HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.123 W Francis Historic Lot SplitPN: 2735-124-79001 Case
123 W. Francis, Historic Lot Split
,2 ? -).) s - ) ;,- ef - 7 1 �--, �`, I
•
•
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-79001
CASE NAMEJ 123 W. Francis, Historic
PROJ ADDRII 123 W. Francis
OWN/AP
iEP• Jake Vicker
�y
i
FEES DUE:1
RE
CLOSEg9/15/98 Mitch Haas
SU—
PLAT SUBMITD: I PL
11998
Split
CASE TYP: Lot Split
C/S/Z:
C/S/Z
T (BK,PG):
' C none issued
PLNR: Mitch Haas
DATE OF FINAL ACTION: 5/1998
CITY COUNCIL:—
BOA:
DRAC:
ADMINJ
f
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Cil
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner
RE: 123 West Francis Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split --- First Reading of
Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1998.
DATE: May 26, 1998
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The
property received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split (Resolution No. 1, Series
of 1996). The approval was granted improperly because the City Charter does not give the
HPC authority to approve the subdivision of land or to adopt ordinances, both of which are
powers necessary for the approval of lot splits.
The property has a gross area of 10,500 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original
approvals, the applicant is seeking to divide the property into two parcels of 5,250 square
feet each. Per Section 26.88.030(A)(5)(b) of the Land Use Code, 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 10,500 square feet in
the R-6 zone district is 4,170 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area
reductions.
Community Development Department staff, along with the HPC, recommends that City
Council approve the proposed lot split with the conditions outlined in this memo.
APPLICANT: Harold Quam, Veronica Martin, Carol Quam, and Lorrie Crumley,
represented by Jake Vickery.
LOCATION: 123 West Francis Street, legally described as "Lots C, D, E, and the East 1/2
of B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado."
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 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.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The HPC reviewed the current proposal at their normally
scheduled meeting of January 2, 1996 and approved the proposed lot split. As explained in
the "Summary" section of this memo, above, the HPC approval was improperly granted.
Since it has been subsequently determined that the HPC does not have the authority to grant
such approvals, the applicant has requested that the proposal be brought before City Council
in order to ensure that the approvals are final and properly granted. The current request is
identical to the request previously "approved" by the HPC.
REVIEW STANDARDS: All Historic Landmark Lot Splits must 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,) (2). Subdivision Exemptions, 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
26.100.050(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. 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
2
41
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
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 Landmark Lot Split, approval by the HPC, but this approval was never
finalized by the City Council.
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: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots will
conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Because the
existing home conflicts with/straddles the proposed lot line, the Subdivision Exemption Plat
must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required
side yard setbacks, unless variances are/have been granted by the HPC. This plat note would
remove the need to have the existing structure go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. No
dwelling units will be demolished.
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.
3
Response: The applicant represents that, besides the existing structure (one unit), a total
of one (1) additional unit will be created. The end result would be a total of two single
family residences, or one per lot.
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 parcel is 10,500 square feet 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 lot of 10,500 square feet in the R-6 zone district is
4,170 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions, plus a possible
FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet (on the lot containing the historic structure) from the
HPC. This FAR would be divided between the two parcels as follows: Lot A would be
allotted 1,450 square feet of allowable floor area, and Lot B would be allotted 2,720 square
feet of allowable floor area. This per lot breakdown of floor area allocations combines to a
total of 4,170 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses). The allocations per lot, as
verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be indicated on the final plat. See recommended
conditions of approval.
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: On Lot A, the HPC has granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a setback
variance, and a parking variance; otherwise, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district shall be complied with.
Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e).GMgS Exein�)tion by the Community Development
Director, Historic Landmark Lot SRUI
Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e) of the Municipal Code, the construction of a new
single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 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
i
Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed
following approval of this application.
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 was done at a noticed public hearing on January 2, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the HPC recommend that City Council approve the
application with the following conditions:
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. Said plat shall replace the
existing "Vickery Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat" recorded at Book
39, Page 82. 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 Lot B 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 4,170 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 two parcels of 5,250 square feet each. Provided
it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the
maximum allowable FAR on Lot A would be 1,450 square feet of floor area (plus
a 500 square foot floor area bonus, as granted by the HPC), and 2,720 square feet
of floor area on Lot B. Lot A has also received approved setback and parking
5
variances from the HPC. 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 the setback nonconformities created by the new lot
line shall be eliminated upon development of the two lots in that all new
development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district, unless variances are/have been approved by the HPC.
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 with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the First Reading of Ordinance
Number 17, Series of 1998."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
6
ORDINANCE No. 17
(SERIES OF 1998)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT
123 WEST FRANCIS STREET
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, Jake Vickery, has requested to split the 10,500 square
foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots of 5,250 square feet each;
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 January 2, 1996 and
recommended approval; 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:
1 0 0
1. 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 1, above, the City Council does
hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 123 West Francis
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. Said plat shall replace the
existing "Vickery Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat" recorded at Book
39, Page 82. 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 Lot B 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 4,170 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 two parcels of 5,250 square feet each. Provided
it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the
maximum allowable FAR on Lot A would be 1,450 square feet of floor area (plus
a 500 square foot floor area bonus, as granted by the HPC), and 2,720 square feet
of floor area on Lot B. Lot A has also received approved setback and parking
variances from the HPC. 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 the setback nonconformities created by the new lot
line shall be eliminated upon development of the two lots in that all new
development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district, unless variances are/have been approved by the HPC.
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 with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council.
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 8th day of June, 1998 at
5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15)
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 26th day of May, 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/aspen/hpc/cases✓lotsplit/ 123 wford. doc
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, Plannert�
RE: 123 West Francis Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split --- Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1998.
DATE: June 8, 1998
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The
property received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split (Resolution No. 1, Series
of 1996). The approval was granted improperly because the City Charter does not give the
HPC authority to approve the subdivision of land or to adopt ordinances, both of which are
powers necessary for the approval of lot splits.
The property has a gross area of 10,500 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original
approvals, the applicant is seeking to divide the property into two parcels of 5,250 square
feet each. Per Section 26.88.030(A)(5)(b) of the Land Use Code, 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 10,500 square feet in
the R-6 zone district is 4,170 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area
reductions.
Community Development Department staff, along with the HPC, recommends that City
Council approve the proposed lot split with the conditions outlined in this memo.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery, and Monica and Robert New.
LOCATION: 123 West Francis Street, legally described as "Lots C, D, E, and the East 1/2
of B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado."
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 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.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The HPC reviewed the current proposal at their normally
scheduled meeting of January 2, 1996 and approved the proposed lot split. As explained in
the "Summary" section of this memo, above, the HPC approval was improperly granted.
Since it has been subsequently determined that the HPC does not have the authority to grant
such approvals, the applicant has requested that the proposal be brought before City Council
in order to ensure that the approvals are final and properly granted. The current request is
identical to the request previously "approved" by the HPC. City Council approved first
reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1998 on May 26, 1998.
REVIEW STANDARDS: All Historic Landmark Lot Splits must 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,)(2). Subdivision Exemptions, 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
26.100.050(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. 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
2
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
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 Landmark Lot Split approval by the HPC, but this approval was never
fmalized by the City Council.
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: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots will
conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Because the
existing home conflicts with/straddles the proposed lot line, the Subdivision Exemption Plat
must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required
side yard setbacks, unless variances are/have been granted by the HPC. This plat note would
remove the need to have the existing structure go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. No
dwelling units will be demolished.
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.
3
Response: The applicant represents that, besides the existing structure (one unit), a total
of one (1) additional unit will be created. The end result would be a total of two single
family residences, or one per lot.
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 parcel is 10,500 square feet 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 lot of 10,500 square feet in the R-6 zone district is
4,170 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions, plus a possible
FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet (on the lot containing the historic structure) from the
HPC. This FAR would be divided between the two parcels as follows: Lot A would be
allotted 1,450 square feet of allowable floor area, and Lot B would be allotted 2,720 square
feet of allowable floor area. This per lot breakdown of floor area allocations combines to a
total of 4,170 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses). The allocations per lot, as
verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be indicated on the final plat. See recommended
conditions of approval.
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: On Lot A, the HPC has granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a setback
variance, and a parking variance; otherwise, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district shall be complied with.
Section 26.100.050LA)(2)(e). GMQS Exemption by the Community Development
Director, Historic Landmark Lot Split
Pursuant to Section. 26.100.050(A)(2)(e) of the Municipal Code, the construction of a new
single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 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
r1
•
Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed
following approval of this application.
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 was done at a noticed public hearing on January 2, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: 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. Said plat shall replace the
existing "Vickery Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat" recorded at Book
39, Page 82. 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 Lot B 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 4,170 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 two parcels of 5,250 square feet each. Provided
it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the
maximum allowable FAR on Lot A would be 1,450 square feet of floor area (plus
a 500 square foot floor area bonus, as granted by the HPC), and 2,720 square feet
of floor area on Lot B. Lot A has also received approval of setback and parking
5
variances from the HPC. 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 the setback nonconformities created by the new lot
line shall be eliminated upon development of the two lots in that all new
development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district, unless variances are/have been approved by the HPC.
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 with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Second Reading of Ordinance
Number 17, Series of 1998."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
6
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 26, 1998
5:00 P.M.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Scheduled Public Appearances
RECEIVED
,tI A Y 9 11998
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Councilmembers' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Ordinance # 15, 1998 - Historic Designation 240 Lake Avenue
b) Ordinance # 16, 1998 - 114 Neale Street Historic Designation Lot Split
c) Ordinance #17, 1998 - 123 W. Francis Historic Designation Lot Split
d) Ordinance #18, 1998 - Alpine Cottages, Subdivision, PUD, Re -zoning
e) Kids First board appointments
f) Resolution #43, 1998 - Supplemental Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget
g) Red Brick Improvements
VII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #6, 1998 - Tippler Townhomes GMQS Exemption, Subdivision &
Vested Rights
b) Ordinance #10, 1998 - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Amendment
c) Ordinance #8, 1998 - Aspen Mountain Section M Amendment
d) Ordinance #12, 1998 - Aspen Highlands Raw Water Agreement Amendment
VIII. Action Items
a) Resolution # 42, 1998 - Ballot Questions
b) Capital Plan - Yellow Brick School
c)
IX. Information Items
a) Traffic Calming Plan
b) Housing Minutes
X. Executive Session
a) Property sale and advice from council
XI. Adjournment
XII. Next Regular Meeting June 8. 1998
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner
(z8')
Y155 — _aw A W00-
0
RE: 123 West Francis Street, Historic Landmark Lot Split --- First Reading of
Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1998.
