The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ec.214 E Bleeker St.1996 ,..- ~~ >' - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ~ Stan Clauson, Community Development Director /. THRU: FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual review, Partial Demolition, Ordinance #30- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 24, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to divide this 11,963 sq.ft. parcel into one lot of 5,963 sq.ft. and one lot of 6,000 sq.ft. The smaller lot will contain the existing historic landmark residence. The applicant also proposes to make an addition of 152 sq.ft. to the existing house, to demolish an existing outbuilding, and to construct a new outbuilding of 728 sq.ft. No development is proposed for the newly created 6,000 sq.ft. lot at this time, however the lot split approval will establish the maximum allowable FAR. APPLICANT: Greenwood. W.G.Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen LOCATION: Aspen. 214 E. Bleeker, Lots N,O,P, and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of ZONING: R-6, historic landmark. Historic Landmark Lot Split In order to be eligible for a historic landmark lot split, the following conditions must exist: A. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. Response: The parcel is 11, 963 square feet. 1 -- - -- .- B. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The duplex FAR allowed on the "fathering parcel" is 4,257 sq.ft. The applicant proposes to allocate 1,913 sq.fl. plus a 500 sq.ft. FAR bonus to the historic landmark, and 2,344 sq.ft. to the vacant parcel. The total is 4,257 sq.ft. plus a 500 sq.ft. bonus. If the lot split were not approved, the existing house, which is 1,553 sq.ft., could have a potential addition of 2,704 sq.ft., plus an FAR bonus made to it. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel which contains the historic landmark. Response: The FAR bonus and a rear yard setback variance are requested to benefit the landmark. No proposal is made at this time for development of the vacant lot, but landmark incentives are not available on that site. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). 2 - ..... -' - Response: The property is adjacent to the Community Church, and is part of one of the more intact areas of the historic West End. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the newly created historic landmark lot split option. This allows the property to be divided into two smaller lots, each of which will contain a building of approximately 2,400 sq.ft. This development will be in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and is significantly more compatible with the historic structure than would be an addition which would triple the original building's size. The total FAR allowed for Lot A, which will contain the historic landmark, will be 1,913 sq,ft. The existing house is 1,589 sq.ft., and the applicant proposes to make a small addition of 152 sq.ft. on the north side of the house. The remaining 172 sq.ft., plus a requested FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. will be placed in a freestanding outbuilding on the alley. (The shed which is currently in that location is proposed for demolition.) The applicant appears to have made a minor error in calculating the FAR available for the new outbuilding and a correction is needed. Staff finds that the new addition is in an appropriate location and of an appropriate design. The roofing is metal, which distinguishes the addition from the original house. Window trim and porch trim should be modified to be slightly more simple in character so that these elements do not appear to be historic. The existing outbuilding is a bedroom for the house. The new outbuilding will have two bedrooms. No kitchen is allowed in this building unless it is approved as an accessory dwelling unit. The new outbuilding as proposed is over the allowable height limit for an accessory structure. The applicant has several options; to only build a one story outbuilding, to connect the outbuilding to the house so that the principal building height limit applies, to request a height variance from the Board of Adjustments, or to have the unit approved as an ADU (a code amendment allowing an 18' height limit for cottage infill is pending.) Staff has consulted with the applicant and they wish to have a reading from HPC. They are willing to build a breezeway connection, but would prefer not to. They are willing to approach the Board of Adjustments, but there is no certainty that a variance would be granted. Staff does have some concerns with the impact of such a tall structure directly on the alley. In addition, the existing outbuilding 3 -- <<....... "- -' appears to be original. It is in fair condition, however its quality as living space is marginal at this point. See further discussion in the partial demolition review below. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As stated above, this neighborhood has significantly retained its historic character. Dividing the development on the lot into two buildings is a significant in maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant also intends to retain an alley structure, although a new one, which increases activity in the alley. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The alteration to the historic house is minimal. The shed is discussed below. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: Again the alteration to the original house is minimal. Partial Demolition S.ection 7-602(C). Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel.) 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing outbuilding. The outbuilding appears to be original to the site, according to the attached Sanborne map. Staff was unable to walk onto the site, however the shed appears to be in 4 -- ....... ., ....., fair condition, but in need of substantial improvements to be livable. The house has only two bedrooms and the applicant is willing to locate the other two bedrooms necessary for them in an outbuilding, rather than make a substantial addition to the house. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The applicant wishes to demolish the historic outbuilding. Staff recommends a site visit so that HPC can confirm the suitability of the structure for rehabilitation. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The proposed new outbuilding is two stories to accommodate two bedrooms. It has essentially the same footprint as the existing outbuilding. The building is simple in character, but may have some impacts on the alley due to its height. Ordinance #30 Staff finds that the project is not in conflict with Ordinance #30. AL TERNA TIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted~ 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 5 ,..... '-' - - 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC table the application, pending a site visit to examine the outbuilding. Recommended motion: "I move to table the application for 214 E. Bleeker Avenue to August 14,1996." 6 ., ,... '- Brumder Residence 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado Partial Demolition Conceptual Development Historic Lot Split presented by Gretchen Greenwood and Associates, Inc. 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 925 4502 - '-' ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATIONFORM 1. project name &fU1Jder /(tl.s/dt:IJce 2. Project location 01~ Ii!, I!'!f!]er ~ lYoCJ. 7~, Lf?/'s OJ """ / Du;n.r/1'~ (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 1<- (p 4. Lot size / /" Qt;,3 SJ9' -If. 5. Applicanfs name, address and phone number ~~ IYUI1Ider l7()/ula L (VI'- 7i'ur olD Tom Fftu,uala'. ~ 8--:-JWsCDn.S1n -stTu:t' Sw SDOJ mtlWau-IC"'t.e, WISCOnsin 6. epresentative's name, address, and phone number qrdcnen ~UIU4Flnn/ ~()CJatrs. Inc. .5'2.0 W4Inur.sY': co. /~II 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Subdivision GMQS allotment VIeW Plane Lot SplitlLot Une Adjustment Conceptual SPA V Conceptual HPC Final SPA Final HPC Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Final PUD Relocation HPC TextlMap Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS exemption v Demo/Partial Demo Condominiumization Design Review Appeal Committee _. ~ H1*/~ LtJ-r.s;c6t . :.,)Il 9. DeSC._~_$U aIIlz<k4 iIG:~::tI,SDr'l 41~, qn(/t 10. Have you completed and attached the following? V'" Attachment 1- Land use application form -;:::::; Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form V Response to Attachment 3 v" Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: W. V, 8fttmder Address: 01/1./- €Q$f B/teker .sr' Zone district: R' V Lot size: 1/, q & .3 Existing FAR: . /JES7 ~'". Allowable FAR: '60157 .sq. . Proposed FAR: ~oT fl- Ol, Lf 3","t.cff S. .e.?J!J'f'f oS IJ' T'1- Existing net leasable (commercial): NjFl Proposed net leasable (commercial): N/fi Existing % of site coverage: ~5% or 6/,990 $1' .,r:r, Proposed % ofsite coverage: '-or~: tftJ9b0l"0lJ38S~.,.tff. ~dTi!1' y'O';cOV~40. Existing % of open space: Aq'It .If;'" Proposed % of open space: /V/If Existing maximum height: Principal bldg. ~31.o"" Accesory bid!;!: /S ~Olf Proposed max. height: P7~~1 bldg: ~3 t..O" AC;SOry bl~: .;J3 !.() " Proposed % of demolition: _ _~ Aca-)Jor'l 4/4 _ ~ 01) ,_ Existing number of bedrooms: tf 1f5,d/()o./YlS Proposed number of bedrooms: If... Z!iti/t:JDI!1.-S Existing on-site parking spaces: 0 On-site parking spaces required: 0 - ....# Setbacks Existing: t N Front: /S .0 Rear: 3S !.. 0" Combined I W Front/rear:50-o Side: 7f..OW Side: 70!. 0 II' Combined I P Sides: 77-0 Minimum required: ( fry Front: /0 '"/1v. Rear: /0 I ~q~1t, Combined Sf ItIt' ) Front/rear: ,30 Side: /.5 Side: /5 Combined Sides: 50 Proposed:fDT Ij 4ro"'/ ~ Front: _.3am(. 10 Rear: _..:nf.o" /0 Combined I " Front/rear: _ L/2'f) 30 Side: /I S Side: S S Combined Sides: /0 /0 &'tf~ (CX/S71N(i:>) Existing nonconformities or encroachments: ;"<a.e.ssor't t:l'}C.fl')o.dl~J II? aJ/cr 10/-. ?:/l,,R t/ S' nal" Variations reque;;ted: 500 StJ. VCUI&/A1Gl tJY' r'r~ ()t.L:tt>uJ..ldlnlj' 'I evd (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings. FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage infill program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, ce. and 0 zone districts l - "'-' PARTIAL DEMOLITION ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 E. Wisconsin Street Ste. 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Representative: Gretchen Greenwood (See attached letter) 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N,O,P and Q 3. Attached to the application is a copy of the disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. ~~~ ~~:l ~ett~ ~ ...--!. r=-- , - # ,.- 1,- / o 2 - - ...,\0 .j:"'..o '29<1: alQ<l.. ~~~ .u& :.: B === ~t:J1 ~i Q.. II~~ .. i . PIl 07/15 '96 11:16 lD:rEGMlj:H, 111I;. FAX: 414-291-7838 PAGE 2 ,,",,, 400 KA8T wt&COmlDl AVERUB SUlB 200 IIIIMNJDB, W1~SIW 53302 July 15, 1996 Historic Preservation oo.oussion City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and ADooc., Inc. is authorized to act on behalf of the W.G. nrulader Plurida Land Trust, owner ot the property at. 314 East Bleeker Str.et in reCerence to the application she is IIIlIkiJlg to you on behalf of the Trust. The addr... of the Trust. is a. follows, ..G. Brumder Florida Land Trust cIa Thomas B. Pit.gerald 400 Rast Wisconsin Avenup., Suite 200 Milwaukee, wisconsin 53202 (Ul) 291-7820 P.lcaac direct any questions and/or 1nquiriell regarding the attached application to Ms. Greenwood at the follOWing addreSB, Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-4502 Sincerely, ~ -VL B.~~ Thomas 8. Yitzgerald TBP,lk ....- '-' ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PARTIAL DEMOLffiON 1. A written description of the structure proposed for partial demolition is as follows: The structure proposed for demolition is a one story, 316 square foot building located to the north of a Victorian residence. The building presently encroaches into the alley. The building has been retrofitted for various modem needs throughout its life, including a bedroom/storage area, a mechanical equipment room and a storage area. The building has a variety of siding materials, doors, windows that are a result of the on going adaptation of the building. 2. A report from a licensed architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation is as follows: The building is completely unsuitable for rehabilitation. The building shows advanced decay of the siding material at the base of the building, a concrete slab was added as a floor structure, completely rendering the structure unable to be moved. The building requires a new foundation, new framing, new floor material, windows, roof framing, a new roof, materials, siding, electrical and mechanical systems, in order to utilize the structure and bring the building into adequate life safety codes. The building would be completely rebuilt by the time the building was rehabilitated, virtually rendering the building new again. --~_.~,~---.-._-"...__.....~ ---- '-0.'"' ATTACHMENT 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards for review of nartial demolition 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not the significant historic building on the site. This building shares the property with a Victorian building that is a Queen Anne style Victorian built in the late 1800's. The main Victorian building shows some modem remodeling to the original structure that includes an addition that was added to the north west of the property, a porch enclosure that was added to the north west of the property and some window changes to the east side of the building. These changes were sensitively added to the Victorian as to not detract from the beauty of the Victorian as seen off of Bleeker Street. 2. a. This application is part of a larger application to add two bedrooms and two bathrooms to the property, behind and separate from the main house. If this structure had to be maintained on the property, it would entail adding the new bedrooms on to the original Victorian house. This would not be beneficial to maintaining the historic qualities of the original house. The demolition of this out building mitigates to the greatest extent possible the need to add an addition on to the original Victorian residence. b. The impacts on the structure located on the property are greatly reduced due to this demolition. The area of the demolition will house the new out building that will be compatible in mass and scale with the existing Victorian building. ~~-,+-,~,..-,....__..~--- .., --- ..... SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE ATTACHMENT 3 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 E. Wisconsin Street Ste.200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Representative: Gretchen Greenwood 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N,O,P and Q 3. Attached to the application is a copy of disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. .... - "- SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 1. A site plan and a survey showing the property boundaries and site characteristics is Exhibit A. 2. The conceptual selection of major building materials are as follows: A. Siding: 1 x 4 Horizontal Wood Bevel siding and 1 x 3, I x 4, 1 x 6, Vertical Random width Rough sawn siding. B. Windows: Wood Double Hung and Casements. C. Doors: Wood Single Raised Panel. D. Roof: Corrugated Metal to rust. 3. A written description of the proposal and how the proposed development complies with the review standards are divided into two parts and they are attached as Part A: Historic Lot Split and Part B: Conceptual Development. 4. Scale drawings of all the elevations of the existing Victorian residence and the proposed buildings and additions are included in this application. 5. Photographs of the streetscape will be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at the hearing. .... ...... ....v' PART A: HISTORIC LOT SPLIT A. Written Description: The Aspen Municipal Code provides the following: 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The split shall meet the following standards: 1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. 2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. 3. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC Variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel which contains the historic structure. Based on Ordinance 49, the Historic lot split for Block 72, Lots N, 0, P and Q is proposed as follows: Zone District: R-6 Lot Size of Original Parcel: Lots N,O,P and Q: (See Attached Site Plan) Allowable FAR: 11,963 Sq.ft. 4,257 Sq.ft. Proposed Lot Size Historic Lot A: Lot A Designated FAR: 5,963 Sq.ft. 2,413 Sq.ft. (Proposed FAR on Historic Property is 1, 913 Sq. ft., (with the 500 square foot bonus, the total is 2,413 Sq.ft.) 6,000 Sq.ft. 2,344 Sq.ft. Proposed Lot Size New Lot B: Lot B Designated FAR: __....