Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.320 W Main St.62A-88Elisha House GM,� emption & Special Review -Parkin 62A-88 2 - 4-41-005 �w� q� ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113-63250-134 GMP/Conceptual 00113-63270-136 GMP/Final 00113-63280-137 Sub/Conceptual 00113-63300-139 Sub/Final 00113-63310-140 2-Step 00113-63320-141 1-Step/Consent Referral Fees: 00125-63340-205 Envir. Health 00123-63340-190 Housing 00115-63340-163 Engineering O Sub -Total County 00113-63160-126 GMP/General 00113-63170-127 GMP/Detailed 00113-63180-128 GMP/Final 00113-63190-129 Sub/General 00113-63200-130 Sub/Detailed 00113-63210-131 Sub/Final 00113-63220-132 2-Step 00113-63230-133 1-Step/Consent 00113-63450-146 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00125-63340-205 Envir. Health 00123-63340-190 Housing 00113-63360-143 Engineering Sub -Total Planning Office Sales 00113-63080-122 City/County Code 00113-63090-123 Comp. Plan 00113-63140-124 Copy Fees 00113-69000-145 Other P&Z Sales Sub -Total �� 1 TOTAL Name • Address: Check # Phone: Date: 0 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 11 28 88 DATE COMPLETE: 8 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2735-124-41-005 62A-88 STAFF MEMBER' PROJECT NAME: Elisha House GMOS Exemption & Special Review for Parking Reduction Project Address: 320 W. Main Street Legal Address: Block 44 Lots N, O & P APPLICANT:_ Alan & Jacqueline Shada Applicant Address: 110 Escondido Vista, CA 92084 REPRESENTATIVE: Welton Anderson Representative Address/Phone: P. O. Box 9946 Aspen CO 81612 5-4576 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 5810.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP----- 1 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date 'n I CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFE LS: C,.aty Attorney Mtn. Bell School District �- y Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. �o DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING' DATE ROUTED: 5-/�-� INITIAL: =X77= City Atty, Housing _V/City Engineer Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Zoning Env. Health CASE DISPOSITION To: File From: Roxanne Eflin Re: 320 W. Main St. - the Smith-Elisha House, GMQS Exemption (Change in Use) and Special Review (Parking Reduction) Date: May 4, 1989 On January 17, 1989, the P&Z approved both the GMQS Exemption for the Change in Use of the Smith-Elisha House and the Special Review application for parking reduction. The approved conditions were based off staff's memo, with exceptions, and are as follows: 1. That the applicant satisfy the requirements by the Engineering Department with regard to sidewalk inspection and approval prior to the issuance of a CO; OR that a written agreement be provided to Engineering that any necessary upgrade and/or repairs will be performed during the construction season of 1989. 2. That the two parking spaces directly to the north of the main structure's rear stairs be designated for compact cars only, eliminating the need to demolish this historic architectural feature, and that the action not be taken before the Board of Adjustment. 3. That the parking requirement for the bedroom be waived pursuant to Section 5-213(E). 4. That the applicant provide payment -in -lieu for affordable housing in the amount of $56,376.00, to minimize the cost to the development of the historic landmark. 5. That the applicants be eligible for obtaining a rebate of the affordable housing payment -in -lieu provided current pending legislation providing additional incentives to historic landmarks is approved by City Council. (Note: Refer to Ordinance 16, Series of 1989) cd.320WM CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 1989 TO: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office FROM: City Attorney's Office RE: Proposed Code Amendment with Respect to HPC Development and Employee Housing Impact Fees Pursuant to our meeting of January 25, 1989, I have the following thoughts on the proposed code amendment with respect to employee housing impacts on HPC development: 1. It appears to me that the Elisha House has several options with respect to the proposed code amendment. The Elisha House could pay the employee housing impact fee and make a subsequent request to Council to refund it if and when the proposed legisla- tion is passed. 2. The developer could sit on the application, pending the change in legislation, and submit an application in furtherance of it. 3. The developer could submit either a letter of credit, escrow the funds, or somehow secure the commitment of the monies, in a manner satisfactory to the City Manager and the City Attorney. As I understand the process, the Planning Office has submitted a proposed code amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review which would have the effect of altering the manner in which employee housing fees are paid with respect to commercial development on HPC designated sites. The proposed legislation contains a sliding scale in which employee housing impact fees are paid in proportion to expansion of the existing site. With that concept in mind, and with the added knowledge that the proposed Elisha development creates no new bulk or FAR, it seems appropriate to me that the City fashion an administrative remedy with respect to the current employee housing fee due on applica- tion for a building permit. 