DATE: May 26, 1998
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The
property received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split (Resolution No. 1, Series
of 1996). The approval was granted improperly because the City Charter does not give the
HPC authority to approve the subdivision of land or to adopt ordinances, both of which are
powers necessary for the approval of lot splits.
The property has a gross area of 10.500 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original
approvals, the applicant is seeking to divide the property into two parcels of 5,250 square
feet each. Per Section 26.88.030(A)(5)(b) of the Land Use Code, 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 10,500 square feet in
the R-6 zone district is 4,170 square eet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area
reductions. �oT A C�2tS �� y� �t l� !%N�S�
LoT 3 6ac&- 2320 t�
Community Development Department staff, along with the HPC, recommends that City
Council approve the proposed lot split with the conditions outlined in this memo.
APPLICANT: Harold Quam, Veronica Martin, Carol Quam, and Lorrie Crumley,
represented by Jake Vickery.
LOCATION: 123 West Francis Street, legally described as "Lots C, D, E, and the East 1/2
of B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado."
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 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.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The HPC reviewed the current proposal at their normally
scheduled meeting of January 2, 1996 and approved the proposed lot split. As explained in
the "Summary" section of this memo, above, the HPC approval was improperly granted.
Since it has been subsequently determined that the HPC does not have the authority to grant
such approvals, the applicant has requested that the proposal be brought before City Council
in order to ensure that the approvals are final and properly granted. The current request is
identical to the request previously "approved" by the HPC.
REVIEW STANDARDS: All Historic Landmark Lot Splits must 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 26.88.0301A)(2). Subdivision Exemptions. 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
26.100.050(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. 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
2
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
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 Landmark Lot Split approval by the HPC, but this approval was never
finalized by the City Council.
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: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots will
conform with OieeAimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Because the
existing hom Conflicts with/straddles the proposed lot line, the Subdivision Exemption Plat
must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required
side yard setbacks, unless variances are/have been granted by the HPC. This plat note would
remove the need to have the existing structure go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. No
dwelling units will be demolished.
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.
3
Response: The applicant represents that, besides the existing structure (one unit), a total
of one (1) additional unit will be created. The end result would be a total of two single
family residences, or one per lot.
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-1 5A
zone district.
Response: The parcel is 10.500 square feet 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 lot of 10,500 square feet in the R-6 zone district is
4,170 square feet, exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions, plus a possible
FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet (on the lot containing the historic structure) from the
HPC. This FAR would be divided between the two parcels as follows: Lot A would be
allotted 1,450 square feet of allowable floor area, and Lot B would be allotted 2,720 square
feet of allowable floor area. This per lot breakdown of floor area allocations combines to a
total of 4,170 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses). The allocations per lot, as
verified by the City Zoning Officer, shall be indicated on the final plat. See recommended
conditions of approval.
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: On Lot A, the HPC has granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a setback
variance, and a parking variance; otherwise, all other dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district shall be complied with.
� � 11 l I �I i � i •u � �. iiu'i
Director,• i i i irk Lot Split
Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e) of the Municipal Code, the construction of a new
single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 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
C7
•
Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed
following approval of this application.
• • I I . • .i. . • •
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 was done at a noticed public hearing on January 2, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: 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. Said plat shall replace the
existing "Vickery Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat" recorded at Book
39, Page 82. 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 Lot B 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 4,170 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 two parcels of 5,250 square feet each. Provided
it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the
maximum allowable FAR on Lot A would be 1,450 square feet of floor area (plus
a 500 square foot floor area bonus, as granted by the HPC), and 2,720 square feet
of floor area on Lot B. Lot A has also received approved setback and parking
5
•
•
variances from the HPC. 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 the setback nonconformities created by the new lot
line shall be eliminated upon development of the two lots in that all new
development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district, unless variances are/have been approved by the HPC.
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 with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the First Reading of Ordinance
Number 17, Series of 1998."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
6
ORDINANCE No. 17
(SERIES OF 1998)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT
123 WEST FRANCIS STREET
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 HPQ and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jake Vickery, has requested to split the 10,500 square
foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots of 5,250 square feet each;
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 January 2, 1996 and
recommended approval; 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:
•
•
1. 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 1, above, the City Council does
hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 123 West Francis
Street with the following conditions:
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. Said plat shall replace the
existing "Vickery Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat" recorded at Book
39, Page 82. 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 Lot B 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 4,170 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 two parcels of 5,250 square feet each. Provided
it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the
maximum allowable FAR on Lot A would be 1,450 square feet of floor area (plus
a 500 square foot floor area bonus, as granted by the HPC), and 2,720 square feet
of floor area on Lot B. Lot A has also received approved setback and parking
variances from the HPC. 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 the setback nonconformities created by the new lot
line shall be eliminated upon development of the two lots in that all new
development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6
zone district, unless variances are/have been approved by the HPC.
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 with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council.
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 8th day of June, 1998 at
5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15)
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 26th day of May, 1998.
John Bennett, Mayor
•
•
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John Worcester, City Attorney
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
g:/planning/aspen/hpc/cases/lotsplit/ 123 wford.doc
John Bennett, Mayor
1998.
•
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
0 Z> A)6f Fm*? �
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
SECTION 2652.060 (E)
UJclI&� r2-
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certi
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E)
manner:
. being or representing an
that I have complied with the public notice
'the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U.S. Mail to all owners of propertywi three hundred (300) feet of the subject
/l l
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of �� ram, 1990(which is
days prior to the public hearing date of
�6-
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 continuously
from the day of � , 1996. (Must be posted for at least ten ,(]11)0)-full
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
La2-
S�na7
re
Signed before me this day
,199_by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Notary Public's Signature
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 123 WEST FRANCIS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 8, 1998 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Jake Vickery requesting approval
of a proposed Subdivision Exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is located
at 123 West Francis Street, and is described as Lots C, D, E, and the east 1/2 of B, Block 56, City
and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on May 23, 1998
City of Aspen Account
•
•
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 123 WEST FRANCIS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 8, 1998 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Jake Vickery requesting approval
of a proposed Subdivision Exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is located
at 123 West Francis Street, and is described as Lots C, D, E, and the east 1/2 of B, Block 56, City
and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Julie Ann Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5100.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on May 23, 1998
City of Aspen Account
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Oo-v-
0
RESOLUTION NO. 1
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 123 W. FRANCIS
STREET.
WHEREAS, Jake Vickery, with the permission of the property owners,
Harold Quam, Veronica Martin, Carol Quam, and Lorne Crumley, submitted
Conceptual Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
for approval of the site specific development plan at 123 W. Francis, Lots C,D,E,
and the east 1/2 of B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Conceptual Development plans included a request for
approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, creating two legally separate parcels,
each of which has a development right; and
WHEREAS, City Council approved Ordinance #49, Series of 1995,
creating a procedure for the creation of a Historic Landmark Lot Split on
November 13, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the development of all lots created pursuant to Ordinance
#49, Series of 1995, shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split meets the
requirements of Section 7-1003(A)(5) of the Land Use Regulations of the City of
Aspen as follows:
1. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the
Pitkin County Board of Commissioners or the Aspen 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
2. No more than two lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform
to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant
commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an
accessory dwelling unit. When there is demolition on the property which
makes it subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 7, Replacement
Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede these
requirements, and
3. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously
the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot
split" exemption pursuant to Section 8-104(c)(1)(a), and
4. A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded 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 article and growth management allocation pursuant to Article 8; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split meets the following
standards:
1. The original parcel is between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size
and is located in the R-6 zone district, and
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, and
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.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the
Conceptual Development proposal for 123 W. Francis, including a Historic
Landmark Lot Split creating two legally separate parcels of 5,250 sq.ft. each, as
shown on the attached site plans, meets the development review standards
described in Section 24-7-701(D)of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to
Ordinance #49, Series of 1995, and specifically to Section 7-1003(a)(5), Lot
Split Exemptions of the Land Use Regulations, Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, hereby approves a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 123 W.
Francis, Lots C,D,E, and the east 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the proposed development plan
from Final review and approvals required by this approval of the general rules,
regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and
approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
•
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 4
Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or
liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution,
and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at a special
meeting on January 2, 1996.
By__�
Donnelley Erdman, Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission
ATTEST:
Kathy StAckland
Assistant City Clerk
ORDINANCE No.
(SERIES OF 1998)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT
123 WEST FRANCIS STREET
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, Jake Vickery, has requested to split the 10,500 square
foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots of 5,250 square feet each;
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 January 2, 1996 and
recommended approval; 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:
0
•
1. 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 1, above, the City Council does
hereby grant a subdivision exemption for 123 West Francis 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/westerly lot 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;
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 4,170 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 two legally separate parcels of 5,250 square feet
each. The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on
the plat, as a plat note.
•
•
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 with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council.
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 day of ,
1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen
(15) 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/aspen/hpc/cases/lotsplit/ 123wford. doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director [Acting HPO
RE: 123 W. Francis Street- Extension of conceptuarroval
DATE: May 13, 1998
i O SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on May 24,
1995. 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.
A one year extension was granted on May 8, 1996, and again in January 1997,
allowing the extension until May 24, 1998. At this time the applicant, Jake
Vickery, requests HPC approval for an additional one-year extension of
conceptual approval.
The letter requesting this extension is attached for your review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval
for 123 W. Francis Street (Lot B) be extended until May 13, 1999.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend conceptual approval for 123
W. Francis Street (Lot B) to May 13, 1999."
•
"/V ��O�s
�l✓OPML t f De, PT
Cl�'1 of A5Pew
f i SPA rU J �d _
op 6.�7r C¢ P-/7
Gv�S i r72 A-fV ClJ i� f2 A-
l Z ylrt ctvl -rHs 7
•
0,TtYJ 51 m
/,3�/Z�
pp D�
RCHITECT
kVICC7KERY
100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 03
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
ASPEN. COLORAD081612
TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE
( 9 7 0) 9 2 5- 3 6 6 0
11
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 123 W. Francis, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Resolution No. 1,
Series of 1996, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: January 2, 1996
SUMMARY: HPO reviewed this project at a public hearing and granted
Conceptual approval, as amended, on October 25, 1995, including the proposed
lot split. Because City Council only passed Ordinance #49, Series of 1995,
(creating a provision allowing a "historic landmark lot split) on November 13th,
HPC did not actually have the authority to approve the lot split on October 25th.