~,........_.......____.__._~_~_._o_._._ ~. ,,-. ....'" Based on the above information, the proposed Historic Lot Split meets the following review standards: a. The original parcel is 11,963 square feet as required. b. The total proposed FAR for both residences does not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The designated FAR for Lot A is 2,413 square feet and Lot B is 2,344 square feet or 4,757 square feet ( this number includes the 500 square feet bonus for the historic property), which is what is allowed for a duplex development in the R-6 zone, with the 500 square foot bonus on the historic property. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The newly created 6,000 square foot Lot B has no building development on the property. Future development will allow the building to meet all the dimensional requirements as established by the R-6 Zone district. The newly created 5,963 square foot Historic Lot A has a Historic Landmark building on it and therefore meets the requirements of the R-6 Zone district. As part of this application and Ordinance 49, variances and FAR bonuses are being requested for the Historic Lot A. The following Conceptual Development application details this development request for Lot A. No development is being proposed for Lot B as part of this Conceptual Development application. .'"..".... ..., / CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LOT A A. Written Description Based on the above proposed approval of the Historic Lot Split by the HPC, the following application is a development proposal for Historic Lot A only. 1. Request for a 500 Sq.ft. bonus for the Historic property. 2. A five (5') foot Rear Yard Setback Variance for an Accessory building. The newly created Historic Lot currently has a Victorian Queen Anne style residence on the property, of approximately 1,589 Sq.ft. In addition, the property has a dilapidated out building that is 16 ft. by 21 ft. or 324 Sq.ft.. These two buildings total 1, 857 Sq.ft. of FAR on the property. As part of this application, it is requested to demolish the out building and to rebuild in the approximate same footprint a new detached two story building with a footprint of 14 ft. by 26 ft. or 336 Sq.ft.(at ground level) with a total square footage of728 Sq. ft. The existing building currently sits outside of the rear or north property line creating an encroachment into the alley. It is the design intention of the new building to sit on the north property line next to the alley, but without the encroachment. It is also the intention that the detached building will be a new design sensitive in form, mass and scale to the Victorian residence on the site, but detached and significantly removed for the main house. An uncovered wood deck would be the only connection to the main house. In addition to the proposed out building, a small addition of 152 square feet is planned to the rear of the Victorian residence. The design of this addition will have a separate roofline and be obvious design that was added at a more modem time of the history of this residence. This development proposal requires a 500 square foot bonus to the existing FAR creating a total FAR of 2,413 Sq.ft. The justification request for the 500 square foot bonus that is allowed under Ordinance 49, would provide that the Historic Victorian residence with the proposed changes would equal the same size as the proposed residence that can now be developed on the newly created Lot B (next door). Historic Lot A would have a total FAR of2,413 square feet and new Lot B would have a total FAR of2,344 square feet. Therefore, the development request for the 500 square foot bonus and the rear yard setback variance would be consistent with the development review standards as outlined below: , ,- . '~,;oJ ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 1. The proposed development of 2,413 square feet includes a historic Victorian residence of 1,685 Sq.ft. with a two story outbuilding of 728 square feet. The proposed design of the out building is sensitive to the Victorian main building with a consistent hip roof design and the height of the building remains the same height as the main building. The setback request allows the bulk of the proposed new square footage to be added as a separate building from the main house, thus creating and preserving the historic Victorian residence. The proposed addition along the rear of the Victorian residence is only 152 square feet and has a lower roofline and obvious modern materials that differentiate it from the historic residence. The proposed development is compatible with the historic structure. 2. The proposed development with the 500 square foot FAR bonus and setback request is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The newly created lot to the east will have an FAR of 2,344 square feet, the same square footage that is being proposed for the Victorian residence and lot. Thus the two lots will be compatible in scale, and mass, and these two residences will be in scale with the Victorian residence that is to the east of the newly created Lot B, which appears to be about 2,400 square feet also. 3. Most of the proposed design has been intentionally removed from the Victorian residence as a separate outbuilding in order that the Victorian residence is not altered by the owner's need for more square footage. The only square footage being added to the building is 152 square feet, which is at the rear of the building with a low roofline, that obviously states that this addition was added at a separate time. Therefore, the proposed development does not detract from the historic significance of the structure on the property. 4. Ordinance 49 was developed to promote and encourage the development of small houses next to Historic structures and to encourage the restoration of the Victorian houses to remain small without the potential development of a large monster addition. This ordinance that is being used in this application, gives a 500 square foot bonus to allow this Victorian residence to remain its most historic state and not have to be remodeled to accommodate needed rooms for the owner's. The additional 500 square foot bonus allows the design to be separate from the Victorian residence and leaves the historic building virtually in tact. Without the bonus, the residence would have to be very altered both inside and out in order to accommodate the necessary rooms. Therefore, the proposal enhances the Victorian building as well as the neighborhood by preserving the small scale buildings of Victorian architecture. .--,.", ,..- . ,~,...., This application in its entirety, including the partial demolition request, Historic Lot Split setback request, and FAR bonus, meet all the review standards for historic preservation of the individual structure as well as the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. 1L t L ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ ~ <" ~; II II II II II 11 II ~ II '" · · '" W? II 0") no;; voz I", '" me wz , @ ", 7 1;IZ · $2 ., _~ ~~~"ii " - .~ ~" ~ ," - , ' ----~~- . C)!:!@__~_"_.______." : [OZ 102 II ' '" · W' 1" "" ~ , ' " '" '" " : · '" m '" " V'. '-, Ii ' ~" I "-"'L II : ~ -" 0:1 '" ", WII '-, ~, ' " ~" ' " ~ W' ~ ~ []" . ~! ~ · W, "", ., <I: ~ t~~Y"1 _''] W: ~ 1;::", , ."??:fJ i ' · .., I '~" II : " ,. I : ~ " '..,,- --'I~ :: ' , ~ '''. I' ~ ~ rr-=], . ~I.~. :~..~:.;.~ "'~ i ~i ~ U~I = -:.- I !~t~~~! - w,J~ ~ II ~;L PO? {J('Z N/Z., 1/ <s _ UlZ 'I., '" m , " -. "~ " "00 " I """ I '& ~ " ':/11 [It lI,c' 'I' ." '" :~ "" [~ : (j/:: I/t J/J I'~ I/': ~ II ! ~ ~~...:' [,- , >4Q~D~ Ii II ~ : 1':1\, '_-"~ II , '" "' ~ ~ G88 ~ ~ r.:::.--;.r. . ~ ", , . " ~ S; ~ "c ~ <c, c , "- '< c t , ~ MEMORANDUM \J\'e RE: Mayor and the City Council / --C-, / Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct~ Mitch Haas, Planner~ 214 East Bleeker Street (Brumder Residence), Historic Landmark Lot Split. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1998. TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: August 10,1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split on July 24, 1996; however, since the plat ratifying said approvals was never recorded, the approvals have expired. The resubmitted application is identical to the originally approved proposal, and was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a second time on May 27, 1998 when it was recommended for approval by a vote of7-0. The property has a gross area of 11,963 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original approvals, the applicant is seeking to divide the property into one parcel of 5,963 sq. ft. which would contain the historic house and another parcel of 6,000 sq. ft. on which a new house would be built in the future. Per Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1996, the FAR which would have been allowed for a duplex on the original parcel may be divided between the historic building and new house. The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions. The current request, like the original approvals, would allocate 1,913 square feet of floor area for the historic house (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC) and 2,344 square feet of floor area for the new house. Community Development Department staff and the HPC recommend approval of the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the conditions outlined in this memo. APPLICANT: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 214 E. Bleeker Street (Lots N, 0, P, and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado). The property is on the north side of E. Bleeker Street between Garmisch and Aspen Streets. ZONING: R-6, Medium-Density Residential PROCEDURE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits, like all lot splits and subdivisions, must obtain final approval via adoption of an ordinance by City Council. Pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Land Use Code, "the development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing." The Land Use Code defines "development" to include "the subdividing of land into two (2) or more parcels." Therefore, .,,-.--,-~.~,-_.~~-,--,~,~~~,,-,~'-~-""'-"''-''-''-~~''-''''~ the proposed lot split was be reviewed at a public hearing by the HPC in order to obtain the HPC's recommendation to City Council. In total, the Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two- step process: step one is a public hearing before the HPC in order to obtain their recommendation, and step-two involves conducting two readings before City Council (with a public hearing at second reading) in order to obtain a final decision regarding the proposed lot split. REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( e), and Section 26.72.0 I 0(0). Section 26.88.030(A!(2! Subdivision Exemntions Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, is exempt from full subdivision review provided all of the following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24. 1969; and Response: The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lot predates the city's adoption of subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.1 OO.050(A)(2)( c)]. Response: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots would conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The lot containing the Landmark structure would be 5,963 square feet while the other lot would contain 6,000 square feet, and the R-6 zone district has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet for lots created by Section 26.100.050(A)(2), Historic Landmark Lot Split. Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)( c), the newly created lot will have to mitigate for affordable housing by providing either an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), paying an affordable housing impact fee, or placing a resident occupancy deed restriction on the home. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split.' exemption pursuant to Section 26.JOO.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(a)]; and Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval, other than for the same proposal. The property has received Historic Lot Split approval, but the required plats were never recorded, thereby 2 " rendering those approvals null and void. The expiration of the previous approvals has left the property in its original, undivided condition. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullify the approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. Response: The language of this criterion is included as a recommended condition of the subdivision exemption approval. Also, see response to the previous criterion (d). f In the case where an existing singlejamily dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. Because eXlstmg fences conflict with/straddle the proposed lot line in two locations and an existing swimming pool on proposed Lot A lies closer to the proposed lot line than the minimum required side yard setback would allow, the Subdivision Exemption Plat must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required side yard setbacks. This plat note would remove the need to have the existing structures (pool and fences) go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that, in total, the lot split will result in two (2) dwelling units. On Lot B, an historic landmark residential unit currently resides and will remain. On Lot A, the lot will be vacant (with the exception of the existing swimming pool) until such time that the owners decide to build a residence. The size of the proposed Lot B compared with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district results in a maximum buildout of one (1) detached residential unit. The size ofthe proposed Lot A compared with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district results in a maximum potential , J .. buildout containing no more than a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units, via conditional use review. Therefore, the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district mandate compliance with this review criterion. Section 26.88. 030(A !(5! Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling shall comply with the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9. 000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The original parcel is I I ,963 square feet (larger than 9,000 square feet) in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of I 1,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions, plus a possible FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet from the HPC. This FAR would be divided between the two parcels as follows: 1,913 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot B, which is the westerly lot with the historic house (plus the potential for an additional 500 square feet via a bonus from HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot A, or the easterly lot. The breakdown of these allocations shall combine to a total of 4,257 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses), and the allocations per lot shall be indicated on the final plat. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: With the exception of the eXlstmg swimming pool on Lot A, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district shall be complied with. If any HPC variances or bonuses are granted in the future, these shall only be permissible on Lot B, the lot containing the historic structure. Also, see responses to criteria "f' and "g," above. Section 26.JOO.050rA!(2!(e! GMQS Exemvtion bv the Communitv Develovment Director Historic Landmark Lot Svlit The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. 4 ..,.~_.<v..",,,~"~__..,_... .m.'_'.__...._..<....__~_.,_~< .. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed with a proposal to develop Lot A, provided this Historic Lot Split application is approved. To obtain the exemption, it will be necessary to provide appropriate mitigation purs'\tant to Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( c) of the Municipal Code. Section 26. 