0 0 Memorandum to Roxanne Eflin January 26, 1989 Page 2 I suggest that the applicant obtain a letter of credit in the amount of the current employee housing dedication fee and desig- nate the City as a co -payee along with the developer. Further, the applicant should provide a covenant to release obligating both sides, in the event the proposed legislation is either adopted or rejected, that the monies are refunded in whole or in part to the appropriate party. In addition, I suggest that the letter of credit be in force up and until June 30, 1989, with an extension, if necessary, for an additional sixty days upon written application. This process would insure that the monies are set aside for the benefit of the City in the event the proposed legislation is not passed or is not passed as currently composed. However, it also enables the applicant to avoid escrowing the full sum, while insuring that a third party, such as Pitkin County Bank and Trust, has obligated the full amount in the event it becomes necessary to pay it. /mc cc: Jim Adamski Bob Anderson Welton Anderson E I110INV,Col-R—in lil�i To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: Public Hearing / Smith-Elisha House GMQS Exemption (Change in Use) and Special Review (Parking Reduction) Date: January 17, 1989 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for the change of use of a historic designated landmark, to convert the existing residential space to office use, and adaptively renovate the carriage house into office (first floor) including a one bedroom dwelling unit on the second floor. In addition, the application requests a Special Review for a parking reduction. APPLICANT: Alan J. Shada LOCATION: 320 West Main St., Lots N, O, and P, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: "O" Office; H, Historic Overlay (landmark designated within the Main Street Historic District) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: This project is eligible for exemption from GMQS due to its designated landmark status. Section 8-104(B) of the Aspen Land Use Code allows for the Commission to exempt "the enlargement or change of use of an Historic Landmark which develops more than 500 sq. ft. of commercial or office space or which increases the building's existing commercial or office space by more than 50% " provided that the applicant demonstrated that the development will mitigate community impacts (see staff comments): OTHER COMMITTEE/COUNCIL ACTION: On January 9, 1989, City Council approved on second and final reading Ordinance 56, securing landmark designation for the Smith-Elisha House. On January 10, 1989, the HPC reviewed and approved the applicant's final development plans, with conditions. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated January 6, 1989, Chuck Roth of the Engineering Department makes the following comments: a. Sidewalk: The presence of snow on the sidewalk at the time of inspection made a determination of the condition impossible. Engineering is requiring that • 0 prior to a CO being issued, an inspection for conformance to City code shall be made and accepted by the Engineering Dept., OR an agreement shall be provided to the City that any necessary upgrade and/or repairs will be performed during the construction season of 1989. b. Parking Reduction: Engineering states the application does not adequately address the need for the parking reduction, and states that due to the community's need for parking, a reduction cannot be supported by this department. A cash -in -lieu payment is suggested. In addition, Engineering states it is possible to designate the two spaces immediately to the east of the transformer for compact cars, which required approval by the Board of Adjustments. This is in lieu of an encroachment into the alley of approximately two (2) feet, which cannot be permitted due to the need to maintain the minimum 20' width for emergency vehicles. C. Utilities: It is possible to relocate the transformer which is currently located at the western -rear of the site, at the applicant's expense, to provide for an additional parking space. This is provisional upon the City Electrical Department and electrical engineer accepting an alternative location. 2. Housing Authority: The renovated net leasable square footage of both the main house and carriage house combined is 2,784. In a memo dated January 11, 1989, Janet Raczak of the Housing Authority has determined that the applicant's generated -employee calculations are correct, however, disagree with the use of the middle -income category for determining payment -in -lieu. Instead, they recommend the moderate income category as follows: 2,784 sq. ft. x 3 employees/1,000 sq. ft. = 8.352 emp. 8.352 x 60% = 5.01 emp. x $16,750 = $83,918 CIL The Housing Authority suggests that the income level of the employees generated would more reasonably be projected to be in the moderate income category. 3. City Attorney: Fred Gannett states he has no concerns about the proposal at this time. 2 i STAFF COMMENTS: GMQS EXEMPTION: Section 8-104 (B) (1) (c) of the Land Use Code gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to grant an exemption from GMQS if it is demonstrated that impacts are mitigated and the following criteria have been adequately addressed: CRITERIA: The applicant shall demonstrate that the development will mitigate its impacts on the community by providing employee housing at the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-106 for the use. RESPONSE: The applicant has agreed to the payment -in -lieu provision for deed -restricted affordable housing based upon the middle income standards, however, strongly supports any future code amendments allowing the waiver of this and other city exactions as it relates to the development of historic landmarks (please refer to Staff's comments under "Special Review", page five of this memo). The 839 sq. ft. one bedroom dwelling unit proposed for the second floor of the carriage house will not be deed restricted, and will be occupied by the owner a few months a