIT NORTH T-1 -------5 1 f il 1 1 . -17 1 Ull 5 COE Bz 1 1 Ill 2 SOUTH 11 5 Li -- GIBSONÂ·REr /'CHITE.1/ 111 A-[â€¢cc,0*â€¢â‚¬JO FLOOR PLAN ...- 0 10 20 FT. - 1 T......0//00 TYPICAL COTTAGE (#21 .... 101~2".' 7 WIST PROPOSED REMODELLED PLAN and ELEVATIONS 00Â¥W0100'NadSV houÂ»1 1110[ 2- 1' P==1L==1~j r~==37 // 1- TR -1 -iiI 71 r--1 'Ell C gl '53#1 r o 'Ii-r'*i-M v*==. 0 Il r 1 1 1__34 41 S 0 :111 :51 U=..siwilikj il taENEE> Il 11===t--- .9,# 3 R ' AL L'AUBERGE h ,,21 L 435 WEST MAIN STREET NOI.LVAE-121 At=liNE] NOI-LVAa-13 CH\la 11,1111111Â¢191,4 1 11 ~*E ~ ~i i M iliF i k 'LU 1331:N"N~NOfs*51 ~~' 05 - 1 3 1 1 .1 U Z 0 > 111 J Ill 0 0 1Â© 9 2 1 070 liÂ· 1. it I 1 11 / i -dlg. C l~.0 ith?il 1 ./Ap lt- -/.1 q a 1- 12& A /7 1 0 <ga,wl'.1....5 0 3 LU 0 04 Z 0 0~11 2 o Ill ~7 kL=L=======d 11 (11 Â»2.._L___-_1 Il g > Cl tu J O lU - 0 m a 9 ~r- - P - - - - NOI-LVAEVIE! CINE I .Lty/\ala pue rd,17d c.VV.. 01-LVAEVIEI AM-LNE . â€¢,1 r ..â€¢4'/ i ( c.,-1 Wâ€¢Y e -~-3 -M--1 Z.V f 1 1 Â« 1 , 1 1 1.-----1 9.,4' 1/Alk U -941 -1 IZIZEZZIEZZLIZZIrl r 2 90 1 11 1 1 1Â®~Ir-/lii -_3 [r- 1|rnY~ i PÂ© 1 1 Nk--Ily' 4=.-21-/1 1 L--------4 END ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 L_ __ __ _ _________ _ __ ___ _i LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Â»hx SIDE ELEVATION LU 11 3 '1' 1 4. lt,1/ ., 1 .liLi.-3I1) GIBSON Â· R 1 1 I. 11Â¢ e . 0 1 -- - Ew _1 . 1 1 7-Â·14 1 1 111 ---------1 END ELEVATION .- 1 1 2-- --1 1O ENTRY ELEVATION UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED NEVV TVVO LEVEL COTTAGE Â«*CLUL_2 1338-LS HI U0100'N3dSV 27 0..9.Â· 4, . -WI':I. Wa. 1 . 1 1 r., /*. 07fcavi -4 -*h *i~ 1 4.3 , Â· a s R . Â· - -0 EL ' 11,1 '1 0 ~~ ~6FT-, '4 - ' /1&9. 0.1 -: . 1 .. 4... I -- hejrti. t . 0 '- 46.idDL'Â·: -6-;.Efi I Â¥ : ..2* Ah.3, 3 Â«.,C.:.,1.,?44;P,Â·a':~irf<==1 4/It k , 0 211.-r*3.'hfÂ·fio~1 f .... 1 - -- 7, 0 ~.7 <'-Ri/libi# 4 1 /1:/A .... Lili 1- J ru-- --4 - .-f Â· W.7/MIZIni 1% r-r-- Â· & I .7/ ..9 1/? - â€¢1 ..... 7 V. * . *1 1- r- 'r â€¢ . r Â·1 I j Â· . 4 . '9 .8"11 - ./3<4 -1.-t. ~ '34* r. - U, '. t . 13,1 ./. *.m â€¢ 414/01~LU~,1 4 494 r 13 '. 3 + .t\ ./3,41,~ 101.4 ; 1, 1 1 ....... 4 7 .2 --m 4 ~ 3 ., 11 9- 4 1 116- 4,4 - , ./ ' , :If le= ./ -e,41'/ 70 t *L' -25* . i * , m M , 4. I- . ... &*77$} .",#&*â€ž"~v.*%"ll-.=,"<'â€ž .,= . 7 1, . 2 ~14 i :4 9 6-,uu.=10:uug=3.,1/.pul.*Al...I---Iwp -' il! 915-*UU 11 f '...4/4, '. Â·Â· .r + W 16. --1 Ill -u 7--7 - iM.ri ",r# m 1- & 0 /. 1. ..11#.*Rm"i -1 LUE 4 4 1 Ill 0 el 4 a I .it:36 Lit_ Itt I. 4 e- 3,9.W , .454% te-11 Irajo m ...1~24:A~ J , , t, -/.. r - A *t,-â‚¬.... i 4'79/i -Y#*i. T ** '- - 0- A .. - , 1 ./ i m :1 4 . 1 ti~.:t. - 4 - ./ k $ /'" 1-1 JR I f, A W M . 11\ Le " LL 'NadSV TYPICAL CABIN ELEVATIONS kilf /1 .. ~L .: 0 t. L I L I 6'4 19 a I ..... , ...n . 2 - te AH- 2,61 4 ~t-Z~*002' piLU 411.-. I iMM7'r- 1 7 1 9 t 1 11/11 11! 1 - ..: IM, 1.,DÂ¥&?fi --- >. <:''I , /1 1 e r:r'' M ? 1 I '*b:l m .... ~. ttv': 4 u,i 2.3.6 :I>Â»~. 2 -2 1- , - - 1 1 F' 1.-.44(94: L L 1 1 IL~.52 90..-* 4-6 1 85-# IG=#29 t. 9+11 t. T .- 1 111 1 ':1 5 1 .- '''- .1 1 1 1 j Jitill lit * i. Y ~ 11.lilli , ' 0.-441,4,"#f 44 I .11, 1 111111 , i:. iÂ·7i'f~ W:Sâ‚¬ Il:'*~; - 1 . . -A 31.. -u......"-'......'*.- .ip- 4264.. 0 -. fi--- 1/Â¥E<.......... 3 It ~ -/: ITAA--* - t / 133'3I.fri'.1/3:5fillilillilillillllillillillilliwil 1 1 1111 4 ' i 1.. i - "1*f' CABIN VIEWS CAUSERGE '6 -- Im:im/MI/"50/ i.. i - 40 . .. 1 - Ar , 1 4, .* 1,~42,1...' 47/AW W 6. 7 464 1 Â·*"I I > ''Â· 11/1RtiL 6 Â· 3 4 ~ Â·UkÂ·.'Anfwpm, '~3///#'ll, 1 - 1 +1 J 1, ' */4,p,A -1 /' 2rL-t-.- C - â‚¬t- 1.-- L . 1 - ,< /1:. 41' . -. -- - y m .t 1.-1 Se m i., 9 2Â¥m - - g Il ,iÂ· ~ "r .~" -' J. U.-- b.. 3 : 1 1 .14 11 c -s f ..#Cif ,-1 14-Â·1 AIR*#1 L .. 2 m , -. /7/k Ey*/, 4.62 11~ll -it= rt, I . I '#*-7 1 1... -; E-- . # 46--*'-- Imm/-k iii --- --. 1 ... .i# Tr- - Il r--t r-- T - - 'll 91 4 1 - - , -1.1- m , .C, 1 Â·Â·AL'-. '. 1/ZÂ·*L=_ _.- AF,7 1 t 1--ts 2 1. , m -11- 12 1.111.- 1 - 1 1 1 . 1 4--1... I ... , Â· I .V.* 1 .% /---- ....7 , t,4 +4Â· k.- . 1 .- . .... -, j, - -1.-2 19=*11 - 114 , LW.P -- Ing/0, : 4.--41- -1-s45 -/14 t.-f.---=.7- 1 1/ 3. 1 Z' 1. .#4- :/r-.-Â£w . 1 121- A.*i.5~tti - - 1- . . =Wit 9 - ill~l"" ./.err, - *. f .4 -.-lf f . lit Â·E . Ll - i r m . --mi - + 1-Â· fl'blimmlwilllmplillillir + 11 *- 16 44Â· 6 + 48 F /1 1-,11 'm==F ll 1Â¢641,21 -1..12' 3~~~9'~ f:-P-,wdat, 94-.4 4;5"*>*F- 41ft*u ~ - -Â£ J -ihil . $45 ,'.'*Ii, f 'a '~ : I .F . '.C ,(, 1- /~Twl .4 ,-1 Ill 1 1 h 1: I.'-+ =tle -1 .0 =4 #IÂ·. , lEi -- ///1//im -U; ftit:LM ..."IMPF'TAÂ¥Â¥1 I '- - g z .1.:0 . . . ~ ~ 'fwi .. 'r 2 W - - I .t .6,- 9 7 --* Â· ..00Â·. 'IFI: 46:42Â¢zÂ·Gi.Â·'Â·Â· .Â·Â·Â·Â·.~ r - ine=m 11) 2 J />4 2*g 6 -- 571201 6:. i 1 -I r e L OOVt,0100 'NadSV ISBAA S 2/Â·9% +A l - 2.2 -9/9/ZE,fili g...SE - r ltÂ«4.Â· SAL i I & A ... ........1.1.1 /trili *Â· > ~Â· :4: ~s 'r. ....; ..U.-4 I Â·IÂ· k.lii%W '. i ,t ... .... 5- #41% 4.-' 1 11==-1 . ma,-2.23/93i 14 F '18"All 111//1/1/#ILL 11 9 4 - *~ %,Orti - 1 . 3 AFFT.rpli yul/4. > . , ~ :4 44/r46 I b.'â€¢ ''. 151 1#iÂ·"IiÂ· i,tittl --.45 -rrl'---.~3.~ . 1/1/*64,- .A,0 2-7~ . ./. I. It 2' A â€¢ I ~ Â· I WA#~ IÂ· # M. . 4 4 - eâ‚¬; , . 342.' . 41 . 7% 2 te 4* 6 . 4 72'Â·.Â·lk PEDESTRIAN iAâ€¢â€¢al~ $33557 .FI'lic'tivm.rtiog |~9*'â€¢I *â€¢'2* AMENITIES . + 1 .. .0 - ... *Â»* *refit~:flÂ·CO - I. :. :b: Â£* rÂ· 322 i I -1 - - r . ......m"/g"ll/g"//*-1...?1~ - . 6. J. - . Â· '~Â·'Â·1 7Â· 7.421( --- Â·cl' ~irÂ¥' 0~ Â· 1{, W i.rL - f /IN . 4- ..9 . J 47<,Al.... 1. . ntt f . 1 -*4*Â«> , 1.6 1 14:*i.,.1.. I t .- .~97 # 1 +~~64**~ ....1 Ardwi'jux#*t.=~plitr-- 19-0 1~" 1% 4.,4 4..â€ž-4......~1.... Â»em - ' 194, + . Â· .â€ž,4 , .. 6-5.L, * k & c u linhlill/1/Fl.4/2\13==~ 1 1- 1. '-M/0 . .--3,==~t 1//7 - _,4501.Z - f... - --â‚¬==221~ ~:19?~ - 23#/fl 413, -- - .Â«-1 E-1 14,2*23*1.---illi..'/ra~ill - I- A.laÂ»~ -- - CAUSEAGE 435 WEST MAIN STAEET ASPEN, COLORADO 14 "44. â€ž . 4 r .h I 4 4 .t,i ./ 4 6 51. At:. i.; *ti ; 1.. ' %146~''*~ ~ '~~~~ '~ ~~*~87.t , 09'.4......' - . I 4 $ I , - . ./.# r: .F ::: I:.' ./ ./ :94,1 9 1 5 " f 94.14 4, 10 9 /,' I / r. f ' . , 3/ $* P ' 4& . ' /424/'"/i . I , â€ž . I %7{*Â¥<904 - 1, I I . 90 2%, /4 62 $ 9,44 , 4 '' â€¢42 i ' 4 , W,â€¢ " Â¥'A ' 44 1., " r , 1 i, â€¢, 2. . F i.4. 7 , &. ' ... . U 54 9 N i : 2,4 f'*,, (Kg :'C At .: , . 44!9440 ' . 1 Fle 0'9'14%$4' /4 iki. u , , :., 1'78 ~' -, . $ , , 4, , '424 , C ..,/ .24.f,fli'.*ilmi *tjkh'i ;~9: 1 1 ..,4Â¥Lf;*th >ilf<,e:Â· i:.Â«-' a *2- :~we>stÂ©;4; 6 .1 4 :#, ~ i ' 1"Ii,~il/*t'~*.ALL#;&054<fili.Ii Â· .fw 22 Â·Ii:}72 'i, 7\;*â€ž "-i - ' i:Gy:"b#Tz f<tth~:*<CI?94*11. :i 1 :- .\t'Â« ::I ;1,* . , -B ' 1 -2 - 1., , 1 -Â»fietâ‚¬R, 2 2 4(i#- 1///4- 11,Â·Af,ff Â¢ ~ ~ * w 99~~2~~'~/~LLA~.~':14 - ~A, *14'WljMJ $- +4' 4 4....fi. i 3~3:949'. M,A'pitp 3. - '"c ; p I I ./Firl' 04/le"MA t. '~ : 5 :c .>4:<4(,9/ / b . >'.9.4 3.- '., ~~1~ ~~IL;t~- <i<jifrj .3 JOI 'i'*,7>43,~Ft{,{ F t[i ~ ~*}j~3 ~ *f 9*,k' ~'2' 'el,f~~ft~~~*t~ .>. 41 2M31'Wk .i ,,< f> i 3 44 ...33:922-2> 273â‚¬22.-6: r- -Ii.'/91015:,Liv:.- --5-/Â®f,L. .2 . * istft, i , ...L, * I il i ,<1 i :r.i.vitiliz.: i 1.--1. 3,1 3, 4::EMMYrefff#9'"M:Jr;' .96efY..-2 .g /# ./..4 -2-Â· *43'f.41 *F.9 Â· ' -r % 4. c;Vi- , i:*iv *ijr.,~pi:ci~31 0.~~~ - 1 ./-4 1 ' 4~,19;fr-.;Â»L. 9 .p_~M: 4,4 '~*fA~... *4'Al-~Pv 60& ~ ~ i . 1 I U'L.t e/IMMSI. 2931 N r:, 7/*0 4 D. . r.di , ,7*, ,-- , /. .~ '.(i- lii,f, 4*it22*f,)(~ -*~~~~~~42~ f /4 t - I. , I . I . :- 4Â»/94, 1 $ 1,2 . , .S . ./. ' .2& 4 Â¢.4 7 ,..4 1 A. A A - .r 0*,3 * . , I.- 1 - -17 : 5, 9 45. I _ Lb. ~ 4 9 ' ' 2-4 - . Er . W. 01 Z== . - I . I. '11. - ..., 'W"5Â¢,3 4 I . 14 4 f,< 1' 2~~ 4 7 t tr - *3-* I 1, . . Â¥~/3*# 9>. < , E'I*~,LESb,93 A - . 1, . 