72.0JO(G) Historic Landmark I,ot Solit The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: A public hearing regarding the subject proposal was held before the HPC on May 27, 1998, and the HPC voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Landmark Lot Split. Second Reading before City Council will also be a public hearing and is scheduled for August 10, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff and the HPC recommend that City Council approve the application with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of the new/easterly lot (Lot A) created by thc lot split shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,257 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into one parcel (the westerly parcel, Lot B) of 5,963 square feet and a second parcel (the easterly parcel, Lot A) of 6,000 square feet. Provided it is found by thc Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are 5 '. required, the maximum allowable FAR on the westerly parcel (Lot B) would be 1,913 square feet of floor area (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area on the easterly parcel (Lot A). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note. e. Contain a plat note stating that any setback nonconformities created by the new lot line shall be eliminated upon redevelopment or further development, as may be applicable, of either of the two lots. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: of 1998." "I move to approve the Ordinance Number 29, Series ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" --- The submitted Land Use Application 6 ",,,,,_~,,~__,--,,,,~_,,,_~~~,,_'~~'__.'_.'.""~____'"-" C' _ -- ._~......' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 214 E. BLEEKER -IllSTORlC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, August 10, 1998, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen City Council in the Council Chambers, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Brumder Trust requesting Historic Landmark Lot Split approval. The applicant proposes to divide the parcel into one lot of 5,963 square feet and one lot of 6,000 square feet. The 5,963 square foot lot will include the existing historic residence. The property is located at 214 E. Bleeker and is described as Lots N, 0, P and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen! Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5095. st.John Bennett. Ml\Yor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on July 25, 1998. City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM .,J THRU: Mayor and the City Council Stan Clauson, Community Development Director~ Mitch Haas, Planner~ 214 East Bleeker Street (Brumder Residence), Historic Landmark Lot Split. First Reading of Ordinance No.~, Series of 1998. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: July 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split on July 24, 1996; however, since the plat ratifying said approvals was never recorded, the approvals have expired. The resubmitted application is identical to the originally approved proposal, and was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a second time on May 27, 1998 when it was recommended for approval by a vote of 7-0. The property has a gross area of 11,963 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original approvals, the applicant is seeking to divide the property into one parcel of 5,963 sq. ft. which would contain the historic house and another parcel of 6,000 sq. ft. on which a new house would be built in the future. Per Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1996, the FAR which would have been allowed for a duplex on the original parcel may be divided between the historic building and new house. The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions. The current request, like the original approvals, would allocate 1,913 square feet of floor area for the historic house (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC) and 2,344 square feet of floor area for the new house. Community Development Department staff and the HPC recommend approval of the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the conditions outlined in this memo. Conceptual approval for the development of the Landmark containing lot has been granted by the HPC, and said approval will remain valid through August 12, 1998. APPLICANT: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 214 E. Bleeker Street (Lots N, 0, P, and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado). The property is on the north side of E. Bleeker Street between Garmisch and Aspen Streets. ZONING: R-6, Medium-Density Residential PROCEDURE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits, like all lot splits and subdivisions, must obtain final approval via adoption of an ordinance by City Council. Pursuant to Section , -- 'to/" 26.72.010(G) of the Land Use Code, "the development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing." The Land Use Code defines "development" to include "the subdividing of land into two (2) or more parcels." Therefore, the proposed lot split was be reviewed at a public hearing by the HPC in order to obtain the HPC's recommendation to City Council. In total, the Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two- step process: step one is a public hearing before the HPC in order to obtain their recommendation, and step-two involves conducting two readings before City Council (with a public hearing at second reading) in order to obtain a final decision regarding the proposed lot split. REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( e), and Section 26.72.0 I O(G). Section 26.88 030(AJ(2J Subdivision l\xemvtions Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single. family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, is exempt from full subdivision review provided all ofthe following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Response: The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lot predates the city's adoption of subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( c)]. Response: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots would conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The lot containing the Landmark structure would be 5,963 square feet while the other lot would contain 6,000 square feet, and the R-6 zone district has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet for lots created by Section 26.100.050(A)(2), Historic Landmark Lot Split. Pursuant to Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( c), the newly created lot will have to mitigate for affordable housing by providing either an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), paying an affordable housing impact fee, or placing a resident occupancy deed restriction on the home. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(a)]; and 2 .' ......... -....d/ Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval, other than for the same proposal. The property has received Historic Lot Split approval, but the required plats were never recorded, thereby rendering those approvals null and void. The expiration of the previous approvals has left the property in its original, undivided condition. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullify the approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. Response: The language of this criterion is included as a recommended condition of the subdivision exemption approval. Also, see response to the previous criterion (d). j In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. . Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. Because eXlstmg fences conflict with/straddle the proposed lot line in two locations and an existing swimming pool on proposed Lot A lies closer to the proposed lot line than the minimum required side yard setback would allow, the Subdivision Exemption Plat must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required side yard setbacks. This plat note would remove the need to have the existing structures (pool and fences) go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that, in total, the lot split will result in two (2) dwelling units. On Lot B, an historic landmark residential unit currently resides and will remain. On Lot A, the lot will be vacant (with the exception of the existing swimming pool) until such time that the owners decide to build a residence. The size of the proposed Lot B 3 .' compared with the dimensional requirements of the R -6 zone district results in a maximum buildout of one (I) detached residential unit. The size of the proposed Lot A compared with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district results in a maximum potential buildout containing no more than a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units, via conditional use review. Therefore, the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district mandate compliance with this review criterion. Section 26.88 030(,4)(5). Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling shall comply with the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9, 000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The original parcel is 11,963 square feet (larger than 9,000 square feet) in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions, plus a possible FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet from the HPC. This FAR would be divided between the two parcels as follows: 1,913 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot B, which is the westerly lot with the historic house (plus the potential for an additional 500 square feet via a bonus from HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot A, or the easterly lot. The breakdown of these allocations shall combine to a total of 4,257 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses), and the allocations per lot shall be indicated on the final plat. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: With the exception of the eXlstmg swimming pool on Lot A, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district shall be complied with. If any HPC variances or bonuses are granted in the future, these shall only be permissible on Lot B, the lot containing the historic structure. Also, see responses to criteria "f' and "g," above. Section 26./00.050(A!(2)(e! GMQS Exemntion bv the Community Develonment Director Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential 4 .- Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed with a proposal to develop Lot A, provided this Historic Lot Split application is approved. To obtain the exemption, it will be necessary to provide appropriate mitigation pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code. Section 26. 72.010((;) Historic Landmark Lot Split The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: A public hearing regarding the subject proposal was held before the HPC on May 27, 1998, and the HPC voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Landmark Lot Split. Second Reading before City Council will also be a public hearing and is scheduled for August 10, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff and the HPC recommend that City Council approve the application with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration ofthe plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of the new/easterly lot (Lot A) created by the lot split shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,257 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The 5 -"~",,~,~,,~,,--,,,~-'""~-'"''''''-'-''''~.~'~-''' - - .. property shall be subdivided into one parcel (the westerly parcel, Lot B) of 5,963 square feet and a second parcel (the easterly parcel, Lot A) of 6,000 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the westerly parcel (Lot B) would be 1,913 square feet of floor area (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area on the easterly parcel (Lot A). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note. e. Contain a plat note stating that any setback nonconformities created by the new lot line shall be eliminated upon redevelopment or further development, as may be applicable, of either of the two lots. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)( e). 3. Prior to issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Number~, Series of 1998." "1 move to approve the First Reading of Ordinance ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" --- The submitted Land Use Application 6 - .... ".~, ORDINANCE No. ~ (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET (LOTS N, 0, P, AND Q, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO) WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPC); and WHEREAS, the applicant, W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood, has requested to split a 11,963 square foot parcel to create one single-family residential lot of 5,963 square feet and another of 6,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the HPC reviewed the request at a properly noticed public hearing on May 27, 1998 and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of7-0; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommended approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: ..,...~ I. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section I, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 214 East Bleeker Street with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of the new/easterly lot (Lot A) created by the lot split shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,257 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into one parcel (the westerly parcel, Lot B) of 5,963 square feet and a second parcel (the easterly parcel, Lot A) of 6,000 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the westerly parcel (Lot B) would be 1,913 square feet of floor area (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area on the easterly parcel (Lot A). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note. e. Contain a plat note stating that any setback nonconformities created by the new lot line shall be eliminated upon redevelopment or further development, as may be applicable, of either of the two lots. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of August, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (IS) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of ,1998. John Bennett, Mayor '"-~-",,"--".,_.~_."'.<~'~'.'-"""-' -. . ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk g:/planning/aspenlhpc/cases/lotsplit/214ebord.doc ,-. , r ,.. ,....'...... rfX~I8I,.. -A -) -- '-' , 1. LAND USE AP?LIc.'\TION FORM Project Name: 8rumder ,Re:;iden& Project Location: eX/if Eel} t 8kekerSf. Lo7.J ;VI 0/ f"J ard QJ Block 72- (Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description where appropriate) 2. 3. Present Zoning: I<-w //1 9u,S s9ff. . 4. Lot size: 5. Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.: 6. Representative's Name, Address tPhone No.: qrcltJ,en qr~eI1~ ~d.O (AJalnlLr st. ;"ppen , ~O [31lP/1 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Development Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mtn. View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Condominiumization __ Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment ~MQS Exemption Lot Split/Lot Line __ CMQS Exemption by Adjustment Planning Dir. 8. Description of Existing Uses structures; approximate square previous approvals granted to the see appIt a:e -hDO (number and feet; number property) : type of existing of bedrooms; any 9. Description of Develovment Application: Sfe tlffh cahUA.. 10. Have you attached the following? ~ Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents ~Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents .~"""'~;"1.," ,. - ,;,-291-:338 ....:..... . ,.r , -- ." 400 KA8T WIsconsIN AVBRUB SUITB 200 MILWADKBE, WTSCONSIN 53202 July 15, H96 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspsn Aspen. Col.orado Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Maoe.. Inc. is authori.zed to act on bohalf of the W. G. nrumd",x' Flox'ida Land Tn...". ownex. ot the property ;at 214 Easl Bleeker St reet in re .ence to the application she 1s making to you on behalf of the ,at. The address of the Trust is as fol.lows: W.G. Hrumder Florida Land TI.USt c/o Thomas D. Pit&gerAld 400 Rast Wisconsin AVenup., Su i te 200 MilwAukee, Wisconsin 53202 (4.14) 291-1820 ~lcasc direct any ~lftAtionB and/or inquirieA regarding the attached applicat.ion Lo Ms. Greenwood ;at the following address: Gretchen Gr_nwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (9101 925-4502 S.i.nl'el'oly, (;':) -fIL fS.~~ Thomas B. ~itzgerald TBF,lk ,- ,,"---', - ".;.,,r ATTACHMENT 2 HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT May 12, 1998 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Bromder Florida Land Trost c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 205 E. Wisconsin Ave. Ste 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Representative: Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker St Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N, 0, P, and Q 3. Attached to the application is a copy of disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. '-:':'1 '.:;K t"UL '",." 