year. Currently, no guidelines are in the system for determining Low, Moderate or Middle income standards for the payment -in -lieu of affordable housing in commercial applications. The Housing Authority has based their rationale for recommending the moderate income category on the potential income of any support staff in this project. It may be practical to look at the kinds of practices that will occupy the office space to determine the income -level standard. Staff feels that in a response to the nature of the project and the Historic Landmark status of the Smith-Elisha House, that the Middle income range is appropriate to determine the total payment -in -lieu. CRITERIA: The applicant shall provide parking according to the standards of the code. RESPONSE: The following are review standards for Parking - Special Review in the Office Zone district: Residential Uses: One (1) space per bedroom; fewer spaces may be provided by Special Review for historic landmarks. All other Uses (except Lodge Use): Three (3) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area; fewer spaces may be provided by Special review, but no fewer than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable. 3 0 0 The proposed project generates the following parking needs: Net leasable: Required Parking: New Bedrooms created: Required parking:* Special Review Reduction: 2,784 x 3/1,000 = 8.35 (8) E3 1 1 (waiver requested) 2,784 x 1.5/1,000 = 4.17 (4) The applicant is requesting special review for parking reduction from eight (8) to five (5) on -site spaces, one more than would be allowed by the Special Review reduction of 1.5/1,000. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the parking requirement for the single one -bedroom dwelling unit (carriage house) as allowed by Special Review for historic landmarks. The applicant states that they have provided on -site parking for the project to the highest degree that is practical. Please refer to staff's comments under "Special Review", page five of this memo. The renovation project will provide office space for professionals, consisting generally of sole proprietors. It is reasonable to expect 5-8 individuals working on site. We feel the five parking spaces proposed adequately meet the needs of the project. The 6th parking space, made possible with the relocation of the transformer, is strongly recommended by staff and the Engineering Department to further meet the on -site parking needs. CRITERIA: The project's water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, transportation, fire protection and solid waste disposal needs shall be met. RESPONSE: The applicant states that the impact in these areas is very minimal, as no significant physical changes are taking place on the site. Water is supplied by a 6" galvanized water main in Main Street to a 3/4" line feeding the house which serves the existing 1 1/2 baths. The addition of another 1 1/2 baths can, according to the water department, be served without upgrade to the water system. Sewer needs are served by an 8" line in the alley, large enough for the additional demand. The historic site drainage will not be significantly altered. The parking will be gravel, new paving is minimal, and there are additional buildings or expansions of existing buildings. 4 0 0 The site is very well served by mass transit, immediately adjacent to ALL but two bus routes. The site is six (6) blocks from the fire department and response time is less than three (3) minutes. Smoke detectors shall be installed in each office space and in the residential unit. Solid waste removal shall be handled by a new dumpster located in the alley between the transformer and the west property line. CRITERIA: It shall be demonstrated that the project's site design is compatible with surrounding project and appropriate for the site. RESPONSE: Final Development approval for the alternations to both structures has been granted by the HPC. The project is primarily restorative, with very few changes taking place. Staff finds the proposal strongly meets the criteria, as well as the Historic Development Guidelines and the State Historical Architect's review. Architectural details and exterior materials which have decayed past the point of reasonable repair are being duplicated during restoration. All surfaces will be painted. The carriage house will receive five new windows along secondary facades to allow for light and egress, and a slightly enlarged (approximately 40%) south elevation gabled dormer. Very little change will occur to the site's historic grading. SPECIAL REVIEW Review standards for the reduction in off-street parking requirements are found in Section 7-404 (B) of the Aspen Land Use Code. The staff has recommended, in the Code Correction Ordinance, and P&Z has concurred, that the payment -in -lieu provision is appropriate for the Office zone district as well, though this zone district was inadvertently left out of Sec. 7- 404(B)(1) when the land use code was revised. Engineering also supports the payment -in -lieu provision for reducing required parking in this project. "Approval of the payment -in -lieu shall be at the option of the Commission. In determining whether to accept the payment or whether to require that the parking be provided on -site, the Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on -site, whether the needs of the development have been adequately met on -site and whether the City has plans for a parking facility which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the 5 parking on -site." STAFF'S COMMENTS: It is not physically practical to provide more than the proposed five spaces on this site, due to the historic configuration of the principal structure