Additionally, the lot split requires a public hearing.
At this time, Staff recommends HPC formalize their approval for the historic
landmark lot split at 123 W. Francis, as proposed in the attached plans, after
accepting any public input presented at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: " I move to approve the historic landmark lot
split at 123 W. Francis, lots C,D.E, and the east 1/2 of B, Block 56, City and
Townsite of Aspen, dividing the property into two legally separate parcels of
5,250 sq.ft. each. The entire fathering property has been approved as a historic
landmark."
Exhibit:
Resolution No. 1, Series of 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 123 W. Francis Street- Extension of conceptual approval
DATE: May 8, 1996
SUMMARY: This project received conceptual development approval on May 24,
1995. Section 26.72.010 (17)(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, Jake Vickery, requests HPC approval for a one-year
extension of conceptual approval. The intention is to file a final development
application for the next HPC meeting, so the extension is a backup measure.
The conceptual review packet is attached for your review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual development approval
for 123 W. Francis Street be extended until May 24, 1997.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to extend conceptual approval for 123
W. Francis Street to May 24, 1997."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: October 25, 1995
RE: 123 W. Francis, request for approval of alternative conceptual
development plan, PUBLIC HEARING
HPC granted conceptual approval for the redevelopment at 123 W. Francis
Street on May 24, 1995 (minutes attached). At that time, the Commission
granted approval to relocate the existing historic house to the east and to
construct a new house adjacent to it. The Commission discussed a proposed
code amendment which would allow a lot split so that each unit could be
separately owned. The historic house was to sit on a 4,500 sq.ft. lot and the new
house was to be built on 6,000 sq.ft. (original parcel size is 10,500 sq.ft.)
Issues #1 and #2
The applicant has been attempting to find a buyer for the new house. At this
time at least two parties are interested, one of whom prefers the site plan as
approved by HPC and one of whom has proposed a new alternative, which
locates the historic house to the west of the lot and places the new house on the
east. In addition, in both cases, the applicant now wishes to divide the original
parcel into two equally sized lots of 5,250 sq.ft.
The applicant requests HPC approval for the revised site plan, with the option to
place the historic house on either the east or west half of the parcel. Justification
for the change in lot size and location of the historic building are addressed in
the applicant's letter (attached), but in essence, the equal division of the lots
relieves most of the setback encroachments which were previously created and,
if the historic house is located to the west, places two historic buildings next to
each other and gives the applicant the ability to retain an existing shed (which
HPC has approved for demolition) in place if he so desires.
Attached is a copy of a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommending the City adopt a "Historic Landmark Lot Split" provision, as
discussed by HPC in relation to this project. The resolution allows all HPC
incentives to be available to the lot which contains the historic structure, but
requires the new parcel to conform to all area and bulk requirements (except for
those allowed under cottage infill for adu's), even though both parcels will be
considered a historic landmark. In the proposal before you, under both "Option
A and B," assuming that the lot split is allowed, no variances are needed for the
entire project except for a height variance to allow 16' to the midpoint of the
garage/adu (approved on May 24), possibly a rear yard setback variance for the
adu to be dealt with in the future, and a parking variance of one space(more
info. below).
Under "Option B," if the applicant chooses to retain the existing shed, variances
needed are:
5' rear lot line
5' east lot line (interior lot line)
4' west lot line for a lightwell
If the "Historic Landmark Lot Split" is not approved by City Council, the applicant
will be subject to the setback requirements for a 10,500 sq.ft. lot (which requires
much larger sideyards than a smaller lot), therefore in addition to the
abovementioned variances, the following are needed:
10' on the east and west sideyards
26' for the combined sideyards
5' rear yard variance for a balcony (new house)
combined front and rear yard variance of 13' (old house)
5' rear yard variance for an existing shed, if the applicant elects to
keep it
4' west setback variance for a lightwell
(These are similar to what was approved on May 24.)
Issue #3
The proposed development creates nine bedrooms on site, therefore nine
parking spaces are required. The applicant is also proposing two adu's, and,
although typically not required to have parking spaces, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has requested one space be provided for the adu in the historic
structure. The applicant prefers not to provide this space because, if the historic
house is on the east side of the property a grove of aspen trees will be affected,
and if the historic house is on the west side, the applicant may be forced to
remove a shed he is considering retaining.
Of the nine spaces required by the bedrooms, HPC has already waived 5
(leaving four spaces on site). The applicant now requests that HPC waive one
more space so that even with the one required by PandZ for the adu, the net
number of parking spaces on site if 4.
Issue #4
There are three large conifers at the front of the site. In the conceptual review of
this project, HPC made a condition that the trees could not be relocated. On
June 14, the applicant approached the HPC to request reconsideration to be
able to move the smallest tree, because it is directly in front of the new house.
The Commission agreed to allow the tree to be placed further back on the lot,
probably between the two houses.
At this time, the applicant would like to request approval to relocate the tree off of
the site entirely. The Red Brick School has already agreed to take the tree and
place it along their streetfrontage. The applicant's argument is that once the tree
is moved off of the front of his lot, it does little for the streetscape, but does
interfere with the established building envelopes and takes from the limited
amount of open space available on the site.
Issue #5
The conceptual approval included a condition that no fence could ever be built
between the two structures because the historic house was only going to be 2.5'
away from the lot line between them. Since this condition is relieved by splitting
the lots equally, the applicant would like this condition removed.
Issue #6
Partial demolition and on -site relocation reviews are essentially a one -meeting
process and do not require a public hearing. Because HPC voted at the
conceptual approval to allow the historic house to be moved on the site and
portions of it to be demolished, the applicant would like permission to act on
those portions of the project immediately. The current location of the house,
straddling the potential property line, makes it difficult for a potential buyer to
gain financing. The applicant would like the option to move the house in either
direction (east or west) if HPC approves that change in the site plan. The
applicant must provide a relocation and bracing plan and bond before submitting
for building permit.
Issue #7
Section 4 of the attached P&Z resolution requires that HPC approve the division
of a historic landmark parcel into two lots under the "Historic Landmark Lot Split"
provision. At this time, HPC is asked to formally approve the division of this
parcel into two equally sized lots of 5,250 sq.ft.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the following:
1. Allow the locations of the structures to be as shown on either revised site
plan "Option A or B."
2. To grant the following setbacks to the property:
Under "Options A and B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is
approved:
A height variance to allow 16' to the 1/3 point of the roof of the adu
unit on the new house
s a
A rear yard setback variance of 5' if the applicant elects to keep the
existing shed
A east (interior) sideyard setback variance of 5' for the shed
A 4' variance on the west sideyard for a lightwell
Under "Options A and B" as represented to HPC if the lot split is not
approved:
10' on the east and west sideyards
26' on the combined sideyards
5' rear yard variance for a balcony on the new house
13' combined front and rear yard on the old house
4' west sideyard variance for a lightwell
3. Allow the tree to be relocated to the Red Brick School. The Parks Dept.
requires a bond to ensure that the tree will survive or be replaced in kind.
4. Remove the condition that no fence may be built between the structures.
5. Allow the partial demolition as approved on May 24 and the relocation of
the historic structure as shown in either "Option A or B" to proceed
immediately. The applicant must submit a relocation and bracing plan
and a bond (Staff recommends $10,000) before submitting for building
permit.
6. Formally approve the splitting of this landmark parcel into two smaller
parcels of 5,250 sq.ft. each. Both parcels will be considered historic
landmarks and will be subject to HPC review in perpetuity.
V4- L t I-L Q_
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Chairperson Linda Smisek opened the public hearing.
Any: This is a 10,500 sqft. lot and the historic house is in the
center of the lot. This application also involves the P&Z. They
would like to relocate the historic house and propose to do a lot
split creating a 4,500 and 6,000 sqft. lot. This is a code
amendment that would only be allowed for historic landmarks because
you are creating a non conforming lot you usually have to have two
6,000 sqft. lots and part of the idea is then less FAR would be
directed to the historic house and the 6,000 sqft. lot could be
developed as a normal 6,000 sqft. lot. The code amendment is not
under your purview but if you have comments P&Z needs to take them
into consideration. Even without the code amendment you would be
able to do two separate structures on this property. You can do
that on 9,000 sqft. or larger. The difference here is that
ownership can be attached to two separate people. The total FAR
for the lot is being held to the duplex FAR which is 4,170 sqft.
If these were two legal lots the total FAR would be about 6,000
sqft. and that is not what is being proposed under the code
amendment, they are restricting it to what the duplex would be to
the original site which is good. I am recommending HPC support the
landmark designation as it meets standard B, E, F.
CONCEPTUAL
Amy: We are being asked to review an addition to the historic
structure and a construction of an entirely new house. I find the
two designs compatible and sympathetic to the neighborhood and the
historic resource. I am interested in the resolution of the front
corner of the house. The house is essentially in its original
form. There is a front door that has been closed and you can see
bead board that was the roof of the porch inside a closet. The
proposal shows replacing the porch and building- on top of the
addition and it would really involve removing the roof. The
applicant is adding a minimal amount of space. The total addition
to the historic house is 587 sqft. and they are asking for a FAR
bonus of 500 sqft. so that they can add on.
Katherine Lee: What would the total FAR be on that lot?
Amy: 1450 plus the 500 bonus which is 1950 sqft. That does not
include the garage at 500 sqft. There are three outbuildings on the
property, barn, shed and a garage stall. The barn will be turned
and made into a garage stall. I feel that is an interesting
solution. One of the trees is proposed to be relocated. The house
has a FAR of about 2900 sqft. which is small than what is usually
allowed on a 6,000 sqft. lot. The applicant has revised the plans
slightly and added an octagonal element to address the street.
3
n
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Katherine Lee: What is the size of the second house?
Amy: $2,900. sqft. The project meets all the neighborhood
character guidelines. They are asking for a side yard setback and
it is on the interior. They are also asking for site coverage
variances of 5% on each lot. They want to keep the open space and
I support that. Also if you put an ADU above grade you get the
cottage infill variance of 5%. If they don't get the variance the
ADU will go into the basement and Staff supports that. They are
asking for parking variance of 5 spaces. I recommended tabling
because I did not have the new design to review. The issue of the
porch may not be resolved until a little demolition occurs.
