Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.co.Carley 334 W Hallam St 134 W Hopkins.10A-88cut�Ioek u� tC�dor���u�?�f1� � ,bea-nn,e�A VI 5 A Ol ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 - 63723 - 47333 - 63724 - 47341 - 63725 - 47342 - 63726 - 47343 - 63727 - 47350 - 63728 - 47360 REFERRAL FEES. 00125 63730 -47380 00123 63730 -47380 00115 63730 -47380 County 00113 -63711 -47431 - 63712 - 47432 - 63713 - 47433 - 63714 - 47441 - 63715 - 47442 - 63716 - 47443 - 63717 - 47450 - 63718 - 47460 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 - 47480 00123 -63730 - 47480 00113 -63731 - 47480 00113 - 63732 - 47480 PLANNING OFFICE SALES GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS / i� 2d ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS �{ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERINGQ ' SUB -TOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. ENGINEERING 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER T Name: P �i-7 n 'i /�� `V 'C Address; �' �f• 1 N oao y Check #";��� Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL SUB -TOTAL_ TOTAL Phone: Project: n ` , I,S 0 r / c (a/ to-tl6hl C t)dl* to a 110sf cn I'll i'ar-ILLi10A Date: # of Hours: Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council June 13, 1988 expressed concern over the effect of this project on affordable housing. The applicants have worked with the staff and have agreed to volunteer a restriction on the dwelling to make it an accessory use to the restaurant. P & Z accepted this agreement. Ms. Eflin said 134 West Hopkins is requesting historic designa- tion, conditional use and condominiumization. Ms. Eflin said the applicants will restore the existing house on lot K, which is rated 2; will move the miner's cottage at 120 North Spring, which is rated a 1, to lot L, and add a two story addition. The request would create a separate ownership for these two houses. Ms. Eflin told Council the designation runs with the entire parcel, which includes both structures. Ms. Eflin told Council HPC and P & Z recommend designation subject to the volunteer conditions that the applicants remove the asphalt siding on 134 West Hopkins and restore the siding. Ms. Eflin said these two houses are unique; they are two dif- ferent styles of miner cottages and represent Aspen's earliest architectural styles. 134 West Hopkins has been altered but is still a good example of the life-style of the mining area. Ms. Eflin said staff feels relocating the 120 North Spring to the new site will increase it's visibility. Both structure possess Ccommunity significance. Cindy Houben, planning office, told Council P & Z placed condi- tions on the condominiumization of 134 West Hopkins. These conditions are standard within the new code except for the fourth condition which is no impact will result on affordable housing from the house being moved from North Spring street. Ms. Houben said P & Z was told the city may be double dipping in requesting a condominiumization fee at 700 East Main site and again at 134 West Hopkins. However, the housing impact fee is in effect when a structure is condominiumized, not necessarily when it is moved. Ms. Houben told Council the housing impact fee for 700 E. Main is based on the number of units there, and has nothing to do with moving of a structure. Ms. Houben said when the structure on Spring street is moved to 134 West Hopkins and condominiumized, it should have to pay this impact fee. John Kelly, representing Peter Carley, told Council this project was started before the new code was enacted. The applicants were given their choice of which code they wanted to proceed under. Kelly told Council they assumed there was not going to be a fundamental change in philosophy. Kelly pointed out the new code has a change in that condominiumization creates an impact. Kelly told Council the applicants could build the house and not pay any impact fee. The fact that this is being condominiumized, the planning office feels this creates employees. Kelly told Council P & Z treated the house that is being moved to this site as a new 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 13, 1988 structure. Kell said under the old code, Y o e, a new structure was not deemed to create an employee housing impact. P & Z has treated the two houses differently. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, told Council staff recom- mended P & Z not assess a condominiumization fee on the structure that was to be moved and that the condominium assessment be placed on the site and not on one structure and be divided as the applicants saw fit. Kelly said the impact fee is $6400. Kelly said he cannot see where the impact is. Councilman Isaac said the new code has no flexibility to waive the condominiumization impact fee. Kelly told Council when this application was filed, the old ordinance was in effect. Kelly said they did not anticipate there would be an automatic fee on this, and the applicant chose to go with the new code. Mayor Stirling said the fundamental thing he wants to do is save the Victorian. Mayor Stirling appealed to Council to look at this as an issue of preservation. Ms. Houben told Council in the new regulations, if an applicant wants to deed restrict their house to affordable housing, they have the ability to waive the fee. Kelly said he feels people should have the ability to say there is no impact. Mayor Stirling moved to allow the condominiumization with C conditions in the planning office memorandum page 11, and leave number 4 as written; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Mayor Stirling said this is a combination of the new and old code and historic preservation. Councilman Isaac agreed the trade off is saving some old homes and not having to pay the impact fees. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 1988, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling said the $2,000 grant will come out of the contingency fund. ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 1988 - Newspaper racks Mayor Stirling moved to terminate any further discussions on this ordinance; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Councilman Isaac said the city does need some guidelines. The newspaper racks have got to be cleaned up. Councilman Gassman said he does not think the city can design everything. Marvin Jordan, CCLC, said they have prepared a slide presentation which illustrates the problem. Jordan suggested Council look at the 17 0 9 (d) Standard: The applicant must agree to undergo an inspection of the building or buildings by the building department regarding fire, health and safety conditions. Response: The applicants intend to do significant interior work to both units. For this reason, no inspection has been done thus far. If the units will not be renovated prior to recordation of the condominiumization plat, then the applicants should agree to have such inspection and abide by fire, health and safety requirements established by the building department. RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall file a condominiumization plat with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office meeting the requirements of Section 7-1004.D(3) of the Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. b. The applicant shall file a statement of subdivision exception to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recordation of the plat including: 1. Agreement to join any special improvements districts formed in the future. 2. Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing tenants" provision. 3. Six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4. Finding that no impact will result on affordable housing from the house being moved, assessment of the affordable housing impact fee shall only apply to the existing house on the property (three bedrooms) according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. 5. Agreement to relocate the existing evergreen on the property and to replant a tree no less that one half the size of the existing tree if it does not survive. C. The applicant shall agree to inspected by the Building Department safety conditions and to abide by the requirements prior to recordation applicants do not undertake renovation before condominiumization. 11 have the structures for fire, health and Building Department's of the plat if the of the two residences 0 If Council agrees with staff's recommendation on Condition b.4, it shall read as follows: 4. Payment shall be made for the affordable housing impact fee according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "Move to read Ordinance (Series of 1988)." "Move to approve Ordinance (Series of 1988) on first Reading." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: sb.134.2 12 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council •." THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager --- --- FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Historic Designation and Auxiliary Reviews for 334 W. Hallam St., 300 W. Main St., and 134 W. Hopkins St. DATE: June 13, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Ordinance 2� (Series of 1988) on Second Reading. Additionally, there is one consolidated development application, the condominiumization of 134 West Hopkins, which we recommend the Council approve. INTRODUCTION: During the last several months three historic designation projects have been reviewed by HPC and P&Z, resulting in recommendations for historic landmark designation. A single ordinance has been prepared that would accomplish designation of all three properties. Case reviews for each application are • presented below. On May 9, 1988, Council passed this Ordinance on First Reading. STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION: Section 7-702 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988), states the following standards for designation of historic landmarks. A structure must meet one or more of these standards -to be eligible for designation. Staffs comments in response to each standard are in the case review section of this memorandum. Standard 1: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historic significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Standard 2: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or traditional Aspen character. Standard 3: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Standard 4: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of • 1 AIN Aspen. Standard 5: The structure or site is a significant component 04 of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that! neighborhood. Standard 6: 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 site of historical or architectural importance. CASE REVIEWS: 334 West Hallam Location: Lots K, L, and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam St. The owner intends to make alterations to the original house including removal of the newer two story addition, which would be replaced with a new addition and greenhouse. The owner also intends to partially • demolish and reconstruct the carriage house, integrating historic fabric into the new where possible. The applicant has also developed plans for restoration of the original historic main house. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic landmark designation of the subject property on May 3, 1988. The conditions to their recommendation, volunteered by the applicant as an inducement for designation,. are: 1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west elevation windows of the original house with the exception of the lower level east elevation window as amended by HPC. 2. The carriage house will not be demolished but rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric as possible. 3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details shall be accomplished. HPC: On March 8, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of the structure at 334 W. Hallam St. subject to the same condition as stated above in P&Z's motion. HPC approved conceptual development review on that 2 • • 0 • date subject to several conditions. On April 12, at the request of the applicant, HPC again reviewed and approved portions of the project, specifically the greenhouse/"sunspace" addition, which required a minor change to •� the east elevation, lower level original window, reconstructing the opening into a door to permit access into the sunspace. In HPC and staff's opinion, this minor change does not negate the historical integrity of the structure and the recommendation for historic landmark designation stands. Historic Evaluation Rating: 115" Note: This property has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Response to Standards: 1. The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establishments). 2. This home was constructed c. 1885. The front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the • front facade and its highly visible corner location make this entire property exemplary of "Victorian" residential architecture. This home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west -facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the West End, most being original _and renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be utilized for modern living. 3. The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the Guidelines as a historical architectural style in Aspen. 4. The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c. 1880- 1885, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house retains a great deal of its original integrity. 5. The special architectural features of this home and carriage house represent the historic character of this neighborhood and Aspen at the turn -of -the -century. Its high rating (11511) expresses 3 • • the important relationship this structure has to the • neighborhood. 6. The Wilder House is situated near the very center of the historic "West End" neighborhood on a prominent corner. Its size, location, and architectural features present an excellent example of Aspen's history. It has special prominence because it is viewed by summer visitors enroute along 3rd Street to the Music Tent. Historic Designation Grant: Because 334 W. Hallam received an evaluation rating of 11511, it is eligible for a grant from the City of $2,000. The applicant has requested this grant. We have included this grant within the Ordinance. 300 West Main Location: Lots Q,R, and S of Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: O - Office zone district. Applicant's Request: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic designation of the log house property. The project includes conversion of the existing 1400 square foot house into a fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately 2300 • square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 300 W. Main on April 26, 1988 recognizing that the attached residential unit is an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant -owner/manager or an employee, and will not be condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community. The applicant volunteered such restriction on the property as an inducement for historic designation and agreed to prepare a legal instrument establishing the restriction for review before City Council. HPC: HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual development review approval to the addition subject to several conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns raised. After five meetings, HPC has directed staff to prepare a resolution of conceptual development approval referencing • specific plans for adoption at their May 10, 1988 regular meeting. It should be noted that HPC is able to grant a requested encroachment into the rear yard set -back at Final Development approval through Section 9-103.C.2 of the Municipal Code as amended. Housing Authority: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for 35% (* Changed to 60% in Ordinance 5) of the employees generated from expansion or change in use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee housing impact that the restaurant will generate in accordance with the intent of the new code. Historic Evaluation Rating: The log house was not given a rating by HPC in January, 1987 because the evaluations focused on mining era structures. Response to Standards: 1. The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded that the- original structure on the site was built prior to 1893 • and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or site has significant historical association. 2. The house is one of the only log structures remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850-1930's) and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status questionable. However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can support the viewpoint what it meets this criteria of architectural significance. The State Historical Society's architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he considered the log house to be a "classic". The HPC will review the proposed alterations and addition to the log house at Final Development Review to assure that the historic • character of the property which is deemed worth preserving is 5 • • maintained. 