and carriage house. The one exception is the sixth space which may be provided should the transformer box be relocated, as staff and Engineering have both suggested. Staff has received inquiries from two immediate neighbors concerned that 1) the change of use of the Smith-Elisha House will increase the parking problems which already exist in this block, and 2) the parking situation is being further aggravated by the corner Log Cabin restaurant. That project also received approval under Special Review for a reduction in parking. SUMMARY: The Commission should also be aware that the Planning Office is currently processing an application submitted by the owner of Berko (a/k/a Lilly Reid) Building for land use code amendments involving positive incentives for historic preservation, which proposes to allow the waiver of some or all of the payment -in -lieu provisions for the development of designated historic structures. Staff supports the applicant's request that the project be eligible to reduce or waive requirements if and when this code amendment is adopted by City Council. However, at that time it should be recognized that we have already reduced the payment -in -lieu requirement from the moderate to the middle income guideline and have waived three (3) parking spaces otherwise required for the project. We find that the proposal presents a good adaptive use/rehabilitation alternative, utilizing a historic resource to its fullest potential. Staff finds that the applicant has mitigated impacts according to the code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and zoning Commission grant approval for the GMQS exemption for the change of use of the Smith-Elisha House, and approval for Special Review for parking reduction with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant satisfy the requirements by the Engineering Department with regard to sidewalk inspection and approval prior to the issuance of a CO; OR that a written agreement be provided to Engineering that any necessary upgrade and/or repairs will be performed during the construction season of 1989. 2. That the transformer be relocated at the applicant's expense, subject to approval of the City Electrical Department, to provide for an additional parking space. A 0 • 3. That the two parking spaces directly to the north of the main structure's rear stairs be designated for compact cars only, eliminating the need to demolish this historic architectural feature. 4. That the parking requirement for the bedroom be waived pursuant to Section 5-213 (E). 5. That the applicant provide payment -in -lieu for affordable housing in the amount of $56,376.00. We recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission include in its motion a statement that the applicant shall be eligible for consideration of a reduction of city exactions specific to the development of historic landmarks, subject to the potential land use code amendments which are currently proposed, and subject to recognition of the housing and parking impact reductions already granted this project. memo.pz.320wm.GMQS 7 I* MEMORANDUM TO: Roxanne Efline, Planning Office FROM: Janet Raczak, Housing Office RE: Elisha Change In Use DATE: January 11, 1989 APPLICATION SUMMARY: The applicant indicates in its memo that they are removing a residential use and incorporating a commercial use within a historic structure, and continuing to use the upper portion of the carriage house as a residential unit consisting of 839 s.f. and one bedroom. The applicant states that the employee generation of this change in use will have an employee generation of 5.01. The applicants calculations are: 2784 s.f. x's 3 employees/1000 s.f. = 8.352 employees 60% of 8.352 employees = 5.01 employee generation The applicant intends to meet their employee generations with a payment -in -lieu indexed to the Employee Housing Guidelines - middle income category of $11,250 per employ or a payment -in -lieu of $56,376. HOUSING OFFICE REVIEW: The Housing Office concurs with the applicants employee generation calculation of 5.01, but disagrees with the use of the middle income category to calculate the payment -in -lieu amount. The Housing Office suggests that the income level of the employees generated would more reasonable be projected to be in the moderate income category. The moderate income category payment -in -lieu amount per employee is $16,750. Therefor the payment -in -lieu amount would be $83,918 ($16,750 x's 5.01 employees). HOUSING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Office recommends approval of the Elisha Change in Use application conditioned on the following: 1. The applicant shall pay a payment -in -lieu in the amount of $83,918 prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the project. 9 MEMORANDUM To: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer Date: January 8, 1989 Re: Elisha House GMQS Exemption & Special Review for Parking Reduction Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The presence of snow on the sidewalk made it impossible to inspect the sidewalk for dimensions and condition. The certifi- cate of occupancy should not be issued until the sidewalk can be inspected for conformance to City code and accepted by the Engineering Department or until an agreement is provided to the City that any necessary upgrade and/or repairs will be performed during the construction season of 1989. 