1Â£ g MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue, _Howling Hglf_- Minor Date: December 14, 1994 SUMMARY: HPC granted approval for a small addition with access for the handicapped on November 2, 1994 and asked the applicant's to provide more information about a proposed airlock. APPLICANT: Two Schmucks Inc., represented by Paul Levine and Steve Levitt. LOCATION: 316 E. Hopkins, Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. STAFF EVALUATION: The airlock will be constructed out of wood and glass or plexiglass. The applicant's intention is to anchor it to the ceiling and floor of the porch. It is designed to match the existing house. Staff suggests that the turned posts shown on the corners should be eliminated and a simple square or rounded post used instead. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the request to construct an airlock with the conditions that the turned posts be removed and that the airlock may only be in place between November 1st and April 15th each year. In addition, the connection of the airlock to the existing structure should cause the least damage to existing materials as is possible. 4 . --7 -- 1 I 1 1 La i i - -~- -Â·t j L T i , , 4 1 4 O:- i 401. , t U -- 1 . 1 1 ! rl i ti d 1, r 1,10],4.1,1 IN 4 1,10!,4:?- VE:*rl,PU.1.2 4,=11 CD [1-1-1 .. , , -If-o MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: November 23rd agenda DATE: December 14, 1994 We did not have a quorum for the November 23rd meeting. Because the applicants were present and needed their approvals, the HPC members who were in attendance reviewed and voted on the proposals. No protests are expected regarding these applications, however, HPC should formally vote again to make the approvals valid. As a reminder, please call Kathy or myself if you are not going to be able to attend a meeting. Our meetings are always on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month. The agenda items were: 205 W. Main Street- The Committee approved a storage shed at the rear of the property. It is not easily visible from the street. 316 E. Hopkins- The Committee approved a walk-in refriderator to be placed at the rear of the site. It will not be visible from the street. The applicants were told to paint out the unit which is reflective metal. Their intention is to cover it with wood siding. 315 E. Hyman Ave.- The Committee approved an airlock at Benjamin's Deli. It may only be in place between November 1 and April 15. The trim on the airlock is to match that on the building. The Committee wished to have an opportunity to review it again in three years. j L , (.... r.) 1 C Ir.J\.5 #340937 01/24/92 16:13 Rec $400.00 BK 667 PG 731 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cler k. Doc $.Â¢50 1 - 1 4-1 4 lb./L- J..... "THE ASPEN MEADOWS" 4 SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA 2.V . . ~I aEVEL@PMENT & SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT t P r--340937 01/24/92 16: 13 F~* r-100.00 BK 667 PG 735 1 E ' ~.ilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT "THE ASPEN MEADOWS" SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 1991, -- by and among the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule city (the - "City"), and The Aspen Institute ("Institute"), the Music Associates of Aspen ("MAA"), the Aspen Center for Physics ("Physics") and Savanah Limited Partnership, a District of Columbia limited partnership ("Savanah"). Collectively the Institute, MAA, Physics and Savanah are hereinafter referred to as the "Consortium". RECITALS 1. The City of Aspen after numerous public hearings adopted a Master Plan for the Aspen Meadows as a component of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan in September, E L 1990; and, 2. The Consortium has submitted to the City for approval, execution and r- recordation, The Aspen Meadows Final S.P.A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat (the "Plat") pertaining to the development of a tract of land known as the Aspen Meadows 2 - situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado, legally described on Exhibit "A" (the "Property") 4@ F to include the following development activities, among others (the "Project"): a. Reconstruction of the existing sixty lodge units of 35,950 gross interior square feet and in addition, renovation of the existing Kresge Building conference space (lower level, Building 5)* -Insti- tute. b. Construction of fifty new lodge units of 42,410 gross interior square feet and additional subgrade mechanical space in Lodge Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 totalling 960 square feet of gross interior space - Institute c. Health club renovation and expansion of 1,800 gross interior square feet - Institute. * For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "gross interior square feet" or "gross interior floor area" shall mean that floor area contained within the surrounding exterior walls (measured from their exterior surface) of a building, or portion thereof, exclusive of covered or uncovered decks, balconies, stairways, terraces and similar features, when such features are not surrounded by exterior walls or enclosed. 7., 1>'il'Â¥,KÂ®J?-f'*4l 2Â»DÂ·â€¢ 0Â·'~ Â· , .t,N ...4 Â·maSIN-WVf# 1"M"8 < #7--0937 01/24/92 16:13 Reef 44 100 BK 667 PG 736 ~ - - Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Restaurant renovation and expansion of 2,000 gross interior square d. t feet - Institute. e. Tennis shop renovation and expansion, including rest rooms, of r 980 gross interior square feet - Institute. t L Music tent backstage expansion of 1,500 gross interior square feet -MAA. g. New rehearsal/performance hall of 11,000 square feet of Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") - MAA. h. Music tent gift shop expansion of 100 gross interior square feet - MAA. i. Renovation of the existing eight trustee houses and their expansion to 2,500 square feet of FAR each - Savanah. J. Construction of ten new townhouse condominiums of 2,500 square feet of FAR each - Savanah. E k. Creation of four single family homesites, each homesite to have a single family home and an accessory employee unit totaling 4,540 square feet of FAR exclusive of exempt garage space of up to 500 square feet - Savanah. 3. Following extensive public hearings at which substantial evidence in support of the Project components was produced and considered, the Consortium received all requisite development approvals from the City for the Project. The development approvals that the Consortium has received include the following: a. Subdivision approval to create ten separate lots at the Aspen Meadows. b. Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") approval for fourteen residential units. c. GMQS exemption for essential public facilities from competition and affordable housing impact mitigation for the Institute and MAA development components. d. Zoning map amendments to create two RMF lots, four R-15 lots, Academic (A), Wildlife Preservation (WP) and Open Space (OS) zones and lots, all as depicted on the Plat. 2 I -Ii - -"1~--Il-,1!~~~'~r l 'll'~0." Â·--rÂ·,Â·1â€¢r millÂ·,0-'.I: Â·Â· - ug.~:3Â«F'**,&1 C ( 340937 01/24/92 16:13 F~ (-00.00 BK 667 PG 737 | wilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cierk, Doc $.00 ; e. Variations from subdivision and subdivision improvement requirements, easement and utility requirements, design standards for streets and related improvements and zone district dimensional . and minimum lease requirements. i f. Condominiumization approval for the eight existing trustee houses, the three new trustee houses on Lot 5 and the seven new townhomes on Lot 6. - g. Waiver of the six month minimum lease requirements for the approved development activity in the RMF zone district. h. Conditional use approvals for affordable housing units on lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, and i. Historical Preservation Commission ("HPC") conceptual and final approval for all aspects of the Project which were subject to HPC review. 