Les: I am worried about someone coming in and saying my house is
not historic take it off the inventory.
Amy: That occurs when there is a lot split but we are designating
this from the start.
Greg Prickrell, architect presenting for Jake Vickery: One of the
ADU's is required and one was suggested.
Melanie: Visually the interior setback is on 2 1/2 feet. Someone
could go and put a fence up and then you have 2 1/2 feet to the
fence. Is there a way that you could get five feet.
Amy: Not unless we demolish part of the historic building. They
have created a 45 foot frontage.
Greg: You are not supposed to create non conforming lots.
Melanie: We are creating a squeeze in the past in allowing houses
to get close. Can't we build in a variance of a couple of feet.
I am opposed to only seeing 2 1/2 feet to the lot -line.
Amy: We could put in a condition of approval that no fence can be
built.
Susan: It seems to me that is destroying the character of the
neighborhood by squashing the houses together and loosing the side
yards.
Roger: If another developer comes in and buys the property what
is the maximum square he can put in with the two buildings?
Amy: He can build a duplex or two detached buildings or stay with
one building and add on.
Roger: If it is a duplex 4170 sqft. is the max and one per unit.
If the lot split is allowed what is the maximum square footage
allowed?
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Any: 4,170 sqft. plus 500 sqft. bonus from HPC.
Roger: By doing the lot split you will have 500 sqft. In your
opinion with the neighborhood does the lot split offer a better
project?
Amy: Yes, in my opinion. There used to be another house there and
this is re-establishing the neighborhood pattern.
Jake's wife Della presented their history of living in Aspen.
Greg Prickrell: The due diligence on the property terminates June
15th. We would like to know if HPC feels this project is viable.
We have done a- thorough investigation of the project. We desire
to landmark and we have broken down the massing into smaller scale
modules creating smaller ownership modules which preserves the
small scale of the neighborhood. We want to reduce the historical
forms to basics with the topology of a cross gable miners cottage.
Each historic part has to be evaluation for the extent and nature
of its historical value and contribution or detraction to the
character as a whole. There also has to be architectural
integrity. We want to put the new development on the adjacent
parcel. We want to add new accessory functions to accommodate
today's need to the cottage. We are asking for the 500 sqft. bonus
for two bedrooms above grade. Lot A will have the historic cottage
on it and we will utilize the outbuilding as part of the two car
garage with new construction. To the rear of the cottage we are
doing a second floor for a master bedroom. We are proposing an ADU
above the garage. On lot B, 129 W. Francis the ADU will be below
grade.
QUESTIONS
Roger: Why should we encourage the code amendment?
Amy: It is another incentive for landmarks, that you could do a
lot split even though it is less than 6,000 sqft. and have separate
ownership. It does not result in more FAR.
Katherine Lee, neighbor: There is a garage right across the alley
and I do not feel there is enough turning radius where you have
turned the shed.
Greg: I will check it.
Roger: I want to be clear on the code amendment?
Amy: It will include how the FAR will be distributed for each
area.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Martha: If the person sold the house could they get more FAR.
Amy: There would be no more FAR available.
Melanie: The other lot could come before us and ask for a FAR
bonus.
Amy: Yes they could but only if you found it compatible. You
could also state in this approval that that would not be allowed.
Greg: We are getting 250 sgft. reduction for doing the cottage
infill. If we were not doing the ADU we wouldn't need it.
Les: They could do the same thing with a PUD.
Roger: I would rather hear public comments before our comments.
Linda: We can change the agenda to reflect your concern.
Martha: I am concerned about the bulk of the\project.
Roger: By making it a landmark we can control the bulk and making
findings that the bulk is not compatible with the historic
structure.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
3 Brenda Bigelow: I live on the corner next to house B and I am here
representing the landlord. I feel much better knowing if it is
designated the board has more control of the size.
Roger: They could have asked for a setback and moved the house
closer to you and instead they moved it in.
Katherine Lee: The old house is moving east. Do you have to have
the ADU on the new house?
Amy: They are creating a new unit so they have to build an ADU for
this property.
Katherine Lee: Which is the more desirable of the two as it
creates more mass.
Amy: Only one creates mass as it is above grade the other is below
grade.
Martha: Except for cars and the impact to the neighborhood. 'Those
are considerations that should be discussed.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Melanie: It is a two bedroom ADU so the possibility exists that
two more cars will be there.
Amy: There is an income restriction but I do not know how many
people can live in one. They are small.
Della, owner: We are doing the ADU on our house for income to an
employee.
Roger: Are the new elevations sufficient information for Staff to
not have to table and we could grant conceptual?
Amy: I do not have any design issues with the project. I am more
concerned with the restoration aspects of the historic building.
Della: Jake is really concerned about the restoration himself.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Martha: My concern is the second story to the historic house.
I am not comfortable with the design and feel it detracts.
Roger: With the information so far I would encourage the code
amendment. I would also recommend that conceptual be approved with
conditions. The concern of the neighbor can be addressed by moving
the house forward and thus having enough turning radius. All the
design aspect are fine. We need to address the tree removal and
make sure that it can live. To address Martha's comments if the
trees are left alone you will hardly see the addition. The.impact
would be greater if the trees were not there. I would demand
restoration of the original right porch. I would also put the
window well someplace else possibly on the west side. Landscaping
between the house should be addressed in the motion.
Susan: I am also concerned about the second story and do not like
the height from the front view of the old house. I certainly
wouldn't want to see the trees moved. If there was another house
on the property it had to be a small house. I hate to see the
sideyards disappearing.
Amy: I totally agree with you but I would make the argument that
having a number of smaller structures is better than having a
structure with four times the mass added on which really disrupts
the rhythm.
Linda: I am in agreement with Roger on the front porch. When I
site visited it looked to me that 'someone in past history might
have taken on a border and that)entrancewas for that use and I
feel it has a lot of significance to the time and to the house.
I highly recommend that be restored and the lightwell moved further
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
back to give the ADU in the basement some space. I feel
comfortable with the massing and scale. I am a little concerned
about how satisfied a new owner will be with the new house plan and
what we will be up against. I feel Jake has done a good job with
coming up with new ideas and introducing a new concept for historic
preservation and restoration.
Les: I feel it is a good plan and it will work. I have difficulty
recommending the code amendment until I see it. I am not concerned
about a new buyer as they will have to work with us. Final will
not be easy as everyone has considerations such as the tower. If
there is not a worksession before final I don't want the applicant
coming in and saying we got conceptual now we need final. We are
granting conceptual with a lot of considerations.
Amy: There is an existing addition and it shows up on the 1904 map
and has the original windows and doors. There is a back porch and
we have debated whether it should be retained. It will not be
visible from the street but Linda made a good point recognizing the
boarding unit. We little by little are not going to have examples
of the evolution of an historic house. There has to be some way
to indicate that there was a one story element there.
Katherine Lee: I have been here 14 years and the entire back has
been changed so many times that I couldn't begin to tell you how
many. What are the side yard setback requirements?
Amy: In R6 you have to have 5 feet on each side with a combined
total of 15.
Katherine Lee: Is the new one 5 feet?
Greg: It is at 5 and 10.
Chairman Linda Smisek closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Roger moved to recommend landmark designation to Lot C,
D and E and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of
Aspen; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval as submitted to
include partial demolition of the rear addition as show by the
removal of the model at this meeting and that we grant the interior
sideyard setbacks and site coverage 5% variance on lot A and B as
requested with the following conditions for conceptual approval:
1) A worksession with a monitor will be held before final.
2) No moving of tree or trees on the front side of the property.
8
•
El
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
3) That the restoration of the right porch occur to as close as
possible to the original.
4) No fence of any kind either structural or landscape between
the interior division of the two properties if in fact
they are divided.
5) Study the rear garage access to determine if there is
sufficient space to enter and exit a garage on the alley.
If the study shows that the rearyard setback variance is
applicable then we will grant 2 feet on the rear and 3 on the
alley side.
6) That we grant the 500 sgft. FAR bonus to Lot A.
7) We waive the 5 parking spaces.
Motion second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - MINOR
Amy: We approved a lightwell in the back of city hall so that we
can build a basement. The basement will contain city council
meeting room and the Sister City meeting room. What is being
proposed on the south side is to cut the wall back and light would
drift down to the sister city room. There is a sidewalk and
traditionally you bring light into a lightwell and if you cut into
the sidewalk and relocate it you will put people right into where
the roof dumps snow off. I do not find this a compatible solution
as it does not respect the rhythm of the windows. Possibly this
could be a trade off of the basement as one of the rooms does not
have natural light. Someone has suggested a lightwell with block
glass across it and that would be my recommendation.
Les: This is a landmark building and I do not like what is going
on. I went to Breckenridge and they just finished their city hall
and it has no windows in the room and they did it on purpose. The
lighting was designed well and I talked with members of their
council and they indicated that their meetings actually work
better. They do not need the natural light for a city council
meeting with people distracting them from the outside etc.
Cris Caruso, Engineer: Council likes the feeling of the light
shining in the room. Council said if I could provide natural light
to that room they would consider having the present sister city
room moved to the basement with the council chambers otherwise they
are against it. If that doesn't occur we can use the space as
storage space or office space. It gets difficult working a full
week without natural light.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995
staff and or project monitor.
2) The historic house cannot be relocated even
temporarily.
3) HPC, Staff and monitor will need to look at samples of
stone veneer, brick and roofing materials.
4) The material between the window and the brick mold will
be of a substantial materials so that it will not
deteriorate and can be approved by Staff and monitor.
5) Clarify roof drainage problem with staff and monitor. If
an elevation or design changes are necessary applicant
must return to HPC.
6) Applicant may be allowed to remove the window on the
south side and replace it as he asked.
7 ) Applicant may be allowed to move the stairs as he has
asked on the west porch.
8) Applicant may be allowed to have or not have a door on
the south side to be determined by code.
Motion second by Melanie; all in favor, motion carries.
123 W. FRANCIS - WORRSESSION
Jake: At conceptual there was a condition that I could not remove
the tree and I am interested in moving it. A lot of the front
property line is obscured by trees. I had an expert look at this
tree and it will take the biggest caliber in the area and possibly
I will have to rent one from Denver. He assures me it can be moved
and will be out of the ground 20 minutes.
Sven: Where and why do you want it moved?
Jake: I was thinking of between the two houses .to buffer them.