3. The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old-time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a mason who did work throughout the Valley, is credited with building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been done to confirm this. 5. The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity, permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street. • 6. The log house has a special prominence in the community because. of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion. Employee Housing Issue: Both the Housing Authority and P&Z • expressed concern over the effect of this project on affordable housing. Working with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant agreed to volunteer a restriction on the owner's -dwelling unit to make it an accessory use to the restaurant as an inducement to the City for historic designation. P&Z stated that with this agreement, the applicant has essentially mitigated employee housing impacts. The concept of this restriction has been stated in Section 2 of the attached Ordinance based on P&Z's motion. The deed restriction document has been completed by the applicants and is attached for Council review. The document specifically restricts the attached residential unit as an accessory use to the restaurant, for the use of the restaurant owner/manager, or an employee. The owner, however, will have the right to rent out the unit to other permanent employees of the community. Further, the property can not be condominiumized for as long as the owners, their heirs, etc. enjoy the conditional use granted hereinabove. : The covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding for the period of fifty (50) years from the date of the covenants. 134 West Hopkins Location: Southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. 6 • Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property, •� conditional use approval and condominiumization to undertake the following project: restore the existing house on Lot K, move the house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to Lot L, add a two ~` story addition and garage to the rear of Lot L, and create separate ownerships of the two houses. Special review for reduction in required parking from five (5) spaces to four (4) spaces is also requested. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: On May 3, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following condition volunteered by the applicants: The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the old siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. P&Z recommended approval of condominiumization, subject to five conditions discussed in the condominiumization section of this memorandum. Conditional use approval and special review for parking_ reduction were also granted. HPC: On January 12, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of 134 W.Hopkins Avenue subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants as stated above. HPC gave conceptual development approval for the exterior ,changes to the property subject to a number of conditions. It should be noted that variations from required sideyard set -backs and site coverage may be approved by HPC in their upcoming Final Development approval. Historic Evaluation Ratings: 134 W. Hopkins: 112" 120 N. Spring: 111" Response to Standards for Designation: 1. The chain of title changes presented in the application for 134 W. Hopkins gives no :indication that the existing house is associated with a person or event of historical significance; however, we note that the Anderson/ Loushin family has lived here since 1950. There is no documentation that the house at 120 N. Spring has significant historical association. 2. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by • 7 "illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle(s) of the • silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation rating of 112" considering the asphalt siding, the possibility that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that the house does not make a strong contribution to the historic character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt. �• Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting. She reported that the dormers are original and the front porch had been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed historic/contemporary character. The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable/hipped roof and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as intended by the applicants, would better expose the original architectural style of the house and increase its historic significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think that removal of the asbestos siding is a desirable commitment on the part of the applicant. No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic Inventory. The house appears in its present location on the 1886 Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations negatively effecting its architectural significance, including partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its i location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the Eagle's Club. 120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because Ofits simple one story gable end "shotgun" style, largely original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages would actually make the house more visible to the public and increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In addition, this house is imminently threatened by demolition because of the 700 E. Main multi -family residential project proposed for the site. 3. These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages. Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working class of the silver mining era in Aspen. As part of HPC's conceptual development review, the concern was discussed whether the proposed alterations and addition would ' negatively effect the distinguished architectural characteristics of the houses and property. Conditions for HPC's approval were established with respect to the shed dormers, siting and height 8 • • for follow-up at final development review. Staff believes that the project will consist of compatible alterations and additions not detracting from the distinguished architectural type and character of the two houses. • 4. No evidence has been presented that these houses meet the standard of being significant works by influential architects 5. The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighborhood, as delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another historic structure next door does help maintain and enhance the neighborhood's historic character, even though this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of historic structures. Additionally, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. 6. The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses possess some general community significance, in our opinion. Condominiumization: 1. Referral Comments: • a. Engineering Department: 1. There is a platting requirement for condominiumization. The applicant should agree to join future improvements districts. 2. A final condominiumization plat must be submitted that depicts both structures and complies with Engineering Department requirements. 3. The applicant has agreed to join any future special improvement districts. This project is in the district that requires sidewalks be installed on both frontages. b. Housing Authority: The applicant has requested to pay the affordable housing impact fee for condominiumization rather than demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate housfing. The fee approach is allowed in the new code, and may be allowed by the Planning Director prior to its adoption if deemed appropriate. $11,175 would be required according to the schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the new land use code. (* The fee schedule as adopted in Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988) would require an assessment of $14,075.) On March 31, 1988 the Housing Authority recommended acceptance of the employee housing impact fee. • 9 2. Planning Office Comments: We have reviewed this application • according to Section 20-22 of the old Municipal Code, with the exception of the affordable housing issue. Standards for review are as follows: (a) Standard: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when . their unit is offered for sale and right of first refusal to purchase their unit. Response: The present tenants are also the sellers of the property. This requirement does not appear to be necessary. (b) Standard: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. Response: This rental restriction must be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception: (c) Standard: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. Response: The existing unit would appear to fall under the low and moderate income rental guidelines. If so, the old Code would require a five year deed restriction to the appropriate income guidelines. However, the concept for employee housing • mitigation has changed to an impact fee system. Consequently, charging low rent is not a disincentive to condominiumization. The Planning Office agrees with the Housing Authority that the new fee schedule should be applied to this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the affordable housing impact fee only apply to the existing dwelling and not to the house to be relocated on the property. The Commission believes that a determination should be made that no impact on affordable. housing results from moving this house so to justify that this provision of condominiumization be partially waived. The new code is quite clear that the affordable housing impact fee applies to all condominiumized units. There is a waiver provision in Section 7-1008.c(2) if the applicant demonstrates that "the unit will remain available to employees of the community... in the form of a permanent restriction placed on the unit that the unit ;will only be sold to or occupied by qualified employees..." We understand that one of the co - applicants is a permanent employee of the community; however, she is not willing to make this restriction on the property. Without this commitment the Planning Office cannot support partial waiving of the affordable housing impact fee. Additionally, we do not concur with the applicants' argument that because the unit to be moved (for which a GMP exemption was granted for 10 • • reconstruction as part of the 700 E. Main project) is pre- existing, that there is no impact on affordable housing and therefore, there should be no impact mitigation. (d) Standard: The applicant must agree to undergo an inspection of the building or buildings by the building department regarding • fire, health and safety conditions. Response: The applicants intend to do significant interior work to both units. For this reason, no inspection has been done thus far. If the units will not be renovated prior to recordation of the condominiumization plat, then the applicants should agree to have such inspection and abide by fire, health and safety requirements established by the building department. RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall file a condominiumization plat with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office meeting the requirements of Section 7-1004.D(3) of the Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. b. The applicant shall file a statement of subdivision exception to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to • recordation of the plat including: 1. Agreement to join any special improvements districts formed in the future. 2. Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing tenants" provision. 3. Six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4. Finding that no impact will result on affordable housing from the house being moved, assessment of the affordable housing impact fee shall only apply to the existing house on the property (three bedrooms) according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. 5. Agreement to.relocate the existing evergreen on the property and to replant a tree no less that one half the size of the existing tree if it does not survive. C. The applicant shall agree to have the structures inspected by the Building Department for fire, health and safety conditions and to abide by the Building Department's requirements prior to recordation of the plat if the 11 • � M ` applicants do not undertake renovation of the two residences before condominiumization. • If Council agrees with staffs recommendation on Condition b.4, it shall read as follows: 4. Payment shall be made for the affordable housing impact fee according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: it op==to ve� ee 1988) ." "Move to approve Ordinance (Series of 1988) on second Reading." !/ CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: sb.134.2 i 1 12 • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager,.,, FROM: Steve Burstein and Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office'iV� RE: Historic Designation and Auxiliary Reviews for 334 W. Hallam St., 300 W. Main St., and 134 W. Hopkins St. DATE: May 9, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Ordinance o2A� (Series of 1988) on First Reading. INTRODUCTION: During the last several months three historic designation projects have been reviewed by HPC and P&Z, resulting in recommendations for historic landmark designation. A single ordinance has been prepared that would accomplish designation of all three properties. Case reviews for each application are presented below. STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION: Section 7-702 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988), states the following standards for designation of historic landmarks. A structure must meet one or more of these standards to be eligible for designation. Staff's comments in response to each standard are in the case review section of this memorandum. Standard 1: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historic significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Standard 2: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct, or traditional Aspen character. Standard 3: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Standard 4: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Standard 5: The structure or site is a significant component 1 of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood. Standard 6: 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 site of historical or architectural importance. CASE REVIEWS: 334 West Hallam Location: Lots K, L, and M of Block 42, Townsite and City of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation of 334 W. Hallam St. The owner intends to make alterations to the original house including removal of the newer two story addition, which would be replaced with a new addition and greenhouse. The owner also intends to partially demolish and reconstruct the carriage house, integrating historic fabric into the new where possible. The applicant has also developed plans for restoration of the original historic main house. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic landmark designation of the subject property on May 3, 1988. The conditions to their recommendation, volunteered by the applicant as an inducement for designation, are: 1. No changes will be made to the south, east and west elevation windows of the original house with the exception of the lower level east elevation window as amended by HPC. 2. The carriage house will not be demolished but rehabilitated utilizing as much of the historic fabric as possible. 3. Proper maintenance and preservation of the original facade and architectural details shall be accomplished. HPC: On March 8, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of the structure at 334 W. Hallam St. subject to the same condition as stated above in P&Z's motion. HPC approved conceptual development review on that date subject to several conditions. On April 12, at the request of the applicant, HPC again reviewed K and approved portions of the project, specifically the greenhouse/"sunspace" addition, which required a minor change to the east elevation, lower level original window, reconstructing the opening into a door to permit access into the sunspace. In HPC and staff's opinion, this minor change does not negate the historical integrity of the structure and the recommendation for historic landmark designation stands. Historic Evaluation Rating: 115" Note: This property has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Response to Standards: 1. The home and carriage house are associated with Eugene Wilder of the Aspen Lumber Company (one of Aspen's oldest establishments). 