4. The City has fully considered the Plat and this Agreement as well as the anticipated benefits and burdens to other neighboring properties by reason of the proposed development and improvement of the Property, all in accordance with Chapter 24 and other f related provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "Municipal : Code"); and, 5. The City has found that the Plat and this Agreement meet the standards set forth in Section 24-7-801, et seq. of the Municipal Code and further finds that the Consortium has met its burden and has demonstrated the reasonableness and suitability of the Project, its conformity to the requirements of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code and the Master Plan, that the adverse effects of the Project have been minimized to the extent practicable, and that the Project complies with the City Council's intent in originally designating the Property with an SPA overlay, including the reasonable conformance of the Plat and this Agreement with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan; and, 6. The City is willing to approve, execute and accept this Agreement and the Plat for recordation upon the agreement of the Consortium to the matters hereinafter described, subject to all of the requirements, terms and conditions of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code as presently constituted and such other laws, rules and regulations as are or may be applicable; and, 3 L"*PGr1 .. â€¢..... .....IÂ·,4.-.-7/4/.-m' ' ...'~m-'~7'Fe ./ < l..#340937 01/24/92 16:13< .:7400.00 BK 667 PG 738 2 1 C - 3il via Davis, Pitkin Cnty L-.erk, Doc $.00 7. The City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of this Agreement and the Plat for recordation and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and, 8. Under the authority of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by the Consortium and the Consortium's successors and assigns; and, - 9. The Consortium is willing to enter into such agreements with, and to provide assurances to, the City; and 10. The Consortium has submitted and the City has approved a detailed construction time line incorporating a specific construction schedule for the installation of the new Meadows Road; and 11. Specific fire hydrant locations for the development have been established and approved in cooperation with the Fire Marshall; and 12. A detailed tree removal and replacement plan has been submitted and i approved by the City Parks Department indicating all trees to be moved or removed, their size, 8 location, species and time of planting, transplanting, or removal specifying that all tree replace- Â¥ ment shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper; and 13. Exact trail locations have been approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and * landscape and which subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to the preservation of existing topography. As built easements shall be executed and conveyed after trail construction; and 14. All property exchanges between Savanah, the Institute, the MAA and Physics are to be effectuated simultaneously with the recording of the final plat or as soon thereafter as is practical in the circumstances; and 15. The Consortium has provided to the City a digitized copy of the subdivision plat. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City it is agreed as follows: 4 C rh 49,37 01/24/92 16:13 Rec 8-rOL, ..JO Bl< 667 F'(3 756 ~ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination. 3. Trail s The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this trail easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work. D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND: Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot 4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of existing topography. 1. Site Improvements (a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water. E. LOT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS: Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat. Existing development on Lot 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately 1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight three-bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR with three bedrooms. Total build-out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty- three bedrooms and 27,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit). FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year 22 .. ( 4 37 01/24/92 16:13 Rec Â£ 4)(I >C) Bl< 667 F'G 757 1 4.41 bilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 period next succeeding June 1 0, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open space, as noted on the Plat and as described below. 1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District; variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted: a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000 b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft. c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet d) Minimum front yard: i) Principal building: 10 feet ii) Accessory building: 15 feet (Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to zero feet for Lot 5.) e) Minimum side yard: 5 feet f) Minimum rear yard: i) - Principal building: 10 feet ii) Accessory building: 15 feet g) Maximum height: 25 feet (Note. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee houses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.) h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35% 23 #34( 9-)1/24/92 16: 13 Rec $40(1 3-3 K 667 PG 758 Silvia wavis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Duc $.00 (Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise provided in the SPA development plan.) i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1 j) Internal FAR: no requirement 10 Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom 2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5. Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(1)(c). The fee totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat and declaration for the units on Lot 5. The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan. 3. Site Improvements (a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as required confirming the as-built location of each easement. (b) Landscape Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the Plat in Book & 9 at Page 5-, et seq. of the Records. The landscape plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e. g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed- upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year 24 I '' < 4 3-7 01/24/92 16: 13 Rec $--rc)(f~ 90 BK 667 PG 759 1 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet- ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap- ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout - the Project as a whole with minimum size at 11/2" caliper. 4. Trails The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system, including the tril easement between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be executed and conveyed after tril construction confirming the as-built location of each easement. A portion of the tril Easement for the trail from Meadows Road to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor . - the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for the maintenance of any easements. 