414 287 49lil P. <J2IJ/eIIil6 OCT Z3 '95 lZlt ASPCi 1m.&: ~. CCHl!Z'rN&H'r C:m&& A ,.." ,-., - ~oa: ::J I1:Dftl ... III tCIIIVIIa CD DC 1QD1 - CUN QIlIlS LVII 8UmI102 ~ "'!JCXIIIDI 58092 1. 1fIP&... LJ_ __, oc.~ 16, 1_ at 7:00 AM Rll/bII ~ ~ ,; CIIIdIr MIl. Q1C ..c a.. -- ~_ 3. ..... 0..-'. IOUq ~ 'W .A--...I:. .....; S 3. .. ~ 1"'1.-'- .. 'I I ,,... WI. --.. $ 2lIO.CllO.00 IIItIXllK IMIIESIalS IW<<, ;Lta. .~~ p~.~ J ~ ': 1iIIlIIIat: 8 - 4. '!lie.... CE" tl.l _t m tile WIll . oco..h:1J ~ ia: .~ ... -. .d tD m tbUt a.d"'-1t -.l l'IlIr 8JMIU ..., ti~ - U.. U at: .. dr ti............., ___ IaI ! I , " 'JIUmIB" 'DB ,ftu.'''' G, _1'LIlIlDlk JNI) 'IlIIlI1' ..1.1-~" 1IllII_1lHl':DMID Dir..-- 21, lM'T Qalr'. ~: . t.endgr;-'.~;, 1Da.50 AdIS'l LwdlIr Qlg: $ Md'lOlllgM: S - ~1c8tle:. .10.00 114.0: .L Q1g: . 'IS" .a.U&w: . i....s .by. ... 'rIg .....___..... llllll IlASl' IIlAWII AVIlla Il305 _ CD I16U m 1m) 91tU05'1 (m) ~ ...... 5J5-lMe3 1VJIIIt. 'V ; S 1132.;0 F1M'l' >>aIO\N 'l'1'l.U INUNQl aJliWlY ,... CRlFTCHtn.I '2)oes THIS 00 Y OCr. ""'"' Y '") ~eoO ~ ,~ II\lW f? r"'. ~O)) Q ~ ,... - ~ ... -~tP.fr.JiflJ.r2rrau_ - - ~ ;",~-;; j ~, ..';; -.:-I. .... ... , - ,... #' .~ o 2 - - ..,41 ~ c;-a ':2~[ a;~ L~ ~Ol lC ..=== it:J.J It 51: c.. IIr~ i . ~i~ ri:l ~e~~ ~~ r---- -""..... ATTACHMENT 3 May 12, 1998 BRUMDER RESIDENCE 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 Review Standards for Historic Lot Split 2. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single- family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all the foIlowing conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Piton County Board of county Commissioners or tbe City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which bas not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 34, 1969. Response: 214 East Bleeker is located in the City and Townsite of Aspen. This land is not in an approved subdivision. The legal description is as follows: Lots N, 0, P, and Q Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen. b, The lot split creates no more than two lots, both lots conform to tbe requirements of tbe underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(1)(c). Response: Two Lots herein called Lot A and Lot B will be created by the lot split and will confonn to the requirements of the R-6 zone district. The exact proposed lot sizes are listed below under Section 26.88.030(5)(a)(b) as a Historic LandmaIk Lot Split. c. The lot under consideration was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C(1), Response: The proposed lot for splitting bas not been subject to a subdivision exemption or a lot split. d. A subdivision plat wbicb meets the terms of this cbapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of tbe Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built witbout receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The subdivision plat is submitted for the review of the Community Development Office indicating the proposed Lot Split, and the requirements as set forth above. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat sbaIl be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty days foIlowing approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: This lot was originally split by HPC in October of 1996. The plat was not recorded with the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder within 180 days, thus invalidating the approval. Every effort wiIl be made for this re-application for a lot split to be recorded within 180 days of approval. c -- ,.", f. In the case where an existing single-family dweUing occupies a site. which is e1igihle for a lot split, the dweUing need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling is proposed for demolition for this lot split. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single family home. Response: In total, the lot split will create two dwelling units. On Lot A. an historic Ianclma1X residential unit currently sits and will remain. On Lot B, the lot will be vacant until such time that the owners decide to bnild a residence. 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single family dweUing. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.888.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e),section 26. 72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards Response: This proposed lot split is a Historic Lot Split. The subject parcel located at 214 East Bleeker is a historically designated landmark. The lot confonns to all the applicable standards in this Code including the following provisions: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13, 000 square reet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: Based on the above requirements for an Historic Landmark Lot Split for Block 72, Lots N, 0, P, and Q, the two lots Lot A and Lot B will be proposed for subdividing as follows: EXISTING ZONING STATISTICS Zone District: Total Lot Size: Allowable FAR: Front Yard Setbacks: Side Yard Setbacks: Height: Site Coverage: R-6 11,963 Sq.ft. 4,257 Sq.ft. (For a Duplex Development) Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code PROPOSED ZONING STATISTICS Lot A Lot B Zone District: R-6 (As existing) R-6 (As Existing) Total Lot Size: 5,963 Sq.ft. 6,000 Sq.ft. Designated FAR: 1.913 Sq.ft. 2,344 Sq.ft. (Note: A 500 Square foot FAR bonus has been granted during Conceptual Approval for the Historic Structure on Lot A.) Front and Rear Yard: Per Code Per Code (Note: A 2' Rear Yard Setback Variance hase been during Conceptual Approval for the Historic Structure on Lot A.) Side Yard Setbacks: Height: Site Coverage: Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code ~.... ,- '-' " b. The Total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area for a duplex on the original parcel The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat Response: The Aspen Municipal Code provides that the total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot is noted on the attached plat to this application and corresponds to the above information. b. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: The newly created Lot B confonn to the dimensional requirements of the Zone District. Lot A contains the historic structure has been granted conceptual approval for a rear yard setback, and FAR bonus. , c; 'i".~ ! ; ,.>. . . . ~,!E!. ;: ;: It .-.- . ~ - :.] ~lii; ! - i! 0.... I I' 'i ,"!-I ' , ~ ., ~31; :' . i .,'.I! " I'. ~ .t1. t -I ~i~'] '. ,. :, I ,'" , '~ 'I" , "'~ ' 2: ~ , .I' r '!l- 2 ~~ no !-t 1. . .",! ,~ . II . I! - I ." ~ 1- ,,"~ II". . ~ . '~. " I , . .. ~ ~: ui :'., it a a :i '" !~ -i r eo p ,n..,;..,1 dJ.. ....f-- -" ..j..j ::.....c.... Y] -" _0 co_ ....ji- "- .1 '-'~ g~ X~ :i G l..J...J ~ ~!, r-- .: ~~ :~ :I.:_ ~j ~~ t [ 0_ ~a :...:..,::0 ::t::..:..J .::cv. + ~...... ,.~.--. -.....,...~-~'_.,---,-- '....... I i to H'I ir-'li:J I 'I'.".....! I .l i!. fU ~~~ ~Ij.. i,;ij~l:~i I~II~ j~;~! "m: ,i~ << ! I'E" i II' ~ i; ;: 'I : i~'1 ~'l 8 ',> n ... ~ -...- i. . ;1 :;.,-3,1:1 '11 >-~ Etr n ~~,~ ;iI,. , " .... S" i i. is d i'~ . ~ II , -II I ~ I' ;, I . < .' I~ ,=! ~n ,. ;: .' , $1 i " Ii .~ .' , ' " " r I ": I I ,,,l t, ,. J II ;f~ ;ia I li,~ :'!!; ,.,,! ! ;l~.. " !i~ 1~:1~ I ~Ir 'I' , . "I- , .,. , C:li~di ~,!~. ,lIb !l!~ I' r.'~ I~ ", e,l_ 'I' ,.. I.. I!ilJ,':" "1 I' ;~:!;I~:ii~III' iii "ll!!; I,. 'ii':i. I '.1 ~ i~. ~ I ,-; !Ii hi:' ~,.lll ','';' .., .... n.. .., 'r, I,,,.. .,.... " . .a ~ "I' I r.: i,l I;': !~~}!! "Q 51 !,,!,:r::~t.'!! Ill!!l!i ~ _il Ji. ~sJl~, ..MI .It I I I . ' I. "': n ~;i ~ I l!l!i!~ i ,'" ,,' III . I ..I g 1111.11 Ii, ,. n I ~ il Ii ,i I II I I I Ihli I I j H! tteu. ; I r..: ~ I . -. " . 0," .$~ H+ qnli~p .~~q ~ iii~~nll:!~pi; : gi ,h,slt~l. I ~ .___.i!s.~ 0 l!I.n~~1'_ -; I -i 'l~i5;oei .il: ill~!: ~ iW ! ;1.: i · ~ 19 . _ E ..:: : i ! i' i ! ; I ~ ~ ~ ~ . $ : i . ~ ~ . ~ ~ < ~ S " ~ z- .z ~- .~ ~~ ~ ~ fl' , * '.1":' ';;~~.l~ ...~_ .':"', ' '-I. .' 1:- " , ... ~~ o .. .0 e . " i ... ~ iSO ;;;;:: .'1 ". 'a ~"I F _I i! P ~I: !ll ....p ~ ,.;. ~.; ~ II" 0 :.~a ~ ~~ ~ n '-Ir ~ ~- 0 i m l,,::: i:..!: n ~';~~ !ll n ~ i!H ri~' a;: l~ .r~ > ~ ~ m Z . . i ~ l .. Ul I 6 ;; ~ , , I < ~. i! ~ I npi ~ !': i ~ ~ .:. Go m II! !': = :lI;I S... Go - . . . z " !2'2 0 "" ~ .,.e1 .~ i !: ::; .- ~ ~, 0 "~ ,.0 -< ~ 10 'I; k~ ~ <a < ~~ ~ I . ~ " .. I;: 0.0 ilr iillf Ii; ill!; I~e lili :i ~ill ~'" ...- t". 'j:~1 i'! ~I~il C -.'1 I~I I;!~ ~u .1"1 ~oi ~I; e~. 81. ~ .l~ 'II~ '1 ill'! ~. ~iiil. Ii' !li;j-: I i'~! ! . ." ~ ! r-- ~ : ~ ~ ~ CD -, . \ r-J, / / ~ r-- / : / :~/ f / ->. 0 / ; / . / ~ / / / l._J G '" or - iI";;; n~ ri ~! ~ . ~ .' ~ '1 m . ~ m " ~ -. < -< > I i ~ !; z <" " ,~ ~ . - - ~ : ~ < 0 , z i > ~ ., ~ ii ~ !! *~ n ." =<. _~ ~ 0 I. m '! i!i _ I - !j m -I ~ I. : .0 ~ ~i ;g ~n ~ ~ ~ , I :i ~: I ~ i I!I ~il~frI9 all!~ ~ ~; ~'i ' ' < aSe hi:~~U m 1.1 j"~ ~ g., ;~i .~;~",;-~!I;a g l! ,,~ 'i!h.,~~- jii . -;- ~ ,!"!:. IEr.' ~ .~ _ ~ . 1 efr";iil,,81~~ S n - i1i~l!I...f.itlm " .., '-. saol. . -9 _'1 I,~m. . ~ !~ .a~ ;!~rl'S~- .!I !:i~i!~1 !~~i1 <i- ~.~.M~;lif I-J;;f ....J-. r. ~!.!~I;~~=~ · i'.~"'~i'" "!i,-,soil ,. , :;..;liCJ;:.'! ;t~ . ... "''''..- rii~~~I~(! i2:'!E.,,,.Iii,,, r~ !I !:::RIIi! > ~ lSlI:;; ... . i' .~ -0 !~ . < . .. 'I~-." .i~' ~!C ~ i !SII '-. ,- . 3 -~~,i; ~i:i ~liI ~ I, ~.:!~ "~:I .15 . ~i ~"'-~:i ~,I eo r..;].. i~ .. .' ";~ 0 8~_. i'. " ..~, !aE' ,WI s; i. ol~ ,O!! ~~o ."I~iI, I --E -." . n '....Sil! n I;. ii~ I "1 I l"ill so; ,. .. . 1"_ ~"i: ..Z; :t~ i ::~'~. ~;i. li@ . ;;;&10' -J .. . I1W'" 11-8 . ~ !.~~' !~" I" " ~'I~ i1~b .1 o .... ,... ... ~.-~- ." .~ i ~'l 9 ."- .. . bt~_;i ~l~ ji , .... O~2 ,=! t c .. "'. 'iiI N ~ ! ", "!. .", i ~;I; ~l!~ II " "_. .!i ~ - > 38 '" · .. i i ~l -N R $ o fj 5 5 I " e !~ $$ " ;..~ "R :" ".. .. , .'Iiim-~n- l'! l.., ."' ~ " o~. _,I~ m e ~e,,' ~ - ~ ...iii;;;:lt&~t : CI:;I~ili.l~ " ; I~I~'IH ~ ili <co ~ i. .e'''g_ .-1;'" g-." ;~:l!"':I"'I:::! ~ I~I' i!Jln m .~'Ia_ I. if ~~I-~i/S'I - ilIel~~s~ I. ~ho~.!iii leiil( :a~ ~. ~!~~Ii;~;! ~"Ie' el'l o' .... J ."lii~~'l~~ e~ ~~. . "! 9~ {gl I iii-fin ii.. '," ~ -~ il ;_! I -. ""I --- '"i1 i-< : o oj- - .. . ~. ~ !:~ i'. -ii ~ ~I ~- m! ~. . . po z~ 0' o . . ilJ CD C;t CDC t:J:s:: -t:J <'f'1 -;t 'IJ i.- -:J:: ~"'.~ 0 '-- - .'7: rlJ . -l .'~ . f'1 6 ~~: x;t i!i tl1-- " ";>On ~" "D s -ll" ,i -"0 ~ O-l 7: Ul LJlJ l"l" ),.- -l-l o , ~ '-'''''' ,J I,-~ ;~ ~;;n ~ ,. = -<.:11. !1II1~~ :! ! 'il f'~g,.; ~ ~ !~ i ~-o~= ~ ~:, I' . - I ill'!" ,--<!!..- o. 0 ,." g i ,~ a . ~.;;. -<~ :.~ '~, '?, 4 :'" n ~ 0 ~...s3i~~, . i!_ e... ~ . ~ . .o.'. r a ~ I ~J;~: · ; I-fib i , a'." 0 .f aBs~ rJ ! ~~s~ 0 o i ~~~f'.' ...~. 0 . 7 ~ -"' ",'" ....~,,'" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 214 East Bleeker Street (Brumder Residence), Historic Landmark Lot Split. Parcel 1.0. 2737-073-16-005 DATE: May 27, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split on July 24, 1996; however, since the plat ratifying said approvals was never recorded, the approvals have expired. The property has a gross area of 11,963 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original approvals, the applicant is seeking to divide the property into one parcel of 5,963 sq. ft. which would contain the historic house and another parcel of 6,000 sq. ft. on which a new house would be built in the future. Per Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1996, the FAR which would have been allowed for a duplex on the original parcel may be divided between the historic building and new house. The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions. The current request, like the original approvals, would allocate 1,913 square feet of floor area for the historic house (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC) and 2,344 square feet of floor area for the new house. Community Development Department staff recommends that the HPC advise City Council to approve the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the conditions outlined in this memo. Conceptual approval for the development of the Landmark containing lot has been granted by the HPC, and said approval will remain valid through August 12, 1998. APPLICANT: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 214 E. Bleeker Street (Lots N, 0, P, and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado). The property is on the north side of E. Bleeker Street between Garrnisch and Aspen Streets. ZONING: R-6 PROCEDURE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits, like all lot splits and subdivisions, must obtain final approval via adoption of an ordinance by City Council. Pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Land Use Code, "the development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing." The Land Use Code defines "development" to include "the subdividing of land into two (2) or more parcels." Therefore, the proposed lot split must be reviewed at a public hearing by the HPC in order to obtain the HPC's recommendation to City Council. In total, the Historic Landmark Lot Split is a two- step process: step one is a public hearing before the HPC in order to obtain their recommendation, and step-two involves conducting two readings before City Council (with a public hearing at second reading) in order to obtain a final decision regarding the proposed lot split. REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26 88 030(A!(2J Subdivision Exemvtions Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14,1977, is exempt from full subdivision review provided all ofthe following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Response: The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lot predates the city's adoption of subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26. I OO.050(A)(2)(c)]. Response: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots would conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The lot containing the Landmark structure would be 5,963 square feet while the other lot would contain 6,000 square feet, and the R-6 zone district has a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet for lots created by Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2), Historic Landmark Lot Split. Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c), the newly created lot will have to mitigate for affordable housing by providing either an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), paying an affordable housing impact fee, or placing a resident occupancy deed restriction on the home. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100. 040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.1 00.050(C)(3)(a)]; and 2 # , Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval, other than for the same proposal. The property has received Historic Lot Split approval, but the required plats were never recorded, thereby rendering those approvals null and void. The expiration of the previous approvals has left the property in its original, undivided condition. d A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullify the approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The language of this criterion is included as a recommended condition of the subdivision exemption approval. Also, see response to the previous criterion (d). f In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. Because eXlstmg fences conflict with/straddle the proposed lot line in two locations and an existing swimming pool on proposed Lot A lies closer to the proposed lot line than the minimum required side yard setback would allow, the Subdivision Exemption Plat must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required side yard setbacks. This plat note would remove the need to have the existing structures (pool and fences) go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that, in total, the lot split will result in two (2) dwelling units. On Lot B, an historic landmark residential unit currently resides and will remain. On Lot A, the lot will be vacant (with the exception ofthe existing swimming pool) until such time that the owners decide to build a residence. The size of the proposed Lot B 3 -- .~ ............ ,"",f' compared with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district results in a maximum buildout of one (I) detached residential unit. The size of the proposed Lot A compared with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district results in a maximum potential buildout containing no more than a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units, via conditional use review. Therefore, the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district mandate compliance with this review criterion. Section 26.88 030(AJ(5J Historic T.andmark Lot Solit The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling shall comply with the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9, 000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The original parcel is 11,963 square feet (larger than 9,000 square feet) in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions, plus a possible FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet from the HPC. This FAR would be divided between the two parcels as follows: 1,913 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot B, which is the westerly lot with the historic house (plus the potential for an additional 500 square feet via a bonus from HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot A, or the easterly lot. The breakdown of these allocations shall combine to a total of 4,257 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses), and the allocations per lot shall be indicated on the final plat. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: With the exception of the existing swimming pool on Lot A, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district shall be complied with. If any HPC variances or bonuses are granted in the future, these shall only be permissible on Lot B, the lot containing the historic structure. Also, see responses to criteria "f' and "g," above. Section 26JOO.050(A!(2!(eJ GMQS Exemotion bv the Community Development Director Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential 4 """"'^,,,, .... .......... Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed with a proposal to develop Lot A, provided this Historic Lot Split application is approved. To obtain the exemption, it will be necessary to provide appropriate mitigation pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code. Section 26. 72.010(0,). Historic Landmark Lot Solit The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: I) Recommend approval of the application as submitted; 2) Recommend approval of the development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy (specific recommendations should be offered); or 4) Recommend denial of the application finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards as presented herein. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HPC forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the application with the tellgn'iR!j conditions: I. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of the new/easterly lot (Lot A) created by the lot split shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply 5 - ',"".",.. with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,257 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into one parcel (the westerly parcel, Lot B) of 5,963 square feet and a second parcel (the easterly parcel, Lot A) of 6,000 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the westerly parcel (Lot B) would be 1,913 square feet of floor area (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area on the easterly parcel (Lot A). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note. e. Contain a plat note stating that any setback nonconformities created by the new lot line shall be eliminated upon redevelopment or further development, as may be applicable, of either of the two lots. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)( e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a decision-making body having the authority to do so. ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward to City Council a recommendation \~ ~ to approve an Historic Landmark Lot Split for 214 East Bleeker Street with the condition}/" '1"'0 outlined in the staff memorandum dated May 27, 1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" --- The submitted Land Use Application 6 ._._._.~.,__...~~~" ...... H ...__"._ ... ----~-- .- -_..~.._.-._..- ~'--". _ ._.~_-_~,=.c."'..~:.==~"'::'::::-.=~..:-..:-.:._;.:;:::::-..::;=.::::::~:::__:__.:::-:::::.::::::.=:::....:..______-......~......_~_,-_.._...- ,.<.... ,~....., , PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 214 E. BLEEKER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT & HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 27,1998, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the Sister Cities meeting room, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Brwnder Trust requesting HPC Final Development and Historic ~.,---,.,,.,..,-----~ Landmark Lot Split approval. The applicant proposes to divide the parcel into one lot of 5,963 square feet and one lot of 6,000 square feet The 5,963 square foot lot will include the existing historic residence and the applicant requests on this lot a rear yard setback variance of 5 feet and an FAR bonus of 500 square feet. The property is located at 214 E. Bleeker and is described as Lots N, 0, P and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen! Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5095. s/Suzanna Reid. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 9, 1998. City of Aspen AccoWlt ,...~ -~ ....",.... "'-..... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Dire;;; 0 Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Planning Director. FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: February 11, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On February 12, 1997, HPC granted conceptual approval for the construction of a new outbuilding to the rear of the existing historic house. Section 26.72.010 (F)(3)(c) provides that an application for final development review shall be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless HPC grants an extension, failure to file the final development application shall make the approval null and void. At this time the applicant, represented by Gretchen Greenwood, requests HPC approval for a six-month extension of conceptual approval, to allow more time for study of the final design. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street be extended until August 12, 1998. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend conceptual approval for 214 E. Bleeker Street to August 12, 1998." - Y-c~)' " - MEMORANDUM THRU: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission . Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo~ TO: FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 214 E. Bleeker Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual review, On- Site relocation, Ordinance #30- PUBLIC HEARING (continued from July 24, 1996) DATE: August 28, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: HPC reviewed this application on July 24 and granted Conceptual approval for the proposed addition to the historic house, as well as the lot split. Ordinance #30 is also met. The partial demolition aspect of the project was tabled with the request that the applicant restudy the proposal to demolish and replace an existing outbuilding. At this time the applicant requests approval for the relocation of the existing outbuilding onto the newly created vacant lot, and Conceptual approval for the new outbuilding, which will sit on the historic lot. APPLICANT: Greenwood. W.G.Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen LOCATION: Aspen. 214 E. Bleeker, Lots N,O,P, and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of ZONING: R-6, historic landmark. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1 -- ,"-.... - ,'" 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage 'nfill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The property is adjacent to the Community Church, and is part of one of the more intact historic areas of the West End. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the newly created historic landmark lot split option. This allows the property to be divided into two smaller lots, each of which will contain a building of approximately 2,400 sq.ft. This development will be in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and is significantly more compatible with the historic structure than would be an addition which would triple the original building's size. The total FAR allowed for Lot A, which will contain the historic landmark, will be 1,913 sq,ft. The existing house is 1,589 sq.ft., and the applicant proposes to make a small addition of 152 sq.ft. on the north side of the house. The remaining 172 sq.ft., plus a requested FAR bonus of 500 sq.ft. will be placed in a freestanding outbuilding on the alley. The shed which is currently in that location is proposed to be relocated to the other half of the site, where new development will occur. HPC has found that conceptually the new addition is in an appropriate location and of an appropriate design, and the lot split has been approved. The existing outbuilding is a bedroom for the house. It appears to be original to the site and is in fair condition, however its quality as living space is marginal at this point. See further discussion in the on-site relocation review below. The new outbuilding will have two bedrooms. No kitchen is allowed in the new building unless it is approved as an accessory dwelling unit. 2 - - ~..... ..." The new outbuilding as proposed is over the allowable height limit for an accessory structure. The applicant has several options; to only build a one story outbuilding, to connect the outbuilding to the house so that the principal building height limit applies, to request a height variance from the Board of Adjustments, or to have the unit approved as an ADU (a code amendment allowing an 18' height limit for cottage infill is pending.) Staff has consulted with the applicant and they wish to have a reading from HPC. They are willing to build a breezeway connection, but would prefer not to. They are willing to approach the Board of Adjustments, but there is no certainty that a variance would be granted. Staff does have some concerns with the impact of such a tall structure directly on the alley, especially given the applicant's request to build the new outbuilding in essentially the same location of the existing outbuilding, right on the rear lot line. Staffs recommendation is that the outbuilding be brought into compliance with the 5' rear yard setback requirement and that the second floor plate height (currently 8'), be pulled down to the extent possible. In addition, the detailing of the new outbuilding may be modified to be more in keeping, but not imitative, of the historic house. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As stated above, this neighborhood has significantly retained its historic character. Dividing the development on the lot into two buildings is a significant in maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant also intends to retain an alley structure and create a new one, which increases activity in the alley. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The alteration to the historic house is minimal. The shed is discussed below. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. 3 - ,..... '"--'"' --- Response: Again the alteration to the original house is minimal. On-Site Relocation Section 26.72.020(E). Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant proposes to relocate the existing outbuilding to the newly created lot. A revised site plan will be presented at the meeting. It is anticipated that the outbuilding may be used as a garage in the future, but no plans for its renovation are prepared at this time. The outbuilding appears to be original to its current location, according to the Sanborne map. The shed appears to be in fair condition, but in need of substantial improvements to be livable. The house has only two bedrooms and the applicant is willing to locate the other two bedrooms necessary for them in an outbuilding, rather than make a substantial addition to the house. To that end, staff supports relocation of the historic shed to the adjacent parcel. 2. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: A report must be submitted prior to application for building permit. 3. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: A relocation plan and bond must be submitted prior to application for building permit. Staff recommends a bond in the amount of $2,000 for the shed. 4 - - ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for the relocation of the historic outbuilding and recommends tabling the conceptual approval of the new outbuilding, requiring that it meet the rear yard setback requirement, that the detailing be restudied to be more compatible with the historic resource, that the second floor plate height be lowered to the extent possible, and that the applicant proceed to the Board of Adjustments for a height variance. Recommended motion: "I move to approve the on-site relocation of the outbuilding, and to table the conceptual review application as it relates to the proposed new outbuilding for 214 E. Bleeker Avenue to September 11, 1996, requiring that it meet the rear yard setback requirement, that the detailing be restudied to be more compatible with the historic resource, that the second floor plate height be lowered to the extent possible, and that the applicant proceed to the Board of Adjustments for a height variance." 5 ~ fq ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ :; ~ t:j ~ ,. VI ." , '" f z N S2l ~ ~ r -< 2_ VI 0 0 .:: 0 c: " " " -~ "'. ~ < ~ ~ ..c ~ <: Z .. ,z 0 :.; '" G) _? -< n " '" ~ . 0 0 ,0 1> c . ~ '" '!; z ~ I ~ Z < '" f '" " .. ~ - m () Z n ,0 S2l t ~ 0 u> '" ~ '" 0 ~ c F . '" ~ . r '" . ~ 0 < VI 0 ~ n '" 0 m ~ z - i.. --------- r-J1 I I I . I I ; I I. .i 1 1 $ 1 I 1 '----J , , ~I .~ . $ I . . ; - ~ a ~ !~ '-: ~ ~ ~ ~ ...__...~,.." "II CI ~l - b = ~ I 1- ~ .j.....----- .. " a/lef o " -.I ! - } o o I I I I I I I 1 "' ) east beder Jl7t"ff- ~ Q C!z'6 jLl ~ '" ~;;l ~ ~ !!! R::E _ ~ o m Z l1i ~ ~ ~ ~ l :1: Q . Id' ~~~~~GiGi ~n.~~", t:? ro ~.(),.. g.... rr~~s3'=' i !h~ ~ g: a. ,1:.1 ,.u .\ 'J,. ! J .J/~' J 1..& .. :: z~ = ~ .,~ ~= =-~ ~~Q. ~... ~ ~ \I -< ~= ~ I ~ o ... ~ ~ = = ! I I I I I , I ! ! I I I I I; . : I i ',. ,; i I! I I' . I'; ,I' I' , . I I . , I: i -.I I I! I Y!I I" 'I II I' . I I II Ii I I I. I . , I , i I II 1\ leJJ i ! II; i! ) I I I ! I I. I "'~~';iTIII ill'I' II 'I II' ! ! i !: "I 'I. I. '.', .". i~" "._, ". ~- , lr' . ! II, : I i [', __ ,-.J ! I+~ ----.; I I I ! ! I II I I I i I II! 1.1 I I, , I I ! i '. ':1 fiTT ,. , : I : ...... - ,~ ~ ~ -< II = ....... ..... .. -. I '0 e ' .. .. = II III I II i II I ! I II i I i I j I ; II i 'I 1 I I , , : I I , I i _.L I I f_-- '_1 I[-J L fi I , I I i.! I " I, II , , , ! ! C"lr ---- , 1- i I ., . ~ -, 1:3. " 1~ .'...... I I i I I , , i - , , - , '\ t ,,\ .'::) " (, .~ \ \. ~ -",..... ; . .------ -' -- ,~ - ---- ,-- / .IL f-. 1 JU I- . .. T .. r-' ..l . - IT ... ~ ..l .. T II -- JI'. I I ~:~ ~~ l~' ......'.-1 \-... = C;., ~ \ ' ".' (r ....... .~,..,;,(~",~ .<.;-.. ',~t~. .....~~., :~~>.~: -. ~ .'. ~c ,-" ." '., ."--';A~ i (_~( .- '.\ \..:.,} ~":.. . 'J..[ .",,- ~,>, '>-( '<<.. '~"',\ ,';--Q ;.. -i.'-.. (' i,.( . cy I .'...'c" :-.- V ' ~"-<'- '~--(-~ ....' - i ...~i,._ .,-\..-,"~ <. " l- I ...- . - '""__~.,,, V . '..___- "':~.'_.~ ':,,\ .- .1.._ - - - --'-' , i... '_.~ ~"~'" . \. I- t -I --" " ./ '1--'-7<' .' .<',1' III1IIII .,- I ...... Oll> I 1--- I , I I . . ... - 0 . , -. , II , I I I 1111' I I i II I ~~ lllTT ' lW 1"- I'I! ~ ILL' "" \ ~.~. I I J.. I ~}=~=~ f--r- .L .'1 I ~ ~~~-~;~t=J:C~ . ~~Mt~. 1"12 \~)? .~ ~ y -~"l_,. ,-'L / :)l-.-" C...w-'7" /, <~.'-C~::CtY /' I [~~~~-tt~~ ~ ;;~t'~.- ~c}; ~.. V ~ /,/ rr I - -=. --=] II L_ ._,J i II '--.lfJr .. I I! I I 'I I I II i t ,! I, t!!!j~ "1 = e l:IJ"C ~e l:IJ t!!!j8. .... I--"~ ~ .. -< .. II = ~ . I--" ..,. ,.. I e o ~ = , l-J '--4 '. " -. t--u. L -L_ -L --1--T -L _ 11llrrrrUlI 1 I I J I ~ -n -\ I I~ i\ , "I ~ ~ ,< II. ,It . , I 'Vi, i I~ L ~ ) ~ ~ \ ~ .~ ~ " -\ ~-- ~ I I [ I l-. 1 l -- II [ III _. . li - - - ".-.'.-- -~ ~. " ....-. l-~ fC- , '. ~>i \J I -('. -.- , ;1 I I , I ',II -/ II ; 1,1 I :' , I, I. I[ " Ii 6' " ,j..-:' ~ \) Ie --\ --t " ~- , r--- '","-'" ,- .,~ I ~- ,. , '0' \ ~- / \ , i ) ! \ I I 'I ! I I I I I- , ... ' , "'~ I I , I. ',I L- I , . i " - \:' ;:'\ -:L ~-'.""', ___I IT I ~~ i \' i ...~ -, \. i _\ II I ! 1'0\ 1\ I ~" !II.-- I ....." II )' 1'\ II.. - d \ ) II~ ,,,.,-,,~ '....'~~- , ~ ~ '.~ 7:1 Q 0 0'- :l: ~ ~~~~ >' !!! ~ ~ til f; o rrl Z tI'J Z 021 c:: w ~." p o J8f"S" Z7.'~" //:;t?j ... I. 'vHWAi" IU:iA~'I.' I , 1 ~ ,;), rBf~NjW' C<'!t.. .ufu- His~ClCl ;ndi~ ~ 1 ~~~ t1) ~ [~&:l -- :i;:.. : oC\ II . --::.. , .. 00 : II == =c=J '" . .. I , , tIl r'T'I >< Ci) ~ 2.,. ~. - 6 : II . .....' ....,~ '-' I: , 11'1,1 I,! I I, I Ii II ,I - -,p D- ~ !i~~g ~ /111"*1.... " {~~/Lt~' , ~~~~A"C)C) ,. ~~hf~ nl lTl ;;:j" '" S~ili ~ dn'. 