2. This home was constructed c. 1885. The front elevation of this two story home is notable for its unique two story polygonal bay with segmental arched windows defined at the top by small panes of stained glass. The quality detailing throughout the front facade and its highly visible corner location make this entire property exemplary of "Victorian" residential architecture. This home is featured on the cover of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element. The carriage house and simple fenestration of the east and west facades of the main house blend together well. Carriage houses are commonly found throughout the West End, most being original and renovated in such a way as to maintain their integrity yet be utilized for modern living. 3. The Wilder House embodies the characteristics of the gabled "L" with Victorian detailing elements, identified in the Guidelines as a historical architectural style in Aspen. 4. The Wilder House was constructed from local lumber and may have been built by The Aspen Lumber Company, established c. 1880- 1885, according to Barbara Norgren, preservation consultant who prepared the National Register nomination for this property. The house displays a high degree of craftsmanship which was available in Aspen at the time of its construction. Through careful restoration of the original elements, this house retains a great deal of its original integrity. 5. The special architectural features of this home and carriage house represent the historic character of this neighborhood and Aspen at the turn -of -the -century. Its high rating (11511) expresses the important relationship this structure has to the neighborhood. 6. The Wilder House is situated near the very center of the historic "West End" neighborhood on a prominent corner. Its size, location, and architectural features present an excellent example of Aspen's history. It has special prominence because it is viewed by summer visitors enroute along 3rd Street to the Music Tent. Historic Designation Grant: Because 334 W. Hallam received an evaluation rating of 11511, it is eligible for a grant from the City of $2,000. The applicant has requested this grant. We have included this grant within the Ordinance. 300 West Main Location: Lots Q,R, and S of Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: O - Office zone district. Applicant's Request: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic designation of the log house property. The project includes conversion of the existing 1400 square foot house into a fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately 2300 square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 300 W. Main on April 26, 1988 recognizing that the attached residential unit is an accessory use to the restaurant, primarily for use of the restaurant owner/manager or an employee, and will not be condominiumized; however, the owner will have the right to rent out the unit primarily to permanent employees of the community. The applicant volunteered such restriction on the property as an inducement for historic designation and agreed to prepare a legal instrument establishing the restriction for review before City Council. HPC: HPC recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual development review approval to the addition subject to several conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns raised. After five meetings, HPC has directed staff to prepare a resolution of conceptual development approval referencing specific plans for adoption at their May 10, 1988 regular meeting. It should be noted that HPC is able to grant a requested encroachment into the rear yard set -back at Final Development 4 • • approval through Section amended. 9-103.C.2 of the Municipal Code as Housing Authority: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for 35% (* Changed to 60% in Ordinance 5) of the employees generated from expansion or change in use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee housing impact that the restaurant will generate in accordance with the intent of the new code. Historic Evaluation Rating: The log house was not given a rating by HPC in January, 1987 because the evaluations focused on mining era structures. Response to Standards: 1. The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or site has significant historical association. 2. The house is one of the only log structures remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850-1930's) and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status questionable. However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of architectural significance. The State Historical Society's architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he considered the log house to be a "classic". The HPC will review the proposed alterations and addition to the log house at Final Development Review to assure that the historic character of the property which is deemed worth preserving is maintained. 5 0 • 3. The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old-time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons, a mason who did work throughout the Valley, is credited with building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been done to confirm this. 5. The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity, permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street. 6. The log house has a special prominence in the community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion. Employee Housing Issue: Both the Housing Authority and P&Z expressed concern over the effect of this project on affordable housing. Working with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant agreed to volunteer a restriction on the attached dwelling unit to make it primarily an accessory use to the restaurant as an inducement to the City for historic designation. P&Z stated that with this agreement, the applicant is essentially mitigated employee housing impacts. The concept of this restriction has been stated in Section 2 of the attached Ordinance based on P&Z's motion. The actual deed restriction has not been drafted by the applicants at the time of writing, but will be completed prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance. Staff will have review comments on that document for Council at the Second Reading. 134 West Hopkins Location: Southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Zoning: R-6 Applicant's Request: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property, conditional use approval and condominiumization to undertake the following project: restore the existing house on Lot K, move the house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to Lot L, add a two story addition and garage to the rear of Lot L, and create A separate ownerships of the two houses. Special review for reduction in required parking from five (5) spaces to four (4) spaces is also requested. Advisory Committee Actions: P&Z: On May 3, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation of 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following condition volunteered by the applicants: The asphalt siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the old siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. P&Z recommended approval of condominiumization, subject to five conditions discussed in the condominiumization section of this memorandum. Conditional use approval and special review for parking reduction were also granted. HPC: On January 12, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of 134 W.Hopkins Avenue subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants as stated above. HPC gave conceptual development approval for the exterior changes to the property subject to a number of conditions. It should be noted that variations from required sideyard set -backs and site coverage may be approved by HPC in their upcoming Final Development approval. Historic Evaluation Ratings: 134 W. Hopkins: 112" 120 N. Spring: 111" Response to Standards for Designation: 1. The chain of title changes presented in the application for 134 W. Hopkins gives no indication that the existing house is associated with a person or event of historical significance; however, we note that the Anderson/Loushin family has lived here since 1950. There is no documentation that the house at 120 N. Spring has significant historical association. 2. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by "illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle(s) of the silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation rating of 112" considering the asphalt siding, the possibility that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that the house does not make a strong contribution to the historic character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt. Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting. She reported that the dormers are original and the front porch had been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed 7 historic/contemporary character. The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable/hipped roof and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as intended by the applicants, would better expose the original architectural style of the house and increase its historic significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think that removal of the asbestos siding is a desirable commitment on the part of the applicant. No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic Inventory. The house appears in its present location on the 1886 Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations negatively effecting its architectural significance, including partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the Eagle's Club. 120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because of its simple one story gable end "shotgun" style, largely original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages would actually make the house more visible to the public and increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In addition, this house is imminently threatened by demolition because of the 700 E. Main multi -family residential project proposed for the site. 3. These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages. Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working class of the silver mining era in Aspen. As part of HPC's conceptual development review, the concern was discussed whether the proposed alterations and addition would negatively effect the distinguished architectural characteristics of the houses and property. Conditions for HPC's approval were established with respect to the shed dormers, siting and height for follow-up at final development review. Staff believes that the project will consist of compatible alterations and additions not detracting from the distinguished architectural type and character of the two houses. 4. No evidence has been presented that these houses meet the standard of being significant works by influential architects . 5. The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighborhood, as RE delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another historic structure next door does help maintain and enhance the neighborhood's historic character, even though this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of historic structures. Additionally, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. 6. The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses possess some general community significance, in our opinion. Condominiumization: Please note that condominiumization may only take place after Second reading of the historic designation ordinance. This discussion should take place at Council's subsequent meeting. 1. Referral Comments: a. Engineering Department: 1. There is a platting requirement for condominiumization. The applicant should agree to join future improvements districts. 2. A final condominiumization plat must be submitted that depicts both structures and complies with Engineering Department requirements. 3. The applicant has agreed to join any future special improvement districts. This project is in the district that requires sidewalks be installed on both frontages. b. Housing Authority: The applicant has requested to pay the affordable housing impact fee for condominiumization rather than demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate housing. The fee approach is allowed in the new code, and may be allowed by the Planning Director prior to its adoption if deemed appropriate. $11,175 would be required according to the schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the new land use code. (* The fee schedule as adopted in Ordinance 5 (Series of 1988) would require an assessment of $14,075.) On March 31, 1988 the Housing Authority recommended acceptance of the employee housing impact fee. 2. Planning Office Comments: We have reviewed this application according to Section 20-22 of the old Municipal Code, with the exception of the affordable housing issue. Standards for review are as follows: (a) Standard: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when their unit is offered for sale and right of first refusal to purchase their unit. Response: The present tenants are also the sellers of the property. This requirement does not appear to be necessary. (b) Standard: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. Response: This rental restriction must be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception: (c) Standard: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. Response: The existing unit would appear to fall under the low and moderate income rental guidelines. If so, the old Code would require a five year deed restriction to the appropriate income guidelines. However, the concept for employee housing mitigation has changed to an impact fee system. Consequently, charging low rent is not a disincentive to condominiumization. The Planning Office agrees with the Housing Authority that the new fee schedule should be applied to this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the affordable housing impact fee only apply to the existing dwelling and not to the house to be relocated on the property. The Commission believe that a determination should be made that no impact on affordable housing results from moving this house so to justify that this provision of condominiumization be partially waived. Staffs understanding is that the affordable housing impact fee provision of the new code applies to all condominiumized units. The rationale is no longer displacement of affordable housing but rather is the activity of residential condominiumization leading to increased employees serving that project. There is a waiver provision in Section 7-1008.c(2) if the applicant demonstrates that "the unit will remain available to employees of the community... in the form of a permanent restriction placed on the unit that the unit will only be sold to or occupied by qualified employees..." We understand that one of the co -applicants is a permanent employee of the community; however, she is not willing to make this restriction on the property. Without this commitment the Planning Office cannot support partial waiving of the affordable housing impact fee. Additionally, we do not concur with the applicants' argument that because the unit to be moved (for which a GMP exemption was granted for reconstruction as part of the 700 E. Main project) is pre-existing, that there is no impact on affordable housing and therefore, there should be no impact mitigation. 10 b 9 and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO81611 TEL: (303) 925-4755 May 4, 1988 Ms. Roxanne Ef 1 i n Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Color -ado 81611 Dear Roxanne: MAY 4 On behalf of the owners of .3' 4 blest Hallam Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, I am recauesting the monetary grant towards the rc.nnovati on and restor-at i on of the existing (proposed historically designated) building on the property. This applicaiton is ma0e in accordance with Ordinance 42, 5c-�ction 14, No. 21. I-f you have any questions, please call me. r• Patricia Harris Project Manager PH. dem • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 134 W. Hopkins Historic Designation, Conditional Use and Condominiumization DATE: May 3, 1988 LOCATION: 134 West Hopkins Avenue, southeast corner of Hopkins and First, Lots K and L of Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 APPLICANTS' REQUEST: Julie Wyckoff and Peter Carley, contract purchasers, request historic designation of the subject property, conditional use approval and condominiumization to undertake the following project: restore the existing house on Lot K, move the house presently at 120 N. Spring Street to Lot L, add a two story addition and garage to the rear of Lot L, and create separate ownerships of the two houses. Special review for reduction in required parking from five (5) spaces to four (4) spaces is also requested. SITE, AREA & BULK CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Area: Existing House Floor Area: Moved House Floor Area: Additions Floor Area: Proposed Total Floor Area: Max. Allowed Floor Area: Existing Site Coverage Proposed Total Site Coverage: Max. Allowed Site Coverage: Total Front -Rear Setbacks Proposed: Min. Allowed Front -Rear Setbacks: 6,000 s.f. (approx.) 