5. Financial Assurances In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment'or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already 25 f . Si.via Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 < >7 - ~ 1937 01/24/92 16:13 Recl â€¢,4 * .00 BK 667 PG 760 i :.-C. constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to . .Â· ' -4-- Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public ~ Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10 % of the actual cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works Director. At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination. 6. Employee Housing Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in each unit remins at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be pid. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units sought to be permitted. F. LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS: Lot 6 is owned by Savanah and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat. Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6. Approved under this plan is development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and 17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit). FARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remin as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or calculation of FARs. The seven new townhomes have received an allotment under the City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein. 26 0 7 . #6...,9. * 01/24/92 16:13 Rec $460.\-Â·s) BK 667 PG 761 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District; variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development activity contemplated for Lot 6 are noted. a) Minimum lot size (sq. ft.): 6,000 -b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: i) 3 bedroom unit: 3,630 sq. ft. c) Minimum lot width: 60 feet d) Minimum front yard: i) Principal building: 10 feet ii) Accessory building: 15 feet (Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to zero feet for Lot 6.) e) Minimum side yard: 5 feet f) Minimum rear yard: i) Principal building: 10 feet ii) Accessory building: 15 feet g) Maximum height: 25 feet (Note. A dimensional height variation for the center portion of the tennis townhomes has been granted by the City for up to three feet as shown on the Plat.) h) Percent of open space required for building site: 35% (Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been waived by the City for Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otherwise provided in the SPA development plan.) 27 < 3: --737 01/24/92 16:13 Rec $44 :00 BK 667 F'G 762 Siiâ€žia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 i) External FAR (maximum): 1:1 j) Internal FAR: no requirement 10 Off-street parking requirement: 1 space per bedroom 2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement - - Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards condominiumization approval for the seven tennis townhome units on Lot 6 as approved by this SPA plan. The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(1)(b)(1) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is waived as to the seven condominium units on Lot 6. 3. Site Improvements (a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as required confirming the as-built location of each easement. (b) Landscape Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the Plat in Book A â‚¬ at Page 5~ , et seq. of the Records. The landscape plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e. g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed- upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated in the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet- ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping remins avilable to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. All 28 .CO . 0 0937 01/24/92 16:13 Rec $ 0.00 BK 667 PG 763 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout the Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper. 4. Trails The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system. Two trail easements are associated with Lot 6. The first is a minimum three foot wide unpaved walking path which parallels the Meadows Road on the Eastern edge of Lot 6 and the second is the easement on the Western portion of Lot 6 to accommodate the construction and maintenance of the trail from Meadows Road to Lot 4 and across the Roaring Fork River to the Rio Grande Trail, all as depicted on the Plat. Lot 6 shall be burdened with easements for these trails as shown on the Final Plat. Construction of the walking path shall be completed by Savanah in connection with the construction of the improvements on Lot 6. Savanah and the City acknowledge and agree that all responsibility for construction of and payment for the trail to Lot 4 and any other appurtenant recreational amenities permitted in the zone district and landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City, and Savanah shall have no responsibility for the maintenance thereof. 5. Financial Assurances In order to secure the construction of the site improvements in Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following default by Savanah, after notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release 29 / C + 0937 01/24/92 16:13 R~- *' 00.00 BK 667 PG 764 ~ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10 % of the actual cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works Director. At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination. 6. Employee Housing In connection with the construction of the seven tennis townhome townhouse condominium units on Lot 6 Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the seven new residential units on Lot 6, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new residential unit on Lot 6 and shall be pid in proportion to the number of units sought to be permitted. G. LOTS 7,8,9 and 10 - THE RESIDENCES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS: -Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 are owned by Savanah and are zoned R-15 according to the Plat. These lots currently are undeveloped. Under the SPA, Savanah has been granted approval to develop, on each lot, a single family residence together with an accessory dwelling unit. Each lot has a FAR of 4,540 square feet, excluding 500 square feet of garage, but including the accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet above grade. FARs and the definitions thereof for the residences and the accessory dwelling units shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding June 10, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or calculation of FARs. The four single family units have specific building envelopes as shown on the Plat and will be subject to protective covenants that will be placed of record prior to the sale of any of Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, which covenants will, at a minimum, provide for (a) the establishment and incorporation of an association of homeowners with a Design Review Board, at least one member of which shall be designated by the City of Aspen Historical Preservation Commission, which Board shall have original jurisdiction in all matters involving any change to the then existing state or condition of any lot; (b) the manner in which each accessory dwelling unit on any lot shall be used, occupied and rented, including the incorporation of applicable standards and guidelines of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority; and (c) the obligation of each of Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and each owner, at anytime, thereof to comport with and 30 C C Q Â« #3+,,937 01/24/92 16: 13 Rec $40-. 