The reason I am moving it is not to put it somewhere else it is to
get it out of the position it is. It blocks a portion of the front
and forms a barrier to the street which is neither good for the
streetscape or the house. We want houses to have a direct
connection to the street. We have gone to links to connect porch
elements to the street. One of the thoughts was that the trees
would mitigate the building but I feel the building will be a good
one and the tree is a barrier. I have to be able to anticipate
moving the tree in order to design the house. If.the tree stays
there I have to design the house in a different configuration.
20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995
Roger: You need to sell the lot and have someone pick up the
design. In this situation and any situation is the life in the
house going to orientate toward the street or orientate toward the
view of Aspen mountain which is to the south and east.
Realistically it will not orientate to the street.
Jake: I am already using the south L to sell this house and it is
an inverted house with the decks up above. I still do not want the
house to turn its back on the street. The tree is dead center in
the middle of the site. I truly love this site and the corner and
I want this house to have the relationship to the great
intersection that is there.
Melanie: Moving it over will allow you to do more with the front
of the house. -I would hate to see it moved off the street though
but can see where it is impacting the house. It is making the
house dark.
Roger: What about the far corner where the garage is.
Amy: The Parks Dept. will make him bond the tree to make sure it
will not die.
Roger: You want us to state that the tree can be moved.
Amy: I feel this is important as the house is not participating
in the street scape as is and you are denying the person of the
view of that wonderful neighborhood.
Martha: I have trees that are 35 years old now and if I could move
some I would and it is a problem if you don't look a head 35 years
from now. I am not sure if it is fair to lay down these hard
rules.
Jake: I can give the board more information.
Roger: A straw poll was taken and the board is in favor of moving
the tree.
Jake: The second issue is I am trying to crete more of a side yard
and to do that I have to destroy a portion of the historic house.
It is old but what is the historical value of the shed.
Linda: I feel it is really unique.
Sven: It makes the house what is a cross gable on a little
victorian as opposed to a little miners cottage and that is why I
would hate to get rid of it.
Linda: You could do something real creative with that.
21
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1995
Susan: I agree that something fun could be done.
Roger: I could be a double porch.
Jake: It is a very strange deal. It doesn't line up and the
windows are different.
Roger: It doesn't line with the cross gable.
Jake: The porch is in front of this piece which is 8 feet wide.
Amy: The front wall is historic but the other walls -are changed.
Roger: I would prefer that you left that and remove some of the
rear.
Jake: By not having that piece I can move the house over and
create a nice sideyard condition with regard to relationships.
Melanie: If you take the piece off can you have a larger side yard
setback.
Jake: I could and it would give me five feet. I would ten have
the total separation between the two structures of 15 feet. Even
if I moved it over 2 1/2 feet I could have 12 feet separating it.
Roger: Is anyone in favor of removing the addition. Straw poll
taken and board is not in favor of removing the addition.
939 E. COOPER - WORRSESSION
Bob Langley: I want to talk about moving the barn on E. Cooper
court project. I have a letter from Bill Bailey the house mover
and essentially it says in order to move the barn intact it would
require extensive bracing and even when it was moved because there
aren't right angles in there that when we put it on the foundation
to try and build inside of it there is a chance of collapsing. The
south wall is shorter than the north wall. When you put it on the
foundation it would tilt. We would like to move it a wall at a
time which will give us the opportunity to replace boards one at
a time and it would be much safer and cost efficient and preserve
the integrity of the structure. We would like to have your
approval to move it in sections..
Marsha Goshorn: Even if it stays on the same site it has the same
problems. It was built with scrap lumber. One corner is held up
by a tree stump.
22
rak
A C [
TO: AMY AMIDON
FROM: JAKE VICKERY
RE: 123/129 WEST FRANCIS
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1995
This letter is to document and describe possible amendments to the Conceptual
approval for 123/129 West Francis. This letter replaces and supersedes my letter of
October 4, 1995.
SUMMARY
Three optional revisions are proposed to the conceptual plans:
1. To "split" the lot into two equal sites, each 52N feet wide.
2. To move the Historical cottage to the Westerly site rather than the Easterly site.
3. A variance of one additional parking space for the Historical cottage.
These optional revisions are represented on the attached site plans entitled "OPTION A"
and "OPTION B". They have been initiated in response to the needs of a potential
buyer and are placed before HPC to see if they are acceptable should the applicant
chose to move forward under one of these options. The intention is to keep all other
approvals associated with the respective "Units" of the original configuration otherwise
intact and applicable. Further, these proposed revisions are a positive response to
some concerns raised at Conceptual and improve and are consistent with the
application as initially proposed.
1. SITE DIVISION
Instead of the 45 feet / 60 feet split contemplated in the original application (see
attached - similar to option "A"), the split is revised to be 52.5 feet / 52.5_ feet. HPC
required the front west porch be preserved which required the building mass of the
historical house to be the full 37 feet wide resulting in very narrow sideyards. The HPC
questioned the narrowness of the sideyards and suggested restudying them. This
increased site width for the historical cottage would provide more site area and a better
setting for the Historical resource.
The proposed "split" results in fewer and less severe variances and brings the project
more into conformance with the underlying zone requirements as well as proposed
provisions in the new Historical Lot Split Code Amendment as passed by P&Z.
2. UNIT SWITCH
)The second alternate revision change is to relocate the historical structure to the west
instead of to the east. Unit "A" and Unit "B" essentially switch places. This shift has the
following advantages:
This landmark structure and its neighboring landmark structure to the west will be next
to each other. Historical structures work best in sets of 2 or 3 and mutually support,
compliment, and protect each other. This location also protects the historical structure
from unknown development to the east at 111 West Francis.
Site specific studies show that this shift may provide as good or better sideyard
relationships and open space between structures and improved inter -play of massing
volumes and windows locations.
The secondary facade (East) of the 123 cottage is better exposed to the street.
3. ADDITIONAL PARKING VARIANCE
Further, P & Z wanted an additional designated parking space for the ADU
associated with the historical cottage. This additional space would require greater width
across the rear of the site. This space can be provided, however, due to the single
story nature of the existing cottage, we ask that HPC waive one additional space for the
old house to allow the second parking space to be assigned to the ADU. This is
requested on the basis of "more compatibility" to the historical structures and setting.
This variance would provide additional usable open space for the Historical structure
and greater preservation of the existing grove of aspen trees which is an strong
character element of the setting of this historical resource. An FAR exemption is not
available to this voluntary below grade ADU, therefore it does not result in any additional
floor area than would otherwise be allowed for this site. The allowable FAR of this site is
already significantly reduced below a lot of record which would still only need 2 parking
spaces. More important, from an HPC point of view this parking variance is also
conductive to maintaining the feel of the alley and alley fences and alley structures.
OFF -SITE TREE RELOCATION
In any event, the center spruce tree will need to be relocated off site. Adequate
space for the future growth of this tree can not be provided on site and meet other
preservation, site planning, and usable open space goals. The existing tree sits on the
"build -to" or "facade line" and is centered on the building site. The tree has no particular
historical importance. (George Washington did not sleep here!). In additional to two
very large street trees, there exists over thirty other trees on this site that will provide
excellent landscaping options. This issue was discussed in a worksession on June 14
concluding with a straw pole supporting moving the tree (albeit on -site). A permit has
been granted from the Parks Department allowing this tree to be relocated and donated
to the Red Brick School as a public street tree where it will be enjoyed by many people.
This relocation effort has been coordinated with the Red Brick school and they are very
appreciative of the contribution of this tree to this public property.
•
I �
I
wr.
T
rn
co
u�
H IRO
�,,
I
C�
�.
-%D
U
tZ
N�
z
go,
U R�
lei
f `U
�
l
oQ
o
oa
oa
x
.
a
•
00 FEET
is
�
Lam_• I
�
�z-r
z N
0
U
n
lilt
100 FEET
Az
'
4
rn
• it
w
o
•�
{------
�
I
� �
I I I
..11
-�
Z�
F���
U
__
to
Q
F
'
H Q
w
a
0
u
wM
100 FEET Cq
u
OU
•
100 FEET
or
L
CD
In
Li 0 0
I
•
is
Resolution 95-
A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, Colorado
Recommending to City Council an amendment to Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code, Land Use Regulations,
to Create a Procedure for the creation of
Historic Landmark Lot Splits by
amending Sections 7-1003(A)(5) Subdivision Exemption,
8-105(A)(2)(e) GMQS Exemption, 5-201(D)
Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and Section
7-607 Development in an H Historic Overlay District or
Involving a Historic Landmark ^
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides
that amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions,
or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from Jake Vickery
an application for an amendment to the land use regulations, and
reviewed and recommended for approval, certain text amendments to
Chapter 24 relating to Sections 7-1003(A)(5) Subdivision Exemption,
8-105 (A) (2) (e) GMQS Exemption, 5-201(D) Medium Density Residential
(R-6) zone district, and Section 7-607 Development in an H Historic
Overlay District or Involving a Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
proposed text amendment on August 8th, September 5th, and September
19, 1995 at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 5-1; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
text amendment will allow and promote compatibility of zone
districts and land uses with existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and
purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further finds
that the applicant's request will:
o provide a historic preservation incentive to create non-
conforming sized parcels and allow fee simple ownership
of these lots;
o be available to approximately 21 parcels in the R-6 zone
district;
o permit a lot split between 9,000 sq.ft. and 12,000
sq.ft., in the R-6 zone district, with Planning Director
approval;
o provide the Historic Preservation Committee all physical
planning review authority over both parcels created in
the Historic Landmark Lot Split;
o permit the Historic Preservation Committee to grant
historic variances to the parcel that contains the
historic landmark, no variances will be permitted on
parcel proposed for the new residence; and
o provide an incentive to Historic Landmarks by not
restricting the number of these lot splits per year, nor
by taking them out of the specified growth pool.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
Section 7-1003 "Subdivision Exemption" of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
recommended to be amended by the addition of a new section (A)(5),
to read as follows:
5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is
a designated historic landmark for the development of one
K
•
•
new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot
Split shall meet the requirements of Section 7-
1003 (A) (2) , Section 8-105 (A) (2) (e) , Section 7-607 and
the following standards:
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.
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.
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 structure.
Section 2•
Section 8-105 "GMQS Exemption" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be
amended by the inclusion of a new paragraph 8-105 (A) (2) (e) which
shall read as follows:
e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new
single family dwelling on a lot created through a
Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-
1003 (A) (5) .