1,301 s.f. 748 s.f. 1,177 s.f. 3,226 s.f. 3,240 s.f. (excluding 500 s.f. garage) 1,048 s.f. (18%) 2,544 s.f. (42%) 2,400 s.f. (40%) 15 feet 30 feet Total Side Yards Proposed: 9.3 feet Min. Allowed Total Side Yards: 15 feet Prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office using information provided by project architect Roger Kerr, April, 1 1988. See Roger Kerr's 29 February, 1988 square footage tabulations (attached) for more information. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTES: On January 12, 1988 the Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of 134 W.Hopkins Avenue subject to the condition volunteered by the applicants that the asbestos siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed, the old siding restored and replaced as necessary with matching new siding within one (1) year after historic designation. HPC also gave conceptual development approval for the exterior changes to the property subject to a number of conditions. PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT REVIEW: The applicants have received HPC's recommendation for historic designation and HPC's conceptual development approval at this meeting. The applicant's current step is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain their recommendations on historic designation, condominiumization and conditional use approval. City Council would then hold first and second readings of an ordinance to accomplish designation. Finally, HPC will conduct final development review, at which time variations from the area and bulk requirements would simul- taneously be granted. Please note that this project would utilize three historic incentives from Ordinance 42 (Series of 1987): the conditional use for the second house on the property (P&Z), special review for reduction in parking(P&Z), and area and bulk variations (HPC). PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION: The Planning Office has the following comments in response to the standards for designation stated in Section 24-9.3(a) of the Municipal Code. We will subsequently review the proposal according to the development review standards in Section 24-9.4(d). Historic Evaluation Ratings are: 134 W. Hopkins: 112" 120 N. Spring: 111" 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The chain of title changes presented in the applica- tion for 134 W. Hopkins gives no indication that the existing house is associated with a person or event of historical signifi- cance; however, we note that the Anderson/Loushin family has lived here since 1950. There is no documentation that the house at 120 N. Spring has significant historical association. 2 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures states that 134 W. Hopkins possesses historic importance by "illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle(s) of the silver mining era." HPC gave the structure an historic evaluation rating of 112" considering the asbestos siding, the possibility that the second floor dormers were added, and the assessment that the house does not make a strong contribution to the historic character of the neighborhood, already substantially rebuilt. Hazel Loushin, one of five owners, attended the meeting. She reported that the dormers are original and the front porch had been altered. She also emphasized that the block has a mixed historic/contemporary character. The small dimensions of this house, its cross gable/hipped roof and original windows and dormers make 134 W. Hopkins a good example of a miner's cottage. Removal of the asbestos siding, as intended by the applicants, would better expose the original architectural style of the house and increase its historic significance. It is likely that portions of the original siding are damaged and will need to be replaced by new siding. We think that removal of the asbestos siding is a desirable commitment on the part of the applicant. No information on 120 N. Spring was found in the 1980 Historic Inventory. The house appears in its present location on the 1886 Willits Map. HPC considered the house to have a few alterations negatively effecting its architectural significance, including partial enclosure of the porch and adding of several new windows. The primary reason for HPC's low evaluation was its location in a neighborhood no longer considered at all historical, overshadowed by the Concept 600 Building and out of scale with the nearby industrial Obermeyer Building and the Eagle's Club. 120 N. Spring possesses some architectural significance because of its simple one story gable end "shotgun" style, largely original porch, and several original windows and doors. Moving the structure into a neighborhood with other miner's cottages would actually make the house more visible to the public and increase its prominence in the new context, as we see it. In addition, this house is imminently threatened by demolition because of the 700 E. Main multi -family residential project proposed for the site. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing character- istics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: These houses embody two different styles of miner's cottages. Both are unadorned structures, most notable for their 3 • simplicity, harking to the relative austerity of the working class of the silver mining era in Aspen. As part of HPC's conceptual development review, the concern was discussed whether the proposed alterations and addition would negatively effect the distinguished architectural characteristics of the houses and property. Conditions for HPC's approval were established with respect to the shed dormers, siting and height for follow-up at final development review. Staff believes that the project will consist of compatible alterations and additions not detracting from the distinguished architectural type and character of the two houses. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: No evidence has been presented that these houses meet this standard. 5. Standard: 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. Response: The West Aspen Mountain (Shadow Mountain) neighbor- hood, as delineated in the 1980 Historic Inventory, contains some 16 scattered historic structures within 22 blocks. Seven of those structures are within a block from the intersection of First and Hopkins. We think that the preservation of 134 W. Hopkins and adding another historic structure next door does help maintain and enhance the neighborhood's historic character, even though this is a very mixed neighborhood with low overall density of historic structures. Additionally, placing the two houses on 6,000 s.f reproduces the pattern of small houses on single lots typical of working class areas of town during the mining era. 6. Standard: The structure 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 of historical or architectural importance. Response: The typical size and architectural styles of these two houses possess some general community significance, in our opinion. B. Conditional Use and Parking Reduction Reviews 1. Referral Comments: Engineering Department: Elyse Elliott noted in her April 27, 1988 memorandum the following concerns: a. The applicant proposes to provide four (4) on -site parking spaces while the one space per bedroom requirement comes to five (5) spaces. Alley access to the parking spaces is proposed and is most appropriate. b. A final condominiumization plat must be submitted that depicts both structures and complies with Engineering Department requirements. c. The applicant has agreed to join any future special improvement districts. This project is in the district that requires sidewalks be installed on both frontages. d. A drywell should be installed to maintain the historic runoff in accordance with Section 20-17(f). e. Circulation in the area will not be negatively impacted by this project. f. The applicant's agreement to handling trash is acceptable. g. The applicant does not address relocation of the large evergreen tree on Lot L. 2. Staff Comments: Section 24-3.3(b) of the Municipal Code (in effect at the date of application submittal) states the criteria for review of conditional uses. Criteria consist of: 11(1) Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, (2) Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the applicable zoning district and, (3) If the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area." The Planning Office has the following comments in response to areas of concern in conditional use: 1. Compatibility with the Neighborhood: The proposed relocation of a second miner's cottage on the site is principally compatible with the character of the historic site and the neighborhood in our opinion. Orientation to the street is in keeping with the historic streetscape pattern. Density achieved of two small residences on a 6,000 square foot lot relates to the historic density and is not out of character with the present day mixed density of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The long term nature of residential use, accomplished through the six month minimum lease provision in condominiumization, is also most 5 appropriate in this neighborhood. 2. Parking: There is a shortfall in on -site parking between the required five spaces and the proposed four spaces. P&Z may approve a plan for reduced spaces through special review. The applicant has stated that the four spaces meet the needs of the project because one resident will be part-time. Presumably, he will not have a car here at all times and not generate guest parking when not here. We note that the close -in location lends itself to walking to the CC area or taking a bus on Main Street. Additionally, there appears to be adequate on -street parking along the periphery of the property. Finally, more on -site parking would negatively effect the character of the landscaped yard. The three spaces cover most of the remaining back yard. Standard sized spaces (8 1/2 X 18 feet) should be located directly off the alley and next to the new addition so to increase yard space. We suggest that a special paving surface be considered by the applicants. Staff supports special review approval for four on -site spaces provided that the applicant locate the parking area directly off the alley and plant a landscape buffer between the parking area and First Street. 3. Landscape Concerns: The evergreen on Lot L is the only major existing tree on the property, approximately 22 feet high. It may be possible to design the addition to go around the tree so to not require removal. If this cannot be accomplished, the tree should be moved to another location on the property and the applicant should be responsible to replace the tree with a similar sized specimen tree if it does not survive. As mentioned above, the parking area required for this project should extend no farther than 18 feet from the alley and be landscaped to reduce visual impacts. We suggest that the applicants plant another tree along West Hopkins following the City's Streetscape Guidelines. This improvement would help retain the attractiveness of Aspen's historic streetscape tree pattern. Additional street trees along First Street would also be appropriate. C. Condominiumization: 1. Referral Comments: a. Engineering Department: As stated above, there is a platting requirement for condominiumization. The applicant should agree to join future improvements districts. b. Housing Authority: The applicant has requested to pay the affordable housing impact fee for condominiumization rather than demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate housing. The fee approach is allowed in the 2 • • new code, and may be allowed by the Planning Director prior to its adoption if deemed appropriate. $11,175 would be required according to the schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the new land use code. On March 31, 1988 the Housing Authority recommended acceptance of the employee housing impact fee. 2. Staff Comments: We have reviewed this application according to Section 20-22 of the old Municipal Code, with the exception of the affordable housing issue. Standards for review are as follows: (a) Standard: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when their unit is offered for sale and right of first refusal to purchase their unit. Response: The present tenants are also the sellers of the property. This requirement does not appear to be necessary. (b) Standard: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. Response: This rental restriction must be included in the Statement of Subdivision Exception: (c) Standard: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. Response: The existing unit would appear to fall under the low and moderate income rental guidelines. If so, the old Code would require a five year deed restriction to the appropriate income guidelines. However, the concept for employee housing mitigation has changed to an impact fee system. Consequently, charging low rent is not a disincentive to condominiumization. The Planning Office agrees with the Housing Authority that the new fee schedule should be applied to this project. (d) Standard: The applicant must agree to undergo an inspection of the building or buildings by the building department regarding fire, health and safety conditions. Response: The applicants intend to do significant interior work to both units. For this reason, no inspection has been done thus far. If the units will not be renovated prior to recordation of the condominiumization plat, then the applicants should agree to have such inspection and abide by fire, health and safety requirements established by the building department. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the following actions: 7 1. Recommend historic landmark designation of 134 W. Hopkins Avenue subject to the following condition volunteered by the applicants; The asbestos siding on 134 W. Hopkins will be removed and the old siding restored and replaced as necessary within one (1) year after historic designation. 2. Grant conditional use approval for the relocation of the house at 120 N. Spring Street to the 134 W. Hopkins property subject to the following conditions: a. All representations made by the applicant regarding this project shall be adhered to, with the exception of architectural changes that may occur through HPC's final development review. b. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy the applicant shall make the following improvements to the site and adjacent rights of way: (Plans to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit are specified below.) 1. A parking area containing three (3) standard size parking spaces shall be installed directly adjacent to the alley with gravel or paving surface. 2. A landscape buffer of a hedge, shrubs or trees shall be planted along the eastern edge of the parking area. Plans for this planting shall be shown in the building permit application and accepted by the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. An additional tree shall be planted by the applicant in the West Hopkins right of way following the City of Aspen's Streetscape Guidelines. 4. The addition on Lot L shall be designed to save the evergreen on Lot L if possible. If the applicant demonstrates that the tree cannot be retained in its place, the tree shall be moved elsewhere on the property. The applicant shall agree to replace the tree if it dies within two (2) years of being moved with a tree not less than one half the size of the original tree. Plans pertaining to the tree shall be shown in the building permit application and accepted by the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. The applicants shall install a drywell to maintain the historic runoff of the property. Plans for the drywell shall be shown in the building permit application and accepted by the Engineering Department �3 prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Sidewalks along W. Hopkins Avenue and First Street shall be constructed at the owners' expense with the approval of and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Plans for the sidewalk shall be shown in the building permit application and accepted by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Grant special review for reduction in on -site parking requirements from five (5) spaces to four (4) spaces. 4. Recommend approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the two residences on 134 W. Hopkins subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall file a condominiumization plat with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office meeting the requirements of Section 7-1004.D(3) of the Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. b. The applicant shall file a statement of subdivision exception to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recordation of the plat including: 1. Agreement to join any special improvements districts formed in the future. 2. Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing tenants" provision. 3. Six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4. Payment of the affordable housing impact fee according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3). 