00 BK 667 PG 765 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 abide by the applicable terms, provisions, and conditions of Ordinance 14 and approved Subdivision Plat for said lots. The four (4) residences have received an allotment under the City of Aspen GMQS and have received variations for minimum R-15 zone district lot size per dwelling and minimum side yard setback requirements, as noted on the Final Plat and as described herein. 1. Dimensional Requirements The following dimensional requirements are for the R-15 Zone District: variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development activity contemplated for Lots 7-10 are noted: a) Minimum lot size: 15,000 sq. ft. (Note. The minimum R-15 zone district lot size per principle dwelling unit has been reduced to 12,000 square feet for Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10.) b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 12,000 sq. ft. c) Minimum lot width: 75 feet d) Minimum front yard: i) Residential dwelling: 25 feet ii) Accessory building: 30 feet e) Minimum side yard: 10 feet (Note. The minimum side yard setbacks have been reduced by the City under the SPA to zero feet for the West side of Lot 7 and the East side of Lot 10.) f) Minimum rear yard: i) Residential building: 10 feet ii) Accessory building: 5 feet (Note. Rear yard setbacks for Lots 7-10 are as shown on the Plat.) g) Maximum height: 25 feet 31 37 01/24/92 16:13 Rec G .Of-70 BK 667 PG 766 ~ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 h) Minimum distance between detached buildings on lot: 10 feet i) Percent of open space: No Requirement D External FAR: 4,540 sq. ft. (Note. The square footage includes an accessory dwelling unit of 500 sq. ft. and excludes a garage of up to 500 sq. ft.) 10 Internal FAR: no requirement 1) Off-street parking spaces: One space per bedroom, and one space per accessory dwelling unit. 2. Site Improvements a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer f lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the City and of the ACSD and as built easements will be provided as required. It shall be the requirement of Savanah to install all utilities to the lot lines. The utilities shall be installed in connection with the construction of the new Meadows Road. 3. Financial Assurances In order to secure the construction of the site improvements in Paragraph 2 above - and to guarantee 100 % of the estimated cost of such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the utility installation, Savanah and City shall agree on that portion of the work outlined in Paragraph 2 above reasonably necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such 32 C 4 37 01/24/92 16:13 Rec $40( 90 BK 667 PG 767 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10 % of the actual cost o f the site improvements shall be retained until all proposed site improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works Director. At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination. 4. Employee Housing In connection with the construction of each single family residence there shall be constructed an accessory dwelling unit of 500 square feet above grade. These one bedroom units shall be deed restricted to the low income rental guidelines in effect from time to time as determined by the Housing Authority. It shall be the responsibility of the owners of each of the four single family sites to lease the employee units to qualified tenants as determined by the Housing Authority. The owners shall have the right to select the tenants. A copy of the deed restriction form for these residential sites is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is incorporat- ed herein by this reference. At the time of application for a building permit for any residential lot the City shall, if so requested by the lot owner, consider the appropriateness of accepting, instead of the accessory dwelling unit on the lot, cash in lieu thereof or an off-site employee unit. The decision shall be at the reasonable discretion of the City. H. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AND AGREEMENTS: 1) Access/Emergency Loop. The thirteen foot service access/emergency loop drive serving the lodge buildings on Lot 1 shall be constructed with an all weather surface adequate to support fire-fighting apparatus. Such access/emergency loop drive(s) shall be plowed, cleared and maintained to thirteen foot widths at all times of the year and particularly during the winter months. 2) Fire Protection. All buildings to be served and accessed from the thirteen foot access/emergency loop drive shall have interior sprinkling fire protection/ suppression systems as approved by the Fire Marshal and such system(s) must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 33 DEC 1 21994 Dec 7, 1994 Aspen Pitkin Community Dev. Dept 130 South Galena St Aspen, Co. 81611 Attn: Amy Amidon Dear Ms. Amidon, As you requested today on the phone, I am writing this letter to give you some insight into the age of the buildings on my family's property at 1101 E Cooper. The log house was built by a Denver couple in the early '508. We bought it and lived there since 1954. My Dad bought the small cabins at the same time and moved them from the original location which was a couple blocks from the old lift #1. I do not know how old they are but they have been at the present location since only 1954. They are not in good shape and I cannot see any significant historical reason for them to be listed as historical. Thank You, A. W. "Bert" Anderson P. 0. Box 1862 McAlester, Ok. 74502 918-426-9453 $ V , I V , Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 8, 1991 5) Fencing visible from the street shall be restudied and perhaps moved one or two feet back and look at an alternate 4- solution of vegetation. The fence can be whatever on the west side. - 6) 7' rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. 7) Parking reduction of one space, finding that the maximum number of parking spaces have been planned on site. The parking space in the front yard shall be eliminated and re- vegetated as proposed. Motion second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. Les Holst will be the project monitor on 214 W. Bleeker. THE MEADOWS - RESIDENTIAL ONLY f..1; 1:X Roxanne: I have reiterated the conditions of conceptual approval in the memo and have responded to them. The Planning Office is recommending approval of the meadows with conditions to be approved by Staff and the Meadows sub-committee of the issues that were not yet met for their final approval. 1) Detailed preservation plan needs clarified for the Trustee townhomes. 2) Palate of materials. 3) Amendments to the design. 4) Covenants to more clearly define the massing, scale and articulation issues. 5) Clarification of the material treatment of the end walls and party walls and clarification of the tennis townhomes west elevation regarding correct scale of door and windows. 