Section 3
Section 5-201 "Medium Density Residential (R-6)" of Chapter
24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
recommended to be amended by repealing and reenacting the following
Sections to 5-201(D):
1. Minimum lot size (square feet),: 16, 000. For lots created
by Section 8-105 (A) (2) (e) Historic Landmark Lot Split:
3,000.
3
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by
Section 8-105(A)(2)(e) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30.
Section 4
Article 7 "Development Review Standards" of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
recommended to be amended by the addition of Section 7-607 to
"Development in an H, Historic Overlay District or involving a
Historic Landmark" to read:
A. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots
created pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5) shall be
reviewed by HPC at a public hearing.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular
meeting on September 19, 1995.
Attest:
Sharon Carrillo,
Deputy City Clerk
reso.apz.textamend.vickery
4
Planning and Zoning Commission:
Sara Garton,
Chair
12--: �/)-2,9 wC-,s-r I:- W-ANc(s
,4 ►'� v be CCn czP 7v A- L,
LI4'wr weL1.s
1 ZfF- AIN T::,�
!i
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 123 W. Francis Street, Landmark designation, Conceptual
Review, Relocation and Partial Demolition, and Special
Review to exceed 85% of the allowable F.A.R.
DATE: May 24, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation, conceptual
review, relocation and partial demolition of existing structures
and special review under ordinance #35 for the property at 123 W.
Francis Street.
The house, the Mathews House, was built in 1888. Three
outbuildings are found on the property.
The project will also require review for two accessory dwelling
units and a gmqs exemption. This will occur at Planning and Zoning
Commission.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
LOCATION: 123 W. Francis Street, Lots C,D, and E, and the East 1/2
of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three -step
process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public
hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation
Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at
second reading.
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land
Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation,
requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one
of the following standards:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly
identified or associated with a person or an event of
historical significance to the cultural, social or
political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the
United States.
Response: This standard is not met.
1
B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct
or of traditional Aspen character.
Response: The Mathews house is a simple Victorian
miner's cottage with some alterations. An addition has
been made at the rear of the structure and there has been
some alteration of the northwest corner of the house.
Lt essentially retains the original footprint and a
number of original features including windows and
decorative doors.
From historic maps, the house appears to have some
features, such as two front porches and entries, which
are not common to other local historic resources.
C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a
significant or unique architectural type or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a
significant work of an architect whose individual work
has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: The architect or builder is unknown.
E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
Response: The surrounding neighborhood contains a number
of significant historic structures, Aspen Landmarks, and
National Register of Historic Places properties. This
house has had deferred maintenance, but can be
rehabilitated to further contribute to the character of
this block.
F. Community Character: The structure or site is
critical to the preservation of the character of the
Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of
size, location and architectural similarity to other
structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: This site is representative of the modest
scale, style and character of homes constructed during
the mining era, the community's primary period of
2
historic significance.
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 7-601 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 5%, 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
5-510(B) (2) .
Response: This historic house has suffered long-term
deferred maintenance and some incompatible changes in
materials. Beneath these changes the original_ house is
almost completely intact, inside and out. The applicant
has the opportunity to discover the original character
of the structure and restore it.
The property is 10,500 sq.ft. Currently, the code allows
two dwelling units to be constructed on a property of
this size. The units would have to be owned by one
\ person or could be condominiumized. The applicant is
pursuing a code amendment at P&Z and City Council to
allow a lot split in such a case for historic landmark
properties. The lot split will allow a more appropriate
distribution of the allowed F.A.R. for the site,
resulting,in a smaller addition to the historic resource.
The applicant must have HPC approval to relocate the
historic house in order to make the project work, but
this action will not result in any greater development
rights than are currently. allowed. The proposed code
3
amendment specifies that in these cases, the maximum
allowable F.A.R. for the parcel will be the duplex F.A.R.
(4,170 sq.ft.) Usually F.A.R. would be calculated for
each individual lot that is created (here a 4,500 sq.ft.
lot and a 6,000 sq.ft. lot) instead of looking at the
parcel as a whole. This would result in a net F.A.R. of
6,060 sq.ft. as opposed to the duplex F.A.R. of 4,170
sq.ft. used in this project.
Staff has no concerns with the compatibility of the
addition to the historic structure or with the new
structure.
From examinations of historic maps and site visits, it
appears that a significant alteration has been made to
the northwest corner of the house. Originally there was
a second front porch here. The back wall of the porch
appears to still be in place, along with the original
front door: Changes have been made in the roofline and
the porch has been enclosed. Staff feels strongly that
the applicant should determine the original configuration
of this area and restore it. The house appears to be a
somewhat unusual design, no other examples of which exist
in Aspen. The applicant does show a lightwell in this
location and reconstruction of the porch may cause some
problems with the basement floor plan.
An early addition exists at the rear of the building and
a rear porch has been removed. The applicant means to
restore the porch, but will demolish at least the roof
of the rear addition in order to add a second story.
Staff can support the addition of new space in this
location, but recommends that the applicant allow the
original one story form to continue to read. This is
accomplished to some extent in the proposed design.
In terms of the restoration of original materials, the
applicant proposes to side the structure with clapboards.
It is unclear at this time if the original clapboards
still exist under the asphalt siding and what condition
they may be in. Original windows should be restored
where possible and the original front doors and porch
details should be retained.
The existing house has a fairly large footprint. With
the addition of new living space and a garage, the
applicant requires a 5% site coverage variance. This is
available as a landmark preservation incentive. The
applicant proposes to retain the historic barn, but will
demolish or give away the garage that sits at the front
of the site. The historic barn will be converted into
one bay of a two car garage. The outbuilding will still
In
read as a separate form as there are breaks between it
and the rest of the building.
The applicant also requests a side yard setback variance
of 2.5' on the interior lot line. This is necessary due
to the width of the existing house. The overall parking
requirement for the site is 9 spaces. The applicant
requests a waiver of 5 spaces. Since the application was
submitted, the code has been changed to require only 2
spaces per unit, therefore the waive would be in line
with new regulations. A 500 sq.ft. F.A.R. bonus is
requested in order to make the historic structure a more
livable unit. The original house is 1,363 sq. ft., and
the total addition would be 587 sq.ft.
The existing structure is not easily viewable from the
street due to large trees on the property. It will be
more visible after its relocation. The applicant also
proposes to relocate the smallest of the front three
trees to allow the new structure to be viewed from the
street as well. Alternative floor plans for Lot B (the
new unit) have been provided by the applicant, showing
an octagonal element at the front of the structure. This
is intended to offer a connection between the building
and the street. Elevations will be provided at the
meeting.
The applicant requests a 5% site coverage variance for
this structure as part of the Cottage Infill Program.
This program encourages "over the garage" A.D.U.'s.
Without this variance, the applicant intends to place the
A.D.U. below grade.
If it is possible to relocate the westernmost tree, the
new house will be moved forward slightly to glign with
the neighboring structures.
2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the
parcel proposed for development.
Response: The parcel is surrounded by inventoried
properties, historic landmarks and National Register
structures. The applicant has made a very strong effort
to respect existing development by stepping the new house
away from the adjacent historic landmark. This project
will contribute to the historic character of this area.
3. Standard: The proposed development enhancEes 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 structure should be considered very
significant as an example of a fairly unaltered historic
resource and of unusual details and form. The proposal
should protect these characteristics and improve the
physical condition of the structure.
The existing outbuildings at the rear of the property
appear to be original, but have new board and batten
siding. They are both to be retained but relocated. The
garage at the front of the site is not original to the
property. The applicant proposes to demolish it.
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: Minimal demolition is proposed and the project
will involve significant restoration effort.
ON -SITE RELOCATION
1. Standard: The relocation activity is demonstrated to be
the best preservation method for the character and
integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity
of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will
not be diminished due to the relocation.
Response: The relocation and resulting development is
preferable to adding approximately four time the existing
square footage onto the historic house.
2. Standard: The structure has been demonstrated to be
capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the
relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be
submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the
soundness of the structure proposed for relocation.
Response: The applicant must submit a structural report
for Final review, or prior to applying for a building
permit.
3. Standard: A relocation plan shall be submitted,
including posting a bond or other financial security with
the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to
insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if
required) of•the structure, site preparation and
infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be
prepared in advance of the physical relocation.
Response: The applicant must submit a relocation plan
0
1.
2.
and bond prior to Final review or prior to applying for
a building permit.
PARTIAL DEMOLITION
Standard: The partial demolition is required for the
renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the
structure.
Response: Minimal demolition is proposed. As discussed
above, the rear addition to the historic struct>>.re should
be preserved in form as much as possible.
The existing garage should be salvaged in whatever way
possible for use on another site.
Standard: -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: Only a limited amount of demolition will
occur, at the rear of the structure.
B. Impacts on the architectural character of 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 architectural character and integrity of
the historic resource will be preserved through the new
development, which is of a similar mass and kale and
which is placed to the rear of the structure.
SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXCEED 85% OF THE ALLOWED F.A.R.
This project is located in the West End, therefore both the General
Guidelines (Chapter 1) and the specific guidelines for the West End
apply.
Staff finds that the proposed project is in compliance with the
Neighborhood Character Guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any
alternatives:
7
of the following
•
•
1)
Approve
the
Minor
Development application as
submitted.
2)
Approve
the
Minor
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 Minor Development approval finding that the
application does not meet the Development Review
Standards.
Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC approve Landmark Designation
of Lot G, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that
standards B, E-and F are met.
Staff recommends that HPC table conceptual review with the request
that the applicant provide new elevations for the structure on Lot
B and that the applicant document the previous appearance of the
northwest corner of the historic structure and provide for its
restoration. Staff further recommends that HPC subsequently find
that the project meets all applicable standards and requests for
variances should be granted.
E-1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24 1995
Amy: The only thing I can think of are the old build boards.
Les: We want mixed uses in an historic building and we have to
figure out a way for that to happen.
Roger: You need to go to the landlord and have the awnings
replaced as you say they do not work.
Sandy: The city will not replace them.
Roger: I would inquire about an interior lighted sign that would
show.
Sandy: I can't use neon.
Roger: Maybe you could secure a base material and the sign would
be painted to it and the base material would attach to the window
frame. The base of the sign would have relief off the building and
attach to the window frame.
Sandy: I have talked to people about signage.
Linda: You are referring to lettering on a wood piece and setting
it against the window so that it can be removed. The Board objects
to painted lettering on the building.