5. Agreement to relocate the existing evergreen on the property and to replant a tree no less that one half the size of the existing tree if it does not survive. C. The applicant shall agree to have the structures inspected by the Building Department for fire, health and safety conditions and to abide by the Building Department's requirements prior to recordation of the plat if the applicants do not undertake renovation of the two residences before condominiumization. sb.134.2 4 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: April 27, 1988 Re: Carley Historic Designation, Conditional Use and Condominiumization After reviewing the above application and making a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking - The applicant proposes to provide four on -site parking spaces. Section 24-4.4 of the Municipal Code requires one parking space per bedroom in the R-6 zone. There will be five bedrooms in the new proposal (three in the structure on Lot K and two in the structure on Lot L). The proposed parking spaces are accessed from the alley which is preferable to minimize vehicle conflicts on Hopkins Avenue and First Street. 2. Plat - A final plat must be submitted that depicts both structures and complies with this department's requirements. 3. Sidewalks - The applicant has agreed to join any future special improvement districts. This project is in the district that requires that sidewalks be installed on both frontages. These must be 5' width minimum and comply with the Streetscape Guidelines. 4. Drainage - Since this project will create more impervious surface on this site, we require that a drywell be installed to maintain the historic runoff in accordance to Section 20-17(f). 5. Utilities -This project can be serviced by existing utilities. 6. Circulation - The circulation of the area will not be negatively impacted by this project. 7. Trash - The applicant's agreement to trash is acceptable. 8. Site Condition - There presently exists a large evergreen tree on Lot L, the applicant does not address it's relocation. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certity that on this day of 198; a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. i a Nancy Caeti PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CARLEY HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 3, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application submitted by Peter Carley, requesting Historic Designation, Conditional Use and Condominiumization. The applicant wishes to remodel the existing house located on Lot K, Block 59, 134 W. Hopkins; and to move an additional historic house to Lot L and build a two story addition to the rear of the house to be moved. The applicant requests approval of conditional use for two detached dwellings on a single-family lot and condominiumization of the separate dwellings. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 14, 1988. City of Aspen Account. dk ..Y��//// • Club Aspen Partne c/o Stuart Scott, Lt V� 720 East Hyman Ave. t'41 Aspen, CC 81611 r— APR P ►y � 1998 aa-P 11 1 -- / • p �}18;` " U S. Galona C0$1�11 f spe REruR e ble add e �p ECROVARD seed Alan J. Ciklin Blair J. Ciklin 1921 North Congress Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ,y Y ' u.S. POSTAGE ; APR 14'egi' 0./� `� 2 5�: `. 141/yIL��• 0 i-11WA plashing office Galena CO 81611 TO SF,KDER NOT DEUYERABU XS ADORff66 u IA C PR T 2) APR., Judy rkleI'if�t:1. 9 /19/ El'(1 2161 Cast Floyd Place TO Engliti400d, CO 80110 0* L1NAVA.1 TO 1"ORWAV"C" APR 2 Manning Office S. C3.1cna Ax.cen, CO 841611 Ronald Frank Rosner 707 William Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 r� GE*) T'IME I:::XPD ROI SNEI:� Mo f I.A�111) 7 0.45 E., R" 1. C i IS) F.: k i 1 2 2 q C, k"IE'TURN TO liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillifilI O-Zb Aspen/Pi kLi- iamung of icCE 130 S. Gowa • Aspen, Co" V611 Charles G. Hess Suite #5 222 West Hopkins Aspen, CC 81611 Avenue �GIAPR 14"1 C� REI 'H �'O yFo �� f �a - ___"wmk -wo -WOOL ""a ems- _7 Acpefj/ppkj,j Planning Office Asspar, CO Ulb-11 E E r r 4, ro 0 SEN"Nj)r")C4 .48 .4-00 ep 14M� so The Hotel Aspen, Ltd. 730 East Durant Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 A 0.PR14'?9 5!: 1: 30 ... 0 r'AINMER TO FOR,Rb wbt.nw*d, rv46thw�j ;' ���� ��U� ^~^� S. ~°="�na Aspen, CO 81611 ~&4� �� -' - Cbrina Seidel #7, emt Hyman Ave. "�Nx Aape 81611 SEI 08 16CMN1 Uq/16/88 RETURN TO SENDER NO FDRNARDING DRDER ON FILE yNABL17 TO FORWARD 0 Aspen/Pitwi, - 1130 S. G� y-ias�n►n� r�` .� seen, cc 4 t1 Susan F. Berry 18 Canterbury Lane Summit, NJ 07901 O (r F ZC 0 7 F'�gOO 9 4 1 �q�s�� � �•'�14: 2 planning Au I " Office &P-is, Cif 81611 RET 6�14 TOSEk'% U NOE L IV EIRA EL Is Arlo RE3f!Efl A -UNABLE TO Dr. James W. Davis 3501 East 27th Avenue Light House Point, FLA rid 33064 DAV 01 0 9,, 1 TO SENDER MAY j j 0 MEMORANDUM TO: HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM: ANN PHILLIPS, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 20, 1988 RE: CARLEY HISTORIC DESIGNATION, CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION BACKGROUND: The application is requesting exemption from GMP for employee housing, Conditional Use and Condominiumization. The applicant wishes to remodel the existing house located at 134 W. Hopkins, move an additional historic house to the adjacent lot and build a two story addition to the rear of the house to be moved. Our review is based on the condominiumization. The new code amendment will require a fee of $11,175.00 (the condominiumization is for a two bedroom @ $4,755.00 and a four bedroom @ $6,400.00) to be paid for the condominiumization. The Planning Director has approval to ask for this fee if he believes it is appropriate prior to the code amendments being codified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests that the applicant pay the nominal fee required by the new code revisions and suggests approval of the application. ACTION NEEDED: Approval of staff recommendation. t • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director* FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Carley Historic Designation, Conditional Use and Condominiumization Parcel ID# 2735-124-55-003 DATE: March 14, 1988 ------------------------ ------------------------ Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by John Kelly on behalf of his client, Peter Carley, requesting Historic Designation, Conditional Use and Condominiumization. The applicant wishes to remodel the existing house located on Lot K, Block 59, 134 W. Hopkins, move an additional historic house to Lot L and build a two story addition to the rear of the house to be moved. The applicant requests approval of conditional use for two detached dwellings on a single-family lot and con- dominiumization of the separate dwellings. Please review this material and return your comments no later than April 8, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. Thank you. *Jim, please talk to me before you comment on this application. 0 0 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S_ Galena Street Aspen, 00 81611 ( ) 925-2020 Da to ate This isvto inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of captioned application_ We have determined that your application IS NOT complete_ Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only neeae(3) Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tion Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ A. Yodr application 's complete and we ha e scheduled it for review by the �� on _ We w it 1 call you if we need any additional informa ion prior to that date_ Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy .of the memorandum_. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have. requested, we will place you on he next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASP /P TKIN PLANNING OFFICE CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: DATE COMPLETE: PROJECT NAME: Project Addr� APPLICANT Applicant REPRESENTATIVE: Representative ---------- _ ----------- PAID: *-�s NO AMOUNT: 1) TYPE OF APPL TION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ID AND CASE NO. 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z CC PUBLIC HEARING DATE:` 3) PUBLI HEARING IS BEFORE: P&Z CC N/A DATE REFERRED: Maw &Y INITIALS: Jlc—, REFERRALS: V City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas y Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief B1dg:Zon/Inspect Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: a • JOHN THOMAS KELLY ' " "' V ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1216 March 8, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Aspen City Council Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Historic Designation Application for Conditional Use, and Condominiumization of Lots K & L Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen Ladies and Gentlemen: This is a three-part application for historic designation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the second is an approval for a conditional use as permitted under Ordinance 42, Series of 1977 and finally a request for approval to condominiumize the property pursuant to Section 20.22 of the Code. I will address these applications in order. 1. Historic Designation. Applicants request historic designation for the property as shown in the attached application from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The basic plan is to remodel the existing house situate on Lot K, and then move, pursuant to the incentive provisions of Ordinance 42, an additional historic house to Lot L. Both houses would be then extensively remodeled in a Victorian motif. Details of the plans are attached as prepared by Roger Kerr, Mr. Carley's architect. On January 12, 1988, H.P.C. recommended designation and gave conceptual approval to the plan. Roger Kerr's plans generally incorporate the H.P.C. approval. we believe our plans as attached a unique approach to restoration and preservation which is of low impact as opposed to the type of development we have seen in the west End. we are also requesting relief as permitted under Ordinance 42 for minimum setback site coverage and minimum distance between building variations as set forth on Roger Kerr's plans which are generally within the spirit of what the H.P.C. unanimously } March 8, 1988 Page 2 approved at the January 12th meeting. We feel our plan is low impact, typical of the type of residential development which historically existed and fits the neighborhood well. In addition, two historic structures, which is all likelihood would be slated for destruction, will be preserved and enhanced. Accordingly, applicants hereby respectfully request historic designation approval by Planning & zoning and conceptual approval of the plan. 2. Conditional Use Approval. Applicants further request conditional use approval pursuant to Ordinance 42 and Section 24.33 of the Code. Under the Code, the principal matters of concern in granting a condition use are as follows: A. Compatibility with the neighborhood. As stated above, we believe our plan is unique and compatible with the mixed Victorian residential nature of the neighborhood. I would refer you to our updated plans, our H.P.C. applications and the Planning Office memo recommending approval of same. I think that our general plan has been found compatible by H.P.C. and the planning staff. we would hope that P&Z would concur. We feel our plan meets the goal of preservation and restoration of the Victorian nature of our town which was the whole purpose of Ordinance 42. B. Parking. Applicants plans show parking for four (4) cars. This should be more than adequate in view of the fact that Mr. Carley, who would own the unit on Lot L, is a part-time resident and the number of spaces exceed the number of bedrooms by one. C. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation. The proposed project would have little or no effect on vehicular or pedestrian circulation. On site parking is now being provided which did not exist previously. Again, this is a low -impact project with little effect on the surrounding neighborhood. D. Trash. Trash will be kept in covered bins and the property shall be covenanted against any storage of trash, debris or junk other than in the designated area. E. Water, Sewer and Other Utilities. City water, sewer and electricity are all currently available to the house on Lot K and there are no problems for obtaining them for Lot L. March 8, 1988 Page 3 F. Topography. The lots are flat and no unusual problems exist regarding snow removal or drainage. G. Compatibility with Existing Zoning. The proposed use - detached residential, is compatible with the R-6 zone and the relatively minor concessions made via Ordinance 42 are a reasonable trade off for the benefits of historical preservation and restoration received by the neighborhood. 3. Condominiumization. Finally, applicants are requesting permission to condominiumize the property pursuant to Section 20-19 and 20-22 of the Code. This approval would, of course, be contingent upon the approval of historical designation by P&Z, the final approval of designation by H.P.C. and the approval of the condition use incentives of Ordinance 42 as requested above. Obviously, my clients recognize that the proposed condominiumization represents a subdivision under the applicabel State statutes and the City Code. However, given the fact that the primary intent and purpose of the subdivision is to facilitate orderly and planned development and (assuming approval of the Ordinance 42 incentives requested above) the project will be within use and density requirements and we believe an exception from strict compliance with the Code is appropriate in this case. The City's concern with condominiumization is reflected in Section 20-22. The primary thrust of the Code appears to be that there is no low to moderate tenant displacement. With regard to the house being moved to Lot L from Spring Street it was slated for demolition in any event, so it is essentially a new structure for this property and there is no tenant displacement. The existing house on Lot K has been rented by the Loushin family at a rent of $700.00 per month plus utilities. The current lease ends April 15, 1987. This house, after remodel, will be occupied by Julie Wyckoff as her primary residence. Julie is the owner/operator of "Cheap Shots" and would probably fit into the moderate income category. We would argue that there is no low to moderate income displacement because the lease will terminate in any event in April. Ultimately, the property will be improved or the house demolished and removed from the moderate rental inventory. In the event Council should find that the house • March 8, 1988 Page 4 situate on Lot K does income housing problem, impact (insofar as the payment as contained in would seem appropriate since this will in all adversely affect the low to moderate we would be willing to mitigate this existing house on Lot K) with a cash the new proposed Land Use Code. This mitigation in this case particularly likelihood soon be the law in any case. My clients understand that upon condominiumization, the units shall be subject to a six-month rental restriction as provided in the Code. They further agree to join any special improvement districts which may be formed which affect the neighborhood. My clients would request approval to condominiumize, subject to meeting all of the Engineering Dept.'s requirements for the Condominium Map. Conclusion. We would hope that Planning & zoning, H.P.C. and Council would look favorably on these applications. My clients have spent months on this project and have been involved in the formation of Ordinance 42, Series of 1987, from the start, and I believe we are among the first to come before you under the preservation ordinance! while the interaction of these applications is somewhat confusing, our goal is not. Our aim is to recreate a historical setting through the preservation ordinance in such a way as to have no or little impact on the neighborhood. Out total square footage is less than would be allowed for a single family house, under current zoning. We feel our plan is creative and unique and could, if approved, encourage the preservation of some of the lower -ranked historical structures and enhance the atmosphere of our town. Per your request, I enclose the following: 1. List of property owners (with stamped, addressed envelopes); 2. Updated title commitment showing ownership; 3. Plans and drawings of Roger Kerr which include data regarding our application to H.P.C. 0 • March 8, 1988 Page 5 4. Square footage calculations prepared by Roger Kerr. 5. Checks for fees as requested. If you need anything further, please contact me immediately. As you are aware, our time is short and we request a hearing at the earliest possible date. JTK/og Enclosures cc: Peter Carley Julie Wyckoff Very trul urs, John Thomas Kelly r REoUEST FOP, HISTORICAL DESIGNATION REQUESTORS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD PROPERTY: LOG HOLM �J 300 WV MAIN ST. BLOCK 44 LOTS REFERENCE: ATTACHED CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY FOR 300 IV. MAIN ST. HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON 300 !v. MAIN WAS CO,'JPLETED IN IL-044, SI`; YEARS SIIORT OF TYE 50 YEAR RE�tTIRF'?dEN^', �'• T .IE STRUCTURE RUC!'URE MERIT HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR THE FOLLO?VING REASONS: 1. THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PROMINENT SiJRVIVIIIG CITY STRUCTURE REPRESENTATIVE OIL' TURN OF THE CENTURY LOG HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. MANY LOG STRUCTURES EXISTED IN VICTORIAN ASP13N AND WERE LATER SHEATHED WITH FACADES. THIS'SIIFATHING PRACTICE OCCURED UP TO THE MID 1060s. 2. HOUSE CONSTRUCTION WAS PERFORIJED I;Y OLD TIME ASPENITE LEO "POPE" ROWLAND, "RED" RO?'LANDS BROTIIER, AND VALLEY 2:TASON JOIIN PARSONS. . 3. THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOLIES BUILT IN ASPEN AFTER THE TURN OF THE CENTURY THE LOG CABIN 300 WEST MAIN BLK 44 LOTS Q. R.& S. CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORICAL FACT SHEET 1893 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON I7ILITZ PJAP AT EXACT SAMTE LOCATION ON LOTS R R; S, OT?IC INAL SITED ALSO A1' MAPS LOCATION -FRAME AND CLAPBOARD 1893 ASPEN DIRECTORY SHOlPS A.B. SHELLEDY, SURVEYOR AND S.A. SHELLEDY AT 304 MAIN ST. (LOTS Q.R.&S.) STRUCTURE REBUILT OR TORN DOWN 193-1940 ? 1937 - 1944 "ONE OF THE FIRST STRUCTURES BUILT AFTER THE 1890's" RO'%,ONA MARI'.ALUNAS BUILT ACCORDI`:G TO RECORDS AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS (NAREN-CONNORS, ASSESSORS OFFICE) BETWEEN 1937 & 1944 I. WAREN CONNORS NOTED LEO ROWLAND BUILDING ON IT IN 1944 (COUNTY RECORDS SHOW L. ROWLAND TAKING A LIEN ON VERA 1VURLS" PROPERTY IN 1937.) 2. MR. CONNORS ALSO SAj'r' JOHN PARSON, THE VALLEYS MASON BUILDING "THE EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE AND UNUSUAL ROCK FIREPLACE" APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION APPLICANTS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD INTRODUCTION APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF 300 1i7. MAIN ST. IS PREDICATED ON THE INCENTIVE. OF CONDITIONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS ENHANCED ONLY BY PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INTERIOR. THE PRESENT HPC, PRZ, CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROCESS DOES NOT INTEGRATE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONAL USE OF A PROPERTY. THAT IS HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BEING CONTINGENT TO GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ALTER- NATIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT. IF CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT IS DENIED ALTERNATE DEVELOPE- IA?ENT OF THE PROPERTY MUST PROCEED. DUE TO THE CENTRAL LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO LOTS Q, R & S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPE- WENT WOULD NECESSITATE DEMOLITION. UNDER THE PRESENT REVIEvT PROCESS OF BEING• HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED FIRST COULD ELIMINATE THE E"OLITION OPTION OR ALTERNATE DEVELOPEIIJENT IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. TFrIS tvOULD BE AN I1_1,REASOr1ABLE ECONOP,?IC HARDSHIP. THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION MINIPRI?ES THE VISUAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS VISUALLY SUBORDINATE TO THE 0 0 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN INSET ON THE NORTH SIDE RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND ADDS APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ FT OF FLOORSPACE FOR FAMILY AND EMPLOYEE IIOUSING. THAT IS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 3880 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE OF WHICH APPROXIIATELY 1400 SQ FT IS THE RESTAURANT. A 9,000 SQ FT SITE IS ALLOWED 6750 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE. THE ROOF LINE OF THE ADDITION MATCHES THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, ROOF APEX AT 19, 10" ABOVE GRADE, 14.5 FT BELOW THE APEX OF THE ADJACENT CARRIAGE HOUSE. PITCH ROOF APEX BY CODE (24.7) MAY BE 30 FT ABOVE GRADE. ADDITION OFFSET FROM MAIN ST. IS 42.8 FT BY CODE (24.3.3, 24.3.7) THIS MAY PE 10 FT. THE OFFSET FROM THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY LINE IS 57FT, BY CODE THIS IS 5 FT. THE ALLEY OFF SET IS 5.2 FT., BY CODE THIS IS 15 FT. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF THE ADDITION MATCH THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO MINIMIZE VISUAL DETRACTION. AGAIN IN CONCLUSION THE INCENTIVE FOR THIS MODEST DEVELOPE- MENT IS TO HAVE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION CONTI^;GENT UPON CONDIT- IONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE ALTERNATIVE WILL BE DEMOLITION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPEME:IT PER "0" ZOZTING CODES. DUE THAT OUR RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY WOULD .NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OR DESIRABLE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPED TO THE ALLOj1'ABLE LI'.IITS . 1/19/88 c i (✓ C 25 Or�f/iiE i/;//�i�/U✓T u Uj �I y Ln r I„ is D m r D i Z 7H11`t4:- oi,JP+WT F-- a t. 9 ill 3 n Z CM 41 0 I 21 I oz 0 l< - � E,o LJ LJ A !\ � i ± Q @ �: t Page 2 w File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Davis Mary Ann T. Davis 303 569 2218 05 01 38 44 3380 Park Co. Rd. #72 303 838 7390 Bailey CO 80421 Davis Eldridge Eugene Davis, Jr. 713 978 4497 08 03 33 48 PO Box 36683 713 783 0278 Houston TX 77236 Dean Stephen 0. Dean 301 258 0546 01 03 34 48 18813 Nathan's Place Gaithersburg MD 20879 Dietrick Particia and Clark Dietrick 303 925 2323 01 10 26 39 375 Park Avenue 925 8960 Aspen CO 81611 DiNello Joan,Sal,Marco & Linda DiNello 201 785 1120 06 06 27 22 993 McBride Avenue 201 256 4219 West Patterson NJ 07424 Donohoe Keith W. Donohoe 804 422 5797 01 12 25 47 4300 John Silver Road 804 464 3240 Virginia Beach VA 23455 Duesdieker Robert W. Duesdieker 01 06 3121 622 West Exchange St. 816 727 3472 Kahoka MO 63445 Dwyer/Sanders Dwyer/Sanders Cos. (& Sanditen) 512 327 7415 06 08 26 43 1101 Capital of Texas Hiway So. 512 266 9405 Building D, Suite 200 Austin TX 78746 Dwyer/Sanders Dwyer/Sanders Companies 512 327 7415 06 12 29 44 1101 Capital of Texas Hiway So. 512 266 9405 Building D, Suite 200 Austin TX 78746 Eckert Robert J. Eckert 714 476 7400 12 08 28 49 22 Byron Close 714 493 0710 Laguna Nigel CA 92677 Edgar Ralph and Judy Edgar 414 245 4477 02 13 32 23 Post Office Box 457 414 245 5105 Williams Bay WI 53191 Ellett John & Edith Ellett 08 34 35 36 301 No. Main Street 904 372 8481 Gainesville FL 32601 February 25, 1988 Page 1 File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Allen Leonard, Betty and Sam Allen 800 251 6857 05 52 3122 850 Allen Avenue 615 526 4303 Cookeville TN 38501 Amplatz Maria and Grace Amplatz 11 07 32 48 2330 Larkin Apt 52 415 775 4649 San Francisco CA 94109 Amplatz Dr. Kurt A. Amplatz 612 626 6009 04 06 31 48 10 Evergreen Road 612 483 0883 St Paul MN 55110 Barsanti Ronald P. & Diane V. Barsanti 312 766 1850 10 09 12 29 122 Joan Drive 312 382 6787 Barrington IL 60010 Boone Dr Craig and Beverly Boone 317 521 1157 11 10 35 49 Roural Route 2, Box 91A1-2 317 984 9180 Noblesville IN 46060 Brugger Kent and Peggy Brugger 605 394 4143 12 03 34 22 3203 Ponderosa Place 605 348 6188 Rapid City SD 57702 Brugger/Romero Brugger/Romero 605 394 4143 12 02 1133 3203 Ponderosa Place 605 348 6188 Rapid City SD 57702 Cea Dr. Ann Cea 914 253 9200 07 08 25 40 Roger Drive 203 869 9194 Greenwich CT 06831 Clindinst John M. Clinedinst 201 766 2100 05 07 3140 Booth Agency 201 766 1854 2 Bell Terrace Bernardsville NJ 07924 Clinedinst John M. Clinedinst 201 766 2100 10 07 31 15 Booth Agency 201 766 1854 2 Bell Terrace Bernardsville NJ 07924 D'Souza Vincent J. D'Souza 12 06 32 39 Dept. of Radiology 919 748 4435 300 So. Hawthorne Rd. Winston Salem NC 27103 Dansey, Jr. William E. Dansey, Jr. 919 756 8700 06 51 50 23 Wedco, Inc. PO Box #443 Greenville CIC 27834 Page .� File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Nichols Charles P. Nichols M.D. 608 785 0940 04 03 30 49 700 West Avenue, So 507 896 2522 La Crosse WI 54601 Pixler Jack & Betty J. Pixler 303 249 3356 02 06 35 23 Post Office Box 1025 Montrose CO 81402 Pixler Jack and Betty Pixler 303 249 3356 07 07 34 20 Post Office Box 1025 Montrose CO 81402 Prescott David M. & Gayle E. Prescott 303 492 8381 11 52 33 23 235 Brook Place 303 447 0048 Boulder CO 80302 Price Douglas Lee Price 301 469 8934 02 02 27 49 PO Box 34588 301 365 7067 Bethesda MD 20817 Price Douglas Lee Price 301 469 8934 02 03 26 48 PO Box 34588 301 365 7067 Bethesda MD 20817 Randall Scott E. Randall 212 818 8900 05 08 34 48 197 7th Avenue #2D 212 691 6017 New York NY 10017 Romero Paul and Penelope Romero 505 296 3873 05 02 03 39 9 West Lake Drive, NE 415 465 5358 Albuquerque NM 87112 Romero Paul and Penelope Romero 505 296 3873 05 10 29 23 9 West Lake Drive, NE 415 465 5358 Albuquerque NM 87112 Romero/Brugger Romero/Brugger 505 296 3873 12 02 1133 9 West Lake Drive 415 465 5358 Albuquerque NM 87112 Rose Alvin & Jacqueline Rose 02 10 33 50 2000 S. Bayshore Dr., Villa 34 305 858 7371 Miami FL 33133 Ross David C. Ross 744 8631 05 09 32 24 921 So. Vine Denver CO 80209 Page File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Lund Gunner B. Lund 402 559 6972 706 No. 58th Street 5 402 5�3 6919 08 06 07 40 Omaha NE 68132 Mad Dog Mad Dog Enterprises 313 961 2575 Robert Tyler & Paul Hines 313 646 4316 10 11 26 22 3156 Penobscot Bldg. Detroit MI 48226 Mad Dog Mad Dog Enterprises 313 961 2575 Robert Tyler & Paul Hines 313 646 4316 10 10 35 49 3156 Penobscot Bldg. Detroit MI 48226 Margrave Bruce L. Margrave 800 854 8454 60 Orchard 11 11 34 47 714 559 4153 Irvine CA 92720 Mason John T. Mason and Associates 206 582 6505 07 01 John,Kerry,Jacob & Shawn Mason 02 23 PO Box 98146 Tacoma WA 98498 Morris James and Carol Morris 804 463 7200 824 Quail Point Cove 804 481 0295 06 02 38 42 Virginia Beach VA 23454 Morrison, Sr. Norman D. & Merna J. Morrison, Sr. 806 274 7161 1403 Blue Bonnet 806 273 3228 08 24 26 52 Borger TX 79007 Morrison, Sr. Norman D. & Merna J. Morrison, Sr. 806 274 7161 06 13 1403 Blue Bonnet 806 273 3228 36 21 Borger TX 79007 Mosettig/Leon Micheal Mosettig and Ruth Leon 703 998 2815 01 155 West 68th 212 787 3731 32 33 22 New York NY 10023 Munden Evelyn & Cameron Munden 804 425 1900 OS 615 N. Birdneck Road 804 428 8447 49 50 51 Virginia Beach VA 23451 Munden Evelyn and Cameron Munden 804 425 1900 06 10 30 47 615 N. Birdneck Road 804 428 8447 Virginia Beach VA 23451 Newman Dennis R. & Patricia L. Newman 303 431 9400 9305 Blue Mountain Drive 303 642 3292 02 30 3139 Golden CO 80403 Page 4% File SHL Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Grewe Thomas and Mary Grewe 715 834 2004 04 08 09 24 3751 Halsey Street 715 832 3289 Eau Claire WI 54701 Grewe Thomas & Mary Grewe 715 834 2004 04 07 25 26 3751 Halsey Street 715 832 3289 Eau Claire WI 54701 , Halverson Joan and Jim Halverson -0- 05 04 33 41 15734 Maple Island Ct. 612 435 7379 Burnsville MN 55337 Harn Raymond Harn,Developer,SME 815 235 7171 Cheeseman Construction Co. 1840 South Walnut Street Freeport IL 61032 Harrel, Jr. Tracy and Frances Harrel, Jr. 01 02 28 49 Post Office Box 112 318 628 6177 Winfield LA 71483 Heinz Jeffrey,Christopher,Bradley Heinz 312 763 3441 08 01 02 15 5508 North Nordica Chicago IL 60656 Henry Stephen Henry 818 797 2919 06 03 3115 201 So. Lake Ave., Suite #504 818 798 8766 Pasadena CA 91101 Huley Marc J. Huley 7 13 14 42 834 East Midlothian 216 783 1492 Youngstown OH 44502 Ivan Thomas Micheal Ivan 216 832 9723 2 52 01 14 258 Oak Drive 216 494 1037 North Canton OH 44720 Korobow Beverly Korobow 07 35 36 22 Two Lincoln Square #23D 212 769 1691 New York NY 10023 Korobow Beverly Korobow 05 27 28 21 Two Lincoln Square, #23D 212 769 1691 New York NY 10023 Kryvoruka John Kryvoruka 818 715 2762 01 11 30 24 6815 Remmet Ave, #122 818 347 8163 Canoga Park CA 91303 Page File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Ellis Sharon Ellis 312 875 6959 07 09 30 46 1400 North State Parkway, #18-B 312 266 9693 Chicago, IL 60610 Farmer Cort and Lucille Farmer 714 599 0954 10 13 14 48 3 Mesquite Place 714 591 1449 Phillips Ranch CA 91766 Ferdman Debora Ferdman 809 783 0307 07 04 29 47 GPO Box 3136 809 789 3425 San Juan PR 00936 Ferguson Carol Ferguson 313 625 4219 01 13 14 15 10524 Pine Tree Lane Goodrich MI 48438 Florenai Ado & Carol Florenai 616 925 3225 07 51 50 21 4182 Ridge Road 616 429 3619 Stevensville MI 49127 Folkes Bill and Janet Folkes 804 428 8577 07 52 27 24 4428 Revere Drive 804 467 3468 Virginia Beach VA 23456 Foster Earnest and Betty Foster 813 8G7 9513 05 05 06 37 6294 Bahia Del Mar Circle #1001 St. Petersburg FL 33715 Foster, Jr. Paul M. & Susan C. Foster, Jr. 512 723 5581 04 04 27 40 316 Montana 512 724 4317 Laredo TX 78041 Foster, Jr. Paul and Susan Foster, Jr. 512 723 5581 07 05 26 44 316 Montana 512 724 4317 Laredo TX 73041 Foster, Sr. Paul M. & Pearl M. Foster, Sr. 07 06 3841 106 Lintric Drive 617 337 3582 So. Weymouth MA 02190 Greely John & Georgiana M. Greely 02 07 08 24 1600 So. Eads St., #513 S 703 521 2525 Arlington VA 22202 Greely John & Georgiana Greely 02 09 28 47 1600 So. Eads St., 4513 S 703 521 2121 Arlington VA 22202 Page Z , File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Stark Robert and Yvonne Stark 12 51 50 30 818 Valley View Drive 605 624 8193 Vermillion SD 57069 Stokes Robt.Wm. & Shirley Ann Stokes 505 662 4918 02 51 29 22 795 Barranca Road 505 667 8554 Los Alamos NM 87544 Stokes Robt.Wm. & Shirley Ann Stokes 505 662 4918 01 51 29 40 795 Barranca Road 505 667 8554 Los Alamos NM 87544 Strand/Reinking Keith Strand and Roxanne Reinking 713 638 5442 05 11 25 15 33 South Elliot Place 718 855 3709 Brooklyn NY 11217 Studer Bettie M. Studer 10 27 28 39 128 Jordan Avenue 415 668 8813 San Francisco CA 94118 Swanson James and Joan Swanson 10 52 32 47 6813 Hillside Lane 619 941 3925 Edina MN 55435 Talbot Doug and Cheryl Talbot 804 463 3060 06 07 14 39 303 Lynnhaven Parkway #202 804 428 4513 Virginia Beach VA 23456 Taylor William E. & Mary Ann Taylor 513 753 5520 01 52 27 41 1230 Hayward Avenue 513 321 3700 Cincinnati OH 45226 Tillyer Micheal and Joseph Tillyer 201 627 8102 07 11 37 49 2 Chester Avenue 201 627 8735 Rockaway NY 07866 Wardlow James R. & Sylvia A. Wardlow 513 224 7181 11 50 51 24 P.O. Box 185 513 897 9655 658 Joyce Lane Waynesville OH 45068 Wedgeworth Robert & Chung-Kyun Wedgeworth 212 280 2292 04 01 21 52 25 Midvale Road 914 472 7428 Hartsdale NY 10530 Weigner/Hume Brent Weigner & Sue Iiume 307 632 8983 12 01 25 24 3204 Reed Avenue 307 632 2602 Cheyenne WY 82001 Page 7 File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME ANd ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Roth Howard and Nancy Roth, Jr. 305 356 9592 07 03 28 15 7912 Marbella Court South 305 351 2349 Orlando FL 32819 Rozran Jack Rozran 312 337 1244 05 12 26 47 875 W. Huron 312 472 3838 Chicago IL 60622 Russell Don and Elizbeth Russell 804 467 7000 06 05 25 49 2972 Adam Keeling Rd 804 481 7718 Virginia Beach VA 23454 Russell Don and Liz Russell 804 467 7000 06 11 32 48 2972 Adam Keeling Rd 804 481 7718 Virginia Beach VA 23454 Sanchez Juan A. & Marcella Sanchez 718 651 9770 01 08 36 20 Andes Communications, Inc. 85-06 Roosevelt Avenue Jackson Heights NY 11372 Sanditen Dean Sanditen (& Dwyer/Sanders) 512 723 5821 06 08 26 43 5303 Spring Field Ave. 512 723 6916 Sanditen Properties Laredo TX 78041 Sanditen Dean Sanditen 512 723 5821 06 52 34 35 5303 Spring Field Avenue 512 723 6916 Sanditen Properties Laredo TX 78041 Shelton Wesley Dean Shelton 605 343 1744 01 04 50 23 Rt 8, Box 1740 605 341 5346 Rapid City SD 57702 Shepard Stephen and Shoshonnah Shepard 617 899 7714 07 10 3139 29 Prospect Street 617 263 4898 Acton MA 01720 Sibilio Don and Arlene Sibilio 203 655 2255 06 09 24 28 16 Victory Drive 203 655 9941 Darien CT 06820 Stabler Carl L. & Barbara L. Stabler 05 35 36 20 14355 Kellywood 713 497 1688 Houston TX 77079 Stark Robert and Yvonne Stark 08 31 32 49 818 Valley View Drive 605 624 8193 Vermillion SD 57069 Page 9 File SML Owners LAST NAME NAME AND ADDRESS PHONE UNIT WEEKS Weigner/Hume Brent Weigner & Sue Hume 307 632 8983 12 52 3147 3204 Reed Ave. 307 632 2602 Cheyenne WY 82001 Williams James & Nancy Williams 512 723 2046 06 01 33 41 210 Belair Laredo TX 78041 Wood H. Stanley Wood 215 358 2105 05 13 14 43 Shadow Hill 215 388 7850 Burnt Mill Road Chadds Ford PA 19317 Yarbrough Russell and Paula Yarbrough 501 374 0216 06 04 37 40 621 West 8th Street 501 851 3994 Little Rock AR 72201 Zalnis Doug Zalnis 07 32 33 48 PO Box 76 920 1056 Aspen CO 81612 L4aiwyersoTitle Insurance Cqrporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ,J UhN ' HOMAS KELLY 117 S. SPRING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES HAZEL LOUSHIN KATHERINE J. KASPAR MARK ANDERSON LORI ANDERSON TAD ANDERSON P.O. BOX 582 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 GIDEON KAUFMAN SUITE 305 315 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RALLI DIMITRIUS JO-ELLAN HUEBNER-DIMITRIUS 200 SOUTH SIERRA MADRE BOULEVARD PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91109 SEBASTIAN J. BRUNGS CECA. A. BRUNGS P.O. BOX 966 NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647 ASPEN'S MOLLY GIBSON PROPERTIES 120 WEST HOPKINS AVE. COLCRADO 81611 ASPEN. BRIEF LEGAL SUBJECT PROPERTY LOTS