The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ec.920 W Hallam St.HPC18-98 n Ordinance No 23, Ser..J1998 Page I ,j aRDINANCE NO.. 23 (Series of 1998) AN aRDINANCE aF THE ASPEN CITY CaUNCIL DESIGNATING 920 WEST HALLAM STREET (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 1/2 aF LaT M, ALL aF LaTS N, a, AND P AND A paRTIaN aF LaT Q, BLaCK 4, CITY AND TOWNSITE aF ASPEN) AS A HISTaRIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO. SECTIaN 26.76.030 aF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL caDE; APPRaVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIaN FaR AN HISTaRIC LANDMARK LaT SPLIT PURSUANT TO. SECTIaN 26.88.030(A)(5) aF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL caDE; AND APPRaVING A LANDMARK DESIGNATIaN GRANT aF $2,000 PURSUANT TO. SECTIaN 26.76.040(C) aF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL caDE. Whereas, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, owner and applicant, has applied for the following: Historic Landmark designation for 920 West Hallam Street pursuant to Section 26.76.040 of the Municipal Code; a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.88.030(A)(5) of the Municipal Code; a Landmark Designation Grant of $2,000 pursuant to Section 26.76.040(C) of the Municipal Code; and, a waiver of Park Development Impact Fees pursuant to Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on December 2, 1997; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.76, has the authority to designate a property an Historic Landmark during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.88.030(B), has the authority to approve Subdivision Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Splits during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, the City Council may approve a one-time Historic Landmark grant of $2,000 and may waive park development impact fees associated with development for properties designated as an Historic Landmark; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Landmark Lot Split approval with conditions at a public hearing on July 8,1998; Whereas, pursuant to Section 26.76, the City Council has found the property meets standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character), and E (community character), thereby determining the property eligible for Historic Landmark designation; and, Ordinance No 23, SerOl998 Page 2 p Whereas, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, 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, during a public hearing, City Council has taken and considered public comment, considered the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, Whereas, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. Naw, THEREFaRE, BE IT aRDAINED BY THE CITY CaUNCIL aF THE CITY aF ASPEN, CaLaRADa: Seetion ane That the structure and property at: 920 west Hallam Street, the east half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, be designated an Historic Landmark. Section Two That the property owner shall receive a $2,000 landmark designation grant from the City of Aspen, but that the Park Development impact fees associated with the development shall not be waived in whole or in part and shall be paid in full at the time of building permit issuance. Section Three Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.01O(G) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: I. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Ordinance No 23, SerOl998 Page 3 o Section Four Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section Three, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. 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: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Section Five That the Official Zone District Map be amended to reflect the Historic Landmark designation of this property as described in Section One. , Ordinance No 23, Ser01998 Page 4 o Section Six That the Community Development Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of said designation, and the City Clerk shall record this Ordinance with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section Seven That ifany section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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 Eight A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 27th day of July, 1998, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which, notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRaDUCED, READ AND aRDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of ,1998. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney .John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk . FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,1998. . Ordinance No 23, seDI998 Page 5 o Approved as to form: Approved: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c:/home/mitchhfcounciI/9200rd2.doc ~ HPC Resolution Page I RESaLUTION OF THE ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND OFF-SITE RELOCATION APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920 WEST HALLAM STREET,ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION No. /9 WHEREAS the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC., has requested approval of an Off-Site Relocation and Partial Demolition for the property located at 920 West Hallam Street. The property is a designated historic landmark (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998); and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet the criteria of Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for the HPC to grant Partial Demolition approval, and Section 26.72.020(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for the HPC to grant Off-Site Relocation approval; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the aforementioned requests with conditions; and WHEREAS, a legally noticed public hearing was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on September 23, 1998, at which the Commission: approved the request for Partial Demolition, and approved with conditions the request for Off-Site Relocation, in a combined vote of six to zero (6-0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Section 1: The HPC hereby approves the Partial Demolition request to remove the chicken coop addition to the shed formerly used as a concession stand on Aspen Mountain, but currently located at 920 West Hallam Street. Section 2: That the HPC hereby approves, with regard to the property at 920 West Hallam Street, an Off-Site Relocation request to move the aforementioned shed to Aspen Mountain with the following conditions: 1. With the submittal of a building permit application, a structural report shall be provided by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, 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 .. HPC Resolution Page 2 required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. The selection of a specific location for placement of the structure shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and HPC Monitor, and the financial security shall be held until such time as tlJ,e structure has been finally and permanently located. 3. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetings on the 23r<! day. of September, 1998. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney APPROVED BY THE mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Suzannah Reid, Chairperson ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk - -' ' .:'~,>..8(~, -::::::.p __ - '..:;:8 _4:25 ~o.005 '.02 .. A..,lJN S.caJNQ COMPANY September 16,1998 Mitch Rasa, PlllllllCl City of Aspen ) 30 South Galena StTeCI Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mitch: When appropriate, Alipcn Skiing Company will use tho original J\spcn Mountain COIll.-.inn stlUId now looall:d at 920 West Hallam. Our prc.fcn:III:C will bo to use this building II a facility on Aspen MDWltam. We did not includo this in our JisL orr..cillll"8 fur tho recently adoptlld Aspen Mountain Muter Plan and we will seek an administrative amlllldml:ot to permit this use. We believe that this is Ii uae which is quite consi8tcDt wUh the history of the stnu:ture and its use can be pcamitUld with a minor plan amcndmtmt. If I can provide more infonnation, please call mo. SiDccroly, ~/ ... ,'.. v/ ~ ~&}JZ,~ William G. Kane Vice President i'l"""ing aoG Dcvciopmem 8---- ,.... OJW"" 1:.I4II-A_. co '""2 97IJJ1U. fZ2fl.,._ 971J.nJ.4I'IJ -..w..,...- .,.""" -.-' 920 w. hallam September 9, ] 998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 8] 611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; With regard to the Off-site Relocation request for the project at 920 W. Hallam Street, attached is a letter from the Aspen Skiing Company committing to move the concession stand structure back to Aspen Mountain. As part of this relocation, a shed addition to the original structure will be removed. According to John Skiff, son of the former owner of the property, when the concession stand was moved to the site in the 1940's, it was initially placed back further on the property, nearer to West Francis Street. In the 1950's, when that area was subdivided and sold, the Skiffs moved the shed a second time, closer towards their house, and built the addition for chicken coop. The aff-site Relocation standards have been addressed previously in the 920 W. Hallam Street application. As an amendment to the Partial Demolition aspect of the application, we offer the following responses to the review standards. ] . The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The area proposed to be removed is not original to the structure and is not historic construction. It must be removed in order to restore the building to its former appearance as a concession stand. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. r ... - - Response: The addition does not contribute to the historic significance of the structure. It obscures the original entry into the building and the sign board listing the items available at the concession stand. It also obscures the character of the original roof, which had large roof overhangs, presumably to protect people from the weather while they made purchases at the stand. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: No additions will be made to the building in place of what is being removed. The relocation of this shed from this alley back to Aspen Mountain has been an important aspect of the 920 W. Hallam Street application. We are pleased that the Aspen Ski Company will once again use the structure and that the public will be able to enjoy it ~68-- spen Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 ,,",'~'" ',..../ MEMORANDUM APPROVED TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director RE: AUG 2 4 1998 Mitch Haas, Planner IIV ~ COMMUNI1Y DEVEL()~MtNT DIRECTOR GMQS Exemption by Community Development Director for ~1YOFASPEN Historic Landmark Lot Split, 920 West Hallam Street FROM: DATE: August 22, 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Historic Preservation Commission and City Council have reviewed and approved a historic landmark lot split at 920 West Hallam Street, as described in the attached Ordinance (Ordinance Number 23, Series of 1998). The lot split requires the approval of the Community Development Director for a GMQS exemption. No standards for approval of the exemption have been created. LOCATION: 920 W. Hallam Street, described in the attached Ordinance (23-98). ZONING: R-6 APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. STAFF REVIEW: Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, 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 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. APPROVED: ~~ Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ~D ,*<<. Ordinance No 23, Ser~998 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 23 (Series of1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 920 WEST HALLAM STREET (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N, 0, AND P AND A PORTION OF LOT Q, BLOCK 4, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.88.030(A)(5) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; AND APPROVING A LANDMARK DESIGNATION GRANT OF $2,000 PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.040(C) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. Whereas, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, owner and applicant, has applied for the following: Historic Landmark designation for 920 West Hallam Street pursuant to Section 26.76.040 ofthe Municipal Code; a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.88.030(A)(5) of the Municipal Code; a Landmark Designation Grant of $2,000 pursuant to Section 26.76.040(C) ofthe Municipal Code; and, a waiver of Park Development Impact Fees pursuant to Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on December 2, 1997; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.76, has the authority to designate a property an Historic Landmark during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.88.030(B), has the authority to approve Subdivision Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Splits during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, the City Council may approve a one-time Historic Landmark grant of $2,000 and may waive park development impact fees associated with development for properties designated as an Historic Landmark; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Landmark Lot Split approval with conditions at a public hearing on July 8, 1998; Whereas, pursuant to Section 26.76, the City Council has found the property meets standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character), and E (community character), thereby determining the property eligible for Historic Landmark designation; and, _'w,,,,,,,~_,__"~'^'____~__'''.'"_~____~ - Ordinance No 23, Sen~998 Page 2 ,,..... Whereas, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( e), and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, 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, during a public hearing, City Council has taken and considered public comment, considered the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; 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: Section One That the structure and property at: 920 west Hallam Street, the east half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, be designated an Historic Landmark. Section Two That the property owner shall receive a $2,000 landmark designation grant from the City of Aspen, but that the Park Development impact fees associated with the development shall not be waived in whole or in part and shall be paid in full at the time of building permit issuance. Section Three Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.01O(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. ......"'" Ordinance No 23, Ser_1998 Page 3 Section Four Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section Three, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. 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: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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 ofthe Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Section Five That the Official Zone District Map be amended to reflect the Historic Landmark designation of this property as described in Section One. .___M'''''_'O__' ___'_".'~""'_'."___" -." Ordinance No 23, Seri~-, 998 Page 4 "" Section Six That the Community Development Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of said designation, and the City Clerk shall record this Ordinance with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section Seven That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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 Eight A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 27th day of July, 1998, at 5 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which, notice of the same was published 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. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,1998. ~--~._.~-.,..,.- '--'-_.'-~"""""""'---""'~""""-<-'-'-~-'---' .-"".... Ordinance No 23, Set".. 1998 Page 5 ,"".f' Approved as to form: Approved: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c:/home/mitchh/council/920ordZ.doc HPC Resolution Page 1 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING A 500 SQUARE FOOT FAR BONUS AND FINAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920 WEST HALLAM STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION No. L WHEREAS the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC., represented by architect Glenn Rappaport, has requested a 500 Square Foot Floor Area bonus and Final Significant Development approval for the property located on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. The property is a designated historic landmark (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998); and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.01O(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant Significant Development approval and an FAR bonus; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the aforementioned requests; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on August 26, 1998, at which the Commission approved the request for Final Significant Development regarding only the historic house on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split by a vote of seven to zero (7-0); and WHEREAS, at a legally noticed public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission on September 9,1998, the HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus to Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split by a vote of six to zero (6- 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The HPC hereby approves the Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC., application for a 500 square foot FAR bonus on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Final Significant Development Review for the historic house on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetings on the 26th day of August, 1998, and the 9th day of September, 1998. HPC Resolution Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Suzannah Reid, Chairperson ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk - ,.. HPC Resolution Page 1 ........,. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920 WEST HALLAM STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO, FOR: PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION, SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) WITH VARIANCES TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCES; AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT. RESOLUTION No. I~ WHEREAS the applicant, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC., represented by architects Glenn Rappaport and Ron Robertson, has requested approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split, a Partial Demolition, an On-Site Relocation, a Significant Development (Conceptual) with variances, and variances from the Residential Design Standards for the property located at 920 West Hallam Street. The property is a designated historic landmark (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998); and WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development involving a historic landmark must meet: the Development Review Standards of Section 26.72.010(D) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant Significant Development (Conceptual) approval; Section 26.72.020(C) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for the HPC to grant Partial Demolition approval; Section 26.72.020(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for the HPC to grant On-Site Relocation approval; Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.l00.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in order for the HPC recommend Historic Landmark Lot Split approval; and, Section 26.22.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for the HPC to grant variances from the Residential Design Standards; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the aforementioned requests with conditions; and WHEREAS, a legally noticed public hearing was held at a regular meeting ofthe Historic Preservation Commission on July 8,1998, at which the Commission: approved with conditions the requests for Partial Demolition, and On-Site Relocation; recommended approval with conditions of the request for Historic Landmark Lot Split; and continued the Off-Site Relocation, Significant Development (Conceptual), and Residential Design Standards variance requests to August 12, 1998, by a vote of seven to zero (7-0); and WHEREAS, at a continued public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission on August 12, 1998, the HPC continued the Off-Site Relocation request indefinitely, and approved with conditions the Significant Development (Conceptual) including specific variances from the individual and combined side yard setback and site coverage requirements, and specific variances from the Residential Design Standards. ~"""..",,,~~,.,~~-_.~.,.,,.-.,,..,...-._..~".<-- HPC Resolution Page 2 ~. ,"- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Section 1: The HPC hereby recommends that the City Council grant approval for an Historic Landmark Lot Split at 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation is granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. B. 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: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. C. 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). D. 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. E. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. HPC Resolution Page 3 Section 2: That the HPC hereby approves, with regard to the property at 920 West Hallam Street, a Partial Demolition as proposed and an On-Site Relocation with the following conditions: A. Either prior to Final review or with building permit application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the structures to be moved are 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; and, B. Either prior to Final review or with building permit application, 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. Section 3: That the HPC hereby approves the Conceptual Significant Development request for 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent; D. The ability to make revisions in order to comply with the volume provision of the Residential Design Standards where variances have not been granted; E. Approval of this Conceptual Development Plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development. This approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Application for a final development plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.72.010(F)(4) shall be filed within one (I) year of the date of this conceptual development plan approval. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such final application shall render null and void the approval of this conceptual development plan. F. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and ~,__w",~_",__,~~_~~~,,-_',~_".. "_~____'_'___""__'___" . HPC Resolution Page 4 shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity have the authority to do so. Section 4: That the HPC hereby approves the following variances from the "Volume" provision (26.58.040(F)(l2)) of the Residential Design Standards: A. For the new structure on Lot B: the two small (2' x 2') square windows on the south elevation's taller gable and the one in the dormer shall be allowed as proposed, as will the window in the dormer of the east elevation, and the small square window in the dormer of the west elevation; the single square window on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall be eliminated or redesigned to comply with the volume standard; and B. For the new structure on Lot A: the two small (2' x 2') square windows highest up on the south elevation's taller gable shall be allowed as proposed; the windows on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall not extend beyond nine' feet above the floor height. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meetings on the 8th day of July, 1998, and the 12th day of August, 1998. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Suzannah Reid, Chairperson ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk , " RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO PLACE TWO (2) DETACHED SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENCES aN A SINGLE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE R-6, MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE DISTRICT AT 920 WEST HALLAM STREET (THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT M, ALL OF LaTS N, 0, AND P, AND A PORTION OF LOT Q, BLOCK 4, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN), CITY OF ASPEN Resolution 9S-lt WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Historic Cottages L.L.c., owners, for a Conditional Use Review to place two (2) detached single-family residences on a single Historic Landmark Designated lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6, Medium-Density Residential, zone district, and located at 920 West Hallam Street; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.28.040(C)(7) of the Aspen Municipal Code, two detached residential dwelling on a designated Historic Landmark lot of at least 6,000 square feet may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of the aforementioned Section as well as Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Parks Department, Zoning Officer, and Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 7, 1998, at which the Commission approved by a 6-0 vote the Conditional Use for the above-described application with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department as amended. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL YED by the Commission: That the conditional use request to develop two (2) detached dwellings on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is hereby approved with the following conditions: I. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split are granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. 2. The approvals contained herein are fully contingent upon the applicants' recelvmg approval of the needed variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R- 6, Medium-Density Residential zone district; the conditional use approval shall not create any nonconformities. 111111I1111I11111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111 420221 08/04/1998 10:27A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 0' 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ....'''''-, ~-' 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall: a. Pay the applicable (at the time of payment) cash-in-lieu fee for affordable housing mitigation (GMQS Exemption) attributable to the new structure; b. Receive final significant development approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the design and layout of the proposed development; c. Verify that the site development will meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and t.he building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado; d. Jn the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any trees that are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); and, e. Provide information to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department which documents that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PMIO caused by the development; the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit, as well as a fugitive dust control plan with the Environmental Health Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Remove the existing driveway's curb cut onto West Hallam Street (a/k/a Colorado Highway 82) and replace it with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb on each side; b. Improve the alley between West Hallam and West Francis Streets to City standards; c. Any and all proposed improvements or changes in the West Hallam Street right-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer; the applicant shall also sign a curb and gutter agreement; d. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights-of-way; said easements shall be depicted on the building permit application plan sets. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property shall be modified to provide ten (10) feet of length along the alley, six (6) feet of width into the property, and six (6) feet of depth below the finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer; e. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way: the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; and, f. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments. entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit. 6. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: . The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; 111111I1111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111 420221 08/04/1998 10:27A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO - .....,. . The Parks Department for vegetation specIes, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; . The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, . The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 7. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 8. If the proposed use, density or timing of rhe construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation, or for referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 7,1998. APPROVED AS TO FORM: D Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: ;;?t~ xia~to2~/ Sara Garton, Chairperson 11111111111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111 420221 08/04/1998 10:27A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R .6.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO (J "~. :. ,I' . ;;.. ~ ;.~ ~. ..~ ,'" ." ~.! ':~'~ .~,. .~. . .. ~ .. ~ .. ., .;"..." ~ . ...... "., . .",t . :' ~ - \L~ ~ 920 tfb.l'1bP ~ j l MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo~ Mitch Haas, Planner~ 920 West Hallam Street: 500 Square Foot FAR Bonus Request. No. 2735-123-03-003. THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: September 9, 1998 '101/fIlor/6 ~ ~ 6-0 ~(tJf) . Parcell.D. SUMMARY: On August 26,1998 the applicant received Final HPC approval (by a vote of 7-0) for their proposed Significant Development of the historic structure on Lot B, 920 West Hallam Street. Conceptual approval was granted on August 12. 1998, by a vote of 4-0, with the decision regarding whether to grant the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus deferred until Final review. Final review does not require a public hearing, but granting of an FAR bonus does; thus, the language of the adopted motion granting Final approval included the following: "A 500 square foot FAR bonus applicable to Lot B. This bonus shall be subject to approval at a legal!{ noticed public hearing on September 9, 1998." Therefore, the purpose of this hearin~o carry out due process requirements in the granting of a 500 square foot FAR bonus by doing so at a legally noticed public hearing. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Glenn Rappaport. LaCATION: The easterly 7.616 square feet (Lot B) of 920 West Hallam Street; 920 W. Hallam Street is legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The fathering parcel contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As a result of the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption, Lot A contains 3,432 square feet, and Lot B contains 7,616 square feet. Lot B is the subject of this FAR Bonus request. ALLOWABLE FAR: The allowable FAR on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is 2,352 (plus the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus). This leaves an allowable FAR of 1,850 square feet on Lot A. REVIEW PROCEDURE: This Final application to the Historic Preservation Commission does not require a public hearing, but consideration of the 500 square foot FAR bonus does. That is, final reviews are not public hearings and as such, do not require advertised, posted, ., or mailed notification, while FAR bonuses constitute variances from the dimensional requirements of the zone district and can only be granted at public hearings. The other two houses that were approved as part of the Conceptual application will come before the HPC as altwo separate Final Significant Development application(s). As the applicants are proceeding independently of one another, the effects of such an incremental approach (deferral of the FAR bonus to Final review, especially when there could be three (3) separate final reviews) has the potential to create some rather serious, practical problems for the applicants. Consequently, staff recommends that the HPC vote to approve the requested FAR bonus. More discussion of this issue is included with the staff response to criterion "a." of Section 26.72.01O(D), below. STAFF CaMMENTS: Section 26. 72.01O(J)). Significant Development Review Standards Final approval has been granted and only the requested FAR bonus remains outstanding. As such, the staff comments section of this memo focuses only on criterion "a." of Section 26.72.010(D) --- the only applicable standard. a. 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 atijacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is atijacent to an Historic Landmark For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Staff Response: At the Final review of August 26. 1998, the HPC voted 7-0 to support granting of the requested bonus but agreed that it would be subject to approval at a legally noticed public hearing. As mentioned earlier in the "Procedure" section of this memo, staff recommends that the HPC vote to approve the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus. The FAR bonus is an historic preservation incentive reserved for "outstanding" or "exemplary" projects. Staff believes this proposal represents just such a project, but the HPC decided at Conceptual Review to defer the bonus request until Final review because some members were not completely satisfied with the proposed height of the westernmost structure. Under the applicant's proposal, the historic resources are being preserved almost completely in tact and with no significant additions while the remainder of the site is to be used in a fair, sympathetic, and compatible manner. Consequently, staff finds the proposal to be an "outstanding" and "exemplary" historic preservation project. 2 ....",.' ~"...... In staff s opinion, the height of the westernmost structure is unrelated to the floor area bonus request. For instance, the westernmost structure is on Lot A, to which the bonus (if granted) would not apply. Also, reducing the height of the westernmost structure would have no affect whatsoever on the amount of proposed floor area. Furthermore, the architect of the proposed structure on Lot A was given clear direction as to the concerns of the HPC at Concept\lal review, and when a Final review is scheduled for that structure. the HPC will be under no obligation whatsoever to approve the design. That is, granting the FAR bonus would not in any way reduce the HPC's leverage in ensuring the development of a compatible and appropriately scaled structure on Lot A. These points are further compounded by the practical and procedural problems created by holding off on deciding whether to grant the requested bonus. For example. Final review does not require a public hearing, but granting of an FAR bonus does, and this leads to some timing related issues that could have the potential of putting an end to what statf feels is an outstanding project deserving of an FAR bonus. It has also been staff and the HPC s goal to avoid incremental decision making, and the other two houses that were approved as part of the Conceptual application will come before the HPC as a/two separate Final Significant Development application(s). As the applicants are proceeding independently of one another, the effects of such an incremental approach (deferral of the FAR bonus to Final review, especially when there could be three (3) separate final reviews) has the potential to create some rather serious, practical problems for staff and, more so, for the applicants. It would be unfair to make the applicants wait until the last Final review associated with the property before deciding whether or not to grant the requested FAR bonus, especially given the substantial amount of capital already invested in the project and its design. The project was seen as a whole for the last time at the Conceptual review level. and staff believed and still maintains that the project is deserving of the bonus. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of a 500 square foot FAR bonus applicable to Lot B of the 920 West Ha\1am Street Historic Landmark Lot Split. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a 500 square foot FAR bonus to Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split." 3 ,- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET FAR VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 9,1998 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. The owner requests a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The property is located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Suzannah Reid. Chair Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 22, 1998 City of Aspen Account ........, ......".~ ,..-":"":C:'UE"D I 1 :',,~.oJ}...