9- ~ ~ (' Jj~."h ~~~~ if::S ~~~ (,Ll') ~NiiI ~:-~ (t) 8 8"a~8.::l dNtAld.J'i '" -' "'..I,N;n ~ . . "'....~'..--"... ~ (j; ~ .~ r/} Cl a ... 1:1" _t"'l :i;;- ~ .. II ~ -- -... ~ i I ! I Ii ,i; il II Ii II' )1 I'll i, 'I' 11,11';[1 'I t:::::Jc:=J t=:t c=::l Ii I , I - . J :J ~ .....J ilOO- ~ ~.:> ..c)c) ~~:>o -, -" .i.. I, T l'!'l ;ri!;l , . ... :> ~ n! ~ R~- ~ 2!D:-=' ~. & 13~~ ~j." , -,l'.' t:~e.. i~ ~.. 9 IHi ~...~ . III 8 g- ~8.::l ~ " JQ/n. ''lUYI1I/lf). " ,..- ".. - -- r , I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 214 E. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL DEMOLITION & mSTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 24,1996, at a meeting to begin at 5 :00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the Sister Cities meeting room, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Brumder Trust requesting HPC Conceptual Development, Partial Demolition and Historic Landmark Lot Split approval. The applicant proposes to divide the parcel into one lot of 5,963 square feet and one lot of 6,000 square feet. The 5,963 square foot lot will include the existing historic residence and the applicant requests a rear yeard setback variance of 5 feet and an FAR bonus of 500 square feet for this parcel. The property is located at 214 E. Bleeker and is described as Lots N, 0, P and Q, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen! Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5096. s/Jake Vickery. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 6, 1996. City of Aspen Account ~19-1995 9,06PM FROM P_2 ~,..., - - ~. ~." ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION .JULY 24.1996 .f"" 3 ) Waive the primary window standard and volume standard. 4) Look at or restudy trim detail on the original north west corner of the historic structure. 5) Grant a second story rear yard setback variance of 4 '6 "for the secondfloor and to be restudied to reduce impacts from the alley to be presented at final: 1 second by Roger. All infavor, motion carried 6-0. Jake said all we are fundamentally saying is take a look at it and see if there is anything that you can live with to rednce the impacts on the alley. 123 W_ FRANCIS - VARIANCE - PH ..~ Jake Vickery stepped down. DonneIley Erdman stepped down. 1st Vice-chairman Roger Moyer opened the public hearing .~. ,~.," Dayid Hoefer, Assistant City Attomey stated that the notice of a public hearing was presented. Amy stated that a variance was previously given for a light well in the setback and at that time we did not know that a combined sideyard variance was also needed. No comments have been received in the Planning office. There were no comments from the public. 1st Vice-Chairman Roger Moyer closed the public hearing. MOTION: Melanie moved that HPC approve the combined side yard setback variance of 2.5 feet at! 23 W. Francis Lot A.. Vickery Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen; second by Susan. All infavor, motion carried 214 E. BLEEKER - Lot SPUT - CONCEPTUAL - PH Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that notice has been provided and the chairman has jurisdiction to proceed with the meeting. .,-. 6 9-19-1995 9,07PM FROM P_3 - - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION .!liLY 24.1996 ,..... Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing. Amy stated that this application is an historic landmark lot split. It would allow instead of the historic house having an addition twice the size, that same mass would be broken down into two buildings and the property owner could sell thenl' ' as legally and oistinct parcels. At this time there is no proposal for the empty lot'. They are asking tor the 500 sqft. bonus which would bring the historic house and addition to 2413 sqft. and lot B would be 2344 sqft. Amy stated that the applicant is proposing a small addition pushing out the kitchen on the back of the historic house and Staff finds no impact. Possibly differentiation of materials should be addressed. The roof proposed is metal. The primary issue is the out building which is in good condition (site visit verified condition). It is presently used as a bedroom and they wish to continue to do that and allocate the space with a detached structure rather than an attached structure. Their proposal is to tear down the existing shed and re-build a two story shed that will have two bedrooms in it. There are a few problems as the out building is original to the site and is historic and secondly the two story building is over the r height limit. Their option would be to connect the two buildings with a breezeway and they would not have to ask HPC for a variance. For the partial demo, the standards would have to be met that the site would not be impacted. Gretchen Greenwood, architect for the owners Brumder's. The outbuilding has been used for a bedroom for a few months and houses pool equipment and it does not have a bathroom. The applicant wanted to keep the new out building away from the main house and close to the alley. There .are several two story buildings that are right on the alley and it is a realistic solution. We could certainly move the Quilding ir.. an.d atta;::h ittc t!,e main house but tIle OWners want it separate so that the Victorian doesn't become a rambling Victorian. The other desire is to expand the kitchen which would be a 150 sqft. addition on the back. The kitchen addition would have a different material. ~usan asked the condition of the shed. Amy stated as a shed it is OK but as a living space it needs improvement. ,,-... Gretchen stated that she reinforced her shed and it is costly to try and restore the out building. 7 ~19-1995 9,07PM FROM P.A - --' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JIJLY 24_ 1996 ,..... Susan stated on the west end Arenson's outbuilding was restored with a second story and could that occur. Gretchen stated that she also restored her building and it cost four times as much to do it and this out building is not the significant building on the site. Part of it has an concrete foundation on it. Sven stated for clarification that the applicant is requesting, conceptual, lot split, partial demolition of a shed and an opening would be made in the historic house for a kitchen. Amy stated that they cannot built the building as is. It is over the height limit. Only Board of Adjustment could give a variance and they would have to prove a hardship. The other option is to connect the out building by a breezeway to the house. They are also asking the HPC to let them build the house on the alley so not only are we allowing that bigger impact, they also want it on the alley. The option is to make they comply with the five foot minimum rear yard. The third ,.... option would be to deal with the building as is and build in a basement and raise it or do a pop top in the roofto create a loft space in an existing building. Sven stated that they wouldn't necessarily have to do a pop up, they could add onto the shed to meet the needs of the client. He also stated that he would need a landscape plan of both parcels before granting conceptual. Adaptive reuse is part of historic preservation. Ifthat happened he would be comfortable in giving yariances. Roger stated tbat there are four elements: Lot Split Bonus Conceptual (A) Possible Partial Demolition Amy stated that they are asking for the bonus for the out building which is Stafr s only concern. She reiterated that the out building is on the 1904 Sanborn map. -... Gretchen stated that the inside was rebuilt and there is different kinds of siding. 8 9-19-1995 9,08PM FROM P.5 '.'"" # ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 24. 199Q ,... Jake stated that the records should have photographs of the existing conditions to see exactly how the out building is framed: Gretchen indicated that she will have 6 foot plate heights and the height would be 22 feet, a story and a half. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger stated that he would favor the lot split, bonus and retail1 the out building and allow a basement remodeling. No problem with the height of the building although it would be easier. if they attached it, No problem with the kitchen addition. Roger stated that it is very difficult to have out buildings taken down and HPC is against it and hopefully most owners are briefed of that. Suzannah stated that she agreed with the lot split, kitchen addition, and she cannot approve the FAR bonus without seeing how it relates to the out building. She indicated that the out building should be preserved. .-- Jake stated that the lot split creates value potentially for property owners to offset the cost of whatever historical efforts the board decides are needed. Donnelley stated that he is in agreement with Suzannah. He also feels adaptive reuse should occur on the out building. It is in the form of what might have been built in the turn of the century and therefore a gabled ended building would be more appropriate in this case. He is in favor of the kitchen addition, Susan stated that she agrees with what has been said and she is opposed to tearing town out buildings on t..1e alley, The alley scapes in this !.Own are the last remnant of the mining era days. There are things that can be done to preserve it. Melanie and Mark concurred with the commentary presented by the other board members. . Sven encouraged adaptive reuse of the outbuilding in order to receive the 500 sqft. bonus, ~ Gretchen stated that she had no problem with restudying the out building but initially they would like to do the kitchen addition. She also stated that that 9 .9-19-1995 9,OBPM FROM P,6 , , , ASP~N HISTORIC PR~SERV A TION C:OMMISSION .JULY 24, 1996 ,-. probably an addition to the main house would occur at a later date or to the shed somehow. The desire is to try and not add to the house. Amy stated that the application could be treated at a millor development for the kitchen addition only. Gretchen stated that they need the far bonus and ifthey don't get the bonus they are not going to do the lot split. They need an incentive. Amy stated that the bonus is to cover the kitchen and the second story of the out building. Chairman Jake Vickery stated that there were no comments from the public, Jake stated for clarity there would be two lots: westerly lot at 5,963 sqft. and would house the existing residence and the lot on the east would be a 6,000 sqft. lot and would be vacant and no plans are being brought forward at this time. The FAR is 1900 for the westerly lot and 2343 to the easterly. .r, ~MOTJON: Donnelley moved that the HPC grant minor development approvalfor the addition to the kitchen on the existing structure at 214 E. Bleeker and that the other elements of conceptual approval be tabled to August 28th; second by Roger. All infavor, malion carried. ASPEN MEADOWS - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ,.... Amy stated that the owners are proposing to not build the detached garage and instead utilize existing car ports; they want to make a change in the entry foyer area popping a wall out slightly and changing the front door configuration. There is a trellis over the rear deck and some of the people would like to remove them to increase the light into the areas and they are deteriorating. Staffis recommending against the removal of the trellis as it is original to the structures, A storage area is proposed on the deck in the back and it is appropriate. The biggest change is to the east; they desire to remove the staircase that goes up to the balcony and this is for access and safety concerns and they also want to reconfigure some of the windows" Several years ago window drawings were approved and this proposal is 10 _0_. - '_.'c' -- GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHlrECTURE. INTERIOR DESIGN. PLANNING RECEIVED NAY 1 2 1998 ASPt:N I t"'l f' KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT May 12, 1997 Mr. Mitch Haas Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mitch: Attached please find twelve copies of the Historic Lot Split application for 214 East Bleeker St.. I will present the application as scheduled on May 27t1t to the HPC. The owners would like to present the Final Development application on August 26t1t at the regular scheduled HPC meeting. If you have any questions and/or need any additional information and copies, please call me at 925-4502. Sincerely, t:!::.~:~e 520 WALNUT STREET' ASPEN,COLORADO 81611' TEL. 970/925-4502' FAX: 970/925-7490 . ,.... , r 10. ,.... ,..--- ----.... .... -' 1. LAND UEZ :J':?L. ..."iTION FORK Project Name: 8rumder A~:..5iden& 2. proj ect Location: <<It/- Lo7.5 ;V 0 IJ aNI (Indicate street address, where appropriate) EaJT 8A-~er.sf. (;J Block 72- lot and block number, legal descriptio 3. Present Zoning: 1<-& 4. Lot Size: //, 9(,$ s9:ff. . 5. Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.: 6. Representative's Name, Address; Phone No.: ~r~e;? c;lr~en~ Sd-O {AJal/lllr sf. .rppen , ~O ~Jpll 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Special Review Final SPA 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Stream Margin Final PUD Mtn. View Plane Subdivision Conceptual Historic Development Final Historic Dev. Minor Historic Dev. Historic Demolition Condominiumization __ Text/Map Amendment Historic Designation Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment __ GMQS Allotment __ GMQS Exemption by ,./ Planning Dir. L GMQS Exemption 8. Description of Existing Uses structures; approximate square previous approvals granted to the see appItm77{)/) (number and feet; number property) : type of existing of bedrooms; any 9. Description of Develo~ment Application: Sfe C1ffucahH" Have you attached the following? ~ Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents ~Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents ATTACHMENT 2 HISTORIC LANDMARK WT SPLIT May 12, 1998 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust clo Thomas B. Filzgerald 205 E. Wisconsin Ave. Ste 200 Milwaukee. Wisconsin 53202 Representative: Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker SI. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N, 0, P, and Q 3. Attached to the application is a copy of disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. ...--, ~-291-7S38 --.. ,.,- . ~ ~", , " _..1' 400 KA8T 1fISCCNSIN AVElmB BOrrE 200 MILMADXBB, WTSCONSIN 53202 July 15, H96 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Aspen. Colorado G~~. -~ ...,..... ~reenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and ADooc., Inc, is to act on behalf of the W.G. nrumd~I Florida Land ~r ot the property ~t 214 East 81e~ker Street in to the application she 10 making to you on behalf of ae address of the Trust is as follow., autr, T". ,..- H.G. Hrumder Florida Land Tz.ust clo Thomas D. Pit&gerald 400 Rast Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (~14) 291-7820 1>lcasc direct any qllflflttons and/or inqulrlf!fI regarding the attached application to Ms. Greenwood at the following addrese: Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-4502 Slm.!eI.cly, n -GL B.~~ Thomas B. ~itzgerald TBF,lk ,- Pf:'.. the - OCT a '915 -;ZI-tClSI'DI ;~PC - L /"" CDlIllt'l'UlEIIT -..~U"'DA "........ '" .~' ~14 .....~': -e:a P,003/606 ,-.... '"'QfNI[ :1 IIDrXl ". IU ICI'l'GIm II) IR;; UlD.l __ COX CNIlINII llU1'1B lO2 IGl':If .,rlJCCMlDf 53Cl!n ( I ~ \ 1. _8 ..1_...., Q:)I 1lS/b!I 16, 1m lit: 7;00 Nf CIIliIK.. Q1C ~ a.... -- :__ 3. .... OoIlR'. IlJUq p.: _ 1 .......~: ~;s 3.. ..~~1....._ ... .' 11.. ..., a.au..t.. $ 250.000.00 IIILM:1lIl IN\IE!n'als... J.ta.. . ~ "-ip ~ ....--.... 1IIIlIIDt: 8 4, 'ilia wtlda ca- .....~ 18 .. __ ~ ... _. Ql.lIll:l"~ia: J w Ja. .. a.d-.-n: 11I4 I'IlIr SJMIU .., title - _I>. u . tile .f"" ti'.... '--f _ .flu i " 1'IUmIII: fF 'DB Inu..... G, \IUa!a JLllIlDll\ INlll DIB'1' _ _ - . ~ IDf1' IWI'IID DU"___ 21, 1967 lMC'.~: . I:a"do<-'.~:. an.50 *'1 I-*' Cbg: , *'lo.v-: S 'I'aII l:a'tif1allle,' 10.00 InCL. .L av: . ~a-......: $ i....s Ia,r: ..... TDt8 ~. ow UST ID'IaNI AVIlII8 11305 ASHiN 00 G6U PM 19'7C) 92Oo<<l52 (010 I P3).4QSO IlI!I'Mift 5JS-8t63 WJIIt. 'P : & A32.50 FU8l' JlICUCAH Tl'1't& DBlWI;:E a:NwIY ,... QRlFTC::H~ '2>o~s 'THIS Do yO(&. "",",y '") ~eoO ~ " II\lW f1 ~. ~.1'\ )1 t::\ N ra;;v~ )) - ,... ," ~~tliffYigJ.~f1&_ ~ ~ ~ ;-...<...... J ~~..... ..~ .... ~ ... ... . , - - # .-- '. o :z - i2~ ~ 9a: alf!Cl. ~i~ olI~ ~ ..::2: i/t:J.J M!I: c... ar~ ... Ii . ~i~ r~:l ..is'* ceILolI l:.~ r--- /'"" \., h.e" ATTACHMENT 3 May 12, 1998 BRUMDER RESIDENCE 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Review Standards for Historic Lot Split 2. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single- family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either tbe Piton County Board of county Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 34, 1969. Response: 214 East Bleeker is located in the City and Townsite of Aspen. This land is not in an approved subdivision. The legal description is as follows: Lots N, 0, P, and Q Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, b. The lot split creates no more than two lots, both lots conform to the requirements ofthe underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed wiD mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(1)(c). Response: Two Lots herein called Lot A and Lot B will be created by the lot split and will conform to the requirements of the R -6 zone district The exact proposed lot sizes are listed below under Section 26.88.030(5)(a)(b) as a Historic Landmark Lot Split c. The lot under consideration was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C(1). Response: The proposed lot for splitting has not been subject to a subdivision exemption or a lot split d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval. indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The subdivision plat is submitted for the review of the Community Development Office indicating the proposed Lot Split, and the requirements as set forth above. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: This lot was originally split by HPC in October of 1996. The plat was not recorded with the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder within 180 days, thus invalidating the approval. Every effort will be made for this re-application for a lot split to be recorded within 180 days of approval. --- , / f. In the case where an existing singlc~.family dweUing occupies a site, which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling is proposed for demolition for this lot split. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three units, which may he composed of a duplex and a single family home. Response: In total, the lot split will create two dwelling units. On Lot A, an historic landmarlc residential unit currently sits and will remain. On Lot B, the lot will be vacant until such time that the owners decide to build a residence. 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single family dweUing. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.888.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e),section 26.72.010(G) of tbis Code, and tbe following standards Response: "This proposed lot split is a Historic Lot Split. The subject parcel located at 214 East Bleeker is a historically designated landmark. The lot conforms to all the applicable standards in this Code including the following provisions: a. Tbe original parcel sball be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in tbe R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13, 000 square feet and be located in tbe R-15A zone district. Response: Based on the above requirements for an Historic Landmark Lot Split for Block 72. Lots N, 0, P, and Q, the two lots Lot A and Lot B will be proposed for subdividing as follows: EXISTING WNING STATISTICS Zone District: Total Lot Size: Allowable FAR: Front Yard Setbacks: Side Yard Setbacks: Heigbt: Site Coverage: R-6 11,963 Sq.ft. 4,257 Sq.ft. (For a Duplex Development) Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code PROPOSED WNING STATISTICS Lot A Lot B Zone District: R-6 (As existing) R-6 (As Existing) Total Lot Size: 5,963 Sq.ft. 6,000 Sq.ft. Designated FAR: 1,913 Sq.ft. 2,344 Sq.ft. (Note: A 500 Square foot FAR bonus bas been granted during Conceptual Approval for the Historic Structure on Lot A.) Front and Rear Yard: Per Code Per Code (Note: A 2' Rear Yard Setback Variance base been during Conceptual Approval for the Historic Structure on Lot A.) Side Yard Setbacks: Height: Site Coverage: Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code Per Code '"" " ". ..' b. The Total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area for a duplex on the original parcel The total FAR for each lot shall he noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The Aspen Municipal Code provides that the total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot is noted on the attached plat to this application and corresponds to the above information. b, The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic stJ1lcture. Response: The newly created Lot B conform to the dimensional requirements of the Zone District. Lot A contains the historic structure has been granted conceptual approval for a rear yard setback, and FAR bonus. " ~ : ,1 l > !! ~ I ~ 0 ~ - r I < ~ · ':! i ~;i~1 =..=Z' Z !!. m , . - . ~ ~ ~;; ....f/) 000 "r i~Jr Ii; ill~1 Ii' ~.i= ;; ~rl' !; .f.~1 ~'" ~,.- a-l, ......;. j'! ilQ~ Ii i~1 "~. .1'1 .,' "e ~-i "Ii e~. ~" ~,.~ - ~i != 'l:tl_ '! ~I'j ~ S-~ ... .... f" ii~: ~ i!~~ .9~!H j I I ; I i ~ I ~ . ~ ~ · I ~ i i ! ~ ; ; I I I :!~ I ; i I : n ~H:~w~~i' I ~ I,n;!~i;;;ii ~ iJafs= =1 & ~ i..c~'~ ! ir: I ! ; ...; : ~ j ~ ~ i ! i i ~ ~ : i . .. Sl~i'" ~!~" !~C E ~" !SI ... e~ mil !~ f.~~!~ j:, s;, ~ '. ~;~~~ >;. !e i. r ; !. "II" ~i, i' .i,. ~ n I~i i~;; g~ ~.~. S!!I E.! g~ E~"~l~ .~. -E ;;~ i !:~III" :::1 ;~i I :;~!; !:I: ;i~ ~ ;.;~1~5 ~'!ii 'i@ ~ -&'"'!' Ii ! h~; .~I I" ~ 8!1. ,q~ ~I o k!~ ~I: .. I . ~i,~ _ s I "t-'I ,Ie -I ,. ....... -2 Ii ~ .~' I >--~ ...1 ! ! "'i... ;!" ,"'t ! I:I: ~I~ Ii - .~. .l~ . >:f8 In'" l 1 ;.. i ~ . ~ ~ ~ I < $ i 0 i z- .z ~- .~ ~~ ;! ~ ,.. : " 'I" '_:1.,)".." ~'i;'J , ~~ 1'< '::~:'. j !:! " , ... ~~ ...; ;::0 ." i ... ! !i3 i~l~ ~. 'a ~". ~ . zj I" P 0 <'-J~ ::: "p ~ :;or; fa r ~ 1,,-0 )i; rri ....x ... n .-~~ g ~-~I :;: lit! ~ ~-;~~ S .. ~ ... ~i :;:; i ~i ~ I 'tl~ rri ri~' '.;: ~!e p .~ > ~ ~ m z z o o~ 0 ;; ~ ~~ ~ !, ::; "- ~ ~~ 0 ~i m t~ ~ .. 0 -< ~ 10 "I ~ ,- 1: , ~ ..il ~ lfl~ ~ I o ~ . .. !~ eo z t.::::- o o . .j '"""',,/ r/) tl.J 5 c::<:: tl.JC a t:J~ -t:J I <rt1 < -::<:: , r/) !~ h -::r: 0- ~I;; 0 Z t/) ."' '0 >> o.~ - -., 08 n.M6 :'" _0 x::<:: ."v o- M- '" ,~ ~" :s:n II s -Jl'" i --e:- ~ O-J '/---: VJ llll l'"l'" ),.- -J-J r-J, I I h... I " I ~~I i / ;~/ i I I i I I I '---J & "'" - i; u; n~ c: ~! ~ , ~ &~ ~ Ii m ~! ~ -. < -< > I ~ ~ i'; z <~ 0 .q . - . ~ ! ~ < 0 . z 1 > ~ .1 ~ -- < Ij f': "0 .; ::; ..~ -, _ I~ m -Iii .- - .~ ill _. m -~ ~ I. : .< ~ ::i ;;g ~n ~ :: ~ . I 3i ~i n I. ~i . . n ......1 g ii~'i;1" ~II= d ji ~ _;_ ~~:~ ~ " - ~ .. !! -~ . .. ~ -. ~i: i &Iq'~.if. "l!i- = . ~:i ~_~i t~ ;:! "gS::!.~~m ... .. 'l - fJ .r. ;;..;.-J'~ ~ _1)1: II:,.. FD'_ ..... i ~. ,!;;ll'~..i". ;; >- >~...o iI~'...., _ ::! i!'~:ct;fi=8"!~ n · "r .' , 1;< ~ . !-dg~~!!!~~ m · -~i 5.... 01 '.. i1'.I.i~- !:hl!l~i ~~II ~&OP~<' =J~ .n"ii' lo~l.n~~i" ~!.e;~'~I'~ _>e~._r~ _~ ..~. oi'- "~o~'icI ,. o_;..,! .. i!i~~~I~Ci& ;:~!~~ii1 ij i ~Ci1., . ': 511:;;; .. I it . -U-I~"- .. -.-1 _04 c I ~ ;til ~I~- ~ e::!~ - 0 ",ii'_ltS? ~ -t=n iiil~ :;l ;II~I~I IUI ~ . ~~.~ .<,< ~ N'i~'- -D'S (; ;~o'~~Ci"'= ~ i~!i5i! IU m 1~-3~- I. Ii J~!i>il~"I!~ i1m-lliiif!-... >- ,h~~.~, ~ i~ill( ;g, .c~.IIi"~i~~~' O~"~i ~.m' ~-"i" =4., ;- '"_I I .~~1~~'.!1 ~! a~ fgl I i .! -. !~ . . ""''t'" .,.,.,) , :i ~In 1;~~3~:~~i~ ~i gl,/" ~ I; ~~ !31~: ~ il ~-~ I .~; 'I ;~.;:I~' .: i,. ~ II" 0 &~. - il ,'z I n~ j. fO'! ~ "' i!t -.- g, 5- a ~~~~ 0 ~ i.;~li ~H~ g !!ii i ~ ~. _ i ~_ *" ::: i- i E i1 ..<l~, I ~! Sw1n=;. "I ..r1ii3 g. i I'~-u m~ j a9s~ ~ oj' ~ ~iilH ill <> ,. >>....~'" ., ~ ~ i "'~:?r. 9 · i ,..... ,-."',""' ' ~ -291-7838 r-'~ " ,..r '. -- .....,J , 400 KA8T 1fISCClfSIN AVElmB SOI'rE 200 MILWAmtBE, WTSC'ONSIN 53202 July IS, 1996 Historic preservation Commission City of Aspen Aspen. Colorado Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and ADooc.. Ine, is authori.zp.d to act on behalf of the If. G. nrumd..x Flox.ida Land Trust, owner ot the property at 214 Easl Bleeker Street in reference to the application she is making to you on behalf of the Truet. The address of the Trust is as follows: ,r W.G. Yrumder Florida Land Tx.ust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 Rast Wisconsin Avenup.. Su i te 200 MilwaUkee, Wisconsin 53202 (ot14) 291-7820 Please direct any ~Ieationo and/or inquirieR regarding the attached applicat.ion to Ml:li. Greenwood ..t the following address: Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-4502 Sirwexcly, n JJL B.~~ Thomas B. j,'itzgerald TBP,lk ,- OCT Z3 '!lIS lZll<l\ '" iI'D< TI"lU: ,-, --.}''- ';'_'1- '::. .:,"' "l:;=:',~_-", ;,;t', r"JL )>:;' ~. - MICIIIlt :z JUml ". IXa M:IRftalIl CD DlC 1a)1 __ lUll CNIl W. turftI J.Q2 ICDf 111.0 -...( sacm 414 287 4eHl P.OOJ/OOE; CO"~I':MIl.T - '1-.. A 1. _8 ...1_..., OCbJ:l... 16, 1915 8t 7:00 AM a8/blI :iI. .. 0..--'. IIlU.cr k~ ......,: 3. .. ~ ....1...._ .... ,- 1M,...,., BIL:IMRl III\IE9IaIS IlMI(, :l.ta. ~ ha--t_ ClIId8 *. ~ -C a.. -r -_ 1IaInt:: S ........, $ 2SO.0Cl0.1Xl . ~ "-iQnI 1III:DIlt: 8 - 4. _..aD ClE" ...Iio....n: m .. __ r r '.... ClE" r. ..4 W ill tWII a.d.~ -.4 CItI._..d...... u: ,.. SJlllPW 8IId title - I t>.. a. at: .. eft' ti.........., -.. tAl _ fF 'DB .... UMj G. IIIIUQ\ft nllIlDlII UIII) BUIr ..... -.. . JIIW...... ml'1' SIIG'ID ....1..1:.... 21, lH7 DinIIr'. ~: . I.IftI8l". PmUIID: S 8Z2.50 *'1 I8d8r Olg: $ lldd'l 01ugM: S '1'81I OIlIr'tUUIIte: S 10.00 1'14.. ot av: . 'lID" n..,....': . toJRL W ~ 1.: $ A31.~ FUlIrl' >>lIGt1OIN 'l'1'1'te ZNIUlNal CXMIWllC ,.. CIUIFiC H VN ooeS 'THIS Do i....s 1I,r: __ '1'ITLB ........__4~ eao BASl ~ ..... 11305 ASHiN (X) IW.1 PM (9'7C) ~ (910 I P>>-4OSO IIR1Il 595-8t63 y OCI. ll'\"Jw Y -, ~eoC I ;;) ....!{~ 4,~ "." t? ( I ~ \ , i i; ! u z ~ '.;2L ~ ::~~- ~ ~ ~ :li ~~.,' ~ _ I ~~"'~ t- ~.... ~ o U~_ U ~~ ~ ,.. \ll"Z~ __........ o !~et g "'3 ii 1\ .,;. .~" ~ ~ I~i~ !! i! : ..... ... mu" Q~ ~ ... ~ ;~b! ;€ ;- i. " l.) :t' 38 I. \ ~ ( i hh --q-> -J---J ~t hQ ~ 0_ a -J h 8 Q. o~ u:::E ^ -. kJ ~~ n::: >< .-_ OkJ'~~" f-. ,0 ~ 25 ;~ ::t:: - 'i 1/) . n::: -. ~ W~ € 0_ :::EO ~iU n:::~ Q:) 1/1"" '- I" T <::]ZJE , . ~ illl =g i, ~ I~" I:~ ~ ~i~ ~ n l:~j !i [~;H~ t .. 8 ... .11: 'Ci .<t., h "- - IEw.n;~li~ i'a" t -" '~;I'i!i.~ .~~g~~"gi~" '~il""d' "c .~r j;lj! ~i ~lii~I~'i; : ~i~ii~i:~i !! ~ -~i.1 "' .,1.i1 "~8! !< ;1"lo.it~~" ~ ~;o~i~f~~'~ ~ j!3ilfli~il U il,itluet :! II~e.I"'lJ!" ~ - n-~;t ~ "' fllii"-llilill- ~ ~.bll"~ ~ I ~ -t~~a !~:; Iii d I . '..m < jC":f~j* f ~i.B~~;:i ,'"' _:2_ ...!a '~Iii"""!ig ~:fo :;6S~!:ii ,...- .........:!j:l- ii~E:iii j~ '.r!flf~.! ii~id ..~.... i ~:~;I:~II'~i_. ~: t I DI[ !;..! !~- a! = iil~ofo~B ft-: . ~ " ~ J'~oi~: J~ I ;; i " U ~;"g=~'e:~'~ ;0 : ~ l_ ;;: < 13!t!i-q< ~ --- ~ ~~ - ~ ~.~_i.1 ti f. 1 . - ~ e Ij!i~m~*"E J!i :i~ 8 ~ !.~ I! ~ I~:i~ l~i,!I~ ,3;.,. : ; I'~ ii ;: t;~1il .5, ~i dt. ~ a ! 10 .E !i .-. . g " .Jj. ~i: "ll~ :" ~"i5 ~ ~~ ! u: ~= - ;: 'u:;' 0:: -;\!;. wi':.... U O'!l ~ ~~J~ :!i ~~i: ~ ~f"l o ..~ I ~ =121 ~ ~Id. ::i ~ 'jt d ~j ~ ~ ~ ~I > ,- ~ j' ~ . z i! ; ! I < -- ~ ,'i :i! . ~ :c; ~ . ~ i, 2i ~u ~ ..I u i ~I: I ::t. ~, > ~. ~ ~j r Ii ~ !I ~ .- o ,- ill 03 > III g: ~~ r _. ':: ~. ~ ~< 1''''' - ~ '!~ u ~;::; w : j I fi .- " . . . , ;! E ~ uti :: !~ !lo "i :t :Jj ii z i - ~ t_ ~ w ~i ~ ..! u ~~ : . ~ .~ loti ig. .. -! ow- u~1 8. il ;--, I I / 8 I I . I ~, I 1 I :~~ ;; I 0 · I" -l !: ;; I I L.-i--1 " ~. ~O>:. q;~ ,," !:Ii :;:i i g . . ! " 0; ~ g .. i ., . g. '" ' ::J~ .. . .. ~ ., iJ . o i . If. /- ! I .. . "I (ill;": ;; · .r! ._". - ~I ".0 <S! f - e.~ 'i~"~. '.. .1." .1"1' · :.. __<c I[ ,co ~ 51 ~is ~~~ 3 * 5: "." 5~r~" f I: 5~f ~;I~r e ~i i~i si.;; ~ r:1 1'" ,1i"''"'9'" is W~! J~i 'ii~~:j , ~~i =;:II;I!~ I 'i!~ ;~;I iifi~.;Li u_, ib" . u ~f "8 !f<i ,115. iti<< i. " I '-.1 0 ~<." f' i '-I '1'"<1 ,I I g I !<. ~-_.< . .s till .. ,00; ~i;;':'tN ~Ii " .. 'M" _ -'~ <~ i fl" !'l.!~ :!i~el_ 5. .. -J ":0:, .iiil -= < ci~ . If .'i_~1 .. ! . · 5 W t ~ :!: Ii! . . · oi !i ill . 0 ~ . -- !l -.. 6' ii ' I.. I Ii il ;1 ~ o!,r 1Il~ ~j:;:5!~! ~i q~H~Lt ; 'g ~~innn~ is : !pl;::I";n:i:dl ~ ~ ~ ~ Ingti!dBiiin ! ! i +H~$. rW ... -r Z' -z U > ~ iM I j~~ oil .~!!:t -; ~.I! h =I!! d. ~h ~i~ n,li i~~ ii~ Isl bi. "j f~l~ i.~ li:!i ~~g _a.t --;;/. I!;e i; !III i~1 Nii ~Ii _3. 8 I. Ji!~ .;i~ ~ < " 040 W. _ 0 n m.;~ 'l ~$i;: t_J1" I '" - z f "' " i r l II i ~ I ill ' ~ 0 . I a .. c ! l!! a < , o. z "' ~ W < - -- - - GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE . INTERIOR DESIGN. PLANNING July 15,1996 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Commission Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Attached please seven copies ofthe Partial Demolition, Conceptual Development and Historic Lot Split Application for 214 East Bleeker Street. We will present the application on the 24th oOuly. If you have any questions and/or need any additional information and copies, please call me at 925-4502. I am also attaching the $560.00 Dollar application fee. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely, Gretchen Greenwood 520 WALNUT STREET' ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 . TEL; 9701925.4502 . FAX: 970/925-7490 07/15 '96 11 :16 ID:rEGARl~. INC. ,~:414-C~1-1~~ ""= " -, -- 400 KIIST WISCONSIN AVERUB SUITE 200 MILMADXBB. WTSOONSIN 53302 July 15, 1996 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen Aspen. Colorado Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Maoe.. rIll:. is authori.zed to aet on behalf of the W.G. nl'UPldel Flolida Land Truot, owner ot the property at. 214 EasL Bleeker Street in reference to the application ahe is making to you on behalf of the Trust. The address of the Trust is as follows, W.G. ~rumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 Rast Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 200 Milwaukee, wisconsin 53202 (414) 291-1820 Please direct any questions and/or inqUIrIes regarding the attached application Lo Ms. Greenwood at the following address: Gretchen Gr_nwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (910) 925-4502 SinCeI"cly, --VL- B. 4{~ Thomas B. Fitzgerald TBF:lk IOUER OIl. c;::::. / / / , , , # Jtlt' o 2 - i "21D - c-D ~ -CI: .)11>0.. Y';,", >- - '" ~~~ "':z: 0 ~ '-" ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PARTIAL DEMOLITION 1. A written description of the structure proposed for partial demolition is as follows: The structure proposed for demolition is a one story, 316 square foot building located to the north of a Victorian residence. The building presently encroaches into the alley. The building has been retrofitted for various modem needs throughout its life, induding a bedroom/storage area, a mechanical equipment room and a storage area. The building has a variety of siding materials, doors, windows that are a result of the on going adaptation of the building. 2. A report from a licensed architect regarding the soundness of the structure and its suitability for rehabilitation is as follows: The building is completely unsuitable for rehabilitation. The building shows advanced decay of the siding material at the base of the building, a concrete slab was added as a floor structure, completely rendering the structure unable to be moved. The building requires a new foundation, new framing, new floor material, windows, roof framing, a new roof, materials, siding, electrical and mechanical systems, in order to utilize the structure and bring the building into adequate life safety codes The building would be completely rebuilt by the time the building was rehabilitated, virtually rendering the building new again. .....'.,.... ... '-' ATTACHMENT 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS PARTIAL DEMOLITION Standards for review of partial demolition 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not the significant historic building on the site. This building shares the property with a Victorian building that is a Queen Anne style Victorian built in the late 1800's. The main Victorian building shows some modern remodeling to the original structure that includes an addition that was added to the north west of the property, a porch enclosure that was added to the north west of the property and some window changes to the east side of the building. These changes were sensitively added to the Victorian as to not detract from the beauty of the Victorian as seen off of Bleeker Street. 2. a. This application is part of a larger application to add two bedrooms and two bathrooms to the property, behind and separate from the main house. If this structure had to be maintained on the property, it would entail adding the new bedrooms on to the original Victorian house. This would not be beneficial to maintaining the historic qualities of the original house. The demolition of this out building mitigates to the greatest extent possible the need to add an addition on to the original Victorian residence. b. The impacts on the structure located on the property are greatly reduced due to this demolition. The area of the demolition will house the new out building that will be compatible in mass and scale with the existing Victorian building. -_..