A,B, BLK. 59 LOTS C,D, BLK. 59 LOTS M,N,R,S, BLK. 59 LOTS O,P,Q, BLK. 59 Form 100 Litho in U.S.A. 035-0-100-0041/2 La4iwers itle y jnsurance C ration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA J.P.W. c/o RICHARD J. LAUTER & COMPANY 11801 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066 RONALD FRANK ROSNER 707 WILLIAM STREET FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA 22401 CLUB ASPEN PARTNERSHIP c/o STUART SCOTT, LTD. 720 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY P.O. BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ARTHUR EVANS MARY ELLA EVANS 6317 BELMONT HOUSTON, TEXAS 77005 ROBERT P. BURKE DEBORAH BURKE 7610 SOLIMAR CIRCLE BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33433 MARTIN R. WARSHAW ALICE M. WARSHAW P.O. BOX 8976 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AL BOWMAN 10324 EL CABALLO COURT DELRAY, FLORIDA 33446 TOM B. CRAWFORD BRUCE G. GAYLORD SUITE 1750 1800 WEST LOOP SOUTH HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027 EMILIO DE TURRIS 31 BRAMBLE LANE MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 FRANCES E. RICHARDS ROUTE 2 203rd AND HILLTOP ROAD MOKENA, Trr!NOIS 60448 UNITS 1,2,3,5,6,7,8, 10,11,12,13,16-34 ASPEN SKI LODGE #4, ASPEN SKI LODGE UNITS 14, 15 ASPEN SKI LODGE E.7.5' LOT BALL LOTS C,D,E,F,G, BK. 60 LOTS H, I, BLK. 60 UNIT 1-A,COTTONWOOD UNIT 2-A,COTTONWOOD UNIT 3-A,COTTONWOOD UNIT 1-B, COTTONWOOD UNIT 2-B, COTTONWOOD UNIT 3-B, COTTONWOOD Form 100 Litho in U.S.A. 035-0-100-0041/2 AEL tatu)ers itle y jnsurance C ration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA JAMES C. BRENNAN UNIT 1-C, COTTONWOOD 417 ROYALE STREET NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 WILLIAM F. GOODNOUGH UNIT 2-C, COTTONWOOD VIVIAN V, GOODNOUGH, ESTATE P.O. BOX 8877 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ALBERT I. STRAUCH UNIT 3-C, COTTONWOOD 4327 SOUTH YOSEMITE COURT ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 ANN H. HYDE UNIT 1-D, COTTONWOOD P.O. BOX 12286 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 R. HART BEAVER UNIT 2-D, COTTONWOOD JOAN S. BEAVER 937 WILLOW STREET LEBANON, PENNSYLVANIA 17042 BENJAMIN B. CASSIDAY, JR. UNIT 3-D, COTTONWOOD SUZANNE B. CASSIDAY 5621 KALANIANOLE HIGHWAY HONOLULU, HAWAII 90212 ROBERT G. FABER UNIT 1-E, COTTONWOOD P.O. BOX 1606 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76101 FRANK TURK, JR. UNIT 2-E, COTTONWOOD 212 NORTH CHICAGO STREET JOLIET, ILLINOIS 60431 JANE ERB UNIT 3-E, COTTONWOOD P.O. BOX 3207 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ELLIOT L. COLES UNIT 1-F, COTTONWOOD 2929 EAST HARTFORD AVENUE MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53211 RAYMOND J. KOENIG UNIT 2-F, COTTONWOOD ELIZABETH G. TRAGGIS P.O. BOX 284 NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320 Form 100 Litho in U.S.A. 035-0-100-0041/2 La4tu) r ' le yes it jnsurance Cqi]porafion NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA RICHARD D. SCHOENFELD UNIT 3-F, COTTONWOOD SHIRLEY R. BACON APARTMENT 1608 3 GROVE ISLE DRIVE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 COTTONWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA (NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE) JOHN K. TIPTON UNIT 1, NANCY T. TIPTON ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO 6477 E. MANOR DRIVE ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 MARY P. PULLEN UNIT 2, LIEUTENANT RIVER ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO OLD TYME, CONNECTICUT 06371 ROBERTA R. LEWIS UNIT 4, 167 BELLAIRE STREET ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO DENVER, COLORADO 80220 JUDY MARKLE UNIT 5, 2161 EAST FLOYD PLACE ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 81612 BRUCE EDMONSON UNIT 6, UTE INVESTORS ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO P.O. BOX 9032 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 CHRISTIANNA SEIDEL UNIT 7, #7, 108 WEST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 KATHLEEN L. KRIEGER UNIT 8, GEORGE H. KRIEGER ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO STEPHEN E. KRIEGER P.O. BOX 4342 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ROBERT J. PIETRZAK UNIT 3, SUSAN RINGSBY PIETRZAK ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO 1796 EAST SOPRIS CREEK ROAD CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 EILEEN LEWIS UNIT 9, #9, 108 WEST HYMAN AVE ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Form 100 Litho in U.S.A. 035-0-100-0041/2 LaqtwyersoTitle jnsurance Corporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA CHARLES SEVERY 30 DEXTER DENVER, COLORADO 80220 MARGARET B. DAY & COMPANY LOT A, W.22.5' LOT B, c/o MADELINE DAY BLK. 60 6570 OLDE STAGE ROAD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 LEONARD A. SNYDER UNIT 1, KOCH CONDOS ANDREA SNYDER P.O. BOX 1487 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ORR-DRAZEK PROPERTIES UNIT 2, KOCH CONDOS SUITE 1 500 PATTERSON ROAD GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 JULIA JACKSON PEAVY UNIT 3, KOCH CONDOS 3133 C BROADMOOR VALLEY ROAD COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80906 PA Ur ROSS UNIT 4, KOCH CONDOS P.O. BOX 9969 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ROBERTA L. MENDELSON UNIT 5, KOCH CONDOS MEL I. MENDELSON GREG SHERWIN CHRISTINE ELKINS RIVERVIEW #1 1020 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 KOCH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA (NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE) SANDOR W. SHAPERY LOT Q, BLK. 53 8008 GIRARD AVENUE LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 RUTH HUMPHREYS BROWN LOTS 0, P, BLK. 53 #8-B, 1201 WILLIAM STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80218 MARY EMMA DEAN LOTS H,I, BLK. 53 205 WEST HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Form 100 Litho in U.S A 035-0-100-0041/2 AdML L yersTitle Insurance Corporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA HOWARD A. VAUGHAN, JR. P.O. BOX 367 HEBRON, ILLINOIS 60034 LEE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 830 CEMETARY LANE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN KAY ASSOCIATES TRUSTEES OF HAFT TRUST c/o MARVIN L. KAY 3263 N. STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 DAVID J. HAFT 9938 TOWER LANE BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 SHADOW MOUNTAIN EQUITIES, INC. c/o SHADOW MOUNTAIN LODGE 232 WEST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 HEINZ E. COORDES KAREN V. COORDES 233 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CLAIRE M. NEWKAM P.O. BOX 2808 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 HUGH A. CHISHOLM EDITH CHISHOLM 435 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SCOTT DOUGHTY WYLIE DOUGHTY 1 CHANNING PLACE CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 CHARLES A. SMITHGALL, III SALLY G. SMITHGALL SHELLEY GRIFFITHS 2866 WYNGATE NW ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30305 LOTS F, G, BLK. 53 LOTS D, E, BLK. 53 UNIT A, SHADOW MTN. UNIT B, SHADOW MTN. FRACTIONAL ESTATES FOR SHADOW MTN LODGE SEE SEPARATE LIST AS ASSESSOR DOES NOT LIST OWNERS SEPARTELY. LOTS A-E, BLK. 52 LOT F, W. 15' LOT G BLOCK 52 E.15' LOT G, ALL LOTS H,I, BLK. 52 LOTS R, S, BLK. 52 LOTS P, Q, BLK. 52 Form 100 Litho in U.S A 035-0-100-0041/2 L4atwyersTitle jnsurance Coiporaafion NATIONAL HEADOUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH UNITS 1, 2, WEST SIDE DIANNA H. BEUTTAS P.O. BOX 12366 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 THOMAS T. CRUMPACKER UNIT 3, WEST SIDE JUNE ANDREA HANSON UNITED FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION-SARASOTA 324 WEST HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 MARY K. ANSTINE UNIT 1, GARET CONDO 14231 E. WARREN PLACE AURORA, COLORADO 80014 CHRISTOPHER P. MASON UNIT 2, GARET CONDO P.O. BOX 7781 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 JOANNE L. BALL UNIT 3, GARET CONDO P.O. BOX 3616 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 SUSAN F. BERRY UNIT 4, GARET CONDO 18 CANTERBURY LANE SUMMIT, NEW JERSEY 07901 CHARLES G. HESS UNIT 5, GARET CONDO SUITE #5 222 WEST HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GIDEON KAUFMAN UNIT 6, GARET CONDO SUITE 305 315 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LISE B. BODEK E 1/2 LOT N, ALL LOT P.O. BOX 736 0, BLK. 51 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 DIANA BLUM LOT P, Q, BLK. 51 c/o STIRLING HOMES 600 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Form 100 Litho in U.S.A. 035-0-100-0041/2 AwlhL La4twyersoTitle Insurance & ration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 0. LOUIS WILLE LOTS R, S, BLK. 51 FRANCES LYNETTE WILLE 200 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SIEVE KO LEASEHOLD ESTATE LOTS LILY KO K,L,M,N W 1/2 LOT 0 132 WEST MAIN STREET BLK. 58 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN LOTS, K,L,M,N, W1/2 130 S. GALENA STREET LOT 0, BLK. 58 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 THE HOTEL ASPEN, LTD. UNIT 101, HOTEL ASPEN 730 EAST DURANT AVENUE & UNITS 109,204,205, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 206,207,208,209,210 211• DR. JAMES W. DAVIS UNIT 102, HOTEL ASPEN 3501 EAST 27TH AVENUE LIGHT HOUSE POINT, FLORIDA 33064 DAVID SLOVITER UNIT 103, HOTEL ASPEN c/o CURTISS LABORATORIES 2510 STATE ROAD BENSALEM, PENNSYLVANIA 19020 LEONARD HOROWITZ UNIT 104, HOTEL ASPEN ARLENE HOROWITZ 86 ACORN PONDS DRIVE NORTH HILLS, NEW YORK 11576 PHILIP SILVERSTEIN UNITS 105, 112, ROSALYN SILVERSTEIN HOTEL ASPEN 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT BRONX, NEW YORK 10463 JOHN W. BLONIARZ UNIT 106, HOTEL ASPEN DONNA L. BLONIARZ JAMES P. BROTSOS MARY BROTSOS 1839 N. ORLEANS STREET, APT. 1 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60614 MARC W. COOPER UNIT 107, HOTEL ASPEN LARRY A. CAPUTO 518 SUSSEX ROAD WYNNEWOOD, PENNSYLVANIA 19096 Form 100 Litho in U.S.A 035-0-100-0041/2 t4aers itle y jnsurance Cqrporafion NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA DR. ROBERT D. FERGUSON NANCY MC CAIG 1356 HASTINGS DRIVE LONDON, ONTARIO, CANADA N5X2J2 M/K RANCH ASSOCIATES c/o HERB KLEIN P.O. BOX 12035 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 FRANK E. BOYNTON ELIZABETH J. BOYNTON HOWARD PAUL KLEIN CAROLYN SUE KLEIN 1026 CLINTON STREET CARROLLTON, TEXAS 75007 DR. JAY BRUCE BOSNIAK LINDA BOSNIAK 1 SOUTH ARLENE DRIVE WEST LONG BRANCH, NEW JERSEY 07764 WILLIAM M. KAPLAN KATE KAPLAN SUITE 4, MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING 200 KING'S HIGHWAY MILFORD, DELAWARE 19963 MARC S. COOPER BARBARA S. COOPER 334 KENT ROAD BALA CYNWOD, PENNSYLVANIA Y9147 CORY J. CIKLIN RICHARD B. CRUM 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1900 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 RICHARD G. LUBIN PENTHOUSE SUITE REFLECTIONS OFFICE CENTRE 450 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE, SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 FRANCES FOSTER IRVIN B. FOSTER c/o LARRY SNYDER REALTY 1 ABINGTON PLAZA JENKINTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 19046 UNIT 108, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 110, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 111, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 114, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 115, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 116, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 117, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 118, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 119, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 120, HOTEL ASPEN Form 100 Litho in U.S.A. 035-0-100-0041/2 4awyerslftle Insurance Corporafion NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA AAN J. CIKLIN UNIT 121, HOTEL ASPEN BLAIR J. CIKLIN 1921 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 LOUTS M. SILBER BARBARA J. PAR IENTE SUITE 855 400 AUSTRALIAN BOULEVARD WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 GEORGE T. SCHNEIDER ANN L. SCHNEIDER OSCHNER CLINIC 1514 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY NEW ORLEANS, LOUTS ANA 70121 ROBERT STEINHART JO STEINHART 306 MILL RACE LANE NEWTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18940 UNIT 122, HOTEL ASPEN UNIT 201, 203, HOTEL ASPEN L•N'IT 202, HOTEL ASPEN Form 100 Litho in U.S A. 035-0-100-0041/2 •PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. • Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. roger kerr and associates jobame _ C45d"�%LSE date 2 f �/ 0 406-G pacific avenue architects aspen, co. e1611 303 925-8269 • 0 SD%n Kdlej PRE —APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Hopi i�"` PROJECT., APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 7b�h REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: qZ5-Iz16 OWNERS NAME: pe t?r Cerl< 'Tube WV10' f SU MMIkRY �, ,(�:,, it1�- L6�4t2r 1 Lbndor�,nidllt'I:A�io� 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 1-I {; ( I Frt .�, ��; ,va•ft,`� . �„.{t,,f.y it��se ,y,ovt .i,.Ula< � �aDAf.S �,a �� ah ,Ir A' �r�t(,r� } - r �n dl to (rr,r><rn•,l. dr;oliGANf — P— LT s�.c.:,.�,tev�c� A �roL�l .�'>, rrd�ct �A; � ,..: ►,�1 sp�l�/,(><+� - 60�� cb�J,�,�>,�I o� �- 1 fD )�or'h,,n�I r1{v�•rrv�Yw � l,ca►t's Ktbei114i ab/,�9Mrs,�v ILe+i�� YM��� by Sv�j�{�jCt �f,e �fsfSrc��os, l�pYo�+rty• ASPS► '`.� i' , rP $e+6.ck,s'1+e 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of co�QY•5+,� reports requested: n,'411�4.k f,lA's.v�vi,ttiod5, Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments- 0 .Ircromrwr•i,J r(�„�, I m d Con{rA7���,I'?,t a " t IVA� ��..•,Jf�'ic{' _ C r�.r f{,Ufa*nntiGfs�s�chu�bPAl'7(jLo„d.USeI'[v„W�nclut�t: r' i s t r -9 -1• 1 kt�, (3)Pelr1}, ,,f vel;� l.✓rtrl l.riJNt 1. '•' h4 .'�{j,� _ CDM,+err;nHta�pllclkl•Sh.vldrf-c�'��',1D-2afef,•anfidi,�tlAhfrlt�ruilc,�F�l� �n;•,� 6a,,.>r",n•lYaS+�P�,eslt�aS��t}�uht�r�f�(_ Qrfgvlcii($vrve�fOjkcKC PI40�OrplAti�W,4b+�Vlrltftrf�p,rti ��lel✓cvl.}tJ11� / A Itfeh,lkf to �o,n `vt1-Y-e Ifey. �Irll)�rtr�� �1Y4f1AQIe� �iQf� r 31�{WAII�S . <. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) Pi.Z then to CC/BOC 5. Public Hearing: (YEiL (NO) a+ P� 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES)_ :(NO) -V�HtH�bU l�-✓�" _ 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: i4gDt 80t so('fc°„�'�I��r,rT'�•}=16`�� 8. Anticipated date of submission: 9. CO:-iMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: ��,t�y,,,rbcv?1 lr" ft A 1 r11Y I�HYShAI — shy t,�� p'rDtectty� ipSVeS �" - i LQP'�vd Svnqlt S D. rhvlfoh�/htrl �e•l}� — r�}s�,�.�(,� glb-(slot 5 "Vlh 601 f��iflv�dUs�. C14 Aitw't'/ GcnPrcl reV1t0,Raf1vaCy ovtr5014 aV%IV'4Pry oVI,lil 1 c I �f,A ,Oh — o'ed l fr[1r J or Coh11 ld-A, I C) <3 CbF a'-zA "b'%r% �Cop,el P1 I:ry+7llCailDYl�inrl6Afft4 srN plgh/ drll I CoNM111tUrr,t�llQl�a�/s 1 I Tr7flh : IIt.�10n T% CG^.4 1�lc7�e', t� issue CMPe><crH�tohf,rr,;:i,,,YlistVriCklv3e1}5A0taaissue I "r :•l,,L-. n'l.,t, Pro)1tl to kAVf a 6Mlacr+l ffsv • Recorded at R.,cegtion No 'g X7- SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDOMINIUMIZATION WHEREAS, Peter Carley and Julie Wyckoff (hereinafter collectively "Applicant"), is the owner of a parcel of real property (and the improvements thereon) situated in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Lots K & L, Block 59 City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado I=iiT:7 WHEREAS, applicant has requested an exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of condominiumizing the two houses on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting of May 3, 1988 determined that such exception, exemption and waiver would be appropriate and recommended that saiTt2 be granted, subject, however, to the conditions described hereinafter; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined at its meeting of June 13, 1988,m that the owner's request for such exception were appropriate and granted said request, subject, however, to the conditions described hereinafter; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does determine that the owner's application for exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of condominiumization of the two residences situate on the property is proper because the owner's proposed condominiumization is not within the intents and purposes of the subdivision ordinance and hereby grants, for such reason, an exception from the full subdivision process for such condominiumization, and Further grants an exemption from the Growth Management Plan for the three employee housing units; and 0 eonK 586 RIGE35S Further grants a waiver, after special review, of any requirement for parking spaces for the said employee units; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exception, exemption and waiver are expressly conditioned upon: (1) Applicant agrees to join any special improvements districts formed in the future. (2) Waiver from the "purchase rights of existing tenants" provision. (3) Applicant agreement to six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. (4) Finding that no impact will result on affordable housing from the house being moved, assessment of the affordable housing impact fee shall only apply to the existing house on the property (three bedrooms) according to the fee schedule in Section 7-1008.c(3) of the Land Use Code. (5) Applicant's agreement to relocate the existing evergreen on the property and to replant a tree no less than one half the size of the existing tree if it does not survive; and all other conditions of approval on this matter set by City Council at its meeting of June 11, 1988. Dated this o214` day of 1988. torney William R. Stirling, Mayo 2 • 586 RIGE-359 I, Kathryn S. Koch, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for the Purposes of Condominiumization was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held / 3 1988 at which time the Mayor, William R. Stirling, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. 