~ ~ i-i . PUBLIC NOTICE :-'lTKIN RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET FAR VARIANCE c.:,.,ci\;TY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 9,1998 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. The owner requests a 500 square foot floor area bonus. The property is located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Suzannab Reid. Chair Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 22, 1998 City of Aspen Account AlIii 2 6 1998 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET OFF-SITE RELOCATION REQUEST NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 5 :00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. The owner requests approval for the off-site relocation of a shed structure (believed to have once been used as a concession stand at the base of the Aspen Mountain ski area) that is currently sited partially in the alley right-of-way and partially on the rear portion of the property. The property is located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the AspenlPitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Suzannab Reid. Chair Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on September 5,1998 City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission RE: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Mitch Haas, Planner.A(t' 920 West Hallam Street, Historic House on Lot B: Significant Development Review (Final). Parcel I.D. No. 2735-123-03-003. THRU: FROM: DATE: August 26, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Final Significant Development Review approval as it relates only to the historic structure on Lot B, 920 West Hallam Street. Conceptual approval was granted on August 12, 1998, by a vote of 4-0, with the decision regarding whether to grant the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus deferred until Final review. With the exception of a few minor detail-oriented modifications, the Final application is consistent with the conceptually approved plans for the historic house. BACKGROUND: On July 8,1998 and August 12, 1998, the HPC reviewed the following: . the proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage (approved by a 7-0 vote on July 8th); . the requested On-Site Relocation to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east, eleven (II) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (approved with conditions by a vote of7-0 on July 8th); . the requested Off-Site Relocation to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town (continued to August 12th, then continued indefinitely); . the requested Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house (recommended for approval with conditions, and subsequently approved with conditions by City Council on July 27th); . the requested Significant Development (Conceptual) review --- including variances aud a 500 square foot FAR bonus m for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house (continued to and approved with conditions on August 12th, with the decision regarding whether to grant the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus deferred until Final review); and, . the requested variances from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards for several windows proposed on all but the rear elevations of the new houses (continued to and approved subject to conditions on August 12th). APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Glenn Rappaport. ~.-_....---.__. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The fathering parcel contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As a result of the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption, Lot A contains 3,432 square feet, and Lot B contains 7,616 square feet. Lot B is the subject ofthis Final application. ALLOWABLE FAR: The allowable FAR on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is 2,352 (Plus the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus). This leaves an allowable FAR of 1,850 square feet on Lot A. REVIEW PROCEDURE: This Final application to the Historic Preservation Commission does not require a public hearing, but consideration of the 500 square foot Far bonus does. That is, final reviews are not public hearings and as such, do not require advertised, posted, or mailed notification, while FAR bonuses constitute variances from the dimensional requirements of the zone district and can only be granted at public hearings. The applicant would like the HPC to grant the requested FAR bonus with the approval of this Final application. If the HPC intends to do so, the Final approval with an FAR bonus can be granted at this August 26th meeting, but the FAR bonus would need to be re-affirmed at a public hearing on September 9, 1998. The other two houses that were approved as part of the Conceptual application will come before the HPC as a/two separate Final Significant Development application(s). As the applicants are proceeding independently of one another, the effects of such an incremental approach (deferral of the FAR bonus to Final review, especially when there could be three (3) separate final reviews) has the potential to create some rather serious, practical problems for the applicants. Consequently, staff recommends that the HPC vote to approve the requested FAR bonus at this August 26th meeting and re-affirm this decision at a public hearing set for September 9, 1998. More discussion of this issue is included with the staff response to criterion "a." of Section 26.72.01O(D), below. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26. 72.010(D). Significant Development Review Standards The applicant is requesting Final Significant Development approval for the proposed development of an historic landmark lot. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. Before HPC approval of a significant development involving an Historic Landmark may be granted, a conceptual development 2 plan (done) and a final development plan shall be reviewed by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, and the following review criteria: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design. massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks. extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26. 40. 090(B)(2). Staff Response: The proposed development is compatible in general design and site planning (layout and orientation) with the designated historic structure and the neighborhood. The historic development pattern of Aspen placed small-to-moderate size homes on 3,000 square foot lots. The proposed development would include two homes of 1,850 square feet (bigger than historic houses, but smaller than the vast majority of residences built in Aspen within the last twenty or so years) and another of approximately 1,000 square feet. The three homes would be fairly evenly spaced on 11,048 square feet of land, which results in an average of approximately 3,683 square feet of land per residence. The three structures would share a common built-to line (front setback), be oriented to the public street, and have their garages and parking in the rear, along the alley. Staff supports the proposed changes to the design of the existing historic house as the house would be one of the only miner's cottages in Aspen to be left almost completely in tact. That is, the applicant is proposing only minor changes to the historic house, including a new door and window on the rear of the building (in a portion that was added to the original house in the 1960s), an addition of a roof/breezeway over the area between the house and the relocated garage, and the required lightwells on the east, west, and north sides to serve the new bedrooms in the basement (which requires a new foundation). Also, the applicant would like to remove an existing side door (on east elevation) from a non-historic portion of the structure and fill in the space with matching siding, replace the roofing of the house with new asphalt shingles, and cover the concrete slab on the front porch with wood decking. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the historic house are appropriate and compatible with the historic resource in terms of mass, scale and general design. The proposed windows and door on the rear/north elevation are, in staff s estimation, appropriate in scale and vertical orientation and generally compatible with the miner's cottage; these windows would have wood trim matching that of the historic windows. Removal of the side door and filling it in with matching siding (shown incorrectly --- as remaining but nailed shut --- on the submitted plans) makes sense since, first, this portion of the structure is not of historic significance and, second, with the proposed interior remodel the door would open into a 3 , , .........r stairway and would not have a landing in front of it (the opening of the door would sit some four to five feet above the floor and would need to be permanently locked). The proposal to replace the concrete slab of the front porch with wood decking is consistent with the typical historic character of front porches and, in staff s opinion, represents an improvement from the current condition. As can be expected with structures of this age, the roofing of the house and garage is in need of repair and the use of asphalt shingles would not, in staff s estimation, compromise the integrity of the historic resource. Staff finds the proposed design of the breezeway connecting the house and garage, including the use of corrugated fiberglass roofing in a gable form, to be compatible with, and sympathetic and subservient to the historic resources of the house and garage structures. With the plans to put in a new basement while moving the house approximately ten feet forward on the lot and up eighteen inches in elevation (approved for on-site relocation on July 8th), new foundation walls will be exposed. The final plans indicate a desire to cover the exposed foundation walls with wood trellises in a kickplate-like design. From the elevation drawings, it appears that this proposal would serve well in complementing the simple yet ornate detailing of the Victorian, especially that of the gable ends, bay windows, and front porch bracketing. Also, moving the house approximately five feet to the east results in a jog in the sidewalk/walkway leading to the front door. As mentioned earlier in the "Procedure" section of this memo, staff recommends that the HPC vote to approve the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus at this August 26th meeting, and re-affirm this decision at a public hearing set for September 9, 1998. The FAR bonus is an historic preservation incentive reserved for "outstanding" projects. Staff believes this proposal represents just such a project, but the HPC decided at Conceptual Review to defer the bonus request until Final review because some members were not completely satisfied with the proposed height of the westernmost structure. Under the applicant's proposal, the historic resources are being preserved almost completely in tact while the remainder of the site is to be used in a fair, sympathetic, and compatible manner. In staff s opinion, the height of the westernmost structure is unrelated to the floor area bonus request. For instance, the westernmost structure is on Lot A, to which the bonus (if granted) would not apply. Also, reducing the height of the westernmost structure would have no affect whatsoever on the amount of proposed floor area. These points are further compounded by the practical and procedural problems created by holding off on deciding whether to grant the requested bonus. For example, Final review does not require a public hearing, but granting of an FAR bonus does, and this leads to some timing related issues that could have the potential of putting an end to what staff feels is an outstanding project deserving of an FAR bonus. It has also been staff and the HPC's goal to avoid incremental decision making, and the other two houses that were approved as part of the Conceptual application will come before the HPC as a/two separate Final Significant Development application(s). As the applicants are proceeding independently of one another, the effects of such an incremental approach (deferral of the FAR bonus to Final review, especially when there could be three (3) separate final reviews) has the potential to create some rather serious, practical problems for staff and, more so, for the applicants. It would be 4 unfair to make the applicants wait until the last Final review associated with the property before deciding whether or not to grant the requested FAR bonus, especially given the substantial amount of capital already invested in the project and its design. The project was seen as a whole for the last time at the Conceptual review level, and staff believed and still maintains that the project is deserving of the bonus. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Staff Response: The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Staff Response: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. Stafffeels that the current proposal would not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof Staff Response: Please refer to the staff response to criteria "a." and "c." above. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: . Approve the Development application as submitted. . Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy. . Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). . Deny all or part of the Development application finding that anyone or more of the Development Review Standards are not being met. RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the Final Significant Development application as proposed, including and re- affirming the following: A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); 5 , " B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage ofthirty-seven (37) percent; D. A 500 square foot FAR bonus applicable to Lot B. Approval of this bonus shall be re-affirmed at a properly noticed public hearing on September 9, 1998; and, E. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity have the authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the staff recommendations contained in this staff memorandum, dated August 26,1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - Final application package 6 r . ... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission / RE: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ,~'- Julie Ann Woods, Interim Historic Preservation Offic1!f Mitch Haas, Planner At . 920 West Hallam Street: Off-Site Relocation, and Significant Development (Conceptual) including variances, and Residential Design Standards variance. --- Public Hearing. Parcel LD. No. 2735-123-03-003. THRU: FROM: DATE: August 12,1998 (continued from July 8,1998) SUMMARY: The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area; it was built in 1888 and is a one-story, cross-gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. In total, the applicant has split the fathering 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single- family home proposed on Lot A is allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district, subject to HPC review and approval. Lot B would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. BACKGROUND: On July 8,1998 the HPC reviewed the following: . the proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage (approved by a 7-0 vote); . the requested On-Site Relocation to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east, eleven (II) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (approved with conditions by a vote of7-0); . the requested Off-Site Relocation to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town (continued to August 12th); . the requested Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house (recommended for approval with conditions, and subsequently approved with conditions by City Council); '.~'"'- '" - "",;' . the requested Significant Development (Conceptual) review - including variances and a 500 square foot FAR bonus -- for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house (continued to August 12th with direction to restudy proposed architectural details, particularly fenestration); and, . the requested variances from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards for several windows proposed on all but the rear elevations of the new houses (continued to August 12th pending restudy of the proposed fenestration). The applicant's revised architectural plans are attached as Exhibit "A." The following attempts to summarize the proposed revisions: . The previously proposed ridge height of the frontmost gable of the new house on Lot A was approximately twenty-four (24') feet from finished grade, and the revised plans reduce that height to approximately twenty-one (21') feet. The highest ridge height on the original proposal (Lot A) was roughly 29.5', however, and the new proposal increases that figure by about one foot to 30.5'. . The windows of the frontmost wall of the proposed structure on Lot A have been scaled- back and revised to better complement those of the historic structure, and some new square windows have been introduced on recessed (further from the street) gable of the south elevation. . The east elevation (facing the historic house) of Lot A's structure remains unchanged except for the aforementioned changes in ridge heights. The west elevation (facing the Castle Creek Bridge) has been revised to eliminate the previously proposed uninterrupted expanses of glazing. The north elevation has not been revised. . The new glazing proposed on the rear (north) elevation of the historic house has been revised to eliminate the virtual wall of glass and replace it with three (3) adjacent, double-hung windows that better complement those of historic significance. . The tall expanses of windows that were previously proposed on the south (street facing) and east (facing Sagewood) elevations of the new structure on Lot B have been broken up in the revised proposal, and the "wall of glass" effect originally proposed on the west (facing the historic structure) elevation has been broken up and scaled back. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Ron Robertson and Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N,O and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The fathering parcel contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As a result of the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption, Lot A contains 3,432 square feet, and Lot B contains 7,616 square feet. 2 '" -,.., .... ",<,_/ ALLOWABLE FAR: The fathering parcel of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Three (3) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landmarked lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved this for the subject lot with conditions. REVIEW PROCEDURE: The application to the Historic Preservation Commission requires a public hearing for the Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, F AR (bonus), and residential design standards. Included in this hearing is the request for Off-Site Relocation; the Off- Site Relocation request is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(0); the Significant Development (Conceptual) and dimensional requirement variances are reviewed according to Section 26.72.010(D)(1); and, the Residential Design Standards variance is reviewed according to Section 26.22.010. The requested FAR Bonus is to be approved, if approved at all, with the Conceptual review of the Significant Development application. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.28.040. Medium-Density Residential (R-(j) Two (2) detached residential dwellings on landmarked lots are permitted as conditional uses on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone district. The lot (Lot B) would have an area of 7,616 square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for historic landmark lots is 3,000 square feet per unit, and the proposal exceeds this requirement. The minimum lot width for lots created via the Historic Landmark Lot Split process is thirty (30) feet, and Lot B's width would be approximately seventy-six (76) feet. The required side yard setbacks call for a minimum of five (5) feet, but both sides combined must total at least 23 feet. The minimum front and rear yard setbacks are ten (10) feet each, but must combine for a total of at least thirty (30) feet. The site coverage is not allowed to exceed thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet), and the maximum roof height cannot exceed twenty-five (25) feet, as measured to a variety of points depending on the particular roof slope. There must be a total of four (4) off-street parking spaces provided (two (2) for each dwelling unit). The proposed plans indicate that the development would meet all of the dimensional requirements of the 3 -. '\ '-../ - zone district, with the exception of the side yard setbacks (each side and combined), and the maximum site coverage; the applicant is seeking variances from these dimensional requirements as well as a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC as part of their Significant Development Review (below). Section 26.72. 020(DJ. Standards for Review Q/ Qff-Site Relocation. Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town. Currently, the shed resides within the alley right-of-way. No approval for off-site relocation requests shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and Staff Response: The applicant explains that many options to try to reuse the shed on site have been explored, but none have proven workable. The shed is too small to be used as a garage stall, but too large to be accommodated on the site solely for storage purposes. Consideration has also been given to leaving the shed at the end of the alley as a sort of neighborhood gardening/storage shed; however, maneuvering of vehicles and City snow plowing equipment in the area would be problematic under such a scenario. Consequently, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to another appropriate site in town. The shed is not original to the subject property as it was once located at the base of the ski mountain where it served as a concession stand. The applicant proposes to locate an appropriate site for relocating the shed, such as the new ski museum, one of the City parks, or a location associated with the Ski Company or skiing, in general. 2. 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; and Staff Response: As mentioned in response to the standard immediately above, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to another site in town. The applicant is committed to finding a use for the building, as opposed to demolishing it. The shed is not original to the site or to the neighborhood, and the two significant structures on the site would be preserved as freestanding buildings with minor modifications, thereby strongly aiding the efforts to preserve the historic character of the property and its neighborhood. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and resiting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation; and 4 ,.... ......"... Staff Response: The information required by this standard will be submitted by the applicant either prior to final review or with building permit applications. 4. 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; and Staff Response: The applicant will submit the relocation plan and financial security with their building permit application. The receiving site shall be required to be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved. the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter from the property owner afthe receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the applicant intends to find a site which is relevant to the building's history (i.e., ski related). If this is not possible, the applicant would like to find a site where the general public can view and enjoy the building. However, as a specific site has not yet been found, staff does not feel that this criterion can satisfactorily be addressed or its compliance ensured. Therefore, statI must recommend that the off-site relocation application be continued until such time as the applicant can return with a specific proposal (receiving site). Section 26.72.01 O(D). Significant Development Review Standards The applicant is requesting Conceptual Significant Development approval for the proposed development of an historic landmark lot, including the variances discussed above. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. Before HPC approval of a significant development involving an Historic Landmark may be granted, a conceptual development plan and a final development plan shall be reviewed by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, and the following review criteria: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard. side yard and rear yard setbacks. extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed 5 under the Cottage lnfill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2). Staff Response: The proposed development is compatible in general design and site planning (layout and orientation) with the designated historic structure and the neighborhood. The historic development pattern of Aspen placed small-to-moderate size homes on 3,000 square foot lots. The proposed development would include two homes of 1,850 square feet (bigger than historic houses, but smaller than the vast majority of residences built in Aspen within the last twenty or so years) and another of approximately 1,000 square feet. The three homes would be fairly evenly spaced on 11 ,048 square feet of land, which results in an average of approximately 3,683 square feet of land per residence. The three structures would share a common built-to line (front setback), be oriented to the public street, and have their garages and parking in the rear, along the alley. The general design, massing and volume, and scale of the proposed development, as revised, is deserving of staff support. Staff supports the revised, proposed changes to the' design of the existing historic house as the house would be one of the only miner's cottages in Aspen to be left almost completely in tact. That is, the applicant is proposing only minor changes to the historic house, including a new door and window on the rear of the building (in a portion that was added to the original house in the 1960s), an addition of a roof/breezeway over the area between the house and the relocated garage, and the required lightwells on the east, west, and north sides to serve the new bedrooms in the basement. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the historic house are appropriate and compatible with the historic resource in terms of mass, scale and general design. The proposed windows on the rear/north elevation are, in staff's estimation, appropriate in scale and vertical orientation and generally compatible with the miner's cottage. With regard to the proposed design of the easternmost structure. staff believes it to be generally compatible in massing, volume, scale, and site planning with the historic structure and surrounding neighborhood. Staff also feels the revised proposal's fenestration has been adequately and appropriately scaled back, especially on the south and west elevations. The revised elevations demonstrate a consistent architectural language both within the structure and between the two new structures while maintaining compatibility with the historic resource. The new development will be easy differentiated from the old without distracting from or competing with the adjacent historic resource. The proposed windows on the frontmost wall of the easternmost structure have been redesigned in a manner that is vertically oriented and generally respectful of the lot's historic significance but will be clearly new and help to make apparent that the whole structure is not historic. The square window higher up would require a variance from the "volume" provision of the residential design standards, which is elaborated upon in the next section of this memo. The other newly proposed square windows (without mullions) on the south elevation would be set approximately sixteen (16) feet back from the frontmost wall, and would also require variances from the volume standard. The other windows of the south elevation (square with mullions) would be set some thirty-two (32) feet back from the frontrnost wall of the south elevation, and represent a vast improvement from the originally proposed design. With regard to the easternmost structure's east elevation (facing the 6 ,. -- Sagewood Condominiums), the only reViSions proposed involve the two aligned sets of windows below the dormer on this elevation's south end, and the higher of these two windows would require a variance from the volume standard. Previously, these two windows were combined as one tall, large window but have been redesigned as two separate, appropriately scaled windows. The restudy of the west elevation of this structure has resulted in a much better and more compatible design, with appropriately scaled fenestration. The small square window in the west elevation's dormer would require a variance from the volume standard. The north elevation has not been revised and remains acceptable as proposed. In general, staff believes the revised plans for the easternmost structure to be much improved and worthy of approval as proposed. With regard to the proposed design of the westernmost structure, the massing has been restudied. As was mentioned with regard to the easternmost structure. the revised elevations demonstrate a consistent architectural language both within the structure and between the two new structures while maintaining compatibility with the historic resource. The new development will be easy differentiated from the old without distracting from or competing with the adjacent historic resource. With regard to the revised massing in particular, the height of both gable ends on the south, street-facing elevation have been revised as follows: the previously proposed ridge height of the frontrnost gable of the new house on Lot A was approximately twenty-four (24') feet from finished grade, and the revised plans reduce that height to approximately twenty-one (21') feet. The highest ridge height on the original proposal (Lot A) was roughly 29.5', however, and the new proposal increases that figure by about one foot to 30.5'. The new drawings more accurately reflect the site topography than did the originals, and these new drawings lead staff to conclude that the restudy of massing issues has been done successfully. The overall height of the westernmost structure would be lower than that of this easternmost structure, and the height at the ridge of the frontrnost gable end of this easternmost structure would be even with that of the adjacent, historic structure. In terms of the proposed fenestration on the westernmost structure, staff believes the applicant has done a commendable job restudying the windows of the frontmost wall, as they are now appropriately spaced, sized, and oriented. All of the square-shaped windows further back and mirroring the gable forms are new to the proposal. These square windows would be set back almost twenty (20) feet from the frontrnost wall and gable form and result in obvious contrast from the historic structure, but without causing distraction. Staff finds these six small (2' x 2') windows to work well with the proposed design. They are not vertically oriented but are not out of scale either. Again, these windows help to produce a consistent architectural language both within the structure and between the two new structures. The fenestration proposed on the east elevation (facing the historic house) of this structure has not been revised, and is still acceptable to staff. The west elevation (facing the Castle Creek Bridge) has been vastly improved by the elimination of the arched window forms and by breaking the long expanse of windows in the internal stairway into a set of two separate and appropriately scaled windows. Note that the west elevation is drawn incorrectly, as the south and east elevations indicate that the ridge line extending southward from the gable end on the west elevation should align with the height of the gable's ridge. The north elevation remains acceptable as proposed. 7 As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the applicant is requesting the following: . a variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); . a variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of~enty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; . a variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2.666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent; and, . a five hundred (500) square foot FAR bonus for Lot B. According to this review criterion, the HPC can grant these variances and this bonus 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 the dimensional requirements. The City Zoning Officer has reviewed the proposal and found that these variances would indeed be required; however, the individual side yard setback variances may not be necessary if they are to accommodate nothing other than the minimum size lightwells required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code's provisions for egress. Nonetheless, it is the Zoning Officer's recommendation that the applicant seek this variance anyway, and it is the Community Development Department recommendation that the requested side yard setback variances be granted. Staff also finds that compliance with the minimum combined side yard setback provision would be less compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would development with this variance. The combined side yard setback standard results in non-uniform spacing between structures and tends to distort or breakdown the rhythm of structure-to-open area-to-structure that is typical of historic neighborhoods. For similar reasons, staff also supports the requested variance of 2% from the maximum allowable site coverage. Staff supports the request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus since the extra square footage makes the preservation of the historic structure viable. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Staff Response: The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or a4jacent parcels. Staff Response: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. With regard to the relationship between the 8 ,......~".. "....'..... ........ ...." proposed new structures and the historic house, please refer to the staff response to criterion "a." above. Staff feels that the revised/current proposal would not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. d. The propqsed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof Staff Response: Please refer to the staff response to criteria "a." and "c." above. Section 26.58.040. Residential Design Standards Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." In staffs review, it was determined that the currently proposed designs for the two new houses contain violations of the "Volume" standard, particularly on the south elevation of the new house on Lot A and the south, east, and west elevations of the new house on Lot B. The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2: 1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board, or in this case, the HPC. Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (I) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 9 ,.....'.". #'..... '- "'....#' According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience. and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. With respect to the new house proposed on Lot B. the south, east, and west elevations contain violations of the window standard. The front door is seven (7') feet tall. The specific windows in violation on the south elevation include the square window on the frontrnost wall, the top foot (1') of each of the two windows highest up on the taller gable, and the top foot (1') of the window in the dormer. None of these windows appear to span through an area where a next story would typically exist, nor are any of these windows detrimental to the human scale of the structure. The two windows on the higher gable and the window in the dormer are set back sixteen (16) feet and thirty-two (32') feet, respectively, from the frontmost wall of the street facing elevation. Regarding these three windows, making the applicant redesign to comply with the volume standard would result in lowering the windows by one foot, which would, in staffs estimation, be detrimental to the scale, proportioning, and overall design of the structure. Thus, staff recommends granting the requested variances for the three windows discussed above (on the south elevation of the structure on Lot A) because the proposed design more effectively addresses the problems of scale to which the volume standard is a response than would a design in compliance with said standard. Staff does not, however, find that the square window proposed on the frontmost wall meets any of the three criteria for granting variances and should, therefore, be eliminated. The new structure on Lot B also needs a variance for the window proposed in the dormer of the east elevation. Since this window is not a street-facing architectural detail, would have little to no effect on the human scale of the development, and does not appear to span through an area where a second floor would typically exist, staff feels that granting a variance for this window would not compromise the intent of the provision. With regard to the west elevation, a variance would be needed only for the small, square window proposed in the dormer. For the same reasons discussed in relation to the east elevation, staff supports granting this variance. . The new structure on Lot A would need volume variances for the south, street-facing elevation only. The windows in violation include the top foot (1 ') of the center window on the frontrnost wall, and the two windows highest up on the taller gable. Regarding the window on the frontrnost wall, the top foot of it is not necessary for reasons of fairness related to site specific constraints, nor does it more effectively provide human scale or architectural interest to the streetscape than would a design in compliance. Staff recommends that the top foot of this window be removed resulting in a window that spans to to "0." but not more than nine feet above the floor height. The two sma1\ (2' x 2') windows set further back (approximately 19') do not appear to span through an area where a next story would typica1\y exist, nor are these windows detrimental to the human scale of the structure. Regarding these two windows, making the applicant redesign to comply with the volume standard would, in staff s estimation, be detrimental to the scale, proportioning, and overall design of the structure. Thus, staff recommends granting the requested variances for the two windows because the proposed design more effectively addresses the problems of scale to which the volume standard is a response than would a design in compliance with said standard. That is, making the top eight-to-nine feet of this gable end consist of a solid wa1\ without the proposed windows would result in greater perceived mass and detract from the rhythm created by the glazing mirroring the gable form. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the fo1\owing alternatives: . Approve the Development application as submitted. . Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy. · Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). · Deny all or part of the Development application finding that anyone or more of the Development Review Standards are not being met. RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Development Department staff recommends the following: I. Continuance of the Off-Site Relocation, pending determination of a suitable receiving site. 2. Approval of the Conceptual Significant Development application as proposed, including the fo1\owing: A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to a1\ow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwe1\s (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent; ~ <D. A 500 square foot FAR bonus applicable to Lot B; Fi~ E. The ability to make revisions in order to comply with the volume provision of the Residential Design Standards where variances have not been granted (see condition 3, below); 11 - ,<'........ i ...- ..~,..... F. Approval of this Conceptual Development Plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development. This approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Application for a final development plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.72.010(F)(4) shall be filed within one (I) year of the date of this conceptual development plan approval. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such final application shall render null and void the approval of this conceptual development plan. G. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity have the authority to do so. 3. Approval of the following variances from the .'V olume" provision (26.58.040(F)(l2)) of the Residential Design Standards: A. For the new structure on Lot B: the two small (2' x 2') square windows on the south elevation's taller gable and the one in the dormer shall be allowed as proposed, as will the window in the dormer of the east elevation, and the small square window in the dormer of the west elevation; the single square window on the frontrnost wall of the south elevation shall be eliminated or redesigned to comply with the volume standard; and B. For the new structure on Lot A: the two small (2' x 2') square windows highest up on the south elevation's taller gable shall be allowed as proposed; the windows on the frontmost wall of the south elevation shall not extend beyond nine feet above the floor height. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the staff recommendations contained in this staff memorandum, dated August 12, 1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - Revised application package 12 '-'"" " ..u.<< VI\e. .... MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and the City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney /~-i / Stan Clauson, Community Development Directoi{i Mitch Haas, Planner. 920 West Hallam Street - Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Exemption for a Landmark Lot Split. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998. FROM: RE: DATE: July 27, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation for the property located at 920 West Hallam Street. To qualify for this designation, the property must be found to meet two or more of the five standards related to historical significance. These standards include "historical importance," architectural importance," "designer [importance of the architect or builder]," "neighborhood character," and "community character." In addition, approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split is also being sought. The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area. It was built in 1888 and is a one-story, cross-gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. In total, the applicants are attempting to split an existing 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and then completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home that would be built on Lot A would be allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district. Lot B would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. The applicant is also requesting a $2,000 landmark grant and a waiver of park development fees. The City Council may grant these fee waivers as an incentive to preserve historic resources. The park fees are based on the development of new bedrooms and are expected to total $9,388. Staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council designate this property a historic landmark and approve the proposed Landmark Lot Split with conditions. Staff also recommends approval of the landmark grant, and waiving a portion ofthe park development fees. I r" f""""" -' - PREVIOUS ACTIONS/BACKGROUND: Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historical Preservation Commission found, by unanimous votes, that the property exhibits three of the qualities necessary for landmark designation. The City Council considered a first reading of an Ordinance for designating this property a Historic Landmark on December 15, 1997. The application was then withdrawn arid the second reading of the Ordinance did not take place. Since then, a new applicant has re-opened the request for Historic Designation. The historic resource and the criteria under which it was evaluated have remained the same. Staff asked the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission whether their recommendations should be reconsidered with the change in the applicant. Both referral bodies confirmed their original recommendations. Council approved the Landmark Designation request on first reading on July 13, 1998. On July 7, 1998 the subject property was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached residential dwellings on a lot with an area of more than 6,000 square feet (Lot B of the proposed Lot Split). The list of Conditional Uses permitted in the R-6 zone district allows for two (2) detached residential dwellings on an historic landmark designated lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The Commission approved the conditional use request with conditions, by a vote of 6-0. On July 8, 1998 the HPC reviewed the following: . the proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage (approved by a 7-0 vote); . the requested On-Site Relocation to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east, eleven (11) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (approved with conditions by a vote of? -0); . the requested Off-Site Relocation to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town (continued to August 12th); . the requested Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house (recommended for approval with conditions); and, . the requested Significant Development (Conceptual) review, including variances, for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house (continued to August 12th with direction to restudy proposed architectural details, particularly fenestration). APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. Represented by Ron Robertson. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street is the small white Victorian with green trim just east of the Castle Creek bridge; legally described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north 2 I""'" ..... side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The lot in question contains a total area of 11,048 square feet ( .25 acres). As proposed, the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption would result in a 3,432 square foot parcel (Lot A), and a 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B). ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing lot of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Three (3) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landmark lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional use approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission require a public hearing. These are a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to the conditional use review: Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6); and, Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the conditional use application, with conditions, on July 7, 1998. The application to the Historic Preservation Commission requires a public hearing for the Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, and residential design standards. Included in this hearing are the requests for Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relooation. The On-Site Relocation is reviewed according to Section 27.72.020(D)(2), (3) and (4); the Off-Site Relocation request is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(D); the Partial Demolition is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(C); the Historic Landmark Lot Split is reviewed according to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5); the Significant Development (Conceptual) and dimensional requirement variances are reviewed according to Section 26.72.010(D)(I); and, the Residential Design Standards variance is reviewed according to Section 26.22.010. The 3 ."...... ~ HPC serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council with regard to Historic Landmark Lot Splits (i.e., makes a recommendation only, and Council makes the final decision). All of the other requests described in this paragraph are under the purview of the HPC, and FAR Bonuses are not approved until final review of the Significant Development application. The application then goes before the City Council for final decisions regarding the Landmark Designation and Landmark Lot Split requests (first reading on July 13th, and second reading on July 27th). The HPC unanimously recommended approval of the Landmark Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission did the same on December 2, 1997. The HPC unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions. After City Council's review is completed, provided approvals are granted, the applicant would have to return to the HPC for Final approval of the Significant Development request, including the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from the Sanitation District, and the City Engineering, Housing, and Zoning Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: . LANDMARK DESIGNATION: The City Council may designate a property a historic landmark at a public hearing after considering recommendations, made during public hearings, from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission. The standards for Landmark Designation and staff's review of this application relative to said standards is included as Exhibit A. Staff, the HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council designate the 920 West Hallam property as an Historic Landmark. . HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT: Provided the Landmark Designation is approved, the applicants would like to split the property into two lots through the Historic Landmark Lot Split process. The applicable review standards and staff s review of the application relative thereto is included as Exhibit B. Staff and the HPC recommend approval of the proposed Lot Split with conditions, and the full recommendation is provided in Exhibit B. . LANDMARK GRANT REQUEST: Section 26.76.040(C) of the Municipal Code states that "Any residential structure which is designated as a historic landmark after January I. 1995 is eligible to receive a grant. on a one-time basis, the amount of which will be established in the annual City of Aspen budget, on a one-time basis." The applicant is requesting a grant of $2,000. In the annual City of Aspen budget, $10,000 has been allotted to grants for landmark designations. This budget allows for five (5) grants of $2,000 each year. There is sufficient 4 I""" \ - funding in the budget to give this applicant the requested grant of $2,000; thus, staff recommends approval of the grant request. . PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WAIVER REQUEST: Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code states that "City Council may also exempt any historic landmark from the application of the park development impact fee, or reduce by any amount the fees imposed by this section." The development proposal for the subject property includes two (2) new three-bedroom houses, and a new basement under the existing house, which would result in one (1) additional bedroom. In total, the property would contain seven (7) new bedrooms. The two new 3-bedroom houses would each be subject to a park development fee of $3,634 ($7,268 total for the two new houses), while the addition of one new bedroom to the existing house would trigger a park development fee of $2, 120 (combined total of $9,388 for the entire development). As the entire property would be a designated landmark, the above cited policy entitles the applicant to request that all park development impact fees associated with the landmark property be waived. In addition to the policies of Section 26.44.060, the City-Wide Policies Manual contains various policies related to requests for fee waivers, including a policy regarding waivers of park dedication fees. This policy reads as follows: "Park Dedication Fees - The following types of development are exempt from park fees: (1) structures which do not create additional bedrooms; (2) the replacement of a structure that does not create additional bedrooms; (3) development of 'essential community facilities'; and (4) re-subdivisions where an impact fee was paid at the time of the initial subdivision and no additional bedrooms or commercial/office space will be created. Also, City Council can waive or reduce fees for development which is wholly or partly affordable housing or involves a historic landmark, see Section 5-602 and 5-606 [Recodified as Section 26.44.060] of the Land Use Code for more information." In staff s interpretation, the park development fees associated with the historic structure should be waived in its entirety ($2,120) as this house represents the reason for landmarking the property and just one additional bedroom would be generated by it. The fees associated with the new houses should not be waived as they will be free market units, and the two new units, coupled with the $2,000 landmark grant, provide enough of a financial incentive for the preservation of the historic resource. This recommendation, should it be accepted, represents a financial implication of $2, 120, plus a grant of $2,000, for a total "expenditure" of $4,120. On the other hand, $7,268 in fees would still be collected. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: See the "Landmark Designation Grant" and "Waiver of Park Dedication Fees" sections of this memo, above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Historic Preservation Commission recommend that City Council designate 920 West Hallam Street an historic landmark based on the property's "architectural importance," "neighborhood 5 , ... character," and "community character." Staff recommends approval of a $2,000 landmark grant. Staff also recommends that Council waive the $2,120 of park development impact fees associated with the addition of a third bedroom to the existing house on the site, but that Council require that the two new three-bedroom houses be required to pay their respective park development fees at the time of building permit issuance. In addition, staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision exemption for the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: A. 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: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) ofthe Municipal Code; shall be Section (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council 6 """~ ...... shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance Number 23, Series of 1998, designating 920 West Hallam an historic landmark property, approving a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split, granting $2,000 to assist the applicant in their preservation efforts, and waiving the portion of the park development impact fees associated with the existing house on the property." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria for Landmark Designation and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Review Criteria for Landmark Lot Split and Staff Findings Exhibit C -- Application Exhibit D -- Referral Memos 7 Ordinance No 23, Ser~998 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 23 (Series of 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 920 WEST HALLAM STREET (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N, 0, AND P AND A PORTION OF LOT Q, BLOCK 4, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.88.030(A)(5) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A LANDMARK DESIGNATION GRANT OF $2,000 PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.040(C) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; AND, WAIVING THE PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORIC HOUSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.44.060 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. Whereas, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, owner and applicant, has applied for the following: Historic Landmark designation for 920 West Hallam Street pursuant to Section 26.76.040 of the Municipal Code; a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.88.030(A)(5) of the Municipal Code; a Landmark Designation Grant of $2,000 pursuant to Section 26.76.040(C) ofthe Municipal Code; and, a waiver of Park Development Impact Fees pursuant to Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on December 2, 1997; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.76, has the authority to designate a property an Historic Landmark during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.88.030(B), has the authority to approve Subdivision Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Splits during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, the City Council may approve a one-time Historic Landmark grant of $2,000 and may waive park development impact fees associated with development for properties designated as an Historic Landmark; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Landmark Lot Split approval with conditions at a public hearing on July 8, 1998; Whereas, pursuant to Section 26.76, the City Council has found the property meets standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character), and E ,"'''' Ordinance No 23, Ser~ 998 Page 2 (community character), thereby determining the property eligible for Historic Landmark designation; and, Whereas, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, 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, during a public hearing, City Council has taken and considered public comment, considered the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; 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: Section One That the structure and property at: 920 west Hallam Street, the east half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, be designated an Historic Landmark. Section Three Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.01 O(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 ofthe 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 Ordinance No 23, Se'r-s 1998 Page 3 purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section Four Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section Three, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. 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: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. ,'.'. Ordinance No 23, Ser~998 Page 4 Section Five That the Official Zone District Map be amended to reflect the Historic Landmark designation of this property as described in Section One. Section Six That the Community Development Director shall be directed to notifY the City Clerk of said designation, and the City Clerk shall record this Ordinance with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section Seven That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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 Eight A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 27th day of July, 1998, at 5 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which, notice of the same was published 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. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Ordinance No 23, Serr---1998 Page 5 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,1998. Approved as to form: Approved: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c:lhome/mitchhlcounciI/920ord2 .doc - '- EXHIBIT A 920 West Hallam Street HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION REVIEW Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historical Preservation Commission found, by unanimous votes, that the property exhibits three of the qualities necessary for landmark designation (namely, standards B, D, and E, below). A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use). or specimen Response: This structure is a typical example of an Aspen miner's cottage, thereby reflecting an architectural character that is of distinct, traditional Aspen character. In fact, the house has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an excellent example of the Aspen miner's cottage. It is a one story cottage with a cross-gabled roof, prominent bay window, and decorative detailing on the front facade and porch. The house has had few alterations, mainly in the rear of the structure, making a remodel to its historic appearance possible. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen Response: This standard is not met. D. 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 subject property is located on the western edge of the historic West End neighborhood on a site that many would consider an important element of the gateway to Aspen's historic West End. However, just a few historic resources remain in the immediate vicinity, including Poppie's Restaurant, the old power plant (now the City Shop), and the Holden-Marolt site. Given the prominent location of the property and structure, coupled with the eroded historical significance of the western edge of the West A-I , EXHIBIT A End Neighborhood, the preservation of this structure is of significant importance for the maintenance of the neighborhood character. E. 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: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. This particular house is a strong example of the original appearance and character of Aspen's miner cottages. The house is highly consistent with the typical size and architectural characteristics of other Aspen structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Its location on West Hallam Street and the edge of the West End neighborhood further emphasizes the importance of its preservation with regard to helping to define the historic character of Aspen at its "gateway." Although not original to the site, the garage and shed are also important structures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, the HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve landmark designation of the structure and property located at 920 West Hallam Street based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. A-2 r"', I .~ -- '", , ~ EXHIBIT B 920 West Hallam Street HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW Historic Landmark Lot Splits must meet the requirements of Sections 26.88,030(A)(2), 26,88,030(A)(5), 26JOO,050(A)(2)(e), and 26.72.010(G) of the Aspen Municipal Code. On July 8, 1998, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed this application for an Historic Landmark Lot Split and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of7-0. . 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 Staff Response: The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lot predates the city's adoption of subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split. both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26. 1 OO.050(A)(2)(c)]. Staff 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. The applicant proposes to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fees, c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100. 040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26,IOO.050(C)(3)(a)]; and Staff Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval. 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. B-1 .r"" ....~.. ~ ~ EXHIBIT B Staff Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullify the approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. Staff Response: The language of this criterion is included as a recommended condition of the subdivision exemption approval. Also, see response to the previous criterion (d). j. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Response: 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. Staff Response: The applicant proposes a total of three (3) units. Two detached homes would be built on Lot B (easterly lot) and would be in condominium ownership. A third unit would be located on the westerly parcel, which would be a fee simple lot. The Community Development Director has made a formal code interpretation finding that the word "may," as used in this standard, is permissive and means the same thing as "can" or "might." This interpretation provides that other alternatives fitting within the maximum potential buildout, such as three detached units, are considered to comply with this standard. Thus, the proposed development complies with the technical requirements of this standard. Furthermore, the three detached units would combine for an FAR equal to the allowable FAR of a duplex on the fathering parcel, which is an arguably better scenario than placing all of the allowable FAR that is not currently utilized in the historic structures into one large duplex. Staff finds that the proposal complies with this standard. . 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 [beyond that which is already permitted as of right] shall comply with the following standards: B-2 EXHIBIT 8 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. Staff Response: The parcel is 11,048 square feet (larger than 9,000 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. Staff Response: The proposal involves dividing the 11,048 square foot property into two parcels, the westerly (Lot A) of which would contain 3,432 square feet and the easterly parcel (Lot B) would contain 3,432 square feet. The development on both parcels shall be restricted to the floor area that would be allowed for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. The allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,209 square feet plus the potential for an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet, if granted by the HPC. The applicant is requesting the 500 square foot bonus from the HPC, but these bonuses cannot be granted until Final approval of the Significant Development application. The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. The applicant intends to allot 1,000 square feet of Lot B's FAR to the existing house, with the remaining FAR to be utilized in the new house. 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. Staff Response: The proposed development of Lot A (the westerly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements ofthe R -6 zone district. The proposed development of Lot B (the easterly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, with the exception of the individual side yard setbacks, the combined side yard setbacks, and the maximum site coverage, but the lot itself would meet all applicable dimensional requirements. . Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, 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 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Staff Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application, if approval is granted. 8-3 . ,-... , - EXHIBIT B . Section 26. 72.010(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Staff Response: The HPC held a noticed public hearing on July 8,1997. City Council is also reviewing the application at a public hearing on July 27, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions A. 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: (I) Meet the requirements of Section 26,88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26,\ 00.050(A)(2)( c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note, B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. B-4 ..:,IN'':': '='::::1 -J=': ::..::l-il'l -~~.~ -4....1U~.J..j~ J'~ - . lE)Ql,err "rL1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, COmmunity Oev8IopmemDep.wb,,,,,1t CIndy Chl'isll!rnlen. ~ing Omce FROM: DATE: RE: June ii, <998 g2l) West H8Ilam StnIet ConcIIIianaI Use Revl8w Parcel 10 No. 1S812 The appilcant is prooosing ccnstnJcllcn of 1wo new 1 ,8llO square foot hcn.e. ~&r.ImDnlIND: Acccroing:o Sedion 2S.1oo.0l50. A, c(1), in ordlr Ie qUliiilY fer a singl&4amiy ~11,"lIun, the apple.. ,t lll1all have ltmle options: a. prnvidIng an '"CC...-oxy dMIIilq uniI; b. paying lIle appIa:.. aflbrdIIIle houIfng imrlaGl fie: or Co I1ICllRlIng a ,Hil1e.11- ~~IIP'"'1IlV deIII I1lII1IIdIcr1 on 1IIl! ~ dM!IIinv unit being COI1lIlruc:l8d. After reviewing the application. :hen!! is no m."lfo" at an AOU or deed .ealI'Idil'8 the unifII fxl RO, it...........&, It18 afforQaDla housing imaactfee would be due, lilI~"""""T1CN: Wrlh dSfetllll1Ce fxl "d~'Y afIIcn:Iab/e housing impac:IB. the HousIng Boanfa pre!el'llllc:es are slIIted beIaw: 1. on4e hau8ing; 2. ctkite houaing, :llCIlKlil'lg the buydcwn conceot ~. oasn-m-tielJllano-n-iieu SllIffWllUd Inter en__ hOUlling. TIle impact fee is call:"'Qd as faIowa: AWI'lIge d pa)'h_It-i"""eu amaunt far t;: . :r'/2 and r...1~"Y 3 + 3,000 X the net incl"l i . in FAR of ~ SlI'IlCtIre(s) .. paymet It-in-lleu pa,.._ It ~n.J _I rtr... ~.JDIl ttl ~t'WIdnn r!AiM 1AAA ~m.I~ ($77,000 + $84.000) + 2 .. $70,500 .. 3,000 .. $23.50 per IqU8I'e bit $23.50 X 3,700 for PIomee en Let A & a ..' ... due prilli'm ltul~ ,....11 ~-in..J ... due ~..,. .At_.r-Uon of ttw! 1QQR Guldenn-=- ($93.000 + $8O,COO) + 2 = $86,500 + 3,000 .. $28.8333 per lIqt.IaM foot $28.8333 X 3.700 for 00.,* en Let A'& B .. S'I08 ... .,.. dUll prIar m ltuildlNs _It l1Ie 1998 Guidelines Ihculd become elI'8clive In lhelTti:ll. ~ Aiq-t. 1998. AsIC, Consohdafed-OanIfafion : ):Slnd 363 :-lorth _v\ill Street .-\spen, Colorado 81611 Tele. 1970) 925-3601 FA.X #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kellv . ChaIrman Paul SmIrh . T reas. LoUIs Popish. Seev. :vtichaei Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce .vlatherly, Mgr. June 15, 1998 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hailam lot split Dear Mitch: The existing residence at 920 W. Hallam is currently served by the District. The District's line is located in the alley between Hallam and Francis. The elevation of the alley may need to be adjusted, in order to serve two additional dwelling units, if the units include basement levels. If additional cover is added to the alley to improve the grade. then the manhole elevation may need to be adjusted. Any changes needed must be paid for by the applicant and designed according to District line specifications. We would like to review the site drainage plans when they become available. Once detailed plans are available we can complete a tap permit which will estimated the total connection charges for the new units. If the existing unit is unchanged and relocated within 50 feet of its existing footprint, then no additional fees will be charged for that unit. Each single family residence will be need to be connected by a separate service line. As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call if you have :my questions. Sincerely, /' ~ '^--' Yv.....'1.~ Bruce Matherly District Manager EPAAwards of Excellence 1976. 1986 . 1990 Regional and :-larional - DRAFT - MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 16, 1998 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews Physical Address: Legal Description: 920 W. Hallam St, City of Aspen, CO E 1/2 half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 & P, and the westerly portion of Lot Q, all lying in Block 4, Original Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, CO [Sec. 12, nos. R85W] (Parcel ill No. 2735-123-03-003) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 10, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Property Title and Encumbrances: Improvement Survey indicates an area of record overlap between the subject property and the property to the west in the southwest comer of the subject property. The survey also indicates some uncertainty of title, encumbrances, or boundary line question for the area bounded by the Line 6-7. A.spen Townsite and the westerly property line of the property. The application did not include a title commitment, discussion nor documentation regarding property title, and specifically these uncertainties regarding the westerly boundary of the subject property. The owner is required to provide a complete title commitment to the Engineering Dept. and resolve the uncertainties in the property boundary and area of the property to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer before the property may be subdivided. 2. Improvement Survey: For future applications, please provide the Engineering Department with a wet ink, original stamped and signed surveys. This authenticates that the plat is the surveyor's work without alternation by other persons. 3. Changes in Conditions: jfthe proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and DRCM1S98.DOC 1 OF 5 DRAFT I'" DRAFT .' .. Memo: 920 W. Hallam St - COnditiO~se. Historic Landmark Lot Split. GMQS Exemption. Rezo~ POD. GMQS Exemption Reviews re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated June 4, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site. grading, drainage. parking or utility designs. 4. Access: As shown in the site plan, the access for the proposed lots is required to be from the alley and the existing driveway curb cut onto W. Hallam St. (ak.a Colorado Highway 82) should be replaced with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb. The platted alley adjacent to the applicant's property has not been developed. The applicant will be required to improve the alley to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this time the applicable standard for the alley surface would be class 6 aggregate base course. During consuuction, provision must be made to maintain drainage on site and to prevent constrUCtion vehicles from tracking mud onto the alley and City streets. 5. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: From a previous review of this property by Chuck Roth, Randy Ready and John Worcester regarding the future width of the right-of-way on Hallam StreetlHighway 82, John Worcester stated that the City does not need to pursue the acquisition of a 100 foot wide right-of-way on Hallam Street under the approved plan for the future entrance to the City of Aspen. The applicant must install sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk should be five feet wide with a buffer space to the curb because of the reasons discussed in item 11 below. Becanse of the site grades, there will need to be a railing along the sidewalk. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair must be replaced. The applicant should be required to sign a curb and gutter agreement. 6. Encroachments: The eXlstmg encroachments (shed and garage) must be removed for the development of the alley right-of-way and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The existing concrete steps on to Hallam Street should be removed and relocated within the limits of the property. Likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of the proposed new homes should also be located within the limits of the properties and not in the public right-of-way. The existing concrete retaining wall along the W. Hallam St. frontage may be left in place or removed if required in the development of the right-of-way. If the wall is removed or relocated, another form of structural support will be required to maintain the lateral support of the roadway ofW. Hallam St. 7. Site Drainage: The drainage inlet basin located in the landscape area of the right-of-way provides an access point for cleaning and inspecting the storm drain line. As such, is should remain DRCMIS98.DOC 2 OF 5 DRAFT 1"'. DRAFT " Memo: 920 W. Hailam St. - Condition~, Historic Landmark. Lot Split GMQS Exemption. Rezon~UD. GMQS Exemption Reviews although it may be altered, with the written approval of the Streets and Engineering Departments, to better accommodate the sidewalk and blend into the landscaping of the area, if desired. The new development cannot release more than historic (pre-development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and design completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site. If a ground injection or re-charge type drainage system is proposed, the percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and included as the basis for sizing the infiltration field. The drainage design should coordinate with the site plan which is also required for the development and building permit applications. The drainage report and plan will be included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application. 8. Utility Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The existing electrical transformer. telephone pedestal and other utilities with above ground boxes, cabinets and appurtenances will need to be relocated within easements on the private property at the expense of the developer when the alley is developed. In the case of the electrical transformer, the City Electric Dept. will perform the work and bill the developer for the cost of relocating the transformer. If a larger capacity transformer needs to be installed to service the loads of this proposed development, the developer will also need to re- inburse the City Electrical Dept. for installation of the larger transformer. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property will need to be modified to provide an easement with lOft oflength along the alley by 6 ft deep by lOft above and 6 ft below finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of.way. For pedestals. easements must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Any new or relocated utility service connection points, meters, or appurtenances need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans subtnitted for the building permit. 9. City Streets Department: They do not currently plow the alley at the Sagewood Condominiums at Sagewood's and the neighbors request, but they will plow the alley, or the applicant's portion, if the applicants so wish. Paving the alley makes it easier to plow but may not be consistent with the community plan. Snow removal on Hallam is the responsibility of CDOT however snow removal is presently performed by the City under contract with CDOT and the snow is windrowed and hauled away, not plowed to the side. If the street reverts to the City when Highway 82 is realigned, then the snow will DRCMlS98.DOC 3 OF 5 DRAFT '", DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Hallam St - Conditio~, Historic Landmaric: Lot Split, GMQS Exemption. RezonhlrPUO. GMQS Exemption Reviews be plowed to the side, not removed, and it would be better in that case to have a detached sidewalk with a planting and snow storage median between the back of curb and sidewalk. It is preferable for constrUction trailers to be placed on private property however, if this is not possible, a temporary encroachment license is required for placement of constrUction trailers in the public right- of-way. The alley right-of-way may be the preferable location. 10. City Water Department: The applicant needs to meet with the Water Department. The water service lines will have to be sized to meet fire protection regulations. There will be 3 lines, however they can and must share the same trench (for pavement protection reasons). The yard hydrant will need to be served through the water meter rather than tapped directly from the service line to the building. If the applicant owns water well rights. they must be conveyed to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Parks Department: The Rocky Mountain Juniper is a high quality example of this species and if it is to be relocated, a letter of credit or other financial security acceptable to the City Attorney should be provided to the City to insure that the tree will survive at least five (5) years after transplanting. A tree removal permit must be obtained for any code regulated trees that are to be removed. 12. Environmental Health Department: not in attendance. 13. Snow Storage: The applicant is advised to provide snow storage areas in the site design and to indicate the areas on the site plan submitted in the building permit application. 14. Subdivision Exemption Plat: If this proposed development is approved, a subdivision exemption plat meeting the standards of a subdivision plat, will need to be prepared and recorded. In addition to the standard plat content requirements, the plat will carry a note that, "No further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.88, Subdivision, Aspen Municipal Code, and growth lDlIIIlIgement allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.1 00, Aspen Municipal Code." 15. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under DRCM1598.DOC 4 OF 5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Hallam St . Condition~, Historic Landmaric. Lot Split GMQS Exemption. Rezo~PUD, GMQS Excmptioll Reviews , ./ ,,~ an assessment formula The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 16. As-Bullis: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the projeq showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 17. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and itrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meetini Attendees Applicant: Staff & Referral Agencies: Nick Adeh, Jack Reid, Mitch Haas. Bill Earley, Jack Reid.. John Krueger, Steve Ellsperman, Ross Soderstrom DRCM1598.DOC 5 OF 5 DRAFT '1 i-f' r , "7 /L, 1./, '.,' " \Jt 11'/:' I I l' '*,.... -,. - ./ ' " --,;' '~.:/ ,/1 ,-.-.,' ~",~ DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 920 W. Hallam Street &-6 11,048 square foot fathering parceL New Lot A: 3,432 sq. ft.. New Lot B: 7,616 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 1,289 square feet / Allowable FAR: 4.202 square feet. plus potential FAR boDUS\. / / Proposed FAR: 4,702. iDCluding 500 square foot FAR boDUS,-,/ Existing net leasable (commercial): NA Proposed net leasable (commercial): NA Existing % of site coverage: 13% _ . '.",. Allowed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitatiOD. Lot B: 3Solo -=."" I.;;!\v~- Proposed % of site coverage: Lot A: DO limitation, Lot B: 37% .~ ; 'J I? :::-./ Existing % of open space: NA Proposed % of open space: NA Existing maximum height Principal bldg: Accessory bldg: Principal bldg: Applicant: Address: Zone district: Lot size: 12 ft. 11 ft., 6 iDChes 13 ft. 6 inches historie-house /::: ........ 23 ft. new houses l'x'S-1 ' Accessory bldg: 11 ft.. 6 inches '~ 6% (100 sq. ft. garage leaD-to) 2 Lot A: 3 bedrooms,Lot B: 6 (3 per house) 2 Lot A: 2 spaces, Lot B: 4 spaces (2 per house) Proposed rnax. height: Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks: Existing (house): Front: 31' Rear: 31' Front/rear Combined: East side: West side: Combined Sides: 62' 47' 34' Minimum required: Front LotsA&B:10' / Rear. Lots A & B: 10' Front/rear Combined: Lots A & B: 30' East side: Lots A & B: S' / West side: Lots A & B: S' / Combined / Sides: A: 10', B: 23'./ Proposed Front 20' ..-/. Rear: 10'/ Front/rear Combined: 30'V' East side:Lot A: S',Lot B: 2' West side:Lot A: S',Lot B: 2' Combined . Sides: Lot A: 10', Lot B: 7'/ Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Garage and shed encroach into alley. 81' Variations requested: Lot B: SOO square foot FAR bonus, sideyanl setback variances fJ of 3 feet on the east and west sideyanls for lig/ltwells, combined sideyanl setback variance of 16 feet. site coverage variance of 2%. ~ 1CC - &.sj~J~11AJ- NtGzr..J,--h Q.1!(YIZOJ'//1'h AefJi/'-€..J .x..i.iJC[.cb if' ute /U1U."'e d. tS/'~~ _ au o.tkr kUla A (;; A9-'lUrt...Jt:J dA.J- ~. . ~' (j. e. - C8..'1! J,'.l:Lc..i .r iCVjhJC-<- t' . Ci/'t-L >:; 1:;; C~<29t2 11 . -L' (' II ' J L -; . -<::T". "'",:""......-;-01.11: 1-.v....I'\ /.. ,jr'lj /1..A.LL?...(]J(l;J_::\.-TI t.tQl/IL;....A;-i'.-..-IA.,,~/L.... ,TAU"............, ,"..4rctJu~d ;)r,J r ......... " ,,~ ...- RECEJVED ,III!. 1 .~ 1998 PUBLIC NOTICE AS,',;,! ri .\", RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIG~H0N' DEVELopr"ENT AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LANDMARK LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 27, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 5 :00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, requesting approval for Historic Landmark designation of the property located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Subdivision Exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split to split the 11,048 square foot lot into two parcels, one of 3,432 square feet and the other of 7,616 square feet. All structures that might be built on the resulting parcels would have a combined allowable FAR floor area equal to that of a duplex on the originaJ parcel. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/John Bennett. Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on February 7, 1998 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc ,- '" "- .......,/ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and the City Council RE: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Mitch Haas, Planner<< 920 West Hallam Street - Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Exemption for a Landmark Lot Split. First Reading of Ordinance No. _, Series of 1998. THRU: FROM: DATE: July 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation for the property located at 920 West Hallam Street. To qualify for this designation, the property must be found to meet two or more of the five standards related to historical significance. These standards include "historical importance," architectural importance," "designer [importance of the architect or builder]," "neighborhood character," and "community character." In addition, approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split is also being sought. The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area. It was built in 1888 and is a one-story, cross-gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940' s; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. In total, the applicants are attempting to split an existing 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and then completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home that would be built on Lot A would be allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district. Lot B would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. The applicant is also requesting a $2,000 landmark grant and a waiver of park development fees. The City Council may grant these fee waivers as an incentive to preserve historic resources. The park fees are based on the development of new bedrooms and are expected to total $9,388. Staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council designate this property a historic landmark. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Landmark Lot Split with conditions, and approval of the landmark grant. Lastly, staff recommends waiving a portion of the park development fees. I r ,.~ ",""., -,.'" PREVIOUS ACTlONS/BACKGROUND: Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historical Preservation Commission found, by unanimous votes, that the property exhibits three of the qualities necessary for landmark designation. The City Council considered a first reading of an Ordinance for designating this property a Historic Landmark on December 15, 1997. The application was then withdrawn and the second reading of the Ordinance did not take place. Since then, a new applicant has re-opened the request for Historic Designation. The historic resource and the criteria under which it was evaluated have remained the same. Staff asked the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission whether their recommendations should be reconsidered with the change in the applicant. Both referral bodies confirmed their original recommendations. On July 7, 1998 the subject property will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached residential dwellings on a lot with an area of more than 6,000 square feet (Lot B of the proposed Lot Split). The list of Conditional Uses permitted in the R-6 zone district allows for two (2) detached residential dwellings on an historic landmark designated lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. On July 8, 1998 the HPC is reviewing the following: the applicant is requesting approval of a proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage; approval of an On-Site Relocation is requested to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east, eleven (II) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (the garage would also be rotated 180 degrees so that it can be entered into from the alley); Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town; Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) is requested to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house; Significant Development (Conceptual) review, including variances, is requested for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house. The timing of the HPC and Planning and Zoning Commission hearings did not allow for the results of these hearings to be included in this memo; however, an update will be included in the memo for second reading, and staff will present the outcomes of the HPC and P&Z hearings. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. Represented by Ron Robertson. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street is the small white Victorian with green trim just east ofthe Castle Creek bridge; legally described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north 2 side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The lot in question contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As proposed, the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption would result in a 3,432 square foot parcel (Lot A), and a 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B). ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing lot of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions. the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Three (3) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landmark lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional use approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission require a public hearing. These are a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to the conditional use review: Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6); and, Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing the conditional use application on July 7, 1998. The application to the Historic Preservation Commission requires a public hearing for the Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, and residential design standards. Included in this hearing will be the requests for Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation. The On-Site Relocation is reviewed according to Section 27.72.020(D)(2), (3) and (4); the Off-Site Relocation request is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(D); the Partial Demolition is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(C); the Historic Landmark Lot Split is reviewed according to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5); the Significant Development (Conceptual) and dimensional requirement variances are reviewed according to Section 26.72.010(D)(I); and, the Residential Design Standards variance is reviewed according to Section 26.22.010. The 3 '"'-....' HPC serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council with regard to Historic Landmark Lot Splits (i.e., makes a recommendation only, and Council makes the final decision). All of the other requests described in this paragraph are under the purview of the HPC, and FAR Bonuses are not approved until final review of the Significant Development application. The application then goes before the City Council for final decisions regarding the Landmark Designation and Landmark Lot Split requests (first reading on July 13th, and second reading on July 27th). The HPC unanimously recommended approval of the Landmark Designation at a public hearing on November 12. 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission did the same on December 2, 1997. After City Council's review is completed, provided approvals are granted, the applicant would have to return to the HPC for Final approval of the Significant Development request, including the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from the Sanitation District, and the City Engineering, Housing, and Zoning Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: . LANDMARK DESIGNATION: The City Council may designate a property a historic landmark at a public hearing after considering recommendations, made during public hearings, from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission. The standards for Landmark Designation and staff s review of this application relative to said standards is included as Exhibit A. Staff, the HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council designate the 920 West Hallam property as an Historic Landmark. . HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT: Provided the Landmark Designation is approved, the applicants would like to split the property into two lots through the Historic landmark Lot Split process. The applicable review standards and staff s review of the application relative thereto is included as Exhibit B. The HPC recommendation will be forwarded on July 8, 1998 and, therefore, could not be included in this memo. Staff will gladly report the HPC recommendation in person as well as in the staff memorandum for second reading. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Lot Split with conditions, and the full recommendation is provided in Exhibit B. . LANDMARK GRANT REQUEST: Section 26.76.040(C) of the Municipal Code states that "Any residential structure which is designated as a historic landmark after January 1, 1995 is eligible to receive a grant, on a one-time basis. the amount of which will be established in the annual City of Aspen budget, on a one-time basis." The applicant is requesting a grant of $2,000. In the annual City of Aspen budget, $10,000 has been allotted to grants for landmark designations. This budget allows for five (5) grants of $2,000 each year. There is sufficient 4 funding in the budget to give this applicant the requested grant of $2,000; thus, staff recommends approval of the grant request. . PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WAIVER REQUEST: Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code states that "City Council may also exempt any historic landmark from the application of the park development impact fee. or reduce by any amount the fees imposed by this section." The development proposal for the subject property includes two (2) new three-bedroom houses, and a new basement under the existing house, which would result in one (I) additional bedroom. In total, the property would contain seven (7) new bedrooms. The two new 3-bedroom houses would each be subject to a park development fee of $3,634 ($7,268 total for the two new houses), while the addition of one new bedroom to the existing house would trigger a park development fee of $2,120 (combined total of $9,388 for the entire development). As the entire property would be a designated landmark, the above cited policy entitles the applicant to request that all park development impact fees associated with the landmark property be waived. In addition to the policies of Section 26.44.060, the City-Wide Policies Manual contains various policies related to requests for fee waivers, including a policy regarding waivers of park dedication fees. This policy reads as follows: "Park Dedication Fees - The following types of development are exempt from park fees: (1) structures which do not create additional bedrooms; (2) the replacement of a structure that does not create additional bedrooms; (3) development of 'essential community facilities'; and (4) re-subdivisions where an impact fee was paid at the time of the initial subdivision and no additional bedrooms or commercial/office space will be created. Also, City Council can waive or reduce fees for development which is wholly or partly affordable housing or involves a historic landmark, see Section 5-602 and 5-606 [Recodified as Section 26.44.060] of the Land Use Code for more information." In staff's interpretation, the park development fees associated with the historic structure should be waived in its entirety ($2,120) as this house represents the reason for landmarking the property and just one additional bedroom would be generated by it. The fees associated with the new houses should not be waived as they will be free market units, and the two new units, coupled with the $2,000 landmark grant, provide enough of a financial incentive for the preservation of the historic resource. This recommendation, should it be accepted, represents a financial implication of $2,120, plus a grant of $2,000, for a total "expenditure" of$4,120. On the other hand, $7,268 in fees would still be collected. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: See the "Landmark Designation Grant" and "Waiver of Park Dedication Fees" sections ofthis memo, above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council, upon first reading, designate 920 West Hallam Street an historic landmark based on the property's "architectural importance," 5 "neighborhood character," and "community character," and approve a $2,000 landmark grant. Staff also recommends that Council waive the $2,120 of park development impact fees associated with the addition of a third bedroom to the existing house on the site, but require that the two new three-bedroom houses be required to pay their respective park development fees at the time of building permit issuance. Staff also recommends approval of the requested subdivision exemption for the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: A. 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: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences required to mrtIgate for affordable housing pursuant to 26.l00.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; shall be Section (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council 6 shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance Number _, Series of 1998 on first reading, designating 920 West Hallam an historic landmark property, approving a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split, granting $2,000 to assist the applicant in their preservation efforts, and waiving the portion of the park development impact fees associated with the existing house on the property." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria for Landmark Designation and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Review Criteria for Landmark Lot Split and Staff Findings Exhibit C -- Application Exhibit D -- Referral Memos 7 Ordinance No _, Sehcs 1998 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO._ (Series of 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 920 WEST HALLAM STREET (LEG ALL Y DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N, 0, AND P AND A PORTION OF LOT Q, BLOCK 4, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN mSTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.88.030(A)(5) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A LANDMARK DESIGNATION GRANT OF $2,000 PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.040(C) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; AND, WAIVING THE PARK DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE mSTORIC HOUSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.44.060 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. Whereas, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, owner and applicant, has applied for the following: Historic Landmark designation for 920 West Hallam Street pursuant to Section 26.76.040 ofthe Municipal Code; a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.88.030(A)(5) of the Municipal Code; a Landmark Designation Grant of $2,000 pursuant to Section 26.76.040(C) of the Municipal Code; and, a waiver of Park Development Impact Fees pursuant to Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code; and. Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation at a public hearing on December 2,1997; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.76, has the authority to designate a property an Historic Landmark during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.88.030(B), has the authority to approve Subdivision Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Splits during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, the City Council may approve a one-time Historic Landmark grant of $2,000 and may waive park development impact fees associated with development for properties designated as an Historic Landmark; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 26.76, the City Council has found the property meets standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character), and E ,rI'" """ Ordinance No _, Se~ 1998 Page 2 (community character), thereby determining the property eligible for Historic Landmark designation; and, Whereas, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.l00.050(A)(2)(e), and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the City Council fmds that the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and, Whereas, during a public hearing, City Council has taken and considered public comment, considered the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservatiort Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, Whereas, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the pu,blic health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the structure and property at: 920 west Hallam Street, the east half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, be designated a Historic Landmark. Section Two That the property owner shall receive a $2,000 landmark designation grant from the City of Aspen, and that the Park Development impact fees associated with an addition to the existing structure on the site be waived in their entirety while any park development impact fees associated with additional structures developed on the site be paid in full at the time of building permit issuance. Section Three Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: I. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision ofland 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 "'.".... Ordinance No _, Se~ 1998 Page 3 purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section Four Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section Three, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. 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: (I) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code: (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (Plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. 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). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Ordinance No _, Sehes 1998 Page 4 Section Five That the Official Zone District Map be amended to reflect the Historic Landmark designation of this property as described in Section One. Section Six That the Community Development Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of said designation, and the City Clerk shall record this Ordinance with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section Seven That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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 Eight A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the _ day of , 1998, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which, notice of the same was published 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. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,1998. Ordinance No _, Selw.l1998 Page 5 Approved as to form: Approved: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c:/home/mitchlv'counciI/9200rd.doc EXHIBIT A 920 West Hallam Street HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION REVIEW Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention to landmark insignificant structures or sites, rather the HPC focuses on those structures and sites which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural. social. or political history of Aspen. the State of Colorado. or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use). or specimen. Response: This structure is a typical example of an Aspen miner's cottage, thereby reflecting an architectural character that is of distinct, traditional Aspen character. In fact, the house has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an excellent example of the Aspen miner's cottage. It is a one story cottage with a cross-gabled roof, prominent bay window, and decorative detailing on the front facade and porch. The house has had few alterations, mainly in the rear of the structure, making a remodel to its historic appearance possible. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. 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 subject property is located on the western edge of the historic West End neighborhood on a site that many would consider an important element of the gateway to Aspen's historic West End. However, just a few historic resources remain in the immediate vicinity, including Poppie's Restaurant, the old power plant (now the City Shop), and the Holden-Marolt site. Given the prominent location of the property and structure, coupled with the eroded historical significance of the western edge of the West A-I _Jl'.'" ....J EXHIBIT A End Neighborhood, the preservation of this structure is of significant importance for the maintenance of the neighborhood character. E. 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: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. This particular house is a strong example of the original appearance and character of Aspen's miner cottages. The house is highly consistent with the typical size and architectural characteristics of other Aspen structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Its location on West Hallam Street and the edge of the West End neighborhood further emphasizes the importance of its preservation with regard to helping to define the historic character of Aspen at its "gateway." Although not original to the site, the garage and shed are also important structures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, the HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve landmark designation of the structure and property located at 920 West Hallam Street based on a fmding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. A-2 "'"'" '-' EXHffiIT B 920 West Hallam Street HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW Historic Landmark Lot Splits must meet the requirements of Sections 26.88.030(A)(2), 26.88.030(A)(5), 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( e), and 26.72.0 I O(G) of the Aspen Municipal Code. . 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 Staff 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)]. Staff 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. The applicant proposes to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(a)]; and Staff Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval. 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. B-1 ~-'" "",..... EXHIBIT B Staff Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision. and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullify the approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showing of good cause. Staff 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. Staff Response: 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. Staff Response: The applicant proposes a total of three (3) units. Two detached homes would be built on Lot B (easterly lot) and would be in condominium ownership. A third unit would be located on the westerly parcel, which would be a fee simple lot. The Community Development Director has made a formal code interpretation finding that the word "may," as used in this standard, is permissive and means the same thing as "can" or "might." Thus, the proposed development complies with the technical requirements of this standard. Furthermore, the three detached units would combine for an FAR equal to the allowable FAR of a duplex on the fathering parcel, which is an arguably better scenario than placing all of the allowable FAR that is not currently utilized in the historic structures into one large duplex. Staff finds that the proposal complies with this standard. . 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 ora minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-I5A zone district. B-2 ...."..~ EXHIBIT B Staff Response: The parcel is 11,048 square feet (larger than 9,000 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. Staff Response: The proposal involves dividing the 11,048 square foot property into two parcels, the westerly (Lot A) of which would contain 3,432 square feet and the easterly parcel (Lot B) would contain 3,432 square feet. The development on both parcels shall be restricted to the floor area that would be allowed for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. The allowable fAR for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,209 square feet plus the potential for an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet, if granted by the HPC. The applicant requests the 500 square foot bonus, but these bonuses cannot be granted until final approval of the Significant Development application by the HPc. The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable fAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. The applicant intends to allot 1,000 square feet of Lot B's FAR to the existing house, with the remaining FAR to be utilized in the new house. 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. Staff Response: The proposed development of Lot A (the westerly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. The proposed development of Lot B (the easterly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, with the exception of the individual side yard setbacks, the combined side yard setbacks, and the maximum site coverage, but the lot itself would meet all applicable dimensional requirements. . Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, 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 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Staff Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application, if approval is granted. B-3 ,..",,- EXHIBIT B ....... . Section 26. 72.01O(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Staff Response: The HPC held a noticed public hearing on July 8, 1997. City Council is also reviewing the application at a public hearing on July 27, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions A. 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: (I) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)( c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shaH meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). C. 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. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shaH be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. B-4 MEMORANDUM Cc>>nit\ lieD lP l!>1't, _ CAt.(., ~ w/~ -r s cJ9I'I'1P'tC- ~U> TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Interim Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 920 West Hallam Street: Historic Landmark Lot Split, Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Off-Site Relocation, Significant Development (Conceptual) including variances, and Residential Design Standards variance. --- Public Hearing. Parcell.D. No. 2735-123-03-003. DATE: July 8, 1998 o ) LDCk-noJJ~ SUMMARY: The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house containing approximately 990 ,;(\A-~quare feet of floor area; it was built in 1888 and is a one-story, cross-gabled structure with a /j..{J '.~rominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, fi). ~\)~ the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for V UV'" housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. In total, the applicant is attempting to split an existing 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and then completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home that would be built on Lot A would be allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district. Lot B would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. In terms of the HPC's review, the applicant is requesting approval of a proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage. Approval of an On-Site Relocation is requested to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to '3" .('';Jlhe east, eleven (11) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in (3/ d&'V order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed A":J'\).<I houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (the garage ~(7' would also be rotated 180 degrees so that it can be entered into from the alley). Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town. Historic Landmark Lot Split approval is requested to create a new, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house. Significant Development (Conceptual) review, including variances, is requested for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house.176t~,.,A.\.. ~ ~aJ \II'l2IAtl~.. . ~ G) -_._---""-,~.~""-~~,,~<,-._,'-'~~._~.~,~..._"'- If any of the requested approvals are to be granted by the HPC, said approvals would need to be contingent upon City Council approval of the proposed Landmark Designation and Lot Split. The applicant's submitted application is attached as Exhibit "A" and referral comments are included as Exhibit "B." APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Ron Robertson and Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The lot in question contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As proposed, the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption would result in a 3,432 square foot parcel (Lot A), and a 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B). ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing lot of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Three (3) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landmarked lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional use approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission require a public hearing. It is a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to the conditional use review: Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6); and, Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing the conditional use application on July 7, 1998. 2 The application to the Historic Preservation Commission requires a public hearing for the Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, and residential design standards. Included in this hearing will be the requests for Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation. The On-Site Relocation is reviewed according to Section 27.72.020(D)(2), (3) and (4); the Off-Site Relocation request is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(D); the Partial Demolition is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(C); the Historic Landmark Lot Split is reviewed according to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5); the Significant Development (Conceptual) and dimensional requirement variances are reviewed according to Section 26.72.01O(D)(I); and, the Residential Design Standards variance is reviewed according to Section 26.22.010. The HPC serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council with regard to Historic Landmark Lot Splits (i.e., makes a recommendation only, and Council makes the final decision). All of the other requests are under the purview of the HPC, and FAR Bonuses are not approved until final review of the Significant Development application. The application will then go before the City Council for final decisions regarding the Landmark Designation and Landmark Lot Split requests (first reading on July 13th, and second reading on July 27th). The HPC unanimously recommended approval of the Landmark Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission did the same on December 2, 1997. After City Council's review is completed, provided approvals are granted, the applicant would have to return to the HPC for Final approval of the Significant Development request, including the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from the Sanitation District, and the City Engineering, Housing, and Zoning Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.28.040. Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Two (2) detached residential dwellings on landmarked lots are permitted as conditional uses on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone district. The lot (Lot B) would have an area of 7,616 square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for historic landmark lots is 3,000 square feet per unit, and the proposal exceeds this requirement. The minimum lot width for lots created via the Historic Landmark Lot Split process is thirty (30) feet, and Lot B's width would be approximately seventy-six (76) feet. The required side yard setbacks call for a minimum of five (5) feet, but both sides combined must total at least 23 feet. The minimum front and rear yard setbacks are ten (10) feet each, but must combine for a total of at least thirty (30) feet. The site coverage is not allowed to exceed thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet), and the maximum roof height cannot exceed twenty-five (25) feet, as measured to a variety of points depending on the particular roof slope. There must be a total offour (4) off-street parking spaces provided (two (2) for each dwelling unit). The proposed plans indicate that the development would meet all of the dimensional requirements of the 3 zone district, with the exception of the side yard setbacks (each side and combined), and the maximum site coverage; the applicant is seeking variances from these dimensional requirements from the HPC as part of their Significant Development Review (below). Section 26. 72.020(C). Standards for Review of Partial Demolition - .. Partial Demolition approval is requested to remove the lean-to structure attached to the garage. Section 26.72.020(C) states that "no approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met:" (Standards are provided in indented italics with staff responses immediately following). 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation. restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. Staff Response: The partial demolition is requested to remove a lean-to structure that is not original to the garage. Furthermore, the garage itself is not original to the site, but was moved to its current location in the 1940s. The applicant indicates that the lean-to cannot be accommodated in the proposed site plan due to its size and the FAR limitations associated with the whole development. The applicant proposes to accomplish the rehabilitation and restoration of the structure by renovating it in a manner that would make it useful as a garage. To truly restore it to its original condition, the 1940s lean-to addition needs to be removed. In this sense, the partial demolition is necessary for the renovation, restoration and rehabilitation of the structure. 2. The applicant has mitigated. to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Staff Response: As explained above, the proposed partial demolition would remove only non-original elements of the structure and, therefore, limits the impacts on the historic significance of the building. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Staff Response: No new additions would be made to the structure in place of the removed lean-to; however, a new corrugated metal breezeway (roof structure) would be connected to the garage structure just below the eave line of its gable end. This breezewa~ld connect the garage structure with the rear side of the historic house,"M'a "_JAwould not, in staff s estimation, compromise the architectural character or integrity of the structures located on the parcel as it would be subordinate in mass and scale to the historic structures and located in such a way as to leave the primary facades unaltered. Section 26.72. 020(E). Standards for Review of On-Site Relocation 4 Approval of an On-Site Relocation is requested to move the eXlstmg, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east, eleven (11) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses, and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (the garage would also be rotated 180 degrees so that it can be entered into from the alley). Thus, on-site relocation is requested for both the existing house and garage structures. Section 26.72.020(E) states that "No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26. 72. 020(D)(2), (3). and (4) have been met." These standards and staff responses are as follows: 2. 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 acljacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation; and Staff Response: Moving the house would allow the applicant to accomplish the proposed development which, in turn, allows for the preservation of the historic house without any significant additions or modifications. As a result, the house would retain its scale, size, form and general appearance. Specifically, moving the historic house allows for the placement of the new houses in a manner which would create the rhythm and spacing between structures that was typical of historic Aspen (i.e., houses of small-to-moderate scale placed on lots of approximately 3,000 square feet each). Moving the house forward would allow the structure to retain its prominence on the site. If the garage structure were to remain on the easterly corner of the lot, it would lose its association with the historic house and be left behind a new structure of a greater size, mass and scale; thus, making the historically significant structure subordinate to a new building. Moving the garage to the rear of the historic house and rotating it to face the alley would allow the structure to continue to be utilized while maintaining its association with the historic house. Staff does not believe the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures would be at all diminished by the relocation ofthe house or garage. 3. 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; and Staff Response: The information required by this standard will be submitted by the applicant either prior to final review or with building permit applications. 4. 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; and Staff Response: The applicant will submit the relocation plan and financial security with their building permit application. 5 Section 26. 72.020(D). Standards for Review Q,{ Off-Site Relocation Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town. Currently, the shed resides within the alley right-of-way. No approval for off-site relocation requests shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and Staff Response: The applicant explains that many options to try to reuse the shed on site have been explored, but none have proven workable. The shed is too small to be used as a garage stall, but too large to be accommodated on the site solely for storage purposes. Consideration has also been given to leaving the shed at the end of the alley as a sort of neighborhood gardening/storage shed; however, maneuvering of vehicles and City snow plowing equipment in the area would be problematic under such a scenario. Consequently, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to another site in town. The shed is not original to the subject property as it was once located at the base of the ski mountain where it served as a concession stand. The applicant proposes to locate an appropriate site for relocating the shed, such as the new ski museum, one of the City parks, or a location associated with the Ski Company. . " (JVT VtTTIc.. A U>C4~'5 1Ou,Ji).. . 2. 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; and Staff Response: As mentioned in response to the standard immediately above, the applicant has determined, and staff concurs, that the best preservation method for the shed is to relocate it to another site in town. The applicant is committed to finding a use for the building, as opposed to demolishing it. The shed is not original to the site or to the neighborhood, and the two significant structures on the site would be preserved as freestanding buildings with minor modifications, thereby strongly aiding the efforts to preserve the historic character of the property and its neighborhood. 3. 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; and Staff Response: The information required by this standard will be submitted by the applicant either prior to final review or with building permit applications. 6 4. 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; and Staff Response: The applicant will submit the relocation plan and financial security with their building permit application. The receiving site shall be required to be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptable letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the applicant intends to find a site which is relevant to the building's history (i.e., ski related). If this is not possible, the applicant would like to find a site where the general public can view and enjoy the building. However, as a specific site has not yet been found, staff does not feel that this criterion can satisfactorily be addressed or its compliance ensured. Therefore, staff must recommend that the off-site relocation application be continued indefinitely, until such time as the applicant can return with a specific proposal (receiving site). Section 26.88.030(A)(S), Historic Landmark Lot Split Historic Landmark Lot Splits must meet the requirements of Sections 26.88.030(A)(2), 26.88.030(A)(5), 26.1 00.050(A)(2)(e), and 26.72.0 I O(G) of the Aspen Municipal Code. . 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 Staff 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.JOO.040(A)(1)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26. I 00.050(A)(2)(c)]. 7 Staff 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. The applicant proposes to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(I)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.1 OO.050(C)(3)(a)); and Staff Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval. 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. Staff 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. Staff 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. Staff Response: 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. 8 ____~"~_,._,._..._..,._~._..__,~.~~___~~'___ ,_,,,,,___,~_""'__,"""'-"_m_'~,^,,'_""_'~'__""""__ Staff Response: The applicant proposes a total of three (3) units. Two detached homes would be built on Lot B (easterly lot) and would be in condominium ownership. A third unit would be located on the westerly parcel, which would be a fee simple lot. The Community Development Director has made a formal code interpretation finding that the word "may," as used in this standard, is permissive and means the same thing as "can" or "might." Thus, the proposed development complies with the technical requirements of this standard. Furthermore, the three detached units would combine for an FAR equal to the allowable FAR of a duplex on the fathering parcel, which is an arguably better scenario than placing all of the allowable FAR that is not currently utilized in the historic structures into one large duplex. Staff finds that the proposal complies with this standard. . 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. Staff Response: The parcel is 11,048 square feet (larger than 9,000 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. Staff Response: The proposal involves dividing the 11,048 square foot property into two parcels, the westerly (Lot A) of which would contain 3,432 square feet and the easterly parcel (Lot B) would contain 3,432 square feet. The development on both parcels shall be restricted to the floor area that would be allowed for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. The allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,209 square feet plus the potential for an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet, if granted by the HPC. The applicant requests the 500 square foot bonus, but these bonuses cannot be granted until Final approval of the Significant Development application. The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. The applicant intends to allot 1,000 square feet of Lot B's FAR to the existing house, with the remaining FAR to be utilized in the new house. 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. 9 Staff Response: The proposed development of Lot A (the westerly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements ofthe R-6 zone district. The proposed development of Lot B (the easterly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, with the exception of the individual side yard setbacks, the combined side yard setbacks, and the maximum site coverage, but the lot itself would meet all applicable dimensional requirements. Consequently, the applicant is requesting the following: . a variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); . a variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; and, . a variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent. The variance requests and the applicant's justification for them, are discussed at length in the Significant Development Review section of this memo, below. . Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, 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 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Staff Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application, if approval is granted. . Section 26. 72.010(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Staff Response: This meeting is a noticed public hearing before the HPC. The HPC shall forward their recommendation to the City Council, who will also review the application at a public hearing. Section 26. 72.010(D). Significant Development Review Standards The applicant is requesting Conceptual Significant Development approval for the proposed development of an historic landmark lot, including the variances discussed above. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving Historic Landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. Before HPC approval of a significant development involving an Historic Landmark may be 10 granted, a conceptual development plan and a final development plan shall be reviewed by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52, and the following review criteria: a. The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site covered by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage InfiU Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26. 40. 090(B)(2). Staff Response: The proposed development is compatible in general design and site planning (layout and orientation) with the designated historic structure and the neighborhood. The historic development pattern of Aspen placed small-to-moderate size homes on 3,000 square foot lots. The proposed development would include two homes of 1,850 square feet (bigger than historic houses, but smaller than the vast majority of residences built in Aspen within the last twenty or so years) and another of approximately 1,000 square feet, all fairly evenly spaced on 11,048 square feet ofland. The three structures would share a common built-to line (front setback), be oriented to the public street, and have their garages and parking in the rear, along the alley. The general design, massing and volume, and scale of the proposed development, however, warrants further discussion. Staff supports most of the proposed changes to the design ofthe existing historic house as the house would be one of the only miner's cottages in Aspen to be left almost completely in tact. That is, the applicant is proposing only minor changes to the historic house, including a new door and window on the rear of the building (in a portion that was added to the original house in the 1960s), an addition of a roof/breezeway over the area between the house and the relocated garage, and the required lightwells on the east, west, and north sides to serve the new bedrooms in the basement. Staff finds that the proposed changes to the historic house are appropriate and compatible with the historic resource in terms of mass, scale and general design, with the exception of the proposed windows on the rear/north elevation. These proposed windows are, in staff's estimation, out of scale (approximately 48 square feet of glazing) and incompatible with the miner's cottage. While staff appreciates the attempt to make the new easily differentiated from the old, the size, scale and design of the proposed windows are too far of a departure to maintain compatibility. Thus, staff recommends restudy of this proposed fenestration. With regard to the proposed design of the easternmost structure, staff believes it to be generally compatible in massing, volume, scale, and site planning with the historic structure and surrounding neighborhood. Staff does, however, feel that a good deal of the proposed fenestration on this house needs to be restudied and scaled back, especially on the south and 11 west elevations. For instance, the frontmost wall of the street-facing facade (south elevation) includes approximately sixty-four (64) square feet of contemporary-style glazing, which equates to approximately thirty (30) percent of this facade's area. While these windows are vertically oriented, as is appropriate, they are simply too grand and out of proportion, resulting in undue prominence that may detract from the historic structure. The same is true, but to a lesser degree, of the proposed windows set farther back but still on the front/south elevation. The proposed glazing on the east elevation is similar to that of the other elevations, but is less significant since it would be obscured by its proximity to the Sagewood Condominiums and, thus, would not detract from the historic resource. Staff finds the proposed glazing on the west elevation (adjacent to and facing the historic house) to be inappropriate, out of scale, and generally incompatible with the adjacent historic resource. The proposed design includes over 100 contiguous square feet of glazing for an internal stairway. Staff finds this grouping of windows to be not only unnecessary (views from a staircase), but also incompatible with the historic resource in terms of general design, massing, volume and scale, and recommends restudy. Staff finds the north elevation to be acceptable as proposed. With regard to the proposed design of the westernmost structure, staff is of the opinion that the massing needs to be restudied. In particular, the height of both gable ends on the south, street-facing elevation should be brought down to a level that would be more compatible with the scale of the historic structure. The south elevation does not match with the east and west elevations with regard to the point at which the higher of the two street-facing gable ends intersects with its cross gable, but staff feels that the design shown in the east and west elevations is more appropriate since the crossing of the gables occurs at different ridge heights. Regardless, staff thinks these ridge heights should be lowered. The staff comments with regard to the proposed windows on the front elevation of the easternmost structure hold true with regard to this, westernmost structure as well. In addition, stafffeels that the square-shaped window on the front elevation of the westernmost structure should be given a vertical orientation to reflect the influence of the historic house. The fenestration proposed on the east elevation is acceptable to staff, and should serve as an example for the east elevation of the easternmost structure. The west elevation would be very visible to traffic (pedestrian and vehicular) coming into town. As such, it should provide an appropriate statement for its almost "gateway" status. Like the westernmost structure, this elevation includes an inappropriate and unnecessary amount of glazing (10' x 4') that would serve an internal stairway. The glazing in the stairway gives the appearance of windows that span through an area where another floor would typically exist. Staff feels that the glazing, in general, on the proposed west elevation should be restudied to achieve greater compatibility and functionality. The north elevation is acceptable to staff as proposed. A . d I' . h' d "I.&oh' I" . h" II . s mentlOne ear ler m t IS memoran ul'llt t e app Icant IS requestmg t e.o owmg: . a variance from the minimum side yara setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); 12 . a variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; . a variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent; and, . a five hundred (500) square foot FAR bonus for Lot B. According to this review criterion, the HPC can grant these variances and this bonus 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 the dimensional requirements. The City Zoning Officer has reviewed the proposal and found that these variances would indeed be required; however, the individual side yard setback variances may not be necessary if they are to accommodate nothing other than the minimum size lightwells required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code's provisions for egress. Nonetheless, it is the Zoning Officer's recommendation that the applicant seek this variance anyway, and it is the Community Development Department recommendation that the requested side yard setback variances be granted. Staff also finds that compliance with the minimum combined side yard setback provision would be less compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood than would development with this variance. The combined side yard setback standard results in non-uniform spacing between structures and tends to distort or breakdown the rhythm of structure-to-open area-to-structure that is typical of historic neighborhoods. For similar reasons, staff also supports the requested variance of 2% from the maximum allowable site coverage. Staff supports the request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus (which will be considered at Final review) since the extra square footage makes the preservation of the historic structure viable. b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Staff Response: The property is located in a neighborhood which is composed primarily of multi-family structures, with single-family and duplex homes to the north. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Staff Response: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to the adjacent structures and the relationship between these properties. With regard to the relationship between the proposed new structures and the historic house, please refer to the staff response to criterion "a." above. d. The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof Staff Response: Please refer to the staff response to criterion "a." above. 13 Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." In staffs review, it was determined that the proposed designs for the two new houses contain violations of the "Volume" standard on every side, except the north elevations. The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet. shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the first or second story floors (plate height). Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two-to-one (2: I) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations, Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board, or in this case, the HPC. Rather than accept the floor area penalties or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (I) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. According to the pending revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although pending code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff felt this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variance is to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the 14 . {f\ol' 10 J6 ~ walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. Given the staff comments and recommendations with regard to standard "a." of the Significant Development Review (pages 11-12 of this memo --- staff finds the most of the proposed fenestration to be inappropriate), staff recommends that the review of the requested "volume" variances be continued. In the Significant Development Review, staff recommends that all the proposed fenestration be restudied, and if the HPC decides to support the staff recommendation, then granting variances to allow the currently proposed fenestration would be premature. Staff suggests waiting until the new designs are submitted and reviewed before deciding on the variance request. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: . Approve the Development application as submitted. . Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy. . Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered). . Deny all or part of the Development application finding that anyone or more of the Development Review Standards are not being met. RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Development Department staff recommends the following: I. Approval of the partial demolition as proposed. 2. Approval of the on-site relocations with the following conditions: A. Either prior to Final review or with building permit application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the structures to be moved are 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; and, B. Either prior to Final review or with building permit application, 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. 3. Indefinite continuance of the Off-Site Relocation, pending determination of a suitable receiving site. 4. That the HPC recommend that City Council approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: 15 A. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation is granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City CounciL B. 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: (I) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) 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. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. C. 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). D. 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. E. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 5. Continuance of the Conceptual Significant Development application to a date certain for: 16 . A. Restudy of the proposed windows on the North elevation of the historic house to achieve greater compatibility, B. Restudy of the proposed windows on the South and West elevations of the easternmost structure to achieve a better relationship with the historic house in terms of scale, volume, and general compatibility; and, ...~t. J Restudy of the mass and scale of the proposed westernmost structure, including the tP'-:-_.r~le/roofforms (ridge heights) and the glazing on the South and West elevations ~'ll'l ~chieve a better relationship with the historic house in terms of scale, volume, and general compatibility. 6. Approval of the following variances (part of the Conceptual Significant Development)j'F"'- ~ af_ ~~"- A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks of five (5) feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement); B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet) to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (37) percent; and, 7. Continuance of the requested variance from the "Volume" provision of the Residential Design Standards to the same date certain as the Conceptual Review. ..-<f"~ IRECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the staff recommendations contained in \''''., "this staff memorandum, dated July 8,1998." ~..O EXHIBITS: "A" - Application package 17 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON-SITE RELOCATION, OFF-SITE RELOCATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT), AND VARIANCES TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, SITE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, AND "VOLUME" PROVISION OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 5 :00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, requesting Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Off-Site Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual Review (Significant Development), and Variances to the side yard setbacks, Site Coverage Requirement, And "Volume" Provision Of The Residential Design Standards. . The property is located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the AspenlPitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 20,1998 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc ASPEN PLANNING. 'ZONING COMMISSION -.J .JULY 7.1998 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS .......................................................................................................1 LIFT I A AREA. TOP OF ASPEN STREET. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY WOR1,0 CUP REGRADING IMPROVEMENTS. 8040 GREENLINE .............................................................................................................._..1 920 WEST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW........................................................................................5 9 .-._~,-,..~-_._,. , ASPEN PLANNING'-../ZONTNG COMMISSION v .JTJI.Y 7. 1998 do these improvements. Gerdin illustrated areas with an overview map and photos. Gerdin said there were requests for computer simulation of these areas from different vantage points in town. He explained the cuts, contours and filling in on the horizon line from the west to the east. He stated the erosion retention materials needed would be used along with silt fencing to mitigate any erosion while the road was opened up. Gerdin stated the road would be continued along the slope, not a main access, but as an alternate access up the mountain. There would be an under-drain off to the side and be directed away from the area. Gerdin noted that City Engineering requested cross-sections and a smaller representation of the same thing. He said this project would be taken care of in a responsible manner. Their engineer was looking into issues; the amount of clay in this soil which was higher than the optimum for the dirt to stay in place. He said the plasticity index was 7-9. Nick Adeh, City Engineer, replied the TI was 0-7 with the liquid limit at 14-20. Gerdin said their engineers stated the soil would stay in place. He said that Schrnueser Gordon Meyer had been contracted to provide a drainage plan with run-off in the disturbed areas appropriately. Roger Hunt inquired about the dealings with the Savannah pond. Gerdin answered that Savannah requested a temporary structure for this project only; to be taken out afterward. He said that John Sarpa wants in no way to tie that sediment pond as a permanent structure to anything which could inhibit his project or proposal. He said he did not want to speculate on anything further what was between Savannah and the City. Bill Kane, SkiCo, said a point of clarification the sediment pond plays an important role while the soil is disturbed; after the slope is re-vegetated the hydrologic requirements were different. The role of the sedimentation pond usually goes away; there may be another drainage feature that could deal with big discharge, more of an urban facility. Kane said it was not an unreasonable request for the City to require a sub-surface concrete wall as part of the land use application. He said after vegetation was re-established, that goes away. Gerdin requested a letter from the City stating the ponds are a temporary facility and in no way binds Savannah to that spot in the future. He utilized computer-generated photos to illustrate the point. Garton asked Nick Adeh how he felt about the proposal. Adeh replied that SkiCo satisfied the concerns; the drainage plan and erosion control plans, resulted from working together. He said the end results were to mitigate the stability of the soils and they were waiting for the other consultant to supply information on the water collection and conversion results. 2 ASPEN PLANNING-ZONING COMMISSION o .JULY 7.1998 conditions as stated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan as submitted. The applicant shall water all disturbed soils as necessary during construction and as additionally requested by the City during the construction process. A construction manager shall be available during all hours of construction to address specific needs as necessary. 2. To minimize soil erosion after construction. the applicant shall tamp the disturbed soil. provide water bars to direct runoff away from the disturbed areas. seed and mulch the affected areas. place hay bales or silt fencing where runoff may accumulate. and any other mitigation measures provided in the land use application or as requested by the City Engineer or the Forest Service. 3. All disturbed areas shall be re- seeded and mulched within ten (10) days of final grading and irrigated on an ongoing basis until proper germination. All areas which do not germinate in the 1998 growing season shall be re-seeded in the Spring of 1999. Seed mixes used shall be approved by the City Forester. The applicant shall not use White Dutch Clover or Alsike Clover in the seed mix. 4. The applicant shall replace the four Aspen trees removed in kind with double the total caliper. Placement ofthese new Aspens shall be proximate to the area of impact, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester. and shall be accomplished in the 1998 building season. The applicant shall guarantee the success of these replacement trees for one year by posting a bond with the City Parks Department for the replacement value of the removed trees. This requirement is specific to this land use approval. as requested by the City Parks Department. and should not be used as a precedent for overall management of Aspen Mountain. 5. The applicant shall provide a section of gravel at the end of Mill Street to minimize sediment loaded drainage from entering Mill Street and shall develop a temporary sedimentation pond on the Savannah property with written approval from Savannah Limited Partnership. The applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer in adopting the Aspen Mountain Drainage Area Master Plan. 6. Prior to construction of the improvements. the applicant shall gain final approval from the City Engineer for the improvement's drainage system. the stability of materials being relocated. and mitigation of underground water conveyance in pipe trenches. If soil conditions require importation of large amounts of fill material. the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a traffic control plan and the dust control plan shall be expanded to address Mill Street. Approval to include these provisions may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment. 7. The City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Pitkin County approve the portions of this development proposal within Pitkin County with the same set of conditions as provided herein. except condition #4 related to the City's tree replacement Ordinance. 8. This City Planning and Zoning Resolution may be enforced by the Environmental Health Department or by either the City or County Zoning Enforcement Officer. 9. Prior to construction. the applicant shall pay the Community Development Department $1.505 land use application fees. This represents 6 hours of planning time at $180/hr. and flat fees for the City Engineer ($270) and the Environmental Health Department ($155). 10. The applicant shall gain approval from the City Water Department for potable water systems and any necessary improvements to the water meter and any additives to the snowmaking system. 11. All construction staging and contractor parking shall be accomplished on-site and not within public rights-of-way. The applicant shall keep the public rights-of-way clear of tracked mud and debris by washing the street when necessary. 12. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 13. Any alterations to existing utilities shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility agency. 