6) Clarification of tennis townhomes regarding balcony snow removal. Perry Harvey: Lets discuss the Tennis townhomes, Trustee and then the single family homes. Nickie and David Finholm presented materials and responded to all concerns of Staff as presented in the memo May 8, 1991 (attached in records). Nickie: The snow removal of the Tennis townhomes will consist of 5 4 0 - 31 Historic Preservation Committee . Minutes of May 8, 1991 all internal drainage. The north/south wall is designed to be a rubble wall. The partition walls are done in the rubble also. The tennis townhome parking is the same design as the Trustee houses with the earth berm and use of natural soil. The curb of the berm is similar to Anderson Park. Natural vegetation will be incorporated. - Bill: The Board is in approval of the Tennis townhomes. David: On the townhouses, three units were added. We have also created earth landscaping. We will remove all the stairs and keep the window detailing exactly like it is. The fascia is shingle. We would like to change the color of the roof asphalt singles which are silver color now to a darker color (cedar mix). Bill: Changing the color doesn't effect the historic nature of the structure. I would think the color selection is up to the applicant. David: There is room for two cars in the covered parking and one A 4 on the side. All the architecture is glass with sun control. . m y.0.Ill Bill: The Board unaminously approved the Trustee homes. tr./ -- r. I Perry Harvey: I will discuss the single family homes. Regarding the covenants we will have a design review committee. This is an R15 zone. Council had requested that we lower the lots to 12, 000 sq. ft. We have created building envelopes that range from 61 to 64 hundred feet which is down to an R6 lot. After reduction of rear yard setbacks etc. we have created 30 foot combined side yard setbacks. This creates view planes of the Meadows as you come in. The homes are a little over 4000 sq. ft. and the accessory dwelling units are 500 sq. ft. We are going to market the lots. Roger: Do the covenants state that you can't build a linear box. Perry: It talks about creating movement. Bill: The City in their attempt to protect sage meadow is forcing them into a box which is going to create a design which is a box. In your architectural review committee you might force the buildings to be more irregular. The buildings along that area in the west end are less rigid and in your guidelines if you require that you get a little more interest and vitality and avoid the "wall". Les: Who is the design review board for this project? 6 4 *. .f ) Historic Preservation Committee , Minutes of May 8, 1991 Perry: Us as the developers with input from the Institute and the property owners and David and Nickie Finholm. Les: I would suggest that there be one member of the HPC on the Board. - Bill: Board unaminously approved the single family homes and - recommendations to Staff and to the applicant. Bill: Trees along the rear property line would be a help in reducing the massing and soften the area. Bill: All the conditions for final have been met. Bill: We have reviewed the palate of materials and color for the residential portion and a condition of this approval would be that the palate of materials and colors Still need to be submitted for the meadows. MOTION: Glenn made the motion that we grant final development approval for the residential portion of the meadows as submitted; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 418Â·14 MOTION: Les made the motion that the outline for the single family parcels is appropriate with the recommendations that were made to Staff during the meeting; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. 601 W. HALLAM - DELETION FROM INVENTORY George Vicenzi: I received notice from Jed Caswall that the building permit is illegal and I feel it is alive and well. Staff was concerned about setting a precedent and I don't feel that is a problem because no one can ever equal the same situation that I have due to Ord. #17 is now in effect and would preclude anyone from getting a demo permit to any structure that you are interested in. Most of the house was built after 1910 and has no historic interest. It was moved to this site and was vacant up until 1960. George: I will not go into facts as to why this house has no historic value. The main factor is that the old house which is the gabled end, south side of the house is pre 1910 and does have minimal historic value (the bay window on the east side). The victorian porch was added by myself and I did the dining room in 1970. 70% of the building wasn't even constructed prior to 1910. The part that was constructed before does not have historical I . 4 1.:1\ value. It also has no historical value to the neighborhood because it was moved there in the 60's and on a vacant lot. This 7 4 & .4.:. Â¢ , 2.t Mi o '11Â· :. .4 U- b, , . j.~FEAâ‚¬Â·~Â·M#*N: .k -9-A Historic Preservation Committee Motion of Conceptual Development approval for Meadows Rehearsal Hall March 8, 1991 MOTION: Don Erdman made the motion that the HPC grant conceptual development approval for the Meadows rehearsal hall with the following conditions to be met at Final: a) The rehearsal hall facility shall be re-sited to the northeast (as far as possible to the north parking lot) to the east/west axis of the tent. b) Significantly lower the height of both the mound and structure. c) Restudy surface treatments of both the land form and the structure. Provide detailed information (drawings) of how the break between the field and the berm is accomplished. d) - Restudy the hard surface paving areas between the rehearsal hall and the tent, to maximize the amount of informal seating. e) Provide representation of all materials at Final ~ f) Provide landscape plan indicating all significant existing and proposed vegetation, surface treatments and lighting g) Provide detailed drawings of tent/music area parking lot treatment and bus drop-off area. Glenn Rappaport seconded the motion; all in favor. Motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann Waggaman made the motion that the HPC recommend to P&Z and Council that they may wish to reconsider relocating the rehearsal hall to the west site of the tent in light of the strong public response received at HPC public hearings. Don Erdman seconded the motion; all in favor, motion carries. 4 - STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Ferd Belz Savanah Limited Partnership FROM: David Brown DATE: December 14,1994 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 NOTES: The following is a review for standards of designation for historic importance and inclusion of a building on the inventory of historic structures. Standards for Designation A Historic Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly or associated with a person or an event o f historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the state of Colorado, or the United States. This building is not identified or associated with a person or event Of historic significance. As far as is known, no important cultural, social or political event ever occurred at this site. Hedy Lamar did not sleep here. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. This structure does not reflect an architectural style that is unique unless one considers this a uniquely or distinctively poor design. Typically the traditional design and architectural style found in Aspen are buildings associated with Victorian or mining era and wood framed structures Of logs or with log or heavy timber accents. This building is more Of the pseudo- alpine style of that found in Gatlinberg, Tennessee than that found in Aspen, Colorado. It may be more appropriate for the buildings found in Leavenworth, Washington. Leavenworth is known for attempting to look like a Bavarian village and Gatlinberg, Tennessee is perhaps the only ski resort in the Smoky Mountains with several alpine derived structures sandwiched between the Howard Johnson's, the Indian Moccasin souvenir stand, Taffy World, McDonald's and Wendy's. 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 A SPEN, COLORADO 81611 303.925.2254 925.2258(FAX) .2,- Ferd Belz December 14,1994, page 2 C Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Small concrete lodges with a plaster veneer with poorly done stone and wood accents are definitely not unique or significant in Aspen. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Under this category, I will say that the use of the word specimen is appropriate, although neither the original drawings nor the drawings of the addition bear the name or seal of an Architect. E Neighborhood Character: The structure is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. This particular block is surrounded by 1970's era condominium structures and this lodge is completely incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. It's preservation is not important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character, nor is the neighborhood historically significant nor is the site a significant component of the character of the neighborhood. F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen Community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Preserving this structure is not critical to the preservation of the character of Aspen nor the community and is of no importance in relationship to the size and location to any other structures in the community. This structure is not similar to any structures or sites of historic or architectural importance in the community. Although there are other examples of alpine design in Aspen, none are so inconsistent with their use of materials and detailing associated with alpine architecture. This building is not worthy of historic designation. At best, it could be called pseudo-Bavarian or pseudo-Bav. 4Â£ STRYKER/BROWN ARCHITECTS,PC FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Ferd Belz Savanah Limited Partnership FROM: David Brown DATE: December 13,1994 NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 NOTES: I am surprised to hear that the Historic Preservation Committee is considering granting historic status to the Bavarian Inn. In my mind, it seems of questionable value as a historic resource for the city of Aspen. We have had the original drawings, and drawings for the expansion which were drawn by an R.L. Fischer in June of 1976. The addition encompassed the northwestern portion of the two story lodge which includes approximately 8 bedrooms above grade and an unfinished basement below grade. The original drawings â€¢ for the original portion of the building are dated received by the City of Aspen in June of 1968. There is no name on the drawings as to who was the Architect or the draftsman. The drawings have some similarities to what was actually built, but they depart in many details and in many ways. The drawings are very sketchy, not detailed, but they do show more detail and character that might be called Bavarian or Swiss Alpine than what was actually built. Perhaps the most historical or European aspect of the property is it's name, the Bavarian Lodge. Certainly nothing in the way it was built evokes any sense of quality or character that one might associate with the Bavarian Alps. Especially poor in character is the addition which is framed and built out of concrete block without insulation and a thin skim coat of plaster. The roof is built out of 2 by decking with no insulation. The 1968 addition has "irretrievably" ruined any of the so-called character that may have originally existed, especially on the north and west sides of the buildings. The most indicative component of the structure that evokes the 1960's is the cheapness and low quality of the construction and the lack of true "alpine" proportioning of the doors, windows, and other details and elements. 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORAD 0 81611 303.925.2254 925.2258(FAX) Ferd Belz Bavarian Inn Memo, page 2 Section 7-709 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations discusses the original reasoning for establishing an inventory of historic structures. Item A states: "...the inventory of historic structures shall include all structures in the city of Aspen oriainallv constructed prior to 1910 which continue to have historic value and such other structures as identified by the HPC as outstandina examples of rr, ore modern architecture " I think it is important to consider the original intent when the HPC established the inventory: "other structures as identified by HPC as outstanding examples of more modern architecture" was considered, I believe, the state of mind of the council and the community at that time was to preserve truly modern architecture, such as that from the Bauhaus, also known as the International Style, which was known by it's lack of ornamentation, hence the concept - "Form Follows Function". This building, while it does not lack an attempt at ornamentation, is far from the designation of modern and could not possibly be considered related to the school of international style. Certainly, it is not an outstar-':- - -----ile oLmo-r-R modern architecture." The Bavarian Inn was not constructed prior to 1910, therefore, does not meetthe first half of the criteria for inclusion on the inventory. (The original portion of the Bavarian Inn was built in 1968, and the addition in 1976). Being a poor derivation of German alpine design with little or none of the sensitivity found in the Bavarian-Swiss or Austrian structures in ski areas of those countries. It is neither modern, nor outstanding, nor is it really architecture. It just happens to be a building with a few pieces of gingerbread attached and some very inconsistent detailing, a very poor choices of materials and a poor composition of those materials. The former HPC officer felt that Alpine structures of the 40's and 50's qualified as worthy of inclusion on the inventory, even thought not "examples ofmore modern architecture." This building was built in the late 60's and mid 70's, and is not an example of the post-war early ski era. Another style traditionally associated with Aspen are the public buildings built of brick, such as the Wheeler Opera House, City Hall and the County Court House. Hence, I would dare say that the Ritz- Carlton Hotel is an important public structure, being of brick with some traditional detailing, is therefore more associated with the traditional Aspen character than is the Bavarian Inn. The new affordable townhomes at 7th and West Hopkins are more in keeping with the historic character of Aspen than this project. I would also suggest that Boogie's is more indicative of traditional Aspen flavor than the Bavarian Inn. Boogie's has brick detailing, modulation, massing and materials in a composition with contrasting metal and glass shed on a diagonal that echoes many of the traditional downtown buildings and combines in a very creative way, the mining heritage with the Victorian commercial core. Any of these three buildings are more "Aspen-historical" than the Bavarian Inn. WITnâ€¢-n.liliâ€¢ Ferd Belz Bavarian Inn Memo, page 3 Perhaps the best designation for this project would not be historic, but rather random. Many of the details including the hodge-podge combination of 4/12 slope, mansard roofs and aluminum sliding windows combined with fixed plate windows of random shapes and sizes are certainly more in keeping with the typical low- budget strip highway "Learning From Las Vegas" pseudo-something construction of the 1960's and 1970's than they are with an alpine structure. This building is about as Bavarian as Howard Johnson's is colonial. The recently adopted Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for Core-Area neighborhoods has a section on the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The first goal is to preserve the scale of single family residential buildings traditionally seen. This building is much larger than the scale traditionally seen in residential buildings and single family residences, and therefore preserving this building as historic does not meet this goal. In Goal 2, the guidelines state: "buildings larger than single family homes are anticipated and should be divided into modules that appear similar in scale to single family homes". This