~..... '- ....., SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE ATTACHMENT 3 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust c/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 400 E. Wisconsin Street Ste.200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Representative: Gretchen Greenwood 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N,O,P and Q 3. Attached to the application is a copy of disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A. 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. .............; - SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 1. A site plan and a survey showing the property boundaries and site characteristics is Exhibit A. 2. The conceptual selection of major building materials are as follows: A. Siding: 1 x 4 Horizontal Wood Bevel siding and I x 3, I x 4, 1 x 6, Vertical Random width Rough sawn siding. B. Windows: Wood Double Hung and Casements. C. Doors: . Wood Single Raised Panel. D. Roof: Corrugated Metal to rust. 3. A written description of the proposal and how the proposed development complies with the review standards are divided into two parts and they are attached as Part . A: Historic Lot Split and Part B: Conceptual Development. 4. Scale drawings of all the elevations of the existing Victorian residence and the proposed buildings and additions are included in this application. 5. Photographs of the streetscape will be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission at the hearing. ".".,1' PART A: HISTORIC LOT SPLIT A. Written Description: The Aspen Municipal Code provides the following: 5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The split shall meet the following standards: 1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. 2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. 3. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the . underlying zone district. HPC Variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel which contains the historic structure. Based on Ordinance 49, the Historic lot split for Block 72, Lots N, 0, P and Q is proposed as follows: Zone District: R-6 Lot Size of Original Parcel: Lots N,O,P and Q: (See Attached Site Plan) Allowable FAR: 11,963 Sq.ft. 4,257 Sq.ft. Proposed Lot Size Historic Lot A: Lot A Designated FAR: 5,963 Sq.ft. 2,413 Sq. ft. (Proposed FAR on Historic Property is 1, 913 Sq. ft., (with the 500 square foot bonus, the total is 2,413 Sq.ft.) 6,000 Sq.ft. 2,344 Sq.ft. Proposed Lot Size New Lot B: Lot B Designated FAR: ,.~.. " " .,.,t' Based on the above information, the proposed Historic Lot Split meets the following review standards: a. The original parcel is 11,963 square feet as required. b. The total proposed FAR for both residences does not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The designated FAR for Lot A is 2,413 square feet and Lot B is 2,344 square feet or 4,757 square feet (this number includes the 500 square feet bonus for the historic property), which is what is allowed for a duplex development in the R-6 zone, with the 500 square foot bonus on the historic property. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The newly created 6,000 square foot Lot B has no building development on the property. Future development will allow the building to meet all the dimensional requirements as established by the R-6 Zone district. The newly created 5,963 square foot Historic Lot A has a Historic Landmark building on it and therefore meets the requirements of the R-6 Zone district. As part of this application and Ordinance 49, variances and FAR bonuses are being requested for the Historic Lot A The following Conceptual Development application details this development request for Lot A. No development is being proposed for Lot B as part of this Conceptual Development application. -"."...., ..... ., CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LOT A A Written Description Based on the above proposed approval of the Historic Lot Split by the HPC, the following application is a development proposal for Historic Lot A only. 1. Request for a 500 Sq.ft. bonus for the Historic property. 2. A five (5') foot Rear Yard Setback Variance for an Accessory building. The newly created Historic Lot currently has a Victorian Queen Anne style residence on the property, of approximately 1,589 Sq.ft. In addition, the property has a dilapidated out building that is 16 ft. by 21 ft. or 324 Sq.ft.. These two buildings total 1, 857 Sq.ft. of FAR on the property. As part of this application, it is requested to demolish the out building and to rebuild in the approximate same footprint a new detached two story building with a footprint of 14 ft. by 26 ft. or 336 Sq.ft.(at ground level) with a total square footage of 728 Sq.ft. The existing building currently sits outside of the rear or north property line creating an encroachment into the alley. It is the design intention of the new building to sit on the north property line next to the alley, but without the encroachment. It is also the intention that the detached building will be a new design sensitive in form, mass and scale to the Victorian residence on the site, but detached and significantly removed for the main house. An uncovered wood deck would be the only connection to the main house. In addition to the proposed out building, a small addition of 152 square feet is planned to the rear of the Victorian residence. The design of this addition will have a separate roof line and be obvious design that was added at a more modern time of the history of this residence This development proposal requires a 500 square foot bonus to the existing FAR creating a total FAR of2,413 Sq.ft. The justification request for the 500 square foot bonus that is allowed under Ordinance 49, would provide that the Historic Victorian residence with the proposed changes would equal the same size as the proposed residence that can now be developed on the newly created Lot B (next door). Historic Lot A would have a total FAR of2,413 square feet and new Lot B would have a total FAR of2,344 square feet. Therefore, the development request for the 500 square foot 'bonus and the rear yard setback variance would be consistent with the development review standards as outlined below: ..... " ~ ..,..' ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 1. The proposed development of 2,413 square feet includes a historic Victorian residence of 1,685 Sq.ft. with a two story outbuilding of 728 square feet. The proposed design of the out building is sensitive to the Victorian main building with a consistent hip roof design and the height of the building remains the same height as the main building. The setback request allows the bulk of the proposed new square footage to be added as a separate building from the main house, thus creating and preserving the historic Victorian residence. The proposed addition along the rear of the Victorian residence is only 152 square feet and has a lower roofline and obvious modern materials that differentiate it from the historic residence, The proposed development is compatible with the historic structure. 2. The proposed development with the 500 square foot FAR bonus and setback request is consistent with the character of the neighborhood The newly created lot to the east will have an FAR of 2,344 square feet, the same square footage that is being proposed for the Victorian residence and lot. Thus the two lots will be compatible in scale, and mass, and these two residences will be in scale with the Victorian residence that is to the east of the newly created Lot B, which appears to be about 2,400 square feet also. 3. Most of the proposed design has been intentionally removed from the Victorian residence as a separate outbuilding in order that the Victorian residence is not altered by the owner's need for more square footage. The only square footage being added to the building is 152 square feet, which is at the rear of the building with a low roofline, that obviously states that this addition was added at a separate time. Therefore, the proposed development does not detract from the historic significance of the structure on the property. 4. Ordinance 49 was developed to promote and encourage the development of small houses next to Historic structures and to encourage the restoration of the Victorian houses to remain small without the potential development of a large monster addition. This ordinance that is being used in this application, gives a 500 square foot bonus to allow this Victorian residence to remain its most historic state and not have to be remodeled to accommodate needed rooms for the owner's. The additional 500 square foot bonus allows the design to be separate from the Victorian residence and leaves the historic building virtually in tact. Without the b<?n~s, the residence would have to be very altered both inside and out in order to accoPilmodate the necessary rooms. Therefore, the proposal enhances the Victorian building as well as the neighborhood by preserving the small scale buildings of Victorian architecture " " " "''-~ This application in its entirety, including the partial demolition request, Historic Lot Split setback request, and FAR bonus, meet all the review standards for historic preservation of the individual structure as well as the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. "'-".'-"".--'-'-~ 1;:,.':;...... . ! ~ ~ ~ 111 I Q l'Il -c .... Q l'Il ~ ft) Q. ~ -. ~ ft) - , '" -< '" " " ~ ~ .... ~ ... I Q 0 '" == '" " II .. " II . ~ II .I I I IlL - I I j ri .. .J.'..._ ..' I I I I I , I I , I TIll I i I I I ~_.- -- --1 - - f-- - -'" .1 .-+ I i r I I , .'\ ::.~ ::.:. ~ . - -.. - . - . -- . ,. l'- .( I .-\ .-.,.c ,>'.( ( r--... '.. .-((' (~ I - , .- _~; " -.0.."'., (" .., , '\, '"",1""'1. ~ ;,~-:..\...(.'~~. >.. '~-' .", I.. \.I\. . .'-. ,...(-;: ~'>, ~..... . '; r';;;-.:r' ,;>r' ^ '.- ,:\. \.('c >-, '.x. ~ - !,:-:',,", ' ~ .> l..7 c" , ' ;-\. I =:.-<. _In" -"\ ,'~)...- ,r\'/ . \....\..'-j'-.......~.:'). _v -'''\'.lc.\~' ,~ .J -, ~' ... ,_l ,,'( /~..:::~,:::,J} "-, ~'~"- .~.. \ ~''- , - ':".~,.j.~ >:..( ( 1..' ( ~ </ 1.1 IUJIIIIII . I ~~ ~ ~~..j-t':"': ^' --..,( "- .~.. - , >-~. .,..-1'( I ~ \ '" ,".-r'~ ,....., )-i ~t';"C..-!-- >-~ '". .:-. ~..t'\"C. :n >--~ _~J: 'y >-,'"." \.l !-'.~} Fq I.] >-) 're+ /? t~...~ >-'\~. - H.K-Y ~ / +,.!J>-t" +;..\1_. :... ;1 ", . -i ~'/ ,j /' ,? / .,' 7' ~/ ( .. J""'-'TI . ---__.--:-=---- ..1 ~ I II '~-l[r,.. ...ll=- 'I , !' I I t ~ nil> .~ - ,"--,.", , ....... ^,..,,-~. -i I II iL I i 'Irmllll ! . : I r I I ~ ~ I 111 ~I = I I l'Il-c I ....~ I -- ~ ~ I Q. I : ~ -- , - I ......... ft), I '.f:::.. '" Q i III " ... == I ' i / I . I 1 , I , r I I ! f , : , ! , , I i , i I .L L,~_1 [~ r~ I i II iii, " / I r;=Jr II ~ ,- ---- "~';TfmTTTiI i I'll I I , I I " 1111 ! i I j! I';! ,._, ! :' Ir-~ I I I . _~. I .... /__~._~_. I / .. . I I , , . , ~'\ t '" '::J -~ - , , I I I I ! l i ' I ! ~ \ ~ 1 \. . , , I I ! \ j , i ' -------. --- I ...J ... \::) ,...l ....,;'. -.-' -',"",~","-,,"-'-~- "",'" 2:~ = a 1I1-c ....Q =-~ Q. ~~ ~- ~ ft) " -< ~~ " I .... o ... " .. = == " \. _v# I I r I I" : . ! ' i i I I i I , , ,I . IiI : : 'I I" i ! , I . -' i ! , , i !: I I' I I I r , ,I I I I I I'! I II II II I ! , ' -I I II ref)1 IJ~I.ili-- . ,;' I .. J __u , ' [CLd : : '-- ,..- " d, I I I T II' ~ I .---- , I II I i _n__ , ! ! I i I I - Ii I I ! Ii, ' ......'>~' . - ----- ~''''._J' --"~-_._--->'~^'-,~-.-.",,~..~-,,----_. 'lI Cl ~I .. <l .. , - 'o:l -- :ii: . I - b . ; '-",,:;,;''- ~( .. r- I r-- I I I I ~ I ' ~f I _ I 1 L-l I I I I I I I I I I a//ctf o ~ '" '" ! ~I~ CS:j\/ ...' C~'~' / " O::v []rJ iSoX."- ~8cP:j (.~\/)"\ ~J (~ . /[;\.1 ~;:)\/ GoQ~ 'D~~.... . ) :', ~ ---'.1'/ I ,.,) .~ I I J I I I I 1 I r-----4 I .0 easT .M-der S?7t'cT ~ ~~g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r,; ~ 01 ~ fil .' ~ Q ,'\ '.1._ ,I~, . .."_.'O...<,....,___"_"...-,.''''..,,..__'..,..,',.._._,~__._~,,,.. . (<1' =fl~~C)C) ~~~~~~iil un..~ili ff, 1'~2...::I ;:r i !r~f~ .1:.1 ", u,. .J;r.' , ,,1.6 .' -.. ..J . '<. , ,j)l;li.:''-'- ~cJ.i._'-;';"""'-~'; .-,'. ......'~ - , .- ...~ . - -...- . , ~ .-"- ......''''d j j <.:> 1 ~ 20 >- - w ~ z w 0 > 3 ~ 0 '" . '" ,:; ~ ::> ~ . ~ '" ;;::, ~ ~ 0 w ~ ,; 0 0 w J u :0: u 200 1 -....:....) ~ - . :I: ~ ~ ~ . <.:>" ! "- 20 , ~ <( z z ! ,; ~ 0 '" 0 ; ::::r '" ~ u 0 z' ~ ~ ,,- "- ~ ;: E;~ ~ '--;:;' 0 > ~ '!:k:;;; 0.1 ~ ': >- 0 ~ ;:, ~ u ~ '" 20 W "- '" "" ~ :! , ...,./ ~ ~ ~ ~ f;; ::j " ~ ~ ti ~ ~ {;j Q;) t; ~ , -' <:I z .lEI w' .J <( U ~ ~ o ! - ~ ~ w >- o z .., o z w '" w , ~ i. !'~.: ~ i ..... = :~i a 5 ~i= ~ ~ ;~i.. ~ : eia~: .: uA"~" .. ~.,. ; . i ~ .~;~ il: I .. j::: ..:~ 1'I .;,.:r~j! B! t' .. uti!.. .;:.;;:; .... .' ~ ; i~'. -I' ~ ! ! J · .::;~ ,.~ " ~. - ; ..S~2i~~!~li~ i ! ; o. .. .. \It l H! -tteit ! i Ii i ~$ ...i ..... ,,~~ e ~ ; " .. ~.. <>... f a3~;: ~:~:l~ ~ i5 .J.!~'<> ;: ~J~~; 3 ~H~~~ __ .... <> a;;. := .., er'~ ~ f-- :!::; ~ ~ ~ .. a: :.::'~:!~ tj :. 'f.: ~ u:- I .,... ~!!t :!a~!~i ;'3'3< -::J>- ~8~ I~!~ ~~:;~'..~. 10 . . , . ~ ; ld ,. " ..."', ..l= ..../" Ii ,- Ii ,; l' , ~ ! " '" l' .S il Ii . ~ . ~ i o u ~ u _,,""'_ ~"".._.",..".,." ""'''''.'-''''-~-- r ~ \) I .c -\ :::t ~ I I '\ I I ~'\ I j L-. ./ A""'"". J I I [[ II r r: .) '\) 7- ~..,...~- -.--- [ --- - I I , , i! I - "--""._'--'~'-'''''"''''-'' ",~i,......'" I ~ ~ .-\ I I Ii ~ 1\ I ~~ ~~ < )- \i I --\ I I: 'I , . I \::l L l~- ~ "- I r rc ~ I ( , - ~ \ [ .~ , i I I' I i :i' ,~ I'll 'I, i, ,~ --\ r ~ I I[ - "-- ,. ~I \j -.-..-- , -L '-"', --'" ~:"':''':':t'. ----,-_.~ /" . ---.. ._, . ......,-<'."... "','-~_.~~"'" ~~,;~-n.'t""- ~ CJj ;::1 ,~ i:I" -l"l i;- ~ It II -= -. ~.. 'Ii ,I I Ij I ' II ,I I (I} C> s: I , I I ,\ , II'! il , II, . .i',I, II ~ 'I i! i,l I rill! 11II , ' I .1 'I' 11,li; I I I ,[ , .. 8B .83 ;tel (') s:! 0'0 Y.: sills: ~" ): B ~ ~ iil f;; ~ tu ~ ~ ~ Q .""'__'~' .,....__.,w _"."-.... .. '1,- ~ , ',- ....L ==11 I If =-fll If "',1,. ~~~~~ClCl ~h~~:;! ra ~.n..~,i5 R'. ~~~'!::l ~ ri[~[~ -1.\../ ' ..,' j.Q1n. '.. ~Ul(ffi. . " .,~ ".'''''~-'~''~_~'''':;::'1!' '~'-"'~"""~",-;,~" '\ .J - ...J . t:::J = ~ t:::=:j -- :;;;.. . -<i II . - .. 6: ;' . II I" ~ u . .. l"l l'!'1 ~ CJj ;j ~. ~. i:l n 0 ~o ~ ~ ffi!:;;1 ~ ~ - R~- ~ o rtl Z ~ ~ 0 ~ c: .. ~.. S -' 60 . II __aH D I: /, "CA,loV.' '" j,('lJ/tld' ',I II I , 'I , ' II 'I .j ,(' ,i liO", . l...-ll.' J)W....,f'\. W.I,Qff. ",!.<Yl.will- -'" ....I 'I ,I 1111, 11.1,1:1 _.-~, ;r..c~.....R"1'""\1'""\ .~.., ~>\oJi:!,J ~~H~ ~ '" ~~~[~.~ & ri~~[~ ""l -- ~ = 0 II .. ~,." 6- =>> / a: >> .. .. t'" .. ~ .. - , ~ ~ ,.~ ----,'- o .:J8~'5' Z7-'z.fi# //.'2,Pj .. ~ ~ ! i r- I I +-.:=.- 7:~'" 18~1-# .$S1,5" i ~il~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ I, . LlltrtilN' '\Ajj,~. 1.1 j : 14 II), rJjfRJiJW A II" e(lJ~',u/<l' ~H~~C'lC'l ~~~U~ l l f~[= "" - \ - '" ~ .r ;r; ~ - " ~ ~ .;; " . ....... AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT illS. TO ASlIDI LAND USE REGULATl:ONS SECTION 6-20S.E. a/ rC/l LV03Y qy; ry y0.,. ~ VV County of pitkin } } state of Colorado } I, 0/~ =-- _-= =_ iiii === =!!!!!! - Attacblllent 8 being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-2QS.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (30.0.) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 9fh day of Jtdr , 199& (which is /5 days date of JuI'td 'i /99~. I prior to the public hearing 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public --.., way) and that the said sign was posted and visible ---~ om the /'ffh day of Ju.l..Y , 19~ , day of Ju') ,199~ (Must be \ast ten (10) full days before the~haailng4' \ ,~~~;;...;:tCi: "~ "- .:>graph of the posted si ' 'frt:~ached"'~~ \ . 1 ~ \ ,. " --.- - ,: \. "''';'JS'j'..' H ~..,~ ... .... -~- ()' _; OJ(., ,~( jl Signed before me this ",day;;of' :-WH,.. , 19 ~. by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL "y ~ e~?I;?~-FJ' Nota Pub ~c~ 2. I ~, 'I t Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 -# '{},73 7- 073 - /G .()tJS' City Land Use Application Fees: OO! 13,63850-041 Deposit -63855,042 Flat Fee ,63860.043 IIPe .63885-268 Public Right'of-Way ..63075-046 Zoning & Sign Permlt__ MRO 11 Use Tax ~..ko 6(> County Land Use Application Fees: 00113,63800-033 Deposit ,63805,034 Flal Fee -6387.0-037 Zoning -63825,038 Board of Adjusllnent Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 00115,63340-163 00123-63340-190 00125-63340,205 00113-63815-036 County Engineer City Engineer Housing Environmental Health County Clerk Sales: 00113-63830-039 -69000-145 County Code Copy Fees c1 Other i~ 'f ~ f r f Name:Gi<nd.eVJ (,IUE}.JWooD Address: 5;),0 wa/11 u I- c:; I- . k;PW Phone: ::) ~ - ~ "'0.:( Total 0ho"" Date:~ji".ik Check I o? g I Project: N/'e Sl'l~ Case No: No, of Copies 7