14. Before construction, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk 4 ASPEN PLANNTNGI.""".,ZONING COMMISSION ,) .JULY 7.1998 the property by keeping it almost in tact. The development would reclaim the use of the alley, which would be a significant feature. Haas said the curb cut on the highway would be removed and closed having the access from the rear (alley). He said that cash-in-lieu would be provided instead of accessory dwelling units. He stated that 3 ADUs would have meant 3 more parking spaces and more impact on the neighborhood. Haas said this was a win-win scenario. Roger Hunt asked if the alley would serve the house to the west because that curb cut was even more dangerous. Rappaport said there was a large tree in the middle of the ally there. Hunt suggested flipping the site plan to move the historic house to the western most lot. Haas responded that portion of the lot sinks in elevation which would make the new structure look larger than it really was. Rappaport said this project kept the resource in tact without diminishing it. He stated there would be are-study of the street-scape anyhow; the sidewalk construction would trigger many things and may include handrails because of the grade. Robertson commented the spirit of doing this project was the direction the community should take instead all of the monster additions to the little houses. Charlie Tarver, public, commented that by not messing too much with this would send a message to the other parcels to keep the smaller units. Tarver read Marcella Larson's letter which stated that the project was needed because it was appropriate in character and scale of the urban core and entrance to Aspen. Charlie Eckhart, Sagewood, said they were comfortable with the project except for the trash. He noted the Sagewood had 11 units and would like to propose a shared trash area along the common property line because they cannot give up another parking space. Garton asked if they were parking on city property. Haas stated his understanding was that at least one of the Sagewood parking spaces was converted to landscaping. He noted a transformer box sat in the alley and would have to move into Lot B on a pedestal of 10' by 6' which will take up the corner of the property. Haas said the dumpster sits in the middle of the alley and hopefully something could be worked out in the future for a shared facility. Eckhart requested a shared easement to jointly store trash. Garton noted this application could not be encumbered with another entity's trash problems. She stated homeowners had the responsibility of storing their trash on their own property. Eckhart said they may be forced to put the dumpster in the street. Garton said that was not allowed. She commented that this commission could not condition that you could place your trash on someone else's property. Rappaport said a solution may be using the large brown trash containers and roll them out on trash pick-up day. '6 ASPEN PLANNIN( ", ZONING COMMISSION ......, , ..l - .JULY 7.1998 dust control plan with the Enviroumental Health Department. 4. Prior to the issuauce of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Remove the existing driveway's curb cut onto West Hallam Street (aIkIa Colorado Highway 82) and replace it with a standard tapered curb matching the existiog curb on each side; b. Improve the alley between West Hallam and West Francis Streets to City standards; c. Any and all proposed improvements or changes in the West Hallam Street right-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer; the applicant shall also sign a curb and gutter agreement; d. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not withio the public rights-of-way; said easements sail be depicted on the building permit application plan sets. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement withiu the private property shall be modified to provide ten (10) feet of length along the alley, six (6) feet of width into the property, and six (6) feet of depth below the finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer; e. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of- way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; and, f. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property Iioes, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the AspenlPitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit. 6. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 7. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 8. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change snbsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation, or for referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 9. All material representations made hy the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. and the commission went into a work session on the Burlingame. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 ""---, - AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 4:30 p.m. TUESDAY, JULY 7,1998 SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners and Planning Staff B. Public II. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST III. MINUTES IV. ACTION ITEMS 4:45-5:00 A. Lift lA Area, Top of Aspen Street, Aspen Skiing Company World Cup Regrading Improvements, 8040 Greenline Review (continued from June 30, 1998); Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5:00-5:30 A. 920 W. Hallam Conditional Use Review; Mitch Haas VI. NEW BUSINESS 5:30-7:00 A. Worksession: Burlingame Ranch Housing Project; Bob Nevins, Jim Curtis VII. ADJOURN NOTE: These times are approximate, and applicants should plan to be present approximately 1/2 hour prior to their case time estimated. .. ,,---, - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct~ Mitch Haas, Planner~ 920 West Hallam Street Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing. Parcel !.D. No. 2735-123-03-003. THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: July 7, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached residential dwellings on a lot with an area of more than 6,000 square feet. The list of Conditional Uses permitted in the R-6 zone district allows for two (2) detached residential dwellings on an historic landmark designated lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. In total, the applicant is attempting to split an existing 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of7,6l6 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and then completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home that would be built on Lot A would be allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district. Lot B, which is the subject of this application, would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. Thus, the proposal before the Planning and Zoning Commission involves only the 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B) that would be created and the two (2) detached residential dwellings that would be located thereon; thus, if approval is to be granted by the Commission, it would need to be contingent upon City Council approval of the proposed Landmark Designation and Lot Split. The applicant's Conditional Use Application is attached as Exhibit "A" and referral comments are included as Exhibit "B." Community Development staff recommends that the Conditional Use at 920 W. Hallam be approved, subject to conditions. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Ron Robertson and Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 112 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house . "'-' containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area; it was built in 1888 and is a one- story, cross-gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. LOT SIZE: The lot in question contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As proposed, the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption would result in a 3,432 square foot parcel (Lot A), and a 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B). ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing lot of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11 ,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Two (2) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landmarked lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional use approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission require a public hearing. It is a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to this conditional use review: Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6); and, Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. The applicant will also be going before the Historic Preservation Commission for a public hearing on July 8, 1998 for review of an application that includes requests for Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, Off-Site Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, and residential design standards. The application will then go before the City Council for final decisions regarding the Landmark Designation and Landmark Lot Split requests. After this is done, provided approvals are granted, the applicant would have to return to the HPC for Final approval of the Significant Development request. 2 - '.'.-.,.~'~'------'-"'~--"'~~~"-"'~' REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the City Engineering, Housing, Zoning and Parks Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Two (2) detached residential dwellings on landmarked lots are permitted as conditional uses on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone district. The lot (Lot B) would have an area of7,616 square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for historic landmark lots is 3,000 square feet per unit, and the proposal exceeds this requirement. The minimum lot width for lots created via the Historic Landmark Lot Split process is thirty (30) feet, and Lot B's width would be approximately seventy-six (76) feet. The required side yard setbacks call for a minimum of five (5) feet, but both sides combined must total at least 23 feet. The minimum front and rear yard setbacks are ten (10) feet each, but must combine for a total of at least thirty (30) feet. The site coverage is not allowed to exceed thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet), and the maximum roof height cannot exceed twenty-five (25) feet, as measured to a variety of points depending on the particular roof slope. There must be a total offour (4) off-street parking spaces provided (two (2) for each dwelling unit). The proposed plans indicate that the development would meet all of the dimensional requirements of the zone district, with the exception of the side yard setbacks (each side and combined), and the maximum site coverage; the applicant is seeking variances from these dimensional requirements from the HPC as part of their Significant Development Review. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval shall meet the following standards: (A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The stated purpose of the R-6 zone district "is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. . . Lands in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences and are within walking distance of the center of the City." The proposal would provide long-term residential units of up to 1 ,850 square feet of floor area. This size is relatively small for residential developments in or around Aspen and, as such, stands a good chance of being priced in a range suitable for a primary residence. The proposed development is in harmony with the purpose of the zone district, which is to contain relatively dense settlements long- term, residences. 3 The "Intent" statement of the AACP's Housing Action Plan calls for creating "a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and affordable." Staff believes that the proposal would create housing that is appropriately scaled to the neighborhood, and due to the proposed size of the units (scale), they should be as, if not more, affordably priced than any newly developed, non-deed restricted residences built within the West End in recent history. The "Intent" of the Design Quality and Historic Preservation element of the AACP is to "ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features." This section of the AACP also declares that "the loss of our historic architecture through total removal or insensitive adjacent development must be prevented." The applicant could, by right, make an addition of some 3,200 square feet to the existing historic structure but has, instead, decided to permanently preserve the miner's cottage in its present condition (there would be no FAR remaining on the site) and add two appropriately sized/scaled (1,850 square feet) homes, one on each side. All three houses will be compatible and sympathetic in scale to each other and to the surrounding neighborhood. (B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The subject parcel is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north and west, and multi-family residential uses to the south and east. The proposed development is both consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the immediate vicinity. From a visual perspective, the proposed development would be highly compatible with the historic nature of the surrounding area, as described above. The proposed density of one (I) dwelling per 3,682 square feet of lot area is consistent with that ofthe neighborhood and the R -6 zone district. (C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: As explained in the foregoing, the proposal would help to preserve an historic resource while developing the property in a manner that creates an attractive and appropriately scaled residential area at the entrance to town. The property is situated on important and prevalent vehicular and pedestrian routes and would be an asset to their character. The proposed development would ensure that this gateway to town includes human- and pedestrian-scaled homes along with the existing multi-family developments and Poppie's Restaurant; an alternative scenario, which could be developed as a use by right, would have this strategically located lot developed with a 4,200 square foot home exempl ifying the infamous "monster homes" of Aspen at its primary gateway. In terms of operating characteristics, the proposal involves "reclaiming" the unused alley at the rear of the property. Once improved, vehicular access, parking, utility pedestals, and trash areas would be located along the alley; thus, the operating characteristics of the site 4 , '~.....' would be vastly improved from its current condition. In addition, the pedestrian circulation systems would be improved by the installation of sidewalks, With the applicants' improvement and opening of the alley, the existing yet dangerous curb cut that provides vehicular access directly to/from Highway 82 would be eliminated. Other neighbors along the alley are already planning to relocate their parking to the alley-side of their lots, which will serve to lessen congestion and parking problems on neighborhood streets. (D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police. fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The property is in the historic Aspen Townsite and all services and facilities are immediately available. See Engineering referral comments, attached as Exhibit B. (E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: Housing mitigation will be required for the two (2) new homes that are proposed on the site. According to Section 26.l00.050(A)(2)(c), in order to qualify for a single-family GMQS Exemption, the applicant has three (3) options: provide an accessory dwelling unit, pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee, or record a resident-occupancy deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. Accordingly, the applicant has chosen to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee for each of the two (2) new units. Under the provisions of the land use code, this constitutes an acceptable commitment to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Foran in depth discussion of these fees and how they are calculated, please refer to the Housing Department's referral memo attached with Exhibit B. (F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. Response: The proposed conditional use will comply with all additional standards imposed on it be the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. STAFF FINDINGS: Based upon review of the applicant's land use application and the referral comments, Community Development staff finds that there is sufficient information to support the request. The proposal meets or exceeds all standards applicable to the review of conditional uses. The proposed development is rather exemplary in that it does not set out to develop in a manner that would bring the highest possible economic return; rather, the proposed development seeks to preserve an historic resource at the gateway to town by maintaining its scale, form, and design while adding two (2) new and appropriately scaled homes of small- to-moderate size by Aspen standards. No Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are proposed, but these units have proven difficult to control under the current regulations and (unfortunately) often serve as extra bedrooms. Staff believes the proposed development offers a win-win development scenario for the applicant and the City, respectively. 5 ----~---<---_...._-' RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the conditional use request to develop two (2) detached dwellings on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split be approved with the following conditions: I. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split are granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. 2. The approvals contained herein are fully contingent upon the applicants' receIVIng approval of the needed variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R- 6, Medium-Density Residential zone district; the conditional use approval shall not create any nonconformities. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall: a. Pay the applicable (at the time of payment) cash-in-Iieu fee for affordable housing mitigation (GMQS Exemption) attributable to the new structure; b. Receive final significant development approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the design and layout of the proposed development; c. Verify that the site development will meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado; d. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any trees that are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); and, e. Provide information to the AspenlPitkin Environmental Health Department which documents that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PMlO caused by the development; the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit, as well as a fugitive dust control plan with the Environmental Health Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Remove the existing driveway's curb cut onto West Hallam Street (aIkIa Colorado Highway 82) and replace it with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb on each side; b. Improve the alley between West Hallam and West Francis Streets to City standards; c. Install detached sidewalks of at least five (5) feet in width and railings along said sidewalks in areas where the City Engineer determines that the grade differentiation necessitate such railings. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair shall be replaced and the applicant shall sign a curb and gutter agreement; 6 , '-.., d. Remove any and all existing encroachments from the alley right-of-way, including but not limited to the existing shed and garage structures. Similarly, the existing concrete steps onto the West Hallam Street right-of-way must be removed and relocated to within the limits of the property; likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of any new homes shall also be located within the limits of the properties; e. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights-of-way; said easements shall be depicted on the building permit application plan sets. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property shall be modified to provide ten (10) feet of length along the alley, six (6) feet of width into the property, and six (6) feet of depth below the finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer; f. Agree to join any future improvement district( s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval ofthis application; and, g. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling ofthe property occurs that requires a building permit. 6. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: . The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; . The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; . The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, . The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 7. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 8. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation, or for referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 7 , - . . _,","",;"',,_",_,,'~'~m .'.. ....~_.~.,~_,,~____., ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may decide to approve the proposal with the conditions outlined above, approve the proposal with additional and/or modified conditions, or deny the conditional use request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use request to place two (2) detached residences on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated July 7, 1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - Conditional Use Application "B" - Referral Comments 8 t fift~rr "A 'J 920 w. hallam June 4,1998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; Herewith please find our application for Conditional Use before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application includes the following: 1. Land use application form. 2. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Response to review standards for Conditional Use. 4. Legal description of the parcel and a disclosure of ownership of the parcel. 5. A general vicinity map. 6. A site improvement survey 7. Graphics representing the proposed development. 8. Photographs of the property and surrounding properties (to be provided at the meeting. ) Sincerely, ~ -<f /(~~:r Aspen Historic Cottages, LtC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name: 920 W. Hallam Street. 2. Project location: 920 W. Hallam Street. the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and the west 7.16 feet of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. Present zoning: R-6, Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 4. Lot size: 11,048 square feet 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number: E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number: Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO 81623. Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621. 7. Type of application (check all that apply): p.Conditional Use _Conceptual SPA _Special Review _Final SPA _8040 Greenhne _Conceptual PUD _Stream Margin _Final PUD _Subdivision _ TextlMap Amend _ GMQS allotment _ GMQS exemption _View Plane _ Condominiumization _Lot SplitILot Line Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft" number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property): Two bedroom single family house- approximately 980 square feet, Garage- approximately 453 square feet, Shed- approximately 231 square feet. No previous approvals have been granted. 9. Description of development application: The application is for a conditional use which is available for historic landmarks in the R-6 zone district, and which allows a duplex or two residential detached dwellings on a lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The subject lot will be created through a historic landmark lot split, which is under review by the BPC and City Council Through the lot split, the property will be divided into two parcels. Lot A is a 3,432 square foot lot and will be allowed one single family home by right. The size of the home will be 1,850 square feet. Lot B, which is the subject of this application, will be 7,616 square feet and is to contain the two detached dwellings allowed as a conditional use. These dwellings will be tbe existing historic house, which will remain 1,000 square feet and will have no addition made to it, and a new house, which will also be 1,850 square feet. This proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR than what is allowed by right and BPC FAR bonuses. What could be added to the site in the form of a massive addition to the existing house, or a significant addition to the old house and an out of scale new house built adjacent to it, will instead be placed in two appropriately sized small homes. placed on either side of the existing home. There will be no FAR left to be allotted to the historic house, so it will be preserved in its present condition permanently, unlike any other miner's cottage in Aspen has been. Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, 601 _Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC Relocation HPC Historic Landmark DemolPartial Demo _Design Review Appeal Committee 920 w. hallam June 4,1998 Mitch Haas City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; This letter serves as our authorization for Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO, 81623 and Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO, 81621 to act as our representatives in this application. Sincerely, ~ d ;,A'f-"r Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 .........."'. REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CONDmONAL USE When considering a Development Application for Conditional Use, the Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The proposal is consistent with the AACP, particularly the goals for "Design Quality and Historic Preservation." Rather than make an addition of some 3,200 square feet to the existing 1,000 square foot historic house on this site, or even to break the allowed FAR into one new building and a large addition on the historic house, this conditional use will allow the historic miner's cabin to preserved intact with no addition whatsoever, and two small new homes of 1,850 square feet each to be built on the site. All three houses will be compatible and sympathetic in scale to each other, and to the surrounding neighborhood, and will include the kind of pedestrian scaled features and character which are desired of new homes in this community. The project will provide a excellent gateway into the Aspen Townsite. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development Response: The visual compatibility of this project with the surrounding neighborhood is described above. In terms of uses, the neighborhood is primarily multi-family housing (Sagewood on the east, the Villas and other apartments to the south). Single family and duplex properties abut to the north and west. The application to allow another unit on this site is therefore consistent and compatible with housing densities and uses in the area. C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations, and odor on surrounding properties, Response: Again, as stated above, the goal of the project is to preserve a historic resource and develop the property in a way which creates an attractive and appropriately scaled residential area at the entrance into town. The property lies on important vehicular and pedestrian routes and will be an asset to their character. All services such as parking and trash will be dealt with along the historic alley which runs across the back of this site but which has never been opened for .....,"" "- vehicular use. By opening the aUey, the dangerous curb cut which currently connects this property to Highway 82 will be eliminated and parking and garages can be placed on the aUey, where these uses belong. Other neighbors along the alley are already planning to relocate their parking to this area as well, which will lessen congestion on the neighborhood streets. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The property is in the historic Aspen Townsite and all services are immediately available. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: Housing mitigation is required for the two new homes that will be built on the site and will be provided in the form of a eash-in-Iieu payment. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: The proposal meets all standards required by the AACP and Aspen Municipal Code. . '--" omT CLAIM DEED Katie T. Skiff, aIkIa Katie Skiff for TEN DOLLARS ($1000) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and quit claims to Aspen Historical Cottages, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company whose address is 601 East Hyman Avenue, #102, Aspen, \~ Colorado 81611, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; to wit: ,:,. t:d {". {ijZr\ Zo: .' ~:I: ~~fu~ ~lEa:'\ >1-" l-' Q. --=-. <3 :::; ~" w~ ~ XC:( - wo\(;- with all its appurtenances. The East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and that parcel described as commencing at the SW corner of Lot Q, thence South 750 09' 11" East 7 .16 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot Q which lies South 750 09' 11" East 5.95 feet from the NW comer of said Lot Q; thence North 750 09'11" West 5.95 feet to the NW corner of said Lot Q; thence South 14050'49" East I 00 feet to the point of beginning; all in Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, SIGNED this 13th day of April, 1998. \ ,- ..., , ., I .r. .c. r'\' 't \ c----LU:... .~~./Y:J_ ---- I Katie T. Skiff, aIkIa Ka ie Skiff Ie" 2: i~' ~ " tIl <:.: . oPo.', a e: ~ ~'STATE OF COLORADO >< E-t '~'x-. . E-tPo ' H X ~,< COUNTY OF GARFIELD (J~~ >< <".. "-. f>l Q<;,~ The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this 13th day of April, 1998 by Katie T. Skiff, alkla Katie Skiff. ) ) ss ) WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ,';', /,;, (l. - . I / / t.' " " /:~I '( '/ /,/ ; t.. (" II~f~"~_ fA ,.J "Notary Pub Ie . / t;', , . '- '. ., .. . :~~ ~. " (l\~ 'If .... u "..-;) ljJ-O- .' "". .cUB\.'\C, r- " '. I 11111111\\\ 11111\ \\11\\ \1111 \II \11\111 \\\ 11\1\ \11\ \111 416455 05/04/1998 12:14P QeD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 1 R 6.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ......'" ! 11111 ,I, I r", - ~, ..; ~ hihll'~il! t! hd i I Ii a: """."...nl -tt'1I 9 0 0 ... Z W ~~ a.. ~ ~ -' I V i \ ; l\...-....-J , i r~ f'./ I ,) ) w FRANCIS S1 . , . , , , , , , . . , . I , , , , , , ..-.._..! , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ ~\~J , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , -------~ \ , , , , ,---- '. j , , , , ~..... P.1 If,)(~15rr "ft! ]UN 1" 'S8 09:25AM ASP8, ~OUSING OFe . ....,,-.1' MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department Cindy Chrislenaen, Housing Office FROM: DATE: RE: June 11,1998 920 West Hallam Street Conditional Use RevIew ParcelID No. ISSUE: The applicant is proposing conslnlctlon of two new 1,850 square foot homes. AAl".KGROUND: According to Section 28.100.050, A, c(1), in order to qualify for a single-famly Qll8II1ption, the applicant shall have three opticns: a, providing an accenary dwelling unit; b. paying ltle appllcable afl'ordable housing impaGt fee: or c. recording a resillenkx:cupa deed res1rtdion on the ~fm1i1y dM!Iling unit being constructed. After I'8Yiewing the appIcation. there is no mention of liII AOU Of' deed restricting the unilII to RO. thllrefore, the affordable housing im!l8Ct fee would be due, RECOMMENnATlON: Wrth reference to ~lg affordable housing impacls, !he Housing Board's preferenc:es are slated below: 1. an-aile housing; 2. ~ hOUling, including the buydown concepI; S. oash-in-lieulland-in-lieu Staff would prefer on-eite housing. The impact fee is calculated as foloNs: Average of paymerlHn-Ileu amount for Categcry 2 and Category 3 ... 3,000 X Ihe net increase in FAR of IWW struclue(s) .. psyment-in-lieu payment Flavrnent..jnJ ;"" due PRIOR Irl Aril'lnlinn of th& 1!l98 GuidsUI1l!lI: ($77,000 + $64,000)... 2 .. $70,500 ... 3,000 '" $23.50 per square foot $23.50 X 3,700 for homee on Lot A & B '" _un duO! priMm building ..-nit P"IlI'"".nt-inJ.J..u due AFTD the -pttnn of the 1 gga GuidelinM; ($93.000 + $80.000) + 2 .. $86,500 ... 3,000 :;: $28.8333 per square foot $28.8333 X 3,700 fcrhomes on LotA&B.. 1108-.21 duO! priarm huildl_ DMmit The 1998 Guidelines shculd become effective In the middle of AI.Igust, 1998. . 7lsP(,: Sonsohrlafed c5amlafion (jricf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FA.." #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly. Chairman Paul Smirh . Treas. Louis Popish. Secy. Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Marherly, Mgr. June 15, 1998 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam lot split Dear Mitch: The existing residence at 920 W. Hallam is currently served by the District. The District's line is located in the alley between Hallam and Francis. The elevation of the alley may need to be adjusted, in order to serve two additional dwelling units, if the units include basement levels. If additional cover is added to the alley to improve the grade, then the manhole elevation may need to be adjusted. Any changes needed must be paid for by the applicant and designed according to District line specifications. We would like to review the site drainage plans when they become available. Once detailed plans are available we can complete a tap permit which will estimated the total connection charges for the new units. If the existing unit is unchanged and relocated within 50 feet of its existing footprint, then no additional fees will be charged for that unit. Each single family residence will be need to be connected by a separate service line. As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call if you have:my questions. Sincerely, ,/' '~""""'f'v..."''/.~ Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976.1986.1990 Regional and National /"'-' DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 16, 1998 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews Physical Address: Legal Description: 920 W. Hallam St, City of Aspen, CO E 112 half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 & P, and the westerly portion of Lot Q, all lying in Block 4, Original Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, CO [Sec. 12, TlOS, R85W] (Parcel ID No. 2735-123-03-003) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 10, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Property Title and Encumbrances: Improvement Survey indicates an area of record overlap between the subject property and the property to the west in the southwest comer of the subject property. The survey also indicates some uncertainty of title, encumbrances, or boundary line question for the area bounded by the Line 6-7, Aspen Townsite and the westerly property line of the property. The application did not include a title commitment, discussion nor documentation regarding property title, and specifically these uncertainties regarding the westerly boundary of the subject property. The owner is required to provide a complete title commitment to the Engineering Dept. and resolve the uncertainties in the property boundary and area of the property to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer before the property may be subdivided. 2. Improvement Survey: For future applications, please provide the Engineering Department with a wet ink, original stamped and signed surveys. This authenticates that the plat is the surveyor's work without alternation by other persons. 3. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and DRCMI 598.DOC 1 OF 5 DRAFT ", "., . __ DRAFT "00'- Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. . Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated June 4, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility designs. 4. Access: As shown in the site plan, the access for the proposed lots is required to be from the alley and the existing driveway curb cut onto W. Hallam St. (a.k.a. Colorado Highway 82) should be replaced with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb. The platted alley adjacent to the applicant's property has not been developed. The applicant will be required to improve the alley to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this time the applicable standard for the alley surface would be class 6 aggregate base course. During construction, provision must be made to maintain drainage on site and to prevent construction vehicles from tracking mud onto the alley and City streets. 5. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: From a previous review of this property by Chuck Roth, Randy Ready and John Worcester regarding the future width of the right-of-way on Hallam StreetlHighway 82, John Worcester stated that the City does not need to pursue the acquisition of a 100 foot wide right-of-way on Hallam Street under the approved plan for the future entrance to the City of Aspen. The applicant must install sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk should be five feet wide with a buffer space to the curb because of the reasons discussed in item 11 below. Because of the site grades, there will need to be a railing along the sidewalk. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair must be replaced. The applicant should be required to sign a curb and gutter agreement. 6. Encroachments: The eXIstIng encroachments (shed and garage) must be removed for the development of the alley right-of-way and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The existing concrete steps on to Hallam Street should be removed and relocated within the limits of the property, Likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of the proposed new homes should also be located within the limits of the properties and not in the public right-of-way. The existing concrete retaining wall along the W. Hallam St. frontage may be left in place or removed if required in the development of the right-of-way. If the wall is removed or relocated, another form of structural support will be required to maintain the lateral support of the roadway ofW. Hallam St. 7. Site Drainage: The drainage inlet basin located in the landscape area of the right-of-way provides an access point for cleaning and inspecting the storm drain line. As such, is should remain DRCM I 598.DOC 2 OF 5 DRAFT ......."....... . DRAFT "-,,. Memo: 920 W. Hallam S1. - Conditional ~, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning. PUD. GMQS Exemption Reviews although it may be altered, with the written approval of the Streets and Engineering Departments, to better accommodate the sidewalk and blend into the landscaping of the area, if desired. The new development cannot release more than historic (pre-development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be fIrst routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and design completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site. If a ground injection or re-charge type drainage system is proposed, the percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and included as the basis for sizing the infiltration field. The drainage design should coordinate with the site plan which is also required for the development and building permit applications. The drainage report and plan will be included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application. 8. Utility Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The existing electrical transformer, telephone pedestal and other utilities with above ground boxes, cabinets and appurtenances will need to be relocated within easements on the private property at the expense of the developer when the alley is developed. In the case of the electrical transformer, the City Electric Dept. will perform the work and bill the developer for the cost of relocating the transformer. If a larger capacity transformer needs to be installed to service the loads of this proposed development, the developer will also need to re- inburse the City Electrical Dept. for installation of the larger transformer. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property will need to be modified to provide an easement with 10ft of length along the alley by 6 ft deep by 10ft above and 6 ft below finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals, easements must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Any new or relocated utility service connection points, meters, or appurtenances need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 9. City Streets Department: They do not currently plow the alley at the Sagewood Condominiums at Sagewood's and the neighbors request, but they will plow the alley, or the applicant's portion, if the applicants so wish. Paving the alley makes it easier to plow but may not be consistent with the community plan. Snow removal on Hallam is the responsibility of CDOT however snow removal is presently performed by the City under contract with CDOT and the snow is windrowed and hauled away, not plowed to the side. If the street reverts to the City when Highway 82 is realigned, then the snow will DRCM I 598.DOC 3 OF 5 DRAFT ""." DRAFT ....- Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditional~, Historic Landmark: Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews be plowed to the side, not removed, and it would be better in that case to have a detached sidewalk with a planting and snow storage median between the back of curb and sidewalk. It is preferable for construction trailers to be placed on private property however, if this is not possible, a temporary encroachment license is required for placement of construction trailers in the public right- of-way. The alley right-of-way may be the preferable location. 10. City Water Department: The applicant needs to meet with the Water Department. The water service lines will have to be sized to meet fIre protection regulations. There will be 3 lines, however they can and must share the same trench (for pavement protection reasons). The yard hydrant will need to be served through the water meter rather than tapped directly from the service line to the building. If the applicant owns water well rights, they must be conveyed to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Parks Department: The Rocky Mountain Juniper is a high quality example of this species and if it is to be relocated, a letter of credit or other financial security acceptable to the City Attorney should be provided to the City to insure that the tree will survive at least fIve (5) years after transplanting. A tree removal permit must be obtained for any code regulated trees that are to be removed. 12. Environmental Health Department: not in attendance. 13. Snow Storage: The applicant is advised to provide snow storage areas in the site design and to indicate the areas on the site plan submitted in the building permit application. 14. Subdivision Exemption Plat: If this proposed development is approved, a subdivision exemption plat meeting the standards of a subdivision plat, will need to be prepared and recorded. In addition to the standard plat content requirements, the plat will carry a note that, "No further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.88, Subdivision, Aspen Municipal Code, and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100, Aspen Municipal Code." 15. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefIt the property under DRCM1598.DOC 4 OF 5 DRAFT ", DRAFT ..'" Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditionaltrse, Historic Landmark Lot Split. GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 16. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-bui1ts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 17. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees Applicant: Staff & Referral Agencies: Nick Adeh, Jack Reid, Mitch Haas, Bill Earley, Jack Reid, John Krueger, Steve Ellsperman, Ross Soderstrom DRCMIS98.DOC 5 OF 5 DRAFT ! 'i~/,,--d , . "" - r..... .... I ;'1' I .....,,(,. ~P)!I ! 1 fTlDr\1 ~ DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 920 W. Hallam Street R-6 11,048 square foot fathering parcel. New Lot A: 3,432 sq. ft.. New Lot B: 7,616 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 1,289 square feet / Allowable FAR: 4,202 square feet, plus potential FAR bonus~' / Proposed FAR: 4,702. including 500 square foot FAR bonus/ Existing net leasable (commercial): NA Proposed net leasable (commercial): NA Existing % of site coverage: 13% _ . '? Allowed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 35% -::.'" 1.ll;1,~ Proposed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 37% "" :; '3;9' c:r ./ Existing % of open space: NA Proposed % of open space: NA Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: Accessory bldg: Principal bldg: Applicant: Address: Zone district: Lot size: 12 ft. 11 ft., 6 inches 13 ft. 6 inches hist~ouse 23 ft. new houses (,,;!S-7' Accessory bldg: 11 ft., 6 inches ~ 6% (100 sq. ft. garage lean-to) 2 Lot A: 3 bedrooms,Lot B: 6 (3 per house) 2 Lot A: 2 spaces, Lot B: 4 spaces (2 per house) Proposed max. height: Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks: Existing (house): Front: 31' Rear: 31' Front/rear Combined: East side: West side: Combined Sides: Minimum required: Front: Lots A & B:10' / Rear: Lots A & B: 10' Front/rear Combined: Lots A & B: 30' . East side: Lots A & B: 5' / / West side: Lots A & B: 5' Combined ' Sides: A: 10', B: 23'./ Proposed Front: 20' .../'. Rear: 10'/ Front/rear Combined: 30'V' East side:Lot A: S',Lot B: 2' West side:Lot A: 5',Lot B: 2' Combined Sides: Lot A: 10', Lot B: 7';/ 62' 47' 34' 81' Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Garage and shed encroach into alley. Variations requested: Lot B: 500 square foot FAR bonus, sideyard setback variances fJ of 3 feet on the east and west sideyards for 1igJ1twel!s, combined sideyard setback variance of 16 feet, site coverage variance of 2%., , . ~ 'icQ ... &S#,JeJb ~ Adte(/,-fv e1!~Lto.cj //111 hf'j,~ -x.itJtZc6 ;j . Ud C .A1.<; U,:-e d.. e. 5'A~ fl . (. -CW orkr VCLi7IJ.AQ ~J"lU2-;J1;c; dA:;L.1\;M!....z-<WQ/VLj~ (,e,-C8./I1L\2C{ S'iC.(,;.l~\<- I 1/ ... . ; tiNt.. .,V C~..J 11..0 ;:/ly:::..=-/;fJ1J ~/1 flu.11 .c.--.L ,~JA.1;JA1~ c.:(. ~ /fvJ/ ,l.'u; .".. .-fA ".';,L _ . rA /)_ _ i'O ,w.r..-r-. ,"u'1",,-,; )/fA j , PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, requesting Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached dwelling units on one (I) Historic Landmarked lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6, Mediwn-Density Residential, zone district. The property is located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the AspenlPitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. ~/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 20, 1998 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc JUN b '98 09:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFe P.l ~..,.,...... -.- MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department Cindy Christeneen, Housing Office June 11,1998 FROM: DATE: RE: 920 West Hallam Street Conditional Use Review Pan:eIID No. ISSUE: The applicant is proposing constl\lctlon of two new 1,850 square foot homes. BACKGROUND: According to Section 26.100.050, A, c(1), in order to qualify for a single-family QX8IT1ption, the app&cant shall have three options: a. providing an accel80ry dwelling unif; b. paying !he applicable affordable housing impaclfee: or c. recording a resident.occupancy deed res1rJdion on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed . Afler reviewing the appfication, there is no mention of an AOU 0/' deed restricting the units to RO, therefore, the affordable housing impact fee would be due, Re:OMMENDATION: Wrth reference to mitigating affordable housing impacts, the Housing Board's preferences are stated below: 1. an-aile housing; 2. orr-alle houaing, including fhe buydown cancepl; 3. cash-in-lieUlland-in-lieu Staff would prefer on-eite housing, The impact fee is calculated as foUews: Average of payment-In-lleu amount for Category 2 and Category 3 + 3,000 X the net increase in FAR of new structure(s) = payment-in-lieu payment Pavment-in-Lieu due PRIOR to AdoD'lion of the 1QQ8 GuidellnQll: ($77,000 + $64,000) + 2 = $70,500.. 3,000 = $23.50 per square foot $23,50 X 3,700 for homes on Lot A & B = S88 Mn dUI! prior to building plM'II1lt Pa,,~nt..in-Lill!!!!u due ,AJ::TD aha adQptlon of the 1 gga Guidelin&8; ($93,000 + $80.000) + 2 ., $86,500 .,. 3,000 ., $28.8333 per square fool $28.8333 X 3,700 for homes on Lot A& B = 1108883.21 due prior to buildinsl-.mit The 1998 Guidelines shoulcl become effective In the middle of August, 1998. :7Isp/:)]onsolidaled (Sanilalion Ond 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telc. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly. Chairman Paul Smith. Treas. Louis Popish. Secy. Michael Kelly frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. June 15, 1998 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hailam lot split Dear Mitch: The existing residence at 920 W. Hallam is currently served by the District. The District's line is located in the alley between Hallam and Francis. The elevation of the alley may need to be adjusted, in order to serve two additional dwelling units, if the units include basement levels. If additional cover is added to the alley to improve the grade, then the manhole elevation may need to be adjusted. Any changes needed must be paid for by the applicant and designed according to District line specifications. We would like to review the site drainage plans when they become available. Once detailed plans are available we can complete a tap permit which will estimated the total connection charges for the new units. If the existing unit is unchanged and relocated within 50 feet of its existing footprint, then no additional fees will be charged for that unit. Each single family residence will be need to be connected by a separate service line. As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Pleas~ call if you have any questions. Sincerely, / .~ ~ .)v""",/-~? Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976.1986.1990 Regional and National -.-'--,_._,-.,..,....,~._~. *r ", DRAFT .......,..~. MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Plarmer Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 16, 1998 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews 920 W. Hallam St, City of Aspen, CO E 1/2 half of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0 & P, and the westerly portion of Lot Q, all lying in Block 4, Original Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, CO [Sec. 12, nos, R85W] Physical Address: Legal Description: (Parcel ID No. 2735-123-03-003) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 10, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Property Title and Encumbrances: Improvement Survey indicates an area of record overlap between the subject property and the property to the west in the southwest comer of the subject property. The survey also indicates some uncertainty of title, encumbrances, or boundary line question for the area bounded by the Line 6-7, Aspen Townsite and the westerly property line of the property. The application did not include a title commitment, discussion nor documentation regarding property title, and specifically these uncertainties regarding the westerly boundary of the subject property. The owner is required to provide a complete title commitment to the Engineering Dept. and resolve the uncertainties in the property boundary and area of the property to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer before the property may be subdivided. 2. Improvement Survey: For future applications, please provide the Engineering Department with a wet ink, original stamped and signed surveys. This authenticates that the plat is the surveyor's work without alternation by other persons. 3. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and DRCMI598.DOC 1 OF 5 DRAFT ......... DRAFT "of Memo: 920 W. Hallam 51. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated June 4, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility designs. 4. Access: As shown in the site plan, the access for the proposed lots is required to be from the alley and the existing driveway curb cut onto W. Hallam St. (a.k.a. Colorado Highway 82) should be replaced with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb. The platted alley adjacent to the applicant's property has not been developed. The applicant will be required to improve the alley to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this time the applicable standard for the alley surface would be class 6 aggregate base course. During construction, provision must be made to maintain drainage on site and to prevent construction vehicles from tracking mud onto the alley and City streets. 5. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: From a previous review of this property by Chuck Roth, Randy Ready and John Worcester regarding the future width of the right-of-way on Hallam StreetlHighway 82, John Worcester stated that the City does not need to pursue the acquisition of a 100 foot wide right-of-way on Hallam Street under the approved plan for the future entrance to the City of Aspen. The applicant must install sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk should be five feet wide with a buffer space to the curb because of the reasons discussed in item 11 below. Because of the site grades, there will need to be a railing along the sidewalk. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair must be replaced. The applicant should be required to sign a curb and gutter agreement. 6. Encroachments: The existing encroachments (shed and garage) must be removed for the development of the alley right-of-way and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The existing concrete steps on to Hallam Street should be removed and relocated within the limits of the property. Likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of the proposed new homes should also be located within the limits of the properties and not in the public right-of-way. The existing concrete retaining wall along the W. Hallam St. frontage may be left in place or removed ifrequired in the development of the right-of-way. If the wall is removed or relocated, another form of structural support will be required to maintain the lateral support ofthe roadway of W. Hallam St. 7. Site Drainage: The drainage inlet basin located in the landscape area of the right-of-way provides an access point for cleaning and inspecting the storm drain line. As such, is should remain DRCMI598.DOC 2 OF 5 DRAFT , ....... DRAFT ......." Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews although it may be altered, with the written approval of the Streets and Engineering Departments, to better accommodate the sidewalk and blend into the landscaping of the area, if desired. The new development cannot release more than historic (pre-development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and design completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site. If a ground injection or re-charge type drainage system is proposed, the percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and included as the basis for sizing the infiltration field. The drainage design should coordinate with the site plan which is also required for the development and building permit applications. The drainage report and plan will be included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application. 8. Utility Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The existing electrical transformer, telephone pedestal and other utilities with above ground boxes, cabinets and appurtenances will need to be relocated within easements on the private property at the expense of the developer when the alley is developed. In the case of the electrical transformer, the City Electric Dept. will perform the work and bill the developer for the cost of relocating the transformer. If a larger capacity transformer needs to be installed to service the loads of this proposed development, the developer will also need to re- inburse the City Electrical Dept. for installation of the larger transformer. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property will need to be modified to provide an easement with 10ft of length along the alley by 6 ft deep by 10ft above and 6 ft below finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals, easements must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Any new or relocated utility service cormection points, meters, or appurtenances need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 9. City Streets Department: They do not currently plow the alley at the Sagewood Condominiums at Sagewood's and the neighbors request, but they will plow the alley, or the applicant's portion, if the applicants so wish. Paving the alley makes it easier to plow but may not be consistent with the community plan. Snow removal on Hallam is the responsibility of CDOT however snow removal is presently performed by the City under contract with CDOT and the snow is windrowed and hauled away, not plowed to the side. If the street reverts to the City when Highway 82 is realigned, then the snow will DRCMI598.DOC 3 OF 5 DRAFT , __ DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezonin&1lm, GMQS Exemption Reviews be plowed to the side, not removed, and it would be better in that case to have a detached sidewalk with a planting and snow storage median between the back of curb and sidewalk. It is preferable for construction trailers to be placed on private property however, if this is not possible, a temporary encroachment license is required for placement of construction trailers in the public right- of-way. The alley right-of-way may be the preferable location. 10. City Water Department: The applicant needs to meet with the Water Department. The water service lines will have to be sized to meet fire protection regulations. There will be 3 lines, however they can and must share the same trench (for pavement protection reasons). The yard hydrant will need to be served through the water meter rather than tapped directly from the service line to the building. If the applicant owns water well rights, they must be conveyed to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Parks Department: The Rocky Mountain Juniper is a high quality example of this species and if it is to be relocated, a letter of credit or other financial security acceptable to the City Attorney should be provided to the City to insure that the tree will survive at least five (5) years after transplanting. A tree removal permit must be obtained for any code regulated trees that are to be removed. 12. Environmental Health Department: not in attendance. 13. Snow Storage: The applicant is advised to provide snow storage areas in the site design and to indicate the areas on the site plan submitted in the building permit application. 14. Subdivision Exemption Plat: If this proposed development is approved, a subdivision exemption plat meeting the standards of a subdivision plat, will need to be prepared and recorded. In addition to the standard plat content requirements, the plat will carry a note that, "No further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.88, Subdivision, Aspen Municipal Code, and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100, Aspen Municipal Code." 15. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under DRCMI598.DOC 4 OF 5 DRAFT Memo: C~ DRAFT .. 920 W. Hallam S1. - Conditional -a;r, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezonin~D, GMQS Exemption Reviews an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 16. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the AspenlPitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 17. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees Applicant: Staff & Referral Agencies: Nick Adeh, Jack Reid, Mitch Haas, Bill Earley, Jack Reid, John Krueger, Steve Ellsperman, Ross Soderstrom DRCMI598.DOC 5 OF 5 DRAFT , ,/ it ,...... ""'" ......; i/' / I,"" ,.(\' ,'---- frlD~ &r<Jr - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 920 W. Hallam Street R-6 11,048 square foot fathering parcel. New Lot A: 3,432 sq. ft., New Lot B: 7,616 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 1,289 square feet / Allowable FAR: 4,202 square feet, plus potential FAR bonus' . Proposed FAR: 4,702, including 500 square foot FAR bonus '/ Existing net leasable (commercial): NA Proposed net leasable (commercial): NA Existing % of site coverage: 13% ..' ',~ Allowed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 35% '=', ,'LCV L. _ Proposed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 37% '" j:< I? [:1' v/ Existing % of open space: NA Proposed % of open space: NA Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: Accessory b1dg: Principal b1dg: Applicant: Address: Zone district: Lot size: 12 ft. 11 ft., 6 inches 13 ft. 6 inches hist(7".house \ 23 ft. new houses ,:')- I , Accessory bldg: 11 ft., 6 inches 6% (100 sq. ft. garage lean-to) 2 Lot A: 3 bedrooms,Lot B: 6 (3 per house) 2 Lot A: 2 spaces, Lot B: 4 spaces (2 per house) Proposed max. height: Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks: Existing (house): Front: 31' Rear: 31' Front/rear Combined: East side: West side: Combined Sides: 62' 47' 34' Minimum required: Front: Lots A & B:10' Rear: Lots A & B: 10' Front/rear Combined: Lots A & B: 30' East side: Lots A & B: 5' West side: Lots A & B: 5' Combined Sides: A: 10', B: 23' -- Proposed Front: 20' .../ . Rear: 10''// Front/rear Combined: 30'~ East side:Lot A: 5' ,Lot B: 2' West side:Lot A: 5',Lot B: 2' Combined / Sides: Lot A: 10', Lot B: 7' / / 81' Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Garage and shed encroach into alley. Variations requested: Lot B: 500 square foot FAR bonus, sideyard setback variances f of 3 feet on the east and west sideyards for..lightwells, combined sideyard setback variance of 16 feet, site coverage variance of 2%. ...P' :', ~-- }' ji\" ' { --l-z: (; t1,- , ;J~; 'J /; ,'c~ '. /, ,-.F ~ (,.c,~'-~ " v (~~i- 1",,:' ,)".1 ~;.' , /lr / /I.j ) /1 '\ J , 4::~ A" '-' \. , ( <-, /1.,_(]/'-' _r, ........ ,----" , 'vi' l '- ( ..-' ,~ ,I! Jl, 1,:. ;/. '~\ ([.(../ ,,' [( {....._ ." '- ,. . J -.- \ .; ,(, ,., ,...( ".' ,,'. ~.... ~ ~.. .-, ~ \... \(~. _.-'-_.~X I / -~" t.. ,,',. .1 i._' -, li-' .~.~__ I',,;", \JLi~j I. ., . " I,. ,1....1 ....-J,: ", .....,.(.l.L i,..' ...'...~.. ..'(.. 'i_~ 'j-~/>~'- "':>:..''- 1':.2...1 ,:..., " ~- ---' -...- T1::, ,,:.. /1," , v"_~__"'" "'-.-( L.- L!.J.:~ .leL' ':"~-'J.-\..o _) <J-,,:-" L -; ~."",- .... (_ I ,." - - - MEMORANDUM From: Mitch Haas, Planning Office Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director ~ ~ c.. Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health specialist'/\ ~ .~ To: Through: Date: December 16,1997 Re: 920 W. Hallam street APplication ParcellD # 2735-123-03-003 =============================================== The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municioal Code of the Citv of Asoen, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on-site sewage disposal device." The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project thrOugh the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District IACSDI meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the ASpen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant needs to provide a letter of agreement from ACSD to serve the project. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system." The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen Water Department will determine if adeqUate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water Quality: The applicant will need to provide a letter of agreement to serve the project from the water Department. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11~1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regUlatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted." A drainage plan to mitigate the water Quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. 1 ~ - - - AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of the air Quality section of the Municipal Code1 to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methOds and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. This application has not provided a program that will achieve this goal. The applicant needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere. In order to do this, the applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE trip generation rate5l, commit to a set of control measures, and show that the control measures offSet the traffic or PM10 produced by the project. The proposed new development consists of a total of 4 new residences(three units on the proposed AH parcel and one unit on the R-6 parcel.l All trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio Generation Reoort, Fifth edition. Housing units use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day. Free-Market units located within one half mile of a transit stop, such as these, are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day, and affordable hOusing units within 1/2 mile of transit are allowed a reduction of 2.0 trips per day, according to the Pitkin county Road standards. For example TWo free market units 9.55 trips minus 1.5 trips (close to transit> = 8.05 times 2 units = 16.1 new trips per day generated by the free market units TWO affordable units 9.55 minus 2.0 trips (close to transit> = 7.55 times 2 units = 15.1 new trips per day generated by the affordable units 16.1 + 15.1 = 31.2 new trips per day generatecl by this new development Mitigation measures used or proposed in recent developments include constructing or contributing to plowing of a bike path, reduced sale prices for buyers without cars, shuttle vans, bike fleets, contributions to transit, homeowners dues reductions for homeowners with one or no cars, sidewalk improvements, trail connections, and additional price for units where parking was provided. A condition of approval should be that, prior to Issuance of any building permit or plat recording, the applicant provide Information to the Aspen/Pitkin environmental Health Department which documents that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PM,. caused by the project. 2 .-.. - FIREPLACEiWOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplaceIWoodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit can be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces. nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural buildings may not have any type of fireplace or woodstove. FUGITIVE DUST A fUgitive dust control plan is required which includes. but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas. daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out. speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Given the location of the site, the applicants will need to give particular care to this requirement, in order to avoid complaints from the PUblic. DEMOLITION Prior to demolition occurring during the moving of any buildings, the applicant should have the materials tested for aSbestos. and if any is present, should consult the Colorado Health Department regarding proper removal. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significantsource of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly. it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction Phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhOOd. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. 3 ,-. - ""'" """'. . 920 w. hallam June 4, 1998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; Herewith please find our application for Conditional Use before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application includes the following: 1. Land use application form. 2. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers ofthe representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Response to review standards for Conditional Use. 4. Legal description of the parcel and a disclosure of ownership of the parcel. 5. A general vicinity map. 6. A site improvement survey 7. Graphics representing the proposed development. 8. Photographs of the property and surrounding properties (to be provided at the meeting. ) Sincerely, ~ -6 1< /(~r<~ Aspen Historic Cottages, L C 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 c '" .../ LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name: 920 W. Hallam Street. 2. Project location: 920 W. Hallam Street. the east 1/2 of Lot M, aU of Lots N, 0, and P, and the west 7.16 feet of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. Present zoning: R-6, Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 4. Lot size: 11,048 square feet 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number: E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number: Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street. Carbondale, CO 81623. Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621. 7. Type of application (check all that apply): p-Conditional Use _Conceptual SPA _Special Review _Final SPA _8040 Greenline _Conceptual PUD _Stream Margin _Final PUD _Subdivision _ Text/Map Amend _ GMQS allotment _ GMQS exemption _View Plane _ Condominiumization _Lot SplitlLot Line Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft" number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property): Two bedroom single family house- approximately 980 square feet. Garage- approximately 453 square feet. Shed- approximately 231 square feet. No previous approvals have been granted. 9. Description of development application: The application is for a conditional use which is available for historic landmarks in the R-6 zone district. and which allows a duplex or two residential detached dwellings on a lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The subject lot will be created through a historic landmark lot split, which is under review by the OPC and City Council Through the lot split. the property will be divided into two parcels. Lot A is a 3,432 square foot lot and will be allowed one single family home by right. The size of the home will be 1,850 square feet. Lot B, which is the subject of this application, will be 7,616 square feet and is to contain the two detached dwellings allowed as a conditional use. These dwellings will be the existing historic house, which will remain 1,000 square feet and will have no addition made to it. and a new house, which will also be 1,850 square feet. This proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR than wbat is allowed by rigbt and ope FAR bonuses. What could be added to the site in the form of a massive addition to tbe existing bouse, or a significant addition to tbe old house and an out of scale new house built adjacent to it. will instead be placed in two appropriately sized small homes. placed on either side of the existing bome. Tbere will be no FAR left to be allotted to the bistoric bouse, so it will be preserved in its present condition permanently, unlike any other miner's cottage in Aspen has been. Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, 601 _Conceptual HPC Final HPC Minor HPC _Relocation HPC _Historic Landmark _ DemolPartial Demo _Design Review Appeal Committee c ...."""', - 920 w. hallam June 4, 1998 Mitch Haas City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; This letter serves as our authorization for Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO, 81623 and Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO, 81621 to act as our representatives in this application. Sincerely, ~:d ;~-~ Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 c .,",", ~ REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CONDmONAL USE When considering a Development Application for Conditional Use, the Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The proposal is consistent with the AACP, particularly the goals for "Design Quality and Historic Preservation." Rather than make an addition of some 3,200 square feet to the existing 1,000 square foot historic house on this site, or even to break the allowed FAR into one new building and a large addition on the historic house, this conditional use will allow the historic miner's cabin to preserved intact with no addition whatsoever, and two small new homes of 1,850 square feet each to be built on the site. All three houses will be compatible and sympathetic in seale to each other, and to the surrounding neighborhood, and will include the kind of pedestrian scaled features and character which are desired of new homes in this community. The project will provide a excellent gateway into the Aspen Townsite. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The visual compatibility of this project with the surrounding neighborhood is described above. In terms of uses, the neighborhood is primarily multi-family housing (Sagewood on the east, the Villas and other apartments to the south). Single family and duplex properties abut to the north and west. The application to allow another unit on this site is therefore consistent and compatible with housing densities and uses in the area. C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations, and odor on surrounding properties. Response: Again, as stated above, the goal of the project is to preserve a historic resource and develop the property in a way which creates an attractive and appropriately scaled residential area at the entrance into town. The property lies on important vehicular and pedestrian routes and will be an asset to their character. All services such as parking and trash will be dealt with along the historic alley which runs across the back of this site but which has never been opened for c ,....... J' vehicular use. By opening the alley, the dangerous curb cut which currently connects this property to Highway 82 will be eliminated and parking and garages can be placed on the alley, where these uses belong. Other neighbors along the alley are already planning to relocate their parking to this area as well, which will lessen congestion on the neighborhood streets. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The property is in the historic Aspen Townsite and all services are immediately available. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: Housing mitigation is required for the two new homes that will be built on the site and will be provided in the form of a cash-in-lieu payment. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: The proposal meets all standards required by the AACP and Aspen Municipal Code. . ,--,' c -""- ,",,./ omT CLAIM DEED Katie T. Skiff, alkla Katie Skiff for TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and quit claims to Aspen Historical Cottages, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company whose address is 601 East Hyman Avenue, #102, Aspen, \~ Colorado 81611, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; to wit: <;-, t: 0 r:. IJjzr\ z a: .' ~:I: ~5fu~ ~e:a: '\ ~li: ~ () ::E ~'" w~~ xC( . wo':)- The East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and that parcel described as commencing at the SW corner of Lot Q, thence South 750 09' 11" East 7.16 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot Q which lies South 750 09' 11" East 5.95 feet from the NW comer of said Lot Q; thence North 750 09'1 i" West 5.95 feet to the NW corner of said Lot Q; thence South 14050'49" East 100 feet to the point of beginning; all in Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, with all its appurtenances. SIGNED this 13th day of April, 1998. \ ,- . j'l c~C f ,J)J. ~~ ( Katie T Skiff, alkla Ka ie Skiff SO" I i ',( ell '-::E . op".', ~ e: ~ \:'STATE OF COLORADO >t E-t "'x-- . E-t~ '. H X [z1,":: COUNTY OF GARFIELD U[z1~ >< -< "...... l<l C<:J.~ The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this 13th day of April, 1998 by Katie T. Skiff, alkla Katie Skiff ) ) ss ) WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ,J'./ L/. (},'. - . /. / ,'. i (. ...'.' .' , ~/ '/ .;/ ,f - // /f~f,,'1 '( V~ - ,./.1 ( '-Notal)' P--ub Ie . / '~ . , . . . , . ,n':", 0-, . {J\~{ r ", u \. ~ . .....;:. 9-0- . '. "', .c U B \. \"./ <" " . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . , I 11111111111111111 111111 111111111111111 III 11111 11I1 1111 416455 05/04/1998 12:14P QeD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 1 R 6.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO c ! 1llllil'Ii1i I. ~ Isql! (~!i' ~ Ihd i ul a: 9 o o .. z w a.. ~ ................ -.... #'~ . l..//.' , i , i [~ . r.' I .) ) \ -, , , o o , , , , , , , w FRANCIS 51 . . , , I ' , ' . \ , , , , , , , , , '..--..... , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , If ~ \~J \" I ==\0 ------- -------- - ------\ \ , , ---------:--:J ----- , ,,,:/ "- ,"\ , , , " , , , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , , , , .. , , .. . . , . . . . \ '" :z <C W <C i . t =111 1~211 ! :1' ;11. !hl .1 ii l-il'S'iiil.l; I I I; '5 ' ~ !~~,jl'I'II!,.i ..I,-.".J C. ~!! ~ q ~ ,. i II' ~1.'x ~ !I~I,:: ...:l I wllllLI,i I u ;'iIP;I~I:~L I i I !.~ I ~ ~ I i Ii' c i 1 ~ I I I - 1 I · I . ~ . Ii. r "'-....' Pra~1 il"-I f I i~I'i z ~~~~I}. o .. 'I ~ ri ;~i .,... 5 ~s q ::l ~i!, o .thll". ~ S~I~ ~ ~ ;r:!f.i ~ Ri k /.t ~ . t~ J . I c ~ j litt ; ; ~ ~i ~1 ! ! I i S S ~ ~ ~i i l i!! ,'j'iQ -ct~~!. ! j. i r _ "0 .' I · I' · .! Ii ",I ~ , I i! ~ I I ~ 17/1. m In d lii~ I t a 1'>l ~ "~. n 1" Illl . 0 :ts ''1i1l .0. . .l~J $,' 'J;fI ()'.I. .?' . . 0 ~ I" .' . ., ~ .. ,__ L ." . ~ tt ;:::: .. ....., !:: ~ t;; ::J ~ .... <> " -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 'l: .... <> " - -- -- -- -- / ~ .... : <> " -- - '. - -- - -- -- - c -- . -- '-. If ./07 _. t!/I _.._. .iSty:;, -. ~ .... -.-. -. -. -. -. -.- - - -- -- - -. -. . '.i;;;:!to.".,. ....w,-! ....;;-.