2. The application does not present any discussion of why a reduction in required on -site parking should be granted. There is no indication that fewer than the code required ten (10) parking spaces will be needed by the project. Given the need for parking in town, the Engineering Department cannot support the granting of a reduction in on -site parking requirements. It is suggested instead that the applicant pay cash -in -lieu for parking spaces not provided on site with five spaces minimum required on site. As has been discussed with the Planning Office, it is possible for the applicant to relocate the transformer at the applicant's expense if the City Electric Department and electrical engineer accept an alternative location, and it is possible to accept two of the parking spaces as designated for compact cars, although this would require approval by the Board of Adjustments. An encroachment into the alley cannot be permitted because a twenty foot wide emergency access width must be maintained. Twenty feet is the width of alleys. cc: Jay Hammond CR/cr/memo 89.2 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 December 9, 1988 Welton Anderson P. O. Box 9946 Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: Elisha House GMQS Exemption and Special Review Dear Welton, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS complete. We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a hearing to begin at 4:30 P.M. on Tuesday, January 17, 1989. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any other questions, please call Roxanne Eflin, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ,0�W444,� Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant 0 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office RE: Elisha House GMQS Exemption & Special Review for Parking Reduction, Parcel ID# 2735-124-41-005 DATE: December 9, 1988 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Welton Anderson on behalf of his client Alan Shada requesting GMQS Exemption for the Change in Use of an Historic Landmark and Special Review Approval for Reduction in Parking. The house is located at 320 West Main Street. Please review this material and return your comments no later than January 4, 1989 so that I have time to prepare a memo for the P&Z. Thank you. 6 MEMORANDOM 0 TO: Planning Office, Historic Preservation Committee, Plannina and Zoning Commission FROM: Welton Anderson RE: Elisha House, Historic Development Review, GMQS Exemption, Special Review for Parkina Reduction. DATE: 25 'November 1988 Historic Development Proposal- Main House: There will be no significant channe in character to the Elisha House. The primary work will be repair and repainting of the exterior surfaces of the house. Exterior architectural elements that are lost or are irrenaribly deteriorated will be duplicated exactly. Existina windows are generally in very good condition and will be provided with new sash cords where needed and new glass where broken, the wavy original glass being preserved. Clear glass will replace the colored mass in the circular "pinwheel" window in the uppermost south gable, and a skylight/roof window will be installed on the west attic roof, invisible from the street. Carriage House: The effect of the proposed development on the original desion of the carriage house will be as minimal as possible and still comply with the light, ventilation and enress requirements of the building code. The applicant realizes that the carriage house's importance is as an outbuilding and it's character should remain that of an outbuilding. Consequently the elements that contribute to it's character (dormers, double hung windows, carriage and loft doors) will be modified or reproduced to allow more light inside. The north (loft) gable will be reproduced on the south side and will be flanked by smaller dormers identical to the existing dormer. Single double hung windows will be joined to make a pair or a triple window, consistant with the arouped windows on the house. The carriage door and the loft door on the alley, those elements that make a carriage house function, will remain in place. Some of the wooden panels, however, will be removed and replaced with olass in both doors, allowing the character to be maintained. Site Plan, Landscaping, and Parking: Parking for 5 cars will be provided between the carriage house and the transformer pad off the alley. The metal shed and basement stair in this area will be removed (see Special Review for Parking Reduction). The rubble stone retaining wall along the south property line will be replaced with a coursed stone wall similiar to the foundation wall of the house. The lowest portion of the site will be raised to approximately sidewalk level and a sunny picnic area with benches on axis with the door to the carriage house installed there. New landscaping replaces most of the small diameter trees and shrubery that have so overgrown the house. New soecimen shrubery will be installed. GMQS Exemption -Change in Use for Histotic Landmark, Special Review for Parking Reduction: Pursuant to Section 8-104 B.l.c. the applicant proposes to change the use of the Elisha House to office use and the carriage house to office below and residential above. Net leaseable square footage is approximately 2784 square feet of office and a 839 square foot 1 bedroom apartment. Elisha House Page two • The applicant is requesting an interpretation from City Council as to their intent and the applicability of the requirement for employee housing meeting the threshold required in Section 8-106 for a change in use of an Historic Landmark where there is no expansion to the Landmark. If Council determines that it must meet the employee housing requirement, the employee generation is as follows: 2784 SF x 3 emoloyees/1000 SF=8.3 employees x 60% = 5.01 employees x $11,250 / employee (middle income)= $56,383 cash in lieu. All parking can be provided on site off of the alley with a Special Review approval for a reduction from 3 spaces / 1000 SF to 1.5 spaces / 1000 SF. The requirement would be 2784 SF x 1.5 spaces / 1000 SF = 4.1 + 1 space for the 1 bedroom residential = 5 spaces. Water is supplied by a 6" galvanized water main in Main Street to a 3/4" line going to the house which serves the existing 12 baths. The addition of another 12 baths can, according to the water department, be served without upgrade to the water system. Sewer needs are served by an 8" line in the alley which is large enough for the additional demand. Historic site drainaae will not be significantly altered. Parkina will be aravel, and there no additional buildings and new paving is minimal. The site is immediately adjacent to all but two bus routes. The site is 6 blocks from the fire department and response time is less than 3 minutes. Smoke detectors shall be installed in each office space and in the residential unit. Solid waste removal shall be handled by a new dumpster located in the alley between the transformer and the west property line. Cl 0 NOV 8 '68 IJ:vJ Ms. Roxanne Eflin Historic preservation City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear *Ms. Eflin, NO . COUHT`r' '_::�H I FF I NG Coordinator YOF4G �. o 110 Escondido Vista, CA 92084 November 4, 1968 Re: 320 W. Hain Street Aspen, Co 81611 AKA Lots N, 0 and P, Block 44,- City and Townsite of Aspen. We are the owners of the above described property, which is known locally as the Smith-Elisha house, an Exceptional category structure my -the Aspen Inventory of Historic Structures. The Smith-Elisha Housa is one of Aspen's bast Queen Anne style residences with a multi -gable front elevation, a wrap -around porch and a mansive two story side bay topped by a gabled roof dormer. The carriage house remains in its original condition. In reviewing the Standards for Landmark Designation, we find the Smith--Elisha: mouse meets Standards A, S, C, E and F, and we request designation of the house and carriage house. We also wi.'mh to apply for the necessary forms to have the housQ placed on the National Register of Historic Placesf and we wi.:i to apply for the designation grant in the amount of $2,000. My authorized representative is; Ramona Markalunas 601 E.- Hyman Ave. #101 Aspen, CO 8161 303-920-1234 1 am attaching hereto a copy of the Warranty Deed by which I received titlr to subject property and will forward a copy of the Title Insurance Policy as soon as I receive it; we closed on this property October 14, 198a, and I have not yet received all documents. Also enclosed is a vicinity map on which we have outlined the property. Please let us know if you require additional documentation. Yours very truly, Warmland HL lands b Jacque ine C. 5hada = � x a eat,N !1E-v4 'l -7 5. I I E - I 149kGe ONLY I G><!krlNla I ' LoT o l.aT p 21(�slGip Nis • • } PZM1.17.89 to move that we table this --let's look at these problems with the setbacks. I am concerned about that. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: I will continue the public hearing until the 21st of February. SMITH/ELISHA HOUSE GMOS EXEMPTION Welton and Jim stepped down from this due to possible conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine: On GMP projects there was a time when it was established that all applicants be prepared to provide for low income or restrict any housing that they creAted to low income guidelines until or unless advised otherwise by the Housing Authority. This is a different situation but in the absence of other information as to what kind of --we don't really know what kind of office it is going to be or what kind of employee generation. It seems to me there should be some kind of standard way to apply this for change in use. I think there should be some kind of criteria established for this so that we are not just saying we think they are going to be hairdressers or brain surgeons. Because we really don't have any rational for making those decisions. Roxanne: We pretty well know from the type of the project and the renovation project that it is going to be professionals that are going to be occupying the space. That is something that we recommend in here is that maybe we need to look at the kinds of office space instead of as the Housing Authority was suggesting what their income category as the type of support staff. In other words they were looking at all of the employees that would be generated by the project in the lowest level income and basing their calculations on that. Since there is no standard right now in place that is something we need to be looking at. Jasmine: There is also a difference between what happens when an applicant provides employee housing and is going to deed restrict it as opposed to when they are going to make a payment of cash- 17 0 • i PZM1.17.89 in -lieu. Certainly we would want to get as much cash -in -lieu as possible. But I am uncomfortable with the sort of opinions that we are coming out with in these housing questions because I think that unless we have a standard way of applying and every time we come into change in use and I think we are going to be seeing more of those also as part of new development it is an area of concern that should be addressed. Mari: I just fail to see what the connection is really between what kind of employees might be generated by this particular project and what type of --it seems to me like if it is going to be cash -in -lieu the question is what kind of housing is needed most in the community not what is generated by this particular project. If we have a greater need in might produce B-- Aian: Whose responsibility the community? Jasmine: So you would like amount of cash -in -lieu. Alan: You need to have a imposed on the project and -- the community for A but this project is the need? What