Sandy: If the stone wasn't already painted I wouldn't consider it.
Linda: We are concerned about the integrity of the historic
building and what is in keeping with the building.
Sandy: I even thought of wiring out behind the awning that would
shine back into the gallery but was told by the electrician that
that was not a good idea. I could use the other window that is at
an angle to the door.
Les: Bill Drueding is the last work on sign codes. I feel one or
two of the members could work with the applicant and make sure all
he options are looked at and we can do a site visit.
Amy: I also feel we should do a site visit. This is only a staff
signoff.
Les: We can also address the stage door at the same site visit.
123 W. FRANCIS - CD - LANDMARK - PH
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24 1995
Chairperson Linda Smisek opened the public hearing.
Amy: This is a 10,500 sqft. lot and the historic house is in the
center of the lot. This application also involves the P&Z. They
would like to relocate the historic house and propose to do a lot
split creating a 4,500 and 6,000 sqft. lot. This is a code
amendment that would only be allowed for historic landmarks because
you are creating a non conforming lot you usually have to have two
6,000 sqft. lots and part of the idea is then less FAR would be
directed to the historic house and the 6,000 sqft. lot could be
developed as a normal 6,000 sqft. lot. The code amendment is not
under your purview but if you have comments P&Z needs to take them
into consideration. Even without the code amendment you would be
able to do two -.separate structures on this property. You can do
that on 9,000 sqft. or larger. The difference here is that
ownership can be attached to two separate people. The total FAR
for the lot is being held to the duplex FAR which is 4,170 sqft.
If these were two legal lots the total FAR would be about 6,000
sqft. and that is not what is being proposed under the code
amendment, they are restricting it to what the duplex would be to
the original site which is good. I am recommending HPC support the
landmark designation as it meets standard B, E, F.
CONCEPTUAL
Amy: We are being asked to review an addition to the historic
structure and a construction of an entirely new house. I find the
two designs compatible and sympathetic to the neighborhood and the
historic resource. I am interested in the resolution of the front
corner of the house. The house is essentially in its original
form. There is a front door that has been closed and you can see
bead board that was the roof of the porch inside a closet. The
proposal shows replacing the porch and building on top of the
addition and it would really involve removing the roof. The
applicant is adding a minimal amount of space. The total addition
to the historic house is 587 sqft. and they are asking for a FAR
bonus of 500 sqft. so that they can add on.
Katherine Lee: What would the total FAR be on that lot?
Amy: 1450 plus the 500 bonus which is 1950 sqft. That does not
include the garage at 500 sqft. There are three outbuildings on the
property, barn, shed and a garage stall. The barn will be turned
and made into a garage stall. I feel that is an interesting
solution. One of the trees is proposed to be relocated. The house
has a FAR of about 2900 sqft. which is small than what is usually
allowed on a 6,000 sqft. lot. The applicant has revised the plans
slightly and added an octagonal element to address the street.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Katherine Lee: What is the size of the second house?
Amy: $2,900. sqft. The project meets all the neighborhood
character guidelines. They are asking for a side yard setback and
it is on the interior. They are also asking for site coverage
variances of 5% on each lot. They want to keep the open space and
I support that. Also if you put an ADU above grade you get the
cottage infill variance of So. If they don't get the variance the
ADU will go into the basement and Staff supports that. They are
asking for parking variance of 5 spaces. I recommended tabling
because I did not have the new design to review. The issue of the
porch may not be resolved until a little demolition occurs.
Les: I am worried about someone coming in and saying my house is
not historic take it off the inventory.
Amy: That occurs when there is a lot split but we are designating
this from the start.
Greg Prickrell, architect presenting for Jake Vickery: One of the
ADU's is required and one was suggested.
Melanie: Visually the interior setback is on 2 1/2 feet. Someone
could go and put a fence up and then you have 2 1/2 feet to the
fence. Is there a way that you could get five feet.
Amy: Not unless we demolish part of the historic building. They
have created a 45 foot frontage.
Greg: You are not supposed to create non conforming lots.
Melanie: We are creating a squeeze in the past in allowing houses
to get close. Can't we build in a variance of a couple of feet.
I am opposed to only seeing 2 1/2 feet to the lot line.
Amy: We could put in a condition of approval that no fence can be
built.
Susan: It seems to me that is destroying the character of the
neighborhood by squashing the houses together and loosing the side
yards.
Roger: If another developer comes in and buys the property what
is the maximum square he can put in with the two buildings?
Amy: He can build a duplex or two detached buildings or stay with
one building and add on.
Roger: If it is a duplex 4170 sqft. is the max and one per unit.
If the lot split is allowed what is the maximum square footage
allowed?
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Amy: 4,170 sgft. plus 500 sgft. bonus from HPC.
Roger: By doing the lot split you will have 500 sgft. In your
opinion with the neighborhood does the lot split offer a better
project? .
Amy: Yes, in my opinion. There used to be another house there and
this is re-establishing the neighborhood pattern.
Jake's wife Della presented their history of living in Aspen.
Greg Prickrell: The due diligence on the property terminates June
15th. We would like to know if HPC feels this project is viable.
We have done a thorough investigation of the project. We desire
to landmark and we have broken down the massing into smaller scale
modules creating smaller ownership modules which preserves the
small scale of the neighborhood. We want to reduce the historical
forms to basics with the topology of a cross gable miners cottage.
Each historic part has to be evaluation for the extent and nature
of its historical value and contribution or detraction to the
character as a whole. There also has to be architectural
integrity. We want to put the new development on the adjacent
parcel. We want to add new accessory functions to accommodate
today' s need to the cottage. We are asking for the 500 sgft . bonus
for two bedrooms above grade. Lot A will have the historic cottage
on it and we will utilize the outbuilding as part of the two car
garage with new construction. To the rear of the cottage we are
doing a second floor for a master bedroom. We are proposing an ADU
above the garage. On lot B, 129 W. Francis the ADU will be below
grade.
QUESTIONS
Roger: Why should we encourage the code amendment?
Amy: It is another incentive for landmarks, that you could do a
lot split even though it is less than 6,000 sqft. and have separate
ownership. It does not result in more FAR.
Katherine Lee, neighbor: There is a garage right across the alley
and I do not feel there is enough turning radius where you have
turned the shed.
Greg: I will check it.
Roger: I want to be clear on the code amendment?
Amy: It will include how the FAR will be distributed for each
area.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
Martha: If the person sold the house could they get more FAR.
Amy: There would be no more FAR available.
Melanie: The other lot could come before us and ask for a FAR
bonus.
Amy: Yes they could but only if you found it compatible. You
could also state in this approval that that would not be allowed.
Greg: We are getting 250 sgft. reduction for doing the cottage
inf ill. If we were not doing the ADU we wouldn't need it.
Les: They could do the same thing with a PUD.
Roger: I would rather hear public comments before our comments.
Linda: We can change the agenda to reflect your concern.
Martha: I am concerned about the bulk of the project.
Roger: By making it a landmark we can control the bulk and making
findings that the bulk is not compatible with the historic
structure.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Brenda Bigelow: I live on the corner next to house B and I am here
representing the landlord. I feel much better knowing if it is
designated the board has more control of the size.
Roger: They could have asked for a setback and moved the house
closer to you and instead they moved it in.
Katherine Lee: The old house is moving east. Do you have to have
the ADU on the new house?
Amy: They are creating a new unit so they have to build an ADU for
this property.
Katherine Lee: Which is the more desirable of the two as it
creates more mass.
Amy: Only one creates mass as it is above grade the other is below
grade.
Martha: Except for cars and the impact to the neighborhood. Those
are considerations that should be discussed.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24 1995
Melanie: It is a two bedroom ADU so the possibility exists that
two more cars will be there.
Amy: There is an income restriction but I do not know how many
people can live in one. They are small.
Della, owner: We are doing the ADU on our house for income to an
employee.
Roger: Are the new elevations sufficient information for Staff to
not have to table and we could grant conceptual?
Amy: I do not have any design issues with the project. I am more
concerned with the restoration aspects of the historic building.
Della: Jake is really concerned about the restoration himself.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Martha: My concern is the second story to the historic house.
I am not comfortable with the design and feel it detracts.
Roger: With the information so far I would encourage the code
amendment. I would also recommend that conceptual be approved with
conditions. The concern of the neighbor can be addressed by moving
the house forward and thus having enough turning radius. All the
design aspect are fine. We need to address the tree removal and
make sure that it can live. To address Martha's comments if the
trees are left alone you will hardly see the addition. The impact
would be greater if the trees were not there. I would demand
restoration of the original right porch. I would also put the
window well someplace else possibly on the west side. Landscaping
between the house should be addressed in the motion.
Susan: I am also concerned.about the second story and do not like
the height from the front view of the old house. I certainly
wouldn't want to see the trees moved. If there was another house
on the property it had to be a small house. I hate to see the
sideyards disappearing.
Amy: I totally agree with you but I would make the argument that
having a number of smaller structures is better than having a
structure with four times the mass added on which really disrupts
the rhythm.
Linda: I am in agreement with Roger on the front porch. When I
site visited it looked to me that someone in past history might
have taken on a border and that entrance was for that use and I
feel it has a lot of significance to the time and to the house.
I highly recommend that be restored and the lightwell moved further
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
back to give the ADU in the basement some space. I feel
comfortable with the massing and scale. I am a little concerned
about how satisfied a new owner will be with the new house plan and
what we will be up against. I feel Jake has done a good job with
coming up with new ideas and introducing a new concept for historic
preservation and restoration.
Les: I feel it is a good plan and it will work. I have difficulty
recommending the code amendment until I see it. I am not concerned
about a new buyer as they will have to work with us. Final will
not be easy as everyone has considerations such as the tower. If
there is not a worksession before final I don't want the applicant
coming in and saying we got conceptual now we need final. We are
granting conceptual with a lot of considerations.
Amy: There is an existing addition and it shows up on the 1904 map
and has the original windows and doors. There is a back porch and
we have debated whether it should be retained. It will not be
visible from the street but Linda made a good point recognizing the
boarding unit. We little by little are not going to have examples
of the evolution of an historic house. There has to be some way
to indicate that there was a one story element there.
Katherine Lee: I have been here 14 years and the entire back has
been changed so many times that I couldn't begin to tell you how
many. What are the side yard setback requirements?
Amy: In R6 you have to have 5 feet on each side with a combined
total of 15.