-. - - -- - -- -- -- - __ 4"",,, - . ---_ ...., Ii - - 'C\1 ~ <Q ;~. <::)~ ::J ~ .t (j~' ~ ~ . ~~. ~i:i~. .. . t;; ~ VJ ~ ::j tl ~ ~. ., ~~ f;; . ~ t a, at ;i ~! ! i' ,-; ~ ;. . I: ~ - ~ ~ '" ~ ~ i ..I : . ~q H I ~ ''''tli!'; ~ iti"C' i o i:: i" j Q: ". - ~ lJl i ~ ' ~ . ~ 'l -. ~". - 920 w. hallam June 4, 1998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; Herewith please find our application for Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, 01(- site Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), including variances, and a variance from one element of the Residential Design Standards. The application includes the following: 1. Land use application form. 2. Dimensional requirements form. 3. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Response to review standards for Partial Demolition. 5. Response to review standards for On-site Relocation. 6. Response to review standards for Off-site Relocation. 7 Response to review standards for Historic Landmark Lot Split. 8. Response to review standards for Significant Development. 9. Response to review standards for Residential Design Standards. 10. Legal description of the parcel and a disclosure of ownership of the parcel. 11. A general vicinity map. 12. DemolitionlRelocation Plan 13. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' 14. Bird's eye view of property in 1893. 15. Sanbome map of property in 1904. 16. A site improvement survey. 17. Graphics representing the proposed development (Site Plan, Building Elevations and Floor Plans, As-Builts of Existing Buildings) r- ~ ".,/ 18. Photographs of the property and surrounding properties (to be provided at the meeting.) 19. Model (to be provided for the meeting) Sincerely, ~ d-t'~,4kj"'''''- :Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 "...... '- "'._'" .......... LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name: 920 W. Hallam Street. 2. Project location: 920 W. Hallam Street, the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and the west 7.16 feet of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. Present zoning: R-6, Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 4. Lot size: 11,048 square feet 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number: E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number: Ron Robertson, -417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO 81623. Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621. 7. Type of application (check all that apply): _Conditional Use _Conceptual SPA _Special Review _Final SPA _8040 Greenhne _Conceptual PUD _Stream Margin _Final PUD _Subdivision _ TextlMap Amend _ GMQS allotment _ GMQS exemption _View Plane _ Condominiumization ~Lot Sp1itlLot Line Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property): Two bedroom single family house- approximately 980 square feet, Garage- approximately 453 square feet, Shed- approximately 231 square feet. No previous approvals have been granted. 9. Description of development application: The development proposal is as follows. HPC approval is requested for Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to on the garage. On-site Relocation approval is requested to move the historic house approximately 5 feet eastward and 11 feet forward of its present location and to excavate a basement under the house, and to move the existing garage behind the historic house and rotate it 180 degrees so that it can be entered from the alley. Off-site relocation approval is requested to move the existing shed to another site in town where it can enjoyed as a piece of ski history. Historic Landmark Lot Split approval is requested to create a new lot on the west side of the property, allowing one new house on that lot. The remaining east lot will contain the historic house and one new house. Significant development review, including variances. and "Residential Design Standards" approval are requested for the two new houses and for the very minor changes to be made to the historic house. Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, 601 X Conceptual HPC _Final HPC Minor HPC ZRelocation HPC Historic Landmark )( Demo/Partial Demo ~Design Review Appeal Committee r" -- ....""', -- DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 920 W. Hallam Street R-6 11,048 square foot fathering parcel. New Lot A: 3,432 sq. ft., New Lot B: 7,616 sq. ft. Existing FAR: 1,289 square feet Allowable FAR: 4,202 square feet, plus potential FAR bonus Proposed FAR: 4,702, including 500 square foot FAR bonus Existing net leasable (commercial): NA Proposed net leasable (commercial): NA Existing % of site coverage: 13% Allowed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 35% Proposed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 37% Existing % of open space: NA Proposed % of open space: NA Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: Accessory b1dg: Principal bldg: Applicant: Address: Zone district: Lot size: 12 ft. 11 ft., 6 inches 13 ft. 6 inches historic house 23 ft. new houses Accessory bldg: 11 ft., 6 inches 6% (100 sq. ft. garage lean-to) 2 Lot A: 3 bedrooms,Lot B: 6 (3 per house) 2 Lot A: 2 spaces, Lot B: 4 spaces (2 per house) Proposed max. height: Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: Proposed number of bedrooms: Existing on-site parking spaces: On-site parking spaces required: Setbacks: Existing (house): Front: 31' Rear: 31' Front/rear Combined: East side: West side: Combined Sides: 62' 47' 34' Minimum required: Front: Lots A & B:10' Rear: Lots A & B: 10' Front/rear Combined: Lots A & B: 30' East side: Lots A & B: 5' West side: Lots A & B: 5' Combined Sides: A: 10', B: 23' Proposed Front: 20' Rear: 10' Front/rear Combined: 30' East side:Lot A: 5',Lot B: 2' West side:Lot A: 5',Lot B: 2' Combined Sides: Lot A: 10', Lot B: 7' Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Garage and shed encroach into alley. 81' Variations requested: Lot B: 500 square foot FAR bonus, sideyard setback variances of 3 feet on the east and west sideyards for Iightwells, combined sideyard setback variance of 16 feet, site coverage variance of 20/0. I"'" '- .....~,. '-" 920 w. hallam June 4,1998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; This letter serves as our authorization for Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO, 81623 and Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO, 81621 to act as our representatives in this application. ./ ,AIt-,4f. Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 ;"'" ,-. " ~../ RESPONSE TO STANDARDS FOR PARTIAL DEMOLmON No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The partial demolition request is to remove the lean-to addition on the garage. The building is not original to the site, but was apparently used as a section house on the Colorado Midland Railroad in the late 1800's and moved to this site in the 1940's. The lean-to cannot be accommodated into the site plan or FAR limitations. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to tl1.e greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: The historic significance of the building will not be compromised by the removal ofthe lean-to. b. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: No additions will be made to the building in place of what is being removed. ,............. c - ~- '" RESPONSE TO STANDARDS FOR ON-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26.72.020 (DX2),(3), and (4) have been met. The required standards are as follows: I. 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 existing house is to be moved 5 feet eastward and 11 feet forward of its existing location. This is necessary to allow the placement of the new houses in a manner which creates the rhythm and spacing between buildings which was typieal of historic Aspen (i.e. houses placed on lots of approximately 3,000 square feet), and to protect as much of the existing vegetation as possible. Also, the house is moved forward to maintain its prominence on the site. The garage is to be moved behind the historic house and its entrance rotated towards the alley so that it may continue to be used and will maintain its association with the historic house. 2. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for relocation. Response: The applicant will submit the report prior to application for building permit. 3. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to insure the safe relocation, preservation, and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation, and infrastructure cormections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The applicant will submit the relocation plan and fmancial security prior to application for a building permit. /"''' '- U-'""" '..... RESPONSE TO STANDARDS FOR OFF-SITE RELOCATION No approval for on-site relocation shan be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of Section 26.72.020 (0) have been met. The required standards are as fonows: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. Response: The applicant has explored many options to try to reuse the shed on the site, however none have proved workable. The shed is too small to be used as a garage stan, and is too large to be accommodated on the site solely for storage space. Discussion has also been given to leaving the shed at the end of the alley, however maneuvering cars and City snow plow eqnipment in the area will become problematic with the shed as an obstacle. The applicant has therefore determined that the best preservation method for the building is to relocate it to another site in town. The shed is not original to this property, but was once located at the base ofthe ski mountain as a concession stand. On one wall of the shed, one can still clearly see the menu board. The applicant proposes to locate an appropriate home for the building, possibly the new ski museum or a location associated with the Ski Company. Other possibilities are one of the City Parks, for instance the new park proposed at the Snyder property. 2. 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 win not be diminished due to the relocation. Response: The applicant is committed to rmding a use for the building rather than seeing it demolished. It is not original to this site or neighborhood. The other two historic structures on the property are being preserved as freestanding buildings with very minor modifications, and will therefore go far towards preserving the historic character of this property and the neighborhood. 3. 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 will submit the report prior to application for building permit. 4. A relocation plan shan 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 shan be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. c "'" --" Response: The relocation plan will be submitted prior to application for building permit. 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted Response: As stated, the applicant is interested in locating a site which is relevant to the building's ski history. H that is not possible, a site where the general public can enjoy the building is preferred. An acceptance letter from the property owner will be provided when a site is located. c r"'.... - RESPONSE TO STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK WT SPLIT REVIEW STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(AX2) and (5), Section 26.l00.050(AX2Xe), and Section 26.72.010(G), Section 26.88.030(,-\)(2). Subdivision Exemption!!. Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot fonned by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where 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 lot has not been subdivided previously. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots confonn to the requirements of the underlying zone district. A:ny lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(AXIXc). Response: Two lots are created, botb of which conform to the requirements of the R-6 zone district. Mitigation is required for the two new houses only and will be provided. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.l00.040(CX1)(a); and Response: No previous subdivision or lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the tenns of this chapter, and confonns to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The plat will be submitted and recorded following 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 ~ ..........r , .- 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 subdivision exemption agreement and plat will be fIled foUowing the approvaL f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The a_~nt proposes a total of three units. Two freestanding homes will be built on the 5' parcel and will be in condominium ownership. A third unit will be located on the ~ parcel, which will be a fee simple lot. Section 26.88.030(A)(5). Historic l..andmark Lot Split. The following standards must be met: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of9,000 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-I5A zone district. Response: The parcel is 11,048 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 property is proposed to be divided into one parcel of 3,432 square feet on the west and one parcel of 7,616 square feet on the east. The development on both parcels will be restricted to the floor area which would have been allowed for a duplex on the original prQperty. in this case 4,209 square feet plus a !lOO square foot FAR bonus which the appUcant requests from HPC. The west parcel will be assigned an FAR of 1,854 square feet. The east parcel will be assigned 2,854 square feet, 1,000 square feet of which will be aUotted for the existing house and 1,854 square feet which will be allocated to the new house. '''' , '-' " "',...J c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only pennitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: Variances, which are reviewed by HPC, are only requested for the eastern parcel, which contains the historic resources. Development on the western lot will meet aU dimensional requirements. Section 26.HIO.OSO(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director, 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 26.88.030(AX5) 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. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application. Section 26.72.010(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots created pursuant 10 section 26,88.030(AX5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: The HPC will hold a public hearing and forward their recommendation to City Council, who will also review the request at a public hearing. r - ......., ...... RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT DEVEWPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS No approval for any development in the "II," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: I. 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 uII,n Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to a 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 500 sq. ft. or the allowed site coverage 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 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The property has been in the Skiff family since 1935. The house was built in 1888; two other buildings exist on the site, which are used as a garage and a shed. The garage building was moved to the site in the late 1940's and at one time served as a section house for workers on the Colorado Midland Railroad. The shed was a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this property in the early 1940's. 920 W. HaUam Street is listed on the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," and is in the landmark review process. The HPC has seen this project in worksession format, as required when an FAR bonus is requested, and has visited the site. This application takes the historic landmark lot split program, which has been very successful, one step further. The property is to be divided into an western lot of 3,432 square feet, and a eastern lot of 7,616 square feet. Because the proposed eastern lot will be larger than 6,000 square feet, a duplex or two detached units may be built on it as a conditional use, to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The total square footage for the three houses that will be created will be limited to the maximum aUowed floor area for a duplex on the fathering property. No additional FAR is gained through the creation of a third home. In fact, the result wW be thrf!fl! _mall Ila_ea, 'fthiLh are si_lop in .i7P And ~Ale to Aloen's histori~ 1I0mes and particularly to the existing historic resource on the property. c ~.', '-' HPC has indicated agreement that the idea brought forward in this application is exemplary. The two new houses will each be 1,850 square feet, and the historic house will maintain its existing size, just under 1,000 square feet. The new houses are completely sympathetic to the scale of the historic house, and by avoiding a~y addition to the hj"nrlIl1l811ft, it _m Iv> 1..1t a~ what mav be the onlv miner's cottage preserved completely intact in As,een. - As discussed in the on-site relocation review section, the existing house will be relocated slightly, and the existing garage will be moved behind it. As part of its move on the site, the house will be raised 18" in height. A key part of the plan is to open the historic platted alley across the back of the site. At one time this appeared to be an issue of some small amount of controversy, however, since that time, a neighbor to the north received approval from the Board of Adjustment to build a garage off of the alley, with the support of the neighbors, and will undertake that project in the near future. .!n terms of the architecture on the site, only minor changes are to be made to the histonc bouse. A new door will be added at the back of the . an area nstr will be add ac a roof will cover the area between the house an garage, and required lie:htwells will be added on the ~~~t. WHt And north. tn ~M(e the bedrooms in th,.. ha.,..mp.nt ~The two new houses take their design cues from the characteristics of the historic house, but are clearly new. The massing of these houses is mostly one story and they have porches detailing and materials which tie them in with the old house. 2. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The property is located in a neighborhood which is primarily multi- family, with single family and duplex homes to the north. The important concept in this project is that the applicants' recognize the difficult challenge presented in trying to add onto Aspen's historic miner's cottages in a sympathetic and sensitive manner, and the importance of being successful in this challenge in such a prominent location as the gateway into Aspen. Rather than make a significant addition to the existing house and build a new house of a larger size next to it, the applicants' have developed an idea which seems to serve all of HPC's goals. No additions will be made to the historic resources, and the new buildings will have characteristics of buildings which might have been built on this property in the 1800's, had this neighborhood been fully developed at that time. The applicants' feel that this makes the project very compatible and beneficial to the neighborhood and the community. c ...'" ..- 3. The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal does not detract from the historic significance of these structures. 4, The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part t1tereof Response: As stated, there are no additions to the historic resources and the very few changes to the historic house are made at the rear, in a 1960's addition. The new structures support and enhance the architectural character of the historic resources. I""" '- ....... - RESPONSE TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The applicant finds that all but one of the "Residential Design Standards" are met by this application; that standard being the "volume" standard. On iI,L sides of the new hous.. there are windows which violate the "no window zone." In this case, the windows are not overscaled and are used to distinguish new from old construction. A variance is requested to allow these windows. r '-' '"" ....,.# omT CLAIM DEED Katie T. Skiff, alk/a Katie Skiff for TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and quit claims to Aspen Historical Cottages, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company whose address is 601 East Hyman Avenue, #102, Aspen, \~ Colorado 81611, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; to wit: ';', 1::0 r:, liizr\ z a: .' M!J: ~~fu ' ~ [E a: '\: ~~ .~ ow~' x~~ WO~' with all its appurtenances. The East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and that parcel described as commencing at the SW corner of Lot Q, thence South 750 09'11" East 7.16 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot Q which lies South 750 09'11" East 5.95 feet from the NW comer of said Lot Q; thence North 750 09'11" West 5.95 feet to the NW corner of said Lot Q; thence South 14050'49" East 1 00 feet to the point of beginning; all in Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, SIGNED this 13th day of April, 1998. \- 'e\", :z i '" Ilol r\ CO .' m <lI: . Or:lo,', ~ c: ~~TATE OF COLORADO ~~~ " H :c r.J.";: COUNTY OF GARFIELD ur.J~ x<~ ~ r.JO '?" The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this 13th day of April, 1998 by Katie T. Skiff, alkla Katie Skiff ,7\ c.;:[l t lJJ...:'-I( Katie T. Skiff, alk/a Kafie Skiff ) ) ss ) WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ,.';'./4. i;<. - . / . 1< ;'IAll/~;; i i t< " LNota~ ~bfic^ IA. . . ../ ( , I ~.. , ,6" '. .,,. n .01) ~'" 'J'~'r ", u .,~ ...0- :' '. -'. ~ U B \.'" .:: r " . . 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 4164~~ 0~/04/1998 12:14P QeD DAVIS SILVI 1 of 1 R 6.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO c ! 111111, fit f I ~ 'fiilf. Iff!i" l! hrhi iii a: 9 o o .. z w c.. ~ .............. -I=:'. ~~ -4 . L.../'" .) j ~ ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , --~ W FRANCIS ST . , , ~ , , , , , " , , , , , , . , , , , , . , , , , . s \4J HWY ----:::::::~,---~----=:==::~.r:-::-- j-- , I ~ ;-______ " j , , , , ^, / \.. , . . \ , . , . .. . . . , , . , . . ~ z >< <>: -- ~.., ;~irt~.~~ ,::"";':";:j -*' ., -h__h. ",L.-J~ ""M'S LI'1 ~ '--.,.....,.,-:;,... ,," ifE'. ~ ~.... I.~~~~.; '. '.- '- '^;: .- ::-h:. :~;;~ ," "', ~':" .'......,~.......~-.a' '_--,';11-; .,.....'!t"'~~~~_..',.;::. 0..7, """""" "-t:"'i.' ,"- ~~~.~.--~~_:',;~: '"- .~ ~~:;:', . ~ ~t:t~': . ~ .. ~. '. '. ....~.., .~'.i -.t; 1. ,. 3. .. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ". 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. I . Brewery, 2/r. Chris. Sanl CfS". ehul"('h. 21. First Pre!l"ytcrlh~ ~2. Christil!" C~r:C~),ml Church. .,'\ MethOlJlst El h (E";!l{'",,:L1}. h ~.1: Chri~t Chl!!"!! Lutheran <hurt' . 2:,. ScandinavJan h 2fo. Bnptist Chllrc - : Sch,.o1. 2,. HomlLn Catl/wlt-, 'Chllr('h. RomlLn Cat IU Ie -'7 10.1';/ . ,n] Chul"ch. ~t. John':-; ~~";i~;~l Citi7.('Il'liHc.IFl>undn', M,.IJul' 1l1';~;~;lIlldry. ~- S,.Jd('IJ It /1"1>01. MidliIJIIII,L1"H.Il"I><:lt. Il. & H. ';'ioli:: Tramway. ~~I"'~:,,:,,~ Hol(.I._ , Trnmway & Or<- ~~;':~Ul MillinI': Co." "'. :!:'. ;;". MinI' Trllf' Asrl('n, m.Junilll Ar~~cn u nl'] J)urnntTunMi~i Al<J....n J~l't'.PMillt.. F.nu,l1lM~~jn'" & Asrll'Tl v.rnet, Ever"'rr!'r~"l' (A'rJ ~i~~J~ Theakr. :ll. ;(~. :U. :14. :i.-,. ;u;. HOllse. \ \ Q r --1. . -. . ~ --4 I j 'nf ~: \ , B. : . "J -- - ~ -? .D. - ) , .. :) R. ) ~ 8. .J ~ ,) /}' q I ..' I " J E '<'. ~ \ c. (r '- !Jf? 0. E. 1: .. 4 M. /'t. O. " q. '. , , D " I I "oJ ~I .JIfj c. (0, ",;J . " , . ..--.-----.--.. .... - k? 6. H. /. R. S. '-..'x .J) I ... / r ..sw ~ \ , @' ,..,-, 10 @/ c i . C I I - I' S I e t t & . s - ~In! ;1" ~ h I lei i i lil"l"iii..I; II ".; "5 ' ~ ~~:UI'IIIUi~ .. I J -- I I d~ ~ ! H ,I:! ,.! fl' :1.~ ",'_ I" I" ""'iILl'i v .1.iP" ~I:"~ '1"1 .11' fI - ~.HiPliIP' . hail j Li1-~~ ; ; ~ n ~1 : ! i l 5 s ~ ~ ~1 i : : h J Q .~11.~~1 Ii! II . '-"1 \I' > V'~ ~I I ~ I ~ : q \l ",{ ~ ~ i ; I ~ i i ~ 17/1. ~ in :! hi: I · a~ ~ ,~, n ;,1. i ill .. . ~ , I' I'. ; ;. . i= . 0 :ts '~Il.Hl" Q.' '.[1I:.J }'.:i J. :;, ; '" '. ':)I. .fJ ~ ~ t; :::j ~ "- <> .... '-. .~~ jH tt u :z - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~ ::! '" '" ~ ~;. : ... .~!I!i' ~ ''''IIH' ~ i~':I" i <:> 0:" i '" ~' ;; ~ . i5 I ll; · .., !.... ... q, ". <> .... Ii ; i~li I-~ ~ i~~l~ t ;~ ~ !ir:~ I ~ ~~'": -' gr'li5 e ~ :.II, . . UJ _ - ~. -'si I~;! o ,. -- -- -- -- . -- -- t;; -- , -- r -- ~ C -I -- -- III ~ __ " II J 0 I~ ,,- -- ~ Ii ~ '--- 'j "- ---- :::j t I <> -. -- ., , II .... -- II -- ~ :. -- ~ $-. -. -- f;; -- -- -- -- ~ " -- -- ./07 -- ~ / -- -- ;1 -- ;' -- / -- -- -- c -- -- -- t It ~ I t' j -- -. ___a.. .II....~.,." ...,;,~. ..;;--- '- .- '-. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 'C\/ ~ Cl:l ~~. ~,)... ~ "l;' I c.J~i ~ ~ . ~~i ~(l~ · .., . -'"", ....... 0:3 1_______ : a '0 ~ 'n o z => -, .., . Q) T J) '" oJ' <l li. ~ '2 ~ G '" \- .. ~ ~ .1 " oj. -z ~I ~ -.J Ii f-- " <I -.Jj[ > <! Ii UI ,il -> -I UI . I ~I :r ~I \- " '" <7>1 ~ -. , .' ~ \>1 " :I ., l> "" '" oL , -5' \- .. " '" '. ., .....' ~ 1:: -(j ;!'1. :i~ <>~ ,)')11- 1 , <> .. . II .,., ..Jill U " m.. [tJ lot ,\ j , ~}III ~Ii ;=c:cc i c=-.. i 0" T. "1- '" ..... ~) \ . 10 ~ .. I' i ..~ Q -:z ~ () 10 \.- <t . <> , -' i '" , -.0/. i i I I 1 I I , I Ul J '2 " C J' '" \J. .05 \- .f ~ \\\ D .. \- --4 .. ~ .. ol 1lI i -~ "" ~ ,/ (.\ I rn o ::z :::> --, ~ .' ~ :r. C) I- -4, > Ul --' Ul J::\ III It> r- C) \l' ~ C) u>_~ '" L. .....,.. ("l'j u=- L~ '1 11'1. . ! ill, I to C Z , , ~. ; C 'Q -..'. , '", S -:z Q I- -4: :> ul --' ul Q III III ~ ~ ". 0 J>< ;ill- ,~'-., ........... ... ""'1 1),,111111,: i ,J I.J [I .Ili I ii" .. 11".'1 I,':, ' Oil i i . . () fi '..:', '."y' r Hr' -- Ii Ii I l.,-- ~---- _. I "",,- , ". ...."'",.0' -1 .',- -r- o /- -11 I ~ I ! I I 1 ~ ~~ uJ . -' D Ul I" '" o rtl- ~~ .ul"- I. i: " /\Iil ~t r ,\~ ,. ,"'-.'. ;' ~ 'f-.ll i' ':J Lir~=] [I ~ <0 'I ~" Ii ~' :z l) ~t8 .-< ~ ~ ~ -' .u1 !:l . Ul u> ,- () <i' lL \.U () "'- 3- .L ? . ~ ,%i:j () 4- llI. ~ t- -( :> .u1 'J III 0. .. '" () ~ ... .....0 ::0 ... ft.. "1 " ~r;; :. 1;; " 0 o 0 o a . r] ~ : :Il=!j 1: '. cL i! . :t i S. "2 > -3 dh' l I' .. ~. Oil .. &\ '" 'Z ~ ~ z Ii . ~ I I I ! i ~: I <1:1 ---II I -11 , <ri ; '2 Q tL <l \:, -, C\ ll. UI '^ ::z <:) u .... <t <:) Ii.. ::f. L ., ~ . I' ". "'.,.:"" , '" .~:r .,t;. ...." ') ~~_~.__" II -----~~--=~ " I l.-.-...-_~_ . , ~J~~ " ~ r---- . , . . i! ! i i I: , , ! : I ~ ~ -----=.j T -, I t~ I' I i I I I. "\ o ('oJ C'> ? () ~- " \i f ~n ~ 't. ~ ~ J (! " 3 .,. ~ .. c "- '7 J~ ,/ , I Ii i i I -~ ~ 4\ 'i1 ~..,... ;<.'^ .. ;:" \!)oI 3~ ~ ~ - ~~ J ~ J :> -< :) f-' :J: c - - - -- ~ I 11 ~ t/' i{Hi, rr ,. !! ~ tI. 'I :> I: ~ ~ ' Ii : ; I~.~--+-jj L~__j " ---._-- I I i - __ I II i \ ./1 , \ \ , ~ :1...-- III {' '" {' !c:1 \!l ~. :10,\ '- -() ~ . ';;) '5 Il'.. () Il. ..J IL I 1-; ;;! Cl ,u'w :i: <II ul \) Ii' ~ .A.1l -.,,~ .,,'r,. 'S~ I '& ~ ." c ~ 2:1 <il .....Jl .....J' I <r: -L ' ~' o GJ Q -~ I . L17 ., ',.. , Ilr--~ I I ' ,. I '" ;iEl ! " i I 0' c') Q) \<l t-- c) cr (1-. <r , " ',.1 , , I I I '1 i , I I -Q -. , ~ '% Q f- -( > ul -" '" .1 I!\ :r 't: ... ~ ...~ ~;;<i '- _. 'IJ[j~ I ~ HU: I I '.rFf I~~._j I' 0: " 00 m ~ to 0 Z => --, ( ( ! , f ! ~ -" ~ -~.; z " I- -( > Ul -' Ul Ii ! ! .... ~ '" ~ '" - ~ ~ "" ....,.... r I I --I '-~ : i I II i '" 1Il I . i I ! I ~ i I .> I '" ..> '" ~ , ! L_ r ~ \l' ~ [ .-...-, -".------...- o -, I ---h - ---- i I i I I ! i I i , I ~ II I I . ,- I I-~ ! I 4-tJ '. ~ j ;e -IT] IT] 2i .~ - h -. ~i ~ ~ :z t=. \I' ~ " - o -, .' ~ '" _ .11 I- ~ -<( > '" ~ -' '" ~ I- ~ \j\ ~ lU 3- 6. . . . . ~ ; ,z. , ~ uI ijl a ~ ~. I!\ . % i - ~ ? - <> x \i' '". . , .' t'; -.,' ~~-;' ~: . ~)-\,<';i \\',}':t. tt'l" !.'~" ',; ',",: {1W .lI",: ,,'- i , I "";\11/1", ~..tt,.~,":' ,i . ~l )~i~' ~ . "",d . ..r' --,~ if:, I" -, ,. ,~~ f,:W' '/ ~i ~i;~' ){:'~ J. ~-;. 1'.1' ;i N ~J::: ~?(' '~I. I'. i; ,~" . ,', \;,,',:, If' ~,. ~!'i: . ;Si: (i~.' ~';:i.. . :ll~' t""""'l !,'1' _ to '( 'I' t I ;~ h -::', I,'. ; 1'-, : ;~._' ':1: " ~' "".1 ~ J \ ' , 11:'! ;,l ",:' ~,. " ;~!. f ,~ .,i ~Iij: If ~.~ "',I T" : .' ,. ., ~~ (')!-j11 . i .. ;-1 " .~, '~""n . . 11l!;~;" . . , Z_o 11:E Z II i' ~.' ". ~B ,...---" ',-' , ~t. mO . o~z ./ !J" . , I , ~~ I " 0:1: I: ...-~ " _0 I . ~.a ~ .' Col~ I J .... c::::. f""" r-> cP ~ ~ ~ I -Q..., ~ Q c:: ~ -I , 'J: ~ r Ii : i 1 ')0. -l ~ 0 a ' I I - iJ 1 l () t) . ;','" ~: 2: 1.\ ..-- oj .._1 ),; u: IIi r-:> -0 III ." , I. , , ~ "'1 uo '''':'1 ,; r;l z -l I , , . -.~ r~ <'-; ''1' 1- i:"",:- . i,!i~"I' 'Ih' . .," ,1 :' , , I : i ' .1 ~ ,;ill!:!i l . I I' , , ~ I;L -,. Iii: '!!I I" 'II' " ill. 1 , , i; ~ ::1_ il )i: . : ~! .".. -----r- ---.--- -- --~------_.- i ' , 'I ~~ .~i \ ., "Ii 1:1 'Iilil ill!: : ,! I I!";' I ,f I: " " .,,-'" .... h... 1"- ~Q .... I , \' \"j."" ~ --I " .- , ..-l <. < .. ~i Qi r ~ ~~ ~ 9 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ {f ! ~~~~ r ~?: ~ f~~ ~ 1.... ';' U\" C/ 4 .:f ~: " !~ ,,' ., , ~) .. 'Z: t!,~ a~ ;i; );:~ I' ): ~. s~ !':i!':i ~~:a . . :a.... () "!I! lD . ~r:s i~:u 151 ~zg ~ "',,; j'" j" " ' -- ., " I .., .1 . ~: .,1 . ~ ,i Qf,l; Hi' - ~ . ....:- -~i __ -l~ ..- .-"7",1 =~~=1 !; i~~l . " 11F' ,". .- .. I:. '. .'.f.i . il" \ -.-+#- <- C) ). 'l ~ " ;/ . . 6 c.- c::. .- ro) .' -.J .~ ~ . Ii 'I 'I I, !: ,. 11 il I' .1 . . '. .." -' , "' ,! >( ....,e,,,! t ~j ~ ~ $) '" ~N~ ,~ 9 ~'--J Qi~ f' ~t) ~ ~ 'C ~ ..- ...," r.> ~~ ~ 'S'> , l tV ~ ; ~ 0) ~ ! '.."'" n . r 00 ~2 ~ :.-' -- ~::~, 0 .<.'::1 "r".1,,: c~,' :!,It r- "'j ,) c. ;.1:.. I'.:) f,-, :- '-C 1 ~ ,. ; d ,. ~ m ~ z: "~ 'I' I : , I <., I "I ! 0 , t ~-r c:: I I I ; 'i I I~ I I' I .- ~: '1' r I ,~ ,"0 .,., ,. .~. , < < .._'" ._~i '" ~"r ~ ( " ..J i 1-." Il) I ~ ~ j I "i I ~ I I ~~~f I I Q~~ I 1(.1 -~~ . -. ~t ",.. c": J. c.... ..' c: $\ ~ I; r- I,J ~ f'0 , '" 1(1 '-D '\-I ~ ..' ~. '-C ~ ~~ 'U' "" r-.> ' :s:: oe ~~. rn cP 7- --j 'l . . )> ~ .... O":a . ......... >....... 00 :u.....o .0';' 01;:" lng~~ ~o OZGI CO (ft > ... ."..... ,.. CD :a CI> m-l-l " .:urn )> mO x omz 0.:-1. . )> CD:zJ -In C:r: 0_ 0> o--l ~ m '" 0 '" --I "~CD J ~ <;) ~ 'f t Q +- -, ., i I , ~~ - ~. t- , '. . , _____-..1...._;. ._. , :--"":':~ . " . I I Jv ',H L ' '.' "'.j . ,., .l.___ '. -- .-- .. '.. . ,.-- .-.. . .-- . -,.; m;;__; ~'-; "1 ;/ " . --;,..-.-.. f .,,) -"-, I .- '-"'~> --,"",',",","'" ,.-:' -- '.~ -, -- '---1../,. . [. "'''' , ...,.I . .., I. " ; , ~~ ~~tI' . . . ::g'" II ~s:~ .. d:~ is! ~Z. ..~ 1ft",1 ~" . -1-1 :u- mO omz 9:1- Ul~ c!n 0= Ql-'" _Om ~ e~7 t s I\) ~ .~ ~ -r.. 'l;) ~ ~ "" . ^ if "- ~ m l ~~i ,,~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ "i ~ ~' ll!\ ~' . ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ i() I , '" !~ ... " "lI' . <: !O t:I .... ~ Ir (I) "5 ~ ~ s I'" It '" ., . . ~ '~ j -.#' ~~ If -<. ,.,' --,.' --,-- -'- .-'-- - ------- ~ '-; ~ p . I _.._..---~...---- . i.~ -----....... ...----- -------- -~-- -------~~_/--- .-- \l . I ...........--.. ..--..-.--.--1:- ..-.' ~--- - --- ~.....--......_..._._-----_..._.._--- ~._.----- '\' r\;. .,...... _,._.-t l\Z!.~o J ! 0 T'r- \ ~:~Jr:~ . _.c."",- ..:~:::!t--.~~t- j ....I ./ -.+4 &.- c::: r- ~ --' . <is ~ ~ ',:~( "::e,,":'..,., ' if)t. ._~' :,~. ~)':";"j l ~; r. l , ~, fl.; l.' r~ f,' >.J ..,. ~ gf: 'I , '\ : ~') , {. it' ~. : ',' (I.' ,> .j 1;~ ' ~l , /, I': ~ II .' ~ :,1 , ~" ~ " I' ,( . t 1f' ti, ~, ~; n "' ~ ~.. if: u. I",,". ~ .!J }O\ ~' " !l!l o~l'l' . 00 >"'0 ,:U . ii ~~i!l ' . 0'1111I II ~~~ ~ mO X mz 0...... O. , lilt 20 oZ CDsiil :;: .n ....... Co>~'" J .. ,".. . ~ ", " I' . , '/'" . , ",. ~ i "' r:;; , . <:, < . t.-- - - <, I 0 I <::- I I. ...., I ~ . I. .... ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ 1_ - - 'h . ). ~ 'i . , , ~ ~ --' ~ C:P . '\ < " -~." ~ ~ \. '{) 1: ~~~ "l- ~ 'l) ~~~ "\) },"'! ~).. '" j -\\Q., ~~ ~ .... 0":11 . ...... )>-. C?C? :u"'o III . ~~ ~~~ "'12 oZIII IS..)> .. ..... J;;~~ " ':u '" ~ mO omz 0;-1. , )> fD:II C!O 0= Ql-'" _0.. .. 0 II> -... . "~Ul ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~ 9~ ~}~ ~R 0\\ A ~ ~ l~ 1.~ '!'l"'-,.1~ ' ~ ~--:-~ ~" J.t~ . . 1--,--- ,- I I I ~ I - -, ~. - '1) T \J) I "i I . I l r . r ::- 0('- < Q (, "I ':J::, () 6 d c') ') c- .-, :;, (, c:: :..} r .- ~ r- . ~ t:P \;:L;:O ~ ...0 . 11; ~~~ co ~ -i . t I , . -', . '.--".~l\.t~,:)~ . -""-.~: :iY: 1 _ :if)' 'M .i! .1I1.'j'." "illI,f r, J ~l-- ! ... < 8"'I\I'i,>;. 1',0 I I ': I .'4f' { ~.,. .~ T "'"t \,). - . " , i , , ~ f' , fiLl'" . f-.e ", . . I ":l -0 ~ ....,..,.., -<: ~ < "~ . ~ i> .... o.::g . ...~ )0-' f:!. 3I~n D CD 01 .. ~fl ~~~ 1Illi: ~z= ~~ J;i fn:D " .-1-1 )0 :u .. X mO omz 0:-'. . l> "':u -10 e% 0_ Ql--I _Om 01 (') ~~u1 J (b ), .<:> 'I) ~ 1 .~ :(1) ~ 10 I i~ I~ I o ~'" c ~ ~ ~ ~, " ~ i1 ~ :0 S "i t ' )>- , "- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ a~ ,~ ~ ~~ " t) $ ~ ~ '/ i ~h. ~ .....I 0\ , ~ '!1 ~ c=J CJ t::- , '1 I \;:H - (} - , o \\\ 1/1 III I" ~. - ~ \~o o~O .L-- ----~" ~-- ---- -..- ------.j\- ....~..---- -_.-~-- --------- lL_JL ... ...-: :;i--.---u----~ tl,~ " ( i .... ~ '"'H . t- ., " " _....._. I. ~ ~ ~:=.=- . ~) ~ " .... -, \J ------ <: '-------- ---- -J-.- . ---------------- - t-._----,. ----I' --"'-' --'-'" __ -4;:~-""""---- ------- ~~-- .---- ~ UI ~" ~j ~H~L], . ""';" _,..,t . ~. (jl -_I -"-{ ""-'~" ; ....I - _._-._---_..--~-_.__._. ...-. - ----.---, ~ 1- L t. 1 '\~h~ar .. J6~- ,~~ ':0 '/ /0, o ;:.J----- ...._'."., J - ------------ I ~I i~ \ ~~ \ :z~ I ~ ~ l.\4. -' Z lU......""' a - ~ 1>1 ' ........ \$17- ~.....-"",t ~ ~~ ~ i \- ~ ~ft. s: ::; iiS~ ~ 5 III III '\ z. :z. \ --r :,n i: ..~ , , " " ,,'~ -- l' -lr-~ ~) I, LJJ :1 ! ~-- - --~-- -:---, 'i. LJ 1@1, \ l .~_d f L.i r, ~(~:! i 1 I ~" 1 [l ~~_~..J ~_ J I I o @ ~--""'r ' '1 t -.. -..-..,---.,.. ~~---_~J't--"1 J~LI ~-- , c-- ~ il'. -----' i L. 8 [--']. ~:--=:~.-=,,-, .' 2 o - f- <0: > W -' w :c f- a: o '2 r~ I I " ~ -- ASPEN/PlTKIN COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreementfor Paymmt:of City of Aspen D'!Velopment:AppliCltiou. Fees (please PrintCIearly) CITY OF ASPEN (h=inafrerCITY) andA<?f'&N HI SforlG Col~61e:" L.:LL (hereinafter APPUc..-\J."IT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: L APPUCANTbas suLwitted to CITY an application for -32D ~{LAM ~-r. (hereinafu:r, THE PROJECT). 2. APPUc.-\J.'lT uncie=mds and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No, 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee strUCtUIe for land use applications and the paymem of all processing fees is a condition precedem:o a det=inaIion or appiic:ttion completeness. 3. APPUC.-\J.'lT and CITY:1gree that bec:wse orthe size. = or scope or tire proposed projec".., it is not possible a:t this time to ascertain me full extem or the costs involved in processing the atltllicanon. APPLIC.~'ll and CITY further = that it is in me interest or-he ca...ues ~o allow . - - . APPUc.~'ll to make paym= or an initial deposit and :0 mereaiter pell1llt additional costs m be billed to APPLICA"iT on a monthly basis. ,-\PPLlC.~'\jl agrees he will be bene:iited by :e~ gre:n:er =h liquidity and will :::lllke ociciitionai payments upon ;1otiiic:ltioIi oy me CI7Y -~hen th;y are necessary as costS are inc:...ed. CIT! 19!ees it will be :::ene:::ited :brOl1~h me ~er certainty or recovering its full costS to process .-\PPUC.\J.'lTS appuc:ttion. +. CIT{ and APPLIC.~'\jl further agree that it is imoracticabie for CITY muf:o comnlete -. . processing or jJJ.esem suificiem information m the Planning Commission and/or Cty Counca to enabie the P1~nnin~ Commission and/or City Cound to make legally required finciiT1~~ fur project approval. unless c=em billings :lIe paid in full ?rior to decision. 5. Tnererore. _U'PUC.\J.'i 1 agrees that in consideration or:he CITY's -w-alver or its right to collect full fees prior to a de1:~mmion of application completeness. APPLIC.\J.'li shall pay an initial deposit in the amount oIS which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costS exceed the initial deposit. .-\PPLIC.~'lT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of me applic:ttion mentioned above, including post approvai review. Such periodic payments shall be made 'Niti:rin 30 days or the billing date, APPLIC.~'lT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds tor suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN s~ APPUC.'-U'lT - 1il! <- ~~&-r . Date:~ (" "IT ; 'tJ PnntedName: ,,").+~\l-L. +-\"-t-\;7-Ct-\. lVIailing Address: P. c). l/~ to <(13 Asp"" K 4;; Connunity Development Direc<'..or Ci1'} of Aspen ,I"", - ,.. .../ _.' ATTACHMEMTt , City of Aspen DeveJopment Application Fee Policy The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 43 (Series of 1996), bas established a fee structure for the processing of land use applicaIions. A flat fee or depOsit is collected for land use applicaIions based on the type of applicaIion submitted. Refemti fees for other City departments reviewing the applicaIion will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit tor Pbnning and referral. agency fees must be submitted with eacl1land use application,. made payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dep<uWlent. Applications will not be accepted tor proc::ssing 'NithoUI tile required applicaIion re::. A flat fee is collected by Planning for Staif ,.\..pprovals which normaily take :J. mini;:"ai and predictable amount of Staff time lO process, Tne fe:: is not refundable, A de!:osit is collec--..ed OV Planning '.vhen more ~xt=ive Staff review :s required. as ~ours are like!v . . # - - ~ to var:i substantially from one application to another. Acmal Stafftim:: spem ',vill be charged against tile deposit. A.fter tile deposit has been ~xpended. tile appiic:mt will be billed monilily based on ac~ S-..aifhOUIS, C=m biilinzs must be oaid within 30 ciavs or urocessing of :he :molication -... ..;. - ~ "'- will be suspe:lded. If:!ll ~lic:mt has ?reYiously failed to pay application fees as required. no new . or :ldditional applications will be ac::::pred for processing until the ourstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building P::mrirs be issued until ail COSts associated with case processing have bee:! paid. After the final action on the project. any rem.ining balanc:: from tile deposit ,:.ill be refunded i:O the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Jlilreement faT Davrnem ofDeyeiopmem Appiicarion :::ees. Tlle Agreement establishes the applicam as being responsible tor paymem of all costs associated with processing the applicaIion,. The Agreement must be signed by the pany responsible for payment JIld submitted with the application in order ror it to be accepted. The complete fee schedule for land use applications is available at the Community Development Depanment. , .... - - Q) DE-rDSI, @ M,woR., @ \-\P L.- @ E:tvb,. i::.i!kEre..RA'L- @ ~aV~1 t-Jc.. e.l,!fel!:~A-t. {lB~\~ /08D:- (",CO.- tlD,- =10.- - I J - I t I I - - j -=:1