they generate or to see this as the approach for the relationship between the requirement Michael: Well then we have a real serious problem because then you are just adopting an arbitrary standard that you have adopted just for this particular application. Jasmine: That is what I am saying is that we have to adopt one that is generally applicable. Michael: That is what has been done already. The Housing Authority is now creating anew standard that has never been used before as part of the code: I think there is a great question as to its legality and if we turn around right now and determine that it is more appropriate to turn around and say that an applicant has to pay the impact fees upon what the community needs are than we are also adopting a new standard and also I think that is questionable legality. When the applicant comes in and applies there has to be a standard there that he applies by virtue of --not based upon what the Housing Authority that day thinks or that day makes a determination on nor what we make a determination on. I am not saying that any of the determinations are inappropriate but I don't know that legally any of them are appropriate without some kind of advance notice to an applicant. • PZM1.17 .89 Alan: Unfortunately we never updated the change in use when we-\' adopted cash -in -lieu. We didn't think through the cash -in -lieu could be use not only in GMQS applications but in GMQS exemptions. Jasmine: I think that this is a problem area and for all the reasons that Mickey and Mari have pointed out I am very hesitant to say what we should do in this thing because it could very well be appropriate but it could very well not. And until we have some kind of a system that would apply to all change in uses that we are going to be in this kind of limbo. Alan: What we are suggesting to you because the building is a historic landmark and there is a community interest in its preservation that we establish a standard to not go to the most restrictive but to go to the least restrictive. So we are taking that step saying "Yea there isn't a guideline here but we are willing to go out on a limb to try and preserve this building and so go to the least restrictive which is certainly supportable. They have a requirement to provide affordable housing. By taking the least restrictive in the guidelines that appears to me to be reasonable. That is not following the exact language of the code but it is a way to get through this particular issue. Jasmine: So this is their incentive so to speak as opposed to making them pay more money which would be a disincentive. Roger: And that certainly fits historic landmarks. All through be a benefit to get the historic enticing that. with the attitude we had about this it was always supposed to designation and this is a way of Alan: Two weeks from tonight you will be hearing a code amendment submitted by the Berko project to try and get at this kind of an issue. How do you afford to pay for the housing and parking. This has let us try to find ways to look at that issue. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ruth White: I live across the alley and I am very concerned about the parking there. There is also a little incline right between the properties. I have been noticing in the winter the snowbank builds up and I have a carport that is very hard to see cars and you have to gun it to get up there. So I don't look forward to a lot of traffic up there. Hopefully there won't be but I am hoping that everybody can feel the minimum number of parking spaces up there. And right now there is some service trucks still sticking out. I have not noticed trash but I am 19 0 PZM1.17.89 very concerned. The other 2 properties are rental units that I rent out to the locals here year around and some of them have children so I am very concerned about the traffic from that property. I hope you consider the neighbors. Joe Wells: The first condition is fine as written. The Board l members have really touched on the issues in regard to the second condition. Obviously we were concerned about the cost of relocating the transformer. Apparently there is a need to j maintain at least 3ft of clearance all the way around the transformer. The Engineering Department described on alternative being a buried vault as a way to find a location fo the transformer. It seemed as if this could get to be a ver expensive kind of solution. The minimum requirement with special review would be 4 spaces.: Vie think that at 5 spaces you may be able to find that. Tha would be acceptable. #4 obviously we need the waiver given th number of spaces that we have. And on #5 we would simply like to strengthen the language to make it clear that if there is a code amendment to grant exaction waiver on certain provisions for historic landmarks. We would like to be eligible for it if it is adopted up until the time that we get CEO for the project. A�.a'�i: You are going to have to pay the fee. I don't know that `-you couldn't get a rebate. I don't see any real problem with that myself. But you would have to pay at the time the building permit is issued. It is an administrative policy. The key to you folks is to agree that they be eligible because normally they would be subject to the rules in affect at the time that they are approved at the time they that they get a building permit this kind of retroactive provision I think is appropriate / here. Roger: That should be included in your final paragraph. Or our \ recommendation that is included in your final paragraph to minimize the exactions. Alan: By the action that we are recommending. That really does � minimize in every way. It is the minimum number of parking spaces, no cash -in -lieu of the