5%aA -e w o. -- ex e Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 3 �y Ah L4atwyersoTlide Insurance Crporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective date: 02/17/88 AT 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or policies to be issued: (a)ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B-1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) PROPOSED INSURED: JULIE WYCKOFF (b)ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 PROPOSED INSURED: TBD (c) PROPOSED INSURED: Case No. PCT-1315-87-C2 Amount $ 272,500.00 Premium $ 759.75 Amount $ 218,000.00 Premium $ 50.00 Amount $ Premium $ Tax Cert. $ 5.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 59, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Countersigned,,,at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid \ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. Authorized"office .or agent orm 100 Litho in U.S.A. 35-0-100-0041/2 4awyers itle Insurance Crporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA EXHIBIT "A" 3. HAZEL LOUSHIN as to an undivided one-third (1/3 interest, KATHERINE J. KASPAR, as to an undivided one-third (1/3) interest, MARK ANDERSON as to an undivided one -ninth (1/9) interest, LORI ANDERSON as to an undivided one -ninth (1/9) interest, TAD ANDERSON as to an undivided one -ninth (1/9) interest. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule A -Section 1 PG.2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-1315-87-C2 A and B are attached. orm 100 Litho in U.S A. 35-0-100-0041/2 L4atwyersoTitle Insurance Corporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to -wit: 1. Deed from :HAZEL LOUSHIN, KATHERINE J. KASPAR, MARK ANDERSON, LORI ANDERSON and TAD ANDERSON To :JULIE WYCKOFF 2. Deed of Trust from :JULIE WYCKOFF To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of :TBD To secure :$218,000.00 3. Evidence satisfactory to the Company the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted. 4. Good and Sufficient Survey of the subject property, delivered to and approved by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. 5. Good and Sufficient Indemnification Agreement, assuring Pitkin County Title, Inc. and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, that not lien currently exist against the property to be insured hereunder. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-1315-87- A and B are attached. �orm 100 Litho in U.S.A. 135-0-100-0041/2 L4atwyersoitle Insurance Crporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable, and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Deed from The City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 328 as follows: "Provided, that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws." This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 PG.1 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-1315-87-C2 A and B are attached. =orm 100 Litho in U.S.A )35-0-100-0041/2 Latwyersliftle jnsurance 0r ration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2 CONTINUED Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted. The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1, Item (b). (2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-1351-87-C2 A and B are attached. orm 100 Litho in U.S.A. 35-0-100-0041/2 • . Lawye• rs Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1 . The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b)toeliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered bythis Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. Lawyers Title Ins u a Orffalion NJeztc, President Attest: Secretary. � 0 V. 1 _74� 0 asST MAIN STREET ASPEN, uoLuRAuDoxm,, February 12, 1988 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Historic Designation and Conceptual Plan Approval 334 West Hallam Avenue Block 42, Lots K, L and M City of Aspen Dear Steve: The purpose of this letter is to present our concept for the above -referenced property. Our program is as follows: 1. Obtain historic designation for the property. 2. a. Obtain permission to demolish portions of the residential structure. b. Demolish the carriage house. 3. a. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan (addition, enlargement and restoration) of the house. b. Obtain approval for the conceptual development plan of a carriage house, incorporating both a garage and dwelling. 4 11 Mr. Steve Burstein February 12, 1988 Page two The following outline addresses all the considerations for this review process: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS - Re: 24-9. (a) (1) Historical Importance The principal residence is associated with Eugene Wilder, who came to Aspen in the 1880's and was associated with the Aspen Lumber Company, one of the pioneer lumber companies In Aspen. The house was undoubtedly constructed from local lumber, and might have been built by the Aspen Lumber- Company. (2) Architectural Importance Architecturally, the house is significant in that it reflects traditional Aspen character and the Victorian style prevalent when it was built. The stained glass bay window facing West Hallam Avenue is unique to this architectural style. We find no evidence of architectural importance in the carriage house. (3) Neighborhood Character The prominence of the site (Third and Hallam) and structure is important to maintaining the neighborhood and community character (the neighborhood consists of several other Victorian houses of similar scale) . We will demolish portions of the main house and will conform to the STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION, Re: Ord. 11, Sec. 24-9.5(b)4-6. (4) .[apse_ to _I._he Neighborhood The part of the house planned for demolition is in the middle portion of the property and at the rear of the house away from Hallam Avenue. Because of this location, the demolition will have minimum impact on the character of the neighborhood. 7 December 1987 Steve Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Cb 81611 Dear Steve, Pursuant to our recent discussions, I hereby submit this application to Planning and Zoning to "re -subdivide" Lots K and L, Block 59 into two "original City" 30' x 100' separately deeded lots. Julie Wyckoff and myself own the purchase contract on this property, with Hazel Loushin and family. The incentive for this application being to maintain the historic significance of the immediate neighborhood by keeping the existing 1886 era residence "as is" on Lot K and relocating a single story historic house onto Lot L, with a new bedroom addition. The approval of this request wmuld return Lots K and L into a semblance of their appearance in the 1880's, and with careful rehabilitation of the two houses, and their landscape would create two permanent historic residences on West Hopkins. The location, designs and photo image of the two houses are as attached, as prepared by Roger Kerr. Note that the total size of the two houses is approximately 2800 sq. feet which is smaller than the 3200 sq. ft. permitted by the existing zoning codes. Also that the set backs of the house of Lot L have been made in the spirit of the codes, allowing distance from adjacent property lines to allow the scale of the buildings to be unobtrusive in the surrounding street scape while providing privacy for their occupants. I enclose with this request the following: a. Photo image of existing house, and superimposed relocated house, together with development drawings. b. Architectural importance submission. c. Neighborhood history and character. d. Title chain su nnary of ownership. e. Sanborn map of location. Aspen/Pitkin Planning O.ce 7 December 1987 Page 2 Please submit this application at the next historic preservation committee meeting, and follow the Planning and Zoning process in order. I can be available if you need me, or Roger Kerr can represent me. If you require additional information, please so advise and I will get it all to you immediately. Thank you for your assistance. ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE As one can read on the attached Sanborn map of 1904, the residential blocks north of Main Street were all 30' x 100' size and for the benefit of smaller or working class houses. There are no larger historic houses of any architectural significance in this immediate neighborhood, and we find no record of notable architects or builders having designed and built any landmark houses in this immediate vicinity. It is interesting to note however that the house constructed on Lot K is of the same design as that on Lot S, Block 52. It has the same unusual flat roof and the same roof gables and large living room windows facing onto First Street. These houses look as though they were designed and built by the same person, and by conclusion of many of the original single story "miners houses" could.suggest that the house on Lot K, Block 59 was originally constructed as a larger two story house. The construction of the existing house on Lot K has a strong rock foundation. The entire house is woodframe. The exterior walls were originally wood siding, but these have been covered with asphalt shingles, similarly the roof was a wood shingle, but has been covered with asphalt sheet. There are undesirable wrought iron supports at the front porch. There is no exterior "Victorian gingerbread" on the house. The windows are single pane, not insulated. It would be desirable to remove all asphalt and wrought iron, and recondition and/or replace the wood and roof siding to return the house to most of its original condition, and this could be readily accomplished which will create the true sense of the house when it was first built. The existing house on Lot K is not significant when CCMpared with some of the major historic residences in Aspen, however, it is certainly of the 1880's era and is also certainly of a design that for that immediate neighborhood is large and unusual and therefore a historic preservation in the "as is" condition is an important consideration. TITLE CHAIN SUMMARY LOTS K AND'L, BLOCK 59, ASPEN May 5, 1886 The first recorded deed appears May 5, 1886. On this date George Pearson sold lots K and L, Block 59 in the official town site of Aspen including improvements of one two rocm house 12 x 24 and one barn 16 x 20 to D.M. Van Hoevenbergh for $1,000.00. January 15, 1891 Van Hoevenberg and Jerome B. Wheeler became partners. Said lots K and L, Block 59 along with numerous mining claims came under the ownership of the J.B. Wheeler Co. April 1892 Wheeler and Van Hoevenberg sold Lots K and L to Ross Pierce for $1.00. 61 N September 13, 1892 Ross Pierce sold only Lot K to Samuel Goza.for $2,100.00. The selling price indicates the house and barn referred to in the first recorded deed stood on Lot K. The next year Goza sold Lot K to S.H. Finely and J.C. Rose for $1.00. July 21, 1899 Finely and Rose sold Lot K to George James for $650.00. June 5, 1914 James disappears on paper and Isaac Rosen sells Lot K, all improve- ments and furnishings except the bed and bedding "now used by me" to Christina Lindahl for $1.00 and valuable consideration. September 17, 1917 One can only speculate on "valuable consideration" because Christina Lindahl Rosen sold Lot K to August Anderson. we-AMI December 16, 1895 Ross Pierce sold Lot L and "improvements thereon consisting of one one-story frame house" to Fred Buckley for $300.00. This is the first reference to any improvement on Lot L. This would indicate that the original house on Lot L was constructed by Mr. Pierce in 1893. March 19, 1896 Buckley sold Lot L and improvements to Mary Cambell for $700.00. September 6, 1905 Campbell sold Lot L to Julia Tobin for $225.00. October 18. 1912 Julie Tobin sold Lot L to D. DeMarios for $300.00. The last deed transfer on Lot L appears on October 18, 1912, and records show that August Anderson purchased Lot K on September 17, 1917. July 10, 1950 August and Anna Anderson quit claimed Lot L, and recorded both ownership of both Lots K and L. Notes to History Hazel Loushin remembers her father purchasing Lot L for $50.00, and thereafter removing the wooded house on that site. NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY AND CHARACTER Research into the lot subdivisions of Block 59, and in fact several surrounding City blocks, show that this was obviously a "working class" area with small dwellings of the period to house area workers, probably in the mines. The lot size of all these dwellings was 30' x 100'. A title search of Lots K and L, Block 59 is attached (Title Chain Summary) and the first records show Lots K and L being owned by a George Pearson in 1886, and there being two buildings thereon. No location of each house is given on each lot. A copy of the Sanborn map, dated 1904, is attached. This shows a dwelling on each of Lots K and L, and although the dwellings are not specifically indicated as to their use it would appear that both are residences. It is absolutely clear that the dwelling shown on Lot K in this 1904 map is the same as exists today. It is clear also, from the Sanborn map, that this whole neighborhood was for residential use. We find no designation for different zoning, ccnrnercial, residential, industrial, etc., however, from the lot layouts and all the individual addresses, we assume that all the buildings were for individual residences. e Mv aL yyee t ] ��c o � C y�g.�� ~p C W► 0\1 ty�E b Zil:i Y t' '� :O :d :f:tad W�Q� Y �. •,•s,i ,t•t �EiRy�1� cLi=L'��tie s.s-r�- t:: 7i:,:•d°.` �: � � � i.:•�i �eZ� { -y�� � V� o Na aaaao ` r �t�VUO aQ�4t Lt • c' _ E y 1J 2YlA'/9/d' / �iqy• '� ov�t =•' i ❑ (. .N [ / d • � �.�ioh of �; `2i��� tI qua "MI I i•—ti--- --1 trio '� ': �.' •�`�, 'b° ..'Irz • c � 1 c 15--14 - L31N77 •'N• • •S I �. a�t.^ e Y n� • [ L ONO-7 N •2 2 Q i '�s a�roc� ifi wu .e: rp ail „ el p J �•� ❑ of W �+ El EE�,� O > c 2 TTrLy -T ry ,rr I ' W bl 59 t A /v O P Q ' m r R � • \ 1 / N L M r Q i o �- N J n t?7 ft7 P6 /� Pio-/2 Pio B xts o Poi ter /sn-P /ro ttf /ze-oI /i6 W.WiAIN . V` L \ 4 52 O O 59 W j ,✓ O bT Q (q \ / El I .� ?,17X Z/ca/6 Pb-,O PiO.f tn6-O eel, 11tv HOPKINS - i -- 7- L _rJ B C I D E f 6 r / , / , /3S.9 /9/-PS' /P%S /LN L/D-r! III-S /07.r /0,9,, 53 - gp - , s, L M vrr, n Q s s ti b , n - til a D�2, y D r •', P.f t (f/ /< <, , �i, I .!S n G n 1 7-44 P '74 Kl T3 0 �2 Kl O` L w�v ati vA/ •M 6 j � s�•.� . i _ T• �� ' i� 1 � KY��`� .hj',}jt��+,► i� r�, .tor � r�y.i.a,i. �. r�.7.. <<r' t{`a *+ M♦, w r . K r{ � -• {�j, ts.iit�•�.~� 9�L�7',i. IF 5v AL - '�l���t •�l t�'�'t" ��'!�t{��,p: •'�N " _r�t k .t " v► a�,' • f •:.ice },-• tl l.3 " •� � � �,�+[ �rj ya�tt r! rTv�jt .., VA. ZA At �1` - .r�.. .�l.:i�� �t � -I �-''- � ,,, tA- -` µ�;771,tl' '¢:�{ ''• a� - i t yrt.�'a y,*��w�.�1 ^ t '� .rlRi�rr �t ? -, `� • F' �•r ! �c ,'_L .. i ! f S ?* i• / � �' g •',� 's.� -��',! .1 - .a. -'�� ,.', a .Vw �f -,,.�• A. - LIT IV j-~ •.:- �y �r •� 1i '• ,e6ii: w--.,�cfi��f�•YLa jk �� •::-- J �.�� j -r :�.• ~• 'a . �y,�"•' �' _ -�}tr ;'t _L31:`,r� +_!.%�•. t vrr�R i�� `�ti.• - r• • t~ 1 ii>,v i:.y. i_ 1..-� ! a Mp1ra iAm�► ' •-� ". - 1 �.�1.'• .r\� 1 � a'r�~1 r '`t R ;�• �j ,tea♦��� •.S`�'? `•• n �.w• .I ' 1 _ �',a. _ JIL -r,�� 4 .' .� : 1• �, w••,,i _ ,L a t„ .�f .�iAF7►'� I .i- cov ■i _ � .r'��:�.k a:-...«1, �� r �....cl. f �li/`.:�,t. i •���.a '" aa� �-►1+ .•..:r+.�^L���� �. _ � �'• ��• � .w���•,lr��, •, y"L� � T r� 4,�7J��►.. •�'-�+{Lay.,p�t�.� ryly,�i /s-.� t" '� � '!%',alb � ' ® Y.,, ' +�C ,� . �• «:� ��. Tla�i� • A:•i�+./.wtll�L�ti�•'`as '��.=-w:•,rl-`�l��. •��rvi.'Si �. f 4 °q•�k-��"4aa..:. ,'Tryi,. r, '�-.'•+rr, '� ` .�r - _.w. :^"'t' ` y_ •�='� _.- C ya.�fy'�raR�fa►r�.0 b�\\''IyryROOy.,a p41�• '�•fr. �� t'�,,,"!.N.� 'a'�1M,.•.'�"'.. S/\,• �' )Y•`'�•�1'S ! ? 7 ` •i.YNrr'♦..YPr M•.�M►w.•'�!'�lah.r.. L +•�wwr ,.✓1��� e' •tit. 7- a • 4 roger kern and associates. 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. B 1611 303 925-82B9 Ln m I 2�1 ALLEY E'LOCK 59 I _ (oO, DD ion 3 CA A� f1'1oi� 1 134- W HOPKIN5 AVf-, -MePfroW P(Prl arc eT� G�el,� JJ�e vh'I�FF 5� I N=Mow, 5 i-T-7r ELM • • roger kerr and associates 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. B1311 303 925-8283 �a..• Mev10 - FrIOT 3o,oa h W. rf a,4�41�7s Ave roger kern an ssociates, r 211 pacific ave., #12 aspen, co. 81811 303 925-8289 1 v V r . t _r I 74l� z-ivy aea� Z `` c 4 fr,01Po54<1 RNIOV �e —57 (U a) 0 n 0 m (U O G] (o fU U1 fU co 0 i 09 03 i N rn 0 co lq— co qz- 00 0 0 U � 0 a �D cu L > U � -� U L 4- U 0 a 0 N QO qKj �I 0) co co N N 0 Co qz- co qz- co 0 c a L 0 ��