Katherine Lee: Is the new one 5 feet?
Greg: It is*at 5 and 10.
Chairman Linda Smisek closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Roger moved to recommend landmark designation to Lot C,
D and E and the East 1/2 of Lot B, Block 56, City and Townsite of
Aspen; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Roger moved to grant conceptual approval as submitted to
include partial demolition of the rear addition as show by the
removal of the model at this meeting and that we grant the interior
sideyard setbacks and site coverage 5% varianceS on lot A and B as
requested with the following conditions for conceptual approval:
1) A worksession with a monitor will be held before final.
2) No moving of tree or trees on the front side of the property.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995
3) That the restoration of the right porch occur to as close as
possible to the original.
4) No fence of any kind either structural or landscape between
the interior division of the two properties if in fact
they are divided:
5) Study the rear garage access to determine if there is
sufficient space to enter and exit a garage on the alley.
If the study shows that the rearyard setback variance is
applicable then we will grant 2 feet on the rear and 3 on the
alley side.
6) That we grant the 500 sgft. FAR bonus to Lot A.
7) We waive the 5 parking spaces.
Motion second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
130 S. GALENA - CITY HALL - MINOR
Amy: We approved a lightwell in the back of city hall so that we
can build a basement. The basement will contain city council
meeting room and the Sister City meeting room. What is being
proposed on the south side is to cut the wall back and light would
drift down to the sister city room. There is a sidewalk and
traditionally you bring light into a lightwell and if you cut into
the sidewalk and relocate it you will put people right into where
the roof dumps snow off. I do not find this a compatible solution
as it does not respect the rhythm of the windows. Possibly this
could be a trade off of the basement as one of the rooms does not
have natural light. Someone has suggested a lightwell with block
glass across it and that would be my recommendation.
Les: This is a landmark building and I do not like what is going
on. I went to Breckenridge and they just finished their city hall
and it has no windows in the room and they did it on purpose. The
lighting was designed well and I talked with members of their
council and they indicated that their meetings actually work
better. They do not need the natural light for a city council
meeting with people distracting them from the outside etc.
Cris Caruso, Engineer: Council likes the feeling of the light
shining in the room. Council said if I could provide natural light
to that room they would consider having the present sister city
room moved to the basement with the council chambers otherwise they
are against it. If that doesn't occur we can use the space as
storage space or office space. It gets difficult working a full
week without natural light.
9
*?LA
4
IS
0
Wam
40
of 9 6
MON
0 ?
CITY MONUMENT NW.
CORNER BLOCK 49
-`
CITY MONUMENT NW.
LEGEND AND NOTES j - CORNER BLOCK 56
HORIZONTAL CONTROL
BEARINGS BASED ON FOUND CITY MONUMENTS AS SHOWN N 75.09 II•W �-
FOUND SLSVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED /
SURVEY (:ONTROL
UTILITY BOX /
FENCE 1C10D OR METAL
TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY:
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY /
ORDER NO. 0371110
DATED. 11/00/95 /
ALL EA$[ NTS NOTED IN TITLE COMMITMENT ARE SHOWN
$WEI)$ ENCROACH INTO ALLEY /
ALL ENCROACMM9ENTS INTO PUBLIC R.O.W. WILL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT
ST4WTLNIES TO BE RELOCATED OR DEMOLISHED /
CONIFER TREES /
ZONE DESIGNATION/DISTRICT R-6
I
w
li MM 4/pMIAW o .7
MN AINMIM0 TYCOUVWI, /
r
/NIMIIN ESII l lAIE 111 RIII 11M i �Z A /
RAi M >M M ✓406D �
1N411R /41Aot !M K tla11AIWrMI 11�t� LM • M C 4"W Ow 40 W4 IRAN MIIw#jb /
A LIMB qmw 40
Rlr f d Ei ramwIN
rR/ MM
"64011, #E To Na) Cpuo>rcT� l
pop" st b °-
LrM A 4R/ b KqwWwww W Rllt E /
4. L9M A 4Rt LR1 • M! IS4NIN1g1M 4 M W ✓
4iR � 11MgM #NIIIAKIIIe a +4M4M..Z6• IoD•o5o <AxZi�c�
VICIrNIT'' MAP
0
(s�o7vtM2
to to
� — RA%/a, 2, ftW4QS_t!>,u
_ if S.S. p. p
V 1 UALa T H 1,�) l Un 1 U LU 1 "')t"L 1 1
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT
OF
THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT S AND ALL OF LOTS C D AND E, BLOCK 56,
CITY AND TOWNSITE 6Fe ASPEN, PITKIN COUOYY COLORADO.
CONTAINING 10,500 50. FT. •/- (0.241 ACRES)
NEST FR
74.7 ANClS S
*? R. D w TR££T
P47
TY
CER" V- I CATION OF OWNERSHIP 'ND DEC,) i C AI I UN'
KNOW PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT N. OLD OUAM, VERINICA M,
MARTIN,__ CARROLL OUAM, AND LOR81E CRUMLEY BEING THE
OWNERS OF CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT B, AN"L OF LOTS C,D AND E, BLOCK 56,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS LAID OUT, PLATTED THE SAME INTO LOTS A AND
B, YICK RY HISTORI OT IT. .
OWNER: OWNER:
HAR LD OUAMVE ICA M. MAR IN
i
�Cyi 2�ce« �L �5�� C�c�
OWNER
CARROLL OUAIM "-' OWMIER LORR (E CRUMLEY
STATE OF t ail67rni44
/ ) SS
COUNTY OF (��nCos'h�U 2
T FOREGOING INSTIRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THiS "L DAY or
199b, BY HAROLD OUAM.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
MY-COMM ISS1(0, EXPIRES:
CHERYL DONOVAN
w CID M 988886 =
NOTARY 'PUBLIC NOTARYPU9LIC4AUFORNIAm
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF �C-Ihl ) SS my Comm. E.P. Juno 29. 19g8
COUNTY OF A E ) yy//
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS —42 DAY OF
Ar't' L, , 99BY VERONICA M . MARTIN
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
MY COMD I SS ' O NEX I RES : {idf} e. Holland
Comm. #971897
NOTARY PUBLIC %PTANY,PV�rc cnuFORNIa
r At AiteDK Auatr (�
Ny.Comm ExplreA Aug ig
STATE OF 1! 1"%)
)SS
COUNTY OF I _)If
y
THEI.FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS _ 0 DAY OF
1996, BY CARROLL OUAM.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFF 1 C I AL SEAL dirt E.. HollandMY Co" ISMION E PIRES:
. Comm. #97189'
ff��Nqrikp.YPL!ILIC CAt IFORN1A6
NOTARY PUBLIC ALAMLOACOUNTY
STATE OF I r ) :AV Comm , xpir"Aug iG. t
.01
/��
COUNTY OF
T FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS _/60 DAY OF
1996, BY LONRIE CRUMLEY.
W I THE SS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL L �idf} Holland V
MY MMISSION PIRES: v Comm.#971897
� NOTARY PUBLIC CAUFORNIA6.
ALAMEDA COUNTY.
lJ NOTARY PUBLIC My Comm Exp)rets Aug 20. i .
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
I, JOHN HOWORTH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER
MY DIRECTION AW SUPERVISION OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED PROPERTY CITY
OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO, AND THAT A BUILDINGS WERE EOUNO
TO BE LOCATED THEREON AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. THE LOCATION AND
DIMENSIONS OF THE BOUMDARY LINES, UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND
EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE TITLE COMMITMENT NOTED HEREON ARE ACCURATELY
SHOWN ON THIS MAP, AND THE MAP ACCURATELY AND l gT ALLY DE"ICTS
THE LOCATION AND HORIZONTAL D I FENS I ONS OFT'i/hN(J
INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND THE UNIT DESIGNATIONS F1E� THT,B rURYEY WAS
PREFORMED IN ACC RDANCE WITH COLORADO REVI r4Aft Fir? TITLE
38, ARTI E URVEY P ION GREATER ,+ to, Ow,
SIGNED:_ , 25047
3r17
,;Or `J HOWORTH P.L.S.25947 1
TITLL ERTIFICATE •�"'
.a,a•M% 7
THE UNDERSIGNED, A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT)VE.t
TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS"'iW'PITKIN
COUNTY,COLORADO DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS LISTED AS '
OWNERS ON THIS FLAT r�O HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE NITS �:
DESCRIBED REAL PaOPEL.TY FgEM AND «.EAR Oc ALL LIENS AWD
cn�,uZt4 H.�ria:cS EXCc PT in ZE L I a L LD 0.4 TY,E (N9K-'R C. -ii f : i .:
ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ON THIS PLAT ARE TRUE, THIS r,
CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE NOR AN f
OPINION OF TITLE NOR A GUARANTEE OF TITLE, AND IT IS (NrDERS�TODD AND .I
AGREED THAT LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, NEITHER ASSUMES NOR, WILL
BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL 08LIGATION OR LIAoiLITY WHATSOEYER ON
ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN.
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
533 EAST HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO 8161
SIGNED:✓r
BY.
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Y
TH� FOREGOING TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNE aIS
�� OWL
DAY OF ��' 1996 BYYZ
OF LAND TITLE GUARA TEE COMPANY.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 6EtizAsm J.
Mv_COMM I SION EXP,f ES: �r
NOTARY PUBLIC c aF C0�`
CITY ENGINEERS APPROVAL
THIS PLAT WAS APPROVE Y THE CITY F ASPEN DEPARTMENT
OF ENGINEERING TH� DAY OF ,��r..� 1996
CITY ENGINEER
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVAL
tT�S P � 4 WAS' ROV 8Y ISTORIC P EERVATION'COMMISSION
Th` CITY 0 P $ DAY OF
CHAT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPRC'vAL
TH 1 S PLAT WAS APPROVED BY 7'V C kYAY
VELOPtM t.4 i i:• 0' T"'-
Y OF N COLORADO SIQNED THfS OF_ v' __7�_
E
x
CLERK. AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
�a
THIS PLAT WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
AND RECORDER OF THE COUNT OF PITKIN, ?' TE OF COLORADO AT
O CLOCK, .M. THIS DAY OF 1996, ANtS RECORDED
I N PLA) BOOK AT PA �S RECE 10 ' NUFi8FI R� d
CLERK AND RECORDER
PREPARED BY
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC.
210 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO $1611
PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816
DATE JOB
2/96 25107A
828-��76