building does not do that. The building and the repetitive nature of the doors and windows seen from Hwy. 82 reads as a cheap motel. This building does not incorporate elements traditionally seen on single family homes such as porches, which are called for in goal number 2. The forms, features and materials used in traditional buildings is called for in Goal number 3 in the neighborhood design guidelines are not used in this building. It does not create a sense of visual continuity with the rest of the neighborhood. It does absolutely the opposite. It is discontinuous with the character of the neighborhood, both in forms, materials, massing and scale. The neighborhood character design guidelines (on page 2) discusses how Mountain Chalet architecture contributed to the debate about desian and concern for community identitv. when first introduced in the 1940's and 1950's. Part of that debate was how adootina European Ali)ine character would dearade and debase traditional architecture seen in Aspen. not enhance it. While the neighborhood guidelines site early ski chalets in 1 950's apartments that show these basic desirable features with mining era cousins, this is not an early ski chalet of the 1940's, it is not even a middle era ski chalet of the 1 950's , it is a too-late era ski chalet of the 1960's and 1970's. Too late to be relevant to be historic. This building is uniquely bad in design and execution. It does not deserve historic status. It does deserve an air strike. /: \ 1, 1 1 \11 -1 -i \ \\ .1 1 IiI 1 \\ \ \\ V- i1 1\\ AUG 1 9 1994 \ ./. Copy#p i \ . 409)54. *itff , iisi.7 ity r ;7*6,9 i = .-IP- 1/ 2~ 1 1 \ .77- - -- -1 - --- 2 189*px__83 - . -- Â»1-- --> 1 -3 \ 1 1 .\ * -IJÂ·~ ~- ..rÂ·,INÂ· 33ik~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - 9/\1 4/ ~ MT 11<6 1 1 J ~ #- '1D jg U '344*r /7 - .1 /1.4 1\ , . i<1 -f*30/'~r~ r -15 2 .r #12, 1 1 5 '420/26- 6 â‚¬ -14 Â®(D 1/ . - a- 0 -pÂ·G A x 6 - O- 7- 'll 914- x. 310 e -1 - i t 62- = 23Â£61_LJIT-LLL- - 1 + 6, US (krELEVEL~ , \91 0 1 \ 1 \\ -- - 9.61' 1 1 - -1&Â«U M. 64, 0-b-ZEIâ‚¬192=--- - 1 ; 6.2, 1 r~/0/c rby,n - VIEW PLANE MAP 1"=50' - LX ~ Me(ObPF UN rt 9 IRK/)29 0/1 3 - - I- -- 15{0518- +341 9 --7.47=it -1-0, KUHN/303 EAST MAIN .E\ -/1 \ - V i -1 I - 1-1-<.21~ I r \ , 451 - -- 7 . 1 -- . 41 A ~ 1- 12,1.-. 711091 -- 1 ~ ~ ~ l JAKE VICKERY I / 1 1 ; 1 /240 ' 12- 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 POST OFFICE BOX ]2360 J (fÂ« Il i J A K E ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 I VP2 f VIEW PLANE SECTION (303) 925-3660 VICKERY TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE III Fl / f i ..:h 888888~~~8198â€¢Â¢oduN~ U '1 lilla L-- 1 1 - i,/ 31- tl.(l \**U'.71 / . LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 HERBERTS. KLEIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELLURIDE OFFICE: GEORGE M. ALLENt (303) 925-8700 P.O. BOX 215 MILLARD J. ZIMET* TELECOPIER (303) 925-3977 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE JACQUELINE K. LISLE SUITE 2B WILLIAM L LAWRENCE' TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 talso admitted in Hawaii (303) 728-5151 *also admitted in New York TELECOPIER (303) 728-3069 "also admitted in Texas December 14, 1994 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee VIA HAND DELIVERY Dear Honorable Committee Members: This letter is submitted as part of the record of your Conceptual Development review for L'Auberge, 435 W. Main St. This office represents Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, neighbors of this project. The Goldenbergs have reached an agreement with the developer of L'Auberge, ALH Holding, Co., through its attorney Gideon Kaufman, whereby ALH has agreed to mitigate certain adverse impacts of this project on its neighbors. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of these commitments and to establish that the Goldenbergs have no objection to the ALH development proposal as presently submitted, if these conditions are satisfied. The terms of the agreement between these parties is as follows: 1. Cabin 22 Will be eliminated and there Will be no development or parking in the area southerly of the manager's residence. The vast majority of the existing lilac bushes will remain. 2. Cabin 21 will be set back 10 feet from the southerly lot line of the property, will be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 19 feet to the ridge line) and there will be no development or parking in the area southerly of it. 3. Guests who reside for 20 days or less will be prohibited from having dogs on the property. 4. The trash pick up area will be limited to the south- easterly boundary of the property. 5. ALH will, prior to the issuance of a building permit construct any new cabin(s), place $10,000.00 into an escrow for use in paving the alley. Mr. Goldenberg will have the right to seek the permits necessary to undertake the paving. . I. City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee December 14, 1994 Page 2 AHL's attorney will be present to acknowledge or otherwise comment on these points. We expect that a definitive agreement will be executed between these parties shortly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATJON / / ----%04.,V By: - Herbert S. Klein , BURROWS BONDS -COMMUNICATIONS To the HPC: In the age o f developements like the Ritz Carlton Hotel and the recent FAR maximun buildout craze in the west end, it is refreshing to hear of the plans to improve the L'Auberge property. The previous , t improvements have added a special character to each cabin. Each cabin is unique and has it's own particular charm. We are excited for the sucess of this project because it helps to restore Aspen's uniqueness. , This is a project we endorse and would like to see more of. - \ I Sincerely yours, 4 I. j \ Art Burrows . Burrows Bonds Communications - . I . , . f 1 , 630 Eost Hyman Ave. Suite 28 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925Â·3155 FAX (303) 925Â·8659 - 017\1 0/59*\ - secretarial servitelde*ktop publishing December 14, 1994 Dear HPC: The recent changes to the Swiss Chalet, now L'Auberge d'Aspen, are very attractive and tasteful improvements. Their request for additional changes are reasonable and will add to the attractiveness of the property, which will enable it to maintain and continue it's special charm. In a time when small lodging properties are failing, it's wonderful to see L'Auberge, with its individual character and friendly, welcoming (they even accept animals!) nature prospering, and I hope that the HPC will not stand in the way of their continued success. Sincefely, n ./ 11 0/ 131 Â£ 11*v 1, Kathle~/Ryan P.O. Box 2525 â€¢ 133 West Hyman Avenue â€¢ Aspen, CO 81612 â€¢ (303) 925-2341 /'Al 4> 12~ \*/ -&1/RUSroa ~ CHARLES B. ISRAEL President December 13, 1994 HPC Town Meeting Dear Friends, Please accept this letter as recommendation of my conceptual approval of the Haisfield family's redesign of the lodge Swiss Chalet/L'Auberge. Not only do I ~ like the concept of land usage at half the allowable rate, as a resident of Aspen, but alsc a banker. I live at 522 W. Francis St., three blocks from the lodge. The idea of open space, off street parking, pedestrian areas and fountains, while providing for medium priced visitors' lodging seems ideal to me in concept; though I have not viewed specific plans. I have had visitors use the present lodge, and the improvements done by the Haisfields in the past two years have raised the quality of a visitors' experience of L'Auberge dramatically. We surely look forward to seeing their plans. Sincerely, ktMkhAr~*/L/K Charles B. Israel President CBI/jt 534 E. HYMAN AVE. â€¢ P.O. BOX 3677 â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 â€¢ 303/925-6700