parking, the minimum level of cash -in -lieu for housing that we can apply. So we have accomplished that. Roger: But your final paragraph we recommend that they P&Z Commission include in this motion the statement that the applicant shall be eligible for consideration in a reduction of City exactions specific to and so on and so on. 20 • PZM1.17.89 Jasmine: We have already done that. MOTION Roger : I move to approve the GMQS exemption for the for the change in use of the Smith/Elisha House and approving the special review for parking reduction with the following conditions: #1 )being the same as in Planning Office memo dated January 17, 1989. '#2 being deleted. #3 which will be the new #2. #4 which will be the new #3 being the same as in the memo. #5 being the new #4 being the same with the addition of the notation that it is to minimize the cost on the historic landmark. Then a final paragraph including the sentiments of the final paragraph in the Planning Office memo dated January 17, 1989 more or less verbati ' Michael. One suggestion that we add to condition # new 2 that there be no requirement to go to the Board of Adjustment regarding the compact cars. Roger: Add to the new condition #2 which is that the 2 parking spaces directly to the north of the main structure's rear stairs e designated for compact cars only eliminating the need to emolish this historic architectural feature and further that there is no need to go to the Board of Adjustments in pursuit of this. Michael seconded the motion. Jasmine asked for explanation of the final paragraph. Alan: If the code amendment goes through and it turns out that the project like this will be eligible to be 100% exempt from the housing fee at all, normally since they have already gotten the building permit, it is like "Well; you should have waited. If ou would have waited for the code amendment to be processed the you would have been eligible under that new code." What we ar� suggesting is because these things are kind of simultaneously' tracking then we recognize that this applicant should be eligible in effect for a rebate. tom —Council would have to formally grant that rebate because the applicant wants to go forward within the next month or two. The code amendment won't go to Council until the end of March. Graeme: Asked Mrs White if she had any suggestions regarding her — concern about the parking. Mrs. White: That there be as few as possible. It is very difficult especially with the build up of snow to get in and out of that alley. And now that it is designed to go straight instead of at an angle. Coming out of there at a straight angle 21 PZM1.17.89 is just going to be --already I have had people know down my fence which I have had to repair. We have just had a lot of problems and I would like to avoid it as much as possible. Unfortunately the City has now eliminated some parking on the Main Street because of RFTA stopping out there. We just need that space on Main Street. Jasmine as for further discussion on the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:15pm. ----------------------------------- Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk 22 N Recorder Reception o. Recorded at o'clock 77 The FQ/u�rth Party, Inc. y Ihr i cm P ] rpily, Presic�<. t/V/ STATE OF &MV66 California SS. C-urly ;,f San Diego The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Pamela A. Murphy /9 WARRANTY DEED THIIS DEED, Made this llth day of October , 198 between THE ItO=1 PARTY, INC. a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virlue of the laws of the of California , grantor, and Alan J. Shada Jacqueline G. Shada, Husband and Wife, as Com Property, as to an undivided 58.4108%; and, Wa H1i1ghgqlar,n77ds, a General Partnership, as to ankind who '1cr a?a7d%lsandPW�l.1�aX �6Y��,aVis�a,,t�an ugZb��3 of the *County of , State of Colorado, grantee: WITNESSETII, That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of .Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration DOLLARS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin , State of Colorado, described as follows: Lots N,O and P, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of. Pitkin, State of Colorado. also known by street and number as: 320 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 TOGETHER with all and singular the hercditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO IIAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances•, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor, for Itself, and its successors, does covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in Icc simple, and has good right, full power and authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The grantor has caused its corporate name to he hereunto subscribed by its current President, and its corporate seal to he hereunto affixed, atgEyt'yWY, �Sjlyf�tj( the day and year first above written. Attest: secrcwry 11th day of October , 19 88 . as current Preside Al of The rourth Party, Inc. a corporation. My commission expires March 29, 1991 N1a� Witness my hand and official seal. f ---- -- w—— -- ����y Public •sM; OFFICIAL SEAL Mary Shannon MARY 8. SHANNON Notary Public-Catitornia i serf86VY ?IFn90 COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mar. 29. 1991 L No. �T'Ikefl .Wg7Mat'}ar l'V• ❑rulford Publishing, 5821 W. 6ih Ave., I.akewaxl, CO g0214 —1JnJ1 133-69M 9-8J N��r n, '4 'E LH`1A/E • M mo— (l.t✓ I tJ �1 � � I i I I� 1 GONG &H PetE, 27 Al �.! Af I!f � MI I ` �g � ' l l � I I J I I, I I � � � � I I .1 b��a� MIA STU►�l E fi "*' ' 'i.:' ! .t I(� ' I � I • - � _ NE*� corJ?off I I 1 l_o-t N n 7f� �J t�r`ST4 jTOh1 ejop.a.I eo O r-j -7 y I_IN!*—,� 3OZo(w1) r'lA1 N o r- ;� 0 �T VZE:,:ITT 40 0